IR 05000344/1990008
| ML20034B423 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1990 |
| From: | Huey F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034B421 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-344-90-08, 50-344-90-8, NUDOCS 9004270136 | |
| Download: ML20034B423 (4) | |
Text
,
_
-~
.
- .
'
.
.
.
a
-
..
,
,
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
REGION V
= Report No. 50-344/90-08
-
.
Docket No. 50-344
,
' License No. NPF-1 Licensee: Portland General Electric Company
'
121 S.W. Salmon Street
'
Portland, Oregon 92704
,
Facility Name: Trojan Nuclear Plant
-
Inspection ati Rainier,,0regon-Inspection Conducted: iMarch.12-23, 1990 Inspector.:
W. J.iWagner, Reactor Inspector App, roved by: M Ub
/0 fb 5g F. R. Huey', Chief --
D6te Signed i
.'
Eiigineering Section)
,i -
,
,
Sununary: -
.,.
.
'
l
.
12-23 1990-(Report No._ 50-344/90-08)
'
InspectionsDuring the Period of March Areas Inspected: -A routine unannounced inspection by a region based inspector of the licensee's, design changes and associated quality, verification-activities.
Inspection Procedures 30703, 35702, 37700 and 37702 were used as
'
i
guidance for the inspection.
'
'
Results:
General Conclusions and Specific Endings The licensee's QA organization has taken_ increased interest in assessing
'
engineering activities. Design basis documents are reviewed.to assess changes needed as a result of design changes.and modifications.
Drawings are revised appropriately to provida timely update on completed design changes and modifications.
Significant Safety Matters: None i
Summary of Violations or Deviations: None
.
%
Open Items Summary: None
[Ok42[Ohibk Obb
0
.
'
.
.
'
.
DETAILS
,
,
1.
Persons Contacted i
- D. W. Cockfield, Vice President, Nuclear
- T. D. Walt, General Manager, Quality Services:
Technical Functions
- J. D. Reid, Branch Manager,
- C. P. Yundt, General Manager, Trojan Plant
- M. Hoffman, NPE Branch Manager
,
- J. Mody, Branch Manager; Plant Systems Engineering
- S. A. Bauer, Manager, Nuclear Regulation
- R.
Nelson, Manager, NSRD
'
-
-
- D.' Couch, Compliance Engineer
,
- B. R. Naik, QA Engineer
~
J. A. Benjamin,-Quality Audit Supervisor
-;
W. J. Williams, Regulatory Compliance Specialist i
K. Benguiat, Preventive Maintenance Supervisor.
C. Dieterle, Acting Branch Manager, Mechanical
'
J. Wheeler, Mechanical Engineer, Level III M. Hauck, Mechanical Eng neer, Level III R. Lewis, Senior Mechanical Engineer
'
- Attended the Exit Meeting on March 16, 1990.
2.
Quality Verification Function (35702)
!
.The Quality Audit Group conducted an audit of Nuclear Plant Engineering-(NPE) on February 19 through March 2, 1990. 'The audit consisted of'six team membersj the team leader and two auditors were from the licensee's QA organization.
Combined, the auditors had the necessary qualifications for auditing the engineering areas covering such subjects as environment qualification (EQ),. mechanical / civil, as-built configuration and electrical. The audit results identified deficiencies in the design process such as, design changes _ occurring under a Maintenance Request,
-
!
lack of EQ for electrical equipment, and inadequate design calculations.
i Evidence of management involvement in plant activities is documented in Rover Surveillance Report No. 90-004-R0V, dated March 12,-1990.
The QA Audit Supervisor while on tour of t S Control Room identified the failure of a technician to independently verify lifted / landed leads.
l l
No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Design Changes and Modifications (37700)
In selecting areas to inspect, the inspector considered the guidan:e provided in PRA data prepared specifically to the Trojan Nuclear Plant
'
Design, as described in Technical Report TR-A-3875-T28, Rev.0, entitled
" Risk-Based Inspection Guide (RIG) for the Trojan Nuclear Plant" dated l
December 1989.
There were no facility modifications planned for the 1990 i
outage that required prior review and approval by the NRC. 'The following
Request for Design Changes (RDCs) were selected for review:
t
g E
- n p
- .
=:
,
"
.
RDC 86-018:(Service Water System): -Title:
" Improve Service Water-5 trainers." This RDC was for installation of conductors: for solenoid
-
valves and air operators on control ' valves in-the backwash drain lines of-Service Water Strainers F101 A and B.
a
, RDC 87-029-(Reactor Nonnu61 ear Instrumentation System):
This.RDC was
'
'
l-
' initiated to replace 12 RC flow electronic transmitters with new units
' '
po_ssessing: lower! demonstrated drif t and zero-shift characteristics.~
,
RDC-89-001 -(Genehic' iRDC affecting various systems):
Title:
'
" Miscellaneous Pipe / Pipe-Support Problems.".A Detailed Construction'
l
+,
'
Package (DCP) is part'of=the, detailed design ~of a RDC containing design-information in' sufficient; detail to permit.the work to be done.
DCP No'.
-
12 for RDC 89 001;isifor, replacement of Service Water piping for the jCentrifugal:ChargingPumplube'oilcoolers._
' RDC 89-009 Containment Air Coolers), DCP No.1:
Title:
" Containment Air
>
Cooler,(CAC) Joint Repair." This DCP wOl repair, by welding, a failed-CCW header to CAC manifold' brazed joint.
The-brazed joint is currently:
.
sealed with Furmanite and is scheduled for completion by the end of 1990 outage in accordance with JC0 89-012.
Each of the RCPs were reviewed for compliance with Technical
.
Specifications, 10 CFR 50.59 (safety evaluation).and approved procedures.
-
Associated with the RDCs are the Design Input Records (DIRs).. The DIR
.
lists 30 items for consideration-during the preliminary: design phase, one-
of which is the applicable Design-Basis Doc ~ument.
Each-item listed on
.
the DIR is considered to be either:
"(A) applicable as noted on the number indicated, or, (B) _not applicable and indicated N/A (or none).jage The inspector noted that the DIR for the containment air coolers (RDC'89-009) indicated "N/A" for DBD.
The inspector questioned the action engineer as to the justification for determining the DBD-to be unaffected by the design change.
The action engineer stated that "N/A" was not
,
right since the DBD would be affected.
The DBD was subsequently revised-
<
and issued on March 15, 1990, along with a DCN to change the affected DBD.
The revised DIR indicates that the design basis will not be altered by the modification, but certain paragraphs in the~DBD need to be revised to reflect the modification.
The inspector's concern was;whether this need to revise the DBD would have been identified prior to completion of the RDC.
However, a second opportunity is provided in the procedure,
" Processing of As-Built Packages," NDEP No. 200-15, which requires the t
action engineer to review the DBD for any necessary changes to reflect as-built conditions.
The inspector also noted that DCP No. I to RDC 89-009 was issued to Plant Systems Engineering (PSE) without approval from the Plant Review Board -
(PRB) or the Trojan General' Manager.
NDP No. 200-1 requires PRB reviews of the preliminary design and safety evaluation, prior to PSE forwarding the Maintenance Request to the Construction Work Group. 'The concern was-
'
that the modification addressed in DCP No. 1 could proceed without these reviews.
It turns out that other procedures assure that these reviews and approvals are obtained prior to work beginning.
Specifically, Administrative Order: A0 2-1 requires a completed PRB package have the
,
t y
,
.
,
.
,
,.
'
..
3'
"
'
.
,
,
e e
.
TrojanLGeneral Manager's approval and PSEP 20-7' requires verification of PRB review prior to implementation of the DCP.
<
,
The inspector'revi wed two completed RDC packages,83-061 and 87-001,-to
-
jerify that the P& ids ~were revised to show the as-built plant
,,
.M '
configuration, -All the^ associated DCNs were found to have been J
incorporated into,the applicable P&ID.
]
,.
.,
.
-
,
The inspectorgverified,that design changes / modifications completed in.
'
'
- '
.
r1989 were rdported in a'ccordance with 10 CFR 50.59.
These. plant
~
"
< Yi n-modifications and design changes were documented ~in PGE 1015-89 entitled
'"An'nual Report of Trojan Nuclear Plant for 1989."-
j
-
No vioihtionst or deviations were identified.
,
4.;fDbsign"CNa'ngesandModificationsProgram(37702)
-
~
I
,The following procedures were reviewed during this inspection:-
~
,
'
A0 2-1
" Plant Review Board Charter" Rev.- 28 PSEP 20-7
" Review of Design Document" Rev. 2 NDP 200-1
" Design Change Control" Rev. 9 NDP 200-6
" Design Basis Documents"-
Rev. 2 NPED 200-6
" Preparation of Engineering Drawings" Rev. 2
..
NPED 200-11
" Verification of Design" Rev. 1 NPED 200-14
" Detailed Construction Package Rev. 8 Preparation and Control" _
NPEP 200-15-
" Processing of As-Built Packages" Rev 8 NPEP 200-18
" Plant Modification Structural 1Rev. 0 Interface Control" These procedures address control of design change request, 10 CFR.50.59 safety evaluation design organizational responsibilities for. review and approval of design documents, and administrative controls for release and
-
distribution of approved design changes.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Exit Meeting The inspector met with licensee representatives denoted in paragraph 1 on-March 16, 1990. - During this meeting the inspector informed the licensee that-the inspection period would be extended for further. review in Region-V of documentation of Design Program procedures.
The scope and findings-of the inspection were discussed as described-in this report.
!
i i
i
<
i
.
I
/
J
.