ML20197J337
| ML20197J337 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1985 |
| From: | Rajender Auluck Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Bernero R, Knight J, Thompson H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-0790, CON-WNP-790 NUDOCS 8503070574 | |
| Download: ML20197J337 (6) | |
Text
y FEB 2 8 Gt5 Docket flo. 50-397 MEliORANDUM FOR:
Hugh T. Thompson, Jr., Director Division of Licenisng Robert Benero, Director Division of Systems Integration James P. Knight, Acting Director Division of Engineering William T. Russell, Acting Director Division of Hunan Factors Safety THRil:
A. Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2, DL T. flovak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing FR0fi:
R. Auluck, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 2, DL SilBJECT:
DRAFT NRR It!PllT FOR SALP FOR WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 Enclosed is a draft of the NRR input for the SALP for WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2.
This draft report is based partly upon input solicited from selected staff personnel who have had substantial contact and involvement with UNP-2 licensing material. Also enclosed is the list of personnel who provided the SALP input with their overall rating.
Please review the draft evaluation and provide any comments you feel appropriate. All connents received by March 6, 1985 will be considered in the final report.
Your comments may be provided verbally due to the short turn-around time.
Please note that the licensee was evaluated to be a Category 2.
M. Srinivasan is the SES representative for UNP-2.
Ot-ittihn1 eTeriod B7r R. Auluck, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated Distribution:
cc w/ enclosures:
H. Denten
Contact:
P. Auluck PRC System X28547
/'
RAuluck EHviton
- Previousconcurrence'c2ncurredonby:
JLyons
- LB#2/DL/PM 4LB#2/DL/BC
- PSB/DSI EWeinkam RAuluck:lb ASchwencer MSrinivasan 02/25/85
_ 02y/E 02/27/85 43070574 850228 X ADOCK 05000 c
PDil 6
4 Docket No. 50-397 FACILITY:
WWPPS Nuclear Project No. 2 LICENSEE:
Washington Public Power Supply System EVALUATION PERIOD:
August 1, 1983 through January 1, 1985 PROJECT MANAGER:
Raj Auluck I.
Introduction This report contains NRR's input to the SALP review for UUP-2. The assessment of the licensee's performance was conducted according to NRR Office Letter No. 44, NRR Inputs to SALP Process, dated January 3, 1984. This Office Letter incorporates NRC Manual Chapter 0516, Systematic Assessment of Licensee Perfonnance.
~
II. Summary NRC Manual Chapter 0516 specifies that each functional area evaluated will be assigned T performance category (Category 1, 2 or 3) based on a composite of a number of attributes. The performance of the Washinoton Public Power Supply System in the functional crea of Licensing Activities is rated Category 2.
III. Criteria The evaluation criteria used in this assessment'are given in NRC Manual Chapter 0516 Appendix, Table 1, Evaluation Criteria with Attributes for Assessment of Licensee Performance.
l IV. Methodology This evaluation represents the integrated inputs of the Project Manager and t
those technical reviewers who expended significant amounts of effort on WNP-2 l
licensing actions during the current rating period.
Using the guidelines of NRC Manual Chapter 0516, the ORPM and each reviewer applied specific evaluation criteria to the relevant licensee performance attributes, as delineated in Chapter 0516, and assigned an overall rating category (1, 2 or 3) to each attribute. The reviewers included this information as part of each Safety Evaluation Report transmitted to the Division of Licensing (DL). The ORPM, after reviewing the inputs of the technical reviewers, combined this information l
with a DL assessment of licensee performance to arrive to a composite rating for the licensee.
A written evaluation was then prepared by the ORPM and I
circulated to NRR management for comments which were incorporated in the final dra ft.
O
. The basis of this appraisal was the licensee's performance in support of licensing actions that were either completed or active during the current rating period. These actions, consisting of amendment requests, exemption requests, responses to generic letters, TMI items, and other actions, are classified as follows:
A.
completed Plant Actions in this category include:
Control of heavy loads Wetwell drywell vacuum breaker design modification Issuance of WNP-2 license Issuance of full power license amendment Energency response facilities Post-accident sanpling system Installation of control room chillers Emergency planning program issues Compliance of ANSI 13.10 guidelines for effluent radiation monitors (NUREG-0737, II.F.I, items 1 & 2)
Sixteen technical specification changes which were included in seven amendments to the license
~
An exemption on containment inerting V.
Assessment of Performance Attributes - Licensing The licensee's performance evaluation is based on a consideration of seven evaluation criteria given in the NRC Manual Chapter.
For most of the licensing issues considered in this evaluation, only three of the evaluation criteria were of significance.
Therefore, the composite rating is based on the following evaluation ceiteria:
Management involvement Approach to resolution of technical issues Responsiveness to NRC initiatives The evaluation criteria of " Reportable events" and " Training were judged to apply only to a few licensing activities.
A.
Management Involvement and Control in Assuring Ouality During the evaluation period WNP-2 has been in the preopera'tional testing phase as well as in the commercial operations phase. The WNP-2 license was issued on December 20, 1983 with full power license amendment on April 13, 1984.
The startup testing program was completed and WHP-2 began commercial operation on December 13, 1984.
During this tine period, management involvement with licensing activities has been evident.
The senior management took active part in resolving licensing issues in the areas of energency planning and operator shift staffing.
One area where the management attention could be increased is in the screening of amendment requests to ensure that the issues are clearly described and adequately evaluated.
For example, tSe write-up of the evaluations of hazards considerations in amendment requests should be made clearer to support the
. conclusions reached.
On the basis of these observations, a rating of 2 is assigned to this attribute.
B.
Approach to Resolution of Technical Issues from a Safety Standpoint In the approach to resolution of technical issues from a safety standpoint, the licensee's responses have, in general, been sound and viable.
For example, submittals and/or meetings regarding licensing issues in the areas of environmental qualification of equipment, Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737, emergency planning and in few other areas of licensing were handled well and contained sufficient information for the staff to arrive at the conclusions.
On the basis of these observations, a rating category of 2 is assigned to this attribute.
C.
Responsiveness of NRC Initiatives The licensee has generally been quite responsive to staff concerns.
Requested information has been provided in a timely manner, has been comprehensive, and has directly addressed the issues of concern.__kicen.see responsiveness was particularly good in addressing several licensing issues prior to the issuence of the WNP-2 license and on the exemption request concerning containment inerting.
The overall rating for this attribute is Category 1.
D.
Enforcement No basis exist for an NRR evaluation of this attribute in the licensing area.
E.
Reportable Events In the area of Reporting and Analysis of Reportable Events, the event reports are generally complete and prompt.
Aside from formal reporting requirements, the licensee has been responsive in reporting delays to staff questions or meeting certain schedule requirements.
In general, the staff is notified by telephone when delays will occur. A rating of Category 2 is assigned to this attribute.
F.
Staffing The attribute was judged to be Category 2, in that the staffing of UNP-2 licensing effort appears to be adequate.
G.
Training and Oualifications No basis exists for an NRR evaluation of this attribute.
VI. Assessment of Performance Attributes - Startup Testino During the startup testing program several events delayed the conpletion of power ascension. test program (PATP).
On July 9, 1984, during monthly sur-veillance testing, standby Diesel Gererator IB (DGIB) incurred a high vibration alarn. The slip ring end bearing had turned on the insulation, thus destroying
, the insulation and allowing the shaft to drop slightly.
Inspection of DGIA revealed that it may also have a similar problem. The management took prompt action in this instance. The modifications were completed and the units de-clared operable within three weeks.
During the PATP phase, seven license amendments to the license were issued, including an emergency technical specification change regarding surveillance requirements of certain reactor
, coolant systen pressure isolation valves. The licensee should have known the nature of the requirements and acted accordingly instead of requesting NRC licensing action within a day. On a recent visit to the plant site, the Project Manager found the different areas of the plant to be quite clean.
The overall rating of this attribute is Category 2.
VII. Conclusions Although one Category 1 rating was assigned, the majority were Category 2.
Therefore, an overall licensing performance rating of Category 2 has been assigned.
e e
Enclosure l
1 Hame Branch Overall Rating C. Hinson RAB 2
F. Eltawila CSB 2
R. Kendall ICSB 1
R. Froelich HFEB 2
F. Allenspach LQB 3
"t.
I i
l 1
i' 1
s i
l 5
4 I
l 8
A 9
I
,-.._.__r-
,.rw y
.-_-.~,-m
,_ -