ML17213A574
| ML17213A574 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 10/01/1982 |
| From: | Nerses V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8210210591 | |
| Download: ML17213A574 (9) | |
Text
Docket No. 50-389 D'stribution:
oc et
- ~4-NRC PDR Local PDR TERA NSIC
- RLessy, OELD LWheeler JLee LB¹3 Reading NENORANDUH FOR:
0.
G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing THRU:
F RON:
SUBJECT:
T.
t1. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing, DL J. 0. Kerrigan, Acting Chief Licensing Branch No. 3, DL V. Nerses, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3, DL ST.
LUCIE 2 SALP EVALUATIOt)
Enclosed is the final NRR input for the St. Lucie 2 Cycle 3 SALP evaluation.
The input has been circulated to the appropriate Division Directors for comment.
Contributions to this input were made by:
R. Skelton, SGPR W. Kennedy, PTRB
- 0. Perrotti, EPLB J.
- Stang, CEB R. Stevens, ICSB 0.
Chopr a, PSB D. Hoffman, LGB J.
- Rajan, HEB R. Pichmani, HGEB J. Ridgely, ASB T. Huang, CPB OR)GULA Sto.,os,,
iA o.o i 82i02i059i 82100i PDR ADOCK 05000389 6
',I
Enclosure:
As stated'c:
J. O'Reilly, Region II R. Lewis, Region II C. Dance, Region II t4. Sinkule.
V. Nerses, Project fianager Licensing Branch No.
3 Division of Licensing OFFICEI SURNAME/
~ ~ ~og DATE$
83o ~ ~ o ~
s/bm
'/82---
~ o ~ o joj J
~ ~ o o9o
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ o P ak
~ o ~ ~ o ~
2
~
~ o ~
~
o ~ofQV7
~ ~
~
I NRC FORM 318 u0-80) NRCM 0240 OFFjctAL RECORD COPY USGPO: 1881~S 060
4 p
V g C
I
'L
~
T
)
~ fp 41
e INJITCD STATES
,CLEAR REGULATORY CQlVikllSSIC.
'iN SHINGTQM, D. C, 205s5 Docket No. 50-389 OCT MEMORANDUM FOR:
D.
G.
Ei senhut, Director Division of Licensing THRU:
T.
M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing, DL J.
Licen an, Acting Chief ing Branch No. 3, DL
'UBJECT:
V.
Ner ses, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3, DL ST.
LUCIE 2 SALP EVALUATION Enclosed is the final NRR input for the St. Lucie 2 Cycle 3 SALP evaluation.
The input has been circulated to the appropriate Division Directors for comment.
Contributions to this input were made by:
~
R. Skelton, SGPR M. Kennedy, PTRB D. Perrotti, EPLB J.
- Kennedy, Eg C. Liang, RSB R. Serbu, RAB J.
- Stang, CEB R. Stevens, ICSB
- 0. Chopra, PSB D. Hoffman, LGB J.
- Rajan, MEB R. Pichmani, HGEB J.
Ri dgely, ASB T. Huang, CPB
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
J. O'Reilly, Region II R. Lewis, Region II C. Dance, Region II MD Sinkule V. Nerses, Project Mianager Licensing Branch No.
3 Division of Licensing
r= >ate ux7,~%
</-'rE rz/ A EQ/ /d nJ
/~grg r/>dos</
7&cA
/5$ b~
I pM+Lcr-,p'J) G.~~pe-
/ VC//6'5
~<r ark'r:.
A-g.-yZ(-.
8 Udr'($
fiZ/r/pr/r A'Dcyg r
5 r'=Ca.'/2 r/~
2-EQ+-cubi~>c i~J/>zy+rl f~
/g
/'/
zigp
/'rr E
2
/'rC/.-r I)
~~~~- M~eo,n~~;.,y 6~g >QP,igg gj.~yg < t.
JD E=/dc~7 +/~'
(&Jr //CAN r, IP (Lkr,
=++~ m+Mu~zA 5'o.p 4)gp ygp~y r>~eD g;~miy s'-s
$7CA~ r~~~
"~<~< CoAW Co ~rz C
rrJ s
z J
/-.. "CJ/C -"C c c"S.
2 c'
//
/c r'r
/C Cf
/r l
Cr
-1 c'g Cr Cr rr
//
/I ~//
Ou<r CZ<
'L i~a~ Jj
/I l
II
UNITED STATES CLEAR REGULATORY COfdiMISSI WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 Facility Name:
St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2 Applicant:
Florida Power 8 Light Company NRR Project Manager:
Victor Herses Introduction This report presents the results of an evaluation of the applicant in the functional area of licensing activities.
It is iztended to provi de HRR' input to the SALP review process as described in NRC Manual Chapter 0516.
The review covers the period May 1, 1990, to June 30, 1982.
The major milestones achieved for licensing activites during thi s period are the docketing of the OL application and publication of the Draft Environmental Statement, Safety Evaluation Report (SER), Final Environmental Statement and Supplement 1 to the SER.
The basic approach used for this evaluation was to first select a
nunber of licensing issues which involved a significant amount of staff manpower.
Comments were then solicited from the staff.
The staff applied the evaluation criteria based on their experience with the licensee.
Finally, this information was assembled into a matrix which allowed an overall evaluation of the licensee's performance.
~Summar of Results NRC Manual Chapter 0516 specifies that each functional area evaluated will be assigned a performance category based on a
composite of a number of attributes.
The single final rating is to be tempered with judgment as to the significance of the individual elements.
The performance of Florida Power 8 Light Company in the functional area of licensing activities i s rated Category 2.
Criteria Evaluation criteria, as given in HRC Manual Chapter Appendix 0516, Tabl e 1, we re used for thi s eval uati on.
IV.
Performance Anal si s The licensee' performance evaluation i s based on a consideration of seven attributes as given in the NRC Manual Chapter.
For the licens-ing actions considered in thi s evaluation, only five of the attributes were of significance.
Therefore, the composite rating is based on the following attributes:
Hanagement Involvement Approach to resolution of technical issues Responsiveness Staffing Training The remaining attributes of:
Enforcement history Reportable Events were judged to have no useable basis in HRR/applicant interactioh for this evaluation.
The evaluation was based on a review of the following licensing activities.
Radiological protection Fire Protection Physical Security Emergency Planning Technical Specifications Emergency Operating Procedures (TMI izsues)
Structural, Components, Equipment 8 Systems Reactor Coolant System and Engineered Safety Features Instrumentation 8 Controls
'uxiliary Systems Equipment gualifications E'lectrical Power Supply 8 Distribution Soils 8 Foundation A.
Management Involvement and Control in Assuring guality'verall rating for this criterion is category 2.
There is evidence4 of planning and asignment of priorities, and decision making appears to be at a level that ensures management review.
Typical areas where-management involvement was evident where physical security, equipment '
qualifications, instrumentation and control, structures, components, equipment and systems and fire protection.
With regard to auxiliary systems, emergency operating procedures and emergency preparedness, weaknesses were apparent.
FPGL management involvement was not adequate to alleviate the considerable HRC staff effort needed to complete reviews in these areas.
It seems clear that when a subject for review required FP8L operating personnel input such as in the areas mentioned
- above, considerable time and effort was needed to complete the reviews.
Even though FP8L licensing personnel identified this problem to their management, little, if any, improvement was seen from operating personnel.
4 A
Approach to Resolution of Technical Issues from a Safety Standpoint The overall rating for this criterion is category 2.
Conger4atigm is generally exhibited along with viable and generally sound and thorough approaches.
Typical areas where these apply are fire protection; equipment qualification, electrical power supply and distribution.
However, in the technical areas related to auxiliary systems, radiation protection, emergency operating
.procedures and emergency preparedness, the difference in perfor-mance between the FPEL licensing personnel and operating per'sonnel was noticeable.
Operating personnel often provided material that meets minimum requirements, resolutions of issues often were delayed and their approaches lacked thoroughness or depth.
C.
D.
Responsiveness to NRC Ini.tiatives Overall rating is category 2.
When information had been supp'lied by the licensing personnel, in almost all areas they provided thorough responses that were technically sound.
- However, when the input was from the operating personnel staff, it frequently required an extension of time with considerable NRC effort to obtain acceptable resolutions of the issues.
Enforcement History.
There is no basis for an NRR assessment of this criterion.
E.
Reportable Events There is no basis for an 'NRR assessment of this criterion.
F.
Staffing The overall evaluation of this criterion is category 2.
The training organization for crew operators appears to be staffed with well qualified instructors.
G.
Training Training is organized to provide high quality training.
V.
Conclusions Based on the consideration of seven attributes of Florida Power 5 Light Company performance for selected activities in the functional areas of licensing, an overall performance rating of category 2 is determined.
Evaluations ranged from category 1 to category 3 in all criteria for which there exists a basis for a NRR assessment.
~,
A
'P