ML20203K287
Text
r O
e o
s
"$~Y m
1 AL M w' '
M.
/1,_.Ky_:W /
dh M.
ro=2r7_
- D,J.' VA NAfAuL VJ=da s
Cc
/
2 A A Y
gps g (. M i n.
A a
24.& N&fdnAi nzL A
A__An Ah,M, Y
-pp 4-
/ u - n '. w /
/2wne n1s 62., A n A?/973 WQR&, )d A,
Yv<n /2 % A L a J -
a A
,A s A A
_MJJ x
Aa L: 1 AJ2 A.%.M J
_ O C ~.,,~A-A.
2,Q uA &as --
~
/
MORROW 85-782 PDR
e k
1 r, a a
a a M
Q,.
xx-n h
ay N
.EM Mx A-x y-GAM n amas
.-A 4&4 A_.
g g
yg._.
^h s
-en2 n
a 4p_sunc
=.-he e-
-e
--g.
.A A
afssy
.. _~
Qe sw.s J
.Ma ua
.2,<
A h i
?x Y T ;4
- + ' 1 % a m*e-m-
-+
,+e,-
e&.em_
=+
.y,
--p,
d g
4 JDi / /
(D/c( D'
}
9 n
/
/
D,wss/be
- sc/a.Afe/
xs v
/
n llN]W
($/// #s )
h
._ /,/ /
>s jf
/M.
/
YYV0-.
fr V r
~
/h j
_.__m,<,
m.,m N==+*m.ee
~ - -- - - -..
~
\\
o i
lff0 7 dL A
-*'Affdde onLLL Ln nA dL D d <?.er%-/ d /
f M m _.
a v
' MA< 14 #za' L M i
L ya WA-;
-.ad- --%/ A Y A zz'4La -ps, pap-J A
~
p.
/v s -
- /
asp
~
?
A -~
wa
?-
-.x s x Afbl sf d)
~
A A'A A A >RL sab s: m, Y
d.6
< /, 8, y,,7 /
[. AVbis-p Ay
..,T"2 g<9 $
( W CWA A **s t,:
N#' '%g(f 4
UNITED STATES 1
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
& a nl [tw
~
Ye DIRECTORATE OF REGULATCRY OPERATIONS ProsoN is - suite sis
- ['
230 PE ACHT R E E ST R E ET. NCAT MwEST AT L AN.T A, oEoRoa A 30303 In Reply Refer To:
FEB 151973 RO:II:FJL 50-259, 50-260 50-296 e
i d
[
Tennessee Valley Authority i
Atta: Mr. J. E. Watson I
Manager of Power 818. Power Building Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401 Centlemen:
3; i.
This letter provides additional information regarding AEC requirements on the subject of verification of the wall thicknesses of valves important to nuclear safety brought to your attention in our letter j
of June 30, 1972. We have completed'our evaluation of your letters dated Septe ber 29, 1972, and December 1, 1972, in response to our June 30, 1972, 1ctter.
Ihe Regslatory Operations position on valve thickness verification has been further clarified and is as stated in the enclosure to this letter.
I-In view of the additional information contained in the enclosure, you may find it necessary to readjust your program for verification of valve i
vall thicknesses.
Regulatory Operations inspectors will examine your verification program and : Pre docu=entation of results against the pre-viously established requirements and the enclosed additional information on subsequent inspections of the above docketed facilities.
i Should you have any questions regarding this letter, you may communicate r
directly with this office.
Very truly yours, l
P hn p Director
Enclosure:
As stated J
i l
moVWo3 ST r
...~........
N
'f a
EN' CLOSURE DOCKET NOS.*
50-259, 50-260 50-296 1
VALVE WALL THICKNESS VERIFICATION PROGRAMS Subsequent to issuance of Regulatory Operations Region II letter of June 30, 1972, requesting submittal of plans for verification of certain l
valve wall thicknesses, some responses contained deviations from the AEC requirements contained in the June 30, 1972, letter.
The following l
additional inforearion clarifying the AEC position will be utilized by Region II in evaluation of verification programs and results:
1.
Valve Sizes Allvalves,cutandforged,ofsizeslistedforPWR'sandBWR'.yda
~
the June 30, 1972, letters to licensees are to be included in the l
licensees' valve verification program; unless specific exceptions are permitted by Items 3, 4, and 5 below.
l' 2.
Acceptable Measurement Techniques and Accuracy Any measurement technique may be used for acceptance purposes, providing it can be shown to yield meaningful valve wall thickness measurements.
Realizing that 2% maximum error in repeatabifity and accuracy is, a' sta:cd goal, a lower level of measurement accuracy than 2% is per-mitted for acceptance purposes, provided the measured wall thickness value shown by the particular technique exceeds the required thickness The by an amount sufficient to cover the maximum measurement error.
use of measurement techniques having less accuracy than 2% carries with it the possibility that the valve walls may have to be thicker (greater than 2") than the design value'to be acceptabit..
3.
Conditional Acceptance i,
a.
Forged Valves Forged valves which may not require. verification are those whose design is such (as may be shown by valve drawings) that any =
internal machining operation could not have encroached,upon the minimum wall thickness cf the pressure-retaining boundary c..'
of the valve body.
{V
)
\\
1
= -.
.--s sa-
.. enc o a.
5 J
l O
j f... -
x 2-0 I
b.
Forged Valves 2-1/2 Inches and Less I
Forged valves 2-1/2 inches and less that are mass-produced from standardized forging patterns may not require verification, pro-vided that the manufacturing process QC requires periodic checks' of the final machining process, and which have been shown by documented audits (by the buyer or his representative) to j
satisfactorily control the dimensional requirements of the
?
j valve design.
i
- 4., Valve Verification Alternatives Regulatory Operations will consider alternative methods of valve verification in situations where full compliance with the require--
ments of our letters wculd result in hardships or unusual difficultie without a compensating increase in the assurance of system integrist.
Proposed alternative methods of valve verification must provide an l
[
acceptable level of assurance char system integrity will be maintained.
Licensees requesting such consideration should submit a detailed j
report to the Regulatory Operations Region II Office, discussing the specialized nature of each problem and providing-sufficient supporting information on proposed alternative verification methods to permit an AEC evaluation.
5.
Valve Acceptance Through Evaluation or Special Testing Licensees ' planning to utiliz.e valves having less than the design l
minimum wall thickness (and which are not acceptable to the terms i
of the June 30, 1972, letter) and who intend to justify the use via j
engineering calculations, special tests or change of operating i
conditions, should submit to the Regulatory Operations Region II i
Office.a detailed engineering evaluation, the results of any special i
testing, or such other engineering documentation as the situation may '.
~
require.' The information to be submitted by the licensee must provide j
sufficient engineering detail to permit a thorough technical review of each specific application.
(Multiple cases may be grouped, if appropriate.)
(e%%
I k~'
I
~-
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUThuRITY P
CHATTANOOGA. TENNESSEE 374ot 3
W October 31, 1972 i
Mr. John G. Davis, Director Directorate of Regulatory Operations
]
United States Ato=ic Energy Cor=Lission Region II - Suite 818 230 Peachtree Street, NW.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Mr. Davis:
This is in further response to your June 30, 1972, letter i
RO:II:JGD $0-25?, 50-260, 50-296, 50-327, and 50-328 con-cerning verification that the vall nicknesses of certain
.Q,,
valves neet the require ents of specified codes and stand da.
l;;, -
This response is confined to ourfurooms Ferryhlear-Piurty l k We are continuing to develop plans for verification of wall thicknesses of certain Browns Ferry valves. We vill advise you of these plans and of the tentative schedule for their
- I implementation.
- Very truly' yours,
s
'f.
J. E. G111 eland Assistant to the Manager of Power
~,
j
!a I
1
-l
'l h
An Equal Opportunity Employer V
4 9 c; y 3 o032 6 7
g
TcNNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ti S. b E' h' CHATTANOOGA. TENNEs2EC 374ot CDurit i,uiC gg-3' G A'
&_3nlI28 W'M L 9] %
1
[39 h,
- Ju s
e h6 0
V V
Y A
Mr. John G. Davis, Director d
Directorate of. Re;;ulatory Operations hb United States Aten.ic Energy Co=11ssion Region II - Suite 318 230 Peachtree Street,I;W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 4
Dear Mr. Davis:
We acknowlcage receipt of your letter, R0:II:JGDSO'1!5%
-260, -296, -32.7, -323, of June 30, 1972, concerning verification that the vall thicknesses of certain Brovns Ferry and Sequoyah ;;uclear Plant valves meet the require-r.cnts of specified codes cnd standards. We acknowledge also receipt of your letter, RO:II:JGD 50-390, -391, same date, enr.e subject except related to Matts Bar I;uclear Plant. Responses to your letters require accunulation of inforr.stion free. several vendors, a.d we have not been Eble to cc::.plete this uork to date. We will cdvise you by Septcuter 15, 197E, of actions taken and to be taken in response to your June 30 letters.
I Very truly yours, I
I TEINESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY cG}>.Ll -ldOvi f}
~-
l
\\.sL.M,/
t i
Jade's E. Watson f.ana'cer of Power 4
f-(
~
e
,i l
l e
.I
,b 0- y YJ03 /3
~~
garg qi
.