ML20138H320
| ML20138H320 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1996 |
| From: | Larry Nicholson NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138G636 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-96-351 NUDOCS 9701060002 | |
| Download: ML20138H320 (7) | |
Text
. _..
.m._____._
l l
MEMORANDUM TO: Salem Assessment Panel Members l
FROM:
Larry E. Nicholson, Chief Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects
SUBJECT:
SALEM ASSESSMENT. PANEL (SAP) MEETING MINUTES Attached for your reference are the minutes from Salem Assessment Panel Meeting #96-06 held on July 1, 1996.
Docket Nos. 50-272/311 l
Attachments:
l.
SAP Meeting Minutes 2.
SALEM 2 Restart Process CC:
L. Nicholson, DRP C. Marschall, DRP S._ Barber, DRP J. Stolz, NRR L. Olshan, NRR G. Kelly, DRS l
/f
~ 9701060002 961226 PDR FOIA O'NEILL96-351 PDR
2 Distribution w/att via E-Mail:
r Region I Docket Room (w/ concurrences)
PB 3 SAP File T. Martin, RA W. Kane, DRA R. Cooper, DRP S. Shankman, DRP J. Wiggins, DRS W. Dean, OEDO E. Jordan, AEOD R. Blough, DRS W. Ruland, DRS A. DellaGreca, DRS J.
Zwolinski, NRR S. Varga, NRR D. Chawaga, ORA M. Callahan, OCA W. Russell, NRR R.
Zimmerman, NRR i
i DOCUMENT NAME:
g:\\ branch 3\\SAPMTG\\SAPMIN96.06 To rweeve a copy of tids deramesma. ladicate in the hou "C" = Cgy without atta& met /ancloswe "E* = Cgy with attaemet enclosure "N"
= No copy OFFICE PI/DRP RI/DRP l
NAME RDePriest/RXD LNicholson/LE 1
N DATE 07/p/96 07/0/96
1 1
SALEM ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING May 29, 1996 Meeting #96-05 SAP MEMBERS:
OTHERS:
C. Marschall, DRP c}--- R. Cooper, DRP S.
Barber, DRP N. Della Greca, DRS J. Stolz, NRR R. DePriest, DRP L. Olshan, NRR
([
(
G. Kelly, DRS
/
g.icgg MS 3
L.l n v h, O N DISCUSSION:
The Salem Assessment Panel (SAP) met on July 1, 1996, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Open Items from the SAP Action Item Matrix was presented by Robert E.DePriest.
The presentation informed the SAP of the open items in the Matrix and prompted discussions on updating the Matrix.
Each member of the SAP was asked to review the Matrix and provide comments to Robert DePriest by 7/03/96.(96-06-01)
OLD BUSINESS:
Charlie Marschall discussed his review of the Salem r rt transition from Unit 1 to Unit 2 to determine if an es j
or concerns had been dropped.
Mr. Marschall's review determined that nothing had been dropped from the transition.
This action closes out Action Item (96-05-05)
Gene Kelly discussed the results of Larry Nicholson's meeting with Salem discussing their Integrated Test Plan.
This discussion closes out Action Item 96-05-04.
NEW BUSINESS:
1.
Charlie Marschall summarized the Salem site visit by Mr.
Hubert Miller the week of June 10, 1996.
j
4 i
+
2
[
There were concerns with the extensive number of equipment problems Salem has had, and the difficulty the site has had in correcting these problems.
t j
There was concern that Salem could maintain their YS#
conservative approach to restart activities in lieu f [v0 f
gy46,v U
scheduling pressures.
I Stressed the importance of a good A rated st Program.
V gg-d Mr. Miller was concerned with the' inspection);rf the Salem s
Dw Operators, and expressed a concern a ntaining a big picture look at the operations staff.
Mr. Miller was aware of the resource problems the Region is having with respect to Salem activities.
John Stolz committed to acquire and present the list of fundamental items that Mr. Miller believes should be addressed prior to restart.
Mr. Stolz agreed to acquire this list by July 8, 1996.(96-06-02) 2.
Scott Barber discussed the status of Restart Inspections to date.
Mr. Barber identified eleven items that were backlogged for restart inspection efforts to begin.
The concern was expressed that NRR assistance is needed to begin to review these backlogged issues.
NRR committed to provide assistance on the backlogged restart inspections needed to be completed.
John Stolz committed to establishing a list of NRR personnel that will be available to assist on these inspections.
The list will i
be provided to the Regional contacts Larry Nicholson or i
Scott Barber by July 3, 1996. (96-06-03)
Scott Barber was tasked with reviewing the inspection backlog and determining which of the people provided by Mr.
Stolz can be utilized.
There was no ca=nletion data established.(96-06-04) 3.
Charlie Marschall informed the SAP that there is a new Salem restart schedule coming out by July 5, 1996.
However, the SAP expressed concerns regarding the validity of the
,7 published restart schedule.
3 '.'
Gene Kelly summarized the status of Licensing Basis inspection questions recently performed at Salem were being addressed.
A management meeting was scheduled with PSE&G for July 2, 1996, to discuss the NRC issues.
PSE&G has recently added significant work to their schedule to ensure 4
- -.. - -.. =
i I
3 the FSAR is being updated and well managed.
4.
The SAP briefly discussed the Salem 2 Restart process.
The SAP agreed that the process discussed was appropriate.
The SAP discussed the Salem 2 Restart Process letter that is i
being reviewed by Mr. Martin.
The SAP discussed the Salem Integrated Restart Assessment (SIRA) that was performed by PSE&G.
This was PSE&G's inspection to review restart readiness.
Charlie Marschall i
was tasked with reviewing the SIRA and present the results of his review at the next SAP meeting. (96-06-05)
The SAP opened an action item to task Scott Barber with adding the Integrated Test Program programmatic review to the 0350 Checklist by July 8, 1996. (96-06-06) 5.
Neil Della Greca discussed restart item T-41.
The item references steam generator tube integrity concerns the NRC has.
The SAP agreed that a closure package by PSE&G will be necessary for review, and that NRR should assign personnel to perform this review.
Curtis Cowgill discussed some of the logistics and makeup of
% 4RC RATI scheduled for Salem.
Mr. Cowgill as team p p [ /leadet will have an eleven person team, consisting of ctors from different regions and headquarters.
The team will be broken down into three in operations, two in maintenance, two in engineering, two in management, and two j
covering plant support.
The discussion of the backlog of NhC inspection items, mentioned in No.2 of the minutes was also discussed gas a resource load issue.
The action item generated is an 4
attempt to address some of the resource constraints of the Region.
6.
Critique Suggestions related to maintaining control over the meeting and ensure that time constraints and subject matter is l
maintained within the agenda is necessary.
Mr. Robert DePriest has been assigned as time keeper and facilitator, q
l l
A suggestion was made to have the agenda and associated documents to be discussed at the SAP meeting be distributed
)
l to the SAP members two to three days prior to the SAP.
i i
F A
A suggestion was made to establish Resource Loading, RATI, and Backlog of NRC inspection activities as standing items for discussion in the SAP agenda.
A suggestion was made to have the Agenda rearranged to discuss Old Buisness items last to prevent overlap of New Items discussions prior to reaching that point in the agenda.
j 4
d r
l 4
j i
s
o
'o 5
EALEM 2 RESTART PROCESS PSE&G conduct an operational readiness review.
(CAL Item #4)
PSE&G submits letter stating actions to support restart done with exception of... and requests NRC RATI to start.
Meeting at site for PSE&G to describe basis for concluding they are ready for RATI.
Meeting open for public observation.
(CAL Item #5)
NRC conducts meeting at night in Delaware for public to question the NRC process and express concerns regarding restart.
Meeting to be transcribed.
Copies of the above PSE&G letter and meeting slides to be provided.
NRC conducts RATI.
Entrance open for public observation, exit with. opportunity for public Q & A afterwards.
PSE&G submits letter affirming the resolution of all restart items and stating their readiness for restart.
(CAL Item #6)
SAP meets to agree on restart and concur on CAL supplement.
SAP Chairman briefs RA/NRR etc on readiness for restart conclusions.
CAL amended to allow unit 2 restart.
(CAL Item #7)
i
.*/
l NOTE TO: William T. Russell, Direcitor, NRR THRU: John F. Stolz, Project Directorate, PD l 2 FROM: Leonard N. Olshan, Project Manager, PD l 2
SUBJECT:
ASSESSING SALEM USING THE SMM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT PERFORMANCE EVUALATION TEMPLATE in response to your request at the most recent SMM prebrief, Salem has been assessed using the SMM Nuclear Power Plant Performance Evaluation Template. The examples sited below ate from the attached " Site Integration Matrix by SALP Area and Issue Type" (SIM) for the period March 1, 1995 to April 11,1996.
It should be noted that Salem, Unit 1, has been shutdown since May 16,1995, and Salem, Unit 2, has been shutdown since June 7,1995. The licensee, by implementing its Salem Restart Plan, has i
been attempting to improve its performance in most of the areas addressed in the template; thus, examples from the SIM that occurred early in the period may not be as representative of current performance as the more recent examples, 1.
EFFECTIVENESS OF LICENSEE SELF-ASSESSMENT Does the licensee effectively document problems?
Performance is mixed. SIM, page 6, item 4, is an example of good performance; while SIM, page 11, item 9, is an example of poor performance.
Are safety issues identified to the appropriate level of management before they result in events or equipment failures? Does management take the initiative to identify problems and determine their root causes?
Yes. Examples are sited in SIM, page 3, items 1 and S; and page 10, item 6.
l Are deficiencies predominantly identified by the licensee or t.y NRC (or other external entities), or are they self revealed?
Of the 43 LERs listed in the SIM,31 were identified t,v the lir,ensee,9 were self-revealed, and 3 were identified by the NRC. Howeva, of the other 56 deficiencies (listed in the SIM as deviations, violations, or weaknesses),45 were identified by the NRC, 9 by the licensee, and 2 were self-revealed.
Does the licensee effectively determine the root causes of identified deficiencies and the extent of degraded conditions?
Mixed. Examples of good root cause determination are cited in SIM, page 2, item 12; page 3, item 10; and page 6, item 6. Examples of poor root cause determination are cited in SIM, page 3, items 12 and 14; and page 4, item 3.
Are the licensee's corrective actions effective in correcting the root causes of degraded and/or non conforming conditions?
s' 7
k d
i SIM, page 7, item 6, is an example of ineffective corrective action.
t Are corrective actions timely, and do they include sufficient measures to prevent recurrence of problems?
No. Examples of poor performance are cited in SIM, page 4, item 4; page 6, item 10; page 7, item 9; page 11, item 3; and page 5, item 9. An example 1
of good performance is cited in SIM, page 2, item 11.
What is the trend of the plant's corrective action backlog? How does this backlog impact operational safety?
Not addressed in the SIM.
How effectively does the licensee employ industry experience, or other pertinent information from outside sources, in its self assessments?
Not addressed in the SIM.
Is the licensee responsive to self-assessment findings?
Two examples of good licensee responsive to self assessment findings are cited in the SIM on page 3, item 4, and page 6, item 2.
Does the licensee have effective management oversight and involvement in problem resolution?
The SIM cites two examples of poor management oversight: page 11, item
-l
- 1. and page 2, item 1.
l II.
OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE (FREQUENCY OF TRANSIENTS) i i
How do plant performance indicators for scrams and forced outage rate compare to industry averages and the plant's peer group?
i As mentioned in the introductory paragraph, both units have been shutdown since the second quarter of 1995. In the period before the shutdown, Salem I had two automatic scrams in the second quarter of 1994 and none since then, and Salem 2 had one automatic scram in the second quarter of 1994 and one in the second quarter of 1995. Industry average during these periods is less than 0.5 scrams per quarter. The forced outage rate for Salem 1 was above industry average for the first three quarters of 1994 and the first quarter of 1995; Salem 2 was above industry average for the third quarter of 1994 and the first quarter of 1995.
i
What insights into operational safety are provided by the number and safety significance of events, equipment failures, or other abnormal occurrences?
Not addressed in the SIM.
Does the licensee staff operate the plant in a conservative, safe and professional manner?
See comments for the next two items.
l How effectively does the operations staff control plant activities?
Mixed. Examples of effective control are provided in the SIM on page 9, item 10, and on page 10, item 1. Examples of ineffective control are given in the SIM on page 11, items 6 and 7.
What level of performance has been demonstrated during plant evolutions, outages, events, and response to abnormal alarms?
Mixed. Good performance is cited in the SIM: page 8, item 13; page 9, items 1,2,9, and 10; and page 10, item 7. Poor performance examples are cited in the SIM: page 10, item 10; and page 11, items 2 and 10.
How does the licensee's operation of the balance of plant affect overall safety performance?
Not addressed in the SIM.
Does licensee management demonstrate awareness of day to-day operational concerns?
Not addressed in the SIM.
Does the licensee tolerate conditions that have the potential to challenge plant operational safety, as demonstrated by the existence of operator work-arounds, i
temporary procedure changes, temporary jumpers, and nuisance alarms?
Yes See SIM, page 10, item 8.
Are the licensee's operability determinations conservative, timely, and based on safety considerations?
Sometimes. Examples of good operability determinations are cited in the SIM on page 9, item 3, and on page 10, item 5. Examples of poor operability determinations are cited in the SIM on page 10, item 9, and on page 11, items 5 and 8.
s During outages, does the licensee effectively coordinate activities to minimize shutdown risk?
Yes. See SIM, page 9, item 4.
Are activities such as online maintenance and LCO management properly coordinated?
Does the licensee effectively limit unnecessary entry into LCOs or prolonged LCO times?
Not addressed in the SIM.
Does the licensee intentionally enter into LCOs to perform preventive or corrective maintenance? If so, do they consider the safety benefit that may be obta!ned from such action, and do they apply risk insights in the decision to conduct on-lina maintenance?
Not addressed in the SIM.
Do licensee procedures provide adequate guidance for safety-related activities?
Examples of poor procedures are cited below under the question "Are the licensee's procedures adequate and properly used?"
Are the licensee's practices governing responses to and assessments of operational events clearly articulated?
Not addressed in the SIM.
Ill.
HUMAN PERFORMANCE How many reportable events over the past year have been attributed to the licensed operator, other personnel, or maintenance cause codes? How do these compare with national averages?
Salem is considerably above the national average for inspection items and LERs attributed to these cause codes based on data from the Human Factors Information System for the period March 31,1995, to March 31,1996.
The Salem site had 73 inspection items compared to the national average of 34 per site for 75 sites. (Salem, Units 1 and 2, are considered one site; Hope Creek is a separate site.) Salem 1 had 13 LERs and Salem 2 had 8 LERs; the national average for 109 plants was 5.7 per plant.
To what extent have human performance problems contributed to reportable events?
There are many examples in the SIM of human performance problems contributing to reportable events. They are cited on page 5, items
{
e l
\\
1,2,3,7,and 8; and on page 8, items 6,7 and 10.
i How do human performance problems contribute to malfunctions, abnormal conditions,
- or other activities that may adversely impact safety?
l' Examples are cited in the SIM on page 8, items 3 and 4.
Do licensee staff members demonstrate conservatism and an appropriate appreciation of safety when planning and performing activities.
Mixed. Examples of good performance are given in the SIM on page 9, item 8, and on page 10, item 2. Poor performance is cited in the SIM on page 7, i
items 4 and 5.
Is the licensee's staff appropriately qualified and properly trained?
I Mixed. Examples of good training are cited in the SIM on page 6, item 3, l
and page 10, items 3 and 4. Poor training is cited in the SIM on page 4, l
item 2, and page 8, item 2. However, in the area of plant support performance has been good. See SIM, page 12, items 3 through 15, and page 13, items 1 and 2. These outweigh the examples of poor performance
)
by the plant support staff cited on page 13.
l Are the licensee's procedures ade sate and properly used?
No. The SIM lists many examples of poor performance in this area: page 6, items 1,8,9,11, and 12; page 7, items 2,7,8, and 10; page 8, items 1 and 11; and page 5, items 3,6,10,12 and 14. One example of good performance is cited on page 6, item 5.
Are management expectations clearly articulated to, and understood by, the licensee i
staff?
The SIM cites an example of good performance on page 9, item 1.
IV. MATERIAL CONDITION (SAFETY SYSTEM RELIABILITY / AVAILABILITY)'
i How do licensee performance indicators for safety system failures, safety system actuations, and significant events compare to industry averages and the plant's peer i
group?
i l
Regarding safety system failures, Salem 1 and Salem 2 were above the l
national average from the third quarter of 1994 through the fourth quarter of 1995. For safety system actuations since the beginning of 1994, Salem 1 had only one and it occurred during the second quarter 1994, putting it above the national average for that quarter; Salem 2 had one during the i
second quarter of 1994 and one during the fourth quarter of 1994, putting it i
above the national average for those two quarters. For significant events
~
1 since the beginning of 1994, Salem 1 had one in the second quarter of i
1994, one in the first quarter of 1995 and one in the second quarter of i
1995, putting it above the national average for those three quarters: Salem 2 had one in each of the first two quarters of 1995, putting it above the national average for those two quarters.
l What are the performance trends of plant equipment, including, but not limited to, availability and failure and rework rates?
Not addressed in the SIM.
i What is the trend, and impact on operational safety, of the plant's corrective maintenance backlog?
l Not addressed in the SIM.
Has the licensee implemented comprehensive and effective maintenance, surveillance testing, and test programs?
4 An example of good performance in this area is cited in the SIM on page 6, item 7, while poor performance is. cited on page 6, item 10.
Are work activities prioritized with appropriate consideration of importance to safety?
No. Examples are provided in the SIM on page 7, items 3 and 11, and on page 11, item 4.
What effect does the material condition of the balance of plant equipment have on the licensee's ability to safely operate the plant?
Not addressed in the SIM.
V.
ENGINEERING AND DESIGN How many reportable events over the last year have been attributed to the design cause code?
From April 11,1995, to April 11,1996,17 LERs have been attributed to the design cause code.
How effectively does the licensee's engineering function support plant reliability and operational safety? How well are PRA vulnerabilities factored into these activities.
Good performance in this area is sited in the SIM on page 2, items 10 and 14; and on page 3, items 3,6,7,8,10, and 11. Poor performance is cited on page 3, item 12; and on page 4, items 1,5, and 6.
~
~.
i
,c
..a i
~
Do design, construction, and equipment deficiencies exist?
Yes. These deficiencies are sited in the SIM on page 1, items 1,2,3,5,7,10,11, and 12; on page 2, items 2,3,4,5,6,7, and 8; and on page 5, items 4 and 11.
t Is the plant's licensing basis and design basis documentation complete and accurate (including FSAR maintenance and the effectiveness of activities conducted under 10 CFR 50.59)?
I No. Examples of poor performance are cited in the SIM on page 1, items 6,8, and 9; on page 2, item 9; on page 3, item 13; on page 4, items 7 and 9; and on page 7, item 2. An example of good performance is cited on page 2, item 13.
Does the licensee's engineering function adequately address issues related to plant aging?
1 Not addressed in the SIM.
4 Do the licensee's engineering work controls effectively establish and monitor the status and priority of the backlog of engineering work?
An example of good performance is cited in the SIM on page 3, item 9.
r Does the licensee's engineering function effectively solve problems without recurrence?
Not addressed in the SIM.
Have human-system interfar:es resulted in problems that challenge plant safety?
Not addressed in the SIM.
I 4
f UNITED STATES
.y
',g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
aE REGION I 8
\\.....,e#
475 ALLENDALE ROAD KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406 1415 t
July 19, 1996
' 'f MEMORANDUM TO:
Salem Assessment Panel Members FROM:
Larry E. Nicholson, Chief Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects
SUBJECT:
SALEM ASSESSMENT PANEL (SAP) MEETING MINUTES Attached for your reference are the minutes from Salem Assessment Panel j
Meeting No. 96-06 held on July 1, 1996. Additionally, I have attached the chronological outline of the Salem 2 Restart Process that was approved by the SAP.
Docket Nos. 50-272/311 Attachments:
1.
SAP Meeting Minutes 2.
SALEM 2 Restart Process cc:
L. Nicholson, DRP C. Marschall, DRP [g_fg/7) j S. Barber, DRP J. Stolz, NRR L. 01shan, NRR G. Kelly, DRS A 9 h/M K n M lt i~w-a
4
]
1]
SALEM ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING July 1, 1996 l
j Meeting #96-06 l
SAP MEMBERS:
0THERS:
l C. Marschall, DRP R. Cooper, DRP G. Barber, DRP N. Della Greca, DRS J. Stolz, NRR R. DePriest, DRP
?
L. 01shan, NRR C. Cowgill, DRP l
E. Kelly, DRS J. Linville, DRP
]
1 DISCUSSION:
J The Salem Assessment Panel (SAP) met on July 1,1996, from 1:00 p.m.
j to 4:00 p.m.
i Open Items from the SAP Action Item Matrix were presented by Robert E.
i DePriest. The presentation informed the SAP of the open items in the l
Matrix and prompted discussions on updating the Matrix. Each member of t'
the SAP was asked to review the Matrix and provide comments to Robert l
DePriest by 7/03/96.(96-06-01)
I OLD BUSINESS:
?
i Charlie Marschall discussed his review of the Salem restart transition from Unit l'to Unit 2 to determine if any issues or concerns had been dropped. Mr. Marschall's review determined that nothing had been dropped from the transition. This action closes out Action Ites (96-05-05) i Gene Kelly discussed the results of Larry Nicholson's meeting with Salem i
discussing their Integrated Test Plan. This discussion closes out l
Action Item 96-05-04.
i NEW BUSINESS:
l 1.
Charlie Marschall summarized the Salem site visit by Mr. Hubert Miller i
the week of June 10, 1996. Mr. Miller stressed the following points:
There were concerns with the extensive number of equipment problems Sales has had, and the difficulty the site has had in correcting these j
probleer.
He was concerned whether Salem could maintain their conservative j
approach to restart activities in spite of scheduling pressures.
I 1
3 6.
Neil Della Greca discussed restart item T-41.
Steam generator tube integrity. The SAP agreed that a closure package by PSE&G will be necessary for review, and ths.t NRR should assign personnel to perform this review.
Curtis Cowgill discussed some of the logistics and makeup of the NRC RATI scheduled for Sales. Mr. Cowgill as team manager, will have an eleven person team, consisting of inspectors from different regions and headquarters. The team will be broken down into three persons in operations, two in maintenance, two in engineering, two in management, and two covering plant support.
The discussion of the backlog of NRC inspection items mentioned in Item No. 2 of the minutes was also discussed as a resource load issue. The action item generated is an attempt to address some of the resource constraints of the Region.
7.
Critique Suggestions related to maintaining control over the meeting and ensure that time constraints and subject matter is maintained within the agenda is necessary. Mr. Robert DePriest has been assigned as time keeper and facilitator.
Some members suggested that the agenda and associated documents to be discussed at the SAP meeting be distributed to the SAP members two to three days prior to the SAP.
A suggestion was made to establish Resource Loading, RATI, and Backlog of NRC inspection activities as standing items for discussion in the SAP agenda.
Another suggestion was made to have the Agenda rearranged to discuss Old Business items last to prevent overlap of New Items discussions prior to reaching that point in the agenda.
)
SALEM RESTART PLANS e Salem Restart Plan is a performance based approach, incorporating the 10 Near-Term IMPACT Action Plans, provides a process for managing those issues that must be resolved before startup, and includes a program to demonstrate station readiness for restart.
e Elements of Restart Plan:
y\\
e Management Oversight
/
Senior Management Review Group (SMRG) - overall direction for outage
$g e
e Management Review Committee (MRC) - establish and enforce consistent '
standards i
Restart Project Manager - overall coordination and monitoring of R/S e
Plan is to improve station equipment, processes and organizational capabilities to ensure readiness for restart, startup and plant operations.
e Management Expectations and Performance Criteria e Process for Managing the Restart Work Scope - will be formalized Near Term IMPACT Plans - communicate Salem management's focus on those e
activities and expected results most important to improvement of management and organizational capabilities and performance in order to restart and operate reliably j
and safely. Also address improvements to important process issues and many 4
equipment reliability issues and backlogs that must be addressed prior to startup.
These plans below were developed prior to shutdown. The 10 plans are-e Conduct of Operations e
Human Performance Management g gg(f j
e Engineering Performance e
Reliable Maintenance 9%
e Outage Performance i
e Work Control e
Organizational Self Assessment e
Corrective Action
@3 y
Equipment Reliability, and [
'p g
e Accredited Training h e
e Readiness Assesament System Readiness - prior to restart, each responsible system manager will assess selected critical systems to affirm restart readiness of the system to support an event-free restart and safe and reliable full power operation.
e Department Readiness e
Station Readiness e Startup and Power Ascension - formal plan e Restart Scope Screening Criteria - ensure that all outstanding work is appropriately screenod to objective criteria that establish a high level of confidence that units can be restarted. Objective is to identify all significant issues that must be resolved prior to startup. MRC approves all recommendations from the screening.
e The primary contributors to restart conclusions will be the satisfacotry comietion of the Near-Term IMPACT Action Plans, the resolution of equipment reliability issues under this plan, and satisfactory resolutions to engineering and maintenance backlogs.
j July 31, 1995 U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I No. 95-73 NOTICE OF SIGNIFICANT LICENSEE MEETING Licensee:
Public Service Electric & Gas Company Facility:
Salem Generating Station Docket No:
50-272; 50-311 t
l Date and Time:
10:00 a.m., Thursday, August 10, 1995 L
l l
Location:
Salem Access Processing Facility Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey l
l
Purpose:
Management Meeting between NRC and representatives of PSE&G's Nuclear Business Unit (NBU) to discuss the scope of activitics that are expected to be accomplished during the current extended outage of both Salem units.
Licensee representatives are expected to describe and discuss their approach to remediation of long-standing performance issues, and the processes that are being applied to determine actions to be accomplished to l
support startup of the units.
The discussion is expected to include near-term action plans, process for determining and managing the restart work scope, and l
startup readiness review processes and plans.
i NRC Attendees:
T. Martin, Regional Administrator J. Milhoan, Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulatorion, Regional Operations and Research (DEDR) i W. Dean, Regional Coordinator, OEDO R. Cooper, Director, Division of Reactor Projects (DRP)
J. Linville, Chief, PB3, DRP J. White, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 2A, DRP C. Marschall, Senior Resident Inspector, Salem S. Barber, Reactor Engineer, DRP J. Stolz, Director, PD I-2, NRR L. Olshan, Project Manager, Salem, NRR Licensee Attendees:
L. Eliason, Chief Nuclear Officer & President Nuclear Business Unit B. Simpson, Senior Vice President-Nuclear Engineering L. Storz, Senior Vice President-Nuclear Operations I
C. Warren, General Manager - Salem Operations J. Benjamin, Director - Quality Assurance and Nuclear Safety Review i
Note: This meeting is open for public observation. Handicapped persons requiring assistance to attend or participate in the meeting shall make their requests known to John White, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 2A, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory i
Commission, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, PA, 19406,(610)337-I
i i
l 5114, no later thtn five business days prior to the meeting. Attendance by NRC personnel at this meeting should be made known by 4:00 p.m., August 8,1995, via telephone call to John White, 610-337-5114, Region I.
Prepared by:
John R. White, Chief Reactor Projects Section 2A 1
l 4
l i
j i
1 j
l l
F 4
m 5
I
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __=_ _ _ _.._.
1 4
2 Distribution: (Via E-Mail)
J. M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations (EDO)
J. Milhoan, Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and Research (DEDR) l W. T. Russell, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
j H. Thompson, Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Material Safety, Safeguards and Operations Support (DEDS) 1 J. Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement B. Grimes, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Support, NRR
)
R. 5)essard, Director, Division of Technical Support, NRR 1
A. T1adani, Associate Director for Inspection and Technical Assessment, NRR R..Zimmerman, Director for Projects, NRR S. A. Varga, Director, Division of Reactor Projects - I/II, NRR J. Stolz, Director, PD I-2, NRR I
W. Dean, Regional Coordinator, OEDO j
N. Green, Jr., Policy Development and Technical Support Branch S. Bajwa, RPEB, NRR S. Lewis, Office of the General Counsa' (OGC)
{
M. Callahan, OCA j
C. Marschall, SRI 1
D. Screnci, Public Affairs Officer, RI V. Dricks, Field Public Affairs Officer, RI D. Chawaga, SLO i
C. Gordon, ORA M. Campion, ORA l
Distribution:
i PUBLIC L. Eliason, PSE&G 4
State of Delaware State of New Jersey i
RA Secretary, RI DRA Secretary, RI i
DRP Division Secretary, RI DRS Division Secretary, RI DRSS Division Secretary, RI DRMA Division Secretary, RI l
Region I Receptionist DOCUMENT NAME: a:\\08-10-95. sal T.
- w...wy.e us. 4
<, we m m. h.m c. cwy m ue me hm.au.new.u r - c,y e mi. chm.au.acw.=
w
- u.. y OFFICE RI:DRP l
l
)
NAME JWhite DATE 7/ /95 1
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY i
._m
_.____,_.,q
f a
tm s
From:
Jesse C. Linvitte (JCL)
To:
GS8, EMK, CSM, Lif0, JFS3, JnW1 Dates Tuesday, July 25, 1995 11:30 as
$4]ect Salem Assessment Panel The Inittet SAP meeting will be et 10:30 e. m. on Wedweday August 2, 1995 in the DRS conference room. It will probably last until about 3:00 p.m.
The proposed agenda items are as follows Gro m d Rules for Panel operation Linville (30 min)
Review IMC 0350 Restert Issue and Restert 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 />)
Srlef Panel on Status of Licensee Restart Plan-Whlte (30 min)
If you would ifke to add anything please let me know.
Also please plan to attend the scoping meeting with the licensee et the site on August 10.
CC:
RWC e
~~f(
(A 9C U21 I
di M / C3 O jg-
/
~
po cuq
[,
, s.
UNITED STATES y
1, g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
% 4
- #[
475 ALLENDALE ROAD 8
REGION I O
' s. *
- /
KING OF PRUS$1A, PENNSYLVANIA 19406-1415 July 7, 1995 Mr. Leon R. Eliason Chief Nuclear Officer & President Nuclear Business Unit Public Service Electric and Gas Company P. O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038
SUBJECT:
SALEM ASSESSMENT PANEL
Dear Mr. Eliason:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the formation of the Salem 1
Assessment Panel (SAP). The principal purpose of the SAP is to assist Region I and NRR in the coordination of NRC resources for the performance monitoring and assessment of the Salem Nuclear Generating 5tation, as well as, the Public Service Electric & Gas (PSE&G) nuclear business unit. The scope of the SAP's activities will also include PSE&G's implementation of their performance improvement program for Salem.
The SAP activities are governed by the guidance of Inspection Manual Chapter 0350, " Staff Guidelines for Restart Approval." Mr. James Linville is designated Chairman and Mr. John Stolz is designated Vice Chairman of the panel.
Panel responsibilities include:
Review the licensee's improvement program and ensure it addresses prob-e lems/ weaknesses identified by the NRC.
Maintain an ongoing overview of licensee performance throughout the e
assessment panel process.
o Conduct periodic meetings with the licensee to discuss progress towards satisfactory completion of the ptogram, and kny NRC concerns.
Generally, meetings with the licensee will be near the facility and open to the public for observation.
o Provide oversight of the NRC's followup activities. Review NRC inspection and assessment plans and findings, and facility performance; identify areas where NRC inspection and/or technical review are warranted.
e Periodically discuss the facility's inspection program, and reallocate resources, as necessary, and recommend additional followup inspections based on licensee performance, o
Periodically provide relevant assessment of licensee performance trends to NRC management.
19 e
Recommend and coordinate enforcement actions.
/
m,s i n *> < x.n '~) V _
l
~
"' v (
l v / LA )
l Mr. Leon R. Eliason 2
Assume the duties of the Restart Panel and develop a Restart Action e
Plan.
e Provide a recommendation for restart after the licensee satisfies conditions contained in the June 9, 1995 Confirmatory Action Letter.
Following the satisfactory completion of the licensee's performance e
improvement program, provide a recommendation to the Regional Administrator for the cessation of the assessment panel.
Panel membership includes:
l l
e James C. Linville, Chief, Reactor Projects Branch 3, DRP, Chairman e
Jchn Stolz, Director, Projects Directorate I-2, NRR - Vice Chairman l
e John R. White, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 2A, DRP l
e Eugene Kelly, Chief, Plant Systems Section, DRS l
e Leonard 01shan, Salem Project Manager, NRR e
Charles Marschall, Salem Senior Resident Inspector l
e Scott Barber, Project Engineer, Reactor Projects Section 2A If you have any questions on SAP activities, you may contact Mr Linville at 610-337-5129.
Sincerely, 6
ch rd. Cooper, rector Division of Reactor roj cts Docket Nos. 50-272; 50-311
]
cc:
J. J. Hagan, Vice President-Operations E. Simpson, Senior Vice President - Nuclear Engineering C. Schaefer, External Operations - Nuclear, Delmarva Power & Light Co.
R. Burricelli, General Manager - Informations Systems & External Affairs J. Summers, General Manager - Salem Operations J. Benjamin, General Manager - Quality Assurance & Nuclear Safety Review F. Thomson, Manager, Licensing and Regulation R. Kankus, Joint Owner Affairs A. Tapert, Program Administrator R. Fryling, Jr., Esquire M. Wetterhahn, Esquire P. MacFarland Goelz, Manager, Joint Generation Atlantic Electric Consumer Advocate, Office of Consumer Advocate William Conklin, Public Safety Consultant, Lower Alloways Creek Township Public Service Commission of Maryland State of New Jersey State of Delaware
Mr. Leon R. Eliason 3
Distribution w/ encl:
Region I Docket Room (with concurrences) 1 Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
D. Screnci, PA0 (2 copies)
NRC Resident Inspector PUBLIC L. Olshan, NRR W. Dean, OEDO J. Stolz, PDI-2, NRR M. Callahan, OCA Inspection Program Branch, NRR (IPAS)
T. Martin, RA W. Kane, DRA R. Cooper, DRP W. Hehl, DRSS S. Shankman, DRSS J. Wiggins, DRS 3
J. White, DRP i
S. Barber, DRP C. Marschall, SRI J. Joyner, DRSS G. Kelly, DRS W. Russell, NRR i
F. Miraglia, NRR S. Varga, NRR 1
J. Zwolinski, NRR E. Jordan, AE00 S. Rubin, AE00 Kay Gallagher, DRP
.. - ~ _ _ _ _ _
b y e**ut 05 UNITED STATES I j.;. gl j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
c;, % h
[C
". 9-p REG;ONI g
> [f 475 ALLENDALE ROAD MNG OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406 1415 July 6, 1995 l
MEMORANDUM TO:
James C. Linville, Chief Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Pr acts Region I RichardW. Cooper,f
/
THRU:
n, irect.r Division of Reactor Projects Region I FROM:
Thomas T. Martin i
Regional Administrator Region I
]
SUBJECT:
SALEM ASSESSMENT PANEL CHARTER 1
The purpose of this memorandum is to promulgate the charter for the formation of the Salem Assessment Panel (SAP). The principal purpose of the SAP is to assist Region I and NRR in the coordination of NRC resources for the performance monitoring and assessment of the Sales Nuclear Generating Station, as well as, the Public Service Electric & Gas (PSE&G) nuclear business unit.
The scope of the SAP's activitics will also include PSE&G's implementation of j
their performance improvement program for Salem.
The SAP charter reflects the guidance of Inspection Manual Chapter 0350,
" Staff Guidelines for Restart Approval", and Region I Instruction 1470.1, j
" Licensee Performance Improvement Programs". Mr. James Linville is designated Chairman and Mr. John Stolz is designated Vice Chairman of the panel.
Panel Responsibilities:
I a.
Review the licensee's improvement program and ensure it addresses prob-lems/ weaknesses identified by the NRC.
b.
Maintain an ongoing overview of licensee performance throughout the assessment panel process.
c.
Conduct periodic meetings with the licensee to discuss progress towards satisfactory completion of the program, and any NRC concerns.
Generally, meetings with the licensee will be near the facility and open to the public for observation.
d.
Provide oversight of the NRC's followup activities. Review NRC inspection and assessment plans and findings, and facility performance; identify areas where NRC inspection and/or technical review are warranted.
e.
Periodically discuss the facility's inspection program (MIPS), aild reallocate resources, as necessary, and recommend additional followup inspections based on licensee performance.
erm m 1
'o 9
i 2
i f.
Periodically provide relevant assessment of licensee performance trends to NRC management.
g.
Recommend and coordinate enforcement actions.
1 1
i h.
Assume the duties of the Restart Panel and develop a Restart Action Plan l
in accordance with NRC Manual Chapter 0350.
i.
Provide a recommendation for restart after the licensee satisfies l
conditions contained in the June 9, 1995 Confirmatory Action Letter.
a j.
Following the satisfactory completion of the licensee's performance improvement program, provide a recommendation to the Regional l
Administrator for the cessation of the assessment panel.
k.
Membership:
James C. Linville, Chief, Reactor Projects Branch 3, DRP, Chairman John Stolz, Director, Projects Directorate I-2, NRR - Vice Chairman John R. White, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 2A, DRP Eugene Kelly, Chief, Plant Systems Section, DRS Leonard 01shan, Salem Project Manager, NRR Charles Marschall, Salem Senior Resident Inspector Scott Barber, Project Engineer, Reactor Projects Section 2A l
i i
l e
.=
j n
t 3
I l
l Distribution:
Region I Docket Room (w/ concurrences)
T. Nartin, RA W. Kane, DRA R. Cooper DRP W. Hehl, DRSS i
l S. Shankman, DRSS J. Wiggins, DRS J. White, DRP M[r al SRE l
J. Joyner, DRSS G. Kelly, DRS W. Dean, OEDO W. Russell, NRR F. Niraglia, NRR S. Varga, NRR J. Zwolinski, NRR E. Jordan, AE0D S. Rubin, AE0D J. Stolz, NRR L. 01shan, NRR M. Callahan, OCA Inspection Program Branch, NRR (IPAS)
Kay Gallagher, DRP Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
D. Screnci, (2)
PUBLIC I
6 l
i
.~
y e /g}( ;
From:
James C.
Linville (JCL) d To:
GSB, EMK, CSM, LNO, JFS3, JRW1 Date Tuesday, July 25, 1995 11:30 am subject Salem Assessment Panel The initial SAP meeting will be at 10:30 a. m. on Wednesday 4
August 2, 1995 in the DRS conference room.
It will probably last j
3 until about 3:00 p.m.
The proposed agenda items are as followa l
Ground Rules for Panel Operation-Linville (30 min)
Review IMC 0350 Restart Issue and Restart Process Checklists for Applicability to Salem Situation-Linville (1 hou1)
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:
,0 o,W~O50/Y7
. - n-y i