IR 05000344/1983016
| ML20024C064 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/27/1983 |
| From: | Dodds R, Malmros M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024C058 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-344-83-16, NUDOCS 8307120222 | |
| Download: ML20024C064 (5) | |
Text
,
r
,
,.
'
'
-,
,
,
-
.
-
,
,
a b
'
,
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
'
-Report No.
50-344/83-16
,
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, Oregon
_ _ _
Inspection conducted: May 2-June 3, 1983 Inspectors: ' kh'
S
)
M. H. Malmros, Serfior Resident Inspector ifate signed Approved by:
_/ 7
)
R. T. Dodds, Chief, Reactor Projects Section Datt Signed No. 1, Reactor Projects Branch No.1 Summary:
Inspection on May 2 - June 3, 1983-(Report 50-344/83-16)
Areas Inspected: Routine inspections of plant operations, security, surveillance testing, refueling and followup on Licensee Event Reports. The inspection involved 106 inspector-hours by the NRC Senior Resident Inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
f 8307120222 e
$DRADOCK05000
,
-
,
-
.
--
u..
e
,
,
,
,
,
+
,
,
_g
!
$
.
>
DETAILS
,
1.
Persons ~ Contacted
- C. P. Yundt, General Manager C. A. Olmstead, Manager,' Operations and Maintenance R. P. Schmitt, Manager, Technical Services
.J. D. Reid,' Manager, Plant Services
,
,Ri E. Susee, Operations Supervisor D. W. Swan, Maintenance Supervisor A.tS.-Cohlmeyer, Engineering Supervisor G. L. Rich, Chemistry Supervisor
.T. O. Meek, Radiation Protection Supervisor S. B. Nichols, Training Supervisor
~D.
L. Bennett, Control and Electrical Supervisor P. A. Morton, Quality Assurance Supervisor R. W. Ritschard, Security Supervisor D. S. Walters, Material Control Supervisor (Acting).
-
J. K. Aldersebaes, Manager, Nuclear Maintenance and 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, maintenance personnel, plant technicians and engineers, and quality assurance personnel.
- Attended the exit interviews.
.2.
Operational Safety Verification
.
During the inspection period, 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 biweekly-basis.
On a' daily basis, the inspector observed control room activities to verify the licensee's adherence-to limiting. conditions for operations as prescirbed in the facility technical specificaitons. Logs, instrumentation, recorder traces, and other operation 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 inspector toured the accessible areas of the facility to' observe the following items:
,
i
...
,
<
a.
General plant and equipment conditions.
'
,
'
b.
Maintenance requests and repairs.
,
c.
Fire hazards and; fire fighting equipment.
-
'4
'n
.
e k
-
.
.
'
d.
Ignition sources and flammable material control.
e.
Conduct of activities in ac ordance with the licensee's administrative controls am approved procedures.
'.
Interiors of electrical ral 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 licensee's equipment cicarance control was examined weekly by the inspector'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 component from service and returning it to service.
During each week, the inspector conversed with control room operators and other plant personnel. The discussions centered on pertinent topics relating to general plant conditiong procedures, security training, and other topics aligned with the work activities involved.
Shift turnover by licensed personnel was observed by the inspector.
The inspector examined the licensee's nonconformance reports to confirm that deficie.icies were identified and tracked by the system.
Identified nonconformances were being tracked and followed to the completion of corrective action.
Logs of jumpers, bypasses, caution, and test tags were examined by the inspector. 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.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
._
-
,
r-
<
-
,
,,
,
,
,.,
,
'
.
,.
y
.
,
'
3.
' Refueling Activities-
,
,
The refueling of the reactor core was completed during the month with the
~
facility entering Mode 5 on June 1, 1983. The inspector observed fuel handling evolutions by both the day shift and the-swing shift refueling crews.~ ' Fuel handling evolutions were directly supervised by a senior reactor operator with no other assigned' duties. The inspector verified that the. required surveillance tests were completed prior to fuel handling and that' containment integrity for Mode 6, core alterations, was established. A total of 28 new fuel assemblies were added to the core which will yield approximately 256 effective full power days of operation during cycle.6. The licensee has received a preliminary reload safety analysis from the fuel. supplier which indicates the core should operate within the' parameters specified by the facility technical specifications.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4; Pipe Support Surveillance The inspector verified that the licensee had completed the hydraulic pipe snubber inspections required by technical specification 4.7.10.1.
Licensee porocedure. PET 7-2, " Hydraulic Pipe Snubber Inspection", was used to implement the surveillance requirement. Data review by the inspector found the snubbers to be operable in accordance with the technical specification surveillance criteria. Personnel performing the
-
-inspection were verified to be qualified inspection personnel consistent with the licensee's quality asurance program.
No items of: noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Licensee Event Report (ER) Followup The circumstances and corrective action described in ER Nos. 83-03 and
- 83-04 were examined by the inspector. The inspector found that each-report had been reviewed by the licensee and reported to theiNRC within-
~
c the proper reporting interval. The corrective; actions for each event-
l
.were as follows:
x
>
u
~
ER 83-03 (Closed): The inspector verified that the licensee had implemented General Operating Instruction GOI-11, " Plant Operation'for
'
Refueling". This procedure has been provided in addition to existing
. refueling procedures, to assure that operators have a meansJfor verifying *
compliance to Mode 6 technical specifications.in sufficient detail.to
~
,
L
' assure that various maintenance and refueling' evolutions do not bring
'
'
L about' system alignments which are inconsistent with specified i
requirements.
. 3
-
,
,
,
c
,
ER 83-04 (Closed): The inspector reviewed the calibratiion records.of;
'
~
'
(
LT-517, steam generator 'A'; level transmitter, and base'd on discussions
!>
- with' licensee personnel, concludes that the outrof calibratioa condition.
i:
was due to instrument drift. The inspector verified that the instrument
was returned to service-in a calibrated state.
-
'
No ' items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
J
,
i
-
M I
,
r gr yer p
,
=
w v-r--e-w w--
- r e-w---e.--,-,m
-
,-,_r w-5,e.,
-w-,---,
.-ea-w,, -
,,.,r-r*
- '
re- * 4
-+-ye~7
- =wv er-
-
F k
-
.
o 6.
Surveillance The surveillance testing of safety-related systems was witnessed by the
' inspector. Observations by the inspector included verification that proper procedures were used, test instrumentation was calibrated, and the system or component being tested was properly removed from service if required by the test procedure. Following completion of the surveillance tests, the inspector 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 consistent with the technical specification requirements.
Surveillance tests witnessed during the inspection period were associated with the nuclear instrumentation system, centrifugal charging pumps, reactor coolant boron analyses and the seismic monitoring system.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Exit Interview The inspector met with a licensee representative (denoted in Paragraph 1)
on May 20 and June 7, 1983. During these meetings the inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.