ML20198D901
| ML20198D901 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 05/20/1986 |
| From: | Zwolinski J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Harrington W BOSTON EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8605270101 | |
| Download: ML20198D901 (3) | |
Text
n l
i May 20, 1986 Docket No. 50-293 i
Mr. William D. Harrington
. Senior Vice President, Nuclear Boston Edison Company 800 Boylston Street Boston, Massachusetts 02199
Dear Mr. Harrington:
Subject:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING R00 WORTH MINIMIZER l
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE l
Re:
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station l
l During our review of your September 9,1985 proposed technical specifi-cation change to allow substitution of a second operator for the rod worth minimizer when it is inoperable, we have identified the need for additiona1'information. The encloture provides background discussion i
relative to the staff's position and indicates the information we need to complete this review.
Please inform the NRC project manager of the expected date of your response.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondets; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Sincerely, ORIGINA1, 31GsD BY John A. Zwolinski, Director BWR Project Directorate No. 1 Division of BWR Licensing
Enclosure:
l As stated DISTRIBUTION cc:
See next page Docket File EJordan NRC PDR BGrimes Local PDR JPartlow PD#1 Reading Pleech 8605270101 860520 RBernero CJamerson g3 OELD ACRS (10) l DR ADOCK O JZwolinski Pilgrim File HRichings' NThompson i
A DBL:PD#1 DBL:PD DBL:PD#1 CJamerson PLeech g JZwolinski l
f/,10/86 -
579786 3/e/86 l
l
r Mr. William D. Harrinaton Roston Edison Comoany Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station CC:Mr. Charles J. Mathis, Station Mgr.
Boston Edison Company RFD #1, Rocky Hill Road Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360 Resident Inspector's Office U. S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission Post Office Box 867 Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360 Chairman, Board of Selectmen 11 Lincoln Street Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360 Office of the Commissioner Massachusetts Department of Environmental Ouality Enoineering One Winter Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Office of the Attornev General 1 Ashburton Place 19th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Mr. Robert M. Hallisey, Director Radiation Control Frogram Massachusetts Department of Public Health 150 Tremont Street Boston, Massachusetts 0?lli Regional Administrator, Region i U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Mr. James D. Keves Boston Edison Company 25 Braintree Hill Office Park Rraintree, Massachusetts 02184
p
.o ENCLOSURE RE0llEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE FOR THE R0D WORTH MINIMIZER PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Boston Edison Company has proposed that the Technical Specifications relating to the Pilgrim Station Rod Worth Minimizer (RWM) be chanced, primarilv to allow the substitution of a second operator for the RWM when it is inoperable. The staff viewpoint and concern relevant to the proposal is provided in the following discussion.
In the 1972 - 1975 era, when stricter Technical Specifications (TS) on RWM oper-ability and use were introduced for reactors not being equionad with a Rod Sequence Control System, it was in oart because of the staff perception that the previous effectiveness of the RWM was minimal since (a) little effort was expended in maintaining or improving RWM operability and capability and the second operator substitution was becoming a frequent and routine occurrence and (b) the second operator was providino relatively little reduction in error prob-ability because of poor procedures and quality control of the monitoring operations.
Since that time the RWM TS operability requirements appear to have resulted in areatly improving the availability of the RWM, and thus any proposed reduction in required operability is viewed with reluctance by the staff. Therefore, it is the staff position that deviation from present TS reouirements should he kept to a minimum.
In particular, deviations due to planned computer downtime (e.o., comouter chanoeover) should not extend bevond necessary intervals and required TS changes should contain or be accompanied by statements which clearly delineate (time) limits on deviations.
Please provide such a statement.
Furthermore, the changes should be accompanied by increased attention to the problems associated with the effectiveness of the additional operator (s) in error reduction. Failures of the second operator to halt errors which have occurred over the years (e.g., most recently March 18, 1986, the incident at Peach Pottom 3) have demonstrated a need to further assure the second operator effectiveness.
It is reouested (a) that you review and, where needed, improve your procedures and related forms, physical setup and quality control to assure that the second operator provides an effective and truly independent monitorina of the control rod movements and (b) that you provide a description of this review and resulting procedure.