ML20085D269
| ML20085D269 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 10/04/1991 |
| From: | Beck G PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| GL-89-10, NUDOCS 9110160007 | |
| Download: ML20085D269 (3) | |
Text
PIIILADEll'IIIA ELECTRIC COMI'ANY NUCLEAR GROUP IIEADQUARTERS e
955-65 CllESTERDROOK BLVD.
WAYNE, PA 19087-5691 (215) 640 6000 NUCLEAR ENGINEERINO & SERVICEJi del %RTMf'NT October 4, 1991 Docket Nos. 50-277 50-278 License Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 U.
S.
Nuclear riegulatory Commission Attn: Document. Cont.rol Desk Washington, DC 20555
SUBJECT:
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Correction to Information Provided in Response to Request. for Additional Information concerning Generic Let.t.er 8 9 - 10, Supplement 3.
REFERENCE:
1)
Letter from P. Milano (NRC) to G.
J.
Beck (PECo) dated June 27, 1991 2)
Letter from G.
J. Beck (PECo) to NRC dat.ed August 5, 1991
Dear Sir:
Reference 1 was an NRC request for additional information concerning our 120 day response to Generic Letter 89-10, Supplement 3; " Consideration of the Results of NRC-Sponsored Tests of Motor Operated Valves (MOV's)".
Reference 2 provided the requested Jditior.al inf ormation.
This letter serves to revise information contained within reference 2.
The table t.ransmitted wit h Reference 2 indicat.ed t he MOV's associated with the Reactor Water Cleanup (RWCU) system MO-2-12-15,18 and M-3-12-18 do not receive an automatic isolation signal therefore are not, subject to degraded voltage conditions (see last column of attachment).
During activities involving analysis of voltage conditions for AC MOV's, it was realized that, t.hese valves do in fact receive an automatic isolation signal causing our previously stated response to be incorrect.
Upon discovering our error, the valves were anal /2ed to i
determine the effects of degraded voltage conditions on motor l
adequacy.
As a result of this analysis, we find our previously stated conclusion that the MOV motors are adequate remains unchanged.
Enclosed is a revised att.achment reflecting this j
analysis, please subst.itute it for the original submitted with Reference 2.
a1
. \\ (g.
9110160007 911004 D'
l 3y PDR ADOCV 05000277 l
P PDR L
4 NU.S. Nuclear R'egulatory: Commission.
October 4, 1991
, Request-for-Additional Information.Concerning Page 2-
)
G neric: Lett.er 89-10, Supplement 3 We apologize.for this error and regret. any-inconvenience it.
may have caused you.
If you have any quostions concerning t.his.
-submittal-please contact-us.
Sincerely,
// &afu(hf G. J. B6ck, Manager Licensing Section
Enclosures:
As Stated cc:
T..T, Martin, Administrator, Region I, USNRC J~.
J. Lyash, USNRC Senior Resident Inspector, PBAPS l
I 2
L l
f9
- h. 3,
. e c ty _ W 0-h te ; rg
_.. n en
, n n:n n 13 w
e g
Oi
(
y O'
f.
w j
44 "G
43 0 m es n n n art 01 OO ~ O
==
e o
- - N 5.
ww 5
>u i
wv 5O j
4 i
- 5. E*
r W
1 m.. n e-~e
. - o
.e l'e's e
.N N L %l l h. q r
e6 ' e a6 ; d : tu
. g g
(
/
?-
x g}a t
5-O 4
p
.n
%a o o o o - *. o, 3 o F o, o - o, o
z.
o o; 6 o-o i o; o ; o o ; o: o M'f ce z 5 e$ -0 W o-.
o Ba u-7.
n-n>n n
,.o*;9 o o: d r o: do o : M' o O
O 4
,.fv D
a c
w L>
Q O
- 7-m k4 :
f, : n.
.o - n
.~.,
n-n-
n,. n a n: nin-n e:
E h
.y O
b a 2 4 H
.n>
0 x$
n e
8
- s. m <3 m.
m.. s,- g c =
g n l n - c.i $ h Qi N i OI m d E>-
8 n6s
- CcI S ! Q-1 n nn n 3
g n
O 8
t p&a f
]
n 5 T ec.
g * "4 ao D
$ r% n' 2 2 os: 2 cai a c t-3J 5 : s:o d; 5 5: E;s: 5: s! s { s> s EB p
g 7,g, W Q c, oo-o; o. o. oi o,.o= o ot 2 l
m n 9A A
N kN re.- n. n. n n: n. c4.m.
so, e, m
$m$ 9 N
E '~ E N4 S E TE E. NI N: c, N c c :,n rie;n:E a12 =
-l a-c~v a*
e
.Q~~
~
z b
@28 0 a<e s Y! n'a Q
q 'c* W
.h I P l
..m
< e m,
.n.
e--
~ - o
-a-f @ h "'.
} g, c :$" 7 7,.! :r c i n c ~ n; n l p: a i'
i ' ** ? i17-' 7 - 7.
7 1_
A ::a: A'r.
a - +: A
- a n a s' e:,
$y y
l l
f i f : f $_ f l h f. f U. f h l h 9 l
- - -.. -... -..