ML18082A529

Requests That Audit of Installed Electric Sys & Equipment Be Performed Per .Review Sample May Be Limited to 5% of Installed Equipment & Cables

ML18082A529
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	05/29/1980
From:	Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Mittl R Public Service Enterprise Group
References
NUDOCS 8006090366
Download: ML18082A529 (3)

Text

\\JJ I /e.e>$ $.

MAY 2 9 1980 Dis tri b,ut ion NRC PDR Local PDR RSatterfield Docket No. 50-311 Mr. R. L. Mi ttl, Genera 1 Manager Licensing and Environment Engineering and Construction Public Service Electric and Gas 80 Park Place Newark, New Jersey 07101

Dear Mr. Mittl:

Docker File LB #3 file DEisenhut RPurple RTedesco ASchwencer JKerri gan -

JLee RJMattson SHanauer VA Moore WKreger CompanYMLErnst RPDenise RHartfield ELD IE(3)

SUBJECT:

FIELD AUDIT OF ELECTRIC SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT

{Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 2) bee:

NSIC TIC ACRS(l6)

We have reviewed your letter dated January 16, 1980 responding to our request that an independent field audit of installed electric systems and equipment be conducted at Salem to determine conformance to the FSAR separation criteria.

Your letter indicates that fire protection program reviews and associated field audits were conducted for Salem by an outside consultant. Also, you note that the installation and routing of cables was acc_omplished in accordance with a computerized cable contro1 system which was supported by audits and quality control surveillance. However, the,reviews and audits conducted to address fire protection guidelines do not address all aspects of physical separation of safety related systems.

In general, such reviews place a greater emphasis on systems required to effect safe shutdown in contrast to systems required for accidents and also do not place a great deal of emphasis on associated circuits, where non-safety related cables are routed with safety related cables.

Therefore, \\1Je contimte to believe that an independent, plant-wide field audit is necessary and request that an audit be performed as described in our*

November 29 ~ 1979 letter. However, 1 n view of the s i gni fi cant review effort

• already perfonned for Sa1em9 you may limit your review sample 'to 5% rather than the 10% of installed equipment :lnd cables \\*1hich !'!as originally requested.

Please contact us if you have any additional questions on this matter.

Sincerely, Orig!na_l ~lgn:~ bY.

A. Schwencer, Acting Chief Licensing Branch No *. 3 Division of Licensing

~..................................

,_I

_;;i

~................ -*.....

... NRC FORM:316'(9-76) NRCM 0240

• U.S:'GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-289,369* : '

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---~-----------------------------------------------__,,-----

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Docket No.

~0-311 Mr. R. L. Mittl, General Manager Licensing and Environment Engiheering and Construction MAY 2 9 1980 Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Place Newark, New Jersey. 07101

SUBJECT:

FIELD AUDIT OF ELECTRIC SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 2)

We have reviewed YoLlr letter dated January 16, 1980 responding to our tequest that an independent field audit of installed electric systems and equipment be conducted at Salem to determine c*onformance to the FSAR separation criteria.

Your letter indicates that fire protection program reviews and associated field audits we~e conducted for Salem by an outside consultant.

Also, you note th~t the installation and routing of cables was accomplished in accordance with a*

computerized cable control system which was supported by audits and o,uality control surveillance.

However, the reviews and audits conducted to address fire protection guidelines do not address all aspects of physical separation of safety related systems.

In general, such reviews place a greater e~phasis on systems required to effect safe shutdown in contrast to systems required for accidents and also do not place a great deal of emphasis on associated circuits, where non-safety related cables are routed with safety related cables.

Therefore, we continue to believe that an independent, plant-wide field audit is necessary and request that an audit be performed as described in our November 29, 1979 letter.

However, in view of the significant review effort al ready performed for Sal em, you may limit your revi e1v sample to 5~;, rather

• than the 10% of i*nstalled eauipment and cables which was originally requested.

Please contact us if you have any additional questions on this matter.

ccs:

See next page

• Sincerely~

. tl ~tf&////L----

A. Schwencer, Acting Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing

cc:

Richard Fyling, Jr~. Esq.

Assistant General Counsel.

Public Service Electric & Gas Comi;any 80 Park Place f

Newark, New Jersey 07100 Mark Wetterhahn, Esq.

Conner, Moore & Caber

. Suite 1050 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C.

20006 Mr. Leif J. Norrholm c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co~rnission Region l, Drawer I*

Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038

'.