ML20203C551
| ML20203C551 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1986 |
| From: | Kirsch D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Matwichuk R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8604210188 | |
| Download: ML20203C551 (1) | |
See also: IR 05000344/1985039
Text
.-.
.
.
.-
-
~
O
.
'
Mr. Randall S. Matwichuk
291 S. 4th Street
APR 151986
St. Helens, Oregon 97051
,
Subject: Minimum Operating Shift Coverage (RV85A050)
Dear Mr. Matwichuk:
This letter refers to a request that our inspectors look into your concerns
regarding minimum operating shift coverage practices at. Trojan's nuclear power
plant site.
Our inspection regarding'this matter'has-been completed, and our findings are
documented in the enclosed report number 85-39.
The inspectors questioned the
lack of-firm criteria for determining the availability of fire brigade members
for response to a fire. The inspectors will followup this issue in a future
inspection. This concludes the Regional Staff's activities regarding this
matter.
We appreciate your informing us of your concerns. We feel that our actions in
this matter have.been responsive to those concerns; however, should you have
further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me.
Please Ine assured that we will continue to perform inspections to ensure that
minimum operating shif t coverage procedures are properly followed at nuclear
power plants to protect the health and safety of the public.
Sincerely,
Criginof sbnd! by
D. F. Kirnh
Dennis F. Kirsch, Director
Division of Reactor Safety and
Projects
Enclosure:
(1) Inspection Report 85-39
cc w/ enclosure:
Allegation File RV85A050
D. B. Pereira
S. Richards
B. Dodds
bec w/ enclosure:
.
.. Resident Inspector;
'
.
Project Inspector; G. Cook; B.
- aulkenberry; J. Martin
-~s
<
Region V
Pe
fdot
R1
s D
s
Kir h
i
s'
4/lI/86
4//[/86
4/h/86
I
4/j /86
j
'
\\
8604210100 860415
/y p
DR
ADOCK O
34
-
.
- -
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
- -
- -
- -
-
-
-
.
.
l
JAN 241986
Docket No. 50-344
Portland General Electric Company
121 S. W. Salmon Street
Portland, Oregon 97204
Attention:
Mr. Bart D. Withers
Vice President Nuclear
Gentlemen:
Subject: NRC Inspection of the Trojan Nuclear Plant
This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. S. A. Richards and
Mr. G. C. Kellund of this office on November 17, 1985 - January 3,1986, of
activities authorized by NRC License No. NPF-1, and to the discussion of our
findings held by Mr. Richards and Mr. Kellund with Mr. Orser and other members
of your staff periodically during the inspection.
-
Areas examined during this inspection are described in the enclosed inspection
report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective
examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with
personnel, and observations by the inspectors.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosures
will be placed in the NRC Pablic Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be glad to
discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
@p51t'nsdb
E. .! P:'c
D. F. Kirsch, Director
Division of Reactor Safety & Projects
Enclosures:
Inspection Report No. 50-344/85-39
cc w/ enc 1:
State of Oregon (Dixon)
W. S. Orser, PGE
J. W. Durham, Esq., PGE
bec w/ enclosure: RSB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS); Project Inspector;
Resident Inspector; J. Martin; B. Faulkenberry; G. Cook
bec w/o enclosure: LFMB
REGION V/ dot
,f
/c'-(f'
RICHARDS h
KE
DODDS
KIRSCH
1/K3/86
1/M/86
143/86
1/d5/86
&c/l tare Q)
C7/ s -
e tar #
1
T
vw QIZ L3 V-~=-
~ ~ ~ ' *
._
--.
-
_ _ . -_
__. _ . . - - _
__
.
.-
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
Report No. 50-344/85-39
Docket No. 50-344
License No. hTF-1
Licensee:
Portland General Electric Company
121 S. W. Salmon Street
Portland, Oregon 97204
Facility Name: Troj an
Inspection at: Rainier, Oregon
Inspectionconductp:
ove ber
, 19
- January 3, 1986
Inspectors:
- , >M_ S % A/
/
f[
. A. Ridiard% -
D(te'5igned
'
,
S
or
es' ent
spec
5/
/
f . Ke11und 7
Da'te ' Signed
.
de
I pect r
.
Approved By:
A"2fd
_/
M
T. D6ddsf Chief
D1te'5figned
eactor Projects Section 1
Summary:
Inspection on November 17, 1985 - January 3, 1986 (Report 50-344/85-39)
Areas Inspected: Routine inspection of operational safety verification,
corrective action, maintenance, surveillance, followup on a reported potential
act of sabotage, review of modification testing, and inspection of various
aspects of plant operation. The inspection involved 212 inspector-hours by
the NRC Resident Inspectors. 35 hours4.050926e-4 days <br />0.00972 hours <br />5.787037e-5 weeks <br />1.33175e-5 months <br /> of inspection were during back shift
hours. Inspection procedures 30703, 40700, 61726, 62703, 71707, 71710, 72701,
93702 and 94703 were used as guidance during the conduct of the inspectiou.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
S vc ra k OA
GQQ
p .
&no l R
o_
- .
.
.
5
-
q
NRC representatives concluded that the actions taken by the licensee are
a positive step towards minimizing errors in technical work.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Shift Crew Manning
The inspectors reviewed the information associated with the Possible
Reportable Occurrence (PRO) report dated June 25, 1985. This PRO
concerns potentially inadequate shift crew manning on the day shift of
June 25, 1985. On this date, the plant was in Mode 5 and in a solid
i
plant condition. Technical Specification 6.2.2 and Administrative Orders
1-4, 3-1 and 3-8 require a minimum shift crew of six operators in Mode 5.
In addition, Administrative Order 3-8 requires that during solid plant
operations, one operator will monitor RCS parameters and have no other
concurrent duties.
The inspectors discussed this event with the initiator of the PRO and
with the Operations Planner / Scheduler. Based on these discussions and
review of the associated records, the inspectors determined that the
shift was adequately asoced.
The inspectors did, however, question the
,.
lack of firm criteria f t determining the availability of fire brigade
members for response to a fire.
In this instance, one of the fire
brigade members was inside the containment building for a portion of the
shift, and his ability to respond to a fire in the uncontrolled areas of
the plant in a timely manner was in question. The Operations
Planner / Scheduler agreed to investigate this issue to determine if
additional guidance on fire brigade member availability is necessary.
This issue will be followed up in a future inspection (344/85-39-01).
9.
Potential Sabotage Event
On December 9,1985, while in the process of performing a semi-annual
preventative maintenance inspection on the
'A' emergency diesel generator
(EDG), a licensee mechanic discovered an 8 ounce ball peen hammer under a
rocker-arm cover on the east unit'bf the EDG. The engine was operating
at the time and the worker immediately removed the hammer from the
engine. The hammer had not caused any damage to the engine.
Its
location was such that the probability for damage to occur should the
hammer have shifted its position due to engine vibration appeared very
low. The licensee initially thought that the hammer had been
inadvertently left in the engine by a maintenance worker, however, a
review of maintenance records indicated that during the time frame in
question, no work had been performed on the engine which could account
i
for the hammer. Because the licensee was unable to determine how the
'
hammer came to be placed in the engine, the licensee reported the event
to the NRC and the FBI as a potential act of sabotage.
A special agent from the Portland office of the FBI commenced an
investigation into the circumstances surrounding this event. The
licensee initiated action to survey the plant for other evidence of
tampering. These actions included detailed visual examinations of
electrical panels, rotating equipment, and other selected vital
equipment; sampling of oil from selected safety equipment; a visual
&cbraee
_ _ .
.
- -
.
__
-.