ML18089A495
| ML18089A495 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 12/20/1983 |
| From: | Uderitz R Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | Starostecki R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18089A492 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8401240628 | |
| Download: ML18089A495 (2) | |
Text
I.
I I
Richard A. Uderitz Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609 935-6010 Vice President -
Nuclear December 20, 1983
- u. s. Nuclear Regul'atory Commission -
Region 1 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Attention:
Mr. Richard W. Starostecki, Director Division of Project and Resident Programs Gentlemen:
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE (SALP)
SALEM GENERATING STATION, UNITS NO. l AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 IE HQ FILE CI01:t"t As a result of our review of the November 7, 1983 SALP Board's report, we are concerned about many of the statements made regarding our performance in the area of plant operations.
The SALP Board has rated our overall performance in the functionil area of plant operations as category 3, requiring increased NRC and licensee attention.
PSE&G believes this rating to be unwarranted for the reasons detailed below.
In their report the SALP Board has identified several weaknesses (Section IV.l); however, these weaknesses are essentially a reiteration of those identified during the NRC's investigation of the February 1983 reactor trip breaker failures and those identified by the PSE&G initiated management review conducted by Management Analysis Company (MAC).
We believe such a low rating to be inappropriate, in that PSE&G has implemented a comprehensive corrective action program to eliminate those weaknesses.
The decision to engage MAC to conduct such an extensive management review and to act on their findings, represented a major commitment to upgrade management attention to all facets of plant operations and support; yet, the SALP Report does not credit PSE&G for this effort and,in fact, used its findings to further support negative findings.
8401240628 840119 PDR ADOC~ 05000272 G
PDR l
- 1.-p_i_ ~
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 12/20/83 PSE&G has programs in place to address each of the concerns identified in Section IV.l of the SALP report, and would like the opportunity to respond to each concern.
Accordingly, we request an extension until January 25, 1984 for providing a detailed response to the SALP findings in the functional area of plant operations.
Sincerely,