IR 05000344/1986045
| ML20215F875 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/05/1986 |
| From: | Mendonca M, Pereira D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215F863 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-344-86-45, NUDOCS 8612240095 | |
| Download: ML20215F875 (9) | |
Text
-
.,
,
,,o-.
f s
.
,
,
cy,
.
-
.
7 :,
'
~
'
'
'
'
'
-
<
,
-
,_
.
,
- ,
,.
,
x % ',
'
~
i
'
~U.
S. NUCLEAR REGULATOR COMMISSION REGION V1
,
. Report No.
50-344/86-45
-
.
Docket No.
50-344
.
.
License No.
NPF-1-
>
Licensee:
Portland General Electric Company 121 S.-W. Salmon Street'
Portland, Oregon 97204 Facility Name:
Trojan Nuclear Plant Inspection at:
Rainier, Oregon
.,
Inspection'Conducte'd: November-3 1986 Inspector:
40/
6fdE/
BUYd>
,
D. B. Pereira, Reactor Inspector Date-Signed Approved By:
\\%
'
/ t/7/10
^-
M. M. Mendonca, Reactor Project Section I Date Signed
,
Summary:
Inspection During the Period of November 17-21, 1986 (Report No. 50-344/86-45)
- Areas Inspected: ' Routine, unannounced inspection of.the Test and Experiment Program, Non-Licensed Staff Training, Instrumentation Maintenance, onsite
-
followup of written Reports of Non-Routine Events, and followup of IE '
Notices. The inspection modules.followed were: 30703, 37703, 41400, 62704,
- 92700,'and 92701.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
8612240095 861208
'
.
y
.
- _ _ _ _ - - - _. _ _ _ _ -. _.
, ~
,
.
.
.
,
'
' DETAILS
.
.
'
'1.
Persons Contacted
- W: S. Orser, General Manager
- R. P. Schmitt, Manager, 0perations and Maintenance
~
- J. D.'Reid, Manager,: Plant Services
- A. Olmstead, Manager,-Quality Assurance-D. L. Bennett, Supervisor, Control and Electrical R. Reinart,. Supervisor, Instrumentation and Control.
- G. C. Kellund, Resident Inspector,.U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'*H. Moomey, Senior Resident Inspector, Oregon Department of Energy
' A. S. Cohlmeyer, Engineering Supervisor
,
, ',
- E. A. Curtis, Quality Insurance Inspector, Nuclear Quality ~ Assurance
~
,
~ -
- Operations Branch
/
R.-Salsbury,' Technician, Electrical Maintenance P.-Jacobs, Instrumentation Technician, Instrumentation and Control
&
T. Nofziger, Instrumentation Technician, Instrumentation and Control t.
H. Goldman, Staff Engineer G.~ Kent, Staff Engineer
-
- Denotes attendance at exit interview conducted at Trojan Nuclear Plant on November 21, 1986.
2.
Test and Experiments Program.
This inspection was to determine whether the licensee's program relating to the control of test' and experiments is in conformance with regulatory requirements, commitments in the application, and industry guides and standards.
Administrative Order (AO) 3-16, Revision 14, dated July 23,'1985, provides the controls, methods, 'and responsibilities for the preparation and performance of tests or experiments.
Specifically, this procedure provides for plant tests which fall under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59, i.e.,:those tests that are not described in the FSAR that affect nuclear safety or which involve a change to the Technical Specifications (TS) or an unreviewed safety question.
The-inspector's review of A0 3-16 indicates in Paragraph III.A that a formal method is established to handle all requests or proposals for conducting plant tests and experiments involving safety-related components, systems or structures. The procedure specifies in Paragraph II.B that all tests and experiments will be performed in accordance with approved written procedures, and that responsibilities have been assigned for reviewing and approving test and experimental procedures. A0 3-16 provides a formal system, including assignment of responsibility, to assure that all tests or experiments will be reviewed to determine whether they are described in the FSAR, and to assure that a written safety evaluation pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 will be developed. Paragraph III.B.6 provides instructions to ensure that all tests and experiments conducted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 will be formally reported to the NRC prior to implementatio m
'
-
..
-
-
.
i
.
>
'"
The inspector examined;the following'special plant tests to ensure that l
'they are in conformance with the controls established per A0 3-16:
.,
SPT-65
. Service Water Strainer Size Test-
-SPT-64 - Main Steam Check Valve Functional Test SPT-48 - Test of.020"-Elements in Service Water Strainer
~
The inspector's review of the.above procedures indicated that they were prepared, approved, performed and reviewed in accordance with, A0 3-16.
. It appears that the licensee's program for tests and experiments'is conducted in conformance with regulatory-requirements.
No violations or' deviations were identified in~this area.
3.
Non-Licensed Staff Training
'
This inspe'ction was to evaluate the effectiveness of the licensee's training programs for the non-licensed' staff.
The inspector conducted interviews with one new, several experienced, and.
one, temporary non-licensed employees concerning their general knowledge in administrative. controls, radiological health and safety, industrial safety, controlled access and security, emergency plan, and quality
, assurance. The general employee training (GET) program provides training
,in the above subject areas. The, maintenance and non-licensed operations
,
personnel receive training for specific tasks assigned, such as
~
complicated: surveillance tests, or major equipment repair as indicated by personnel interviews and the training lecture documentation. The lectures provide a_means of updating the personnel on Licensee Event
Reports (LERs), Operational-Assessment Reviews (OARS), and changes to operating, and maintenance instructions.
By review of several licensee training records and personnel files, the inspector determined that the qualifications for the maintenance technicians, health physics and chemistry technicians, technical staff members, and the quality control inspectors are acceptable. The training records were complete and retained for review. As a whole, the personnel interviewed were pleased with the training program and had no problem with its function.
The inspector reviewed the progress of the licensee with respect to accreditation by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO).
Presently, the licensee's training program is fully accredited for the licensed and senior reactor operators and the non-licensed operators.
The Self Evaluation Report (SER) has been sent to INPO for the Maintenance, Chemistry and Radiation Technicians, Technical Managers, and Shift Technical Advisors (STAS).
It is presently planned for plant evaluation by INP0 by the middle of January 1987 on the above remaining training to be accredited.
INPO plans on a site visit next summer, 1987.
The licensee's training staff appears to be complemented with qualified instructors and has extensive experienc w
-
,,
'
.
,,7
-.
4 No violations or deviations were-identified.
-~
-4.
Instrumentation Maintenance
'
This inspection was to determine whether corrective maintenance and preventive maintenance activities relative to instrumentation components and systems are conducted in accordance with licensee's approved-procedures and instructions.
The inspector reviewed the following routine, corrective maintenance procedures:
a.
Periodic Instrument and Control Test (PICT) 10-1, Reactor Protection System, Revision 18, dated October 12, 1986 b.
PICT 11-1, Nuclear Instrumentation, Power Range, Revision 16, dated September 8, 1986 c.
PICT 7-1, Pressurizer Pressure, Protection Set 1, Channel 455,
-Revision 11, dated September 29, 1986 d.
PICT 4-1, Pressurizer Level, Protection Set I, Revision 13, dated September 6, 1986 PICT 16-1, Hot Rod Drop Time Measurements, Revision 8, dated October e.
26, 1986 f.
PICT 16-2,. Rod Position Indication, Revision 8, dated October 26, 1986 g.
PICT 9-1, Containment Pressure Detector Protection Set 1, Revision 13, dated September 4, 1986 h.
PICT 9-5, Containment Pressure Transmitters, Revision 0, dated March 6, 1986 i.
PICT 11-2, Nuclear Instrumentation, Intermediate Range, Revision 9, dated October 29, 1986 j
PICT 11-3, Nuclear Instrumentation, Source Range, Revision 9, dated
.
October 29, 1986 In this review of the above listed procedures, the inspector verified that they~ included the following items:
Approvals for removing the item from service and returning it to
.
service with specific attention to system lineup and verification l
prior to its return to service.
' Hold points for inspection / audit and signoff by Quality Assurance.
- Provisions for returning the item / system maintained and the affected system to the original configuration following maintenance, and verifying that the configuration is correc c
.,
-
-
,
.
..
,
Y:
- )'
,
,
'
s
- >
~
- '
.-.
,.
Tr.
,
,
jQ :
_./.
'
,
v.
,,,
.
,
,
e
,
-
,
,
.
- *~
'
Provisions for assuring that' limiting condition for operation requirements of the TS are identified _and satisfied during the
repair period.
'
,
Provisions for cleaning safety-related systems / components and control.of housekeeping during the maintenance-effort.
.
~
'
Provisions for removal of appropriate 1 jumpers, restoration of lifted
~
leads, reinstallation of tubing, and removal of' test devices'.
,
/
Acceptance criteria, and performer and verifier signoff.
- Provisions to record measurement and test equipment identification numbe's and calibration dates.
r The inspector observed the performance of.PICT 11-1, Nuclear Instrumentation, Power Range, alarm and trip setting test for power range channels N41 and N42 by two instrument and control (I&C) technicians.
The inspector verified that the control operator was notified and clearance to perform the PICT was issued. The PICTs were properly scheduled on the Plan of the Day as verified by the control operator.
The inspector witnessed the performance of the following items:
Use of the latest approved procedures.
- That approved verifier personnel were signing off at the designated steps.
- That qualified voltage test equipment were in use and calibrated.
- That adequate identification of jumpers and lifted leads were maintained.
,
That proper system lineups were accomplished and verified prior to functional testing.
- That satisfactory functional testings were performed prior to returning the equipment to operations for system restoration.
The inspector verified that the performance of PICT 11-1 was performed in accordance with the procedure, that appropriate acceptance criteria were met; and that the I&C personnel were knowledgeable and accurate in performance of the test. The restoration to normal of the channels was performed and verified as required by the verification sheet - System Returned to Operation.
The inspector reviewed selected records (PICTs 9-1, 9-2, 9-3, 9-4, 9-5, 10-1, 11-2, and 11-3) to determine the following:
Administrative approvals were obtained prior to initiating the test.
.
The acceptance criteria were met.
> -
f r
<
' '
,
'
Functional testing, adjustments, and calibrations, as necessary, were completed prior to returning the equipment to operations.
- Qualified personnel performed the tests.
- Corrective and preventive maintenance records were assembled, stored, and retrievable as part of the maintenance history.
The selected records review indicates that the tests are performed correctly, data is reviewed and approved for the given acceptance criteria and restoration to normal verifications are performed correctly.
with two signatures.
It would appear that the licensee has an instrument maintenance program which is conducted in accordance with licensee-approved procedures and instructions.
No violations or deviations were noted.
5..
Followup on Open Items a.
Licensee Event Report (LER)-86-04 (Closed). Grain Ship Grounding Outside Intake Structure Damaging Plant Outfall Pipe.
At 2243 on April 11, 1986 with the plant operating at 73 percent power, a cerchant ship, " MING WINTER," lost steering and ran agrcund just outside the Trojan Plant. The grounding damaged the plant outfall pipe. There was no adverse impact on the environment or on plant operations.
Approximately 100 feet of pipe was damaged and required replacement.
Thermal monitoring was conducted and demonstrated no adverse impact on the river temperature from loss of the diffuser pipe.
LER 86-04 is closed. The licensee's report was timely, adequately described the event, and met regulatory requirements, licensee conditions and commitments.
b.
LER 86-07 (Closed). Reactor Trip Due to Personnel Error Resulting in Exceeding Low Power Range Trip.Setpoint.
On June 19, 1986, the plant experience an unplanned reactor trip from 24.5% power due to failure to reset the power range high flux trip setpoint, which had been lowered to 24.5% for the performance
,
of low ~ power physics testing. Following completion of the physics
.
testing, a management decision was made to proceed with the first part of main turbine testing prior to resetting the power range flux trip setpoint. With the main turbine synchronized to the grid at 177 megawatts electrical (approximately 20.5% reactor power), a turbine load limit power decrease occurred reducing power to 145 megawatts electrical. While recovering power to 177 megawatts,
,
'
manual rod motion was initiated to raise reactor coolant temperature. The combined effects of the power increase and the rod motion caused the power level to exceed the trip setpoint and the reactor and turbine tripped.
I
,
The cause of the trip was a personnel error in that the addition of positive reactivity was not sufficiently controlled while operating near the trip setpoint. A contributing cause was deciding to perform turbine testing without resetting the power range trip setpoints.
The corrective actions undertaken to prevent a similar occurrence were that the reactor trip and associated events leading to it were critiqued with the personnel involved and in the future, the high flux trip setpoints will be reset to their normal values immediately following low power physics testing.
In addition, POT 18-4 will be revised to clearly specify the requirements for conducting turbine testing.
The inspector reviewed Revision 7 to FOT 18-4 Appendix C Main Turbine Overspeed Trip Test and the ravision inserts a new initial condition in which the intermediate and power range nuclear channels have been reset to their normal values prior to loading the turbine for this test.
'
'
LER 86-07 is closed. The licensee's report was timely, adequately described the event, and met regulatory requirements, licensee conditions and commitments.
,
-c.
- LER 86-08 (Closed). Reactor Trip and Safety Injection Occurred During Instrument Calibration.
'
On August 5, 1986, the plant was operating at 100% power with a
.
routine A train preventive maintenance outage in progress. _ Periodic Instrument and Control Test (PICT 3-2, " Steam Flow-Feedwater Flow, Steam Line Pressure and Turbine First Stage Pressure, Protection Set 2." was in progress resulting in a steam line differential pressure bistable being in the tripped condition. At 0953 the A steam generator steam line pressure transmitter failed high resulting in a second bistable trip satisfying the 2-out-of-3 steam line differential pressure coincidence and a safety injection actuation occurred. The safety injection signal initiated a reactor trip.
l
^
'
The cause of the event was failure of the steam pressure transmitter. Immediate action was taken to ensure the plant was in
a safe shutdown condition and terminate the safety injection. The failed transmitter was replaced. The event was of no safety significance.
Since there have been numerous failures of Rosemount steam pressure transmitters over the past several years for which the causes of failure could not be determined, action has already been planned by Trojan to replace the Rosemount transmitters with Barton transmitters during the 1987 refueling outage.
This LER 86-08 is closed. The licensee's report was timely, adequately dencribed the event, and met regulatory requirements, licensee conditions and commitment _
-
.
d.
Information Notice 86-07 (Closed). Maintenance of Diesel Generator Woodward Governors.
On November 6, 1985, during startup of a standby diesel generator at Grand Gulf Unit 1, the diesel engine oversped for about 15 seconds.
'
This startup was the first following preventive maintenance on the governor. The overspeed damaged numerous engine components, including connecting rods, rod bearings, main bearings, link pin bushings, wrist pin bushings, and the engine base.
It was not known whether the manual trip, the overspeed trip, or excessive vibration terminated the overspeed. After testing of the Woodward governor by the manufacturer, it was determined that the governor was ineffective in controlling speed because of an inadequate inventory of oil.
Trojan power plant's review of this Information Notice was perfoimed by Operational Assessment Review (OAR) 86-16 and revealed that the Grand Gulf Unit 1 EDG experienced an engine overspeed problem because of inadequate oil inventory and trapped air in the hydraulic actuator circuit of the governor. The causes for the trapped air were:
(1) inadequate venting after oil refilling instruction (outdated manual); (2) oil capacity figures for the governor; (3) no detailed procedure for filling and venting; and (4) inexperienced or insufficiently trained personnel.
The Trojan EDGs are not of the same manufacture as Grand Gulf Unit 1, Transamerica Delaval. However, the governor used on the diesel engine is of the same manufacturer (Woodward) though the model is different. Trojan's plant engineering recommended the following procedures be reviewed:
(1) Emergency Diesel Generator MP-12-7, Six-Month Mechanical Inspection, will be revised to contain adequate instructions for governor oil changeout and refill.
(2) MP-12-7 will be revised to contain a discussion on the recommended practice of adding oil to the power case section of the mechanical governor.
(3) Periodic Operating Test, POT 24-1, Section 7.2, will be revised to add a new subsection (11) for checking the governor oil level.
(4) Operating Instruction, OI-5-1, Section B, Precautions and limitations will be revised to add a new subsection for verifying governor oil level when the diesel is in the idle phase.
The above procedure revisions are on the Trojan Commitment Tracking Log (CTL) as 11198, 11199, and 11200. The commitment due date is December 1, 1986.
Based on the above commitments and 0AR 86-16 instructions, the inspector considers Information Notice 86-07 close.
'
e.
Information Notice (IN) No. 85-91 (Closed). Load Sequences for Emergency Diesel Generators.
IN 85-91 was reviewed by this inspector in inspection report 86-05, and it was determined that detailed examination of the electrical schematics for Trojan Nuclear Plant would ensure that the load sequencing problem would not occur. The inspector reviewed the following three schematics:
(1) Drawing No., E-430, Revision 17, Schematic Diagram Engineered Safety Features (ESF) Initiation on Preferred or Standby Power.
(2) Drawing No. E-431, Revision 10, Schematic Diagram - Engineered Safety Features Initiation on Preferred or Standby Power.
(3) Drawing No. E-432, Revision 10, Schematic Diagram - Engineered Safety Features Initiation on Preferred or. Standby Power.
The review indicates that the buses are unloaded ~or emptied. Then the EDCs are started and loaded onto the ESF buses and when the EDGs are at full voltage and power, then the load sequencers commence
?
bringing loads onto the ESF buses. If a loss of offsite power occurs and then offsite power is restored, the ESF buses are isolated from offsite power and require deliberate synchronizing of frequency and voltage (i.e., paralleling) prior to' energizing the ESF buses via offsite power. Based on this examination, Trojan appearn to not have the problem of bypassing ESF load sequencers.
Information Notice 85-91 is closed.
'
6.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in paragraph 1 on November 21, 1986, and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection activities.
-
_ -. -
-
_.
.. -
.. - -
.
--
. - -.-
.
-
-