ML20236H222

Requests Meeting on 870805 in Author Ofc to Discuss Coordination of NRR & Region I Activities Re Plant Restart. Items Needed for Restart Discussion Listed.Scope of Efforts Needs to Be Defined

ML20236H222
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	07/30/1987
From:	Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Partlow J, Roe J, Shao L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20236H226	List: ML20236H222 ML20236H260
References
NUDOCS 8708050105
Download: ML20236H222 (7)

Text

, .

1. 'o,, UNITED STATES

-["

76 g

E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

%, , y , , ,$ July 30, 1987 MEMORANDUM FOR: Jack Roe, Director Division of Licensee Performance and Quality Evaluation James Partlow, Director Division of Reactor Inspection and Safeguards Lawrence Shao, Director Division of Engineering

- and System Technology Charles Rossi, Director Division of Operational Events Assessment FROM: Steven A. Varga, Director Division of Reactor Projects - I/II

SUBJECT:

COORDINATION OF NRR AND REGION I ACTIVITIES ON PEACH BOTTOM RESTART On March 31, 1987, the Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 were ordered to be shutdown because of the problem of sleeping operators, and because of a history of other occurrences which led the NRC to question the management of the facility. In its most recent meeting with the staff on July 15, 1987, the Philadelphia Electric Company described a broadly based corrective action plan. The table of contents for this plan, was provided with PECo's July 22nd letter (Enclosure 1). The complete CTE report is expected by August 7, 1987 from the licensee.

This agency will be committed to a considerable effort over the next 3 to 4 months to support the staff actions necessary to reach a decision regarding the~

Peach Bottom restart. PEto estimates that Unit 2 will be ready for restart by late October 1987 and plans to take Unit 3 directly into a nominal one-year outage for replacement of the recirculation piping and for refueling. Although the late October date for Unit 2 may be optimistic, we are faced with a significant number of inspections, reviews, reports and briefings involving the Projects Inspection and Technical Assessment and Region I organizations. It is our objective that the interactions between these organizations be optimized so that an efficiently developed recommendation of high quality can be presented to the EDO in a timely manner.

Accordingly, I would like to have a discussion with you to develop our thoughts on this matter; and to follow it with discussions between Region I and.NP.R senior management. Our approach on Peach Bottom draws from our ongoingexperiencewiththePilgrimandRanchoSecorestartefforts,soyou may recognize some of the following ideas as having also been discussed in the restart program reviews for those plants, gB050105e7c730~

f. ADOCK 05000171 PDR ,

I

Following the experience gained from the restart requirements on other plants, we need three things for a restart discussion:

A. The licensee must have a comprehensive restart plan and must implement it effectively.

The licensee plans to submit the Commitment to Excellence (CTE) action

. plan by August 7, 1987 and to have implemented it sufficiently to permit

! restart of Unit 2 only, by late October 1987.

l B. NRC must have a comprehensive plan for the review and inspection of the licensee's activities.

At present, contributions to this plan are being developed by Inspection and Technical Assessment, Region I and Projects as stated herein. See Enclosure 2 for a "strawman" list of efforts.

C. The NRC plan must result in a credible document which presents the basis for NRC decisions.

The NRC's shutdown order of March 31, 1987 (paragraph V.c), specifies that the licensee:

f "

...shall provide to the Administrator'of Region I, for his approval, a detailed and comprehensive plan and the schedule to accomplish the plan to assure that the facility will safely operate and comply with'all requirements, including station procedures."

Thus, while Region I has the lead responsibility insofar as the Order is concerned, there clearly are major areas for NRR involvement. An overall structure for approval of restart could include reliance on a joint NRR-Region I panel of senior managers for development of an integrated -

restart recommendation. This panel, with inputs from the appropriate elements of the staff, would issue a report of its findings including its recommendation on the restart issue. After review and approval by both the Director, NRR and the Region I Administrator,.the panel's report would be transmitted to the EDO. This report by the panel could be utilized by the EDO in briefings for the Commission and would serve as the basis for the Region I Administrator, with the Commission's and ED0's approval, to authorize the restart of Peach Bottom, Unit 2.

It is important to define the scope of our anticipated efforts h reaching a decision on restart. We do not anticipate that the restart decision should necessarily require a resolution of all of the current list of about 40 routine licensing actions, since the problems at Peach Bottom are basically management and people-related and do not call into questions the basic adequacy of the hardware. ./

1

4

'We anticipate that our review scope and schedule will be generally consistent' with the scope of issues addressed in the CTE action' plan and with the schedule to be proposed by_the licensees in its CTE action plan.

With these thoughts as background, I would like to meet with you on August 5, 1987, at 1:00 p.m., in my office to develop an integrated approach.

ni v kh a ivisionofReactorgojects-I/II

Enclosures:

As stated cc: T. Murley J. Sniezek F. Miraglia R. Starostecki J. Lieberman 0GC-Bethesda

Co -/7//272 /.2?6  ;

I

)

We anticipate that our review scope and schedule will be generally consistent {'

with the scope of issues addressed in the CTE action plan and with the schedule to be proposed by the licensees in its CTE action plan.

With these thoughts as background, I would like to meet with you on August 5, 1987, at 1:00 p.m., in my office to develop an integrated approach. 1 Original signed by:

Steven A. Varga ,

Steven A. Varga, Director Division of Reactor Projects - I/II

Enclosures:

As stated cc: T. Murley J. Sniezek F. Miraglia R. Starostecki J. Lieberman 0GC-Bethesda DISTRIBUTION

'Docketc File:

NRC PDR/LPDR PDI-2 R/F BBoger SVarga WButler RMartin/RClark M0'Brien JThoma

• SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE i

PDI-2/PM* PDI-2/D* DRPI/IIAD* I:D RMartin: ca WButler BBoger 7/30/87 7/30/87 7/30/87 7 7 1

)

i l

)

1 We anticipate that our review scope and schedule will be ge rally consistent with the scope of issues addressed in the CTE action plan d with the schedule to be proposed by the licensees in its CTE acti plan.

With the:;e thoughts as background I would like to mee tith you sometime during the week of August 3, 1987.

Steve A. Varga, Director Divi -on of Reactor Projects - I/II

Enclosures:

i As stated cc: T. Murley J. Sniezek l F. Miraglia j R. Starostecki J. Lieberman 0GC-Bethesda j l l

DISTRIBUTION:

Docket File NRC PDR/LPDR PDI-2 Reading BBoger/SVarga g WButler RMartin/RClark M0'Brien

}PDI-2:PM RMartin:c' PDI-2:0 WButler 9 .~ DRPI/II:AD BBoger DRPI/II:D SVarga s

3o:87 :3487 q:y:87  : :87 l

ACTIVITIES AND GROUPS

1. Peach Bottom Restart Assessment Panel Deputy Director, DRP, S. Collins, Chairman Deputy Director, DRS, (W. Johnston?)

Chief, DRS Operations Branch, L. Bettenhausen NRR Assistant Director, Region I Reactors, B Boger Projects Section Chief, J. Linville I

l Assistants to the Panel: SRI, T. Johnson j PM, R. Martin i I

This panel would be empowered to coordinate the planning and execution of NRR and Region I activities end to assess the results of these activities.

. The Panel's first product would be sn assessment report to the Regional Administrator that the Panel has concluded that the licensee's program areas are ready to warrant a Diagnostic Team Inspection as described below.

The Panel's second product would be the preparation of a report by the Regional Administrator, and concurred in by the Director, NRR, to EDO providing a recommendation for restart. This report would consider the results of all pertinent staff activities, including the diagnostic team inspection, and would incorporate NRR's input.

II. Diagnostic Team Inspection l

Region I, with assistance form NRR and other Regions as needed, would conduct a diagnostic team inspection following the Panel's initial I finding.

Candidate areas for the team's examination are provided in Enclosure 2.

III. Operator Rehabilitation Training Program Inspection Operators are being trained in two groups. The first groups training is ongoing and the second group will begin its six week training about mid-August.

The proposed inspection team is J. Linville, Leader; T. Johnson, PBSRI; another plant's SRI; D. Morrison or J. Persensky of W. Regan's HFA branch; S. Shankman of J. Hannon's OLB. Earliest date for inspection appears to be September, based on people availability.

]

l l

2 IV. Operator Requalification and Initial Exams To evaluate operator suitability, attitudes, procedural compliance,.

administrative compliance. Determine percentage of operators to be'

-requal-examined: 20% or 100%?

Bob'Keller, Region I will' lead. Coordinate with J. Hannon.. To be held

. in October.

V. Technical Specification Change on Plant Staff Organization Only such application being. considered now is the one to provide interim i relief on SR0 license requirement for either Plant Manager or '

Superintendent of Operations. This would permit the new Supt-Ops designee, J. Cotton, to assume his' duties.

1. NRR to process (PM and P. Polk's branch) and issue license' amendment in close coordination with Region I DRP.  ;

l l

l 1

e