ML18054B010
| ML18054B010 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 09/19/1989 |
| From: | Gerling R CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18054B007 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-NL-89-14-1, EA-NL-89-14-1-R, EA-NL-89-14-1-R00, NUDOCS 8909280097 | |
| Download: ML18054B010 (31) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:ATTACHMENT III Consumers Power Company Palisades Plant Docket 50-255 LTOP - HEAT ADDITION PRESSURE OVERSHOOT (EA-NL-89-14-1)
- September 22, 1989 30 Pages TSP0889-0101-MD01-NL04
Proc No GRE-02 DESIGN REVIEW SIGNOFF Attachment 3 Revision l Page l of l EA: A-AJL-8?- Jt/-I UFI: qso~ J/2 ~~a f o/ TITLE: L -roP - II EAT Af)(J1T10N lk~ss vfl.E CJve.eslloo::.T PURPOSE: '"2>ti7IE/Z.M.tAJE -rllE et:P'eC7"' ~ ?cs P/l.£SSvR£ IAJ!/£1..J Fo/ZC'i:J C.t/ZcvLJli/l'OA./
/S IN/714-rr;D WITH THC S/t;. ~eCoNDAW A'T A #16-/-Jef<- rt;/YIFfl-.itf'TvtzC. -rllAAJ "fHIZ 'Pcs. flt.e A/'IAL.y.s1 .s 1.s i>£"12-Fol2M£'LJ AS.su1111111cr -r/.J~ N'l?i..J KE?L..Acel"-1'.tVT 'Pot2-ll ~ Atl.£ //J.J"'//Cfl,..L.Ef) lttlD 71£ Yl/RIA8LE L loP S£r~o.Jr /.j ,µ S£/2V!C.E.
PROCEDUU UTILIZED: f2£T/2,41V AtJ/4LY.SIS j)£Sc.!21UJ) ?V/717'1~. SIKII.AaITIES WITH PREVIOUS DISIGHS: SUKKAIY or ll!SULTS: A s~-r e>~ /l £GJv1J2.£M ~;Jrs h>t<. P~1/t'J#llY Cbol"1A11 Po111P tJl'.1=-e.ABn.1r-r Wt1t./ A SE(o,J'DI','( 7u ?/2/tytJql!..'( ~T If P£'TE/2...M!AI££> (.SE&: SEc"T10-.J t../,a) SPECIAL MEDIA ATTACH!D (DRAWIHCs4!caor1c;'.$ ETC) MO / YES - LIST or AlTACllMDTS IBCLUDID FSAR UPDATE aEQUill!D: V"'° HO YES UPDATI A'l'TACHID oa UPDATE ASSIGlf!D TO: UQUIUD COMPLETIOll DAT!: R.1. G.fr /;,.,~ tr- I <16i/t1 4-" 01~ I 1/LrJr1 PR.EPAUD BY Oat* li'PR.EPAllD Date APPllOVID BY
'/.f!_. J) dR,-
REVIEWED Y I ~1,~L8i Date JtJ/>wA VUVl!WD I r/L.:!Ld Date APPllOVID BY
~tWREPORT I t!Ltdt Date APPROVED BY fm0486-000ld-91
NUCLEAR OP IONS DEPARTMENT Document Review Sheet Document Title
~A -A -IVL -$-, _ ;'{
IDocument Number I Revision I Revision ~mber IPage } of 2 Item Page and /or Number Section Number Comments Response or Resolution 1.
"1* / - ,C ,-14E" o"l!IZ P/l.Ess .. Rt: ~V. (e11 :3~~~1 __~s-~~ To Of'Ef.J ~ *.* -.;-,....,/.,.../ -~--~ --1-k 1A2/ve. 15
( *. I 2
... -:ir_)__ A ..- - .. 3oo !'SJ&__ ( ._. s:: ,._,, ,l__ _l_T__ n __ * ..,.,. - - ALw~yr *--- 5e.,I l IJ--1-. /,;..;f r5S<<'"C.
L-------'-------------------1--~--'-~ ~-__T>>E____~_::t'J-:1£ ~ --~~.t°.h,Ji,.1t__ ___1"..... _____~-~--~~~------- _--lo 31~~:5;.._L------------l ._z._._ ___,_~~~----1----"-'"'-'"'~:::_:___fL_,,,e_ _i.r_ ___:;""' __ ~J:::>__,s_c_c_....,--=-=s:.s-=---'~-----"-f.J~___,J=--c__A_/V\..-"------'ir'-'~O----__,,c~*~-(A*r~11~L .kc:. -~-fts.,#'4~0.,__,>1'""s"--'e:......~~-L+/-_Jo""------- c;,.) T~~ ~~ ~~MmC~AA1a..4-f= _ ___,,b~*---------------1 ,___ __,________________c_E~fL__l.~A~~'~r-J______c_.._...J_'i) '°'°' ot--l.S __ l~f_-____5_~~--1)~£,s~~'(2~~~1::>~*~~--------~----------~----~~~~---~ ,__a_.__. __7~ *__!:__~!___ __ o_ivc. g_____'f'2~ ____ S1":~~1 ____f2-~..¥.f.&r__i1i;______ ___tlg: PorT TP..Al\J.rf'1' rt.. _ Dt:c.c._)__ LJ_ f"e..-toll'fLl 1~ 4.5.StJ.hled
'------'---------'-~--~--_E__1:._o_t.i__~~it-7 -~-U_1~Y_L__k'-l__fi~_1__ ___c_L_~~~~---TIJL__ ~- .b;,_iA_~~-~~ ~ t"1°-f-1i~ r 1-------1-----------1---'-1>-=E~C-'-'A_:_"l'______ Hrt'tT ffl.-o"" Tff.__E__ ~J_i:__ SJ{o..J .... l -rl'!fi: 5Dc._ or Cl~~ Jx:./o<<-
. _ __ __j___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Q,_ll:_ _____ B_______ )24~Pt'"D ___ J~tK~---~p___ __:t~_ ct.~~- _j?i!AhN~a.("~+/-~<=-~'¥2--js _5-far-f~ 5D(., 1-:s . __ _ _ J __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ f~L~~__I_____ g~p-~~!~~\..'I'_____ ---~~f~-- -~- 5____ !_~ ___A~-=---~_"._!="__ 2MT~ltca61e ll(&L 011~ ~ V-J1/I slti!
,______ ___,___________ --~~_Q_________ 5-;~~'---~---P~E1~~ L.. '(_ _ .!:'?3:: ___ _ A~~1_1::~-~~£ ~---- ________ i..-~~ D:H___d~,-~ _..;~ Jee ~s. 2.~
'-/. :Pe. 3::-_ "I ___ ~-Tue. __ __pg_g_ro~£D vP.fZ..111\&L._~--- ~Tor__ ___ ~_t;_IF\:>!bJ.E__'-.... ~"E ______ <-*-* ~ J~d~ ~ ,/,. fu,,s A/'e..
1--------~-'-~_-r___~---- _____ _p~~ ____ <:_~~~§-:~-- ( L\l~~---~-'1 ____ _§_!°~--~ -~ "l>JC ""l"\l ~lfl'\~-----~d~.ed,--~r..- 5hJ°/,tj-~c__c_ __
'-------- __ __ __ __ ?,./ -~~vie"irJ.J __c;H:f_s;_/c:-___-:(1..i_~ f;;:fff"~T _c;,':!___l"i.\1,._f~__ :___________ ~J:_cur_k'_e:..__~5q/h__~ ~--- ___
Reviewer
-r: c. . D \J FF'-f I Organization 12..)( ENG-.
ID~izs- (<;<<; I Review Coordinator r Document Sponsor I Date J Form 3110 1 82
1.0 OBJECTIVES An analysis is performed for the Palisades Plant to determine the effect on PCS pressure when forced circulation is initiated with the SG secondary at a higher temperature than the PCS. The analysis is performed assuming the new replacement PORVs are installed and the PCS conditions are such that the proposed variable Low Temperature Overpressure Protection <LTOP> setpoint is in service. The analysis calculates the pressure overshoot beyond the LTOP trip setpoint for several initial PCS conditions to form a basis for procedural guidance with respect to primary coolant pump <PCP> operability, when a primary to secondary temperature difference exists. The analysis is also designed to protect against the possibility of an inadvertant pump start with a primary to secondary delta T. This analysis is performed in response to A-NL-89-14. 1.1 Background Current plant Technical Specifications prohibit starting a PCP if the SG secondary water temperature is higher than the PCS temperature and the LTOP System is in service <Reference 1). This is to preclude overpressurizing the PCS due to reverse heat transfer from the SG when the pump is started, before PCS pressure control can be regained. With the replacement of the current PORVs with larger, higher capacity valves the possibility exists for removing (or relaxing) this restriction. However, the proposed variable LTOP setpoint will reduce margin to the Appendix G pressure limits by raising the trip setpo1nt at certain PCS temperatures in order to take advantage of the greater relief capacity of the new PORVS (as they affect other overpressure concerns>. Therefore, in order to relax the PCP start requir~ment, both the capability of the new PORVs and the proposed variable LTOP setpoint must be considered. It should also be noted that a further res~riction will exist if the Shutdown Cooling <SOC> System is in service. The overpressure relief valve on the SOC System piping is set to try to limit pressure to 315 psia <Reference 2). The floor of the variable LTOP setpoint will be 326 psia, therefore, a SG to PCS temperature difference of zero degrees will have to be maintained *
- 1-38
- 2.0 ANALYSIS INPUT & METHODOLOGY The RETRAN-02 MOD 5.0 computer code is used in this analysis to calculate the PCS pressure response <Reference 3). A model is developed from the Palisades M24-0SG C7R0 base model <see Figure 1 and Reference 4) to simulate the scenario described earlier. The changes made to develop this new base model <labeled the PAL RETRAN LTOP MODEL>
are as follows:
- 1. The normalized power dependent non-conducting heat exchanger in the referenced base model is changed to a flow and temperature dependent non-conducting heat exchanger. This type of heat exchanger model requires a heat transfer coefficient be specified by the user <see Attachment 1 fer the calculation of this coefficient>. This heat exchanger allows the user to specify the secondary temperature as a function of time. The heat transfer is then calculated knowing the heat transfer coefficient, the primary to secondary temperature difference and the flow through the heat exchanger.
- 2. The SOC System or SGs are assumed to be removing all decay heat.
Therefore, a minimal decay heat power is initially specified to allow an easy initialization. This power is then ramped to zero in the first 5 seconds.
- 3. The new PORV data is incorporated into this model (see Attachment 2). This analysis assumes only one valve is available for pressure relief. This assumption covers single failure criteria as well as allows for the possibility of normal maintenance of one valve when the LTOP System is in service.
- 4. The PCPs are modeled as being off initially and a 10 second ramp to full speed is incorporated into the base model pump data
<Attachment 3).
The PAL RETRAN LTOP MODEL is maintained and controlled on the Reactor Engineering Dept. VMS IBM computer under ID RJGERLIN. The files containing the model data are named LTDP DATA Al and LTOPl DATA Al. The base model is initialized without steady state initialization
<SSI), assuming solid, stagnant conditions at 300 psia and 120 F. A converg~d solution is more easily obtained without SSI when there is no initial flow. The boundary conditions used are similar for all cases performed. The secondary temperature is ramped to produce a 100 F delta-T aver the first 40 seconds of the simulation. At 40 seconds the lA PCP is started and ramped to full speed in 10 seconds. PZR heaters are also turned en at 40 seconds to add a slight amount cf conservatism to the calculations. The simulations are performed for differing lengths of time depending on the particular case being analyzed. It should be noted that the backpressure on the PORV is held at 100 psig, the approximate pressure at which the rupture disk will fail for the quench tank, in order to insure a slight conservatism in the PORV flow.
2-38
- The cases performed for this analysis are as follows:
Case 1 - Initial PCS Pressure = 300 psi a, Temperature = 120 F SG Temperature = 220 F PORV Trip Setpoint = 326 psi a Case 2 - Initial PCS Pressure = 300 psi a, Temperature = 170 F SG Temperature = 26121 F PORV Trip Setpoint = 326 psi a Case 2A - Initial PCS Pressure = 300 psi a, Temperature = 17121 F SG Temperature = 190 F PORV Trip Setpoint = 326 psi a Case 3 - Initial PCS Pressure = 300 psi a, Temperature = 210 F SG Temperature = 311i'J F PORV Trip Setpoint = 326 psi a Case 4 - Initial PCS Pressure = 300 psi a, Temperature = 25121 F SG Temperature = 35121 F PORV Trip Setpoint = 326 psi a Case 5 - Initial PCS Pressure = 875 psi a, Temperature = 350 F SG Temperature = 450 F PORV Trip Setpoint = 885 psi a Case 6 - Initial PCS Pressure = 2060 psi a, Temperature = 418 F SG A Temperature = 518 F, SG 8 = 418 F PORV Trip Setpoint = 2062 psi a 1A PCP Started The initial PCS conditions chosen for each case are from data points along the proposed variable LTOP setpoint curve developed in Reference 5. For Cases 2, 4 and 5 the data points coincide with a change in heatup (or cooldown> rate. These points will therefore result in the smallest margin to the Appendix G limit, at those particular heatup rates. The pressure rise and overshoot as predicted in each case is compared to the Appendix G limit as calculated in Attachment 4 as well as the overshoot calculated for inadvertant HPSI and charging pump starts in Reference 5 .
- 3-38
- Case 6 addresse9 the Steam Generator Tube Rupture <SGTR> accident.
temperatures above SOC System operability <"-350 F>, the SGTR is considered to be the only scenario in which a SG to PCS temperature difference 9hould exist. Deliberate operator actions are taken to isolate the affected SG <which then remains hot, if PCPs are off), thus At creating the delta-T. Without this type of action by the operators
<even if it wasn't the result of a SGTR> a temperature difference between the primary and the secondary cannot be creat~d until SDC is in service. The overshoot is calculated for the case where the PCP is started in the same loop as the hot SG. It should be noted that this case is modeled assuming an initial zero degree AT in the cold SG loop <decay heat is essentially set to zero in the model). In reality, a delta T <primary to secondary> large enough to remove the decay heat would be present in this SG. When the PCP is started, heat will be transferred from the hot SG to the PCS and, in turn, some of this heat (above and beyond the decay heat) will be transferred back through the cold SG to the secondary. The modeling approach results in the same heat transfer mechanism since this transfer is based on the relative change in PCS*temperatures.
3.0 ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions are made to perform the calculations in this analysis.
- 1. The plant is in a steady state condition at the initiation of the event - all PCS heat being generated is also being removed.
- 2. One PORV is available. This assumption is necessary to satisfy single failure criteria. The PORV opening time is given in Attachment ?
A total stroke time of 2.10 seconds is used from th~ September 12, 1989 transmittal from MPR Associates.
~- The PCS is assumed to be solid at the initiation of the event for all cases.
- 4. The backpressure on the PORV is maximized to minimize flow when the valve is not in a choked flow condition.
- 5. PZR heaters are assumed to be on at the initiation of the event to maximize the pressure increase.
- 6. The PZR is assumed to be saturated for all .cases to maximize the p~essure increase .
- 4-38
PALISADES RETRAN - 02 MODEL
/
I I
/
/
LOOPI
' \
\
PllllUT IYITlll 1n Z I
/
/
~z '\
I I I ITUll 1uu&1111 \
\
I I
-ITUll IDIEUTOI
'II I I I I I I I I I n no.1* I J PlESSlll 1ZU SPllU Liil 1112 l J (I. 110.**
I soz \ I I 122 I I P1L II NZ
122 zn 22J (
I lL12t.H 1 _!."aa "'9D I I El IZZ.8
--ll&CTOI J£SSEL lL llO.IZ' 221 I
I I
.--------....;' ' lL IU.8
urru 1uo '2
'iI llCIT LH IO COllTIOL 210
,UPPH IOO 210 EL Ill.Ill' PUIWI SHROUDS COLD LEG 11 50 COLD UO 2& COLO LU 21 llZ 51 211 212 EL 611.llO' u ...... . (Liii.iii' ll.111.W' NIP IUCTIDI I& 1'1111' IUCTI DI I& , l'llllP IUCTIDI JI 172 I
I UGEID I ll IOI. i.* I
- Sl~~DL
- -t- -§--
', c ~~~L--~--'-o oroocn11c rot UM: w1111 8 SUPl'OIT ISSDllLY 10 COUUPOIDllG R::;au llD P&SSIYl IE.AT CGllDUCTOI § 10 JUICTIOI WITI COllESIOllDIP~ I . .Cl LOWU PLDllJC II I
IEOICCTllC YCLUM: Will l 12 J
\ I l'OltEllD HUl CO' DUCTOI
/.
AIP COIR£Sl't'JOll*Q llMUI
~--------/
LOWD IUD 12 l'IW JDU.llE
- 1lll C:Oll[SP'OIDIM 111&11 lL 511.71 1 ______ ' .....
..... _~~ ~ ~ _.. ,,,...
./
/
171
4.0 ANALYSIS RESULTS The results of the i ndi vi dual cases are presented in the tab 1 e bel o.w and microfiche of all the RETRAN runs are included with the EA. Table of Results PCS to PORV Peak Appendix G SG AT T pcs stpt. Press. Limit Case # <F) CF) Cpsia) <psi a> <psi a) 1 1012l 120 326 386 401. 7 2 100 170 326 413 389.7 2A 20 170 326 377 389.7 3 100 21 f2I 326 437 458.7 4 100 250 :326 4212l 536.7 s 100 350 885 963 1099. 7 6 1 tll0 418 2062 2189 2216 5.0
SUMMARY
& CONCLUSIONS On1y*one of the cases a~alyzed, Case 2, shows the peak pressure exceeding t~e Appendix G pressure limit. C~se 2, and its associated initial temperature of 170 F, is analyzed at the point where the cooldown rate changes from 20 to 40 F/hr. The margin to the pressure limit is significantly reduced at this point, making the 100 F 6T impossible. By reducing the temperature differential to 20 F (as in Case 2A>, acceptable results are achieved.
Case 6 is analyzed at the temperature corresponding to the point at which the PORV setpoint would be the closest to the maximum nominal operating pressure of 2060 psia. This occurs at 418 F and the Appendix G limit is 2216 psia. Beyond 418 F, up to the 430 F termiriation point, the PORV setpoint continues up *<to 2200 psia) while the nominal PCS
- pressure remains at 2060 psia. This leaves significant margin to the setpoint, thus reducing the overshoot. The Appendix G limit also continues up, beyond 2500 psia.
6-38
The Case 6 results indicate that a PCP can be started <in either loop, since the overshoot would be greater in the case analyzed) with as much as a 100 F Delta T between secondary ahd primary. It should be noted that for Case 6 the PZR is assumed solid initially, like all the other cases analyzed. In all probability there would be a steam bubble present at these conditions, thus reducing or eliminating any possible pressure overshoot. The results of this analysis support the following conclusions:
- 1. When the SOC Sy~tem is in operation, the SG water temperature cannot be higher than the PCS cold leg temperature when starting a PCP.
- 2. When the SOC System is not in operation, the SG can be 100 F hotter than the PCS cold leg between 120 F and 170 F and between 210 F and 350 F. The SG can be no hotter than 20 F above the PCS cold leg temperature between 170 F and 210 F.
- 3. Under accident conditions such as the SGTR event and with the PCS temperature between 350 F and 430 F: a PCP can be started in either 1 oop with as much as a 100 F A T.
7-38
6.0 REFERENCES
- 1. Palisades Technical Specifications, Section 3.1.8.
- 2. Palisades Instrument Index, M-311, Sht. 31-1.
- 3. RETRAN A Program for Transient Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis of Complex Fluid Flow Systems, EPRI-NP-1850-CCM, May 1981.
- 4. Palisades RETRAN Model, Vol. I-III, A & TA Section, CPCo.
S. EA-FC-809-13, Pressure Response Effects on VLTOP With Replacement PORVs, August, 1989 *
- 8-38
Attachment 1 SG Heat Transfer Coefficient Calculations 9-38
(@ consumers Power l'flfllfEIUll5 MKlflliAMS NO&llfSS PALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT ANALYSIS CONTINUATION SHEET EA- A-NL- 8'i-1"/ Sheet /o of ..38 Rev # _,,,.C'-------
~ /./(!A., /~~r C.Ce./h;~ cA££.,-A<;J1S
. h,r u'.s-e.. .1A 7?~T£At{ A.la.u- ~d/4.c:.-ftj J,tA.f- C',it(!..~C/"
Had'J.s. .
- 7J~"~/ ?cs ~e!/'-hod.s Nlkiw/j 5A't-t-fdo.vl1 art ~Se~
cl11---fA -hi<~ Nol"( R.);~5 ~r1;-kr'""' c~olo1,(.A.)V1
/C6 712AA../ 4-w:>.. 1; 5/S I sc~ - ~..J.tf- ss-, e-11~3 J 7'vi:.... J AJoVe..-¥14kr u, 118'5":
CS< , ~ 4. 9~G,c"O 'J.. tc 7 81'....) kr (_ +pu.w..p~ F""'P 11.e.....r LJ =- 34, 2.5'$ lbw../ S<..c:.
!Yo,,,, lf~T.ll'!N Vd' .. _/ : rJ~J e::tM.d JJt.<.,'mU-/~ I ~ V.I- s-o .J r'lf<!. rv~>1J ~,~CIA ~,.- ~e:.. ~,,._; ~ ~1'1t~yt:_
do/r:-td~ J40ri- tA>'ldu~:f~J ,kd ~~J~r" /S QC=- w., kc_ ( ~S - ~) Tl e.. c:.cx:///c:.,~f ~A...b/µfJ he,...~ rt~/"~sevi-l:s fie.. hf A~ 1 >>iu.>vi e)G/JC!d LIA.~~ bA.sec/ C:Yrl ~~~A.( //d..+1.-f ~d. ne.. /?cT.eA~
'Jbu-C!c;,,,ddj )~~JttM;er "Medel W/I/ CA..l~u.~A-fi.. ThG ?~5 h:J fra..,,,s*r- 'J s1n1;j su!uj f-J,~ ~6tJvc. _e1u~o¥f d~es-td~ CJ'?,.
...._~-fi~~~~~h~~~ri.IQ:L.:.::.....~~~~71~~~~=--~~~~~..Qr;:l,.~u"'-=~--=d.~,~/~~U'1~~..i.......::i..w....~h~n~Q~~~f~e. Furm 3650 9-87
Attachment 2 Palisades Replacement PORV Data
- 11-38
(@ AU(MU#'5 consumers Power l'flWEimll5 l'llOfiPH
. PALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT ANALYSIS CONTINUATION SHEET EA - A- N L Sheet f 2..
Rev# _C_ _ _ __ I~ of 38
?f?;~tome~-f- PaRV D.-+A-1.Ja.-fc,,... ~~ D...+a- (fe.sf clJ-~ -/20/g7)
Ave/A~e.. QP~ of'G4'<I
/.
d~e-t,/ Se<-.
-f1;,,,e.s
+ o. .3.¢6 S"~c. (s.17~ .../~,~G5S ..;. /;~-f)
-f C). 2.oc ~e.. vr1!.sst1re., S/J~~1 /'~~c:..ss)
-+ o. s¥a sec. .
c/D:S~ 1/. jg' S~. -f CJ./?if ~. (s1;"HJ ;"l"'a~~S.S 4- /';/,rf-)
+ c:'). z~ o s~ {jJ,.-es.sul"e:., s'J;,,~1 13r~~ss) r () .38/f' S~t:!...
S: /73Z... ~ z. ( o. CJ4ooc; /"t.2.)
)1tJn,,~ 4 ~. v'lt /ve:_
- Form 3650 9*87
_I
(@ consumers Power
~
AHD*Aln , . . . . ,55 PALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT ANALYSIS CONTINUATION SHEET
. EA- A-NL-89-l'-/
Sheet /3 Rev# of 38
--=o_ _ __
- -ff:.,$ t dA--fA. Cl~ ?/to /s'I 4 vi::r"j L. ~v = 219. 4 (cl'""->'1~ TeJ. ?yu- 110,
; j ,4-3/)
K= "39~ ("I ") =- 'l 7s-( z19 . .//)z.
./-fa.::/,;ed D~ . ~rmt{k.
w = 1891 Yd 2 / 4P = /bk{//r lk'v
- d F:
~p =
I .: 3/<J - f 11. J 3/t:J
.~30 (.510) ~
= (), (,~0
/9.S:.3 Y = Q. 71 ( Cr~11e. j/J 4- Z2
~=/.3) hr v = .o/89~ {£ ~ ~Z6 4,e (sd.@ 310('.51~ 1 17~7 5*4-1 -f~.6ks) 1
/b~
,,. /
- ~ C)OQ, ~(?S- /b ht//r
- 273' /6M/S z7q lb/{ ~- -m--~ eA.se _t l{.5t?1J s ?. o fd.r ~ a'Kd
/.Cl ~r Confr-a.e--?4.;lf c:oe.ff.
0°., Tk'.s is used t(.5 1s
- Form 3650 9-87
* -/IJ/"otA.ji<JtA..-f- Ae ~vi~ :s /.s,
T*rget Rock Corpor8tlon, 1900E Broadhollow Ad.. P.O. Sox V, Farmingdale, N.V. 11735-0917/Phone: t516) 29J*J800 C9576 July 26, 1989 Mr. J.L. Topper, Project Engineer CONSUtiE:RS POWER COMPANY 1945 West Parna11 Road Jackson, Michigan 49201
Reference:
P.O. #2003-4152-(Q) GWO 8304/FC 791 Palisades Plant TRC Project 88RR
Subject:
. Non-Conformance - IPS #3686-451 - Test Valve, Body S/N 258
Dear Mr. Topper:
Target Rock Corporation herewith submits the subject non-conformance* (In-Process Status Sheet. attached): Descr~t1on *of Non-Conformance: Spec1f1cat1on SP-MP-8304-002(Q) Oes1gn O'ata eets II and 12-fequire that the valve open1ng and closing times are 0.2 sec. minimum/2.0 sec. max1mum (pages 005-3 and OOS-7). The valve was t*:t,ted w1th both steam (saturated at 2500 psig) and water (455 psig and 388 F). For both water and steam tests the valve actuated within the required times. Valve de-actuation for water only is outside the spec1f1ed times. TRC Reconwnendat1on: Accept as 1s. Techn1ca1 Justification: After a rev1ew of the test facility it was aecTd"ed to reniove thi a1ode which was used for protect1ng the switches within the test facility. This diode will tend to maintain the EMF w1th1n the solenoid. thereby ma1nta1ning the circuit. By removing the d1ode the Ef!F w111 d1ss1pate at a much faster rate, thereby breaKing the circuit and caus1ng the valve to de-actuate. With the diode removed the valve was retested on both steam and water. Valve de*actuat1on times during the steam test fell within specified requirements however these were st111 outside the acceptable range during the water test. Both steam and water tests were repeated with the diode back 1n place. The de-actuation times were significantly lengthened, proving t_hat the d1ode had an effect. During the water test with the diode, the valve de-actuated 1n greater than six seconds; without the d1 ode~ de-actuation was 1n approximately
- 4.~ ~Pr.nnds. Taraet Rock Corcoration recommends acceptance of th1s test on the basis that a six second de-actuation should not adV~~se1y aff~CL plant safety.
14 a/ JS
TARGm- Roc::K CoRroR.t.TlON'
- C9576 Page 2 Your disposition of this non-conformance is requested at your earliest possible convenience.
Very truly yours, TARBET ROCK CORPORATION
~1fd~
Peggy Bruno Sen1or Contracts Adm1n1strator PB:nps Attachment cc: J. Bocc1 V. L1anton1o J. Soldano R. Beauman
- /~ ol" 38'
.' .l '. _: ~ ' :: ?r ~. ~I ::;_. ~ ~ ~ ~ = . ~ _:
TARGET ROCX CORPORATION I
- z. FARMINGDALE, N.Y. 11735
- . ,.~
IN-PROCESS STATUS S'HEET . NO. IPS #
/07/21(0-.S:
PROJ.
- NO. ~~AJ~~,.g:;;~'°-=W/..-'a~l....L.- SOURCE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
3686 t PCS. REJ. hBlaw DISPOSITION OF ACCEPTED DISPOSITION OF REJECTED ITEMS ITEMS
~ ll.s.g As J:s 0 0----~--
0HOLO DETAIL - - - o DELIVER TO STOCKROOM OR!WORX LIVE~ TO ASS'Y APPROVED BY: RELEASED BY: DATE: OATEz I 6 of:. ..3 'F'
r ;;, ' : F q9 11>1 I f\l G0 H L. E: : I Y rF: 1 _ _ ,*
.'ul .::rs.33 ;,;,::? 'i*J.-:~'? - -
TARGET ROCX CORPORATION I I E. FARMINGDALE, N,Y. 11735 IN-PROCESS STATUS SHEET - 'Is/
=+
REV._b._ I PCS. REJ. REMARKS DISPOSITION or ACCEPTED DISPOSITION OP REJECTED ITEMS ITEMS
~O!'#. As T5 0 0----~~
C]HOLD DETAIL - - - OoELIVER TO STOCt<ROOM 0REWORK IVER TO ASS'Y INSPECTED BY: OATEz APPROVED BYs RELEASED BY: DATE: DATE: 1'"3'! TROC - Form 2 - 2174
i"£c ~" l~*c.:t--,- /~": ~ /~s, ........ I., <I~ 7' ,:a..C....,..r;...J~, S~1"-.- ...Y.-vl66*.::":, I~
""tiiowa..""~ $"C~ W~ .;...r-,.._ j-Gtw- eA.r IA." 7 ~~ i "'- ~ s~C.1 i::
$~R '
VIA.!- ?,~ r'6'\j *:...r~~ C.:Jij v ... 1 vc. Ac lr..u"*t*""" 7,*~
-- ;"" .i*. "~' .t: -;/; ~ ...
()._+I c. /- fl~* ~.~(.
.. ~~
i7F oPW ~:?\P 85 !l,53 ;Z5.o $.07 2.CJ8.S- ~92 120 .3i 9 J2S.o 3o8 /.9/f .3:~92 I z.s- 3:32 1<5-0 2.91 ;.8~ 3. -f8 66.5 12.s.o. .~~---J;.......3..;;;....;...;:10~.--- _ __ a, ~.36 605 __ .L~-fL._g._~J /(,3S __ --~-'f"-1_9_ _ ___ 6__6S __ 1a5.o "'.~fL ..... -.. __ 1.e,o____ _ (J,,38L.___
..,j s_____ _
1::
~
_-?r k Sf-'=<< r WN? """t' :fa ~;-,' t tl t '21'4r1*\,..~ 'tljG "-~ V*c.~ t ,...tce2 _ _ _ _rJ_~...!l.C.. _}j_ALrnL/-*--~~--d~P.p.!'~.......,;~.a.....* '~14-~,~ILM::-i-...;f~=-*A~t.:1111~...:.,t.;.......::~L.!1-e..!:::..fl!~!C*
~- .,__ _ _........;.._
~ -"" ... ' .
- MPR ASSOCIATES. INC.
September 12, 1989 98-108-07 Mr. James L. Topper Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Ml 49201
Subject:
C011Put1d Stroke TI11es for Palisades Replacement Power Operated Relief Valves
Reference:
GWO 8304, F1le -011, -317.0
Dear Mr. Topper:
In .accordince ~1th our talephone conversation of September 12, 1989 and my subsequent d;scuss1on w1th Mr. Ashworth of CPCo, we have computed the expected opening stroke timts for the Palisades replacement Target Rock Power Operated Relief Valves (PORV) for several LTOP set points assuming saturation cond1t1ons in the pressurizer. These computations included the effects of the RCS pressure rlJIP rates that have been calculated by CPCo personnel at these LTOP set points. The following sunmarizes the results of the computations and identifies the conditions analyzed . con Pressure Prtssur1zer Energize Dtpr1ssur1za Slew Total Set Point THp RUlp Rate Tim Ti* Time T1me (psi a) (*f) (psi/sac) (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) 330.0 426.1 93.0 0.23 1.45 0.20 1.88 500.0 467.1 93.0 0.26 1.41 0.16 1.83 1000.0 544.6 63.0 0.32 0.97 0.10 1.39 These analysis assWll no subcoo11ng in the fluid at the LTOP set point and, therefore, represent an upper l;*it on the temperature conditions of the pressurizer when the satpoint pressure is reached. We consider this assumption to bl very conservative yet the analyses indicate that the valve will open w1th1n 2 seconds. As indicated in prior analyses any subcooling of the fluid w111 reduce the total valve response time. This 1nfor11ation will be included in the final report. If you have any questions or require further infor11at1on please give me a call. Sincerely, rf.t:
- 10!50 CONN~CTIC.UT AV!:NUI!:. N. W.
/'3 A OF 33 WA&MINGTON.
L. E. Demick
- c. c. Z0030 202-lS59-2320
To RTGi~more, P-13-1078 -j_(\ Ij,_,.- From JLTopper, P-13-425 0,,.1 CONSUMERS POWER Date July 17, 1989 COMPANY Subject PALISADES PLANT Internal PRESSURIZER VALVES REPLACEMENT PROJECT Correspondence TRIP REPORT - TARGET ROCK CORPORATION GWO 8304, FILE -011, -312.0 JLT 169-89 cc TWBowes, P-13-413A DEEngle, Palisades PDFlenner, P-13-427 GFPratt, Palisades YFChan, P-13-236 JEHarding, P-24-204 JGAshworth, Palisades RWSmedley, P-24-616 TMBlasco, Palisades KPHeigh, P-13-422 ~DSeamans, Palisades *.... ' A trip was made to the offices of Target Rock Corporation, Farmingdale, New York, on July 3-7, 1989, to witness testing of the Replacement Power-Operated Relief Valves (PORV) that Target Rock is furnishing under Purchase Order Number 2003-4152(Q). Participating in the testing were J E Harding, Quality Assurance; TH Blasco,.ESS-Testing; and Y F Chan, ESS-Engineerin9. The purpose of the tests was to demonstrate the operability of the replacement valves under the expected operating conditions, to complete the qualification of the equipment, and to obtain performance data which will be used to determine operational parameters for the new, variable LTOP set point system *
- The operability tests consisted of the installation of one (1) of the two (2) riew valves in Target Rock's test loop and the execution of a series of opening and closing cycles against pressures that the valves would be expected to experience during actual operation. This included saturated steam at approximately 2,500 psig and subcooled water at approximately 450 psig and 390°F. Due to the capacity limitations of Target .Rock's test facility, the flow of steam was restricted, via an orifice, to 100,000 lbm/hr; the flow of water was similarly restricted to an equivalent thermal input. The test facility exhausts to a suppression pool, rather th&n to atmosphere, which is the limiting factor in terms of flow capacity. Due to the location of Target Rock's fa.cilities, direct discharge to atmosphere was not possible. The test facility was instrumented to collect data concerning pressure and valve position versus valve opening time. This data was collected using a multi-pen strip chart recorder. A sunmary of the data is attached for the steam tests. The data for the water test was not summarized. Finally, a summary of the Cv test results is also attached.
The first test to be conducted, on July 5, 1989, was the high pressure steam test. A series of four (4) cycles of the valve was ultimately conducted. On the first test, the.valve opening time appeared to be greater than what was analytically predicted. A second cycle revealed a still greater opening time. Closing times also appeared to be successive. A third cycle was then executed, with the trend continuing. On the fourth cycle, the rupture disk on the discharge pipe failed due to an over pressure situation. The thermal capacity of the suppression pool had apparently been exceeded which caused excessively high pressures in the valve discharge piping. This, in turn, IC0789-0043A-PT09
2 caused the rupture disk to fail, thus protecting the rest of the system. The excessive opening and closing times were initially attributed to the orifice. that was installed to limit the capacity of the system. The recordings indicated that the pressure downstream of the orifice (upstream of the valve) decreased very rapidly once the valve began to open, due to the very high capacity of the valve. This drop in pressure reduced the force available to open the valve and, in subsequent runs, actually caused the valve to cycle because the inlet pressure decreased faster than the pressure in the valve chamber. Having rendered the test facility inoperative for at least a day while the ruptured disk was replaced, the valve was moved to the Cv flow loqp. In~this facility, the capacity of the valve would be determined using a pwnp-driven water flow loop. The original analysis performed by EI Services, Inc indicated that under a two (2) high pressure safety injection (HPSI) pump start situation, at temperatures above 325°F, a minimum flow capacity of 167 lbm/sec at a pressure of approximately 467 psia would be required. Target Rock's analytical flow capability determination revealed that the valve would have a Cv of approximately 192.7, which would produce a flow of approximately 220 lbm/sec. Actual test results, a copy of which is attached, yielded an average Cv of 219.4, which should be good for approximately 250 lbm/sec at the specified inlet capacity. Thus, the capacity of the valve appears to be more than sufficient for the required duty, for a water flow situation. Initial calculations had indi~ated that the effective flow area of the valve would be approximately 5.1 in ; actual measurements, using actual valve lift, revealed that the valve effective area is approximately 5.8 in2. On the following day, July 7, 1989, the test valve was reinstalled in the test facility for the water tests. The valve was again cycled through several opening and closing sequences, and again displayed longer than expected opening times. This type of valve opens in two steps. Energization of the solenoid opens a pilot valve which allows the valve upper chamber to depressurize. Once a sufficient differential pressure exists, the valve main disk begins to open. With steam as the process .fl~id, the major time interval is the depressurization of the pilot chamber,- while with water, the major time interval is the opening of the main disk. This is due to the compressibility of steam and the lack of compressibility of water. On the water test, the valve disk movement was much longer than expected; however, the depressurization time appeared to be correct. The final test, conducted on July 7, 1989, was a repeat of the initial steam test. For this series of tests, however, a spacer was placed in the valve chamber to limit the valve disk. to one-quarter of its normal travel. This was done in an attempt to limit the effects of the limited capacity of the test system. The test data attached are the results of this last test. The data shows that, although the valve was again slow to depressurize, its actual main disk movement times, projected from the recorder traces for the restricted lift versus time, weren't too different from what had been analytically predicted. At the exit meeting, theories were postulated as to what went wrong. It was agreed that, before anything else happened, the test valve would be IC0789-0043A-PT09 zo o..,C .38
3 disassembled and inspected for damage. It was also agreed that Target Rock would review their design in an effort to determine if there.was any internal flow restriction that could possibly prolong the depressurization cycle and thus cause longer opening cycles. Target Rock will make whatever restit.ution is required and will retest the valve during the week of July 17, 1989. They will also be providing a sunmary of their findings and their recovery plan prior to the initia'tion of any retesting. The test program was obviously not the total success that was initially hoped it would be, and it was not possible to obtain the test data needed for the calculation of the LTOP set-points. However, on the positive side, the valve proved to have additional capacity, and the problems encountered do not , appear to be insolvable. The shipment of the valves will not be seriously . impacted as a result of the problems encountered. As a side note, the limitations of Target Rock's test facility, and of Rockwell's facility when it comes time to test the block valves, might make it possible, or even necessary, to rethink the option of emplo'ying an independent test facility if regulatory requirements and/or analytical needs require that the valves be tested at full capacity. This possibility will be explored with each supplier in the event that this becomes necessary *
- I CO 78_9-0043A-PT09 2/ o-1" 38'
ll'lll*ll'AllllD IY_ __ OATI _ _ _ __ TAftGET ROCK COfHIC)flATION "AO* 4 o" 5 A#lllOVID IY_ __ EAST 'AftMINGDALI LONG Ill.AND, N. Y. "*l'Otrr 4946 .
--.) OATS _ _ _ __
""°"'CT 88RR TABLE l: Cv TEST DATA PROJECT: 88RA VALVE S/N: 00 J CUSTOMER P.O.: 2003-4152-(Q) VALVE TAG NO.:
EVENT NO. VALVE INbET TEMP.
- F I VALVE ]NLET VALVE PRESS.
- psig 6i:- psid FLOW METER READING FLOW gpm 13 70 S.o 73 l
2 13 7.0 ~82-3 7~ lo.a 700
/().S-4 74 711 5 14 73 48Z..
6 74. 1.0 s-ez. 7 74 10.0
- 8 9
10 1~ 1~ 7.S-- LO.!° S-.o i.O
/~I 74 10~
~t.~~
71/ 490 2Zl If.~ fl 11 sat. zzo 1~ 10.0 ,~~ 2Zf. 7CC 12 1&, IC. S' 1"1 I 711 19.4 TE~ ~c!AH A H&**-*418/ftl
Attac:hment 3 Palisades PCP Start Time Data 23-38
- Attachment 4 Appendix G Pressure Limits
- 25-38
AFE_endii 'PY2..e.ssva. E L, M 115 (?.st(,...) Tk A- rpe"J *, -I G- Ii Mi t j wev-.e... Cc;)cu(c:.tAj (. I'\. '.£.ef 5 I ~c; ..-f ::Ir a:-t I/'-{ t ) LhiJ... 1-1.;:. (Y\ ct.SUV r'Y\£,,_.f u t\ c.ev--fc.; "'-t: .Q S fo.- hA ~+-wr Cn*i.J. Ce>~\ do...J- v ... -te_J Y""'i.\);"'-t'.) W-~-- 0
- P lr-+fl- 7.,., lo<V .. F lt-H'L .
(Ce. l;~;t;J fY-e'.S~...> .f-<._ (~ ~. Iv-.. t - "'V" o..r C..o(l/ d a,..,,_) "'-J c.. ~ useJ,. pct~ cr- -+L °" .J ~ J IY'w~ J... 'Pcs ~ 'ft'vr-..t'Vol'-(,_ .+ov-
~ ~.IL.
38 of 3 ~
- }}