ML20006C379

Forwards Request for Addl Info in Order to Complete Review of Plant Second 10-yr Interval Inservice Insp Program. Response Expected within 45 Days of Receipt of Ltr

ML20006C379
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	01/30/1990
From:	Bevan R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Cockfield D PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
References
NUDOCS 9002070414
Download: ML20006C379 (6)

Text

T t

Q; s

c t' #

' Ja nua ry.' 30, 1990

~

)

a Docket No. 50-344.

DISTRIBUTION I

16 NRC & Local PDRs

'CTrammell h

JZwolins ki.

PShea

-RBevan 0GC Mr.' David W; Cockfield EJordan 3,

Vice President, Nuclear

-ACRS(10)

'i Portland General Electric Company 121 S.W.-Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 9720.4-

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL'INFORMATION - TROJAN ISI PROGRAM The NRC staff,Lwith technical assistance from-Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Lis reviewing the Second-Ten-Year Interval Inservice' Inspection.

program for the Trojan plant. The enclosure to this letter contains a request' for additional information needed to complete our review.

Please respond within 45_ days of receipt of this letter, m

. Sincerely, original signed by Roby Bevan.

Roby Bevan,-Project Manager Project Directorate V Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, Y and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation o

Enclosure:

Request for Additional.Information cc w/ enclosure:

See next page A

iDRS 'DV S

DV (A)D/DRSP/PDV evan:sg CTr mmell i

PSh 1/y,(/90 1/

90 t g 1/p/90 9002070414 900130 m*

PDR ADOCK.05000344 O

PDC

~.

,y,:

>;e g[

. UNITED STATES

?8' NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION Li l+ -5

< f ::

. wAsHawoTow, o, c. rosss j

g * *.. +,/

January 30..1990-1

)

Docket No. 50-344 1

l) 4

)

1

.Mr.: David W. Cockfield Vice President,-Nuclear Portland General Electric Company 121 S.W.-Salmon Street:

.R Portland, Oregon 97204.-

t

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - TROJAN-ISI PROGRAM

.The NRC staff, with technical. assistance from Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, is reviewing the Second Ten-Year Interval Inservice. Inspection p

program for +.he Trojan plant.' The enclosure to this-letter contains a request for additional:information needed to complete our review. Please respond

.(

within;45> days of. receipt of this letter.

Sincerely, L

Roby Bevan, Projoct Manager Project Directorate V 3

Division of' Reactor Projects - III, '

IV, Y and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

,e

Enclosure:

< Request:for Additional Information.

.cc w/ enclosure:

See.next page k

/

4

,,::;g t

~

vr?

[hki l-j a

.Mrc David W.'Cockfield: Trojan Nuclear Plant

~

Portland General Electric. Company w

CC:-

Senior. Resident Inspector

~ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trojan Nuclear Plant

't Post-Office Box 0 "I

Rainier, Oregon 97048' Mr. Michael J.: Sykes, Chairman

'c Board of County. Commissioners

?

Columbia County

.St. Helens, Oregon-97501 p

- Mr. David Stewart-Smithi H,

L0regon Department of Energy Salem, Oregon 97310 Regional Administrator, Region V'

- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

1450 Maria. Lane, Suite 210

~

Walnut Creek, California.94596 L

~

L4 (4).

N*

~.

r l

o L

f

>} ;.

i re Iu,

. 'ii -

n t

l' i

l 1

M i

'k

t

.j ENCLOSURE.

j

~

4 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

-l TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT 1

DOCKET NUMBER 50-344 j

MATERIALS AND CHEMICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY.

J Reouest for Additional Information - Second 10-Year Interval Inservice

' Inspection Proaram Plan 1.

Scone / Status of Review The information in the Trojan Nuclear. Plant Second 10-Year Interval.ISI l

Program, Revision 0, was reviewed, including the requests for relief

(:

from.the ASME Code Section XI requirements which the Licensee has

?

determined to be impractical.

In a letter dated August 15, 1988,'the NRC requested additional information that was required in crder to complete the review of the ISI Program and relief requests. The Licensee provided additional infor*.ation in the submittals dated October 7,1988 and September 29, 1989, including Revision 1 of the ISI Program, kevision 0 of the ISI Plan, and additional relief requests.

The staff has. reviewed the available information in the Trojan Nuclear Plant Second 10-Year Interval ISI Program, through Revision 1, and Plan, R2 vision _0, and.the additional requests for relief from the ASME Code Section XI requirements which the i.icensee has determined to be impractical, 2.

Additional Information/ Clarification Reouired

, Based on the above review, the staff has concluded that the following information and/or clarification is required in order to complete the review of the ISI Program arid Plan:

A.

Section 6.3, " Class 3 Exempt Components," on page 6-6 of the ISI Program, Revision 1, states that piping and components in the 1

I Class-3 systems listed are exempt from examination by IWD 1220.

7 Paragraph IWD 1220 of-Section XI of the Code does exempt ~certain u

. Class 3 integral.' attachments from examination but does not exempt Class'3 piping from examination. - Tabli IWD 2500-1 of Section XI of I

the Code requires: visual (VT-2) examination of Class 3 pressure retaining components during system hydrostatic and system pressure j

tests. Note 4 of Table IWD-2500-1 states.that there are no -

l exemptions or exclusions from these requirements except as specified in IWA 5214(c).

Provide clarification of the exemptions taken for I

Class 3 systems.

i B.

Paragraph (4)(d) of Section.11.1, " General Criteria," on page 11-2

~

of the ISI Program, Revision 1, states that component connections, l

piping, and associated valves that are 1-inch nominal pipe size and smaller are exempt from hydrostatic testing. This statement only applies in cases where there have been welding repairs made on the.

pressure retaining boundary ~as stated in Paragraph IWA-4400(b)(5).

Confirm that this piping has not.been exempted from the hydrostatic I

testing required by IWA-5000.

}

~

C.

The Code requires both surface and volumetric examinations of certain Class 1 and Class 2 piping welds, whereas the ISI Program

. states that only volumetric examination.is required.

Corrections should be made to the following items in Table A, " Class 1 Section XI~ Summary," and Table B, " Class 2 Section XI Summary," of the ISI Program to include the Code-required surface examination:

J Table A, " Class 1 Section XI Summary," Pages 16 and 17, Items B9.ll and 89.31, respectively.

L Table B " Class 2 Section XI Summary," Page 37, Items C5.ll-and C5.12,- and Page 39, items C5.51 and C5.52.

Note that these are only examples -- the Licensee should verify the correctness of all information in these two tables and make necessary corrections.

4 pq

.r-

h.

J..

[,-

-g -

~ *

,i

_.i D.-

Request for Relief RR B2:

ItLis' stated in the ISI Program that the extent.of examination for Class 2 piping welds has been determined by the 1986 Edition of the ASME Code Section XI. However, in Relief Request RR-B2, relief is requested from_the 1983 Edition, Sumer 1983 Addenda Code requirements for Class 2 piping welds.

This relief request should be revised.to include the requirements-of the 1986 Edition of the ASME Code Section XI for Class 2 piping welds.

The schedule for timely completion of this review requires that the Licensee provide, by the requested date, the above requested information and/or clarifications with regard to the Trojan Nu;1 ear Plant Second' 10 Year Interval ISI Program, Revision 1, and Plan, Revision D.

,1 1

i l

u

-)k i '.

4 I.^

j i

L 3

f<

i