ML19254F258

Interim Deficiency Rept Re Asco Solenoid Valves.Design Does Not Conform to Design Criteria in Purchase Spec.Final Rept Will Be Filed by 791221

ML19254F258
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf
Issue date:	10/11/1979
From:	MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML19254F257	List: ML19254F256 ML19254F258
References
NUDOCS 7911070434
Download: ML19254F258 (2)

Text

e .< =

INTERIM REPORT FOR REPORTABLE DEFICIENCY NO. 79/14 AS DEFINED IN 10 CFP 50.55(e)

I. Description of Deficiency As part of the evaluation of IE Bulletin 79-01A, it was necessary t i contact our suppliers of air actuated valves to see if the solenoid valves in question were used on our valves. In response to our in-quiry, the Henry Pratt Company sent a letter stating they had reported a potential defect with the solenoids under 10 CFR, part 21, section 206.

The problem with the solenoids is that they have a maximum rating of 4X105 rad integrated dosage and 200 F temperature. Our specifications require a rating of 1.6X107 rads integrated dosage and 330 F temper-ature.

These solenoid valves on the actuators are a critical part of the system as the pneumatic actuator system is designed to open the valve and hold it open when the ASCO solenoid valve is energized. When deenergized, it is designed to vent air from the cylinder to allow a heavy coil spring to close the valve and hold it closed. For example, if the ASCO solenoid valve is energized but is inoperable, with the valve in the open pocition, deenergizing the ASCO solenoid valve will not cause the valve to close.

Conversely, if the ASCO solenoid valve is deenergized but is inoperable in the closed position, energizing it will not cause the valve to open.

Af ter reviewing the function of valves using the ASCO solenoid valves in question, it has been determined that some valves are located in safety-related systems and their operation during en accident is required.

"2 213

- 29u ov o Y3/

iM1w

o. .

e Office of I spection and Enforcenent October 10, 1979 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission AECM-79/115 II. Safety Implications Had this deficiency remained uncorrected, it could have adversely a'.'ected the safety operations of the plant. In addition, it constituted a significant deficiency in the design of the valve in that the design did"not conform to the design criteria included in the purchase speci-

~

fication.

III. Correcti.a Action Taken All corrective action, including action taken to prevent recurrence will be submitted to you in a final report by December 21, 1979.

.  !'"2 214