ML20151Z042
| ML20151Z042 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 01/30/1986 |
| From: | Corbin McNeil, Starostecki R Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | Corbin McNeil, Starostecki R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151Z044 | List: |
| References | |
| IEB-84-03, IEB-84-3, NLR-N86002, NUDOCS 8602130274 | |
| Download: ML20151Z042 (2) | |
Text
r
.,, ~
'N l
Pubhc Service Electric and Gas Company C rbin A. McNeill, Jr.
Pubhc Service Electric and Gas Company P O Box 236, Hancocks Bridge.NJ 08038 609 339-4800 vice President -
Nuclear January 30, 1986 NLR-N86002 Regional Administrator, Region I U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Attention:
Mr. Richard W.
Starostecki, Director Division of Project and Resident Programs Gentlemen:
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION IE BULLETIN 84-03 REFUELING CAVITY WATER SEAL SALEM GENERATING GTATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS.
50-272 AND 50-311 This letter transmits the latest revisions to our Safety Evaluation which was submitted in our (E.
A.
Liden to R.
W.
Starostecki) letter dated December 19, 1984.
One revision addresses mechanical interaction of equipment and time assumed from reactor shutdown to actual fuel movement; the other incorporates the results of Impell Corporation testing of the refueling cavity water seal used at Salem Nuclear Generating Station.
The Impell Corporation report concludes that the seal was capable of maintaining its integrity when subjected to a simulated fuel assembly drop and able to resist push-through during increased hydrostatic loading.
The tests performed serve to confirm the conclusions of our original Safety Evaluation...that there are a number of substantial differences between the inflatable seal design used at Connecticut Yankee's Haddam Neck plant and that used at the Salem Nuclear Generating Station.
As a result of our
-evaluation of the numerous differences, which include seal surface conditions, size of gap-to-seal dimensions, seal material, seating procedures and placement of brackets on top of the seal, we have determined that the probability of a 8602130274 h 0072 PDR ADOCK PDR G
e 1
l 6, N
's Mr.
R. W.
Starostecki 1/30/86 seal failure at the Salem Station is significantly lower than at the Connecticut Yankee plant and that a gross cavity seal failure at the Salem Station is extremely-unlikely.
Should you have any questions concerning this matter, we will be~ pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely, N%
Attachment C
Mr. Donald C.
Fischer Licensing Project Manager Mr. Thomas J.' Kenny Senior Resident Inspector l-i-
4
,