ML20125B964

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 771027 Meeting W/Ge & Mark I Owners Group Re multiple-subsequent Actuations of Safety/Relief Valves Following Isolation Event
ML20125B964
Person / Time
Site: Monticello Xcel Energy icon.png
Issue date: 03/20/1978
From: Stello V
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
GL-78-9, NUDOCS 9212100232
Download: ML20125B964 (4)


Text

lf7 -^ ^

g 3 ,& "*% L l'  ;

un,,gng,,,gg c A~

[0kb]

f' ' '. y WUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9+ - .j '  !

WASHINoTON, D. C. 20555 f J k***  : March '20,1978 - "

(/-

_ Gentlemen:

RE: MULTIPLE-SUDSEQUENT ACTUATI0f15 0F SAFETY / RELIEF VALVES FOLLOWING A!J ISOLATION EVENT In 'a-meeting on October-27,1977, the General Electric Company (GE) andi the Mark I-Owners Group provided the staff with the results-of an assessment- of the effects of multiple-subsequent actuations 'of safety /

relief valves;(SRVs)'following an-isolation event. This assessment was provided to justify the deferral 'of this: issue untiliits- ultimate--

resolution as a part of the Mark I' Containment _Long-Term Program.

At:the conclusion of that meetino,--the staff requested that-each utility submit' a basis- for continued operation- by LHovemer:1,:1977_.

including a- description of any in_terim corrective ~ measures which may be implemented. The staff- further-indicated that it may require:

plant-unique assessments to be orovided in the.near future. - A ' number -

of the submittals'made on November 1,1977 containedLadditional- -

information relative to' the effects of. multiple-subsequent SRV"actuations. ,

' The assessments that we have received to date have been-based"onEan application of the results of the'MonticelloLSRV discharge:(ranshead) j" tests. :During the course of our_ review of the-Monticelloitesti results, we have' noted that there are significantivariations in the. .t

-neasured structural; responses for similar test' conditions. _ _As ai _

i result, we have cnncluded tha t the' data base is -insuf ficient' to deter- -

' mine the probability distribut_ ion for either'--(l) the structural responses for similar test: conditions, or--(2)'_the manner by which a structural responses for single SRV actuations are to be combined in .

deternining the structural _ response to several SRVsidischarging' simul ta neously. Further, in assessing the ef fects ofL nultiple SRV!

+

actuations, the structural- responses to single SRVractuationsido not.

combine consistently at various points on the structure, when compared to the responses forithel sane valv'es dischargina simultaneously. <

f

'9212100232 780320 PDR: ADOCK 05000263;

.p . PDR s-

._,_,2, . .-- -

-. ~, ., . . - . ..-

-/- .

J.l. .

2 7

We recognize th'at, Eat the present' time; the Monticello test rasults-;

- provide the- best available data for determining the effects , C-multiple-subsequent SRV actuations. However; _ the applicatit n of' *

.the Monticello' test results involves a considerable amount of A subjective judgment. We have',.' therefore, developed-. the -enclosed - - <;

criteria, based:on our; interpretation of the lionticello data,-

which we- believe-will provide a "most probable" estimate of the - --. 4 ef fects of an ' isolation transient event. _In our. view, such an-estimate is consistent with the philosophy.of the Mark I . .

Containment Short-Term Program and is acceptable on an interim basis, .while the Long-Term Program is. being conducted. -

The enclosed criteria should be used to perfonn _a plant-unique-assessment of this concern as it relates to_Ma' r k I BWR facilities.-

You are' requested to submit this assessment for your facility within 60 days of- the receipt of this letter. Since over 100 of '

these transient events have occurred for which only'two events resulted. in multiple-subsequent SRV actuations, and since no '

evidence of structural deterioration was found, we conclude that continued operation is acceptable while' this assessment-is being pe rf ormed. - Your submittal- should include a_ description of the methods used to satisfy these criteria. Whe re _ appropri ate,- pl a nt- _

unique data may be used for this assessment, provided that_ the test -

procedures and data are' documented.

SincereQ, n

g.

?, .

I fi 'i VictorStello',pp., Director  :

Division of Operating Reactors

Enclosure:

Criteria for the Assessment of: Mul tiple-Subsequent SRV Ac tuations ,

a

]

t 4

e w w , r , e.w,~ ,-, e ...w-- 4- -e - - - - e-- ~ - .

- - - > - ~-. - - -- -- --

Enclosure CRITERIA FOR THE ASSESSMENT 0F MULTIPLE-SUBSEQUENT SRV ACTUATIONS

l. The number of valves which experience subsequent actuation shall be determined from a plant-unique assessment.of the transient which reflects the valve groupings and the SRV setpoints in your facility's Technical Specifications. Variations in the SRV setpoints may be accounted for, provided all of the setpoints are distributed in a manner dictated by actual SRV performance testing. Plants with similar SRV discharge arrangements may be grouped for this assessment, provided their similarity is demonstrated.

N; (Although discussions are currently being held between GE and the staff regarding the transient analysis models used to predict the SRV response sequence., we conclude that the current models are acceptable for this interim assessment.

The ultimate resolution of this issue in the Long-Term Program will require the use of transient analysis models which resolve staff concerns regarding the _ Current models.)

2. The plant specific variations to the hydrodynamic characteristics of the SRV discharge line configurations shall be accounted for by the use of a correction factor derived from the SRV discharge analytical model. This factor shall be based on average line conditions for those lines predicted to subsequently actuate, as compared to the tion +icello " Bay D" discharge conditions.

The basis for a.eragi,ig shall be described and justified.-

3. All available peak structural response data for single SRV discharge events, with approximately the same distances between the discharge point and a point on the structure, should be averaged to obtain the expected values of peak structural response at that point as a function of its distance from the discharging SRV. Certain data may be omitted if it can be demonstrated that such data are inconsistent and-should not be considered.
4. The effects of a multiple valve discharge event, as determined from the data on individual SRV discharges, shall be determined by taking the SRSS of the individual valve ef fects and increasing this value by 20 percent, except as noted in (5) below.

t 1

f w

b

g:

2

5. For structures excited primarily by the overall movements of the ~

torus (e.g. , the suction _ header, the torus support columns, the ring header, etc.),- the absolute sum of the structural responses .

to single SRV actuations shall-be used to determine the effects '

of the same valves actuating simultaneously.

6. The consecutive yalve actuation factors shall be determined from the Monticello data, or any other available test data, by considering the peak structural responses for an appropriate set of gauges -

for all consecutive valve actuation tests. For a given set-of gauges, the mean plus one standard deviation.of all peak structural <

responses for each gauge shall be computed. These values, in d conjunction with the appropriate cold pipe condition _ structural responses, shall be utilized to compute a set of consecutive -

actuation factors. These consecutive valve-actuation factors shall be averaged to detennine one consecutive valve actuation factor which i' applicable to the area (s) of the structure for which this set of gauges is appropriate. Certain data may be omitted if it can be demonstrated that such data are inappropriate and should not be considered.

7. If the results of this assessment indicate that the limiting strength ratio for either the torus shell or the torus support-system is greater than 0.5, corrective measures should be promptly in'tituted to reduce the limiting strength ratio (s) to less than 0.5. This action may consist of reassigning SRV setpoints, reducing the SRV setpoints, or other measures. If you determine that corrective measures are necessary, for your facility, your submittal should describe proposed corrective measures, including the associated schedule for their completion.

I

]

I 1

s