ML20247E086
| ML20247E086 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 03/22/1989 |
| From: | Cruse C BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8903310292 | |
| Download: ML20247E086 (2) | |
Text
I w/
BALTIMORE j
GAS AND ELECTRIC 4
CHARLES CENTER. P.O. BOX 1475 BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21203 CHARLES H. CRUSE MANAGFR NUCLEAR ENCdNEEHING SERVICES DEPARTMENT March 22,1989 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION:
Document Control Desk
SUBJECT:
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit No. 2; Docket No. 50-318 livdrostatic Test Requirements for the Auxiliary Feedwater System
REFERENCES:
(a) Letter from Mr. W. J. Lippold (BG&E) to NRC Document Control Desk, dated May 29, 1987, Inservice Inspection Program Request for Relief from ASME Code Section XI Requirement Determined to be Impractical (b) Letter from Mr. R. A. Capra (NRC) to Mr. J. A. Tiernan (BG&E),
dated May 29, 1987 Interim Approval of ASME Code Relief from Hydrostatic Test Requirements for the Auxiliary Feedwater System Gentlemen:
Reference (a) requested relief from an ASME Code Section XI requirement that was determined to be impractical. Reference 'b) granted interim relief from that ASME hydrostatic pressure test requirement. ns Ntter is to inform you of a change in plans as stated in our relief request.
In Reference (a), we stated that "a new check valve is on order and will be installed to replace the existing check valve 2-A FW-130 during the next scheduled refueling j
outage." The current design does not permit isolation of the piping from the steam generator. We were going to install a new valve that would make it practical to hydrostatically test the remaining portion of the auniliary feedwater (AFW) system without pressurizing the steam generator vessel. We also said in Reference (a) that once the new check valve was installed, the portion of the AFW system for which relief was requested will be hydrostatically pressure tested.
Upon re-evaluation, we have decided to cancel our order for the new check valves due to a very unfavorable cost-benefit indicator. Specifically, industry experience indicates that the valves have an unsatisfactory performance history with respect to leakage. In addition, there has been an unreasonable escalation in price. We are now evaluating a different type of valve for a potential 1990 installation on Unit 1.
Unit 2 installa-tion would follow.
"l 8903310292 890322 P1JH ADOCK 05000318 i
g P
PDC t
' 6; '
Document Control Desk March 22,1989 Page 2 We intend to meet our commitment during the upcoming Unit 2 refueling outage to hydro-statically pressure test the applicable section of the AFW system. This will be accomplished by cutting out 2-AFW-130, welding a temporary flange in or mechanically plugging the pipe, pressure testing the pipe, removing the flange or plug and reinstalling the original valve. Welds made for the reinstallation will receive a system leakage test as permitted by ASME Code Case N-416. We believe our actions meet the intent of our commitment.
Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
Very truly yours, ll
'/
ypd
/
., sP CIIC/SRC/ dim cc:
D. A. Brune Esquire J. E.
Silberg, Esquire R. A.Capra, NRC S.
A. McNeil, NRC W. T. Russell, NRC H. Eichenholz/V. L. Pritchett, NRC T. Magette, DNR l
1 l
l l
G L_--_-_--_______--