IR 05000344/1993012
| ML20062J621 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/22/1993 |
| From: | Johnson P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062J619 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-344-93-12, NUDOCS 9311090071 | |
| Download: ML20062J621 (6) | |
Text
,
-
-
.
.
. _.
_
_
!
'
-
-
l
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION Y
,>
l l
i Report No.
50-344/93-12 Docket No.
50-344
+
License No.
Licensee:
Portland General Electric Company
.
121 S. W. Salmon Street
,
!
Portland, Oregon 97204 Facility Name:
Trojan Nuclear Plant i
Inspection at:
Rainier, Oregon
,
Inspection Conducted:
August 17 - September 29, 1993 l
Inspector:
J. F. Melfi, Resident inspector
Approved By:
-
P. H./ hnson, Chief Date Signed Reactn@r Projects Section 1
Summary:
Inspection on Auaust 17 - Seotember 29. 1993 (Insoection Report No.
50-344/93-12)
Areas Insoected: Routine announced, resident inspection of operational safety verification, maintenance, surveillance, and follow-up of previously identi-fled items.
Inspection procedures 62703, 647C4, 71707, 92700 and 92701 were used as guidance during the conduct of the inspection.
Safety Issues Manaaement System (SIMS) Items: None Results:
General Conclusions and Specific Findinos:
The licensee continued plant activities appropriate to the permanent shutdown condition of the plant. The licensee continued to deactivate systems no longer required by' existing plant conditions.
Sionificant Safety Matters:
None Summary of Violations and Deviations:
None l
9311090071 931022 PDR ADOCK 05000344
G PDR
'
.
-
..
_
_
..
_ '
DETAILS
.
l 1.
Persons Contacted Portland General Electric a.
J. E. Cross, Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer S. M. Quennoz, Plant General Manager D. L. Nordstrom, General Manager, Nuclear Oversight
- T. D. Walt, General Manager, Technical Functions i
- C. P. Yundt, Project Manager, Special Projects
'
H. K. Chernoff, Manager, Licensing
- L. K. Houghtby, Manager, Plant Support M. B. Lackey, Manager, Planning and Control
- J. P. Sullivan, Nuclear Plant Engineering Manager
- J. M. Mihelich, Manager, Technical Services T. O. Meek, Manager, Personnel Protection J. A. Vingerud, Electrical Maintenance Manager J. D. Westvold, Manager, Quality Assurance l
S. A. Schneider, Manager, Operations J. A. Kirkebo, Assistant General Manager, NPE l
(
C. M. Dieterle, Supervisor, Individual Plant Examination
- B. R. Hugo, Compliance Engineer
- M. H. Megehee, Compliance Engineer b.
Oreaon Department of Enerov A. Bless, Resident Safety Manager V. Sarte, Resident Inspector The inspector also talked with other licensee employees during the course l
of the inspection. These included shift managers, certified fuel l
l handlers and auxiliary operators, maintenance personnel, plant
,
'
technicians and engineers, and quality assurance personnel.
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Plant Status The licensee The plant remained in the permanently defueled condition.
continued to make progress in deactivating systems. At the end of the inspection reporting period, the licensee had deenergized 55 systems and i
!
was planning to deactivate another nine systems (e.g., radwaste, portions I
At of the chemical and volume control system) by the end of the year.
the end of the inspection reporting period, 264 people remained onsite.
3.
Operational Safety Verification (71707)
During this inspection period, the inspector observed and examined plant The activities to verify the safety of the licensee's facility.
inspector observed these activities on a daily, weekly or biweekly basis.
!
l l
-2-
.
,
_
The inspector observed control room activities daily to verify the
'
licensee's adherence to limiting conditions for operation as prescribed in the facility Technical Specifications. The inspector examined logs, recorder traces, and other operational records to obtain instrumentatior,,
information on plant conditions, trends and compliance with regulations.
On occasions when a shift turnover was in progress, the inspector observed turnover of plant information to determine that on-shift operators relayed pertinent information to oncoming shift personnel.
i Each week the inspector toured accessible areas of the facility to observe the following items:
General plant and equipment conditions a.
b.
Maintenance requests and repairs Fire hazards and fire fighting equipment c.
Ignition sources and flammable material control d.
Conduct of activities according to the licensee's administrative e.
controls and approved procedures f.
Plant housekeeping and cleanliness
Radioactive waste systems h.
Proper storage of compressed gas bottles Each week the inspector conversed with certified fuel handlers in the The discussion:, centered control room, and with other plaw personnel.
on pertinent topics relating to general plant conditions, procedures, security, training and other topics related to in-progress work activities.
The inspector periodically observed radiological protection practices to determine whether the licensee had implemented them in conformance with facility policies and procedures and according to regulatory require-The inspector verified that health physics supervisors and ments.
technicians conducted plant tours to observe activities in progress and were aware of significant plant activities, particularly those related to radiological conditions and/or challenges. ALARA considerations were found to be ar integral part of each RWP (Radiation Work Permit).
The inspector conducted routine inspections of selected activities of the licensee's radiological protection program. During inspection activities and periodic tours of plant areas, the inspector verified proper use of personnel monitoring equipment, observed individuals leaving the radiation controlled area and signing out on appropriate RWP's, and The observed the posting of radiation areas and contaminated areas.
inspector assessed the awareness of significant plant activities of health physics supervisors and engineers through conversations.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Maintenance (62703)
The inspector observed portions of and reviewed documentation associated The with the licensee's work on the A emergency diesel generator (EDG).
inspector observed or reviewed the following maintenance requests (MRs):
_
- -.
>
.
-3-
-
-
?
!
MR Number Subiect
'
,
92-07303 EDG H Bank Air Start Pressure Regulator Reset 92-02411 Calibration of TS-3851X, EDG Inlet Temperature Switch Calibration of EDG Air Start Pressure Indicator 93-00938 92-04635 EDG annual inspection The licensee's work was done appropriately. No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Fire Protection Proaram (647041
I The inspector assessed the licensee's fire protection program and proce-i a
!
dures to determine if they met regulatery requirements. During this inspection reporting period, the licensee was anticipating approval of a
,
i revised fire protection program consistent with the facility's shutdown The inspector looked at the licensee's fire brigade training and
status.
equipment, transient combustible control, housekeeping practices and t
technical specification surveillances.
Fire Bricade Trainina and Eauipment
'
The inspector reviewed training records and inspected three lockers where fire protection equipment is stored. From the review of records, the l
!
inspector concluded that the licensee was training the fire brigade adequately. The licensee had strategies for fighting fires, and the
-
q brigade composition appeared appropriate. The fire protection equipment l
in the lockers (e.g., hoses, nozzles, axes, etc.) was in good condition and all specified equipment was present.
Transient Combustible Control /Housekeepina
,
The licensee's procedures for transient combustibles and housekeeping are l
l provided in TPP 13-7, " Fire Protection Program," and TPP 13-8, " Transient
!
Combustible Program."
In discussions with the licensee and walk-throughs of the plant, the inspector concluded that transient combustibles were
,
'
controlled and housekeeping was adequate.
!
Surveillances The inspector verified that the licensee was testing the fire pump and valves according to their surveillance program. During this review, the
inspector concluded that the licensee was also testing remaining detection systems periodically.
-
Other Fire Protection Procram Chances To reduce the threat of a fire, the licensee was removing combustibles J
(e.g., lubricating oil, carbon filters) from components within the fire The licensee was also deenergizing electrical systems to reduce areas.
!
!
- - _ _.. _ -
.-
-
...
-.
. _., _ _. _.
..
_. _,. _, _.. _ _
.
'
_4._
-
_
the attendant fire hazard. On October 1,1993, the licensee changed to a three-man fire brigade from the previous five-man brigade af ter changes to the fire protection plan were approved by the NRC staff.
The inspector concluded that the licensee's fire protection program was adequate. No violations or deviations were identified.
,
6.
Event Followup (93702. 62703. 92701)
Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) Boraflex Shieldina Due to the concerns generated in NRC Information Notice (IN) 93-70,
" Degradation of Boraflex Neutron Absorber Coupons," the inspector assessed Trojan's SFP Boraflex monitoring program.
IN 93-70 discussed identified instances where there was significant loss of Boraflex in high-density fuel racks at the Palisades Nuclear Plant. The licensee for the Palisades facility found that Boraflex coupons had lost significant amounts (up to 90 percent) of their Boraflex.
Palisades determined, however, that their Boraflex test samples had come from different lots of material than the material in the high-density racks.
Samples from the same material lot as the SFP racks did not show a loss of Boraflex.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's monitoring program for the Trojan Plant, as described in Periodic Engineering Test (PET) 6-1, " Reactor Vessel Material and Spent Fuel Rack Absorber Surveillance Program." The inspector noted that the licensee had inspected SFP coupons according to their commitments, that no significant degradation had occurred, and that the material lot numbers of the coupons were the same lot numbers as the SFP racks.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Follow-up of licensee Actions on Previous Enforcement Item (92702)
Enforcement Item 93-06-01 (Closed). " Failure to Properly Secure ladders" During earlier tours of the spent fuel pool (SFP) area, the inspector found several portable ladders that were not properly secured. These portable ladders were hung horizontally on two scaffolding tubes approximately six feet above and two feet from the splash shields that surround the SFP. This arrangement was cited as a violation of Trojan Plant Procedure (TPP) 13-5, " Control of In-Plant Unsecured Equipment /
Materi al. "
,
When this situation was identified to the shift manager, he took immdiate action to correct the problem. As further corrective action, the licensee revised the procedure, discussed this situation with radwaste workers who temporarily store material in this area, and removed all equipment from the periphery of the SFP.
Subsequent walk-throughs by the resident inspector verified that the licensee maintained the SFP area according to TPP 13-5.
Based on the licensee's actions, this item is close.
-5-
.
,
_
8.
Employee Concerns proaram The inspector assessed the status and characteristics of the licensee's employee concerns program using Temporary Instructibn (TI) 2500/28,
" Employee Concerns Program," as guidance.
The licensee's concerns program is described in Trojan Plant Procedure (TPP) 10-2, " Excellence Response Program." Trojan's Excellence Response Program (ERP) applies to all employees (including contractors) who desire to confidentially raise safety or reliability concerns. As part of the exit process, the licensee also provides an opportunity for persons leaving the site to *aise safety concerns.
The licensee has one pe son onsite who monitors the program as a collateral duty. This pt.eson is independent of line management and reports to the Manager of i uclear Oversight.
If required, the licensee
'
can use third-party consulta.'ts to evaluate concerns.
Licensee repre-sentatives indicated that ver.) few new concerns have been received from plant personnel since permanent closure of the plant.
The inspector concluded that the licensee's concerns program was functioning properly. No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Exit Interview (30703)
The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) on October 14, 1993, and with licensee management throughout the inspection period. During these meetings the inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection activities.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the information reviewed by or discussed with the inspector during the inspection.
I
,