ML18095A798

Ack Receipt of Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-272/90-22 & 50-311/90-22.NRC Will Continue to Review Listed Apparent Misunderstanding of Purpose

ML18095A798
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	03/04/1991
From:	Blough A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Miltenberger S Public Service Enterprise Group
References
NUDOCS 9103200168
Download: ML18095A798 (3)

See also: IR 05000272/1990022

Text

Docket No. 50~272

50-311.

Public Service Electric and Gas Company

ATTN: Mr. Steven E. Miltenberger

Vice President and

Chief ;Nuclear Officer

P. 0. Box 236

..

Hancocks.Bridge, New Jersey 0~038

Subject: NOTICE OF VIOLATION (Inspection No. 50-272/90.:.22 and 50-311/90-22Y

Gentlemen:

Thank you for your letter dated February 1, 1991, written in response to the Notice of

Violation (NOV) associated with NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-272/90-22 and 50::311190-

22. We plan to carefully review your response, particularly your basis for disagreeing with*

example No. 3 of the NOV, and inform you of the results at a later date.

My review of your February 1 letter indicates you may have misunderstood our reason for

• requesting a written response to the NOV. At the time the NRC first issued the subject

NOV, no written response was requested, in view of the significant programmatic corrective

actions you took to. improve the safety review process implemented for those changes

identified as needing a lOCFR 50.59 safety evaluation. However, during our December 4,

1990, meeting with members of your staff, the NRC staff recognized that PSE&G still

disagreed with one specific example in the NOV, i.e., the failure to perform a safety

evaluation for a "Belzona" repair to a cooler. Such a repair would not be subject to a full

50.59 safety evaluation*under the improved process. It was our recognition of the existence

of a disputed violation which prompted our request for a written NOV response. It was

never our intent to redefine the NOV at the December meeting as your letter suggests. In the

case of any disputed NOV, it is necessary for our staff to evaluate the licensee's formal

written response in order to reconfirm or rescind the proposed NOV. As a result of such a

review, PSE&G would obtain an understanding of how the NRC would view the licensee's *

actions in the future should circumstances similar-to those cited in the NOV recur. Please

call me if you need to discuss this matter further.

9103200168 910304

PDR

ADOCK 05000272

Q

PDR

The above-noted apparent misunderstanding of purpose will not interfere with our review of

this matter, since your February 1 letter provides ample description of your technical*

. position.

cc w/encl:

S. LaBruna, Vice President, Nuclear Operations

A. Randolph Blough, Chief

Projects Branch 2

Division of Reactor Projects

J. Urban, General Manager, Fuels Department, Delmarva Power & Light Co.

General Manager - Salem Operations

B. Preston, Manager, Licensing and Regulation

J. Robb, Director, Joint Owner Affairs

A. *Tapert, Program Administrator

General Manager, Nuclear Safety Review -

M. Wetterhahn, Esquire

R. Fryling, Jr., Esquire

S. Ungerer, Manager, Joint Generation Projects Department,

Atlantic Electric Company

D. Wersan, Assistant Consumer Advocate, Office of Consumer Advocate

Lower Alloways Creek Township

K. Abraham, PAO (24) SALP Reports and (2) All Inspection Reports

Public Document Room (PDR)

Local Public Document Room (LPDR)

Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)

NRC Resident Inspector

State of New Jersey

bee w/encl:

Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)

• Management Assistant, DRMA (w/o encl) .

J. Joyner, DRSS

R. Blough, DRP

J. White, DRP

J. Stone, NRR

P. Kaufman, DRP

K. Brockman,. EDO

~

RI:DRP

3

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

SALEM902.LD(SALEM)