ML16340A400

Requests Addl Info Re Methods of Calculating Thermal Analysis of Components W/Qualification Test Temp Less than Calculated Peak Temp of 344 F

ML16340A400
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	03/14/1979
From:	Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Morrissey J PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
References
NUDOCS 7904060410
Download: ML16340A400 (14)

Text

tl istribution:

Docket F

e Y. A.

Noore'RC PDR N. L. Ernst MAR 1 4 1979 Local PDR R.

P.

Denise LMR 81 File R. Hartfie1d R. S.

Boyd ELD D. F.

Ross IE (3)

D. B. Yassa11o F. J. Hi11iams Nr. John C. Horrissey Vice President 5 General Counsel Pacific Gas a Electric Company

- '- 'u'""y 77 Beale Street E.

G. Hy1ton San Francisco, California 94106 R. J. Nattson S.

H. Hanauer

Dear Nr. Norrissey:

J.

P. Knight R. L. Tedesco

SUBJECT:

REOUEST FOR ADDITIONAL IIIFIRPRTIIIIP-tIIN STEAII LINE BREAK INSIDE CONTAI!'lfPENT Me have reviewed the information provided in your letters of December 18, 1978 and December 27, 1970 'regarding postulated main steam line breaks inside containment and the environmental, qualification of safety related equipment; Me have found your calcu'lations of containment pressure and temperature acceptable.

Docket ltos:

50-27$

and 50-323 bcc:

J.

R. Buchanan, NSIC T.

B. Abernathy, TIC ACRS (16)

This information should be submitted as soon as possible in order to avoid delays in completing our revie~ of the operating license application.

PIease contact us ifyou have any questions.

Me have, also found your methods of calculating the thermal response of equipmen~t acceptable provided conservative values of containment tempera-ture, duration of the accident phases and convective heat transfer coefficients are used in the analysis of individual components.

Me wi11 need additional information regarding these aspects of the analysis and specific information regarding the thermal analysis of components with a qual~fication test temperature less than your calcu1ated peak'emperature of 344 F.

The information we will need is described in the enclosure.

d HI0408C> "l(6 Sincerely,

Original signeIi by

'ZlohnZ. Stolz John F. Sto1z, Chief Light 1fater Reactors Branch Ho.

1 Division of Project Management

Enclosure:

Requests for Additional Information See OPPIC2+ ext page OATC~

NRC FORM 318 (0 76) NRCM 0240 DPN'LNR-41"-

JFStolz-03 ""---- 79--

,.DPm:LuR...al.......,.DP>I>: LMR-Jl PA1.1.i.son pcm BCBuckley-

'03/------- /79. ------- 79 A UI 4 OOVCRNMENT PRINTINO OPPICNI 1024 424 424

I Vv I 444i 4

I 'I 4" I,.<

'h 4 4'2,4,l Qg IFv V

4th

. If Sh I y f,

~ 2, h.

4 V

FIP, D.r.t 4

2 h

V 4

• 4

! 1 Sg

~ r

~

$ 4 I

i.

¹ 2 ~

4 ht "I

~

4 It I

4 P,

'Vg 4

4 1'l hf I 4 '4 4

'4 g

=1 2

V hl I

4 Per 2). 2 Sh 4

g(f Qv>l¹¹PL u 1+~1~1.f t

'V 4 ~

~~I,i)p Fi

~ '¹.2 Ã ~

ih I,

4!

4

• I FI F

h 4p

, IP

Mr. John C. Horrissey cc:

Hr. John Harrs Managing Editor San Luis Obispo County Telegram - Tribune 1321 Johnson Avenue P. 0. Box 112 San Luis Obisp'o, California 93406 Philip A. Crane, Jr.,

Esq.

Pacific Gas 8 Electric Company 77 Beale Street San Francisco, California 94106 Janice E. Kerr, Esq.

California Public Utilities Commission 350 HcAllister Street San Francisco, California 94102 Hr. Frederick Eissler, President Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc.

4623 More Mesa Drive Santa Barbara, California 93105 Hs. Elizabeth E. Apfelberg 1415 Cazadero San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Hs. Sandra A. Silver 1792 Conejo Avenue San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Hr. Gordon A. Sil ver 1792 Conejo Avenue San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Paul C. Valentine, Esq.

321 Lytton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94302 Yale I. Jones, Esq.

19th Floor 100 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, California 94102 Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq.

Atomic Safety

& Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.,

Chairman Atomic Safety

& Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, 0. C, 20555 Hr. Glenn 0. Bright Atomic Safety

& Licensing Board

'U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 h

Tolbert Young P. 0.

Box 219 Avila Beach, California 93424 Richard S. Salzman, Esq.,

Chairman Atomic Safety 8 Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission Washington, D. C.

20555 Dr.

W. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety 8 Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Mr. Richard Hubbard ttHB Technical Associates 366 California Avenue Palo Alto, California 94306

Mr. John C. Horrissey cc:

Hs. Raye Fleming 1746 Chorro Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Brent Rushforth, Esq.

Center for Law in the Public Interest 10203 Santa Monica Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90067 Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.

Snell 8

Wi lmer 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Hr. James

0. Schuyler, Project Engineer Pacific Gas 8 Electric Company 77 Beale Street San Francisco, California 94106 Bruce Norton, Esq.

3216 North 3rd Street Suite 202 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Hr.

W. C. Gangloff Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. 0.

Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Michael R. Klein, Esq.

Wilmer, Cutler 8 Pickering 1666 K Street, H.

W.

Washington, D. C-20006 David F. Fleischaker, Esq.

1025 15th Street,'N.

W.

5th Floor Washington, 0. C. 20005 Dr. William E. Hartin Senior Ecologist Battelle Memorial Institute

Columbus, Ohio 43201

Reques for Addi tional Information Main Steam Line Break Inside Containment Diablo Canyon Site, Units 1

5 2 Docket thos.

50-275/323 1.

We have reviewed the information provided in your 'letters, dated December 18 and 27, 1978, in response to our request or information regarding the calculation of containment temperature and pressure response and equipment qualification for postulated main steam line breaks inside the containment building.

We have identified the following comments and need for additional informatio'n to complete our review.

A.

We find that the containment temperature and pressure calculations have been per'formed in an acceptable manner.

Results of our confirmatory calculations agree quite closely with your results.

8, Thermal analyses should be performed for all equipment fol wnicn the qualification (test) temperature is less than your ma;<imum calculated containment atmosphere temperatu.

e (344'F).

C.

The analytical method described in the sample calcula on transmi tted in your letter of Dec mber 18, 1978 is acceptably conservative for the calculation of equipment surface tempe. atures if the following changes are made to conform to the worst calculated containment temperature transient response for the Diablo Canyon plants:

/

I 1.

Extend the condensation heat transfer period to'25 seconds; 2..

Extend the convective heat transfer period to 170 seconds; 3.

Increase the containment atmosphere temperature (Tc) durirg the convective heat transfer period to 344'F; 4.

Use a forced convection heat transfer coef icient that has been determined in accordance with our Interim Evaluation Model previously provided to you.

Our calculations o~. the forced convection heat transfer coefficient indicate that for the Diablo Canyon plant thermal

analyses, values on ti.e order of 20 Btu/hr ft 'F are nnre appropriate rather than the value (5 Btu/hr ft 'F) assumed in your sample problem.

D.

Provide the following information which we have previously requested for each component for which qualification is to be demonstrated by thermal analysis.

Each component needed for a 5!SLB should be addressed explicitly.

1.

Provide external and sectional diagrams of each component analyzed showing principal dimensions, materials of construction, and cross sec ions modeled for analysis.

2.

Provide a detailed description of each thermal model showing the model mock up with principal dimensions, mat rials, and material thermal properties, as well as all assumptions used in developing the model.

Identify the specific point on the component which was analyzed and justify that this location is the most critical or conservative with regard to potential component failure.

3.

Provide a description of the condens ng and convective'heat transfer correlations used for the component thermal analysis and describe in detail the manner in which these correlations were used.

The Interim Evaluation llodel provides a

description of those assumptions which we would find acceptable.

4.

Provide a plot of surface temperature, heat flux, and heat transfer coefficient for each component thermal analysis or as many points on the component as necessary to jus ify qualification.

5.

Provide a table which shows the compon nt peak calculated surface temperature(s) and the qualification test temperature.

If the component peak test temperature was held for a short duration (e.g.,

less than approximately 10 minutes'r i-, tes+

conditions were not at tt e steam sa+uration temperature, provide justification that the qualification tempera+ure has be n

properly derived.

(Note:

The table provided in your letter

r, of December 18, 1978 lists some equipment qualification temperatures which are higher than the temperatures given in the information we have reviewed.

For example, the table lists 392 F for Continental Cable.

However, the information we have reviewed, Continental Report CC21935, dated March 1971, indicates a qualification temperature of 281 F.

Accordingly, the table should refer to the qualification test information and, where different from the information we have

reviewed, the appropriate qualification test reports should be provided.)

0 FI