ML20127H532
| ML20127H532 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 05/07/1985 |
| From: | Miosi A COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| 0090K, 84-17, 90K, NUDOCS 8505210319 | |
| Download: ML20127H532 (2) | |
Text
p.u h
Commonwealth Edison
^
one First Natrnal Plaza. Chicago, Illino )
Address Reply to: Post Office Box 767 Chicago Illinois 60690 May 7, 1985 Mr. James G. Keppler Regional Administrator U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Subject:
Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2 10 CFR ' J.55(e) No. 84-17 Interim Report Concrete Expansion Anchor Inspection Deficiencies NRC Docket Nos. 50-456/457 References (a):
D.H. Smith letter to J. G. Keppler dated November 9, 1984.
(b):
D.H. Smith letter to J. G. Keppler dated February 4, 1985.
Dear Mr. Keppler:
References (a) and (b) provided information concerning a potential deficiency reportable pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(e) regarding existing concrete expansion ancnor installations which are being extensively evaluated due to a review of inspection documentation at our Braidwood Station.
The purpose of this letter is to provide an updated status of the corrective actions taken to resolve this issue.
This letter is considered to be an Interim Report.
The generic CEA Installation Procedure (PCD-08), discussed in Reference (a), has been approved and issued to the applicable contractors for incorporation into their programs.
The contractors are submitting their CEA Installation and Inspection Procedures to Commonwealth Edison for approval.
Commonwealth Edison Company's CEA procedure for determining the acceptability of past CEA installations, has been approved and issued to the applicable contractors.
The contractors' evaluation procedures, based on this generic procedure, have also been approved for use.
These procedures will be implemented to determine the quality of past CEA work by sample inspection of CEA assemblies for each contractor.
A 95% confidence /95% reliability sample plan is being used and the listing of assemblies to be inspected has been supplied to the contractors.
If discrepancies are found they will be evaluated by Sargent & Lundy for engineering significance.
The evaluation for engineering significance includes a determination of capacity reduction for discrepancies and a comparison to the design margin.
Upon completion of the evaluation a determination will be p()f}
made as to the acceptance of the work for each contractor or whether additional inspections are required.
8505210319 850507 MAY 91505 gg PDR ADOCK 05000456 y
S PDR
m,.
. 4 4 The contractors' evaluation procedures _are in the.early stages of implementation.
We expect to submit an interim report updating the status of this program in September, 1985.
Please address any questions that you or your staff-may have concerning this matter to this office.
Very truly yours, hs lht
- etyt Anthony D. Miosi Nuclear Licensing Administrator cc:
NRC Resident Inspector --Braidwood Director of Inspection and Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 120555 0090K
^
l c
I m