ML20003D098
| ML20003D098 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1981 |
| From: | TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003D097 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103190217 | |
| Download: ML20003D098 (54) | |
Text
-
% Q.
e
- O TEhNESEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT RESEARCH PROGRAM ON HYDROGEN-COMBUSTION AND CONTROL QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT #2 MARCH 16,.1981 3
6 5
n.
.+
/ ,.
d
(
2 5 4 m.'"
"e f
4810819LO W
-.3- <' ,j f
_r+'j
,E,s
,....Locr... A 'A --e, e, wml
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction II. Task Description, Schedu~e, and Status
-A. Industry Degraded Core (IDCOR) Program /TVA B. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)/TVA/ Duke /AEP C. Westinghouse /TVA/ Duke /AEP C.1 Fenwal, Incorporated C.2 CLASIX Modifications D. TVA/ Duke /AEP D.1 .Halon (Atlantic Researon Corporation)
D.2 Electromagnetic Interference Study D.3 Catalytic combustor D.4 Fogging E. TVA E.1 Browns Ferry Probabilistic Risk Assessment (Pickard, Lowe, and Garrick)
E.2 Sequoyah Full-Scale Safety and Availability Analysis (Kaman Sciences Corporation)
E.3 Consequence Analysis E .4 Singleton Testing E.5 Severe Accident Sequence Analysis (SASA)/(ORNL)
E.6' Ice Condenser Containment Code III. Appendices
'A. Program Details A.1, - EPRI Program A.2 Fenwal_ Report A.3 Singleton Testing 1B._ Interim Distributed Ignition System (IDIS) Equipment Survivability l
C. Permanent Hydrogen Mitigation System (PHMS) Decision Methodology D. IDIS Status
I. Introduction This report is the second of a series of quarterly research summaries presented to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to satisfy the following condition of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant unit 1 operating license:
During the interim period of operation, TVA shall continue ^
research program on hydrogen control measures and the effects of hydrogen burns on safety functions and shall submit to the NRC quarterly reports on that research program.
TVA is pleased to document the various facets of its current degraded core research program in this report and is confident that all possible efforts have been exerted to ensure the timeliness, effectiveness, and completeness of the program.
Increased attention was devoted to accidents beyond the design basis in early 1980 as TVA, with the aid of Westinghouse and three architect-engineering firms, produced a report that has since been submitted to the NRC on September 2, 1980, as Volume I of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Degraded Core Program Report.
TVA has remained in the fcrefront of industry efforts in many areas of degraded core research and development. This leadership was demonstrated by the decision to voluntarily implement the interim distributed ignition system at Sequoyah to extend the plant's capability for hydrogen control. TVA has continued to voluntarily conduct its own degraded core programs ano to cooperatively participate with other utility groups in these research efforts. These efforts are the subject of the present series of reports. The format of this second report is designed to present in Section II an updated summary of the changes in scope, schedule, and status of each task as described
~
in the first report with further technical details in appropriate appendices.
In addition, an updated summary of the TVA plans to resolve the issue of equipment survivability for hydrogen burning during a degraded core event mitigated by the Interim Distributed Ignition System (IDIS) is presented in Appendix B. This appendix describes the analytical approaches, the comparison to previous environmental qual.ification, and the contingency plans for confirmatory testing to demonstrate the survivability of key
' equipment.
The decision methodology which TVA plans to use to select a Permanent Hydrogen Mitigation System (PHMS) to satisfy the January 31, 1982, Sequoyah unit 1 operating license condition is described in Appendix C.
A brief' update on the status of installation and testing of the IDIS at Sequoyah units 1 and 2 is provided in Appendix D.
i 1 -
4 II. Tack De:cription, Schedule, and Status The major emphasis of .TVA's current research program is to discover, collect, and evaluate enough information about degraded core events and potential mitigations for their risk reduction to be able to select, design, and install a permanent hydrogen mitigation system (PHMS) for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant.
This permanent system would satisfy the following condition of the unit 1 operating license:
For operation of the facility beyond January 31, 1982, the Commission must confirm that an adequate hydrogen control system for the plant is installed and will perform its intended function in a manner that provides adequate safety margins.
~
A list of the most important topics where further information is needed is shown in Table 1. Another list showing both TVA's current major tasks and its outside consultants and resources is presented in Table 2. Figure 1 and Table 3 show a schedule of activities necessary to meet this unit 1 licensing condition.
This -section provides a summary of each individual or group effort in which TVA is actively involved that is t elated to hydrogen combustion and control, risk assessment, or overall degraded core studies. Here, current updates of scope, schedule, and status of each effort are summarized with further details presented in the appendices. Note that certain related
. risk assessment studies for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant are also described, since experience with these tschniques will be useful in Sequoyah risk studies.
2
-l--
_.E-_
5 Table 1 Information Needed to Support Decision on Final Mitigation
- 1. New igniter development program completed.
- 2. Study of electromagnetic interference (EMI) effects of spark igniters completed.
3 Further experiments in basic hydrogen combustion physics completed.
- 4. Experiments in hydrogen mixing and distribution completed.
- 5. Halon feasibility studies completed.
- 6. Catalytic combustor feasibility study completed.
- 7. Evaluation of additional potential mitigations such as spray d
fogging with controlled ignition completed.
- 8. Mitigation system safety criteria established.
9 Conceptual design and preliminary safety evaluation done for each feasible system.
- 10. Best possible decision on design basis accident scenario (s) made.
- 11. Preliminary MARCH runs completed inhouse on Sequoyah model.
- 12. Time-dependent hydrogen source term reasonably assured.
13 CLASIX modifications done. New plant specific cases run, if necessary.
- 14. Reasonable assurance that any potantial hazards from operation or misoperation of the potential final system are und9rstood.
- 15. Estimate true risk reduction benefit of the potential final mitigation.
- 16. Estimate design, construction, operating, and maintenance costs of the potential final mitigation.
- 3
~
Table 2 Major Tasks and Outside Consultants / Resources
' Major Tasks Outside Consultants / Resources Risk assessment Kaman Sciences Corporation Pickard, Lowe, and Garrick
'Conscquence analysis l'attelle, Columbus Laboratory sk. Ridge National Laboratory
- Containment response -hsstinghouse Offshore Power Systems State-of-technology research Atomic Industrial Forum and rulemaking
_ Igniter development. EPRI (AECL-Whiteshell, Acurex)
C'mbustion o research EPRI (AECL-Whiteshell)
~
LHydrogen control (spray, EPRI (Acurex) fogging)
Hydrogen mixing and distribution EPRI (Hanford Engineering Development' Laboratory)
Halon development Atlantic Research Corporation Spark ~ igniter development ..
Keiser Engineering
'(electromagnetic interference)'
f 9..
g:
0\ERVIEW SCHEDULE SELECTION, DESIGN,AND INSTALIATION OF PERMANENT MITIGATION SYSTDi PRELIMINARY SYSTEM DESIGN 2/81.
.. [ '"
+ QR #2
~
3/81.
gjgy EVALUATION /COMPARISIONOF PRELIMINARY DESIGNS
.5/81
-. - + pp ..
6/81' + 4[3 -- PRELIMINARY INFORMATION ON SELECTED PERMANENT SYSTEM SUBMITTED TO NRC; NRC FEEDBACK 7/81.
t FINAL SYSTEM DESIGN 8/81- _.
1-
- 9/81 -- QR 4 .-
-PROCUREMENT
~~ FINAL INFORMATION ON PERMANENT
' SYSTEM SUBMITTED TO NRC; NRC 10/81 -. _-- FEEDBACK 11/81 INSTALLATION AND PREOP TESTING (PARTIALLY OUIAGE DEPENDENT)
- _ _' 4' LEGEND:
12/81' - QR' S CM-TVA/NRCCOORDINATIONMEETING
.QR - QUARTERLY RESEARCH REPORT DP DECISION POINT.FOR PERMANENT
~
SYSTEM (PARTIALLY ~ DEPENDENT
- 1/82 i ON EPRI TEST RESULTS)
AFP - APPROVAL OF PERMANENT SYSTEM
...4 APP-FIGURE 1
TABLE 3 TVA HYDROGEN MITIGATION PROGRAM SCHEDULE
. Submit quarterly report #2 to NRC' 3/16/81
. Complete preliminary evaluation of conceptual designs 4/1/81
. Submit resolution of IDIS equipment su,rvivability to NRC 5/81
.' Complete evaluation of conceptual designs 6/1 131
. Complete EPRI igniter development program 6/81
, . Select PHMS and submit preliminary information to NRC Mid-81
. Submit quarterly report #3 to NRC' 6/16/81 Complete EPRI mixing studies and H2 control studies 7/81
. Complete EPRI combustion studies 8/81
. Submit quarterly report #4 to NRC' 9/16/81
. Complete final system design 9/81
. Submit final safety analysis report to NRC 10/81
. Complete procurement of equipment 11/81 j
. Submit quarterly report #5 to NRCe - 12/16/81
. Complete installation and testing 1/15/82
. Receive NRC approval and removal of OL condition (22)D(2) 1/31/82 sQuarterly reports will provide summary of progress made toward identified milestones.
l h
S i: _-
A. Indu;try Degrcded Cora (IDCOR) Program /TVA (id:ntified in the first quarterly report as AIF proposal)
A.1. Scope One major task has been added to the IDCOR Program.
The new task is " Operational Aspects of Accident Management and Control." This task synthesizes the results of the other program tasks to allow practical operational decisions to be made relative to prevention and mitigation of a degraded core prior to finalizing
- - an industry position. Other additional work important to the Program is the projected use of accident progression time-line charts to display important phenomena, track concurrent events and their interactions, define time windows for corrective actions, and assist in setting priorities for in depth analyses sad program resource allocation.
A.2 Schedule No update necessary.
A.3 status TVA has joined the IDCOR Program and is actively participating in all three levels (Policy Committee, Stet.'ing Committee, and Technical Advisory Committee)
.of the Program management. Technology for Energy Corporation (TEC) has been selected as overall Program Manager.
The IDCOR Program does take into consideration the existence of the EPRI/TVA/ Duke /AEP Hydrogen Program (see Section II.B. and Appendix A.1) . Note that the latter program is on a much expedited schedule relative to IDCOR.-
6
+
B. Electric Power R:cserch Institute (EPRI)/TVA/ Duke /AEP B.1 Scope The scope of the four EPRI research programs is unchanged. However, EPRI has requested AECL-Whiteshell and Acurex Corporation to perform the igniter dersiopment testing formerly listed for Rockwell.
B.2 Schedule Due to the change in contractors described above, the schedule for completing .the proposed igniter development testing will be extended by approximately one month. The revised schedule for all four EPRI tests is shown in-figure II.B-1.
B.3 status The change in contractors for the igniter development task.was described above.
2 The detailed test matrix for the AECL-Whiteshell experiments on basic hydrogen combustion phenomena is provided in Aprendix A.1.
i
.7
lF .
Proposed Schedule for EPRI Tasks .
1981 3/1 5/1 7/1 9/1 11, 11/1 __
1/1 Igniter Development
( AECL- Whiteshell /Acurex) llydrogen Control Studies
~
lAcurex) 4 Ilydrogen Combustion Studies (AECL,Whiteshell)
_ ,,_ __ __ _ .1[ydrogen Mixina Studles 4 (IIEDL-W)
- i i
I Figur,e II.B-1 ,
e e
+
, - C. ~ Westinghouse /TVA/Duks/AEP
~
TVA, Duke, and AEP are cooperating with We.stinghouse in two major experimental and analytical efforts described in this section.
C.1 Fenwal, Incorporated C.1.1 Scope
'No update necessary.
C.1.2 ' Schedule and Status All Fenwal testing has been completed. The TVA evaluation of Fenwal Phases 1 and 2 testing was submitted in Volun;e 2 of the TVA Report on the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Degraded Core Program.
The Fenwal, Incorporated, report on Phase 2 testing is included in Appendix A.2.
C.2 CLASIX Modifications C .2.1 ' Scope
~
One additional modification has been authorized by TVA, Duke, and AEP for Westinghouse / Offshore Power Systems to implement in the CLASIX code:
_ Addition.of a multiple volume ice condenser model
.C.2.2 Schedule No update necessary.
-C.2.3 Status CLASIX with structural heat sinks is operational.for_ convective and condensation heat transfer.
'Models for radiative heat transfer are being debugged.
. Development of. air return ' fan model is being implemented.
CLASIX with a multivolume ice condenser model is currently being debugged.
8'
--_.______.m__--____.wa._._.Amm_ _ _ __
D. TVA/Duks/AEP D.1 Halon (Atlantic Research Corporation)
D.t.1 Scope
'No update necessary.
D.1.2 Schedule No update necessary.
P.1.3 Status Draft final repcrt received by TVA/ Duke /AEP. L Minor co==ents are being resolved ic.t the report will be sub=itted as part of the next quarterly report (June 16, 1981).
TVA's preliminary review of a Halon citigation
. system on a conceptual design level appears to show that the syste= could suppress hydrogen combustien in a postaccident environ =ent.
However,.many unanswered questions about the actual implementation of such an extensive
' system into an already-constructed plant required proof-testing, reliable' guidelines for initiation following.an accident, etc., remain
' to be examined in further detail before such a system could be- selected as the PH)G for the
.Sequoyah; Nuclear Plant. Perhaps the most critical of these questions involves the corrosive effects of Halon decomposition products-on. vital equipment.inside the containment during the postaccident recovery period.---TVA intends to more fully address these cencerns and will submit its findings in ',ne next quarterly reonet.
D.2 _ Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) Study D.2.11 Scope-No. update necessary.
- D.2.2 Schedule.
The iriginal'achedule has been revised as follows to' allow onsite testing of_the.
unthielded igniter to assess plant instrumentation susceptibility before -
" shield / filter design was. begun.
Onsite testing of unshielded igniter '- 3/16/81 Shielding / filtering design complete ' - 4/6/81 Final; report complete- 4/20/81-D.2.3 ~ Status
-9
~
1
_ , ~ . - - - - . -
Tests were conducted on a Flaregas Model ETX-10S Ignitor Assembly on December 4, 5, and 8, 1980, at the Signal Analysis Center, Honeywell, Incorporated, Defense Electronics Division, Annapolis, Maryland, under the supervision of Dr. Bernhard E. Keiser of Keiser Engineering, Incorporated.
The purpose of the tests was to determine the
-extent to which the emissions, both conducted and radiated, are significantly above the electromagnetic environment in which the containment instrumentation normally functions.
In 1Ae absence of normal plant electromagnetic
- environment information, MIL STD-461B levels have been used as a guide to ascertain whether disruptive emissions may be occurring from the igniter. ._Both conducted and direct radiated emissions from the igniter assembly during testing exceeded MIL-STD-461B levels at a number of frequencies; therefore, onsite testing will be conducted to determine the instrumentation's susceptibility to these emissions.
After _ reviewing the data from the onsite testing,lLt is expected that'the solutions to the problems could take the form of powerline
-filtering and/or additional _ shielding of the arc. If_only a.small number of instruments are
. susceptible, the approach ~may betto shield the instruments _rather than the igniters.
l : D.3 catalytic combustor-D.3 1 Scope
~
TVA, Duke, and AEP have authorized the Acurex Corporation to perform research into -the feasibility of- using a catalytic combustor for hydrogen removal from a postaccident containment-atmosphere. The following' areas are being investigated:
._ minimum light-off temperature
. maximum throughput
. combustion efficiency?
. catalyst surface analysis
. pressure drop across the catalyst
. catalyst; bed temperature profile A couple of hydrogen and steam concertvations
' are' being' studied both with and without catalyst .
poisons.:
D.3.2 Schedule and Status.
10:
- ~a_ _
4 s
Tha.sxpirimental offorts, currently.undsrway,
,_ are scheduled for completion by March 16, 1981.
Results will be provided in the next quarterly repart.
D.4 Fogging i D.4.1 Scope i
No update necessary.
D.4.2 Schedule No update necessary.
D.4.3 Status
, The Acurex test facility is ur.dergoing final preparations for use~in mitigation research.
t i
d s
f U
+
t
-11".
se f
L1-
i E. TVA In addition to the preceding, TVA is independently pursuing other areas of degraded core studies which are outlined in this section.
E.1 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Probabilistic Risk Assessment (Pickard, Lowe, and Garrick)
E.1.1 Scope No update necessary.
E.1.2 Schedule The study began 10/80.
Revised dates for major milestones
. Data analysis, event trees, and fault trees - 5 'l
. Explant consequence model assessment - 4/be
. Seismic analysis reports - t/91
. Explant consequence analysis - 9/81
. Final report -12/81 E.1 3 Status Tasks completed or presently underway:
. Event sequence diagrams
. Event trees
. System quantitative analysia
.' Maintenance and test data
. Seismic analysis
. Ext-ernal events analysis f
. TVA code' conversion Near future tasks:
. System--quantitative analysis
. Containment analysis E.2 Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Full-Scole Safety and
- Availability Analysis (Kaman' Sciences Corporation)
E.2.1 Scope No update necessary.
E.2.2 Schedule and Status
'No update necessary..
E.3 Consequence Analysis E.3 1 Scope No update necessary.-
12
i .
E.3.2 Schedule The analytical schedule has been revised as follows to accommodate code user training sesstons:
Conduct consequence assessment training - 3/81 Run MARCH analyses - 4/81 Identify needed MARCH improvements - 5/81 E.3.3 Status Latest MARCH version obtained (through February 1981 update).
4 Consequence dose codes obtained from Battelle Northwest.
Inhouse Sequoyah base case model compared to other Sequoyah MARCH models obtained.
Parametric studies on S D 2 type sequence
, performed to assess code sensitivity to various
, input data.
Verification of individual MARCH subroutines begun for bottomop program testing.
E.4 Singleton Testing
-E.4.1 Scope In addition to the original reliability and endurance testing of the GM glots plugs, similar.
testing was conducted for Bosch glow plugs.
E.4.2- Schedule and Status Endurance testing of the 50 GM 7G glow plugs was completed (see Appendix A.3 for further information).
Similar reliability and endurance testing of Bosch glow pluge was begun and temporarily suspended (see Appendix A.3 for further information)..
E.5.. Severe Accident Sequence Analysis-(SASA)/(ORNL)'
E.5.1 l Scope No update necessary.
E.5.2: Schedule.
I. . Browns Ferry Station . Blackout Analysis '-
13
A. Complete Analysis of Blackout Sequence 4/81 B. Issue Draft Report 5/81 C. Complete Peer Review 8/81 D. Issue Final Report (NUREG) 10/81 II. Analyze Other BWR Sequences Identifieu by NRC/INEL A. Provide Accident Signatures for 8 BWR Sequences 9/81 B. Identify Sequences for Follow-on Detailed Analysis 11/81 E.5.3 Status
. Three station blackout sequence runs were performed on the Browns Ferry simulator and data for these runs are being analyzed for comparison to the predicted response.
. The phenomenology of station blackout is still being analyzw' emphasizing drywell heatup.
. The effort for analyzir.g fission -product pathways and release is now underway.
- E.6' Ice Condenser C- iainment Code E.6.1 Scope No update necessary.
E.6.2 Schedule The code development program consists of three parts with the schedule. revised as follows:
Part 1 Obtain a working code that will analyze conventional containment transients - 4/1/81 Part II Expand and modify the code to allow evaluation of class 9 events - 6/15/81 Part III Continuing develoment'of.a best estimate code - ongoing beginning
- 6/15/81 E.6.3 Status
' Part I ' approximately 80-percent complete l Part II'- approximately 40-percent complete Part'III - currently in planning-14 t
i APPENDIX A.1 EPRI PROGRAM
.~ . .. -- _ . . .. .. _. . . - . .. . -
s
' Test Matrix for Whiterhell Experimente
- 1. Extent of Reaction of Lean Mixtures Exp. # 5H g 5H30 Ignition E
1-3 5.0 0 bottom i-4,5 6.5 0 bottom i
6 8.0 0 bottom i
7-9 5.0 15 bottom 1'0 ,11 6.5 15 bottom 12 8.0 15 bottom
. 13,14 6.5 30 bottom 15 8.0 30 bottom
- - 16 6.5- O center 17 . 6 .5 ' 15 center 18 8.5 0- top o e
~
19 g8,5 30 top W
4..
't J
4 T
a L
v f s 4
1 h A .' l-l '-
i, .i -
1 e 5 .eE , e = w, ,- ee 4 w w, a yom%,w--, .+,.e- ,, ,,g>.c., .iwecyeg.g,w. .w.,y,-g+w-ry,-, , e-y-.., , w y weie r--9w-,<sr=w < , + . ,- -4yy -v a f .%-e, s. . , ,9..
- 2. Laminar Sphtrien1 Deflagrations Exp. # 1Hg %H3 0 Ignition 1 10 0 center 2 20 0 center 3 3 30 0 center 4 42 0 center 5 10 10 center 6 20 10 center 7- 30 10 center 8 42 10 center
.9 .10 20 center-
. 10 20 20- center 11 L30 20 ' center
-12 42 20 center 13 '10'- 30' ' center
- 14~ 20- 30- ' center 15:
~
30 30 center
- ~
'16 42'
- 30 - . center-U 17 3 14 0 . b'ottom -
~
n -18 20' 0 bottom i
A %
6
$' h A;1-2~
43e -> -
uut- -- r . Li -
=. . - - _ . .-
3 Effect of Fenn and Obetrolec
$Hg0 Fan Speed Grating Ignition Ex . # ~ fHg 1 6 0 50% No bottom 2 6 ~0 100% No bottom 3 7 0 1005 No bottom 4 6 0 0 Yes bottom 5 7 0 0 Yes bottom 6 7 0 -100% Yes bottom 7 0 1005 No center i 8 20 0 100% No. center 9 14 0 0 Yes center 10 20 0 'O Yes center Fan Particulars Grating Particulars blado tip diameter: 16 in. type: .1/4". perforated plate
-air deflectors ' hole size: 1" dia.
max. speed' : 1800 rpm blocked area: 50%
i- ' max.' flow rate : 1500 com spacing: 2 plates placed ,
rizon a Ya - points.
(sphere, vol = . 220 ft .
No. of fans : 2
! continuously variable speed '
t A.1-3
_ + ___
m ,
18 Sphtra rnd Protruding Pipa
~
Exp. i -% $ Ignition
^1 8 0 sphere-center 2' 20 0. sphere-center 3 8 0 pipe-end 4 20 0 pipe-end
'S- 8p/6s' . O pipe-center 6 10p/6s 0 , pipe-center p: pipe s-= sphere A
N r' s t
$ ?
r f.- c 2
- .A.1-4'
- ' 2 -.-
.,7 _ ,
a r , f
APPENDIX A.2 FENWAL REPORT I-t j..
L I
i F
L i
4 DETERMINATION OF IGNITION PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF A GLOW PLUG HYDROGEN IGNITOR AND THE EFFECT OF EXPOSURE OF EQUIPMENT TO HYDROGEN BURNS FOR WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA I
REPORT NO. PSR-918 i
l I
Issued: December 3, 1980 i
Prepared by: IlhcA Lk Warner G. Dalzel[
Test Engineering Supervisor .
Protection Systems Division Approved by: *
///[
Jp'seph[f/ Gillis ganager, explosion Protection Systems ProtecElon Systems Division FENWAL INCORPOftATED : ASHLAND, MASSACHU5ETTS 0.me cf w.* K:dd. & Con.peny, sac.
9 Report No.
Page 1 PS R-918
SUMMARY
Part 1:
A series of tests was conducted to determine the burning characteristics of various mixtures of-hydrogen, air and steam when ignited by a special glow plug ignitor. These tests were directed to low hydrogen mixtures, and mixtures with 40% steam.
Part 2:
A series of tests was conducted to determine the charact-eristics af the burning which occurs when hydrogen is introduced into a test vessel at a constant rate and when both hydrogen and steam are simultaneously introduced into the test vessel at a constant rate in the presence of an activated glow plug ignitor.
Part 3:
A series of tests was conducted to determine the effect of water spray on glow plug ignitor performance under various conditions.
Part 4:
A-series of tests was conducted to determine the ability of various pieces of equipment to withstand exposure to a hydro-gen burn.
FENWAl. INCORPORATED : ASHLAND, MASSACHUSETTS Diesien of Weber Kidde & Company, Inc.
l Report No.
PS R-918 Page 2 RESULTS Part 1:
Test H V AP 2
No. (%) (Ft/Sec) (Psi) 1 9 0 38 2 8 0 3.1 3 7 0 1.5 4 6 0 1.0 i 5 5 0 0.2 6 8 5 36 7 6 5 15
. 8 10 0 30 9 6 0/5* .75/2.7 10 6 0/5* .2/3.2 l
l l
Detailed results are shown in Table No. 1.
- In tests 9 and 10 the draft fan was energized l after a period of time.
, '4 i
FENWAL INCORPORATED : ASHLAND, MA$$ACHUSETTS Dem.oa of waim Kidde & Compeay, t% ,
t
l Report No.
PSR-918 Page 3 l RESULTS 1
l Part 2:
! No. Added Added (Psi) l 1 Yes No 6.1 2* Yes No 7.8 l 3** Yes Yes 10.1 l
Test 2 was a repeat of test 1 in wnich a leak in the hydrogen supply line occurred.
l l
Detailed results are shown in Table No. 2.
i /
l
- During the 15 minute test period there were two burns.
One peaked approximately 100 seconds after flow was ini-( tiated and the other 618 seconds later. The first peak reached a AP = 7.8 psi and the second a 6 P = 3.6 psi.
l l
l The greatest pressure peak was 12.0 psi at the 5th peak (333 sec.).
l i
l I
FENWAL INCORPORATED : ASHLAND, NASSACHUSETTS Om@ of walve, Kidde & Comp.ay, lac.
Report No.
PS R-918 Page 4 RESULTS Part 3:
Test H 2
Hydrogen Water Ignitor Tign AP No. (%) Flow Flow Orientation (S ec) (Psi)
(Initial) (SCFM) (GPM) 1 10 0 2 Normal 14.8 60 2 10 0 2 Normal 11.4 50 3 6 0 2 Normal 22.0 32 4 0 4 2 Normal 90.0 3.1 5 10 0 2 Rotated 14.0 42.5 Detailed results are shown in Table No. 3.
Test 2 was a repeat of test 1 in which a
{ leak in the vessel drain valve occurred.
l l
l
'* , 4 I
l FENWAL INCORPORATED : ASHLAND, MASSACHUSETTS D.wis.on of Wahoe Kidde & Cowy, Inc.
l
Report No.
PSR-918
- Page 5 RESULTS Part 4:
Test H 2
Igniter Tign dP No. (%) Voltage (S ec) (Psi) 1 12 12 VAC 27.1 60 2 12 12 VAC 26.8 58 3 12 12 VAC 25.8 63 4 12 12 VAC 26.3 58 5 10 12 VAC 27.6 49 6 10 10 VAC 56.0 50 7 12 12 VAC 27.2 61 i
Detailed results are shown in Table No. 4.
These tests included typical equipment pre-sent in a containment. In test 2 a space blanket was used as a component insulator and failed. The test was repeated in Test 7 using aluminium foil as an insulator.
4 FENWAL INCORPORATED : ASHLAND, MASSACHUSETTS hs.on of Weher Kidde & Compear, Inc.
, --g,s
Report No.
PS R-918 Page 6 APPARATUS Tests were conducted in a 1000 gallon spherical test vessel having a pressure rating of ..,00 psig with the capability of being heated to 350 F. The vessel is constructed of carbon steel with a stainless steel liner.
The outside surface of the vessel was insulated with 3 inch thick fiberglass insulation. This insulation had an aluminum foil face which oriented away from vessel.
Mixing of the various gaseous components was accomplished by means of a small shaded pole electric motor fan. This fan had a 4 inch diameter blade with an air moving capacity of 200 CFM.
Steam was supplied to the test vessel from an electrically heated boiler which was self-regulated to maintain a pressure of 40-50 psig. A manually operated ball valve was positioned between the boiler and the test vessel.
The temperature of the test vessel was controlled by a thermocouple controller which had its sensing element in a well inside the vessel and approximately 18 inches from the vessel wall.
The temperature of the test vessel was sensed and recorded from a thermocouple which was approximately 12 inches below the geometric center of the vessel. , ,
Hydrogen for the transient tests was supplied from a high pressure supply cylinder, through a regulator, control valve,
~
flowmeter, check valve and then to the bottom of the vessel through a length of 1/4 inch copper tube.
e IENWAL INCORPORATED : ASHLAND, MASSACHUSETT5 Dies.on of Wal+ee K& & Campeay, lac.
Report No.
PS R-918 Page 7 APPARATUS (Cont'd)
Steam for the transient tests was supplied from the boiler described, through a check valve then to a pipe " tee" where it was mixed with the hydrogen flow. The. mixture of hydrogen and steam was directed to the bottom of the vessel through a length ,
of 1/4 inch copper tube inside the vessels A calibration test of this steam supply indicated the rate to be approximately 0.3 pounds per minute.
Water for the spray tests was supplied from a positive displacement pump which produced the required volume of water through the nozzle.
A sketch of the test apparatus is shown in Figure No. 1.
i
(
FENWAL INCORPORATED : ASHLAND, MASSACHUSETTS D.v s on of Walter Kidde & Company, lat.
Report No.
PS R-918 Page 8 PROCEDURE Part 1:
Vessel temperature was stabilized at the specified test temperature.
Barometric pressure, relative humidity and ambient temper-ature were read and recorded.
Air, hydrogen and steam (when specified) were added accord-ing to the appropriate partial pressure.
The gas sampling apparatus was evacuated and the pre-burn gas sample was drawn into the cooling / condensing changer and held for 2-3 minutes. The gas sample was then transferred to the glass sample bulb which also had been evacuated.
, The mixing fan was stopped for approximately two minutes.
The glow plug was energized.
The post-burn gas was sampled in the same manner as pre-viously described.
The pre-burn and post-burn gas samples were analized by:
Dynatech R/D Company 99 Erie Street Cambridge, Massachusetts 1
l 9
FENWAL INCORPORATED : ASHLAND. MASSACHUSETTS Dev..en of we'eer Odd. & Cwp.ay, nac.
4 Report No.
PS R-918 Page 9 PROCEDURE Part 2:
Vessel temperature was stabilized at the specified test temperature.
Barometric pressure, relative humidity and ambient temper-ature were read and recorded.
The glow plug was energized and allowed to come to a stable t emperature.
flydrogen or steam and hydrogen flow was initiated at the specified flow rate and continued for 15 minutes.
The gas sampling apparatus was evacuated and the gas sample
. was drawn into the cooling / condensing changer and held for 2~
3 minutes. The gas sanple was then transferred to the glass sample bulb which also had been evacuated.
The gas sample was analized by:
l l
l Dynatech R/D Company 99 Erie Street Cambridge, Massachusetts u@
l FENWAL INCORPORATED : ASHLAND, MASSACHUSETTS Dies.on of Welter Kidde & Company, Inc.
Report No.
Page 10 :
PSR-918 PROCEDURE Part 3:
Vessel temperature was stabilized at the specified test temperature.
Barocetric pressu. , relative humidity and ambient temper-ature were read and recorded.
Hydrogen, when specified, was added according to the ap-propriate partial pressure. The vessel contents were mixed for approximately five minutes.
The gas sampling apparatus was evacuated and the pre-burn gas sample was drawn into the cooling / condensing changer and held for 2-3 minutes. The gas sample was then transferred to the glass sample bulb.
The mixing fan was stopped for approximately two minutes.
Spray water flow, as specified, was initiated.
Hydrogen flow, when specified, was initiated and continued for 15 minutes.
The glow plug was energized.
The post-burn gas was sampled in the same manner as pre-viously described.
The pre-burn and post-burn gas samples were analized by: .
Dynatech R/D Company 99 Erie Street Cambridge, Massachusetts FENWAL INCORPORATED : ASHLAND. MASSACHUSE)TS
- 0. noes of Waher K.dde & Cepeay, lac.
Report No.
PS R-918 Page 11 PROCEDURE Part 4:
The " Duke" ignitor box was substituted for the "TVA" ignitor box.
The appropriate pieces of equipment to be exposed to the hydrogen burn (see listing) were placed in the vessel and in-strumented with thermocouples as directed.
Vessel temperature was stabilized at th'e specified test temperature.
Barometric pressure, relative humidity and ambient temper-ature were read and recorded.
Air, hydrogen and steam (when specified) were added accord-ing to the apprcptiate partial pressure.
The vessel contents were mixed for approximately five min-utes.
The gas sampling apparatus was evacuated and the pre-barn gas sample was drawn into ' 5e cooling /cc idensing changer and held for 2-3 minutes. The gas sample v L then transferred to the glass sample bulb.
The mixing fan was atopped for approximately two minutes.
The glow plug was energized.
The post-burn gas was sampled in the same manner as pre-viously described. -
The pre >.orn and post-burn gas samples were analized by:
Dynatech R/D Company 99 Erie Street Cambridge, Massachusetts FENWAL INCORPORATED : ASHLAND, MASSACHUSETTS Desos of weher K, die & Cewnpeay, lac.
Report No.
PS R-918 Page 12 LISTING OF EXPOSED MATERIALS Exposure Description Test No.
Barton Transmitter 2-4-1 2-4-2 2-4-3 2-4-4 2-4-7 ASCO Valve 2-4-3 2-4-4 2-4-7 Namco Switch 2-4-3
, 2-4-4 2-4-7 l
Sample Blocks - All 2-4-1 l Sample Slabs - All 2-4-2 l
l l Fisher Regulator 2-4-7 e
FENWAL INCORPORATED : ASHl.AND, MASSACHUSETTS D.m.on of Wetter K.dde & Compeay, lac.
N Report ~s.
PS R-C .8 Page 13 LISTING OF EXPOSED MATERIALS (Cont'd)
Exposure Wire L *scription Test No.
WVA 2/C 616 87232 XPS 2-4-2 Type S IS WJH 2-4-2 WVC 2-4-2 WRO SROJJ 2-4-2 WVA-1 2/C #18 87232 XPS 2-4-3 WPA - SROAJ 2-4-2 WPD - SROAJ 2-4-2 WPF - 1/C 46 SROAJ 2-4-3 WUB-1 Type TX 2-4-2 WNB - 8KV 2-4-1 Duke - BX 2-4-1 Type CPJ - WDB 2-4-3 j RTD 2-4-2 FENWAL thCORPORATED : ASHLAND MASSACHUSETTS 0 es.ea of wa r m code & Cm, one.
Report No.
PS R-91fs Pago 14 W
SPRAv , N WiTER
{ :.00ZLE ~
.., 2 PUMP PRESSURE TRANSDUCER (2) g Clll3 MERCURY %
PA ;0"ETER l RECORDING l03C1 LLO:P' FH Q
INDICAT.NG TD;PERATURE CO:JTRGLLER Q
CONTROLLER CLO'.1 PLUG BOX V THEFG'C OUFLE i GLOU FLUG DCX !
. L'. TEMP. REC f TO;FERAT11RE R :"C CE1 l 0 GLOW PLUG BOX
- UALL T.-iERM0 COUPLE GLOW PLUG S0X g VESSEL t%LL T11GPCCOUPLE MERCURY 3 FAh*0 METER c
T)lERMCCOUFLE =
A e n/
GLOW PLUG AIR TLOW O
}/ESSEL W".LL i (7tj pgg + _o. ,_ e 1 TCMP. RfC. }
e)
\ GLOW PLUG
'l COUFLE VACUi3M FUMP
% F- GAS MIXING STEAM + FAN SUPPLY SAMPLE BULB k fy'b C SAP.PLE g VESSEL gr'/
YO ZE*J r T E'I.P. REC . C00LI::VCO*0ENSI!?G
~'
S .* PLY C W i' ER FLO'.:ftETE3
/ / VESSEL DRAIN
Report No.
PS R-918 TABLE NO. 1 Page 15 SERIES 2 - PART 1 Test No. 2-1-1 2-1-2 2-1-3 2-1-4 2-1-5 2-1-6 2-1-7 2-1-8 2-1-9 2-1-10 Date 10/10 10/14 10/14 10/15 10/15 10/15 10/16 10/17 10/17 10/27
%-H 2 9 8 7 6 5 8 6 10 6 6 TV F 136 -138 140- 142 144 138 142 212 212 212
.V ft/sec 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0/5 0/5 Baro mmHg 765.3 761'.4 761.4 '767.7 767.7 767.7 768 767 767 762 R'.H. %. 36 76 35 80 43 34 60 74 55 52 Tamb F H56 41 55 44 51 49 67 65 65 50 Air mmHg 839 843 846 856 858 850 856 535 578 578 "2 . mmHg 96 86 75 65 54 86 65 107 64 64 HO 2 mmHg 134 142 147 157 165 142 157 428 428 428 Ty F 210' 141 140 142 144 230 190 280 210/225 212/225
-T 2 F 175 130 135 142 144 183 152 242 200/220 210/247 r F 142 140 140- 142 144 N.O. N.O. 240 N.O. 227/289 3 '
T 4
F 960 165 N.O. 142 144 685 335 700 245 205/208 Tign sec 15.8 15.9 15.4 17 17 15- 17 17 17/1.0* 19/6.1*
"Tp sec 6.6 5.4 5.3 11 3 4 --- 9 9.6 13/10 1.9/4.8
/h P psig 38 3.1 1.5 1.0 0.2 36 15 30 .75/2.7 0.2/3.2 H2(P) 4 9.2 8.8 9.0 8.0 6.4 9.6 6.8 17.9 11.5 6.1 N2(P)~ 4 69.6 69.9 69.3 68.6 74.5 72.2 72.9 66.4 71.7 73.7
% 21.9 21.9 21.8 21.8 22.6 21.6 19.0 16.9 17.9 19.3 02(P)
% 0 3.3 4.5 6.2 5.1 0 3.6 0 9.2 6.1 H2(A)
Ny(A) % 78.5- 75.8 74.7 71.9 75.0 82.9 75.6 85.4 74.3 73.9 4 18.9 20.3 20.6 21.8 22.5 19.6 18.0 12.6 17.8 18.3 02(A)
N.O. -
Not Obtained Timed From Fan Start w
. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.___________________m. _ _ _ _
~
Report No.
PS R-918 Page 16 TABLE NO. 2 SERIES 2 - PART 2 Test No. 2-2-1 2-2-2 2-2-3 Date 10/28 10/29 10/30 TV F 80 80 160 Baro mmHg 759 762 769 R.H. % 95 65 57 Tamb F 34 34 37 H
- SCFM 4 4 4 2
HO**
2 lb/ min 0 0 c5 .3 Ty F 215 226 265 T2 F 120 130 190 T F 193 198 240 3
' O T F 318 330 370 4
t Ti; '*** sec 65 100 84 Tp sec 12 12 4 l Li P,,g psig 6.1 7.8 10.1 23.6 23.9 H2 (A) 72.2 71.0 N2 (A) 4.8 02 (A) 7.3 Hydrogen Flow Rate Steam Flow Rate Approximate Time From Hydrogen Flow Start To First Ignition FLNWAL INCORPORATED . ASHLAND, MASSACHUSETTS Diws.on of Walter K.&fe & Company. Sec.
Report No.
PSR-5 3 A Page 17 TABLE NO. 3 SERIES 2 PARP 3 1
Test No. 2-3-1 2-3-2 2-3 ' 2-3-4 2-3-5 Date 10/23 10/31 10/ _ 10/31 11/3
% 81 2
10% 10% 6% N.A 10%
{
TV ( F) 39 80 80 80 80 l Dato (mmHg) 772 760 756 756 771 R.H. (%) 45 50 34 50 50 Tamb (OF) 39 47 48 50 40 H (mmHg) 86 84 48 0 86 2
H
- 2 (SCFM) 0 0 0 4 0 H 0**
2 (gal / min) 2 2 2 2 2 Ty F 125 == 13 5 80 135 120 T F 110 130 120 100 120 2
O T F 40 N.G. 133 155 145 3
T F 665 ==650 407 505 360 4
Tign sec 14.8 11.4 22.0 90 14.9 Tp sec .50 .65 1.50 6.0 1.1 OP psig 60 50 32 3.1 42.5 Ignitor Orientation Normal NJrmal Normal Normal Rotated H2 (P) % N.O. 6.7 N.O. N.O. 7.8 N2 (P) % N.O. 73.1 N.O. N.O. 73.5 02(P) % N.O. 19.4 N.O. N.O. 19.3 H2(A) % N.O. .8 N.O. N.O. O N2 (A) % N.O. 79.4 N.O. N.O. 82.5 02 (A) % N.O. 16.6 N.O. N.O. 17.5 Hydrogen Flow Rate Water Spray Flow Rate N.O. Not Obtained FENWAL INCORPORATED : ASHLAND, NASSACHUSETTS D.ms.on of Watt es K.dde & Cornpeay, Inc.
Report No.
' PS R-918 Page 18 TABLE NO. 4 SERIES 2 - PART 4 Date '11/12 11/13- 11/14 11/17 11/16 11/07 11/18 Test No. 2-4-1 2-4-2 2-4-3 2-4-4 2-4-5 2-4-6 2-4-7
%H 2 12% 12% 12% 12% 10%- 10%
- 12%
TV F 129 129 129 129 145 146 129 Baro mmHg _ 756.6 762.3- 755.0 771.0 760.0 754.1 751.6 R.H. % 55% 42% -30% 57% 60% 55% 93%
Tamb' F- '40 37 55 29 39 65 26
^ Air mmHg 830.3 830.3 830.3 830.3 8 41. f, 841.6 830.3 Hg. mmHg 124.1 124.1 124.1 124.1 109.0 109.0 124.1 M0 2 mmHg 111.7 111.7 111.7 111.7 147.0 142.0 111.7
. Ty F -- -- -- --
380 510 --
.T F. 255 395- 365 395 432 510 2 357 T-3 F -- --- -- --
202 195 --
Tg. F 710 760 760 755 790 760 735 T F 140 140 --
5 130 T6 150 155
.F ~ -- -- - - - --
140 T F 135 140 --
7 133 T F 230 250 --
8 143 T F -- --
240 250 -- --
9 --
T F -- --
170 138 10 -- -- --
- T yy F --
240 250 -- -- --
T F -- --
228 183 12 -- -- --
4 e
e
Report No.
PS R-918 "
Page 19 TABLE NO. 4 (Cont'd)
{ SERIES 2 -~PART 4 (Cont'd)
Date 11/12 11/13 11/14 11/17 , 11/16 11/07 11/18 Test'No. 2-4-1 2-4-2 2 4-3 2-4-4 2-4-5 2-4-6
. 2-4-7 Volts '12 -12 12 12 12 10 12 Space. .0010 .0010 :
INS' None Wrap None Aluminium None None Aluminium Tign Sec 27.1 26.8 25.8 26.3 27.6 56.0 27.2 Tp sec .64 .70 .55 .65 1.750 1.500 .60
/1TP psig 60 psig 58~psig 63 psig 58 psig 09 psig 50 psig 61 psig H3(P) 4 13.1 12.8 14.1 13.6 9.3 9.8 10.6.
N2(P) 4 68.8 69.4 68.1 69.0 74.4 70.9 73.3 J02(P) % 18.0 18.0 17.7 18.2 18.7 18.4 18.8 H2 (A) % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N2 (A). t 83.7 83.7 83.1 84.9 82.9 81.0 33.7 02(A) t 15.0 14.5 14.8 15.6 15.8 15.4 14.9 '
I O
Report No.
PS R-918 Page 20 Legend For Table No. 1, No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4
%H 2 -
Hydr %ca "'est Concentrat ion (%)
TV -
Vessel Test Temperature ( F)
V -
Air Velocity At Glow Plug (ft/sec)
Daro -
Barometric Pressure (mmHg)
R. H. -
Relative Humidity (%)
T amb -
Ambient Temperature ( F)
P air -
Partial Pressure (mmHg) Of Air Loaded PH 2 -
Partial Pressure (mmHg) Of Hydrogen Loaded PHO2 -
Partial Pressure (mmHg) Of Steam Loaded Ty - Glow Plug Box External Wall Maxiumu Temperature (OF)
T - Vessel Internal Wall Maximum Temperature (UF) 2 T - G1 w Plug Box Internal Gas Maximum Temperature (OF)
, 3 T4 - Vessel Air Maximum Temperature (OF)
T -
Barton Transmitter T 2 ( F) 5 T6 -
Barton Transmitter C 4 ( F)
T 7
Barton Transmitter C 5 ( F)
T -
Barton Transmitter - Outside Surface Maximum Temperature 8
(OF) l T -
Limit Switch - Outside Surf ace Maximum Temperature 9
( F)
T -
Limit Switch - Internal Maximum Temperature ( F) 10 T yy -
Solenoid Valve - Outside Surface Maximum Temperature (OF)
T 12
- S lenoid Valve - Internal Maximum Temperature (OF)
Volts -
Voltage At Glow Plug (VAC)
INS -
Insulating Wrap Type FENWAL INCORPORATED : ASHLAND, MASSACHUSETTS p.n.on of w.hw K4s. & cep. y. tw
l l.
Report No.
PS R-918 Page 21 Legend (Cont'd)
Tign - Time From Energizing Glow Plug To Ignition (sec)
Tp - Time From Ign? tion To Maximum Pressure (sec) bP - Maximum Explosion Pressure' Increase (psi)
Hp - Pre-burn Hydrogen Concentration (%)
Np -
Pro-burn Nitrogen Concentration (%)
Op - Pre-burn Oxygen Concentration (%)
Ha - Post-burn Hydrogen Concentration (%)
Na - Post-burn Nitrogen Concentration (%)
Oa -
Post-burn Oxygen Concentration (%)
FENWAL INCORPORATED : ASHLAND MASSACHUSETTS Diesen of W3t ter K.dde & Cmay, Inc.
e APPENDIX A.3 l
SINGLETON TESTING - TECHNICAL DETAILS I
Results tests areofpresented.
various glow plus perfore nee, reliability, and endurance A.
Cycling and Endurance Testing of Gen.iral Motors-70 Glow Plugs Testing of the 50 General Motors (GM)-7G glow plugs which were selected at random from the plura which successfully completed the preconditioning test is comple',e. The test consisted of two parts: ;
1.
Each plug was energized with 13.9V ac 1 0.1 volt until the surface temperature had stabilized, then was deenergized and allowed to cool to ambient. This process was repeated for 10 cycles.
-2. ,
Each for plug was a period of energized 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />. with 13.9V ao 1 0.1 volt continuously During the 48-hour endurance test, temperature measurements were 1
taken at 1-1/2-hour intervals for the first seven hours, then twice daily with a minimum of six hours between readings for the remaining 41 hours4.74537e-4 days <br />0.0114 hours <br />6.779101e-5 weeks <br />1.56005e-5 months <br />, and, finally, at the end of thg test. The temperatures were consistently in the 1760 to 1850 F range.
. All' 50 General Motors-70 glow plugs successfully completed the cycling and endurance test without a failure.
B. Preconditioning Test of Bosch Glow Plugs Three hundrer Bosch glow plugs were purchased for an investigation into their use as an igniter. The investigation was divided into two parts. Part 1 was a preconditioning test designed to eliminate manufacturing defects (see paragraph B. cf Appendix A-5 of the first quarterly report), while Part 2 was a thermal cycling and endurance test (see paragraph A above).
During preconditioning of the first 50 plugs, there were nine failures. These failures were. denoted by an increase'in current
~
to the glow plug.(in excess of 15 amps). ' The normal current is in the 10 to 11 amp range when: energized with 13.9V ac 1 0.1 volts. At this point, the test procedure was modified to include a step'in which the~ plugs were energized with 3V ao 1 0.5 volt for five minutes before proceeding to the 6 and 12-volt-steps. After the modification, only one plug in a group of 62
. plugs failed. .This. failure was also marked bylan increase in the current.to the plug.-
Although the reason for tha ' fait.ures is not certain,-~ they were .
believed to be caused by some volatilizable material, possibly moisture, within-the sheath which could not escape rapidly enough s
to prevent an internal pressure. increase. It is believed that
's
- A.3-l' 3,
this pre curo incrcace Iceds to en electrical short betwscn tha heater and the sheath which would account for the increase in curent.
Based on our experience with preconditioning of the General Motors glow plug, it.is our opinion that the Bosch plug could be a reliable igniter if properly preconditioned. However, barring any unforeseen problems with the General Motors plug, no further testing of the Bosch plug-is planned.
The temperature of the 102 plugs which succegsfully completed the preconditioning test was in the 1750 to 1850 F range.
J 1
.pn g! 'A.3-2 r
s
APPENDIX B INTERIM DISTRIBUTED IGNTTION SYSTEM (IDIS) EQUIPMENT SURVIVABILITY i
As discussed in Appendix B of the #irst quarterly report, events l involving core degradation have the potential for producing environmental conditions that were not previously considered in the i
evaluation of instrumentation and equipment qualification. Until very recently, containment computer codes had not *Jeen developed to model hydrogen combustion and predict both realistic atmospheric pressure and temperature profiles. Therefore, a combination of results from combustion experiments performed at Fenwal, Incorporated, and conservative, simplified thermal analyses was used to support the equipment temperature survivability portions of the first quarterly report and subsequent submittals. Due to the previous unavailability of realistic methods for containment atmospheric temperature profi2es, final resolution of the survivability issue for the IDIS was deferred until May 1981. A brief overview of TVA's plans for resolving this issue are presented in this appendix.
More realistic containment atmospheric temperature profiles will be available shortly from the Offshore Power Systems CLASIX code (see Section II.C.2) fcr the S D2 sequence as mitigated by the IDIS.
Analyses of the resultant heatup of exposed key equipment will then be made using a standard heat transfer code. Efforts are planned later to benchmark the CLASIX code to experimental results to verify conservatism of the codes. Tne calculated atmospheric temperature profile and the calcalated equipment temperature profiles will then be compared to the existing environmental qualification temperature data y
for each key component. Special consideration will be given to any 1
differences in time duration between the analytical results and the 4
previous qualification. Emphasis will also be devoted to a conservative evaluation of any possible surface degradation effects due to high, although brief, peak temperatures. If the analytical results do not indicate that the key equip =ent would, in fact, survive
' a. postulated hydrogen burn event, then confirme. tory testing would be initiated. Such testing would include proper scaling of heat loads and heat sinks and consideration would be given to operability
' surveillance of applicable components during the test.
1 i
i B-1 1
l
e e
APPENDIX C PERMANENT HYDROGEN MITIGATION SYSTEM (PHM3) DECISION METH)DOLOGY From the Sequoyayh Nuclear Plant Unit 1 operating license:
(22-D-2) For operation of the facility beyond January 31, 1982, the Commission must confirm that an adequate hydrogen control system for the plant is installed and will perform its intended function in a manner that provides adequate safety margins.
To. comply with this condition, TVA is taking steps to select, design,
' and install a Permanent Hydrogen Mitigation System (PHMS) for Sequoyah unit 1. The decision methodology te make an appropriate system selection is described in this appendix.
An overview flow chart of the decision process is shown in figure C-1.
Preliminary ~ conceptual designs are being prepared for four potential hyd. ogen mitigation systems: controlled ignition, controlled ignition with fogging, Halon postinerting, and catalytic combustors. These four will undergo a preliminary evaluation to eliminate any with obvious drawbacks. The remaining candidates will then be compared in more detail both on a qualitative and a quantitative basis. A selection will be made in mid-1981 based on all the relevant factors studied.
A more detailed flow chart of. the above-described methodology is shown in figure C-2. An important aspect of the preliminary design stage is the proper selection of functional and safety criteria to be applied to each concept. Similarly, the choice of accident sequences to be used as a basis for comparison of mitigation effectiveness is significant. Cost estimates for design, installation, operation, and maintenance will be made for each mitigation concept and compared to
'the risk reduction benefit calculated for each one. In the final selection, this quantitative cost / benefit comparison will be considered along with such nonquantifiable parameters as technical feasibility, practicality of installation and operation and requirements for additional research.
O C-1
. . - _ - .. _ _- . - ~ . . - - - _ . . .. _ _ _ -
e e,
OVERVIE'd FLO' 4CHART DECISION IG:THODOLOGY FOR PERMANENT MITIGATION SYSTD4
- 2/1 PRELIMDRBY DESIGN 3/2'4 3/15 PRELIMD EVALUATION
/1
.i A/2 2/15
' QUALITATIVE j QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION COMPARISON' 5/25 5/25 5/26 SELECTION 6/1
~
9 FIGURE C-1 a
r
o bx 8'
O TEWUY* lit -: Yr3 wlf!'AT;M YrnM Os1/61 6/1,91
~
PJTI ;M!cs t/r 4/'
.e.of s ae 13 Om*T:t
( M COICFMS) r'rtzCnA:. s EArt T CI!rRIA (C W IFT #)n cxxv:'> t.
ICIM CFITDIA (0 TEM n)
CCWEITAL IEFI3 (CC33 M a) 4'd V N d, 's
.r.mun ,
(MALIA**7 (WW y ) y/a 3
QM*TTT' - - -3 1 I
'd N 'JTW E!!D b h1Cui?OAL FIN T 3ILITY 0FE?ATICMAL Af"E3rXEXT POL'!D
- y'2 lbMITIIO f f;. AhALT*E A?O.Y i I!N r!r!TD A20.
[fE. A3ALf7FO FCR I[I (OCNCIPf a) (C03L'T.M a) ,[;
- FA W 3 TA EW3
( OC*P.T7"f ag) f y ), ,
- " "* m f
! . TTP! (n 1
7-- -.--- I m I I 4 '.N !'J : WL IJ.iLI LIFI f>Fr!Y 0:'"!3 & IKT"AL. ;I!PCIFID A.~C.
!! s *1 I/ICA!!38 j!!IW! TID AT.
A$$ LESE lATICN f0"fCtLED jsIO. AJALT;l-l F03 t!!";. A_u;.Y*C FTB (0 CM n) (03f3M a) (CLCCIM n) Id*.h[E. I
!I' W e g W/(*MITIMTI: M C** M e i A JIT:Of:AL CTT
!O. r?.-Ci E"*! ETIC 3 FM%7k G3TS d (CND *"! nl j P!,' FLJJCTION l IT! XIIA!. A?$ZS.
E M.C.T
{03CEI':"4n )
)
I i gm me.n !,
' ' 7/! fr 6
- u r:ct y' fl.l f e.714).
MJCITAT!"(E p :.yr:lxTIrg 77CAh!T il
(:cen et #) =
5/c5 (e m . $2) effs maw.r f/e6
- re arros . m
- w wn FIGURE -
,e APPENDIX D INTERIM DISTRIBUTE 0 IGNITION SYSTEM (IDIS) STATUS D.1 Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Unit 1 There are presently 32 igniters installed at Sequoyah unit 1. The locations of these igniters are shown in figures L-4 through L-8 of appendix L of Volume 2 of TVA's report on the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Degraded Core Program dated December 15, 1980. -The igniters have been checked for proper operation and minimum temperature requirements as specified in Postmodification Test No. PHI-2.
TVA has committed to the installation of 13 additional igniters (all located in the upper compartment) by the end of the first refueling outage. The specific location of the additional igniters are shown in figures L-9 through L-11 of Appendix L of the document referenced above.
D.2 Unit 2 Fabrication and installation of the igniters for Sequoyah unit 2 has begun. A total of 45 igniters will be installed in unit 2 in the same locations as for the expanded 45 unit 1 igniters. Installation will be completed before fuel loading.
D.3 Igniter Assembly The 120V/14V transformers used in the igniter assembly have been replaced with 120V/12V,13V,14V transformers. . This equipment change was made to
. provide flexibility in adjusting the voltage supplied to the glow piugs. By selecting the corract tap on the secondary side of the transformer, the vo; cage supplied to the glow plug may be maintained betwee.12. and 14 volts.
The replacement transformers are identical to the existing transformers with the exception of the additional voltage taps of 12 and 13 volts on the secondary side of the transformer.' Both the existing and the replacement transformers-were manufactured to the same specifications by the Dongan Electrical Manufacturing Company of Detroit, Michigan.
The new transformers have been installed in the 32
- igniter assemblies of unit.1; they will be used in the 13 additional igniter assemblies to be -installed in
. unit 1. and in all 45. assemblies presently being installed in unit 2.
D-1 N