Safety Evaluation Supporting Util 810707,820623,0730 & 831215 Submittals Re Valve Operability Info for 24-inch Isolation Valves in Purge & Vent Sys.Nrc Conclusion Subj to Valves Being Modified to Have Torque ReadjustmentsML20235N458 |
Person / Time |
---|
Site: |
Cooper |
---|
Issue date: |
07/10/1987 |
---|
From: |
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
---|
To: |
|
---|
Shared Package |
---|
ML20235N440 |
List: |
---|
References |
---|
NUDOCS 8707200080 |
Download: ML20235N458 (6) |
|
|
---|
Category:SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT--LICENSING & RELATED ISSUES
MONTHYEARML20212K9781999-09-30030 September 1999 Safety Evaluation Accepting USI A-46 Implementation Program ML20209H8281999-07-15015 July 1999 Safety Evaluation Accepting GL 95-07, Pressure Locking & Thermal Binding of Safety-Related Power-Operated Gate Valves, for Cooper Nuclear Station ML20206P0481999-05-12012 May 1999 Safety Evaluation Concluding That NPP Established Acceptable Program to Verify Periodically design-basis Capability of safety-related MOVs at CNS & Adequately Addressed Actions Requested in GL 96-05 ML20204B3701999-03-11011 March 1999 SER Accepting Third 10-year Interval Inservice Insp Plan Requests for Relief for RI-17,Rev 1 and RI-25,Rev 0.Request for Relief RI-13,Rev 2 Involving Snubber Testing & Is Being Evaluated in Separate Report ML20196J9641998-12-0707 December 1998 Safety Evaluation Accepting Licensee Third 10-yr Interval Inservice Insp Plan Request for Relief RI-27,rev 1 ML20196A2861998-11-23023 November 1998 SER Re Core Spray Piping Weld for Cooper Nuclear Station. Staff Concluded That Operation During Cycle 19 Acceptable with Indication re-examined During RFO 18 ML20196A5241998-11-23023 November 1998 Safety Evaluation Accepting Proposed Alternative to Use UT Techniques Qualified to Objectives of App Viil as Implemented by PDI Program in Performing RPV Shell Weld & Shell to Flange Weld Examinations ML20196A5061998-11-23023 November 1998 Safety Evaluation Re Flaw Indication Found in Main Steam Nozzle to Shell Weld NVE-BD-N3A at Cns.Plant Can Be Safely Operated for at Least One Fuel Cycle with Indication in as-is Condition ML20195H1761998-11-17017 November 1998 SER Authorizing Proposed Alternative in Relief Requests RV-06,RV-07,RV-09,RV-11,RV-12 & RV-15 Pursuant to 10CFR50.55a(a)(3)(ii).RV-08 Granted Pursuant to 10CFR50.55a(f)(6)(i) & RV-13 Acceptable Under OM-10 ML20151Z6141998-09-16016 September 1998 SER Accepting Util Responses to NRC Bulletin 95-002 for Cooper Nuclear Station ML20236R9131998-07-20020 July 1998 SER Accepting Rev 13 to Quality Assurance Program for Operation Policy Document for Plant ML20203K0351998-02-26026 February 1998 SER Approving Third ten-year Interval Inservice Inspection Program Plan,Request for Relief PR-10 for Cooper Nuclear Station.Technical Ltr Rept on Request Relief PR-10 Also Encl ML20212E0811997-10-23023 October 1997 SER Accepting Third 10-yr Interval Insp Program Plan & Associated Requests for Relief for Plant ML20217E6141997-09-23023 September 1997 Safety Evaluation Accepting Util Proposed Changes to Licensing Basis for Plant to Reflect Incorporation of Safer/Gestr Methodology for LOCA Analysis ML20199F7411997-08-14014 August 1997 Safety Evaluation Rept Accepting Design of torus-to-reactor Bldg Vacuum Breakers at Plant ML20210J5731997-08-13013 August 1997 Safety Evaluation Denying Relief Request for Plant Third 10-yr Interval Program for Inservice Testing of Pumps. Request Not in Sufficient Detail to Justify Proposed Alternative ML20148H2381997-06-0606 June 1997 Safety Evaluation Granting Licensee Relief Requests for 10-yr Interval Inservice Insp Program Plan for Plant,Unit 1 ML20138K0241997-05-0707 May 1997 Safety Evaluation Supporting Proposed Rev to RPV Surveillance Capsule Withdrawal Schedule ML20134N6911997-02-19019 February 1997 Safety Evaluation Related to Third ten-year Interval Inservice Testing Program Nebraska Public Power District Cooper Nuclear Station ML20198E1091992-11-25025 November 1992 Safety Evaluation Accepting Licensee 920921 120-day Response to GL 87-02, Verification of Seismic Adequacy of Mechanical & Electrical Equipment in Operating Reactors,Usi A-46 ML20127N3741992-11-19019 November 1992 Supplemental SE Accepting Analysis & Results in Response to SBO rule,10CFR50.63 ML20128C2911992-11-19019 November 1992 Safety Evaluation Accepting Revised ACAD Sys Into Nitrogen Containment Atmosphere Dilution,Eliminating Potential post-accident Oxygen Source ML20059E2781990-08-31031 August 1990 Safety Evaluation Granting Licensee 900525 Relief Requests RP-14 & RP-15 from Requirements to Measure Pump Inlet Pressure & Instrument Ranges,Respectively ML20246B2501989-05-31031 May 1989 Safety Evaluation on Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 4.5.3 Re Reactor Trip Sys Reliability for All Domestic Operating Reactors. Intervals for on-line Functional Testing Consistent W/ Achieving High Reactor Trip Sys Availability at Reactors ML20247A4241989-03-20020 March 1989 Safety Evaluation Accepting Revised Process Control Program Re General Methods of Sampling,Processing,Analysis & Waste Formulation During Solidification of Radwaste ML20205S2031988-11-0303 November 1988 Safety Evaluation Supporting Interim Operability of Piping Sys ML20147B5161988-02-23023 February 1988 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 117 to License DPR-46 ML20148C9591988-01-13013 January 1988 Safety Evaluation Concluding That Inservice Testing Program Submitted w/860730 Ltr as Modified in Subj Safety Evaluation Will Provide Reasonable Assurance of Operational Readiness of safety-related Pumps & Valves ML20238C4001987-12-23023 December 1987 Safety Evaluation Supporting Proposed Mod to 10CFR50.62, ATWS Rule ML20237E3261987-12-21021 December 1987 Safety Evalution Supporting Amend 113 to License DPR-46 ML20236B8901987-10-20020 October 1987 Sser Re Alternate Rod Insertion (ARI) Sys.Util Plans for Relocating ARI Position Indication Out of Control Room to Another Location in Control Bldg Acceptable ML20235H0351987-09-23023 September 1987 Safety Evaluation Re Alternate Rod Injection & Recirculating Pump Trip Sys ML20235N4581987-07-10010 July 1987 Safety Evaluation Supporting Util 810707,820623,0730 & 831215 Submittals Re Valve Operability Info for 24-inch Isolation Valves in Purge & Vent Sys.Nrc Conclusion Subj to Valves Being Modified to Have Torque Readjustments ML20214S8741987-05-21021 May 1987 Supplemental Safety Evaluation Re Dcrdr.Listed Activities Must Be Finished in Order to Satisfy Dcrdr Requirements in Suppl 1 to NUREG-0737 ML20212Q9721987-04-16016 April 1987 Safety Evaluation Accepting Util 831104 & 870121 Responses to Generic Ltr 83-28,Items 3.2.1 & 3.2.2, Post-Maint Verification Testing ML20212L1751987-03-0606 March 1987 Safety Evaluation Supporting Util Methodology in Standby Gas Treatment Suction Analysis & Interim Operation for Fuel Cycle 11 Only ML20209A7001987-01-30030 January 1987 Safety Evaluation Accepting Util Response to Vendor Recommended Reliability Verification Testing Per Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 4.5.1 Re Reactor Trip Sys Reliability (Sys Functional Testing) ML20215M5021986-10-27027 October 1986 Safety Evaluation Accepting Util Response to Generic Ltr 82-33 Re Conformance to Rev 2 to Reg Guide 1.97,except for Instrumentation Associated W/Neutron Flux Variable ML20210K2491986-09-25025 September 1986 Safety Evaluation Supporting Analytical Method Used by Licensee to Evaluate Critical Stresses ML20141E9291986-04-10010 April 1986 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 98 to License DPR-46 ML20151Y2541986-01-27027 January 1986 Safety Evaluation Re Requests for Relief from Inservice Insp Requirements.Relief Not Granted for Surface & Volumetric Exam of Drywell Piping Spray Welds Since Requirements Not Impractical ML20140C5761986-01-17017 January 1986 Safety Evaluation Supporting 831104 Response to Generic Ltr 83-28,Items 3.1.1 & 3.1.2 Concerning post-maint Testing Verification of Reactor Trip Sys Components ML20134J6301985-08-21021 August 1985 Safety Evaluation Accepting Proposed Mods as Ensuring Safe Shutdown Capability in Event of Fire in Areas of Concern in Accordance W/Requirements of 10CFR50,App R ML20127E7281985-06-10010 June 1985 Safety Evaluation Supporting Response to Generic Ltr 83-28, Item 1.2 Re post-trip Review Data & Info Capability ML20127E1051985-05-0606 May 1985 Safety Evaluation Re Util 831104 Response to Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 1.1 Concerning post-trip Review Program & Procedure ML20148N2351978-11-0101 November 1978 Safety Eval Rept of Main Stream Isolation Valve Test Results. Util Request for Continuing CNS in Present Fuel Cycle for Addl mid-cycle Msltv Leak Test Is Approved ML20147D3101978-09-29029 September 1978 Safety Evaluation Rept Supporting Amend 52 to Facil Oper Lic DPR-46 Concludes That Installation & Use of New Fuel Racks Can Be Accomplished Safety & Health & Safety of Pub Will Not Be Endangered ML20235F1591968-04-0404 April 1968 Safety Evaluation Re Facility 1999-09-30
[Table view] Category:TEXT-SAFETY REPORT
MONTHYEARML20212K9781999-09-30030 September 1999 Safety Evaluation Accepting USI A-46 Implementation Program ML20217A9931999-09-30030 September 1999 NRC Regulatory Assessment & Oversight Pilot Program, Performance Indicator Data ML20217G7461999-09-30030 September 1999 Monthly Operating Rept for Sept 1999 for Cooper Nuclear Station ML20217A1691999-09-22022 September 1999 Part 21 Rept Re Engine Sys,Inc Controllers,Manufactured Between Dec 1997 & May 1999,that May Have Questionable Soldering Workmanship.Caused by Inadequate Personnel Training.Sent Rept to All Nuclear Customers ML20212C5001999-08-31031 August 1999 Monthly Operating Rept for Aug 1999 for Cooper Nuclear Station ML20211D6491999-08-25025 August 1999 Part 21 Rept Re Nonconformance within LCR-25 safety-related Lead Acid Battery Cells Manufactured by C&D.Analysis of Cells Completed.Analysis of Positive Grid Matl Shows Nonconforming Levels of Calcium within Positive Grid Alloy ML20210R0381999-07-31031 July 1999 Monthly Operating Rept for July 1999 for Cooper Nuclear Station ML20210J2921999-07-29029 July 1999 Special Rept:On 990406,OG TS & Associated Charcoal Absorbers Were Removed from Svc.Caused by Scheduled Maint on Hpci. Evaluation of Offsite Effluent Release Dose Effects Was Performed to Ensure Plant Remained in Compliance ML20209H8281999-07-15015 July 1999 Safety Evaluation Accepting GL 95-07, Pressure Locking & Thermal Binding of Safety-Related Power-Operated Gate Valves, for Cooper Nuclear Station ML20211A9981999-07-12012 July 1999 Draft,Probabilistic Safety Assessment, Risk Info Matrix, Risk Ranking of Systems by Importance Measure ML20196H8621999-06-30030 June 1999 NRC Regulatory Assessment & Oversight Pilot Program, Performance Indicator Data, June 1999 Rept ML20209E1061999-06-30030 June 1999 Monthly Operating Rept for June 1999 for Cns.With ML20196B3851999-06-17017 June 1999 Summary Rept of Facility Changes,Test & Experiments,Per 10CFR50.59 for Period 970901-990331.Summary of Commitment Changes Made During Same Time Period Also Encl ML20195K2851999-05-31031 May 1999 Monthly Operating Rept for May 1999 for Cooper Nuclear Station.With ML20206P0481999-05-12012 May 1999 Safety Evaluation Concluding That NPP Established Acceptable Program to Verify Periodically design-basis Capability of safety-related MOVs at CNS & Adequately Addressed Actions Requested in GL 96-05 ML20206J0811999-05-0404 May 1999 Rev 14 to CNS QA Program for Operation ML20206P9751999-04-30030 April 1999 Monthly Operating Rept for Apr 1999 for Cooper Nuclear Station ML20205Q0891999-03-31031 March 1999 Monthly Operating Rept for Mar 1999 for Cooper Nuclear Station.With ML20204G8951999-03-15015 March 1999 CNS Inservice Insp Summary Rept Fall 1998 Refueling Outage (RFO-18) ML20207M9231999-03-12012 March 1999 Amended Part 21 Rept Re Cooper-Bessemer Ksv EDG Power Piston Failure.Total of 198 or More Pistons Have Been Measured at Seven Different Sites.All Potentially Defective Pistons Have Been Removed from Svc Based on Encl Results ML20204B3701999-03-11011 March 1999 SER Accepting Third 10-year Interval Inservice Insp Plan Requests for Relief for RI-17,Rev 1 and RI-25,Rev 0.Request for Relief RI-13,Rev 2 Involving Snubber Testing & Is Being Evaluated in Separate Report ML20204C9751999-02-28028 February 1999 Monthly Operating Rept for Feb 1999 for Cooper Nuclear Station ML20199E6751999-01-14014 January 1999 Monthly Operating Rept for Dec 1998 for Cooper Nuclear Station ML20195B9191998-12-31031 December 1998 1998 NPPD Annual Rept. with ML20196J9641998-12-0707 December 1998 Safety Evaluation Accepting Licensee Third 10-yr Interval Inservice Insp Plan Request for Relief RI-27,rev 1 ML20198D2471998-11-30030 November 1998 Monthly Operating Rept for Nov 1998 for Cooper Nuclear Station.With ML20196A2861998-11-23023 November 1998 SER Re Core Spray Piping Weld for Cooper Nuclear Station. Staff Concluded That Operation During Cycle 19 Acceptable with Indication re-examined During RFO 18 ML20196A5241998-11-23023 November 1998 Safety Evaluation Accepting Proposed Alternative to Use UT Techniques Qualified to Objectives of App Viil as Implemented by PDI Program in Performing RPV Shell Weld & Shell to Flange Weld Examinations ML20196A5061998-11-23023 November 1998 Safety Evaluation Re Flaw Indication Found in Main Steam Nozzle to Shell Weld NVE-BD-N3A at Cns.Plant Can Be Safely Operated for at Least One Fuel Cycle with Indication in as-is Condition ML20196C4241998-11-20020 November 1998 Rev 1 to Cooper Nuclear Station COLR Cycle 19 ML20195H1761998-11-17017 November 1998 SER Authorizing Proposed Alternative in Relief Requests RV-06,RV-07,RV-09,RV-11,RV-12 & RV-15 Pursuant to 10CFR50.55a(a)(3)(ii).RV-08 Granted Pursuant to 10CFR50.55a(f)(6)(i) & RV-13 Acceptable Under OM-10 ML20195F8601998-10-31031 October 1998 Monthly Operating Rept for Oct 1998 for Cooper Nuclear Station.With ML20155D9961998-10-31031 October 1998 Rev 0 to GE-NE-B13-01980-24, Fracture Mechanics Evaluation on Observed Indication at N3A Steam Outlet Nozzle to Shell Weld at Cooper Nuclear Station ML20154Q5661998-10-0505 October 1998 Rev 0 to CNS COLR Cycle 19 ML20154L5381998-09-30030 September 1998 Monthly Operating Rept for Sept 1998 for Cooper Nuclear Station.With ML20151Z6141998-09-16016 September 1998 SER Accepting Util Responses to NRC Bulletin 95-002 for Cooper Nuclear Station ML20154F7931998-08-31031 August 1998 Rev 0 to J11-03354-10, Supplemental Reload Licensing Rept for CNS Reload 18,Cycle 19 ML20153B1101998-08-31031 August 1998 Monthly Operating Rept for Aug 1998 for Cooper Nuclear Station ML20237E7771998-08-20020 August 1998 Revised COLR Cycle 18 for Cooper Nuclear Station ML20151Q1211998-08-14014 August 1998 Rev 0 to Control of Hazard Barriers ML20237C0591998-07-31031 July 1998 Monthly Operating Rept for Jul 1998 for Cooper Nuclear Station ML20236R9131998-07-20020 July 1998 SER Accepting Rev 13 to Quality Assurance Program for Operation Policy Document for Plant ML20236P2971998-07-0707 July 1998 Rev 2 to NPPD CNS Strategy for Achieving Engineering Excellence ML20236R0931998-06-30030 June 1998 Monthly Operating Rept for June 1998 for Cooper Nuclear Station ML20249A7701998-05-31031 May 1998 Monthly Operating Rept for May 1998 for Cooper Nuclear Station ML20247G6131998-05-13013 May 1998 Part 21 Rept Re Defect Contained in Automatic Switch Co, Solenoid Valves,Purchased Under Purchase Order (Po) 970161. Caused by Presence of Brass Strands.Replaced Defective Valves ML20247G0951998-04-30030 April 1998 Monthly Operating Rept for Apr 1998 for Cooper Nuclear Station ML20237B6861998-04-24024 April 1998 Vols I & II to CNS 1998 Biennial Emergency Exercise Scenario, Scheduled for 980609 ML20217A1531998-04-16016 April 1998 Closure to Interim Part 21 Rept Submitted to NRC on 970929. New Date Established for Completion of Level I & 2 Setpoint Project Committed to in .Final Approval of Setpoint Calculations Will Be Completed by 980531 ML20216G5331998-03-31031 March 1998 Monthly Operating Rept for Mar 1998 for Cooper Nuclear Station 1999-09-30
[Table view] |
Text
- _ _ - - _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ - _ _ -- - - _ _ ___ - _ _ _
.. g3 5tgG d ^g 'o UNITED STATES j"3 g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 206s5 g nE j
\...../
ENCLOSURE.
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION l l
RE MTING TO DEMONSTRATION OF CONTAINMENT-PURGE AND VENT OPERABILITY NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT t COOPER NUCLEAR STATION DOCKET NO. 50-298 l l
1.0 . Requirement Demonstrate operability of the containment purge and vent valves, partic-ularly, the ability of these valves to close during a design basis acci-dent, is necessary to assure containment isolation. This demonstration of operability is required by BTP CSB 6-4 and SRP 3.10 for containment purge and vent valves which are not sealed closed during operational conditions 1 2, 3, and 4.
2.0 Description of Purge and Vent Valves The valves identified as the containment isolation valves in the Purge System are as follows:
Valve Size Operator Valve Location Valve Tag No. (Ir.ches) Type (Outside Containment)
PC-232-MV 24 Motor Drywell PC-238-AV 24 Air-Spring Drywell PC-230-MV 24 Motor Wetwell PC-245-AV 24 Air-Spring Wetwell PC-233-MV 24 Motor Wetwell PC-237-AV 24 Air-Spring Wetwell PC-231-MV 24 Motor Drywell PC-246-AV 24 Air-Spring Drywell These valves are butterfly type Model 125 FR manufactured by Allis Chalmers.
Valves 238AV and 246AV are equipped with Bettis Model T-420B-SRI operators, valves 237AV, 245AV with Bettis model 744A-1SR operators, and valves 230MV, 231MV, 232MV, 233MV with Limitorque Model SMB00 operators. Accumulators are not used on any of the air operated valves.
3.0 Demonstration of Operability
( Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) has provided valve operability informa-l tion for the 24-inch isolation valves in Cooper Nuclear Station's purge and vent system in their submittals dated July 30,1982, ~ June 23,1982, July 7, 1981, and December 15, 1983.
8707200000 870710 PDR ADOCK 05000298 p PDRy
_ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - b
NPPD's approach to the operability demonstration is based on the following: ;
l
- a. Single valve operation, i.e., redundant in-series valve is failed open. i i
- b. Load calculations stemming from use of a LOCA containment pressure profile, delay time and valve closure time. f
- c. Pressure losses due to inlet piping are considered.
Dynamic torque predictions are based on dynamic torque coefficients developed by Allis Chalmers bench tests on 6-inch model valves. Analytical techniques involving scaling are used to determine the torque predictions. Details of the model valve test program and scaling analyses are documented in Allis Chalmer's report VER-0209.
NPPD's torque load predictions are based on the following:
- a. Containment pressure response resulting from a design basis accident baset!
on the updated safety analysis report (USAR) Figure XIV-6-18 dated July 22, 1983.
- b. Identification of each valves's installation configuration and application of appropriate dynamic torque coefficients from the model tests.
4.0 Evaluation 4.1 NPPD uses a ramp-rise in establishing dynamic loads for the purge and vent valves. Containment response curves for the wetwell and drywell are pro- j vided illustrating the relationship between pressure and time for a design '
basis accident. The closing times for the vent and purge valves vary as indicated by the following table.
j Tech. Spec. Time Used Actual Closure Time Valve Limit (Sec.) in Analysis (Sec.) Approximate (Sec.) l 230 15 14 4 J 245 15 14 9 233 15 14 4 237 15 34 9 231 15 4 and 14 4 246 15 9 and 14 9 232 15 4 and 14 4 236 15 6,9 and 14 9 4.2 The installation configuration descriptions provided by NPPD in relation to the information available in Allis Chalmer's report VER-0209 have been reviewed. The following qualitative evaluation of the Allis Chalmer's test data used for each of the valve installations is based on the report's general conclusion, ... test results indicate that the worst case (highest l applied shaft torque under any given pressure drop) would be when the valve
o is mounted closely to an upstream elbow at right angles to the plane of the elbow (90 out of plane) and installed with the curved side of the j disc facing upstream (seat downstream).. l
- a. Valve 233MV: the installation configuration is described as 90 elbow upstream - shaft 72 out of plane. NPPD's assessment showing adequate torque niargin in is based on use of test data from Tests 31 and 32.
Test 31 (Figure 12 in VER-0209) is configured with a 90 elbow upstream - shaft 90 out of plane - seat downstream. The operator torque limit.will be 1,300 ft-lbs, pending adjustment of the torques
. switch setting. The shaft torque limit is 2,200 ft-lbs, while the maximum dynamic and bearing load is 754 ft-lbs. Based on Allis Chalmer's general ~ conclusion, it is concluded that Test. 31 is conser- li vative, relative to torque prediction, for the 233 MV configuration j blocked at 60 . When the adjustment to the torque switch setting is )
completed,. operability has been demonstrated.
- b. Valve 237AV: . the installation configuration is described as being the same as 233MV's, with the exception being the presence of 233MV upstream.'Again, conservative torque predictions tend to result from )
Test 31 data. Additional conservatism results from the fact that no I credit is taken for pressure drop across 233MV which is limited to 60' open (90 = full open). The submittal discussed a 159% minimum, as installed, torque margin. Operability has been demonstrated.
- c. Valve 230MV: the installation configuration is described as 45 elbow '
upstream - shaft 90 out of plane preceded by 90 elbow - shaft in plane. The seat is upstream, NPPD's assessment showing adequate torque margin is based on use of test data from Tests 29 and 32. .The operator i torque limit will be 1,300 ft-lbs, pending adjustment of the torque i switch setting. The shaft torque limit is 2,200 ft-lbs, while the maximum dynamic and bearing load is 754 ft-lbs. Based on Allis Chalmer's general conclusion, it is concluded that Tests 29 and 32 data is considered conservative, relative to torque predictions, for the 230MV configuration blocked at 60 . When the adjustment to the torque switch setting is completed, operability has been demon-strated. !
1 L d. Valve 245AV: the installation configuration is described as 230MV l l upstream preceded by the elbows described for 230MV. 245AV's valve I shaft is described as being oriented 18 out of plane with the 45 .
elbow and 72 out of plane with the 90 elbow. The seat is downstream. J NPPD's assessment showing adequate torque margin is based on the use of test data from Tests 31 and 30. Based on Allis Chalmer's general l conclusion, it is concluded that Test 31 data is considered conser- i vative.
The minimum operator spring to close capability is 1,200 ft-lbs at approximately 35* (90 = full open), with a maximum dynamic torque 1
l
_________- _-_ - ____.__ - D
l
{
l l
l I
1 apposing closure of 446 f t-lbt at 10 ; resulting in an excess -spring torque at 10 of 954 ft-lbs. Structurally the valve shaft is capable ;
of absorbing a 2,200 ft-lb torque, while the operator maximum torque l aosorption capability is 1,300 ft-lbs. The staff concludes that NPPD has demonstrated operability of this valve under DBA/LOCA conditions. {
- e. Valve 232MV: the installation configuration is described as straight pipe upstream (no elbows) - flow direction unknown. NPPD's assessment showing adequate torque margin is based on use of test data from ;
Tests 29 and 30. Based on Allis Chalmer's general conclusion, the !
staff concludes that Test 30 (Figure 11 in VER-0209) i:: conservative, relative to torque prediction for the 232MV configuration when blocked ;
at 60 . The operator torque limit will be 1,300 ft-lbs, pending ;
adjustment of the torque switch setting, the shaft torque limit is 1 2,200 ft-lbs while the maximum dynamic and bearing load is 946 ft-lbs.
When the adjustment to the torque switch setting is completed, opera-bility has been demonstrated.
- f. Valve 238AV: the installation configuration of valve 238 is not l clearly defined. Previous submittals defined it as having a 35 elbow l upstream shaft 90 out of plane, preceding by valve 232MV and straight i pipe with the flow direction being unknown. The latest submittal indicates a proposed orientation that corresponds to Figure 11 and test 30 of the Allis Chalmer's report VER-0209. It was this orienta-tion and configuration that was considered in the analysis.
The maximum dynamic torque plus bearing torque ranges from a plus 1,011 ft-lbs, valve tends to close, to a minus 903 ft-lbs, valve tends {
to open (valve closing time of 14 seconds considered resulting in l larger loads). The minimum operator output is 3,300 ft-lbs while the shaft torque limit is 2,200 ft-lbs. The torque absorption capability of the operator is determined by the shaft torque, when the valve disc tends to close, to the operator spring closing torque. A 7%
minimum margin exists based on operator torque absorption capability I
at 90 , and not on the ability of the operator to close the valve.
When the installation configuration corresponds to Figure 11, test 30 of Allis Chalmer's report VER-0209, operability has been demonstrated.
I g. Valve 231MV: the installation configuration of valve 231 is not clearly defined in the submittal. Previous submittals describe the installa-tion configuration as having a 45 elbow upstream, shaft 90 out of plane, preceded by a 90 elbow, shaft in plane, with disc orientation being undefined. The latest submittal, indicates Figures 9 and 10, test configurations 29 and 32, respectively of the Allis Chalmer's report as being the proposed installation configuration, acknowledge that operability cannot be demonstrated with the present, as-installed, orientation,
(
i _ _ _ _
Figure 9 defines the test valve orientation as being flat face upstream - shaft in plane with elbow which corresponds to Allis !
Chalmer's test configuration 29. Figure 10 defines the test valve orientation as being flat' face upstream shaft out of plane with elbow,'
this corresponds to Allis Chalmer's. Test 32.
Test data from configurations with shaft out of plane orientations 1 should be used to predict torques. Based on this, the results of - '
Tests 29 and 32, Figures 9 and 10, were reviewed, -The maximum dynamic
- torque, which tends to keep the valve open is reported to be
- 1. 947 f t-lbs. , the minimum operator. torque limit is-1,300 ft-lbs, and shaft torque limit of 2,200 ft-lbs. When the valve orientation corresponds to either Figure 9 or 10 test orientation and test con-figuration 29 or 32, operability has been demonstrated with the valve restricted to 60 . l
- h. Valve 246AV: the installation c' configuration of valve 246 is not clearly defined. Previous submittals describe it as having valve 231, blocked at 60 open, upstream preceded by the 45 elbow,. shaft 90' out of plane, and the 90 elbow, shaft in plane,' flow direction unknown.
The latest submittal indicates that the proposed installation con-figuration will reflect Figures 9 and 10 and test configuration 29 and 32 of the Allis Chalmer's report.-
The analysis presentett has considered valve orientations illustrated in Figures 9 and 10 and test 29 and 32 of the Allis Chalmer's report.
(In addition to a valve closing time of'9 and 14 seconds.) The minimum l operator output is 3,300 ft-lb while shaft torque . limit is 2,200 f t-lbs.
For the four conditions analyzed by NPPD, the maximum torque, dynamic l plus bearing, is 680 ft-1bs. When the installed valve orientation corresponds to one of the two analyzed and submitted, operability has been demonstrated.
4.3 A stress analysis was provided and is defined as representing a worst case condition of LOCA torques imposed on critical valve parts. The LOCA load imposed a load of 1,239 ft-lbs on Bettis Operator Model 744A-15R. Coupling the results of this analysis with the torque absorptien ratings of the valve operators, the staff concludes that the structural integrity of the critical valve and actuator parts has been demonstrated.
4.4 NPPD reports that a stress calculation of a result of seismic loads was submitted for these valves in the form of Allis Chalmer Report VER-0993 ;
in 1972. J 5.0 Summary We have completed our review of the operability of containment purge and vent valves for Cooper Nuclear Station. Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 of the evaluation are the basis for the conclusion. We find that the information as I
i I
L
c 6-described in the submittals demonstrates the ability of the valves to close a0ainst the buildup of containment pressure in the event of a LOCA. This con-clusion is subject to the valves being modified to have the necessary torque switch readjustments, limit stops, and flow orientations as necessary to conform to the analyses.
Principal Contributor: R. Wright Dated: July 10,1981 1
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
L______________