ML20091F425
Text
- -.
f, n:, s e u.
.m e'-
f-L. ; LEAR FEGUulOW COf.'. MISSION E.Ih ~ h REGIO!? It!
- f[g j
799 ROOSEVELT ROAD j
GLEN ELLYN,ILLINolS 60137 s,
July 12, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR: Those on Attached List FROM:
T. N. Tambling, Chief, Operational Support Section
SUBJECT:
SALP III INPUTS Input for Monticello, Prairie Island, LACBWR, Palisades, Big Rock Point, and Midland Nuclear Plants for the SALP III evalua. tion _p_e_riod,.Jtdy_l,_.1981, to June _30. 1982, will be due July _30.
Provide input in all areas you or your group has inspected. As in SALP II, Resident Inspectors at operating plants provide the largest single input and generally provided the primary inputs to Plant Operations, Maintenance, Surveillance and Inservice Testing, Housekeeping, Refueling and the Supporting Data Sections. This should continue. Where several inputs are provided, they will be blended by the report preparer to develop a single evaluation. Functional area evaluations using inspection reports shculd include consideration of the associated " Inspector Evaluation" forms filled out per Region III Procedure 1206. Othtr information should be used as appropriate in evaluating the licensees, as done in SALP II, such as ma erial from PAS or INPO inspection reports, informal observation, investigations, etc.
For SALP III inputs, inspection report numbers applicable to a functional area evaluation should be identified and each non-compliance addressed should be related to its associated inspection report by nimber.
Licensee Event Reporte (LERs) used to support an evaluation should be identified by LER number. This information will help the preparer of the inteFrated report.
Refueling has been a difficult area to evaluate for operating sites because it was not clear what to include. For consistency during SALP III, include actual maintenance and modification work in t'ae " Maintenance" evaluation.
Include the planning, scheduling, and handling of these activities as part of " Refueling" and include all other activies from cooldown to startup physics testing as " Refueling". Any performance area within " Refueling" notably different from the overall categorization of this area can be addressed in the analysis part of the write-up.
By nature of our looking for problems, our evaluations have frequently overlooked licensee strengths. An improved effort is needed to identify the licensees' strengths in the reports. Characterize both streng:,hs and weaknesses, particularly non-compliances, using the criteria and guidance provided in NRC Manual Chqpter 0516 to support whatever performance category is chosen.
e 163 840517 a%=g4*
Poa
SALP III INPUTS 2
July 12, 1982 Remember that this is a performance evaluation for a year, not the last months of the period. Changes in performance over the period should be averaged. Note in the " Analysis" either particularly improved or degraded performance trends observed either during the period or since the previous one. Additional guidance is provided in the Attachment.
Please be prompt with your input; send it to Tom Tambling, Chief, Operational Support Section, for distribution to the report preparers. Be ready to support the preparer in blending your input into the report format and to provide support during both the Board and licensee meetings.
T. N. Tambling, Chief Operational Support Section
Attachment:
Input Guidance n
o w
Attachment Input Guidance I.
Indicate the basis for the evaluation:
A.
Number of inspections.
B.
Depth of inspections.
C.
What was inspected.
D.
Other observations, LER reviews, etc.
E.
Enforcement history.
II.
Indicate findings:
A.
Non-compliances.
B.
Strengths and weaknesses, t
C.
Pertinent LERs.
D.
Enforcement actions, citations, etc.
III. Indicate what the findings show or reflect in terms of licensee performance A.
Put finding in perspective such as:
1.
Major problem, continuing for long term.
l 2.
Minor problem, isolated case.
l 3.
Major or minor safety significance, etc.
l B.
Indicate trends if they are evident.
IV.
Indicate actions taken and general licensee responsiveness to correct identified problems.
(The resident inspectors can be particularly helpful in this area, particularly when problems are identified early in the inspection period and not subsequently addressed by formal inspection. The licensee responsiveness can have considerable in-pact on the performance category assigned.)
6 l
~
l l
E
-i 6
i
'I
Addressees - Memorandum dated 7/12/82 i
Keppler Davis Hind Spessard Norelius Brown i
Feierabend Branch Jorgensen Wright Cook Streeter Knop Jackiw Shafer Creed Greger Axelson Schumacher Little Paperiello Warnick Reyes Boyd H. Nicolartra NRR Project Manager D. Diianni, NRR Project Manager R. Dudley, NRR Project Manager T. Wambach, NRR Project Manager R. Each, NRR Project Manager D. Hood, NRR Project Manager I
9 I
l i
l' t
6 I.
t q' I I