IR 05000344/1987038
| ML20236H220 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/19/1987 |
| From: | Mendonca M, Pereira D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236H219 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-344-87-38, IEB-79-24, NUDOCS 8711030529 | |
| Download: ML20236H220 (7) | |
Text
l
-
1
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
i
' Report No:
50-344/87-38 Docket No.
50-344 i
License No. NPF-l'
l Licensee:
Portland General Electric Company 121 S. W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204
1 Facility Name:
Trojan Nuclear Plant Inspection at:
Rainier, Oregon l
i Inspection cond cte :
0 to er-9, 1987
/#///l[f
)
/
1
Inspector:
an'
6/ emir D. B. Pereira, Reactor Inspector Date Signed Approved by:
~
/* //p// 7 M. M. Mendonca, Chief, Date Signed j
Reactor Project Section 1 i
Summary:
Inspection During the Period of October 5-9 1987 (Report 50-344/87-38)
l Areas Inspected:
This routine, unannounced inspection by the Project
Inspector involved the areas of Cold Weather Preparation, Test and Experiments
.
Program, Onsite Review Committee, and the evaluation of the root cause trouble j
shooting program.
During this inspection, inspection modules 30703, 71714, 37703, 40700, 71707,
,
and 92720 were used.
>
Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
.,
8711030529 871019 PDR ADOCK 05000364 G
-.
_
.___
_
,
._
. _ - _
j
..,
.c
'
i'
DETAILS.
1.
Persons Contacted a.
Licensee Personnel
';
'
.
.
I
- C.-A. Olmstead, Plant Manager R. P. Schmitt, Manager, Operations and Maintenance J. D. Reid, Manager, Plant Services
]
- D. W. Swan, Manager, Technical Services
- C. H. Brown, Manager, Quality. Assurance Operations
{
_
- D. Nordstrom, Engineer, Nuclear-Safety:and
'
Regulation Department
.j
- W. L. Kershul, Engineer, Nuclear Safety and Regulation l
Department R. Russell, Supervisor, Operations R. Reinart, Supervisor, Instrument and Control G. Stein, Supervisor, Performance Monitoring / Event Analysis Department ~
b.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- R. Barr
'
c.
Oregon Department of Energy H. Moomey, Oregon Resident Inspector
Attended the Exit Meeting on October 9, 1987.
2.
Cold Weather Preparations
,
The purpose of this inspection was to determine whether the' licensee has maintained an effective implementation program of protective measures for
'
extreme cold weather.
IE Bulletion, 79-24, dated September 27,-1979, requested licensees to review their plants to determine that adequate protective measures have been taken to assure that safety-related-process, instrument, and sampling lines do not freeze during extremely cold weather.
The inspector conducted a walk-down of.the main. steam support structure and the refueling water storage tank.
In the main-steam support, the main steam.line and flow instrumentation have heatz tracing circuits that are energized.
The inspector discovered'that.
approximately 6-8 inches of insulation and heat tracing were missing from instrument air lines to valves' GS-185 and GS-186.
These valves control CV-2270, the D Steam line Power Operated Relief:(POR), and CV-2250, the C Steam line POR, respectively.
The inspector informed the shift.
supervisor of the missing heat tracing and insulation, who initiated a i
maintenance request to repair or install the missing insulation and heat tracing.
The inspector also discovered that. insulation-cans were removed and not reinstalled on valve CV-2230, the B-Steam line POR.
The shift supervisor was informed and investigated.the reason lfor the insulation'
._
cans not being reinstalled.
No other discrepancies were discovered,> The
'
-
-
,
i
- ,[
.g.
<
weather at the time'of; inspection was in.the lowL60'.s at night to the low
~80's in the day time, so there was no danger of freezing of safety-related. equipment..The inspector _ examined?the refueling' water.
_ storage tank: level instrumentation and verified that they were heat-
~
traced and~ energized.
.At the'end of the inspection period,.the inspector reinspected the above-i ums:and they were not corrected as of.10:00 on October 9, 1987..This finding will become followup item 87-38-01.
No violations or deviations were identified in this: area.
3.
Onsite-Review C'ommittee Thepurposeofthisinspectionwas'toperforml afunctional. review [bf.the.
l
,
a, l
Onsite Review Committee, normally called at Trojan the Plant' Review Board
.
'l (PRB). The: inspector verified.the PRB's: composition, duties,'and-responsibilities as delineated in the Technical. Specifications:(TS)-
Section-6.5.1. '.The inspector examined the PRB to determine if they-j fulfilled their function in the following areas:
{
a.
Review.and analysis of' reportable events requiring subcission:of a I
' Licensed Event Report (LER).
I b.
Investigation of violations of the TS and corrective actions.
.!
Review of' current plant' operations-to detect. potential nuclearL
'
c.
safety hazards.
d.
Review of proposals.which could affect nuclear ' safety such as plant'
tests or expeoin,ents, plant procedures, plans,. programs, or. changes-thereto,- and nt, deifications to systems "o'r equipment.
The inspector reviewed 10 PRB meeting minutes.to. determine whether the'
PRB fulfilled its function.
The examined PRB meeting minutes indicated that the PRB" fulfilled its functio'n and that they' performed the required
~
l l
nuclear safety reviews for event reports, current plant-operations, and
,
plant proposals.
It appeared that the PRB properly; performed itse i
functions including followup on significant reportable' events; taking l
correctiveactiontoprecluderepeatedviolationsofTSirequirements,.
'
plant procedures, or repeated challenges to safety systems; and reviewing l
plant operations and plant change. proposals.
l The inspector attended a PRB meeting on.0ctober 7, -1987,.. at 1:00 p.m.
During this meeting the.PRB members discussed Event-Reports, reviewed L
facilities operations and miscellaneous-items.
The discussion centered around several Event Report root causes and-their determination. The Performance Monitoring / Event Analysis'(PMEA)' supervisor acknowledged'that several event reports-had inadequate root.cause determinations and-suggested alternate root ~causes.
The licensee's PRB activities were conducted in accordance with the-Technical ~ Specifications, licensee' commitments,-and' regulatory
.
requirements.
T
- _ - _
-__
'
- _ - _
.u 3-
'
,
No violations or deviatio'ns were identified in this area.
4.
Test snd Experiments Program
)
The' purpose of this inspection was to determine whether the licensee's j
program relating to the control of test and experiments.is in conformance
.;
with regulatory re.quirements, commitments and industry guides and standards.
Administrative 0rder (AO) 3-16, entitled "Special Plant. Tests", 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-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 indicated that in Paragraph III2ALthat j
l a formal metbsd is established to handle. all requests or proposals for
"
conducting plant tests and experiments involving safety-related components, systems, or. structures.
The procedure specified in Paragraph-II.B that all tests and experiments vill be performed in accordance with l
epproved written' procedures, and'that responsibilities have been assigned'
l for. reviewing and approving test and experimental procedures.
A0.3-16
provided a formal system, including assignment of responsibility, to j
assure that a11' tests or experiments'will'be reviewsd to' determine i
whether they are described in-the FSAR, and to assure that a written
!
safety evaluation pursuant to 10 CFR.50.59 will'be' developed. -In addition, paragraph III.B.6 provides instructions to. ensure that all i
tests and experiments, which may. involve an unreviewed safety question pursuant to.10 CFR 50.59, will be formally reported to the NRC prior to implementation.
The inspector'eximined the following special plant tests to ensure that they were in convormance with the controls'and instructions established per'A0'3-16:
SPT-171-Safety Injection System Cold Leg Flow Balance Test SPT-172-Auxiliary Feedwater Pumps Functional Test
'
SPT-173-Safety Injection System Hot Leg Flow Balance Test l
SPT-156-Electrical Penetration Smoke Generator Test SPT-155-C Service Water Pump Test
"
SPT-158-B-Train Auxiliary Feedwater CV-3004 Test
-
The inspector's review of the above procedures-indicated that they were prepared, approved, performed and reviewed in accordance with A0 3-16.
The special plant tests specified the prerequisites to be met, the.
appropriate precautions and limitations, any special equipment needed, J
m
- _ _ _ - _ _ _
.
'
the acceptance criteria, and.the disposition of-the completed tests.
The -
procedures were reviewed,. approved, and distributed upon completion.
Nuclear Division Procedure (NDP) 100-4, entitled " Reporting Requirements" provides the formal method to assure that all tests and experiments conducted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 wilF be' formally reported to the NRC in a timely manner.
The licensee.normally reports the tests or experiments in the Annual Operating Report.
It appeared that the licensee's program for tests and experiments was
conducted in conformance with regulatory. requirements, 'and industry
'
guides and standards.
,
No violations' or deviations were. identified in this area.
l 5.
Evaluate' Root Cause Trouble Shooting Program The purpose of this inspection-was'to evaluate the licensee's root cause trouble shooting program.
For.th'ellicensee, the root cause trouble
!
shooting program is conducted in the Performanc Monitoring and Event?
Analysis (PM/EA) department. 'This department has been in existence for some time, however departmental procedures for establishing the requirements and responsibilities have just been ' issued October 1,1987.
PM/EA Department Procedure 100,~ entitled " Performance Monitoring and Event Analysis Department" defines 'the responsibilities for PM/EA department personnel.
The PM/EA department is responsible for supporting line management in' trending, event analysis, review, and performance i
monitoring of activities that effect.the safe and reliable. operation of the Trojan Nuclear Plant.
I The PM/EA Manager is responsible for the following activities:
i a.
Ensuring that root causes and corrective actions developed as a I
result of an event are tr.cked and' trended.
l b.
Assigning PM/EA Evaluators to perform event analysis when required.
I c.
Assigning PM/EA Evaluators to conduct independent reviews of I
reports of actions taken:to correct conditions adverse to the safe or reliable operation of the Trojan Nuclear Plaat.
d.
Coordinating and scheduling observations based on corrective action follow-up requirements, trends of performance, and plant activities in progress.
e.
Coordinating with managers from other organizations to ensure that an effective root cause analysis and corrective action determination is conducted for any event or condition that did or could effect the safe or reliable operation of the Trojan Nuclear Plant.
f.
Informing the Vice-President, Nuclear Division of any j
circumstance in which event analysis was not effective in
!
_ - -.
. _ _ _ _ _ _
__a
. _.
- _
,_ -
..e
-
determining root cause(s) and/or corrective action recommendations were not effective in addressing elimination of the root.cause(s) which precipitated the~ analysis.
The licensee performs event analysis normally by the line organizations
,
'
utilizing the methods described in Nuclear Division Procedure (NDP)
'
600-3, " Event Reports".
The PM/EA Department assists in conducting an l
event analysis as described _below:
l-
'
All events classified as urgent in'accordance with NDP 600-3 will be cause to inform the PM/EA Manager or duty PM/EA Evaluatorc At the request of the Vice-President,. Nuclear Division, the PM/EA Department will take the lead in the analysis for urgent events.
- For priority 1 events, the PM/EA Department will assist line management as. requested. If.a Priority 1 event involves more than one department, the PM/EA Department may take the lead in the event-analysis.
- For priority 2 and routine events,'the' PM/EA Department will
~
normally be involved in the' event analysis in an advisory capacity.
The assigned evaluator will contact the person assigned lead responsibility,for the event analysis to identify any requirement for. assistance'.
The PM/EA manager will assign review responsibilities.for root cause determination of occurrences that effect the safe and reliable operation of the Trojan Nuclear Plant to a PM/EA Evaluator.
This review will
!
consist of ensuring that documentation is complete, root.cause is
{
supported by the documentation, corrective action is effective in eliminating the root cause of the event,.and data documentation to ensure tracking / trending of root causes.
The evaluation of the root cause program as explained above is complete in terms of what the licensee plans ~on' implementing in the.near future, j
however, the PM/EA manager is leaving the licensee to pursue ' employment at another licensee.
Based upon the results of the program at this point, it appears that the licensee has a root cause and. trouble shooting.
program in effect.
Further inspection in this ~ area is planned.
Ne violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Deep Backshift Coverage Inspection During.this inspection, the inspector observed the control room operators-during the period of time between 2130 and 2330 hours0.027 days <br />0.647 hours <br />0.00385 weeks <br />8.86565e-4 months <br /> on Thursday night, October 9, 1987.
The inspector observed that the control room operators were attentive and knowledgeable of the plant activities.
The inspector i
observed the swing shift to graveyard turnover and observed that the i
.shif t turnovers were orderly and professional.
No violations or deviations were identified.
.
f
- T r !:. p. M.s.
N*
- r.
-.-
.
- -
.
.
.,
-
,
en = '; 1
.,' '
P,
.
a
,
)
',
.
s -...
i,.,
.
,-
-
.e
.
,
'
q
,
.
.., ~
.X
- 6-
"
,
'
-Q.
,
,
1-c:.s. -
.
,
7.
Exit Interview -
i d
'
'
- e
-
.
,
The.. inspector met lwith thejlicense~ei r' representatives ben 6t'ed/in'paragrabhl
~
~
,
-
1 on.0ctober. 9,.1987, and~ sumarized the' scope. and findings Tof;the
~
g
-
.
-
inspection activities'.
'
,
<
,
.,
.
..
.
.;,,
f
- '
) C1
/
p,
i.
'
- ('. ;
-]
,
,,
. M-
. tfi
>
,
-
<.
'y.-
41
<
-
,,
.,
f f
I
>
-
'1
.
,
!
l
.
a
. *l
1.
i
> b g
'
,
f d'
l'
..f.
-32
. ) - 9
. I
<
)
l
.]
)
,
a
!
t c*
,
i t
T sg I
s
.?-.f ;)
e
!
s t
- .I d
')
.
-
- .)
J
./
'
.
s
'
,
I.".
./ s 5..,
{
f a 3 l..
N
.
,i s
,
,
'}s
.d.,
- r 1,