ML18101A171: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 14: Line 14:
| page count = 5
| page count = 5
}}
}}
See also: [[followed by::IR 05000272/1994007]]


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:* Public Service Electric and Gas Company * Stanley LaBruna Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609-339-1700  
{{#Wiki_filter:* Stanley LaBruna Vice President
Vice President
* Nuclear Engineering Public Service Electric and Gas Company Public Service Electric and Gas Company   P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609-339-1700 AUG 0 5 1994 NLR-N94139 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:
* Nuclear Engineering
RESPONSE TO NRC'S NOTICE OF VIOLATION INSPECTION REPORT 50-272/94-07; 50-311/94-07 DOCKET NOS. 50-272; 50-311 Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G) received Inspection Report 50-272/94-07, 50-311/94-07 on July 6, 1994. This inspection report transmitted a Notice of Violation citing a failure to properly implement the requirements of 10CFR50.59(b) (1).
AUG 0 5 1994 NLR-N94139  
Pursuant to the provisions of 10CFR2.201, PSE&G hereby submits its response to the Notice of Violation.
United States Nuclear Regulatory  
Should you have any questions regarding this transmittal, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Commission  
Sincerely,
Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:  
* Q
RESPONSE TO NRC'S NOTICE OF VIOLATION  
                          ~: .. - .: ...** I"'-' *<
INSPECTION  
9408110346 940805 PDR ADOCK 05000272 PDR
REPORT 50-272/94-07;  
 
50-311/94-07  
** Document Control Desk NLR-N94139 Affidavit Appendix 2
DOCKET NOS. 50-272; 50-311 Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G) received Inspection  
AUG 0 5 1994 Attachment C   Mr. J. c. Stone, Licensing Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Mr. c. s. Marschall (S09)
Report 50-272/94-07, 50-311/94-07  
USNRC Senior Resident Inspector Mr. T. T. Martin, Administrator - Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. K. Tosch, Manager, IV New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Quality Bureau of Nuclear Engineering CN 415
on July 6, 1994. This inspection  
* Trenton, NJ 08625
report transmitted  
* REF: NLR-N94139 STATE OF NEW JERSEY       )
a Notice of Violation  
SS.
citing a failure to properly implement  
COUNTY OF SALEM           )
the requirements  
S. LaBruna, being duly sworn according to law deposes and says:
of 10CFR50.59(b)  
I am Vice President - Nuclear Engineering of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, and as such, I find the matters set forth in the above referenced letter, concerning the Salem Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief .
(1). Pursuant to the provisions  
Subscribed
of 10CFR2.201, PSE&G hereby submits its response to the Notice of Violation.  
      ,5-tJ..
Should you have any questions  
KIMBERLY JO BROWN NOTARY PUBLIC OF NEW JERSEY My Commission Expires April 21, 1998 My Commission expires on
regarding  
 
this transmittal, please do not hesitate to contact me. .. -.: ...** I"'-' *< 9408110346  
NLR-N94139                     APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Public Service Electric and Gas Company     Docket Nos: 50-272 50-311 Salem Nuclear  Ge~erating Station          License Nos: DPR-70 Units 1 and 2                                                DPR-75 During an NRC inspection conducted on March 28 through May 20, 1994, a violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix c, the violation is listed below:
940805 PDR ADOCK 05000272 Q PDR Sincerely, 
Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 50.59(b) (1), requires that the licensee shall maintain records of changes in the facility and of changes in procedures made pursuant to this section, to the extent that these changes constitute changes in the facility, as described in the safety analysis report or to the extent that they constitute changes in procedures as described in the safety analysis report. These records must include a written safety evaluation, which provides the bases for the determination that the change, test, or experiment does not involve an unreviewed safety question.
** * * Document Control Desk NLR-N94139  
Figure 8.3-4, 11 460V. Vital Buses One Line - Unit 1, 11 of the Salem Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) identified that the 11 1A-460V Vital Bus Transformer" as rated at 11 1000 KVA."
Affidavit  
Contrary to the above, no written safety evaluation was performed for a change to the plant, as described in the UFSAR when, on or before May 18, 1994, the 1A-460V Vital Bus Transformer, rated at 1000 kVA, was replaced with a transformer rated at 1333 kVA.
Appendix Attachment  
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I)
2 C Mr. J. c. Stone, Licensing  
* NLR-N94139                 ATTACHMENT I PSE&G RESPONSE PSE&G does not dispute the violation.
Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory  
The root cause of this violation has been attributed to an improper interpretation of the administrative program for preparing 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluations, resulting in a failure to follow procedures.
Commission  
CORRECTIVE STEPS TAKEN
One White Flint North 11555 Rockville  
: 1. A 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation has been prepared for the design modification in question and has determined that an Unreviewed Safety Question was not involved.
Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Mr. c. s. Marschall (S09) USNRC Senior Resident Inspector  
CORRECTIVE STEPS TAKEN TO PREVENT RECURRENCE
Mr. T. T. Martin, Administrator  
: 1. A-letter (STN-94-0167) was issued to all Nuclear Engineering managers and functional supervisors and to the station Technical Managers. This letter, which was dated June 13, 1994, reiterated the requirement to perform a complete 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation for changes to UFSAR drawings,
-Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory  
* 2.
Commission  
figures, or tables. This requirement will be rolled down to all personnel charged with 10CFR50.59 review and Safety Evaluation preparation.
475 Allendale  
The implications of this violation have been incorporated into the 10CFR50.59 lesson plan.
Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. K. Tosch, Manager, IV New Jersey Department  
: 3. The engineers involved in the preparation of the 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation have been counseled regarding the proper interpretation of the administrative program for preparing 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluations.
of Environmental  
DATE WHEN FULL COMPLIANCE WILL BE ACHIEVED PSE&G believes that adequate controls are in place to preclude a similar violation. PSE&G is in full compliance.}}
Protection  
Division of Environmental  
Quality Bureau of Nuclear Engineering  
CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625 AUG 0 5 1994 
* * --------------------
------------
----REF: NLR-N94139  
STATE OF NEW JERSEY ) SS. COUNTY OF SALEM ) S. LaBruna, being duly sworn according  
to law deposes and says: I am Vice President  
-Nuclear Engineering  
of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, and as such, I find the matters set forth in the above referenced  
letter, concerning  
the Salem Generating  
Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, are true to the best of my knowledge, information  
and belief . Subscribed  
,5-tJ.. My Commission
expires on KIMBERLY JO BROWN NOTARY PUBLIC OF NEW JERSEY My Commission  
Expires April 21, 1998
NLR-N94139  
APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION  
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Salem Nuclear
Station Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos: 50-272 50-311 License Nos: DPR-70 DPR-75 During an NRC inspection  
conducted  
on March 28 through May 20, 1994, a violation  
of NRC requirements  
was identified.  
In accordance  
with the "General Statement  
of Policy and Procedure  
for NRC Enforcement  
Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix c, the violation  
is listed below: Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 50.59(b) (1), requires that the licensee shall maintain records of changes in the facility and of changes in procedures  
made pursuant to this section, to the extent that these changes constitute  
changes in the facility, as described  
in the safety analysis report or to the extent that they constitute  
changes in procedures  
as described  
in the safety analysis report. These records must include a written safety evaluation, which provides the bases for the determination  
that the change, test, or experiment  
does not involve an unreviewed  
safety question.  
Figure 8.3-4, 11 460V. Vital Buses One Line -Unit 1, 11 of the Salem Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) identified  
that the 11 1A-460V Vital Bus Transformer" as rated at 11 1000 KVA." Contrary to the above, no written safety evaluation  
was performed  
for a change to the plant, as described  
in the UFSAR when, on or before May 18, 1994, the 1A-460V Vital Bus Transformer, rated at 1000 kVA, was replaced with a transformer  
rated at 1333 kVA. This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement  
I) * 
* NLR-N94139  
ATTACHMENT  
I PSE&G RESPONSE PSE&G does not dispute the violation.  
The root cause of this violation  
has been attributed  
to an improper interpretation  
of the administrative  
program for preparing  
10CFR50.59  
Safety Evaluations, resulting  
in a failure to follow procedures.  
CORRECTIVE  
STEPS TAKEN 1. A 10CFR50.59  
Safety Evaluation  
has been prepared for the design modification  
in question and has determined  
that an Unreviewed  
Safety Question was not involved.  
CORRECTIVE  
STEPS TAKEN TO PREVENT RECURRENCE  
1. A-letter (STN-94-0167)  
was issued to all Nuclear Engineering  
managers and functional  
supervisors  
and to the station Technical  
Managers.  
This letter, which was dated June 13, 1994, reiterated  
the requirement  
to perform a complete 10CFR50.59  
Safety Evaluation  
for changes to UFSAR drawings, figures, or tables. This requirement  
will be rolled down to all personnel  
charged with 10CFR50.59  
review and Safety Evaluation  
preparation.  
2. The implications  
of this violation  
have been incorporated  
into the 10CFR50.59  
lesson plan. 3. The engineers  
involved in the preparation  
of the 10CFR50.59  
Safety Evaluation  
have been counseled  
regarding  
the proper interpretation  
of the administrative  
program for preparing  
10CFR50.59  
Safety Evaluations.  
DATE WHEN FULL COMPLIANCE  
WILL BE ACHIEVED PSE&G believes that adequate controls are in place to preclude a similar violation.  
PSE&G is in full compliance.
}}

Latest revision as of 05:53, 3 February 2020

Responds to Violation Noted in Insp Repts 50-272/94-07 & 50-311/94-07 on 940706.Corrective actions:10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation Prepared for Design Mod in Question & Determined That USQ Not Involved
ML18101A171
Person / Time
Site: Salem  PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 08/05/1994
From: Labruna S
Public Service Enterprise Group
To:
NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
NLR-N94139, NUDOCS 9408110346
Download: ML18101A171 (5)
v • d • e


Text

  • Stanley LaBruna Vice President
  • Nuclear Engineering Public Service Electric and Gas Company Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609-339-1700 AUG 0 5 1994 NLR-N94139 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:

RESPONSE TO NRC'S NOTICE OF VIOLATION INSPECTION REPORT 50-272/94-07; 50-311/94-07 DOCKET NOS. 50-272; 50-311 Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G) received Inspection Report 50-272/94-07, 50-311/94-07 on July 6, 1994. This inspection report transmitted a Notice of Violation citing a failure to properly implement the requirements of 10CFR50.59(b) (1).

Pursuant to the provisions of 10CFR2.201, PSE&G hereby submits its response to the Notice of Violation.

Should you have any questions regarding this transmittal, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

  • Q

~: .. - .: ...** I"'-' *<

9408110346 940805 PDR ADOCK 05000272 PDR

    • Document Control Desk NLR-N94139 Affidavit Appendix 2

AUG 0 5 1994 Attachment C Mr. J. c. Stone, Licensing Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Mr. c. s. Marschall (S09)

USNRC Senior Resident Inspector Mr. T. T. Martin, Administrator - Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. K. Tosch, Manager, IV New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Quality Bureau of Nuclear Engineering CN 415

  • Trenton, NJ 08625

SS.

COUNTY OF SALEM )

S. LaBruna, being duly sworn according to law deposes and says:

I am Vice President - Nuclear Engineering of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, and as such, I find the matters set forth in the above referenced letter, concerning the Salem Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief .

Subscribed

,5-tJ..

KIMBERLY JO BROWN NOTARY PUBLIC OF NEW JERSEY My Commission Expires April 21, 1998 My Commission expires on

NLR-N94139 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Public Service Electric and Gas Company Docket Nos: 50-272 50-311 Salem Nuclear Ge~erating Station License Nos: DPR-70 Units 1 and 2 DPR-75 During an NRC inspection conducted on March 28 through May 20, 1994, a violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix c, the violation is listed below:

Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 50.59(b) (1), requires that the licensee shall maintain records of changes in the facility and of changes in procedures made pursuant to this section, to the extent that these changes constitute changes in the facility, as described in the safety analysis report or to the extent that they constitute changes in procedures as described in the safety analysis report. These records must include a written safety evaluation, which provides the bases for the determination that the change, test, or experiment does not involve an unreviewed safety question.

Figure 8.3-4, 11 460V. Vital Buses One Line - Unit 1, 11 of the Salem Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) identified that the 11 1A-460V Vital Bus Transformer" as rated at 11 1000 KVA."

Contrary to the above, no written safety evaluation was performed for a change to the plant, as described in the UFSAR when, on or before May 18, 1994, the 1A-460V Vital Bus Transformer, rated at 1000 kVA, was replaced with a transformer rated at 1333 kVA.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I)

  • NLR-N94139 ATTACHMENT I PSE&G RESPONSE PSE&G does not dispute the violation.

The root cause of this violation has been attributed to an improper interpretation of the administrative program for preparing 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluations, resulting in a failure to follow procedures.

CORRECTIVE STEPS TAKEN

1. A 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation has been prepared for the design modification in question and has determined that an Unreviewed Safety Question was not involved.

CORRECTIVE STEPS TAKEN TO PREVENT RECURRENCE

1. A-letter (STN-94-0167) was issued to all Nuclear Engineering managers and functional supervisors and to the station Technical Managers. This letter, which was dated June 13, 1994, reiterated the requirement to perform a complete 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation for changes to UFSAR drawings,
  • 2.

figures, or tables. This requirement will be rolled down to all personnel charged with 10CFR50.59 review and Safety Evaluation preparation.

The implications of this violation have been incorporated into the 10CFR50.59 lesson plan.

3. The engineers involved in the preparation of the 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation have been counseled regarding the proper interpretation of the administrative program for preparing 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluations.

DATE WHEN FULL COMPLIANCE WILL BE ACHIEVED PSE&G believes that adequate controls are in place to preclude a similar violation. PSE&G is in full compliance.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML18101A171&oldid=2408507"