ML20128D611

Joint Affidavit of I Barnes & Ft Grubelich Re Borg-Warner Check Valves.* Discusses Issues Re Borg-Warner Check Valves Raised by Cfur & Adequacy of Actions Taken by TU Electric

ML20128D611
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	01/26/1993
From:	Barnes I, Grubelich F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:
Shared Package
ML20128D578	List: ML20128D574 ML20128D611
References
OL, NUDOCS 9302100188
Download: ML20128D611 (7)

Text

_. ..__ _ _ . . _ _ _ . __ _ _ ___ ._ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ .

l i .-

i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[

BEFORE THE COMMISSION l

In the Matter of .)

)

. TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) Docket No. 50-446-OL 2

COMPANY )

_ )

l (Comanche Peak Steam Electric )

i Station, Unit 2) ).

j

[

i JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF IAN BARNES AND FRANCIS T. GRUBEUCH l REGARDING BORG-WARNER CHECK VALVES-i

! We, Ian Barnes and Francis T. Gmbelich, first being duly sworn, depose and state:

! I. Our names are Ian Barnes and Francis T. Gmbelich._'We am employed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Ian Barnes as Technical Assistant in the l; Division of Reactor _ Safety, NRC Region IV; and Francis T. Grubelich as' Mechanical h Engineer in the Division of Engineering, Mechanical Engineering Branch, Office of

1. -

Nuclear Reactor Regulation. > Statements of our professional qualifications are attached '

1 i I

hemto as Attachments 1 and 2.

4 i

j 2. The purpose of our affidavit is to describe the issues associated with Borg-_---

Warner check valves raised by Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation and to discuss the adequacy of the actions taken by Texas-Utilities Electric' Company (TU Electric).

9302100188'930127 PDR ADOCK.05000446

^O -PDR e 'e r twwnv--n- eh r etwv , ev r- - -m e * -x- e v e - e y w ere-t-r -e -p-t ., w nr= $? s- s-, -rw w a w +, e - ve w- r, --e,ve-rr-, , e w--r - e n , e-wwww- e 1 r~- w e t-e-A -w te w we e e- g--r- -rw ee *w= w a es h e w we - e -

.2-

3. Failures of Unit 1 Borg Warner check valves in the auxiliary feedwater (AFW) system were addressed by TU Electric in Construction Deficiency .

Significant Deficiency Analysis Report (SDAR) CP-89-15, " Auxiliary Feedwater ,

System Check Valves." Dese failures related to hardware and installation problems c which precluded the valves from performmg their designed safety function of-preventing reverse flow. The SDAR was subsequently increased in scope to address =

additional problems which were encountered with the check valves.- his construction deficiency was reviewed and closed for Unit 1 by the staff based on TU Electric .

changes to installation procedures, replacement of swing arms in certain check valves-  :

5  ;

with investment cast material, correction of alignment problems, and adding ci a countenveight to the disc stud. In addition, the check valves were retest.xi after reinstallation by the application of reverse flow tests or through the use of radiography -

to ensure their correct operation.

These actions were deemed acceptable' for liccasinr, of CPSES, Unit I and were

- addressed in the September 27,1991, response to a 10 CFR 2.206 petition submitted -

on behalf of Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation. This response determined that there was no adequate basis in the Petition for taking the action requested.

/ 1

l  ;

l l

-1

p. -i i l i  !

l ' 4. - An inspection was conducted by us during November 30 through .

1 i

j December 7,1992, and January 24-25,1993, to verify satisfactory TU Electric l completion of SDAR CP-89-15 for CPSES, Unit 2. . The results of this inspection will 4

i -

I be documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-445/92-52; 50-446/92-52, which is in the course of preparation. During this inspection, we reviewed actions taken with respect' l

i- to_ installation procedures, replacement of swing arms, correction of slignment -

j problems, addition of a counterweight to the disc stud in AFW system check valves,

!- and retesting of check valves to ensure their correct operation.

l Based on this review, we concluded that TU Electric had taken equivalent measures to i

j- assure pmper operation of Bo'rg-Warner pressure seal bonnet check valves on Unit 2 as - ,

! was the case for Unit 1. -

I l= -5. In addition, during this inspection we reviewed TU Electric actions related -

j. to the failure of a disc stud on a Unit 2 AFW valve, which'was discovered as a result -

of performance of a reverse flow test on Jul, 2 i E This review revealed that TU

1

! Electric had appropriately assessed the cause of this failure and had taken action to temove a modification which had contributed to the failure. . This review also -

determined that high flow rates which contributed to the failure were not expected under postulated conditions for which the valves would be requhed to function.- TU 4

y - ,--in - - t- w., , e- r, .,, y -%r m ,.--m,rw.wi,.,m-m.n.-Eww..w .r e..,m_. ..'ers,. _/,,.-+e--m.~,.'s

_._.-. .. _ . . _ = , _ _

i .

, 4 4

t

Electric actions on this matter am viewed as appropriate to mturn the Urd: 2 valves to l a condition equivalent to the Unit I valves.

! 6. During this inspection, two bolted bonnet design check valves failed to pass I

the mverse flow test performed by TU Electric to ensure correct opentien &

i particular valves did not perform any safety related function. Based on our review of

TU Electric cornctive actions, root cause analysis, and assessment of generic ]

implications, we detennined that TU Electric had appropriately evaluated and msolved this issue.

I 7

7. As a result of the reviews discussed above, we conclude that TU Elt,.'.ric o ,

- has taken appropriate measures to assure proper operation of Borg-Wamer check valves at CPSES, Unit 2. It is our opinion that the reverse flow testing performed to- _

detect problems, and corrective measures implemented, provide adequate assurance that Borg-Warner check valves will perform the required safety functions.

e J

-. ._, . . . . . . . .u ., .....,-.._,..-.-._.,_.a,...,__.._.._.,....,....,.._,.....,-..-.-._.......

t 8. The matters stated above are tme and correct to the best of our knowledge, infonnation, and belief.

% 3% > . e Ian Barnes Francis Tgnibelich Subscribed and sworn to me before iounu ,

me this 26th day of January,1993 i@nv r, E

• c

$ ., " *: i

< :wi

' 0 rM/ .In** M'.. * '

4'otary Public

%,,,,,e.'9.,.2.

. .. o4,.s My commission expires 9/2/94

=

f l

... __ ____________--________-_____-__-_______-____-_____-_-____-_-__A

l 4

4 i

l ATTACHMENT 1 STATEMENT OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS 1AN BARNES I was educated in the United Kingdom and hold a British professional metallurgical qualification (i. ., Member of Institute of Materials) and an. registered there as a Chartered Engineer. In addition, I am a registered Professional .%gineer (Quality) in  !

the State of California. My background includes over 21' years in commercial nuclear.

reactor technology involving reactor component design, maintenance, testing, quality assurance, and' safety oversight functions. I have been employed with the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission for approximately'17 years. During this period, I have served as a Contractor Inspector, a Res.ctor Inspector, and have held Section Chief positions in the Vendor Inspection Branch, the Division of Reactor Safety, and i the predecessor Division of Reactor Safety and Projects. In November 1992, I was assigned to my current position as Technical Assistant in the Division of Reactor Safety.- My responsibilities during my employment with the'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have included the review and evaluation of the design and' manufacture of.

nuclear components, and the installation, maintenance, and testing of systems and components, which are required for safe operation of facilities.

e"s.

t A'ITACHMENT 2 STATEMENT OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS ERANCIS T. GRUBELICH I mceived a BShE in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Connecticut and completed graduate courses in Reactor Technology at the University of Connecticut.- I was a member of AShm Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Nuclear Power Plant Components, Working Group on Core Support Structures from 19751985. I am

's currently a member of AShiE Code of Operations and Maintenance for Nuclear Power Plants, Working Group on Check Valves. My background includes over 38 years in the Naval Nuclear Program and Commercial Nuclear Industry involving reactor component engineering. In the past 2 years with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, my responsibilities have included review and evaluation of the effectiveness of licensee activities regarding the performance of safety-related check valves.

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _