ML20148B403

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Assures NRC of Commmitment to Procedural Compliance. Verification of Literal Compliance Emphasized to QA Personnel & Plant Procedures Are Being Revised to Provide More Definitive Criteria for Quadrant Power Tilt Ratio
ML20148B403
Person / Time
Site: Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date: 02/22/1988
From: Cockfield D
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To: Martin J
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
Shared Package
ML20148B371 List:
References
NUDOCS 8803210499
Download: ML20148B403 (2)


Text

y _

.. e.

e

  • ummm. mmmme HE. U C OII V W IY David W. Cockfield Vice President, Nuclear February 22, 1988 Trojan Nuclear Plant Docket 50-344 3 License NpF-1 m p

@ 50 @

Mr. John B. Martin N

  1. $2 Regional Administrator, Region V -Q;{" g U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission g" Creekside Oaks Offica Park 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 $

Walnut Creek CA 94596-5368

Dear Mr. Martin:

Response to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Letter of January 22. 1988 By letter of December 30, 1987, Portland Ceneral Electric Company (PGE) responded to two Notices of Violation regarding procedural noncompliance and failure to properly implement a Technical Specification requirement.

On January 22, 1988, you responded to our letter reemphasizing the need for aggressive action in the area of procedural compliance and identifying concerns with quality verification activities and the time frame proposed by us for determining quadrant power tilt ratio (QPTR).

We would like to assure you of our commitment to procedural compliance.

This message has been clearly sent to all employees through supervisor meetings and General Employee Training. The feedback we have received from supervisors indicates the message has been understood. Disciplinary action has been promised for any willful noncompliance. We recognize that stemming this problem involves more then just correcting people's actions, it involves changing attitudes. We intend to continue to emphasize this issue and to monitor the success of our actions.

One of the violations we responded to on December 30, 1987 dealt with failure to properly implement a Technical Specification surveillance requirement. In your January 22, 1988 letter, you expressed a concern with the area of quality verification due to the duration of this discrepant condition. We have had in place for the past several years, a program to systematically verify compliance with Technical Specification requirements, including coverage of each Technical Specification surveillance requirement in Plant procedures. It has been emphasized to quality assurance personnel that literal compliance needs to be verified. A recent audit conducted of reactor physics requirements indicate a generic problem does not exist.

8803210499 880311 PDR ADOCK 05000344 Q DCD 121 S W Samon Sreet Pcc3d C cwn 97204

  • O, a N W BOChiCCGuipsiy Mr. John B. Martin February 22, 1988 Page 2 Finally, your letter stated our assessment of a reasonable time frame for determining QPTR did not appear to be consistent with the time frames for similar determinations et other nuclear power plants. Plant procedures are being revised to provide more definitive criteria for determining if an indicated QPTR exceeds the Technical Specification limits. Within two hours of a valid QPTE alarm, the alarm condition will be' rectified or the power reiuced in accordance with the Technical Specifications. The validity of the QPTR alarm will be detecmined by examining other core or primary parameters.

We trust this information is responsive to your concerns. We are confident our actions will prevent further problems in these areas.

Sincerely,

) / ,

c: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Mr. William Dixon State of Oregon Department of Energy Mr. R. C. Barr NRC hesidcnt Inspector Trojan Nuclear Plant

,