ML060580725

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
E-mail from A. Blough of USNRC to E. Cobey of USNRC, Regarding NRC Letters to PSEG - Initial Ucs Feedback
ML060580725
Person / Time
Site: Salem, Hope Creek  PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 08/30/2004
From: Blough A
NRC Region 1
To: Cobey E
NRC Region 1
References
FOIA/PA-2005-0194
Download: ML060580725 (2)


Text

____>i Vito - Fwd: NRC letters to PSEG - - initial UCS feedback Page 1 From:

A. Randolph Blough To:

Eugene Cobey Date:

8/30/04 5:1 1 PM

Subject:

Fwd: NRC letters to PSEG - - initial UCS feedback email from dave lochbaum CC:

Anne Passarelli; Brian Holiain; Chris Miller; Cornelius Holden; Daniel Orr; David Vito; James Wiggins; Lisamarie Jarriel; Mel Gray; Scott Barber; Theodore Wingfield; Wayne Lanning

bU~itd Vito - NRC lett`iers toPSEPae1 From:

"Da Lochbaum" <dlochbaurn@ucsusa.org>

To:

< rbO}nrc.gov>

Date:

8/30/04 5:01PM

Subject:

NRC letters to PSEG Hello Randy:

Sorry I missed your calls. Thanks for faxing me the letters issued today to PSEG.

As you know, we've felt that conditions at Salem / Hope Creek mirrored those present in the mid 1990s that required fixing before Salem could safely restart. And we felt that if the reactors were not shut down during the restoration of appropriate safety performance levels, the NRC should at least issue a CAL to provide leverage for the next step if insufficient progress is made down the road.

Nevertheless, we recognize that the positions staked out in the letters today are important ones. We can only imagine how much effort was expended by the staff charting out this course of action.

In our view, the most commendable and laudable portion of the letters was the paragraph with the five steps authorized by the deviation from the Action Matrix. We note that the NRC has frequently labeled corrective action program problems as a cross-cutting issue in mid-cycle and annual assessment letters.

This time, the NRC labeled safety conscious wcrk environment as a cross-cutting issue, but went the additional step of outlining the regulatory response to that designation. That extra step is more likely to result in improved performance than the mere warning itself.

Thanks, Dave Lcchbaum Nuclear Safety Engineer Union of Concerned Scientists 1707 H Street NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20006-3962 (202) 223-6133 x113 (202) 223-6162 fax