ML20215K564

Requests Info Needed to Complete Evaluation of Contention 10.5,including Precision or Uncertainty of All Cited Temps, to Clarify Applicant Testimony Re Asco Valve Models NP-8316, NP-8320 & NP-8321.Served on 861027

ML20215K564
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	10/24/1986
From:	Margulies M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	Churchill B SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
References
CON-#486-1260 OL, NUDOCS 8610280213
Download: ML20215K564 (2)

Text

_- - _ _ - - _ - _ _- _ _ - _ _ _ _ -

d

/J 4 0~%

• ' \ UNITED STATES l' f 'I W f j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

{'5, g.,

,8

! ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENstNG BOARD PANEL W ASHIN GTON. D.C. 20555 DOCKEILO uiNi< C

'86 0CT 27 P218 October 24, 1986 bFFICE ur :: - #

00CKElihG& M Wld BbANCH Bruce W. Churchill, Esq. SERVED OCT 271986 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 RE: Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425

Dear Mr. Churchill:

The Board seeks information in regard to Contention 10.5 clarifying Applicants' testimony with respect to three ASCO valve models, NP-8316, NP-8320 and NP-8321. The testimony pertinent to this matter appears in the transcript following Tr. 517, at pages 55 through 58 of the testimony of George J. Baenteli, et al. Therein, Applicants state that the thermal lag analysis performe'd~by Westinghouse yields calculated post accident temperatures in VEGP for the three above identified valves thai; are less than the temperatures at which these valves have been tested by Isomedix. For each valve, the testimony gives the following results:

Test Thermal Lag Valve Temperature Analysis Testimony Coninent NP-8316 346 F 345 F " Accepted by Staff" I_d. at 55 NP-8320 346 F 332 F "Significantly Less" Id. at 58 NP-8321 346*F 332 F "Significantly Below" Id. at 57 l

8610280213 861024 PDR ADOCK 05000424 C PDR DSO2

h Bruce W. Churchill, Esq. 2 October 24, 1986 The Board is seeking to determine whether the cited temperatures provide meaningful margins that would provide confidence that these three valves have been satisfactorily qualified. Additionally, ASCO specification sheets provided as Exhibit F to the cited testimony give

" working fluid" and " ambient" temperature values against which we are unable to judge the appropriateness of test conditions. If, during sustained periods of normal operation, the valves are subjected to temperatures significantly in excess of ASCO's reconsnendations, would this compromise their ability to function as required? More information is needed before the Board can complete its evaluation of Contention 10.5. For example, with respect to temperature margins, the precision or uncertainty of all cited temperatures is needed. With respect to the ASCO specification sheets, an explanation of why the specification temperatures are considered to be compatible with VEGP temperature conditions is also required.

The response to this letter should be supported by affidavit.

Very truly yours, WK Morton B. Margulies, Chairman For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board c: Vogtle Service List

_