ML20055C549
| ML20055C549 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1990 |
| From: | Helwig D PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9005250028 | |
| Download: ML20055C549 (4) | |
Text
_
] v.Tp w
~
gp-10 CFR-50.90
,f d ;,;
el
'i y,&}rN V
-a m
PHILADELPHI A ELECTRIC COMPANY in NUCLEAR GROUP HEADQUARTERS
- 955-65 CHESTERBROOK BLVD.
WAYNE, PA 19087 5691 tais) 640 esso DAVID M. HELWlO -
VICE PREttD$NT jo.i......m.
.m.
a.. vien e,
May 18, 1990 Docket No. 50-278 License No. DPR-56 UkS. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn Document Control Desk-Washington, DC -20555 c
SUBJECT:
Peach Botton Atomic Power = Station, Unit 3 JAdditional Information Related to a cI Technical Specifications Change Request
REFERENCE:
Letter from G. A. Bunger, Jr. (PECo)-
to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated April 12, 1990
Dear Sir:
In the above referenced' letter, Philadelphia-Electric-Company (PECo) submitted Technical Specifications Change Request-(TSCR) No. 89-20'.
This TSCR is a one-time change and involves postponing the L ne:(1: snubber visual: inspection,'due May_ 26,=1990, until' the-sched;;, lea mid-cycle outage in the fourth nurter of 1990.
. In'a telephone conversation on'May 14, 1990, between PECo and theiNRC, the-NRC: staff requested additional inforntion related
~
- to this..TSCR.. This information is provided as. an' att achment to this detter. - -The.hdC requests are restated followed by.our responses.
-This additional information does not change'the "Information
' Supporting a Finding of No Significant Hazards Consideration" which was.: included in the original TSCR.
If:you have any additional questions, please contact us.
t s
Very truly yours, I
e.
9005250028 900518
,i-FDR ADOCK 05000278 P
FDC 4
f
' Attachment l
m:
l cc T. T.JMartin, Administrator, Region I, USNRC
-OO /-
- 1. J. Lyash, USNRC Senior Resident Inspector T..M. Gerusky, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania e
-c' 5
}.,,
s
{
- AQ" ;
M[sh
.i ll ' f s,-
s L
COpptONWEALTE GP PENNSYLVANIA 8 ss.
c
. COUNTY OP'CHESTER D. R..:Belwig, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
l' l
That.he is Vice President of Philadelphia Electric Company; i
the" Applicant..herein; that he has read this response related to TSCR' 89-20, and knows the contents thereof; and that the statements and~
t matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of his L>
knowledge, information and belief.
l.,
t -
l w
4 5
e l,
Vice Pres et e
Subscribed and sworn-to before.me this /8aday of Y
- 1990.
&a~Lah
~
Notary-Public NOTARIAL SEAL
- CATHERINE A MENCEZ. Notary Public Tredyttnn Two Chester County My Commissicn Excres Sect. 4.1993 t
j.
9 ij-o r
, _f J
.l '
~
r~..
<r
-Attcchment l
M
- g
,.7
..NRC' Question No. 1 i
Please describe the criteria used to determine whether a snubber is i
accessible or inaccessible.
Of the inaccessible snubbers, how many are mechanical and how many are. hydraulic?
\\
PECo Response t
'Only those snubbers which are installed inside the drywell are considered to be inaccess4ble.
The drywell_is-inaccessible during
- reactor power operation because it is inerted with nitrogen.
Of the 140 inaccessible snubbers, 50 are mechanical and 90 are hydraulic.
7 NRC Question No. 2 r
Please. provide the results of the licensee's evaluation of those systems or. components for which large capacity snubbers or a relatively few-number.of unubbers are installed.
Were these snubbers recently inspected?
PECo Response We have reviewed the inaccessible snubber locations for piping and components to : identify where either <large capacity snubbers or a:
}
relatively few number of snubbers were installed.
The: purpose of this' review was to identify those snubbers whose failure could have' the greatest 1 potential for impacting a component or system'a operability.
The system'or component subject to thermal movement which has the fewest number of inaccessible. snubbers is the High
' Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) syetem piping which has two.
Both of-these snubbers are relatively-small capacity and were visually inspected in October 1989.
These two snubbers were also functionally: tested in May 1988.
The lar snubbers are on the' recirculation pumps. gest capacity inaccessible p
These are the three f
mechanical PSA-35's (rated at 50,000 pounds).
One of these is L
' installed on the A. recirculation pump, and the other two are:
' installed.on the B recirculation pump.
All three of the PSA-35's were, visually inspected in October 1989 and-functionally tested in
'l September 1989.
Each' recirculation pump has five snubbers total.
L
'The remaining snubbers on the recirculation pumps are the second largest capacity inaccessible snubbers, which are the 4-inch
'y l
hydraulic snubbers (rated at 27,300 pounds).
These snubbers are a
p found'only on the recirculation pumps.
Each of these seven snubbers was visually inspected in October 1989 and functionally tested prior nL, to-its. installation following the pipe replacement modification.
L
- The! third largest size of inaccessible snubbers.is the hydraulic 3 p,
=1/4 inch (rated at 17,600 pounds).
These snubbers are significantly l
smaller than the two sizes found on the recirculation pumps, and, l
.for'the' purpose of this review, are not considered to be large capacity snubbers.
c
. s 7
m4b MS
^'
FIqE i!$ c i
s o
~ 'k PagD'2
]
'Attacha nt
[
sv
.;NRC' Question'No. 31 1-
+c
? Please provideiadditional information on thti visual inspections-J
\\
.which occurred since' January 1987, which allowed the inspection 4
1
' interval to=be extended to a 6 month interval.
PECo Response-N 5
i
?The chronology of visual inspections is as follows:.
J 1/4/87.
x-
~
A visual inspection of 100% of the inaccessible snubbers was conducted.
Three failures were identified which required the inspection interval to-i be shortened to 4 months _+25%.
1 3/7/87:
A plant shutdown occurred which allowed 100% of the inaccessible snubbers to be visually inspected.
Zero failures were identified.
The inspection interval was
(
not changed since there had only been three months of plant operation since the-last inspection; however, the!next: visual-inspection was rescheduled for 7/7/87 (4 months from-3/7/87).s 3/31/87 Unit 3 placed.in Cold Shutdown condition as a result L
of an NRC Order.
7/28/87
-A visual inspection of 100% of the-inaccessible snubbers was conducted.. One failure was-identified.
R
,The jnspection-interval was lengthened to 6 months-x
[-
+25%'..
(Although-one failure per.Technicalf
?
. Specification 4.11.D.2. corresponds to,an' inspection,
3
' interval of 12 months +25%, the Technical i
HF T
c Specifications allow the interval to be lengthened by
~'
only.one. step at a-time.)
s l
5/88 -
80% ofqthe inaccessible snubbers were k
10/89 functionally tested'after being removed from the drywell for-completion of the pipe. replacement modification.
1 s
l 10/13/893
'100% of the inaccessible snubbers were visually L
inspected.
No failures were identified.
The visual L
inspection interval was not changed since the unit did' not operate since the last visual inspection.
3
[
l'1/19/89 Reactor mode switch placed in startup position.
I H
l' 1 %
1 s
i l 1
4
.kh
L
.,,-1
\\
4
'