ML20067A072

Forwards Summary of 820915 Meeting W/Nrc in Bethesda,Md Re Thermal Margin Beyond Design Basis.Meeting Agenda,Viewgraphs & Attendance List Encl

ML20067A072
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	11/12/1982
From:	Longenecker J ENERGY, DEPT. OF, CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PLANT
To:	Check P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
HQ:S:82:123, NUDOCS 8212010161
Download: ML20067A072 (140)

Text

i e

Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20545 Docket No. 50-537 HQ:S:82:123 Nov i ^ 1982 Mr. Paul S. Check, Director CRBR Program Office Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cormnasion Washington, D.C. 20555

SUMMARY

OF THE SEPTEMBER 15, 1982, MEETING CN THERMAL, MARGIN BEYOND THE DESIGN BASE (TMBDB) /

On September 15, 1982, the project and the NRC ;aet to discuss selected topics on TMBDB. Enclosure 1 is a summary of the meeting, Enclosure 2 is the meeting agenda, Enclosure 3 includes the view-graphs used, and Enclosure 4 lists the meeting attendees.

Sincerely, D

JodnR.Lont;ene er Acting Director, Office of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant Project Office of Nuclear Energy l 4 Enclosures 1

1 Q00 f r

' / YD 8212010161 821112 DR ADOCK 05000537 PDR

Enclosure 1 TMBDB HEETING

SUMMARY

On September 15, 1582 the Project and NRC met toAdiscuss the copy of the egonda topics In Erclosure 2 concerning TMBDB.

vicwgraphs presented are in Enclosure 3 and the attendees are listed in Enclosure 4.

The Project's presentation of two sensitivity studies These two of sodlum-studles we concrete penetration rates,was presented.and a " Realistic Upper Bound Case."ge o " Margin Assessment Case" The " margin assessment case" Is an artifically contrived case to I bound all existing data on sodium-concrete testing and toThe dotermine the margin In the existing design f or TMBDB.

analysis of this artificial case results in a need to vent the containment buil ding at 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> anc Indicates a need f or minor redesign in the reactor cavity.

The analysis of the " Realistic Upper Bound Case" results in a need to vent the containment at 22 hours2.546296e-4 days <br />0.00611 hours <br />3.637566e-5 weeks <br />8.371e-6 months <br /> with no redesign needed.

Also, the Project presented results to NRC that the vent lines from the RCB to the contatnment-cleanup system may need to be increased to 3 f eet diameter f rom 2 feet diameter to prevent plugging from the sodlum aerosols during venting.

During the meeting the Project accepted the tollowing action items in response to NRC questions:

(1) Provide a reference for sodlum aerosols not being transported thru the sodlum pool to the RC vents.

l (2) Evaluate the effects of nonaxisymmetric convection I

currents on the containment shell Integrity.

(3) Provide information on the location of the purge and vent lines and evaluate the possibility of short j

circuiting.

(4) Provide the ref erence of the Hydrogen Non-Strati f ication tests at HEDL.

I (5) Forward to NRC a date by which the test results on the Hydrogen Monitor Fil ter will be avail abl e.

(6) Docket the " Margin Assessment Case" In TMBDB fa the near future.

I 7"/hr for 3 hrs then 1"/hr until Sodlum Bolidry 2 7"/hr for 20 mlutes then 1"/hr until Sodlum Bolidry

8

• ,,e...

e e

O ENCLOSURE 2 9

l l

i I

?

i i

l s

b . - _ _ . _ __.

BRIEFING ON CRBRP 1 -l THERMAL MARGINS BEYOND THE DESIGN BASIS . .

.1

i FOR THE -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-CRBRP PROGRAM OFFICE

'BETHESDA, MARYLAND '

SEPTEMBER 15,1982

- AGENDA

~

N.KAUSHAL o INTRODUCTION .

o DISCUSSION OF'OPEN ISSUES

- DESIGN MARGINS TO ACCOMMODATE EXTREME SODIUM-CONCRETE PENETRATIONS DURING TMBDB

SUMMARY

REVIEW OF TMBDB ANALYSES VlS A VIS SODIUM- '

CONCRETE REACTION '

• ASSESSMENT OF STRUCTURAL CAPABILITY FOR THE EXTREME G. FRESKAKIS PENETRATION CASE -

- CONTAINMENT EFFECTS DURING RC /ENTING TO RCB T. BALL .l

• POTENTIAL FOR PLUGGING DURING RC VENTING TO RCB T. BALL

• ASYMMETRY EFFECTS OF SODIUM BURNING '

T. BALL .l

• BASIS FOR NON-STRATIFICATION OF HYDROGEN T. BALL

• HYDROGEN AUTO-lGNITION CRITERIA 'J. GROSS

• SODIUM AEROSOL DEPLETION CALCULATIONS M. McKEOWN ,

• SURVIVABILITY OF TMBDB INSTRUMENTATION n ... ,

BRIEL: LNG OX CRBRP I THERMAL MARGINS BEYOND FOR THE -

THE DESIGN  : BASI  ::

i NUCLEAR REGULATORY BETHESDA, MARYLAND COMMISSION-CRBRP PROGRA ,

- SEPTEMBER 15,1982

- AGENDA (CONT.) .

o DISCUSSION OF OPEN ISSUES, CONTINUED ,

- OPERABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY OF VENT, PURGE, AND CLEAN-UP P.FAZEKAS SYSTEMS

• CONTAINMENT CLEAN-UP SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

- VENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

- CLEAN-UP SYSTEM DESCRIPTION I

• CONTAINMENT CLEAN-UP SYSTEM TEST RSSULTS

• DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF CONTAINMENT 17,1982 CLEAN-UP SYSTEM -

OPEN

- DISCUSSION OF OPEN ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN AUGUST MEETING '

o CLOSING DISCUSSION N.KAUSHAL ,

- CLOSING

SUMMARY

.AND CONCLUSIONS  !

i ,

SUMMARY

OF NRC STAFF POSITION i

• hI,Ia $ h

. -- -. . - _ _ ~

t-

... ,. . .. . e e.

.* *

• 4-..-

e ENCLOSURE'3 e

e l

l i

l  ?-

CLINCH RIVER BREEDER 5K ,l REACTOR PLANT CRBRP PROJECT ,

BRIEFIXG FOR

+

NUCLEAR REGULATORY .

COMMISSION CRBRP PROGRAM OFFICE.

THERMAL MARGINS BEYOND '

THE DESIGN BASIS (TMBDB) l l .

SEPTEMBER 15,1982

BRIEFING ON CRBRP THERMAL MARGINS FOR THE BEYOND THE DESI NUCLEAR REGULATORY BETHESDA, MARYLAND COMMISSION-CRB SEPTEMBER 15,1982 AGENDA N.KAUSHAL

• INTRODUCTION

• DISCUSSION OF OPEN ISSUES ODIUM-i - DESIGN MARGINS TO ACCOMMODATE EXTREME S CONCRETE PENETRATIONS DURING TMBDB ODIUM-P.BRADBURY

SUMMARY

REVIEW OF TMBDB ANALYSES VIS A VIS S CONCRETE REACTION TREME G. FRESKAKIS

'

• ASSESSMENT OF STRUCTURAL CAPABILITY FOR THE E PENETRATION CASE RCB T. BALL

- CONTAINMENT EFFECTS DURING RC VENTING TO T. BALL

• POTENTIAL FOR PLUGGING DURING RC VENTING T. BALL TO RC

~,

• ASYMMETRY EFFECTS OF SODIUM BURNING T. BALL

• BASIS FOR NON-STRATIFICATION OF HYDROGEN ,

'J. GROSS I

• HYDROGEN AUTO-lGNITION CRITERIA

• SODIUM AEROSOL DEPLETION CALCULATIONSM. McKEOWN

• SURVIVABILITY OF TMBDB INSTRUMENTATION

BRIEFING ON CRBRP ASIS i

THERMAL MARGINS BEYOND THE FOR THE - OGRAM OFFICE NUCLEAR REGULATORYBETHESDA, MARYLAND SEPTEMBER 15,1982 COMMISSION-CR AGENDA (CONT.) .

o DISCUSSION OF OPEN ISSUES, CONTINUEDOF VENT,P.FAZEKAS PURGE, AND CL ,

- OPERABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY SYSTEMS ESCRIPTION

• CONTAINMENT CLEAN-UP SYSTEM D

- VENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

- CLEAN-UP SYSTEM DESCRIPTION T RESULTS l

• CONTAINMENT CLEAN-UP SYSTEM TEST CLEAN-UP SYST -

• DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF CONTAINMENUGUST 17,1982 OPEN

' - DISCUSSION OF OPEN ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN A I

MEETING N.KAUSHAL

• CLOSING DISCUSSION USIONS i

- CLOSING

SUMMARY

.AND ON CONCL

SUMMARY

OF NRC STAFF POSITI

- - ~ _ _ _

j I

Cia;.9. P THERMAL MARGINS '

BASIS .

BEYOND THE DESIGN !l czsz ..

! 3RLEFL\LG FOR -

fl

l l NUCLEAR REGULATORY .

l COMMISSION -l l CRBRP PROGRAM OFFICE OF TMBDB l!

l

SUMMARY

REVIEW A VIS il ANALYSES VIS  !'l REACTION ii SODIUM-CONCRETE i

' PRESENTED BY:  :  !' '

PHILL BRADBURY SYSTEMS INTEGRATION, MANAGER i .

^ -

WESTINGHOUSE-OR CRBRP PROJECT SEPTEMBER 15,1982 .

a. w - -

l ROLE MARGINOF EXTREME PENETRATIO ASSESSMENT CASE I,

'i f

l o THE CONCRETE PENEiRATION R  :-

THE EXTREME PENETRATION CASE ~

~

l DERIVED FROM TEST DATA. .

• THE EXTREME PENETRATION CASE W  :.

ARTIFICALLY CONTRIVED AS TH '

WOULD RESULT IN A NEED TO E "

l l

IF 6% HYDROGEN CONCENTRATI EXCEEDED. ~

• THIS CASE HAS BEEN USED SO .

l THE MARGIN AVAILABLE HENCE, WE WILL CALL IT THE IN THE  !

DESI

' MARGIN ASSESSMENT CASE'

COMPARISON OF UPPER BOUND AND REALISTIC CASE TO TEST DATA .

FROM HEDL-TME 82-15 I MAXIMUM REACTION PENETRATION (cm)^7  !

)

24 i O HEDL TESTS '

l O AEROSPACE TESTS .

l 20 - a ANL TESTS ~4 .

l A SANDIA TESTS 0

l 16 - i CURVE A (UPPER BOUND) l 12 -

y 0 CURVE B (REALISTIC CASE) '

0 0 O l 0 8 q I

f '

o O l a l 4 ~O U l O NOTE TIME SCALE CHANGp l I I t I I I Q g.* A 100 12 16 20 24 80 0 4 8 TIME (HR)

UPPER BOUND OF TEST DATA '

i' i

1

• THE UPPER BOUND OF TEST DATA IS .

18 cm/HR (7 INS /HR) FOR 20 MINS 2.57 cm/HR 41 IN/HR) FROM 20 MINS j TO 3 HRS '

i:

0.08 cm/HR (0.03 IN/HR) BEYOND 3 HRS ~ L THIS IS JUSTIFIED IN HEDL-TME-82-15.  :.

• THIS UPPER BOUND RESULTS IN TOTAL i.

PENETRATION OF l 5.6 INS IN 24 HRS 1 6.4 INS IN 50 HRS .

4 I e

4 get #999 9 r - _ _ __- __

SODIUM-LIMESTONE

SUMMARY

CONCRETE REACTI '

PENETRATION i i

PENETRATION (INCHES) '

14 '

SET-14 00 LCT-2 '

13 - e HEDL AVERAGE PENETRATION -

12 - A SANDIA MAXIMUM PENETRATION .

A SANDIA MAXIMUM PENETRATION- .i SODIUM LIMITED 11 ~

10 -

9 -

1 LCT-10 8 -

7 -

l A LS-3 LCT-120 6 -

5 -

CDC-10 LCT-130 A LS-2 4 -

A LS-1 SC-4 LFT-6 e SC-14 LSC-2 3 - LS-9 e

SC-8

1. SC-13

' Sg ,

LS-8 e e ' '.

^ ' ' 'SC-18G I~ LS-4 LS-5 ^ '-18

^'

LFT-4 LS-6 100i 0

10 1.0 O.1 TIME AT TEMPERATURE (HOURS) e es seso se s

~ SODIUM-LIMESTONE

SUMMARY

FOR CONCRETE TIME PERIOD RE PENETRATION .

OF INTEREST (50 HOURS) 4 i

PENETRATION (INCHES)'

14-13 -

e HEDL ESTIMATED PENETRATION AT 50 HOURS F TESTS PERFORMED FOR 100 HOURS  :

e HEDL AVERAGE PENETRATION '

l i

11 ~

A SANDIA AVERAGE PENETRATION 10 - A SANDIA AVERAGE PENETRATION-SODIUM t> LCT-2 LIMITED (DEHYDRATED) 9

~

8 -

t a LCT-1 7 -

t i LCT-12

~ 4> SET-14 3 .

5 - " .

CDC-10 4 - i > SET-15 A LS-3 SC'4

~

3- LS-9 e , LFT-6 e SC-14a LSC-2,'

A LS-2 CDC-2 SA/B SC-8 SC-13 2 SC C9 LS-8 O

' =

1 -

ie i i 'S i iA= Ai eil 50

' = 10 0< 1.0 0.1 TIME AT TEMPERATURE (HOURS) .

b

REASONABLE UPPER BOUND INCLUDING '

CORE DEBRIS .

e o IF CORE DEBRIS IS PRESUMED AS CONTINUA BREAKING UP THE REACTION PRODUCT LAYER I;A CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTION) THEN THE .

REASONABLE UPPER BOUND PENETRATION l 7 INS /HR FOR 20 MINS 1 lN/HR FROM 20 MINS TO BOIL-DRY '

• THIS RESULTS IN TOTAL PENETRATION OF 3 INS IN 1 HOUR '

18 INS IN 16 HOURS 26 INS IN 24 HOURS l

• EXPECTED VENT TIME TO PREVENT 6i% H CONCENTRATION WOULD BE ABOUT 22-HOUR

. _ _ y -

TIME TO VENTING AS A FUNCTION VENTING OF CONCRETE PENETRATION AT HOURS UNTIL VENTING '

50 .

VENT TIME SELECTED TO .

PREVENT EXCESSIVE HYDROGEN CONCENTRATION .

IN EXCESS OF 6% IN 40 - CONTAINMENT s

\ -

N

's 30 s's s N

N

's 20 -

s'N N

• N

\s ,

10 -

Ds4 .

's I __

l i 40 30 Q 10 20 ,

0 INCHES OF CONCRETE PENETRATION AT V e 31782 7 9

4

.d CONCLUSION i:-

o THE CRBRP DESIGN HAS SUFFICIENT M

, l i

ACCOMMODATE THE THOSE OBSERVED IN TESTS TO DATE .

CONSEQU ..

o THE MARGIN IS SUFFICIENT TO ACCOM CONSERVATIVE PREDICTION OF THE CORE DEBRIS ON SODIUM / CONCRET '

• WITH ALL THESE EFFECTS INCLUDED, IT WOULD f

NOT BE NECESSARY TO VENT CONTAI ..

LESS THAN 22 HOURS. g

BOUND ANDT7 COMPARISON OF UPPER ..

REALISTIC CASE TO TEST DATA .

FROM HEDL-TME 82-15  !

t MAXIMUM REACTION PENETRATION (cm) Y  !'

)

24 i

'l o HEDL TESTS '

O AEROSPACE TESTS .

20 - 0 ANL TESTS $ .

A SANDIA TESTS '

I 16 -

l CURVE A (UPPER BOUND) l 12 -

o l

8 u o8 l 0

" ^

.o Y3 .

l O

O O NOTE TIME SCALE CHANGE ' l i ' A1 OM 1

i

^

20 24 80 100 4 8 12 16 0

TIME (HR)

4 LIMITS FOR FLAMMABILITY / DETONATION MIXTURES HYDROGEN AND OXYGEN .

100 .

IMPOSSIBLE MIXTURE WITH AIR 4 80 -

NONFLAMMABLE FLAMMABLE

~ 60 -

N o 40 -

[  :

I'h,[l DETONABLE g: ss NON-z

/

/ -

A '

r : k ,

20 -

I y '

' ' 'N O 15 20 25 O 5 10 OXYGEN (%)

O ES N

l .

L REVIEW OF VENTING CRITERIA'

!i i.i

• THE 6% HYDROGEN LIMIT WAS SET 'i CONSERVATIVELY IN 1977. IT HAS RECENTLY BEEN RE-EXAMINED, SINCE IT WAS RECOGNIZED THAT ADDITIONAL MARGIN COULD BE OBTAI ~

BY UTILIZING MORE REALISTIC LIMITS.

• IN THE MARGIN ASSESSMENT SCENARIO, HYDROGEN CONCENTRATION NEVER EXCEE UNLESS OXYGEN CONCENTRATION IS VER

• A MORE REALISTIC CRITERION FOR VENTING

WOULD INCLUDE CONSIDERATION OF OXYGE .

CONCENTRATION.

S

~

l < t . i 'l

~

itl l[ -

~

~

S E -

A . R D -

ES U E -

RT T N'

,DH

• AN AA NT NE TR , .

DAO B I

MNEST DN EPRN E

ZS T D B  ;

EO MMOE I I NESMI LS N M TAIR A TNP I T YO LI T

_ B CV TC S EI U UAA TE H D ON I Q NN C L E N OER REE EAI T E .F R B EB BD CH P U G B GDO I

M E N L B R S S N ENOFI O LM F O ESR VI O ATMY TS T R

U T

I T

A I

T W E DE TPI T HSTES MR O S FR EI A FN A S R E R

T TR NE I

F A N RLNS TN T O OOI E O E'SR E P R U

N E

EV ME I

L NEM SS MC NO RE YMOTN M E T A

C N

P S A U O Q NIA G I U EMMNE N ER SE T EN TU I

T R O EE I

O E E C QT EI EA DB LR P ED B TNR AT O S I

MRE ME N N GE ONO D EMO LL BT S N

O H

P E R G O T U O T E

I A NP N S I O TOC YH SCE HUTII T DYW AN I T

A S

O L L

S S R I D

OX E REHE OHTH,.T TSWG OOA N

- VI I

T N

MEH ER T

D Y A I

T E I ST RN ERIS H R DB NE S E R LY D D AI E V E MT A S P T T T T N OT ERLO S AP F I

LN R U N N N E N

E N

E CO N T S US S U MLUT I

N S

- U R E.E T MMMMML N A LL N N OR E CE SS F S E N I

MIO S S N N N N N I I I A

I MIO OTL RS G UIT A A A T I

I T A T .N IGWUI MI OEN S C RD I

B T T T N ST RD R F TTN I

N D N N N TNEE N C SS B O O O O O L A S OHH EUE C LH NO MC C- - C- C -

AT N CTT SSTI C I

T -

' h.'

. ' i l

1 e

[

CRBRP CONTAINMENT l TMBDB. INSTRUMENTATION -

et y i .

i ELEVATION 970' e seA ~_ %\\ ELEVATION 955' # HYDROGEN A )) -

MEASUREMENT SYSTEM '

L SAMPLE -

POINTS Q. + - ELEVATION 902' M REACTOR O REACTOR CONTAINMENT CONTAINMENT VESSEL BUILDING TEMPERATURE d = -ELEVATION 875' 0 A REACTOR d = ELEVATION 854' CONTAINMENT '

U ATMOSPHERE o O TEMPERATURE 6 - ELEVATION 833'

d. oREACTOR

- d ELEVATION 823' CONTAIN' MENT

'M ELEVATION 817' , PRESSURE l R-

=

XH [ HIGH-RANGE CONTAINMENT

' ' = -ELEVATION 733, RADIATION

, 1 , < g ,

1= ELEVATION 715'

OF HYDROGEN MONITOR

SUMMARY

FILTER TESTS '

ATMO- TIME OF AEROSOL AEROSOL SPHERIC EXPOSURE

. LOAD!NG NUMBER CONCEN- TEMPER- OF FILTERS TO AEROSOL TRATION ATURE HRS OF GM/M22 GM/M3 C '

TESTS 50 100 - 35 - 5600 6 6 - 40 (5,000G

• SCOPING 190 TESTS TOTAL) 10 20 - 75- 880 - 6110 9

• HYDROGEN 190 660 FILTER .

TESTS -

(1,400G 13.2

• TMBDB 46 590 CONDI-TOTAL)

TIONS <

I

HYDROGEN SAMPLING SY. STEM -

REQUIREMENTS .'

10 MINUTES (MAX) o SAMPLE SYSTEM DELAY TIME

• l 61 M (200 FT) LONG o SAMPLE LINE SIZE

• 6.3 mm (0.25-IN) ID  :'

34 kPa (5 psi) '

o FILTER PRESSURE DROP, MAX * - .

16 C TO 593 C (60 F TO 1100 F) .

o CONTAINMENT TEMPERATURE '

0-10 v/o H20, 0-6 v/o CO 2 -

o CONTAINMENT ATMOSPHERE ...

o 500 HRS (WITH AEROSOL)

OPERATION DURATION 8000 HR TOTAL o

46 g/m 3 (AT CV CONDITIONS)

AEROSOL CONCENTRATION Na2 0 2, NaOH, AND Na 2CO 3 .

o AEROSOL COMPOSITION .-

AERODYNAMIC MASS MEDIAN, o AEROSOL SIZE DIAMETER (AMMD) = 5 pm, o, = 3.0 o

150 cc/ MIN (MIN! MUM) AT 150*C REQUIRED INSTRUMENT FLOW *

(300 F) o SUFFICIENT TO PROTECT SYSTEM FILTER EFFICIENCY *

• ADAPTED FROM CRBRP-3, VOL. 2 .

i .

TYPICAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS .

TMBDB INSTRUMENT REQUIREMENTS: '  % ACCURACY ,

% OF j

UNITS .

RANGE MAX VALUE  !

INSTRUMENT 5 F 60-1100 .

• CONTAINMENT ATMOSPHERE '

TEMPERATURE 40-700 5 .

F j

!

• CONTAINMENT STEEL DOME '

TEMPERATURE 14.7-55 5 '

/

psia

• CONTAINMENT ATMOSPHERE PRESSURE 0-8 5 VOLUME %

• CONTAINMENT HYDROGEN ..

CONCENTRATION REQUIREMENTS ALSO SPECIFIED FOR:* RADIATION I

• RESPONSE TIME

• ENVIRONMENTAL TEMP. AND

• DURATION PRESSURE

• CHEMICAL ENVIRONMENT G

OF TMBDB ' "

BRIEF DESCRIPTION .

INSTRUMENTATION IN CONTAINMENT PLANNED FOR l I

i HYDROGEN MONITORS l fo PROTOTYPE DESIGN CONSISTS OF l

j l

SAMPLE LINES IN-CONT i, j

o THE PROTOTYPE FILTER TESTS.

FILTER  !.

l o THE CHOSEN PROTOTYPE FILTER .

OF A NICKEL POWDER FILTER AND SE!

CHAMBER. '

• A " BACKFLOW" CAPABILITY MAY CLEAN THE FILTERS DURiNG OPERATIO ~l

• FURTHER TESTING TO TMBDB ENVI ,

CONDITIONS IS PLANNED.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TMBDB

' .l PLANNED FOR USE -l lNSTRUMENTATION  !:

IN CONTAINMENT (CONT.)

il ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE SENSORS I' CURRENT PLANS ARE TO UTILIZE SEAMLESS, STAINLESS. STEEL SHEATHED,1/8" OR 1/16" .

OD, MgO INSULATED, TYPE K, UNGROUNDED '

THERMOCOUPLES WITH NO CONNECTORS IN CONTAINMENT. -l

• SIMILAR 1/8" THERMOCOUPLES HAVE .

OPERATED 100 HOURS IN SODIUM TESTS 800-900 F WITH AVERAGE TEMPERATURES BETWEEN AND PEAKS UP TO 1200 F.

• NO FAILURES HAVE BEEN OBSERVED IN TESTS TO DATE.

i .... .

OF TMBDB BRIEF DESCRIPTION  :

PLANNED FOR USE INSTRUMENTATION (CONT.)

IN CONTAINMENT :l i  !! I

/ PRESSURE SENSORS . $

• THE CURRENT DESIGN UTILLZES DIAP i.

GAUGES CONNECTED TO THE CONTAIN i-VESSEL WITH 1/4" OR 1/2" STAINLESS  ;

TUBING.

l

• NO ACTIVE FLOW IS REQUIRED THRO j TUBING DU RING OPERATION OF THEj-

• SIMILAR DESIGNS HAVE BEEN UTILIZE  :.

PREVIOUS SODIUM TESTS WITH UP T i OF TUBING AND NO CROBLEMS L'

~-

HAVE ENCOUNTERED. ,,

___-- - --_ - ---.- - --- ---_.- ---- - -- - - ---a - - - - - v-- J

m, Y 3 I:

ll' .

i HAA-3 APPLICAT10!1.T0 HCDA AER] SOL ANALYSIS I V' . .

/

J. F, GROSS j WESTINGHOUSE ADVANCED REACTORS DIVISION

!- SEPTEMBER 15, 1982 4

,9 4

~

e ,

%- j l

1 i

s HAA-3 APPLICATION TO HCDA AEROSOL. ANALYS e

A. WHAT IS THE HAA-3 CODE AND HOW IS IT USED?

B. H0wDOESHNA-3W0ax?

C. WHAT ASSdMPTIONS ARE IMPLICIT IN THE HAA-3 CALCULATIONAL IECHNIQUES?

O D. WHAT ASSUMPTIONS ARE IMPLICIT IN IHE HAA-3 INeuT DATA FOR HCDA ANALYSES?

E. HY IS HAA-3 ACCEPTABLE AND VALID FOR HCDA AEROSOL ANALYSES?

1 l

l

. ~ .

WHAT IS THE HAA-3 CODE AND HOW IS IT U

1. HAA-3 IS A HETEROGENEOUS AEROSOL AGGLO CODE WHICH PREDICTS AEROSOL BEHAVIO PORT FOLLOWING HYPOTHETICAL LMFBR ACCID

2. THE CODE IS USED TOLEAKAGE

' CALCULATE 0!-

DISTR AEROSOLS IN IHE RCB FROM HCDA'S,'

THE SUSPENDED AEROSOLS PROVIDES DOSE CALCULATIONS.

l

HOW DOES HAA-3 WORK?

~

1. CALCULATES NUMBER DENSITY OF SUSPENDED AEROSOL (PARTICLES /CC).

2. THE SOURCE OF SUSPENDED MASS IS IHE SOUR GENERATION RATE CALCULATED FROM IHE CAC -

SODIUM-IN RATE TO IHE RCB,

3. MASS IS DISTRIBUTED IO 4 DIFFERENT REGIONS:

PLATED, SETTLED, LEAKED AND SUSPENDED,

4. THE AM0uNT OF PLATED MASS IS DETERMINED THE EXPERIMENTALLY DETERMINED WALL PLATI PARAMETER, A.

5. THE SETTLING RATE OF THE AEROSOL IS DETE MINED DY THE SIZE OF THE PARTICLES WHICH GR0w THR0 UGH AGGLOMERATION,

6. THE SOURCE OF LEAKED MASS IS IHE SUSPENDE

' AEROSOL, LEAKRATE IS AN INPUT PARAMETER,

==

USPEN ED PLATED l

l C

V SETTLED LEAKED 4,

?

.,--m V.,m __ .- . _ _ . - -

,_ = _ -- ,

c,-_.-- _ _

_ J SODIUM i

HM-3 DISTRIBUTION M0EL l

- WHAT ASSUMPTIONS ARE IMPLICIT IN THE HAA-3 CALCULATIONAL TECHNIQUES?

1. HOMOGENEOUS AND INSTANTANEOUS DISTRIBUTION OF' SUSPENDED AEROSOL.

2. AEROSOL PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION IS LOG-NORMAL.

3. IGNORES AGGLOMERATION CAUSED BY AEROSOL TURBULENCE.

4, IGNORES PLATING CAUSED BY THERMOPHORESIS.

l I

r I

i l'

i

e

,..e.... .

e WHAT ASSUMPTIONS ARE IMPLICIT IN THE HAA-31NPUT DATA FOR HCDA ANALYSIS?

1~. 100% 0F THE SODIUM AEROSOL PRODUCED .

THE RCB.

2. RATE IHAT SODIUM ENTERS RCB IS CALCU CODE. ~

3. SODlun AEROSOL PRODUCTION CEASES A

4. SODIUM AEROSOL IS 45% SODIUM HYDROXIDE MONOXIDE AS DETERMINED BY CACECO.

5.

PLUTONIUM AND URANIUM AEROSOL PRODUCTION, R GAS SPARGING, BEGINS AT INITIATION OF THE HCDA.

6. QUANTITY OF PLUTONIUM AND URANIUM G RELE i S CALCULATED USING THE TECHNIQUE OF WASH-1400 TO APPENDIX Vll,

}S 7.

LEAKRATE FROM IHE RCB, PRIOR TO VENTING AT 36 HRS, l

PROPORTIONAL IO IHE N45i SUCH IHAT THE RA AT 10 PSIG.

8.

LEAKRATE DURING RCB . VENTING, FROM 36 HRS.

THE RCB BLOWDOWN RATE FROM 15 PSIG.

IS

9. LEAKRATE AFTER RCB PURGING IS INITIATED 8000 SCFM CONTINu0USLY.

GAS SPARGING I

CONCRETE / CORE DEBRIS i MELT i

CO2 DISSOLVED

, Pu 02 -

! GAS .

~

HO2 4

DISSOLVED

. U02  !

GAS

WHY IS HAA-3 ACCEPTABLE ANH VAllD FOR HCDA AEROSOL ANALYSES?

1. SCENARIO SPECIFIC AEROSOL AND ENVIRONMENT PAR

- (AEROSOL DENSITY, PARTICLE SIZE, AIR TEMPERATURE, ETC ARE PART OF INPUT DATA.

2. Na INTERNALLY CODED DATA BASE.

3. EFFECT OF DEPL$ TION MECHANISMS IS CALCULATE EOUATIONS DERIVED FROM CLASSIC PARTICLE KINETIC CONSIDERATIONS WHICH ARE _ INDEPENDENT 0F CHEM COMPOSITION.

4. HAA-3 HAS BEEN VERIFIED WITH EXPERIMENTAL D Al-AEC-12977.

INPUT DATA USED FOR HCDA ANALYSIS IS WITHIN 5.

OF INPUT PARAMETER VERIFICATION.

l l

FOR HAA-3 HCDA ANALYSIS. .

. INPUT PARAMEIER VERIFICATIDN RANGE -c V_ALRE_OSED_IN CRBRP-3_BAsg_fest '

RANGE OF VALUES

• S_0DIUM AEROSOL EuELAEROSOL EARAMm

.3 .1 2

.05 - 5,5 (u) .

4 AEROSOL R50 2 1.0 - 3,0 2 o 0F R50 0,0 0,0 - 135 6.18 INITI AL CONCENTRATION (UGM/CC) 10,97

,05 - 10,97 2,21 DENSITY OF AEROSOL (GM/CC) 765 366 300 - 811 AIR TEMPERATURE (OK) 4,0X10-5 4,0X10-5 WALL PLATING PARAMETER, a 1X10 5X10-4 8 9,9X10 10 9,9X10 10 OP TO 8,5X10 CHAMBER VOLUME (CC) 1,0 1,0 ORAVITATIONAL AGGLOMERATION 0,0 - 1,0 -

EFFICIENCY, a .

DENSITY MODIFICATION ,1 .'1 FACTOR, c .05 - 1.0

• SOURCE OF DATA: '

1.

Al-AEC-12977, " AEROSOL MODELING OF HYPOTHETICAL LMFBR ACCI

2. GEAP-14054, " REVIEW.AND EVALUATION OF CURRENT AEROSOL MODELS FOR LMFBR SAFETY ANALYSIS"

3. HEDL-TME 79-28, " AEROSOL BEHAVIOR DURING SODlum POOL FIRES IN A ,

LARGE VESSEL-CSTF TESTS AB1 AND AB2"

4. Al-AEC-13038, "HAA-3 USER REPORT"

CALCJJlAIED_ELVIORLUM SPARGED DURING HCDA ANALYSIS CONSERVATIVELY RELEASED TO RCB FOR DOSE CALCULATION:

PLUT0NIUM MASS (KGM) -

, ' 3  ;

1- 10

.2 .

ll .

720 8000 0 133 TIME (HRS,) ,

CLEAN-UP SYSTEM LOADING - 7.7 KGM Pu0 DISTRIBUTION COEFFICIENT BASED ON 5000 F MORE REALISTIC RELEASE TO RCB: .

PLUTONIUM MASS (KGM) 1,6

.5 -

= 0 =4 ll . .

i 720 ' 8000 .

0 133 TIME (HRS.)

i CLEAN-UP SYSTEM LOADING - 1.2 KGM Pu '

0 i DISTRIBUTION COEFFICIENT BASED ON 4500 F e

-a

PLUT0NIUM LOADING 0F TMBDB CLEAN-UP SYSTEM .

1. IGNORES AEROSOL DEPLETION IN IHE REACTOR CAVITY AND DURING IRANSPORT TO RCB, 2, 1GNORES PACTOR OF ~50 REDUCTION IN SPARGED PLUT0NIU FROM VAPOR PRESSURE REDUCTION IN DILUTE SOLUTIONT

3. SPARGED PLUTONIUM DOES NOT HAVE IIME TO ACHIEVE EQUILIBRIUM VAPOR CONDITION.

4. COMPLETELY MOLTEN CORE SCENARIO REQUIRED ESSENTI AL ZERO HEAT IRANSFER TO REACTOR CAVITY AREA ABOVE SURFACE.

5, RCB AEROSOL DEPLETION IGNORES EFFECT OF SPARG BLANKETS AND MOLTEN CONCRETE FROM DEBRIS BED.

O

~

[ T *

\/AFBR OESSORE NEDVCT\odO DiIob SoujTiod O

o

@ O. M 9 S U T' E P=mP L

, L; o ,

e Do  ;

TDs e .

' chew cvitre. c

. ~ == = -- - : '

. . e c c . =n -=

. ux =. =. = _ .: _ . .

l l .

mit Cevnesh ce-veh  % M*c

\oo*/,Po 40  %'dGwtxte 2% Ei F 0 =*

=

a.pv he%0ve Edt 1T/a = FO

,/

CONTAINMENT EFFECTS DURING REACT 0r CAVITY VENTING T. W. BALL l

SEPTEMBER 15, 1982 t

1. P0TENTIAL FOR RC VENT PLUGGING.

2. ASYMMETRY EFFECTS FOR SODIUM BURNING.

3. BASIS FOR NON-STRATIFICATION OF HYDROGEN.

4. HYDROGEN AUT0-IGNITION CRITERIA. i

l POTENTIAL FOR REACTOR CAVITY VENT PLUGGING j'

DESIGN REQUIREMENTS (CRBRP-3, VOL. 2):

LOW RATE THE VENT SYSTEM SHALL 3 HAVE AF 0.05 PRESSURE LB/FT-HR. DR

' 0F 4000 LB/HR OF GASES, A DENSITY OF 0.03 LB/FT THE VENT , AND A VIS ,

IT SHALL REMAIN FUNCTIONAL IF UP TO 450 LBS AT A MAXIMUM RATE OF 8000 LB/HR.

BASES FOR REQUIREMENTS: _

IZATION.

1. PRESSURE DROP 0.1 PSI - ARBITRARY LOW VA 2.

FLOW RATE, DENSITY, VISCOSITY - AVG. OVER FIRST 24 HOURS. .

e 1. a 2. PROVIDE BASIS FOR SIZING PIPE. OSPHERE UPON 3.h0 LBS SODIUM OXIDE) 8000 LBS/HR - I RUPTURE DISK BREAKING.

2 IN THE R.C. AND PIPEWAY CELLS. .

ASYMMETRY EFFECTS OF SODIUM BURNING ,

(QUESTION CS760,144)

I E

ALTHOUGH THE RC VENT WILL BE OFF-CENTER IN THE RCB, ABOUT 55 FEET FROM THE STEEL SHELL WALL.

VALID THE ASSUMPTION OF AXISYMMETRIC TEMPE'RA ASSUMPTION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

ONLY SIGNIFICANT HEAT TRANSFER IS CONVECTION e

(RADIATION WOULD BE BLOCKED BY DENSE SODIUM 0XIDE SM0KE) e STRONG CONVECTIVE MIXING 0F RCB ATMOSPH e N0ZZLE SIZED TO PRECLUDE DIRECT FLAME CO FT FLAME - 180 FT TOP 0F RCB)

STEEL SHELL (< 80 e CRITICAL AREA 0F STEEL SHELL (816 FT EL.) PR BY INSULATION MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE 220*F

.. AZIMUTHAL GRADIENTS SMALL

BASIS FOR HYDR 0 GEN NON-STRATIFICATION I .

(CRBRP-3, VOL. 2, APPX. H.3) '

I 1. PRE-HYDR 0 GEN IGNITION PERIOD e

COMBINED MOLECULAR DIFFUSION, NATURAL CONVECTION AND l

CONVECTION - MORE THAN ADEQUATE TO CAUSE UNI e THIS WAS CONFIRMED BY HEDL TESTS ATM-1 THROUG

2. HYDR 0 GEN BURN TO S0DIUM BOILDRY PERIOD 4

e CONVECTION FROM FLAME AND VENT / PURGE MIXING i

3. POST-B0ILDRY e SLOW ADDITION RATES e H2 -C0 MIXTURE DENSITY APPR0XIMATELY EQUAL e VENT / PURGE MIXING ADEQUATE TO PREVENT STR 1

l HYDROGEN AUTO-CATALYTIC RECOMBINATION Objectives:

e Determine conditions for Ignition e Determ!riti conditions for extinguishment

Description:

e Controlled hydrogen jet ignition and extinguishment tests -

l

• l (3.5Effects ft.3 chamber) of: Hydrogen, nitrogen, sodium, water vapor in jet Oxygen depletion in chamber Water vapor in chamber - hydrogen generation  ;

Jet temperature l Jet velocity I

e Confirmatory tests during large scale sodium-concrete Interactions testing (3800 ft.3 chamber)

(

l

• (

1 s

e .

HYDROGEN AUTO-CATALYTIC RECOMBINATION (Continued)

Results/ Status: '

o Program has been completed e Hydrogen burning criteria incorporated into CACECO:

Upon reaching containment, hydrogen will burn when either criterion (A) or (B) is met in combination with criterion (C)

(A) The hydrogen-nitrogen mixture entering containment is

above 14507 (B) The hydrogen-sodium-nitrogen mixture entering 3 of sodium at containment contains at least 6 G/M temperatures above 5007 (C) The oxygen concentration is above 8%. With the oxygen concentration above 5% and the hydrogen concentration above 4%, the hydrogen in excess of 4% would burn um

HYDROGEN AUTO-IGNITION DATA (HEDL-TME 78-80) ,

,-ne ,, N 5 "E s"e" N %' m a

. .g::"a- - - .

,o gn -

sa -

II ji. _

o gle gu -

a

$le ,

LSC-2 -3 -

(1fi% 02 ) Gi s -

S' . .

f *$  ?

/.. a a lg ,:,;, aa-,. 1

.n., m LFT 6 . .s n seat 38W-3BB.F FIGURE 6. Conservative Limits for Hydrogen-Sodium Jet Ignition.

O

i ,

CRBRP-3 vol.2. Rev.0 22 nyggggg, gyg,g aggyg 3,,

20 j TO THE RIGHT OF THE LtistT L18E8 i

g ',

E l

k 14 -

!E BUREAU OF MINES LIMIT f

h E 12 at E

h10 j, E 9' s

4 LOWER LIMIT FROM HEDL P O N TESTS UPPER LIMIT FROM HEDL 2- PHASE 2 PROTOTYPIC TESTS I I I I

!  ! I O 14 16 10 12 6 8 2 4 O

CONTAINMENT HYDROGEN CONCENTRATION (%)

i Containment Hydrogen Flammability Limits Figure H.l 5 1966 174

, H.1-15 e

l i.

1 ~

\ .

?

EVAlllisTION OF STRUCTURES FOR MARGIN ASSESSMENT

SUMMARY

OF DISCUSSION e STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS 4y G. N. );issfagri e SCOPE OF EVALUATION f ,p g jf ggg e STRUCTURAL EVALUATIONS e DESIGN MODIFICATIONS

6-Z Z O O U >-

H H J

< < M < W OZ W m tr O

Z H H W th Z W W Z < H to H Z Z =

W e W W O O W W OE M

O c. C. to L Z F-E E o < to c '

D W Z D o

W

- Otr- 3Om -

H E O CL H Q OJ C3 O O J < H -

HW U O E D to u. to LL H H < ll> -

Q W O U CM Z QU W CWU E% Z Z -

W <

H

2 O W W to - tr U H c.

O - O tr O - O H O En H- 2 E-HZ HX Z H W O lE" D!

< W - H W J - LLJ < ~

D - tr C -.J J CC 1 C < W- -

< W W Z

> W E WW EO

>J L: < to U -

= < tr W to H E J U H Z

< to Z H W Q C Z H

Z

- Z C W D O W - UD H- -

W W E U E c. to >. O D H cn to Z O d < in O

.,.) W< &

H- D --

l W f.n H (n  ! en to W to Z

< W W En >

Z < W= -

> CA <

C:Q C3 W < U to

< LLJ Z- <togrW c:3 U Z lE J - tn (S U < #

< tr W H- Cr Z W LD to tr D - to c < <Z Z H 3* < < U E E O- O U C C3 E O -

D  ! OO W to to E J  % J ZWW H O = *

& LL & C Q (n 1 < CC O O O

r i .

CONTAINMENT / CONFINEMENT Casessee

. EI 994 ft 0 '

Steel Cemenieusseset Veneet

( Spring t

. N A 4 -

- .m 4.-

_1<

6-=

M  ?

" tea n -

~

--4 104 ft >

4

' Operstems l

P l* *' El 818 ft 8 to. 1 89 ft I =

f r - = = ==

i

-.---S, r S.  :

..".T

• 8 . + e-

-4 h.

e j ; e L. J /i

. ,, k(: . .a: r i.

8 s .

9 f

i

' )e,ii. ,: .i !,r...

. . . . ', : : . .a( i r, ,

i ..

.e ,

e e ,- L . , ,r---- .

.e:e -- ,, s-., i s,a e1 s8 i

is- ,, j ,, .

88

• • • ,n.

g 8

$g 4 3

g i

6.J e * . ,

I s

g b===a

...J8 gg i3 I t g

g 8 g F****

===3 8 , , gg 8 g 4 4 8 e

1 I

ee 8 I l, 3 8 s . g 8 e s8 e, I 8 i I e 6....

....J . If '3s e

• "====" r===~

====n L.....J E  %,,,* e e

a 8

' r"""""9 e 0 g i, gF* * " * * *"I, g e

I w . . . . = ===I 9

3 88 8 8 I l ll

', '1  !.. } ri , : 7,s et o ia. l S

e e

~

"0-8 <

3 "

7 L

. E ,.

s

. - i

• .s.s r * . ' ..

_s -

5 0

1

, . L

1. l L l

. / -

E C

I

/ l f

/ -

Y / V A

1 WL EE Pl R PC f. ,

O O h* ( .

L , a - .* N

/ T

/ [' O F . .

A G

l

. \ e.

M I N"O f

.

• F T C

I

• T - , ' . .

A *6 '. 1 O'O E R18 E ' .*. T M'5 O S

_ PL- - '

'*. A Tl T OE- - T R

OY d

4 #

M OL BE S

TT 7 N S CI A AV L E

O I

O E C R

T A

R

' D N

C

- q

• . U

- . O F B C

[]

e. -

R T

N E

M "0 T N -

T N I

'0

• N A E E M

T NE 7 R3 M

N E OlHL I

AL N I

CLE TL F L L NE N AL 1 OH j

O CS CW l[

='

o .

• s, 4

_ - e

/

STRUCTURAL EVALUATION Of MARGIN ASSESSMENT CASE e SODluM CONCRETE REACTION RATE:

7 INCH PER 1100R FOR FIRST 3 HOURS 1 INCH PER HOUR AFTER 3 HOURS TO B0ll DRY e B0ll DRY TIME - 50 HOURS e STRUCTURAL EVALUATION CRITERI A WALL LINER IN REACTOR CAVITY TO MAINTAIN INTEGRITY UNTIL B0ll DRY TIME REACTOR CAVITY FLOOR AND PIPEWAY CELL FLOORS SOD,1UM LEAKAGE TO CELL 105 (AIR FILLED CELL) UNTIL BOIL,DP.Y TIME F ,

[ -

, CONTAINMENT AND CONFINEMENT INTEGRITY TO BE Mt.INTAINED

FOR'LONG TERM (8000 H0uRS)

- PIPEWAY CELL WALL LINER INTEGRITY,TO BE, MAINTAINED

. g -

AS FOLLOWS: 50 HRS WALL LINER DETWEEN REACTOR CAVITY AND PIPEWAY -

30 HRS CEL OTHERS

% .r

. .  : / -

t. ~/ 4 f'.

(CONTINUED) 2  : .

, I, t, STRUCINRAL EVALUATION OF MARGIN ASSESSMENT l>

j,

. l',,. '

il

.4 -

SCOPE OF EVALUATION  ;,:

. l

- ' il DETERMINE WHETHER STRUCTURES, AS DESIGNED, CAN

[~ WITHSTAND IMPOSED EXTREME PENETRATION COND

(' ,

DETERMINE NECSSSARY' DESIGN MODIFICATIONS SO ll J ~,

STRUCTURES CAN. WITHSTAND IMPOSED CONDITIONS ,i t

132 HRS CONCRETE WALL e

BASED ON ABOVE, RC LINER AND WALL ABOVE FLOOR ARE (BOIL EXPECTED TO MAINTAIN ' INTEGRITY FOR 50 HRS.

DRY TIME) AND BEYOND

1

)

- l 1

)

e

• j- a-i

\ >-

. :. - o.

l L

t I

?

e l

n

.J l o >

J O "

< \

3 i W

C 4 U w l5 2 C ' -

c. <

m .

s. "; a >

w ' = z = 8' M g* ~

8 ooc CC '. C D wgm tu r= lie N fft .

O.

W t Qo u -I 1

t

't; j ll p .

/r t >p .' e.

==

W //s

• e' '-.* a e

Z m * 's

• e . . = .i i

m 4 J.x.. .E q

l WQ I

u) l o.

! < = o i I

.o a a o z e .

.  ; i E E I E"

e d. . d.

E 1

E I

<W

- a

= "

(3 ) aanguasdmal l

(

i

STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF REACTOR CAVITY FLOOR ,.

UNDER MARGIN ASSESSMENT CASE CONDITIONS  !

' s ASSUMPTIONS  ;

- FLOOR LINER ASSUMED TO Fall AT ONSET OF SPILL t

- APPROX 1MATELY 5.5 FEET OF FLOOR CONCRETE /

PENETRATED BY SODIUM e

9 l I i

i I

i

l 1

i i ,

l 1800 (

26

• 5Y1 ,

L l

. t I ,

, i u '

O 1400 g l I

w -

ky l 1 l g 1200 ,

w 6

, \ j l

y 1000 jg i <

z - BKSE CKSE ' I j

y 800 132 Hrs. 50 BOURS (Boil Dry) b0H)URS 1

\ ,

600

~~

N e

\ m g N Base Case. N N g 50 e s. \ _ w % ~ _. - Y 1- _

m - I 200 - I I, i .

, I,  !, ,

l

, , 120 80 100 o 40 60 O 20 -

DISTANCE FROM TOP OF FLOOR, IN.

REACTOR CAVITY FLOOR - TEMPERATURE TRA MARGn! ASSESSMENT CASE t .

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

i i

• ~

l l

I i

l INSULATINr.

l CONCRETE I

I T

~

EL. 740'-8" l

~

t, 740 -

/ s e.t3

+1 j . . ,

I 8

~

l ... .'

c

./ / 'l EL. 733' '

.e

~ '

~

] ]

F  ;

4 - EXTENT OF Na PENETRATION MARGIN ASSESSMDIT CASE

~

L CON ST. JT '4I 2

1 CONTAINMENT LINER SECTION - REACTOR CAVITY AND WALL CURRENT DESIGN AND EXTENT OF Ma PENETRATION

-- ,, _ m - - _ _ _ ,_ - - . . - - - . , _ .

e 9

9 ,

O CONCLUSIONS OF RC FLOOR EVALUATION e CURRENT DESIGN DOES NOT MEET MARGIN ASSESSME POTENTIAL LEAKAGE TO CELL 105 EVALUATION CRITERIA.

e MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO Tile FLOOR SYSTEM WO NECESSARY TO MEET MARGIN ASSESSMENT EVALUATI CRITERIA f

O

4 4

RC F100R DESIGN MODIFICATIONS NEEDED FOR MARGIN ASSESSMENT CASE e REMOVE CONSTRUCTION JOINT AT ELEVATION 733 AND REARRANGE RE-BAR e EXTEND WALL LINER TO 6.5FT. INTO STRUCTURAL CONCRETE e PROVIDE CIRCUMFERENTIAL VERTICAL PLATE ON TOP OF FLOOR LINER NEAR WALL TO INHIBIT SPREADING OF FUEL DEBRIS TO REGION OF FLOOR-WALL JUNCTION i

_,_ X ~

s .

/0 _l X  %

3/A" STEEL LINF3 STEEL e

LINER A

e INSEMING CONCRITE TOP OF T100R ,1 j ,

EL. 740'-8" ,

' _r w-

]%

t- _.. c -g_ -J j x -- s. _

- f ,

x

. 4 ,. y N4 +

r .

s 'y' .

s

,- A ,

g 4 .

a' ,

5

' EL. 733' q

' 'l '

! l i

p' -

. s .

g *

' . o .

4*/ 730 7_ I l

[

CONTAINMDIT LINE

- SECTION - REACTOR CAVITY FI4)OR AND WALL MODIFIED DESIGN TO ACCQM,.MODATE M7EIN ASSESSMENT CASE

= v I

m 2200 2000 l

1800 i 1

1600

- , , f

-" l f

.' f I

(

i

[ 1400 I j

l t

] i g

1200 '

\

\

I I t

w ,

a l ' i i

1000 g  ;

Boil Dry time (132 Brs) f I

e ~ ~ f f I

600 I

) ,

i f

~ l i _

j t 600 Margin q j

Assessmen Case Boil 1 __

400 l _ __

' I l dry time (50% ,g  % ) f i I

x i l J

200  ; i.

) !m

} I 120 j ,

100 60 80 40 .e 0 20 dry, in.

Distance from sodium reaction front at boil RC FLOOR - COMPARIS0N OF BASE C AND f%RGIN ASSESSi1ENT CASE T l

i

~

E W  % C CL C U H l

- D E E m H cL E E E <

cn C Z

• < o o E W J U E u E W E e En Z o I o -

C H C llt: in (9

.,J Z - W CL H E W < 3 Z W t H' c - E W 4 Z: En E W W o Z o sn - E H E J

E E - W D <

Z t.n t.n o >

U

> ! >W E CL o H

t.LJ Z W < C o en Z tn -

En t.n Z v W 4 t.n

< D < >H Z Q >

O W En Q W W -

H ED C2l*

W Z ZW u

• 4 3 C H - es: a-Z to C < < EW 0.

H J < C "J W D CI: W J Hcn JWG Z W H

>== <C - H

> W 4 3

(

H-

- W mW H

=

(n

• C H U

- En lll>" Z U - > cQ C H a::

C - Z to o Z Z .

U - g - Z - W En En H ta. aC:

Z Z ct:

W id o co W O c Z U Z - H M i

H E - 4 -.J -

( W g > H 0: D D 1

< o to to o H< En o i

l Ls.J o - <C o W J

W W ct: ,

J X J Ct: E E 1

Q. E W eC G.

O O

ee O

STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF PIPEWAY CELL WALL

' UNDER MARGIN ASSESSMENT CASE CONDITIONS 9 WALL BETWEEN RC AND PIPEWAY CELL IN NARGIN ASSESSMENT CASE, WALL LINER TEMPERATURE SAME AS IN BASE CASE IN MARGIN ASSESSMENT CASE, 50 HOUR WALL TEMPERATU LOWER THAN BASE CASE, 70 hours8.101852e-4 days <br />0.0194 hours <br />1.157407e-4 weeks <br />2.6635e-5 months <br />

- IN BASE CASE WALL LINER INTEGRITY DEMONS 70 siouRS, CONCRETE WALL WILL NOT COLLAPSE BEFORE 132 HOURS e OTiiER WALLS IN MARGIN ASSESSMENT CASE, WALL LINER TEMPERATUR SAME AS IN BASE CASE IN MARGIN ASSESSMENT CASE, 30 HOUR TEMPERATURE TRANSIENT SAME AS 40 HOUR BASE CASE TEMP IN BASE CASE, WALL LINER INTEGRI'TY DEMONSTRATED FOR 40 il0URS, CONCRETE WALL WILL NOT COLLAPSE BEFORE 132 il0VRS s

I l

Z .

D D b g W k

k2Zm w*** W g W y M

~~

M 2 Q W gW g W W 2 k w

N u) o .

O trk

• < h' ds ~C s z I

-l ,

l i

, j 7~.- l I

j ' . U ^ 'kh%;,, , . 4 4

g

• j T \ .*

\ .*

j ~

y  % *.. -

/ i

.mJ

• I

\\v;,

2 '

j l

/

si i g k I. ) ! .

=

W I 6

I t .;

i St

= -

• T i

i t  %

2 . L - l/

e =

> i k

/

W (  %

a / $l !

o m l. -

w

-c_ a u 2

• w i yl .t a O l e 1 c ~ u I ', :, q

,e /. / ** >

a Lm 4(

a .

A - <j- l' ~

W i I

i f

c y A I

l:Jl l1 '

n ~

a

/ '

~

• l l fo' /

• y. .i 3

/

R )

lt E

i w

- i -

M L*)

A

~

j ii W.s,. :e ,-

4 u ' 1 l

y Vo [ n.s p %m*

n

' fl , ) /

z

, e Z

me I < i M > i l  :.:.W.:.~.!.

e m

u l

I l 'I

• m j .a I

< E .  ; e q .l .

o' g .

~

~

~ >

o' o $~ , ,

c u o' Ir o

~ $-

W t S I **

< W 3 ~ .

g (de)aJnquaggwy,

• f i ~

14CO.

1  ;

. 6 .

=

1*00.

I 1.

\'

' m s.

\

l i,l

• C.

• 40 llrs.

- sent. 1 Base Case E l '.

E {.i /

\ -

E aCO. .5 50 llrs.

~ ii.s L

40 llrs.

ih

,,,, g li., \

• 30 llrs, i'.h: y ,

.Co.

t .

. s s

[

%s~

' ' @.'1:,? e%

4:....~

.e. .... .

.[ ~'

' " -W'

- ' ' 7. . -. ~ .. ".5: . E: Z: ErK:-5.T "

~

O llrs. . $ -

o __ 3.2 3.6 -

8.s f.e 3.= t.8 o.o e.* s.s i.7 DISTANCE (FT)

NOTEi lhRGIN ASSESSMENT CASE TRANSIENTS UNLESS NOTED OTilERWISE PIPEWAY CELL WALL TEMPERATURES - MARG

I RESULTS OF PIPEWAY CELL WALL AND  ;

LINER EVALUATION !i t :

i .

I, e CONCRETE WALLS AND WALL LINERS MEET MARGIN  :

ASSESSMENT STRUCTURAL EVALUATION CRITERIA (

e 6

9 STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF PIPEWAY  ;

CELL FLOOR UNDER MARGIN ASSESSMENT CASE CO 1 1

5 o Floor LINER ASSUMED.TO Fall AT 0 HOURS '

s APPROXIMATELY 2.5 FEET PENETRATED BY SODIUM! .

t 0

t

(

i l

l i

' v ,

1 l ~ . - .

e en I I i

".m Y>

e 1

=.

I ac I w

3 - )l,1si 5 i i n k 8.- .- -

e. =

I , );

o l

-~

r ~

l e ffl,s<' ~

1 f

{ -

f 1 /g* is .

1

.. ,. = .

> +* ..

\

i

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

1

/ / .

i .

d' / e

/

I A "icl  ! a i

V If, l f' -

E ~

Y,s' /

o l[

o '

o j f -

hSp. c -

s' o

a  :

=

. /, .

s- .# . .. -

a

. e-

e w

a

> e >=*.

j y

1 ,

7.0.bi..,,,,..j a l

f- )

lI

...." '*..* ,1

.~

a J......,....

a I

. s-1 , I i

w w.

>- e ,l -

a. ..

s.

5:*

l \

\O. wts}..

.#I _ ~

d w

w 5 ~~

/

5 > . .pjqt-o.

em

5. m j

-  ! I ae -

e.

z

• • ; CD e fi s

ov --

a w

g a

_L - 1

,s  !

, /, '

'e um mm m u w - * ,, ( n , o m a -

,, i

(

6 w 1 4

.c o i a i a i z *-

a a d o o

~

- u 4 4 o o o o. o. -

(3 g o. o, ~ -

c: o. -

< w x a (3.) aangraadmal 9

4 s

00HClus10Hs 0F PI M j

e CURRENT DESIGN DOES NOT MEET MARGIN ASSESSME STRUCTURAL EVALUATION CRITERIA e MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE PIPEWAY FLOOR NECESSARY TO MEET THE MARGIN ASSESSMENT SC REQUIREMENTS O

G e

,f PIPEWAY CELL FLOOR MODIFICATIONS NEEDED FOR MARGIN ASSESSMENT CASE e PROVIDE Il IN. OF INSULATING CONCRETE BELOW SECOND LINE SEPARATING TWO LAYERS OF STRUCTURAL CONCRETE ll IN. TO MAINTAIN 3S IN. THICKNESS e LOWER FLOOR BOTTOM BY OF BOTTOM LAYER 4

g g e

EV

^

,._L-i at I

I , o M

C

• t/J a

U h3 zWW

5. H H i

E "WW

^

g EN) s5i @

N EW5 zes = =

% =.

4 m

A g

, I me Qw I M

• na

• >c

= P 9 a ,

w E

e M z C

M d l ,

y' '

p$Yh w 84

\ "7l

}

• m en C

-s W

I g

e y / *$ 5 y $ 'h b

-- d e

U

~^

~

h om

! s.

5

= '"

5 9 -

g 3 , b 5

E t,

- E o a an E ^ g M == W D g

< I W b

C w" PC

_a 52 M E 4

D U M Sh. ,

=

g v2 Z W

e z C a.

t'e mud R

= 4 4

1 W_

t i.,.

^

~

I C

1 7

I

• I r

e

' s n r i u l l 0 S o II 6 T li H d N n E 0 2 I 5 . S w i N N o -I n I A l R o

e i

, T E b t R a O L T

E n a 0 O A E R

o II l u 5 L M S C

i s F R A t

n E C N

O a i F I

I C

l O T T u

s tI o N E

%a F -

G n H M N ' .

i  % '0 R S I T O S T h ~

O E A t 0 H L S L i 4 O F S U

S W g R F A N E L N I - C I

E I I

N C G

_ A R 4 s T Y A S A M

_ ' __ -_ - ._ 0 D I W E

P 3

_ S I P

" _ \

J

\

- ' t~g Ii

\ \

D \

NR 0 OE 2 CN EI SL ,'

L" E

4

- O 0 0

_ . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 4 0 6 2 0 1 1

2

'o g dWEhe

_ l

C

- 7

- er se an ci L I

l lt' ~

nd en m2 s e r

,s sw u' i l I 0

eo i

o 6 S sl h T se N ab 2 E e3 . I nn ls a 1' i li N S i o I N gi c A rt , R aa e R T E

mlu

,B s

a ' i e 0 O O L E A S T < ss l~ _ 5 L M A E rn F R C R ui E C o -

F l T

N hh t u O i O - T NE I

0i - P C _ 5 w 'O - MS G T R S N

I T

.(

NN1 a 0 M 4 OR 0 E 4 SS I

A - F F A L

U I E L NI S = C L N ,i N E G I

A  ?

C RA

, T Y M S

"4 f

_ I A 0 D W E

3 4 _ - P I

t 1

I

_ - P ji

~

H

- ~

_ _ i 0 D 2 3

t R -

0 E CN i

~

_ EI ,

SL '

a_

s \

. 0

- 0

- 0 0 0 0 4 1

0 0 8 0 0 2

_ 0 6 1 0

1

_ 2 2

O s$i:

a M a 2 F.

s

~

,4 -- s - -

' + +

e e

e e

Q W <

W >J Z E Z < ~ c

- Z E O

< < m E O E W A -

& H H E M Z W K <

W W Q W Z E E F W W > 3 U W; L J H L M Z O W - E W U C

U M E J W &

V W H L W M Q - < Z W W O Z U H E W g - -

W L 5 Z

< c M C C -

Z U -

g - - > W M O M H M Z W O 3 M Z Q A < < <V W C J M H W A E <

d > < O =

J < U m M H U 3 - 0 Z

U J H O W

< M c O H

> < L -

H <

D< W J 0 W m 4 M

]O' Z

C C W

J W

O Z

H Z

" - Z 3 m - W A M < L Z W E% I M W #

c Z O F E O U E J -

m -

T E - 3 3 O H M C O O H OM W W J W - m 1 M M L M E L E e

e

_.y

STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF CONFINEMENT STRUCTURE FOR MARGIN ASSESSMENT CASE I

e IN BASE CASE INTEGRITY DEMONSTRATED FOR 140 HOURS, COOLING DOWN BEYOND 140 HOURS ,

e DIRECT COMPARISON OF MARGIN ASSESSMENT CASE TRANSIEN WITH BASE CASE TRANSIENTS NOT CONCLUSIVE t

e EVALUATION USING SIMPLIFIED COMPUTER MODELS s

- BASE CASE CONSIDERED AXISYMMETRIC MODEL FULL HEIGHT, FACTORS ESTABLISilED FOR RATIO OF FORCES AND MOME IN FULL MODEL TO TilosE IN RESTRAINED SECTION MODEL

- COMPUTER ANALYSIS (USING ANSYS) CARRIED OUT FOR RESTRAINED SFCTION MODELS UNDER MARGIN ASSESSMENT CASE TRANSIENTS FORCES AND MOMENTS ADJUSTED BY FACTORS FOR FULL EFFECT. CAPACITY OF SECTIONS DETERMINED FROM M-0 RELATIONS CBTAINED WITH COMPUTER PROGRAM MPi '

- CRITICAL TIME 30-50 HOURS, THEN COOLING TAKES PLACE s

'l:

3* 0" CONTAINMENT SHELL

5 EL 994* T 1 m ...... - . ,

CONFINEMENT STRUCTURE s.

3* 0" a

1 SPMERICAL SECTION R = 10T-4~

l R = 10T-6" - EL 913* . 7 9/15" y, CONTAINMENT  ;, .

- EL 910' - 5 M" l BUILDING " -

l f

/

R = E5*- 5 3/18"

\ S~" _

^

R = 53* 111/2" I;) 7. REACTOR SERVICE BLDG.

1 ROOF EL 884

• FT.

j .

35' j - EL 883* -5 3/16". i f M L_ P g , gg.,3 }__

..=

W

.c 1 F- b,.n 4* - 0" f STEAM GENERATOR

?

7. .. 4g SLDG. ROOF EL S

-' 357.5 t FT.

t- CYLINDRICAL

• l I, SECTION

\

!~~ \

I F $

GPERATING FLOOR  ?!

R = 98* -!" -

4 . EL 816* 0"

. , :..::e

- - i r

,,; g j

n- Y i m: ." 1 1

l CONFINEMENT STRUCTURE 4

5

~- -

O N-v-m

' e- -.

. ^ . . . _

r .

0 500 A

I i

I .

. I I

400 .

t

,- 1, 1

I I

Joe

-NQ l 143 hrs.

~

~

\ base case I

_ \\ ,

N ~

zoo

1. 0

- k* 30 ~

\

w ~

l hp ,, % rghe 4 f, . gN'9

[~ -- .

j u jos / _%%

g s

/

" - 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> Base Case

- 1 I

' '

• i o .

40 50 to Jo n so Distance From Face - In.

l CONFINEMENT WALL TEMPERATURE AT EL. 900'

+0- - - .

-w

-A.-- L-x a a "

s I

l i

a w

t e

J E -

O 3 0

- H E U <

&< D E C E

-J > E 4 to w C

i

>M L H Z Z D LL.D w >

M E 3 W H Z E tJ -

D LL O l

M Z W i

>-- O H

, u) U Z Z < E -

L&J = E

C H W in LJ F- Z E uJ t O

, - >= 0 Z >=

LL < O -

llZ E J C C >= Z t) in O

Z Z LL O - U O E < H w >-

u)- Q Z Z '

f

- W '

s

>J th ( E -~.'

E en D >- t.M u) J UJ a.LJ D J M, (n J sn \,;,

- CO ,.

W <

M X d O

t e

e 9

. J

a 5 ,!

STRitTulGL EVALUATION FOR MARGIN ASSES

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSION ,

e J

REACTOR CAVITY WALL AND WALL LINER MEET STRUCTURAL EVALUATION CRITERIA 3.,

e e WITH MINOR MODIFICATIONS REACTOR CAVITY MARGIN ASSESSMENT EVALUATION CRITERIA -

o PiPEWAY CELL WALLS AND WALL LINERS MEE .

EVALUATION CRITERI A ,  !

l

,r O

WITtk MINOR l40DIFICAT10NS, PIPEWAY

~

CELL/

g FLOOR e

WOULD

~J '. i

~

MARGidASSE'SSMENTEVALUATION, t CRITERIA,.

l y ll t

0 CONFINEMENT STRUCTURE,AND CONTAINMENT SHELL MEET

' '  ; 1, l ASSESSMENT EVALUATION CRITERIA , >

l t p .)

7 . .; ,,

s ,

e  ;

C\

e t .-

CRBPR OVERVIEW BRIEFING .

FOR NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .

CRBPR PROGRAM 0FFICE CONTAINMENT VENT AND CLEANUP SYSTEM PRESENTED BY PETER FAZEKAS . ..

MANAGER, AUXILIARY SYSTEMS ENGINEERING BURNS AND R0E, INC.

l

\

O CONTAINMENT CLEANUP SYSTEM

- DESIGN DEVELOPMENT e EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS .

(

e SELECTION OF THREE-STAGE WET SCRUBBER l

e TESTING OF THE SELECTED CONCEPT e DYNAMIC. ANALYSIS OF THE SYSTEM ON BASIS OF TEST RESULTS 1

l

- i i

o -

CONTAINMENT CLEANUP SYSTEM EVALUATIDH OF ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS (HEDL REPORT TC-836)

! MAJOR ALTERNATES CONSIDERED:

s HIGH EFFICIENCY SYSTEMS (99% EFF.)

e BAG + HEPA + CHARC0AL e CYCLONE + HEPA + CHARC0AL e SAND AND GRAVEL + HEPA + CHARC0AL ~

e WET FIBER BED + HEPA + CHARC0AL e MEDIUM EFFICIENCY SYSTEMS-(90% EFF.)

e VENTURI SCRUBBER e SPRAY CHAMBER (QUENCH TANK) l e WET FIBER BED SELECTED SYSTEM DESIGN:

e HIGH EFFICIENCY PERFORMANCE (99% EFF.)

e HIGH MASS LOADING CAPABILITY

\ ,

e THREE-STAGE WET SCRUBBER ,

VENTURI WET FIBER BED QUENCH +

-+

SCRUBBER SCRUBBER TANK

CONTAINMENT VENT AND CLEANUP SYSTEM DESIGN DESCRIPTION e VENT SYSTEM DESIGN e DESIGN REQUIREMENTS .

e ' SYSTEM DESCRIPTION e SYSTEM OPERATION e CLEANUP SYSTEM DESIGN e DESIGN REQUIREMENTS e SYSTEM / COMPONENT DESCRIPTION e SYSTEM OPERATION l

I t

l l

t

I 1

~ .

CONTAINMENT VENT, PURGE AND CLEANUP SYSTEMS h

I

/ , / ****~~= % -  :

• O. L.._

/--*L - J~

f i

/y '

sn$ne ,

j -

r -r._o,.,

~

. . M_ @.

~

f.%.

& ,PUflGE h.

k- ,

CONTAINMENT I

ISOLATION vat.VES j j8 NT j otSo URGE GAS a

I ,% ,

L -

1 ,

~

x . M. :

FIBROUS

?

i 7

N SCHUGHER (g _ <

r l

m- t sem '

rower l

AAm QW h TANK iL L 4 a'

• j y 1 g

'Qy VE NTURI

• SCRUDBER r  ;

' 'f J, -

l MANEUP

' WATER  ; -

• SOLUTION

) j l

$Uppty TANM #

k g *** n a.c.a__,,______,

soLUTrog' - --.

ANNULUS 1

Devue 6

= _ _- _ _ - _ - - - ____

! j : iIi t . .

- 1

i

? -

S E

P I

P T N M N I E A T D L S N E Y U N S D A S E P G E R N R H B

' I U M G E D R S O U N I B E S O O M T E R R L N T N R H O M E R

E P L O T TN TI D E

E U S D R K T S L N T M E A C S S O A N E V U T O Y O T L S E S S H C R O S C Y C A T P R E S A Y N E R E E T L E T A U H T T P N L A

V N U N E 1

A M T

E M H R M l N O T A R S R N N iD EP OR E S VE OR NO E

I A 0 M F L E .

M T S E T N C V D T N L A A M I N O H O B D V A N R EO R I

A C TI D E T I B P F T  : M N T O N E W T AAU Y O V NO T O N E E L I

C E LALU TC s I E T V V N l

l N C A T A T LAOR E H L O MO E OI L A L R R PA V N O O R T C A U E O S O L I O C P T I T AC TA OL T NU RO NA 0 i

/ D T S

T Y F F M N O TEC A N ESL O V R T I N T I D R T N N N G ET T P NN DU A T N A CO E N U O C E I M C I O

E R AP AM S IM I A E E E R O E E e r I

U C R D R C C R F S

Q E E e e D e e e R e e

) ll f  :

CONTAINMENT CLEANUP SYSTEll .

REQUIREMENTS:

e 99% EFFICIENCY FOR SOLID AND/0R LIQUID RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS '

e 97% EFFICIENCY FOR VAPORS (NAl,. SE02 , SB20 3) '

e REMAIN FUNCTIONAL WITH CALCULATED S0DliX1 AEROSOL INGESTION e REMAIN FUNCTIONAL WITil CONTAINCD RADI0 ACTIVITY AND HEAT GENERATION FROM FISSION PRODUCTS ,

s REMOTE MANUAL ACTUATION FROM THE CONTROL ROOM .-

DESCRIPTION OPERATION: .

e WET SCRUBBER FILTRATION SYSTEM ,

e DISCHARGE AT TOP 0F THE CONFINEMENT DOME '

e 211,000 NOMINAL ACFM CAPACITY e WATER SYSTEM DESIGNED FOR PH OF 13 e SYSTEM LOCAT,ED IN THE REACTOR SERVICE BUILDING e ALL ACTIVE COMPONENTS REDUNDANT

- l l

CONTAINMENT VENT AND CLEANUP SYSTEM SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS e CONTAINMENT VENT SYSTEM e CONTAINMENT ISOLATION VALVE OPERABILITY e CONTAINMENT PENETRATION DESIGN e VENT PIPE PLUGGING

~

e CONTAINMENT CLEANUP SYSTEM e POTENTIAL HYDROGEN EXPLOSION e WATER OVERFLOW INTO CONTAINMENT e MATERIAL SELECTION / COMPATIBILITY l

.r . 4

~

- CONTAINMirlT VENT SYSTEM VALVE OPERABILITY e REDUNDANT VENT LINES WITH DOUBLE ISOLATION VALVES e VALVES LOCATED IN AREAS NOT AFFECTED BY TMBDB CONTAINMENT ENVIRONMENT e REMOTE OPERATION FROM CONTROL ROOM e NO MANUAL OVERRIDE CAPABILITY t

l s

I .

l

,e - - * ,

i ,

\ .

\

I l

CONTAINMENT VENT SYSTEM PENETRATION DESIGN l

l e CURRENT CONFIGURATION SIMPLE " PIPE THRU" PENE f e THERMAL ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE CONTAINMENT VESS TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION AT PENETRATION VICINIT e STRESS ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE CONTAINMENT e FALL BACK TO FLUED-HEAD CONFIGURATIO

' EXCESSIVE I

a

CONTAINMENT VENT SYSTEM

~

PIPE PLUGGING e THE CURRENT DESIGN IS BASED ON THE CONVEYING METHOD - RESULTED' PIPE SIZE 24" e HEDL TEST INDICATED PLUGGING OF 10" PIPE e THE TECHNICAL LITERATURE WAS REVIEWED FOR IN TURBULENT FLOW .

e CONSERVATIVE EQUATION WAS SELECTED FOR PIPE P e SCOPING CALCULATION INDICATED THAT 36" PIPE W PLUG UNDER TMBDB CONDITION e VERIFICATION 0F PLUGGING E20ATION WITH TEST R PROCESS e BASED ON TEST EXPERIENCE PIPE ROUTING CRIT

AEROSOL DEPOSITION IN DUCTS 1000 ._

3. __ __ . .

T O g>

__._ _ c.

100 ..__ _

y_..

,h-1 .__

_ . . . .T. _ __

o

.4 . -

M . . _ ._

o4 l *** .__ __ _ __.

_u_, ___

a _ _ .

T o

m l .. _ . .

I 10 _._

z._. _ ___. .

c __.

a .

, w

.. .p. _

_ _g, _ -_ _ . __. _... _ _..

y, m.. __ . _ . _ ._ . .

_9 o _ .

c_ .

w . . . _

v, V) . _ . _ .m . _

1 ._ _ _

_r_ __

z _. .

a a

_1 J.

o ._ _

_ . 2 __ _

- x A_i _ . .

l _ .

I _ . .

100 1000 1 10 b 1

. u,o l

TOTAL MASS ENTERING DUCT o o(KG) S on .

1 e cos s Q %CH.%O i

l e

EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL LITERATURE ,

AND SELECTION OF EQUATION .

FOR AEROSOL DEPOSITION IN TURBULENT FLOW e THE WORK OF THE FOLLOWING AUTHORS WERE EVALUATED:

e FRIEDLANDER AND JOHNSTONE e WELLS AND CHAMBERLAIN .

e DAVIES e SEHMEL

~

e LIU AND ILORI e GIESKE ET. AL.

e SEHMEL'S EMPIRICAL FORMULA WAS SELECTED e BASED ON EFFECTIVE PARTICLE DIFFUSITIVITY MODEL AND CORRECTED BY LINEAR REGRESSION METHOD PER AVAILABLE EXPERIMENTAL DATA e ASSUMED PERFECT PARTICLE SINK SURFACE e GOOD STATISTICAL CORRELATION WITH EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS e THE SELECTED FORMULA R RE K+ = 1.47 x 10- f3

+

WHERE: K = DIMENSIONLESS' DEPOSITION 3 VELOCITY P = PARTICLE DENSITY (s /cm ) ,

R= RATIO 0FPARTICLEDIAMETER(pt)TO PIPE DIAMETER (cM)

RE = REYNOLDS NUMBER ,

~ _ _ . . _ . .

_ ._. _ g -

_. , {_._l _. _3.. -- l 3

g- .. _ . . . , _ . .-. _._ . , . .. .

L_, ,

. _ , 7. _

• _ _ _ .

_ d._ :_ :_. _1 ,

. e i 8  !

__l _.' ._ _ m __

- l l l _

I s .

-\ _ _ __

8 '

m, - - . .. .. . . , ..

10 - ,

. . . 1 . .. . ..

e .

tp s _

e .'

i

a. 7 . c r ,, _

,s

-- 10 .

w .

i o _.

/ -

=_.a I. -

D. _

ce .

r

/ -

o u.

w m_ /'

ca ,J. ,

,o f m 6 s.s, . .

w g .a n,

. ,/

s

/

s...

/ # ,, s

.-Ty --

r s

/

f

/ *

$$ , t

,o p

I o '

)

c.

L.L3 W. /

>l' -Y t% L  ? yo 7 -

,,.a m

,,A .# l /

# -#., _ . '- -__g.-,

ac '

g g. f p, , , ,

H O 10 . __ r. < _+ m _..-, _f , y

. y ,

c

.o w

(, ve ,' -

e f '

, )

r /

4 L' b4"[W s

, / " i I 6 w O '/ ~2 '

SF f l l E / .s k

,' $ l (

Q, )

[ I s

/

W p.,, ,,e r #

s

. , , . s .W

--  ;- , 7 .

LA.J " ~ .

,v ,

1 "

'.l ..

a s s

)

g '

_ .\ .. ..

10 - - <

"_z_'_....____'_____

__.' p'/ __

y __ __. . . . . ..

,- p,_,,<___ .. __

E p.-/  :

~

3 <

24 26 28 10 -

16 18 20 22 , .. ,e 10 12 14 i 4 6 8 PIPE DI A",ETER .(c:0

- - - ~ . --m--- . , . . , . - - - , - - , - - - . - - - -. ,- -- .+,-----.--.m.- - - - - - - - . -

i ..

- - -.x ..

l 4._ .

_. wi f, /

,m,r.(

i -

i -

10 . . . .. .. .. . .

/, . ,

l

/_

p_/ i

'B .

W- )f W I

e

/./ ,.

$/

// l i}Q' .

1

- - - i- - r--> *t - i .__ .

~ 10 ,', s'f- .

e D'

ir -

. s. -

g s * '

e u .

fg g // _. ._ __ ._ __

i

.O //

n / , t _I i

.a

,, f I // I

/

)/ I 10

/

_,_.,-e ,_.i rf r- , a -. , .

.._ g_ ;

-< --f- -- {

i i .

e , ,

f

. O be -

9 6 . ._, =

I ,

d 0

- - iI

. .. O

a. e O

a e' 17 N. O- OL -

s / - 2Mc"~ j l ~ e%P(_.cg I -

~

p >.m

• 10 e n t, ._. _.. f.)I .

g

._.Im.,, - D ,4 a

g

}f, i .

. 10 4 /. 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

- 20 30 40

. PIPE DIAMETER' (cm)

=

e .. ee k W'e gw __,

,g g _.

• ~ . ..

CONTAINMENT CLEANUP SYSTEM POTENTIAL HYDR 0 GEN EXPLOSION e THE VENTED GASES ARE NOT CONTAINING HYDR 0 GE MIXTURES IN THE EXPLOSIVE RANGE e HIGH POINTS OF THE COMPONENTS VENTED TO PREVENT STAGNATION l e NON-EXPLOSIVE GAS MIXTURE WILL NOT SEPARATE '

e 1

l l -

CONTAINMENT CLEANUP SYSTEM

! WATER OVERFLOW INTO CONTAINMENT 1

1 i

i

{ e THE CLEANUP SYSTEM COMPONENTS COULD CONTAIN THE ENTIRE WATER INVENTORY l

e THE EXPECTED WATER LEVEL IS BELOW THE VENT I PIPE ELEVATION I

[ . .

t

CONTAINMENT CLEANUP SYSTEM MATERIAL SELECTION / COMPATIBILITY l

l e ALLMETALLICCOMPONENTSARESPECIFIEDASCARs0N STEEL OR ARE TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXPECTED WATER CHEMISTRY e THE FIBROUS SCRUBBER ELEMENTS SPECIFIED AS POLYPROPYLENE, TEST INDICATED HIGH PH COMPATI5ILITY

.e

- ~ ~

~ /

CONTAINMENT CLEANUP SYSTEM TESTS e TEST OBJECTIVES

. e TEST DESCRIPTION e TEST RESULTS AN

(

f,I s' (

S\'\41 W

4 t' y#

• g t

CONTAINMENT VENT AND CLEANUP SYSTEM 3

TEST OBJECTIVES e DETEMINE THE PARTICLE DECONTAMINATION PER ,

SYSTEMCOMPONENTSDURINGVARIdUSOPERATINGCONDI

> e DETERMINE THE CONDENSIBLE DECONTAMINATION

- THE SYSTEM e DETERMINE THE HEAT 7 REMOVAL CAPABILITY OF THE COMPONENTS e ESTABLISH THE' PRESSURE LOSSES THRU THE S '

DURING VARIOUS OPERATING CONDITIONS e

DETERMINE THE AEROSOL CHARACTERISTICS IN THE CONTA o EVALUATE THE OPERABILITY OF THE SYSTEM COMPONE e DEMONSTRATE THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE SPEC -

MATERIALS WITH THE SYSTEM ENVIRONMENT s DETERMINE THE AEROSOL DEPOSITIONS IN THE SYSTE l

. e =

n

- i e

. . - . - _-_-..._c

l CONTAINMENT CLEANUP SYSTEM TEST DESCRIPTION e TEST ARTICLE CONFIGURATION .

e EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENTS e TEST CONDITIONS ..

O e

l d'

4 I

- - - -- -----r-

.Y ,

5 e

e S

I

.va m ,,

e , ,- , -

cc::c en.

. x .

n Nj,

- D E #' _

l

_~>

1 s-bE -

g . , . . %

U3 ' N

&< ==64 u) cr'.

O Ha 0

~ -

C t.D 8 O - g -

z L1-Ex C5 Rh *

= &

'u .

n gE '

h w  ?."

z w -

d m bb

-c @i a

= 0:

s e g$ 5 z en - ,I ,_

a G &

m a l

• N

• g>> J. .

g >( u " .> -

WI 02(

- i e

.O O eaW

,ya e e e summ=

,,, me.

CONTAINMENT CLEANUP SYSTEM TEST EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENTS i e SUSPENDED AEROSOL MASS CONCENTRATION (AT e AEROSOL SIZE DISTRIBUTION (AT ALL COMPONENTS e AEROSOL PARTICLE SIZE AND SHAPE (AT ALL CO e AEROSOL CHEMICAL COMPOSITION (CV & DUCT) e SETTLED AEROSOL MASS (CV, DUCT) e SETTLED AEROSOL DENSITY (CV, DUCT) e S0DIUM SPRAY RATE (CV) e COMPONENT PRESSUPI DROPS (ALL COMP 0NENTS)-

e GAS FLOW RATE (FS OUTLET) e LIQUID FLOW RATE (AT ALL COMPONENTS) e GAS TEMPERATURE (AT ALL COMPONENTS) e LIQUID TEMPERATURE (AT ALL COMPONENTS) e GAS COMPOSITION2 2 (02 , H , CO , M0ISTURE/CV, FS OUTLET) f S

i CONTAINMENT CLEANUP SYSTEM .

l

' TEST CONDITIONS AC-4 AC-5 AC-6 AC-1 AC-2 AC-3 COMPONENTS l, NO NO YES YES YES YES

! e QUENCH TANK -

YES YES YES YES YES YES

! e VENTURI SCRUBBER YES YES YES YES VES YES o WET FIBER SCF;UBBER NaOH.H2O NaOH Ma0H.H2 0 AEROSOL TYPE Na202 NaOH Ma2003 15 13 27 3 6 11 5 INLET CONCENTRATION (g/m )

3.5 3.3 5.5 ,

3.1 3.7 3.6 l PARTICLESIZEAlmo(f) 2.5 2.5 2.8 2.1 2.8 2.6 GEOMETRIC STD. DEVISTION 0.55 0.44 0.54 3 0.19 0.35 0.27

! GAS FLOW RATE (m / s ) 2.1 2.1 2.0 5.7 1.5 1.8 4 PRESSURE DROP (kPa ) 424 61 .2 342 477 COLLECTEDAEROSOLS(kg) 60.6 1 51 -

~

MEASUREDEFFICIENCY.*(%) 62 62 - -

79 66 81 94.5 88 86 87 QUENCH TANK 89 99.4 VENTURI SCRUBBER .

99.2 99.2 99.9 98.6 99.0 99.98 99.96 WET FIBER SCRUBBER ' 99.96 99.95 99.93 99.97 OVERALL SYSTEM s

CONTAINMENT CLEANUP SYSTEM TEST MAJOR CONCLUSIONS l

! e PARTICLE DECONTAMINATION PERFORMANCE 99.95%

e NAI DECONTAMINATION PERFORMANCE 99.8%

e AT DESIGN FLOW CONDITIONS VENTURI SCRUBBER LEAVING GAS AND WATER IN THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM

! e PRESSURE DROPS VARIED AS PREDICTED z SYSTEM CAPABLE

! FOR LARGE AEROSOL LOADINGS e THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL COMPONENTS IMPROVED WITH REDUCED i

GAS FLOW

e THE SYSTEM LOADING DEPENDS ON NA CO23 SOLUBILITY, RECOMMENDED LIMIT 115g NA/L e THE DECONTAMINATION EFFICIENCY IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE AEROSOL .

e RECOMMEliDED L/G RATIOS VENTURI SCRUBBER 0.007 .

WET FIBER SCRUBBER 0.00008 ,

a WET FIBER SCRUBBER MAX VELOCITY 21 FT/SEC e SYSTEM OPERATION WAS SATISFACTORY . ._

NO SPRAY N0ZZLE PLUGGING NO FIBER ELEMENT DETERIORATION

- i NO CARBON STEEL CORROSION TROUBLE FREE FLOW MODULATION

e l

- - - a a *

• 3 10 2 , a > . >g .

0 AC1 .

. O AC2 - A A AC3 -

A #U# .

1tr 3 2

AoO -

o .

P .

4 i a p

g

w. -

2 -

i w O a.gg 4 -

c -

A E A D

w -

A e w A.

10-6 gt .

f -

, , I ,

,,,I .$g 2 10 3 8 10 4 id tr PRED!CTED PENETRATION mam, sus.na.s

- 1 Comparison of Measured and Predicted sodium Aerosol Penetration by Total, System. -

, o w _, . -

^

Na! MASS BALANCE AND Na! REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FO Test AC3 Recovered Refoova l *

(g Nal) _ Efficiency Component _

205 0.291 Quench Tank .

208 0.417 Venturi Scrubber 289 0.9947 Finrous Scrubber 1.531_ 1.000*

HEPA Filter 703.531 0.9978** .

' overall System

~* Assumed 7-.

• • Excluding HEPA filter

SUMMARY

OF Na! EFFICIENCIES DETERMINED BY AEROSOL AND BY LIQUID SAMPLING METHODS Averace Efficiency Average Test All Tests AC4 Nal-1 Nal-2

~ACJ Conconent Quench Tank _ *

• Aerosoi

• 0.53 0.41 0.33 Liquid 0.29 .

Venturi Scrunoer_ 0.67 0.21 0.41 0.57 0.20 0.68

- Aerosca

• 0.8.3 0.80 Liquid 0.42 . . -

Fiorous Scruocer 0.997 0.998 0.996 0.998 0.990 ** 0.990 Aerosol 0.995 Liquid

.QT/VS/F5 System _ 0.998 0.999- 0.9963

.

• M.992 ** 0.9978 i

~ Aerosol * **

Liquid 0.9978 ,

• Not measured; no inlet sample taken

• • Not measured; back-up HEPA filter. not analyzed 8"-

• e e.

e e . .e a

- - ~ - - - - - e - & -

--__....,.,.,.,,n. ,-- r --- -- ,-g--,-p,w .

i

. \

l

. . .....g -

100, , , . ....,g ,

- O AC1 ~

A AC2

". o AC3 0 AC4 -

2 -

OPEN SYMBOLS = 3.38 m FALL HEIGHT-u ,

.. g CLOSED SYMBOLS = 1.89-m FALL HEIGHT C >; ~ "rd. .  %

5  % T g, = OUTLET GAS TEMPERATURE E

a. g*"$ 4

% Tgl = INLET GAS TEMPERATURE 7 ,

10-1 0 .

- Tg = AVERAGE UQUID TEMPERATURE .

> 3 o iE

~

_ NS -

o  % O EE s'

gg - og q, g

, c -

q q%

gg 4 O c CORRELATING CURVE e c POR 1.8S.m FALL HEIGHT ~-

g3c s 10-2 7 N ~

Z r .

g CORRELATING CURVE -

h .

FOR 3.h FALL HEIGHT -

' 2 .

i 2

i t

c -

100 10-3 4 10-1 . .

i 10-2 10 f SPRAY FLOW RATE / GAS FLOW RATE (DIMENSIGNLISS) essa. mm.ts:

4 l

Correlation of Gas Cooling Data for Quench Tank.

~

~

- . - - . _ . - _ - - - - _ ,_m_._ _- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-. , _ . . . . _ _ - - . _ _ __ . . _ _ _ _ _ - _ . . - _

i-

. . e 3

3 G = 0.238 m /s ISTP) 10.803 m /s ACTUAL) AT VS INLET

• L/G = 0.00353 UQUID = 0.5 M NACH

,300 S .

=

> ms \

! \

VS GAS INLET ,

300 . **

30 -

VS GAS OUTLET w u ,

g 3 .

,,.# " ' VS UQUID OUTLET

~

~

80

~

O em t

+E -

TEMP CIFFERENCE VS GAS O VS LIQUID

$ u 7 7 4 7 -7 7 0 s 9 .-

t t s

80 m 50

.g __-

20 30 . .

0 10 TIME (mini j nies seran.m

' 4 Gas tooling by Venturi Scrubber at Intermediate Vafue of 1./G.

we

.e

. . l

- ~ ~ -

I J

l

. l 3 l* E -

G = 0.4723m /s (STPi G = 1.1 m13/sMACTUAL NADH ATVS INL27 .

UQUID = -

400 -

4 dik ,

f '

d / '

- VS GAS INL1T p 350 PROPANE N

BURNEA OFF .

MIN 20 I' .

. e, .

100 pi4 4--c VS GAS OUTLET #p

\W h h

' Cf A 1 i

30 - e# o.o- -

a P I -

5 VS UQUID OUTLET -

- d r si u g?

L r -n

+10 - -

TEMP DIFFERENCE VS GAS OUTLET -

VS UQUID b -

0 -

l

-'./ G = 0.0029 a U L/G = 0.0025--

L 4

2b 2

• 10 1ho -

0 50 ,

TIME (min) mem.sswei.w .

l Gas Cooling by Yenturi Scrubber at 1.ow L/G Ratios j .

o

+ .

.g ,

• • % **O" y

-M  ;

l PREDICTED PRESSURE DROP (Pescalsi 100 180 0 W 18

, i a 0.8 e O TESTS WITH AMBIENT AIR AND Pl.AIN WATER 0 A MIDWAY IN TEST AC1 -

A END OF TEST AC1 -

0.~.i

- 5 MIDWAY IN TEST AC2 j a END OF TEST AC2 o y

{

z o MIDWAY IN TEST AC3 . g a END OF TEST AC3 , 9 0 - 100 [

= - V MIDWAY IN TEST AC4 o 0.4 a *.

C Y END OF TEST AC4 a O C

e Q -Au C E

.w a -

w w

Q.3 m C s c ti C

C ' - 50 E 3

E 0.2 -

a 3

m UNE OF PERFECT AGREEMENT C 2 2 . -

0.1 #

l f i i 0

t i 1 q 0.4 0.5 . 0.8 . .

0.1 - 0.2 0.3 0.0 .

C I PREDICTED PRESSURE DROP (In. H2 l nen ne.us Comparison of Measured and Predicted Pressure Drop Across Quench Tank. .

. ^

PREDICTED AP (kPs) 1.0 . 1J 2.0 0 OJ 2.0 0.5 ,

. 3 g

8 . g O ROOM TEMPERATURE TESTS WITH CLEAN AIR -

7 -A DATA FROM AC1 O DATA FROM AC3 -

- 1.3 8 -

- O .

Es z

O 2

n.

i - 1.0 g O. a.

2 4 -

< a <2 0

C -

33 - a b c o

3 a m

m U

~

• • 'b y2 ~

C s

O c -

E1 2

$ 0 - 0 w 0 -

2 ' i

[

3 -o O

' ' ' ' 0.5 2 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 .

-2 -1 0 PREDICTED PRESSURE GAIN 2(In. H O) peotsusvas

. Comparison of Measured and Predicted Pressure Differentials Across Venturi Scrubber.

l .

PREDICTED AP (kPal 1.5 2.0 0.5 1.0 . 2.5 0 . ,

3 10 ,~g . , ,

~

9 -

0 TEST AC1 A, TEST AC2 g -- 2.0 O PRETEST AC3 g

a TEST AC3 9

- e TEST ACA ~

V POST TEST AC4 '

7 _

T

- 1J .I -

$E "

. c 8 -

5 e O ew 5 -

• us o - 1.0 E<

E w

n. 4 _

c 2 w '

2

@ 3 a

< UNE OF PERFECT - 0.5 ,

$ 2 - - AGREEMENT 1

' ' ' ' O I '

' I I 8 9 1Q 0 4 6 8 7 .

1 2 3 O

2

PREDICTED PRESSURE DROP (In. H O)nam som:

- i Comparison of Measured and Predicted Pressure Orop Acros Scrubber.

i .

~ .

y

- - - - * -- -==-*===+*"

-=======-=

24

- 8.0 , ,

0 18 TEST ACS 130 gg4

- 33 .

5.0 POINT NUMBERS REFER

• TO OPERATING PERIODS. .

DEFINED IN TABLE 5 T 02 019

- 18

" 4.0 -

5

a. C, o

• U z g 03 .

o 10 -

E w

• O 010

D - S m D OM Mw LO a OU 012 '

' 4 '

1.0 - gaos PRETEQ o1, .

2 .

11g22 g

O 0 .

0.4 0.5 0.8 0.7 O 0.1 0.2 0.3 G (m3/s.) (STP)

, , , 10 2=5 >

TEST AC.d 10 69 5 . g .

l g, POINT NUMBERS REFER 7 _TO OPERATING PERIODS c11

a. DEFINED IN TABLE 6 a 5 o4 a

,N g 1.5 -

2

• g o '

N.-

w PRETEST , 4

- 7 ,

m 1.0 M

1 .W

[ E - 2 l

6 0.5 - 12 .

6 O

0 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 l

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 - - - -

l 3

G (m ) (STP) 1 I

l l

1 14

, g j, ,

3.5 - .

' l ,

g.4 l/ .

l

. li ,} - _ 22 2.0 _

~ l II .'

l' -

iij

..# a 11 10 _

2.5 -

fIi Q

2 TI -

T 0. ass 1/2 _._

I ,

E a- I -

8 =

6 W 's- E a.

C 2.0 -

. I .- O a

s '

C o - -

w w

e .

sg o.cos2s1/2 e

Se 1.5 -

v 1 I

- e w

- g a ' "

• l/OLUBluTY FOR Na2CO3@20*O[

UMIT 4 1.0 .

I -

l -2 03 -

3 GAS FLOW 0.47 STD rn /s 24*C #

0 150 0 100 0

to inset use.w _.

'UQUID CONCENTRATION (g Na/t) , _

- i Effect of Caustic Spray on Pressure Drop Across Fibrous Scrubb

. 1

^ ~

- - - - . . . - - . .a ._. _. _

~

3.1 . . .

. g g . .

2.8 ~ ~

s LE - * .. 10 2.4 .

2.2 ag

.g.2.0

=

e -

, *n =

a. 1.3 C

m O 1.8 - - 8 m -

O E *w o $.4 a

m . 2 -

e e w m m $2<- W

e. m

- 4 a. .

1.0 .

~

0.8 - 3 GAS M.OW 0.C STD m /s TEMPERATURE = 24*C 0.g .

UQUID CONC. <1 g Na/2 2 0.4 .

0.2 - .e 0

0.20 0 0.08 0.12 0.16 0 0.04 s em anet.n WATER SPRAY RATE (2/s) . . .

• I e 1 i )

\

l Effect of Water Spray Rate on Pressure Drop Across' Fibrous .

j

' Scrubber.

l .

~~~-- 2.-- _ 33. ~ --.- - - - - - - , . -. . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ mr- ' ----- - . , _ ,

e ,

I ee e p e

i 1

1 1

4 ,

M ,

E v

W X X X .X m

M 4

>==

= &

0.

w W *'*

8 M

M J

M E b o u

E

@ 8

! g w e

m w

= ~ a

< & W n

=J C C O

m W y M

$a k w =

% C W g

t@

g "g"* . .

7 - J m.

M cc cf. M W cr..

y y a

W W K

! 4 4

• lE M Z ><--

3 -

a J a M W= -  !

C <

s

< ~ =

> - 4 <. >4 W = &

M W .-. C U C

& = = C r - t.o =

e O O l'

e e e 4'

t 1

I

\. -

PUMP, MAKE-UP, ASSUMPTIONS / INPUTS ASSUMPTION CONSERVATISH INPUT X

e CONSTANT VOLUME, VARIABLE TEMP, DENSITY X X e .5 F AT INPUT DUE TO PUMPING ACTION 0 X ,

X e C0OLING WATER INLET TEMPERATURE 91 F 1

' X e MAKE-UP RATE 5 GPM X X e MAKE-UP TEMPERATURE 91 F .

i i I I'

8 l- .

j .

'~

BASIC PROGRAM LOGIC STARTOFPROGRAM) o -

/ SET INITIAL CONDITIONS / /

AND ASSUMPTIONS

/

1 1P - , ,

fREAD INPUT FILE AND PRINT OUT DATA 1 -/ , _

/

hDOFPROGRN[4 7

t .

CALCULATE SOLUTION CALCULATE QUENCH TANK jTANK HEAT BALANCE MASS. HEAT BALANCE y

EAT T

. ALANC LANCE MV FBAN CAtCutATt Nx

. HEAT BALANCE _

EAT LANC ALANC

't CALCULATE FIBROUS SCURBBER .

14 ASS, HEAT BALANCE

.e f

\

M . . .

\ ,

l

. 1 1

l t

l l

~ _

~

. 0

.~

ts -

l I I m.

o 4 i 22 =

t

,8 -  ;

k u

s I}

p 14 -

z w

I E

C 5

o EO -

i i ~t i 4 I L I i i e 10 0 11 0 120 13 0 40 50 60 70 80 . 90 TIME, HOURS AFTER THE ACCIDENT .

o~Y. N* ,

CONTAINMENT VENT RATE _.

1100 -

f VENTED GAS .

TEMPERATURE M -

c

- ~7

- e w 900

- 6 e E

I N

e w -

5$

g 800 . t w

o 0

6- i

- 4 ,

700 -

l __!

, (e

, ~ 3 AEROSOL FLOW RATE $

k t

- z e00 .

c t. . . .

60 70 80 90 10 0 11 0 12 0 30 40 50 TIME, HOURS AFTER THE ACCIDENT

'Of RATE VENTED GAS TEMPERATURE AND AEROSOL FLOW

-- - _--__ _ _-- --- , - - - - - - - - - - - + , - - - - - - - - - - - . - , - - - - . , - , - - - - - , - - , , . - - . - - - - ,- - - , - - - - - - - - -

l _

l . ...

I c.- C-Y O .

I O w O D

t

-o -

' C D

e.

z N

sw -ro -

.J

=

o I I I I 0 -0 - 20 -30 10 SOLtJTICN #NLET TEMR - GAS INLET TEMP. ,'F

.' , ._ p RELATIONSHIP FOR VENTURI SCRUSSER DATA so .

o &

a t

.e.

1 o E _

g .

S o O o e o g _

1-eo -to ms -

> 400oF

.o- o o VENTED CASTFMP E, < 4000F t .

. t l 6 Q

40 30 00 10 30 30 o

SAS FLM RATC / SOLUTION FLOW RATE, SCFM/SPM d

AfLAT10MSHtP FOR OUCNCM TAME DATA

I

~

1000 -

VENTED SAS 800-w e

as e 600-D 4e .

2 -

Y AnO-DISCHARGED GAS 200 -

j -#

i I i e I I 70 80 90 40 50 60 30 TIME, HOURS AFTER THE ACCIDENT .o CALCULATED DISCHARGED GAS TEMPERATURE

.e

no ,

THIS 57Ut*

. O, O HEDL TEST DATA 120 -

OO GAS LEAvlMG eo O o  ;

OUEhCH TANK M

• u o .

~

O o ,

p OO 11 5 OO OO w

OO z

3 oO 4 i z

U _

[

$ 110 -

> GAS LEAVING FIBROUS SCRUBBER 0 000 00 0 0 00 0 6 6 000 00 0006 10 5 -

i

. 1770 1790 i i 1730 1750 #

1690 m0 TienE, MtNUTES WITH MEDL TEST RUN ACI' COMPARISON OF RESUTS e

l h

SufflARY e CONTAINMENT CLEANUP SYSTEM IS USED TO MITIGATE HCDA'S e HEDL TESTED CONTAINMENT CLEANUP SYSTEM e BURNS AND ROE ANALYZED CONTAINMENT CLEANUP SYSTEM VIA COMPUTER MODELING e ANALYTICAL AND TEST RESULTS CORRELATED WELL k

l i

6

I I i

(

l 1

+

i StMSRY OF AEROSOL DEPOSITION IN OUCTS - TESTS AC1 tnt 00GH I

!i lia Fraction Bulk Maximise '

', i Dimensions _

Aeroso) Mass,kq(a)

Length Deposit Penetrated I g Na per Densgty AP kPa _

Duct Pluqqed_ ';

Duct 1.D . Duct Total Pen. __g Total __ a/cm Number, m a In Doct 0.16 0.5 No 60.8 73.3 82.9 0.515 70 16.4 12.5 0.437 e 0.5 Acl-10 265 0.516 0 0.516 0

.87 2.8 Yes(b)

No

• AC2-1 22.1 14.6 172 294 58.5 0.437 70 Ves 16.4 122 0.11 l '

AC2-10 265 0.275 0.110 0.385 28.6 0.434

• AC3-1 22.1 13.3 9.0 No 0.825 49.1 0.434 0.11 .

0.420 0.405 0.11 0.87 No

• AC3-2 52.5 13.5 61.7 98.7 62.5 0.434 5.2 No l

AC3-10 265 16.4 37.0 4.51 96.9 0.25 ~0.6 .

q 0.137 4.37 .~ 0.6 3.3 No AC4-2 52.5 13.5 455 518 87.8 0.25 - . , ,.

g 16.4 62.6 -

AC4-10 265 Yes

}

6.16 42.2 0.558 ~0.5 70

• 3.56 2.60 ~ 0.5 7.5 ,Yes ACS-2 52.5 17.8 50.8' 71.2 71.3 0.558 1.0 No

• 110 21.3 20.4 95.1 0.558 a.O.5 i AC5-4 541 569 4.2 No ACS-10 265 10.7 27.8 88.3 0.458 0.64 .  :

424 480

' AC6-10 265 10.7 55.6 . l .

f ai0etermined by analyrlogi for Na and dividing by Na mass fractionduct walls above MaOH melting po ,

.dbjouet plugged post-test by heat ng - -

g

. t

. g t .

^

j l

.. l CONTAINMENT CLEANUP SYSTEM DYNAMIC ANALYSIS e

TO VERIFY THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTAINMENT CLEAN TEST PROGRAM WAS INITIATED AT HANFORD EN LABORATORY (HEDL) e THE PRIMARY G0AL 0F THE TEST PROGRAM IS TO ,

FILTRATION EFFICIENCY OF THE CLEANUP SYSTEM l e THE TEST COULD NOT FULLY SIMULATE ALL TMB DUE TO LIMITATIONS OF THE TEST FACILITY e THE FULL SIZE SYSTEM DESIGN REQUIRED A D CONTAINHENT CLEANUP SYSTEM l

e THE PURPOSE OF THE DYNAMIC ANALYSIS IS TO -

i THERF10-HYDRAULIC BEHAVIOR OF THE SYSTEM e THE RESULT OF THE ANALYSIS PROVIDED INPU 0F THE COMPONENTS AND SELECTION OF THE e THE ANALYSIS UTILIZED THE AVAILABLE TEST ~

CORRELATIONS AND EXTRAPOLATION e THE COMPARIS0N OF TEST RESULTS WITH THE INDICATED Ct'1SE CORRELATION

- t 1 -

-. _- .-~

.. . a ... .

.- 1 l

COMPARISON OF THE CRBRP LAYOUT AND HEDL TEST ARRANGEMENT g -~

. ,s.. , u

! . r \

= /

- INTAEE I*l .

-, ? h e el l p as

'. C '

8 COr#TAIMaagNT

8.

gg l> wtscLAT. ION VElst

$ $= g

[Y#  ! I

.- -  ![ -

.gm, t

.. a - - .- g  !

j w .. ..eg S:nwooge

.i  ;

.: s j l,

m. T "( ., j

~'- ...

L ,;e. -.

u-CRBRP LAYOUT

~

fst3M Aas g  : .70 en.1r STACE g,g o

.= ,A

- FEffet #1

~

l  :- -

_.R x ..

), '

n SCBU ats WNO4 TK L,p TJE_C.-.

LA g ' ' ' ~

d d', Ol 5

H.

I

.,, 5 o -

'- j CONTAINastMT .

vm . '- 1

=a * ,,, gid- . I W l . .

5

_a_

t ..a &

2 __ ,.

lY v

HEDL TEST ARRANGEMENT

C ,

COMPARISON OF THE HEDL AND CRBRP SYSTEM COMPONENT PARAMETERS CRBRP HEDL 1,000* 22,8ty)*

MAXIMUM SYSTEM FLOW (SCFM) 50*

I 35' MAXIMUM AEROSOL CONCENTRATION (s/M ) 1,100*

700!

MAXIMUM GAS TEMPERATURE (0F)

QUENCH TANK 4 18' 6" DIAMETER (PT)

. 13 ,

25 .

HIGH (FT) 6.5* 5.7*

RESIDENCE TIME (SEC) 500 28.5 SPRAY FLOW (GPM) 35* 46' AIR /WATERRATIO(@)

JET VENTURI ' 20 7.5 THROAT DIAMETER (INCH) 198 M

THROAT VELOCITY (((c) 24 8.7 HIGH (FT) 1,000 50.6 '

FLUID FLOW (GPM) 19.7' 30 AIR /WATERRATIO($)

FIBROUS SCRUBBER -

23 2.5 i DINETER (FT) 24 13.25 HIGH (FT) -

-38 1

ELEMENT NO. 24 24

- ELElENT LENGTH (IN) 72 120 ,

ELBENT LENGTH (IN) 1,432 2 63 TOTAL ELEMENT FACE AREA (FT ) 18.1*

ELBENT FACE VELOCITY (Qg) 15.9*

• SIGNIFICANT PARA.'ETERS

', 5 CONTAINMENT CEANUP SYSTEM PROCESS MODEL

e. QUENCH TANK CHEMICAL CONVERSION OF NA20 To NA0H ~ REACTION H SOLUTION OF REMOVED NA0H PARTICES - SOLUTION HEA

--+ SENSIB E HEAT COOLING OF VENTED GAS .

e, JET VENTURI SOLUTION HEAT SOLUTION OF REMOVED NA0H PARTICES

= SENSIBLE / LATENT HEAT COOLING OF VENTED GAS e FIBROUS SCRUBBER SOLUTION OF REMOVED NA0H PARTICES -- SOLUTION H REMOVAL OF FISSION PRODUCTS - DECAY HEAT I

e SYSTEM INPUT VARIAB E S VENTED GAS MASS FLOW RATE, TEMPERATURE, F9 ESSURE, WATER

, l VAPOR CONTENT l

VENTED NA20 MASS FLOW RATE VENTED FISSION PRODUCT DECAY HEAT RATE REMOVED FISSION PRODUCT DECAY HEAT RATE FLUID FLOW NA0H CONCENTRATION, TB4PERATURE, . ,. DENSIT(

e.

i e

. . - -- , _ . ~ . _ . - - _ . - + . -.- ,____.- , - ,

\

a. 1 g

CONTAINMENT CLEANUP SYSTBi PROCES3 MODEL (cont' 1

e SYSTE1 INPUT CONSTANTS -

FLUID ~ VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE TO COMPONENTS FILTRATION EFFICIENCY OF THE COMPONB4TS HX COOLING WATER FLOW, INLET TEMPERATURE MAKE-UP WATER FLOW, TEMPERATURE HXSURFACEAREA SYSTEM 00TPUT VARIABLES e

GAS FLOW, TEMPERATURE AT VARIOUS STAGES '

FLUID FLOW NA0H CONCENTRATION, TEMPERATURE, VISCOSITY -

HEAT EXCHANGER DUTY A

4

. t i

l ANALYTICAL PROGRAM ASSUMTPIONS/ INPUTS e GENERAL e QUENCH TANK l

e JET VENTURI e FIBROUS SCRUBBER

e. SOLUTION TANK e-PUMP, MAKE-UP, HEAT EXCHANGER e

\

- i l

4 e e

• a e e sep 6 ee 4 e> e a e Se m

=

e e se e ee e e

• e

)

d N

(

f w j C

N w

M M M M

E W

e C

M M M m

M .

4

>==

2 H C  ::: M E c

- E N

M 8

b M

4 W J C Q &

& =

P c. a.

w E W *H L E W C W E W W LD ClL.

• l> a E

M D-

'l>

C E E ~

L W - -

Z ~

, W W J

< D Z > - . .

i- g g E - U (M

M N b W

J J K C C M J C M W g k O N

~

E W W MW J x 4

J h C* C O e e e

i ' l)  ! 1l1 lll ,I

! ', l l l .

i :i M

S ) )

I T T T

( (

A V X X R

E S

N O

C N )

O T I

(

T .

W U

X X X S

S A

T U

P N .

I

/ T X S U ^

N P O N I I T

P M

U S E S R )

A U T M K A EMP R

N A

T E E R P EG(

l U M O .

i T E I C A T N E R T E T E T A .

0 P E R 0 E M L ~

L M N

- P E T P

% M s T UK ON O I G 7 O A A T T 6 C R T l T U 0 S E

L l

0 L 0 E Y

l 3 5 T C

l 0 3 T 1 H Q e - '

d A 3 U TC S = Y E N 3 O UN / B I

' LE R W -

C O R O0 I O D I T

• I S0 A L E A

ma I

F = F F

l i F -

E 0 s , N I R

1 a o s O E L S T 3 s A I A R R T V V E - T T U O V o L =

M N , O E O S )

R C T T

e e e ( (

ll ll l ,

O e

, e eese e -

++eeep eeuen w.

e - es.. 9 ee *p

• 1 l

l E

- n Y-* W W w

g w N X X d

a v

E X X C4 4

cn

. W 3

C E.

== H  :>C N - 3 f/3 C -

~ g 5 -

N m I.I t,E.

M C C  ::ll3 Cz: LLJ 3 CE W

>-- 3 4 Z & K g W p

LLJ - .-

7 p r *

.E c,,,

W w ca W

u +

3 5e

-c HE

' W*

• E C CW M #=

W

- !E CC W CE: CW

- t/3 ll> C

~

W J W W >

is:

u W -

W = 5 W et >

==

E c

~ 4 4 -

Cz:

J H C - W

< vn

< H H >-- "l>

> R D O J E

< C W

m H W e C$

bem w

O O

FlBROUS SCRUBBER ASSUMPTIONS / INPUTS -

s.

s CONSERVATISM  ;-

~

INPUT ASSutPTiod . f:

X X (T) e REMOVAL EFFICIENCY 98,8%

X X e DECAY HEAT RAISES AIR TEMPERATURE X

X e NO WATER EVAPORATION X

e WATER SPRAY FLOW 11 GPM ,

e 4

s b

r (T)=VERIFIEDBY; TEST

9 6

O e

EflCLOSURE 4 a

e 1

i l

l k

l 1

r

-- --a-_- -

. T ,tn M, .L) k. +.cii -

~

lb hjiJ i

'L.

l

{ vn Y)Yl O..M 6 Al RC Rs a -

V d ') uRc/cR$RPo ."

A 67,u.uk awt-F dusu -H71.L

{'v m w es IM t-NA&zas'AVswc /W

%/,; (,,

S.L. M/;L

^

-) . l , , h .' ? . . c.

( . t .: . -

(<l - : i; .

c a. a.

.d. 'k ,1,- lr. P::

i

- . L.? . - - . d ' y , Q .; t, m.

~

~

% Di5K. Be.c Ke c- NRc-/c)ctsrWD kW1 0lsY<r b5 kg,,gOf eP er- L M L.

.hy).

). i

[. - D -

.g F :up. e, 4 k 'f~- t$l1 u.:s /cu kt"o 3

'.El;Y f.1fJE N.TEF3. M'I

) a vi.s f( l?,b C%lU

$rs'of k rr s n )VlC,/htES

!? Z J10 /4er- /YA'clirx*.s E. Am.'viciy. .e .'viA T iusy ._& s' ( ~g ** C(2 B B 1%,h 8 f. .

Ji'.5.,9; 7 ,n- [.:<c.:e : ,5 s J . .A '. i'~. 2:. . . s. , - .s .' t ::: us v . -.~E ,

• I '. ' e b i(C he ' C l { (.. I

• 5, 7 fu d g L

(r < - .s l' .. t .: s F rq,# S'c ,a ceu em, yy r,,e -%& .

{C?}A) /b,% o cgen/ptvAJ [gog U 's . s l T ..  :. t3 (?c. ce s .. .'N l f/) C A I .

n

' ** N .

9

% q. 6 -

s. V. I4s L aML R. D. Gessea- D"L

/fak

//p /VM C . i l, ->

M 1.c. sinuwse w- wit .

EnEGrces (D-eM r w . /3a // cd- wivl t

e,

. . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _