IR 05000397/1980021
| ML17275A792 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 12/23/1980 |
| From: | Carlson J, Sternberg D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17275A791 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-397-80-21, NUDOCS 8101210119 | |
| Download: ML17275A792 (6) | |
Text
Report iNo.
Docket No.
Licensee:
50-397/80-21 50-397 U.
S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF Ii'lSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION Y
License No.
Washington Public Power Supnlv Svstem P.
0.
Box 968 Safeguards Group Facili ty Name:
Inspection at:
Richland, Hashinqton 99352
'lashinqton Nuclear Project No.
2 (MNP-2)
IINP-2 Site, Benton Countv, llashinqton Inspection conducted:
December 2-4, 1980 ('~. -i Inspectors:
J.
D. Carlson, Reactor Inspector Da e Signed APProved by:
.U l I v(
.
-~PL'XAJ-W Date Signed (8-
Summary:
D. ll. Sternberq, Chief, Reactor Project Section
"
gn Reactor Ooerations,and Nuclear,SupDort.Branch Ins ection on December 2-4, 1980 Re ort No. 50-397/80-21
~Al<<d:
l, dl l
d d
of Low Pressure Core Spray Preoperational Test; Flushing Program and results of Control Rod Hydraulic System Flush; and review of previous open items.
The inspection involved 19 onsite hours by one NRC inspector.
Results:
I'lo deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
axozexo//'f
.RV FORl1,,219 '(2)
~ U U
DETAILS Persons Contacted 2.
J.
D. Hartin, Plant Hanager
- G.
K. Afflerbach, Deputy Project Hanager
- R. L. Corcoran, Plant Operations Superintendent
- J.
F. Peters, Plant Administrative Supervisor
- J.
H. Graziani, Operations gA Supervisor (acting)
- J.
A. Landon, Test Group Supervisor L.
D. Kassakatis, Test Group Super visor
- S.
F. Corcoran, Flushing Coordinator The insoector also talked with other licensee personnel, including startup test engineers, and plant operators.
- Denotes persons present at the exit interview.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findin s
~
(78-08-02 Closed)
Interfaces with Test Personnel:
The relationship between the shift supervisor and the test director during the conduct of testing has been more clearly defined in the Test and Startup Program Hanual (TSPH).
(78-08-06 Closed)
Reverification of Prerequisites:
A procedure has been issued clarifying possible reverification of prerequisites following test interruptions.
(79-16-07 Closed)
Cleanliness of Instrumentation Lines:
Instrumentation Test Guide ( ITG) was revised to control instrumentation disconnect/reconnect and specify cleanliness controls on open instrument lines.
v t I
J
=~elf/ ~~~ IhW4tllfIWOIN~JPMf
+ ~~g EVWI~KW~4HHMl~+A&R &4VNlhWA~
(79-19-01 Closed)
Procedure Format Criteria:
Section l. 2 of the Plant Procedures Hanual (PPH)
has.been issued, specifying format criteria for all plant procedures including annunciator procedures.
I (80-13-02 Closed)
NRC comments to Control Rod Hydraulic System (CRD) Flush:
The inspector reviewed the licensee's resolution to previously submitted comments and consider the items have been satisfactorily resolved.
3.
Review of Low Pressure Core S ra LPCS Prep erational Test (80-21-01)
The inspector reviewed LPCS PT 8.0 versus commitments in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
Generally, the procedure was adequate with some minor errors, and two incorrect critical calculations.
The inspector discussed the problem of the incorrect calculations with the Deputy Project Hanager.
During the review, the inspector raised a generic concern with the licensee's program for ensuring all prerequisite testing is complete
~~
ls
prior to commencement of a preoperational test.
At present, the licensee intends to have a review chain determine that the prerequisite testinq is complete prior to approving the preoperational test for performance.
The inspector expressed concern that this placed the licensee management and Test llorking Group (TMG) in the controlling path for each test.
This practice may lead to an inadequate review.
The Deputy Project Manager acknowledged the potential for errors, and agreed to develop a program that would allow the review to take place on a noncontrolling basis to the maximum extent possible.
4.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on December 4, 1980.
The scope and findings were discussed as set forth in paragraphs
and. ~ ~