WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3

LOCA-75-127-NP

Post LOCABoric Acid Mixing Experiment

Westinghouse Electric Company LLC

1000 Westinghouse Drive

Cranberry Township, PA 16066.

O 2011 Westinghouse Electric Company LLCAll Rights Reserved

Interoffice Correspondence

V.,.r-- COMBUSTIONI l__• ENGINEERING

Windsor Ofice

To:. J. Longo, Jr. Post LOCA S. RosenBoric Acid Mixing October 6, 1975

Experiment LOCA-75-127xc-: W. Corcoran,

J. .Harris "L. E. AndersonM..El-Zeftawy

Purpose

At the request of Nuclear Safety, the Nuclear Labs have completed a postLOCA boric acid concentration experiment (see attached report).

This memo reviews the experiment and indicates the application of theexperimental results to a PWR,

.Summary

-1). Credit can be taken for mi~xing between the core liquid and the liquidin the vessel lower plenum. This lowers the boric acid concentration(compared- to just using core liquid) and lengthens the time to reachthe limiting concentration.

2) The Initial buildup of boric acid precipitate occurred at the coldestplace in the region of concentration (core and lower plenum), This isthe inside surface of the vessel lower head. This precipitate-occurred.before the concentration in that region reached the I atm solubility.limit. This is a result of the colder wate-r in the bottom head.-

A PWR Is-expected to have hotter fluid In that region. Thus, the startof precipitation should agree more closely with the solubility limitfor boiling liquid.

3) Upon disassembly, the heater elements were mostly-free of boric acid.This indicates that the core can be adequately cooled for some timeafter the onset of boric acid precipitation.

Discussion

An experiment was run to investigate the post LOCA boric acid buildup in amodel reactor vessel. Details of the expperifental setup and results aregiven in Reference 1. The model simulated the core, lower-p]•pnum andannulus regions of a PWR. Dilute boric acid solution., J was added tothe annulus and electrical heaters caused water to boil in the core. TF.,s.the. boric acid- concentration irncreased with tire. This is reore.entl..;' vof a large E ]acold leg break in a PWR with ECCS injection into tc:e

2

cold legs.

Liquid Mixing

The principle reason for running this experiment was to determine if theliquid in the core region mixes with that in the lower plenum. The mixingof these solutions was confirmed both by visual observation of the flowpatterns and by hourly measurements of the boric acid concentration atfive locations throughout the simulated vessel. The consequence of thisexperiment is that the post LOCA boric acid concentration is now knomn toincrease at a significantly slower rate than if the concentrated solutionin the core did not mix with other liquid in the vessel.

This experiment did not simulate a condition in which a largeamount of post LOCA liquid would be present in the upper plenum.(e.g. many hours after a large breakor a small break with steamgenerator depressurization). For.:such a condition., additional.mixing may occur between the liquid masses in the core and upperplenum.

The boric acid concentration results are given-in Figure 1. The actual con-centrations were sarpled twice (usually) at each time.and. location up untilthe~solubility limit was reached. The information shown in Figure I repre-sents the mean values of the data. given in Table 3 of Reference 1.

These-measurements were taken hourly at five locations in the simulated vessel.These are:

1) upper part of annulus

2) lower part of annulus

3) simulated core region4) between the two plates of the lower-support structure

5) below the lower support structure and insidethe region bounded.by the fl-ow skirt.

These measurements are valid up until the occurrence of the solubility limitat-1 atm (29.3 w/o). Beyond this time the sampl-ing pippette picked up sol-idswhich yielded erroneous results for concentrations (see Reference 1).

It is seen from Figure 1 that the-boric acid concentrations in the core andlower plenum (Regions 3, 4 and 5) increasedat fairly similar rates (exceptfor a single anonymous data point measured between the lower support platesat 12 hours). These results provide the-bases for assuming uniform mixingbetween the liquid masses in the core and lower plenum regions of a PWR.It is also seen from-Figure-1 that the transienXboric acid- concentrationsin the upper and lower portions of the annulus fluctuated with time andgenerally were higher in value than- the inlet concentration [ ]• Thus,the annulus is seen to participate in the backmixing process to a smalldegree.

3

An analytical prediction has been made of the transient boric acid con-centration in the core and lower plenum. This transient concentrationis based on the power history to the heater.rods reported in Reference 1(P.2). The analytical prediction is also shown on Figure 1. This pre-diction follows the trend of the measured data, with a slight- conservatism,up to about 8 hours.. Beyond 8 hours the slope of the measured data decreasesand the difference between this data and the prediction Is significant,The reasons for this behavior are as follows:

a) Between 3 and 8 hours there is a substantial (and temporary) risein the boric acid concentration In the upper and lower annulusregions.. Thus, the. effective mixing volume -is larger than thatof the core and lower plenum. For this reason, the predictedconcentration, which is based on just the core and lower plenummixing volumes, is an overprediction in this time span.

b) Beyond 8 hours a buildup of precipitate was noted on the insidesurface of the vessel lower heat (Reference l-P.3). This accumu-lation of solid boric acid slowed .down the rate of increase inthe solution concentration for the core and lower plenum. Thisis why the measured and predicted results diverged so significantly.beyond 8 hours. The reason for the occurrence of a precipitateon the inside lower vessel head after 8 hours is that the relativelylow temperature in this region (see Figure 2) established 'a lowboric acid solubility limit. This lower than saturation temperatureis due to heat losses out through the uninsulated sides and bottomof the simulated vessel.*

The temperatures of the various regions in the simulated vessel were recordedhourly. This data is shown in Figures 2 and 3. It is seen, from Figure-2,tha. a8 8hours the temperature in the lower plenum (llnside the flowskirt)isL :The inside surface of the-lower head should be somewhat colderthan the measured. value inside the flowskirt.

The boric acid solubility is highly temperature dependent. This can be seenfrom Figure-4, which is reproduced from Reference 2. At a t~mper ture of[ ]athe maximum solubilityof boric acid is seen to be equal to L .J Figure 1 -shows .that, at 8 hours, the existing boric acid concentration in the lowerplenum liquid is about [ 3 Thus, there is good agreement between themeasured boric acid concentration in the lower plenum and the solubility limitwhich is based on the measured temperature.

*This heat loss was enhanced by the presence of a fan which blew air over theexperiment for a -portion of the run time. The -purpose of this fan wasto clear out the evolving steam to aid visibility.

4

Beyond 8 hours the rtieasured lower plenum temperature (Figure 2) is seen torise to the saturation value at about 18 hours. The cause of this slowtemperature rise is not firmly established, although. I -suspect that the build-up of the boric acid thickness in the lower head served to insulate this.region and thereby reduce heat losses. Also,.beyond 8 hours the measuredboric acid concentration in the core and lower plenum rose slowly and reachedthe one atmosphere solubility limit (29.3 w/o) at between 15 and 16 hours.This is in general agreement with the temperature dependtat solubilitylimits obtained from Figures 2 and 4.

For a CE-PWR there As insulation around the sides-of the reactor vesseland on the bottom and sides of the reactor cavity (see References 3 and 4for Calvert-Cliffs). This insulation plus the vessel thickness willlimit heat loss and will cause the lower plenum temperature to be closerto that in the core than was observed in the uninsulated and thin walledexperimental setup. These qualitative considerations for a PR indicatethat the maximum boric acid solubility in the lower plenum liquid shouldbe fairly close to. that-in the core. Thus., -the analytical predictions ofboric acid concentration should be more valid for a PWR than for. thisexperiment. When precipitation does start in a PMR, it should Proceedfrom the coldest place in the core or lower plenum.

Post Precipitation Conditions

An important observation made durin gthis test is that the lower supportplates, with their small size holesL. ]']did not fill up with solidboric acid until the precipitate first filled the lower head and then roseto the level of the plates. In fact, even after the lower head filled withprecipitate some water managed to get to the heater section via flow channelsthat appeared in various parts of the boric acid plug (see Figures 16, 17and 18 of Reference I)-. - The liquid level inside the barrel could not beobserved lhte in the test as precipitate collected pn the inside surface ofthe simulated barrel (see.below).-

It is also seen from. the test results (.Figure -14A, Refet'ence 1) that a certainamount of boric acid was thrown upwardf from the boiling region when theconcentration got close to the I atm solubility limit. This reduced theboric.acid mass in. the liquidfilled portion of the vessel. This effectwas also noted in the sma-iler scale experiment reported-in Reference-2.

For a PWR, the above results show that there is no catastrophic effect associatedwith the post LOCA initiation of boric acid precipitation. Rather, it- is atime dependent effect throughout the upper and lower portions of the vesselwith the buildup- proceeding gradual ly.

5

Post Test Examination.

The disassembly of the test setup was recorded in Figures 5, 6 and 7 (allattached). Figure 5 shows the test section minus the simulated vessel.This figure shows the plug of boric acid In the lower plenum.. -Some of theprecipitate inside the simulated core barrel developed after the:heaterswere turned off and -the temperature dependent solubility limit droppedbelow the existing concentration.

Figure 6 shows-the simulated core barrel with the lower head plug ofboric acid cut nff. It is seen that the lower support plate region isfilled with precipitate, although observations during the test indicatedthat the heaters vwere receiving some liquid.

Figure 7 shows that the precipitate in the heater region was building upfrom the inside wall of the simulated'barrel (coldest location). At thetime of test termination the lower'3/4 of the heater rods-were generallyfree of precipitate. There is some precipitate visible on the upper 1/4of the heaters. This indicates that the upper portion of these rods were-in contact with less liquid than the lower region. This condition existedprior to the occurrence of precipitate and is a result of the axial void"distribution in the heater section (see Figure 12, Reference 1).. Hence,it is not clear whether the upper part of the heaters.was or was not dryingout at the end of the test (38 hours).

I

References

b~c2) D' J. Morgan, ECCS-BoriL Acid Concentration (Generic) Physical Data,

Results. of Preliminary Testing", NLM-74-479, November 25, 1974.

3) Bechtel Spec. No. 6750-M-339, Spec. for Reactor Cavity Insulation,

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, January 6f 1970.

4) Drawings from Universal Fabricated Products, DWG. Nos. 3836-1 to -12..

Fig. 1 BORIC ACID MIXING EXPERIMENTBORIC ACID CONCENTRATION vs. TIME

/00

95

LEGEND - - x UPPER ANNULUS-- =LOWER ANNULUS ..... ..

-HEATER CORE-- BETWEEN PLATES-- ,'FLOW SKIRT -

//

.1.

* 1...* /

¾

P'5

76

z

U

U

U

0

tz.5 .L0

U

'U

Z.1 P

........ !.... .... I........ . . . . . . . . .......... I-... i -i

....................-. i. .. ... ........I *'/i t_ /

..................... I!

/ i i"" ' -' I;• " .

..... !-' -.F •"'i"1 ATMOSPHERIC SOLUBILITY LIMIT

.# .•_ ••. 'lm of data validity - see p. 2)Analytical

#V5prediction:core and

dowerplenumtogether l ''J•

JD

/0

I'

S*1

-I'a

TIME, hoursSTART EXPERIMENT AT 1:30 A.M.

(5-22-75)

.'t.'

Figure 2 Boric Acid Mixing Experiment~~Legend core

.- 5 between lower piates..... - inside flow skirt

. .............. . . . . . . . ., , :•

.. ..: . . . ... .

I

I*. • ..

:,:-Measured Temperatures vs. Time

a,h~c

.1 .

/ j1 . .

* I *1. ** .. ...-.- . I............................... •.....H . ,., . .. .: .... . ..... < ..:.. ... ~... ... .:. . • . .

"I!"I .... . -. . . .

:1 / . .... I "/ I .. .

H . .

0

:! .~

I..

/

I

i~! ;~ .~

I I

i -1~i I

TIME, hours

. .I . r' r - - . " I #|. I - -. 1,i 11 e X 'L•q . P. , I. -..Figure 3 Boric Acid Mixing Experiment

Legend - /

0

upper annulusmiddl- annulus

lower annulus

Measured Temperatures

a~bc* *. I.

* . . . . S

4

0

1~I

I /

S ~

,j

.. o) .. , .. .

If- -4

TIE hour

TIME, hours

I'R

:., :.:.. 1 ,:•i "***'i-'" ! i

SOLUBILITY OF BORICFig. ACID IN WATER -- '-

VS. .7 .

..... TEMPERATURE . .

7::

.. . I .... : ..........

"" : i", , , . ... . . . ,

. .. . ' .. .. . • ,. 'IT •~ I .• . l . • ' -• I ' .. •.... .. .. ,.. :: .,: . - . . . .. f\ ___ "':___ .:"_______a

SE0~0~

N

.It...:..~ -j.

7/ . ... " "

.... ./ . . ... ... :• ! . ..... . .. .

::. :: i:_ . . . . -

... 1..-. . . .:- . - ....-..- I*-. ..-. -~-* - -~.I • -- :-.1:.j --7 -i• - ...-.--... :: -" -:- ..i ...-:.i . ...::::::::::::-::::-t:::::::-:::.,.-.---:: - :::: ,-..

... ...... ................. ..... , . .. . .......- : . ..... ... .............. ..... ..... -. .. . ...

- X-r

S:::::::::::::::::: ::::: :: :: :::::::::::: :: :::.:/ I.:::. :::::::. :: :: : ;.::: :

... .. -- ................. ........... ... ... n.... ... .. ., .. . I .. . .. . . . • . . . .. ... .. .. t.. . . . , .. . .. •. .. . ..-• .. -... . .,. .. ... ..... . .. . . . . . . . . .

.. .... wHB-... 748 i ... ..... .. . -1 . -......... - -.-.... .-.. . .. .l......I. . ..... I....... I ....L ... - ...... .. .

.... , .. ....... , ......... , .~...... !..... I.... ......... • i .. ,.... •........II.. ......... :•= • i ;I--I Ii::ldlli;... : : ..... ""I;; IIIII ... % ................................-- .

....... ...... I :.I.. : :.. ".>:.;,:-S . . . .I. . .. '- - " I .. ... _" .. '_" ' ' . .__e_.. I _____ _ .~ . ::.. :' ..... .. .I . . . . . .

I _,.............t ... ,............................. ......I___________________

I7. V 7 P2"

>.',-TI .. . .. . .. . . I .. . . . . . . . . / : .....j..... :t I.... ... ... .. __.... .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Ej ~ j __ TEIIPERATiIJRE ____

, , - , . '. ~~] b c o

,. , :: 0 ; . ', • . . : •. •. . .. ;... , . ... . .. : .. }.. . . FI .

FIG. 5 BORIC ACID MIXING TESTPOST TEST EXAMINATION

TEST SECTION MUNUS SIMULATED VESSELd

AAt-lb*

•,."-• . -*.

Z'-*~~f4. -.

* ~ttJ~4t.K ~....

I

,,"a

I. .

I ~'A

!*t* ~.

-9i i

'2p

Fig. 6 Boric Acid Mixing TestPost Test Examination

Boric Acid Plug Removed fromBarrel Bottom ,

i %,

U- -~'-4-

. ... . . . ' i. L. ,

1*

.4 I

,B/.JORIC ACID /X113NG TEST

PTTEST EXMINATION

Heater Section

of

Shnulated Core Barrel

POST~

f1

mim

.J.;.,

WNW.

DISTRIBLU ION,

CDNBUSTION ENGINEERINGDEVELOPMIM DEPARUM

TEST REPORT

REACIOR WDDELXID WiMMATION TESTECCS BORIC

591951

Prepared by:

Reviewed by:

Document No.

Z Z 4-Y,-G. F. AlortonReviewed

by: qj.. 4-~C~j..Aboratary Manager

______. .__ApprovedN.'R. Stolzenberg -<::

DP TR-ESE- 039 Date of Issue: 717,1;1ý-

Ref.. Test Request No. 398

1.0 INTIODUCTION

Current CE ECCS designs utilize a boric acid solution injected into thecore region via a safety injection system. It has been postulated thatthis system may. result in unacceptably high concentrations of boric acidin certain core regions during a long term post LOCA. cooling operation..High concentrations of boric acid could result from the continuous evap-oration of a coolant solution due to boil off in the core region whencore flushing and mixing does not exist to the necessary degree.

The test described in this report was undertaken to demonstrate. the ef-fects of adding boric acid solution and boiling at atmospheric pressurein. a model reactor assembly.. By geometric simulation of the various zonesin a reactor assembly, boric acid precipitation was examined to evaluateits effect upon core cooling.

The intent of this test was to simulate ECCS design for a long term oper-ation fdllowing a -cold leg break when core flushing is unavailable andcore decay heat. is removed by boi-l off of a borated solution.

2.0 SL,ý?IARY

A visual model built reasonably to scale and incorporating the separateflow regimes of interest, has shown that ,nixing does- occur between thezones in question. Both. qualitative and quantitative results. supportthis conclusion. Visually observed convection patterns were noted earlyin the test and increased with increasing concentration, and.siples takenfrom the various regimes show general mixing occurring.

3.0 OBJECTIVE

Through application of a model assembly, the test will illustrate to areasonable degree:

1... How and where boric acid precipitation develops in a reactor assembly.

2. Whether -precipitation forms quickly or is delayed by the inherent mix-ing action of the -core region through fluid reflux (back mixing).

3. If flow through the lower support plates eventually ceases when- precip-itation increases in these regions.

4. How carryover of boric acid solution may eventually effect the plug-ging of the steam venting pathway-above the core region.

4.0 DISCUSSION

4.1 Test Setup

A large reservoir -tank was employed to supply boric acid solutionto a glass* model reactor assembly. Thermocouples were installed inthe model and temperatures monitored on a digital indicator. Appqerstat connected via a junction box to heater rods within themodel allowed Variable power inputs to these rods. A 1 ml lab pipette

was utilized to wdthdraw coolant samples from the model (see Figure 8).

The model fabricated for this test simulates to a reasonable degreethe various zones of a reactor asscnbly. To enable construction ofa model in a minimum. amount of time, primarily with available equip-ment, restrictions were imposed upon the.ability to adhere to-a con-stant model scale. Therefore, model dimensions varied from thoseof a -true scale and are tabulated in Tables 1 & 2. The model geometrydemonstrates to a reasonable degree: an outer vessel and annulus re-gion, a lower plenum with flow skirt and support plates, and a heatedcore region with upper plenum.

The model reactor assembly was constructed of glass and plexiglas ma-terial with stainless steel support lates, flow skirt and heater rodsupport. ,A balanced arrangement ofE.

] heater rods comprised the core regionL " Jtotal. See Fig. 6.

Concentration sampling and thermocouple locations are shown-in Figure 7.

4.2 Procedure

The model was initially filled with a[-- boric-acid sol-ution from the reservoir tank at room temperature. Soution levelwithin the model was maintained initially and throughout the test, atthe top of heater rods (core region). Upon completion of initial datarecording, the powerstat was set to L ]6f full power to stab-ilize tep.erature variations throughout the model. Inlet flow of pre-heated boric acid solution from the reservoir tank to the model upperannulus region was adjusted to maintain a constant level in the core.solloet corDletio1 of the first hour of the test, the powerstat uasset ton 3 d maintained through. the fourth hour at whichtime the final setting of [7 full power was achieved. Powersettings above ]'-produced boiling at the top of upper plenunand spillage out of the vessel and therefore the upperE[ l•m'erlimit w•as selected. On an hourly basis, three concentration sampleswere withdrawn from each of five- locations with temperatures recordedfor eight locations (See Tables 3&4)* The level of solution in-the res-ervoir tank was recorded hourly to provide a record of the coolantmakeup per unit time (Figure 5).Photographs werct taken at periodic intervals throughout the test. (SeeFigs. 12-23).The concentration samples were placed in plastic vials of 2.5 ml volumeand capped for chemical analysis. Three samples were taken to alleviatelarge sampling errors. Some errors in measurement are likely, due toan inability to maintain placement of the pipette at the same levelin each of these regions through repeated-samplines., and the possi-bility that insertion of the pipette into the small volumes of thelower core region and the size of the samples could disturb the con-centrations in these regions..

*All available samples were not analyzed.

(2) TR-F-SE-039

4.3 Results

Figs. 1 & 3 exhibit curves for the time rate to precipitate boric acidin the five regions of the reactor model. Shown are the initial 18hours of operation after which uniform saapling of the core regioncould not be continued due to precipitation buildup in the lower re-gions. Attempts at taking liquid samples were unsuccessful due torapid solidification in the pipette. High concentration samples wereobtained by renoving glass tubes with solid precipitate and analyzinga uniform length.

Caution: The curves presented serve only to illustrate and providethe basis for an evaluation of the trend that presented itself duringperformance of the model test. The actual injection concentration,flow rate and boil off rate for the actual reactor are different, thsre-fore an extrapolation to the reactor system operation based upon theseresults is not attempted in this report. The results do show thatthermal mixing does occur between the various regimes producing ageneral solutkn concentration mechanism. M1ixing and flow rates werevery slow and it is not Imon..m if other flow rates would produce moreor less concentrating. Table 3 is a tabulation of samples analyzed.Erratic data such as that between the support plates during the twelfthhour are not indicative of the overall trend but probably due to faultyplacement of the sa,,pling probe or improper labeling of the sample con-tainer.

Figures 1 & 4 show that good agreement did exist for time to concen-trate between tie various regions of the core barrel and that backmixing of higher density solutions between these regions did takeplace. Theoretically, without back mixing the time to. reach bulkprecipitation (50,000 ppm) in the heater core region of this modelwould have occured within approximately 14 hours, as compared tothe observed localized precipitation in greater thMn.16 hours duringthe test.

Observed during the test and fundamental to back mixifg were the pre-sence of thermal convection currents in the lower core regions. Theseformed -at the outset of the test immediately below the core supportplate; convection currents progressed through the lower support -plateto eventually er.compass the entire flow skirt region by three hoursinto the test. Movies taken of the model during the test, on filewith the ED&S Photography Department (Bldg. 5), display these thermalcurrents. Still photos did not show the patterns.

The initial appearance of boric acid precipitation occurred abouteight hours into the test. Formation began as a thin layer on thebottom of the outer glass vessel (See Figure 9) at a level belowthe rim of the support stand.:

Observations made include:

At 14 hours -into the test; deposits had grown to two inches abovelevel of support stand and began -to increase in thickness. By-approxi-mately 16 1/2 hours, precipitation enclosed 2/3 the flow skirt region

and appeared on the lower support plate. One-half hour later, theflow skirt regionuas completely enveloped and 1/4 the region be-tween the plates. At 18 hours, buildup in the liquid-vapor regionabove the heaters began to appear and two-thirds of the region be-tween the plates was now enclosed. The initial appearance of pre-cipitate in the core region on the core support plate began 19 hours.into the test. Rapid buildup of precipitation continued throughoutthe model from this time to test ternination, 38 hours from startup.Boron precipitation had completely enclosed the lower annulus, flowskirt and support plate regions: and two-thirds of the heater coreregion. Buildup did occur in the steam venting pathay but at notime was venting impaired. (See Figures 10 & II)

Observed late into the test were the continual appearance of flowchannels between the support plates aid flow skirt regions. Event-ually, following close-off, these channels uould reappear a shorttime later in other locations.

At completion of the test, it was apparent that at no time was theoperation of heater rods of the core region impaired by the acciumu-lation of boric acid precipitation-in the model assembly. A reason-ably constant boil off rate, see Figure 2 , the result of unabatedheater rod output rates indicates a continuous flow of coolant throughthe region.

C43: (:R-FSE-039

TABLE 1

TABULATION DIMDSIONIS (approx.)

Item Reactor (Calvert Cliffs I)

ID of Vessel.

Height of Vessel'

ID of Core Barrel

Height of Core Barrel

OD of Core Barrel

Width of Annulus

Opening from VesselOlot &-Cold Legs)'"Height from Lower Plateto Bottom of Vessel

Height from Core SupportPlate to Lower Plate

Height of Flow Skirt.

Length of Heater Pods(Active Core)

Flow Area Through SupportPlates

Flow Area Through F1lw Ski

Upper PlMnU Flow Area

Scale..:

1/ 18

1/161/24

1/161/23

1/7

1/16

1/16

1/16

1/16

1/11

1/24

1/241/20

-- fb,0

Mbdel

.rt ,

Scaling. Ratiosa.bc

TABLE 2

STEM RATE (WI0PARISONS

Item

Power (K.A.)

Qcore (btu/sec)

Wcýore (lbm/sec)

Gstean (lb/sec-ft2)

Reactor (post LOCA 104 sec)O'b~c

Modela.bc

TABLE 3

CONCETRATION (Mpm Boron)

C1 Upper Antaeus C2 Lower Annulus C3 Heater Core C4 Betwcen-Plates C5 Flow Skirt

Time A B c A B- C A 1 I C A B C T 3 c

J/ 1,41 aZ

0130

0230

03300430

0530

06300730

0930

1030

1130

1230

1430

1530 -

1630

1730

1830

1930

2030

2130

2230

2330

4723

5278

5814

8664

1 11622

13915

9499

8336

7152

6-15061 57

(6060b167

5•814

604*9

5367

7966

5534

S449

5607

5404

5009

5238

5679

7394

9944

14112

9871

8345

7016

6972

6234

6184

6134

6093

5967

5731

5742

5665

4893

5327

5638

9691

6133

6092

5004

52855792

7302

8620

13701

13860

9603

931.3

7306

7562

67'00

732113337

61436365

6423

6455

$63S

5859

5438

5720

5575

5146

5683

5811

73398780

10768136631

97718315.

7090

6797

6323

182656115

6100

6081

S79]

7228

6111

5257

13944

3853

8494

6999

6579

6207

6003

7920

5425

58799911

10302

13208

17913

19570

27074

32ol9

39781

45817

45096

46037

46264

41-043

s0ooo

50000

5197

S924

9527

10096

13104

17519

19841

28137

34514

35912

40566

47000

44850

4493046400

48062

56218

5151

5969

19444

33700

48934

5295

5638

9033

10074

.12316

17013

18559

26769

34834

39896

40507

43560

33867

49895

476i4

49085

S1568

5234

5940

9448

881S

13104

16437

18574

28326

33102

39484

40118

44969

45943

48662

51470

53734

5244

5654

18948

37296

1973

5016

5483

6349

7013

9454

14196

16313

26860

32211

39670

38489

45996

46923

48488

50404

5209

5423

6001

6791

9127

14688

16200

26264

32555

3668S

41003

43431

46124

50294

49461

5323

5802

48577

45490

50000

5732

TABLE 3

(lNCENTRATION (ppm Boron)CContinucd):

CI Upper Annulus C2 Lower Annulus C3 Heater Core C4 Between Plates C5 Flow SkirtTime A B C A' B' C A B C A B C: A :B C

5/23/75

0030 5619 5703 63440130 5704 5822

0230 5966 5642

0330 6655 5862

0430 5974 5988 5987

0530 5813 8494

0630 6038 15215

0730 6298 61650830 102566 108480

0930

1030 717001130 71440

123fn 53191

1330 69021

1430

1530 76783

.d of Tes

RESERVOIR TANK OONCFNTRATION

Before Test

508349934960

Mid Test

325156135590

TABLE 4

TEM PER? ATUF-EL ('br)

I "T, I n . I*1~1~,I , , - I I

7 i ". . . ! -, i.o~i3o

0 C7"0

i130IZ3o

74 3e

ONO&

2- o~ 260e

930

o 7Bo

£o(,30

1 -2,0

1: -3" 0

43e)

8/

/00Al-l

' -'a

/6 i•,

14-7

•/7',

SI ell -Y

".p

/ 4- 4Z

, ;S.0

Pee~

157

.167

A(-

':3-ý

6'/

-- .4

/7

"' 4,Z'7

"9 ,/

•'~ ,2/6,

~.. .2

,•

•-

/aot

21 a

,2.14e .0

vaB 7~

2/ /#z-'3~ /

.2/~ 7 /

a1,7

021-7

.,P 7

CP18

,. g~

~6~

~9e3

1/

~

'-*1 -7

:~

~2

S.- 06

/d. 7

"-':3

'.7;,'3-9

'3-

I7 I.

•'3-

ZI•

'9;'•

I

-IF$

/61

/60

,j,.7

":i3•

/-.:;,

'9.5-6.

/90'•

a~. ' -,,iz

.4,-

•/7 =,

/- ,.-•/ ., •i•

71A -- ,(. L ; L ;

1'67

U. C) ZD2 X 20 TO TF~r INCH. 7 X IM INC3ttXIEUF'EI. 8, ESSL!I CO. Im U 46 1240 A 0

.... ." " " -. ..: .... .....

.............. ............... .. ...; i [ , .~~~ ~~ :: ::. : :l '.. .. :;!:. :: , '.

. ... REACTOR VESSEL REGIONS ' i-.. CONCENTRATION vs. TIME (1-9 Hours).. . . ... i

,'iV

m- 7- 77-*~,. . ... i : -4 I ' ...

.~.i..... .. ..... F ;

- I• .-//:

: -- -: . . . . . . . l= t - • -1 .i l ,.

. ..

.I I .. I .1...

..- -... . .. . .

...

K]7t •-1 'I

.1

I

-4-. -...

. .4I

....

...ij

I...

-~

* . *1*

........ • •.r ...• _ I I.iK. FLOW SKMT

. .. : ~BETWEEN PLATES. IA-

'If. ATER CORE ,

S" WER ANN1 LUS.i PER ANNULUS

.°

HEATER CORE

'I~ F t

.iilLI~: .:i'•

[-.E

r

.-FLOWS]

ETWEEN

JrT

7 I- ..... I -- L -- k •--- I

:1I....

I-..

2:1T17 ...T. j..

PERI .LL.4OWER ANNUJLUS.

-7 : : - -- L : I : :

NNULUS.. ~1

I..

-I

-~1

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

-~1t... :

* .: i.: "... .

* I.

.1

---- 1--->~

31

I - ! ~.4j'IiiI,

.i1.:I I I I ] - T

*T71.j.* . *1-

'I. 7F7

7.118J.V b

] I I & i - i • - II

TIE (Hours of Test)FIGURE 1

; .... . .. . . ...... ..-.... ..... . ..... I.j. -............

20 X 2Ui TO THE~ INICH. I X 10IJCt.K t (urro:L a eossrPCO. 46 1240 0 0

.1 ." "*: I .. 'Im I I

. ..:...

K

.; ~ ~ . "..... . . . '1

... .. . .: " . .!

iI i -IFLOW vs. TIME

T ' I a 7 2 .!

1 1" i.... - _ . _ _

i .: I"

* ::4.. if* .1 I

*....-

77

71..

OTAL FLO'I

A-.

-- r - :

V1-

1 1. : '' 1 - '•.7 :i-

' .I .I....- - -i . -j: : : - - - - : - - :

... . .. . . ..,

--:. A A OI -. I

-- OA AMOUNT OF, BOR -- "

_- L .-.~ .: . t I::_.:

I.

I.

I 11

7I.---.-

I-.

4-

.....

. . . ..

* --- --- -. -. -- --

I• • I I•I• . • i• I

---1-~-i

I.

N i.... ....-.. . "

I 1 I I

I-

.1* I

... II.

U*1~ .1

.1.

.... . .. .

* I:-I

._____,,___I . LL .*- i = t I • I : I •

.1.

* I . I

* .. I

o1

I. .. ......I 'i .

TIM (Hours of Test)I " . .

FIGURE 2 LIJ.1I.Li. .1:.....

I IK. -

I -n-I I

,-'r. % OX TO THE IN.C 1-7 A i-. N HES14-: A... (cVFLLamsSERco. F4.3L3FUSA 46 1240 ©,- C-

J-*- J iI

A.. ____

I

J-... . .K .

HEATER CORE REGIONCONCENTRATION vs. TIME

.... I ..

..

'"

.. ..:""•'!.

..... '"'

............................. ................. ... ..... i.................

t . .. " •j. -F

H-i-

i..I •

I "! i I I . ! t - " ' . .

"-'F ": ... " " : :i .. ..- '": 1 4"':- " : !- 1..

| F I I ! -' : ' . 1 . .:I " . 1. I .'/

F.

~'3I>

-K

* i:

7'-I

*if

* 3.

3 _ ..

K" V\

1. .- - 3

I

* :.4, I: _________

I -

I I .

• I -

\ : 1

'/177'

:Kj>i.

* :

I.

.-4.

I .

* I

lii-I:.I.

I.. .L

I.

I I 717 3T

1- *17J vzr TV -- .KK ---.- 1 -

_ _ _ .4

.. Iit.*2<.~ 177

I I

:1

.1

*1

~1~~ 74.1:::

.7

I..'.

.3

I.

I:

I ~*1/ I 4~L~ .I~ j t

C . £.

j :~1~ I -TIME (Hours of Test)1, IFIGURE 3

I

I *.~&.-~ 4 ?.I. ...i:-;

I

I ~ ~

1 I .1

3 I

*1-

f

I I3 -'4 3 .4

,-. *..4~I ~'

- i~...

I i :~ j

0 ,N 2 20 TOTHE INC~-o I v0CI~KCEU9FELaESSE Ca. pmu.Z VIA 46 1240 0 0

I - z~..~T2pr~r- . --I II F

. , 4 ..... g • m •

- I. . -

F .

/1(.

I-

:1*'' I.'.iiii

i' !~ i

I I:

j I~ /t If...,.I. ~ /

_-ACO VESSELREGION. . i .. . ..I i I .! * *: i \ !

4. .1 . l

. /'. . " ." ...• ...... I : ... ' " ' •. .

..................................... .. :..... .... i.......... .,

.EATO VESSEL!, REGIONS•::' jb ,: " :I. '

• .I .. . . .. . . .... N.

P •

i* I

I.I I

:1. I

2 III:

.AI'I.

FI~I . I

Ii

if

I.*1

*1.1

0L2.1

-- I -1-- -*t~ -I- I -4 4-4

........

I

'. / ......

... ...........

I.. ....

*.. T.. .

ii. J 3 -j -7

.3 I

:':i'"- '1 1I I *I

:4.

I.--!FLOW SKIRTBETWEEN PLATESHBEATER CORELOWER ANNULUSUPPER ANNULUS

...j1 1 1" - 1 - - - . -rI - - -I

I:

.1**~". .. ...."1:

.. ;......

*1• ! T"* *1 .1~.

41

:..I , .

.1, ,il.:':i! - -71777' 7

* I..-I [:iI'"iii ' I

I , I

I.

I ,i1'"''i IIIi!

I..1

*1 .1:1.!:. .1

_____________ * II 5 q... r - -r----.-j .. ~ I

1K 1 'i 2 ii_ .] .

!•I: j "14, :1. '1:TIME (Hours of Test)

FIGURE 4

.3 ~;* I

, 1! T J I • a - - . f ' i

FLOW RATES

(flow in = boil off)

Start of Test

01305/22/75

End of Test

15305/23/75

Time (Hrs.)

1234S678.9

1011121314151617.181920212223242526272829303132333435363738

Total Flow (0)

Avg. Mean Flow

Boil Off (ft3/hr)r- -1 ab~c

t ] a1kc

FilgUre 5

cus

LOC

~TOMER.

ATION-

COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.VINDSOR. CONN.

. CONT. No. MAD. BY__A_____I Ir a,b,¢.No.'____________CgNa'o By .OTE..' •r

1

!W .N.CKDB tA9

L-

CU

LO

F

COMBUSTION ENGINEERING. INC.WINDSOR. CONN.

'STOMER . CONT. No. MADE By. ...-- r -

CATION .WG. Nn e..-.

-jm

!

II

.1M c -r-7,

-,Lje .L .

ii.II

't-/

-. -----. I

b

* I,.'a- -, ~

I +

-11 ff:c'.L!'L ~~-'2 ~~-'~'.LZ . *1 I

'Ii~1 I I

.. II ~ *~. -L

______ -_C I

I.rir~QqK¶I I

I.

* I

:.j ,) I ~* -F

-~ ~I

.~.1

!

T E S T ... . .. ..

Figure 8

COMBUSTION ENGINEERING. INC.WIND SOR, CONN. MD v..At~

LOCATION DW.No. COOsco eSCAC-._

a~b~c

COM1USTION ENGINE-ERING, INC.WINDSOR. CONN.CUSTOM ER .... ,.'."r"

-US---: " '. -- -: _ CO NT. No - - - ý M ADO E By..AT

LOCATION.....- DWG, No. __CKo By--_ D.OAT".........

abc

COMBUSTION ENGIN'LCERING. INC.WINDSOR. CONN.

CVSTOMEfl-- .. -CONT. No. _ -. MA9)r DY ____ bTg _

LOCATION --- __ _...owo.- 4. CNn.B -- ý ATMAPb

- I

5:00 A.M. 5/22/75

VIEW SHOWING - FLOW SKIRT

SUPPORT 'PLATES, HEATER CORE

4 HOURS INTO TEST - NO PRECIPITATION

3:00 P.M. 5/22/75

14 HOURS INTO TEST " PRECIPITATION

BUILDUP IN OUTER ANNULUS -AND LOWER

CORE REGION

FIGURE 12 FIGURE 13

L.- A

4:15 P.M. 5/22/75 4:15 P.M. 5/22/75

-- 15 HOURS INTO TEST --t

FIGURE 1.4 A FIGURE 14 B

I .

%L~

6:30 P.M. 5/22/75

15 1/2 HOURS INTO TEST - LOWER SUPPORT PLATE COVERED

BUILDUP BEGINNING TO FORM ON CORE SUPPORT PLATE

6:30 P.M. 5/22/75

FIGURE 1SA FIGURE 158

I .

4dMk

8:45 A.M. 5/23/75

31 HOURS INTO TEST

NOTE FLOW CHANNELS APPEARING

ER AVOIULUS ANO SUPPORT PLATE REGION

I

9;40 A.M. 5/23/75

32 HOURS INTO TEST

FLOW CHANNEL OPEN IN LOWER ANNULUS

CHANNEL CLOSING IN CORE SUPPORT REGION

FIGURE 1.6. FIGURE 17

11

)k44

10:30 A.M. 5/23/75

33 HOURS INTO TEST - FLOW CHANNELS CLOSED OFF

CHANNELS REAPPEARING IN OPPOSITE SIDE OF VESSEL

FIGURE 1_8

10:45 A.M.- 5/23/75

UPPER PLENUM REGION WITH HEATER LEADS

FIGURE 19

~'~i

4:00 P.M. 5/23/7S

38 HOURS INTO TEST

!UILDUP THROUGHOUT LOWER ANNULUS AND CORE BARREL REGION NOTE

AND

4:15 P.M. 5/23/75

38 HOURS INTO TEST

CLOSURE OF FLOW CHANNELS

BUILDUP ON UPPER PLENUM

FIGURE 21FIGURE 20

a,

4:15 P.M. 5123/75

END OF TEST - 38 HOURS FROM STARTUP

:ECIPITATION THROUGHOUT MODEL CORE BARREL

9:00 A.M. 5/27/75

VIEW SHOWING BUILDUP IN

UPPER PLENUM AND ON HEATER LEADS

FIGURE 22G FIGURE 23