ML20214W159

Response to Hm Deutsch 861126 Affidavit.Bulk of Affidavit Irrelevant to Limited Issue for Which Record Reopened. Related Correspondence

ML20214W159
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	12/05/1986
From:	Churchill B GEORGIA POWER CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20214W161	List: ML20214W159 ML20214W179 ML20214W238
References
CON-#486-1794 OL, NUDOCS 8612100106
Download: ML20214W159 (9)

Text

.

luf DOCKETED USNRC piLAltD GUttitt.drWU@d

~~

'86 DEC -8 All :03 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CFFICE ' '

COCH W '

BE70RE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-424 (OL)

) 50-425 (OL)

(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO AFFIDAVIT OF HOWARD M. DEUTSCH In accordance with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order of November 6, 1986, Applicants submit this response to the affidavit of Howard M. Deutsch, which was filed on behalf of Georgians Against Nuclear Energy on November 26. As discussed below, Dr. Deutsch's affidavit in large measure addresses matters beyond the scope of the November 6, 1986 Memo-randum and Order.

As discussed in the Memorandum and Order, the Licensing Board had by letter dated October 24, 1986, requested additional information from Applicants concerning the temperature margins in the environmental qualification by thermal lag analysis of ASCO valve models numbered NP-8316, NP-8320, and NP-8321. On October

$pk $O00k $4 G

J)So3

e 4

.o 30, Applicants submitted " Affidavit of Stephen J. Cereghino and

. William V. Cesarski" responding to the Licensing Board's request.

The Licensing Board's November 6 Memorandum and Order subse-quently reopened the record "for the limited purpose of permit-ting the Board to consider this newly provided information along with any other information furnished in support or in opposi-tion." The Licensing Board's Order specified that " Georgians Against Nuclear Energy . . . are given until November 28, 1986 to serve on the Board on that date their respective answerina affi-davits to Applicants' affidavit of October 28, 1986 op the temperature marains provided for environmentally cualifyina

, certain ASCO solenoid valves." Memorandum and Order (Nov. 6, 1986) at 3 (emphasis added).

GANE has disregarded this clear directive and has instead submitted an affidavit discussing new matters with no bearing on environmental qualification margins. In fact, the first five pages of the affidavit simply repeat the " Supplemental In-formation" filed in this proceeding by Dr. Deutsch on October 8

-- a filing Applicants opposed as improper, untimely, and irrele-vant. See Letter from J. Joiner to ASLB (Oct. 17, 1986).

The remaining statements at pages 6 through 8 of Dr.

Deutsch's affidavit are vague, of no probative value, and as dis-cussed in the Affidavit of Stephen J. Cereghino and William V.

Cesarski (attached hereto), without merit.

4 At page 6 of his affidavit, Dr. Deutsch refers to page 19 of an NRC report on the impacts of research budget cuts, which indi-cates that there are engineering judgments inherent in current environmental qualification methodologies and that further re-search could reduce such uncertainties. The report states that the research would " provide the basis for revisions to the rules and regulatory guides." Affidavit of Stephen J. Cereghino and William V. Cesarski, 1 5 and Exhibit C.

This. report provides nothing specific that might question the temperature _ margin in environmental qualification by thermal lag analysis of ASCO solenoid valves at Plant Vogtle. Id., 1 6 and Exhibit C. The Commission's current standards for environ-mental qualification of equipment are prescribed by 10 C.F.R. 5 50.49, NRC Regulatory Guide 1.89 (which incorporates and endorses IEEE-323-1974), and NUREG-0588 Rev. 1.1/ These standards recog-nize that there are uncertainties, and they recommend a 15'F mar-gin to compensate for such uncertainties. Applicants have demon-strated that this-margin is satisfied in the environmental qualification of ASCO valves. Id., 1 6. Compliance with the Commission'_s current regulations satisfies a license applicant's 1/ Regulatory Guide 1.89 and NUREG-0588 are more than NRC Staff guidance. They have been endorsed by the Commission, and 10 C.F.R. S 50.49 is intended to codify their precepts. See cenerally Petition for Emercency and Remedial Action, CLI-80-21, 11 N.R.C. 707 (1980); 47 Fed. Reg. 2,876 (1982);

48 Fed. Reg. 2,729 (1983).

l a

o.

burden in a licensing proceeding. Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station), ALAB-161, 6 A.E.C. 1003 (1973).

At page 7, Dr. Deutsch attempts to impugn Bechtel's FLUD code by again referring to the NRC report on the impacts of re-

- search budget cuts. Dr. Deutsch points to statements in the report concerning current computer codes, but those statements discuss the adequacy of' codes used to model core-melt accidents.

Af fidavit of Stephen J. Cereghino and William V. Cesarski,17 and Exhibit C. In contrast, Bechtel's FLUD code is used for the I relatively simple task of determining environmental conditions (nodal termperatures, pressures and velocities) resulting from postulated breaks in piping in areas outside containment. Id., 1

7. Dr. Deutsch continues by asserting that because of these so-called questions, Applicants' prior averment that the 346' F t

qualification temperature should be accurate to one degree is not an adequate statement. The qualification temperatures, however, were not derived on the basis of the FLUD code or any other code, i

but were actual test temperatures measured by thermocouples -- a I

fact Dr. Deutsch omits in his selective parsing of Applicants' averment. The type of thermo' couples used by Isomedix can measure temperature accurately to within one degree. Id., 1~8.

i 1

l While the bulk of Dr. Deutsch's affidavit is irrelevant to the limited issue for which the record was reopened, Applicants i

i

- . . . . , n. , , - _ . . . -.-n,n-n--..~ - , - _ - , - . wen,,,---.-----~~---m----,,-w=------nnmam- - ,-> - - - ~ * - - - ,

have nevertheless submitted a separate Affidavit of Stephen J.

Cereghino, William V. Cesarski, and George Bockhold, Jr. in case the Licensing Board construes Dr. Deutsch's affidavit as a motion to reopen the record further. This affidavit demonstrates that Dr. Deutsch's comments are untimely and do not address a signifi-cant safety issue that might affect the outcome of the licensing proceeding.

For example, on page 2 of his affidavit, Dr. Deutsch refers to a March 1985 list of ASCO valves. This list was provided to Intervenors during discovery. Dr. Deutsch observes that this list showed six process valves utilizing NP-8321 ASCOs in MSIV areas, which differs with Applicants' recent correspondence with the NRC Staff. See, e.a., Letter from J. Bailey to NRR (Aug. 21, 1986), attached to letter from D. Lewis to ASLB (Sept. 3, 1986).

A revised list, however, was provided to Intervenors and to the Licensing Board as part of Applicants' testimony in this proceed-ing. See Baenteli et al., ff. Tr. 517, Table 10.5-1. The revi-sion corrected a typographical error and updated the list to re-flect design changes that had occurred after March 1985.

Affidavit of Stephen J. Cereghino, William V. Cesarski, and George Bockhold, Jr., 1 5. The revised list is consistent with Applicants' correspondence with the NRC Staff. Dr. Deutsch's ob-servation is untimely and irrelevant.

m.

On pages 2-3 of his affidavit, Dr. Deutsch discusses the thermal lag analyses performed by Applicants on ASCO solenoid valves in MSIV areas. The discussion is confusing and leaves one wondering what point Dr. Deutsch is trying to make. See Affida-vit of Stephen J. Cereghino, William V. Cesarski, and George Bockhold, Jr., 1 6-9. At page 4 of his affidavit, Dr. Deutsch alludes to the Isomedix testing of the NP-8321 valve, and he states that he would not conclude "with great certainty" that the valves were fully qualified to 346*F. The adequacy of the Isomedix testing of the NP-8321 was fully discussed in Appli-cants' testimony. Egg Baenteli at al. , f f. Tr. 517, at 31-36. -

l Dr. Deutsch offers nothing new.

On pages 4-5 of his affidavit, Dr. Deutsch refers to four I&E notices. He acknowledges that these notices "are not specif-ically related to ' environmental qualifications.'" The I&E no-tices are therefore irrelevant to contention 10.5. Moreover, as a factual matter, the I&E notices have little significance to Plant Vogtle. For the most part, they describe model valves that are not used in safety-related applications at VEGP and to condi-tions that _are not germane to Plant Vogtle. See Affidavit of Stephen J. Cereghino, William V. Cesarski, and George Bockhold, Jr., 11 11-18. Finally, the I&E notices are from five to twenty-three months old, and three of the four notices predate the hearing. Raising these matters at this juncture is untimely.

o Finally, on pages 5-6 of his affidavit, Dr. Deutsch takes issue with Applicants' use of the term " safety related" equipment and suggests that Applicants' qualification program is flawed by ignoring non-safety related equipment that might be "important to safety."2/ Contention 10, however, by Intervenors own wording, addresses " safety-related" equipment. If GANE wished to amend the contention to broaden its scope, GANE could and should have done so over two years ago, In addition, Dr. Deutsch is incorrect in suggesting that Applicants' qualification program is flawed. Applicants have performed a number of systems analyses, documented in the FSAR, to address the regulatory provision requiring the qualification of non-safety related electrical equipment whose failure under postulated environmental conditions could prevent satisfactory accomplishment of safety functions. In addition, Applicants have performed a hazards analysis of plant systems (safety-related and non-safety related) demonstrating that safety related systems would not be impaired by the dynamic effects of piping failures.

No non-safety related equipment has been found whose failure could prevent satisfactory accomplishment of safety functions.

Affidavit of Stephen J. Cereghino, William V. Cesarski, and George Bockhold, Jr., 11 19-20.

2/ " Equipment important to safety" includes "non-safety related equipment whose failure under postulated enviromental condi-tions could prevent satisfactory accomplishment of safety functions." 10 C.F.R. S 50.49(b)(2).

6 b

Moreover, Applicants have employed design practices at VEGP to preclude the interaction of non-safety related equipment with safety related equipment, so that the failure of non-safety re-lated equipment would not prevent satisfactory accomplishment of safety functions. For example, safety-related systems at VEGP are powered and operated by safety-related equipment, and neces-sary supporting systems are also safety-related. Thus, with respect to ASCO valves, no safety-related equipment is operated or controlled by a non-safety related ASCO valve. In addition, safety systems are functionally separated from non-safety sys-tems. In those instances where there might be a connection be-tween a safety and non-safety related system (e.g., where systems share a common duct or process piping), safety-related isolation valves or dampers are installed between the sub-systems to inter-rupt the connection when an engineered safety features actuation signal is received. These design practices provide reasonable assurance that no non-safety related ASCO valve will defeat the accomplishment of necessary safety functions at VEGP. Id., 1 21.

This design approach satisfies the requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 50.49(b)(2). Lono Island Lichtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-788, 20 N.R.C. 1102, 1158 (1984).

For these reasons, Dr. Deutsch's affidavit raises no new, timely, or significant issues. GANE has not addressed, much less demonstrated, that the standards governing the reopening of the Is o

record have been satisfied, as is GANE's burden. 10 C.F.R. SS 2.732, 2.734; Louisiana Power & Licht Co. (Waterford Steam Elec-s tric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-753, 18 N.R.C. 1321, 1324 (1983).

Accordingly, Applicants request that the Licensing Board close the record and render a decision on contention 10.5 in Applicants' favor. Applicants respectfully submit that the record is complete and that a timely decision is in order to avoid unnecessary delay in fuel loading at Plant Vogtle scheduled for this month.

Respectfully submitted, h

Bruce W.' Churchill, P.C.

David R. Lewis SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE James E. Joiner, P.C.

Kevin C. Greene Hugh M. Davenport TROUTMAN, SANDERS, LOCKERMAN

& ASHMORE Counsel for Applicants Dated: December 5, 1986

_