ML20039D636
| ML20039D636 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1981 |
| From: | Withers B PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201050292 | |
| Download: ML20039D636 (3) | |
Text
,
p m
RECEIVED e
Portland General ElectricCompany
~
-- [C-D JAN 5 1982> [s agleasur tumuse b
art D wms Vce Ftescent gg
\\y December 31, 1981 Trojan Nuclear Plant Docket 50-344 License NPF-1 Mr. Victor Stello, Jr., Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Mr. Stello:
Attached is a minor revision to Pages 4 of 7 and 5 of 7 of our response dated July 31, 1981, concerning the management inspection [ Number 81-02 (PAS)] conducted by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement. This revision is a result of recent discussions with representatives of Region V I6E for which clarification of PRB record review procedures was requested.
Sincerely, A
^v i
Bart D. Withers Vice President Nuclear i
Attachment I
c:
Mr. R. H. Engelken, Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region V Mr. Lynn Frank, Director State of Oregon Department of Energy 8201050292j00 4
O 121 S W Symon Street Porttard Oregon 97204
Trojan Nuclear Plant Docket 50-344 License NPF-1 Page 4 of 7 COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES PAB. Summary: The Plant Review Board (PRB) and Nuclear Operations Board (NOB) included capable individuals who are active in their review respon-sibilities. There were, however, significant weaknesses in the scope of the PRB and NOB review activities. There was a lack of formalized training for the PRB and NOB members. Furthermore, the review of proce-dure and design change safety evaluations by the NOB was untimely.
PGE Response: Weaknesses in the scope of the PRB and NOB review activities are being corrected by revising Plant Administrative Order A0-2-1, PRB Charter, and Standard Practice Instruction SPI 200-4, Trojan Nuclear Operations Board. Revisions to these procedures are anticipated to be completed and implemented by August 31, 1981. The revision for the PRB Charter will include the following:
1.
A description of the responsibility of the PRB members, as well as a statement of their qualifications for both members and alternates.
2.
The requirement to review records that may involve l
Technical Specification violations and which may indicate operational trends adverse to Plant safety, including such items as NRC inspection reports and PGE responses involving enforcement findings.
These records will be distributed to all PRB members for review. As outlined in A0-2-1, if any member notes a violation or safety-significant trend, he is to identify.this as an agenda item for the next PRB meeting. Audit reports will be-distributed to PRB members for their review.
If any PRB member notes a safety-significant trend or a Technical Specification violation, he is to. identify this for the next PRB meeting as discussed above. Changes to the QA Program are currently reviewed by the PRB; however, PRB members will be added to the distribution list for NOB meeting minutes. NRC Bulletins and Circulars are reviewed under the Plant Operating Experience Review Program A0-9-4; any resulting safety-related changes in plant procedures or design are subsequently reviewed by the PRB; applicable Bulletins and Circulars and their responses are distributed to PRB members for information.
3.
A requirement to include a discussion on-facilities and facility operation in PRB meetings.
4.
A requirement to provide an in-session review of out-of-session' items.
e Trojan Nuclear Plant Docket 50-344 Iicense NPF-1 Page 5 of 7 5.
A requirement for the PRB to make a positive statement in the PRB' minutes on items of obvious safety signifi-cance that " based on the PRB discussion, no (or an) unreviewed safety question exists".
6.
A requirement for the PRB to investigate all violations j
of the Technical Specifications, including NRC enforce-i ment findings and internal audit findings against.the Technical Specifications.
1 7.
A requirement to provide instruction to the PRB members I
on the definition and determination of unreviewed safety questions.
The NOB Charter, SPI 200-4, will be revised to include the following:
- 1. -A requirement that'the NOB staff be assigned the responsi-bility for assuring that all required reviews are com-pleted and to verify the completion of corrective actions for problems or any other actions identified by the NOB.
2.' Clarification as to how dissenting opinions can be and should be documented in NOB meeting minutes and/or inter-office memoranda.
3.
A clarification to better define the functions and respon-sibilities of the NOB members, specifically providing additional guidance concerning review responsibilities to ensure that each new NOB appointee is provided the neces-sary guidance to perform his duties.
In addition, steps have been taken to augment the resources available to support the NOB reviews of safety evaluations. This action had been ini-tiated prior to the PAB team cx11t and is being implemented at the present time.
It is currently planned that the review of safety evaluations and proce-dure changes completed under the provision of 10 CFR 50.59 will be reviewed by the NOB on a quarterly basis. The future use of consultants to provide support for the NOB will be in accordance with quality assur-ance procedures. Procedures for the NOB are being developed to clarify the procurement requirements for such services.
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ - _ _ _ - - - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _