ML20043H825
| ML20043H825 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/07/1990 |
| From: | Zimmerman R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043H818 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-344-90-11, NUDOCS 9006260487 | |
| Download: ML20043H825 (2) | |
Text
.
y
[%
i APPENDIX A' NOTICE OF VIOLATION-j Portland General Electric Company
-Docket No. 50-344 Trojan.NuclearPlant-License No.:NPF-1 During an NRC inspection conducted from March 25 through May 5 1990 one l
violation of NRC requirements was identified.- InaccordancewIththe" General j
Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, j
Appendix C.(1989), the violation is listed below:
j A.
10 CFR Part 50 Appendix 8, Criterion.V. states in part:
" Activities i
affecting qual ty shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures or drawings of a t it to-the circumstances and ordrawings."plishedInaccoypeappro)tae shall be accom rdance witi these instructions, procedures, 1)
Nuclear Division Procedure-(NDP) 600-0 Revision 4, " Corrective ActionProgram(CAP),"datedFebruarku$3atlngSupervisordisagrees 1990,. paragraph.A 3.3 of Attachment H states:
"Where the Eva a
with MCAC's conclusion that the condition constitutes =a
, L nonconformance, the following actions shall be taken:
A.
Review the CAR with MCAC and obtain concurrence that a nonconformance does not exist and...
j C.
Once concurrences have been achieved, document:why.the j
nonconformance does not exist and return the CAR with concurrence from the next' higher level of management to Quality l
Services.
If the nonconformance involved hardware, concurrence must also be obtained from.the Manager, NPE."
q
'Cor trary to the above, on Apri1 14,:1990, the Evaluating-Supervisor for CAR C90-3075 did not perform paragra)hs A.3.3. A., and A.3.3.C; of-A'.tachment H to NDP 600-0 Revision 4, w1en he disagreed with the ManagementCerectiveActIonCommittee's(MCAC)conclusionthat v
C90-3075 was a sonconformance.
2)
Administrative Ordei (AO) 13-1, " Inspection Control," Revision 6, dated March 5, 1990, pcragraph 4.5.1 requires,-" Prior to reaching a step which requires QI inspection, the-assigned work group supervisor or designee shall notify the Mechanical or Electrical QIS-or designee."
Contrary to the above, on' April 10, 1990, while conducting maintenance per MR.90-0528 on M0-2053A, a designated work grou) supervisor did not notify the Electrical: QIS or designee for tie inspection holdpoint designated for step 6.b.
l 2
9006260487 900607 PDR ADOCK 05000344 0
- t x t.
H
' 3)
AdministrativeOrder(AO)12-4,"MaterialIssuing,and:InstallaticC Revision 27, dated 4 arch 6 1990' paragraph 4.1.3.a. - requires ;"If.
the identification ~ for an Item becomes lost or illegible:
the iteni shall be documented and controlled as specified in NDP. 600 i (reference 5.28)."
Contrary to the above torqueswitchforM0-1053AwasnotlegibleheidentificationofThe-on April 10, 1990 t and was.not controlled per NDP 600-0,- i.e. CAR tag -attached.
p Pursuant to the provisions of 10' CFR 2.201, Portland General Electric Cor.pany.
is hereby required to submit a written statement of explanation to'the l'.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,- ATTN:
Document Control Desk, Washington. DC!
l
.20555 with a copy to the Regional: Administrator, Region V, and a copy to the
- NRC Senior Resident-Inspector, Trojan, within 30 days of:the date of the-
- letter transmitting this Notice.
This reply should _be clearly marked as a ' ?
" Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation: (1)~4 the reason-for the violation if admitted (2) the corrective steps-that'have l
been taken and the results achieved, (3),the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and -(4) the date when full compliance.will l
be achieved.
If an adequate reply is:not. received within.the time specified 1
.in this. Notice, an order may be issued to show cause why the license should u
.not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be L
proper should not be taken, Consideration may be given to extending'the-1 response time for good cause shown.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY,COMMISSIONL R. P.- L erman, Director Division of Reactor Safety'and:
Projects Dated at Walnut Creek, California j
. this 12 day of June,1990 1
i
(
%. :