ML20197J289

Closes Out Task Interface Agreement 83-93 Re Facility Const Deficiency Issues.Const Practices for Component Supports & Class I Structures Acceptable

ML20197J289
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	02/08/1985
From:	Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Kirsch D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
References
CON-WNP-0782, CON-WNP-782, CON-WNP-787 NUDOCS 8502140313
Download: ML20197J289 (2)

Text

.

FEB og %,. > 1 Dennis Kirsch, Acting Director t o . -) h PEFORANDUM FOR: 5 Division of Resident Reactor Projects &

Engineering Programs' Region V FP0M: Frank Miraglia, Acting Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

TIA No. 83 REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE - CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCY ISSUES REGARDING WNP-2 The purpose of this memorandum is to formally close out the subject Task Interface Agreement.

In a memorandum from R. T. Dodds to R. Auluck, dated August 19, 1983, Region V requested technical assistance on the evaluation / resolution of two items related to the as-built progran for the pipe supports and concrete structures. These concerns were raised by an I&E Construction Appraisal Tean (CAT) during its pre-licensing inspection of the plant.

The NRC staff reviewed the information provided by the WPPSS and its contractor Stone and Webster Corporation. Our safety evaluation was documented in October 20, 1983 and December P0, 1983 memoranda copies of which were pro-vided to R. Dodds at those times. Those memoranda addressed the construction adecuacy of tha pipe supports and of the as-built Category I structures. Based on our review, we found the construction practices for component supports to be acceptable as well as the construction of Category I structures. Additional copies of those memoranda are enclosed.

Prc:: Mir2Clia/for.

8502140313B50208h OF ADOCK05000hpfL Frank Miraglia, Acting Director

@  %) Division of Licensin~g

(

Enclosures:

As stated

Contact:

R. Auluck X28547 Distribution: "- '" """

~

PRC Systen 18#2Readinf*

EHylton RAuluck Attorney, OELD FMiraglia Previous concurrences concurred on by*: A DL:LB#2 DL:LBd2 DL:LB#2 DL:AD/L DC hf,gDIP

• EHylton *RAuluck:pob *ASchwencer *TNovak FMiraglia 1/31/85 1/31/85 1/31/85 2/4/85 2/ /85

t

• o *' "GN,'o UNITED STATES l '

) ,.. ]3 E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o ' *

.,,;, U 0 81985 MEMORANDUM FOR: Dennis Kirsch, Acting Director Division of Resident Reactor Projects &

Engineering Programs Region V FROM: Frank Miraglia, Acting Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

TIA No. 83 REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE - CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCY ISSUES REGARDING WNP-2 The purpose of this memorandum is to formally close out the subject Task Interface Agreement.

In a memorandum from R. T. Dodds to R. Auluck, dated August 19, 1983, Region V requested technical assistance on the evaluation / resolution of two items related to the as-built program for the pipe supports and concrete structures. These concerns were raised by an I&E Construction Appraisal Team (CAT) during its pre-licensing inspection of the plant.

The NRC staff reviewed the information provided by the WPPSS and its contractor Stone and Webster Corporation. Our safety evaluation was documented in October 20, 1983 and December 20, 1983 memoranda copies of which were pro-4 vided to R. Dodds at those times. Those memoranda addressed the construction adequacy of the pipe supports and of the as-built Category I structures. Based on our review, we found the construction practices for component supports to be acceptable as well as the construction of Category I structures. Additional

, copies of those memoranda are enclosed.

Frank Miraglia, eting Director

• Division of Licensing

Enclosures:

As stated

Contact:

R. Auluck X28547 r

9 4

/. ..s'o UNITED STATES 0Ae%

[*,w NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHtNCTON, D. C. 20555

% **"* .. /

NOV3 01983 MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing, OL FROM: James P. Knight, Assistant Director for Components & Structures Engineering, DE

SUBJECT:

WNP-2 COMPONENT SUPPORT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

Reference:

1. Memorandum from J. Taylor to R. Vollmer, "WNP-2 Component Support Design and Construction",

dated July 1, 1983.

2. Task Interface Agreement Task No. 83-93, "WNP-2 Construction Deficiencies", dated October 19, 1983

3. Letter from C. S. Carlisle to J. B. Martin, " Nuclear Project 2 NRC Inspection Report 50-397/83-38 Notice of Violation," dated October 26, 1983.

4. Letter from A. Schwencer to D. W. Mazur, "FSAR Questions 110.41, 110.42, 110.43 and 110.44", dated August 3, 1983.

During the IE Construction Appraisal Team (CAT) inspection of WNP-2, several issues regartling the design and construction of the WNP-2 component supports have been identified (Reference 1). The Mechanical Engineering Branch (MEB) was requested by Region V (Reference 2) to review the applicant's submittal (Reference 3) pertaining to Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation's independent third-party assessment of the OCI and QCII/ Seismic I as-built for WNP-2. In addition, the MEB requested additional information (Reference 4) regarding construction criteria for NF/AISC boundaries of component supports to evaluate the potential impact of the CAT finding on the acceptability of the component supports for WNP-2.

We have completed our review of these two issues. Attached is our input to the WNP-2 CAT findings evaluation.

/ _

/ . . t, Assistant Director for Compone s & S ructures Engineering Division of Engineering

Attachment:

As stated cc: See next page r; o ff'jftfy;5 )f '

_/ _ _

• h cc: R. Vollmer, DE R. Bosnak, DE A. Schwencer, DL B. D. Liaw, DE R. Dodds, RV R. Auluck, DL H. Braisner, DE D. Smith, DE ,

Y. Li, DE l

Contact:

Y. Li, DE:MEB x24417 l

p l

t r

i o

e l

9

?

P i

e i

- t

. t

?

i i

l

,, ATTACHMEhi

.w MEB INPtJT TO CAT FINDJf4G5 EVALUATION During the IE Construction Appraisal Team (CAT) inspection tf WNP-2, several issugs regarding the dats.gn and construction of the WNP-2 componentsupportswereidentified(Reference 1). The CAT review of the pipe support as-builts identified a large number of errors or l

deficienties when compared to the construction drawings. As a result of its review, the CAT concluded that the applicant's as-built program for piping and supports, while identifying a number of deficiencies, did not appear to be completely adequate. In ord r to demon ~ strate the construction adequacy of the pipe supports, .the Supply system contracted with 5 tone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) to perform an independent third-party review of the pipe support as-builts for WNP-2.

SWEC's review incicdes the pipe supports for both safety related piping systems (QCI) and ncn-safety related piping systems that are in close proximity to safety related structures, systems, and components (QCII/SeismicI). NRR was requested by P.egion V (Reference 2) to review the applicant's submittal (Reference 3) pertaining to the SWEC assessment.

The staff has reviewed the infonnation in Reference 3 pertaining to the SWEC assessment. SWEC performed an independent review of a sample of 15 percent of the population of large and small bore QC I pipe supports, small bore piping, and small bore unique supports ano a sample of 60 large bore QC II/ Seismic I pipe supports. Each pipe support was inspected for 17 attributes which were primarily those associated with C

.~ w.

the structural integrity of the support. If during the inspection, an attribute was determined to be outside the tolerances established in the Project Procedure for Engineering Inspection and Evaluation of Pipe Support (WNP-2, WRO-01), it was marked as a deviation and evaluated.

The basis for acceptance of the effect of a deviation on the structural integrity of a support was either by referencing existing design calcu1&tions or by performing calculations based on existing support loading data provided by Burns & Roe, Inc. or Gilbert Commonwealth. The outcome of this assessment, provided SWEC the basis for concluding that none of the deviations found during the SWEC review will have a significant eftect on the structural integrity of the support. In order to substantiate SWEC's conclusion, the applicant has provided in attachment 2 of Reference 3 some representative calculations, including the worst case conditions, perforted by SWEC during their assessment of QCI and QCII/ Seismic I as builts for WHP-2. The applicant has further stated that the criteria and methodology of SWEC's base plate acceptability analysis were consistent with previous project IE Bulletin 79-02 review and met the 79-02 requirements. Based on a review of the information provided by the applicant, the staff determined that the SWEC's analysis is acceptable and agrees that none of the deviations found during the SWEC review will have a significant effect on the structural integrity of the support, Another area of concern during the CAT review was the jurisdictional boundary of Subsection NF of the ASME Code applied by the applicant for pipe supports. The staff requested additional inforr.ation (Reference A)

=.\

regarding construction criteria of component supports to evaluate the potential impact of the CAT finding on the acceptability of the component supports for WNP-2, specifically, the continuity of construction criteria across any jurisdictional boundary in the support load path.

In a letter dated September 21,1983(Reference 5),theapplicant submitted graphical sketches which provided a definition of 'the boundary between pipe supports and supplemental structural steel which they defined as being part of the building structure. Pipe supports which are within the support boundary are constructed (construction includes design, fabrication,examinationandinspection)inaccordancewith subsection NF of the ASME Code. Support members within the supplementary steel boundary are constructed in accordance with AISC standa rd. The applicant further stated that the material specified and l the allowable stress used in the design of both ASME and the AISC support members are in accordance with Subsection NF. All NF support members are fabricated using ASME IX welding requirements whereas AISC support members are fabricated using AWS D1.1 welding reouirements.

However, the reinspection of AISC support members during the Quality Reverification Program as described in Reference 6 utilized alternative acceptance criteria (QVI-09). The acceptability of QVI-09 program is being reviewed by the Materials Engineering Branch (MTEB). In Reference 5, the applicant has also stated that continuity of examination across the NF/AISC boundary is assured because there are no welds within the e

, - , . . . - - , - - . - - - - - ~ - . - .

~

'.h ,

AISC boundary similar to the type which normally would be required to be nondestructively examined per NF requirements.

Based on a review of the infonnation submitted by the applicant and contingent upon the satisfactory resolution of the QVI-09 issue, the staff has determined that the applicant's construction practices for the component supports provides a continuity across the NF and AISC support members which is consistent with plants of similar construction dates and are acceptable.

W O

4 References

1. Memorandum from J. Taylor to R. Vollmer, "WNP-2 Component Support Design and Construction", dated July 1,1983

2. Task Interface Agreement Task No. 83-93, "WNP-2 Construction Deficiencies", dated October 19, 1983

3. Letter from C. Carlisle to J. Martin, " Nuclear Project 2 NRC Inspection Report 50-397/83-38 Notice of Violation", dated October 26, 1983 4 Letter from A. Schwencer to D. Mazur, "FSAR Questions 110.41, 110.42, 110.43 and 110.44", dated August 3, 1983

5. Letter from G. Sorensen to A. Schwencer, " Nuclear Project No. 2 Supply System Response to FSAR Question 110.44", dated September 21, 1983

6. Letter from G. Bouchey to A. Schwencer, " Nuclear Project No. 2

\

Project Visual Examination Acceptance Criteria for Reverification Inspection of Welded Structure (QVI-09)", dated March 23, 1983 l

' u 1

f a nc

'o,, UNITED STATES

0. E' V

!} g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

-l t g DEC 2 01983 MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing FROM: James P. Knight, Assistant Director for Components and Structuresygineering Division of Engineering

SUBJECT:

SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT SUPPLEMENT WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 - RESOLUTION OF CONSTRUCTION DISCREPANCIES IN CONCRETE STRUCTURES Plant Name: WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2 Docket Number: 50-397 Licensing Stage: OL Review .

Responsible Branch and Project Manager: LB #2, R. Auluck The enclosed supplement to the Safety ~ Evaluation Report (SSER) is provided in response to a RV request for assistance to evaluate the adequacy of applicant's disposition of the construction discrepancies in some of the WNP-2 concrete structures. The deficiencies were identified by an I&E Construction Appraisal Team (CAT) during its recent inspection of the plant. This evaluation is performed by K. C. Leu of Section A of the Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch based on information provided by the CAT /I&E and the applicant.

G /

i Jdm\

J MlY es P. Knight, Assistant Director

/ for Componen'ts and Structures Engineering D. ivision of Engineering i

Enclosure:

Safety Evaluation Report Supplement cc: R. Vollmer D. Eisenhut H. Wong, IE J. Knight F. Miraglia T. Bishop, R-V G. Lear A. Schwencer R. Dodds, R-V C. Tan R. Auluck K. C. Leu J. Taylor, IE

. D. Jeng

\

.w+#ggW

~-

1.fx, ENCLOSURE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM hUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-397 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT SUPPLEMENT RESOLUTION OF CONSTRUCTION DISCREPANCIES IN CONCRETE STRUCTURES STRUCTURAL AND GEOTECHNICAL EhGINEERING BRANCH

References:

1. " Construction Appraisal Inspection 50-397/83-29" from Richard C.

DeYoung to Washington Public Power Supply System, dated July 26, 1983.

2. " Response to Inspection Report 83-28, Notice of Violation Section "E" - Evaluation of Concrete and Reinforcing Steel" from C. S.

Carlisle to J. B. Martin dated September 16, 1983.

3. Task Interface. Agreement Requesting Technical Assistance on CAT Findings dated October 19, 1983.

a. Meeting Between the Applicant and Its Consultants and NRC Staff in Bethesda, MD dated October 14, 1983.

5. Meno from C. S. Carlisle to J. B. Martin - Response to Requests Made at Ref. 4 dated October 31, 1983.

6. Conference Call Between the Applicant and SGEB Staff Clarifying Responses from Ref. 5 dated November 8, 1983.

7. Memo from G. C. Sorensen to A. Schwencer Re-submitting Responses to SGEB Staff dated Novenber 15, 1983.

1. BACKGROUND The above listed Reference 1 report issued by the CAT of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement (I&E) identified several construction program weaknesses. One of these weaknesses pertains to civil and structural construction aspects. The deficiencies related to the civil and struc-tural area identified by the CAT include: concrete reinforcement steel placement, rebar splicing and spacing, concrete mix and its qualities, inspection records and disposition of nonconformance report (NCR), etc.

The CAT findings were based on information generated from ten out of twelve actually examined structural locations in the reactor building.

In a Task Interface Agreement identified in Ref. 3, Region V requested NP.R assistance to perforn an evaluatien of the validity of the appli-cant's conclusions and the adequacy of the applicant's dispositions of the above CAT identified deficiencies.

The Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch (SGEB) has provided the requested assistance and has performed the evaluation. The SGEB evaluation findings are discussed below.

2. KEY AREAS OF REVIEW AND DISCUSSIGHS The applicant has selected a total of 17 members with 23 excavated locations for the purpose of evaluating the extent of the deficiencies identified by the CAT. The 23 locations include the 12 locations previously examined by the CAT. Twelve excavation samples were identi-fied by CAT as having design specification deviations (See Table V-2 of Ref. 1). The deviations include items such as rebar spacing, rebar alignment, missing.rebar, concrete honeycombing and aggregate mix change, etc. Each of the above deviations is reviewed and discussed as follows:

(1) Rebar Spacing Problem According to the CAT report, eight beams (Beams Nos. 2B11, 2B25, 285, 2B3, 3B18, 3B10, 4B30 and 6B9) and two reactor building mat locations have rebar spacing and alignment problems which range from spacing problems between rebars, spacing problems between layers of rebars and the problems of rebar misalignments (bars in different layers not lined-up directly above one another). All of which deviated from ACI 318-71 code requirements.

A. Discrepancy in In-Layer Rebar Spacing and Rebar Alignment Between Layers In addressing the above described problems, the applicant responded (Refs. 2, 4, 5 and 7) that:

a. ACI 318-71, Section 3.3.2 permits lesser spacing if, in the judgment of the engineer, workability and method of consolidation are such that the concrete can be placed without honeycomb or void,

b. The WUP-2 investigation has found good bond between the concrete and reinforcing steel in all the sample excavations except for beams 2B11 and 2B25, which were further excavated to sound concrete part of the beams and appropriately repaired,

c. All the eight beams are shown to have sustained ccnstruction loads, which, in turn, were determined to be more severe than their corresponding cperating loads, and

d. The 1960 ASCE paper No. 3047 titled " Concrete Beams and Columns with Bundled Reinforcement" provided test results indicating that no significant difference in behavior or ultimate strength

was found between bundled reinforcement case and the case of using spaced reinforcement.

We have reviewed the above-applicant's responses and other pertinent information. We note that in. heavy-engineering construction such as the WNP-2 construction, heavy reinforcements are often required due to load requirements, thus, in many instances, causing rebars to be placed closer than the code limits. Under such conditions, however, the code allows some deviations in rebar spacing provided that the engineer /

constructor takes measures to assure that sound concrete consolidation is achieved. .

Based on the facts that it has been confirmed by the applicant via field tests that the concrete consolidation was of good quality, that the beams possess large safety margins over their design loads and whenever needed, appropriate repair.o.f the excavated beams were done, and further-more, some related tests on bundled rebar applications snowed no signifi-cantly detrimental effects up'on, beam strength, we conclude that the

~

applicant's response to and dispo's'ition of the issue are acceptable and the issue is considered as resolved. '

B. Discrepancy in Between-Layers Rebar Spacing The CAT report raised an issue on discrepancy pertaining to "Between- -

Layers Rebar Spacing." Beams 2B11, 2B25 and 2B5 were reported to have rebar spacing deviations between layers of rebars.

We have reviewed the applicant's response to the issue (Ref. 2) and held a discussion with the applicant on December 16, 1983 to obtain additional information regarding rebar spacings applicable to the above identified beams. Based on the findings of our review and the additional information provided by the applicant, and considering the fact that beams designed in accordance with the requirements of ACI 4

318-71 Code generally possess considerable safety margins, we conclude that the intent of the code requirement governing the "between layers rebar spacing" is met by beams 2B11, 2B25 and 2B5 and the issue is considered resolved.

(2). Concrete Honeycombing Problem Table V-2 of the Ref. 1 indicated deficient conditions related to concrete honeycomb (voids) for the following beams:

Beam 2B11: honeycomb visible and concentrated predominately between bars even where concrete below bar appeared sound Beam 2825: same as beam 2B11 Beam 2B3: honeycomb at the region of dowel lap splices was initially identified via NCR-1851. This area was re-repaired due to deficiencies related to the initial repair prior to the CAT inspection in' Reference 7, the applicant pointed out that out of 23 excavated locations in 17 members, three bars (2B11, 2B25 and 2B3) had been I

-4,

• "w, identified as having severe congestion and honeycombing and voids during construction. It also indicated that the honeycombing associated with the three beams had been repaired in accordance with approved con-struction ' procedures. In addition, the beams had been re-analyzed taking into account the deficient conditions and were found to be structurally adequate to sustain their design loads and meeting perti-nent code allowables. This finding is acceptable to the staff for resolving the issue.

(3) Missing Rebar Problem The CAT reported the missing of rebars at the following locations:

Beam 2B5: Two of seven #11 bars missing from bottom rebar layer Beam 2B11: One of eight dowels appeared to be missing in first layer; stirrups have inadequate cover; also a discrepancy on the size and spacing of stirrups.

Beam 3B18: One of eight dowels not located.

In his effort to justify the design acceptability of the beams with the above noted deficiencies, the applicant provided the following justifi-cations:

A. With respect to Beam 2B5, its original design called for two rows of seven 711 bars. However, the as-built showed five bars in bottom most layer, five in the middle and four in the top layer providing the required amount of rebars.

B. With respect to Beam 2B11, the dowel which appeared to be missing during CAT inspection has been found after further excavation; as to the question of not providing adequate concrete cover to the stirrups, the applicant committed to provide adequate concrete cover over the stirrups during patching work. As to the question on the size and spacing of stirrups, a checked and approved original calculation sheet, not previously viewed by the CAT, shews that both the size and spacing of stirrups for Beam 2B11 agree with those shown on the design drawing.

C. With respect to the missing dowel of Beam 3B18, a re-evaluation of the beam with the missing dowel was carried out and the beam was shown to have adequate capacity for its design loads.

Based on review of the above information, we conclude that the justifications provided by the applicant in resniving the issues are reasonable and acceptable.

(4) The Issue of Horizontal Lapping Vs. Vertical Lapping

'*\n The CAT report also identified as a discrepancy, the reinforcement lapped horizontally contrary to the required vertical lappings applica-ble to beams 2B11, 2B25 and 3B18.

The applicant responded that the orientation of lap splices was not defined on the shop drawing, therefore, lap splices can be placed in either plane and the item should not be treated as a discrepancy.

Since there is no clear cut code requirement governing the orientation of lap splices, we conclude that the particular lap splice orientation adopted is not a deficiency and should be acceptable.

(5) Concrete Mix Change The CAT report raised a concern pertaining to the fact that 1-1/2" aggregate concrete was substituted for 3/4" aggregate concrete for beam 4B30 and beam 6B9 without a " Request for Information (RFI)." In an effort to justify the concrete mix change, the applicant stated that:

A. the mix substitute from 4SA-P (3/4" aggregate) to 4MA-P (1-1/2" aggregate) was approved by the Burns and Roe field engineer prior to concrete placement, B. both classes of concrete have the same required minimum 28-day strength of fc' = 4000 psi, and C. the concrete bond and consolidation in these two beams was de-termined as excellent, therefore, the mix change adopted should not affect the structural integrity or capacity and should be accept-able to the staff.

We consider the applicant's justification adequate and acceptable.

(6) Documentation Review and Disposition of NCR and RFI In the CAT report, deviations of the documentation of the as-built structural elements from the design / construction specifications were noted. It also identified deficiencies in dispositions of NCR pertain-ing to beams 2B11, 283 and 2B25.

In addressing the above deficiencies, the applicant provided the pro-cedures adopted for evaluation of the 23 locations in 17 members (Ref.

2) which included the following items:

A. The design drawings on each member were checked against the design calculations.

B. The shop drawings were checked against the design drawings.

9

. 1.9%

misplaced bars and honeycombing because of heavy rebar requirement.

j Thus the samples are purposefully selected to be on the conserva-tive side and, therefore, should be acceptable to the staff.

tie have evaluated the applicant's justification and rationale for i sampling and conclude that the sampling approach used is acceptable.

I

4. Conclusion The discrepancies outlined in the CAT report (Ref. 1), the responses provided by the applicant (Ref. 2.5.7) including the discussions held between the staff and the applicant (Refs. 4 and 6) pertaining to the concrete construction problems at WNP-2, have been reviewed. Based on the discussions provided above in this SSER, we conclude that the as-built Category I structures at WNP-2 have met the intent of WNP-2 FSAR commitments and the applicable SRP provisions, thus, the issues

, raised by CAT /I&E are considered resolved.

l i

i s

4 i

f

FEb8,jggg Docket flo. 50 397 HEMORANDUM FOR: A. Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing FROM: R. Auluck, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 2, Division of Licensing

SUBJECT:

PROJECT STATUS BRIEFING DATE & TIME: Thursday, February 14, 1985 3:00 p.m.

LOCATION: Phillips Building Room P-110 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland PURPOSE: To brief the incoming Director of the Division of Licensing on the status of WNP-2.

PARTICIPANTS *: NRC Utility H. Thompson A. Sorensen.

A. Schwencer ,

R. Auluck NOTE: Other interested parties (i.e., government officials, intervenors, etc.)

will be provided the opportunity to comment at the end of the briefing.

R. Auluck, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing cc: See next page t

s'Q LB LB[2DL/BC -

b ASchwencer

/85 2/{/85 P PDR

am m jo,, UNITED STATES

[ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

% . . . . . * ,e FEB 8 1985 Docket No. 50-397 MEMORANDUM FOR: A. Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing FROM: R. Auluck, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 2, Division of Licensing

SUBJECT:

PROJECT STATUS BRIEFING DATE & TIME: Thursday, February 14, 1985 3:00 p.m.

LOCATION: Phillips Building Room P-110 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland PURPOSE: To brief the incoming Director of the Division of Licensing on the status of WNP-2.

PARTICIPANTS *: NRC Utility Dhompson A. Sorensen A. Schwencer R. Auluck NOTE: Other interested parties (i.e., government officials, intervenors, etc.),

will be provided the opportunity to comment at the end of the briefing. '

-f %

( R. Auluck, Project Manager l Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing cc: See next page i

l l

l l

WNP-2 1

Mr. G. C. Sorensen, Manager Regulatory Programs Washington Public Power Supply System P. O. Box 968 3000 George Washington Way Richland, Washington 99352 cc: Nicholas Reynolds, Esquire Bishop, Cook, Liberman, Purcell & Reynolds 1200 Seventeenth Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 Mr. G. E. Doupe, Esquire Washington Public Power Supply System P. O. Box 968 3000 George Washington Way Richland, Washington 99532 Nicholas Lewis, Chairman Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council Mail Stop PY-11 Olympia, Washington 98504 P. L. Powell, Licensing Manager Washington Public Power Supply System P. O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352 Mr. W. G. Conn, SR. N/M Group Supervisor Burns and Roe, Incorporated ,

601 Williams Boulevard Richland, Washington 99352 R. B. Glasscock, Director Licensing and Assurance Washington Public Power Supply System P. O. Cox 968, MD 650 Richland, Washington 99352 M. J. D. Martin WNP-2 Plant Manager Washington Public Power Supply System P. O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352

- - . . , - - - , . . - , + . . ,

~

Date: 2/7/85 MEETING NOTICE DISTRIBUTION:

'ument Control (50-397 ) NRC Participants H. Thompson DR PRC A. Scnwencer L Reading H. R. Denton/E. G. Case D. G. Eisenhut/FMiraglia T. M. Novak B. J. Youngblood A. Schwencer G. W. Knighton E. Adensam Acting Chief, ORB #5 C. Grimes, SEPB G. Holohan C. Thomas G. C. Lainas S. Varga D. Vassallo J. R. Miller J. Stolz R. H. Vollmer J. P. Knight R. Bernero

'L. Rubenstein W. Houston D. Muller T. Speis F. Schroeder F. Rowsome H. Thompson T. W. Russell ACRS (16)

OELD Attorney Pa ton E. L. Jordan, IE N. Grace F. Ingram, PA Receptionist (if meeting held in Bethesda)

Project Manager R. Auluck E. Hylton Region 5 cc: Service List

.