ML18130A614
| ML18130A614 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 07/25/1979 |
| From: | Stallings C VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18130A611 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909200157 | |
| Download: ML18130A614 (3) | |
Text
..
,1,.::*JEO,*,;:,*
VIRGiNiA'. *:&";L~CTRIC AND POWER COMPANY RICHMOND,VIBOINIA 23261 Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
Serial No. 467A PO/RMT:baw Docket Nos. 50-281 License Nos. DPR-37 We have reviewed your letter of July 10, 1979, in reference to the inspection conducted at Surry Power Station Unit No. 2 on May 7 -
10, 1979, and reported in IE Inspection Report No.50-281/79-33.
Our supplemental response to the specific infraction is attached.
This supplemental response is intended to clarify our initial response dated June 27, 1979, Serial No. 467.
We have determined that no proprietary information is contained in the report.
Accordingly, the Virginia Electric and Power Company has no objection to this inspection report being made a matter of public disclosure.
Attachment cc:
Mr. Albert Schwencer Very truly yours,
~-.J?; ~~~t:r2---
- c. M. Stallings Vice President-Power Supply and Production Operations 19092@@'\\c;7\\
- f
ATTACHMENT PAGE 1 of 2 In reference to your request for supplemental informati.on made by telephone conversation between our SGRP Resident QC Engineer and W. P. Kleinsorge of your staff regarding IE Inspection Report No. 50-281/79-33 and our letter of June 27, 1979, the following is provided.
For clarity~the Initial NRC comment and our response are included.
NRC COMMENT
- As required by Criterion XVII of 10 CFR 50, and as implemented by VEPCO Topical Report VEP-1-A, Amendment 3 Paragraph 17.2.17, sufficient records shall be maintained to furnish evidence of activities affecting quality and that these records include results of inspection.
Contrary to the above, on May 8, 1979 five "Receipt Inspection Report" forms had the following boxes not marked:
"No Shipping Damage", *"Properly Packaged",
"Cleanliness Satisfactory", and "Properly Identified" SGR-12188, SGR-12391, and SGR-12609.
RESPONSE
The deficiency Is correctly stated.
VEPCO Quality Control Personnel have been instructed by the-*Q..A. Engineer not to accept Receipt and Inspection forms from warehouse personnel until all. appro-priate blocks In the "Stores Only" section have been completed~
SGR purchase order files numbered SGR-12188, 12391 and 12609 have been re-evalYated and no discrepancies found.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE Purchase order files previous to this occurrence were not reviewed because the I
specific omissions noted above were confined to the portion of the document assigned to store's personnel.
The Inspection for acceptance conducted by quality control personnel was properly documented In the abov.e purchase order flies. This lnspectfon ts conducted subsequent to the store's personnel
ATTACHMENT PAGE 2 of 2 check, but prior to acceptance of material.
In that objective.evidence of QC inspection and acceptance was present in all the above files: review of additional documents was not considered warranted *