IR 05000344/1980024
| ML19339A816 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/14/1980 |
| From: | Johnston G, Malmros M, Sternberg D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19339A815 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-344-80-24, NUDOCS 8011050347 | |
| Download: ML19339A816 (6) | |
Text
.
_r U. S. I;UCI.F.\\R REGULiTORY COMMISSICN OFFICE OF INSFECTICN AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
Report No.
50-344/80-24 Docket No.
50-344 License No.
NPF-l Safeguards Group Licensee:
Portland General Electric Company 121 S. W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204
'
Facility Na=e:
Trojan Inspection at:
Rainier, Orecon Inspection. conducted:
September 2-30. 1980
. LC
'
K
</
Inspectors:
n-
%
_
M. H. Malmros, Senior Resloent Inspector
~ ' ate Signed D
~b Ef O
G. W. Johnston, Residerili Inspegtor Date Signed Date Signed
,
,,
Approved Ey:
[
i e.
D h/ ! 5.
!
'
/
D.~ M. Sternberg, Chief' Reactor Project Section 1, Date Signed Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Su== arf:
Inspection on September 2-30, 1980 (Report No. 50-344/80-24)
Areas Inspected:
Routine inspections of plant egen tions, surveillance testing, physical security, maintenance, corrective action, and followup on Licensee Event Reports and items of noncomplianc<:.
The inspection involved 190 inspector-hours by the NRC Resident Inspectors.
Resul ts :
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
RV Form 219 (2)
8 011050
,347
.
.
DETAILS 1.
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, Operations 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, Instrument and Control Supervisar J. D. Reid, Quality Assurance Supervisor T. F. Bracy, Security Supervisor H. E. Rosenbach, Material Control Supervisor The insoectors 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 cperations 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 reaulations.
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 toured the accessible areas of the facility to observe the following items:
a.
General plant and equipment conditions.
b.
Maintenance requests and repair.
.
.
_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.
,
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, 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 checks of valve position versus indication, power availability, operabiiity 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 speci-fication 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 ser-vice 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 during shift turnover - 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 nonconformances were being tracked and followed to the completion of corrective action.
,
.
.
-3-Logs of jumpers, bypasses, caution, and test tags were examined by the inspectors.
fio jumpers or bypasses appeared to have been improperly installed or removed, or to have conflicted with the technical specifi-cations.
To verify that the licensee's radioactive waste system controls were being implemented, the inspectors witnes,ed selected portions of a release from a treated waste monitor tank.
Tne release was conducted in accordance with approved procedures, proper approvals were obtained, sampling was conducted, and instrumentation was operable and calibrated.
hadiation 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.
Radiation protection instruments were also examined to verify operability and calibration status.
fio items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
flaintenance flaintenance 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 and tests.
During the actual per-formance 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 service.
During the month, maintenance activities associated with the service water pumps, service water booster pumps and the stean' generator blow down demineralizer filters.
fio items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Surveillance The surveillance testing of safety-related systems was witnessed by the inspectors. Observations oy 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 ser-vice if required by the test procedure.
Following completion of the
.
- -
-
.
.
.
...
. - _. --
-.
- -.
_
. -. -
. -
-; -
.-
,
l
!
-4-
!
+
f 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 correc-
'
-
tive action was initiated, if required, to determine the cause for any
' unacceptable test ~results and to restore the system or component to an
I operable status consistent with the technical specification requirements.
Surveillance tests witnessed during the month were associated with the following systems:
steam generator level, incore-excore detector calibra-tion,.DBA and shutdown sequencers, and power range detector calibration.
'
'No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
!
5.
Corrective Action j
The inspectors examined the facility records related to the documentation i
~
cf plant problems.
Documents examined included Plant Problem Reports, flonconformance Reports, and recent audit findinos 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.
fio items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Security
<
The inspector attended a security officer training lecture on September 4,
,
1980.
The inspector found that the lecture was consistent with the lesson
?-
plan objectives and lecture schedule.
j
~ No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Licensee Event Report (LER) Followup l
The circumstances and corrective action described in LER Nos. 80-15, 80-16,
and 80-17, were examined by the inspectors.
The inspectors found that each l
LER had been reviewed by the licensee and reported to the NRC within the proper reporting interval.. Corrective action for each event reported was f
as follows:
!
LER 80-15 (Closed): The licensee has revised the procedure for setting i
the torque switches on motor operated valves to include a requirement that 3uriMient time be allowed for the valves to reach equilibrium
'
'
operating temperature conditions before making the final adjustment on the torque switch.
i
,
.
- -,
-,
,,
y u
,y
,.r..,
~
s
. _...
r
,,. _...
.
,_,
y.._
,
y._
..
.
-5-s LER 80-16 (0 pen):
The immediate corrective action to dilute the contents of the south boric acid storaae tank to a concentration within the technical specifications was verified by the inspectors.
This item will remain open pendina review by the licensee for additional corrective action to preclude the personnel error which brought about the incident.
LER 80-17 (Closed):
The licensee implemented the procedural changes outlined in the report.
They included two way voice communications during all core drilling operations, and surveys for attached safety related conduit and other equinment prior to commencina any core drilling.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
L-icensee Action on Previous Inspection Findinas (Closed) Noncompliance (80-11-01/02):
The licensee's corrective action as described in their letter of July 17, 1980, to the items of noncom-pliance related to test procedure approval and qualification of test per sonnel was verified by the inspector. The records of plant test per-sonnel have been revised to accurately reflect the proper certification and facility procedures were revised on September 15, 1980, to require the proper approval of test procedures consistent with QA Proaram requirements.
9.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
on September 16 and 30,1980.
During these meetings, the inspector sunmarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
i