ML20247C143
| ML20247C143 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/29/1989 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Cockfield D PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247C147 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8909130259 | |
| Download: ML20247C143 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000344/1989009
Text
m
7 7.
W.
' p asg
.0~
E
o
UNITED STATES
,[
g,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.
_ .7
- r,
fj
.
REGION V
g
tema MARIA LP SUITE 210
-
g
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596
.
- ...+.
AUG 2 91989
)
4
]
Docket No' 50-344
.
Portland General Electric Company
121 S. W. Salmon Street, TB-17
Portland, Oregon 97204
' Attention: Mr. David W. Cockfield
Vice President, Nuclear
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT: NRC' INSPECTION OF.THE TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT
This refers to the special' announced inspection conducted by Messrs. Narbut,
,
Wagner, Burdoin. Clark and Hon, of this office, and NRC contractors Messrs.
Haller, Houghton, and Jew, on May 22 through June 9 and a followup inspection
by Mr. Narbut on July 19 through 21, 1989. The inspection was related to
activities authorized by NRC License No. NPF-1. At the conclusion of the
inspection, the findings were discussed with you and other members of your
!
staff on June 9 and July 21.-1989.
Overview and Summary
This' inspection was an overview of your own Safety System Functional
)
Inspection (SSFI) to determine your effectiveness in identifying and
1
correcting design vulnerabilities. Additionally, the team examined your
progress in the design-basis document program and in related committed
,
programs for. engineering procedure improvements, technical manual updating,
drawing updating and certain specific design documents such as the updating of
thequality-relatedlist(0-List).
4
In order for the inspection team to adequately review these prngrams, the team
performed an abbreviated independent SSFI type inspection on systems that had
been previously reviewed by your programs. The SSFI
reviewed included the Control Room Ventilation (riVAC) packages that were
System and 120 VAC
preferred power system.
In assessing the associated systems and modification packages, the team
focused on the design basis of the systems and the ability of the engineering
staff to evaluate and maintain the design basis, when modifying the systems
and during system operations. The team evaluated the actual implementation of
the design basis through maintenance, surveillance, testing, and plant
operational aspects associated with the selected systems.
.
'
The team inspection findings and recent events at the Trojan Nuclear Power
Plant indicate that the expectations of PGE management are not being fully
carried through by the licensee's staff and supervisors. Examples identified
by the team include incomplete implementation of design change actions,
8909130259 890829
Ig
ADOCK 05000344
a
FDC
_ _ _ - _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
___
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
__-
'
.
-2-
AUG 2 91933
,
-
unrecognized effects of remote control building doors on control room pressure
.
and unrecognized problems with ventilation duct s-
Torts requiring rework for
operability. Additionally, incomplete evaluation of hydrogen hazards was
identified by an NRC chemistry team, and debris in the containment
recirculation sump and subsequent incomplete cleanliness and. design
verification of the sump was identified by the resident inspectors. The most
disturbing facet of these problems is that PGE management systems are not
identifying these problems. Accordingly, we urge you to give additional
attention to strengthening your management systems to ensure they function
properly and identify and evaluate problems for prompt resolution.
Team Findings
The team found that the licensee had generally implemented the committed
programs to enhance the understanding and implementation of the plant's design
basis. The licensee had developed design basis documents in accordance with
its schedule and had taken other actions (such as having an independent
outside contractor review critical calculations for completeness). The
licensee described additional actions planned to increase the involvement of
engineering personnel in plant activities, including the movement of the
entire engineering staff to the site in August 1989.
The inspection of the systems and modification packages identified a number of
d:fi t :f:: :.d raised significant questions. The team's findings indicate
three areas of weakness which are sumarized as follows:
The engineering and site organizations have been slow to recognize and
deal with problems
Self-revealing problems of control room positive pressure being adversely
affected by remote auxiliary building fire door positions were evident in
event reports in 1987, but were not dealt with until the team inspection.
Likewise,' problems with new inverters causing frequency swings on 120
volt vital AC power buses were identified in 1987, after installation,
but were not thoroughly assessed until the team inspection.
Engineering work has been incomplete
Relatively recent design change work performed by Portland General
Electric (PGE) was found to be incomplete. Examples' include:
failure to
account for 480 volt load additions to the vital buses when adding a
supplemental control room ventilation system; failure to assess the
impact of new inverters on the vital DC system; and failure to recognize
and evaluate the possible consequences on the emergency control room
ventilation system of a possible tornadic missile from a roof-mounted
chiller.
Engineering-to-site coordination needs improvement
l
Essential operating documents have not been consistently provided or
updated to reflect completed design changes. Examples include failure to
provide a ventilation flow diagram for a supplemental control room
ventilation system, failure to update annunciator response procedures for
120 volt vital AC power, and installed ventilation supports did not match
design drawings.
l
_-
. _ _ _ _
-
,
-3-
i
-
1 - "'
AUG 8 91983
i
'
l
l
.
l
With regard to the conduct of your SSFI program, we are encouragea that you
'
l,
have undertaken this initiative. The team noted, h wever, t only one such
SSFI was conducted thus far, and that it was conducted by cuatractors with
little licensee support, due to an unplanned outage.
Your contracted SSFI,
though limited in scope, uncovered a number of important findings; which at the
time of our inspection were, largely, still unresolved. Therefore, we
encourage you to aggressively continue your efforts to conduct additional such
inspections and to apply the lessons learned from your first experience. When
properly conducted and followed, we cor. sider this type of effort to be of
value in identifying problem areas, before those problems becoming
self-revealing.
With regard to the development of der,ign bases documents, we are encouraged
that you have undertaken this initiative. Our inspection indicated that your
efforts to date were primarily directed at the reconstitution of existing
design bases information; but, your efforts have not been systematically
j
directed toward ensuring that design basis information is complete, sound, and
fully implemented (i.e., that design vulnerabilities and implementation
errors are identified, understood, and appropriately addressed). This was
made clear by the fact that extensive rework was necessary for ventilation
supports, as a result of our review of your original design calculations.
Additionally, we determined that some design basis documents have not been
updated to reflect recent design changes. We understood that maintaining the
design basis documents was intended to be part of your program to ensure
design bases are properly implemented. We encourage you to continue your
development of design basis information, particularly those aspects which will
identify design vulnerabilities and implement corrective or compensatory
measures successfully such as comprehensive walkdowns.
Based on the results of the inspection, it appears that certain activities
were not conducted in full compliance with NRC requirements, as set forth in
the Notice of Violation, enclosed herewith as Appendix A.
Your response to
this Notice is to be submitted in accordance with the provisions stated in the
Notice.
In addition to the response directed by the enclosed Notice, please provide a
written response discussing your management plans regarding your systematic
efforts to identify and resolve design vulnerabilities through future SSFI's
or other processes.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosures
will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notices are not subject
j
to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required
l
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased
to discuss them with you.
Since ely,
'Enk
John B. Martin
Regional Administrator
I
_ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
, , , ,
_. ..
..
-
_
-
-
. _ _
--
_ _ . _
_
-
. _
_
,
,'
A:
r-
.L. . .
4.
AUG 2 9123 -
..
[ Enclosures:-
.,-' .
'
~
-I.
Appendix A (Notice.of Violation)
.'
, :;
2.;
Inspection Report No. 50-344/89-09
.
cc w/ enclosures:
T. D. Walt, PGE'
C. P. Yundt, PGE-
L.'A. Girard,.PGE
,
W. Dixon, DOE-
..
'
' ,
.
k
l
'
l .
_
.
.
I
___ ___ _-. _ _ - _ - _ - - -
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
n
s.
-4-
>
,
'
Enclosures:
"
'
.:.
1.
Appendix A (Notice of Violation)
.
2.
Inspection Report No. 50-344/89-09
cc w/ enclosures:
bec w/ enclosures:
bec w/o enclosure 2:
T. D. Walt, PGE
Project Inspector
J. Martin
M. smith
C. P. Yundt, PGE
Resident Inspector A. Johnson
J. Zollicoffer
i
L. A. Girard, PGE
docket file
N. Western
W. Dixon, DOE
R. Nease, NRR
l
B. Faulkenberr"
f
' y'
i
,
PNa'rbu't 8//8/89
8/
urhon/nw
fXRn
Wa er
'
t[1889
8/f7/8
8//gf/89
8// /89
/
l(fjBQUEST COPY.J JESU{ST COPY ]
- QU{ST COPY jf)YES4EQpESTCOPY],pESlEST COPY
AES t / NO
FTYES / / NO
]
ffES// NO
y
/ NO
YYES; / NO
-
(
794endonca
d
y
AJohnson
AChaffee 8/26/89
8/
2g/89
8/>l/89DKirg]
8/lT(89
8/g
9
(pb
M ST COPY
REQUEST COPY ~
ST COPY ] REQUEST
i
EST COPY ~
YES J/ NO
YES / A '.
ES / NO
] YES / NO
' YES / NO
'.1
'
e an
l
Y
]
/
,
l
D TO PDR
'
/ NO j
l
- _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ -