ML20247B269

Summary of 890201 Meeting to Review Results of Valve Blowdown Tests Re Generic Issue 87, Failure of HPCI Steam Line W/O Isolation. List of Attendees & Agenda Encl

ML20247B269
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/14/1989
From:	Bosnak R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
To:	Beckjord E, Jordan E, Ross D NRC
References
REF-GTECI-087, REF-GTECI-NI, TASK-087, TASK-87, TASK-OR NUDOCS 8903290325
Download: ML20247B269 (8)

Text

-

o UNITED STATES g

,f, g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 l

[;E 7;

tg MAR 141989 MEMORANDUM FOR:

DISTRIBUTION i

FROM:

Robert J. Bosnak, Deputy Director Division of Engineer, RES j

SUMMARY

OF NRC MEETING TO REVIEW RESULTS OF VALVE BLOWDOWN j

TESTS RELATED TO GENERIC ISSUE 87, " FAILURE OF HPCI STEAM LINE WITHOUT ISOLATION" This memorandum transmits the report (Enclosure 1) summarizing the subject inceting that was held on February 1,1989 (see Enclosure 2 for meeting agenda).

j For this meeting, 19 experts (17 from outside the NRC) were specifically l

invited to take an active part in the meeting and offer their expertise to the i

discussions. These experts consisted of representatives from valve, motor j

operator and diagnostic equipment manufacturers, utilities, the Electric Power l

Research Institute (EPRI) and national laboratories. These experts formed a

{

panel to whom specific questions and discussions about topics of their respective expertise could be directed. '(See Enclosure 3 for a list of panel membersaswellasotherattendees.) For example, questions and discussions on expected behavior of valves under various flow conditions would be addressed by the valve experts and questions on diagnostic equipment and methods would be addressed by the diagnostic equipment experts.

The purpose for the meeting was to determine whether the blowdown tests and results are acceptable for demonstrating that MOVs perform as designed and that diagnostic equipment is capable of predicting valve performance at accident l

conditions using in situ tests conducted at routine test conditions.

l 1

The first part of the meetitg was devoted to reviewing the results of the valve blowdown tests and details of the background, hardware,(test conditions, etc.,

l

{

presented by the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory INEL).Questionsfrom l

the panel on this information were encouraged; however, each of the 17 experts had received a data package in advance of the nieeting and many questions had been answered by previous communications with the INEL. Questions from the general audience were also encouraged. Some of the topics of most interest were:

unpredicted nonlinear thrust characteristic occurred during closure of one of the valves,

-l the nonlinearity most likely caused by the relatively large clearance between the valve disc and its guides, I

4 diagnostic equipment suited for valves that possess normal thrust el l

characteristics,

[ h j

fi l OM3 ji 9903290325 890314 PDR GTECI GNIO87 I

{

PDC

-_m__.

blSTRICUTION.

.2l MAR 14 '1983 a

efficiency.of converting operator torque.to' disc thrust reduces as thrust loads. increase

and, the equation used,by the industry to ' predict max thrust required to '

-l close. valves under blowdown conditions is more accurate using a.

friction. factor' of 0.5.. (Thrust output for a valve having nonlinear:

thrust characteristics cannot be accurately predicted.)

tions of.th..of.the meeting was. devoted to_ discussing.the experts interpreta-The balance

e. test results as the. data pertains'to the' respective components-involved in the tests.. In addition, although these discussions provided clearer understandings of the behavior of the respective components,.these

~

8 discussions were_ intended to provide insights for needed research effort

. pertaining to GI-87. Also, to supplement these discussions,'the EPRI representative presented a summary of the current' related work being funded ay EPRI and the' plans for subsequent efforts.. (See item 7 for further information on EPRI funded efforts.)

a We believe that the. meeting was successful and.that.the purpose was fulfilled.

H The panel generally agreed that the tests with some exceptions are acceptable l

and that the data contributes to the understanding of valve and-diagnostic I

equipment behavior. However, the panel also agreed.that more information is l

needed before general conclusions can be' made for resolving GI-87.

1 The meeting was formally recorded and the record has been sent to the NRC Public Document Room under the title:

" Meeting to Review Valve Blowdown l

Tests."

If there are any questions regarding eith?r the meeting or the enclosures, j.

please contact Dr. Gerald Weidenhamer (x22039).of my staff.

I O-ob osnak, Deputy Director i

Div sion of Engineering,.RES j

Enclosures:

As stated j

l 1

l L

y i

I l

4 5

u_____________._.__________

q a

. ?-

l]

DISTRIBUTION:

FOR MEMORANDUM DATED 3/14/89.

j u

E. Jordan W. Hodges E. Beckjord F. Rosa:

q D. Ross C. Berlinger.

j T, Speis J. Rosenthal~

l G. Arlotto J. Mazetis W.. Houston F.-Cherny L. Shao E. Sullivan C. Rossi R. Woods B.' Grimes.

O.LRothberg

.T. Novak

.J. Huang F. Miraglia

.H.

Shaw 1

J. Blaha P. Kang.

'j W. Minners

-R. Kiessel J. Richardson J. Jacobson L

-M. Vagins E. Brown j

l K..Kniel J. Vora R. Baer W. Farmer 1

L. Marsh

'S. Athavale R.~ Fraley-G. Weidenhamer

.. M. Taylor R. Colmar QDRjjj L

I 1:

l:

_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ -

ENCLOSURE 1 l

SUMMARY

OF NRC VALVE MEETING The Division of Engineering in the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, NRC, sponsored a meeting on February 1,1989, to discuss the results of Motor Operated Valve (MOV) tests with a panel of experts. These tests were conducted to evaluate the capability of specific gate valves to interrupt high velocity flows that can occur in the event of a guillotine pipe break outside contain-ment. The results are expected to contribute to the resolution of Generic Issue (GI) 87, " Failure of HPCI Steam Line Without Isolation." A total of 14 1

blowdown tests were conducted on two different valves.

The main purposes for the meeting were to review the results of the valve blowdown tests and to determine whether these results are acceptable for demonstrating that MOVs perform as designed and that diagnostic equipment is-capable of predicting valve performance at design basis (postulated pipe rupture) conditions using in situ tests.

The panel consisted of 19 experts (17 from outside the NRC) with representatives from valve, motor operator, and diagnostic equipment manufacturers, utilities, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI),

national laboratories, and NRC staff from the Offices of Nuclear Regulatory Research and Nuclear Reactor Regulation. An additional audience of approxi-mately 55 people attended and questions from these people were also addressed by the panel.

In general, the panel found that with some exceptions (see item 3 below) the test results are valid for the conditions and particular valves tested, and that the data adds to the understanding of valve, motor operator and diagnostic equipment design and performance aspects.

However, some members of the panel also believe that additional testing and data analysis are needed so that more i

general conclusions can be made.

The panel also suggested that the test data should be made available for review.

j One important conclusion is that although flow isolation was accomplished in all 14 blowdown tests, some results (see item 2 below) indicated that complete closure may not be assured for certain valve / operator combinations that are now installed on existing plants *.

The main discussion topics and findings are summarized below:

1.

There was agreement that these tests provide valuable hot water blowdown data and the results contribute to understanding the behavior of valves and motor operators during these kinds of accident conditions.

1 I

• The NRC believes that since events to cause pipe rupture have very low probability of occurrence, no regulatory actions are justified at this time.

i l

2.

A thrust higher than predicted by design was observed on one of the valves during closure under near saturated flow conditions. Thc operator on this l

valve had been oversized to assure closure during the test; however, an evaluation-of the test data indicates that normal valve operator sizing and i

the selection of torque switch setting per existing industry practice would have resulted in a failure to completely close. The panel agreed that this anomaly was likely due to relatively large mechanical clearances between

' the disc and the disc guides which allowed the disc' to tilt in the' down-stream direction such that an interference between the bottom of the gate and the hard facing on the valve body occurs during closure. Some of the panel felt that there is not enough information to draw general conclusions on this design thrust underprediction based on the performance of one valve.

3.

The damage observed on the downstream hard face sealing surfaces of the valve disc and valve body of the valve discussed in item 2 is evidence of the interference. The initial damage is believed to have' occurred on the j

second test; therefore, the closing thrust characteristics on subsequent blowdown tests of the valve may not be totally indicative of undamaged valve behavior.

4.

Diagnostic capabilities were discussed and it was concluded that valve I

l performance can be improved through the use of diagnostic testin.

How-ever, two factors influence the results of diagnostic testing;

1) that the motor operator sizing equations and the torque switch setting correctly model the valve performance required;.and (2) those diagnostic systems which indirectly measure both thrust and torque will provide more perfor-mance information than those which only measure one of the performance indicators. These systems are also useful for detecting changes (degrada-tion) in valve operating characteristics.

5.

Test data indicates a reduction in efficiency of converting torque to thrust as thrust loading increases. This is a factor that requires further l

understanding for proper operator sizing and diagnostic testing.

Rate of thrust loading is another factor affecting proper valve torque switch setting and diagnostic testing. The latter factor was noted by several l

panel members who indicated that the thrust at torque switch trip under no flow test conditions could be significantly higher than that available 1

during higher load conditions.

6.

Both valves exhibited higher disc friction factors than the typical 0.3 i

used by industry. This was true for both valve opening and closing cycles.

i The only test results where the thrust was enveloped by the 0.3 disc 1

friction factor was the pressurized cold water opening test without flow.

7.

The EPRI funded efforts currently underway include the development of i

specific motor operator maintenance guides and MOV applications guides.

i These efforts are intended to demonstrate some of the industries initia-J tives to remedy MOV performance and reliability problems.

In addition, EPRI intends to develop a methodology for predicting the performance capability of MOVs to provide assurance of operability at design conditions without the need for in situ testing at these conditions. A survey of available information on this latter topic will be completed in 1989 and will be followed with a test program (to begin in 1990) to provide the basis for the methodology.

j 2

y

' ENCLOSURE 2-

)

AGENDA MEETING TO REVIEW VALVE BLOWDOWN TESTS FEBRUARY 1, 1989 8:30 - 8:40 I

Introduction & Agenda G. Weidenhamer 1

(NRC) i 8:40 - 9:00 II Purpose and Format of Meeting R. Bosnak (NRC) i 9:00 - 9:15 III Meeting Goals, Potential Problems R. Bosnak i

and Questions (NRC) 9:15 - 11:00 IV Presentation of Significant Test Results R. Steele K. DeWall 10:00 - 10:15 - BREAK (INEL)

{

1 11:00 - 4:30 V

Discussion of Potential Problems R. Bosnak i

and Questions (NRC) 12:00 - 1:00 LUNCH 2:45 - 3:00 - BREAK A set of prepared questions on specific topics will be distributed to main par-ticipants prior to meeting.

4:30 - 5:00 VI Status of Industry Action to Remedy MOV Performance and Reliability Problems EPRI 5:00 - 5:45 VII Questions, Statements & Com ents from Floor ALL (Time permitting) 5:45 - 6:00 VIII Meeting Wrap-up G. Weidenhamer (NRC) 6:00 IX Adjourn 1

l

- - -- -- - - -- - A

ENCLOSURE 3 I

FEBRUARY 1, 1989 NRC VALVE MEETING ATTENDANCE NAME-AFFILIATION PHONE N0.

1 PANEL MEMBERS Robert Bosnak USNRC - Research (301)492-3850 l

G. Weidenhamer USNRC - Research (301)492-3839 I

L. B. Marsh USNRC - Research (301)492-0902 F. C. Cherny USNRC - NRR (301)492-3945 D. M. Eissenberg ORNL (615)574-0747 D. S. Warsing Limitorque Corp.

(804)845-9705 l

Roger Carr Movats, Inc.

(404)424-6343 Robert L. Leon Liberty Technology Ctr.

(215)834-0330 l

Claude L. Thibault Wyle Labs (205)837-4411 i

Fred Washburn Rotork Controls (716)328-1550 John E. Allen ANPP-ASME (602)371-7473 John F. Hosler EPRI (415)855-2785 Peter R. Wohld Chicago Nuc. Corp.-Consultant (312)790-4774 I

R. Steele INEL (208)526-6409 I

K. G. DeWall INEL (208)S26-0313 Robert Koester The Wm. Powell Co. (Valves)

(513)852-2191 John Farrell Velan Valve Corp.

(514)748-7743 W. G. Knecht Anchor / Darling Valve Co.

(717)327-4811 1

Neal E. Estep Duke Power Co.

(704)373-3482 j

Brian Curry Philadelphia Electric Co.

(215)327-1200 (x4497)

Robert C. Elfstrom Toledo Edison Co.

(419)249-5000 (x7692) 1 GENERAL AUDIENCE Robert J. Prato Penn. Power & Light Co.

(215)770-7925 Kirk D. Kelhofer Westinghouse (412)733-6772 Richard R. Kent Westinghouse (412)733-6436 Bob Weiner MPR Associates (202)659-2320 Paul Damerell MPR Associates (202)659-2320 Willard Grant MPR Associates (202)659-2320 Owen Rothberg NRC/RES/EIB (301)492-3924 l

Carlyle Michelson NRC/ACRS (615)482-9363 Earl J. Brown NRC/AE0D (301)492-4491 Richard Kiessel NRC/NRR/0GEB (301)492-1154 Matthew Chiramal NRC/AE0D (301)492-4441 Charles R. Jones Tenera (3011654-8960 Stan Hale Movats (404)424-6343 Joe Nadeau Movat (404)424-6343 Bill Lavalle Movats (4041424-6343 Kulin D. Desai NRC/NRR/SRXB (301)492-1058 Roy Woods NRC/RES/DSIR (301)492-3908 Joel Anderson Bechtel (301)258-4867 a

2 NAME AFFILIATION PHONE NO.

GENERAL AUDIENCE (Cont.)

Warren Minners NRC/RES/DSIR (301)492-3980 William Farmer NRC/RES/DE (3011492-3858 N. Trehan NRC/NRR/ DEST (301)492-0807 Thomas Rak No affiliation (503)397-6954 Jerry Mazetis NRC/RES/DSIR (301)492-3906 Karl Kniel NRC/RES/DSIR (301)492-3950 Joel'Page NRC/RES/EIB (301)492-3941 Jack Burns NRC/RES/DE/EMEB (301)492-3845 Peter J. Kang NRC/ NRR/DGST/SELB (301)492-0812 Glenn Shuster General Physics (301)290-2505 Sherwyn Hyten Wyle Laboratories (205)837-4411 Guy A. Arlotto NRC/RES/DE (301)492-3800 Robert Baer NRC/RES/DSIR/EIB (301)449-3930 Michael W. Taylor BG&E-Calvert Cliffs (301)260-3941 Michael C. Mancini Liberty Technology Center (215)834-0330 Randy Vantear B&W (804)385-2789 l

Richard Tuft Liberty Technology Center (215)834-0330 J. D. Smith NRC/DRIS (301)492-0976 Glenn Vava Crane Valve Service (815)886-1710 Jim Krueger Crane-Aloyco (815)886-1710 Alan R. Joyce Stone & Webster Eng.

(617)589-7171 Paul B. Boulden Virginia Power Company (703)894-5151 (x2837)

H. Lowell Magleby INEL (208)526-0362 William Hemming INEL (Rockville, MD)

(301)492-3673 Gerry L. Jones DOE-Idaho Operations (208)526-1584 Nick Konstantinou CECO (312)294-8557 Clive Callaway NUMARC (202)872-1280 Drew Wright Anchor / Darling Valve (717)327-4860 Jit Vora NRC/RES/DE (301)492-3854 l

i I