ML093080010

Engineering Report ER-ESP-001, Revision 2, Generic Letter 2004-02 Supplemental Response, Attachment E, Page 23 of 49 Through Attachment F

ML093080010
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	10/13/2009
From:	Luminant Generation Co, Luminant Power
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
CP-200901403, ENR-2007-002743-20-02, GL-04-002, TXX-09128 ER-ESP-001, Rev 2
Download: ML093080010 (51)

Text

Attachment E Page 23 of 49 Figure 3.e.1 Plan view of Comanche Peak upper containment CAD model ENR-2007-002743-20-02 Attachment E Page 23 of 49 Figure 3.e.1 Plan view of Comanche Peak upper containment CAD model ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment E Page 24 of 49 Figure 3.e. 1 Isometric view of area outside secondary shield wall ENR-2007-002743-20-02 Attachment E Page 24 of49 Figure 3.e.1 Isometric view of area outside secondary shield wall ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment E Page 25 of 49 Figure 3.e.1 Cross-section View 1 of containment building ENR-2007-002743-20-02 Attachment E Page 25 of 49 Figure 3.e.1 Cross-section View 1 of containment building ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment E Page 26 of 49 Figure 3.e.1 Cross-section View 2 of containment building ENR-2007-002743-20-02 Attachment E Page 26 of 49 Figure 3.e.1 Cross-section View 2 of containment building ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment E Page 27 of 49 Figure 3.e.1 Plan view of Comanche Peak lower containment CAD model ENR-2007-002743-20-02 Attachment E Page 27 of 49 Figure 3.e.1 Plan view of Comanche Peak lower containment CAD model ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment E Page 28 of 49 Figure 3.e.1 Southwest isometric view of Comanche Peak lower containment CAD model ENR-2007-002743-20-02 Attachment E Page 28 of 49 Figure 3.e.1 Southwest isometric view of Comanche Peak lower containment CAD model ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment E Page 29 of 49 Figure 3.e.1 Close-up of sumps (outside secondary shield wall)

ENR-2007-002743-20-02 Attachment E Page 29 of49 Figure 3.e.1 Close-up of sumps (outside secondary shield wall)

ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment E Page 30 of 49 LOOPS 1 & 4 LOOPS 2 & 3 Figure 3.e.1.1 Isometric view of grating in RCS loop rooms ENR-2007-002743-20-02 Attachment E Page 30 of 49 LOOPS 1 & 4 LOOPS 2 & 3 Figure 3.e.1.1 Isometric view of grating in ReS loop rooms ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment E Page 31 of 49 Z110ft 2

534 ft2 538 ft2 382 ft2 538 ft2 Figure 3.e. 1.1 RCS loop room areas ENR-2007-002743-20-02 Attachment E Page 31 of 49 534 ft2 538 ft2 Figure 3.e.1.1 ReS loop room areas

'110 ft2 382 ft2 538 ft2 ENR -2007 -0027 4 3 02

Attachment E Page 32 of 49 95ft2 86% Coverage 450 ft2 84% Coverage 465 ft2 86% Coverage 345 ft2 90% Coverage 1

468 ft2 87% Coverage Figure 3.e.1.1 RCS loop room grated areas ENR-2007-002743-20-02 Attachment E Page 32 of 49 450 ft2 465 ft2 86% Cove rag e Figure 3.e.1.1 ReS loop room grated areas 95 ftl 86% Coverage 345 ft2 90% Coverage 468 fll 87% Cove rag e ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment E Page 33 of 49 CFD bris Size Blowdown Washdown Pool Fill ReCFD E

Fraction of Debris De Transport Transport Transport Recirculation Erosion at Sump Transport 0,00 Retained on 1.00 Structures Transport 0.27 0.00 Washed Down to Sediment 0.73 RCS Loop Bays 1.00 Upper 1.00 Containment i

Transport Washed Down to 0.00 Annulus Sediment 1.00 0.08 Transport 0.20 Washed Down to Fines Refueling Canal Sedmen

[

Sediment 1.00 0.07 Transport A

P0.67

[

! ~Active Pool 00 0.039 0.095 0.012 0.036 0.010 0.27 Lower Containment 0.1 Sediment S

0.18 Sump Strainers 0.15 Inactive Cavities LDFG Debris Generation 0.10 Retained on Structures 0.01 0.000 Erodes to Fines 0.99 Remains~intact 0.59 Upper Containment 1.00 0,080 0.17 Transport 0R10 0.000 Washed Down to 0.00 Erodes to Fines RCS Loop Bays Sediment i0n90 1 0 Remains intact 037 0.65 1

Transport 0.10 0,000 Washed Down to]

0.00=

Erodes to Fines Annulus Sediment 0,90 Remains intact 0.80 Small Pieces 1.00 0 038 1 00 Figure 3.e.1.1 Combined fiberglass logic trees with existing transport fractions 0.08 Washed Down to Refueling Canal Transport 0.10 0.00 Erodes to Fines Sediment 0.90 Remains intact 0.000 0.279 1.00 Transport 0.85 Active Pool 0.00 Sediment 0.41 0.00 Lower 1 Sump Strainers Containment Inactive Pool 0.10 0.000 Erodes to Fines 0.90 Remains intact 0,000 Total = 0.896 ENR-2007-002743-20-02 Attachment E Page 330[49 Figure 3.e.1.1-4 Combined fiberglass logic trees with existing transport fractions Debris Size 0.20 Fines J

LDFG Debris Generation 0.80 Small Pieces I

Slowdown Transport 0.73 Upper Containment 0.27 Lower Containment 0.59 Upper Containment 0.41 Lower Containment Washdown Transport 0.00 Retained on Structures 0.27 Washed Down to RCS Loop Bays 0.65 Washed Down to

. Annulus 0.08 Washed Down to Re~ueling Canal 0.10 Retained on Structures 0.17 Washed Down to RCS Loop Bays 0.65 Washed Down to Annulus 0.08 Washed Down to Refueling Canal CFD Fraction of DebriS]

Recirculation Erosion Transport at Sump 1.00 0.039 Transport 0.00 Sediment 1.00 0.095 Transport 0.00 Sediment 1.00 0.012

~~

Transport I

0.00 Sediment 1.00 0.036 0.67 Transport At" P

I C Ive 00 I

0.00 0.18 Sediment 0.010 I

Sump Strainers 0.15 I

Inactive Cavities 0.01 0.000 I

Erodes to Fines 0.99 RemainsJntact 1.00 0.080 I

Transport 0.10 0.000 I

0.00 I Erodes to Fines Sediment I

0.90 Remains intact 1.00 0.307 I

Transport 0.10 0.000 I

0.00 I Erodes to Fines Sediment I

0.90 Remains intact 100 0.038 I

Transport 0.10 0.000 I

0.00 j Erodes to Fines Sediment I

0.90 Remains intact 1.00 0.279 i

Transport 0.85 0.10 0.000 I

Active Pool I I

Erodes to Fines 0.00 Sediment 0.90 Remains intact

.1 0.00 0.000 Sump Strainers 0.15 Total = 0.896

. Inactive Pool ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment E Page 34 of 49 Debri eBowdown Washdown PoFill CFD Fraction of Debris D

Recirculation Erosion

at Transport Transport Transport Transport Sump 0.20 Fines 0.73 Upper Containment 0.27 0.30 Retained on 1.00 Structures Transport 0.19 Washed Down to Sdm RCS Loop Bays 1.00 (0.27-0.70) 1.00 0.46 Transport Washed Down to 0.00 Annulus Sediment (0.65-0.70) 1.00 0.06 Transport Washed Down to 0.00 Refueling Canal Sediment (0.08-0.70) 1.00 0.067 0.009 0.028 0,036 0.67 Active Pool 0.18 Transport 0.00 Sediment LDFG Debris Generation Figure 3.e.1.1 Combined fiberglass Lower Containment 0.59 Upper Containment 0.41 Sump Strainers 0.15 Inactive Cavities 0.010 0.00 0.000 SErodes to Fines 0.30 Retained on Structures 1.00 Remains intact 1.00 0.057 0.12 Transport 0.10 0.000 Washed Down to 0.00 Erodes to Fines RCS Loop Bays Sediment (0.17-0.70) 0.90 Remains intact 1.00 0.217 0.46 Transport 0.10 0.000 Washed Down to 0.00 Erodes to Fines Annulus Sediment (0.65-0.70) 0.90 Remains intact 0.80 Small Pieces 1.00 0.028 0.06 Transport 0.10 0.000 Washed Down to 0.00 1Erodes to Fines Refueling Canal Sediment (0.08-0.70) 0.90 Remains intact 1.00 0,279 logic trees with alternate BWROG washdown transport fractions Transport 0.85 Active Pool 0.00 Sediment 0.00 0.10 0.000 Erodes to Fines 0.90 Remains intact 0.000 Lower Containment Sump Strainers 0.15 Inactive Pool Total = 0.731 ENR-2007-002743-20-02 Attachment E Page 34 of49 Figure 3.e.1.1-6 Combined fiberglass logic trees with alternate BWROG washdown transport fractions Debris Size 0.20 Fines LDFG Debris Generation O.SO Small I

Pieces I

Blowdown Transport 0.73 Upper Containment 0.27 Lower Containment 0.59 Upper Containment 0.41 Lower Containment Washdown Transport 0.30 Retained on Structures I

0.19 Washed Down to I I RCS Loop Bays (0.27'0.70) 0.46 Washed Down to Annulus (0.65"0.70) 0.06 Washed Down to Refueling Canal (0.OS"0.70) 0.30 Retained on Structures 0.12 Washed Down to RCS Loop Bays (0.17'0.70) 0.46 Washed Down to Annulus (0.65"0.70) 0.06 Washed Down to Refuelin Canal g

(0.OS"0.70)

I I

Pool Fill Transport 0.67 Active Pool 0.1S Sump Strainers 0.15 Inactive Cavities 0.S5 Active Pool 0.00 Sump Strainers 0.15 Inactive Pool I

I I

CFD Recirculation Transport 1.00 Transport 0.00 Sediment 1.00 Transport 0.00 Sediment 1.00 Transport 0.00 Sediment 1.00

[

Transport 0.00 Sediment I

1.00 I

Transport I

0.00 I

Sediment i

1.00 I

Transport 0.00 Sediment 1.00 I

Transport I

0.00 Sediment 1.00 Transport 0.00 Sediment Erosion i Fraction of Debris i

at Sump 0.028 0.067 0.009 0,036 0.010 0.00 0.000 Erodes to Fines 1.00 Remains intact 0.057 0.10 0.000 Erodes to Fines 0.90 Remains intact 0.217 0.10 0.000 Erodes to Fines 0.90 Remains intact 0.028 0.10 0.000 Erodes to Fines 0.90 Remains intact 0.279 0.10 0.000 Erodes to Fines 0.90 Remains intact 0.000 Total = 0.731 ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment E Page 35 of 49 Initial distribution for small and large piece debris not blown to upper containment 5,932 fte Figure 3.e. 1.1 Distribution of small and large piece debris not blown to upper containment ENR-2007-002743-20-02 Attachment E Page 35 of 49 Initial distribution for small and large piece debris not blown to upper containment S,932 tr Figure 3.e.1.1 Distribution of small and large piece debris not blown to upper containment ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment E Page 36 of 49 Initial distribution for smnal and large piece debris not blown to upper containment 3,644 "t2 Figure 3.e.1.1 Distribution of small and large piece debris not blown to upper containment ENR-2007-002743-20-02 Attachment E Page 36 of 49 Initial distribution for small and large piece debris not blown to upper containment 3,644 ft2 Figure 3.e.1.1 Distribution of small and large piece debris not blown to upper containment ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment E Page 37 of 49 Initial distribution for debns washed down refueling canal drains Initial distribution for debris washed down outside secondary shield wall 6,367 t Initial distribution for debris washed down Inside RC$ loop bays 2,311 W Figure 3.e. 1.1 Distribution of debris washed down from upper containment ENR-2007-002743-20-02 Attachment E Page 37 of49

'ridal distribution for debris washed down refueling canal drains Inltl aI dlstrlbutl on for debris washed down outside secondary shieldwaJl 6,367 ft2 Initial distribution fOf" debris washed down Inside ReS loop bays 2,311 ft2 Figure 3.e.1.1 Distribution of debris washed down from upper containment ENR -2007 -0027 4 3 02

Attachment E Page 38 of 49 Figure 3.e.1.2-1 Northwest isometric view lower containment CAD model ENR-2007-002743-20-02 Attachment E Page 38 of49 Figure 3.e.1.2-1 Northwest isometric view lower containment CAD model ENR -2007 -0027 4 3-20-02

Attachment E Page 39 of 49 Case 2: Loop 2 Break

~

Case 6: MSLB In

,,Coolina Unit Area Case 4b: Loop 4 Cold Leg Break Case 4a: Loop 4 Crossover Leg g Break Case 4c: Loop 4 Hot Leg Break Case 4d: Loop 4 Surge Line Break Case 8:

Letdown Line Break r Case lb: Loop I Cold Leg Break Case la: Loop I Crossover Leg Break 4

1 Case 7: SG Case 5: MSLB in Blowdown Line Penetration Area Break Figure 3.e.1.2-2 Postulated Break Locations ENR-2007-002743-20-02 Attachment E Page 39 of49 Case 3: Loop 3 Break Case 4b: Loop 4 Cold Leg Break Case 4a: Loop 4' Crossover Leg Break Case 4c: Loop 4 Hot Leg Break Case 4d: Loop 4 Surge Line Break Case9: FWLB in Loop4 Case 5: MSLB in Penetration Area Case 2: Loop 2 Break Case 6: MSLB in Cooling Unit Area Case 8:

Letdown Line Break Case 1 b: Loop 1 I.

Cold Leg Break Case 1 a: Loop 1 Crossover Leg Break Case 1 c: Loop 1 Hot Leg Break Case 7: SG Blowdown Line Break Figure 3.e.1.2-2 Postulated Break Locations ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment E Page 40 of 49 Modeled Perimeter Modeled Equipment Drain Spray Drainage Modeled East G"

/

Refueling Canal Drai 2 $..

//fi Modeled 4" Refueling Canal Drains Modeled WestV6" Refueling Canal Drair4\\

Modeled Floor Drain Spray Drainage Case 4: Modeled Break \\1\\

Location Modeed umpModeled Sump Modeled Sm ri Train B Train A Modeled Region D Modeled Hydrogen Spray Flow on Sump VentFlow on Sump Train A Train B Figure 3.e.1.2-3 Diagram of significant features modeled ENR-2007-002743-20-02 Attachment E Page 40 of49 Modeled Perimeter A Region 1 Spray Drainage /;~

Modeled Equipment Drain Spray Drainage Modeled East 6"

/

Refueling Canal Orai /,

Modeled 4" Refueling ll-J.--i----1=~:u Canal Drains Modeled West6" Refueling Canal Orai Modeled Floor Drain Spray Drainage Case 4: Modeled Break Location Modeled Sump Train B Modeled Hydrogen Vent Flow on Sump Train B Modeled Perimeter Region 2 Spray ralnage Case2: Modeled Break Location Modeled Modeled Perimeter Region 3 Spray Drainage

"'='--\\'r Modeled SE Stair Spray Drainage I;---f--H_' Modeled H2 Vent Spray Flow Modeled Region 0 Spray Flow Modeled Sump Train A Modeled Region 0 Spray Flow on Sum p Train A Figure 3.e.1.2-3 Diagram of significant features modeled ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment E Page 41 of 49 Figure 3.e.1.2-4 Illustration of distinct floor levels ENR-2007-002743-20-02 Attachment E Page 41 of 49 Figure 3.e.1.2-4 Illustration of distinct floor levels ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment E Page 42 of 49 Refueling cavity drains

,, Equipment hatch L

drain area Inactive sump Figure 3.e.1.2-5 Streamlines showing water origination areas for each sump (Loop 4 LBLOCA, two trains)

ENR-2007-002743-20-02 Attachment E Page 42 of49 Refueling cavity drains Equipment hatch drain area Figure 3.e.1.2-5 Streamlines showing water origination areas for each sump (Loop 4 LBLOCA, two trains)

Inactive sump ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment E Page 43 of 49 Velocity (ift/s)

• 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 LOJ00 Figure 3.e.1.2-6 Vectors showing pool flow direction (Loop 4 LBLOCA Single Train Sump A)

ENR-2007-002743-20-02 Attachment E Page 430[49 UOII_Vi!ctors_over_combined bmp 200i* 10*~ 5 CPSES C as~ 4*EF Velocity (ft/s) 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 Figure 3.e.1.2-6 Vectors showing pool flow direction (Loop 4 LBLOCA Single Train Sump A)

ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment E Page 44 of 49 Figure 3.e.1.2-7 Loop 4 LBLOCA Single Train Sump B ENR-2007-002743-20-02 Attachment E Page 44 of49 unit_vectors_over_combined.bmp 2007-1 O-::~3 CPSES Case 4-EF-6 Figure 3.e.1.2-7 Loop 4 LBLOCA Single Train Sump B ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment E Page 45 of 49

/

Figure 3.e.1.2-8 Loop 4 LBLOCA Single Train Sump A ENR-2007-002743-20-02 Attachment E Page 45 of 49 uniCvectors_over_combined.bmp 2007-10-25 CPSES Case 4-EF Figure 3.e.1.2-8 Loop 4 LBLOCA Single Train Sump A ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment E Page 46 of 49 Figure 3.f-1 Cutting Planes for Test Flume Modeling ENR-2007-002743-20-02 Attachment E Page 46 of49 North Approach 1 to 30 Figure 3.f-1 Cutting Planes for Test Flume Modeling ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment E Page 47 of 49 Figure 3.f-2 Cutting Planes for Test Flume Modeling ENR-2007-002743-20-02 Attachment E Page 47 of 49 Sump A South pproach Planes 1 to 1

Plane 21

(

Figure 3.f-2 Cutting Planes for Test Flume Modeling ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment E Page 48 of 49 Figure 3.f-3 Prepared Large LDFG (Nukon) - Dry ENR-2007-002743-20-02 Attachment E Page 48 of 49 Figure 3.f-3 Prepared Large LDFG (Nukon) - Dry ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment E Page 49 of 49r L

Figure 3.f-4 Prepared Large LDFG (Nukon) - Wet ENIR-2007-002743-20-02 Attachment E Page 49 of 49 Figure 3.f-4 Prepared Large LDFG (Nukon) - Wet ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment F Page 1 of 24 NRC Public Meeting 7/9/2009 7-

/

L,

/*J; ENR-2007-002743-20-02

• • • • --**-----.. 1

\\.

i*

i I

i I

I I

L J

I NRC Public Meeting 7/9/2009 ALDEN*'*

Solving flow protllerris since 1894 ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment F Page 2 of 24 Recla~p

'0 of~i * -- 1

" Turbulence and flow are related Literature treats suspension in terms of shear velocity Literature would indicate that at most pieces smaller than 1"x1" could transport. All others cannot.

Experimental values for TKE required for suspension are much higher-than analytical values.

" TKE comparison between flume and containment Containment point sources of turbulence lead to higher levels of TKE in containment vs. flume Containment TKE levels were reported on the flume approach, not the prototypical approach path.

Turbulent kinetic energy levels are low relative to what can reasonably expected to affect transport.

0 Random velocity fluctuations are small relative to mean.

ENR-2007-002743-20-02 r-----

I

j.

"-~-----l I

t

• Turbulence and flow are related Literature treats suspension in terms of shear velocity Literature-would indicate that at most pieces smaller than 1 "x1" could transport. All others cannot.

Experimental values for TKE required for suspension are much higher-than analytical values.

J

'. TKE comparison between flume and containment i

I

~/..-'~

/1' i

t I' ("\\

\\.

. /

Containment point sources of turbulence lead to higher levels of TKE in containment vs.flume Containment TKE levelS were reported on the flume approach, not the prototypical approach path.

Turbulent kinetic energy levels are low relative to what can reasonably expected to affect transport.

• Random velocity fluctuations are small relative to mean.

ALDEN

---~ ':'."

_ " -Solvin!fflow problems since 1894'

--. -~.. -" -

_ - _ =- >.-.,

ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment F Page 3 of 24 Containment Turbulent Kinetic Energy One Train Operation (A) 3 ft Above Floor Start of Approach FLUME APPROACH #2 TKE (ft2/s 2X 0.050 0.040 0.030 0.020 i0.010 0.000 Start of Approach FLUME APPROACH #1 End of Approach 44 ft diameter circles centered on array of strainers.

ENR-2007-002743-20-02 ALDEN 3 ft Above Floor Start of Approach FLUME APPROACH #2 TKE (ft2/s2 0.050 0.040 0.030 0.020 0.010 0.000 Solving flow problems since 1894 Containment Turbulent Kinetic Energy One Train Operation (A)

End of Approach Start of Approach FLUME APPROACH #1 End of Approach

~ 44 ft diameter circles

~

centered on array of strainers.

ENR -2007 -002 743 02

Attachment F Page 4 of4 Prototypical single strainer approach 1 Look at four approaches to central strainers ENR-2007-002743-20-02 Prototypical single strainer approac

• Look at four approaches to central strainers ALDEN Solving flow problems since 1894 ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment F Page 5 of 24 Turbulence Approach TKE Typical approach turbulence velocity is slightly lower 0.16 x

cc

.0 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 E Single Train Sump A

• Single Train Sump A X Flume (effective)

• _._.... - r -

• -.W x

U Ex.

-W 0.04 X

X xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 0.02 0i 0

5 10 15 20 25 1-ft increments back from Strainer Module / Test Strainer ENR-2007-002743-20-02 Turbulence Approach TKE

• Typical approach turbulence velocity is slightly lower 0.16 x

0.14 0.12

• Single Train Sump A

• Single Train Sump A VI

~

a:

0.1 X Flume (effective)

'0 0

Qj 0.08 c:

CII "3

.c 0.06

~

I

~

X

• x

• II

.~....

0.04 X

XXxXXXXXXXXXXXXX 0.02 o

o 5

10 15 20 25 1-ft increments back from Strainer Module / Test Strainer ALDEN Solving flow problems since 1894 ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment F Page 6 of 24 Typical Approach Velocity

• Flume approach is VERY conservative relative to containment IA 0

0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

1111111100 I

"rnI n

rnnr p~ fr r

+II~r S-Single Train Sump A Approach Avg

-M

,w i

0 5

10 15 20 25 Distance (ft)

ENR-2007-002743-20-02 ALDEN Typical Approach Velocity

• Flume approach is VERY conservative relative to containment 0.7 0.6 0.5 ~o::-----I---l -

Flume Approach Velocity u

cu en

........ 0.4

~

1------- Single Train Sump AApproach Avg

.... *u

.2 0.3 cu > 0.2 0.1 0

0 5

10 15 20 25 Distance (ft)

Solving flow problems since 1894 ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment F Page 7 of 24 Conclusiob.ns C

• Flume turbulence is lower Importance is very questionable Magnitudes of random velocity fluctuations are low relative to mean

• The key to transport is BULK VELOCITY Flume velocity is DOUBLE relative to typical containment approach velocity for singletrain sump A operation.

-i-7 ALDE ENR-2007-002743 02

• Flume turbulence is lower

,;PC Importance is very questionable Magnitudes of random velocity fluctuations are low relative to mean

, Ii.

The key to transport is BULK VELOCITY i

I L.

. ___________...... ___.J r

Flume velocity is DOUBLE relative to typical containment approach velocity for singl~/ train sump A operation.

ALDEN -- -,

_ _ Solving 'flow problems since 1894

-- - - '~~:"

ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment F Page 8 of 24 General Overview I

L1

• Discussion of conservative representation of containment approach velocities in test flume

• Discussion of relevant physics of turbulence Role of turbulence in debris suspension 9 NEI 04/07 9 Open Literature

• Overview of CFD predicted containment turbulence

• Overview of CFD predicted flume turbulence

• Discussion ENR-2007-002743-20-02 i

___________ ----1 i

\\'

General Overview

• Discussion of conservative representation of containment approach velocities in test flume

• Discussion of relevant physics of turbulence Role of turbulence in debris suspension

• NEI04/07

• Open Literature

• Overview of CFD predicted containment turbulence

• Overview of CFD predicted flume turbulence

• Discussion ALDEN

-~ --..--

_ ~

Solving -flow problems since 1894.. -

ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment F Page 9 of 24 RAI lO& 11 Are flume flow turbulence conditions prototypical of conditions in containment ?

-~1

• Are point sources of turbulence near modeled areas of containment accounted for in the flume ?

ALDE

• Sovn flo proles sic 1

ENR-2007-002743-20-02

\\.

RAI: 1:0 & 1:1)

• Are flume flow turbulence conditions prototypical of conditions in containment?

1--

--" --, ------1 I,

I. Are point sources of turbulence near modeled areas of containment accounted for in the flume?

i I

I I

I I

L

~ __, ______ ~ _~ ___ J

--'./:~Y

<::e:~

ALDEN

,~

- Solving flow problems since 1894 ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment F Page 10 of 24 Containment Average Approach Velocity Representation in Test Flume At each 1 ft increment back from each strainer array along the water approach path to the strainers, calculate the weighted average of the velocity along a vertical plane:

L N The weighted average at each increment is weighted by twice the fastest velocity at the increment under consideration.

Low velocities in wake regions behind obstacles were ignored Only velocity vectors pointing towards the strainer array were considered Low velocities in the near wall regions were ignored ENR-2007-002743-20-02 i

j'--'--

'. ---.---.. - '-'---1 I

I C~~'".

,t-j'

"~ _...,

. '. \\.

Containment Average Approach Velocity

. Representation in Test Flume

• At each 1 ft increment back from each strainer array along the water approach path to the strainers, calculate the weighted average of the velocity along a vertical plane:

The weighted average at each increment is weighted by twice the fastest velocity at the increment under consideration.

Low velocities in wake regions behind obstacles were ignored Only velocity vectors pointing towards the strainer array were considered Low velocities in the near wall regions were ignored ALDEN.. *

'-.'.~' --.

. -Solvin~rtlow problem'i"since 1894

"'". _'.'.'_:' ~ --. '.".'

ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment F Page I11 of 24 Physics of Turbulence Turbulent vs. Laminar Flow Turbulent (Re > 2000) vs. Laminar Flow (Re < 2000)

Re = URh/v > 2000 for open channel flow [1]

• U

= Characteristic Velocity Rh

= Characteristic Length Scale = Hydraulic Radius v

=Kinematic Viscosity

-. Calculation for Containment and Flume Flume Containment Min Max Min Max Velocity (ft/sec) 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 Width (ft) 0.3 0.45 Depth (ft) 4.17 4.17 Kinematic viscosity (ftA2/sec) 8E-06 3E-06 Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.14 I0.21 4.17 Re 7240 13343 556000 695000

==

Conclusion:==

Flow in Flume is Turbulent

[1 Flo thog opncanls,-,KG..

c rw-il 91 ALDE Soligfo prblm sic 1894 ENR-2007-002743-20-02 I

Physics of Turbulence Turbulent vs. Laminar Flow

• Turbulent (Re > 2000) VS. Laminar Flow (Re < 2000)

Re = URh/v > 2000 for open channel flow [1]

• U

= Characteristic Velocity

• Rh

= Characteristic Length Scale = Hydraulic Radius v

= Kinematic Viscosity Calculation for Containment and Flume L __.~ _______._" _____.,

Flume Containment Min Max Min Max Velocity (ft/secl 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 Width (ftl 0.3 0.45 Depth (ftl 4.17 4.17 Kinematic viscosity (ftJ\\2/secl BE-06 3E-06 Hydraulic Radius (ftl 0.14 v 0.21 4.17

\\

Re 7240 13343

.556000 695000

==

Conclusion:==

Flow in Flume is Turbulent A L DEN

_ _ [1] "Flow through open channels", RaJu, K G.R, McGraw-Hili, 1981, Solving-flow proble-ms since 1894

~

ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment F Page 12 of 24 Physics of Turbulence "Magnitude" of Turbulence Turbulence Level is a function of Shear Velocity [2]

i L

J !

By Definition [2]: U*

S8 f - Darcy-Weisbach friction factor u*- shear velocity Magnitude of Turbulent Velocity Fluctuation:

u' = u* (2.3 exp (-y/h)) for y/h < 0.1 [3]

u' = u* (1.27 exp (-y/h)) for y/h => 0.1 [3]

Where:

u' = Turbulent Fluctuating Velocity u* = Shear velocity y

= Vertical Length Scale h = Depth of Flow Note:

fcontainment" fflume Ycontainment = Yflurme and hcontainment = hflume

° Expected flow turbulence levels in the flume due to flowing water are of the same order as containment A L E

[3 Neu I an Azra R.

'Truec Chrceitc an Ineacto bewe Patce ENR-2007-002743 02

---*-------1 I

i L ___. _______. ____.J 1-*-.... ).

._-c fc;. '"\\

'~ \\

Physics of Turbulence "Magnitude" of Turbulence Turbulence Level is a function of Shear Velocity [2]

f - Darcy-Weisbach friction factor F¥ 0 U2 By Definition [2]: U =

8 u*- shear velocity Magnitude of Turbulent Velocity Fluctuation:

u' = u* ( 2.3 exp (-y/h) ) for y/h < 0.1 [3]

u' = u* ( 1.27 exp (-y/h) ) for y/h => 0.1 [3]

Note:

Where:

u' = Turbulent Fluctuating Velocity u* = Shear velocity y = Vertical Length Scale h = Depth of Flow fcontainment -

fflume Y containment = Yflume and hcontainment = hflume

• Expected flow turbulence levels in the flume due to flowing water are of the same order as containment

[2] The Hydraulics of Open Channel Flow. Chanson, H., Arnold, 1999.

A L DEN

[3] ~ezu, I and Azuma, R, 'Turbulence Charactenstics and Interaction betw~en Particles and Fluid in Particle-Laden Open Channel Flows", Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,

-Solvingllow*problems since 1894 c

~ __

.?ctober~OQ4.

ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment F Page 13 of 24 Role of Turbulence in Suspension 9 Turbulence studies have shown that the fluid shear velocity is directly related to turbulence level [3]

• Onset of debris suspension is expected to occur when the magnitude of the turbulent velocity fluctuation is greater by some margin than the settling velocity of the debris as defined by the following expression:

> critical value WO wo - settling velocity N

/

Open literature brackets the range of critical values: 0.2 to 2.0 [2]

Minimum Shear velocity, U* (Flume and Containment) - 0.031 ft/s Range of settling velocity susceptible to suspension:

• Material with settling velocity < 0.15 ft/sec (c.v. = 0.2)

• Material with settling velocity < 0.06 ft/sec (c.v. = 2)

ENR-2007-002743-20-02 1-

.. -...---------1 I',

1

. 'I I

i J

f

, __. _____._ -.:~ __ - I I.

'::'-..J.v"

-;~~~

.-.* ;f

',J

\\

Role of Turbulence in Suspension

• Turbulence studies have shown that the fluid shear velocity is directly related to turbulence level [3]

Onset of debris suspension is expected to occur when the magnitude of the turbulent velocity fluctuation is greater by some margin than the settling velocity of the debris as defined by the following expression:

~

> critical value Wo Wo - settling velocity Open literature brackets the range of critical values: 0.2 to 2.0 [2]

Minimum Shear velocity, U*(Flume and Containment) = 0.031 ftls Range of settling velocity susceptible to suspension:

• Material with settling velocity < 0.15 ftlsec (c.v. = 0.2)

• Material with settling velocity < 0.06 ft/sec (c.v. = 2)

ALDEN

" ',Solving 'flow problemssi'nce 1894 ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment F Page 14 of 24 Role of Turbulence in Suspension 6°

• Table 4-2, NEI 04/07 Only loose fibers easily suspended by turbulence (w0<O. 15 ft/s)

Only 1/4" x 1/4" clump turbulence requirements verified experimentally (Analytical TKE levels questionable as indicated in SER)

Experimental value tends much higher than analytical value Termninl TKE Settling Required to Density Velocity

. Suspend Debris Category/Type Size (Ibinlft3)

(fWsec)

(ft /sec)

A. Fibrous Insulation

1. Fiberglass - Generic

2. Fiberglass -

a. 6"

a. 2.4

a. 0.41

a. 0.084 Nsikon

b. 4"

b. 2.4

b. 0.40

b. 0,080

,c. 1"

c. 2.4

c. 0.15 C. 0.011

d. 1/4"x

d. 2.4

d. 0.175

d. 0.14 1/4" Clumps

'e 175

e. 0.008

e. 3E-05

e. loose fibers ENR-2007-002743-20-02 r-------

I 1-

---

l Role of Turbulence in Suspension Table 4-2, NEI 04/07 Only loose fibers easily suspended by turbulence (wo <0.15 ft/s)

Only %" x %" clump turbulence requirements verified experimentally (Analytical TKE levels questionable as indicated in SER)

Experimental value tends much higher than analytical value

\\

De-bl"is Ca'('gol~'/Typ('

A. Fibl'ous Insulation

1. Fiberglass - Generic

2. Fibergl~ss -

Nukoll Size 11_ 6"

b. 4"

c. 1"

d. 1/4"x 1/4" clumps

e. loose fibers Minimum THmllllll TKE Settling Rl'qllil'ed 10 Densit,*

Velocit~-

SIl~pelld (lbIB/C'~)

(C,/sl'e)

(C':/5('c 2)

II. 2.4 II. 0.41

a. 0.084

b. 2.4 b.O.40

b. 0.080

c. 2.4

c. O.IS

c. 0.011

d. 2.4

d. O.liS

d. 0.14 e.1iS

e. 0.008

e. 3E-05 ALDEN

_,,' Solvirigllow -problems since 189*:f --'-

-~ --

.... ~. '-.-__ ',

_~:-

ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment F Page 15 of 24 Containment Turbulent Kinetic Energy Two Train Operation 0.5 ft Above Floor Start of Approach APPROACH #2 F Start of Approach APPROACH #1 End of Approach End of Approach 44 ft diameter circles centered on array of strainers.

ALDE ENR-2007-002743-20-02 ALDEN Containment Turbulent Kinetic Energy Two Train Operation 0.5 ft Above Floor Start of Approach APPROACH #2 TKE (ft2/S2) 0.050 0.040 0.030 0.020 0.010 0.000 End of Approach Start of Approach APPROACH #1 End of Approach

___ ~ _______ ~ 44 ft diameter circles

~

centered on array of strainers.

Solving flow problems since 1894 ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment F Page 16 of 24 Containment Turbulent Kinetic Energy Two Train Operation 3 ft Above Floor Start of Approach APPROACH #2

' Start of Approach APPROACH #1 I

End of Approach 44 ft diameter circles centered on array of strainers.

ENR,-2007-002743-20-02 ALDEN Containment Turbulent Kinetic Energy Two Train Operation 3 ft Above Floor Start of Approach TKE 0.050 0.040 0.030 0.020 0.010 0.000 End of Approach Start of Approach APPROACH #1 End of Approach

~ 44 ft diameter circles

---

~

centered on array of strainers.

Solving flow problems since 1894 ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment F Page 17 of 24 Containment Turbulent Kinetic Energy One Train Operation (A) 0.5 ft Above Floor Start of Approach APPROACH #2 Start of Approach APPROACH #1 End of Approach 44 ft diameter circles centered on array of strainers.

TKE gT2/s2) 0 040 o 030 0,o020 U00108 ENR-2007-002 743-20-02 ALDEN Containment Turbulent Kinetic Energy One Train Operation (A) 0.5 ft Above Floor Start of Approach APPROACH #2 TKE (ft2/s2),

O.OSO 0.040 0.030 0.020 0.010 0.0:10 End of Approach Start of Approach APPROACH #1 End of Approach

~ 44 ft diameter circles

~

centered on array of strainers.

Solving flow problems since 1894 ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment F Page 18 of 24 Containment Turbulent Kinetic Energy One Train Operation (A) 3 ft Above Floor APPROACH #2 Start of Approach TKE (ft2/s2),

• 00050 0.040 0.030 0.020 U0.000 F

Start of Approach APPROACH #1 End of Anoroach 44 ft diameter circles centered on array of strainers.

ENR-2007-002743-20-02 ALDEN 3 ft Above Floor APPROACH #2 Start of Approach TKE (ft2/S2),

0.050 0.040 0.030 0.020 0.010 0.000 Solving flow problems since 1894

--- ~---------------------

Containment Turbulent Kinetic Energy One Train Operation (A)

End of Approach Start of Approach APPROACH #1 End of Approach

~ 44 ft diameter circles

~

centered on array of strainers.

ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment F Page 19 of 24 Test Flume Turbulent Kinetic Energy CFD Geometry Curb Test Module

/

Inflow Pipe ENR-2007-002743-20-02 Inflow Pipe tALDEN I

Solving flow problems since 1894 Test Flume Turbulent Kinetic Energy CFD Geometry Test Module ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment F Page 20 of 24 I

Test Flume Turbulent Kinetic Energy 0.5 ft above floor Ii

• .lh*,0J8

!.l*-,

3 ft above floor 231e-13 3A6~'U3 4.52u-13 1

S.fD31.92e-03 5.36.-f 9.230-03 1.US.-02 ENR-2007-002743-20-02 Test Flume Turbulent Kinetic Energy 0.5 ft above floor O.Ue.. n Z.3le-Q3 8.920-03 8.08e-03 9.23111-0l l.aOe-02 3 ft above floor ALDEN Solving flow problems since 1894 ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment F Page 21 of 24 Turbulent Kinetic Energy Profiles Area averaged quantities for planes back from sump I strainer 0.035000 x

0.030000 E Two Train Sump A Two Train Sump B 0.025000 3

mm

• Single Train Sump A X Flume S0.020000u m

0.010000 0.005000

!+

xx XXXXxxx xxxXXx 0.000000 0

5 10 15 20 25 1-ft increments back from Strainer Module / Test Strainer ALDEN ENR-2007-002743-20-02 ALDEN Turbulent Kinetic Energy Profiles

• Area averaged quantities for planes back from sump / strainer 0.035000 X

0.030000 * ***

• Two Train Sump A 0.025000 Two Train Sump B

• Single Train Sump A N

X Flume 0.020000 N

E.

UI 0.015000

~

X 0.010000 0.005000

i(;~)l 0.000000 0

5 10 15 20 25 1-ft increments back from Strainer Module I Test Strainer Solving flow problems since 1894 ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment F Page 22 of 24 Summary of Comparison C,

-C,

• Flume turbulence levels on par with Approach #2 to strainers in containment for both one and two train operation.

• For one train operation, turbulence level in the flume is on the order of that in the plant over most of Approach #1.

• The flume turbulence level near the test strainer is similar to the higher turbulence in the field at the upstream end of the array.

" For areas where flume turbulence is lower than containment:

Greatest part of turbulent kinetic energy is below estimated required level for suspension of 1" smalls based on settling velocities Fines are suspended by both flume and containment turbulence levels Debris > 4" is not able to be suspended by either containment or flume turbulence levels

--- C, 2/

ENR,-2007-002743 02 o

Summary of Comparison

• Flume turbulence levels on par with Approach #2 to strainers in containment for both one and two train operation.

• For one train operation, turbulence level in the flume is on the order of that in the plant over most of Approach #1.

---

1

• The flume turbulence level near the test strainer is similar to r----.

I I'

r,

• I

(",

I l __________

~.

~_. ___ _

r--............

! L '\\,

\\

l...,

.~ *

/.~)

~:~~-..

/,:","")/

-,,/

),

i :

the higher turbulence in the field at the upstream end of the array.

• . For areas where flume turbulence is lower than containment:

Greatest part of turbulent kinetic energy is below estimated required level for suspension of 1" smalls based on settling velocities Fines are suspended by both flume and containment turbulence levels Debris> 4" is not able to be suspended by either containment or flume turbulence levels ALDEN*

_.Solving-flowproblemssincef894---*~------*-:"~.:..

~

. ______.. -._~. -_-..

ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment F Page 23 of 24 Summary of Comparison (cont'd)

Settling velocity is -proportional to the inverse of viscosity Between flume (120F) and containment (-200F) viscosity is half Effective turbulence level in the flume is double due to lower settling velocity in flume

'IV ENR-2007-002743-20-02 i--

I I I

i

\\-

-~ --~-.- - -----_. -

J

-~'-.

.( :7

-:::~~~

r' Summary of Comparison (cont'd)

Settling velocity is 'proportional to the inverse of viscosity

• Between flume (120F) and containment (-200F) viscosity is half Effective turbulence level in the flume is double due to lower settling velocity in flume ALDEN

• Solving flow problems since 1894 ENR-2007-002743-20-02

Attachment F Page 24 of 24 RAI Response, Summary Flume flow conditions are turbulent and are representative of flow generated turbulence.

Turbulence levels observed are in general not sufficient to keep smalls above 1" suspended in containment or flume.

• Near strainer turbulence levels are higher in the flume compared to containment calculated values.

" Point sources of turbulence from jetting located further away from the strainers are not modeled in the flume.

However, blocking of debris by the flow structures existing in this area is also not considered.

Point sources of turbulence are generally located outside the mean radius of travel modeled in the flume.

F->

ENR-2007-002743-20-02 R* *"AI: *R** jes'po' n' *s*e*. S~* "U' *m** (m r 'a' 'ry(' ;

t

~.

f'

,i' f

)" -

j: i

! 1 1.-

i J

Y

_/

i

_,.~

_:/..-

.'..*..1

.1 i

.. !V

• Flume flow conditions are turbulent and are

~

representative of flow generated turbulence.

~<'

Turbulence levels observed are in general not sufficient to keep smalls above 1 " suspended in containment or r-'--

-..,.------1 fl u me.

)0 I

\\'

I,'

Near strainer turbulence levels are higher in the flume

- -"~,

I i

compared to containment calculated values.

L. ----;:=l--r=-~_~-~J. Point sources of turbulence from jetting located further J/

,~:.

~-..,

r /<' -" '" '.

away from the strainers are not modeled in the flume.

However, blocking of debris by the flow structures existing in this area is also not considered.

• Point sources of turbulence are generally located outside the mean radius of travel modeled in the flume.

ALDEN

,~--

-~-

~

, -Solving flow problems since fS94

_ ~

ENR-2007-002743-20-02