ML20210F447
| ML20210F447 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/04/1987 |
| From: | Scarano R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Lindblad W PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8702110075 | |
| Download: ML20210F447 (2) | |
Text
.
~'
- S AFEGU ARDS INFORMATION FEB 041987
~
Docket No. 50-344 Portland General Electric Company-121 S. W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Attention: Mr. William J. Lindblad
-President Gentlemen:
We have completed our review of your letters of June 6, and July 3,1986 responding to our Notice of Violation dated May 7, 1986.
With regard to Violation A, you noted in your June 6,1986 response that the events described in our Notice of Violation highlighted the need for improved security / maintenance coordination and careful evaluation of necessary compensatory measures before a barrier breach is generated. Based on subsequent inspections, we determined that your corrective actions, (interim guidance to supervisory staff, the security conditions checklist, changes to plant maintenance and modification procedures, as well as a comprehensive training program for non-security elements of your organization) appear to have been effective. The additional information you have provided since the original citation appears to now support the adequacy, under the specific conditions described, of the barrier materials described. Accordingly, Violation A has been withdrawn.
With respect to Violation B regarding access control, in the one example
+
which you questioned (of the three examples identified), i.e., unattended key cards, we agree that your expanded training and orientation program, as described, appears to have been effective to assure proper individual custody of key cards. Extensive interview with non-security elements of your organization during the previously mentioned inspection indicated increased awareness of, and attention to, proper key card control.
Reevaluating guidance related to the reportability'of certain security events as required by 10 CFR 73.71(c), we agree that some of the examples cited at the time would, under current thinking, not be considered reportable.
Subsequent. conversations with your security management staff on several occasions and a review of your recent security events and reports, indicates that improved consistency and compliance is being achieved.
I 8702110075 870204 PDR ADOCK 05000344 G
~
% co m ing
$c 5 l*? $ T M 9
ao g
8 *0"Se.
SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION
]$
- ^
FEB 041987
^ We have evaluated and agree with the corrective' actions you have taken and will review;their continued effectiveness during future physical security inspections.
Sincerely, h
Eb 6f b i
~
Ross Scarano, Director Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards-bcc w/cy 1tra 7/3/86 &' 6/6/86:
B. Faulkenberry 4
J. Martin
' Docket File bcc w/o cy ltis dtd 7/3/86 & 6/6/86:
W. Dixon, DOE, Salem, OR RSB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)
Project Inspector-Resident Inspector G. Cook Region V/ norma UEST COPY J REQUEST f.0,PY J REQUEST @))Y.~
/ N0
'I RE T COPY.
3
/ N0
] YES / (N01 ] YES / /N0 YES u
v TO PDR
=:5ENIt)3
. (YES / NO :1
- 1 pcLNorderhaugMSc$uster JM ntgomery RScar
/ g,, y 1/jS /87 1/ 6 /87 1//f/87
$/#3/87
/ 77