IR 05000344/1992035
| ML20034G853 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/23/1993 |
| From: | Johnson P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034G852 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-344-92-35, NUDOCS 9303120007 | |
| Download: ML20034G853 (38) | |
Text
-
.
.
{.
,
t
-
~
.
t U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
REGION V
Report No.
50-344/92-35
Docket No.
50-344
,
License No.
NPF-1 i
!
Portland General Electric Company
!
Licensee:
121 S. W. Salmon Street
'
Portland, Oregon 97204 l
Facility Name:
Trojan Nuclear Plant
!
Inspection At:
Rainier, Oregon i
Inspection Conducted:
December 8,1992 through January 20, 1993 l
K. E. Johnston, Senior Resident Inspector
Inspectors:
J. F. Melfi, Resident Inspector t
90-1-13-D Approved By:
P. H. Johnson, Chief-Date Signed i
!
Reactor Projects Section 1
Summary:
Inspection on December 8. 1992 - January 20.1993 (Inspection Report No.
,
50-344/92-35)
Areas Inspected:
Routine inspection of operational safety verification, maintenance, surveillance, refueling activities, and followup of previously-l identified items.
Inspection procedures 41701, 61701, 61726, 62703, 71500,
'
71707 and 92701 and Temporary Instruction 2515/105 were used as guidance
-
during the conduct of the inspection.
Safety Issues Manaaement System (SIMS) Items: TI 2515/105, inspection of-f
licensee response to ensure safety related pumps will not be damaged during
,
low flow operation, was closed.
.
Results:
t General Conclusions and Specific Findinas:
Sionificant Safety Matters:
None
,
Summarv of Violations and Deviations:
None
,
t Doen It ms Summary:
One followup inspection ' item (Paragraph 8) was closed.
I
9303120007 930223 PDR ADOCK 05000344 G
PER
.
--
.
.
--
,
.
.-
- - -.
.
-
,
i e
,
'
s.
..
,
'
.
!
DETAILS
-
i 1.
Persons Contactgd
!
Portland General Electric a.
!
s'
.
J. E. Cross, Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer i
W. R. Robinson, Vice President Nuclear
!
- R. D. Machon, Plant General Manager l
C. K. Seaman, General Manager, Nuclear Plant Engineering
'
D. L. Nordstrom, General Manager, Nuclear Oversight
- T. D. Walt, General Manager, Technical Functions
- C. P. Yundt, Project Manager, Special Projects A. R. Ankrum, Manager, Nuclear Training R. D. Brandt, Acting Manager, Surveillance Procedures i-i H. K. Chernoff, Manager, Licensing j
M. B. Lackey, Manager, Planning and. Control S. B. Nichols, Outage Manager i
- W. O. Nicholson, Manager, Operations i
- J. W. Patterson, Manager, Maintenance
!
.
S. M. Quennoz, Manager, Technical Services l
M. Singh, Manager, Plant Modifications j
R. E. Susee, Manager, Quality Assurance G. P. Enterline, Branch Manager, Operations M. G. Cooksey, Maintenance Supervisor
!
,
- W. J. Williams, Manager, Nuclear Compliance i
A. C. Bielat, Manager, Independent Safety Review Group
3
'
C. M. Dieterle, Supervisor, Individual Plant Examination l
- M. W. Featherston, Compliance Engineer j
R. A. Reinart, I&C Maintenance Foreman
- J. M. Pedro, Compliance Specialist
'
.
R. N. Sherman, Compliance Specialist i
J. A. Benjamin, Supervisor, Quality Audits
.
b.
Oreoon Deoartment of Eneray l
- V. Sarte, Resident Inspector i
The inspectors also interviewed and talked with ci.ner licensee employees l
during the course of the inspection. These included shift supervisors, reactor and auxiliary operators, maintenance personnel, plant technicians and engineers, and quality assurance personnel.
l t
I
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
t 2.
Plant Status At the beginning of the inspection period the plant was in Mode 5 and at
.
a reduced inventory to support steam generator tube inspection. The i
licensee continued steam generator tube inspections through December 30, l
1992, using the motorized rotating pancake coil (MRPC) and ultrasonic j
,
testing.
s
f
'
I
.
.
.-
-
-
--
.-
.
'
2-5 --
-
.!
On January 4,1993, the licensee announced plans to cease operations at t
f Trojan. PGE discussed plans to defuel the reactor core and pursue a
" possession only license."
At the end of the inspection period, Trojan was in Mode 5, with the licensee preparing to establish conditions for defueling. A meeting was held in the Region V office on January 20, 1993, to discuss the licensee's shutdown plans (see Paragraph 10).
l 3.
Operational Safety Verification (71707)
During this inspection period, the inspectors observed and examined plant
'
activities to verify the operational safety of the licensee's facility.
'
Observations and examinations of those activities were conducted on a daily, weekly or biweekly basis.
Daily the inspectors observed control room activities to verify the licensee's adherence to limiting conditions for operation.as prescribed in the facility Technical Specifications. Logs, instrumentation, t
recorder traces, and other operational records were examined to obtain information on plant conditions, trends, and compliance with regulations.
On occasions when a shift turnover was in progress, the turnover of
,
information on plant status was observed to determine that pertinent
'
information was relayed to oncoming shift personnel.
Each week the inspectors toured accessible areas of the facility to observe the following items:
General plant and equipment conditions a.
b.
Maintenance requests and repairs c.
Fire hazards and fire fighting equipment d.
Ignition sources and flammable material control
>
Conduct of activities in accordance with the licensee's e.
administrative controls and approved procedures f.
Interiors of electrical and control panels
Implementation of the licensee's physical security plan
,
h.
Radiation protection controls i.
Plant housekeeping and cleanliness
j.
Radioactive waste systems
,
k.
Proper storage of. compressed gas bottles Weekly, the inspectors examined the licensee's equipment clearance controls with respect to removal of equipment from service to determine that the licensee had complied with technical specification limiting t
conditions for operation. Active clearances were spot-checked to ensure i'
that their issuance was consistent with plant status and maintenance evolutions. Logs of jumpers, bypasses, caution and test tags were
examined by the inspectors.
Each week the inspectors conversed with operators in the control room,
and with other plant personnel. The discussions centered on pertinent topics relating to general plant conditions, procedures, security, i
training and other topics related to in-progress work activities.
l The inspectors examined selected Corrective Action Requests (CARS) within-i the licensee's Corrective Action Program (CAP) to confirm that
'
..
!
.
e-
-
.
,3_
i deficiencies were identified and tracked by the system.
Identified
nonconformances were being tracked through completion of the corrective
f action.
Routine inspections of the licensee's physical security program were performed in the areas of access control, organization and staffing, and detection and assessment systems. The inspectors observed the access
,
control measures used at the entrance to the protected area, verified the integrity of portions of the protected area barrier and vital area
,
barriers, and observed in several instances the implementation of
- '
compensatory measures upon breach of vital area barriers.
Portions of
,
'
the isolation zone were verified to be free of obstructions.
Functioning
!
of central and secondary alarm stations (including the use of CCTV monitors) was observed. On a sampling basis, the inspectors verified
!
that the required minimum number of armed guards and individuals authorized to direct security activities were on site.
The inspectors conducted routine inspections of selected activities of
.
I the licensee's radiological protection program. A sampling of radiation
'
work permits (RWPs) was reviewed for completeness and adequacy of l
i informatica. During the course of inspection activities and periodic tours of plant areas, the inspectors verified proper use of personnel i
monitoring eguipment, observed individuals leaving the radiation
controlled area and signing out on appropriate RWP's, and observed the i
posting of radiation areas and contaminated areas.
Posted radiation
levels at locations within the fuel and auxiliary buildings were verified j
'
using both NRC and licensee portable survey meters. The involvement of I
health physics supervisors and ngineers and their awareness of significant plant activities assessed through conversations and
!
review of RWP sign-in record..
The inspectors verified the operability of selected engineered safety
,
features. This was done by di"ect visual verification of the correct i
f position of valves, availability of power, cooling water supply, system integrity and general condition of equipment, as applicable.
!
No violations or deviations were identified.
I 4.
Maintenance (62703)
i a.
Inverter Temporary Modification (TM) Installation The inspector observed electricians install a Temporary Modification (TM) to inverter Y-26 with Maintenance Request (MR) 93-00045. The
'
ele.tricians followed the MR work instructions and installed TM 93-002 satisfactorily.
!
!
b.
Seismic Monitor Repair i
The inspector observed portions of the repair and overhaul of the
seismic monitor per MRs 92-07706 and 92-07108. Technical Specifica-l tion (TS) 3.3.3.3 requires the seismic monitor to be operable at all
!
times.
If it needs to be repaired, the TS requires the monitor to t
be operable within 30 days. The licensee met this time requirement.
I
!
!
-
-
.
,
!
i
'
_4,
- -
.
.
t i
The technician used calibrated equipment and referred to the vendor
!
!
manuti and the work instructions when repairing this instrument.
The technician performed the observed portions satisfactorily.
l
'
Volume Control Tank Hydroaen Pressure Control Valve
.;
c.
The inspector observed portions of a functional test of the pressure
,
!
control valve for hydrogen cover gas to the volume control tank (PCV-8155). MR 92-04590 controlled the work. The inspector
!
observed that the licensee relied heavily on the skill of the j
instrumentation and controls (I&C) technicians to perform the work.
The inspector observed that although the I&C technicians did not i
have detailed instructions, they understood the task and the l
.
equipment.
i The inspector discussed the lack of detailed instructions with the i
'
maintenance manager and the I&C foreman. The following issues.were j
discussed:
l The I&C technicians had only the cover page of the maintenance j
request and a calibration data sheet (I&C Form 4) in the field.
,'
l The technicians did not have a referenced procedure or the applicable portions of the vendor manual. When asked by the-
!
inspector, the technicians stated that they were familiar with
!
the procedures and did not feel it was necessary to take them-l
'
to the job site.
F MR 92-04590 was written to perform calibrations on seven
;
separate volume control tank related instruments.
i
!
The gain and reset values of PCV-8155 were not referenced in
the MR or the I&C Form 4 and appeared to be controlled by a
calibration sticker.
'
'
The maintenance manager concluded that the I&C technicians and the
!
job planners had complied with the licensee's work control programs.
He addressed these issues as follows:
The procedure referenced in the MR (Maintenance Procedure [MP]
2-4, " Pneumatic Analog Instruments") was a general procedure
,
and applicable tc the inspection and maintenance of pneumatic analog instruments. The procedure had approximately eight very
!
general steps such as:
" Inspect all connections for evidence i
!
of physical damage or leaks." The maintenance manager considered these steps to be standard practice and within the
.
skill of the craft to accomplish without the procedure in hand.
In addition, the vendor manual guidance for a functional check
l was very general.
l
The maintenance manager concluded that the functional check was i
simple, that the I&C technicians had received adequate train-ing, and had adequate experience to perform the job acceptably l'
without having the general procedures in the field. The
'
_,
_
.
..
-
-
.
_
_
-
..
--
-
.,
'
-5-
-
-
.
administrative procedure governing procedure use, Trojan Plant Procedure (TPP) 12-1, *Huclear Division Manual," supported this
,
conclusion. According to the procedure, an individual l
i performing a routine and familiar task does not need to have a-procedure in hand.
.
The work control procedure allows related equipment to be per-l
formed using one MR. The maintenance manager noted that while
this breakdown of equipment was not optimum in this instance, i
the program allowed it and did not impact the performance of
.
the work.
The gain and reset for the non-safety pressure control valve
~
!
were not controlled setpoints.
I&C adjusted the values at the l
discretion of operations. The inspector observed that the I&C l
Form 4 for PCV-8155 had blanks for gain and reset and that its j
use would be prudent. The maintenance manager acknowledged
this and committed to revise the PCV-8155 I&C Form 4.
In
addition, he committed to inform the I&C department that
'
calibration tags were not to be used to track setpoints and to i
update I&C Form 4s to include appropriate data.
At the exit meeting, the inspector questioned whether the licensee may be placing too much reliance on " skill of the craft."
i No violations or deviations were identified.
,
5.
Surveillance (61726. 61701)
,
'
The inspector observed the first part of Periodic Engineering Test.(PET)
7-10, " Safety Injection Hot leg and Residual Heat Removal full Flow Check i
Valve Testing." Qualified personnel performed the test using specialized
calibrated equipment. The test results showed that the Safety Injection
l j
(SI) pumps had the correct flow for hot leg injection, and that the check
valves stroked to their full open position. Technicians satisfactorily l
restored the SI system to service. The inspector reviewed some test l
results that showed that the SI pump flowrates met design requirements.
The licensee indefinitely delayed the second part of PET 7-10 (Residual Heat Removal full flow test) due to the permanent shutdown of the plant.
No violations or deviations were identified.
.
6.
Temocrary Instruction (TI) 2515/105. (Closed) " Inspection of Licensee Activity in Response to NRC Bulletin 88-04 Potential Safety Related Pump loss." (25105)
The inspector reviewed outstanding issues regarding the potential loss of
,
safety related pumps due to strong pump / weak pump interactions. The
!
issue was the subject of NRC Bulletin 88-04 and.TI 2515/105.
Pump l
interaction is possible during a safety injection when the reactor
'
coolant system pressure remains higher than the safety injection or
'
residual heat removal (RHR) pump discharge pressures.
,
,
.
-
.
.
,
._
_
_
__
_
.
_
i f
'
- 6 --
,-
.
.
i i
The inspector's initial review of this issue was discussed in Inspection'
Report 91-32. The licensee had identified that the d RHR pump was the
!
stronger of the two pumps. Technicians installed the first check valve -
l
!
on the A RHR system in January 1992. This check valve prevented the B RHR pump from interacting with and dead-heading the A RHR pump. To
'
monitor whether the A RHR pump would become stronger than the B RHR pump,
,
the licensee periodically ran RHR pump performance tests.
<
A second check valve was to be installed to prevent pump interaction from
!
the A RHR pump to the B RHR pump. The inspector held TI 2515/105 open
.j (Inspection Report 91-32) pending the installation of a second check
valve into the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) system'. The licensee did intend to install this check valve during the 1993 Refueling Outage, l;
Based on the early shutdown of the plant, this check valve is no longer j
necessary and this TI is closed.
>
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Balance of Plant (BOP) (71500)
.
Power lines and Cranes
,
The inspector assessed the licensee's controls to prevent cranes and
other vehicles from interfering with power lines. Other facilities have
,
experienced loss of offsite power events in the recent past as a result
'
of weaknesses in the control of vehicles around power equipment.
.
The inspector found that the licensee had placed signs forbidding cranes from going near power lines and had described these problems in their
training program. The inspector reviewed part of the licensee's training
program describing these various losses of offsite power. The inspector l
verified that individual crane operators knew of these problems, could
describe what happened, and were aware of the steps taken at Trojan to i
prevent similar events. The licensee's actions appear appropriate.
i
.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Followuo on Previous Insoection Findinos (92701)
Resistance Thermocouole Detector (RTD) Bvoass Valves
)
a.
,
The inspector reviewed the maintenance history of the Reactor
'
Coolant System (RCS) RTD bypass line manual diaphragm valves.
,
In reviewing Maintenance Request history, the inspector found that
'
the licensee had observed some minor leakage of the first-off valves from the RCS hot leg at different times in the last seven years.
t The licensee did not consider the leakage from these valves to be.a RCS pressure boundary concern. They determined that the -leakage from the valves was around the diaphragm and through some packing and not through the valve body. Unidentified leakage had generally been less than 0.1 gpm during plant operations.
The licensee did take action to address the leakage by seal-welding
l l
.
.
.
\\
-
-7-
i the caps. The licensee also performed routine walkdowns of the RCS i
!
pressure boundary every shutdown per test procedure PET 9-10,
" Reactor Coolant System Leakage Test." The inspector found that the-licensee had addressed the leaking RTD bypass valves appropriately.
b.
Y-17 Inverter Problems
!
The inspector reviewed the licensee's resolution of a design weak-ness of the Y-17 inverter for vital 120 VAC instruments.
During post-maintenance testing following the installation of a seal-in i
alarm circuit for the Y-17 inverter, the licensee identified a
<
design problem with the blown fuse alarm circuit card. A circuit
!
i card resistor overheated when the alarm energized. To evaluate this problem, the licensee initiated Corrective Action Request (CAR)
92-0260.
I The blown fuse alarm was designed to activate after the fuse blows
with the incoming current energizing this alarm circuit card. The i
incoming voltage was 480 volts, alternating current (VAC), while the
.
design for the circuit card was 120 VAC. With the higher voltage, a resistor on the circuit board would overheat.
The licensee repaired l
this problem via a temporary modification (T!4) that removed the i
circuit card leads from the fuse and removed the alarm' circuit card j
from operation. A blow fuse can be identified by other alarm i
j indications (e.g., loss of synchronization).
!
The licensee determined that the root cause for this problem was an
!
'
inadequate design change. The licensee purchased these inverters
,
l and changed the design to meet Trojan requirements for incoming l
'
voltage (480 VAC). The design from the vendor required 120 VAC
!
supplies to the inverter. Apparently the licensee had not
considered the circuit card energizing voltage during the initial
!
!
design. The inspector found the licensee's actions to be i
appropriate.
!
.
i Operator Reaualification Exams Ouality Assurance Audit Corrective c.
'
j-Actions (Followup Item 90-05-01. Closed)
,
l
)
In January 1990, a Quality Assurance (QA) audit discovered issues of inadequate requalification program documentation.
In the followup
.
inspection conducted by a Region V examiner, several findings of the
!
I audit were found to be valid. As a result, the examiner generated
followup inspection item 90-05-01 to track the resolution of the i
following three QA Audit findings:
~
Findino #1: flo documentation existed of notification of licensed I
operators or their supervisors that they should not perform licensed
,
,
duties if they failed their examinations.
!
>
Findino #2: 140 documentation existed to verify that remedial retraining had been performed.
In addition, the Supervisor, Operations Training, stated that no remedial retraining had been
}
performed for licensed operators who scored less than 80% in any
single section, but did not fail the exam.
j I
<
..
-.
.
-_
_
-
-
f
,,,
.
-
_
.
__. - _
_
_ _. _
__
__ _
,
._
!
?
.
'
'
~
-8-
'
t Findino #3:
Documentation and verification of training was not l
organized, _matrixed, or filed in a manner that.made all training
-
information readily retrievable.
'
<
In December 1992, the same Region V examiner reviewed a corrective l
~
actions validation package for each finding.of followup item j
'
90-05-01 and concluded the following:
Findino #1 Resolution:
In 1990, after the QA audit, theilicensee i
regraded exams and identified another five licensed operators who i
should have been failed. The licensee removed those operators from-l duty and provided accelerated retraining.
'
i The resident inspector independently reviewed the licensee's
Licensed Retraining Program procedure (TPP-22-4-6, Revision 0,
!
" License Retraining Program"). According to the procedure,
!
operators that fail a requalification examination would be assigned j
to an accelerated training program and prohibited from performing.
j
'
licensed duties until its successful completion. _ The procedure ~
required that once the need for an accelerated retraining program.
was determined, the Operations Manager would be notified within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> and the individual would be removed from licensed duties within'another 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. A written memo would follow the verbal notification. The procedure required supervisory approval for the-
!
-
content of and assignment to an accelerated retraining program.
!
This finding is considered closed.
Findino #2 Resolution: The required remedial retraining program for I
fifteen licensed. operators was completed in early 1990, after the
!
licensee reviewed the exam scores for the 1989 exams.
In addition,-
j
'
in 1990, after the exams were regraded, the licensee identified five
other licensed operators who should have received additional-i
remedial retraining.
After the five operators were given an j
- -
accelerated retraining program and the exam, two required and
!
received additional' remedial retraining.
l The administrator of the licensed retraining program received counseling on the requirements of the program. This finding is
considered closed.
{
l
,
~
l Findino #3 Resolution: According to the licensee corrective actions
!
v:lidation, complete documentation of the training records is now available in the plant file system. The licensee stated that i
problems with the ease of retrieving records on short notice was being pursued on a plant-wide basis (CAR 91-0072).
Based upon the licensee validation, this finding is considered closed.
I i
Based upon the above resolutions, followup Inspection Item 90-05-01 is closed.
d.
Steam Generator (SG) Tube Eddy Current Testing In mid December 1992, the licensee inspected eleven steam generator
'C' tube support plate intersections using a motorized rotating i
I
'
-
.
.
-
.
.
,
.
.
-9-i
.
.
.
pancake coil (MRPC). On December. 23 and 24, the licensee inspected
!
two of the eleven intersections using an ultrasonic testing probe.
On December 29 and 30, technicians inspected over forty additional-l SG 'C' intersections using the MRPC.
l Based on these inspections, the licensee determined that SG tube
{
degradation was consistent'with expected degradation, as described
in their evaluation to support the startup from the 1991 refueling
outage.
!
i The inspector observed portions of the December 29 SG eddy current inspections and had the following concerns:
,
I There was no independent verification-or oversight of the i
individual manipulating the eddy current probe.
'
c One of the eddy current evaluators had not complied with the
licensee's work hour guidelines.
!
Independent Verification: The inspector found that the technician
,
manipulating the eddy current probe to obtain data did not have
!
independent oversight. The technician was responsible for ensuring j
that the probe was inserted into the appropriate tube and for reading data at the appropriate tube support plate intersections.-
!
The inspector observed that at times a second individual helped the
technician verify tube location. However, there were periods when the technician was working alone. The inspector did not observe the j
technician make any errors.
The inspector expressed concern to plant management that there was no licensee oversight of contractor eddy current testing activities.
i The inspector noted the data obtained from these tests could have i
been used by management as a basis for decisions concerning SG tube l
repairs.
The licensee committed to evaluate the independent verification practices.
However, they stated that verification had not been l
'
required because data collection was a passive process.
In
'
addition, the eddy current data indicated that no repairs were necessary.
The appropriate level of verification of SG tube eddy current
-
inspections became irrelevant when the licensee announced on January 4,1993 that they would cease operation.
!
Overtime Evaluation: The inspector observed that one of the technicians reviewing eddy current data had not complied with the
licensee's overtime procedures. The administrative procedure
controlling overtime (Trojan Administrative Procedure [ TAP] 13-15)
-
stated that the individual should have taken eight hours off between shifts. The technician took approximately five hours off.
l
'
The steam generator inspections project leader stated that TAP 13-15
!
-
.
'
.
.
.
- 10 -
)
did not require the t'echnician to get approval prior to exceeding the work hour limitation. The technician was not performing work that could directly affect the tube and the analysis performed was l
subject to independent reviews. The licensee did document approval l
for the technician's work hours the following day. The inspector l
reviewed the procedure and applicable technical specification and
!
found the licensee's actions appropriate.
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Licensed Operator Trainino Observation (41701)
i On December 28 and 30, 1992, the inspector observed licensed operator simulator training. The operators responded separately to a pressurizer-
!
break with degraded core cooling scenario (05-N-25-EG) and a specialized
i steam generator tube rupture scenario. The specific _ scenarios are
!
discussed below.
i'
!
Pressurizer Vapor Break /Deoraded Core Coolino a.
i The inspector observed that crew communications were acceptable, the l
crew performed the required critical tasks, and the overall perform-ance was satisfactory. The training staff and the inspector noted-i that the operators entered a Functional Recovery procedure (FRC.2)
l early, missing about five steps of Emergency Instruction (EI) 0,
" Reactor Trip, Safety -Injection, and Diagnosis." The normal prac-tice and training is to monitor the critical _ function status after
,
the crew transitions out of EI-0. The five steps missed did not affect the. scenario or the results, but this is not a generally i
accepted practice. The licensee conducted remedit.1 training on this l
item. The licensee also noted various other items and initiated
remedial training for this scenario.
l
$
b.
Steam Generator Tube Ruoture (SGTR) and Unisolable Main Steam Line Break (MSLB)
t
,
!
The inspector observed a specialized steam generator tube rupture.
'
i (SGTR) scenario with an unisolable main steam line break (MSLB).
The scenario was to have a MSLB, allow the Reactor Coolant System
.
,
(RCS) to repressurize, then initiate a 1200 gallon per minute SGTR l
on the same steam generator. The core was modeled at the end of j
life with the maximum amount of decay heat.
l:
The reactor trip and safety injection resulted from a steam
'
l
'
flow / feed flow mismatch. The operators tripped the reactor coolant j
pumps (RCPs) since reactor coolant system (RCS) pressure declined i
enough to meet the RCP trip criteria. After the RCS repressurized
to about 2050 psi, the licensee initiated a 1200 gpm fault through
!
the same steam generator. With these conditions and following their r
!
Emergency Instructions (EI's), the operators shut off the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) pumps and went onto the residual heat j
removal (RHR) system within two and a half hours.
Projecting out to
,
when the RCS would be completely depressurized, the refueling water i
storage tank (RWST) level would have been 62% and core uncovery
[
l l
-.
.
-
,,
..
-
--
.
.. -
_
..
_
_
.
,
!
.
.
.
- 11 -
,
'!
would not have occurred. Crew communication was good, emergency l
.
!
procedures were followed, and' the inspector did not have any adverse comments.
'!
No violations or deviations were identified.
10. Manacement Meetino (307021 On January 20, 1993, a meeting was held at the Region V office in. Walnut-f Creek, CA, to discuss PGE's plans to cease operations of Trojan.. A copy
of the materials presented by the licensee is provided as an enclosure to-this inspection report. The following is a list of meeting attendees:
'
Portland General Electric
,
'
I W. R. Robinson, Vice President, Nuclear
>
T. D. Walt, General Manager, Technical Functions
NRC Recion V
J. B. Martin, Regional Administrator
B. H. Faulkenberry, Deputy Regional Administrator l
i K. E. Perkins, Director, Division of Reactor Safety and Projects R. A. Scarano, Director, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards P. H. Johnson, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 1 T. R. Meadows, Operator Licensing Examiner R. J. Pate, Chief, Safeguards, Emergency Prepareilness and Non-Power t
i Reactors Branch G. P. Yuhas, Chief, Huclear Materials and Fuel Fabrication
!
D. F. Kirsch, Technical Assistant, Division of Retctor Safety and Projects I
K. E. Johnston, Senior Resident inspector, Trojan i
D. M. Kunihiro, State Liaison Officer G. H. Cook, Regional Public Affairs Officer
NRC Headouarters
'
M. J. Virgilio, Assistant Director for Region IV and V Reactors, NRR Orecon Deoartment Of Enerav
'
!
V. Sarte, Resident Inspector Mr. Robinson opened the meeting by stating that PGE intended to comply l
t with the requirements of the Trojan operating license until the require-
'
ments are formally changed. He then presented an outline of the steps l
PGE would take to proceed with decommissioning Trojan.
He stated that--
PGE intended to transition from an operating license to a possession only i
license with program changes by January 1994 as necessary to support the (
!
storage of spent fuel on site.
.
Mr. Robinson presented a chart of the organization he expected to have in-l
'
place on January 1,1994. Although the structure of the current
organization would remain in place until that time, PGE plans to reduce
-
!
- j
. - - _ -. - - -..
.
.....
..-
.
--
.
-
..
,
!
.
-
.
-,
.
- 12 -
i
!
i
-
staffing levels as the need and requirements for programs is reduced.
Mr. Martin noted that one manager in the proposed organization appeared
!
to have been given the responsibility for both cost control and quality He observed that this would present an apparent conflict of l
assurance.
interest and urged the licensee to reevaluate this assignment of duties.
Mr. Robinson agreed to assess this issue.
!
t Mr. Robinson also presented a schedule that demonstrated projected staff
!
reductions based on the receipt of changes to license requirements. He
anticipated that before February 1, a sixty-day layoff notice would be i
The layoffs would ccnsist largely i
given to approximately 400 employees.
of the staff previously needed to support activities that are no longer i
.
taking place, such as plant design modifications and secondary plant
.
,
support. Mr. Faulkenberry asked that the resident inspectors be informed l
.
of organization changes as they occur. Mr. Robinson agreed to do so.
!,j l
j Responding to a question from Mr. Perkins, Mr. Robinson stated that
'
specific training had been provided to the defueling contractor for Trojan fuel handling and that a PGE senior reactor operator would oversee -
l all fuel handling.
=
t Mr. Robinson stated that their current forecasts of personnel reductions
i and license changes are based on supporting a SAFSTOR (several year
-
'
!
storage prior to decommissioning) condition. However, he indicated that PGE had not conclusively determined when Trojan would be dismantled.
PGE
!
In i
plans to hire a contractor to develop its decommissioning plan.
addition, PGE plan: to assess the feasibil_ity of dry cask fuel storage.
!
Mr. Walt presented a tentative schedule of license initiatives to convert l
programs from those necessary to support an operating reactor to those
'
'
t required for a defueled plant. The schedule noted that within a' week,
~
the licensee would submit a letter of intent to cease operations and
- l
,
defuel.
Mr. Virgilio asked if PGE had reassessed the potential plant safety risks of long term storage and handling of fuel in the speat fuel pool to
provide a basis for changes to the facility license and commitments.
l Although the plant's design basis currently includes the safety risks of
spent fuel storage and handling, the need for most plant safety equipment l
Mr. Walt pledged that
-
has been based on the risks of plant operation.
!
PGE would determine the safety risks associated with only the long term storage of fuel in the spent fuel pool.
l Mr. Walt stated that PGE was in the process of reviewing commitments
'
previously made to the HRC. Many commitments made prior to the decision i
to cease operations would not be appropriate for a facility that will.no j
He pledged to inform the HRC before the commitments come longer operate.
"
due of any commitments that PGE does not intend to implement.
In
,
addition, Mr. Walt suggested that PGE meet with the NRC frequently to j
,
,
discuss shutdown issues.
i Mr. Martin thanked the licensee for their participation in this meeting and agreed that frequent meetings would be appropriate.
The meeting j
adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
)
6
,
-
.
-.
_
-
,
.\\
v...,..
..
. - - - -
_. - -
,
,
!
'
t
.
.
.
- 13 -
!
!
i
!
!
11.
Exit Inte-view (30703)
j
"
-The inspectors met with the licensee representatives denoted in i
paragraph 1 on January 27, 1993, and with-licensee management throughout the inspection period. During these meetings the
,
inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection
!
_i activities.
!
i Attachment: Copy of materials provided by the licensee during the meeting on January 20, 1993 (Paragraph 30)
.l f
!
I-t l
l
'I
i
!
i
!
I i
.
!
!
!
,
!
.
_
-
-
.
j a,..
L.
As-
~a
-,wno-s-,.1dmr.
-_A H.4
- -
,,mg.
-
- 4.--
4, A,
a m
4.,,,$-
L.J.
-
a b
, abo sr,J-4-
.4 22-m
>
. G
i
.
Y
O
y a
h v
fi
P b
-
I E
e
?
-
,
.
,
P I
!
k
+
r
..
h
>
l i,
ENCLOSURE (1)
- !
.
i a
l t
e s
r s
?
I
+
.9 E
.
!
?
?
h
.
e
}
.
.
E i
"
,
!
I I
^
P i
!
I h
i a.
'
t
I,
)
'
l
' IF U
t i
- !
l
..
(
- i.
k a
- i
.
'.'t
!
I i
I
,-,
--
-
-,,,
n e
,,w'.
-
v
..-n'
a -- -
.
.
.
P SHUTDOWN PLANS FOR TROJAN
.
NUCLEAR PLANT
,
,-
$
)
t l
,
January 20,1993
,
..
_j
,
e
.
.
,
,
s
!
.
I AGENDA
.. _.
t
= INTRODUCTION
= PLANT STATUS
.
= ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING
= DECOMMISSIONING PLAN
= LICENSING ACTIONS COMMITMENTS
[
.
= FUTURE MEETINGS
= SUMMARY r
I i
-2-NRC
'
r
l
-
.
.
.
l
!
l
!
!
,
INTRODUCTION
-
,
= WILL COMPLY WITH EXISTING REQUIREMENTS UNTIL THEY HAVE BEEN f
CHANGED q
= WANT TO TRANSITION AS RAPIDLY AS i
POSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE FINAL
NON-OPERATING STATUS BY 1/1/94
-
l
= REQUIRE FREQUENT MEETINGS WITH NRC DURING TRANSITION l
l
,
-3-NRC
]
i
.
.
I
__
.
.
.
t i
.
I F
,
,
PLANT STATUS
'
= CURRENT
= FUTURE
i
!
!
+
r i
!
?
a P
h
!
-4 NRC
!
.
..
-
.,
f
,
.
.
!
i i
i
.
,
i
!
ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING i
,
l NEAR-TERM l
= TRANSITION
= LONG-TERM l
e i
i i
l
,
a
.
l
,
,
- 5-NRC
-
!
. - -
-
-
-
- -
-
.
.
.
.
P
\\
!
,
t DECOMMISSIONING PLAN
.
SCHEDULE OPTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION
,
,
b
i
!
!
\\
-
l
'
!
<
-6-NRC i
.
-
.
.
.
.
i
.
LICENSING ACTIONS i
= POSSESSION ONLY LICENSE
-
-PGE Submittal scheduled for 1/26/93 Will include a commitment to continue
.
.
Fitness-for-Duty program per 10 CFR
Part 26-Request NRC approval by 4/26/93 i
.
I
!
i i
i
-
!
t I
NRC
-.
~.
-
.
.
.
i
+
b
LICEMSING ACTIONS (continued}
.
= OPERATOR STAFFING AND
.
'
TRAINING /REQUALIFICATION-PGE submittal scheduled for 2/1/93 Certified fuel handler training. program Technical Specification changes to Section 6 for staffing and operator requirements Exemptions to 10 CFR 50.54(m) & (y)
-Request NRC approvals by 5/1/93
f f-B-NRC
-
.
.
.
L b
i LICEhSING ACTIONS (continued}
= RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS-PGE submittal scheduled for 2/15/93 for exemption from 1992 exercise
'
-Request NRC approval by 3/31/93-PGE submittal scheduled for 3/1/93 for revised emergency plan to reflect reduced source term-Request NRC approval b9 6/1/93
,
,
NRC
-
.
.
.
f
.
LICENSING ACTIONS (continued}
.
-Appendix R upgrade program is on hold-PGE submittal scheduled for 3/1/93 to relocate fire protection Technical Specifications
>
-Request NRC approval by 6/15/93-Revise fire protection program by 6/15/93
.
,
h
!
i
!
P
,
-10 NRC
.
.
.
LICENSING ACTIONS (contir.nec)
OTHER LICENSING ACTIONS-Plan revisions
,
-Exemption requests-Permanently Defueled Technical Specifications-Permanently Defueled Safety Analysis Report
.
>
'
-11-NRC
-
.
.
.
i
i f
i COMMITMENTS
'
= EVALUATING COMMITMENTS l
= WILL ADVISE NRC OF ANY CHANGES-OR
,
a SCHEDULES THAT RESULT
-;
!
!
i I
!
i
!
!
!
!
l
!
-12 NRC l
l
,
-
-.
.
-
.
.
.
i SUMMARY
'
= FUTURE MEETINGS
= SUMMARY
,
,
!
,
l
I
\\
-13-tJRC
.
.
-
i
I
!
?
~
v f
-
.
- .
>
-
-
r
-
.
-
=
e
.. _ _ f I
I I
.
-
mmenes
,
d
S
.I I
.
c
,
t
- It
-
I t
s s
I I
[
,
-
-
,
_
emman s
f
}
SI (
E
_
I
..
[
- E
'
k
.
.
menema
_
_
t a
}
}
s
'
t
.
_ }i
__
sg
._
[*
f
'
_
_
y a
r J
_
I i
_
gt
~
lE c
!
-E
-
-
e
.
i
_
$
I i
-
-
,
,
e
- L
,
'
E'
.
.
,
)
,
,
-
I s
'
}
I
)
r.
- t[
'-
f j
{
'
- }
-
- Il
--
!
=
i I
,
,
'
-
-
'
.
_
__
,
,
g
-
-
y
_
_
'
^ l
-
I.
I
- II
-
t r
{
.
-
i
}
t
.
,&
_
_
_
e fl I
e
>
-
!
.-
[r
-
iI I
l
>
>
~
!
'
.
- ll
--
!
,
.6 i
.
-
_
!
-
_.
_
,
I II f
- f-
-
$f I
I'
1 r
i f
.-
-
=
.._
i
!
l
,
i l
I i
TROJAN PLANT STAFFING MILESTONES r
!
i 1000 --
.
900 -
-
Initial Plant Staff Reductions to 800 *
Approximately 550 for Non-operating Condition
700 - -
000 -
,
-
e f
g Steffing Reductions to Approximately 300 Based on Possession Only Ucense, Revised Steffing and Training Requirements g
E 500 --
/
-
m
400 --
/
300 - -
200 -
g
-
100 -
-
t
i
t.
i.
.t
I t
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Doc 1993
- -
- -
..
-
..
..
.
.
..
.
.-
.-
. -.,
.
-
-
'DEFUEl. SHUTD0UN PLAN PROJECT TEAll $UHAM -
TROJAN NUCLEAR PLMT llJANil I993 PAOIf JAf1 FEB MAR APR MAY JUf1 JUL AUG SEP OCT t10Y DEC
.
POSSESS 104 0%1 LICENSE 1/05/93 t/27/93
I. w^Lf A - uo MRC/STAtt LEffER CF IMfE4f (PERMANEsti SHuf00VMt
,
t/26/13
1/11/93 C300 POL SUBMtIf AL 70 HRC APO Etes
1 1/2/i3J 4/25/9J l APD-J90 mRC REVIEW AND AFPROVE POL
4=gy = = = =7 / 9 3 i
= o g = = = = g = = = = g: = =
= =
= =
e= = = =t
==
=====_
==================
< 0 Uni lF.
-H 1/0 I 2/08/93
. CH(PMCFF eut-sco PREPARE /SU9 CERilFtED FUEL MANDLER TRAIMtWO PR00 t/tt/93 2/01/93
~I
-
I
400 EXEMPfl0N FOR OPERATOR TRAININ0/REQUAL EXAN 1/t1/93 L 2/01/93 I
I I
I-Bu - 0 SUBMIT TECH. SPEC. CHANCE FOR SHIFI ST AFFtHO see ACII0s
2/02/93 i FiOJ/3]
J 90I-J90 MRC Review L APPROVE FUEL HANDLER TRNO P4004AM Ysen
,
/lf/3J 3/ 0J/ 3 J.I
~4 ag g Ey 4 ypggyg, HY ING E
CHA
= = - - - - -.= = = = = = = =,= = = -.: = = - = = = = = = = ====
=
==
=====================-
g 3==
FLA4 - J.
I 3/04/9J hjl/ 9J l C00FER CEP-550 ET ALU AIE ENER0ENCY FLAN OFFSITE FEE 3 t/91/93 1 1 2/11/93 I -
0
- CEP-J0G SW9Mit EXEMPfl04 FOR ANNUAL ENERCENCY DERCISE t/11/13 i 1 3/01/93
l CEP-400 SUGMIT DEFUEL EMEPECENCY Pt AM l v/Gli3J l EMEuf Afl0N 3/Gi/13
'
C - 00 ENERGENCY PLAN ItfL bitt
2/16/93 I I 3/31/93 CEP-400 mRC REYtEW L APPROVE EPLAN E2ERCISE EXEff f!OW -
Eteu*
[
'l
'
3/02/93 i a io t / 9 3 8 CEP-490 #AC Review & APPROVE DEFUEL EPtJus REVISIst
- --=-==
= = = = = = = = = = = =t= = = =l: = = ====================
==
==
==================
ECf f tut -
t/04/93 i 1 3/01/13 J. ElPKESO '
0FP gG P%Pe#gV9Mt! APENONENT TO RELOCATE FIRC PRQ Cit 0m PR Art
,
N!4e L
- l-
,
/92/YJ 5/13/TJ J 0 -290 mRC REVIEW & APPROVE FP TRANSFER a
a
,
o
..
'
..
,
..
, ma
..,
n cz -
.
n a
..
- ss E <su y
..
s n
..
- m -s - c n
n n
g o.
vs n
n n
n n
n n
n n
a>-
n
..
n
- --
n a
n c.2
-
if li
-
_LA_,$,
_
_6 L,
--
su n
n o
-
ex:
n n
n Ehm a
n n
n it
$1 II u
8t n
a n
n n
a n
n n
It fl n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n u
n n
Bt
g n
.
n u
g
o n
n a
y n a
n
,,
w
O n
at 5 n
_
es:
er
-,
a n
n
- n
y
"
n n
g n
g
$
d
u
=
n u
_o
-.
.
.
<.E g t=
g.
g n
s
,
yO n
n
,
.O., W U
n n
y to n O,
.m, t==
==
w y as
.sg o
o Yn as zY ~g Q
R
.,
< nY >< n et
,.
r.
-
_,
.
_n
,
O A
>
on w
.se o $1 g
86 n (n O
a E
gg x
W M
w
n yngs n g
,,9 w g
,,
M g** 5
-
>
,
2 e e,
u
,
- ~
hanan
- '
,
$
Z II M
U 88
$,, n
M Z
cu t
o n
n
<
n_
u
--
o o
J II M
&
w a
adC y
w
-d eaco n e,
s, g
=
q ee o
w (*5n
5
"~
3C
"-
a
=
a n
d
%3-w
%
%
y
gag
gg-o
?
%
O M n e
y n
$ 34 a ga e
o e
J o
O p
s O 3m M 8'
s
- M Qn n
o
C3 n
e O
Sn yn s
w
>- -a o c,
eyn j
O
gg O
3'**
-.. ag
%o
-
D
- c
==
o n
EC
%
u
cww
-
M o
.
%2
.
w n
On E_5 g '
"=. E L_5
,,,,J
Lal he J-
n
_
=
us
,
n
'
=n
- g ;
gn g
,, y g
-
=> o
'u E
u w
>'.
g,
]
Y gas g, li i(s'
E_5 2J
mi u
LLA
>==
<
-
'
h _llg n _ _ _ [_, _ _
$.l.lh a E
5
__
.
__
s a
?.-:,%
s.,
..
g
.
..
<
s a.
- ' ; e -= n e
o..
d r n.
- *
n-d nM E r
-*
^n n
o Q
=,#
i (
m.3g n Q ~ n.
E n
n g
g
-,~ %
g uQ * ne
-
g n
n
$h-I
~
M
ft
n C
M n
M, W
,
%
- w "o u
-
- S
n n
h W
n AU NN
-
Ag b ~ a.
n a-n a
'?
g g
_.;
- =
.,
,,
_, -
g=
A h k>
%
..
o
n
O C
b.e Y,
naamseasO FO q taa a
NC w
W a
n m.d r
se re-se
%
O has re w r===
M Ll.
%I 4 cm,
\\
N'>tre Z
et PO
%
e6
N. 40 p..==
.- 80
80 m
.
F4 J,
g,
.'
2" u > fO
- 3 tt
,0
%
.,
-
n a
n r>=
n
-
-sun 9'#'
.,
%6 e fus e e o (
g 90 g M
gg
- # #
- '*
gg 4.shd g
gg psu:
g n
n il
- - -
h,
. - -
_ - _ _ _
_ _
MZ ff tt Pt
.%.
.
-, -
c
,
,, -
,
_
Se
$$
H H
st
.
ff
!?
j.
l(
tly um aJZ 4 e tak r> +
AM J fqZ II S M i
D
.=*
==C4
[
ltD Z. 3r'
34*" 1 as. 8 h
= tr.
tal 4
'C W aJ QO we*
Z g a sm.
@ ar f 6.w24dk t has.a.
= + 4L 6.J4 **
s*
Cr C.3 pgg g l
7>.ma
$$L Q 39.,
E
h S*
O N.m
%#
e nd *
4='Ok*
tw*
ts* sy Ioss484 M
& e. 4 M aid
-
DEFUEL 8HUTD0WN PLAN PROJECT TEAM SulGNY
-
TIIOLAN NUCLEM PLANT llJW8
'
.
I993 PAGE3.-
'JAti FEB t1AR APR MAY JUil JUL AUG SEP OCT f10V DEC
.
i.{'!Jl'lt
!N i/Or/.3h-100PREPAREPo$ltlONPAPERON iti./.3
.
881/lsi EFENPfl0N cHvaR s/Or/s3 1 1/s./93 8
8
8 s T-200 rRErARE rosill0N PAPER ON APPz J EXEMPil04
.
h fi fl0N FOR ISI/t$i
-
y.19 '
h I
fl0N FOR APPX. J
'
12ise.
>
k
'
.
4/01/93 J $/30/93
J - $URUlTIEW & APPROVE lll/IST EXEMPilog III:ce
'p s'
4/01/93 I J S/30/93
,'
JIS-JJG mRUEIIEW & (PPROVE APPENDIX J EXEMPi10N
=l = = = = g = = = = g = = = = g= = =
= = = = = = =. : = =
i=-
- ===
=
=================
- ========:
--
N 1/12/93 1/28/93-O. HI 5 00 INtilATE REDUCi!04 IN HENBER$ NIP FEES
,
v8Hil EXEWI. FKfRTETiUIRION LI AllW
'
F 2/25/93
8
MIF-100 INiilAIE REDUCil0N IN TARES F S/2T/93 i
KlF-300 SU8Mli EXENPIION FOR PROFERIT DAMAGE INS IIIeu
,
!
'
9/08/93 J11/06/93
.,
klF-600 MRG REVIEW & APPROTE LI A91Lif f INSURANCE EXEMPT
,
.
' 5
I o
I
-
-,
,
.'
~,...... _ -., -..... ~.
....m..--
. - ~. -, _, -. -,, _,..,..... _
. - -. - - -. - -..-
-..---m--
- - -
- - - -. - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
,
-
,
,,..
,
!
. -.
-5.5
,
,
,
m. -
i
!
i e
!
>
-
-
-
,
-
O
,
w o
g
,
o
.
E
Y W
"
N
.$
E b
3$
5 E
=
,
,
a w
-
-
w
'
Of v ;
-
==
t o
o-Ew
=
-
x
=
=
_-
e o
m
,
-
.
-
.
-
w
-
s
,
=
,
-
y
-
.
-
-
&
<
m5 g
o a
- -
w
=
,.
I
=
=
-
.
o
-
-= - 9.
.
s - o=
_ =.,
-
-
m,,
<
_
-
,
o
.
-
a
.
o_, _s
-
s
.
-
-
z
-
w
.
a s
E h
=w
- $.
E b a
-
_f O
.$.
"
"
_"
I.
=
o
-
,
g
-
.
.
-
-
=
=
z r
l
I
%
> 8 o,8
x
- L,,
5 5 Y
a.-
o
g
=
-
o s
e i
5 $' s E..o! = !. 5 d
-
.-
3_8,5 5.,
g i
E
$
E.
g
"
=
-
.
g5 i
=
<
e>
g
,.
s
.
.s a,
,
-
.
-
y
.
m
<
r
-
_,
-
.
<.
E
.s.W M E e.
T
, _ g2 E
o.
&,E
=5 s
-
d
= W
=
_2
5
E
,
u
-
.
-
y 8
-
o
.
=r..,
5t
_
'
E
"
.,
w
_
s E 3 egg ;; c3e cry -=
=< -
m
-
-
u w
o
W F
~
o o
.,
.,,
o
=
=
s o
=
s-;-g 5-E <-: s g-: e y ; 8
-
w-
-
'
-
r ff
" 3
-
- g tt !
8g 8;? @"R
,
5 zy
$ *8 IS 40 8. oo 2 - ;.:,1, :::
o
.4
g j
s
E
z
.
w*
d"4 w
5 3
. "
- .m A
'E t>,7 Apg @-
=
o.
-
o g*., eg ="88 2= 2,,, 5 W y5 oE 8.
o=
mas 3 o.
o-
_n
.
.
. ?: 6 0%. E.'O. A?. o on
= a,tf
- ,2 a
-
o oo co I J 1 9 @
SE p g: " ggt o.
-. -
dEE 5 5 o.
,
es n.
3:
.
- A i a a a
o?
e
,
,_
o-
-
o
.
,,
3G, 4 8**7 8:a ph:E e.. ~ ]E. 5:,,, Ai a
?E g Tv
.
.
. %.== o
.
D
..
x
.
.
.
o
,
,
o -
it m,,
~s
.o,<.,
,
-
.
.
.
- o o
x m
o-
,
o a
.
t>= PF
" 2.a..a.a..z.z.5.--5."=,8
->,=1 t.., ya
8
.
a.,'
r z
o.
-
-
8...o o
.
-
o
_r
.
-
n
.
.
- -
i
. o
.
a o
o
.
o...n
,
- -
o o
o o
- -
o o
o a
o g..
n y
o*eo*?-
- &*&.:
o a
o a
w
-
-
- -
to at F#::;
.
&
.3
.2-3-g g
M
&as =C arva oo 8 8
!
se
-
o O
8 o
.-52 ~
sr.
h ;
o
.-
.-
_
&,,
-
A
~
o
.
-
-
,
o
> ve
>
o o
A
6.,* E P%
h A o
- "
- r o.-
o
re,W
. y g
'M i.si.
i IVM. oo h
l
.
t
,
Y Q
&
o
i
.
-
&
t
,
)
I
,
e e
a p M h
{
r
$
i
,
i
-
.e.s0%e)
.sw k.%
Ze
!
,?
-
__
i L
-
.
,a
,
,
su W
!
-
m.
!
!
.
,
t t
'v
.
r
!!
w tr
-
!
n
'
=-
E
+
c u
s
.
r t
<
-=
es E
o c
=
w e
3-
-. :
- -
L
=
g w
=
st V
"
r C -
c!
W 1.
-
.,
=
=
u
- *
-
g
<
b
g
!
l
.,
.c
=
=
e
8-8 m o
=
=
-
o a
<
=
o
=
a w
.=
=
w u
a
'g" o
,
,
g
=
o I-
- 8 e
<
.3
,
s o-s
<
-
.
N o
w o
=
u 2,
w
.
d i.s o
t
-
o
5 y
_
s
_=
.
..
.
g
w W
=
--
,.
<
s
=
g
=
o
=
.
W d
W E
I o
g_
_. _.e._ E-5-:-#-E-5-0,W,"
.,
.,
.-
.-
=..t. h
!
- - d b-
.
_.,.
=
o
.=
.=
w
<
o
.
o z.
=
8-u
_
-
-
=
s
-.
o
=
w
=
. - -
<
.,
i:
,., E e.n y, = * ! g o,.,= *;. &*L
.
-
t'
-- -
-
=
w
"
o
-
g
==,
3, E
d 5 -
w
- ;;
-
-
,
=
$r
-
u o -
--<
a a
-
.
$. 5, # h ? I $ $~ g I R$ EE # m=
o w
E-Ic
h
'
a a
- -
=
Eg i J
r
,
<n
m
^
<
-- "
=
w-
"
"
-
I i
"
-- -
b
-
-
==
"
u u
-
w
.
5 N <N 3N' EN EN EE N
h~o
-
y 5 N $
N h
om hE ~5
,
sr-o u-o
.<
w m
-
- ;;
~82 **; *-*g g g E :5 E e< !, w $ 30 $$ f N >,*, ".,., z8 ? R s o 2
! $. 0. ! $. $ b
$ $$ N Fl
$ ;"
Y g
-
'
m-
.
-
<
i
@
!
!
"
o y
gg e
gh
,
o
-
o o
o
- *e
.,
"o
= u:0 -w W o'
e r 7 at,M init
- a=
-
.,
',t
- -
Eg
.,5 ;so-; t ? =
_v
.
.
,, = < go ?
~
pr o
.
g
P. '.*i g...
, w @t
!,>"m o. o +o gao B.** o.,
.
>
o
.==
.o
.
&-
o o
- a~s a
.
.
o-L
,
a s
o-n
-
lt E. en
.
o o
"1 ILY 's
-.,o
- * >
=~
a.
a=
5i a? :Ei W W T.
'
.,
a
&
&-
=,
s
=
r E!
n
"
- :
i i
~
o I
-
-
<
w
8.t o
o
.
o o
<
o,
,-
.
o
.
.
o o
o o
o
.
<
o o
>=
<
e
-
-a
.
o o
o
-
.
,
m o
a
.
- p
.c o-,
=
=
.=
,=
=
o o
ii
.
o..-..,.-
_
-
w or
.
6.
o o
O a
_=.o
,,,
o
-
f
- -:-sg-ggo-
-.
m m
.
_
-
-
-
-
h M
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
e
-
a e
.e m
-
,
.
-
-
-
-
-
iaa D,
O ji;)
,,
i L
N i
n
.=
a i
<
t5
~
li
,
,
e
^
i
_
._
. -
,
i i
I i-i
.L>
.A
<-w
- '
_
.
,m
t
_
E t
G i
_
v A
A m.
P C
f
_
l I
F
.
_
I R
^ N M
P E
T l D
M Q
E.
.
A N
U s
E
'
e R,
u
.
F C
U S
A O
O L
o O
,
I L
L R
&
F S
r"
_
E f P A
A R
U l E R
E O
F V
,E T
/ i f
E S
v n
D f
V L
mu S
F R
F E
A I
N u
I C
C L
O C
I A
E E
I E
l f
R U
E L
O F
.
T L
V U
A F
D
!
f A
S N
Ya m
F F L C
A L
T E
L S
O c
_
I E
R O B A
R F
!
D F
_
t t
t f
R N
T f
E N
E O
S N N m
l D
O gm N
O E U
A A
f M
A I
I l
.
t l
A i
S
N C
f R
U E
O C -
a A
_
v v
U R
N E E C
A O
l S
A K
v A
I I
G S
d u
t D P M
L C
R T
l f
/
N L
R C
R T
I I
I LI I
I 3I C
N E
E l!nI E I 0 A I T I A OI X
E L
l R f I RI I l T I t9 I A R
V A
V V
a
.
W R E x
R t
F E
O R
O MIM R
E, f
T
A l
T O RI R
)
S E
'
0 HT
M M M S
F l
S t
t D
i P
.
N t
f EE E
f
.
L L
H E v
C f
t t
R E
E A
E i
E Q E
-
E*.
t) EE N WR R
t,4
A C
0 A
l M U
f sl WR 0I A
A C D A
E A
L A
0 0r N
N C
E E
H f
T E F
C gM
0S 00 0 WN
- f JO
0'
A P
F R
R
n R
S
+
.
0O
S H
N C
L U
E O 0
- f s
e T
3 ' a, 1 a.
_
c X
E E
N ON o 0E 9' 2 8G5 -
3-2-
R R
.
E t G v 0C t
.
IPb R
I T
E R
E X
R N
N
.
gl F
E V
X
-
2F ]F F
F R
NO N
.
i 3' D F
W R
$R I
I
',
X L
R
- E1 [F
'1R
"
C oE gl f
I U
O
N
I 8R
'
A F
R L
E L
L 0E S
R R
L L
A oN OgO D
tR S
F
0 T
- .
O'
E E
F Y
A NO
"M2 E
N N
!
F F
U C
F
fY I
E A 0E
0
D
0E 0 3' 0 T
!
f F
A R
SI 0O 0 A 21 03
V S
t UN H
.
L U
N UA A N
I AU SR SC g9
0 t
8' 0
"
E E
E C
L S 3R f
3' 6 t
W
-
D W
E W
W w
AA I
L l
A EgS
f t
SR SS O
0 05 00 23
_
_
O L AV lM
-
O 03 0 09 00
A SV S S
, E, 0,
, 0, 0,
l J
VN 0 05 0O 0
- W
0
0
.
- 3 0' S
- 6
- F 8 6 I
C
S S
0-2-
-
l
8
S 0A 0
t-3-
- N 0V 0
- 5
F F
F.
l D
9
(
2 l4' 5
-
e-
-
F EJ QR $R ER IP 3R
- o
1
2
2 l
4' S lF 7F F
.
I 8!
-
0
0 t
i 3'
0 EW
0
o
-
O t
l
- C
=
N O
R
l
0
3'
-
N
0 S
-
-
D F
-
0
- A
0 A
U
0
-
I S
A S
- F'
O D
A A
S
- 0
S S
_
A
0
3
S A
S
0
0
- 0
2'
S
0
0
+
g R
0 E
F e
I
I
2
- d
0
0
F
,
f K
_
A
!
_
E L
!
G P
-
"r
_
A
^=,
-
T R
-
A
't U
i E
O L
_
C L
U E
N U
(
F N
-
E A
u J
D O
R
_
T
.
_
_
_
_
.
.
_
-
~
_
~
.
,
I l
'
'
-
~
~
fb
' i' ij f1ih i'
_
'
o
.
,
e
.,
-
w
.
.
e c
=
-
,,,
o w
-
w s.
-
.-
-o
-
o-I
,
-
r
-
=
,
,.
r t
w
-
w
-
=
z o
w
<
w s
=
R
.
,
a e.
r
-.
-
w
-
-a w
-
o u
-
u a
-
-
e a
=.
.
o, o,
s
.
r W
W u
w
-
u u
-
a M
W
=
r z
=.4 J
s
.%-
o g
w
.
= -
x r
r
- o
-
a r
o a
w w
u r
t, a w
w o
o
-
m w
-
o g
-
<
u
s
.=
-
w E
gL
-
s s
.-
.
. e --
.
o
-
r u
if u
-
- Ch.
u
..
a
.
,
p.
"<~<-
E ".
- -"
s e
_
rogp-
<
g
.s r
s
.
wi l
o
,
,
,
=
u
.
.
<
w u
.
o
-
o y
.p-g-g-
,
oo w
I
e w
-
g x
-
.
.
F g
w w
.
=
o
.
o, w
w o
- M we r
D
-
s
-
.
N g
o.
-o
_=_
U w
.E
,
.
o o
o
3-a
.
.
-.,
<
u a
-
u M
o g
s t";
U E it a m * =. se
.
-
,
o, u
-
o
.,.,
o
-
"
o
^
~.
a.
- 5
==na
-
-
a E.
<
= -..
.s
.
w
-.
E o
E
-
"
- - -
"E o
i
=
z o., e m,
.
-
u
.
-
-
-
e
,
o
.,,
o.
,
Es
-
o or o. o
=.
-w w
x
=
. <
u os v
- S a
a
.-
E w-o?m..
w
- no.
- -
S u
m
-
o w
s s
s w
w
,
og os s,.r 3E
<
<
s
-
-
.-
g 8.< ;< W';g
-
.-
.
.
.
s E
.
.
-
-o
<
.
o
a w
w
=
s
<
.
e..
-
y 2-,ew e-
-
o
z
<
.
.
o.
S
-
.b o
_
o o
o.. o. o.na i
w w
o o
,
,,
E b
a. s
.ut
..x 4,.,,
.,,z.
-
'5 i
c.
-- e
,,
.
=
o
<
< -
-e
.
.
.
Z z
w w
<
.
i e
.
-
c o~
oo au o sp. &... o, o.
e-8.,.
., e om na
,
a-a
- L
.
n
.a,
-a or o
-
=
o. n a...
3-m
-
c.
go a.
.-
a# A e
-
o
....
-
, < -
w
-
w
.,
-.
..
.
-
o. m, ~. ow
~. Nn n.
e..w o u. o m.
,p,,_
w-
.
.- -
tsa o
E z-zE x-
= =:> *.
o
!
- ,, w
-
w a
.
.
-
m=
s E% *
o.1 o
O O
t o
o w a rf 2*
u
-w w - o O.
.
E E
-
.,, -
.
ww o e,
-
o w
.
...
o o ao 3,
.
.
e.
o >er. oo o
- -.
o N.
M,,
a o. n
. o ~.... we m
o o
.s
=>
s~.
.
o.
- 8.o. -
.
.5 o. g o E 5 o. a
~.
g~o
.
o.
o o
on o
o
~.
-
oo
.
<o
,
>
e m
.
.
!
o
,
E@. p-
.
~
ok ;o
0 kf
.. o..
. -
.
--w n.,
"
nw,
,
,, ? o
.
.
-
.
c:St @k """ N '.~*u
n.
?"*
o e
,
o a
.
.
o o
m.
..
-,.
-
o.
o.
o
.
~.2 o
g o.
8.m
<
l N
,
o
.
o o
.
a a
.
,
.
,
.
.
o
.
a a
I o
o z
==.
m u
- -
'
I
,
- -
o o
.x.
- -
o x
O o
a.
o.
i
,
=
o e
o.
=..o.
g
- o. o.. o.
e o
,. *m
.
4.
o -
Pi P)
-
-
o o
j I
.-
t W
.
w
- ~ f EAL.
f8
.
.
$ b
-
<
W D
l
<o **
l o s
-
g
-
-
l N *-
.=
., un.nti -
-
'
I es
s h *.uk
.'
O
.-
,
.-
-
M.sw L *)
kO
-.-n..-
e.-..
w ri
... r-
-
-.
....
-
-
--
DEFUEl. OUTAGE PAGE5
'
TROJAN NUCLEAR 1LANT
17
31
14
.
bf r'-910 PEC0mutC T RVLIS
,
I 19 00 fu 0*2 511 00 TV P
O THERNOCOUPLE CABLES 10'00 IU 0*2V20800 f u PF-920 PEC044tti PEACf0R HEAD vtui FjPlNo f 963 Stt P9tf StoCMS
,
,
I 22ects f u 0 4 $ 2e00 VE PF-s23 SET DUTER MIS $ltE SHitLOldo
'
,
PF-830 SET CENTER NtSSILE SHIELO
,
,
I 9 e 00 VE 0-4 l 13 e 00 WE PF 935 CONNECT CROM OUCTS/Sf AIRS TO MISStLE SHittDS 9e00 vt 0*23 tesco TH I
/tMSERT/ CAP Al SEAL f ABLE g4g g -
13:00 WE 0*2 lET LovtR tuf ERu AL 0010t ST 19800 vt RF-860 PES i
PF-65 *
-
AD-2 10 uo#NAL SEI rolNf b
MR 13 e 00 WE 0*s 0 i s e co vE
-
PDwCR/StuSOR LE ADS Pfg3 gCPDMFAN
'
h Ak h
'
Y
-
Vi k 0 i L h Ck
,
k-0
'
'
I 15e00 WE 0 5 0 20e00 wt g
RFgagS
'g MAMIPvt Af o9 CM Aut l
71R95-0jION tt ECTRIC Ati I
20800 WE D*6 0 2e00 fM k!vtuh hEL ob E
i 14e00 TH 0 3 311800 TH PF-900 PE ASSit9LE DIRD C AOC
,
ISe00 TH 0*2 11'00 TH RfL 01Eh A41C ALI
'Iw1 v
te FIT *00 TH PF-1000 DEf ull C0trttit
-
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
_
04,f G_ A,},E
_
_
_
_
.
..