ML19319E000

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to AEC Re Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-312/70-06.Corrective Actions:Ndt Specialist Hired, Comparison Analysis Indicated No Noticeable Difference in Weld Definition & Contractor Warned Re Noncompliance
ML19319E000
Person / Time
Site: Rancho Seco
Issue date: 11/18/1970
From: Mattimoe J
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
To: Rich Smith
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
Shared Package
ML19319D996 List:
References
NUDOCS 8003270712
Download: ML19319E000 (2)


Text

_

b.

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL. UTILITY DISTRICT C 6201 S Street. Box 15830, Sacramento, California 95813; (916) 452 3211 November 18, 1970 United States Atomic Energy Commission Division of Compliance, Region V 2111 Bancroft Way Berkeley, CA 94704 Attention:

Mr. R. W. Smith, Director

Dear Mr. Smith:

We are in receipt of your letter of October 28, 1970 which sets forth the results of the AEC compliance audit of September 17 and 18, 1970. The audit revealed a deficiency involving the quality of radiographs taken on the reactor building liner.

We have investigated this problem thoroughly with the following

{g}

results:

%_J 1.

Nondestructive testing specialists from Bechtel Quality Control Services in San Francisco were brought in at SMUD's request to review approximately 50% of the liner radiographs selected at random. Their review indicated that, although the radiographs failed to meet the density requirements of UW-51 of the code as noted in the AEC audit, they had sufficient penetrameter image detail to provide assurance."that proper welding has been performed and that an adequate level cf weld quality was attained."

2.

A comparison analysis was made by *aking two additional radiographs of weld seams that were represented by radio-graphs that failed to meet density requirements of the code.

The additional radiographs which were in full compliance with the code were compared with the non-code radiographs to determine if there were any appreciable increase in defect definition. The results indicated that there was no notice-able difference in veld definition.

3.

The contractor, Chicago Bridge and Iron, has been advised that they must comply strictly with UW-51 of Section VIII on all future work to be performed on the liner.

glig

~lfg g,AfC5fyg '

(~'8 c>

O) kov 3D

\\

g 7

g 8003370 7/ 2 e

o\\

9_,f YM D

ic

/

AA ELECTRIC $YSTEM S E R VIN G MORE THAN 600.000 IN THE HiART OF

~,oRNIA

a United States Atomic November 18, 1970 r*

Energy Commission 4.

SMUD has hired a nondestructive testing specialist in their Quality Assurance organization to assure full compliance with the specification.

Detailed records, correction action memos and test reports support-ing an approved non-conformance report are available at the site for review by your inspector.

Please let us know if you have any questions or desire further in-formation on the above matter.

Yours truly, l.

l John. Mattimoe I

I Assistant Chief Engineer O

~

l

-