IR 05000397/1980009
| ML17275A550 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 07/15/1980 |
| From: | Carlson J, Johnson P, Sternberg D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17275A549 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-397-80-09, 50-397-80-9, NUDOCS 8009020240 | |
| Download: ML17275A550 (6) | |
Text
U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
Report No.
50-39 Docket No.
50-397 License No.
CPPR-93 Safeguards Group Licensee:
Washin ton Public Power Su
S stem P. 0.
Box 968 Richland, Washin ton 99352 Inspection at:
HNP-2 Site, Benton County, Washington Inspection conducted:
June, 18-20, 1980
"n J.
D. Car son, Reactor Inspector Inspectors:
Facility Name:
Washington Nuclear Project No.
(WNP-2)
7 t'/
o Date Signed 7 1 Date Signed
......,
Ii em erg, se, eactor roJect Sect>on Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Summary:
Ins ection on June 18-20 1980 Re ort No. 50-397/80-09)
Date Signed
~~~ F0 Date Signed
~Al<<d:
R l, dl p
Rl dpl p d,p acceptance packages, preoperational test procedures, and overall preoperational test program.
In addition, the inspectors toured the plant to obtain an independent update of plant construction status.
The inspection involved 30 onsite hours by two NRC inspectors.
Results:
No deviations or items of noncompliance inhere identified.
I RV Form 219 (2)
8009020 gq
P I
-
MJ'
3 kV
DETAILS Persons Contacted J.
D. Martin, Plant Manager
- G. K. Afflerbach, Deputy Project Manager
- R. L. Corcoran, Plant Operations Superintendent
~J.
M. Graziani, Operational gA Engineer
- J. F. Peters, Plant Administrative Supervisor
- W. D. Blair, Lead guality Services Engineer The inspectors also talked with other licensee personnel, including plant operators and maintenance personnel.
- Denotes persons present at the exit interview.
General The inspectors discussed the status of plant construction with the plant manager.
Emphasis was being placed on system completion and construction problem resolution versus preoperational test program preparation.
This was reflected in the rate of progress in procedure preparation for pre-operational testing since the inspectors'ast visit.
Licensee Action on Previous Ins ection Findin s
(78-08-02 Open) Interfaces with Test Personnel:
A licensee representative stated that the relationship between the Test Director and Shift Supervisor, particular ly regarding ultimate responsibility for various activities, would be more clearly defined in the Test and Startup Program Manual (TSPM).
(78-08-05 Closed) Biiefing of Test Personnel:
Discussion of pre-test briefings had been incorporated into Section 8.6.2 of the TSPM
.
(78-08-06 Open) Test Interruptions:
The only discussion given to test interruptions in the TSPH is in Section 8.6.9, which requires the Test Summary to include "test starting and stopping times and, when required by the test director, reverification of any prerequisites or lineups".
During additional discussion of the subject in the exit interview, licensee representatives stated that the TSPM or a Test and Startup Instruction would be modified to more fully discuss test interruptions, including guidance on situations requiring reverification of prerequisites or initial conditions.
(78-08-07 Open) Resolution of Problems:
The licensee stated that paragraph 2.2 of Test and Startup Procedure No.
9 (TSP-9) would be changed to read
"Deficiencies include but are not limited to":
-2-(79-02-01)
Discrepancy Between FSAR and TSPM:
The inspector observed that Section 14.2.4.1. 1 of the FSAR still states that the Startup Superintendent will approve test procedures following the pre-test review and that Section 14.2.4. 1.2 calls for the Test Working Group (TWG) to approve the performance of tests.
These statements are contrary to expressed intent and inconsistent with the TSPM.
A licensee representative stated that the two items would be corrected.
Independent Ins ection The inspector reviewed a provisional acceptance (PA) package for the Low Pressure Core Spray System for adherence to programmatic requirements described in the Startup Manual.
A discussion was conducted with the responsible startup supervisor regarding differences in the PA and the system turnover programs.
Additionally, the inspectors reviewed the Test Working Group minutes 80-01 through 80-11.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with WPPSS representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on June 20, 1980.
The scope and findings of the inspection were discussed as set forth in paragraphs 2 through 4.
In addition, the following items were discussed:
1) the inspector discussed Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.68 requirements for the Preoperational Test Program.
The inspector noted the widespread use
,
of the word "should" in the guide.
The inspector noted that "should" is defined in some industry standards as recommendations; however, the licensee is committed by Chapter 14 of the FSAR to conducting the Pre-operational Test Program in accordance with RG 1.68 which makes those items in the guide requirements.
The licensee agreed with the inspectors position, 2) the licensee was informed that the operations resident inspector would be delayed until the spring of 1981 due to schedule slippage of the plant.
Mr. Al Toth has been temporarily assigned as a construction resident inspector.
Additionally, the licensee was informed that Mr.
Carlson was replacing Mr. Johnson as the principal inspector for the WNP-2 test progra II t I Cl