ML20149M993
| ML20149M993 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 02/22/1988 |
| From: | Croley B SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |
| To: | Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| AGM-TA-88-055, AGM-TA-88-55, GL-88-02, GL-88-2, NUDOCS 8802290357 | |
| Download: ML20149M993 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _
e hSMUD SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT O P. O. Box 15830, Sacramento CA 95852-1830,(916) 452-3211 AN ELECTRIC SYSTEM SERVING THE HEART OF CALIFORNIA AGM/TA 88-055 FEB : 2 1983 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Frank J. Miraglia, Jr.
Associate Director for Projects 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Docket No. 50-312 Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station License No. DPR-54 INTEGRATED SAFETY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM II (GL 88-02)
Dear Mr. Miraglia:
The District's responses to the survey questions are enclosed as requested by Generic Letter 88-02.
Please contact me if you have any questions. Members of your staff with questions requiring additional infomation or clarification may collact Mr. John Atwell at (209) 333-2935, extension 4917.
Sincerely, B. G. Croley, Acting Assistant General M nager, Technical and Administrative Services Attachment cc:
G. Kalman, NRC, Rockville A. D'Angelo, NRC, Rancho Seco J. B. Martin, NRC Walnut Creek y
I 0802290357 000222
. 1(\\
DR ADOCK 050 2
l RANCHO SECO NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION D 1444o Twin Cities Road, Herald, CA 95638 9799;(209) 333 2935 J
)
4
(.
Integrated Safety Assessment Program (ISAP) II Generic Letter 88-02 Facility Name:
Rancho Seco Utility:
Sacramento Municipal Utility District Individual Contact Name:
Jerry Delezenski Phone Number:
(209) 333-2935 An expression of interest will not be considered a commitment to participate on the part of the utility.
1.
Would you be interested in participating in ISAP II? If so, in what time frame?
The ISAP II proposal outlined by the NRC in Generic Letter 88-02 appears to include many elements that should enhance the effectiveness of NRC and Licensee interactions with respect to identification, prioritization, and ultimate closure of regulatory and utility driven items. The District recognizes the importance of this type of effective interaction and is, therefore, interested in a po.;sible involvement in ISAP II.
- However, there are certain current constraints at Rancho Seco that may not permit involvement during the timeframes outlined in the Generic Letter. These constraints include the lack of a plant specific PRA and our current efforts involved in an extensive ltestart and Power Ascension Program.
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?
An industry /NRC ISAP II seminar should be pursued. However, the District would recommend that the seminar include more than a "brief discussion by NRC" with respect to an actual implementation of ISAP II. We recognize that many of the details of inplementation must be based on plant specific situations, but general guidance should be discussed in detail.
It might also be appropriate to solicit feedback involvement from Millstone Unit 1 and Haddam Neck during the seminar concerning their experiences and views of the pilot ISAP.
l 3.
Would you be interested in a one-on-one meeting with the NRC to discuss you particular facility or facilities?
It would appear more appropriate to pursue one-on-one meetings after the proposed industry /NRC seminar. The District's interest in such a session would be considered at that time.
R6 4
If you remain undecided regarding participation, what additional information do you need in order to make a decision?
While the District is interested in the ISAP II concepts, an ultimate decision to participate cannot be made at this time.
Beyond the timeliness constraints mentioned in Item 1 above, there are additional details that would have to be worked out with the NRC Staff prior to any commi tment. For example, the cxact role and involvement of NRC Regional personnel is not clearly defined and, in thb specific case of Rancho Seco, it is not clear how our very extensive system and performance investigations and evaluations performed over the last two years relate to the ISAP II required "operating experience review".
5.
Do you have any potential concerns about participating in ISAP II?
Assuming an understanding of the details for participation in ISAP II and associated agreement with the NRC staff, the District would not have any concerns about participating in ISAP II.
Some current District concerns (based on a very limited knowle.lge of the program) are mentioned in items 1 and 4.
I 6.
Do you have any suggestions for program improver:nts or changes?
At this time more information is necessary prior to being able to suggest any improvements. The proposed industry /NRC seminar should provide an excellent forum for this type of exchange.
i r
_y r-
--,