ML15224B180
| ML15224B180 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee, Mcguire, Catawba, McGuire, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 03/07/1988 |
| From: | Hood D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| GL-88-02, GL-88-2, NUDOCS 8803100068 | |
| Download: ML15224B180 (29) | |
Text
REGU
.oUNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 March 7, 1988 Docket Nos.: 50-413/414 50-369/370 50-269/270/287 FACILITIES:
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2 McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 UTILITY:
Duke Power Company
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MARCH 1, 1988 MEETING ON INTEGRATED SAFETY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM II On March 1, 1988 the NRC staff met in Rockville, Maryland with Duke Power Company to discuss the Integrated Safety Assessment Program II (ISAP I) described in NRC Generic Letter (GL) 88-02 dated January 20, 1988. Meetine attendees are listed in Enclosure 1. Viewgraph slides used during the presentations are shown in Enclosure 2.
ISAP II is a disciplined program presently under consideration to address regulatory issues within an integrated schedule based upon probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) and operating experience review. ISAP II is derived from a pilot program (ISAP) initiated in May 1985 for Millstone Unit 1 and Haddam Neck and described in the Federal Register November 15, 1984 (49 FR 45112) and GL 85-07. Unlike ISAP, TSAPF1T will not review issues to current Standard Review Plan sections and will not require addressing unresolved generic issues prior to generic resolution. ISAP II provides for a ranking of issues such that an integrated schedule is developed in which regulatory issues and utility initiated items are prioritized and scheduled within a total framework. An ISAP II Level 1 PRA combined with a containment vulnerability assessment (or a Level 2 or Level 3 PRA) is also an acceptable method for performing the Individual Plant Examination (IPE) required by the Commission's Severe Accident Policy Statement (50 FR 32138, August 9, 1985). The Commission is presently determining utility interest in ISAP II and has issued GL 88-0? to this end.
Presentations by the NRC discussed the ISAP pilot program, IPE requirements and ISAP II.
Several questions were asked by Duke personnel during the meeting. The preliminary nature of ISAP II precludes final answers to several questions such as, who will perform the operating experience reviews and what criteria will be used to determine if an issue can be dropped? Duke also asked several questions about the resource effectiveness of ISAP II both to the NRC and to a utility, particularly 803100068 880307 PDR ADOCK 05000269 P
-2 considering that the post-TMI and Salem-ATWS issues are substantially completed.
Duke views the potential requirements that a license be amended to incorporate the accepted schedules to be a significant deterrence to utility interest in ISAP II. Duke suggested that consideration be given to an ISAP II-type program which could be of resource benefit to the NRC's inspection program.
Duke will provide written comments to the NRC before the next Commission meeting on ISAP II.
Original signed by:
Darl S. Hood, Project Manager Project Directorate 11-3 Division of Reactor Project I/IT
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
See next page PD 11-3 PD II-3 DHood:pw Acting Director
/
/188 3 /7/88
considering that the post-TMI and SaTem-ATYS issues are substantially completed.
Duke views the potential reouirements that a license be amended to incorporate the accepted schedules to be a significant deterrence to utility interest in ISAP II. Duke suggested that consideration be given to an ISAP II-type program which could be o' resource benefit to the NRC's inspection program.
Duke will provide written comments to the NRC before the next Commission meeting on ISAP II.
Original signed by:
Darl S. Hood, Project Manager Project Directorate 11-3 Division of Reactor Project I/IT
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
See next page PD 11-3 PD DHood:pw Acting Director
'3//88
0 0
Duke Power Company Catawba Nuclear Station cc:
A.V. Carr, Esq.
North Carolina Electric Membership Duke Power Company Corp.
422 South Church Street 3400 Sumner Boulevard Charlotte, North Carolina 2824?
P.O. Box 27306 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell Saluda River Electric Cooperative, and Reynolds Inc.
1?00 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
P.O. Box 9?9 Washington, D. C. 20036 Laurens, South Carolina 29360 North Carolina MPA-1 Senior Resident Inspector Suite 600 Route 2, Box 179N 3100 Smoketree Ct.
York, South Carolina 29745 P.O. Box 29513 Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0513 Regional Administrator, Pegion II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, S. S. Kilborn 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Area Manager,.Mid-South Area Atlanta, Georgia 30323 ESSD Projects Westinghouse Electric Corp.
MNC West Tower - Bay 239 P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1.5230 Mr. Heyward G. Shealy, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina ?9?01 County Manager of York County York County Courthouse Karen F. Long York South Carolina 29745 Assistant Attorney General N.C. Department of Justice Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
P.O. Box 629 Assistant Attorney General Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 S.C. Attorney General's Office P.O. Box 11549 Spence Perry, Esquire Columbia, South Carolina 29211 General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency Piedmont Municipal Power Agency Room 840 100 Memorial Drive 500 C Street Greer, South Carolina 29651 Washington, D. C. 2047?
Mr. Michael Hirsch Mr. H. B. Tucker, Vice President Federal Emergency Management Agency Nuclear Production Department Office of the General Counsel Duke Power Company Room 840 422 South Church Street 500 C Street, S.W.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Washington, D. C. 20472 Brian P. Cassidy, Regional Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region I J. W. McCormach POCH Boston, Massachusetts 02109
0 0
Mr. H. B. Tucker Duke Power Company McGuire Nuclear Station cc:
Mr. A.V. Carr, Esq.
Dr. John M. Barry Duke Power Company Department of Environmental Health P. 0. Box 33189 Mecklenburg County 422 South Church Street 1200 Blythe Boulevard Charlotte, North Carolina P?42 Charlotte, North Carolina 28203 County Manager of Mecklenburg County Mr. Dayne H. Brown, Chief 720 East Fourth Street Radiation Protection Branch Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Division of Facility Services Department of Human Resources 701 Barbour Drive Mr. Robert Gill Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-2008 Duke Power Company Nuclear Production Department P. 0. Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 J. Michael McGarrv, III, Esq.
Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell and Reynolds 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 Senior Resident Inspector c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 4, Box 529 Hunterville, North Carolina 28078 Regional Administrator, Region 1I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 S. S. Kilborn Area Manager, Mid-South Area ESSD Projects Westinghouse Electric Corporation MNC West Tower - Bay 239 P. 0. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230
Mr. H. B. Tucker Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Power Company Units Nos. 1, 2 and 3 cc:
Mr. A. V. Carr, Esq.
Mr. Paul Guill Duke Power Company Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 33189 Post Office Box 33189 422 South Church Street 4?2 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Charlotte, North Carolina 2?242
- 3. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Mr. Robert B. Borsum Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Power Generation Division Suite 525 1700 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 2085?
Manager, LIS NUS Corporation 2536 Countryside Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33515 Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 2, Box 610 Seneca, South Carolina 29678 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. Heyward G. Shealy, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Office of Intergovernmental Relations 116 West Jones Street Raleiqh, North Carolina 27603 Honorable James M. Phinney County Supervisor of Oconee County Walhalla, South Carolina 29621
ENCLOSURE 1 Attendance List Meeting with Duke Power Company March 1, 1988 Name Organization K. Jabbour NRC/NRP T. H. Cox NRC/NRR Helen N. Pastis NRC/NRR Richard J. Barrett NRC/NRR P. M. Abraham Duke Power N. Rutherford Duke Power M. S. Tuckman Duke Power W. A. Haller Duke Power L. D. Wert NRC-Oconee Resident M. D. McIntosh Duke Power Cecil Thomas NRC/NPR Melanie Miller NRC/NRR Darl Hood NRC/PD2-3 G. Lainas NRC/AD RIH Tim Carroll Tnternational Technology/Delina John W. Flude NUS Kim Arn Serch Licensing Lynn Connor Doc-Search Associates Mike Schoppman Florida Power & Light Co.
Mark Phillis Bishop, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds F. Gillespie NRC/NRR Hal. R. Tucker Duke Power
ENCLOSURE 2 NRC/DUKE MEETING ON ISAP II MARCH 1, 1988 PRESENTATION OUTLINE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 1futum ISAP BACKGROUND CECIL THOMAS INDIVIDUAL PLANT EXAMINATION TOM COX ISAP II DISCUSSION MELANIE MILLER
HISTORY OF ISAP a NRC INITIATED THE SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM (SEP)
IN 1977 TO REVIEW OPERATING PLANTS AGAINST REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS THAT HAD EVOLVED SINCE THE MAJORITY OF REACTORS HAD BEEN LICENSED, o
PHASE I OF SEP DEFINED A SPECIFIC SET OF SAFETY ISSUES TO BE REVIEWED.
O PHASE LI OF SEP WAS A PILOT REVIEW OF ELEVEN PLANTS; REVIEW INCLUDED:
DETERMINISTIC REVIEW OF SAFETY ISSUES PRA OF INDIVIDUAL ISSUES OPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEW PHASE II OF SEP IDENTIFIED SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE SAFETY AND EVALUATION TECHNIQUES FOR ALL OPERATING
- PEACTORS, PHASE III OF SEP WAS THE PLANNED APPLICATION OF THE PHASE II FINDINGS TO ALL OPERATING REACTORS,
HISTORY OF ISAP THE INTERIM RELIABILITY EVALUATION PROGRAM (IREP) WAS INITIATED BY THE NRC FROM THE TMI-2 LESSONS LEARNED (NUREG-0660)
PURPOSE OF IREP WAS TO:
PERFORM PLANT-SPECIFIC PRAs FOR SEVERAL PLANTS TO SUPPLEMENT THE RISK-PELIABILITY FINDINGS IN WASH-1400 TO DEFINE METHODS TO CONDUCT PLANT-SPECIFIC PRAs FOR CONSISTENT, COMPARABLE RESULTS THE RESULTS OF IREP WERE TO BE APPLIED TO ALL PLANTS IN THE NATIONAL RELIABILITY EVALUATION PROGRAM (NREP)
HISTORY OF ISAP ONE OF THE SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS FROM BOTH SEP AND IREP IS THAT ISSUES RELATED TO SAFETY OF OPERATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS CAN BE MORE EFFECTIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY IMPLEMENTED IN AN INTEGRATED, PLANT-SPECIFIC REVIEW NRC MERGED THE DETERMINISTIC REVIEWS OF SEP PHASE III AND THE PLANT-SPECIFIC RISK ANALYSIS OF NREP INTO A SINGLE PROGRAM, THE INTEGRATED SAFETY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (ISAP, 49 FR 45112)
ISAP WAS MODIFIED IN 1985 INTO A TWO-PLANT PILOT PROGRAM THAT WAS TO INCLUDE PLANTS ALREADY REVIEWED IN SEP NU VOLUNTEERED MILLSTONE UNIT 1 AND HADDAM NECK TO PARTICIPATE IN ISAP
SCOPE OF ISAP INTEGRATED ASSESSMENTS OF OPERATING NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS ARE CONDUCTED ON A PLANT-SPECIFIC BASIS TO EVALUATE ALL LICENSING ACTIONS, LICENSEE INITIATED PLANT IMPROVEMENTS AND SELECTED UNRESOLVED GENERIC/SAFETY ISSUES TO ESTABLISH IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULES FOR EACH ITEM, IN ADDITION, PROCEDURES ARE DEVELOPED TO ALLOW PERIODIC UPDATING OF THE IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULES, MAJOR ELEMENTS OF ISAP APE:
REVIEW OF LESSONS LEARNED FROM SEP PERFORMANCE OF PLANT-SPECIFIC RISK ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS OF OPERATING EXPERIENCE INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT OF TOPICS INTEGRATED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
0 0
ISAP REVIEW
" ISPP CONDUCTED BY AN INTECRATED ASSESSMENT TEAM (TAT)
SCREENING REVIEW BY BOTH IAT AND LICENSEE TO DEVELOP TOPIC DEFINITIONS, SCOPE, REVIEW CRITERTA AND JUSTIFICATION FOR CONTINUED OPERATION
" ISAP EVALUATION IS DIVIDED INTO THREE PARALLEL PHASES TOPIC EVALUATIONS (DETERMINISTIC AND PROBABILISTIC)
PERFORMANCE OF PROBABILISTIC SAFETY ASSESSMENT (PSA)
EVALUATION OF PLANT OPERATING EXPERIENCE LICENSEE PERFORMS AN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT OF TOPICS TO DETERMINE WHICH WARRANT CORRECTIVE ACTION BASED ON PERCEIVED SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE AND TO DEVELOP COST-EFFECTIVE ACTIONS TO RESOLVE MULTIPLE ISSUES, WHERE PRACTICAL
" STAFF ISSUES DRAFT INTEGRATED SAFETY ASSESSMENT REPORT DRAFT ISAR REVIEWED BY LICENSEE, PEER REVIEW GROUP AND ACRS
" FINAL ISAR ISSUED:
INTEGRATED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND METHODOLOGY TO MAINTAIN SCHEDULE IS FORMALIZED
EXAMPLES OF ISAP FINDINGS MILLSTONE 1 64% OF TOTAL CALCULATED CORE MELT FREQUENCY WAS DUE TO FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE LONG-TERM DECAY HEAT REMOVAL CAPABILITY HADDAM NECK LOSS OF MCC-5, IN THE SWITCHGEAR ROOM WOULD CAUSE A LOSS OF FUNCTION OF CRITICAL EQUIPMENT AND PREVENT SAFE SHUTDOWN ISAP ALSO IDENTIFIED AREAS THAT WHILE DEVELOPED TO INCREASE PLANT SAFETY OR AVAILABILITY, ACTUALLY INCREASED RISK MILLSTONE 1, DEGRADED GRID VOLTAGE PROTECTION HADDAM NECK, NITROGEN BLANKET FOR THE DEMINERALIZED WATER STORAGE TANK
ISAP PILOT PROGRAM CONCLUSIONS PERFORMANCE OF PSA BY THE LICENSEE, AND REVIEW OF THE PSA AND OPERATING EXPERIENCE BY THE STAFF HAS LED TO A BETTEP UNDERSTANDING OF THE PLANT'S OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS AND CAPABILITIES BY BOTH THE LICENSEE AND THE STAFF, o
INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IDENTIFY COMMON ELEMENTS IN SEPARATE REVIEWS AND PROPOSE A SINGLE ACTION TO RESOLVE THEM, O
INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE STAFF AND LICENSEE TO ADDRESS PENDING REQUIREMENTS ON A PLANT-SPECIFIC BASIS, o
ISAP PROVIDES A FORMAL PROCESS TO EVALUATE THE PRIORITIZATION OF ALL PROPOSED ACTIONS, O
PILOT PROGRAM HAS DEMONSTRATED THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO LICENSEES, THE PUBLIC AND THE NRC OF INTEGRATED ASSESS MENTS USING PLANT-SPECIFIC PSAs AND OPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEWS.
IPE PROGRAM O
STATUS OF IPE GENERIC LETTER O
OPTIONS FOR IPE ANALYSIS PLANS FOR NRC REVIEW PROCESS
STATUS OF THE IPE LETTER NRR AND RES ARE.WORKING TO COMPLETE THE GENERIC LETTER PACKAGE THAT WILL BE SENT TO EACH UTILITY, A CRGR REVIEW MEETING WILL BE SCHEDULED FOLLOWING APPROVAL BY NRR AND RES, A COMMISSION MEETING ON THE GENERIC LETTER WILL BE SCHEDULED DURING MAY.
EXPECT TO ISSUE THE LETTER BY END OF MAY 1988.
STATUS OF THE IPE LETTER (CONTINUED)
ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT AND EXTERNAL EVENTS WILL BE PURSUED ON SEPARATE TRACK FROM IPE GL - NRC IS EXPECTING NUMARC PROPOSALS ON THESE ELEMENTS, THE GENERIC LETTER APPENDICES WILL ADDRESS:
GUIDANCE ON THE EXAMINATION OF CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE (BACK-END ANALYSIS)
SEQUENCE SELECTION CRITERIA - TO SELECT ACCIDENT SEQUENCES SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION PLANT DESIGN GUIDELINES - TO ESTABLISH THRESHOLD RISK VALUES, BASED ON COMMISSION'S SAFETY GOAL POLICY, FOR USE IN FINAL EVALUATION OF IPES.
ELEMENTS OF AN ACCEPTABLE ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT PLAN DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS DELAY HEAT REMOVAL VULNERABILITY INSIGHTS THE GENERIC LETTER ATTACHMENTS ARE:
A LIST OF REFERENCES A REPORT ENTITLED "ASSESSMENT OF SEVERE ACCIDENT PREVENTION AND MITIGATION FEATURE: BWR MARK I CONTAINMENT DESIGN" OR AN ANALOGOUS DOCUMENT APPROPRIATE TO THE MAJOR CONTAINMENT TYPES.
OPTIONS FOR IPE ANALYSIS THE GENERIC LETTER SPECIFIES SEVERAL OPTIONS THAT COULD BE USED TO SATISFY THE EXAMINATION REQURIEMENTS IDCOR IPEM FRONT END WITH STAFF ENHANCEMENT +
CONTAINMENT PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS ACCORDING TO APPENDIX 1 LEVEL I PRA + CONTAINMENT PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS ACCORDING TO APPENDIX 1 (OR LEVEL II OR III PRA ACCORDING TO APPENDIX 1)
OTHER SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION METHODS (STAFF PREVIEW MIGHT BE NECESSARY)
PLANS FOR NRC REVIEW PROCESS 0 120 DAYS TO.RESPOND TO IPE GL WITH PLANS o WHATEVER OPTION IS SELECTED, NRC RESPONSE TO SUBMITTALS IS INTENDED TO BE REASONABLY PROMPT 0 WORKSHOPS AFTER ISSUANCE OF IPE GL o
NRC WILL PREPARE AN IPE REVIEW DOCUMENT FOR THE STAFF.
AND CONTRACTOR REVIEWERS TO INCLUDE:
AREAS OF REVIEW DETERMINATION OF.ADEQUACY OF IPE RESULTS INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS ACTION LEVELS SAMPLE EVALUATIONS IPE REVIEW DOCUMENT WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL UTILITIES SHORTLY AFTER THE GENERIC LETTER
ISAP II PRESENTATION o
ISAP VS. ISAP II o
RELATION TO IPE O
PROGRAM COMPONENTS O
BENEFITS O
RELATION TO INTEGRATED SCHEDULES O
IMPLEMENTATION O
INITIATION SCHEDULE
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ISAP AND ISAP II o
ISAP II DOES NOT REQUIRE UTILITIES TO ADDRESS SEP ISSUES ADDRESS ONLY CURRENT AND FUTURE ISSUES THAT WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED o ISAP 11 WILL NOT REQUIRE A PEER OR ACRS REVIEW OF THE INTEGRATED SAFETY ASSESSMENT REPORT o ISAP II WILL PROVIDE FOUNDATION FOR COMPLETION OF AN IPE
ISAP II RELATIONSHIP TO IPE ISAP II BY PARTICIPATING, UTILITY HAS INITIATED PREFERRED MEANS OF DOING IPE LEVEL I PRA PLUS CONTAINMENT VULNERABILITY ASSESSSMENT OR LEVEL II OR LEVEL III PRA WOULD FULFILL IPE REQUIREMENTS IPE REQUIREMENT IF A UTILITY DOES PRA TO FULFILL IPE, THEN CAN ALSO PARTICPATE IN ISAP II THE IPE SELECTION CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING WHICH "VULNERABILITIES" ARE TO BE CORRECTED WOULD ALSO BE APPLIED TO ISAP II PRAS SO THAT ISAP II PARTICIPANTS WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO CORRECT ADDITIONAL VULNERABILITIES BEYOND THOSE REQUIRED PER THE IPE,
ISAP II:
PROGRAM COMPONENTS
" PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT LEVEL I AT MINIMUM
" OPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEW IDENTIFY TRENDS, WEAKNESSES VALIDATE REASONABLENESS OF PRA INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT RANK ISSUES END RESULT IS INTEGRATED SCHEDULE
SOME ANTICIPATED ISAP II BENEFITS 0 PRIORITIZATION OF ACTIONS PROVIDES RATIONAL SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTATION o BASIS FOR POSSIBLE COMBINATION OR ELIMINATION OF ISSUES a PREDICTABLE SAFETY BASIS TO MANAGE CURRENT WORKLOADS AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS 0 BASIS FOR CONSIDERING PLANT LIFE EXTENSION REQUESTS AND AGING ISSUES 0 BASES FOR OPTIMIZATION OF MAINTENANCE/SURVEILLANCE INTERVALS o
PROCESS WOULD IMPROVE OUTAGE PLANNING o
PROVIDE LICENSEE WITH INDEPTH PLANT UNDERSTANDING o RECEIVE INCREASED SAFETY VALUE FOR DOLLARS SPENT BECAUSE ISSUES OF HIGHEST SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE GENERALLY WORKED ON FIRST IMPROVE LICENSEE ENGINEERING/OPERATIONS INTERFACE BECAUSE PRA IS PART OF REGULATORY BASIS MAY BE ABLE TO BE PART OF RATE BASE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ISAP II AND INTEGRATED SCHEDULE ISAP II IS PRA-BASED PROVIDES TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION ISAP II ALLOWS DROPPING OF ISSUES, MOVING ISSUES TO LOWER PRIORITY
IMPLEMENTATION OF ISAP II
" COMMISSION APPROVES ISAP II OPTION
" STAFF FINALIZES PROGRAM DETAILS AND ISSUES GUIDANCE
" STAFF SELECTS PARTICIPANTS O
EACH PARTICIPATING UTILITY SUBMITS PRA(S) AND LIST OF ISAP II ISSUES
" NRC REVIEWS SCOPE OF ISSUES AND RESOLVES QUESTIONS o EACH UTILITY SUBMITS EVALUATION, PROPOSED RESOLUTION, AND RANKING OF EACH ISAP II ISSUE O
NRC REVIEWS RESOLUTION AND RANKING AND RESOLVES QUESTIONS O
STAFF ISSUES INTEGRATED SAFETY ASSESSMENT REPORT
" NRC AND EACH UTILITY NEGOTIATE SCHEDULES SCHEDULES REASSESSED FOLLOWING EACH REFUELING OUTAGE
PROPOSED ISAP II INITIATION SCHEDULE GENERIC LETTER ISSUED 1/20/83 SURVEY RESPONSES RECEIVED 3/4/88 MEET WITH POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS 3/1/88 - 4/1/88 AS NECESSARY ISAP II OPTION PAPER TO COMMISSION 3/30/88 COMMISSION DECISION ON ISAP II 5/15/88 ANTICIPATED
DISTRIBUTION FOR MEETING
SUMMARY
DATED:
March 7, 1988 Facility: Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2*
McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2*
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3*
Docket File NRC PDR Local PDR POII-3 Reading M. Rood D. Hood G. Lainas K. Jabbour T. H. Cox H. Pastis R. Parrett C. Thomas M. Miller OGC E. Jordan J. Partlow ACRS (10)
CNS Reading MNS Reading ONS Reading
- Copies sent to persons of facility service list