IR 05000344/1980029
| ML20037C661 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/23/1980 |
| From: | Johnston G, Malmros M, Sternberg D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20037C654 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-344-80-29, NUDOCS 8102190221 | |
| Download: ML20037C661 (6) | |
Text
..
.
.
U.S. i;UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOil
.
OFFICE OF INSPECTI0il AilD ENFORCEMEllT
,
REGION V
Report No.
50-344/80-29 Docket No.
50-344 License No. NPF-1 Safeguards Group Licensee:
Portland General Electric Company 121 S. W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Facility Name:
Trojan Inspection at:
Rainier, 0:agon N vember 3-26, 1980 Inspection conducted:
Inspector le lh_ccm 'h Ib 2a/hc
/
/ Date" Signed M. H. Malmros, Senior Resideny Inspector
"*%
/ bkIY
/.? /2.3/.ftl v
'G. W. Johnst.cn, Resident insgector Date Signed
'
e, y
Date Signed Approved By:
.
j i te
_jp, 3/So D. M. Sternberg, CliiYf, Reactor Projects Section 1,
'Date Signed Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Summary:
Inspection on Novemoer 3-26, 1980 (Report No. 50-344/80-29)
Areas Inspected:
Routine inspections 'of plant operations," surveillance
~
testing, physical security, maintenance, and follow-up on Licensee Event Reports and TMI commitments. The inspection involved 70 inspector-hours by the NRC Resident Inspectors.
Resuits-One item of noncompliance was identified related to the testing of safety related equipment upon return to service (Severity Level IV - Paragraph 5).
No deviations were identified.
81 02190a W..
-" s
- ~,
.
.
'..
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- C. P. Yundt, General Manager R. P. Barkhurst, Manager, Operations & Maintenance C. A. Olnstead, Manager, Technical Services D. F. Kielblock, Manager, Plant Services D. R. Keuter, Operations Supervisor D. W. Swan, Maintenance Suoervisor R. P. Schnitt, Engineering Suoervisor M. A. Bell, Chemistry Suoervisor T. O. Meek, Radiation Protection Supervisor R. E. Susee, Training Suoervisor D. L. Bennett, Control & Electrical Suoervisor J. D. Reid, Quality Assurance Supervisor T. F. Bracy, Security Suoervisor H. E. Rosenbach, Material Control Suoervisor The inspector also interviewed and talked with other licensee encloyees during the course of the inspection. These included shift sucervisors, reactor and auxiliary operators, maintenance personnel, plant technicians and engineers, and quality assurance personnel.
- Denotes tnose attending the exit interviews.
2.
Doerational 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 traces, and other operating records were exanined to obtain information on plant conditions, trends, and compliance with regulations.
On the occasions when a shift t" nover was in progress, the turnover of information on plant tatus was observed to determine that all pertinent information was y layed 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 c.
Fire hazards and fire fighting equipment
..-
.. - -
-
-
.
.
.
,
-2-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 insoectors verified the ooerability 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, vital buses, and diesel generators.
The licensee's equipment. clearance control was examined weekly by the inspectors to determine that the licensee complied with technical specification 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 components 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 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.
Loos of jumners, 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.
Radiation protection controls were verified by the inspector to be inplemented 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.
,
!
!
. ;-- r_.
-.,7.>1
-
-
-.
-+.
-
e.
s
--*Wg-h w
s
"
Muif
.%4 A
A"
- 4 /'
,M.WAI
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
i-3-
Radiation orotection instruments.were also examined to verify operability and calibration status, i-
' No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Maintenance
,
,
I Maintenance activities including both preventive and corrective maintenance were observed by the insoectors during the month.
l.
Observations by the insoectors verified that proper approvals, system clearances and tests of redundant equipment were performed,
,
as.aporopriate, prior to maintenance of safety related systems or
'
i.
components. The inspectors verified that qualified personnel-i performed the maintenance using aoprooriate maintenance procedures.
Reolacement Darts were examined to determine the Droper certification
,
of materials, workmanshio and tests.
During the actual performance of the maintenance activity, the inspectors checked for oroper radiological controls and housekeeping, as appropriate.
Upon comoletion 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 diesel generator injectors were
observed.
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...tes.t_ instr _umen.tation y!as. calibrated s
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
,
j 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 systen or component to an operable status consistent with the technical specification requirements.
Surveillance tests witnessed during the nonth were associated withLthe following systems:
boric
.
acid heat tracing, diesel generators, and reactor coolant system
,
.
chemistry.
!
'
No itens of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
,
o i
.
~
..-.
,
-.- -. _.
- ~
!P-4*'9
't e4 3-p r
Pg.yp.-,e-.g+w-g e
wyq-ymy-+g
.c gs
+wg. Mc-W 4?kw-- N t=ur gi-et 9-tht-ege t*1r w" e
'it s -.9g W r - g ar.v m ? m r t--r-tt-r-9w, y 1 -m g M Q t * ---TT
'T*^"Tf F N-7 M -T g
N
'T*--'--P-T-WT
.
.
.
,
.
-4-5.
Licensee Event Reoort (LER) Followup The circumstances and corrective action described in LER Nos.
80-04, 80-19 and 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 properreporting interval.
%, -
Corrective action for each event reoorted was as follows:
LER 80-04 (Closed):
The inspectors verified that the licensee had installed locking devices on the emergency ventilation system flow dampers to assure that the dampers-remain in the proper Dosition based on system flow requirements.
LER 80-19 (Closed):
The licensee will submit a supplement to LER 80-19 of their evaluation of the generic implications in the Precautions, Limitations and Setpoints (PLS) document.
The error in setpoints occurred when a conversion ' factor between flow and d/p scan provided a conversion between engineering units and percent of instrument span. The conversion was in error, and since this was the only case where the PLS document provided a conversion factor such as this, it was concluded that this.was an isolated occurrence.
LER 80-20 (Closed): The inspectors examined the long term corrective action taken by the licensee to preclude recurrence of the incident described in the LER..The basic 'cause of,the LER was the personnel.
wiring error which was not detected by an appropriate test when the -
safety related automatic tart of the auxiliary feedwater pumps was reconnected following the completion of maintenance in the steam generators.
Facility procedures. require the testing of all. safety related systems, structures and components upon return to service following maintenance.
In actual -implementation of these procedures ~ ~ ~ -
,
the testing of safety related equipment upon return to service was limited to the systems, components and instrumentation specified in the technical specifications. The low 1cyc1 automatic start feature of the auxiliary feedwater pumps was not a function specified by the facility technical specifications. The licensee's quality assur ance program is committed to ANSI N18.7-1976 which in section 5.2.6 requires that when safety related equipment is returned to service, operating personnel shall^ place the equipment in operation and verify and document its functionan acceptability.
The weakness in the inplementation of procedure (AO-3-14) rhich limited the safety related equipment to that specified in the technical specification is in noncompliance with the procedure 'itself in view of the Quality Assurance Program commitment to ANSI N18.7-1976.
-
.
=
.~e ym,
.,
e
,-wa
. _.
._.
.
.
. -. _.
-
....
.
<
.
.,
.
-5-The specific correction taken by the licensee to correct the ' situation
described above has been to emphasize and revise, as appropriate, Administrative Order No. 3-14, Safety Related Equipmer.t Outages, and Administrative Order No. 6-2, Bypass of Safety Functions, to clearly specify that all safety related equipment must be verified functional upon return to service following maintenance, not just safety related equipment, components or instrumentation required by
,
the technical specifications. As apDlicable, the methods for
'
verifying functionability include, ooeration of the component in
.accordance with an aporoved test procedure, performance of an installation check or an independent verificction check..In addition to the above, the licensee's technical specifications have been amended'to require that all automatic starting features of the auxiliary feedwater system be.ccerable and tested at a specified
surveillance frecuency during modes 1, 2 and 3.
One iten of noncomoliance was identified by the licensee as described
'
above.
No deviations were identified.
i l
6.
TMI Action Plan Followuo Durino the oast several months, the inspectors have verified that the licensee's commitments to the TMI' Action Plan have been met as indicated by the information contained in correspondence between the licensee and NRR regaraing the TMI Actica Plan.
The following action taken oy the licensee regarding procedures and staffing had been verified by the insoectors.
j a)
Task A.1.1:. Interim staffing of the STA Program has'been met'
since January 1,1980, through the use of Plant staff engineers.
j
_
. _.,
b)
Task I.C.2,3 3 4:
Facility procedure Nos. A01-4, A0 3-6 and
!40 3-a, have been appropriately revised to address the changes in requirements related to shift relief / turnover, shift
_
i supervisor responsibilities, and control room access, i
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
on November 26, 1980.
During this meeting, the scope and findings
!
of the inspection were summarized by the inspectors. On December ll,1980, j
the Senior Resident Inspector met with the Plant General Manager
'
and discussed the items of noncompliance described in Paragraph 5.
The inspector acknowledged the prompt corrective action taken by
the licensen to revise appropriate procedures to require testing of all safety related systems, conoonents and instrumentation upon
'
return to service following maintenance.
i
!
e m
.
.m.
- -
.n
- Qw
,_,,
.
.
.
..
__
_ _ _ _.. _., _. _ _ _ -. _,.. - _ _ _