IR 05000483/1985019
| ML20137E202 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 08/16/1985 |
| From: | Hawkins F, Westberg R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137E192 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-483-85-19, NUDOCS 8508230163 | |
| Download: ML20137E202 (3) | |
Text
-.. _ _ - _ - -_
. -_ _ - - -. - - - _ _
.
_ _
_ _ -
. -...- -
.
.
,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-483/85019(DRS)
Docket No. 50-483 License No.NFP-30 l
Licensee: The Union Electric Company Post Office Box 149 St. Louis, M0 63166 Facility Name: Callaway, Unit 1 Inspection At: Callaway Site, Callaway County, MO Inspection Conducted: August 5-9, 1985 (
Inspector:
R. A. Westbert 6/lls/67
'
Date
,
I Approved By:
F. C. Itawkins, Chief 6/L /6F
'
Quality Assurance Programs Section Date Inspection Suninary Inspection on August 5-9, 1985 (Report No. 50-483/85019(DRS))
.
Areas Inspected: Licensee action on previous inspection findings. The
,.
inspection involved 35 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results: Of six previous inspection findings reviewed, four were closed.
i l
!
t
!
I G508230163 050816 PDR ADOCK 05000483
PDR i
I l
I
- - - -
-
_
<
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Union Electric Company
- A. P. Neuhalfen, Assistant Manager, Administration
- J. V. Laux, Supervising Engineer
- D. A. Ostrander, Supervising Engineer
- R. L. Plaut:, GA Enoineer
- R. L. Powers, Assistant Manager, QA
- J. R. Veatch, Supervising Engineer
- R. C. Wink, Compliance Engineer W. A. Norton, QA Engineer R. J. Fletcher, Engineer W. O. Jessop, Senior Training Supervisor
- Indicates those attending the exit meeting on August 9,1985.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings a.
(0 pen) Open Item (483/84011-23) Content and usage of the Vendor History File was not controlled by a formal procedure. This item remains open pending revision of the audit and nonconformance pro-cedure: to address this matter.
b.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (483/84011-26) Exhaust fumes in the control room.
The smoke detector evaluation by NRR is still pending.
l c.
(Closed) Open Item (483/84011-27) Operator training and retraining regarding exhaust gases in the control room. The inspector verified the installation of the C0 and C0, monitors in the control room air intake duct at the 2047' level of'the auxiliary building at column A0-AL. The inspector also reviewed Procedure No. OTO-ZZ-00001 (" Control room Inaccessibility"), Revision 5; Procedure No.
OTA-RL-RLO20-63D (" Control Room Toxic Gas High"), Revision 1; and the licensed operator training records relative to these procedures and the smoke in the control room incident. The inspector had no further concerns, d.
(Closed) Violation (483/84044-01) Review of Level V procurement l
procedure implementation. The inspector reviewed Procedure No.
'
WEP-ZZ-00001 (" Procurement Level V List Development Control and Revision"), Revision 2 and Procedure No. WEP-ZZ-00400, (" Procurement ofParts, Supplies,MaterialsandServices"), Revision 2andfound them acceptable. The inspector also reviewed 68 recent Level V t
'
evaluations and seven receipt inspections and found that the licensee had adequately implemented the revised procedures. The inspector had no further concerns.
,
l l
-
-
__
,
.-----.- --- ----
o
.
e.
(Closed) Open Item (483/85013-02)
Review of lead auditor qualifica-tions and audit schedules. The inspector reviewed additional documentation regarding the published audit schedule, the freedom of auditors to vary from the audit objectives, and the revised form;for lead auditor qualification.
The inspector had no further concerns, f.
(Closed)OpenItem(483/85013-04) Evaluation of out of tolerance reports for gauges on the auxiliary feedwater pumps. The inspector reviewed the reports documenting the evaluation of the out of toler-ance condition'of pressure indicators Nos. AL-PI-0014 and AL-PI-0017 and found them acceptable.
3.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives on August 9, 1985, and summarized the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspection. The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspection. The licensee did not identify any I
such documents or processes as proprietary.
l 3