ML062540266

E-Mail from Meyer to Vito, Update Summary of Salem Allegation Approach

ML062540266
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	10/02/2003
From:	Meyer G NRC Region 1
To:	Vito D NRC Region 1
References
FOIA/PA-2005-0194
Download: ML062540266 (4)

Text

a id V i. -(h Up date s ummary of Salem a 9 a pp r o a ch F6~vd~I - Udat sumaryof Semalleatin aproah IEl

.ge.1 I From:

Glenn Meyer To:

David Vito Date:

10/2/03 5:25PM

Subject:

Update summary of Salem allegation approach Dave - The attached file has the 3-page summary of approaches on the Salem allegations (post-panel discussions) for your use.

Glenn, CC:

A. Randolph Blough; Hubert J. Miller Information in this record was' deleted in accordance with the, Freedom of INf.ormation Act, exemiptions.i, FOIA-I

'I

L~vi 1 vio alegaton-aproPagep Salem IHope Creek Allegation Approach Overall - Are Salem and Hope Creek unsafe to operate?

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

A.

NRC has been mponitoring 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 N RC 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 fo r 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 ha's closely evaluated P 'SEG actions during 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 allegation 's 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. This provides an opportunity for improvement but no assurance or guarantee.

2.

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

Concerns March 17, 2003 at Hope Creek rcnfide that

~~e for restart without forced outage - bypass valv~

'iýpcident; Forced outage & bypass valve repair occurred.

June 17, Ho03at e Creek - EDG lageexceeds LCQ time; pressure to avoid shutdownQ~directed operator~

to not shutdown; shutdown commenced within acceptable time frame and met regulations.

Se~t4_202 a,;Slemperates

.1ýECP confidential report substatae algation Third StepGivne

• Fall (?) 2002 at Salem - Managel ree t1"o NA a startup checklist step-IPMAMM. tried-to hývel ie but was§ unsuccessful.

• Salemn grassing approach (i.e., heroic eff~g)deviated from expected approach!/ lessons learned from 1994 grassing~qlmpo

• . Higher Tritium sample concentration in Spring 2003 - "a* serio s

that had to be handled with kid gloves to keep us [PSEG] out of troub

~

v Alleger-provided listing of 29. people aware of problems to varying degrees and

-Po6SNY-WiIlingt r

oronrt iss~Ile and concerns, Sound bites from taped discussions with senior managers Approach

2.

Interview some managers Who the alleger believes can provide additional insights - alleger's list of 29 names.

3.

SCWE Is the PSEG staff able to raise safety issues?

• March 17, 2003 at Hope Cr~e e told alleger he did pot have the autho 'rity to stop the. evolto (ratvt ;xcurioA during the bypass valve shutdown?) 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 - 4Q 2002 & 1Q 2003 Approach -

1.

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

[ David Vito - alle ation-ppoc~p Page 3

2.

Get April 2003 results of Gallup G-1 2 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 to"

• Termination date of April 16 moved up to March 28 at.3r~ equest 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.L Approach - 01 has opened a discrimination case, including intervie~vs and review of Winston-Strawn investigation report.

6.

Wrongdoing

• Alleger states that PSEG destr unfa orable docume,~s

• Salem incident in which to NA a startup checklist step

• Three specifics I.knowUVs tsome as asked to rewrite a notification, Wi'nston-Strawn investigation stactwements difee from' interviewees' accounts Approach - Perform additional review to clarify general statements for possible 01 review;, obtain specifics of startup checklist step issue.

October 2, 2Q03 G:Br.3\\Salem\\allegation-approach.wpd