ML20150C037

Summary of 880105 Meeting W/Util Re Features of Isap Ii.List of Attendees Encl

ML20150C037
Person / Time
Site:	Zion  File:ZionSolutions icon.png
Issue date:	03/08/1988
From:	Norris J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8803170272
Download: ML20150C037 (32)

Text

.

March 8, 1988 DISTRIBUTION:

2xMuse JNorris Docket Nos. 50-295 NRC& Local POR OGC-Rockville ACRS(10)(RI)

HBClayton and 50-304 PDIII-2 r/f Edordan JPartlow NRC Participants LICENSEE: Comonwealth Edison Company (CECO)

FACIL ITY: Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2

SUMMARY

OF MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 5, 1988 WITH NRR STAFF TO DISCUSS ISAP II On January 5,1988 NRR staff rnet with the representatives of Comonwealth Edison Company to discuss the features of the Integrated Safety Assessment Program. The sumary of the topics discussed is in Enclosure 1. The list of attendees is in Enclosure 2. Following the presentation by the staff, there was a short question and answer session to clarify a few points of the staff's presentation. Ceco was requested to respond whether Zion would be interested in joining ISAP II.

Original Signed hy/

Jan A. Norris, Sr. Project Manager Project Directorate III-2 Division of Reactor Projects - III IV, V and Special Projects

Enclosure:

As stated cc: See next page t

l l

PRIII-2 POIJ -2 JNorris L(uther 3/p/88 y/ 3 7

/88 l

l 8803170272 D'30300 5 DR ADOCK 050 l

p uc g ,g oq[e UNITED STATES <

y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l c g /(/( gl WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 l

%.[.* March 8,1988 Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304 LICENSEE: Connonwealth Edison Company (CECO)

FACILITY: Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2

SUMMARY

OF MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 5, 1988 WITH NRR STAFF TO DISCUSS ISAP II i

On January 5,1988 NRR staff met with the representatives of Connonwealth Edison Company to discuss the features of the Integrated Safety Assessment Program. The sunnary of the topics discussed is in Enclosure 1. The list of attendees is in Enclosure 2. Following the presentation by the staff, there was a short question and answer session to clarify a few points of the staff's presentation. Ceco was requested to respond whether Zion would i

be interested in joining ISAP II.

b  %,

a Jar A. Norris, r. Project Manager l

Pro et Directorate III-2 r Div ion of Reactor Projects - III IV, Y and Special Projects

Enclosure:

As stated cc: See next page

\]

l Mr. L. D. Butterfield, Jr. Zion Station Commonwealth Edison Company ec: Mr. Michael C. Parker, Chief Robert J. Vollen, Esq. Division of Engineering 109 N. Dearborn Street Illinois Department of Nuclear Chicago, Illinois 60602 Safety 1035 Outer Park Drive, 5th Floor Dr. Cecil Lue-Hing Springfield, Illinois 62704 Director of Research and Development Metropolitan Sanitary Of strict of Greater Chicago 100 East Erie Street Chicago, Illinois 60611 Mr. P. Steptoe, Esq.

Isham, Lincoln and Beale Three First National Plaza Suite 5200 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Mayor of Zion Zion, Illinois 60099 Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety ATTN: Manager, Nuclear Facility Safety 1035 Outer Park Drive, 5th Floor Springfield, Illinois 62704 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Resident inspectors Office 105 Shiloh Blvd.

Zion, Illinois 60099 i

Regional Administrator, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road t

Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 l

l l

t

e" PRESENTATION OUTLINE INTRODUCTION FRANK GILLESPIE AND cecil THOMAS r

ISAP BACKGROUND MIKE B0YLE .

L l

i j

INDIVIDUAL PLANT EXAMINATION TOM C0X i

i ,-

, r ISAP II INFORMATION MELANIE MILLER t

i I ,

l' I

I . -. ... . ... . . . . .. .

._..,__.__.m.. . _ , , _ _ ....,y-_,._.._ _ . _ _ _ _ . , _ ..-,.m.___,_m_,,.-,.... ._.-,.-_,.y_..,_,,._......_. ,._ _...,.. - _.- ..-, ..

HISTORY OF ISAP NRC INITIATED THE SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM (SEP)

IN 1977 TO REVIEW OPERATING PLANTS AGAINST REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS THAT.HAD EVOLVED SINCE THE MAJORITY OF REACTORS HAD BEEN LICENSED.

PHASE I 0F SEP DEFINED A SPECIFIC SET OF SAFETY ISSUES TO BE REVIEWED.

PHASE II 0F SEP WAS A PILOT REVIEW 0F ELEVEN PLANTS; REVIEW INCLUDED: _

DETERMINISTIC REVIEW 0F SAFETY ISSUES PRA 0F INDIVIDUAL ISSUES OPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEW PFASE II 0F SEP IDENTIFIED SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE SAFETY AND EVALUATION TECHNIQUES FOR ALL OPERATING REACTORS.

PHASE III 0F SEP WAS THE PLANNED APPLICATION OF THE PHASE II FINDINGS TO ALL OPERATING REACTORS.

HISTORY OF ISAP THE INTERIM RELIABILITY EVALUATION PROGRAM (IREP) WAS INITIATED BY THE NRC FROM THE TMI-2 LESSONS LEARNED (NUREG-0660)

PURPOSE OF IREP WAS T0: _

PERFORM PLANT-SPECIFIC PRAs FOR SEVERAL PLANTS TO SUPPLEMENT THE RISK-PEL! ABILITY FINDINGS IN WASH-1400 .

TO DEFINE METHODS TO CONDUCT PLANT-SPECIFIC PRAs FOR CONSISTENT, COMPARABLE RESULTS  :

THE RESULTS OF IREP WERE TO BE APPLIED TO ALL PLANTS IN THE NATIONAL RELIABILITY EVALUATION PROGRAM (NREP)

HISTORY OF ISAP ONE OF THE SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS FROM BOTH SEP AND IREP IS THAT ISSUES RELATED TO SAFETY OF OPERATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS CAN BE MORE EFFECTIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY IMPLEMENTED IN AN INTEGRATED, PLANT-SPECIFIC REVIEW NRC MERGED THE DETERMINISTIC REVIEWS OF SEP PHASE III AND_

THE PLANT-SPECIFIC RISK ANALYSIS OF NREP INTO A SINGLE PROGRAM, THE INTEGRATED SAFETY ASSESSMENT PROGDAM (ISAP, 49 FR h5112)

ISAP WAS MODIFIED IN 1985 INTO A TWO-PLANT PILOT PROGRAM THAT WAS TO INCLUDE PLANTS ALREADY REVIEWED IN SEP NU VOLUNTEERED MILLSTONE UNIT 1 AND HADDAM NECK TO PARTICIPATE IN ISAP I

k.

SCOPE OF ISAP INTEGRATED ASSESSMENTS OF OPERATING NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS ARE CONDUCTED ON A PLANT-SPECIFIC BASIS TO EVALUATE ALL LICENSING ACTIONS, LICENSEE INITIATED PLANT IMPROVEMENTS AND SELECTED UNRESOLVED GENERIC / SAFETY ISSUES TO ESTABLISH IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULES FOR EACH ITEM. IN ADDITION, PROCEDURES ARE DEVELOPED TO ALLOW PERIODIC UPDATING OF THE IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULES, MAJOR ELEMENTS OF ISAP APE:

REVIEW 0F LESSONS LEARNED FROM SEP PERFORFANCE OF PLANT-SPECIFIC RISK ASSESSMENT 4

ANALYSIS OF OPERATING EXPERIENCE INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT OF TOPICS INTEGRATED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE w -:

ISAP REVIEW -

ISAP CONDUCTED BY AN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT TEAM (IAT)

SCREENING PEVIEW BY BOTH IAT AND LICEflSEE TO DEVELOP TOPIC DEFINITIONS,~ SCOPE, REVIEW CRITERIA AND JUSTIFICATION FOR CONTINUED OPERATION ISAP EVALUATION IS DIVIDED INTO THREE PARALLEL PHASES TOPIC EVALUATIONS (DETERMINISTIC AND PROBABILISTIC)

PERFORMANCE OF PROBABILISTIC SAFETY ASSESSMENT (PSA)~

EVALUATION OF PLANT OPERATIllG EXPERIENCE LICENSEE PERFORMS AN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT OF TOPICS TO DETERMINE WHICH WARRANT CORRECTIVE ACTION BASED ON PERCEIVED SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE AND TO DEVELOP COST-EFFECTIVE ACTIONS TO RESOLVE MULTIPLE ISSUES, WHERE PRACTICAL STAFF ISSUES DRAFT INTEGRATED SAFETY ASSESSMENT REPORT DRAFT ISAR REVIEWED BY LICENSEE, PEER REVIEW GROUP AND ACRS FINAL ISAR ISSUED: INTEGRATED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND METHODOLOGY TO MAINTAIN SCHEDULE IS FORMALIZED L_c ~ ~ ~

EXAMPLES OF ISAP FINDINGS l MILLSTONE 1 64% OF TOTAL CALCULATED CORE MELT FREQUENCY WAS DUE TO FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE LONG-TERM DECAY HEAT REMOVAL CAPABILITY

_ HADDAM NECK

- LOSS OF MCC-5, IN THE SWITCHGEAR ROOM WOULD CAUSE A LOSS OF FUNCTION OF CRITICAL EQUIPflENT AND PREVENT SAFE SHUTDOWN ISAP ALSO IDENTIFIED AREAS THAT WHILE DEVELOPED TO INCREASE PLANT SAFETY OR AVAILABILITY, ACTUALLY INCREASED RISK

- MILLSTONE 1, DEGRADED GRID VOLTAGE PROTECTION

- HADDAM NECK, NITROGEN BLANKET FOR THE DEMINERALIZED WATER STORAGE TANK

ICAF PILOT PROGRAM CONCLUSIONS PERFORMANCE OF PSA EY THE LICENSEE, AND REVIEW 0F THE PSA AND OPERATING EXPERIENCE BY THE STAFF HAS LED TO A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE PLANT'S OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS AND CAPABILITIES PY POTH THE LICENSEE AND THE STAFF, INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT HAS THE POTENTIAL T0 IDENTIFY COMMON ELEMENTS IN SEPARATE REVIEWS AND PROPOSE A SINGLE ACTION TO RESOLVE THEM, INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE .

~

STAFF AND LICENSEE TO ADDRESS PENDING REQUIREMENTS ON A PLANT-SPECIFIC BASIS, ISAP PROVIDES A FORMAL PROCESS TO EVALUATE THE PRIORITIZATION OF ALL PROPOSED ACTIONS, PILOT PROGRAM HAS DEMONSTRATED THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO LICENSEES, Ti!E PUBLIC AND THE NRC 0F INTEGRATED ASSESS-MENTS USING PLANT-SPECIFIC PSAs AND OPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEWS, i

(

I IPE PROGRAM i

STATUS OF IPE GENERIC LETTER 1

0 OPTIONS FOR IPE ANALYSIS

?

PLANS FOR NRC REVIEW PROCESS -

- I t

i I

L i

I, r.

r h

I I

i I

_ . _ , . = _

pg-n y- d

STATUS OF THE IPE LETTER NRR AND RES ARE IN THE PROCESS OF FINAllZING THE GENERIC LETTER PACKAGE THAT WILL BE SENT TO EACH UTILITY, A CRGR REVIEW MEETING IS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR MIDDLE OF JANUARY 1988.

~

A COMMISSION MEETING ON THE GENERIC LETTER WILL BE SCHEDULED FOR THE END OF FEBRUARY 1988, EXPECT TO ISSUE THE LETTER BY END OF MARCH OR APRll 1988.

STATUS OF THE IPE LETTER (CONTINUED)

ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT AND EXTERNAL EVENTS WILL BE PURSUED ON SEPARATE TRACK FROM IPE GL THE GENERIC LETTER APPENDICES CURRENTLY ADDRESS:

GUIDANCE ON THE EXAMINAiiON OF CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE (BACK-END ANALYSIS)

SEQUENCE SELECTION CRITERIA AND CRITERIA TO DETERMINE THE ADEQUACY OF THE IPE SUBMITTAL

^

ELEMENTS OF AN ACCEPTABLE ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT PLAN DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS RELATIONSHIP OF IPE TO UNRESOLVED AND GENERIC SAFETY ISSUES THE GENERIC LETTER ATTACHMENTS ARE:

A LIST OF REFERENCES A REPORT ENTITLED "ASSESSMENT OF SEVERE ACCIDENT PREVENTION AND MITIGATION FEATURE: BWR MARK :

CONTAINMENT DESIGN" OR AN ANALOG 0US DOCUMENT APPROPRIATE TO THE MAJOR CONTAINMENT TYPES.

OPTIONS FOR IPE ANALYSIS THE GENERIC LETTER SPECIFIES SEVERAL OPTIONS THAT COULD BE USED TO SATISFY THE EXAMINATION REQURIEMENTS IDCOR IPEM FRONT END WITH STAFF ENHANCEMENT +

CONTAINMENT PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS ACCORDING TO

. APPENDIX 1 LEVEL I PRA + CONTAINMENT PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS ACCORDING TO APPENDIX 1 (OR LEVEL 11 OR 111 PRA ACCORDING TO APPENDIX 1)

~

OTHER SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION METHODS (STAFF PREVIEW MIGHT BE NECESSARY)

- T: . _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ^T _ _ _ _ _ _

PLANS FOR NRC REVIEW PROCESS 120 DAYS TO RESPOND T0 IPE GL WITH PLANS WHATEVER OPTION IS SELECTED, NRC RESPONSE TO SUBMITTALS IS INTENDED TO BE REASONABLY PROMPT WORKSHOP 3 AFTER ISSUANCE OF IPE GL NRC WILL PREPARE AN IPE REVIEW DOCUMENT FOR THE STAFF AND CONTRACTOR REVIEWERS T0 INCLUDE:

~

AREAS OF REVIEW DETERMINATION OF ADEQUACY OF IPE RESULTS INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS ACTION LEVELS SAMPLE EVALVATIONS IPE REVIEW DOCUMENT WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL 4

UTILITIES SHORTLY AFTER THE GENERIC LETTER es. g em en w e ow e - m m e

i ISAP 11 PRESENTATION 4

ISAP VS, ISAP 11 RELATION T0 IPE

, PROGRAM COMPONENTS BENEFITS RELATION TO INTEGRATED SCHEDULES

~

IMPLEMENTATION i

• INITIATION SCHEDULE I

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ISAP AND ISAP 11 ISAP 11 DOES NOT REQUIRE UTILITIES TO ADDRESS SEP ISSUES ADDRESS ONLY CURRENT AND FUTURE ISSUES THAT WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED ISAP 11 WILL NOT REQUIRE A PEER OR ACRS REVIEW 0F THE INTEGRATED SAFETY ASSESSMENT REPORT

_ ISAP 11 WILL PROVIDE FOUNDATION FOR COMPLETION OF AN -

IPE A

d i

l

l l

i.

i i

f

4 ISAP 11 RELATIONSHIP T0 IPE

. ISAP 11

- BY PARTICIPATING, UTILITY HAS INITIATED PREFERRED MEANS OF DOING IPE LEVEL I PRA PLUS CONTAINMENT VULNERABILITY ASSESSSMENT OR LEVEL II OR LEVEL III PRA WOULD FULFILL IPE REQUIREMENTS IPE REQUIREMENT

- IF A UTILITY DOES PRA TO FULFILL IPE, THEN CAN ALSO FARTICPATE IN ISAP II i

t

,-y.. --. , - . - - - - ,- , - -- -----% - --- - --- , m ,- , .--- ,---- - . _ - w-i-

ISAP II: PROGRAM COMPONENTS PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT LEVEL I AT MINIMUM OPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEW

- IDENTIFY TRENDS, WEAKNESSES VALIDATE REASONABLENESS OF PRA INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT RANK ISSUES END RESULT IS INTEGRATED SCHEDULE i

SOME ANTICIPATED ISAP 11 BENEFITS PRIORITIZATION OF ACTIONS PROVIDES RATIONAL SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTATION BASIS FOR POSSIBLE COMBINATION OR ELIMINATION OF ISSUES PREDICTABLE SAFETY BASIS TO MANAGE CURRENT WORKLOADS AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS BASIS FOR CONSIDERING PLANT LIFE EXTENSION REQUESTS AND AGING ISSUES

. BASES FOR OPTIMlZATION OF MAINTENANCE / SURVEILLANCE INTERVALS PROCESS WOULD IMPROVE OUTAGE PLANNING PROVIDE LICENSEE WITH INDEPTH PLANT UNDERSTANDING RECEIVE INCREASED SAFETY VALUE FOR DOLLARS SPENT BECAUSE ISSUES OF HIGHEST SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE GENERALLY WORKED ON FIRST IMPROVE LICENSEE ENGINEERING /0PERATIONS INTERFACE BECAUSE PRA IS PART OF REGULATORY BASIS MAY BE ABLE TO BE PART OF RATE BASE

i f

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ISAP 11 AND INTEGRATED SCHEDULE ISAP 11 IS PRA-BASED PROVIDES TECHNICAL JUSTIFICAT10N .-

• ISAP II ALLOWS DROPPING OF ISSUES, MOVING ISSUES t TO LOWER PRIORITY j

IMPLEMENTATION OF ISAP 11 COMMISSION APPROVES ISAP 11 OPTION STAFF SELECTS PARTICIPANTS EACH PARTICIPATING UTILITY SUBMITS PRA(S) AND LIST OF ISAP 11 ISSUES NRC REVIEWS SCOPE OF ISSUES AND RESOLVES OVESTIONS EACH UTILITY SUBMITS EVALUATION, PROPOSED

- RESOLUTION, AND RANKING OF EACH ISAP 11 ISSUE NRC REVIEWS RESOLUTION AND RANKING AND RESOLVES QUESTIONS STAFF ISSUES INTEGRATED SAFETY ASSESSMENT REPORT l

NRC AND EACH UTILITY NEGOTIATE SCHEDULES UTILITY SUBMITS PROPOSED LICENSE CONDITION SCHEDULES REASSESSED FOLLOWING EACH REFUELING OUTAGE l <

- . - - .-m. --- -

m3 - -

- , , -.,--p - - - % --w-.,.7:--- - gw- w -, -g --- *- -

PROPOSED ISAP 11 INITIATION SCHEDULE GENERIC LETTER ISSUED 1/15/88 SURVEY RESPONSES RECEIVED 2/19/88 MEET WITH POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS 2/8/88 - 2/26/88

. AS NECESSARY -

ISAP 11 OPTION PAPER TO COMMISSION 3/30/88 COMMISSION DECISION ON ISAP !! 5/15/88 ANTICIPATED l

1 1

l t

HISTORY OF ISAP e NRC INITIATED THE SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM (SEP) IN 1977 TO REVIEW OPERATING PLANTS AGAINST REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS THAT HAD EVOLVED SINCE THE MAJORITY OF REACTORS HAD BEEN LICENSED.

e PHASE I 0F SEP DEFIhTD A SPECIFIC SET OF SAFETY ISSUES TO BE REVIEVED e PHASE II 0F SEP WAS A PILOT' REVIEW OF ELEVEN PLANTS; REVIEW INCLLTED:

DETERMINISTIC REVIEW OF SAFETY ISSUES PRA 0F INDIVIDUAL ISSUES OPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEW e PHASE II 0F SEP IDENTIFIED SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE SAFETY Aht EVALUATION TECHNIQUES FOR ALL OPERATING REAC10RS.

• PHASE IIIOF SEP WAS THE PLANhT.D APPLICATION OF THE PHASE II FINDINGS TO ALL OPERATING REACTORS.

l l

l .

i

HISTORY OF ISAP ,

e TE INTERIM RELI ABILITY EVALUATION PROGRAM (IREP) WAS INITI ATED BY THE NRC FROM THE TMI-2 LESSONS LEARNED (NUREG-0660) e PURPOSE OF IREP VAS TO:

PERFORM PLANT-SPECIFIC PRAs FOR SEVERAL PLANTS 70 SUPPLEMENT T RISK-RELIABILITY FINDINGS IN WASH-1400 TO DEFINE METHODS TO CONDUCT PLANT-SPECIFIC PRAs FOR CONSISTENT, COMPARABLE RESULTS o TEE RESULTS OF IREP b7.RE TO BE APPLIED TO ALL PLANTS IN THE NATIONAL RELIABILITY EVALUATION PROGRAM (NREP) h

p . . _ . . _ - _ _ . _ _ _ ._ _ _ __ . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . . - . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ .

)

l j  !

1 4

HISTORY OF ISAP i e ONE OF THE SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS FROM BOTH SEP AND IREP IS THAT ISSUES RELATED TO SAFETY OF OPERATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS CAN 1 BE MORE EFFECTIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY IMPLEMEhTED IN AN INTEGRATED,

! PLANT-SPECIFIC REVIEW l

i l o NRC MERGED THE DETERMINISTIC REVIEWS OF SEP PHASE III AND THE j PLANT-SPECIFIC RISK ANALYSIS OF NREP IhTO A SINGLE PROGRAM, THE

INTEGRATED SAFETY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (ISAP, 49 FR 45112)

o ISAP WAS NODIFIED IN 1985 INTO A M -PIA $li PILOT PROGRAM THAT l WAS TO INCLUDE PLANTS ALREADY REVIEkTD IN SEP.

j o NU VOLUNTEERED MILLSTONE UNIT I AND HADDAM NECK TO PARTICIPATE l IN ISAP i

l

}

i i

l i,

i i

J '

SCOPE OF ISAP ,

INTEGRATED ASSESSMENTS OF OPERATING NUCLEAR P0bIR REACTORS ARE CONDUCTED ON A PIANT-SPECIFIC BASIS TO EVALUATE ALL LICENSING ACTIONS, LICENSEE INITIATED PIANT IMPROVEMEhTS AND SELECTED UhTESOLVED GEhT.RIC/S/JETY ISSUES TO ESTABLISH IMPLEMENTATION SCEDULES FOR EACH ITEM. IN ADDITION, PROCEDURES ARE DE\TLOPED TO ALLOV PERIODIC UPDATING OF THE IMPLEMEhTATION SCEDULES.

MAJOR ELEMENTS OF ISAP ARE:

REVIEV 0F LESSONS LEARhT.D FROM SEP PERFORMANCE OF PIANT-SPECIFIC RISK ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS OF OPERATING EXPERIENCE IhTEGRATED ASSESSMEhT OF TOPICS INTEGRATED IMPLEMENTATION SCEDULE j,

\

l ISAP REVIEW ,

e ISAP CONDUCTED BY AN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT TEAM (IAT) e SCREENING REVIEW BY BOTH IAT AND LICENSEE TO DEVELOP TOPIC DEFINITIONS, SCOPE, REVIEW CRITERIA AND JUSTIFICATION FOR CONT!hTES OPERATION.

e ISAP EVALUATION IS DIVIDED INTO THREE PARALLEL PHASES TOPIC EVALUATIONS (DETERMINISTIC AND PROBABILISTIC)

PERFORMANCE OF PROBABILISTIC SAFETY ASSESSEh7 (PSA)

- 1, VALUATION OF PLANT OPERATING EXPERIENCE e LICENSEE PEFFORMS AN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT OF TOPICS TO DETERMINE WHICH WARRA).T CORRECTIVE ACTION BASED ON PERCEIVED SAFETY SIGNIFICANC's AND TO DEVELOP COST-EFFECTIVE ACTIONS TO RESOLVE MULTIPLE ISSUES, VHERE PRACTICAL.

e STAFF ISSUES DPM T INTEGRATED SAFETY ASSESSMENT REPORT 4

e DRAFT ISAR REVIEVED BY LICENSEE, PEER REVIEW GROUP AND ACRS .

.

• FINAL ISAR ISSUED: INTEGRATED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND l METHODOLOGY TO MAINTAIN SCHEDULE IS FORMALIZED.

! t f 1 J

j l [

'o ,

4 EXAMPLES OF ISAP FIhTINGS MILLSTONE I ,

64% OF TOTAL CALCULATED CORE MELT FREQUENCY WAS DUE TO FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE LONG-TERM DECAY REAT REMOVAL CAPABILITY HADDAM NECK

- LOSS OF MCC-5, IN THE SWITCHGEAR ROOM WOULD CAUSE A LOSS ,.

OF FUNCTION OF CRITICAL EQUIPMENT Aht PREVENT SAFE SHUTDOWN ISAP ALSO IDENTIFIED AREAS THAT VHIll DEVELOPE E PIANT SAFETY OR AVAILABILITY, ACTUALLY INCREASED RISK.

MILLSTONE 1, DEGRADED GRID VOLTAGE PROTLL, HADDAM NECK, NITROGEN BLANKET FOR THE DEMINLRALIZED WATER STORAGE TANK.

t Y

5 e

if i

i

df OO &

& ,t.

viAP C heehr) d% . S l385 i

0%adm

/V3~w y

- 6  ?? c ,[//

[ huleV [h/bh c . ~f% y,ss A3R Q

'kICB M 2- l . b ( 4!? A/$

> /E rd n //:/ i /Y2C w.t /Y/Ck 4' .: . Ai e /L dA-Mons M [2. (2-4 4 b-C PeTen La 6L sud C E C.

f M 'd } EM7/dl C.BCo

.D s\ b wTu . bs\ C 'i t s l WX NMA.

g l

4

e a ISAP PILOT PROGRAM CONCLUSIONS '

o PERFORMNCE OF PSA BY THE LICENSEE, AND REVIEW OF THE PSA AND OPERATING EXPERIENCE BY THE STAFF HAS LED TO A BETTER UNDER-STAhTING OF TE PLANT'S OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS AND CAPABILITIES BY BOTH THE LICENSEE AND TE STAFF.

o IhTEGRATED ASSESSMENT HAS THE POTENTI AL TO IDENTIFY COMMON ELEMENTS IN SEPARATE REVIEWS AND PROPOSE A SINGLE ACTION TO RESOLVE THEM.

o IhTEGRATED ASSESSMEhT PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR TE STAFF AND LICENSEE TO ADDRESS PENDING REQUIREMENTS ON A PLANT-SPECIFIC BASIS.

o ISAP PROVIDES A FORMAL PROCESS TO EVALUATE THE PRIORITIZATION OF ALL PROPOSED ACTIONS.

o PILOT PROGRAM HAS DEMONSTRATED THE POTENTI AL BEST. FITS TO LICENSEES, THE PUBLIC Ah3 THE NRC OF INTEGRATED ASSESSMENTS USING PLANT SPECIFIC PSAs AND OPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEVS.

o PILOT PROGRAM IS CURRENTLY SCEDULED TO BE COMPLETED BY THE OF 1987.

O N