ML20138H265
| ML20138H265 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1995 |
| From: | Larry Nicholson NRC |
| To: | Kelly G, Linville J, Jason White NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138G636 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-96-351 NUDOCS 9701030203 | |
| Download: ML20138H265 (44) | |
Text
_. _ _.. _
i t'
I i
4 i d~
l MEMORANDUM TO:
J. LINVILLE j
G. MGY i
J. WHITE J. STOLE i
L. OLSHAN f
ET-lll$ ?S S.
BARBER
/
FRON:
L. NICHOLSOW~
i lI SUBJECTS FIRST DRAFT OF SALEM RESTART PLAN Attached is the first draft of the Salem 0350 restart plan and letter.
I have taken a first cut, best guess at the restart items and who owns i.h&ia.
Please I
review the restart items and come to the SAP on tuesday, 11/14, ready to comment or connait.
It appears to me that these items represent a very large inspection workload. After we reach agreement on the ownership of the items, the respective owners should plan and schedule (on MIPS) the necessary 1
inspections. Scott Barber will assist in coordinating with the site.
l
- Thanks,
)
Larry cca R. Cooper W. Lanning J. Wiggins R. Blough 3
j M. Modes W. Ruland 1
R. Keinig t
1 4
i
}
+
1 1
4 i
a d
a J
1 i
I k
l I
^
~-
9701030203 961226 PDR FOIA O'NEILL96-351 PDR
l December, 77 1995 p-r q:.3 t
2 L
MEMORANDUM to:
Thomas T. Martin, Regional Administrator, RI Roy Einmerman Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FEOMs Richard Cooper, Director
~
Division of Reactor Projects, RI RDACT Steven A. Varga, Director Mhh!Pt3 0 office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
SALEM RESTART ACTION PLAN Attached is the Salem Restart Action Plan for your review and approval in accordance with NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0350, " Staff Ouidelines for Restart Approval." This action plan, once approved, will be maintained and updated by the Salem Assessment Panel (SAP). The SAP intends to make minor j
revisions without seeking additional approval; however, if a significant revision is made to the plan, you will be notified and requested to approve the revision.
The Restart Action Plan consists of two parts. The first part, " Restart Process Checklist," contains a checklist of items that constitutes the overall review process for the NRC to conclude that restart of the facility is appropriate. The second part, " Restart Issues Checklist," contains a list of plant-specific issues that will be considered and/or evaluated by the NRC staff prior to concluding that restart should proceed.
The SAP, in its capacity as the Sales Restart Panel, is responsible for the implementation of the approved Salem Restart Action Plan. You will be updated periodically on the status of restart readiness.
L;
- v. - -
Steven A. Varga, Director Richard W. Cooper,II, Director Division of Reactor Projects I/II Division of Reactor Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Region I Approved:
Roy Zimmerman Date Thomas T. Martin Date Locket No. 50-272 & 50-311 Q,,}
a
- : 3 I. t 1 D
Attachment:
Salem Restart Action Plan
.. ~..
e*
\\
I l
Memorandum to Thomas T. Martin 2
l
& Roy Zimmerman cc w/att:
'),'
Region I Docket Room (with concherence)
L. Olshan, NRR
- 8. Barber, DRP R. Cooper, DRP W. Dean, OEDO L. Nicholson, DRP J. Stoltz, NRR F. Miraglia, NRR W. Russell, NRR C. Marschall, DRP S. Varga, NRR J. Wiggins, DRS R. Elmmerman, NRR J.
Zwolinski, NRR
- i 1
l SALEM RESTART ACTION PLAN i
salem Unita 1 r.cd 2 were first discussed during the June 1994 Senior Management Meeting (SNM). NRC Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) have been
]
dispatched to files every year between 1991 and 1994. AITs were required in 1991 to review the Unit 2 turbine-generator catastrophic failure; in 1992 to review loss of overhead annunciators; in 1993 to review repetitive control rod system failures; and in 1994 to review the trip and the subsequent unexpected response of plant systems that complicated plant shutdown.
In April 1995, an
]
NRC Special Inspection Team (SIT) was sent to Salem to assess the licensee's j
safety perspective in the areas of work implementation and scheduling, problem j
identification, and management oversight.
As a result of continued performance deficiencies, weak management oversight, l
and ineffective corrective actions coupled with the Technical specification i
(TS) required shutdowns of both units, NRC Region 1 issued a Confirmatory l
Action Letter (CAL) on June 9, 1995. This CAL delineated licensee commitments l
that must be satisfied prior to the restart of either salem unit. The Salem Assessment Panel (SAP) was chartered and has been tasked with monitoring the j
licensee's restart plans in accordance with NRC Manual Chapter 0350.
Sales j
has put in place a new management team and preliminary indications are that it j
has been effective at improving the safety focus of the salem organization.
PSEGG has taken numerous steps this outage to address their performance problems, including an Independent startup Assessment Team. The purpose of this Restart Action Plan is to coordinate the NRC actions necessary to conclude that adequate performance improvement has resulted from the various initiatives. This action plan, once approved, will be maintained and updated by the salem Assessment Panel (SAP).
1 The Restart Action Plan consists of two parts. The first part, " Restart Process Checklist," contains a checklist of items that constitutes the overall i
review process for the NRC to conclude that restart of the facility is appropriate. The brackets beside each item specifies the responsible NRC organization for the task. The second part, " Restart Issues checklist,"
contains a list of plant-specific issues, including those contained in the CAL, that will be considered and/or evaluated by the NRC staff (i.e. SAP) prior to concluding that restart should proceed. The second part also contains the " Restart Readiness Assessment Checklist," which lists the items to be considered as an integral part of the entire process, including consideration during the RATI.
The " status" column indicates whether actions associated with each individual item are complete, ongoing, or are open (no status yet).
For the Restart Issues List, a "yes" indicates that, as a minimum, the SAP will consider this specific item during the assembly and assessment of available performance indicators.
It is not intended that each "yes" item will be specifically inspected with results documented in a report.
The criteria used to develop the restart issues list are as follows:
(1)
Resolution of the issue is required to ensure safe operation of the facility.
\\
(2)
Resolution of the issue is required to comply with technical specifications.
(3)
Resolution of the issue is required to comply with other regulatory requirements (i.e. 10 CFR, ASME, etc.)
(4)
Resolution of the issue is required to meet the design / licensing basis.
(5)
Resolution of the issue is required to ensure effective management oversight.
(6)
Resolution of the issue is required to ensure an effective corrective j
action process.
The restart issues checklist is divided into four sections: (1) Confirmatory Action Letter Issues; (2) Technical Issues; (3) Programmatic Issues; and (4)
Restart Readiness Assessment Checklist. Each of the first three sections has four columns. The first column lists the specific restart issue. The column entitled " Resp. Org." indicates the NRC organisation responsible to close the issue, as appropriate. The " Reference" column indicates the inspection report, SAP meeting minutes, or other docketed reference that will document NRC review and inspection of the issue. The "Date Closed" column lists the date on which the SAP considered the issue closed and indicates the SAP meeting number, as applicable. There is no significance in the order of items listed.
All of the restart issues other than the Confirmatory Action Letter issues involve correcting, at a minimum, the presently known deficiencies associated with that system or program. Prior to restart, PSEEG will resolve or present a plan for the resolution of each restart issue.
In order to fully resolve each restart issue, PSEEG must address the deficiencies in that system or program and present the basis for concluding that' sufficient improvements have been made to justify safe operation of the facility.
Each restart issue will be closed by the NRC using one of the following two methods:
Verifv (V): Items that should be independently inspected by the NRC to conclude, in an inspection report, that adequate performance improvement had been or will be achieved.
Review (R): Items that, as a minimum, will be discussed by the SAP to conclude that adequate performance improvement had been or will be corrected. The SAP discussion and decisions will be documented in the SAP meeting minutes.
A Readiness Assessment Team Inspection (RATI) will be conducted following closure of the restart items attached and a statement from PSE&G that they have corrected the equipment and performance issues to support safe operation.
The RATI will conduct an integrated assessment of plant performance to independently confirm the adequacy of the corrective actions.
Public comments will be solicited prior to the initial publication of the NRC restart plan, as well as prior to the NRC approval of the initial unit restart.
\\
RESTART PROCESS CHECKLIST RESTART PROCESS CHECKLIST I.
INITIAL NRC RESPONSES TASK STATUS a.
Initial notification and NRC management discussion of SNM known facts and issues [ Region I]
1/95 b.
Identify / implement additional inspections (i.e. AIT, IIT, SIT 95-80 or Special) [Rerfion Il c.
Determine need for formal regulatory response (i.e. Order CAL Issued or CAL) [ Map]
6/9/95 d.
Determine need for senior management involvement [NRR &
SMM 3/21/95 Region I]
met w/FSEGG e.
Identify other parties involved i.e. NRC Organisations, NRR/RI other Federal agencies, industry organizations (NRR &
FEMA Region I]
II.
NOTIFICATIONS:
TASK STATUS a.
Issue Daily and Directors Highlight [NRR]
N/A b.
Issue Morning Report [ Region 1]
N/A c.
Conduct Commissioner Assistants' Briefing [NRR]
N/A d.
Issue Commission Paper [NRR]
N/A e.
Cognizant Federal agencies notified (i.e. FEMA, EPA, DOJ, N/A DOL) [NRR]
f.
State and Local Officials notified [ Region I]
N/A q.
Congressional notification [NRR]
N/A
.' \\
I j
RESTART PROCESS CEECKLIST E
III.
ESTART.ISE AND ORGANISE TEE NRC REVIEW PROCESS:
1 TASK STATUS i
a.
Establish the Restart Panel (Region I]
7/6/95 j
1 4
b.
Asseca available information (i.e. inspection results, Ongoing i
lictet.a.ys self-assessments, industry reviews) [ SAP]
Condi;ct Regional Administrator Briefing [ SAP]
8/7/95
)
c.
i d.
Conduct NRR Executive Team Briefing [NRR]
10/95 1
1 j
o.
Develop the case Specific Checklist [ SAP]
Ongcing j
f.
Develop the Restart Action Plan [SAF) 10/95 i'
g.
Regional Administrator approves Restart Action Plan 10/95
[ Region I]
Unit 1 j
i l
h.
NRR Awsociate Director and/or NRR Director approves Re-10/95 i
start Action Plan [NRR]
Unit 1 i
1.
Implement Restart Action Plan (SAP]
let Quarter Cal. 96 f
Unit 1 j.
Modify CAL / Order as necessary [ Region I]
N/A
}
k.
Obtain input from involved parties both within NRC FEMA and other Federal egencies such as FEMA, IPA, DOJ, DOL 2
j 4
i i
f 1
I k
-. _... _ _. _ _ _. ~.... -.. _ -. -.... -. -. -
_ ~. _. _... -
.. ~...... - - -..
4 i
?
j l
RESTART PROCESS CEECKLIST IV.
REVIEW IMPLEMENTATION:
)
l IV.1 Root Causes and Corrective Actionst TASK STATUS j
a.
1: valuate findings of Special Team Inspection (SAP) 95-10 95-80 j
ongoing
)
b.
Liermr.ee performs root cause analysis and develops correc-8/10 tive action plan for root causes (SAP)
Scoping Mtg.
1 I
NRC evaluates licensee's root cause determination and ongoing c.
corrective action plan [ SAP]
l IV.2 Assessment of Equipment Damage I
TASK APPLICABLE
{
a.
Licensee assesses damage to systems and components N/A v
i b.
NRC evaluates licensee damage assessment N/A c.
Licensee determines corrective actions N/A t
d.
NRC evaluates corrective actions N/A 1
i i
1 i
j h
I i
i 1
)
j 5
1 I
l
1 4
- i i
i t
i l
RESTART PROCESS CEECELIST i
IV.3 Determine Restart Tasues and Resolutions
}
TASK STATUS a.
Review / evaluate licensee generated restart issues [sAF]
Ongoinq
}
b.
Independent NRC identification of restart issues (consider Ongoing sources external to NRC and licensee) [5AF]
l c.
NRC/ licensee agreement on restart issues (SAP]
10/95 t
Unit 1 i
{
d.
Evaluate licensee's restart issues implementation process ongoing
[ SAP) i e.
Evaluate licensee's implementation verification process Pending
[SAF]
Approval of the Plan 1
l f.
Evaluate NRC open item backlog and Licensee commitments to Ongoing i
NRC for potential restart issues [SAF]
i j
g.
Evaluate open allegations for potrantial restart issues ongoing j
[ SAP]
l; h.
Evaluate the Restart Readiness Team Inspection findings To Be
[sAF]
Determined I
1 IV.4 Obtain Commentet i
I TASK STATUS l
a.
Obtain public comments (SAF]
When j
Licensee i
Plan Submitted i
i b.
Obtain comments from State and Local Officials (SAF]
Start l
8/3/95 w/NJ Ongoing c.
Obtain comments from applicable Federal agencies [NRR]
]
i i
1 ij
)
i j
J 4
4 v.w--
m--
e.-
c-
-, -.v
- - - - +
- ~ -
w v
.. -. - - - -. -. -.... ~. -. - -..
. - _ = -.. -.=.
I t
RESTART PROCESS CEECKLIST IV.5 Clomeout Actions:
TASK STATUS a.
Evaluate licensee's restart readinese self-assessment Open I
[ SAP]
b.
Restart issues closed [ SAP)
Open c.
Conduct NRC Restart Readiness Team Inspection [ Region I]
open l
d.
Issue Augmented Restart Coverage Inspection Plan Open l
[ Region I]
i l
e.
Comments from other parties considered [ SAP]
Open l
f.
Determine that all conditions of the Order / CAL are satis-Open l
fled [ SAP]
q.
Re-review of Generic Restart Checklist complete [ SAP]
Open l
V.
RESTART AUTEORISATION:
l TASK STATUS M
a.
Prepare restart authorisation document and basis for Open restart (SAP]
b.
NRC Restart Panel recommends restart [ SAP]
Open c.
No restart objections from other applicable HQ offices Open
[NRR) d.
No restart objections from applicable Federal agencies Open
[NRR]
e.
Regional Administrator concurs in restart (Region I]
Open f.
NRR Associate Director and/or NRR Director Concurs in Open restart [NRR]
q.
Regional Administrator agrees with restart [ Region I]
Open l
l 1
I l
l l
1
_...m__..___.
)
RESTART PROCESS CEECKLIST VI.
RESTART AUTEORISATION NOTIFICATION:
TASK STATUS l
I l
a.
commission [NRR]
Open 1
1 b.
EDO [NRR]
Open l
c.
congressional Affairs [NRR]
Open l
d.
ACRS [NRR]
Open 1
e.
Applicable Federal agencies [NRR]
Open FEMA f.
Public Affairs (Region I]
Open g.
State and Local Officials [ Region I]
Open l
l l
l
., _. ~ _. _
a.
t I
RESTART ISSUE CEECKLIST RESTART ISSUE CHECKLIST Revision: O Date 11/95 l
I.
CONFIRMAN. RY ACTION LETTax RESTART ISSUES RESTART ISSUE Resp.
Reference Date j
(Licensee)
Org.
Clor,ed s_
I 1.
PSIGG to po iors a Significant Event SAP l
Response Team (SERT) review of the i
circumstances leading to, and causing the l
Salem Unit 2 reactor trip, and communicate the findings to the NRC.
I 2.
PSEGO to perform a special review of long-SAP standing equipment reliability and j
operability issues, including corrective maintenance and operator workarounds; the offactiveness and quality of. management oversight and review of these matters; and l
communicate the findings to the NRC.
3.
Conduct a meeting with the NRC to describe, SAP discuss and gain NRC agreement on the scope and comprehensiveness of the PSE&G plan for the performance of an operational readiness review of each unit, including the description of issues required to be resolved prior to restart.
4.
PSIGG to conduct an operational readiness SAP l
review at each Salem unit.
5.
Participate in management meetings with the SAP NRC staff, open for public observation, to describe the outcome and conclusions of the operational readiness review for each unit.
6.
When PSEGG is ready in all respects for SAP restart of the facility, they are to provide a letter to the Regional Administrator certifying that fact.
7.
Obtain the agreement of the Regional SAP Administrator prior to restart of each Salem unit.
l
- - - _ _. _ _ _. -. _ _ - - -. -. _ _ - ~.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -.. ~ -. -. ~. -
t j
i '
s l
i 1
RESTART ISSUE CEECKLIST i
it
]
II.
TECENICAL RESTART ISSUES Revision s _,_9_,
Date:
11/95 t
j TECINICAL ISSUE ESERa.
IREBl.
Reference Status l
Oro Review
)
3 1.
Cont. Spray Dsch Viv (CS-2)
DRS Insp.
URI 92-Open j
operability. Calculations indicate 01-04 actual d/p may be greater than design d/p.
l 2.
Reliability of Control Air System.
DRP Insp.
I/R 94-Open
,~
Requires operator action to start 19, 24 &
j backup compressor.
35 3.
CW Screen Motor Reliability. No DRP Review I/R 95-10 Open automatic motor operation, vulnerable to grass intrusion j
l 4.
Digital feedwater installation to DRS Insp.
I/R 94-13 open l
correct feedwater control reliability.
j j
5.
Moisture in EDG air statt system DRP Insp.
I/R 94-19 open causes reliability problem with check j
i valves.
i i
6.
EDG output breakers fail to close when DRS Insp.
I/R 95-10 open j
switch taken to close.
i j
7.
EDG has minimal load margin.
DRS Insp.
URI 93-Open 82-04.
1 8.
EDSFI Followup Issues DR3 Insp.
I/R 93-Open 082.
9.
Cracked exhaust steam piping could DRS Review Open indicate weak erosion / control program.
10.
Feedwater nossle bypass flow DRS Insp.
URI 94-Open
[
introduced error in calorimetric and 024-04 power level.
1 11.
EDG 1A load fluctuations.
DRS Insp.
URI 94-Open 018-02 12.
Review adequacy of fuse control DRS Insp.
I/R 95-10 Open program.
13.
Review gas turbine batteries degrading DRS Review I/R 95-13 open i
with loss of one source of offsite j
power. Turbine referenced in TS basis i
to support SW outages.
i 14.
Hagan module replacement project.
DRS Insp.
I/R 94-Open
]
80, 95-02.
J i
. =. -
._ __...____ - _.-___..__._ _.__.. ~._ _ _
\\
t I
f RESTART ISSUE CRECKLIST
\\
j j
TECENICAL ISSUE Ragg.a.
Inan/
Reference Status Dr.q Review j
15.
Procedure contains non-conservative DRS Insp.
URI 94-Open i
125V battery acceptance criteria.
18-01 1
16.
NRC & QA identified numerous IST DRS Insp.
URI 94-Open l
program deficiencies.
21-01, 02
& 03 i
j 17.
Main condenser steam dumpn DRP Insp.
URI 94-Open malfunction, requires closing MSIVs on 08-01
}
trip.
18.
Poor reliability of PDP charging DRP Review Open j
pumps.
1 j
19.
Poor process for configuration control DRP Insp.
URI 95-Open of pipe supports.
0 6 -0.'.
i l
20.
POPS ability to mitigate overpressure DRS Inps.
Vio 94-Open j
events.
032-05 1
j 21.
Wiring separation & redundancy DRS Insp.
URI 89-Open 4
concerns with RG 1.97 instruments &
13-07 &
j cable separation 90-81-13 i
j 22.
PORY (IPRI) seat leakage, requiring DRP Review I/R 94-35 Open block valve closure.
j 23.
Undersized PORV accumulators DRS Insp.
I/R 95-13 open 24.
Gate valves identified susceptible to DRS Insp.
URI 93-Open 1
1 press lock & thermal binding.
026-01 s
]
25.
Pressurizer Spray Problems /Use of Aux DRP Review.
I/R 95-13 open i
Spray 3
26.
Radiation monitor problems DRP Review I/R 94-24 open 27.
Rx coolant pump oil collection system DRS Insp.
I/R 94-33 open deficiencies.
& 94-35 28.
Understand causes and corrective DRP Review I/R 94-32 Open i
actions for failures of Rx coolant
& 95-02 pump seals.
29.
Rx Head Vent Valve Stoke Times DRP Insp VIO 95-02 Open 30.
RHR Min-flow Valve (RH29) Failures on DRP Insp.
VIO 95-10 Open j
unit 2.
)
31.
RHR Dsch Valve (21RH10) Banging Noise DRP iew I/R 95-10 Open e
i 32.
Review program for control 7 DRS Insp.
Open inspecting resilient ftre barrier seals.
4
I i
RESTART ISEUE CHECKLIST 5
1 TECENICAL ISSUE Reso.
Insof Reference Etatus Ora Review 33.
Control rods stepping with no DRS Insp.
I/R 94-19 open temperature error signal.
34.
Numerous SI pump deficiencies.
DRP Insp.
I/R 95-13 open 35.
Verify adequate protection for SI Pump DRS Insep.
I/R 95-Open runnout.
13.
36.
SI relief valves performance history DRP Review I/R 94-Opeen of leaking and lifting.
13, 31 &
l 95-01
(
37.
Review corrective action for service DRS Review I/R 95-07 open water pipe erosion.
38.
Spurious high steam flow signals DRS Insp.
112-l 010103 l
l 39.
Review corrective actions to resolve DRS Review I/R 94-31 Open numerous switchyard failures.
t 40.
Verify adequate correction for DRS Insp.
I/R 95-77 open overhead annunciator failures.
41.
Verify adequate corrective action to DRS Insp.
I/R 95-77 open l
I ensure e, team generator tube integrity.
l l
l i
l l
1
i \\
4 t
I
^
RESTART ISSUE CEECKLIST i
Revision:
5 i
Date:
11/95 III. PROGRAastATIC RESTART ISSUES I
)
RESTART ISSUE Resp.
Insp./
Reference Date l
(Licensee)
Org.
Review Closed i
1.
Resolve Appendix R jumpers and DRS Insp.
program discrepancies, including fire j
barrier penetrations.
I 2.
Review efforts to maintain l
configuration control, given examples j
from Hagan modules and bolting.
j Effort to include setpoint control program and drawing control.
3.
Adequacy and use of procedures, DRP Incp.
l including procedure revision backlog.
J
{
4.
Management of engineering and DRP/
Insp.
maintenance backlog.
RATI
(
j -
5.
Program for foreign material DRP Insp.
j exclusion.
l 6.
DRP Insp.
J j
7.
operator performance.
DRS Insp.
8.
Correction of operator workarounds, DRP Insp.
including control room deficiencies.
t l
9.-
Program to utilize operating DRP Insp.
(industry) experience feedback.
]-
10.
Corrective action program, including DRP Insp.
adequacy of root cause program.
11.
Engineering contribution to problem DRS Insp.
resolution.
. _ _ _ _. _ _. _ _. _. _ _ _.. _ _ ~ _. _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _.. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. __ _ _.. __ ___._. _.
I 4
i
\\
i i
RESTART ISSUE CHECKLIST I
.l Revision:
5 Date:
11/95 l.
III. PROGRMetATIC RESTART ISSUES
- continued -
1 1
i RESTART ISSUE Resp.
Insp.
Reference Date (Licensee)
Org.
review Closed l
i 12.
Tagging DRP Insp i
13.
Adequacy of Emergency Preparedness DRS Insp.
d 3.
14.
Resolution of licensing commitments.
NRR Review 15.
Adequacy of Emergency Operating DRS Insp Procedures.
4 l
16.
Adequacy of training.
DRS Insp.
17.
Adequacy of work control program.
DRS Insp.
l 18.
Parts availability G accuracy of bill DRS Insp.
I/R 95-02 of materials i
1 4
4 3
e d
J e
l i,
i 3
l i
t
-l
't i
i
. _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _... _ _ _ _ _ _.. = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _..
i I
t RESTART ISSUE CHECKLIST f
IV.
RESTART READINESS ASSESSMENT CEECEL13T I
Revision:
O Date:
11/95 IV.l.
ASSESSMENT OF ROOT CAUSE IDENTIFICATION AND CORRECTION i
AREA FOR ASSESSMENT RESPONSIBLE STATUS ORGANIZATION 1.
ROOT CAUSE ASSESSMENT SAP Open ADDlicable Items 4
1 Conditions requiring the shutdown are clearly understood Root causes of the conditions requiring the shutdown are clearly understood Root causes of other significant problems are clearly understood Evaluate adequacy of the root cause analysis program 2.
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS SAP Open Acclicable Items Evaluate adequacy of the comprehensive corrective action plan Evaluate adequacy of the corrective action programs for specific root causes Assens control of corrective action item tracking Effective corrective actions for the conditions requiring the shutdown have been implemented Effective corrective actions for other significant problems have been implemented Adequacy of the corrective action verification process 3.
SELF-ASSESSMENT CAPABILITY l
SAP Open app.11 cable Items Adequacy of licensee's startup self-assessment Effectiveness of Quality Assurance Program Adequacy of Industry Experience Review Program Adequacy of licensee's Independent Review Groups Adequacy of deficiency reporting system Staff willingness to raise concerne Effectiveness of PRA usage Adequacy of Commitment Tracking Program Utilization of external audits (i.e. INPO)
Quality and timeliness of 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 Reports Effectiveness of Line Organization Self-Assessments
_-_~
_. -.. ~.
_ _ _ -. _ _. ~ -.. _ - -.
l l
RESTART ISSUE CHECKLIST RESTART READINESS ASSESSMENT CEECKLIST Revision:
0 Dates 11/95 IV.2. ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE Na""T f
ARIA FOR ASSESSMENT RESPONSIBLE STATUS ORGANIEATION 1.
MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT AND EFFECTIVENESS SAP Open Acolicable Items Management commitment to achieving improved performance Performance goals / expectations developed for the staff Goals / expectations communicated to the staff Resources nyallable to management to achieve goals l
Qualification and training of management Management's commitment to procedure adherence Management involvement in self-assessment and independent self-assessment capability Effectiveness of management review committees l
Effectiveness of internal management meetings Management in-plant time Management's awareness of day-to-day operational concerns Ability to identify and prioritize significant issues Ability to coordinate resolution of operability and other significant issues Ability to implement offactive corrective actions 2.
MANAGEMENT ORGANIEATION AND SUPPORT
$AP Open Acclicable Items Structure of the organization Ability to adequately staff the orgaaination Effect of any management reorganization Establishment of proper work environment Ability to foster teamwork among the staff Ability to resolve employee concerne Ability to provide engineering support l
Adequacy of plant administrative procedures Amount of contractor usage Adequacy of contractor oversight Information exchange with other utilities Participation in industry groups Ability to function in the Emergency Response Organization Coordination with offsite emergency planning officials l
~- -
4 j
i l
i !
RESTART ISSUE CHECKLIST 4
j RESTART READINESS ASSESSMENT CEECKI.IST i
Revision 0
l Date:
11/95 j
IV.3. ASSESSMENT OF FLANT AND CORPORATE STAFF i
4 AREA FOR ASSESSMENT RESPONSIBLE STATUS 4;
ORGANIZATION i
1.
ASSESSMENT OF STAFF SAP Open l
&gglicable Items t
Staft commitment to achieving improved performance i
Staff's safety consciousness Understanding of management's expectations / goals I
Understanding of plant issues and corrective actions l
Morale j
Structure of the organization j
l Effect on the staff of any reorganization
{
Qualifications and training of the staff Staff's work environment
/
Level of attention to detail Adequacy of staffing i
Off-hour plant staffing l
Staff overtime usage Amount of contractor usage j
Staff / contractor relationship q
Procedure usage / adherence 2.
ASSESSMENT OF 00RPORATE SUPPORT SAP Open l
Apolicable Items Relationship between corporate and the plant staff 1
l Adequacy of the request for corporate services process corporate understanding of plant issues l
corporate staff in plant time Effectiveness of the corporate / plant interface meetings
}
j Adequacy of corporate representation at plant activities Adequacy of corporatu engineering support Adequacy of corporate design changes Adequacy of licensing support 1
i 4
1
I l
i 3
l i
RESTART ISSUE CHECKLIST l
1 i
RESTART READINESS ASSESSMENT CEECKLIST e
Revision: 0 Dates 11/95 IV.3. ASSESSMENT OF FLANT AND CORPORATE STAFF
- continued -
AREA FOR ASSESSMENT RESPONSIBLE STATUS ORGANIZATION 3.
OPERATOR ISSUES SAP Open Acolicable Items Licensed operator staffing meets requirements and licensee goals Level of formality in the control room Adequacy of requalification training Adequacy of equipment operability determination training Adequacy of SRO command and control Control room / plant operator awareness of equipment status Adequacy of plant operating procedures Procedure usage / adherence Log keeping practices i
i J
. ~. -
- ~ _.
- - - ~..
I RESTART ISSUE CEECKLIST RESTART READINESS ASSESSaCMT CEECFLIST Revision: O Date:
11/95 IV.4. ASSESSMENT OF PIYSICAL READINESS OF TEE PLANT AREA FOR ASSESSMENT RESPONSIBLE STATUS ORGANIZATION 1.
ASSESSMENT OF PHYSICAL READINESS OF THE SAP Open PLANT Aeolicable Items Operability of technical specifications systems Operability of required secondary and support systems Results of pre-startup testing Adequacy of system lineups Adequacy of surveillance tests / test program Significant hardware issues resolved Adequacy of the power ascension testing program Adequacy of plant maintenance program effectiveness Maintenance backlog managed and impact on operation assessed Adequacy of plant housekeeping and equipment storage Adequacy of onsite and offsite emergency preparedness l
RESTART ISSUE CHECKLIST RESTART READINESS ASSESSMENT CEECELIST Revision:1 Date 11/95 IV.S. ASSESSMENT OF CnMPLIANCE WITE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AREA FOR ASSESSMENT RESPONSIBLE STATUS ORGANIEATION 1.
ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORY SAP Open REQUIREMENTS Acolicable It===
Applicable license amendments have been issued Applicable exemptions have been granted Applicable reliefs have been granted Confirmatory Action Letter. conditions have been satisfied Significant enfercoment issues have been resolved Allegations have been appropriately addressed
~
~. -. _.. -.. -...
q 4
}
}
f RESTART ISSUE CHECKLIST i
j RESTART REAnIwEss AssEssuBxT CaECxLIST 3
Revision: O Date:
11/95 IV.6. COORDINATION WITE INTERESTED AGENCIES / PARTIES AREA FOR ASSESSMENT RESPONSIBLE STATUS j
i ORGANIZATION
}
1.
COORDINATION WITH INTERESTED SAP Open AGENCIES / PARTIES i
2 Aeolicable Items j
4
{
Federal Emergency Management Agency i
4
, Appropriate State and Local Officials Appropriate Public Interest Groups
)
Local News Media 1
I n
f 1
i i
t i
l 1
,,--e.---r, i-ur
Salem Restart Plan Public Meetina December 18. 1995 i
i The Salem Assessment Panel (SAP) reviewed the meeting transcript to ascertain whether the public had comments that significantly affected the restart of 3
Salem Units 1 and 2.
The NRC defined its intention throughout the transcript to solicit specific concerns regarding Salem activities.
Many comments were addressed by NRC officials.
The Chief of Projects Branch 3 was provided as a point of contact.
Paae No.
Comment 13 1
NRC establishes protocol for further comments on restart plan.
29-31 2
Caldwell (public) received a call from a OA person.
This individual alleges that an action request with over 100 items on it was swept under the rug by the QA department.
This is being addressed by NRC Region I Allegation No.95-212 and being investigated under s
Report 1-95-052.
This concern will be addressed accordingly.
34 3
Cooper (NRC) requests followup on these OA concerns.
Written followup was preferred.
35 4
Lashkari (public) indicates he gave about.30 concerns to NRC.
His concerns are being addressed by NRC Region I Allegation No. 94-0159, 39 5
Lashkari refers to a CROL-LO600 problem that could result in excessive boric acid corrosion of the RV head.
This is addressed as Item No. 13 under Allegation No. 94-0159.
40 6
Lashkari implies that the appointment of a previous i
PSE&G board member as Chairman of the NRC will cause a loss of public confidence and give PSE&G an unfair advantage in dealing with NRC.
Based on a discussion with W. Kane. Deputy Regional Administrator, no further action on this item is necessary.
[]
Caldwell alleges that there is a connection between 58 his writing a OA action request and his termination.
i Per Dave Vito, he is part of a nine person contingent that has filed an age discrimination lawsuit against PSE&G.
gh hh 74~
~~ ~^w f
y
(
/ontains C
ive Information
~
2 61-62
-(T Thomas (public) indicated that management attitudes changed in 1986 since PSE&G no longer wanted feedback.
He believes that his bringing up concerns cost his job.
Results:
Based on these comments and an overall survey of the transcript.
the SAP agreed to add a OA effectiveness item to the Salem RAP.
l l
l l
l l
l l
l Contains Sensitive Information
I-SALEM RESTART INSPECTIONS GENERAL GUIDANCE Backaround l
l Both Salem units were shutdown in 1995 in response to equi) ment problems.
The i
NRC used this opportunity to confirm specific commitments
)etween NRC and l
Public Service Electric & Gas (PSE&G) which are contained in a June 9, 1995, i
Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL).
Shortly thereafter, the NRC chartered the l
Salem Assessment Panel (SAP) to monitor licensee restart activities per NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0350.
This program required the defining of key i
issues that required NRC followup.
Our February 23. 1996, the NRC published its Restart Action Plan (RAP) which listed 43 technical and 21 programmatic l
restart issues that must be independently inspected and evaluated by NRC.
The plan also requires the evaluation of various management corrective actions.
and other programs and practices to assure the licensee's readiness for restart.
These items will provide the focal point for NRC's activities at the Salem facility.
They will, in a large part, provide the basis for any future decisions on Salem restart.
It is, thereforo, imperative that each ins)ector at the facility understand and implement their responsibilities under t11s
- plan, i
kneral Guidance The following general guidance applies to inspections performed at Salem Units 1 and 2 during their respective restart periods.
Individual inspectors are accountable for conducting restart inspections per the enclosed guidance.
The following guidance pertains to all Salem restart inspections:
1.
The facility has agreed to provide closecut packages for each technical / programmatic restart issues (Salem RAP Sections II and III).
Confirm that these packages are complete for each item to be inspected.
Inspections should assess the quality of these closecut packages. To the extent practical, your inspection should also include personal observation of system / equipment performance, as well as, interviews with restart issue sponsors and their management.
2.
Review the Salem IFS list for open items in your functional area.
Develop your inspection plan to include these items.
Coordinate with your functional area counterpart to ensure closure of all items in your.
area prior to restart.
The SAP performance goal is to evaluate and disposition all open IFS items prior to restart.
I 3.
Review open allegations in'your functional area.
Develop your plan to include.these items.
Note that many allegations have concerns that cross into many functional areas.
Focus on the oldest allegations l
first, then move onto any that are closable, even the most recent allegations.
Develop appropriate plans for allegation closeout, Use your assessment skills to determine whether allegations are substantiated or unsubstantiated and document such in the closeout-
2 letter.
Remember, you can close out an allegation with violation, as well as, with an unsubstantiated conclusion.
The SAP performance goal is to evaluate and disposition all open allegations prior to restart.
Safety significant issues will have to be resolved arior to restart.
DRS has sponsored an allegations facilitator (AF) tlat has been tasked with defining the followup needed for each and every Salem allegation on a line item basis.
Roy Fuhrmeister is the currently designated AF.
4.
Review the enclosed management performance checklist.
This list was derived from Section IV of the Salem RAP and is applicable to all Salem restart inspections.
Observations should be made in as many of the areas as possible, such that, at the culmination of all restart inspections. the SAP can effectively assess management performance relative to safe restart and continued operation.
I 5.
DRP will assist, as necessary, to facilitate inspection ] reparation.
This may include coordination of planned inspections wit 1 other inspections, identifying key technical issues, assisting with IFS and allegation research to ensure inspection adequacy.
~
Revision 0 March 26, 1996
i SALEM GENERIC INSPECTION GUIDANCE Inspectors performing Salem restart inspections should make observations and/or findings that address, if appropriate, the generic items listed below.
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS Evaluate adequacy of the comprehensive corrective action plan Evaluate adequacy of the corrective action programs for specific root causes l
Assess control of corrective action item tracking Effective corrective actions for the conditions requiring the shutdown have been implemented Effective corrective actions for other significant problems have been implemented Adequacy of the corrective action verification process SELF ASSESSMENT CAPABILITY l
Adequacy of licensee's startup self-assessment Effectiveness of Quality Assurance Program Adequacy of Industry Experience Review Program Adequacy of licensee's Independent Review Groups Adequac of deficiency reporting system Staff willingness to raise concerns Effectiveness of PRA usage Adequacy of Commitment Tracking Program Utilization of' external audits (i.e. INPO)
Quality and timeliness of 10 CFR 50.72 and 50,73 Reports Effectiveness of Line Organization Self-Assessments l
MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT AND EFFECTIVENESS Management commitment to achieving improved performance Performance goals / expectations developed for the staff Goals / expectations communicated to the staff Resources available to management to achieve goals Qualification and training of management Management's commitment to procedure adherence Management involvement in self-assessment and independent self-assessment capability Effectiveness of management review committees Effectiveness of internal management meetings l
Management in-plant time Management's awareness of day-to day operational concerns Ability to identify and prioritize significant issues Ability to coordinate resolution of operability and other significant issues
{
Ability to implement effective corrective actions MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION AND SUPPORT l
Structure of the or anization Ability to adequate $y staff the organization i
't
- j.,
5
'l Effect of any management reorganization Establishment of proper work environment Ability to foster teamwork among the staff Ability to resolve employee concerns Ability to provide engineering support Adequacy of plant administrative procedures l
Amount of contractor usage
)
Adequacy of contractor oversight Information exchange with other utilities j
Participation in industry groups Ability to function in the Emergency Response Organization Coordination with offsite emergency planning officials i
5 ASSESSMENT OF STAFF i
i Staff commitment to achieving improved performance 1
Staff's safety consciousness Understanding of management's expectations / goals Understanding of plant issues and corrective actions Morale j
Structure of the organization Effect on the staff of any reorganization Qualifications and training of the staff i
Staff's work environment Level of attention to detail L
Adequacy of staffing 1
Off-hour plant staffing Staff overtime usage Amount of contractor usage j
Staff / contractor relationship Procedure usage / adherence o
ASSESSMENT OF CORPORATE SUPPORT Relationship between corporate and the plant staff l
Adequacy of the request for corporate services process Corporate understanding of plant issues j
Corporate staff in plant time j
Effectiveness of the corporate / plant interface meetings Adequacy of corporate representation at plant activities 4
Adequacy of corporate engineering support Adequacy of corporate design changes 1
Adequacy of licensing support 3
i,, l.
e
~
hf AW /C5k,
/
OPERATOR ISSUES
/
{
Licensed operator staffing meets requireme/ntsandlicenseego
//
Level of formalit in the control room E-/ P y,- ( % F Adequacy of requa ification training 6 Adequacy of equipment operability determination training f, Adequacy of SRO command and control L/f 4
Control room / plant operator awareness of equipment status. F Adequacy of plant operating procedures i
Procedure usage / adherence i
1 4
Log keeping practices ASSESSMENT OF PHYSICAL READINESS OF THE PLANT Operability of technical specifications systems Operability of required secondary and support systems Results of pre startup testing Adequacy of system lineups Adequacy of surveillance tests / test program Significant hardware issues resolved Adequacy of the power ascension testing program Adequacy of alant maintenance program effectiveness Maintenance Jacklog managed and impact on operation assessed Adequacy of plant housekeeping and equipment storage Adequacy of onsite and offsite emergency preparedness ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS l
Applicable license amendments have been issued Applicable exemptions have been granted ADplicable reliefs have been granted C6nfirmatory Action Letter conditions have been satisfied Significant enforcement issues have been resolved Allegations have been appropriately addressed C0 ORDINATION WITH INTERESTED AGENCIES / PARTIES Federal Emergency Management Agency Appropriate State and Local Officials Appropriate Public Interest Groups Local News Media l
I 1
i l
l 4
FROM ?!HO GM SA'IM 0?? EAT:0.N! 7.F3;-2; A diDl M 2T '? M:li ?T. E M N0. ' 3i'Oli:: ?
'2 o
Salem Restart Plan
~
NRC Programmatic Restart issues f/dl NRC Ref, issue (paraphrased)
Owner Restart Plan Ref.
b*'/
- b
/
i APP. R: Jumpers, program discrepancies Mark McGough None fire barrier penetrations 2
ConfigurWion Contml Setpoint Control, Mark McGough Syst Eng. 3.3 Drawing Control Opns. 3.5 bec Maint Other issues 4 3
Procedures: Adequacy, use & rev, backlog Dept. Mgrs/
Opns. 4.4,4.5 & 4.8 Nick Conicella Maint Other Issues 3e 4
En0ineering & Maintenance backlogs Jerry RanallV Maint. Other issues 3 Jay Laughlin Eng. Prob. Stmt. 3 M 4~hM4 ZN7h 5
FME Program Dennis McCloskey None 6
Operability Determinations Scott Greenlee Opns. 3.2 a, b N!I/"
7 Operator Performance (Coord & commun)
Opns.1.2,3.4 & 5.1 5/#/M 8
Operator Workarounds & Control Room Jim Webster Opns. 3.5 d 7[s /1h Deficiencies Maint Other issues 5 9
OEF Program Walter Pike C/A Prb. Stmt. 7 10 Corrective Action Program & Root Cause Mark Marano Corrective Action Opns 4.3 Syst. Eng,2.2 d, e Maint.14 Engg. 2 1,2,3 11 Engineering: Problem Resolution & Safety Jerry Ranaill Eng. Prob Stmts.
Evaluations 2&3 12 Tagging Scott Greenlee Opns. 4.1 a l 8hf//4 13 Adequacy of EP Program John Polyak Opns. Prob. Stmt. 6 14 Licensing Commkments Gabe Salamon None 15 Adequacy of EOPs Scott Greenlee opns. 4.7 c 6 //[f 4 16 Adoquacy of Training Jerry McMahon Accredited Training Maint. 6-1,2,3 Engg. Prob. Stmt. 4 17 Work Control and Planning John Holden Work Control 18 Parts AvailatXfity and BOM Accuracy Ed Bensen None Page1
FRO.!! FiE&G G',! ?A'.D! 0FEFr!CNS N '-33 M '56 lWEDl :i3. :T 35 ' : ': 7 '5 U M ^W ^22: ? 22 Salem Restart Plan NRC Programmatic Restart issues NRC Ref.
Issue (paraphrased)
Owner Restart Plan Ref.
19 Adequacy of UFSAR Update Cindy Tully None 20 Adequacy of QA Program Dennis Tauber None Nf/!f8 21 Goff Assessments John Flannagan Self Assessment Gyst. Eng. 2.2 ]
\\
Maint 1 5, 2-8, 5 5, 8-Maint other issues 7 Human Perf. 3-3e Engg. 5-6 NRCISSUE.xis Page 2
SALEM RESTART INSPECTION PLAN The following inspections are planned to address the technical (Section II) and programmatic (Section III) restart items published in NRC's Restart Action Plan (RAP).
Restart Inspections are currently underway with additional inspection expectea to address the breadth of the items being defined by the RAP. This schedule is being constantly revised and was current as of April 17, 1996.
It reflects the following licensee Salem Unit 2 milestones:
Complete RCS midloop May 15 Core Reload July 3 Mode 4 August 1 Generator Synchronization August 27 The dates listed below are the target dates in 1996 for the inspection of the listed items.
Each item will have to be accepted by the Salem Assessment Panel prior to sign off in the RAP.
TENTATIVE INSPECTION DATES April 15 11.4.
Digital feedwater installation to correct feedwater control reliability. (DRS-Elec)
April 22 11.13.
Review gas turbine batteries degrading with loss of one source of offsite power. Turbine referenced in TS basis to support SW outages. (DRS-Elec) 11.38.
Spurious high steam flow signals causing SI. (DRS-Elec) 111.1.
Resolve Appendix R jumpers and program discrepancies, including fire barrier penetrations. (NRR)
III.10.1.
Corrective action program, including adequacy of root cause program. (DRP)
Revision 1 April 17, 1996
April 29 II.7.
EDG has minimal load margin. (DRS Elec)
II.15.
Procedure contains non-conservative 125V battery acceptance criteria. (DRS-Elec) j II.20.
POPS ability to mitigate overpressure events. (DRS-Sys) 11.21.
Wiring separation & redundancy concerns with RG 1.97 instruments &
cable separation (DRS-Elec) i 11.24.
Gate valves identified susceptible to press lock & thermal binding. (DRS-Sys) 11.28.
Understand causes and corrective actions for failures of Rx i
coolant pump seals. (DRP & DRS-Sys)
III.9.
Program to utilize operating (industry) experience feedback. (DRP)
May 6 i
/11.3.
CW Screen Moto,' Reliability.
No automatic t.utor operation, j
vulnerable to grass intrusion. (DRP) l
/II.12.
Review adequacy of fuse controi ;,cogram. (DRS-Elec)
/II.14.
Hagan module replacement project. (DRS-Elec)
[11.29.
Rx Head Vent Valve Stoke Times. (DRP)
/II.40.
Verify adequate correction for cverhead annunciator failures.
l (DRS-Elec) 1 i
/II.37.
Review corrective action for service water pipe erosion. (ORS-Sys)
/111.20.
Revision 1 April 17, 1996
)
May 13~
i I.23.
Undersized PORV accumulators. (DRP) kl.32.
Review program for control & inspecting resilient fire barrier seals. (DRS-Elec)
I.35.
Verify adequate protection for SI Pump runout. -(DRS-Elec) dII.5.
Program for foreign material exclusion. (DRP)
III.10.2.
Currective action program, including adequacy of root cause program. (DRP)
May 20
/II.I.
Cont. Spray Osch V1v (CS-2) Operability.
Calculations indicate actual d/p may be greater than design d/p. (DRS-Sys) vdl.2.
Reliability of Control Air System. Requires operator action to start backup compressor. (DRP) i
/II.8.
EDSFI Followup Issues (DRS-Elec) 11.10.
Feedwater nozzle bypass flow 6troduced error in calorimetric and power level. (DRS-Ops) d
.19.
II Poor process for configuration control of pipe supports. (DRS-Mati) 11.22.
PORV (IPRI) seat leakage, requiring block valve closure. (DRP)
./ 11.33.
Control rods stepping with no temperature error signal. (DRS-Elec) l l
l 1
Revision 1 April 17, 1996
~
May 27
/
II.27Y Rx coolant pump oil collection system deficiencies. (DRS-Elec)
II.30.
RHR Min-flow Valve (RH29) Failures on unit 2. (DRP)
II.31.
RHR Dsch Valve (21RH10) Banging Noise. (DRD)
II.43.
Adequacy of corrective actions from the Salem Unit 2 reactor trip. (DRP)
III.6. v Operability L
/minations. (DRP)
III.10.3&4 Corrective action program, including adequacy of root cause program. (DRP)
III.16.
Adequacy of training. (DRS-Ops)
June 3 11.9.
Cracked exhaust steam piping could indicate weak erosion / control program. (DRS-Matis)
II.11.
EDG 1A load fluctuations. (DRS-Elec)
II.34.
Numerous SI pump deficiencies. (DRP)
II.36.
SI relief valves performance history of leaking and lifting.
(DRP)
II.39.
Review corrective actions to resolve numerous switchyard failures.
(DRS-Elec)
III.21.
Licensee self assessment capability (Performance monitoring &
trending) (DRP)
Revision 1 April 17, 1996
r J.
~
June 10
/il.6.
EDG output breakers fail to c, lose when switch taken to close.
(DRS-Elec)
I.17.
Main condenser steam dumps malft.1ction, requires closing MSIVs on trip and prevents use of main condenser. (DRP)
II.18.
Poor reliability of PDP charging pumps. (DRP) 11.42.
Auxiliary Feedwater System Performance and Reliability. (DRP) i V 111.2.
Review efforts to maintain configuration control, given examples l
from Hagan modules and bolting.
Effort to include setpoint control program and drawing control. (DRS-Elec) 111.4.1, Management of engineering and maintenance backlog. (DRP/RATI) 111.18.
Parts availability & accuracy of bill of materials (DRS-Ops)
June 17 II.16.
NRC & QA identified numerous IST program deficiencies. (DRS-Sys) 1.25.
Pressurizer Spray Problems /Use of Aux Spray (DRS-Sys) 11.41.
Verify adequate corrective action to ensure steam generator tube integrity. (DRS-Mat's) t III.3.
Adequacy and use of procedures, including procedure revision backlog. (DRP)
V III.15.
Adequacy of Emergency Operating Procedures (DRS-Ops)
June 24
!\\ III.11.
Engineering contribution to problem resolution, including safety
)
evaluations. (DRP)
III.14.
Resolution of licensing commitments. (NRR)
VIII.17.
Adequacy of work control and planning program. (DRS) l July 1 QIII.12.
Tagging (DRP)
Revision 1 April 17, 1996 l
\\
~
July 8 III. 7.
Operator performance (Coordination and Communication) (DRS-Ops)
III.10.5.
Corrective action program, including adequacy of root cause program. (DRP)
III.19.
Adequacy of UFSAR Update (DRP)
July 15 II.S.
Moisture in EDG air start system causes reliability problem with check valves. (DRP)
II.26.
Radiation monitor problems. (DRS-Elec) 111.4.1.
Management of engineering and maintenance backlog. (DRP/RATI)
III.8.
Correction of operator workarounds, including control room deficiencies. (DRP) 111.10.6.
Corrective action program, including adequacy of root cause program. (DRP)
III.13.
Adequacy of Emergency Preparedness (DRS-EP) l l
j Revision 1 April 17, 1996
r l
P = Tiv - - - -- - -
Salem Restart Plan c23/96 l
T=Te m NRC Restartissues I
Apre i
Mer l
June i
Jutr i
Amo NRC Ref.
PMG. Complate MRC Date Resource Names 3r24l3/31l 4/7 lN141421l426l 5/5 l5/12l5/19l5/26l 6/2 l 6/9 l6/16l6/23l6/3017/7 l7/14l7/21l7126l 6/416/11 j
P1 4/15/96 4/23/96 M. Burazlein out.1875 i
P2 5/31/96 6/16/96 R. ICosek out 7222 l
i P 3.1 6/W96 K'A Dept. Mgrs j
P 3.2 6/ 1/96 6/16/96 Nick Conice9m est.2124 i
P 4.1 7AW96 7/16/96 Jeny RanmE est. 2066 f
P 4.2 6/7/96 6/13/96 Jay LaughRn out.2907 I
f P5 SMi/96 5/14/96 Dennisw".., ed. 5021 l
i PS 5/22/96 5/26/96 Scott Greenlee out.3500 w
i
~
i j
i P7 6/22/96 7/12/96 Mika Gwirtz est.2622 f
P5 7 Alt 96 7/16t96 Jim Wetieter out.2965 a
j PS N26/96 57196 WaNer Pike eut. 2496
(
i l
P 10.1 4r19796 N25/96 Mark Marano ed.1035 l
i i
P 10.2 StEIB6 5/14t96 Mark Mwano ed.1035 i
P 16.3 5/2496 5/30/96 Mark Marano ed.1035 j
P 10A 5/24/96 5,30/96 Mark Marano ed.1035 P 14.5 6/27/96 7/9/96 Mark Marano ed.1035 P 10.8 7 Alt 96 7/16/96 Mark Marano ed.1035 P 11 6/17/96 6/25/96 Jeny RanmE eut.2066 j
P 12 6/22/96 7/2/96 Sa6 Greenise eut.3500 P 13 7/11/96 7/16/96 John Polymk out.1517
[
i i
P 14 6121/96 6/27/96 Gabe Salamon out. 5296 i
P 15 6/8/96 6/16/96 S:2 Greenlee out.3500 P 16 5/23/96 5t30/96 Jerry % eut.1006 L
P 17 6/15/96 6/25/96 John Holden out.1000 1
SGhareeAdion PlanWRCISUES.MPP Page1
- - -.. -.. - - -. - _..... - ~.. _ _ _... - - - - _ -. _ _... _..
i P = Programmenc SClem R: start Plan 4f23/96 T = Technical NRC Restartissues t
l Apre I
may 1
Juas i
July I
Aug NRC Ref.
PMG. Complete MRC Date Resource Names 3/24l3731 l 477 l4f14l4r21 l4r26l 5/5 l5/12l5/19l5/26l 6/2 l 6/9 l6/16l6/23l6f30l 7/7 l7/14l7/21 l7/26l 8/4 l6/11
{
P is 85W96 8/15/96 Ed Benson out.7700 j
i t
P 19 6/26/96 7/9/96 Cindy Tu9y ext.1510 f-j f
P 20 4/26/96 Sf12/96 Dennes Tauber out.5550 j
P 21 Sf31/96 6/6/96 John Flannagan est.2585 g
I T1 5/14/96 5/21/96 N
l i
T1 5/1786 5/23/96 Rencheck/Rahanad i
T3 4/29/96 5/7/96 Rencheck/ Rahanid j
f T4 4/6/96 4f15/96 BW Best Ts 7/5/96 7/16/96 Rencheck/ Rahanki l
i i
Ts 5NW96 Sr16/96 Rencheck/ Schimert
[
i f
l T7 4/26/96 5f2/96 Burnamn/Heps i
Ts 5/17/96 5/23/96 Burssein/Heps i
I TS 5/3G96 6/6/96 Cranston/Mordcomery
[
j T 14 5/14/96 5/21/96 CranstonnMBummon T 11 5/30516 cW6/96 Rencheckf Schubert i
i j
T 12 Sf3/96 55W96 Bursseinf Haps i
i T 13 4/15/96 4r23/96 Bursseinf Hojas T 14 4r26l96 5/7/96 Bursdent Shank
[
{
T 16 4/26/96 5/2!96 Rencheck/ Schubert l
4 i
I
)
T 1s 6/1496 6/20/96 Nchols/Parris T 17 6/7/96 6/13ss Cranston/ Stemchos i
t i
T 18 GrT/96 6/13/96 Rencheck/ Ctsham i
T 19 5/15/96 5/21/96 En91ert/ Lon9o t
T 24 4/26516 5/2S6 Cranston/Densk I
StShered%ction PlanWRCISUES MPP Page 2 i
I,
.o*
I t
P = Prograr astk:
Salem R2 start Plan
't23/96 T = Technical NRC Restartissues j
l Apre l
May l
June l
Jwr i
Aug NRC Ret.
PMG. Complete MRC Date Resource Names 3/24l3/31 l 4/7 l4/14l4/21 l4r26l 5/5 l5/12l5/19l5/26l 6f2 l 6/9 l6/16l6/21l6/30l 7/7 l7/14l7/21l7f26l 8/4 l8/11 f
T 21 4r26/96 ST2196 Buruztein/Fergonese
{
i T 22 5/17/96 ST23/96 Rermitabitzski
[
i T 23 5/1996 5/16/96 Cransion /Noramanhen f
i T 24 4/26/96 5/2/96 Cranston/ Lewis i
i T 26 6f14/96 6f2096 Rencheck/ Cwhom t
T 26 7/11/96 7/18/96 Rencheck/ Schtbert i
T 27 5f17/96 5/28/96 Cranstonf Schumaker l
l T 28 4/2646 5/2/96 CranstorVGased 1
i 1
T 29 5/1/96 5/9/96 NichotelParris j
i l
T 30 5/24/96 5/30/96 Rencheck/Curham i
I i
T 31 SI24/96 5/30/96 Rancheck/Curham T 32 5/10/96 5/16/96 Cranstorv3humaker
[
T 33 Sf17/9*
5/25/96 Bursztesv7ergonese i
j T 34 5/31/96 6/6/96 Rencheck/ Curhem s
l i
i r
T 34 sri /96 Sf14/96 Cranston/Narasimhan i
{
T 36 5731/96 6/6/96 Rencheck / Curham T 37 Sf3/96 5/9/96 Rencheck/ Robitzski
{
(
l T 38 4/19/96 4/25/96 Bursztein/ Fregonese i
i T 30 5/30/96 6Mi/96 Burzzlein i
l i
j T#
4Q6/96 5/7/96 Bursztein/Herred j
T 41 6/14/96 6/20/96 Garchow i
j T 42 Sr31/96 6/11/96 Rencheck/Cwhom p
i I
T 43 5/17/96 5/28/96 Conicella I
j i
1 l
I S'Shueduction PlanWRCISUES.MPP Page 3 l
l I
I i
-A a
w p
w..
4 h
0 a
/ C2 c
e 4
J f,
1 4
J s
1 N
N f
4 4
4
)
J
>l i
N 1
4 4
A i
6
M S
j,!) f S
l c
F w
l T
,l s W i
y a
l M
l m
T M
l S
M'. i: :f Il
- ti
~.
S a
- ,r' l
F w
l T
2 l
y W
s v
yl F
i a
M T p
l U
d M
e l
do S
R ll S
l MQ l
F l
ws,lT W
ya l
M T M
en l
~
3 io S
k s
i Il
[tlg s
e a
s e
S T u o
=
,m
-- U u i p p
e l
o d
d F
j l
e e s,l g
. s s w T
. o o S R R W
2 r
l MN$
p A T l
M l
j- ;,
3a; > '
S
- 3f;
.i Il j,!s S
a:
,I l
I F
l w
lT.
1, 2 W r
l s
e pa T e n e
o r
is k
g le s
o a
r i
s T P M e
maN ecru e
o tr s
e e
e a
e o
o o
h R
J J
J C
srossece d
6 e
9 r
y P
Z tW c :
e s
s e
1 2
4 s
+
o' e r e PD
, i >
I l
k' e
F l
W lT W
7 M lT I
M l
,ja S
=.)
,i.
ll l;.! !'i
$ e 4
i
- L^
.~
I W
lT 0 W 3
n l
u J T s
l e
M e
rg l
=
o r
S P
ll j ; f'l'id o =
e p
S U
>< t% J -.
d l
i es F
o l
R W
lT 3, W 2
n l
u T J
l M
l j:;
S Q
ll
- j. i' S
l e
F no t
l t
e 2
e W T a
B M,l T M y
W y p p P
U U re n
l m
d d
u J
T n
n e
u s
a o o l
D R R M
l
{.
u
]
M--
S sr ?'
ll) ll,[ i:h!i ij[!.
S
~
l i
, c!.
E.
F l
W lT t, W n
J T
l M
l S
s e ll4 I
e no s,
S ts l
k e
sa B
F T r M l
W lT
, W 2
nu l
J T
l M
l x.1 j-S
- 1
- j!jit ll
}
S l
n'b F
W I
a T
N,IW ya l
M T l
Is
.,M
'g UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
5.
Aj REGION 1 o,
,e,.7 475 ALLENDALE ROAD KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406 1415 June 18, 1996 MEMORANDUM T0:
Salem Assessment Panel Members, 1
FROM:
Larry E. Nicholson, Chief f"
Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projec s
SUBJECT:
SALEM ASSESSMENT PANEL (SAP) MEETING MINUTES Attached for your reference are the minutes from Salem Assessment Panel Meeting #96-05 held on May 29, 1996 and the Guidance for Salem Restart Action Plan Assessments.
Docket Nos. 50-272/311 Attachments-i 1.
SAP Meeting Minutes 2.
Guidance for Salem Restart Action Plan Assessments cc:
L. Nicholson, DRP C. Marschall, DRP g y
S. Barber, DRP J. Stolz, NRR L. Olshan, NRR G. Kelly, DRS 4
l l
y mate
l SALEM ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING May 29, 1996 Meeting #96-05 SAP MEMBERS:
OTHERS:
L. Nicholson, DRP W. Kane, DRA C. Marschall, DRP R. Cooper, DRP S. Barber, DRP T. Fish, DRP 1
J. Stolz, NRR J. Schoppy, DRP L. 01shan, NRR R. DePriest, DRP G. Kelly, DRS W. Ruland, DRS D. Limroth, DRS S. Barr, DRS N. Della Greca, DRS i
DISCUSSION:
The Salem Assessment Panel (SAP) met on May 29, 1996, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Introduction of the SAP Action Item Matrix was done by Larry Nicholson.
The presentation informed the SAP that the purpose of the Mr.trix was to track actions that were assigned during the SAP meetings, to ensure that ite.ns were appropriately tracked and closed.
Each member of the SAP was asked to review the Matrix and provide comments to Robert DePriest by 6/10/96.(96-05-01)
OLD BUSINESS:
The SAP determined that an acknowledgement letter for CAL Item #1 would be sent out by 6/26/96, and this would be accomplished by Scott Barber.
This action is part of Action Item 96-04-01.
Larry Nicholson informed the SAP that he has acquired contractor support from headquarters. The SAP discussed several possibilities as to how the contractors would be most efficiently used. The acquisition of the contractors closes 96-04-03.
NRR SAP representatives confirmed the receipt of the allegation list requested by 96-04-04.
Gene Kelly briefly discussed the results of the licensing basis team inspection.
The inspection report will be out in the next few weeks.
The performance of the inspection closes 90-05-05.
l l
l 1
j' A
NEW BUSINESS:
The SAP was informed that the Layup inspection for Salem Unit 1 is scheduled to be performed on July 22, 1996.
The inspector will
{
incorporate lessons learned from IP3, into the inspection plan.
1 i
NRC inspection of Salem Restart plans was discussed by the SAP. The SAP
)
determined that Scott Barber would track the inspections (96-05-02).
Individual inspections would be performed pending the licensees schedule.
1.
Larry Nicholson summarized the key points from the recent ED0/RA visit to the Island, There was a major concern over the need to conduct an extensive e
Integrated Test Program (ITP). Concern that extensive control mods will work.
Stressed the importance of correcting long standing equipment issues (e.g. Station Air)
Asked if any restart activities were dropped during the transition e
from Unit 1 to Unit 2.
EDO stated that he would have to answer to the commission as to what assurance NRC has that the Salem site A tre within their Licensing Basis.
l EDO was pleased with the elements of change that were observed.
j The SAP determined that the ITP should be included in the Restart Action l
Plan (RAP) as a programmatic issue.
Gene Kelly was tasked with developing an inspection plan to address the ITP, by 6/28/96.(96-05-03)
As a result of this decision Larry Nicholson was tasked to set up a meeting with Salem's Test Program manager to discuss the ITP by 6/7/96.
(96-05-04)
Charlie Marschall was tasked to perform a review of the licensee restart items between Unit I and Unit 2 to determine if any items had been overlooked.
This action is to be completed by 6/28/96.(96-05-05)
SAP determined that only 1 public meeting will be held for the Salem RATI. The SAP determined the meeting would be held in Delaware based on the previous public meeting was held in New Jersey.
Scott Barber was tasked to revise the 0350 checklist and present the revision at the next SAP meeting (96-05-06). The revision is to include the Licensing Basis requirement /FSAR discrepancies specifically including the Service Water system design & reliability.
2.
The SAP briefly discussed the status of MRC closure and the rejection rate of packages being presented to the MRC. The SAP expressed concern regarding the number of packages that will be coming to the MRC and the amount of resources required to review these packages prior to restart.
~,--
,n-
1 The SAP discussed how the upcoming inspections that will be reviewing closure of restart activities would be documented. The SAP determined that DRS and DRP reports would be separate to ensure timeliness and effectiveness. All reports will have DRP Branch Chief concurrence. The SAP determined that these inspection efforts could continue to provide feeders to the resident report or they can be developed into stand alone reports. Charlie Marschall requested that the residents be notified when a feeder would be provided to the resident report within an appropriate time frame.
3.
The SAP began the roundtable discussion with respect to the inspection plans being developed for inspecting the PSE&G RAP. The intent of the discussion was to ensure completeness and consistency when the inspections of the 9 RAP plans is completed. During this discussion it became apparent that the level of detail, and expectations of the purpose of the inspection between the owners of the individual plans differed.
To assist the owners that will inspect the PSE&G RAPS Randy Blough agreed to develop guidance for inspection / assessment of the PSE&G RAP (96-05-07).. This was com)1eted prior to the end of the SAP and the i
guidance is included in t1e minutes as Attachment 1.
The SAP agreed that good communication between plan owners is crucial to ensure that the appropriate overlap of issues are addressed, (i.e.
Operations RAP owner communicated to Training RAP owner to incorporate Operations department training issues in the Training RAP owners inspection plan).
4.
Larry Nicholson discussed where the SAP was in reference to the activities that the SAP is currently performing and activities that will need to be accomplished prior to establishing the appropriate level of assurance the SAP will need to approve the restart of Salem Unit 2.
This discussion was centered around the resource loading and if these resources are being used efficiently. Richard Cooper discussed the potential of resource problems that could occur within the Region pending the status of the Millstone Units.
The SAP also discussed the potential for resource problems for the resident inspectors. The issue is of concern to the SAP, however no resolution was made. The SAP agreed to continue to address this and other resource issues at a later date. Larry Nicholson was tasked to coordinate a discussion with NRR, DRP, and DRS to discuss how resources throughout the agency could be incorporated to assist in the Salem restart activities (96-05-08). The discussion is to be scheduled by 6/7/96.
5.
The SAP discussed the 5/24/96 management meeting between PSE&G and NRC with respect to Salem's restart program and their progress. The SAP discussed Mr. Martin's points of interest, which included concerns with the ITP, chronic equipment problems, and the licensing basis teams inspection findings.
i l
N.
l A
The SAP discussed the disconnect between the work the licensee has left i
to accomplish and their schedule. The SAP has concerns that the licensee is being driven by schedule pressures, and with the potential impact these pressures could have on the activities bcing completed.
The SAP also discussed the concern that the PSE&G Restart Schedule does l
not appear to incorporate any NRC activities.
Larry Nicholson agreed to address the schedule and it's apparent lack of realism to PSEM management in light of current MRC rejection rates, issues being r. sed by DRS & the residents, licensee identified issues, and issues raised by the licensing basis inspection.
The SAP also decided that slips in the schedule and continued MRC package rejections should be addrassed in Inspection Reports to establish a database.
)
6.
Gene Kelly summarized the issues that were enconipsssed in the TIA on the
.l Fuel Handling Building Ventilation (FHBV) issues. The two concerns are as follows:
e Potential issue with the FHBV exhaust fans not being designed as single failure proof.
Potential problems with the offsite dose calculations in the e
event of a fuel handling accident in the fuel handling building.
The Region is requesting assistance from NRR to determine the validity of the issues and the subsequent actions needed to correct them.
7.
The SAP critiqued the 96-05 SAP meeting. The meeting was very informative for others that do not attend the SAP meetings on a regular basis. The time credibility of the agenda was mentioned, however it was agreed the SAP meetings are an open forum in which time restraints are breached to encourage full discussions on pertinent issues.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 pm.
l
{
{
-~
l.
Guidance (aroundrules) for Salem Restart Action Plan Assessments Review and assess the licensee's bases for concluding that the plan has been satisfactorily completed.
Verify on a sampling basis that the licensee has completed the actions as described in their plan -- sample the actions across each relevant problem statement.
Conduct observations, interviews, and other inspection activities to determine whether (1) the licensee actions have resulted in the expected performance improvements, (2) that the current performance level is acceptable, and (3) l that the licensees ongoing measures in this area provide reasonable expectation of continued acceptable performance.
Each NRC " owner" of the review responsibility should have an assessment plan that meets the above groundrules and is tailored to that action plan.
Detailed assessment results will be published in NRC inspection reports.
Also, each PRC " owner" will provide a brief assessment summary (one page or less) for evantual inclusion in the NRC's CAL closeout or restart letter.
l 4
l 1
1