ML20115G813

Demonstration of Containment Purge & Vent Valve Operability for Perry Nuclear Power Plant,Units 1 & 2, Informal Rept

ML20115G813
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	03/31/1985
From:	Kido C EG&G, INC.
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20115G817	List: ML20115G813
References
CON-FIN-A-6415, TASK-2.E.4.2, TASK-TM EGG-EA-6826, NUDOCS 8504220353
Download: ML20115G813 (17)

Text

_ _ . - _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ __ ._. _ _ _ . _ _

' EGG-EA-6826

"

• MARCH 1985 4 DEMONSTRATION OF CONTAINMENT PURGE AND VENT I

VALVE OPERABILITY FOR THE PERRY NUCLEAR i POWER PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 C. Kido 1

l l

[

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Informal Report Operated by the U.S. Depanment of Energy

\ .. ,

\

V:~. g' i, i

. . . A:.

1 ....,a. = =.w i-d l'[ ,_ ,

M.MPm ,,M s o mmm e

~*

fl

~'

.h .' '% -

p _ ,

c .- &, : .,

..g .: -

-k.

~

-~

\ ,

l i ,

Prepared for the U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 g FIN No. A6415 E S g G ,,,n, l 0122@353 L) -

-- m. _ ,- . ._.. . _ _ _ g

4 EGG-EA-6826 PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NUMBERS 50-440 AND 50-441 DEMONSTRATION OF CONTAINMENT PURGE AND VENT VALVE OPERAEILITY C. Kido Pu:'.'sned March 1985 NRC Licensing Support Section Engineering Analysis Division EG&G Idaho, Inc.

Idahe Falls, Idaho 83415 Prepared for the i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission . N Washington, D.C. 20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570 FIN No. A6415

ABSTRACT The containment purge and vent valve qualification program fer the Perry Nuclear Power Plant has been reviewed by the NRC Licensing Support Section. The review indicates that the licensee has demonstrated the ability of the 18 in, and 4;2 in. valves to close against the buildup of containment pressure in the event of a DBA LOCA, with the condition that the 42 in. valves be limited to a 50' opening angle.

FOREWORD This rep:rt is suoplied as :a-t :f the "E:ut: t : "aa'ifi:a ':- Case Reviews" project that is being conducted for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Engineering, Equipment Qualification Branch by EG&G Idaho, Inc., Engineering. Analysis Division, NRC Licensing Support Section.

The U.S. Nu: lear Regulatory Commission funded this work under the authorization, B&R 20-19-40-41-2, FIN Number A6415.

ii 9

SUMMARY

The Perry containment purge and vent valve qualification program has been reviewed by the NRC licensing support section of EG&G Idaho, Inc., who provide technical assistance to the NRC Equipment Qualificatier. Brar.ch (EQB). Demonstration of operability of the containment purge and vent valves, particularly the ability of tnese valves to close during a design basis accident, is necessary to assure containment isolation. This demonstration of. operability is required by Standard Review Plant (SRP) 6.2.4, Branch Technical Position (STP) CSB 6-4, and SRP 3.10 for containment purge and vent valves which are not sealed closed during operational conditions 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Material contained in the Perry F'nal Safety Analysis Repor: ( FS AF.)

and purge valve qualification report formed the basis for this evaluation.

Qualification of the valves was based on fluid dynamic analyses and on generic 5 in. model tests performed by the manufacturer usine the worst case configuration and load combinations. In summary, we find that the information submittec demenstrated the ability of the 18 in. and 42 in.

valves to close against the buildup of containment pressure in the event of a DBA LOCA, with the condition that the 42 in. valves be limited to a 50*

opening angle.

4 iii

CONTENTS A.S.

i h...

.i .............................................................. 1,.

FOREWORD ............................................................ . 11

SUMMARY

............................................................... iii

- 1. R:n,n-

. J 2 n :v.:NT.......................................................

2. DESOF.:FI:0N OF CONTA:NMENT PURGE AND VENT VALVES ................. 2

.3. DEMONSTRATION OF OPERASILITY ..................................... 4

4. EVALUATION ....................................................... 8 a

5. C0um netnu nwwwdawa ....................................................... JU

6. RE:ERENCES ....................................................... 11 iv

PERRY NUCLEAR POWER DLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NUMBERS 50-440 AND 50-cal DEMONS b TION A OF CONTAINMENT PURGE AND VENT VALVE 00ERAb'LITY

1. REQUIREMENT Demonstration of operability of the containment purge and vent valves, particularly the ability of these valves to close during a design basis accident, is necessary to assure containment isolation. This demonstration of operability is required by Standard Rev ew Plan (SRP) 6.2.4, Branch Technical Position (BTP) CSB 6-4, and SRP 3.10 for containment purge and vent valves which are not sealed closed during operational conditions 2, 2, 3, and 4.

k t

1 .

i

-. - - - . _ . . _ _ _ - _ _ _ . - _ _ . . _ _ _ L, _ , . _ , - . _ , ,,

2. DESCR!PT:0N OF CONTA?NMENT PURGE AND VENT VALVES The following valves are icentified in the licensee submittal and Perry FSAR Table 6.2-32 as being part of the containment purge and vent system.

Si:e Valve Tao No. (in.) Use Location M14F040 42 Supply Outside Containment M14F045 42 Supply Inside Containment M14F190 18 Supply Inside Containment M14 F0'90 42 Exhaust Outside Containment M14F085 42 Exhaust Inside Containment M14F200 IS Exhaust Inside Containment The Pratt 18 in.-1200 butterfly valves are equioped with Bettis operators, i

Model T312B-SR2, air open-spring close, 47000 in.-lb maximum, 26000 in.-ib minimum rating. The Pratt 42 in.-1200 butterfly valves are epui;:ed with Bettis operators, Model T420-SR2, air open-spring close, 100000 in.-lb maximum, 57400 in.-lb minimum rating. The full open position of the valve l corresponds to a disc angle of 90'.

! The containment purge and vent system for Perry will be operated at partial flow during normal plant operation and at full purge rate prior to personnel entry into the drywell and during refueling operation. During l normal plant operation, the 42 in. valves located in the annulus will be open, while the 42 in. valves inside containment will be normally closed.

A bypass line with an 18 in, normally open valve will serve as the normal i

purge pathway parallel to the normally closeo 42 in. valve. This configuration will ensure that the net effective opening is limited to I

2 1 1

- _ _ [ Ny _.

s in., wri'.. i.'.~.;. .; f:r the c;timum air flow of 5000 cfm requireo to normally purge the plar.t. During the drywell purge mode (refueling and cold shutdown conditier.s)' the inboard 42 in. isolation valves will be opened to permit a. full purge rate of 30,000 cfm through the containment.

o 3 -

)

~

3. DEP.ONSTRATION OF CPERAEILITY The fellowing documents were submitted for review by the Clevelard Electric Illuminating Company to demonstrate operability of the Perry containmer.: purge and vent valves.

1. Letter from M. A. Edelman, Vice President, Nuclear Group, Clevs'ard Ele:tric Illu-inating Cem;any to B. J. Youngbleed, Chief, Licensing Branch No.1, Division of Licensing, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Response to NUREG 0737, Item II.E.4.2(6), Letter No. PY-CEI/NRR-0154L, December 19, 1984.

2. Gilbert / Commonwealth Report, Isolation / Purge Valve Analysis for 18"-1200 Butte #1y Valve, Specification No. SP-641-4549-00, Rev. XII, Pratt Job No. D-45608 (D-0086-10), September 21, 1983.

3. Gilbert / Commonwealth Report, Isolation / Purge Valve Analysis for 42" *.20: Butte-fly Va've (Ele:kec at Ecc), 5:e:i'i: :t:r.

No. SP-641-4549-00, Rev. XII, Prat: Job No. D-45608 (D-0086-1,-8), September 21, 1983.

The operability demonstration presented by the Henry Pratt Company in References 2 and 3 is based on the following considerations.

1. The valve closure time during a LOCA will be less than or equal to the no-flow time of 5 seconds, since fluid cynamic effects tend to assist valve closure.

2. The ability to isolate containment is challenged if either valve in series fails to close properly. Pratt has determined that the worst case configuration occurs if the outside containment valve is stuck fully open, requiring the inside valve to close against the full containment pressare. Although they have not concucted 4

o .

specific mocel tests with partially open upstream valves, Pratt 4

believes that they would tend to lower closing tcrque requirements because of the pressure drop across the upstream

. valve.

3. The worst case configuration with respect to developed aerodynamic torque is a 90' elbow upstream oriented 90' out of plane with respect to the valve shaft, and leading edge of the disc closing toward the outer wall of the elbow. Furthe-more, the maximum dynamic torque occurs when initial sonic flow is coincident with a disc angle of 72* (symmetric) or 68' (asymmetric). Alternate configurations were tested such as flow from the flat and arch side of the disc, clockwise and c:unte,rclockwise disc closure, and disc diameter to thickness ratios. The dynamic torques determined by 5 in model tests were in all cases lower than those calculated by the Pratt purge valve analysis.

4. The Pratt purge valve analysis is based on the seismic loads (3 axes acting simultaneously) plus the LOCA-induced loads. The resulting combined stress is compared with ASME code criteria.

The valve operator was evaluated by comparing the manufacturer's rating versus the calculated LOCA-induced fluid dynamic torques.

5. To determine the fluid dynamic torque of the 18 in and 42 in.

purge valves, Pratt applies sonic and subsonic torque coefficients as well as an empirical sizing factor to its torque equations. The torque coefficients and sizing factors are derived from analysis of experimental test data using a 5 in.

test model and are correlated with analytically predicted behavior of airfoils in compressible media. The sizing factor for the 18 in. valve is 1.176 and is 1.220 for the 42 in. valve blocked at 50'.

5 _

~

6. A constant upstream pressure of 26.7 psia was assumed for the -

torque calculations. This value envelopes the peak containment ,

pressure tnat results from a doucle-ended guillotine break of tne recirculation line. FSAR Figure 6.2-2 and Table 6.2-7 give tne containment response as -4.5 psig at 5 s, rising to a peak pressure of 11.31 psig after 11,128 s.

7. The Pratt valves supplied do not include accumulators or torque limiting devices, and are not affected by containment back pressure.

8. The molded EPT valve seats have a known cumulative radiation resistance of 108 rads at 350*F. In addition, the vendor recommenos visual inspection every 16 months with replacement as needed, since the presence of debris or camage to the seats could impair sealing.

9. The calculation of torcue values from full open to closed for the 15 in. valve and from 50' open to closed for the 42 in. valve are based on the specific purge valve analyses and on the generic 5 in. model tests conducted by the Henry Pratt Company using the worst case configuration and respective sizing factors as cescribed above.

Based on the assumptions listed above, the highest resultant torque value for the 18 in. valve was 12200 in.-lb at a disc angle of 68* open.

Since the minimum rating of the Bettis operator is 26000 in.-lb at 45*, the Gilbert report, Reference 2, concluded that the operator was structurally capable of withstanding the combined LOCA and seismic loads.

For the 42 in. valve, the Gilbe.rt report, Reference 3, concluded that neither the valve structure nor the valve operator are adequate te withstand the combined LOCA and seismic loads except by restricting the valve opening to 50* or less. With the valve blocked at 50* the maximum required torque is 54700 in.-lb which is less than the minimum torque rating of the operator, 57400 in.-lb at 45*.

6

• 4 ~

• Using the m:x' mum criculated valve terque value:, all ccm::rer.:s c' each valve assembly were analyzed for stress with the added consiceration that the valve is either at maximum fluid dynamic torque or seating against the maximum design pressure. Seismic accelerations of 3 3 '1ori: ental and 4 g vertical were applied simultaneously in all three orthogonal directions. The results of the 18 in and 42 in valve analyses are tabulated in Gilbert reports, References 2 and 3. For all components, the analyses show that the calculated stress levels are below the ASME code acceptance criteria.

Beth valve analyses, based on the 5 in. model tests of a similar valve, are used to support the licensee's conclusion. The licensee has determined that the operability criteria of SRP 6.2.4, BTP CSB 6-4, and SRP 3.10 are satisfied with the condition that the 42 in. valve opening is blocked to 50* or less. No such condition is imposed on the 18 in. valve in order to demonstrate its operability.

7 .

4. EVALUATION We' find that the information submitted by the licensee has demonstrated the ability of the 18 and 42 in. containment valves to close,

.with the condition that the 42 in. valves be limited to a 50' opening angle. The following considerations form the basis for our findings.

1. A review of. the Perry FSAR Section 6.2.4 shows that the double-ended guillotine break cf the recirculation line results in the maximum containment pressure. The containment response is

-4.5 psig during the first 5 s of the design basis accident and rises to a peak pressure of 11.31 psig after 11,128 s. This condition produces the most severe loads on the purge valves under review. The valve analysis is based on a constant inlet pressure of 26.7 psia and conservatively envelopes the peak LOCA condition.

2. Tne methocology presented in the licensee's submittal to cetermine the dynamic torque values is acceptable. The predicted torques are based on the worst case configuration of the valves as discussed earlier in Section 3, Item 3, as well as in the perry FSAR Table 6.2-32 and Figure 6.2-60. The valve analysis extrapolated the results of tests performed on a similar 5 in.

model valve and applied empirical torque coefficients and sizing factors to account for differences of Reynold's Numbers and air lift coefficients. However, it should be noted that derivation of the empirical factors was not presented in the submittal.

Likewise, neither the 5 in model valve design nor the execution of its flow tests were described in much detail.

3. The licensee's submittal has considered and listed all of the critical parts of the 18 in. purge valve as shown on Pratt drawings C-6020 and C-6021 which are included witn Reference 2.

The mounting hardware for the operator have also been considered. The acceptance criteria for the stress analysis are traceable to the ASME code,Section III and 0.40 x yield strength 8 .

F .

3

for non-code shea*. The allowt-le stresses a*e a.ct exceefed #er the full range of motion of the 18 in, valve. For example, the maximum shear stress in the top disc pin is 6298 psi which is less than the allowable level of 8160 psi.

4. The licensee's submittal has considered and listed all of the critical parts of the 42 in. purge valve and its operator mounting. This valve assembly is shown on Pratt drawings C-4804 and C-4805, which are included with Reference 3. The same acceptance criteria are used to evaluate the 18 in. and 42 in.

valves. However, the torque values for the 42 in. valve exceed the manufacturer's rating for the operator except at valve disc angles of 50' or less. The maximum predicted torque of 54700 in.-lb (valve blocked at 50') is less than the minimum operator rating of 57400 in.-lb. The calculated stresses for the valve components and bonnet under combined seismic and LOCA conditions are less than the ASME levels. These stress results are conse-vative since they are based on a maximum valve torque of 79500 in.-lb originally calculated for the valve blocked at 55'.

5. Valve closure times of 4 seconds or less were predicted by analysis. Closure times were determined after 1 second had passed to account for the delay in initiating valve rotation.

The licensee states that the calculated 4 second closure time is conservative since in actual usage the dynamic torque tends to assist closure.

9

5. CONCLUSZON .

We have completed our review of information concerning operability of tne 15 in, anc 42 in, containment purge and vent valves for ne Perry Nuclear Power Plant' Units I and 2. We find that tne information submitted has demonstrated the ability of the 18 in. and 42 in. valves to close against the buildup of containment pressure in the event of a LOCA/0E2, -

with the condition that the 42 in. valves be limited to a 50 opening angle.

l i

1 I

I I

I i, .

!~

10 .

1

,, .-.-g- - - -

9 6

E. EEFERENCES

1. Letter from M. A. Edelman, Vice President, Nuclear Group, Cleveland Electric :lluminating Company to B. J. Youngblood, Chief, Licensing Branch No.1, Division of Licensing, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissien, Resconse to NUREG 0737. Item II.E.4.2(6), Letter No. PY-CEI/NRR-0154L, Decemoer 19, 1984.

2. Gilbert / Commonwealth Report, Isolation /Purce Valve Analysis fer 18 in.-1200 Butterfly Valve, Specification No. SP-641-4549-00, Rev. XII, Fra : Joo No. 0-45605 (D-0086-10), September 21, 1983.

3. Gilbert / Commonwealth Report, Isolation /Purce Valve Analysis for 42 in.-1200 Butterfly Valve (Blockec at 50 ), Specification No. SP-641-4549-00, Rev. XII, Pratt Job No. D-45608 (D-0086-1, -8),

Septemoer 21, 1983.

37344 11

. .o-Y w. = - ~ ,x wa .wCs u u c usai e co . . . f ~.

, e oa- = ,

'#"$8 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET t Go. ..:.n-6826 -

Sil settaw cti ons og Tag ogggest s .. Y.i aso we nt i ahea. .a . ,

Demonstration of Containment Purge and Vent Valve c;; era::11ny :n ...e crr, L:;e37 power p;e . Cas . .:.T :ow.. i; Units 1 and 2 wo41= vgan t ai,7=Cass.

6 Da'l

• E*C.af 'Esw t:

wogT= vtan C. Kido March 1985 1.ga.onwims casamizaf som maws ano wassinG acoatss ,..r. war de case, a PaostcT 7asamoan weit hwmege o .ww.ia EG&G Idaho, Inc. . ...

Idaho Falls, ID 83415 A6415, Project VII 10 5*Q%50**mG 04Ga'.i2 a Tio% hawt ago wa 6amG aoong 85 tsaravar Jo Cases it. Tvrt os assomT Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation "'***""""'"'""

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 12 Swp60uteeYany hof ts e3 assfaa:T #J00 arenes en ees, The containment purge and vent valve qualification program for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant has been reviewed by the NRC Licensing Support .

Section. The review indicates that the licensee has demonstrated the ability of the 18 in, and 42 in. valves to close against the buildup of containment pressure in the event of a DBA LOCA, with the condition that the 42 in. valves be limited to a 50 opening angle.

1 a,., a,g. .,

, i

.. reo:,,w T a a. . .. . . ..o.Os oi s:. .., o .

Unlimited I

2. sec.,=, Y c6 ass... car:o-

)

, r. ,

..o ~t...i so*ia =esovi=ws Unc1assified a r.. . ,,

Unclassified o ~ww. a o...cas is Oa CL

.