ML20199F561

Forwards Rev to NRR SALP Input Based on Comments from SALP Board 860324 Meeting.Category 2 Assigned Re Licensing Activities

ML20199F561
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom, 05000000
Issue date:	03/28/1986
From:	Gears G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Thomas Johnston NRC
Shared Package
ML20197A618	List: ML20197A612 ML20197A712 ML20199D268 ML20199F561 ML20203G649
References
FOIA-86-684 NUDOCS 8604070188
Download: ML20199F561 (3)

Text

'-

/peuru g UNITED STATES

' / r NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f

I WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666

% . . .l . . ,

Docket No.: 50-277/8 -

~~

MAR 2 81986 MEMORANDUM TO: Thomas Johnson, Senior Resident Inspector, Peach Bottom THRU: Daniel R. Muller, Project Director, PD#2 S M J/z .'/W FROM: Gerald E. Gears, Project Manager, Peach Bottom DATE: 03/27/86

SUBJECT:

NRR Revisions To Its SALP Input for Peach Bottom Based Upon The SALP Board Meeting Comments of March 24, 1986.

Re: Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 Attached you will find a revision to the previous NRR SALP input for Peach Bottom which reflects the comments of the SALP Board in its meeting at Region 1 on March 24, 1986. If you or other mem-bers of the Board have any additional comments on attached evaluation please contact me at 301-492-4993.

Gerald E. Gears

'r ject Manager, P ach Bottom P ject Direct ate No.2, DBL, NRR

[

1 Fm A -er.-4,s+

a > ,u n se. gg 1

m , _ r --

lV $G<ph%^* . .. . . - . . . _ _ . . . _ _ _ . _ . . . . . . .

i 03-27-86 Licensing Input Based upon SALP Board Meeting of 3/24/86 .

1 4

4.13 Licensino Activities (NA)

Analysis The approach used in this evaluation was to select a number of licensing actions which involved a significant amount of staff effort or which were related to important safety or regulatory issues for the SALP performance period. The previous assessment period evaluated licensing activities as Category 1:

however, with'a declining trend. The staff noted a trend during that period where management involvement and control did not appear to be fully functional.

This trend manifested itself in the noticeable decline in the licensee's usually timely response and

! resolution of licensing issues and the need to give more attention to the significant hazards consideration determination (Shelly determinations) that were submitted for each Technical Specification change

{ request.

i By le,tter dated July 9, 1985, the licensee responded to the above noted weaknesses of the previous SALP by j indicating that their licensing staff had been increased in size and reorganize to improve the response time for licensing issues at Peach Bottom.

Actions considered during the current SALP evaluation include license amendments requests, exemptions and relief requests. responses to Generic Letters, and TMI and Salem (ATWS) items. Fifty-six licensing actions were completed during this evaluation period. A summary of actions active during this period is presented in Table 6. Strong management involvement and attention were especially evident during this period for those issues having potential for substantial safety impact and extended shutdownst namely, the Unit 3 refueling and pipe inspection program and the proposed re-racking of Unit 2 and 3 spent fuel pools.

Management screening of submittals in these two areas '

was highly apparent since the submittals were -

consistently clear and of high quality.

Both of these above actions show evidence of the licensee's capability for excellent prior planning, assignment of priorities, and the development of defined procedures to control activities.

However, despite the licensee's steps to respond to the

.--,v-._-.--- ,,m._ ,.v. --y-- .m._______.__,-_,_,_,___-m .

,..,_..-,_m._,_._,my,__.- , _ . . _ - . - . _ . , _ , . . . - _ , , . . . - - .

P previous SALP recommendations concerning licensing activities, we continue to see evidence of the lack of management attention in the areas of timely resolution of NRC initiatives and the variable quality of Shelly evaluations. Examples of significant delays in follow-up responses by the licensee include resolution of Appendix'J Technical Specifications, Purge and Vent Valve Technical Specifications, Containment Cooling Technical Specifications and Diesel Fuel 011 Technical Specifications. Concerning Sho11y evaluations, overall

! quality was still highly variable during the report period. Considerable NRC staff attention was still required prior to Federal Register publication on most Technical Specification change requests.

As indicated in the previous SALP, we noted a declining trend overall for licensing activities involving the Peach Bottom facility. As pointed out above, the same 1

licensing weaknesses identified during the last SALP still remain basically uncorrected. Therefore, although the licensee has provided excellent and timely resolution for certain select actions during this '

report period, the NRC staff continues to face a long-standing backlog of licensing actions requiring licensee follow-up before they can be resolved.

Conclusion Rating: Category 2 Trerd: Consistent Board Recommendations 1

NRC: NRR Project Manager to meet at least quarterly with the licensee to discuss licensing issues (i.e.,

backlogs, problems, schedules, and projected workloads) i

=

sc ....:

l . _ _= _ _ _- _ -.- _. .. . _.. .~_ : s . . . : .: .. .:. . :-_ _ . _ _

__ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _