ML20235X752
| ML20235X752 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 07/17/1987 |
| From: | Boger B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Johnston W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| TAC-65278, NUDOCS 8707240315 | |
| Download: ML20235X752 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _
July 17, 1987 MEMORANDUM FOR: William V. Johnston, Director Division of Reactor Safety, Region I FROM:
Bruce A. Boger, Assistant Director for Region J Peactors Division of Reactor Projects I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Pegulation
SUBJECT:
EMERGENCY SERVICE WATER LIMITING CONDITIONS FOR OPERATIONS AT PEACH BOTTOM, TAC NO. 65278 Your memorandum of March 27, 1987, raised the concern that, based en the findings of a probabilistic risk assessment based operational safety inspection-(50-277/86-25), the 30 day LC0 on loss of the 2 emergency service 4
water pumps appeared to be too liberal. You requested that NRR review this LC0 and consider a more restrictive requirement.
Our staff (R. Martin and R. Goel, PSB) has discussed this issue with PECo several times and the current status is as follows.
R. Diederich's group in PEco's Mechanical Engineering Division is currently conducting a PRA based analysis to determine a basis for proposing a revision to the f,C0 for loss of 1 pump and for inss of both ESW pumps. This analysis will be availabit within PECo by late August. A subsequent request for amendment of the Technit e.1 Specification 3.9.C LC0 is scheduled to be submitted in October 1987.
The staff's summary of the LC0 for emergency service water system for other similar plants and Standard Technical Specifications (STS) indicates that preferred LC0 for PBPS should be 3 days on loss of 2 emergency service water pumps.
The Project Manager has requested that PECo keep us informed as their work progresses.
In consideration of the apparent existence of this LC0 in its present form since initial issuance of the TS and the likely operating mode (shutdown) of the two units for the near future, this schedule does not appear to be unreasonable. Accordingly, if you concur with this approach, we will t
write PEco a letter noting our interest in the mtter as set forth in the Inspection Report 86-25, noting our conversaticr on the subject and requesting that they promptly submit a brief description of their plans for responding to the concern.
Please advise us of your opinion on this approach.
/s/
![k Occk$Obo71 Bruce A. Boger, Assistant Director P
PDR for Region I Reactors Division of Reactor Projects I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Pegulation DISTRIBUTION 4 Docket:F11e JCraig TRCPDR/LPDR JKudrick PDI-2 Reading RGoel WButler JLinville, Rg. I PMartin/RClark TJohnson, Rg. I M0'Brien tRM PDI-2:0 '
' I t :AD in:ca WBu BBoger E
W 87 TMti r 87 7 F:87
Q,.,,
~
3NOU
[$
'o UNITED STATES g
E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 July 17, 1987 y
MEMORANDlfM FOR: William V. Johnston, Director Division of Reactor. Safety, Region I FROM:
Bruce A. Boger, Assistant Director for Region I Reactors Division of Reactor Projects I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Reoulation
SUBJECT:
EMERGENCY SERVICE WATER LIMITING CONDITIONS FOR OPERATIONS AT PEACH BOTTOM, TAC NO. 65278 Your memorandum of March 27, 1987, raised the concern that, based on the findings of a probabilistic risk assessment based operational safety inspection (50-277/86-25), the 30 day LCO on loss of the 2 emergency service water pumps appeared to be too liberal. You requested that NRR review this LCO and consider a more restrictive requirement.
Our staff (R. Martin and R. Goel, PSBF has discussed this issue with PEco several times and the current status is as follows.
R. Diederich's group in PEco's Mechanical Engineering Division is currently conducting a PRA based analysis.to determine a basis for proposing a revision to the LCO for loss of 1 pump and for loss of both ESW pumps. This analysis will be available within PECo by late August. A subsequent request for amendment of the Technical Specification 3.9.C LC0 is scheduled to be submitted in October 1987.
The staff's summary of the LCO for emergency service water system for other similar plants and Standard Technical Specifications (STS) indicates that preferred LCO for PBPS should be 3 days on loss of 2 emergency service water pumps.
The Project Manager has requested that PEco keep us informed as their work progresses.
In consideration of the apparent existence of this LC0 in its resent form since initial issuance of the TS and the likely operating mode p(shutdown) of the two units for the near future, this schedule does not appear to be unreasonable. Accordingly, if you concur with this approach, we will write PEco a letter noting our interest in the matter as set forth in the Inspection Report 86-25, noting our conversation on the subject and requesting that they promptly submit a brief description of their plans for responding to the concern.
Please advise us of your opinion on this approach.
Bruce A. Boger, Assistant Director for Region T Reactors nivision of Deactor Projects 1/IT Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation I
k
____m.____.m.___-__-.__.-___
J