IR 05000344/1985034

Insp Rept 50-344/85-34 on 851003-1116.Violation Noted: Failure to Store Compressed Gas Bottles Correctly

ML20137X331
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	11/22/1985
From:	Dodds R, Kellund B, Richards S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20137X275	List: IR 05000344/1985034 ML20137X269 ML20137X288
References
50-344-85-34, NUDOCS 8512100483
Download: ML20137X331 (7)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:E v: . .

.
  ,
  ' v
'
    ..U. Sl NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO ,

REGION . . " Report.No. 50-344/85-34 o

 -
  " Docket No. 50-344  License No. NPF-1
  '
  : Licensee: .
   ~ Portlan'd General Electric Company'
   ~.121 S..W. Salmon Street
   -
   . Portland,. Oregon 97204 Facility _Name: Trojan

Inspection at: Rainier, Oregon

        ,, .
      ~
,
 -  Inspection conducted: Octob'er.3 - November 16, 1985
  . Inspectors: h     // 24 F1'

S..A.'Kichards # Ddte 4iigned -

,

Senior Resident Inspector + a ,G.' h$h C..K611und. . ' '-

     -
     .e u
      *
       ,
        '

y/g4/ff Date Signed Resident Inspector A , .

       ~ [r,
        '
  -Approved By:    . -
       '

O/r- 7[f')'- R. T. Doddi, Chief n . - +

        '
        :Da(eSijne Reactor Projects' Section 1r  .
      . ? . - -
      ,    ,

Summary: -

     >   -*

m

       ^

_ .i .

  ' Inspection'on October 3 - November 16, 1985 (Report 50- 44/85-34) ~
     .< .  .

Areas-Inspected: Routine.inspectio',of n operitional safety verification, corrective action, maintenance, surveillancei followup on previously"

  ' identified -items, and inspection of vario~us aspects . of plant ' operation. The
   ~

inspection. involved,197 inspector-hours by~the NRC Resident Inspectors. 21 . hours of inspection were during back shift hours. ' Inspection procedures

 '
  -30703, 40700,- 61726, 62703, . 71707, 71710, 92700, 92701, and 93702 were used as aguidance during-the i conduct of.the inspectio '

Results: (Oneviolationwasidentifiedconcerningstorageofcompressedgas

  . bottles.(paragraph 9).

,

~<  .

k i G kR 83 851122 CM 05000344 s -

   --

PDR s

          .}
  '
  . .
  *    1 e rQ u  ;
 - . 9, .

-,-.. ,

 ,    :4
 ,

1u ' s

   - +:.

Y 4 - 5

~

1 DETAILS

.:  ,
    '

.. , . , - - JI a

    ~
-

L Persons Contacted >>

   - *W.S.Orser, Plant General Manager
  ~
 '
   :R.P. Schmitt,; Manager, . Operations and . Maintenance
  .
  +
  ,

D.R. Keuter, Manager, Technical Services

    .
  . J.D. Reid,. Manager, Plant Services
'

R.E. Susee, Operations Supervisor D.W.1 Swan,_ Maintenance Supervisor- -

        ' '
   .. A.S. ...Cohlmeyer, Engineering Supervisor l
" _  G.L.; Rich,' Chemistry Superviror  '
         ;
'

3T.0E Meek,LRadiation Protection: Supervisor-

     ~
         *
 -
   -S.B. Nichols,; Training Supervisor
 ,   lD.L. Bennett, Control,and Electrical Supervisor 7~
   .M.R. Snook, Acting Quality Assurance Supervisort
    .
       ~
-
   - R.W. Ri,tschard, Security Supervisor .-  ~ ,  s
   /H.E..Rosenb'ach,. Material Control Supervisor,.    - - ' t-J.K. Aldersebaes,1 Manager, Nuclear Maiht."and Construction'   . -
           '

The inspectors.also interviewed and talked s{.i

          '
      (
.  .

with othlerolicenseelemployees

       .
     .
      .
.    'during the~ course oflthe insp'ection.~JThese  l include'd shift; supervisors,'

reactor and auxiliary operators,4 maintenance personnel','. plant' technicians" and engineers,1and quality assurance'p'erso'nne j '

           .

v, s . . .a m... ,

          - - '
  '       '
   ;
   * Denotes those: attending the exit } interview.p" ' ,-
       ,    , 1 I    1 h
   ' Operational Safety Verification j
      '
   - fc ; / *f y
         -
          ~
          . .

n

           .
      , , , .
          ,
   :During this-inspection-period, the-inspectors observed and' examined-
    ~      ~
 "
-
  . -^Eactivities toLverify the oper'ational safety of the licensee's: facility.

r- The observationsLand examinations of those activities were conducted on a-

       *
   : daily, weekly,-or' biweekly basi *
          /

pc ,

        ,
   ,0n a daily basis, the inspectors observed control' room activities'to iverify the licensee's adherence to limiting conditions for operations as ^
   ! prescribed in the. facility technica11 specifications. Logs, instrumentation,. recorder traces, and other operational records.wer '

Lexamined.to obtain information on plant conditions, trends, and

compliance with regulations. On occasions when a shift turnover was i '

   . progress, the turnover of information on plant status was observed to -

n' determine that-all pertinent information was relayed to the oncoming-s shif 'During,each week,:the. inspectors toured the accessible areas of the-

     ~

,.

   -
   ! facility.to observe the following items:

L-a. . General plant-and. equipment condition b. 7 Maintenance requests and repair c.< Fire hazards and fire fighting equipmen Ignition sources and flammable material contro I

    -

d

 -  A-

       . ;m;  ; ;.

g_ 4 j. ,v

    -
  -
  ;    ,
           .

m ,, s

 .

g

       .
   ,
  ,
        ,

wy 'liy2%_f) f L ik 9 } ~Tj

     *
 * -   -

$_ r c

  ,
   ,
    -  -[y[ s [ye l, M-  ,'

id

          < . ,
          '#'

y " '

 '
    ; .. , . G v f %#.  - '
          .. -b
  .
  .3 Conduct of activities in accordance:with<theilicensee's   1 I   + administrative controls an'd a' prloved; p  proc'edures. ' j' /

z _ _ . f. . ' Interiors 1of. electrical and control, panels p 1 .(V-

,.
"
 '
 '
   - g.' Implementation of the licensee's' physical security plan, s * ,  ,
           -
  . ' Radiation protection controls /,r ,e  /  w :".
'
*   L i .' Plant housekeeping'and cleanlines % ,
,   : ; Radioactive waste-system +"
    ,  ,
       ,
   'Th'e" licensee's' equipment' clearance control.was examined we kly by the
     ~
   ~ inspectorsLto.determineithat-the licensee complied with technical specification' limiting' conditions for operation with respect to removal
'
   'of' equipment.from. service. Active clearances'were spot-checked to ensure that their issuance was consistent with plant status and maintenance
 '~
   . evolution "
 ,  During.each week,.the_insp'ectors conversed with operators in the control room, and with other plant personnel. The discussions centered on EpertinentLtopics-relating to general plant' conditions, procedures, security,' training, and other topics aligned ~with the work activities Jinvolve '
 ,

s

   .Theinshectorsexaminedthelicensee'snonconformance~ reports-(NCR)to    .
           -

confirm that deficiencies'were identified and tracked by the syste Identified nonconformances were being tracked and followed to the

~,'

completion'of corrective action. NCRs reviewed during this inspection

   . period '. included 85-083,-85-091,_85-094, and-85-09 "

Logs of jumpers, bypasses,' caution, and test tags were examined by the .

,

_ jinspectors.. . Implementation of radiation protection controls was verifie by. observing portions of area surveys being performed, when possible,,and by examining radiation work. permits ~ currently in effect to see,that-

     ~

prescribed-clothing and instrumentation were.available and used; 3 Radiation protection ihstruments were-also examine,d to verify operability'

~

_ _ l

   ;and calibration' statu '
   : Two.significant power reductions occurred during this reporting perio which affected: core axial flux difference.(AFD). During these power
   '. reductions, the inspectors verified that'the technical specification
      -

requirement's associated with control of AFD were me J The inspectors verified the operability of selected engineered safety features. iThis was done by direct visual verification of the correct

    .

position of valves, availability of power, cooling water supply, system-

   . integrity.and general condition of equipment, as' applicable. ESF' systems-   -

,, verified: operable during this inspection perio.d included the containment

   'sprayLchemical' addition. syste No violations or deviations were identifie ~ . Corrective- Action -

y The-inspectors examined _ facility records to verify that quality related

   - deficiencies were identified- and ' reported ,to cognizant ' management for resolution. Records examined by the inspectors included Requests for  ,
,
 '
 ,-       0
'
      .  *

s Q

       +%
        ~  Y

_+ s .

       :6. " %
       ';. f  p'- (j-

[ . ,

,
   ,
    .

p v

      ,
      ,.
       '
       ,
       '
        ,
        ,
          ,.
.
 : ,  . y ;  . .
.,
 ,
     < : 3 " ' , ;* !c'^ i#  -

i

~
    . _
     ( }y"  '[; .
       : ;  L,
     % :; a 1

      ,  ~,

3- - 3 j.b},,,,1 -

        , ;
-   ' Evaluation, Possible' Reportable 10ccurrences',1 Plant. Review Board meeting r
  '

f ainutes, and Quality . Assurance Program Nonconformance(Reports." ~ Plant --

    ~
 ,t  Review Board meetings-were attended by;the.-inspectors;on,0ctober 30. In

'

addition,^-the inspectors. attended Quality' Assurance exit ' meetings-i on-f0ctober 15'and November ,- b - J f

      -
       -
      . ;; .

_ No violations ~ or deviations were identifildb _\ "

     *
     +/,,  >
        ..
         "
         .
         , . Ma'intenance ;
.-  ,

Maintenance activities involving preventive.and. corrective * maintenance were observed by'theLinspectors during the inspection period. .On-a

-  s selective basis,Jobservations'by the inspectors; verified that proper approvals, system clearances,;and-required prerequisites were. performed,
     .

as appropriate, prior to' maintenance on safety-related systems or

 .

_ components. The inspectors verified that qualified personnel performed the maintenance using' appropriate maintenance procedures. When possible,

-

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 when possible, 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 oil sampling of the~ auxiliary feedwater pump turbine and lubrication of its trip and throttle valv No violations or deviations were identifie ~
          ,
, Surveillance W '

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 :

Lthe system or component being tested was properly removed from ~ service if' required by-the test procedure. Following completion of the surveillance tests, the inspe'ctors. 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

"
. -
 '

uwas.' 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 a full

 *  core flux map, and start testing the east emergency diesel' generato _

c . No violations or deviations were identifie .6.- FollowupOnPrev[ousInspectionItems

'

Open Item 85-17-01-(Closed): Reactor Vessel Inservic'e Inspection. As > indicated in NRC Inspection Report (IR) 85-17, the licensee was to submit an inservice inspection report to.the NRC-by the end of September 1985.

This report was.to contain the information specified in IR 85-17, ,_ including reactor coolant sy,. tem water temperature data previously

   - ,
 .

4

  *      -

( I r

." h      h
    '   '

4 ,n w s- 4-

 ~,.  . = _ . - - . . .  . - .
         . - - ,. . .  - .

p - j ~

 + .w,     .

s s u

          %
.
-
  . unavailable.to the inspecto On. September 1'5, 1985, the subject. report was submitted by the licensee. ~The inspector's review verified that the required.information was' provided in the report. Accordingly, open item     *

L85-17-01 is close Inspection methods, extents and techniques were found to be consistent' with the licensee's Reactor Vessel Examination Program Plan. . Evaluations v of examination data.were performed _by certified examiners, and no major

- -

deviation between. initial an'd final calibration data was eviden , ,

  ;No violations'or-deviations were identifie , Material Certification
 -
  ' As a : followup to a previous NRC inspection of material procurement practices, the-inspectors reviewed the documentation for Request for Design Change (RDC)'83-009, Detailed Construction Package (DCP) 2. This RDC'~ installed two motor operated valves in existing lines of the residual heat removal.(RHR)' system. .A brief review of this modification during the review of procurement practices had indicated that material _ lacking
'
  :the proper certification.may have'been installed under this modificatio Specifically, four 2 1/2 inch by 2 inch pipe reducers appeared to.have
,

been used for this modification to nuclear class piping without the

,

licensee receiving from the' supplier material test reports (MTR) for th reducers.- An MTR provides-results of. chemical and mechanical tests of the material used'in the fabrication of piping components. Discussions with. licensee quality assurance personnel and reviews of the applicable piping code requirements indicated that an MTR was required for the reducers in questio ' The reducers for the modification were originally procured under purchase

 -

order N-27199. The purchase order did-not. require an MTR to'be provided with the' material nor was one received. The purchase order is-drafted by -

  .the engineer-responsible for the modification and reviewed by the quality
  . assurance organization. 'After. reviewing-the documentation, the engineer agreed that the purchase order was incorrect in not requiring an MTR-with the material. However, a more detailed review of.the modification documentation by the licensee and the inspectors determined that the'

reducers'pdrchased under purchase order N-27199 were not used. The

  . storeroom material issue' slip for the job listed the purchase order for p ,

the reducers that were used as N-29129. This' purchase order did come s with an MTR for the reducers. The licensee verified that the proper material had actually'been used by visually confirming that the heat

. _ identification on the installed reducers' matched that' listed on the MTR

      '
        -
 '

received under purchase order N-2912 . , Additional discussions with. personnel involved with the implementation of ri ~ vthe' modification determined that when the original reducers were withdrawn from the warehou'e s for use, site: personnel recognized that the.

- .

 ,

material did not_have the appropriate-certification and therefore rejected the material for use and reordered another set of're'ducers. The _

  ~ inspectors concluded that the licensee ~ had originally procured the

material ~ incorrectly, however,'that errorswasfdiscovered and corrected

'~

prior-to the material being installed"in'a' safety related system.

jr - - s - , , - f n

f

. , = +- y

       ^
       ~g ,
        "
- .      _[. f -.

I e,- - , .,,i-'_, s.~ ..c., ,, ,.,,,[ U 5 , ' -

         , . , . . - m-_. . , , ,

  -
   .- .
      -
       ,
= 3,
         .
,
 - -     ,
@i   '
   ,
    '

1 5 f No y olations~or deviations were, identifie ,

'

8. - Residual Heat Removal Pump Recirculation Flow

' ~
   .As discussed in: paragraph 12 of inspection report 85-32, the inspectors

noted_that a failure,of one residual heat removal-(RHR) pump could W -o . potentia 11y' affect the performance of the pump.of_the opposite trai ?The_ licensee has discussed this concern further with the Westinghouse

,

LCorporation and determined that the particular failure has not been --

'

_

   : considered as had been previously though ;The RHR system is designed such that when the flow out of an.RHR pump is
   :less.than.approximately 500 gpa,,a recirculation valve off the pump.

, . . .

  -

l discharge will_open and allev flow ~back to the pump suction. .Because the RHR pump discharge-lines are cross-connected, it appears that a failure 1

 -
 '
   'of.one RHR pump could cause a percentage'of the discharge ~ flow of the  '
   .other pump to be recirculated back to the~ suction lini thru the failed
-

3 pump's; recirculation. valve, rather than be directed to the reactor coolant _ system. .In this manner, a single failure could affect both trains of_the RHR. syste ,

}
      '
  ~

1Becausetiheelectrical'circuitbreakertothe}RHRpumpmustbeshutfor it's associated recirculation valve.to open,,the. probability _of this type

       .
  ,

of failure appears to be small. JAdditionally,--the recirculation valve-

.   . size'is 2 inches'while.the discharge line~ size is 8hinches in diamete . ' The small size of the recirculation valve;would' appear to limit the  '

fraction of flow'tha't would be, diverted.'E The!1icense'e#has-contracted

,

Westinghouse..to determine whether' this co' ace'ra .is a." credible fault; and _if

     .

c so what action should be.taken. TheyinspectorshavelcontactedtheNRC

    -

_, Office of Nuclear. Reactor Regulation"for" assistance i'n, evaluating this concern. Followup Item 85-34-03.y / ] 4 #'{.' q' s

   ..  .

a. . e . ,

       -

No violations or deviations were identifi'e ,, _ . ,_ ,J

      # , !  # I Miscellaneous. Observations w
     ;,', ,e <
        * -
        .
        ~.

_, _During a tour of the auxiliary buildi'gnon October _3, the' inspectors -

   ! observed a pair of helium gas bottles strapped to'the Seismic Category I supply'and return lines of the 'B' train containment hydrogen analyze . The inspectors notified the operations supervisor who had the bottles-removed. The inspectors discussed this matter with the plant engineering'
 >
   : staff and'it' appeared that no safety evaluation had been performed to
   ; support 1this configuration. This is an apparent violation _of 10 CFR-
 ,

50.59 ;(85-34-01).

' The inspectors noted :that during the inspection period, housekeeping-in

   "the auxiliary. building had ster.dily degraded. The inspectors and a
     -
   < regional management < representative discussed this. concern with the plant
 * *  general manager.who indicated that action would be taken to improve the situation. The' inspectors observed some subsequent improvement in this area and will' continue'to follow the licensee's effort .
   ~Twice during this inspection period, blasting cap wires were discovered
   .by the licensee while making groundwork preparations for a new
 -.
 .
.g
.~0a.~..

     ,
   -  ,

7:n. 7. .;

    ~
      .
   .
 .

., x
>- 's
     '
   '
' '
 :e   . radiological waste facility being' constructed north of the fuel handling building. ' In both cases, army explosive _ordanace disposal personnel were called to the site'and determined that the wire was discarded refuse with
  , _

inoisafety. significanc "-

    'The1 inspectors noted that the suction valves to the containment spray
  '
    ' pumps from the refueling' water storage; tank and the containment recirculation: sump were danger tagged in their ' appropriate positions for
    . cold leg injection. This. tag out includes removal of electric power t .

tthe valve operators by opening their circuit breakers at the a'ssociated

     -

motor contro16 center. This appears inconsistent with the final safety l analysis report (FSAR).in that the FSAR describes the switch'over from the' injection phase to--the recirculation phase a's occurring totally from

 -~, e -  -
    ; within the' control room. The licensee-was'still'considering this system ~
'

configuration at the close of the inspection. The inspectors will follow this_ item up during a later inspection (85-34-02).

- -

   ,  .
     .. .
       -      ;

1 Exit Interview >

         ~( .
         . >-  ,
           , ,
             '

C The -inspectors met with the Plant General' Manager'at. the conclusion'of '

    , the inspection period. During that meeting [ therinspectors' summarized the scope and findings'of the inspection.-  , {{,   ,
      [.     '
             '

i "

        }U i i ; ;
            '
            ,
            ,
         . - .  ,
           '%
           ~

r Ey - 3

          * . >  ,
            '
       ,  - st ws.-

5-

" '

e

 '
     -  -. ,
         *
          ?'i ;

       .   .
,
 '

r t

       '
        .,
        , 5
         '
          (#

r s, .

         ,   t, -
            ,
        ,

i t: s _ j ' 8

       ..I

J r l [. -

       #   ,
             ,

, q 9' ,

+5'  A A

m %

)

i & F n "

;.
.

w-~' '

 ,  *
-,.
@ f   *  * $ ,af  e = gr -
        == we---- ay  - * - -

}}