ML20043D702
| ML20043D702 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/28/1990 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2694, NUDOCS 9006110086 | |
| Download: ML20043D702 (10) | |
Text
-.
mts44M 7
f ff)f 5/3l/QB DATE ISSUED:
March 28, 1990
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES OF THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON MECHANICAL COMPONENTS MARCH 7, 1990 BETHESDA, MARYLAND The ACRS Subcommittee on Mechanical Components met on March 7, 1990, to discuss nuclear power plant valve matters including clarifications relating to ISI of pumps and valves in SECY 90-016,
" Evolutionary LWR Certification Issues and Their Relationship to Current Regulatory Requirements."
Notice of the meeting was published in the Federal Register on February 21, 1990.
Items covered 4.n the meeting and handouts are kept with the office copy.
There were no written or oral state-ments received or presented from members of the public at the meeting.
E.
G.
Igne was cognizant ACRS staff member for the meeting.
PrinciDal Attendees ACRE C. Michelson, Chairman C.
P. Siess, Member J. J.
Carroll, Member C. Wylie, Member I.
Catton, Member P. Wohld, ACRS Consultant HB.C T.
Sullivan G. Weidenhamer T. March R. Kissel R. Woods T.
Scarbrough F.
Cherny L. Norrholm H. Pastis T.
Gody, Jr.
T. Kenyon MU\\
h DesionATrn ORIGINAL
$7b,ogs90032s 5
emC c.,11t1.a 3, 647F
Mechanical Components Minutes 2
March 28, 1990 Others K. Trainor, Liberty Technology C. Callaway, NUMARC J. Dodd, Wyle Laboratories D. Thrall, Teledyne Engineering Service R. Etheridge, NUS Corp.
K. Hart, Pehh. Power & Light M. Robinson, Baltimore Gas & Electric Co.
J. McElroy, Philadelphia Electric Co.
N. Quigley, So. California Edison T. *'oindexter, NUBARG A. sullivan, Henze-MOVATS L. Toth, Gassen Asso.
A. Onesto, ETEC F. Poucher, ETEC B. Gillies, ETEC Hichliahts 1.
T.
Scarbrough, NRR, briefly discussed the status of the MOV activities.
He stated that the MOV action plan will be summarized and attached to a Commission paper.
Comments from the EDO are being incorporated in the action plan and a NUREG will be issued containing the action plan.
A draft of the action plan was provided by the staff at the subcommittee's request.
RES has prepared a memorandum initiating rulemaking to address the scope of testing, test objectives, and several test issues.
With respect to Generic Letter 89-10, minutes of the public workshops are undergoing management review before being submitted to CRGR.
Temporary instructions are being drafted before inspections are to begin in October 1990.
Initial responses received from licensees are being reviewed and NRR audits of the program descriptions are planned for the summer of 1990.
1
- o J
Mechanical Components Minutes 3
March 28, 1990 With respect to MOV research, a public meeting to discuss the latest MOV test results is scheduled for April 8, 1990.
A manual for consideration of research needs for evaluation of implementation of GL 89-10 is being prepared.
An Information Notice is being prepared on potential failure of motor-operated butterfly valves.
It was noted by the subcommittee that aerodynamic characterization of the butterfly valve flapper is needed in order that operability under dynamic loads be understood and assured.
Failure of the PORV and block valve at the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant was discussed.
On November 12, 1989, a hydro-static test of the pressurizer relief line containing a new l
l PORV and block valve (MOV) was performed while the plant was suberitical at 2154 psi and at normal operating temperature.
The MOV opened resulting in opening of the PORV.
The PORV stuck open for 34 seconds, closed for 2 minutes and reopened for 14 seconds, before finally closing.
Several unsuccessful attempts were made to close the MOV from the control room during the scenario, but closed after the PORV closed.
Both PORV and the MOV were removed and tested at the Wyle facility.
The tests found that the PORV always opens for some duration upon MOV opening.
The test conditions did not equate to design-basis conditions for MOV, but similar to normal operating conditions.
The NRR staff indicated no objection
l Mechanical Components Minutes 4
March 28, 1990 i
to restart the plant on condition that remaining issues be resolved by the licensee.
A meeting is planned on March 8, 1990 to discuss licensee response, staff analysis and plans for public actions.
The status of check valve activities were briefly discussed.
The check valve action plan summary will also be attached to a Commission paper that is being prepared.
Anticipated EDO approval of the paper is expected soon.
It was stated that the Mechanical Engineering Bran::h, NRR, will add an engineer who will be responsible for implementation of the action plan.
Draft Inspection Procedure,
" Effectiveness of Check Valve Activities" by Region III is being expanded.
Some areas te be addressed are scope of licensee check valve activities, i
review of preventive maintenance activities, and review of design documentation for application of check valves.
It was reported that the ASME is forming a Working Group to draft an OM-22 on check valves.
Regarding the subcommittee concern requiring the review of the design basis for all valves that must operate under high flow and high pressure differential conditions, RES stated that they will evaluate our concern to see if it has enough safety significance to warrant treatment as a new generic issue.
The results of the prioritization will be reviewed with the ACRS at a later date.
i i
)
Mechanical components Minutes 5
March 28, 1990 2.
T.
- Sullivan, NRR and other staff members in attendance discussed " Inservice Inspection of Pump and Valves," as found in Section IV-B of SECY 90-016.
Based on this discussion the following paragraphs were prepared by the subcommittee chairman with input from the subcommittee.
We believe that this is a technical issue and recommend that you endorse its provisions with the following additions and clarifications. These were based, in part, on our discussions with the NRC staff at a Mechanical components subcommittee meeting on March 7, 1990.
In our letter of May 9, 1989, concerning the staff's generic letter (GL 89-10) on safety-related motor-operated valva (MOV) testing and surveillance, we concurred with the need for and scope of the proposed requirements for all existing light water reactor (LWR) plants.
Although not stated explicitly in issue IV.B, it is our understanding that the staff intends to apply the requirements of GL 89-10 to the evolutionary LWR plants.
We agree and recommend that it be so stated.
The piping design provisions for full flow testing capability should be extended to other safety-related valves (e.g., MOVs) as appropriate, not just check valves.
The requirement for flow testing of MOVs is stipulated in GL 89-10.
j
)
Mechanical Components Minutes 6
March 28, 1990 We are presently following the staff efforts to resolve the issue of check valve testing and surveillance requirements for existing LWR plants.
When the staff resolves this issue, we would anticipate the issuance of a regulatory requirements document such as a guide or generic letter (e.g.,
the equivalent of GL 89-10).
It is likely that such a document would be applicable to the evolutionary LWR plants and we would intend to review it for appropriateness.
However, we are concerned that the staff resolution as it may apply to the ABWR would be untimely if it takes more than one year to achieve, which now appears likely.
Perhaps a regulatory requirements document on check valves which applies only to the evolutionary LWR plants could be completed sooner.
The term " design basis" should be defined since it is used in GL 89-10 and issue IV.B, and has been found to be subject to more than one interpretation.
We propose that it be defined to include the information from all documents that become a part of the licensing docket for the preliminary and/or final safety analysis proceedings and the certification process.
For the case of pumps and valves, this would constitute the information source from which all design basis requirements i
would be derived.
We recommend that a
clear statement be included which encourages the proposal of alternative ways of meeting or
F.
Mechanical components Minutes 7
March 28, 1990 exceeding the inservice testing and surveillance requirements for pumps and valves in an acceptable manner. We believe that creativity and innovation should be encouraged when looking for practical and efficient ways of achieving the common objective.
3.
M.
Robinson, Chairman of the Nuclear Industry Check Valve Group (NIC) and J. McElroy, Philadelphia Electric updated the subcommittee on NIC's activities on check valve testing at the Utah Water Research Laboratory (UWRC), and status on non-intrusive diagnostic technologies for check valves.
Testing is planned to be performed in water (Phase I), steam (Phase II), and air, oil, etc.,
(Phase III).
Phase I testing is i
currently on-going at the UWRL.
Check valves from 4-24 inches in diameter from four valve manufacturers will be tested.
It was stated that the water loop is capable of inducing cavition in the valve during testing.
Three diagnostic vendors Canus, Liberty and MOVAT will be present during the test program to perform non-intrusive testing, such as acoustic signature analysis, magnetic signature analysis, ultrasonic inspection, fiber optic inspection, radiographic inspection, thermographic inspection, and new techniques being developed.
The goals of this program will be to develop guideline documents for the performance evaluation on acoustic, magnetic, ultrasonic and radiographic non-intrusive techniques.
--.m...
Mechanical Components Minutes 8
March 28, 1990 It was stated that preliminary results obtained thus far show that non-intrusive diagnostic techniques are acceptable inspection or monitoring methods worthy of further explora-tion.
4.
P.
- Wohld, ACRS Consultant, discussed NUMARC's letter to T. Murley, NRR, dated November 11, 1989, concerning problems with Generic Letter 89-10,
Saf ety-Related Motor-Operated Valve Testing and Surveillance." He commented on the approach and activities needed to respond to the generic letter and the relation of suggested activities in resolving MOV problems identified.
Further, he presented set-up considerations and new tools for a satisfactory and efficient resolution of MOV operability issues.
He suggested enat a new tool is needed that will eliminate dependence on the torque switch, set up and test of valves to provide a capability of 150% of required thrust valve without L
exceeding valve or operator limits, and provide surveillance to assure that the actuator capability will not decrease below 120% of that required.
He suggested the use of a dummy stem loading device to provide a measured stem load through a stroke.
He stated that this device is easy to use as a surveillance tool that can detect increased valve thrust loads 1
or reduced operator mechanical efficiency.
This device could replace the differential pressure test.
1
..,s+,
w p-w-'
a-
' - ^ - - - - ^ -
Mechanical Components Minutes 9
March 28, 1990 5.
C.
Calloway, NUMARC, briefly discussed NUMARC's activities relating to GL 89-10.
He stated that NUMARC had submitted its draft guidance document to Industry /NRC in October 1989, discussed with NRC its disparity between the staff's generic letter and public workshops and have held meetings (twice) with EPRI to develop an industry-wide MOV research program.
With respect to the disparity of the generic letter and workshops, he stated that the scope was expanded to include dampers and weir gates, increased emphasis on type-testing (two stage testing),
increased blocking requirements, and represents backfit in expanding plant design basis.
The subcommittee questioned NUMARC's list of disparities.
NUMARC with EPRI is developing methods for predicting MOV performance at design-basis conditions so that testing may be reduced or not needed.
6.
A.
Onesto, and B.
Gillies, ETEC, briefly discussed valve testing experience at the Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC),
a government owned (DOE),
contractor operated (Rocketdyne Div. of Rockwell International) facility located in mountains of Santa Susana, California.
ETEC valve testing experience is extensive. They have performed testing for ANL, CRBR, NRC, Navy, etc., on various types of valves, e.g.,
F Mechanical components Minutes 10 March 28, 1990 check, globe, butterfly, plug, etc., and of various manufac-turers.
Various type tests were performed, e.g.,
qualifica-tion performance, leak, aging, seismic, NDE/NDT, etc.,
at various type of environmental conditions.
ETEC valve testing resources were described. For example, the SABER facility can perform test with either water or steam at a flow rate of 10x10' lbs./hr.
Up to 36 inch diameter valves L
can be accommodated in the test loop.
Many other test loops smaller in size than the SABER facility were described.
NOTE:
Additional meeting details can be obtained from a transcript of this meeting available in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
20006, (202) 634-3273, or can be purchased from Ann Riley and Associates, Ltd., 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300, Washington, D.C.
20006, (202) 293-3950.
--