IR 05000483/1985001
| ML20198B507 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 10/22/1985 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198B505 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-483-85-01, 50-483-85-1, NUDOCS 8511060508 | |
| Download: ML20198B507 (5) | |
Text
. -.
= _.
..
. -. -. - =.
... - _ - - - -... =
. -..
-,-._-.. - -. - -.
-
l
i
.,.
,
.
.
I
!
{
APPENDIX SALP 5 i
l
SALP BOARD REPORT
!
!
j i
!
i-i U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
!
i i
REGION III
i i
i
!
!
i
!
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE I
a i
i
'
)
50-483/85001 j
Inspection Report No.
i Union Electric Company
!
Name of Licensee i
l Callaway Nuclear Plant i
j Name of Facility
,
!
,
December 1,1984 - May 31,1985
{
Assessment Period l
l I
$
i j
i
'
,'
!
l i
i i
f
..
.
-.
..
.
..
.
.
..
..
.
.
-.
-
_.
_-
-
-
..
,
Callaway
,
i Facility l
A.
Summary of Meeti ; with Union Electric Company on August 28, 1985
The findings and conclusions of the SALP Board documented in Inspection i
i Report No. 50-483/85001 were discussed with the licensee on August 28, j
I 1985, at the Airport Marriott Hotel in St. Louis, Missouri.
The i
licensee's regulatory performance was presented and found to be
'
acceptable in each functional area.
The following licensee and NRC personnel attended the meeting.
Union Electric Company R. L. Powers, Assistant Manager, Quality Assurance W. E. Cornelius, President and Chief Executive Officer D. C. Poole, Assistant Manager Operations and Maintenance S. E. Miltenberger, Plant Manager
,
~
D. F. Schnell, Vice President, Nuclear
R. J. Schukai, General Manager Engineering F. D. Field, Manager, Quality Assurance l
D. W. Capone, Manager, Nuclear Engineering
,
G. L. Randolph, Assistant Manager, Technical Support A. C. Passwater, Licensing Superintendent J. F. McLaughlin, Assistant to the Vice President, Nuclear U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
l A. B. Davis, Deputy Regional Administrator
N. J. Chrissotimos, Chief, Reactor Projects Branch 2, Division of Reactor
!
Projects
'
J. F. Suermann, Acting Section Chief, Projects Section 2A
'
i T. W. Alexion, Callaway Project Manager Division of Licensing, NRR R. Marabito, Public Affairs Officer B.
Comments Received from Licensee By letter dated September 11, 1985, the licensee provided written comments on the SALP Report in which they expressed concern on NRC word usage in describing a T/S change request submitted by them.
The NRC acknowledges
,
'
this concern and has modified the report as described in the attached errata sheet.
-
,
- -. _ --
,
,
. _ _ - -, _ _ _-
._,.,--._.-_.-_---,_,c
.-.
..._.-__,---__-.n.
,, -. -
- - - - - -.... -
. - _ _ _
- _-
.
.
. -.
-. -
_ _.
-. - -
--
. __
-
',
.
ERRATA SHEET
t
!
Facility: Callaway
,
.
SALP Report No.: 50-483/85001 Page Line Now Reads Should Read
Paragraph 2 In one instance, the In one instance, regarding j
staff cited poor a technical specification
performance because a change request for submittal requesting additional batch waste a technical release tanks, the staff
~/
specification change cited poor performance was misleading.
because the original submittal did not fully address all areas of j
concern.
i Basis for Change:
To clarify the NRC's wording in the paragraph to relay the message that the
,
'
NRC staff did not find the subject submittal intentionally misleading but
'
incomplete as originally prepared for NRC consideration.
,
k i
i
!
!.
l
!
<
a
--
'.
..
licensing activities assured timely response to the require-ments of the Commission's rules related to Fire Protection and Environmental Qualification of Electrical Equipment.
The implementation schedules for compliance with these rules were being met by the licensee.
In the area of post-accident sampling, the staff found consistent evidence of prior planning and assignment of priorities.
The licensee had also provided all the necessary information to close out this item during the rating period.
In the area of instrumentation and controls, the licensee understood staff policy and made adequate decisions based on management review. An appropriate level of management was present at all review meetings held with the licensee.
In one instance, regarding a technical specification change request for additional batch waste release tanks, the staff cited poor performance because the original submittal did not fully address all areas of concern.
b.
Approach to Resolution of Technical Issues from a Safety Standpoint The licensee's management and its staff have demonstrated sound technical understanding of issues involving licensing actions.
Its approach to resolution of technical issues has demonstrated extensive technical expertise in all technical areas involving licensing actions.
The decisions related to licensing issues have routine'y exhibited con-servatism in relation to significant safety matters.
The licensee's clear understanding of the staff's concerns assured sound technical discussions regarding resolution of safety issues.
In the review of the design for automatic actuation of the shunt trip for the reactor trip breakers, the staff noted that the licensee had a clear understanding of the issue and that a technically sound approach was used to effect a timely resolution.
In the review of the licensee's emergency response capability, the staff also noted that the licensee had technically sound justification to support all of the sub-issues for their emergency response cap-ability when there were deviations from the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.97.
With regards to heavy load handling, the information provided by the licensee was concise and technically sound and required no followup action on the staff's part for clarification or requests for additional information.
r
.
.
-
.
.
licensing activities assured timely response to the require-ments of the Commission's rules related to Fire otection and Environmental Qualification of Electrical uipment.
The implementation schedules for compliance h these rules were being met by the licensee.
In the area of post-accic'ent sampling, e staff found consistent evidence of prior planning nd assignment of priorities. The licensee had also ovided all the necessary information to close ou this item during the rating period.
In the area of i strumentation and controls, the licensee understood staf licy and made adequate decisions based on managem review. An appropriate level of management was presene all review meetings held with the licensee.
In one instance, t aff cited poor performance because a submittal reque ig a technical specification change was misicading.
b.
Approach to lution of Technical Issues from a Safety Standpoint v '
The lice ee's management and its staff have demonstrated actiod.chnicalunderstandingofissuesinvolvinglicensing sound t Its approach to resolution of technical issues has emonstrated extensive technical expertise in all t hnical areas involving licensing actions.
The decisions elated to licensing issues have routinely exhibited con-servatism in relation to significant safety matters.
The i
licensee's clear understanding of the staff's concerns assured sound technical discussions regarding resolution
of safety issues.
In the review of the design for automatic actuation of the
,
'
shunt trip for the reactor trip breakers, the staff noted that the licensee had a clear understanding of the issue
'
!
and that a technically sound approach was used to effect
'
a timely resolution.
In the review of the licensee's emergency response capability, the staff also neted that the licensee had technically sound justification to support all of the sub-Issues for their emergency response cap-
.
a'aility when there were deviations from the guidance in i
Regulatory Guide 1.97. With regards to heavy load handling, the information provided by the licensee was concise and technically sound and required no followup i
action on the staff's part for clarification or requests
'
for additional information.
l
!
I i
i