IR 05000344/1978020
| ML20062D607 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/16/1978 |
| From: | Malmros M, Sternberg D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062D604 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-344-78-20, NUDOCS 7811270115 | |
| Download: ML20062D607 (7) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. . . U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCE 4EllT - -
REGION V
Report No. 50-344/78-20 . . Docket No. 50-344 License No.
NPF-1 Safeguards Group Licensee: Portland General Electric Company 121 S. W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Facility Name: Trojan Inspection at: Rainier, Oregon Inspection Co ducted:, September 5-29, 1978 Inspectors: D\\ ' km M ()[[, h , M. H. Malmros, Reactor # nspector Date Signed I , Date Signed 10 /d!78 Approved By: n
, D. M. Sternberg, Chief, Reactor Project Date Signed Section 1, Reactor Operations and Nuclear , l Support Branch Sumary: Inspection on September 5-29,1978 (Report No. 50-344/78-20) l Areas Inspected: Routine inspections by the Resident Inspector of plant , operations, maintenance, surveillance testing, facility security and
other specific activities independently selected by the inspector. The inspection. involved 84 inspector-hours by the NRC Resident Inspector.
, Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
78112761rf IE:V Form 219 (2) .
- . DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- B. D. Withers, Plant Superintendent
- F. H. Lamoureaux, Assistant Plant Superintendent R. P. Barkhurst, Operations Supervisor D. L. Bennett, Instrument and Control Supervisor (Actin ~ )
g M. L. Dawson, Quality Assurance Supervisor C. J. Fleming, Administrative Supervisor D. F. Kielblock, Training Supervisor W. S. Orser, Engineering Supervisor L. W. Quinn, Chemistry Supervisor D. J. Thompson, Maintenance Supervisor (Acting) T. D. Walt, Radiation Protection Supervisor i The inspector also interviewed and talked with other licensee employees during the course of the inspection. They included shift supervisors, reactor and auxiliary operators, mainten-ance personnel, plant technicians and engineers, and quality assurance personnel.
- Denotes those attending the exit interviews.
f 2.
plant Operations a.
Facility Logs and Operating Records The inspector examined the log entries contained in the control room log and the shift supervisors log for facility operations performed during September 1978. The log entries were found to have been consistent with the requirements of the facility administrative orders and to accurately reflect ( - the mode 5-cold shutdown status of the facility.
Facility ~ logs were reviewed by applicable staff members and operating orders issued by the operations supervisor did not conflict with the intent of the technical specification requirements.
Sufficient information was contained in the control room log and the shift supervisors log to identify potential problems and to verify compliance with technical specification report-i ing requirements and limiting conditions for operation.
b.
Facility Tour and Observation of Operations Tours of the facility were made by the inspector in the control building, reactor auxiliary building, fuel build-ing, intake structure, and the turbine building. During i l
__ . . . -2-the tours, assessments of equipment and plant conditions were made with the following observations: (1) Instrumentation for monitoring the cold shutdown status of the plant was operating.
(2) Radiation controls were properly established.
(3) Facility cleaning to remove material and debris which had accumulated during the refueling outage was in progress.
Significant improvement in house-keeping conditions was observed in the 5' and 25' levels of the reactor auxiliary building. No con-ditions were observed that represented a fire hazard or personnel safety hazard. Fire protection equip-ment was found operable.
(4) Piping systems for those systems in operation did not contain fluid leaks or show evidence of excessive pipe vibrations.
(5) Detailed system alignment and operation were verified for the containment spray system, residual heat re-moval system, AC power system, and the fire protection , system. Compliance with the limiting conditions for operation of the technical specifications for mode 5 operations was verified for these systems.
(6) Control room observations verified that the facility manning was proper and discussions with shift super-visors and control operators revealed that they were cognizant of the effect of annunciated alarms on plant operations.
Shift turnovers were found to be performed k in accordance with administrative orders and good watch-standing practices.
(7) Sampling of the reactor coolant system via the resident l heat removal system was observed. The analysis of the ! sample for RCS boron concentration was performed in accordance with the applicable facility chemistry procedure.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
! i
.' _.
. -3- . 3.
Physical Protection Based on discussions with licensee representatives, observations, and examinations of facility procedures, the inspector verified that the measures employed for the physical protection of the facility were consistent with the requirements of the physical security plan, applicable administrative orders, and regulatory requirements. Specific aspects of physical protection examined by the inspector included the following: a.
Protected area and vital area barriers were verified to be properly closed and locked.
b.
Personnel provided access to the protected and vital areas were properly authorized, identified and badged.
Personnel, vehicles, and packages were searched as required by the ,- physical security plan.
c.
Escorts were provided for personnel and vehicles when required inside the protected art:a.
d.
The security organization for each shift was found to be properly organized and manned.
' e.
Shift turnover, shift routines, and comunications were accomplished in accordance with the requirements of the ' physical security plan and applicable administrative orders.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Maintenance . Maintenance operations on the auxiliary feedwater pump diesel ( and the fire pump diesel were witnessed by the inspector and verified to have been perfomed in accordance with established , i procedures and technical specification requirements. During l the examinatiun of maintenance activities related to this equip-i ment, the inspector made the following observations: a.
Maintenance Request Nos. 78-3784 and 78-3974 had been properly prepared to provide the required administrative approval prior to initiating the work.
o.
The maintenance was performed using Maintenance Procedure MP-7-5, " Auxiliary Feedwater Pump (Diesel Driven)," and Maintenance Procedure MP-12-8, " Fire Pump Diesel Engine."
. - - ._.
-
- - .- -
. c.
Facility procedures required that each diesel engine be functionally tested prior to returning the components to an operational status.
d.
The maintenance was perfomed by qualified members of the maintenance organization.
e.
The inspector noted that the results of the compression tests run on the auxiliary feedwater pump diesel yielded values lower than those specified in the maintenance pro- ' cedure. Upon checking with the diesel supplier, the li-censee detemined that the lower compression readings were attributed to a difference in methods for obtaining the readings. The procedure values were based on values by taking compression readings with all cylinder injectors removed. The licensee utilized a method where the injec-tors were left installed in all cylinders during the test.
The diesel supplier stated that the values obtained were l acceptable for the method used by the licensee and were l indicative of satisfactory diesel perfomance. The li-I censee plans to revise the method of taking compression readings to requirs d i injectors to be removed except j for the cylinder miMrcing compression testing during a ' future maintenance. The inspector will verify during sub-sequent inspections that 311 appropriate revision to MP-7-5 is issued. This item was discussed during the exit interview.
(344/78-20-01) , f.
System tagging operations and plant status controls , properly indicated the performance of the maintenance , l activities.
l ( g.
Applicable limiting conditions for operation as specified in the technical specifications were met during the above.
maintenance.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Surve11ance Testing The inspector observed the performance of technical specification requiced testing of the containment spray system. The specific test me.thods used by the licensee were specified in periodic operating test, POT-4-1, " Containment Spray System, Pump and Eductor Performance." Observations made by the inspector in-cluded the following:
.
( -5- . i a.
The test prerequisites were met.
b.
Applicable limiting conditions for operation were met.
The requirements of the test procedure were adhered to by c.
the personnel performing the test.
d.
The test was perfomed by qualified operations personnel.
e.
The test results were reviewed by the licensee and found to be within the acceptance criteria specified in the technical specifications.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Licensee Event Followup The inspector examined the circumstances and corrective action taken by the licensee as a result of the loss of three of the i four sources of offsite power on September 14, 1978, at approx- ' imately 2:17 a.m.
This loss of offsite power was caused by the crash of a light twin engine aircraft in the vicinity of the offsite power transmission lines approximately one mile West of the facility.
Based on a review of facility logs and
discussions with licensee representatives, the operation of the facility during the occurrence was as follows: a.
The limiting conditions for operation for mode 5-cold shutdown conditions were met throughout the occurrence since one source of offsite power was available.
' b.
Residual heat removal system flow through the core was interrupted for approximately three minutes when the ' operating pump lost power. The control operator imme- ' diately restored flow by starting the residual heat removal pump powered from the electrical bus with off-site power available, c.
Standby sources of power were available for the operation of facility systems at all times, if required.
d.
Response of operations and security personnel to the occurrence was consistent with the requirements of applic-l l able emergency procedures.
e.
The offsite AC power supply was returned to a normal lineup approximately twelve hours following the incident.
, l No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
' l
. ._ __ _.
. .. . . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _.
- _ __ __ _
. . _ l - . . -6- - ., . i - 7.
Safety Injection System Reset Feature i
i Discussions were held with licensee represe' tatives regarding n i l the procedural controls which are used to provide operators with the necessary guidance for the proper use of the safety i injection system reset feature.
It was determined that three
facility procedures should be revised to include a precaution-
ary note that alters the facility operator to the " unarmed" condition of the safety injection system actuation devices when
i l the reset feature is used. The licensee indicated that the procedure revisions would be completed prior to entry into the , mode 3 or not later than November 3,1978.
(347/78-20-02) ! The following procedures will be revised: i a.
Off-Normal Instruction ONI-4, " Spurious Safety Injection" ! T b.
Emergency Instruction EI-1, " Loss of Reactor Coolant" ! Emergency Instruction EI-2, " Loss of Secondary Coolant" c.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
i i 8.
System and Procedure Review The inspector examined system operating procedures and verified i system alignment for correct valve positions, proper locking of ! " locked closed" or " locked open" valves, and evaluated the . general operability of system components for the following plant ' systems.
a.
Auxiliary Feedwater System b.
Seismic Monitoring and Recording System l g c.
Component Cooling Water System j d.
Main Steam System No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in i Paragraph 1) on September 8, 22, and 29,1978. During these i meetings, the inspector summarized the scope and findings of , ! the inspection, including those items discussed in Para-graphs 4 and 7.
i . _ _ _ _. _ . _ - _ _ ._.
_ .. .. _ _ _ _ _.,.. _ _.. -. . . }}