ML20127A812
| ML20127A812 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 06/14/1985 |
| From: | Starostecki R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Daltroff S PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127A815 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8506210267 | |
| Download: ML20127A812 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000277/1985015
Text
c
..
,
',-
.
,
JUN 141985
Docket No. 50-277
Philadelphia Electric Company
ATTN: Mr. S. L. Daltroff
i
Vice President
Electric Production
2301 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101
Gentlemen:
Subject-
Inspection Number 50-277/85-15
This refers to the operational readiness assessment team inspection conducted
by a team led by Mr. J.
R. Johnson of this office on April 10-19, 1985, at
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Delta, Pennsylvania and your corporate
office at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, of activities authorized by NRC License
No. DPR-44 and to the discussions of our findings held by Mr. Johnson with Mr.
R. Fleischmann of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during this inspection are described in the NRC Region I
Inspection Report which is enclosed with this letter.
The purpose of this
inspection was to verify the establishment and implementation of programs to
restore the reactor plant to its desigq configuration following extensive
modifications
and
to
revise
reactor operating
information
accordingly.
Overall, we have concluded that, when planned testing and closeout activities
are completed, Peach Bottom Unit 2 can be safely returned to power operation.
Within the scope of this inspection, no violations were observed. Certain
inspection team findings have been characterized as program strengths, or
weaknesses, as appropriate, and are documented in Appendices A and B, respec-
tively, to this letter.
You are requested to respond to Appendix B within
thirty (30) days of the receipt of this letter, stating actions taken or
planned to improve the areas identified as weaknesses.
The responses requested by this letter are not subject to the clearance pro-
cedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
Your cooperation with us in this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely,
5062
pigis.:stoca3y,4
7
Richard W. Starostecki, Director
Division of Reactor Projects
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY IR PB 85-15 - 0001.0.0
11/29/80
\\
1
\\
i
r-
,
.
.:
.
. Philadelphia Electric Company
2
Enclosures:
1.
Appendix A, Licensee Strengths
2.
Appendix B, Licensee Weaknesses
3.
NRC Region I Inspection Report Number 50-277/85-15 w/ Attachment I
cc w/encls:
<R. S. Fleischmann, II, Station Superintendent
Troy B. -Conner, Jr. , Esquire
g~ Eugene J. Bradley, Esquire, Assistant General Counsel
- Raymond L. Hovis, Esquire
>
.
o Michael J. Scibinico, II, Assistant Attorney General
Public Document Room (PDR)
Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
u NRC Resident Inspector
Commonwealth of' Pennsylvania
bec w/encls:
4 Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)
Senior Operations Officer (w/o enc 1s)
+ R. Gallo, Section Chief, DRP
~
. Director, DRS
i
$
h
YNkA
.
. k #I:DRP h{
I:DRP
Q:
R
Beall/mjd
@,fflo
ns
StarostWki
5/ v ,85
Wi /85
%g,85
4/K85
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY IR PEACH BOTTOM 85-15 - 0002.0.0
05/22/85
. . -
..
.___ -_ --,
-
- .
.
'
.
?
.
APPENDIX A
LICENSEE STRENGTHS
,
The inspection team noted specific features of the licensee's programs and
activities which have been characterized as strengths. A strength is a posi-
tive attribute or feature which exceeds regulatory requirements, or an innova-
tive feature, which contributes to the safety or effectiveness of plant activ-
,
ities.
References are to sections in Inspection Report 50-277/85-15.
1.
The Major Outage Recovery Effort (MORE) team was established to coordinate
the restoration activities in the primary containment and to implement
preoperational and system startup testing. The team appeared to be well
administered with experienced and competent personnel.
Hardware defic-
iencies identified by the inspection team had already been identified and
were being tracked by the MORE team.
(5.)
2.
The Plant Operating Review Committee's (PORC) involvement in the oversight
of work associated with the outage is strong.
In addition to review and
approval prior to implementation, the PORC reviews the results of the
Modification Acceptance Tests and evaluates any problems identified.
(5.)
3.
Daily PECO outage meetings were continuing with operational milestone
checklists being reviewed by both plant staff and construction division
staff.
(4.)
4.
Lesson plans prepared by the Training Section for licensed operator
requalification
were well written, and presented by highly qualified
instructors.
The oral walkthrough examination guide prepared for the
requalification examination was of high quality.
(11.)
.
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY IR PEACH BOTTOM 85-15 - 0003.0.0
05/22/85
'
.
- _ . - -
_-.
.
- _ - . .
.
--.
'
.
.
.
APPENDIX B
LICENSEE WEAKNESSES
The inspection team identified items of concern which have been characterized
as weaknesses.
An item of weakness does not constitute noncompliance with
regulatory requirements, rather it is related to effectiveness of a program,
activity or organization.
References are to paragraphs in Inspection Report
50-277/85-15.
1.
No provision was made to perform a final systematic review of open problem
reports (quality assurance findings, quality control nonconformance and
noncompliance reports) to ensure disposition prior to plant restart. (4.).
2.
The licensee's requalification program does not ensure that those staff
member (s) preparing the annual written requalification exam are period-
ically administered an exam themselves. One staff member has not taken a
'
written exam for four years.
(11.)
.
t
l
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY IR PB 85-15 - 0004.0.0
11/29/80
'
,