IR 05000344/1980031
| ML20008E845 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/16/1981 |
| From: | Johnston G, Malmros M, Sternberg D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20008E844 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-344-80-31, NUDOCS 8103100024 | |
| Download: ML20008E845 (8) | |
Text
. _ _ _ - -._ _
. - -. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ ~ - _ _ _..
. _ _ _.. _ _. _.. _ _.. _ _.. -. _. _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _.
-
L
!
.
h U. S. i!UCLEAR REGULATORY CC:1MISSIO 1
-
JFFICE OF I:lSPECTIO:1 AllD EflFORCEMEflT l
t
dEGIU1 V
, Report ilo.
50-344/80-31
.
!
Docket 110.
50-344 Licease go, flPF-1 aafeguards Group
!
Licensce:
Portland General Electric Company 121 S.W. Salmon Street
i Portland, Oregon 97204
,
Facility llame:
Trojan Inspection at:
Rainier. Oregon
j Inspection can' ducted:
December 1-31, 1980 Inspectors: 9 M [C,f[4F/M
/- /4-Tr/
f
.
'
'll. H.
ilm.ros, Senior Resident Inspector date Signed
.
&nt:5
} Esh.
l ~/6 ~ Wl
,
i
" G. H. John on, Resident IJispector Date Signeu l!l4/h/
'
. Approved oy:
.-
_o riy
,
1.
D. H. Sternberg, Chieff' Reactor Project
'
Da t'e S igned
.
Section 1, Reactor Operations and fluclear I
Support Branch
~
Sunnary:
,
Inspection on December 1-31, - 1980 (Renort No. 50-344/80-31)
Areas Inspected:
Routine inspections of plant operations, surveillance testing, physical security maintenance,-committee activities, audit, and
,
follow-up on Licensee Event Reports and Headquarter requests.
The i
1nspection involved 172 inspector-hours by the flRC Resident Inspectors.
!
Results:
Ito -iteras of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
,
l l
.
t
.t
.
.
RV-Form 219 (2)'.
- .g
,
_ _
...;-._
- _.,_.~.
_._-. _.._ _.,_._.
, - _ _ _ _ _, _ _. _ _.. -
.. - _. _
&
D_ETAILS 1.
Persons Contailed
- C P. Yundt, General Manager R. P. Barkhurst, Manager, Operations A Maintenance C. A. Olmstead, Manager, Technical Services D. F. Kielblock, Manager, Plant Services D. R. Keuter, Operations Supervisor D. !I. Swan, Maintenance Supervisor R. P. Schmitt, Engineering Suoervisor M. A. Bell, Chemis try Supervisor
,
T. O. 'ieck, Radiation Protection Supervisor R. E. Susee, Training Supervisor D. L. Bennett, Control & Electrical Supervisor J. D. Reid, Quality Assurance Supervisor
>
T. F. Bracy, Security Supervisor H. E. Rosenbach, Material Control Supervisor The insocctor also interviewed and talked with other licensee employees during the course of the inspection.
These included shif t supervisors, reactor and auxiliary operators, maintenance personnel, plant technicians and engineers, and quality assurance personnel.
- Denotes those attending the exit interviews.
2.
Onerational Safety Verification Daring 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 coerations 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 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 repairs c.
Fire hsweds and fire fighting equipment d.
Ignition sources and flammable material control
.
.
-2-e.
Conduct of activities as per the licensee's administr3tive controls and approved procedures
.
f.
Interiors of electrical and control canels g.
Inplementation of the licensea's nhysical security plan h.
Radiation protection controls
-
1.
Plant housekeeoing and cleanliness J.
Radioactive waste systens Ecch 'veek the inscectors verified the coerability of a se'scted energency 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 eouipment.
ESF trains verified to be operable during the nonth included auxiliary feedwater, safety injection, boric acid injection tank, and feecwater isolation.
The licensee's equipnent clearance control was examined weekly by the inspectors to determine that the licensee complied with technical soecification liniting conditions for operation, with respect to renoval of equipment from service. Verification was achieved by selectino one safety related system or component weekly and verifying proper breaker, switch, and valve positions, both for removing the systen or comoonents 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 involvea.
Two groups were the subject of observation during shift turnover - the control room operators and security personnel at the main qate.
The inspector; : ;uined the licensee's nonconfornance reports to confirm the deficiencies were identified and tracked by the system.
Identified nonconformances were being tracked and followed to the ccmoletion of corrective action.
Logs of jumpers, bypasses, caution, and test tags were examined by the inspectors.
No jumpers or bypasses appeared to have been improperly installed or renoved, or to have conflicted with the technical specifications. Radiation protection controls were verified.by the inspectors to be implemented by observing portions of area surveys being ;1erformed, and exanining radiation work permits currently in effect' to see that prescribed clothing and instronentation were used and were availabl.
.
- 3-Radiation protection instruments were also examined to verify operability and calibration status.
.
items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
- 10 3.
Maintenance Maintenance activities including both preventive and corrective maintenance were observed by the insoectors during the month.
Observations by the inspectors verifieq that oroper aoprovals, system clearances and tests of redundant equipment were performed, as appropriate, prior to maintenance of safety related systems or components. The insoectors verified that oualified pe
.nnel perfarned the maintenance using appropriate maintenance accedures.
Replacement parts 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 radioloqical controls and housekeeping, as appropriate.
Uoon completion of the maintenance activity, the inspectors verified that the component or system was properly tested prior to returning the system or componenet to service.
During the month, maintenance activities associated with the BIT recirculation pumps, diesel ger,erators, and the service water strainers were observed.
No itens of nomcompliance or deviottoiis were identified.
4.
Surveillance The surveillance testing of safety-related systems was witne'ssed by the insoectors. 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 net the acceptance criteria of the technical specifications and were reviewed by cognizant licensee personnel.
The insoectors 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 nonth were associated with the following systems:
incore flux mapping, control rods, core thermocouple mapping, and reactor coolant system chemistry.
!!o itens of noncompliance or deviations were identifie.
.
-4-5.
Review and Audit
.
The activities of the Plant Review Board were exanined by the
.
inspectors.
PPE neeting minutes were exanined for the last 12 nonths and feund to meet.he frequency requirements with the crocer
-
quorun of cencers.
Tirely reviews were nade of potentially reportable occurrences. and those found to meet recorting requirements were reported.
The insoector attended two PRB neetings, in both cases the nenbers present were either regular members or qualified designated alternites.
Itens discussed included several potentibily reportable occurrences and a request for design change.
The inspector followed the orogress of two audits perforned by facility quality assurance personnel Audit Mos. 80-25 and 80-28 were found to have been perforned in accordance with facility procedures by orocerly qualified cersonnel.
"o itens of noncomoliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Licensee Event Report (LER) [ollowuo The circunstances and corrective action described in LER Nos. 80-21, 27-22. 30-23 anc 80-24 were exanined by the inspectors.
The inspectors found that eacn LER han been reviewed by the licensee and reported to the NRC within the c roper reporting interval.
Corrective action for eacn event reported was as follows:
LER E0-21 (Closed):
Curing the conduct of a temporary plant test on tne din steam isolation valves, the "C" MSIV failed to fully c!csa in rescanse to a closing signal, no steam flov: was present at this tire.
With the introdocticn of steam flow, the valve subsequently closed.
The licensee is pursuing permanent corrective action in resoonse to a previous LER (LER 80-05) to overcome the problem of
- cetMnical binding on the Valve stem.
LER BO-22 (C:osed):
This report was submitted to meet requirements iTTE silTetin T9~01B to submit an LER describing all safety-relatec electrical equipment not meeting the required environmental qualifications in the bulletin. The equipment described in the LER as not meeting IEB 79-01B requirements will be replaced during the cominq refuelinq outage in April. The inspectors will followup on the change out of equipment during a followup examination of IEB 79-018.
LER30-23(Closedl:
The licensee has established a test which will be run on each reedwater isolation valve to verify the proper orifice size for venting the air operator upon valve closure.
The procer size orifice will then be installed replacing the manual throttle vent valve on each feedwater isolation valve.
The testing and installation of the orifices will be done during the refueling outaae scheduled to conmence in Acril 1981.
I
,
.
-5-LER 80-24_J_ Closed): The licensee is processing design change no.
RDC 30-106 which will provide annunciator indication that the auxiliary feedwater pump is not ready for auto-start should control power be lost.
The design change
.2 scheduled for installation durinq the next facility outage.
.
No itens of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Followan on Headquarters Identified Items The insoectors examined licensee activities as specified in the following tenoorary instructions with the findings as indicated.
a.
Temocrary Instruction 2515/a3 - TMI Action Plan Insoection Requirements - Haraware Lnanges The inspectors examined the licensee's implementation of TMI hardware changes which were to be completed during 1930.
The facility modifications were found to have been completed on schedule and were consistent with the description of the changes as described in licensee letters to NRR regarding TMI r.odi fica tions. The specific modifications examined by the inspectors included the following:
1.
Direct Indication of Relief and Safety Valve Positions (II.D.3)
2.
Auxiliary Feedwater System Initiation and Flow
'
Indication (II.E.1.2)
3.
Peliability of Power Supplies for Natural Circulation (II.E.3.1)
Containment Isolation Dependability (II.E.4.2)
5.
Pnwer Supplies for Pressurizer Relief Valves, Block
'!alves arl Level Indication (II.G.1)
+
b.
Temoora ry Instruction 2515/46 - Survey to Determine Existence fY~AdequateEmergencyProceduresforCopingwithATWS Events at Operating Power Reactors The inspectors reviewed the following licensee procedures which were deemed pertinent'to the inspection requirements in the TI.
L__
.
-6-Adninistrative Order A0-1-4 - Operation and Maintenance Responsibilities Off Normal Instruction ONI-1 - Reactor Trip Off 'Mrnal Instruction OMI-7 - Peactor Control Malfunction Off '!ormal Instruction ONI-10 - Emergency Boration
-
General Goerating Instruction G01-2 - Plant Startun from Hot Stancay to Power Oneration Enercency Instructions EI's 0 through 11 - All plant energency procedures dealina with LOCA, LOF, etc.
Based on an examination of the abo've procedures, the following findings were made by the insoectors.
1.
The operators are charoed with the responsibility to take
"rTediate action, including tripoing the reactor, in the event operating limitations are exceeded.
2.
!!
- aerators when verifying actions in the procedures will, for any action that has not automatically taken olace, manually initiate the action.
3.
If all control rods do not fully scram, the operator must energency borate the reactor an additional 100 ppm for each control rod not fully inserted.
l.
For a rod control system nalfunction where the operator is not able to move the control rods to maintain control of the reactor, the operator must trip the reactor.
5.
The operator must emergency borate the reactor to naintain the control rods a' cove the minimum insertion limit.
6.
The operator has complete authority to emergency borate the reactor as described in items 3 and 5 above.
c.
Temocrary Instruction 2515/no number - TI for IE Bulletin 80-24, s
Prevention of Damace Due to Water Leakage Inside Containment The insoectors reviewed the information contained in the licensee's response to the bulletin dated January 6,1981.
Th licensee indicated that the Trojan facility has no open cooling water systens inside of the containment.
For the bio closed cooling water systems inside containment (chilled water and comoonent cooling water) the licensee indicated no leakage had been identified with these systems since initial facility oceration.
No itens of noncompliance or deviations were identifie *
.
.
-7-8.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
'
on December 11 and 31, 1980. During these meetings, the inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
.
S
.
(.