ML20235C346
| ML20235C346 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 09/16/1987 |
| From: | Charemagne Grimes NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS |
| To: | Counsil W TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8709240424 | |
| Download: ML20235C346 (3) | |
Text
, _ - _ _ -. _ _ _ _ _ _
l SEP I 61987 Docket Nos.:
50-445/446 Mr. W.
G.
Counsil Executive Vice President Texas Utilities Electric Company 400 North Olive Street, L.B.
81 Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Counsil:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON ISAP RESULTS REPORT As a result of our ongoing review of the TU Electric Results Report for ISAP V.a. we have determined that additional information is needed to complete our evaluation of this report.
The requested additional information is listed in the Enclosure.
We request that you provide the additional information within 30 days of receipt of this letter.
Sincerely, O
Christopher I.
Grimes, Director Comanche Peak Project Division Office of Special Projects
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc:
See next page O
OSP:CPPD:R CPPD$U AD /Pid DD Qt)[rr NAME:
LEllershaw: sam IBarnes RFWarnick CGrimes i
DATE:
9//6/87 9//4 /87 9//6 /87 9//4/87 l
l I
G709240424g{$obk46 PDR ADOCK ppg A
J m-______--__
i
l ENCLOSURE l
1 ISAP V.a (Revision 2), Inspection For Certain Types of Skewed Welds in NF Supports:
1.
How does the applicant propose to resolve incorrect data presented in the Tables attached to the ISAP V.a. Results Report, Revision 1, as discussed with Messrs. J. Miller and R. K. Sanan on March 24, 19877 What impact does the errors that were identified have on text cf the Results Report and evaluation of l
conclusions?
2.
Paragraph 4.1.2 of ISAP V.a. states, in part, "The physical significance of any procedural changes will be evaluated by a third party...".
l Please provide the conclusions and the engineering basis for those conclusions which resulted from the evaluation performed by the third party of procedural changes.
3.
Paragraph 4.1.3 of ISAP V.a., Revision 2, states in i
- part,
...If it is determined that all undersized welds meet code allowable stress levels, on evaluation of the need for additional inspection will be performed based on the observed trends in the weld inspection i
l data...".
The Results Report defines an adverse trend as an identified pattern or commonality thst is likely to have resulted in l
the occurrence of an undetected deficiency in the affected area, population or stratum.
The Results Report identifies that about 10% of type 2 skewed welds were smaller than required by design by as much as 25%.
What evaluations were performed to assure that the worst case undersize condition, when applied to all other supports in the population, would not constitute a deficiency.
The Results Report does not identify the need to perform additional inspections to resolve the differences between actual field conditions and the design drawings.
Please provide the basis for not reconciling design drawing data with the as-built conditions with respect to the SWEC Stress Requalification Program.
u______
1 DISTRIBUTION:
iDocket FilesL(50-445/446)?NRC'lPDR>
Local PDR CPPD Reading (HQ)
- Site Reading
- CPRT Group
- SRI-OPS
- SRI-CONST
- MIS System
- RSTS operator RPB RIV File
- w/766 l
l 4
1 i
l 1
I l
I 1
__ _____