ML18081A422
| ML18081A422 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 10/23/1979 |
| From: | Mittl R Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | Parr O Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910260156 | |
| Download: ML18081A422 (21) | |
Text
PS~G 9 Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Place Newark, N.J. 07101 Phone 201/430-7000 October 23, 1979 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation us Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Att: Mr. Olan D. Parr, Chief Light Water Reactors Branch 3 Division of Project Management Gentlemen:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF INSTRUMENTATION NO. 2 UNIT SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-311 Public Service Electric and Gas Company hereby submits ten copies of Revision A to Wyle Laboratories Report No. 44439-2 dated August 15, 1979 in response to your letter of June 1, 1979 requesting additional justification for the use of Barton 763 and 764 transmitters.
This report demonstrates that these transmitters will meet all their performance requirements including functions needed during a hypothe-sized post-accident cooling period.
The environmental qualification of safety-related electrical and control equipment was provided in our responses to Questions 7.30, 7.41 and in supplemental data and test reports previously submitted.
During the course of your review of this information, a number of concerns regarding the test data and equipment application at Salem were raised by Mr. T. Dunning of your staff.
Responses to each of his concerns are also provided for your review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
The Energy People R. L. Mittl General Manager -
Licensing and Environment Engineering and Construction 7910260 f5b 95-0942
SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT NO. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF SAFETY-RELATED ELECTRICAL/CONTROLS EQUIPMENT Response to NRC Review Requests Item 1 NRC Concern:
Justify the statements that the Barton Lot 1 Transmitters will not experience a temperature in excess of 280°F following an accident since they are enclosed within instrument panels. The data submitted with the PSE&G Panel Qualification Test Report (Wyle Labs Report 44439-2) was only for a short.period of time and appears to be inconclusive.
PSE&G Response:
Revision A of the Wyle Report has been prepared showing additional test data to resolve this matter.
Copies of the revision are attached.
The original report included information on equipment tempera-tures during the initial stages of the accident to demonstrate thermal capabilities during the short temperature rise time associated with a LOCA.
The additional test data shows the equipment temperatures over a longer peripd when the peak temperatures of a LOCA/MSLB event have subsided.
This data shows that the Barton transmitters will not exceed a tempera-ture of 280°F at Salem under either LOCA or MSLB containment accident conditions.
rn*addition Westinghouse has submitted confirmatory test (NS-TMA-2120) on 9/14/79 to the NRC on the Barton transmitters
. in response to the NRC letter from J. F. Stolz to T. M.
Anderson dated 5/15/79, 11Review of Report Entitled Qualifica-tion of Barton Pressure and Differential Pressure Transmitters. 11 This report is applicable to Salem and demonstrates the trans-mitters operability for containment conditions exceeding the environments the transmitters experience at Salem within panel enclosures.
SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT NO. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF SAFETY-RELATED ELECTRICAL/CONTROLS EQUIPMENT Response to NRC Review Requests Item 2 NRC Concern:
Based on test data, what is. the qualified life of the ASCO solenoid valves?
.PSE&G Response:
This topic was addressed in NRC IE Bulletin 79-0lA.
In our response to this Bulletin, PSE&G indicated that we would follow the maintenance program recommended by ASCO and described by the NRC in the Bulletin.
SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT NO. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF
- SAFETY-RELATED ELECTRICAL/CONTROLS ~QUIPMENT Response to the NRC Review Requests Item 3 NRC Concern:
What are the consequences of the neoprene sealant used in the Conax connector assembly for the solenoid valves?
PSE&G Response:
The solenoid enclosure itself is not watertight and the coils were subjected to moisture during. our testing and the testing originally performed by ASCO.
PSE&G is usirig this connector primarily as a strain relief rather than a moisture seal, and as* such, we are not concerned with deterioration of the neo-prene sealant plug.
The solenoid valve coils performed their function during*
the ASCO tests and the supplemental tests performed by PSE&G.
The proven ability of the solenoid coils to endure moisture precludes the need to verify the integrity of the Conax con-nector assembly.
. ~.
SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT NO. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF SAFETY-RELATED ELECTRICAL/CONTROLS EQUIPMENT Response to the NRC Review Requests Item 4 NRC Concern:
Provide additional information on the qualification of Scotch-cast Resin #9 as a sealant.
. PSE&G Response:
This material is used to seal the *conductor entrance to NAMCO limit switches and selected ASCO solenoid valves. This material has been successfully used by Wyle Laboratories for sealing cable entrances to their environmental test chambers, and was used in this capacity in the PSE&G tests. The qualification of this material was established by Wyle Labora-tories during tests for TVA, per their Te.st Report 44107-1.
This report was submitted to the NRC by TVA on Browns Ferry Unit 3. Although specifically for their application, the data in the report provides evidence to support the materials use as a sealant.
In order to improve maintainability of the Rosemount trans-mitters and NAMCO limit switches, PSE&G has decided to replace the Scotchcast Resin #9 seals with.Conax Electric Conductor Seal Assembliei (ECSA).
Conax's qualification report ITS-409 for these connectors was originally prepared for Arkansas No. 1, Unit 2.
This report is applicable for the environmental.con-ditions at Salem.
The new connectors will be installed on a maintenance basis with any remaining seals using Scotchcast Resin #9 replaced during the first refueling outage.
--1 REVISIONS REVISION. ___
I REPORT N0.. ~_4_4_4_3_9_-_
2 __ ~
DATE:---'-~-A_u......;::.g_u_s_t~l_5_,~1~9_7_r_~_
I WYLE ~IORIES SCIENTIFIC SERVICES AND SYSTEMS GROUP REV.. NO.
DATE PAGES AFFECTED BY APP'L.
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES fl.
8/15/79 7
DH
~/~ Add stE1.tement to thermal results I
9
~~
Corrected profile
.111'.""4 Jescription of Figure I
.rable of equipment temperature a.dded 111-7
.~dded statement to thermal results I
III-7A Added table of equipment temperature III-lOA Added Figure of LOCA profile I
III-13A & 13B Added Figure of LOCA profile; add new I
IV-5 Corrected Panel No.
Figure IV-10 Corrected references to P/N I
IV-14 Added P/N IV-16 Added P/N IV-24
~
Add statement to Figure IV-30
~
Add statement to Figure I
v~
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
1**
I 4.0 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
SUMMARY
(CONTINUED)
Page 7 Report 44439-2 REVISION A The data acquired during the LOCA Tests was submitted to the respective Analyses Sections for confirmation of their mathematical models.
The Thermal Analysis, presented in Section IV, was performed using mathe-matical models to predict the component temperatures inside the Equipment Enclosures during a LOCA event.
The models were verified by actual tests to simulated LOCA conditions.
The results of the tests indicate a close correlation exists between the actual test conditions and the analytical models, as indicated by Figures 3 and 4.
Individual component profiles are presented on Pages IV-23 through IV-41 of the Thermal Analysis Section of this report.
The testing and modeling have indicated that the thermal environment inside a vented Equipment Enclosure is not as severe as the environment outside the Enclosure in the early stages of a LOCA.
The exception to this is if steam were to impinge directly on the Enclosure vent.
The data obtained during the Accident (LOCA) Test on Panel Numbers 237 and A
444 shows that the internal temperature of Panel No. 237 was higher for the first 26 minutes of the temperature/pressure/time profile.
This indicates that Panel No. 237 (large enclosure) represents the "worst case" for thermal loading on equipment installed in this panel.
After 26 minutes of test, the two cabinets' internal temperature equalized and the thermal conductivity of the equipment inside the two panels was equal.
The internal ambient temperature of Panels No. 237 and 444 is graphically shown in Figures 1 and 2,Section IV, of this report.
The thermal proper-ties of the components contained inside the Enclosures actually tested are listed in Tables l and 2, located on Pages IV-14 through IV-17 (Section IV) of this report.
\\
Temperature (op) 350 300 200 120 0
10 sec 1~13minh I
I 54 psig 3
min FIGURE 2.
TEMPERATURE PROFILE
~
PRESSURE PROFILE THE SHAPE OF THE PROFILE AT THIS POINT DEPENDS ON TEST CHAMBER COOL-DOWN RATE
- I Profile Tested To 286°F -
40 psig 280°F -
35 ps 'g Revised Profile 20 170 min min
- TIME*-
SALEH PROFILE -
EHCLOSURES 220°F - 2 psig 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> 24 hrs
~ ~ >rj
<: CD Pl H tu cQ UJ o ro Ii
~ rt \\.0 z,p,.
- i:< ~
w
\\.0 I
N
1**
I 4.0 I
4.1 I
4.1. 3 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
TEST PROCEDURES AND RESULTS (CONTINUED)
Nerna 12 Enclosure - Panel 444 (Continued)
Results Page III-4 Report 44439-2 REVISION A The equipment and enc.losure were subjected to the Accident (LOCA) Test as specified in Paragraph 4.1.2.
After the test was completed, the enclosure was removed from the test chamber and visually inspected.
There was no structµral degradation noted.
The vent installed in the enclosure was adequate to prevent structural damage.
The data acquired during the Accident (LOCA) Test was used to verify the analytical models.
The analytical model is discussed in detail in Section IV of this report.
A The Salem II required temperature/pressure/time profile for the accident conditions is shown in Figure III-1.
The actual time history of the A
temperature/pressure profile obtained is shown in Figure III-2A.
The chamber steam pressure obtained during the initial temperature/pressure transient is shown in Figure III-2.
The equipment temperature installed in Panel 444 was continuously recorded A
throughout the accident test.
The maximum equipment temperature occurred at time T + 34 minutes.
The equipment temperature obtained is shown in 0
Table I *
. Photographs pertaining to the Accident Test are located in Appendix II-A.
Instrumentation Equipment Sheets showing equipment used are located in Appendix III-A.
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
TABLE
~.
EQUIPMENT TEMPERATURE OBTAINED AT EACH TEMPERl~TURE PLATEAU (PANEL NO. 444)
Equipment Temperature at Chamber Temperature (op)
- Equipment 350°F 300°F @ 20 Hin 300°F @ T +34 Min
---0 Air Regulator 225°F 274°F 286°F
- 1.
Cylinder 219°F 266°F 263°F
- 2.
Inside Panel (Side) 220°F 275°F 272°F Regulator M-N 222°F 268°F 264°F
- 3.
ASCO Solenoid 213°F 266°F 262°F Terminal Strip 215°F 276°F 272°F Inside Panel (Bottom) 275°F 297°F 286°F Inside Panel 250°F 291°F 295°F Panel Skin Temp. (Side) 281°F 309°F 289°F Panel Skin Temp. (Top) 276°F 300°F 307°F Panel Skin Temp. (Back 296°F 297°F 296°F of Panel)
Panel Skin Temp. (Door) 280°F 302°F 294°F Metal Block Sample 28Q°F 303°F 298°F
- After T
+ 34 minutes, the required test chamber temperature was reduced to 286°F.
0 Notes Temp. of 350°F was obtained in T
+ 6 minutes.
0 Reading of 300°F was taken at T
+ 20 minutes.
0 Reading of 300°F was take.
at T
+ 34 minutes.
0
1**
I 4.0 4.2 I
4.2.3 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I TEST PROCEDURES AND RESULTS (CONTINUED)
Large Equipment Enclosure..., Panel 237 (Continued)
Results Page III-7 Report 44439-2 REVISION A The equipment and*enclosure were subjected to the Accident (.LOCA) Test as specified in Paragraph 4.2.2.
After completion of the test 1 the test items were removed from the test chamber and visually inspected.
The results of this inspection are listed below.
There was no structural degradation noted.
The paint on the interior and exterior of the enclosure had blistered and peeled (reference Photograph III-22, Appendix II-B).
There was no evidence of steam or moisture leakage through the shrinkable sleeving, insulation, or penetrations associated.with the cable splices.
The data acquired during the Accident (LOCA) Test was used to verify the analytical models.
The analytical model is discussed in detail in A
Section IV of this report.
The temperature of each piece of equipment installed inside Panel Nb.
A 237 was continuously recorded throughout the Accide;mt (LOCA) Test.
T:Pe Salem II temperature/pressure/time profile for the accident conditions is shown in Figure III-1 of this report.
The actual time history of the temperature/pressure/time profile obtained A
is shown in Figure III-.4A.
- This time history also shows the temperature of the desired Salem II accident profile, plus the enclosure temperature and the Barton Pressure Transmitter Model 386 temperature.
The additional equipment temperature is shown in Table II. The equip-A ment temperature shown in this table is presented to.show the component
_ temperatures at each accident (LOCA) temperature plateau and to show the equipment maximum temperature experienced during this test.
The data obtained during the Accident (LOCA) Test on Panel Numbers 237 A
and 444 shows that the internal temperature of Panel No. 237 was higher for the first 26 minutes of the temperature/pressure/time profile.
This indicates that Panel No. 237 (large enclosure) represents the "worst case" for thermal loading on equipment installed in this panel.
After 26 minutes of test; the two cabinets' internal temperature equalized and the thermal conductivity of the equipment inside the two panels was equal (reference Figur~ III-4B).
Equipment used in this test is shown on Instrumentation Equipment Sheets located in Appendix III-B.
TABLE II. EQUIPMENT TEMPERATURE OBTAINED AT EACH TEMPERATURE PLATE]\\U (:PANEL NO. 237)
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
Equipment ASCO Solenoid Valve Fisher-Porter Water Seal D/P Conoflow Air Regulator Kerotest Manifold & Valve Assy.
Kerotest Manifold & Valve Assy.
Barton Differential Press. Gauge Masoneilan Air Regulator Fisher-Porter Reactor Coolant D/P Ambient Temperature Inside Enclosure.
Skin Temperature of Enclosure Pressure Transmitter Barton Model 386 Metal Block at 350°F 274°F 256°F 288°F 215°F 218°F 276°F 277°F 242°F 291°F 301°F 208°F 218°F Equipment Temperature Chamber Temperature (°F) *
~13°F 298°F 272°F 273°F 276°F 274°F 274°F 276°F 273°F 274°F 273°F 275°F 280°F 279°F 275°F 277°F 273°F 274°F 278°F 281°F 285°F 283°F 264°F 276°F 271°F 293°F
- After T + 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, 50 minutes, the chamber temperature was reduced to 220°F.
0 Notes
- 1.
Temperature of 350°E' was obtained at T + 6 minutes.
0
- 2.
Temperature of 313°F was taken T + 20 minutes.
0
- 3.
Temperature of 298°F was tak~
at T
+ 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, 50 minutes.
0
n <
'\\i NOISil\\ffil c-6El>l>I> :i.:roda1:!
':!ET-III afiBd e
.-.:; 6£ x i~*t:f3.13Wl.LN3::> 3H.1. 0.1. OL X OL I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
.. I
I..
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
Page IV-5 Report 44439-2 REVISION A 3.0 TEST RESULTS AND NU.MERICAL SIMULATION OF TEMPERATURE RESPON:SES 3.1 Presentation of Test Results The internal and external ambient environments of each of the cabinets (Panels 237 and 444 referred to as the large and small cabinets, respectively) tested are presented in Figures 1 and 2.
In each test case the measured ambient temperature (Tg, °F) is shown as a function of time (t, sec.) where t = 0 corresponds to the initiation of steam flow into the test vessel (contain..,.
ment).
The thermal responses of the cabinet surf aces and components are shown in Figures 3 through 23.
All thermal responses are plotted as temperature (°F) versus time (t, sec.).
Note that nearly all of the component temperatures plotted represent the average bulk temperatures of the component rather than a sur-face temperature (i.e., the thermocouples were located inside the components).
Two exceptions are shown in Figures 6 and 12 where temperature measurements were taken on the surf ace of the component as well as internally.
A maximum temperature differ-ence of approximately 70°F was observed for these components during the first 20 seconds.
3.2 Data Analysis The test results for the two cabinets tested (Panels 237 and 444) indicate relatively rapid responses in temperature for A
most of the cabinet surfaces (Figures 3 and 4) and a less rapid response for the components located within the cabinets. (Fig-ures 5 through 23).
These variations in temperature response
I....
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
Page IV-10 Report 44439-2 REVISION A After the first 25 seconds of the test, the temperature responses of the components located in the cabinets is rela-tively slow, as shown in Figures 5 through 23, and provide evidence of the apparent lowering of unit-surface conductances.
This is believed to be due in part to the reasons given in the preceding discussion and because a larger partial pressure of air is likely to be trapped within the cabinets than in the containment.
Also, there is no mechanism for sweeping away the low quality steam within the cabinets by the high quality steam entering the containment.
Several components were not available for testing, but were A
subjected to a computer simulation of their thermal response.
Figures 20 through 23 show the results of these simulations which were based on the validated mathematical model and on the individual component's thermal physical properties listed in Table I.
In addition to these components, there were three other components that were neither tested nor computer simulated.
These are the Rosemount Model 1153 and the Barton 763 and 764 Pressure Transmitters.
The Pressure Transmitters have approxi-mately the same thermal properties, mass, and effective surface area as the Barton Pressure Transmitter Model 386 (Table I).
Therefore, their thermal response will be similar to Figure 12 for the Model 386 Barton Pressure Transmitter.
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
- omponent Name Fisher-Porter Fisher-Porter Barton
!Asco
!valve I
I iKerotest Conof low H.N. Regu la tor Barton P.T.
Ke rote st Terminal Block As co As co As co Fisher-Porter Ashcroft Hoffman Box TP....BLE 1 COHPONENT THEPJlAL PROPERTIES Height Thermal I.D.i;:
(Lbs.)
J.laterial ~apacitance (BTU/°F) 50 EP 1041 BCKA 48.50 Steel 5.34 50EQ 1041 I
.acxA-NS 33.00 Steel 3.63 HOD. 2 8 81'.
11.49 Steel 1.26 LBX831614 4.83 Brass 0.44 or 1LB831654 I
13/8-X58l-1 7.79 Steel 0.86 FL60X'I'-Kl
.1. 49 Aluminum 0.31 No. 77-4
- 1. 75 i'l.luminum 0.37 Model 386 19.26 Steel 2.12 3/8-X58H 7.83 Steel i
I 0.86 2Bll2N 0.74 Bakelite 0.15 LBX831614 6.00 Brass 0.54 LBX831654 5.50 Brass 0.50 83146
- 1. 20 Brass 0.11 EP546 9.00 Steel 0.99 2 In.P.G.
0.28 Steel 0.28 No I.D.
35.00 Steel 3.85 Page IV-14 Report 44439-2 REVISION A Effective Haunt Surf ace C:onductance Area (Ft2) (BTU/HR-°F) 3.75 0.287 2.43 0.287
- 1. 74 0.250 1.25 0.294 0.56 0.268
- 1. 04 0.294
- 1. 46 0.250 0.76 0.250 0.56 0.250 0.78 0.250 1.55 0.259 1.42 0.259 0.31 0.259 1.17 0.830 0.20 0.259 8.44 1.100 A
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
~
TABLE 2 Page IV-16 Report 44439-2 REV;I:SION A Effective Heat Transfer Rates Used in Computer Simulation Between the Steam and Exposed surfaces
~-
Component Effective Unit Surf ace Conductance (BTU/Hr-Ft2-°F Name I.D. #
Seconds Time 0 to 26 Time 26 Seconds Fisher-50 EP Porter 1041 BCKA 12.0 6.0 Fisher-50 EQ Porter 1041BCXA-NS Barton Mod.288A As co LBX831614 Valve or LB831654 Kerotest 3/8-X58M Conoflow FL60XT-Kl M.N.
Regulator No. 77-4 Barton P.T.
Model 386 I
Kerotest 3/8-X58M Terminal Block
.2Bll2N As co LBX831614 As co LBX831654 As co 83146 Fisher.,.P Porter EP 546 Ashcroft 2 in. P.G Ho~fman No I.D.
ox A
46 0782 Surface Temperature
+-+-H-++-+-+-J +-1-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-1 +-l-+-l-+-1-+-1-1-+-4-1-+++-+-+ *-~pr Ana],ysis Use Only
..I J :
A
.. 120
.... --*-.. *---* -*------- -- --+*------*
H-!-+-!---!-!-+-+-1--!-+-+-l--+-!-!-+-+-!-+-!-!-+-+-1-l-+-l-I 1~1- =**.*-*.*.* ~*~ =0' 0
'_?= -~ 20 = ~~~ ~~4o ~- ~ >
60 *.. ~- ~ ** so ***
.. I
~,-
.. =. :~ - :::
.. u 100 I..
Seconds-
I 46 0782
_UJJI 11 __
1J 1 L 1
11LJ1_
11 1
1 1 n I 1 1 1
1Tff'~.
1
- ir *r 1
1 1r
-Ii I i I.* _.
! 11* ~11 ~~--
-++..+-+-l-+-4:-+--__[_Jlli,"l_f--_!_L_~---ll-+-rl,=-ttlll----~1+-I-- I_ *-- -~.-- ----~~f----* _,_ - ---f----1-f--l*rr
-Ir!
II i l 1 1
I I
I u
! I I 11 I
' ! I 1 I :( LOCA Test Data (TC 12)
I 111 i1 I --____ 1: trr I{
. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J
1 J I Computer Simulation Data (Node 110) i I 1 --,-
1 1
-+-+-+-+-!-+-. 1 1
- - -~~
1 1r-,<f if f 11\\I i Ti~ 111 1 1 1 1-1 11
- 1... -
- I __
I I I
n~I ~ ~ !
~~~ 3l~rn ~.,~* *8 *~,:,* ~
- rn j~~~~~=:~~~fi~;~~~l, I ~* _JJJL
<lJ ---
200
~
... ~
- - - - -~11
<1>
'l '
-* := - -~; *=~I~: ~ =-f
~ ~ ~~ ~~~= ~ :
~ ~~~
~-: ~ ~ ~ -:
=
- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~ =-~ ~ ~ := =
~ -~ = : := -
++-++-f-++**--+
.. *-+* *+--*+--*µ-1--1. -+++-l-+..j--.jl-+--l--l-+-++-l-+--1--H---l-l--l--l-I- -.. *-~ -~~ ~~ A r
,..