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 4

Page: 3 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 " '

R.M. GoEEww suitm*Y NE 0 ATE j 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)

(LOCAs) on and Loss of Coolant Accidents and instrumentation and control equipment 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 over 300 degrees F for several temperature was a LOCA, reaching hours. However, in the mid-1970s, the effects control equipment of SLBs on instrumentation and became an NRC concern. At that 4 time, the Containment Systems Branch issued Branch Technical Position CSB 6-1 Rev 1, enti tl ed " Minimum

('- Containment Pressure Model for PWR Evaluation." This new model showed ECCS Performance that during the first several minutes of a SLB, superheated steam was discharged and codfainment peak temperatures near 500 degrees F. rose to Although use in anal yses of containment pressure CSB 6-1,was intended for the integrity, 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 l-

........... Pace: 5

. 'n : o3.<.y.. .

l-3; a sq+.<. ,n..::Q b Babcock.&'Wilcor . ,, jdl;ijfMs;

-(. ,ff . ' . ".=*5.

. . . m.... iss.u;a.y)).. ..

/fi*r&E . :.: i.9[b; ' ..si0n58880:00N.

~

h.i?@iW N'- .... .. %,,,,2?-.

LOCA AND SLB Temperature Profiles 450 -

SLB 400 -

350 - '

h.

I. .

e L>. e 300 - .

e -

LOCA O ~-

250 - ""

200 - '

150 -

100 , , , , ,

0 2 4 6 Seconds, power of ten

" Figure 1" (91 'M PREPARED BY CATE II aEviewc0 ev

[ [ out I'l-ff nicc ,,o 3

i Attachment Page: 6 (3

.- ,e .i I. :.e...

r:

... 3.v., .u

t. . Exn i,rr 1158880-00 9 Fyh,f.fMNjih,f.,.:}h,Thd

'r - .. -

between 10 and 175 seconds.

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

3.1 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS B&W different for has addressed this problem in several different ways equipment. When pressure transmitter qualification to the new customer in 1977, B&W undertook to SLB levels was requested by a l actually raised the temperature show that the LOCA

! 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 typical finite element thermal model' of a 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; thermal contact between mating surfaces was perfect,(b)maximizing heat transfer into the transmi tter; a n'd , (c) natural convection and radiation heat k( ). within the transmitter air gapstransfer coefficients were realistic best estimates. It was decided that the circuit components were the most sensitive to heat, so board 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 seconds; and a linear past 115 decrease from the final Tagami i value to the first Uchida value seconds. between 40 and 115 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

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

i

', Attachinelit

- Page: 7 m .c -

. i.3 .w . . , ,.

I + t?' =

• s.

0f ,g& M$$

l 5

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

P. . d cc . . y: a 2 ;:

uM55TG(($

l i

l -

z d

l l = 2.500" -

2 2.077"

" 1. 722 "--+-

1.590" -

438"~

d' JL di dL &

1.11" I

l 2.61" ..

( ...

~

i

,.I -

l l 1. 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

, ns ..

• ge. li.g

(. M{} ".8". W L ' E ; E m d d @jf_.p@j

{ g

-+

. i ..:.: r  ! 5g MsWpg g$ h y g. 4

..t.  ; -

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

circuit expected temperature response for a board element in the thermal example, during a LOCA model. For degrees peak temperature, thewhile circuitry reaches about 300 was only 230 degrees. the peak during a SLB At this time, the CSB Interim Evaluation issued. The guidelines in the model Model was conservati ve , approach, suggested a more using correlations with a multiplierthe Tagami and Uchida time, the customer of 4. At the same transmitters outside containment move decided to the affected qualification issue. to avoid the entire with the No formal analysis was performed greater heat transfer coefficients, no change in the relative temperatures was expected. but course, Of the absolute values wpuld both rise.

3.2 ELECTRICAL CONNECTION .

BOX ANALYSIS In 1980, B&W was again

• asked to work on SLB equipment approached by a customer and specific piece of equipment qualification. A period of had a very short required connector operability used during an SLB; unf ortunatel y, the an SLB. h5d**not been tested B&W un'dertook steel cover plate would protect to show t h at thefor 0.25 operation during inch thick SLB temperature rise for the reqpired- the connector time. The from the and connector were modeled plate in perfect thermal contac,t. To avoid questions about as one dimensional elements the proper heat transfer correlations determining the cover temperature, the covertotemperature be used in was arbitrarily stepped from start of the SLB. The cover was 140 to 440 degrees at the ,

the air allowed to radiate to was not space inside the connection box. Ths connector or to allowed to lose heat at all, either to the air 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 over the only reach 154 degrees, an increase of 14 degrees original temperature.

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

connector and the cover were not in contact, the OFl 59 PGEPAAED By I D A TT /j-1

f.

Attachntent Page: 9

(' s

? ,

. p F ..-:- . r?1MsW#sN;?%

sabcock4Awndex@R..

• '4..".'."T,,M:=..;i..B,.c.w.c

. e.c 2P je W

. ?., . . n . . .

y 3 gi.W$gf

" s;izYBias@gy, tut @gdigyyniffy o: ._. . Q.% -wm gG *pj d h MN e 1

t 1

1 l

l Temperature Response 400-- Transmitter Doctronics 380 - '

360 -

340 -

320 - .

300 -

g 2hlO -

( l 3 260 -

' t

a. 240 -

• 3 220 - .

LOCA 200 - ,g a 130 llI 1

160 - SLB l

140 120 ~ 9 i 100 , , , , , , ,, , ,

0 0.4 0.5 1.2 1.8 2 2.5 2.4 3.2 Seconds, power of ten

" Figure 3"

$O91 6D .

(

u -

Jl 8. l ,'

\

......n..

Mid om 84da-

. l 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 on techniques used the previ ous transmitter. work to valve operators.

Again, a finite element thermal model was developed.

During blowdown," the condensing heat coefficient used was the greater of 4 times thetransfer correlation or 4 times the Tagami correlation. Uchida 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 determine the Nusselt number was used. The constant to powers and constants differ depending .upon whether the turbulent flow is or laminar. This forced convective correlation was used after b 1_owdown until the square 7 g - of the Reynolds number equaled the Grashof number, s

indicating the onset of natural convection. The natural 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.  !

l 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 l 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 E-]Mf;f .@yyd

(

,,. s A(fu

..,m...

.. .m..,,sa.,.4s.s.

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

ra

i. m;a..

..m

_,ma ssaso Babcock:'AWiliin ea An.dhm .

RESPONSE TO SLB l i

500- Motor Operator i

s_

450 -

3 l

SLB l

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;?

f PAEPARED Oy OATE P A. A .

1 .. e

, Attacluttelit F-  :

z . - Page: 12 5.:-. *s . .a.c, ii. . 6,'g. 7*s.' qv,.gs. ,y . c . . . .. . ..

$5. BabCOCkl&'., wilco'jdp. i?/?/jyj.sji,s..

jfA:i 33-pg.y.<.- .d l ( ,i h's O.$Y. N!@wh.is,E[d[nw%bYc.,iNa/4E!thM.5

- . 6 _

E.@

E fbi 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, at a both 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 enceinco or M oirr k/r mmmo av _

((# o. y s'-/ -/5- ,,ct ~o iq _

Attaclun mt Page: 13

, *g. '

r. .; ; [*'; [:Q 4Q3 ;, .

, . .,. . ... . .a.

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

h gf ni c;;

e

( s

-_ ,. 'r ..~.,.",,

) gg

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

.v . . .c.,2 !)-....rf.$O,,:..

aa . ., Nf?';j boci h .g s.. e y m _- . ,_ , . . , .

+ ..~--.,,.= , ._ w.

4O CONCLUE'ONS The result of the above follows: the brief temperature mentioned spike due to super-heated work is as steam following a Steam Line Break does not affect the internals of containment significantly. mounted equipment In overy case examined, duratfon temperatures associated with the long severe to equipment than a LOCA were more Therefore, the higher SLB spike.

equipment qualified to withstand LOCA environments for a given period of time should withstand SLB environments No further testing for at least as long a period of time.

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 i

.Limitorque Ther* mal Anal ysi s , dated November 30, 1981, ARC Letter Report LR: 81: 7580-04: 01.

4 w

k dW1 64 i

, eacamato ev__

M o.rt Uh>-

arvinen av [j//nur f-/-/r ,, . m , t1

1 1

0 O

ATTACHMENT 3 I

1 1 1 1 l

l l

i I

l I i l

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

l 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 l RECORDS APPROVED 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 l 3 l l 7 l l200N l l NA l l NA l 133791,2,3,4,5,6,7 l 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  !

l 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 L Description of Problem Sent To: l l 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)

Final QA Approval: j g Date: <h- O 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.

I Grinnell's Procedure QAM-2.0 Rev. O outlines our handling of customer input j documents such aspurchase orders and design specifications (see attached).

l 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