ML20059A405
| ML20059A405 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/20/1990 |
| From: | Kerch H, Strosnider J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059A404 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-344-90-17, NUDOCS 9008230042 | |
| Download: ML20059A405 (10) | |
See also: IR 05000344/1990017
Text
. .
-
.
.-
,
.1.'
_g
.
.
.
1
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION
REGION I'
..
Report No.
50-344/90-17
Docket No.
50-344
License No.
.
-
'
Licensee:
Portland General Electric
121 S.W. Salmon Street
i
Portland, Oregon- 97204
t
Facility Name: Trojan Nuclear Power Station..
Inspection At: Oregon
[
Inspection Conducted: June 4-7, 1990
Inspectors.
N 7
7
- ho
~
g Hafry W. Kerch, Project Manager, NDE
date
Approved by:
d.c
7M0/90
'
/0.fR. Strosnider, Chief, Materials and -
date
jProcessesSection,EPB,DRS, Region-I-
j
Inspection Summary: An inspection to review 1.icensee actions in response to
issues identified in inspection report 89-12 was performed at the Trojan
facility during the period June 4-7, 1990.
The inspection-included interviews-
i
of cognizant personnel and independent review: of licensee, nondestructiye
!
examination (NDE) procedures, NDE records and quality assurance documentation.
,
,
The licensee has made staffing changes, developed new-ISI procedures and
acquired new equipment in order to address the. deficiencies identified in
inspection 89-12. ' All open items from inspection 89-12'have .been: closed and
it appears that the' licensee should make-substantial improvements in the area
'
of ISI during the next two outages'.
1
1
l
t
1
9008230042 900801
ADOCK 05000344
G
,
~
p
_
-
,
1
,
.
.i
'
.
g
.
'
.
.
.
,
1
DETAILS
i
i
1.0 PersonsContacted-(30703)
Portland General Electric (PGE)
C. K. Seaman, NQA General Manager.
W. J. Williams, Regulation Compliance
'
E. J. Feige, Inspection Engineering
B. L. Baker, NDE Level III
F. J. Neiman, NDE Level III, ISI
S. A Bauer, Manager Nuclear Regulation
i
M. H. Schwartz, Site-Regulation Manager
'
T. D. Walt, Acting'VP Nuclear
G. J, Kent, Supervisor ISI/IST
W. R. Robinson, General-Manager
Factory Mutual Insurance
J. Smoot, Authorized Nuclear Inspection' ANII
)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
j
R. Barr, Sr. P,esident Inspector
'
1
The inspector also contacted other administrative and technical personnel
l
during this inspection,
i
,
2.0 Quality Internal Audits
{
j
The inspector reviewed the licensee's audit CKS-256-90 which reviewed NDE
1
contractor ISI programs. The audit was performed, after NRC inspection
89-12, during April 30 through May 11~, 1990.
The audit was found to be'
thorough with good findings; all findings were documented on corrective
i
1
action requests,
b
Results: No violations were identified,
d
4
3.0 . Followup on Previous Inspection Items, (NRC Inspection 89-12) (73753)
'
{rlosed) Violation 89-12-01: An NRC review of-pipe weld radiographs duringL
'
tne period of May 22 through June 2,1989 disclosed that licensee inspected
.
and accepted USAS B31.7, class 2, weld No. P25881R4, on feedwater system
i
"D" contained an indication 3/8 inch in length which was greater than the
1/4 inch allowable length for pipe thicknesses up to 3/4 inch inclusive.
This indication should have been evaluated and dispositioned; however, at
the time of the inspection the licensee had not recorded, evaluated nor
dispositioned the indication.
i
.
,
-
.
,.
.
.
.
.
3
,
Revised plant procedure QIP-17 controlling radiography now requires that
all detected indications be dispositioned and recorded during the inter-
pretation of the radiograph. Also, radiographic coordinators have received-
instruction on the requirements for documenting all radiographic-indications
and their disposition to ensure procedure compliance,
The specific
indication of concern was verified by ultrasonic examination ano evaluated
as acceptable,
This item is considered closed.
(Closed) Violation 89-12-02: NRC review identified several problems with
- reference markings for the piping- systems at Trojan. Weld Nos, P-28372
and P-25B93 each had two zero reference starting points indicating oppostte
directions of inspection, Weld Nos, P-25894, P-25897 and P-25876 had no
zero reference starting points established. Weld No, P-25875 had no weld.
identification stamp.
The inspector reviewed the following corrective actions:
Revised site Procedure QIP-17 (Rev, 0) approved on April 13, 1989, now
clearly provides a system of rules for establishing the zero reference
location.
These rules are identical to.the rules established in Site
Procedure QIP-18, Rev 0 "Zero Reference Location on Data Recording for
.
Nondestructive Examination." This procedure was. developed to ensure a
uniform methodology for establishing zero reference, weld centerline and
indication-size and location recording parameters.
Administrative controls are being established for verification of original
component (weld) identification markings during routine inservice examina-
tions.
Thic will ensure that markings are maintained as required by
governing specifications,
Permanent methods of marking will be used for
all repairs and replacements as required by GWS-1, Rev. Paragraph 5,4.14.
Trojan's General. Welding Standards GWS-1, Rev, 6, Paragraph 4.1,7~ details
the marking system for weld centerline marking for repair and replacement
l
Based on reviews of the above corrective actions, this item is closed.
(Closed) Violation 89-12-03: NRC review identified that there were
ultrasonic search unit changes made during the ISI examination of welds
89-011630, 8v-011580 and 89-011620 and the required calibration checks
.
l
were not performed, Other welds also were identified by the licensee
"
l
during their investigations of this problem where similar changes had
been made.
It also was determined that contractor ultrasonic technicians
did not carry a simulator block to reperform ultrasonic system
calibration checks.
.
W
.
.-
-
...
..
.
-4
The inspector reviewed the licensee's corrective actions regarding these
Concerns.
All examinations performed during the 1989 outage that had changes made.
to the original U.T. system settings without recalibration or calibration
verification (checks) were reperformed prior to the completion of. the
1989 outage.
1
(Closed) Violation 89-12-04: NRC review of ISI ultrasonic data for-
systems 330010, 010030, 011570, 035030 and 301120 revealed the following
deficiencies; ultrasonic examination records did not have sufficient
plots to ensure that proper examination coverage was obtained, recorded
indications were not characterized as defects or geometric in nature and
the ultrasonic reports did not indicate if the indications were
acceptable or rejectable.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's corrective actions regarding these
concerns:
Volumetric Ultrasonic Qa.lity Inspectio.n Procedures have been developed
and are in the final revie,1 process.
These procedures will' require the
following processes'that implement the necessary corrective action for
Violation 89-12-04,
1.
Prior to scheduled volumetric ultrasonic examination each component
'
has its OD and ID profiled (pin gauge /UT thickness measurements)
and geometric conditions identified (root, counterbore, base. metal
characteristics).
,
2.
Volumetric coverage plots are . quired on each exam prior to
,
examination.
Volume coverage is quantified after examination based
i
on scan limitations encountered.
Scan limitations are recorded on
examination data sheets.
3.
All recordable indications must be characterized by'means of beam
plots (geometric, metallurgical or nongeometric).
4.
When indications are determined to be " recordable-nongeometric"
l
(flaws) and sizing is required, an indication resolution data sheet
l
1s completed detailing the steps for acceptance or rejection.
This
process is performed by the responsible Level III. The PGE Level
III is responsible for performing an independent evaluation and for
initiating corrective action when required,
t
5.
The PGE responsible level III will perform and document' surveillance.
monitoring randomly to ensure procedural compliance.
!
Based on the above, this item is closed.
,
.-
4
,
. .
L.
5
(Closed) Violation 89-12-05:
A review of the specific ISI NDE contractors
qualification examinations by the NRC disclosed that the examinations did
I
,
not cover the required specific test areas nor.was it a closed book test.
i
Material was provided to examiners that contained all test answers.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's corrective actions.
PGE has selected Volt Technical Services as the QI, Erosion / Corrosion and
Inservice Inspection contractor for the 1990 outage.
Volt Technical
Services procedures for qualification and certification of nondestructive
'
examination personnel have been reviewed oy qualified PGE Level III
personnel and have been found to be in conformance with ASME Section-XI,
1983 edition, ANSI N45.2.6 and SNT-TC-1A, 1980 edition, including-the ASNT
interpretation panels response to Inquiry 89-1 and 89-2 regarding the
"
specific examination.
!
)
Volt's specific examinations are administered as a closed book
i
examination except that the necessary data such as graphs, tables,
!
specifications, procedures and codes are provided.
!
Volt's specific examinations were reviewed, critiqued, revised as required,
and approved by PGE personnel to ensure that examination questions covered
-
site specific procedures, equipment, codes and techniques.' Specific
examination questions were also reviewed to ensure that they required the
exercise of judgment, synthesis, analysis and computation to the degree
necessary to demonstrate the candidates ability to deal satisfactorily
with real testing situations.
1
The administration and trading of examinations by Volt Technical
Services was witnessed oy PGE Level III personnel.
No violations of the
]
requirements of Volts procedures for qualification / certification of NDE
j
personnel were observed.
i
!
Volt is required to submit to the responsible PGE Level III, individual
personnel certification packages for review and approval prior to the .
!
,
performance of Nondestructive Examinations at Trojan.
Personal resume's
'
were screened by PGE personnel prior to certification-to ensure
experienced, qualified personnel were provided.
Based on the above corrective actions, this item is closed.
'
(Closed) Unresolved 89-12-07 During a walkdown inspection it was noted
i
that anchor bolts for structural steel members shown on drawing C-379,
section "B", were skewed at an angle and the nuts for these bolts did not
appear to be in 100 percent contact with the baseplate or washers. The
presence of fresh grout was evident around the base of the supports and
cracks were found in the concrete wall under many of the support plates.
Cracks also were found under the' base plate shown on drawing C-379 detail
2.
This condition was common to all four steam generators.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's corrective actions.
.
'
-
.,
,
.
.
6
The licensee- performed a walkdown, and subsequent investigation by Nuclear-
Plant Engineering revealed the following conclusions.and observations:
1.
(a)
It is the conclusion of NPE that the. bolts were. installed at a
l
skew because they were: installed after the columns-were set in-
place.
Since the columns are installed at a slope it would be
necessary to drill the holes following = the slope of the column
or at an angle sufficient to clear the flange of the column.
-The skew angles generally align with either of the above.
(b) -The main N-S brace on the backside of the structure that is
anchored to the divider wall between the steam generators was
also inspected and the engineers found no evidence of structural
degradation.
(Note:
normal shrinkage cracks in the groat and
concrete were observed.)
If-the support structure had rotated,
it would be expected to see signs of it in this brace, which due
y
to stiffness would carry most of the load.
(c) Finally, if the columns rotated about the baseplate, then the
1
anchor bolts would'be expecte,d to be lifted off the baseplate
(with a skew).
However, there were no indications of the anchor
'
bolts not being in contact with the baseplate on at least an-
edge. Also, there was no observed plant damage.
L
2.
NPE's conclusion on the grouting.on the facerof the bioshield wall
'
-
was that the NRC inspector was seeing a combination of:the grout
from the grouting of the baseplate running over the wall and-
discoloration / leaching of the grout onto the face of the wall.
3.
The cracks in the concrete and the grout that were observed were-
determined to be normal shrinkage cracks seen in most concrete and
t
4.
(a) The original contract specification 1(F-04) was reviewed (or arv
'
requirements on anchor bolt installation for allowabic skew.
h3
-
references were found on allowable skew.
The'Phill'ps-Catalogs
for 1973 and 1980 were reviewed and no specificati;ns for an
i
allowable skew were found.
,,
(b) The skewed columns were installed to support the constant support-
hangers on the Main steam lines.
These hangers are sized for
13,560 lbs with a maximum travel of 2.3 inches (ref:
EBB-1-2-H-16).
The licensee performed a stress analysis considering the actual
_
configuration of the structural elements and-determined that
the bolts are within specified allowable stress levels.
!
.
i
'
,
!
t
s.
.g
,
t
.
.7
.
5.
These supports were originally designed as whip restraints for the-
1
Since then the shims have been removed and they
j
are no longer required as whip restraints. The structure as it is
s
now used'is minimally stressed.
6.
The latest revision of PMP-4 Installation of C a crete and Masonry
<
Anchors allows a 5 degree skew without further evaluation.
Skew in.
i
.
excess of 5 degrees are only allowed on a case by case evaluation by
NPE. Civil Branch.
This revision is currently being processed.
7.
The: length of tne hanger rods (approx. 6 feet) would preclude any
-significant ',oads from being transferred into support steel in the
N-S direction.
Based on the licensee's above justification, this item is closed,
a
(Closed) Unresolved 89-12-06:
PGE!s March 6, 1986 letter to Westinghouse
1
documented th* r review of the first. ten year inspection interval and
identified several inconsistencies'and missed inspection items. The-
missed inspections were scheduled to be performed during the 1986 outage.
However, NRC review of the 1986 outage ISI records. revealed that support
SR-122 (RH-250!R-19-2), identified in the March 6 letter, had not been
inspected as required. -The licensee had not identified this overdue
inspection and a nonconformance report had not been' issued.
Subsequent to
i
the NRC identifying the missed inspection, the licensee performed visual
examinations of support SR-122 (examinations 308440 and 308445) and issued
nonconformance report 84-214 requiring rework of the support. ENRC did'not
t
perform a complete review of all the ISI records to determine if additional.
f
L
inspection items from the first ten year inspection interval had not.been-
1
completed.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's corrective actions.
The. missed examination of the seismic restraint was documented in a
Nonconforming Activity Report (NCAR).
The missed examination was performed
1
,
and credited to the first ten year interval.
Reexamination was performed
following corrective action completion and the seismic restraint was foJnd
acceptable for continued use.
A review was performed for all other items to be added'to the 1986
examination program, no further items were missed.
PGE is now fully controlling the ISI Program scope and scheduling using a
i
computer sof tware system to better implement and track the large number of
examinations required to ensure code compliance during the second and
subsequent ten year intervals.
Based on the above corrective actions, this item is closed.
,
3
.
.
,
. g
.
I
p-
8
- 4.0 Licensee's Initiatives
In addition to the r.orrective actions described in this report, the
following improvements have been made to the Trojan's ISI nondestructive
examination program, since the NRC inspection' 89-12;
These changes-
represent a-major expenditure of time.and resources by PGE.
A review of all calibration blocks for. the second interval has been
completed for code conformance and to ensure that blocks have been
upgraded to ASME Section V and XI-1983 edition' requirements.
A.
Those blocks requiring upgrading were corrected on site through the
vnaintenance- request process.
All required corrective actions have
been completed.
!
B.
Trojan Nuclear Plant Engineering has developed controlled, as-b'uilt
h
- drawings (issued under drawing series M-ISI-001 through 100) of the
i
ultrasonic calibration' blocks required for the 1990 outage scheduled
!
examinations of the second 10 year-interval
'
Technique development for steam generator primary nozzle inner radius
examinations and calibration block development for scheduled examinations
.
'
during the 1991 outage are in progress.
Specific component dimensions
will be obtained during the 1990 outage, Money has-been budgeted to
fabricate the calibration block this year.-
(
i
Significant expenditures have been made to procure state of-the-art
ultrasonic test instruments and transducers which will enhance the
indicat:on evaluation process by their Level III.
j
By PGE having its own volumetric ultrasonic inspection procedures, it is
new possible to train, qualify and certify plant ptrsonnel to perform
ultrasonic examinations.
This could be a major asset in the. case of a
forced outage requiring ultrasonic examinations or evaluations. This
also will enhance the Quality Services' staff's ability to audit
inspection activities with increased- technical knowledge in the
ultrasonic method.
procedure Review
Site specific volumetric ultrasonic procedures required to accomplish the
scheduled examinations for the 1990 outage have been developed and are in
place.
The status of the procedures required to complete the examination
interval and their respective title and QIP number are detailed below:
9
-
3
...
,
.,
.
,,
.
9-
!
TITLES
STATUS
QIP-18
n
'
Zero Reference Location and Data Recording
Complete
for Nondistinctive Examination.
QIP-19
Ultrasonic Examination of Piping Welds.
. Complete
.2" - 6" T ASME Section XI Carbon /Austenitic.
QIP,-20
Ultrasonic Examination of Cast Stainless Piping
Complete
Welds iASME-Section XI Static and Centrifugal).
,
~
L
QIP-21
Ultrasonic Examination of Pressure Vessel Welds
Complete
!
>2" T (ASME Section V Article 4)'.
1
QIP-22
Ultrasonic Examination-of Pressure Vessel Welds
Complete
2" T and Less (ASME Section V Article 5).
0 5)-23
Ultrasonic Examination of Reactor Coolant Pump
Technique
Flywheels (reg. Guide 1.14).
, Development
QIP-24
U1trasnoic Examination of Bolting
Draft
(ASME Section-V Article 5).
Complete
'l
QIP-25
Ultrasonic Examination of Nozzle Inner Radius
Draft.
Section (ASME Section XI from Shell).
Complete
QIP-26
1
-
Ultrasonic Planar Flaw Sizing Examination.
Complete
Techniques.
,
'
-i
QIP-27
Ultrasonic Examination ef'Reacter-Vessel
Complete-
!
Flange Threads (ligaments).
_
1.
!
QIP-28
Ultrasonic Examination of Reactor Vessel.
Draft
Incomplete
QIP-29
Ultrasonic Examination of Studs.and Bolts
Technique
using Shear Waves from the Access Hole
Development
(Bore Probe).
QIP-30
Ultrasonic Examination of Nozzle Inner Radius
Technique
Section from Blend Radius (ASME Section XI)'
Development
Upon completion of GET training and the security badging process,
'
contract (ISI) inspection personnel received Trojan Inservice Inspection
5
Program indoctrination and training on site specific nondestructive examina -
tion procedures as required by the new administrative procedure A0 3.23
- !
paragraph 4.13.2.
j
l
.
- r:
.
.
..
'
' s
,
.
10
After receiving training in the volumetric ultrasonic Quality Inspection
Procedures (QIP's), examination personnel were required to' perform a
proficiency demonstration on a flawed specimen to the satisf action of PGE
Level III personnel.
Flaws must be detected, recorded, documented and
3
evaluated as geometric, metallurgical or nongeometric.
Proficiency
demonstration mock-ups contain artificial flaws, root convexity and
counterbores which must be discriminated.
10 and OD profiles are
obtained, volume coverage plots are constructed and indication beam plots
are required for indication evaluation.
Proficiency demonstrations are
documented on the applicable data sheets.
The PGE Level III will review all data sheets for. technical procedural
conformance, completeness and. accuracy - All recordable indications will
be reviewed by the contractor level III and the PGE level III. . The PGE
level III will have final disposition of all recordable indications.as
required by A0 3-23, paragraph 4.15.1.
-The responsible PGE level III will perform random surveillance monitoring
of contractor NDE personnel to ensure procedural compliance.
Monitoring
reports will be completed and attribute, check lists have been developed
for each method.
(A0 3-23, par. 4.14.6).
5.0 Unresolved Items
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in
order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items or violations.
Previously identified unresolved items are discussed in Section 3.0 of
this inspection report.
6.0 Management Meetings
<
The findings of the inspection were discussed with licensee representatives
during the course of the in3pection and presented to licensee management
at the exit interview (see paragraph 1.0 for attendees). At no time during
the inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the
inspector. The licensee did not 1.dicate that proprietary information was
involved within the scope of this inspection.
'
4
i
,