ML18096A193
| ML18096A193 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 03/01/1991 |
| From: | Blough A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Miltenberger S Public Service Enterprise Group |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18096A192 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9108090094 | |
| Download: ML18096A193 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000272/1990022
Text
Docket No. 50-272
50-311
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
475 ALLENDALE ROAD
KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406
I....
- ~ is;,
Public Service Electric and Gas Company *
A TIN: Mr. Steven E. Miltenberger
Vice President and
Chief Nuclear Officer
P. 0. Box 236
Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038
Subject: NOTICE OF VIOLATION (Inspection No. 50-272/90-22 and 50-311190-22)
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 50-311/90-
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 .
~-------'----._
.
9108090094 910528
ADoci~ 05000272
Q
)
I
2
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. \\Vetterhahn, Esquire
R. Fryling, Jr., Esquire
S. Ungerer, Manager, Joint Generation Projects Department,
Atlantic Electric Company
D. Wersan, Assistant Consumer Advocate, Office of Consumer Advocate
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
3