ML20041G277
| ML20041G277 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 02/24/1982 |
| From: | Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Tauber H DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203190499 | |
| Download: ML20041G277 (12) | |
Text
._
_ - _ _ _ = _
i r
. DISTRIBUTION:
Docket; File, 'j bec: TERA LB#1 Rdg.
.DEisenhut LPDR JYoungblood NSIC FE8 2 41992 LKintner TIC 4
MRushbrook ACRS(16)
SHanauer RMattson JKramer l
Docket No.:
50-341 RVollmer RHartfield, MPA OELD tir. Harry Tauber 0IE Vice President ZRosztoczy 7 ECOfV2D L
Engineering & Construction MHaughey 97 fg 3,
Detroit Edison Company GBagchi
- n mm 7gg2h s C '%'~*. FT [J' l
2000 Second Avenue b
. /J Detroit, Michigan 48226
Dear Mr. Tauber:
Subject:
Operability of Containment Purge Valves for Femi 2 One of the open itens in the Femi 2 Safety Evaluation Report is confimation i
of the operability of containnent purge valves under accident conditions.
The HRC staff and consultants have conducted a site audit and reviewed containment purge valve design, installation, and operability infomation, as described in the enclosure.
In the Evaluation Sunnary of the enclosure, the staff finds that operability of the purge valves has been satisfactorily demonstrated, subject to confirmation of three itens.
Please anend your application to comply with the three itens listed under i
the Evaluation Sunnary in the enclosure. Our review schedule is based on-the assumption that the additional infomation will be available for our review by April 15, 1982.
If you wish clarification of the requests or if you cannot meet these dates, please telephone the Licensing Project Manager, L. Kintner, within 7 days af ter receipt of this letter.
Sincerely, Orictnn3 tttt B. J. Yo".catl.
B. J. Youngblood, Chief Licensing Branch tio.1 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
"D:o reporting and/or. a.Oaing Requests for Additional requirc:2cnts contairmed in this letter omation affcet fewer than ten responients ;
thoref oro, O'.3 cicarance is not required cc w/encls.: See.90 t page
..a - tt n og 511*e 1
ofrect) Dh.L@,f,
(:j su - e6 L Ki n tn_,,,,,,g,, sg
" " " ~ ~ " " ' ~ ~ "
~ ~ ~ - -
,2724/82 2hlV82"
- - ~ ~ ~ ~...
,,_8203190499 P".0224 PDR ADOCK 05000341 FICIAL RECORD COPY usom m, unc ro PDR d
S.
F r
Mr. Harry Tauber Vice President Engineering & Construction Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 cc:
Mr. Harry H. Voigt, Esq.
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Peter A. Marquardt, Esq.
Co-Counsel The Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Mr. William J. Farner Project Manager - Fermi 2 The Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Datroit, Michiaan 48226 Mr. Larry E. Schuerman Detroit Edison Company 3331 West Big Beaver Road Troy, Michigan 48084 David E. Howell, Esq.
3239 Woodward Avenue Berkley, Michigan 48072 Mr. Bruce Little V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspector's Office 6450 W. Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 Dr. Wayne Jens Detroit Ediso~n Company 2000.Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Mr. James G. Keppler Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 9
Equipment Qualification Branch Evaluatio. of th e Operability of Containment Purge Valves at Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2 Introduction In the SER, Section 22.2, Item II.E.4.2, th e s ta f f stated that an audit of purge valve operability would be performed.
The staff in Equipment Qualification Branche in conjunction with consulcants from Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), has conducted a site audit at the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2 (Fermi 2) and reviewed in f o rma t i on provided by Detroit Edison to demonstrate the long-term operability of the :ontainment purge valves at Fermi 2.
The results of our audit and our evaluation of this information 3e provided herein.
Sy stem Description Purge lines for the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2 (Fermi 2) consist of one intet and one outlet line each for both the drywell and the torus.
Inside the drywell there are two 24" valves.
Outside the i
drywell on the drywell purge lines there are two 24" valvesi one 1C" I
valve and one 6" valve.
On the torus purge lines there are four 20" valves and th ree 6" valves.
l s
I i
.,. a
i
. These valves are all J amesbury but terf ly valves.
Valve ope rato rs fcr the purge valves are manufactured by L i mi to rq ue, Bettis, and Jamesbury.
Three-way solenoid valvesi on the Bettis and Jamesbury op e ra to rs, were manufactured by ASCO. lists the valves and associ ated ope ra to rs.
Qualification Approach Quali fica tion of these valves was pe rf ormed f or Detroi t Edi son by Jamesbury Corporation.
The approach used to e s t ab li sh to rq ue loads on the valves was to determine the inlet pressure to the valve at various angles of opening.
Inlet pressure was determined from the pressure-time curve for a LOCA plus the closure time of the valve.
During the audit pe rf ormed on these valves Detroit Edison confirmed that the pressure-time curve used was that which would present the highest inlet pressure on these valves.
Dynamic torque coefficients (CT) at various angles of opening of these valves were de rived f rom an 18" Jamesbury valve test program conducted by Wyle Laboratories, in conjunction with an a c t ua to r-so le noi d valve a s se mb ly vent test.
The test setup I
f used at Wyle produced straight pipe, uniform approach flow.
Tests were perf ormed with the shaft side of the valve disc facing downstream.
The inlet pressures to the valve during the l
Wyle tests were higher at all disc angles than the drywell pressure as determined from FSAR Figure 6.2.11 for each angle.
o
. The 18" test valve at Wyle was the same design as the Fermi 2 valves.
The aspect ratio ( T/ D) of the 18",
20",
and 24" were stated to be the same.
Evaluation The test setup at Wyle f or the J amesbury valves did not provide s for the non-uniform approach flow data to estbli sh C T conditions.
T o ac count f or potential increases in C r es ult i ng T
from non-uniform approach flow Jamesbury appli ed a f actor 1.5 to the torque loads determined f o r unif orm approach flow.
Based on discussions with a number of valve ma nu f act urers it is the industry's general be'ief that the non-uniform approach flow to a valve with the shaft in plane with the bend of an upstream elbow is equivalent to the straight line, uniform approach flow.
This belief is based on flow being split equally on each side of the butterf Ly valve disc in the "in plane" i ns t al la t ion.
Limited test data is available to support this belief but the magnitudes of the dynamic t o rque s are likely to be nearly equivalent for the above mentioned reason.
In ad di t io n, the 50% ma rgin appli ed in the analysis should adequately account for the effects of increased torques due to an upstream elbow with the shaft "in plane".
a
-4 Tests on valve installations with the valve shaft pe rpendicula r to the plane of the bend of the elbow have indicated the r es u lt i ng non-uniform approach flow can have a significant effect on the t o rq ue coef fici ent s.
In their submittal of January 4, 1982 Detroit Edi son p ropos ed r e-o ri e nt i ng the valves with upstream elbows such that the shaft would be in plane with the bend of the elbow.
Detroit Edison did not address the effects of non uniform flow from an upstream, in-series valve in a partially-open position.
This condition is expected to produce a small increase in the torques on the downstream valve when the upstream valve is in the nearly-open position.
As the angles of opening of the upstream valve become sma l le r the resulting reduction in flow will reduce the torques on the downstream valve and there is no longe r a concern for the non-uniform approach flow effects.
As the effects from an upstream elbow are likely to be 1
l greater than the ef fect s of an upstream, pa rt i al ly-ope n valve, the 50% margin ap pli ed by Jamesbury in the deter-mination of the torques should conse rva tively a c count for any increases resulting from a pa rt i al ly open upstream valve.
i i
l l
Jamesbury flow tests were performed with the shaft side of the valve disc downstream.
As disc di r ect ion can have a significant effect on dynamic torques from flow the purge valves in the Fermi 2 plant shoutd be oriented such that the shaft side of the disc f or these valves is downstream (flow direction is defined by t he accident condition).
The applicant agreed to make these modifications during the site audit on December 2, 1981.
The quali fication of these valves relates c los ur e time to a pressure-time curve to determine intet pressure to the valve during the accident.
Jamesbury used closure times determined by test to establi sh the as so ci at ed intet pressures.
These closure times were betow the 5 second required closure time which was to be used during i ns e rvi c e inspection tests.
As valve closure time can increase with time and use, the periodic tests performed on these valves should include an acceptance time consistent with the time used to demonstrate quali fication of these valves.
In attachment 1 to reference H an evaluation has been pe rf ormed on each of the valves to determine the effects of closure time.
The result s are summarized as folLows,
6-Torque Loads calculated for the 6" valves using the drywelL peak containment pressure and maximum t o rque coefficients from t he J amesbury curves for 6" valves (wi th 5 0% ma rgi n) indicate the to rque loads used in the stress analysis are more conservative.
C L os ur e time f or these valves is there-fore limited only by the 5 second requirement.
Torque loads calculated in this manner f or t he 10" valve would exceed the loads used in the stress analysis.
A closure time of less than 2 seconds would be req ui r ed for these valves.
The 20" valves are connected to t he wetwet t with a maximum potential pressure of 25 psig.
The torque used in the stress analysis for these valves corresponds to a pressure of 23 psig.
As it would t ake over 20 seconds to reach a wetwelL pressure of 23 psig, the five second closure time requi reme nt is more conservative.
4
. The calculated torque at peak drywell pressure f or the 24" would be cons ide rab ly higher than the to rque used in t he stres s analysis.
In that the dif ferential pressure capability of the value is less than the peak drywell pressure a limitation is requi red on the valve closure time consistent with the stress analyis limitations and the 5 second closure time requirement.
In addition, valves experiencing a pressure load may close slower than valves in a no-load condition.
As inservice inspection tests are pe rf ormed in the no-load condition, stroke time acceptance times should provide a margin to account for the ext ended closure times under load.
As the purge valves do include handwheels, provisions should be made by administrative procedures or automatic reengagement to assure that valves are not inadve rt ant ly left in the handwheel mode.
The effects of Mark I hydrodynamic loads in combination wi th seismic loads is an open issue for the Fermi 2 plant.
This concern affects the to ru s-a t t ach ed eg'ui pme nt i n c ludi ng the i
purge valves from the torus.
This issue will be handled as part of Section 3.10, " Seismic and Dynamic Qualification of Mechanical and Elect rical Equipment Impo rt ant to Safety" (Refe.ence " Input for Safety Evaluation Report Supplement" l
l l
O f rom William V. Johnston to Robert L. Tedesco, dated October 7, 1981.)
Eveluation Summary Based on the audit perf ormed on December 2,1981 and the infor-mation submitted, the staf f finds that Detroit Edison has satisfactorily demonstrated that the 6",10", 20" and 24" purge valves ref erenced herein are capable of closure f rom a full open position subject to confirmation of the following items:
1.
Valve and valve disc orientations are to be modified such that valve shaf ts are "in plane" with upstream elbows or bends and valve discs are to be installed with the shaf t side downstream.
2.
Technical specifications should be implemented for periodic inservice inspection valve stroke time tests. Acceptance
~
limits for stroke time should be established as discussed in this report.
Acceptance limits should include an appropriate margin to account for increased stroke time under load.
3.
Provisions should be made to assure valves with handwheels are not inadvertantly lef t in the handwheel mode of operation.
~
.- References A.
Detroit Edison (DE) letter #EF2-55, 538 dated November 18, 1981.
B.
Meeting
" Purge Valve Audit" at Detroit Edison's Fermi 2 site on December 2,1981.
C.
Wyle Laboratories Report, 55210 - 18.0" Jamesbury Valve Test (shown to staff at audit meeting).
D.
Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit 2, Final Safety Analysis Report, Figure 6.2-11 " Recirculation Line Break - Primary Containment Initial Pressure Transient" (handout at audit meeting).
E.
Jamesbury Corporation letter dated November 12, 1981, B.C. Zannini
-Jamesbury to J. Green - Detroit Edison (handout at audit meeting).
F.
" Supportive Data Relating to Torque Coefficient Selection for Jamesbury Wafer-Sphere Valve with 90* Elbow Directly Upstream of Valve" (handout at audit meeting).
G.
Detroit Edison letter EF2-55, 980 dated January 4,1981 (with attacnients: a) " Combined Loading Stress Analysis on Shaft for Purge Valves", b) " Seismic Qualification of 6" Purge Valve based on Report JHA-76-34 (PI-2406)."
H.
Brookhaven National Labs letter dated January 20, 1981 from Thomas J. Restivo to Mary F. Haughey on the Evaluation of the Fermi 2 Purge and Vent Yalves.
4
!l i'
>j o S. j 3 s
~
l
,o 1
4 5
o 10 1
2 8
9 6
S 1
0 0
6 c
1 t
o 0
0 o
4 4
4 F
F F
4 4
4 A
N d
4 4
4 F
F F.
E F
F F
- s T
(A l I
4 8
6 5
. Q-l G
d
{,
G}!I "l4 4
_A I
T.
T Y
4_
T 7
T T
T 4
4 4
4T 4
T R
V V
D E
V V
V_
V V
V
/
E E
V
/
S p
/
/
f
/
E E
]E
/
_/
E E
E F
E E_
E E,
E E_
- s A
E E_
E.
G_
G E
E 6
G e
G G __l A
l 12 f2 G
- s V
E G
G
(
A A
^
A A
A N
A A
tA A_
A u
JAl l
. 1 l.
/l l
Jl
{_ lkl/
3 3
a D
lt 2
3 5
3 N
3 3._
3
/
J 8
_ )
8 0_
8 8
g e
A N
S_
_ B 8_ _UP P
P_
P P
P P_
l
- u O
P P
P
. M N
_N N
N N
W W
H_
N N
O,
_ o o
o O
O o
o o
o R
F C
_ c C
c C
C c
c c
c t
S S
S S
S S
E.
M A. A A
A A
A A
^
A A
A S
_ S S
O
. Y Y
Y Y
Y Y
Y Y
Y Y
A A
A W
W W
A A
A A
A A
S M
W W
W W
W W
7 3
J 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
I ey A
I kl t
T g
g A
g D A T
L C
g L
I I
I S
R D
M M
M _.
C B
A S
S S
s g
g R
R R
M S
3 D
g t
h 1
S s
S S
E 1
/
c o
0 oI N
4 f
9 9
o t
$l hl
!Glhl O
V i
g L-G _ G 4
G G
2 G
E S
2 2
C L R 3
J_
J T
41 s
g 1
I M
T T
T S
t
_J 1_
p M
4 T_
T_
T T
S T_
s S
S S
N A O 7 _
O_
S. V T 2
y t
0 s
S.
1 t
m r
R T
I S
t S
o p
_ s_
- si Ti T
T 5
T g
g e
0 I
0 I
q e
5 I
A g
t p
O
%E y
i MM
_g T
g D
T T
T T
T E __
R g
'a E
E e
E E
B B
8 B
t p
u g
(
1 O_. T E T
- yi i
'O.
t i
R w
I T
N P O
R c
- h o [c E
E O Ap a
4_ MD.J, T. n Q
D M
V Ey
,G ySm P,
M E
H C
h T
i i
4 A
8 8
A A
A p
8 A
(B A
6 5
3 2
]
2 6
0 0
7 t
2 2
2 2
N 2
2 7
2 2
2 0
l 14 W
G!c E
l.
E 1
2 1,
IM l_
16 r
G N.lN 7
E i
I 1
- 7. I;?j2 t
7 1
t
(
R 6
6 G
4 4
6 4
4 4
4 G
4 E
4 4
4 4
4 d
k d
4t M_
4_
4 3
S C
c C
c C
C C
(
C R
W N
N N
N N
N M
8 8
S N
A U
A.
A, A
A.
u A.
j A,
B, u h~"g t
e p
P o
g p
a p
p gmKE 2
e o
C o
c o
t o
o u
N M
M e,
i p
M M
M C
L klM Ll J
)
/
t i
Ri 4Ell,e g
E E
E E
E E
E s.
g t
1 1
h A (F 2
4 y
4 6
2 2
2 2
2 2
1 1
1 2
jl j
2 3
2 9
2
_t P
2 3
3 9
9 7
g 8
8 8
8 g
g 8
g 3
3 A
t g
T R.
. R _
P g
y D.
F D
n_
. A M
A.
R.
F w
D T
T,.
_ n.
z z
T-T.
Z.
Z T.
T.
z, z
F R
R R
R g
Ao R
R R
R R
t 3
l E
_ o o
o o
E E
o o
E E
o Np N
"~~
Y V__
H_
E S
y_
_ H H
H H
V V
J.
V r
E e
E E
t E
E E
E E
o.
E o
o o
to ip t
S ID SI 3t s
j s
5 i
o D
D D
o T
D t
t s
5 S
3 I
i L
N T
T t
T T
1 T
S T
T T
TO S
A UC N
u u
u u
u 0
U I
u U
o N
J o
o o
o o
0 O
d D
o V
E
_7 4'
"4
. "o I
4
. 4 o
o 0
c.
o G
2_
_ t_ _2 2
t 2
2 2
t G_
Z S
i t_
1, 1
4_
4 4
2 2
2 3
3_
6 6
6 1
d 2
o 0
0 o
9 9
9 9
5 7
3 3
3 o
o c
o o
0 c
0 N M f
G
_+3.
4 _.
_4 4
3 S
3 3
3_
4_
4 4 _
i 1
gg.
0 3
3 4
6.
t 6
.5 i. 3:
As 10 M
_1 f
- 0 4
8 9
5 _ 1 3
t.
i _. 5 0
. 0 c
0 0
0 0
33 _ :
'~
4
_0 M.
_ 3:
3 3
3 3
3 2
2
_3 3
? 3 3
t.
A 3
4 R
f R
R
' R_
_ V IV R
V R
.R
(
V Y. y v
e 'V V
V i
v 3