ML18044A983
ML18044A983 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Issue date: | 02/15/2018 |
From: | Stewart Bailey NRC/NRR/DE/EMIB |
To: | |
Bailey S | |
References | |
Download: ML18044A983 (21) | |
Text
Industry Response to Flowserve Part 21 on Anchor Darling Double Disk Gate Valves and NRC Staff Next Steps Public Meeting February 15, 2018 1
Overview
- Operating Experience has identified failures of Anchor/Darling (A/D) Double Disk Gate Valves (DDGVs)
- Significant progress has been made
- Industry has developed guidance and is correcting the issue
- All licensees have submitted information on the affected valves, including commitments for valve repairs
- The NRC staff and Industry continue to discuss the issue
- The NRC staff is preparing to inspect licensees corrective actions
- The NRC staff continues to assess the need for a Generic Communication 2
Background
- Failure of Anchor/Darling (A/D) Double Disk Gate Valve (DDGV) at Browns Ferry in 2013 revealed that threaded stem-to-wedge connection had not been properly torqued
- Flowserve Part 21 notification February 25, 2013
- Recommended assessing wedge pin susceptibility to shear and rework the valve if needed
- BWROG developed guidance to address Part 21 to include:
- Prioritization and Screening Criteria
- Evaluation Methods
- Inspection and Diagnostics
- Repair Methods 3
Background (cont.)
- NRC staff evaluated the Part 21 and determined the issue would be monitored with no generic communication
- Additional failures occurred at LaSalle Unit 2 and Columbia
- LaSalle event elevated to NRC special inspection
- Information Notice (June 2017)
- Flowserve updated Part 21 (July 2017)
- BWROG updated guidance to Rev. 4 (August 2017)
- NRC staff considered the need for generic communication due to larger population of failures and limited information readily available to the staff 4
Progress to Date
- NRC staff held public meetings on guidance and licensee corrective actions
- Staff requested clarification of guidance (October 2017)
- NEI provided clarification (November 2017)
- All licensees submitted information (December 2017)
- Valve population
- Valve characteristics (susceptible, non susceptible, risk category)
- Rework status
- Commitments for future repairs 5
NRC Observations on BWROG Guidance 6
Summary
- Allowance to use engineering judgement for key assumptions that determine whether a valve is susceptible
- Credit for thread friction
- Maximum actuator torque
- Limited effectiveness of testing and diagnostics 7
Engineering Judgement on Credit for Thread Friction
- Rev. 4 guidance implies that friction should only be used for borderline cases (small negative margin) and low levels of friction should be assumed
- Stem-to-Wedge thread friction has a wide range of possible values that could change over time and system conditions (.02 to .78 steel on steel)
- Staff questions crediting of stem-to-wedge thread friction to declare a valve non susceptible. Thread friction is acceptable for short term operability until the valve can be reworked to Flowserve Part 21 recommendations. A reasonable thread friction value to use for interim evaluations is 0.101.
1 Staff letter dated October 31, 2017 8
Engineering Judgement on Maximum Applied Torque
- Rev. 4 guidance provides little direction on actuator torque
- Many plants are using as-tested values instead of full actuator capability
- Other licensees are using limiting value of the spring pack capability or maximum torque from the valve/actuator weak link analysis.
- Staff questions use of less-than-maximum actuator torque, which is stall torque and stall efficiency as appropriate, to bound potential over-torque events 9
Hidden Over-Torque Events and Reliance on Spring Pack
- Licensees have experienced motor stall events caused by a sticky contactors, such as those in the motor control center
- Excessive force may be been applied in the early test years, such as when addressing GL 89-10
- Valve may have been subjected to a pressure locking event
- Test equipment in early test years was not as accurate as current test equipment (GL 89-10 Supplement 5)
- Spring pack does not limit torque on stem during over torque event, it prevents over travel of torque switch assembly 10
Diagnostics for Evaluating Stem-to-Wedge Connection
- NRC SIT team for LaSalle Unit 2 MOV failure concluded that diagnostic testing and stem rotation checks are inconclusive in determining active stem-to-disc connection degradation1
- Diagnostics can be useful to help plan the schedule for rework
- Diagnostic testing and stem rotation checks will identify gross failure of the stem-to-wedge connection2 1 Staff inspection report dated August 31, 2017 2 Staff letter dated October 31, 2017 11
Example of Diagnostic Test Inability to Conclusively Determine Degradation of Stem-to-Wedge Connection 12
LaSalle Unit 2 Anomaly 2015 - Example used in BWROG Guide as Active Stem-to-Wedge Connection Degradation 13
LaSalle Unit 2 As Left Thrust/Torque Trace After Rework 14
Recent MOV Rework As-Found-Left Thrust Trace 15
LaSalle Unit 2 Anomaly Compared to Recent MOV Post Rework Trace Recent MOV Post Rework Unit 2 Anomaly As Left Torque & Thrust Trace 16
Summary of A/D DDGV Population from Licensee Submittals
- 584 - Total # of valves reported
- 119 - Total # of valves repaired
- 425 - Total # of valves not repaired
- 40 - Total # of valves N/A (T-Head design, not always reported)
- 106 - Total # of high risk valves
- 163 - Total # of medium risk valves
- 305 - Total # of low risk valves
- 182 - Total # of valves that use thread friction > 0.10
- 59 - Total # of valves that use thread friction < or = 0.10
- 38 - Total # of valves that are non-safety
- 225 - Total # of valves that require further NRC review 17
A/D DDGVs Requiring Further Review
- 113 - Total # of valves considered not susceptible using thread friction > 0.10 with no plans to repair
- 51 - Total # of valves considered not susceptible using thread friction < or = 0.10 with no plans to repair
- 39 - # of High Risk valves using thread friction with no plans to repair
- 14 - # of High Risk valves with no plans to repair and provided data not clear
- 13 - # of valves that have been repaired and using thread friction to justify final repair
- 35 - # of non-safety related valves. Need to verify failure does not affect other systems.
18
NRC Inspection Plans
- NRC staff is developing an inspection sample
- NRC draft Temporary Instruction is in internal review
- Focus of inspection:
- Verify licensee properly identified valves population
- Evaluate thrust for impact on valve integrity
- Evaluate torque/shear pin to determine whether valve is susceptible
- Evaluate history of over torque events and plans for identifying future over torque events if licensee does not use maximum torque
- Review risk categorization
- Evaluate planned corrective actions 19
NRC Next Steps
- Public Meeting (April 2018)
- Finalize TI (May 2018)
- TI inspections (2018 into 2019)
- Continue to assess need for generic communication 20
QUESTIONS?
Future Questions Stewart.Bailey@nrc.gov 301-415-1321 Michael.Farnan@nrc.gov 301-415-1486 21