ML20151R925

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Notice of Deviation from Insp on 880613-17.Deviations Noted: Reactor Bldg Cooling Units Did Not Meet Air Flows Required
ML20151R925
Person / Time
Site: Summer South Carolina Electric & Gas Company icon.png
Issue date: 07/29/1988
From: Herdt A
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20151R893 List:
References
50-395-88-15, NUDOCS 8808120345
Download: ML20151R925 (1)


Text

- - - _ -

o ENCLOSURE 2 NOTICE OF DEVIATION South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Docket No. 50-395 V. C. Summer License No. NPF-12 The following deviation was identified during a Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) inspection conducted on June 13-17, 1988.

Design assumptions for the plant containment analysis in the FSAR Table 6.2-1 (Referred by 6.2.1.1.1), Figure 6.2-15 (Referred by 6.2.1.3.4.3) and Figure 6.2-62 (Referred by 6.2.1.3.11.4) all state Reactor Building Cooling air flow is 61,500 cfm/ unit. Figure 6.2-49 (Referred to by 6.2.2.2.2), representing design and performance data, indicates a RBCU air I

I flow of 60,279 acfm/ unit (actual cubic feet / minute).

I Contrary co the above, the Reactor Building Cooling units do not meet the air flows required. Surveillance Procedure Results from STP Sf 0.00 perfonned May 5,1987, show ;11 RBCUs with flows less than 59,000 acfm startup test results, run February through April 1982, indicated flows on three RBCUs to be below 60,000 cfm.

Please provide to the " S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region II, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector, V. C. Summer, in writing within 30 days of the date of this Notice, the reasons for the deviation, the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved, the corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further deviations, and the date when your corrective action will be completed. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N

7C Alan R. Herdt, Chie'f i Engineering Branch l Division of Reactor Safety Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this g day of g 1988 P*%m ma, PDC

- _-