ML14315A087: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter: | {{#Wiki_filter:NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Harrison Albon [awharrison@STPEGS.COM] | ||
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 4:45 PM To: Singal, Balwant; Stang, John | Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 4:45 PM To: Singal, Balwant; Stang, John | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
STP Slides for 11/6/14 Public Phone Call Attachments: | STP Slides for 11/6/14 Public Phone Call Attachments: STP Head-Loss Testing for Addressing GSI-191 - 110614 - Final.pdf 1 | ||
STP Head-Loss Testing for Addressing GSI-191 - 110614 - Final.pdf | |||
Hearing Identifier: | Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 1681 Mail Envelope Properties (8C918BCF8596FB49BD20A610FA5920CF02182452) | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
STP Slides for 11/6/14 Public Phone Call | STP Slides for 11/6/14 Public Phone Call Sent Date: 11/4/2014 4:44:54 PM Received Date: 11/4/2014 4:46:33 PM From: Harrison Albon Created By: awharrison@STPEGS.COM Recipients: | ||
Tracking Status: None | "Singal, Balwant" <Balwant.Singal@nrc.gov> | ||
Tracking Status: None Post Office: | Tracking Status: None "Stang, John" <John.Stang@nrc.gov> | ||
Tracking Status: None Post Office: CEXMBX04.CORP.STPEGS.NET Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 3 11/4/2014 4:46:33 PM STP Head-Loss Testing for Addressing GSI-191 - 110614 - Final.pdf 668820 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: | |||
Recipients Received: | |||
STP Strainer Testing to Address GSI-191 South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company Alion Science and Technology University of New Mexico Thursday, November 6, 2014 1 | |||
Desired Outcome | Desired Outcome | ||
*Establish common understanding of STP strainer tests | * Establish common understanding of STP strainer tests | ||
-Purpose and scope | - Purpose and scope | ||
-Procedures | - Procedures | ||
-Facility and diagnostics | - Facility and diagnostics | ||
*Identify and understand NRC staff issues with test plan*Focus continued discussion for resolution of issues in follow-on public meeting 2 | * Identify and understand NRC staff issues with test plan | ||
* Focus continued discussion for resolution of issues in follow-on public meeting 2 | |||
Review of STP RIR Head Loss Approach | Review of STP RIR Head Loss Approach | ||
*Current Licensing Amendment Request | * Current Licensing Amendment Request | ||
-Modified NUREG/CR-6224 correlation for | - Modified NUREG/CR-6224 correlation for conventional P | ||
*Challenged on bases for: | * Challenged on bases for: inconsistent derivation, inconsistent prediction, uncertainty assessment (x5) | ||
-Exponential factors for chemical | - Exponential factors for chemical P | ||
*Challenged on multiplicative effect and bases for S,M,L magnitude | * Challenged on multiplicative effect and bases for S,M,L magnitude | ||
*Requests for Additional Information | * Requests for Additional Information | ||
-HTVL data used for initial calibration of VISTA correlation | - HTVL data used for initial calibration of VISTA correlation | ||
*Reynolds scaling illustrates wider relevance of available data | * Reynolds scaling illustrates wider relevance of available data | ||
*Alternate quantification of realistic response for model uncertainty | * Alternate quantification of realistic response for model uncertainty | ||
-Strainer performance data used for initial L* (L-star) | - Strainer performance data used for initial L* (L-star) | ||
*Additive description of chemical head loss | * Additive description of chemical head loss | ||
*New interpretation of limited data | * New interpretation of limited data | ||
*Audit-STP committed to develop and apply L* additive chemical approach | * Audit | ||
-NRC emphasized need for head-loss data under representative performance conditions 3 | - STP committed to develop and apply L* additive chemical approach | ||
- NRC emphasized need for head-loss data under representative performance conditions 3 | |||
===Background=== | ===Background=== | ||
*LAR calculates Total Head Loss (THL) head loss as follows:THL = 5 X H X M;where: | * LAR calculates Total Head Loss (THL) head loss as follows: | ||
-H is from NUREG/CR-6224 using theoretical compression | THL = 5 X H X M; where: | ||
-M is a chemical effects multiplier conditioned on break size, bed thickness, and sump temperature | - H is from NUREG/CR-6224 using theoretical compression | ||
*Revised | - M is a chemical effects multiplier conditioned on break size, bed thickness, and sump temperature | ||
-NCHL is calculated using VISTA head loss | * Revised approach THL = NCHL + CHL; where: | ||
-CHL is chemical head loss based on L* head loss 4 | - NCHL is calculated using VISTA head loss | ||
- CHL is chemical head loss based on L* head loss 4 | |||
High-Level Plan for Test and Analysis | High-Level Plan for Test and Analysis | ||
*New horizontal flume at UNM to test full-scale strainer module (January shakedown) | * New horizontal flume at UNM to test full-scale strainer module (January shakedown) | ||
*Four, multi-day tests (finished end of March) | * Four, multi-day tests (finished end of March) | ||
*Data refine and validate L* additive chemical *Data calibrate VISTA correlation of strainer response*Schedule supports current resolution plan 5 | * Data refine and validate L* additive chemical P | ||
* Data calibrate VISTA correlation of strainer response | |||
* Schedule supports current resolution plan 5 | |||
Application of Test Results | Application of Test Results | ||
*STP closure path is based on analytic evaluation of full accident spectrum with quantitative understanding of uncertainty | * STP closure path is based on analytic evaluation of full accident spectrum with quantitative understanding of uncertainty | ||
*VISTA correlation of HTVL data will be compared to nonchemical strainer response | * VISTA correlation of HTVL data will be compared to nonchemical strainer response | ||
-Porosity controlled by compaction is the only factor lacking direct measurement (dominant uncertainty) | - Porosity controlled by compaction is the only factor lacking direct measurement (dominant uncertainty) | ||
*Refined L* for chemical head-loss increment will be added to VISTA predictions to obtain total head loss | * Refined L* for chemical head-loss increment will be added to VISTA predictions to obtain total head loss | ||
*Tests provide calibration of L* and validation of VISTA to STP strainer response | * Tests provide calibration of L* and validation of VISTA to STP strainer response | ||
*Tests provide validation of composite analytic evaluation to actual STP strainer response 6 | * Tests provide validation of composite analytic evaluation to actual STP strainer response 6 | ||
Available Test Data | Available Test Data | ||
*Existing STP HTVL tests (Alion) | * Existing STP HTVL tests (Alion) | ||
-fiber and particulates only | - fiber and particulates only | ||
*Existing STP flume tests (ARL) | * Existing STP flume tests (ARL) | ||
-fiber, particulates and WCAP surrogate | - fiber, particulates and WCAP surrogate | ||
*Existing and planned Vogtle HTVL tests (UNM) | * Existing and planned Vogtle HTVL tests (UNM) | ||
-fiber, coatings and WCAP surrogate | - fiber, coatings and WCAP surrogate | ||
*Existing | * Existing Sv characterization (UNM) | ||
*Planned STP strainer tests (UNM) 7 Available Data Assessment | * Planned STP strainer tests (UNM) 7 | ||
*Previous strainer qualification testing | |||
-Some tests meet debris transport goals | Available Data Assessment | ||
-No tests with revised mass ratios | * Previous strainer qualification testing | ||
-All tests with 120F tap water | - Some tests meet debris transport goals | ||
-All tests with WCAP-16530 surrogate chemical | - No tests with revised mass ratios | ||
*Alion HTVL tests with diverse loading | - All tests with 120F tap water | ||
-Used for initial calibration of VISTA correlation | - All tests with WCAP-16530 surrogate chemical | ||
-Concerns about | * Alion HTVL tests with diverse loading | ||
*No chemical products of concern were identified during prototypical testing 8 | - Used for initial calibration of VISTA correlation | ||
- Concerns about nonprototypic bed formation | |||
* No chemical products of concern were identified during prototypical testing 8 | |||
Motivation for Testing | Motivation for Testing | ||
*Additional data needed to support L*, additive chemical head loss method | * Additional data needed to support L*, additive chemical head loss method | ||
-Most likely, low chemical loads not well characterized | - Most likely, low chemical loads not well characterized | ||
-Additional debris + chemical combinations needed | - Additional debris + chemical combinations needed | ||
*Demonstrate physical connection between Reynolds scaling of VISTA and plant flow conditions | * Demonstrate physical connection between Reynolds scaling of VISTA and plant flow conditions | ||
-Measure Re of debris-loaded strainer (with uncertainty) | - Measure Re of debris-loaded strainer (with uncertainty) | ||
-Identify any gaps in HTVL database | - Identify any gaps in HTVL database | ||
*Quantify magnitude and causes of uncertainty between analytic head-loss evaluation and strainer module performance | * Quantify magnitude and causes of uncertainty between analytic head-loss evaluation and strainer module performance | ||
*Obtain performance data at the transition to potential strainer failure (most effect on risk) 9 Current L* Additive | * Obtain performance data at the transition to potential strainer failure (most effect on risk) 9 | ||
*Illustrates analytic methodology for data interpretation | |||
*Prior tests useful for uncertainty quantification | Current L* Additive Chem Head Loss 10 9 | ||
*Not based on current debris loads | 8 7 | ||
*Not designed to support L* quantification Generate Additional L* Data | 6 CHL (ft) 5 4 | ||
3 2 | |||
STP strainer test data 1 Correlation 0 | |||
* | 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 L* (g/m2) | ||
*Common basis essential to demonstrate testing sufficiency | * Illustrates analytic methodology for data interpretation | ||
*Rigorous treatment of residual uncertainty (compression) | * Prior tests useful for uncertainty quantification | ||
-Calibrate factor of 5 to actual percentiles of variation | * Not based on current debris loads | ||
*Provides correlation to strainer data under representative performance conditions | * Not designed to support L* quantification 10 | ||
*Addresses recognized analytic deficiencies of NUREG/CR-6224 Provides alternate view of real behavior to judge model uncertainty | |||
*Correlation is essential to diagnose and evaluate subtle interactions in accident space | Generate Additional L* Data 10 9 | ||
*Correlation is essential to accurately associate infinite debris combinations | Hypothetical Trends 8 | ||
*Final application to risk quantification will fully acknowledge uncertainties 12 VISTA Uncertainty Quantification | 7 6 | ||
*Model for conventional debris head loss | CHL (ft) 5 4 | ||
*Familiar scaling for a range of flow conditions | 3 2 | ||
*In a flume test: | STP strainer test data 1 Correlation 0 | ||
-Constant particle-to-fiber mass ratio | 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 L* (g/m2) | ||
-Water properties known from in-situ characterization | * Focus batch resolution on low concentrations | ||
-Velocity known by pump flow measurement | * Check L* envelope with alternate conventional beds 11 | ||
-ONLY average bed porosity and bed thickness across strainer are UNKNOWN | |||
*Formal uncertainty propagation can be used to calibrate the uncertainty factor applied to all predictions (like defining the | Purpose of VISTA | ||
*FTA-000 (Shakedown) | * Reynolds scaling provides common basis for comparing all available data | ||
*FTA-100 (Clean Strainer) | * Common basis essential to select, define, defend desired tests | ||
*FTA-200 (1/ | * Common basis essential to demonstrate testing sufficiency | ||
*FTA-300 (1/ | * Rigorous treatment of residual uncertainty (compression) | ||
*FTA-400 (DBA load) | - Calibrate factor of 5 to actual percentiles of variation | ||
*Exact loads to be determined by CASA Grande spectrum analysis | * Provides correlation to strainer data under representative performance conditions | ||
*Intermediate batches in FTA-200 will help define threshold for FTA-300 14 High-Level Test Description | * Addresses recognized analytic deficiencies of NUREG/CR-6224 Provides alternate view of real behavior to judge model uncertainty | ||
*Strainer module testing using protocols similar to those used in the STP 2008 flume tests | * Correlation is essential to diagnose and evaluate subtle interactions in accident space | ||
*4 tests with an STP module in a flume facility | * Correlation is essential to accurately associate infinite debris combinations | ||
-1 clean strainer + 3 debris/ | * Final application to risk quantification will fully acknowledge uncertainties 12 | ||
*Target steady state test conditions emphasize maximum plant vulnerability (minimum NPSHmargin)-Maximum flow rate and temperature similar to time of recirculation | |||
*Two Steps: (1) conventional debris + (2) chemical product | VISTA Uncertainty Quantification | ||
-Temperature and velocity sweep before chemical addition | * Model for conventional debris head loss | ||
*Debris tests incorporate prototypical amounts of particulate (e.g. paint from STP reduced inventory) | * Familiar scaling for a range of flow conditions | ||
*Debris tests use incremental additions of WCAP chemicals based on 30 days of precipitate formation | * In a flume test: | ||
-L* head loss per area per chemical added across full conc. range 15 Typical Flow Sweep | - Constant particle-to-fiber mass ratio | ||
*Add more debris if bed does | - Water properties known from in-situ characterization | ||
*Standard external preparation will be adopted for consistency with industry practice | - Velocity known by pump flow measurement | ||
-Standard external preparation is not likely to produce realistic chemical products or quantities -difficult to judge uncertainty | - ONLY average bed porosity and bed thickness across strainer are UNKNOWN | ||
*Standard room temperature settling/ storage/mixing procedures | * Formal uncertainty propagation can be used to calibrate the uncertainty factor applied to all predictions (like defining the 95th percentile) 13 | ||
*Introduction to higher temperature flume | |||
-Bench tests will quantify possible redissolution | Planned FIESTA Tests | ||
-Compensate mass inventory to preserve total solid 17 Chemical Corrosion Inventory | * FTA-000 (Shakedown) | ||
*Chemical batches added to pre-established fiber and particulate bed | * FTA-100 (Clean Strainer) | ||
*Batches provide incremental response independent of total inventory added | * FTA-200 (1/4th inch contiguous bed) | ||
*Finer batch resolution will capture: | * FTA-300 (1/16th inch thin bed) | ||
-First 2-3 days of potential passivation (UNM) day inventory (UNM corrosion) | * FTA-400 (DBA load) | ||
*Coarse batch resolution will capture: day inventory (x5 UNM corrosion) day inventory (WCAP corrosion) 18 External Chemical Preparation 19 FIESTA Facility Description | * Exact loads to be determined by CASA Grande spectrum analysis | ||
*Use of STP strainer module | * Intermediate batches in FTA-200 will help define threshold for FTA-300 14 | ||
*Polycarbonate channel custom-built to achieve representative approach velocity*Procedures to encourage near 100% | |||
*Dimensions: 32 (L) x 6 (H) x 4 (W)*Polycarbonate walls with steel structure and support system | High-Level Test Description | ||
*Inline heating | * Strainer module testing using protocols similar to those used in the STP 2008 flume tests | ||
*Multiple drains on flume floor to track debris | * 4 tests with an STP module in a flume facility | ||
*Temperature Range: 25 C to 85 C (nominal test operation at 55 C) | - 1 clean strainer + 3 debris/chem series | ||
-Temperature cycling possible | * Target steady state test conditions emphasize maximum plant vulnerability (minimum NPSHmargin) | ||
*Prepared chemical precipitates added via inline system from auxiliary tank | - Maximum flow rate and temperature similar to time of recirculation | ||
*Debris added using industry standard methods*Intent to achieve near 100% debris transport 22 FIESTA Primary | * Two Steps: (1) conventional debris + (2) chemical product | ||
- Temperature and velocity sweep before chemical addition | |||
NA once pH Chemical debris preparation | * Debris tests incorporate prototypical amounts of particulate (e.g. paint from STP reduced inventory) | ||
*Instrument operation/calibration | * Debris tests use incremental additions of WCAP chemicals based on 30 days of precipitate formation | ||
*Perfect and train debris preparation/storage | - L* head loss per area per chemical added across full conc. range 15 | ||
*Perfect and train | |||
*Perfect and train cleaning procedures | Typical Flow Sweep | ||
*Demonstrate near 100% debris transport | * Rates based on flume heat exchange | ||
-Narrow flume | * Min/max P variation limited to 25% of steady | ||
-Mild agitation | * Add more debris if bed does not return to prior P 16 | ||
-No bed disturbance | |||
-Post test fiber recovery for transport calibration 24 FTA-100 (Clean Strainer) | WCAP-16530 Surrogate | ||
*Objectives: | * Standard external preparation will be adopted for consistency with industry practice | ||
-VISTA correlation for clean strainer using different fluids | - Standard external preparation is not likely to produce realistic chemical products or quantities - difficult to judge uncertainty | ||
*Sequential phases of one test: | * Standard room temperature settling/ | ||
-DI water-DI water + baseline | storage/mixing procedures | ||
-DI water + baseline + chem surrogate | * Introduction to higher temperature flume | ||
*Procedure: | - Bench tests will quantify possible redissolution | ||
-Establish fluid condition | - Compensate mass inventory to preserve total solid 17 | ||
-Vary temperature and velocity | |||
*Benefit:-Reliable interpretation of composite head loss | Chemical Corrosion Inventory | ||
-Possible direct measurement of fluid viscosity and density 25 FTA-200 (1/ | * Chemical batches added to pre-established fiber and particulate bed | ||
*Objectives: | * Batches provide incremental response independent of total inventory added | ||
-Strainer performance near lower limit of contiguous bed (most likely condition) | * Finer batch resolution will capture: | ||
-Assess filtration transition during loading (use in FTA-300) | - First 2-3 days of potential passivation (UNM) day inventory (UNM corrosion) | ||
-Establish L* for alternate bed configuration | * Coarse batch resolution will capture: | ||
*Sequential phases of one test: | day inventory (x5 UNM corrosion) day inventory (WCAP corrosion) 18 | ||
-Batch addition of premixed fiber + particulate | |||
-Batch addition of prepared chemical surrogate | External Chemical Preparation 19 | ||
*General Procedure: | |||
-Establish fluid condition | FIESTA Facility Description | ||
-Incremental debris addition | * Use of STP strainer module | ||
-Flow sweep | * Polycarbonate channel custom-built to achieve representative approach velocity | ||
-Incremental chemical product addition 26 FTA-300 (1/ | * Procedures to encourage near 100% transport STP Strainer Module from Alden Test (2008) 20 | ||
*Objectives: | |||
-Dominant risk condition if adverse response | FIESTA Facility Description | ||
-Establish L* for alternate bed configuration | * Dimensions: 32 (L) x 6 (H) x 4 (W) STRAINER POLYCARBONATE CHANNEL WALLS | ||
*Sequential phases of one test: | * Polycarbonate walls with steel structure and support system | ||
-Batch addition of premixed fiber + particulate | * Inline heating | ||
-Batch addition of prepared chemical surrogate | * Multiple drains DRAINS on flume floor to track debris transport UNM FIESTA Facility 21 | ||
*General Procedure: | |||
-Establish fluid condition | FIESTA Facility Description | ||
-Incremental debris addition | * Temperature Range: 25 C to 85 C (nominal test operation at 55 C) | ||
-Flow sweep | - Temperature cycling possible | ||
-Incremental chemical product addition 27 FTA-400 (DBA Load) | * Prepared chemical precipitates added via inline system from auxiliary tank | ||
*Objectives: | * Debris added using industry standard methods | ||
-Compare results to previous ARL test under similar conditions | * Intent to achieve near 100% debris transport 22 | ||
-Assess degree of uncertainty in L* for extreme debris conditions | |||
*Sequential phases of one test: | FIESTA Primary Instrumentation Diagnostic Purpose Flume Sampling Frequency Mode Volumetric flow rate Face velocity on the test 0.1 to 0.02 Hz (every 10 to 50s) Online module Differential Pressure Hydraulic loss through the matched with flow samples Online Array debris bed. Clean strainer response along the module. | ||
-Batch addition of premixed fiber + particulate | Static pool pressure Fluid density in combination matched with flow samples Online with level Liquid Temperature Fluid properties, pH correction matched with flow samples Online Room Temperature Differential pressure correction matched with flow samples Online Atmospheric Pressure Pump NPSH Once per 4 hours or as specified in test Spot Read plan Liquid Level Fluid density, chemical conc, 4 times per hour or as specified in test Online or Spot water make up. plan Read Total pipe volume Chemical conc. NA once pH Chemical debris preparation Once per 4 hours after first chemical Bench Reading and flume test conditions add or as specified in test plan ICP Flume concentration for mass Once per 4 hours after first chemical Grab Sample balance add, or as specified in test plan Mass balance Milligram to kg accuracy for NA As needed surrogate chemical preparation Particle sizing Characterize surrogate NA As needed chemical product Light table Verify debris preparation NA Each debris 23 batch | ||
-Batch addition of prepared chemical surrogate | |||
*General Procedure: | FTA-000 (Shakedown) | ||
-Establish fluid condition | * Instrument operation/calibration | ||
-Incremental debris addition | * Perfect and train debris preparation/storage | ||
-Flow sweep | * Perfect and train chem preparation/storage | ||
-Incremental chemical product addition 28}} | * Perfect and train cleaning procedures | ||
* Demonstrate near 100% debris transport | |||
- Narrow flume | |||
- Mild agitation | |||
- No bed disturbance | |||
- Post test fiber recovery for transport calibration 24 | |||
FTA-100 (Clean Strainer) | |||
* Objectives: | |||
- VISTA correlation for clean strainer using different fluids | |||
* Sequential phases of one test: | |||
- DI water | |||
- DI water + baseline | |||
- DI water + baseline + chem surrogate | |||
* Procedure: | |||
- Establish fluid condition | |||
- Vary temperature and velocity | |||
* Benefit: | |||
- Reliable interpretation of composite head loss | |||
- Possible direct measurement of fluid viscosity and density 25 | |||
FTA-200 (1/4th in. thin bed) | |||
* Objectives: | |||
- Strainer performance near lower limit of contiguous bed (most likely condition) | |||
- Assess filtration transition during loading (use in FTA-300) | |||
- Establish L* for alternate bed configuration | |||
* Sequential phases of one test: | |||
- Batch addition of premixed fiber + particulate | |||
- Batch addition of prepared chemical surrogate | |||
* General Procedure: | |||
- Establish fluid condition | |||
- Incremental debris addition | |||
- Flow sweep | |||
- Incremental chemical product addition 26 | |||
FTA-300 (1/16th in. thin bed) | |||
* Objectives: | |||
- Dominant risk condition if adverse response | |||
- Establish L* for alternate bed configuration | |||
* Sequential phases of one test: | |||
- Batch addition of premixed fiber + particulate | |||
- Batch addition of prepared chemical surrogate | |||
* General Procedure: | |||
- Establish fluid condition | |||
- Incremental debris addition | |||
- Flow sweep | |||
- Incremental chemical product addition 27 | |||
FTA-400 (DBA Load) | |||
* Objectives: | |||
- Compare results to previous ARL test under similar conditions | |||
- Assess degree of uncertainty in L* for extreme debris conditions | |||
* Sequential phases of one test: | |||
- Batch addition of premixed fiber + particulate | |||
- Batch addition of prepared chemical surrogate | |||
* General Procedure: | |||
- Establish fluid condition | |||
- Incremental debris addition | |||
- Flow sweep | |||
- Incremental chemical product addition 28}} | |||
Revision as of 19:35, 31 October 2019
| ML14315A087 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 11/04/2014 |
| From: | Harrison A South Texas |
| To: | Balwant Singal Division of Operating Reactor Licensing |
| References | |
| Download: ML14315A087 (30) | |
Text
NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Harrison Albon [awharrison@STPEGS.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 4:45 PM To: Singal, Balwant; Stang, John
Subject:
STP Slides for 11/6/14 Public Phone Call Attachments: STP Head-Loss Testing for Addressing GSI-191 - 110614 - Final.pdf 1
Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 1681 Mail Envelope Properties (8C918BCF8596FB49BD20A610FA5920CF02182452)
Subject:
STP Slides for 11/6/14 Public Phone Call Sent Date: 11/4/2014 4:44:54 PM Received Date: 11/4/2014 4:46:33 PM From: Harrison Albon Created By: awharrison@STPEGS.COM Recipients:
"Singal, Balwant" <Balwant.Singal@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Stang, John" <John.Stang@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office: CEXMBX04.CORP.STPEGS.NET Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 3 11/4/2014 4:46:33 PM STP Head-Loss Testing for Addressing GSI-191 - 110614 - Final.pdf 668820 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received:
STP Strainer Testing to Address GSI-191 South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company Alion Science and Technology University of New Mexico Thursday, November 6, 2014 1
Desired Outcome
- Establish common understanding of STP strainer tests
- Purpose and scope
- Procedures
- Facility and diagnostics
- Identify and understand NRC staff issues with test plan
- Focus continued discussion for resolution of issues in follow-on public meeting 2
Review of STP RIR Head Loss Approach
- Current Licensing Amendment Request
- Modified NUREG/CR-6224 correlation for conventional P
- Challenged on bases for: inconsistent derivation, inconsistent prediction, uncertainty assessment (x5)
- Exponential factors for chemical P
- Challenged on multiplicative effect and bases for S,M,L magnitude
- Requests for Additional Information
- HTVL data used for initial calibration of VISTA correlation
- Reynolds scaling illustrates wider relevance of available data
- Alternate quantification of realistic response for model uncertainty
- Strainer performance data used for initial L* (L-star)
- Additive description of chemical head loss
- New interpretation of limited data
- Audit
- STP committed to develop and apply L* additive chemical approach
- NRC emphasized need for head-loss data under representative performance conditions 3
Background
- LAR calculates Total Head Loss (THL) head loss as follows:
THL = 5 X H X M; where:
- H is from NUREG/CR-6224 using theoretical compression
- M is a chemical effects multiplier conditioned on break size, bed thickness, and sump temperature
- Revised approach THL = NCHL + CHL; where:
- NCHL is calculated using VISTA head loss
- CHL is chemical head loss based on L* head loss 4
High-Level Plan for Test and Analysis
- New horizontal flume at UNM to test full-scale strainer module (January shakedown)
- Four, multi-day tests (finished end of March)
- Data refine and validate L* additive chemical P
- Data calibrate VISTA correlation of strainer response
- Schedule supports current resolution plan 5
Application of Test Results
- STP closure path is based on analytic evaluation of full accident spectrum with quantitative understanding of uncertainty
- VISTA correlation of HTVL data will be compared to nonchemical strainer response
- Porosity controlled by compaction is the only factor lacking direct measurement (dominant uncertainty)
- Refined L* for chemical head-loss increment will be added to VISTA predictions to obtain total head loss
- Tests provide calibration of L* and validation of VISTA to STP strainer response
- Tests provide validation of composite analytic evaluation to actual STP strainer response 6
Available Test Data
- Existing STP HTVL tests (Alion)
- fiber and particulates only
- Existing STP flume tests (ARL)
- fiber, particulates and WCAP surrogate
- Existing and planned Vogtle HTVL tests (UNM)
- fiber, coatings and WCAP surrogate
- Existing Sv characterization (UNM)
- Planned STP strainer tests (UNM) 7
Available Data Assessment
- Previous strainer qualification testing
- Some tests meet debris transport goals
- No tests with revised mass ratios
- All tests with 120F tap water
- All tests with WCAP-16530 surrogate chemical
- Alion HTVL tests with diverse loading
- Used for initial calibration of VISTA correlation
- Concerns about nonprototypic bed formation
- No chemical products of concern were identified during prototypical testing 8
Motivation for Testing
- Additional data needed to support L*, additive chemical head loss method
- Most likely, low chemical loads not well characterized
- Additional debris + chemical combinations needed
- Demonstrate physical connection between Reynolds scaling of VISTA and plant flow conditions
- Measure Re of debris-loaded strainer (with uncertainty)
- Identify any gaps in HTVL database
- Quantify magnitude and causes of uncertainty between analytic head-loss evaluation and strainer module performance
- Obtain performance data at the transition to potential strainer failure (most effect on risk) 9
Current L* Additive Chem Head Loss 10 9
8 7
6 CHL (ft) 5 4
3 2
STP strainer test data 1 Correlation 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 L* (g/m2)
- Illustrates analytic methodology for data interpretation
- Prior tests useful for uncertainty quantification
- Not based on current debris loads
- Not designed to support L* quantification 10
Generate Additional L* Data 10 9
Hypothetical Trends 8
7 6
CHL (ft) 5 4
3 2
STP strainer test data 1 Correlation 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 L* (g/m2)
- Focus batch resolution on low concentrations
- Check L* envelope with alternate conventional beds 11
Purpose of VISTA
- Reynolds scaling provides common basis for comparing all available data
- Common basis essential to select, define, defend desired tests
- Common basis essential to demonstrate testing sufficiency
- Rigorous treatment of residual uncertainty (compression)
- Calibrate factor of 5 to actual percentiles of variation
- Provides correlation to strainer data under representative performance conditions
- Addresses recognized analytic deficiencies of NUREG/CR-6224 Provides alternate view of real behavior to judge model uncertainty
- Correlation is essential to diagnose and evaluate subtle interactions in accident space
- Correlation is essential to accurately associate infinite debris combinations
- Final application to risk quantification will fully acknowledge uncertainties 12
VISTA Uncertainty Quantification
- Model for conventional debris head loss
- Familiar scaling for a range of flow conditions
- In a flume test:
- Constant particle-to-fiber mass ratio
- Water properties known from in-situ characterization
- Velocity known by pump flow measurement
- ONLY average bed porosity and bed thickness across strainer are UNKNOWN
- Formal uncertainty propagation can be used to calibrate the uncertainty factor applied to all predictions (like defining the 95th percentile) 13
Planned FIESTA Tests
- FTA-000 (Shakedown)
- FTA-100 (Clean Strainer)
- FTA-200 (1/4th inch contiguous bed)
- FTA-300 (1/16th inch thin bed)
- FTA-400 (DBA load)
- Exact loads to be determined by CASA Grande spectrum analysis
- Intermediate batches in FTA-200 will help define threshold for FTA-300 14
High-Level Test Description
- Strainer module testing using protocols similar to those used in the STP 2008 flume tests
- 4 tests with an STP module in a flume facility
- 1 clean strainer + 3 debris/chem series
- Target steady state test conditions emphasize maximum plant vulnerability (minimum NPSHmargin)
- Maximum flow rate and temperature similar to time of recirculation
- Two Steps: (1) conventional debris + (2) chemical product
- Temperature and velocity sweep before chemical addition
- Debris tests incorporate prototypical amounts of particulate (e.g. paint from STP reduced inventory)
- Debris tests use incremental additions of WCAP chemicals based on 30 days of precipitate formation
- L* head loss per area per chemical added across full conc. range 15
Typical Flow Sweep
- Rates based on flume heat exchange
- Min/max P variation limited to 25% of steady
- Add more debris if bed does not return to prior P 16
WCAP-16530 Surrogate
- Standard external preparation will be adopted for consistency with industry practice
- Standard external preparation is not likely to produce realistic chemical products or quantities - difficult to judge uncertainty
- Standard room temperature settling/
storage/mixing procedures
- Introduction to higher temperature flume
- Bench tests will quantify possible redissolution
- Compensate mass inventory to preserve total solid 17
Chemical Corrosion Inventory
- Chemical batches added to pre-established fiber and particulate bed
- Batches provide incremental response independent of total inventory added
- Finer batch resolution will capture:
- First 2-3 days of potential passivation (UNM) day inventory (UNM corrosion)
- Coarse batch resolution will capture:
day inventory (x5 UNM corrosion) day inventory (WCAP corrosion) 18
External Chemical Preparation 19
FIESTA Facility Description
- Use of STP strainer module
- Polycarbonate channel custom-built to achieve representative approach velocity
- Procedures to encourage near 100% transport STP Strainer Module from Alden Test (2008) 20
FIESTA Facility Description
- Dimensions: 32 (L) x 6 (H) x 4 (W) STRAINER POLYCARBONATE CHANNEL WALLS
- Polycarbonate walls with steel structure and support system
- Inline heating
- Multiple drains DRAINS on flume floor to track debris transport UNM FIESTA Facility 21
FIESTA Facility Description
- Temperature Range: 25 C to 85 C (nominal test operation at 55 C)
- Temperature cycling possible
- Prepared chemical precipitates added via inline system from auxiliary tank
- Debris added using industry standard methods
- Intent to achieve near 100% debris transport 22
FIESTA Primary Instrumentation Diagnostic Purpose Flume Sampling Frequency Mode Volumetric flow rate Face velocity on the test 0.1 to 0.02 Hz (every 10 to 50s) Online module Differential Pressure Hydraulic loss through the matched with flow samples Online Array debris bed. Clean strainer response along the module.
Static pool pressure Fluid density in combination matched with flow samples Online with level Liquid Temperature Fluid properties, pH correction matched with flow samples Online Room Temperature Differential pressure correction matched with flow samples Online Atmospheric Pressure Pump NPSH Once per 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> or as specified in test Spot Read plan Liquid Level Fluid density, chemical conc, 4 times per hour or as specified in test Online or Spot water make up. plan Read Total pipe volume Chemical conc. NA once pH Chemical debris preparation Once per 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> after first chemical Bench Reading and flume test conditions add or as specified in test plan ICP Flume concentration for mass Once per 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> after first chemical Grab Sample balance add, or as specified in test plan Mass balance Milligram to kg accuracy for NA As needed surrogate chemical preparation Particle sizing Characterize surrogate NA As needed chemical product Light table Verify debris preparation NA Each debris 23 batch
FTA-000 (Shakedown)
- Instrument operation/calibration
- Perfect and train debris preparation/storage
- Perfect and train chem preparation/storage
- Perfect and train cleaning procedures
- Demonstrate near 100% debris transport
- Narrow flume
- Mild agitation
- No bed disturbance
- Post test fiber recovery for transport calibration 24
FTA-100 (Clean Strainer)
- Objectives:
- VISTA correlation for clean strainer using different fluids
- Sequential phases of one test:
- DI water
- DI water + baseline
- DI water + baseline + chem surrogate
- Procedure:
- Establish fluid condition
- Vary temperature and velocity
- Benefit:
- Reliable interpretation of composite head loss
- Possible direct measurement of fluid viscosity and density 25
FTA-200 (1/4th in. thin bed)
- Objectives:
- Strainer performance near lower limit of contiguous bed (most likely condition)
- Assess filtration transition during loading (use in FTA-300)
- Establish L* for alternate bed configuration
- Sequential phases of one test:
- Batch addition of premixed fiber + particulate
- Batch addition of prepared chemical surrogate
- General Procedure:
- Establish fluid condition
- Incremental debris addition
- Flow sweep
- Incremental chemical product addition 26
FTA-300 (1/16th in. thin bed)
- Objectives:
- Dominant risk condition if adverse response
- Establish L* for alternate bed configuration
- Sequential phases of one test:
- Batch addition of premixed fiber + particulate
- Batch addition of prepared chemical surrogate
- General Procedure:
- Establish fluid condition
- Incremental debris addition
- Flow sweep
- Incremental chemical product addition 27
FTA-400 (DBA Load)
- Objectives:
- Compare results to previous ARL test under similar conditions
- Assess degree of uncertainty in L* for extreme debris conditions
- Sequential phases of one test:
- Batch addition of premixed fiber + particulate
- Batch addition of prepared chemical surrogate
- General Procedure:
- Establish fluid condition
- Incremental debris addition
- Flow sweep
- Incremental chemical product addition 28