ML20202C289
| ML20202C289 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/07/1986 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Short R PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8607110196 | |
| Download: ML20202C289 (3) | |
Text
r
- -- i s
JUL 071986 Portland General Electric Company 121 W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Attention: Mr. Robert H. Short Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
Dear Mr. Short:
During my visit to the PGE corporate offices on May 6,1986, I took the occasion to discuss with you and Mr. Lindblad, PGE President, concerns which this office had regarding the lack of strong emphasis by PGE on actively seeking out problem areas. As an example, we discussed the results of a recent inspection by this office which had revealed the near absence of quality control involvement in maintenance activities at the Trojan plant for many years.
This finding followed an equally disturbing finding earlier wherein the Quality Assurance Manager was not badged for access to the Trojan plant. We consider the Quality Assurance organization a direct extension of management and one of the key mechanisms by which senior management is continually apprised of the overall effectiveness of its nuclear activities.
During our meeting on May 6, I also discussed with you, briefly, a developing concern regarding evidence of restrained thermal growth and resulting overstress of the reactor coolant system (RCS) piping.
I told you at that time that I suspected this was an instance of where PGE had not actively pucsued symptoms of a problem. The purpose of this letter is to followup on I
our prior discussion regarding that concern. Developments since our meeting on May 6 have revealed the following:
i l
1.
It has been confirmed that the RCS piping was subjected to restrained thermal growth and resulting stress levels in excess of design thermal l
loading conditions.
1 2.
There were apparent opportunities commencing in 1982, which if pursued could have provided earlier identification and correction of the l
condition of restrained thermal growth.
l 1
3.
At the time of our meeting on May 6, PGE's plans for evaluating and correcting conditions which led to restrained thermal growth of the RCS were not satisfactory and had to be expanded to insure; i
)
(a) thorough inspection of the RCS for evidence of the causes of restrained thermal growth, (b) a thorough root cause analysis of previous steam generator hydraulic l
snubber failures,
\\\\*
8607110196 860707
[
PDR ADOCK 0500 l
Q L-
,/
i 2
JUL 071986 (c) adequate technical oversight of PGE's consultant involved in thermal expansion and RCS piping analyses, and s
(d) the development of an effective monitoring program to verify the adequacy of corrective actions during subsequent heatups of the RCS.
4.
Upon completion of PGE's expanded investigative efforts the problem of restrained thermal growth of the RCS was found to be more extensive than initially assessed by PGE's technical staff at the May 6 meeting.
To PGE's credit, once the full extent and nature of the problems were recognized, appropriate corrective actions were taken and the problems were satisfactorily resolved. My concern, therefore, is not with PGE's overall technical competency to satisfactorily handle engineering problems, nor am I concerned that the Trojan plant is being operated unsafely.
I am concerned, however, about the missed opportunities over the years and by the excessive prodding required by the NRC staff in this instance to finally assess this problem thoroughly.
I believe this is an example which illustrates, that PGE is not as aggressive as they should be in searching out their own problems and may be an indication that you are becoming overly dependent upon the NRC to identify problems needing attention.
I have discussed this concern with your management on several occasions in the past, and have emphasized the need for a self-critical attitude by PGE to learn from past experiences.
I have taken this opportunity to make sure my concerns are communicated to and understood by the highest management level within PGE.
My staff and I plan to meet with members of your staff in the near future to review in some detail performance improvement initiatives discussed by Mr.
Withers in his letter to this office of June 20, 1986. The success of such initiatives will be largely dependent upon the attitudes, direction, and involvement of PGE top management.
I would be pleased to meet with you and members of PGE's Board of Directors, if desired, to discuss any questions you, or they, may have regarding the points I've attempted to communicate in this letter.
Please let me know if such a meeting would be beneficial.
Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated.
MI}#h. c'd by 3
nha 0, Martin J. B. Martin Regional Administrator cc:
W. J. Lindblad, PGE B. D. Withers, PGE W. S. Orser, PGE J. W. Durham, Esq., PGE
3 4
JUL 071986 1
bec:
l RSB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)\\'
r Resident Inspector Project Inspector 1
W. Dixon, DOE B. Faulkenberry, RV i
i G. Cook, RV 1
J. Martin, RV I
f i
i a
1 J
i t
l l
7 i
Regi y
JCr..
V/ dot' R tmer/NRR JP
/I lun/EDO JMa
/RV 7/}/86 7/[/86 7/J/86
,/ /86 7/ f/86 1
--