ML20204H013
| ML20204H013 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 11/01/1984 |
| From: | Lundvall A BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | John Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-2.F.1, TASK-TM NUDOCS 8411120124 | |
| Download: ML20204H013 (3) | |
Text
F
~
BALTIMORE GAS AND l
ELECTRIC CHARLES CENTER.P. O. BOX 1475 BALTlMORE, MARYLAND 21203 ARTHUR E. LUNDVALL. JR.
Vict PREssDENT
- ~
November 1,1984 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. 3. R. Miller, Chief
' Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Subject:
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Units Nos.1 & 2; Dockets Nos. 50-317 and 50-318 NUREG-0737 Item II.F.1.1, Noble Gas Steam Effluent Monitor
References:
- 1. BG&E -letter from Mr. A. E. Lundvall, Jr. to Mr. 3. R. Miller (NRC), dated February 3,1984.
- 2. BG&E letter from Mr. A. E. Lundvall, Jr. to Mr. 3. R. Miller (NRC), dated March 1,1984.
- 3. NRC letter from Mr. 3. R. Miller to Mr. A. E. Lundvall, Jr.
(BG&E), dated March 2,1984.
. Gentlemen:
The Baltimore Gas and Electric Company hereby requests a modification of p
NRC Order dated March 2,1984 to allow until June 30,1985 (for Unit 1), and December 31,1985 (for Unit 2), for providing a noble gas steam effluent monitor at Cai ert Cliffs.
In Reference I we described the difficulties that were being experienced with the noble gas steam effluent monitor procured from Kaman Instrumentation. Due to the seriousness of these difficulties and the estimated time required to either resolve equipment deficiencies or procure a reliable replacement system, we had requested a modification to.your Order dated March 16, 1983, to allow until June 30,1985 (Unit 1),
and December 31,1985 (Unit 2), to satisfy this requirement.
c 0
U
' Mr. 3. R. Miller Novembtr 1,1984 9
During follow-up discussions with your staff it was agreed that the Baltimore
- Gas. and Electric Company' would attempt to either repair the Kaman system or to
. locate, procure, and install an acceptable replacement system and place it into operation by December 31,1984 (see Reference 2). This schedule was contingent upon the absence of a need to modify cabling or detector equipment located in the main steam penetration room. Otherwise, such modifications would be completed,' and the system declared operable, during the first outage of sufficient duration following December 31,1984. On March 2,1984, the NRC Staff issued an Order reflecting this plan and schedule (Reference 3).,
As indicated in Reference 1, we have continued to pursue two parallel avenues for obtaining a satisfactory monitoring system.
First, all four Kaman ratemeters were returned to the vendor for repair under warranty, and we attempted to
. expedite vendor-efforts in determining the cause of failure and effecting appropriate design changes.
Second, in March - 1984, we initiated procurement activities for 'a replacement system with a demonstrated reliability in nuclear power plant applications.
i This second activity was perceived as the more viable of the two options for satisfying NUREG-0737 Item II.F.1.1, due to the heretofore poor results achieved through Kaman.
Earlier this month, Kaman was contacted to determine the status of the four failed ratemeters.- We have been able-to determine that three.of the four failed t ratemeters have been repaired; however, Kaman has not demonstrated to us that they have identified the failure mechanism. The status of the fourth ratemeter is unknown.
In addition, we were verbally informed that Kaman was leaving the radiation monitoring
' instrumentation market and was shutting down production in this field.
4 In light ~ of these events, Balti.more Gas and Electric Conipany has discontinued efforts to recover and reinstall the Kaman ratemeters.
Our Eefforts to procure' a replacement system began with a survey of pressurized water reactor owners to identify installed monitoring systems which had demonstrated a high level of reliability. As a result of that survey, we identified several potential system vendors. After a careful review of the vendors' systems, we made a selection based on:-(1) high installed reliability; (2) supplier responsiveness and product
' support; (3) compatibility with the installed detector and cabling; and (4) estimated lead time for delivery. An order was placed with this supplier in August 1984.
Our new supplier has quoted a delivery date of March 1,1985. However, we have authorized payment of a premium which would improve delivery to January 1,1985.
We have also been informed that the replacement equipment will be compatible with the existing detector and cabling. Nevertheless, it appears that the December 31, 1984, deadline imposed by Reference 3 is not achievable.
We recommend that sufficient time be allowed to receive, install, and test
- the new system and to conduct operator familiarization and training. We estimate that these activities can be completed within six months following receipt of the ratemeters, assuming significant problems are not encountered during calibration and preoperational testing. However,'since we anticipate the possible need for work in the main steam penetration room in support of these two activities, we recommend that your Order of March 2,1984, be modified to allow completion by the end of the Spring 1985 refueling outage for. Unit I and the Fall 1985 refueling outage for Unit 2.
Of course, in the
' absence of the aforementioned problems we will make every reasonable effort to place the system into operation as soon after receipt as possible.
l
.. Mr. 3. R. Miller. -
November 1,1984 I.9 If you should have any questions concerning this matter, please do not
. hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
-l
~]
[
- AEL/BSM/vf
~
'- cc: D. A. Brune, Esq, G. F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Mr. D. H. Jaffe, NRC -
Mr. T. Foley, NRC s-t 2
v
.r,-
.-,,,av v
.-,g.-,,
.-,.--.,,,-,..,,,,,--,n-e
-.w,,..-
,.,w.,,
---.me.
v.n
,- -