IR 05000344/1980006
| ML19305E602 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/11/1980 |
| From: | Johnson G, Malmros M, Sternberg D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19305E568 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-344-80-06, 50-344-80-6, NUDOCS 8005200096 | |
| Download: ML19305E602 (6) | |
Text
.
.
8005200 $
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMEh"I
REGION V
.
Report No.
50-344/80-06 Docket No.
50-344 License No.
MPF-1 Safeguards Group Licensee:
Portland General Electric Company 121 S. W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Facility Name:
Trojan Inspection at:
Rainier, Oregon Inspection c etcd:,, March 3-31, 1980 Inspectors:
yt4
.
/
y
,
. Malmf' sc Senior Rh's/ dent Irspector Da
\\
, OA l
% d>os m W 4bllieSigned
.
8b
'
G.W.Joh'nsto"n[ResidentInsflpect or date Signed
'
i n
, m U
Date Signed Y
Il Approved By:,/\\
s D. fT. Sternberg, Chief, Reactorl Project Section 1, bate Signed
'
Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Su:::: nary :
Inspection on March 3-31, 1980 (Report No. 50-344/80-06)
>
Areas Inspected:
Routine inspections of plant operations, maintenance, radiological protection, physical security, review and audit, and follow-up on Licensee Event Reports. The inspection involved 144 inspector-hours by i
the NRC Resident Inspectors.
j Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
1 l
RV Forta 219 (2)
.
-
-
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- C. P. Yundt, General Manager W. S. Orser, Manager, Operations & Maintenance C. A. Olmstead, Manager, Technical Services D. F. Kielblock, Manager, Plant Services R. P. Barkhurst, Operations Supervisor D. W. Swan, Msintenance Supervisor R. P. Schmitt, Engineering Supervisor M. A. Bell, Chemistry Supervisor T. O. Meek, Radiation Protection Supervisor R. E. Susee, Training Supervisor D. L. Bennett, Instrument & Control Supervisor J. D. Reid, Quality Assurance Supervisor T. F. Bracy, Security Supervisor H. E. Rosenbach, Material Control Supervisor The inspectors also interviewed and talked with other licensee employees 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.
Operational Safety Verification During the month, the inspectors observed and examined activities to verify the operational safety of the licensee's facility. The observations and examinations of those activities were conducted on a daily, weekly or monthly basis.
On a daily basis, the inspectors observed control room activities to verify the licensee's adherence to limiting conditions for operations as prescribed in the facility technical specifications. Logs, instrumentation, recorder traces, and other operating records were examined to obtain information on plant conditions, trends, and compliance with regulations. _ On the occasions when a shift turnover was in progress, the turnover of information on plant status was observed to determine that all pertinent information was relayed to the oncoming shift.
During each week, the inspectors tlured the accessible areas of the facility to assess the following areas:
a.
General plant and equipment conditions.
b.
Maintenance requests and repairs.
-
-
.
-2-c.
Fire hazards and fire fighting equipment.
d.
Ignition sources and flammable material control.
e.
Conduct of activities as per the licensee's administrative controls and approved procedures.
f.
Interiors of electrical and control panels.
A g.
Implementation of the licensee's physical security plan.
h.
Radiation protection controls.
i.
Plant housekeeping and cleanliness.
j.
Radioactive waste systems.
Each week the inspectors verified the operability of a selected emergency safety features (ESF) train. This was done by direct visual verification of the correct position of valves, availability of power, cooling water supply, system integrity, and general condition of the equipment.
ESF trains verified to be operable during the month included auxiliary feed-water, diesel generators, residual heat removal systems, and the safety injection accumulators.
The operability of a selected ESF system, the safety injection system, was checked by a complete walkdown of the accessible portions.
This included checks of valve position versus indication, power availability, operability of hangers and supports, inspection of breakers, and proper instrumentation.
A selected portion of containment penetrations was examined for proper valve alignment.
This included visual inspection of the valves that were l
accessible for correct position, power availability, absence of mechanical blocks, and leakage.
,
The licensee's equipment clearance control was examined weekly by the inspectors to determine that the licensee's complied with technical specification limiting conditions for operation, with respect to removal of equipment from service.
Verification was achieved by selecting one safety related system or component weekly and verifying proper breaker, switch, and valve positions; both for removing the system or component from service and returing it to service.
.
During each week, the inspectors conversed with operators in the control room, and other plant personnel.
The discussions centered on pertinent topics relating to general plant conditions, procedures, security,- train-
'
ing, and other topics aligned with the work activities involved.
Two groups were the subject of observation during shift turnover - the control room and security personnel at the main gate.
-
__.
_ _.
.
_-.
'
..
-3-The inspectors examined the licensee's nonconformance reports to confirm that deficiencies were identified and tracked by the system.
Identified nonconformances were being tracked and followed to the completion of corrective action.
Logs of jumpers, bypasses, caution, and test tags were examined by the inspectors. No jumpers or bypasses appeared to have been improperly installed or removed, or to have conflicted with the technical specifications.
To verify that the licensee's radioactive waste systems controls were being implemented, the inspectors witnessed selected portions of a release from a treated waste monitor tank. The release was conducted in accordance with approved procedures, proper approvals were obtained, sampling was conducted, and instrumentation was operable and calibrated.
Radiation protection controls were verified by the inspector to be implemented by observing portions of area surveys being performed, and examining radia-tion work permits currently in effect to see that prescribed clothing and instrumentation were used and were available.
Radiation protection instruments were also examined to verify operability and calibration status.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Maintenance Maintenance activities including both preventive and correct.ive maintenance were observed by the inspectors during the month.
Observations by the inspectors verified that proper approvals, system clearances and tests of redundant equipment were performed, as appropriate, prior to maintenance of safety related systems or components.
The inspectors verified that quali-fled personnel performed the maintenance using appropriate maintenance procedures. Replacement parts were examined to determine the proper certi-fication of materials, workmanship and tests. During the actual performance of the maintenance activity, the inspectors checked for proper radiological controls and housekeeping, as appropriate.
Upon completion of the mainten-ance activity, the inspectors verified that the component or system was properly tested prior to returning the system or component to service.
Dur-ing the month, maintenance activities associated with the seismic monitor-ing system, electrical distribution system and the service air systems were examined.
No items of ne
,mpliance or deviations were identified.
/
_
_
.-
.
.
-4-
4.
Surveillance The surveillance testing of safety-related systems was witnessed by the inspectors. Observations by the inspectors included verification that
-
proper procedures were used, test instrumentation was calibrated and that the system or component being tested was properly removed from service if required by the test procedure.
Following completion of the surveillance tests, the inspectors verified that the test results met the acceptance criteria of the technical specifications and were reviewed by cognizant
licensee personnel. The inspectors also verified that corrective action was initiated, if required, to determine the cause for any unacceptable test results and to restore the system or component to an operable status consistent with the technical specification requirements. Surveillance tests witnessed during the month were associated with the following systems:
seismic monitoring system, control rod drive system, and the reactor coolant system.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Review and Audit The inspector observed portions of an audit performed by the licensee's quality assurance organization. The inspector verified auditor qualifica-tions, examined the audit plan and audit checklist. The findings of the audit were discussed at a post audit conference and corrective action, as applicable, was prcposed by the cognizant site organization.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Security The inspector attended a training lecture conducted to indoctrinate oncoming new physical security personnel. The schedule of course material and lesson plans were examined to ascertain that planned objectives were being met. The conduct of weapons qualifications and physical fitness tests will be observed by the inspector during subsequent inspections.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
j 7.
Licensee Event Report (LER) Follow-up The circumstances and corrective action described in LER Nos. 80-01, 80-02 and 80-03 were examined by the inspectors. The inspectors found that each LER had been properly reviewed by the licensee and reported to the NRC within the proper reporting interval. Corrective action for each event reported was as follows:
.
I
. _ _ _ _ _
.
-
.
-S-a.
LER 80-01: The binding which had prevented the full rotation of the sequencer to the restart position was corrected by repositioning a collar in the DBA sequencer shaft to provide more clearance with the shaft bushing.
b.
LER 80-02: The leaking cooling water hose in the auxiliary feedwater pump diesel engine was replaced.
A periodic inspection and replace-ment program for the flexible hoses in the diesel engine has been initiated.
c.
LEp 30-03:
The pressure transmitter which drifted out of calibration was recalibrated and returned to service.
The instrument trip set point had drifted to a value of 2429 psig which is 34 psig beyond the allowable technical specification value of 2395 psig.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
on March 14 and 31, 1980.
During these meetings, the inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
s