ML18101A741
| ML18101A741 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 05/24/1995 |
| From: | Cooper R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Eliason L Public Service Enterprise Group |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18101A742 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9506010111 | |
| Download: ML18101A741 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000272/1995007
Text
[ .
. . -~'
!
\\ **
May 24, 1995
Mr. Leon R. Eliason
President and Chief Nuclear Officer
Public Service Electric and Gas Company*
P.O. Box 236
Hancocks Bridge, NJ
08038
SUBJECT:
SALEM RESIDENT INSPECTION NOS. 50-272/95-07; 50-311/95-07
Dear Mr. Eliason:
The enclosed report documents an inspection for public health and safety,
conducted by Mr. C. Marschall, Senior Resident Inspector and other members of
the NRC resident and regional staff at the Salem Nuclear Generating Station
for the period between March 23, 1995 and May 6, 1995.
The inspectors
discussed the findings of this inspection with Messrs. J. Summers, General
Manager-Salem operations, and other members of your staff.
During this period, we detected that performance standards and expectations
for the Salem Station Operating Review Committee (SORC) were not well
developed or communicated.
Consequently, the SORC did not demonstrate a
systematic approach or questioning attitude relative to the review and
evaluation of matters, such as safety assessments required by 10 CFR 50.59 and
operability determinations involving the safety impact of certain degraded
plant conditions. This weakness compounds our previous concerns involving the
continuing challenge to operators from degraded conditions that constitute
"workarounds", the quality of operability determinations, root cause
determination and corrective action effectiveness, plant equipment
reliability, and work planning and control effectiveness.
Within the scope of this inspection, the inspectors and your quality assurance
organization identified several examples of inadequate problem identification
and resolution of deficiencies associated with safety related equipment.
In
each of these instances your system engineering staff was aware of information
that constituted a degraded condition, but failed to take timely and
appropriate-action to resolve the matters. Consequently, the matters
described in Enclosure 2 are being considered for escalated enforcement action
in accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC
Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C.
Accordingly, a Notice of Violation is not being issued for these inspection
findings at this time.
The number and characterization of the apparent
violations may change as a result of further NRC review. Accordingly, no
response to these matters is required at this time.
These apparent violations (as described in the enclosure) were discussed
between Mr. John Summers, General Manager-Salem Operations, Mr. Jeffery
Benjamin, General Manager-Quality Assurance and Nuclear Safety Review, and Mr .
John White of our office on May 17, 1995. Accordingly, these matters will be
discussed in a previously scheduled Enforcement Conference on Jun~ 1, 1995.
This conference will be closed to public observation.
9506010111 950524
ADOCK 05000272
G
PDR.
f/o(
,, !
r *
Mr. Leon R. Eliason
2
The decision to hold an Enforcement Conference does not mean violations have
occurred, or that enforcement action will be taken.
The purposes of this
conference are:
(1) To discuss the apparent violations, including cause and
safety significance; (2) to provide you with an opportunity to point out
errors in our inspection report, and identify corrective actions, taken or
planned; and (3) to discuss any other information that will help us determine
the appropriate action in accordance with the Enforcement Policy.
The
conference is also an opportunity for you to provide any information
concerning your perspectives on the severity of the apparent violations, and
the application of the factors that the NRC considers when it determines the
amount of a civil penalty that may be assessed in accordance with Section
VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy.
Based on the results of this inspection, it also appears that certain of your
activities were not conducted in full compliance with NRC requirements, as set
forth in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Notice of Deviation. These
matters indicate continuing weaknesses relative to control of maintenance
activities, procedure adherence, and 10 CFR 50.59 applicability reviews and
safety evaluations.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions
specified in the enclosed Notices when preparing your response.
In your
response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional
actions you plan to prevent recurrence.
Your response may reference or
include previous docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately
addresses the required response. After reviewing your response to the
Notices, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future
inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is
necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
Based on the results of this inspection, it appears that you failed to adhere
to the requirements of Technical Specification 6.11 concerning procedures for
personnel radiation protection on March 24, 1995.
Since your radiation
protection organization identified this violation, and our inspectors
confirmed that you met the criteria for enforcement discretion as specified in
10 CFR 2, Appendix C, Section VII, this violation ~ill not be cited.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC' s "Rules of Practice," a copy of
this letter and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and enclosed Notice are not subject to
the clearance procedures of the office of Management and Budge as required by
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law No. 96.511.
Mr. Leon R. Eliason
3
Your cooperation with us is appreciated.
Docket Nos. 50-272; 50-311
Enclosures:
Sincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:
Richard W. Cooper, Director
Division of Reactor Projects
1.
Appendix A, Notice of Violation
2.
Appendix B, Notice of Deviation
3.
Apparent Violations Considered for Escalated Enforcement
4.
NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-272/95-07; 50-311/95-07
cc w/encl:
J. J. Hagan, Vice President-Operations*
S. LaBruna, Vice President - Engineering and Plant Betterment
C. Schaefer, External Operations - Nuclear, Delmarva Power & Light Co.
R. Burricelli, General Manager - Information Systems & External Affairs
J. Summers, General Manager - Salem Operations
J. Benjamin, Director - Quality Assurance & Safety Review
F. Thomson, Manager, Licensing and Regulation
R. Kankus, Joint Owner Affairs
A. Tapert, Program Administrator
R. Fryling, Jr., Esquire
M. Wetterhahn, Esquire
P. J. Curham, Manager, Joint Generation Department,
Atlantic Electric Company
Consumer Advocate, Office of Consumer Advocate
William Conklin, Public Safety Consultant, Lower Alloways Creek Township
Public Service Commission of Maryland
State of New Jersey
State of Delaware
..
Mr. Leon R. Eliason
4
Distribution w/encl:
Region I Docket Room (with concurrences}
Kay Gallagher, DRP
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
D. Screnci, PAO (2) * * *
NRC Resident Inspector
PUBLIC
Distribution w/encl: (Via E-Mail)
L. 01 sh an, NRR *
W. Dean, OEDO
J. Stolz, PDl-2, NRR
M. Callahan, OCA
Inspection Program Branch, NRR (IPAS)
DOCUMENT NAME:
a:9507.sal
To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C' = Copy without attachmentjenclosure "E" = Copy with
attachmentjenclosure "N = No copy
OFFICE
RI:DRP
NAME
CMar
RCoope
DATE
5/ /95
- ffv/