ML18096A606
| ML18096A606 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 03/25/1992 |
| From: | Stone J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9204010351 | |
| Download: ML18096A606 (49) | |
Text
- .
)
Docket Nos. 50-272, 50-311 and 50-354 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 March 25, 1992 LICENSEE:
Public Service Electric and Gas Company FACILITY:
Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, and Hope Creek Generating Station
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING WITH PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY (PSE&G) ON MARCH 18, 1992, TO DISCUSS PROPOSED INTEGRATED SCHEDULE PROGRAM FOR MAJOR MODIFICATIONS AT SALEM AND HOPE CREEK On March 18, 1992, PSE&G made a presentation to the NRR staff on a program currently being developed, that will provide an integrated schedule for *major modifications at the Salem and Hope Creek Stations.
The program is being developed following the guidance of the Proposed Policy Statement on Integrated Schedules for Implementation of Plant Modifications, issued in the Federal Register on November 27, 1987.
PSE&G has already implemented a number of activities in preparation for submitting the program for NRC approval.
The process would involve 8-phases to go from initiation to close out. All of these phases are currently being used for major projects except for the development of the Integrated Long Range Plan (ILRP).
The ILRP is expected to initially cover a 5-year period and would initially only include items sponsored by Engineering and Plant
- Betterment.
The ILRP would be the vehicle for obtaining NRC approval of the scheduling of regulatory driven items.
The ILRP would be updated either semiannually or twice during the fuel cycle.
For schedule changes to regulatory initiatives that are identified between ILRP updates, the staff prefers a letter from PSE&G that details the changes. A final decision concerning the two aforementioned items will be made before the formal submittal is issued. Enclosed are two handouts provided by PSE&G that provide some detail on their proposed program (Enclosures 1 and 2).
PSE&G expects to make a formal submittal to the NRC within the next few months, but not as a license condition.
During the meeting, Ms. Claudia Abbate, Policy Development and Technical Support Branch, provided an update on revising the Proposed Policy Statement.
A proposed final policy statement was sent to the Commission in SECY-92-023, dated January 21, 1992. This paper has been voted on and will be placed in the public document room by about March 27, 1992.
A copy of the presentation made to the ACRS was provided to the licensee and is enclosed (Enclosure 3).
The most significant changes, as contained in the ACRS briefing presentation, that would be made to the current Proposed Policy Statement are: the program would not be a license condition; there will be a 90-day negative consent review by the NRC staff; and a process is provided where low priority items
,--9-2_0_4_0_1-:0::-:3::-:5::-:;1~6~~~8;;;5;;;5;;;;~~7-2-~1 PDR ADOCK PDR p
could be permanently dropped.
However, if PSE&G wanted to use the latest policy statement, they would have to wait until after it is issued in the Federal Register and the waiting period has expired. They could, however, submit their program based on the current Proposed Policy Statement and then submit changes after the Final Policy Statement is issued.
One comment that was made by the NRC staff concerned time required for NRC approval of an individual item.
If an item, on the ILRP, required NRC approval before implementation, ILRP should show that time.
PSE&G agreed to consider including those times when the ILRP is developed.
Enclosed is a list of attendees at the meeting (Enclosure 4).
Enclosures:
- 1.
PSE&G Handout, Integrated Scheduling Program
- 2.
PSE&G Handout, Project Management Information Reporting System
- 3.
ACRS Presentation of Final Policy Statement
- 4.
List of Attendees cc w/enclosures:
See next page n1ttBtfH-ON :
Docket Fi le' oca PDRs PDI-2 Reading TMurley/FMiraglia JPartlow SVarga JCalvo CMil 1 er
/S/ S. Dembek for James C. Stone, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate I-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation SPindale, R-I BWestreich, R-I ACRS ( 10}
Rlobel, EDO RBlough, R-I R-I PDI-2/D could be permanently dropped.
However, if PSE&G wanted to use the latest policy statement, they would have to wait until after it is issued in the Federal Register and the waiting period has expired. They could, however, submit their program based on the current Proposed Policy Statement and then submit changes after the Final Policy Statement is issued.
One comment that was made by the NRC staff concerned time required for NRC approval of an individual item.
If an item, on the ILRP, required NRC approval before implementation, ILRP should show that time.
PSE&G agreed to consider including those times when the ILRP is developed.
Enclosed is a list of attendees at the meeting (Enclosure 4).
Enclosures:
- 1.
PSE&G Handout, Integrated Scheduling Program
- 2.
PSE&G Handout, Project Management Information Reporting System
- 3.
ACRS Presentation of Final Policy Statement
- 4.
List of Attendees cc w/enclosures:
See next page
-~-Z,_11~
F~k'.James C. Stone, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate I-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
.r Public Service Electric & Gas Company cc:
Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esquire Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street NW Washington, DC 20005-3502 Richard Fryling, Jr., Esquire Law Department - Tower SE 80 Park Place Newark, NJ 07101 Mr. Calvin A. Vondra General Manager - Salem Operations Salem Generating Station P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Mr. S. LaBruna _
Vice President - Nuclear Operations Nuclear Department P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Mr. Thomas P. Johnson, Senior Resident Inspector Salem Generating Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Drawer I Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Dr. Jill Lipoti, Asst. Director Radiation Protection Programs NJ Department of Environmental Protection CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625-0415 Maryland People's Counsel American Building, 9th Floor 231 East Baltimore Street Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Mr. J. T. Robb, Director Joint Owners Affairs Philadelphia Electric Company 955 Chesterbrook Blvd., 51A-13 Wayne, PA 19087 Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, and Hope Creek Generating Station Richard Hartung Electric Service Evaluation Board of Regulatory Commissioners 2 Gateway Center, Tenth Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Regional Administrator, Region I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Lower Alloways Creek Township c/o Mary 0. Henderson, Clerk Municipal Building, P.O. Box 157 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Mr. Frank X. Thomson, Jr., Manager Licensing and Regulation Nuclear Department P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Mr. David Wersan Assistant Consumer Advocate Office of Consumer Advocate 1425 Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Mr. J. A. Isabella MGR. - Generation Department Atlantic Electric Company P.O. Box 1500 1199 Black Horse Pike Pleasantville, NJ 08232 Carl D. Schaefer External Operations - Nuclear Delmarva Power & Light Company P.O. Box 231 Wilmington, DE 19899 Public Service Commission of Maryland Engineering Division ATTN:
Chief Engineer 231 E. Baltimore Street Baltimore, MD 21202-3486
Public Service Electric & Gas Company cc:
Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 241 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Mr. J. J. Hagan General Manager - Hope Creek Operations Hope Creek Generating Station P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Mr. Steven E. Miltenberger Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Public Service Electric and Gas Company Post Office Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 and 2, and Hope Creek Generating Station
MEETING:
SUBJECT:
PURPOSE:
CORRES2/NRC 3/18/92 NRC and PSE&G March 18, 1992 ENCLOSURE 1 INTEGRATED SCHEDULING PROGRAM FOR MAJOR MODIFICATIONS SALEM & HOPE CREEK STATIONS o Presentation of a systematic process which will provide for the proper planning and scheduling of major projects which are initiated by either the NRC or PSE&G.
o Obtain NRC review and comments.
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS ENGINEERING & PLANT BETTERMENT INTEGRATED SCHEDULING PROGRAM FOR MAJOR MODIFICATIONS SALEM AND HOPE CREEK STATIONS 3/18/92
MISSION:
INTEGRATED SCHEDULING PROGRAM FOR MAJOR MODIFICATIONS SALEM & HOPE CREEK STATIONS ESTABLISH A COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROCESS.WHICH WILL PROVIDE FOR THE PROPER EVALUATION OF MAJOR PROJECTS WITH RESPECT TO WORK WINDOWS, PERSONNEL RESOURCE AND BUDGET AVAILABILITY ON A SINGLE AND MULTIPLE PROJECT BASIS AND WILL RESULT IN AN INTEGRATED LONG RANGE PLAN AND MASTER SCHEDULE WHICH ARE PROACTIVE AND DYNAMIC.
CORRES2/NRC 3/18/92
GOALS:
INTEGRATED SCHEDULING PROGRAM FOR MAJOR MODIFICATIONS SALEM & HOPE CREEK STATIONS o
Optimize the allocation of PSE&G resources on major projects sponsored by E&PB in a manner which will achieve the Key Success Factors of the Nuclear Department and meet the requirements of the NRC and other regulatory bodies.
o Provide a means to facilitate improved communications and understanding regarding the total scope of major project work which is to be performed and thereby develop a consistent basis for negotiation of individual project schedules.
o Improve the quality of E&PB products and services and increase stakeholder satisfaction.
o Improve management of major commitments to regulatory agencies.
CORRES2/GOALS 3/18/92
-r
INTEGRATED SCHEDULING PROGRAM FOR MAJOR MODIFICATIONS SALEM & HOPE CREEK STATIONS OBJECTIVES:
o Achieve effective planning, scheduling, implementation and control of major plant betterment projects in the Salem and Hope Creek Stations.
o Satisfy regulatory requirements and committed project completion dates.
o Effectively manage financial and human resources.
o Provide sufficient lead times for projects.
o Establish means to achieve flexibility in the integration of new projects or changes associated with existing projects into the long range plan and schedule for E&PB work.
o Provide a basis for annual budget development and control.
3/18/92 CORRES2/ISBOPJ
INTEGRATED SCHEDULING PROGRAM SCOPE o
NON-ROUTINE PROJECTS SPONSORED BY E&PB REQUIRING MORE THAN 1~000 TOTAL MANHOURS OR A TOT AL COST OF MORE THAN
$50,000 TO COMPLETE.
o PROJECTS WHICH ARE INITIATED BY THE NRC AND OTHER REGULATORY BODIES.
o PROJECTS SPONSORED BY THE ENGINEERING
& PLANT BETTERMENT DEPARTMENT.
o CAPITAL AND O&M PROJECTS.
o ALL NEW PROPOSALS AS WELL AS CURRENT WORK ITEMS.
CORRES2/SCOPE 3/18/92
INTEGRATED SCHEDULING PROGRAM ITEM CATEGORIES E&PB CATAGORY DESCRIPTION o Category Nl
~
Mandated by NRC - Externally Imposed NRC CATAGORY completion date.
A o Category N2 -
Utility Commitment to NRC Item -
Internally o Category E 1 -
Mandated Environmental Items -
Externally imposed completion date.
o Category E2 -
Utility Commitment to Environmental B
c Item - Internally imposed completion C
date.
o Category Ul -
Utility Initiative - Internally imposed completion date.
- C o Category 11 -
INPO Items - Internally Imposed.
C DLM:lrz Corr2/Action 3/18/92 7
INTEG!_TED SCHEDULING loGRAM PROCESS MODEL INITIATION PHASE PRIORITIZATION PHASE EVALUATION PHASE PLANNING PHASE APPROVAL PHASE ENGINEERING PHASE INSTALLATION PHASE CLOSEOUT PHASE CORRES2/PROCESS 3/18/92
- REGULATORY ITEM - REGULATOR INITIATED
- UTILITY INITIATED
- NON-REGULATORY ITEM - UTILITY INITIATED
- NUCLEAR DEPARTMENT RESOURCE ALLOCATION PROGRAM (NDRAP)
IMPLEMENTED
- ITEM SCORED AND PRIORITIZED
- PROJECT EVALUATION PROPOSAL (PEP)
PREPARED AND APPROVED
- COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS PERFORMED
- PROJECTSCHEDULEINCORPORATEDINTO INTEGRATED LONG RANG PLAN (ILRP) AND MASTER SCHEDULE
- PROJECT SCOPE PROPOSAL (PSP)
PREPARED AND APPROVED
- DESIGN CHANGE PACKAGES PREPARED AND ISSUED
- MATERIAL PROCURED
- PROJECT WORKED AS PLANNED AND SCHEDULED
- INSTALLATION AND TESTING COMPLETED
- DOCUMENT UPDATE COMPLETED
- AUTHORIZATION CLOSED
INTEGRATED SCHEDULING PROGRAM FOR MAJOR MODIFICATIONS SALEM AND HOPE CREEK STATIONS r t--------------------------------*~!~'!'~-~ ---------------------------------------~
PRIORITIZATION PHASE EVALUATION PHASE I
llml REOla.ATORY ITEM
~
SOURCE lllDRAP I
NTIATION Sl'ATIOllS llEOULATOlft' llDI
- l"l!lf&O INmATED NLBll I
- EllGllEEMlll UCEN111NO DEPr. REVIEW I
. :.c** riDI "iS"c:AtmeiRiZED".. *****
&N1,IG,E1,D.U1,f1).
INPO I
- 2. TDfrATillE SCOPE ANDDUERJR I
I
~
I I
l'£0U..ATORY l1IEll I P9E&O INR'IATED
~
NDRAP PROCam 1_ lmRAP REVIEWED..
- 2. NDRAP SENT10 SCOIWaG 1EAll..
1 SCOIWMI PROCESS PEP
- 1. P.ll.RJHllS PRWECTlEAll..
> 2-PEP BCltfDlam.
!l:~-1 llESHMSEARE I
DlftMBl.
I llBIUl.ATORY REii
- 1........ llEQlESr
- llllUDl.
I IEOlaATORY AGENCY lmlATED TIES TO llEl.ATED
.-ES IDENIW'til.
I
- a. ATSllDI..-nATED
- STATIOllll
. E&Pll
- QA.
- llllT
- f4.. ITEMIS IWllZDl.
~ PAN l9llUa> TO 1
COllCEP1UAL DESION,,
llUOOET, AND RESOURCE.
l.OIUJO) Pl.AN ARE DEVELOPal.
.... ISl!IUE~
llEHT AND ITEll PRIORITUATION MERIMEWED_
L ATS UPIMlm..
I 10 llOP I EllClll.
I IWMdEll (9COPQ.
... ATS l1'Ell INmATED I
TO I.AP CIFIOUP.
I I
I 11.D.P.
ITEM Fl.ACED Olll ILRP WORK usr.
- 6. AESl'ON!IE l..EnUl
~&PEP BEJfTlOUC.
~---------------------J PUNNINBPHASE llflEORAlED
....... ~.~~~
-;I 1. mAW!Ew"TI' A REii
...... llA..... IEVEUIED.
- 2. ND*--PLM&
OOMSAREIEVEWDl.
1WOllK~
I U Dl9El. iESOUilCE Alm BUDGEr AVAll..AIDJIT RIMEWEDONNlMDWL a llUL.TIPllOJECll' llA!ID Wint llf9'ECT11D11E iUIP.
..... iUIP M:e.... 'fEAllL.1' CJUrAGE AND llOllMJUl"AOE PNJJB:1' ICHU> OllEil. 'Wil.
- a. NIW.9CHUJUl.Jl*
DEWLOPED a lllV&IRATED INTO LDllCI IMllOE IMSiDI KHBIUlL
&.AlS.....
lm.
7 *...w.1wwwcwm:10 illEGlA.AlUll'Y iiEll
- CllllBI 10 UCll 1.,.....,.,..,
IESIOlt. ilUOOET ENOINEERINB PHASE
- PllE&CI GSA
- onaBI I.....:IEJITATION PHASE I CLOSE OUT PHASE ltSTAU..ATIOllll
- TEST1NO
- DRAWINOS SPECIRCATIOllS 1--~~-:>
AND~
i---*~**i"""RiiiAL~*************t----:>. TRAIMNd
- DOOllENTATIOll I-->
- AIJIHORllA110N DEVD.OPBl.
- 2. IPfiOJECT,..,
Al'l'llDVAL osr.--n.
1 l.llP UPDlllED.
..... PROJECT SCHEI>..
llEIOURCES,.
alDOE1' 911'EQRATED lifTOiUIP.
l.ICEi*HI CIROIP i"iiiEGOiiATii"iiO"iiEWE)"""""""
~ATIOllll IMlE.
WI IW10 IEOUlATOll'Y
.-..:r.
11Sl IUr.Sl'AlUS*
we*m--.ATOll'Y
,....;f.
DEIWTNE Bla>oEI" AND 9CHEDUl£ DelELOPB>.
2-iUIP UPDlllED.
1 PROJECT BCHED..
RESOUHCU,.
llUDOET llflDJRATED INTOU..
- 1. m:JWl1VE DUDOEr MD SC1£1Jla.EARE KTAlU!IEQ'UPDlllED.
2-b.JIP UPD41ED.
1 AU. DCP"S ltSTAl.L APflVD. RJR llEllVICE
- ATS ITEM Cl.OBED.
- ACTION TRACKING SYSTEM ND
- PSEaO NUCl.EAll DEPARJllBIT EWR
- BIGINEIERNO WORK ilEQUEST PAN
- PROJECT AUJHOHIZATION NOJICE llftP
- INTEDRA.TED l...ONQ flANOE PLAN PEP
- PllOJECT E.YAUJATllON PROPOSAL I.Di
- UCOdE EVENT REPORT PIH
- PROJECT INVenllBIT REaDT llC.
- llANAOER OF PHO.JECTS PSP
- PROJECT SC<JPE PROPOSAL M1RAP "' NUCl£AR DEPARTllBIT llESOUHCE All.OCATION PHOOHMI
INITIATION PHASE LICENSING DEPT. REVIEW
- 1.
ITEM IS CATEGORIZED (N1,N2,E1,E2,U1,11).
- 2. TENTATIVE SCOPE AND DATE FOR RESPONSE ARE DEFINED.
- 3. NDRAP REQUEST IS ISSUED.
- 4. TIES TO RELATED ISSUES IDENTIFIED.
. MANAGER (SCOPE)~
- 6. ATS ITEM INITIATED TO ILRP GROUP.
3111/82 CORREB2/DLM1
,NITIATION PH~E NDRAP ITEM INITIATION WHO:
ANYONE MAY INITIATE A PROPOSED ITEM.
CAN BE SPECIAL TASK, PROJECT, TRAINING, PLANT MODIFICATION ITEM, ETC.
WHEN:
ANYTIME IS APPROPRIATE. PROJECTS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR WORK IN 1993 SHOULD BE SUBMITTED DURING LAST QUARTER 1991 AND FIRST QUARTER 1992.
WHAT:
INITIATOR COMPLETES A NDRAP FORM.
HOW:
ASSIGN A NO. "RIC -- YR INITD -- SEQUENCE".
THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ITEM ON EACH OF THE 9 MOTIVATORS MUST BE ASSESSED AND DESCRIPTIVE NARRATIVE PROVIDED.
CRITICAL TO DESTINY OF THE ITEM:
INITIATOR PLAYS KEY ROLE IN THIS IMPORTANT STEP.
RIC MANAGER'S CONCURRENCE: NEED, SUFFICIENT NARRATIVE, AVAILABLE RESOURCES.
FORWARD FORM TO CWCG: INPUT TO ILRP SYSTEM WITH ST A TUS OF INITIATED "1 ".
CORRES2:0BJECT 3/18/92 If
1 e
e ND RAP ITEM INITIATION FORM NUCLEAR DEPARTMENT RESOURCE ALLOCATION PROPOSAL TITLE:
SCOPE/DEFINITION:
JUSTIFICATION REGULATORY REQUIREMENT NUCLEAR SAFETY.
PERSONNEL SAFETY/ALARA NON-NUCLEAR ENVIRONMENT HUMAN CLIMATE PLANT AVAILABILITY/RELIABILITY DEPT. EFFICIENCY/EFFECTIVENESS WORK FORCE CAPABILITY COST EFFECTIVENESS PUBLIC IMAGE OTHER INITIATOR/EXT. AND DATE CORRES2/NDRAP 3/18/92 NDRAP NUMBER:
RAP -
R/C YR.
NO.
PROPOSED RESPONSIBLE R/C ESTIMATES:
TOTAL M/HRS TOTAL DOLLARS FUNDS O&M I CAP YES/NO NOTE #
- DETAILED, NARRATIVE JUSTIFICATION PROVIDED ON THE ATTACHED PAGE(S).
R/C MGR. CONCURRENCE/DATE IL
.RIORITIZATION PIAE KEY MOTIVATORS DEFINITIONS:
Nuclear Safety:
The extent to which this proposal contributes to maintaining or improving the health and safety of the general public and plant employees, including reductions in core melt frequency, challenges to safety systems, release of radiation off site, or increases in safety systems availability.
Personnel Safety/ ALARA:
The extent to which this proposal contributes to reducing eliminating actual or potential situations that could result in personnel injury or increased personnel radiation exposure.
Non-Nuclear Environment:
The extent to which this proposal contributes to reducing or eliminating actual or potential discharges that could result in violating federal or state environmental regulations.
Human Climate:
The extent to which this proposal will benefit our employees by improved quality of work life. This can be through improvements to the physical environment or through improvements in leadership skills.
Plant Availability /Reliability:
The extent to which this proposal improves the time the plant is available to generate electricity or improves the ability of the plant systems and equipment to operate as intended.
Department Efficiency/Effectiveness:
The extent to which this proposal will result in improved organization clarity or functioning. It is a trait that represents a synergistic approach.
- Work Force Capability:
The extent to which this proposal will improve the effectiveness of the workforce by training, skill enhancement or improved efficiency.
Cost Effectiveness:
The extent to which this project contributes to the overall reduction in the cost of generating electricity, considering both the installed costs, and the on-going operating and maintenance costs.
Public Image:
The extent to which this proposal will result in positively meeting or improving community or industry relations or involvement.
Corres2/def in 3/18/92 13
WHAT:
WHO:
HOW:
WHEN:
PRIORITIZATION PHASE NDRAP PROCESS ITEMS PRIORITIZED BASED ON 'PACT ON MOTIVATORS SELECTED TO SUPPORT THE VISION AND GOALS DESCRIBED BY THE NUCLEAR DEPARTMENT KEY SUCCESS FACTORS.
PRIORITY SCORING TEAM:
MANAGER OF NUCLEAR ENGINEERING MANAGER OF SALEM OPERATIONS MANAGER OF HOPE CREEK OPERATIONS GENERAL MANAGER OF QUALITY ASSURANCE & S.R.
NDRAP FORM WITH SCORE SHEET TRANSMITTED TO EACH TEAM MEMBER.
MOTIVATOR 'PACT SCORED, 0 TO 10.
MEMBERS SCORE INDEPENDENTLY.
DATA CHECKED, DATA INPUT, AVERAGE SCORE DETERMINED FOR RELATIVE RANK.
RECONCILIATION IS REQUIRED IF THERE IS A VARIANCE GREATER THAN 20% IN THE SCORES.
DATA OK, STATUS CHANGED TO PRIORITIZED "P" AND PUT ON UNAPPROVED WORK LIST.
ITEMS TAKEN FROM UNAPPROVED WORK LIST, IN RANK ORDER, AND PLACED INTO THE EVALUATION PHASE THROUGH THE PROJECT AUTHORIZATION NOTIFICATION.
EXECUTIVE OVERRIDE PROVISION.
REGULATORY OVERRIDE PROVISION.
ONGOING, YEAR ROUND.
CORRES2:0BJECT 3/18/92 11
PRIORITIZATION PHASE PJUORZTY SCORB SBBB'l' Indicate below by an % on the scale the degree to which this work item is necessary to improve or maintain each motivation.
15 I
MOTinTI:OB Bot At All
'1'0 A KODBRA'l'B OBGRBB TO A SI:GJIXPICABT OBGRBB ABSOLtJ'TBLYI BBCBSSARY
- 1. NUCLEAR SAFETY 0
- 2. PERSONNEL 0
SAFETY/ALARA
- 3. NON-NUCLEAR 0 ENVIRONMENT
- 4. HUMAN CLIMATE 0
- 5. PLANT AVAIL.a RELIABILITY DEPT.
- 6. EFFICIENCY/ 0 EFFECTIVENESS
- 7. WORK FORCE 0
CAPABILITY
- 8. COST 0
EFFECTIVENESS
- 9. PUBLIC IMAGE 0
1 1
. *l 1
1 1
1 1
1 2
3 4
5 2
3 4
5 2
3 4
5 2
3 4
5 2
3 4
5 2
3 4
5 2
3 4
5 2
3 4
5 2
3 4
5 IS THIS WORK ITEM A SPECIFIC REGULATORY REQUIREMENT OR A REGULATORY COMMITMENT?
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 BC.:&a-AP.Sl-OOIS(S)
- aBV. 0 A'l"l'ACllllBft 2 7
8 9
10 l I
7 8
9 10 7
8 9
10 7
8 9
10 7
8 9
10 7
8 9
10 7
8 9
10 7
8 9
10 7
8 9
10 ns m
PAGB 1 OP 1
EVALUATION PHASE PROJECT EVALUATION PROPOSAL (PEP)
WHAT:
PROPOSED ITEM IS EVALUATED BASED ON CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, SCOPE, SAFETY CONCERNS, DEFINITION, AND.
RESOURCE ESTIMATE.
WHO:
RESPONSIBLE PROJECT MANAGER.
HOW:
DEVELOP SCOPE STATEMENT, ROUGH CONCEPrUAL DESIGN, AND RESOURCE ESTIMATE.
COMPLETE COST - BENEFIT ANALYSIS.
COST JUSTIFIED - TO VP/GM FOR APPROVAL.
NOT COST JUSTIFIED - REMOVED FROM LIST/ RETURNED TO INITIATOR.
ITEMS THAT MUST BE WORKED REGARDLESS OF BENEFIT WILL GO TO VP/GM FOR APPROVAL AND REMAIN ON THE LIST.
WHEN:
ONGOING, YEAR ROUND.
DURATION:
GOAL - APPROXIMATELY 30 DAYS.
CORRES2/0BJECT 3/18/92
PLANNING PHASE.
INTEGRATED
............. ~.9..~.. ~
..... ~N.§.~.... ~.~.N..... (J~~.~l..............
- 1. ISSUE ASSESSMENT & ITEM PRIORITIZATION REVIEWED.
- 2. ND BUSINESS PLAN &
GOALS ARE REVIEWED.
- 3. WORK WINDOWS, PERSONNEL RESOURCE AND BUDGET AVAILABILITY REVIEWED ON INDIVIDUAL
& MULTIPROJECT BASIS WITH RESPECT TO THE ILRP.
- 4. ILRP INCLUDES YEARLY OUTAGE AND NON-OUTAGE PROJECT SCHED OVER 6 YR.
- 5. INITIAL SCHEDULE IS DEVELOPED & INTEGRATED INTO LONG RANGE
.MASTER SCHEDULE.
- 6. ATS IS UPDATED.
- 7. INITIAL RESPONSE TO REGULATORY ITEM IS GIVEN TO LICENSING.
corres2/dlm2 3/18/92 I/
ACTIVITY ORIG MllNIH~
DESCRIPTION DUR 1 I ? I ::l I 4 I '1 I fi I 7 I A I -cf 1 fO l fl l f;'.> I f'.i-1 14 I 1!:J I lii I 1 / I 1H I 1 Y I l'U
£' 1 I £'£' I £':i I <'4 I <'!l I <'Ii I 2 / I 2H 2'-l I :JO PROJECT LIFE CYCLE PROJECT LIFE CYCLE 356 23 MONTHS !MIN.I INITIATION PHASE INITIATE NEW PROJECT - NDRAP EVALUATION 20
~
PROJECT ON APPROVED E&PB HOAK LIST llKEYM 0
22 MONTHS (MIN. J (KEV MILESTONE)
PREPARE PEP 35
~
PREPARE BUDGET PROPOSAL 55 PREPARE PSP & PAR : OBTAIN APPROVALS 150 PSP SUBMITTED TO CLIENT 1tKEY1t 0
(KEV MILESTONE)
- 14 MONTHS (MIN I PROJECT AUTHORIZATION APPROVED 0
11 MONTHS (H[N.)
ENGINEERING & DESIGN PHASE ENGINEER. DESIGN. ASSEll!LE. & ISSUE DCP(S) 131 ENGINEERING CONTRACT(s) AHARDED llKEYM 0
!KEY MILESTONE! 6-9 MONTHS (MIN )
DEFINITIVE PROJECT ESTIMATE COMPLETE 11KEY1t 0
(KEY MILESTONE).,.______ ~.'5 MONTHS----.
ALL DCP's SORC APPROVED 0
0+-- ~ MONTHS _______.,
MATERIAL PROCUREMENT PHASE TAKEOFF. REOUISTION. DELIVER & PRESTAGE MATERIAL 208 ALL NOPR'S ISSUED FOR PROCUREMENT MKEYM 0
!KEY MILESTONE!..__6 MONTHS BILL OF MATERIALS INPUT TO MMIS COMPLETED 1tKEY1t 0
(KEY MILESTONE).......-~MONTHS-ALL MATERIALS PRESTAGEO 0
.__. l MONTH MOBILIZATION PHASE PREP BID PKG, BID, AWARD & MOBILIZE 118 INSTALLATION CONTRACTS AWARDED 0
2 MONTHS ALL WORK ORDERS PLANNING COMPLETE 1tKEY1t 0
(KEY HlLESTONEJ t--- 1 MONTH INSTALLATION & TESTING PHASE f---J INSTALLATION. TESTING, & STARTUP 53 START OF OUTAGE - BREAKER OPEN 0
I MONTH -----f (KEY MILESTONE!
INSTALLATION APPROVED FOR SERVICE 1tKEY1t 0
CLOSEOUT PHASE DOCUMENT REVIEW. UPDATE, AND CLOSEOUT 50 ALL DCP's DOCUMENT UPDATE COMPLETE 1tKEY11 0
(KEY MILESTONE!
- POST PROJECT ANALYSIS COMPLETE 0
AUTHORIZATION/COST CLOSEOUT 40 I
~
AUTHORIZATION/COST CLOSEOUT COMPLETE 0
Atll*lll S.r/Earl1 Dates Planning Unit : Day PSE&G-ENGINEERING & PLANT BETTERMENT Sheet 1 of 1
E'1'11 SCHEDll.lNG DCPARINENl - D ICl.AUilt.lN X1986 Critlc*l lcth1t1 GENERIC PROJECT SCHEDULE - LEVEL I Progreu Bir BARCHART SCHEDULE Pr llldvera Systems. Inc. 1986-1991 Plat Date: 22AUG91
E&PB GENERIC PROJECT SCHEDULE KEY MILESTONES KEY MILESTONE DATE COMPLETION REQUIRED PROJECT ON APPROVED E&PB WORKLIST 22 MONTHS BEFORE INSTALLATION
- PSP SUBMITTED TO CLIENT 14 MONTHS BEFORE INSTALLATION
- ENGINEERING CONTRACT(S} AWARDED 10 MONTHS BEFORE INSTALLATION
- ALL NDPR'S ISSUED FOR PROCUREMENT 6 MONTHS BEFORE INSTALLATION
- DEFINITIVE PROJECT ESTIMATE 5.5 MONTHS BEFORE INSTALLATION
- COMPLETE ALL DCP'S SORC APPROVED 5 MONTHS BEFORE INSTALLATION
- BILL OF MATERIALS INPUT TO MMIS 5 MONTHS BEFORE INSTALLATION
- COMPLETE INSTALLATION CONTRACT(S} AWARDED 2 MONTHS BEFORE INSTALLATION
- ALL WORK ORDERS PLANNING COMPLETE 1 MONTH BEFORE INSTALLATION
PART 'A' CLOSED OUT}
ALL DCP'S -
DOCUMENT UPDATE 60 WORKING DAYS AFTER RELEASE TO COMPLETE (DCP'S -
PART 'B' CLOSED OPERATIONS OUT)
- ALSO, APPLIES IN THE CASE OF PRE-OUTAGE WORK ON OUTAGE PROJECTS WHERE INSTALLATION IS ASSUMED TO START 1 (ONE) MONTH BEFORE BREAKER OPEN.
CORRES2/GENERIC 3/18/92 19
APPROVAL PHASE PROJECT SCOPE PROPOSAL o
DETAILED SCOPING MECHANISM PROVIDING AN IMPROVED INTERPRETATION OF:
- PROJECT WORKSCOPE
- FEASIBILITY
- COST
- SCHEDULE
- RESOURCE IMPACT
- ECONOMIC BENEFIT o
REQUIRES GENERAL MANAGER APPROVAL o
DOCUMENT UTILIZED TO OBTAIN CORPORATE FUNDING COMMITMENT o
GENERALLY INVOLVES 3 TO 5 TIMES MORE RESOURCES TO PREPARE THAN THE PEP o
SERVES AS BASELINE DOCUMENT FOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION CORRES2/0BJECT 3/18/92 1-0
INTEGRATED SCHEDULING PROGRAM SUGGESTED ELEMENTS *
(PROPOSED POLICY STATEMENT)
NRCELEMENT o PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA o SCHEDULING
- SCHEDULING TECHNIQUES
- CATEGORIES OF TASKS
- SCHEDULE MODIFICATION (ADD NEW ITEMS, CHANGE EXISTING ITEMS)
- SCHEDULE UPDATE o EVALUATION OF PROGRAM o NRCINTERFACE
- PERIODIC UPDATES
- SCHEDULE MODIFICATION CORRES2/PROCESS 3/18/92 E&PB ISP NDRAP SCORING/PRIORITIZATION INTEGRATED LONG RANGE PLAN (FINEST HOUR)
(6) NDRAP ITEM CATEGORIES INTEGRATED LONG RANGE PLAN INTEGRATED LONG RANGE PLAN PERIODIC EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW PERIODIC SUBMITT ALS PERIODIC SUBMITT ALS 21
ISSUES:
INTEGRATED SCHEDULING PROGRAM FOR MAJOR MODIFICATIONS SALEM & HOPE CREEK STATIONS o
THE INTEGRATED SCHEDULE PLAN IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A LICENSING ADMENDMENT.
o THE INTEGRATED SCHEDULE PLAN WILL BE USED AS A BASIS FOR NEGOTIATION OF NEW/REVISED PROJECT SCHEDULES ON A PERIODIC BASIS.
o THE RESPONSE ON A SHORT TERM, E.G. 30 DAY, ISSUE MAY NOT STATE A DEFINITIVE COMMITMENT ON ITEM SCOPE AND/OR COMPLETION DATE DUE TO THE NEED FOR SUFFICIENT TIME FOR THE INTEGRATED SCHEDULING PROCESS TO FUNCTION PROPERLY.
o A PROVISION IS NEEDED TO CANCEL PROJECTS WHICH DO NOT HA VE A HIGH ENOUGH PRIORITY TO BE WORKED AFfER SOME REASONABLE TIME PERIOD HAS ELAPSED.
CORRES2/NRC 3/18/92
ENCLOSURE 2 PROJECT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION REPORTING SYSTEM CPMIRSl POLICY STATEMENT NDRAP PROCESS The Nuclear Department Resource Allocation Program (NDRAP) is a site-wide process that assures Nuclear Department resources are only allocated to work items which provide appropriate value to PSE&G, and that Department resources are applied to the most important projects first. NDRAP's prioritization exercise serves to measure a proposed project's impact on the Nuclear Department's value framework, which is comprised of several "motivators" and represents Department visions and goals. Projects which offer the most significant contribution to the Department's mission subsequently undergo a precursory project evaluation..
Reference:
NA~AP.ZZ-0065(Z), Nuclear Department Resource Allocation Program.
WIMS PROCESS The preliminary evaluation required by the NbRAP process allows "project value" to be determined by assessing project benefit in relation to project cost. As a function of the Work Information Management System (WIMS) process, the Centralized Work Control Group (CWCG) provides notification that a project has been authorized for Project Evaluation Package (PEP) development, initiates the assignment of a Project Manager, and stimulates project management's coordination of this preliminary evaluation. The WIMS process also assists in evaluating functional resource availability and gaining concurrence from the functional groups in accomplishing the PEP. Work (projects, programs, and other tasks) that is requested of E&PB may or may not require the preparation of a PEP. That is, in certain cases of emergency work, PEPs are not required. The Manager of Nuclear Engineering Projects or the Manager of Nuclear Design will determine these cases.
Additionally, the Vice President of Nuclear Engineering reviews these determinations. The Cost Group will establish the appropriate accounting for PEP development, and related evaluative efforts.
Reference:
ND.DE-PS.ZZ-0026(Z), WIMS Programmatic Standard; ND.DE-PS.ZZ-0026(Z)-
A3A, WIMS Programmatic Standard, Appendix 3A - Emergency Work Requests (EWR).
PEP PROCESS The Project Evaluation Package (PEP) serves as an initial scoping mechanism providing an early determination of project workscope, feasibility, cost, schedule, resource impact, and economic benefit. Project Managers prepare a workscope statement describing the Project Management Information Reponing System (PMIRS)
C/C&S:
Rev. 1.1 2/19/91 POLICY STATEMENT Page 1
recommended project and alternatives to the recommended project, as well as the current system and associated inadequacies. They also provide a description of project benefits and identify the consequences of delaying or not implementing the project. The PEP process does not involve the accomplishment of extensive preliminary engineering. As a guideline, approximately 1 % of formal engineering is accomplished. A team assembled by the Project Manager provides input for the preparation of conceptual resource projections involving functional and external manpower, long lead equipment, and major material needs.
Planning logic and a project phase-level schedule is derived. A conceptual estimate (i.e.
within 50% tolerance) and a cash flow projection are prepared to support an economic evaluation of the project. The resulting economic analysis provides the basis for the project's incorporation into the annual Capital Project Budget or the O&M Budget. The PEP approval cycle assures concurrence with this project conceptualization among E&PB Project Management, functional groups, and station management (or other client organizations), and supports the mission of NDRAP by steering the application of resources to the most cost-beneficial projects.
Developed schedule and resource information is provided to the CWCG in support of their resource management responsibilities.
Reference:
OA-PJ.ZZ-0014(Z), Project Evaluation Packages (Currently in DRAFT form).
NDRAP PROCESS Consonant with NDRAP, an assessment is made of whether work items are cost-justified, or in the case of work items which are not cost-justified, whether they must necessarily be performed. Vice presidential approval or disapproval of the work item is received based on the completed economic evaluation--an "approval" constituting consent for the work item's inclusion as future project workscope. An approved project is deemed to possess sufficient merit for insertion as a line item on the annual Capital Project Budget (CPB),
or the O&M Budget, and placement on the Approved Work List.
Reference:
NA-AP.ZZ-0065(Z), Nuclear Department Resource Allocation Program.
BUDGETING "NDRAP-approved" projects with approved PEPs are included as annual CPB or O&M budget line items. Budget preparation is supported by the Cost Group. Following the approval of these budgets, and a resource coordination effort provided by the Centralized Work Control Group (WIMS process), line item projects can advance to a more detailed scoping and planning stage.
Reference:
Consult with C/C&S-Cost Group.
Project Management Information Reponing System (PMIRS)
C/C&S:
Rev. 1.1 2/19/91 POLICY STATEMENT Page 2
WIMS PROCESS As in the c~e of PEP development, the Centralized Work Control Group provides
- notification that a project has been authorized for Project Scope Proposal (PSP) development, ensures that a Project Manager is assigned, and stimulates project management's coordination of this more detailed project scoping effort. The WIMS process assists in evaluating functional resource availability and gaining concurrence from the functional groups in accomplishing PSP development. All projects that are requested of E&PB require the preparation of a PSP. The Cost Group will establish the appropriate accounting for PSP development.
Reference:
ND.DE-PS.ZZ-0026(Z), WIMS Programmatic Standard PSP PROCESS In order to obtain funding for project implementation, a more focused scoping and planning stage is necessary. Technical objectives are refined, work breakdown is accomplished to the task level, equipment and material requirements are estimated, project costs are estimated, planning logic is prepared, schedules are calculated, and a project cash flow is produced.
This preliminary scoping stage results in the preparation of the Project Scope Proposal (PSP), for which, as a guideline, no more than 5% of formal engineering is accomplished.
Following appropriate PSP approval, the funding request process may begin.
Within the PSP process, a project team is established and concurrence with manhour estimates and design approach is obtained. The PSP provides a problem statement, considers alternatives, identifies engineering deliverables, and identifies equipment, material, and service requirements. A schedule with interface logic for all project development, implementation, and closeout activities is required. A cost estimate is prepared within a tolerance of 30%, and a project cash flow is generated. Safety, operability, maintainability, availability, station mode, ALARA, radwaste, licensing, and environmental issues are also addressed in the PSP. The PSP approval cycle assures concurrence with preliminary project scoping among E&PB project management, functional groups, and station management (or other client organizations). PSP development can be considered the beginning of the project life cycle. Again, developed schedule and resource information is provided to the CWCG in support of their resource management responsibilities.
Reference:
PrQject Management Manual: OA-PJ-ZZ-OOOl(Z) Project Scope Proposals; OA-PJ-ZZ-0003(Z) Project Planning; OA-PJ.ZZ-0004(Z) Work Breakdown Structure and Project Network.
Project Management Information Reporting System (PMIRS)
C/c&S:
Rev. 1.1 2/19/91 POLICY STATEMENT Page 3
FUNDING AUTHORIZATION PROCESS Funding is requested for projects with approved PSPs by means of the Project Approval Request (PAR) process. The Project Manager and Cost Group prepare the PAR and initiate the funding approval cycle which, depending on the level of funding required, involves the Manager of Projects (MOP), the Manager of Nuclear Engineering Projects, the station, Planning and Financial Control (P&FC), the co-owners representative, the Vice President of Nuclear Engineering, the Vice President of Operations, the Chief Nuclear Officer, the Electric Business Unit (EBU), and finally, Corporate Budgeting. The terminal step of the funding approval process is receipt of formal funding authorization from Corporate Budgeting.
Reference:
Consult with the C/C&S-Cost Group.
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Once funding has been authorized, project implementation can commence with detailed engineering and design efforts. Preliminary design is completed, drawings are prepared, and calculations are provided. Design Change Packages (DCP) are prepared, issued, reviewed, and approve&. Contracts are solicited and awarded; material and equipment is procured; work forces are mobilized; installation is completed; testing is performed; and turnover to the client station is performed.
PROJECT CONTROL Commencing with project implementation, the Project Manager exercises formal and informal project control to ensure that planned tasks are completed on time, within budget, and meet technical objectives. The Project Manager assigns accountability within the project work breakdown system and initiates project development. The Project Team identifies problems and determines cause. The Project Manager interfaces with the Team, the client, functional groups, and the Manager of Projects to evaluate impacts, generate possible solutions, and decide on the most appropriate solution. The corresponding impact on technical objectives, cost, and schedule are determined. Scope change management is implemented if chosen corrective actions impact critical path or increase project cost by more than 10% over the authorized project funding. Such cases require a revision to the PSP by means of the Project Change Request (PCR), and the appropriate approval.
Reference:
Project Management Manual; OA-PJ.ZZ-0002(Z) Project Control.
Project Management Information Reporting System (PMIRS)
C/C&S:
Rev. 1.1 2/19/91 POLICY STATEMENT Page 4
REVISED FUNDING When detailed engineering and design is 70-100% complete, a definitive estimate is prepared by the Cost Group and Funding Level Changes (FLCs) are completed as appropriate. An approved Pattern PAR is required for any deviation in project expenditure patterns (cash flow) or changes to the authorized project cost within + /- 10%. When a PAR-or Pattern PAR-approved project is forecasted to exceed a + /- 10% change in project cost, an FLC is required for authorization of the revised project cost. The FLC is submitted to Planning & Financial Control (P&FC) where it is prepared as a Revised PAR, and submitted through an approval cycle for corporate authorization. The Project Manager and Cost Group prepare the Revised PAR and initiate the revised funding approval cycle which; depending on certain thresholds, involves the Manager of Projects (MOP), the Manager of Nuclear Engineering Projects, the station, Planning and Financial Control (P&FC), the co-owners representative, the Vice President of Nuclear Engineering, the Vice President of Operations, the Chief Nuclear Officer, the Electric Business Unit (EBU), and finally, Corporate Budgeting.
Schedule and resource information resulting from the definitive estimate development is provided to the CWCG in support of their resource management responsibilities.
Reference:
Consult with the C/C&S-Cost Group.
DOCUMENT CLOSEOUT Following successful project installation, testing, and turnover, the DCP and other project documentation must be closed out.
Reference:
Nuclear Department Engineering Manual.
Project Management lnfonnation Reporting System (PMIRS)
C/C&S:
Rev. 1.1 2/19/91 POLICY STATEMENT Page 5
REQUESTED WORK ND RAP NUCLEAR DEPARTMENT RESOURCE ALLOCA11'10N PROGRAM
1111if llli~if li~1~!1i!!!!
WIMS WORK INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Project Management Information Reporting System (PMIRS)
PEP PROJECT EVALUATION PACKAGE POLICY STATEMENT C/C&S:
1/2/91 Page 1 of 3 REV. 1.1 21111/91
WIMS I
BUDGETING Project Management lnlorm*tlon Reporting Sy*tem (PMIRS)
PSP PROJECT SCOPE PROPOSAL FUNDING FUNDING AUTHORIZATION CYCLE C0-0\\YNERS'APPROVAL ADJUSTMENTS TO BALANCE BUDGET
~
POLICY STATEMENT C/C&S:
1/2/81 Page 2 or 3 REV.1.1 2/19/91 bb
REVISED FUNDING REVISED PSP REQUIRED REVISED PAR: FUNDING LEVEL CHANGE, REVISED CASH FLOW BUDGET OFFSETS AS NECESSARY REVISED FUNDING APPROVAL CYCLE NO OVER-EXPENDITURE OF AUTHORIZED FUNDING LEVEL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION I
~;;:~~~~:1~~1.N:::1~:S~1~~SIGN, PROCUREMENT, MOBILIZATION,
~
IZm T PROJECT CONTROL CLOSEOUT REPORT IN SERVICE PSP CLOSURE Project M*nagement lnform11tlon Reporting Sy*tem (PMIRS)
POLICY STATEMENT C/C&S:
1/2/111 P*se 3 of 3
.~
REV. 1.1 2/111/111
ENCLOSURE 3 FINAL POLICY STATEMENT ON INTEGRATED SCHEDULES (PROPOSED)
PRESENTATION BEFORE THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS
- BY MARYLEE SLOSSON, SECTION CHIEF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT BRANCH PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS STAFF OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (301) 504 - 1282 JANUARY 10, 1992
OVERVIEW
- BACKGROUND
- 1987 PROPOSED POLICY STATEMENT
- INTEGRATED REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE (IRRIS)
- COMMENTS ON PROPOSED POLICY AND IRRIS
- PROPOSED POLICY PAPER
- RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND
- GENERIC LETTER 83-20
- GENERIC LETTER 85-07
- 1985 INDUSTRY SEMINAR
- 1987 PROPOSED POLICY STATEMENT
- EXPERIENCE WITH INTEGRATED SCHEDULES
- INTEGRATED SAFETY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (ISAP)
- INTEGRATED REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE (IRRIS)
1987 PROPOSED POLICY
- REQUESTED PUBLIC COMMENTS 11/27 /87
- VOLUNTARY PROGRAM
- INCLUDED ALL NRC-INITIATED ITEMS
- LICENSEE COULD INCLUDE ADDITIONAL ITEMS
- LICENSE CONDITION OPTIONAL BUT EMPHASIZED
- LICENSEE DEVELOPED PRIORITIZATION METHODOLOGY
- CHANGES TO SCHEDULE PERMISSABLE WITH PRIOR NRC NOTIFICATION
)
COMMENTS ON 1987 POLICY
- MOST COMMENTS OPPOSED PROPOSED POLICY
- TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON INCORPORATING INTO LICENSE 8 SCOPE OF PROGRAM TOO LIMITED
- PROGRAM UNNECESSARY FOR LICENSEES WITH GOOD REGULATORY COMPLIANCE HISTORY
IRRIS
- DEVELOPED IN RESPONSE TO REGULATORY IMPACT SURVEY
- DEVELOPED TO MANAGE THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF IMPLEMENTING GENERIC REQUIREMENTS
- SCOPE TO INCLUDE ALL UNIMPLEMENTED REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
- LICENSEE MAY INCLUDE THEIR OWN INITIATIVES
- LICENSEE TO PROPOSE SCHEDULES ON SAFETY PRIORITY BASIS
- 90 DAY NRC NEGATIVE CONSENT REVIEW
- SCHEDULE TO BE FROZEN FOR UPCOMING OUTAGE
- NO LICENSE CONDITION REQUIRED
- VOLUNTARY PROGRAM
- NRC TO CONSIDER LICENSEE INITIATIVES AHEAD OF NRCITEMS
- PILOT PROGRAM TO BE CONDUCTED
)
COMMENTS ON IRRIS
- NRC SHOULD NOT IMPLEMENT IRRIS UNTIL A PILOT PROGRAM IS COMPLETED
- IRRIS ADDRESSES SYMPTOMS OF CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF GENERIC REQUIREMENTS NOT THE CAUSE
- IRRIS SHOULD INCLUDE ALL ACTIVITIES
- LICENSEES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DROP LOW PRIORITY ITEMS PERMANENTLY
- SCHEDULE SHOULD NOT BE FROZEN
)
-~----------
PROPOSED POLICY PAPER
- DEVELOPED CONSIDERING COMMENTS ON 1987 PROPOSED POLICY, IRRIS AND OPERATING EXPERIENCE
- TWO OPTIONS OPTION 1 -
ISSUE FINAL POLICY STATEMENT WITH MODIFICATIONS
- VOLUNTARY PROGRAM
- NO LICENSE CONDITION
- 90 DAY NEGATIVE CONSENT REVIEW
- 3 LEVEL APPROACH
J PROPOSED POLICY PAPER OPTION 2 -
ISSUE 1987 PROPOSED POLICY AS FINAL WITH NO MODIFICATIONS
- STAFF HAS TRIED REPEATEDLY TO IMPLEMENT INTEGRATED SCHEDULE PROGRAM WITH LIMITED SUCCESS
- INTEGRATED SCHEDULE WILL REMAIN AN OPTION
RECOMMENDATION
- STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT COMMISSION ADOPT OPTION 1
- FINAL POLICY IS RESPONSIVE TO INDUSTRY COMMENTS AND EXPERIENCE
I 11 t
OPTION 1 THREE LEVEL APPROACH LEVEL 1 SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION DATES IN RESPONSE TO A RULE, ORDER OR LICENSE CONDITION, INCLUDING TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND LICENSE AMENDMENTS
- LICENSEE COULD NOT CHANGE IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE WITHOUT EXEMPTION OR LICENSE AMENDMENT LEVEL 2 COMMITMENTS TO GENERIC LETTERS, BULLETINS
- LICENSEE WOULD ESTABLISH AND REVISE SCHEDULAR COMMITMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRIORITY METHODOLOGY
- LICENSEE INITIATIVES MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR NRC ITEMS
- LICENSEE COULD REQUEST RELIEF FROM*
IMPLEMENTATION OF CERTAIN ITEMS LEVEL 3 LICENSEE-INITIATED ITEMS, LER FOLLOW-UP AND INPO OR NUMARC INITIATIVES
- LICENSEE WOULD ESTABLISH THRESHOLD FOR INCLUDING IN SCHEDULE
~
t I
..~.
v PLANTS WITH INTEGRATED SCHEDULES ISAP PLANTS HADDAM NECK MILLSTONE 1 INTEGRATED SCHEDULE PLANTS DUANE ARNOLD BIG ROCK POINT OYSTER CREEK PILGRIM SAN ONOFRE 2,3 TMl-1 TURKEY POINT 3,4 PLANTS INDICATING INTEREST IN INTEGRATED SCHEDULES COMANCHE PEAK SOUTH TEXAS TROJAN CRYSTAL RIVER MILLSTONE 2,3 SALEM
J
.:?
~
CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF GENERIC REQUIREMENTS SRM OF 12/20/91
- STAFF TO APPRISE THE COMMISSION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GENERIC COMMUNICATIONS IN WHICH A NEW STAFF POSITION IS ARTICULATED OR THROUGH WHICH STAFF SEEKS ADDITIONAL LICENSEE COMMITMENTS
- EFFORT SHOULD BE MADE TO SOLICIT VIEWS OF INTEREST GROUPS PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GENERIC COMMUNICATIONS
MEETING ATTENDEES INTEGRATED SCHEDULES. HOPE CREEK AND SALEM. UNITS 1 AND 2 MARCH 18. 1992 James Stone Steve Dembek Charles Mi 11 er Claudia M. Abbate Tom Johnson S. M. Pindale Barry Westreich Pell White Wayne Grau Darrell Mclaughlin Frank Thomson Ted Robb Mark Barth Lloyd Zerr ORGANIZATION NRR/PDI-2 NRR/PDI-2 NRR/PDI-2 NRR/PMAS NRC/Region I NRC/Region I NRC/Region I PSE&G PSE&G PSE&G PSE&G PE Co Bechtel STS ENCLOSURE 4