Southern NuclearOperating Company · Southern NuclearOperating Company ND-18-0300 Enclosure 1...

Southern Nuclear Operating Company

ND-18-0300

Enclosure 1

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4

Presentation Material:

Crediting First of a Kind Testing from China AP1000 Units - Open Meeting (Non-Proprietary)

(Enclosure 1 consist of 27 pages, including this cover page)

Crediting First of a Kind Testing from China AP1000 Units

ND-18-0300 Enclosure 1 of 27

Agenda

• Background• Quality Assurance Program Assessment• China Test Assessments and Applicability to Vogtle 3&4

– In-containment Refueling Water Storage Tank Heatup Test– Reactor Vessel Internal Vibration Testing – Core Makeup Tank Test Heated Recirculation Tests – Automatic Depressurization System Blowdown Test

• Path Forward

2


Background

• The VEGP 3&4 Combined Licenses (COLs) currently require First Plant Only Tests (FPOTs) and First Three Plant Only Tests (F3POTs) be performed on both Unit 3 and Unit 4

• If Licensee would like to credit a test performed at a previous plant (unit), a LAR is required.

• SNC would like to credit testing completed on the China AP1000 units • During certification of AP1000, the purpose of first plant only testing was provided

in Section 14.2.5:– Special tests to further establish a unique phenomenological performance parameter of the

AP1000 design features beyond testing performed for Design Certification of the AP600 and that will not change from plant to plant, are performed for the first plant only. Because of the standardization of the AP1000 design, these special tests (designated as first plant only tests) are not required on follow plants.

3


Background

• The SNC intent is to submit LARs covering China FPOT/F3POT applicability• The LAR scope will be split by:

– Pre-operational tests– Start-up tests

• The LAR scope being split allows for submittal of the first LAR while the remaining FPOT tests are being completed and/or vetted

• This presentation will cover the pre-operational testing scope for the first LAR– In-containment Refueling Water Storage Tank (IRWST) Heatup Test– Reactor Vessel Internal Vibration Testing (or Comprehensive Vibration Assessment Program,

CVAP)– Core Makeup Test Heated Recirculation Tests (F3POT)– Automatic Depressurization System Blowdown Test (F3POT)

4


LAR Scope

• LAR(s) will be submitted to delete the COL conditions requiring First Plant Only and First 3 Plant Only Tests for Vogtle 3&4

• The LAR technical evaluation will demonstrate– Adequacy of China QA program governing FPOT/F3POT– Acceptability of China FPOT/F3POT results– Applicability of China FPOT/F3POT results to Vogtle 3&4

5


COL Requirements for Pre-Operational FPOT

6


Proposed COL Changes

7

(2) Pre-operational Testing

(a) SNC shall perform the design-specific pre-operational tests identified below:

1. In-Containment Refueling Water Storage Tank (IRWST) Heatup Test (first plant test as identified in AP1000 Design Control Document (DCD), Rev. 19, Section 14.2.9.1.3 Item (h));

2. 1. Pressurizer Surge Line Stratification Evaluation (first plant test as identified in AP1000 DCD, Rev. 19, Section 14.2.9.1.7 Item (d)) as revised by Amendment No. 83;

3. Reactor Vessel Internals Vibration Testing (first plant test as identified in AP1000 DCD, Rev. 19, Section 14.2.9.1.9);

4. Core Makeup Tank Heated Recirculation Tests (first three plants test as identified in AP1000 DCD, Rev. 19, Section 14.2.9.1.3 Items (k) and (w)); and

5. Automatic Depressurization System Blowdown Test (first three plants test as identified in AP1000 DCD, Rev. 19, Section 14.2.9.1.3 Item (s)).

b) SNC shall review and evaluate the results of the applicable tests identified in Section 2.D.(2)(a) of this license and confirm that these test results are within the range of acceptable values predicted or otherwise confirm that the tested systems perform their specified functions in accordance with AP1000 DCD Rev. 19, Section 14.2.9,

c) SNC shall notify the Director of NRO, or the Director’s designee, in writing, upon successful completion of the applicable design-specific pre-operational tests identified in Section 2.D.(2)(a) of this license; and

d) SNC shall notify the Director of NRO, or the Director’s designee, in writing, upon the successful completion of all the ITAAC included in Appendix C to this license.

Corresponding changes would be proposed to UFSAR


Licensing Changes Impacting FPOT Pre‐Operational TestsLAR-17-033 (155), Submitted Oct. 2017 IRWST HeatupNRC Approved LAR-16-011 (100) Aug. 2017

Pressurizer Surge Line Stratification Evaluation

LAR 125, Feb. 2018 Submittal Reactor Vessel Internals VibrationCMT Heated Recirculation (F3POT)ADS Blowdown (F3POT)Startup Tests

LAR-17-041 (84), Submitted Nov. 2017 Natural CirculationRCCA Out of Bank Load Follow Demo

LARs Impacting FPOT LAR Submittal

8


Proposed Path Forward

• Perform assessment of China Quality Assurance Program (complete)• Assess Sanmen test execution for pre-op tests (complete)• Evaluate Sanmen/Haiyang pre-op FPOT results (complete)• Evaluate Sanmen/Haiyang pre-op F3POT results (still need last F3POT reports from

recently completed Sanmen 2 tests)• Demonstrate applicability (LAR)• Revise FPOT/F3POT License Conditions (LAR)

9


Quality Assurance Program Assessment


Overview

• Comparison of Chinese Regulation to 10 CFR 50 Appendix B• Assessment of implementation

– Review of completed tests– Observations for future tests– Westinghouse/Customer interface during testing

11


Comparison of Chinese Regulation to 10 CFR 50 Appendix B

• Industry Subject Matter Expert compared requirements from China HAF 003-1991, “Safety Regulations for Quality Assurance of Nuclear Power Plants” to 10 CFR 50 Appendix B

• Concluded that requirements of HAF 003 are comparable to, and encompass, the requirements of Appendix B

12


Review of Completed Tests

• Test specifications (including acceptance criteria) are developed and approved by the design authority (Westinghouse)

• SNC completed a review of the completed test procedures at Sanmen/Haiyang for QA adherence– The review resulted in no impacts to the test results

• SNC will continue to monitor future tests

13


Applicability of China Tests to Vogtle 3&4


IRWST Heatup Licensing Commitments

15

UFSAR 14.2.5

IRWST Heatup Test (14.2.9.1.3 item (h))During preoperational testing of the passive core cooling system, a natural circulation test of the passive residual heat removal (PRHR) heat exchanger is conducted (item f). For the first plant only, thermocouples are placed in the IRWST to observe the thermal profile developed during the heatup of the IRWST water during PRHR heat exchanger operation. This test will be useful in confirming the results of the AP600 Design Certification Program PRHR tests with regards to IRWST mixing, and is useful in quantifying the conservatism in the Chapter 15 transient analyses.

Due to the standardization of the AP1000, the heatup and thermal stratification characteristics of the IRWST will not vary from plant to plant. The PRHR heat exchanger design, and the size and configuration of the IRWST are standardized, such that the heatup characteristics will not significantly change from plant to plant.

Therefore, since the phenomenon to be tested (i.e., heatup and mixing characteristics of the IRWST) will not vary significantly from plant to plant due to standardization, a first plant only test of the IRWST heatup characteristics is justified.


• Proposed acceptance criteria for IRWST heat up test described in LAR-17-033 for UFSAR Section 14.2.9.1.3, item h):

The heatup characteristics of the in-containment refueling water storage tank water are verified by measuring the vertical water temperature gradient that occurs in the in-containment refueling water storage tank water at the passive residual heat removal heat exchanger tube bundle and at several distances from the tube bundle, during testing in Items f) [PRHR natural circulation preoperational test—required for all plants] and g) [PRHR forced flow test—required for all plants], above. Note that this verification is required only for the first plant. The acceptance criterion demonstrates that the average IRWST heatup is consistent with the PRHR heat transfer modeling in the Chapter 15 analysis. These results (in conjunction with Items f) and g)) are evaluated to demonstrate that the overall PRHR heat transfer performance, i.e., heat removal from the RCS, is conservative with respect to the analysis documented in Chapter 15.

IRWST Heatup Licensing Commitments (post LAR)

16


• The CVAP test program is described in UFSAR Subsection 3.9.2.4– The AP1000 reactor internals testing is part of a comprehensive vibration assessment program performed in accordance

with Regulatory Guide 1.20 – This testing obtains data to verify the structural integrity of the AP1000 reactor internals with regard to flow-induced

vibrations, as part of an internals vibration assessment program. – This program also includes visual examination of the reactor internals after testing is completed, and analysis of the test

data. • The program is directed toward confirming the long-term, steady-state vibration response of the

reactor internals for operating conditions.• LAR-125 to be submitted and will revise CVAP description from DCD Rev. 19 and align to CVAP

completed in China

CVAP Licensing Commitments

17


• During certification, NRC approved CVAP Topical Reports, containing methodology to measure, analyze, and inspect the reactor vessel internals for vibration, which are Incorporated by Reference (IBR) Documents, WCAP-15949 and WCAP-16687

• However, CVAP methodology in IBR WCAP-15949 and WCAP-16687 needs to be revised:– Finalized reactor vessel internals (RVI) design is not incorporated

• WCAP-17983 and WCAP-17984 were created to update CVAP measurement, analysis, and inspection information – Methodology continues to comply with Reg. Guide 1.20– Incorporates the revised RVI design– Incorporates acoustical loads from the canned RCPs– Adds data collection points for RCS cooldown and pump speed reduction as part of test conditions during tested

shutdown conditions– WCAP-15949 and WCAP-16687 will be removed from UFSAR Table 1.6-1, retained as historical references in UFSAR

Chapter 3• WEC LAR-125 will propose replacing WCAP-15949 and WCAP-16687 with WCAP-17983 and

WCAP-17984


18

LAR-125 proposed changes will align Vogtle CVAP with China CVAP


(UFSAR 14.2.5) Core Makeup Tank Heated Recirculation Tests (14.2.9.1.3 Items (k) and (w))

“During preoperational testing of the passive core cooling system, a test is performed for each plant to verify the CMT inlet piping resistances. In addition, cold draining tests of the CMTs are conducted that verify the discharge piping resistance and proper drain rate of the CMTs for each plant. For the first three plants, two additional CMT tests are conducted during hot functional testing of the RCS. These tests are a natural circulation heatup of the CMTs followed by a test to verify the ability of the CMTs to transition from a recirculation mode to a draindownmode while at elevated temperature and pressure.Operation of the CMTs in their natural circulation mode is conducted on the first three plants only for the following reasons:

• Natural circulation of the CMTs will not vary from plant to plant, provided that the other verifications discussed above are performed as specified.

• Natural circulation testing of the CMTs was extensively tested as part of the Design Certification Tests.• Performance of this test results in significant thermal transients on Class 1 components including the

CMTs and the direct vessel injection nozzles.”

CMT Recirculation Licensing Commitments

19


UFSAR 14.2.9.1.3 Passive Core Cooling System Testing, Item (k):

“[Proper operation of the core makeup tanks to perform their reactor water makeup and borationfunction is verified by initiating recirculation flow through the tanks during hot functional testingwith the reactor coolant system at ≥ 530°F. This testing is initiated by simulating a safety signalwhich opens the tank discharge isolation valves, and stops reactor coolant pumps after theappropriate time delay. The proper tank recirculation flow after the pumps have coasted down isverified. Based on the cold leg temperature, CMT discharge temperature, and temperature CMTflow instrumentation, the net mass injection rate into the reactor is verified” Note that this verification is required only for the first three plants.]*


20



“During preoperational testing of the passive core cooling system, a test is performed for each plant to verify the CMT inlet piping resistances. In addition, cold draining tests of the CMTs are conducted that verify the discharge piping resistance and proper drain rate of the CMTs for each plant. For the first three plants, two additional CMT tests are conducted during hot functional testing of the RCS. These tests are a natural circulation heatup of the CMTs followed by a test to verify the ability of the CMTs to transition from a recirculation mode to a draindownmode while at elevated temperature and pressure.Operation of the CMTs in their natural circulation mode is conducted on the first three plants only for the following reasons:





21


UFSAR 14.2.9.1.3 Passive Core Cooling System Testing, Item (w):“[In conjunction with the verification of the core makeup tanks to perform their reactor water makeup function and boration function described in item k) above, the proper operation of the core makeup tanks to transition from their recirculation mode of operation to their draindown mode of operation after heatup will be verified. This testing will also verify the proper operation of the core makeup tank level instrumentation to operate during draining of the heated tank fluid. The in-containment refueling water storage tank initial level is reduced to atl east 3 feet below the spillway level as a prerequisite condition for this testing in order to provide sufficient ullage to accept the mass discharged from the reactor coolant system via the automatic depressurization stage 1.

The recirculation operation in Item k) above, should be continued until the core makeup tank fluid has been heated to≥ 350°F. The core makeup tank isolation valves are then closed, the reactor coolant pumps are started, and the reactor coolant system is reheated up to hot functional testing conditions. This testing is initiated by shutting off the reactor coolant pumps, opening the core makeup tank isolation valves, and by opening one of the automatic depressurization stage 1 flow paths to the in-containment refueling water storage tank. This will initiate a large loss of mass from the reactor coolant system, depressurization of the reactor coolant system to the bulk fluid saturation pressure, and additional recirculation through the core makeup tank. Core makeup tank draindown initiates in response to the continued depressurization and mass loss from the reactor coolant system. The automatic depressurization stage 1 flow path is closed after the core makeup tank level has decreased below the level at which stage 4 actuation occurs. Note that this verification is required only for the first three plants.]*”


22


(UFSAR 14.2.5) ADS Blowdown Test (14.2.9.1.3 Item (s))“During preoperational testing of the passive core cooling system, the resistance of the automatic depressurization system Stage 1, 2, 3 flow path(s) is verified. For the first three plants only, an automatic depressurization blowdown test is performed to verify proper operation of the ADS valves, and demonstrate the proper operation of the ADS spargers to limit the hydrodynamic loads in containment to less than design limits. This test is performed on only the first three plants for the following reasons:• The operation of the ADS, and the resultant hydrodynamic loads will not vary significantly from

plant to plant.• Full scale automatic depressurization testing was performed in the AP600 Design Certification

Program. Testing was conducted to conservatively bound ADS flow rates and resultant hydrodynamic loads that will be experienced by the plant during ADS operation.

• Performance of this test results in significant thermal transients on Class 1 components including the primary components. It also results in hydrodynamic loads in containment including the IRWST.”

ADS Blowdown Test Licensing Commitments

23


UFSAR 14.2.9.1.3 Passive Core Cooling System Testing, Item (s):

“[During hot functional testing of the reactor coolant system, proper operation of automatic depressurization is verified by blowing down the reactor coolant system. This testing verifies proper operation of the stage 1, 2, and 3 components including the ability of the spargers to limit loads imposed on the in-containment refueling water storage tank by the blowdown. Proper operation of the stage 1, 2 and 3 valves is demonstrated during blowdown conditions. Note that this verification is required only for the first three plants.]*”

ADS Blowdown Test Licensing Commitments

24


Applicability of China Tests to Vogtle 3&4

• First Plant Only Tests performed at SM1/HY1 were successful• Test results from China have been reviewed for applicability to Vogtle 3&4• Applicability of the tests is shown through

– ITAAC– Design Control– Construction tolerances

Testing at China Sites establishes the unique phenomenological performance parameters of

the AP1000 design features

Testing at China Sites establishes the unique phenomenological performance parameters of

the AP1000 design features

25


Licensing Path Forward

• LAR(s) will be submitted to revise the COL conditions requiring First Plant Only and First 3 Plant Only Tests for Vogtle 3&4


26


Southern Nuclear Operating Company

ND-18-0300

Enclosure 2

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4

Presentation Material:

Crediting First of Kind Testing from China AP1000 Units - Closed Meeting (Non-Proprietary)

(Enciosure 2 consist of 149 pages, including this cover page)

Crediting First of a Kind Testing from China AP1000 Units

© 2018 Westinghouse Electric Company LLC All Rights Reserved

APP-GW-GLY-151, Rev. 0 Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 Page 2


*** This record was final approved on 2/27/2018 12:56:40 PM. ( This statement was added by the PRIME system upon its validation)

Enclosure 4 SVP_SV0_005166

February 28, 2018 Page 3 of 151ND-18-0300 Enclosure 2

Page 2 of 149

Agenda

• Background• Quality Assurance Program Assessment• China Test Assessments

– In-containment Refueling Water Storage Tank Heatup Test– Reactor Vessel Internal Vibration Testing – Core Makeup Test Heated Recirculation Tests – Automatic Depressurization System Blowdown Test

• Proposed LAR Schedule• Wrap Up

2







Page 3 of 149

Background

• The VEGP 3&4 Combined Licenses (COLs) currently require First Plant Only Tests (FPOTs) and First Three Plant Only Tests (F3POTs) be performed on both Unit 3 and Unit 4

• If Licensee would like to credit a test performed at a previous plant (unit), a LAR is required.

• SNC would like to credit testing completed on the China AP1000 units

3







Page 4 of 149

Background

• The SNC intent is to submit LARs covering China FPOT/F3POT applicability• The LAR scope will be split by:

– Pre-operational tests– Start-up tests

• The LAR scope being split allows for submittal of the first LAR while the remaining FPOT tests are being completed and/or vetted

• This presentation will cover the pre-operational testing scope for the first LAR– In-containment Refueling Water Storage Tank (IRWST) Heatup Test– Reactor Vessel Internal Vibration Testing (or Comprehensive Vibration Assessment Program,

CVAP)– Core Makeup Tank Test Heated Recirculation Tests (F3POT)– Automatic Depressurization System Blowdown Test (F3POT)

4







Page 5 of 149

LAR Scope



5







Page 6 of 149

COL Requirements for Pre-Operational FPOT

6







Page 7 of 149

Proposed COL Changes

7

(2) Pre-operational Testing

(a) SNC shall perform the design-specific pre-operational tests identified below:

1. In-Containment Refueling Water Storage Tank (IRWST) Heatup Test (first plant test as identified in AP1000 Design Control Document (DCD), Rev. 19, Section 14.2.9.1.3 Item (h));

2. 1. Pressurizer Surge Line Stratification Evaluation (first plant test as identified in AP1000 DCD, Rev. 19, Section 14.2.9.1.7 Item (d)) as revised by Amendment No. 83;

3. Reactor Vessel Internals Vibration Testing (first plant test as identified in AP1000 DCD, Rev. 19, Section 14.2.9.1.9);

4. Core Makeup Tank Heated Recirculation Tests (first three plants test as identified in AP1000 DCD, Rev. 19, Section 14.2.9.1.3 Items (k) and (w)); and

5. Automatic Depressurization System Blowdown Test (first three plants test as identified in AP1000 DCD, Rev. 19, Section 14.2.9.1.3 Item (s)).

b) SNC shall review and evaluate the results of the applicable tests identified in Section 2.D.(2)(a) of this license and confirm that these test results are within the range of acceptable values predicted or otherwise confirm that the tested systems perform their specified functions in accordance with AP1000 DCD Rev. 19, Section 14.2.9,

c) SNC shall notify the Director of NRO, or the Director’s designee, in writing, upon successful completion of the applicable design-specific pre-operational tests identified in Section 2.D.(2)(a) of this license; and

d) SNC shall notify the Director of NRO, or the Director’s designee, in writing, upon the successful completion of all the ITAAC included in Appendix C to this license.

Corresponding changes would be proposed to UFSAR







Page 8 of 149

Licensing Changes Impacting FPOT Pre‐Operational TestsLAR-17-033 (155), Submitted Oct. 2017 IRWST HeatupNRC Approved LAR-16-011 (100) Aug. 2017

Pressurizer Surge Line Stratification Evaluation

LAR 125, Feb. 2018 Submittal Reactor Vessel Internals VibrationCMT Heated Recirculation (F3POT)ADS Blowdown (F3POT)Startup Tests

LAR-17-041 (84), Submitted Nov. 2017 Natural CirculationRCCA Out of Bank Load Follow Demo

LARs Impacting FPOT LAR Submittal

8







Page 9 of 149

Proposed Path Forward

• Perform assessment of China Quality Assurance Program (complete)• Assess Sanmen test execution for pre-op tests (complete)• Evaluate Sanmen/Haiyang pre-op FPOT results (complete)• Evaluate Sanmen/Haiyang pre-op F3POT results (still need last F3POT reports from

recently completed Sanmen 2 tests)• Demonstrate applicability (LAR)• Revise FPOT/F3POT License Conditions (LAR)

9







Page 10 of 149

Proposed Schedule

10

a,c







Page 11 of 149

Quality Assurance Program Assessment







Page 12 of 149

Overview

• Comparison of Chinese Regulation to 10 CFR Appendix B• Assessment of implementation

– Review of completed tests– Observations for future tests– Westinghouse/Customer interface during testing

12







Page 13 of 149

Comparison of Chinese Regulation to 10 CFR Appendix B

• Industry SME compared requirements from China HAF 003-1991, “Safety Regulations for Quality Assurance of Nuclear Power Plants” to 10 CFR 50 Appendix B

• Concluded that requirements of HAF 003 are comparable to and encompass the requirements of Appendix B with four exceptions

• For each exception, additional information is provided to demonstrate that as implemented the requirements are comparable

• With the supplemental information, the comparative analysis supports crediting AP1000 China FPOT testing for U.S. licensees

13







Page 14 of 149

Comparison of Chinese Regulation to 10 CFR Appendix B

• Criterion VIII, Identification and Control of Material, Parts, and Components—HAF 003 “batch number” vs. Appendix B “heat number” have the same meaning

• Criterion XV, Nonconforming Materials, Parts, and Components—HAF 003 does not specifically address identification and documentation of nonconformances; however, this is addressed by HAD 003/03, “Quality Assurance in the Procurement of Items and Services for Nuclear Power Plant”

• Criterion XVII, Quality Assurance Records—HAF 003 does not contain level of detail for inspection and test records that Appendix B does; however, test procedures have been reviewed and meet Appendix B requirements (e.g., data collector signature, calibration dates, results and acceptability)

• Criterion XVIII, Audits—HAF 003 requires review by the organization having responsibility in the area audited but Appendix B requires review of audit results by management of that organization; this is an interpretation difference and in practice audits are reviewed by management of the organization

14







Page 15 of 149

Review of Completed Tests

• SNC completed a review of the completed test procedures at Sanmen/Haiyang for QA adherence

• Any potential issues that were identified were categorized based on potential impact and then dispositioned for any impacts on the test– The review resulted in no impacts to the test results

15







Page 16 of 149

Observations of Tests

• Sanmen Unit 2 preop tests are complete• SNC had staff at Sanmen performed testing observations on F3POTs per NRC IP

70702, Part 52 Inspection of Preoperational Test Performance, including:o Verifying pretest requirements are meto Verify the test is conducted in accordance with the approved procedureo Test changes, anomalies, problems, interruptions and/or deficiencies are identified and

controlledo Observed data is properly recorded

o Startup Test observations will use portions of NRC IP 72304 criteria

16







Page 17 of 149

Westinghouse/Customer Interface During Testing—Overview

– China Commissioning Organization– Test Procedure Development – Administrative Controls and Procedure Execution – Data Collection – Engineering Analysis

17







Page 18 of 149

SITE STARTUP MANAGER

NI STARTUP MANAGER

SITE PROJECT DIRECTOR

TEST REVIEW BOARD

COORDINATION AND PLANNING MANAGEMENT

NI MECHANICAL LEAD SRTF I&C LEAD (NI) FLUSHING & HYDRO TEST LEAD

ELECTRICAL LEAD (NI)

DEPUTY NI STARTUP MANAGER

INTEGRATED TEST

China Commissioning Organization

18







Page 19 of 149

Test Procedure Development

• Test specifications (including acceptance criteria) are approved by the design authority (WEC HQ engineering)

• Changes to the test specs are authorized and approved by design authority via E&DCR (Engineering and Design Coordination Reports)

• Development of the test procedures for the PXS FPOT/F3POT performed by China ITP and WEC Engineering (Systems, I&C, Safety Analysis)

• Prior to approval of the PXS FPOT/F3POT procedures, final drafts were reviewed and executed in the WEC HQ Simulator.

19







Page 20 of 149

Test Procedure Development

• Final procedures were presented to the Test Review Board (TRB) by ITP Test Engineers. TRB approves all safety related test procedures and major changes to the previously approved procedures.

• TRB was led by WEC Commissioning Manager also included a required member of WEC engineering.

• All minor changes made to the existing procedures following their final approval by the TRB were signed and approved by WEC Personnel

20







Page 21 of 149

Administrative Controls and Procedure Execution

Administrative Control Program under Owner QA program. Procedures were jointly developed, reviewed and approved by WEC and Owner for items such as:

Conduct of Testing Test Deficiencies/ResolutionsProcedure development Test Review Board Human Performance Qualification and Training

Procedure Execution • Simulator sessions with Operations, WEC ITP and WEC Engineering• Tests led by WEC Test Coordinators• WEC Test Engineers directly involved with testing

21







Page 22 of 149

Data Collection

• Prior to FPOT/F3POT WEC ITP, WEC Engineering and Owner walked-down instrumentation to ensure proper installation

• Calibration record for temporary instrumentation used for the Engineering analysis was provided by the Owner.

• All settings (filters, conversion factors,…) in the Data Acquisition (DAQ) system were reviewed by WEC ITP and WEC Engineering prior to tests requiring the use of the DAQ

22







Page 23 of 149

Engineering Analysis

• Test data was collected by WEC ITP and provided to WEC Engineering for post test analysis

• WEC PXS System experts reviewed all of the test data and performed engineering analysis used as an input to Safety Analysis

• WEC Safety Analysis compared the test data with the predictive analysis models. Test success/failure declared by the WEC Safety Analysis

• Test report for each PXS FPOT/F3POT included WEC Engineering and WEC Safety Analysis reports under WEC QA Program

23







Page 24 of 149

IRWST Heatup Test







Page 25 of 149

Agenda

25

– Brief overview of the PXS/RCS– IRWST heatup licensing commitments– Licensing commitment background– IRWST heatup test background– LOFTRAN model vs. test data– Critical design/construction parameters of the PRHR heat transfer/IRWST heatup

tests– China versus US AP1000 PXS/RCS design– Controls of the design and system performance variability – Introduction of the PRHR heat transfer/IRWST heatup tests – Test equipment– Review and comparison of the Sanmen 1/Haiyang 1 test results– Vogtle 3&4







Page 26 of 149

Overview of the PXS/RCS

26







Page 27 of 149

In-containment refueling water storage tank (IRWST)

Passive Residual Heat Removal Heat Exchanger (PRHR HX)

PRHR HX Inlet Line

PRHR HX Outlet Line


27







Page 28 of 149

IRWST Heatup Licensing Commitments

28

UFSAR 14.2.5

IRWST Heatup Test (14.2.9.1.3 item (h))During preoperational testing of the passive core cooling system, a natural circulation test of the passive residual heat removal (PRHR) heat exchanger is conducted (item f). For the first plant only, thermocouples are placed in the IRWST to observe the thermal profile developed during the heatup of the IRWST water during PRHR heat exchanger operation. This test will be useful in confirming the results of the AP600 Design Certification Program PRHR tests with regards to IRWST mixing, and is useful in quantifying the conservatism in the Chapter 15 transient analyses.

Due to the standardization of the AP1000, the heatup and thermal stratification characteristics of the IRWST will not vary from plant to plant. The PRHR heat exchanger design, and the size and configuration of the IRWST are standardized, such that the heatup characteristics will not significantly change from plant to plant.

Therefore, since the phenomenon to be tested (i.e., heatup and mixing characteristics of the IRWST) will not vary significantly from plant to plant due to standardization, a first plant only test of the IRWST heatup characteristics is justified.







Page 29 of 149

• Proposed acceptance criteria for IRWST heat up test described in LAR-17-033 for UFSAR Section 14.2.9.1.3, item h):

The heatup characteristics of the in-containment refueling water storage tank water are verified by measuring the vertical water temperature gradient that occurs in the in-containment refueling water storage tank water at the passive residual heat removal heat exchanger tube bundle and at several distances from the tube bundle, during testing in Items f) [PRHR natural circulation preoperational test—required for all plants] and g) [PRHR forced flow test—required for all plants], above. Note that this verification is required only for the first plant. The acceptance criterion demonstrates that the average IRWST heatup is consistent with the PRHR heat transfer modeling in the Chapter 15 analysis. These results (in conjunction with Items f) and g)) are evaluated to demonstrate that the overall PRHR heat transfer performance, i.e., heat removal from the RCS, is conservative with respect to the analysis documented in Chapter 15.

IRWST Heatup Licensing Commitments (post LAR)

29







Page 30 of 149

IRWST Heatup Test Background

30

– During Hot Functional testing (HFT), two tests are performed to confirm the heat transfer capability of the PRHR HX:

1. PRHR Natural Circulation Test2. PRHR Forced Flow test

– IRWST heatup characteristics analyzed in Safety Analysis when PRHR HX is actuated– The IRWST heatup is measured during both of these tests

Objective of these two PRHR tests and IRWST heatup profile:

Confirm that overall LOFTRAN heat transfer model is conservative and phenomena are well understood(i.e. no critical phenomena that requires changes to analytical methods or inputs.)







Page 31 of 149

LOFTRAN Model vs. Test Data

31

– LOFTRAN Model1. PRHR Flow Rate2. The Overall PRHR Heat Transfer Coefficient 3. IRWST “bulk mass” modeled with single node

– Test Data1. PRHR Flow Rate2. PRHR Heat Transfer Rate 3. IRWST temperature measured at different

elevations and locationsa,c







Page 32 of 149

Critical design/construction parameters

32

– The overall LOFTRAN PRHR heat transfer model for the non-LOCA events is fully characterized by the following variables:

1. PRHR Flow Rate2. The Overall PRHR Heat Transfer Coefficient 3. Free IRWST Volume

– Critical design/construction attributes for the overall LOFTRAN PRHR Heat Transfer model:1. PRHR HX design including inlet and outlet channel heads2. PRHR inlet and outlet piping and fittings/valves design3. Location of the PRHR HX relative to hot/cold legs and SG4. Free IRWST volume







Page 33 of 149

China vs. US AP1000 PXS/RCS design

33

– Major PXS/RCS components at SM1/HY1/SV3/SV4 such as Reactor Vessel, Pressurizer, Steam Generators, Reactor Coolant Pumps, PRHR HX (including inlet and outlet channel heads) are:

1. Manufactured to the same design spec2. Procured to the same quality requirements imposed by the design specification3. Built to the same design tolerances

– The RCS pressure boundary piping, including PRHR inlet outline lines:1. Manufactured to the same design specification2. Procured to the same quality requirements imposed by the design specification3. Built to the same design tolerances

– The design of the IRWST (structural modules CA01, CA02, CA03, CA55, CA56 and CA57) is the same in China and the US

– Location/elevation of the PRHR HX relative to Hot/Cold legs and SG is also the same.

PXS/RCS design is the same at Vogtle 3&4, Sanmen 1 and Haiyang 1







Page 34 of 149

PRHR heat transfer/IRWST heatup tests

34

• PRHR forced flow test– RCPs are running at 50% speed– RCS is at 350oF, IRWST at ~ 80oF– Test initiated by opening PXS-V108B – Test terminated when RCS reaches 250oF– Engineering acceptance criteria: overall PRHR heat

transfer performance• PRHR natural circulation test

– RCPs are initially running at 100% speed– RCS hot leg is at ≥ 540oF, IRWST at ~ 80oF– Trip RCPs– Test initiated by opening V108B immediately after RCP trip– Test terminated when RCS hot leg < 420oF– Engineering acceptance criteria: overall PRHR heat

transfer performance

PXS-V108B







Page 35 of 149

Test equipment

35

Temporary:

• IRWST Data Acquisition System (DAQ)• Associated cabling• Mounting fixtures• Calibration records have been reviewed prior the tests• Instrumentation walk-downs performed prior to the tests

Permanent plant instrumentation:• Thermocouples PXS-JE-TE064 and RCS-JE-TE161• RCS PT measuring the RCS/PRHR loop pressure• PRHR flow element (pitot tube)• Calibration of permanent plant instrumentation was

performed under Owner calibration program • Owner calibration processes were under jurisdictional

controls of the component testing program

a,c

a,c







Page 36 of 149

Test equipment

36

a,c






Page 37 of 149

Review of the SM1/HY1 test results

37

– Sanmen Unit 1 has successfully performed

1. PRHR heat transfer natural circulation test, 2. PRHR forced flow test and 3. IRWST heatup characteristics measurements.

– Haiyang 1 has successfully performed:

1. PRHR heat transfer natural circulation test, 2. PRHR forced flow test 3. Haiyang 1 did not measure IRWST heatup, IRWST heatup is FPOT

Results of the Safety Analysis show:

LOFTRAN heat removal model is conservative with respect to Chapter 15 non-LOCA analysis Additional margin for the min PRHR HX heat transfer capability for both Sanmen and Haiyang







Page 38 of 149

SM1 IRWST heatup profile (forced flow)

38

Heat propagates throughout the tank Bulk heatup of the tank

IRWST Heatup profile is fully characterized

a,ca,c







Page 39 of 149

Permanent plant IRWST temp. SM1/HY1

39

Similar trends between SM1/HY1 Consistent with temporary instrumentation

a,c a,c







Page 40 of 149

SM1 vs. HY1 PRHR heat transfer

40

– Instrumentation uncertainty is accounted for in the test results– Uncertainty models developed per the ASME PTC 19.1-2005– Total average uncertainty on the flow is ~ 2%– Total average uncertainty on the heat transfer ~ 3%– Difference in heat transfer between the two units ~ 3%-4%

Reproducibility of the test results• same boundary conditions • same test methods

IRWST heatup characteristics similar between the two units

a,c







Page 41 of 149

Controls of the design and system performance variability

41

Controls of the plant to plant variability and system performance insuring that the phenomena tested will remain unchanged:– Procurement control: Same design specification– Construction control:

1. Same installation tolerances 2. Same installation specifications3. ITAACs on PRHR elevation/location and IRWST volume:

• ITAAC No. 2.2.03.08b.02 (PRHR center line elevation)• ITAAC No. 2.2.03.08c.vi.03 (PRHR inlet line sloping)• ITAAC No. 2.2.03.08c.iv.04 (PRHR outlet line to SG elevation)• ITAAC No. 2.2.03.08c.iii (IRWST volume)

– Component tests: not relevant to the control of the IRWST heatup characteristics – Pre-operational tests same for all plants:

1. ITAAC No. No. 2.2.03.08b.01 (PRHR Heat Transfer Capability, Natural Circulation Test)2. PRHR forced flow test (IST per the Table 3.9-17 of the UFSAR)

Variability of the boundary conditions and PRHR performance from plant to plant is controlled







Page 42 of 149

Vogtle 3&4

42

– Tests performed at SM1/HY1 were successful:

IRWST heatup phenomenon is fully characterized

No new phenomena identified that could challenge design and analysis basis or methods

LOFTRAN heat transfer model is conservative with respect to Chapter 15 non-LOCA analysis

– Boundary conditions and geometry are preserved at Vogtle 3&4:

– Vogtle 3&4 will perform PRHR natural circulation heat transfer and IST

– Reproducibility of the heat transfer results demonstrated at SM1/HY1

IRWST heatup characteristics are expected to be similar at Vogtle 3&4 => temporary IRWST instrumentation not necessary







Page 43 of 149

Crediting China CVAP

Westinghouse Advanced Reactor Internals Design and Analysis (ARIDA)







Page 44 of 149

– CVAP licensing commitments– Brief overview of the Reactor Vessel Internals (RVI)– CVAP test background– Predictive model vs. test data– Critical design/construction parameters of the CVAP test– China versus US AP1000 RVI design– Introduction of the CVAP test – Test equipment– Review of the Sanmen 1 test results– Vogtle 3&4

Agenda

44







Page 45 of 149

• The CVAP test program is described in UFSAR Subsection 3.9.2.4– The AP1000 reactor internals testing is part of a comprehensive vibration assessment program performed in accordance

with Regulatory Guide 1.20 – This testing obtains data to verify the structural integrity of the AP1000 reactor internals with regard to flow-induced

vibrations, as part of an internals vibration assessment program. – This program also includes visual examination of the reactor internals after testing is completed, and analysis of the test

data.

• The program is directed toward confirming the long-term, steady-state vibration response of the reactor internals for operating conditions.

• LAR-125 to be submitted and will revise CVAP description from DCD Rev. 19 and align to CVAP completed in China


45







Page 46 of 149

• During certification, NRC approved CVAP Topical Reports, containing methodology to measure, analyze, and inspect the reactor vessel internals for vibration, which are Incorporated by Reference (IBR) Documents, WCAP-15949 and WCAP-16687

• However, CVAP methodology in IBR WCAP-15949 and WCAP-16687 is not up to date:– Finalized reactor vessel internals (RVI) design is not incorporated

• WCAP-17983 and WCAP-17984 were created to update CVAP measurement, analysis, and inspection information – Methodology continues to comply with Reg. Guide 1.20– Incorporates the revised RVI design– Incorporates acoustical loads from the canned RCPs– Adds data collection points for RCS cooldown and pump speed reduction as part of test conditions during tested

shutdown conditions– WCAP-15949 and WCAP-16687 will be removed from UFSAR Table 1.6-1, retained as historical references in UFSAR

Chapter 3

• WEC LAR 125 will propose replacing WCAP-15949 and WCAP-16687 with WCAP-17983 and WCAP-17984


46

LAR-125 proposed changes will align Vogtle CVAP with China CVAP







Page 47 of 149

Background on Structural Components

47

• Reactor Vessel– Reactor pressure boundary– 2 x 4 reactor coolant loop arrangement– Supported at inlet nozzles– Ledge at the top of reactor vessel shell

is interface / support for reactor internals

• Lower RVI Assembly– Core barrel (CB) – shell, flange, lower

core support plate (LCSP)– Core shroud (CS) – base plate bolted

and pinned to top of LCSP– Secondary core support structure

(SCSS) – bolted to bottom of LCSP– Components bolted to exterior of core

barrel – neutron shield panels, specimen baskets, DVI deflectors

a,c







Page 48 of 149

• Upper RVI Assembly– Upper support assembly (USA)– Upper core plate (UCP)– Upper support columns (USC)– Lower and upper guide tubes

(LGT, UGT)• Instrumentation Grid Assembly (IGA)

– IGA plate– Quickloc stalk assemblies– Instrumentation guide tubes (IITA)

Background on Structural Components

48

a,c







Page 49 of 149

Instrumentation on Reactor Vessel

49

a,c







Page 50 of 149

Lower Reactor Vessel Internals

50

a,c







Page 51 of 149

Lower Reactor Vessel Internals

51

a,c







Page 52 of 149

Upper Reactor Vessel Internals

52

a,c







Page 53 of 149

Upper Reactor Vessel Internals

53

a,c







Page 54 of 149

Instrumented Grid Assembly (IGA)

54

a,c







Page 55 of 149

CVAP Predictive Methodology

55

• Full-scale and model-scale test and operating plant data are used as sources for model and forcing function benchmarking.

Analysis Methodologya,c







Page 56 of 149

RESM & Predictive Models vs. Actual Plant and Dataa,c

56







Page 57 of 149

CVAP Predictive Methodology

57

• CVAP RVI configuration and flow conditions – Appropriate representations of the RVI configuration – Covers flow conditions during normal operation and start-up– Analyses cover both linear and non-linear phenomena (However, no non-linear phenomena

predicted to occur for normal operation and start-up)

• Structural response predictions developed for both sensor locations and maximum response locations– Maximum response as related to maximum stress locations for a given instrumented component

• All predictive models, predictions, and reports are the same for both U.S. and China plants (No plant-specific predictions)

• Positive CVAP margins are predicted for all components– Predictions confirm the structural integrity of the AP1000 RVI for flow-induced vibration during

steady-state and anticipated transient conditions for HFT and normal operation







Page 58 of 149

Critical Operational / Design Parameters

58

– Forcing function models are fully characterized by the following variables:

1. Cover all normal operating and start-up conditions 2. Cover broad array of forcing function types

» Turbulence (channel, jetting, buffeting, etc.)» Acoustics (RCP blade passing and harmonics, system acoustic modes)» Fluid elastic instabilities, gap-flow instabilities, vortex shedding and lock-in, base-loads

– Critical design/construction of dynamic (structural) system and sub-component models:

1. All system structural boundary conditions including RCS piping, RV, RV supports and integrated head package. Account for responses with and without fuel loaded.2. All RVI components modeled – system & component level structural coupling3. Account for full system hydrodynamic coupling4. Dynamic analyses – time dependent/frequency-dependent







Page 59 of 149

China vs. US AP1000 RCS and RVI Design

59

– Major components at SM1/HY1/SV3/SV4 such as Reactor Vessel, Reactor Vessel Internals, Pressurizer, Steam Generators, Reactor Coolant Pumps, primary piping (including supports) are:

1. Manufactured to the same design spec2. Procured to the same quality requirements imposed by the design specification3. Built to the same design tolerances

– RCS pressure boundary piping, including the reactor vessel are:1. Manufactured to the same design spec2. Procured to the same quality requirements imposed by the design specification3. Built to the same design tolerances

– Detailed design of the reactor vessel internals (e.g., core barrel, core shroud, neutron pads and specimen baskets, etc.) are the same in China and the US

– No major as-built differences for Sanmen and Haiyang compared to the generic design– As-built configurations for Vogtle 3 & 4 will be reconciled with generic design to confirm the applicability of

the CVAP predictive analyses and results

RVI, RV and RCS designs are the same at Vogtle 3&4, Sanmen 1 and Haiyang 1







Page 60 of 149

CVAP Test Conditions

60

• HFT – Forced flow test

– Repeated measured data over range of conditions– Engineering acceptance criteria – related to endurance limit for high-cycle fatigue

• Over all RCS operational flows and temperatures• Including transient startup/shutdown

• Test Conduct and Data Recording– Data recorded during steady-state and transient conditions for start-up/heat-up, normal

operation, cooldown, and shutdown– Procedures conducted and completed in accordance with Westinghouse QA program.

• Instrumentation calibrations, DAQ calibrations, connectorization, etc.• Data recording procedures and logs• Pre- and Post-inspection procedures

– Collection and correlation in-time with RCS recorded parameters

a,c







Page 61 of 149


61

a,c







Page 62 of 149


62

a,c







Page 63 of 149


63

a,c







Page 64 of 149

Test Equipment

64

a,c







Page 65 of 149

Test Equipment

65

Instrumented Components:• Core Barrel• Core Shroud• Secondary Core Support Structure• Lower Guide Tube• Upper Guide Tube• Upper Support Column• Upper Support Assembly• IGA Components

Data Recording:• All data recorded synchronously• Long recording times to minimize

measurement error (30 to 90 min.)• CVAP data correspondence and

correlation with plant data

a,c







Page 66 of 149

CVAP Inspection Program

66

CVAP Inspections

• CVAP Inspection program consists of inspections of the RVI Pre- and Post- Hot Functional Testing– Includes tabulation of all RVI components and local inspection areas– Includes description of inspection procedures including the following:

• Inspection methods• Documentation• Access provisions• Any specialized equipment

• Inspection criteria: – Loose parts, debris, abnormal corrosion products, structural distortion or displacement of parts, loss of integrity at

clamped joints, loss of integrity of supporting elements, cracks in welds, abnormal or unexpected wear.– Inspection locations have written inspection results and photographic records

a,c







Page 67 of 149

CVAP Inspection Program

67

CVAP Inspections (cont’d)

• Pre-HFT Inspections: Inspections at each plant provide baseline for comparison of post-HFT inspection results

• Post-HFT Inspections: Inspection results for both Sanmen 1 (instrumented CVAP) and Haiyang 1 (non-instrumented CVAP) indicate the inspection locations met the inspection criteria







Page 68 of 149

Summary of the SM1/HY1 CVAP Test Results

68

– Sanmen Unit 1 has successfully performed

1. RCS cold hydro-test2. Instrumented Hot Functional Test (HFT)3. Reactor vessel and reactor internals inspections before and after HFT

– Haiyang 1 has successfully performed:

1. RCS cold hydro-test2. Non-instrumented HFT3. Reactor vessel and reactor internals inspections before and after HFT

Results of the CVAP Results and Analyses show:

RVI FIV modeling/prediction results are conservative with respect to high cycle fatigue endurance limit Significant measured high cycle fatigue margin for reactor internal components No significant inspection anomalies observed for either Sanmen I or Haiyang I

Instrumented CVAP

Non-Instrumented CVAP







Page 69 of 149

Predictions and Measurements

Summary:• Generally good correspondence between predicted

and measured modal shapes and frequencies

• Predictions bound measurements for total RMS response

• Predicted spectral responses predominantly bound measured spectral responses

– Where measurements were higher in level, the results on the total RMS stress were trivial:

• At higher frequencies, which are not relevant to stress/ displacement (levels did not contribute to overall RMS stress)

• Due to non-RVI dynamic response noise levels (e.g., sensor noise)

a,c

a,c







Page 70 of 149

Acceptance Criteria and Measured Responses

70

Summary:• Positive (+) margin for all

components

• Includes measurement uncertainties

• Includes conservatisms in acceptance criteria

• All inspections meet inspection criteria (no unexpected results)

a,c







Page 71 of 149

Vogtle 3&4

– CVAPs performed at SM1/HY1 were successful: FIV response and subsequent high cycle fatigue performance fully characterized

No new phenomena identified that could challenge design and analysis basis or methods RESM FIV model results are conservative with respect to reactor internals vibratory measurements Measured results are conservative and bounded by the acceptance criteria (inspection results as expected)

– Boundary conditions and geometry are preserved at Vogtle 3&4:1. At Vogtle, all major reactor vessel internals components and RCS components designs are the same as at SM1. As-

builts will be reconciled with the generic design.2. Construction ITAACs related to the installation/location of the RCS/RV/RVI:

• ITAAC No. 2.1.02.01 (Inspection of As-built System – RCS functional arrangement)• ITAAC No. 2.1.03.01 (Inspection of As-built System – RXS functional arrangement)• ITAAC No. 2.1.03.02a (Inspection of As-built System – Fuel assembly positions and CRDMs)• ITAAC No. 2.1.03.02b (Inspection of As-built System – Control assemblies and drive rods)• ITAAC No. 2.1.03.02c (Inspection of As-built System – Reactor Vessel Arrangement)

– Vogtle 3&4 will perform a non-instrumented CVAP as specified in Reg. Guide 1.20 Rev. 2 • ITAAC No. 2.1.03.07.i (Flow testing of RVI)• ITAAC No. 2.1.03.07.ii (Inspection of RVI)

Reactor Vessel Internals FIV and high cycle fatigue characteristics at Vogtle 3&4 are expected to be similar to SM171







Page 72 of 149

CMT Recirculation







Page 73 of 149

– Brief overview of the PXS/RCS– Overview of the Core Makeup Tank– CMT Recirculation Licensing Commitments– Test objectives and predictive analysis – NOTRUMP model vs. test data– Critical design/construction parameters of the CMT recirculation test– China versus US AP1000 PXS/RCS design– Introduction of the CMT recirculation test– Test equipment– Review and comparison of the Sanmen 1/Haiyang 1 test results– Controls of the design and system performance variability – Vogtle 3&4

CMT Recirculation Test Agenda

73







Page 74 of 149


74







Page 75 of 149


75







Page 76 of 149

Overview of the Core Makeup Tank

76

a,c







Page 77 of 149


“During preoperational testing of the passive core cooling system, a test is performed for each plant to verify the CMT inlet piping resistances. In addition, cold draining tests of the CMTs are conducted that verify the discharge piping resistance and proper drain rate of the CMTs for each plant. For the first three plants, two additional CMT tests are conducted during hot functional testing of the RCS. These tests are a natural circulation heatup of the CMTs followed by a test to verify the ability of the CMTs to transition from a recirculation mode to a draindown mode while at elevated temperature and pressure.Operation of the CMTs in their natural circulation mode is conducted on the first three plants only for the following reasons:





77







Page 78 of 149

UFSAR 14.2.9.1.3 Passive Core Cooling System Testing, Item (k):

“[Proper operation of the core makeup tanks to perform their reactor water makeup and boration

function is verified by initiating recirculation flow through the tanks during hot functional testing

with the reactor coolant system at ≥ 530°F. This testing is initiated by simulating a safety signal

which opens the tank discharge isolation valves, and stops reactor coolant pumps after the

appropriate time delay. The proper tank recirculation flow after the pumps have coasted down is

verified. Based on the cold leg temperature, CMT discharge temperature, and temperature CMT

flow instrumentation, the net mass injection rate into the reactor is verified” Note that this verification is required only for the first three plants.]*


78







Page 79 of 149

Test objectives and predictive analysis

79

– Objectives of the CMT Recirculation Test is to demonstrate CMT makeup and boration functions – The SBLOCA NOTRUMP model is used to predict CMT flow rates and CMT temperature distribution for the

test– AP1000 Standard Plant procedure for the test was issued in HQ and localized in China– NOTRUMP model simulates test procedure steps for the test setup and test execution– NOTRUMP simulations were performed with min and max CMT line resistances providing a bounding

cases for the actual test– Variation of the initial conditions used for the simulations and as performed test were technically assessed

Direct comparison of the test results and NOTRUMP model







Page 80 of 149


80

– Critical design/construction attributes for the CMT temperature distribution and CMT injection flow rates:

1. CMT Balance Line design (line resistance and layout)2. CMT design (geometry, volume, location)3. CMT Injection Line (line resistance and layout)4. Direct Vessel Injection (DVI) Line design (line resistance, layout)

– Several preoperational line resistance tests are performed prior to CMT Recirculation test:

1. Line resistance test of the CMT Balance line RNS is used to fill up the CMT through the CMT Balance Line

2. Line resistance test of the CMT Injection and DVI lines CMT injections tests performed at “cold” RCS conditions Orifices located in the CMT injection lines are sized to meet the ITAAC







Page 81 of 149


81

– Major PXS/RCS components at SM1/HY1/SM2/SV3/SV4 such as Reactor Vessel, Pressurizer, Steam Generators, Reactor Coolant Pumps, CMT and Accumulators:

1. Manufactured to the same design specification2. Procured to the same quality requirements imposed by the design specification3. Built to the same design tolerances

– The RCS pressure boundary piping, including CMT Balance line, CMT injection line and DVI line:1. Manufactured to the same design specification2. Procured to the same quality requirements imposed by the design specification3. Built to the same design tolerances

– Layout of the CMT Balance line, CMT, CMT injection and DVI lines is the same

PXS/RCS design is the same at Vogtle 3&4, Sanmen 1 and Haiyang 1







Page 82 of 149

CMT Recirculation test

82

CMT recirculation test

PXS-V108B

a,c







Page 83 of 149

Test equipment

83

a,c







Page 84 of 149

UFM and DP cell calibration

84

– CMT Injection lines do not meet ideal layout requirements for the UFMs.– Site calibration of the UFMs was required to fully characterize measurement uncertainties

Four CMT injections (two per tank) performed at cold RCS conditions CMT temperature was preserved Difference in pressure between actual test and calibration was accounted for UFM response was compared to reference flow (CMT maps) Calibration factors for the UFMs were calculated

a,c







Page 85 of 149


85

a,c







Page 86 of 149


86

a,c







Page 87 of 149


87

a,c







Page 88 of 149


88

– Sanmen Unit 1 and Haiyang 1 has successfully performed CMT Recirculation test.

– Comparison between the test results and NOTRUMP model show that:

Overall good agreement on the CMT recirculation flow rates

Actual CMT temperature profile matched expectations

Similar RCS depressurization trend

Predictive analysis (NOTRUMP) demonstrates that the Safety Analysis acceptance criteria for the CMT Recirculation test are met







Page 89 of 149

NOTRUMP Model vs. Test Data

89

– NOTRUMP Model1. Predicts Min and Max CMT Flow Rates with

similar initial conditions as the actual test 2. CMT temperature distribution predicted at the

same locations as the test

– Example of initial conditions test & code

– Test Data1. CMT Flow Rate measured using UFMs and

Pressure Transmitters2. CMT Temperature measured at 3 different

locations in the CMTs

a,c







Page 90 of 149


90

– SM1 and HY1 CMT Recirculation flow rates

1. Good agreement between NOTRUMP and test between 100s-600s.

2. Slight divergence after 600s due to numerical diffusion and simplified modeling of the CMT geometry in NOTRUMP.

3. NOTRUMP overmixes (gradual temperature increase throughout the tank) in the control volumes reducing the driving head over time.

4. Difference in CMT geometry between the actual and modeled. NOTRUMP models right cylinder with constant flow area.

5. Time to displace the half of the CMT volume remains similar between NOTRUMP and test results.

Overall good agreement between NOTRUMP and SM1/HY1 test results

a,c







Page 91 of 149


91

– SM1 and HY1 CMT temperature profile

1. Expected lack of stratification in NOTRUMP due to numerical diffusion of the hotter fluid into lower CMT nodes.

2. NOTRUMP prediction consistent with the AP600 validation report for the CMT performance during SBLOCA.

3. Test results do not invalidate NOTRUMP model for the CMT temperature profile.

SM1 and HY1 temperature profile of the CMTs is consistent with the AP600 separate effect and integral effect tests.

Numerical mixing in NOTRUMP causing the divergence between test results and code prediction does not impact overall CMT performance

a,c







Page 92 of 149


92

Controls of the plant to plant variability and system performance insuring that the natural circulation in the CMTs will remain unchanged:– Procurement control: Same design specification

1. ITAACs on the CMT volume: ITAAC No. 2.2.03.08vi.– Construction control:

1. Same installation tolerances 2. Same installation specifications

– Pre-operational tests:1. RCP trip following CMT actuation is tested in the PMS pre-op program 2. Pressurizer heaters trip following CMT actuation is tested under PMS pre-op program 3. ITAACs on the balance line resistance, injection line resistance:

• ITAAC No. 2.2.03.08cii (CMT Balance Line resistance)• ITAAC No. 2.2.03.08ci (CMT Injection Line resistance)

Variability of the boundary conditions from plant to plant is controlled ensuring consistent CMT performance







Page 93 of 149

Vogtle 3&4

93


CMT Recirculation/natural circulation is fully characterized and consistent with the AP600 testing


Test results consistent with NOTRUMP predictive analysis


– Vogtle 3&4 will perform line resistance tests (ITAACs)• ITAAC No. 2.2.03.08cii (CMT Balance Line resistance)• ITAAC No. 2.2.03.08ci (CMT Injection Line resistance)

– Reproducibility of the natural circulation demonstrated at SM1/HY1

CMT flow rates and CMT temp profile are expected to be similar at Vogtle 3&4







Page 94 of 149


“During preoperational testing of the passive core cooling system, a test is performed for each plant to verify the CMT inlet piping resistances. In addition, cold draining tests of the CMTs are conducted that verify the discharge piping resistance and proper drain rate of the CMTs for each plant. For the first three plants, two additional CMT tests are conducted during hot functional testing of the RCS. These tests are a natural circulation heatup of the CMTs followed by a test to verify the ability of the CMTs to transition from a recirculation mode to a draindown mode while at elevated temperature and pressure.Operation of the CMTs in their natural circulation mode is conducted on the first three plants only for the following reasons:





94







Page 95 of 149

UFSAR 14.2.9.1.3 Passive Core Cooling System Testing, Item (w):“[In conjunction with the verification of the core makeup tanks to perform their reactor water makeup function and boration function described in item k) above, the proper operation of the core makeup tanks to transition from their recirculation mode of operation to their draindown mode of operation after heatup will be verified. This testing will also verify the proper operation of the core makeup tank level instrumentation to operate during draining of the heated tank fluid. The in-containment refueling water storage tank initial level is reduced to atl east 3 feet below the spillway level as a prerequisite condition for this testing in order to provide sufficient ullage to accept the mass discharged from the reactor coolant system via the automatic depressurization stage 1.

The recirculation operation in Item k) above, should be continued until the core makeup tank fluid has been heated to≥ 350°F. The core makeup tank isolation valves are then closed, the reactor coolant pumps are started, and the reactor coolant system is reheated up to hot functional testing conditions. This testing is initiated by shutting off the reactor coolant pumps, opening the core makeup tank isolation valves, and by opening one of the automatic depressurization stage 1 flow paths to the in-containment refueling water storage tank. This will initiate a large loss of mass from the reactor coolant system, depressurization of the reactor coolant system to the bulk fluid saturation pressure, and additional recirculation through the core makeup tank. Core makeup tank draindown initiates in response to the continued depressurization and mass loss from the reactor coolant system. The automatic depressurization stage 1 flow path is closed after the core makeup tank level has decreased below the level at which stage 4 actuation occurs. Note that this verification is required only for the first three plants.]*”


95







Page 96 of 149

Test objectives and predictive analysis

96

– Objectives of the CMT Draindown Test is to demonstrate: 1. proper transition from CMT recirculation mode to CMT draindown mode 2. proper operation of the CMT level instrumentation used for the ADS 1234 actuation for LOCA

events– The SBLOCA NOTRUMP model used for the Chapter 15 SBLOCA events has been modified in order to

simulate the CMT draindown test

– NOTRUMP model simulates test procedure steps for the test setup and test execution

– NOTRUMP simulations were performed with min and max CMT line resistances providing a bounding case for the actual test

– Variation of the initial conditions used for the simulations and as performed test were technically assessed and for some cases, simulations were updated







Page 97 of 149

CMT Draindown Test

97

CMT draindown test

PXS-V108B

Phase 1: Hot RCS waterPhase 2: Steam a,c







Page 98 of 149

Test equipment

98

a,c







Page 99 of 149

Permanent plant CMT instrumentation

99

Wide range level instrumentation:

• Non-safety related, measures differential pressure between the fluid in reference leg (connected to the top of the CMT) and variable level in the CMT itself

• Density compensated

Upper/lower narrow range:

• Safety-related level instrumentation• Two distinct setpoints are used for ADS 123 (Low-3) and

ADS 4 actuation (Low-6)• Low-3 corresponds to ~ 71% of CMT volume and Low-6

corresponds to ~ 24% of CMT volume• Upper and narrow range employ magnetic floats located in

external standpipes that actuate reed-switches sensors depending on the fluid level in the CMT

• Standpipes connected to the side of the CMT via two short pipes

a,c

a,c







Page 100 of 149


100

– Sanmen Unit 1 and Haiyang 1 have successfully performed CMT draindown test.

– Test results confirm:o Proper transition from recirc to draindowno All CMT alarms related to CMT level were received in the main control roomo Wide range and upper/narrow range level indications track well

– Comparison between the test results and NOTRUMP model show:

Good agreement on the CMT transition from recirculation to draindown mode

Faster RCS depressurization in NOTRUMP due to modeling simplifications (discussed later)

Good agreement on the CMT discharge flow rates and CMT level (Low-3 and Low-6) ADS actuation setpoints

Overall simplified NOTRUMP model predicts the test results







Page 101 of 149

NOTRUMP Model vs. Test Data

101

– NOTRUMP Model predicts:1. CMT level and temperature distribution2. CMT flow rates with min and max line

resistances3. Pressurizer pressure4. IRWST level

– Collected test data1. CMT levels and temperature distribution2. CMT Flow Rate measured using Pressure

Transmitters3. Pressurizer pressure4. IRWST level

Direct comparison of the test results and NOTRUMP model







Page 102 of 149

Review of the SM1 test results

102

– SM1 RCS pressure:

1. NOTRUMP model was developed for the full tier of ADS 1-3 operation consistent with prototypic small break LOCA system performance

2. For the CMT draindown test, simplistic approach was used to modeling only ADS-1.

3. This simplified model of the ADS-1 over-predicts the ADS-1 discharge

4. ADS-1 flow area is reduced to match the RCS depressurization.

5. Approach acceptable since primary focus is CMT performance and ADS actuation signals.

6. Full ADS-123 operation is demonstrated in the ADS Blowdown test (see next presentation)

Overall good agreement between NOTRUMP and SM1 test results

a,c







Page 103 of 149

Review of the SM1 test results

103

– SM1 CMT wide range and narrow range level indications:

1. Wide range and narrow range track well, dynamic effects in the CMTs are negligible

2. With the reduced ADS-1 flow area, NOTRUMP wide range level tracks well narrow range level

Good agreement between NOTRUMP and SM1 test results

a,ca,c







Page 104 of 149

Review of the HY1 test results

104

– Test procedure for SM and HY required operator to keep secondary pressure higher than primary– SM1 complied throughout the entire transient, whereas HY1 secondary pressure fell below primary pressure

for some time.

– Higher primary pressure than secondary causes heat removal from primary to secondary – Heat removal from the primary to secondary caused CMTs to drain slower than expected– Despite the inconsistency, CMTs drained down to the Low-6 ADS 4 actuation setpoint as required

a,c







Page 105 of 149

Review of the HY1 test results

105

– HY1 RCS pressure:

1. Steam Generator secondary side pressure was modeled to match test secondary pressure

2. ADS-1 flow area is reduced to match the RCS depressurization. Same reason as for Sanmen:

Approach (matching RCS pressure by reducing ADS1 flow area) is acceptable since primary focus is CMT performance and ADS actuation signals

Overall good agreement between NOTRUMP and HY1 test results

a,c







Page 106 of 149


106

Controls of the plant to plant variability and system performance insuring that draindown of the CMTs and ADS actuation will remain unchanged:– Procurement control: Same design specification

1. ITAAC on the CMT volume: ITAAC No. 2.2.03.08vi.– Construction control:

1. Same installation tolerances 2. Same installation specifications

– Pre-operational tests:1. CMT narrow and wide range level will be tested in the Component Test program2. PMS logic and ADS actuation is tested during the PMS testing program3. Proper operation of the CMT level instrumentation is demonstrated during the draindown testing of the

CMTs4. ITAACs on the balance line resistance, injection line resistance:

• ITAAC No. 2.2.03.08cii (CMT Balance Line resistance)• ITAAC No. 2.2.03.08ci (CMT Injection Line resistance)

Variability of the boundary conditions and CMT performance from plant to plant is controlled







Page 107 of 149

Vogtle 3&4

107


CMTs transition from recirculation to draindown mode is fully characterized and consistent with Chapter 15 Analysis


Test results are consistent with NOTRUMP predictive analysis


– Vogtle 3&4 will perform Component Tests and Pre-operational test ensuring proper operation of the instrumentation and ADS actuation

– Reproducibility CMT performance demonstrated at SM1/HY1

CMT performance is expected to be similar at Vogtle 3&4







Page 108 of 149

ADS Stage 1, 2, and 3 Blowdown Test







Page 109 of 149

Agenda

– Brief overview of the AP1000® PXS/RCS– ADS Blowdown Test licensing commitments– ADS Blowdown Test background– Critical design/construction parameters of the ADS Valves and IRWST Pressure tests– China versus US AP1000 PXS/RCS design– Test equipment– Sanmen 1/Haiyang 1 test results– Vogtle 3&4

109

AP1000 is a trademark or registered trademark of Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, its affiliates and/or its subsidiaries in the United States of America and may be registered in other countries throughout the world. All rights reserved.







Page 110 of 149

Brief overview of the PXS/RCS

110

IRWST

SpargersStage 1

Stage 2

Stage 3

Stage 4

Pressurizer Pressure for the Inadvertent ADSActuation Transient Analysis

Pressurizer Pressure for the Inadvertent ADSActuation Transient Analysis







Page 111 of 149

Blowdown Test Licensing Commitments

111

UFSAR Section 14.2.9.13, item (s): • For the first three plants only, an automatic

depressurization blowdown test is performed to verify proper operation of the ADS valves, and demonstrate the proper operation of the ADS spargers to limit the hydrodynamic loads in containment to less than design limits.

Application of Acceptance Criteria• The ADS valves (stages 1, 2 and 3) operate properly;

indicating full open in the MCR within the required stroke time during blowdown conditions.

• Loading within the in-containment refueling water storage tank (IRWST) is limited to less than 5 psi (average) along the walls.

Test Objectives Confirm proper valve operation, that IRWST loading is bounded by analysis and is consistent from plant to plant.

a,c







Page 112 of 149

ADS Blowdown Test Background

112

Predictive Analysis:– The SBLOCA NOTRUMP model is used to predict RCS depressurization for the test.– NOTRUMP model simulates test procedure steps for the test setup and test execution.– NOTRUMP simulations were performed with min and max ADS 1-3 valve opening times

providing a bounding cases for the actual test.– Variation of the initial conditions used for the simulations and as performed test were

technically assessed.







Page 113 of 149


113

– Critical design/construction attributes for the overall depressurization flow:

1. ADS Stage 1, 2, and 3 valve effective flow area (choked flow)2. Sparger design3. Valve opening time4. Design of IRWST walls, floors and total volume

China and US Design

are controlled

China and US Design

are controlled

PXS/RCS design is the same at Vogtle 3&4, Sanmen 1, 2, and Haiyang 1







Page 114 of 149

China versus US AP1000 PXS/RCS design

114

– Major PXS/RCS components at SM1/HY1/SM2/SV3/SV4 such as Reactor Vessel, Pressurizer, Steam Generators, Reactor Coolant Pumps, Safety-related PXS/RCS Valves, Spargers:

1. Manufactured to the same design specification2. Procured to the same quality requirements imposed by the design specification3. Built to the same design tolerances

– The RCS pressure boundary piping, including ADS Discharge lines:1. Manufactured to the same design specification2. Procured to the same quality requirements imposed by the design specification3. Built to the same line routing and design tolerances

– The design of the IRWST (structural modules CA01, CA02, CA03, CA55, CA56 and CA57) is the same in China and the US







Page 115 of 149


115

– Critical Parameters for Key Components for (Spargers, ADS 1/2/3 Valves) are identical

Effective PXS/RCS design is the same at Vogtle 3&4, Sanmen 1, 2, and Haiyang 1

a,c







Page 116 of 149

ADS Blowdown Test

116

•

CLHL

N2

PRESSURIZER

IRWST

ACCUM. (1 OF 2)

CORE

REACTORVESSEL

CORE MAKEUPTANK (1 OF 2)

#3

#2

#1

FAI

REFUELCAVITY

FO

RNS

SPARGERS

M

RNSPUMPS

LOOPCOMPART.

RECIRCSCREEN(1 OF 2)

M

DVI CONN.(1 OF 2)

PRHRHX

(1 OF 2)

ADSSTAGES 1-3

(1 OF 2)

ADSSTAGE 4(1 OF 2)

PUMPS

CONTAINMENT

M M

MM

M M

M

M

M

M

(1 OF 2)

IRWSTSCREEN

a,c







Page 117 of 149

China Test equipment

117

Temporary Instrumentation on CA03 Module:• Four strings of pressure transducers (Primary IRWST Acceptance

Criteria)• Pressure Transducers on ADS Piping (information only)• 5 sets of transmitters (2 strain gauges and 1 accelerometer) are

placed at of the 4 azimuthal location.Other Temporary Instrumentation:• Instrumentation of all ADS isolation and control valves using

VOTES® Infinity diagnostic system• Strain gauges, accelerometers, and force measurement on select

piping segments and pipe supports.Permanent Plant Instrumentation:• Valve Position Indication• RCS Pressurizer Pressure and Level• IRWST Level

a,c







Page 118 of 149

Test equipment

118

a,c







Page 119 of 149

SM1 RCS Depressurization Profile

119

– NOTRUMP Model1. Pressurizer Pressure2. ADS Valve Area3. IRWST Level

– Test Data1. Wide Range Pressurizer Pressure2. As-Built Valve Area3. IRWST Wide Range Level

a,c







Page 120 of 149

RCS Depressurization Profile SM1/HY1 Comparison

120120

a,c







Page 121 of 149

RCS Depressurization Profile SM1/HY1 Comparison

121

a,c







Page 122 of 149

ADS Valve Performancea,c







Page 123 of 149

IRWST and Sparger Performance

123

The design loading for the IRWST tank models the ADS discharge as a uniform pressure of ±5 psi applied to the tank floor, walls, and roof. • The readings taken during the test represent the dynamic response and are converted to

an average distributed pressure then compared to the ±5 psi acceptance criteria. • ADS Blowdown test data confirmed that average distributed pressures on the IRWST are

less than ±5 psid for blowdown into a sub-cooled tank. a,c







Page 124 of 149


• The strain gauge plots also show small amplitude strain oscillations reflecting the formation and collapse of the steam bubbles in the water.

• The thermal and increased hydrostatic effects dominate the behavior of the tank versus the effect of the pressure loadings.

124

a,c







Page 125 of 149

IRWST and Sparger Performance HY1/SM1 Comparison

125

a,c







Page 126 of 149


126

a,c







Page 127 of 149


127

a,c







Page 128 of 149

Vogtle 3&4

128

– Tests performed at SM1/HY1 were successful: The ADS spargers to limit the hydrodynamic loads to less than design of ±5 psi Proper operation of the ADS valves demonstrated

– Boundary conditions and geometry are preserved at Vogtle 3&4:1. At Vogtle, major RCS/PXS components are the same as at SM1/HY12. Construction ITAACs related to the installation/location of the ADS Piping and IRWST volume:

• ITAAC No. 2.2.03.08c.iii (IRWST volume)• ITAAC No. 2.1.02.08d.i Preoperational Test for Resistance of the ADS Stage 1, 2, 3

flow path(s)• ITAAC No. 2.1.02.08d.iv Vendor report on ADS 1, 2, 3 valve effective flow area• ITAAC No. 2.1.02.08d.vii Vendor report on Sparger flow area• ITAAC No. 2.1.02.08d.viii Inspection of Sparger location

– Vogtle 3&4 will perform testing to demonstrate Component Operability:• ADS 1, 2, and 3 valve operation verified by the performance of baseline in-service tests

Testing at China Sites establishes the unique phenomenological performance

parameters ofthe AP1000 design features.

Testing at China Sites establishes the unique phenomenological performance

parameters ofthe AP1000 design features.







Page 129 of 149

Vogtle 3&4

Test Objectives have been met:

129

Testing at SM1, HY1, and SM2 establishes the unique

phenomenological performance parameters of

the AP1000 design features.

Testing at SM1, HY1, and SM2 establishes the unique

phenomenological performance parameters of

the AP1000 design features.

Confirm proper valve operation

Valves showed proper performance during blowdown testing

Confirm IRWST loading is bounded by analysis and is

consistent from plant to plant.

Loading was consistent and less than the 5 psi criteria







Page 130 of 149

Summary







Page 131 of 149




131







Page 132 of 149


• Supporting documents for the LAR are available for review now– QA Assessment Report– China Test Procedures– SNC Documentation of Review of China Test Procedures

132







Page 133 of 149

Proposed Schedule

133

a,c







Page 134 of 149

Backup Slides

134







Page 135 of 149

Backup Slides

135

a,c







Page 136 of 149

Review of the SM1 test results (Backup)

136

– SM1 CMT injection flow rates:

1. With the reduced ADS1 flow area, NOTRUMP CMT injection flow rates are similar to the test results

Overall, simplified NOTRUMP model and test results confirm that CMTs operate as expected (transition from recirculation to draindown and drain through ADS setpoints)

a,c







Page 137 of 149

Review of the HY1 test results (Backup)

137

– HY1 CMT wide range and narrow range level indications:

1. Wide range and narrow range track well, dynamic effects in the CMTs are negligible

2. With the reduced ADS-1 flow area, NOTRUMP wide range level reaches lower narrow range level at a similar time

Good agreement between NOTRUMP and HY1 test results

a,ca,c







Page 138 of 149

Review of the HY1 test results (Backup)

138

– HY1 CMT injection flow rates:

1. Shorter draindown interruption in NOTRUMP and slower and more gradual draining after the delay2. With the reduced ADS1 flow area, NOTRUMP CMT injection flow rates are overall similar to the test results

Overall, simplified NOTRUMP model and test results confirm that CMTs operate as expected (transition from recirculation to draindown and drain through ADS setpoints)

a,c







Page 139 of 149

Backup Slides CMT Draindown

139

a,c







Page 140 of 149

Backup Slides – CMT Recirculation Test

140

– SM1 and HY1 RCS pressure

1. Pressurizer level controlled with the CVS makeup/letdown during the test.

2. Predictive analysis does not control Pressurizer level

3. Cold leg (Pressurizer side) was slightly lower in the test

4. Use of CVS makeup/letdown does not invalidate NOTRUMP predictive analysis

Overall RCS depressurization trend is similar

CMT recirculation is not significantly impacted by the CVS makeup/letdown

a,c







Page 141 of 149

Backup Slides – CMT Recirculation Test

141

a,c







Page 142 of 149

Other Infoa,c







Page 143 of 149

SM1/HY1 test results

143

Sanmen Unit 1 & Haiyang Unit 1 have successfully performed the ADS Blowdown Test 1. Data collected for IRWST Pressure, Strain, and Level2. RCS Parameters monitored3. Valve Diagnostics recorded

Comparison to Predictive Safety Analysis show: Depressurization of the RCS following the ADS Blowdown Test is acceptable

a,c







Page 144 of 149

ADS Valve Performance Issuesa,c







Page 145 of 149







Page 146 of 149







Page 147 of 149

ADS Valve Performance Issues - Supplementary Testing

147

a,c







Page 148 of 149







Page 149 of 149

Southern NuclearOperating Company · Southern NuclearOperating Company ND-18-0300 Enclosure 1...

Documents

Transcript of Southern NuclearOperating Company · Southern NuclearOperating Company ND-18-0300 Enclosure 1...