ML20206B960
| ML20206B960 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 12/14/1987 |
| From: | Collins S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206B722 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-198 NUDOCS 8811160060 | |
| Download: ML20206B960 (45) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:~
. .: .. J ' w .*:'... . .: , s . .
.: . .' . - l a ..< ..
?
f & DEC 141987 MEMORAN00M FOR: Pilgrim Restart Panel Members FROM: Samuel J. Collins, Deputy Director Division of Reactor Projects * (Panel Chairman)
SUBJECT:
PILGRIM RESTART PLAN REVIEW
, Attached are (1) a descriotion of Restart Plan review responsibilities and (2) detailed instructions to be provided to reviewers. These items are as -
discussed at our Decemoer 8 panel meeting. Your prompt attention to these matters is required. i am . Cb ns, leputy Ofrector Division of Reactor Projects
. Attachments:
- 1. Review Responsibilities
- 2. Reviewers Instructions Distribution:
Each Panel Memoer (w/one copy of Attachment 1 and 3 copies of Attachment 2) R. Wessman, NRR (w/one copy of Attachment 1 and 10 copies of Attachment 2) L. Doerflein, ORP (w/one copy of each Attachment) R. Fuhrmeister, ORP (w/one copy of each Attachment) C. Warren, SRI - Pilgrim (w/one copy of each Attachment) J. Lyash, RI - Pilgrim (w/coe copy of each Attachment) T. Kim, RI - Pilgrim (w/one copy of each Attachment) 4 80i1160060
' 001025 JhNG 00-190 PDR g g
\E l . . .O.,a z.N.^ :. 'I.
_..?... .
.:. x .d .n :, ...
n . . t ATTACHMENT 1 RESTART PLAN REVIEW RESPONSIBILIT!ES ' This provides instructions to Restart Panel Members regarding their responsi-bilities for ensuring completion of their assigned areas of Pilgrim Restart
. Plan Review. .' I. Review plan for its adequacy to resolve restart concerns list, plus p
c generic concerns as defined by diagnostic inspection and by Dr. Murley. - II. Determine if additional information is needed from licensee. If so, develop request and forward to Projects Section Chief ASAP. (Projects Section Chief will process the requests seeking panel guidance where i needed.) III. Factor applicable public, local government and state government comments into NRC review. Develop written disposition of these outside comments. (Restart Panel will determine which comments are applicable to which areas.) , l l IV. Select items that should be verified by NRC. Either conduct the verifi-cation inspection or, if appropriate, recommend to the Panel, items for inclusion in the Readiness Team Inspection. V. Provide written input (in SER type format) to Restart Readiness Report.
Enclosure:
Plan Review Assignments 1
-- , ,, - - - , - - , - - , - - , - . > , , - - - - , , ,.n- - - - - , - - - --,,--m- w,-,,--- ,ec, -
.w.,.e *. w, t . . ,,, _ ,m s , , . m , , g, ,, ;g , , 3
. V J.
..4 PROPOSED RESTART PLAN REVIEW ASSIGNMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS l
i EKecutlye Summarv....................................... Introduction............................< ......... I. ASSIST
, LEAD II. Management.........................................
e A. Corporate Commitment.......................... DRP B. Organizational and Personnel Changes.......... ORS /NRR III. Operat'ional Perfor3&agg............................ CRS A. Specific Staffing and Experience Increases.... ORP B. Training...................................... ORP DRS C. Procedures.................................... DRP DRS DRP D. Performance Assessment Techniques............. DRS NRR E. Review of Restart Regulatory Responses........ DRP/ ORS F. Work Control.................................. ORP ORS DRS G. Corrective Action Programs / Assurance DRP of Quality.................................. IV. Plant And Ecuiement Performance.................... ORS A. Maintenance Backlog Reduction................. DRP DRSS B. Radiological Controls......................... DRSS DRSS C. Radiological Action P1an...................... DRSS ORS D. Fire Protection............................... DRP DRSS E. Security...................................... DRP DRS F. Surveillance.................................. DRP Plant Operational Condition Change Checklists. ORP DRS G. ORS H. Systems Group................................. ORP I. Confirmatory Action Letter No. 86-10 Items Closure............................... DRS DRP DRS %' . Power Ascension Program....................... ORP ORP V. Bases for Readiness Assessment..................... ALL List of Aeoendices...................................... O
- , . . . . . .a ?..'. :- . . ~. 2. . . i. .
1 LIST or ApprNDTCES LEAD ASSIST N/A 1. Restart Plan Flow Chart f!/A N/A 2. Imvel I RTO-7 Schedule N/A ORS
- 3. Licensed Reactor Operator Complement Projection ORP
~
ORS 4. Staffing Levels in Key Areas ORP N/A 5. Performance Excellence Indicators N/A* - ORS 6. Summary Status of Restart Actions in MCIAP ORP/0RSS DRSS 7. Summary Status of Restart Actions in RAP DRS 8. Status of CAL No. 36-10 Items ORP ORP 9. Status of Management Meeting 36-41 Items ALL NRR 10. Restart Regulatory Responses ORP/ ORS /0RSS
\ , NRR 11. Proposed Changes to Regulatory Commitments ORP/0RS/0RSS DRS 12. Systigms Group Review nummary Reports ORP i
1 l l I G e l i 1 l
E. .. . . .: . . s .:4.+ . .'
~
a ;> .n . .
. a b:
ATTACHMENT 2 INSTRUCTIONS TO REVIEWERS OF THE PILGRIM DESTART P1 AN
,l I. Review Instructions The purposes of NRC review of the plan are (1) to assess its adequacy to correct identified concerns, and (2) to assist in planning for NRC inspections. ; A. Review your assigned portion of the plan and determine its adecuacy -
to address the applicable portions of the NRC Restart Panel Concerns List (Enclosure 1). Document any concerns that do not appear to be adequately addressed -- include your justification. Identify items that are not sufficiently detailed or where more information is 3 needed -- write down as a request for additional information (See Enclosure 2). B. List those items for which a verification inspection is recommended. Discuss with your management whether the items should be verified by a specialist inspection from your division or should be forwarded to the Restart Panel for inclusion into the Readiness Team Inspection Plan, t C. After reviewing completely your assigned section of the Plan, review the following lists: Factors inhibiting progress, as defined by 1986 Otagnostic Inspection (See Enclosure 3).
-- Items specified by the Regional Administrator as general restart prerequisites (See Enclosure 4).
If after the above reviews, you have broad concerns regarding the adequacy r* the Plan, provide those to your Restart Panel representa-tive to discuss with the Panel. I
! 0. While reviewing the Plan, complete the Restart Plan review matrix for your assigned section. (NOTE: This matrix will be provided at a later date.)
E. Oraft an input to the Readiness Report to briefly describe your review and to describe the basis for conclusions regarding acceptability of those portions of the Plan (SER Type Format - See Enclosure 5). O
. .a 3. a @. ; ' c : ' . ' , a:
".1. I * *:s
. ca, 4,
,- .c . . : + . . -.
'9
. ' Attachment 2 2 . 1 i II. Schedule:
- t -- Complete individual reviews and forward RAIs to Project Section Chief January 8 ,
Complete supervisory and management i reviews and forward written results - .? to Restart Panel January 18 ! 'j -- Obtain licensee response to RAI February 1 Review additional information and I finalize report February 15 ! I
Enclosures:
'I . As stated :
F 4 s I i I l l l i l [ 6 i
)
b
?
6 t I 1 i
. . ~ . _,_ ___ ,.._._-,---_
s,. ,.m..
..e 7 ..
tNLLudukt l 10^A'TTACHMENT h' w
- 1. OPERATIONS
- a. Problem Overview
~
The lack of licensed operators and an ef fective support staff has strained the Operations Department. A high operator attrition rate contributed to the problem. Communications between Operations per-sonnel and other groups has been poor,
- b. Restart Question Have the Operations staffing, technical support and communication problems been resolved?
- c. Restart Assessment Issues
- 1. Has an adequate staffing plan been developed for licensed per-sonnel? Have the causes for the high licensed operator attri-tion rate been resolved?
- 2. Does the Operations Department have a dedicated technical sup-port (systems specialists) group? Has this group proven its effectiveness in addressing operations concerns and upgrades?
- 3. Do operations personnel effectively interact with other groups, particularly maintenance and health physics?
- 4. Are the training programs for licensed and non-licensed person-nel adequate? Was adequate training provided on the modifica-tions completed during this outage?
- 5. Will the licensed operator exam schedules /results support BEco's manning goals.
- 6. Are the operating procedures adequate? Has the EPG rev 2/rev 4 issue for the E0Ps been resolved? Have other procedures (surveillance, maintenance) been updated and are they adequate?
P!LGRIM RESTART - 0001.0.0 11/29/80
. :....... . , . . ~ w . .' .,
.. < . .. . , :~ . . 2. ,
Pilgrim Restart 2 r t
- 2. RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS
- 4. Problen Overview Program implementation has been weak. Corrective act',ons have not always been timely or effective. Morale has been lov and sigr.ificant ,
animosity evident between health oby f cs and operations personnel. ;
- b. Restart Question:
tj 1. Does the health physics group effectively manage both routine - and unusual health physics activities?
- 2. Are we satisfied with the Decon program? Housekeeping?
. c. Restart Assessment Items
. 1. Is health physics staffing adequate, particularly first line supervisors?
- 2. Are first line supervisors adequately controlling field activities?
I
- 3. How timely and effective are corrective actions to identified problems? Do health physics personnel clearly understand their responsibilities?
- 4. Are keys to high radiation areas controlled, particularly by control room personnel?
~
- 5. Do health physics personnel effectively interact with Operations Department / Maintenance personnel?
- 6. Is the licensee prepared for increased plant radiation levels caused by hydrogen injection?
- 7. Is radioactive ef fluent adequately controlled and monitored?
This has not been a problem, but should be reviewed prior to startup.
- 8. Are the calibration, CA, and preventive maintenance programs for the new environmental thermoluminescent dosimetry (TLD) system effective?
- 9. Closeout RIP concerns.
- 10. Review status of decontamination program.
- 11. Has BEco demostrated increased management attention and involve-ment in radiological controls improvements?
PILGRIM R UTART - 0003.0.0 11/29/80
e'." . . ' :~
~
JI ; m .l. ... a . . Pilgrim Restart 3
- 3. MAINTENANCE AND MOO!FICATIONS
- a. Problem Overview Inadequate maintenance planning and staffing has resulted in a chronic backlog of second priority maintenance work. Also, the implementation of many new plant modifications which were installed during the outage should be checked prior to startup. ,
1 :
- b. Restart Questions ,
l I Does the licensee have an adequate program to schedule and resolve station maintenance, including second priority maintenance? Have
. recent station modifications been adequately tested and turned over to the station?
- c. Restart Assessment items
- 1. Is maintenance staffing adequate, particularly first line super-visors?
- 2. Are the maintenance scheduling and parts procurement groups above to support both first and second priority maintenance? ,
- 3. Are administrative procedures for the maintenance program in place and effective? "
4 Does the Maintenance Department resolve maintenance co'ncerns from other licensee groups (such as operations, fire protection, and security) in a timely manner?
- 5. Does the licensee control and implement vendor recommendations?
- 6. Is the preventive maintenance program documented and effective?
- 7. Have modifications been adequately tested and incorporated into controlled drawings and procedures?
- 8. Has the maintenance backlog been redJewd to an acceptable level?
- 9. Has BEco demonstrated improvement in maintenance planning?
- 10. Has the material condition of the plant improved? Has the decon effort improved access to key areas?
- 11. Are the maintenance procedures technically adequate?
- 12. Review hydrogen injection system modification. .
- 13. Review / accept Mark I containment mods. (SEP program)
PILGRIM RESTART - 0005.0.0 11/29/80
.. ._ . . . m .. .. . . . . . . . -
d . .
.i '- Pilgrim Restart 4
- 14. Has the coordination between maintenance and operations /HP personnel improved?
- 15. Has BEco prioritized plant modifications and demostrated the capability to accomplish scheduled work?
*1
>) t e 4 h 4 9 PILGRIM RESTART - 0006.0.0 11/29/80
.- . . _ _ ~ . . . . . . .. . .w .. .s .n - ., .. , . -
Pligrim Restart 5 .i
- 4. SURVEILLANCE
- a. problem Overview
' ~
Improper surveillance test scheduling and technically incomplete .' tests have been recurring problems. The surveillance program was dispersed throughout the site organization. This hampered efforts
, to control and update the tests. .
I 't
- b. Restart Question l .
Does the licensee have a acceptable centralized, clearly defined, forward-looking surveillance program? i
- c. Restart Assessment Items
- 1. Review the revised surveillance test scheduling program.
Is information in the surveillance test data base up to date? Does the program relate technical specification surveil-lance requirements to specific licensee tests? Are the new tech spec changes covered by procedures / programs? Are tests properly scheduled during: a) changing plant modes, b) extended startup sequences, c) operating cycles following long shutdowns? Check that all tests required by the technical specifica-tions to be conducted once per cycle, once per operating cycle, or once per refueling outage are completed prior to startup.
-- Are all local leak rate tests scheduled on a component basts?
- 2. Review the technical adequacy of surveillance procedures in the following areas:
ECCS logic system functional tests Analog trip system testing ECCS flow rate testing Protective relay and breaker testing A sampling of other surveillance tests required by the technical specifications and FSAR. P!LGRIM RESTART - 0007.0.0 11/29/80
. ..~.. -.... , ,. - .. - ... .t -
< ~ . .
4' i . Pfigrim Restart 6
't
- 3. Is the surveillance program controlled by a centralized, tech-nically knowledgeable person or group? Is there an ongoing program to review and improve surye!! lance tests?
4
- 4. Will BEco demqstrate systems adequacy for restart by an inte-grated functi6nal test program?
s e p
.a 6
t 4 i 1 4 ) l f PILGRIM RESTART - 0008.0.0 11/29/80
3 .w. . - m ...:... . - .- e ' '? . '. a,. j Pilgrim Restart i 7 l l .r
- 5. FIRE PROTECTION
- a. problem Overview The fire protection program has been understaffed and chronically neglected. This caused poor fire barrier control and surveillance, poorly performed surveillance on other fire protection equipment, an insensitivity to out-of-service equipment, and inadequate fire
. brigade training.
- b. Restart Question Does the licensee have a orogram to maintain fire barriers, fire pro-taction equipment, and fire protection personnel training?
- c. Restart Assessment Issues
- 1. Is fire protection staffing adequate?
- 2. Are fire barriers identified and checked at appropriate fre-quencies?
- 3. Is the fire protection maintenance backlog controlled? Has the amount of inoperable fire protection equipment been reduced? Has the reliance on compensatory measures been minimized?
- 4. Are the fire brigade members qualified and adequately trained?
Are simulation and prompting minimi:ed during fire brigade drills?
- 5. Are administrative procedures in place to ensure that fire protection notifications are made in a timely manner?
- 6. Are surveillances for fire protection equipment appropriately conducted?
- 7. Resolve Appendix A/ Appendix R issue.
- 8. Complete App R exemption request reviews.
- 9. Are any required FP tech spec changes completed and appropriate procedures in place?
e e P!LGRIM RESTART - 0009.0.0 11/29/80
l . .:.. - v . = - . . . z, . .c
-e ' ' ' . ' , '
~
~
q. Pilgrim Restart 8
- 6. SECURITY
- a. Problem Overview The security program has been understaffed and characteristically neglected. This caused a heavy reliance on compensatory measures for out-of-service equipment and routine, excessive overtime,
- b. Restart Question 5; Does the licensee have an active security program that emphasizes equipment operability and control over overtime?
- c. Restart Assessment issues
- 1. Are licensee and contractor security staffing levels adequate?
Is overtime controlled and held to a minimum?
- 2. Is the security maintenance backlog controlled. Is out of ser-l, vice equipment minimized?
~
- 3. Are CAS and SAS activities controlled and consistent with post orders?
- 4. Security equipment modifications and upgrades should be substan-tialy completed and reviewed. Reliance on compensatory measures should be minimal.
l S. Have the recent security allegations beitn respkj4d? b t { l [ I r' P!LGRIM RESTART - 0011.0.0 11/29/80
. ., . . . . . . - . . . .- . . . .. . - . ..: -1 . . .. . .
Pilgrim Restart 9 f
; 7. TRAINING AND QUALIFICATION l
- a. Problem Overview Past training has been adequate, with the exception of fire protec-O tion training.
- b. Restart Question Has the training program during the outage been adequate to support plant restart?
- c. Restart Assessment Issues
- 1. Have operators received adequate refresher training to compen-sate for the long shutdown? Are they aware of new and existing technical specification requirements? Have they been trained on
, . the new Emergency Operating Procedures (EOP's)?
- 2. Have operators been trained on recent plant modifications, such as the analog trip instrumentation, the safety enhancement pro-gram, the epic computer (including the safety parameter display system), and the hydrogen injection system?
- 3. Are the fire brigade members qualified and adequately trained?
Arv simulation and prompting minimized during fire brigade drills?
- 4. Is the training for non-licensed personnel, in particular the management and technics) new hires, adequate?
O PILGRIM RESTART - 0012.0.0 11/29/80
., ] , , , , ,,,- , . _
,,.c - -
,,s Pilgrim Restart 10 5
- 8. ASSURANCE OF QUALITY
- a. problem Overview
. A significant lack of agressiveness and control was previously noted .
in site and corporate management. A poorly-defined organizational I structure weakened onsite management. QA findings were not promptly resolved, due to slow senior coprorate management action. Repeated prompting and overview from the NRC was needed to get the licensee , to address long-standing problems, such as overtime control. In *l ,' addition, safety equipment access has'been severely limited due to excessive radioactive contaminatior.. j b. Restart Questions Is the current management team effective in identifying and resolving problems? Is the licensee's plant decontamination program effective?
- c. Restart Assessment Items
- 1. Does the licensee have an adequate staffing plan ta support site and corporate activities?
l
- 2. Has BEco established a stable management team? .
- 3. Are personnel aware of th41r organizational responsibilities? (
- Are workers awara of the recent organizational changes and pro- '
gram changes? -
- 4. Are senior site and corporate management visible onsite? Do they routinely tour the site to review plant conditions and ongoing work? Are problems appropriately escalated to senior management and are they responsive?
- 5. Has BEco demonstrated ef fective management attention in ensuring :
resolution of identified problems? Are QA findings resolved in a ! timely manner?
- 6. Are review committees effective?
- 7. Have the quadrant rooms and other plant areas containing safety equipment been decontaminated so that the areas are reasonable accessible in street clothes? Does the licensee have a long ters program to maintain accessibility?
- 8. Are overtime controls for safety related work effective?
PILGRIM RESTART - 0013.0.0 11/29/80
. . .c....a..-.-
, w. .
.c . ;
- a. -
Pilgrim Restart 11 ?. 4
- 9. STARTUP PREPARATIONS
, The fc11owing issues associated with startup preparation should be i reviewed. .
- a. Preparation for th remote shutdown and cooldown test sequence. Both r
, training and practice drills should be reviewed.
3 e (
, b. The startup checklist should be evaluated for completeness. ;
- c. The licensee's restart test program should be evaluated to ensure adequate testing of modifications.
- d. Has the integrated test program been developed and is it adequate?
- e. Has the power escalation sequence been developed and does it contain !
, adequate NRC hold points?
- 10. EMERGENCY PREFAREONES$
- a. Problem Overview On-site emergency planning is acceptable; he ever, in light of the 1 Barry Report to the governor, and the Senator Golden 10 CFR 2.206 i petition, FEMA Region ! has performed a self-initiated review of the state and local emergency plans. On 8/6/87, in a report forwarded to -
the NRC, FEMA concluded that Massachusetts off site radiological i emergency planning and preparedness are inadequate to protect the public health and safety in the event of an accident at Pilgrim. ;
- b. Restert Question i This requires a decision as to whether the deficiencies are such that ,
restart will be allowed, and the deficiencies corrected under a 120 ! day letter, or whether they must be corrected prior to restart.
. t
- c. Restart Assessment issues l The planning deficiencies must be corrected through plan changes ;
submitted by the Commonwealth to FEMA for review; a remote i possibility at present. l
- 11. CONTAIRMENT ENHANCEMENTS I
- 1. NRR to review containment modifications (SEP program) for accepta-bility. ;
- 2. Containment Spray rusty nozzle issue needs to be resolved. i i
P!LGRIM RESTART - 0015.0.0 11/29/80 j i l
7 .. . . .. .... . ,1 ENCLOSULE 2 TO ATTACHMENT 2 Samole Recuest Format For Restart Plan Information l I. Review Area: (List Restart Plan Volume, Section, Title) II. Please cescribe how the Restart Plan addresses the following concerns: A. (Clearly Describe Each Concern.) , B. C. III. Please provide the following additional informatien to clarify or amplify statements in the Restart Plan. A. (Clearly 0escribe Information Needed.) B. C. l l O
~ -
. ._ . . m. .. . . .. 4 .T - ~ . - - - - - - - - ~ - ~ - - ' -~
, o kns ;RE 3 TO ATTACHMENT 2
= 1 3
CHRONOLOGICAL LISTING OF . . . . . t-- SIGNIFICANT EVENT 3 - DATE EVENT i 12/18/85 SALP Board meeting for period 10/1/84-10/31/85 Board found recurrent these of inadequate personnel staffing and inadequate supervisory
- oversight at the plant.
. -Board also found that the licensee was unable to improve performance, or sustain it once achieved, in several functional areas. ,
2/18/86 Initial SALP repc; issued. Indicated special in-depth team inspections would be conducted to determine underlying cause of licensee poor SALP performance. _ 2/18/86- Diagnostic Team Inspection confirmed SALP 3/7/86 Board conclusions. The 4.nspection found four principal factors inhibiting progress:
- 1) incomplate staffing, in particular
%d operators and key mid-level supervisory
" personnel
- 2) prevailing view in the organization that the improvement;s made to date have f corrected the problems:
- 3) reluctance, by nanagement, to acknowledge
- some problems identified by the NRC and I 4) dependence on third partiss to identify problems rather than implamenting an effective program for self-identification f h aknesses.
3/5/86 SALP management meeting with BECo. 4/4/86 During routine shutdevn the plant tripped due to a spurious Group I containment isolation. The catboard HSIVs could not be reopened immediately following the trip. 9
O n s * 'to I tv.s \u be
- - ~
Yi ? ENCLOSURE 4 TO ATTACHMENT 2 7 What will we look for to see that the situation has improved at Pilgrim in preparation for restart? In general terms, we will look for: l
- 1. A stable and effective management team at the plant. .
- 2. Management vacancies are filled and licensed reactor operator and senine reactor operator positions are filled.
- 3. The work backlog is under control and a system is in place to track i the backlog.
- 4. Solid isprovements have been made in long-standing probles areas such as -adiation protaction, fire protection and plant security.
- 5. Solid improvements have been made in the offsite energency planning weaknesses. ,
.s, Finally, we will expect to see that BEco is developing its own internal high -
standards of performance and the means for self-critical analysis relative to those standards. Of course, there will be detailed inspections of many specific issues within these general areas. That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman.
~
id g
.42<
- -;;; .
- .;;-- L- ... - ;; . ;;. : -- .- .- . . ..1., _e -
r; Ji l u., ENCLOSURE 5 TO ATTACHMENT 2 , i
~
i DOCUFGNTATION GUIDANCE FOR RESTART PLAN REVIEW .. [ The following guidance and format is provided to assure consistent docu- > mentation of. reviews of the Pilgrim Restart Plan. j i l I. Areas of Revi,ew
.j i , (Summarize the general subject area of the plan being reviewed).
i !!. Criteria j $ r l- (Identify criteria applied in review, such at Regulat<ons, Standards, i FSAR, QA Manual, Standard Review Plan, Licensee Commitmenti etc.) , III. Review and Findings i (Descrice what was reviewed, including ancillary documents and conclusions reached. Indicate clearly whethe- or not programs are acceptable, j Identify linkages to SALP findings, Diagnostic Inspection of 1986, other r inspection efforts or licensing reviews, as appropriate). I IV. Additional Information Needs (If required) t ! Identify additional information needs and basis for need. This may be: I t !
- 1. Additional inspection areas
- 2. Issue requiring additional information from licensee (RAI). [
i I r f t i I f 1 l-
- -_ -_-_---.. _ - - - -.-_- - - - - - ~
- ___ .- __ _ _ . - _ . _ _ . - ~ _ _ . -
4hA. %
- -- q v,
,1 Chawman,Boardof Direcsors l and Chief Executive Otticer ,
S. J. Sweeney
.\
Serwor Vce Presdert-Nuclear R.G. Bird i i Nuclear Safety Revow and Audit Commeee
,' g H
Vce Presidert- Nuclear Emergency Preparedness Slim Dirm l Engineering and Quality Assurance Depanment Manager K. L HigNiil R.A.Varley J. E.Howard Operations Review Commeee J. A.Seery,Chawman h I I l i I [ l Platt W Piart Depanmert WSW , ",,g f Ma nt Eng e ing As ance Depanment Nw W NN Manager Services Departmert Departmerg i R. A. Anderson , Manager Manager l Depanment Manager R. N. Swanson F.N. Famulari i D. J. Cronin . i ! Boston Edison Company Organization for Management and Technical l ' Support of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station . t Figure 1 ! ~- t l 4 _ - - - - - , , . , - - , - - - - - , , - - ---- -- -.,,. - . , - , , , . - - , , , , e ---- - - , - . -,,e- - -
-. - . . _ . . . - . . . . _ . -_ , _ = _ _ _ _- _. _ . _ - . . - _ - - - . __ .-. ,,
h ., g
- h Station Director K. L Highlit
!\
1 Operations Review Commsee ,1
, J. A.Seery,Charman i
- I
- Plant Support Plant Department Plannwig & Outage pu1aar Tranng Department Mana0er (Plant Mance w) W ^_-ut Manager Department Mana0er
- E. S. Kraft R. A. Anderson A. V. Monsi(AconJ) E.J. Zsemaanski T
-Fire Protectson Dwisson Mana0er Plant Maesonance u . aman & Mapr Operassons Trarung . F.Wozniak Secten Manager -
Mamtenance Secten Manager Section Manager t R E. ShenyJAding) H' R Dallour -
- RN Section Manager DMihinger"[DA~C) i J.Jens H. E. Sherry PlanmnD & Outage -
- Senecas Secen Manager gg,,q ,
hief RadelogealEngwieer(O82C) l Techncal hamwe Manager _ C.S.Gannon (SRO)(ORC Chaman) LM M J. S. Seery
- Security Sechon Manager DW -Chief Techncal Engmeer t Assessment & Support P. D.Smeh (ORC) Section M51ager i
I -Reactor Safety & Pastormance R. A. Lewis } - Facildnes Seac.n Manager gg g . G. Beliefeude I _ Plant Operatons Secten Manager Procedures Secticn Manager J Alexander ORC - Member of Operations Review Commsee j _ j J. Ncholson ,._ .____ RO- Uconsed Paaaar Operator j y SHO - Licensed Senor Reactor Operator 4 Mr.senats Management --h W.ich Engmeets (SRO) Secten Manager LNuclear Operasmg Superwsors (SRD) f H Goensch L ucinarPlansOpwaeors(RO) N ., ] l -Chemstry Dwasen Maniujer j R Canalas(Acang) Pilgrim Station Organization
-chied CP mnical Engmew (OHC) j R c. Figure 2 -
l l -Operanons Support Dwson uanager a l S.Woaman i LShit Tedwucas Adesors ; r .
- - - . , , , , , , . , - - , , - , , - . , - ,,w, -w,,->,w, ,--,g. , , -w, , , , -
--,..-=.~---------.--e - - - - - - , - - -
. . . . . , .s ., - .. . . ,. .. ,i .
C H A RT > O RG ANIZATION: S J Sweeney President & CEO I J P Tyrell J M Lydon W D Harrington Exec VP Exec VP Senior VP LONG TERfA ..... EXCELLENCE .......ORGANIZATION NUCl.E AR PLANNING TASK FORCE J ASHKAR TECH ASST TO THE
. PRESIDENT C QUSTIN PUBL INFO DEPT MGR E ZIEMANSKI NUC MGT SERV SECTICN MGM J FULTON ASST TO THE
- VP NUC OPS l
i 4
, ...' ., -- , ..., 2 . . 1
{ e i e A vsCE PRESIDENT NUCLEAR OPERATIONS . ORGANIZATION t 5self Aseleissa Emessency Peepesessee. Op eeseene Ceeressesse Saast Assessoas Aset. Emeegency . Aegeseses, Pseparessess Casse. h58AC Cementes, s
?
. Oute0e Management Nucleet Opermitens a Gsou,s Department M odetsC alson s I IN __
AADI(LOGICAL f MCIIM MCTION i
- Management Group M mo eca j r e...t g,t. p i rma x l ran e g as
-{.o.,s s sa,rs.ie.)a
'<=6 e.. e ese J 2
.. e..snaie l
*- 1 a, MalseTOenNCE __
CPCAAT1985 . MCTION WCT13e . l , l "aN'." V , u ..e , ces.u- % i em. 1 l CatedP j d e 1 _ ._$ $ . l semangstsef . . 5Div1CES - SECTION : q m . eNso.s..g a
. M1 ham peas, y
. A~ - - - - may b
. e .~ ~ .e,
_{ s=are< , l
, . . - , , -,. - . - - - . - , , , - - - - - - - - , - , . - .-- ~,n- - , - - - ,-
',5 ; ';m.. . .: a.: ,: **' 's . . ' . . e :.*
. - ; . . . . . c. .a . . . -
., ' ,, a . '.>>:..
cAART '3 June 1986 9 COSTCM [DISON
'N Reard of Directors Chief trecutive Of ficer (5. Sweeney) h
. Chief Financial Officer (J. Tyrell) E
]%, Chief Coeratine Of ficer (J. Lydon)
*c l . 1 V' Sr. VP Sr. VP mue ear - Fossil operations *
(vacant) and Eneineerine .Pubite Inf. . (W.Harrington) . Stores & Services
.Cornercial Custerers (J.Stevens)
Vp (no. Vp Muc a oA Toerap ons (t Howard) (A.L.Oss'") 4 e
"... a. ~ g'HAa.
. sy '
'~
,il-[,*,%~). . ,,Tf '. .'r(. %*=L 'p .K..)*j ' ~'. . '.. y d_.1'.
T.: nN'e?-{ h (- ;f. ;i.,&.. ( t, L...,J.e..-
.~.~> . ; . .e J L y,. . . .
L.$:. f' 'h.', V.! X 9$.5.;,f(}w1: I'- \' . ;f.l.-
).,t-s [ . d;[d. J ,t "i..R.v?..',Gn;9e ;: ;;.hc.
. . . . .pA
. . ,sfJ; '3c
;u ).y v g
J1 >. .. e.. % ., * *. t .p r. "J' ' .,k'-). [p. ';k, 1..,',I Ab 't.;.t .. .f ','kW t.w; . ' Md ,l,,.c
.*1
[ ,,
- s. h. n& u
, I':',7 & L?: n. ' ,n f.$.s...m..y..
b'D :i.b 'vT , .~.
.3 v 8: 2 LS N% WQs: sr.t:h-f1
>E,t4." =.
*g.'.' -
. - }. '. - . r. q: 2 . dcw v mytf.s. n y+u.,- C A, v. . . .-..,
1 5
-d
~
$ .5 . h I .. h. ,
. s.
- k. .?a -.sy'.ps a.w.
0 :'h.w v .A ',M<' A/.W.. s. ',af. - Aj dw.tr-
- ,,,cgtn . ., h. , . uit.y a f..f,. g..t. ,4 . a h. g g~ ,,;,g#
.)
'K- W : p
;, G , .. n67NW)S;%
":h 'j. 9 ::py.s.fi! [' 'P.f/ ;b^G .g.L ..
./6 < :'d. lg Q*r,lg f;:Y*,, . 24. ; ' 'h' A:.[y (;;, f+f;q'f. , ,
; h:Q h[ J,.?.'
y5(,9 1 . ',('y*.' sd** '
~;?'.7 ,' ~ . t. ..m e .:, w!?a..M m. .*
.u..
w1. c L , t; ,m.t.A.c. . f
.>t r.
M, - , ,;
#.w 5 .. .
w . d.i w -. s,. .4. f
'. .' ~.v: : .Z; h. .
3 . 1 bIh;,;h(ir e bd 'A bM T.* 2: Ap Q%. 7'. .!. &
! .. ks 4 i,
g I k b. @p iiE y, W.A Vuy/6 s k d @ /f4# s,~
'h'F y;f'$}.bi M y hbj$yN hd N M'.
3q. is^*G
. ~ . . . r . - 9. .%.. :&_ a . .'..s#:.,
I .3 i'd.%. ((.,. . . .i /ff, 74 f. D v> d.4' i'-4dE 1'.s y.v"( ., J Y.9
.u:.4 I
. L'. ,
.g'I 1,de- x t
a-. ~.
,o
.. ., c u, -
p;'p. .-s . p-p.#
., U u7, .9:.\,
p
. .<. . m w.xp,r.>,,.' .
; c
,n.
- i. .. .a :.
- 3. %e*s e m ...s.p -
4,U M,u w.m.,, - aN !MN.. .t....O . . . . k 4, i. ,o?.i .. us c)~'R .
'k ft.
;sW-W5h.Y. $ ' .
f#* g; Y D' a !$$/MiD f$;DB.t@k'".y$@?. M
" s % .
-)'
{ %;;V s@& ern. h v.s
%gr.s
%dE .%...g,
' Mt.h.d.
tY E;sbm
;: g k-, .
' gk 4
= v fk. 3S .
w
' il i
$gn.. ,3 L e ,~Adtenv:.mwL:c.D..yk., -
*/ x.3 4 E e m% 'e. p ce.we.
i i Y F 7 s TtiV t','./i=#X N 4 U A M :
?W(..'.)l;-{
y1-9. 25 L'u. .y.:.';M. .Q.gn.' [. E>
,' Il ?.N." .:
V ..,,. , . .. c. . ., . .e . 3... .. . .
~
. c. u ..
. . .m m I J
I ,
\
,- + 1 d
- ,1
- l t I '
. l) : c 't l
ul,- i g - l , l ,1i , il j ' 'I Ly!
~ ~.+ +-
l -- r n + [I ,!jl l
) l;
(! L__ t u , A ,- s 'l l i l Il I g (' I l l l j J 1'1 i ll l a IL
', i lJl
+ L,- -, t
-r- -,-
il - . - _ _ u , m ~
- I ,hk a y 4 ,
-r--,---,-
o
+ 4**.*..,
o q+ I \\ t t [ l j I i. n '
'l
.! j i i
) 1 ll l ,!
, 'l ,
, l
- l. .l Y L &': -r-i ii l , ,
g il ilg l ,l I l
,- -r- r
/
I l [
_ , ., ... .-- - - ~ .. e -
\'
y 1 - 1 4l3g I
- s I
1 l
/,
=a
- E l !
1 -
;11 111 1.
I i li I i i. mG
- 11 1 -
- b 5
G
~i t- i v r i >
c 9.,y, ,
\
i i s. SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT - NUCLEAR EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT e l (CUTAGE OVERSIGHT) l I
. . I.
l
'N I
', i
,i VP NUCL ENG l
& .QU ALITY .j l
AS'SURANCE DIRECTOR NUCLdAR NUCLEAR PLANNING ENO DEPT OPERATIONS MANAGER MANAGER & RESTART . 9 t r I I ! i ! 1 t i l t
.. ; t: ._ . . .. . . . . . . - ~- -- +
.:7
* . 4 HART 8 f
DIRECTOR PLANNING & RESTART
~
l I I I l WORK PLANNING & MATERIAL WORK PROGRESS ESTIMATING READINESS AWNoni Arion BRANCH BRANCH BRANCH "gMYN$ =
= SEP MOOS = ESTlWATlHQ = EXPEDITING n mess
,,,, OTHER - CCST CONTROL " STAGING M006 JOB PLANNING INTEGRATED .
I - APP R "& SCHEDUUNG = LOGISTICS - Polon T ZAT1oM SUPPORT
- TEST & T/O = CLAS$lRC AfloN
= SCOPING =ArracvAL
- REFUELING -E STIM ATING
=WAT1.IDENT ACTIVE
- TRNG/ OPS = woAE ust
- CHECKLIST
- ROUTINE 4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-"--w,___
* * ' "r7,, .s, , * .
e , Cs ubh C- .m' vt 4* >g i PP S
- c
* . M)Qt2 y,1~it
'QN U n tr 'a "
GO
$ ~"id QTUt if
. l!0idrM
?
*if
.n f H!
RD! ffh s' R N'!4J 43e 8tM d "u se d1$ily;h,
?42T t 8 - fMt M i
{o + 8: lt
"' ..j i4P-[tb$g t "
$"- b) '
l D e Ml ?,o: it 3!u!~ b. %~i1 h s.u g 't tn og {x pdl ' rf $ .S' nd{ !+ h e
' j /Il Af,#
a
- A.
& h JI,.i ;d e N fil
{$o
, t r4fIi Ny " }
h d I?I f !!
- Jn
~
dH: 3M3 r " b,k5 ,
- h4- .
g, Iae.
$ 4I .1
?l 3 Di
- 8 g
- I .
j k 4 f m .
$ u%
- A{.p,;, n o%' .Q, " r
*: W + t.t
- tH +4"V-} $
~
ei. ldh c IIO[ ,7 a <e .v t
&. . 3. i qi N. be.
.o Y ,'* 3,}. d I
+ 4 i 8 o s. u
* ,]i
- I - .
m.51.
?,g#
4' iib aia e E dN'I'.n. y 3C *b ;~ io
- s -. b.P.
iM. Ris)pt-S1!I 4 se,t s o e+ i!,s! i y 4.1 4 jN 4 S. :: . e03
%kef, Jg .,
j d40C _ u,4,,' o, Tt
. l
! i 1
1 . 3 l' ' { 1 1 I - il ; I . . li
;! I I Il j i
4 l - e ll I I l Ir1 jle i jl I j i til 1 i
- 11. I i
i -. . I l 's
" - l ; + I ; I il I 3
I i 3
- _ 1_
1 I i I l1 1 l lI j hu.uu i
!!) ; .
11
@ O 1 988
- iMET)NG WffN WRC M KMG OF PmWS$4A . Powsm
'm ~
ASCENSION PROGRAW 418 IS 8 8 11150 O( NSMCTON .WR GRAY & WR. KAPLN E 30Amo 0F D8tECTORS VEfT (#O E31C4/TM COWWffTEt) CNEN"NQ AT C4TcNVur pouow(D WY A i 2 ,- g PLANT T0um . 330 To i tio O ,,, :TArioNsArtTYcouWfTT wErTNa A m t,.c Recu ... 10 0 HOUDAY
- - ^'a' " "'Y 2 "'a' 5"5"' ' ^$5'5 5"5"'
U R - *** a "*" Pot "S= o"*= ***cs' C 2. 2 9 4- --- 04 HSPECTCN . WR N APUC A & WR. CAPHTAN L ,, __ wuN.. Toc.mtm.utrTm.nceuccAu MOOW,SHEMTOHCETON HOTEL 28 4 --- 90AAD WEETNG S tii.DOAAD A00W.PAU A 20 Aemt ss.WAY2 WANAGEWENT SEtP ASEtsSutNT 4: - *at u wAn No<memT onum am~ css R EXECUTM mfTREAT MAY I TNAOUGH MAY d HPO EVALUATON WEEK OF E9 & S/16 3200 t2 : STATCN EAFETY couufTTEE WEETNG Q " 5 " 'ac "'* " A 2' : PatstwTAteNTo utsCTNC ceuei. c, Ntw tmt4ue AT eups R G Y " "" ' " " " c*'r** * " '
"c =^^o w= . 5 =^= ama rau A
' ' " oiaseen.cu.us c.weeeAao nie N
3 l pt = ST ATicN SAFI,TY CCuWffTit WEETNG Z wuecs 0cuseim J u .cino ucr x . ,i. m e noco . o u A NSMC uTITNG $ $ Au h PNPS C&FEPOct ,00u $ Y gg ; i N O N - s w i m sAr m co.u:TTEr ut o m J u ~ ccPetect accu s e = U ,, e . ,Ey,. . . . m c.,1, ,c ,ec. , T , I L oso or,Tm , ,,.. ,eeu ,.a M 2: w uc ucrT,o. .= a mc=n=cuccu. E A ST ATON 5AFETY NffTTI MEITN3 U '_m muect accu s e *= L = Aouin w ei,i. w e nceu.**v l G ne ecuw m N '~ sureN ec,<t% sum,ccu se s.i uttm2 l S . E se = wuc utneo, iw a m ee~nece aui E r l scAno utrim e i,s som aceu . *au I P ue l
- INPUT CA CH ANGES Wr'1 et A00cvuCOATED BY D AVC L. V11R$ P&$ (8
4_. 4 . _ _ _ _ # _ . . _ _ _ - .- - u a __amA -.4a*m_. i I I l i a 4 o T dIb l T A '\
! i L) ,I' j y! bs -
.1 r- ,
g l i : g i ___ 3 ice E 1.r 19 ~ (0f. "{4 1 4
- t gtv 4
[
- n s (t.
+
. .c. .
I b i. i e sd k M
.C
- s v
i, h, - y
) O i
{ !
- E ,3 % j e. Ie .
a Eu e v c Y, -
,,, 2 i i i %, G =t w )
1 i
- k I
l l 4 a 4' I f; g i tt . 4 ; 4 ! a "3- y . i g i I C h y e E 2 i A
- k 3 '
d
\
l g % e . We
!. ApW A ' (y y) -
?q h c har iCi? I OY\
- uyh g no adju[icrrory hear ~m $,Jid 75s[oj
! - our rocess ybw r -for more puk icip+)
.~ -Kah y of 4(allwed .I i
- p.ao6 gw)l reco(rfjet,sc.kdsle 4wk ,;N gh I
t
-Stshs of corred 2-204 S hI l >
l .,;rr.bs9/zhs-h mte.
-Acs+,.wecq
' -the b reviev phn i
, - Stde rekstl b met'ciede
-disposI4of t/iec,%mesf3 l -{gure6N'6*Id(*,IATI mds d(
l ,L t ( } l l -CoaratSS'm *P M,Aug L e ' 1 l i :
5--- -
--_mm-__._m m.m ,___
&*----a - O s
- 3V\ 99O (O V) l, (P70CeM y
-Joip basis, (See ciru i +[ accikds) .
-evacwa+,,w (v.ah :,qd ,bxm i m o ne icw E- R r )ygg commgders _ _ __ ,
N y ' D CII IQIt0 kg S S$ rem. j i Y'<%5 Y o
~ W > 5%s fem A, A/RQ 1
l 4 S?0 Obi % + DJers\fi k hav't - JE?p? @ive
' Qer%d f'*" io besI8cD? (G n<c se) 6 0
4 . h 0 hkak owr \ i ! %nauer Wert war Amp... bw Ms issues (pere se~:io 4 4
- S24iy En nncemest ,% ram
-idedf SEP mads (re: cont . h
! -construdin 3% NRC review / j l t aprovd stak
- E0P st l '
s
-3dmst in se>%,/EP ? .
1 I i i
l . l g N)3 C TIViron Friert \,& {\
- regu.h(or (qt$remeds ( Stwg ) .
c - 96btir:th
- Jicensee /MRC L
(stdt mvohvemevd/up$rvles) (-reponus i issuea Mtyssieri o$ C } apis l
-{In{isg adv(ty
! -Cancer s%7 {WtO l (Mt a verg %W l, i
O 5') Management
; , a ,u x ,, _ , , , w m w j
-cri4eria#for cleiermnigmgt eN%entu :
BEC.'s a M V8c s cwico,sne,ed) . e - - 1 CsrytweutA t) ' 3
-toho eLsc (Iw eo is , .Taee.9evastim)M(cIp r
-N8t QAls 4w assusmg g t" .
-eents areesteths s'b7,g 1
-u.t ~s~t -(* w,w,urotsu s* ' r sewnty9 owr %)
-lyrewin oreseng 4 (s.u7.wtsekdg74' ,
J 1
-orgneat, n31 chanXu kye u<sw 9t r a s i Ql 8x w = -a+ le.Q ;
APPENDIX B
- NRC Commitments The following commitments were made by NRC during the February 18, 1988 pubite meetings.
- 1. With respect to Mr. Edson Brooks' request for an investigation of a poten-tial overexposure, Sam Collins committed to entering his concerns into the allegation system reviewing the matter again, and getting a response to Mr. Brooks. (Page 30, 1:00 P.M. Session)
- 2. With respect to the status of Mr. Quaid's letter to Chairman Zech, Sam Collins committed to calling Mr. Quaid and giving him the status.
(Page 39, 7:00 P.M. Session) ,
- 3. With respect to Mr. Quaid's offer to tour Dumbury beach, Ron Bellamy com-mitted to informing other appropriate federal agencies of the offer and personally get back to him to either accept the offer to tell him why not. .
(Page 40, 7:00 P.M. Session) l
- 4. With respect to Mr. Gary Walsh's concern on the homeowner uninsurability l against a nuclear power plant accident, Sam Collins committed getting a response to him. (Page 47, 7:00 P.M. Session)
- 5. With respect to Mr. Veracca's concern that the siren and speakers are unintelligible, Ron Bellamy committed to checking the notification system
. in Veracca's specific area. (Page 91, 7:00 P.M. Session)
- 6. With respect to Mr. Eugene Grace's concert, on the location and availa-bility of the Restart Plan for publi.c review, Randy Blough committed to checking with the Itbraries to make sure they still had the Plan.
(Page 98, 7:00 P.M. Session) DOERFLEIN 186 4/9/88 - 0001.0.0 04/09/88 I J
Appeadix B a e
- 7. With respect to Mr. Eugene Grace's comment on the Dr. Hanauer report of Mark I Containtnents, Sam Collins committed to ensure those issues were part of the 2.206 Petition response. (Page 98, 7:00 P.M. Session) e e
0 00ERFLEIN 186 4/9/88 - 0002.0.0 , 04/09/88
, /tM l 4
.,i3i
.gs 4-e Bi in v.I!
lilsi ar E !f 1 QO
.-O } v e
-Iit: '
1 !.*! *lI.! - e i, s O s i I **
! :1, 9e
.1 y ,; , ,; j[$3gg ...... . . 3 g,g
= i: ,,. ,
..ii*
- => 1.,
2 l I rer[ r gI g a n c9: gt
]
, ,r . e ,
07 o i
< a 'l
u
-~
gg5!]! . <_ d =oilgi .1 e r .
>- g ,
.["
7% ,,,";p[ R l a z W :I I
- W = g .
a l '- t,g l 3 e gga : W [ as ,ll 3 --* a 3Id I ya
'll O [ , g jjj i
fg' ge & {I,8 I i l' !
~
llt ; rl' lilg! 1 i " " I
-o c
x I i e 4 l- E g i B, l . .......... ......._..... :
- 3 I
1 8 E Y ^ ! E la l* giEi= == g '
- 5 I g. , a5 ji ll{! e i -
1
; jiy ;,juij ....................................: g
(
e ep J d __ [M - d 1wo QS
.L J A u-l 6 4 'a. # , M hv2 /ddW
** I o .
,fs-u^~'k f 6~:"4->
u. a4d m Am e.. -- p cef span, n. ,s . e zwD a-d E aa ' ty.enpak.us w v, - m'ffs.>yy - c. Ma>u_. 0: e? M
> peut f 9?kP CRA3 Gau
-Sw.w' ~> n.re ali,tJ m ua.a,t'.Gv> p:.yv.c j q vw , cu kp w
;jN.<.*<d w -
- 6 w_ 6.xx_iw s n f CJu.ayy:4 a d A ppr.c- ~~> s p y< ~feuwc.~2 n w ,a r A - f en ec L i r n X H a
- &4M wh.u e s ?26 77^ < .9:.c< Acew
'b' 'De ' &p? o $7 /&
y' A. if - u. a f ,1x p>t.- M +mnt f a it f v x h 2 .. P/Ja
, . i + .+. (. ., ...-l.. e _. .. ., , e .. a p I
l f I 4 mY _ WV l
. . Jya pe a cw aJ2 ;
guiA ~<~ a LJi/
-m v. w <l y p 41 M% r- Pf+
tw M' + \ c
- ev Pk ,
4 7l
-% )b#65/A75~"~ h o EY As
-f s
' 12/s # m p k A l M' & ,
i l f r I i I t I r I i I t 1 t h i
?
f
-}}