ML18100B295
| ML18100B295 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000734 |
| Issue date: | 10/07/1993 |
| From: | Pierson R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Asmussen K GENERAL ATOMICS (FORMERLY GA TECHNOLOGIES, INC./GENER |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18100B296 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-L30623, NUDOCS 9310130291 | |
| Download: ML18100B295 (3) | |
Text
r ENCLOSURE 3 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Steven E. Miltenberger Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609-339-4199 Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer NLR-N93159 OCTO 6 1993 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:
WRITTEN RESPONSE TO INITIAL SALP REPORT REPORT NOS. 50-272/91-99, 50-311/91-99, 50-354/91-99 SALEM AND HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATIONS DOCKET NOS. 50-272, 50-311, AND 50-354 The initial Systematic Appraisal of Licensee Performance (SALP) report for the Salem and Hope Creek Generating stations, dated September 1, 1993, requested that we provide written comments, including any correction of factual information, within 20 days following discussions to be conducted at a meeting.scheduled for September 17, 1993.
The discussions occurred, as scheduled, during the September 17 SALP meeting.
This letter provides the requested written response.
PSE&G is in agreement-with the technical content of the report with only minor exceptions as noted in the attachment to this letter.
We appreciate your constructive critique of our performance.
Your input will help us to improve our performance.
As discussed at the September 17 meeting, we have ongoing activities and corrective actions in place to address the identified weaknesses.
We believe that these actions will bring improved performance.
As we continue to strive for excellence in all areas of plant operations and support, we will closely monitor our progress to ensure that improving trends are established and maintained in all areas.
Should you have any questions or comments on this transmittal, do not hesitate to contact us.
Attachment Sincerely,
~£
- s. E. Miltenberge Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer
OCTO B 1993 Document Control Desk NLR..,.N93159 2
c Mr. T. Martin Regional Administrator/Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. S. Dembek, Licensing Project Manager -
Hope Creek
- u. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Mr. J. Stone, Licensing Project Manager -
Hope Creek U. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Mr. C. Marschall (S09)
USNRC Senior Resident Inspector Mr. K. Tosch, Manager, IV NJ Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Quality Bureau of Nuclear Engineering CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625
ATTACHMENT WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE INITIAL SALP REPORT REPORT NOS. 50-272/91-99, 50-311/91-99, 50-354/91-99 SALEM AND HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATIONS DOCKET NOS. 50-272, 50-311, AND 50-354 NLR-N9315~
As noted in the cover letter, PSE&G is agreement with the technical content of the report with only minor exceptions as noted below:
- 1.
The fourth paragraph on page 8 of the Salem assessment states that "an apparent isolated instance of incomplete procedures and failure to use procedures contributed to a Unit 1 loss of overhead annunciator (OHA) system."
The loss of the overhead annunciator system occurred at Unit 2.
- 2.
The first paragraph on page 9 of the Salem assessment refers to "improper storage of combustible materials."
The improper storage of combustible materials occurred at Hope Creek.
- 3.
The fourth paragraph on page 16 of the Salem assessment states "It was determined that the fire barrier systems were not installed in accordance with the tested configuration.
In response to the inoperable status of these fire barrier systems, due to the lack of proper qualification test data to substantiate the design ot the in-plant configuration, the licensee had to institute hourly fire watch patrols in the plant area*
containing the questionable fire barrier system."
The statement would be more accurate if it read "It waa determined that some fire barrier system configuration*
contained in the installation details were not in accordance with configurations contained in test reports available for review.
In response to these concerns, the licensee instituted fire watch patrols in the appropriate plant areas as a conservative measur*
until further evaluations are completed."