IR 05000327/1986042

Requests Evaluation of Util 861024 & 870406 Denials of Violation 86-42-01 & Unresolved Item 86-42-02 from Insp Repts 50-327/86-42 & 50-328/86-42 Re Environ Qualification of Asco Solenoid Valves

ML20213G976
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	05/04/1987
From:	Zech G NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS
To:	Liaw B NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS
References
TAC-R00110, TAC-R00111, TAC-R110, TAC-R111, NUDOCS 8705190073
Download: ML20213G976 (2)

Text

D$.l uA

,. N MAY 0 41987 MEMORANDUM FOR B. D. Liaw, Assistant Director, Technical Review Division of TVA Projects, Office of Special Programs Gary G. Zech, Assistant Director, Inspection Programs,

~

FROM:

Division of TVA Projects, Office of Special Progre.ms SUBJECT: ASCO SOLEN 0ID VIOLATION 86-42-01

.

Two examples of Violation 86-42-01 were cited in Inspection Report 86-42 pertaining to ASCO solenoid valves (one on seismic qualification, one on environmental qualification). These issues resulted from two unresolved items identified in Inspection Report 85-45 and later reviewed in Inspection Report '

86-01. These items were upgraded to violations in Inspection Report 86-4 TVA responded to the violation on October 24, 1986, by admitting the first example of 86-42-01 pertaining to the seismic qualification, but denied the second example pertaining to environmental qualification. A request for technical assistance was sent from myself to Brian Grimes on December 5, 1986, to evaluate the environmental qualification issues addressed in Report 86-42 as Violation 86-42-01 and Unresolved Item 86-42-0 George Hubbard evaluated these issues during his inspection reported in Inspection Report 86-70 on December 12, 1986, and addressed these issues in a Grimes memorandum dated January 16, 1987, which concluded that the violation was valid. We issued a response to TVA's denial of October 24, 1986, based on the January 16, 1987, Grimes' memorandum refuting TVA's denial an February 26, 1987 TVA on April 6,1987, again denied the violation. George Hubbard has recently discussed the second denial with TVA. In light of this second denial, please evaluate this EQ issue from a technical standpoint and determine if TVA's denial is valid based on the NRC's EQ polic If you consider that TVA's denial is not valid, please prepare a draft response to TVA that represents how you believe the NRC should respond to this denia It is requested that you respond to this memorandum by May 22, 1987, to support completion of Sequoyah inspection activitie ORIGINAL. SIGNED BY

, KENNET" 9 VRR

'l M Gary G. Zech

Enclosures: Inspection Report 86-42 TVA first denial . Grimes memorandum RII response to TVA TVA second denial

,

l cc w/o encls: (See page 2)

!

B705190073 870504 PDR ADOCK 05000327 G PDR

'

'

_ - - _ . - - _ - - , . - _ - , _ - _ - _ _ - _

I

,

c .. %

B. D. Liaw 2 AIAY 0 41967

.

cc w/o encis:

/H. L.'Abercrombie, Site Director >

'

.Sequoyah Nuclear Plant

/ A. Kirkebo, Acting Director, t .d.NuclearEngineering

'L. Gridley, Director Nuclear Safety and Licensing

/M. R. Harding, Site Licensing Manager bec w/o encls:

/). G. Keppler, OSP

/S. D. Ebneter, OSP

/J.A.Zwolinski,OSP

/S. D. Richardson, OSP

/S. R. . Connelly, OIA K. P. Barr, OSP/RII yNRCResidentInspector-NRC Document Control Desk State of Tennessee

.e

!

.

L

$

L

-OSP/RII 'OSP/R- 05?/RII -

JBA JBrady FMc' Coy

' -

K

%r 4/rt/87 4/30/87 4 y B7

. _ , _ . . . . - _ _ . . _ _ , _ . _ _ , . _ _ . _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ , . ., _ _,._.___ _ _ ___ __,_,_ _ __, _ _ . _ _ , _ , .__ ,__

. - . . _ - . _ - ~ _ .- _

_

_