ML17297B809

Forwards Results of Tests Demonstrating Operability of Purge & Vent Valves,Resolving SER Item II E.4.2.Valves Need Not Be Sealed Closed & Verified Closed as Stated in NRC

ML17297B809
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	11/16/1982
From:	Van Brunt E ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR
To:	Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
ANPP-22288-WFQ, NUDOCS 8211230364
Download: ML17297B809 (16)

Text

v REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIOS)

ACCESSION NBR:8211230364 OOC ~ DATE: 82/11/16 NOTARY ED:

YES FACIL STN 50 "528 Palo Verde Nuclear Station<

Uni.t ii Ar izona Publ i STN 50 5?9,Palo Verde Nuclear Stations Uni.t 2i Arizona Publ i STN 50 530 Palo Verde Nuclear Station<

Unit 3i Arizona Publi AUTH BYNAME AUTHOR Af'FILI ATION VAN BRUNT~BE.

..Arizona Public Service Co ~

RECIP ~ NAME RECIPIENT AFFIl IATION 8 NOVAKgT,M, Assistant Director for Licensing

SUBJECT:

Forwards results of tests demonstrating operability of purge L vent va'ives~resolving'ER Item II E.0+2.Valves need not be sealed closed 8, verified closed

=as ~stated in NRC 811102 I tr ~

DISTRIBUTION CODE:

8001S COPIES -RECEIVED:LTR J ENCL t

SIZE ~,

TITLE: Licensing Submittal:

.PSAR/FSAR Amdts 8, Related Correspondence NOTES:Standandized plant.

Standardized plant ~

Standardized plant.

DOCKET 05000528 05000529 05000530 05000528 05000529 05000530

, RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME NRR/DL/ADL NRR L83 LA INTERNALS ELO/HDS3 IE/DEP EPDS 35 NRR/OE/AEAB NRR/OE/EQB 13 NRR/DE/HGEB

'30 NRR/DE/MTEB 17 NRH/OE/SAB 20 NRR/DHFS/HFE840 hlRA/DHFS/OLB 3A NRR/DST/AEB 26 NRR/DSI/CSS 09 NRA/DS I/METB 12 N

?8 EG FI 0Q M /MIB EXTERNAL ACRS 41 DMB/OSS (AMOTS)

LPDR 03 NSXC 05 COPIES LTTR ENCL 1

'0 1

0 1

0 1

1, 0

2 1"

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 i

6 6

1 1

1 1

1 RECIPIENT IO CODE/NAME NRR LB3 BC LICITRAg E, 01 IE F ILE IE/OEP/EPLB 36 NRR/OE/CEB 11 NRR/DE/GB 28 NRR/DE/MES 18 NRR/DE/GAB, 21 NRR/DE/SEB 25 NRR/OHFS/LQB 32 NRR/DL~/SSPB NRR/DS I/CPS 10 NRR/DSI/ICSB 16 NRR/DS I/PS 8 19 NRR/DS I/RSB 23 RGNS

,BNL(AMDTS ONLY)

FEMA~REP OIV 39 NRC PDR '2

. NTIS COPIES LTTR ENCL 1

0 1

1 1

1 3

3 1

1 2

2 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

0 1

1 1

1 1

1 3

3 1

1 1

1 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRE D:

LTTR 52 ENCL 05 V'

T,I WJl)()

'I,',>>c'

) )le

<<)

>>'E>c 4> g.t 4>>4> cy <<'

c.ci I I r I.)4)"

t

) 'I)>

W>><<J>>

I I >'

t,"

c," 9g;

>.S, ) )'>>A T

<>> 4 ll >>) ~ r '1 >4 K

I>>hilt)Q ll

>)0.<<h r ')>>

~

.) I ) I.) 1 rIl c 4

1'>>

1 f l 1'4 f

> r 44) f >> I I>>>>

>> 4)A I I I> t

>>4<<gl rc~)

ff<<r;

~ e) 3

')

) f

,;->r;:4) )>rJ 1

t I >>l<< l ><<

)>>

)

C>>4 4

Q>>)-

4>>O >>>)4>>>>>4>> I<<>>

') 6 ".> I p 4 c y>>

'->>>) l ') )

I') I I )I f Il'I 1

4 N44< I 1>)c' t I )c)

',I

>.)Ir)< c'1 T Il'.ll 1 l>c OP )')') f i<<

I I(<>>>>>> I c'>>.>

>>I'I II>> c) II l I>>) I c:

$ ~ J>>

>>f

~

~ 4>>

4

)>>

) I)

I 9>><1

) ~ 4 y) f T t

>>) Io

<<. C)r Jr;<<I<<<<;.<<

>>> II,>'4r',">>. <<<< ~

1 I,L I<<)y 1 il I '44 r v Ir)<<'v>>I >><<',~

> I ).)

f c)<)v "1 f

.>>'") ) <<>> ) 8 c))s

<<i'i 'C) I;)

" ) r I C l9V

~

4) <<c) I 1

') ) I >)')c>>

>J'I I

r)

.') l I

><<<>>> )

! 4XTr, I I )3

)IfI:

) I T

$ )1

~

">> jI )>>,.>>

",)<<p <<,",,<<<<rl<,"I

."c I I l I'I..

n'.)r>>rlr) <<'"Oaq<<).),)l)gf,l>>)

p 4;1>>,<<4)C I) IC'. 3~)'<<4<<;

I

.'<<>1 g r>>,<<<<<<)44.'>> )r">>>

I ) r I

! J I I I I

>>>>) 4" Ii li)r I) c)>> c

>l<<I )) <l c)

II) g>>

<<i<<I) <) c) I) e I ref) I "1

<<'>>'15 CI)'ll>>'>>I)c> 1

~ ! )>>>>

1 T

'I I)I> I ')l I>>:.4

.4 fl I'II << I')>'I c

~ I I ') <> 4>> l <,

8 )I 19)

I~'".)

< f ) 3'-I

.I 'I rll J f cl

~ I g pi

) I g i f I

~ ]f'IIJ 0

I ">>'

1f 3 il~

j '>I."'Xc I<>)),J,<<W

e. "3 f

f 4) f f

f f

I If IJT I

<<I J" < 4'44 3 I

)>><<4 ) 7

),)>>4 l

I c>>>c.I41gC-<<, ll,'

)

'c>

> X

~

~>>>>>>>>l<<4>>

rj I 4>> $

$ c > X lI P) L

l>>>

AX<<'~ I'>

%5<<))4" ill, i

>) i

i>>. II 474 4

'l'l

')4> ')X pi>>cl<<%5I<<)>>

I f

l f

l, f

f f

f 1

I J

I I)Fif c>h >>1 af

)>> )>

I F>>,'ic>>4, <<ll; I Tell l

<<J

'"~ IW I,A )h>>4 1

>>>>>)

Q

>>>>rh l

>>u l I

>>I>>> il 1 l k>>;<<

'I') 44>>>> ll'

4) X '4 "4

<<J)wc I Iuk 4'~>>.

'I "I ') X <I

) I "'>>. "$

<<", Irl )AJ 3,'I I Pc, VI )

)1 I))-)I"> I I

1 ll, 4,'r I"i I

f W

I.<

I 4 ') I I

) x

)

(I' 'I Ii J 6()

I (ll

))4

> I I

>>'l,, >> )-4)')>>

)pc c' ll

~ '

I y

ARRONA NUCLE~POWER PROJECT Post Office Box 2166~hoenix, Arizona 85036 November 16, 1982 ANPP 22288-WFQ/JYM Mr. T. g. Novak Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.

C.

20555

Subject:

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) Units 1, 2 and 3

Docket Nos.

STN-50-528/529/530 File:

82-056-026.

G.l.01.10

Reference:

(1)

(2)

(3)

NUREG-0857, "Safety Evaluation Report" related to the Operation of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) Units 1, 2 and 3

dated

November, 1981.

NRC letter to E.

E.

Van Brunt, Jr. from Frank J.

Miraglia dated September 23, 1981,

Subject:

Request for Additional Information Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station APS letter to Robert L. Tedesco from E. E. Van Brunt dated November 2, 1981,

Subject:

PVNGS

Dear Mr. Novak:

Section II E.4.2 of the referenced (1)

SER discussed the evaluation of the operability of the PVNGS purge valves.

APS agreed to submit documentation for review to show that the containment power access isolation valves satisfy the operability criteria set forth in Branch Technical Position CSB No. 6-4.

Guidelines for Demonstration of Operability of Purge and Vent Valves were forwarded in reference (2).

The enclosure provides the results of testing to satisfy those guidelines.

Demonstration of the various aspects of operability of purge and vent valves were adequately covered by analysis and bench testing.

In situ testing was not deemed necessary for demonstrating valve operability.

Also, considera-tions which assured valve design adequacy were included.

ggo l 82ii2~O OSOOO528 I

I

"~ 821116

, PDR ADGCK o pDR LI E

~ I f

(

Page 2.

PVNGS purge valves satisfy the operability criteria therefore it is not necessary that the valves be sealed closed and verified closed as stated in reference (3).

We believe this information adequately responds to the request made by confirmatory item No.

7 of the subject SER.

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me.

Very truly yours, PP, LI~S E.

E. Van Brunt, Jr.

APS Vice President, Nuclear Projects ANPP Project Director EEVBJr/JYM/dh Attachment cc:

A. C. Gehr L. Bernabei P. Hourihan E. Licitra

~ <

I

STATE OF ARIZONA

)

) ss.

COUNTY OF MARICOPS)

I, A. Carter Rogers, represent that I am Nuclear Engineering Manager of Arizona Public Service Company, that the foregoing document has been signed by me for Edwin E. Van Brunt, Jr., Vice President Nuclear Projects, on behalf of Arizona Public Service Company with full authority so to do, that I have read such document and know its contents, and that to the best of my knowledge and behalf, the statements made therein are true.

0MP Sworn-to before me this I I I ap4 any ot

@loyal.

4e c, 1982 Of.

Notary Public

~ 'i',) l

\\

--. My Commission expires:

My Commlsslon Expires May 19, 1986

Z';".".',Ct y.",A ae>>qx3 naia:!zuio3 yM

GUIDELINES FOR DEMONSTRATION OF OPERABILITY OF PURGE AND VENT VALVES OPERABILITY In order to establish operability it must be shown that the valve actuator s

torque capability has sufficient margin to overcome or resist the torques and/or forces (i.e., fluid dynamic, bearing, seating, friction) that resist closure when stroking from the initial open position to full seated (bubble tight) in the time limit specified.

This should be predicted on the pressure(s) established in the containment following a design basis LOCA.

Considerations which should be addressed in assuring valve design adequacy include:

1.

Valve closure rate versus time i.e., constant rate or other.

2.

Flow direction through valve; P across valve.

3.

Single valve closure (inside containment or outside containment valve) or simultaneous closure.

Establish worst case.

4.

Containment back pressure effect on closing torque margins of air-operated valve which vent pilot air inside containment.

5.

Adequacy of accumulator (when used) sizing and initial charge for valve closure requirements.

6.

For valve operators using torque limiting devices are the settings of the devices compatible with the torques required to operate the valve during the design basis condition.

7.

The effect of the piping system (turns, branches) upstream and downstream of all valve installations.

8.

The effect of butterfly valve disc and shaft orientation to the fluid mixture egressing from the containment.

Response

1.

Valves close at constant rate in five (5) seconds or less.

2.

There are four valves - two valves for inlet power access purge and two valves for outlet power access purge.

On a DBA the flow is reversed through the inlet pair and is in normal direction through the outlet pair.

The differential pressure across the valves is 43 psi (based on the first pressure peak for a double ended discharge leg slot break at about 15 seconds even though valve is closed in 8.35 seconds, refer to FSAR Figure 6.2.l-3)

~

3.

Valves are simultaneous closure.

The worst case was determined to be a single valve closure of the inside containment valve that has a reverse flow during a DBA, with the outside containment valve fixed at the fully-open position.

The calculation of the required closing torque for these worst cases valves was determined in an analysis program to be 1,636 inch-pbunds.

4.

Not applicable since valves are motor operated.

5.

Not applicable since valves are motor operated.

6.

The torque limiting device will be removed from the valve operator.

The valve operator torque rating is 15,600 inch-pounds.

7.

The effect of the piping system configuration was considered in the analysis conducted by the vendor.

The results are provided in Torque Table l.

8.

The results are provided in Torque Table 1.

4

~

~

k t

~

~

DEMONSTRATION Demonstration of the various aspects of operability of purge and vent valves may be by analysis, bench testing, in situ testing or a combination of these mcanal Purge and vent valve structural elements (valve/actuator assembly) must be evaluated to have sufficient stress margins to withstand loads imposed while valve closes during a design basis accident.

Torsional shear,

shear, bending, tension and compression loads/stresses should be considered.

Seismic loading should be addressed.

Once valve closure and structural integrity are assured by analysis, testing or a suitable combination, a determination of the sealing integrity after closure and long term exposure to the containment environment should be evaluated.

Emphasis should be directed at the-effect of radiation and of the containment spray chemical solutions on seal material.

Other aspects such as the effect on sealing from outside ambient temperatures and debris should be considered'esponse:

Demonstration of these valves is done by analysis and bench testing.

A seismic analysis has been made and stress margins have been tabulated; i.e., calculated stress versus allowable stress.

In all cases the calculated stress was lower than the allowable stress.

The above calculations have been made with normal flow conditions.

An analysis was conducted under simulated DBA conditions and results are given in Torque Table 1.

The seat or sealing material is an EPT rubber seat matgrial.

This material is documented to withstand a radiation level of 1 x 10 at a temperature of 350 F.

The seat material is not affected by the containment spray 0

chemical solution.

BENCH TESTING The following considerations apply when testing is chosen as a means for demonstrating valve operability:

A.

Bench testing can be used to demonstrate suitability of the in-service valve by reason of its traceability in design to a test valve.

The following factors should be considered when qualifying valves through bench testing.

1.

Whether a valve was qualified by testing of an identical valve assembly or by extrapolation of data from a similarly designed valve.

2.

Whether measures were taken to assure that piping upstream and down'stream and valve orientation are simulated.

4

~

~

~ 't V

3.

whether the following load and environmental factors were considered:

l a ~

b ~

C ~

d.

e ~

Simulation of LOCA Seismic loading Temperature soak Radiation exposure Chemical exposure Debris B.

Bench testing of installed valves to demonstrate the suitability of the specific valve to perform its required function during the postulated design basis accident is acceptable.

1.

The factors listed in items A.2 and A.3 should be considered when taking this approach.

Response

A.l These valves were qualified by extrapolation of data from a similarly designed valve A.2 The effects of piping upstream and downstream and the effect of valve orientation were determined in the analysis conducted by vendor with the DBA flow conditions and are provided in Torque Table 1.

A.3 The bench testing program did consider items 3a, 3b, and 3c.

Radiation and chemical exposure have been discussed previously in this response under "D&fONSTRATION."

Debris problems are eliminated by grill covers on all the inlet and outlet duct openings which are inside the containment.

B.

Bench testing of installed valves was not used for qualifying these valves.

IN SITU TESTING In situ testing of purge and vent valves may be performed to confirm the suitability of the valve under actual conditions.

Mhen performing such

tests, the conditions (loading, environment) to which the valve(s) will be subjected during the test should simulate the design basis accident.

NOTE:

Post test valve examination should be performed to establish structural integrity of the key valve/actuator components.

Response

In situ testing was not used for qualifying these valves'

I R

~

~

~ 5 1

~

D-37523(D01

-687)

TORQUE TABLE 1

6/82 C

JOB:BECHTEL/PALO VERDE SAT.STEAM/AIR MIXTURE WITH 1.4 LBS STEAN PER 1-LBS AIR SPEC.GR."-.738255 NOL.WT.= 21.3872 KAPA(ISEHT.EXP.)= l.l9775 GAS CONSTAHT-CALC.

SOHIC SPEED(MOVING MIXTR.)= 1322.41

'FEE'i/SEC AT 231 DEG.

R= 72.19?2 ABSOL.t(AX.TORQUE(FIRST SOHIC)AT ?2-68 DG.VLV.AHG.=

1636 IH-LBS e 68 DEG.

MAX.TOROUi ItiCLUDES SIZE EFFiCT(RiYHOLDS NO.ETC)APPX.

X 1.08515 FOR ?.5 CH BASIC LINE I D ~

ALL f'RESSURES USED:STATIC(TAP)PRESS

~ -ABSOLUTE>P2 IHCL ~ RECOVERY PRESS.

(TORQUE) CALC 'S VALIDITY:P1/P2>1.07; VALVE TYPE:

8"-1200 CLASS 150 DISC SIZE:

7.2 INCHES OFFSET ASYMMETRIC DISC SHAFT D'?A ~.'. 125 IHCHES.

BEARlt(G TYPE:

BROHZi SEATIHG FACTOR:

15 INLET PRESS.VAR.NAX. l 57 7

F'Slk OUTLET PRESSURE(F'6):

17 ~ 15 PSIA (72 DEG ~

ACTUAL F'RESS

~ ONLY(VAR~ ) )

NAX.AHG.FLOW RATE:

12613.8 CFM; 21803.4 SCFM; 1 196.59 LB/tlIH CRIT.SONIC FLOW-90DG:

663.6&1 LB/MIH AT 20.2i08 INLET F'SIA VALVE INLET DENSITY:

9.50220E-02 LB/FT"3-Mlt(..162356 LB/FT"3-r!AX.

FULL OF'EH DELTA P:

16.0666 PSI SYSTEM CONDITlOHS:

Plf'E It(-PIF'E-GUT -AHD-AIR/STEAM M?XTURE SERVICE e 231 DEG.F MIHIMUtl 0 ~ 75 DIAM~ PIF'i DOWHSTR AN FROM CENT ~ LINE SHAFT ~

IH Pl ABS.

PRESSURE

( ADJ. ) FOLLOWS IIME/PRE SS. TRAMSIEt(T CURVE.

-"5 IHoMODEL EGUIV.VALUES ACTUAL SIZc V4'sS ANGLE F'1 P2 DiLFRESS.

FLOM FLOM TD Ai'i'RXo i'SIA PSIA PSI RATIO (SCFM)

(LB/MIN ) ----IHCh' S----

TD 90 33.7?

15.95 17.62

.472 CR 21603 1198 5?9 85 37.33 14.99 22.33

.402 CR 25452 13'99 881 62 80 40.11 15.02 25.09

.3?4 CR 26633 1464 932 66 7~5 4~.

3 15'2 2?.51

.353 CR 266 T?ME

-TB"TH 554 fy 866 290 (LOC.)

fl Vcr ~

F 05 3 78.

4.21 4.60 2 43.82 14

~

.342 CR 25 "62 125 16'5 4 82 C

70 44.62 65 46.37 60 47.76 55 46.76 50 49.38 45 49.58 40 49.73 35 50.18 30 50.90 25 51.86 20 53.00 15 54.25 10 55;54 5 56.77 0 57.70 14.98 14.92 14.87 14.62 14.78 14.76 14.74 14.72 14.71 14.71 14.70 14.70 14.70 14.70 14.70 29.64 31.45 32.89 33.95 34.59 34,82 34.99 35.46 36.19 37.15 38.29 39.55 40,84 42.07

'43.00

.336 CR

.322 CR

.311 CR

.304 CR

.299 CR

.296 CR

.296

.293

.289

.284

.277

.271

.265

.259

.255 24639 1354 1700 120 22162 1218 1630 115 19035 1046 1272 10I 16040 861 1102 120 13140 722 654 137 12B75 707 831 152 8799 483 537 165 6896 379 326 179 5126 281

~ 184 194 3675 202 123 210 2324 127

. 95 228 1335 '3'7 242 642 35 22 255 213 11 16 266 0

0 1089 246 158G 4.96 1514 5.2?

1170 5.52

'962 5.70 716 5.81 679 5.65 379 147 6.00

-9 6.18 "86 6.43

-132 6.74

-205 7.l0

-232 7.49

-249 7.?2 843 8.35 SEATIHG + BEARIHG 4

HUB SEAL TORQUE (N/N)=

NAX.DYN. - BEARIHG -

HUB SEAL TORQUE (tl/M) 1089 IH-LBS e 0 DEG.

1636 IH-LBS 8 70 DEG.

~

~ ~

4

~

~ ~

~

~