ML20117N847
| ML20117N847 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 05/13/1985 |
| From: | Kemper J PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | Thompson H 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 8505200193 | |
| Download: ML20117N847 (3) | |
Text
,
.f' g."
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY 2301 MARKET STREET P.O. BOX 8699 PHILADELPHIA PA.19101 12151 841-4 5 o 2 VIC E-PR E SID E NT anosmannene ano massancm May 13, 1985 Docket Nos. 50-277 50-278 l
Mr. Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., Director Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, D.C. 20555
SUBJECT:
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station NUREG-0612 - Control of Heavy Loads Unit 2 Dryer-Separator Sling
REFERENCE:
Letter from S. L. Daltroff to D. G. Eisenhut, dated September 18, 1984
Dear Mr. Thenpson:
-Philadelphia Electric Company, in the referenced letter, notified the Centnission of our modification to the Unit 2 dryer-separator sling to comply with NUREG-0612, " Control of heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants", by meeting the single-failure-proof criteria of Section 5.1.6.
The letter further related that during the first use of the modified lifting beam asserrbly, the dryer-separator lifting beam did
- not properly set in place over the lugs of the steam dryer assembly.
Therefore, the unmodified Unit 3 Ilfting beam was used in ts place during the disassembly of the reactor vessel in May, 1984.
In the Septerrber 1984 letter, it was anticipated that the Unit 2 dryer-separator sling Ilfting beam problems would be corrected prior to the reassenbly of the Unit 2 steam dryer assenbly and the steam separator shroud head assembly. Since May, 1984, efforts to properly fit-up the Unit 2 dryer-separator lifting beam to the steam dryer assenbly lifting lugs have been unsuccessful. Despite utilizing the Unit 3 dryer-separator sling lifting beam as a template for. realigning the Unit 2 dryer-separator lifting beam and although proper fit-up of the lifting beam to the steam separator shroud head assembly was accomplished, the lifting beam still does not fit properly into the steam dryer assenbly lifting holes. Therefore, a decision has been made to use.the unmodified Unit 3 dryer-separator sling ilfting beam to h
~
8505200193 850513 PDR ADOCK 05000277
- O P
v o.
g Mr. Hugh C. Thompson, Jr.
May 13, 198'+
Page 2 reassentle the Unit 2 reactor this outage and for all future assenblies and disassemblies of both units until the Unit 2 Ilfting beam aligrment problem has been corrected.
To support the use of the unmodified unit 3 lifting beam a postulated load drop analysis was performed to evaluate the consequences for a load drop of either the steam dryer assably or the steam separator shroud head assembly into the equipment storage pool.
The consequences of the load drop analysis satisfy the evaluation criteria identified in NUREG-0612, Section 5.1 with the following conditions:
A)
The fuel pool gates are installed when the steam dryer assenbly and the separator shroud head assently are being moved to and from the equipment pool and; B)
The steam dryer assembly and steam separator shroud head assembly will not be raised above the following height Ilmits:
1)
More than six inches above the equipment storage pool floor.
2)
More than six inches above the equipment storage pool canal lip.
3)
More than six inches above the reactor pressure vessel head studs.
The Unit 3 dryer-separator. sling components utIIIzed to perform the Unit 2 Ilfts will be modified in accordance with Philadelphia Electric Company's NUREG-0612 conmitment after the Unit 2 dyer-separator sling is returned to service. The modifications to be performed to the Unit 3 dryer-separator sling are the same as the nudifications performed to the Unit 2 dryer-separator sling with two exceptions:
1)
Modifications will not be required to the hook box lug plate
!!fting eyes because the existing Unit 3 dryer-separator sling hook box lug plate lifting eyes are large enough to accenmodate the larger diameter spelter socket pins.
2)
Modification will not be required to the wide flange beam lug plate lifting eyes because the existing Unit 3
~
dryer-separator sling wide flange beam lug plate lifting eyes are large enough to acconmodate the larger capacity turnbuckle.
~,_..ca:.
. If you have any additional questions or require additional
~
Information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
- MC/ bis /05138501 Copy to:'
T. P. Johnson,, Resident-Site Inspector A
p--
-