ML20052F345
| ML20052F345 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Washington Public Power Supply System, Satsop |
| Issue date: | 10/29/1980 |
| From: | Spencer G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Thornburg H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19250J515 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-81-378 NUDOCS 8205120366 | |
| Download: ML20052F345 (13) | |
Text
o l
oC W $ $ - l $
& S J'
- o UNITED S' FATES i.
l[
~g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION >
y g
5,W I
c REGION V 4
k# #
, k, 1950 N. CALIFORNIA SouLEVARD i
%, e, h ',o sulTE 2f22 WALNUT CMEEK PLAZA p
g ua WALNUT CREEN, CALIFORNI A 94596 October 29, 1980
[ # jy As stated g,,
,/
.) r 5
8205120366 811112 PDR FOIA DELL 81-378 PDR
,.'l Working Paper SALP Staff Summary - WNP 1/4 February 1981 I.
Regional Evaluation (May 1979 - July 1980)
Region V considers the regulatory performance of WNP 1/4 to be acceptable but would view this licensee as "below average." The region identified two inspection areas as in need of increased effort, based on licensee performance.
These were quality assurance programs of contractors (emphasizing craft and inspector training and procedure adherence) and activities involving piping and hanger installation.
The region also states that WPPSS is not fully effective in translating PSAR commitments into construction specifications and then adequately inspecting for compliance.
Region V also identifies weaknesses in maintenance of QA records and in taking corrective actions en identified discrepancies. of the Regicn V submittal provides a good narrative of WNP 1/4 problem areas.
The WNP 1/4 project is composed of two B&W PWRs and is about 35% complete.
OL is scheduled for the first unit in early 1984.
II.
CDR History (May 1979 - July 1980)
WNP 1/4 submitted six construction deficiency reports during this period.
No trends or specific problems appear evident.
The licensee's actions relative to reporting were found by Region V to be generally satisfactory.
l III. Noncompliance History (1/1/79 to 12/30/80)
Construction Facility Noncompliances per Noncompliance Comparison Noncompliances Inspection Hour l
WNP-1 18
.013 WNP-4 4
.007 Region V average - 12 reactors 10
.008 National average - 78 reactors 18
.014 Comparisons between facilities under construction are complicated by their different percentages of completion.
Also inspection effort is dependent to some degree on the level of construction activity and percentage of completion.
Region V comparisons may be difficult as about 1/2 of their facilities are early in the construction phase and are receiving relatively few inspection manhours.
The 18 noncompliances for WNP-1 are against portions of 10 CFR 50 Appendix b, as follows:
I
j
'I j'%<
- No. of Criterion No.
Title Noncompliances 4
Procurement Document Control 2
5 Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings 13 9
Control of Special Processes 1
12 Control of Measuring and Test Equipment-1 13 Handling, Storage,and Shipping 1
Most of these noncompliances are against Criterion 5 (Instructions, Procedures,and Drawings).
There are cases of procedures not in place, procedures not followed, inadequate inspections, improper welding, or concrete placement discrepancies.
Several involve welding of piping or pipe supports.
The region identified 9 noncompliances on WNP-1 and 2 noncompliances on WNP-4 during the regional review period.
Most involved welding and problems with procedure adherence.
IV.
Allegation / Investigation Review (1/1/79 - 12/31/80)
Region V conducted two investigative activities at WNP-1/4-in response to allegations.
One related to improper document sign-offs by a subcontractor at WNP-2 and WNP-1/4, and resulted in two noncompliances.
It indicated weaknesses in subcontractor audits and inspections.
The other investiga-I -
tion was in response to 33 allegations in the construction activities regarding concrete placement and reinforcing steel.
Many allegations were-being investigated and corrected by the licensee.
No noncompliances were identified.
V.
Performance Appraisal Branch Comments No PAB inspection conducted.
VI.
NRR Licensing Project Manager Comments Discussions with A. Bournia, Project Manager (PM) for WPPSS 1/4 and 3/5 indicate these units are in the post CP phase and as such very little activity is required for tnis report.
9 VII. Miscellaneous WNP 1/4 ceceived a total of 1361 inspection manhours on WNP-1 and 579 inspection manhours on WNP-4 in the period between 1/1/79 and 12/31/80, according to IE records.
This compares with the Region V average of 1242 inspection manhours and a national average of 1256 inspection manhours (for 78 construction phase reactors).
b
- .. )
g.
i*a 5
VIII. SALP Staff Comments WNP 1/4 appears to be an average construction licensee.
Based on the WPPSS QA difficulties on WNP-2 and WNP 1/4 performance in the QR area, Region V's increase in inspection effort in this area appears appropriate.
=+
4 i
4
+ - -
-e,-
r r-w-
RJ..<.~
t i
Working Paper f
February 1981 i
I.
Regional Evaluation (April 1979 - April 1980) l Region V has found the overall licensee performance maroinally acceptable but has had longstanding concerns over the ineffectivenee in the imple-l mentation of the WPPSS quality assur_ance program and the inadequate j
control of contractor activities.
Region V has stressed to WPPSS a
' strong need for management attention to these problems.
The regional evaluation reveals unc'orrected and repeat noncompliance items,and instances i
of work being conducted without planning and procedures.
Significant QA breakdowns have resulted in NRC directivec +n etnp work on pipe whip restraints and the sacrificial shield wall, numerous management contacts and a large number of noncompliances.
Discussion with G. Spencer'(the cognizant Regien V construction branch chief) indicates +. hat he would view WNP-2 performance as " poor." He believes they have had a lot of f
problems but they have made organizational changes, and are currently re-evaluating their construction and QA programs.
l Region V has planned an increase in inspection effort in 6 out of 13 functional areas of WNP-2 activity, eventhough muchTf-e construction work is complete.
This is to assure that the construct.on has been properly completed and to monitor current construction activities.
These areas includei 1
Quality Assurance, Management and Training.
Region V has concerns over previous work and licensee's control over current activities Safety-related structures.
Region V desires to followup on i
sacrificial shield wall repairs and other structural discrepancies r
Piping and hangers.
Region V desires to followup on licensee
^
problems with pipe supports and pipe whip restraints l
Electrical Equipment 1
l 1I-Electrical Tray and Wire t
Instrumentation j
dConcernsexistinallthreeoftheseareaswithelectrical' lseparation, equipment qualification, and quality classification.
WNP-2 is approximately 85%_ complete with and OL scheduled for mid-1983.
l WNP-2 is a BWR, II.
CDR History (April 1979 - April 1980) l l
The licensee has submitted 14 reports pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(e) during l
this period.
Most involve mechanical construction discrepancies.
Several l
i
s d
' can be attributed to quality control weaknesses.
The licensee's corrective action has been determined to be satisfactory on seven CDR's.
Corrective action on others is still in process.
III. Noncompliance History (1/1/79 to 12/31/80)
Construction Facility Noncompliances per Noncompliance Comparison Noncompliances Inspection Hour
.y WNP-2
'.49
.015
~
Region V average - 12. reactors 1
.008 National average - 78' reactors 18
.014 Compari. sons between facilities under construction are complicated by their different percentages of completion.
Also inspection effort is dependent to some degree on the level of construction activity and percentage of completion.
Region V comparisons may be difficult as about 1/2 of their facilities are early in the construction phase and are receiving relatively few inspection manhours.
These 49 noncompliances are nearly all against positions of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B as follows:
No. of Criterion No.
Title _.
Noncompliances 1
Organization 1
3 Design Control 1
5 Instruction, Procedures,
& Drawings 21 6
Document Control 1
8 Identification and Control of Materials, Parts and Components 1
9 Control of Special Processes 6-10 Inspection 2
11 Test Control 3
14 Inspection, Test, and Operating Status 1
17 QA Records 10 -
18 Audits 1
Other (Reporting) 1 A significant percentage of these noncompliances are against Criterion 5 (Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings).
There are numerous instances of procedures not_followed, work accomplished without procedures at the job site, procedures not qualified or approved prior to use, or procedure inadequacies.
They involve various activities and disciplines such as welding, non-destructive examination, cleanliness of safety related equipment, steelwork erection, and electrical installations.
- Another significant percentage of these noncompliances involve Criterion 17 (QA Records).
Various instances of incorrect racords. missing records and conflicting data are cited.
Various functional areas are involved, i
such as test records, weld records,-individual qualification records, and vendor survey records.
A third area with several noncompliances invn1ves Criterion 9 (Control of l
Special Processes).
Examples include non qua]if_iad NDE personnel, incorrect conduct of non-destructive examinations, unapproved weld proce-
.dures, and conduct of heat straightening processes without procedures.
WNP-2 has been the sub' ject of several major enforcement actions including i
\\
two large groups of noncompliances, a $59,000 civil penalty, management I
meetings, two stop-work letters, and a 10 CFR 50.54(f) request regarding quality assurance.
The initial stop work action was in' November 1979 and concerne.d installation of Quality Class I pipe whip restraints.
The second stop work action occurred in. July 1980 (after the regional evalua-tion) and pertained to work control and quality assurance systems of the i
WNP-2 mechanical contractor.
This action st.opped installation of all safety significant items in order to review completed work, correct
~
controls over future work, implement personnel and organizational changes, and resolve labor problems.
i Continuing difficulties with pipe whip restraints and the sacrificial.-
i shield wall installation culminated in June 1980 with a civil penalty, issuance of 20 items of noncompliance (included in the previous statistical totals) and a NRC request regarding WPPSS quality assurance programs pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f).
The IE staff concluded at that time that i
there was not sufficient information to detsr.mine.that.WNP.-2.had; been constructed in conformance with the construction permit.
This request i
cited ineffective control oy GF55 annns and Roe of 'seven other subcontractors, indicated that some problems have existed for several i
years, and indicated that NRC efforts at various management meetings have resulted in major corrective measures by current WPPSS managment.
l WPPSS evaluation of their difficulties and implementation of corrective action is still in progress.
Region V is following WPPSS actions with increased inspection effort.
Portions of construction activity at WNP-2 are still curtailed and just recently (1/21/79) sacrificial shield wall j
welding was allowed to resume.
The stop work action on the mechanical contractor is still in effect.
l 1
IV.
Allegations and Investigations History (1/1/79 - 12/31/80 l
l Region V conducted six investigative inspections at WNP-2 between February 1979 and July 1980, in response to various allegations.
Two of these investigations resulted in a total of 33 noncompliances (included in previous statistical totals).
These were indicative of_ major QA/QC difficulties and failure to adequately control subconstract6rs.
l I
i
,-n- -.
---,t w
--p-m
These two investigations each involved a major commitment of regional resources over periods of several months.
These noncompliances, NRC i
actions, and licensee actions were summarized in Section III.
V.
Performance Appraisal Branch Comments i
No PAB inspection conducted.
[
t VI.
NRR Project Manager Comments
~ f The Project Manager for WNP-2, D. Lynch, provides the following information regarding the WPPSS organization and its relationship with NRC.
[
A.
LICENSING HISTORY I
1.
Quality of Submittals The WPPSS organization has been marked in the past with apparently naive management who failed to stay current with NRC l
licensing requirements.
This was especially evident in the first submittal of the FSAR which did not come at.all close to l
the then current FSAR's for Zimmer and LaSalle, sister plants i
for WNP-2.
Following the June 1977 rejection of the OL applica-r tion, WPPSS retendered its application in March 1978 which was tentatively rejected a second time in April 1978.
- However, d
following a meeting with top NRR management in May 1978, we 1
accepted the WNP-2 OL application conditioned on a major l
clean-up of the FSAR. At the end of the first round of questions in March 1979, two years after the first tendering of the WNP-2 OL application, the staff wrote'a third letter to WPPSS again indicating that certain portions (e.g., Chapter 7) needed major i
revisions to upgrade the quality and character.
+
2.
Staff Effort Required to Obtain Acceptable Responses t
The staff has had to spend considerable time and effort "coaxina" and " coaching" WPPSS in how to structure a response so as to inake it acceptable.
The series of inadequate responses.
on the proposed corrective action on the girth weld on the i
WNP-2 sacrificial shield wall is but one example of this.
3.
Licensee Resoonsibility The licensee has primarily responded in a minimal fashion to I
staff suggestions to upgrade the FSAR ~and its various other f
submittals.
The licensee's apparent preferred mode is to satisfy the staff's requirements only after much footdragging.
l However, when the staff holds firm on its requirements for a period ranging from six months to two years, the licensee will then submit a better-than-average work product.
h 9
--m 2-
- - -. ~. - - - -
w.
---w.---+
. 4.
Quality Assurance / Quality Control Performance The licensee has had an excep.tionally poor 0A/_QC track record 4
in building WNP-2 leading to: (a) work suspension by I&E via "Immediate Action" letters; (b) fines by I&E; and (c) the issuance of a Section 50.54(f) letter.
The poor QA/QC has included forgeries in the QC paperwork and repeated improper installation of the safety equipment.
B.
LICENSEE CAPABILITY 1.
Technical Competence The licensee ' grew quite rapidly from a very small organization to a very large organization building 14-billion dollars of nuclear power plants, as stated in their latest annual report, However, the in-house technical competence of the organization has remained very weak with heavy reliance on the use of contractors, the A/E (Burns & Roe), and on GE.
When the poor quality of Chapter 7 of the FSAR was a continuing issue for three years (March 1977 to March 1980), WPPSS had only one man assigned half-time to assure that this section of the FSAR would be made acceptable.
There have been other arear of major technical weaknesses including structural analysis and reactor systems.
In general, the licensee has made minimal effort on its own volition to upgrade its in-housItechnical competence, i
2.
Operational Capability
~
Unless, there is a significant change in both the management philosophy and the middle-level management its' elf, the licensee may have difficulty in comply'ing with the TMI Lessons-Learned requirements.
C.
PROJ'ECTED OUTLOOK Recognizing the short-comings of its organization, WPPSS fired its general managet in August 1980 and replaced him with R. L. Ferguson from the Hanford Office of DOE. Ferguson has instituted some changes (e.g., bringing in Bechtel to oversee Burns & Roe) but it is not yet clear whether he has turned the organization around.
VII. Miscellaneous WNP-2 received a total of 115,1 inspection manhours in the period between 1/1/79 and 12/30/80, according to IE records.
This compares with a Region V average of 1242 inspection manhours and a national average of 1256 inspection manhours (for 78 construction phase reactors).
During this period, this facility has received more IE effort than any other facility in Region V.
. =. _
6-i VIII. SALP Staff Comments WNP-2 appears to have experienced major QA and management difficulties.
Region V ar.d NRR both have an extensive trail of problems with.WNP-2.
Although WPPSS is embarked upon a major effort for rectifying their difficulties the SALP staff would view this licensee as " poor" during the period evaluated by Region V.
e e
e
/
e 4
r k
I
\\
C 4
L i
t e
I
~
a
-_n-a n-u
w Working Paper SALP Staff Summary - WNP-3/5 February 1981 I.
Regional Evaluation (August 1979 - August 1980)
Regicn V considers the regulatory performance of WNP-3/5 to be acceptable and would view the licensee as " average." The region identified 3 areas in need of increased inspection effort, based upon licensee performance.
These are Quality Assurance, Concrete, and Safety-related Structures.
Of primary concern to Region V is assuring that the licensee and his contrac-tors have accomplished adequate preparation and preplanning for safety-related work.
The region is also concerned about inconsistencies between contractor QA programs and industry codes, and the WPPSS review of contractor activities.
Region V has also found several instances of problems with vendor-supplied material.
The WNP-3/5 project is composed of Two C-E PWR's and is about 15% complete.
OL is scheduled for the first unit in early 1985.
II.
CDR History (August 1979 - August 1980)
WNP 3/5 submitted three construction deficiency reports during this period.
One (Rebar left out of the Unit 3 fuel handling building wall) may be attributable to construction QA discrepancies.
Another (Cracking in stainless steel overlay on shutdown heat exchangerflange) contributed to Region V concerns over vendor QA programs.
The licensee's actions relative to reporting were found by Region V to be generally satisfactory.
III. Noncompliance History (1/1/79 to 12/30/80)
Construction Facility Noncompliances per Noncompliance Comparison Noncompliances Inspection Hour WNP-3 17
.018 m
WNP-5 9
.017 Region V average - 12 reactors 10
.008 National Average - 78 reactors 18
.014 Comparisons between facilities under construction are complicated by their different percentages of completion.
Also inspection effort is dependent to some degree on the level of construction activity and percentage of completion.
Region V comparisons may be difficult as about 1/2 of their facilities are early in the construction phase and are receiving relatively few inspection manhours.
The 17 noncompliances for WNP-3 are against portions of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, as follows:
I
l i
- a.
- No. of Noncompliances Criterion No.
Title WNP-3 WNP-5 3
Design Control 2
1 4
Procurement Document Control 1
1 5
Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings 10 4
12 Control of Measuring and Test
~
Equipment 1
1 14 Inspection, Test,and Operating Status 1
1 15 Nonconforming Materials, Parts, or Components 1
Other 1
1 Seven of the ten WNP-3 citations against criterion 5 involve welding discrepancies.
Most of the licensee's welding problems are related to craft personnel not following procedures.
Areas of Region V inspection increase will include attention to WPPSS control over welding.
The four WNP-5 citations against Criterion 5 do not show concentrations in any one functional, area.
During the regional review period WNP-3 had 8 noncompliances and WNP-5 had 3 noncompliancet.
IV.
Allegation / Investigation Review (1/1/79 - 12/31/80)
Region V conducted one investigation at WNP-3 and no investigations at WNP-5, according to IE records.
The investigation was in response to allegations regarding radiographic documentation of nondestructive examina-tions.
The allegation was not substantiated and no noncompliances were identified.
V.
Performance Appraisal Branch Comments No PAB inspection conducted.
VI.
NRR Project Manager Comments l
l Discussions with A. Bournia, Project Manager (PM) for WPPSS 1/4 and 3/5 indicate these units are in the post CP phase and as such very little activity is required for this report.
VII. Miscellaneous l
WNP-3/5 received a total of 945 inspection manhours on WNP-3 and 515 inspection manhours on WNP-5 in the period between 1/1/79 and 12/31/80, according to IE records.
This compares with the Region V average of 1242 inspection manhours and a national average of 1256 inspection manhours (for 78 construction phase reactors).
o v
3-v I
VIII. SALP Staff Comments WNP-3/5 appears to be an average construction licensee.
Region V plans for increased inspection effort appear appropriate.
i i
i i
.i l
1 e
5 i
4 Y
ed l
t V
I 8
i f
i
,i 4
'f e
f e
i f
i
(
i l
t f
I f
W
~c e -
.?
UfflTED sT
- TES
?
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
I WASHINa tors. o. c. 20555
% M 4 4 ',E g
.. \\. e
? f ;; 1981 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Darrell G. Eisanhut, Director, Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation James H. Sniezek, Director, Division of Resident and Regional' Reactor Inspection, Office of Inspection and Enforcement Carlyle Michelson, Director, Office of Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data Norman C. Moseley, Director, Division of Program Development and Appraisal, Office of Inspection and Enforcement 1
FROM:
Calvin A. Heit, SALP Staff SU5 JECT:
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE REVIEW GROUP
~
MEETING MINUTES-MEETING 81-02
=-
~.: g.;;=
The fourth neeting of the SALP Review Group was held February 20, 1981. provides the minutes of tnat meeting and Enclosure 2 is a listing
.of the attendees.
These minutes are embgrgoed until the completion of first round SALP reviews for all facilities.
The next meetings are scheduled for
" arch 3,1981 and March 31, 1 981.
, t.
Calvin A. Heit SALP Staff Enclosures :
l.
"ss:in: "inutes 2.
. stir; of A:tendees
)wt O! $) h W&
Ent;;t.r.
?!INUTES - SALP MEETING 81-02 February 20, 1981 The SALP Poard convened at 9:15 a.m. on February 20, 1981. Attendees are listed in Enclosure 2.
1.
R. H. Wessman briefed the SALP Board on each facility's data cackage.
Facility packages reviewed by the SALP Board and conclusions reached are as follows:
a.
V. C.' Summer (Reg'ional Evaluation:
September 1979 - Aucust 1980)
The SALP Board approves Region II Action Plan.
All Board members concurred that V. C. Summer is tentatively considered " average",
and is a candidate for a " poor" ranking.
b.
WNP-2 (Regional Evaluation:
April 1979 - April 1980)
The SALP Board approves Region V's evaluation and Action Plan. All Board members concurred that WNP-2 is tentatively considered " poor".
c.
WNP 1/4 (Regional Evaluation:
May 1979 - July 1980)
.=n
=ris; The SALP Board approves Region V's Action Plan.
Three Board members:
l i"r N
C. Moseley, C. Michelson, and R. A. Purple, tentatively considered UNP 1/4 to be ranked as " average" and a candidate for a " poor" rcnking.
The other Board member, J. H. Sniezek, rated WNP 1/4 as
" average".
Overall, WMP 1/4 is tentatively considered as " average" and a candidate for a " poor" ranking:
d.
WNP 3/5 (Regional Evaluation:
August 1979 - Auaust 1980) 1 The SALP Board approves Region V's evaluation and Action Plan. All Board members concurred that WNP 3/5 is tentatively considered "av era ge".
e.
North Anna 1 and 2 (Regional Evaluation:
Pay 1979 - April 1980)
The SALP Board approves Regicn II's evaluation and Action Plan. All Board members concurred that North Anna 1 and 2 is tentatively considered "a v era g e".
f.
Surry 1 and 2 (Regional Evaluation:
A'ay 1979 - Acril 1980)
The decision on Surry 1 and 2 was deferred because the Ocard members felt they will require additional informatier :c rea:h'a decision.
he
- a## was directed to ::tair. additierti ir#:- ?: ice "r
~.egier :: t t.
support tneir statement :na: Surry i anc 2 is consicarec weli Deiow av age".
-m ed ( / _/
oc ey s.
~
g.
Trojan (Regional Evaluation:
Seotember 1979 - August 1980)
The SALP Board approves Region V's Action Plan.
Thrca Soard members, i
J. H. Sniezek, N. C. Moseley, and R. A. Purple, tentatively consider,ed Tro;an as " average".
The other Board member, C. Michelson, considers Tro; an " average". -and a candidate for a " poor" rating.
- Overall, Trojan is tentatively considered "as average".
h.
Calvert Cliffs 1 and 2 (Regional Evaluation:
October 1979 to September 1980) 4 4
The SALP Board ap roves Region I's Action Plan. Three Board members, N. C. Moseley, J. H. Sniezek, and R. A. Purple, concurred that Calvert Cliffs 1 and 2 is tentatively considered as " average" and is a candidate for a " poor" ranking.
The other Board member, C. Michelson, considers Calvert Cliffs.1 and 2 as " poor".
i.
Oyster Creek (Regional Evaluation:
August 1979 - July 1980) 1 The SALP Board approves Region I's Action Plan. All Board members tentatively considered Oyster Creek as " poor".
1 1
j.
Arkansas 1 and 2 (Regional Evaluation:
January 1979 - August 1980)
., m
!!IN The SALP Board approves Region IV's Action Plans.
A " split" vote resulted when Board members N. C. Moseley and C. Michelson tentatively considered the licensee as " poor", uhtreas J. H. Sniezek with R. A. Purple consider the licensee as " average" ~with a consideration for a " poor" ranking.
The Board then decided to reconsider Arkansas at the end of the review period.
1 k.
Beaver Valley Unit 1 (Regional Eva'luation:
September 1979 - August 1980)
The SALP Board approves Region I evaluation.
All Roard members tentatively consider Beaver Valley as " poor".
In addition, the Board acknowledges that this facility was one of the " poorest" reviewed to date.
Mr. Grier, Director, Region I discussed (via telephone) the actions planned.Duquesne Light as given in Mr. S. G. Shaffer's (President, Duquesne Light) letter of January 19, 1981.
The Board then decided that additional action by the licensee and IE may be warranted and directed the Staff to prepare a letter to V. Stello, Pirector, OIE.
This letter would state the Boards concern and suggested corrective action be taken.
O J
r f
c.r-y
...--..--.e,,m,-y,-w..
~
2 2.
Muring this meeting, the following items were highlighted:
a.
SALP Staff Member Mr. Walter Pike from MPA newly appointed SALP staff member was introduced to the SALP Board members.
b.
Ranking of Licensees SALP Board members again discussed the need for base line definitions for the ranking criteria poor, average and good.
Tentatively, the Board considered the use of two additional categories:
"above average" and "below average."
c.
Project Manager's Input, NRR management has requested each PM prepare input for the SALP Staff's Working Papers by February 18, 1981.
Mr. R. A. Purple was requested to determine the status of these reports in preparation for the forth-coming March 1981 SALP meetings.
t
..e.
.."*],,,
Il I
G
-r
.e Fr: c:gre 2 L, sr ATTENDEES - SALP MEETING OF' FEBRUARY 20, 1981 L
N. C. Mosel ey, IE i
J. H. Sniezek, IE 1
~
R. Wessman, IE J. M. Taylor, IE
, R. A. Purple, MRR C. A. Heit, NRR C. Michelson, AEOD W. Pike, MPA
)
- 5h..
. :.y i
f I
e e
4 k
a e
~
L s
s s
SSINS G230 JUN 1. 01981 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, NRR James H. Sniezek, Director, Division of Resident and Regional Reattor Inspection, IE Carlyle Michelson, Director, AE0D Nonnan C. Moseley, Director, Division of Program Development and Appraisal. IE
.~ ROM:
R. H. Wessman, SALP Staff
SUBJECT:
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE REVIEW GROUP MEETING MINUTES - MEETING 81-08 The SALP Review Group met on June 9,1981.
The enclosure lists attendees and provides the minutes of that meeting. These minutes are embargoed until the completion of first-round SALP reviews for all facilities.
is scheduled for June 16 (9:30 a.m.) in the Air Rights Thenextmeeting(5033).
Conference Room R. H. Wessman SALP Staff
Enclosure:
theting Minutes cc:
R. A. Purple, NRR J. M. Taylor, IE Distribution:
RH Wessman 1
y SALP:IE RH Wessman cd rgjf/;jj y
,. y 6/ ID /81 a
MINUTES - SALP MEETING 81-08 June 9, 1981 The SALP Review Group convened at 9:30 a.m. on June 9,1981 for meeting 81-08 in the Air Rights Building Room 5233.
Attendees were:
N. C. Moseley, IE R. A. Purple, NRR C. Michelson, AE0D J. H. Sniezek, IE R. H. Wessnan, IE 1.
R. H. Wessman briefed the SALP Review Group on facility reviews.
Conclusions reached are as follows:
a.
Shoreham.
Regional actions approved.
All Review Group members concurred that this facility was tentatively considered to be " average."
b.
Millstone 3.
Regional actions approved.
All Review Group members concurced that this facility was tentatively considered to be " average."
c.
Beaver Valley 2.
Regional actions approved.
Moseley, Purple and Michelson concurred that this facility was tentatively considered to be " average."
3niezek considers this facility to tentatively be " average-candidate for good."
d.
TMI-1.
Regiunal actions approved.
All Review Group members concurred o
that this facility was tentatively considered to be " average."
2.
The Review Group re-examined those facilities previously considered as
" average-candidate for poor."
Those facilities were rated as follows:
Average Below Average Calvert Cliffs Indian Point 2 Rancho Seco Hatch Crystal River 3 Catawba Lacrosse Browns Ferry Watts Bar DC Cook Davis-Besse Zimmer San Onofre 1 Arkansas WNP-1/4 Summer The Review Group plans to re-examine all facilities considered as "below average" at the June 16 meeting.
An updated " score sheet" is attached.
/
I
}s
!L wp t'
,e
. 3.
NRC Manual Chapter 0516 was discussed.
The Review Group considered the concept of one report containing facility overall performance evaluations in lieu of separate SALP Board reports and the SALP Review Group report issued several months later.
The SALP staff will research this concept with ELD.
On June 9,1981, subsequent to the Review Group meeting, ELD advised the staff that therwould not recommend withholding results of SALP Board evaluations from the PDR until the time when the Review Group ceport is issued.
A timely public release of NRC findings discussed with licensee management is. suggested.
Consequently, the staff plans to leave Draft Manual Chapter 0516 unchanged.
The Manual Chapter will continue to require the issue of SALP Board findings as part of the report documenting the NRC meeting with licensee management.
4.
Draft 2 of the final report was discussed.
Extensive comments were made and will be incorporated in Draft 3.
This will be discussed at the next meeting.
5.
The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 16,1981 at 9:30 a.m. in the Air Rights Conference Room (5033).
The agenda will be:
(a)
Facility reviews for last five facilities.
(b)
Re-examine facilities tentatively considered as "below average."
(The attached " score sheet" lists these facilities).
(c)
Review Draft 3 of the final report.
I i
--s
l
!f Ope' rating Reactors Above Average Average Below Average Region I Yankee Rowe Ginna Peach Bottom Vermont Yankee Maine Yankee, Salem s
Millstone 1,'2 Haddam Neck Beaver Valley 1 Indian Point 3 Oyster Creek Calvert Cliffs Pilgrim
- TMI-l FitzPatrick Indian Point 2 R gion II Oconee North Anna Surry Farley
. McGuire 1 Brunswick Robinson
' Crystal River 3 Sequoyah 1 Browns Ferry Turkey Point St..Lucie 1 Hatch -
l Region III Prairie Island Zion Palisades Point Beach Quad Cities Davis-Besse Dresden Monticello Big Rock Point
\\
Kewaunee Duane Arnold j
La Crosse DC Cook
- Evaluated with operating, reactors
i Operating Reactors (Continued)
Above Average Averaae Below Average R:gion IV Cooper Ft. St. Vrain Arkansas Fort Calhoun I
Region V Trojan Rancho Seco
._. San Onofre 1 Totals:
9.
25 15 l
l I
1 l
l b/
Construction Reactors Above Average Average Below Average Reyson I Hope Creek Seabrook Limerick Shoreham Millstone 3 Beaver Valley 2 R gion II Sunmer Catawba Shearon Harris Watts Bar McGuire 2 Grand Gulf Cherokee Sequoyah 2 Yellow Creek Phipps Bend Hartsvi.lle Belle'fonte Vogtle Region III Perry Midland Fermi Marble Hill LaSalle Zimmer Braidwood Byron Callaway Clinton a
o I /f Construction Reactors
,..o (Continued)
Above Average Average Below Average Region IV Wolf Creek River Bend '
Commanche Peak Waterford 3 Region V WNP-3/5 WNP-2 San Onofre 2,3 WNP-1/4 Raio Verde Totals:
0 31 7
r- -, -..,
ga asag
- I.'
o UNITED STATES l[?.,'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 i\\
/ e' SSINS 8230 g
~j JUN 171981 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, NRR James H. Sniezek, Director, Division of Resident and Regional Reactor Inspection, IE Carlyle Michelson, Director, AE0D Norman C. Moseley, Director, Division of Program Development and Appraisal, IE FROM:
R. H. Wessman, SALP Staff
SUBJECT:
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE REVIEW GROUP MEETING MINUTES - MEETING 81-09 The SALP Review Group met on June 16, 1981.
The enclosure lists attendees and provides the minutes of that meeting.
These minutes are embargoed until the completion of first-round SALP reviews for all facilities.
is scheduled for June 23,1981 at 9:30 a.m. in the Air Rights The next meeting (5033).
Conference Room T
v:
R. H. Wessman SALP Staff
Enclosure:
Meeting Minutes cc:
R. A. Purple, NRR J. M. Taylor IE
l i'
MINUTES - SALP MEETING 81-09 June 16,1981 The SALP Review Group convened at 9:30 a.m. on June 16, 1981 for meeting 81-09 in the Air Rights Building Conference Room 5033.
Attendees were:
N. C. Moseley, IE R. A. Purple, NRR C. Michelson, AE0D J. H. Sniezek, IE R. H. Wessman, IE 1.
R. H. Wessman briefed the SALP Review Group on facility reviews.
Conclusions reached are as follows:
a.
Diablo Canyon.
Regional actions approved.
All Review Group members concurred that this facility was tentatively considered to be " average."
b.
Nine Mile Point 1.
Regional actions approved.
Sniezek, Purple, and Michelson concurred that this facility was tentatively considered to be " average-candidate for poor." Moseley considers this facility to tentatively be " poor."
c.
Nine Mile Point 2.
Regional actions approved.
Moseley, Purple and Michelson concurred that this facility was tentatively considered to be " average." Sniezek considers this facility to tentatively be
" average-candidate for good."
d.
South Texas Project 1, 2.
Regional actions approved.
All Review Group members concurred that this facility was tentatively considered to be "po o r. "
e.
Susquehanna 1, 2.
Regional actions approved.
Moseley, Purple, and Michelson concurred that this facility was tentatively considered to be " poor."
Sniezek considers this facility to tentatively be " average."
2.
The Review Group re-examined the one facility (Nine Mile Point 1) rated as " average-candidate for poor."
It was tentatively considered to be "poo r. "
3.
The Review Group re-examined all operating facilities tentatively considered as "below average" or " poor." All were considered to be "below average."
The attached list identifies these facilities.
4.
The Review Group re-examined all construction reactors tentatively considered as "below average" or " poor." Michelson abstained on Watts Bar vote.
Sniezek voted that WNP 1/4 and Catawba be considered as " average."
Gased on majority vote, the construction reactors that were re-examined were rated as "below average." The attached list identifies these facilities.
l 9-(
b
2-5.
The latest revision to NRC Manual Chapter 0516 was discussed.
SALP Board ratings for functional areas and the facility overall will be withheld from publication until the SALP Review Group report is published.
These recommended ratings are predecisional ratings pending Review Group approval.
The revised Manual Chapter is considered ready for implementation in draft form for Cycle 2 reviews.
6.
Draft 3 of the final report was discussed.
Extensive comments were made and will be incorporated in Draft 4.
This will be discussed at the next meeting.
7.
The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 23, 1981 at 9:30 a.m. in the Air Rights Conference Room (5033). Draft 4 of the final report will be discussed.
J L
e t
4 I
I
Ope' rating Reactors Above Average
' Average
.Below Average Region I Yankee Rowe Ginna Peach Bottom Vermont Yankee Maine Yankee' Salem Millstone 1, 2 Haddam Neck Beaver Valley 1 Indian Point 3 Oyster Creek Calvert Cli.ffs Pilgrim
~
- TMI-l FitzPatrick Indian Point 2 Nine Mile Point 1 m
Region II Oconee North Anna Surry Farley
- McGuire 1 Brunswick 's
~ Robinson Crystal River 3 Sequoyah 1 Browns Ferry Turkey Point St. Lucie 1 Hatch.
Region III Prairie Island Zion Palisades Point Beach Quad Cities Davis-Besse Dresden Monticello Big Rock Point Kewaunee Duane Arnold La Crosse DC Cook CEvaluated with operating reactors
ld Op@ rating Reactors (Continued)
Above Average Averaae Below Average Region IV Cooper Ft. St. Vrain Arkansas Fort Calhoun Region V Trojan Rancho Seco San Gnafre 1 e
Totals:
9 25 16 a
e t
9
sl/C Construction Reactors Above Average Average Below Average R;gion I Hope Creek Susquehanna 1, 2 Seabrook
~,
Lime'ick r
Shoreham Millstone 3 Beaver Valley 2 Nine Mile Point 2 Region II Summer Catawba Shr. aron Harris Watts Bar McGuire 2 Grand Gulf
~ Chie rokee Sequoyah 2 Yellow Creek Phipps Bend Hartsyille r
Beli efonte Vogtte R:gion III Perry Midland Fermi Marble Hill LaSalle Zimmer Braidwood Byron Callaway Clinton
c(a Construction Reactors (Continued) l Above Average Average Below Average l
R:gion IV
' Wolf Greek S uth Texas Project s
River Bend Comanche Peak Waterford 3 R:gion V WNP-3/5 WNP ?
San Onofre 2,3 WNP-1/4 Raio Verde
- Diablo Canyon s
Totals:
0 33'.
9 O