IR 05000344/1980010
| ML19318B174 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/12/1980 |
| From: | Johnson G, Malmros M, Sternberg D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19318B169 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-344-80-10, NUDOCS 8006250093 | |
| Download: ML19318B174 (6) | |
Text
-
.
.
-
.
-
-.
.
,
h.
U. S. NUCLEAR RECUL1 TORY COMMISSION
,
OFFICE OF INSFECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
Report No.
50-344/80-10 50-344 License No.
NPF-1 Safeguards Group Docket No.
Licensee:
Portland General Electric Company 121 S. W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Facility Name:
Trojan Inspection at:
Rainier, Oregon
.
Inspection conducted;m
. APil 1-30,1980 Inspectors:
S VJcA.
/
8a
,
-jGe M. H. M,a ros Senior Resident Inspector Date Signed
'
%k~
5/rtfr-
-
b#
G. W.
nston, Resident Inspector Date Signed i
i Date rigned Approved By:
D. M. Sternberg, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 1, Date Signed Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch
,
Sun: mary :
,
Inspection on April 1-30, 1980 (Report No. 50-344/80-10)
!
Areas Inspected:
Routine inspections of plant operations, maintenance, surveillance testing, physical security, review and audit, refueling activities, and follow-up on Licensee Event Reports. The inspection involved 206 inspector-hours by the NRC Resident Inspectors.
Results: No items of noncospliance or deviations were identified.
<
,
'
RV Form 219 (2)
eocesso09S
.
-
-.
-- -
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- C. P. Yundt, General Manager
,
- W. S. Orser, Manager, Operations and Maintenance
'
C. A. Olmstead, Manager, Technical Services i
D. F. Kielblock, Manager, Plant Services R. P. Barkhurst, Operations Supervisor D. W. Swan, Maintenance Supervisor
,
R. P. Schmitt, 2ngineering Supervisor M. A. Bell, Chemistry Supervisor T. O. Meek, Radiation Protection Supervisor R. E. Susee, Training Supervisor D. L. Bennett, Instrument and 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
,
The facility was shut down on April 11 to begin the second refueling outage.
,
The plant had been in a coast down from the previous month; at shutdown the power had fallen to approximately 65 percent. The outage is expected to end in early July.
During the month, the inspectors observed and examined activities to verify the operational safety of the iicensee'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 contrn? 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.
l
,
, - -
,
.
.
During each week, the inspectors toured the accessible areas of the facility to assess the following areas:
a.
General plant and equipment conditions.
b.
Maintenance requests and repairs.
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.
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.
ES7 trains verified to be operable during the month included auxiliary feed-water, component cooling water, residual heat removal systems, and the hydrogen purge system.
I The operability of a selected ESF system, the containment spray 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 were examined for proper valve alignment. This included visual inspection of the valves that were 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 complied with technical speci-fication limiting conditions for operation, w.'th 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 returning it to servic ___
.
.-
-3-During each week, the inspectors cc.tversed 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.
The inspectors examined the licensee's nonconformance reports to confirm that deficiencies were identified and tracked by the system.
Identified nonconformances were being traced and followed to completion of correc-tive 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 implemanted, the inspectors witnessed selected portions of releases from a treated waste monitor tank and a waste gas decay tank. The releases were 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 radiation work permits currently in effect to see that pre-scribed clothing and instrumentation were used and were available.
Radia-tion protection instruments were also examined to verify operability and calibration status.
No items of noncom,'liance or deviations were identified.
3.
Maintenance Maintenance activities including both preventive and corrective 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 qualified personnel performed the maintenance using appropriate mainten-ance procedures.
Replacement parts were examined to determine the proper certification of materials, workmanship aJd tests.
During the actual performance of the maintenance activity, the inspectors checked for proper radiological. controls and housekeeping, as appropriate.
Upon completion of the maintenance activity, the inspectors verified that the component or system was properly tested prior to returning the system or component to l
/
j
.
.
-4-service.
During the month, maintenance activities associated with the plant instrumentation systems, electrical distribution systen and the main steam system were examined.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Surveiilance 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 componentbeing 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 :,tatus consistent with the technical specification requirements.
Survei' lance tests witnessed during the month were associated with the follow'ng systems:
seismic monitoring, plant chemistry, steam generator pressure transmitters, diesel generators, batteries and chargers.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Review and Audit The inspector attended a Plant Review Board (PRB) meeting held on April 17, 1980. The inspector found that the membership and quorum requirements of the technical specifications were met.
Following the meeting, the meeting minutes were examined and found to accurately reflect the meeting agenda as discussed on April 17, 1980.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Corrective Action The inspectors examined the facility records related to the documentation of plant problems.
Documents exan.ined included plant Problem Reports, Nonconformance Reports, and recent audit findings designated as loop items.
The nature of the plant problems as documented did not indicate any trend which would indicate a degradation of safety related systems, components or structures.
For problems that affected plant safety, the corrective action was identified and, as appropriate, the safety problem was reported to the NRC in accordance with the reporting requirements of the technical specifications.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
-
-
'.
.*
-5-7.
Refueling Activities The inspectors verified by examination of records or direct observation that the following surveillance activities were completed prior to the movement of fuel. These activities included refueling machine operation and indexing, the ventilation around the spent fuel pool, interlocks on refueling equipment, testing of the polar crane, radiation monitors, checks of the communications system, and spent fuel pool cooling.
Fuel handling activities were verified to have been conducted as required by Technical Specifications or approved procedures. This verification was either by direct observation or examination of pertinent records. The areas 'ncluded core monitoring, containment integrity, fuel handling, fuel accountability, housekeeping, licensed personnel on refueling deck and in the control room, boron concentration, and communications between the control room and refuel-ing deck.
No items of noncompliar.ce or deviations were identified.
8.
Licensee Event Report (LER) Follow-up The circumstances and corrective action described in LER Nos. 80-04 and 80-05 were examined by the inspectors.
The inspectors found that the LERs had been properly reviewed by the licensee and reported to the NRC within the proper reporting interval. Corrective action for each event was as follows:
LER 80-04 (0 pen): The licensee repositioned the ventilation dampers and verified that the required flow of 3200 CFM was attained by the control room emergency ventilation system. To assure that the dampers remain in the proper position, appropriate administrative controls and a means for locking the damper in position are being developed.
LER 80-05 (0 pen): Three of the four main steam isolation valves failed to close when the periodic surveillance test was performed on April 11, 1980.
The licensee was able to free up the valves by. loosening the valve stem packing. A program to determine the specific cause for the valve binding is in progress within the licensee's maintenance organization.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
on April 11 and 30, 1980.
During these meetings, the inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.