ML19347A841
| ML19347A841 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 09/26/1980 |
| From: | Lundvall A BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Clark R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8009300383 | |
| Download: ML19347A841 (4) | |
Text
ta
- 1
!
l
.
BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY P. O. BOX 1475 i BALTIMORE", M ARYLAN D 21203 l September 26, 1980 j AntNum E.LUNOVALL,dm. ;
v cc Pass osso j Office of Nuclear fteactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attn: Mr. Robert A. Clark, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Licensing
Subject:
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Units Nos. 1 & 2, Dockets Nos. 50-317 & 50-318 Status of Fire Protection Modifications
References:
BG&E letters:
Lundvall to Reid, November 13, 1979 Lundvall te Reid, December 21, 27 & 31, 1979 Lundvall to Reid, January 11 & 29, 1980 Lundvall to Reid, February 22, 1980 Lundvall to Reid, May 20, 1980 Lundvall to Clark, May 23, 1980 Lundvall to Clark, June 20, 1980 Lundvall to Clark, August 20, 1980 Gentlemen:
By references listed above we committed to completing numerous additions and modifications to Calvert Cliffs in order to meet NRC fire protection requirements. This letter provides a status of those commitments and provides details concerning certain modifications which cannot be completed in accordance with the original schedule.
As you know, the original schedule was based on an arbitrary end date of November 1,1980, which was established by the Commission prior to the Three Mile Island event. The NRC Staff and we have expended considerable manpower in attempting to resolve both the post-TMI and fire protection issues concurrently. In the case of fire protection, the NRC Staff, due to limited mannover, was forced to spread its review of operating plants over an extended period of time. Calvert Cliffs was among the last plants to be reviewed. The NRC Staff did not complete its site visit of Calvert Cliffs until December,1978. Following that visit: the Staff sent us on March 19, 1979 a compilation of some 22 " positions" concerning the review. We responded to these positions on April 19, 1979 This resulted in a June 15, 1979 draft Safety Evaluation Report containing h7 Q
" positions" and a caution that it did not represent the final NRC position. I During July, August and September 1979, we frequently both romally and informally communicated with the Staff concerning resolution of the h7 k (
8 0 0 9 3 0 031!G -
r
_
'
l
,
l Mr. R. A. Clark Page 2 September 26, 1980 positions. On September 1h, 1979, the NRC issued the (final) Safety Evaluation Report. We began responding to the outstanding items (the major one of which required a new fire hazards analysis because of disallowance !
of any credit for our silicone rubber, asbestos-braid jacketed cable). By December,1979, we had responded to most of the items, including the fire hazards analysis, and had committed to the major modifications, which included such major items as various types of suppression systems, detection systems, RCP lube oil collection systems , modification of doors, additional fire dampers, closing of pipe blockouts, sealing of pipe sleeves, an additional sound-powered communication system and Flamemastic coating of all cable trays inside the containments. Our analysis showed that with these ;
improvements we could safely shut down either unit if a fire occurred in l any area of the plant. We immediately began the design and procurement activities necessary to accomplish this work without avaiting NRC approval in order to expedite the installation.
l We received the most recent sunplement to our Safety Evaluation Report May 21, 1980. The eleven items listed as " incomplete-licensee's information outstanding" had been transmitted to the Staff on May 20, 1980.
We still avait Staff response on those items noted as " incomplete-staff's evaluation is not complete" but we are proceeding with our documented commitments on these items. If the comnletion of these items requires additional work, schedules for completion vill be determined when the detailed scope is agreed upon.
As might be expected for a rush job in which comnlex design and construction must proceed during or before establishment of requirements, we have experier.:ed numerous problems. For example, one major contractor has not been able to meet our schedule for supplying sprinkler piping and seismically-designed hangers. We are attempting to compensate for these delays through additional manpower where possible. However, most work areas are at their manpower saturation point, and any increase in manpower above present levels would result in a net decline in productivity. In addition, the prolonged, unseascuably hot weather this summer has caused extremely high temperatures within the auxiliary building, reducing productivity drastically. Delays in the installation of sprinkler systems also impact the installation of portions of the fire detection and suppression alarm system, such as pressure valve switches and water flow alarms.
The Fire Protection Project has received first priority attention for many months from BG&E, our major engineering contractor, and several other contractors, and we have made every effort and concentrated all available resources toward completing all items on time. We are now, of course, well into the construction phase, having expended over 156,000 craft manhours to date. We presently have 300 craft workers on site attempting to meet the target date. We began working double eight-hour shifts on April 28, 1980, and increased to double ten-hour shifts on July 28, 1980. We estimate approximately 210,600 manhours of work still remain. Despite the optimistic schedule and accompanying problems, we have met or are meeting most of our original schedules, i.e., most items will be completed by November 1,1980
. ,
.
..
Mr. R. A. Clark Page 3 September 26, 1980 or, if an outage is required for installation, prior to the end of the uncoming refueling outages. There are several items, however, which we now estimate are likely not to be completed on time; these are summarized on the attached list, which also shows our estimate of the best possible completion date.
We vill continue to keep you informed of the status of completion of these items and would be happy to discuss them with you if you have any questions.
Very trulymurs, y'
$
&puk M d c J esc ~
s /
cc: J. A. Biddison, Esquire G. F. Trowbridge, Esquire Messrs. E. L. Conner, Jr.
R. E. Architzel
. - .
__ _ -_ _
\
,
SUPHARY OF ITD43 REQUIRING EXTENDED SCHEDUIJE SER ESTIMATED ITD4 DESCRIPTION COMPLETE RD4 ARKS 3.1.6 Halon in Cable Spreading Pa 1]/15/80 Extremely difficult work area, seismic instal-lation. Outage not required.
<
3.1.19 Detection 11/26/80 Portion requiring interface with sprlnkler installation vill slip accordingly. Contain-ment and four rooms require outage for engineering and installation.
3.2.1 Fire Suppression Scope changed in 6/80 due to problem with wrapping of raceways.
Sprinklers 1/31/81 Scope changed; added six rooms. Complex design interrelationships, difficult installation.
Some rooms require outage for installation.
Halon in Switchgear Rooms 1/31/81 Scope changed; added systems in Switchgear Rooms. Outage not required.
,
3.3.4 RCP Lube Oil Collection Outage Final design and scoping require outage.
Installation complex and in difficult area, may not be complete during outage period.
.
1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _