(slightly edited to shorten message; boldface type added for emphasis)
March 3, 2004
Mr. Roy A. Anderson
President and Chief Nuclear Officer
PSEG Nuclear LLC - N09
P. O. Box 236
Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038
SUBJECT: ANNUAL ASSESSMENT LETTER - SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION
(REPORT 05000272/2004001 AND 05000311/2004001)
Dear Mr. Anderson:
On February 4, 2004, the NRC staff completed its end-of-cycle plant performance assessment of
Salem Units 1 and 2. The review involved the participation of all technical divisions in evaluating
performance for the calendar year 2003 assessment cycle. The process included a review of
performance indicators (PIs) for the most recent quarter and inspection results from 2003. The
purpose of this letter is to inform you of our assessment of your safety performance and our plans
for future inspections at your facility so that you will have an opportunity to prepare for these
inspections and to inform us of any planned inspections that may conflict with your plant activities.
Overall, Salem Units 1 and 2 operated in a manner that preserved public health and safety and
fully met all cornerstone objectives. Plant performance for the most recent quarter at Salem Unit 1
was within the Regulatory Response Column of the NRC’s Action Matrix, based on an inspection
finding in the Mitigating System Cornerstone being classified as having low to moderate
significance (White) and all PIs being Green. The White inspection finding involved inadequate
corrective actions to prevent the recurrence of emergency diesel generator (EDG) turbocharger
failures, which resulted in the 1C EDG turbocharger failure in September 2002. In a follow up
inspection report dated January 30, 2004, the staff kept this White finding open until additional
inspections confirm that final corrective actions have been implemented.
Plant performance for the most recent quarter at Salem Unit 2 was within the Licensee Response
Column of the NRC’s Action Matrix, based on all inspection findings being classified as having
very low safety significance (Green) and all PIs being Green.
As discussed in the annual assessment letter dated March 3, 2003, and the mid-cycle assessment
letter dated August 27, 2003, the staff identified a substantive cross-cutting issue in the area of
problem identification and resolution (PI&R). The cross-cutting issue involved instances of
ineffective, untimely problem evaluations and corrective actions. In the most recent
2 Mr. Roy Anderson
annual assessment, we concluded that this substantive cross-cutting issue should remain open,
based on the numerous inspection findings which indicate that weaknesses continue in this area.
The weaknesses impacted equipment reliability and involved deficient determinations of root
causes. For example, inspection findings included the deferred fuse uprating of control drive
mechanisms, which resulted in dropping of control rods and a manual Unit 2 reactor trip; an
inadequate operability evaluation of offsite power supply breakers following a Unit 1 partial loss of
offsite power; insufficient evaluation of an air leak on an EDG starting air compressor; and
incomplete preventive maintenance and inadequate corrective actions for the control air system.
We request that you discuss this matter at our upcoming annual assessment meeting.
In a January 28, 2004 letter, we provided interim results of an ongoing NRC special review of the
work environment at Salem and Hope Creek. The letter outlined areas of NRC concerns,
particularly as they relate to the handling of emergent equipment issues and associated
operational decision-making. The letter also requested a written response to provide a plan for an
in-depth PSEG assessment of the work environment. We have received your response and are
reviewing your plans. We expect to discuss this matter with you at the management meeting
specified in our January 28 letter (tentatively planned for mid-March).
The enclosed inspection plan details the inspections scheduled through September 30, 2005.
The inspection plan is provided to minimize the resource impact on your staff, and to allow for
scheduling conflicts and personnel availability to be resolved in advance of inspector arrival
onsite. In addition to the baseline inspections at Salem through September 2005, we plan to
perform a supplemental inspection on the open White inspection finding to review the corrective
actions for the EDG turbocharger failure. The inspection is intended to provide assurance that the
corrective actions address the root cause of the failure. Routine resident inspections are not
listed due to their ongoing and continuous nature. The inspections in the last twelve months of
the inspection plan are tentative and may be revised at the mid-cycle review meeting.
As you are aware, the NRC has issued several Orders and threat advisories to enhance security
capabilities and improve guard force readiness since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
We have conducted inspections to review your implementation of these requirements and have
monitored your actions in response to changing threat conditions. For calendar year 2004, we
plan to continue inspections of order implementation combined with newly developed portions of
the security baseline inspection program.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC’s “Rules of Practice,” a copy of this letter and its
enclosure will be made available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document
Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system
(ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/
adams.html (the Electronic Reading Room).
3 Mr. Roy Anderson
If circumstances arise which cause us to change the inspection plan, we will contact you to
discuss the change as soon as possible. Please contact Glenn Meyer of my staff at
(610) 337-5211 with any questions you may have regarding this letter or the inspection plan.
Sincerely,
/RA/
A. Randolph Blough, Director
Division of Reactor Projects
Docket Nos. 50-272, 50-311
License Nos. DPR-70, DPR-75