ML20084U830
| ML20084U830 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 04/16/1991 |
| From: | Beck G PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9104230021 | |
| Download: ML20084U830 (2) | |
Text
$o a
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY l
NUCLEAR GROUP HEADQUARTERS f
955 65 CHESTERBROOK BLVD.
t WAYNE, PA 19087 5691 (als) s40 sooo l
April 16, 1991 Docket Nos.
50-277 50-278 License Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 i
U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555
SUBJECT:
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 Emergency Service Water (ESW) Technical Specifications
REFERENCES:
1)
Request For Additional Information (RAI)
Technical Change Request 87-06 dated August 23, 1990 2)
October 26, 1990, G. A. Hunger to NRC, Response to a Request for Additional Information (RAI)
Dear.sr. Suh:
In January of 1988, Philadelphia Electric Company filed a Technical Specification Change Request (TSCR 87-06) to address concerns the NRC raised in Inspection Report 50-277/86-25 and 50-278/86-25, Item number 5.2.4.
The NRC's concerns focused on Technical Specification 3.9.C.3, which details the criteria for considering the ESW pump and the ECW pump as equivalent equipment.
Subsequently, during the Safety System Functional Inspection (SSFI, Inspection Report Nos.90-200, S0-200), there was a question as to how well the equivalency could be supported technically.
The Reference Letter 1 forwarded the NRC's Request for Additional Information on TSCR 87-06.
In the Reference Letter 2, Philadelphia Electric Company stated that the Emergency Cooling Water (ECW) pump in combination with an ESW Booster pump and an ECW Cooling Tower Tower Fan could not be proven conclusively to be equivalent to an ESW pump.
PEco, in the Reference Letter 2, withdrew that rachnical Specification Change Request (TSCR) 87-06 and committed to provide a new amendment request by February 28, 1991.
We were unable to satisfy this date because of difficulties in obtaining approprie.te 0
'0
\\
9104230021 910416 ADOCK0500f{}7
(
DR
<i.
U.$. Nuclear R:gulatory Commiccion April 16, 1991 ESW Techn1 cal Specifications Page 2 1
I station and corporate technical and management reviews.
During this review, management requested an additional evaluation of all possible solutions to the ESW ECW equivalency concern.
This evaluation will determine the proposed allowable out of service times for the ESW pumps.
Our goal is that this evaluation be responsive to the issues raised in the SSFI and in Inspection Report 86-25.
Until this evaluation is complete and the eventual solution implemented, PEco commits to the conditions of the present PORC Position Number 33.
This PORC position recognizes that the ECW and the ESW pumps could not be proven to be equivalent and therefore establishes out-of-service time for an ESW pump of seven days for one pump and 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> for two ESW pumps; no credit is taken for the ECW pump.
The results of the evaluation along with an appropriate Technical Specification Change Request will be submitted to the NRC by August 1, 1991.
We are therefore requesting a further delay in submitting this new Technical Specification Change Request until August 1, 1991.
We regret any inconvenience this delay may have caused you.
Please feel free to contact Jim Basilio or me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours, f//!
G.
J.
Beck Manager, Licensing Section Nuclear Engineering & Services cc:
T. T. Martin, Administrator, Region I, USNRC J.J.
Lyash, USNRC Senior Resident Inspector, PB
_ _ - _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -