ML20246F299
| ML20246F299 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/31/1988 |
| From: | Bass J, Dickinson R, Walker L WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246F298 | List: |
| References | |
| WCAP-11677, NUDOCS 8905120193 | |
| Download: ML20246F299 (41) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. ' quim . ' - e
.'*~~' ,.,,. .- '
L' ' 'F ._.b'. q . . - . _ . m,
;. : w y: n na _m ; u,.saww
/ : c e , _. g . ,y p e n.: .
> mx w. ..~,
q.~ w~kh
+.
- h. .
- .+
k _fhkh ShNhhiki b - - J ', _ yk $i ? . ?. ' gQ.hi$';$i .,% _, .}f. - _ g,
..t . . . , . , . ..;
> ,g g <
i Jy i k',
.'k j .
. - 4 :..
4*
;j.).
}y".4f l Yk..v .f l*f
.; I -
[,.j- 4:; .., e.9 9,s.f.
.x .)t:.] .mQ; '_ y - y jfg c
-. y 4. .
a ng u.v.a1 . 1 Y, . ,y .Y -wf 9y a .._ _ _x ;,(n, . g c.,. ._..
, '.- _ - (' .. ._:-
mv . .m., ... .
- ?. h C : :
; . s
,,'u
. . . r@ ' ' d:. ' -:: ' ' '.,-
...,.p.
'~. ..*f,$ _: ., e.
.': p.yg'; ~. ,,4,;r, .,, iti .' .' ? ,: ,~,:
;. .=.,-.,
'e 's l ,
. ' .. . g
...'e'j'O' . Y, . . - .
..4t r. . .
- I' -,
",,,..P ....,,'-* e " .
. q .. ' ;g- y 'g s ' . . . . ' - '..
.... ;a
;;. _ .: ge:'
~
t . . j .,, ' '- ' ' p .;
- 4 .l ' , '. , o ,o , .
- ' g. ' ' ~ .. - . - .
- f!
. ' <3 e '..< gq
- 3. f o g
~
.. rg . y: .
y:.m.a;;; . :. ; y y
. .c
' '. g '
h
- j
,'l .
.4' . : E' n
g s , 'l' Q, , ,
..f
.K*;.g ..
. i s . - %
~
,.,g,J.;, ' - 1,?y.f, y . o \_ :a,. ,
., 7 ,
+ '.: .' #< W.0 h swq
,. ! ' .. s mp
!T ' ( JeM,? ; .. . .
.'8,#. "'
-{
- ..g y'. .
'. . ..i,
_ d* ,_ e 9.h
~
- t. .
s .- .. . . f .. L
~
f.
.' F -
(,,, w g, 4 agg,M
,,. M g,,.
** - b-*a.,. . . . g. W gd e., g,g, .g. ,, . A . ,,
. ~
4
* =
- i. . e
i ,f , WESTINGHOUSE CLASS 3 l.- WCAP-11677 I i Pressurizer Safety Re!lef Valve Operation For Water Discharge During A Feedwater Line Break I n i f i
?
R. J. Dickinson
' J. C. Bass January 1988 Contributors L. 1. Ezekoye T. J. Matty S. R. Shaw e
V i Approved: I L. 1. Walker, Manager Pump and Valve Engineerir.g Approved: Tld M. P. Osborne, Manager Transient Analysis il I i f i A
Acknowledgements The authors would 11ke to acknowledge M. L. Lacey for reviewing early - drafts of the text. W W ii
l *.
~~
Table of Contents Section Title g
- 1. Executive Summary 1 _
1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background 2 1.2 Approach 2 2.0 Plant Specific Conditions 2.1 Approach 3 2.2 Plant Specific Conditions 3 3.0 A Critical Review of EPRI Testing Results Under Water Discharge 3.1 Approach 8 3.2 EPRI Test Loop Configuration 8 3.3 Test Valve Specifics 8 3.4 Valve Refurbishment and Inspect'on 11 3.5 Summary 11 4.0 Application of EPRI Results to Plant Specific Valves 4.1 Valve Comparison 17 4.2 Other issues 18 4.3 Valve Cycle Model 18 5.0 Conclusions 24 6.0 References 26 Appendix A: Plant Specific Lower Temperature Calculation A1 Appendix B: Water Cycles Calculation B1 Appendix C: EPRI Test Valve Assembly Drawings C1 iii
Tcbie of Figures and Tables i Figures Title Page 3.1 Test FactIity inlet Piping Configuration 15 Test System Configuration 16 3.2 Forces On A Typical Spring Loaded Relief Valve Disc A3 - A.1 Idealized System Boundary B4 B.1 Tabies TItie Enge 2.1 Plants With FLB Analysis in Their FSAR With Water Relief 5 2.2 Plants With FLB Analysis For Which Water Relief Would 6 Not Be Predicted 2.3 Plants Without FLB Analysis in Their FSAR 7 PWR Safety Valve Sizes and Orifice Sizes 12 3.1 EPRI Test Valves and Plant Specific Valves 13 3.2 Stable Water Discharge Results 14 3.3 Plant, Temperature and the Bounding EPRI Test Temperatures 20 4.1 Inlet Piping Pressure Dif ferentials on Water Discharge 21 4.2 Test Valve Discharge Data 22 4.3 Water Discharge Cycles 23 4.4 A4 A.1 EPRI Water Test Results l iv
. a. ,
Executive Summary i in order to provide generic justification for the operability of pressurizer safety valves under NUREG-0737, Section II.D.1, the Westinghouse Owner's Group has assembled this report comparing data from the EPRI valve test program with transient responses from actual feedline break safety analyses of member plants. This report only addresses safety valve reliability during ful.1 flow water relief and is f ritended for information purposes. It is designed to be referenced by member plants in their plant-specific submittels addressing II.D.1. As demonstrated in this report, the Westinghouse Owners Group believes that all the plants addressed within have safety valves which will operate reliably during water relief. This analysis is based on the plant specific inlet piping configuration and differential pressures [3] being consistent with the EPRI test results. 1 7 _ . .
y --
,i ,
I 1.0. Introduction L 1 .;
1.1 Background
Following the Three Mlle Island event, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) mandated that PWR reactor licensees and applicants provide justification that their pressurizer safety relief valves will be operable under all predicted FSAR operating conditions [1]. ASME , code certification requirements addressed safety valves insof ar as saturated steam conditions, but capac8ty certification for water-solid and two-phase flow conditions was not addre:ised. Under certain FSAR accident conditions (i.e, Feedwater Line Break (FLB)), water relief can be predicted. This event postulates a condition where ,the pressurizer becomes water solid causing the Pressurizer Safety Relief Velves (PSRVs) to discharge watar, not steam, in order to mitigate the transient. Therefore, proof of operability of the PSRVs is required . In steam, two-phase f low, and wahr conditions. To address the NRC mandate, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), under the sponsorship of.the.PWR Utility Group, conducted full flow tests on representative samples of Pressurizer Safety Relief Valves to demonstrate their operability under the expected range of FSAR operating conditions. Tests were conducted under saturated steam, two-phase flow, saturated and subcooled water conditions. The purpose of this report is to use the existing EPRI test results on water discharge to demonstrate the operability of the PSRVs for water discharge as expected during a Feedwater Line Break (FLB) event as presented in the safety analyses.
' 1.2 Approach The EPRI test data was evaluated in conjunction with plant spucific accident analysis Information to demonstrate valve operability for water discharge during a FLB event.
l I
'1 1
l l 2
]
7 2.0 Plant Specific Conditions
' 2.1 Approach in order to make comparisons between.the plant specific accident analysis conditions and EPRI test conditions, it is first necessary to review the plant specific FSARs to determine the length of time associated with the FLB and the temperature boundaries of water rellef during the FLB. Three FSAR conditions can occor:
1.) Water relief, j 2.) No water rollef, or l 3.) The FLB event is not analyzed but the plant can be compared to a similar plant with a FLB event analyzed in its FSAR. The length of the FLB event and as::ociated temperature boundaries were used to evaluate the EPRI test data for valve operability for specific analysis conditions. l 2.2 Plant Specific Conditions l Plant specific conditions for water relief were developed based on Information presented in the FSAR or comparisons of similar plants when a feedline break was not analyzed in the FSAR. Table 2.1 j tabulates data developed for plants with FLB analyzed in their FSAR l that predict water rellef. The information includes MWt rating, l number of loops, water temperature in the pressurizer at the beginning and at the end of the water ret lef, and the duration of the water relief. Table 2.2 tabulates data developed for plants where no water relief is expected. The MWt rating and the number of loops are provided. Table 2.3 tabulates data developed for the remaining plants which do not address FLB in their FSAR. On Table 2.3, the plants without a FLB analysis were compared to the plants that do analyze FLB in their FSAR accident analyses (Table 2.1). The intent of the comparison is to bound an unanalyzed plant with an existing analysis. The comparison focuses on the parameters that maximize water relief. These parameters may or may not be important to the ac.ceptance criteria originally analyzed for by Westinghouse (the core remains intact and in a coolable geometry). The critical parameters for the comparison are the heat removal rate and the heat addition rate. The heat removM rs'le is based on the type of steam generator (similar heat transfer capabilities) and the auxiliary or emergency feedwater system performance (less flow is Iimiting). The goal of the heat removal comparison is to get as close as possible to the bounding (or existing) analysis. The heat addition rate is simply a function of MWt per steam generator l l l l 3
)
l L . . .
(Y (decay heat plus pump heat). , For two loop plant analyses, Westinghouse has never predicted water relief fin all the analyses' that have been performed to date. Thus, water rellef would not be expected in a FLB analysis for any of the two loop plants on Table 2.2. For the remaining plants, comparisons are made consistent with the criteria described above. Note that all the non-analyzed plants (i.e., plants without a FLB event in their FSAR) are of an earller generation than the plants with analyses that predict water rellef (Table 2.1). These older plants have lower power ratings than newer plants which would minimize the i extent of water relief. Typically, the earlier generation plants can take credit for operator action at ten minutes which should. preclude any water relle'f. Generically, operator action can preclude water relief. Typically, the FLB presented in the FSAR does not rely on operator action to 1 mitigate the transient; however, any operator action would be ' beneficial. in most cases, water relief is aggravated by safety
} Injection _ flow initiated from ESF SI Actuation Signals. For a FLB, operator action can realign Auxiliary Feedwater to isolate the faulted loop, open the steam generator Power Operated Relief Valves (PORVs),
establish letdown, and terminate safety injection flow. These actions would minimize the likelihood and duration of water relief (if it was still predicted). The termination criteria for safety injection are: 1.) meet the reactor coolant system subcooling margin 2.) level in thi indicated range in at least one steam generator ' 3.) RCS pressure stable or increasing 4.) pressurizer level within the Indicated range. 3 i With adverse environmental errors considered in the subcooling margin , calculation, this criterion might not be met in the conservative FSAR { FLB analysis for all plants. However, in a best-estimate analysis, the criterion will be met and operators could terminate the safety injection before the water rellef begins. l l 1 ! 4 _w 1 - - - -
17 F- } 4 ,. , T(ble 2.1 Plants With FLB Analysis in Their FSAR ! With Water Retlef initial Watgr Final Watgr Duration of f of Power Plant Rollef Temn F Relfef Temo F Water Relref Loops Rating,.MWt { l Beaver Valley 1 641 672 23 min 3 2652 Trojan 647 672 30 min 4 3411 Farley 1 & 2 643 673 12 min 3 2652 Vogtle 1 & 2 630 655 36 min 4 3411 McGuire 1 & 2 630 644 32 min 4 3411 Catawba 1 & 2 630 661 42 min 4 3411 Byron 1 & 2 631 657 45 min 4 3411 Braidwood 1 & 2 631 657 45 min 4 3411 Salem 1 & 2 647 672 30 min 4 3338 fan Onofre 656 668 7 min 3 1347 Yirgii Summer 631 662 39 min 3 2775 Shearon Harris 631 642 22 min 3 2775
.. . Wolf Creek 633 663 26 min 4 3411 l l Callaway 637 650 21 min 4 3556 l
Watts Bar 1 & 2 652 657 13 min 4 3411 Sequeyah 1 & 2 660 672 22 min 4 3411 Seabrook 1 & 2(Note 1)605 603 17 min 4 3411 North Anna 1 & 2 629 653 48 min 3 2910 Surry 1 & 2 (Note 2) 624 626 15 min 3 2441 l Notes:
- 1. This reflects the loss of offsite power case and is bounding with l respect to temperature (i.e., the density of the water being l relieved) when enveloping the transient with specific EPRI l tests. The case wIth offsIte power has higher temperatures l (beneficial) and a longer duration of water relief (which is l Important to the number of cycles calculated) and is bounded by j the Byron /Braidwood calculations.
I 2. A plant specific analysis was performed and submitted by Virginia [8] Power. i j 5 f.
.i ,
Tcble 2.2 Plants With FLB Analysis For Which Water Rellef Would Not Be Predicted 1
# of P1 ant Loops Power RatI no. MWt Millstone 3 4 3411
{ Comanche Peak I & 2 4 3411 Diablo Canyon 1 & 2 4 3338/3411 D. C. Cook 2 4 3411 (. South Texas 1 & 2 4 3800 (Note 1) Ginna 2 1520 (Note 2) l Point Beach 1 & 2 2 1518.5 (Note 2) l Prairie Island 1'& 2 2 1650 (Note 2) Kewaunee 2 1785 (Note 2) i H. B. Robinson 2 3 2292 (Note 3) Notes:
- 1. The utility has taken the. position that operator action will preclude water rellef.
, 2. Water relief is not expected for two loop plants on a comparison l with plants with a FSAR grade analysis. I 3. The utility has demonstrated that water relief will not occur during a FLB and has received NRC approval. l l l t ! 6
l Table 2.3 l Plants Wii t FLB Analysis in Their FSAR
# of Power P1 ant Loops Rating. MWt Cewnarison Zion 1 & 2 4 3250 Salem I
l Indian Point 2 4 2758 Farlay 1. l Indian Point 3 4 3025 Farley l D. C. Cook 1 4 3250 Salem l l l l i l i i l l 7 o __
7-l .. ,, , L
- 3.0 A Critical Review Of EPRI Testing Results
.Under Water Discharge 1
!.1 Approach This section critically reviews the EPRI water discharge tests and isolates the test runs and bounding conditions that will be used in demonstration of stable plant specific valve performances in Section 4 First, the test configuration is discussed. Next, the actual valves tested are presented and fInalIy individual valve models tested and their results are reviewed-to determine the bounding conditions.
3.2 EPRI Test Loop Configuration The test piping system was designed to generate those conditions of flow, pressure and temperature, ooth upstream and downstream of the-safety valve expected during operation and accidents for PWR plants. The test configurations consisted of a combination of tanks, piping, and valves used to achieve the required conditions. Figure 3.1 Illustrates the two inlet piping configurations used in the testing facility. The long configuration contained a loop seal while the short configuration did not have a loop seal. Figure 3.2 Illustrates the entire system configuration. Tank 1 served as a surge vessel where a water and/or steam inventory simulated the thermal hydraulic conditions in a PWR pressurizer. Tank 2 served as a driving vessel through expansion or evaporation of its fluid contents. 3.3 Test Valve Specifics Six valves which represent a cross section of those used in or planned for use in PWR plants were tested by EPRI under different valve
; operating conditions that enveloped expected plant operating conditions. The tested valves are listed below and the assembly drawings of these valves are containad in Appendix C.
Target Rock 690 Dresser 31739A Dresser 31709NA Crosby 3K6 Crosby 6M6 Crosby 6N8 Table 3.1 gives a listing of all valves that are used or are planned to be used in PWR plants, it is noted that not all plant valve types 8
were tested, and therefore for those valves a comparison to a tested valve was done. Since all vendor designs have a basic model (i.e., I Crosby HB-BP-86 or Dresser 31700 series), a controlling factor for 1 comparison is the size of the flow orifice. Similar orifice areas will result in similar performances and discharge rates with both results having a strong bearing on demonstrating performance of a safety relief valve. Table 3.2 lists all plant valves and the test valve upon which their analysis was based. Table 3.3 compiles steam and water discharge test results including the ring settings. The valve reported ring settings had been adjusted during steam tests in order to achieve rated lift, reduce blowdown or improve the valve performance at the test site to accommodate worse case scenarios (i.e., long piping lengths, larger pipe diameters, use of reducers and constrictors.) The ring settings for the ffrst test in each series were based on the manufacturer's recommendations encompassing a plant specific set of ranges. I It is noted in Table 3.3 that with water discharge, the blowdown is generally double the blowdown of steam. The maximum observed blowdown on water is approximately 20 percent versus the 5 percent originally specified in the Equipment Speelfication. Temperatures during the water event were documented for each discharge (Table 3.3). The Target Rock tests were generally the most stable even though the actuations involved flutter. Fluttering is defined as l stem motions below half of the lift while chattering is defined as stem motions equal to the lift. Fluttering does not have any adverse
; effectonthevalveperformange. For this valve, the water testing included saturaged watgr (650 F) followed by a subcooled water
, discharges (550 F, 450 F, 400 F.) Fortheothertestgalves
;; (l.c., Crosby or Dresser), a saturated water test (650 F) was discharged followed by a subcooled water discharge (550 F). Once a subcooled test was run that resulted in an unstable discharge, the water tests were discontinued. It should be noted that for all the i3 water tests the actual temperatures were less than the design temperatures (i.e., the 650 F test was actually run at 632"F.) It is the actual values that are used in the plant versus testing temperature comparisons.
t Valve performances varied from one test to another. The discussions below provide a general overview of the results of each test valve. In Section 3.4, a summary and evaluation of the ref urbishment issues associated with these valves is discussed. l 3.3.1 Target Rock 69C The Target Rock 69C valve performed very stably on water discharge for a wide range of temperatures [4: Volume 8]. During the tests although L
.j 9 I
m
,7 a
~
valve flutter was detected, valve performance was not degraded and the valve functioned as specified. In total there were 12 consecutive , actuations on water discharge without the valve being Inspected or 1 having unstable performances (Tests 709b, 712, 714a-h, 717 and 719). These tegts represent water discharge temperatures equal to or greater than 397 F. 3.3.2 Crosby 3K6 I For the Crosby 3K6 [4: Volume 5] in the long inlet configuration there were no stable water discharge test results, but for the short inlet configuration there were three tests (428, 431a and b) which performed satisf actorily (i.e., there was no flutter and/or chatter during the tests.) Although the valve was inspected after Test 428, disassembly of the valve and inspection of the parts did not result in replacement or refurbishment of any parts except for relapping of the seat j surf aces when the Inspection showed typical wear patterns. Since the anticipatedplantgemperatures(Table 4.1)exceedtheminimumtest temperature of 616 F, the stable tests bound the plant conditions. Therefore the 3K6 valve can have a minimum of three actuations on water wIth no potential probIem wfth vaive performance. I Test 435 (Test temperature of 520 F) is disregarded in this evaluation since the fluid temperature was lower than any plant i condl+1on expected during a Feedwater Line Break. All damage found vith the valve internals by tt.e inspection following Test 435 was due to the excossive chattering during the test which as pointed out did not apply to any plants. Crosby 6M6 For the Crosby 6M6 [4: Volume 6] with the long inlet configuration there were three water discharges (926c, d, and 931b) where the valve performed stabiy. For test 931b, EPRl TabIe 4-3 [4: Volume 6] ststes i that there was " chatter on opening that stabilized". However, a I review of the actual stem position tracings shows the disc flutte'i just prior to popping full open. (Fluttering is defined as stem motions below half of the lift while chattering is defined es ctem motion equal to the lift.) Fluttering does not have any adverse effect on the valve performance. Therefore, Test 931b results in a stable discharge. All water discharges were a temperature of 635 F or higher. Based on the previous conclusions the valve can be actuated a minimum three times on water. l Similar to Test 435 for the 3K6 valve, Test 932 discharged a subcooled l liquid (Test temperature of 463 F) that is not bounded by any plant l conditions. The results can therefore be neglected. l 10
3.3.4 Crosby 6N8 - 1 There were only two water discharge tests (Tests 1211 and 1213) for the Crosy 6N8 valve [4: Volume 7]. Test 1211 had a stable discharge whileTest1213,whichwassubcooledwater,gadchatter. Since Test 1213 had a low temperature of discharga (536 F) which does not bound any plant specific conditions it will be neglected. Given that Test 1213 was eliminated as applicable, the 6N8 valve was stable in water discharge in the range of temperatures expected for the FLB event. 3.3.5 Dresser 31739A For the Dresser 31739A [4: Volume 3] in the long configuration there were two tests (Test 1025 and 1027) which resulted in stable water discharge. Test 1030 which had chatter on discharge (water l' temperature of 515 F) can be neglected since it does not bound any plantspecificcondftlons. The' stable water discharge temperatures are higher than 618 F. Therefore the valve will be able to actuate a minimum of two times. 3.4 Valve Refurbishment and inspection The issue of valve ref urbishment and inspection needs to be discussed to highlight the preceeding assessment. EPRI in many cases disassembled the valves (a) to inspect for damage following chatter that had to be terminated, (b) to inspect internals in the process of changing the ring settings, or (c) to inspect and relap a leaky valve. For some inspections the only maintainence done on the valve was lapping of the seat surf aces to remove typical wear patterns such as scratches or marks on the seat surfaces. This was done in cases of disassembly following stable test results with no leakage. in cases where the valve test was terminated due to chattering there was damage to Internals of the valve and refurbishment and replacement of parts was necessary. Given these reasons valve refurbishment may not be totally due to operability concerns. In the cases of inspections after water discharge, the only damege found in the valve was after excessive chatter in tests that are not Dounded by plant conditions, Other inspections found the valve to have only minor wear patterns or markings which should not af fect the operation of the valve. 3.5 Summary EPRI water discharge results have been reviewed. Table 3.3 documents the water tests considered applicable for evaluating the FLB event. These results are the basis for demonstrating valve operability for water discharge. 11
l Table 3.1 } PWR Safety Valve Sizes And Orifice Sizes yglyg Designation Orifice Size (in ) l Dresser 31739A 3 2.55 Dresser 31749A 4 3.98 Dresser 31759A 5 3.34 Dresser 317D9NA N 4.34 Crosby 3K6 K 1.84 Crosby 3K26 K 2.54 2 Crosby 6Mg6 Mj 2.99 Crosby 6M6 M 3.64 Crosby 6N8 N 4.38 Target Rock 69C - 3.51 Note: Valves in bold prin/ are those tested by EPRI. 12 h._ . ~
Table 3.2 EPRI Test Valves And Plant-Specific Valves Tested Valve Plant Sneeffic Valve Aeolicable Plants TR690 TR690 Beaver Vailey 1 D31739A D31759A North Anna 1 & 2 D31749A Catawba 1 & 2 C6N8 C6N8 None C3K6 C3K 6 2 San Onofre C6K 6 2 Surry 1 & 2 C6M6 C4M6 Indian Point 2 C6Mj 6 Farley 1 & 2 l Shearon Harris C6M6 Byron 1 & 2 Vogtle 1 & 2 Watts Bar 1 & 2 McGuire 1 & 2 Salem 1 & 2 l D.C. Cook 1 Sequoyah I & 2 Summer Zion I & 2 Callaway l Seabrook 1 & 2 Wolf Creek Indian Point 3 Braidwood 1 & 2 Trojan l l 13 A'- m .. __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ ____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ____ _______ _ ___ _
s . ( t n rerr et eeeeeeeee r e t t tt l l l t l l l m it tt bbbtbbb m uuuuaaauaaa o l l l l ttt l ttt C FFFFSSSFSSS r e t a W F g
. s ~
eo wm 300746551 28 1 51 951 33221 e I o. T 65436666666 . s l i n at h w o eua rt t _ d % %%%%% %%% e ect , w r h af ce _ l o 5.%77071 2 4.30833 8.049
. %903 e w
t i sr el i o _ B 1 921 1 1 1 421 1 bh df r t .1 t o e s e a]3 t er t t h49f h e d ae t[ onth n l u W ru syswgw t a T a s R e s s e ii I i i i ii i i i il ggeeeo noTibh v sngeo
. . .n w r s s ;- ssssssss t oree enmd e P ppppppppppp t noR v r pi i w .
_ g r 63078045050 eof l eont od _ - a o 839841 87535 sr av e l e
- 3. o 3 h 44445334453 ht . vel peBs P 22222222222 gC a d o ,u c wl on n
h eeou e s n i tt zhhf n rs ee l b D i w esl it sg onrr aue a r o _ dTeit gnrh sw T e d % % a tb aniet s _ % % es t a w o 5 4 %7.%0 hI aahi pt Rttt c pt ern
- 7. 2 0. 2 W
l
) P ss aoarP o B 5 8 71 91 1 E w r ph o i e 3 ] not c m pt
_ l 9 e6 eh o oa b m h h sett gP u _ a ae tt et h on t t er s m ) Trni ,c - S t u enut3 o t .a S s s e i i i iii Tol u5 ( dV ob2 .reu i r a e.
- spttil l
_ r s s ssss 6 e g6 d t c( a pppp ngua P p p Ms: n 8 5 9576 6 a4id onl sg o 8 0 4767 b[ nncif een o 4 5 6545 d eaet vui P 2 2 2222 ns6 p sadl l r at - o2 eeaae n4 52 sl vvd _ Aa g2 el i 9l en 9 r aees - 3 p gi 6 2 ch gn 7 ar 1 t t ao t s 1 57 1 R pus os r c _ 247981 61 1 22 3W d eh nid e _ e 1 1 1 1 2323200 P n gg av) a, e T 777744991 1 1 s oraud nh _ ef epono _ vo3t( rait eu 8 t srt 1 l t h _ g 4 6881 al 4 agt gceoa _ n 1
,1 1 - va h n natf r i
0 c e c ci 5.ti csrp ee gt nt a 5
, 6 81 0 -
,,4 l
yil pb sa8f siem ie / 4 1 74 , nyaar2iihh e RS n - - - - 8 OtT wt1 l dTTT 4 A : . . . e 9 s1 2 3 _ v 3 e l C 6 6 87 t _ a 9 K M N1 o V 6 3 6 63 N . b
l' TEST TEST VALVE VALVE l l ?-l $
'6 _
TANK i TANK IE' ig LONG INLET SHORT INLET FIGURE 3.1 TEST FACILITY INLET PIPING CONFIGURATION l l 15 l i-A -
E RC TC I I i_ tHS O B L XFO dT"DE I I E R O b n
- i. '3 b >crS-W t
g$ 2-b <r> W S
&~
b
&~
)
3 R2 E BN
~ M80
% UT 1
- NCE .
3 L S H 1 2 O C OE S P E I
~
S( S 8 D
. TH . W D V
E SC O RS B 7 5 6 NW L I I L ,
'5 OO CB E FDE 0-h k,_ ~I
~
< EL SE 9'
2 2 E V L A bU R T V5 N E 1 T V K S :m R T E N - " E T A L NE I O V
@N T CP 1
B F _ - y s - ORM MO w TI CU OO P R R 7 1 F Y T O - 2 L w CP P P D g g 2 K OHM Tl U 1
- __- N ,
CU P S A S > T M d ( g A t E T S ( /M S A K E N TOA
' STT I
EC ~ \. p ;.; , , 1.
-4.0 Application of EPRI'Rasults to Plant Specific Valvos 4.1 - Valve Comparison A first step l's applying the EPRI test data to the plant specific valve conditions of-a FLB event. .The relevant parameters are:
a.) pressurization rate b.) inlet flow requirements c.) back pressures d.) ring settings e.) discharge temperatures Parameters a, b, and c were addressed by EPRI prior to the initiation of the testing [5]. In the following sections the ring settings and-fIow. temperatures wiII be discussed. 4.1.1 Ring Settings Table 3.3 shows the ring settings for the water discharges. The ) Target Rock valve does not have adjustable rings and hence the ring I setting is not an issue. The ring settings for the Dresser 31379A and Crosby 6M6 (Test 931) were typical of PWR plants per the EPRI Test Chronology for each of their testing. The Crosby 3K6 and 6N8 valve , ring settings are not specified in the EPRI test chronology to be ) comparable to PWR plants. Therefore, plant specific settings must be reviewed and compared with the EPRI settings to justify the use of this analysis. 4.1. 2 Temperatures Table 4.1 shows the plant FLB temperatures and the EPRI test temperatures. As shown most plants were comparable to the EPRI testing or had temperatures close to the tested temperatures. For several plants the temperature was lower than the stable saturated discharges but much higher than the unstable subcooled discharges. For these cases an analytical calculation was done to demonstrate a stable discharge at the lower temperature. The methodology used was to calculate the lift for the plant temperature and compare it with the EPRI test iIfts. If the calculated iIf t f alIs between the maximum and minimum EPRI test lifts for stable performance then the plant valve will be able to lift and discharge in a manner similar to the EPRI tests. Appendix A discusses the methodology in more depth. 17
[7 l .' -,..' , 4.2 Other issues Limited test results hampered direct plant valve comparison for plants L with the K 2 rifice in a long inlet configuration. These valves ] apply only.to Surry 1 & 2. The way these valves were addressed was to l examine the orifice-sizes to determine whether the EPRI test bound the- ' orifice areas. Since this plant uses a long inlet configuration and I the "K " orifice area is between the "M" ana "K" orifice areas, a i comparfsonwillbemadeusingboththe3K6and6M6testresults. For water tests the performance is affected by the length and configuration of the inlet piping [5]. Acoustical wave patterns can cause chattering on opening or closing during discharge. The plant specific inlet conditions (i.e., pipe diameter, piping length,- reducers and expanders) were considered to calculate a differential pressure [3] and then a comparlson was made to the test facility's differential pressure. Table 4.2 summarizes the results. The Surry plant differential pressures are 354 psi and 137 psi for opening and closing respectively, while the "M" test differential pressures are 553 psi (opening) and 333 psi (closing), and the "K" test dif ferential pressures are 775 psi (opening) and 382 psi (closing.) Although the "K" test orifice was not able to give a stable result for comparison, l the "K " rifice has such smaller pressures in the piping that a drestIc2 improvement in performance can be expected. Also note that in comparlslon to the "M" pressures the Surry valves again have lower pressure values thus prompting stable performance. Discharge times from the short configuration have been used in the development of cycles for Surry since the discharge time is not expected to be changed by the inlet configuration. i 4.3 Valve Cycle Model Once applicable test runs were determined from comparisons between EPRI and plant specific parameters, the number of expected water cycles, based on the applicable test runs, was calculated, in determining the number of cycles the valve actuates, the following model has been developed. Each cycle has been broken into two phases. The first phase (discharge) is from when the valve pops open until the disc reseats. The second phase (repressurization) is from when the valve reseats until just prior to popping. Development of the time periods for these phases is critical in determining the number of actuations of any valve. In the first phase the time period when the valve is open and the amount of mass discharged is developed from the EPRI test data. While plants use three (or two) valves on pressurizer ranging in size f rom 1300 to 2100 cubic foot, the EPRI test facility used one valve on a 500 cubic foot tank. The EPRI test facility was designed to have the smaller accumulator (Tank 1) serving as a surge vessel whose inventory simulated the thermal and hydraufic conditions in a pressurizer. 18 4 & a
. Direct. ratios in the size dif ferences between plant pressurizer sizes
~
and Tank 1 were used to adjust the EPRI data to plant specific conditions. Based on the assumption that all the plant valves will operate simultaneously, the ratios of the differences in the number of valves open were used to adjust the EPRI data _to the plant specific applications (See Appendix B for a complete development of the mode l .' ) Based on the above adjustments the open time for the valves-l was determined. Table 4.3 shows a breakdown by valve of each discharge. in.the repressurization stage (phase two), a source of mass injection, based'on FSAR analyses thermal expansion results, is considered to be inputting mass into the pressurizer. So that the increase in pressure, during the. closed period, is modeled to be a function of the mass injection. The repressurization period is assumed to be the time needed for the mass injection to input an equivalent _ mass as that discharged by the safety valves during the discharge phase. Then the fIrst and second phase times are summed to give the time for one cycle. Given the time period for the water solid portion of the FLB event (Taple 2.1) and the time for a single cycle, the number of , cycles becomes the total transient time divided by the single cycle. time. I I ' The analysis was conducted and Table 4.4 documents the results. The minimum number of cycles is 2. All of these plants have the transition cycle (steam to water) included in the total number of
! water cycles.
i i 4 i l e 19 l i
;f 1 !
'. Table 4.1 Plant Temperatures And.The Bounding EPRI Test Temperatures:
Lowest Plan Actual Test Temperature Valve Plants- Temperature F- W Valve0F' 9' TankOF 690 B. Valley 1 641 397 397 F
, 31739A N. Anna 1&2 597 Note 1 618' 621 Catawba 1&2 630 618 621 3K6 San Onofre 643 616 631 f 6Mj 6 Farley 1&2 656 635 656 6M6 Trojan 647 635 656 Vogtle 1&2 630 Note 1 635 656
, Byrcn 1&2
; Braldwood 1&2 631-Note 1 635 656 Salem 1&2 647 635 656 V. Summer 631 Note 1 635 656 Wolf Creek 633 Note 1 635 656 W.Bar 1&2 652 635 656 Seabrook 1&2 603 Note 1 635 656 S. Harris 631 Note 1 635 656 Sequoyah'1&2 660 635 656 Callaway 637 635 656 McGuire 630 Note 1 635 656 Zion 1&2 647 635 656
-Indian Point 3 643 635 656 Cook 1 647 635 656 Surry 182 624 Note 1 635 656 4M6 Indian Point 2 643 635 656 l I Reference [7]
Notes: !
- 1. Analytical calculations were performed for acceptance of lower ;
temperatures. l l I 1 20 i s
V ! ' r. _ f. , . .., e i / 1 l l 1 Table 4.2 Inlet Piping Pressure Differences on Water Discharge Pressure Dif forences (psi)
. Plant / Test Onening Closing l' 3K6 (Test) 775 382 6M6 (Test) 553 333 Surry 1 & 2 354 137 Reference [7]
l 21
'i
~ ,
>s p ;; ... .
[. l :. Table 4.3 Test Valve Discharge Data Pressurizer Plant Valve Plant Discharge Valve Inst Volume Discharge (gnm) Time (sec) 69C 714 1400 7042 9.3
- >' 6N8 1211 2100 9975 140 31739A 1027- 1300 3479 121 3K6 431a 1300 1908 169 b 800 Note 1 1632 112 6Mj 6- 926 1400 5667 32.76 8 600 F 84 8 635 F i 6M6 926 1400 5667 32.76 8 600 F 84 8 635 F 1800 7286 42.4 8 6009F 108 8 635 F Reference [7]
Notes:
- 1. These figures are based on two safety relief valves not three, as with'all other valves.
22
-w_____---- - - - - - - - . - _ - - - - - - - - -___-_.---__--_-____-----__--------__--_____-_x - - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ . _ - - . _ _ . _ _ . _ - - - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ . _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ . _ . - _ - . - - - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - - - - - _ -
- >!t ,
J Table 4.4 Water Discharge Cycles ! Plant- Valve Cycles Beaver Valley 1 69C 12 North Anna 1 & 2 31759 2 Catawba 1 & 2 31749 2 San Onofre 3K 6 3 Surry 1 & 2 6K 6 3 Farley 1 & 2 6M 6 2 Virgil Summer 6M 3 Shearon Harris 6M6 3 Trojan 6M6 3 Watts Bar 1 & 2 6M6 2 Vogtle 1 & 2 6M6 3 Byron 1 & 2 6M6 2 Breldwood 1 & 2 6M6 2 Salem 1 & 2 6M6 3 Wolf Creek 6M6 2 Seabrook 1 & 2 6M6 2 D.C. Cook 1 6M6 2 Sequoyah I & 2 6M6 2 McGuire 1 & 2 6M6 2 Zion 1 & 2 6M6 2 Calleway 6M6 2 indian Point 3 6M6 2 Indian Point 2 4M6 2 Reference [7] Notes:
- 1. These cycles include the transiflon cycle of steam to water.
l 23 l l p_ l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- v _
5.0 Conclusions l Using EPRI test results, the number of expected water cycles during the Feedwater Line Break event has been calculated (Table 4.4). Based on this analysis, it has been determined that all plants predicting water relief within this report will operate satisfactorily during the full flow water relief discharge associated with a Feedwater Line Break. Each test valve and model results will be discussed in detall below. For all cases, the valves could simply be compared with EPRI test discharge results based on discussions.In Section 3.3. 5.1 Target Rock 69C The maximum number of anticipated cycles for the Target Rock 69C in a plant condition is 12 times on 2 ter during the FLB transient. This ! valve has been shown to be by f> the most stable of those tested [4: l Volgme 8]. ftwastestedforawiderangeofwatertemperauresfrom 613 F to 397 F. Even though these actuations had flutter associated with them, the valve was considered to have stable performance. Flutter did not do damage to the valve internals. The I-test valve was inspected and refurbished after ten steam actuations, one steam to water transition, and 11 actuations on water. The last 12 actuations noted bound the plant specific condition. Also note that the temperatures for the majority of the EPRI water cycles were of a lower value than those predicted for any plant. Therefore it is expected that the Targe+ Rock valve will be able to actuate satisf actorily and mitigate any FLB transient event. 5.2 Crosby 6M6 6M6 and 6M It has been shown;6 valves in our for all plants evaluation of thehave EPRI3tests cycles or less.3.3.3) (Section that the 6M6 can pass siightly subcooled water as a minimum up to three times without damage. Hence these plants can be expected to mitigate the translent wIthout any concern for operability. 5.3 Crosby 3K6 The Crosby 3K6 valve in the short inlet configuration has been shown to be able to go through three cycles without any problems. Ali plants with K 2 rifices and a short inlet configuration are enveloped by The EPRI testing. 24 I 1
- - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I
Y i 5.4 Crosby 6N8 1 Although the test valve was able to discharge teater and provide a ; stable water actuation, there are no plants t6at have water relief I using a 6N8 valve. . 5.5 Dresser 71359A -l The. Dresser valve has also been shown to be able to stably discharge two times without any problems. All plants utilizing a comparable Dresser valve have anticipated cycles of two and therefore are acceptable. As noted f rom Table 3.3, the blowdown of the valve on water is nearly double the blowdown on steam. This should have no adverse effect on the system since it already has an excess of water. As previously noted in Section 4.1.1 for the N and K valves, given that the ring settings used are not specified in the EPRI test chronology to be comparable to PWR plants, plant specific settings must be reviewed and compared with these EPRI settings to justify the use of this analysis. l l 1 9 4 25 i 1 u__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ .
V 6.0 References I
- 1. NUREG 0737 ITEM i1.D.1A, ClerifIcatlon of TMI Action Plan Requirements. November 1980 2 Safety and Relief Valves in Light Water Reactors, NP-4306-SR, December 1985
- 3. EPRI PWR Safety and Rellef Valve Test Program, Guide for Application of Valve Test Program Results to Plant-Specific Evaluations, interim Report, July 1982 4 EPRl/C-E PWR Safety Valve Test Report, NP-2770-LD, March 1983 Volume 1: Summary Volume 2: Test Facility Description Volume 3: Test Results for Dresser Safety Valve Model 31739A Volume 4: Test Results for Dresser Safety Valve Model 31709NA Volume 5: Test Results for Crosby Safety Valve 3K6 Volume 6: Test Results for Crosby Safety Valve 6M6 Volume 7: Test Results for Crosby Safety Valve 6Nb Volume 8: Test Results for Target Rock Safety Valve 69C
- 5. Valve inlet Fluid Conditions for Pressurizer Safety and Relief Valves in Westinghouse-Designed Plants, NP-2296-LD, March 1982
- 6. EPRI PWR Safety and Relief Valve Test Program Test Condition Justification Report
- 7. Westinghouse Valve Engineering Calculations
#314 Discharge for K7 Plants !
#315 Plant Specific PSRV Temperatures Versus EPRI Tests
#319 Cycles During The FWLB
- 8. W. L. Stewart's Virginia Power Letter to H. R. Denton of the NRC, Additional information Related to NUREG-0737 ltem 2.D.1, Performance Testing of Reilef and Safety Valves, February 28, 1986.
1 l 26 l 1 ; a-___-_.._.--. - . - . -
VV -
. ,. , 1 I
i Appendix A Plant Specific Lower Temperature Calculation The object of this Appendix is to show how it was determined whether or not a plant specific valve would be stable at temperatures below the temperatures run by the EPRI tests that were stable. The EPRI testing showed that a:: the water relief temperature was lowered, most of the valves became more unstable (see Table A1). In most FLB cases, the plant transient temperatures during the j water rellef are high enough to be bound by the existing EPRI data, but for several plants the water temperatures are below the stable test temperature, yet above the unstable test temperature. For the plants that have water rollef temperatures that fall In this range (i.e., between the unstable and stable temperatures) an analysis is performed to justify their adequacy to operate satisfactorily. l The calculation consists of a review of the loadings on the valve disc to determine if the valve's lift is large enough to provide stable performance. Stability is taken as calculated lifts f alling above the minimum stable test lif t height for a velve actuation. on a typical spring loaded relief valve disc. Figure'Al showsforthe An equation theforces forces acting [2] acting on the disc was used to determine the valve lift. The equation Is as follows: P,A, + P Ag3+PARR+FAEE* e cose + bpA, =
# +
PB^B s o atm^ bel +b9 where: PI = static pressure at nozzle exit AI = flow area at nozzle exit P = ' A b = static pressure above the valve seat surface S = top surf ace area of the valve cent P R static pressure at the nozzle ring surface A = Pf==areaatthenozzleringtopsurfaceaxit pressure at the annulus fl A E annulus flow area between rings in = mass flow rate through the valve , V = fluid exit velocity B* = fluid exit deflection angle P = B = pressure in the body bowl A B area of disc exposed to body bowl pressure K = spring constant Xs = s ring compression when the valve is closed X = valve stem position g=effectivemassofdiscandmovingpartsinthevalve g = gravitational constant P = ambient pressure Al m
y- _-_
.. . .. . u , y bel = arca of disc' Inside the bellows-
~
A p = density o, Neglecting the mass of.the disc, the above equation is simplified to: _ PgA , + cK PgA g + in /pAg = K, (X, + X) where A o( P3gA =PA+PARR+PAEE+ 3g e Cose - PB ^8 -P g bel Note that inV Cose is a momentum change. Thecoeffici$ntalphaisestimatedfromthewaterdischargeteststo account for variations in pressure and flow across the disc. For cases where more than one water test was performed and/or ring settings changed, the coefficient used for'the plant specific conditions was chosen from the distribution such that the resultant Ilft.Is conservative. Once the coefficient is determined, the !Ift nocessary to establish equilibrium can be calculated for a given valve and for given relieving
. conditions. The lift is then' compared to the maximum and minimum stable lifts obtained from the EPRI tests. If the valve's lif t is above the minimum stable lift,-the disc will lift and the valve will perform satisfactorily.
The table below lists the calculated alpha and ilf ts for those valves with anticipated'FLB temperatures below the temperatures in the EPRI testing. Valve FLB TemnOF % Lift ( I nn d Min Test lift (Inch) 6M6 600 2.6 .25 .19 31749A 601 2.22 .27 .2 l A2 .2 - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ - _ - _ - _ _ - - - _ . . _ - - _ . _ . _ - _ - _ - _ . _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ . __-______l
v - i d F SPRING P B ie u o n U ne o e e VALVE DISC n, - 7-i__ , a o o a o o mg p
~
i o o a o i _ _. E _. p V, 4 p R g aP I Vm l l FIGURE A-1 FORCES ON A TYPICAL SPRING t LOADED RELIEF VALVE DISC l A3
y - __ a 'I da 6 Table A.1 EPRI Water Test Results j WaterDischagge Valve Test Temperature F Stability 69C 712 613 Flutter I 714a-h 510 Flutter (Note 1) 717 410 Flutter l 719 397 Flutter i 3K6 428 654 Stable 1 431 616 Stable 435 510 Data not available 438 532 Unstable 6M6 926 635 Stable 931 635 Flutter 937 463 Unstable 6N8 1211 621 Stable 1213 536 Unstab le 31739A 1025 622 Stable 1027 618 Stable 1030 515 Unstable Notes:
- 1. Since there was more than one actuation during the test, the lowest temperature for en actuation was used.
- 2. Unstable results are those which had to be terminated due to excessive chatter.
A4
-w
(
V -
. .. , J
, Appendix B Water Cycle Determination This Appendix illustrates how the number of cycles associated with water relief was calculated. Figure B1 is an idealization of the pressurizer at the beginning of the FLB event. The steam space occupies a certain proportion of the pressurizer and water the rest. Initial valve cycles of steam will relieve ,
the steam before relieving the water. During the final phase of the FLB event, l' the pressurizer becomes water solid and the PSRV's must discharge water until the transient is over. The time (T) associated with the water phase portion of the FLB event is derived by M Functional Analysis for each plant. Given the length of time of the transient and the EPRI test discharge results, the number of times the valve will discharge water can be determined. The valve cycle is broken up into two phases, one is the discharge phase and the other is the repressurization phase. The discharge phase will encompass the time period that covers the valve popping open at its set pressure until it closes after discharging enough mass to relieve the pressure. The repressurization phase is the time from when the valve reseats until the pressure in the pressurizer has risen back tc the set pressure of the PSRV. The time for the discharge phase is based on the EPRI test data that corresponds to the runs that bound the plant specific conditions. The test f acility was set up to have the small accumulator (Tank 1) serving as a surge vessel whose inventory simulated the thermal-hydraulic condition in the PWR pressur i z er, and the large accumulator (Tank 2) serving as the driver vessel. It is therefore assumed the Tank 1 represents the plant pressurizer and Tank 2 represents the driving force of the Reactor Coolant System. Since the test loop system was set up to generate conditions representative of the accident condition, a correlation between the plant and test systems can be made. Because of the size difference between the test facility tank and the actual plent pressurizer and the difference in the number of valves in the test facility versus a plant, an adjustment is necessary to use the EPRI data. The adjustment is as follows: F
- b YP/Y T] T
- D V D V" P T F
D = Total plant valve discharge for its open time period (Ib/hr) F y = Total test valve discharge for its open time period (Ib/hr) Vp = Pressurizer volume (cubic feet) V T
=
Test tank volume (cubic feet) T n = Time for the plant valve to be open (sec) Ty = Time for the test valve to be open (sec) N = Number of plant valves (In use) B1 l C
1 l 1 i The above equations are based on the following.
- 1. All the valves on the pressurizer will open and close simultaneously and discharge the same mass.
- 2. Time necessary for the plant to discharge using two or three valves is e ratio of the test valve open time.
The time developed for the valve to discharge enough mass to depressurize the system for each cycle will be used for each cycle during the transient. 1 The time for repressurization in phase two is based on the replacement of mass that was discharged by the PSRVs during phase one. The increase in , i pressure is due to the thermal expension f rom the residual heat in the reactor core. FSAR analyses were reviewed and thermal expansion effects were coliorated into mass flowrates. Then for each plant a constant source of mass ! Injection was considered to be inputting mass into its system until the mass discharged during phase one had been replaced. At this point, the pressure within the system is considered to have been raised back up to the set point of the valve. A time is calculated for this repressurization. The following assumptions are made:
- 1. The pressurizer heaters and the spray valves are Inoperable.
However, there is heat input from the rest of the boundary (eg, reactor).
- 2. The injected mass into the pressurizer must equal the valve mass ;
discharged during the phase one before the PSRV will open again. !
- 3. Tha injection mass flowrate is constant and set at a rate that will encompass plant FSAR analysis pressure variations.
4 Once the steam to water transition occurs on the first water relief cycle, the valve will only discharge water during the re ainder of the transient.
- 5. Tha time associated with the FLB repressurization phase is held constant throughout the transient eveht.
The governing equation for the time to repressurize is: i T
- C D D' ( P' <
T = Repressurization time (sec) C Fp = Injected mass rate (Ibm /hr) The times for the two phases are then added together to determine the single cycle time (Tn+T)C f r the two phases. The number of cy lam will be the FSAR transienY water relief time (Table 2.1) divided by the ., jle cycle time. 1 B2 I
- ,i,
I *
.N = T / (TD+T' C N
= Number of cycles the valve will experience during the FLB T = Time of the FLB water rellef perlod Once the number of water cycles is determined, one additional cycle is considered for the transition from steam to water. Table 4.4 reflects the total number of cycles with water, including a transition cycle of steam to water.
1 B3 c
'v _ _ , .
.;;- % a :.y ,
j, f f' j {SAFETYRELIEFVALVE 1
- \
i-g l. '{ a l STEAM 1 PRESSURIZER WATER t N REACTOR COOLANT LOOP l FIGURE B-1 IDEALIZED SYSTEM B0UNDARY > i B4 i l ___u_ ._.- .x--------- - -- -- - - - - - - - - - -
m .: . . , [ APPENDIX C ASUTMENT PILOT VALVE MAIN VALVE PISTON '*--
'1
' l y BELLOWS
' ~
MAIN VALVE
/ '
PRELOAD SPRINGm, 3 W # f[ yvvv g MAIN VALVE Q: , xusxxssx
~~ ~
5 L ,\ DISC (CLOSED)T = - N b YOKE PORTION OF f/ / PILOT VALVE DISC
/ /,'
- 9 OUTLET
~ ~ ~ [
jT PILOT PRELOAD AND SET POINT ADJUSTMENT SPRING n ,
/
(/// PILOT SENSING PORT HIGH PRESSURE FLUID INLET l TARGET ROCK. ASSEMBLY ORAWING C-1 m ,
c.... . s . .+ .- 4 APPENDIX C un asstav Su T PLM8t
. i. .m. i 10 C $EAL
. It we ;
* . t ODett E.:.
lg .
- > s
.7 s""
Is " e- ,
! O ' M -
6 u stLL'Ot6 Asstat muovs g 5 A l m $$ so
'S nest mars 33 ' s l r sumt a ya a uAswa Asstav y - [. -g
,-g-et #
ec w y .As,.t. la / ~ ,_. 4- N eo pi, 3. b GC er un
/ 8 Co.etssim snts t *A taun umis sa N x ...
I a meru
.m.
.c ss. .. .,
11 Olst MILMt 8 x - I tr autot 14 % is % i y N--q - #s- . 4 II 13 u mlot eastt y,ar ptArt is ~
-fgjjj q ; , . > _ is year , tan sAsti II , y ggw% .
16 m4NER trTAINER
, 13 -
(pg 4 n FLeAtle euro , 12 q is attarun en scnce as= II K(g ,, . 19 Lin sw uns,..n... sa a g ,, n a
.l!-
ti se er * *"" six cott cartri hN M to pets mJUsTIE 015 8
% y$ % ng_ rs enou mJunis n
g .
,s a moeu avstin la (V\ _, arm Pra IC # P#24d 27 Lowe maustras alms j as Lown maustis ets IO P!n 29 Pik EARtf 30 CM C# &Anff 31 32 C# sfuo 33 CM sfWD NUT 34 LDtt DRESSER ASSEMBLY DRAWING n u nis rn=
M LDER tt C-2 n inte snAn 38 Pact!as l M PACEING NUT 40 CDLLM 41 AttAlmins pins di SELEAst WT 43 RELIAst NUT COTTie Pls 44 &AG 45 SAE Plug 44 4AS PLUS SAStT
1 O' APPENDIX C M WF haft g ! arcTem a a 8 t l 4
, omt . .
u - j 4 N022LE tint Sif Statt s Osu atm f a - d g 6 O!E W9tW
? 01E 815 jr ' i2 m/ 0 SELLOWS ii n 9 O!E tr5taf
- k g 3 10 OtX !#5(37 PIE 1
!! (DUC108
" 12 '4JU57!st R!ns j
13 !VU5TtslE t!E Stf Scatu 14 P!IELI AllpWLV g (M 14e P!WLt 800
"" 15 00 surf 40APTit O is wiett of
,, 17 FileLt WT C0ffit i ~
- i. e
% -;IIl5 wd e s 4 19 pelas
. ..i.
Tk fe' ,, 21 C# g. R/ ff"Lh # 8"
*f --
; d'
*E 4* ,,'
=
// / 23 nos mWT fl DOS SMFT 4* Rius
/ l)
I
- 38 006 LDO Elf 3 ;3 r? ses Lfvin Leerm5wa
[ l,1w- - '
, N LDtt 6 '
, .y )
, SJUff!W IeLT h -
[ 5 3 29 N , M$f f as W M V E t--l // "
//// ** n"l n 5
a N t
/ , .,-,..,...n M EDUCTOR SAmt?
/ / N *
//
/y S/ / 38 W!RE tra As aruusites aun af um uun 36 008 SMAff OfAA!M 6ASff 37 C# 6Asti 38 00 NET STUD 30A C# STUS M 908E7 Ifue NUT 39A C# SMID 8817 40 P t570s el Pflf05 LDCICLIP 42 SAS 5tatu 43 646 fflP u en Tw uan el CAAFT R!NS CROSBY ASSEMBLY DRAWING # **mn rettio 47 R44PLAft AW !DtNfl.
C-3 "****
= C=fim nm 40 St!VI SCREW
-}}