ML060580347

E-mail from A. Blough of USNRC to DRP All - Nuclear Safety Professionals, Regarding Significant Letter to PSEG Safety Concerns at Salem and Hope Creek, Attaching 01/8/04 Ltr to Ferland from Miller

ML060580347
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	01/28/2004
From:	Blough A NRC Region 1
To:	Division Reactor Projects I
References
FOIA/PA-2005-0194
Download: ML060580347 (8)

Text

-Mel 6~4ii - Fwd: Significant Leter toPE Re: Cnens at Salemii anid Hope Creek: ___ -- Z Pag-e Paaeli_11 Mel Gv -Fwd: Sianificant Letter to PSEG Re: Safety Concerns at Salem and Hooe Creek From: A. Randolph Blough To: DRP All -- Nuclear safety Professionals Date: 1/28/04 5:53PM

Subject:

Fwd: Significant Letter to PSEG Re: Safety Concerns at Salem and Hope Creek Place: Vesa Ruuskas Schedule Today we issued a very significant letter (attached), to PSEG. The letter provides interim results of our ongoing SCWE (safety conscious work environment) review, points out areas of NRC concern, and compells them to undertake their own in-depth review.

A lot of fantastic staff work, (particularly from Eileen Neff of 01, Scott Barber, Dave Vito, & several others) has gotten us to the point where we can clearly and confidently outline the issues and get all our stakeholders aligned to support such a unique action. By putting this out now, we give the licensee an opportunity to address issues before they fester longer and things potentially degrade.

As you read the letter, you will see that the Issues are not entirely unique to Salem/ Hope Creek (it's just that the number and severity is decidedly more significant there) .

Many of them are reminiscent of things we talked about at the Inspector seminar as challenges to plants trying to transform Into more efficient, cost-competitive operations; a lot of mis-steps and wrong messages, or worse, can occur.

I am not expecting you to do anything now but read this email and its attachments. In fact, it's best if you let it sit for now. But now you have the info if asked. By early next week, some of your licensees are likely to be noticing this action and asking about it. Be confident that we did what we did only after a huge amount of info gathering and analysis, and painstaking deliberation. We never take any step like this lightly by any stretch.

But I will not be disappointed at all if many other licensees do some sober introspection in light of the this letter.

Attached for your info is a copy of the letter and the Q/As from our comm plan. Listed directly below are the key points from our Comm Plan. The letter will go into ADAMS soon and will eventually become public. The talking points below and Q/A attached are for your use in discussions as needed, but hard copies should not be distributed outside the Agency.

regards, rAndy Comm Plan Excerpts: HToday the NRC issued a letter to PSEG requesting that PSEG perform an in-depth assessment of the work environments at the Salem and Hope Creek stations regarding the raising and addressing of safety issues. The letter requests that PSEG provide a written plan of action within 30 clays.

The request was based on interim results from an ongoing NRC special review, which has included interviews of a wide range of Salem and Hope Creek personnel. Although there have been no serious safety violations thus far, the results have led to some concerns about the station work environment. NRC is concerned that if work environment issues are left unaddressed, an unacceptable, chilled environment could be created for raising and addressing safety issues and for making appropriate operational decisions.

The letter also acknowledges that some improvements may have occurred under new management and that organizational realignments may have helped. PSEG has performed some surverys, which could be a part of their assessment.

In the last two periodic assessment letters to PSEGJ, the NRC has highlighted that, even though the plants have operated with good safety margin, there have been weaknesses at the stations in their efforts to identify, thoroughly evaluate, and correct problems;. The next NRC assessment letter will be issued in early March.

We have found no serious safety violations and have not concluded there has been a breakdown in the

Mel Sav -Fwd: Signilicant Letter to PSEG Re: Safety Concerns at Salem and Ho e Creek Page 2 work environment. We are providing information at this time to enable the company to address potential issues before they become serious and impact on plant safety.

CC: Daniel Holody; David Vito; Eileen Neff; Ernest Wilson; George Pangburn; James Joyner; Karl Farrar; R1 DRS_MGTTeam

C:\TM.P\W§0001 .MP Pgel1 Mail Envelope Properties (40183D28.2EA: 9: 34932)

Subject:

Fwd: Significant Letter to PSEG Re: Safety Concerns at Salem and Hope Creek Creation Date: 1/28/04 5:52PM From: A. Randolph Blough Created By: ARB@nrc.gov Recipients kpl-po.KPDO DJH CC (Daniel Holody)

DJV CC (David Vito)

EPW CC (Ernest Wilson)

EXN1 CC (Eileen Neff)

GCP CC (George Pangburn)

JHJ CC (James Joyner)

KLF CC (Karl Farrar) nrc.gov kpl-po.KPDO ACP (Amar Patel)

AEP (Anne Passarelli)

AFF (Anne Ford)

ALB 1 (Arthur Burritt)

ALR (Amanda Rancourt)

ARB (A. Randolph Blough)

BDW (Blake Welling)

BEH (Brian Holian)

BEK (Beth Sienel)

BJF (13rian Fuller)

BJM (Brian McDermott)

CJA (Cliff Anderson)

CJB 1 (Cynthia Bixler)

CLN (Tina Newgent)

CRW (Christopher Welch)

CXSl (Craig Smith)

DADI (Douglas Dempsey)

DCJ1 (Dante Johnson)

DCL CC (David Lew)

DJF1 (Donald Florek)

DLP1 (David Pelton)

DLS7 (Daniel Schroeder)

DMK (David Kern)

ECB (Ellen Bartels)

I C:\TENIP\GW}00001.TMP Paae Pace 221 C:\TEMP\GWIOOOQ1 .TMP ECK (Ed Knutson)

FJA (Frank Armer)

FLB (Fred Bower)

FML (Felicia Hinson)

FPB (F. Paul Bonnett)

FWJ (Frederick Jaxheimer)

GDS (Galen Smith)

GJM2 (George Malone)

GKH (Gordon Hunegs)

GSB (Scott Barber)

GTD (Glenn Dentel)

GWM (Glenn Meyer)

JAB CC (Jennifer Bobiak)

JDO (Daniel Orr)

JEH3 (Jorge Hernandez)

JER4 (John Richmond)

JFR CC (John Rogge)

JGS CC (Joseph Schoppy)

JMB3 (Javier Brand)

JMD1 JMO JMT1 JRW1 CC JXH4 KAM1 KAV KMJ KRK KSK LMC1 LML2, LTD CC MAG MJM4 MMS1 MPP1 MPS4 MRC MSF2 MXG3 NSP PAS 1 PCC1 PDD PIM

I C:\TEMP\GWI00001 IC M O rmp

.M Page 3 I 3

PWE RJC CC RJS RKL CC RUJ RMB1 RSB1 RVC CC RXM2 SFF SGI SIN SJD1 SLl SI-Li SLS1 SMS2 SRK SWS TEW CC TJJ TMH TVW Vesa Ruuskas Schedule CC VMR1 WACI WDL CC WJR nrc.gov owf2_po.OWFNDO BAR3 CC CXL1 CC JCL CC nrc.gov owf4_po.OWENDO AXVI CC CFE CC JLF2 CC LNQ CC SAR CC nrc.gov twf2_po.TWFNDO

i A:\TEMP\GWI00001.TMP .- Pane 41 TXN1 CC nrc.gov twf5_po.TWFN_DO CSH3 CC DBT CC Post Office Route kplpo. KPDO kpl.-po. KPDO nrc.gov owf2.po.0WFN_DO nrc.gov owf4_po.0WFN_DO nrc.gov twf2_po.TWFNDO nrc.gov twf5_po.TWFNDO nrc.gov Files 'Size Date & Time Salem HC WE ltr Q&As.wpd ]16490 01/28/04 12:33PM Salem Work Env Ltr Rev 9.wpd 19636 01/28/04 03:10PM MESSAGE 5488 01/28/04 05:52PM Options Expiration Date: None Priority: Standard Reply Requested: No Return Notification: None Concealed

Subject:

No Security: Standard

Mel Grmy-Salem HC WE Itr Q&As.w ge1-I Salem & Hope Creek Work Environment Letter O's and A's (Information that may be discussed with the public and media.)

1. Why is the NRC issuing a letter to Salem and Hope Creek on its on work environment? What is the NRC doing to assess the work environment at Salem and Hope Creek?

The NRC is issuing the letter because of information received in various allegations and inspections over the past few years that raised some concerns about work environment.

Because of the number and nature of these general concerns, in late 2003 the NRC initiated a special review of the work environment for raising and addressing safety issues. This review has included in-depth interviews of numerous current and former Salem/Hope Creek employees at various levels of the organization. We also are continuing to review and assess previous events and inspection findings to evaluate how any new information obtained through interviews impacts our previous assessment of these issues.

We have found no serious safety violations and have not concluded there has been a breakdown in the work environment. We are providing information at this time to enable the company to address potential issues before they become serious and impact on plant safety.

2. What is meant by work environment?

Workers who raise safety concerns contribute to the larger objective of safety. Establishing and maintaining an environment that promotes the continued raising of safety concerns without fear of reprisal (i.e., a SCWE) is imperative and protected by regulation. Implicit in this is that an individual can raise issues that may involve disagreements or differing perspectives on plant operating decisions particularly as they might impact on continuing plant operation and outage schedules.

3. Why is the letter being issued now?

While our work environment review has been ongoing since late in 2003, we have accumulated information about a number of events which, to varying degrees, call into question the openness of management to concerns and alternative views, strength of communications, and effectiveness of station corrective action and feedback processes. Our ongoing review is not yet complete, but we felt that it was appropriate to share this information with PSEG management now in a proactive way to allow them to perform their own assessment and to enable them to address potential issues before the issues become serious and impact on plant safety.

4. Are the work environment issues at Salem and Hope Creek similar to those at Davis-Besse? Will Salem and Hope Creek be shutdown?

The situation at Salem and Hope Creek is different from Davis-Besse. Our assessments at Salem and Hope! Creek have shown that the plants have been operated with good safety margin and that PSEG has some weaknesses in their efforts to identify, evaluate, and correct problems and issues.

Regardless of the similarity or differences, the NRC, as a part of its ongoing assessment processes, monitors the safety performance at all of the power reactors it regulates. These ongoing assessments do include reviews of the work environment and ifsufficient concern is raised through the allegations and/or inspections, the NRC may take whatever additional action it deems appropriate. Because of the number and nature of concerns raised at Salem and Hope Creek, we initiated a review of the work environment.

Rev. Date: 1/211/04 Page I of 2

ItMelGav - aemWCE Itr Qt&As.wpd Page Page 21 2

Mel Grv - Salem HO WE ltr Q&As.wpd l .Salem & Hope Creek Work Environment Letter O's and A's (Information that may be discussed with the public and media.)

We have not identified any serious safety violations to this point, and we have no basis to either request or order a shutdown of Salem or Hope Creek. If serious safety violations are detected, then the NRC will take whatever action is deemed appropriate.

5. How does the letter fit within the ROP?

The letter does not affect the action matrix, but the ROP recognizes that regulatory actions can be taken separately in this area.

SCWE is one of three main cross cutting areas. The current policy for addressing SCWE issues is derived from a number of NRC Commission papers that were issued from 1996 to 1998. Because of the potential wide variability in circumstances, the Commission chose not to provide a prescriptive policy, but instead chose to recommend that the staff address these circumstances on a case-by-case basis. The letter issued by NRC Rregion I is consistent with this approach.

6. What are the likely followup actions?

The letter requests that PSEG preform their own in-depth assessment of the work environment at Salem and Hope Creek. It also acknowledges that PSEG has performed some surveys of the safety culture to begin to address this issue. We also asked them to provide their plan of action within 30 days of the date of the letter. We will also conduct a meeting to better understand the details of their plan later.

7. Is the NRC investigating activities at Salem and Hope Creek?

It is NRC policy to neither confirm nor deny any ongoing investigation.

Rev. Date: 1128104 Page 2 of2