ML20064J383

Forwards Proprietary & Nonproprietary Reactor Cavity Asymmetric Loads & Requests Withholding of Proprietary Version (Ref 10CFR2.790)

ML20064J383
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	01/07/1983
From:	Weisemann R WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP.
To:	Adensam E, Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML19262H106	List: ML20064J376 ML20064J383
References
CAW-83-1, NUDOCS 8301180051
Download: ML20064J383 (18)

Text

.

Nuclear Technology Division Westinghouse Water Reactor Electric Corporation Divisions Box 355 Pittsburgh Pennsylvania 15230 January 7, 1983 CAW-83-1 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Ref: Duke Power Company V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Letter, Tucker to Washington, D. C. 20555  :-- Denton,, January 1983 Attention: Ms. E. G. Adensam, Chief l' . _ , ,h Licensing Branch No. 4 '

" % ]'h I E.33 REACTOR CAVITY ASYMMETRIC LOADS

"' D

Dear Mr. Denton:

L. c . ' ' m Co.vs .

The proprietary material for which withholding is being requested by Duke Power Company is proprietary to Westinghouse and withholding is requested pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations. Withholding from public disclosure is requested with respect to the subject information which is further identified in the affidavit accompanying this application.

Accordingly, withholding the subject information from public disclosure us requested in accordance with the previously submitted affidavit, AW-76-ll, a copy of which is attached.

Accordingly, this letter authorizes the use of the proprietary information and affidavit AW-76-11 by Duke Power Company for Catawba Units 1 and 2.

Correspondence with respect to this application for withholding or the accompanying affidavit should reference CAW-83-1 and be addressed to the undersigned.

Very truly yours, Robert A. Wiesemann, Manager

/bek Regulatory & Legislative Affairs Enclosure cc: E. C. Shomaker, Esq.

- Office of the Executive Legal Director, NRC -

8301100051 830113 PDR ADOCK 05000413 A PDR

(

AW-/6-1I AFFIDAVIT COMM0ffWEALTH OF PEtli45YLVAfilA:

ss COUtlTY OF ALLEGHEt1Y:

Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Robert A. Wiesemann, who, being by me duly sworn according to law, de-poses and says that he is authorized to execute this Affidavit on tehalf of Westinghou'se Electric Corporation (" Westinghouse") and that the aver-ments of fact set forth in this Affidavit are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief:

' ~

b c'd. ..tlllti '

Robert A. Wiesemann, Manager Licensing Programs Sworn to and subscribed befo ethis/MIday of /(2t/ 1976.

f$$$

/

. ll / ifl!/ /(.

Notary Public

/

O e

' I

~ AW I l  !

i l

i i

(1) I am Manager, Licensing Programs, in the Pressurized Water Reactor i

Systems Division, of Westinghouse Electric Corporation and as such, I have been specifically delegated the function of reviewing the proprietary information sought to be withheld from public dis-closure in connection with nuclear power plant licensing or rule-l making proceedings, and am authorized to apply for its withnolding on behalf of the Westinghouse Water Reactor Divisions.

i (2) I,am making this Affidavit in conformance with the provisions of 10 CFR Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations and in con-junction with the Westinghouse application for withholding ac-

• companying this Affidavit.

(3) I have personal knowledge of the criteria and procedures utilized by Westinghouse Nuclear Energy Systems in designating information as a trade secret, privileged or as confidential commercial or financial information.

(4)

Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b)(4) of Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, the following is furnished for consideration by the Commission in determining whether the in-formation sought to be withheld from public disclosure should be withheld.

(1) The information sought to be withheld from public disclosure is owned and has been held in confidence by Westingh.$use.

l l

l l

-.~r., . . . . - - .,n. . - , -- - -. - - - - - - . - . - - . - - -

AW-)'t ,- I l (ii) The infonnation is of a type customarily held in confidence by Westinghouse and not customarily disclosed to the public.

Westinghouse has a rational basis for determining the types of information customarily held in confidence by it and, in that connection, utilizes a system to determine when and whether to hold certain types of information in confidence.

~

The application of that system and the su" stance of that system constitutes Westinghouse policy and provides the rational basis required.

Under that system, information is held in confidence if it falls in one or more of several types, the release of which might result in the loss of an existing or potential com-

! petitive advantage, as follows:

(a) 'The information reveals the distinguishing aspects of a process (or component, structure, tool, method, etc.)

where prevention of its use by any of Westinghouse's l competitors without license from Westinghouse consti-I tutes a competitive economic advantage over other companies.

L l

(b) It consists of supporting data, including test data, relative to a process (or component, structure, tool, l

l method, etc.), the application of which data secures a competitive economic advantage, e.g., by optimization l or improved marketability.

i 9

?

AW1h,-1I (c) Its use by a competitor would reduce his expenditure of resources or improve his competitive position in the design, manufacture, shipment, installation, assurance of quality, or licensing a similar product.

(d) It reveals cost or price information, production cap-acities, budget levels, or commercial strategies of Westinghouse, its customers or suppliers.

(e) It reveals aspects of past, present, or future West-inghouse or customer funded development plans and pro-grams of potential commercial value to Westinghouse.

(f) It contains patentable ideas, for which patent pro-tection may be desirable.

(g) It is not the property of Westinghouse, but must be treated as proprietary by Westinghouse according to agreements with the owner.

There are sound policy reasons behind the Westinghouse system which include the following:

(a) The use of such information by Westinghouse gives Westinghouse a competitive advantage over its com-petitors. It is, therefore, withheld from disclosure to protect the Westinghouse competitive position.

e

I AW-/6-ll (b) It is infonnation which is marketable in many ways.

The extent to which such information is availdble to competitors diminishes the Westinghouse ability to sell products and services involving the use of the information.

(c) Use by our competitor would put Westinghouse at a competitive disadvantage by reducing his expenditure of resources at our expense.

(d) Each component of proprietary information pertinent to a particular competitive advantage is potentially as valuable as the total competitive advantage. If competitors acquire components of proprietary infor-mation, any one component may be the key to the entire

- puzzle, thereby depriving Westinghouse of a competitive advantage.

(e) Unrestricted disclosure would jeopariize the position of prominence of Westinghouse in the world market, and thereby give a market advantage to the competition in those countrics.

(f) The Westinghouse capacity to invest corporate assets in research and developmant depends upon the success in obtaining and maintaining a competitive advantage.

. AW-i6-ll l

(iii) The information is being transmitted to the Commission in confidence and, under the provisions of 10 CFR Section 2.790, it is to be received in confidence by the Commission.

(iv) The information is not available in public sources to the best of our knowledge and belief.

(v) The proprietary information sought to be withheld in this submittal is that which is bracketed in WCAP-7593, Rev. 2 and WCAP-8708 transmitted by Westinghouse letter NS-CE-1075, Eicheldinger to Vassallo, dated May 13, 976. The letter

' and attachment are being submitted in partial response to the April 1976 NRC questions arising out of the review of the Westinghouse reports WCAP-7593, Rev. 2, " Description of Blowdown-2 Computer Program" and WCAP-8708, MULTIFLEX, A Fortran-IV Computer Program for Analyzing Thermal-Hydraulic

! Structure System Dynamics."

This information enables Westinghouse to:

l (a) Justify the design basis for hydraulic forcing functions following postulated loss of coolant accidents.

(b) Assist its customers to obtain licenses.

(c) Justify the model and conservative assumptions used in hydraulic forcing functions during the subcooled de-i compression.

I, e

f

- - ~ - - -

, , , - - . - - - , - , . , - , , . - - - , , , - + - ~ - - - ~ - - -

- AWr/6-il (d) Verify applicability of design model.

Further, this information has substantial commercial value as follows: ,

(a) Westinghouse sells the use of the information to its customers for purposes of meeting NRC requirements for licensing documentaticn.

(b) Westinghouse uses the information to perform and justify analyses which are sold to customers.

Public disclosure of this information 'is likely to cause sub-stantial harm to the competitive position of Westinghouse be-cause it would enable others to use the information to meet NRC requirements for licensing documentation without purchasing the right to use the information.

The development of this information is the result of many years t

of Westinghouse effort and the expenditure of a considerable sum of money.

In order for competitors of Westinghouse to duplicate this information, similar programs would have to be oerformed and a significant manpower effort, having the requisite talent and experience, would have to be expended for analyses verif-ication and code development.

I Further the deponent sayeth not.

4 o

- _ _ , _ _ _ . __ ,_. ,_-_,r__ , , , - - - - . - _

/

4 REACTOR CAVITY ASYMMETRIC LOADS .,

~

Response to CSB Draft SER Item on Page 30 relative to Reactor Cavity An7 lysis _

"Specifically, the applicant should show conformance with the provisions of Section 3.2.2.4 of NUREG-0609, Asymetric Blowdown Loads on PWR Primary Sys-tems ," dated January,1981.

Section 3.2.2.4 of NUREG-0609, Force-moment Calculations, requires the following to be applied to the translation of calculated pressure gradients into forces and moments.

1. The subcompartment nodal model used for the calculation of forces and moments should be the same model as that found acceptable for the cal-culation of pressure gradients.

Response: Both models are the same.

2. Projected areas onto a curved surface shall be based on projected planar areas. Then multiplication of the projected area by the calculated nodal pressure gives the force acting normal to the surface through the area centroid.

Response: This assumption was factored into the analysis.

3. Force calculations for components such as the reactor pressure vessel shall include loads resulting fr:om differential pressure acting across the vessel piping and nozzles.-

Response: Differential pressures acting across the vessel pipi,ng and nozzles were considered in the analysis.

we -

The following documents the pressurization nodal and force development for -

Catawba and'shows that the methodology is consistent with previously reviewed - '

cases for dynamic analysis of the reactor pressure vessel for postulated LOCA.

For Catawba Units 1 and 2, the primary shield wall stiffness was supplied by Duke Power Company. All other analysis input was obtained from Westinghouse Nuclear Energy Systems (WNES) organizations. Model formulation and analyses were performed by the Systems Structural Analysis group of WNES.

The final results of the WNES analysis are the displacements of the reactor pressure vessel and internals and the loads on the reactor vessel supports.

5

• b

(

l l

l I

f . \

a -

o STEAM ,

STEAM CROSSOVER GENERATOR I GENERATOR C20550VER LEG

..EG REACTOR COOLANT PUMP HOT LEG REACT 0g LOOP 4 LOOP i COOLAN T PUMP X

COLD LEG j COLD LEG I

I L, i g

.2,

. COLD LEG $

COLD LEG REACTOR CCOLANT PUMP REACTOR LOOP Z COOLANT LOOP 3 MOT LEG l -

l PUMP STEAM STEAh l I CROSSOVER j CR0550VEN GENERATOR I GENERATOR LEG LEG I .Z:

g - C00RolNATE SYSTEM FOR OREAK POSTULATED TO OCCUR IN COLD LEG l 322 2 - COORDINATE STSTEM FOR SREAK POSTULATED TO.,

OCCUR IN M0T LEG l

Coordinate Systems for Postulated Pipe Ruotures t

r e>

~

REhCTOR CCOLANT LOOP MECHANICAL LOAOS ]

Load at Indicated Break Location RPV RPV RCP inlet Outlet Outlet Load Component Nozzle Nozzle Nozzle a ,<. A,c

'~ ._ s,c Axial load (Fx) l-(kips)

Vertical load (Fy)

(kips)

Moment (Mz)

(in. kips) _ _

REACTOR CAVITY PRESSURIZATION LOADS 2

Reactor cavity forces arise from the hteam and water which are released into the reactor cavity through the annulus around the broken pipe. These forces occur

~

only for postulated breaks at the RPV nozzle safe end locations. The reactor cavity is pressurized asymetrically,.with high pressure on the side adjacent to the break. The horizontal differences in pressure across the reactor cavity result in horizontal forces on the reactor. vessel. Vertical fbrces on the reactor vessel arise from similar variations in pressure on the upper and lower head and the tapered parts of the reactor vessel .

Reactor cavity loads were calculated for an 85-square-inch guillotine break opening at the cold leg nozzle safe end. This break has been verified to be larger than the maximum possible open area, because of the place.nent of pipe restraints in the primary shield wall.

The reactor cavity loads applied to the DARI-WOSTAS model are shown in figures

1, 2 and 3. Vertical, horizontal and moment loads applied at the intersection of the vessel vertical and broken cold leg nozzle centerlines. The peak horizontal side force is approximately 2300 kips.

9

• e e

lll.

ll l l I!lk! '

l lll!l Ilt l }Il ll l -

'i i i lil i 'lill i ll i t it.i.

l l Il 11: l l i ill i ll I i tilii 1 ill il lt I i ilill; l l l tisti I

il I  ! I I Ilitll I i lli i i ll I i ,

11II I i 'l ill i i iiL i-i_. _ ili Il llt iIi .

/l i N I

~

i li ti ll ill i li

/ l I N iliIli Ii1111 ll

/ II I II NMt i . 4 I j i I ,

I i i

/ i i Gi i l c / I e

O -.r.

r I I r

I \ 1

\1

'** 1 l

i 1

l ll 1 1 1 1:

l l  !

l' l l I l j i l l l l Ill s

r

.l. ,

i l 1 l

-1 I I I I I I l_

0*2 M *

(LO On1 TIME (SEC) l l

CAVITY PRESSURE TOTAL HORIZONTAL LOAD i

l l

l FIGURE 1

l a

b0 _ ,

C L I E M s 1,Q ___

,_ ' I '

- n - ~

M 'L f A

N

%Q

.=

t v:-

g .-

J

%G c

0 -

w O

i tr LW O

u.

(

2.0 ~

i t.o t

-4.3

&O at 42 43 &*

TIME (SEC)

CAVITY PRESSURE VERTICAL LOAD FIGURE 2 l

O 9

• e e

e r

1 '  ! l

• 4  ! t ..,,, , , ,

I  ? I f a i , , i I ' '

I 4 i e , , ,  ;

.w 6 i e

i 4

i i i I f i i ,

i lll:'

_ 0! t e f ,

I p I  ! ,

I  !  ! t I  ! i 0 6 l 6 I 'i+ . . , ,

.a  ; , ,  : '

. , . . , , .  ; l 6 ' + . .. , ,

e i t * .

4 ,

• ' i * . j 6 i

.Lg f f

~

i I G2 "-

i i

• I J  ;  ; I j '

M \

W t i

? I L&e ) e

@ L.__

I o.-

6 .

J

~ 4g l  !

H ' 1 Z \ \

Lu

\

, 3 C 40 ,

2 L 1

. i

\

\

-7,3 I

t I.

40 ' s%_s

,W~ n a

% a '

f~

\ ,

%@%. .V

'%w"

' ' i

-10.0 40 &5 42 43 0.4 TIME (SEC)

CAVITY PRESSURE MOMENT LOAD FIGURE 3

l 1

The TMD computer code was used to calculate the pressure transients in the -

reactor cavity region. This program utilized the unaugmented homogeneous critical flow and the compressible subsonic flow. correlations.

A generic nodalization sensitivity study formed the basis for the mathematical model used to analyze the reactor cavity pressurization transients in the Catawba plant. The nodalization sensitivity study involved sequential increases in modeling detail of the narrow annulus around the reactor vessel and of the pipe annulus containing the postulated break. Two criteria were applied to verify the validity of the model: element detail was increased until no signi-ficant changes in integrated force resulted from further changes, and care was taken to make model flow boundaries conform to actual plant geometry without introducing spurious flow losses.

Figure 4 shows the general configuration of the reactor vessel annulus nodali-zation. Figure 5 illustrates the positions of some of the compartments.

In the model, the lower containment is divided into four loop compartments (21-24).

The upper containment is represented by compartment 32. The ice condenser is modeled as five elements neglecting any flow distribution effects. The break occurs in compartment 1, immediately around a nozzle. The corresponding pipe annulus and the upper reactor cavity are also compartments. The lower reactor cavity is compartment 2, and the remainder of the elements, as shown in figure 4, are in the reactor vessel annulus'.: Compartment 13 is on the opposite side of the vessel from the assumed break.'

~

. 9 o

l i .

' 2 5 6 7 2 2 2 ,

0 8

}U 1

2 3 4 2 2 2 0

0

[U 2

1 0 1 E t 9 C E 1 2 2 I

N E

V R 0 E D 0 F E 6 H P U O 4 5 , 7 8 C L 1 1 , 1 1 R

E I V 0 C E 3

)ll D

2 3 9 0 1 1 1 J 0 y 5 A(6 7 8

0 3

3

\ 2 3 4 5

3 3 .

3 0

[V3 0 0

3 8 9 K 2 3 2

A E

R B 0

. 4 T 2 S

E

_ R

_ A

_ E

_ N G

LM E O E N S T L I S T Z R E O

_ Z V B 0 L l

I A

_ E S

2 s o55EE5= % %< E m 5SC9a o*

m Ek ^

f m _

38

I

/ -_

f 3

' ~

w _

2 C ,

L 1

~~

- ' f, '

LQL) --i8'i l \

'J>

(Q D

37 h " 36 c L7 o D $'r s9 l n .,

'r 2

10 O ,4 h

'., O' l

COMPARTMENTALIZED VIEW 0F CONTAINMENT MODEL FIGURE 5 l