ML20138H253
| ML20138H253 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 07/25/1995 |
| From: | Linville J NRC |
| To: | Barber G, Eugene Kelly, Marschall C NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138G636 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-96-351 NUDOCS 9701030194 | |
| Download: ML20138H253 (10) | |
Text
-.
jW 1>
l V) $0A l
From:
James C.
Linville (JCL) l To:
GSB, EMK, CSM, LNO, JFS3, JRW1 Dater Tuesday, July 25, 1995 11:30 am subject:
Salem Assessment Panel l
The initial SAP meeting will be at 10:30 a. m. on Wednesday August 2, 1995 in the DRS conference room.
It will probably last until about 3:00 p.m.
The proposed agenda items are as follow:
1 l
Ground Rules for Panel Operation-Linville (30 min) l l
Review IMC 0350 Restart Issue and Restart Process Checklists for Applicability to Salem Situation-Linville (1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />)
Review Salem Restart Issue List-Marschall (2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />)
Brief Panel on Status of Licensee Restart Plan-White (30 min)
If you would like to add anything please let me know.
Also please plan to attend the scoping meeting with the licensee at the site on August 10.
CC:
RWC i
l l
l l
I 9701030194 961226 l
ACTIVITY PLAN REPORTS MASTER INSPECTION PLANN!NG SYSTEM DATE: 09/28/95 BY INTEGRATED PLANNING SCHD TIME: 11:05:54 SORTED BY SITE /SALP/ START DATE/ACTVITIY/ PROCEDURE PAGE:
85 REGION NUMBER 1
REQUEST FROM DATE: 9/04/1995 REQUEST TO DATE: 1/31/1997 SITE NAME: SALEM j
FAC ACTIVITY /
RE57 LEAD TM START ACTL PLND PLND ACTL CMPLTN IR PRI SALP END ABBR PROCEDURE TITLE IPE ORG EMP SZ DUR DATE ST ST HR$
HR$ DATE END NUMBER DATE SALM2 82301 01 EP EXERCISE FOR PWR CO 1413 00/00/00 2
0.00 0.00 3/02/96 CY 1995 OFF-YEAR / RESIDENT To REVIEW 82302 01 REVIEW EXER 08J & SC CO 1413 00/00/00 N
0.00 0.00 3/02/96 l
CY 1995 0FF YEAR 82701 01 OP STATUS OF EP PROG CO 1413 5 00/00/00 N 12.00 0.00 3/02/96 PLEASE SCHEDULE FOR NEW SALP - BEGINS 11/6/94 84750 01 RAD WSTE TRTMNT & EF CO 1412 5 00/00/00 N 20.00 0.00 3/02/06 EFFLUENTS - PLEASE SCHEDULE FOR NEW SALP
- BEGINS 11/6/94 84750 03 RAD WSTE TRTMNT & EF CO 1412 3 00/00/00 N 20.00 0.00 3/02/96 CONFIRM MEASURE PLEASE SCHEDU(E FOR NEW SALP BEGINS 11/6/94 C6750 02 SLD RDWSTE MNGMNT & C0 1411 00/00/00 N 20.00 0.00 3/02/96 83750 02 OCCUPATIONAL RADIATI CO 1411 JIN 09/23/95 M M
0.00 21.80 95018 3/02/96 1
OUTAGE RADCON NO OUTAGE THis SALP 2515/111 01 ELEC DISBRTN FLLWUP $1 1314 LSJ
'3 14.W89'R/j8 C 92.00 81.50 05/20/95 95011 3/02/96 86750 01 SLD RDWSTE MNGMNT & CO 1411 JIN 5
10g95 N 14.00 0.00 3/02/96 l
HOURS CHANGED FROM 12 70 20 2515/122 01 ROSEMOUNT PRESCURE T SI 1314 12/04/95 2
0.00 0.00 3/02/96 NOT REQUIRED PER HQ l
37550 02 ENGINEERING Co 1314 J9C 5 01/01/96 N 18.00 0.00 3/02/96 VISIT #2 EXACT DATE TBD 1
37550 03 ENGINEERING CO 1314 J9C 5 01/01/96 N 70.00 0.00 3/02/96 1
TEAM $1ZE=2 - DATE 180 ODM 1/01/96 64704 01 FIRE PROTECTION PROG Co 1314 LMK 5 01/01/96 M M 18.00 4.50 95010 3/02/96 ACTUAL DATE 780 81700 02 PHYSICAL SECURITY PR CO 1415 GGS 5 01/02/96 N 27.00 0.00 3/02/96 VISIT #2 NO3 INITIAL OPERATOR EXA 1342 PSB 3 5 01/22/96 3/02/96 102 ONSITE ENGINEERING 1231 1 03/02/96 3/02/96 37551 01 ONSITE ENGINEERING CO 1231 03/09/96 N
0.00 0.00 3/02/96 DUMMY OCCURRENCE
- 00 NOT DELETE 37551 02 ONSITE ENGINEERING CO 1231 CME 28 02/01/95 C C 10.00 25.00 02/25/95 95002 3/02/96 2/01/95 37551 04 ONSITE ENGINEERING CO 1231 CME 28 04/01/95 C C 10.00 29.00 04/29/95 95007 3/02/96' 4/01/95 37551 06 ONSITE ENGINEERING CO 1231 THF 28 06/01/95 C C 10.00 53.00 06/24/95 95010 3/02/96 6/01/95 37551 08 ONSITE ENGINEERING CO 1231 THF 28 08/01/95 C C 10.00 31.00 08/26/95 95017 3/02/96 8/01/95 37551 10 ONSITE ENGINEERING CO 1231 THF 28 10/01/95 M M 10.00 13.00 95017 3/02/96 10/01/95 4
37551 12 ONSITE ENGINEERING Co 1231 28 12/01/95 N 10.00 0.00 3/02/96 1
INFORMATION ON THIS PAGE IS FOR 0FFICIAL U$E ONLY.
'i
+
)
.. - _ ~
l l
l l
I ACTit1 TTY PLAN REPORTS MASTER INSPECTION PLANNING SYSTEM DATE: 09/28/95 i
BY INTECRATED PLANNING SCHD TIME: 11:05:54 SORTED BY SITE /SALP/ START DATE/ACTVITlY/ PROCEDURE PAGE:
81 REGION NUM8ER : 1 REQUEST FROM DATE: 9/04/1995 REQUEST TO DATE: 1/31/1997 I
SITE NAME: SALEM FAC ACTIVITY /
RESP LEAD TM START ACTL PLND PLND ACTL CMPLTN IR PRI SALP END AB8R PROCEDURE TITLE IPE ORG EMP $Z DUR DATE ST ST HRS HRS DATE ENO NUMBER DATE SALM1 73753 01 INSERVICE INSPECTION CO 1313 5 00/00/0D C N 32.00 0.00 3/02/96 ISI CORE INSPECY10N 82301 01 EP EXERCISE FCR PWR Co 1413 00/00/00 Z
0.00 0.00 3/02/96 CY 1995. OFF-YEAR / RESIDENT TO REVIEW 82302 01 REVIEW EXER 08J & SC CO 1413 00/00/00 N
0.00 0.00 3/02/96 CY 1995 - 0FF YEAR 82701 01 OP STATUS OF EP PROG Co 1413 5 00/00/00 N 12.00 0.00 3/02/96 PLS SCHED FOR NEW SALP BEGINS 11/6/94 l
84750 01 RAD WSTE TRTMNT & EF Co 1412 5 00/00/00 N 20.00 0.00 3/02/96 EFFLUENTS PLS SCHED FOR NEW SALP BEGINS 11/6/94 84750 03 RAD WSTE TRTMNT & EF to 1412 3 00/00/00 N 20.00 0.00 3/02/96 CONFIRM MEASURE PLS SCHED FOR NEW SALP IF APPLIC. 8EGINS 11/6/94 92703 01 CONFIRMATORY ACTION RI 00/00/00 N
0.00 0.00 3/02/96 92903 60 POLLOWUP ENGINEERI AF 1232 BVM 08/26/95 C C
0.00 11.00 09/09/95 5013 3/02/96 83750 02 OCCUPAfl0NAL RADIATI CO 1411 JIN 5 09/18/95 M M 40.00 21.80 95018 3/02/96 0UTAGE RACCON 2515/111 01 ELEC DISBRTN FLLWUP SI 1314 LSJ
$ 1W440E C 92.00 74.50 05/20/95 95011 3/02/96 86750 01 SLD RDWSTE MNGMNT & Co 1411 JIN 5 j10/95 N 14.00 0.00 3/02/96 2515/122 01 ROSEMOUNT PRESSURE T St 1314 j.,;r12/04/95 2
0.00 0.00 3/02/96 NOT REQUIRED PER HQ 37550 02 ENGINEERING Co 1314 J9C 5 01/01/96 N 18.00 0.00 3/02/96 VISIT #2 CATE TBD 37550 03 ENGINEERING CO 1314 J9C 5 01/01/96 N 70.00 0.00 3/02/96 TEAM S!2E=2 EXACT DATE TBD QDM 1/01/96 64704 01 FIRE PROTECTION PROG Co 1314 LMK 5 01/01/96 M M 18.00 4.50 95010 3/02/96 ACTUAL DATE T8D 81700 02 PHYSICAL SECURITY PR CO 1415 GGS 5 01/02/96 N 27.00 0.00 3/02/96 VISIT #2 N04 INITIAL OPERATOR EXA 1342 PS8 3 5 01/22/96 3/02/96 101 SURVE1LLANCE OBSERVA 1231 CME 1 03/02/96 3/02/96 61726 01 SURVEILLANCE OBSERVA to 1231 03/09/96 C N
0.00 0.00 3/02/96 DUMMY OCCURRENCE - Do NOT DELETE 61726 02 SURVEILLANCE OBSERVA CO 1231 AA4 28 02/01/95 C C 10.00 11.00 02/25/95 95002 4/02/96 2/01/95 61726 04 SURVE!LLANCE OBSERVA Co 1231 AA4 28 04/01/95 M M 10.M 9.00 95002 3/02/96 4/01/95 61726 06 SURVEILLANCE OBSERVA CO 1231 AA4 28 06/01/95 C C 10.00 3.50 06/24/95 95010 3/02/96 6/01/95 61726 08 SURVEILLANCE OBSERVA CO 1231 CME 08 08/01/95 C C 10.00 19.50 05/26/95 95017 3/02/96 8/01/95 61726 10 SURVEILLM CE OBSERVA CO 1231 TMF 28 10/01/95 M M 10.00 2.00 95017 3/02/96 10/01/95
!NFORMATION ON THIS PAGE IS FOR 0FFIC1AL USE oNLY.
N 1
/
.-,N
= -.
i i
1 4
1 SALEM ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING
)
i December 6,1995 1
i ATTENDEES:
J. Linville, DRP i
L. Nicholson, DRP C. Marshall, DRP G. Kelly, DRS J. Stolz, NRR i
S. Barber, DRP l
L. Olshan, NRR i
OTHERS:
{
R. Cooper, DRP l
A. Della Greca DISCUSSION:
}
l The Salem Assessment Panel met on December 6,1995, from 10:30 a.m., until 2:30 p.m.
The pansi discussed the action plans. J. Linville noted that the human performance action plan seemed to have the right ingredients but di ot ave a stated safety focus. However, the new l
managers have been modeling this safety ocu nd according to the licensee have been presenting their safety expectations in training for managers and supervisors. A Station Safety Culture index Survey has been conducted by FPI and will be redone in the future to trend improvement.
I E. Kelly indicated that the December 4 engineering meeting did not identify any holes in the action
{
plan. Another FPI survey was done in the en ineerin which revealed weak nrahtam l
solvina slulla but good engineering Judgement. The licensee believes it will take improve performance to the desired state, but the licensee has plenty of resources to get the job done. The j
committe agrod that there had already been adequate discussion of the equipment reliability plan ~
j based on the inspection of the system readiness reviews and the fact that the only item identified j
by the staff that had not been on the licensee's restart list but was on the NRC's was the diesel generator loading issue. This issue is now unresolved pending DRS review of the licensee's position. There hw been no DRS review of the training action plan because there has been no j
recent NRC oversight of the program against which to judge the adequacy of the plan. Oversight of l
this area is planned for January 1996, i
S. Barber discussed the corrective action plan noting an empasis on software fixes to problems rather than more effective hardware channes. There was further concern that any new trainino Jn j
t'ne area of root cause determinations is{obonsidered a raatart item. C. Marschall reported that
~
the operations, maintenance, and work control plans are comprehensive and identify important lasues. These plans nave a goa cnance of succeeding but at this point !ack good oerformance j
ingstors. The principal concern in the area of operations was the extenTto which control r~oom modficatig,ns including overhead annunchtors will be addressed proir to rantalln the area of work control, the tagging program has been changed fisa times in the recent past but is still ineffective j
and there are no plans to implement a permanent fix before roastart.
i J. Stolz discussed the self assessment action plan indicating that the licensee has a new program j
including departmental, management and peer self assessments. Such activities were previously
- ~ _.. _ - - - _ - -- - --- -
._~...~.--...
I A
p.
6 foreign to the licensee, but at this' point all departments except operations have completed a self assessment, but may not have completed their reports or corrective actions. It was noted that the program does not address Quality Assurance oversight and that the operating experience screening group is not yet in place.
The panel then discussed the remainder of the licensee's November 24,1995 Restart Plan submittal with the followig questions. Who in senior management will assess overall readiness as noted on page 3? Will the restart scope work be review against the design and licensing basis requirements as suggested on page 57 Who will resolve differences between the integrated readiness assessment and the Management Review Committee assessment? A startup organization chart should be included. What are the critical systems that will be preoperationally tested? Finally, it was noted that there should be some emergency preparedness provisions in the plan in light of the overhead annunciator event.
l l
J. Linville reported state representatives from New Jersey and Delaware had been invited to the this panel meeting in order to identify any unresolved issues between the states and the licensee before the public scoping meeting. There was a conflict with a Hope Creek drill and the New Jersey representatives were not yet ready to discuss their concems with the panel yet anyway. The l
Delaware representalves did not have any concerns to raise relative to Salem restart. Futher, discussions between M. Callaghan and Senator Biden's staff indicayed that the senator's staff was pleased that PSE&G had scheduled a briefing on the retart plan for Friday, December 8,1995.
J. Linville reported that L. Nicholson would be the Chairman of the panel effective immediately because of a conflict of interest with a contractor whos is apersonal friend of Mr. Linville was hired by the licensee to do an independent review of the restart plan.
it was agreed that the next meeting should be held on December 11 and that other near term activities are as follow:
12/8-Brief Regional Administrator / Deputy Site Visit 12/11-Scoping Meeting with PSE&G 12/18-Public Meeting to receive comments on PSE&G Restart Plan 9
I i
l e-r
,-w,,
e, r
w
,__.-,.,--r
i
{
i.
]
)
h Salem Restart Equipment Problems Breaker (4160V) slow closure problems due to grease buldup and aging Conceinment Fan Cooler Units - review work history for recuning problems without adequate j
corrective action Control air system not reliable l
j Control room emergency air cond/t/oning inoperable in recirculation mode
{
CW screen motors burn up at low speed; can't be run in manuel EDG air start system carbon steel cor6por.-,k (check valve problems) e I
EDG output breaker anomalies Feedwater syssom pedormance problems (oeculating pump speeds) i Fuses: Salem must insure that the correct fuses are installed in aN applications and that the correct fuses wil be installed in the future.
f Gas turbine betterles need to be replaced again (what is the reliabdity of the GT If the batteries need to be rep 6ced whenever one source of offsite power is lost?)
Gas turbine performance problems (faled bootstrap test )
Hagan modules have not been compared to accurate controlled drawings to insure modules are
{
j correcdy configured
{
Hagen module parts have been replaced with norHwyMM parts by vendors, contract refurbishers, and maintenance staff without proper controls.
j Maln steam isoladon required for every turbine trip to prevent excesolve RCS cooldown.
e POP charging pumps not reliable (gas leakage, seal leakage, heat exchanger leakage, etc).
i PORV (1PR f) leaks by the seat, requiring operation with the block valve cioeed Valve should be i
repaired based on a root cause determination.
l PORV accumulators may be understred for RCS prrearelan, assuming a transient starting at fun RCS pressure. In reviewing, include history of operators need to close PORVs and start 1
emergency air compressors (are accumulators leaking awe maelvoly?).
l Pressurfrer spray did not operate properly. As a result, operators used auxliary spray. Did they follow procedures? Do the spray nozzles need to be irsapar*ari as a result of the 90* F water used (letdown was lantatari)
Radladon Monitoring Syssem multiple problems (both units) l Reactor Coolant Pump oil collecdon systems do not contain ou effectively f
Reactor Coolant Pump seats - several falures in the last two operating cycles Reactor Head Vent vehe stroke dme tallures Roaldual Heat Remont: root cause of RH29 valve falures Residual Heat Removal. manuel diacharge valve (21RH10) makes a benging noise louder than 1
other RH10 valves Roaldual Heat Removal general material condition l
Rod stopping - rods step in with no temperature error signal j
RWST level instruments - periodic problem with being out of tolerance SECfA stal spikes after completion of modification a
}
SI pumps (high head CCP) have numerous deficiencies (flex hone installed, but not on i
drawings, repeated speed increaser problems, relief valves need to be replaced, etc). Review work history for pumps to determine recurring protaeme and potential common mode falures.
Perform corrective maintenance based on root cause determinations.
i SIpump suct/on boost - the TS minimum required Si pump flows would cause the pumpe to go j
into runout; they did not consider the " suction boost" provided by the Si pump Salem has j
administratively lowered flow belance numbers for ECCS from the number in the TS survellance Si rollef m/vos: review design basis requirements and performance history (leakage on startupe, etc).
j Service water piping erosion; repair and thoroughly review basis for condition of SW piping in V
\\f c
l
1
.o j
general. Repair / replace' pipe as neceasery, j
Service water butter #y vain multiple falures Sw#c;rfr.id failures: review avatable vendor recommentiatlans for preventative maintenance to I
insure that they have been incorporated. Perform a thorough root cause evaluation of
}
switchyard falures, including quality d maintanance, i
ij j
Process Problems j
B/// Of Materials unreliableI
=
Con #guradon conard. lxwting, Hagan modules J
1 Control of
'Gr' ^:1 activities (hot spot flueNng without a procedure or other mechanism to isnure job performed safely, RH 2g test without a test procedure).
)
Conard room indicators: aN red-striped indicators should be repaired based on a thorough root cause determination.
l I
CorreceW ecdons have routinely been taken without an identified root cause j
Engineering backlog not evaluated for impact on sale plant operation and abElty to mitigate the j
consequences of an accident (review previous safety evaluations for adequacy)
License Change Requests not processed resuWng in potendeley unresoMd safety problems or Unreviewed Safety Quesdons (e.g. EDG kequency requiremente in Tech Specs)
MMIS not reliable or easy to une
]
Modificadons have been performed as maintenance actMiles
=
Operability determinadone are inadequate.
Operator performance (use of alarm response procedures, failure to close block valves, repeated
{
entry into (and abuse of) LCO action statemente, inadvertently purging PRT to containment, e.g.)
j Operator workarounds; need to be reviewed and those with an impact on sale plant operation or j
that poco challenges to operators need to be corrected.
J Planning: frequently results in excessive LCO outage time, with unplanned maintenance causing crisis management and unnecessary challenge to operators.
Problem identMcadon system le not easly used o
Problems previously / dent 5ed do not have adequate root cause determinations a
i Procedures, operadone; quality must be improved.
e 1
Root cause determinadons are not dmely j
Selpoint control program - establish and implement.
System Engineering poorperformance f
Tagging / TRIS ine#ecdn acdons to prennt problem recurrence; probleme addreeeed individually without thorough root cause Test Control; tests performed without controls (RHR tests on. lune 6,1996, " unofficial EDG 1B j
test during week of 7-10-06)', without adequate preparation (RHR 22 test did not consider that a
plant conditions were unique).
UncontroNed modMcedons previously installed as me/neenance must be identitled and I
corrected. Maintenance and eystem engineering stati must be educated about the difference l
between maintenance and modifications (what constitutes each, and the differences in control for each).
Work priortifzetion is not e#ecth Degraded ccitycr ru that could impact compliance with TO requirements frequently do not receive the proper priority. (This ties in with MMIS, the BOM, and the design basis).
Maintenance backlog (how did they evaluate it in terms of safety, what got dropped off the list?)
i j
Peopia Problems i
j Design Saals: It has been lost. Drawings have numerous errors..The abilty to determine a d
i 4
1 i
--_.~ -.- -.-
)
i jo 8
l i
system, subsystem. cr cc,T,por,er4's intended safety function is severely impaired. The l
configuration baseline document (C80) contains numerous errors, and frequently cannot be supported when ct:": -;+1 The licensee has made changes in the docketed design tmie i
2ssumed parameters for safe plant operation (e.g. POPS /LTOP) without submitting the changes for NRC review, when appropriate.
l Management (Salem GM and direct reports) approachee proNoms with the assumption that there is no saistyproNom, and no reason to Internpt plant omntion. They assume that an indeterminate state of operabilty equals operabsky onti confrused with evidence to the contrary. They do not ask for evidence to the contrary. They do not cti se assumptions
("we have engineering assurance"). They have "a reasonable assurance of operabuty" without demanding a basis. This is a lack of appreciation of the basic principios of safe piar.t operation.
r=-;--.
re must demonstrate the abelty to assure safe plant operation oefore the Salem units i
are allowed to continue to operate. (Switchgear fans = > Inadequate operabuity determination, followed by daermination of an USQ, followed by a request for a JCO, followed by a plant shutdown [the shutdown wasn't timely or adequate]; 22RHR29 assumed operable based on a i
test wherein the valve worked properly with no other evidence that the previous fature to operate properly had been addressed).
ProNom /derdication (NAP-06) not e#ecthe in insuring problem identification, corrective action, 4
and proper marmgement focus.
l Root Caune Analysis not eWectively performed by plant staW. (Many, many examples at recurring pihT, superficial fixes). Salem must prove this has been corrected permanently (not just an intervention) prior to restart.
j; System er@4 ::2 don't understand can't find des /gn bas /s or its relationship to s/r equipment.
Plant management team does not focus on nuclee? safety.
l Plant snanagement team frequently does not recognite impact of degraded conditions on safety.
i W
i s
l 1
k i
k s
J
)
2 i
a 4
~..m.
l i
MEETING BETWEEN NRC AND NEW JERSEY I
i 1/3/96, 8:30AM PURPOSE:
NRC TO DESCRIBE 0350 RESTART PROCESS DISCUSS SALEM RESTART CONCERNS l
j
't AGENDA WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW OF NRC PROCESS l
SUMMARY
OF NRC ISSUES OVERVIEW OF NJ PROCESS
)
DETAILS OF NJ CONCERNS l
3 i
1
]
1 4
4 SAP AGENDA I
1/3/96 10:00am - Noon 1.
Discuss update items for Senior Management Meeting. Marschall (15 j
minutes) 2.
Discuss results of meeting with New Jersey. Nicholson (15 minutes) j 3.
Discuss resolution of CAL Item #1 (Unit 2 SERT).
Nicholson (30 minutes) i 4.
Comment and approve letter agreeing with their scope and closing CAL items 2 and 3.
Nicholson (30 minutes) l S.
Update and comment on the 0350 letter. Decide need & format to transmit detailed inspection plan to PSEEG.
Barber (15 minutes) 6.
Discuss any near-term SAP actions needed while Nicholson is away from 1/8/96 to 2/5/96.
Nicholson (10 minutes) i 7.
Critique meeting. All (5 minutes) i 1
A l
1 i
i f
4 1
T A
/%
/
~
From:
William Lazarus To:
NCD2.KP2.CSM, EMK, WND2.WNP3.JFS3, 'SB, WND2.WNP3....
Date:
1/23/96 2:20pm
Subject:
SAP MEETING I
An SAP meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 30, at 10:30 in the DRP Conference Room.
Agenda;
- 1. Discuss concems raised by New Jersey DEP in 1/19 meeting regarding Salem restart issues l
(Barber) l
- 2. Report on progress made for Unit 1 restart (Marschall)
- 3. Determine if any changes are necessary to restart letter based on NJDEP meeting. (All) l CC:
RWC, WHR l
l I
i l
l 0
.