Date post: | 11-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | matilda-lawrence |
View: | 220 times |
Download: | 2 times |
1
Westinghouse Perspective on New Reactor Sumps
Presented by: Timothy S. AndreychekWestinghouse Electric Company
Phone: 412-374-6246E-mail: [email protected]
Date: March 12, 2009
2
Long-Term Sump Performance● Three Areas of Concerns
– Upstream (in front of and at recirculation screens) Debris Sources
Insulation Protective Coatings (Paints) Chemical Precipitates Latent Containment Debris
Debris Transport to and Collection on Screens Head Loss across Debris Bed / Screens
– Downstream Ex-Vessel Wear and abrasion Blockage of component flow paths
– Downstream In-Vessel Reduction / Blockage of Flow into Core Precipitation of Debris on Fuel Cladding
● Each have been addressed in and for the AP1000 Design
3
Upstream Concerns● AP1000 Design provides for:
– Limited debris generation Metal reflective insulation (MRI) used on components subjected to
direct jet impingement loads Other insulation inside containment and outside the zone of influence
is jacketed or not submerged– Reduction in debris transport to screens
Natural recirculation flows are low No containment spray High flood-up levels - enhanced potential for debris settle-out Protective overhangs over Containment Recirculation Screens
– Reduction in materials contributing to chemical precipitates Stainless Steel metal reflective insulation (MRI) Elimination / control of aluminum inside containment
– Advanced Recirculation Screen Design
4
AP1000 Debris Sources● Only two potential post-LOCA debris sources for AP1000
– Latent containment debris Dirt, dust, lint and other miscellaneous materials inside containment at initiation
of a LOCA Amount limited/controlled by plant cleanliness program
– Post-accident chemical effects Minimized by design Used WCAP-16530-NP-A, Revision 1, “Evaluation of Post-Accident Chemical
Effects in Containment Sump Fluids to Support GSI-191,” to evaluate generation of chemical precipitates
● Impact of these debris sources tested– Head loss across the screens– Head loss at core inlet
● Sufficiency of AP1000 latent debris amounts under discussion with NRC
5
AP1000 Recirculation Screens● AP1000 advanced screen
– Provides for large surface areas
– Can collect debris with negligible impact on head loss across screen
● Used for both– Containment Recirculation
screens – In-containment Refueling
Water Tank (IRWST) screens
6
Recirculation Screen Testing● Head loss tests investigated:
– Spectrum of debris inventories– Debris staging– Chemical effects and flow rates
● Debris loading / flows:– Scaled from AP1000 design– Based on screen frontal area
● Testing demonstrated:– Screen design successfully
performs its design functions– Insufficient debris in the AP1000
to form a contiguous debris bed on the screens
– Essentially no increase in head losses observed
Figure 5 AP1000 Screen Tests Show That There Is Insufficient Debris to Form a Continuous Debris Bed
Figure 6 Operating Plant Screen Test With High Debris
Load Results In Much Higher Head Losses
AP1000 Screen Test
Operating Plant Screen Test
7
Downstream Ex-Vessel Concerns● Addressed in Analyses
– Potential for wear, abrasion and blockage evaluated– WCAP-16406-P-A, Revision 1, “Evaluation of
Downstream Sump Debris Effects in Support of GSI‑191,” applied to: Passive containment cooling liquid recirculation flow paths
(safety case) RHR circulation (non-safety case)
● Both flow paths determined to not be adversely impacted by debris in the recirculating liquid
8
Downstream In-Vessel Concerns● Head Loss Testing at Core Inlet:
– Test loop same as used for PWR Owners Group
– Bounding flow rate scaled to a single AP1000 fuel assembly
– Latent debris loading conditions bound those expected following a LOCA for the AP1000
– Chemical precipitates exceeded those calculated for AP1000
● Tests demonstrated:– Essentially no head loss for
debris loads tested– Fibrous latent debris could
increase by order of magnitude before significant head loss
9
Downstream Issues Resolution● Support the PWROG topical WCAP-16793-NP and
its approach– Timely approval of this topical will support addressing
concerns For operating plants For new-build plants
● Analysis of AP1000 shows that– Post-accident chemical precipitate deposit on fuel does
not challenge long-term core cooling– ADS Stage 4
Effectively moves water through the core Limits chemical precipitate deposition on fuel cladding
10
Impediments to Resolution● Need uniform, consistent and justifiable criteria to
apply, for each plant to measure against● Need to reach agreement on amount and makeup
of latent debris applicable to AP1000 ● Need to reach agreement on
– Level of detail requested for DCD Appears more detail requested than is provided for other safety
analysis and safety features
– Amount and scope of requested ITAACs ITAACs do not apply to operating programs / conditions
11
Overcoming the Impediments● Continue to work with the NRC to define an
acceptance criteria● Address NRC RAIs● Use plant walkdown data to resolve latent debris
amount / makeup● Improve level of communication / understanding
– Conduct a Design Centered focus meeting Define and agree on an acceptable closure path consistent
with the industry (operating plants) direction
● Push for rapid turn around of questions / answers on both sides
12
Role of ITACC in Resolution ● NRC suggested ITAACs to verify key assumptions
associated with design and operational features (insulation, coatings, latent debris) in containment
● Westinghouse has proposed several ITAACs to verify key aspects of “as-built” plant, including– Use of Metal Reflective Insulation (MRI) on Class 1 components– Screen type, areas and location– Size, location and use of protective stainless steel plates over
recirculation screens– Ex-core detectors are enclosed in stainless steel housing
● Westinghouse has not proposed an ITAAC on latent debris– ITAAC not for operating programs or conditions
13
Level of Detail for Inspections● Recirculation screens are required to be inspected
regularly by AP1000 Technical Specifications– Specified in AP1000 DCD LCO 3.5.6, SR 3.5.6.8
● Plant containment cleanliness program will ensure that latent debris is limited to values consistent with AP1000 testing– Required in AP1000 COL item 6.3.8.1
14
Summary● AP1000 design features address post-accident sump performance● NRC-approved PWR evaluation methods used to evaluate
– Ex-vessel flow paths
– Chemical precipitate loading on recirculation screens and core
– In-vessel (currently under NRC review) Debris capture on grids Chemical precipitate deposition on fuel cladding
● Impediments to closure identified– Need uniform, consistent and justifiable criteria to apply, for each plant can
measure against
– Need agreement on: Level of detail requested for DCD Amount and scope of requested ITAACs
● Westinghouse is actively working with NRC to address the impediments