ML20205E982
Text
332 -
k.
a L y
,h o/s, wtc MEMORANOUM FOR:
L.
Shao, NRR E. Kane. RI FROM:
S. Verge,14RR SUBJECis INITIAL ASSESSMENT CF PILGRIM SAFETY ENHANCEMEN1 PROGRAM On July 9, 1987, Boston Edison (BECo) submitted a detailed description of the Ptigrim Safety Enhancement Program (SEP) to the NRC.
(Copies of this submittel have been provided to you separately 1 however contents of this submittal are summarized in 1.
The submittal describes herdware changes that BECo has voluntarily elected to impicment at Pilgrim.
BECo states in their submittel that none of the probability or consequences ofthe physical plant changos increanes that all of the changes will result a design basis accident and in a reduction in the frequency of core molt scenarios or an improvement in thn performance of the containment responso.
FECo has advisod the Pit that all of the changes could be of to CFR 50.59.
implemented under the provius ons I
i BECo has advised the staff that they intend to implomont these.
changes prior to restart of the Pilgrim facility (estimated by BECo to be an late Septembor).
In a July 16, 1907, conver sa t. ion with Ralph Bird (BECo Senior Vice-President - Nuclear), Dr.
j Murley commited to a prompt staff assessment of these changos te.
determine their safety impact and to evaluate the licensee's
- pproach to their implementation.
As part of our initial assessment of these changes a visit to the BECo engsnnering offices in Braintres MA in planned for July RP, 1987 I have directed the Pilgrim PM (Dick Wossman) to lead a ma)tidisciplinod team including both NRR and Regir.n I
- 'to make this visit.
p er so ni er= 1 Suggested Roclosure 2.
copresentati.ns are identified in h
To structure the team's e f f o r +. and to allow mo t r. report the results of this initial assosamtent promptly to Dr. flurley and the j
utility, the guidelinos and summary report format of Es.cinsu.es 3 and 4 should be followed.
Also included for information is gondance regarding 1 A CFR 50. 59 revi cwn ex t rar. tr-d.f rom Manual (Enclosure 5).
thn IE l
l 8810270517 080926 PDR FDIA JOHNSON 00-190 PDR i
1 l
1
.i vi*.
07/20 57 C7:14
- U.CO2 4
! eppreciate your "short-fused" support on this effoit.
Pleano contect B.
Boger (x27415) or D.
Wessm n (u24937) if you have questions.
'T A C.
Mo. (eS 3 5 h
- f a s t.*g,
+. ibt ( ge n, Steven A.
Vargan Director Division of Reactor Projects, I/11 Enclosures As stated Copy to:
T. Murley F. Miraglia R.
Starottecki A.
Thedani F. Rosa J. Craig W.
Hodges J.
Joyce J. Wiggins, RI J. Durr, RI I
0 4
8
~
- ::4 r e. s
.c I
Ea< IcwL L
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of Report, 1.2 Scope of Report I
1.3 Safety Enhancement Program Goals 1.4 Safety Enhancement Program Plant and Operational Changes 2.0 OVERVIEW OF SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
2.1 Background
2.2 Safety Enhancements
3.0 DESCRIPTION
OF SPECIFIC PLANT SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS 3.)
General Considerations 3.2 Installation of a Direct Torus Vent System (DTVS) 3.3 Containment Spray Header Nozzles 3.4 Additional Sources of Water for RPV Injection and Containment Spray 3.5 Diesel Fire Pump for RPV Injection and Containment Spray 3.6. Diesel Pump Fire Pump Fuel 011 Transfer System 3.7 Backup Hitrogen S@ipl'y System 3.8 Blackout Diesel Generator Including Protected Installation Facilities 1
3.9 Automatic Depressurization System Logic Hodifications 3.10 Addition of EnricFed Bo'ron 'to Stan'dby"LiqiJid Control System
~
3.11 ATHS Feedwater Pump Trip 3.12 Hodifications to Reactor Core Isolation Cooling System Turbine Exhaust Trip Setpoint 3.13 Additional ATHS Recirculation Pump Trip
4.0 DESCRIPTION
OF OPERATIONAL PLANT SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS
5.0 CONCLUSION
S 2
l
p.
I f
I l
l l
l l
l 1
1 l
l ItJITI AL ASSESSMENT TEAM MEMBERS Fj.Ln_c t i o na l A r_e a
_ Qr_ a n,J 3Atjo_n Memb E Naiiagement/cocidination PD l -3 / tJRR R. Wessmei.
l Plant Systems 5FL5/NRR C. Tin 6:ler f
Anactor Systems IRW5/NRR Instrumentation SK8/NRR Electrical th5/t4RR I
Implementation /50.59 applic.
DRS/RI L. Br1995 I
l
?
I l
l i
i d
v.
LNI T I AL ASSFSMENT GtHQEj.INES.
The following are suggested Guidel s ties for use in concoct of thw initial assessment.
Any conclusions reached about the technical adequacy or method of implementation of the BECo SEP modifications are considered tentative.
This assessment is brint and cannot reflect an indepth technical review, due to the constraints of time.
Each GEP enhancement should be assessed with consideration of the following:
1.
What is the safety impact of the change when considarad alone or along with the other changos?
Does an "unreviewod safety question" exist?
(Criterna for determining whether an uneevt.wed safety question exists are defined in Persgtoph (a)(2) of to CFR 50.59 Copy attached).
2.
Is a change to the Technical Spectfications requiren?
(If tne answer is "Yes" the modificatinn and the proposed Techntcal Specification change must be rev6's '2d by the staff before implementation).
3.
For those items in which no Technical Specificetion change is involved, should the licensee he allowed to implement the change before staff review is complete?
4 Assess the adequacy of the licensee's evaluation and conclusions regarding each SEP i t e.n.
i l
1 l
t i
3 1
l i
4
SUMMARY
REPORT FORT %T i
For each SEP item you assess, provide a brief euenmar y report usin( the following format.
This is to fac11"tate management deciticomaking and assure consistency in approach.
Hopefully.
each summary won't require more than 1-2 pages.
1.
Summari:e the proposed SEP item.
2.
Summarize your conc lus i ons regarding each of the atems ti..
t 3.
Provido your recommendations for flirther f4RC action. or indicate if you believe no further action ic warranted (othee than roitt inti inspection of the modification. as elected by Roq10 4 I).
4.
Provide any additional comments you feel are appropikato.
1 1
l 1
l 1
- - - -