IR 05000344/1981004
| ML19350C037 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/24/1981 |
| From: | Johnston G, Malmros M, Sternberg D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19350C036 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-344-81-04, 50-344-81-4, NUDOCS 8103240744 | |
| Download: ML19350C037 (6) | |
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-
0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
-
REGION V
Report No. 50-344/81-04 Docket No. 50-344 License No.
NPF-1 Safeguards Group Licensee:
Portland General Elhctric Company 121 S. W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Fccility Name:
Trojan Inspection at:
Rainier, Oregon Inspection conducted: _ January 2-30, 1981 Inspectors:
L,
/ /
%
M.H.Malmos,SeniorResident/hspector
'Date Signed L0.
YV/P/
G. W. Johnston, Resident Insp6ctor
'
7 Date Signed Date Signed SS\\
f/
Approved By:
.
.
D. M. Sternberg, Chief, Reactof Project Section 1, Date Signed
'
~
Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Summary:
Inspection on January 2-30,1981 (Report No. 50-344/81-04)
Areas Inspected:
Routine inspections of plant operations, surveillance testing, physical security, maintenance, training, and follow-up on Licensee Event Reports and an item of noncompliance. The inspection involved 192 inspector-hours by the Resident Inspectors.
.
'
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
.
810824 M T RV Fonn 219 (2)
.
.
DETAILS
^
1.
Persons Contacted'
>
- C. P. Yundt, General Manager
- R. P. Barkhurst, Manager, Operations & Maintenance C. A. Olmstead, Manager, Technical Services J. D. Reid, Manager, Plant Services D. R. Keuter, Operations Supervisor D. W. Swan, Maintenance Supervisor R. P. Schnitt, Engineering Supervisor M. A. Bell, Chemistry Supervisor T. O. Meek, Radiation Protection Supervisor R. E. Susee, Training Supervisor D. L. Bennett, Control & Electrical Supervisor M
R. Snook, Quality Assurance Supervisor (Acting)
T. F. Bracy., ~ Security Supervisor H. E. Rosenbach, P_terial Control Supervisor The inspector also interviewed and tal'ed with other licensee employees during the course of the inspection. luese included shift supervisors, reactor and auxiliary operators, maintenance personnel, plant technicians and engineers, and quality assurance personnel.
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Operational Safety Verification During the month, the inspector 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.
L On a daily basis, the inspectors observed' control room activities to L
verify the licensee's adherence to limiting conditions for operations l
as ' prescribed in the facility technical specifications. Logs, instrumentation, I
recorder traces, and other operating records were examined to obtain information on plant conditions, trends, and compliance with regulations.
i
'
On the occasions when a. shift turnover was in progress, the turnover of information on plant status was observed to determine that all pertinent i.
-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.
,
.
E
.
.
'
o
_2 b.
Maintenance requests and repairs.
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.
Implementation of the licensee's physical security plan.
h.
Radiation protection controls.
1.
Plant housekeeping and cleanliness.
j.
Radioactive waste systems.
The inspectors toured the areas in the Control Building that are affected by construction modifications. The tours were conducted to determine that construction -noise was not interfering with normal communications, and that excessive dust, dirt, or. debris would not affect operations of essential electrical equipment.
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, safety injection, residual heat removal, and diesel generator.
The licensee's equipment clearance control was examined weekly by the inspectors to determine that the licensee complied with technical specification.lfmiting 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 act.fvities 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 actio *
..
-3-Log 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.
Radiation protection controls were verified by the inspectors 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 instrumenation were used and were available.
Radiation protection instruments were also examined to verify operability and calibration status.
No items of noncomp;iance 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.
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 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 service water booster pumps, service water strainers, pressurizer temperature detectors, and Plant Effluent Radiation Monitor No. 6 were reviewed.
'No items of noncompliance or' deviations were ide.ntified.
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 or component.being tested was properly removed from service i
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 de+2rmine 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: Reactor. Protection Set 2, 'Incore Flux Mapping, Primary to Secondary System' Leakage, and Steam Flow - Feedwater Flow Instrumentation.
No items-of nor, compliance or deviations were identified.
.
-
.
-
.
-4-5.
Training The inspectors observed two lectures given to licensed operating personnel undergoing requalification training. The lectures covered degraded core operations and a review of Licensee Event Reports occurring at the facility and industry wide. The lectures given in these areas met the objectives of the lesson plans examined by the inspectors.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Licensee Event Report (LER) Followup The circumstances and corrective action described in LER Nos. 80-16, 80-25, 80-26, and 80-27 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 follows:
LER 80-16 (Closed): The licensee has changed Operating Instruction 0I-3-7 to require that prior to criticality that the level in the boric acid storage tanks ccatain sufficient concentration and level to meet the requirements of the Technical Specifications.
LER 80-25 (Closed): The licensee has changed-Administrative Order 3-14, " Safety-Related Equipment Outages," to include all safety-related equipment. The procedure specifies that clearances be removed, the equipment and systems are. verified operational per the applicable Operating Instruction, and the required operability tests have been performed.
LER 80-26 (Closed): Periodic Operating Test 25-2f has been revised by the licensee to include verification of closure of the Containment Hydrogen Sample Isolation Valves M0-5677 and M0-5678 upon' receiving a Containment' Isolation signal.
.
-LER 80-27 (Closed): The licensee has prepared Design Change No. RDC 80-116-which is scheduled for installation in March of 1981. This modification will include-the status of the generator lockout relay as part of the emergency diesel not ready.for automatic start annunciator.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
.(Closed) Noncompliance (80-29-01): The licer.see's corrective action as
.
described in 'their letter of January 16,1981,- to the item of noncompliance
!
related to the failure to follow procedures for testing of safety-related t-
.
r
. _
. -.
-.
~ _ = _ =
.
...
!
,
,
-
o-5-
,
J
--
i equipment upon return to service was verified by the inspectors. Facility
-
Procedure A0-6-2 has been revised to include appropriate testing and indepen-
'
'
dent verification require.'ents to be followed upon the return to service of equipment as a result of the restoration of lifted leads or removal Lof jumpers.-
'
8.
Exit Interview-
The inspectors met with. licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
on -January 20 and February 2, -1981. During these meetings, the scope
.and findings of the inspection were. summarized by the inspectors.
,
d
!
!
.
i i
s
!..
e
!
t
-
k
.Y
- -- ;-
'
r
%'
s
-,
.
..
sy.
.
h
.
,