ML14304A622
| ML14304A622 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 10/23/2014 |
| From: | Joyce R M Southern Nuclear Operating Co |
| To: | Martin R E Plant Licensing Branch II |
| Martin R E | |
| References | |
| GSI-191 | |
| Download: ML14304A622 (77) | |
Text
From:Joyce, Ryan M.
To:Martin, Robert
Subject:
NRC SNC GSI-191 Public Meeting 11-06-2014.pptx Date:Thursday, October 23, 2014 5:41:43 PM Attachments:NRC SNC GSI-191 Public Meeting 11-06-2014.pptx Bob, Attached is the SNC presentation for the GSI-191 meeting. Thanks. Ryan NOVEMBER 6, 2014 VOGTLE GSI
-191 PROGRAM CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING STRAINER HEADLOSS TESTING NRC PUBLIC MEETING
AGENDA Introductions Objectives for Meeting
- Discussion of Integrated Chemical Effects Test Plans
- Discussion of Strainer Head Loss Test Plans Feedback on Documents Provided for Review Prior to Meeting Staff Questions and Concerns
- Presentation provides topic highlights only, more detailed information is contained in other documents provided.
2 SNC ATTENDEES Ryan Joyce
- Licensing Phillip Grissom
- Program Manager GSI
-191 Tim Littleton
- Lead Engineer Vogtle Design Franchelli Febo - Vogtle Site Design Owen Scott
- Risk Informed Engineering 3
OBJECTIVES OF THE MEETING Provide an overview of Vogtle plans for future large scale chemical effects and strainer headloss testing, and receive any comments, concerns, or feedback from NRC staff Receive any NRC observations or feedback on documents provided for review prior to this meeting 4
VOGTLE BACKGROUND Vogtle Description Westinghouse 4
-Loop PWR, 99% NUKON Insulation
~ 6 ft3 of Interam fire barrier GE Stacked Disk Strainers for ECCS and Containment Spray (4/unit) 765 ft2 per each of 2 ECCS trains, separate CS strainers (2)
TSP Buffer Vogtle Status Strainer Head Loss and In
-vessel issues remain open Previous chemical effects testing provided very promising results, but not accepted by NRC Vogtle elected to follow Option 2B (risk
-informed resolution) of SECY-12-0093, as being piloted by STP 5
DOCUMENTS PROVIDED FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO MEETING Strainer Headloss SNCV083-PR-05, Rev 0, "Risk-Informed Head Loss Test Strategy", October 2014 Chemical Effects CHLE-SNC-001, Rev. 2, "Bench Test Results for Series 1000 Tests for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant", September 2013 CHLE-SNC-007, Rev. 2, "Bench Test Results for Series 3000 Tests for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant", January 2014 CHLE-SNC-008, Rev. 3, "Column Chemical Head Loss Experimental Procedures and Acceptance Criteria", March 2014 CHLE-SNC-020, Rev 0, "Test Plan
-Vogtle Risk Informed GSI
-191 CHLE Test T6, T7 and T8", October 2014 6
7 INTEGRATED CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO ENERCON ALION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING OVERVIEW 30-Day Integrated Tank Test w/Debris Bed System (T8)
Similar to STP Test T2, but with Vogtle Specifics Prototypical Water Chemistry for Vogtle During LOCA Based on Double Ended Guillotine Break of the 29" Hot Leg Piping on Loop 4 of the RCS (Weld# 11201-004-6-RB) Additional Chemical Effects Testing Bench Scale Tests Prototypical Water Chemistry Tank Test w/o Debris Beds (T6) Forced Precipitation Tank Test w/Debris Beds (T7) 8 30-DAY INTEGRATED TANK TEST (T8) Objective:
Determine and characterize chemical precipitates generated during a simulated LOCA event Investigate effects of potential chemical products on head loss Generate test results for a simulated break case to compare with the chemical effects model Based on Double Ended Guillotine Break of the 29" Hot Leg Piping on Loop 4 of the RCS (Weld# 11201
-004-6-RB) Includes: CHLE Corrosion tank Prototypical Vogtle Water Chemistry Corrosion and Ancillary Materials Vertical Column System Multi-Particulate Debris Beds 9
SUMMARY
OF PREVIOUS TESTING (STP)
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Corrosion materials - Al scaffolding
- Fiberglass
- Al scaffold
- Fiberglass
- GS, Zn coupons - Concrete - Al, GS, Zn coupons - Fiberglass
- Concrete - Al coupons
- Fiberglass - Al scaffold
- Fiberglass
- GS, Zn coupons - Concrete Avg Vel (ft/s) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 pH 7.22 7.32 7.22 7.22 7.25 Temperature profile MB-LOCA
LB-LOCA Non-Prototypical Non-Prototypical LB-LOCA Testing Per.
30-day 30-day 10-day 10-day 10-day Bed prep. NEI NEI Blend & NEI Blend & NEI Blender 10
SUMMARY
OF PROPOSED TESTING (SNC)
T6 T7 T8 Corrosion materials - Al, GS, Cu, CS
- Fiberglass
- Concrete - MAP, Interam, Dirt
- Epoxy, IOZ - Al, GS coupons - Fiberglass
- Concrete - IOZ - Al, GS, Cu, CS
- Fiberglass
- Concrete - MAP, Interam, Dirt
- Epoxy, IOZ Velocity (ft/s) 0.013 0.013 0.013 Target pH 7.2 7.2 7.2 Temperature profile Modified LB
-LOCA Non-Prototypical Modified LB
-LOCA Testing period 30-day 10-day 30-day Bed type None Multi-Constituent Particulate Multi-Constituent Particulate 11 TEMPERATURE PROFILE: T8 0, 185 0.5, 185 1, 155 12, [Y VALUE] 24, 132 72, 124 360, 110 600, 109 720, 75 60 80100120 140160180 200 0100200300400500600700800 Temperature (o F) Time (hr) 12 TEMPERATURE PROFILE: T8 13 T6/T8 Temperature Profile (initial hour)
Best Estimate case is below 185
°F within ~10 min T6/T8 materials are immediately submerged and exposed to sprays No credit taken for the time to activate sprays and fill the sump No credit taken for thermal lag of materials in containment
CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING OVERVIEW 30-Day Integrated Tank Test w/Debris Bed System (T8)
Vertical Column Head Loss System CHLE Corrosion Tank Prototypical Water Chemistry for Vogtle During LOCA Additional Chemical Effects Testing Bench Scale Tests Prototypical Water Chemistry Tank Test w/o Debris Beds Forced Precipitation Tank Test w/Debris Beds 14 CHLE - VERTICAL HEAD LOSS TESTING UNM Testing Facility Previous Testing (NEI and Blender Beds)
Head Loss Results Debris Beds with Acrylic Particulates oHead loss
- Repeatability oHead loss
- Stability & variability oBed sensitivity, Hysteresis & detectability Debris Beds with Epoxy Particulates 15 CHLE UNM Testing Facility 16 CHLE VERTICAL HEAD LOSS MODULES 17 CHLE PREVIOUS TESTING NEI - Beds Blender Bed 40 mg/L of WCAP 6 mg/L of WCAP CHLE-010 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8 T e s t 1 (P a v = 5.7 1 H 2 O")T e s t 2 (P a v = 5.6 9 H 2 O")T e s t 3 (P a v = 5.9 7 H 2 O")P a v = 5.7 9 (H 2 O")A p p r o a c h V e l o c i t y (f r o m 0.0 5 t o 0.0 1 3 f t/s)T i m e (h r)H e a d L o s s , P (H 2 O")Test #1, 2, and 3 - Paint/Fiber (40/20)
CHLE Results: Repeatability Acrylic Particulate SEM 19 Test #3 - Paint/Fiber (40/20) -Long term test CHLE Results: Stability and Variability 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 C o l u m n #1 C o l u m n #2 C o l u m n #3- 7%+ 7%- 5%+ 5%P a v=7.6 9P a v=4.4 8 9 T i m e (h r)H e a d L o s s , P (H 2 O")0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 0.0 2 0.0 4 0.0 6 0.0 8 0.1 0 A p p r o a c h V e l o c i t y H e a d L o s sP a v = 5.9 8 (H 2 O") - A f t e r 5 d a y sP a v = 5.9 7 (H 2 O") - A f t e r 1 1 h r s A p p r o a c h V e l o c i t y (f r o m 0.0 4 9 5 t o 0.0 1 3 f t/s)T i m e (D a y)H e a d L o s s , P (H 2 O")Test #1, 2, and 3 - Paint/Fiber (40/20)
After Adding Latent Debris/Dirt Before Adding Latent Debris/Dirt 20 CHLE Results: Sensitivity , Hysteresis
& Chemical Detectability Approach Velocit y Head Loss 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 0.0 0 8 0.0 1 2 0.0 1 6 0.0 2 0 A V = 0.0 1 3 A V = 0.0 1 4 A V = 0.0 0 9 A V = 0.0 1 0 A V = 0.0 1 1 A V = 0.0 1 2 A V = 0.0 1 3 f t/sP a v= 6.1 2 4P a v= 6.8 5 9P a v= 3.2 9P a v= 3.9 4 2P a v= 4.5 9P a v= 5.2 9 7P a v= 5.9 8 (H 2 O")T i m e (D a y)H e a d L o s s , P (H 2 O")A p p r o a c h V e l o c i t y (f t/s)21 0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.0 8 6 f t/s P = 1 5.7 8" P = 1 5.2 7"P = 1 4.6"P = 1 4.5 2"P = 1 3.1 5"P = 1 0.5 6"P C o n v = 5.1 2" B a t c h 3- A l O O H B a t c h 2- A l O O H B a t c h 1- A l O O H B a t c h 3- C a 3 (P O 4)2 B a t c h 2- C a 3 (P O 4)2 B a t c h 1- C a 3 (P O 4)2 T i m e (h r)H e a d L o s s , P (H 2 O")
SEM - IOZ SEM - Epoxy 0.0 1 0.0 2 0.0 3 0.0 4 0.0 5 0 2 5 5 0 7 5 1 0 0 1 2 5 1 5 0 1 7 5 2 0 0 2 2 5 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 A V =0.0 1 2 8 f t/s T i m e (h r)A p p r o a c h V e l o c i t y (f t/s)H e a d L o s s (H 2 O")0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0 0.4 %T i m e (h r)S t a b i l i t y C r i t e r i a (%)Fiber = 20 g Epoxy = 36 g IOZ = 2 g Latent Debris/Dirt = 2 g AlOOH AlOOH Ca 3(PO 4)2 Medium - Thick Beds with Epoxy CHLE - Results: Detectability with Epoxy 22 CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING OVERVIEW 30-Day Integrated Tank Test w/Debris Bed System (T8)
Vertical Column Head Loss System CHLE Corrosion Tank Prototypical Water Chemistry for Vogtle During LOCA Additional Chemical Effects Testing Bench Scale Tests Prototypical Water Chemistry Tank Test w/o Debris Beds Forced Precipitation Tank Test w/Debris Beds 23 PROTOTYPICAL CHEMICALS: CHLE TANK Chemical Type Vogtle Quantity (mM) CHLE Tank Quantity (g) Significance H 3 BO 3 221.4 15546 Initial Pool Chemistry LiOH 0.0504 1.372 HCl 2.39 99 Radiolysis Generated Chemicals HNO 3 0.0873 6.2 TSP 5.83 2582 Containment Buffering Agent 24 CHEMICAL ADDITION PROTOCOLS Initial Pool Chemistry Boric Acid Lithium Hydroxide ([Li]=0.35 mg/L)
TSP metered in continuously during first two hours of test to desired final concentration Radiolysis generated materials added throughout test Batch addition at 1, 2, 5, 10, 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> initially Continued additions periodically thereafter 25 PROTOTYPICAL MATERIALS:
CHLE TANK (1 OF 2)
Material Type Vogtle Quantity 300 gal CHLE Test Quantity*
Aluminum (submerged) 54 ft 2 0.026 ft2 (3.7 in 2) Aluminum (exposed to spray) 4,003 ft 2 1.91 ft 2 Galvanized Steel (submerged) 19,144 ft 2 9.13 ft 2 Galvanized Steel (exposed to spray) 191,234 ft 2 91.2 ft 2 Copper (submerged) 149.8 ft 2 0.0715 ft2 (10.3 in 2) Fire Extinguisher Dry Chemical
- Monoammonium phosphate (MAP) 357 lb m 0.170 lb m (77.2 g) InteramŽ E-54C (submerged) 4.448 ft 3 2.12 x10-3 ft3 (3.67 in 3) 26 PROTOTYPICAL MATERIALS:
CHLE TANK (2 OF 2)
Material Type Vogtle Quantity 300 gal CHLE Test Quantity*
Carbon Steel (submerged) 548.0 ft 2 0.261 ft2 (37.6 in 2) Carbon Steel (exposed to spray) 367.5 ft 2 0.175 ft2 (25.2 in 2) Concrete (submerged) 2,092 ft 2 0.998 ft2 (144 in 2) IOZ Coatings Zinc Filler (submerged
) 50 lb m 0.024 lb m (11 g) Epoxy Coatings (submerged) 2,785 lb m 1.33 lb m (603 g) Latent Dirt/Dust (submerged
) 51 lb m 0.024 lb m (11 g) Fiberglass (submerged) 2,552 ft 3 1.218 ft 3 27 MATERIAL ADDITION PROTOCOLS Submerged metal coupons Arranged in a submergible rack system within tank Unsubmerged metal coupons Secured individually to a rack system within tank Loose materials Concrete affixed to a submerged coupon rack Interam, MAP, latent dirt/dust, fiberglass and IOZ* will be loosely packed in wire mesh 'bags' submerged front of one of the tank headers
- Total inventory of IOZ may be added to the vertical columns instead of to the tank if it is determined to be too fine to contain in a mesh bag 28 COUPON RACKS 29 MATERIAL BAGS 30 PROTOTYPICAL MATERIALS:
DEBRIS BEDS Debris Bed Materials are loaded into columns before connection to tank solution with loaded tank materials Connection between tank and column system occurs once beds reach criteria for stability 31 Material Type Vogtle Quantity 300 gal CHLE Test Quantity*
Quantity per Column (g) IOZ Coatings Zinc Filler 29 lb m 0.014 lb m (6.4 g) 2.13 Epoxy Coatings 601 lb m 0.236 lb m (107.2 g) 35.74 Latent Dirt/Dust 30 lb m 0.014 lb m (6.4 g) 2.13 Fiberglass 478.3 ft 3 0.055 ft3 (60 g) 20 CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING OVERVIEW 30-Day Integrated Tank Test w/Debris Bed System Vertical Column Head Loss System CHLE Corrosion Tank Prototypical Water Chemistry for Vogtle During LOCA Additional Chemical Effects Testing Bench Scale Tests Prototypical Water Chemistry Tank Test w/o Debris Beds Forced Precipitation Tank Test w/Debris Beds 32 BENCH SCALE TESTS: ALUMINUM Objectives Time-Averaged Corrosion due to Variations in pH, Temperature, Phosphate (TSP)
Corrosion and release rates over a range of temperature and pH values Comparison with WCAP correlation for Al Effects on Al Corrosion due to Other Corrosion Materials Present During LOCA Zinc, Copper, Iron, Chlorine 33 BENCH SCALE RESULTS: ALUMINUM Time-averaged corrosion rate reached maximum within 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> Passivation of aluminum occurred within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> (stabilized rate of release)
Direct correlation between corrosion rate and higher temperature/pH values (next two figures) 34 BENCH SCALE RESULTS: ALUMINUM 35 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 20 40 60 80100120Aluminum concentration (mg/L)
Time (hr) Series 1100, 85degrCSeries 1500, 70degrCSeries 1600, 55degrC BENCH SCALE RESULTS: ALUMINUM 36 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 20 40 60 80100120Aluminum concentration (mg/L)
Time (hr) Series 1400, pH 7.84Series 1100, pH 7.34Series 1300, pH 6.84 BENCH SCALE RESULTS: ALUMINUM Presence of zinc inhibits the corrosion of aluminum Presence of copper, chloride and iron ions have little appreciable effect on corrosion of aluminum 24-hour release of aluminum is reduced by a factor of 2
-3 compared to the WCAP-16530 equations by including passivation in the TSP environment 37 CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING OVERVIEW 30-Day Integrated Tank Test w/Debris Bed System Vertical Column Head Loss System CHLE Corrosion Tank Prototypical Water Chemistry for Vogtle During LOCA Additional Chemical Effects Testing Bench Scale Tests Prototypical Water Chemistry Tank Test w/o Debris Beds (T6) Forced Precipitation Tank Test w/Debris Beds 38 ADDITIONAL CE TANK TESTS 30-Day Recirculatory Tank Test (T6) Objective:
Investigate isolated effects of water chemistry on plant materials during a LOCA No vertical column system or debris beds Prototypical Vogtle Water Chemistry Temperature Profile Identical to T8 39 CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING OVERVIEW 30-Day Integrated Tank Test w/Debris Bed System Vertical Column Head Loss System CHLE Corrosion Tank Prototypical Water Chemistry for Vogtle During LOCA Additional Chemical Effects Testing Bench Scale Tests Prototypical Water Chemistry Tank Test w/o Debris Beds Forced Precipitation Tank Test w/Debris Beds (T7) 40 ADDITIONAL CE TANK TESTS 10-Day Integrated Tank Test (T7) Objective:
Investigate material corrosion and any resulting effects on head loss under forced precipitation conditions using Vogtle quantities for boron, TSP, concrete, galvanized steel, and zinc Corrosion Tank Vertical Column Head Loss System Excess aluminum submerged in CHLE Tank (parallel to T3 test for STP
) Different Temperature Profile than T6/T8 41 TEMPERATURE PROFILE: T7 80 C, 176 F 80 C, [Y VALUE] F 35 C, [Y VALUE] F 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 0 5 10Temperature (oF)
Time (days) 42 NEXT STEPS-Vertical Column Head Loss Explore effects of chemical surrogates on measured head loss for various fiber/particulate ratios (thin, medium, and thick debris beds)
Tank Tests Perform T6, T7, T8 tests Bench Scale Tests Zinc Calcium 43 REFERENCES CHLE-SNC-001 (Bench Tests: Aluminum)
CHLE-SNC-007 (Bench Tests: Aluminum w/other metals) CHLE-SNC-008 (HL Operating Procedure)
CHLE-SNC-020 (Test Plan for T6, T7 & T8) 44 45 STRAINER HEAD LOSS TEST PLAN RISK-INFORMED CONVENTIONAL HEAD LOSS TEST STRATEGY Enercon Services, Inc.
Tim Sande Kip Walker Alden Research Laboratory Ludwig Haber 46 HEAD LOSS MODEL Why is a head loss model necessary?
Thousands of break scenarios Each with unique conditions (break flow rate, sump water level, debris loads, etc.) Parameters that change with time It is not practical to conduct a head loss test for every scenario Approaches for developing a risk
-informed head loss model Correlation approach has some advantages, but very difficult to implement Rule-based approach is focused on prototypical conditions for a given plant, which makes it more practical Hybrid approach uses rule
-based head loss data to create an empirical correlation An overall head loss test strategy is presented which includes some Vogtle-specific implementation information. Other plants are evaluating and may use all or parts of this strategy.
47 HYPOTHETICAL TEST RESULTS 48 = particulate/fiber ratio
PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS "Conservatisms" required to limit test scope Reduce all particulate types to one bounding surrogate Reduce all fiber types to one bounding surrogate Reduce all water chemistries to one bounding chemistry Notes: Surrogate properties include the debris type, size distribution, density, etc.
Bounding refers to a parameter value that maximizes head loss within the range of plant
-specific conditions Test details will be fully developed in a plant
-specific test plan 49 PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS Definition of testing limits based on plant
-specific conditions Maximum fiber quantity Maximum particulate quantity Use of small
-scale testing If a small
-scale version of the prototype strainer can be shown to provide the same head loss results as a large
-scale strainer, test program will utilize small
-scale head loss values to build model Reduced cost and schedule would allow more data to be gathered 50 OVERVIEW OF TEST PROGRAM Test Series Large-scale test with thin
-bed protocol Large-scale test with full
-load protocol Validation of small
-scale testing Small-scale sensitivity tests Small-scale tests with full
-load protocol Need to determine minimum fiber and maximum particulate quantity (i.e., maximum ) required to generate "significant" conventional debris head loss Significant head loss subjectively defined as 1.5 ft Vogtle's NPSH margin ranges from 10 ft to over 40 ft , depending on pool temperature and containment pressure Head loss below 1.5 ft is not likely to cause failures under most circumstances even if future chemical effects testing results in significant head loss 51 LARGE-SCALE TEST WITH THIN
-BED PROTOCOL Purpose Identify minimum fiber load required to develop "significant" conventional head loss (maximum Obtain prototypical head loss data for use in validating the small
-scale strainer Measure bounding strainer head loss for thin
-bed conditions Test Protocol Use buffered and borated water at 120
°F Perform flow sweep to measure clean strainer head loss Add prototypical mixture of particulate debris (max quantities)
Batch in prototypical mixture of fiber debris (one type at Vogtle) in small increments (1/32 nd inch equivalent bed thickness)
Measure stable head loss and perform flow sweep between each batch Continue adding fiber until a head loss of 1.5 ft is observed Perform temperature sweep Batch in chemical precipitates (quantity and form to be determined by separate analysis/testing) 52 LARGE-SCALE TEST WITH FULL
-LOAD PROTOCOL Purpose Identify fiber quantity required to fill the interstitial volume Obtain prototypical head loss data for use in validating the small
-scale strainer Measure bounding strainer head loss for full
-load conditions Test Protocol Use buffered and borated water at 120
°F Perform flow sweep to measure clean strainer head loss Utilize value corresponding to bounding fiber debris quantity with same particulate load used for large
-scale thin
-bed test Batch in prototypical mixture of fiber and particulate debris maintaining the desired value for each batch Measure stable head loss and perform flow sweep between each batch Repeat batches and flow sweeps until full fiber and particulate load has been added Perform temperature sweep Batch in chemical precipitates (quantity and form to be determined by separate analysis/testing) 53 VALIDATION OF SMALL
-SCALE TESTING Design small
-scale strainer using proven scaling techniques Test small
-scale strainer under conditions similar to large-scale testing (both thin
-bed and full
-load protocols)
Adjust strainer or tank design as necessary to appropriately match large
-scale test results Note: If small
-scale testing cannot be validated due to competing scaling factors, the remaining tests could be performed using the large
-scale strainer 54 SMALL-SCALE SENSITIVITY TESTS Purpose Reduce all particulate types to a single bounding surrogate Reduce all fiber types to a single bounding surrogate (Vogtle only has one fiber type)
Reduce range of prototypical water chemistries to a single bounding chemistry Tests will be run with a variety of representative parameters to identify the parameters for use in remaining tests Gather data for head loss caused by various types of chemical surrogates 55 SMALL-SCALE TESTS WITH FULL
-LOAD PROTOCOL Purpose of these tests are to gather data necessary to build the head loss model Test Protocol will be similar to large
-scale, full
-load test except that the small
-scale tests will be conducted using the bounding surrogates for fiber, particulate, and water chemistry Perform series of tests (e.g., 9 tests) at different values with equivalent fiber batch sizes for each test 56 RULE-BASED IMPLEMENTATION 57 OPTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION Select head loss value for bounding fiber quantity and value Interpolate between two fiber values and use bounding value Interpolate between all four points 58 VOGTLE DEBRIS GENERATION Debris quantities vary significantly for different weld locations and break sizes Max Fiber (11201
-004-6-RB, Hot leg at base of SG)
Nukon: 2,235 ft 3 Latent fiber: 4 ft 3 Total: 2,239 ft 3 Max Particulate (11201
-008-4-RB, Crossover leg)
Interam: 183 lb m Qualified epoxy: 188 lb m Qualified IOZ: 61 lb m Unqualified epoxy: 2,602 lb m Unqualified IOZ: 25 lb m Unqualified alkyd: 32 lb m RCS Crud: 23 lb m Latent dirt/dust: 51 lb m Total: 3,165 lb m 59 VOGTLE DEBRIS TRANSPORT Debris transport varies significantly depending on several parameters Break location (compartment)
Debris size distribution Number of pumps/trains in operation Whether containment sprays are activated Location of unqualified coatings Time when containment sprays are secured Failure time for unqualified coatings ECCS/CSS pump flow rates Recirculation pool water level 60 VOGTLE FIBER TRANSPORT FRACTIONS TO ONE RHR STRAINER* Debris Type Size 1 Train w/
Spray 2 Train w/
Spray 1 Train w/out Spray 2 Train w/out Spray Nukon Fines 58% 29% 23% 12% Small 48% 24% 5% 2% Large 6% 3% 7% 4% Intact 0% 0% 0% 0% Latent Fines 58% 29% 28% 14% 61
- Preliminary values
VOGTLE PARTICULATE TRANSPORT FRACTIONS TO ONE RHR STRAINER* Debris Type Size 1 Train w/ Spray 2 Train w/
Spray 1 Train w/out Spray 2 Train w/out Spray Unqualified Epoxy Fines 58% 29% 44% 22% Fine Chips 0% 0% 0% 0% Small Chips 0% 0% 0% 0% Large Chips 0% 0% 0% 0% Curled Chips 58% 29% 5% 7% Unqualified IOZ Fines 58% 29% 12% 6% Unqualified Alkyd Fines 58% 29% 100% 50% Interam Fines 58% 29% 23% 12% Qualified Epoxy Fines 58% 29% 23% 12% Qualified IOZ Fines 58% 29% 23% 12% Latent dirt/dust Fines 58% 29% 28% 14% RCS Crud Fines 58% 29% 23% 12% 62
- Preliminary values
DEBRIS TRANSPORT W/O CONTAINMENT SPRAYS Blowdown transport fractions are not changed Distribution of debris prior to recirculation remains unchanged 5% of fines assumed to be washed down due to condensation in containment 63 VOGTLE FIBER TRANSPORT TO ONE RHR STRAINER, 1 TRAIN W/SPRAY*
Debris Type Size DG Quantity (ft 3) Transport Fraction Quantity (ft 3) Nukon Fines 290.5 58% 168.5 Small 1,001.1 48% 480.5 Large 453.6 6% 27.2 Intact 489.4 0% 0.0 Total 2,234.7 676.3 Latent Fines 3.8 58% 2.2 Total 2,238.5 678.4 64
- Preliminary values
VOGTLE PARTICULATE TRANSPORT TO ONE RHR STRAINER, 1 TRAIN W/SPRAY*
Debris Type Size DG Quantity (lb m) Transport Fraction Quantity (lb m) Unqualified Epoxy Fines 319.5 58% 185.3 Fine Chips 968.7 0% 0.0 Small Chips 245.4 0% 0.0 Large Chips 534.2 0% 0.0 Curled Chips 534.2 58% 309.8 Total 2,602.0 495.2 Unqualified IOZ Fines 25.0 58% 14.5 Unqualified Alkyd Fines 32.0 58% 18.6 Interam Fines 182.9 58% 106.1 Qualified Epoxy Fines 187.6 58% 108.8 Qualified IOZ Fines 61.3 58% 35.6 Latent dirt/dust Fines 51.0 58% 29.6 RCS Crud Fines 23.0 58% 13.3 Total 3,164.8 821.6 65
- Preliminary values
HYPOTHETICAL TEST RESULTS WITH TRANSPORT CONSIDERATIONS 66
SUMMARY
A comprehensive test program is necessary to quantify head loss for thousands of break scenarios The rule based approach is a more practical option than a full correlation or test for every break scenario Simplifications of fiber type, particulate surrogate, and water chemistry are necessary to develop a practical test matrix Small-scale testing may be utilized to gather a majority of the data 67 68 CHEMICAL EFFECTS BACKUP SLIDES CHEMICAL EFFECTS TESTING OVERVIEW 30-Day Integrated Tank Test w/Debris Bed System (T 8) Vertical Column Head Loss System CHLE Corrosion Tank Prototypical Water Chemistry for Vogtle During LOCA Additional Chemical Effects Testing Bench Scale Tests Prototypical Water Chemistry Tank Test w/o Debris Beds Forced Precipitation Tank Test w/Debris Beds 69 CHLE TROUBLESHOOTING APPROACH Modifications to CHLE Tank & Column System 1.Single flow header for each column 2.Unified suction and discharge plumbing arrangement 3.Improved flow distribution sparger 4.Develop a new procedure for debris bed preparation and loading [CHLE
-SNC-008] Stable head loss Repeatable head loss (single column)
Minimum variability Chemical detection 70 CHLE TANK AND COLUMN MODIFICATIONS Polycarbonate sectionLower stainless steel sectionUpper stainless steel section V 6 FMSpray systemColumn Head Loss ModuleCHLE Tank C 1 C 2 C 3-V 1 C 3 C 3-V 2 C 3-V 3 C 3-V 4 C 3-V 5 C 3-V 6 C 2-V 1 C 2-V 2 C 2-V 3 C 2-V 4 C 2-V 5 C 2-V 6To Drain C 1-V 1 C 1-V 2 C 1-V 3 C 1-V 4 C 1-V 5 C 1-V 6To DrainTo Drain V 9 V 1 V 2 V 3 V 4 V 5 V 6 V 7 V 8 V 10 V 11 V 12 V 14To Drain(Sampling)
V 13CHLE System Before Modifications CHLE System After Modifications 71 ALUMINUM CORRELATION DATA: BEST FIT 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40Predicted concentration (mg/L)
Measured concentration (mg/L) 72 73 STRAINER HEADLOSS BACKUP SLIDES INTRODUCTION 35 Years of History and Lessons Learned USI A-43 (opened in 1979)
Head loss testing/correlations for fiber and RMI (no particulate)
Resolved without major plant modifications Bulletins 93
-02 and 96-03 Incident at Barsebck in 1992 and similar events at Perry and Limerick showed that mixtures of fiber and particulate can cause higher head loss than previously evaluated BWR research and plant
-specific evaluations led to strainer replacements at all U.S. BWRs Issue resolved in early 2000s.
74 INTRODUCTION 35 Years of History and Lessons Learned, Cont.
GSI-191 and GL 2004
-02 Based on BWR concerns, GSI
-191 was opened in 1996 to address ECCS strainer performance for PWRs Chemical effects identified as an additional contributor to strainer head loss PWR research and plant-specific evaluations led to strainer replacements at all U.S. PWRs Complexities in evaluations have delayed closure for most plants NRC head loss guidance issued in March 2008 75 3M INTERAM E
-50 SERIES MSDS and observations indicate that it is 30% fiber and 70% particulate Non-QA testing with NEI fiber preparation protocol indicates that it is more robust than Temp
-Mat 11.7D ZOI can be justified Testing indicates that 50% fines and 50% small pieces would be conservative (i.e.. smaller than actual) Transport metrics can be developed based on density and particle sizes, similar to other types of debris 76