ML20041F232
| ML20041F232 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1982 |
| From: | Phyllis Clark GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TASK-***, TASK-RR NUDOCS 8203160311 | |
| Download: ML20041F232 (6) | |
Text
GPU Nuclear NEECIGar 100 Int rpace Parkway M
Parsippany. New Jersey 07054 201 263-6500 TELEX 136-482 Writer's Direct Dial Number:
so A
March 9, 1982 Mr. D. G. Eisenhut UTC' ;pgg Director d
,g Division of Licensing
.I gg02 $ p)g Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l -
t U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- g. I
,.g Q
t Washington, D. C. 20555 pg.na @ [
Dear Sir:
4 N
~
Subject:
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Docket No. 50-219 Systematic Evaluation Program - Integrated Assessment As suggested by you in the meeting between the NRC and SEP utility managements on December 17, 1981, careful consideration has been given to the possibility of performitig the upcoming integrated Assessment of Oyster Creek utilizing GPU Nuclear resources.
We have determined that such an arrangement would be advantageous in terms c=f a timely completion and accurate representation of actual conditions at the Oyster Creek Plant.
GPU Nuclear possesses a great deal of expertise at the plant site and at corporate engineering offices; better access to technical information describing the plant; greater availability of docketed and undocketed material; more current details on actual plant configuration; and better capability to integrate potential modifications. We believe these advantages will enaole us to better assess the saf ety significance of SEP topics during the integrated assessment. Further, our operating experience will help in assessing man-power requirements, cost-benef it considerations and man-rem ef fects in evaluating potential deficiencies and potential fixes, thereby enabling us to most effectively utilize GPU resources.
The main disadvantages involved in our performing the integrated assessment is that we have less familiarity with the drafting of NRC type SER's.
In addition, more of our manpower would be diverted to support the program.
Based on the considerations outlined above, we have developed the attached
" Plan for Completion of SEP Integrated Assessment (IA)".
This delineates I.,w we propose assignments of functions and responsibilities for the balance of SEP.
%I \\
B203160311 820309 PDR ADOCK 05000219 ear is a part of the General Public Utihties System P
We consider the attached schedule to be a realistic timetable of required events.
In our January II, 1982 letter to you, we expressed concern that the present schedule "Is overly optimistic and does not adequately provide for owner interaction."
Also our October 30, 1981 letter to you indicated similar concerns.
As a follow-up to this letter we would suggest a meeting at your offices wIthin two weeks durIng which time ali detalIs would be thoroughty discussed, in the event that any comments or questions arise, please call Mr. Yoshito Nagai of my staff at 201-299-2255.
Very truly yours,
,? k. 0 u
P. R. Clark Executive Vice President ir
Plan for Completion of SEP Integrated Assessment (IA)
Responsibilities Under Steps for Responsibilities Under the Existing Plan IA Completion the Proposed Plan GPU/NRC SAR Completion for GPU/NRC the remaining topics GPU Review of the draft GPU topic SERs (verification of facts used by NRC 4 conclusions reached)
- GPU/NRC GPU/NRC Meeting GPU/NRC 4
NRC Issuance of a final NRC SER for each SEP topic NRC (Integrated Assessment)
GPU GPU Modification
- Proposals GPU for deficiencies w/ schedule NRC Preparation 6 Issuance of a GPU draft SER for Integrated Assessment (IA) i GPU Review of the draft NRC IA SER GPU/NRC GPU/NRC Meeting GPU/NRC NRC Resolution of comments GPU on the draft IA SER l
l NRC Issuance of a final IA SER NRC i
NRC Presentation of the final NRC IA SER (6 modification L.
proposals) to ACRS l
GPU Modifications GPU
- physical and/or administrative modification l
I
,v.
I 9
i Integrated Assessment (IA) Program 3
i 1.
Establishment of IA Group j
. Licensing Engineers O.C. Engineers PRA Engineer l
Other GPU Engineers (electrical, mechanical, structural)
- 2.
Evaluation of significance of deviation Safety significance - system analyses, PRA, etc.
Man-rem consideration Cost benefit evaluation Man-power requirement l
(Use of a point system and/or assign an upper limit for each factor) 3.
. Identification and selection of recommended corrective actions, where necessary.
4.
Establishment of the schedule for corrective actions.
5.
GPU management review of the actions and schedule.
j 6.
GPU/NRC meeting i
7.
Preparation of the draft IA-SER.
j l
I i
l l
l i '
i l
Review of Draft Topic - SER Gl'U/NRC
!!ceting 6
Issuance of final Topic SERS
_L-
_ ___,.._ _ m
_ p-y formation Evaluation of Identiikation and Integration of IAG significance selection of of deviation corrective actions a
a GPU management' review GPU/NRCmeetin$
g PLeparation of Jan.
F.cb.
Mar.
Apr.
May June July Aug.
Sept.
Oct. - the draft IA-SSR Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
83 1982
- I 4
SEP SCHEDULE l
SAR Completion R view of Draft Topic - SER GPU/NRC
!!ceting S
Issuance of final Topic SERs l-l-
j formation Evaluation of Identification and Integration of IAG significance selection of of deviation corrective actions i
a GPU m'anagement' review
+
- A GPU/NRC meeting P'eparation of the draft IA-SER Jan.
F.eb.
Mar.
Apr.
May June July Aug.
Sept.
Oct. ~
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
83 1982 g.
1 4
SEP SCllEDULE e
T i
Review of draft IA-SER (NRC)
Resolution of corr.ents on the draft IA-SER e
GPU/NRC Meeting O
Issuance of final IA-SER S
Presentation of final IA-SER to ACRS June July Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
- May, 1983
.