IR 05000344/1981019
| ML20031A068 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/24/1981 |
| From: | Johnston G, Malmros M, Zwetzig G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20031A066 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-344-81-19, NUDOCS 8109180347 | |
| Download: ML20031A068 (6) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULA10RY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
Report No. 50-344/81-19 Docket No. 50-344 License No. NPF-1 Licensee: Portland General Electric Company 121 S. W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204
.
Facility Name: Trojan Inspection at: Rainier, Oregon
!..spection conducted: July 1-31, 1981 Inspectors:
be W /fN M. H. M&lmros# Shnior Resident Inspector Bate ' Signed b,2% 19f/
G\\ 'W. Obbnstyn,(Resident Inspector D#te Sidn'ed Approved by:
O4A4 1 V.i 4 (/
G.d B. Zw@ zig, 6hieV, Reactor Operations Dafh Sig'nbd Projects Sec+. ion 1, Reactor Operations Projects Branch Surr. nary:
Inspection on July 1-31, 1981 (Report No. 50-344/81-19)
Areas Inspected:
Routine inspections of plant operations, surveillance testing, security activities, maintenance, startup testing, review and audit, and followup on Licensee Event Reports. The inspection involved 125 inspector-hours by the NRC Resident Inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
IE: V Form 219 (2)
8109180347 810824 PDR ADOCK 05000344
-
,
,
. -. _-
__
_
.
.. - -
_.. _
_ _
- _ _ _
.
a
>
.
DETAILS f
i 1.
Persons Contacted
- C. P. Yundt, General Manager l
- R. P. Barkhurst, Manager, Operations & Maintenance C. A. Olmstead, Manager, Technical Services
.
i J. D. Reid, Manager, Plant Services D. R. Keuter, Operations Supervisor D. W. Swan, Maintenance Supervisor
.
R. P. Schmitt, Engineering Superviser
G. L. Rich, Chemistry Supervisor
~
T. O. Meek, Radiation Protection Supervisor
R. E. Susee, Training Supervisor
'
O. L. Bennett, Control & Electrical Supervisor
,
P. A. Morton, Quality Assurance Supervisor-T. F. Bracy, Security, Supervisor H. E. Rosenbach, Material Control Supervisor
.
J. K. Aldersebaes, Manager, Nuclear. Maintenance & Construction The inspector also interviewed and talked wIth other licensee employees during the course of the inspection. These included shift supervisors, reactor and auxiliary operators, maintena'nce personnel, plant technicians and engineers, and quality assurance personnel.
- Denotes those attending the exit interviews.
2.
Operational Safety Verification During the month, the inspecMrs observed and examined activities to verify
'
the operational safety of the 'icensee's facility. The observations and examinations of those activitin 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 l
in the facility technical specifications.
Logs, instrumentation, recorder
!
traces, and other operation records were examined to obt'.in information on l
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 l
to observe the following items:
i
'
a.
General plant and equipment conditions.
I b.
Maintenance requests and repairs.
I c.
Fire hazards and fire fighting equipment.
d.
Ignition sources and flammable material control.
l l
j t
.
.
.
-2-I 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 sy$tems.
'
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 operation of essential electrical equipment. The modification work ' associated with the Control Building has been substantially completed and the minor work remaining
should not interfere with facility operation.
The licensee's equipment clearance control was examined weekly by the inspectors to determine th0t the licensee complied with technical specifica-tion limiting conditions fo 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.
I 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,hift 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.
l Logs 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.
Implementation of radiation protection controls was verified by observing portions 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.
The inspectors verified that appropriate revisions haJ been made to facility procedures to alert the operators to not start the electric driven auxiliary
,
feedwater pump (non-safety related) if the source of electrical power to the l
.
.
_
-
.
.
-3-bus A-5 was from an emergency diesel. The facility procedures modified were 1) 01-5-1, Diesel Generators and Fuel, and 2) 01-8-2, Auxiliary Feedwater.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Maintenance Maintenance activities involving preventive and corrective maintenance were observed by the inspectors during the month.
Included this month were activ-ities that occur during refueling outages. Observations by the inspectors verified that proper approvals, system clearances and test 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 observed were associated with the reactor coolant pumps, nuclear instrumentation, steam generator blowdown system, auxiliary feedwater system and pressurizer instrumentation.
No items of roncompliance 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, 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: containment hydrogen monitoring, component cooling water, feedwater turbines, emergency power system, and rod control system.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Startup Testing - Refueling The inspectors observed several of the. facility startup tests performed by the licensee's staff upon completion of the: refueling outage. The testing was performed in-accordance with. Periodic; Engineering ~ Test PET-13-1, " Reload
,
.,.
,.,
-
, -.,,
.e
- - -, -,, - -.
v
,,n-,
-.,, -,,
,-.,,.
. - - -
~
.
________
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
%
-4-Cycle 4 Low Power Physics Tests" and PET-13-2, " Reload Cycle 4 No Load and at Power Tests". The inspectors verified that both PET-13-1 and PET-13-2 had been properly reviewed and approved. The results of the testing were compared with the Reload Cycle 4 Core predicted values and were all found to be within the acceptance criteria. Similarly, the results demonstrate that the Cycle 4 Core is operating Sithin the limiting conditions for operations specified in the technical. specifications.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Licensee Event Report (LER) Followup The circumstances and corrective action describ'ed in LER Nos. 81-11 and 81-12 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. Correct've action for each event was as follows:
'
LER 81-11 (Closed): The testing and repairs made to the valves which failed during the Local Leak Rate. Testing'(LLRT) was observed by the inspectors.
The inspectors verified that the measured leakage for all Type B and C pene-trations was within the value allowed by ~the technical specifications.
In comparing LLRT data from previous yeais,,it appears. that corrective action taken by the licensee to repair failed Type C containment valves has been effective in reducing the number of repetitive failures. This corrective action included increased cleanliness of containment sumps to keep debris from affecting valve seats and in some cases the valve internals were changed from carbon steel to stainless steel, which improved the valye seat integrity under moist corrosive conditions, LER 81-12 (Closed): The inspectors verified that the ope;ators were advised of the circumstances surrounding the loss of RHR flow for a period of fifteen minutes longer than allowed by the technical specifications. Similarly, the importance of following approved plant procedures was stressed with operations personnel.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Review and Audit The inspectors observed the perfonnance of licensee quality assurance audit
- T-19. The audit was conducted by an audit team from the co;porate office comprised of licensee personnel and outside consultants. Tne inspectors verified that the qualifications of each audit team member was consistent with the requirements of the Quality Assurance Program. The audit was conducted in accordance with the audit schedule using appropriately prepared audit check lists. The results of the audit will be examined by the inspectors during subsequent inspections.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
_ - _ _ - - -
_ _ _ _ _ _____..______
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
_ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
-5-8.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
on July 21 and August 3, 1981.
During these meetings, the Senior Resident Inspector sumarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
s
.
N Y
B
,
c.-,
.- -
-.--2
-
. _ -.,.,
, - -
%
,._,.m
,,,. - -.
- -.,,,,
,.,
,
, -.. -
_