IR 05000344/1980021
| ML19336A459 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/17/1980 |
| From: | Johnston G, Malmros M, Sternberg D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19336A457 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-344-80-21, NUDOCS 8010230180 | |
| Download: ML19336A459 (6) | |
Text
-W
&.
- <
-U.
S. NUCLEAR RECUL\\ TORY C010ilSSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMEST
REGION V
Rzport No.
50-344/80-21
,
Docket No.
50-344 License No.
NPF-l Safeguards Group Licensee:
Portland General Electric Company-121 S. W. Salmon Street-Portland, Oregon 97204
' Facility Name:
Trojan Inspcction at:
Rainier, Oregon Inspection conducted:
August 1-31, 1980 Inspectors:
/ /[cfo MM. H/ ialmros, Senior Resident Inspector Date Signed r
&
9//7/80 N G. p Johnston, Resident Inspector Date Signed Date Signed
!v*t4*v
!'7/80 Approved By:
fr D. M./) tor Operations and Nuclea'r Support Branch ternberg, Chief, Reactor Project Section 1, Date Signed Reac Su=: nary :
Inspection on August 1-31,'1980 (Report No. 50-344/80-21)
' Areas Inspected:
Routine inspections of ' plant operations, plant modifications, surveillance testing, physical security, maintenance and followup on Licensee Event Reports.
The inspection involved 163 inspector-hours by the NRC Resident Inspectors.
Results:
No items of-noncompliance or deviations were identified.
..
t RV Form 219 (2)
-
8010230 f g -
-.
.
.
-
.-
. _.
.
.
..
m
.
. _.. _
_
_-
_
_.
_.
____
.
- -
!
DETAILS
-
l.
' Persons Contacted
'
- C. P. Yundt, General. Manager W. S..Orser, Manager, Operations and Maintenance
C. A. Olmstead, Manager, Technical Services
'
D. F..Kielblock, Manager, Plant Services R. P. Barkhurst,:0perations Supervisor
'D. W.~ Swan, Maintenance 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, Instruinent and Control Supervisor
,
l J. D. Reid, Quality Assurance Supervisor i
'T. F. Bracy, Security Supervisor L
H. E. Rosenbach, Material Control Supervisor l'
The inspector clso' 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 o
- the operational safety of-the licensee's facility.
The observations and L
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 i
'
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.
Da the occasions
. hen a shift turnover was in progress, the turnover of information on plant w
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 observe.the following items:
a'.
General plant and ' equipment conditions.
'b.
Maintenance requests and repairs.
-. -. -
'
.
.
.. - -
.
-
.
. -. - - - -
-
... - - -
-... - - - -
,
-
.-
-
-
-
.
I
.
.
-2-l.
.c.
Fire hazards and fire fighting equipment.
d.
Ignition sources and flammable material control.
l e.
Conduct of activities as per the licensee's administrative controls and approved procedures.
i 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.
l l
Each week the inspectors verifie6 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, containment spray, and safety injection.
The operability of a selected ESF system, the safety injection system, was
!
checked by a complete walkdown of the ' accessible portions. This included l
checks of valve position. versus -indication, power availability, operability I
of hangers and ~ supports, inspection of breakers, and proper instrumentation function.
The licensee's equipment clearance control was examined weekly by the inspectors -to determine that the licensee complied with technical specifi-cation limiting conditions for operation, with respect to removal of equip-ment from service.
Verification was achieved by selecting one safety related l
system or component weekly and verifying proper breaker, switch, and valve i
I 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, training, and other topics aligned with the work activities involved. Two groups were the subject of observation during shift turrover - the control room operators
!
and security personnel at the main gate.
The inspectors examined the licensee's nonconformance reports to confirm the deficiencies were identified and tracked.by the system.
Identified noncon-formances were being tracked and followed to the completion of corrective action.
.
-.
...
.
..
.
-
-
- -
. -..
.
..
L l-
'
-3-
.
f 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.
l l
To verify that the licensee's radioactive waste system controls were being i
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.
The inspectors cbserved the packing of low specific activity solid waste into shipping drums. The drums.were sealed after a check for moisture, then checked for surface con-
tamination and surveyed for radiation levels at contact and three. feet. The drums were then labeled to reflect those measurements.
!
Radiation protection controls were verified by the inspector to be implemented by observing portions of area surveys being performed, and examining radia-
'
j tion work permits currently in effect to see that prescribed clothing and j
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.
.
l l
3.
Maintenance
!
Maintenance activities including both preventive and corrective maintenance l
were observed by the-inspectors-during the month. Observations by the l
inspectors verified 'that proper approvals, system clearances and tests of l
redundant equipment were performed, as appropriate, prior 'to maintenance of l
safety related systems or components. The inspectors verified that qualified
!
personnel performed the maintenance using appropriate maintenance procedures.
l Replacement parts were examined to determine the proper certification of materials, workmanship and' tests.
During the actual performance of the main-tenance 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 l
- tested prior to returning the system or component to service.
During the
'
. month, maintenance activities associated with the primary makeup pumps,
. safety injection pumps, charging pumps, and boric -acid storage tanks were examined.
No items of. noncompliance or deviations were identified.
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
.
p
,,
-e
.-e
-
,-
,
-
o
--.
-g,,
yenn m
,-en g rw-
.
.
-4-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 per-sonnel.
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:
steamline pressure, containment spray system, and the control rod drive system.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Licensee Event Report (LER) Followup The circumstances and corrective action described in LER Nos. 80-07, 80-12, 80-13 and 80-14, were examined by the inspectors.
The inspectors found that each LER had been reviewed by the licensee and reported to the NRC within the proper reporting interval. Corrective u: tion for each event reported was as follows:
LER 80-07 (Closed):
The licensee corrected each of the described
,
nonconformances related to the proper completion of the connection
'
of walls and floors in the auxiliary and fuel building structures.
Each nonconformance was corrected prior to the resumption of power l
operations in July 1980.
I LER 80-12 (Closed):
The licensee installed the three missing seismic restraints on the 3/4 inch drain line from the steam line to the tur-bine driven auxiliary feedwater pump. An examination of the two inch and smaller piping associated with the turbine drive auxiliary feed-water pump found all other piping restraints properly installed.
LER 80-13 (Closed):
Each of the individual valver which exceeded the allowable leakage limits during the local leak rate testing were repaired and retested satisfactorily. A survey of previous local leak rate tests by the licensee has identified certain valves which have been subject to repeated failures under local leak rate testing condi-
.
tions.
The Plant Review Board (PRB) his requested an engineering review of the repeat valve failures and for recommendations to preclude recur-rence of these valve failures. The inspectors will follow the resolu-
,,
i tion of this problem during subsequent inspections.
(80-21-01)
LER 80-14 (Closed):
The seismic restraint on the "A" train control room emergency ventilation cooler was removed and reinstalled in the proper location.
This improperly located restraint was located during a field verification of as-built piping.
.No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
-
-
- -
.
.
..
- .
'
.
i-5-l L
6.
Plant Modifications l
.
-
[
During.the month of September, the_ inspectors examined facility modifications i
which had been completed _to verify that the modifications had been performed l
consistent with regulatory requirements. The modifications examined and resultant findings were as follows:
!
l Fire Protection Modifications: The inspectors verified that facility
license condition No. 2.c(8) was met. This license c m dition requires that the items described in Paragraphs 3.1.1 through 3.1.18 of the NRC's Fire Protection Safety Evaluation Report on the Trojan Nuclear Plant be completed prior to. cycle 3 startup.
The records related to Design Document No. RDC 76 560 and associated Detailed Construction Packages (DCPs), were examined by the inspectors.
The completed fire protection modification work in the facility was examined and test
.results from modification acceptance tests were found to meet prescrib-ed acceptance criteria. All license required work was complete.
'
Reactor Coolant Pump Circuit Breaker Trip: The modification as described in design document, RDC-No.78-102 and associated detailed anstruction packages, was installed and tested satisfactorily.during the recent refueling outage.
This modification deleted the one of four reactor coolant pump circuit breaker open indication-reactor trips above the P-8 (36% power) set point.
The modification retains the two of four i
reactor coolant pump circuit breaker open indication reactor trips above the P-10 (10% power) set point. The modification required a change-in the facility technical specifications as requested in License Change Application No. 62 dated July 2,1980.
Since this modification i
required a. change in the facility technical specification, the require-l-ment of 10 CFR 50.59 that the change be approved by the NRC prior to
!
the installation of the change was not met in this-case since the
'
modification was-installed in June 1980, and approved by the NRC by issuance of License Amendment No. 46 dated July 10, 1980.
Discussions with the licensee indicated that the need for a technical specification change was identified by the licensee's management control system and at no time was the plant in an operational mode which was affected by the modification.
One item of noncompliance was identified by the licensee.
No deviations were
" identified..
7.
Exit In+erview
!
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) on August 8,15 and 29,1980. During these meetings, the inspector summarized
- the scope and findings of the inspection.
i
.
-&
- /
m, ens. -