ML20054M017
| ML20054M017 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1982 |
| From: | WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054M016 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-2.D.1 0613E:1, 613E:1, GL-81-36, NUDOCS 8207090156 | |
| Download: ML20054M017 (22) | |
Text
,:-
.e
- ~ '
ATTACHMENT A PWR SAFETY AND RELIEF YALVE ADEQUACY. REPORT FOR DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY UNIT-1 JUNE 1982 WM*
I-Prepared By:
Westinghouse Electric Corporation Nuclear Energy Systems P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, PA 15230
/
l 8207090156 820701 PDRADOCK05000g P
A
1.0 INTRODUCTION
f f
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 on or before July 1,1982, 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.
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 confirmation 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 glS82.
Reports have been prepared by EPRI which document the results of the test program.
Additional reports were written to provide necessary justification for test valve selection and valve inlet fluid test conditions.
Thes e reports were transmitted to the USNRC by David Hoffman of the Consumers
~
Power Company on behal f of the participating PJR 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 Beaver Valley Unit 1.
0613E:1
- 2. 0 VALVE AND PIPING PARAMETERS Table 2-1 provides a list or pertinent valve and piping parameters for the Beaver Valley Unit 1 Safety and Power-0perated Relief Valves.
The valve designs installed at Bea er Valley were tested by EPRI in a configuration similar to that of the actual system configuration at the pl ant. Justification that the valves tested envelope those valves at Beaver Valley is provided in the Valve Justification report.III 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 Beaver Valley Unit 1 are provided in Figures 2-1 and 2-2.
Table 2-2 compares the Beaver Valley inlet loop seal piping configuration with that of the EPRI test piping arrangement for the Target Rock Safety Val ve.
u -.
As can be seen by these comparisons, the EPRI test piping arrangement envelops the actual piping arrangement for the Beaver Va'lley unit.
...c 0613E:1
TABLE 2-1 g
VALVE AND PIPING INFORMATION 1.
SAFETY VALVE INFORMATION Number of valves 3
Manu facturer Target Rock Type Pilot Actuated Model 69C Steam Flow Capacity, lbs/hr 345,000 Design Pressure, psig 2485 i
Design Temperature, OF 650 Set Pressure, psig 2485 Accumulation 3 percent of set pressure Bl owdown 5 percent of set pressure Original Valve Procurement Spec.
E-676279 2.
RELIEF VALVE INFORMATION
,~.
Number of Valves 3
Manu facturer Masoneilan Type 20,000 Series Size 2 inch NPS i
Steamflow Capacity, lbs/hr 210,000 Design Pressure, psi 2485 Design Temperature, F
680 Opening Pressure, psig 2335 Closing Pressure, psig 2315 I
l-l l
l l
0613E :1
3 TABLE 2.1 Continusd...
3.
SAFETY AND RELIEF VALVE INLET PIPING INFORMATION Design Pressure, psig 2485 Design Temperature, F
680 Configuration of Piping See Figures 2-1 and 2-2 Pressurizer, Nozzle Configuration See Figures 2-1 and 2-2 3
Loop Seal Volume, ft 1.37 Loop Seal Temperature, F
Temp. 650 > T > 110 0
(approximately 200 F) 4.
SAFETY AND RELIEF YALVE DISCHARGE PIPING INFORMATION Design Pressure, psig 650 Design Temperature, F 600 Configuration See Figures 2-1 and 2-2 Pressurizer Relief Tank Design Pressure, psig 100 Backpressure, Normal, psig 3
c-Backpressure, Developed, psig 500 a
l I
i 0613E:1
k&~lhl("f-lf d,by!-l.
~ h g-f h.
1,
=
'\\/'
5,$g " :?.7lil
%RQ
'M/MX/
/
\\/ x.
/
a h \\..:.f\\! h,/.
/
N..i.. --. t wt.. :,..3
/
.n
,... y.. g
.. a. -.
p.x.
.v
- . ;y...
..%.. a...-....
- .y x
. :s..:.....
y,-
.y
--.~..+.~...:..~
\\ /+.
i
- i
..f:.i -
--l:~-
\\ -2'7;r' : 3/z5 gL.
i
' /
- ~.
.: w
/
. SY
"?
- kt^N" -
Y
??$!hi.km.
-r '- !
J' 6
$, \\. s.:
U-Sk Ij..
".3.;[US h
/
. /... ' \\,. "...
X_ \\.,,
v.7\\,[-...
...a. N r
. _ ___y _,
s
.c.__,._....,
.f.
=
.g I j j
e y=
7-...-...
" '~ J, "
- +. -...,....
"t-
, gg
.9 ~y" "-"' ;:. y j,
-/,.,- -- ;:q I
s
..... S........./\\/s ". 3l
..,.,ry.
s /'..
2
..[..
V
+.........
...s
,.,,,,,\\.
f Q:
l l
z
,(
- -...6,.....
g
....M..
,f w
\\.:.
'\\/N w.
4
./\\,... _.
/ /..s.:..
. /4..... : z.2._g....;.
x\\.
a
/
r.9.. /...... _\\. x..f,.
cu q...
..:.c..
.\\.
\\
i
,e \\..
.._.,.- __.._;_.._.i
\\_.,
c
._ \\....
y;.-.
\\.\\
/
- /./\\
=.._ ___
0,./\\..../...
-;\\.
/
s.q
....e
\\.f.,_
/
'. s /.
N/x
~
/
w<w i
s u =
%g 3=,. /...\\
...\\.. <....,.y x f....\\...........
/\\f...
y,.,_..w.
~., -
c*
w, \\ -.
- ..){.. /__
g o/
/-
' 9.o :
/
\\
w : \\>
w.
\\;
ec x x
~
'\\;
~
^. \\,./.'n... ?\\..j \\
~~;:~~ ~g~K,i - y,
............ =. L. :.
7
\\
/-
. [T.N/-
\\/'
\\z
~,
- - g 77 a
i
...../....,.
/\\
Z g
... / \\...,
..... /...\\. s./ -
N, s.
,_j
.\\....
\\
x.
CL
,.j,,*
. c\\... :,,,4,,,,,... / N,
' g, 7.a. i s..
/
\\ 6..
. '.,.N.. /...... x '
\\
?%
l
-; s '/
..,\\
x.
\\.....
.,' \\.9...,......
. x/
.e
\\ 3 'gg 'N
/x.
.'\\
\\, s.
G\\/
. g.. '.;:..T /
..'.w /s... :...../..'..
. y..
w i
- y....
...\\.'......!,,e,,,,. f,,_,i
\\.j$
CD.^.......:.........:
l p,.....,
9,.
...fl-l'
. \\
i
~:
lL.
\\
l
........... /.. :-.:....::..
,/s -
\\q f.........
..../'
/
\\
/s 1
' \\./ '.
J s
/. -...C. ~X. o........s.XM..EC. /\\'\\/\\ frei
\\,
...\\/.....
...\\..,.
g....
\\.!
/.
\\..
/ ! #\\\\7 E.
- 1, *
/
l.j,5..'.l.
i.'.:...,.....
... y..:..
..... v...:.:.
...:e.
.l.
~
N. :.s... :L '.':
J..y:..::.....
I..
.:;...c
..c.
/\\/ \\ - -
g-
.kf..
..si
~
/
, p..
3 7,,,q,c-.
y y.. l
~,s,
.. /.?.
.3
\\s
. \\,
/...i
...,...i 8.....
/
- x. \\ '
R/.
'/' l
'/ /
- /l
~. _'
i[.
. * :, /....:... : ::.... :
.4
. \\/./)
'j
\\
m o.
... \\ '.'. s
.,,_.,,,,,_,[.
/.,
c,
/
)
";.\\gj., T; ' \\> /.
..).}..Q.
[
...l...
,,c.j,,_ _
.. \\,o i
./
, T. g.' V g /\\ /-
N
%g
%.s/ ns.g +.:t-3, -
'.,'q /
j
\\
L.w s
w..
r
?
.o
.%., l~.
s
....../.. \\ '.
.....,,,,,, f.O :
... ;g.. l.
\\
4,...,,_,, _.,.g;_ s,_,
~
\\,. \\,
lL
- -j
\\.. '\\
C-t.).: n.
.\\ '
- \\ ' *%.......:..'../ \\..,;.......
,,;,;,,_ _,U
,__j l
.\\
.........,l.
..j'.... :.....
y.!; _j '
. \\. :l:~~.~"'"?;.Ge - - ~ ~ '
~
'=
\\
. /D i
.,_ \\ j ' l
\\
. \\, y
/\\jx
,;K"f""
"~r"~~j,\\ \\- 7 j~~~;;(
i i
?N/A 3/>
z i.
i
/ \\?.i '
.\\.
\\
..,... \\. \\, '
-._ 2_..h.l \\.
.j t.
is 1.... y...:,;..
.l
"""h:: i.
\\,
C//[
,;.:{
../ [...
.c.c....
.....f...
s 5
.. \\: /:;~"?
- ' ~. Cu '. (,_
1,/
. ;l.............-. :
.i \\,,
\\;
- j..
.i
- K/\\
6
. n g
3,:....... m..,.
_ l,\\. _,..
/
\\
..... ;....\\.z.
...s..
. _,1 if
/\\
/
e...j. - ......,;........' _,.,..
,....,.s,_,,._
...&..../.:.'\\ \\....::
- l\\
li"?K
.~~Q,l/ :.
~
~ \\ :...
>j
.../...
g/' l' w
[~$. 'h
/T
\\.
\\/\\;,.
\\,.fy.m/
'z \\[\\
/
.,,.f '..,_=/ ^
., \\ +-
[
- ' =-""-
- ~ ~.
- y
- \\.
.... /..
9..
. /
N, a
n
..\\.,:
/
. c:
..... 8 i 3 g CL,.
.g
- /...
, t w H -- - --
8,
\\.
'j 2
Q Q g>
...g
...--.i..
w, w, z,
..y.,
/g
',f g'.'
-4 Cf <
w.
A"
"> L/)
C.
7...\\..y\\,
-3.....
.....\\,
....._.,.'9,/
f
,g-
. ~.
[#.
[ \\...... _
we J cd Q
..;_..m d
r
()
p.
O.
f-
......p.
m W
.,\\ !'...
/~
l
/-
/.. -
s>.\\
...J..
>- 2:
\\
/\\/-
J~~
~ H e'
\\/.....e.[.....{.
/ \\ / ',/ ;,,
C gy/
s
(
0 fx..-
y.....E,...... If C.,_,.,7,,\\
O
...V '
. ' /.
..\\ ' f.
'**p Y,..
.l.'..
..w.'
\\
[,,
f f*
4
! \\,.., [,,
/i g
.f..............,..
..\\..
/
\\.
}
._,,.g
'\\ /\\
7 J'
/
/\\ 'i,
\\
/
L1)
./\\.
n/\\f -,
./\\
/\\.,
-.f<.-
g
.. 7,--
- .........;y.)..........
. z; '
.. g"
.fe....
s c.
...../.'.
. d..
/
. /......S...
\\
- /
., \\.-
/ ',
.g.
's,-
\\
\\
m, i
~
3/\\
- /\\ W
/
& x.--
/--
f
\\
/' '\\sv f<\\,\\.
/f: \\
/
p
-.' \\.,.
q \\.
.I
, M, ji 7
~
"""y
..., j.
. i.
..L.. l L. ' \\ /d [....l..q'.,/-
/\\..../
\\
./\\
\\/
i..%
...y/ \\
l
\\ \\
\\ '. \\n
./ <.
./\\
....h
/ \\ '\\.'.
t re.
/
....n>
I\\
i
%\\
.'.ly -:
.i
?
V.. '
l.:,..
.. \\
k
.s l, y. 4 ' _,
- ll \\
'j l '...
, :.... s
?
^
~
j' l '.,
- h
^
j \\'
- /...:.
.:...;i....
(., _... -
,\\4';. m,..., \\.............. \\......w
'N N'
'\\
. /'
. N.
\\
./
F L\\. :,i.
.... -..\\..,.'...
. ;.. -.....:./...
..-.- - a :..
\\
-/
v y
~
. [.--N,.tK%n. -
\\.
f:.[_2 3.-
-.f - - ('Ay
+.
"..4......
.s......~. l...
.....h,.... A........
s...
.. :6..
i\\ /. r.
.\\/..
p x i.
/.
/..y.._.C71 \\z
/....\\......' \\_/ \\....
~ ~
h
\\.
/\\,
N.
i...
R.f\\...y '-
'\\
\\
l:
.-\\.
\\
A-v.....,.
-y..
..A.. -,v..
\\
\\
~/..
./-
- p. j/ '
j
\\.,
, (
\\
- .. S TABLE 2-2 T'
SAFETY YALVE INLET PIPING COMPARISON w;
g'
- w_
Typical
- - Q,,.- r -
. Beaver Valley Target Rock
/
Inlet Piping Inlet Piping
./
I Lenath of 147
, 93
- triight pipe, in.
e_o' Nudber of 900 elbows 3
'/
Number of 45 0 eJbows
. ';l 1
Misc.
i l
68 Number of 1800 elbows 2
Loop Seal water
/-
i Volume, Ft3 1.37 1.12 j',
.s,
'.g'
- Source:
Reference (7) 1., ;
s t,
c-
. )
,.,i o
./
0613E:1
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.
For plants of which Westinghouse is the NSSS supplier, a methodology was used such that a reference plant was selected for each grouping of plant considered.(3)
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 reference plants results in fluid conditions enveloping those expected for Beaver Valley Unit 1.
Table 3-1 presents the results of loss of load and locked rotor analysis for three loop plants in which Beaver Valley Unit I was included.
The inlet fluid conditions expected at the safety valve and FORY inlets are identified. As can be seen, the Locked Rotor event is considered as the limiting overpressure transient for three loop plants.
The fluid conditioris at the inlet to the safety valves for feedline rupture accidents are summarized in Table 3-2 and a discussion of the feedline break analysis is provided in Reference 2.
Maximum pressurization rates are taken when the valves open on water (the safety valves initially open on steam; however, the pressurization rate is enveloped by those presented for the locked rotor and loss of load events).
The limiting Extended High Pr' essure Injection event was the spurious activation of the safety injection system at power.
A condition II event, this will result, at worst, in a reactor shutdown with the plant capable of returning to operation.
The analysis results for three-loop plants are provided in Table 3-3.
Fluid inlet conditions for cold overpressure protection are provided in Tabl e 3-4.
Cold overpressure is not a design basis for the safety valves but is for the PORVs.
l 0613E:1
a TALBE 3-1 VALVE INLET CONDITIONS FOR FSAR EVENTS RESULTIltG IN STEAM DISCHARGE Maximum Maximum Valve Pressurizer Pressure Rate Reference Opening Pressure (psia)/
(psia /sec)/
Plant Pressure (psia)
Limiting Event Limiting Event Safety Valves Only 3-Loop 2500 2592/ Locked Rotor 216/ Locked Rotor Safety and Relief Valves 3-Loop 2350 2555/ Locked Rotor 200/ Locked Rotor Source:
Reference (2) u,--
0613E:1
TABLE 3-2 SAFETY YALVE INLET CONDITIONS FOR FSAR EVENT RESULTING IN LIQUID DISCHARGE (MAIN FEEDLINE BREAK)
Sa fety Valve Maximum Maximum Range of Liquid Setpoint Pressurizer Pressurization Maximum Temperature at Opening Pressure Rate Liquid Surge Valve Inlet (psia)
(psia)
(psia /sec)
Rate (gpm)
"F 2575 2575
- 1. 7 2010.8 644.6-672.0 Source : Reference (2).
=v_.
i i
I L
l 0613E :1 l
TABLE.3-3 SAFETY AND RELIEF VALVE INLET CONDITIONS RESULTING FROM SPURIOUS INITIATION OF HIGH PRESSURE INJECTION AT POWER WHEN VALVES ARE DISCHARGING LIQUID Range of Range of Valve Range of Surge Rates Liquid Opening Fluid State Maximum Pressuriz-When Valve Temperature Reference Setpoint on. Valve Pressurizer ation Rates Is Passing At Valve Plant _
(psia)
Opening (a)
Pressure (psia)
(psi /sec)
Liquid (GPM)
Inlet (*F)
Safety Valves 3-Loop No Discharge Relief Valves 3-Loop 2350 Steam / Liquid 2352 0-12--
0.0-781 498-502 a.
First/ subsequent openings.
l l
l i
l l
i0613E:1 i
L
. a
TABLE 3-4 PORY INLET CONDITIONS FOR COLD OVERPRESSURE PROTECTION RESULTING IN WATER DISCHARGE Reactor Coolant Temperature Pressure (psig)
Range, *F Unit 1 350 100 - 350 t
c-e
~
0613E:1
,4. 0 COMPARISON.0F EPRI TEST DATA WITH PLANT-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS The Electric Power and Research Institute (EPRI) conducted full scale flow tests on pressurizer safety and relief valves.54) Tests were conducted at three sites over a period of 1-1/2 years. PORVs were tested at Marshall Steam Station (5) and Wyle Laboratories,(6,7) while safety valves were tested at the Combustion Engineering Test Site in Connecticut.(7) 4.1 Relief Valve Testing Test results applicable to the PORVs installed in Beaver Valley Unit 1 are contained in Section 4.5 of Reference 7, Masoneilan Relief Valve.
This valve fully opened and closed on demand for each of the eleven eval'uation tests at the Marshall Test Facility.
A total of eleven tests were conducted at the Wyle test f acility. For all tests the valve opened and closed on demand.
An inspection conducted after the test revealed na damage that would affect future valve performance.
EPRI reported the valve opening times exhibited sensitivity to the air supply pressure supplied to the valve actuation.
It is noted that a check of the stroke times for these valves is conducted at the plant prior to operation and adjustments are made as necessary to ensure proper operation.
A comparison of the "As-Tested" inlet fluid conditions for the Marshall and Wyle tests show that the Beaver Valley Unit 1 fluid conditions sunmarized in Section 3 of this report were enveloped by the tests. Results of the l
relief valve testing indicate the Masoneilan valves functioned satisfactorily, opening and closing on demand and discharging the required flow.
i-l l
l l
j 0613E:1 l
42 Safety Valve Testing Test results applicable to the safety valves installed at Beaver Valley Unit 1 are contained in Section 3.7 of Reference 7.
4.2.1 Target Rock Safety Valve Tests The Target Rock test valve underwent a series of tests at the EPRI/CE test facility.
The "As-Tested" fluid inlet conditions for the Target Rock test valve are comparable to the Beaver Valley Unit 1 fluid inlet conditions in Table 4-3 of this report.
This comparison shows the EPRI "As-Tested" fluid conditions envelop those for Beaver Valley.
A total of nine tests were conducted with the Target Rock 69C pilot operated safety valve mounted on top of a long inlet pipe configuration.
Two high ramp rate steam tests were perfomed.
The pilot disc opened within +3 percent of the set pressure and the main disc opened at 2610-2643 psi.
The valve showed stable perfomance with 4 percent blowdown and achieved rated flow.
Two high back pressure loop seal steam tests were conducted.
For the low ramp rate test, the valve cycled eight times in response to system repressurization.
For the initial cycle the valve exhibited stable pe rfo mance.
For the high ramp rate test, the main disc opened at 2610 psia.
The valve exhibited stable perfonnance, achieved rated flow and closed with 8.4. percent blowdown.
In the loop seal steam-to-water transition test, the valve cycled twice l
on steam had stable perfomance and closed on water with 12.4 percent-blowdown.
l l
l 0613E:1
.Four cold loop seal water tests were conducted at 650, 550, and 400 F.
For initial actuation cycles the valve opened within +3 percent to 23.6 percent blowdown.
The valve was stable during each test.
Some 0
indication of disc flutter; however, was observed for the 400 F test.
For Beaver Valley Unit 1, the temprature expected at the valve will be from 645-672 F.
4.2.2 Discussion of Observed Safety Valve Performance In addressing oaserved 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 Beaver Valley unit.
Valve performance observed during the EPRI tests, therefore, reflects worst case perfonnance as compared to results that would be observed had the testing been conducted using actual plant-specific piping arrangements and fluid conditions.
A review of Table 4-3 shows the Target Rock Safetf' malve tested exhibited a
stable operation on a loop seal piping configuration at pressurization rates of 2.67-300 psi /sec with initial opening ' pressures of 2510-2541 psi and pop pressures of 2543-2610 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 conclusions of this report can be extended to Beaver Valley Unit 1.
It is noted that the inlet piping pressure oscillations noted during other loop seal discharge safety valve tests were not apparent during testing of the Target Rock safety valve.
0613E:1
4.2.2.1 Loop Seal Opening Response 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 are presented in Reference 9.
For the limiting Condition II events, safety valve funct!oning is not required if 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 protection.
Evaluation of the limiting condition IV event shows all 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.
a 2
3 c--
0613E:1
TALBE 4-1 COMPARISON OF PORY INLET FLUID CONDITIONS WITH "AS-TESTED" CONDITIONS Steam Conditions PORY Wyle Test Inlet Fluid 52-MN Marshall Test Conditions 174-1S (No. 1 - No. 11)
Set Point 2350 2480 (2430-2505)
Pressure (psfa)
Temperature 650 670 (sat.)
(OF)
Fluid Type steam steam steam Flow Rate 210,000 228,600 (204,000-205,000)
(1bs/hr)
Water Conditions w-l Wyle Tests PORY 55-MN-3W Inlet Fluid 56-MN-5W Conditions 58-MN-5W 60-MN-7S/W l
\\
Set Point 2350 350 4
678 2535 Pressure (psia)
Nemperature 498-502 100-350 (101-445) 670 (OF)
Fluid Type Steam / water Water Water Steam / Water Flow Rate 781 gpm (324,000-532,800) 468,000 (lbs/hr) 0613E:1 t
TABLE 4-2 TABllLATION OF OPEllING/ CLOSING TIMES FOR PORY Opening Time Closing Time Test (Sec.)
(Sec.)
Marshall 1
2.00 1.700 2
1.900 1.600 3
1.750 1.600 4
1.800 1.600 5
1.800 1.600 6
2.100 1.600 7
1.800 1.700 8
1.650 1.600 9
1.600 1.600 10 1.700 1.600 11 1.900 1.700 i
Wyl e 52-Mil-15 1.64 1.87 53-MN -2S 1.84 1.88 54-NN -4S 3.73 1.79 55-MN -3W 6.39 1.33 56-MN -5W 3.08 1.39 57-MN-3W 2.54
- 1. 4 58-MN -5W 2.39 1.46 5 9-MN -6M 1.95 1.89 60-MN -75 /W 1.81 1.93 61-Mil-8W/W 1.97 1.94 62-Mil-9W 3.08 1.80 l
l tiote : Required Opening Time
- 2.0 Sec.
i l
. Required Closing Time
- 2.0 Sec.
l 0613E:1
TABLE 4-3 COMPARISON OF SAFETY YALVE INLET FLUID CONDITIONS WITH "AS-TESTE0" CONDITIONS Safety Valve 4
Inlet Fluid Target Rock Steam Conditions Safety Valve Tests Set Point 2500 2500 Pressure (psia) 1 Temperature 6 50 sat.
(OF)
Fluid Type Steam loop seal / steam Flow Rate 345,000 (ibs/hr)
Pressurization 200-216 2.67-300 Rate (psi /sec)
Stabili ty Stabl e**
Initial opening
~
2510-2541 Pressure (psia)
Pop Pressure, 2543-2610 (psia) l Rated fliow achieved but not reported in EPRI Tables, reference (7).
As reported by EPRI in Performance data tables of Reference (7).
l l
0613E:1
e
5.0 CONCLUSION
S The preceeding sections of this report and the reports referenced herein indicate the valves, piping arrangements, and fluid inlet conditions for Beaver Valley Unit 1 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.
4 4
c --.
[
I l
0613E:1 i
a 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 for Pres,'trizer 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.
4.
"EPRI PWR Safety and Relief Valve Test Program, Description and Status", April 1982.
5.
"EPRI - Marshall Power-Operated Relief Yalve Interim Test Data Report:
EPRI NO-1244-20, Interim Report, February 1982.
6.
"EPRI/Wyle Power-Operated Relief. Valve Test Report, Phase I and II",
EPRI flP-2147, LD, Interim Report, December 198h c
7.
"EPRI PWR Safety and Relief Yalve Test Program, Safety and Relief Valve Test Report", Interim Report, April 1982.
8.
"EPRI PWR Safety and Relief Yalve Test Program Guide for Application of Yalve Test Program Results to Plant-Specific Evaluations",
Interim Report, March 1982.
9.
" Review of Pressurizer Safety Valve Perfonnance as Observed in the EPRI Safety and Relief Yalve Test Program", June 1982.
k0.
Crane Technical Paper No. 410, " Flow of Fluids Through Valves, Fittings, and Pipe",1976.
l l
0613E:1 L