IR 05000344/1987042

Insp Rept 50-344/87-42 on 871130-1204.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Radioactive Liquid & Liquid Waste,Radioactive Gaseous Waste Sys & Facility Tours

ML20149D550
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	12/28/1987
From:	Cicotte G, Hooker C, Yuhas G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20149D541	List: IR 05000344/1987042 ML20149D539
References
50-344-87-42, IEIN-87-032, IEIN-87-32, NUDOCS 8801130024
Download: ML20149D550 (9)

Text

- .. .

,-

.

'

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION V

Report No. 50-344/87-42 Docket No. 50-344 License No. NPF-1 Licensea: Portland General Electric Company 121 S. W. Salmon Streat Portland, Oregon 97204 Facility Name: Trojan Nuclear Plant Inspection at: Rainier, Oregon Inspection Conducted: November 30 - December _4,1987 l Inspectors: h), je /,2/2WP7 C. A. Hooker Rad on ecialisc Dats Sicjned 7, p ir a.9 4 ~7 l 3. R. Cicotte, Ra'diation Specialist Date Signed i l

Approvad: 6 @ $h G. P. \YDias, Chief

-

i2/w /?? ;

Date Signed 4 Facil!t'Ns Radiologicai Protection Section i Summary:

Inspection on November 39 - December 4, 1987 (Report No. 50-344/87-42) J Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of radioactive. liquid and liquid waste, radioactive gaseous vaste systems, and facility tour Inspection procedures addressed included 30703, 84723, 84724, 83726, and 8672 Results: Of the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie I l

Y$R 4 871228 0 k00{K05000344DCD

_

= '

,

.

.

'

DETAILS Persoas Contacted Portland General Electric (PGE)

J. 0, Reid, Manager, Plant Services

• C. H. Brown, Branch Manager, Quality Assurance Operations

• 0. L. Nordstrom, Compliance Engineer,. Nuclear Safety and Gegulation Department (NSRD)

• L. Rich, Supervisor, Chemistry

• W. Zielinski, Effluent Analyst. (EA)

• T. O. Meek, Supervisor, Radiation Protection NRC Resident Inspectors R. C. Barr, Senior Resident Inspector G. Y. Suh, Resident Inspector

• Denotes those present at the exit interview on December 4, 198 In addition to the individuals identified above, the inspectors met and held discussions with other members of the licensee staf . Radioactive Liquid Waste The inspectors reviewed the licensee's radioactive liquid waste program for compliance with 10 CFR Part 20, Technical Specification (TS)

requirements, licensee's procedures, and recommendations outlined in various industry standards, Audits The last identified QA audit related to this area was performed September 22-26, 1986, and discussed in Inspection Report N /87-1 No violations or deviations were identified, Changes Modifications to the Steam Generator Blowdown System and Liquid Radwaste System, Design Change No.83-052, were discussed in >

Inspection Report No 50-344/87-33, paragraph Since the last inspection of this area, the licensee had established a computer program to calculate the values and compile data for their quarterly radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent release This operation had been performed' manually in the pas ,

'

Verification of the new computer program had been performed, ,

reviewed, and approve ]

i J

-

!. '.

. 2

.

The licensee had recently started a pilot test to determine the operational and cost effectiveness of using Dura Cell Medias (DCM)

as opposed to normal organic resins for liquid waste treatmen According to the licensee, the vendor claims that DCM has a longer operating time, provides more volume flow, and a higher decontamination- factor than organic resin; however,- the cost of DCM is much highe No violations or deviations were identifie c. Effluent Control The following procedures, documents, and records were reviewed:

Procedures

A0-11-13 Radioactive Waste Control

• ~

CMP-6 Quarterly Liquid Radioactive Discharge Report Preparation l CMP-7 Liquid Radwaste Discharge Permit Preparation l Procedure  ;

Documents and Records l Selected Radioactive Liquid Discharge Fermits (Form C-241) from January 10, 1987, throu0h October 27, 198 * '

Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) reviewed in offic Memorandum to Chemistry Technicians from G. Rich, Tech Spec LLO ;

Sample Requirements, dated September 18, 198 l Monthly Operating Chemistry Reports for July - November 198 '

Semiannual Radioactive Effluent and Waste Disposal Report for ;

the period of January 1,1987, through June 30, 1987, also i discussed in Inspection Report No. 50-344/87-3 !

Procedures had been revised to reflect current operations. The inspector also observed that the chemistry procedures typically displayed highlighted notes to provide additional step guidanc l Radioactive effluent discharges were observed to be less than the limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table II, Column 2, and TS 3.11.1.2, and the design objective of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix Sampling and analysis were performed in accordance with TS 4.11.1.1.1 and radiation doses were calculated using the methodology and parameters in the ODCM. As of November 29, 1987, the licensee had only released about 0.165 Ci (excluding tritium and dissolved gases) from liquid discharges, well below their ALARA goal of 0.3 Ci per year No unmonitored release paths were identified. The

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _

.

.

.

~

\ .

inspector verified by mant.a1 calculations the dose values for batch release No. 103-87, using the licensee's ODC ,,

During a discussion with the EA, the inspectors were informed of a recently identified problem associated with the Chemical and Volume Control System (CVCS) and releases of noble gases (NG) in the

, Auxiliary Building. Based on discussions with the EA and review of I

an Operation memorandum, the inspectors noted that:

'

,

The , licensee had been experiencing NG releases in the Auxiliary l Building when the Auxiliary Building Drain Tank (ABDT) was being pumped to the Hold Up Tank *

On November 29, 1987, graveyard shift, the licensee noted that PERM-2C (Auxiliary Building Low Gas Monitor) would spike to about 200 cpm on a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> cycle. The ABDT indicated about a 10-12% inel increase per shif To prove that the PERM-2C count rate spikes were coming from the ABDT, the licensee increased the ABDT level using water f om the CVCS Monitor Tank drain. When the ABDT back pressure opened the back pressure control valve (PCV-4048) to the vent collection header, PERM-5 (Vent Collection Header Monitor)

increased to about 22,000 cpm and PEPM-2C increased to about 200 op It was also noticed that the constant air monitor on the 2S ft. lovel also showed an increas On day shift, a repeat test was conducted using the Boric Acid Batch Tank overflow to the ABD No increase in ABDT level was i noted; however, a level increase was observed in the Dirty l Waste Monitor Tank (DWMT). j The Operations Department investigation into the matter I identified discrepancies in their Piping and Instrument )

Diagrams (P& ids) after tracing out :he piping system, their l preliminary investigation indicated that certain drains (tank j and/or loop seal vents) from the Boric Acid Storage Tanks and i Boric Acid Batching TanP were routed to the DWrtT instead of the '

ABDT, contrary to the'P& ids and Final Safety Analysis Report syctem description. The final results of the licensee's investigation of this matter will be examined in a subsequent inspection (50-344/87-42-01, Open).

I:o violations or deviations were identifie d. Instrumentation The inspectors verified that procedures established the method for nrocess and effluent monitor setpoint determination in accordance with the ODCM. Calibrations were perforiaed in accordance with TS requirements and licensee procedure Inspection Report No. 50-344/86-46 discussed problems associated with high alarm trips on PERM-9 (liquid radwaste discharge monitor).

- . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . .

. >

4 .

,

'

4 i

. .

.

I During the month of January 1987, the licensee conducted a full- I range energy calibration of PERM-9 using National Bureau of j Standards traceable liquid standards (Am-241, Cd-109, Cr-51, Be-7,- )

-Fe-59, Co-60, Na-22, Co-57, Sn-113, Hg-203, Cs-137, Ce-139'and

.

i Mn-54). Based on their calibration data, the licensee determined that the high energy curves supplied by the vendor appeared to be 1 l slightly incorrec New calibration curves were established and the i l high alarm trip problem resolved. The licensee also discussed this~ -l matter with the vendo No violations or deviations were identifie .;

3. Gaseous Waste

.l

)

The inspectors reviewed the licensee's radioactive gaseous program for- l compliance with 10 CFR Part 20, TS requirements, licensee's procedures i and recommendations outlined in various industry standard l I Audits The last QA audit related to this area was discussed in paragraph l 2.a abov j l

No violations nr deviations were identifie I Changes

Changes associated with computerized quarterly releases was discussed in paragraph 3.b above. No other changes were observe No violations or deviations were identifie Procedures and Recnrds

'

Procedures A0-11-3 Radioactive Waste Control CMP-2 Quarterly Gaseous Discharge Report CMP-5 Containment Purge Discharge Permit Procedure

CMP-8 Waste Gas Decay Tank Discharge Permit Procedure CMP-37 Planned / Unplanned Releases - Liquid / Gaseous

CMP-55 Sampling of PERM-1, 2, and 6 Using the Accident Range Sampling System Records and Documents Discharge Permits (Permits G-31-87 through G-45-87) covering planned and unplanned releases from June 30,'1987 to November 19, 198 .

, , - -. - ,

_ . - _ _ _ _

. - _

'. 5 l

. 1 Semiannual Radioactive Effluent and Waste Disposal Report for the period of January 1,1987, through June 30, 1987, also discussed in Inspection Report No. 50-344/87-3 l

'

Based on the reviews,.the inspectors determined that procedures were revised as necessary to reflect current operations. Radioactive gaseous discharges were observed to be less than the limits 1 specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B Table II, Column 1, and TS 3.11.1.2, and the design objective of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix :

Sampling and analysis were performed in accordance with TS 4.11.1.2.1 and radiation doses were calculated using the methodology and parameters in the ODCM. As of November 29, 1987, the licensee was below their established ALARA goal of 700 curies (Ci) per year for noble gas, and 0.01 Ci per year for iodines .and particulates, i The inspectors verified by manual calculations that gascous  ;

effluents were less than the limits prescribed in the T No

{

unmonitored release paths were identifie No violations or deviations were identifie d. Instrumentation The inspectors discussed instrument calibration with licensee representatives and reviewed calibration records for the following gaseous effluent monitors:

PERM-1 Containment Monitoring System P

PERM-2 Auxiliary Building Vent Exhaust Monitoring System PERM-6 Condenser Offgas Monitoring System Based on this review, the inspectors noted that calibrations had been performed in accordance with TS 4.3.3.1 o During a facility tour on December 3, 1987, the inspectors observed that a calibration sticker on the low flow rotometer '(FI-3184) on the condenser air ejector (CAEJ) offgas system indicated that the unit was last calibrated on March 13, 1986. All of the stickers'of the other CAEJ flowrate measuring instruments indicated recent calibration dates. Based on review of calibration records, "

licensee's procedures, TS, and discussions with the I&C supervisor,  !

the inspectors made the following observation *

TS Table 3.3-13, item 5.d lists FR-3100 (wide-range monitor).as l the instrument for measuring the CAEJ flowrate. However, 1 FI-3184 (narrow range 0-22 cfm) is typically used during normal l operations to obtain the system flowrate (about 5-6 cfm) when I calculating any gaseou; effluent releases via this pathwa j FI-3184 also has been used to meet TS requirements when FR-3100 '

has been inoperable. TS Table 4.3-9 requires that FR-3100 be-calibrated at a frequency of "R."

.

i

__

.,

I I 6

.

Maintenance Procedure MP-2-0, Installed Plant Instrumentation Maintenance, dated March 8, 1983,Section II.B. requires the calibration interval be determined and recorded on Form I&C-4, Calibration Data Sheet, for installed instrumentatio Form I&C-4 for FI-3184 noted the calibration interval was "R" and last calibrated on March 13, 1986. This indicated that FI-3184 had not been calibratad'for about 20-h month *

TS Table 1-2 defines "R" as being a frequency of 18 month MP-2-0, Table 1,-General Guidelines for Determination of an Instrument Calibration Interval, notes that plant effluent related instruments should be calibrated once per year (l'yr.).

MP-2-0 did not describe or noted the use of "R."

The I&C supervisor informed the inspectors that "R" on Form i I&C-4 normally meant refueling; however, not in all case '

Instruments calibrated during refueling are placed in a refueling package (a grouping of instruments) in the licensee's computerized master scheduling report. The licensee refuels annually. The computer data base for FI-3184 noted that the calibration interval was "Y" (yearly). However,.FI-3184 had not been assigned to a refueling package, therefore, the licensee's monthly computerized scheduling report did not ,

indicate a calibration due date for this instrumen The I&C l supervisor also stated that procedure MP-2-0 does not l accurately reflect new changes that have been made to the '

computerized calibration scheduling syste l The I&C supervisor took immediate steps to have FI-3184 l calibrated, which was performed on December 4, 1987. This ;

represented about 114% of the calibration interval using "R" as ]

defined in the TS (18 months). Fortuitously, had the '

inspectors not brought this matter to the licensee's attention, !

FI-3184 could conceivably have exceeded the TS 25% allowanc The inspectors also observed that MP-2-0, in several areas, referenced the surveillance requirements of Standard and Environmental Technical Specifications (ETS). The referenced >

ETSs were deleted in their entirety and incorporated into '

Appendix A of the TS, NRC letter, dated December 20, 1984, Amendment No. 9 The incorrect reference is an indication of inadequate procedure revie Inspection Report N /86-30 also described the same incorrect reference for another licensee procedur *

During facility tours and records review, the inspectors observed that numerous other instruments in the gaseous and liquid waste, and Post Accident Sampling Systems had been calibrated within 100% of their calibration interval Based on the above observations, it appears that procedure HP-2-0, noted as a safety-related procedure, needed revision to reflect the current maintenance and calibration scheduling system. The above

..

.__ - __-_ _-

'. 7

.

observations were presented to the licensee representatives;at the exit interview on December 4, 1987. The-licensee representatives ackncwledged the inspectors' observations and committed to review MP-2-0 and make the necessary changes to reflect the current computerized scheduling system. .The inspectors also informed th licensee representatives that the use of "R," as a scheduling parameter, should not conflict with the TS definition.

i' No violations or deviations were identifie Air Cleaning Systems

!

Discussions with the licensee staff and a review of records of air cleaning system tests indicated that periodic sampling of charcoal adsorbers and testing of high efficiency particulate filtration (HEPA) systems were conducted at the required periodicit IE Information Notice No. 87-32, Deficiencies in the Testing of Nuclear-Grade Charcoal, was also discussed with the licensee representative in charge of testing air cleaning systems. The-inspector noted that the licensee had received, reviewed and taken action regarding this notice (IN-87-32) (closed).

No violations or deviations were identifie . Facility Tours The inspectors, on several occasions, teared various areas of the Auxiliary, Turbine and Fuel Handling Luildings. The inspectors made independent radiation measurements using an NRC R0-2 portable ion chamber, S/N 2691, due for calibration on January 8,1988. In addition to observations discussed in other paragraphs of this report, the inspectors observed the following:

Inspection Report No. 50-344/87-33 described.the appearance that very little effort had been made to decontaminate and remove refueling outage equipment from the spent' fuel pool are During this inspection, the inspectors observed that a remarkable improvement had been made in housekeeping practices in the spent fuel pool area. Housekeeping practices were generally good in all areas toure Various activities regarding the loading and preparation of a shipment of highly radioactive spent resins for burial were observed. Licensee and contract vendor loading and resin drying check sheets were examined in the fiel Check sheet signoffs were noted to be completed as require All radiation areas and high radiation areas were posted as required by 10 CFR Part 20, and access controls were consistent with TS 6.12'

and licensee's procedure No violations or deviations were identifie . - . _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ .

_ . . _ . . _ _ . .- _ _ _ _ _

~ . .. __. . . _ ___

ie

- ..; -

-

, 8

. -

. .,

Exit' Interview

'

'

'

j_ . The inspectors met with the licensee representatives denoted in paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on December 4, 1987. The scope'and

findings of the inspection were summ'arize '

.

The inspectors informed the licensee representatives:that'no' apparent

. violations or deviations were-identifie ,

t

[

^^%~

'

S , ,

s a f ,

'

-

e 6,,

')' '

, -(.4 e i ,

V- h I

t -1

.N , -

' % 't

-

, . .

.

,j'

, s

,

a e-

. , - ---*-, , .- w- - _p - , .m , -, - y 3,