BWROG ECCS Suction Strainer Thin Bed Head Loss Test Plan.ECCS Suction Strainer Thin Bed Head Loss...

Test Plan No. BWROG-ECCS-TP-3-2Revision 0Project No. 1301438.00June 2014

BWROG ECCS Suction StrainerThin Bed Head Loss Test Plan

Prepared for:

General Electric-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLCWilmington, NCPO# 437079350

Prepared by

ANATECH CorporationSan Diego, California

Prepared by:

Reviewed by:

/Ir "Jim Furman, P.E.Date:

Date:

6-24-2014

6-24-2014Luke D. Bockewitz

Approved by: Date: 6-25-2014Rob Choromokos, P.E.

ANATECH CORP.,M1iiniiMNn

A Idtt t~llegrify AmSciateS. InOc. Omm,,y

ECCS Suction Strainer Thin Bed Head Loss Test Plan

Plan No. BWROG-ECCS-TP-3-2 Revision 0

REVISION CONTROL SHEET

Document Number: BWROG-ECCS-TP-3-2

Title: BWROG ECCS Suction Strainer Thin Bed Head Loss Test Plan

Client: General Electric-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC

SI Project Number: 1301438.00 Quality Program: Z Nuclear EI Commercial

Section Pages Revision Date Comments

All All 0 6/24/2014 Initial Issue

ii

ANATECH CORP.

A • tSlcfai In egnrly Associavs, Inc COMNY

ECCS Suction Strainer Thin Bed Head Loss Test PlanPlan No. BWROG-ECCS-TP-3-2 Revision 0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 BA CK G R O UN D .................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 4

2 TEST A PPRO A CH ................................................................................................................ 5

2.1 Test Objective .................................................................................................................. 5

2.2 Test Description ..................................................................................................... 5

2.3 Test A cceptance ..................................................................................................... 7

3 TEST A RTICLE .................................................................................................................... 8

3.1 Test Prototype Strainer ................................................................................................ 8

4 TEST FAC ILITY ................................................................................................................... 9

4.1 Tank Requirem ents .................................................................................................... 9

4.2 Test Equipm ent ................................................................................................................ 9

5 TEST CO ND ITIO N S ........................................................................................................... 10

5.1 Hydraulic Conditions ................................................................................................ 10

5.2 Debris Loading ............................................................................................................... 11

6 TEST PERFO RM A NC E ................................................................................................ 16

6.1 Test Procedures ............................................................................................................... 16

6.2 Debris Preparation ......................................................................................................... 17

6.3 Test Operation ................................................................................................................ 17

6.4 Test M atrices .................................................................................................................. 18

7 TEST TERMINATION AND SUBTEST STABILITY CRITERIA ......................... 22

7.1 M axim um Head Loss Lim it ..................................................................................... 22

7.2 Testing Stabilization Criteria ................................................................................... 22

7.3 Atypical Head Loss Stability ................................................................................... 23

8 TEST DOCUMENTATION AND RECORDS ........................................................... 24

ANATECH CORP.

AI...EhMdW

A •S$flc~tiftIlnftgrfly Asscdatms, 1f,° COMI'A~i



9 QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS .................................................................. 25

9.1 Nonconformance, Corrective Action and Defects ................................................... 25

9.2 M easuring and Test Equipm ent ............................................................................... 25

9.3 L ab P rocedures ............................................................................................................... 2 5

10 R EFERE N C ES ..................................................................................................................... 26

List of Figures

Figure -"1: Head Losses vs Fiber Volume for Fixed Quantities of Particulate ............................... l

Figure 1-2: Measured Head Loss as Function of Strainer Debris Loading for Specialty Strainers.3

Figure 2-1: Drawing of 2 n prototype PCI stacked disk strainer ................................................ 6

Figure 3-1: 169 ft2 Strainer Prototype N o. 2 .................................................................................... 8

List of Tables

Table 4-1: Required M & TE .............................................................. ...................................... 9

Table 5-1: BWROG Size Distribution of Suppression Pool Sludge ........................................ 13

Table 5-2: D irt/D ust Size Classifications ................................................................................. 14

Table 5-3: Particulate to Fiber Ratio for Test Matrix ............................................................. 16

Table 6-1: Test M atrix for Test #1 -FS ..................................................................................... 19

Table 6-2: Test M atrix for Test #2-TB ................................................................................... 20

Table 6-3: Test M atrix for Test #3-H D ...................................................................................... 21

List of Appendices

Appendix A - BWR Fleet Strainer and Debris Data ............................................................ 2 pages

ANATECH CORP.iv MMM-.MM

A S$rutwuralJ ieftrfly Azcdaf as, Wc COMPANY


Acronyms and Definitions

BWR Boiling Water Reactor

CS Core Spray

ECCS Emergency Core Cooling System

FS Flow Sweep

GEH General Electric Hitachi

GSI Generic Safety Issue

LDFG Low Density Fiberglass

LOCA Loss of Coolant Accident

LPCS Low Pressure Core Spray

MLOCA Medium Break LOCA

M&TE Measuring and Test Equipment

NEI Nuclear Energy Institute

NRC Nuclear Regulatory CommissionPCI Performance Contracting Incorporated

PTO Pool Turn Over

PWR Pressurized Water Reactor

RHR Residual Heat Removal

SER Safety Evaluation Report

TB Thin Bed

URG Utility Resolution Guidance

v

ANATECH CORP.

A •ftctutal Inftgry Amates, Inc COMPANY


1 BACKGROUND

On November 27, 2007, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) identified twelve areas of

concern regarding the differences in treatment of post-LOCA containment strainer clogging

issues for pressurized water reactors (PWR) and boiling water reactors (BWR) [1]. These were

reduced to seven key issues on April 10, 2008 [2]. One of these issues concerns the potential for

a thin fibrous/particulate debris bed to produce a higher head loss than a thicker debris bed.

Head loss correlations and flat plate testing have shown that a high particulate/fiber ratio thin

debris bed may represent the limiting head loss condition rather than a debris bed with a higher

fiber load and the same particulate load [8]. This "thin-bed effect" is illustrated below in Figure

1-1. The NRC concern is whether this thin-bed effect may also occur for BWR strainers

following a LOCA event. The BWROG URG (Sections 3.2.1.1.1 and 3.2.6.2.3) [3] states that

they did not observe a thin-bed effect for complex geometry alternate strainers; therefore,

licensees who propose to use alternate strainers (stacked disk, star) need not analyze medium or

large breaks with the largest potential particulate to insulation debris ratio by weight.

30

2000b

25 10100 )m--- 50 Ibm ["thin-bed effect"

1510

1 10 100 1000

Fiber Volume (t13)

Figure 1-1: Head Losses vs Fiber Volume for Fixed Quantities of Particulate

ANATECH CORR1 of 27

A ~j~bCO-"a butg* ASSoaefa, 5iCl co~.~


The USNRC performed a confirmatory analysis of the thin bed effect following the submittal of

the BWROG URG for NRC review and approval. Appendix E of the NRC SER on the URG,

"Calculation to Examine the URG Guidance on Thin-Bed Effect on Alternate Strainer Designs,"

was developed to assess the completeness and accuracy of the URG statements regarding thin-

bed effects, namely:.

" The thin-bed effect is an issue for semi-conical strainers, but not for stacked disc strainers

or any other "alternate strainer."

* Therefore, licensees that propose to use alternate strainer designs need not analyze

medium LOCAs, because they are not limiting relative to debris generation and transport.

The staff's conclusions in this appendix are as follows:

I. The BWROG data clearly suggest that both stacked disk No. I (PCI - 64 ft2) and

stacked-disk No. 2 (PCI - 169 ft2) can accommodate such debris loads with sludge-to-

fiber mass ratios of up to 30 without a noticeable increase in head loss. Therefore, the

staff believes that MLOCAs can be screened out if stacked disk strainers are used.

2. The BWROG claim that thin-bed is not observed in "alternate strainers" is not adequately

substantiated. The reported data apply to two strainer designs (stacked-disk and star).

3. The existing data, however, suggest that licensees may screen out MLOCAs if they use

stacked disk strainer no. 2 (PCI), star strainers or other such strainers with large cavity

capacities for debris buildup provided that the strainer vendor can demonstrate that debris

loadings lower than the bounding large break LOCAs would not be limiting in terms of

head loss across the strainer. Strainer vendors should have adequate test data to support

this.

In general, the staff agreed with the BWROG that the "thin-bed effects" is not an issue for the

alternate strainer designs tested. An important point in this conclusion is only fiber and sludge

debris head loss data were reviewed and this conclusion does not extend to problematic debris

(i.e., calcium silicate, Microtherm®, etc.).

ANATECH CORP.2 of 27

A V SfrnUCf.a Integrf Assoites, Wn'• COMPAN•Y


The strainer vendor test data in the URG did suggest that specialty strainers' (e.g., stacked disk,

star) head losses are as illustrated in Figure 1-2 (see Section 8.2.1 of NUREG/CR-6808 [8])

versus those found on flat plates or simple geometry in Figure 1-1.

250

200

C

10

.a 100

50

50

0 50 100 150 200

Strainer Load (Ibs. Nukon)

250

Figure 1-2: Measured Head Loss as Function of Strainer Debris Loading for Specialty Strainers

The current NRC's concern (Issue 3, Debris Head Loss) [5] is that the URG is lacking in detail,

its conclusions do not match observations made during some recent PWR testing, and the results

of the URG testing may have been affected by debris surrogate characteristics. Additionally, the

BWR strainer semi-empirical head loss correlations may not accurately predict head losses for

some conditions that may occur in the plant. The most significant aspects of this issue are the

concerns that correlations:

1) may not accurately predict thin bed head losses,

2) may not account for types of debris that were not tested (including problematic debris

types like calcium silicate or other microporous insulation types),

ANATECH CORP.So.-.

3 of 27 =Wr E Mu. SkVS..W WWgvO Assa.01 AV Co..~


3) may not have tested an adequate range of conditions to ensure accurate prediction of head

loss for the range of potential plant conditions, and

4) may have been based on testing conducted with non-conservative debris surrogates

including fibrous debris that did not include an adequate amount of fine debris.

There are two concepts at issue here: 1) that BWR advanced strainer designs do not exhibit the

thin-bed effect and 2) that correlations can accurately predict head losses outside the range of

experimental test data. The BWROG determined through testing - not correlation - that

advanced strainer designs did not exhibit thin-bed effects, and the NRC agreed through their

review of the test data. This is discussed in further detail in NUREG/CR-6808. While the NRC

currently cites these conclusions as not matching observations made during some PWR testing,

the BWROG is not aware of any PWR testing with particulate and fiber which concludes that

thin bed head losses are higher than thick-bed head losses for the BWR strainer configurations.

To respond to current NRC concerns regarding the significance of thin-bed effects on BWR

strainer configurations, the BWROG will develop a series of supplementary tests that will further

investigate the susceptibility of BWR strainers to thin-beds.

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this thin-bed test series is to:

1) investigate whether the thin beds cause higher head loss than thicker beds for fiber and

particulate loads. In essence, to go back and validate the original URG premise, and

2) address the issue 4) above of potentially non-conservative debris surrogates by ensuring

the debris mixture includes a representative amount of fine debris.

The purpose is not to validate head loss correlations or perform plant-specific head loss testing.

The accuracy of the head loss correlation (issues 1, 2, 3 above) in predicting head loss of debris

beds will be addressed under a separate report. However, this test data may be used to support

that future work.


A Stlrufcal Inehfrity A ,iats InCe COMPANY


2 TEST APPROACH

This head loss test plan was developed in accordance with the head loss testing guidance

provided in NRC Staff Review Guidance Regarding Generic Letter 2004-02, Closure in the Area

of Strainer Head Loss and Vortexing dated March 2008 [6]. This staff guidance provides

acceptable methods to perform prototype strainer head loss testing under a range of debris loads,

specifically thin-bed testing, as well as discussions on the selection of debris surrogates.

2.1 Test Objective

The objective of the tests is to measure experimental head loss data on a prototypical BWR

strainer to determine if thin debris beds result in higher head loss than maximum fiber load

debris beds. Any prediction or comparison to head loss correlations is for information only at

this point.

Differential pressure across the strainer, fluid temperature, and pump flow rate will be recorded

during testing for the debris mixture identified in the test matrix. The test scenarios included in

this test plan will generically investigate the concern of thin-bed head loss for BWR ECCS

strainers. A test report will be developed to present the results of the testing associated with this

test plan.

2.2 Test Description

The test is intended to respond directly to the NRC concern relating to whether head losses from

thin-beds are limiting over thicker beds. To investigate this concern, two tests will be

performed: 1) a thin-bed test and 2) a thick bed test, and the results compared. A listing of the

BWR strainer sizes, flow rates, and sludge loads are provided in Appendix A.

The original advanced strainer test program presented in the URG tested two (2) strainer types:

stacked disk and star. The stacked disk strainer is installed in 26 of the 34 domestic plants and


A $sfrdct ral Integrity Asrocaktn, InO COMfy


the star strainer is installed in 4 of the 34 plants with the Enercon design installed in 3 of the 34

plants.

The test program will select the stacked disk strainer to perform the thin-bed testing. During the

URG testing, there were two PCI stacked disk strainers (No.1 -64 ft2 and No. 2 - 169 ft2). The

test program has secured the original PCI stacked-disk prototype No. 2 for testing (see Figure

2-1).

STACKED DISK #2 STRAINERFRONT VIEW

24' PIPE FLANGE

32" 40#

SIDE VIEW

PERF PLATE --I -- 1.5 NOMINAL-I r- 2 NOMINAL1/8" HOLES ON -Ir- .75NMNL-- -- "NMNA

3/16' CENTERS.

INTERNAL

-II SUCTION FLOW48' CONTROL DEVICE

5.5 (REMOVABLE)

Figure 2-1: Drawing of 2 nd prototype PCI stacked disk strainer


A VStn-iftegrfiy ASzoas, LWc" COMPANY


A full-scale prototype section of a stacked disk strainer will be installed in a test tank and loop

with sufficient water volume to allow circulation of debris around the prototype. The

recirculation flow through the test loop and strainer is established based on the range of plant

strainers and flow rates in Appendix A.

The test will begin with a clean strainer flow sweep with no debris in the tank. This flow sweep

will measure the head loss created by a clean strainer at each of the flow rates in the Test Matrix.

At the end of this flow sweep, the flow will be adjusted to the target test flow rate.

Following the clean screen test, a thin bed test will be run per industry guidance [6] that will

examine the impact of a thin debris bed formed with the full particulate load and small batches of

fiberglass debris up to the maximum fiber load. Once stabilization has been achieved and flow

sweeps performed, the test is complete. The tank will be cleaned and prepared for the

homogenous thick bed test.

The thick bed test will also be run per industry guidance [6] with the particulate and fiber debris

load added in homogenous batches up to the maximum load. Once stabilization has been

achieved and flow sweeps performed, the test is complete.

2.3 Test Acceptance

The testing is designed to obtain steady-state debris head loss data as a function of flow rate,

debris load, and temperature for the prototype strainer assembly.


A Vst-tural itnegfrl Associats, InC,* cOMPANY

I



3 TEST ARTICLE

The test prototype is designed to represent the plant replacement stacked disk strainer geometry

with 1: 1 scaling.

3.1 Test Prototype Strainer

A full-scale section of the strainer prototype will be tested in the tank. This assures a 1:1 scaling

ratio for test parameters, e.g. flow rate, tube diameters, and perforated plate hole size which is

either 1/8" or 3/32" per industry surveys. The prototype strainer design is shown in Figure 2-1

and Figure 3-1.

The dP limit of the prototype strainer is 20 ft-water. This limit should not be exceeded during

testing.

Figure 3-1:169 ft2 Strainer Prototype No. 2

8 of 27

ANATECH CORP.

A Vo-&cAII h9Isunh Assoc~atw, 1nc comqjAw~


4 TEST FACILITY

There are several acceptable test facilities in the US performing ECC suction strainer testing.

The test facility must have performed strainer testing previously and been witnessed by the NRC.

4.1 Tank Requirements

The facility must contain a tank capable of holding the strainer with the required amount of

submergence with adequate room around the test prototype for natural debris accumulation and a

pump with the capability to achieve the target flow rate with the head loss corresponding to a

debris-laden strainer. Visibility of the tank and strainer is critical for photographing bed

formation.

The prototype suction strainer shall be securely fastened to the suction line of the pump in the

tank with no bypass at the flange connection. A return line or sparger system should be installed

to aid in the suspension of the debris within the water. In addition to the sparger, mechanical

mixers may be required. Sufficient turbulence shall be employed to keep the debris from

settling while not disturbing the debris bed. A tank heater and chiller shall be available for

use if needed.

4.2 Test Equipment

The instrumentation available for use must conform to the following specifications and be within

the approved calibration date.

Table 4-1: Required M&TE

Instrument Range Accuracy

Scale 0 - 50 Ibm 0.01 Ibm readabilityDifferential Pressure 0 - 5 ft-water ± 0.25% of span

transmitter 0 - 25 ft-water + 0.25% of span

Flow meter 1000 - 15,000 gpm ± 2.5% of reading

Thermocouple 00 F to 200'F ± I1F

ANATECH CORP.///llllllll

9 of 27 , I l lllIA •"•Sfnuc•raI aetrfly Associante," coMPANY


A real-time data acquisition system that allows continuous display of test parameter values (time,

flow rate, differential pressure, and temperature) and trends is required. The system must be

verified before and after testing. Data must be sampled at least every two seconds. Test data is

recorded for each instrument in a simple spreadsheet for later analysis.

5 TEST CONDITIONS

The hydraulic conditions and debris conditions must be controlled during testing.

5.1 Hydraulic Conditions

The following section describes the flow and fluid conditions to be used for the testing.

5.1.1 Test Strainer Flow Rate

The original URG testing was performed between 2,500 gpm and 10,000 gpm [3]. Based on the

169 ft2 strainer, this would provide approach velocities between 0.03 and 0.13 ft/s. The range of

approach velocities for the BWR fleet is on the order of 0.0.01 to 0.18 ft/s (see Appendix A) with

the average around 0.06 ft/s. Given the prototype strainer size of 169 ft2, the prototype strainer

target flow rate is between 800 gpm and 14,000 gpm. Based on the average 0.06 ft/s, the

corresponding flow rate would be near 4,500 gpm.

5.1.2 Water Temperature and Quality

The water temperature will be maintained at 120'F + 5°F. This temperature may increase during

testing as the pump adds energy into the fluid, but the temperature should be maintained within

this range to the extent possible. Demineralized water with prototypical plant conductivity and

pH shall be used as the testing fluid unless it is justified that filtered clean city or potable water

does not significantly affect the test results.


A VStntuJa) Ingrfly As$ociatOs , InC, cOmmy


5.1.3 Water Level

The strainers must remain submerged at.a minimum of 6 inches.

5.1.4 Turbulence

Sufficient turbulence shall be added into the test tank during testing to preclude settling of debris.

The turbulence must be limited, however, to avoid artificially removing debris from the strainers.

The turbulence can be added via mixing motors, spargers, or equivalent.

5.2 Debris Loading

As stated, this test program will investigate the original assumption that stacked disk and star

strainers do not exhibit the thin-bed effect as originally concluded in the URG and NRC SER on

the URG in light of current NRC concerns regarding the preparation of the fibrous debris used in

the test program. The debris types and characteristics will be limited in this specific test program

to fibrous and particulate debris loads and not problematic debris.

It is widely accepted that very thin fibrous beds are not of sufficient strength or solidity to

provide 100% filtration of particulate debris. The theory of the thin-bed effect is there may

exists a fiber bed thickness that will provide significant filtration and essentially create a sludge

bed of very high solidity and head loss. Combining more fibrous insulation in this case,

assuming for the moment homogenously, would decrease the solidity and therefore lower the

head loss. Therefore, there exists a theoretical thin-bed thickness that may produce a higher head

loss after which head losses will decrease with additional thickness (see Figure I-1).

The thin bed tests proposed herein will start with 100% of the particulate circulating in the tank

and then slowly batch in fibrous debris to determine the magnitude of the head losses. To

develop a robust data set and evaluate the impact of particulate to fiber ratio (mp/mf) on thin-bed

formation, various amounts of particulate would need to also be incorporated to the test (through

individual tests). The end results would be a family of curves for various approach velocities.

ANATECH CORP.11 of 27 " "="

A vSfructural InlanfTr AsSOmCte, Inc4 COMPANY


It is important to note that the tests proposed herein are not building a thin debris bed

homogenously, but in fact creating a potentially stratified bed beyond the point of 100%

filtration. Therefore, the head loss is expected never to decrease. The debris bed head losses

should continue to rise as fibrous debris is added; however, the debris head losses should be

increasing at a much lower rate due to the fiber additions with no additional particulate debris.

Comparatively, the thick bed test will add in the maximum amount of particulate and maximum

amount of fiber in discrete homogenous batches. In this test, the debris head loss should rise

with each batch addition.

In both cases above the same amount of particulate and fiber are added to each of the tests. The

following sections describe the types and quantities of debris to be used for the testing.

5.2.1 Fiberglass Debris

The testing will utilize NUKON® low density fiberglass (LDFG) "single baked" to build a bed

on the prototype strainer using small batches. The fibers will represent those widely dispersed

fibers in the suppression pool which would arrive at the strainer during recirculation. These are

assumed to be characterized as small-fines (50% Classes I through 3 and 50% Classes 4 through

6 of NUREG/CR-6224) [9].

For the thin bed investigation, each batch of fiber will represent 1/16" of theoretical fiber bed

thickness, which is the fiber volume at material density divided by the screen area. For example:

The amount of generic LDFG to be added for each 1/16" (0.0052 ft) thin bed batch for the 169

ft2 strainer is:

lbsmftb = 0.0052ft x 169 ft 2 x 2.4 -= 2.11 lbs

ft 3

ANATECH CORP.----- U....

12 of 27A V $(Srn ,aIl Integrily A•,•Odas, Inc.* COMPANY



For the comparison thick bed tests, larger batch additions may be introduced up to the maximum

fiber load.

5.2.2 Particulate Debris

Particulate debris is defined as sludge, dirt/dust, rust, and coatings resident in the drywell and

wetwell/suppression pool. The original URG testing considered corrosion products (i.e., sludge

surrogate), paint chips, rust flakes and sand.

a) Sludge

Sludge is predominately corrosion products from carbon steel piping systems which connect

to the suppression pool and from unpainted carbon steel surfaces within the pool. The

amount of sludge present in the pool is controlled by the frequency and thoroughness of pool

cleaning and the rate at which new corrosion products are generated - these are plant-specific

numbers.

The size of the sludge particles was determined by the BWROG and is provided in Section

3.2.4.3.1 of the URG [3] in Table 5-1 as reproduced here.

Table 5-1: BWROG Size Distribution of Suppression Pool Sludge

Particle Size Average Size % Weight(pim) (ptm)

0-5 2.5 83%

5-10 7.5 11%

10-75 42.5 6%

b) Dirt/Dust

The URG suggested a value of 150 Ibm of dirt/dust in the strainer head loss evaluation will

conservatively address the debris from dirt/dust in the drywell, dirt/dust in the suppression

ANATECH CORP.13 of 27 mU! fl!

A C $t3tura! interiffyssotny .Asw MW* co~


chamber above the level of the suppression pool which could be washed into the pool as a

result of LOCA induced pool swell, and the debris which would result should the LOCA jet

impact a concrete wall. This debris source terms should be added to that of the suppression

pool sludge when evaluating head loss.

Recently, to resolve NRC Issue No. 6 regarding the quantity and characteristics of dirt/dust

(PWR equivalent of latent debris) the BWROG has adopted the NEI-04-07 [7] size

characteristics of dirt/dust and the use of the plant walkdowns to determine the mass of

dirt/dust rather than a generic value of 150 Ibm. The size characteristics for dirt/dust are

provided in Table 5-2. As illustrated in Table 5-2, dirt/dust particles are much larger

particles than sludge.

Table 5-2: Dirt/Dust Size Classifications

PWR Mix 2 Sand Type DOatrlbudons Based on Product Data Sheds Size Classiication I ConsotdionCoarse Sand Medium Sand Fine Sand Allocation PWR 2 NRC

Sand Redo* Mix a 8 54 38 Basis Obs) Calc Target< 75 microns 98.50% 37.4 37.4% 37% Fines> 75 micronsJ 1.5% 0.6 35.3% 35% 1.5% 0

< SW microns 63.7% 34.4> 500 microns 36.23% 19.6< 01 microns 3.37% 03 27.3% 28% Coarse

> 500 but < M00 microns 96.63% 7.7- 1 ____ -7Note: Each type of sand has particles in two size ranges 1.D.O 100.% 1l.0%

The above recipe will achieve Ihe NRC Target. Sand Class Key Fin 1 Medim Coarse j

c) Rust Flakes

A sub-category of fixed debris is the rust on unpainted steel surfaces which may be detached

and transported to the suppression pool. It was the judgment of the BWROG that use of 50

ibm of rust flakes in the strainer head loss evaluation to conservatively address the amount of

rust which may become dislodged from uncoated steel surfaces. The original URG testing

sifted actual rust flakes through a ½" x ½" mesh screen. All instances of rust in the historical

references refer to either chips or flakes.

ANATECH CORR14 of 27

A SrcMWa WW* AMSsots, Wrc COrW.


d) Coatings

The URG (through the Bechtel report) addresses qualified coatings as well as coatings that

are of indeterminate quality or unqualified. The BWROG recommends that licensees use the

bounding values presented in Table 3 of the URG for the applicable coatings as the

maximum amount which is available for transport to the wetwell (maximum of 85 lbs for

epoxy coatings). For the URG head loss testing, epoxy paint was used to produce paint

chips. Paint chips were sifted through a 1/8" x 1/8" mesh screen.

The PWR resolution to GSI-191 assumed that coatings fail at or around 10 micron particles

and not chips (unless suitable test data was referenced). Using 10 micron particulate was

deemed acceptable and conservative by the NRC staff [7].

5.2.3 Particulate to Fiber Ratios

The purpose of the test program is to investigate the performance of the strainer with a debris

bed in the thin-bed regime as compared to the maximum debris loading. As shown above, the

size characteristics for the particulates representing rust, dirt/dust, and coatings are larger than

sludge. Also, based on the plant debris quantities, sludge is commonly the dominating

particulate source term. Therefore rather than mix unique recipes of particulates which would

introduce a new variable, this program will conservatively use only sludge as the particulate

source term.

The NRC concluded in the URG SER Appendix E that sludge-to-fiber mass ratios (mp/mf) up to

approximately 30 seemed not to exhibit significant head losses (basically zero). Of interest is the

term sludge (or corrosion products) to fiber ratios which further suggests that sludge is the

dominating particulate. While this value of 30 remains to be confirmed, this provides a starting

,point for the investigation and development of the test matrix. From the table below, the test

matrix covers particulate to fiber ratios between I and 285; however, the term particulate to fiber

ratio is primarily relevant for thin-beds.


A VSwdural M lgy Assoct, tic' COMPANY


Table 5-3: Particulate to Fiber Ratio for Test Matrix

Bed Mass of Mass of Particulate (Ibs)Thickness Fiber

(Ibs) 50 100 200 300 450 600

1/16" 2.11 23.7 47.41/8" 4.22 11.8 23.7 47.4

3/16" 6.33 7.9 15.8 31.6 47.41/4" 8.44 5.9 11.8 23.7 35.5 53.3

5/16" 10.55 4.7 9.5 19.0 28.4 42.7 56.93/8" 12.66 3.9 7.9 15.8 23.7 35.5 47.4

7/16" 14.77 3.4 6.8 13.5 20.3 30.5 40.61/2" 16.88 3.0 5.9 11.8 17.8 26.7 35.51" 33.76 1.5 3.0 5.9 8.9 13.3 17.8

6 TEST PERFORMANCE

All personnel working on the test must be trained to the applicable test procedures of the

laboratory.

6.1 Test Procedures

All testing actions will be governed by an approved Test Procedure to be developed by the

testing vendor. The test-specific procedure provides the instruction for performing the required

test steps, and the associated signatures provide documentation for the performance and

witnessing of critical steps. This test procedure shall also provide for a test log, which is used to

document significant points during the performance of the test. Actions that affect the testing

environment (debris additions, flow adjustments, stirring, etc.) shall be noted in the Test Log by

a trained Test Engineer. Visual observations should also be noted. All documentation in the test

log shall be legible. The test vendor shall develop generic test procedures for, at a minimum,

the Test Procedure, Lab Safety Procedure, Debris Preparation Procedures, Tank Operation

Procedures including the operation of M&TE and equipment cleaning,

nonconformance/deviations, and the laboratory Project Plan.

ANATECH CORR16of27 -a.-

A VOWWWO 1~4 sxpWn NW~uh co~mm


6.2 Debris Preparation

The debris batches shall be prepared according to the Test Matrix. The generic LDFG shall be

processed using an approved laboratory procedure that prepares the insulation debris into an

approximately equal mixture of smalls and fines debris using the NEI methodology [10] or

similar. This procedure produces the required size distribution and fibers that are easily

transportable and readily disperse in the testing fluid. Samples shall be taken and photographed

to document the extent of fiber separation. Sludge particulates can be weighed out in dry form

and do not require further preparation. Before introduction, water shall be carefully added into

the buckets and mixed lightly to suspend the particulate and ease pouring. The recommended

ratio is 10 lbs of particulate to 5 gallons of water.

6.3 Test Operation

Water Level Water level will be recorded during testing and increase with each debris addition.

If the test tank becomes nearly full, test tank water may be removed to mix with

the next debris addition, and re-introduced into the test tank. This will prevent

tank overflow with subsequent debris additions. If vortexing and the potential for

air ingestion is observed, the water level should be raised or a vortex suppressor

or grating installed.

Flow Rate The flow rate of the system must be maintained at +/- 2% of the prescribed value.

If the flow drifts beyond this range, a note must be logged, and the flow rate must

be adjusted.

Debris Add All debris will be added directly over a high-turbulence area. These areas will

have maximum relative turbulence and will allow for debris reaching the strainer

from all sides. The debris must be added in a controlled manner as to not disturb

the debris bed through unnecessary turbulence.


A $tlucfturaI Integrly ASSOiA , In2 COMPANY


Photos/Notes Photographs shall be taken at the end of each subtest and following tank drain

down. These photographs should show how the bed is forming onto the strainers

and also document any settled debris. Notes shall be taken in the Test Log of all

testing actions and observations, which shall include the test parameters (flow

rate, dp across strainer, water temperature, turbidity, etc.) of that instant and the

time. If actions continue beyond a small amount of time, the beginning and end

of the action should be noted.

6.4 Test Matrices

The following sections describe in detail how to conduct each test. These test matrices are to be

followed in order to accomplish the test plan objective.

Based on the range of debris loads and flow rates from the plant parameters in Appendix A, the

test plan will start with running two debris tests. Additional tests may be performed after review

of the first two test results. As stated previously, the range of approach velocities for the BWRs

is between 0,02 and 0.18 ft/s, with an average value around 0.06 ft/s. Based on the sludge

loadings in Appendix A, the average sludge load is around 488 lbs/strainer or approximately 1.15

lbs-sludge/ft2-strainer. This would correspond to approximately 195 lbs of sludge for the test

strainer. In reviewing Table 5-3, the 3/16" debris bed thickness with 200 lbs of particulate is

very close to particulate to fiber ratio of 30 that was accepted by the NRC in Appendix E of the

SER on the URG. Therefore the particulate load for the initial two tests will be 200 lbs of

sludge. The fiber load will range from 1/16" to I" in theoretical bed thickness. The 1" bed

thickness is designed to represent a larger debris load which should fill in the gaps between the

stacked disks. The thin-bed test will put all of the particulate in first, then batch in fiber up to the

maximum load, and the homogenous debris load test will batch in the fiber plus particulate into

four equal (1/4" thickness) debris additions of constant particulate to fiber ratio. The target flow

rate will be 4500 gpm for both tests; however, flow sweeps will be incorporated into the test

procedure. The debris loads for both tests are identical.


A ! $tnj tuJ hSX1 glfl Assoc&ates, IXC COMPANY


6.4.1 Test #1 - Clean Screen Flow Sweep

With the tank filled to the appropriate water level at temperature, set the flow rate to the value

and allow stability to be achieved (at least 5 minutes). Record a data point before changing to

the next flow rate. The final step consists of setting the flow at the target test flow rate. This

allows the Clean Screen Flow Sweep to be run just prior to the Thin Bed test.

Table 6-1: Test Matrix for Test #1-FS

Subtest Flow Rate (gpm)

FS.1 14,000

FS.2 12,000

FS.3 10,000

FS.4 7000

FS.5 6000

FS.6 5000

FS.7(or Target Test Flow) 450

FS.0 - Fill tank with water per Section 5.1. Set flow rate to 14,000 gpm. Begin data

acquisition.

FS.1 - Maintain flow rate at 14,000 gpm. Allow dP to stabilize over 5 minutes.

FS.2 - Decrease flow rate to 12,000 gpm. Allow dP to stabilize over 5 minutes.

FS.3 - Decrease flow rate to 10,000 gpm. Allow dP to stabilize over 5 minutes.

FS.4 - Decrease flow rate to 7000 gpm. Allow dP to stabilize over 5 minutes.



FS.7 - Decrease flow rate to 4500 gpm or the target test flow rate for the next test. Allow dP to

stabilize over 5 minutes.

After the last flow point, the test is complete. The next test can begin immediately.

19 of 27

ANATECH CORR.

A VStnjc1ura IntgrfIy AssOcia, InC:' COMPAY



6.4.2 Test #2 - Thin Bed Test

Table 6-2: Test Matrix for Test #2-TB

LDFG Theoretical

Small BedFlow Rate Sludge Fines Thickness

Subtest (gpm) (lbs) (Ibs) (in.)

TB.0 4500 - --

TB.1 4500 200.00 - 0

TB.2 4500 - 2.11 1/16"

TB.3 4500 - 2.11 1/8"

TB.4 4500 - 2.11 3/16"

TB.5 4500 - 2.11 1/4"TB.6 4500 - 2.11 5/16"

TB.7 4500 - 2.11 3/8"

TB.8 4500 - 2.11 7/16"

TB.9 4500 - 2.11 1/2"TB.10 4500 - 8.443TB.11 4500 - 8.44 1"

TB. 12 various - - 1"

TB.0 - Fill the tank with water per Section 5.1.

4500 gpm. Begin data acquisition.

TB.1 - Add the particulate debris into the tank.

mix for I pool turnover (PTO).

Verify all debris is available. Set flow rate to

Maintain 4500 gpm. Allow the particulate to

TB.2 -

TB.3 -

TB.4 -

TB.5 -

TB.6 -

TB.7 -

TB.8 -

TB.9 -

Add 2.11

Add 2.11

Add 2.11

Add 2.11

Add 2.11

Add 2.11

Add 2.11

Add 2.11

lbs of LDFG debris.

lbs of LDFG debris.

lbs of LDFG debris.

lbs of LDFG debris.

lbs of LDFG debris.

lbs of LDFG debris.

lbs of LDFG debris.

lbs of LDFG debris.

Maintain 4500 gpm.

Maintain 4500 gpm.

Maintain 4500 gpm.

Maintain 4500 gpm.

Maintain 4500 gpm.

Maintain 4500 gpm.

Maintain 4500 gpm.

Maintain 4500 gpm.

Allow 5 PTO and dP stability.








TB.10 - Add 8.44 lbs of LDFG debris. Maintain 4500 gpm. Allow 5 PTO and dP stability.


A C $trctural lift•ity Assoc ., 1nc. COMPmY


TB.I 1 -

TB.12 -

Add 8.44 of LDFG debris. Maintain 4500 gpm. Allow 5 PTO and dP stability.

Reduce flow rate in 500 gpm decrements, holding each point for 2 PTO. Continue flow

reductions down to 1000 gpm. Increase flow back to 4500 gpm and hold for 2 PTO.

Increase flow rate up in 1000 gpm increments up to 14,000 gpm, holding each point for

2 PTO. Reduce back down to 4,500 gpm and hold for 2 PTO, then stop the test.

After the flow adjustments and pump shutdown, the test is complete. Begin drain down and

photograph bed during cleaning. Clean tank according to lab procedures.

6.4.3 Test #3 - Homogenous Debris Test

Table 6-3: Test Matrix for Test #3-HD

LDFG Theoretical

Small BedFlow Rate Sludge Fines Thickness

Subtest (gpm) (Ibs) (Ibs) (in.)

HD.0 4500 - - -

HD.1 4500 50.00 8.44 1/4"HD.2 4500 50.00 8.44 1/2"

HD.3 4500 50.00 8.44 3/4"HD.4 4500 50.00 8.44 1"

HD.5 various - - 1"

HD.0 - Fill the tank with water per Section 5.1. Verify all debris is available. Set flow rate to

4500 gpm. Begin data acquisition.

HD.1 - Add 8.44 lbs of LDFG and 50.00 lbs particulate mixture. Maintain 4500 gpm. Allow

PTO and dP stability.





5

5

5

21 of 27

ANATECH CORR

A CSIn.dJJII In~gtfi AMOWWt~, fteCO MPNy



HD.4 - Add 8.44 lbs of LDFG and 50.00 lbs particulate mixture. Maintain 4500 gpm. Allow 5


HD.5 - Reduce flow rate in 500 gpm decrements, holding each point for 2 PTO. Continue flow

reductions down to 1000 gpm. Increase flow back to 4500 gpm and hold for 2 PTO.

Increase flow rate up in 1000 gpm increments up to 14,000 gpm, holding each point for

2 PTO. Reduce flow to 4500 gpm and hold for 2 PTO, then stop the test.

After the flow adjustments and pump shutdown, the test is complete. Begin drain down and

photograph bed during cleaning. Clean tank according to lab procedures.

7 TEST TERMINATION AND SUBTEST STABILITY CRITERIA

In accordance with the test objective, the acceptance criterion for this testing is to successfully

collect and record the specified test data.

7.1 Maximum Head Loss Limit

To prevent structural failure to the prototype or tank system, a head loss limit of 20 ft-water will

be imposed during testing. If the head loss approaches this value, the test coordinator and

customer must convene to decide the new flow rate of the system to maintain test continuance.

The test vendor shall notify customer of the limit of the test facility at which the flow must be

reduced. Should the flow ever reach this limit and require test operator action, the flow should

be reduced to maintain the flow at an acceptably high head loss, but less than the limit while

customer and test vendor determine new target flow rate. Under no circumstances should the test

be aborted due to reaching a head loss limit unless a lower flow cannot be maintained.

7.2 Testing Stabilization Criteria

The head loss measurements for each test will be recorded and monitored continuously

throughout the test. There are several stabilization points throughout each test that require

different levels of stability. The test engineer and test coordinator must agree upon the


A C Stn-dural Infrfly Asocia=Wn, Wn" cOMFmY


fulfillment each Subtest criterion before continuing to the next Subtest. Furthermore, a note

must be logged explaining why the Subtest is complete. Note that pool turnover times are based

on water level and flow rate, and they must be calculated separately for each Subtest.

Clean Screen Flow Sweep - Each flow point will be held for at least 5 minutes.

Fiber Addition -The flow rate shall be maintained at the target flow rate for at least 5 PTO.

Stability is defined as a change in head loss less than 1% over a one-hour period. If dP is less

than 0.3 ft-water, then a change of less than 0.08 ft-water (1 inch-water) over one hour is

acceptable.

Flow Reduction - The strainer head loss is measured at the reduced flow rates until the flow is

stopped. Each point is held for a minimum of 2 PTO.

7.3 Atypical Head Loss Stability

In some cases, the head loss will stabilize atypically, or the head loss will be too low to calculate

a 1% change. In these cases, the time period may be shortened or lengthened depending on test

coordinator direction and client input. Whenever the head loss is declared as stable, a detailed

notemust be written on the test log that describes why, the head loss was declared as stable

before the next Subtest is initiated. If the above guidelines are modified, a more detailed note

must be given in the test log that explains how and why the Subtest was declared as stable.


A CS$njdfutal Ilegrify Associat4 Inc, cOMPY


8 TEST DOCUMENTATION AND RECORDS

The Test Procedure shall provide the documentation for performing the required test steps and

the associated signatures for the performance and witnessing of critical steps. The Test

Procedure also provides for a test log, which is used to document significant points during the

performance of the test. Test procedures shall be submitted to customer for review and approval

prior to testing.

The data acquisition system is used to collect flow rate, differential pressure, and temperature

data throughout the performance of the tests. This system also allows for the creation of graphs

of the data as well as tables of the raw data. The electronic file of the raw data shall be provided

to customer along with the final Test Report.

After testing is completed, a Test Report Summary document shall be prepared that contains the

Test Logs, Test Data, Observations, and other pertinent information regarding the conduction of

the tests. The following is table of contents for the Test Report that would be acceptable.

I.2.3.

4.5.

IntroductionTest Facility DescriptionTest PrototypeDebris DescriptionTest Procedure Summary

a. Debris Preparationb. Test Setupc. Test Initiationd. Debris Additione. Test Terminationf. Post Test Observations

g. Test Discrepancies and Nonconformanct

6. Results of Testing7. Quality Assurance

8. ReferencesAppendix I - Test Log SheetsAppendix 2 - Calibration Data Sheets

Appendix 3 - Material Data SheetsAppendix 4 - Data in Digital Format

Appendix 5 - Photographs

24 of 27ANATECH CORP.

A •$Stmdwar hiftgnly Associatm, le. cOMPANY


9 QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

This Test Plan is developed in accordance with Structural Integrity Associates Corporation's

Quality Assurance Program and Procedures. The Test Procedure and subsequent qualification

testing shall be conducted in accordance with an approved Quality Assurance Program that

meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B. The results of the testing will be used in

nuclear safety-related qualification documents.

9.1 Nonconformance, Corrective Action and Defects

Any nonconformance that arises during the test program shall be brought to the attention of the

customer Project Manager or his designee. In case of nonconformance affecting the test output,

the test vendor shall notify customer immediately and obtain customer review and approval of

the disposition.

9.2 Measuring and Test Equipment

M&TE used during testing must be within its valid calibration range and date. Certificates of

conformance and calibration data must be available during testing. The data acquisition system

and instrumentation must be verified to standards or some other method of checking prior to and

after testing.

9.3 Lab Procedures

Lab procedures used during testing must be the most recent revision of each and each personnel

working on the test must be fully trained and qualified to any procedures he or she is working to.

Training logs to lab procedures and applicable project plans must available during testing.


A Stw .fita Lwegrfy Asocates, InC. Comm,~


10 REFERENCES

[1] Meeting Summary, November 27, 2007, with Boiling Water Reactor Owners' Group to

Discuss the Treatment of Generic Safety Issue 191 Technical Issues Applied to Boiling

Water Reactor [ML073320404].

[2] Letter from Grobe, John to Anderson, Richard, "Subject: Potential Issues related to

Emergency Core Cooling Systems Strainer Performance at Boiling Water Reactors,"

April 10, 2008 [ML080500540].

[3] NEDO-32686-A, "Utility Resolution Guidance for ECCS Suction Strainer Blockage,"

October 1998, Volumes I through 4 [ML092530449].

[4] BWROG Letter, BWROG-13058, "Summary of Member Responses to BWROG Survey

on Strainer Head Loss and Near-Field Effects," BWROG-ECCS-WP-3-1, for NRC

Information and Commentary, October 31, 2013 [ML13308A277].

[5] NRC Letter, "Feedback on Boiling Water Reactor Owner's Group Report BWROG-

ECCS-WP-3-1, Summary of Member Response to BWROG Survey on Strainer Head

Loss and Near Field Effects," April 21, 2014.

[6] NRC, NRC Staff Review Guidance regarding Generic Letter 2004-02, "Closure in the

Area of Strainer Head Loss and Vortexing," Washington, D.C., March 28, 2008.

[ML080230038]

[7] NRC, NEI 04-07 PWR Sump Performance Evaluation Methodology, Volume 2, Revision

0. "Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Related to NRC

Generic Letter 2004-02, Revision 0, December 6, 2004," Washington, D.C., December

2004 [ML050550156]

[8] Los Alamos National Laboratory, NUREG/CR-6808, "Knowledge Base for the Effect of

Debris on Pressurized Water Reactor Emergency Core Cooling Sump Performance," Los

Alamos, NM, February 2003.


A t•$t f aluti Integrity Aswcies, Inc14 COMPA)JY


[9] Science and Engineering Associates, Inc., NUREG/CR-6224, Parametric Study of the

Potential for BWR ECCS Strainer Blockage Due to LOCA Generated Debris,

Albuquerque, NM, October 1995.

[10] Nuclear Energy Institute, "ZOI Fibrous Debris Preparation: Processing, Storage and

Handling," Revision 1, January 2012.

ANATECH CORP.27 of 27 MMMMI!

A C $S-wcural Iategffly AssociaMs, InC: COMPANY

ECCS Suction Strainer Thin Bed Head Loss Test PlanPlan No. BWROG-ECCS-TP-3-2

Appendix A - BWR Fleet Strainer and Debris Data

Revision 0

Plant System StrainerVendor

StrainerArea(ft)

StrainerFlow(gpm)

AverageStrainer

ApproachVelocity

(ft/s)

SludgeQuantity

(lbs)

Sludgeper unitStrainer

Area(lbs/ftl)

A RHR ABB 453 11000 0.054 736 1.62

CS ABB 191 3950 0.046 264 1.38

B R}IR ABB 620 10900 0.039 708 1.14

CS ABB 245 4500 0.041 292 1.19

C RHR CCI 400 5940 0.033 216 0.54

LPCS CCI 363 6280 0.039 229 0.63

D RHR Enercon 2442 12120 0.011 985 0.40

LPCS Enercon 2407 12510 0.012 1015 0.42

E RHR Enercon 2418 14900 0.014 1011 0.42

LPCS Enercon 2418 14565 0.013 989 0.41

F RHR Enercon 2168 14200 0.015 1003 0.46

LPCS Enercon 2165 14100 0.015 997 0.46

G RHR GE 475 6133 0.029 100 0.21

CS GE 475 6133 0.029 100 0.21

13542/ 0.10/ 177/ 0.59/4722 0.04 390 1.31

I RHR GE 423 9349 0.049 185 0.44

CS GE 248 6135 0.055 309 1.25

i RHR GE 388 9600 0.06 378 0.97

CS GE 291 3100 0.02 215 0.74

K RHR GE 387 10000 0.06 184 0.48

CS GE 387 6350 0.04 116 0.30

L RHR GE 353 8200 0.05 37 0.10

CS GE 353 7800 0.05 34 0.10

M RHR GE 606 5050 0.02 287 0.47

CS GE 606 6400 0.02 363 0.60

ANATECH CORP.

A CW-MI tilhSU~ AwaW &W cm~~NAl of A2

ECCS Suction Strainer Thin Bed Head Loss Test PlanPlan No. BWROG-ECCS-TP-3-2

Appendix A - BWR Fleet Strainer and Debris DataRevision 0

Plant System Strainer StrainerVendor Area

(ft2)

StrainerFlow(gpm)

AverageStrainer

ApproachVelocity

(ft/s)

SludgeQuantity

(lbs)

Sludgeper unitStrainer

Area(lbs/ft2)

N RHR GE 204 5000 0.05 1351 7.67

CS GE 131 3175 0.05 643 4.91

O RHR GE 186 5300 0.06 139 0.75

CS GE 186 2950 0.04 77 0.41

O RHR GE 186 3850 0.05 101 0.54

CS GE 186 4725 0.06 124 0.67

P CT PCI 240 4892 0.05 -700 2.92

CS PCI 403 4892 0.03 700 1.74

Q ALL PCI 1225 25771 0.047 1838 1.50

R ALL PCI 828 33200 0.089 443 0.54

S RHR PCI 515 21000 0.091 445 0.84

CS PCI 245 6700 0.061 155 1.27

T 3RHR PCI 675 10500 0.035 170 0.25

2CS PCI 544 8030 0.033 130 0.24

U RHR PCI 2256 21000 0.021 2266 1.00

CS PCI 336 6800 0.045 734 2.18

V RHR PCI 197 8000 0.091 278.26 1.41

LPCS PCI 197 7800 0.088 271.30 1.38

W RHR PCI 100 8100 0.181 261.85 2.62

LPCS PCI 100 8100 0.181 261.85 2.62

X ALL PCI 472 32200 0.152 370 0.78

Y ALL PCI 670 16150 0.054 500 0.75

Note: These values in this Appendix have not been verified It is the responsibility of the BWRplants to ensure that the values in this matrix are accurate and/or representative.

ANATECH CORRo. ...........

A2 ofA2 A Vft~M **11 II' OM

Date post:	15-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	13 times
Download:	0 times

BWROG ECCS Suction Strainer Thin Bed Head Loss Test Plan.ECCS Suction Strainer Thin Bed Head Loss...

Documents