IR 05000344/1981008
| ML19345H491 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/14/1981 |
| From: | Fish R, Johnston G, Malmros M, Sternberg D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345H489 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-344-81-08, 50-344-81-8, NUDOCS 8105200414 | |
| Download: ML19345H491 (7) | |
Text
- -_. --..--.- -.~
.-
..
..- -
_-.- -..
..
-
._-
.
.
i
.
.
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
l
REGION V
50-344/81-08 Report No.
50-344 NPF-1 Docket No.
License No.
Safeguards Group
,
j I.icensee :
Portland General Electric Company 121 S. W. Salmon Street
,
l Portland, Oregon 97204 Facility Name:
Trojan
'
l Inspection at Rainier, Oregon Inspection conducted:
March 2-31, 1981 Inspectors:
- W fc2 b._,(
C
//-/y'-8/
gK h. Malmros, Spdior Resident Inspector Date Signed 0*>nWd bMW-9' - M-P/
[A.fW. Johnston/Restdent Inspector Date Signed L
/0
/
.
iiish, tiiation Specialist bate signed
'
.
e ;
'
/
'
!
Appreved By:
l D. M. Sternberg, Chief, Peactor Project
' ~/ Date Signed
!
Section 1, Reactor Oper/tiens and Nuclear Support l
Summary:
e branch
,
I
.
Inspection on March 2-31, 1981 (Report'No. 50-344/81-08)_
Areas Inspected:
Routine inspections of plant operations, surveillance testing, physical security, maintenance, emergency preparedness, training,
~
receipt of new fuel, and follow-up on Licensee Event Reports and an
.
,
unplanned radiological release. The inspection invoved 154 inspector-
!
hours by the NRC Resident Inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were-identified.
l r
i l
l
!
!
l RV Form 219 (2)
6305200yfy
--
- - -...-.. -. - - - - -. -
. -.-.
- - _. -. - - -.-, -
,
=
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Person; 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. Schmitt, Engineering Supervisor M. A. Bell, Chemistry Supervisor T. O. Meek, Radiation Protection Supervisor R. E. 5 usee, Training Supervisor D. L. Bennett, Control & Electrical Supervisor H. R. Sager, 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 techniciant 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 t. 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 examined 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 accessibie 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 ac'ivities 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.
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 high head safety injection, emargency power systems, and diesel generators.
The licensee's equipment clearance control was examined weekly by the inspectors to dete.1nine 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 conmnents from service and returning it to service.
During each week, the inspectors conversed uith operators in the i
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 durina shift
turnover - the control room operators and security personne 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.
l l
t
!
-
_.
-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.
Implementat on of radiation protection controls was verified by observing prtions of area surveys being performed, and by examining radiation work permits currently in effect to see that prescribed clothing and. instrumentation were available and used.
Radiation protection instruments were also examined to verify operability and calibration status.
No items of noncompliance or devia!. sons were identified.
3.
Maintenance Maintenance activities including b6th 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 control; and housekeeping, as appropriate. Upon completion of the maf atenance 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 air, portable continuous air monitors, boric acid evaporators, and preventative maintenance on air operated valves were examined.
No itend of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Surveillance The surveillance testing of safety-reMed 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 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 inspector:
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 censistent with the technical specification requirements.
Surveillance tests witnessed during the month were associat:.d with the following systems: area radiation monitors, DBA sequencers, streamflow-feedwater flow instrumentation, reactor protection set 1, and calibrations of area radiation monitors and LLRT test equipment.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
-
-_
_
.., _ _.
_
,
_ _
-4-
.
e 5.
Training The inspectors interviewed existing and new employees to verify that appropriate training in security, emergency plan, radiological safety, quality assurance and fire safety were provided by the licensee. The inspectors also discussed fire fighting training with fire brigade mambers and applicable technical training provided the personnel in the electrical maintenance organization. The training provided in each instance was found consistent with the licensee's training program commitments.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Emergency Preparedness The annual site emergency exercise was held on March 4,1981. This exercise started as an unusual event and escalated to a general emergency which required to participation of Federal, State, and Local Authorities.
The exercise was observed by FEMA and the NRC. A complete. report and critique of the exercise will be issued by FEMA. The preparations for the exercise, the actual exercise and the critique of the exercise were observed by the NRC site inspectors. The inspectors observed the following aspects of the emergency plan; coordination with offsite agencies, use of facilities and equipment, means for monitoring the release of radioactivity, and medical arrangements..The inspectors observed training sessions of plant personnel. covering communications and radioactivity release calculations.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were. identified.
7.
New Fuel Receipt The inspectors observed selected portions of the receipt by the licensee of new fuel. The areas selected for observation included. radiation and contamination surveys; uprighting and removlil.of elements from the shipping containers; and the inspection by the reactor engineer and a Westinghouse representative of the elements. The elements were observed by the inspectors to be in good condition.
Following the inspection, the elements were secured in the dry storage racks in the.new fuel vault.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Licensee Event Report (LER) Followup
,
!
l The circumstances and corrective action described.in LER Nos. 81-03 and 81-04 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 81-03 (Closed): The licensee has discussed with Westinghouse the circumstances and corrective action taken related to the inadvertent actuation of the voltage surge protection circuit (crowbar circuit)_ in the source range high voltage power supply. A field change to the source range instrument drawer had been installed several. years ago which was
'
i
-.
.
...
.
.-.
.
.
.
-~
.- - --
..
-
..
-
.
._
-5-i
i
.
.
.-
designed to minimize the possibility for unwanted actuation of the
surge protection circuit. The investigation by the licensee failed to determine a specific cause for the actuation of the crowbar circuit.
The proper operation of the source range instrumentation will be
- -
monitored under similar circumstances during the next plant shutdown.
.
LER 81-04 (Closed): The licensee has examined the circuitry for the 9" containment spray ~ pump fan cooling unit thermal' overload protection.
>
No excessive current or faults could be found, and the exact cause could
,
'
not be determined. After resetting the thermal _ overloads, the fans started and functioned nonnally. Additional' investigative' effort by.the i
licensee had included placing a recorder in the circuitry to~ detect any
possible overloads, no indications were recorded during the period the recorder was in use.
No items of noncompliance or deviations'were identified.
9.
Radiological Release Followup On February 19, 1981, the licensee notified the NRC Rcsident Inspector i
i of an unplanned release of 1.3 curies of noble gases to the environment.
l The iodine associated with this release was less than 0.02 curie.
The quantities of activity represent about 25 percent and less than one
!
(1) percent respectively of the amounts requiring written notification i
to the NRC.
>
i'
The NRC Resident Inspect $rs investigated the operational aspects of the release. The results of their investigation have been documented in
>
Inspection Report No. 50-344/81-05. ~
!
On March 2, Region V Inspectors from the Reactor Radiation Protection
.
.Section visited the site for the purpose of evaluati.ng the. radiol.ogical i
aspects of this unplanned release.
Licensee personnel.were interviewed
!
the the following records were examined: survey results,. gaseous -
i discharge permits, sequence of events log and report of "Possible Reportable Occurrence / Event." The quantity of noble gases and iodine
'
i released to the environment was confirmed by examination of the records to be as reported by:the_ licensee. The survey records showed airborne activity in the Auxiliary Building reached a maximum of about 2X10-7 uCi/cc which is 0.9 of the limit in Table I, Appendix B, of 10.CFR Part 20 (Table I values are based on 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> exposure per week).
In terms of
,
I MPC limits the air samples were composed mostly of particulates and l
iodine. Most of the air samples showed 0.1 of the Table I. values or less. Most of the removable contamination was on the 77 foot level
'
of tge Auxiliary Buf1 ding with the maximum quantity detecged being 6x10 dpm per 100 cm'.
Smearable contamination up to lx10 dpm was detected on the floor of the room housing the boron injection tank.
'
!
Radiation levels were not generally detected in the normal work areas.
The licensee did require respiratory protective equipment be worn in the Auxiliary Building for a period of time as a protective measure.
Barriers were errected to control access to the' contaminated areas.
,
'
Decontamination was perfonned to return the contaminated areas to
,
their former clean status. Some decontamination was still to-be completed.
l No items of noncompliance or deviations were. identified.
!
i i
.-...
-.-,,,,... -, _.-.-,.,_,__.,_,_,.,.--.
.,_._,,,..,,_,,, _,.,-
-,,, - -,,- - -.-,..,,
.
-
. _
.
.
...._.._
...
-
.... _..
,
-6-
.
-
.
f 10.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
'
on April 3,1981. During this meeting, the Senior Resident Inspector
sumarized the scope e.d findings of the inspection.
i
"
r
)
i
$'
i
-
f r
[
,
i P
!
l
'
!
t k
..m.-,-,-,,
, -... --
,,-,,,..,.,,,,,,7,.____mmm,,mm.,,_,,,,,,,,,,,_..,..,,,.m.-._..,~r_.._m.m.v.,,.,.,,...
.., _.. ~.,....,.
...,..,