IR 05000344/1990022
| ML20056A054 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/20/1990 |
| From: | Richards S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056A048 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-344-90-22-MM, NUDOCS 9008030135 | |
| Download: ML20056A054 (7) | |
Text
l
-:
.
.-
.
..
,
,
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION Y Report No. 50-344/90-22 Docket No. 50-344 License No. NPF-1 d
Licensee:
Portland General Electric Company
121 S. W -Salmon' Street
Portland, Oregon 97204 Facility Name: Trojan Nuclear Power Plant Meeting at: Trojan Nuclear Power Plant Prescott, Oregon Report Prepared by:
B. J. Olson Project Inspector Approved by:
6#
M-1o-90 S. A. Richards, Chief
.
Date Signed Reactor Projects Branch
,
.
Meeting Summary:
Meeting on June 15, 1990 (Report No. 50-344/90-22).
A management meeting was held to discuss the results of the NRC Systematic i
Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) for the-Trojan Nuclear Power Plant l
during the period from January.1,1989 through March;31,1990.
SALP details i
are documented in SALP Report 50-344/90-09. Details of this management l
meeting-are documented in this report.
.
i i
!
i 9008030135 900720 PDR ADOCK 05000344 G
,
-. -
--
.
. - -
- - - -. _ _. -.
.. -
-
.-
.
.-
t
.
.
.
.
.
..
DETAILS 1.
Meeting Attendees a.
Licensee Attendees W. M. Higgins, Senior Vice President T. D. Walt Acting Vice President, Nuclear J. E. Cross, Prospective:Vice President, Nuclear W. R. Robinson, General Manager, Trojan Plant p
C. P. Yundt, Assistant General Manager, Trojan Plant u
G. D. Hicks, General Manager, Plant Support G. A. Lieuallen, General Manager, Trojan Excellence l
C. K. Seaman, General Manger,-Quality Assurance.
A. R. Ankrum Manager, Nuclear Security i
J. A. Reinhart, Acting Manager, Operations J. F. Whelan, Manager, Maintenance
"
J. M. Anderson, Manager, Materials M. W. Hoffmann, Acting Manager, Nuclear Plant Engineering
R. M. Nelson, Manager, Nuclear Safety and Regulation Department
!
J. Mody, Branch Manager, Plant. Systems Engineering G. L. Rich, Branch Manager, Radiation Protection
'
D. B. Fancher. Supervisor, Plant Training W. J. Williams, Compliance Engineer
,
'
D. A. Desmarais, Public Affairs s
b.
NRC Attendees B. H. Faulkenberry, Deputy Regional Administrator R. P. Zimmerman, Director, Division of Reactor Safety and Projects R. J. Pate. P"anch Chief, Nuclear Materials Safety'and Safeguards
!
R. C. Barr, n nior Resident inspector G. N. Cook, Regional Public Affairs Officer _
B. J. Olson, Project Inspector J. T. Larkins, Acting Director, Project Directorate V,'NRR R. B. Bevan, Project Manager, NRR c.
Oregon Department of Energy Attendees H. Moomey, Manager, Reactor Safety A. Bless, Trojan Resident d.
Bonneville Power Administration l
D. L. Williams, Nuclear Engineer-2.
Detailed Meeting Minutes Mr. Faulkenberry opened the meeting, indicating that the overall performance at Trojan has been good.
Since the last-assessment period, there has been-improvement in three functional areas and decreased performance in two functional areas.
Significant achievements have been
- - -,,
..,. -,,
,. --.
-
-
i
-
.
j
.
.
'
.
noted in the areas of Plant Operations, where no significant transients occurred during the assessment period; Safety Assessment / Quality Verification, where there was significant improvement in audits, more technical expertise on staff, and improved management support; and i
Security, where improvements have been seen in the root cause and-.-
j corrective action programs. Areas where there appears to be a need for e
improvement include Emergency Preparedness, where weaknesses were j
observed in an exercise at the early ) art of the assessment period; and
!
Maintenance / Surveillance, where a num>er of activities are weak although
,
recent improvements have been seen.
l!
Mr. Faulkenberry also noted other_ achievements at Trojan including:
building a new training facility with a good, workable simulator; moving the engineering staff onsite where they can be more involved with plant
_
activities; a new and improved management team; and an active Nuclear
Division Improvement Program.
In concluding his opening remarks, Mr.
t Faulkenberry encouraged an open, candid' discussion throughout the meeting.
J Mr. Zimerman summarized the results in four functional areas.
Mr.-
Zimmerman noted that the SALP Board deliberated at length in rating Plant
Operations as Category 1.
Strengths in the area included well managed
'
day to day activities with strong supervisors and senior reactor
,
operators; a SALP period generally free of operational events such as.
transients or significant valve lineup problems; good operator knowledge; and a consistent approach to the resolution of problems.
Indicative of
this approach were the conservative actions taken to inspect instrument
'
cabinets when loose connections were noted in the OTAT circuits and to shut down the plant when the main steam flow trip setpoints were not properly set. Weaknesses observed in the last SALP period, such as procedure compliance, shift turnover, and control room logs, have also improved.
_ 7 The addition of a simulator was noted as an improvement and should provide future benefits; however, current training was criticized. Mr.
Zimerman noted the need to identify operators who repeatedly have difficulty with training or actual operations such that additional assistance could be provided. He also stated that crew coordination'and communication were problems during the last requalification exam, however he noted that the crew problems have only been observed in training exercises and have not been seen in control room operation. Mr. Cross i
stated that he and Mr. Robinson are currently evaluating crew performance using the simulator.
Problems occurring when Operations and Maintenance groups had to-coordinate activities were pointed out.
Coordination problems occurred that resulted in overheating of an RHR heat exchanger and calibration of an RHR flow switch at an inappropriate time.
Emphasis was placed on the
.
need to work for improved coordination between Operations and other groups.
In response to the NRC's comments related to Plant Operations, Mr. Walt indicated that PGE was pleased with the recognition given, and that training issues will be addressed.
Mr. Robinson stated that a Category '.
-
i l
e
.
_
-
.
.
.
. -.. - -
-
..
.
.- -
. _ -..
'
,
,
rating was significant, but they do realize that Operations isn't perfect, and problems will be addressed.
Each crew will be evaluated using the simulator, and consideration will be given to areas where command and control improvements can be made.
Mr. Cross stated that I
communication throughout the organization is important, and that he will ensure there will be feedback to senior management regarding any of the
proposed changes.
The next area discussed was Maintenance / Surveillance. Mr. Zimmerman indicated that this functional area was last rated as Category 2, declining trend, and is now rated as Category 3 improving trer.d.
Trojan's greatest strengths in this area are perceived as the corrective actions to be implemented by the Nuclear Division Improvement Program, and that Trojan has an understanding of the weaknesses associated with j
Maintenance / Surveillance.
Prioritization of outstanding Maintenance
>
Requests was noted as positive.
Implementation of the Work Control Center was addressed as a potential future strength.
Recognition was l
provided for increasing the supervisory oversight of maintenance and for-implementing a well defined training program.
'
Weaknesses in the Maintenance / Surveillance program were then addressed.
Mr. Zimmerman stated that the majority of operational events were rooted
,
in this area, with surveillance of the containment sump being the most significant.
It was pointed out that 18 violations.were a sociated with
[
this functional. area during the assessment period. There has been difficulty in coordinating activities with other departments, as demonstrated by replacing the wrong charcoal filter, and by placing the containment hydrogen vent trains in an inoperable status.
Longstanding problems have existed related to missed surveillances, poor quality procedures, and corrective actions that were limited in scope. Mr.
i Zimmerman also pointed out that many maintenance jobs have been deferred during the current outage. Dr. Larkins indicated that
'
Maintenance / Surveillance is in need of improvement, and:that-the Work _
~
,
Control Center should be fully implemented.
,
Mr. Walt initiated Trojan's response to the Maintenance / Surveillance area. He indicated that he was dissatisfied with the overall perfonnance in this functional area, and that short term, aggressive actions would be taken. He also stated that Trojan was committed to improvement in this area. Mr. Robinson stated that he recognizes the weaknesses and problems with Maintenance / Surveillance, and that-aggressive actions-will be taken to solve the problems.
Regarding Engheering/ Technical Support, Mr. Zininerman indicated that the
area was last rated as Category 2 and was rated as Category 2 for this assessment period. He pointed out that the SALP Board noted mixed performance in this area. Major strengths were identified as: moving the Nuclear Plant Engineering group to the site, which'should improve the.
interface with other plant organizations; performing a good quality SSFI for the Service Water System; and the Design Basis Document effort, which will improve system understanding. Mr. Zininerman considered that the.
Design Basis Document program is vitally important, and that the NRC is looking. at this effort in a positive light. Trojan is encouraged to continue identifying system problems through.this effort. Other examples
<
.
..
.
...
-
.
--
-
-
..
--
. =.
-.
.-
-
-. _..
-
__
_ _.
t
',
-
,
.
of good engineering work pointed out by Mr. Zimmerman were the aggressive
',
actions related to the cracked pressurizer safety valve disc, the. strong erosion-corrosion program, and the handling of the _circumferential cracks in steam generator tubes.
Weaknesses associated with Engineering / Technical Support were in areas of inconsistent quality and administrative control of technical work. Mr.
Zimerman provided examples such as the overheating of an RHR heat
-
exchanger, the incorrect main steam flow setpoint, and the containment sump problems, as illustrative of inconsistent work quality.
Administrative work control problems included drawings that were not maintained current, updates to the. FSAR that were not made,' temporary modifications that have not been made permanent, and-interface problems between design and system engineering groups. Mr. Zimerman expressed
<
the need to learn from industry experience and pointed out that Trojan should have learned from the industry about problems associated with hydrogen tanks located on the control building roof.
Finally, Mr..
,
Zimmerman discussed attrition of system engineers, with potential-problems related to work load and the definition of responsibilities.
Dr. Larkins also expressed the need to. stabilize the Engineering Department staff.
,
Mr. Walt stressed the importance placed in the Engineering / Technical Support area and indicated that this is the lead area in the Nuclear i
Division Improvement Program.
He indicated that Trojen is proud of their Design Basis Document and system walkdown effort, and that Trojan is.
pleased with the NRC's recognition of their effort. Regarding staffing, Mr. Walt agreed that there'was a'high turnover rate in 1989, but no one has left the group in 1990.
Efforts are also underway to secure the position of Manager, Nuclear Plant Engineering.
The next functional area discussed was Safety Assesment/ Quality Verification. During the last assessment period, this; area was rated as Category 3, and for the current assessment' period.the area was rated as Category 2.
Mr. Zimmerman stated that Quality Assurance :(QA)- has now shown consistent improvement. The depth and thoroughness of-audits along
,
with significant findings were viewed favorably. Mr. Zimerman indicated that PGE should take pride in their self policing actions..The knowledge of cne QA staff is considered to be good,-and the implementation of the
,
Corrective Action Program is viewed as a future strength. A strong, positive attitude by both PGE and Trojan management is recognized. Mr.
Zimmerman indicated that Trojan is now taking an industry perspective to
~
problems when in the past there appeared to be self chosen isolation and a reluctance to learn from industry problems. The need for QA to continue playing a strong role in plant affairs was stressed.
Weaknesses in the Safety Assessment / Quality Assurance area included the role of the Plant Review Board and the Trojan Nuclear 0)erations Board.
It is considered that both organizations can be strengtlened and can
.
become more proactive in their approach to plant problems. Tracking
,
completion of corrective actions can also be improved. The role of the Performance Monitoring / Event Analysis group was viewed as mixed, with a need stated to improve root cause analysis.
Finally, Mr. Zimmerman
,
....
.
- -., - -
.
.-
_
_
.
_
_
_
_
_
.
.
.
,
.
stated that QA expertise in certain' disciplines, such as fire protection and electrical, could be improved.
Mr. Walt indicated that Trojan was pleased with the intrusiveness of the QA organization, and that emphasis had been placed in'this functional
,
[
area. He further stated that as QA goes, so goes the Nuclear Division.
l Mr. Seaman went on to state that the GA organization will continue to
,
'
improve. Mr. Higgins. indicated that the role of the Trojan Nuclear Operations Board will be reviewed. Mr. Higgins 'also indicated that l
working in QA will be a way to get ahead at Trojan.
,
Prior to continuing with the next functional areas, Mr. Faulkenberry took
'l time to stress that Trojar, should n1t get complacent with a Category 1 rating in Operations, and that efforts should be taken to refocus on a
-
,
successful startup following the current outaa. Mr. Higgins responded
'
by indicating that after noting tho decline in the Emergency Preparedness area, they would not allow Operations to slip.
Mr. Pate continued with the functional areas of Radiological Controls, I
Emergency Preparedness and Security.
For Radiological Controls,
'
strengths were identified as an increasing management support for the program, improved contamination controls, improved radiological postings and surveys, and a strong erosion-corrosion program.
Mr. Pate identified perceived weaknesses in the area of Radiological Controls. ALARA planning, particularly with outage coordination, was l
noted as weak.
The program for transporting radioactive materials, and I
the storage of solid waste were also identified as areas in need of (
improvement. Mr. Pate concluded by stating that the Radiological Control area was generally good and stressed the need to work on ALARA controls.
Mr. Walt recognized-the need for more work in the Radiological Control area, particularly in the area of ALARA. He' noted that more ALARA planning is needed, and the 1991 outage-will be improved.
i Mr. Pate went on to the functional area of Emergency Preparedness. He
'
identified strengths in the area as increased management' oversight near the end of the assessment period, with timely and effective response to identified NRC concerns.
Weaknesses identified in Emergency Preparedness were discussed. Mr. Pate pointed out that the level of mr.nagement support and oversight of the f
program varied prior to the annual exercise, resulting in fluctuating performance.
He indicated that there were problems with the annual'
'
exercise including weaknesses in dose assessment,_a delay in classifying a Site Area Emergency, and poor control of activities in the Technical Support Center.
He also indicated that there has been some staffing problems in the Emergency Preparedness area. Mr. Pate concluded his remarks by indicating that consistent support should be provided for i
Emergency Preparedness programs and for the training and staffing of personnel.
,
Mr. Walt did note that there had been inconsistent management attention in this functional area. Mr. Higgins indicated that efforts are underway i
to improve the interface between Trojan and offsite emergency
_-.
--
.-.
-
.
..
-
-
-.
.
.
-
-
.-
-
'
.J
.
,
)
-
.
,
preparedness agencies. He also stated that Trojan has the tools to improve in this area, and that those tools need to be applied better.
The final functional area to be discussed was Security. Mr. Pate
'
indicated that Trojan has upgraded their protected area with improved lighting and has installed CCTV cameras to reduce the number of security posts.
He also stated that organization changes have resulted in improvements in the areas of internal. procedures, assignment of responsibilities, comunications, and correction of deficiencies.
Security areas where weakness was observed included firearm proficiency by certain on-duty security officers and-isolated failures to protect safeguards information.. Mr. Pate-also stated that there were concerns with the access control facility in that the facility is easily crowded,
,
and there were concerns with backup power sources for the security system. Mr. Pate sumarized his comments stating that management changes have resulted in significant improvements over this evaluation period, but there still are NRC concerns related to 'ecurity. Mr. Pate also
.
'
encouraged Trojan to complete the design and construction of the new access control facility.
Mr. Walt indicated that emphasis had been placed in the Security area.
There will be an evaluation of the-backup power supply, and the new access control building is scheduled for completion in 1992. Mr. Ankrum stated that there was good support and coordination with Security and
!
other onsite groups. He also indicated the need to maintain diligence in this area. Mr. Cross stated that he recognizes the need for a new access control building.
Dr. Larkins noted that, overall, there was an-improving trend in Trojan-
,
performance toward the end of the assessment period. He indicated that thers will be a real challenge for the new management.in maintaining the current levels in strong areas while improving weak areas. Mr. Barr
indicated that Trojan will face a real challenge in maintaining consistent performance once the goals are established. He'also noted that statements made regarding goal setting are promising. 'Mr.
.
Faulkenberry reiterated his opening remarks that overall performance has i
been good, and that significant improvements have been made in the areas of Plant Operations and Quality Assurance / Safety Assessment. Mr.
Faulkenberry also stated that Trojan has a good operations capability, and that efforts to refocus on operations need to be made so that the'
d startup following this outage is uneventful. Mr. Higgins stated that the
!
NRC's comments and criticisms are appreciated.
He concluded the meeting f
by indicating that he is proud of the way that Trojan has taken on their problems.
}
... _ _..
_
._.,m
_
, _ _ _
.
.