ML20035E256
| ML20035E256 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/22/1993 |
| From: | Norrholm L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Smith E WYLE LABORATORIES |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900902 NUDOCS 9304150087 | |
| Download: ML20035E256 (5) | |
Text
-
UNITED STATES
- /
A NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
J yv AsHINGTON, D. C. 20555
's,,, V.
g f
+#
March 22, 1993 t
i i
Docket No. 99900902/93-01 i
Wyle Laboratories ATTN: Mr. E. W. Smith, Director Contract and Purchasing 7800 Governors Drive P. O. Box 077777 Huntsville, Alabama 35807-7777 l
Gentlemen:
i
SUBJECT:
NOTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL PART 21 The NRC has reviewed your letter of February 12, 1993, which is a notice of closure to your letter of September 29,1992, " Notification of Potential Part 21."
As a result of our review, we find that based on your revised " Third Party Qualification Test Report" you qualified eight pneumatic control l
l assemblies (PCAs) manufactured by the Automatic Valve Company (AVC), Novi, Michigan, for the Tennessee Valley Authority's Browns Ferry Nuclear Power I
Plant.
Your qualification is based on a comparison of eight solenoid operated valves (SOVs) with those previously qualified by Wyle. As discussed with your staff on February 18, 1993, your original report did not identify the manufacturer of the coils, some of which failed during the qualification tests. The NRC requests additional information about Wyle's ability to qualify the SOVs by
" similarity" when Wyle was unable to identify (Wyle Qualification Report 17514, including Revision A) the manufacturer of the coils in the SOVs which i
passed the initial qualification tests, or the coils that failed during the qualification tests. Therefore, as discussed with Mr. Gleason and others of your staff during a telephone call on February 18, 1993, the NRC requests that you provide additional information to assist us in resolving this matter.
i i
/
e y
REDRiiTO ElMTORY ETRUi!3 9###
93ousOodsom
..#d PDR GA999 EXIWYLE
/
99900902 PDR I}
3 j
j l
4 Mr. E. W. Smith i i
J As agreed upon on March 5, 1993, during a telephone conversation between Mr. Gleason and Mr. R. Zimmerman of this office we are supportive of holding a 4
meeting to discuss the items listed in Attachment-1 to this letter on a mutually agreed upon date. Based on a subsequent conversation between i
Mr. Gleason and me on March 17, 1993, the week of March 29, 1993, appears to l
be optimum for these discussions.
)
Sincerely,,f
/
%{)
9 p
(
3 t
u 1
Leif J.
o olm, Chief Vendor Inspection Branch Division of Reactor Inspection and Licensee Performance Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Attachment-1 l
i 1
N
)
1 1
l l
l i
n d
E4YRLk (LO swa:m.
Mr. E. W. Smith March 22, 1993 As agreed upon on March 5, 1993, during a telephone conversation between Mr. Gleason and Mr. R. Zimerman of this office we are supportive of holding a meeting to discuss the items listed in Attachment-1 to this letter on a mutually agree upon date.
Based on a subsequent conversation between Mr. Gleason and me on March 17, 1993, the week of March 29, 1993, appears to be optimum for these discussions.
l l
Sincerely, Leif J. Norrholm, Chief Vendor Inspection Branch Division of Reactor Inspection and Licenne Performance Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
i
Enclosure:
Attachment-1 DISTRIBUTION:
VIB R/F DRIL R/F COCKET FILES / CENTRAL FILES /PDR/ RIDS IE:09 JEROSENTHAL, AE00/R0AB l
HLORSTEIN, AEOD/ROAB THROSS, NRR/PDII-4 0FFICE VIB/DRIL VIB/DRIL VIB/DRIL DRIL/NRR DRIL/ER NAME KNAIDU*
GCWALINA*
LNORRHOLM*,
RZIMERMAN*
CEROSSI*
u DATE 3/19/93 3/19/93 3/19/93 N/b 3/19/93 3/19/93 COPY YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO E
K)
DOC 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY Document Name: A:\\WYLE.LTR
- See previous concurrence
(,
-]Y
(
y v
\\
l 1
ATTACHMENT-1 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING REVISION A TO TEST REPORT NO. 30081-99:
1)
Para 8.6.2 of the test report, page 7, states, in part, "The dimensio4s of the springs, Line Nos. 9 and 10... varied slightly and they have shown to have no effect on the operability of the SOVs as demonstrated by their functional tests..."
The report does not address the operation of the 50Vs, including the springs, at elevated temperatures such as might be expected at a nuclear power plcnt. How have you assured that the changes in spring dimensions will not cause interference and impede operation at elevated temperatures?
2)
Para 8.6.2 of the test report, page 8, states, in part, "The travel of the plungers, Line No. 22...were different and were shown to have no effect on the operation of the 50Vs as demonstrated by their functional testing..."
The report does not address the operation of the S0Vs, including the plungers, at elevated temperatures such as might be expected at a nuclear power plant. How have you assured that the travel of the plunger is not impeded during operation at elevated temperatures?
3)
Para 8.6.2 of the test report, page 8, addresses, "The calculated relative position between the bottom of the coil and the top of the manifold..." The report notes that the measured value for the qualified manifold assembly is lower than those measured for the new 50Vs. The report provides several possible sources for the differences.
In light of the fact that manufacturing techniques and tolerances can result in dimensional differences, and that the spring dimensions and plunger travel have changed, please provide further justification that design changes do not adversely affect the 50V operation at elevated temperatures.
4)
Para 8.6.2.1 of the test report, page 9, states that the new 50V small Exhaust Adapter 0-ring (line 19) is made of Viton A.
Please provide justification for your conclusion that the use of the Viton A 0-ring "does not impact the qualification of the manifold assembly" when the actuator is exposed to elevated temperatures and a radiation environment.
5)
Para 8.6.2.1 of the test report, page 9, indicates that the large Exhaust Adapter 0-rings (Line No. 20) are also made of Viton A.
As requested above, justify the use of Viton A in an elevated temperature and radiation environment.
6)
Para 8.6.2.3 of the test report, page 10 states that the originally qualified Molded Bobbin for the 120 VAC coils (Line No. 34) "was shown to be ' extremely degraded material which may once have been similar' to the new one."
Please justify your similarity argument in light of the fact that the originally qualified bobbin was extremely degraded and could not be accurately analyzed.
1 1
i 7)
Para 8.6.2.3 of the test report, page 11, stated that the 250 VAC Molded i
Bobbin (Line No. 35) was 'polyphenylene sulfide with some dimethyl silicone. The silicone could be contamination from the o-ring lubricant..." Please verify the source of the silicone contamination.
i Also, please identify the silicone grease (manufacturer, type and qualification) used.
1 I
8)
In the past many of the 50V coils open circuited because of separation of the leads to the coil. Please inform us if you reviewed the sequence of operations to clean the joint where the leads are soldered to the 50V
}
coil.
t e
i i
h l
[
i i
f 1
i i
i i
f 2
J I
i
.--.A