TXX-6989, Final Deficiency Rept CP-87-63 Re Pipe Weld Insps.Initially Reported on 870824.Insp Results Have Established Reasonable Level of Assurance That Existing Welds Will Perform Function W/O Mod.Deficiency Not Reportable,Per 10CFR50.55(e): Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) StriderTol Bot insert |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) StriderTol Bot change |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:" | {{#Wiki_filter:" | ||
M | M== | ||
Log # TxX-6989 i | |||
fi1e # 10110 | |||
,= | |||
= | |||
Attn: Document Conte 01 Desk Washington, D. C. 20555 | 903.9 Ref. # 10CFR50.55(e) | ||
NIELECTR/C | |||
. w:m.m c. coumu November 24, 1987 Lucuswe Ysce 1remdent U-. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Conte 01 Desk Washington, D. C. | |||
20555 | |||
==SUBJECT:== | ==SUBJECT:== | ||
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (CPSES) | COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (CPSES) | ||
DOCKET N05. 50-445 AND.50-446 | DOCKET N05. 50-445 AND.50-446 | ||
' '' PIPE WELD INSPECTION CRITERIA SDAR: | |||
CP-87-63 (FINAL REPORT) | |||
Gentlemen: | Gentlemen: | ||
On August 24, 1987, we verbally notified your Mr. H. S. Phillips of a deficiency involving pipe weld inspections. On November 23, 1987 we requested and received a one day extension from Mr. L. Ellershaw of your office to finalize the review of this issue. We have concluded that this issue is not reportable under the provisions of 10CFR50.55(e). This is our final report on this issue, lhis deficiency involves inspection attributes which were not applied to existing weld installations after Mechanical Specification 2323-MS-100 " Piping Erection Specification" was revised to include accept / reject criteria for inspection of radial weld shrinkage (RWS). | On August 24, 1987, we verbally notified your Mr. H. S. Phillips of a deficiency involving pipe weld inspections. On November 23, 1987 we requested and received a one day extension from Mr. L. Ellershaw of your office to finalize the review of this issue. | ||
This deficiency was initially addressed in Corrective Action Report (CAR) 87-029. | We have concluded that this issue is not reportable under the provisions of 10CFR50.55(e). | ||
This is our final report on this issue, lhis deficiency involves inspection attributes which were not applied to existing weld installations after Mechanical Specification 2323-MS-100 " Piping Erection Specification" was revised to include accept / reject criteria for inspection of radial weld shrinkage (RWS). | |||
This deficiency was initially addressed in Corrective Action Report (CAR) 87-029. | |||
The CAR resulted from recognition of the fact that prior to 1982 there was no acceptance criteria for maximum allowable RWS. | |||
The corrective action process indicated that adequate criteria has existed in the Piping Erection Specification sint9 May 1982, and in the Quality Control Procedures (QP-QAP-12.1 and QP-QAP-18.7) since December 1982. | |||
A 100 percent inspection of applicable welds for RWS is currently in progress. | A 100 percent inspection of applicable welds for RWS is currently in progress. | ||
Approximately 200 out of 1700 isometric drawings have been reviewed and the associated welds inspected. | Approximately 200 out of 1700 isometric drawings have been reviewed and the associated welds inspected. | ||
8711300074 871124 PDR | No RWS deviations have been observed or reported for the above inspections. | ||
Also, a review of a sample of NCRs previously generated on RWS has substantiated that no hardware modifications have been required. | |||
8711300074 871124 PDR ADOCK 05000445 S | |||
PDR r627 tlb | |||
.w nren on'.c strces te so ix,itas, rexas 15:01 | |||
l l | l l | ||
TXX-6989 November 24, 1987 Page 2 of 2 | TXX-6989 November 24, 1987 Page 2 of 2 j | ||
4 1 | |||
The inspection results to date have established a reasonable level of assurance that the existing welds will perform their required design function without modification. As a result of this finding we have concluded that no significant deficiency exists in design or construction and this issue is not | |||
Very truly yours, (1) . G. C . | . reportable under the provisions of 10CFR50.55(e). | ||
W. G. Counsil | Documentation supporting this conclusion will be available on site for your inspector's to review by 1 | ||
January 16, 1988. | |||
Very truly yours, (1). G. C. | |||
W. G. Counsil l | |||
By: | |||
: d. h J6 fin W. Beck Vice President, Nuclear Engineering DAR/grr c - Mr. R. D. Martin, Region IV Resident inspectors, CPSES (3) | |||
J l | J l | ||
1 | 1 | ||
>}} | |||
Latest revision as of 23:59, 2 December 2024
| ML20236S750 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/24/1987 |
| From: | Beck J, Counsil W TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| References | |
| CP-87-63, TXX-6989, NUDOCS 8711300074 | |
| Download: ML20236S750 (2) | |
Text
"
M==
Log # TxX-6989 i
fi1e # 10110
,=
=
903.9 Ref. # 10CFR50.55(e)
NIELECTR/C
. w:m.m c. coumu November 24, 1987 Lucuswe Ysce 1remdent U-. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Conte 01 Desk Washington, D. C.
20555
SUBJECT:
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (CPSES)
DOCKET N05. 50-445 AND.50-446
' PIPE WELD INSPECTION CRITERIA SDAR:
CP-87-63 (FINAL REPORT)
Gentlemen:
On August 24, 1987, we verbally notified your Mr. H. S. Phillips of a deficiency involving pipe weld inspections. On November 23, 1987 we requested and received a one day extension from Mr. L. Ellershaw of your office to finalize the review of this issue.
We have concluded that this issue is not reportable under the provisions of 10CFR50.55(e).
This is our final report on this issue, lhis deficiency involves inspection attributes which were not applied to existing weld installations after Mechanical Specification 2323-MS-100 " Piping Erection Specification" was revised to include accept / reject criteria for inspection of radial weld shrinkage (RWS).
This deficiency was initially addressed in Corrective Action Report (CAR)87-029.
The CAR resulted from recognition of the fact that prior to 1982 there was no acceptance criteria for maximum allowable RWS.
The corrective action process indicated that adequate criteria has existed in the Piping Erection Specification sint9 May 1982, and in the Quality Control Procedures (QP-QAP-12.1 and QP-QAP-18.7) since December 1982.
A 100 percent inspection of applicable welds for RWS is currently in progress.
Approximately 200 out of 1700 isometric drawings have been reviewed and the associated welds inspected.
No RWS deviations have been observed or reported for the above inspections.
Also, a review of a sample of NCRs previously generated on RWS has substantiated that no hardware modifications have been required.
8711300074 871124 PDR ADOCK 05000445 S
PDR r627 tlb
.w nren on'.c strces te so ix,itas, rexas 15:01
l l
TXX-6989 November 24, 1987 Page 2 of 2 j
4 1
The inspection results to date have established a reasonable level of assurance that the existing welds will perform their required design function without modification. As a result of this finding we have concluded that no significant deficiency exists in design or construction and this issue is not
. reportable under the provisions of 10CFR50.55(e).
Documentation supporting this conclusion will be available on site for your inspector's to review by 1
January 16, 1988.
Very truly yours, (1). G. C.
W. G. Counsil l
By:
- d. h J6 fin W. Beck Vice President, Nuclear Engineering DAR/grr c - Mr. R. D. Martin, Region IV Resident inspectors, CPSES (3)
J l
1
>