ML20010F873

Affidavit That General Public Utils Determined That Failure to Meet Test Screening Criteria Provides No Basis to Doubt TMI-1 Pressurizer Safety Valve Performance of Safety Function.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20010F873
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	09/04/1981
From:	Correa J METROPOLITAN EDISON CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20010F872	List: ML20010F871 ML20010F873
References
NUDOCS 8109150059
Download: ML20010F873 (7)

Text

.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Di

~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION G

- _ 4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD S/ ~-] - -

SEP 0198l 3 $

CilicaCILhakuc In the Matter of ) 0;cggg 3 .g '

) O BrucIn METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) rocket No. 50-289

) (Restart) N/ m\g (Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES H. CORREA Ocean County )

SS State of New Jersey )

JAMES H. CORREA, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says as follows:

1. I have reviewed the " Order To NRC Staff Regarding Board Notification of Unsati', factory Test Results of Safety Valve,"

dated August 25, 1981, and the attached Board Notification No.

81-20 (in the McGuire proceeding) , .which includes a Memorandum fr";l11 J. P. Knight to R. L. Tedesco and T. H. Novak, dated July 1, 1981, and a Memorandum from John J. Carey dated June 26, 1981.

2. The memoranda attached to the McGuire Board Notification address, inter alia, " quick look" data from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) steam tests at the CE-Windsor facility during the period of June 19-23, 1981, on the Dresser valve of the type used at TMI-1.

8109150059 810904 PDR ADOCK 05000289 G PDR

s _

l

3. The EPRI memorandum that is included in the Board Notification is typical of many received during the conduct of the EPRI test program. The tests being conducted in the program are in many instances unique opportunities not previously avail-able to valve manufacturers to test valve performance. It is common that, during the conduct of these tests, adjustments are

, made to the component and configurations associated with the valves in an attempt to determine all the parameters of interest which affect valve performance. EPRI is developing an analytical dynamic valve model and such results are necessary for the development and verification of the model, to allow the model to be used to pre-l dict plant specific valve performance.

4. The EPRI screening criteria were developed for the purpose of flagging valve performance anomalies which represent potential operational and/or safety concerns. EPRI obtained f

information from each NSSS vendor which was utilized in developing a unique set of screening criteria dependent on the specific valve and fluid condition tested.

5. Due to the nature of the screening criteria adopted for the testing program, an isolated failure to meet the screening criteria is not in and of itself significant. According to EPRI,

" failure to meet the criteria specified for the Wyle and CE tests will not necessarily mean that a safety concern exists, rather

! that an evaluation should be performed to assess the potential impact to plant safety." The compilation and analysis of all data I

associated with the full range of testing for each valve type is

o.

required before any well-founded engineuring judgments can be made. Conclusions regarding valve performance prior to the complete analysis of all raw data may be made only if there are repeated failures of a specific valve type under varying conditions which include actual plant conditions. This has not been the case.

6. EPRI performed a total of fourteen steam tests on the Dresser valve of the type used at TMI-1, between June 17 and July 6, 1981. The fourteen steam tests were divided into essentially two groups of tests: the first group of tests (tests 1 through 4) generated valve performance data with Dresser recommended control ring settings, varying ramp r' ate and back pressure; the second group of tests (tests 5 through 14) generated valve performance data by varying control ring settings and back pressure (to purposefully affect valve performance to determine the effects on valve performance of various control ring settings).

7. The data discussed in the memoranda attached to the Board Notification is for tests 2 through 6. The test in which the valve did not meet the EPRI screening criteria for passing rated I

flow is test number 6, in which the control ring settings from the first set of tests were used, but with a different back pressure.

l l 8. The control ring settings used in test number 6 are l

not considered representative of the settings used at TMI-1. All l

t screening criteria were met in the test in which control ring set-tings considered representative of those at TMI-l were used.

i

-=

-4=

9. Tho determination that rated flow was not achieved I

~

~

'in test numbe'r 6 is " based on preliminary vazituri flow' data,"

as ' stated in tha EPRI memorandum. This data must be reduced

.o its final form and then reviewed against other test. number 6 data such as pressurising tank pressure vs. time, valve inlet.

pressure vs. time and valve stem position vs, time, to determine the actual significance of the test result. Then, that result will be applied to plant specific analyses to conclusively deter-

.mine whet.hcr it has an impact on plant safety.

i

10. GPU has evaluated the preliminary results of the fourteen l steam tests and has determined that, due to the significant varianco between the control ring settings ~ used at TM7-1 and those used wherc test sen aning criteria were not met, the failure to meet t.ost.

screening criteria provides no basis to doubt that the THI-l pres-suriser safety valve will perfom its safety function if cal. led upon to do so. Similatly, the preliminary results of the EPlu steam test program do not altar the conclusions reached in Licensee's testimony in this proceeding on UCS Contention No. 5, Board Question /UCS contention No. 6, and the Board Question Regarding OCS ConteatioO 6.

v

..h. Y James H. Correa Subscribed and sworn to ,

befqM me- Q,is fday of

' ShtcM'

, . , r[ u1981.

-s

- - . *N w.eum.

4 4 ir-- *n m rueuenamn Rtzt y,y' e M. .issionexpireson **?"N .

s gt n A' 'b

/k 2

September 4, 1981 -3 SEP 91981 > '~-

6d Office cf tb Secrtrf C::iding&SeMca '

Q) g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA N 6 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear .)

Station, Unit No. 1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Response to Order to NRC Staff Regarding Board Notification of Unsatisfactory Test Results of Safety Valve," and supporting " Affidavit of

. Tames H. Correa" wer'e served upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid,.

this 4th day of September, 1981.

An A. N~.mo V ]Delissa A> RidhwSy (

Dated: September 4, 1981 1

m

/ *

~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No 50-289

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit N' ')

. )

SERVICE LIST Ivan W. Smith, Esquire Docketing and Service Section Chairman Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing U. S. Nuclenz Regulatory Commissioa Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 John A. Levin, Esquire Assistant Counsel Dr. Walter H. Jordan Pennsylvania Public Utility Comm'n Atomic Safety and Licensing Post Office Box 3265 Board Panel Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Karin W. Carter, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Dr. Linda W. Little 505 Executive House

Atomic Safety and Licensing Post Office Box 2357 Board Panel Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 5000 Hermitage Drive i Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 John E. Minnich Chairman, Dauphin County Board Professor Gary L. Milhollin of Co

mmissioners 1815 Jefferson Street Dauphin County Courthouse Madison, Wisconsin 53711 Front and Market Streets Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 Jamec R. Tourtellotte, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Direc r Walter W. Cohen, Esquire U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Consumer Advocate Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of Consumer Advocate 14th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127

Jordan O. Cunningham, Esquire Gail Bradford Attorney for Newberry Township Anti-Nuclear Group Representing YoE T.M.I. Steering Committee 245 West Philadelphia Street Fox, Farr & Cunningham York, Pennsylvania 17404 2320 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennyslvania 17110 William S. Jordan, III, Esquire Attorney for People Against Nucleag 1:s . Louise Bradford Energy TMI ALERT Harmon & Weiss 315 Peffer Street 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102 Washington, D.C. 20006 Attorney General of New J9rsey Robert Q. Pollard Attn: Thomas J. Germine, Esquire 609 Montpelier Street Deputy Attorney General Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Division of Law - Room 316 1100 Raymond Boulevard Chauncey Kepford Newark, New Jr sey 07102 Judith H. Johnsrud Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Power Attorney for the Union of Concerned 433 srlando Avenue Scientists Sta Ccilege, Pennsylvania 16801 Harmon & Weiss 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Marvin I. Lewis Washington, D.C. 20006 6504 Bradford Terrace Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 Steven C. Sholly Union of Concet - 1 Scientists Marjorie M. Aamodt 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 601 R. D. 5 Washington, D.C. 20006 Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 l

l l

l l

r