ML20197G081

Forwards Draft Sser Input Re Purge & Vent Valves.Info Re Valve Operability Failed to Demonstrate Closure Ability in Event of Dba/Loca

ML20197G081
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	11/17/1983
From:	Knight J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
CON-WNP-0682, CON-WNP-682 NUDOCS 8312050645
Download: ML20197G081 (11)

Text

'l DDT".ITdTIGb Central F eading File t

NOV i 7 1963 Docket No. 50-397 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing FROM:

James P. Knight, Assistant Director Components & Structures Engineering Division of Engineering

SUBJECT:

WASHINGTON NUCLEAR PROJECT 2 INPUT FOR SUPPLEMENTAL SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR PURGE AND VENT VALVES (DOCKET NO. 50-397)

Plant Name:

Washington Nuclear Project 2 Docket No.:

50-397 Licensing Stage:

OL Responsible Branch:

Licensing Branch No. 2 Responsible Completion Date:

R. Auluck

. Requested Completion Date:

January 15, 1983 Review Status:

Continuing The enclosed draf t Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report (SSER) was prepared by DE:C&SE, Equipment Qualification Branch.

The final SSER on this subject will be forwarded shortly.

In addition the SSER with regard to SRP 3.10 will follow shortly.

We have asked DSI (memo-randum dated November 17, 1983) to assist in evaluating the justifications for interim operations involving safety related equipment not yet qualified.

With the technical assistance of Brookhaven National Laboratory we have completed our review of information submitted concerning operability of containment purge and vent valves for WNP-2.

We find the information submitted failed to demonstrate the ability of these valves to close against the buildup of containment piessure in the event of a DBA/LOCA.

For this reason the purge and vent valves should be sealed closed in

Contact:

R. Wright, NRR Ext. 28209

~~g

/ G312030645 031117 V e" ADOCK 05000397 s

N~

M

............l....................

...................l..............l...................

e,,,c, t

....................l...................\\........................

....................\\.....................

om

.c rx.i m pea r.cv m OFFICIAL RECORD COPY u w *-uwa

' Thomas M. Novak.

accordance with SRP Section 6.2.4.11.6.f.

Thus, the following licensing condition or Technical Specification is required:

"The purge and vent valves shall be sealed closed during operating modes 1, 2, 3 and 4 until their operability can be demonstrated" 1

James P. Knight, Assistant Director Components & Structures Engineering Division of Engineering

Enclosure:

As stated cc:

A. Schwencer J. Jackson R. Auluck R. Wright V. Noonan J. Singh, INEL w

ns

\\

omes ) p...%...............

. 0 FV OE

'DE/CSE @l

..........g................./..E Q If f L 0

...V..N..o..o.. n..g..,.h..

........... [.... 1......................

RW sue N4ud )......r..i..g h..t............G. 8..a..n.c. h.i.........

..........K..n..i..'.t.......l................................................................

r II

...../... ),7..../. 8 3.....1.1/...\\...../.8. 3...

..1.1../../.3.../. 8.. 3..

1.1./..

../. 8. 3...

....................... I i no

,.....................q........................

e.ac roau sis m.an naeu mo CFFICIAL RECORD COPY w.m

.mwi

(k WASHINGTON NUCLE AR PROJECT-2 00CKET 50, 50-397

[

)

/

DENONSTRATION OF CONTAlhMENT PURGE AND VENT VALVE OPERA 3ILITY t v,.

n,'.

i g,a:au',

1.0 Requi _recent_

1ent ourge and vent valves, par-Demnstration of operability of the contair:

ticularly the ability of these valves to close during a design basis accident, is necessary to assure contaiment isolation. This demnstration of operabil-ity is required by BTP CSB 6 4 and SRP 3.10 for containrent purge and vent valves $1ch are not scaled closed during coeratiW conditions 1. 2, 3, and 4.

'y 2.0 Description of Purae and Vent Valves The valves identified as the containrent isolation valves in the ourge and vant systen are as follows:

g,q', $.}',

Valve Size ' ',.

Valve Nunber (inches)

Use Location CSP-Y-1 30 Vent. Supply Outside Contaf ment CSP-V-2 30 Vent. Supply Outside Containrrnt CSP-V-3 24 Vent. Supply Outside Contalment CSP-V 4 24 Vent. Supply Outside Contain ent CEP-V-1A 30 Vent. Exhaust Outside Contaiment CEP-V-2A 30 Vent. Exhaust Outside Contain:nent CEP-V-3A 24 Vent. Exnaust Outside Contafment CEP V 4A 24 Vent. Exhaust Outside Containrent The contaf rment purge and wnt valves are tutterfly valves nanufactured by SIF, a unf t of General Signal Corporation and are listed as BIF Model Nurtcr valves) and SIF Model Number A-206763 (30' valves). Miller Air A-206765 ( 24" Products Corporation Model A-83 cylinders (air open - sprf ng closed) are used The 24-inch valves use 8" cylinders and the 30' valves for valve actuation.

use 10* cylinders.

p.!!l.' ' Y G r. "'

3.0 Demnstration of Operability.

Washington Public Power Supply System (WPP55) has provided operability 3.1 denonstration information for the contalment purge and vent syste, f solation valves used at their Washington Nuclear Project 2 (WNP 2) in the following i

submt ttal s :

Reference A_

WPPSS letter, February 24, 1983 G. O. Bouchey to A. Schwencer (NRC).

1 f: *,',. '. I ' 'f r.

.o p s s. 's.

i

,, z -..s.-

i

(

R:ference B_

?,,

9'.

t..

e WPPSS letter, June 22, 1983 G. D. Bouchey to A. Schwencer (NRC).

3,2 Determination of dynamic torques during valve closure against the buildup of containment pressure during a LOCA is based on cynamic torque coefficients T obtained fron SIF tests performed using dif ferent types of disc geometry C

and disc and shaft orientation with respect to direction of flow.

The test medium is water and no air testing was performed.

One of the test configura-i tions included a directly connected short radius elbow upstream to study the ef fect of flow non-uniformity on dynamic torque.

Several tests were also per-formed with the valve shaft vertical and horizontal, counter clockwise opening and clockwise opening, with flatside upstream and flatside downstream.

Fron these tests, the most severe case was cetermined to be a vertical shaft orien-tation (i.e. perpendicular to the plane of the elbow) with the flatside of the disc downstream and with a clockwise rotation of the disc.

This orientation results in an approxir.ately 30% increase in maximum dynamic torque coefficient 3

over the straight pipe inlet configuration.

Torque coefficients used to de-t termine dynamic loads for WNP-2 purge and vent valves are based on this worst case configuration.

The differential pressure !. p across the valve is calculated fron the data on volusetric flow rate under LOCA conditions, and using the equation, i

Pg2-P 2 2

Q = 963 Cy q.7 GT1

[; s' t'

where Q = Gas flow in SCFH Pt - Valve upstream pressure (psia)

P2 = Valve dowistream pressure (psia)

G = Specific gravity T1 = Upstream tertperature in CRankinc 2

Cy = Valve coefficient = 29.9 0 Ev 0

= Valve Port diameter (In.)

Ky = Coefficient of flow No load closure time for the valves ranged from 1 1/2 to 4 seconds based on tests perforined at B!F.

The maximum no load closure tire of a seconds is used for the analysis with a one second instra.nentation time delay for a total of 5

_ _ I k y.',' i

\\

.ru. 6 D S.. U c seconds from LOCA initiation-to-valve closure.

As an a::ditional conservatism, the drywell pressure and temperature rise during a LOCA is used for all valves.

Dynamic torques are calculated for both saturated steam and air as the flow The calculations are summarized and shown below in Tables 1, 2, 3, and media.

4 (Reference B) for both the 24-inch and 30-inch valves and for steam and air fl ow.

The peak dynamic torques during closure and the seating and bearing friction torques at 00 are conpared to the design toe es used_fn_the__setsof c analy-sis report and indicate positive margins 6 _

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS Table 1.

30-Inch Valve, Airflow, (TNET = 22174 in-lb)

Dyna:nic Time Angle 2 Torque (s) deg.

in-1b.

' *I '

1.0 90 (Full Ocen) 11020 3~*'

1.5 78.75 23098 2.0 67.50 18138 2.5 56.25 14747 3.0 45.00 12428 3.5 33.75 10780 l

4.0 22.50 8014 4.5 11.25 3972 5.0 9.0 (Full closed) 0.0*

• At full closed position, the dynamic torque is zero and the not torque is due to stating and bearing friction.

W Note: The design torque used in the Seismic analysis report No.

l TR-74 8

_NcPherson_!ssociates_for_this valve is 27800 in-1b.b i

E.!')I t..'SEY T

/

l 9

m.._.--_.

4-f*, r; y z.,..,

,%l

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS Table 2.

30-inch Valve, Steam flow, (TNET = 22174 in-lb)

Dynamic Time Angle 2 Torque (s)

deg, in-lb.

1.0 90 (Full Open) 11032 1.5 78.75 23175 2.0 67.50 18142 es 2.5 56.25 14668

,4 f f.1/? P'3 '

3.0 45.00 12424

• 'e 3.5 33.75 10580 4.0 22.50 7809 4.5 11.25 3867 5.0 9.0 (Full closed) 0.0*

• At full closed position, the dynanic torque is zero and the net torque is due to seating and bearing friction.

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS Table 3.

24-Inch Valve, Airflow, (ThET = 13808 in-lb)

Dynamic Time Angle a Torque (s) deg.

in-lb.

1.0 90 (Full Open) 5525 1.5 78.75 11692

[yf,f;,.,,,

2.0 67.50 9095

.,,

)c

r.,9 2.5 56.25 7428 3.0 45.00 6239 "a

3.5 33.75 5430 4.0 22.50 4043 4.5 11.25 2020 5.0 9.0 (Full closed) 0.0*

• At full closed position, the dynamic torque is Zero and the net torque is due to seating and, bearing friction.

L' The design torque used in the jeismic analysis report N1.

Note:

TR-74-8 by McPhersca-Associates _for_ this valve is 17000 hY f

(m' g

'"b-II SUPNARY OF RESULTS Table 4.

24-Inch Valve, Steamflow, (TNET = 13808 in-lb)

Dynamic Time Angleo Torque (s) deg.

in-lb.

1.0 90 (Full Open) 5425 1.5 78.75 11394 fi s 2.0 67.50 8921

! / ?.3 N 2.5 56.25 7213 "J A."i '.I' [

3.0 45.00 6109 3.5 33.75 5202 4.0 22.50 3842 4.5 11.25 1902 5.0 9.0 (Full closed) 0.0 *

• At full closed position, the dynamic torque is zero and the net torque is due to seating and bearing friction.

Demonstration of actuator torque nargin is based on the mininum spring 3.3 force developed which is equal to the spring pre-load.

24-inch valve _( _8_* cylinder) 16,890 in-lbs (preload) > 13,808 in-lbs (seating torcue).

.0 f *p 30-inch Valve (10-inch cylinder) 32,422 in-1bs (preload) > 22,174 in-lbs (seating toroue).

/g p 3.4 WPPSS provides a structural analysis for the rge and vent valves and This consists of (3p$eismic/ Hydrodynamic their operators in Reference B.

Requalification Reports for the 30-inch valves, 24 neh valves, and the The requalification certificates for both the 24' and 30' valves operators.

are contingent upon ear bolt modifications and the addition of shear plates.

Acceptance criteria for the structural analysis are taken fron' Section !!! of the A$ME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code or the A!SC Constructin Manual, Loads used in the analysis are the valve operating whichever is applicable.

loads ccanbined with the dynamic loads which wculd result from seismic and hydrodynamic events as determined by the piping analysis for the plant.

>A u:h(l'

• v

pn r. P.

M - rg) f.j O An $RSS analysis was set up in a cortputer program for each valve assembly in its specific orientation. The SRSS is taken at the maximum stress level due to seismic g-loading.

Operating loads due to seating terque force and dead weight are combined with the seismic stress by absolute sum.

Based on the results of the structural analysis, the valves will remain functional through forty years of postulated hydrodynamic events, five operating basis earthquakes, and one safe shutdown earthquake.

gy 4.0 Evaluation r p,.,g y ~

.,., fi 4.1 The determination of dynamic toFques for WPPSS purge and vent valves under LOCA conditions is based on the testing by the valvo suppif er (BIF) of a codel valve using water as the test reditn.

Tests conducted with a short el-0 to the plane of the elbow, and bow directly upstream, valve shaft at'90 flatside of disc downstream indicated a 30% increase in maximum, dynamic tor-que coef ficient for this worst case g try. Using data from model tests performed by other valve manufacture 'sf th air as the test medium, this produces a 300% increase in maxtr.um dynamic torque coeff t-worst case geonetry4'ifference (30% water versus 300% air) in maximum dynamic The large d cient.

torque coefficient is due to the higher (above Mach.3) velocities at large angles of opening where the dynamic toroue coefficients peak.

Dynamic torque coefficients from model tests using incompressible fluids correlate reasonably well with data from tests using air if the velocities are belew a Mach number of0.3).

Considering the analysis results tabulated in Table 1 of Reference A, the peak dynamic torque for the 20-inch valve occurred at 78.750 and was 23,098 in-1bs.

The design torque is 27,800 in-Ibs as noted in the same table.

Applying a 300% increase to the 23098 in 1bs peak dynamic torque which already has a 30% worst case configuration factor; the peak dyna-:ic torque using the factor from air tests works out to 48,505 in lbs, well above the 27,800 in-lbs design torque.

tailed valve installation inforr.ation was not provided for each valve i

M rn. e n n sj

/

1.

Direction of flow.

2* 9(

Disc closure direction.

2.

Curved side of disc, upstrean or downstream (asy-rtetric discs).

3.

Orientation and distance of c1 bows, tees, bends, etc. within 20 cipe t

4 diameters of valve.

t 5.

Shaft orientation.

p 6.

Distance between valves.

/An acceptable approach to the staf $ instead of the conservative worst cc

/

torque coefficients for each valveYinstallation configuration coupled with a

')

/

V

(

restriction on valve opening.

-~.

6

~l @ M

/Nigp;.

.' %j;f,8

4. 2

',/g{'

is u cr.s in i

e worst case georaetry at large angles of valve openings can produce very hi

'tbf@iis that would be considerably larger than the seating torque, } g f, y,

$hr C h h ny rvry ~

s n....s.s( w......n b )

rakad e-ns. ! i <, im

.rr..r.

4.3 Valve pressure ratings and a static pressure analysis are not, addressed p al4 ue.<i4.-A pc.u.4cM.v. 0[,,..

es in the subeittals.

.}., u u.,; t t s.- t..,

t 4.4 Reference A includes plots of flow rate versus time from LOCA initiation' V

4 #-m W M 'N { "/*

sition.

The for the 24-inch and 30-inch valves : aintained in a full open abscissa incorrectly includes valve closure / rom 900 to 0%

f

/&ws. n, -f ja C.cet a/y J w m r. f e../

eLc

..p 5.0 Sumary 4

~ ' -

'a;yW d We have coripleted our review of the infomation submtted to'date, concerning the operability of the 24-inch and 30-inch valves used in the containment j

purge and vent system for Washington Nuclear Project-2. We find that the information submitted for the 24-inch and 30-inch valves did not demonstrate that these valves have the ability to close against the buildup of pressure in the event of a DBA/LOCA fecrn the full open position.

Paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 are the bases for these findings. For this reason, the 24-inch and 30-inch valves should be sealed closed in accordance with SRP Section 6.2.4 and i

III.6.f.

Furthermore, these valves should be verified to be closed at least once every 31 days, i

i:i P

.w--

p.-

m,..-

h)/LL Q&~

p n n)o I

g UNITED STATES U

g,+ ',",v.. ( 3 g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION D*s

. E CASHINGToN, D. C. 20555

%.3) m,7 ;sa MEMORANDUM FOR:

Robert W. Houston, Assistant Director for Reactor Safety Division of Systems Integration Daniel Muller, Assistant Director for Radiation Protection Division of Systems Integration Lester Rubenstein, Assistant Director for Core and Plant Systems Division of Systems Integration FROM:

James P. Knight, Assistant Director Components & Structures Engineering Division of Engineering

SUBJECT:

JUSTIFICATIONS FOR INTERIM OPERATION, WASHINGTON NUCLEAR PROJECT 2 (DOCKET NO. 50-397)

The Equipment Qualification Branch, Division of Engineering has recently received from WPPSS justification for interim operation with safety-related electrical and mechanical equipment which will not be fully qualified for seismic and dynamic loadings.

Because these justifications are interdisciplinary and often require a detailed knowledge of the

• systems in which equipment functions, your assistance is requested for this review.

The DSI and DE cognizant review branches should be responsible for the following:

1.

Review of equipment functions within a system and failure consequences.

2.

Review of alternate equipment to accomplish the safety function.

Attachment I contains the individual justifications.

In the upper right hand margin of each page, the branch believed to be responsible for the review has been listed.

If another branch is responsible, please notify R. Wright (X28209).

Justifications have not been provided for all outstanding equipment since WPPSS anticipates obtaining full qualification documentation for those items prior to fuel load.

Contact:

R. Wright, NRR Ext. 28209 l

c J

Your prompt attention is requested.

Written responses should be forwarded to us no later than November 22, 1983, in order that there be no impact on the licensing schedule.

/g W J

t 1stant Director

/t ponents Struct res Engineering ivision Engineering Attachments:

As stated cc:

w/o attachments w/ attachments V. Noonan R. Wright O. Parr T. Collins W. Gammill J. Ridgely F. Congel S. Rhow V. Benaroya R. Giardina A. Schwencer J. Singh, INEL E. Weinkam G. Bagchi R. Auluck l

i r

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

--~__ --.

. _.. - - -. _ _. _. _.