ML19259C477

Forwards ASME Response Supporting Util Contention Re Welding of Split Backing Rings in Const.Requests NRC re-examine Apparent Noncompliance & Consider Changing Infraction to Observation

ML19259C477
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	05/23/1979
From:	Reed C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:	James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
References
NUDOCS 7906220158
Download: ML19259C477 (4)

Text

_

@'F Commonwealth Edison One First National Plaza, ChsCago lilinois w

Address Reply to: Post Office Box 767 N/.7

~

f Chicago, lilinois 60690 M.1:i May 23, 1979 Mr. James G. Keppler, Director Directorate of Inspection and Enforcement - Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 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 50-457/79-01 NRC Docket Nos. 50-456 and 50-457 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 cesponse on a code inquiry to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Committee.

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 Attachment 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.

790622015/

8 2281 017

Commonwealth Edison NRC Docket Nos 50-456/457 Mr. James G. Keppler: May 23, 1979 Please address any additional questions chat you might have to this office.

Very truly yours, CO Cordell Reed Assistant Vice-President attachments 2281 018

ATTACHMENT 1 The American Society of Mechanical Engineers,

.;(3.si L-u E ;'aw; Cc :er

• 34 E 47m St. Nea You '. i 10',17

• 212-6. 4 "; 2 * '.. ': 0- 21 ~ 2 6'

, g: 4

/

/

THE BOILER AND PR ESSURE VESSEL COMMITTEE C> airman P. M. BRISTER v,ce-Co.,nnan April 30, 1979 W. L HARDING Secretssy G. M. EISENBERG Mr. W. L. Stiede B.W.BACE Co w 1 wealth Edison R.D.BONNER P. O. Box 767 R. J. BOSN AK Chicago, IL 60690 V.W. BUTLER R. J. CEP LUCH L. J. CHOCKIE

SUBJECT:

Section IX, Regarding the Welding of Split Backing Rings, W. E. COOPER QW-402.2, QW-402.4 W.D. DOTY B. G. E ARNHE ART

REFERENCE:

Your Letter of March 13, 1979 R. M. GIBSON R. C. GRIF FIN S. F. H AR RISON IIDI 3C"79-107 E. J. H E MZY E. L. KEMMLER

Dear Mr. Stiede:

J. W. KIM E fE Our understanding of the question in your inquiry and our interpretive

^"

C J. R. MACK AY reply is as follows:

H. S. MAOK W. R. MIKESELL Inquiry:

R. H. MO E LLE R

[ ' g",UR[g g If a kelder is qualified to weld using a split backing ring,1::ust he be HUP R. F. REEDY additionally qualified to weld a joint without backing to weld the gap W. R. SMITH. SR.

of a split backing ring?

W. E. SOMERT Reply:

No.

Very truly yours, ose S. Brzu k wicz Assistant Secretary Boiler and Pressure Vessel Comittee

/rdp 2281 019

g'/

Amr SS rie::iy to_ ost Office Box 767 Chicago, Ithnois 60690

~

March 13, 1979 Mr. G. M. Eisenberg, Secretary Boiler & Pressure Vessel Co -ittee e/o The Anerican Society of Mechanical Engineers 345 E. 47th Street New York, NY 10017 s.

c,-

Dear Mr. Eisenberg:

We are in urgent need of an interpretation of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code rules involving the welding of butt joints in~ piping e= ploying a split backing rin5 Durin5 a recent inspection at one of our nuclear plant construction sites by Nuclear Regulatory Connission personnel, we were cited as follows:

"One apparent iten of nonconpliance 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 welding without backin5 "

The NRC personnel are apparently of the opinion that weldin5 across the short Sap which can exist on weld joints using connercial backing rings constitutes open root weldir:3 (i.e., welding without a backing ring).

We do not agree and are of the opinion that ASFE Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code rules only require perfornance qualification using a split backin5 ring to qualify for welding such joints in con-struction.

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 nake construction welds enploying split backin5 rings.

In both the qualification test and construction welds, there is a gap between the split ends..

A pronpt response to this inqui$'y will be appreciated.

Very truly y urs, W. L. Stiede cc:

R. C. Griffin R. F. Reedy 228i M L. J. Christenser E. J. Henzy

,-g.

-