ML20036A452
| ML20036A452 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron, Braidwood, Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/05/1993 |
| From: | Stimac S COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| REF-PT21-93 NUDOCS 9305110232 | |
| Download: ML20036A452 (2) | |
Text
~
o l
t
/
Commonw:alth Edis:n 1
l 1400 Opus Pbc3
\\ '
Downers Grove, Illinois 60515
+-
v May 5, 1993 Dr. Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Attn:
Document Control Desk
Subject:
Commonwealth Edison Company Velan Check Valves 10 CFR Part 21 Interim Report Final Evaluation
References:
(a) -May 22, 1992 letter from T.J. Kovach to T.E. Murley.
(b)
July 23, 1992 letter from S.F.
Stimac to T.E. Murley.
Dear Dr. Murley:
The purpose of this letter is to follow up information contained in the reference (a) 10 CFR Part 21 interim report and.
to document completion'of the evaluation.
The interim report addressed the concerns by Commonwealth Edison-Company (CECO) toward the performance of 2.5",
3",
and 4" forged swing check valves manufactured by Velan Valve Corporation.
Reference (b) provided an' update of the status of the 10 CFR Part 21 evaluation.
As described in references (a) and (b), CECO identified 34 valves which are used in safety related systems which were potentially affected.
There are 4. valves at Byron, 4 valves at Braidwood, and 26 valves at Zion.
Evaluation of the affected valves at Byron and Braidwood had shown no substantial safety hazard rr'sults from a failure of these valves due to this concern.
Evaluation of the affected valves at Zion had shown.that, of the 26 valves, only 8 could result in a significant hazard.
There valves were inspected and it was determined that the valves did not contain the defect.
g:ssmay:2
/' ' f I O 9305110232 930505 PDR.ADOCK 05000295 S
PDR V
i
4
+
Dr. Murley May 5, 1993 Based upon evaluation of safety significance, combined with inspection in cases where the potential failure was judged to be safety significant, Ceco has concluded that the' concern l
identified in reference (a) is not reportable pursuant to 10 CFR i
Part 21.
If there are any questions regarding this follow up information, please direct them to Linda M.
Taylor at (708) 663-6641 or Stephen F.
Stimac at (708) 663-7275.
t i
Respectfully, t
C t
Stephen F. Stimac h
Nuclear Licensing Administrator cc:
A.
Bert Davis, Regional Administrator - RIII i
J.E.
Dyer, Project Director - NRR i
f L
'i L
r 6
g:ssmay:3 t
t