ML20207T770

Reviews Util 861024 Response,Denying Violation Noted in Insp Repts 50-327/86-42 & 50-328/86-42.Basis for Concluding That Violation Occurred as Stated in 860926 Notice of Violation Encl

ML20207T770
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	02/26/1987
From:	Zech G NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS
To:	White S TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
References
NUDOCS 8703240322
Download: ML20207T770 (3)

See also: IR 05000327/1986042

Text

[

'

'

.

.. ~

q

<

FEB 2 61987

Tennessee Valley Authority

EATTN: Mr. S. A. White

Manager of Nuclear Power

6N 38A Lookout Place

1101 Market Street

Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801

Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: REPORT NOS. 50-327/86-42 AND 50-328/86-42

We have completed our evaluation of your October 24, 1986, response to our

Notice of Violation issued on September 26, 1986, concerning activities at your

Sequoyah facility.

After careful review of the basis for your denial of Violation 50-327,328/

86-42-01 (Example 2), we have concluded, for the reasons presented in the

enclosure to this letter, the violation occurred as stated in the Notice of

Violation. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, please submit to this office

within 30 days of the date of this letter, a written statement describing the

reasons for the violation, the corrective steps which have been taken and the

results achieved, corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further

violations, and the date when full compliance will be achieved.

In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2,

Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosure

will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.

The response directed by this letter is not subject to the clearance procedure

for the Office of Management and Budget issued under the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1980, PL 96-511.

Sincerely,

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY

GARY G. ZECH

Gary G. Zech, Assistant Director

TVA Projects Division

Office of Special Projects

ccy w/ encl:

S. L. Abercrombie, Site Director

Sequoyah Nuclear Plant

cR'. W. Cantrell, Acting Director

Nuclear Engineering

I L. Gridley, Director

Nuclear Safety and Licensing

vd R. Harding, Site Licensing

Manager

8703240322 870226

PDR ADOCK 05000327

O PDR

ll1

M cj

_ -- ----_---- -

,

d

e

E5L .Io 357

ENCLOSURE

Your denial of Violation 50-327,328/86-42-01 (Example 2), is based on the grounds

that the work instructions used for installation of the solenoid valves were

adequate; however, this is questionable in light of the fact that the vendor

bulletin (not pr.rt of the installation package) for the ASCO model 8316 valves

for nuclear power plants, documents that the four valve bonnet (end plate) screws

have torque values of 95 plus or minus 10 inch pounds in a crisscross manner.

Since the vendor was specific with regard to torquing values and the tightening

pattern for the bonnet screws, these items are considered significant and should

be followed. In addition, it is understood from informal discussions with

Sequoyah that they have actually gone back arid tightened the bolts to the vendor

values.

You further state that the environmental qualification of the valve was not

affected by the reconfiguration of the mounting support as performed under work

package 11806, since the area of the valve that would have been affected by the

improper installation of the bolts is internally isolated from the portion of

the solenoid valve which contains that electric coil. Since the valve is

environmentally qualified as a whole device, this argument is considered not

applicable to the situation. In fact, in a letter to Dr. J. Nelson Grace, RII

Administrator, from R. L. Gridley, Director, Nuclear safety and Licensing,

Subject: Watts Bac Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 - Improperly Installed Solenoid

Valves - WBRD-50-390/85-52, WBRD-50-391/85-14 - Final Report, dated May 2, 1986,

TVA states that ASCO solenoid valves are supplied to them as a complete qualified

package with supplier-imposed instructions which must be followed to ensure that

their application in the plant conforms with qualification tests. The position

taken in this letter seems to be contrary to the TVA Sequoyah position taken in

the denial of the violation. The NRC concurs with the original TVA position

dated May 2,1986, and disagrees with the Sequoyah position that the environ-

mental qualification of the valves was not degraded. We, therefore, believe the

violation occurred as stated.

T !. .;r

.

Tennessee Valley Authority 2

'bcc w/ enc 1:

pk Keppler,. OSP

Ebneter, OSP

. Zwolinski, OSP

Liaw, OSP

-

'

R. Connelly, OIA

.:P. Barr, RII

INRC Resident Inspector

NRC Document Control Desk

State of Tennessee

i'

l

i

i-

!

d

2/N/87 2ht/87 A

2G/87