ML20149L451
| ML20149L451 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 02/18/1988 |
| From: | Fay C WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| To: | Miraglia F NRC |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-88-014, CON-NRC-88-14 GL-88-02, GL-88-2, VPNPD-88-108, NUDOCS 8802240236 | |
| Download: ML20149L451 (2) | |
Text
.
WISCONSIN Electnc nw coumr 231 W V:CwGAN P O BOX 2046.VfLWAUKEE.Wl53201 (4141221 2345 VPNPD-88-108 NRC-88-014 February 18, 1988 Mr. Frank J.
Miraglia Office of Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Woohington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Miraglia:
INTEGRATED SAFETY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM II On February 2, 1988, we received your letter dated January 20, 1988, concerning the Integrated Safety Assessment Program II (ISAP II).
As requested, we have enclosed a completed survey form regarding ISAP II.
As we noted in our January 25, 1988, comments on the Integrated Schedule Policy Statement, we have been able to accommodate NRC commitments on a case-by-case basis without reliance upon a nego-tiated integrated schedule.
Accordingly, the integrated schedule focus of ISAP II would only be of minor benefit to us.
At the same time, we have embarked upon a self-initiated Safety System Functional Inspection (SSFI) with an independent contrac-tor, as we discussed with your Region III personnel.
Participa-tion in an additional assessment program at this time would necessarily require diverting some resources from our SSFI efforts.
As you may be aware, a PRA for our Point Beach Nuclear Plant has not yet been performed, ne expect to consider use of the IDCOx methodology after NRC promulgates degraded core evaluation requirements.
From this aspect, our participation in ISAP II would appear to be premature.
While these factors suggest that our participation in ISAP II is unlikely to be appropriate at this time, we would appreciate receiving further information as the program develops.
Very truly yours, Y?
vtvff
'.6 C.
W.
Fay 1
Vice President Nuclear Power 4
4 39 h
8802240236 880218 f
Enclosure PDR ADOCK 05000266 P
s,.-
t Integrated Safety Assessment Precram (ISAF) !!
Response Fomat to Generic Letter 88-0?
Facility Name: Point Beach Nuclear Plant Utility: Wisconsin Electric Power Company Individual Contact Name: charles wm. Krause Phone humber: (414)221-2001 An expression of interest will not be considered a connitment te participte on the part of the utility.
1.
Would you be interested in participating in ISAP !!? If so, in what time frere?
For reasons discussed in our transmittal letter, participation does not appear to be appropriate at this time.
2.
Do you believe that an industry /NRC seminar consisting of a brief discussicr.
by hRC followed by a question and answer period would be beneficial prior to making a decision?
Industry /NRC seminars have usually been beneficial in enhancing the understanding of major programs.
3.
Would you be interesteo in a one-on-one meeting with the i:PC to discuss j
your particular facility or facilities?
A one on one meeting would not be essential at this time.
Working meetings for programs underway would probably be adequate for eddressing npecific items.
1 4.
If you remain undecided regarding participation, what additienal inforation do you need in order to u ke a decisioni Detailed technical infor-mation could be included in incustry/NRC seminars.
i 5.
Do you have any potential concerns about participating ir. !!AP !!'
We are concerned with the additional resource commitment that would be necessary to support an ISAP II effort, particularly the completion of a plant specific PRA.
6.
Do you have any suggestier.s for progran improvements or changes?
It may be more appropriate to consider this program after actions regarding the NRC Degraded Core Rulemaking have been completed.
.