ML20134B469

Forwards SALP Input for Plant,Per J Norris

ML20134B469
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	11/01/1993
From:	Norberg J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Berkow H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20134B255	List: L-93-112, Forwards Safeguards Event Log Entries for Jan-Mar 1993.Encl Withheld (Ref 10CFR73.21) L-93-181, Forwards Safeguards Event Log Entries for Period of Apr-June 1993.Entries Withheld (Ref 10CFR73.21) L-93-265, Forwards Safeguards Event Log Entries for Period Jul-Sept 1993.Log Withheld L-94-016, Forwards Safeguards Event Log Entries for Fourth Quarter 1993.Log Does Not Contain Safeguards Info as Defined by 10CFR73.21 L-94-095, Forwards Safeguards Event Log Entries for Period Jan-Mar 1994.Log Entries Withheld,Per 10CFR73.21 L-94-186, Forwards Safeguards Event Log Entries for Period Apr-June 1994.Encl Withheld L-94-269, Forwards Safeguards Event Log Entries for Period Jul-Sept 1994.Encl Does Not Contain Safeguards Info Per 10CFR73.21 L-95-121, Forwards Safeguards Event Log Entries for Period of Jan-Mar 1995,per 10CFR73.71(c)(2) L-96-296, LER 96-S02-00:on 961011,failed to Terminate Access of Temporary Licensee Employee.Caused by Cognitive Personnel Error.Security Unassigned Card Key & Plant Administrative Procedure 0010509 Revised ML20134B253 ML20134B260 ML20134B469 ML20134B502 ML20134B509 ML20134B516 ML20134B520 ML20134B535 ML20134B538 ML20134B541 ML20134B549 ML20134B561 ML20134B566 ML20134B624 ML20134B629 ML20134B742 ML20134B796 ML20134B826 ML20134E919 ML20134H152 ML20134K088
References
FOIA-96-485 NUDOCS 9311090174
Download: ML20134B469 (3)

Text

__ . _ - _ . _ __ _ - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ ._. __ ._ ..

j  ;

, NOV i 1993 O NE MEMORANDUM FOR: Herbert N. Berkow, Director Project Directorate II-2 Division of Reactor Projects I/II FROM: James A. Norberg, Chief Mechanical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering

SUBJECT:

SALP INPUT FOR ST. LUCIE UNIT 1 Per the letter from Jan Norris dated October 14, 1993, enclosed please find the Mechanical Engineering Branch's SALP input for'St. Lucie Unit 1. If l

you have any questions, please contact M. McBrearty at 504-2725 or P. Campbell at 504-1311.

%\

James A. Norberg, Chief Mechanical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering

Enclosure:

SALP Input DISTRIBUTION:

Central Files EMEB Rf/pf BDLiaw KManoly PMcBrearty(CHRON)

PCampbell(CHRON)

GJohnson ,

JNorris  !

GZech

., .. i NG OFFICE :eh EMEBk[ EMEB:DE EMEB:DE EdEf/// '

WE MMCBrearty KManoly PCampbell GJohns JNb' erg om /d /2#93 o/W/93 10 M/93 /o/29/93 /// / /93 ,

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY FILENAME: G:\McBreart\FPLSALP.INP oo 0300% $ '

%$M

~

~ ~

ag g plF C @[i @ l%_.

c 1

Osuoton93H- u 4 r un . -

n

i .

SALP INPUT <

Facility Name: St. Lucie Unit 1 Sr ' ry of Review Activity f

Perform a review of the licensee's response to GL 87-02 for the resolution of I USI A-46, " Verification of Seismic Adequacy of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment in Operating Reactors." The staff's effort included the review of two licensee written responses to RAIs, and participation in two meetings, regarding several significant unresolved issues with the licensee's USI A-46 l implementation program. This SALP pertains to the adequacy of the licensee's

! engineering support activities.

Narrative Discussion of Licensee Performance The licensee's written responses have generally lacked sufficient information to adequately address the staff's RAIs. The licensee has relied on the staff l to identify program weaknesses, and has taken the attitude of providing minimal information in responding to the staff's comments. Although the licensee has recently committed to expand its implementation program to address part of the staff's concerns, it has failed to provide clear or reasonable justification for several apparent programmatic shortcomings.

, The staff was particularly dissatisfied with the licensee's most recent

submittal addressing issues discussed during a July 20, 1993 meeting. At the meeting, the staff requested that the licensee document and justify its positions on three major programmatic issues. The staff stressed that the-licensee's response should provide sufficient details to fully justify their position on each issue. In order to ensure that t 9 licensee had ample time to adequately develop and document its response, one staff merely requested that the licensee respond within a timeframe of 2 months. At the end of the 1

2-month period, the licensee provided only a very brief response to each issue, and failed to provide technical details and justifications to support l its positions.

Oriainator: Michael McBrearty, NRR/EMEB l

l Date: 10/27/93 t

1 i

IST Reviews:

The recent inservice testing (IST) program submittals and accompanying relief

. requests for TAC numbers M83482, M84562, M82057, M85670, M85563, and M86317, were neither outstanding nor problemmatic. The licensee has been involved in a major 10-year update which was recently submitted and EMEB has outstanding action underway to review the relief requests. The licensee does not appear to be as aggressive in this area compared to other licensees, but they appear to be maintaining the IST program adequately. Recent inspections identified areas that appeared to be inconsistences between Unit I and Unit 2 and areas that could be improved; however, there were no issues that indicated major inadequacies in the IST program. Several of the issues should be addressed in the 10-year update for Unit 2, and may have already been incorporated into the Unit 1 IST program. The recommended SALP category for the IST program area is a category 2.

Oriainator: Patricia Campbell Date: 10/27/93 a

+

.