IR 05000344/1987040

From kanterella
Revision as of 05:26, 27 October 2020 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Ack Receipt of 871230 Ltr Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-344/87-40.Area of Quality Verification May Require Addl Licensee Attention. Reexam of Quadrant Power Tilt Ratio Requested
ML20148K556
Person / Time
Site: Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date: 01/22/1988
From: Kirsch D
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To: Cockfield D
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
References
NUDOCS 8801270640
Download: ML20148K556 (1)


Text

,

January 22, 1988

.

Docket No. 50-344 Portland General Electric Company 121 S. W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon -97204 Attention: David W. Cockfield-Vice President, Nuclear Gentlemen:

Thank you for~your letter of December 30, 1987,- in response to our Notice of Violation and. Inspection Report No. 50-344/87-40, dated November 30, 1987, informing us of the steps you have taken to correct the items which w . brought to your attention. Your corrective actions will be verified during future inspection The two violations in the. subject inspection report were of particular concern. These violations indicate that your efforts to assure procedural compliance have not been completely effective. Specifically, these violations indicate that there is a misconception that deviations from procedures were acceptable without appropriate approval as long as these changes were believed to be more conservative. Equally of concern is that supervision apparently shared this view. We recognize that you are working to improve in the. area of procedural compliance, however, we urge you to move aggressively to address and deal with this issu Also, due to the duration of one of the violations, the area of quality

verification concerning reactor physics may require additional attention by yo Finally, your assessment of a reasonable time frame to determine quadrant power tilt ratio does not appear to be consistent with time frames for similar

,

determinations made at other nuclear plants. Therefore, we expect that you c will reexamine this issue to assure that timely action is taken to evaluate '

apparent discrepancies in reactor physics measurement. Please inform us of the results of your evaluation on this matte Your cooperation with us is appreciate

Sincerely, 8801270 ggjh$$44 PDR AD Dennis F. Kirsch, Director PDR O

, Division of Reactor Safety and Projects RV/jk

', REQUEST COPY y'u{STCOPY REQUEST C0f ' REQUEST SQRY RYES )/ N0 r YES')/ N0

'

YE.S / tio YES / Q[Q) I g)

U 4 $ f rA" '

MENDONCA N A. JOHNSON 0 ZIMM N WCH (

w -

>

v 1/J(/88 1 / 11/ 8 8 1/ 88 j 1/g'/88 l