ML18139B290: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 15: Line 15:
| page count = 3
| page count = 3
}}
}}
See also: [[followed by::IR 05000280/1981006]]


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:* * * i ' -.. '\I-, " ,,...... .-VrRGINIA ELECTRIC AND PowE*~'G~~;~~  
{{#Wiki_filter:i ' -.. ' \ I - , " ,,......   .-
RIC:aMOND,VIRGINJ:A.  
VrRGINIA ELECTRIC AND               PowE*~'G~~;~~
23261 : 1 f.P:\ i'.3 P,\\. 3b April 7, 1981 Mr.* James P. O'Reilly, Director Office of Inspection  
* RIC:aMOND,VIRGINJ:A. 23261 April 7, 1981
and Enforcement  
:1     f.P:\ i'.3                   P,\\. 3b Mr.* James P. O'Reilly, Director                                               Serial No. 203 Office of Inspection and Enforcement                                           NO/RMT:ms U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                                             Docket Nos. 50-280 Region II                                                                                               50-281 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100                                                 License Nos. DPR-32 Atlanta, Georgia   30303                                                                                 D:PR-37
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory  
 
Commission  
==Dear Mr. O'Reilly:==
Region II 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mr. O'Reilly:  
 
Serial No. 203 NO/RMT:ms
We have reviewed your letter of March 13, 1981 in reference to the inspection conducted at Surry Power Station between February 9-12, 1981, and reported in IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-280/81-06 and 50-281/81-06. Our response to the specific infraction is attached.
Docket Nos. 50-280 50-281 License Nos. DPR-32 D:PR-37 We have reviewed your letter of March 13, 1981 in reference  
We have determined that no proprietary information is contained in the reports. Accordingly, the Virginia Electric .and Power Company has no obj ec-tion to these inspection reports being made a matter of public disclosure.
to the inspection  
The inf.ormation contained in the attached pages is true and accurate to the
conducted  
* best of my knowledge and belief.
at Surry Power Station between February 9-12, 1981, and reported in IE Inspection  
Very truly yours, a._          7~
Report Nos. 50-280/81-06  
M.n!~er -            R. Sylvia Operations and Maintenance Nuclear Attachment City of Richmond Commonwealth of Virginia
and 50-281/81-06.  
                                *7-c L        /'
Our response to the specific infraction  
Acknowledged before me this~- day of 0;e,.--,~,
is attached.  
                                    *Notary Public My Commission expires:   --? - .:J_ b     19 Ji.':,--
We have determined  
cc:   Mr. Steven A. Varga, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing 8105070L/~f
that no proprietary  
 
information  
Attachment Page 1 SURRY POWER STATION RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION APPENDED TO INSPECTION REPORT 50-280/81 50-281/81-06 NRC COMMENT 10 CFR 50, Appendix Criterion IX as implemented by Topical Report VEP-l-3A Section 17.2.9 requires in part that measures shall be established to assure that special processes are controlled and accomplished in accordance with applicable codes, standards, specifications, criteria, and other special requirements aimed at assuring adequate fillet throat for piping fillet welds are depicted in the applicable code (USAS B31.l-1967 edition).
is contained  
Contrary to the above, of February 11, i98 l, a de qua te measures had not been established to assure proper measurement in that a QC inspector, whose func-tion included verification of piping fillet weld sizes, could not demonstrate the fillet weld size measurement process.
in the reports. Accordingly, the Virginia Electric .and Power Company has no obj tion to these inspection  
This is a Severity Level V Violation (Supplement !I.E.).
reports being made a matter of public disclosure.  
VEPCO RESPONSE
The inf.ormation  
: 1. ADMISSION OR DENIAL OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION; The violation is not correct as stated.
contained  
: 2. THE REASONS FOR THE VIOLATION IF ADMITTED; Although exception has been taken to the alleged violation, the following description of circumstances is provided. It is felt that there was a misunderstanding rather than an inadequate knowledge of inspection criteria. The QC inspector in question stated that he thought the NRC inspector was asking a general question about the use of the fillet gauge rather than a specific question about the acceptance criteria of B31.l.
in the attached pages is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge  
The question that was asked by the NRC inspector was whether or not the fillet gauge had to touch the center of weld. The QC inspector responded by stating it was not necessary in all cases. It should be noted that the piping systems are inspected to B31.1 and the structural welds inspected the AWS Dl .1. AWS Dl. 1 allows 1/16 inch clearance between the center of the weld and fillet gauge. Both QC inspectors stated that they had the impression that they were only demonstrating the use of the fillet gauge and were not actually conducting an inspection to any particular acceptance criteria. The situation is considered to be a misunderstanding between the NRC inspector and the QC inspector. The QC inspector in question was re-examined and was able to adequately demon-strate knowledge of the measurement process.
and belief. Attachment  
: 3. CORRECTIVE STEPS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN AND THE RESULTS ACHIEVED; The QC inspector in question was found to have adequate knowledge during re-examination. All welds previously - accepted by this inspector were re-inspected. No discrepancies were found. In addition, SO welds in Containment Ill and 25 welds outside Containment were randomly selected and re-inspected. These were welds previously accepted by other QC inspectors. No discrepancies were found.
City of Richmond Commonwealth  
 
of Virginia L *7-c /' Acknowledged  
Attachment Page 2 VEPCO RESPONSE (Cont'd)
before me this~-day of 0;e,.--,~, *Notary Public My Commission  
: 4. CORRECTIVE STEPS WHICH WILL BE TAKEN TO AVOID FURTHER VIOLATIONS; Mockups of typical fillet welds were made and each QC inspector was required to demonstrate his proficiency. The results were satisfactory.
expires: --? -.:J_ b cc: Mr. Steven A. Varga, Chief Operating  
Each QC   inspector had received additional instruction to ensure that there is n~ misunderstanding in the use of the fillet gauge.
Reactors Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing  
S. THE DATE WHEN FULL COMPLIANCE WILL BE ACHIEVED; Full compliance has been achieved.
8105070L/~f  
                                                                * ,J , . _ *
19 Ji.':,--Very truly yours, 7~ _ a._ R. Sylvia M.n!~er -Nuclear Operations
*}}
and Maintenance
-.* 
* * SURRY POWER STATION RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION  
APPENDED TO INSPECTION  
REPORT 50-280/81-06
-50-281/81-06  
Attachment
Page 1 NRC COMMENT 10 CFR 50, Appendix Criterion  
IX as implemented  
by Topical Report VEP-l-3A Section 17.2.9 requires in part that measures shall be established  
to assure that special processes  
are controlled  
and accomplished  
in accordance  
with applicable  
codes, standards, specifications, criteria, and other special requirements  
aimed at assuring adequate fillet throat for piping fillet welds are depicted in the applicable  
code (USAS B31.l-1967  
edition).  
Contrary to the above, of February 11, i98 l, a de qua te measures had not been established  
to assure proper measurement  
in that a QC inspector, whose tion included verification  
of piping fillet weld sizes, could not demonstrate  
the fillet weld size measurement  
process. This is a Severity Level V Violation (Supplement  
!I.E.). VEPCO RESPONSE 1. 2. 3. ADMISSION  
OR DENIAL OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION;  
The violation  
is not correct as stated. THE REASONS FOR THE VIOLATION  
IF ADMITTED;  
Although exception  
has been taken to the alleged violation, the following  
description  
of circumstances  
is provided.  
It is felt that there was a misunderstanding  
rather than an inadequate  
knowledge  
of inspection  
criteria.  
The QC inspector  
in question stated that he thought the NRC inspector  
was asking a general question about the use of the fillet gauge rather than a specific question about the acceptance  
criteria of B31.l. The question that was asked by the NRC inspector  
was whether or not the fillet gauge had to touch the center of weld. The QC inspector  
responded  
by stating it was not necessary  
in all cases. It should be noted that the piping systems are inspected  
to B31.1 and the structural  
welds inspected  
the AWS Dl .1. AWS Dl. 1 allows 1/16 inch clearance  
between the center of the weld and fillet gauge. Both QC inspectors  
stated that they had the impression  
that they were only demonstrating  
the use of the fillet gauge and were not actually conducting  
an inspection  
to any particular  
acceptance  
criteria.  
The situation  
is considered  
to be a misunderstanding  
between the NRC inspector  
and the QC inspector.  
The QC inspector  
in question was re-examined  
and was able to adequately strate knowledge  
of the measurement  
process. CORRECTIVE  
STEPS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN AND THE RESULTS ACHIEVED;  
The QC inspector  
in question was found to have adequate knowledge  
during re-examination.  
All welds previously  
-accepted by this inspector  
were re-inspected.  
No discrepancies  
were found. In addition, SO welds in Containment  
Ill and 25 welds outside Containment  
were randomly selected and re-inspected.  
These were welds previously  
accepted by other QC inspectors.  
No discrepancies  
were found.
* VEPCO RESPONSE (Cont'd) Attachment
Page 2 4. CORRECTIVE  
STEPS WHICH WILL BE TAKEN TO AVOID FURTHER VIOLATIONS;  
Mockups of typical fillet welds were made and each QC inspector  
was required to demonstrate  
his proficiency.  
The results were satisfactory.  
Each QC inspector  
had received additional  
instruction  
to ensure that there is n~ misunderstanding  
in the use of the fillet gauge. S. THE DATE WHEN FULL COMPLIANCE  
WILL BE ACHIEVED;  
Full compliance  
has been achieved.  
* ,J ,._ * -:':
}}

Latest revision as of 00:10, 3 February 2020

Responds to NRC 810313 Ltr Re Violation Noted in IE Insp Repts 50-280/81-06 & 50-281/81-06.Corrective Actions: Disputes Violation.Qc Inspector Misunderstood NRC Inspector. QC Inspector re-examined & Found to Have Adequate Knowledge
ML18139B290
Person / Time
Site: Surry  Dominion icon.png
Issue date: 04/07/1981
From: Sylvia B
VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.)
To: James O'Reilly
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML18139B289 List:
References
203, NUDOCS 8105070429
Download: ML18139B290 (3)
v • d • e


Text

i ' -.. ' \ I - , " ,,...... .-

VrRGINIA ELECTRIC AND PowE*~'G~~;~~

  • RIC:aMOND,VIRGINJ:A. 23261 April 7, 1981
1 f.P:\ i'.3 P,\\. 3b Mr.* James P. O'Reilly, Director Serial No. 203 Office of Inspection and Enforcement NO/RMT:ms U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docket Nos. 50-280 Region II 50-281 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 License Nos. DPR-32 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 D:PR-37

Dear Mr. O'Reilly:

We have reviewed your letter of March 13, 1981 in reference to the inspection conducted at Surry Power Station between February 9-12, 1981, and reported in IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-280/81-06 and 50-281/81-06. 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 obj ec-tion to these inspection reports being made a matter of public disclosure.

The inf.ormation contained in the attached pages is true and accurate to the

  • best of my knowledge and belief.

Very truly yours, a._ 7~

M.n!~er - R. Sylvia Operations and Maintenance Nuclear Attachment City of Richmond Commonwealth of Virginia

  • 7-c L /'

Acknowledged before me this~- day of 0;e,.--,~,

  • Notary Public My Commission expires: --? - .:J_ b 19 Ji.':,--

cc: Mr. Steven A. Varga, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing 8105070L/~f

Attachment Page 1 SURRY POWER STATION RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION APPENDED TO INSPECTION REPORT 50-280/81 50-281/81-06 NRC COMMENT 10 CFR 50, Appendix Criterion IX as implemented by Topical Report VEP-l-3A Section 17.2.9 requires in part that measures shall be established to assure that special processes are controlled and accomplished in accordance with applicable codes, standards, specifications, criteria, and other special requirements aimed at assuring adequate fillet throat for piping fillet welds are depicted in the applicable code (USAS B31.l-1967 edition).

Contrary to the above, of February 11, i98 l, a de qua te measures had not been established to assure proper measurement in that a QC inspector, whose func-tion included verification of piping fillet weld sizes, could not demonstrate the fillet weld size measurement process.

This is a Severity Level V Violation (Supplement !I.E.).

VEPCO RESPONSE

1. ADMISSION OR DENIAL OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION; The violation is not correct as stated.
2. THE REASONS FOR THE VIOLATION IF ADMITTED; Although exception has been taken to the alleged violation, the following description of circumstances is provided. It is felt that there was a misunderstanding rather than an inadequate knowledge of inspection criteria. The QC inspector in question stated that he thought the NRC inspector was asking a general question about the use of the fillet gauge rather than a specific question about the acceptance criteria of B31.l.

The question that was asked by the NRC inspector was whether or not the fillet gauge had to touch the center of weld. The QC inspector responded by stating it was not necessary in all cases. It should be noted that the piping systems are inspected to B31.1 and the structural welds inspected the AWS Dl .1. AWS Dl. 1 allows 1/16 inch clearance between the center of the weld and fillet gauge. Both QC inspectors stated that they had the impression that they were only demonstrating the use of the fillet gauge and were not actually conducting an inspection to any particular acceptance criteria. The situation is considered to be a misunderstanding between the NRC inspector and the QC inspector. The QC inspector in question was re-examined and was able to adequately demon-strate knowledge of the measurement process.

3. CORRECTIVE STEPS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN AND THE RESULTS ACHIEVED; The QC inspector in question was found to have adequate knowledge during re-examination. All welds previously - accepted by this inspector were re-inspected. No discrepancies were found. In addition, SO welds in Containment Ill and 25 welds outside Containment were randomly selected and re-inspected. These were welds previously accepted by other QC inspectors. No discrepancies were found.

Attachment Page 2 VEPCO RESPONSE (Cont'd)

4. CORRECTIVE STEPS WHICH WILL BE TAKEN TO AVOID FURTHER VIOLATIONS; Mockups of typical fillet welds were made and each QC inspector was required to demonstrate his proficiency. The results were satisfactory.

Each QC inspector had received additional instruction to ensure that there is n~ misunderstanding in the use of the fillet gauge.

S. THE DATE WHEN FULL COMPLIANCE WILL BE ACHIEVED; Full compliance has been achieved.

  • ,J , . _ *
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML18139B290&oldid=2405147"