ML19296D206
| ML19296D206 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 12/28/1979 |
| From: | Lundvall A BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Grier B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19296D204 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003030004 | |
| Download: ML19296D206 (2) | |
Text
,e B ALTIMORE G AS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY P.O. B O X 1475 B ALTIM O R E. M A R YL A N D 21203 ARTMun C. LUN DVALL,JR.
v.cc passioc=t Sup*6v Decmber 28, 1979 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docket Nos.
50-317 Region I 50-318 631 Park Avenue License Nos.
DPR-53 King of Prussia, PA 19406 DPR-69 Attention: Mr. Boyce H. Grier, Director Gentlenen:
This refers to your letter of December 4,1979, which transmitted a Notice of Violation. This Noice of Violation was based on the Combined Inspec-tion Reports 50-317/79-16 and 50-318/79-13 and was concerned with the installation of a Sleeving Platfonn that was not fabricated to Safety-Related/ Seismic Standards. Enclosure (1) to this letter constitutes a written explanation in reply to this Notice of Violation.
Should you have further questions concerning this reply, we would be pleased to discuss them with you.
Very trulv yo s,
wl 4
A. E. Lundvall, Jr.
Vice President-Supply AEL/ JAM /gla 8003030
ENCLOSURE (1)
REPLY TO APPENDIX A 0F NRC (IE:
REGION I)
LETTER OF DECEMBER 4, 1979 ITEM A Since the Sleeving Platform was not fabricated as Safety-Related, the correc=
tive action has been not to use it again. Subsequently, a new sleeving plat-form was designed and fabricated to Seismic I/ Safety-Related requirements in 1978. This new platform has already been used for the past three (3) refueling outages. Thus, full compliance has been achieved.
The followi.1g corrments are made to amplify the inspection review and further explain what lead up to this item of noncompliance.
Contrary to the inspector's coment that " Corporate Engineering Department made the deter-mination that the original safety evaluation and determination that the platform need not be safety-related was incorrect," the original evaluation is valid and could have stood as written.
Instead, Corporate Engineering superseded the original evaluation with one that called for Seismic I/
Safety-Related construction because, through a misunderstanding, it was thought that the platform already met those standards. Unfortunately, the personnel using the platform never received the latter classification and were unaware that it was required to be safety-related until some time after the outage during the review of the Facility Change Request (FCR).
Since it has been almost two (2) years since the incident occurred without a similar recurrence, it is felt that this is not a programmatic weakness.
Quality Assurance audits conducted after this incident indicate that this was an isolated event.
Finally, the inspector noted that physical modifications were required to upgrade the platform to a seismic structure. The original platform was lef t as is and not used again. Thus no modifications will be perfonned.