ML20150D341

Forwards Concerns & Questions Re Plant Restart Plan.Nrc Reviewing Oral & Written Public Comments Resulting from 880218 Public Meeting.Response Requested within 30 Days of Date of Ltr.Info May Be Requested as Review Progresses

ML20150D341
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	03/18/1988
From:	Collins S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Bird R BOSTON EDISON CO.
References
NUDOCS 8803240043
Download: ML20150D341 (4)

Text

.

.~ , .

MAR 181988 Docket No. 50-293 Boston Edison Company ATTN: Mr, Ralph G. Bird Senior Vice President - Nuclear 800 Boylston Street Boston, Massachusetts 02199 Gentlemen:

This rofere to the NRC staff review of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Restart Plan.

Overall, we 'ound the Restart Plan to be basically sound and determined that the programs and plans described within appear to address the previously iden-tified management and hardware deficiencies. Nonetheless, several concerns and questions were identified during our review. These concerns and questions are identified in Enclosure 1 and were discussed with Mr. R. Ledgett and other members of your staf f by Mr. L. Doerflein onsite on February 19, 1988, and by Messrs. A. R. Blough and L. Doerflein during a subsequent telephone conversa-tion on February 22, 1988. You are requested to respond to these concerns and questions indicat'ng your existing programs, procedures, and/or planned actions to resolve each item. Please provide a written response within 30 days of receipt of this letter.

The staff is also reviewing oral and written comments received from the public as a result of our February 18, 1988 public rteeting and associated request for written comments. As our review progresses, further information or actions may be requested from you.

The response directed by this letter is not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.

Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact Mr. A. Randy Blough at 215-337-5146.

Sincerely, (Mairal G!cvd II:

Sa uel J. Collins, Deputy Director Division of Reactor Projects OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DOERFLEIN 143 3/7/88 - 0001.0.0 ) \

03/17/88 8803240043 DR 88031s ADOCK 05000293 jgO [

DCD

~ .

Boston Edison Company 2 MAR 181988

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ encl:

R. Barrntt, Nuclear Operations Manager B. McIntyre, Chairman, Department of Public Utilities Chairman, Plymouth Board of Selectmen Plymouth Civil Defense Director J. Keyes, Boston Edison Regulatory Affairs and Programs E. Robinson, Nuclear Information Manager R. Swanson, Nuclear Engineering Department Manager The Honorable Edward J. Markey The Honorable Edward P. Kirby The Honorable Peter V Forman S. Pollard, Secretary of Energy Resources P. Agnes, Assistant Secretary of Public Safety, Commonwealth of Massachusetts R. Shimshak, MASSPIRG Public Document Room (PDR)

Local Public Document Room (LPDR)

Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)

NRC Resident Inspector Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2) bec w/ encl:

Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)

S. Collins, DRP J. Wiggins, ORP R. Blough, DRP L. Doerflein, DRP R. Bores, DRSS H. Gray, DRS T. Dragoun, DRSS G. Smith, DRSS D. Mcdonald, NRR F. Akstulewicz, NRR

,9 RI:DRP RI:DRP RI:DRP RP LDoerflein/mjd RBlough JWiggins ins 3//t /88 /(/88 3 /88 3/h/88 Q 3 /) fd-sf FF CIAL RECORD COPY DOERFLEIN 143 3/7/88 - 0002.0.0 pL 03/16/88 g

a , .

J ENCLOS.URE 1 NRC Concerns and Questions on the Pilgrim Restart Plan

1. Volume 1, Chapter 2 of the Restart Plan needs to be updated to reflect the recent organizational and personnel changes.

2. Urder the new organization, how will the functions attributed to the Planing and Restart Group as defined in Volume 1, Chapters 2 and 3 be accomplished? For example, the Work Planning and Estimating Branch pro-vided each section with a full time planner designed to enable the section to improve planning and scheduling of its own work and coordinate and integrate its work plans and schedules with those of other sections and disciplines.

3. There are no action items in the appendices to schedule, indicate status, or track the program discussed in Volume 1, Chapter 4, of transferring fire protection surveillance currently performed by plant operators to the Fire Protection Group.

4. There is no discussion in the Restart Plan on the adequacy or effective-ress of High Radiation Area control.

5. There are no action items assigned or discussion of trending performance and/or measuring effectiveness of the completed action items in Appendix 10, Issue 02-009, "Improve the radiological performance of Pilgrim Station personnel."

6. How do the work stoppage during the week of November 9,1987; the Loss of Offsite Power Augmented Inspection Team findings; and, the recent numerous Engineered Safeguards Feature actuations relate to the Material Condition  ;

Improvement Action Plan (MCIAP) as discussed in Volume 1, Chapter.47 Has BECo evaluated whether any changes to the MCIAP or other programs are necessary because of these events?

7. Appendix 10, Issue 03-940-01 on the evaluation of procedures for receiving vendor supplied information and providing recommendations to correct iden-tified problem areas has a due date of restart plus 240 days. This mile-stone appears excessive for the indicated action. What is the status of improving control of vendor supplied information? I

8. Appendix 10, Issue 03-905-08 discusses an evaluation of the motor operated valve f ailure analysis reports for adequacy. What followup actions and schedule will be developed from this evaluation?

l 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY 00ERFLEIN 143 3/7/88 - 0003.0.0 03/16/88 l

l

Enclosure 1 2 i

9. Why is the schedule for Maintenance Group performance trending system, Appendix 10, Issue 03-906-02, tied to restart? What is the current status of this system?

10. While a few 1 specific procedure updates appear as action ite.as and the legibility of drawings is discussed in Appendix 10, Issue 06-003, how will BECo ensure all procedures and drawings have been reviewed for adequacy and updated (if necessary) prior to restart?

11. There is no action item or discussion in Volume 1 or Volume 2, Appendix 10, Issue 07-001, of scheduling and tracking the technical training of BECo security personnel. This appears necessary to ensure the new hires can be fully utilized and, in the interim, assigned duties and responsibilities commensurate with their training and qualifications.

12. With respect to Appendix 10, Issue 07-002-11, what is the new completion schedule for the access control modifications?

13. There is no action item or discussion in Volume 1 or Volume 2, Appendix 10, Issue 10-002, of a training plan for management and technical new hires.

14. The NRC disagrees with the change made in Appendix 11, Page 19, and has concluded lesson plans are necessary for the EAL training. (Based on our February 22 teleconference, we believe BECo concurs with our position).

15. Appendix 2, "Level I RFO-7 Schedule" and Appendix 5, "Performance Excellence Indicators" need to be pariodically updated and distributed to interested parties.

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 00ERFLEIN 143 3/7/88 - 0004.0.0 03/16/88

. _ _ -