ML20114G026
Text
_
.ZT.. _ _,
JUL b boj
' C'W Anl:te: FOR:
it o 'as.:.novak, Assi st ant st rector f or L iu.... i..
Ol vi s t s.: of Licensin, FRutt:
- d. 'dayne Pouston, As st stant. e rector f or.<*4ct er
,u t, t,
Division of Systen Integration SURJL(T 9ATtRFtlRD j. NLVilk STATits of t.FE.
ITL et 1;! :.'
TO Tile Ent %titCY F LCMATE R C's.'tfe%L mit -
Pl ant leas e s ifaterford 3 Docket !!o.:
$0 3H2 Licensin.) Status: OL desponsible t! ranch:
Le' /3 Project hanager:
J. tillson
~
heview $ ranch:
ICSs Nevluw Status:
Incomplete for L*.er,encj Ferdwater f.ontrol afst i This memorandum provides the status of ICS6's review of t..e..aterford.! o,vi itesi pertaintnj to tree ener9ency feedwater (LF.) control syste..
Tn h !ast."
is plant spectftc and has not been previouslj reviewad by too st.fr.
I".
i:
6 lanned to complete its revie>< of this issue within tne Febru,ery.' arch 1*
1 ti'iefrane. A 'neeting was helJ with the applicant on February lo, l'er 3, r -)
i.-
Cuss tne LF.d t;ontrol system destyn end as a result of tita na t'n;.euciti
.l infurnetton was reilliested f run the applicant.
Tite additional infornitie...
to be sutrit tted to the staf f within approulnately 1 week but nos not rei.ri.. t until apprustutely 21/2 -ionttis (May l'>d3) af ter tne Fenruary. " tie :.
By the time tite staf f received the additinnal intornetton, otner wrnl*l r -
quiressents tout priority over the '.daterforo 3 IFL control sjstia, I, s i :,i r : < '
Presently, the Waterford 3 reviewer is assigned to tne 4N '.'.
e"..e l,s...'s t t ruview wnicn has a higher priority than Waterf ort! 3.
It is antistattr t et IC58 will continue its review of tne Waterford 3 open iten in si eir.r 1 t
s R. wayne Ituuston, As 313;.or't at t. ct ir 9
0152 030725 for reeactor 5afety C
A OCM OS0003e2 Ulvision of Systens nietsret tori CF J cc: A.tiettson DISTRIBUTION:
H. Capra Doctet tile J. wilson ICSB R/F R. Stevens (PF)
C. Rossi
Contact:
A0/".3 Rdg.
el. Stevens, IC$n F. Rosa Fo/A t4-l'l3 gegen e r
.p.
vp e
oa
'* 7 /.'tff /83
/ /.25/83
? /. 3 /83 7 / z3 /a3
c3 4 1963
- 4. -
NOTE 70: Those on Attached List FR(M:
James H. Wilson Pmject Manager Licensing trench he. 3 Divisten of Licensing smJECT: letR CONTRIBUTION TO SALP REPORT FOR WATERFORD 3 As you kasu. lutR generates the Itcensing perfomenci. eva uation for the
~
Region's5ALPreport(SystematicAssessmentofLicenseePerformance)once a year for each lieeases. The Waterford 3-5 ALP Board meeting will be held Aspest 30. Ig83, and will cover the time period from July 1. 1982 through
- y 30. Igt3. To provide a bests for the futR contribution please provide not 1 ster than August 17. Ig83 a brief assessment of the Loutstana Power and Light perfomance during the above period, as it relates to licensing actions you have porticipated in. The following is a Itst of the areas that I believe should be severed in this year's SA'.P report.
If you believe any others should be included, please let me know.
Table 1 Pmposed Licensing Actions for SALP Findings M
Review Branch Reviewer (s)
- 1) Trefning LQB L. Sender
- 2) Fire Protection CHES
- 0. Kubicki
- 3) Procedures PSR8 M. Goodman
- 4) On-Site Energency Plans EPLB D. Perrotti
- 5) Equipment Qualification EQ8 H. Garg C) seismic Qualification EQB J. Jackson
- 7) Management LQB R. Benedict Core Perfomance CPB T. Huang.
H. Salukjian. A
/
g qp G. Hs11 g
q p2 1
7Q
'd D F 0/ A - 9'l-l'f3 o
/
I...
~..
tem) l en) 7.,........
l p
=>2efa.mw a n r r it ! A l_53 r r'rt E3 h # A tw
~
T3 Those on Attached List Our SALP report includes an evaluation matrix where we rate the license, i e.
Nrformance Category 1, 2 or 3 for each licensinn itea in the above Tat le for nach of seven evaluation crt teria.
To assist you in ratinq the Licens",
I am providing a sample e aluation matrix and several naqes frcri the !'PC Nnual which define the cateoories and the evaluation criteria.
In m st cases some of the categories will be N/A.
In your responses to this request, plew.i fill out the attached natrix for your area and provide a few wonis givino the basis for your ratinq h each evaluation criteria, particularly if you rate the Licensee as a 3 (needs"~
improvement),
Orl;last signed I, J. It Wilson.. j:,
James H. Wilson, Project Mananer Licensing Branch Nn 3 Division of Licensino Enclosurv:
As stated Distribution:
Document Control PRC System LBe3 Reading File GWKnlghton JHWiison JLec LLaio l
l l
l A,
.Pf 3 f/ OL:tWg Ut OL.p:Y
., e.<.,
G.t.L A.e............
,~ e nev.am.......
9 9. U.m.......
H/ ).../. 83 8/..../83 8/...s.. /.83 on.,
.-.....A..
sowmemsw uem OFFICIAL. HECORD COPY
O.
Addressees.
L. Bender D. Kuhtekt M. Goodman D. Perretti
- 61. Garg J. Jackson R. Senedtet T. Huang H. Salukjian G. Hsit J. Personsky L. Crocker H. Bocher R. Gerguson V. Seneroya J. Cliffont H. Clayton R. Van Niel F. Pagano R. Lagrange G. Bagchi V. Noonan L. Phillips C. Berlinger l
onn e p Sunasang )
04 tt )
- a
_...4 wc eve.u sis oa ns.
, u w.,
OFFICIAL HCCORD COPY
0516-04 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND FUNCTIONAL AREAS 041 Evaluation. Licensees will be evaluated in the functional areas h ted in this section us'Eig the criteria provided herein an.d further amphried in the Appendix to this Chapter.
Zach fun'etional, area evaluated will be a. signed a Category as defined in Section 042.
Not all functional areas need be covered in a given review.
!' a functional area appropriate to a licensee is not covered, the reasons should ~be given in th'e report.
The Apptndix to this Ch.pter lists a number of attributes for each evaluition criterion.
The func-tional area being evaluated may have some attributes that would place the evaluation in Category 1 and others that would place it in either Category 2 or 3.
The final rating for each functional area will be a composite of the ct tributes tempered with judgment as to significance of individual items.
Departures from this guidance may sometimes be warranted, In such eases, the rationale for such departures should be explained in the report.
042 Performance Categories.
a.
Category 1.
Reduced NRC attention may be appropriate.
Licensee management attention and involvement are aggressive and orwnted toward nuclear safety; licensee resources are ample and effectively used such that a high level of performance with respect to opera-tional safety or c.onstruction is being achieved.
h.
Category 2.
NRC attention should be maintained at normal levels.
Ucensee management attention and involvement are evid.nt and are concerned with nuclear safety; licensee resources are adequate and reasonably effective such that satisfactory perfonnance wth are respect to operational safety or construction is being achieved.
c.
Category 3.
Doth NRC and licensee attention should be increased.
Gee'nsee management attention or involvement ;- acceptable and considers nuclear safety, but weaknesses are es.' den t ; licens'ee resources appear to be strained or not effectlyely used such that minimally satisfactory performance with respect to operational safety or construction is being achieved.
I i
i L
h 1:
l i
PART 11 i
EVAIXATION CRITERI A i
The assessment of beensee perfonnance is mplem, n ted through i :. e-seven evaluation criteria The criteria which provide standard g ai. tan e appbed to each functional area for the categorization of heensee perfas,m o
1 To provide a consistent evaluation of beensee performance, severa' atm a -
asi,ociated with each critermn are hsted to describe the ch.,ract.r. urs cable to the three categories.
The seven criteria discussed m Chapter NBC-0516-04 are hsted m 7.d ;- :
with their associated attributes.
These form the guidance which.. v
'anderstandmg and evaluating beensee performance by identtfymg the ca.
j and factors appropriate for categorization. It is not mtended that ( r.nu. 3-m tion of these attributes influence estabbshed programs of the agency F r l
example, it is not intended that specific mspections be performed to eval:,te attributes,
it is expected that Jurmg the implementation cf estabbed programs many of the attributes which describe performance wiu be obr e : -
Cognirance. of these attributes should assist the staff m their oLservan -
beensee performance daring rontme activities.
AU of the attributes of the evaluation criteria are not necessardy appbcaue in some instances, the observed performance withm a functonal area may be msufficient to aUow consideration in the eraluation. Conversely, additional attributes may be appropriate for the evaluation. Matters such as Quantv Assurance, Design Control. Training and the like, are attributes of "ach functional area and should be considered in the evaluation of the functienal areas. On the other hand,'if there is a problem with one of these attribut"$
that is observed in several functional arcar, it may be destrable to highhght j
that attribute m a separate discussion; e.g, Quabty Assurance may be a 1
't problem in Operations, 'tadiological Control and Su rvetuan ce. It would t,e 4
appropriate to discuss Quality Assurance as if it were a functional area, addition to covering the specific QA problem in each functional area j
in C
l The bsted attributes are mtended only as guidance m the as m "nt performance m the functional areas and thus, are mdicators of the ha nv e L
performance l
It is emphawzed that au avadable mformation should be analyzed by the 9
Board, and its significance, whether it be positive or negative, s h o u l.*
h SMP weighed if mformation is scarce or nonexistent, a decision a*
to perform.m; r as it relates to an attribute i.hould not be forced b
I 3
- ,p,.i,
~
1
?
=
t C
TABLE I O
m
+
EVAI.IIATION CRITERI A WITil ATTRIBUTES FOR ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PE v.
1 MANAGEMENT INVOINEMENT AND CONTROL IN ASSURING QllALITY m
m
{
Eategory_I Category 2 x
M CategorL3 I
y
}
ronsistent evedence of prior plan-evidence of prior planning little evulence of prior planning Zx ning anel assignment of priorities; and assignment of priorities; and assignment of priorities.
- I well stated, controlled and explicit stated, defined procedures prorethircs for control of activities for control of activities poorly stated or all understood o
procr91urcs for control of activitics M
- w. li.tatcil, disseminated and under-adeqdately, stated anel under-
'poorly stated, poos iv understood standahic policies' stood policies
,or non-cxistent polu ics Iccision making consistently at a decision making usually at a decision making seldom at a level Icvel that ensures adequate level that. ensures adequate that ensures adequate management e'
management review management review review corporate management frequently corporate management usually invoteed in site activitics
{
~
involved in riite activitics
~
corporate management seldom involved in site activitics audits complete, timely and fliorough audits generallyicomplete, and thorough
' audits frequently not timely, mcos.,ilete or not thorough t
5 commit *r es properly staffed and
}
?
functioning in almost all cases committees usually properly committees not properly staffed i
staffed and functioning or functioning l
i cvi:ws time:ly, Ihnrough anil reviews general.y timely, reviews not timely, thorough or 8
z j
', chnically soonel thorough and technically sounit technically sound rds complete, well maintained aviable a ccords generally complete, well records not complete, not w ell maintained and available maintaineil or unavadabie anel policies st artly procedurcs and policies rarely procedures and pohcic.
e 4r..
i
'o violated o r r.i -
sinnally viola t ed
! [
_ _ 2 C ~_ alAm h *'"
y corrective action systems promptly corrective' action systems rorrective action synte s rarvly
~
y and consistently recognize and generally recognize and recognize and adriress non-r) arldress non-reportable concerns address non-reportable concerns reportable concerns o
4 y
o procurement well controlled and procurement generally well repetitive breakdown in procure-3 3
documente 1 controlled and documented ment control 5;
P g.
design well controlled anel verified rare breakdowns of minor repetitive breakdown in designs a
U significance in design. control control or verification S"
or verification G
l5 2.
APPROACII TO RESOI.UTION OF TECIINICAL ISSUES FitOM A SAFETY STANDPOINT Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 clear understanding of issues understanding of issues unclerstantling of issues i
elemon s t raterl generally apparent frequently lacking conservatism ' routinely exhibited conservatism generally exhihited
- meets minimum requirements when potential for safety significance exists technically sound and thorough viable and generally sound and often viable approaches, but approaches in almost all cases thorough approaches lacking in thoroughness or depth timely resolutions in almos! all generally timelz resolutions,-
resolutions of ten delayed g
t-l cases r,i
- d
$". a 1
2 It1 2
e
- C ij 1
'4 55
' -(
'i
'S -
___m________
I l
l
.1.
ItESPONSIVENESS TO NitC INITIATIVES y,'
.n.
Category 1 Category 2 Category _3 lm-) ;.
m:
meets deadlines generally timely responses frequently requires extensions m-of time
-=
mt timely resolution of issues few longstanding regulatory longstanding regulatory issues
.m.
- e.
o issues attributable to licensee attributable to licensee
.n j 2: i technically socnd and thorough viable and generally sound and often viable responses, but
>.~
l6,,
lacking in liioroughness or responses in almost all cases thorough responses,
depth m}
l acceptahic resolutions proposed acceptable resolutions generally
, con,siderable NRC effort or 5
initially in most cases propdsed repeated submittals needed to obtain acreptable resolutions
~
ENFORCEMENT lilSTORY Categoryj Category 2 Category 3 i
major violations are rare anil are maior violations are rare and.may multiple major violations or not indicative of programmatic indicate minor programmatic programmatic breakdown breakdown breakdown indicated l
m f
r minor violations are not repetitive multiple minor violations or shinor violations arc repetitive 3
., n ti not indicative of programmatic minor programmatic breakdown" and' indicative of programmatic 7
lirca kdown indicated lircakelown i
i
.:!q
< oriertive action is prompt and corrective action is timely corrective act ion elciayr.1 f rcctiv and effective in most cases or not effective e7 y.
l.',
k 1
'[
o.
.h t t--
=-u-------
?
p
=
4 5.
RErollTINi i N AI,YSIS OF REPORTADI.E EVENTS "5
\\
5 l
Ea'cG'iryJ Qilegg q _2 '
Category 3 I
ri l
cvents promptly and completely events are reported in a timely event reporting is frequently late I
i 3
reported manner, some information may or incomplete l
4 be lacking p;
, c; l e events are properly identified events are accurately identified, events are poorly identified or
?
'O and analyzed some analyses are maiginal analyses are marginal, events are associated with programmatic y
weaknesses I
w corrective action is effective corrective action is usually corrective action is not timely l
as indicated by lack of repetition taken but may not be effective nor effective, events are as indicated by occasional repetitive
{
repetition m
ti.
STAFFING (INCI UDING MANAGEMENT)
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 posi: ions are identified, authorities key positions are identified, positions are poorly identified, and responsibilitics are well defined and authorities and responsi-or authorities and responsibil-bilities *are defined itics are ill-defined i
f vacant key positions are filled key positions usually filled key positions are left vacant r'i on priority basis in a reasonablet time for' extended periods of time tv Ii staffing is ample as indicated by staffing is adequate, staffing is weak or minimal as y
cont rol over backlog an:I overtime occasional difficultics with indicateil by excessive backlog L, a backlog or overtime and overtime h
m Y
9 L
7 T._it__A_!NING AND Qtf AI,IFICATION EFFECTIVENESS E
l r
Cat 3 gory 1 Category 2 Category 3 Evn training and qualification program training and qualification training and qualification n
makes a positive contribution, program contributes to an program is found to be the t
l commensurate with procedures adequate understanding of major contribtiting factor to and staffing, to understanding work and fair adherence poor understanding of work, of work and adherence to procedures to procedures with a modest as indicated by numerous proce-k with few personnel errors number of personnel errors dure violations or personnel 3
3' errors 4
c.
training program is well. defined a defined program is program may be either lacking, and implemented with dedicated implemented for a la'rge portion poorly defined, or ineffectively resources and a means for feed of the staff applied for a significant segment back experience; program is applied of the staff to nearly all, staff t
I j
I i
h,
^n a
=
t.. c,/,i
[
a, i
- p.. t -
y J
f.
J l
l i
s /
_ v A.st
m l
.-:x: ' ?-o 9y9, p i
l i,
e-o
=
1 i
i 3
l t
6 I,
i F-l a
l._ _.
}
l wa CD M
=C F-F-Z t
et w O>
e Q. w I
I w
I
{
l i
i i
Ew >-
I XM wO U >-
f xM Ow kZ Z
W w
ZW 9
~~
1 g
i F-W 6
e-o l
N w
U m
Z t.A
=
Om O
Q. w w
mZ l-w
- C K
K D
M
-.J O
M
=C
>= Z l
>=
Q l
of w
Z e-o I
f.
.U b-to l
.E*
O.J f
a xQ
\\.
~
O. m
.l Q. w
=C
. : cc I
o i
.J
>=
<C
> - =
0 Zw W
w 2C
- E w l
w>
LS. J O>
Z m
W 3w ee>w E
EwW w
l N
I 2O w
b U
l
=G (S
Z I
w m
I W
U e-o eI 1
i 1
_ _ _ _ _