ML20138H351
| ML20138H351 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 07/25/1995 |
| From: | Cooper R NRC |
| To: | Linville J NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138G636 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-96-351 NUDOCS 9701060017 | |
| Download: ML20138H351 (81) | |
Text
From:
Alchard W. Co9per. 4Rul:)
To:
JCL N/M Dates Tuesdey, July 25, 1995 1:22 pm Subjects Salem Assessment Panel Reply 1.
In my experience with IP3 and Millstone 2, a key lasue relative to restart items was the rigor and formality with which the licensee closed out issues that formed a documented basis for our review during NRC's inspection closeout effort. In the IP3 case, each issue was closed through a lfconsee docunentation package and review by them prior to our inspecting it. In the case of Millstone 2, closure of items was much less rigorous and 1
was in no way based on licensee formal package review, since they had no such thing. We need to discuss and decide which approach (or some alternate one) we will take with PSE&G. If it is the more rigorous one, we will need to discuss with the licensee to get their agreement, this should be en additional topic or sub-topic (most likely under the MC 0350 topic) for the first SAP meeting.
2.
We should briefly discuss the role of the SAP in managing the inspection program at seten, and the timing of the discussions to formulate and document on the docket, the inspection plan for the next 12 months. I believe that we should wait to futty discuss this until after the scoping meeting. This is so that we can fully understand the depth and breadth of their activitles to Improve performance and upgrade the plants' materfel condition prior to restart in order to focus our future inspection effort.
In addition, we should include in the inspection planning discussione the rrsults of the May EPPR that was conducted on
]
Salem.
1 Olck C.
CC:
CSM, JRW1 1701060017 961226 PDR FOIA O'NEILL96-351 PDR
INITIAL MEETING BETWEEN PSEG AND NRC SALEM ASSESSMENT PANEL - AUGUST 3,1995 l
OBJECTIVES 1.
Initialinterface and identification of key personnel 2.
Review of the first Salem Assessment Panel Meeting 3.
Establishment of future interface process
- Salem Assessment Panel / Public Meetings
- Individua! Contacts
- Other Communications i
4.
Verify inspection Coordination (including RATI) 5.
Discuss Alignment on restart issues
- NRC Salem Restart Action Plan
- 46 Systems selected for system readiness 6.
Discussion of CAL Action items 1 and 2 7.
Review next weeks agenda - 8/9/95 NRC Plant Tour and 8/10/95 Restart Process Meeting O
g
/
i h
k NRC Senior Management Plant Tour of Salem August 9, 1995 9:30 - 11:30 NRC Management tour plant with C. Marschall 11:30 - 1:30 Working Lunch Attendees Those listed below for interviews Topics for Discussion Performance indicators and qualitative restart criteria for key regulatory concerns such as operator workarounds, status of operability determinations, PM and CM inventory, control room indicators, and training.
Details by Warren on how he expects to approach operational readiness.
Details by Benjamin on how he expects to assess operational readiness.
Discussion by E.
Simpson on his vision for engineering improvements.
Discussion by L.
Storz on his vision for operations improvements (if not too early).
l 1:30 - 4:30 Interviews
- L.
Storz Sr. VP - Nuclear Operations
- E.
Simpson Sr. VP - Nuclear Engineering
- J. Hagan VP - Nuclear Support 1
J.
Benjamin Director - QA/NSR
- C. Warren GM Salem Operations
- M. Rencheck Technical Manager
- R.
D'Arezzo Training Manager L. Eliason CNO & Presidnet NBU 4:30 - 5:00 Exit Meeting with Senior Management 6
)
/
AGENDA FOR AUGUST 10,1995 MEETING -
SALEM RESTART PROCESS 4
QQ a lNTRODUCTION.............................. L. ELIASON
= PERSPECTIVES of the SR. VP OPERATIONS......... L. STORZ
= OVERVIEW of the RESTART PLAN............... C. WARREN
- WORK CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS
- SYSTEM READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM.... M. RENCHECK
= INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT................... J. BENJAMIN
= ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE ISSUES.......... E. SIMPSON
= CONCLUDING COMMENTS..................... L. ELIASON
l
?
l Salem Restart i
j Equipment Problems Breaker (4160V) - slow closure problems due to grease buldup and aging Centelnment fan Cooler Ur#ts - review work history for recurring problems without adequate i
ccrrective action Controlalt system not reliable Control room emergency air conditioning inoperable in recirculation mode 1
i CW screen motors fxam up at low speed; carft be run in manual EDG alr start system carbon eteel components (check valve problems) i l
EDG output breaker anomalies 4
Feedwater system performance problems (aardiating pump speeds) l l
Fuses: Salem must insure that the correct fuses are installed in all applications and that the l
correct fuses wIl be installed in the future.
Gas turbine baseries need to be replaced again (what is the reliability of the GT if the batteries j
need to be replaced whenever one source of offsite power is lost?)
Gas turbine performance problems (faled bootstrap test )
j Hagen modules have not been compared to accurate controlled drawings to insure modules are j
correctly configured.
]
Hagan module parts have been regiacert with non4quivalent parts by vendors, contract refurbishers, and rnaintenance staff without proper controls.
l, Main steem /soladon required for every turbine trip to prevent ave =aalve RCS cooldown.
l a
PDP charging pumps not tallable (ges leakage, seal leakage, heat exchanger leakage, etc).
PORV (fPR f) Josks by the seat, requiring operation with the block valve dosed Valve should be 1
repaired based on a root cause determination.
PORV accumulsiors may be undersArad for RCS protection, assuming a transient starting at fun RCS pressure. In reviewing, indude history of operators need to close PORVs and start i
emergency air compressors (are accumulators lealdng +-c :: fd/l).
j Pressurirer spray did not operate properfy. As a result, operators used auxBlary spray. Did they i
follow procedures? Do the spray nozzles need to be inapar4=ri as a result of the 90' F water j
used (letdown was lantatari)
Radiation Monitoring System multiple problems (both units) j Reactor Coolant Pump oil co#ecdon systerns do not contain og effectively Reactor Coolant Pump seats - several faluro6 ' i the last two operatirg cydes i
Reactor Head Vent Vahe stroke time tenunne i
j Residual Heat Memont: root cause of RH29 valve fanures Residual Heat Removal: manual discharge valve (2 fRHf0) meAes a benging noise louder than i
e
}
other RH10 valves Res/ dual Heat Removal general material condition i
e
{
Rod stepping - rods step in with no temperature error signal RWST level instruments - periodic problem with being out of tolerance SECfA stEl epikes after completion of modification SIpumps (high heed CCP) have numerous de6clencies (flex hooe installed, but not on drawings, repeated speed increaser problems, relief valves need to be replaced, etc). Review work history for pumps to determine recurring problems and potential common mode falures.
Perform corrective maintenance based on root cause determinations.
Sipump suedon boost the TS minimum required Si pump flows would cause the pumps to go into runout; they did not consider the " suction boost" provided by the Si pump. Salem has administratively lowered flow belence numbers for ECCS from the number in the TS surveiNance.
Si rollet m/ves review design basis requirements and performance history (leakage on startups, etc).
Service water piping erosion; repair and thoroughly review basis for condition of SW piping in
/
C.3.2 Assessment of Corocrate Suonort:
ISSUES APPLICABLE 1.
Relationship between corporate and the plant staff 2.
Adequacy of the request for corporate services process 3.
Corporate understanding of plant issues 4.
Corporate staff in plant time 5.
Effectiveness of the corporate / plant interface meetings 6.
Adequacy of corporate representation at plant activities 7.
Adequacy of corporate engineering support 8.
Adequacy of corporate design changes 9.
Adequacy of licensing support
- 10. Coordination with offsite emergency planning officials C.3.3 Ooerator Issues:
ISSUES APPLICABLE 1.
Licensed operator staffing meets requirements and licensee
' *4' goals 2.
Level of formality in the control room 3.
Adequacy of control room simulator training 4.
Control room / plant operator awareness of equipment status 5.
Adequacy of plant operating procedures 6.
Procedure usage / adherence 7.
Log keeping practices i
0350, Appendix A A-16 Issue Date: 09/30/93
g.._____-._.
I 6,
t i
general Repair / replace pipe as necessary.
i Service water butter #y vehe multiple faBuree Sw,k4r.id la/ lures: review avulable vendor recommendations for preventative rneirdenance to insure that they have been incorporated. Perform a thorough root cause evaluation of i
switchyard failures, induding quality of maintenance.
l 1
i Process Problems 8#1 Of Mator/a/s unreliableI l
Con #guradon control-bo' ting, Hagen modules 1
Control of sallety-related actMtles (het.epot Sushing without a procedure or other mechanism to lenure job performed safely, RH 29 test without a test procedure).
Coreal room indicators: au red-striped indicators should be repaired based on a thorough root i
cause determination.
k CorreceW acdons have routinely been taken without an identified root cause
+
]
Engineering backlog not evaluated for imped on safe plant operation and ablity to mitigate the consequences of an accident (review previous safety evaluations for adequacy)
License Change Requests not proconeed resuMng in ;-y= 2; unrenobed aefety problems or Unreviewed Sallety Quesdone (e.g. EDG /\\requer'cy requirements in Tech Specs)
MMIS not reliable or easy to une Mod)#cadons han been perfbemed as maintenance actM6ee e
OperabHity determinadons are inadequate.
e Operssor pedormance (ues of alarm response procedures, falure to close block valves, ratsam*M entry into (and abuse of) LCO action statements, liwi44i^ -Q purging PRT to containment, e.g.)
Operssor workarounds; need to be reviewed and those with an impact on safe plant operation or that pose challenges to operators need to be corrected.
Planning: frecuently results in excessive LCO outage time, with unplanned maintenance causing crisis management and unnecessary chauenge to operators.
Problem ident#fcadon system is not easty used Problems previously ident# led do not have adequate root cause determinations a
Procedures, operadons; quality must be improved.
e Root cause determinadons are not dmely Sepoint control program - establish and implement.
System Engineering poorper9onnance Tagging / TRIS ine#ecthe acdone 80 prennt problem recurrence; problems sddreeeed e
IndMduaNy without thorough root cause Test Control; tests performed without controls (RHR teste on June 6,1906, "unoNicial EDG 18 test during week of 710-06), without ariarMa preparation (RHR 22 test did not ooneider that plant conditions were unique).
UncontroNed modnicealons previously InstaNed as meineenance muet be Identitled and correded. Maintenance and system engineering staff must be educated about the difference between maintenance and modifications (what constitutes each, and the differences in control for each).
Work prior /thetion is not e#eceW. Degraded components that could impact compliance with TS requirements frequently do not receive the proper priority. (This ties in with MMIS, the BOM, ard the design haala).
Malotenance backlog (how did they evaluate it in terms of safety, what got dropped off the list?)
b People Probicms Design Basis: It has been lost. Drawings have numerous errors. The ab81ty to determine a
l i
}
C.4 ASSESSMENT OF PHYSICAL READINESS OF THE PLANT:
(Continued)
- J ISSUES APPLICABLE j
6.
Significant hardware issues resolved (i.e. damaged equip-j ment, equipment ageing, modifications) 7.
Adequacy of the power ascension testing program 8.
Adequacy of plant maintenance program effectiveness
[
9.
Maintenance backlog managed and impact on operation as-l sessed f
- 10. Adequacy of plant housekeeping and equipment storage l
- 11. Adequacy of onsite and offsite emergency preparedness C.5 ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS:
The plant and its prospective operation must not be in conflict with any applicable regulations or requirements of any document authorizing restart (such as license amendments, orders, or a CAL). Restart should not conflict with any ongoing matter such as an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearing.
ISSUES APPLICABLE 1.
Applicable license amendments have been issued
- e rt?
2.
Applicable exemptions have been granted 3.
Applicable reliefs have been granted 4.
Imposed Orders have been modified / rescinded 5.
Confirmatory Action Letter conditions have been satisfied l
6.
Significant enforcement issues have been resolved 7.
Allegations have been appropriately addressed 8.
10 CFR 2.206 Petitions have been appropriately addressed f
9.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearings have been com-pleted 0350, Appendix A A-18 Issue Date: 09/30/93
l l
4 e.
system, subsystem, or cciripc,6&at's intended safety function is severely impaired. The configuration baseline document (CSD) contains numerous errors, and frequently cannot be supported when it "r-;+1 The licensee has made changes in the docketed design basis aseumed parameters for safe plant operation (e.g. POPS /LTOP) without submitting the changes for NRC review, when 2y-spi'_ ^ -
'h~+;se,666 (Setem GM and direct reports) approaches proNoms wkh the assurr\\pdon that e
i there is no safety proMem, and no reason 80 knernot piant operadon. They assume that an d
indeterminate state d operabtity equals operabBity unti confronted with evidence to the contrary. They do not ask for evidence to the contrary. They do not chauenge assumptions
( we have engineering assurance-). They have a reasonsue assurance of opwabsky wahout demanding a basis. This is alack of appreciation d the basic principles of safe plant operation.
1
'fr:-;=,,664 must demonstrate the abity to assure safe plant operation before the Salem units are allowed to continue to operate (Switchgear fans = > inadequate operab8ky d:1,ie--r-:-i, followed by detenninetion of an USQ, followed by a request for a JCO, followed by a plant i
shutdown [the. shutdown wasn't timely or sd+T3 22RHR29 assumed operable based on a test wherein the valve worked property with no other evidence that the previous falure to j
operate properly had been addressed).
ProNom iderntSoedon (NAP-06) not efectMe in insuring poblem identification, corrective action, l
j and proper management focus.
l Root Ceuen Anabyals not eWectkely performed by plant stuk. (Many, many examples of recuning problems, superficialItxes). Salem must prove this has been corrected permanently
{
(not just an intervention) prior to restart.
{
System engineers don't understand can't find design basis or ks relationehip to sfr equipment.
e Plant management team does not focus on nuclear safety.
o f
Plant management seem kequently does not recognize impact of degraded condidons on e
i safey i
i Y
a r
t-RESTART PROCESS CHECKLIST l
I.
INITIAL NRC RESPONSE:
TASK STATUS a.
Initlet notification and NRC management discussion of known facts and issues spel (Region 11 1/95 b.
Identify /luplement additional inspections (i.e. AIT, IIT, or special) (Reelon sti 95 80
!)
c.
Determine need for formal regulatory response (l.a. Order or CAL) (Map)
CAL issued 1
6/9/95 d.
Determine need for senior management involvement (NAR & Reelon 11 sMW 3/21/95 met w/PsE&G e.
Identify other parties involved I.e. NRC organlaations, other Federal agencies, MAR /RI industry organlaations (NRR & Region 11 FEMA NOTIFICATIONS:
TASK STATUS a.
Issue Daily and Of rectors NIghlight (NRR)
N/A b.
Issue Morning Report (Reglon !)
N/A c.
Conduct Camelssioner Asolstants' Brlefing (NRR)
N/A d.
Issue Coassission Paper (NAR)
N/A e.
Cognl ent Federal agencies notifled (i.e. FEMA, EPA, 00J, 00L) (NRR)
N/A f.
state and Locat Officials notified (Region Il N/A g.
Congreestonal notification (NRR)
N/A Revlsion 0 1
p August 2, 1995 3
t RESTART PROCESS CHECKLIST III.
ESTA8LISH AND ORGANIZE THE WRC REVIEW PROCESS:
f TASK STATUS a.
Establish the Restart Penel (Region 11 7/6/95 b.
Assess avellable information (i.e. Inspection results, licensee self assessments, ongoing frdastry reviews) (Sep) e.
Condet Regional A&inistrator selefing (Sap) 8/7/95 d.
Conduct NRR Executive Team Belefing (NAR1 10/95 e.
Develop the Case Speelfic Checklist (Sep)
Ongoing f.
Develop the Restart Action Plan (Sap) 10/95 g.
Regional A&inistrator approves Restert Action Plan (Region 11 10/95 Unit 1 h.
NRR Associate Director and/or NRR Director approves Restart Action Plan (NRR) 10/95 Unit i 1.
Implement Restart Action Plan,[ Sap) ist euerter Cal. 96 Unit 1 J.
Modify CAL / order as necessary (Region 11 N/A k.
Obtain Irput from involved parties both within NRC FEMA end other Federet agencies such as FEMA, EPS, 00J, DCL Revision 0 4
August 2, 1995
._._..___.__..._.-._._..___..._-___.__..._.___.m.__._._._.__...m_..._-......
i 1
0 A
I RESTART PROCESS CHECKLilf j
IV.
REVIEW IMPLEMENTATION 3 a
j IV.1 Rant causes and correctfwa Actionat
?
TASK status a
e.
Evoluete firulings of special Team inspection (sep) 95 10 i
95 80 j
ongoing 4
l b.
Licensee performs root cause snelysis and develops corrective action plan for 8/10 Scopins root causes (Sep)
Mts.
c.
NaC evoluntes licensee's root cause determinetton and corrective action plan ongoing Itap) 1 IV.2 Assessment of Equipment Damage 1
1 j
TASK APPL 1 CABLE e.
Liesneee essesses demoso to systems and consonante N/A 14 b.
Nac evaluates Licensee demese essessment N/A c.
Lfconsee determines correctIvo actIone N/A j
d.
Nec evolustas corrective actions N/A 3
4 t
j 4
t i
l I
t i
4 l
4 i
i I
l 4
1 1
i 3
i i
i s
Revision 0 5
August 2, 1995 i
J 3
4
--......-._~~-.---.~~--.--.--~------.--~~----~.-a~~--
- ~ ~
4 6
i 3
i a.
RESTART PROCESS CMECKLIST l
r 1
j IV.3 Datarefna Eastart faa - and smaalutfant i
TASK
$TATUS i
e.
Review /evetuste licensee generated restart issues (se) ongoing l
b.
Independent MC Identification of restert issues (consider sources externet to ongoing use and ticonsee) (se) c.
MC/lleensee agreement on restart issues (sep) 10/95 Unit i d.
Evaluate 18censee8s restart issues letamentation process (se)
Ongoins e.
Evoluete ((consee's laptementation verification process (sep)
Pending Approval of the Plan f.
Evaluate MC open item becklog and Licensee commitments to MC for potential ongoing restart issues (se) s.
Evaluate open elegations for potential restert issues (Sep)
Onecins
)
h.
Evaluate the Restart Readiness Team Inspection findings (sep)
To Be Determined IV.4 Obtain commentan TAsg STATUS a.
Obtain public comments (sep)
When Licensee Pten sihaltted b.
Obtain comments from state and Local officists (Sep) start 8/3/95 W/NJ Ongoing c.
Obtain ecuments from applicable Federet egencies (MR)
FEMA Revision 0 6
August 2, 1995
__ _ _. _.. ~.. _._- _ _..._.. _ _ _.
RESTART PROCESS CHECKLIST IV.5 elamanut ActIanae TASK STATUS a.
Evaluate Licensee's restart readiness self assessment (Sep)
Open b.
Restart issues closed (Sep)
Open c.
CondJct NRC Restart Readiness Team inspection (Region 11 Open d.
Issue Augmented Restart Coverage Inspection Plan Open (Region 11 e.
Consnonte from other parties considered (Sep)
Open f.
Determine that att conditions of the Order / CAL are satisfled (Sap)
Open g.
Re review of Generic Restart Checklist couplete (Sep)
Open V.
RESTART AUTHORIZAfl0N TASK STATUS a.
Prepare restart authoritetton docuneet and basis for restart (Sep)
Open b.
NRC Restart Panet roccannende restart (Sep)
Open c.
No restart objections from other applicable No of fices (NRR)
Open d.
ho restart objections from applicable Federal agencies (NRR)
Open e.
Regional Administrator concure in restart (Region 11 Open f.
NRR Associate Director and/or NRR Director Concurs in restart (NRR)
Open g.
Regional Administrator agrees with restart (Region 11 Open Revision 0 7
August 2, 1995
..__m_..
l 6
l l
RESTAAT PROCESS CHECKLIST VI.
RESTART AUTMORIZATION NOTIFICATION:
TASK STATUS e.
Comunission (NAR)
Open b.
500 (Nat) w c.
Consressional Affalrs (NAA)
Open d.
ACRS (NRt]
Open I
e.
Applicable Federal agencies (Nan)
Open l
FEMA i
f.
Pelle Affairs (Reelon 11 Open f
1 g.
State and Local Officists (Region 11 Open l
l l
i Revlefon 0 8
August 2, 1995
...~
-. ~. -. - - - -. - - -. -
. - ~..
i i
1 REsfARI !$5UE CHECKLIST RODT CAUSE ASSESSM uf2 j
ISSUES APPLICABLE l
1.
Canditions requirine the shutdown are clearly understood (Sep)
Yes 2.
Root causes of the conditions requiring the shutdown ere clearly e derstood (Sep)
Yes
}
j 3.
Root causes of other elsnificant problems are clearly understood (SAP)
Yes a
4.
Evoluete adequacy of the root cause snelysis program (Sep)
Yes 1
II.
M&MAGEIENT A11EAMEnf t TASK APPLICABLE e.
Licensee essesses damage to systems and components No b.
NRC evaluates ticonsee demose essessment No c.
Licensee determines corrective actions No d.
NRC evaluates corrective actlons No
- Ill, coRREcflWE Acfl0MSt 1$$UES APPLICABLE 1.
Evoluete edeauncy of the comprehensive corrective action plan (Sep)
Yes 2.
Evoluete adequacy of the corrective action progrene for specific root causes Yes (Sep) 3.
Assess control of corrective oction Item tracklns (Sep)
Yes 4.
Effective corrective actions for the condltlons requiring the shutdown have been Yes istemented (Sep) 5.
Effective corrective actions for other significant problems have been leptemented Yes (SAP) 6.
Adequecy of the corrective action verification process (Sep)
Yes Revision 0 9
August 2, 1995
'e 4
l RESTART ISSUE CHECKLIST k
V.
RELF AttERSatEMT CAPAgtttfYi l
l ISSUES APPLICA8LE 1
~
1.
Effectiveness of Quellty Assurance Program (SAP)
Yes i'
2.
Adequacy of Industry Experience Review Program Yee 3.
Adequacy of Llconsee's Independent Review Croupe Yes l
4.
Adequacy of deffelency reporting system Yes 5.
Staff wlLLingness to rejse concerns Yes 6.
Effectivenese of PRA usage Yes f
7.
Adequacy of Conseltment Tracking Program Yes 8.
External audit (i.e. IMPC) capablLity Yes 4
9.
Quality of 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 Reports Yes
- 10. Effectiveness of Line Organization Self Assessments Yee 6
Revision 0 to August 2, 1995
.. - ~
4 I
l RESTART ISSUE CHECKLIST V.
ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE MANAGEMENT:
I j
V.1 Manaamment Oversfsht and Effoctivanaan 189UES APPLICABLE 1.
.t comunitment to achievins feroved performance Yes 2.
Performance scels/expectattens developed for the staff Yes I
3.
Goals / expectations communicated to the staff Yes 4.
Resources ovellable to t to achieve goals Yes i
5.
Quellfication and training of e-___
.t Yes i
6.
.t's comunitment to procedure ederence Yes i
7.
Management involvement in self assessment and independent self assessment Yes 1
capability J
l 8.
Effectiveness of e----
.t review consnittees Yes 9.
Ef fectiveness of Internal ;. u;
.t meetings Yes I
l 10.
Management In plant time Yes ll, 11.
menessment's muereness of day to-day operationel concerne Yes 12.
Ability to identify and pelocittte operability and other significant issues Yes i
13.
Ability to coordinate resolutf ai of operability and other significent issues Yes 14.
Ability to telement effective corrective actions Yes t
\\
1 i
1 l
l i
)
l l
l i
i Revision 0 l
11 August 2, 1995 i
4 t
I l
l l
4 RESTART ISSUE CHECKLIST V.2 M r----- : ornanf ration and e-rt e ISSUES APPLICA8LE 1.
Structure of the organization Yes 2.
Ability to adequately staff the orgenitation Yes 3.
Effect of any m :--
-,t reorgenfretton Yes 4.
Establishment of proper work envirorunent Yes 1
j 5.
Ability to foster teamwork among the staff Yes j
6.
Ahllity to resolve employee concerns Yes 7.
Ability to provide engineering support Yes 8.
Adequacy of plant edninistrat{ve procedures Yes j
9.
Information exchange with adjacent toits Yes 10.
Portletpation in industry groups Yes
)
11.
Ability to function in the Emergency Response organization Yes 12.
Coordinetton with offsite emergency planntng offielets Yes j
V.3 ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITN REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS:
1 1
!$$UES APPLICABLE 1.
Applicable { { cense amendnents have been issued Yes 2.
Applicable exemptions have been granted Yes 3.
Applicable reliefs have been granted Yes 4.
Inposed orders have been modified / rescinded No 1
5.
Confirmatory Action Letter conditions have been settsfled Yes 6.
Significant enforcement issues have been resolved Yes 7.
Allegations have been appropriately addressed Yes 8.
10 CFR 2.206 Petitions have been appropriately addressed No 9.
Atomic Safety and L{ censing Board hearings have been conpleted No VI.
ASSESSMENT OF PLANT AND CORPORATE STAFF VI.1 Assessment of Stafft ISSUES APPLICABLE 1.
Staff commitment to achieving improved performance Yes 2.
Staff's safety consciousness Yes 3.
Understandino of wr-_:_
,i's exoectations/ noels Yes Revision 0 12 August 2, 1995
_ _ _. _ _. _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _ _. _ _.. _.. _ _.. _ _. _ _. _ _ _ _. _ ~.. _. -
6 s
so RESTART ISSUE CHECKLIST 4.
Understandins of plant Issues and corrective actions Yes i
5.
norate yee I
f.
Stoff (union)/. - _
.t rotationship No 7.
Structure of the creantration Yes i
l S.
Effect on the staff of any reorsentration Yes i
l 9.
Resources ovellable to the staff No I
t l
10.
Quellfleetions and train {ns of the staff Yes 11.
Staff's work environment Yes 12.
Staff's fitness for duty No l
13.
Attentiveness to duty Yes 14.
Level of attention to detait Yes 15.
Adequecy of staffing No l
16.
Off hour plant staffine No i
i 17.
Rotetton schedule for shift workers No L
18.
Staff overtime usage No 19.
Amount of contractor usene No l
20.
Steff/ contractor relationehlp No 21.
Understanding of the allegetton process and protection of workers who comunmicate Yes with the NRC
(
22.
Procedure usase/se erence Yes 23.
Ausreness of plant security No 24.
Underster' dins of offsite emergency plannine issues No VI.2 Annaameent at Carnarata Sunnarts 189UES APPLICASLE
(
1.
Rotationship between corporate and the plant staff Yes 2.
Adequacy of the rec ent for corporate services process Yes 3.
corporate urulerstandine of plant issues Yes 4.
Corporate staff in plant time Yes 5.
Effectiveness of the corporate / plant interface meet {nse Yes 6.
Adequacy of corporate representation et plant activities Yes 7.
Adequacy of corporate engineering so port Yes 8.
Adequacy of corporate design changee Yes 9.
A h - v of licens{na sunnart Yes l
Revision 0 l
13 August 2, 1995 l
_~
s r
RESTART !$$UE CHECKLIST 10.
Coordination with offelte emergency planning offfetals No yl.3 h rator tanuman ISSUES APPLICA8LE 1.
Licensed operefor staffing meets requirements and licensee goals Yes 2.
Level of formality in the control room Yes 3.
Adequacy of control room simstator training Yes 4.
Control room / plant operator awareness of equipment status Yes 5.
Adequacy of plant operating procedures Yes 6.
Procedure usage /ae erence Yes 7.
Log keeping practices Yes 4
1 i
l Revision 0 l
14 August 2, 1995 l
l l
l
..,. _ - - -..... ~. ~. -. -. -..... -. -. - --
- -.... ~. -.....
' 9 RESTART ISSUE CHECKLIST Vll.
ASSESSMENT OF PHYSICAL READINESS OF THE PLANT:
j
!SSUES APPLICASLE 1.
Operability of technical speelfications systems Yes 2.
Operability of reautred secondary and so port systems Yes 3.
Results of pre startup testing Yes 4
4.
Adeeuncy of system liness Yes 5.
Adequacy of survelliance tests / test program Yes 6.
Slentficant hardware lesues resolved (i.e. demoged equipment, equipment egelne, Yes modifications) i l
7.
Adequacy of the power ascension testing program Yes 8.
Adequacy of plant meintenance program offactiveness Yes i
e 9.
Melntenance becklos managed and lapect on operetton essessed Yes f
10.
Adequacy of plant housekeeping and equipment storage Yes 11.
Adequacy of onsite and offsite emergency properedness Yes 3
b-VIII.
C00RDlh7TIGii WITM INTERESTED AGENCIES / PARTIES:
I i
1 ORGANIZATION APPLICABLE 1.
Federal Emersency ;^.x _._..t Agency [NRR)
Yes i
2.
Envirormentet Protection Agency No 3
Department of Justice No l
4.
Department of Labor No I
i 5.
Appropriate State and Local Offielets (SAP)
Yes 6.
Appropriate Public Interest Gross No f
7.
Locet News Nedle (SAP)
Yes t
i i
I
)
e i
i i
i i
i Revision 0 15 August 2, 1995 1
4 I
i
l l
o.-
.,e SALEM ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING October 6, 1995 ATTENDEES:
l J. Linville, DRP L. Nicholson, DRP l
C. Marshall, DRP l
G. Kelly, DRS i
J. Stolz, NRR l
S. Barber, DRP L. Olshan, NRR OTHERS:
W. Lanning, DRP DISCUSSION:
~
The Salem Assessment Panel met by conference call on October 6, 1995, from 10:30 a.m.,
until 3:15 p.m.
E. Kelly briefed the panel on the system readiness review l
inspection exit.
In general they observed a thorough effective l
process conducted by knowledgeable system managers with challenging oversight by the System Readiness Review Board and the Management Review Committee (MRC).
An unresolved item was identified relative to the the SI system review involving diesel generator loading, an issue already on the restart list.
The panel agreed that adequate inspection had been completed to find the licensee's process acceptable for establishing the initial outage scope.
E. Kelly will provide feeders to S. Bar'>er for integration and inclusion in the next resident inspection report.
Based on resident ~ review of the IFS list, project manager review of the NRR tracking systems and project engineer review of the allegation list, xx items were added to the attached restart list.
S. Barber and E. Kelly will develop ~ draft criteria for the items by the next panel meeting in early November.
At the next meeting, responsibilty for closure of the items will be determined based on proposals prepared by each organization.
The last two SALPs will also be reviewed by DRP and DRS for any items which should be added along with several items whcih ar the subject of ongoing reactive inspections including steam generator tube degradation, the technical and emergency preparedness aspects of the overhead annunciator alert, and EOPs and control l
of contractors which emerged from the recent Regional Administrator site visit.
Finally, it was agreed that NRR must tf' i
h)
~ _ _ -.
,t P
2
{
disposition the TIA on the use of jumpers for Appendix R safe shutdown soon to enable the licensee to proceed with modifications if necessary.
The Senior Resident Inspector (SRI) reported the results of the
[
attached review the output from all the unit MRC meetings for all i
unit 1 systems that identified four related NRC equipment restart items that were not identified by the licensee for appropriate action.
The panel considered this result an indication of good 1
performance by the licensee's system readiness review process.
After the SRI checks the licensee's tracking system for the i
}
presence and status of these items, the items will be discussed l
with the licensee for resolution if they do not appear.
I In discussing the action plan observations, it was agreed that the SRI would forward the action plans to the responsible panel 4
member (Linville-human performance, Kelly-engineering, equipment reliability, and training, DRP-the remaining six) for review and i
discussion with the PSE&G sponsor.
By the next panel meeting the i
responsible panel member will compare the action plans with the people and process portions of the restart list.
Any items not i
covered
)
as a result of the review will be identified for discussion with i
the licensee for resolution.
j L. Nicholson briefed the panel on the Regional Administrator's site visit on October 3&4.
The general impression was that j
things seem to be moving in the right direction, but that it's too early to tell.
Two action items emerged from the discussion.
L. Olshan agreed to contact Congressional Affairs to determine the valve about which Senator Biden was concerned in his discussion with L. Eliason of PSE&G.
L. Nicholson agreed to contact G. Meyer about the possibility of relief form the six month site experience requirement for getting an SRO license if the individual previously held an SRO license at a similar facility.
In discussing the MIP, it was agreed that inspection should be limited to core inspection of ongoing activities until the PSE&G Restart Plan is submitted and approved for implementation with the exception of reactive efforts like to the ongoing steam generator tube degradation and annunciator alert inspections.
Another exception might be a review of the plans for the replacement and rebuild of Hagan modules because of the magnitude of the project.
E. Kelly agreed to develop a plan for pre-implementation inspection of the Hagan project by the next meeting. He also informed the panel that DRS has formed a group of inspectors to perform the bulk of the Salem inspection and assessment activities including A. Cerne, N. Della Greca, and T.
)
4 i
.i e
3 Kenny.
.A RATI will be put on the MIP by DRP with a tentative date for unit 1 of June 1996.
It was agreed that the next meeting should be held in early November.
i i
e 4
1 i
e l
i t
i e
e
l 1
I NNEOjNN6fNAkik$6YidAOfAtONE -
IN 1
64 TOTAlilTEMS (43 TECHMCAli~/ 21, PROGRAMMATIC) n 70 gj EOPEN 0 MRC - SCHEDULED THIS WEEK 60 E MRC APPROVED MINSPECTIONS STARTED BCLOSED 40 30 20 i
20 16 -
10 l
3 0
1 1
i i
i OPEN MRC-MRC INSPECTIONS CLOSED SCHEDULED APPROVED STARTED THIS WEEK RAP.XLS Page 1 6/19/96
/
[@5%Rif7]@f]MSulem$5@9YQdTQf3{s@7BEi?!PTMEM7lMSYMd'!$9""*N5 "M5 isuesaSummar ' '
eResth u* hamew
" ^ ~ ^
' "^' ~ ~ " ^~ ~~
~'"'*~" ~
'~" " ys m a
' 3'
^
19Jun-96 NGMil
!EiFJi jFsid%A?! IMirel [Ps,Misifs#1 IRidiisiumisPljs@&iisl InmE&l [nnil ( -
~
fR f.fDl Resolve Appendix Rjumpers and hicGough Open No Olshan Approved Approved 4
program discrepancies, inc!ading fire barrier penetrations.
(!N l5$YYl Review efforts to maintain hicGough Open No Della Greca Approved 6/13/96 4
configuration control, given examples from Hagan modules and bolting.
Effort to include setpoint control program and drawing control.
(U[3Nl Adequacy and use of procedures, Dept. Afgrs Open No DRP 7/10/96 2
including procedure revision backlog.
%l[s.nlIl Adequacy and use of procedures, Conicella Open No DRP 7/3/96 7/15/96 2
including procedure revision backlog.
IIO] TWWl hianagement of engineering and Ranalli Open No DRP 7/9/96 7/16/96 2
maintenance backlog.
Iif j I4MEl hianagement of engineering and Laughlin Open No DRP 7/16/96 2
maintenance backlog.
kfANIl Program for foreign material exclusion.
hicCloskey Open No Kenny / DRP Approved 7/8/96 4
hkl5NYl Operabilitydeterminations.
Greenlee Open No DRP / Della 6/17/96 6/26/96 6
Greca
[El?NIGl Operatorperformance(Coordmation Greenlee Open No Barr 6/24/96 7/15/96 2
and Communication)
[EA l D ANl Correction of operator workarounds, Webster Open No DRP 7/9/96 7/16/96 2
including control room deficiencies.
k fiADl Program to utilize operating (industry)
Pike Open Yes Afarschall/
Approved Approved 2
experience feedback.
Della Greca Page 1 of 6
kEsidbiDl IliifaYl IhisD~MEj NMl l5 N M l l N M !l f M kl f!5iNUhl lNMl
((k}N63l Corrective action program, including Marano Open Yes DRP / Della Approved Deferred 2
adequacy of root cause progrant Greca (7/16/96) lID lX6fnIl Corrective action program, Trending Marano Open No DRP Approved Approved 2
kl $1@Il Corrective action program, Roles and Marano Open No DRP Apprmed Approved 2
responsibilities l}WIj [Id@ Corrective action program, Lacklogs Marano Open No DRP 7/9/96 7/16/96 2 lIkl!16M!} Corrective action program, Program Marano Open No DRP 6/27/96 7/8/96 2 lfD l 3dMIl Corrective action program, Timeliness Marano Open No DRP 7/9/96 7/16/96 2 pgj $12Vil Engineering contribution to problem McGough Open No DRP / Della 6/17/96 6/24/96 4 resolution, including safety evaluations. Greca l{D li?laEl Tagging Greenlee Open No Enuy ii,RF 7/3/96 4 Fnu hD]N#?Il Adequacy of Emergency Preparedness Polyak Open No DRP 7/12/96 7/19/96 2 hD]314I?l Resolutionoflicensingcommitments. Salomon Open No DRP 6/21/96 6/28/96 4 liM j $h53l Adequacy of Emergency Operating Greenlee Open No Barr Approved 6/19/96 3 Procedures. liWlEi1dEj Adequacyof training. McMahon Open Yes Barr Approved Approved 6 kj NTI5l Adequacy of work control and planning IIolden Open No Chaudhary 6/17/96 6/26/96 2 program. ((W] shB l Parts availability & accuracy of bill of Bensen Open No Chaudhary 8/9/96 8/15/96 2 materials lIkl52n3l Adequacy of UFSAR Update Tully Open Yes DRP 6/28/96 7/10/96 2 Page 2 of 6
Il lE5l If55GUI Ml States l I N s 5 M l IN N d 5 N 'l I$ lis id skl [Iis R d l INN) glY20'fil AdequacyofQAprogram Tauber Open F DRP / Kenny Approved Apprmed 6 (Receptiveness to documented i deficiencies) f!klN5kCil L.icenseeself-ascessmentcapability Flanagan Open No DRP 7/2/96 7/10/96 2 (Performance monitoring & trending) l[T;'lIWF7l Cont. Spray Dsch Viv (CS-2) Cranston Open Yes Kenny Approved Approved 4 Operability. Calculationsindicate actual d/p may be greater than design d/p. l[E[Y'8BWl Reliability of Control Air System. Rencheck Open No Kenny / DRP 7/11/96 7/19/96 4 Requires operator action to start backup compressor. l[T lYIDISIl CW Screen Moior Reliability. No Rencheck Open No -BRP Approved Approved 3 automatic motor operation, vulnerable p ggg to grass intrusion hEIjNMNl Digital feedwater installation to correct Bursztein Open Yes Della Greca / Approved Approved 2 feedwater control reliability. Cahrrt l[5IjNnMl Moisture in EDG air start system causes Rencheck Open No W :.y / DRP 7/8/96 7/16/96 6 reliability problem with check vahrs. f(5g llTil Nn?Il EDG output breakers fail to close when Rencheck Open No Della Greca Approved Approved 6 switch taken to close. liT[Dl EDG has minimalload margin. Bursztein Open Yes Della G eca Approved Approved 4 f[TE]Mafl EDSF1FollowupIssues Bursztein Open Yes Della Greca Approved 6/11/96 4 [ TM*?lfl Cracked exhaust steam piping could Cranston Open No Chaudhary Approved Approved 4 indicate weak erosionk ontrol program. 6/17/96 I!E[5EI[l Feedwater nozzle bypass flow Cranston Open No Kenny / DRP Approved 6/24/96 2 introduced error in calorimetric and power lesel. Page 3 of 6 y
be7l lEi~$5Il f)5EU N Yl fMNdl IMMl [NNMIl fNM kl [N5fNUNl fpdl [iT)lN1dfl EDG 1 A load fluctuations. Rencheck Open Yes Della Greca 6/24/96 6/19/96-6 ([T [AAsl Review adequacy of fuse control Bursztein Open No Della Greca Approved 6/24/96 2 program. ((U] T158 l Review gas turbine batteries degrading Bursztein Open No Della Greca 6/28/96 7/8/96 4 with loss of one source ofoffsite power. Turbine referenced in TS basis to support SW outages. ((E[5dNl Hagan module replacement project. Bursztein Open Yes Della Greca Approved Approved 4 ((FjjilsITl Procedure contains non-conservative Rencheck Closed Yes Della Greca Approved Approved 6 125V battery acceptance criteria. [!E]514KYl NRC & QA identified numerous IST Fakhar Open No Kenny 7/3/96 7/10/96 4 program deficiencies. ((E[!AUlTl Main condenser steam dumps Cranston Open No N Approved 6/19/96 2 malfunction, requires closing MSIVs on {:(6H trip and prevents use of main condenser. [IT['iLidMl Poor reliability of PDP charging pumps. Rencheck Open No DRP Approved 6/21/96 4 llY h?WId Poor process for configuration control Englert Open Yes Chaudhary Approved Approwd 4 of pipe supports. (f%Nil POPS ability to mitigate overpressure Cranston Open Yes Kenny Approved Approwd 6 events. ((EhiE2159l Wiring separation & redundancy Bursztein Open No Della Greca Approved 7/1/96 4 concerns with RG 1.97 instruments & cable separation l[T~ l 52EYl PORV (IPRI) seat leakage, requiring Rencheck Open No K;- y/Onp 7/19/96 6 block valw closure. RM l[MpsasRl Undssized PORV accumulators. Cranston Open No Kenny / DRP Approved Rejected 4 Page 4 of 6
- NUmEEl fMl lNkb5Nl Nl [ M N l fkIIERi" N l I M l fkkkd5l
[kYd[l , [fYlN51>#YIl Gate valves identified susceptible to Cranston Open Yes Kenny Apprwed Approved 6 press lock & thermal binding. [T]15M53l Pressurizer Spray Problems /Use of Aux Rencheck Open No Kenny 6/20/96 6/24/96 4 Spray hMlf55E5sl Radiation monitor problems. Rencheck Open No Della Greca 7/11/96 7/18/96 4 ((T]5$5r73l Rx coolant pump oil collection system Cranston Open No Della Greca 6/19/96 6/26/96 4 deficiencies. l[T? l 75 MEN l Understand causes and corrective Cranston Open Yes Kenny Approved Approved 5 t ~ actions for failures of Rx coolant pump seals. hWlNsme%l Rx Head Vent Valve Stoke Times. Nichols Closed Yes Kenny Approved Approved 5 [!E]5MI?l RHR Min-flow Valve (RH29) Failures Rencheck Open No Kenny / DRP 6/19/96 6/21/96 6 on unit 2. [fT]Nat?Nl RHR Dsch Vaht (21RH10) Banging Rencheck Open No - Ka- !DDD Approved 6/24/96 6 Noise. Rgj [IYl5asaiIl Review program for control & Cranston Open No De!!a Greca 6/19/96 6/26/96 4 inspecting resilient fire barrier seals. ((TJ lYa3%l Control rods stepping with no Bursztein Open No Della Greca Approved Apprmrd 2 temperature error signal. $T: j ka*Kl Numerous SI pump deficiencies. Rencheck Open No M Approved 6/13/96 5 YW4 %T] WEl Verify adequate protection for S1 Pump Cranston Open Yes Della Greca Approved Approved 5 runout. ( ((ElINEl Si reliefvahrs performance history of Rencheck Open No DRP Approved 6/11/96 6 leaking and lifting. l[kl@27El Review co rective action for service Rencheck Closed Yes Kenny Approved Apprmed 4 water pipe crosion. Page 5 of 6
.; s wri lWI lnenomi weil IWstl !wscel Isaiasiil !jgiggDl M ' ((Fj gaisNl Spurious high steam flow signals Burszteia Open Yes Della Greca Approved Approved 4
- ~
causing SI. [ITTEWWl Review corrective actions to resolve Bursztein Open No Della Greca Rejected 6/21/96 4 numerous switchyard failures. 6/18/96 (Wl EhMl Verify adequate correction for overhead Bursztein Open Yes Della Greca Approved Approved 4 annunciator failures. [fNlI41Tl Verify adequate corrective action to ReMemann Open No Chaudhary Rejected 6/24/96 4 ensure steam generator tube integrity. 6/14/96 l(T[4MM AuxiliaryFeedwaterSystem Rencheck Open No DRP Approved 6/11/96 3 Performance and Reliability. fit 7M7l Adequacy of corrective actions from the Conicella Open No Kenny / DRP 6/21/96 6/28/96 2 Salem Unit 2 reactor trip. i _h ,aee g, !s 0 (D g
- g. 3, g,
y g
- oo m r
Cu O } E '? 7 h G f g-G E F ~ o {Sn
- y. h.
9 ?*lo f, x lh S d 9w J' Ff @ 6 3 as / C' ,0 P m q t / 9' <D .D' o-Page 6 of 6
SALEM 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 l are ready for RATI. Meeting open for public observation. (CAL l Item #5) l NRC conducts meeting at night in Delaware for public to question i 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. PSElG 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. 1 SAP Chairman briefs RA/NRR etc on readiness for restart j conclusions. j i CAL amended to allow unit 2 restart. (CAL Item #7) I 1 ) I a
AGENDA SALEM ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING 96-06 7/01/96, it00pm I. OLD BUSINESS Review of Outstanding SAP Action Items (DePriest) 30 minutes II. NEW BUSINESS 1. Overview of Hub Miller site visit. (Marschall) 10 minutes i 2. Status of Restart Inspections to Date. (Barber /Marschall) 15 minutes 3. Best estimate schedule for U2 restart. (Marschall) 10 minutes j i 4. Salem 2 Restart Process. (Nicholson) 15 minutes 5. NRC resource loading. Restart items, licensing basis, restart plan, RATI, restart coverage. (Nicholson/All) 30 minutes 6. Critique (All) 10 minutes 'l 17 ,c ) j
i ShGeti I i 4/15/96 1 4/29/96 Reliability of control air i 5/6/96 PORV accumulator sizing. FME mm. i 5/20/96 CW screen motor reliability. j 5/27/96 RHR disch valve (21RH1) bangi j 6/10/96 6/24/96 4 j' 7/8/96 Moisture in EDG air start systems. 1 i 7/22/96 l l 8/5/96 8/19/96 1 M . 9.,
_ _ __. _ _ _... _. ~. _.. _ - - - _.. J f SAP MINUTE ISSUE AND DISTRIBUTION The following has been performed or is in process: 1. Identifying files for the eight SAP meeting prior to NRC RAP issuance. 2. Combining SAP meeting minutes into centralized file. i 3. Developing a cover letter and revising the minutes in a format j publishable to the licensee. The following approach was used during the review: 1. Some of the minutes contained potentially inflammatory i observations / comments. These were toned down; however, the underlying 1 meaning was preserved. 2. Some of the minutes contained commitments that were fulfilled, in part, but not in tntal. These were discussed among the affected individuals. The primary focus was to restore the record to preserve its accuracy. t 3. The SAP should be prepared for questions / comments on minutes after they are published. t S e 5
h Critical NRC Restart Items The following is a listing of items derived from NRC's restart plan that have a significant potential to adversely impact the restart of Salem Unit 2. These items should be approved by SAP prior to docketing. II.7 EDG has minimal load margin II.14 Hagan module replacement project 11.41 Verify adequate corrective actions to ensure steam generator to be integrity 111.1 Resolve Appendix R jumpers and program discrepancies, including fire barrier penetrations 1 1 n 4
APP-02-1996 12:00 DPP 6103375354 P 01 05 7( f& p SALEM RESTART INSPECTION PLAN The follcwing inspections are planned to address the technical (Section II) 4 4 and programmatic (Section III) restart items published in NRC's Restart Action Plan (RAP). Restart Inspections are currently underway with additional inspection expected to address the breadth of the items being defined by the RAP. This schedule is being constantly revised and was current as of March
- 29. 1996. It reflects the following licensee Sales 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 t April 15 II.4. Digital feedwater installation to correct feedwater control reliability. (DRS-Elec) 11.14. Hagan module replacement project. (DRS-Elec) April 22 11.21. Wiring separation & redundancy concerns with RG 1.97 instruments & cable separation (DRS Elec) April 29 I1.1. Cont. Spray Dsch Viv (CS-2) Operability. Calculations indicate actual d/p may be greater than design d/p, (DRS Sys) 11.2. Reliability of Control Air Syst uires operator action to start backup compressor. (DRP), ers) Revision 0 April 2.1996 $'/ c
4 APR-02-193S 12:00 DPP 61033'75354 P.02/05 11.9. Cracked exhaust steam piping could indicate weak. erosion / control program. (DRS-Matls) o 11.10. Feedwater nozzle bypass flow introduced error in calorimetric and ' power level. (DRS-Ops) 11.12. Review adequacy of fuse control program. (DRS-Elec) II.35. Verify adequate protection for SI Pump runout. (ORS Elec) II.38. Spurious high steam flow signals causing SI. (DRS-Elec) II.43. Adequa of corrective actions from the Salem Unit 2 reactor trip. RP) 111.1. Resolve Appendix R jumpers and program discrepancies including fire barrier penetrations. (NRR) May 13 II.22. PORV (1PRI) seat leakage, requiring block valve' closure. (DRP)h) i / II.23. Undersired PORY accumulators. (DRP) 3 i 7 1 II.29. Rx Head Vent Valve Stoke Times'. (. f{4) / p II.40. Verify adequate correction for 'verhead annunciator failures. / (DRS-Elec) 111.5. Program for foreign mater 1 exclusion.(DRP)(ff$) III.20. Adequacy of 0A program ( )g.Th) May 20 II.3. CW Screen Motor Reliability. No automat 4c motor operation. vulnerable to grass intrusion. (ORPgp II.16. NRC & QA identified numerous IST program' deficiencies. (DRS-Sys) C.20. POPS ability to mitigate overpressure events. (DRS-Sys) 11.24. Gate valves identified susceptible to press lock & thermal binding. (DRS-Sys) 11.25. Pressurizer Spray Problems /Use of Aux Spray (DRS-Sys) II.26. Radiation monitor problems. (DRS Elec) II.28. Understand causes and corrective actions for failures of Rx Revision 0 April 2.1996 } i l
APR-02-1996 12301 OPP 6103375354 P.03/05 coolant pump seals. (DRP & DRS-Sys) RHR Min-flow Valve (RH29) Failures on unit 2. (DRP) (f,TS) 11.30. II.37. Review corrective action for service water pipe erosion. (DRS-Sys) 4 -f/4 May 27 '} f 6 h11. EDG 1A lead fluctuations. (DRS-Elec II.31. RHR Dsch Valve (21RH10) Banging Noise. (DRP) g) j June 3 II.17. Mein condenser steam dumps malfunction, requires closing MSIVs on tripandpreventsuseofmaincondenser.(DRP){pg') II.34. Numerous SI pump deficiencies. (DRP) II.36. ,~ SI relief valves performance history of leaking and lifting. (ORPM g j 11.41. Verifhadequatecorrectiveactiontoensuresteamgeneratortube q integrity. (DRS-Matis) Auxiliary Feedwater System Performance and Reliability. (DRP)h6) i II.42. 111.2. Review efforts to maintain configuration control. given examples i from Hagan modules and bolting. Effort to include setpoint i control program and drawing control. (DRS-Elec) Operabilitydeterminations.(DRP)@6) III.6. { III.16. Adequacy of training. (DRS-Ops) III.18. Parts availability & accuracy of bill of materials (DRS-Ops) June 24 11.6. EDG output breakers fail to close when switch taken to close. (DRS Elec) j II.7. EDG has minimal load margin. (DRS-Elec) 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) Revision 0 April 2, 1996 x i
@P-02-1996 12301 LPP 6103375354 P. o& 05 11.27. Rx coolant pump oil collection system deficiencies. (DRS-Elec) II.32. Review program for control & inspecting resilient fire barrier seals. (DRS-Elec) July 1 l 11.8. EDSFI Followup Issues (DRS-Elec) 11.15. Procedure contains non-conservative 125V battery acceptance criteria. (DRS-Elec) July 8 11.5. Moisture in EDG air start system causes reliability problem with checkvalves.(DRP){tyO II.18. Poor reliability of PDP charging pumps. (DRP(96-V 11.19. Poor process for configuration control of pipe supports. (DRS-Matl) II.33. Control rods stepping with no temperature error signel. (DRS-Elec) II.39. Review corrective actions to resolve numerous switchyard failures. (DRS-Elec) III. 7. Operator performance (Coordination and Comunication) (DRS-Ops) III.12. Tagging (ORP) [h I July 22 III.3. . Adequacy and use of procedures, including procedure revision i backlog. (DRP) 1 III.4. Management of engineering and maintenance backlog. (DRP/RATI) III.8. Correction of operator workarounds, including control room deficiencies. (DRP) III.9. Program to utilize operating (industry) experience feedback. (DRP) 111.10. Corrective action program, including adequacy of root cause program. (DRP) III.11. Engineering contribution to problem resolution, including safety k evaluations. (DRP) Revision 0 April 2. 1996
.. _. _. _.............. _. ~. _ _.. _... _. _. _. _ _, e APP-02-19% 12:01 DPP 61033'75354 P.05/05 III.13. Adequacy of Emergency Preparedness (DRS-EP) l III.14. Resolution of licensing commitments. (NRR). i III,15. Adequacy of Emergency Operating Procedures (ORS Ops)- III.17. Adequacy of work control and planning program. (DRS) 111.19. Adequacy of UFSAR Update (DRP) l-111.21. Licensee self assessment capability (Performance monitoring & trending) (DRP) L l l l l t ) l l l l l Revision 0 April 2. 1996 TOTAL P.05
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 expected 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 F 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 2 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) 111.10.1. Corrective action program, including adequacy of root cause program. (DRP) $co W Revision 1 April 17, 1996
April 29 11.7. EDG has minimal load maroin. (DRS-Elec) II.15. Procedure contains non-conservative 125V battery acceptance criteria. (DRS-Elec) II.20. POPS ability to mitigate overpressure events. (DRS-Sys) II.21. Wiring separation & redundancy concerns with RG 1.97 instruments & cable separation (DRS-Elec) II.24. Gate valves identified susceptible to press lock & thermal binding. (DRS-Sys) II.28. Understand causes and corrective actions for failures of Rx coolant pump seals. (DRP & DRS-Sys) k v% III 9. Program to utilize operating (industry) experience feedback. (DRP) May 6 11.3. CW Screen Motor Reliability. No automatic motor operation, vulnerable to grass intrusion. (DRP) 11.12. Review adequacy of fuse control program. (DRS-Elec) II.14. Hagan module replacement project. (DRS-Elec) 11.29. Rx Head Vent Valve Stoke Times. (DRP) J p> II.40. Verify adequate correction for overhead annunciator failures. (DRS-Elec) II.37. Review corrective action for service water pipe erosion. (DRS-Sys) III.20. Adequacy of QA' program (DRP) k> secVL Revision 1 April 17, 1996 4
1 May 13 11.23. Undersized PORV accumulators. (DRP) L:p a i 11.32. Review program for control & inspecting resilient fire barrier seals. (DRS-Elec) 1 11.35. Verify adequate protection for SI Pump runout. (DRS-Elec) 111.5. Program for foreign material exclusion. (D P) ~7 ( o dfl 1 111.10.2. Corrective action program, including adequacy of root cause i program. (DRP) j L7 S aM-May 20 4 11.1. Cont. Spray Dsch V1v (CS-2) Operability. Calculations indicate a actual d/p may be greater than design d/p. (DRS-Sys) i 11.2. Reliability of Control Air System. Requires operator action to startbackupcomp~ressor.(D{) 11.8. EDSFI Followup Issues (DRS-Elec) II.10. Feedwater nozzle bypass flow introduced error in calorimetric and power level. (DRS-Ops) 1 11.19. Poor process for configuration control of pipe supports. (DRS-Mat 1) t j 11.22. PORV (IPRI) seat leakage, requiring block valve closure. (DRP) 7 11.33. Control rods stepping with no temperature error signal. (DRS-Elec) 4 i l Revision 1 April 17, 1996 e
May 27 11.27. Rx coolant pump oil collection system deficiencies. (DRS-Elec) II.30. RHR Min-flow Valve (RH29) Failures on unit 2. (D P) II.31. RHR Dsch Valve (21RH10) Banging Noise. (DR II.43. Adequacy of corrective actions from the Salem Unit 2 reactor trip. (DRP)
- W III.6.
Operability determinations. (DRP) LS7 To o 111.10.3&4. Corrective action program, including adequacy of root cause program. (DRP) Cec W i L5.2 111.16. Adequacy of training. (DRS-Ops) ) l June 3 II.9. Cracked exhaust steam piping could indicate weak erosion / control program. (DRS-Matis) I II.11. EDG 1A load fluctuations. (DRS-Elec) 11.34. Numerous SI pump deficiencies. (DRP) A L, 11.36. SI relief valves performance history of leaking and lifting. L4 11.39. Review corrective actions to resolve numerous switchyard failures. (DRS-Elec) III.21. Licensee self assessment capability (Performance monitoring & trending) (DRP) b So H- ) Revision 1 April 17, 1996 I 4
= - June 10 I II.6. EDG output breakers fail to c, lose when switch taken to close. (DRS-Elec) 11.17. Main condenser steam dumps malfunction, requires closing MSIVs on j l trip and prevents use of main condenser. (DRP) & A7 l 11.18. Poor reliability of PDP charging pumps. (D8P) { L:7 W l 11.42. AuxiliaryFeedwaterSystemPerformanceandReliability.(Dg III.2. Review efforts to maintain configuration control, given examples from Hagan modules and bolting. Effort to include setpoint control program and drawing control. (DRS-Elec) III.4.1. Management of engineering and maintenance backlog. (DRP/RATI) i 111.18. Parts availability & accuracy of bill of materials (DRS-Ops) June 17 11.16. NRC & QA identified numerous IST program deficiencies. (DRS-Sys) 11.25. Pressurizer Spray Problems /Use of Aux Spray (DRS-Sys) 11.41. Verify adequate corrective action to ensure steam generator tube integrity. (DRS-Matis) 111.3. Adequacy and use of procedures, including procedure revision l backlog. (DRP) III.15. Adequacy of Emergency Operating Procedures (DRS-Ops) June 24 III.11. Engineering contribution to problem resolution, including safety evaluations. (DRP) 111.14. Resolution of licensing commitments. (NRR) 111.17. Adequacy of work control and planning program. (DRS) July 1 1 111.12. Tagging (DRP) Revision 1 April 17, 1996
. _ _ - = _ _ - - -.. July 8 III. 7. Operator performance (Coordination and Communication) (DRS-Ops) 111.10.5. Corrective action program, including adequacy of root cause program. (DRP) 111.19.- Adequacy of UFSAR Update (DRP) July 15 l 11.5. Moisture in EDG air start system causes reliability problem with check valves. (DRP) II.26. Radiation monitor problems. (DRS-Elec) III.4.1. Management of engineering and maintenance backlog. (DRP/RATI) III.8. Correction of operator workarounds, including control room deficiencies. (DRP) III.10.6. Corrective action program, including adequacy of root cause program. (DRP) 4 111.13. Adequacy of Emergency Preparedness (DRS-EP) Revision 1 April 17, 1996
1 i s 4 O SALEM ASSESSMENT PANEL ACTION ITEM MATRIX t-95-01-01 Chairman SAP Develop specific issue checklist from IR's, Closed SALP, IFS, allegations, public and state 2/23/96 RAP input LTR. 1 l 95-01-02 SRl/Marschall SRI review gas turbine issue with licensee Closed to determine if it has some safety and/or Added to regulatory basis RAP 95-01-03 DRS/ Review of the system readiness review Cornpleted Barber process by Scott Barber /DRS inspectors to by SAP determine its effectiveness ref.95-03 IR 95-17 l 95-02-01 Barber State of New Jersey to discuss concerns Closed regarding communication problems which 1/11/96 led to a FEMA deficiency during graded Meeting with j exercise, and HP weakness highlighted NRC during Hope Creek unplanned release l l 95-02-02 DRS DRS specialists to sample system readiness Completed review process in more depth, then check by SAP j the review against the NRC list of restart ref.95-03 items and any items that were not identified j during the licensee's SRR process 4 95-02-03 Rl/Marschall 7/25/96 Evaluate the MRC meetings and sample Open them to assure that any related NRC restart items are identified by the licensee for appropriate action g:\\ branch 3\\sapmtg.tbl Revised August 2,1996 e 3 1ww -+ y 7v 1 7 77- -1 -'-,-Vy---+- --tr3 t-pr'r-ty e
- he-
-tlyw- ,v-ww- - -Ne ve w we -- -%7'- T 'rw--- -+rvv'---9 w-w 1 -wSer r 'e ' N* ~ v Wwy' * -
- 37 7-'
yv-e*re v 9't**~~T-v*'-** N "7* T S - ' '
- M i"" "- " " ' ' '-
SALEM. ASSESSMENT _PAIFiLACIlOfmEMS 95-02-04 SRI Review IFS list and NRR tracking systems Completed for any items which should be added to the by SAP NRC restart hst ref.95-04 9542-05 DRS-Assign lead review responsibilities for the Closed Engineering Performance, impact plans prior to accepting the Completed Equipment Reliability. Training licensee's overall Restart Plan. Evaluate by SAP NRR-Self Assessment each plan prior to approval by NRC ref.95-05 RI Projects-Maintenance, Work Control, Corrective Action, Operations Human Performance 95-03-01 DRS System Rea:*: ness Review (SRR) unresolved Completed items were assigned to be completed by by SAP DRS and would be incorporated in the next ref.95-04 inspection report IR ?? 95-04-01 Barber / Kelly Develop proposed inspection / assessment Completed criteria for each restart item by SAP ref.95-05 95-04-02 DRP (Barber)/DRS Review last 2 SALPs for any item which Closed should be added to NRC Restart List, as well NRC Restart as issues from reactive inspections, i.e., List steam generator tube degradation, technical and EP aspects of overhead annunciator alerts, EOPs, and control of contractors 95-04-03 NRR Milestone: NRR shall disposition TIA on use of jumpers Open MRC review for App. R. safe shutdown of packaae g:\\ branch 31sapmtg.tbl 2 Revised August 2,1996
f SALEM ASSESSMENT PANEL ACTION ITEMS 1 95-04-04 SAP SAP Responsible panel members will compare Completed j 95-05 the restart action plans with the people and by SAP j process portions of the NRC Restart List. ref.95-05 j Any items not covered by this will be i discussed with the licensee for proper dispositioning 95-04-05 NRR As a result of the Regional Administrator's Closed, E-visit, the PM agreed to contact Mail from } Congressional Affairs to clarify which valves LOlshan to i (PORV internals) Senator Ihden's staff was (JCL) dated I concerned with. 10/10/95 l 95-04-06 Nicholson L Nicholson agreed to contact G. Meyer Open: l about the possibility of relief from the Awaiting reactivity manipulation requirement for NRR getting an SRO licensee. response to 1ssue has changed to the number of PSE&G. l reactivity manipulations. PSE&G submitted waiver to NRR. 95-04-07 Kelly - Develop a plan for pre-implementation Completed inspection of the Hagan project by 95-05 by SAP i ref.95-05 ? l I g:\\ branch 3\\sapmtg.tbl 3 Revised August 2,1996 i 1 ..y---.m g-,.-.. --= ,n..w-3 gwp.. .-,y-3y-w4.c,,_.
SALEM ASSESSMENT PANEL ACTION ITEMS 95-05-01 Human Performance - DRP/Linville SAP SAP determmed all Restart Action Plans Completed Engineering - DRS/ Kelly 95-06 would be reviewed before 95-06. The by SAP Equip. Reliability - DRS/Rutand preceding assignments were given. ref.95-06 Training - DRS/ Modes Self Assessment - NRR/Olshan Corrective Action - DRP/ Barber Operations - DRP/Schoppy Maintenar.ce - DRP/Marschall, DePriest Work Control - DRP/ Fish 95-05-02 DRP Barber 7/25/96 Place RATI on MIP schedule for tentative Closed; restart of Unit 1 Email from S. Barber to J. Lanning 7/23/96 95-05-03 SAP-Nicholson SAP agreed to invite state representative Closed: E-from NJ and Delaware to identify and Mail from discuss any unresolved items between Nicholson to states and licensee DePriest 7/23/96 95-05-04 Nicholson 7/25/96 Nicholson to discuss with Regional Closed: E-Administrator if Hope Creek should be Mail from included under the SAP oversight Nicholson to DePriest 7/23/96 95-06-01 SAP SAP noted that there should be some Closed Emergency Preparedress provisions in the (CAL #2 Restart Action Plan letter) g:\\ branch 3\\sapmtg.tbl 4 Revised August 2,1996 _. -........ _.., _.,, _. ~ _ _ _ _,.. _... _. u -,_. _ __... _,_,.
i t t i SALEM ASSESSMENT PANEL ACTION ITEMS 4 96-01-01 Barber Follow up meeting to be conducted Closed: E-between NJ and NRC to present states mail from S. 4 l questions / issues with PSE&G Restart Plan Barber to R. j DePriest 7/23/96 96-01-02 Karla Smith 7/25/96 Provide guidance document on authority of Closed: ,4-state to do inspections E-Mail from
- j Smith to Cooper, and
^ discussed with Nicholson 1 i 96-01-03 State Uaison Officer State Liaison Officer call NJ to request a list Complete l of their concerns prior to our meeting Ref? t 96-01-04 Nicholson, State Uaison Officer 7/25/96 Larry Nicholson and State Uaison Officer Closed: E-need to incorporate the state of Delaware Mail from and use the State Liaison Officer in a more Nicholson to j active role DePriest 7/23/96 96-01-05 Meyer/DRS SAP requested feedback on quality of Complete by i licensee's Training Restart Plan SAP 96-02 [ 96-01-06 Nicholson Call Clay Warren and discuss LER 95-004-Complete 8 j 01. copy of E-l mail record 96-01-07 Marschall/DRP Review LER 95-004-01, dated 11/2/95 and Closed the SERT in the next inspection report IR 95-21 s j g:\\ branch 3\\sapmtg.tbl 5 Revised August 2,1996 m . m mm. e -
i i 4 SALEM ASSESSIWENT PANEL ACTION ITEMS i 96-01-08 Barber /DRP Barber has action to incorporate any SAP Closed member comments in CAL ltems 2&3 E-mail ] closeout letter S. Barber to R.DePriest 7/23/96 1 96-01-09 Barber /DRP 7/31/96 Research and incorporate any insight from Open i methods used to monitor IP3 restart plan a j 96-01-10 SAP-Barber 7/31/96 Provide a schedule for non-resident core Closed; inspections currently on MIPs, plus any 6/6/96 MIP additional regional initiative inspections lists coe
- modules, i
future i revisions will i be needed to refine schedule 96-01-11 Kelly /DRS 7/15/96 Coordinate with DRS to plan the necessary Open ] EP inspections, including a look at their EP Program 1 96-01-12 Barber /DRP 7/31/96 Schedule the core inspections Open ) commensurate with the plant work schedule 96-02-01 Nicholson SAP will send a letter to state of NJ Closed; informing them that nearly all of the state's dated concems are addressed in the NRC Salem 2/13/96 Restart Action Plan, and stating how we addressed these concerns g:\\ branch 3\\sapmtg.tbl 6 Revised August 2,1996 4
i i i SALEM ASSESSMENT PANEL ACTION ITEMS i 96-02-02 SAP Letter to close CAL ltems 2 & 3 should note Closed i that CAL ltem 1 regarding SERT results is Ltr777 { not yet closed and will be addressed in separate correspondence i j 96-02-03 SAP Panel Members - SAP agreed to add programmatic issues list Closed provide comments to S. Barber by from 1/19/96 meeting with NJ and an 2/5/96 attachment that lists the major milestones j necessary for restart for both NRC & PSE&G. j 96-02-04 Marschall, Olshan, Barber Schedule a minimum of 4 mini-team Closed; used inspections covering all NRC checklist items milestones starting late February 1996 96-03-01 DePriest 2/23/96 issue SAP minutes prior to 2/23/96 Closed i 96-03-02 DePriest 7/25/96 Develop internal SAP minute distribution Closed 96-03-03 Barber Schedule layup inspection for Unit 1 Closed;ref Inspection has been placed on the MIP MlP report 96-03-04 Nicholson Management meeting between PSE&G and Closed NRC to discuss status / progress of PSE&G 5/24/96 j restart activities Mtg. j 96-03-05 Barber identify restart items warranting a SAP Closed: E-presentation Mail Barber { to DePriest l 7/29/96 i 96-03-06 Nicholson SAP members on distribution for all Complete j inspection Reports 96-04 g:\\ branch 3tsapmtg.tbl 7 Revised August 2,1996 4 4 )
I SALEM ASSESSMENT PANEL ACTION ITEMS 1 96-03-07 Barber Review IFS quarterly for additional restart Closed;E-items Mail Barber i to. DePriest 7/29/96 96-04-01 Barber Draft CAL #1 closeout letter Open 96-04-02 Nicholson Draft guidance to inspect PSE&G restart Closed, SAP plan mtg minutes 96-04-03 Nicholson Pursue contractor assistance for allegations Closed, ref. and open item closure to SAP 96-05 96-04-04 Nicholson Provide NRR with a list of allegations Closed, ref. i to SAP 96-05 96-04-05 Kelly Draft charter for licensing basis inspection Closed, ref. to SAP 96-05 96-05-01 SAP Members 7/3/96 Review the SAP Action item Tracking list Closed and provide comments to R. DePriest 96-05-02 Barber Track NRC inspections of the Salem Restart Closed; plans generate E-mail to document. 4 i i g:\\ branch 3\\sapmtg.tbl 8 Revised August 2,1996
4 SALEM ASSESSMENT PANEL ACTION ITEMS 96-05-03 Kelly 6/28/96 Develop an inspection plan for the Open NEW DATE inspection of Salem's Integrated Test 7/31/96 Program (ITP). Kelly and DRS are still in process,7/2/96 meeting established PSE&G ) still not ready to discuss their program. ) 96-05-04 Nicholson 7/2/96 Set up and have a meeting with the Test Closed:E-Program Manager at Salem to discuss the mail Gene ITP. Kelly to SAP i 7/9/96. 96-05-05 Marschall Review the transition between U1 and U2 Closed: E-restart activities and determine if there was mail to i anything overlooked. document. 96-05-06 Barber Review the 0350 checklist. The revision is Letter in to include the Licensing Basis concurrence i requirement /FSAR discrepancies specifically on 8/1/96 i including the Service Water system design i & reliability. 96-05-07 Blough 6/7/96 Develop guidance for inspection / assessment Closed by of the PSE&G RAP SAP 96-05 '6-05-08 Nicholson 7/25/96 Coordinate a discussion with NRR, DRP, and Closed: E-DRS to discuss how resources throughout Mail from the agency could be incorporated to assist NRR 7/3/96 i in the Salem restart activities (96-05-08). The discussion is to be scheduled by 6/7/96. l, i, g:\\ branch 3\\sapmtg.tbl 9 Revised August 2,1996
SALEM ASSESSMENT PANEL ACTION ITEMS i 96-06-01 DePriest 7/3/96 Review the SAP Action item Tracking list Closed and incorporate comments provided by SAP 2 members j 96-06-02 Stolz 7/8/96 Acquire and present, to the SAP members, Closed: E-I Mr. Hubert Miller's list of fundamental items Mail from j that should be addressed prior to restart Stolz to SAP 7/3/96 96-06-03 Stolz 7/3/96 Provide a list of NRR personnel that would Closed: E-be available for inspection of Salem restart Mail from open items. List is to be provided to NRR 7/3/96 l Regional contacts. l 96-06-04 Barber 7/8/96 Review the inspection backlog and provide Closed; the list to NRR to establish resource needs. Faxed list to J. j Zimmerman in NRR 96-06-05 Marschall 7/26/96 Review and present the Salem Integrated Open Restart Assessment (SIRA) at the 96-07 l SAP meeting 96-06-06 Barber 7/8/96 SAP determined that Mr. Barber would add Open the Integrated Test Program programmatic review to the 0350 checklist 1 l I g:\\ branch 3\\sapmtg.tbl 10 Revised August 2,1996 l 1 . ~..
4 kl 4 .lJ I: 31alI! !il1i4 4 !.i i i i; 1i1!4l i.; 1r ~. s w w 3 g \\ br e an e c h v 3 m \\s a w s p r e m w t e g t b l n m w w w w 3-w SA L EM r A m S m SE S S M E N 3 1 T m 1 P y A x N E L e A r C w T w ION IT E M ,= S Rev ised Au gus t ,2 1 996
.~. _.. -.~ -- _ - -, g SALEM ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING l August 2, 1995 1 l ATTENDEES: J. Linville, DRP j C. Marshalt, DAP t C. Kelly, DRS J. Stola, NRR j L. Olshan, NRR J. White, DAP S. Barber, DRP {, OTHERS: D. Cooper, DRP C. Carpenter, OEDO DISCUS $10N: The Salem Assessment Panel held its initial meeting on August 2, 1995, from 10:30 a.m., mtli 4:30 p.m. After intro &ct{ons and a discussion of thw charter by the chefrmen, the SAP coupleted Its inittet review of the Inspection Manust Chapter 0350, staff Guidelines for Restart Approvet Process and issue Checklists for status and applicability (Attachment 1). Open questions from the renew included: i e Will the licensee discuss root causes et the August 10, 1995, scoping process meeting? Chairman e WILL there be a description of the SAP process at the August 10, 1995 scoping process meeting? Chairman e Does the licensee need to submit its restart plan and documentation of closure of other CAL ltens on - the docket? Chelrmen l Witt public comments be sought on the licensee's restart plan? Chefraan e e To what extent should state officials' involvement be sought? Chefrman e Mow will the MIP be made available to the State? Next the SAP reviewed a pretfelnery list of SALEM Specific restart issues developed by the resident Inspectors based w on a review of Inspection reports. The SAP approved the preliminary list (ettachment 2) l recognizing that items could be added based on further reviews such as that of the SALEM IFS tist to be completed by the resident inspectors or dropped based on discussions with the Licensee. The SRI will review the item on the gas turbine to assure that it has some safety and regulatory basis. l The Section Chief then described the licensee's draft restart plan, some sections of which were provided to ) the SAP. It was noted that the licensee is conducting 44 Indivichel system readiness reviews and departmentet organizational readiness reviews to establish the scope of the outage. The licensee expects to complete this process for Unit 1 by the end of August. The SRI described the first system readiness review of the Spent Fuel Pool cooling system which he attended. It was agreed that Scott Barber and DRS Inspectors should further assess this process to determine its effectiveness. One (sportant measure will be whether the NRC Restert Issues appear within the licensee's scope as a result of this process. If not, the licensee should be questioned about the rational. The SAP briefly discussed the current MIP. It was agreed that routine resident core coverage necessary to monitor ongolne outage activities et Unit 1 and shutdown activities at Unit 2 are appropriate and the currently scheduled radiation protection and radweste inspections should proceed on sche &le because of Unit 1 outage activities. Other specialist core and initiative Inspections should be differed while the licensee is developing its restart plan reactive inspections associated with essessing the effectiveness of the scoping of the licensee's restart plan should be conducted as noted above. Finally, it was noted that the chairman and other Region I Projects menbers of the SAP would meet with New Jersey Bursou of Nuclear Er$1neering Representatives af ter the Hope Creek SALP meeting on August 3 to discuss New Jersey invs.vement in the restert process. It was agreed that the SAP would next convene after the scoping process meeting with the licensee on August 10, 1995, to discuss the open issues identified in this meeting, to discuss the neer term MIP further, to i discuss the member's reactions to the Licensee presentation and to discuss eveliable results of observations of system readiness trilews. 1-A \\ w
i l i -SALEM ASSESSMENT PANEL ACTIVITIES f MET INITIALLY ON AUGUST 2,1995, TO: l e REVIEW IMC 0350 RESTART PROCESS AND ISSUES CHECKLIST FOR STATUS AND APPLICABILITY IN PREPARATION OF NRC l RESTART PLAN i ] e REVIEW AND APPROVE SALEM SPECIFIC j RESTART ISSUES LIST DEVELOPED BY THE l SENIOR RESIDENT INSPECTOR l e REVIEW STATUS OF PSE&G RESTART PLAN i o IDENTIFY NEAR TER'M INSPECTION PRIORITIES l - CORE OUTAGE COVERAGE - EVALUATIONS AND VALIDATION OF PSE&G l READINESS ASSESSMENTS TO DETERMINE j OUTAGE SCOPE DISCUSS INITIATIVE TO SEEK INPUT FROM NEW JERSEY ON PROCESS l l 6
4 O PSEG Public Service sectric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge. New Jersey 08038-0236 Nuclear Business Unit Distribution TO: . F. X. Thomson, Jr. Nh FROM: Restait Licensing N. F. Conicella g4 Manager-Salem Projects i
SUBJECT:
NRC RESTART ACTION PLAN ITEM CLOSURE DATE: g g 4g REF: LR-196134 The purpose of this memo is to describe the closure process to be used for the issues identified in the NRC Salem Restart Action Plan (RAP). To facilitate timely a'nd effective closure of the NRC restart items, a simple process has been established. The closure process is described in Attachment 1( Note: It is intended that the closure process for the NRC issues take credit for data collected as part of our action plan closure to avoid duplication of effort). A standard cover sheet has been developed for i i use with each closure package to ensure consistency and completeness. The NRC issues ( both technical and programmatic) are provided in Attachment 2. The NRC list of issues has been reviewed against the Salem action plans and a cross reference has been identified in Attachment 2 for programmatic issues specifically addressed in the action plans. The following actions are requested of the identified owners of the NRC issues (see . ): Resolve any disagreements with the designated issue owners and inform N. Conicella. For the technical issues, specific owners need to be identified ( J. Ranalli is currently working on this for Engineering) Provide a schedule of when the closure packages will be provided for review (We should put these packages together as soon as possible to facilitate timely review and close-out by the NRC prior to restart). g Thepourisin3eurhands. 9's-2168 REV 694
Distribution 2 LR-196134 The goal is to develop a comprehensive schedule for the closure of NRC restart issues that integrates with the station startup schedule. It is requested that the above actions be completed by March 18,1996, with input provided directly to the Salem projects group. n i l /FXT Qistribution: L. Eliason l L Storz E. Simpson E. Salowitz l J. Benjamin C. Warren .. C. Bakken J J. Laughlin L. Rajkowski 3 D. McCloskey l E. Katzman J. Holden G. Suey R. Antonow N. Conicella ' M. McGough C. Lambert C. Nentwig D. Garchow M. Rencheck G. Overbeck G. Englert G. Cranston M. Burszteln E. Rosenfeld J. Ranalli 4
i ATTACHMENT 1 J l' NRC RESTART ACTION 2LAN (RAP) ITEMS - PSE&G C.LOSURE PROCESS There are two particular sections of the NRC RAP, the Technical Issues and Programmatic Issues Sections, that require specific closure documentation. The process for closing NRC restart items is described below; i 1. The Issue Owner will assemble a closure package using the attached closure l form. The Closure Basis should provide the Problem Statement, the Resolution Approach, the Actions Taken, the Results Achieved, and the Measures of Effectiveness (e.g., performance indicators that show the issue has been resolved, or is improving). Also, the basis should address any generic implications. ( We should be able to refer to items in the Restart Action Plans that address broader issues). Appropriate documentation should be attached. (Extremely long i documents should be referenced, a cover sheet attached and the document location stated.) The closure basis should be no longer than two pages. 2. The Issue Owner and the Department Manager will review and sign-off the l completed Closure Package. 3. For items addressed in the Restart Actions Plans, the NRC closure package can use Action Plan documentation; however, the package must be a stand alone document. 4. The Issue Owner will provide the completed package to the Manager-Salem Projects to control final NRC close-out (i.e. any follow-up reviews). A i Wordperfect ver-ion of the closure package (excluding Attachments) should also be provided. 5. A screening committee, comprised of Salem - Projects, Licensing, and QA/NSR personnel will review the packages for completeness and consistency. t 6. The Issue Owner and Manager will present the Closure Package to the MRC for approval. 7. After MRC approval, the Manager-Salem Projects will notify the NRC Salem Assessment Panel (SAP) that the item is ready for review. 8. The Issue Manager is the NRC point of contact and should be prepared to answer NRC questions. i 9. A status log of the issues will be maintained by Licensing; identifying the PSE&G Owner, and the status of the issue (cpen/ closed, closure document ref., etc.). (ATTACHMENT 2) P:\\HOFFMAN\\ RESTART. DOC \\CLDSPROC. DOC
l NRC TECHNICAL / PROGRAMMATIC RESTART ISSUE # l CLOSURE PACKAGE - page 1 POINT OF CONTACT: PHONE # e ISSUE: J CLOSURE EASIS: COMPLETE PAGE 2 - ADDRESS BOTH THE SPECIFIC ISSUE AND ANY I GENERIC ASPECTS USING THE FOLLOWING OUILINE: PROBLEM STATEdENT 1 RESOLUIlON APPROACH ACTIONS TAKEN RESULTS ACHIEVED i MEASURES OFEFFECTIVENESS i i I j CLOSURE DOCUMENTS: ( ATTACHMENT: YES NO ) i b ISSUE OWNER REVIEW DATE DEPARTMENT MANAGER REVIEW DATE MRC REVIEW / MEETING # __, DATE i i ) i l momMESTARTbOCMASPROCSOC
d NRC TECHNICAL / PROGRAMMATIC RESTART ISSUE # CLOSURE PACKAGE - page 2 CLOSURE BASIS: t ) l l 1 i P:\\HOFFMAN\\ RESTART.DOCCZCSPROC. DOC
ATTACHMENr2 l NRC RESTART ACTION PLAN (RAP) TECHNICAL AND PROGRAMMATIC ISSUES CHECKLIST - PSEG CLOSURE DOCUMENTATION STATUS LOG-l i 4 i i l I ~ I i I i i P P:WOFTMAINtESTARTEOCCIDSPROCDOC
F ATTACHMENT 2 I II. TECHNICAL RESTARTISSUES h$$h2$TECENICAl3SS 5$hM[; [PSEG OwneE$^9 Reference 9Status 3 (PSEG CLOSURE % d si? M J M sg C 9#sMWi?! ? Q1 SEiFWMMis W ifF M@
- MWR @ DOCUMENTO 1.
Cont. Spray Dsch Viv (CS-2) Operability. RANALLI URI 92-01-04 Open i Calculations inicate actual d/p may be greater ' t% design d/p. 2. Reliability of Control Air System. Requires IR 94-19,24 & Open l operator action to start backup coinpressor. 35 i 3. CW Screen Motor Reliability. No automatic motor IR 95-10 Open } Lperation, vulnerable to grass intrusion ~ 4. Digital feedwater installation to correct feedwater IR 94-13 Open [ control reliability. i 5. Moisture in EDG air start system causes reliability IR 94-19 Open l problem with check valves. 6. EDG output breakers fail to close when switch IR 95-10 Open j taken to close. 7. EDG has minimalload margin. URI 93-82-04. Open 8. EDSFI Followup issues IR 93-082. Open 9. Cracked exhaust steam piping could indicate No reference Open l weak erosion / control program. 10. Feedwater nozzle bypass flow introduced error in URI 94-024-Open calorimetric and powerlevel. 04 11. EDG 1 A load fluctuations. URI 94-018-Open 02 l l 3 i PMIOFFMANRESTARTDOCC.D5 PROC. DOC l
ATTACllMENT2 Mhh.[ [TEdONICN13 ISSUE %}@medM[b'f[N [kSEd IMd8AI2R$fe$nceh YStitdAI IPS8G' CLOSURE. m 1 #$P9 SpiM2fs #4%WSMMs$ !?@MW fdi'~ ? % 4sR iSDOCUMENT{ &% p:44M' 7"cn ~ 12. Review adequacy of fuse control program. RANALLI 1R 95-10 Open IR 95-13 Open 13. Review gas turbine batteries degrading with loss of one source of offsite power. Turbine referenced in TS basis to support SW outages. 14. Hagan module replacement project. IR 94-80, Open 95-02. 15. Procedure contains non<onservative 125V URI 94-18-01 Open battery acceptance criteria. 16. NRC & QA identified numerous IST program URI 94-21-01, Open deficiencies. 02 & 03 17. Main condenser steam dumps malfunction, URI 94-08-01 Open requires closing MSIVs on trip and prevents use of main condenser. 18. Poor reliability of PDP charging pumps. No reference Open 19. Poor process for configuration control of pipe URI 95-06-01 Open supports. 20. POPS ability to mitigate overpressure events. Vio 94-032-05 Open
- 21. Wiring separation & redundancy concerns with URI 89-13-07 Open RG 1.97 instruments & cable separation
& 90-81-13 22. PORV (1PR1) seat leakage, requiring. block valve IR 94-35 Open closure. 23. Undersized PORV accumulators. IR 95-13 Open P:4IOFTMAINtESTART.DOCCLOSPROC. DOC
ATTACHMENT 2 i 4 6 4 y +f" ~ j: s $<.$4MgCE.CA *;
- f: 4p -.
+-c ' ~'s4 + y & "fs g ' 1TECHNI"C"AL IS'#' SUE? 2- ,a JPSEG Ownerg
- t
Reference:
'Statusi iPSEG CLOSURE ~ y i N
- ~Y. '7 NAS #^QM 7 h$g *A
' DOCUMENT-- dtO$$3d: i ~ 24. Gate valves identified susceptible to press lock & RANALLI URI 93-026-Open thermal binding. 01 25. Pressurizer Spray Problems /Use of Aux Spray IR 95-13 Open 26. Radiation monitor problems. IR 94-24 Open 27. Rx coolant pump oil collection system IR 94-33 & Open deficiencies. 94-35 r 28. Understand causes and corrective actions for IR 94-32 & Open failures of Rx coolant pump seals. 95-02 29. Rx Head Vent Valve Stoke Times. VIO 95-02 Open l 1 30. RHR Min-flow Valve (RH29) Failures on unit 2. VIO 95-10 Open r 31. RHR Dsch Valve (21RH10) Banging Noise. IR 95-10 Open i 32. Review program for control & inspecting resilient No reference Open fire barrier seals. 1 1 33. Control rods stepping with no temperature error IR 94-19 Open i I signal. 34. Numerous Si pump deficiencies. IR 95-13 Open l
- 35. Vuify adequate protection for Si Pump runout.
IR 95-13. Open 36. Si relief valves performance history of leaking IR 94-13,31 & Open j and lifting. 95-01 i 37. Review corrective action for service water pipe IR 95-07 Open erosion. l l P.480FFMAMRESTART.DOCCLOSPROCDOC f i
ATTACHMENT 2 ..e : x..< .~.. ~ . : ns. ny?g..;my
- ?TECHNICAlfISSUE N?,? '
x.:? = PSEG<Ownerg Reference.,
- Status'
- PSEG Ct.OSURE .g? Ri; ~ GGT ' '? =a $**00,7;?##lW12Mih
- DOCUMENT -
- 8"
' 2%, ~ ;v W 38. Spurious high steam flow signals causing SI. RANALLI EA #94-112-Open l 010103 39. Review corrective actions to resolve numerous IR 94-31 Open switchyard failures.
- 40. Verify adequate correction for overhead IR 95-17 Open annunciatorfailures.
41. Verify adequate corrective action to ensure steam IR 95-17 Open generator tube integrity.
- 42. Auxiliary Feedwater System Performance and No Reference Open Reliability.
43. Adequacy of corrective actions from the Salem 6/9/95 CAL Open Unit 2 reactor trip. t l i I F P:4I0FTMMNtESTART.tKCCLOSPROC. DOC ?
r ATI'ACHMENT2 1 111. PROGRAMMATIC RESTART ISSUES ?. ~. .~~ ,.,39 we- ~1. ,,u ..a . +.,.. /Dateg qWF PSEG CLOSURER m$n$Mhk rglRESTARTISSUEp 7,=4 m.,yjgygdpSEGyg wu m.,~ :-, JRes %$$gan Ref! ! Closed" se n DOCUMENT. c. gnj@&W sMO$h R b r ' 6 @ *
- 3 # iu g$f$1s geOwnerE 1.
Resolve Appendix Rjumpers and McGough NONE program discrepancies, including fire barrier penetrations. l 2. Review efforts to maintain configuration McGough SYS ENG 3.3 control, given examples from Hagan OPS 3.5 b,c modules and bclting. Effort to include MAINT 014 setpoint control program and drawing control. 3. Adequacy and use of procedures, Conicella OPS 4.4,4.5,4.8 i including procedure revision backlog. MAINT 013e 4. Management of engineering and Ranalli MAINT 013 maintenance backlog. ENG PS 3 i 5. Program for foreign material exclusion. McCloskey NONE 6. Operability determinations. Greenlee OPS 3.2 a,b ( 7. Operator performance (Coordination Greenlee OPS 1.2, 3.4, 5.1 l and Communication) 8. Correction of operator workarounds, Webster OPS 3.5d including control room deficiencies. MAINT 015 i i j l 9. Program to utilize operating (industry) Pike C/A PS 7 l experience feedback. I PMIORMA>NtESTART.DOCCLOSPROCDOC {
ATTACHMENT 2 +-M s 'q _p , :_w :' ;x3'w y qw#s, _, .*s y M_._., #PSEGi" tRestart Plan Ref: 6 Date ~^ - ?MPSEG CLOSURE' ~, t , _ ;w .m_, .y
- q:.
x+ A y s $$dNk}a [_lRESTARTISSUEME._fh" ISM!)k$[h$i i$[OwneEe weMJ l$Eii?T'M$@Wt UClosed NbSDOCUMENT:'* 4 w[i. ~f +2 t 10. Corrective action program, including Marano CIA l adequacy of root cause program. OPS 4.3 l SYS ENG 2.2 d.e MAINT 1-4 i ENG 2-1,2,3 i 11. Engineering contribution to problem McGough ENG PS 2,3 resolution, including safety evaluations. l 12. Tagging Greenlee OPS 4.1 a-i 13. Adequacy of Emergency Preparedness Polyak OPS PS 6 [ L 14. Resolution of licensing commitments. Salomon NONE i i 15. Adequacy of Emergency Operating Greenlee OPS 4.7c Procedures. 1 16. Adequacy of training. McMahon TRN MAINT 6-1,2,3 i i 17. Adequacy of work control and planning Holden WC program. 18. Parts availability & accuracy of bill of Bensen NONE l materials t i 19. Adequacy of UFSAR Update Tully NONE [ I I h i f P:WOFTMANRESTART.DOOCLOSMLOCDOC l t
e ATTACHMENT 2 V r < w;;; .T , ;g+.:. - s ,:(..7:y.v. ?>tR. es.t.at,*P,l,a,n:Ref ,,_l-Date : @ 0PSEG CLOSURE 1 s&t{+4,%f : % d RESTART ISSUEOh, ;;p). ' j:, f Ft3*vv' HEP. SEG5'v-8 < + 'M;;:'v " : y.g., ; M~- J,-(- ^.;jy;Y%MG;. s JEOwners :: %#,;. 14 ft 5 Closed ,ce @ DOCUMENT' i ..n.,,. n w.- '7-. . fn:gp:j7,< ' P ::m
- 20. Adequacy of QA program Tauber NONE (Receptiveness to documented deficiencies) l
- 21. Licensee self assessment capability Flanagan SA SYS ENG12j (Performance monitoring & trending)
MAINT 1-5, 2-8 5-1 5, 6 l MA!NT Oi 7 HP 3-3e ENG 5-6 1 t i l i .4 f i i f r f t i ~ P:WORMAINtESTART.DOCCIDSPROCDOC 1
f 1 r l 0 PSEG Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038-0236 Nuclear Business Unit TO: Distribution FROM: Nicola F. Conicella yg y Manager Salem Projects
SUBJECT:
Restart Action Plans: Problem Statement Closure DATE: January 19,1996 GMS-95-0013 This memo provides guidance to action plan managers on the format and content of Problem Statement closure memos. (This guidance supplements GMS-95-0269, " Restart Action Plan Management and Closure," dated December 18,1995.) When the plan manager is satisfied that a problem statement has been adequately addressed, he or she should prepare a brief memo to the Manager - Salem Projects. The memo should be short -- 1-2 pages is sufficient. Closure is expected within fourteen calendar days of completion of the actions listed under the problem staterr ent (or on the date committed to by the action plan manager). Not all of the actions listed in the action plan have to be completed to submit a problem statement closure, if you believe the problem statement has been adequately addressed and corrected. However, you will need to explain why this is so. (Note that restart "no" actions do not have to be completed now.) If you believe you have taken.all the actions necessary to resolve the problem statement, but do not yet have sufficient evidence to state that it is resolved, provide an interim report, including what it will take to close the problem statement and when you anticipate closing it. If you don't believe your actions have been effective, revise your action plan or reopen the necessary steps to achieve the desired results. (e.g., additional training, procedures, discussions, etc.) l The following format should be followed: l State the problem statement verbatim. For example: "This memorandum 1) addresses Salem Reliable Maintenance Restart Action Plan - Problem Statement 1: Maintenance corrective actions and management follow-through have been less l than sufficient to identify problems, to determine root causes of equipment and personnel deficiencies, to implement appropriate corrective actions, and to assess and monitor these actions for effectiveness." [4 The paarrisin Sour hands.
s 4 I i \\ l l 2) include a separate paragraph for each major step, summarizing what was j done. By major step, I mean the next level of action below the problem statement, not a separate paragraph for each individual action listed in the plan. I
- 3) _
Provide a paragraph which describes the means you used or are going to i use to determine the problem statement has been addressed and corrected. These j might include ' performance indicators, assessments, completed documents or j observations. For performance indicators you might choose a goal or you may j want to see a steadily improving trend which would convince you that your actions have had the desired effect in correcting the problem statement. ] 4) Provide a concluding paragraph which explains why you believe the problem i statement has been adequately addressed and the means you will use in the future to monitor performance to ensure the problem does not recur. This is the most imoortant oart of the memorandum. The Salem Projects group will verify that all action items for that problem j statement have been documented and no open issues remain. A sample of l problem statements will be assessed to determine if the corrective action has been j effective in addressing the problem. 4 { Keep in mind the next step in the process: Action Plan closure. When the action plan manager is satisfied that he or she has achieved the objectives of the entire action plan, a completion report should be provided to Manager - Salem Projects. j The report should include: how the plan's objectives were achieved, whether the. expected results were met, and what performance indicators and/or assessments. support these conclusions. The report should be a summary and not exceed about five pages. Documentation previously provided should be summarized or i referenced and need not be included. (An example of an acceptable report and/or l a checklist will be provided.) j Following review by the Manager-Salem Projects, a presentation will be scheduled for the action plan manager to brief the MRC and obtain approval of plan completion. 1 TH ] Distribution 1 i D. Cooley J. Flannagan M. Rencheck J. Durham M. Reddamann J. Laughlin J. McMahon F. Thomson } C. Warren C. Bakken J. Holden E. Katzman l S. Greenlee L. Newman C. Recchione G. Suey l W. Lamb J. Ranalli H. Hrynewych G. Overbeck i D. Boyle M. Marano T. Heatherly D. Garchow j A. Giardino J. O'Reilly 1 i
) j O PSEG Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 0236 Nuclear Business Unit TO: Distribution i FROM: Nicola F. Conicella g 2 4 -- l Manager-Salem Projects
SUBJECT:
Restart Action Plan Management and Closure l DATE: December 18,1995 l GMS-95-0269 The purpose of this memorandum is to establish uniform procedures for managing the Salem Restart Action Plans, including accountability, changes to the plans, i progress reporting, closeout, and assessment of results. This memorandum supersedes my memorandum GMS-95-0235 " Action Plan Effectiveness l Verifications" dated November 20,1995. l Accountability Action plan managers are responsible for ensuring that their action plans are l carried out on schedule and are effective in meeting the stated objectives and expected results. They should monitor progress, initiate changes as necessary, and assess results. All department managers are responsible for ensuring that actions assigned to their department from other action plans are effectively carried out. The Manager - I Salem Projects has provided a listing of cross-plan responsibilities to all department managers. The Manager-Salem Projects is responsible for restart plan administration, including maintaining the master copy of the restart plans, approving minor l changes to plans and coordinating MRC approval for major changes, informing all affected managers of action plan changes, reporting progress, maintaining closure files, and coordinating assessments of action plans. Plan Chanaes We anticipate there will be changes to the action plans, whether due to events, new requirements, or management's decision to add or delete activities. The following approach applies: 6 Theparisinpurlunds 1 i 95 2168 REV 694
k 1. The action plan manager determines what changes are needed and prepares a revision request (see attachment 1). The request will include the exact change, the reason, and whether the change requires MRC review. MRC review is required for changes which significantly increase or decrease scope, or which change the scheduled end date of the entire plan. 2. The Manager-Salem Projects will approve minor changes and coordinate MRC approval of major changes. He will then have the master copy of the action l plan updated. He will ensure that the NRC is kept informed of action plan changes. 3. To maintain the integrity of the restart plans, the Manager-Salem Projects l will maintain the master copy of all action plans and will retain approved change l requests. The master copy of action plans will be available on the LAN. j 4. Manager-Salem Projects will also ensure that all affected managers are informed of the change. l Pronreas Reoortina 1 ) All action plan activities are entered in the NBU integrated schedule. Action plan managers will update their schedule progress on a weekly basis and provide the information to Manager-Salem Projects staff on Wednesdays for review. The l Information will be reviewed and then entered in the NBU schedule. l The Manager-Salem Projects will provide summary reports of action plan status, including overdue activities at various management meetings. Action plan managers will be prepared to discuss status of their action plans, including overdue activities and activities of interest to all managers at management meetings. Comolation Reoortina Completion will be reported on three levels: individual items, problem statements, and entire action plans. 1. Individual items l As each item in the plan is finished to the satisfaction of the action plan manager, or designee, he or she will report completion on attachment 2. Completion reports are required for all completed items, whether marked restart or non-restart. Appropriate documentation should be provided, unless too voluminous, in which i case the location of the documentation should be described. Both the action plan ~ manager and the Manager - Salem Projects will retain copies of the l 2 1
- - - - - - -=- 's documentation. (The exception is Nuclear Training, which will retain all documentation.) The Salem Projects group (GM staff) will review the documentation for completeness and to determine if it addressees the stated item. If the review is satisfactory, the item status will be listed as complete. No item will be listed as complete until satisfactory documentation is received and reviewed. (ltems will be assessed for effectiveness on a sample basis, as discussed below.) l l 2. Problem Statements l j When the action plan manager is satisfied that a problem statement has been l adequately addressed, he or she should prepare a brief memo explaining what was i done and why the problem statement has been addressed to her or his j satisfaction. This memo should summarize what was done and need not be more l than a page. Documentation already provided need not be included. (An example of an acceptable problem statement memo will be provided.) l The Salem Projects group will verify that all action items for that problem i statement have been documented and no open issues remain. A sample of l problem statements will be assessed to determine if the corrective action has been i effective in addressing the problem. 3. Action Plans When the action plan manager is satisfied that he or she has achieved the objectives of the entire action plan, a completion report should be prepared for the Management Review Committee. The report should include: how the plan's i objectives were achieved, whether the expected results were met, and what l performance indicators and/or assessments support his or her conclusions. The report should be a summary and not exceed about five pages. Documentation previously provided should be summarized or referenced and need not be provided. (An example of an acceptable report and/or a checklist will be provided.) When the Manager-Salem Projects is satisfied with the completion report, a presentation will be scheduled for the action plan manager to brief the MRC and obtain approval of plan completion. l Effectiveness Assessments in addition to the preceding closeout actions, the effectiveness of action plan activities will be assessed in four ways: sampling audits of individual items; department self assessments; QA/NSR independent review; and the integrated i assessment. These assessments perform two functions: first, that specific actions ( required for startup have been effectively accomplished; and second, that the 3
4 action plans, as an integrated whole, address the needed change in NBU culture and behavior. l 1. Sampling Audits The Manager-Salem Projects will have selected audits performed for individual items and problem statements. If an item or problem statement is found to be l unsatisfactory, the status will be changed to incomplete and corrective action j taken to resolve the discrepancies. 2. Department Readiness Assessments Each department will conduct a restart readiness assessment which will include action plan items related to their department. These items include department specific restart action plans (for example, system engineering), and any other item which requires all departments to take action (for example, performance l improvement plans, which are addressed in the Human Performance Management Plan). l 3. QA/NSR Independent Review QA/NSR willindependently review the results of action plans and advise the CNO as to the readiness of the Salem units for restart. 1 4. Integrated Assessment An independent team will perform an assessment of the overall operation of Salem l Generating Station and the appropriate support organizations. The team will assess whether actions taken in response to the Salem Restart Plan requirements successfully resolve the identified issues and that performance has improved. Attachments Distribution D. Cooley J. Flannagan M. Rencheck J. Durham M. Reddemann J. Laughlin J. McMahon F. Thomson C. Warren C. Bakken J. Holden E. Katzman S. Greenlee L. Newman C. Recchione G. Suey W. Lamb J. Ranalli H. Hrynewych G. Overbeck i D. Boyle M. Marano T. Heatherly D. Garchow 4 T. ,,-..m.y.. 4 y=- -m--v- .--w-c-w--.. -<r-+ wv.-.--. w -r--e w
ACTION PLAN CHANGE RESTART ACTION PLAN CHANGE (include line item identification) RESTART: Yes/No 4 l. i REASON FOR CHANGE: i RESOURCE / SCHEDULE IMPACT: 4 i CATEGORY: MRC Review Required No MRC Reviewed Required Significant SCOPE increase O Minor SCOPE Change C 1 Significant SCOPE decrease O Minor Schedule Change U Plan end date extended O j Prepared By Approved by i Plan Owner Mgr Salem Projects j MRC ~ Master Plan Updated by Distribution Date revfrm. doc
4 \\ CLOSURE DOCUMENTATION RESTART ACTION PLAN ltem Number: Data Date: PROBLEM STATEMENT: ACTION: Restart: YES/NO Owner: Scheduled Complete: Actual Complete: CLOSURENERIFICATION CRITERIA: l l DISCUSSION (and Closure Review Comments): Closure Submitted Date Closure Approved Date FOLLOW-UP REVIEW COMMENTS (if applicable): Follow-up Assessor Date ekmure.coe Attachments:
s N 3 ( MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE RESTART WORKSCOPE/WORKITEM DISPOSITION FORM ' (Initiator - Fill in all unshaded boxes) 1 Item ID U/2 Overhead Annunciator DCP Initiator J. Cicconi System Index/ Group ID 96-020-3 System Designator Applicability: Unit 1 Unit 2 X Common Recommend: Include / Add Exclude / Delete See Attachment i Action Owner: J. Cicconi Date: 03/13/96 1 ) Responsible Manager: C. Lambert Date: 03/13/96 Item / Group
Description:
16 g -OIT'T [2,ES' TAR.f gEC.- 5508 e (Be specific) Reasons for Outage Scope Inclusion / Addition or Exclusion / Deletion: See MRC Minutes ( f o$7-9-N5# i 16 C - % 51 g-4 l (Reference appropriate Restart Screening Criteria - See reverse) \\ List Attachments or Applicable Reference Documents (e.g., NAP-55 Form) ) Presentation ) 1 (When proposing several items or a group) 1 MRC Decision Date: Meeting No: MRC Secretary 03/13/96 '96 - 020 Revision 2 I
1 i i t 4 l MRC Meeting 3/13/96 Review the Annunciator upgrade plan as a result of Unit 1 and Unit 2 Schedule changes i Following are the notes of MRC meeting from 2/7/96 when the Annunciator j Upgrade was proposed. We propose to proceed with the " backup" as shown j. below due to Unity 2 schedule limitations. 4 i Overhead Annunciator System Design Changes (96-011-4) i l Mr. Lowry was joined by David Herrell, Digital Systems Group Engineer, Nuclear j Engineering, to describe Overhead Annunciator (OHA) System readiness issues and i recommended actions. They began by stating that the October 4-5,1995 Unit I event l demonstrated that OHA must alert control room operators to any " hidden" malfunctions. Root causes of the actual event (SERT 95-03) included vendor and PSE&G quality s assurance processes, limited design basis documentation, lack of field validation and l verification, non-proactive system problem resolution, complex and dispersed computer j codes, and lack of OHA window integration with the system. t j Mr. Powell asked whether recent industry software QA initiatives applied to OHA, and l Mr. Herrell replied that they involve only safety-related systems. His group is now l assessing OHA and other "impo-tant to safety" software like the program used in core exit i thermocouple temperature monitoring. The presenters then reviewed options to either l (1) maintain, revise, and preserve the existing Beta system with assured failure alerting, or l (2) to design, specify, and install a new system. In their opinion, complete replacement of l both Unit I and Unit 2 systems is the appropriate long-term solution. l Messrs. Herrell and Lowry discussed the time needed for design, materials acquisition, l ' installation, testing, and training. Mr. Bakken made it clear that Operations requires a l reliable OHA system before moving fuel (i.e. in this case MRC's " RESTART" decision means before fuel movement). To accommodate Salem Unit I fuelloading in April, the presenters proposed and MRC accepted the following plan.. 1 1. Unit 1 system software reolacement (IEE-0246): Eliminate vulnerability to " silent" failures. Apply software QA. RESTARTJomparatne DCP for Unit 2 (2EE] j. {187)is acceptable as a backup to preferred Action 4f i i 2. Unit 1 automatic tester (IEC-3577): Insert test failure several times per hour. l Alert operators in advance of actual failure. RESTART / Comparable DCP for Gnit 2 (2EC-3508)is acceptable as a backup to preferred Action 4. 3. Unit 1 backolane reelacement PM. and erecedure revisions: RESTART. Comparable Unit 2 actions are acceptable as a backup to preferred Action 4. I i 4. In= tall new Unit 2 Wettinnhouse WDPF annunciator system (2EC-3515): RESTART. J i Install new Unit 1 Westinnhouse WDPF annunciator system (IEC-3585): 5. ] POST-RESTART. A
ACTIVITY HEM EAh!.Y EAHLY s qqi; 1997 DESCRIPTION DUR ST Alli FlfilSil MAR l APR lMAY lJUf1lJtil l AtlG lSEP l0Ci lfl0V IOf C .IArl lf f H EilGIt,fERING & DESI6fl Pila,SE l l 2EC3515-01 GSA-0CP PREPAftAll0N 80 22APR96 13AUG96 I .J 2EC3515-01 ESA-COMPLETE DESIGN 100% 20 14tdiv96 120EC% l l l l l l C 7J 2EC3515-03 PSEG-1001 DCP REVIEW s COMMENT 20 13DEC% 13JAIG7 l
- [L'I 2EC3515-01 SORC DCP O
1*ist.167 . o 2EC35tS-01 ISSUE DCP S 16JAtG7 22JAf67 l l [l* MAIERI AL PROCUREMENI Pila.SE l f 2EC3515-01 PREPARE MAIL /EOulP SPEC 20 18 MAR 96 12APR96 a n l l. 2EC3515-Os PREPARE PURCHASE ORDER 10 15APR96 26APR96 Cl* l l l l l l = 2EC3515-01 tw) -MATERI AL 120 29APR96 160CI96 I' = a I l l l i .-~ 2EC3515-01 (W)-S& IWARE 140 29APf66 13H0V% 1 I l 2EC3515-01 FACIORY ACCEPTANCE TESI to 14HOV% 27N0V% l l l l [ J' = 2EC3515-01 IN)-SHIP 10 SIIE 5 29NOV% 50EC96 l l l l l ID __m_.___._ INSIALL All0tt & IESiltlG 11 GE. 2EC3515-01 M -lNSIAll.ATION 18 23JAff37 12F EB97 l l l l I' 1 2EC3515-01 TESilNG 12 13fEB97 26FE897 1 ' - 1 = N MAfl l APfl lMAY lJtill l jut l AllG lSEP lOCI lflOV lfifC.lAftlFilt M 199fi I 4's / Plot oate' 12: sam 6 6 ::",=.:g e.rnar. n NUCLEAR Et1GINEERING PROJECIS . =. fH0JELI CDelROLS M4As* Kt 64eout Data cate umam6 r:~ Protect Start 8SEP% om e.. .a .11d13- - - - Fer111on [r.gg t te ap .ra Presett ranish MJErm SALEM UNII 2 AfillONCI ATOR REPLACEMElli PM - J.CICCONI DCP 2EC-3515 ~ ~ sco Prima. era s,sa.s I,.c w,,. s,4 m,#,,7 ~}}