ML20062J748

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Rept of Changes,Tests & Experiments Completed on Facilities Covering Period from Last Rept Through 791231
ML20062J748
Person / Time
Site: Calvert Cliffs  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 11/05/1980
From: Lundvall A
BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To:
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
References
NUDOCS 8011100045
Download: ML20062J748 (4)


Text

l

.r,.-..

BALTI M O R E G AS A N D E LECT R I C CQ M P.ANjdg# . , - .

P. O . B O X 147 5 BA LTIMORE M ARYLAN D 21203 .,,0 h,u,,l 7 L.-

FM 3 -31 .

AnTMun E. LvNOVALL.JR. .

f j

.f7QFq v .c c rac s,oc c a iz1.m ION dt#WCES ---

sv ~  ! RANCH Pirector Pe rl e n T , 'f. C. '!uclear Pemlatort Com-ission nffice of Inspection and Enforcement 631 Park Avenue Kinc of Pruscin, "A 10hn6

^ut'ect: "alvert "li f fs ' hcl e ar "c v<" "I int Units es. 1 '< ,^ , o ck e+.c 'in c .

"^

- 31 " 'e %T ' ,

Fonort cf "'n con, '~ents and rx e-1~.e-tr Gentlemen:

Ae required by 10 ^;'9 P trt C D "a r rt ra oh Co.5G. at* ached ic  !

n renort of all chances , tects and exnerinenta connleted on Calvert Cliffs t' nits 1 and/or P under the previsions of that Part end coverin.~

the neriod fron our Isst such retert throuch December 31,10'G.

Itens in the attached are referred to F7 "Pacility hance Pequent (PCP)" nur.ber.

Very trr y yours ,  !

.-m '

/

, y' -

s

) -

/

[ . s, ' ,:. m v.-n.cr.

.. n

~.< ,

I l t

ec: Director of Increction and Enforcement (39 copies)

U. S. ?!uchar Peculatory Conninnion Wachincton, D. C. 20555 J. A. ?>iddison, Esquire l G. F. Trowbridre, Esnuire l

l l

i r

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS -

P00R QUAllTY PAGES (L

Ctt 6 8811 A0 0 4

Attachment to Lundvall letter of Tiovember 5,1980 Fare 1 of 3 Chances , Tests and Fxperiments "ade in Accordance b'ith 10 CFF 50.59 for Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and/or ?

7h-65 This FCR added a scaffold hoist on the polar crane which is foismic Class I designed but not reouired to onerate throurh/arter nn earch-quake or LOTA. The hoist is seismically restrained and is not to be raised if ' allure could innact the USfS. Therefore, there is no unreviewed safety question.

75-1 "he only rortion of this 7CP which v,s ner c orned vas to revise the nine clnssification number for various nine lines.  ?!o nhysical chance was required, and thus, there was no unreviewed safetv quantion.

75 0 This TCP nrovider for lockable vire care doors. Anchor bolt drilline was done in accordance with SR nroceduren and , therefore ,

not an unreviewed sa'ety question.

~5-111 This FCF nrovides for a new ladder for access to nreviously inaccessible valves, etc. "he ladder and ancher bolt installation are designed to nrevious SR standards and do not rerresent an unreviewed safety nuestion.75-121 This FCR provides for lockable vire cage doors. Anchor bolt drilline vrss done in accordance with SR procedures and, therefore, net an unreviewed safety cuestion.75-16h This FCP called for channinc the fan notor and fan wheel nulleys to double croove nulleys and adding a second drive belt to each of the switchgear room air handline units. The safety analysis concluded that no unreviewed safety cuestions exist since reliability of the fan drives will be increased with the addition to the second drive belt.75-26h This FCE nodified surnort to PS LO3 to allow renoval of de-surcer.

Modification did not effect the pressure boundary or stress analysis of pininc, but only supnorts.

75-1001 This FCE chanced the interval for surveillance of the containnent nost tensionine systen fron 1, 2, and 3 years to 1, 3 and 5 years.

Since there is no nhysical change to the facility and surveillance neriod is considered adequate ner Peo. Guide 1.35, there is no unreviewed safety question.

75-10h8 This FCF nrovides personnel safe walking naths ove:r screen vash area at the intake structure, stiles were installed for safety.

Concrete drillinc and anchor installation was done in accordance with SR procedures and does not constitute an unreviewed safety question.

i

. 75-1053 This rCR added backsents to the letdown containnent isolation valves rursuant to reducinc packine, leaks. The safety analyses concluded that this FCR did not consititute an unreviewed safety question because the change vould not affect the valves' safety-reinted functionii.e as the original desien criteria for the valve .

were leine naintained.

75-1070 Thin FCR, which applied to Unit 2 only, relocated the reactor vessel vent valves to a location ad.tacent to the refueline tool vall for ensier access. As the function of _the valves and the vent line was not altered, it vns declared that no unreviewed safety question exists concerning this nodification.

75-1133 This FCR installed an orifice in a containnent strav drain line hetveen the containnent spray healer and the Inst valve to nrevant valve 'eakace fren reaching the header. The orifien van sizad such that at "ull containnent surTr "Jov, the ' low directe1 thrcuch the orifice was ;ct sirnificant , and therefore , thore uns nc unrevievel safety ouestion.

~6 h7 ilthouch the ntv card reader doors were installad 'CF, the concrete anchors are CR an? vere installed usine SF nrocedures. "herefore, there is no unreviewed safety cuestion.

7f-lh3 This PCP nidad a fenced area to trovide controlled storare fer tools, narts, naterial, ecuinnent, etc. for une in Unit I contain-nent. A sinilar fenced area already exists in Unit 2. There is no unreviewed safety cuestion.75-165 This "rR revised drawines of valves to reflect chanres in dinensions and naterial by the vendor. This did not constitute an unreviewed safety question since the function of the valves were not altered.76-171 This FCR replaced the 120 V parking bus and collector shoes of the Polar Crane with an extension cord. The polar crane is classified safety related only due to structural considerations. The weight of the 6' to 8' extension cord is incirnificant. In addition, if it were to fell, it vould cause no danare.

76-P10 This FCR chanced sketches and interchanced snubbers to bring installation and as-built drawings into nereement with Technical Enec i fication tables. Changes were adninistrative only, no design chanra was involved, and therefore no unreviewed safety cuestions were involved.

76-10h0 This FCR nodified data in FSAR high energy analysis to reflect higher flow through the excess flow check valves than had previously been analyzed. The analysis showed that notential accident consequences are not increased over those previously licensed.

. _3_

77-lh6 This FCR is to add flances to the nining on both sides of RV-bl7 to facilitate renoval of the valve. RV LIT is the relief valve on the auxiliary HFSI header. The safety analysis concluded that since the function of the valve and the syeten did not chance, that the stresses in the systen were not affected and that no unreviewed safety cuestion existed.

78 h0 This FCR prondes for the deletion of the auxiliary feedvater punn suction nressure transmitters which had been repeatedly danared by nressure cransients on nunn trips. Transnitters are cafety-related for pressure retention only. Their non-safety-related function is not innut to any safetv-syster.s or reculatine 1cors, but is rentioned in the "C AP. "he lov suction pressure alarm function, airo non-safety-related, is served by a separate cressure switch.

7H-119 This TCP is a dravine chance only. Fouipnent vns alreate reviewed when vendor drawine was anproved. These turbo blovers nounted on the d.esels were not nreviously shown in the schenatics.

78-10?O "hin FCP renoved the requirenent that the fenale face of a toncue and croove flance be installed on the valves and sinilar eauinnent for the reactor coolant and other systens seeinc full nrinarv nressure. The safety analysis concluded that there was no enrireerinc justification for this reouirenent and there was no chance in the structural intecrity of the flanced joint by this renoval, hence no unreviewed safety question was involved.

70-lP6 chis FCR replaced danaced containment snray nunp notor with one of a different tyne. Direct renlacenent not available. This chance was not an unreviewed safety question because the new notor net the decirn criteria of the oricinal installation.

.