ML062540265

E-Mail from Meyer to Blough, Ad Hoc Allegation Panel

ML062540265
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	10/02/2003
From:	Meyer G NRC Region 1
To:	Barber S, Blough A, Crlenjak R, Brian Holian, Holody D, Lanning W, Miller H, Deborah Neff, Teator J, Vito D, Elizabeth Wilson NRC Region 1
References
FOIA/PA-2005-0194
Download: ML062540265 (4)

Text

iD ait al m A . ... A ll ga ion anl..2:3 . p.P.e.

Da\, id Vito - Salem Ad -Hoc AllýgationPane 1- 2:30 pm Paqe From: Glenn Meyer To: A. Randolph Blough; Brian Holian; Daniel Holody; David Vito; Deborah Neff: Ernest Wilson; Hubert J. Miller; Jeffrey Teator; Richard Crlenjak; Scott Barber; Wayne Lanning Date: 10/2/03 1:54PM

Subject:

Salem Ad Hoc AllegationPanel - 2:30 pm We'll discuss the Salem allegations at 2:30 pm in allegation office. The attached writeup addresses the issues.

Informatlon Inthis record w-A deleted in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, exemptions FOI A-. -

4

'I

LDavid Vito - allegation-.approach.wpd Page 1 Salem / Hope Creek Allegation Approach

1. Overall - Are Salem and Hope Creek unsafe to operate?

Based on current NRC understanding and activities, while regulatory concerns exist, there is no evidence that Salem and Hope Creek should be shut down for being unsafe.

A. NRC has been monitoring Salem and Hope Creek closely. There have been many issues identified in Salem and Hope Creek inspections and assessments; these issues indicate a need for improvement at the facility, but also indicate that the plants still have substantial safety margins.

Salem Unit 1 is in Regulatory Response Column of the Action Matrix; Unit 2 and Hope Creek in the Licensee Response Column. Beginning in February 2003 and also in July 2003 ROP assessment meetings, NRC determined Salem and Hope Creek had substantive cross-cutting issues for PI&R.

B. The NRC has four full time inspectors assigned to the site, two at Salem and two at Hope Creek. There has been a high level of inspections, including three special inspections over the last 12 months. Through the first 8 months of 2003, Salem has accumulated over 5200 hours0.0602 days <br />1.444 hours <br />0.0086 weeks <br />0.00198 months <br /> of regional inspection and assessment, more than any other Region I site, and the combined Salem/HC total is over 8100 hours0.0938 days <br />2.25 hours <br />0.0134 weeks <br />0.00308 months <br />. (The average in Region I for dual unit sites is about 3900.)

C. NRC Regional Senior Management has made three detailed site visits over the last 10 months to monitor the facility and interact with PSEG managers and staff, including the new CNO, Roy Anderson.

D. NRC has closely evaluated PSEG actionsduring recent events, including readiness for a plant restart after shutdowns. Some issues have been identified, but PSEG follow-up has been acceptable overall. Although the allegations show considerable internal PSEG discussions existed, the appropriate actions appear to have been taken.

E. Several key managers (CNO, site VP, Hope Creek plant manager, and Salem Ops Manager) are new to the site since March 2003.

2. Management Attitudes - Is production favored over safety by senior managers?

Concerns March 17, 2003 at Hope Creek confide that

• *_* -ressured for resrt wthut 6ced outae - bypass valve

..... & bypass valve repair occurred.

I David Vito -'allegation-!approach.wpd Page ag 2

LD Vio-alci 'vi o, ..proc. ..d June 17, 2003 at Ho e Creek - EDG leakageexceeds LCO time; pressure to avoid shutdown-Iirected operatom fig :o not shutdown; shutdown commenced wthin acceptable time frame and met regulations.

,.e t 24, 2002 cI~~e*-*- __.1,---S

• \" ...confidential'

ECP ".

repo s ates afegatio, "ir Step Grievance.

-- Fal (?)2002 at Salem- Managed IT*u )to NA a startup checklist step.tried to haver as u hsu~ccessful. ' ..

Salem grassing approach (i.e., heroic effortss deviated from expected approach / lessons learned from 1994 grassindINOW,

• Higher Tritium sample concentration in Spring 2003 - "a serious issue that had to be handled with kid gloves to keep us [PSEG] out of troubleW.I Alleger-provided listing of 29 people aware of problemns to varying degrees and.

possibly willing to corroborate issues and concerns.

- -Sus cbites fruim tap&dibUu.b~uIi wuth-se0r1 iu1-2an.gers Approach

1. Interview man;erswho have left sit

2. Interview some managers who the'alleger believes can provideadditional insights- alleger's list of 29 names.

3. SCWEr Is the PSEG staff able to raise safety Issues?

• March 17, 2003 at Hope Creek *told alleger he did not have'the authority to stop the evolu ion(reactivity excursibrduring the bypass valveshutdown?) even though he knew it was ill-conceived.

• Excessive use of temporary logs to monitor degraded equipment (NEOs can provide)

• Comments (mostly negative) from ECP survery - 4.Q 2002 & 1Q 2003 Approach -

1. Interviews with all shift managers at Salem and Hope Creek by technical/Ol/consultaht team to generally address SCWE and develop any other issues.

2. NRC-directed survey of operations staffs to address specific issues raised

Da ,id Vito -allegation-.approach.wpd Page 31 or should have been raised in an anonymous manner to NRC ?

3. Get April 2003 results of Gallup G-12 survey (multi-year effort to measure staff engagement, an indirect measure of SCWE) and multi-year results of ECP surveys.

4. Technical Review of Specific Incidents Technical review of above specific incidents (many previously reviewed) to assure technical / nuclear safety considerations were met in light of new info; NA of startup checklist step (Fall 2002?) needs to be followed up.

Approach - Residents perform review and document in memo to file.

5. Discrimination

• Termination following raising safety concerns t'V,-

• Termination date of April 16 moved up to March 28 at request

• ECP report of July 17 and Winston-Strawn review find her alleged discrimination to be unsubstantiated due to Human Resources' decisions to end position and to advance termination date.

Approach - 01 has opened a discrimination case, including interviews and review of Winston-Strawn investigation report.

6. Wrongdoing

• Alleger states that PSEo n a abP1vrble docume t .........

• Salem incident in whicrected to NA a startup checklist ste

• Three specifics iknows someas asked to rewrite a notification, Winston-Strawn investigation statements differed from

.interviewees' accounts Approach - Perform additional review to clarify general statements for possible 01 review; obtain specifics of startup checklist step issue.

October 2, 2003 G:Br.3\Salem\allegation-approach.wpd