ML20058B568
| ML20058B568 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1993 |
| From: | Rourk C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Jocelyn Craig NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9312020125 | |
| Download: ML20058B568 (4) | |
Text
-
.3 iNOV 18 1993 60 - S W MEMORANDUM FOR:
John W. Craig, Deputy Director Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM:
Christopher J. Rourk
~,
Engineering Issues Branch Division of Safety Issue Resolution Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
TRIP REPORT FOR MEETING BETWEEN NRC AND PGE/ TROJAN STAFF ON CABLE EQ The enclosed travel report documents the November 2,1993 meeting between the NRC and PGE/ Trojan staff regarding the planned research on naturally-aged cables from Trojan.
5 Christopher J. Rourk Engineering Issues Branch Division o' c'fety Issue Resolution Office of ihn ;ar Regulatory Research
Enclosure:
As stated DISTRIBUTION:
(g:\\ROURK) w/ Enclosures Docket or Central File NRC & Local PDRs Rdg. file 15peis LShao OGC AThadani SWeiss ASerkiz PShemanski GHubbard MMasnik I
CRourk 1
Region 5, DRS&P PGE/ Trojan DSIR\\RES CRourk( '
ll Q /93 241107 M
b Ob344
- a...
P PDR
,p Travel Report Summary Travellers:
Chris Rourk, RES Report Date:
November 4, 1993 Paul Shemanski, NRR Meeting Participants PGE: Harold Chernoff PNL: Dr. Richard Allen Matt Featherston Eric Schmieman Lee Kelly Paul Applegate John Sullivan Thomas Rak Terry Nicholson Duane Ripplinger Bob Reinhart Location:
Trojan Nuclear Plant, OR Meeting Date:
November 2, 1993
Purpose:
To discuss contractual concerns, enforcement discretion, and testing issues relating to the planned tests on cables in the Trojan conteinment building.
_ Contracts and Enforcement Discretion:
1.
Paul Applegate voiced concerns regarding how the initial purchase order and the subsequent " umbrella" contract will be handled from a billing perspective - will PGE need to submit special forms, how will the NRC l
transmit what is needed to be done, etc. Applegate also wants to get a sample of the format for any documents which PGE will have to send us.
It should be kept in mind that this is PGE's first time doing any federal government contracting.
2.
PGE's lead time for subcontracts is on the order of several weeks, versus several months for the national laboratories.
In addition, PGE indicated that any work subcontracted is flexible, and time or cost would probably be less than that of the laboratories.
3.
Hal Chernoff stressed that any further work by PGE is contingent on the
-l completion of the initial purchase order.
PGE will not provide any i
further support without contract / billing process being implemented.
Chernoff stated that after the purchase order is processed, PGE will send us a draft letter which documents their concerns for review. This i
letter will eventually go out from PGE's VP-Nuclear, Jim Cross.
l 4.
There is a large amount of work which PGE might be asked to provide information in support of PNL's effort to plan the test program.
It d
will probably be necessary for NRC/PNL to prioritize what PGE should do first, since the initial purchase order is only for $22,000 and will not l
support all desired activities, such as assembling all relevant documents.
NBC FRE CENTER COPY
j
~
j m
-Schedule:
i 1.
PGE has submitted a request for bids for the removal of large equipment from containment (steam generators and the pressurizer).
The work is
.l scheduled to begin in April 1994 and to be completed by June 1995.
l Independent storage for spent fuel is scheduled to be completed by February 1998, after which decommissioning will start.
2.
The rate increase on disposal costs are evaluated quarterly.
PGE will l
apparently be held responsible by the Oregon public utility commission for the costs associated with any delays, and would be willing to delay the planned decommissioning if the NRC will pay the associated costs.
PGE can provide estimates, if necessary, but indicated that they would rather get plans made right now than delay after awarding the contract l
for large equipment removal.
3.
Lee Kelly expressed concerns about the concrete research which is under i
consideration.
i In Situ Tests:
I 1.
PGE indicated that many of the Trojan employees who have been laid off are still in the area and could be re-hired for testing.
t 2.
PGE has the capability to perform ECCAD tests, and has some historical ECCAD test data, starting from 1987-1988. The extent of this data'will t
not be determined until after the initial purchase order is in place, and will probably have to wait until after the " umbrella" contract is in place. Only cables which indicated problems were tested more than once.
j 3.
PGE has an RF tool which will allow a cable to be traced from a termination.
In order to identify a cable in a tray, -it will be necessary to follow it hand-over-hand to the nearest termination or junction box, or cut it and trace it back using the RF' tool.
4.
The technical specifications for the plant are scheduled to be revised in December.
It is unlikely that there will be any equipment inside containment which must be kept operable. Mike Masnik should receive a copy of the draft and final technical specifications.
5.
The ECCAD testing was subcontracted by PGE. The same subcontractor could be used for the in situ tests for this program.
6.
An annual meggar test was performed for some components in containment from the cable termination outside of containment. Meggar voltage ranged from 500 V.D.C. for low-voltage cable up to 2500 and 5000 V.D.C.
for reactor coolant pumps.
Polarization index measurements were also taken (1 minute meggar reading /10 minute meggar reading, indicates moisture content of insulation).
7.
There are.some cable trays in containment which have thermo-lag or similar fire wrap.
PGE could investigate whether the cable trays were derated after the purchase order was processed.
1 I
i
l
~
=-.
o.
e 1
l Onsite Testina and Cable Removal:
I.
Contamination might be a problem. Several cable wipes were performed during the walkdown, and the results will be provided. Any cable which is exposed will have to be checked for contamination including cables at the bottom of vented cable trays.
2.
Removal of cable tray sections was discussed at length.
It appeared from the walkdown that removal of some tray sections would be feasible.
Terry Nicholson indicated that he had never seen damaged or fragile l
cable insulation, so it might not be necessary to remove cable trays.
j
\\
(
3.
If cables are contaminated, it might be preferable to perform as many post-removal tests as possible onsite, to avoid shipping contaminated components. Dr. Allen indicated that the costs associated with shipping contaminated components could be significant, regardless of the actual number of cables which are contaminated. There are also potential problems associated with decontaminating cables - decontamination could introduce a damage mechanism, and might result in industry criticism of tests.
4.
Leakage current of wet cable insulation in cable tray might be a desired test.
PGE has an area where this test could be performed.
In addition, PGE indicated that they would probably have areas where other tests could be performed, such as indenter and elongation before break.
r
'P I
l a-
...