ML20149J808

Forwards Completed Survey,Per NRC 880120 Request Re Generic Ltr 88-02, Isap II

ML20149J808
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch, Vogtle, 05000000
Issue date:	02/19/1988
From:	Gucwa L GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
References
GL-88-02, GL-88-2, SL-4108, NUDOCS 8802230224
Download: ML20149J808 (4)

Text

_ ._ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - _ _ _ _ _ - ___

. 6 Georgia Fower Company

• a 333 P>edmont Avenue

• Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Telephone 404 5264526 Marling Address:

Post Off;ce Box 4545 At!anta. Georgia 30302 Georgia Power L T.Cucwa l'Y SathC7" PKffC SF5k*

Manager Nuclear Safety and Lcens.ng SL-4108 0799U X7GJ17-C210 February 19, 1988 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555 PLANT HATCH - UNITS 1, 2 NRC DOCKETS 50-321, 50-366 OPERATING LICENSES DPR-57, NPF-5 PLANT V0GTLE - UNITS 1, 2 NRC DOCKETS 50-424, 50-425 ,

OPERATING LICENSE NPF-68 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT CPPR-109 RESPONSE TO NRC GENERIC LETTER 88-02 "INTEGRATED SAFETY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM II" Gentlemen:

By the subject letter dated January 20, 1988, NRC requested that Georgia Power Company submit a completed survey indicating our interest in participating in the Integrated Safety Assessment Program II. The Georgia Power Company response is provided in the enclosure to this letter.

If you have any questions in this regard, please contact this office.

Sincerely, y A _2 L. T. Gutwa  ;

L HJB/ju s

Enclosure:

Response to NRC Generic Letter 88-02 c: (see next page) s\

I ggSagggggqjp P

GeorgiaPower A U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission February 19, 1988 Page Two c: Georaia Power Comoany ~

Mr. J. P. O'Reilly, Sr. Vice President - Nuclear Operations Mr. J. T. Beckham, Jr., Vice President - Plant Hatch Mr. P. D. Rice, Vice President and Vogtle Project Director Mr. G. Bockhold, Jr., General Manager - Plant Vogtle Mr. C. H. Hayes, Vogtle Project Quality Assurance Manager Mr. S. B. Tipps, Manager Nuclear Safety and Compliance - Hatch Mr. J. E. Swartzwelder, Manager Nuclear Safety and Compliance - Vogtle GO-NORMS U. S. Nuclear Reaulatory Commission. Washington. D. C.

Mr. L. P. Crocker, Licensing Project Manager - Hatch Mr. J. B. Hopkins, Licensing Project Manager - Vogtle (2 copies)

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Reaion II Dr. J. N. Grace, Regional Administrator Mr. P. Holmes-Ray, Senior Resident Inspector - Hatch ,

Mr. J. F. Rogge, Senior Resident Inspector, Operations - Vogtle Mr. H. H. Livermore, Senior Resident Inspector, Construction - Vogtle Southern comoany Service 1 Mr. R. A. Thomas, Executive Consultant Mr. J. A. Bailey, Vogtle Project Licensing Manager Shaw. Pittman. Potts & Trowbridge Mr. B. H. Churchill, Attorney-at-Law Troutman. Sanders. Lockerman & Ashmore Mr. A. H. Domby, Attorney-at-Law 07990 m

,v GeorgiaPower A i

ENCLOSURE PLANT HATCH - UNITS 1, 2 NRC DOCKETS 50-321, 50-366 OPERATING LICENSES OPR-57, NPF-5 PLANT V0GTLE - UNITS 1, 2

! NRC DOCKETS 50-424, 50-425 OPERATING LICENSE NPF-68 I

CONSTRUCTION PERMIT CPPR-109

! RESPONSE TO NRC GENERIC LETTER 88-02 "INTEGRATED SAFETY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM II" l

l l

l In this enclosure, Georgia Power Company (GPC) presents its response to NRC ' Generic Letter 88-02, "Integrated Safety Assessment Program II" (ISAP II), for Plants Hatch and Vogtle. GPC pla:es strong emphasis on strategic planning and scheduling which is an integrated part of ISAP II.

GPC has already upgraded its planning activities by initiating a detailed I

Nuclear Planning and Scheduling Strategic Plan to further enhance our effectiveness. In the future, detailed long-term plans will be developed, t maintained, and properly funded for both regulatory and licensee initiated plant modifications. Licensees need these tools to manage their business.

While GPC is moving forward to improve its strategic planning and scheduling system, we currently desire to develop our own system, under our schedule and control. What the NRC addresses as advantages of ISAP II are no different than if we pursue a similar option in working with the NRC via our plan.

If ISAP II is further considered, we believe it should include specific guidelines and criteria. Without guidelines, the application of effort required to develop an ISAP II that would be fully acceptable to the NRC could result in an inefficient use of both of our resources. GPC appreciates the NRC Staff's expressed intent to work with interested licensees to further clarify ISAP II; however, lacking more tangible benefits, we choose to defer entering into this process.

0799U E-1 02/19/88 SL-4108 m

- - ~,

ENCLOSURE (Continued)

Integrated Safety Assessment Program (ISAP) II Response Format to Generic Letter 88-02 Facility Name: PLANTS HATCH & V0GTLE Utility: GEORGIA POWER COMPANY Individual Contact Name: L. T. GUCWA Phone Number: (404) 526 7015 An expression of interest will not be considered a comitment to participate on the part of the utility.

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

Based on our current understanding of the ISAP 11 concept, at this time, we respectfully decline participation.

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

Yes. The explanation of the process and its benefits would be beneficial to decision-making.

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

We would first suggest an industry /NRC seminar. Then, depending upon our evaluation, we would consider a one-on-one meeting with HRC staff or its consultants.

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

- PRA schedule.

- Reconsideration by NRC to make ISAP 11 other than a license amendment.

- Detailed IPE requirements.

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

Yes. For example: Costs, scheduling, details of the program, and licensino process. The concept could be viewed as a tightening of the regulatory process.

6. Do yJu have any suggestions for program improvements or changes?

NRC might consider other ways to achieve the same objective. The process, because it does offer the benefit of addressing plant-specific issues on a safety-priority basis, does depart somewhat from industry standardization and the efficiencies of addressing issues generically.

SL-4108 E-2 02/19/88