ML20054D885
| ML20054D885 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/02/1982 |
| From: | Withers B PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Engelken R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054D880 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204230473 | |
| Download: ML20054D885 (3) | |
Text
-
ENCLOSURE 2 f'
fiECElVE0
- M em ammme POttland General ElectricCompany um
,,_Ld /fR -5 f." j: J p
~~
e s s +,, n : u k w,,n gzx,
April 2, 1982 Trojan Nuclear Plant Docket 50-344 License NPF-1 Mr. R.11. Engelken, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region V Creekside Oaks Office Park 1450 Maria Lane Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94596-5368
Dear Mr. Engelken:
TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT SALP Board Report In response to the SALP Board Report for the Trojan Nuclear Plant covering the period June 1980 through June 1981, attached is our response addressing the one functional area rated Category 3.
This one functional area, " Audits, Reviews, and Committee Activities", has undergone significant improvements.
The attached response defines the steps that have been taken and those that are still underway to im3 rove the performance in this functional area.
We intend to continue our efforte to improve our operations in all functional areas wherever such improvement is beneficial and will lead to improved safety.
Sincerely,
^^
Bart D. Withers Vice President Nuclear Attachment c:
Mr. Lynn Frank, Director State of Oregon Department of Energy 820423o473 121 S W Salmon Street Fbrand. Oregon 972CM
Trojan Nuclear Plant R. H. Engalksn Docket 50-344 April 2, 1982 License NPF-1 Page 1 of 2 SALP Board Findings L.
Audits, Reviews, and Committee Activities PGE Response The weaknesses identified in the area of audit, review, and committee activities are those identified during the PA appraisal inspection which was responded to by our letter of July 31, 1981. As stated in that response, PGE has changed its procedures in response to the weaknesses identified and is making additional changes based on comments from the follow-up inspections subsequent to the PA inspection. Specifically:
The procedures for both the Plant Review Board (PRB) a.
(also see Items b and e below) and the Trojan Nuclear Operations Board (TNOB) have been revised to require review of Notices of Violations and internal QA audit findings which describe a Technical Specification violation. These revisions have been implemented for some time. These actions have been inspected by the NRC regional office with the finding that, based on the corrective actions taken or identified, no further written response is required.
b.
Trojan procedures have been modified to provide for Plant QA staff review of all quality notices and non-conformance reports and to document as a possible Reportable Occurrence any Technical Specification violation found by such reviews. The PRB now reviews all possible Reportable Occurrences.
In addition, all reports of audits performed by the Nuclear Projects Quality Assurance Department are distributed to the PRB for their review.
c.
Nuclear Division procedures are being revised to clar-ify the responsibility and procedure for determining the effectiveness of the overall quality assurance program. The TNOB has been assigned that responsibil-ity and it is revising the necessary procedures accord-ingly. Guidance for making such assessments has been drafted and is currently undergoing further development.
d.
Although the technical expertise of the Quality Assurance Department (QAD) personnel conducting audits are better than the PA audit report implied, our current practice has been expanded to include wherever possible selected individuals from various departments (Nuclear Projects Engineering, Generation Licensing & Analysis, etc) with technical expertise in the functional area being audited on the QAD audit team.
- .'~
Trojtn Nuclear Plcnt R. H. Engalksn Docket 50-344 April 2, 1982 License NPF-1 Page 2 of 2 e.
The procedure for the handling of Plant QA staff find-ings which do not result in a quality notice or non-conformance report but which does involve a Technical Specification violation have been clarified such that each violation is documented and reviewed as a possi-ble Reportable Occurrence. In addition, all Plant QA staff audit and surveillance findings, including those which do not result in a quality notice or nonconform-ance report, are included in the Annual Trend Analysis Reports.
i l
4 i
RWR/4blm7A4
,