ML20076E068
| ML20076E068 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 05/24/1983 |
| From: | Ash R BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-36, REF-GTECI-SF, RTR-NUREG-0612, RTR-NUREG-612, TASK-A-36, TASK-OR NUDOCS 8305260294 | |
| Download: ML20076E068 (2) | |
Text
....
CALTIMORE GAS AND
~~
ELECTRIC Ct(ARLES CENTER. P.O. BOX 1475 BALTIMORE. MARYLAND 21203 ELECTRIC ENoiNEERING DEPARTMENT May 24,1983 Mr. Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Subject:
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Units Nos.1 & 2; Dockets Nos. 50-317 and 50-318 Control of Heavy Loads
Reference:
Telephone conference held on May 18,1983 with Mr. D. K.
Jaffe to discuss TER (DRAFT) Control of Heavy Loads at Calvert Cliffs dated April 5,1983.
Dear Mr. Eisenhut:
Enclosed are forty copies of the Baltimore Gas & Electric Company response to the Technical Evaluation Report (Draf t) referenced above.
It is our understanding that in the referenced telephone conference, the NRC accepted BG&E's position as stated herein and the Calvert Cliffs Units I and 2 phase I review is complete.
7 uly yours
.'. 'A R. F. Ash Supervising Engineer RFA/pdy cc:
- 3. A. Biddison, Jr., Esq.
G. F. Trowbridge, Esq.
f Mr. D. H. Jaffe, NRC p7 Mr. R. E. Architzel, NRC
(
i
{
(
$0??o0088fl, PDR
.A Technical Evaluation Report (Draft) Response This submittal is in response to the April 5, 1983 Technical Evaluation Report (draft) of Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2 NUREG-0612
" Heavy Loads" Phase 1 Program.
In tha*. evaluation, Section 2.1.5, " Conclusion and Recommendation" it is stated that the licensee should " verify that the selection of the weakest link is based upon design margins or expected degradation, or implement a program of periodic inspections of all load bearing welds located on the special lifting devices".
In our January, 1983 clarification submittal we stated that we considered the pear link to be the " weakest" link on each special lift devices. This statement was based on the physical degradation due to use which may occur at that connection.
We also stated that we would perform pre-use NDE on the links.
Previously we indicated that pre-use visual examination for gross structural integrity of special lift rigs will be performed and documented.
Also, the device will be removed from service if results of the visual examination are not satisfactory.
Any repairs would be done in accordance with the rig vendors' recommendations.
Considering the design factors of safety, the single purpose application of the devices, their infrequent use and their storage location in containment, we l
conclude that these devices will continue to perform their design function satisfactorily.
l
_. ~
.