ML20147E080

Forwards Response to Generic Ltr 88-02, Isap Ii. Util Cannot Commit to Participate Until Specific Comparison of Applicability of Isap II to Individual Plant Evaluation Ascertained

ML20147E080
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	02/26/1988
From:	Shelton D TOLEDO EDISON CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
References
1495, GL-88-02, GL-88-2, NUDOCS 8803040262
Download: ML20147E080 (3)

Text

, N s.

TOLEDO EDISON

-Ac-w-e.,e m DONALD C. SHELTON

w. % eu Docket No. 50-346 14'S! 2d3 23m License No. NPF-3 Serial No. 1495 February 26, 1988 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk

• Washington, D. C. 20555

Subject:

Response to Generic Letter 88-02, Integrated Safety Assessment Program II (ISAP II)

Gentlemen:

Your letter of January 20, 1988 (Log No. 2489) requested Toledo Edison's response as to its interest in Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS),

Unit No. l's participation in the Integrated Safety Assessment Program II (ISAP II). The survey form provided as Enclosure 2 to your letter has been completed and is attached.

In summary, Toledo Edison cannot at this time comit to DBNPS's participation until a specific comperison of the applicability of ISAP II to the Individual Plant Evaluation (IPE) is ascertained. The potential doubling of resource expenditure due to the seeming ISAP II/IPE incompatability serves as our primary reason for this determination.

If you have any questions, please contact R. W. Schrauder, Nuclear Licensing Manager, at (419)249-2366.

Very truly yours,

/ -

Attachment cct DB-1 NRC Resident Inspector A. B. Davis, Regional Administrator (2 copies)

A. W. DeAgazio NRC/NRR Davis-Besse Project Manager goP 8803040262 880226 PDR ADOCK0500g6 t 1 P

THE TDLEDO ED: SON COMPANY ED: SON PLAZA 300 MADISON AVENUE TOLEDO, OHO 43652

po q, ,

i.

3 ,

. 1Dockit N;. 50-346

.. Licente No. NPF-3 9erial No. 1495 Attachment.

Page~1 Integrated Safety Assessment Program (ISAP) II s

Response to Generic Letter 88-02 Facility Name: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station-Unit No. 1 Utility: Toledo Edison Company Individual Contact Name: R. W. Schrauder Phone Number: (419) 249-2366~

~

'An expression of interest will not be considered a commitment to participate on the part of the utility.

1. Would ycu be interested in participating in ISAP II? If so, in what time frame?

Response: The lack of. knowledge of the specific staff requirements for Individual Plant Evaluation (IPE) and the compatability/ conflict with ISAP II does not allow a decision to be made regarding participation. As soon as specific comparison information of the applicability of ISAP Il methods and results to IPE is available, a decision concerning participation can be made.

2. 'Do you believe that an industry /NRC seminar consisting of a brief discussion by NRC followed by a question and answer period we.uld he beneficial prior to making a decision?

Response: Yes. This could provide the forum for assessing the compatability of IPE and ISAP II so an informed decision on participation can be made.

3. Would you be interested in a one-on-one meeting with the NRC to discuss your particular facility or facilities?

Response: An industry /NRC seminar would be more beneficial at this point. As a more informed decision is being formulated, a one-on-one meeting may be desired.

4 If you remain undecided regarding participation, what additional information do you need in order to make a decision?

Response: As stated in Item 1, specific comparison information of the applicability of ISAP II methods and results to IPE is required to make a decision.

,-es_

Dockst No. 50-346 E .. -License No. NPF-3' ,

- Strial No. 1495 '

Attachment i Page 2

5. Do you have any potential concerns about participating in ISAP II?

' Response: At this time, Toledo Edison does'not see that ISAP II and 4 IPE are compatible or will be compatible. Therefore, the expenditure of Toledo-Edison resources on ISAP II, with uncertainty as to the (

methods and results applicability to IPE, cannot be justified with the current information provided.

6.' Do you-have'any suggestions for program improvements or changes?

Response: A concerted and definable compatability between ISAP II ,

and IPE should be developed in order that potential utility resource  !

expenditure can be quantified.

t I

s e

e f

)- i f

r i

I l

?