ML20214P348

Response to Board 861106 Memorandum & Order Reopening Record of OL Proceeding on Contention 10.5 Re Asco Solenoid Valves to Consider New Info Provided by Util & Parties.Contention W/O Merit,Based on Encl a Masciantonio 861125 Affidavit

ML20214P348
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	11/28/1986
From:	Bordenick B NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20214P351	List: ML20214P348 ML20214P395
References
CON-#486-1705 OL, NUDOCS 8612040168
Download: ML20214P348 (3)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

l@[ 11/28/86 JOLXETE:

. um INI'ITO STATES CF # ERICA 10 CLEAR RBGITAIQW CDMISSIOT

'86 DEC -1 All :42 BERRE 'ITE A'IWIC SAITIY A?O LICINSING BCMRD 6FFiL E _ m.

00CKElitm a f r rvu BRANCH In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-424 (; g

) 50-425 GBCBGIA IUVIR CDPAMi, et al. )

)

(Vogtle Electric Generating )

Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

131C STAFF RESKNSE '!O NOVILBER 6,1986

'hEMAhDN AND 00TR (RIOPENI?D OF REGED)"

By "Plemorandum and Order" dated November 6,1986 (Order), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, sua sponte, reopened the record of this operating license proceeding on Contention 10.5 (ASCO Solenoid Valves), for the limited purpose of permitting the Board to consider new information provided by Applicants together with any other information provided by the other parties in -

regard to Applicants' information. Pursuant to the Board's Order, at 3, the Staff provides its response to the recent information provided to the Board by Applicants.

BACKGROUND By letter dated October '!4, 1986, the Board requested additional information from Applicants on Contention 10.5. M This inquiry related to 1/ Contention 10.5 alleges the failure to assure that certain models of ASCD solenoid valves that are used to perfonn safety related functions in the Vogtle Plant are environmentally cualified.

8612040168 861128 PDR G ADOCK 05000424 PDR _

1)So7

'o

. \

temperatures involved in the testing of ASCO solenoid valve models numbered )

NP-8316, Np-8320 and NP-8321. Information was sought from Applicants by the l Board to' provide confidence that the subject valves had been satisfactorily qualified with respect to the temperature margins recorded in the qualification test temperatures of the valves as compared to calculated temperatures obtained by thermal lag analysis. Order at 1. With respect to temperature margins the precision or uncertainty of cited temperatures was required. Id. at 1-2.

Additionally, the Board made inquiry of the Applicant in regard to " working fluid" and " ambient" temperature values provided in an exhibit introduced in evidence at the hearing and their appropriateness to VEGP operating conditions.

On October 30, 1986, Applicants responded to the Board Order by submitting an affidavit of Stephen J. Cereghino and William V. Cesarski, dated October 28, 1986, in response to both areas of the Board's inquiry. U Applicants' affidavit submitted newly obtained information on computed i

post accident temperature values which were specific to Vogtle. As noted by -

the Board, Order at 2, the affidavit provided probative information on the i

precision and uncertainty of the temperature margins that was formulated subsequent to the conclusion of the hearing on Contention 10.5, and the closing i

of the record in this proceeding on August 5,1986. The Board concluded that l the information provided by Applicants has a significent bearing on the safety issue involved in Contention 10.5, and that a different result would have been I

2_/ At page 2, f.n.1. of its Order, the Board stated that the inquiry about i " working fluid" and " ambient" teTperature values did not involve a j significant safety issue and would not be considered further in the Board's Order. Accordingly, the Staff's attached affidavit does not l address this issue.

t I

i f

o 1

)

i likely absent the newly proferred information on computed site specific temperature values, which the Board stated appears to reduce the importance of the precision and uncertainty of the temperature margins. Id.

i DISCUSSION As requested by the Board (Order at 3), the Staff responds to the new information provided to the Board by Applicants in the form of an affidavit prepared by Armand Masciantonio. Mr. Masciantonio's affidavit states in pertinent part that, based on the temperature margins recommended in IEEE

~

Standard 323-1974, the Staff has endorsed an environmental qualification margin of 150F for the valves in ouestion. Masciantonio Affidavit at 6. As further detailed in the affidavit of Armand Masciantonio (at 4-7), this recommended margin is exceeded for the three subject ASCO valve models. Thus, the Staff is able to conclude, independent of the new information recently provided by Applicants which the Staff has neither reviewed nor accepted, that adequate temperature margins exist in the qualification test for the three ASCO valve models in question. Id.

CONCLUSION i The Staff concludes for the reasons set out in the attach'ed affidavit of Armand Masciantonio, and in Staff proposed Findings of Fact on Contention 10.5 l

4 dated May 5,1986, at 29-39 that Contention 10.5 is without merit.

Respectfully submitted,

• i Bernard M. Bordenick Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 28th day of November,1986

_ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -. . _ - - - _