ML20206B299
| ML20206B299 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/06/1988 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2600, NUDOCS 8811150403 | |
| Download: ML20206B299 (36) | |
Text
'
0$$$~0bbh
, Date Issued: 10/6/O g g? ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS AD 40C SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE PILGRIM RESTART SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING AUGUST 26, 1988 PLYMOUTH. MA
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES PURPOSE:
The purpose of the meeting was to review the proposed restart of the Pilgrim plant.
ATTENDEES: .
ACRS NRC STAFF W. Kerr, Chairman S. Collins, RGN I J. Carroll Member A. Blough, RGN I C. Wylie, Member L. Doerflein, RGN I P. Boehnert. Designated Federal Official B. Boger, NRR D. Mcdonald, NRR BECO R. Wessnan, NRR C. Warren, RGN I R. Bird J. Lyash, RGN I K. Highfill R. Anderson J. Heward R. Varley MEETlhG HIGHLIGHTS, AGREEMENTS, AND REQUESTS:
- 1. Mr. S. Collins (Region I) provided a discussien on the concerns that led to the Pilgrim plant shutdown, and the issues involved in the restart.
Mr. Collins began by reviewing the historical milestones of the shut-down. Pilgrim was shut down in April 1986 and Confirmatory Action Letters (CALs) were issued by NRC in April and August 1986, both to keep the plant shut down aid to expand the scope of corrective actions required by NRC prior .o restart. Emergency preparedness has also become en issue for restart due to conce-ns raised by FEMA and the state of Massachusetts with the offsite energi...cy plan (EP).
The SALP results prior to the 1986 shutdown for Pilgrim were shown (Fig.
1). Mr. Collins r.cted that the plant has had a history of uneven gligga 001006 b%g 2600 PNU l
, s., s'
? -
MINUTES - PILGRIM August 26, 1988 i
l performance (usually trending unfavorably) over many years. Issues l l 1eading to the shutdown included:
i
- a history of poor performance, !
incomplete staffing, in particular, operators and key mid-level (
supervisory personnel, .
a prevailing view in the organization that the improvements made to [
date have cccrected the problems, i reluctance, by management, to acknowledge some problems identified !
by the NRC, f dependence on third parties to identify problems rather than imple- l l menting an effective program for self-identification of weaknesses, f Starting in January 1986, a series of technical problems arose which !
indicated a problem with plant operations. In early April, two events j occurred which resulted in issuance of the first of two CALs keeping the plantshutdown(Figs.2&3). The second CAL required Boston Edison f Company (BEco)to: (1) develop a formal assessment of the readiness for !
restart operation. (2) develop a formal restart program and schedule, and (3) submit the assessment and restart plan to NRC for review and I approval. ;
l NRC Staff conducted an ausadnted safety team inspection following the above two events. Details of the inspection results are given on Fig. l
- 4. NRC also held a meeting with BEco management at which the Staif [
stated that they were looking for strong evidence of progress at Pilgrim !
prior to allowing restart. The first SALP issued after the shutdown l noted some improvements, but problems remained, notably a lack of f stabilityinkeyr,anagementpositions(e.g.,plantmanager). In j response to questions from Dr. Kerr, Mr. Collins indicated that a j succession of five people occupied the plant manager position after the f shutdowr.. [
l i r
l o
MINUTES - FILGRIM /Jgust 26, 1968 Other issues cssociated with the restart were discussed. These issues included: offsite emergency planning, the BEco safety enhancement :
program (SEP),andlegalandlicensingactions(e.g.,two10CFR2.206 ,
petitions).
Dr. Kerr said his review of the SALP reports indicatet ttit the NRR SALP ratings seem to require the licensee to improve their ratings from "3's" .
to "2's" or "l's", yet the Staff is saying a "3" is acceptable. He wondered how NRR will dscide that the plant is ready for start-up; 1.e.,
how does one judge things are progressing satisfactorily. Mr. Collins said NRC did not shut the plant down due to safety violations, rather because of a history of poor perfonnance culminat;ng with the two events in April 1986. Dr. Kerr questioned this, as it appears in hindsight that the plant was in poor shape and probably should have been shut down. Mr. Collins indicated that there also were enforcement problems with BEco which forced the Staff's hand (i.e., "enough is enough").
i
< Further discussion resulted in Dr. Kerr raising the concern that the SALP appears to be used as an enforcement mechanism. He also said that i it appears that the SALP is being used to bolster the .egulations which seem to be inadequate to address problems like the Pilgrim shutdown. j Mr. Collins indicated that tha NRC expended considerable resources to assure Pilgrim is in compliance with the regulations. He said the questions of the adequacy of the regulations should be addressrd to the Comission.
b
- 2. Mr. R. Bird (BECo) began the presentation for Boston Edison. He reviewedtheBEConuclearorganization(Fig.5). They believe their organization is highly competent. Members work well together. In response to Mr. Carroll, Mr. Bird discussed the membership of the independent nuclear review board. Most of the people on the board had considerable navy ,wclear experience.
r N
j ,.
4 MINUTES - PILG".!M August 26, 1988 :
Figures 6 and 7 outline the current status of the plant, and major [
projects undertaken during the shutdown. BECo has taken cops (not [
required by regulations) to decrease the probability of severe core (
damage events under their Safety Enhancement Program (SEP).
1 Results of the last two SALPs were reviewed. Mr. Bird noted that IkPO r
] has reviewed the BEco Self Assessment and Readiness for Restart reports. I j INPO indicated ,that the plant will be ready for restart upon completion of the items i'dentified in the above reports.
' f I !
! In response to Mr. Carroll, Mr. Bird said INPO found no significant j l weaknesses ir their review of Pilgrim. In response to Dr. Kerr, [
Mr. Bird indicated that weting BECo's high standards for operation of [
Pilgrim assures that the utility will easily mcet the NRC regulatory requirements. Dr. Kerr tsked if Mr. Bird is sure BEco will cemit the j necessary resources to assure safe operation. Mr. Bird said he has been f assured by the BECo Board of Directers that the resources v'" W (ncre. I f
K.Highfill(StationDirector)describedthemajorprogramsunderwayat Pilgrim. He noted that BEco is decreasing the number of contract employees with an eventual goal of "zero." Overtime has been reduced, ;
and it is planned that it will be no greater than 1M of norval time '
worked during plant operation.
Mr. Highfill noted that maintenance, decontamination, staffing, and ,
quality performance have greatly improved. He said 90% of the plant i spaces are now radiologically clean. BECo has 1901 of 390 man re:n [
exposure for the workforce for 1988 and expect to meet this goal. There will eventually be six operator shifts. Oper stor training has been enhancet. BECo has proposed use of the latest available BWR eeergency operating procedures (Revision 4). These procedures are under review by NRC.
__ j
,. '., ,e MINUTES - PILGRIM August 26, 1988 In respu o "arroll, Mr. Highfill said BEco will begin the start-up thifts for operation and one shift in t'; tining. The operator f i. sanned sixth shift will gain "hot" operation experi-ence dur r -up. BEco will comply with the NRC guidelines on limits for uvirtime.
In response to Mr. Wylie, Mr. Highfill indicated that a corporate policy will be established by BEco to assure standards are maintained when turnover (inmanagement) occurs. The goal is to develop the best manacement team they can nhtain. Mr, Wylie noted that approximately 50%
of the management are new hire:. He expressed some concern with this high number. Mr. Highfill said they will usually promote from within, but do not exclude hiring from outside as necessary.
) In response to Mr. Carroll, Mr. Highfill said all of the BECo training programs have been accredited by INP0.
Dr. Kerr asked whare the "safety conscience" for operation of Pilgrim lies. Mr. Highfill indicated that he believes this conscience resides in the high level management. Mr. Bird indicated that the senior watch ;
supervisor (plant shift supervisor) has airect access to him at any time for safety related matters.
In response to Mr. Wylie, Mr. Highfill said he does not believe plant operators require college degrees to do their jobs.
Mr. R. Varley discussed the emergency planning issues. Ht said that BEco recognized that the local towns in the EPZ required additional resources and support to maintain an emergency capability. This support is being provided by the utility (Fig. 8).
(
- ., e MINUTES - PILGRIM August 26, 1988 Mr. Carroll asked what was the status of FEMA's review. BECo indicated this review is continuing on an informal basis. There will be a full-scale drill held after the plans have been approved.
Thedetailsofthesafetyenhancementprogram(SEP)wereprovidedbyDr.
E. Howard (BECo). Dr. Howard noted that the SEP addresses severe core damage events. However, one needs to keep in mind the low probability associated with such events.
The SEP includes both near- and long-term goals (Fig. 9). Figure 10 details the strategy and approach used. The emphasis of the Program is or, prevention of severe core damage. In response to Dr. Kerr, Dr.
Howard said the SEP began in mid-1986. The focus of the SEP was on the:
(1) NRC draft severe accident containment policy for BWRs, (2) NRC and IDCOR BWR - Mark I containment reference plant studies (3) evaluation of station blackout and ATWS events, and (4) containment perf, mance issues. Dr. Howard noted that the SEP effort was influenced by, amm g others, the containment performance initiatives fomulated by Dr.
Bernero of the NRC Staff.
The results of the SEP effort were reviewed for the initiators of station blackout, ATWS, and containment performance. The improvements :
made include:
addition of a third diesel generator.
fire-water inter-tie to RHk for an additional source of RPV makeup.
suppr9ssion pool vent to main stack - sized for decay heat removal, '
new emergency operating procedures based on Revision 4 EPGs, extensive training of operating crews using Pilgrim-specific simula-tor, enriched boron for SLCS system.
feedwater pump trip and backup recirculation pump trip,
+
j *., .
MINUTES - PILGRIM August 26, 1988 modification of drywell sprays (design nozzle change and flow re-duction),
fire-water inter-tie to RHR - AC independent source of drywell spray, and suppression pool vent to main stack for containment overpressure control.
The complete list of improvements are given on Figure 11-13.
Dr. Kerr asked what was the risk reduction obtained by the addition of a thirddieselgenerator(DG). Dr. Howard said this evaluation is ongoing as part of the IPE process and will be available after the NRC peneric letter on the IPE requirements is issued. Dr. Howard noted that the new DG is not protccted from external events. Dr. Kerr suggested BECo evaluate the risks / benefits associated with the capability to intercon-nect the train A and B emergency power suppiies. (Note: Such intercon-nection is prohibited by NRC regulation.)
Regarding the ATWS event, Dr. Kerr asked if the effect of boron washout had been considered. Dr. Howard indicated that washout was considered, particularly in the new EPGs which mandate injection of a large quantity of enriched boron. Mr. Carroll requested NRC coment on the efficacy of the BECo simulator training at the September ACRS meeting.
In sumary, Dr. Howard noted that the improvements are the result of the most comprehensive safety analysis since the issuance of the operating license. The most important result of the SEP is the improved profi-ciency of simulator trained operating crews in application of the new E0Ps.
Mr. Wylie asked what problems, if any, Pilgrim has seen as a result of lightning strikes. Dr. Howard said there were some loss of offsite power events early-on due to strikes, but no damage was done to any
MINUTES - PILGRIM August 26, 1988 internal systems. In response to Mr. Carroll, Dr. Howard said modifica-tions have been made to the main switchyard to lower the probcbility of a prolonged loss of power event. In response to another question from Mr. Carroll, BECo noted that there is a separate 23 kv AC line available to the plant if needed.
In response to Dr. Kerr, Dr. Howard noted that containment venting procedures have been a part of the E0Ps for some time, and the venting strategy is being evaluated vis-a-vis the ongoing IPE.
Mr. Carroll asked for information on the industrial safety record for Pilgrim vis-a-vis INPO perfomance indicators. Mr. Bird indicated that the BECo performance here is favorable.
Mr. Bird provided sunnary remarks. He said BECo has come a long way and improvements have been made in all key operating areas. The SEP is the state-of-the-art for dealing with the severe accident issue. BECo believes they are ready both for restart of Pilgrim and to maintain safe operation over the long tem.
- 3. S. Collins discussed the NRC review of the restart assessment activities to date, future activities planned, and concluding remarks. A chart of the milestones for restart was reviewed (Fig. 14). Comission review of the restart request is tentatively scheduled for mid-October. In response to Mr. Carroll, Mr. Collins said a SALP will be conducted six nonths af ter restart is approved. (Note: A SALP is nomally conducted onaoneyearcycle.)
The NRC Staff noted the fomation of an NRC restart assessment panel, i An augmented inspection program was established to monitor the BECo recoveryprocess(Fig.15). The Staff has also held numerous meetings l with BECo, the public, and federal state and local government representatives. State and local government interest in the proposed restart has been high.
, - , . - - . - ~ , - . - - - - - -_. -~-~--._-e -----n----- - - ~ = .
a .
MINUTES - PILGRIM August 26, 1988 Key Staff review activities were noted (Fig. 16). They have reviewed the Revision 4 E0Ps and have, by and large, found them acceptable.
There are a few open items remaining to be resolved prior to restart, BECo has been responsive to the Staff's concerns here.
The status of licensing activities was discussed. Three items remain open vis-a-vis technical specification licensing actions (Fig. 17).
The SALP history, including the last two post-shutdown SALP results, was reviewed (Fig.18). Mr. Carroll noted that the average of the latest SALP is 2.0. He asked what the average is for all SALPs in Region 1.
Mr. Collins said he would provide that information at the September ACRS meeting.
The results of the latest SALP were noted. The Staff's conclusions from this review included:
extensive BECo efforts have improved corporate and site management organization structure;
- efforts generally successful in correcting staffing, organization and mi.terial deficiencies;
- self-assessment process successful in focussing manovement atten-tion; performance in some areas lags, due to later implementation of program and organizational improvements as a result of higher priority outage work; and
., ./
MINUTES - PILGRIM August 26, 1988 a continued BECo comitment is needed to sustain the overall improv-ing trend in perfor: nance.
Dr. Kerr, referring to the SALP report above, asked what is meant by the statement that continuing attention is needed for the licensee to:
"exceed minimum regulatory requirements." He argued that this would appear to suggest that the regulations may need to be revised. Mr.
Collins indica,ted that the SALP is focused on licensee performance, not necessarily the regulations. He did indicate that he understood Dr.
Kerr's point.
An integrated assessment team inspection (IATI) was recently completed.
The IATI was conducted by the NRC Staff: "to independently review and assess the readiness of your management controls, programs and personnel to support safe restart of the facility." The Staff has found that the BECo readiness for restart report meets the intent of the CAL requirements. Mr. Collins noted that there were two people under contract to the state of Massachusetts, who observed the IATI.
Conclusions of the IATI indicated BECo is performing acceptably and perfortnance is either steady or improving in all key operational areas.
No fundamental problems were found which would prevent safe restart of the facility. In response to Mr. Carroll Mr. Collins said the state of Massachusetts has some concerns with the results of the IATI. The Staff will meet with the state prior to the September ACRS meeting. The results of this meeting will be discussed at the full Comittee meeting.
Future activities remaining to be complete by the Staff were noted (Fig.
19). These activities include issuance of a Restart Assessinent Report, and address of EP issues. A final decision will then be made by the Comission. A step-wise power ascension program is planned upon restart approval.
?< ,
MINUTES - PILGRIM August 26, 1988 Criteria to be used to evaluate restart are given on Fig. 20. In response to Dr. Key Mr. Collins said NRC has found the criteria to be satisfied by BEco, except for the EP issue which is still under review.
Dr. Kerr asked how long the plant will be held at low power plateaus.
He asked if the risk associated with prolonged low power operation has been reviewed by the Staff. Mr. Collins said +,here is an analysis available and he would review it.
- 4. Upon caucus. Dr. Kerr noted that the Subcomittee will bring the Pilgrim plant restart to the ACRS for its review at the September ACRS meeting.
He also indicated that the Comittee will attempt to prepare a letter report to the Comission as well.
l
- 5. The Subcomittee heard a series of coments from representatives of the l
l public and state and local governments. A list of the speakers is attached. A sumary of the speakers' remarks is given below. A copy of the written coments received is attached to the Office Copy of these Minutes.
J. Hadfield (Plymouth Town Civil Defense Director) - Concern that the offsite emergency plan (EP) is not in place. He believes he was ignored by HRC during the IATI. He has not been contacted by FEMA either. The plant should not restart until the EP is approved.
A. Thompson (Chairman, Plymouth Board of Selectmen) - Expressed thanks for NRC Staff' reviews. Concerned that a history of troubled perfonn-ance has not been corrected. No inspection of EP has yet been made and EP criteria have yet to be developed. Evacuation is difficult due to overcrowded roads and rapid population growth. Board of Selectmen have notseenanydraft(s)ofEP. The Board has repeatedly stated that plant should not restart until an EP is in place. NRC has ethical responsibility to assure an EP is in place prior to plant restart.
i
. ?., +' '
1 1
MINUTES - PILGRIM August 26, 1988 l P. Agnes (Connonwealth of Massachusetts) - Appreciates ACRS review of restart. Connonwealth is skeptical the plant is ready to restart.
While much progress has been made in improving the plant, there is a long history of management failings and lack of s complete EP. Provided two reports to the Subcomittee from the state detailing EP concerns.
History of Pilgrim SALPs shows very poor performance (Inside NRC article provided). Problems still continue at plant.
On the EP issue, deficiencies remain and must be resolved by NRC before restart. A full-scale EP exercise should be held; it has been over three years since the last exercise.
L. Alexander (Massachusetts State Representative) - Urge ACRS recommend against restart until: (1) all reactor safety issues are resolved; (2)
EP issues associated with Pilgrim are resolved; and (3) management demonstrates acceptable performance. Requested a legal hearing on the above concerns. Urged improvements be made including filtered vents, add- on DHRS, and modifications to Mark I containments (for severe accidentconcerrns).
Need a viable EP for Pilgrim, and a full-scale drill should be held prior to restart. SALPs show poor perfomance history. NRC has acted like an advocate of nuclear power in this review.
S. Comley (Director, "We The People Inc.") - Substandard material has been installed in 36 reactors, including Pilgrim. NRC is playing politics with the restart. NRC should not restart until the Massachu-setts November referendum is conducted. Believes NRC is not doing their job. Wants to see the President to give infonnation on corruption in NRC. Nuclear power is unsafe and the government is not allowing the people their say on this issue.
A. Waitkus-Arnold (C m onwealth of Massachusetts - 0.H.A.) Concern with the lack of evacuation plans for elderly and handicapped. This I
. !., .y MINUTES - PILGRIM August 26, 1988 discrimination is illegal and innoral. BEco has ignored the state Office of Hsndicapped Affairs (OHA) and has not been responsive to the special needs of handicapped. Pilgrim should not operate until a complete EP is in place.
E. Fales (Public Citizen) - Urges that ACRS not open Pilgrim. It is dangerous and an evacuation plan is unworkable.
R. Reed (Administrator - Town of Kingston) - Board of Selectmen for the Town of Xingston opposes restart of Pilgrim.
K. O'Brien (Public Citizen) - Pilgrim is aging and slowly "dying" like an individual who has contracted AIDS. The ACRS should keep the plant shut down.
D. Buckhee (Citizens Urging Responsible Energy) - Angry that we need to undertake protection of our own safety. Asked that ACRS review the issue of the cracked motor housing on the RHR system, the standby gas treatment system, and a "design deficiency." Also should review the reasons for the scrams in April 1986 and the issue of counterfeit
, equipment arid the (recirculation) piping equipment. Other concerns detailed as well.
J. Kriesberg (Massachusetts Citizens for Safe Energy) - Pilgrim should not be reopened. Serious issues remaining: (1)EP,(2)MarkIcontain-mentconcernsgivenasevereaccident,(3)managementproblems,and(4) public safety vs. political considerations.
M. Ott (Duxbury Citizens Urging Responsible Energy) - No public notice given for meeting. Concerned that NRC is not doing its job. Many <
problems were associated with the 1986 shutdown. Detailed concerns leading to shutdown and made numerous requests of the NRC Staff regard-ing their restart review.
MINUTES - PILGRIM August 26, 1988 Dr. Kerr said he sympathizes with the above speakers. He said the Congress gave NRC charge to regulate nuclear power safety and it makes mistakes. However, it is a creature of Congress. The state can keep the plant shut down via the EP issue. The Subcomittee will give the restart serious consideration, as will the ACRS.
- 6. The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
i
. . R, . , ..
~
II.B.1 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE SLIDE 7 SALP RESULTS PRIOR TO APRIL 1986 SHUTDOWN
. ASSESSMENT PERIOD CYCLE 1 CYCLE 2 CYCLE 3 CYCLE 4 CYCLE 5 CYCLE 6 1/80- 9/80- 9/81- 7/82- 7/83- 10/84-
/ 10/85
'/ FUNCTIONAL AREAS 12/80 8/81 6/82 6/83 9/84 2 3 3 2 2 3 OPERATIONS RADI. LOGICAL 31 CONTROLS 3 2 2 2 3D 2 2 2 1 1 2 SURVEILLANCE MAINTENANCC 2 3 2 2 11 2 EMERGENCY PLANNING 3 1 1 1 3D 3 FIRE 2 -
PROTECTION 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 SECURITY ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL - - - -
SUPPORT LICENSING - -
2 1 1I 1 TRAINING - - - - -
EFFECTIVENESS -
ASSURANCE OF - - -
QUALITY /0A 3 3 -
OUTAGE 1 3 2 2 -
1 MANAGEMENT
[/d j
,, t..,
II.B.1 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE SLIDE 12 TECHNICAL 1SSUES LEADING TO 1986 S!!UTDOWN (CONTINUED)
Power Date Level Description Cause 04/11/86 93% Indicated leakage from Equipment failure -
the reactor water random recirculatten system through the 'B' loop Residual Heal Removal (RHR) System iniection valves forced a saut- -
down for maintenance 04/11/86 10% During a controlled Equipment failure -
reactor shutdown, spurious actuation automatic closure of the MSIVs of the MSI.Vs initiated a reactor scram (LER 86-008/IR 86-07) 04/12/86 0% A Confirmatory Action Letter 86-10 was issued '
regarding the April 4 and April 12 M51V iso-lations and the R;lR injection valve leakage.
The Confirmatory Action Letter was subsequently extended to cover -
correction of signifi-cant programmatic deficiencies. In July 1986, the licensee decided to continue the shutdown into 1987 and conduct refueling, install certain Mark I containment enhance-ments, and complete 10 CFR 50 Appendix R fire protection modifications.
i !
Restart of the unit is pending NRC authori-2ation in accordance -
with Confirmatory l Acti,n Letter 86-20.
- / 4 9 ;
. . c . ..
II.B.2 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE SLIDE 13 APRIL 1986 SHUTDOWN CONFIRMATORY ACTION LETTER (CAL) 86-10 o APRIL 11, 1986 PLANT SHUTDOWN REQUIRED BY TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS o WHILE SHUTTING DOWN AN UNPLANi4ED SCRAM OCCURRED DUE TO THE SPURIOUS PRIMARY CONTAINMENT GROUP 1 ISOLATION, THE OUTB0ARD MAIN STEAM ISOLATION VALVES (MSIVs) COULD NOT BE OPENED o NRC ISSUED CONFIRMATORY ACTION LETTER 86-10 ON APRIL 12, 1986 AS A RESULT OF THESE RECURRING EVENTS TO MAINTAIN THE PLANT IN A SHUTDOWN CONDITION UNTIL THE NRC COULD REVIEW IN DETAll THE CAUSES OF THESE EVENTS AND THE LICENSEE'S CORRECTIVE ACTIONS o CAL 86-10, 4/12/86 REQUIRED:
t MAINTAIN PLANT CONDITIONS TO PROVIDE FOR NRC REVIEW OF THE EVENT t PROVIDE A WRITTEN REPORT TO THE NRC PRIOR TO RESTART EVALUATING:
A. INTERSYSTEM LEAKAGE OF RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM B. SPURIOUS PRIMARY CONTAINMENT ISOLATION SIGNALS C. FAILURE OF OUTBOARD MSIV: TO RE0 PEN
- o. BECO DECISidN 7/86 TO REMAIN SHUTDOWN FOR RFO-7 o CAL 86-10, 8/_27/86 SUPPLEMENTED T0 INCLUDE OTHER HARDWARE AND SALP-RELATED PERFORMANCE ISSUES:
t / RESOLUTION OF SPECIFIC TECHillCAL ISSUES lui)
- .. t . .. , ~ :
II.B.2 , HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE SLIDE 14 dPRIL1986 SHUTDOWN CAL 86-10 NRC INSPECTION 86-17 o AUGMENTED.SPECIAL SAFETY TEAM INSPECTION ,,
o 4/12 - 4/25/86 IN RESPONSE TO 4/11 PLANT SHUTDOWN o 3 OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS:
(1) THE SPURIOUS GROUP-0NE PRIMARY CONTAINMENT ISOLATION ON 4/4 AND 4/12/86 (2) THE FAILURE OF THE MAIN STEAM ISOLATION VALVES (MSIVs)
TO OPEN AFTER THE ISOLATIONS (3) RECURRING PRESSURIZATION EVENTS IN THE RESIDUAL HEAT-REMOVAL (RHR) SYSTEM o SEC0 APPROACHES TO PROBLEM S0LVING WERE CAREFULLY STRUCTURED AND APPEARED THOROUGH h
4 i
.. 9 . ., .' .
E = g awE w W Hw b 5 zw a
a w e =a M
-u=o wza bE E'
s m =y I eda z c=5= u ww==I a.,-= z =
g 4
, -E z.
W w zor=a z=O e a.
wb E z
.s,u g =aU zw
==
tz
-s- ==E "
8
$_a.5, y
l a ~ a.
>-g -
2 3
Mzw5 w=ro . =
. =x w=
w-ru w s .w=
=
d z-=
z w .m
,2 u
= =- =z
==
w I w. m r zAmP wI Me o g
wem a.
Cw z
4<
d'ywz
=
$ e -
U w3 b? = .$g-g3g u
smr$ m zz mr.
w z =
-ze-m z s=z 0 E 5E5E
= z --
3$55 5
$I
=
g= w w .I o ww D
V m
z =-
aa e
z zQ A e4 zWa w
(
3 y Lt1 aa.
~EE a
-l mUU W
=vz A 3 .-
wzu a
.5
= yw wE=w M- w w w a
Iee U o3 CC 7 3 zwgE C C
- yma I
- ww y
ze I w
2 w=E E
3 .I-=Uz D
2 C e
&w& w Q
{
AA-
CURRENT PLANT STATUS
~
PLANT REFUELED .
- REACTOR REASSEMBLED HYDROSTATIC TEST COMPLETE ILRT COMPLETE MAJOR MODIFICATION WORK COMPLETE PLANT CLEAN AND DECONTAMINATED P
d igem,
-c
~ . ~
MAJOR OUTAGE PROJECTS .
i.
i-t
- APPENDIX R I
- SECURITY SYSTEM UPGRADES .
PLANT SPECIFIC SIMULATOR ..
TURBINE GENERATOR OVERHAUL 1
- REFURBISHMENT OF PLANT SYSTEMS I i
DECONTAMINATION [
u s - p qq r N
~,
il.i 9
RESOURCES PROVIDED BY BECo i;
- PROFESSIONAL EMERGENCY PLANNERS -
- FUNDING OF CIVIL DEFENSE POSITIONS i l
- UPGRADING OF FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT !
i e COMPENSATION FOR TRAINING 1pi8248e ,
l :
i-l
\ ..
l BALFUEffI lEFItWHISREENfU PR@G:RALW j .. ~
l . 3 B DG B l ( D F :EID:ISDF @ @ E S.
i i
Near Term Goal: '
l i identify And implement Plant improvements Responsive To NRC Draft BWR Severe Accident Containment Policy. -
Revise Emergency Operating Procedures And Train Operators To improve Operational Readiness And Ensure Effective Use Of Plant Capabilities in The Event Of An Accident.
Long Term Goal: .
Perform A Comprehensive Safety Assessment Supported By Deterministic And Probabilistic Analyses Of Severe Accidents To Ensure That:
- 1. The Pilgrim Specific Response To Severe Accidents is Well Understood
~
- 2. These insights Are Effectively Used Within Boston Edison To Reduce The Probability And Consequences Of A Core Damage Accident
- 3. These insights Are Available in Support Of Emergency Preparedness Planning uxensb
~ - . _ __ _. . ._ -.
s.
- I EATIOYJ85fY ~ EEHAFGEXJEFT IEEDGRAM i
i Proaram Strategy And Approach i Assemble The Most Experienced Technical Team Available Pursue A Parallel Effort To identify Possible improvements
- Prepare Conceptual Design Based On Expert Judgment I
- Analyze Plant Capabilities-Evaluate Possible improvements -
Integrate Conceptual Designs And Analytical Results into Approved i
- Plant Modification I Procedures improvements Training inprovements Maintain Active involvement in The Industry Programs
% i b* g 1br8238d I
~
C
.. : l y;
~
SAEETE ENEAEfCEMEET EEDERM
~
.Re s_ul.fc a.
1 Station B!ackout .
o Addition Of A Third Diesel Generator Procedure Changes To Extend DC Battery Operation Set Point Changes To Extend The Duration Of RCIC Operation
-o Fire Water Inter-Tie to RHR Additional Source of RPV Makeup
- o Suppression Pool Vent To Main Stack - Sized For Decay Heat Removal Improved Long Term Nitrogen Supply s
1br8238f p
/../i'] l
- t
~:
k E -
_ l $
~
Res_u l ta_ l 1.
Anticipated Transient Without Scram
-e New Emergency Operating Procedures Based On Rev. 4 EPGs l l'
i
- t Extensive Training Of Operating Crews Using Pilgrim-Specific Simulator
- < Enriched Boron For SBLC System l
Automatic Depressurization System Logic Changes j i
- "Feedwater Pump Tripve / !
I s Backup Recirc Pump Tnp j TRAC G Analysis For ATWS l f
~
1br238g N f ,
N fj
.? '
6 jj. .-l ?-!
i BAEE31T :EEEAEHEMEET :EEDERAPE
~
Resu:ta Containment Performance ,
' Optimization Of Drywell Sprays Design Nozzle Change And Flow Reduction
, Fire Water Inter-Tie To RHR - AC Independent Source Of Drywell Spray
. e Supression Pool Vent To Main Stack-Containment Overpressure Control
- -Improved Long Term Nitrogen Supply i
Experimental Testing i
O 4
1br8238h
~
Q'
t.AL Ub-10 <* g.5 SALP Okgnos CAL 06-RF0-7 NRC Ltr Request Re-figmt 3ntp f;RC SEP ltr R ;s tart ON Team 10 AIT fleeting 86-99 Assess. from Pla .
85-99 lnsp m Pit Scr 5tcrt start Asses: 86-41 pj,n . nrrn any. 0 9,3:S L .= .
- i - a , . .e , =-. . ., % _-. ,---% . -A,,= n- a.-=_2 n . a 2L,u ,-. , .- L _ A =5 10/1/84- 2/16/E6- 4/12/86 7/8.6 8/27/86 11/24/86 11/1/85- 7/8/87 7/8/87 7/30/87 M ;if 10/31/85 3/7/86 1/31/87 8. :
$0 TEftA SEP Ltr EP Ltr DECO flRR litg Pwr Asc Restart Site Self to to EP Re- with Plan Work LOOP Re i9 lPrg AIT ment Int Pev Ceco BECo sPonse BECe .. Submit Rev. I Stop E r,- -h . , ,,-J=._ . ... -b. ,m. ._ b,.=-. A -.. ,,_mmb w-,, m!L,:_.m-,J ].,
8/5/87 8/21/87 9/17/87 9/17/87 9/24/87 10/15/87 10/26/87 11/8/87 l'l/12/87 12/87 2.
3 3:
flRC AlI~Re- BECo/H4C- filtC Public DRo ieTT- O
. _ ___ . _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ Public fitg Start BECo BECo SEP start Plan Resolution fitg Re: '
O Restart Re- Assessment Pilgrin on Restart Pre-Self Ltr to ilRC Comments to R/S Plan start Plan litP0 Report N Flan Task Plan Assessment Except DTV 5 App 7 _ force __ _~
BECo Coments Comments Review Submitted
- F_ _.. .~ m A
. _. __ _4 - _ --m_. - -
3._ _-_ 13 _ ___._-- r = =.L __. _ __.J_ , ._
. . _ _ .L. _ _e __. __ . ,: .m1m, ... .a -
1/4/03 1/27/88 2/18/88 2/22/88 2/22/88 3/18/88 5/6/88 5/11/88 5/9-20/88 5/26/88 URC Rev of BECo/ Staff BEco Occis- UEco 5elT ' 'ACR5"5ib-fsECo Self- Commission Enfor ion on ttrs Sgtp Assess /IPPO MTI 'SAtP Conmittee
%ssessment Ftg,n t Brier / Re; Readi-2/1/87- ACRS Rpt Results Prepara- IATI figt ficeting at lBeport Public !!Lg ness IATI 5/_15/
Brief Presenta tf or Site
"~~T C..y g 3; tR..,. -A . L.,._...,:_J3_J8 ._. ,,- A i .. - L _ ' _~. . ;f 3 1 tons aA M_q fit --
g 2/26/88- 6/2/88 6/9/88 6/25/88 Bd 7/5/88 7/15/88 7/19-21/88 8/8-24/8d 8/25/88; 8/26/88
@/24/88 Rpt 7/26/88 t1RC/ CAL flRC Comp HRC Restart Res ta rt g IATI ~
liRC IIcf IDP-~ -~
lATI flRC 2.206 Report I55"" Festart Power Assessment Assessmer olution Issues lissue Public Public Ascension Report Panel ISSUU Status Fleeting tt ecting SEP iss ' Addressed (Sta tus fit
~ - ;- ) .._,,.- .. Z, -} . [ . _. _ e -. -j- r- -b T 3C=g *- --
b Plan Rev
- O - _ l - ->
Recom RA 3] [_ ] l ]l _l l l j{wb.L91_1.9188llw/o 9/19/88l l l { l l I
[W Recem Ti/HIlR EDd ~coliiii~s--- flRC'UVer- -
m Mo
- - ~ -
Recommenda- sion Brief- ' ~ ' - - -
sight Pit -y C EP tion to ing Public Conm Restart Res tart /PWR flRC 6 Mo. p 3 g l@irector/ issues Assent Decisio" Release o m
!!ceting _j Ascension SALP nRR j._._
EDO g.___.__ 7 m_
_..._,7_.___ .y _ _ ,, _ . . -g
__ _ gg w 3 . = . . m.3 g__ _ 4 ., y ,
(. 1____)__,J
_ _ _ -..! ._c__ __ ]_.._. { l !. _ __ __! !
_ .d l _ __ __ __l b _] l ll llq ,_j h
+ ?5
. . s . .: -
IV.A.2 ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES SLIDE 6 AUGMENTED INSPECTION AND REVIEW ACTIVITIES INSPECTIONS SALP PERIOD INSPECTION H0bno ANNUAL HOURS 1/80-12/80 1950 1950 9/80-8/81 2328 2328 9/81-6/82 373: 4482 -
7/82-6/83 3234 3234 7/83-9/84 4960 3968 10/84-10/85 3792 3500 11/85-1/87 6762 5409 2/87-5/88 9G98 7758 DURING THE LAST (2/87-5/88) SALP ASSESSMENT PERIOD, NINE NRC TEAM INSPECTIONS WERE CONDUCTED:
- 1. APPENDIX R FIRE PROTECTION PROGRAM REVIEW
- 2. PLANT MODIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW 3.
PLANT EFFLUENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REVIEW 4.
AUGMEfiTED INSPECTION TEAM (AIT) REVIEW OF THE LOSS OF OFF-SITE POWER EVENT ON NOVEMBER 12, 1987
- 5. ANNUAL EMERGEf1CY PLAN EXERCISE OBSERVATION 6.
ONSITE ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION ADEQUACY REVIEW
- 7. EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURES REVIEW
- 8. MAlf1TEtlAtiCE PROGRAM REVIEW
- 9. IN-PLANT RADIOLOGICAL C0flTROLS REVIEW
+
f / 0 IS*>
. .v.. ~:
IV.A.2 ASSESSMENT-ACTIVITIES SLIDE 11 AUGMENTED INSfSECTION AND REVIEW ACTIVITIES f
-REVIEW ACTIVITIES i
o SALP 85-99 l o DIAGNOSTIC TEAM INSPECTION .
O CAL 86-10, 4/86 '
o CAL 85-10, 8/86 o SALP 66-99 o NRC PILGRIM ASSESSMENT PLAN, 7/87 !
o SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PLAN (SEP), 7<87 o PILGRIM RESTART PLAN, REV. O, SUBM'TTED 7/87 -
o FEMA SELF INITIATED REVIEW OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS (EP), 8/87 i o PILGRIM POWER ASCENSION PROGRAM, SUBMITTED 10/8e i
o PILGRIM RESTART PLAN, REV.1, SUBMITTED 10/87 !
O lilP0 REVIEW, 5/88 o PILGRIM SELF-ASSESSMENT REPORT, 5/88 o BEC0/NRC STAFF COMMISSION BRIEFING, 6/88 o BECO REQUEST FOR lATI, 7/88 o' SALP 87-f9' 7/88
'o ACRS COMMITTEE BRIEFING, 7/88 o IATI, 8/88 o SALP MANAGEMENT MEETING, 8/88 o ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE BRIEFING, 8/88 k/4/
V, , ,,, , ; . .' O , , ;
l IV.A,3 ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES . SLIDE 12 LICENSING ACTIVITIES o RESOLUTION 0W 2.20G PETITIONS !
t o SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM (SEP) REVIEWS :
o TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION LICENSING ACTICNS - 3 ITEMS i 4
REMAIN OUTSTANDING FOR RESTART: i (1) FIRE PROTECT.ON APPENDIX A FIRE WALL RATING !
i CLARIFICATION
- i (2) DEGRADED GRID VOLTAGE (3) ORGANIZATION CHANGE l
f
)
i l i :
! i i .
l f
L i
)
4 t
}
l 1
i fl$* ]
lj *, y , .
,t '
IV.A.4 ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES SLIDE 13 SALP REPORT
. i
. Pilgrim SALP History Assessment Period Post Shutdown 1/80- 9/80- 9/81- 7/82- 7/83- 10/84-Functional Area 12/80 8/81 6/82 6/83 11/85- 2/87 i 9/84 10/85 1/87 5/88 Operations 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 Radiological Centrols 3 2 2 30
, 2 31 3 3I surveillance 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 2 Maintenance 2 3 2 2 11
, 2 2 2 Emergency Planning 3 1 1 1 30 3 2 21 ,
Fire erotection 2 2' 3 1 2 -
3 2 Security 2 2 2 2 2 2 3I 2 Engineering and Technical Support - - - - - -
1 1 Licensing - -
2 1 11 1 2 2 i Training Effectiveness - - - - - -
2L 2 ;
Assurance of Quality /0A 3 3 - - - -
I
_, 3 7 Outage Management 3 2 2 -
1 -
1 1 E l
t I 9?fh
~
- f
(
- l l
1 %.Tn
,, . w: a-IV.B FUTURE ACTIVITIES QLIDE 20 FUTURE ACTIVITIES lATI l SALP EXIT ACRS lATI MGT MEETING) SUBCOMMITEE REPORT MEETING 8/24/88 8/23/88 8/26/38 9/2/88 ACRS " RESOLUYIUII' "
FULL E0P 2.20G OF SEP ISSUES RESTART .'. CAL o COM MTG ISSUES ISSUE ISSUE ADDRESSED STATUS
_- 1 i_ - -
- STATUS" i i 98/88 i
)
POWER IAlI 2.206 NRC i ASCENSION PUBLIC PROGRAt1 PUBLIC RESTART MEETING MEETING REVIEW ASSESSMENT REPORT I I l !
W/0 9/19/88 lu0 9/19/88 9/30/88 )
RESTART ASSESSMENT PANEL EMERGENCY RECO'4MENDATION PREPAREDNESS TO REGIONAL ISSUE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR ADMINISTRATOR; STATUS RECOMMENDATION TO DIRECTOR, NRR D/NRR COMMISSION COP'u'il SS I ON
' )
RECOMMENDATION BRIEFING RESTART TO EDO ASSENT DECISION PUBLIC MTG
-_1
)
COMMISSION' CORRECTIVE u DISSENT ACTIONS POWCR NRC ASCENS10t, NRC PROGRAM RELEASE ASSESSMENT /SALP ')
~/
' ' [, '
IV.C CONCLUSION SLIDE 22 CONCLUSION (CONTINUED)
RESTART CRITERIA STABLE AND EFFECT!VE MANAGEMENT AND STAFF AT PILGRIM RESOLUTION OF MAJOR TECHNICAL ISSUES DEMONSTRATED IMPROVEMENT IN SALP PROBLEM AREAS MAINTENANCE PROGRAM AND WORK BA^KLOG ISSUES ADDRESSED NRC SATISFIED THAT CERTAIN EMERGENCY PLAN IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE
[ f.'O O c ' hi . MEETING ROOM DATE_ fb6 ADVISORY COMM11 TEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS MEETING
&Y'W 6 5pgMmed LMEES PLEASE SIGN BELOW (PLEASE PRINT)
NAME BADGE N0, AFFILIATION
- tr, ,. ,, . ..--- em .
~
IT~C ' ' ' ', -i_q.-t n (' W W N f % / & _v
,k 2 < / A D kf(i ,
f)0 CA, _ b, ??/
v 5 & Nw<,L "%4 dei '
PA!r,auE l' $~ i~
< Aa re/mgas6 <
y/4 L w o'+4. c e 11 ' ht + aA e. / ' {T t.1't. /ILlN t fidL T td '
a% (
41 Ol.' S fl O kO D ! ' '
y' _ [4 ("tB O N Mi I
i t
!' '"t- .
s &grA&~ J1<cl- cJg g ,,', & l C !? D & ,,.(
- ~ g .
Cno.mmm & & DN4 '
,e77 &c'G3, b ad. 6, g @ s * - 1. M i_N SE ). 'e==
h _f -
q
/ 9 R&c.. 8 ('n&- n u u b m pec.pte rx.
v 10 Rwwt 3 %,\Wu s -hv wod Pr#w ^m-o 4 0 S1 \n % A v11 Ww nN D'Yh t+ C ISP-m, 9>12 hlb OA y c-- '. ..
sa Im A-
/ 13 , b .'k' O V
\i W ',D. , v
' '.\ i 7
'n
\ }4 ,.! ~~~
, / ~, .,
15 16 17 .
18 19 20_.
- ?j(({f.'O O a'M. MEETING ROOM __
DATE f / d 6 !O2 ADVISORY COMM11 TEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS
. MEETING
$.aANm LEY .
6 -
Cwters J % PLEASE SIGN BELOW (PLEASE PRif4T) BADGE NO, AFFILIATION NAME
' ~ll n f\N,II) 7 L, li ~ Oc nvw
,[/M/~.v,[().A%,-
l , Ma n- c. v s : ..
. ,1 '::: u .-
7/ 3 } cE W
,r,cc)s,ct f?bM 0 C'lP .CMA
' Ccjl$
N P,,: w n . C % csy;
. ~-
- h. ,u % _
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 _
12 13 -
It4 15 16 17 18 19 20
._