ML20151F743
| ML20151F743 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/11/1988 |
| From: | Mark Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Thomas C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8804180429 | |
| Download: ML20151F743 (4) | |
Text
G \
&gGul' 03
[ " % UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 " '%a)b a ).g WASHINGTON, D C. 20555 l
April 11, 1988 NEMORANDUM FOR: Cecil 0. Thomas, Chief Policy Development and Technical Support Branch Program Management, Policy Development 1 and Analysis Staff FROM: Melanie A. Miller, ISAP II Program Manager Policy Development and Technical Support Section Policy Development and Technical Support Branch l Program Management, Policy Development i and Analysis Staff l l
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF APRIL 7, 1988 MEETING HELD WITH NUMARC ON ISAP II I l
On April 7, 1988, the staff met in its Rockville offices with a representative of NUMARC to discuss the proposed ISAP II. Participants are listed in the enclosure.
The informal discussion was to provide additional information and clarification to NUMARC on ISAP TI. We discussed the scope of issues that would be included i in ISAP II: (1) current issues include items such as regulatory requirements, I license conditions, issues raised in bulletins and generic letters, and l utility-initiated items and (2) future issues include new safety items and i utility issues and newly-resolved generic issues. Routine issues such as ,
Technical Specification changes or Inservice Inspection items would not generally l be included in ISAP II. l l
The staff realizes that every utility activity at the nuclear power plant will not be in ISAP II and that these additional activities will need to be conducted utilizing the same pool of resources that are being used to address the ISAP II issues. I explained that such resource constraints would be considered when actually developing the schedule. In talking about schedule development, I mentioned that implementation schedules discussed in the ISAP II generic letter (i.e., resolution within 1 to 2 refueling outages for items ranked "high," 2 to 4 outages for items ranked "medium" and 4 or more outages for items ranked "low")
were only guidelines. For example if a participating ISAP II utility has five "high" items, when considering resources and other factors, three items rnay be completed in the upcoming outage, one item by the subsequent outage, and the final item completed by the fourth outage. This hypothetical negotiated schedule would be responsive to the implementation guidelines and also allow considera-tion of the utility's resource concerns. A red flag would be raised if a utility does not propose to address any of its high items until the third or fourth outages.
I also explained that while safety significance would be the most heavily weighted ranking criteria, flexibility exists in determining the final list of
/
,I ranking criteria. Details of the ranking scheme have not been finalized. 1 M
SBA'"HjsEWW8%c JNdh/
e r Cecil 0. Thomas 2 l
We also discussed the ISAP II relationship to integrated schedules policy. If 1 integrated schedules policy were to be subsumed by ISAP II, those utilities which currently utilize integrated schedules established with the staff would be allowed to continue to use them. Future interest in integrated schedules would be through I ISAP II.
As for the operating experience review, I indicated that it would be required cf those utilities who are using industry component failure rates rather than i plant-specific component failure rates. Further, the propcsed license amendment !
component of ISAP II has been dropped.
We discussed the schedule for ISAP II implementation. I expressed my belief that the ISAP 21 Comission paper would be forwarded to the Commission within two weeks. If the Commission approves ISAP II in the May time frame, the staff would hope to conduct an ISAP II seminar in July followed by a guidance document in the fall.
1 I informed NUMARC that those utilities indicating "yes" to the Generic Letter 88-02 survey on ISAP II interest were Florida Power Corporation, Northeast .
Utilities, TVA, Niagara Mohawk, Omaha Public Power District, and Northern l States Power. I O!'iciwn1 g1g,geg g,, 1 Melanie A. Miller, ISAP II Program Manager ;
Policy Development and Technical Support Section Policy Development and Technical Support Branch Program Management, Policy Development and Analysis Staff
Enclosure:
As stated cc: T. Tipton, NUMARC L. Parscale, TVA Distribution Central Files NRC PDR PDTSS Rdg MMiller SBlack OGC-Bethesda ACRS (10)
(MS ON ISAP II)
"^'
M hr t
//l/88 42.////88 *
. ,p 3 5i l
Enclosure i
Participar.ts I
' NRC SERCH Lic,ensing M. Miller X. Arn NUMARC Westinghouse l
T. Tipton M. Beaumont TVA NUS L. Parscale J. Flude 1
i l
1
. . ]
r~ .~.
Cecil 0. Thomas 2 We also discussed the ISAP II relationship to integrated schedules policy. If integratad schedules policy were to be subsumed by ISAP II, those utilities which currently utilize integrated schedules established with the staff would be allowed to continue to use them. Future interest in integrated schedules would be through ISAP II.
As for the operating experience review, I indicated that it would be required of those utilities who are using industry component failure rates rather than plant-specific component failure rates. Further, the proposed license amendment component of ISAP II has been dropped.
He discussed the schedule for ISAP II implementation. I eg ressed my belief that the ISAP II Conmission paper would be forwarded to the Commission within two weeks. If the Commission approves ISAP II in the May time frarre, the staff would hope to conduct an ISAP II seminar in July followed by a guidance document in the fall.
I informed fiUiMRC that those utilities indicating "yes" to the Generic Letter 88-02 survey on ISAP II interest were Florida Power Corporation, Northeast Utilities, TVA, Niagara Mohawk, Omaha Public Power District, and Northern States Power.
Di e "*1 Sis:r, d :.
Melanie A. Miller, ISAP II Program Manager Policy Development and Technical Support Section Policy Development and Technical Support Branch Program Management, Policy Development and Analysis Staff
Enclosure:
As stated cc: T. Tipton, fiUttARC L. Parscale, TVA Distribution Central Files f1RC PDR PDTSS Rdg MMiller SBlack OGC-Bethesda ACRS (10)
(MS Oli ISAP II)
P i :PtiAS S %k
//l/88 42-////88