ML20127G386
| ML20127G386 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1992 |
| From: | WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19303F189 | List: |
| References | |
| WCAP-13571, NUDOCS 9301210243 | |
| Download: ML20127G386 (17) | |
Text
. _ ____...._..___._ _ _ _ _._._ _____ _._-.___ _ _ _._ _.._=..__._ ___,_
i i
WESTINGHOUSE CLASS 3 (Non Proprietary)
I WCAP 13571 1
t i
i t
i PRESSURIZER SURGE LINE LEAK-BEFORE BREAK FOR COMANCHE PEAK UNIT 2 r
PRESENTATION MATERIALS December 1992 t
l f
i
[
Westinghouse Electric Corporation Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, PA 15230
- 1992 Westinghouse Electric Corporation All Rights Reserved -
'9301210243 930113'.
PDR-ADOCK 0S000446
}
M.
PDR 1
.._2.,2-...;..__._-
- -. -..., _,. _. ~.,.. - -
i I
t i
ENCLOSURE 2 WCAP 13571, PRESSURIZER SURGE LINE LEAK BEFORE BREAK FOR COMANCHE PEAK UNIT 2. PRESENTATI0H HATERIALS (NON PROPRIETARY VERSION) v i
l
. - -. - -. =. - -.
-.._~..
4 1
J.
1 a
'i l
4 1
i-4 L
I-A meeting was held on November 2,1992, between TU Electric, Westinghouse, and the i
NRC Staff to discuss additional information concerning the application of leak-before break technology to the pressurizer surge line for Comanche Peak Unit 2.
1-The presentation materials are included within.
i-i t
P e
4 i
1 d
e
}
i 6.
g,
i 2
~
r i
i F
i.
I h
I i
i i
4
-...3
~s e
s
- 4Awa, m
4
.-,,-m 1+_.
-' ~ -
,w A,s L
- -,.-n a
s
.u e
4 i
4 1
PRESSURIZER St[RGE LINE l
LEAK BEFORE BREAK FOR COMANCHE PEAK UNIT 2
=
l 4
i t
4
-f
- -. =. - -
1 l
1 2
CHRONOLOGY FEBRUARY 1992 ANALYSIS OF PRESSURIZER SURGE LINE LBB SUBMITTED BY TU ELECTRIC I
JULY 1992 NRR REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION j
ON DETERMINATION OF LEAK FLAW SIZE AND DETERMINATION GOVERNING LOCATIONS l
AUGUST 1992 TU ELECTRIC RESPONSE TO JULY RAI NOVEMBER 1992 MEETING TO RESOLVE CONCERNS REGARDING CODE USED IN LBB ANALYSIS OF UNIT 2 SURGE LINE 4
+
4
}
l 2
4
4 5
0 NODE LOCATION 1920-m 4
HI6IEST STIESSED 1020 mi LE6 I
WLDL.0CAil0N e
3
f s-n 4
l Conservatisms in the LBB Methodology
- o Algebraic Sum of Loads for Leakage
)
o Absolute Sum of Loads for Stability l
0 Factor of 10 on Leak Rate o
Factor of 2 on Leakage Flaw i
i Standard Review Plan 3.6.3 1
2 Conservatisms in the Analysis o
Average Material Properties for Leakage j
o Minimum Material Properties for Stabllity 4
4 i
I k
i l
4 l
1 t
LOW PROBABILITY OF A, o, e OCCURRENCE OF LOAD CASE 1
~ ' ' ' '
o O
s.e e.
o As indicated in the surge line report, is judged to be a low probability event.
It would Fequir the maximum
~
heatup/cooldown stratification case to occur simultaneously 4
with the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) event following leakage detection at 100% power.
t 5.
.n 5
J e
5
I 4
E WESTINGHOUSE AND PICEP c
RESULTS FOR CASE ~'"A" LEAK RATE Westinghouse method uses two programs. They are:
o 4
. W, % e This program calculates the crack opening ares
-%c t s
This program calculates the leak from tg crack opening area obtained by[
]Ttwo phase nuld conditons).
To correspond with the 10 gpm leakage margin,
,c,e o
Westinghouse estimates a leakage naw size of[
]
inches.
i The PICEP program calculates both the crack opening o
area and the leak from that area.
To correspond with the 10 gpm leakage margin, o
PICEP estimates a leakage naw size of 5.0 inches.
4 6
PICEP OVER FREDICTION OF LEAKAGE SIZE FLAW o
Crack Opening Area Predictions, o
PICEP over predicts the leakage size naw by under-predicting the crack opening areas.
The next overhead, which shows experimental data
,c,e o
from a four point bend test, indicates that the[
]
(Westinghouse method) shows excellent agreement with the test data, while for crack opening areas greater than 0.01 in', PICEP under predicts the opening area.
For a 0.02 in' opening area PICEP under-predicts this area by about 40%
o Flow rate predictions.
s o
Limited test data at 2.7 GPM shows that PICEP under predicted the now by 18 24% while the Westinghouse method [
]Ii'nd'er predicted the now by only 1-2% This is shown in the overhead with the table..
s,c.e o
Based on. the limited experiments, predicts the test data better than PICEP..
7 0
I 1
1 i
4!
m o
a.
g o
d, t
a l
I i
I 3
.8 3
i i
=
R I
i i
E I
o
'-6 i
t
.O-i k-k 8
(SdDI-NI) ININCH (BIEN I
i g.
~
4 ywr-n
COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTALLY l
DETERMINED LEAK RATES l
AND ANALYTICAL PREDICTIONS w,c,e l
N e
~
9
l CONCLUSION i
i Following are the reasons why Westinghouse is convinced o
that the 5.0 inch leakage flaw size calculated _"by',PICEP does not challenge the LBB integrity of the Comanche Feak Unit 2 surge line:
The conservatisms in the LBB methodology.
=
i The low probability of occurrence of the load case
=
a.,c,4
\\
a,,c, e The excellent agreement of the results
=
with experimental data.
The tendency of PICEP to under prbict leak rates by 3
=
i 18 24% compared against the same data.
4 k
a l
10 1
NORMAL LOAD (CASE B) AND FAULTED LOAD (CASE G)
Normal Faulted Normal Faulted Normal Faulted Fx lb.
FXlb.
My(in.
My(in.
Mz (in-Mz (In.
Ib) lb)
Ib)
Ib)
Pressurt 219,721 41,781 0
0 0
0 DW 2,690 2,690 83,520 83,520 178,260 178,260 i
_2A6 SSE 9,080 1,887,220 589,390 ap,e TOTAL j
a, Normal Faulted
.%c,e Fx (Ib)
Mb (in lb) 11
-.