ML20148C626
| ML20148C626 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 06/28/1996 |
| From: | Merschoff E NRC |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148C622 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9705270136 | |
| Download: ML20148C626 (4) | |
Text
.
y.
}
pa"'%3 UNITED STATES l
g l
g j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINoToN. D.C. 20665 @ 01 l
o
%,*****,o#
June 28, 1996 1
i
/
i NOTE FOR:
ISAT Functional Area Leader FROM:
Ellis Merschoff
SUBJECT:
ISAT GUIDANCE I
In order to assist you in the development of your Functional Area Assessment plans, I have enclosed several pages from Management Directive v.6, l
" Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance."
It is important that your plans assure that performance will be assessed across the full spectrum of activities associated with each of the functional areas.
For that reason, the activities listed in the attached SALP areas should serve as a guide for your development of the areas for which Safety Assessment Observations would be appropriate. Additionally, during the assessment we will use the NRC's existing benchmarks for Excellent, Good, and Weak performance, as defined in the enclosure.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.
l l
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
E. Jordan, AE00 U. Vanags, ISAT l
l 9705270136 970516 PDR ADOCK 05000309 H
i k
ENCLOSURE
.Valume 8, Licensee Ov:rsight Programs Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)
Handbook 8.6 Part H l
Functional Areas (c)
Functional areas' represent a grouping of similar licensee activities, t
I Operating Phase Reactors (1) l The functional areas for operating reactors are-Plant Operations (a)
This functional area consists chiefly of the control and execution of c
on activines directly related to operating a plant. It includes activities W<
jo such as plant startup. oower operation, plant shutdown, and system 3 +3 uneups. Thus, it includes activities such as monitonng and logging i
h M' l
plant conditions, normal operations, response to transient and A 55'" g,4 go.t>on-normal conditions, adecuacy and implementation of emergency l
g *
- g eM l
operanng procedures and abnormal operaung proceaures, manipaianng tne reactor and auxiliary controls, anc control room __
d M
g tz#
protessionalism. It also includes initial and requalification training of
& gg licensea operators.
g,sT>
1 p ",# (
Maintenance (b) 4c l
d Af This functional area includes all activities associated with either
[ ge diagnostic, predictive, arever^ '
rective maintenance of plant l
structures, systems, and components, or maintenance of the physical l
conoinon ottheJ ain, ana training of the maintenance staff. It also '
l incluces conduct of all surveillance testing activities. all inservice -
inspection and testino. instrument calibrations. equipment operability tests, post-maintenance testing, post-outage testing, containment leak rate tests, and special tests.
Engineering (c)
This functional area addresses the adequacy of technical and engineering support for all plant activities. It includes all licensee activities associated with design control; the design, installation, and Yesung ot plant mootticanons; engineerma and technical support for_
operanons, outages, maintenance, testing, surveillance, and_
procurement activities; configuration management; design-basis information and its retrieval: trainine of the engineering staff; and support for licensing activities.
I Approved: July 14,1993 4
Emaefcd JkamrafMR3n
3 I
l Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)
Handbook 8.6 Part II 1
Functional Areas (C)(continued) l l
l Operating Phase Reactors (1) (continued)
Plant Support (d) l This functional area covers all activities related to plant support Ug functions, including radiological controls, emergency preparedness,
(
security, chemistry, and fire protection. It includes all activities i
l associated with occupati5nal radiation safety, radioac:ive waste l
management, radiological effluent control and monitoring.
transportation of radioactive materials, licensee performance during i
emergency preparedness exercises and actual events that test emergency plans, emergency plan notifications, interactions with onsite and offsite emergency response organizations during exercises and actual events, and safeguards measures that protect plant l
equipment, including physical security, fitness for duty, access l
authorization, and control of special nuclear material. Housekeeping l
controls and training of the staff are included in this area.
Other Functional Areas (as appropriate)(e)
For example, when plants are in emended shutdowns, it may be more appropriate to address shutdown operations in lieu of plant operations. For readiness assessments, SALP Boards may need to consider activities that take place over a shorter interval, such as startup testing.
i l
Construction Phase Reactors (2)
To be provided at a later date.
Performance Category Ratings (o) i j
Ucensee performance in each functional area is assessed by assigning a category rating as discussed below. Ucensees assigned a Category 1 rating in a functional area have clearly demonstrated superior safety performance, which iustifies some relaxation in NRC oversight, whereas licensees assigned a Category 3 rating in a functional area have demonstrated acceptable safety performance but are of concern to NRC. The NRC will consider additional interaction with and oversight of the licensee in the affected area. (1) l Approved: July 14,1903
.3
. Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs
' Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)
Handbook 8.6 Part II i
l Performance Category Ratings (o)(continued)
The final rating for each functional area will be a composite rating of the performance based on a knowledgeable balancing of the issues in a j
functional area and their safety significance. Statistical or numerical l
balancing of data is inappropriate. (2)
The three category ratings are as follows: (3) l I.
Category 1. Ucensee attention and involvement have been
/(@
properly focused on safety and resulted in a superior level of safety e
g _,
performance. Ucensee programs and procedures have provided effective controls. The licensee's self-assessment efforts have been
[l.C C #.t.
effective in the identification of emergent issues. Corrective g
actions are technically sound, comprehensive, and thorough.
l Recurring problems are eliminated and resolution of issues is l
timely. Root cause analyses are thorough. (a)
I Category 2. Licensee attention and involvement are norma!!y well l
focused and resulted in a good level of safety performance.
/l M g Licensee programs and procedures normally provide the necessary control of activities, but deficiencies may exist. The licensee's i
l l
self-assessments are normally good, although issues may escape Q oD p
identi5 cation. Corrective actions are usually effective, although some may not be complete. Root cause analyses are normally l
thorough. (b)
Category 3. Ucensee attention and involvement have resulted in an acceptable level of safety performance. However, licensee performance may exhibit one or more of the following
\\5 g,
characteristics. Ucensee programs and procedures have not provided sufficient control of activities in important areas. The licensee's self-assessment efforts may not occv until after a potential problem becomes apparent. A clear understanding of the Q 6 p4.
safety implications of significant issues may not have been demonstrated. Numerous minor issues combine to indicate that the licensee's corrective action is not thorough. Root cause analyses do not probe deep enough, resulting in the incomplete resolution of issves. Because the margin to unacceptable performance in iraportant aspects is small, increased NRC and licensee attention is required. (c) l l
Approved: July 14,1993 1
a mans w_ oq mcn
- 8 Jcha~u, Ob 4((o D'
UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
t WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055HN)01
\\..6 p'#
June 18, 1996 1
Mr. Peter J. Wiley j
Special Projects Director Office of the Governor One State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333-0001 i
Dear Mr. Wiley:
j t
We are pleased to have you participate in the NRC's Independent Safety Assessment of the Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Plant.
Your expertise and insights will be greatly appreciated during this comprehensive evaluation. As a representative of the State of Maine, you will fully participate as a member of the Independent Safety Assessment Team and contribute to the overall outcome of their efforts, including the final written report.
You will report directly to Ellis W. Merschoff, the Team Leader, who may assign you to a functional area team leader consistent with your expertise.
Because of the sensitive nature of this effort, certain protocols were agreed to during our previous discussions and are in accordance with NRC Policy and NRC Management Directive 5.2, " Memoranda of Understanding With States." These protocols are outlined in the enclosed Memorandum of Understanding.
Please sign and return this Memorandum of Understanding as soon as possible.
Thank you for your cooperation.
If you have any questions, please contact Ellis Merschoff at (301) 415-6954.
Sincerely,
\\,r',
V Edward L. Jordan, Director Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data Docket No. 50-309
Enclosure:
Memorandum of Understanding cc:
D. J. Chawaga, RI J. M. Taylor, EDO f j,pl } ~h h3 D.
n p
.q c-s, P. J. Wiley 2
Distribution:
l J. Milhoan Public l
W. Russell PDI-3 Plant l
D. Morrison SVargauto T. Martin JZwolinski S. Ebneter PMKee H. Miller EPeyton L. Callan ETrottier D. Rathbun ACRS W. Beecher JRogge, RI l
K. Cyr Docket File 50-309 l
J. Lieberman AE0D R/F G. Caputo Cetral File W. Olmstead VMcCree D. Ross l
l l
DOCUMENT NAME:A:\\MYASTATE.M0 To reestve e sepy of thisjusaquent, ladiset in the hc *C" = Copy enhout escissures T = Qd)y eth encloswes T - No copy 0FFICE AFAffg /
OGC/ till j OSP f / '//
_L NAME Spt#sptfoff:obw KC)lr*
RBang( K
- DATE (diffg/96 06/!'l/96 06//?/96 06/_/96 06/
/96 5
~
.y
+-
i l
June'18, 1996 Mr. Peter J. Wiley Special Projects Director
)
Office of the Governor l
One State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333-0001
Dear Mr. Wiley:
We'are pleased to have you participate in the NRC's Independent Safety Assessment of the Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Plant.
Your expertise and insights will be greatly appreciated during this comprehensive evaluation.
As a representative of the State of Maine, you will fully participate as a member of the Independent Safety Assessment Team and contribute to the overall outcome of their efforts, including the final written report.
You will report directly to Ellis W. Herschoff, the Team Leader, who may assign you to a fun:tional area team leader consistent with your expertise.
Because of the sensitive nature of this effort, certain protocols were agreed tc. during our previous discussions and are in accordance with NRC Policy and N'!C Management Directive 5.2, " Memoranda of Understanding With States." These protocols are outlined in the enclosed Memorandum of Understanding.
Please sign and return this Memorandum of Understanding as soon as possible. Thank you for your cooperation.
If you have any questions, please contact Ellis'Merschoff at (301) 415-6954.
Sincerely, Original Signed by:
Denwood F. Ross Edward L. Jordan, Director Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data Docket No. 50-309
Enclosure:
Memorandum of Understanding cc:
D. J. Chawaga, RI J. M. Taylor, EDO I
l N
) (W UWJf
weop-MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING As part of my participation in the NRC's independent safety assessment (ISA) of the Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, I, agree to the following protocols:
I will make advance arrangements with the licensee for site access training and badging (subject to fitness-for-duty requirements), prior to the actual on-site period.
My communication with the licensee will be through the appropriate NRC
=
team member, usually the functional area team leader or the ISA team leader.
When informed of an unannounced assessment activity, I will not release information concerning its time and purpose.
I will remain in the company of NRC personnel throughout the course of the assessment.
q l
I understand that my participation may be. terminated by the NRC if my conduct interferes with a fair and orderly inspection.
I will not be provided with proprietary or safeguards information.
I will not remove any material from the site without NRC or licensee approval.
I understand that, in accompanying NRC personnel, I do so at my own risk.
NRC will not be responsible for injuries or exposures to harmful substances which may occur during the assessment and will assume no liability for any incidents associated with my accompaniment.
i I agree to adhere to the same standards of conduct as NRC personnel during this assessment.
If I become aware of any apparent non-conformance with safety or regulatory requirements during the assessment, I will make those i
observations 'promptly known to the ISA team leader or functional area team leader.
Likewise, when my overall conclusions or views are H
substantially different from those of NRC team members, I will advise the ISA team leader and forward those views, in writing, to the Mr. E.L.
Jordan. This will allow NRC to take any necessary regulatory actions.
Under no circumstances will state communications regarding the results of these inspections be released to the public or the licensee before l
they are reviewed by the NRC and the inspection report is issued.
State communications may be made publicly available, similar to NRC inspection reports, after they have been transmitted to and reviewed by NRC.
l Name:
Peter J. Wiley
. Signature:
Date:
Q
$[j i
-l k
--__-,.-__..m-z-...
. -,.