ML20079G163
| ML20079G163 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 01/13/1984 |
| From: | Kemper J PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20079G166 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8401190445 | |
| Download: ML20079G163 (18) | |
Text
__ - _-_
i PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY 23O1 M ARKET STREET P.O. BOX 8699 PHILADELPHIA. PA.19101 8
JOHN S. KEMPER V IC E-PR E51 D E NT 5 NGINEE RON4b AND RESE ARCH Mr. A. Schwencer, Chief Docket Nos.: 50-352 Licensing Branch No. 2 50-353 Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Subject:
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Structural Steel Fire Resistance
References:
(1) Summary of December 13, 1983 Meeting from L. L. Kintner to Philadelphia Electric dated December 23, 1983.
(2) Letter from J. S. Kemper to A. Schwencer dated January 4, 1984 (3) Telecon bet. ween L. Kintner, R. Furguson and R. Eberly (NRC) and G. M. Morley, D. M. Groves
}
and J. L. Phillabaum (PECO) on January 13, 1984 i
File GOVT l-1 (NRC)
I-
Dear Mr. Schwencer:
?
l Reference (1) requested that we provide a comparison between the actual results and results predicted by the Limerick structural steel survivability calculational methodology for NRC sponsored tests performed at Underwriters Laboratories as published in NUREG/CR-3192. Reference (2) provided the comparison summary of the correlation of our Heat Balance l
Model with Experiment No. 3 and Test No. 1 of the UL Test Results.
Enclosed as Attachment I is the comparison results of our Heat Balance Model with Test No. 1 through Test No. 6 and Experiment No. 3.
The comparison eunnary for Test No. I and Experiment No. 3 which were provided by reference (2) have been refined and included in Attachment I.
Included as Attachment II are the results of analysis for the three remaining plant areas which contain safe shutdown equipment and exposed structural steel members. The three areas in Attachment II as promised by reference (2) are the Unit 1 Refueling Floor, Spray Pond Pump Structure,
.and a Unit 1 Reactor Enclow re pipe chase.
O ih[0 F
[, " ;...
\\-
'.. "This - letter completes our response to the. requests ' transmitted by reference - (1).
As agreed upon in. the reference (3) conference call we will be prepared to describe alternative fire protection measures (water suppression, encapsulation, steel coating, etc.) considered or in progress at this times respond to any comments on -our correlation of UL test results,' Heat. Balance Model,or reference-(2); and provide any additional information gained fram, our field review on. localized, structural steel
'. effects and tra.n~' ant combustibles at the meeting scheduled'for 1:00 PM on January 31, 19N Sincerely, 4 S M.~ h JLP/gra/011084855 Enclosures
- Copy. to: See Attached Service List
-cc:
Judga Lawr:ncs Branner (w/ enclosure)
Judge Peter A. Morris (w/ enclosure)
Judge Richard F. Cole (w/ enclosure)
Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
(w/ enclosure)
' Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq.
(w/ enclosure)
Mr. Frank R. Romano (w/ enclosure)
Mr. Robert L. Anthony (w/ enclosure Mr. Marvin I. Lewis (w/ enclosure)
Charles W. Elliot, Esq.
(w/ enclosure)
Zori G. Ferkin, Esq.
(w/ enclosure)
Mr. Thomas Gerusky (w/ enclosure)
Director, Penna._ Emergency (w/ enclosure)
Management Agency Mr. Steven P. Hershey (w/ enclosure)
Angus Love, Esq.
(w/ enclosure)
Mr. Joseph H. White, III (w/enclor'ure)
David Wersen, Esq.
(w/ enclosure)
Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.
(w/ enclosure)
Spence W. Perry, Esq.
(w/ enclosure)
Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq.
(w/ enclosure)
Atomic Safety & Licensing (w/ enclosure)
Appeal Board Atomic Safety & Licensing (w/ enclosure)
Board Panel Docket & Service Section (w/ enclosure)
Martha W. Bush, Esq.
(w/ enclosure)
James Wiggins (w/ enclosure) l
Attachment I Ccmparison of PECO Heat Balance Model-With NUREG/CR-3192 9
Data for the tests u:yuri.ed on in NUREG/CR-3192 has been received frm Sandia National Laboratories; enabling us to cmplete a mrmlison between the results of the UL tests and the calculated tenperatures from the PEXb heat balance model. We have evaluated Tests 1 through 6 and Experiment 3.
'Ihe
. results of the cxmparison are as follows:
- Test 1 5 gallons Heptanc and non-qualified cables (PE/PVC)
Experimental peak tenperatures at 5 minutes Duration - 15 minutes Heat release rate 1160 W Heptane 1750 m Cables 2910 KW Total PBOo Heat Balance t'almlated Tenperature
- 1284*F
- 784'?
Test'1 Average Ibom Tenp.
Test.1 Tenp without lowest level thernoccuples - 1212*F Test 2 5 gallons Heptane and qualified cables (XLPE)
Experimental peak tenperatures at 6 minutes Duration - 14 minutes Heat' release rate Case A Case B 1160 W Heptane 1160 W Heptane 1234 m Cables 1410 m Cables 2394 KW Total 2570 m Total PB00 Heat Balance Calculated Tenperature
- 1036'F 1106*F 659*F Test 2 Average Rocm Tenp.
Test 2 Tenp without' lowest level thernoccuples -.-1027 F Test 3 l
5 gallons Heptane and non-qualified cables with ceramic fiber blanket
(
. Experimental peak temperature at 15 minutes Duration - 20 minutes-l' Heat release rate 1160 W Heptane i
1312 KW Cables 2472 m Total l
PECo Heat' Balance Calculated Tenperature
- 1261'F
. Test 3 Average Room Tenp.
- 539'F Test 3 Tenp without lowest level thermocouples - 753*F
['
O
=
,,-s n,-m
.e--,
--r-a-~,--
m-r-
-mc,
-r--
I Test 4 5 gallons Heptane and qualified cables with ceramic fiber blanket Experimental peak tenperature at 16 minutes Duration - 30 minutes Heat release rate 1160 W Heptane 575 W Cables 1735 W Total PECo Heat Balance Calculated Tenperature
- 1094*F 519*F Test 4 Average Rocm Tenp.
Test 4 Tenp without lowest level thermocouples - 742*F
'Ibst 5 5 gallons Heptane and nonqualified coated cables Experimental peak tecperature at 10 minutes Duration - 20 minutes Heat release rate 1160 W Heptane 1312 W Cables 2472 W Total PECo Heat Balance Calculated Tenperature
- 1261*F 560*F Test 5 Average Roczn Tenp.
Test 5 Temp without lowest level thermocouples - 789 F Test 6 5 gallons Heptane and qualified coated cables Experimental peak tenperature at 19 minutes Duration - 23 minutes Heat release rate 1160 W Heptane 693 W Cables 1853 m Total PECo Heat Balance Calculated Tenperature
- 1028"F 559*F Test 6 Average Rocrn Terp.
Test 6 Terp without lowest level thermocouples - 774 F Experiment 3 10 gallons Heptane Experimental peak temperature at 20 minutes Duration - 25 minutes Heat release rate 1160 W Heptane PECo Heat Balance Calculated Tenperature
- 696*F Exper 3 Average Rocm 'Ibnp.
- 524 F Exper 3 Tenp without lowest level thermocouples - 710*F The abcVe caparisons were made on the following bases:
1.
Average temerature calculation: Sandia Laboratories provided thermocouple readings and tsperature plots for the six full-scale tests conducted by UL. '1hese readings were used to calculate-a volumetric average of the 76 tNmmmuple locations (Figure 1). 'In evaluating the data, thermocouples #26 and 28 were not functioning properly, #56 was not included in the data and #31 and 32 were interchanged. To replace #26 and 28, thernoccuples #102 and 100, respectively, were used (see p. 116, NUREG/CR 3192). The value for #56 was taken to be-the average of
-adjacent thermocouples #44 and 68.
The test romt was divided into the 76 zones shown on Figure 2.
Each of these zones was assigned the terperatures of the thermocouple within the zone. Weighted volumetric averaging was then performed by using the follotdng fornula.
NI T xv 1
1 i=1
=T N{
Vi i=1 Where V. = Each of the 76 volumes shown on Figure 2 1
T. = 'Ihe thermocouple data for V.
1 1
All 76 zones were used in calculating the average roarn tenperature. An average tenperature for the upper portion of t.he roczn was calculated by eliminating the lower layer of thermocouples and their associated volunes. The average terperatures were calculated using the peak tenperatures frcun the test data.
2.
Heat Release Rate Heptane - Literature values for heat release rates for flanmable liquidpoolfiresgepallyandheptanespecificallyvaryintherange of 2500 to 3300 kW/m. For the Sandia and UL tests, the heat release rate was calculated by taking the total heat yalue of the fuel divided by the duration of the fire, and is 1966 kW/m. The table below shows the heat release rate for the heptane fire using this data.
f-
_4_
l Heat Release Rate for Heptane Pool Fire O
Source 913 kW Sandia/UL - NUREG/CR-3192
.1160 kW Based on 120,000 BTU / gal - Coulbert Fire f ~.
Technology Aug. 1977 2
1530 kW ENRC-Alpert & Ward, SFPE-TR 83-2 h methodology used for Limerick for pool fires was based on Coulbert's approach. Therefore, for this conparison, the value of 1160 kW was used.
- Cables - The heat release rate for the non-qualified PE/PVC was calculated using the mass loss data and heat of combustion similar to the methodology used for Limerick. The EM test data (see EPRI NP-1881) for Pg/PVC was used. This yields a heat
. release rate of 628 kW m of cable tray.
/
In the case of the qualified (IEEE 383) XLPE cables, no large scale test data was available similar to that on PE/PVC or hypalon jacket conducted by ENRC. To develop the heat release rate for these cables, the small scale tests outlined in EPRI NP 1200 (see Table S-4) were used as a couparison to develop a heat release rate. Two such values were developed. The first was developed by taking the PE/PVC data from EPRI NP-1881 and multiplying by the ratio of small scale heat release rates' from EPRI NP-1200 as follows:
2 2
628 kW/m x 475 XLPE
= 506 kW/m frcm PE/PVC 589 PE/PVC The second was developed by taking the hypalon data and nultiplying by the ratio of strall scale heat release rates as follows:
2 2
190 kW/m x 475 XLPE
= 443 kW/m from hypalon 204 hypalon These corparisons yield a range of heat release rates for Test 2 of 1234 kW - 1410 kW.
In the cases where cable protection schemes were provided (i.e.,
ceramic fiber insulation or cable coatings) no test data exists regarding heat release rates. Ib estimate these heat release rates, the duration of the fire for protected cables was conpared to that of unprotected cables. The heat release rate was then developed by multiplying the heat release rate of the unprotected cables by the ratios of fire duration.
u,o E
3.
Fire duration: 'Ihe fire duration was determined fran the thermvnyle readings in' the fire plane -(Nos. 13, 14,~15, and 16 on Figure'1). _ Nhen the tenperature of these thenmuples dropped sharply,- the fire was assumed to be coupleted.'
Sunmary
_ 'Ihe results of the work undertaken to.ccupare the test ' data of the UL test fires analyzed by Sandia National Iaboratories in NUREG/CR-3192 with the analysis of identical ~ fires using the PE00 heat balance node indicate that the model predicts tenperatures which are higher than the weighted volunetric average tenperatures obtained fran the test data. Note that'the calculated average tenperatures fran the test data are based on instantaneous maxinun peak values.
To perform calculations for these ocuparisons. required that-assunptions be made for burn rates and heat releases because no data was available for some of the materials being burned. 'Ihe input to the Limerick:and Peach Bottan calculations have been gathered from test data
- and were not based upon assunptions.-
'Ihe heat balance methodology is not intended for use as a tool for ~
4 calculating a preuse tenperature that results fran a fire. The intended
. application ~is that of a conservative screening device in the process of
-determining the. survivability of structural steel during a fire. In addition to using the heat balance model to determine overall room or area F
tenperatures localized effects of fires on the structural steel are evaluated. 'Ihis is acotr.plished by looking at the planes of the hypothesized fires. Once tenperatures are obtained from these devices steel tenperatures are calculated by using the methodology presented by
+
Stanzak as. submitted with our calculations.
t f
4 4
Ins:mtk 1/13/84-1
FI G O.R E i
N'N\\\\\\\\\\s=
NS t
Nu b
N8 e
\\n NI N"
\\NNN e
1 N\\
w N
s N
i N
E
\\
a w
n s
\\
1
.?
.E o
N 5-i j
4 N
g N
-~
)s
?*
N 1
\\x o
F 4
a 4
4 N
g
=
N a-3
=*
a NT 3
s a
a 3
s 2
Ng>
m s$
l
[
N' i o N
E
\\
8 k
O N
I N
e:;
N g
N\\
\\
l 4
e e
2 s
1 NN c
1
=,,, = ! =...,
l
,3..
=l
.s,
d,l.,l-
-l.s c \\
.s.
=
fus vac 2 N
N
\\\\\\
e N,
\\w
/
\\s e..
\\\\k o
\\C
\\Ng Ne
\\*to
\\
o*
\\
C N
Tr x\\
d
\\
a N
j\\x
'o e
e e
e 4
\\\\
L e
e
\\
2
'N o
's e
e e
e o e e
\\
Y
\\
E N
g
~
. e e e
\\
3
\\2 e
. e.
N s.
?
hs a w w
a
\\o C
4<
t R
NE c
\\
3
\\
o L
\\
\\
e. e
\\
L k
-/
!\\
- \\
l I.
y r, e
e.
e S
S
,st 's sf,1N'w tN =, sve
,si s st
CASE'NO.: 1 BUILDING:
ELEVATION AND AREA DESCRIPTION: UL TEST 1
' CASE DESCRIPTION:
c** ************+.>**************************************************************
CEILING / WALL THICKNESS CEILING / WALL MATERIAL AO HO AW Q
(FT.)
SQ. FT.
FT.
SQ. FT.
KW c**$******++********************************************************************
- 0. 7 CONCRETE BLOCK 32 8
1130 2910 FIRE IS FUEL CONTROLLED FIRE DURATION-GAS TEMPERATURE (MIN.)
(DEG. F) 1 385.992 2
515.835 3
614.939 4
598.583 5
772.325 6
839.021 7
900.372 8
957.490 9
1011.14 10 1051.90 11 1110.17 12 1155.31 13 1200.55 14 1243.14 15 1284.23 n
n,_,
.-e.
t CASE NO.:.2-A BUILDING:
. ELEVATION AND AREA DESCRIPTION: UL TEST 2 CASE DESCRIPTION:
c*oc****************************************************************************
CEILING / WALL THICKNESS CEILING / WALL MATERIAL AO HD AW Q
(FT.)
SQ. FT.
FT.
- 50. FT.
KW c*0 ****************************************************************************
- 0. 7 CONCRETE BLOCK 32 8
1130 2394 FIRE IS FUEL CONTROLLED FIRE DURATION GAS TEMPERATURE (MIN.)
(DEG. F) 1 331.505 2
437.425 3
518.902 4
587.574 5
548.308 5
703.153 7
753.505 8
800.579 9
844.705 10 885.448 11 925.155 12 954.101 13 1000.49 14 1035.52 l
l J
l
CASE NO.: 2-8 BUILDING:
ELEVATION AND AREA DESCRIPTION: UL TEST 2 CASE DESCRIPTION:
cc**o*************************************************m*********+****************
LCEILING/ WALL THICKNESS CEILING / WALL MATERIAL (M3 HO AW Q
.(FT.)
SQ. FT.
FT.
SQ. FT.
KW d
c**o****************************************************************************
- 0. 7
' CONCRETE BLOCK 32 8
1130 2570 FIRE IS FUEL CONTROLLED FIRE DURATION GAS TEMPERATURE (MIN.)
(DEG. F) 1 350.438 2
454.172 3
551.559 4
525.533 5
590.607 6
749.494 7
803.554 8
854.097 9
901.473 10 945.290 11 988.922 12 1029.55 13 1968.73 14 1105.33 1
=
--y-r--,--
CASE NO.I 3 BUILDING:
ELEVATION AND AREA DESCRIPTION: UL TEST 3 CASE DESCRIPTION:
c*0cc***************************************************************++++++++**++
. CEILING / WALL THICKNESS CEILING / WALL MATERIAL AO HO AW Q
(FT.)
SQ. FT.
FT.
SQ. FT.
KW ccccce**************************************************************************
- 0. 7 CONCRETE BLOCK 32 8
1130 2472 FIRE IS FUEL CONTROLLED FIRE DURATION GAS TEMPERATURE (MIN.)
(DEG. F) 1 339.897 2
449.280 3
533.419 4
604.439 5
657.054 5
723.690 7
775.791 8
824.297 9
859.854 10 912.959 11 953.973 12 993.155 13 1030.74 14 1055.90 15 1101.80 15 1135.55 17 1158.27 18 1200.05 l
19 1230.95 20 1251.04 l
l l
l I
CASE NO.
4 BUILDING:
ELEVATION AND AREA DESCRIPTION: UL TEST 4 CASE DESCRIPTION:
c*******************************************************************************
CEILING / WALL THICKNESS CEILIN3/ WALL MATERIAL AO HD AW Q
(FT.)
SQ. FT.
FT.
SQ. FT.
KW c*oc****************************************************************************
- 0. 7 CONCRETE BLOCK 32 8
1130 1735 FIRE IS FUEL' CONTROLLED FIRE DURATION GAS TEMPERATURE (MIN.)
(DEG. F) 1 250.524 2
337.229 3
395.223 4
445.019 5
489.925 5
529.542 7
555.181 8
500.201 9
532.152 10 552.397 11 591.150 12 718.545 13 745.013 14 770.385 15 794.859 15 818.552 17 841.505 18 853.795 19 885.475 20 305.594 21.
927.192 22 947.305 23 956.957 24 985.207 25 1005.05 25 1023.52 27 1041.54 28 1059.42 29 1075.90 30 1094.07 y
CASE NO.
5 BUILDING:
ELEVATION AND. AREA DESCRIPTION: UL TEST 5 CASE DESCRIPTION:
c*oc***************************>************************************************
CEILING / WALL THICKNESS CEILING / WALL MATERIAL AO HD AW Q
(FT.)
SQ. FT.
FT.
SQ. FT.
KW c*o*****************************************************************************
- 0. 7 CONCRETE BLOCK 32 8
1130 2472 FIRE IS FUEL-CONTROLLED FIRE DURATION GAS TEMPERATURE (MIN.)
(DEG. F) 1 339.897 2
409.280 3
533.419 4
504.439 5
557.054 5
-723.590 7
775.791 8
824.297 9
G59.854 10 912.959 11 953.973 12 993.155 13 1030.74 14 1055.90 15 1101.80 15 1135.55 17 1158.27 18 1200.05 l
19 1230.95 20 1261.04 I
t I
CASE NO.s 5 BUILDING:
ELEVATION AND AREA DESCRIPTION: UL TEST 5 CASE' DESCRIPTION:
c** ****************************************************************************
CEILING / WALL THICKNESS CEILING / WALL MATERIAL AO HD AW Q
(FT.)
SQ. FT.
FT.
SQ. FT.
KW c*co****************************************************************+***********
- 0. 7 CONCRETE BLOCK 32 8
1130 1853 FIRE IS FUEL CONTROLLED FIRE DURATION GAS TEMPERATURE (MIN.)
(DEG. F) 1 273.248 2
355.178 3
418.194 4
471.385 5
518.287 5
550.711 7
599.741 8
535.050 9
570.218 10 702.514 11 733.235 12 752.595 13 790.757 14 817.858 15 844.010 15 859.305 17 893.821 18 917.529 19 940.785 20 953.343 21 985.343 22 1005.82 23 1027.82 l
l l
l l
l l
CASE NO.: 7 BUILDING:
ELEVATION AND AREA DESCRIPTION: UL EXPERIMENT 3 CASE DESCRIPTION:
- ++++**********************************************************++*********
-CEILING / WALL THICKNESS CEILING / WALL MATERIAL AO HD AW Q
-(FT.)
SQ.- FT.
FT.
- 50. FT.
KW C*******************************************************************************-
- 0. ';
CONCRETE BLOCK 32 8
1130 1150 FIRE IS FUEL CONTROLLED FIRE DURATION GAS TEMPERATURE (MIN.)
(DEG. F) 1 198.387 2
249.558 3
289.088 4
322.355 5
351.589 G
378.222 7
402.532 8
425.350 9
445.712 10 455.913 11 485.130 12 504.494 13 522.111 h
14 539.055 15 555.425 15 571.250 l
17 586.587 p
18 501.483
[
19 515.971 20 530.084 i
21 543.848 22 557.290 23 570.430 24 583.288 25 595.881 l
l
- - -