IR 05000344/1980026
| ML19340D649 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1980 |
| From: | Johnston G, Malmros M, Sternberg D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19340D648 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-344-80-26, NUDOCS 8012310538 | |
| Download: ML19340D649 (7) | |
Text
S U. S. NUCLEAR REGUL\\ TORY C010tISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCE!E!TT
REGION V
Report No.
50-344/80-26 Docket No.
50-344 License No.
NPF-l Safeguards Group Licensee:
Portland General Electric Company 121 S. W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 o
Facility Name: Trojan Inspection at: Rainier, Oregon Inspection conducted:
,,0ctober 1-31.J980 f(c
&
f I'//5h-Inspec c
g.
JJ. H. Malmros, nior-
-
ntInspector Date Signed
?_ Y%u I'ffF pe
- p G. W. Johnston, Resident Inspector Date Signed Date Signed
\\
o Approved By:h,
M li!! A[ 90 D.M.Sternberg,ChiefdeactorProjectsSection1,
' Date Signed I
Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Inspection on October 1-31, 1980 (Report No. 50-344/80-26)
(
Areas Inspected: Routine inspections of plant operations, surveillance
!
testing, physical security, maintenance, procurement, environmental l
monitoring, and follow-up on Licensee Event Reports, Headquarters requests, and items of noncompliance. The inspection involved 167 inspector-hours by the NRC Resident Inspector.
,
l i
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
l l
l i
l l
l l
l RV Form 219 (2)
l
'bO 3 i' 31053P
.
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 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 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.
Ocerational 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 i
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 l
when a shift turnover was in progress, the turnover of information on plant status was observed to deternine that all pertinent information
.
was relayed to the oncoming shift.
j t
i During each week, the inspectors toured the accessible areas of the facility I
to observe the following itens:
a.
General plant and equipment conditions.
b.
Maintenance requests and repairs.
c.
Fire hazards and fire fighting equipment.
l
_
.
s-2-
d.
Ignition sources and flammable material control, Conduct of activities as per the licensee's administrative controls e.
and approved procedures, f.
Interiors of electrical and control panels, g.
Irrolementation 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 feedwater, 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, operability 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 specification liniting conditions for operation, with respect to removal of equipment from service.
Verificatien was achieved by selecting one safety related systen or component weekly and verifying proper breaker, switch, and valve positions, both for reiaoving the system or component from service and returning it to service.
During each week, the inspectors conversed with operators in the control rcom, and other plant personnel. The discussions centered on pertinent topics relating to general plant conditions, procedures, security, training, and other tocics aligned with the work activities involved. Two groups were the subject of observaticn 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 nonconferrances were being tracked and followed to the completion of corrective action.
Logs of jumpers, bypasses, caution, and test tags were examined by the inspectors.
!!o jumpers or bypasses appeared to have been improperly installed or removed, or to have conflicted with the technical specifications.
Radiation protecticn 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 prescribed clothing and instrumentation were used and were available.
.
--
-
.
.
.
-3-Radiation protection instruments were also examined to verify operability and calibration status, fio items of nonccmpliance 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 maintenance procedures.
Reolacement carts were examined to determine the proper certification 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 maintenance activity, the inspectors verified that the component or system was properly tested prior to returning the system or component-to service.
Durinq the month, maintenance activities associated with the safety injection pumps, steam driven auxiliary feedwater pump and rod control system.
fio items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Surveillance The surveillance testing of safety-related systems was witnessed by the inspectors. Cbservations 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: auxiliary feedwater pumps, reactor protection system setpoints, reactor protection system time response and the reactor coolant system chemistry, flo items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie.
t-4-5.
Followuo on Headouarters Reouest NRR in September,1979, issued a letter " Interim Position for Containment Purge and Vent Valve Operation Pending Resolution of Isolation Valve Operability." The inspector verified that the licensee has connitted to adhere to the provisions in the letter. This includes limiting purging
of the containment to cold shutdown (Mode 5, Reactor less than 200 F),
and limiting containnent pressure reductions to 90 hours0.00104 days <br />0.025 hours <br />1.488095e-4 weeks <br />3.4245e-5 months <br /> a year.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
+
6.
Environmental Monitoring The inspector accomoanied two environmental monitoring technicians to observe the taking of biological specimens in accordance with the licensee's environnental monitoring program. The specimens collected were native anadromous fish (steelhead and salmon) netted with a drift net down strean in the Colurbia River channel from the facility.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Licensee Event Report (LER) Followuo The circumstances and corrective action described in LER Hos. 80-18, 80-19 ano 80-20, 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 action for each event reported was as folicws:
LER 30-18 (Closed): The immediate corrective action taken by the licensee was to replace the batteries with new ones. Periodic testing of cell gravity did not reveal any degradation of the batteries prior to the j
failure.
Ccnsequently, the licensee is developing a load test and will i
incorporate the test into a periodic maintenance procedure.
[
l LER 80-19 (Ocen): The licensee has reset the reactor trip setpoints I
for hign stean ficw.
The new setpoint values calculated by the licensee have the concurrence of Uestinghouse. New transmitters are being procured from Westinghouse to replace the units presently in service. Frequent changes in the indicated flow rate prompted the licensee to investigate the cause.
It was during this investigation that the setpoint discrepancy I
was discovered. The licensee and Westinghouse are still investigating the phenomenon, but consider fouling of the upstream pressure tap to be the cause.
..
. -
-..
.--
--.
_.
-
-
--
. - -
- '
..
-5-LER 80-20 (Ocen): The inspector verified that the lo-lo steam generator level start signal for the auxiliary feedwater pumps had been properly reconnected and tested. The permanent corrective action to preclude recurrence is presently under evaluation by the licensee and will te examined by the inspector during subsequent inspections, fio items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Procurement
'
The inspectors toured the licensee's warehouse facility to verify that safety related material and spare parts were being handled, stored, and identified in accordance with the requirements of the licensee's quality assurance procedures. The inspectors verified the following:
a.
Safety related material and spare parts received on site had been inspected by qualified personnel, b.
P.ecords of receipt inspections were examined and found to be complete.
c.
Storage and packaging requirements were defined in the purchase requisition and were being met during the storage of the applicable items, d.
Preventive maintenance of stored items as applicable, was being performed by warenouse personnel.
e.
Material was identified to permit traceability to on-file quality certification documents, f.
Limited snelf life items were identified and controlled.
!!o items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Licensee Action on Previous Inscection Findinas (Closed) iioncompliance (50-20-01): The Licensee's corrective action as described in their letter of September 12, 1980, to the item of noncompliance related to the failure to follow approved procedures for boron sampling was verified by the inspector. As indicated in the letter, the Licensee has taken appropriate steps to assure that effective management controls are utilized to assure compliance with the facility license and technical scecificaticns during major outages. The effective use of the Outage Planner Scheduler and project leaders for major outage projects should provide the necessary coordination to assure that license requirements are met at all times during major outage projects such as refueling, stean generator tube insepection or steam generator tube plugging.
10.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
on October 15 and 31, 1980.
During these meetings the inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
i l
t
-
p+-----y y
--
--
- -----
s-m
--,f-a
-
e