ML20054A845
| ML20054A845 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/04/1981 |
| From: | NRC - SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE REVIEW |
| To: | NRC - SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE REVIEW |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19310G156 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-81-392 NUDOCS 8204160199 | |
| Download: ML20054A845 (2) | |
Text
Enclosure y
MINUTES - SALP MEETING 81-05 May 4, 1981 The SALP Review Group convened at 9:30 a.m. on May 4,1981 for-meeting 81-05 in N. C. Moseley's office.
Attendees were:
H. C. lioseley, IE D. G. Eisenhut, NRR C. J. Heltemes, AE0D
A draft of the Cycle 1 Report on Facility Assessments was distributed.
Comments on the draft were requested by the next Review Group Meeting (May 14), based upon the facility assessments completed to date and format / style of the draft report.
Review Group members were asLed to specifically consider the method of presenting the construction facility assessments.
2.
Comments on NRC Manual Chapter 0516, governing the agency's approach to SALP, are requested by COB May 8, 1981.
3.
D. Eisenhut requested a schedule of IE regional and licensee meetings for Cycle 2 SALP reviews.
This. schedule should become available in June 1981.
4.
The terminology " good," " average," " poor," will be retained for the remainder of Cycle 1.
Good is considered equivalent to "above average" and poor is considered equivalent to "below average."
l 5.
R. H. Wessman briefed the SALP Review Group on facility reviews.
Conclusions reached are as follows:
l a.
Project Manager inputs for the facilities listed below were reviewed.
Previous tentative conclusions for these facilities remained unchanged.
(These inputs were unavailable during previous Review Grcup's facility reviews).
Previous Tentative l
Facility Conclusion
[
l McGuire 1 Average e
McGuire 2 Average OE LaSalle 1, 2 Average Cherokee 1, 2, 3 Average 5
Shearon Harris 1, 2, 3, 4 Average
[g (V 8yron 1, 2 Average Braidwood 1, 2 Average 0%
River Bend 1, 2 Average 03 Zion 1, 2 Average oeg Quad Cities 1, 2 Average Efsl Dresden 1, 2, 3 Average Crystal River 3 Average-Candidate for Poor Pra.i.rie Island l_ g.2 Average-Candidate for Good
p N b.
Palisades.
Regional actions approved.
All Review Group members concurred that this facility was tentatively considered to be
" poor."
c.
Big Rock Point.
Regional actions approved.
All Review Group members concurred that this facility was tentatively considered to be " average-candidate for good."
d.
Pilgrim 1.
Regional actions approved.
All Review Group members concurred that this facility was tentatively considered to be
" poor."
(Pilgrim 2 will not be evaluated as they do not hold a construction permit).
e.
Rancho Seco.
Regional actions approved.
All Review Group nembers concurred that this facility was tentatively considered to be
" average-candidate for poor."
f.
Hope Creek 1, 2.
REgfonal actions approved.
All Review Group members concurred that this facility was tentatively considered to be " average."
g:
Seabrook 1, 2.
Regional actions approved.
All Review Group members concurred that this facility was tentatively considered to be " average."
h.
Seouoyah 1.
Regional actions approved.
All Review Group members concurred that this facility was tentatively considered to be " average."
i.
Sequoyah 2.
Regional actions approved.
All Review Group members concurred that this facility was tentatively considered to be " average."
j.
Browns Ferry 1, 2, 3.
Regional actions approved.
All Review Group members concurred that this facility was tentatively considered to be
" average-candidate for poor."
k.
Yellow Creek 1, 2.
Regional actions approved.
All Review Group members concurred that this facility was tentatively considered to be " average."
1.
Watts Bar 1, 2.
Regional actions approved.
All Review Group members concurred that this facility was tentatively considered to be " average-candidate for poor."
m.
Phipps Bend 1, 2.
Regional actions approved.
All Review Group members concurred that this facility was tentatively considered to be " average."
n.
Hartsville 1, 2, 3, 4.
Regional actions approved.
All Review Group members concurred that this facility was tentatively considered to be " average."
o.
Bellefonte 1, 2.
Regional actions approved.
Eisenhut, Moseley and Heltemes;
.V concurred that this facility was tentatively considered to be " average."
Sniezek considers this facility to tentatively be " average-candidate for poo r. "
l3