ML18093B216
| ML18093B216 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 10/07/1988 |
| From: | Miltenberger S Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-46, REF-GTECI-SC, TASK-A-46, TASK-OR GL-87-02, GL-87-2, NLR-N88163, NUDOCS 8810180273 | |
| Download: ML18093B216 (3) | |
Text
(
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 OCT 0 'l 1988 NLR-N88163 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:
RESPONSE TO GENERIC LETTER 87-02 SALEM GENERATING STATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 On July 29, 1988, the NRC Staff issued a Safety Evaluation Report for Revision o of the Generic Implementation Procedure (GIP) for Seismic Verification of Nuclear Plant Equipment developed by the Seismic Qualification Utility Group (SQUG).
The letter to SQUG enclosing the SER requested that SQUG member utilities provide to the NRC, within 60 days, a schedule for implementing the GIP.
By letter dated August 19, 1988 to Mr. L. c. Shao, Director of the NRR Division of Engineering and Systems Technology, SQUG clarified that the sixty days would expire on October 7, 1988.
This letter responds to the NRC request for our plant-specific seismic verification plans for Salem Unit Nos. 1 and 2 consistent with the requirements of Generic Letter 87-02, "Verification of Seismic Adequacy of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment in Operating Reactors, Unresolved Safety Issue (USI) A-46. 11 As members of SQUG, we have supported the many efforts upon which the GIP is based.
The SER endorses the methodology and criteria embodied in Revision O of the GIP, subject to satisfactory resolution of a number of open issues and NRC comments.
Action by SQUG and its contractors is underway to resolve the identified open issues and comments in accordance with the SQUG schedule presented at the August 10-11, 1988 meeting with the NRC staff and included with the SQUG letter to Mr. L. c. Shao dated August 19, 1988.
This schedule projects completion of Revision 2 of the GIP in Spring, 1989, contingent upon SQUG and NRC agreement on the resolution of the various open issues.
Revision 2 of the GIP is the version which is scheduled to contain all of the information needed to implement the USI A-46 generic letter at SQUG member pla.nts.
The final NRC SER Supplement with regard to Revision 2 of the GIP is anticipated by mid-1989.
(
8810180273 881007 PDR ADOCK 05000272 p
PNU
bocument Control Desk 2
OCT 0 7 1988 PSE&G's plans for implementation of the GIP at Salem Unit Nos. 1 and 2 are necessarily preliminary given the current status of and schedule for completion of Revision 2 of the GIP and NRC's SER Supplement regarding that revision.
However, it is our current plan to resolve USI A-46 for Salem Unit Nos. 1 and 2 by implementation of the generic criteria and methodology included in Revision o of the GIP, as clarified by SQUG responses to the NRC SER dated September 22, 1988.
Assuming no major changes in the workscope currently envisioned, as described in Revision o of the GIP including the criteria to be added for cable raceways, tanks, heat exchangers, and relays, we plan to perform the seismic verification plant walkdown required by the GIP by the conclusion of the second refueling outage after receipt of the final SER Supplement and resolution of all open issues.
If the final NRC SER supplement with no open items is issued by the second quarter of 1989, then the plant walkdown at Salem Unit 1 is expected to be completed by about January 30, 1992 and at Salem Unit 2 by about June 30, 1991.
Identification of safe shutdown equipment, gathering of necessary plant-specific data and training of our walkdown team members will be initiated prior to these outages.
Our current implementation plan and schedule, as described above, are based on the "SQUG Commitments" identified in each section of the GIP.
In addition, our implementation and schedule commitment is contingent upon our current understanding of the GIP.
If the scope of the final revision of the GIP or the cost and effort required to implement it at Salem Unit Nos. 1 and 2 change significantly from the current scope and cost estimates, we will reevaluate our commitments.
We also desire to integrate the resolution of USI A-46 with the resolution of numerous other related seismic issues (e.g., Eastern Seismicity, Seismic Margins, and Severe Accident Individual Plant External Event Evaluations).
In view of the uncertainties in the requirements and schedule for resolution of these related issues, we reserve the right to revise the implementation schedule for USI A-46 at Salem Unit Nos. 1 and 2 to integrate these potential future requirements into a single, cost-effective program.
This possibility has been the subject of on-going discussions with your staff, and further discussions are planned.
We will advise you in writing of any changes in our implementation plans and schedules.
- Oocument Control Desk 3
Should you have any further questions with regard to this response, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely, OCT 0? 198&
- s. ~. t1; 1-kribeijY! ~t C
Mr. J. C. Stone Licensing Project Manager Mr. R. w. Borchardt Senior Resident Inspector Mr. W. T. Russell, Administrator Region I, Ms. J. Moon, Interim Chief Bureau of Nuclear Engineering Department of Environmental Protection 380 Scotch Road Trenton, NJ 08628