ML20033H111

Provides Guidance Re Util Responses to Generic Ltr 89-19. Informs That 45 Days Extension Request Granted to Utils Comprising BWR Owners Group

ML20033H111
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/06/1990
From:	Jabbour K Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
REF-GTECI-A-47, REF-GTECI-SY, TASK-A-47, TASK-OR GL-89-19, NUDOCS 9004180187
Download: ML20033H111 (6)

Text

., p.y o,

UNITED STATES 8

-'.p

'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGT ON, D. C. 20655 g

April 6, 1990

...../

MEMORANDUM FOR:

All IEP, Project Panagers FROM:

Kathan N. Jabbour, Lead Project Manager for USI A-47, (MPA B-113), " Safety Implication of Control Systems in LWR Nuclear Power Plants"

SUBJECT:

GUIDANCE REGARDING UTILITIES' FESPONSES TO GENERIC LETTER 89-19 ty remnrandum dated Septerber 20, 1989, from J. Partlow to All NRR Project Managers, you were inforned ebout the issuance of Generic Letter (GL) 89-19,

" Request For Action Related to Resolution of Unresolved Safety Issue A-47

' Safety Iglication of Control Systems in LWR Nuclear-Power Plants' pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f)." Subsequently, TACs were issued for all plants.

Briefly, the GL recomnended that licensees and applicants should provide automatic steam generator overfill protection for all PWRs, and automatic reactor vessel overfill protection for all BWRs.

Also, plant procedures and technical specifications (TSs) should include provisions to verify periodically l

I the operability of the overfill protection and to assure that automatic overfill protection is available to mitigate main feedwater overfeed events during reactor power operation.

The utilities' responses were due March 20,1990(180 days from the date of the GL issuance, September 2 0, 1989).

The BWR Owrers' Group (BWROG) stated, in a February 16, 1990, letter to tRC, that it is preparing a generic response l

to tie GL which would be submitted March 20, 1990.

Furthernore, the BWROG requested that an extension of about 45 days (i.e., from March 20,1990, until May 4,1990) be granted to utilities conprising the BWROC.

By letter dated March 20,1990, the NRC granted the requested extension.

Other licensees' responses may be categorized as follows:

1.

If your licensee stated that the automatic overfill protection system was inplenented for its plant and it neets all the guidance provided in the GL, then a closeout letter should be sent to the licensee.

The Instrumentation j

and Contml Systens Branch (SICB) should be in the concurrence chain.

A i

sample of the closeout letter is enclosed.

Subsequently, you should close i

the TACs and should enter the 11 nsee's implementation date in WISP.

I 2.

If your licensee has determined that a modification is required, a request

)

for a TS change which includes a brief description of.the design nodification and an implenentation schedule should be provided.

You should review the 11censee's response (in particular regarding schedule) for conformance to the guidance provided in the GL, and should process the TS changes in a 3

rg tinely manner. Enclosum 2 to the Septenber 20, 1989, nemorandum provided I /Os a nodel SER.

However, if review assistance is needed, you should contact 8

h SICB.

4y NRC FILE CENTER COPY

%i snouse7 moc Gw PDC

r

~

l NRR Project Managers April 6, 1990 l

l 1he original TACs should remain ooer until all NRC ections.(including TS changes) are corpleted.

Also the date of the modification implenentation should be entemd in WISP's licensee inplenentation field.

You should request that the licensee docunent the actual implenentation date in a docketed submittal because the inplerentation date accession nunber is aow required in WISP for all items inplemented after January 1,1990. Furthernore, l

ts you are aware, NRC staff review of TS changes are fee recoverable while reviews of responses to GLs are not.

Therefore, when you receive the licensee's TS change request, you should fill out a new TAC form with the original TAC nunber to indicate the change to fee recoverability.

The application date in the new TAC form should be the date of the TS change request.

3.

If your licensee has technical questions that cannot be answered by reading the GL, you should arrange a conference call with our principal technical reviewer, Sang Rhow (X20779) and/or his Section Chief, Jerry Mauck (X23264).

4.

If your licensee's response does not fall in eny of the abcee categories, please consult with your managenent, SICB and the lead PM regarding tie appropriate course of action.

Please include SICB (S. Newberry, MS: 7E-12) and n0'self (K. Jabbour, MS: 14H-25) in the distribution for the outgoing letters.

Feel free to contact me if

)

you need arty assistance (X21496).

l (pio,, J,3Ac~

Kahtan N. Jabbour, Senior Project Manager Pmject Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II l

l Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l

j Diclo sure:

As stated j

l

)

l i

i

KRR Project Managers 2-April 6, 1990 The original TACs should rer..ain open until all FMC actions (including-TS changes) are cortpleted.

Also the date of the nodifkation inplementation should be entered in WISP's licencee implerrentation field.

You should request that the li nsee document the actual impletontation date in a docketed submittal because the inplenentatio't date accessten nurser is now required in WISP for all items inplemented after January 1,1990. Furthernore, as you are aware, NRC staff review of TS changes are fee recoverable while reviews of responses to GLs are not.

Therefore, when you receive the licensee's TS change request, you should fill out a new TAC form with the original TAC nunber to indicate the change to fee recoverability.

The application date in the new TAC form should b& the date of the TS change reque st.

3.

If your licensee has technical questions that cannot be answered by reading the GL, you should arrange a conference call with our principa1' technical reviewer, Sang Rhow (X20779) and/or-his Section Chief, Jerry Mauck (X23264).

4.

If your licensee's response does not fall in any of the above categories, please consult with your managenent, SICB and the lead PM regarding the apprtspriate course of action.

Please include SICB (S. Newberry, MS: 7E-12) and ntyself (K. Jabbour, MS: 14H-25) in the distribution for the outgoing letters.

Feel free to contact me if you need ary assistance (X21496).

Kahtan N. Jabbour, Senior Project lianager Project Di rectorate II-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Enclo sure:

As stated l

V See D V 0Actd C a ctrrenu.

m OFC

LA:PDII 3

D:PDIII

D

..... :........,...... :....... g.b.j 4 :' : Pi

PD I Ig J. :.........E..... :......

dd.:.

J NAME : Ring rairf

KJabbou ~: ne s :SNewbury

Ditatthews

/

...... :................ :.............. :.............. :.............. lp 1 son

R diey DATE

4/ (# /90

4/ 6 /90

4/ 6 /90

4/s/90

4/Q90

4//,/90 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY I

Docunent Name:

GENERIC MEMO

4 HRP. Project Managers 2-The original TACs should renain open until all NRC actior:s (including TS changes) are cogleted.

Also the date of the modification iglementation should be entered in WISP's ifcensee impluentation fseld.

The PH should request that the licensee downent the actual Iglenentation date in a docteted correspondence because the ieple.

nentation date accession riumber is now required in WISP for all items iglenented after January 1,1990. Furthtrnore, as you are aw6re, IP.C staff review of TS changes are fee recoverable while reviews of responses to GLs are not.

Therefore, when tie PM receives the licensee's TS change reauest, he/she should fill a nar TAC form with the original TAC nucher to indicate the change to fee recoverability.

3.

If your licensee has technical questions that cannot be answered by reading the GL, you should arrange a conference call with our principal technical reviewer, Sang Rhow (X20779) and/or his Section Chief, Jerry Mauck (X23264).

4 If your licensee's response does not fall in arty of the above categories, plesse consult with your nanagenent, SICB and the lead PM regarding tie appropriate course of action.

Please include SICB (S. Newberry, MS: 7E.12) and rayself (K. Jabbour, MS: 14H.25) in the distribution for the outgoing letters.

Feel free to contact me if you need arty assistance (X21496).

e Kahtan H. Jabbour, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate 113 Division of Reactor Projects. I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1

Enclosure:

As stated 0F C

LA:PDlI-3

PH:PDlI-3

D: PDll-3

DRP

DRSP

.../a.y NAME : Ring ram

KJabbou r s :SNeWb

DMatthews

MSlosson

RDudley

......:................:..............:J.... q DATE :4/ /90

4/(/90

4/ 5 /90

4/ /90

4/ /90

4/ /90 0FFICI AL RECORD COPY Document Nare:

GENERIC MEMD l

i

• t"'Vu'g UNITEJ STATES

+

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o-5

l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20556

\\...../

Dockets Nos.

(Addressee)

SUBJECT:

CLOSE0UT OF GENERIC LETTER 89-19, " REQUEST FOR ACTION RELATED TO RESOLUTION OF. UNRESOLVED SAFETY ISSUE A-47 ' SAFETY IMPLICATION OF CONTROL SYSTEMS IN LWR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS' PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 50.54(f)" (T ACs

)

Your letter dated

, responded to Generic Letter (GL) 89-19 for the W

(plant name).

Your response stated that your plant neets all the guidance provided in the GL.

A detailed technical review of your response i

has not been performed end therefore approval of your design is neither intended nor implied.

I!cwever, your confiri.etion provides an adequate basis to consider NRR's review of your response complete.

Further NRC review, if any, will be performed either by inspection or audit.

Sincerely,

l

, Project Manager Project Directorate Division of Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation CC:

See next page i

I 4

l l

)

Ls

.\\

Generic Memo 3.

,C C',,_,fi }$,J DDCheti L

PDII-3 r/f l

K. Jabbour P..

Ing ram S. Newbury l

D. Matthews M. Slosson-R. Dud 1Ry O

i i

l

.I I

l 1

I i

i i

l I

i