IR 05000344/1978028
| ML19294A626 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/17/1979 |
| From: | Malmros M, Sternberg D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19294A625 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-344-78-28, NUDOCS 7903080005 | |
| Download: ML19294A626 (9) | |
Text
.
U. S. i;UCLEAR REGULATORY C0 !l11SSIO:1
,
-
OFFICE OF IISPECTION AliD ENFORCEMENT 9[;
REGION V
~)
[
Report No.
50-344/78-28 i8
>
NPF-1 Safeguards Group J
Docket No.
50-344 License No.
-
Portland General Electric Company Licensee:
121 S. W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Facility Name:
Trojan Inspection at:
Rainier, Oregon December 4 - 31, 1978 Inspection Conducted:$f}b k~4 ll/fl77
/ Datt Signed Inspectors:
M. H. Malmros, Reactor Inspector Date Signed l
l 7$
Approved By: k 4M\\
_
/ Dath Signed
,
D.M.Sternberg,Chieh,ReactorProject Section 1, Reactor Operations and !!uclear Support Branch Summary:
Inspection on December 4 - 31,1978 (Report No. 50-344/78-28)
Routine inspections by the Resident Inspector of piarit Areas Inspected:
operations, maintenance, calibration, security, QA Program procedures, facility modifications, procurement, startup testing, radioactive waste systems operations, The inspection involved 103 inspector-hours by the NRC and LER followup.
Resident Inspector.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Results:
-
790308 o odf 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 C. J. Fleming, Administrative Supervisor D. F. Kielblock, Training Supervisor W. S. Orser, Engineericg Supervisor J. C. Perry, Administrative Engineer L. W. Quinn, Chemistry Supervisor J. D. Reid, Quality Assurance Supervisor (Acting)
D. W. Swan, Material Control Supervisor D. J. Thompson, Maintenance Supervisor (Acting)
T. D. Walt, Radiation Protection Supervisor The inspector also interviewed and talked with other licensee enployees during the course of the inspection.
These included shift supervisors, reactor and auxiliary operators, maintenance personnel, plant technicians and engineers, and quality assurance personnel.
- Denotes those attending the exit interviews.
2.
Quality Assurance Program Changes to the licensee's Quality Assurance Program for operations were reviewed by the inspector and were found to be in conformance with the program described in the application relating to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, and applicable codes, standards, and regulatory guides.
Discussions were held with licensee personnel having responsibility for implementing the QA Program changes to verify that they under-stood the significance of the specific changes.
The changes examined by the inspector included Revision 4 to the QA Program for operations and the resultant revisions to Quality Assurance Procedures Nos.1 -
18 with revision dates during the period November 16, 1978, through December 8, 1978.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie,
_
_
y
'_"_$
'
'
,,
~
k
,
.. -.....- -...... -. _ - __ _ _ _,...
,
. _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_7
.. __ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _
_ - _ ___ _
...
_ _
_
_,
..
'
y
.*
-2-
-
-
..
=M
.
3.
Modifications
.
Modifications of pipe supports under Request for Design Chante (RDC) No.78-095, as further described in Detailed Construct # on Packages (DCP) Nos.1, 2, 3, and 4, were examined by the Resident
~:
Inspector in company with Region V construction inspectors to
~
verify conformance to regulatory requirements, industrial codes
,
and standards. Observations by the inspectors included the
-
following:
'
a.
RDC 78-095 had been reviewed and approved in accordance
" ^
with the requirements of the technical specifications and appropriate controls for inspection had been established.
,.
f b.
The DCPs and resultant work plans provided procedural controls
,
for the modification of the pipe supports.
,,
c.
The procedures included applicable controls for welding,
,
weld inspection, and installation of anchor bolts.
4 d.
Special Test Procedure No. 42 was used to verify the proper
,
fied supports during the plant heatup to normal operating
. 1..
thermal expansion of the piping system affected by the modi-
..
temperature.
.
e.
Changes to as-built drawings were prepared to reflect
'
the modified pipe supports.
-
'
=
f.
Work activities were directly observed by the inspectors and found to be performed in accordance with the proper specifications, drawings, and procedural requirements.
,
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
4.
Procurement
-
The inspector toured the licensee's warehouse facility to verify
'
that safety related material and spare parts were being handled, stored, and identified in accordance with the requirements of the
,
licensee's quality assurance procedures. The inspector verified the following:
e-a.
Safety related material and spare parts received onsite
- 1 i had been inspected by qualified personnel.
,
.
s
.
=
a
.
,
. ~ - ~ - - -' ' '
--
......e...
-.. _.. _ _ _.
...,..,.
.
__
,__ _, _
-
~~
.s
"
'
{
.
$.. - '
- ,
..
- -.
=
-8
'
-3-b.
Records of receipt inspector qualifications were examined and found to be complete and current.
c.
Storage and packaging requirements were defined in the purchase requisition and were being met during the storage of the applicable items.
d.
Preventive maintenance of stored i~
as pump shaft rotation, was being performed by personnel,
.c m
e.
Material was identified to permit traceability to on-file quality certification documents.
f.
Limited shelf life items were identified and controlled.
flo items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Calibration The licensee's program for the calibration of plant instrumentation was examined by the inspector. The inspector directly observed the calibration of instrumentation in the steam generator system, reactor coolant system, seismic monitoring system, and the nuclear instrumentation system. Observations made by the inspector in-cluded the following:
a.
The calibrations were performed in accordance with approved facility procedures.
b.
The calibrations were performed by properly qualified personnel.
c.
Test equipment used during the calibration of instruments in the above systems was verified to be in a proper calibration status when used.
d.
Records of test equipment calibration show that the calibration accuracy is traceable to the flational Bureau of Standards.
flo items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Maintenance Maintenance operations on the service water system, steam generator blowdown system, seismic monitoring system and the gas analyzer system, were witnessed by the inspector and verified to have been
.
-4-performed in accordance with established procedures and technical specification requirements. During the examination of maintenance activities related to the above components or systems, the inspector made the following observations:
a.
Maintenance requests had been properly prepared to provide the required administrative approval prior to initiating the work.
b.
The maintenance was performed by qualified aembers of the maintenance organization.
c.
System tagging operations and plant status controls properly indicated the performance of the maintenance activities.
d.
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.
7.
Plant Operations a.
Facility Legs and Operating Records The inspector examined the log entries contained in the control room log and the shif t supervisor's log for facility operations performed during December 1978. The log entries were found to have been made consistent with the requirements of the facility administrative orders and to accurately reflect the operational status of the facility. Facility logs were reviewed by 6pplica-ble 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 supervisor's log to identify potential problems and to verify compliance with technical speci-fication reporting requirements and limiting conditions for operation, b.
Facility Tour and Observation of Operation Tours of the facility were made by the inspector in the Control Building, Reactor Auxiliary Building, Fuel Building, Intake Structure, and the Turbine Building. During the tours, assess-ments of equipment and plant conditions were made with the following observations:
.
.
-5-(1)
Instrumentation for monitoring the status of the plant was operating.
(2) Radiation controls were properly established.
(3) No conditions were observed that represented a fire hazard or personnel safety hazard. Fire protection equipment 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 Auxiliary Feedwater System and the Emergency Core Cooling System. Compliance with the limiting conditions for operation of the technical specifications for mode 3 operations was verified for these systems.
(6) Control room observations verified that the facility manning was proper and discussions with shift supervisors and control operators revealed that they were cognizant of the effect of annunciated alarms on plant operations.
Shift turnovers were found to be performed in accordance with the administrative orders and good watchstanding practices.
(7) Preparation of chemical reagents and the analysis of reactor coolant system for boron was observed by the in-spector and found to have been performed in accordance with facility procedures.
(8) The inspector verified that the control rod drive system and the incore monitoring system were properly tested prior to the resumption of facility operations following the disassembly and reassembly of these systems during the refueling outage in March-May of 1978.
(9) The inspector observed the facility startup on December 30, 1978. Special Test Procedure No. 37 was used for the approach to criticality and the zero power physics tests.
Surveillance tests required to be completed prior to the unit startup were satisfactorily completed. Startup activities were conducted in accordance with technical specification requirement No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Startup Testing - Refueling
__
The licensee's startup test program for cycle two operations was examined by the inspector and found to contain technically adequate and approved procedures in conformance with technical specification requirements.
Specific tests to be performed were described in Special Test Procedure No. 37, " Reload Cycle Startup Zero Power Physics Tests," and Special Test Procedure No. 38, " Reload Cycle No Lead and at Power Tests." The acceptance criteria in the start-up tests were verified by the inspector to be consistent with the information in WCAP-9268, " Nuclear Design and Core flanagement for the Trojan Nuclear Plant - Cycle Two."
Direct observation by the inspector of the following tests verified compliance to the above described procedures.
a.
Reactor thermocouple /RTD Cross Calibration b.
Core Power Distribution Limits c.
Incore/Excore Calibration d.
Core Thermal Power Evaluation e.
Control Rod Worth Iteasurement Initial results from the above tests indicated that the acceptance criteria of the test procedures were met and that the cycle two core is consistent with the design predictions. The detailed data reduction of the test results by the licensee will be reviewed by the inspector during subsequent inspections.
(78-28-01)
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
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 facil-ity 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:
-7-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 area.
d.
The security organization for each shift was found to be properly organized and manned.
e.
Shift turnover, shift routines, and communications were accomplished in accordance with the requirements of the physical security plan and applicable administrative orders.
iio items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
10.
Radioactive Waste Systems Operations The inspector examined the records associated with liquid effluent releases and gasecus effluent releases. The records for release flos. G-34-78, G-35-78,183-78, and 184-78, were examined and found to indicate that required sampling had been performed and that timely release approvals had been obtained.
Preparations for a liquid release were witnessed by the inspector and found to have been accomplished in accordance with approved facility procedures.
Instrumentation for monitoring the liquid and gaseous effluent releases was verified to be operational and in a current state of calibration at the time of the release.
Tio items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
11. Licensee Event Report (LER) Followuo The circumstances and corrective action described in LER 78-25 were examined by the inspector.
Periodic Engineering Test (PET)
fio.10-1, had been revised to include the periodic testing of the hydrogen mixing fans as specified in the technical specifications.
The results of testing performed by the licensee following the adjustment of the fan blades indicate that the measured flowrates meet or exceed the minimum technical specification limits.
The LER had been properly reviewed by the licensee and reported to the ilRC within the thirty day reporting limit.
No items of noncompliance or deviatios were identifie.'
-8-12.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) on December 8,15, 22, and 29,1978.
During these meetings, the inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.