IR 05000344/1985032

Insp Rept 50-344/85-32 on 850831-1002.Violation Noted: Instrument Calibr Data Sheets for Pressurizer Pressure Transmitters Did Not State That Hydrostatic Head of Water in Sensing Line Not Considered for Calibr

ML20210A118
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	10/22/1985
From:	Dodds R, Kellund G, Richards S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20210A072	List: IR 05000344/1985032 IR 05000831/2010002 ML20210A066
References
50-344-85-32, NUDOCS 8511140224
Download: ML20210A118 (9)

Text

.

,

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,

REGION V

Report No. 50-344/85-32 Docket No. 50-344 License No. NPF-1 Licensia: Portland General Electric Company 121 S. W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Facility Name: Trojan Inspection at: Rainier, Oregon Inspection conducted: August 31 - October 2, 1985 Inspectors:

Sf*A. Trich 6rds

[A &

'

/

Date / Signed Senior Resident Ins ector h

G. C. Kellund '

k /e 2-Dat6 Signed Resident Inspector Approved By: /o b J R. T. Dodds', Chief

~

Date'Sigued Reactor Projects Section 1 Summary: ,

Inspection on August'31 2 October 2, 1985 (Report 50-344/85-32)

_

Areas Inspected: Routine inspection of operational safety verification, corrective action, maintenance, surveillance,' implementation of the fire protection program,.. review of the programs for surveillance of core power distribution limits,and ' ore' c thermal power, comp'ression fitting followup, followup on previously -identified items, and inspection of various aspects of plant, operation. ~The. inspection. involved 170 inspector-hours by the NRC Resident. Inspectors'. 29 hours3.356481e-4 days <br />0.00806 hours <br />4.794974e-5 weeks <br />1.10345e-5 months <br /> of inspection were during back shift hour ~

Inspectios" procedures 30703 t40700, 61702^, 61705,.61706, 61711, 61726, 62703, 64704,)71707, 71710,192700,',92701,2 and.93702 were used as guidance during the

' conduct of.the'ihspection'.4

-

_ \**;

X

_

> :. y /_ . . .

Results: One'violati s was* identified concerning calibration of the pressurizer pressure instrument '"

(^ '}

-

,

,

~

- n; ,

a i

% --

,'

k 4 0511140224 851023

• -

{DR ADOCK 05000344 PDR

e--

i

'

.

,

DETAILS

! Per.oss Contacted

• W.S.' Orser, Plant General Manager- ,.

R.P. Schmitt,. Manager, Operations and= Maintenance D.R. Keuter, Manager,; Technical', Services J.D. Reid, Hapager,. Plan _t Services R.E. Susee,' Operations Supervisor "

s-D.W. Swan,/ Maintenance Supervisop A.S. Cohlmeyer, Engineering Supervisor

.

G.L. Rich,f Chemistry Supervisor T.O. Meek, Radiation Prote'ction' Su'perviso S.B; Nichols, Training / Supervisor, D.L.LBennett, Control and Electr,ical; Supervisor

.M.R. Snook, Acting Quality' Assurance' Supervisor

~

R.W. Ritschard, Security Supervisor

~

~

H.E. Rosenbach, Material Control Supervisor J.K. Aldersebaes, Manager, Nuclear Maint. and Construction 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 personne * Denotes those attending the exit intervie . Operational Safety Verification 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 On a daily basis, the inspectors observed control room activities to verify the licensee's adherence to limiting conditions for operations as prescribed in'the facility technical specifications. Logs, instrumentation, recorder traces, and other operational-records were examined to obtain information on plant conditions, trends, and compliance with regulations. On occasions when a shift turnover was in progress, the turnover of information on plant status -was observed to determine that all pertinent information was relayed to the oncoming shif During each week, the inspectors toured the accessible areas of the

-

facility to observe the following items:

a .- General plant.and equipment condition Maintenance requests and repair Fire hazards and fire fighting equipmen Ignition sources and flammable materialJcontro , ,

_ _ _ _

,,

. ; L ..

,

nm

.

.

.1 -+,. .

-

.

W

. . . _ .

' -

- ..

,-..- -

,

- - -- e

,1 se #

M; '

1. . ~'~ - _

-

, ,

gm, n - m 7 -

!

'

Ly n' .

x ~

~ '

. e .- Conduct of activities .in accordance with the licensee's

7 administrative controls.and. approved. procedures.

, . ' Interiors of electrical and control" panels.

l _ Implementation of the licensee's physical ~ security plan.

L ,

' Radiatiou protection controls.

L-

' Plant housekeeping and cleanlines .7 Radioactive waste system ' n r , ,

l1 The licensee's equipment clearance' control'was. examined weekly by the L

. inspectors.to. determine that,the licensee complied with technical L ,

specification < limiting conditions'for operation with respect:to renoval-

, , "of' equipment from service. Active clearances were spot-checked to.tasure y, that their issuance wds consistient with plant status and maintenance:-

'

! evolution .- ,

t- ~ , .

• • i...

'

~, . j I ,, . . ,  ;

.. ..

,

>

..

During 'each weekn the. inspector's2, conversed with operators;in th'.s control-room,;and withl other plant /personnela The' discussions centered on

^

- pertinent topics, relating,to general. plant conditions,' procedures,. ,

L" security, training, and other , topics; aligned with the : work ' activities l D involve L z

~

r 'i

.

'

s . . . .

'

theinspectorsexamine'dthOlic'enisee's'nonconformanceireports(NCR)-to l

. confirm that deficiencies were' identified and tracked by the system. -

' Identified nonconformanbes we're"being tracked a'ad.followed to:the-L completion-of. corrective actio'n.f NCRs reviewed >during this: inspection ^

L

,

. period inc.luded 85-076,85-077,'.

_

,,,.

and< 85 :07 I.ogs of jt$epers, bypasses,< c$ution,; and test tags were examined by [th J inspector Implementation of radiation protection controls was verified -

by observing portions of area surveys being-perforne'd,1whea possible, andl t by examining radiation work permits currently in effect;to:see that-prescribed clothing and instrumentation'were:available and used.

l3 Radiation protection. instruments were also examined.to verifyLoperability "

and calibration statu pc_ -

e y

~

Theyinspectorsverifiedtheoperability:ofzselected' engineered.'sadety; features. This was done by' direct visual _ verification of?the. correct'

~

,

l position of valves, . availability of ' power,(coolinglwaterEsupply, : system integrity.and general condition'of equipment,2as applicable. !ESF syst' en verified operable during this inspection.periodfincluded therstarting air- ~

r and fueltoil systems'for~the 'A'"emergencyfdiese1Tgenerator,:the 'A'; w-p_ (train ,of. the. auxiliary feedwater systemi and ' A'c & 'B'= trains .of the ;480 h -, ~VAC electric syste ,

'

[g . , 4 . .- s

Lz c. S

- No violations"or ' deviations4 were ' identified'. - .

.

g + <

W l -

4: .x

' '

Corrective Action

~

, - -

. . ,

i-o'

-

.

.

, .,

<

d

s

'

[Theinspectorsexaminedfacility; records.toverifythat' quality:relatedf

' deficiencies were: identified.and, reported to_ cognizant-management for -

,

'

1 '

resolution. Records examined by;the. inspectors ~ included' Requests ~for j'

."

._ . Evaluation / Event' Reports,' Plant Review' Board meeting minutes', and ' '

I:

' Quality;AssuranceProgramNonconformanceRyports.1; Plant: Review; Board ,

Y ' e [ Y '

=. p g .;

7 +- +

'

i , ?- , *,

~

+

'

T' .

"E ';I 1 r

, . .

,

~

' -

,

l > : .

'

%

~;,'.... V'

'y ,. , .

-

_ ; .~ . '

.7 ~ -

2 -- a 7; 7 ~ i,  % < m + '

,

-

P'

3:-

g

.

W ,

. s

_w ,

u

,+~v

- *

- - <

,

3 _ _

-

.

' 3 meetings were attended by the inspectors on September 13, September 18 and October No violations or deviations were identifie . Maintenance Maintenance activities. involving preventive and corrective maintenance were observed by the inspectors during the inspection period. On a selective basis, observations 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 inspectorsLverified 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 a discharge' test of -the starting battery for the diesel driven fire pump and calibration of a nuclear instrumentation channe No violations or deviations were identifie . Surveillance 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 the system or component being tested was properly removed from service'if required by the test procedure. Following completion of the surveillance tests, i:3 inspectors 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 was 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 reactor coolanLJsystem flow instrumentation and the solid state protection

.

syste . ,

-

.

6. Followup On Previous Inspection Itesso(

V olation!84-17-01 (Closed): F5ilure..to control a temporary modificationi -During the.past year, th'e licensee has exhibited: increased attention and. awareness in the- area'of . control of temporary modifications; /No1further significa'nt examples of failure to control

,

temporary modifications 'have*been ob, served by the inspector Violation 85-16-01' (Closed): Fa'ilure;to_ document spent fuel _ pool'rerack activities. As discussed in inspection' report 85-16, the licensee

.

L

e- .- .

3 v y .

-. - -+.- *

.?

s - ,

, , , ,

'

Gl - ~ -

L .4 4. -

j ' -

< ~

m

><

determined through review of work. records and discussions with the diving

, contractor that the rack supports were properly installed. The l

inspectors concurred 'with the licensee's determination. No written response was required fo'r this violation.-

i Followup Item 84-02-01 (Closed): Approval of deviations from overtime limits. Amendment 106 to the facility technical specifications placed

- requirements 'for overtime limits in section 6 of the technical specifications. The licensee's administrative procedures clearly delineate the approval requirements for' deviations from overtime limit Followup Item 84-26-01 (Closed): Compression fitting failures. The inspectors reviewed the results of the licensee's program to inspect compression fittings. This effort is discussed in detail in paragraph 11 of this repor '

Unresolved Item 84-34-01 (Closed): Operation.of the hydrogen combiner The licensee has revised operating instruction (OI) 10-3 to properly describe the operation of the recombiners during accident condition Emergency instructions reference 01-10- In addition, the licensee has revised the normal valve lineup of the hydrogen vent system so that it is consistent with operations under accident condition Unresolved Item 85-13-01 (Closed): Evaluation of residual heat removal pump performance. The licensee determined that the pumps could fulfill their safety function with their present operating characteristics. The

- licensee is also considering the relationship between inservice testing requirements and safety analysis assumptions for other safety-related pumps. A more detailed discussion of the residual heat removal pump performance is contained in inspection report 85-2 Unresolved Item 85-13-02 (Closed): Distrepancies with pipe support All discrepancies which have been' identified by the inspectors have been promptly corrected. The inspectors discussed with site management the need to sensitize site personnel to the importance of seismic supports being properly maintained. 'While discrepancies with supports cannot be easily traced to a specific activity, an increased awareness in this area would aid in the identification and. correction of problems by: station personnel. Licensee management agreed with the inspectors in this-regar Unresolved Item 85-16-03 (Closed): Pressurizer pressure instruments not properly calibrated. The licensee determined that the static head of water is required to be considered in the calibration of the pressurizer

. pressure instruments. Licensee event report 85-11 documents the

.

. licensee's review in this area. -The inspectors concluded,that failure t proper calibrate these instruments was a violation, i

Licensee Event Report (LER) 84-21 (Closed): Service water system flow rate problems. As reported in revision-1 of this LER, the licensee has completed an analysis =ofithe< service water system which ~ verified the capability of the system to provide' adequate heat removal at reduced flow

'

ratesi 1The service water stralns now have R20 mil ~ elements which reduce -

- . i s - ,. ~

, ,

'

.

p

y ,;

4 1 3 '

.

'

.m- _

c- , .

i g .#

L , L . - , _

, .- . _

c

.

.

'S

,

T

'the prbbability of clogging and the' licensee will closely monitor the

~

river bottom at the entrance to the. intake structur LER 85-01 (Closed): Auxiliary feedwater control valve control elements not seismically qualified. The control elements have been replaced by qualified elements. -This work was accomplished during the-1985 refueling outag LER 85-04 (Closed): ~ Inadvertent safety injection (SI). This SI was caused by the performance of maintenance activities on two separate channels of instrumentation associated with SI actuation. Because of the plant configuration at the time of-the event,' the'SI had no significant effect on the plan In light of other similar events, the licensee is considering both hardware changes and changes to administrative controls to preclude future recurrence LER 85-05 (Closed): Containment local leak rate test (LLRT) failur The inspectors. discussed the actions taken.and planned as a result of this event with the' cognizant personnel. The licensee was unable to identify a root cause for this event based on the laboratory analysis

_ performed on the failed vent pipe. Inspections of similar test 1 connections revealed nos further discrepancies. The licensee has committed to performing a dye penetrant inspection of the repaired test connection during the 1986 outag LER 85-06 (Closed): Pressurizer level transmitters ~out of calibratio The licensee recalibrated the transmitters which were found out of calibration. The transmitters in question are scheduled to be repl$ced during the 1986 outag No violations or deviations were identifie . Core Power Distribution #

~

The licensee's programs for the surveillance of core power distribution

-

.

limits, incore/excore detector calibration and performance of target axial flux difference (AFD) calculations were examined by the inspector The licensee'_s program; for = determining core power distribution is outlined in procedure PET-1-l',1('Incore Moveable Detectors." The procedure appears ' adequate- tolensure that the reactor ~is operated within theftechnical specification power' distribution limits. In addition, the--

l inspectors reviewed a<recent full' core flux map to verify that the power

, distribution ' parameters t remained within the licensed limit ' +< ( V'! $ s ; Un : o ' -h'

-The inspectors reviewed 4 procedure PET-2, "Incore/Excore Detector Calibration"'and.reviewedithe res'ults of a recent incore/excore. offset violated;and/iha't the proce,"duralvprecautions'and limitations werecalibrati'o followed.' JAdditionally; procedure PET-1-3, "Incore Target Flux

Difference Determination" was 'rebiewed for adequacy. The inspectors

verifie'd-that,the target' flux' difference had been computed properly ~and

" updated at the frequency p,rescr'ibedl by the technical specification ,

-

-c No violations or deviations ~were identifie :",

e a s*

,

.

.

6-

~ 8 .' Fire Protection i I

The inspectors examined the adequacy of the implementation of the l licensee's fire protection program. The examination verified that fire I fighting equipment and. fire' protection systems were properly maintained

~

and tested and were operable in accordance with technical specification requirements. The inspectors-also exa, mined the control of combustible materials and hdusekeeping and verified that materials were properly sto' red'andthat{adequatehousekeepi,ng>wasineffec . .,

~

No' violations o$ deviations were. identifie s .

• Thermal' Power Evaluation '

~, ,

JThe licensee's . program for performing a plant calorimetric calculation was: examined t'o determine its adequacy and to ensure that the plant is being operated within its-licensed power limit. The inspectors reviewed procedure POT-22-1, " Heat Balance' Calibration" and examined data sheets from recent calorimetric tests. The~ inspectors verified that the test procedure was-adequate, that-testing was being conducted at'the proper frequency, that the licensed power limit was being observed and thct adjustment of the nuclear instrumentation was properly carried out when appropriat No violations or deviations were identifie . Plant Operations At the outset of the inspection period, the plant was operating' at 100% '

power. Full power operation continued until September 24 when the-

. reactor tripped on low-low steam generator level due _to a loss of a main feedwater pump. The pump tripped on low suction pressure as a result of flow oscillations in the condensate system which_were caused by work in progress on the condensate demineralizer system. All systems' functioned normally following the. trip. The reactor was taken to mode 5 to repair pressurizer safety valves which were leaking prior to the trip. The plant was restarted on October 1, and remained in operation through the end of the inspection perio No violations or deviations were identifie . Compression Fitting Inspection Program Due to problems with compression fittings which occurred in 1984,.the licensee decided to perform an inspection' program.of selected compression fittings during the 1985 refueling outage. ,The licensee identified instruments inside containment which they felt ~were of significant importance for their initial inspection. Additionally, critical instrumentation outside. containment was later added to the inspectio ~

An engineer was placed in charge'of this program and four maintenance workers'were dedicated to the effort. These personnel'were then trained in the~ proper methods for inspecting and reassembling compression

-

(c ,-

, ,

,

'

fittings. The inspections were accomplished under a matntenance request for each instrument involve The inspectors reviewed the licensee's final report in this area. A total of 145 instruments were inspected which encompassed approximately 2300 fitting Of the fittings inspected, _about- 4% required replacement for such reasons as galled treads, the tubing not properly swaged or shouldered, or the number or orientation of ferrules not correct. To provide added assurance of future proper assembly, the licensee has conducted training sessions with site personnel. Vendor representatives have assisted in this training. Additionally, the licensee is revising their procedure for assembly of compression fitting The inspectors reviewed the-list of instruments inspected with the technical specification instrumentation required for the reactor protective system and the engineered safety features actuation syste The majority of these instruments had been checked, however, the inspectors noted that one feedwater flow instrument, one steam flow instrument,.and five of twelve steam pressure instruments had not been checked. In addition, other safety. related instruments outside containment, such as those associated with the component cooling water -

and service water systems and the refueling water storage tank level transmitters, were not checked. The licensee stated that the effort made during the 1985 refueling outage was not intended to be a complete effort, and that further inspections would.be performed during the 1986 refueling outage. The licensee was still considering which instruments to inspect in the coming outage, including those mentioned abov No violations or deviations were identifie /

1 Miscellaneous Observations "

The inspectors observed the licensee's procedure for determining reactor coolant leakage into the pressurizer relief tank (PRT) did not account for the curvature of the tank when using the tank level change to calculate increased liquid volume. This error can cause a significant change in 'the calculated unidentified leak rate if there is a relatively high leak rate into the PRT. 'The licensee initiated an immediate change to the procedure. 'The inspectors noted that'with the correction in place, the unidentified leak rate was still'within limits; The inspectors noted that the f'ailure of one pump.in the residual heat removal system could, under certain circumstances, cause a reduced flow in the opposite train of the same system. This appeared to be a situation where a single. failure could effect both trains of a. safety

' system. The licensee's licensing organization contacted the Westinghouse Corporation and determined that this issue was apparently addressed and resolved prior to initial plant operation. The licensee has formally documented this concern for review,by the Plant Review Board and will complete their review when all appropriate. documentation has been :

. collected.

LL

, ,

w . , ,'

- ,

"',

~

-

f' r , & , ..

'..*

.; 71 w i . _ . . . - ^ -

a ny _ .,

- : '

-

, g: ,

, ,

.y . . .

-

9 . .

- - ' , -, , ,

S ,

^

. .. ,

M

.

.

The inspectors'also observed an apparent; lapse.._in physical: security

"~ y, measures due to plant maintenanceLactivities in progress.. The inspectors ,

.

brought their concerns tollicensee management?s' attention and'imanediat , , - corrective action was taken. The details.of:this event have been g . provided:to the appropriate'NRC Region V physical security-inspector for

- ,

levaluation:and' followu '

5_

-+ -~,#L

'

No violations or deviations were identifie ~

', -

13. -: Exit Interview,

.

"

' The inspectors met Eith:the Plant General Ma' nager at the conclusion of ythe inspection period. During that meeting,;the inspectors summarized:

'

the scope and findings of the inspectio m s S

~

1. .

5 -

4

&

.1

• f~ - .- g.'

,/

,

-,"

?- i e 4

'

.- y,_, *f n .,

5- _

~

T ,

%

~

's 9 e

• -*

~3

s -~ .,,.

_

' V: *

" ^

s

_

l i I T -

r 4 -

'

-J g h . . . .

• ,

'

t 4 , g

~

'y' -

%E ' . * ^

,

, + ,

l, ' I ' y ~% ,\ ,j ; '

r '- ' 7 %, , . , ^ s q , L;_

. , , ,

I4 '

I,\. . y _Y d- "'y j h, .g y(

, .

- . <, , .

. .

v * { ',

-

'O [ l.4j f '

g, - i: b

'

'

'

-p *z% _

~

?M .t i ,

) *' "

. . : .' ,,

y } ~ g },. w

* geY's.a/ o s-

lt r

_

'-

3j N y- * i& , ' ir %f -- ic _

ghM' . + L i ,% A.1, . . */ A J Q , 5 \ .., t-

.

-

y\ (;/-]$

-

4 ' .-t' w , s ,

'

'

/ -' M'

7 I ,

,

'

M. g .

Op q#8] k , , - ~, ] $ ,

'

' -]a ~'

,,

m' _

L y:. sy

,

. {-,et pm,1*' c hs v gg r o. ,g,, , 3e-_

>

'

'

.

$4 Kya o

- \ 4

&. , - .

- -

. >

.

_

.t ,

,

• #

,d

, *

<<y'G- y q;3j E

_Y n, ,,

4 j i - 't , .

T # - ',$ [

w . >

- [; .

u3- ,

'

s . -

- u_ c v

',

-i#; o

,

sy -<.- . .m a*

- -

, >g p' y

-

,4

*

>

,-

w, , r. - . {s .

-;l -

., s

' k .:%, ',' % >

, +l4

.

--

y; -  %. ,,.g ,

,

~ '

i

, .s

,, y

, 6- '

"'

,

, 5 g

. y; . 7 , ,

~

,

~ d

.

y- '

, .

_

.c

,

.

,

. .

, .

. ../ - . .,

e

,

e -- , .

,, '5' .#- ' '

f_