ML18089A553
| ML18089A553 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 03/23/1984 |
| From: | Liden E Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8403300085 | |
| Download: ML18089A553 (3) | |
Text
__ ;,
PS~G*
Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Nuclear Department March 23, 1984
- u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Off ice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Division of Licensing Washington, D. c.
20555 Attention:
Mr. Steven A. Varga, Chief Operating Reactors Branch, No. 1 Gentlemen:
REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM UNITS NO. 1 AND 2 SALEM GENERATING STATION DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 In the letter dated April 28, 1983, Public Service Electric &
Gas (PSE&G) proposed c'orrective actions related to the Salem re-actor trip breaker events of February 1983.
On May 6, 1983, the commission issued a confirmatory order requiring implementation and maintenance of the commitment items contained in that letter.
One long term corrective action identified in the May 6, 1983 order (the Order), Item C.8.a.2, was related to post maintenance operability testing of safety related equipment.
This item originated from a PSE&G letter dated March 14, 1983, where we committed to complete a review of vendor and engineering recommendations and incorporate necessary changes into departmental documents by January 1984.
The purpose of this letter is to request a ti me extension for completion of this item based on a revised interpretation of scope that has been identified through discussions with Region 1 personnel as detailed below.
8403300085-840323 PDR ADOCK 05000272 P
PDR The Energy People 95-2168 (SOM) 11-82
J.....-.L.. -..{_,
3/23/84
- u. s. Nuclear Regu~atory Commission
- In the original commitment letter, we stated that "vendor and engineering recommendations" would be reviewed for post-maintenance operability testing guidance.
For the purpose of this review program, PSE&G defined vendor and engineering recom-mendations to be PSE&G Engineering Field Directives and Westinghouse Technical Bulletins and Data Letters.
Based on this defined scope, we completed our review and had incorporated required changes into departmental procedures by the end of January 1984.
Recently, personnel from Region 1 have advised us that they believe vendor manuals should have been included in the Post-Maintenance Operability Testing (PMOT) Review Program.
We con-cur that vendor manuals do represent "vendor recommendations";
however, they were considered and specifically excluded from the PMOT Review Program.
PSE&G believes that.there is sufficient basis for such exclusion.
First, as part of the Vendor Manual Review Program (Order item C.6), letters were sent to vendors to solicit confirmation that existing manuals represented the latest vendor information on a given piece of equipment.
These letters were sent in December 1983; thus, any response was not expected in sufficient time to be incorporated into the PMOT Review Program.
Second, there is also a separate program in progress which will result in all pertinent station procedures being reviewed against vendor manuals as descirbed in our letter dated February 22, 1984.
Finally, it has been our experience that vendor manuals generally do not provide any guidance on post-maintenance testing.
Regardless of the foregoing, based upon discussions with Region l personnel, we have agreed to include the vendor rnanuals into the PMOT Review Program (Order item C.8.a.2).
Consistent with our existing vendor rnanual review program schedule, all manuals for safety related equipment will be reviewed against all pertinent station operating and rnaintenance procedures and any discrepancies related to post-maintenance testing guidance will be resolved.
The program to identify significant deviations will be completed by July 1984.
Accordingly, PSE&G hereby requests that the schedule for Item C.8~a.2 identified in the May 6, 1983 confirmatory order for Salem Generating Station, Units No. l and 2 be revised to July 1984.
- u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 3/23/84 Should you have any questions in this regard, do not hesitate to contact us.
C Mr. Donald C. Fischer Licensing Project Manager Mr. James Linville Senior Resident Inspector Sincerely, Manager -
Nuclear Licensing and Regulation