ML20151U325

Discusses Utils 880408 Schedule for Restart,Projecting Startup to Begin in Nov 1988 & Updated Plan for Restart. Assistance Requested for Listed Tasks

ML20151U325
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	04/20/1988
From:	Boger B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Roe J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8805020028
Download: ML20151U325 (5)

Text

'

s

' m 277-

, a no f n*\, UNITED STATES y g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r, j W ASHING To N, D. C. 20555

\ **"* / April 20, 1988 MEMORANDUM FOR: Jack Roe, Director  :

Division of Licensee Performance and Quality Evaluation, NRR )

FROM: Bruce A. Boger, Assistant Director for Region I Reactors Division of Reactor Projects I/II, NRR SURJECT: PEACH BOTTOM REVIEWS On April 8, 1988 the Philadelphia Electric Company, licensee for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), submitted its schedule for restart which ,

projects Unit 2 startup to begin in November 1988 and also submitted an updated I Plan for Restart. We should plan to revise our questions to reflect the revised Plan'for Restart by April 27, 1988. These activities, as well as other activities to be outlined by me in a separate memorandum, will warrant a high level of priority in the forthcoming months for Peach Bottom.

At this time, in addition to finalizing the questions by April 27, there are several other tasks that we request DLPQE cssistance in as follows:

1. On November 19, 1987 the licensee submitted an application for amendment )

of the TS organization structure. The licensee's Plan for Restart I including its April 8, 1988 revision, Pennsylvania's Petition on the TS application and the INP0 report are all pertinent to the basis for our issuance of this amendment.

We are requesting The Performance Evaluation Branch's review and concurrence in the draft license amendment package. Fred Allenspach has  !

worked with Bob Martin on the amendment package and we believe that l earlier identified problems are now resolved.  !

II. The license amendment package does not address the Independent Safety Engineering Group (ISEG) or the controls on use of overtime by plant staff. Bob Martin has proposed a separate letter on which I am also requesting your review and concurrence.

1 III. To date, we have not undertaken an in-depth review of the licensee's new i organization beyond the scope of the adequacy of the organizational i structure. I believe that such an in-depth review, comparable to an NT0L review in accordance with SRP 13.1.1 4 and SRP 13.4, is necessary to complete the staff's forthcoming Safety Evaluation on readiness for i restart.

l Therefore I request that OLPQE perform this evaluation and prepare input for the Safety Evaluation.

g5020028880420 p ADOCK 05000277 PDR l

l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ___ __ J

e t

.?-

IV. The INP0 report draws particular attention to the maintenance issue. I believe the staff (the NRR staff in conjunction with the Region I staff) needs to develop an understanding and evaluation of the PBAPS maintenance issue. I propose that we develop a ,ioint NRR/ Region I review team to assess this issue. The work currently being done by T. Gody's group on a maintenance inspection program could be useful to this effort. The effort already expended by Region I, as discussed in Inspection Report 87-24, should also be considered. Region I is prepared to coordinate with us on this.

Upon your consideration of these issues i believe it would be very useful for DLPQE and DRP staff to neet to discuss these issues in detail. Bob Martin will followup on this and will coordinate the meeting.

Af

/ pr /

/

Bruce A. Bcger, Assistant Director for Region I Reactors Division of Reactor Projects 1/II

Enclosure:

As stated l

l l

l

t J

IV. The INP0 report draws particular attention to the maintenance issuo. I believe the staff (the NRR staff in conjunction with the Region I staff) needs to develop an understanding and evaluation of the PRAPS maintenance issue. I propose that we develop a joint NRR/ Region I review team to assess this issue. The work currently being done by T. Gody's group on a maintenance inspection program could be useful to this effort. The effort already expended by Region I, as discussed in Inspection Report 87-?4, should also be considered. Region I is prepared to coordinate with us on this.

Upon your consideration of these issues I believe it would be very useful for DLPOE and DRP staff to meet to discuss these issues in detail. Bob Hartin will followuo on this and will coordinate the meeting.

/S/

Bruce A. Boger, Assistant Director for Region I Reactors Division of Reactor Projects I/II

Enclosure:

As stated DISTRIBUTION Central File NRC PDR Local PDR PDI-2 Reading SVarga/BBoger WButler M0' Brian RMartin/RClark Previously concurred *

?/q* PDI-2/D* RI

..a tin:mr WButler B nger 04/11/88 04/11/88 g/p/88

IV.- The'INP0 report draws particular attention to the maintenan'ce issue. I believe the staff (the NRR staff in conjunction with the Region I staff)e needs to develop an understanding and evaluation of the PBApS maintenance issue. I propose that we develop a joint NRR/ Region'I review team to-

- assess this issue. The work currently'being done by T. Gody's group.on a maintenance inspection program could be useful to this effort. The effort already expended by Region I, as discussed 'in Inspection Report' 87-24,.should also be considered. Region I is prepared to coordinate with us on this.

Upon your consideration of these issues I believe it would be very useful for DLPQE and DRP staff to meet to discuss these issues in detail.- Bob Martin will followup on this and will coordinate the meeting.

/S/

Bruce A. Boger, Assistant Director for Region I Reactors '

Division of Reactor Projects I/II

Enclosure:

As stated DISTRIBUTION '

! Central' File)

NRC PDR" "

Local PDR 1 PDI-2 Reading SVarga/BBoger WButler M0'Brien

• RMartin/RClark

, Previously concurred *

/ .

BQ*

n:nr PDI-2/D*

WButler B oger RI 04/11/88 04/11/88 g/p/88

)

i I

, 1 i

i ,

.s - - 1 l

l MEMORANDUM FOR: Peach Rottom Restart Panel Members ,

FROM: W. F. Kane, Director, Division of Reactor Projects

SUBJECT:

REVIEW OF PEVISION 1 0F PEACH BOTTOM RESTART PLAN Attached is a copy of the revised Restart Plan. You are responsible for coordinating the review in your organization. Draft final questions and )

requests for additional information are due to J. Linville on April 22, 1988 i for consolidation. Additional copies of the plan are available as necessary to support your review from J. Linville, Region I or R. Martin, NRR.

l I

W. F. Kane, Director Division of Reactor Projects

Attachment:

As stated DISTRIBUTION B. Boger, NRR  !

W. Regan, NRR '

R. Ballamy, DRSS R. Gallo, DRS E. Wenzinger, DRP J. Linville, DRP cc:

T. Johnson, SRI W. Buttler, NRR l R. Martin, NRR J. Roe, NRR W. Johnston, DRS F. Miraglia, NRR W. Pussell, RA T. Martin, NRR  ;

T. Murley, NRR J. Sniezek, NRR l S. Varga, NRR B. Clayton, EDO

. blind 2 2 RI:DRP RI:0RP RI:DRP Lirville/rh1 Wenzinger Kane 4/ /88 4/ /88 4/ /88

,end

. blind 2 2 1 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY REV 1/PB RESTART PLAN - 0001.0.0 04/11/88 c end