ML20083L519

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Geosciences Branch Input for Use by Facility Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance Review Board, Per 810618 Request
ML20083L519
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Satsop
Issue date: 06/23/1981
From: Rolonda Jackson
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Miraglia F
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML082840625 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-83-575 NUDOCS 8107140192
Download: ML20083L519 (3)


Text

[a,_ l j ' ',

'~'

ElrkM I.

i,,tip!,lAtts

+

i fitICI i Ali I'l CtIL A10H Y COMMISSI07

~s

.o

, t o'. D r zov '.

?

1

-(.l g

JUN J 3 1331 bocket hos.50-50S 50-509 MEMORANDUM TOR:

f. J. Hiraglia, Acting Chief Lteensing Branch No. 3 DL FROM:

R. E. Jackson, Chief Geosciences Branch, DE

SUBJECT:

GSB IflPUT TO WNP 3 AND 5 SALP REVIEW BOARD Per your request (memorandum of June 18,1981) attached is the Geostic.R.

Sranch input for use by the WNP 3 and 5 SALP Review Board. The corrnents were prepared by H. C. Lefevre, Geologist.

t WS R.

acks Chief Geosciency( ranch Division b Engineering

Attachment:

As stated cc: w/ attachment J. Knight

s. srocom L. netter M Lefevre

. Wheeler i

l

\\

XA Copy Has Been sent to pga

" $ 5

 ?

mastigj:s r.'

. w.t w

's

~

- T.,: ' to im r,*.i u *:1 H

+

)

',i; 5 F iu i t.' r y Projo::

p

'iottlity:

  • u 3w :

Appraisal Period:

Ju ly 31.1951L - Oct. 6 1930 L

1.

Performance Elements a

Quality of responses to requests f or additional inf ormat ten.

{

a.

Acceptable L

II 't'

b.. Efforts required to obtain an acceptable response or submittal including

(

(1) Barely acceptable - all infeer.ation subu tted to MC was available to WPP55 at the tice of our three requests (Jalj 3 g {.,.

i (1) TI-.eliness 1980). WPPSS responses were not provided until October A,

C

  • (2)

Effort j

'(3)

Responsiveness to staf f requests

- Average

  • (4)

Anticipates or reacts to NRC needs 1

tc -

I

. c.

Working knowledge of regulations, guides, standards and generic issues.

i^

d.

Technicil competence.

Acceptable I

p.

  • e; - Conduct of neetings with NRR.

l 2

  • f.

Long-standing open items.

~

  • g.

Deganization and management capabilities.

y>

  • h.

Results of operator licensing examinations conducted during the appraisal

=

9 s

f';

Period.-

I

[

j 1.

Performance on specific issues (as selected by the Project Manager).

E Y

2.

Observed trends in performance.

k

?

f;

.5.

Ngtable Strengths and Weaknesses

[

t

[

  • a.- Strengths

!b e b.

Weaknesses y

O 4.

Overall Susnary c

l (Shall include overall rating - above average. average, below. verage).

~

lI i *Sie has ne vases for connent on this item because of tne short term nature of

] #wr RAl's,.

p--

ira m p'.

p t

W Q i : s* f QV,* *,:[

lI.

i-

{. '

f:

facility:

WNP 3/5 Projeri Mon a r- _.i 'a"- 9 '

1 M raisal Period:

9-1-80 thru 6-3D.31 1

1.

Perfonnance Elements 1

t Quahty of responses and sut.nittals (such as W amenc ents, ic chn u :i a.

specificatien changes, generic letter responte, and re":.:n m to g

F requests fcr additioral informatinn).

s g:

Satisfactory.

No major shottromings noted.

[

b. _ Efforts required to obtain an acceptable response er sure.ittal includin;-

I Fair. Rating will became unsatisfactory if no mprovement is nade.

fL (1)' T heliness WNP 3/5 management attention should

}(

p }. Eff M f cus n impr ving these areas.

Major prob are likely to develop during the GL review N

-(3)

Responsiveness; to-staf f requests present standards of performance are no (4) AnticipatesorreactstoNRCneedN"**d' 1

?.

I c.

k'orking knowledge of regulations, guides, standards and generic issues. Sati rory

+

k d.

Technical co v tence. Satisfactory p

(

e..

Conduct of meetings ~with NRR.

Not evaluated.

I fl. LongkStanding open: items.

Not evaluated.

g.

Organization and management capabilities.

Seeiibelow.

[

h '.

Aesults of operator licensing examinations conducted during the appraisal p

period./ Net evolmated

~

q

1. - performance on* specific issues (as selected by the Project Manager).

l l

Petesstag of' correspondence (rowthg for signaturas and concurrences) is too si

. Cuele(Mays ~., Stoff properation of correspondence is satisfactory.

2.

Obsereed treads in~ perforinance.-

Est evolueted.

3.

NptaMe Strengths' and Weaknesses r

P Name observed that are considered " notable."

a.- Strengths be Meetnesses 4.

Overs 11 Summary - Tre licensee's perfonnance in tne very limited interaction with the IK has been average.

!!owever, when the level of inter 6ction increases 4 the licensee's quality of perfonnance ray change signi.

ficantly.

Areas identified during this apprassai perico as havin<

significant potential for causing problem in the future ~ are the '

a L.

~. routing'and review procedures for documents that have been EO

.. CentMii,by the staff and aGD am6h Overall rating

.