IR 05000344/1985040
| ML20141K109 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/30/1985 |
| From: | Dodds R, Pereira D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141K105 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-344-85-40, IEIN-85-066, IEIN-85-66, NUDOCS 8601220223 | |
| Download: ML20141K109 (5) | |
Text
^4.'
i
,
d
'
3 _
,'y
.
..
.
. -
- -.
-
~ +-
.
-,
..
..
._ f. _ ' r a L'. +..., '
- '.-..
. L *>
f g )
. f. j '
e e.
'
.
'
,t.
'1
,
'q;
,
,
-
y 5, - { {,::ja
.
,g
~
i
,
~ -
-
-%,
_,.
~
,
'
-
4 !,
~ "
,
,
,
t
-
,
'
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
!
t a
' REGION V
-
,
.
I
'
'
..
.
-
,
<
,
~ Report No. 50-344/85-40
"
,,
Docket No. 50-344 License No. NPF-1
.]
g
. l
..
l.
' Licensee: Portland General: Electric Company,
'
'
121 S..W.. Salmon. Street
!
Portland, Oregon 97204
Faciilty Name: Trojan Nuclear Plant
.,.
Inspection at: Rainier, Oregon f
l Inspection Conduc ed c
9-13, 1985
.
.
'
Inspector:
w'
W.
dedlNa N
j D. B. Pereira, Reactor I.1spector -
. Date Signedi
!
R.~T. Dodd's, Chief, Reactor Project Section 1
. /A/fs/f"J Approved By:
~
.
,
'Dat6 Sfsned,
.
<
{
Summary:
, -
!
'
'
l'
Inspection Durina the Period of December:9-13, 1985-(Report No.:50-344/85-40),
.
j Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the Tests and. Experiments
Program, Onsite Review Committee, Containment Leak Rate Test Results
.
j Evaluation, and followup closure of open items. The inspection' involved 38
'
4, hours onsite by one NRC inspector. The inspection modules followed were:
'
Test and Experiments Program (37703), Onsite Review-Committee (40700),
Containment Leak Rate Test Results' Evaluation (70323)land'IE
'
Bulletin /Immediate Action Letter and Generic. Letter Followup (92703).
4
.
'
,
i Results: No items of. noncompliance or' deviations were identified.
'4-i.
'
, } e! >W4
' '.
.
,
$
.e
>
.
N'\\
'U..
q
.
-
,
<-
- -
.
..y
,
,
'
,
..,'bl
m
.
r i
'#
i '
I ' s'
~'
,
!
,..,
"
r
+
e.,-.4' (,
-
.
,.
.)
g g
,
...
..
'
',
ca'
%
.
,
{-
".
_ I~
,
"
I"
j
- n
%.
.
, f
'.,
,
,
,
,
,
"
.
- (,
,
(*.
- n
g g.
.,i-
{f *, f i (k'
-
k. $ cock !. -
e.,.
e
.
-
. ['i
[
__
j.
'
[
, j
,
,,
_
-
.
.
..
'
'W 5. "h u,
$
t
_y j
t
.'
%a
.
+
.
'
,
,
./ e.
...
.
c,.';<.
'
.
-
..y
,
w
....r
.
-
z u J-- -
J '
'
L i
- 1"
-
-
--
-
-'
-
.
-m DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted R. P. Schmitt, Manager, Operations and Maintenance J. D. Reid, Manager, Plant Services.
D. L. Bennett, Supervisor, Control'and Electrical-
- D. W. Swan, Supervisor, Maintenance
- A. Cohlmeyer, Supervisor, Engineering,
- M. Snook, Senior Inspector, Quality Assurance
- S. Bauer, Engineer, Nuclear Safety and Regulation Department
- H. Singh, Planner, Planning and Scheduling.
'
- Denotes attendance at exit-interview conducted'at Trojan Nuclear Plant on December 13, 1985.
2.
Tests and Experiments Program
,
The inspector examined the licensee's1 Test and Experiments program for conformance with regulatory requirements, approved guides and standards.
The inspector examined a portion of the licensee's 1985 performed tests / experiments and verified whether they were in conformance with the controls as established in Administrative Order (AO)-3-16, entitled.
"Special Plant Tests".
The inspector examined the following Special Plant Tects:
a.
Special Plant Test #48 - Test of a Set of.020" Elements in One Service Water Strainer b.
Special Plant Test #49 - Test of " Unbalanced" Seal in Service Water Booster Pump c.
Special Plant Test #65 - Service Water Strainer Size Test The abave special plant tests were performed in accordance with the.
requirements, and controls of A0-3-16.
The inspector examined the following Temporary Plant, Tests (TPT):
Temporary Plant Test 7 - Verification of Manual safety injection a.
switches b.
Temporary Plant Test 40 - Verification of installation and operability of Auxiliary Building Exhaust Vent Radioactivity Monitor c.
Temporary Plant Test 65 - Functional test of ammonia / sulfur dioxide detection system
,
d.
Temporary Plant Test 69 - Functional test of the system for main turbine runback in the event of a main feedwater pump trip c
%
' 9.
IN
'
,
_
_
_
lA.
'
.,,
>
w'
,
.
,
-y--
< 4
.0 t
'
m 2.
.
A, 3.g
-
.+
j,.
g_
' '
'
g
~
x
-
.
,
Temporary Plant Test 71
.' Determination of correct orifice for.
'
e.
,
,q circulating water pump' lubricating oil system
'
'
'
f.
. Temporary Plant-Test 80 - Verification of proper' installation'and operability of new condenser air-ejector off gas radioactivity _
'
W-monitor
[
\\
'
'
g.
? Temporary Plant Test 107 - Verification of proper operation.of air-ejector off gas moisture separator'
'
h.
Temporary Plant Test 308 - Verification 'of proper operation of:. cable spreading room' fire detection system-
,
-
,
i.
Temporary Plant Test 109 - Determination of normal. liquid: level o'f
?
,
new fetedwater heaters
>
g j.
Temporary Plant' Test 111 - VerificatiorPof flow Rate o'ff service s
"
3s water train A
.
"
-
1,
.
,
.
"
>
k.
Temporary Plant Test 112 - Verification of. flow rate of service water train B
,m
_
The above temporary. plant' tests were performed..in accordance with the
- (-
,
.
requirements and controls.of A0-3-15, temporary procedures.
.S
.
..
Both the Special-Plant Tests-and^the Temporary Plant-Tests were' performed in accordance with the, Administrative orders A0-3-16, and A0-3-15J-
.
respectively.
/3
.
,
,
.
,
s s
,
No violations-ob d[viations we,r,etidentified-in this area'of inspection.
-
, -
,.
Y P
t w
,
2:
.4
-
t
-
a,
- i,c.
.%v ;
-,.
-
s 3.
Containment Leak Rate,TestoResults Evaluation -
-
,>
y a
.
-:
3;lst..%%.A
'
~
,
~
The inspector examined whetheiSthe licensee :has_ adequately perforne'd,
~
reviewed, and e'v'aluated o'psr'ational Type A containment:testsland. Type B
' '
or C containne.:tntests with respect to regulatory. requirements, approved guides and licensee commitments.7
"
- 1
.
m
.. -
.
.
Theinspectorexaminedth'elicensee'sPeEiodicContainmentIStegelted
"
Leakage'RateTest-(TypeA)ashpeiformedperLPeriodic-EngineeringTest
-
(PET)f 5-1,, Rev. 5 during'1983M Theitest? results adequately characteriz$d y
.
the acceptability of the-containmedt^ for the Type A test and as-well'.netL L
~
the following criteria:
NR W
,
_
y
-
.-
l
.
.
.
44
'
Verified that,ghe required leakage rate computations were-performed a.
P.roperly. g 3
.,
.
,
^
.
-
_
.N-
,
w b.
LEnsuredthatthe.totalmeasured.leakagerate.neet's-therequirS_dy y' E 'y
,
leakage rate acceptance' criteria.
.
'
'
'
_
_
t Verifiedthatthetotalmeasuredlleakage'ratetwascorrecte'dIor'
~
c.
.
,.
randon' instrument errors.
'
,
,
m
.
,
,
't
.N'
g
'%
.)
'
,
,
+
.,
,
t...-
-
g.
-
.
-s
.
-
.
)
' * '
%
N-
. '
-
m
- -
?1
.,,-.-
7..
.
.
.-.
.. _ _
.
-
-
-.
_-
,
-
.
,,.
+
.
.
~
'
' 3
-
'
-
.
.
-
..
.
.
$
OThe inspector examined the licensee'L Periodic Containment Local Leak.
i
{ Rate Test.(type _B or_C) as performed per PET 5-2,.Rev. 11 during.1985.
'
"The test results were verified to' meet the required acceptance criteria;_
and the licensee has conducted-an adequate sumanary analysis for the-local-
,
leak-rate-tests performed.. The inspector witnessed a local leak rate
<
Jtest performed on December 11, 1985-on one personnel air' lock per PET 5-2
,
in accordance with paragraph S.3.. The.. maintenance personnel performing;
'
the test reviewed the test equipment and set-up and verified that the
-
4~
- temperature had stabilized prior.to' commencing.the-decay test. The air-j lock met the acceptance-criteria.
]
The Containment Leak' Rate Test results evaluation ~ appears to meet
. regulatory requirements, approved, guides and licensee commitments.
-No violations or deviations were identifie'd in'this area of inspection.
I
4.
Onsite Review Committee u
,
The' inspector reviewed. sixteen Plant Review' Board (PRB) meeting minutes'
!
to ensure that provisions of the Technical Specifications-dealing with
- '
membership, review process, frequency, qualifications, and aLuthority were.
,
satisfied in accordance with Section 6.5.1.
I The inspector's review indicated that the PRB meetings were conducted with the proper membership, correct frequency,'and proper review process and authority as detailed in'the Technical Specification Section 6.5.1.'
l The inspector confirmed that several decisions / recommendations.that were reflected in the minutes were 'ompleted. The inspector-plans to attend a c
j PRB meeting during a subsequent inspection to observe a meeting.
^
'
-
No violations.or deviations were identified.
f
'
5.
Follow-up on Previous Inspection Findinas
'
i
!
a.
(Follow-up Ites Information Notice IN)'No.'85-66 Closed)
~
-
.
{
Discrepancies Between As-Built Construction Drawings and Equipment
Installations,
-
._
,
[
.
. py c
This information' notice deshribes problems that have occurred with
'
as-built, construction' drawings -not correctly 'or completely
.
reflecting equipment installations at;several-nucleari plants;
,
{ -
Trojan Nuclear Plant;performedyan' Operational Assessment-Review
'
.
L
- (OAR) No'. 85-95 whi"ch~describedithefprocess'that'the Nuclear Plant
'
s
- Engineering"(NPE)lOnsiteLBranchirev'iews the As'-Built'Paek' age ((ABP).
- .
- for 'completene,ss. j As.a minimum,( the( ABPf consists - of:
.
i G:
.. ?
- -,.
.?
..
-
'=
'
1.a ~ A' copy of~ the'DCP drawingsj marked as As-Built, or : annotated:to ;
'
- reflect" actual { iinstallatiun or, modification.
p p
',
-
.
l.
'
2.
~Additionaljsketchesordrawings'as-necessaryto1 supplement 1the.-
'
l,,
DCP' drawings.
'
x
-
" " ~
'
V
'
-
,
ih.
E 3.
Test and/or' inspection lresults'as applicable.'
~
^
'
'
.
.
F..
.
_
-
L'
<;
'
'
j
,
-
-
c
,.^
- -
,
.2
- J-
,
A.
,
_.-
,
'3
~
-
l'
r
_
.
.
.
,
,
_
s ('
_
Ss
'
'
'
q Q
jqf,
_'
'
'
s
.
,
.
.,
.
_
-p
.
_.
,
,,
.,
,
,, -
...
.
-4.
,
....
.
... - -. +
.. -
- - - -.
,.
,..
_
-
,
_.
--
_
_
--
,
"
.4 f.
-
'
w-
.
"%
-
-
I 1The NPE Onsite Branch forward the original ABPI to Nuclea : Plant-Engineering!in Portland.. The ABP is: received'from NPE Onsite and forwarded totthe. responsible discipline lead designed and action engineer for review and-identification of documents to be changed,' including.the'
,
. initiation of the affected document: list.
,
,
The ABP action engineer evaluates whether the modification as described'
-
in-the ABP meets the general description of the RDC.and.the, specific; requirements of the DCP/PCC/MR/etc. This ' includes a review of any system.
test results.- He reviews the Field Change Notices ~or any other' changes
~
for acceptability. If changes for quality-related. designs have been made.
that require additional evaluations,.a second engineer evaluates the-changes for acceptability and documents -this review on: a Design Review.
.
- Report.-
As summarized by the QAR No. 85-95, the policies and procedures currently.
'in use by the Nuclear Division are being implemented to ensure that '
.,"
- errors similar to those described'in IE Information Notice 85-66 do not
- occur at the Trojan Nuclear Plant.
~
Based onithe observations of this ' inspector, IE Notice 85-66 is:
considered closed;
.
>
.
'6.
Exit Interview
-
The inspector met.with the lic'ensee_ representatives' denoted'in. ^
paragraph'1'on December,13, 1985,fand. summarized the scope,sud findings ~
-
.
of the inspection activities.
,
- ,
- <
,
$['
'
li-
-
- } ; ;-
-
a
+
i
s.
_
'
, +
.9 i'
, % L.s [i
.
,
.
>
'
..
q
- 4-hi -
4.s g,A p -
s g
-
k (
.
,
'
'
,
s
.
,
.
,
. -
,
'
<,
g
.
,
-
k
.
</
"i-
%
("-
- A%
.n.
W m
.
>
a
- y s.
(,
!
f,
-
,djc
+
-
a
~
,
.r.
'
,
'
,
O'-
-
b k
___
.
-.V
h
_
~
y
...-
-
-
, ~
_.
.
'
~
,