ML20155K470

Summary of 981015 Meeting with Joint Owners Group Re Status of JOG on Motor-Operated Valve Periodic Verification in Response to GL 96-05.List of Meeting Attendees & Meeting Agenda Encl

ML20155K470
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/29/1998
From:	Wen P NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Essig T NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
PROJECT-691, PROJECT-692, PROJECT-694 GL-96-05, GL-96-5, NUDOCS 9811130258
Download: ML20155K470 (54)

Text

.. _ - _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ - ~ . _ . . . .

A k UNITED STATES g [ NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. enmas anng e%.

w***** Octobtr 29',[1998 l MEMORANDUM TO: Thomas H. Essig, Acting Chief Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Peter C. Wen, Project Manager h. C. b Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUMMARY

OF OCTOBER 15,1998, MEETING WITH JOINT OWNERS GROUP REGARDING MOTOR-OPERATED VALVE PERIODIC VERIFICATION PROGRAM On October 15,1998, the NRC staff conducted a public meeting with representatives of the Joint Owners Group (JOG) to discuss the status of the JOG Program on Motor-Operated Valve (MOV) Periodic Verification in response to Generic Letter (GL) 96-05, " Periodic Verification of j Design-Basis Capability of Safety-Related Motor-Operated Valves." NRC participants included 1 staff members from the NRC Offices of Nuclear Reactor Rt plation (NRR), Nuclear Regulatory i Research (RES), and Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD). JOG participants  !

included representatives from the Boiling Water Reactor (BWR), Combustion Engineering (CE) and Westinghouse Owners' Groups, and their contractors. Attachment 1 is a list of the meeting

_ participants. Attachment 2 is a copy of the meeting agenda. i l

On October 30,1997, the NRC staff issued a safety evaluation accepting the JOG Program on MOV Periodic Verification as an industry-wide response to GL 96-05 to identify age-related valve degradation with certain conditions and limitations. The NRC staff and JOG representatives met on March 31,1998, to discuss the initiation of the JOG program following l

L issuance of the NRC safety evaluation. During the meeting on October 15,1998, the NRC staff and JOG representatives reviewed the results of the previous meeting (see Attachment 3). The

[

JOG representatives reported that information on Stellite aging tests under low temperature

/

conditions had been provided to the RES contractor, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), following the March 31,1998, meeting, in response to an F 2; y NRC staff request, the JOG provided a copy of that information by a letter, dated ' October 23, i

1998 (see Attachment 4). During the October 15 meeting, the JOG representatives stated their intent to address several considerations identified by the NRC staff during the March 31 meeting. These considerations included (1) static and dynamic stroke sequence during dynamic testing, (2) normal operation, inservice testing, or stationary valve position over the t interval between dynamic tests, (3) normal position of the valve open or closed, and (4) various l fluid conditions such as temperature, pressure, and quality for other BWR systems and pressurized water reactor (PWR) plants. For example, testing conducted for the JOG program appears to be obtaining degradation information principally from dynamic tests of MOVs that are typically stroked for inservice testing on quarterly intervals. However, some licensees may 9811130258 981029 ron roene e moene

?

1. - S S y yCh c

een  : w ot viI

, y PR0f

s.

l l

l l T. Essig -2 October 29, 1998 be moving to less frequent exercising of MOVs with the implementation of ASME Code Case OMN-1, " Alternative Rules for Preservice and Inservice Testing of Certain Electric Motor Operated Valve Assemblies in LWR Power Plants, OM Code 1995 Edition; Subsection ISTC."

l During the October 15,1998, meeting, the JOG representatives presented a status of the JOG

program and the results to date (see Attachment 5). For example, the JOG reported that

! licensees of 95 reactor units are participating in the MOV dynamic test program. The JOG is

! currently reviewing the results from early repetitive dynamic tests as part of its program. In particular, the JOG representatives discussed that they found an increase in the thrust required to operate an Aloyco split-wedge gate valve. The JOG is preparing information on this finding to be provided to its participating licensees for their attention. The NRC staff noted that, as stated in the NRC safety evaluation (dated October 30,1997) on the JOG program, participating licensees are responsible for evaluating information provided by the JOG for its l potentialimpact on component operability. Based on discussions at the meeting, the NRC staff l considered the response by the JOG to the adverse test information to be consistent with the process specified in the Jrb topical report on its MOV periodic verification program. I l

Nevertheless, the NRC staff emphasized the need for the JOG to feed back adverse test results to licensees promptly for their action. Because of reliance on the commitments of individuallicensees to the JOG program in response to GL 96-05, the NP.C staff discussed the importance of the NRC being aware of information provided by the JOG to participating licensees on adverse test results. The JOG representatives agreed to discuss the need to keep the NRC staff informed of this information with the applicable owners groups for their action.

The NRC staff provided a status of its review of licensee responses to GL 89-10,

" Safety-Related Motor-Operated Valve Testing and Surveillance," and GL 96-05. The staff also discussed the principal aspects of its review of licensee programs in response to GL 96-05 for those licensees who have committed to implement the JOG program. The staff indicded that reliance is being placed on licensee commitments to the JOG program to provide a more efficient review process for GL 96-05 responses, including minimizing the need for significant inspection activity. The staff noted that some licensees are participating in the JOG program but have not committed to implement the results of the JOG program. The NRC staff will be individually reviewing MOV periodic verification programs for those licensees not committed to implement the JOG program. The staff discussed the issuance of Temporary Instruction 2515/140 (dated September 29,1998) that provides guidance for the inspection of licensee

! programs developed in response to GL 96-05. The staff also noted the issuance of a safety evaluation on April 14,1998, that accepted, with certain conditions, the Westinghouse Owners Group approach for risk ranking MOVs as part of GL 96-05 programs (see Attachment 6).

The NRC staff and JOG representatives discussed overall licensee support for the JOG program. The JOG indicated that participating licensees have been providing test information in an acceptable and timely manner for JOG review. The NRC staff suggested that the JOG consider providing assistance to licensees in additional areas, such as (1) monitoring potential motor actuator output degradation, (2) periodic verification of the capability of MOVs (including fluid conditions) outside the present scope of the JOG program, and (3) implementation of ASME Code Case OMN-1 as an attemative to quarterly stroke-time inservice testing of MOVs.

i l

l l

T. Essig October 29, 1998 The JOG suggested that future meetings include discussions of comments provided by licensees on the JOG program in order to improve the program.

The NRC staff and JOG representatives identified three action items during the meeting. First, Glenn Warren of Southern Nuclear Company will discuss with the BWR Owners Group the need to inform the NRC staff of significant test results provided to participating licensees.

Second, Paul Damerell of MPR Associates agreed to provide information (Attachment 4) on the aging study of Stellite under low temperature conditions to the NRC staff. Third, Steve Loehlein of Duquesne Light Company will contact the NRC staff in early 1999 to arrange the next meeting to discuss the status of the JOG program in late March or early April 1999.

Also disemed during the meeting was the use of diagnostic equipment by licensees to monitor paraineters other than thrust for gate and globe valves and torque for butterfly valves as described in the JOG topical report. The JOG representatives stated that participating licensees are allowed to monitor other parameters, such as motor power. However, the NRC i

staff and JOG representatives agreed that the licensee is responsible for providing a test-based method to correlate its measured parameter to the thrust or torque as applicable. Also, the NRC staff indicated that licensees who have committed to implement the JOG program are responsible for notifying the NRC staff when deviating from the approach described in the JOG topical report.

Among other items discussed during the meeting were industry concerns that the proposed rule change for 10 CFR 50.55a on inservice testing requirements might require licensee actions l

beyond the current GL 89-10 and GL 96-05 programs. The NRC staff noted that the Statement of Considerations provided with the proposed rule change for public comment (1) referenced the GL 89-10 and GL 96-05 programs, and (2) did not discuss any actions beyond those programs with respect to the applicable provision in the proposed rule change. Another l industry concern was that design basis and setup information might not be sufficient to satisfy l the provisions of ASME Code Case OMN-1 for all MOVs covered by the inservice testing program when those provisions are eventually incorporated into the ASME Code. The NRC staff noted that all MOVs might not need to have the same amount of detail in their design basis and setup information based on their performance history and safety significance. On a related topic, the industry representatives suggested that the BWR and Westinghouse Owners Groups' i

methods for MOV risk ranking be accepted as alternatives to the guidance in the ASME OMN-3 Code Case if it is referenced by ASME Code Case OMN-1. The industry representatives also indicated that the provision in ASME Code Case OMN-1 for as-found testing might be discouraging some licensees from proposing use of the code case in lieu of MOV quarterly stroke-time testing because of radiation exposure and other concerns. The NRC staff agreed to convey these comments to the ASME OM-8 Working Group.

l l Following the October 15,1998, meeting, the NRC staff determined that a clarification of one

! aspect of licensee commitments to the JOG program was necessary. This clarification is consistent with the basis for the staff's safety evaluation dated October 30,1997, on the JOG program. In particu!ar, the NRC staff considers that, when a licensee commits to the JOG Topical Report on the MOV Periodic Verification Program, the licensee is committing to I implement each of the three phases of the described JOG program, including (1) JOG interim l

l l

7 T. Essig 4 October 29, 1998 static diagnostic test program, (2) JOG 5-year dynamic test program, and (3) JOG long-term periodic test program. Where a licensee proposes to implement an approach different from any of these three phases of the JOG program, the licensee will be expected to notify the NRC and to provide justification for the proposed alternative approach. For example, if a licensee proposes not to implement the third phase of the JOG program (JOG long-term periodic test program) after the specific long-term test criteria have been established following the JOG 5-year dynamic test program, the licensee will be expected to notify the NRC and to justify its proposed alternative long-term test criteria. The NRC staff informed the JOG representatives of this clarification in a follow-up telephone conference on October 23,1998.

The NRC staff considers the JOG program on MOV periodic verification to be a strong example of cooperative interaction between the NRC and the nuclear industry. Similarly, during recent interactions with specific licensees on GL 96-05, the NRC staff has found the Seabrook Station and the V. C. Summer Nuclear Station to be establishing commendable programs for trending MOV performance. The NRC staff and JOG representatives will meet again in the spring of 1999 to discuss the status of the JOG program.

Attachments:

1. Meeting Participants

2. Meeting Agenda

3. Summary of NRC/ JOG MOV Moeting on March 31,1998

4. Letter dated October 23,1998, from Paul Damerell on Stellite Aging under Cold Temperatures

5. JOG MOV Periodic Verification Program Status Update

6. NRC Staff Handouts on GL 89-10 and GL 96-05 Review Status cc w/atts: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See attached page /

Document Name: g:\pxw\msum1015.wog /

OFFICE PM:PGEB:DRPM BC:EMEB 3 SC NAME PWen:sw py RHN n k'lewicz DATE 10QT/98 10/p /98 10h/98 OFFlCIAL OFFICE COPY

e T. Essig -4 October 29, 1998 static diagnostic test program, (2) JOG 5-year dynamic test program, and (3) JOG long-term periodic test program. Where a licensee proposes to implement an approach different from any of these three phases of the JOG program, the licensee will be expected to notify the NRC and to provide justification for the proposed alternative approach. For example, if a licensee proposes not to implement the third phase of the JOG program (JOG long-term periodic test

. program) after the specific long-term test criteria have been established following the JOG 5-year dynamic test program, the licensee will be expected to notify the NRC and to justify its proposed alternative long-term test criteria. The NRC staff informed the JOG representatives of this clarification in a follow-up telephone conference on October 23,1998.

The NRC staff considers the JOG program on MOV periodic verification to be a strong example of cooperative interaction between the NRC and the nuclear industry. Similarly, during recent i interactions with specific licensees on GL 96-05, the NRC staff has found the Seabrook Station  ;

and the V. C. Summer Nuclear Station to be establishing commendable programs for trending l MOV performance. The NRC staff and JOG representatives will meet again in the spring of 1999 to discuss the status of the JOG program.

Attachments:

1. Meeting Participants

2. Meeting Agenda

3. Summary of_NRC/ JOG MOV Meeting on March 31,1998 j

4. Letter dated October 23,1998, from Paul Damerell on Stellite Aging under Cold i Temperatures j

5. JOG MOV Periodic Verification Program Status Update

6. NRC Staff Handouts on GL 89-10 and GL 96-05 Review Status cc w/atts: See next page

_r- __

. .~ . ..-- ._.. ___ ... .~ .. - . . - - - - - .

^m' Westinghbuse Owners Group - Project No. 694

+ ,

cc: '

'Mr. Nicholas Liparulo, Manager Equipment Design and Regulatory Engineering Westinghouse Electric Corporation Mail Stop ECE 4-15  !

P.O. Box 355 l

. Pittsburgh, PA 15230-0355 l

I Mr. Andrew Drake, Project Manager Westinghouse Owners Group Westinghouse Electric Corporation Mail Stop ECE 5-16 P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, PA 15230-0355 Mr. Jack Bastin, Director  ;

Regulatory Affairs

. Westinghouse Electric Corporation 11921 Rockville Pike

. Suite 107 ,

Rockville, MD 20852  ;

Mr. Hank Sepp, Manager Regulatory and Licensing Engineering Westinghouse Electric Corporation e PO Box 355 Pittsburgh, PA 15230-0355

[ ,.

I t

I

I c.;

p  : Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group . Project No. 691.

cc: -i C. D. Terry

. Vice President, Nuclear Engineering (

n Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.-

. Nine Mile Point-2 PO Box 63.

Lycoming, N 13093

. D. B. Fetters PECO Energy . >

Nuclear Group Headquarters MC 62C-3

,965 Chesterbrook Blvd.

Wayne, PA _19087 R. A. Pinelli

' GPU Nuclear MCC Building E One Upper Pond Road

. Parsippany, NJ 07054 L S. J. Stark l: GE Nuclear Energy l 175 Curtner Ave, M/C 165 San Jose, CA 95125 L

T.J.Rausch-l- Commonwealth Edison Company l Nuclear Fuel Services

;1400 Opus Place,4th Floor ETWill

! Downers Grove,IL 60515 l

c i

l i

i.

I s

l L

I , , . . . - . ,

.. . . . - , . . . . . . - .. - . .. - . -- - . - . _- . . - . . ~ . - . . . . . - . _ . .

CE OWNERS GROUP Project No. 692 l

cc: Mr. Gordon C. Bischoff CEOG Project Manager

~ ABB Combustion Engineering M.S. 9615-1932

' 2000 Day Hill Road Windsor, CT 06095 Mr. David Pilmer, Chairman-CE Owners Group j San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station 14300 Mesa Road  ;

. San Clemente, CA 92672 '

Mr. Ian C. . Rickard, Director . .

Nuclear Licensing ABB-Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Post Office Box 500 2000 Day Hill Road Windsor, CT 06095 Mr. Charles B. Brinkman, Manager Washington Operations L ABB-Combustion Engineering, Inc. ,

12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330 '

i Rockville, MD 20852 l

{

i l

l 4

l.

i

?

Distribution: Mtg. Summary w/ JOG Re:MOV Periodic Verification Program Dtd 10/29/98 Hard Cooy

'Occhet File.

PUBLIC PGEB R/F OGC ACRS PWen DTerao TScarbrough GHWeidenhamer HLOrnstein JJackson EMail SCollins/FMiraglia BSheron RZimmerman BBoger JRoe DMatthews TEssig FAkstulewicz Glainas JStrosnider RHWessman GTracey, EDO i .

JOG /NRC MEETING OCTOBER 15,1998 MEETING PARTICIPANTS Name Organization Dick Wessman NRC/NRR/EMEB David Terao NRC/NRRIEMEB

' Tom Scarbrough NRC/NRR/EMEB G. H. Weidenhamer NRC/RES/EMMEB l Jerry Jackson NRC/RES/EMMEB H. L. Ornstein NRC/AEOD/RAB Peter Wen NRC/NRR/PGEB Steve Loehlein Duquesne Light /WOG Wendell Fiock GE/BWROG ike Ezekoye Westinghouse Glenn Warren BWROG/SNC Brian Bunte Comed >

Frank Winter BGE/Calvert Cliffs F. P. Ferraraccio ABB-CEOG Steve Lurie ABB-CEOG Robert Justice SCE&G / V. C. Summer Chad Smith Duke Energy Tim Chan TVA Paul Damerell MPR Associates Todd Spears MPR Associates ATTACHMENT 1 I'

j . _ .

~

g -AGENDA i PUBLIC MEETING'BETWEEN NRC STAFF AND L JOINT OWNERS GROUP ON L MOTOR-OPERATED VALVE PERIODIC VERIFICATION PROGRAM l-

! October 15,1998 8:30 am - 12 noon l OWFN 0-6B11

1. INTRODUCTIONS

+

2.

SUMMARY

OF NRC/ JOG MOV MEETING ON MARCH 31',1998 (NRC)

3. JOG TESTING PROGRAM RESULTS INCLUDING EVALUATION OF EXAMPLE TEST DATA (JOG)

'4. JOG RESPONSE TO NRC RESEARCH PROGRAM ON VALVE AGING i

(JOG)

5. 'GL 89-10 AND GL 96-05 REVIEW STATUS (NRC)

F 6. PRINCIPAL ASPECTS OF GL 96-05 PROGRAM REVIEW OF LICENSEES PARTICIPATING IN JOG PROGRAM (NRC) e

! 7. TEMPORARY INSTRUCTION 2515/140 FOR GL 96-05 INSPECTIONS

(NRC) 4

-8. NRC SAFETY EVALUATION ON WESTINGHOUSE OWNERS' GROUP L MOV RISK-RANKING METHOD (NRC) 1

.9. OVERALL LICENSEE SUPPORT OF JOG PROGRAM (JOG)

10. ACTION ITEMS (NRC and JOG)

11. SCHEDULE FOR NEXT MEETING (NRC and JOG)

12. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCOPE OF JOG, GL 96-05, AND ASME IST

~ PROGRAMS (NRC and JOG)

ATTACHMENT 2

SUMMARY

OF NRC/ JOG MOV MEETING ON MARCH 31,1998 JOG PRESENTED STATUS OF MOV PROGRAM AND TESTING.

95 REACTOR UNITS REPORTED AS PARTICIPATING IN JOG PROGRAM.

l 140 GATE VALVES,20 GLOBE VALVES AND 29 BUTTERFLY VALVES INCLUDED IN JOG DYNAMIC TEST MATRIX.

JOG EVALUATING TEST INFORMATION FROM INITIAL TEST PACKAGES.

I NRC OFFICE OF RESEARCH PRESENTED FINDINGS FROM A LIMITED-SCOPE AGING STUDY OF STELLITE MATERIAL.

JOG INDICATED THAT STELLITE TESTS AGED UNDER LOW TEMPERATURE CONDITIONS HAD PRODUCED DIFFERENT RESULTS AND AGREED TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION TO RES.

JOG AGREFD TO REVIEW ITS DYNAMIC TEST PLANS AND CONSIDER ISSUES RAISED BY RES.

NRC STAFF EXPRESSED IMPORTANCE OF JOG PROGRAM ADDRESSING EFFECTS OF (1) STATIC AND DP STROKE SEQUENCE DURING DYNAMIC.

. TESTING, (2) NORMAL OPERATION, INSERVICE TESTING, OR STATIONARY VALVE POSITION OVER INTERVAL BETWEEN DYNAMIC TESTS, (3) NORMAL POSITION OF VALVE OPEN OR CLOSED, AND (4) VARIOUS FLUID CONDITIONS SUCH AS TEMPERATURE, PRESSURE, AND QUALITY FOR OTHER BWR SYSTEMS AND PWR PLANTS.

SE CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS ON JOG PROGRAM UNDERSTOOD.

JOG WILL CONSIDER ASSISTING JOG PARTICIPANTS IN RESPONDING TO GL 96-05 FOR MOVs OUTSIDE SCOPE OF JOG PROGRAM.

DISCUSSION TOPICS FOR NEXT MEETING IDENTIFIED AS (1) EVALUATION OF JOG DYNAMIC TEST PLANS IN RESPONSE TO RES STELLITE STUDY AND (2) JOG PROCESS FOR EVALUATING DYNAMIC TEST DATA TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL VALVE DEGRADATION USING EXAMPLE TEST PACKAGES.

. ATTACHMENT 3

= . _ _ . . -. .

. .._ - .s -

1

~

MMPR A s S O C I AT E S I N C.

ENGlNEERS l October 23,1998 Mr. Thomas Scarbrough US Nuclear Regulatory Commission MS OWFN 7E23 Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

JOG Periodic Verification Program - Information on NRC/INEEL Friction Testing

Dear Mr. Scarbrough:

This letter responds to an action item from the October 15,1998 meeting between the NRC and representatives from the Joint Owners' Group (JOG) MOV Periodic Verification Program. At a previous (March 31,1998) meeting, Dr. Weidenhamer of NRC-RES presented results of friction separate effects testing performed by INEEL An agreement from the March 31 meeting was that MPR (JOG Program contractor) would identify additional information from other, previous testing which gave insights beyond those presented by the NRC. At the October 15 meeting, you requested that we document how MPR's action from the March 31 meeting was completed.

i We took two actions in response to the March 31 meeting. First, we reviewed a draft copy of INEEL's paper on the friction testing submitted to the Fifth NRC/ASME Symposium on Valve and Pump Testing. Based on that information, we had a telephone call on April 2, l 1998 with Mr. John Watkins at INEEL to discuss how other sources of data from EPRI and INEEL valve testing compared to the separate effects tests results. Our conclusion was that some of the trends from the separate effects testing (e.g., decrease in friction with strokes) were not the same as those observed in valve testing. Accordingly, we encouraged INEEL to temper their conclusion and to recognize other sources of data with other trends.

Enclosure 1 to this letter documents our discussion with INEEL

, Second, we reviewed INEEL gate valve test results from 1988-89 and identified specific l valve test data which were under temperature and pressure conditions similar to the l separate effects tests. On April 10,1998, we faxed plots of apparent disk factor vs. stroke number to Mr. Watkins, along with a discussion of the trends in these tests (relatively constant performance with stroking) and their contrast with the results of the INEEL friction separate effects tests (which showed decreasing friction with strc king). Enclosure 2 to this letter is our fax to INEEL ATTACHMENT 4 320 KING STREET ALEXANDRIA. VA 22314 3230 703 519 0200 FAX: 703-519 0224

. . . . - . . - . . ~ . _ . . _ _ . - . . ..

l

Mr. Thomas Scarbrough October 23,1998 We are also forwarding copies of this letter to Dr. Weidenhamer and Mr. Watkins. Please callif you have any questions.

Sincerely,

% as. L e

- Paul S. Damerell Enclosures cc: G. Weidenhamer, NRC-RES J. Watkins,INEEL B. Bunte, Comed S. Loehlein, DLCo F. Winter, BGE G. Warren, SNC I. Ezekoye, Westinghouse F. Ferraraccio, ABB-CE W. Fiock, GE (allw/ enclosures)

.L- m'.--~ .mm.m.n.s -

amm.- w--- a .---

m e-. ,, ,wn,. ,--,,a,. -.. n . , ,- r.-

Endos ure .I

. MMPR

. A S SO CI AT E S IN C. April 8,1998 / //

ENGINEERS MEMORANDUM To: I.Ezekoye, Westinghouse F. Ferraraccio, ABB-CE W. Fiock, GE B. Bunte, Comed S. Lochlein, DLCo -

F. Winter, BGE

. G. Warren, SNOC From: Paul Damerell

Subject:

JOG PV Prograr < t.C. NEL Friction Testing

=_

To follow up from the JOG /NRC meeting on March 31,1998, I have done the following:

1. I obtained from Sam Gates a copy of the draft paper (dated February 3,1998) Status ofStellite 6 Friction Testing, by J. Watkins, K. DeWall and G. Weidenhamer. I also obtained a copy of the ASME reviewers' comments on the paper, which were submitted by Sam back to the authors. As of April 1,1998, the final paper has not been submitted,but it is due now.

The paper uses the same graphs that Dr. Weidenhamer used at the JOG /NRC tcceting. Attached is a copy of the paper.

2. I had a telephone discussion with John Watkins on April 2,1998 regarding the conclusions of the paper. I encouraged him to make sure that his conclusions clearly relate to the conditions they tested, and not to try to claim too much from their tests about what valves will do, particularly in light of other data (including separate effects and valve data) which might suggest other trends. The key points I tried to stress to Watkins were:

. The observed decrease in friction coefficient with consecutive strokes under load (simulating DP conditions) does not appear to be an effect of aging, and should not be presented as such. Their tests show that the friction change with strokes is independent of the extent to which the specimen had aged.

Furthermore, other data, for example from the EPRI Program indicate an opposite trend, i.e. an increase in friction with strokes'. Accordingly, a single

) 703 619 0200 F AX: 703 519 0224

" 320 KING STREET - ALEXANDRIA. VA 22314 3238 o . _. _ _ _. m __ __ _ _ . __ . _ . _ _ _ .. . .

2.ffl .

conclusion regarding all valves is difficult to generalize, and in any event is not a-conclusion related to aging. I suggested that Watkins re-examine previous data from EPRI and INEL valve testing to see that a single conclusion is difficult to formulate. He indicated that he would do that; his general impression was that at high temperature the previous data did indicate a similar trend to their data l (i.e., decrease in friction with strokes), but that the low temperature data j indicated a reverse trend. I indicated that I thought there were a fair amount of t

I high temperature data which indicated no change with strokes; even if some l show a decrease it is difficult to generalize.

- The apparent effect of a simulated IST stroke (i.e., room temperature static stroke with wedging) appears to be very small from their data, and their conclusions should not overstate the apparent significance of these strokes. The data showing measured friction for samples with and without simulated IST strokes are nearly indistinguishable, and do not support a conclusion regarding the significance of these strokes.

Watkins indicated that his initialjudgement was to disagree with my comments, i.e.,

he thought the tone of the paper was about right. However, he did indicate that he would examine the other data I mentioned and re-consider his position.

Attachment I

I

• H h' Status of Stellite 6 Friction Testing (p@ '~

a l JohnC.Watkins andKevin G.DeWall l IdahoNational Engineering and EmLe== =1 Laboratory j i

l Gerald H.Wahh-

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cameni=* ion l

l ABSTRACT

~-

For the past several years, researchers at the Idaho N Ensin ~

betal

(%--a:

IA sy, under the %-JJp of the U.S. Nuclear RT= 1 OfficcM.

Research, have beca investigating the perfonnance of rnoter es subjected to d flow l l

and pressure loads. Part ofthis research addresses the fHction . aattheinterface betwienthevain

~

} disc and the valve body seats during operation of a gate valve. 'jgves,these smfaces art f hardfaced with Stellite 6, a cobalt-based alloy. _7 __ _ _ - _ _ l j

j senewa=.s Analyticalinethods exist for predicting the MSto oper ~ '- h at speci5e pressure

conditions. ToproduceaccuratevalvethrustpiM=-1-r-T;^ 5gmustha bly accurate,though i conservative, estimate of the coefficient of fri ' PiSe ' . of the questions that ,

j t surfaces effects the disc to- l ranains to be answered is whether, and to ent,

~

seatcoefficientoffriction. Specifically,d w en in ants piping system causethe accumulation of an oxide fdm on these that ' the __W of friction;andifso,how great is theincrease?

lts pecirnen J . this issue, with emphasis on the following-This paperpresents

. thic film that develops on Stellite 6 as it ages cient of Stellite 6 as it ages, k!dag the question of I einth E fricti entually reaches a plateau i

ghas on the characteristics and thickness of the oxide film and on the frictie=- --- r (lWe INTRODUCTION Engineering and Envir&=1 Laboratory (INEEL) has been inv=(da! the  ;

, h Idaho valves (MOVs) to function when subjected to design basis loads. Mctbods exist to l -- .- i the thrust needed to operste these valves at specific fluid conditions; however, the analyst I

na29Ymasonably accurata, though conservative, estunate of the = r* of friction at the disc to seat I

intuface (see Figure 1). In most gate valves, these swfaces are hardfaced with Stellite 6, a cobalt 4ased alloy. One of the questions that has not been addressed is wtether, and to what extent, aging of the disc and l seat surfaces affects the disc-to seat mew of friction. Specifically, does the accumulation of an oxide j 51m on these surfaces during long term operation in harsh environmcats increase the coef5cient of friction;  !

andif so,how much?

i i

I

.-~. . . . - . - ..

40 .

This paper presents the latest results from an ongoing INEEL research pr -

Tbc purpose of this project is to detenine how aging degradatico mechanisms f

requrements of MOVs over the long tenn. The re in-service tests. & project ==W ofsubjectag Stellite 6ing the conditions a typical re water reactor (BWR) coolant conditions, %,g:ducing the accunnlation of project an oxide fdm.

(RWCU) isolation valve would experience, andin cientof included analysis of the resulting oxide film and testag

! the W of -- the specimens to deternjne th fneten. Ibe Battelle Memonal Institute in Columbus, Ohio ysf. _

INEEL. .

TEST PROG

' with Stell first This paper describes the rcsults of two types ofaging Waad the oxide fihn investigated natural aging at simulated BWR conditions. For i $,

se periodstoBWR thickness and +1 tion following 2.,10 ,20 ,25 ,40 ,50. = -

' d= = after 2,10,20, conditions simulated in a corrosion autoclave. We perf luded the effectof 40, and 784 fays exposure. The second test type also ~ tests c

• M E-;whetherthe fihn -

periodic cycling an the valve oxide films. The p thickness, composition, and friction coefficient ar#e _. Jodic%' * ===ging &~ed both and cou:;-:+i:-7 during in-service testing (IST). For these tests, f * -f6- '

~ daysinthecorrosionautoclave.

~

l 25 da before and after the simulated valve wedging the an aut Friction testag was performed after 78 da l

s' BWR ant conditions in a corrosion autoclave.

The ig+ === were natura!!y '

ns controUedintherange of100 to The autoclave was attached to a of >

~

l the autoclave, with the temperature in the 200 ppb W fromthe l f) andth@f l 7.24 MPa [1050 psi), sligh0y above the i autoclave at 288 _ ,

saturat ,s5iggjijN,ywasW subcooled.

moea.m y the friction tests. The friction autoclave,lile the corrosion

. We4*amwmp autocla 2 which the oxygen was controlled in the range of 100 to l

j autoclave,wasgg moil witht - ~ tave heated to 288'C [550*F] and pressurized to about 200 7.24 MPppb.[Tt 0 psi}. M! @ b,,a specimen assembly -=W of two smaller 6-onn. x 28-mm.

' M-P two larger 13-mm. x 76 mm. [0.5 in. x 3.0-in.] innervf --:s was Nuwere held in a stationary fixture, and the inner 5;l=9 were

[0.25 inst l.10-in.)

Figure 2). The outer 7[M to a movable pu!! tod. Actuation of the pull rod caused the inner to a carrierbar E-G 'actJ ' a to slide along Iouter specimens at a relatim velocity of approximately 400 mm/ min min),a rate wit' range expected for typical gate valve operataon.

utoclave is equipped with a bellows that can exert a force on one side of the specimen I[ =2 249izing the bellows imposes a normal force on the =;+' == to produce the il.A aa'& h stress of 69 MPs [10 ksi). The normal force required to achieve a 69-MPa [10-irij nam na contact stress on the 6-nan. x 28-mm. [0.25-in. x 1.10-in.] contact zone is 1250 Kg [2750 lb]. 'ILis value was selected to . erg 4 mate the stress level occumng during w.iis of typical RWCU system valves (Assuming uniform load distribution, the calculated contact stresses at the seats for typical 100

[4 and 6-in.] valves under a differential pressure of 7.24 MPa [1,050 psi] are 54 and 87 MPa 12.6 ksi},srcady.)

e ~ww..

e m

• SfH For the sirnulated valve wedges repasanting IST cycling, we used an in-service testing simulanen rig. Unlike conditions in both the corrosion autocim and the friction autoclave, conditions in the in testing simulation rig consisted of a water bath at room tempersture and atmospherie presswe rathe Mai BWR coolant conditions. To subject the entire swface of each 6% to a simulated valve l

wedging, we placed like sized specimens with their Stellite 6 surfaces face to face, applied a norma 138 MPs [20 ksij, and moved the q-- i--=: 1 mm [0.040 in.) relative to each other. ofa We .etarfai a senes

!crol of 138 MPs (20 ksi) to approximate the bearing stress occurring during a valve ens friction r simulated typicalRWCUsystemvalve. Wew n.Musingthehightw 2 ~ .5-in. x 3.0-in.) '

cycling, but h could not achieve the required contact stress on the larger 13 abilities of the in ,-

s; L r: A normal load of 13,600 Kg (30,000 lb] was required, i l

fricuan autoclave.

i I

FILM CHARACTE r electron ryw;in-yf(AES)for The chemical composition of the oxide films was

' Mb methods for a few

some 6ws and by X-ray photoelectron sywswwyf (XPSTCT ed sla-i

elementalcompositions of specimens). With AES andXPS,the filmis ii nally j '

ses are"m m~ sus time (or depth, .

planes in the oxide film are measured. The results of these lative Mons canbe .

assummg a sputtering rate) to provide a depth profile jg tonaturalaging l-

' evaluated. Figure 3 shows a typical AES depth pr"- - --

2 = M f-conditions. As can be seen fium the plot, the an MkahMmconstant through the oxide f and2000 A. [one Angstrem l

film,whereas the cobalt is lean at the smface rap' n' -

(A) equals one ten millionth of a milhmeder j

Thethickness of theoxide fi where the mbalt concentration,whi dhh resent j from

base depth profiles and is defined as the point 6 material but greatly depicted in the i oxide film, the oxygen whi 1 o-ide fihnbut muchlowerin thebase fihn thickness for the naturally aged specunens Stellite 6 areeq isaplot -

l gi( that the oxide fihn growth rate follows a paraboue j versus b ith aW-~% 1M j

relatiedu!"2---_ _

3 --

whether the oxide film 'Xh changes following j WeperfoY@dqui h, ' l exposure to BWR conditions affects the g simulated v ~~ == M , Eicona j 1 of this testing and shows the effect a Ma'~i valve wedges cycle oxide gas 5 p

{

has on g term grow 'cs of the oxide film. The oxide fihn thicknees before an IST i

i wed cycle (boxes)is co. _$to the oxide film # ' === after anIST wedging cycle (inverted es); included for eison is the data fit of the naturally aged oxide film thickness. The resulting

] tri l

,s and after 50 days appear to follow the general E === trend observed for l

Mhm after 25

' to age withoutbeingdisturbed.

{ensthatwere FRICTION TESTING Five sets ornaturally aged specimens underwent friction tests. The aging times for these specim sets were 2,10,20,40, and 78 days. This testing showed that the eW~ of friction continually 64 as the g-- I ^== aged and as the film thickness inacased. In fact, Figure 6 indicates that the meresses as the sp+f= = age, but that it does not appear to reach a plateau. These results que the inction coefficient and the film th!h will reach stable values as the g+ 1F== continue to age. T l

l

Yll .

i information is important,because as the fkiction increases, the thrust deman -

inDucnoe the available operating margin hi of the MOV the result of the oxide thickness increasing and is not due to the preconditioning ph encoeed when friction testing is performed on spemme in an ambient enGm o

Figure 7 praents the same fhetion informat= in a different format ishighest Wm responds to continued stroking of the same specimen. orthe The resuhs show tyth

% ibe s,,e si,a. and decreases with e.ch mt-utroke.nis -

"- gg%1

-- sven& though W N vimens decreases the friction, the friction generally E use.asThe data ve increased i.s e use in friction over time indicates the importanceaofwiA C -; ^ stroke.

shows that the highest friction occurs during the first stroke dhj first stroke a valve experiences after it has been anowed to a to w -

highest coefficient of friction and therefore require the higkst gpperties of the fi oxides and N increase in friction as specimens age is due to the g r =='ioncoefficientwouldbe hydroxides) developed during aging. As the h thickness ir ition as theoxide expected to approach that which might be measured 'on using . - an theirsnetal

• Oxides typically haw fdm, i.e., solid oxide c L-== far,LM b were wumJy thin.

counterparts. Howmr, for the natural aging cases im MPa[10 ksil),these It is most likely that under the relatively high &M_

s were mixedintothe oxide hs were immediately ruptured upon the de h of Stellite 6)on a hard ,

substrate surface. This is typical behavior of of the friction of thebulk repres ?

relatively softer substrate. As such, the fri StcIlite 6 matenal and the fiction of the -

fihn. f f

condi simulatedISTvalvewedgingcycles a

One setofeA4 subj 78 days, with simulated valve wedging for 1 - ; # 1 underwunt fhetiontests. The = the results of this testing and shows tha ,

days. Fi' cycles afterg and vahMcycles had a lower coefficient of friction, although iW p pe as the specimens age. During subscquent strokes, the effect of it is not um,. y.:ahis ~

'on coefficient was either negligibic or varied from strone to the simulated 1g gon

~

is ' changes in the condition of the surface due to previous stroke. This frienc" x strongly influenced by the simulated valve wedging.

de strukes. As ,

4

,F CONCLUSIONS de h thickess versus spo 4 time for naturally aged Stellite 6 is parabohe.

j l A data fit of the that the oxide h is altered during the simulated valve wedging,but appears Mg also icy-a trend observed for spec'unens that were allowed to age without being the gerwr.t__ _

h@ W w _. .

Tfriction of the naturaDy aged specimens shows a continual increase as the aging time increase with no evidence ofreaciung a plateau after 78 days of aging. This information is important be 6iction increases, the thrust demands of a valve will aiso increase and inDuence the available o margm ofthe MOV.

7l11 :

He friction is highest during the first stroke and decreases with a&litional stroking. His "-d increase in friction over time 'mdicates the importance of treruhng the valve friction over time. De data also show that the highest frk. tion occurs during the first stroke and decreases with each subsequent stroke. De first stroke a valve exponences after it has bcen allomd to age and establish an oxide fihn will result in the l

j highest t-- " =-=t of friction and therefore will require the highest stem thmst to successfuuy operate the valve.

De single data point for the paio&c valve wedging test suggests that pe ' will I

deercase the expected friction +-d to a valw that is less aacquently

-- =s is only cycle thatincreasing l

single data point and the effects of theist cycle may be small for C* '

the time between IST cycling may allow the biaion to inatase operanas l

margin of an MOV.

4 5

k ,

y k, I l k1]hM) -

\

f f7

/g n

i

.i

~

F///

l .

m <

-.- 3 1 , =2 Doctric .

J, mow .

umnorque /l,g.-.d ,p.

operator yoke I

• I.

j seet h cuv,4a -

.. ded -

G ~~;"

Q .M g

/

\o\

g .LV.LJm 9 j

w si.m

..,=-- _

me - ~ -a'~77ppy

/-

oper .the main ce=pc = =

Figure 1 Diagram of a typicalm e69emasedus, A

m -

N W.t* %.

"40rwita .

t ,

D '

i s ,_

., e., m wa .

l 7 gd-

~

7"*

h. .

j D.w '

w t  % , ND NSEMP , _ _ _ ,-e bI DDAN NQEW es j g/748 y wm-i wm./,f

-w w _

a.=*

Hgure2 Diagram ofthe friction autoclave.

I

\

- _ . _ . . . -_ - . . - . . . . . - - . . -.. w.- -. . _ - . ..

a 9lfll F y w y W "

w w w w 100M x 100paneres so . - .

1*

4 Un ,

M M M Q =-.^<.-.m , , _ _,

i 20 " -

" a m l

m __f ,

-6

~

10oo 2000 ' mico nico sooo ecco 1000 ' now

=

Depe, Angshums i

f Stellite 6 aAer exposure to Figure 3 Typical AES clemental natural agingcondi l =00 ,

I I

'- Y 150Jl .

b. . . -

e 1

I

, a ww-l 0 40 50 00 70 80 0 10 20 30 Time (d) ..

l Figure 4 Film thickness versus time shomng the data from the natural aging tests and the parabolic data fit.

4 l

i

\

y - - - , -

.-- .. . . _ . . . _ ~_ . - - = . _ - .. .. . . - . . _ . . . . . . . . - . - . . _ - . - . - . - - - ..

f- h[//

1 , e.

I i

IST 1500 M

i i 1000

= f l - , / <

i 80 0

0 10 20 30 N"M '"~'*

'"~

A Sa 70

'"""' s% dated valve wedging crime show' Figures Film thickness versus tests andthe parabolic fitof nantal 0.50 0

30.

• s i

0 w

0- , .mi t .

s stoko2

• Stokv 3

\ + Spoke 4 /

\ + Stoke 5 /

\ /

0.20' 40 SD 00 NJO s'80 0 10 20 30 s.,,,,,,,

Time (d)

Figure 6 Cocmcient of frictionvmus time for ashraDy aged g+-:==

- _- - - - . _ . - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ __ ^----^-.-.-.__m _ _ __ __ . - - - _ _ _ . _ _ ._

Ilfil 0.6 x 2 day

+ 10 day .

20 day 0.5 .

• # day .

o 78dsy .,

e

• j04 -

e a Jii a 8

• 6 u .

• a u t ,

0.2 .

L 01 '

g ig

• M IV 0 3 9 10 Coefficient offiriction y s

.- g7h L

rp7 e = I=--~'2 E6

1. 78 daydoIST

= 7s day wisT 4l .

• a 8= l  : .

1 -

" = g o.s .

. a d

8 b 1 02 -

{$y N /

mig O

o 1 2 3 4 s s i a 9 O Stroke number = = '

Figure 8 Coefficicut of friction vans stroke for naturally aged p a- mi specimens subjected to a simulatedIST,

• Encfosure 2 Gi3MPR A S S O C I AT E S I N C.

,/,o ENGINEERS OVER YEARS OF EXCELLENCE Established 1964 Date: April 10,1998 To: John Watkins From: Paul Damerell Company: INEEL Fox Number: (208) 526-2930 Verification: (208) 526-0567

Subject:

Friction Changes with Stroking at High Temperature Pages: 10 including this cover sheet Message:

John I came across these old graphs from NP-7065, which summarize results from the NRC/INEL gate valve testing done in 1988-89. As you are probably aware, when those valves were tested, the first several DP strokes were opening strokes with little flow. Accordingly, the disk factor could be determined from the initial sliding part of the stroke. Typically, the first few strokes were done cold (room temperature) followed by several strokes at elevated temperature. The attached graphs show disk factor as a function of stroke. I have circled the disk factors from the " Hot Cycling" tests (i.e., elevated temperature low flow tests). I think the point labeled " wedging,"

which covers the point just after unwedging in an opening stroke, is most meaningful to look at.

As shown on the graphs, there is very little change in friction with stroke under elevated temperature conditions. The last page has curves of disk factor vs. stroke for all of the valves except Valves 6, A and B. I didn't include Valve 6 because we conclude that the guide rail was being bent during the initial strokes at high temperature, which caused the apparent disk factor to increase significantly. I didn't include Valves A and B because the first two elevated temperature strokes were at significantly different temperatures and DPs; the disk factors changed a bit between strokes (increase in one case, decrease in the other).

A key feature of these tests which might have a bearing on the results is that each valve had several room temperature DP strokes before the elevated temperature DP strokes. Based on our existing information, I don't know how to determine the effect of this feature (i.e., how this feature would make the results different than your separate effects friction tests).

320 KING STREET ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-3230 703-519-0200 FAX: 703-519-0224

m B - BLOWDOWN AVERAGE MAXIMUM AND UNWEDGING I I I i i i i (T I Ni i I O.9 - O ZERO STEM POSITION -l- ISOLATION

• WEDGING O MAXIMUM L-- J--

o.8 --

j ---O 3 j- j  : -

D g,7 _ . . . _ _ _ . . . _ _ _

l u3 !_  ; J us4 o@ _y cdyb 1

k o.s - -- - -- -- --

i- -

COLD W]ER H OT WATE R

• 's  !

m+s 1, R \,- -)i  ; , "Ila cydty *

~~~ ~ ~ ~

C

~ ~ ~

o.4

~

I

' ~

.3 5 '

$ . _1 . _ _

o,3 _.. _ . . _ - . _ _ _..

._-_$__e.._.A ._

-~ -

0.2 0.1 --

O es @ .

8 t -- ---- - - - -

1  : 1 I ' '

O O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 STROKE NUMBER DISK FACTOR VS STROKE NUMBER VALVE #1 OPENING STROKES MPR ASSOCIATES F-14 o-4 9-61(B)

FIGURE 6-11 1iiisi90 s Y.

.O

1 B BLOWDOWN AVER AGE MAXIMUM l N - NORMAL FLOW ....-- AVER AGE UNWEDGING t

1.4 g g O ZERO STEM POSITION + ISOLATION "

WEDGIN O MAXIMUM

1.2 -

i. . i

i. i 4

o 2 coid water j

Hof Water Steam Cold Water

~

j K o.8

---

--I---

t F O 9 l' m A ;5 5h$6 o.s

..Y..-....1..,...di - T- +t-

~ '- - - - ~

c l -k. . = . . . . -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- --

-- -- - - y- g-

• ...................e------b O

R o,4 4. . . . .

i I

• $$ _+

i l '

o,y - - -. -- -

4

@e9 1 . --. . --

i  : -

i t  ; i i i I '

i i o

! O 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 SS

STROKE NUMBER DISK FACTOR VS STROKE NUMBER VALVE #2 OPENING STROKES uen Associates F-14 0-4 9-63(B) l

)

FIGURE 6-13 sifiaiso w i D I

-,.----...,.i,.u.q -

r- 2 .. . . . . - - - - - - . . . . . .

AVERAGE MAXIMUM B - BLCWDOWN N - NORMAL FLOW ------ AV E R AG E U N W E D G I N G 1 , i  ; g i

O ZERO STEM POSITION l . . _ . _. __. . _ _ _ , _ _ _ __

O.9 -

j ,

t ISOLATION t  : l

-Y

) i'

~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~

0.8 -

~ ~

k ,

WEDGING D g,7 _ O MAXIMUM - _. .__. _

.'I. __ _ , _ __ _, ._ _

1 '

i '

S  :

' ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' ~ ~ - ~' i - - -~~ -- - - - - - - - - --

K 08 '~ ~ - ~ '-

I 1 _._L _. . _ _

0.6 -com -*ThR - hop mTE,R- -

F A l l

~O - - - - - -- -

C 0.4

-1

% h N,- -

T-- L-e-- -- g-----g A --

=

=-Q 9 y o.3 J.31 -! -&h&

- - - - -- - --- - - - - - - -~ --

0.2 0.1 h-h-O =

- - - +- - - -i t- --

i i

i .

I I

O O 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 STROKE NUMBER DISK FACTOR VS STROKE NUMBER VALVE #3 OPENING STROKES uPR Associates F-140-4 9-6 5(B) ,

FIGURE 6-15 11/13/90 d

O  !

. eI

1 , . o:

ggk YOI VC SC3h (Yo 5 I* ); 4here Wo s a sig R ca d "&rmdi " .

Q( -lhe. /0-se1cb S N O M '

a y epger i,; 4 Ik+ cychY ks%

"'hh ert'* why " /""* 'h" * * "

• d3'b d .s s. f a d a r-

! havc A'S6 " "Pps_etowoownm n+ AVERAGE MAXIMUM l! ~ U - UNUSUAL BEHAVIOR ------- AV E R AG E U N W E DGIN G 1

4 l I I I. I I I I f 'l N I l 0.9 -

O ZERO STEM POSITION -I- ISOLATION

• WEDGING O MAXIMUM O.8 - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -

b- -- -- - - -

O.7 - - - - - - - - - - ------ -- ~-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

--0 S

g o.o - - - - - - - ---- -- - - - - - -- - - -- - - - -- -

COLD M1 ER HOf MTE F o.s - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - --- - - - - -

5 A NW i

C o.4 - - - - - - - --- - --

- --- - - l -

37 h-- --- - ---- - - - -

T c ---- g g g ,,

O o.s - - -- . 3 0 - --- g- --- - ~ -- - g o.2 a 0 0.1 -

0 O 1 2~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 STROKE NUMBER DISK FACTOR VS STROKE NUMBER VALVE #4 OPENING STROKES uen associares F-14 o-4 9-67( A)

FIGURE 6-17 to/2sino g o

Sec. go7E w Gy 6-17.

AVERAGE MAXIMUM

........ AVER AGE U NWEDGIN G U - UNU UAL BEHAVIOR l @ @

l I I I I  ! I i

• I AA i i i i O.9 -

O ZERO STEM POSITION + ISOLATION

• WEDGING O maximum G = 1 o.8 --L--! l

• t-r- # -- - {i - -l- - - :-

i

, l i 0.7 l N- - ~~~ -- --

{ o,o ___ _ cot.p mma_upr mynn = __

. I

F 0.5 i

^ ^ ^

'44 [- ----fh f A I d ---

C o.4 - - - -- - -- --

h -- l --

D-T  ;  ! __

O o.s -. .-

. 2 g q . - .... ..... -

_..,.....t...~.}-- ,

~ ~ - -

R -

l $ g a g g--- ,

0.2 --

--j -l - l - -- ---

6 m' a j o.1 -- b +- - - ---I - - - --

I-

---

[-- -------- -

t j

6 ,

i i i u l i o

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 STROKE NUMBER ,

DISK FACTOR VS STROKE NUMBER l

l VALVE #5 OPENING STROKES uen Associares F-14 0-4 9-69(B )

FIGURE 6-19 11/13/9 0 l

R. .

l I

1 ge Mcrre Rg o-17 l AVERAGE MAXIMUM B - BLOWDOWN U - UNUSU AL BEH AVIOR --------- AVER AGE UN WEDGING t

B B l @@@ B B U U U U) ll

• i l

] i u i l i i 1 .

l O.9 - O ZERO STEM POSITION -l- ISOLATION

• WEDGING O MAXIMUM

.I I- 1--------

0.8 -

$  !( -- - - -

Il +

,  ! i

' COLD MTER HOT VRTER g ,

.l 0.7 -- - -

I i o--

8 6

K 0.6 -

F o.s .50-A[- o! ,

9 i ,

I A

y j ,

l j o C 0.4 - - -

--{ - - - - ------ --------

T O 0,3 _ _---

.3 6 T

'e- g g - re-lo E--[----- l- -Ip - - -j ,---f- ----

G Ip R

0' 4 -

i

~g~

0.2 N__g3 : Guide rad was berj benf du ring 1ll t} - -

0.1 ,, e SmyS -

t l 0

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 2 4 STROKE NUMBER DISK FACTOR VS STROKE NUMBER una Associates VALVE #6 OPENING STROKES F-140-49-71(B)

FIGURE 6-21 11/13/90

-SL 0

h

, B - BLOWDOWN AVERAGE MAXIMUM

---

AVERAGE UNWEDGING i @ .

i , . .

i  ;

+ ISOLATION W

' l _ . . _ _ __ _ . _ _

O.9 i 0.8 ~~ ~~ 't i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~

O MAXIMUM ,

1 D o,7 _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ ... . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _. _ _ _

i S - - -

o.e -- -- - -- -- - - - -

K ,

HOT MTER o.5 -~~~ - - --- - ~ - --

-- - - ~

F A $ $--n - = - - -

C T

o.4 38hh- xn ^ -

^ --=;-

.asg.....1.....&.m........5.....4......e.4........+.".t.:.......g.......y .........x. +. . .. c. .

g o.3

_ 4e _ g .  ;- - _ _ . . . . . . _ . . _

g-,

o_, +_ !ss La _rr*r pr Sk .. -- _ -. ._ _._-

4 \S?f 1550 i

.W-- - lf d - 10SS - - - - - - -- - - - ---

O.1

, , u o

O 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 SS 60 STROKE NUMBER DISK FACTOR VS STROKE NUMBER VALVE A OPENING STROKES ueR AssociAres F-140-4 9-73(B)

FIGURE 6-23 11/13/90 5.

O O b

, .e 4

i 4

B - BLOWDOWN AVERAGE MAXIMUM

---

AVERAGE UNWEDGING 1 , ,  ;

c  ;

k I e

• l I + ISOLATION 4

. p . . . _ _ _ .. . ._.. _. . .  ;

O.9 WEDGING]  ;

l o.8 -

o uAxiuuu

- '- ~'~ ' ' ~ ~ - ~ -- ~ ~ - - ~--

--- F i i i

i' D - - - j --  !- -

j 0.7 y  ;

! k o.6

' "k" - --- - - C- - - - --- - -]-

! i 0.5 -- - - -

--}--- - - - - -- -- - -- - --- - - --

---l---

C o.4 .4 2 {kar s --~~trg-t"-F'""~""""~$"

""7:r""r" rsr":dr?rrr'r~~

T -

O . l o.3 I

I 0.2 u w k Qsu. ircv)- - -.wck) e -- - -

a l Sg2 /5r5 o.1 (-[g - l g,9 ; -iogog- - - - - - - , - --

I I 0

o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 STROKE NUMBER DISK FACTOR VS STROKE NUMBER VALVE B OPENING STROKES urn Associares F-14 0-49-75(B)

FIGURE 6-25 11/13/9 0 h

e

Disk Factor as a Function of Stroke Under Elevated Temperature Conditions for NRCANEL Gate Valve Tests 0.6

-+--Valve 1

-e-Valve 2

-*-Valve 3 0.5 [_ *

-M-Valve 4

-N-Valve 5 ,

0.4 -- ,

0 o

• y E 0.3 ; ; .,

F- i g o I __ a -

g ..

0.2 --

0.1 --

l l O

1 2 3 4 ,

Stroke Number at Elevated Temperature

1 n

't 1

i 1

a t-  !

'u ij l it i

l Joint Owners' Group (JOG)

MOV Periodic Verification (PV) Program  ;

i

.i. ,

r i i Status Update I,

5 a

JOG-NRC Meeting  ;

I z

-t October 15,1998 !i I

l JOGPVPmgram Status Update 1 EMPR j t

t i .

~

i l

t ,

( JOG PVProgram Overview ~

l L

Organization Participation of Three Owners' Groups (BWROG, l

CEOG, WOG) i l

Participants:

37 utilities,59 plants,95 units Program Content - described in Topical Report 9

(MPR-1807, Rev. 2)

- Interim Program

- Dynamic Test Program

- Resolution of Data and Final Program

JOGPVProgram Status Update 3 EMM _

.l

JOG Dynamic TestProgram i

i j' Objective - determine potential degradation in required

!. DP thrust and torque for a range of valves and conditions.

!. ~ Approach

{ ,

i Identify conditions and/or features which could H potentially lead to degradation.

i

. Assign valves for repeat DP testing at plants.

Test using a standard specification.

Evaluate test results for potential increases in valve factor and bearing friction coefficient.

JOG PVProgram Status Update 5 MMFE

~

l Progress Since LastJOG-NRC Meeting i " Lessons learned" on test data packages j communicated to plants for improvement of future test j data packages.

! - In-plant testing continues to be conducted and test

data packages have been submitted.

- Core Group Meeting August 1998 to review program

status and test data.

- Program procedures to evaluate potential degradation exercised.

• In-plant test database established.

i JOGPVProgram Status Update 7 EMPE _

---

.--_..---.m _ _ _ . _ _ _ .

TestMatrix and Program Coverage Assigned test valves cover idealized matrix in Topical Report, except for a few cases. Many groups are overfilled.

Several valve categories are underfilled.

• All but one of these categories are rarely used in safety-related applications.

For the one group, valves are generally not DP testable and typically have been addressed using EPRI PPM.

• Owners' Group prime reps to be informed of situation.

• If no alternate approach can be developed to address these groups, a Topical Report supplement will be issued to document a reduction in program scope.

JOG PVPmgram Status Update 9 EMPR

l l Insights From TestData - Gate Valves

! Test Data Packages With Multiple DP Strokes j Valve factor tends to slightly increase between first and l subsequent DP strokes during a DP test (Figures 1,2

! and 3 are examples which are representative of all points of interest).

Valves with Baseline and Second Data Packages Results from two approved packages show valve l factor decreases from baseline to 2nd test (Figures 4 and 5 are examples which are representative of all points of interest).

Results from one yet-to-be-approved package show valve factor increases from baseline to 2nd test (Fig 6).

JOG PVProgram Status Update 11 MMFR _

l

~

I

!j Figure 2. Valve Factor at Initial Wedging for 39 Gate Valves During Baseline Tests

t ,

- i

~ '

i Mean change from first to second closure stroke = 0.02.

.l Min = -0.026; Max =0.07.16 Positive; 4 Negative

_ _. . __ _ .- ~ - - 39 points - - - - - - - ----- - -- - --- --

- --20 points - - - - - - - - - -

.: +

i _ _ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ ______ _ _ . _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ ___

=

'k -

l* -

.: t

. +

11 =  :

!; 8 i- D = i

^

2

• t =  :  ;

g. .__ .__ . _ _ _

s t

_ _ . S_ _ _ _

S e

+ '

4 0 [

5  :  ;

A i

- =

1 2 <

DP Closure Stroke No. During Baseline Teet  !

JOGPVProgram Status Update 13 MPR i

l. lj !ll )I1jij l. !1ll i!!IIii!ll1il!4 R

P

_. M M

s _.

e .

l v _

a _.

V _

t e _

a -

G t s ,

, 2 G i n

o p

g" O .

J 3 _

r o .

f ._ .

g .

n

~

~ .

i .

g -

d -

e -

W l

i a -

t i

r n e i

~ b t .

m a

u r N t

o - .

t s

c e a - _

T F

e l

V v

a g

n

~

i -

s .

l o -

C .

f .

o _

n s -

_ e 5 Ws

• t

- n o

i n -

i 1 i

s o p . * . . -- . 1. g . le s

s 9 - _

a e

r 3 - -

B t

e g -

-. _ a o .

_ d r

p P

U

- s 4

- u t

e

- a t

r -

_. S u -

m g - _

a i -

F -

r g

- _ o r

P V

P G

O J

5gu. is l

o .

Figure 6. Valve Factor for JOG G22.15 -(Unapproved)

L 4

a s.

I i

i*

j

+Close IW2 (Max)  !

t , I.

l ..

-e-Close IW1 j l  !

.j....................:........................................[................

-*-Close Flow isol  !

I.  !

I.

-w. Open After l l

Cracking (Ma

+Open Flow In.x) it

.....................I.............................,n...'.,.s-i

! - .p....................

1 t,

1 ,

, t. i I I j i

' y u I

' ,-n ..................................[..........

I m

m 1

,j f ~

i

= t

...,................ 3 .i,

. - ,_.._.............i .................. 4.. .......... ...

- - 1 i -.

t

, - J-- , - -'

- _-  ! 1 1 ____ .

i.

g - -= = .,,2.,........................

6...................p....................

-.I

. I

i.I t..

.I. t,

.....................I.............................................................t....................

.1 l .t

!

Period between DP Tests (3 years)  !

I. :t-

}

Baseline Test  !  !

Second Test 1st stroke 4th stroke 1st stroke 4th stroke i i

Test and Stroke JOG PVProgram Status Update 17 MMFR I

l

I .

Actionfor Gate Valve Test With Valve FactorIncrease > 10% (cont.)

Schedule

• Core Group review of data - August 24,1998

• Additional information to Core Group - September 14,1998

• Teleconference - September 21,1998 i Draft Position Paper - September 28,1998

• Resolution of Core Group comments and new draft of l position paper - October 7,1998

> lssue of approved position paper to participants - by i October 31,1998 JOGPVProgram Status Update 19 EMPR _

.[

,,  !- ijl \'l lllllilI!!lii1\lII O

R F

M M

)

t s

e t s

T in i' 3 d o p

n 3 2

(

s .

e 3 l

v 0 2

a 0-V =

3 t e d sv ei t n tgo is a n

)

t iPr s u1 e d ,

T sei ev e kt o

r ga t n s e

s e t

i P N l

e T s g a D;4 n t

8 i B s 4 u

r

(

s l a0 D

. s t n . d0 7e io n=

a 4 2 o N

elv p r t x u a 5 sa e gV irM f

n; k

o i y e6 t r

Fl f e6 S r

e w0 P e-0 t

t t D u b=

e B gi n 6 anM r h o c f n a

xx t

n e i

e M i

c f 1 f 2 e

o C e k~

n t a

i o s d t t n p i

c ^

, +

• 1 U F

r W s u

9 t g a i

n t S

r a a m

e r

. B g o

r P

V P

G O

c$gge c.uEI5 J

! .4 t  !!4 ? '  ;;l ,i l

A L

l Insights From Test Data - Globe Valves

1 Balanced Disk Globe Valves

• Low thrust levels and low valve factors  :

• No data to evaluate degradstion Unbalanced Disk Globe Valves i

" Normal" valve factors (near 1.0)

• No data to evaluate degradation

• First test from valve under steam flow conditions JOGPVProgram Status Update 23 MFR .l

=

i t rem es s utett u ttm etuttuunusu i '

~

l ! 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 11l l l 1 l l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! l l l l i p .! s . _ - . _ _ _ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g.

a 1 t ill I 11 11 I 11 1 11111 11 1 11 11111 11 1111 1] ] 1 1 1 14 110 1 3 1 4

i n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 11 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 r M 11 1 11111 _ . .

1 !i L 1 l

Il 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

!! i ;i .1 .i ii 13 1 3 m .i ilitiuttiilill J d d J o e d5 5 d55 5d adR R R R RR R R R R R R R R R R R R 11111 1l ] ] ] i r] i

] i ]ii888 88'8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 i! i l l !! ! il l il i j]l i i !d ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

l

!l I-I

! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! ! ! !!l!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! i i ,, , ,

i i  ! i:

,:i i ,. i i!

! !!,1!!!'! ! ! 1s 5

1 1 11 1 111 1 1 1 11 11 sl is s i ti s

i i l l l l l =el l l l l l e l l l ll e hte l l l l l l l l l l ll l a n s s s s s s s s s s = s s s s s -

gs s s sssssesss sgae s i _

5 5 5 8 5 3 55 E m l E 3E E E 5 2 33 3 5 5 5ffElddEl fadEB i IR R B B BR Ea a B R E Rff fa E RR a t f aaafafBRR Ef!!!

s 3  ;

i . . . ..,,n

. . . . .'. e i

. i. . . .a 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9 a l-I p i i H I

I illH1Hil H I

. J ) 5 3111) } } f l } } l ) )$ l 13]l l ) )l ) )! ) l l )f l ! )

$ 3 = c e s s a s a s a 8 a s a s s a s as s a s se : c e . , s a as s s 8 4 E

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$35$$$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

s h o da c h h h w h h h lg w w w ig h h h h w w h h ig ig ig o o lg ig o ig ig ig w h h h o H eF h h h w w w t

@ ig ig ig ig o ig ig o o ig ig ig o o o H H l H H L H H H ee e v i

H H H H H L H H l l H H H L /w L L l H H L Tl a o 4 L f s

e -

AsV 4 O

t c e o -

n o

g a

e g P

o mt a la d .

n i. g g a.

G a. a. la la a. G ;L. G n n la la g g w G.

t en G. t t l a la l

a t e la la c l

a la la c l l a a w w m ta v o o c ic e e u o u e e w ic w m w c Si r c itc ic ic tc k k a ic k tz tz u d d k k tz k d d k itc r t a k k 9r O e L b 6 i r Sr 6 t r r t

r r r o L 0 0 L e e e o o e e 0 0 b o t t r r r

e e e e e e e b- b ;w- Ve 6-r r r r r H H V V 6 6 H H 7 7 V V -  ; - V V V V V V V V -  : -

s 0 5 er 1 0 0 1 2 2 k a oe C

< 0 0 1 0 4 1 1 0 0 2

< 0 - 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 o O 0 1 0 1 0 O 0 X 1 - -

2 trY < 5 6 1 Sr 5 e

P C

P r r r r r r r r r r r r r e e r r e

r e

r r e e e e e e e e e e e e e t t d d te a ta ta ta t

a t

a ta ta ta ta ta ta ta t

a ts ta a a e e w w r r r r r w w w w w w w r e w w w w w w w w w e e e p ta ta p p p p p p p p p p p p p te te p ta p p p re tre o ta o o o o o o o o o o a a o ta ta o o o o o o o lo lo w w w w w lo lo lo lo r t

f r

/

lo lo r lo w lo lo lo lo lo lo lo lo r l e e e d d e t n d d d d d  ;

d e . . e t

t t n n d n t t n n t

n d d d d d d

i a a e a e a d d e e e e ta ta ta e e ta e a e e e e e s s s e

s s s u ta s s s s s s w s la s s o o

l lo lo s o lo to lo o o o o d w w w o o o lo o o lo o o v e lo d r

F c co d cr c o o o co o c d

/

d

/ t a /c / e e d

d d d de

/ f d

lc m /c d

/

d r d d

/

d /c d

/

d d d

/

d d J d

/ /

d r  %-dd /

e o e e

/

r r d d e e ta r d d d

w e e ta ta e e e e e -

= w

• r *r tse tco toc tco o e e C. e te t

c m

a t t d ta e e ta ta r t

a tc ta ta ta ta ta ta ta

- a a e e aa e e ta r r e e n t

a e e e e e e e e e a a a e t t a a e e e e e e n n l- .

e r r r r r r

-.- r u u r r u t r r  :  :

ar ar t r r r r s tr t r fe r t t u t t t r tr t t t t t t t 0

1 0

1 4 4 l e p

ep ea y ty di r t iut e S le le le le e l l e

le le le l

S le l

le e le e l

le e le d. d e

Ga e e e e e e e e e te e e e te te te e e yM s t s ts ts ts ts, ts t

ts s ts iz a. t s, s s s ts d e H e H re H n H e ie H H H H n n n n ts. S. n n n lm . n n n ts. n oc P t P s P o P t P P P P bo bo to -vv o o o o o ;v v o o o b br br W br o

Ba br 6 6 br br br c i u

'.C Ca Ca Ca C. Ca i

F 4- m 4- 0 4- br 4- n 4 4 r r r la r

te T 0 7 a 7 te 7 7 7 7 a a a . a - a a a 7

1 S 1 3 1 C 1 S 1 1 1 1 C C C C C C C C C C M R S

te S te 0 1

l S 4 et a S S s S / S S S S e l

ld re S S s S le le le le le le le le le le S S ut s s le s e e te te e e e e '

e e s s s e a n ie ts t S ts ts t

s ts ts ie e ts C M ie ie ia re s.. n S. n n n s. n ie r r if n r

e e r n n e e e te 6 bor 0s s o 6 bor bor Cr o o k te te te te te te te te s s t

S s o v o te s is ec h m m m n m n n i i i br ^v br br br r i

n e

m 0 0 br DaF le te te 00 0 6 . a a a a a 3 te a 0 a 0I5 a te te te te te 3 0 0 C C IC t

t S S S S S S S S 3 3 3 C C C C C C 1 S S C C 3 3 3 C

~

~ ~~

~

e

~~ ~

~

~ ~ m el ca at

~

~ ~

~

~

h or l e le le r ~

k k k F e C ic ic ec t t aa te te te'e t te te te te'e t t e te te te te te te te t e l e

l e le N N N le eM mten m n n r r r r n m i i n n 9 9 9 n m m m mnTt i n i

i n n i i h i i i l h n n k S le te te te te le C C C C ie te te te te e te te ic o o 4 4 4 o te te te te te te t 3 3 3 3 t S S S S S S t

S S S S S S 1 1 1 1 S S S S S S S S N M M s l

1. # M

~ ' le le le

~

~

~ ' te te te S e S s S

~

~

el ~ s m s s s ca ~ s o le at r le r le F e - n h n n k a t ~~ ia C ia ia y y y ism te t e te ta te te te te e te te te te t S te te te le S t t S o no no r D m ni i mte i i i ni m N m ne Cr Cr Cr Cr &

i e r r i i i n

n n n n C nte nte nte k e e C l

C 0 0 0 e te te te te te t te te te te te te t 3 3 3 3 te te 3 1 2 ic 1 1 x x x 2 S S S S S S S S S S S S 1 1 1 1 S S 1 4 1 S S S N 4 4 E E E 1 e e g

e e g

eg e e g

e g e g e e g

e g

e g

e g

e g

e g

e g

e g

e g

e g g g g p

y d

e d

e d

e d

e d

e d

e d

e d

e d

e d

e d

e d

e eg e

g e

g e

g d

e d

e d

e e g

d e e g

d e

d e k e g

e g

e g

e g

eg d

e i

x T W W W W W W W W W W W W d d e e e e W W d d W de W de W W is D d d e e e d d e

d e W k e le le le le le le le le le le r is l le W W W W ie le b b le W le W le b b b le b b l e W W W W W le b t b b b b b b b b b b b b d a D i x x ix x x ix x x x x x i i i i i i i i ix i d d d i i i

x i

x ix di i

x dl i i x x u d i

d n

d i

d d i

n ix le lo lo lo io e le le lo le lo le le o o o lo lo a le l l le le le le le le le le le le le M S F F D S S S l

F F F F F F F F F F F F S S S S F F F S F S S F

)

b t

s I

( 5 3

5 2 0 0 5 3 0 5 2 0 0 0

0 0 0 '00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s 0 5 5 0 0 0 5 0 5 5 0 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 e s 2 1 1 3 2 0 1 9 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 9 9 1 3 3 3 9 9 3 3 3 6 6 6 1 T la C

e )

l v in

( 3 6 6 2 3 2 2 6 3 4 4 4 8 2 5- 0 1

4 4 4 8 8 3 6 6 6 3 3 6 6 6 6 a e 1 1 1 1 3 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V tr S

t e r e e e e g e g e s n n a r u

s u

o a

v s

u s

u o

i t

r a

s o

u r

e r

e r

e r

e i t

r a

G t c

a h

g G g

v h

g D hg

/

r m

a m

a m

a m

a h t

r D

i f a n o W- W- W- W- n o n n e ne e n c

u in ks k n hts ho ts i g g e w e e e ri e n n e w

. e e n n n n n e e e ts a e c e g g w la w w n n w n e.

n g 1

- M a e e W W h e n r

in o o o o o

'V W A W R B B B B P W P P C C P C P r r r o o a r a

r o a r v

d a a r a

r

d. a P C C A C C C C C F

. r a

r a

r a r

a r A.

3 l

e ts o eN 4 6 7 8 9 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 4 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 b T xi 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 0 1

0 1

0 1

0 0 0 0 1

0 1

0 1

0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

. c Gt r Oa 5

7 5

7 5

7 5

7 5

7 9

7 9

7 1

8 3

8 3

8 4 5 8

8 8 9 0 1 1 1 1 2 3 6 6 8 9 9 9 9

9 9 9 T JM G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

... , o o ,o :

b Table 3-3: Balanced Disk Globe Valve Test Matrix os.ow_se

' JOG Test DP Stroking

. Matrix No. Manufactures' Size (in) Class (Ib) Disk Guide Material Body Guide Material Fluid PerYear l BG02.1 Fisher Controls 4 900 Stellite 17-4 PH feedwater 0 l BG05.1 Fisher Controls 4 300 300 se5 SIa~inless Steel 400 series Stainless Steel - treated /closedloop water 6 5G06.1 Copes-VtEaE 10 ~~l56 ~ 466 se

'ies'5tainless Steid 400 series Stainless Steel untreated water 1 l BG06.2 CCI 8 300 300 series Stainless Steel _400 series Stainless Steel reactor coolant water 0 BG08.1 CCI 2 900 d10 Stainless Steel Carbon steel feedwater 0 BG10.1 Copes-Vulcan 12 150~ 17-4 PH Stainless Steel ta a._:;,,; water 4

BG10.2 Copes-Vulcan 16 150 17-4 PH Stainless Steel untreated water 4 e

i l

i

+

Peoe1of s l

I

i*

4 C

i GL 89-10 AND GL 96-05 REVIEW STATUS '

GL 89-10 NRC HAS COMPLETED ITS REVIEW OF GL 89-10 PROGRAMS AT ALL ,

ACTIVE REACTOR UNITS WITH EXCEPTION OF DC COOK AND l OYSTER CREEK.

GL 89-10 REVIEW CLOSED AT 101 REACTOR UNITS WITH SEABROOK REPORT IN PREPARATION.

BROWNS FERRY 1 AND MILLSTONE 1 WILL COMPLETE GL 89-10 BEFORE RESTART.

GL 96-05 63 REACTOR UNITS HAVE UPDATED THEIR RESPONSES TO GL 96-05 INDICATING THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE JOG PROGRAM.

19 REACTOR UNITS IN THEIR MOST RECENT SUBMITTALS HAVE NOT COMMITTED TO IMPLEMENT THE JOG PROGRAM.

NON-JOG PLANTS ARE CURRENTLY IDENTIFIED AS CALLAWAY CRYSTAL RIVER DAVIS BESSE FORT CALHOUN NORTH ANNA 1/2 PALISADES POINT BEACH 1/2 SAN ONOFRE 2/3 ST. LUCIE 1/2 SURRY 1/2 VC SUMMER TURKEY POINT 3/4 l VERMONT YANKEE FARLEY 1/2 PLANS TO COMMIT TO JOG PROGRAM.

NRC ISSUED SAFETY EVALUATION ACCEPTING COMANCHE PEAK 1/2 GL 96-05 PROGRAM ON SEPTEMBER 30,1998.

ATTACHMENT 6

s i

o PRINCIPAL ASPECTS OF GL 96-05 PROGRAM REVIEW OF LICENSEES PARTICIPATING IN JOG PROGRAM

1. GL 96-05 PROGRAM SCOPE (INCLUDING SURVEILLANCE TEST VALVES)

2. MAINTAINING ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGIES OF MOV PROGRAM, INCLUDING DESIGN BASIS AND ANY POWER UPRATE.

3. GL 89-10 LONG-TERM COMMITMENTS (SUCH AS MOV TESTING FOR VALVE FACTOR, STEM FRICTION COEFFICIENT OR RATE OF LOADING, AND TRENDING)

4. COMMITMENT TO OMN-1 (IF APPLICABLE)

5. CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONS IN NRC SE ON JOG PROGRAM, AND BWROG AND WOG MOV RISK-RANKING APPROACHES (AS APPLICABLE), INCLUDING COORDINATION AND TEST INFORMATION FEEDBACK.

6. ANY EXCEPTIONS TO JOG PROGRAM AND THEIR JUSTIFICATION.

7. MOV RISK-RANKING APPROACH IF NOT COMMITTED TO BWROG OR WOG PROGRAM.

8. PERIODIC VERIFICATION FOR MOVs OR CONDITIONS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE JOG PROGRAM.

9. MONITORING OF FOTENTIAL DEGRADATION AFFECTING ACTUATOR OUTPUT (INCLUDING CONSIDERATION OF LIMITORQUE TECHNICAL UPDATE 98-01).

.m ---e. .

%-.-. ..9 *** < + , - - , - + . - * - . . . -

O TEMPORARY INSTRUCTION 2515/140 ,

FOR GL 96-05 INSPECTIONS REVIEW LICENSEE COMMITMENTS IN RESPONSE TO GL 96-05.

VERIFY IMPLEMENTATION OF PLANS AND COMMITMENTS MADE AS PART OF COMPLETION OF MOV PROGRAM IN RESPONSE TO GL 89-10.

DETERMINE WHETHER LICENSEE HAS ESTABLISHED AND IS IMPLEMENTING A PROGRAM TO PROVIDE CONTINUED ASSURANCE THAT MOVs WITHIN SCOPE OF GL 96-05 ARE CAPABLE OF OPERATING UNDER DESIGN-BASIS CONDITIONS. IN PARTICULAR, EVALUATE LICENSEE'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE FOLLOWING ASPECTS OF GL 96-05 PROGRAM:

SCOPE, CURRENT DESIGN BASIS OF MOVs IN GL 96-05 PROGRAM, DEGRADATION RATE FOR POTENTIAL INCREASE IN THRUST OR TORQUE (AS APPLICABLE) REQUIREMENTS TO OPERATE VALVES, DEGRADATION RATE FOR POTENTIAL DECREASE IN MOV ACTUATOR OUTPUT UNDER DYNAMIC CONDITIONS, PERIODIC TEST METHOD TO IDENTIFY AGE-RELATED DEGRADATION AFFECTING VALVE THRUST OR TORQUE REQUIREMENTS, AND ACTUATOR OUTPUT, EVALUAT!ON OF TEST DATA TO JUSTIFY MOV TEST INTERVALS, AND PERIODIC TEST INTERVAL THAT ENSURES CONTINUED MOV <

DESIGN-BASIS CAPABILITY UNTIL NEXT SCHEDULED TEST.

VERIFY THAT ALL ELEMENTS OF MOV PROGRAM ARE ENCOMPASSED BY THE QA CRITERIA OF APPENDIX B TO 10 CFR PART 50.

1 e

o NRC SAFETY EVALUATION ON WESTINGHOUSE OWNERS GROUP MOV RISK-RANKING METHOD WOG SUBMITTED ENGINEERING REPORT V-EC-1658 (REVISION 1), " RISK RANKING APPROACH FOR MOTOR-OPERATED VALVES IN RESPONSE TO GENERIC LETTER 96-05," ON DECEMBER 19,1997.

WOG MOV RISK-RANKING APPROACH RESULTS IN SAFETY-SIGNIFICANCE RANKINGS OF MOVs BASED ON (1) AN EXPERT PANEL PROCESS; (2) RISK IMPORTANCE RANKINGS OF COMPONENTS FROM PROBABILISTIC SAFETY ASSESSMENT; AND (3) INDUSTRY-ESTABLISHED THRESHOLD VALUES FOR RISK IMPORTANCE.

NRC SAFETY EVALUATION (APRIL 14,1998) ACCEPTED WOG APPROACH l

FOR MOV RISK RANKING WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS.

PRINCIPAL CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS ARE:

SCOPE IS LICENSEE'S RESPONSIBILITY, LICENSEE MUST CONSIDER MOV PERFORMANCE ON CONTAINMENT BYPASS AND RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL RELEASE, LICENSEE MUST REVIEW WOG HIGH AND MEDIUM RISK MOVs, LICENSEE MUST CONSIDER ACCURACY OF MOV FAILURE RATE, LICENSEE MUST ADDRESS POTENTIAL FOR INTRASYSTEM AND INTERSYSTEM MOV COMMON-CAUSE FAILURE RESULTING FROM MAINTENANCE OR TESTING ACTIVITIES, LICENSEE MUST HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT EACH SAFETY-RELATED MOV CAN PERFORM ITS SAFETY FUNCTION BETWEEN TESTS, WOG INTERIM PERIODIC VERIFICATION CRITERIA FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY, AND MOV RISK-RANKING APPROACH IN.WOG REPORT ONLY APPLICABLE TO GL 96-05 PROGRAMS AND LICENSEE MUST NOTIFY NRC OF USE OF WOG APPROACH.

r

.,,-..,,a se -- ,~.-w-mo _.no --

- ~ . e m ..w .* g - -~