ML19225C697
| ML19225C697 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 06/27/1979 |
| From: | Fiorelli G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Brian Lee COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908020324 | |
| Download: ML19225C697 (1) | |
Text
[pa at cg 'c UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7%
[ '
, '*' q [
-/'
1 c
REGION lil b
o,
[
799 ROOSEVE LT ROAD g
[$b
/
c$'
GLEN E LLYN, it UNOIS 60137 S
t q
JUN 2 71979 Docket No. 50-456 Docket No. 50-457 Commonwealth Edison Company ATTN:
Mr. Byron Lee, Jr.
Vice President P. O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Gentlemen:
Thank you for your letter dated May 23, 1979, and the interpretation of the ASME Code Committee We have concluded the matter does not appear to involve noncompliance and we will revise our reccrds accordingly.
While we accept the interpretation of fered you by the Code Committee, we recognize that fitup requirements are critical to the quality of a "ald.
Accordingly, we will inspect your actions governing this control during future inspection.
Your cooperation with us i-appreciated.
Sincerely,
/-
bh<d'i ddY.
G. Fiorelli, Chief Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch cc:
Mr. R. Cosaro, Project Su,erintendent cc w/ltr dtd 5/23/79:
Central Files Reproduction Unit NRC 20b PDR Local PDR NSIC TIC Mr. Dean Hansell, Office of Assistant Attorney General
]~
) )
79080203N 43l 33g
~
One First National P!ata Chicago, lltinois Address Reply to Post Office Box 767 CNcago, lihnors 60690 May 23, 1979 Mr. James G. Keppler, Director Directorate of Inspection and Enforcement - Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatery Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
Subject:
Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2 Additional Response to IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-456/79-01 and %46~775D]r NRC Docket Nos. 50-456 and 50 75 P Reference (a).
March 19, 1979 letter from C. Reed to James G. Keppler
Dear Mr. Keppler:
Per Reference (a), Commonwealth Edison Company requested that the NRC place an item of noncompliance in abeyance until Commonwealth Edison received a response on a code inquiry to the American Society of Mechanical Enginears (ASME) C omr.tittee.
Your March 28, 1979 letter concurred.
Enclosed for your review as Attachment 1 is the ASME response to Commonwealth Edison's inquiry regarding your apparent noncompliance on welding of split backing rings.
Also enclosed, as Attachu
.c 2, is Commonwealth Edison's inquiry of the subject matter.
Since the ASME response supports Commonwealth Edison's contention that only performance qualification using a split backing ring is required to qualify for welding such joints in construction, Commonwealth Edison requests that the NRC reexamine this apparent item of noncompliance and consider changing this infraction to an observation.
o*r 1979
$3l 399 ppg qg>sp a w,c 0
Commonwealth Edison NRC Docket Nos 50-456/457 Mr. James G.
Keppler: May 23, 1979
~
Please address any additional questions that you might have to this office.
Very truly yours,
- O Cordell Reed Assistant Vice-President attachments
/
JSg-
_ l ATTACH'.1ENT 1 M:-
The American Society of Mechanical Enginecrs t'.'s
- i. O, ;.v u 4 ;, E ;-,* ; Cc-c, 34: E 4 7m E-
- e* Yu '. i C17
- 212-6:e
-'.2 * ' *
^ 2E1 267 3
/
/
THE BOILER AND PRESSURE VES$EL COMMITTE E c wrman P. M. B RISTER V,ce o s,rman April 30, 1979 W. L H ARDING secretary G. M. EISENBERG Mr. W. L. Stiede B. '*/ F ACE Coc:monwealth Edison R. D. BONNER P. O. Box 767 R. J. BOSN A
Chicago, IL 60690 V.W.BUTLIR R J CEPLUCH L. J. CHOCKIE SL'BJECT:
Section IX, Regarding the Welding of E? lit Backing Rings, W. E. COOPER QW-402.2, QW-402.4 W.D. DOTY B. G. E ARNHEART g g,.g.
g g
g gg g gg R. M. GIBSON R. C. GRIF FIN
Dear Mr. Stiede:
J. W. KIME J. E. LATTAN Our understanding Of the question in your inquiry and our interpretive J. LeCOU J. R. MACK AY reply is as follOWs!
H. 5. MAUK W.R.V.KESELL Inquiry:
R. H. MO E LLER T f NO8THUP C. E RAWLINS If a Welder is qualified to Weld using a split backing ring, E:uSt he be R. F. RE EDY additiO".'.lly qualified to Weld a Joint Without baChing to Weld the gap W. R. SMITH, SR.
Of a split backing ring?
W. E. !,O M ERS Reply:
NO.
Very truly yours,
(
(
l' Ose. S. Brzuhk Viczh Assistant Secretary Boiler and Pressure Vessel Con:mittee
/rdp
.. s s
J
\\
e
.p m,
p.
p., e aw.= m * *, *
- F*
r O.
anOIS March 13,1979 Mr. G. M. Eisenberg, Secretary Boiler & Pressure Vessel C.7nnittee c/o The American Society of Mechanical Engineers 345 E. 47th Street New York, NY 10017
Dear Mr. Eisenberg:
We are in urgent need of an interpretation of ASME Soiler and Pressure Vessel Code rules involving the welding of butt joints in piping enploying a split backing ring.
During a recent inspection Connission personnel, we were cited as follows:at one of our nuclear plant "One apparent iten of noncompliance was identified in one area.
Infraction--failure of the welders who welded the gap of the split backing ring--to be qualified to weld the gap of the split backing ring.
Welding of the split ring constitutes weldin5 without-ba ing."
The NRC personnel are apparencly of the opinion-that welding across the short gap which can exist on weld joints using concercial backin5 rings constitutes open root welding (i.e., welding without a backin5 ring).
We do not agree and are of the opinion that ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code rules only require perfor=ance qualification usin5 a sIlit backing ring to qualify for welding such joints in con-structiin.
The joints involved are Section III, Class 3 welds.
The following inquiry is subnitted to clarify the question raised by the above situation.
INQUIRY:
If a welder is qualified to the rules of Section II on a butt joint using a split backing ring, must he be additionally qualified on a. butt joint with no backing to =ake construction welds enploying split backing rings.
In both the qualification test and construction welds, there is a gap between the split ends.-
A pronpt response to this inquiry will be appreciated.
Very truly yours, hY 64 0 W. L. Stiede cc:
R. C. Griffin R. F. Reedy L. J. Christenser E. J. Henry s
__.._g