IR 05000344/1980011
| ML19344E438 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/26/1980 |
| From: | Johnson G, Malmros M, Sternberg D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19344E429 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-344-80-11, NUDOCS 8008280552 | |
| Download: ML19344E438 (7) | |
Text
. _.
_
___
.. _.. _. -
m
, _ _
.
. _
_ _ _ -. _ _ _ _ - _
_
j
.
.
.g i
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tNISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT i
,
j
!
REGION V
.
i Report No.
50-344/80-11 Docket No.
50-344 treense no, NPF-1 Safeguards Group
!
Licensee:
Portland General Electric Company
121 S. W. Salmon Street
Portland, Oregon 97204 Facility Name:
frojan
!
Inspection at:
Rainier, Oregon
,
May 1-30, 1980 Inspectionconducte4:
Inspectors:
014n b[2. hgo
!
fe M. H. Miimros, Senior Resident Inspector Date Signed w%~
{2C.fgo-(re G. W. Johnston, Resident Inspector Date Signed a
j
_
Date Signed M[
.
[
qs
'
's Q
26 7()
- - -
!
Approved By:
'1\\+
.
D. M. Sternberg, ChiefrR'eactor Projects Section 1,
/ Date Signed
Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch j
Inspection on May 1-30,1980 (Repcff No. 50-344/80-11)
i l
Areas Inspected:
Routine inspections of plant operations, maintenance, surveillance testing, physical security, refueling, modifications,
,
environmental protection and follow-up on Licensee Event Reports. The
!
inspection involved 177 inspector-hours by the NRC Resident Inspectors.
Results: Two apparent items of noncompliance were identified (Infraction -
'
failure to properly review and approve a safety-related test procedure -
Paragraph 6; Deficiency - no record of certification available for individuals
i
'
'
performing safety-related tests - Paragraphs 6 and 9).
No deviations were identified.
I
!
l i
,
i l
,
I
'
RV Form 219 (2)
j
,8008 280 ggg
- - __,,.. _ ~...
_.. ~
....
_ _, _. _. _, _,, _,.,, _ _ _.
. _,
_. _. _,,,
., _.,, _
.
.
,
.
.
.
-
.
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, Maintenance Supervisor R. P. Schmitt, Engineering Superviser M. A. Bell, Chemistry Supervisce T. O. Meek, Padiation 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 inspector 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 i
traces, and other operating records were examined to obtain information on l
plant conditions, trends, and compliance with regulations. On the occasions l
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 toured the accessible areas of the facility to assess the follcwing areas:
a.
General plant and equipment conditions.
b.
Maintenance requests and repairs.
!
.
._.
._
_
-
._ -
.
.
,
.
.
,
-
.
l-2-c.
Fire hazards and fire fighting equipment.
d.
Ignition sources and flanmable material contrt'..
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.
Radicactive waste systems.
.
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, with respect te 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 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 durina shift turnover - the control room and security personnel at the main gate.
l Logs of jumpers, bypasses, caution, and test tag were examinad by the I
inspectors. No jumpers or bypasses appeared to have been impropaely
!
installed or removed, or to have conflicted with the technical rpecifications.
To verify that the licensee's radioactive waste systems controls were being implemented, the inspectors witnessed selected portions of releases from a treated waste monitor tank and a steam generator.
The releases were conducted in accordance witn 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 l
l
_.
_.
__
._ -_.
_
_, _ _ _
.
.. _.
_
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
-
.
-3-
,
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 corrective maitenance i
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 and tests. Durino the actual per-formance of the maintenance activity, the inspectors checked for proper radioloaical 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 service.
During the month, maintenance activities associated with the plant instrumentation systems, security systems, and the residual heat removal system were examined.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
l 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 l
criteria of the technical specifications and were reviewed by coonizant 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 l
tests witnessed during the month were associated with the following systems:
diesel generators, containment spray, and incal leak rate tests (Type C tests).
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
5.
Environmental Protection i
The environmental monitoring program for the facility was examined to verify that it meets the requirements of the Technical Specifications.
!
,
-,
--.
, - -. --
,. - -
-
-
r
-
y,--
. -,
y
.--. - -
.
.
,
-
.
.
,
-
.
-4-The inspector toured the environmental monitorina stations and confirmed by observation that they were installed and operating properly.
The inspector, while on this tour, observed the removal of filters and char-coal cannisters, the recording of run time and flow rate, and a check of operability by environmental monitoring personnel. The collection of two environmental media samples, milk and rain water, were also observed by the inspectors.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Modifications The inspectors examined construction and testing activities related to facility modifications performed as part of the fire protection improve-ment program. The modifications were being performed in accordance with the requirements of RDC 76-550, and related Detailed Construction Packages (DCP). The inspectors found that the modifications were being installed and tested consistent with the requirements as prescribed in the NRR approved fire protection modification program. The inspectors examined the implementation of the licensee's QA program controls pertainine to the modification activities. Apparent noncompliances with the approved QA program were identified during the testing of a specific portion of the fire protection program modification activities as follows:
a.
The proof testing of the switchgear decouple switches in accordance with the testing instructions prescribed in the DCP, was performed in accordance with a written test procedure that had nct been reviewed and approved by the Plant Review Board.
The QA Program in Section 11.3, requires such approval for test procedures. The test procedure in use had been developed and approved in accordance with sub-tier procedures which only require the review and approval of conqizant supervision prior to implementation.
(80-11-01)
b.
The individual performing the tests (electrical tests of decouple switch installation) had not been certified as a tester as required
'
l by the licensee's QA Program. QA Procedure 11-2 specifies the re-l quirements that persons must meet to be certified as a tester of safety-related systems and components.
No record of this certifica-tion was available as prescribed in QA Procedure 11-2.
(80-11-02)
These apparent items of noncompliance with the requirements of the QA Program were discussed with facility management during the exit interview.
No deviations were identified.
l l
i i
-
__ _
_
_ _
.
.
,
..
.
.
.
-5-7.
Licensee Event Report Follow-up The circumstances and corrective action described in LER Nos. 80-05 and 80-06 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 80-05 (Closed):
The licensee's maintenance organization has completed the repairs and installation of design modification, RDC 80-04a (M), to the main steam isolation valves (MSIVs). The packing scheme has been modified and a different packing material has been installed to eliminate the binding which prevented the proper operation of the MSIVs.
The "D" MSIV was com-pletely disassembled to determine if problems other than packing binding could have caused the valve to stick in the open position. As a result of the disassembly, inspection, and clearance measurements, no additional cause for the valve sticking in the open position could be identified.
The packing modification nad been discussed with the valve manufacturer and was found to be acceptable.
The MSIVs have been modified, repacked and satisfactorily tested.
LER 80-06 (Closed):
The l'icensee reported finding two defective fuel pins in fuel assemblies that had been in core positions adjacent to core baffle joints.
It is postulated that a flow condition exists at this joint which causes the
adjacent fuel pin to vibrate resulting in the observed failures. Measures to correct the baffle flow condition by peening the joint to the design clearance will be implemented during the cycle III-IV refueling outage.
In the interim, fuel pins located adjacent to the suspect baffle joints have been replaced with dummy stainless steel rods.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Refueling The inspector observed selected portions of the reloading of fuel into the reactor vessel. This included observations on the refueling deck and in the control room during movement of fuel.
Fuel handling logs and deviation reports were examined by the inspector to determine that no unusual problems arose during the core reload. Also examined was the core mapping operation conducted upon the completion of the reload; no fuel assemblies were noted to be out of position.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
.
-
---
-
-
-
- -
-
-
. -
-
.
.
.
,
,.
.
,
.
-6-9.
Follow-up on Unresolved Item An unresolved item (80-08-06, Closed) identified in IE Inspection Report No. 50-344/80-08 pertainino to certification of individuals performing tests was followed-up by the inspector. The individuals performed tests on the pressurizer code safety valves. An examination of available records revealed that no certification existed for individuals that performed those tests. The licensee's quality assurance program for operation (Section 11.3.2) requires that testers of safety related equipment be qualified in accordance with the requirements of ANSI N45.2.6.
0A Proce-dure 11-2 implements those requirements. This apparent item of ncncompliance was discussed during the exit interview.
(80-11-02)
10.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
on May 19 and 30,1980.
During these meetings, the inspector summarized
,
the scope and findings of the inspection. The items of noncompliance related to test control were discussed during the exit ir'erview on May 30, 1980. The licensee indicated that the apparent discrepancy between the QA program and the in-plant implementing procedures, which prescribe the review and approval requirements for test procedures, would be reviewed and corrective action taken where appropriate. An updated listing of certified test personnel would be prepared and appropriate certifications would be made in accordance with the QA program.
i
.
. _,
_
_
-. __
.. _.,