ML20214P395

Affidavit of a Masciantonio in Response to Sj Cereghino & Wa Cesarski 861028 Affidavit & Board 861106 Memorandum & Order Reopening Record of OL Proceeding on Contention 10.5 Re Asco Solenoid Valves.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20214P395
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	11/25/1986
From:	Masciantonio A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20214P351	List: ML20214P348 ML20214P395
References
OL, NUDOCS 8612040183
Download: ML20214P395 (9)

Text

..

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9FFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY ann LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of I

)

GEOPGIA POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos.: 50-4P4 et al.

-~ ) 50-425

) (OL)

(Vogtle Electric Geterating Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

AFFIDAVIT OF ARMANDO MASCIANTONIO IN RESPONSE TO LICENSING BOARD'S NOVEMBER 6,1986 " MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (REODENING OF RECORDI" ON CONTENTION 10.5

1. My name is Armando Masciantonio. I am employed by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a mechanical engineer in the Engineering Branch, Division of PWR Licensing-A, Office of Nuc' ear Reactor Regulation (NRR).

Before November 1985, I was employed as an equipment qualification engineer in the Equipment Qualification Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. I was responsible for the technical reviews, analyses and evaluations of the adequacy of the environmental qualification of electric equipment important to safety and safety-related mechanical equipment whose failure under pcstulated environmental conditions could adversely affect the perfomance of safety systems in nuclear power plants. Before joining the NRC I was employed as an engineer by Vitro Laboratories Division of Automation Industries, Inc.,

t from February, 1981 until May, 198?. I was responsible for the environ-mental and seismic qualification of the safety related electronic control equipment supplied by Vitro Laboratories Division. Specifically, my duties were to develop and write the environmental and seismic j

qualification test plans, procedures and reports and oversee the test and i

l 8612040183 e61125 4 DR ADOCK 0500

procurement activities in support of qualification. Prior to that, I was

} employed at the U. S. Naval Surface Weapons Center as a mechanical engineer from August, 197? until January, 1981. My duties involved support of the development, test and evaluation of advanced naval weapons.

I have a B. S. degree in Mechanical Engineering (1972) from Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a Masters degree in Mechanical Engineering (1976) from the Catholic University of America, Washington,

{

D. C., and a Masters degree in Administrative Science (1980) from the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.

2. The purpose of this affidavit is to provide a staff response to the affidavit of Stephen J. Cereghino and William A. Cesarski dated October 28, 1986 which was attached to Applicants' letter to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board dated October 30, 1986. That letter and affidavit provided information relevant to Contention 10.5 and responded to several questions asked by the Licensing Board pertaining to the environmental qualification of ASCO solenoid valves used at the Vogtle plant.

By letter to Applicants dated October 24, 1986 the Board sought information clarifying Applicants' testimony in two areas: 1) whether the qualification temperatures for certain ASCO valves provide meaningful margin; and 2) the significance of the recommended " working fluid" and

" ambient" temperatures as relates to the qualification of ASCO valves. 3/

The Board's questions were directed to three specific models of ASCO valves qualified, in part, by a " thermal lag" analysis: models NP-8316, NP-8320, and NP-8321.

3. The staff's position regarding the qualification margin which exists at Vogtle for each of these valve models follows. It should be understood that margin, in a qualification program, is defined as the difference between the demonstrated performance capability o' the equipment, either by test or analysis, and the most severe specified service conditions in the plant.

l 4. ASCO valve model NP-8316 has been demonstrated by a thermal lag analysis to be qualified to an environmental temperature profile with a peak temperature of 400*F. The analysis was provided in topical report WCAP-8687, Supplement 2 - F02A/H05A, Addendum 1, Revision 0, dated January 1985, which has been previously approved by the staff as a means of qualifying valve model NP-8316. (Testimony of Masciantonio at p.15, ff Tr. 5501 The maximum environmental temperature for which this valve is required to operate at Vogtle is 352*F inside containment as discussed and

-1/ I have not responded to 2) above because the Licensing Board stated at page 2, F.N. 1, of its November 6, 1986 Order that its inquiry about

" working fluid" and " ambient" temperature does not involve a significant safety issue and would not be considered further in the Order.

_4 approved by the staff, Section 6.2.1.1.1 of the Vogtle SER, NUREG-1137, date'd June 1985. The 400 F qualification temperature provides a margin of 48*F for this valve.

In its letter of October 24, 1986, the Board indicates the test temperature for valve NP-8316 is 346 F and the thermal lag analysis surface temperature is 345"F. These values are correct; however, it is not appropriate to calculate a 1*F margin as the difference between these two temperatures, as discussed below.

The referenced topical report, WCAP-8687, demonstrates that if the NP-8316 valve is exposed to a temperature profile with a 400 F peak temperature, the surface temperature of the valve would reach 345"F, a surface temperature at which the valve has been demonstrated to be operable in Isomedix Test Report AOS 21678/TR-Rev A. At Vogtle the NP-8316 valve will be exposed to a maximum environmental temperature of 352*F. Therefore, the temperature margin, i.e., the difference between demonstrated and expected temperatures, is 400 F - 352 F = 48*F.

The surface temperature of this valve could also be used as a basis to calculate margin. In this case the expected surface temperature of the valve during the 352*F peak LOCA/MSLB exposure inside containment must be calculated. Margin could then be calculated as the difference between 346 F, the surface temperature of this valve during the Isomedix test,

. y l

and the maximum calculated surface temperature of the valve during LOCA/MSLB exposure. It should be noted that the 346 F surface temperature of this valve during the Isomedix test is assured by a three hour exposure of this valve to 346 F.

o In their affidavit, Applicants reference a letter from R. Conway to H. Denton dated October 24, 1986 transmitting revised FSAR Figure 3.11.B.1-1, sheet 9 of 12. This figure provides a revised Vogtle specific LOCA/MSLR containment profile with a 320*F peak temperature.

This revised profile has not been reviewed and approved by the s ta ff. Any claim for increased margin or claim of qualification, which is based on this revised profile, cannot be considered valid until the revised profile is accepted by the staff. Staff review will rot be complete prior to license issuance; however, approval of the 320*F profile is not necessary to demonstrate qualification of valve model MP-8316. The results of the review will not change any of the conclusions in this affidavit, since these conclusions are based on the 352*F staff accepted maximum containment temperature.

5. Model NP-8320 has been demonstrated by test to be qualified to a peak environmental temperature of 420*F. The maximum environmental temperature for which this valve is required to operate at Vogtle is 399 F in the MSIV area. The staff has reviewed and approved the calculation of this expected temperature as discussed in Applicants' submittals dated October 20 and 31, 1986. A Safety Evaluation Report providing the details of the review will be provided in SSER 4 scheduled for issuance in December 1086. The margin available in this case is 21*F.

In its letter of October 24, 1986, the Roard indicates a test temperature of 346'F for valve model NP-8320. This test temperature is based on Isomedix Report AQS 21678/TR-Rev A. However, as stated in previous staff testimony, (Testimony of Masciantonio at p.16, ff Tr. 550) this valve is considered qualified to the higher levels reported in ASCO Report No.

AQR-67368 which provides a peak qualification temperature of 420 F.

6. Model NP-8321 has been qualified by test to a temperature of 346 F. The temperature of 346 F was maintained for three hours during the test thereby assuring that the valve was saturated at this temperature; i.e.,

the surface temperature was 346*F. At Vogtle this valve is located in the MSIV area and could be exposed to a steanline break. Using recent staff accepted thermal lag analysis, as detailed in Board Notification 86-19 dated September 15, 1986, the worst case MSLB profile for which this valve is required to operate at Vogtle produces a maximum valve surface temperature of 326 F. The resulting margin available for this valve is 20'F.

7. The temperature margin recommended in IEEE Standard 323-1974 and endorsed by the staff in Regulatory Guide 1.89, is 15*F. In all cases at Vogtle this recommended margin is exceeded for the three ASCO valve models.

8. Based on the above considerations I believe that adequate assurance has been'provided by Applicants that meaningful temperature margin exists for the valves in question at the Vogtle plant and that these three valve models have been fully and properly qualified.

kvma.JJ$%..:-,4r-n Armando Masciantonio Subscribed and Sworn to before me this gday of November,1986 j

A_l Notary Public

/lh My Commission Expires 7/t ,/ fo l

w s

GOL n E T EE-USNHC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~86 DEC -1 A11 :42 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND IJCENSING BOARIkOCk o 4 IP N BRANC-In the Matter of )

)

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, eM. ) Docket Nos. 50-424

) 50-425 (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ) (OL)

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO FOVEMBER 6,1986 ' MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (REOPENING" OF RECORD)'" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 28th day of November,1986.

Morton D. Margulies, Esq. , Chairman

• Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.*

Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris

• James E. Joiner, Esq.

Administrative Judge Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board a Ashmore Panel 127 Peachtree Street, N.E.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Candler Building, Suite 1400 Washington, DC 20555 Atlanta, GA 30043 Eruce W. Churchill, Esq. H. Joseph Flynn, Esq.

David R. Lewis, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Federal Emergency Management Agency 2300 N Street, NW 500 C Street, SW Washington, DC 20037 Washington, DC 20472

Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel

• Appeal Board Panel

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Docketing and Service Section* Ruble A. Thomas Office of the Secretary Southern Company Services , Inc.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 2625 Washington, DC 20555 Birmingham, AL 35202 William F. Lawless Carol Stanger Paine College 425 Euclid Terrace 123515th Street Atlanta, GA 30307 Augusta, GA 30910 NRC Resident Inspectors Danny Feig P.O. Box 572 1130 Alta Avenue Waynesboro, GA 30830 Atlanta, GA 30307 M

Bernard M. Bordenick Counsel for NRC Staff I

i 1

L J