ML20247K019
| ML20247K019 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 05/11/1989 |
| From: | Creel G BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8906010185 | |
| Download: ML20247K019 (2) | |
Text
%'
J.
y BALTI M O R E GAS AND ELECTRIC i
CHARLES CENTER R O. BOX 1475 BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21203 GEORGE C. CREEL Vice Pntsiocut Nucts An Entnov noo,.o-4 4.s May 11,1989 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; Facility Operating License No. DPR-69 Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Related to Amendment No. 119, One-Time Schedular Extension for Snubber Functional Tests Gentlemen:
The purpose of this letter is to provide a correction to information that was verbally provided M 'G&E to the NRC on March 23, 1989, in support of the subject licensing action. Thi, cormation dealt with the number of snubbers required to be OPERABLE for M O C and 6, and was subsequently referenced by the NRC staff in the Safety Evaluation for License Amendment No. 119. Specifically, we had indicated that Unit 2 has only 17 snubbers which are required to be OPERABLE for these MODES (10 for Shutdown Cooling [SDC] and 7 for fligh Pressure Safety Injection [HPSl]). This information had been verbally requested by our NRC Project Manager (PM) on March 22, 1989.
On March 25, 1989, it was discovered that there are actually 86 MODE 5 and 6 snubbers that are required to support MODE 5 and 6 systems, rather than 17 which was quoted to the PM. The reason for the discrepancy was that the snubbers on the applicable portions of other systems required to support SDC and HPSI were erroneously not included in the initial response. These systems are not required to be OPERABLE, per Technical Specifications, in MODES 5 and 6; however, the fact that portions of these systems are required to support the operation of SDC and HPSI in MODES 5 and 6 was overlooked. We have reviewed the safety evaluation and believe that this discrepancy does not adversely affect any of its conclusions.
For your information, on March 24,1989, Unit 2 entered the ACTION STATEMENT of Technical Specification 3.7.8.1 because data from the previous snubber functional test could not be completely verified. In accordatice with the ACTION STATEMENT requirements, we repeated the surveillance test for the applicable snubbers by testing greater than 10% of the 86 MODE 5 and 6 snubbers within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> of entering the Technical Specification ACTION STATEMENT. Because of this action, which was the result of a separate concern, the one-time schedular extension awarded by License Amendment No.119 was not actually used.
8906010185 890511 I
t PDR ADOCK 05000318 p
PNU
9*
s Document Control Desk May 11,1989 Page 2 We understand the importance of providing complete and accurate information to the NRC
(
at all times and regret any inconvenience this may have caused. Should you have any l
further questions regarding this matter, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
l Very truly yours, G
I
~D GCC/CDS/ dim cc:
D. A. Brune, Esquire J. E.
Silberg, Esquire R. A.Capra, NRC S. A. McNeil, NRC W. T. Russell, NRC II. Eichenholz/V. L. Pritchett, NRC T. Magette, DNR t
. _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _