ML17256A543
| ML17256A543 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 01/14/1983 |
| From: | ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17256A542 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0578, RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-578, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-2.D.1, TASK-TM NUDOCS 8303110320 | |
| Download: ML17256A543 (61) | |
Text
PWR'. SAFETY. AND =RELIEF'VALVE ADEQUACY "REPORT'OR ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION ROBERT E. GINNA UNIT 1 JANUARY 14, 1983 8303i 10320 830304',
ADOCK 05000244 r.T
'DR
'~ K~ c<<
pygmy)g',0( l)KKfHK <N'Y
A 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS Paqe 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Valve and Piping Parameters 3.0 Valve Inlet Fluid Conditions 4.0 Comparison of EPRI Test Data with 13-=
Plant-Specific Requirements 4.1 Relief Valve Testing ,13 4.2 Safety Valve Testing 4.2.1 Crosby 3K6 Safety Valve Tests 4.2.2 Crosby 6M6 Safety Valve Tests 15 4.2.3 Discussion of Observed Safety 16 Valve Performance 4.2.3.1
~ ~ ~ Loop Seal Opening Response 17 4.2.3.2 Inlet Piping Pressure Oscillations 18 4.2.3.3 Valve Chatter on Steam 18 5.0 Conclusions Appendix 25
0
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the initial recommendation of NUREG 0578, Section 2.1.2 as later clarified by NUREG 0737, item II.D.1 and revised September 29, 1981, each Pressurizer Water Reactor (PWR)
Utility was to submit information relative to the pressurizer safety and relief valves in use at their plant. Specifically, this submittal should include an evaluation supported by test results which demonstrate the capability of the relief and safety valves to operate under expected operating and accident. conditions.
This report provides a Ginna specific evaluation of the pressurizer safety and relief valves as committed in our June 11, 1982 submittal.
The primary objective of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) test program was to provide full scale test data confirming the functionability of the primary system power operated relief valves and safety valves for expected operating and accident conditions. The second objective of the program was to obtain sufficient piping thermal hydraulic load data to permit confir-mation of models which may be utilized for plant specific analysis of safety and relief valve discharge piping systems. Relief valve tests were completed in August 1981 and safety valve tests were completed in January 1982. Reports have been prepared by
.EPRI which document the results of the program. Additional reports were written to provide necessary justification for test valve selection and valve inlet fluid test conditions. ,These reports were transmitted to the USNRC by David Hoffman of the Consumers Power Company on behalf of the participating PWR Utilities and are referenced herein.
This report provides the final evaluation of these and other submittals and reports prepared during the review of the test data as they apply to the valves used at Ginna.
2.0 VALVE AND PIPING PARAMETERS Table 2-1 prov>des a ll.st of pertinent valve and piping parameters for the Ginna Safety and Power-Operated Relief Valves. The safety valve design installed at Ginna was not specifically tested by EPRI; however, valves of a similar design and operation were tested in a configuration similar to that of the actual system configuration at the plant. The power-operated relief valves installed at Ginna were tested by EPRI. Justification that the.-
valves tested envelope those valves at Ginna is provided in the Valve Justification report. The justification was developed based on evaluation performed by the valve manufacturers and considered effects of differences in operating characteristics, materials, orifice sizes and manufacturing processes on valve operability.
Typical inlet piping configurations for Ginna are provided in Figures 2-1 and 2-2.
Tables 2-2 and 2-3 compare the Ginna inlet loop seal piping configuration with that of the EPRI test piping arrangement for the Crosby 3K6 and 6M6 Safety Valves and compares the actual plant-specific pressure drop with the test pressure drop for the two (2) test valve arrangements.
As can be seen by these comparisons, the EPRI test piping arrange-ment envelops the actual arrangement for the Ginna unit. The piping length, number of elbows and miscellaneous fittings used in the test arrangements are greater than that for Ginna resulting in greater pressure drops during valve lift, thus bounding the piping arrangement at Ginna.
TABLE 2-1 VALVE AND PIPING INFORMATION
- 1. SAFETY VALVE INFORMATION Number of valves 2 Manufacturer Crosby Valve and Gage Type Self Actuated Size 4K26 Steam Flow Capacity, lbs/hr 288,000 Design Pressure, psig 2485 Design Temperature, 'F 650 Set Pressure, psig 2485 Accumulation 3 percent of set pressure Blowdown 5 percent of set pressure Original Valve Procurement Spec. E-676279 RELIEF VALVE INFORMATION Number of valves Manufacturer Copes-Vulcan Type Pressurizer Power Relief Size 3"-NPS Steam Flow Capacity, lbs/hr 210,000 max.
Design Pressure, psi 2485 Design Temperature, 'F 680 Opening Pressure, psig 2335 Closing Pressure, psig 2315
0 TABLE 2-1 (Cont'd)
SAFETY AND RELIEF VALVE INLET PIPING INFORMATION Design Pressure, psig 2485 Design Temperature, 'F 650 Configuration of Piping C-381-353, sheet. 6 and 7 Pressurizer Nozzle Configuration C-381-353, sheet 4 and 5 Loop Seal Volume, ft Volume - .18 Steady State Flow Pressure Drop See Appendix 1 Acoustic Wave Pressure Amplitude See Appendix 1
- 4. SAFETY AND RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE PIPING INFORMATION Design Pressure, psig 600 Design Temperature, 'F 650 Configuration C-381-353, sheet, 8 Pressurizer Relief Tank Design Pressure, psig 100 Backpressure, Normal, psig 3-5 Backpressure, Developed, psig 350
FIGURE 2-1 TYPICAL PORV INLET PIPING CONFIGURATION
i5oo FIGURE 2-2 TYPICAL SAFETY VALVE PIPING CONFIGURATION
TABLE 2-2 SAFETY VALVE INLET PIPING COMPARISON Typical Ginna 3K6 Inlet 6M6 Inlet Inlet Pi in Pi in ~ Pi in
- Length of 40 60 61 straight pipe, in.
Number of 90'lbows Number of 180'lbows Number of 45'lbows Misc., test 78 71 fittings, in.
Loop seal pater .18 0.27 1.02 lume, Ft
- Source: Reference (7)
TABLE 2-3 COMPARISON OF TEST PRESSURE DROP WITH PLANT SPECIFIC PRESSURE DROP Plant Specific* 6M6 Test** 3K6 Test**
Pressure Dro Pressure Dro Ginna 240 251 psi 321 psi
- Appendix I
- Source: Reference (8)
3.0 VALVE INLET FLUID CONDITIONS Justification for inlet fluid conditions used in the EPRI Safety and Relief Valve tests are summarized in References 2 and 3.
These conditions were determined based on consideration of FSAR, extended High Pressure Injection, and Cold Overpressurization events, where applicable.
A reference plant was selected for each grouping of Westinghouse plants considered. Valve fluid conditions resulting from limiting FSAR events, which result in steam discharge and an Extended High Pressure Injection event which may result in liquid discharge, are presented for each reference plant. Use of refer-ence plants results in fluid conditions enveloping those expected for Ginna.-
Table 3-1 presents the enveloping condition's from the results of loss of load and locked rotor analyses for two loop plants in-cluding Ginna. The inlet fluid conditions expected at the safety
~
~
valve and PORV inlets are identified. The Locked Rotor event is
~ ~
the limiting overpressure transient for two loop plants.
1 The limiting Extended High Pressure Injection event for the two loop reference plant was the spurious activation of the safety injection system at power. The analysis results for two-loop plants are provided in Table 3-2, which predicts no discharge for either safeties or PORV's.
The limiting cold overpressure transient for Ginna is provided in Table 3-3.
0 TABLE 3-1 VALVE INLET CONDITIONS FOR FSAR EVENTS RESULTING IN STEAM DISCHARGE Maximum Maximum Pressurizer Pressure Rate Reference Valve Opening Pressure (psia)/ (psia/sec)/
Plant Pressure sia Limitin Event Limitin Event Safet Valves Onl 2-Loop 2500 2682/Locked Rotor 240/Locked Rotor Safet and Relief Valves 2-Loop 2350 2573/Locked Rotor 202/Locked Rotor Source: Reference (2) 10
TABLE 3-2 SAFETY AND RELIEF VALVE INLET CONDITIONS RESULTING FROM SPURIOUS INITIATION OF HIGH PRESSURE INJECTION AT POWER WHEN VALVES ARE DISCHARGING LI UID Range of Range of Valve Maximum Range of Surge Rates Liquid Opening Fluid State Pressurizer Pressurization When Valve Temperature Reference Setpoints on Valve Pressure Rates Is Passing At Valve
~fl Plant ~sia n enin a sia si sec Li uid GPM Inlet 'F 2-Loop No Discharge Relief Valves 2-Loop No Discharge
- a. First/subsequent openings.
e TABLE 3-3 GINNA PORV INLET CONDITIONS FOR COLD OVERPRESSURE PROTECTION RESULTING IN WATER DISCHARGE Reactor, Coolant Temperature Pressure si Setpoint 435 350 max.
Max. with Overshoot 535 12
C I
I' I
4 0 COMPARISON OF EPRI TEST DATA WITH PLANT-SPECIFIC RE UIREMENTS The Electric Power and Research Institute (EPRI) conducted full scale flow tests on pressurizer safety and relief valves.
Tests were conducted at, three sites over a period of 1-1/2 years.
PORVs were tested at Marshall Steam Station and Wyle Laboratories, 'hile safety valves were tested at the Combustion Engineering Test Site in Connecticut.
4.1 Relief Valve Testin Test results applicable to the PORVs installed in Ginna are contained in Section 4.6 of Reference 7, Copes-Vulcan Relief Valve. (316 W/Stellite Plug and 17-4PH cage).
This valve fully opened and closed on demand for each of the eleven evaluation tests at the Marshall Test Facility. Nine additional tests were conducted at the Wyle Test Facility; during all of these tests the valve fully opened and closed on demand.
Subsequent disassembly and inspection revealed no damage that would affect future valve performance.
i A comparison of the "As-Tested" inlet fluid conditions for the Marshall and Wyle tests is provided in Table 4-1. This table indicates the Ginna fluid conditions summarized in Section 3.0 of this report were tested and that the tests were conducted at.
pressures and temperatures equal to or greater than that at Ginna. For example, the water conditions section of the table demonstrates the test valve was tested successfully at setpoint and temperature ranges which envelope Ginna's cold overpressure protection fluid conditions as summarized in Table 3-3. The results of this testing indicates the valves functioned satis-factorily, opening and closing on demand and discharging the required flow rate.
13
4.2 Safet Valve Testin Test results applicable to the safety valves installed at Ginna are contained in Section 3.4 and 3.5 of Reference 7. Although the Crosby 4K26 safety valve used at Ginna was riot specifically tested by EPRI, justification of extension of the EPRI test results to this valves was provided by the valve vendor.
4.2.1 Crosb 3K6 Safet Valve Tests The Crosby 3K6 test valve underwent a series of tests at. the EPRI/CE Test Facility. The "As-Tested". fluid inlet conditions for the 3K6 test valve are compared to the Ginna fluid inlet conditions in Table 4-3 of this report. This comparison shows the EPRI "As-Tested" fluid conditions envelope those for Ginna.
The Crosby 3K6 test. valve was tested using various inlet piping configurations and with the loop seal filled and drained. Results of tests conducted on the long inlet piping configuration with loop seal internals installed are summarized herein.
Seven tests were performed with~i the 3K6 valve mounted on a long t .
inlet piping configuration and with loop seal internals installed.
Ring settings used during these tests were established during earlier tests on this valve (with steam internals installed).
Steam tests were conducted both with the loop seal drained and filled. For the test with a drained loop seal the valve opened within the EPRI criteria and had stable behavior. When the pressure accumulated to 6 percent above set pressure, rated lift was achieved. Valve blowdown was reported to be 15.7 to 20 percent for these tests.
Four loop seal-steam tests were run at ramp rates of 3-220 psi/
sec. Initial valve lift was reported at pressures from 2356-2630 psi. The valve fluttered at partial lift. positions while dis-charging the loop seal water and then popped open at steam
pressures from 2555-2707 psi. This behavior is typical of loop seal safety valve performance. Valve behavior was reported to be stable on steam and the valve'chieved rated lift when the pressure was 6 percent above the valve design set pressure. The valve closed with 17.-20 percent. blowdown.
The test valve was subjected to a steam to water transition test.
The valve was observed to undergo a typical loop seal discharge at partial lift, popped open on steam within k3 percent criteria, was stable on steam flow, and began to flutter and subsequently chatter during the water flow portion of the test.
I 4.2.2 Crosb 6M6 Safet Valve Tests The Crosby 6M6 test valve underwent a series of tests at, the EPRI/CE Test Facility. The "As-Tested" Fluid Inlet Conditions for the 6M6 are compared to the Ginna Fluid inlet conditions in Table 4-3.
This comparison shows the EPRI "As-Tested" Fluid Conditions envelope'those for Ginna.
Two groups of tests were conducted on the Crosby 6M6 (Loop Seal Internals) Test Valve, one group with "As-Installed" ring settings and one group with "lowered" ring settings.
For the "As'Installed" ring settings four loop-seal steam tests were conducted, all at pressurization rates far above that expected for the Ginna unit. Two tests were conducted with a cold loop seal, while the other two tests were conducted with 350'F loop seals.
For the four tests conducted, the test valve popped open on steam at pressures ranging from 2675-2757 psia following a typical loop seal (water) 'discharge and for the first actuation cycle, the valve stem stabilized and closed with 5.1-9.6 percent, blowdown.
15
For the last test, the valve opened, closed (with stable per-formance) and then reopened on increasing system pressure. The test terminated after the valve was manually opened to stop chattering. The chatter didn't occur until the second valve lift after a successful test lift.
A transition test with 650'F water was successfully conducted.
Subsequently a 550'F water test was tried with the test termi-nated when the valve started to chatter. Note the safety valves at Ginna are not expected to see water discharge.
Seven additional loop seal tests were conducted with "lowered" ring settings as well as two additional transition tests. The results of those tests are detailed in Section 3.5 of Reference 7.
Five cold loop seal steam tests were performed at ramp rates from 3-375 psi/sec. ~ The valve exhibited typical loop seal openings with the full opening pressures varying from 2580-2732 psia
~
depending on ramp rate. The valve closed in a range of 7.4 to
~
~
8.2 percent blowdown. ~
Two hot loop seal tests wer'e conducted with full opening pressures of 2655-2692 psia after the typical loop seal opening, and closed with 8.2-9.0 percent blowdown. In the second test the valve reopened and chattered. Again this occurred during a second valve lift after a successful test lift.
4.2.3 Discussion of Observed Safet Valve Performance In addressing observed valve performance, one must differentiate between the valves and fluid conditions tested and the actual valves and actual fluid conditions for the specific plant. The EPRI inlet piping arrangement, flow and acoustic pressure drops, and inlet fluid conditions bound the same plant-specific parameters for the Ginna unit. Valve performance observed during the EPRI tests, therefore, reflects worst case performance as compared to 16-
results that would be observed had the testing been conducted using actu'al plant,-specific piping arrangements and fluid
~ ~ ~ ~
conditions.
~ ~
~
A review of Table 4-3 shows both Crosby safety valves tested exhibited stable operation on a loop seal piping configuration at pressurization rates of 1.1-375 psi/sec with initial opening pressures of 2455-2630 psi and pop pressures of 2455-2757 psi.
The EPRI data also indicates that steam flow rates in excess of rated flows are attainable. However, data also shows these flow rates are delayed some period of time following the assumed valve opening point resulting in the high pop pressures.
Safety valve performance observed in the EPRI tests is addressed in Reference 9 for Westinghouse Plants and the results 'and con-clusions of this report can be extended to. Ginna because the test parameters bound the same parameters for Ginna and.the test, valves are representative and also bound the Ginna Safety Valves.
4.2.3.1 Loo Seal 0 enin Res onse I
To assess the effect on reactor coolant system pressure due to valve opening response on loop seal discharge, a series of overpressure transients were run with various time delays. inserted for the valve opening. Results of the analysis which enveloped Ginna are presented in Reference 9. For 'the limiting Condition if II events, safety valve functioning is not required the reactor trips on high pressurizer pressure. If the reactor does not trip until the second protection grade trip, a valve opening delay time of two seconds would still provide acceptable overpressure Evaluation of the limiting condition IV event shows all pro-'ection.
. components of the reactor coolant system would remain within 120 percent, of the system design pressure even in the event of no safety valve opening.
17
4 0
e
4.2.3.2 Inlet Pi in Pressure'scillations As observed during the loop seal discharge tests, oscillations occur upstream of a spring loaded safety valve while water is flowing through the valve. An analysis of this phenomenon was conducted and the results are documented in Reference 9. Table 4-4 provides the maximum permissible pressure for pressurizer safety valve inlet piping sizes and schedules representative of Westinghouse plants. These pressures are shown for upset (level B) and emergency (level C) conditions. For Ginna those values associated with 4-inch schedule 160 inlet piping apply. Based on tests and analytical work, all acoustic pressures observed or calculated prior to and during safety valve discharge are below the maximum permissible pressure.
4.2.3.3 Valve Chatter on Steam Since the EPRI testing was conducted at, enveloping fluid and piping conditions, adjustments were made to the safety valve ring positions in order to,obtain stable valve performance on steam discharge for the test, arrangement.'hese adjustments resulted I
in -longer blowdowns for .the test valves. The ring positions--
~
determined during the test represent the adjustment required for
=
a particular valve when exposed to the particular test piping arrangement, fluid conditions, backpressure and pressurization rate.
At Ginna the as-installed ring adjustments will provide proper performance since the ring settings were originally determined by Crosby based on a 7 to 10 ft,. long loop seal. This setting envelopes the Ginna configuration which is less than 5 ft. long but the valves used in the EPRI testing required re-adjustment because the EPRI test loop was much longer (approximately 15 ft.). Also, the capability of the Crosby valves to achieve full flow was shown in the testing to be relatively insensitive to the actual ring setting. With the Ginna safety valves maintained at 18
the manufacturers ring settings, and with the above discussion of the acceptable valve performance during testing, the Ginna valves have been determined to not. require any readjustment to their settings. Xn light of concerns relative to these settings however, RG&E together with Westinghouse are reviewing the test results with Crosby in order to verify the correct adjustments on a plant specific basis.
An investigation was conducted to determine those parameters which are critical to the onset of valve chatter under steam discharge conditions. The results of this study are detailed in Reference 9'.
19
TABLE 4-1 COMPARISON OF PORV INLET FLUID CONDITIONS WITH "AS-TESTED" CONDITIONS Steam Conditions Ginna PORV Inlet Fluid Wyle Test Marshall Test Conditions 71-CV-316-1S No. 1 No. 11 Set Point 2350 2715 (2435-2475)
Pressure (psia)
Temperature 650 682 (sat.)
('F)
Fluid Type steam steam steam Flow Rate 210,000 255,600 (232,000-236,000)
(lbs/hr)
Water Conditions Ginna PORV Wyle Test Inlet Fluid 73-CV-316-4W Conditions 74-CV-316-5W Set Point 435 580 Pressure (psia) *(535)
Temperature 350 100-444
('F)
Fluid Type water water Flow Rate 219,000 (388,800-619,200)
(lbs/hr)
- Potential Overshoot Pressure 20
TABLE 4-2 TABULATION OF OPENING/CLOSING i TIMES FOR PORV Opening Time Closing Time Test Sec. Sec.
Marshall~
1 1.700 1.600 2 1.700 '1. 500 3 1.750 1.500 1.650 1.550 5 1.850 1.600 6 1'. 800 1.500 7 1.400 1.600 8 1.400 1.550 9 1.400 1.600 10 1.700 1.650 ll 1.450 1.500 flea*
71-CV-316-1S 0.60 1.43 72-CV-316-3W 0.65 1.31 73-CV-316-4W 1.01 0.60 74-CV-316-5W 0.98 0.66 75-CV-316-6W 0.64 1.44 76-CV-316-'2W 0.72 1.38 77-DV-316-7S/W 0.70 1.37 78-CV-316-8W/W 0.61 1.44 7 9-CV-3 16-9N/W 0.78 0.88
- Source: Reference (5)
- Source: Reference (7) 21
TABLE 4-3 COMPARISON OF SAFETY VALVE INLET FLUID CONDITIONS WITH "AS-TESTED" CONDITIONS Ginna Tests 6M6 Safety Valve No. 906-913, Inlet Fluid Tests 3K6 917-923, 925 1406, Conditions 525-532 and 536, 1415 and 1419 Set Point, 2500 2500 2500 Pressure (psia)
Temperature 650 650 650
('F)
Fluid Type steam loop seal/steam loop seal/steam Flow Rate 288,000 (lbs/hr)
I Pressurization 202-240 3. 4-200 1. 1-375 Rate (psi/sec)
Stability Stable** Stable **
tial opening 2536-2630 2455-2600 essure (psia)
Pop Pressure, 2532-2707 2455-2757 (psia)
- Rated flow achieved but not reported in EPRI Tables, Reference (7).
- As reported by EPRI in performance data tables 'of Reference (7).
22
'l TABLE 4-4 MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE PRESSURE FOR PRESSURIZER SAFETY VALVE INLET PIPING*
Outside Nominal Diameter Thickness Permissible
'Pi e Size ~in in Pressure si Level B Level C 6-inch Sch. 160 6.625 0.719 5229 7131 6-inch Sch. 120 6.625 0.562 4004 5460
- 4-inch Sch. 160 4.500 0.531 5733 7818 4-inch Sch. 120 4.500 0.438 4644 6333 3-inch Sch. 160 3.500 0.438 6119 8344 Source: Reference (9)
- Applicable for temperatures below 300'F.
- ~Applicable to Ginna.
5.0 CONCLUSION
S The preceding sections of this report and the reports referenced herein indicate the valves, piping arrangements, and fluid inlet conditions for Ginna are indeed bounded by those valves and test parameters of the EpRI Safety and Relief Valve Test Program.
The EPRI tests confirm the ability of the Safety and Relief Valves to open and close under the expected operating fluid conditions.
0 APPENDIX 25
APPENDIX I INLET PIPING PRESSURE EFFECTS Inlet Pi in Flow Pressure Dro (hPF)
The flow pressure drop is given by, (k+1 + fL) M D
hPF = 2 2g pA
- where, k = expansion or contraction loss coefficient (dimensionless) f = friction factor (dimensionless)
L = piping equivalent length/diameter considering effects of D fittings and friction (dimensionless)
M = maximum valve flow rate for steam (as established by the safety valve manufacturer) (lb/sec) g = gravitational constant (32.2 lb-ft/lb-sec 2 )
p = steam density at nominal valve set pressure (lb/ft3 )
A = inlet piping flow area (ft )
Acoustic Wave Am litude (PAPAW)'he acoustic wave amplitude is calculated as follows. There are two situations to consider:
If T <2 L/a, aM AW gA
>> 26
I If T >2 L/a,
~p AN 2LM gAT where, a = steam sonic velocity at nominal valve set. pressure (ft/sec)
L = inlet piping length (ft)
T = valve opening time for steam inlet conditions as established from the EPRI testing effort is 10msec for the Crosby safety valves.
The other variables are the same as defined in the previous section.
- 3. Plant-S ecific Pressure Dro The plant-specific pressure drop associated with valve opening is equal to the sum of the friction pressure drop (hP ) and the acoustic wave amplitude (SPAN) as determined abo5e.
- 4. Calculation of Inlet Pi in Flow Pressure Dro for Ginna Ginna (k+1+ f D) M bPF =
2g pA
- 27
- where, 0.5 (sudden contraction at Pressurizer Nozzle)
.017 (Reference 10)
L = 3.3 + 1x50+1x16 = 77.5 (Reference 10)
D .287 7.65 lb/ft (saturated steam at 2500 psia) 0.064 288,000 lb r = 80 lb/sec 2600 sec/hr The Flow Pressure Drop for Ginna is, LP ' ' 62 1 si 64.4 x 7.65 x .064 x 144
'8
TABLE A-1 Ginna 1 Inlet Pi in Confi uration*
- Pipe Length: 3.3 ft
- Pipe Diameter: 4" sch 160
- Fittings: 1 180'lbow 1 90'lbow 1 45'lbow
- Total Loop Seal Length 4.8
- Crosby 4K26 Safety Valve 288,000 lb/hr rated capacity
.010 sec opening time
- NOTE: Typical Piping configuration for Ginna 29
5.4 Acoustic Wave Am litude GillIlB I
For the configuration described in Table A-l, the parameters are, T = .010 sec.
2L x 3.3 2
i Since T 2LM AN g AT AW 2x3.3x80 32.2 x .064 x .010 x 144 PAN 177.9 psi ~
6.0
~ Plant S ecific~
Pressure Dro hP = hPF'= SPAN Ginna Unit 1 hP = 62.1 + 177.9 P,P = 240 30
REFERENCES 1.~ EPRI PWR Safety and Relief Test Program, Valve Selection/
~
Justification Report, "Interim Report, August 1981".
~ ~ ~
- 2. Westinghouse Electric Corporation Report, ".Valve Inlet Fluid Conditions f'r Pressurizer Safety and Relief Valves in Westinghouse - Design Plants (Phase C)", Interim Report, December 1981.
- 3. EPRI PWR Safety and Relief Valve Test Program, "Test Condition Justification Report", Interim Report, April 1982.
- 5. "EPRI Marshall Power-Operated Relief Valve Interim Test Data Report" EPRI N0-1244-2D, Interim Report, February 1982.
- 6. "EPRI/Wyle Power-Operated Relief Valve Test Report, Phase I and II", EPRI NP-2147, LD, Interim Report, December 1981.
- 7. "EPRI PWR Safety and Relief Valve Test Program, Safety and Relief Valve Test Report", Interim Report, April 1982.
- 8. "EPRI PWR Safety and Relief Valve Test Program Guide for Application of Valve Test Program Results to Plant-Specific Evaluations", Interim Report, March 1982.
- 9. "Review of Pressurizer Safety Valve Performance as Observed in the EPRI Safety and Relief;Valve Test Program", June 1982, Westinghouse Report W Cap -10105.
- 10. Crane Technical Paper No. 410, "Flow of Fluids Through Valves, Fittings, and Pipe", 1976.
- 31
1 IIf $ ~
W gggg@gggpp~
%KM
~MWW~WW
~MWW~WW
~
HKAWMC~W XMRW W W
~MM&~WW i ~ CB~~~~ ~
~ ~
- ~
~
Kl~~
KN HM~~~~
RQ ETTA W~
~
~i IF~ ~~
~
~IRH~QQKKKS~ CXIW KHX~
KXE%lSZX
~0
~ f 0 4
~ g/~~~~~XV-' >c
~ M ~
~ ~
~ wg,
]~
P
~~ ca
~ l&a&%%&W L'UiQPPXKOQMIKQOOilQI
C C
0
10 efak CD44 $ 4$
SOIk CCI issdtti ~
tccnk sdo tfdoe $ o
~ fe efir44 f ~ ~ 44 VIC f4 I ~ fc
~ I'4 fr feceeec 4 .~
I
-'.S'~<><- fffcf I Cf I ~ 4 n 4 I ~
p
~ ~
l ~
~4 Cni I I4 in LL
$ $4 fffei4 4
0 C dhd
~O040 o sc $ $ $ Ik IC 4$
0" S 1C Cot fl I el-r) 4 ~ i~I4nl 444 4444
~ em fi
)
0 0 Vf 0'
0 0 r -~
lflkkl
~ 4444ffne eie 9 crikrrfna j(CL loo
$44$ )
)K ffeeke aefr f¹,
) Xckrrlu S~~
g '/ 04 44kr
~
CenO 04 $ 44 c'Col'$\$ CICI4 Ii, 4)
Olocsaeeetcs ence facecafs lflotffLLCO tf CAI44$ $ IC ),C~
44.
Q I44&I ~
~
O)CP~ ir ~I pfg,~
~4
'n lenll
'ct< I I, $ ¹kkk C4 4 ~
Olcl 4 4k cr eas r sa t-4 )q n. I nn ek acfkLI ~ I nr g CCI kl kllkcl W 4 4k 0 n Ik¹$
L kl lani ~ CrM ck SM ¹lekkL
$ 44L 44'o.l $ $ $ $ ICLLL 4 IQ CCK.ko 'LS Ogn
. =1 0 c
e I neer I coo ~ \ ~ f ff'i ~
n ~ i'4 40$ 4 Col
' 4 ff ne
() C'~~, C:
I. $
~
0
~
I f
~ ~tk
~ ~
4 444 i' 4
~Thill. A IC fw Fnfcc I IFIII Ilf I IFf $ ,I I
I a Ia P
1
)10 0
0 d ;I,-
0 ra 4 0) 40'0 I p t
,il.-". i0 CI 5";g :t~ l )5g g)sg PE 0 0 0 yeiQ
')
f0>> ~
~ NX4 GS .l.
<>
3 Il0)J
~a
~ Il J0
~
~ al 0 aa a) a) ~
h.'a (10)l ~~a)I a a) 0)I'a laaaai)I )00a CI C l)a)0 001 0) lllal'I I
00 )ra 4 0)
< .4)' .c~
II v c -//'
iO
/
~ +'g
~
1 4)
)
0 I I/
/ '///'r
>r' j i
)/aaa/rr/
l '/// ~j//
OG rI q
~ ltd,
'/j/ rr $ fs
/ *
)a )I 0a I
0 4Ci>
0 0 <<)I 0)
}0
~ cece cwl <<e oote OSO-I LOO'PS~
l))eg OOO I SSOOP)aa)
I sba iV alt tall<< Ce<<alee SC
))h
,-- }8 aHN Clet
~ ae
<<a I~
ptt <<Naca PNC <<I~ Nr
~
a<< II tlI)~ I
~ IC
'40pp Vll -'o f aa '}
~ ss) ta<<aa L,e
)Itl'ipa )'I
) alta eat ~ Ie <<tl rr te Iee<<l
~P l) ) )C ) )) I' I<<
Ia) )a Cheat)a))t 0 0 4 ~ SIIO lac ~ 0 I a<<pe e <<aoael 8 0 cata<<<< ll
'Ip i~+~~ ~ ~ ))1
~ SS star)I
~ 0 tearer<<tell
. '-"0 see<<ac<< ~~~
@ted, )g aaeart<<<<<<aw 8ww IICP
'et )C le<<waer<<e &eee)
P WWII PO
~ tew<<a
+eetaUI
+nt
'spy I S)O hhl)
L Ie)OW P 0)a ) hath w h)IOII h)a r 0 I ~i%.<'." .'. ppo Q CI I hh Oe 1)%l h I W
~
tl ) w wIIOU wal h Iwah h I Ives L U OIRI ~ )eath)t lh Wtael.
y) Ie L ear UPI I et) )I 0 aaaeta) Petti
).
,I ~ I e)1 )I - I e )1 Nl US ~aaJ,)))
WL+ Mt
<<nrra <<I C PAI II a<<al c Iaer'tta ptvap Iet *PJ
~ ~)l) 0 ~et al pet Pter I'lea (Ie) stt
))))<<o t~ tale e<<ILI)c<<
pea)tat<<a\ Il c P trra
~ aec<<IC terat f'J lhhh)I )t)CC)p)tk e f
,8z epe IC'8a)4 e~
P.)) <el 1
I C-38) 35 ) B tCIC ) f'
4 4
0
)0 Icaaa ca<<<<ao COCA 0)OV C 00 Ptetl 0<<e 4 la<<TV OOO Plere NT<<TKEO<<<<EK 4'st ao 0 teT CO<<II Tot lat I<<'ICOVT ll 'I)
)EC ~ ve<<CITE C)e C<<vt lll ael() Tait C )Oe II) a, Ovet
~ ve <<N<<l ~ ~
VTT
~ W NV I~ Tee eee WN 4 l<<0 V le Tata l<<le<<
(~l
\coOKT COVO
)CC
/CK C a) ls) \<<ae aaa e>> 1 0 "
1<<L ~
ET a t)at coIIN /ot ga
)
C<<vt
~ <<I' IlCI'I)
~ C )OI.)5)
~ VE We U<<W 0 ~ I
~0 0 el (5
ttCCAP EVW I~
/b ca<<<<v O<<ee 0'le I d~ OOO ~<<a t) elec Oal Ill 4'va 04 IL Te'I ll
~r ~C Ill COO I) IITOCEI
~ KV<<TKT T ~ 0 ca<<<<a<<e<<N
)g eeaeataee<<wt 8~~
)Na Ea<<TWIT<<m Mv<<at P ~T
~e~
QK<<ala A
a)ll a
~
I 4~
QTT.) ats al IIEKII~ Raa
/It) aa aaaa O 9)
.'a TICE Cal al ale<<el Klla ~IO III L al alai 4%<<atl K
).<<aa teal at) laa'les) <<4tlo
~
~ Taa IEOTI KIIIOL oa400 <<<<teat Q TOC CONT <<I S,OOS I'vl TWI(11)
Ne Tvve <<e
~ T Ta ~
0<<
0 I ~ IK ~ t<<
j C
kill tat<<a teal(
ca ill.11\
)58 TE VTI aeveevec
~I IU, ~80 T T Tel<<<<v NV << ~
OCSOCAttL Ot T<<
toj) 0448 4 C-38) 1 8 5 fbf
ig',r