ML060670214

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Miscellaneous Document Regarding NRC Material for June 16, 2004 Assessment Mtg W/Pseg
ML060670214
Person / Time
Site: Salem, Hope Creek  PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 06/16/2004
From:
- No Known Affiliation
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
FOIA/PA-2005-0194
Download: ML060670214 (19)
v • d • e


Text

,

'alI Materal Fo June 16, 2004 Assessment M~tg wIP'SEG (N

Cl

5.

Unacceptaale Pertormance uojumn. Licensee penormanceis unaccepwotm and continued plant operation is not permitted within this column.

I it is expectOed, thatenbytrrllp,< )5 5.4 jip peir

SQmed, tope

.cotiurnnq of the _Atioqn, M atrtx ard pit*ofupleinenta1 Inspedion

-procedure 95003 wlll precdeW 0tonslOeration of whether a plant is in the Unacceptable Performance Column. The Commission will meet with senior licensee management in a regulatory performance meeting to discuss the licensee's degraded performance and the corrective actions which will need to be taken before operation of the facility can be resumed. The NRC oversight of plant performance will also be placed under the guidance of IMC 03 50. Unacceptable performance represents situations in which the NRC lacks reasonable assurance that the licensee can or will conduct its activities without undue safety to public health and safety. Examples of unacceptable performance may include:

(a)

Multiple significant Miolations-of -the-facility's license, tohnical specifications, regulations, or orders. #

(b)

Loss of confidence in the licensee's ability to maintain and operate the facility in accordance withjthe design basis (e.g., multiple safety significant examples where the faility was determined tobe outside of

(

its design basis,-elther due to Inappropriate modifications, the unavailability of design basis information, inadequate configuration management, or the demonstrated lack of an effective problem identification and resolution program).

(c)

A pattern of failure of licensee management controls to effectively address previous significant concerns to prevent the recurrence.

Note: If the agency determines that a licensee's performance is unacceptable then a shutdown order will be issued.

6.

1MC 03!50 Process Column. The criteria for entrance into the IMC 0350 1

process, as discussed in section 06.06.g of this manual chapter, has been i

met. Subsequent management review of licensee performance has determined that entrance into the Unacceptable Performance Column is not warranted at this time. Additionally, NRC management will review licensee I

performance on a quarterly basis to determine if entrance into the I

Unacceptable Performance Column is warranted. The licensee is expected I (e

to place the identified deficiencies into their performance improvement plan I

and perform an evaluation of the root and contributing causes for both the I

individual and collective causes.

As discussed in IMC 0350, the regional offices will conduct baseline and supplemental inspections as appropriate, as well as special inspections per the restart checklist. Performance Indicator data should continue to be I

gathered in accordance with IMC 0608, Performance Indicator Program" to l

the extent that it is applicable to shutdown conditions.

Plants under the IMC 0350 process are considered to be outside of the I normal assessment process and under the auspices of IMC 0350. However,

}

this column has been added to the Action Matrix for illustrative purposes to I

{

demonstrate comparable agency response and communications and is not I necessarily representative ofthe worst level of licensee performance. Plants l

under the IMC 0350 process should be discussed at the mid-cycle and end-of-cycle reviews to integrate inspection planning efforts across the regional I

office and to keep internal stakeholders abreast on ongoing inspection and oversight activities. Mid-cycle or annual assessment letters are generally not I issued for these plants. Annual public meetings will not be conducted for I

these plants as the regional office conducts periodic public meetings to discuss licensee performance.

Exhibit 5 - ACTION kvAATDiX

.I 11 Licensee Response Regulatory Response Degraded Cornerstone Column Column Column Multiple/ Repetitive Degraded Cornerstone Unacceptable Performance 11 lIi--I INCREOAIfNG SAFETV aIfKNIPICAdCP 1l Note 1: The regulatory actions for plants in the Multiple/Repetitive Degraded Comerstone column are not mandatory agency actions. However, the regional office should consider each of these regulatory actions when significant new information regarding licensee performance becomes available.

Issue Date: 02/19/03 E5-1 0305, Exhibit 5

)Okc 4AO -

2'a,"ej (2D (SA,&)

Jc.t's oJ.t~

Lffk Prsgy

{\\{@

NRC & PSEG Meeting Salem and Hope Creek June 16, 2004

-~r JLcSj,

- br, t4 C), C -A vt t'

a Nuclear Regulatoqy Commission - Region I

(,

King of Prussia, PA 6

C, C4 G tr rLr CA-..

'I s-,

L.4k 1

- t L ' - Iit

'-I I

1-, -D

4.

,341,JJ ~Agenda

  • NRC Presentation r>)

I Z 44Jc..9j

`v)3c-Gl 4P v

  • NRC/PSEG Discussion

_jf t_ l<C,

  • NRC/PSEG Meeting Conclusion fc

~ t s

  • 4 NRC Accepts Questions/Comments from Public K,.

+u A-c.L rt A~ic4 n

/e C

i td~t k

,A

-5J' 1

"NM+

C31K 1-;

0 S )%

o Jl I _,,_,qt

(/Lt t

Or/" AL '

j l

-A' J

Z.)-h ;

,C /,,, "1

1. Talking Points for Meeting Commencement - Dan Holody 4
Welcome, Emergency Exit Category 1 public meeting - meeting conducted, then public time Discuss all the available documents; J4 o

Sign up sheet for all attendees o

sign up sheet for people who wish to reserve speaking time - "we will assess allowed floor time based on the number of people who sign u -oom is available thru midnight."

-sign up sheet for people who wish to receive future notifications of meings Copies of th jT;eeting notice witin a3 K

o Copies of the sIdes o

Copies of the Annual Assessment letters for Salem and Hope Creek Introduce yourself, others - Hub, Randy, Jim Clifford, Mel Gray, George Malone, Lisa Jarriel, Jay Persensky....etc Invite PSEG to introduce themselves l

Invite audience members like state officials to introduce themselves.

or o

&)

4'r.>

2. Talking Points for Q&A Session Commencement Outline ground rules:

o one questioner at a tirne o

stand up and speak up (microphone locations) o "if there are any questions we cannot answer for you, we can get back to you" m

.. State how many people have signed up..approx how much time they will each have

3. At

Conclusion:

Thanks Ask for feedback forms and attendance sheet, etc.

Agenda - NRC Presentation

  • 2003 Annual Assessment of Salem and Hope Creek Performance

>Review of Reactor Oversight Process (ROP)

>National Summary of Plant Performance

>Salem & Hope Creek Performance Results

  • Assessment of the Work Environment at Salem sync

)

and Hope Creek, including organizational f

c effectiveness of the Corrective Action Program and Work Management Process Agenda - PSEG Presentation

  • Response to Annual Assessment
  • Discussion of Work Environment Reviews/Assessments and Organizational P.

Effectiveness

  • Action Plan to Address Work Environmenit/

Organizational Effectiveness Issues and Ensure Plan Effectiveness S~

Ic j' K-PC 2

Oc~3tb~

',I j4-j 0

L AS

3

(

Significance of Findings and Performance Indicators

  • Significance involves determining potential or actual safety consequences
  • Green - very low safety significance
  • White - low to moderate safety significance
  • Yellow - substantial safety significance
  • Red - high safety significance I

National Summary for ROP in 2003

  • Performance

- Green

- White

- Yellow

- Red indicator results (at end of CY 2003) 1825

,iM 0

r

/

o-15 7VZ=,

1 Isz, I

15 r<

ol°Cr, 0 xk1ot~.)/

FFc

? V"*'

'.1.

'

x:

F IV 

saj.LrR f/ -Lr~l^

J O i

./

j-. J

-+L A

'c: -~ C9 sy tt 1

,n

  • Total inspection findings (at the

-- Green 748-

_ White 19

  • Yellow 2

I

('L)

? w 2,,'?e..X

-- IL,,

ti a-

,54

  • Red 4>

.7 P^

L4s f- £s w.-

ye II 1- + M 4

+ WV &;kgv^

(

U) eOIA°.

&.*:t t

ti r t

,Z z, 14 1

.c STAL 1

l' Li4 Al IA)

I F (1) bA,':. ' /

flA g'f f9O?,CIgLL fAl'

,!.N A

C4,.,b;.

.Y _,

(A.;A3 National Summary of Plant Performance Status at End. of ROP Cycle 4 Status at End of CY 2003

~Lcnee Response 7

CRegulatory Response 2~(~

Degraded Cornerstone2 Multiple/Repetitive Degraded Cornerstone3 Unacceptable 0

Total 102*

147->

~

4 I

ro of!

/( Q-t I I

r C~~U A- £L&,~

>,rn.I NRC Oversight (of Salem & Hope Creek (January I - December 31, 2003) j,- ~'

49

~w I

  • Significant NRC inspection effort a Qj

-I1~

5 C,, /

- Significant NRC inspector oversight

  • 9 Significant NRC attention management oversight and I

r Z_Iw C4-

"IAl 5

Inspection Program at Salem 1 & 2 (January 1 - December 31,2003) 3250 Hours of Direct: Inspection, plus 4730 hours0.0547 days <br />1.314 hours <br />0.00782 weeks <br />0.0018 months <br /> of additional inspection-related effort

)>2 Resident Inspectors

/

Solkk

> 11 Regional Specialist Inspection

>5 Team Inspections

> 2 Special Inspections

> 1 Supplemental Inspection

  • 25 Green Findings and 1 White rA~e

,~j,~4e)- I 4m&

robsp

-X14)

I

.ez,

  • us 61 6>

Salem 1 Performance Indicators

=

Http://WWW.NRC.GOV then click Nuclear Reactors/Reactor Oversight Process

__ ___bajJI A_____

__U 6

Salem 1 - Inspection Results Http:\\\\WWW.NRC.GOV then click Nuclear Reactors/Reactor Oversight Process LiW ZJL 0

.I

-t --

-ED[

-[-

  • K~f -S

-S -t -

_,__i__

I Salem 2 Performance Indicators Http://WWW.NRC.GOV then click Nuclear Reactors/Reactor Oversight Process m-1___

m1 mu-1 7

Salem 2 - Inspection Results Hi\\ W.

RC.GOV then click Nuclear RactosReactor Oversight Process Saftsystwf22 LY P

Hi

_~~

lldbdF 4

_l_-_-

I I

ma I

Kn-I NRC Assessment of Salem 1 & 2 (January I - December 31, 2003)

  • Preserved Public Health and Safety
  • At completion of 2003:

S>Salem 1 - Regulatory Response Column

>Salem 2 - Licensee Response Column

  • Baseline inspection in 2003
  • 1 supplemental at Unit 1 (EDG turbocharger failure in September 2002 that resulted in a white finding during 2003)
  • Substantive Cross-Cutting Issue -Problem Identification and Resolution On October 15, 2003 during the 2R13 refueling outage, the Salem Unit 2 containment spray and residual heat removal systems experienced water-hammer during performance of a containment spray surveillance test. The water-hammer was attributed to an air pocket in the RHR system that was identified months previously. Failure to Implement corrective actions' In a timely manner resulted I this event. There were also elements of human performance weaknesses associated with work management and operation that could have prevented event.

The 2A EDG was rendered Inoperable due to a loss of starting air. An air leak wa Identified on the 21B air compressor on September 4 2003 and entered Into the corrective action program. q November 8, 2003. the 21A starting air compressor wasl removed from service for maintenance. Independentiy.

21 B was not capable of maintaining starting air pressure above the minimum required for operability.

ailure to evaluate and implement corrective actions In a timely manner resulted in mhe loss of the 2A EDG.

8 ra7)

/Q a,> Awl Goof J

Or.,,

-.I

}-4-°t),

_rtjttt cJ>1J-

Inspection Program at Hope Creek (January 1 - December 31, 2003)

  • 2410HoursofDirectInspection,plus3310hours of 4 A b.t Avse additional inspection-related work

>2 Resident Inspectors

> 12 Regional Specialist Inspections

>2 Team Inspections

  • 19 Green Findings Hope Creek Performance Indicators Http://WVWV.NRC.GOV then click Nuclear Reactors/Reactor Oversigh: Process R.WI E'

sMi y

P l

Ie E l - - -

- I E l -.

!m 9

Hope Creek - Inspection Results; HttpA\\\\WWW.NRC.GOV then click Nuclear Reactors/Reactor Oversight Piocess rail5 RaiU;1 L

ot UgUt.

T Rw I

^

-- £" _._ R F_____. -

I_

A_ __-__1

_lI___T In June 2003 an Intercooler pump leak on the A emergency diesel generator EDG required mhe initiation of e C k

  • A a plant shutdown after Hope Creek - Assessmenttroubleshooting efforts were ineffective. NRC identified (January 1 - December 31,2003) that design information 1*

previously provided by mhe

  • Preserved Public Health and Safety vendor four monmhs prior 'a!

available that would have helped Identify the cause of mhe EDG Intercoooler pump

  • At Completion of 2003:

seal leak. However mhe Hope Creek - Licensee Response Column incorporated Into procedu I~f In October 2003 opera

  • Baseline Inspection in 2003 manually tripped the H Creek plant after Walns indicated thee was an May 1(1, 2004 White Issue Shifted HC to Regulatory (EHC) leak that couldnf RespnseColmnlurbine valve control.F Response Column up plant walkdowns r the leak was from the C

S combined intercept valv

  • Substantive Cross-Cutting Issue -Problem hydraulic actuator The Identification and Resolution upsblem Idestiga that leak from CIV#4 had previously been denli was not repaired in a manner and EHC oil was not adequately address this problenj the plant trp.

Overall Performance Assessment Using Reactor Oversight Process 2003

  • Perfonnance Indicators and Inspection Results indicate Salem and HC have preserved adequate safety margin
  • Substantive cross-cutting issue continues to exist in area of Problem Identification &

Resolution J

_J_?1 CA,; rJf

/_

(

f tJh k

' C -A J) 2s c

O e

Prior NRC Assessment Letters Identified substantive cross-cutting issue:

Problem Identification & Resolution

>Untimely and ineffective ckcV 1S a

>Longstanding problems uncorrected

>Poor implementation of maintenance

>Insufficient coordination & work control

>Equipment reliability weaknesses

>Deficient engineering evaluation of root causes JL4L3 In.4<T

%.-z

Inliation of NRC's Special Review Based on:

-c-A\\

J-e G o5 7C

,A%/J

. 4A1c )-

I-IJe A-t J-jz,2_/ q4 Jc /

_) I I,

  • NRC August 27,2003 Mid-Cycle 4'p&.

Assessment Letter

  • NRC Inspection Findings

>Baseline and Supplemental

  • Allegations NRC Request for PSEG Assessment Jan. 28, 2004 NRC letter to PSEG:

9l V

Based on ongoing NRC special review

  • Expressed concerns about work environment
;4

>]Raising concerns 47

>,kdres~c n

n te Cq uReuest that PSEG conduct in-depdtassessm'n

  • Prior surveys may form a part of PSEG assessment 12

A,

)ucQ4!

Iw jc

/SYQ

I

, 4ek X1~ -I, C Ic_ '2P - -AC74 _1

(

NRC Request for PSEG Assessment NRC concerns related to work environment for:

  • Handling emergent issues and associated operational decision-making
  • Addressing potential safety issues These concerns included:
  • Openness of management to concerns and alternate views
  • Strength of communication
  • Effectiveness of corrective actions and feedback processes Concerns did not involve any serious safety violations (e.g. no Yellow or Red findings)

I

?5e'<4s1%

-"d

/2C-I-N.C Request for PSEG Assessment 4't',4 _t

-r-

  • NRC letter to PSEG 1/28/04

> Desciibed potential work environment concerns and requested assessment

  • PSEG letter to NRC 2/27/04

> Provided interim assessment plans

  • Public meeting 3/18/1C4

> Discussed assessment plans

  • PSEG letter to NRC 5/21/04

> Desmnbed assessment results

  • NRC Public Meeting 6/16/04

> Discuss assessment results and action plan

(

13

S; R-

+,4-

/r

,j 7.

4nc-p la5

(.

(

sc I

(

t nn n NRC Next Steps

  • Finalize NRC Special Review

=

2> //lkAd

  • Complete Evaluation of PSEG Assessments
  • Compare NRC & PSEG Results q-3.. -A4

/,)J

  • Receive/EvlluatePSEG Plans--A )-P 0J,.
  • Decide Additional Regulatory Actions and Follow-up

< g J

NRC Representatives

  • H. Miller, Regional Administrator, Region I
  • A. Randolph Blough, Director, Division of Reactor Projects
  • D. Holody, Acting Branch Chief

>(610) 337-5312

  • E. Cobey, Incoming Branch Chief

>(610) 337-5171

  • D. Coilins, Project Manager, NRR
  • D. Orr, Senior Resident Inspector, Salem
  • G. Malone, Resident Inspector, Salem
  • M. Gray., Senior Resident Inspector, Hope Creek
  • M. Ferdas, Resident Inspector, Hope Creek
  • N. Sheehan, Public Affairs Officer

)>(610) 337-5331

  • L. Jarriel, Agency Allegation Advisor
  • J. Clifford, Section Chief, Nuclear Reactor Regulation 14

(

Reference Sources eReactor Oversight Process http://'www.nrc.gov/NRRIOVERSIGHT/ASSESS/index.html ePublic Electronic Reading Room http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rn/adams.html

  • Public Document Room 1-800-397-4209 (Toll Free)

I' 15

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML060670214&oldid=5368530"