IR 05000344/1983017
| ML20024F419 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/27/1983 |
| From: | Dodds R, Malmros M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024F416 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-344-83-17, NUDOCS 8309090362 | |
| Download: ML20024F419 (6) | |
Text
p
-
,
,
k
.
.
.
!
U.
S.. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Region V Report No. 50-344/83-17 Docket No. 50-344 Licensee No.
NFP-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: June 6 - July 8, 1983
,
Inspectors:
7[7[p3 M. H. Malmros, Senior Resident Inspector Date signed Approved by:
7[27 J
R. T. Dodds, Chief, Reactor Projects Section Date Signed No. 1, Reactor Projects Branch No. 1 Summa ry:
Inspection on June 6 - July 8, 1983 (Report 50-344/83-17)
Areas Inspected: Routine inspections of-plant operations, security, maintenance surveillance testing, corrective action, and follow-up on Licensee Event Reports. The inspection involved 79 inspector-hours by the NRC Senior Resident Inspector.
Results: One item of noncompliance was identified by the licensee relating to LER-81-06 (paragraph 6 of Details). No deviations were identified.
.
8309090362 03072EI i
PDR ADOCK 05000344 G
. - - _
_ _ _ _ - _
- ___ _ _ - -
_.
.
.
pETAILS
,
1.
Persons Contacted
_
,-
- C. P. Yundt, G5neral Manager C. A. Olmstead, Manager, Operations and Maintenance R. P. Schmitt, Manager,' Technical Services J. D.-Reid, Manager, Plant Services R. E. Susee, Operations Supervisor D. W. Swan, Maintenance Supervisor A. S. 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 technicains and engineers, and quality assurance personnel.
- Denotes those attending 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 f acility.
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 prescribed in the facility technical specifications. Logs, instrumentation, recorder traces, and other operational 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:
a.
General plant and equipment conditions.
b.
Maintenance requests and repairs.
c.
Fire hazards and fire fighting eqaipment.
4
.
, -
s
,
,
---
,
-
.
.
d.
Ignition sources and fiammable material control.
'e.
Conduct of activities in accordance with the licensee's administrative controls and approved procedures.
f.
. Interiors of electrical'and control panels, g.
Implementation of the licensec's physical security plan.
h.
Radiation protection controls.
.i.
Plant housekeeping-and cleanliness.
,
-j.
Radioactive waste systems.
_-
~The licensee's equipment clearance 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, 4,
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 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.
- Shift-turnover by licensed. personnel was observed by the inspector.
The inspector examined the. licensee's.,nonconformance reports to confirm-that the deficiencies 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-o'r bypasses; appeared to'have been ' improperly-installed or removed.or.to"have conflict'ed with the technical specifications., Implementation of'radiatica 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 protectionLinstruments were'also examined to verify operability
,
and calibration status;-
,
,
-
~The. inspector verified theLoperability of* selected. engineered safety features. This was done by direct visual verification-of the correct
'
position of valves, availability of power, cooling water supply, system inte' grit'y and. general' condition of equipment. ESF trains verified
~
operable during this inspection. period included both trains of the auxiliary feedwater system.
a
,
s a
" /
(
__
.- - --
dr 4&
14_ @
gp [g e-
/////
, [ #
IMAGE EVALUATION
o gt, 1 s1 1Aaee1 <m1.s>
+
6"
>
o+k?a%//
/$
f
<> ad w
p
- +& v
%
o
.
- - -
_
3
.
.
The facility was in Mode 5, in preparation for plant heatup at the end of the inspection period. Resumption of power operations has been scheduled for July 15, 1983.
No items af noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Corrective Action The inspector examined facility records to verify that quality related deficiencies were identified and reported to cognizant management for resolution. Records examined by the inspector included Plant Problem Reports, Possible Reportable Occurrences, Plant Review Board meeting minutes, and Quality Assurance Program Nonconformance Reports and Quality Notice log books.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Maintenance Maintenance activities involving preventive and corrective maintenance were observed by the inspector during the inspection period.
Observations.by the inspector 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 inspector 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 inspector checked for proper radiological controls and housekeeping, as appropriate. Upon completion of the maintenance activity, the inspector verified that the component or system was properly tested prior to returning the system or component to-service.
During the inspection period, maintenance activities observed were associated with the emergency diesel engines and pressurizer cables.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Surveillance The surveillance testing of safety-related systems was witnessed by the inspector. Observations by the inspector included verification that proper nrocedures 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 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 requirement c
-
.
-
.
Surveillance tests witnessed during the inspection period were associated with the peak shock annunciator, the emergency diesel generator and the local leak rate testing of type B and C penetrations. The data from all type B and C leak tests conducted during the 1983 refueling outage was examined by the inspector. The total of all leakage was approximately 18,000 sec/ min, with the maximum allowable being 23,615 sec/ min. One containment isolation valve (CV 10004) failed the initial local leak rate test and was subsequently retested satisfactorily following corrective maintenance. The failure of CV 10004 to pass the leak rate test will be reported to the NRC by the licensee as required by the facility technical specifications.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Licensee Event Report (LER) Follow-up The circumstances and corrective action described in LER Nos. 83-01, 83-05, and 83-06 were examined by the inspector. The inspector found that each report had been reviewed by the licensee and reported to the NRC within the proper reporting interval. The corrective actions for each event were as follows:
LER 83-01 (Closed): The inspector verified that the work required to provide additional strength to the, roof-wall slab connection along column line "D",
es described in Revision 1 to the LER, has been completed. The work was completed in accordance with the detailed construction package developed as a result of Design Change No. RDC 83-024.
LER 83-05 (Closed): The inspector reviewed the calibration records of LT-461, pressurizer level transmitter, and based on discussions with licensee personnel, concluded that the out of calibration condition was due to instrument drift. The inspector verified that the instrument was returned to service in a calibrated condition.
LER 83-06 (0 pen):.The inspector verified that the licensee had replaced the packing.on.each of the main steam nonreturn check valves and that a test program to verify proper operation of the valves had been established for startup during July 1983.
A review of the facility records by the inspector determined that the apparent cause of the check valves to properly close was due to packing gland tightness. Contributing to this occurrence was the failure to include the valve in the inservice test program. The valves had been inadvertently not included in the initial revisions of the inservice test program, but this condition was recognized by the licensee and the valves were added to the program in September 1982. Testing in accordance with the inservice test program (Periodic Operating Test, POT 14-1) in March of 1983, did identify the valve closure problem. The inspector discussed valve maintenance practices with the Maintenance Supervisor, Mechanical Foreman, and the maintenance mechanics who performed the valve packing maintenance. Annual replacement of the packing had been instituted by the licensee, and should minimize the drying out of the packing which
,
_
,,
. -
--
-
-
-
--
.*
,.
,
'
l
.
resulted in additional frictional forces preventing valve closure.
Additionally, the inspector examined the maintenance records of other safety related valves and. found them to document an adequate maintenance and inservice test program consistent with applicable regulatory requirements.and the licensee's quality assurance program. This item will be closed upon review by the inspector of the startup test results during July, 1983.
One item of noncompliance identified by the licensee related to testing of the main steam nonreturn check valves (LER 83-06). No deviations were identified.
7.
1.xit Interview The inspector met with a licensee representative (denoted in paragraph 1)
on June 17 and July 8, 1983. During these meetings, the inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
!
l l
.
l l
-
-
y w
4