ML20198M324

Submits Summary of Telcon Re Proposed Criteria to Support Development of SER Constraints for Reload Analysis Tr,For Plant,Units 2 & 3

ML20198M324
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	12/29/1998
From:	Clifford J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
TAC-MA4214, TAC-MA4215, NUDOCS 9901050304
Download: ML20198M324 (2)

Text

,

s gp errug g q UNITED STATES

r j

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20655 4 001 g gg/ $42 J/V

• g,,,,,/ December 29, 1998 l

MEMORANDUM TO: File i FROM: James W. Clifford, Senior Project Manager I Project Directorate IV-2 e

)

Division of Reactor Projects Ill/IV "{

l Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

CONFERENCE CALL REGARDING PROPOSED CRITERIA TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF SER CONSTRAINTS FOR RELOAD ANALYSIS TOPICAL REPORT - SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3 (TAC NOS. MA4214 AND MA4215)

The NRC staff conducted a teleconference call with personnel from Soutnern California Edison (SCE, or the licensee) to discuss the licensee's November 23,1998, letter regarding SER constraints for Reload Analysis Topical Report for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Units 2 and 3. The call was conducted at the staff's request to provide feedback to the licensee regarding their stated criteria.

i The staff provided comments and asked for clarification on a number of the criteria stated in the licensee's letter. The licensee and associated vendor provided detailed explanations during the discussions that satisfied the staff's comments or concerns. The staff's comments included (1) further definition of the term " analysis of record;" (2) a question regarding whether or not the vendor or licensee had a comprehensive list of limitations or constraints on the analyses of record; (3) what was meant by not including " ancillary" SERs especially as it related to imbedded references; (4) concerns with the blanket exclusion of subtier informttion; (5) a discussion of the relevance of limitations that are embedded in the methodology itself that are crucial to staff acceptance; and (6) a discussion of the scope, including examples, of administrative constraints.

The staff's comments and observations were provided to the licensee for consideration in their development of a comprehensive list of analysis constraints that the licensee committed to provide in support of their application for reload analysis technology transfer. The staff did not provide approval of the criteria. The staff notes that the issue of identifying and addressing l these constraints is an evolving issue, and detailed considera' ion of the criteria in the licensee's  !

November 23,1998, letter could only be accomplished through active pa,ticipation in the l discussion of the staff's concems t:efore a licensee or vendor could achieve consistent gg l application of the criteria. j i

\

f' O  :

9901050304 981229 PDR ADOCK 05000361 P PDR

~, ,

% y

. 7._ __ '

,3-- +

1

, . .a

+

~

i File .

-2' '

' December 29, 1998 i

F 1 l

. No regulatory commitments were requested or made in' the teleconference. This completes the -

~  !

action on the subject TACs.

- Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362 i

DISTRIBUTION:

Docket . i PUBLIC . 1 PDlV-2 Reading . 1

WBateman 0 JClifford - 1 EPeyton

' RCaruso i

DOCUMENT NAhlE/T2-9-98.TCN v

OFC PDIV-2/PM PDIV-2/LA xan" ,

NAME Jcm ord EPeyton DATE 12G8/90 12/1 3 /98 / /98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY t ..

. , , , ,, ,- . - . - - - - , ,.- - -