ML20072P086
| ML20072P086 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 03/29/1983 |
| From: | Harrington W BOSTON EDISON CO. |
| To: | Vassallo D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-3.D.3.4, TASK-TM 83-81, NUDOCS 8304040087 | |
| Download: ML20072P086 (2) | |
Text
.
EOSTON EDISON COMPANY 800 BOYLsTON STREET BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02199 WILLIAM D. HARRINGTON March 29,1983
................="'
BECo Letter No. 83-81 Mr. Domenic B. Vassallo, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #2 Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 License No. DPR-35 Docket No. 50-293
~
Subject:
Information in Response for NUREG 0737 Item III.D.3.4 Control Room Habitability
Reference:
(A) BECo Letter to NRC 81-37 dated February 11, 1981 (B) BECo Letter to NRC 82-149 dated May 25, 1982 (C) NRC Letter to A.V. Morisi dated June 24, 1982
Dear Sir:
Reference A provided Boston Edison's initial response on the subject NUREG item.
Reference B provided additional information as requested by members of your staff.
Subsequently, the NRC concurred with Boston Edison's position on the subject NUREG Item and issued a Safety Evaluation Report (SER), Reference C.
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of changes to.our original position and the bases for those changes.
Background
In early 1978, Boston Edison personnel met with NRC staff to evaluate fire pro-tection requirements and resolve specific areas of concern.
The staff's concern was the potential for a toxic environment, produced by fire, enveloping the Con-trol Room and that an operator would be required to remain in the Control Room because there was no alternate shutdown location outside the Control Room at that time. Additionally, the operator would also be changing air bottles in a toxic environment. As a result of the NRC concerns, Boston Edison installed the Breath-ing Air Manifold System in the Control Room.
Subsequently, NUREG 0737 was issued which prescribed very similar requirements for Control Room Habitability under TAP Item III.D.3.4.
Our initial response Reference A took credit for this Breathing Air Manifold System under Section 2 entitled Control Room Characteristics.
Our statements for breathing air appa-rates were made in the context of a postulated toxic chemical release and the subsequent need for breathing air apparatus.
Once an alternate shutdown system was installed at Pilgrim Station during RF0 #5, the need for the reservoir to be located in the Control Room was dependent only upon our commitment made in response to NUREG 0737 Item III.D.3.4.
h O
P304040087 830329 i,
PDR ADDCK 05000293 P
ppg
y COLTON EDIEON COMPANY Mr. Domenic B. Vassallo, Chief March 29, 1983 Page 2 Since the initial response of Reference A, Reference B provided the results of our toxic chemical survey in the vicinity of Pilgrim Station.
Based on the study's conclusion, there is no evidence of toxic chemicals stored or transported near the vicinity of Pilgrim Station. Therefore, the need for breathing air for control room operators under toxic chemical release became moot.
Consequently, we have removed the breathing air reservoir from the Control Room.
We continue to maintain, at a minimum, 5 one hour air supply cylinders of self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA's) in the Control Room and approximately 55 hours6.365741e-4 days <br />0.0153 hours <br />9.093915e-5 weeks <br />2.09275e-5 months <br /> of stored air capacity on-site which we believe is consistent with our original commitment of Reference A.
We recognize the need to provide you with updates or changes to our previous responses when safety evaluation reports have been written and is' sued by your staff. Therefore, should you require additional information or clarification on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
--..-,