..,

.

Westinghouse Water Reactor Nuclear Technology Division

Electric Corporation Divisions Box 355Pittsburgh Pennsylvania 15230

January 7, 1983

CAW-83-1Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Ref: Duke Power CompanyV. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Letter, Tucker toWashington, D. C. 20555 :-- Denton,, January 1983

! ..-

" % ]'h'Attention: Ms. E. G. Adensam, Chief | ,h. _ ,

Licensing Branch No. 4 ' ' -

I E.33REACTOR CAVITY ASYMMETRIC LOADS

!"' D

L. c . ' ' m Co.Dear Mr. Denton:vs.

,

'

The proprietary material for which withholding is being requested by DukePower Company is proprietary to Westinghouse and withholding is requestedpursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of Section 2.790 of theCommission's regulations. Withholding from public disclosure is requestedwith respect to the subject information which is further identified in theaffidavit accompanying this application.

Accordingly, withholding the subject information from public disclosure usrequested 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 informationand affidavit AW-76-11 by Duke Power Company for Catawba Units 1 and 2.

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

Very truly yours,

Robert A. Wiesemann, Manager/bek Regulatory & Legislative AffairsEnclosure

cc: E. C. Shomaker, Esq.- Office of the Executive Legal Director, NRC -

:

8301100051 830113PDR ADOCK 05000413A PDR

(

,. :..

.'

.

AW-/6-1I.

AFFIDAVIT

COMM0ffWEALTH OF PEtli45YLVAfilA:ss

COUtlTY OF ALLEGHEt1Y:

Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appearedRobert A. Wiesemann, who, being by me duly sworn according to law, de-

poses and says that he is authorized to execute this Affidavit on tehalfof Westinghou'se Electric Corporation (" Westinghouse") and that the aver-

,

ments of fact set forth in this Affidavit are true and correct to thebest of his knowledge, information, and belief:

b c'd. .''.tlllti ''~

.

Robert A. Wiesemann, ManagerLicensing Programs

Sworn to and subscribed'

ethis/MIdaybefo

of /(2t/ 1976.

f$$$ /

/ ifl!/ /(.. ll

/Notary Public

.

O

e

-_.

I'

.

!AW- 76- I l'

-2- !~

il

'i

i

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

Systems Division, of Westinghouse Electric Corporation and as such,i

I have been specifically delegated the function of reviewing theproprietary information sought to be withheld from public dis-closure in connection with nuclear power plant licensing or rule-

|

making proceedings, and am authorized to apply for its withnoldingon behalf of the Westinghouse Water Reactor Divisions.

i

(2) I,am making this Affidavit in conformance with the provisions of10 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 utilizedby Westinghouse Nuclear Energy Systems in designating informationas a trade secret, privileged or as confidential commercial or

financial information.

Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b)(4) of Section 2.790(4)of the Commission's regulations, the following is furnished forconsideration 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 disclosureis owned and has been held in confidence by Westingh.$use.

||

|

|

.

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

'.*-. ,

AW-)'t ,- I l-3--

(ii) The infonnation is of a type customarily held in confidenceby Westinghouse and not customarily disclosed to the public.Westinghouse has a rational basis for determining the typesof information customarily held in confidence by it and, inthat connection, utilizes a system to determine when andwhether to hold certain types of information in confidence.~

The application of that system and the su" stance of thatsystem constitutes Westinghouse policy and provides the

,

rational basis required.

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

! petitive advantage, as follows:

(a) 'The information reveals the distinguishing aspects ofa process (or component, structure, tool, method, etc.)where prevention of its use by any of Westinghouse's

| competitors without license from Westinghouse consti-I tutes a competitive economic advantage over other

companies.

L

| (b) It consists of supporting data, including test data, '

,

|relative to a process (or component, structure, tool,method, etc.), the application of which data secures al

!competitive economic advantage, e.g., by optimization

| or improved marketability.

!

,

i

9

-- - -.- ,

.?

.

-4- AW1h,-1I

.

.

(c) Its use by a competitor would reduce his expenditureof resources or improve his competitive position in thedesign, manufacture, shipment, installation, assuranceof quality, or licensing a similar product.

(d) It reveals cost or price information, production cap-acities, budget levels, or commercial strategies ofWestinghouse, 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 betreated 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 givesWestinghouse a competitive advantage over its com-

;

petitors. It is, therefore, withheld from disclosureto protect the Westinghouse competitive position.

,

e

- - - - - - - + - - - - - - . -

I. .:. _

-.

-5- AW-/6-ll.

(b) It is infonnation which is marketable in many ways.

The extent to which such information is availdble tocompetitors diminishes the Westinghouse ability tosell products and services involving the use of theinformation.

(c) Use by our competitor would put Westinghouse at acompetitive disadvantage by reducing his expenditureof resources at our expense.

(d) Each component of proprietary information pertinentto a particular competitive advantage is potentiallyas 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 competitiveadvantage.

(e) Unrestricted disclosure would jeopariize the positionof 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 assetsin research and developmant depends upon the success

in obtaining and maintaining a competitive advantage.

.

_ _

*-

.,

-6- AW-i6-ll.

|

.

(iii) The information is being transmitted to the Commission inconfidence 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 thebest of our knowledge and belief.

(v) The proprietary information sought to be withheld in thissubmittal 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 letterand attachment are being submitted in partial response to'

the April 1976 NRC questions arising out of the review ofthe Westinghouse reports WCAP-7593, Rev. 2, " Description ofBlowdown-2 Computer Program" and WCAP-8708, MULTIFLEX, A

Fortran-IV Computer Program for Analyzing Thermal-Hydraulic

! Structure System Dynamics."

This information enables Westinghouse to:

| (a) Justify the design basis for hydraulic forcing functionsfollowing postulated loss of coolant accidents.

(b) Assist its customers to obtain licenses.

(c) Justify the model and conservative assumptions used inhydraulic forcing functions during the subcooled de-

>

compression.i

I,

e

f

'

. .

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

.: . - .;.

- - 7- 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 itscustomers for purposes of meeting NRC requirements for

:licensing documentaticn.

(b) Westinghouse uses the information to perform and justifyanalyses 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 meetNRC 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 thisinformation, similar programs would have to be oerformed

,

and a significant manpower effort, having the requisite talentand 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 ofSection 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 followingto be applied to the translation of calculated pressure gradients into forces andmoments.

1. The subcompartment nodal model used for the calculation of forces andmoments 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 planarareas. Then multiplication of the projected area by the calculatednodal pressure gives the force acting normal to the surface throughthe area centroid.

Response: This assumption was factored into the analysis.

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

'

Response: Differential pressures acting across the vessel pipi,ng and nozzleswere 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 byDuke Power Company. All other analysis input was obtained from WestinghouseNuclear Energy Systems (WNES) organizations. Model formulation and analyseswere performed by the Systems Structural Analysis group of WNES.

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

5

:

. . .

* b

(

|

|

|

!I

- .. - -. ._ .-- -

f \.

,-a

-o

.

- -

_

-

STEAM STEAM,

CROSSOVER GENERATOR I GENERATOR C20550VER LEG..EG

REACTORCOOLANTPUMP

HOT LEGREACT 0g LOOP 4 LOOP iCOOLAN TPUMP

X

COLD LEG jCOLD LEG

II

:

L, i g

.2,

. COLD LEG $,

COLD LEGREACTORCCOLANTPUMP

REACTOR LOOP Z| COOLANT LOOP 3 MOT LEG

l PUMP -

STEAM STEAhI CROSSOVER

j CR0550VEN GENERATOR I| GENERATOR LEG

LEG

I .Z: - C00RolNATE SYSTEM FORg

OREAK POSTULATED TOOCCUR IN COLD LEG

| 322 - COORDINATE STSTEM FOR2SREAK POSTULATED TO.,OCCUR IN M0T LEG

l

!

Coordinate Systems for Postulated Pipe Ruoturest

r

e>~

.

-

REhCTOR CCOLANT LOOP MECHANICAL LOAOS ]Load at Indicated Break Location

RPV RPV RCPinlet Outlet Outlet

Load Component Nozzle Nozzle Nozzle

a ,<. A,c s,c._'~

Axial load (Fx) |-' -

(kips)

Vertical load (Fy)(kips)

Moment (Mz)(in. kips) - -__ _

REACTOR CAVITY PRESSURIZATION LOADS2

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

~

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

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

The reactor cavity loads applied to the DARI-WOSTAS model are shown in figures1, 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

|||. || | | I!|k!-

'

| |||!l I|t | }I| || | -

'i i i lil i 'lill i ll i t it.i.| | Il 11: | | i ill i ll I i tilii

1 ill il lt I i ilill; | | tisti|,

il I ! I I Ilitll I i lli iI'

i || I i 11II I i 'l ill i,

i iiL i-i_. ili I| ||t iIi_ .

/l i N I i li ti ll ill i li

/ l I~

N iliIli Ii1111 ||

/ II I II NMt i . I4

'" j i I I ii,

/ i i

Gi i |

/ Ic ;eO -.r.

r I I.

:I\1 r \ 1,

'**; i 1 l

| || 1 1*

|1 1 1:

| !

l'

.

I l| |

j i | | | | Ill

i | 1 | -1 I I I I I I l_r .|. ,

s(LO On1 0*2 M *

TIME (SEC)

||

CAVITY PRESSURE TOTAL HORIZONTAL LOAD

i

|

|

|FIGURE 1

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -. - -. -_

|.

&

a

b0 _ ,

- .

-

C L

I E M

1,Q___

,_ ' I 's

_

- n - ~

M 'L f

A

N

.

%Q

. =t v:-

.-gJ

%G

c0 -

wOtr LWi

' Ou.

(

2.0 ~

i

t.o

t

&

-4.3&O at 42 43 &*

TIME (SEC)

CAVITY PRESSURE VERTICAL LOAD

FIGURE 2|

____-_ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ . - - __ _. -_ _ -- - - --- --

O

9 *

e

.e

e

'- -

1r ' ! l * 4 ! t ..,,, , , ,

I ? I f a i , , i ''' I ' 'I 4 i e , , , ;

|||''':'' - 6 i e i 4 i i , ,

* - - - . . . - > i . . . , ,.wi i !* ' ' '

, ,

' 0 ! I f i I pt_

,

I ! e f , , ,

I ! ! t I ! i 0 6 | 6-' I 'i+ . . , ,; :.a , ,

; |'

. , . . , , .

6 ' + . .. , ,

e i t *4 ,.

* ' i * . 6 i j.Lg

.

f f

i I~

G2 i i * I, .

"-J ; ; I j '

- MW \ t iI

! ?

L&e ) e

@ L.__o.- I

J.6 .

4g~

l !H 1'Z \\Lu3 \

,

C 401 ,2

L . 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

_-. - - - - - _ - . . _ - -- . . .

*.

|- -

.

'

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 mathematicalmodel used to analyze the reactor cavity pressurization transients in theCatawba plant. The nodalization sensitivity study involved sequential increasesin modeling detail of the narrow annulus around the reactor vessel and of thepipe annulus containing the postulated break. Two criteria were applied toverify the validity of the model: element detail was increased until no signi-

ficant changes in integrated force resulted from further changes, and care wastaken to make model flow boundaries conform to actual plant geometry withoutintroducing 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 ismodeled as five elements neglecting any flow distribution effects. The breakoccurs in compartment 1, immediately around a nozzle. The corresponding pipeannulus and the upper reactor cavity are also compartments. The lower reactorcavity is compartment 2, and the remainder of the elements, as shown in figure4, are in the reactor vessel annulus'.: Compartment 13 is on the opposite sideof the vessel from the assumed break.'

':

~

. .,

. 9

*

ol

.i .

2'

.

.

5 6 72 2 2 ,

,

}U081

2 3 42 2 2

0

[U021

Et 9 0! 1

2 2 CE 1

NI EV R

0 ED 0 FE 6 HP UO 4 5 , 7 8 CL 1 1

1 1 , RE I

V 0 CE 3D )|| 2 309 111

-

J 0

A(6 - 07 8y 5

3

\ .5

3

2 3 43 3 .

[V3. 3

003

-8 9 0

K 2 2 3AERB 0_

. 4

. T 2_

_ S_ E_

_

R__ A_ E_ N LMG E O

E N S TL I S T

.

Z R E O.

Z V B_

0 LAl

I

_ E_

_

S_

_

2 s o55EE5= % %< E m 5SC9a o*

m Ek ^

f m. . - .

_.

.

_

_

38

--,,.

: I / -_f

-

3.

' ~- .

w _

C2

,

'-

L 1'-

-

'

' f,~~

-'

LQ --i8'i

'J> (Q| \ ' L)

D,

*

h " 36 c37

D $'r s9#

| L7 on .,'r

2,

10 O ,4

h *

' . , O'

|

COMPARTMENTALIZED VIEW 0F CONTAINMENT MODEL

|FIGURE 5