ML18136A216
| ML18136A216 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 10/22/1979 |
| From: | Stallings C VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18136A215 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911260169 | |
| Download: ML18136A216 (2) | |
Text
t
/*' (
- ' ~.
- /....
,,j
~\\..
i VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY RICHMON"D,VIBGINXA 23261 October 22, 1979 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. 809/092779"
- PO/RMT:baw i'v Docket No. 50-280 c-License No. DPR-32 We have reviewed your letter of September 29, 1979, in reference to the inspection conducted at Surry Power Station on August 27-29, 1979, and reported in IE Inspection Report Nos.50-280/79-50 and 50-281/79-70.
Our response to the specific infraction is attached.
We have determined that no proprietary information is contained in the reports.
Accordingly, the Virginia Electric and Power Company has no objection to these inspection reports being made a matter of public disclosure.
Attachment cc: Mr. Albert Schwencer Very truly yours, u)( ~~1~
C. M. [f{:,_11,4.({gs.
Vice President-Power Supply and Production Operations 7911260 11o7*
I.
7 C/ o 0 3c2./
c.. -.<~_: :**~ !: -: r-nn-7
,. /" \\.
,, 1 J"'
--.. \\,
Attachment page 1 RESPONSE TO VIOLATIONS LISTED IN IE INSPECTION REPORT NO.
50-280/79-50 & 50-281/79-70 NRC COMMENT As required by Technical Specifications, section 6.4.D, the detailed written procedures provided for preventative or corrective maintenance operations which would have an effect on the safety of the reactor shall be followed.
Paragraph _7.12.1.1 of procedure NDT-10.1, VEPCO's procedure for radiography,,
of safety-related welds states in part, "If the density of the *radiograph anywhere through the area of interest varies by more than minus 15, plus 30 percent then an additional penetrameter shall be used for each exceptional area *** ".
Contrary to the above, on August 28, 1979, nine feedwater weld radiographs were noted where the film density through the area of interest was more than 30 percent darker than the density through the penetrameter.
This is an infraction *
. RESPONSE The above information is correct as stated.
1.) "Corrective steps which have been taken by you, and the results achieved."
All film concerned with the Unit Ill Feedwater System {IEB 79-13) was reviewed by a Level II R.T. Interpreter {Contractor) and a VEPCO QA Level III R. T. Interpreter.
Reradiography was performed, where neces-sary, to meet the requirements of Paragraph 7.12.1.1 of VEPCO Procedure NDT 10.1. All the film for Unit Hl meets the requirements of VEPCO
. Procedure NDT 10.1. except that evaluation was to the 1977 Edition of ASME, Section II-I, Subsection NC, Paragraph NC-5000 to the 2T Quality Level.
The contractor used to perform the radiography for VEPCO bas been removed from the approved vendors list. The VEPCO Non-destructive testing individual, assigned to follow the contrac.tor 's work, has been disciplined.
2.) "Corrective steps which will be taken to avoi~'further non.;,compliance~"
VEPCO Quality Assur~nce personnel will prQvide surveillance on all future radiography efforts.
The date ~en full compliance will be achieved."
The review of all film and the required reradiography was complete on September 8, 1979.