ML20149J499: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
#REDIRECT [[U-601137, Forwards Response to Generic Ltr 88-02 Requesting Completion of Questionnaire on Participating in Isap Ii.Util Does Not Wish to Participate But Endorses Integrated Schedule Concept]]
| number = ML20149J499
| issue date = 02/17/1988
| title = Forwards Response to Generic Ltr 88-02 Requesting Completion of Questionnaire on Participating in Isap Ii.Util Does Not Wish to Participate But Endorses Integrated Schedule Concept
| author name = Spangenberg F
| author affiliation = ILLINOIS POWER CO.
| addressee name =
| addressee affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
| docket = 05000461
| license number =
| contact person =
| document report number = GL-88-02, GL-88-2, U-601137, NUDOCS 8802230085
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE, UTILITY TO NRC
| page count = 3
}}
 
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:. -.
    . . t U-601137 L30-88 02 -17 )-LP 1A.120 ILLIN0/8 POWER COMPANY CUNTON POWER $TATION. P.O. BOX 678, CLINTON, ILLINOl$ 61727 February 17, 1988 Docket No. 50-461 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555
 
==Subject:==
Clinton Power Station Response to Generic Letter 88-02, Integrated Safety Assessment Program II
 
==Dear Sir:==
 
Generic Letter 88-02 was sent to all power reactor licensees requesting completion of a questionnaire on participating in the Integrated Safety Assessment Program II (ISAP II). As indicated on                    the attached questionnaire Illinois Power Company does not desire to participate in ISAP II at this time.
Illinois Power Company (IP) has long been an advocate of thc integrated schedule concept which was used during the construction and startup phases at Clinton Power Station (CPS). As a result of the benefits obtained from the integrated scheduling effort. IP plans to continue this program in the operational phase of CPS.              !!owever, it is believed that for the schedule to best meet our needs, we must have the flexibility to make adjustments based on safety issues, plant conditions, electric distribution system conditions and company resources. Our schedules will be available for inspection at any time, but their flexibility should not be constrained by the license amendment process. This position is consistent with our earlier comments (.ianuary 1                29, 1988 letter to the Secretary of the Commission) endorsing the Nuclear Management and Resources Council position on the Proposed Policy Statement on Integrated Schedules (52 Fed. Reg. 43344, November 27, 1987).
If you have any questions on this data or need any additional information, please contact me.
yours, Sinc 7re
                                                      /
D~F. A. S    ngenilrg,IIIh Manage - Lict sing and Safety DLH/kar                                                                                              "j,,
Attachment 8802230085 800217 PDR    ADOCK 05000461 P                    PDR
 
  . *1 I
U-601137 L30-88(02-17)-LP 1A.120 cc: Regional Administrator Region III, USNRC NRC Clinton Licensing Project Manager NRC Resident Office Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety l
 
p                  .
1    ;.      "-                                          .
  ,..6        .
Enciosure 2 Integrated Safety Assessment Precram (ISAF) 11 Response Fonnat to Generic Letter 88-02 Facility Name:            clinton Power Station Utility:      Illinois Power Company Individual Contact Name: F. A. Spangenberg, III                phone humber: 217-935-8881 Ext. 3400 An expression of interest will not be considered a concitment te participate on the part of the utility.
: 1. Would you be interested in participating in ISAF II?              If so, in what time frarr.e?
Illinois Power is not interested in participating in ISAP II.
: 2. Do you believe that an industry /NRC seniner consisting of a brief discussien by NRC followed by a question and answer period would be beneficial-prior to making a decision?
NO
: 3. Would you be interestec in a ore-cr.-one resting with the f'PC to discuss your particular facility or facilities?
No
: 4. If you remain urdecided regaroing participatier., what additieral inferr:ation do you need in order tc make a decision?
NONE
: 5. Do you have any potential concerns obeut participating in ISAP 11?
Potential concerns include cost to implement and flexibility to make schedule changes.
l
: 6. Do you have ar.y suggestier.s for progran irproverents or char 561?
!            NO
                              .--    s- ,}}

Latest revision as of 13:47, 11 December 2021

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20149J499&oldid=3359822"