ML20216A852

Steam Line Break Qualification Evaluation

ML20216A852
Person / Time
Site:	McGuire, Mcguire
Issue date:	08/01/1985
From:	Orgera E, Queenan R BABCOCK & WILCOX CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20216A845	List: ML20216A839 ML20216A852 ML20216A869
References
51-1158880, 51-1158880-00, NUDOCS 9804130306
Download: ML20216A852 (15)

Text

~

Attachment Page:

3 4

BABCO'CK & WILCOX a McDermott company ENGINEERING INFORMATION RECORD

,- I

\\

Safety Related:

DOCUMENT IDENTFIER 51 - 1158880-00 YES O No O TITLE Steam Line Break Qualification Evaluation PREPARED BY b L "

0 ATE j

R.M. GoEEww suitm*Y NE REVIEWED BY A

DATE 8-I~

~

/

REMARKS:

This work, prepared for Florida Power, is a qualitative assessment of the vulnerability of in-containment equipment to a steam line break.

It is not supported by any testing or analysis specifically performed for the environmental conditions at Crystal River 3.

(

(

c.

NLa 1 54 (l

9804130306 980403 DR ADOCK 0500 9

s-

I Attachment Page:

4 0

+~

1.0

SUMMARY

l The purpose of this document is to assemble the data available at B&W regarding the comparative severity of steam line breaks (SLBs) and Loss of Coolant Accidents (LOCAs) on instrumentation and control equipment and to come to some, conclusions.

The conclusions reached are that the brief high vapor temperature peak during a SLB does not affect equipment performance more severely than the long high vapor temperature soak associated with LOCAs.

In fact, the peak is so brief that most equipment will not be affected by it at all.

2. 0 BACKGROUND _

In 1970, the pipe break accident analysis that showed the highest containment temperature was a LOCA, reaching over 300 degrees F for several hours.

However, in the mid-1970s, the effects of SLBs on instrumentation and control equipment became an NRC concern.

At that

time, the Containment Systems Branch issued Branch 4

Technical Position CSB 6-1 Rev 1,

enti tl ed " Minimum

('-

Containment Pressure Model for PWR ECCS Performance Evaluation."

This new model showed that during the first several minutes of a SLB, superheated steam was discharged and codfainment peak temperatures rose to near 500 degrees F.

Although CSB 6-1,was intended for use in anal yses of containment pressure integrity, the model was soon used to determine equipment qualification service conditions per the 1978 "CBS Interim Evaluation Model - Environmental Qualification for Main Steam Line Break Inside Containment (operation license applicants only)."

The model in IE Information Notice No. 84-90 is essentially the same.

3.0 TECHNICAL DISCUSSION Figure i shows a typical LOCA and SLB curve.

The SLB curve ri ses above the LOCA curve at 10 seconds into the event, and drops below at 150 seconds.

The LOCA curve has a long time dwell at over 250 degrees, while the SLB curve dwell is at 175 degrees.

It is clear from this that the only time in which the effects of a SLB on instrumentation may be more severe than a

LOCA is lt Lfi91

'U2 i(.

PREPARED By OATE ensu

Attachlitellt Pace:

5 l-

'n : o3.<.y..

l-3; a sq+.<.,n..::Q b

Babcock.&'Wilcor.

,, jdl;ijfMs;

. ".=*5.. m.....u;a.y))... :.: i.9[b; '..si0n58880:00N.

-(.

,ff. '

iss /fi*r&E.

h.i?@iW...... %,,,,2?-

~

N'-

LOCA AND SLB Temperature Profiles 450 -

SLB 400 -

350 -

h.

I.

L>.

ee 300 -

• e O

LOCA

~-

250 -

200 -

150 -

100 0

2 4

6 Seconds, power of ten

" Figure 1" (91

'M PREPARED BY CATE II

[ [ out I'l-ff 3

aEviewc0 ev nicc,,o

i Attachment Page:

6

.i

. (3 I. :.e.

.u.: -

t.. Exn i,rr 1158880-00

... 3.v.,

9 Fyh,f.fMNjih,f.,.:}h,Thd

,e r:

'r between 10 and 175 seconds.

After that, the SLB vapor temperature cannot raise the equipment temperature to LOCA l evel s.

3.1 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS B&W has addressed this problem in several different ways for different equipment.

When pressure transmitter qualification to the new SLB levels was requested by a customer in 1977, B&W undertook to show that the LOCA l

actually raised the temperature of the transmitter internals more than did a

SLB.

This was deemed reasonable, since the quick temperature peak of the SLB i

didn't allow much time f or heat transf er.

A two dimensional finite element thermal model' of a typical transmitter was developed, as shown in Figure 2.

Thicknesses, volumes, and exposed surface areas were preserved as closely as possible.

The major assumptions of the modeling were:

(a) the external electrical and mechanical connections were neglected; (b) thermal contact between mating surfaces was perfect, maximizing heat transfer into the transmi tter; a n'd, (c) natural k(.

convection and radiation heat transfer coefficients

)

within the transmitter air gaps were realistic best estimates.

It was decided that the circuit board components were the most sensitive to heat, so the entire circuit board.Aas modeled as a lumped mass and its temperature determined.

Rules for determining heat transfer coefficients were developed.

For the

SLD, two time periods were considered.

Up to 115 seconds, a forced convection heat transfer coefficient was used based on air properties evaluated at the steam temperatures.

Past 115 seconds, the Uchida correlation was used with a 1.2 mul tiplier l

for conservatism.

The LOCA analysis used the Tagami correlation for the 40 second blowdown period; the Uchida correlation with a

1.2 multiplier past 115 seconds; and a linear decrease from the final Tagami i

value to the first Uchida value between 40 and 115 seconds.

l The model was then subjected analytically to both the LOCA and the SLB temperature / pressure models.

Results showed that the internal temperatures were as expected, h

OUS om #'/tr-entunto ev fM..

~-w i

Attachinelit Page:

7 m

.c i.3.w..,,.

I + t?' =

l 5

s.

.Qj;. ?ljl[{l'f'] '

uM55TG(($

0f,g& M$$

f P.

. d cc.. y: a 2 ;:

l i

l z

d l

l

=

2.500" 2.077" 2

1. 722 "--+-

1.590" -

438"~

d' JL di dL 1.11" I

l 2.61"

(...

i

~

,.I l

1.

_y i

l 3.24"

.500"3:

l 3.74" I

.k 4.6" d

I l

r f

{']t;) j ty),

(..

" Figure 2 - Typical Transmitter Finite Element Model" PREPAnED BY_

c i

Attachlttent Page:

8

(. M{} ".8". W L ' E ; E m d d @jf_.p@j g$ h y g. 4

{ g ns ge. li.g 5g MsWpg

-+

. i..:.: r

..t.

wi th the SLB always less Figure 3 shows the than the LOCA temperature.

expected temperature circuit board element in the thermal model.

For response for a example, during a LOCA the circuitry reaches about 300 degrees peak temperature, while the peak during a SLB was only 230 degrees.

At this

time, the CSB Interim Evaluation Model was issued.

The guidelines in the model conservati ve, approach, using the Tagami and Uchida suggested a more correlations with a

multiplier of 4.

At the same

time, the customer decided to move the affected transmitters outside containment to avoid the entire qualification issue.

No formal analysis was performed with the greater heat transfer coefficients, but no change in the relative temperatures was expected.

course, the absolute values wpuld both rise.

Of 3.2 ELECTRICAL CONNECTION BOX ANALYSIS In

1980, B&W was again approached by a customer asked to work on SLB equipment qualification.

A and specific piece of equipment had a period of very short required operability during an SLB; unf ortunatel y, the connector used h5d**not been tested B&W un'dertook to show t h at thefor operation during an SLB.

steel cover plate would 0.25 inch thick SLB temperature rise for protect the connector from the and connector the reqpired-time.

The plate were modeled as one dimensional elements in perfect thermal contac,t.

To avoid questions about the proper heat transfer correlations to be used in determining the cover temperature, the cover temperature was arbitrarily stepped from 140 to 440 degrees at the start of the SLB.

The cover was allowed to radiate to the air space inside the connection box.

Ths connector was not allowed to lose heat at all, either to the air or to the connecting cables.

A thin fin assumption was used to solve for the temperature of the connector at 90 seconds.

The results showed that in 90 seconds, the connector would only reach 154 degrees, an increase of 14 degrees over the original temperature.

Further, the air temperature would only increase about I degree; cl earl y, l

i if the connector and the cover were not in contact, the OFl 59 PGEPAAED By I

D A TT

/j-1

f.

Attachntent Page:

9

?

. r?1MsW#sN;?% y " s;izYBias@gy, sabcock4Awndex@R.. tut @gdigyyniffy

('

$- % G *pj d h e p

s je 3 gi.W$gf Q.

g F

W

• '4..".'."T,,M:=..;i..B,.c.w.c 2P

. ?.,.. n...

-wm MN o:

. e.c 1

t 1

1 l

l Temperature Response Transmitter Doctronics 400--

380 -

360 -

340 -

320 -

300 -

2hlO -

g

(

3 260 -

t a.

240 -

3 LOCA 220 -

200 -

a

,g ll 130 1

I 160 -

SLB 140 120 ~

i 9

100 0

0.4 0.5 1.2 1.8 2

2.4 2.5 3.2 Seconds, power of ten

" Figure 3"

$O91 6D

(

u -

J l

8. l,'

Mid om 84da-

\\

......n..

Attachluent Page:

10

..w.,...e..~,..

~

,.r,.

connector would not heat up at all in the first 90 seconds.

This implies that any ins,trumentation with a steel cover at least 0.25 inches thick would not be affected by the SLB peak temperature, and that the LOCA temperatures would be an adequate qualification profile.

3.3 MOTOR OPERATOR ANALYSIS In 1981, B&W was requested to apply the techniques used on the previ ous transmitter. work to valve operators.

Again, a finite element thermal model was developed.

During blowdown,"

the condensing heat transfer coefficient used was the greater of 4 times the Uchida correlation or 4

times the Tagami correlation. After blowdown a forced convective correlation based on the product of the Prandtl number raised to a power and the Reynolds number raised to a - power and a

constant to determine the Nusselt number was used.

The powers and constants differ depending.upon whether the flow is turbulent or laminar.

This forced convective correlation was used after b 1_owdown until the square

- of the Reynolds number equaled the Grashof number, 7 g indicating the onset of natural convection.

The natural s

convection correl ati on was based on the product of a constant and the Rayleigh number raised to a power to determine the Nusselt number.

In this case, additional work was performed to benchmark the model against the me,asured thermal response during qualification testing to LOCA levels.

After the effects of condensation were added to the model, good agreement with the test results was obtained.

The results showed that the temperatures of the internal components did not exceed the LOCA temperatures; the peak for the internals was only 270 degrees, as shown in Figure 4.

j 3.4 INDUSTRY SURVEY To confirm these

results, B&W performed an industr'y survey to find out if similar analyses had been done el sewhere.

An analysis was found in the TMI-2 FSAR (Figure 15B-10) showing the results of such an analysis.

The analysis was done with one-dimensional bk1 61 adu.n %

on -

f Attachment Page:

11 w.pigsg.r

,m: m....r...

.m..,,sa.,.4s.s. i. m;a.. Babcock:'AWiliin A(fu E-]Mf;f

.@yyd

(

_, m ssaso ea An.dhm ra

,,. s a

..,m...

..m RESPONSE TO SLB l

i Motor Operator 500-i s_

450 -

3 SLB 400 -

350 -

L

(< '

a

\\ >

e g

300 -

a e

O 250 -

'~

{

OPERATOR r.~

i Il4TEiliiALS i

200 -

150 -

~

1 100 0

0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2

2.4 2.8 Seconds, power of ten

" Figure 4"

'th.... 1 6;?

PAEPARED Oy OATE f

P A. A

1 e

Attacluttelit F-Page:

12

..a.c, ii.. 6,'g. 7*s qv,.gs.

z i?/?/jyj.sji,s..

c...

BabCOCkl&'., wilco'jdp.,y.

5..

• s 33-pg.y.<.-.d O.$Y. N!@wh.is,E[d[nw%bYc.,iNa/4E!thM.5

$5.

jfA:i E.@ fbi

,l (,i h's E

6 _

m_.-r,.

I i

l codes, 30 foot per second steam flows, and conservative i

assumptions of heat transfer coefficients.

Containment vapor temperatures reached 440 degrees; as expected, the temperatures inside. a pressure sensor enclosure peaked at about the time the SLB temperature leveled off, both at a

value of 275 degrees.

This analysis modeled electrical penetrati ons,

instrument enclosures, and cable jackets with the same results.

e 4

e h6

ki

+

1 i

l

(

i i

i

k., 1 b.b M oirr k/r enceinco or

((#

s'-/ -/5-mmmo av

o. y

,,ct ~o iq _

Attaclun mt Page:

13

• g. '

.; ; [*' [:Q 4Q3 ;,

h Babcock'&.WHcome, g,;"'+p,.

.a. gf r.

ni c;;

un

)

e

$O.

gg

(

6 _ 158880-0& M. g? n d O M ll5gpaggw.g

-_,. 'r

.. ~.,. ",,...c.,2 !)-....rf.$O,,:.. Nf?';j boci s

h

.v aa..,

s.. e y m _-

+

..~--.,,.=

,._ w.

4O CONCLUE'ONS The result of the above mentioned work is as follows: the brief temperature spike due to super-heated steam following a Steam Line Break does not affect the internals of containment mounted equipment significantly.

In overy case

examined, the long duratfon temperatures associated with a LOCA were more severe to equipment than the higher SLB spike.

Therefore, equipment qualified to withstand LOCA environments for a given period of time should withstand SLB environments for at least as long a period of time.

No further testing should be required.

5.0 REFERENCES

1.

Steam Line Break Thermal Analysis of N1BQ and N1KS BMCO Pressure Transmitters, dated November 7, 1978, ARC Letter Report LR:78:6311-01:1.

2.

SLB Qualification of NI Detector Connector, Dated April 14, 1980, B&W Calculation 32-1105986-01.

3.

Results of

.Limitorque Ther* mal Anal ysi s,

dated

~

i November 30, 1981, ARC Letter Report LR: 81: 7580-04: 01.

4 w

k dW1 64 i

eacamato ev__

M o.rt Uh>-

[j//nur f-/-/r t1 arvinen av

,,. m,

1 1

0 O

I ATTACHMENT 3 1

1 1

i I

l I

i i

1 I

A % eh d 3 A Grinnell CORPORATION PIPE SUPPORT DIVISION 160 Frenchtown Road Precision Park North Kingstown. RI 02852 QA (401) 886-3030 STATEMENT OF COMPLI ANCE SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 DUKE POWER CO.

MCGUIRE SITE RECEIVING 13225 HAGERS FERRY RD.

HWY. 73

Reference:

P.O.

1. MN-16154 Grinnell S.O. #41-24341-01 DUKE SPEC:OSS 0244.00-00-0001, Rev.2 MCS 1206.00-04-0C03, Rev.2 Item Nos./Part Nos.: 3/ 2004051AMDBN, FIG. 200, W/ Polycarbonate Reservoir We, Grinnell Corporation, Pipe Support Division, certify that the material supplied on the referenced order complies with the applicable requirements of ASME B31.1, the referenced purchase order and Duke Specification.

A marking code may be utilized to identify material specification, grada, class and heat treated condition.

See reverse side for mattiial identification codes.

l All materials were manufactured and/or supplied in accordance with the referenced purchase

order, the ASME approved Grinnell l

Corporation, Pipe Support

Division, Quality Assurance l

Program / Manual, Fourth Issue, Rev. 10, dated 3-15-96.

The provisions of 10CFR Part 21' apply to this order.

TEST REPORTS ATTACHED:

SN..

33791,33792,33793,33794, l

33795,33796,33797 DUKE POWER COMPANY O

RECORDS APPROVED l

D. v. Walsh/ -QA Manager aA REPAEsturatsvr

~

L nAr tlc-E-96

=. w l

A tllCO INTERNATIONAL LTD. COMPANY 101383 1

l l

1

e e

ReceivingInspection Report Form "Pr-3 n A "cv.

• reoc, os 2 Purchase Order No.:

l MN16154 l

C NPP 315 Station: l MC l MEDB ID.: l 02981333FN l

UTC No.: l 851075 l

QA Shop No.: [ 0227 l

Vendor: lGRINNELL CORP l

Manufacturer: lGRINNELL CORP.

l Item No.

Quantity Part No.

Heat No.

Lot No.

Serial No.

l 3

l l

7 l

l200N l

l NA l

l NA l 133791,2,3,4,5,6,7 l

==

Description:==

SUPPRESSOR,, HYDRAULIC SHOCK AND SWAY,4* BORE X 6" STROKE,02981333FN,200N,0 CK'd SAMPLE Duke /

Inspectiort Examination, and Testing Procedures /'?andards By Size Pass Fall Vendor Performed - Specify Used DW 7

7 0

i Ei Visual / Configuration lNPP 311 Rev. 4 l

C Dimensional Approx.

I] Tolerance

~

C Goctrical:

l

~

C Magnetic O vea D No l

~

C Weight C Pressure: l l

~

C Chem. Analysis:

l Ei QA Condition: l1 l, C Physical Properties'

{

Q Commercial Grade Omer: l C Salvagec"'tepaired

(

C Comments C Problems MAPPS PO35120 Calibrated Test, Examination, and inspection Equipment Used:

Instrument Type Model Number Serial Number Calibration Due l

l 1

I l

i Sent To: l l

L Description of Problem l

Originator: l l

Phone #:l l

FAX #:l l

Date: l l

A I

Accepted By:

Date:

/C,f f(

(Levej (1 Receiving inspector)

<h-O Final QA Approval:

j g

Date:

i

, MAR-27-98 FRi 09:30 GRINNELL, Kl/ESi !MI'ING PHA NU. 4U166b3Utd

r. ut s.

~

4

)

's e CORPORATION ENGINEERED PIPE SUPPORTS Precision Pak

[QX $704-8[5-g]6g 160 Frenchtown Road North Kingstown. RI 02852 Duke Energy Corporation March 26,1998 McGuire Nuc. Sta.

13225 Hagers Ferry Rd.

Huntersville, NC 28078-8985 (18)

Attn: Mr. Phil Stiles t5dSd.YNNNN$ Mids $jNINRM@k$6%@Alsh?Ad[ A[ESNy Gentlemen:

1 Grinnell Corporation meets the McGuire Environmental Requirements specified in MCS-1206.00-04-0003. The additional testing performed by Grinnell to insure our compliance is documented in Report PE-9778-1 Rev. O, which was previously transmitted to Duke Power.

Grinnell's Procedure QAM-2.0 Rev. O outlines our handling of customer input j

documents such aspurchase orders and design specifications (see attached).

Report PE-9778-1 is the appropriate Technical Report to be transmitted to the NRR.

Shouldyou have any questions or comments.....or needfurther information, please do not hesitate to contact me (401-886-3030).

Very truly yours, GRIN ELL CORPORATION t

WILLIAM. GOLINI Quality Assurance Manager WPG/m/Att.

SALES 4dARKETING TECHMCAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION PHONE (404) 886 3116 FAK,(401) 8854470 PHONE (401) 886 301$ FAX (401) 88&3010 PHONE (401) Sarrasco FAX (401) 666 3010 A tijcc INTERNATIONAL LTD. COMPANY