IR 05000344/1986031

Insp Rept 50-344/86-31 on 860805-06.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Operational Safety Verification,Corrective Action,Maint,Surveillance & Followup on Previously Identified Items

ML20211A528
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	09/25/1986
From:	Kellund G, Mendonca M, Richards S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20211A526	List: IR 05000344/1986031 ML20211A520
References
50-344-86-31, TAC-42502, NUDOCS 8610150212
Download: ML20211A528 (8)

Text

- ,

y.,

, , .

. , .

'

...- .

,( ,

p' f' s s

'

1 i

$ 4

~

~

"(

.

'( ,p,

- I~ l r U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION <

p

'

'

.,. ,

s

+

, ,

,

'

' ' '

'

,

l,, .

-REGION V- , d

.)

'

'

IReport No.'50-344/86-31 ,

~ <' >

.. .

Docket.No. 50-344

' " '

.,

-License No. NPF-1 '

}

'

, Licensee: Portland General Electric Company '

121 S. W. Salmon Street '

-

,'

Portland, Oregon 97204

,q ,

, Facility Name: Trojan .

Inspection at: Rainier, Orego Inspection Conducted: August 5 - September 6,'1986 Inspectors: SW 9,25-96 S. A. Richards, Sedior Resident Inspector- Date Signed R19 Fo Q- #1 -3 6 -%

G. C. Ke'llund, Resident Inspector Date Signed Approved By: \ *

7/e-r/a &

M. M. Mendonca, Chief Date Signed Reactor Projects Section 1 Summary:

Inspection on August 5 - September 6, 1986 (Report 50-344/86-31)'

Areas Inspected: Routine inspection of operational . safety verification, corrective action, maintenance, surveillance, followup on previously identified items, review of problems at other facilities and review of licensee actions to ensure the internal wiring of Limitorque valve motor operators is environmentally qualifie Inspection procedures 30702, 30703,-

61726, 62703, 71707, 71710 and.93702 were used as guidance during the conduct of the inspectio Results

No violations or deviations were identifie , ~ 8610150212 860925^

\ * PDR ADOCK 00000344 f ", G PDR ,

s

,.

v k

[

a .

'

k'.h s_

.

,. ,c -

. ., _._ 7 .

. . . - . - . . -

., . . ,- T

• ' \ [! [, _

s' '

+

. .

• .

. -

y- ,

<

, . ,; s- ~

,'

_

. r, - . - - ,- .

, *

.r, - *

, ,

i ,

'

.

'-

-

c '

DETAILS ~

9 ,

t

-

.

' Persons Contacted-

,

• L' W.S.'Orser,' Plant General'Hana'ger- .

. <

,

-

• R.P. Schmitt,. Manager, Operations-and Maintenance D.R. Keuter, Manager, Technical Services '

J.K. Aldersebaes, Manager, Nuclear Maint, and Construction

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

. , R.E. Susee, Operations Supervisor -

D.W. Swan, Maintenance Supervisor P.A. Morton, 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

'

,

C.H. Brown,' Quality Assurance Operations-Branch Manager  !

D.D.~ Wheeler, Quality Control Supervisor R.W. Ritschard,: Security Supervisor H.E. Rosenbach, Material Control Supervisor I

The inspectors 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.

, n * Denotes,those attending the exit intervie I

- ~

. '

Operational' Safety' Verification-L . . .

-

..

,

.During this inspection period, the inspectors observed and examined '

'

activities to . verify' the operational safety of the licensee's facilit ~ The observations. and examinations of those activities were conducted on a *

daily, weekly, or biweekly basi v e

On a daily basis, the inspectorsfobserved control room. activities to verify the licensee's adherence to limiting conditions for operation as j,

. prescribed in the facility. technical specifications. Logs, instrumentation, recorder trhees, and othe'r operational-records were.

'

s-examined to obtain,information on plant; conditions, trends,'and compliance with' regulations.A 0n occasions'when a. shift turnover was in-progress, the tu'rnover ofLinformation on: plant status was observed to

,

,

..

-determine tha't all pertinent!information was' relayed to the oncoming

~ -

' ^ '

shif ~C

,

/ ' '

- .

'

'

, During e ch we'ek, the' inspectors toured the accessible areas of the facility to' observe the following' items:

, , . .

~

- General plant and, equipment condition Maintenance requests and repairs.>

,_.-

d s

A *

y . y, .. . _y p....,_ , . ,_w.... , , . , , , , ,_m.,,,,y _, .._4, .,m_ ,.,,..,,m , .y, , ,..,,y,., , - ,.,,.. g ,., %, .,,,,m ___., .q.-

, -

6 i,,* . , ,

n .

2, r * '

- ,

, ,. ,

~

.i

,  ; Fire hazards'and fire fighting equipmen i i<:

'

'

- Ignition sources:and flammable material contro + a ,s' .

>

Conduct'of activities'in accordance'with the,1icensee's

~

k administrative controls'and. approved, procedure s- . 4

- , . .

_

, ,

'

. Interiors of. electrical'and' control. panels ~.

._

,s , , . ,. 7,y .c > > Implementationo 'f the. licensee's physical secdrity pla .' ' fe 3: , Tt : WA N

' ~ Radiation protection. control ; } ,; ,

'

<*" ~ ~

y'

Plant lieusekeepi~ng and" cleanliness.; ' '

4 s Radioactive waste systems, '

'

' s t e . #

' Proper storage of compresse'd gas bottle l '

. . ...<  : .

-

. .

The licensee's equipment < clearance control was examined weekly.by the inspectors to determine that the licensee complieddwith-technical specification' limiting' conditions 7for operation with respect to removal of equipment from se. vice. 'Activetclearance's'were spot-ch'ecked to ensure that their issuance was consistent with plant status and maintenance evolution ,

During each week, the inspectors conversed with operators in theicontrol room, and with 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--

involve ,

The' inspectors examined the licensee's nonconformance 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 '

l~ period included 86-161,86-162, 86-170 and 86-17 c Logs of jumpers, bypasses, caution, and ' test tags were examined by the inspectors. Implementation of radiation protection controls was verified 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 use Radiation protection instruments were also examined to verify operability and calibration statu The inspectors verified the operability 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 integrity and general condition of equipment, as applicable. ESF systems

. verified operable during this inspection period included the instrument

, ' air.to'the main steam isolation valves, the 'B' train 125 VDC electrical

<

system, and the 'B' train' emergency diesel generator air start and lube oil systems.

.

.

!

k

w ,

• 9', , , - . , , - c.y,. . - . . , - , . , ,,,,.---.,-..-v., -,-y, - , - y w my .-- ,v-

m, -

'

, ,

'

, '*

~

-

6,,

<

<

.

No violations:or deviations were identifie '"'

, .Correc'ti0e Action

. The inspectors' performed a general review of.the licensee's problem

',. ,

identification systems.to verify thatl licensee identified quality related-deficiencies are being tracked and. reported to cognizant management fo resolution. Types.of records examined by the' inspectors included Requests for Evaluation, Event Reports, Plant Review Board. meeting

~ ~

. minutes, a'ad Quality Assurance Program Nonconformance Reports. .The

. inspectors concluded that the licensee's systems were being utilized to

' correct identified deficiencie b No violations or. deviations were identifie ! Maintenance *

During the. reporting period the inspectors witnessed replacement'of the lower radial bearing on the . 'B' reactor. coolant pump motor. The

-

. inspectors verified the-following:

-

'

.The pump' was properly tagged out prior to conducting the

. maintenanc ThA workers _ performing-the job maintained the work area in a' clean

~

-

'

and orderlyLfashion and segregated parts appropriately.- ,

.

-

Sufficient'ra'diation: protection coverage was provide . ,

,

In addition, the inspectors examined the bearing components'for evidence '

of. damage or flaws and discussed various ~ aspects of the -job-with the

~

craft personne ,

. ,

I -

'No violations or deviations were identified,

' ' '

+

a? .

.

x Surveillance

'

,

4 , . ,

.g ,

,

=i:

.

The surveillance. testing of safety-related systems- was witnessed by f the 2

'-<'

, inspectors. Observations by the--inspectors included verification that s'

". 1- ,, 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 completian'of the surveillance -

t tests,.the inspectors; verified that the test results n;et~the appropriate L' ' acceptance criteria. Surveillance tests witnessed during this period

.s ,'

were associated with pressurizer level protection instrumentation, ' 7 4

'

L'." residual heat removal system inservice-testing, and= measurement of 8 - '

?i ; '

clearances on the 'B' reactor coolant system hot le_g pipe whip' restrain '

Y No violations.or deviations were identifie '

3 Followup on Problems Identified ~at Other Facilities The following occurrences at-other facilities were reviewed by the inspectors to determine the potential for similar occurrences at Trojan:

-

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

.. _ ._ - _ _ .

,  ; ',' '

-

. , . ~

.

C

. ;, + 4

'

,

s -

10'

'_ .  :

Atsthe' Rancho Seco plant an unanalyzed condition'was discovered-concerning the emergency diesel generator (EDG). During a-simultaneous loss of- coolant accident- and loss of offsite power, ,

"

engineered safety features loads are sequenced on to the EDG. -Fors

- feedwater diesel: loading purposes, (AFW)_ the original pump running design at nominal flowassumed th condition auxiliary)? > -

However, '

-

it was discovered that when the_AFW pumptis operating at maximum

~

, speed in a runout condition,' the load on the EDG would exceed 'itsi '; -

.

-

'

capacity.- -

,

y s :3;

'

.o . ._ t The inspectors reviewed the design' and operation of the' AW system.at. . .

~

sA N -

'

Trojan. The safety-related pumps are steam driven and diesel driven'.and '

'i

? ., ' O ; are not' loaded.on the EDG. The licensee does have a'non-safety-rElateds

-

electric AFW pump,' however, this pump receives no^ automatic start: signal - ,

^-3 and is n'ot normally loaded on'the EDG. The licensee ha~s an off-normal

,

'

'

,

-i -

y

'

procedure (ONI-55)_for' loading the electric AFW pump'on to an EDG, ',

however, this procedure states that it should only be used'as a last' J

'

- <

-

resort for supplying feedwater. In addition, the procedure cautions .,

r operators not to exceed the EDG load rating when loading the EDG',during '

,

.,t_ the procedure. . Furthermore, the_ electric AFW pump has ajlow suction ,r, 4 pressure trip that:should protect it from a runout condition. .B.ased on-'

'

t 7"

v.', '

.

the above, the inspectors: concluded that this situation is not-of concern 1 i. . , ,

at Troja .- At the Zion plant 1it was discovered _that the inserkice testing: U

- 1[ .

requirements for the pressurizer power operated relief valves . .

(PORVs); included a ' stroke time acceptance criterion of 10 seconds

-

while the: low temperature overpressure protection (LTOP) analysis- '

assumed'a 2;5 second stroke time for the valves to open. The PORVs are required;to open during pressure transients at low temperatures to prevent the. reactor coolant syttem from being overpressurized-w hile the vessel. material is in the' brittle fracture regic The inspectors review'ed the licensee's Technical Specifications and inservice test procedures.for. stroking the PORVs. -In neither. case are values or acceptance criteria given for allowable stroke times of the PORVs. :However, the Safety Evaluation Report for the Technical

_

-Specification amendment that requires the overpressure mitigation system makes assumptions for the opening and closing times of the PORVs. The analysis assumes a PORV opening time,of 0.6' seconds and a closing time of

~

,

n 3.44 seconds. The inspectors discussed this apparent discrepancy with

"

licensee personnel who stated they would investigate the matter. At-the

'

close of the inspection period, the licensee had not completed the

-

investigation. The' inspectors will review this matter during a subsequent: inspection (344/86-31-01).

No violations or deviations weres identifie ,

,

-

i Plant Operstions

'

4 - -The plant was'-operating routinely at the outset of the inspection period; however, on. August 5 a safety injection actuation occurred when a ste n line pressure transmitter failed while surveillance testing was being

.

+

+ ,A .

, - _ .-

7z , .

cm- . s; ,,

.

~ +

. . . g

L va; i

,c .e w (: _ ,3 ,5 c .

m_

,--

-

.

~ _

1-

, _

,

,, -

-

'

' sv - ,

-

, ' c ,

,

4,  :

- -

3;

.

,

-

, s .7 , ,

,,

' Y Y , ., . . \ - l[ . *, .- '

performed.on'a second' steam linea pressure transmitter which had been

,

i placed in a tripped. condition. All; systems responded as designed. The plant restarted later:thatiday and operated routinely until September 1

'when a ccadenser tube leak ~ developed , The plant was shut down and the .

~

condenser wastrepair'ed.n While shut down, high temperature alarms on the *

'B' reactor coolant: pump motor _ lower' radial bearing were received. The bearing was. removed and, examined,-but did,not show any sign of-damag .

The, alarms appeared;to be caused by a loose wire on.the bearing RT At the close of-the" inspection period the plantiwas making preparations

'for heatup, with startup scheduled for September' *

,

, ' No violations or deviations w'ere identifie o Followup on Previously Identified Items

~

. Followup item 86-07_-02 (Closed): No time requirements stated for revie '

of nonconformance reports (NCR). The inspectors reviewed nuclea . . ,

division procedure number 600-1, revision 1. _This procedure controls-the processing of NCRs. The revised procedure states time requirements' ,

within which action groups must perform their evaluation or provide-justification.for not. completing their actions within the t4me' allotted;

'~

Followup item 86-10-04'(Closed)': Missile shield lifting device not classified as a special lifting device (SLD). The inspectors discussed

'the classification of the missile shield ~1ifting device with personnel in" the NRC Office of. Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) who participated in the licensee's review of control of heavy loads. The NRR personnel verified that the missile shield lifting device was not required to be classified as a SL Unresolved item 86-02-01 (Closed): Reactor. coolant system (RCS) leak rate procedure inaccuracies. The inspectors reviewed periodic operating

. test (POT) 1-3, " Leakage Evaluation." POT 1-3 is the procedure governing _

the RCS4 1eak rate determination. The inspectors also discussed the revised procedure with the cognizant engineer. The procedure, as revised, addressed all of the questions previously raised by the - i'

inspectors. As. discussed in Inspection Report.86-02, the procedure

'

inaccuracies apparently did not result in a violation of'a. technical specification ~ requiremen '

Licensee Event Report (LER) 86-03 (Closed): Residu'al Heat Removal (RHR)'

system inoperable. This LER was timely and -acceptably described the event. The event described in this LER was also discussed in' detail-in' -

Inspection Reports 86-10 and 86-32. The violation of the technical ~. ~

. specification requirements and the licensee's corrective action will be tracked under enforcement item 86-32-02.

, Inspection of'Limitorque sotor Valve Operator Internal Wiring.

i The inspectors. conducted a r'eview.of the licensee's actions to ensure-that the internal wiring of Limitorque-motor valve operators were

~

,'

environmentall'y qualified in.accordance'with 10 CFR 50.49. NRC. Temporary Instruction 2515/75 provided guidance for,the inspectors' review of these problems as identified in NRC:Information Notic'e 86-0 ' ~

~

,

, %. .E

.

> , . . , --

- - _ + , . & , , , , ,-_.ce- 4 , . , . - _ . - - _ . ~- _ , . - e r ---+

- . - _ _ ~ '

"

% q )

• - - g, '

- - ,

- -

.

6 -

,

>

m

v >

'

The -licensee has';approximately 100 Limitiorque motor valve operators which - ,

,

~

frequire environmental qualification (EQ).L The licensee contracted

. outside assistance to assemble a; listing of the wire type.that was

-'; thought.to be used in the motors as determined by a record revie : m . During-the 1986 refueling outage, the licensee performed a samplin m -

E . inspection of operators located inside containment to validate the lis [ ]0[- \ c, gi 1 The sampling inspection found examples where the' type wire used'was not- #

'

-

_

.'as' expected. -The licensee therefore performed a 100 percent inspection-

.

, ., of all Limitorque motor-operated EQ valves located inside containmen . 1'

'dl O ~j n i [. .. .

. .

. . . .

.. ,

- ;'

.~?g ,This effort resulted.inLeight. valves having non-qualified or unidentifie +. ' ., ' wiring replaced. For valves outside containment, the licensee performed.~ "-

, .

T ?. i f an ' analysis to justify: interim operatton with the existing wiring.; The -

'

-

' . ,

3);i#* l t licensee's analysis concluded that valves whose total integrated dose" ... '.

N ' tjl .

(TID)~was calculated to b'e less than lE7 rads'up to the 1987 outager 'E - ~l N !.CO d ( 4 , , could be justifie'd for interim use. The analysis identified sixivalves W , * -.

!,

.l

,

6 _w ith a TID,of IE7 rads or greater. .-These six valves were. inspected ,

' -during'the'1986 refueling outage and internal wiring was replaced;on-a *

\ .4

'

-

,

' selective basis -in.all six valves. The nonconforming condition of the .

'-* , remaining valves located outside containment and the justification for

'

,Rni, conjinued operation is documented in nonconformance report 86-019. These j

-

{ *

. ' ~

?< "

>

. valves are scheduled for inspection during the 1987 outage.. The_ inspector o' .

'

discu~ssed the licensee's justification for continued operation with D ..

i- -

the* responsible individual for this. Temporary Instruction _at NRC

,

e headquarterscfThis individual concluded that the licensee's approach o

,,

in' this justification for continued operation appeared to be reasonabl ,

'To ensure that the. reworked valves have environmentally qualified wiring, 9 the inspectors; performed the following:

l -

Verified that the licensee EQ file's contain' test documentation and analytical results to qualify wiring,,that is' designated as EQ,;for

.,_

the environment to which the wiring is postulated to be expose : .

[ ~ Reviewed the~ maintenance records which controlled the inspection

and rewiring of.the valve Reviewed the procurement-documentation and the~ material issuance-records for the wire.used during the rework effort to ensure the p wire used was qualified as indicated by the licensee EQ file .

The inspectors were unable to physically-inspect any of the valves for the ,

l

!

proper type of internal wiring during this report period. Inspection of two valves for proper wiring will be conducted during a future inspectio !

g -The inspectors questioned the. licensee concerning the reportability:of the

.. valves found to contain internal wiring which was not qualified. At the conclusion of the. inspection, the issue of reportability was still under

. review by the' inspectors. Additionally, the licensee's actions to identify this deficiency and determine it's effect on valve operability prior to the November 1985 environmental. qualification' deadline remain '

!, under review. The' enforcement and reportability aspects of this inspection

, will remain unresolved (50-344/86-31-02) pending the receipt of additional informatio ,

l No violations or. deviations were identifie e

'

, .,o r ~k .%. r ,, -_,e..,-.._m,..._ ,m_...-.. _- m.., , _ _,-._m...-.,._.-, f7 S, \ %Tf & - ' *

,

A?

J ' 3);  ;

33 .- ,

-

C TV

.:Q ', .,

+

. ,

y -

, ,

,

,, + ,

n,.y c

u a

',

.

.

il

.%

,~ r

.

, . .

210.. Miscellaneous Observations

.

During a control room tour on August 13 -the inspectors noticed an

' abnormal-lineup;of'the~ containment air coolers. The normal lineup

<, consists of three out of.the four coolers per train operating with the fans' running and component cooling water (CCW) valved in. In'this

~

~

sin' stance, one cooler;had the' fan running but had CCW valved.out andL +

another cooler had CCW valved in but the; fan was off.; The inspectors

.,

brought this to'the attention of the operating staff who. realigned the L

' system. While the inspectors recognized that this alignment'was not a violation of the: Technical Specifications, it highlights the need for attention to detail and awareness of system configuration ,

>In a related matter, the inspectors reviewed the licensee's emergency

,

' instructions with regard to the operation'of the containment air coolers and noted that the procedures give little or no guidance.for verifying

'

'the' ope:ation of the coolers following a_ loss of co'olant accident.- The inspectors discussed the above' issues with the operations supervisor who

,

stated that he would review the matter During a tour of the auxiliary'feedwater (AFW) pump rooms, the' inspectors

'

. identified a number of; material deficiencies concerning flexible conduit ~

connections. to' AFW pump instrumentation. - Specifically, there were numerous instances of cracked or broken conduit, loose conduit, loose RTD housings, and. loose pressure switches and-pressure transmitter ~

Although none of the discrepancies appeared ~to render the system inoperable, the inspectors' concluded that the licensee would be. prudent-

.to formally identify and correct the various conditions observed. The

'

inspectors notified the maintenance supervisor of these observations. He

,

stated he would. investigate the matte No violations or deviations were identifie '

,

-

11. ' ' Unresolved Items -

.i 1; "

. , a '. !' ,

Unresolved items are items for which additional ~information is required

to ascertain whether the item is acceptable or a violation. Unresolved M' s !

. items are discussed in paragraphs 6 and 9 of this report.-

s, ,

, ,

.

,

l.. ~i

-

},,, ;1 Exit Interview

'

s ..

'

[The-inspectorsmet.withtheOperationsandMaintenanceManageratthe

'

- ,

/

,

j L+ conclusion of the inspection period. During this meeting, the inspectors m , g[Lja l 1 , summarized,the scope and findings of the-inspectio ;

?';' ,

'

+ .

,

-

,- , ,

A - ( M ,' % s

-

• d

.i g

,

>

.- ,

$

t A y 'y ,1

'

,t e

' ', ,

, '

'b, l* .

L. . - - - . _ . _ . _ . - _ _ . .. . _, . , _ . . - . . , _ . _ _ . _ . - . - _ . _ - _ . - - - . , _ , _ . . - ,