ML040060150

E-mail W/Attachment from P. Narbut to R. Oconnell Re Assessment of New Input NMSS-2002-A-0002

ML040060150
Person / Time
Site:	Dresden, Quad Cities
Issue date:	06/05/2002
From:	Narbut P Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
To:	O'Connell R Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
References
FOIA/PA-2003-0395, NMSS-2002-A-0002
Download: ML040060150 (2)

Text

L.--. -

I S

I o-dI I.

.U~I.VUS.L Page I/

From:

To:

Date:

Subject:

Paul Narbut, 0./' S5 Robert O'Connell Wed, Jun 5, 2002 3:40 PM Assessment of New input NMSS-2002-A-0002 Assessment attached No further action planned at this time.

Wayne reviewed and had no objections CC:

Frank Jacobs; M. Wayne Hodges; Michael Tokar

• 71 I 7

.. _ eave_..

MWIb a~i~si a

lbIVIIII~tiIVI I

L AUVU'.VVjU rage June 4, 2002 Assessment of Additional Information Provided by Concerned Individual Allegation NMSS-2002-A-0002 The concerned individual (CI)provided additional information to Bob O'Connell in 6/3/02. Bob requested that SFPOITSSI review the information and advise him of its impact.

Telephone information

1.

The Cl stated that he had not been saying there was a violation of the COMED procedures, but rather a violation of the ASME Code.

Response: No impact on the inspection findings. The inspectors addressed the fact that the ASME Code and ANSI N45.2 had slightly different definitions of rework and repair.

Our assessment addressed the underlying reason for the requirements; that is to involve the design engineer when departures from the engineered design drawings are made by the fabricator. This was found to be properly implemented

2.

The Cl stated that he was not concerned with his findings in 1999 but was concerned with all repair and rework issues.

Response: No impact on the inspection findings. No examples of improper rework or repair design issues have been identified by the Cl or subsequent NRC inspections.

Information Faxed to Region Il

3.

The Cl faxed a chart from the Dresden/Quad Cities pipe support analysis procedure which shows that the yield strength for common steels decreases when the service temperature increases.

Response: No impact on the inspection findings. There is no question that the yield strength for common steels decreases when the service temperature increases. The Cl did not provide any examples where this concept was improperly applied. The Cl's testimony with Rill might suggest that the Cl has a concern about increased steel temperatures induced by weld repairs, but temperature changes due to welding are temporary and reverse as the steel cools. The inspectors' review of weld repair controls found them to be adequate.