ML12272A167
| ML12272A167 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 08/22/2012 |
| From: | Atif Shaikh NRC/RGN-III/DRS/EB1 |
| To: | Jack Giessner, Dave Hills, Atif Shaikh Division Reactor Projects II, Division of Reactor Safety III |
| References | |
| FOIA-2012-0312 | |
| Download: ML12272A167 (1) | |
Text
Shaikh, Atif From:
Shaikh, Atif Sent:
Wednesday, August 22, 2012 10:56 AM To:
Shaikh, Atif; Giessner, John; Hills, David Cc:
Alley, David; Lupold, Timothy; Sanchez Santiago, Elba; Phillips, Charles
Subject:
RE: CRDM Housings with Indications Sorry folks, just realized I had a typo. It is a PT examination on receipt. Not a UT. This does not change our extent of condition concerns. I looked at the raw UT data and they did not identify any indications for CRDM 22 and 25. That is a bit odd because the UT should pick those up. I have other issues with the UT. We need to discuss this today. I will try to email you a drawing of this UT set-up (hand drawn) and we will use that when I explain my concerns.
-Atif From: Shaikh, Atif Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 10:37 AM To: Giessner, John; Hills, David Cc: Alley, David; Lupold, Timothy
Subject:
CRDM Housings with Indications Importance: High Gentlemen, please see below.
Receipt Inspection UT of CRDM housings installed after the 2001 cracking incident:
CRDM One 3/32" indication CRDM One 0.080" indication CRDM Four 1/16" indications CRDM-16 -One 1/8" indication CRDM Eight 1/16" indications CRDM Two indications (size not documented)
CRDM One 3/32" indication CRDM Four 1/16" indications CRDM Four 1/8" indications We have asked licensee to explain why CRDM 44 was not sized. If not sized, how did they know if it was code acceptable?
-Atif