ML20082F807
| ML20082F807 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 09/07/1983 |
| From: | Farrar D COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20082F761 | List: |
| References | |
| 7257N, NUDOCS 8311290252 | |
| Download: ML20082F807 (4) | |
Text
__
[, \\ Commonwealth Edison
) ona First Nationti Ptiza. Chiczgo. lihnois 4
v Addrtss Rtply to: Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 September 7, 1983 Mr. James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator
- Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Subject:
Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2 Supplemental Response to IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-456/83-02 and 50-457/83-02 NRC Docket Nos. 50-456/457 References (a):
D. L.
Farrar letter to J. G. Keppler dated April 29, 1983 (b):
D. L.
Farrar letter to J. G. Keppler dated July 8, 1983 (c):
C. E. Norelius letter to Cordell Reed dated March 23, 1983
Dear Mr. Keppler:
References (a) and (b) provided the Commonwealth Edison Company thirty (30) day and supplemental responses respectively to the Reference (c) Inspection Report for our Braidwood Station.
The purpose of this letter is to address the recent concerns raised by Mr. R. C. Knop of your office concerning Violation Number 3.
' Additionally, the results of the corrective actions taken for Violation Number 1 are provided.
Our delay in submittal of this supplemental response was discussed with Mr. R. C. Knop on August 30, 1983.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, the statements contained in the Attachment are true and correct.
In some respects these statements are not based on my personal knowledge but upon information furnished by other Commonwealth Edison employees and Consultants.
Such information has been reviewed in accordance with Company practice and I believe it to be reliable.
8311290252 831123 9
. Please address any questions that you or your staff may have concerning this matter to this office.
Very truly yours, A
=
Dennis L. Farra Director of Nuclear Licensing EDS/ rap Attachment cc:
RIII Inspector - Braidwood i
l 7257N-l l
l l
l
._,--n~n
I i
ATTACHMENT Supplemental Response to Notice of Violation Supplemental Response to Item 1 In our Reference (b) Item 1 response, we indicated that our AE (Sargent & Lundy) would clarify the seismic design analysis for the as-installed condition of the Safety Injection Accumulator Tanks through the review and acceptance of the requisite FCRs, and that we expected Sargent & Lundy's response on or about September 1, 1983.
Sargent and Lundy has reviewed and accepted the FCRs discussed in Reference (b).
The basis for their acceptance of these FCRs (Nos. L-6942, L-7617 and L-7909 is as follows.
The FCRs applicable to the Safety Injection Accumulator Tanks provided for the use of shims and non-shrink grout under the base of the tank.
I The bolting arrangement for the tank has been analyzed by conservatively assuming that all loads are directly transferred through either the 2 1/4" diameter bolts (for tension and shear) or the grout (for compression).
The use of shims for leveling purposes is a standard industry practice for grouted installations.
These
~
shims are commonly lef t in place af ter placement of the non-shrink grout because both are fully effective in transferring compressive loads.
As a result, it is our AE's conclusion that the as-installed condition does not affect the existing seismic design analysis of the Safety injection Accumulator Tank foundations.
4
+, -,,
,,--,w p-
-m-.e p,,,, _,, -.. <,
,a-
-y,,,~..-,
+.
i i
Supplemental Response to Itc.n 3
.In our Reference (b) Item 3 response, we stated that
" Commonwealth Edison Company authorized the revision for the installation of Jam nuts for all sliding connections as an added precaution to prevent the occurrence of the first nut becoming loose and disengaging from the connection."
In doing so, it was and remains our judgement that the plant modification to install jam nuts on slotted structural steel connections was properly reviewed and approved by the Project Engineering Department (PED).
This modification was issued in accordance with Sargent & Lundy i
procedures and reviewed in accordance with Commonwealth Edison QA Manual, Quality Procedure QP 3-1.
Quality Procedure 3-1, paragraph 3.4 describes the responsibility of the Project Engineering Manager.
Paragraph 4.2 describes the design review process and specifics involved during the design evaluation.
Paragraph 4.3 describes how the design review is documented.
Design documents authorizing the structural steel changes were reviewed by PED as required and in accordance-l with the above paragraphs.
Documentation of this review is available in our Project Engineering office consisting of drawing i
distribution letters reviewed in accordance with QP 3-1.
i 7257N i
l l
t l
t j
h-
-