PWR'. SAFETY. AND=RELIEF'VALVE ADEQUACY"REPORT'OR

ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION

ROBERT E. GINNA UNIT 1

JANUARY 14, 1983

8303i 10320 830304','DRADOCK 05000244

r.T '~ K~ c«pygmy)g',0( l)KKfHK<N'Y

A

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paqe

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.2.1

4.2.2

4.2.3

4.2.3.1~ ~ ~

4.2.3.2

4.2.3.3

5.0

IntroductionValve and Piping Parameters

Valve Inlet Fluid Conditions

Comparison of EPRI Test Data withPlant-Specific Requirements

Relief Valve Testing

Safety Valve Testing

Crosby 3K6 Safety Valve Tests

Crosby 6M6 Safety Valve Tests

Discussion of Observed SafetyValve Performance

Loop Seal Opening Response

Inlet Piping Pressure Oscillations

Valve Chatter on Steam

Conclusions

Appendix

13-=

,13

15

16

17

18

18

25

0

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In accordance with the initial recommendation of NUREG 0578,Section 2.1.2 as later clarified by NUREG 0737, item II.D.1 andrevised September 29, 1981, each Pressurizer Water Reactor (PWR)

Utilitywas to submit information relative to the pressurizersafety and relief valves in use at their plant. Specifically,this submittal should include an evaluation supported by testresults which demonstrate the capability of the relief and safetyvalves to operate under expected operating and accident. conditions.This report provides a Ginna specific evaluation of the pressurizersafety and relief valves as committed in our June 11, 1982 submittal.

The primary objective of the Electric Power Research Institute(EPRI) test program was to provide full scale test data confirmingthe functionability of the primary system power operated reliefvalves and safety valves for expected operating and accidentconditions. The second objective of the program was to obtainsufficient piping thermal hydraulic load data to permit confir-mation of models which may be utilized for plant specific analysisof safety and relief valve discharge piping systems. Reliefvalve tests were completed in August 1981 and safety valve testswere completed in January 1982. Reports have been prepared by

.EPRI which document the results of the program. Additionalreports were written to provide necessary justification for testvalve selection and valve inlet fluid test conditions. ,Thesereports were transmitted to the USNRC by David Hoffman of theConsumers Power Company on behalf of the participating PWR

Utilities and are referenced herein.

This report provides the final evaluation of these and othersubmittals and reports prepared during the review of the testdata as they apply to the valves used at Ginna.

2.0 VALVE AND PIPING PARAMETERS

Table 2-1 prov>des a ll.st of pertinent valve and piping parametersfor the Ginna Safety and Power-Operated Relief Valves. The safetyvalve design installed at Ginna was not specifically tested byEPRI; however, valves of a similar design and operation weretested in a configuration similar to that of the actual systemconfiguration at the plant. The power-operated relief valvesinstalled at Ginna were tested by EPRI. Justification that the.-valves tested envelope those valves at Ginna is provided in theValve Justification report. The justification was developedbased on evaluation performed by the valve manufacturers andconsidered effects of differences in operating characteristics,materials, orifice sizes and manufacturing processes on valveoperability.

Typical inlet piping configurations for Ginna are provided inFigures 2-1 and 2-2.

Tables 2-2 and 2-3 compare the Ginna inlet loop seal pipingconfiguration with that of the EPRI test piping arrangement forthe Crosby 3K6 and 6M6 Safety Valves and compares the actualplant-specific pressure drop with the test pressure drop for thetwo (2) test valve arrangements.

As can be seen by these comparisons, the EPRI test piping arrange-ment envelops the actual arrangement for the Ginna unit. The

piping length, number of elbows and miscellaneous fittings usedin the test arrangements are greater than that for Ginna resultingin greater pressure drops during valve lift, thus bounding thepiping arrangement at Ginna.

TABLE 2-1VALVE AND PIPING INFORMATION

1. SAFETY VALVE INFORMATION

Number of valvesManufacturerTypeSizeSteam Flow Capacity, lbs/hrDesign Pressure, psigDesign Temperature, 'FSet Pressure, psigAccumulationBlowdown

Original Valve Procurement Spec.

2

Crosby Valve and Gage

Self Actuated4K26

288,0002485650

24853 percent of set pressure5 percent of set pressureE-676279

RELIEF VALVE INFORMATION

Number of valvesManufacturerTypeSizeSteam Flow Capacity, lbs/hrDesign Pressure, psiDesign Temperature, 'FOpening Pressure, psigClosing Pressure, psig

Copes-VulcanPressurizer Power Relief3"-NPS

210,000 max.2485680

23352315

0

TABLE 2-1 (Cont'd)

SAFETY AND RELIEF VALVE INLET PIPING INFORMATION

Design Pressure, psigDesign Temperature, 'FConfiguration of PipingPressurizer Nozzle ConfigurationLoop Seal Volume, ftSteady State FlowPressure DropAcoustic Wave PressureAmplitude

2485650C-381-353, sheet. 6 and 7

C-381-353, sheet 4 and 5

Volume - .18

See Appendix 1

See Appendix 1

4. SAFETY AND RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE PIPING INFORMATION

Design Pressure, psigDesign Temperature, 'FConfigurationPressurizer Relief TankDesign Pressure, psigBackpressure, Normal, psigBackpressure, Developed, psig

600

650C-381-353, sheet, 8

1003-5350

FIGURE 2-1TYPICAL PORV INLET PIPING CONFIGURATION

i5oo

FIGURE 2-2TYPICAL SAFETY VALVE PIPING CONFIGURATION

TABLE 2-2SAFETY VALVE INLET PIPING COMPARISON

Length ofstraight pipe, in.Number of

90'lbows

Number of180'lbows

Number of45'lbows

Misc., testfittings, in.Loop seal pater

lume, Ft

TypicalGinna

Inlet Pi in40

.18

3K6 InletPi in ~

60

78

0.27

6M6 InletPi in *

61

71

1.02

*Source: Reference (7)

TABLE 2-3COMPARISON OF TEST PRESSURE DROPWITH PLANT SPECIFIC PRESSURE DROP

Plant Specific*Pressure Dro

Ginna

240

6M6 Test**Pressure Dro

251 psi

3K6 Test**

321 psi

*Appendix I**Source: Reference (8)

3.0 VALVE INLET FLUID CONDITIONS

Justification for inlet fluid conditions used in the EPRI Safetyand Relief Valve tests are summarized in References 2 and 3.These conditions were determined based on consideration of FSAR,

extended High Pressure Injection, and Cold Overpressurizationevents, where applicable.

A reference plant was selected for each grouping of Westinghouseplants considered. Valve fluid conditions resulting fromlimiting FSAR events, which result in steam discharge and an

Extended High Pressure Injection event which may result in liquiddischarge, are presented for each reference plant. Use of refer-ence plants results in fluid conditions enveloping those expectedfor Ginna.-

Table 3-1 presents the enveloping condition's from the results of

~

~

~

~

loss of load and locked rotor analyses for two loop plants in-cluding Ginna. The inlet fluid conditions expected at the safetyvalve and PORV inlets are identified. The Locked Rotor event isthe limiting overpressure transient for two loop plants.

1

The limiting Extended High Pressure Injection event for the two

loop reference plant was the spurious activation of the safetyinjection system at power. The analysis results for two-loopplants are provided in Table 3-2, which predicts no discharge foreither safeties or PORV's.

The limiting cold overpressure transient for Ginna is provided inTable 3-3.

0

TABLE 3-1

VALVE INLET CONDITIONS FOR FSAREVENTS RESULTING IN STEAM DISCHARGE

ReferencePlant

Valve OpeningPressure sia

MaximumPressurizer

Pressure (psia)/Limitin Event

MaximumPressure Rate

(psia/sec)/Limitin Event

Safet Valves Onl2-Loop 2500

Safet and Relief Valves2-Loop 2350

2682/Locked Rotor 240/Locked Rotor

2573/Locked Rotor 202/Locked Rotor

Source: Reference (2)

10

TABLE 3-2

SAFETY AND RELIEF VALVE INLET CONDITIONS RESULTING FROM

SPURIOUS INITIATIONOF HIGH PRESSURE INJECTION ATPOWER WHEN VALVES ARE DISCHARGING LI UID

ReferencePlant

ValveOpening Fluid State

Setpoints - on Valve~sia n enin a

MaximumPressurizer

Pressuresia

Range ofPressurization

Ratessi sec

Range ofSurge RatesWhen ValveIs PassingLi uid GPM

Range ofLiquid

TemperatureAt Valve

Inlet 'F~fl2-Loop

Relief Valves2-Loop

No Discharge

No Discharge

a. First/subsequent openings.

e

TABLE 3-3GINNA PORV INLET CONDITIONS FOR COLD

OVERPRESSURE PROTECTION RESULTING IN WATER DISCHARGE

Reactor, Coolant TemperaturePressure si

Setpoint

Max. with Overshoot

435

535

350 max.

12

C

I

I'

I

4 0 COMPARISON OF EPRI TEST DATA WITH PLANT-SPECIFIC RE UIREMENTS

The Electric Power and Research Institute (EPRI) conducted fullscale flow tests on pressurizer safety and relief valves.Tests were conducted at, three sites over a period of 1-1/2 years.PORVs were tested at Marshall Steam Station and WyleLaboratories, 'hile safety valves were tested at theCombustion Engineering Test Site in Connecticut.

4.1 Relief Valve Testin

Test results applicable to the PORVs installed in Ginna arecontained in Section 4.6 of Reference 7, Copes-Vulcan ReliefValve. (316 W/Stellite Plug and 17-4PH cage).

This valve fully opened and closed on demand for each of theeleven evaluation tests at the Marshall Test Facility. Nineadditional tests were conducted at the Wyle Test Facility; duringall of these tests the valve fully opened and closed on demand.Subsequent disassembly and inspection revealed no damage thatwould affect future valve performance.

i

A comparison of the "As-Tested" inlet fluid conditions for theMarshall and Wyle tests is provided in Table 4-1. This tableindicates the Ginna fluid conditions summarized in Section 3.0 ofthis report were tested and that the tests were conducted at.pressures and temperatures equal to or greater than that atGinna. For example, the water conditions section of the tabledemonstrates the test valve was tested successfully at setpointand temperature ranges which envelope Ginna's cold overpressureprotection fluid conditions as summarized in Table 3-3. Theresults of this testing indicates the valves functioned satis-factorily, opening and closing on demand and discharging therequired flow rate.

13

4.2 Safet Valve Testin

Test results applicable to the safety valves installed at Ginna

are contained in Section 3.4 and 3.5 of Reference 7. Althoughthe Crosby 4K26 safety valve used at Ginna was riot specificallytested by EPRI, justification of extension of the EPRI testresults to this valves was provided by the valve vendor.

4.2.1 Crosb 3K6 Safet Valve Tests

The Crosby 3K6 test valve underwent a series of tests at. theEPRI/CE Test Facility. The "As-Tested". fluid inlet conditionsfor the 3K6 test valve are compared to the Ginna fluid inletconditions in Table 4-3 of this report. This comparison shows

the EPRI "As-Tested" fluid conditions envelope those for Ginna.

The Crosby 3K6 test. valve was tested using various inlet pipingconfigurations and with the loop seal filled and drained. Resultsof tests conducted on the long inlet piping configuration withloop seal internals installed are summarized herein.

Seven tests were performed with~ the 3K6 valve mounted on a longt . i

inlet piping configuration and with loop seal internals installed.Ring settings used during these tests were established duringearlier tests on this valve (with steam internals installed).Steam tests were conducted both with the loop seal drained and

filled. For the test with a drained loop seal the valve opened

within the EPRI criteria and had stable behavior. When thepressure accumulated to 6 percent above set pressure, rated liftwas achieved. Valve blowdown was reported to be 15.7 to 20

percent for these tests.

Four loop seal-steam tests were run at ramp rates of 3-220 psi/sec. Initial valve liftwas reported at pressures from 2356-2630

psi. The valve fluttered at partial lift. positions while dis-charging the loop seal water and then popped open at steam

pressures from 2555-2707 psi. This behavior is typical of loopseal safety valve performance. Valve behavior was reported to be

stable on steam and the valve'chieved rated liftwhen the pressurewas 6 percent above the valve design set pressure. The valveclosed with 17.-20 percent. blowdown.

The test valve was subjected to a steam to water transition test.The valve was observed to undergo a typical loop seal dischargeat partial lift, popped open on steam within k3 percent criteria,was stable on steam flow, and began to flutter and subsequentlychatter during the water flow portion of the test.

I

4.2.2 Crosb 6M6 Safet Valve Tests

The Crosby 6M6 test valve underwent a series of tests at, theEPRI/CE Test Facility. The "As-Tested" Fluid Inlet Conditionsfor the 6M6 are compared to the Ginna Fluid inlet conditions inTable 4-3.

This comparison shows the EPRI "As-Tested" Fluid Conditionsenvelope'those for Ginna.

Two groups of tests were conducted on the Crosby 6M6 (Loop SealInternals) Test Valve, one group with "As-Installed" ring settingsand one group with "lowered" ring settings.

For the "As™Installed" ring settings four loop-seal steam testswere conducted, all at pressurization rates far above that expectedfor the Ginna unit. Two tests were conducted with a cold loopseal, while the other two tests were conducted with 350'F loopseals.

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

at pressures ranging from 2675-2757 psia following a typicalloop seal (water) 'discharge and for the first actuation cycle,the valve stem stabilized and closed with 5.1-9.6 percent, blowdown.

15

For the last test, the valve opened, closed (with stable per-formance) and then reopened on increasing system pressure. Thetest terminated after the valve was manually opened to stopchattering. The chatter didn't occur until the second valve liftafter a successful test lift.A transition test with 650'F water was successfully conducted.Subsequently a 550'F water test was tried with the test termi-nated when the valve started to chatter. Note the safety valvesat Ginna are not expected to see water discharge.

Seven additional loop seal tests were conducted with "lowered"ring settings as well as two additional transition tests. Theresults of those tests are detailed in Section 3.5 of Reference 7.

Five cold loop seal steam tests were performed at ramp rates from3-375 psi/sec. The valve exhibited typical loop seal openings

~

~

~

~

~

with the full opening pressures varying from 2580-2732 psiadepending on ramp rate. The valve closed in a range of 7.4 to8.2 percent blowdown.

Two hot loop seal tests wer'e conducted with full opening pressuresof 2655-2692 psia after the typical loop seal opening, and closedwith 8.2-9.0 percent blowdown. In the second test the valvereopened and chattered. Again this occurred during a secondvalve liftafter a successful test lift.4.2.3 Discussion of Observed Safet Valve Performance

In addressing observed valve performance, one must differentiatebetween the valves and fluid conditions tested and the actualvalves 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 plant-specific parametersfor the Ginna unit. Valve performance observed during the EPRI

tests, therefore, reflects worst case performance as compared to

16-

results that would be observed had the testing been conducted~

~ ~

~

~ ~ ~using actu'al plant,-specific piping arrangements and fluidconditions.

A review of Table 4-3 shows both Crosby safety valves testedexhibited stable operation on a loop seal piping configuration atpressurization rates of 1.1-375 psi/sec with initial openingpressures of 2455-2630 psi and pop pressures of 2455-2757 psi.

The EPRI data also indicates that steam flow rates in excess ofrated flows are attainable. However, data also shows these flowrates are delayed some period of time following the assumed valveopening point resulting in the high pop pressures.

Safety valve performance observed in the EPRI tests is addressedin Reference 9 for Westinghouse Plants and the results 'and con-clusions of this report can be extended to. Ginna because the testparameters bound the same parameters for Ginna and.the test,valves are representative and also bound the Ginna Safety Valves.

4.2.3.1 Loo Seal 0 enin Res onseI

To assess the effect on reactor coolant system pressure due tovalve opening response on loop seal discharge, a series ofoverpressure transients were run with various time delays. insertedfor the valve opening. Results of the analysis which envelopedGinna are presented in Reference 9. For 'the limiting ConditionII events, safety valve functioning is not required if the reactortrips on high pressurizer pressure. If the reactor does not tripuntil the second protection grade trip, a valve opening delay timeof two seconds would still provide acceptable overpressure

pro-'ection.Evaluation of the limiting condition IV event shows all. components of the reactor coolant system would remain within 120

percent, of the system design pressure even in the event of no

safety valve opening.

17

4

0

e

4.2.3.2 Inlet Pi in Pressure'scillations

As observed during the loop seal discharge tests, oscillationsoccur upstream of a spring loaded safety valve while water isflowing through the valve. An analysis of this phenomenon was

conducted and the results are documented in Reference 9. " Table4-4 provides the maximum permissible pressure for pressurizersafety valve inlet piping sizes and schedules representative ofWestinghouse plants. These pressures are shown for upset (levelB) and emergency (level C) conditions. For Ginna those valuesassociated with 4-inch schedule 160 inlet piping apply. Based on

tests and analytical work, all acoustic pressures observed orcalculated prior to and during safety valve discharge are belowthe maximum permissible pressure.

4.2.3.3 Valve Chatter on Steam

Since the EPRI testing was conducted at, enveloping fluid and

piping conditions, adjustments were made to the safety valve ringpositions in order to,obtain stable valve performance on steamdischarge for the test, arrangement.'hese adjustments resulted

Iin -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 pressurizationrate.

At Ginna the as-installed ring adjustments will provide properperformance since the ring settings were originally determined byCrosby based on a 7 to 10 ft,. long loop seal. This settingenvelopes the Ginna configuration which is less than 5 ft. longbut the valves used in the EPRI testing required re-adjustmentbecause the EPRI test loop was much longer (approximately 15

ft.). Also, the capability of the Crosby valves to achieve fullflow was shown in the testing to be relatively insensitive to theactual ring setting. With the Ginna safety valves maintained at

18

the manufacturers ring settings, and with the above discussion ofthe acceptable valve performance during testing, the Ginna valveshave been determined to not. require any readjustment to theirsettings. Xn light of concerns relative to these settings however,RG&E together with Westinghouse are reviewing the test resultswith Crosby in order to verify the correct adjustments on a plantspecific basis.

An investigation was conducted to determine those parameterswhich are critical to the onset of valve chatter under steamdischarge conditions. The results of this study are detailed inReference 9'.

19

TABLE 4-1COMPARISON OF PORV INLET FLUID CONDITIONS

WITH "AS-TESTED" CONDITIONS

Steam Conditions

Set PointPressure (psia)

Temperature('F)Fluid Type

Flow Rate(lbs/hr)

Ginna PORVInlet FluidConditions

2350

650

steam

210,000

Wyle Test71-CV-316-1S

2715

682

steam

255,600

Marshall TestNo. 1 - No. 11

(2435-2475)

(sat.)

steam

(232,000-236,000)

Set PointPressure (psia)

Temperature('F)Fluid Type

Flow Rate(lbs/hr)

Water Conditions

Ginna PORVInlet FluidConditions

435*(535)

350

water

219,000

Wyle Test73-CV-316-4W74-CV-316-5W

580

100-444

water

(388,800-619,200)

*Potential Overshoot Pressure

20

iTABLE 4-2

TABULATION OF OPENING/CLOSINGTIMES FOR PORV

Marshall~

Test

123

56789

10" ll

Opening TimeSec.

1.7001.7001.7501.6501.8501'. 8001.4001.4001.4001.7001.450

Closing TimeSec.

1.600'1. 5001.5001.5501.6001.5001.6001.5501.6001.6501.500

flea*71-CV-316-1S72-CV-316-3W73-CV-316-4W74-CV-316-5W75-CV-316-6W76-CV-316-'2W77-DV-316-7S/W78-CV-316-8W/W7 9-CV-3 16-9N/W

0.600.651.010.980.640.720.700.610.78

1.431.310.600.661.441.381.371.440.88

*Source: Reference (5)**Source: Reference (7)

21

TABLE 4-3COMPARISON OF SAFETY VALVE INLET FLUIDCONDITIONS WITH "AS-TESTED" CONDITIONS

Set Point,Pressure (psia)

Temperature('F)

GinnaSafety ValveInlet FluidConditions

2500

650

Tests 3K6525-532 and 536,

2500

650

Tests 6M6No. 906-913,

917-923, 925 1406,1415 and 1419

2500

650

Fluid Type

Flow Rate(lbs/hr)

I

PressurizationRate (psi/sec)

steam

288,000

202-240 3. 4-200 1. 1-375

loop seal/steam loop seal/steam

Stabilitytial opening

essure (psia)

Pop Pressure,(psia)

Stable**

2536-2630

2532-2707

Stable **

2455-2600

2455-2757

*Rated flow achieved but not reported in EPRI Tables, Reference (7).**As reported by EPRI in performance data tables 'of Reference (7).

22

'l

TABLE 4-4MAXIMUMPERMISSIBLE PRESSURE FOR

PRESSURIZER SAFETY VALVE INLET PIPING*

'Pi e Size

OutsideDiameter~in

NominalThickness

inPermissible

Pressure siLevel B Level C

6-inch Sch. 1606-inch Sch. 120

**4-inch Sch. 1604-inch Sch. 1203-inch Sch. 160

6.6256.6254.5004.5003.500

0.7190.5620.5310.4380.438

522940045733

46446119

7131546078186333

8344

Source: Reference (9)

*Applicable for temperatures below 300'F.*~Applicable to Ginna.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

The preceding sections of this report and the reports referencedherein indicate the valves, piping arrangements, and fluid inletconditions for Ginna are indeed bounded by those valves and testparameters of the EpRI Safety and Relief Valve Test Program.The EPRI tests confirm the ability of the Safety and ReliefValves to open and close under the expected operating fluidconditions.

0

APPENDIX

25

APPENDIX IINLET PIPING PRESSURE EFFECTS

Inlet Pi in Flow Pressure Dro (hPF)

The flow pressure drop is given by,

(k+1 + fL) MD

2g pA2hPF =

where,

k = expansion or contraction loss coefficient (dimensionless)

f = friction factor (dimensionless)

L = piping equivalent length/diameter considering effects ofD fittings and friction (dimensionless)

M = maximum valve flow rate for steam (as established by thesafety valve manufacturer) (lb/sec)

g = gravitational constant (32.2 lb-ft/lb-sec )2

p = steam density at nominal valve set pressure (lb/ft )3

A = inlet piping flow area (ft )

Acoustic Wave Am litude(PAPAW)'he

acoustic wave amplitude is calculated as follows. Thereare two situations to consider:— If T <2 L/a,

aMAW gA

» 26

I

J

— If T >2 L/a,

~p 2LMAN gAT

where,

a = steam sonic velocity at nominal valve set. pressure(ft/sec)

L = inlet piping length (ft)T = valve opening time for steam inlet conditions as

established from the EPRI testing effort is 10msecfor the Crosby safety valves.The other variables are the same as defined in the previoussection.

3. Plant-S ecific Pressure Dro

The plant-specific pressureopening is equal to the sum(hP ) and the acoustic waveabo5e.

4. Calculation of Inlet Pi inGinna

drop associated with valveof the friction pressure dropamplitude (SPAN) as determined

Flow Pressure Dro for Ginna

bPF =(k+1+ f D) M

2g pA

- 27

where,

0.5 (sudden contraction at Pressurizer Nozzle)

.017 (Reference 10)

L = 3.3 + 1x50+1x16 = 77.5 (Reference 10)D .287

7.65 lb/ft (saturated steam at 2500 psia)0.064

288,000 lb r = 80 lb/sec2600 sec/hr

The Flow Pressure Drop for Ginna is,

LP — ' ' 62 1 si64.4 x 7.65 x .064 x 144

'8

TABLE A-1Ginna 1 Inlet Pi in Confi uration*

- Pipe Length:- Pipe Diameter:- Fittings:

- Total Loop Seal Length- Crosby 4K26 Safety Valve

288,000 lb/hr rated capacity.010 sec opening time

3.3 ft4" sch 160

1 — 180'lbow1 — 90'lbow1 — 45'lbow4.8

*NOTE: Typical Piping configuration for Ginna

29

5.4 Acoustic Wave Am litudeGillIlB

I

For the configuration described in Table A-l, the parametersare,

T = .010 sec.

2L 2 x 3.3iSince T

2LMAN g AT

AW 2x3.3x8032.2 x .064 x .010 x 144

PAN 177.9 psi~

~

~

6.0 Plant S ecific Pressure Dro

hP = hPF'= SPAN

Ginna Unit 1

hP = 62.1 + 177.9

P,P = 240

— 30

REFERENCES

~~ ~

~

~

1. EPRI PWR Safety and Relief Test Program, Valve Selection/Justification Report, "Interim Report, August 1981".

2. Westinghouse Electric Corporation Report, ".Valve Inlet FluidConditions f'r Pressurizer Safety and Relief Valves inWestinghouse - Design Plants (Phase C)", Interim Report,December 1981.

3. EPRI PWR Safety and Relief Valve Test Program, "Test ConditionJustification Report", Interim Report, April 1982.

4. "EPRI PWR Safety and Relief Valve Test Program, Descriptionand Status", April 1982.

5. "EPRI — Marshall Power-Operated Relief Valve Interim TestData Report" EPRI N0-1244-2D, Interim Report, February1982.

6. "EPRI/Wyle Power-Operated Relief Valve Test Report, Phase Iand II", EPRI NP-2147, LD, Interim Report, December 1981.

7. "EPRI PWR Safety and Relief Valve Test Program, Safety andRelief Valve Test Report", Interim Report, April 1982.

8. "EPRI PWR Safety and Relief Valve Test Program Guide forApplication of Valve Test Program Results to Plant-SpecificEvaluations", Interim Report, March 1982.

9. "Review of Pressurizer Safety Valve Performance as Observedin the EPRI Safety and Relief;Valve Test Program", June1982, Westinghouse Report W Cap -10105.

10. Crane Technical Paper No. 410, "Flow of Fluids ThroughValves, Fittings, and Pipe", 1976.

- 31

1

~ ~~ f

- ~

IIf$

~ i ~

~ 00

~W

gggg@gggpp~HKAWMC~W%KMXMRW~WW~MWW~WW~MWW~WW~MM&~WWCB~~~~

KN~i IF~~~ CXIW~~IRH~QQKKKS~Kl~~ KHX~RQ ETTA~~ KXE%lSZXHM~~~~W~

4~ g/~~~~~XV-'

~ M ~

>c

~ ~

] ~

~ wg, P ~~ ca

~ l&a&%%&W L'UiQPPXKOQMIKQOOilQI

C C

0

10efak CD44 $4$

SOIk CCI issdtti ~tccnk sdo tfdoe $ o

~fe efir44~ I'4fr

f ~VIC

~ 44f4I ~ fc

~O040o sc $$$ $ Ik

IC 4$

0)„

0

00"

-'.S'~<><-

pC dhd

0Vf

0

I

l

S 1C Cot fl Iel-r) 4

0'

feceeec 4 . ~

~fffcf~4

~ Cni II4

444 I4nl ~~i~ 4444

~ICfI~ 4 n 4 I~

fffei4in LL 4

$ $4

em fi

c. =1

I

'

() C'~~,C:

~Thill. A

~ (CLr - j

Ogn0

coo

40$ 4

4ff

ne

IC fw

Col

CenO 04 $44c'Col'$\$ CICI4

Ii,~ 4)g '/

'CC

'ct< C4

looO)CP~

L4 ~

4 )qt-

$44$ )

ir40

~I~4

'nI

) ~

Olocsaeeetcs ence facecafslflotffLLCO tf CAI44$$ IC

~ ~

0 II. $

,I IFnfcc I IFIII Ilf I IFf $

lflkkl~ 4444ffne eie

)K ffeeke aefr f¹,Xckrrlu 44.

),C~

9 crikrrfnaS~~04 44kr

Q I44&I~

pfg,~A

e I neer

~\ ~ f ff'i ~n ~ i'4

f i' 4~ ~~~tk

4 444

lenllI, $¹kkk

Olcl4 4k cr eas r sag n. I nn ek acfkLI ~ I nr

CCI klkllkclW 4 4k0 n Ik¹$L kllani ~ CrM ck SM ¹lekkL$ 44L 44'o.l $$$ $ICLLL 4 IQ

CCK.ko 'LS

aI

IaP

dra 440p '0

5";g

f0»

1'

00

:t~~ ~ NX4

t,il.-".l )5g 0

g)sg PEyeiQ

')GS

)10

;I,-0

i00 0

.l.«I»

0)I

CI

j i

$ fs

0a

0

3

< .4)' .c~I vI

c -//'iO

/ ~ 1

~ +'g4„)

0)

I I/

/ '///'r

>r'

l)/aaa/rr/'/// ~j// '-„

OG

q~

r I

ltd,

'/j/ rr

/ *

)a )I

00

4Ci>

«)I

Il ~ Il~~a 0)J J0 ~ al

aa a) a) ~h.'a

~ a a) 0)I'a(10)l ~a)I CI lal'Ilaaaai)I )00a ll IC l)a)0 001 0)

00 )ra 4 0)

*

I0

0)

}0

I sba

SC ))hiV~cece cwl «eoote OSO-I LOO'PS~l))eg OOO I SSOOP)aa)

alt tall« Ce«alee

,-- }8tlI)~I

Vll

L,e )'I)Itl'ipa

Ia) )a

'40ppf

aa '}

~ ss)-'o

~ P l) ) )C ) ))

)

0 0

aHN Clet

ptt «Naca

ta«aa

alta eatrr te

4 ~ SIIO

~ aePNC

~ ~«I«aNr

I« lac

I ~a« II ~ IC

~Ie «tlIee«l I'

Ia«pe~ 0

e «aoael

08 Cheat)a))t

cata«« ll

'Ip

„i~+~~~

'spy

0 Iy)

I S)O

e

~ ~)l) 0pet Pter stt t~I'lea ))))«o(Ie)

~i%.<'." .'.Ie

).

~ ))1

IICPPO„

. '„-"0'et

P ppo

@ted,

,I~ Ie)1 )I - I

)1 Nl WL+US ~aaJ,)))

~et altale e«ILI)c«

~SS star)I~ see«ac« ~ ~ ~

)g aaeart«««aw

)C le«waer«e

0 tearer«tell8ww&eee)

P WWII

~ tew«a+eetaUI+nt

Mt«nrra «I

C PAI II a«alc Iaer'tta ptvap Iet *PJ

hhl)L Ie)OW

0)a ) hath w h)IOIIr h)aQ CI I hh Oe 1)%l h I W

tl ) w wIIOU wal h Iwah h I IvesL U OIRI ~ )eath)t lh~ Wtael.L ear UPI I et) )I0 aaaeta) Petti

tCIC ) f '

f'J

,8zepeP.))

e

e ~<el

f

1

I

pea)tat«a\ Il c P trra~aec«IC terat

lhhh)I )t)CC)p)tk

IC'8a)4

C-38) 35 ) B

44

0

)0Icaaa ca««ao

COCA 0)OV C 00 Ptetl0«e 4 la«TV OOO Plere

NT«TKEO««EK

4'st aoC)e

ET a t)at coIIN /otC«vt Il~ C )OI.)5)~ «I' CI'I)

0 teT CO«II TotC«vt lll C )Oe II)ael() Tait

\ OK COVO /CK(~l co T )CC C a) ls)

1«L ~

)ga

a,

0—"

lat COVT )ECI«'I Ovet ll 'I)

4 l«0 V le Tata

~ve«CITE

~ve «N«ll«le«

\«ae aaa

~VE We~ 0

0 el

~ ~VTT

e» 1

~ Weee NV I~ TeeWN

U«W 0 ~I

ttCCAP

C CC.)IL)IO

Oal4'va 04 IL

~r ~C IllTe'I ll

(5

/bca««v 0'leO«eeI d OOO «a~ ~

t) elec

Ill

COO I) IITOCEI

~ KV«TKT T ~

)g eeaeataee«wt

)Na Ea«TWIT«m

EVW I~

0 ca««a«e«N

8~~Mv«at

P ~T~e~QK«alaA

oa400 ««teatTOC CONT «II'vl TWI(11)

a

9).'a Q

S,OOS

~a)llI 4~

QTT.) ats al IIEKII~ Raa/It)TICE aa aaaa O ~ TaaCal al ale«el Klla ~IO III IEOTI

Lal alai 4%«atl K~ KIIIOL).«aa teal at) laa'les) «4tlo

Ne Tvve «e

kill tat«a teal(jca ill.11\

~ T Ta ~ 0«C 0 I ~IK ~ t«

)58

toj)fbf

TE VTI I T T NV « ~ T«aeveevec Tel««v~ OCSOCAttL Ot

IU, ~80

0448 4 C-38) 1 8 5

ig',r