ML20153E161

From kanterella
Revision as of 16:16, 10 December 2021 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Response to Generic Ltr 88-02 Re Isap Ii.Util Not Interested in Participating in Isap Ii.Answer to Concerns Re Participation Needed Before Final Decision Made
ML20153E161
Person / Time
Site: Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date: 05/06/1988
From: Cockfield D
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To:
NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
References
GL-88-02, GL-88-2, NUDOCS 8805090412
Download: ML20153E161 (3)


Text

.-

.~~

__ ._ Portland General ElectricCompany Daiid W. Cockfield Vice President. Nuclear May 6, 1988 Trojan Nuclear Plant Docket .*,-344 License NPF-1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington DC 20555

Dear Sir:

Response to Generic Letter 88-02 Integrated Safety Assessment Program II (ISAP II)

By your letter dated January 20, 1988, Portland General Electric Company was asked to exprens our interest in participating in the Integrated Safety Assessme6L Program (ISAP) II. Currently, we find that we are not interested'in participating in ISAP II. llowever, as indicated in our attached response, we believe more infornuation regarding ISAP II is needed before we can make a final decision.

Attached is our response to your request'in the format recommended by Generic Letter 88-02.

Sincerely, ff 4W Attachment c; Mr. John B. Martin Regional Administrator, Region V U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. R. C. Barr Resident Inspector Trojan Nuclear Plan' Mr. William Dixon State of Oregon Department of Energy 1 \

8805090412 G80506 PDR ADOCK 05000344 P DCD e s w S3 non Nt Pcn m ougn 9774

. n. . .

Trojan Nuclear Plant Document Control Desk Docket 50-344 May 6, 1988 Licenso NPF-1 Attachment ,

Page 1 of 2 Integrated Safety Assessment Program (ISAP) II Response Format to Generic Letter 88-02 Facility Name: Trojan Nuclear Plant ,

Utility: Portland General Electric Company Individual Contact Name: Tom D. Walt Phone Number: (503) 226-8120 4

An expression of interest will not be considered a commitment to partici-pate on the part of the utility.

1. Would you be interested in participating in ISAP II? If so, in what time framo?

Currently, no; however, a seminar as described in Item 2, below, and resolution of concerns expressed in Items 4 and 5 would be information important to our decision process. If participation were to occur, the earliest it would take place would be in the 1990-1991 time frame.

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 makin6 a decision?

Yes.

3. Woold you bo interestod in a one-on-one meeting with the ERC to discuss your particular facility or facilities? 7 No.
4. It' you remain undecided regarding participaticn, what additional information do you need in order to make a decision?

Information in response to the following questions would be beneficial.

- Will participation in ISAP II be a requirement for lifetime exten-

! sion efforts?

f L

- What were the effects on the design and licensing bases of the Plants Millstono I and Haddam Neck?

- What are the anticipated costs?

l

- What are examples of items of low safety significance or priority that might bo dropped as a result of ISAP?

l

_, ,_ _ _ ._ _ __ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ . . _ _ . ~ . , ._, _ _ _ _ .- - - -

. y- .

.;~- -

, ,. t .

Trojan Nuclear Plant Document Control Derk Docket 50-344 May 6, 1988 License NPF-1 At'.achment Page 2 of 2

5. Do you have any potential concerns about participating in ISAP. II?

Concerns regarding participation in ISAP II are as follows:

.- The impact on resources to support the ISAP II effort is unknown.

- The potential exists for older facilities to be required to meet current standards without appropriate backfit needs considerations.

- The potential for a perception by the media that the ISAP II was necessary because of safety problems in the facility.

- The potential for modifications as a result of high and medium priority item resolution to cause an extension of the normal two month annual refueling outage duration.

MHM/2581P I

p l

t i

l l

l i