ML18139A992
| ML18139A992 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1980 |
| From: | Sylvia B VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| References | |
| 1024, IEB-79-14, NUDOCS 8101190357 | |
| Download: ML18139A992 (3) | |
Text
.,.
/
/ ;1.\\ ( ;:;
l
- . \\ ; ',
~ J
!-i Ii :
December 31, 1980 Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Director Office of Inspection & Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
SURRY POWER STATION UNIT 2 I.E. BULLETIN NO. 79-14 Serial No. 1024 PSE&C/MSW:bmt Docket No.~
License No. DPR-37 The purpose of this letter is to advise you of the present status of the work performed per I.E. Bulletin No. 79-14. "Seismic Analyses for As-Built Safety-Related Piping Systems" for Surry Power Station Unit 2. Specifically, we wish to address the items concerning requirements for completion set forth in your letter of July 24, 1980.
Items 1, 2, and 3 of your letter require that support modifications to systems governed by the Technical Specifications be issued to Vepco by October 1, 1980 and installed by November 1, 1980, and that the remaining support modifi-cations be installed by December 1, 1980.
These requirements have been met with the exception of a single modification inside the containment building that must be installed on a 3 11 component cooling line. The absence of this modi-fication allows some existing supports on two adjacent 2" component cooling lines to be stressed above the level that is set by the long term factor of safety; how-ever, they have been found to be acceptable under the interim criteria utilized throughout the 79-14 effort. This ensures safe operation of Unit 2 until the long term modification can be installed at the next available outage.
An additional requirement was placed upon Vepco in June 1980 by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to conduct a program of vendor verification of valve weights.
This requirement is over and above the original directive to verify valve weights by utilizing existing Station records. This additional program required 100 per-cent field verification, full design review, and vendor verification of valve weights.
The field verification and design review efforts have been completed.
However, as acknowledged in your letter to Vepco of August 5, 1980, your Mr. R. M.
Compton was informed on July 9 and 10 that no completion date could be given for 81011903S-'7
__J
y-,si-
~
~~ ;'*'
e VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY TO Mr. J. P. 01Reilly P_age 2 verification of valve weights by vendors, and therefore, we could not commit to finish by the December 31, 1980 date referenced in your July 24, 1980 letter.
We have attempted to expedite this additional effort. To date, we have received vendor responses for about half of the valves. The impact of any valve weight differences greater than+ 10 percent will be assessed, and if significant, the line will be reanalyzed. -If any modifications should result from this reanalysis, they will be installed as required, and where applicable~ in full consideration of all Technical Specifications.
In addition to the valve weight review, nozzles and penetrations are being reviewed for adequ~cy with vendor confirmation being obtained as necessary.
Any modifications which might result from this review wfll be similarly installed.
The ffoal verification effort that remains to be completed is the verifica-tion of piping material. Our program includes both a check on existing Station records and~ hands-on check of 10 percent of the applicable pipe lines in the Station. This effort was initiated in the containment building prior to the beginning of Unit 2 operation earlier this year. Selected pipe lines outside the containment building will now be checked.
All results will be analyzed to ensure the adequacy of the material and the accuracy of the permanent Station records.
Item 4 of your July 24, 1980 letter states that the activities and reporting of results will be completed by December 31,. 1980. Again, all 79-14 modifications, with the one exception mentioned previously, have been installed. Only the activi-ties concerning valve weight verification, nozzle and penetration verification, and material verification remain.
An additional report will be submitted upon the completion of these verification efforts.
Item 5 concerns the reporting and evaluation of overstress conditions and is now applicable only to the notification of any overstress found during any reanaly-sis required by the on-going verification process.
Item 6 requires that the valve weight verification program be expedited and that any piping/support reanalysis and subsequent modifications that may be required as a result be completed promptly. This item has been addressed under our response to Item 3.
Again, the vendor verification program has obtained weight data for approximately half of the valves to date.
Item 7 requires weekly telephone progress reports. These have been discontinued since no further modifications have been identified for installation.
vrnoINIA ELEcTnic AND PowEn CoMPANY To Mr. J.. P. O'Reilly Page 3 We believe that this letter adequately addresses the issues presented in your July 24, 1980 letter. As stated before, we will provide an additional report sum-marizing the results of the on-going verification. Should you require additional information.in the interim, please contact us.
cc:
Mr. Victor Stello, Director vrz ~-rul; ~ours,
. } -1***2:--. j-1
\\-*
r? 'v._,.,
\\
).
I B.* R *. Syl;i*a '
Manager-Nuclear Operations and Maintenance Office of Inspection & Enforcment Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation