ML20212A707
| ML20212A707 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 07/24/1986 |
| From: | Con V CALSPAN CORP. |
| To: | Shaw H NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212A711 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-03-81-130, CON-NRC-3-81-130 TAC-07948, TAC-7948, TER-C5506-328, TER-C5506-328-S01, TER-C5506-328-S1, NUDOCS 8607290108 | |
| Download: ML20212A707 (21) | |
Text
.
[
I' ENCLOSURE 2 l'
SUPPLEMENTARY TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT b
NRC DOCKET NO. 50-293 FAC PROJECT C5506 NRC TAC NO. 07948 FRC ASSIGNMENT 12 N RC CONTRACT NO. N RC-03-8,1-130 FRC TASK 328 m.
STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF THE VACUUM BREAKERS (MARK I CONTAINME!:T PROGRAM)
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY PILGRIM PLANT TER-C5506-328 I
Prepared for l_
Nuclear Regulatory Commission FRC Group Leader: V. N. Con Washington, D.C. 20555 NRC Lead Engineer:
H. Shaw li July 24, 1986
[
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or impued, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, appa-ratus, product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights.
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
kt er
/m
.[
t
+w Prfncipat' Author
~
DepartmentD ectoj k
P244 Date:
Date: M 4-96 Date: 7 - Z 4 IITe
[-
FRANKLIN RESEARCH CENTER OlVISION OF ARVIN/CALSPAN 20tn & RACE STREIT$, PHILADELPMIA.PA 19105 h
(
r c
I TER-C5506-328 I
CONTENTS Section Title Page 1
INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Generic Background.
1 1-1.2 Vacuum Breaker Function 2
2 EVALUATION CRITERIA.
9 3
DESIGN LOADS 10 4
STRESS EVALUATION 11 5
PLANT-SPECIFIC REVIEW: PILGRIM PLANT 15 5.1 Background Information.
15 5.2 Stress Analysis Results 15 6
CONCLUSIONS.
17 7
REFERDICES.
18 li I.
I:
7 I
I iii
TER-C5506-328
[
F' FOREWORD This Technical Evaluation Report was prepared by Franklin Research Center i
under a contract with the U.S. Nuciear Regulatory Comission (Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactors) for technical assistance in support of NRC operating reactor licensing actions. The technical evaluation was conducted in accordance with criteria established by the NRC.
[
I
[
It d
L
[
'l f
I
[
i I
TER-C5506-328 1.
INTRODUCTION In a latter state of the generic resolution of the suppression pool dynamic load definition of the Mark I Containment Long-Term Program, a potential failure mode of the vacuum breakers was identified during the clugging and condensation phases of hydrodynamic loadings. To resolve this issue, two vacuum breaker owner groups were formed, one for those with General Precision Engineering (GPE) vacuum breakers, the other for those with Atwood-Morrill (AM) vacuum breakers.
The issue was not part of the original scope of the Mark I Containment Long-Term Program as described in NUREG-0661 (1). However, vacuum breakers f
have the function of maintaining containment integrity and, therefore, are subject to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) review.
In a generic letter dated February 3, 1983 (2), the NRC requested all affected plants either to submit the results of the plant-unique calculations which formed the bases for modifications to the vacuum breakers or to provide the justification for the as-built acceptability of the vacuum breakers.
l Franklin Research Center (FRC) has been retained by the NRC to evaluate the acceptability of the structural analysis techniques and design criteria used in the plant-unique analysis (PUA) reports of 16 plants. As a part of If this review, the structural analysis of the vacuum breakers has been reviewed and documented in this report.
The first part of this report (Sections 1 through 4) consists of generic information that is applicable to all affected plants. The second part of the report (Sections 5 and 6) provides a plant-specific review, which pertains to the Pilgrim plant.
1.1 GENERIC BACKGROUND In 1980, the Mark I owners and the NRC became aware of the vacuum breaker damage during full-scale test facility testing and of the potential for damage during actual LOCAs. Two vacuum breaker owner groups, General Precision Engineering (GPE) and Atwood-Morrill (AM), were formed to develop action plan for resolving this issue.
In February 1983, the NRC issued Generic Letter 83-08 (2), requesting commitments from affected utilities to provide TER-C5506-328 analytical results. The licensees responded to the NRC request by developing u
apprcpriate force functions simulating the anticipated hydrodynamic loads, and then performing stress analyses that used these loads.
With respect to loading, the NRC has reviewed and issued a staff position as indicated in Section 3.
FRC's function is to review the stress analysis submitted by a licensee.
I_
l.2 VACUUM BREAKER FUNCTION During steam condensation tests on BWR Mark I containments, the wetwell-to-drywell vacuum breakers cycled repeatedly during the transient phase of steam blowdown. This load was not included in the original load combinations used in the design of the vacuum breakers. Consequently, the repeated impact of the pallet on the valve seat and body created stresses that may impair its capability to remain functional.
A vacuum breaker is a check valve installed between the wetwell and the drywell.
Its primary function is to prevent the formation of a negative
~
pressure on the drywell containment during rapid condensation of : team in the drywell and in the final stages of a LOCA.
The vacuum breaker maintains a 1.
wetwell pressure less than or equal to the drywell pressure by permitting air flow from the wetwell to the drywell when the wetwell is pressurized and the drywell is depressurized slowly.
A vacuum breaker can be internally or externally mounted.
Figures 1 and 2 illustrate locations of vacuum breakers.
Schematics of typical GPE and AM vacuum breakers are illustrated in Figures 3 and 4.
A typical pressure differential vacuum breaker during a LOCA is provided in Figure 5.
Table 1 lists the various vacuum breaker types and the plants affected by i
them.
Iu L
l l
[
l.
TER-C5506-328 i
f~
f I
IN TERN AL.
YAcuuM mg
- AIRSPACE, MAN VEN l
G'
/
RIN(a HEACgJa,
{
[
^
n:::l
=-
il.:
CCWNCCMERS SUPPRESblCN h
7ggUg PC CL.,
[
- [
Figure 1.
Internal Vacuum Breaker l
I - ---
_.4.
3,,.__m%.
.,,,,,m, a-w.
e.u mAAAh_%,a
_4____.2._
m m.
l
[.
l TER-C5506-328 I
I' I
[
m erma1 Vattra Breaker O
I E
IM
[
[r Wetwell l
Airspace To Drypw p
min ven f
1M
- ning Header p.
y i-g t
li E='
Downcomers
(
Toms l 1.
.-W suppression l[.
!I il 4I-Figure 2.
External Vacuum Breaker
_4
l*
TER-C5506-328 I
r I
I
/ vaC*,"sp 3RIArts WALL e
i E
,Ui
.* w i
f*-=='.
P we,
~
,, v...
6
., :s
'I..
W ;-
(
\\
- R;;ut::
- (..
e
\\
\\
b sta? R1kC 9
.q vacgge l
l 1
---(
setiere f
P ALLET
's NPAL:rt
's (C:.f 5 E C s
PC5 :? !Ossi y
,_1' us l
/magt?
PAL:.e-s-c.e ti LA?CI:
37.,; goca gon le P uCE53 a
s.
.a L
i l
[
Figure 3.
GPE Vacuum Breaker w
l.
TER-C5506-328 I
[.
11 V2,
._ T h' _
CovNTERWEIG4 Y
a l'
/---e x I
CouNTIRWE4<
E.
LLv ER.
- I 1.
~
7
.>"'*E p5c s
o ARM f
s, {
d
\\
s0'
\\
[5
\\,
\\
LATEAAL >SC. k k
_f
\\
__r t2 IKm SEATfac
,Y e
g 1 nr
\\a
-\\
-h,,
s ouTuT t ('
. L -
~
l[..
8 NLET "
\\,g FLANcJE a
lu
.C\\
k.
Y asc l-w 4
_ffis s
///
p i s, // s s fa ' a/ / /
~
u socn-1 I
(
l 1
l Figure 4.
Atwood-Morrill Vacuum Breaker ___
e TER-C5506-328 f
f I
I W - Wetwell DW - Drywell e
E a.
I i
D Chugging Drywell Condensation g
Depressurization
...._ ?..?.,....*....
f Y
a a g yy j
j i.
E Drywell Pressurization
.e
~
-ve l
Time +
- [
F Figure 5.
Typical DW/WW Vacuum Ereaker Pressure Differential Due to LOCA.
TER-C5506-328 Table 1.
Vacuum Breaker Types and Affected Plants l'
I Vacuum Breaker Plant f
GPE 18 In (Internal)
Brown Ferry Units 1, 2, and 3 l
Pilgrim Unit 1 Brunswick Units 1 and 2 Cooper Hatch Units 1 and 2 Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 Duane Arnold Fermi Unit 2 GPE 24 in (Internal)
Hope Creek AM 18 in (Internal)
Monticello Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 AM 18 in (External)
Dresden Units 2 and 3 Millstone Unit 1 Oyster Creek Vermont Yankee AM 18 in (External)
FitzPatrick Nine Mile Point Unit 1 l
r-w
?
i ___
=.
4 TER-C5506-328 2.
EVALUATION CRITERIA To evaluate the design of the vacuum breakers, the affected licensees I
follow the general requirements of IUREG-0661 [1] and those of " Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide" (3]. Specifically, the requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Subsection NC for Class 2 Components, 1977 Edition, including the summer 1977 addenda [4], have been used to evaluate the structural integrity of the vacuum breakers.
I
'T f
li
[
[
[
[
4 lI I
L
_g_
I.
TER-C5506-328 3.
DESIGN LOADS The loads acting on the Mark I structures and on the vacuum breaker are I
based upon the Mark I Program Load Definition Report [5] and the NRC Acceptance Criteria [1]. The loads acting on the vacuum breaker include gravity, seismic, and hydrodynamic loads. The hydrodynamic forcing functions were developed by Continuum Dynamics, Inc, (CDI). CDI used a dynamic model of a Mark I pressure suppression system, which was capable of predicting pressure transients at specified locations in the vent system. With this dynamic model and the full-scale test facility data, load definition resulting in pressure differential across the vacuum breaker disc was quantified as a function of time. This issue has been reviewed and addressed by the NRC [6].
[
f f
~
li
[
- I f
[
[
.[
v, TER-C5506-328 4.
STRESS EVALUATION To determine structural integrity of the vacuum breaker, the licensees have employed standard analytical techniques, the including finite element method, to calculate stresses of critical components of the vacuum breaker under various design loadings. Losds resulting from the hydrodynamic phenomenon were compared with those values specified in the ASME Codes (4].
For illustration purposes, a schematic drawing of the moving parts of all components other than the actual disc of the Atwood-Morrill valve and cf the corresponding finite element model are shown in Figures 6 and 7, respectively.
The model in Figure 7 was used to investigate the dynamic response following impact.
A typical model for stress analysis of the vacuum breaker disc is shown in Figure 8.
Loading inputs to this model are the displacement time histories that were obtained from the impact model analysis.
![
4
- [
[
[
[
[ -.
~
TER-C5506-328 P
P f
[
l Counterweight
- Bearing Supports N
Counterweight Arm Disc Arm Bi
/
'- Shaft Counterweight Dise Arm Bolts Counte n *1ght Arm Conr.fctor
[
I
[
[
L Figure 6.
Detailed Valve Internal Model r
_0 f.
r reemeeee-m r
COUNTERWEIGMT
[
I j
COUNTF.RWEICHT l<
mi l
sa^rt
[
mst m, COUNTEPXEIGHT APF CONNECTOR
.[
[
l[
rie... >.
e1 11. e1.., s.e.1., v.1 z.t..
1.
i
I j.
TER-C5506-328 l
l
^
I I
l INSIDE DISC SURFACE I
-[
f~
HUB CONTROL POINT
/
l}
f T
a TV i
I C
~
v4 N
3 s
/
~
/
RIM CONTROL POINT x
_3
/
t f
OUTSIDE DISC SURFACE
!I
~
[:
,1,... e.
v.1. o.e.11.e e1.c see.1 e.
.<<z
[. - - -
TER-C5506-328 5.
PLANT-SPECIFIC REVIEW:
PILGRIM PLANT
5.1 BACKGROUND
INFORMATION o
Vacuum breaker type:
18-in GPE (internal) o Vacuum breakers are mounted on the vent line end caps at the vent line/ vent header intersections within the wetwell.
o There are a total of 10 vacuum breakers at the Pilgrim plant.
5.2 STRESS ANALYSIS RESULTS I
A finite element model of the vacuum breaker was developed using the ANSYS computer program. The stress levels for vacuum breaker critical components were calculated for various pallet impact velocities (Table 2).
An analytical model of the vacuum breaker / vent system fluid dynamics was evaluated [7] to predict the impact velocity of the Pilgrim plant. Since the stresses are directly proportional to the impact velocity, the impact velocity for the Pilgrim plant was used to scale the stresses in Table 2 to determine vacuum breaker component stresses. The design impact velocity for the Pilgrim plant was 8.25 rad /sec, which corresponds to a maximum pallet stress of 59.4 ksi. This exceeds the ASME allowable stress of 35.0 ksi.
A potential overstress condition also exists for the hinge arm, hinge shaft, and hinge arm
' I stud. The Licensee has, therefore, decided to replace these components with those of a higher strength material. The pallet gasket will also be replaced with an improved design to eliminate gasket foldover. The Licensee scheduled these modifications to be carried out during the 1985 modification outage [8].
L,
![
t
[
r
(
TER-C5506-328 Table 2.
Stress Levels by Component for 18-Inch GPE Vacuum Breaker Stress (ksi) for f-Various Pallet Impact Velocities Existing ASME Allowable 3.0 4.5 9.3 Component Material
, Stress (ksi)
(rad /sec)
Pallet SA-516 Gr 70 35.0 21.6 32.4 67.0 Hinge Arm SA-516 Gr 70 35.0 11.8 17.7 36.6 r
Hinge Shaft SA-320 B8 30.0 19.1 28.6 59.2 l-Hinge Arm Stud SA-320 B8 30.0 12.5 18.8 38.8
[
l
[
s e
[
.[ -
TER-C5506-328 6.
CONCLUSIONS A review has been conducted to determine the structural integrity of the vacuum breakers at the Pilgrim plant. The design loads associated with the l
hydrodynamic phenomena have been reviewed and addressed by the NRC in
)
Reference 6.
This review covered only the structural analysis of the vacuum breaker, and the following conclusion is drawn from the review:
o The analytical methods used to evaluate stresses of critical components have been reviewed and judged to be adequate; the g-structural analysis indicated a potential overstress condition in the l
pallet, hinge arms, hinge shaft, and hinge arm stud. Consequently, the Licensee decided to modify the vacuum breakers by upgrading the materials of these components so that stresses will not exceed the ASME Code allowables. The Licensee's approach to modifications has been reviewed and found to be adequate.
r t.
I p
li
[~
P=a.a TER-C5506-328 7.
REFERENCES 1.
" Safety Evaluation Report, Mark I Containment Long-Term Program Resolution of Generic Technical Activity A-7," Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, USNRC
'~
July 1980 2.
D. G. Eisenhut "USNRC Generic Letter 83-80, Modification of Vacuum Breakers on Mark I Containment"
~
February 2, 1983 3.
" Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide," General Electric Co., San Jose, CA October 1979 4.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 1, " Nuclear Power l-Plant Components," New York, 1977 Edition and Addenda up to Summer 1977 5.
NEDO-21888 Revision 2
" Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Report," General Electric Co., San Jose, CA November 1951 6.
D. B. Vassallo, NRC Letter with Attachment to H. C. Pfefferlen, BWR Licensing Programs, GE
" Evaluation of Model for Predicting Drywell to Wetwell Vacuum Breaker Valve Dynamics" a
December 24, 1984
[.
7.
"Imporved Dynamic Vacuum Breaker Valve Response for Pilgram, Revision 0" C.D.I. Tech Note No. 82-19 Continuum Dynamics, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey Septembr 1982 8.
W. D. Harrington Letter to D. G. Eisenhut (NRC)
Subject:
Letter 83-30: Modification of Vacuum Breakers on Mark I Containments May 13, 1983. -. _
_ -.