IR 05000344/1981030
| ML20039B212 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1981 |
| From: | Hornor J, Johnson P, Zwetzig G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039B206 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-344-81-30, NUDOCS 8112220427 | |
| Download: ML20039B212 (3) | |
Text
.
-
,
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY, COMMISSION-0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND,ENF0,RCEhENT'
,
REGION:V
,
'
,
,.
.
..
Report No.
50-344/81-30
.
,
~
Docket No.
50-344
'Licens~e No.
'
' Safeguards Group i
Licensee:
Portland General Electric-Company -
~
121 S. W. Salmon: Street'
Portland, Oregon 97204
Facility Name:
Trojan
.
.
Inspection at:
Rainier, Oregon i
Inspection Conducted:
November 2-6, 1981'
I
/
Inspectors:
J o.)
.
P. H.
ohnson, Reactor Inspector Date Signed lY/lh/
)
D1AtJL
- .
'fC H6rT1or, Reactor Inspector
'Date Signed
/d//[//
Approved by:
G. B. ZCitzig,9 Ch4ef, Reactor Operations Project Section 1 b-Summary:
Inspection on November 2-6,1981 (Report No. ' 50-344/81-30)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of fire prevention program implementation, Plant Review Board activity and Bulletin / Circular followup.
The inspection involved 64 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.
i Results:
One item initially identified during the February-March,1981, Performance Appraisal inspection was determined to N in noncompliance.with Technical Specifications requirements. No deviations were identified.
,
r
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- C. P. Yundt, General Manager
.
- R. P. Barkhurst, Manager, Operations and Maintenance
- C. A. Olmstead, Manager, Technical Services
- A. S. Cohlmeyer, Engineering Supervisor (Acting)
- R. E. Brownlee, Licensing Engineer R. Q. Reinhardt, Nuclear Plant Engineer -
'
The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees during the course of the inspection. These included plant staff. engineers and
'
administrative personnel.
- Present at Exit Interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Unresolved Items (81-24-04 and 81-24-05, Closed):
Housekeeping zones and cleanliness criteria.
Based on discussions with the licensee and examination of selected procedures, the licensee's program was found to be consistent with Section 5.2.10 of ANSI N18.7 for activities comparable in nature and extent to those occurring during the construction phase.
Followup Items (81-24-01, 81-24-02, and 81-2A-03, Closed):
Procedures associated with housekeeping.
Examination of pertinent procedures identified no inconsistency with regulatory requirements. A licensee representative stated that the procedures had been reviewed.and no changes were planned.
3.
Fire Protection / Prevention Program Implementation
!
The inspectors conducted a facility tour to evaluate conditions related to the licensee's fire protection program. Particular emphasis was l
given to fire protection equipment, maintenance activities in progress, l
general housekeeping conditions, and the use and control of combustible
materials. The inspectors observed indications that personnel had l
been smoking in the posted no-smoking area near the hydrogen storage bottles on the control building roof. Observations regarding several items of a minor nature were also made by the inspectors.
Licensee management stated that the inspectors' observations would be investigated.
,
L l
During the tour, the inspectors also observed that it was possible for an individual to enter a controlled area (posted to require a Radiation Work Permit) by an unfrequented route without passing a barrier or warning sign. The licensee stated that the situation would be examined and corrected.
!
l
.
.
.
-2-4.
Onsite Review Comittee Followup The inspection included an examination of actions taken by the licensee
'in response to Performance Appraisal inspection findings regarding activities of the Plant Review Board (PRB). These findings were
~
documented in Performance Appraisal Section (. PAS) Management Inspection Report No. 50-344/81-02.(PAS). The licensee responded to identified'
"below average" areas in a letter dated July 31, 1981, to the Director of Inspection and Enforcement. The licensee had also issued a revised PRB Charter (Administrative Order A0-2-1, Revision 18, September 18,.1981)
in response to PAS comments.
Examination of these documents and discussions with the PRB Chairman resulted in the following inspection findings:
,
a.
A definition of PRB member responsibilities and an attachment defining training requirements for new PRB members had been incorporated into the revised charter.
b.
The revised charter addressed PRB review of certain operating records, NRC noncomp;iance citations and licensee responses thereto.
The licensee's respons? to the PAS. report committed to PRB review of IE Bulletins and Circulars and QA Program changes, although it was indicated t:ct Inis may be changed. Audit reports and Nuclear Operations Board (N0B)~ meeting minutes were being distributed to PRB members,.although the : licensee's response stated that the audit reports would be routed, not d.istributed.
These items will.be examined further during a future inspection.
(81-30-01)
,
,
c.
Although the revised charter did ;not~ discuss-a PRB secretary or an individual responsible for ensuring completion of required s
reviews and corrective actions', the' chairman' stated that these.
matters were his responsibility. Guidance.on'what constituted an unreviewed safety question had been incorporated, along with
,
limited discussion of trend analysis. The Required Action Tracking System was also discussed.
,
i
-
d.
Section IV of the revised charter addressed PRB review of facility operations to detect potential safety hazards.
'
e.
The revised charter provided instructions for in-session and out-of-session PRB reviews. Out-of-session reviews were being I
documented on a "PRB Review Consideration Form." Such reviews were being documented in meeting minutes by attaching a copy of the log sheet listing items routed since the previous PRB meeting.
.
However, paragraph VIII.A.3 of the revised charter, which
'
addressed use of the form, stated that a member's recomendation for approval or disapproval of an item was to be based only on
!
.
,
.
,
.
-3-whether an unreviewed safety question was involved. The inspector stated that this did not satisfy Section 6.5.1.7 of the Technical Specifications, which requires the PRB to take two separate actions:
(a) recommend approval or disapproval of each item and (b) determine whether each item constitutes an unreviewed safety question. The PRB Chairman stated that the charter would be revised further to resolve this concern.
(81-30-02)
f.
Observation (1)(g) of the PAS report identified a potential enforcement finding in that the PRB did not review all violations of the Technical Specifications as required by TS 6.5.1.6.e.
This situation was detennined to represent a violation, and
,
is so cited in the Notice of Violation which accompanies this report.
(81-30-03) A written response from the licensee was not requested, however, since the licensee had taken or identified the following corrective measures:
-
Paragraph V.C of the revised PRB Charter requires the PRB to investigate all violations of the Technical Specifications and recommend corrective actions to the General Manager.
-
Paragraph V.D. requires the PRB to review violations of applicable orders, license requirements, internal procedures,
'
and NRC noncompliance citations and subsequent plant responses.
-
Paragraph IV.E provides guidance on-what constitutes a violation, although further clarification of this section was planned by the licensee.
-
-
Quality Assurance Procedure QAP-16 had been revised (Revision 5, August 31,1981) to provide for QA Staff review of all Quality Notices and Nonconformance Reports. This procedure requires TS violations ~ to be documented on a Possible Reportable Occurrence (PRO) report.
-
Paragraph VIII.F.1 of th'e PRB Charter requires the PRB to l
review all PR0s.
!
l
-
Paragraph V.N of the PRB Charter requires the PRB to review
!
the results of audits and surveillances.
No violations or deviations were identified during this inspection.
One potential enforcement finding identified during the February-March, 1981, PAS inspection was examined during this inspection-and determined I
to be a violation of TS requirements (paragraph 4.f),
5.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee management (denoted in paragraph 1)
_
at the.close of the inspection. The inspection findings were discussed, as set forth in paragraphs 2 through 4.