ML20133D250

PWR Safety & Relief Valve Adequacy Rept for Georgia Power Co,Alvin W Vogtle Unit 1 & Unit 2,Original Issue

ML20133D250
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	05/31/1985
From:	WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML20133D246	List: ML20133D243 ML20133D250 ML20133D254
References
NUDOCS 8510090004
Download: ML20133D250 (41)

Text

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

t-tyrT. I i

PWR SAFETY AND RELIEF VALVE Adequacy Report For l Georgia Power Company Alvin W. Vogtle Unit 1 and Unit 2

) Original Issue l

l May 31, 1985

.i I

.I 1

i l

s i

i i

)

! Westinghouse Electric Company 1

i Plant Engineering Division i Box 355 j Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 1

1 i

i l

l

!!u%B8nBi83$g4 E

[O .. . . . .. .. l- . , . . . _ _ . . I

~

e i i

e e

g Table of Contents Section g 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Valve and Piping Parameters 2 3.0 Valve Inlet Fluid Conditions 9 4.0 Comparison of EPRI Test Data 13

, with Plant-Specific Requirements 4.1 Relief Valve Testing 13 4.2 Safety Valve Testing 13 4.2.1 Crosby 6M6 Safety Valve Tests 14 4.2.2 Discussion of Observed Safety 15 Valve Performance

4.2.2.1 Loop Seal Opening Response 16 4.2.2.2 Inlet Piping Pressure Oscillations 16 4.2.2.3 Valve Chatter on Steam 16  ;

t 5.0 Conclusions 22 Appendix I References 1

P l,

. ic x . . . - . .-.. . ..... .: ... ... . ._.._ _ . .... ,, . , ,

Revision Pane Description Author Revision Original Issue R. M. Grayson 0

i I

I J

l i

i 4

i t

i

• f I

\

11 l

M510:10/053185 - - - . . _ _ . - _ . . - _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _. _ _ _ _. ,

u ,. . . .. .  :.. ..

~

1.0 INTRODUCTION

I In accordance with the initial recommendation of NURE6 0578, Section 2.1.2 as later clarified by NORE6 0737, item 11.0.1 and revised September 29, 1981, each Pressurizer Water Reactor (PWR) Utility was to submit information relative to the pressuriter safety and relief valves in use at their plant.

,i Specifically, this submittal should include an evaluation supported by test results which demonstrate the capability of the relief and safety valves to operate under expected operating and accident conditions.

i The primary objective of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) test program was to provide fuli scale test data confirming the functionability of the primary system power operated relief valves and safety valves for expected operating and accident conditions. The second objective of the program was to obtain suf ficient piping thermal hydraulic load data to permit confirmation ,

! of models which may be utilized for plant specific analysis of safety and relief valve discharge piping systems. Relief valvc tests were completed in August 1981 and safety valve tests were completed in January 1982. Reports' have been prepared by EPRI which document the results of the test program.

Additional reports were written to provide necessary justification for test j valve selection and valve inlet fluid test conditions. These reports were  !

transmitted to the USNRC by David Hoffman of the Consumers Power Company on l behalf of the participating PWR Utilities and are referenced herein. l I

< i This report provices the final evaluation of these and other submittals and reports prepared during the review of the test data as they apply to the l

j valves used at Alvin W. Vogtle Units 1 and Unit 2.

e I

i 1

l M510:10/053185

~

2.0 VALVE AND PIPING PARAMETERS i

Table 2-1 provides a list of pertinent valve and piping parameters for the .

l Alvin W. Vogtle Units Safety and Power-0perated Relief Valves. The safety valve and Power Operated Relief Valve designs installed at Alvin W. Vogtle . f l were tested by EPAI. Information concerning the valves tested versus valves I

! installed at Alvin W. Vogtle is provided in the Valve Justification report. The justification was developed based on evaluation perfonned by ,

the valve manufacturers and considered effects of differences in operating j l characteristics, materials, orifice sizes and manufacturing processes on valve i operability.

! Typical inlet piping configurations for Alvin W. Vogtle Unit 1 and Unit 2 are i provided in Figures 2-1 and 2.2 ,

i Tables 2-2 and 2-3 compare the Alvin W. Vogtle inlet loop seal piping I

I configuration with that of the EPRI test piping arrangement for the crosby 6M6 Safety Valve and compares the actual plant-specific pressure drop with the test pressure drop for the test valve arrangement.

1 4

As can be seen by these comparisons, the EPRI test piping arrangement envelops l l

l the actual piping arrangement for the Alvin W. Vogtle units in that the piping l arrangements are similar and the Vogtle Plant pressure drops are less than  !

those for the EPRI test valve arrangement.  !

i j

i i

1 I

1 l

i l

)

i 06510:10/053105 2

TABLE 2-1 VALVE AND PIPING INFORMATION i

1. SAFETY VALVE INFORMATION Number of valves 3 Manufacturer Crosby Valve and Gage i Type Self Actuated Size 6M6 Steam Flow Capacity,1bs/hr 420,000 Design Pressure, psig 2485 Design Temperature. *F 650 Set Pressure, psig 2405 Accumulation 3 percent of set pressure  !

Blowdown 5 percent of set pressure Original Valve Procurement Spec. E-678838

! , 2. RELIEF VALVE INFORMATION i

l j Number of Valves 2 Manufacturer Garrett Type Pressurizer Power Relief I

Size 3x6 f Steamflow Capacity, Ibs/hr 210,000 max

Design Pressure, psig 2500 Design Temperature. *F 650

Opening Pressure, psig 2335 Closing pressure, psig 2315  !

Valve Procurement Spec. G-g55245 l ,

i 1

P k

06510:10/053185 3

c= . . ...... .. .

~

TAOLE 2-1 (Continued) o l VALVE AND PIPING INFORMATION

3. SAFETY AND REllEF VALVE INLET PIPING INFORMATION Design Pressure, psig 2485 Design Temperature. *F 680 Configuration of Piping 1548E34 Pressurizer Nozzle Configuration 1548E34 3

Loop Seal Volume, ft Volume .71

^

Loop Seal Temperature, 'F Approximately 200*F Steady State Flow Pressure Drop See Appendix !

Acoustic Wave Pressure

> Amplitude See Appendix I

4. SAFETY AND REl1EF VALVE DISCHARGE PIPING INFORMATION Design Pressure, psig 2500 Design Temperature. 'F 600 Configuration 1548E34 i

Pressurizer Relief Tank Design Pressure, psig 1 00 Dackpressure, Normal, psig 3

} Dackpressure. Developed, psig 500 l

06510:10/053185 4

1,. . . ' ' . .. . . _ _ .

FIG. 2-1 ,

TYPICAL SAFETY ~ VALVE INLET PIPING 4

sm  ;

~

nu .

t u-g ~ n -

= y M --

u

, w ,#~ l' j

/

N"( ,

' j

%( \ /  ! /

\\ y P..

.:,"&.1' -

/

. F

/

er ~, -a s ,.

,3 s. - ,

g l

} I q

g n s- ) ) ~l

\

w'.

j- -r-rt

~w r*W .,e -

i _r .

r __ - S

', d .

i, oE ,7 ) L 2

w '

, ,, # I ~

sl y .O

-- g-- g-- q - g1 ' '

~

N. % I u%

\

[_,'N . . ' f. u s

~ II ~ ~~

mV' il ~l ~ j s

\

m e . ~

c

\ z , on g s, I

e. /\ N w  % -- u.

> 1 O i E

W W

h6 is n

6

- l ey eu e ';w NE O

5

g .,

, . 7. 7. . - . .

-~

FIG. 2-2

. TYPICAL PORV INLET PIPING

_,- .. y................., I

.**"_,.*( l

_a -- _. -- .,. --

I e l

-- d= -- h

'N , i i

\ .

. k:

1. SI'[

'/

,, . Ud .

N 7 ' \ N\ \ -*

{- N

y gs --

' f  ?

- ~

p &( sj : '

,\ , ,

N 1l sj g i s

W ----

i 5.,.. N  %

=-

.i , = K p

t SECTION J J \ _-

N ~ .

- REF PL A?.E FCR F; ELD #

/

t -

t

~~~r , a g e

e I

. -D. 4 f', *

• - I

_ ./ i 1 I

, ,i 1, ,, ,

-- . . i; -- .. -- .6 i i 8

.. e e b; I .8,'*2 .. ........ ....J SUGGESTED INSUL ATIOP.

... s% .. QUTLlhE l m *f.5U. ATION SUPP08 T l '

RING SUPPL:ED BY OTHERS l

l 28.89 29.25 .

n F s;'.5s.4?;;= Ctv.s *

. to.so :e.co REF PEV VIEW A- A .

y,. .

)

i j

1 TABLE 2-2 SAFETY VALVE INLST PIPING COMPARISON Typical Alvin W. Vogtle 6M6 Inlet inlet Picina Pipina*

Length of 44.8 61 straight pipe, in.

Number of 90* 2 -

elbows Number of 180' 1 2 bends Number of 45' 1

. Elbows Misc. - 71 Loop seal water .71 1.02 volume

,

• Source: Reference (7) e

s. .

4 ,i ... . . .. :. . . . . . . .'. .

TA8LE 2-3 COMPARISON OF TEST PRESSURE DROP WITH PLANT SPECIFIC PRESSURE DROP Alvin W. Vogtle Plant Specific

• 6M6 Test **

Pressure Dron Pressure Broo Opening 244.1 263 Closing 142.6 181 1

• Appendix I

. ** Source: Reference (8) l M51Q:10/053185 _ _ _ _ _

8 ._ ___ .-_

wn . . ._ _ .. . . . . . _ _ - . _ . .

f 3.0 VALVE INLET FLUID CONDITIONS i

.lustification for inlet fluid conditions used in the EPRI Safety and Relief Valve tests are summarized in Reference 2 and 3. These conditions were determined based on consideration of FSAR, extended High Pressure Injection, and Cold Overpressurization events, where applicable.

For plants of which Westinghouse is the NSSS supplier, a methodology was used I

such that a reference plant was selected for each grouping of plant i considered.(3) Valve fluid conditions resulting from limiting FSAR events, which result in steam discharge and an Extended High Pressure Injection event f

which may result in liquid discharge, are presented for each reference plant.

Use of reference plants result in fluid conditions enveloping those expected for Alvin W. Vogtle Unit 1 and Unit 2. l Table 3-1 presents the results of loss of load and locked rotor analysis for Four loop plants in which Alvin W. Vogtle Unit 1 and Unit 2 were included. l

The inlet fluid conditions expected at the safety valve and PORY inlets are f l ,

identified. As can be seen, the Loss of Load event is considered as the i limiting overpressure transient, however, the rate of pressurization is higher for the Locked Rotor Transient for four loop plants.

L The limiting Extended High Pressure Injection event was the spurious activation of the safety injection system at power. A condition II event, this will result, at worst, in a reactor shutdown with the plant capable of l returning to operation. The analysis results for four-loop plants are l provided in Table 3-2.

The cold overpressure fluid inlet conditions considered for the relief valves [

are provided in Figure 3-3. These conditions represent possible water, steam and steam to water inlet conditions for the Vogtle PORV's. j 4

The only transients for PORV and Safety Valves identified for Alvin W. Vogtle are the FSAR, High Pressure Injection, and cold overpressure conditions.

l  !

l  ?

i 06510:10/061085 9 l

, . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . _ . . . . . '. c_ . . . .. . l

~

l TABLE 3-1 VALVE INLET CONDITIONS FOR FSAR EVENTS RESULTING IN STEAM OISCHARGE Maximum Maximum Valve Pressurizer Pressure Rate Reference Opening Pressure (psia)/ (psia /sec)/

Plant Pressure (osia) Limitina Event Limitina Event Safety Valves Oniv ,

i 4-Loop 2500 2555/ Loss of Load 144/ Locked Rotor Safety and Relief Valves 4-Loop 2350 2532/ Loss of Load 130/ Locked Rotor Source: Reference (2) 1

TABLE 3-2 SAFETY & RELIEF VALVE INLET CON 0!TIONS RESULTING FRON SPURIOUS INITIATION OF HIGH PRESSURE INJECTION AT POWER WHEN VALVES ARE DISCHARGING LIQUID Range of

Valve Fluid Maximum Range of Surge Rates Range of Opening State Pressurizer Pressurization When Valve liquid Temperature Reference Setpoint on Valve Pressure Rates Is Passing Liquid at Valve Plant testa) openine (a) (psia) (est/sec) (GPN) Inlet (*F)

SAFETY VALVES 4-Loop 2500 Steam / Liquid 2507 0-4 0.0-628.3 567-572 .

I j RELIEF VALVES 4-Loop 2350 Steam / Liquid 2353 0-4 113.1-1104.1 565-569 i

l a. First/ subsequent openings ',,

j .:

i .

\

i i

+ .---_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

w ,. . . . .. _ . . . . .

TABLE 3-3 PORY INLET CONDITIONS FOR COLD OVERPRESSURE TRANSIENTS 11:33 Steam to Water Wa.t.t.t 2350 psi 400 - 2350 psi 800 psi 650*F Sat Temp 70 - 350*F 4

1 i

i

• i 1

J l

86510:10/053105 _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _

12

$?

i .

. 1 4.0 COMPARISON OF EPRI TEST DATA WITH PLANT-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS l l

4 The Electric Power and Research Institute (EPRI) conducted full scale flow tests on pressurizer safety and relief valves.I4) Tests were conducted at three sites over a period of 1-1/2 years. PORVs were tested at Marshall Steam l Station (5) and Wyle Laboratories, (6,7) while safety valves were tested at the Combustion Engineering Test Site in Connecticut.

j 4.1 RELIEF VALVE TESTING Test results applicable to the PORVs installed in Alvin W. Vogtle Unit 1 and Unit 2 are contained in Section 3.9 of Reference 5. Garrett Relief Valve.

This valve fully opened and closed on demand for each of the eleven evaluation .

tests at the Marshall Test Facility. Sixty-six additional cycles were conducted on the valve at the Marshall Test Facility; results of these tests l

! are provided in the reference (5) report. Ten cycles were conducted at the Wyle Test Facility. Subsequent disassembly and inspection revealed no damage

. that wou'1d affect future valve performance although gasket wash-out was observed af ter the extensive Marshall testing.

3 i

A comparison of the 'As-Tested" inlet fluid conditions for the Marshall and l Wyle tests is provided in Table 4-1. This table indicates the Alvin W. Vogtle Unit 1 and Unit 2 fluid conditions sunnarized in Section 3.0 of this report were tested. The results of this testing indicates the valves functioned

satisfactorily, opening and closing in the required time and discharging the required flow rate.

4.2 SAFETY VALVE TESTING Test results applicable to the safety valves installed at Alvin W. Vogtle Unit 1 and Unit 2 are contained in Reference 7.

i 1

i  :

I l

t 8651Q:10/061085 13 _ _ _ _ .

mx. - . ... . ... a ... .. ._ . _ . . . . . . _ . _ . . . .

4.2.1 CROSBY 6M6 SAFETY VALVE TESTS l

The Crosby 6M6 test valve underwent a series of tests at the EPRI/CE Test )

Facility. The "As Tested

• Fluid Inlet Conditions for the 6M6 are compared to l the Alvin W. Vogtle Unit 1 and Unit 2 Fluid inlet conditions in Table 4-3.

This cegarison shows the EPRI 'As Tested

• Fluid Conditions envelope those for Vogtle.

Two groups of tests wre conducted on the Crosby 6M6 (Loop Seal Internals)

! Test Valve, one group with 'As Installed" ring settings and one group with

'lowred" ring settings.

For the "As-Installed" ring settings four loop-seal steam tests were conducted, all at pressurization rates far above that expected for the i Alvin W. Vogtle units. Two tests were conducted with a cold loop seal, 1 representative of the Alvin W. Vogtle configuration, while the other two tests were conducted with 350*F loop seals.

I

~

For the four tests conducted, the test valve popped open on steam at pressures

! ranging from 2675-2757 psia following a typical loop seal (water) discharge i and for the first actuation cycle, the valve stem stabilized and closed with l 5.1-g.6 percent blowdown.

For the last test, the valve reopened and the test was terminated af ter the valve was manually opened to stop chattering. This was a 350*F loop seal test and is not representative of the Alvin W. Vogtle Unit 1 and Unit 2 inlet

! conditions.

A transition test with 650*F water was successfully conducted. Subsequently a 550*F water test was tried with the test terminated when the valve started to chatter.

l 86510:10/053185 14

" - --- -. .. _._.__~_.._....

I-Seven additional loop seal tests were conducted with

• lowered' ring settings f

!' as well as two additional transition tests. The results of those tests are

! detailed in Reference 7.

Five cold loop seal steam tests were performed at ramp rates from 3-375 psi /sec. The valve exhibited typical loop seal openings with the full opening pressures varying from 2580-2732 psia depending on ramp rate. The valve

- closed in a range of 1.4 to 0.2 percent blowdown.

Two hot loop seal tests were conducted with full opening pressures of 2655-2692 psia after the typical loop seal opening, and closed with 8.2-g.0 i

percent blowdown. In the second test the valve reopened and chattered. Again this was a 350*F loop seal test at a high ramp rate and is not considered j representative of the Alvin W. Vogtle Unit 1 and Unit 2 inlet conditions.

i 4 <

4.2.2 DISCUS $10N OF OBSERVED SAFETY val.VE PERFORMANCE l

! In addressing observed valve performance, one must differentiate between the valves and fluid conditions tested and the actual valves and actual fluid conditions for the specific plant. The EPRI inlet piping arrangement, flow and acoustic pressure drops, and inlet fluid conditions bound the same l plant-specific parameters for the Alvin W. Vogtle units. Valve performance i

observed during the EPRI tests, therefore, reflects worst case performance as l

! compared to results that would be observed had the testing been conducted using actual plant-specific piping arrangements and fluid conditions.

A review of Table 4-3 shows the Crosby safety valve tested exhibited stable operation on a loop seal piping configuration at pressurization rates of f 1.1-375 psi /see with initial opening pressures of 2455-2600 psi and pop l pressures of 2455-2757 psi.

1

The EPRI data also indicates that steam flow rates in excess of rated flows

' are attainable. However. data also shows these flow rates are delayed some f l period of time following the assumed valve opening point resulting in the high j pop pressures'. ,

06510:10/053185 15

u~ .. . .

i-Safety valve p rformance observed in the EPRI tests is addressed in I* Reference g for Westinghouse Plants and the results and conclusions of this report can be extended to Alvin W. Vogtle Unit 1 and Unit 2.

! 4.2.2.1 LOOP SEAL OPENING RESPONSE To assess the effect on reactor coolant system pressure due to valve opening f

l response on loop seal discharge, a series of overpressure transients were run

with various time delays inserted for the valve opening. Results of the j analysis are presented in Reference g. For the limiting Condition 11 events, f safety valve functioning is not required if the reactor trips on high

) pressurizer pressure. If the reactor does not trip until the second protection grade trip, a valve opening delay time of two seconds would still I provide acceptable overpressure protection. Evaluation of the limiting condition IV event shows all components of the reactor coolant system would l

remain within 120 percent of the system design pressure even in the event of i no safety valve opening.

1 4

4.2.2.2 INLET PIPING PRESSURE OSCILLATIONS i

As observed during the loop seal discharge tests, oscillations occur upstream of a spring loaded Safety valve while water is flowing through the valve. An

) analysis of this phenomenon was conducted and the results are documented in Reference g. Table 4-4 provides the maximum permissible pressure for

l. pressurizer Safety valve inlet piping sites and schedules representative of

- Westinghouse plants. These pressures are shown for upset (level 0) and emergency (level C) conditions. Based on tests and analytical work to date, 1

all acoustic pressures observed or calculated prior to and during safety valve l

i discharge are below the maximum permissible pressure.

I 4.2.2.3 VALVE CHATTER ON STEAM i

i Since the Eptl testing was conducted at enveloping fluid and piping conditions, adjustments were made to the safety valve ring positions in order i

l l '

8 I

i l

06510:10/0531s5 16

. . - . . .- _. . - .. J

.5 , . . . . . .

to obtain stable valve performance on steam discharge for the test

- arrangement. These adjustments resulted in longer blowdowns for the test valves. The ring positions determined during the test represent the adjustment required for a particular valve when exposed to the particular test piping arrangement, fluid conditions, backpressure and pressurization rate.

An investigation was conducted to determine those parameters which are critical to the onset of valve chatter under steam discharge conditions. The results of this study are detailed in Reference 9.

9 M510:10/053185 17

c+. .  :

TABLE 4-1 COMPARISON OF PORY INLET FLUID CONDITIONS WITH 'AS-TESTED' CONDITIONS Steam Conditions P0AV Marshall Test i iplet Fluid Wyle Test (No.1 - No.11)

Set Point 2530 2346-2415 2405-2460 Pressure (psia)

Temperature 650 669-674 (sat.)

('F)

Fluid Type steam steam steam ,

l Flow Rate 210.000 (372.600-378.000) (292.000-303.000),

(1bs/hr)

Water Conditions MV Inlet Fluid Wyle Test Wyle Tests Conditions 104-GA-SS/W (Water) i i Set Point 2350 2460 510-2486

Pressure (psia) 1 Temperature 565-569 650 106-648

(*F)

Fluid Type steam W ater steam / Water Water Flow 8 ate #/hr -

(33.927-33.203) 792.000 (813.600-1.681.200) i I

[

l l

96510:10/053185 18

ev

- TA8LE 4-2

' TA80LATION OF OPENING / CLOSING TINES FOR PORV l

Opening Time Closing Time Test (Sec.) (sec.)

Marshall

• 1 1.80 1.00 2 1.70 1.00 3 1.70 1.00 i

4 1.70 1.00 5 1.60 1.00 6 1.65 1.00 7 1.70 1.95 8 1.70 1.60 9 1.70 1.50 10 1.65 1.00 11 1.70 1.00 i

(

W11t?*

97-6A-15 0.25 0.60 98-6A-25 0.24 0.58 99-6A-3W 0.47 0.78 100-6A-4W 1.09 1.42 l 101-GA-5W 0.81 1.04 102-GA-6W 0.48 0.75 103-6A-7W 0.56 0.85 0.52 1.18 104-6A-85/W 0.58 . 0.92 105-6A-9W/W 106-GA-10W/W 0.61 0.90 Note: Sequired Opening Time - 2.0 Sec.

Sequired Closing Time - 2.0 Sec.

• Source: 8eference (5)

• • Source: 8eference (6) i 19 06510:10/053185

n.. - _.

- TABLE 4-3 COMPARISON OF SAFETY VALVE INLET FLUID CONDITIONS WITH " AS-TESTE0' CONDITIONS Tests 6M6 Safety Valve No. 906-913 Inlet Fluid 917-923, 925 1406 Conditions 1415 and 1419 2500 2500 Set Point Pressure (psia) 1 650 650 Temperature

(*F)

Steam loop seal / steam Fluid Type Flow Rate 420.000 (1bs/hr) 130-144 1.1-375 Pressurization Rate (psi /sec)

Stability Stable **

Initial opening 2455-2600 Pressure (psia) 2455-2757 ,

Pop Pressure.

(psia)

• Rated flow achieved but not reported in EPRI Tables, reference (7).

l

• • As reported by EPRI in Performance data tables of Reference (1).

l

[

20 96510:10/053185

uv . . . . . , .

l TABLE 4-4 MAXIMUM PERMISSISLE PRESSURE FOR PRESSURIZER SAFETY VALVE INLET PIPING

• Outside Diameter Nominal Permissible Pine Size fini Thickness fini Pressure insi)

Level B Level C 6-inch Sch.160 6.625 0.719 5229 7131 6-inch Sch. 120 6.625 0.562 4004 5460 4-inch Sch.160 4.500 0.531 5733 1818 4-inch Sch.120 4.500 0.438 4644 6333 3-inch Sch.160 3.500 0.438 6119 8344 Source: Reference (9)

• Applicable for temperatures below 300*F.

i 06510:10/053185 21

e

5.0 CONCLUSION

S The proceeding sections of this report and the reports referenced herein indicate the valves, piping arrangements, and fluid inlet conditions for i Alvin W. Vogtle Units 1 and Unit 2 are indeed bounded by those valves and test parameters of the EPRI Safety and Relief Valve Test Program. The EPAI tests confirm the ability of the safety and Relief Valves to open and close under

! the expected operating fluid conditions.

i 1

l l

1 i

1 l

i j

l M510:10/053105 22

u. . .

APPEND 1X l .

l l

86510:10/042585 __ -

v+ . . . . . ...:....

j.

APPEN0!X I Plant-Specific pressure Drop Calculations

1. Transient F1w pressure Difforene (APF ) Calculation The f1w pressure difference due to pipe friction and fittings is given by:

If T $ 2L/a,

! AP (K+f)(CM)2 F=

2gg 2

- If T > 2L/a, l

2 i

(K+f)(CM)2 g 3 AP I= 2ggpA 2 l

K = sustation of expansion and contraction loss coefficients corrected if required to correspond to the inlet piping f1w area. (NOTE: The j

contraction from the pressuriter to the inlet pipe can be assumed to be smooth and, therefore, the loss coefficient can be assumed to be i

aero) (dimensionless)

f =

friction factor (dimensionless)

L = piping equivalent length / diameter considering effects of D elbow and friction. (dimensionless)

. l M = rated valve f1w rate for steam. l I

M510:10/053185 A-1

. g, = gravitational constant (32.2 lb-ft/lb-sec2) p = steam density at nominal valve set pressure (1b/ft3)

A = inlet piping f1w area (f t )2 a = steam Sonic velocity (ft/sec) - use 1100 f t/sec for all calculations L = inlet piping length (from the pressurizer inside diameter to the interface between the inlet pipe flange and the valve inlet flange)

(ft)

T = valve opening or closing time for steam inlet conditions (sec)

C = flow rate constant for valve opening or closing.

2. Transient Acoustic Wave Amplitude ( APg) Calculation The acoustic wave amplitude is calculated as follows:

- If T 1 2L/a, afCM) (CM)2 AP g= +

2

- If T > 2L/a, 2L (tm)

+

(CM) (b) 8'AW " g gAT 2 e pA t All parameters are defined in Section 1 above.

l

~

3. Plant-Soecific Transient Pressure Difference Calculation The plant-specific transient pressure difference associated with valve opening or closing is equal to the sum of the f1w pressure difference (APp ) and the acoustic wave amplitude (&Pg) as determined above.

4. Plant-Soecific Steadv-State F1 w Pressure Difference Calculation The steady-state f1w pressure difforence associated with valve opening or closing is given by:

AP (K +h) (CR)2-F= 2 2gg All parameters are defined in Section 1 above. Note that the values of the f1w rate constant. C are different for valve opening and closing.

a. Valve Opening From Table B-2, the opening time is.

T,,= .010 sec.

Also, n . ip,;f; 't . 0i.s sec.

l l

l Therefore. T, < 2L/a (1) Transient F1w Pressure Difforence f

l '

06510:10/053105 A-3

'I .: . . . . . . .. . .

Since T ,, < 2L/a, the following pressure difference is, g, ,

(K + ft 0) (cm)2 2ggpA where.

420.000 lb/hr = 116.7 lb/sec. 3600 sec/hr C = 1.11 K = 0 - see item 1 above f = .015 L =

l al + 1x(16) + 2 x(30) + 1(50) = 147 0 .432 p = 7.65 lb/ft 3 A = 0.147 ft 2 The Flow Pressure Difference is, 2

IO+(.015) (14711M .11)(116.711 API = 64.4 x 7.65 x .1412 ,j44 app = 24.14 psi (2) Transient Acoustic Wave Amplitude i

i

• l .

M510:10/053105 A-4

Since T,, < 2L/a, the Acoustic amplitude is.

l gp (CM)2 AW , ALEElgA , 2g pA g g J

(1100) fl .11x1116.7) + (1.11x116.7)E 32.2 x .147 x 144 64.4x7.65x.147 2 ,344 i AP gg = 220 psi (3) Plant-Snecific Transient Pressure Difference The plant-specific pressure difference for valve opening is, AP

app + APgg

= 24.14 + 220

. AP = 244.14 psi l

(4) Plant-$necific Pressure Difference The steady-state flow pressure difference for valve opening is, (K+Ih) (CM)2 AP p= 2 29cPA app = 24.14 i

j

uv . .. . . . . .

(5) Plant-$necific pressure Difference for Plant Versus Test Eva*uation fopenina)

Based on the above, the controlling pressure difforence is the transient pressure dif ference, 244.14 psi.

(b) Valve Closine From Table B-2, the closing time is.

C .69 TCL = .016 i Also, 2L/A = .0165 sec.

T CL $ .016 see 1 2L/a (1) Transient Flow Pressure Difference is.

AP =

(K + h) (CM) 2gg M AP =

0. + .015 x 147 x (.69 x 116.7) 2 64.4 x 7.65 x .147 2 , 344 app = 9.33 psi i

hO .

(2) Transient Acoustic Wave Amo11tude Since T CL

$ 2L/a, the acoustic wave amplitude is, AP =O8A 4-IENI C 2gg M (1100) (.6tx116.7) *

(.69x116.7)2

" 32.2 x .147 x 144 64.4x7.65x141 2,344 APg = 133.3 psi (3) Plant-Snecific Transient Pressure Difference The plant-specific pressure dif forence for valve closing is.

AP = APg = 9.33 + 133.3 = 142.63 psi (4) Plant-Soecific Steady-State Flow Pressure Difference The steady-state flow pressure difforence for valve closing is the same as for valve opening (9.33 psi)

(5) Plant-Snecific Pressure Difference for Plant versus Test Evaluation (Closinni Based on the above the controlling pressure difference for Vogtle is the transient pressure difforence, i.e., 142.63 psi.

\

l l

l 86510:10/053105 A-7

, b' O .

,. t REFERENCES

?

1. EPRI PWR Safety and' Relief Test Program Valve Selection / Justification l Report, ' Interim Report, March 1982.*

2. Westinghouse Electric Corporation Reptrt ' Valve Inlet Fluid - Conditions for Pressuriter Safety and Relief Valves in Westinghouse - Design Plants',

Interim Report NP-2296-LO, March 1982.

{ 3. EPRI PWR Safety and Relief Valve Test Program. Description and Status, i

• Test Condition Justification Report". Interim Report, NP-2460-LO, June 1902.

? l

4. 'EPRI PWR Safety and Relief Valve Test Program, Description and Status', l April 1982. t

5. 'EPRI - Marshall Power-0perated Relief Valve Interin Test Data Report

1 EPRI NP-2144-LO, Interim Report, February 1982.

i

6. 'EPR1/Wyle Power-0perated Relief Valve Test Report, Volume 11' EPRI NP-2670-LD, Interin Report, October 1982.

7. 'EPRI/CE PWR Safety Valve Test Report,' Volume 6. Interin Report NP-2770-LO, March, 1983.

8. 'EPRI PWR Safety and Relief Valve Test Program Guide for Application of Valve Test Program Results to Plant-5pecific Evaluations", Interim Report, Revision 2. July 1982.

9. ' Review of Pressurizer Safety Valve Performance as Observed in the CPRI Safety and Relief Valve Test Program', June 1982.

10. Crane Technical Paper No. 410, ' Flow of Fluids Through Valves. Fittings,  ;

and Pipe", 1976.

1 l

l e6510:10/053105 A-8

.. I E

l' ,

I' PtNt SAFETY AND RELIEF VALyt TEST PROGRAM, PORY BLOCK VALVE

! AN QUACY REPORT i FOR GEORGIA POWER COMPANY l

ALVIN V0GTLE UNIT 5 1 ANO 2

! i

! JUNE 1985 ORIGINAL 155UE x

Prepared by .

t R. M. Grayson l

Verifled by M# 7!/kPl' Approved by 9d/f[

M.A. Sepp,Ma[er Westinghouse Electric Corporation

." puclear Energy Systems P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, PA 15230

2+ .. . . . _.. ;; ; . : -

1.0 INTRODUCTION

NUREE-0737, Item !!.D.1.5 requires FWR utilities demonstrate block valves function properly over expected operating and accident conditions. This demonstration is to be supported by test data.

During a meeting between the NRC staff and utility representatives on July 17, 1981, agreement was reached regarding resolution of the above requirement.

Details of the utility position on block valve testing is contained in Reference 1.

In response to NUREG-0737. Item !!.0.1.5, Reference 2 transeitted to the NRC

• EPRI PWR Safety and Relief Valve Test Program, p0RV Glock Valve Information Package'. May 1982 (Reference 3), included in this submittal were:

o A description of block valves used in or planned for use in PWR plants, o An EPRI report entitled 'EPRI/ Marshall Electric Motor Operated Valve (Block Valve) Interim Test Data Report,' May 31, 1982.

o A Westinghouse report entitled 'EPRI Summary Report: Westinghouse Gate Valve Closure Testing Program,' March 31, 1982.

Reference 2 also states that PWR utilities believe sufficient evidence (supported by test data) is available to demonstrate block valve

' operability'. Response to the NUR[G requirement was to be fulfilled by submittal of the above mentioned document package and a separate plant-specific evaluation of safety and relief valve operability.

This document provides the plant-specific response and evaluation of the tiock Valve Test program for Alvin Vogtle Units 1 and 2. -

2.0 OLOCK VALVE DES!4N INFORMATION The block va,1ves installed at Alvin Vogtle Units 1 and 2 are Westinghouse Model HMeg' motor operated gate valves (described in Table 2-1).

1261E:10/062705 0

6 .. , ,

TA8LE 2-1 ALVIN V0GTLE UNITS 1 AND 2 Valve Inforention Manufacturer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Westinghouse Electric Corporation Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Motor Operated Gate Valve Quantity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3GM99 Orawing No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1D99139 Valve Operator Information Manufacturer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitorque Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Motorized Valve Operator Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $B:00 15 voltage, Volts. . . . . . . . . . . . 460 Spe e d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 s e c .

R PM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 600 I

l l

^^

1

. TASLE 2-2 i WESTINGHOUSE TEST VALVE DESCt1PT10N. TEST SERIES M-WS2**

General Valve Information Manufacturer . . . . . . . . . . . . . Westinghouse Electric Corporation

! Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Motor Operated Este Valve Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M0003001EM99FNH02000 (99 Series)

Se ri a l No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74004 Orawing No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9743030 General Valve Operator Information l

Manuf acturer . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitorque

Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Motorized Valve Operator Mod e l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5MS-000-10 se ri a l No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

• Torque Switch Settleg. . . . . . . . .

• Voltage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 460 RPM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3600

• Not Supplied by the Manufacturer

• • Source: Reference 3

_ in1111A/061481

g

, _....7-_.. -

l l

. During the EPRI Test program tests were conducted on a Westinghouse Model i 34M99 block valve at the Marshall test facility. Results of those tests are detailed in Reference 3.

i For comparison a description of the Westinghouse test valves is provided in Table 2-2. As can be seen, the valves tested by EPRI are similar to the block l valves installed at Vogtle.

3.0 SIMMARY OF SLOCK VALVE TEST RESULTS 3.1 WESTINGHOUSE SLOCK VALVE MODEL 3GM99 Results of the Westinghouse 3GM99 Block Valve Tests are contained in Section 3.3 of Reference 3.  ;

The Westinghouse 36M99 test valve was a 3-inch,1500-1b class valve with a Limitorque Model $N8-000-10 operator with a motor rated at 10 f t-1b torque.

l1 The 38M99 valve was tested in the horizontal configuration in line with the Copes-Vulcan P0RY with 31655 plug and 17-4PH cage.

On January 12. 1901, 19 calibration and checkout cycles were run at

atmospheric conditions. During two additional full flow tests the valve did not fully close. The valve was returned to the manufacturer for rework.

The SMS-000-10 limitorque motor operator was replaced with a model SMB-000-15 operator, the yoke was redesigned and the motor operator was rowired to close

.! on position instead of torque.

On January 28, 1981 22 pretest cycles were carried out and the evaluation test (21 cycles) conducted. After the evaluation test an additional 7 cycles were legged on the valve. The evaluation tests are swanarized in Tables 3.3-2 and l 3.3-3 of Reference 3.

l -

The Westinghouse 34 Met Test Valve, as modified with a SMS-000-15 Limitorque l motor operator, redesigned yoke and wired for limit closure, fully operated and closed e'n demand for the 21, cycles of the evaluation test. Upon 1261E:10/062705

n- . . . . . . . .. . .. .. - . . = . . .

disassembly after all testing was complete the valve was inspected. There was slight galling of the wedge guides but all other components were in good condition.

During the testing at Marshall on Westinghouse 3GM88 and 3GM99 Block Valves, the stem thrusts required to close the valves were measured using axial, type stain gages. The resulting forces were considerably higher than expected.

! When subsequent closure problems occurred in Spain a series of tests and l analyses were conducted by Westinghouse to determine the cause of the higher than expected closing loads. A report of this testing and analysis is contained in Reference 3.

l This report concludes the closure problems encountered were the result of under-predicting the stem thrust required to close the valve against high differential pressures. The standard closing load equation used by Westinghouse has been appropriately modified based on these test results.

) 4.0 CONCt.USIONS The Westinghouse valve tested at the Marshall Steam Station as part of the l EPRI Safety and Relief Valve test program is similar in design to the block valves installed at Alvin Vogtle Units 1 and 2 and this valve successfully completed the evaluation and supplementary test program, fully opening and

closing on demand.

l Furthermore, the Westinghouse model 3GM99 block valve installed at Vogtle has been modified by Westinghouse to provide sufficient closing thrust as l

determined in the Westinghouse test program.

l 1

l i

I 1261E:10/062705 n

v ._

5.0 REFERENCES

1. Letter from R. C. Youngdahl, Consumers Power, to H. Denton, NRC dated July 1,1981.

2. Letter from R. C. Youngdahl Consumers Power to H. Denton, NRC. dated June 1.1982.

3. "EPRI PWR Safety and Relief Valve Test Program PORY 81ock Valve Information Package" dated May,1982.

4 1

i I

l 1261E:10/062785 n