ML18086A230
| ML18086A230 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 04/02/1981 |
| From: | Ross W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104090577 | |
| Download: ML18086A230 (4) | |
Text
';:;--
e
.,;,;:---- orsrRrnurf'o;
/
Docket Fi 1 e V
'I;,
S. Varga Docket No. 50-272 W. Ross -
C. Parrish MEMORANDUM FOR:
Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing THRU:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Thomas M. Novak, As.sistant Director for Operating Reactors, Division of Licensing Steven A. Varga, Chief, Operating Reactors Branch No. 1, Division of Licensing William J. Ross, Project Manager, Operating Reactors Branch No. 1, Division of Licensing EVALUATION OF LICENSEE'S PERFORMANCE RELATED TO SALEM UNIT 1 I have been requested by the Senior Resident Inspector at Salem Unit 1 to participate in the semi-annual SALP of Public Service Electric and Gas Company on April 6, 1981.
I have also been requested to provide a brief summary of my evaluation for possible inclusion in the Region I report that will be prepared at the conclusion of the SALP.
Attached is the paper that I have prepared for this purpose.
Enclosure:
As stated Approved:
A~/}Mj?k_
Darrell G. Eisenhut William J. Ross, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing
\\
NRC.FORM 3*18 110/801 NRCM 02.40 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- USGPO: 1980-329-824
1--
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Doce-:. li:i. 50-272 M~MO~A~DUM FOR:
Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing T!-'.-:RU:
F?O!-':
SUB~ECT:
Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Operating React~
Division of Licensing t_.../'
Steven A. Varga, Chief, Operating Reactors Branch No. l,~'
Division of Licensing William J. Ross, Project Manager, Operating Reactors Branch No. 1, Division of Licensing EVALUATION OF LICENSEE 1S PERFORMANCE RELATED TO SALEM UNIT 1 I h2ve been requested by the Senior Resident Inspector at Salem Unit 1 to participate in the semi-annual SALP of Public Service Electric and Gas Company o~ hpril 6, 1981.
I have also been requested to provide a brief summary of m~* evaluation for possible inclusion in the Region I report that will be pre~~red at the conclusion of the SALP.
Attached is the paper that I have pre~~red for this purpose.
Er closure:
A~ stated Ar;. proved:
- 2~
f Dc.rreli G. Eisenhut w~l~
Will.iam J. Ross, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch No. l Division of Licensing
1
- SALEM UNIT rm. 2 NRR Project Manager Corrm~~;ts for the Regional Evaluation Phase The Systematic Assessment of Licensee Perfonnance September 1, 1980 - February 28, 1981 onses relative to amendments, eneric letters and* r 11P.sts information The licensee's corrmunications and responses related to license and Technical Specifitatior changes ~ave been acceptable.
~ome of the licen~te's responses to generic requests have been of less acceptable quality because of changes in both the staff's and the licensee's positions related to Units 1 and 2.
I believe this problem will fade away when Unit 2 is licensed.
2, *Efforts in obtaining acceptable responses There has been frequent tardiness in. responses to generic issues.
I attri-bute this to the licensee's priority on efforts to license Unit 2 and to the numerous requests that have been made by the staff during th1s review period.
The staff has aggravated this problem, to some degree, by presenting differing positions on the same review item for the two Salem units.
There has been a high degree of acceptance by the licensee, of the staff's positions on amendments; however, there has been considerable disagreement in such areas as 'environmental qualification of electrical equipment', 'Event V isolation valve configuration' and 'masonry \\*Jalls'.
Rarely does the licensee go beyond the staff requirements.
- 3.
Technical competence, manaoerial and operational capabilities, quality assurance and operational control performance P.s the result of the licensee's* managerial reorganization at the corporate level, my interfa~e with the licensing personnel has become less effective.
The principal reason for this deterioration appears to be due to the increased load of responsibilities assumed by the Manager of Nuclear licensing.
In a nu8ber of instances I have consij~red it necessary to bypass this prefer~ed ooint of contact in order to obtain or disseminate infor.ation within a
~imited time period.
I cannot find fault with the cooperation or technical qualifications of any member of PSE&G with whom I have worked.
4, Workina knowledge of regulations, auides, standards and neneric problems "7nis utility appears to be very 1-Jeil s:affed with people \\.,rho are far.iiliar
~ith the Commission 1s activities and procedures.
1-- 5. Qi:ls:rved trends It appears to me that, during this report period, the licensee has taken some v:r1 i!lajor steps to attempt to stay abreast of the regulatory environment and t.~ respond to the weaknesses that were evidenced in the initial SALP.
Most of his effort has been directed toward licensing Unit 2; however, the second reload of Unit 1 was perfonned without any significant problem. It is evi-d:ent that more resources are now being directed toward the 1i cens ing of Hope Cre:k.
I do not think the operation or licensing activities of Salem Unit 1 h3.ve suffered from these priorities because of all of the major licensing requirements (e.g., Lessons Learned, NUREG-0737, Fire Protection, Environ-mental Qualifications, and Emergency Preparedness) have been addressed in a~ acceptable manner.
- 6. N :;,tab 1 e strengths and weaknesses I cannot identify any ma2or weaknesses in PSE&G's.licensing activities. This t.;.. tility appears to have effective coordination among licensing engineers, e~gineering department, and operating personnel.
//r), ~~rrt J. y{~
William J. Ross, Project Manager Op~rati ng Reactors Branch #1
- Division of Licensing