ML062700215

E-Mail from Michael Brothers to Jarriel, follow-up to Yesterday'S Discussions

ML062700215
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	04/17/2004
From:	Brothers M PSEG Services Corp
To:	Lisamarie Jarriel Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
FOIA/PA-2005-0194
Download: ML062700215 (3)

Text

From: A!rIhbrothers" lJmhbrothers@myeastern.com-To: "Lisamarie Jarriel" <LLJ@nrc.gov>

Date: 4/17/04 3:30PM

Subject:

Fw: follow-up to yesterday's discussions

Lisa, I'm forwarding the direction I am heading. I intend to base our acceptance criteria around INSAG-15 (which is the most recent document available). Also attached is our logic. Any comments?

MHB PS If this is inappropriate just tell me directly.

-- Original Message --

From: "Brothers, Michael " <Michael.Brothers@pseg.com>

To: "Selover, Edwin" <Edwin.Selover@pseg.com>; <gledgar@morganlewis.com>;

<bpgarde@aol.com>

Cc: <mhbrothers@myeastem.com>; "Bakken III, A. Christopher"

<Chris.Bakken@pseg.com>

Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 10:39 AM

Subject:

follow-up to yesterday's discussions

> My understanding is that we will utilize the modified Power Behaviors as the

> over-arching structure for our "Picture of Excellence". To that end, I will

> take a shot at:

• 1) modifying the Power behaviors

• 2) mapping our metrics to both the Power Behaviors and INSAG-15

" The metrics that I quickly discussed yesterday are: (* indicates that the

" metric does not exist (or I can't find it))

> For ECP

• 1. Total received/substantiated

• 2. Nuclear Safety received/substantiated

• 3. HIRD received/substantiated

• 4. Total open

• 5. Total closed/month

• 6. Average Age

• 7. # requesting confidentiality/anonymous

• 8. Satisfaction rating*

> For the site

• 1. NRC allegations received/substantiated

• 2. Ratio of internal concerns/external concerns

• 3. Executive Protocol Committee actions received/approved*

• 4. # of Self-Identified problem areas*

yetraysdscsinsPg to..

Gtenn~~~~~~~~~ folwu -ee 11-1.

Gleqý_ý3eyer. -kFw: follow-up to yesterday's discussions 21?-zJ'

> 5. CM backlog

> 6. Procedure Change backlog

> 7. Operator work-arounds

> 8. Control board deficiencies

> 9. Operator burdens

• 10. Temp. Mods.

• 11. Safety System availability

• 12. # of Maint. Rule Al systems with open CMs

• 13. Unplanned LCO Entry

• 14. # of plant transients

• 15. # of >= supervisors not trained (50.7/SCWE)

> For CAP

• 1. # of Nuclear safety notifications received/closed/average age*

• 2. OSHA notifications received/closed/average age*

• 3. HR notifications received/closed/average age*

• 4. Procedure Compliance notifications received/closed/average age*

• 5. total open/received/closed/average age

• 6. % self identified*

> 7. # overdue

• 8. # of extensions requested

> 9. % of low significance precursors*

> My planned schedule is as follows:

• 4/19-4/23 work with Billie and George (if available) to modify the Power

• behaviors and map our metrics and establish our proposed acceptance

• criteria. During this week we also need to determine how we are going to

• involve more employees in this picture/plan.

> 4/26-4/30 obtain approval of our "Picture of Excellence"

> 5/3 have the expanded Executive Protocol Committee in place

> etc

> Comments would be appreciated.

> MHB

> The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended solely for use by the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or a person designated as responsible for delivering such messages to the intended recipient, you are not authorized to disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message, in whole or in part, without written authorization from PSEG. This e-mail may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you have received this message in

iGenn ieer Fnw:- follow-up to yes terday's dis~cussion~s Paa-ge-3~

error, please notify the sender immediately. This notice is included in all e-mail messages leaving PSEG. Thank you for your cooperation.