ML20056G077
| ML20056G077 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/26/1993 |
| From: | Thadani A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Newton R WESTINGHOUSE OPERATING PLANTS OWNERS GROUP |
| References | |
| GL-93-04, GL-93-4, NUDOCS 9309020009 | |
| Download: ML20056G077 (2) | |
Text
..
i i
i Mr. Roger Newton, Chairman Westinghouse Owners Group j
Regulatory Response Group 231 W. Michigan Street Milwaukee, WI 53201
SUBJECT:
WOG Request for Schedular Relief in Responding to NRC Generic l
1.-
Letter 93-04 l
l
Dear Mr. Newton:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to your letter dated July 14, 1993, l
in which the Westinghouse Owners Group formally requested schedular relief f
from some of the requirements of GL 93-04.
l Generic Letter 93-04 requires that within 45 days of the date of the generic l
letter, each addressee provide an assessment of whether or not the licensing
-l basis for each facility is still satisfied with regard to the requirements of i
system response to a single failure in the Rod Control System (GDC 25 or equivalent).
If the assessment indicates that the licensing basis is not satisfied, then the licensee must describe compensatory short-term actions to l
be taken consistent with the guidelines contained in the generic letter, and within 90 days, provide a plan and schedule for long-term resolution.
I i
The Owners Group requested that the ll5 day licensing basis assessment described as Required Response 1.(a) be extended to 90 days. The 90 day response would include response to Required Response 1.(a),1.(b) part one i
and 2.
i i
Representatives of the Westinghouse Owners Group met with the NRC staff on July 9,1993 to discuss their strategy to resolve the rod control system issue j
and to discuss response to GL 93-04. The Owners Group plan consists of.two i
programs: (1) the rod control system evaluation program to assess the-
]
historical performance of the rod control system and to determine the type of 3
rod motion that can occur when the drive mechanisms are subjected to co, ~ 'pted current orders and (2) the safety analysis program to show comp iance with General Design Criterion (GDC) 25.
The rod control system evalt 4 tion program consists of an industry performance survey, a generic i
failure assessment and a test program. The purpose of the safety analysis program is to show compliance with GDC 25 by demonstrating that no single failure can cause an asymmetric RCCA withdrawal or by demonstrating that.
specified acceptable fuel design limits are not exceeded for'any postulated j
asymmetric RCCA withdrawal event.
The Owners Group schedule as presented at the meeting calls for the final reports for the squipment failure survey, generic accident analysis, failure j
assessment and generic guidance all being due from Westinghouse by July 30.
(
i y
-..- 2 Y
n, bbi hll - S' j
! lpSj l 9l 9309020009 930726.
X, N, 'P #
1 l
PDR TOPRP EUTOCWE
.j W ()
l C
( b" A' '
l-s 1
lg.g?}if /?/M s e ar l
l
'e l
1 Mr. Roger Newton July 26, 1993 l
1 l
- This would leave only three working days for licensees to review the material and develop their licensee-specific 45 day response. The request for schedular delay was made to preclude responses based on decisions made with L
preliminary or incomplete information. However licensees would still be required to respond within 45 days to the second part of Required Response j
l 1.(b) describing any compensatory short-term actions taken or that will be taken to address any actual or potential degraded or nonconforming conditions such as 1) additional caution or modifications to surveillance and i
preventative maintenance procedures, 2) additional administrative controls for i
l plant startup and power operation, and 3) additional-instructions and training l
to heighten operator awareness of potential rod control system failures and to guide operator response in the event of a rod control system malfunction, i
These may include compensatory actions such as those implemented at Salem (see discussion section of GL 93-04).
l Based on the discussion at the July 9 meeting and your letter dated July 14, I
1993 the staff agrees that at the 45 response date, the utilities may not have enough information to make a 50.54(f) statement as required by GL 93-04. In view of this difficulty and considering that (1) short-term compensatory actions are being taken, (2) the delay will not impact the schedule for long term resolution of the issue (the 90 day response to GL 93-04) and (3) the safety significance of this issue is not high, the staff finds the requested delay acceptable.
However all licensees should still provide a response to the second action of Required Response 1.(b) which should include the results from the generic safety analysis program and its applicability to individual licensees, as well as the short term actions being taken within 45 days.
Sincerely, Ashok C. Thadani, Director Division of Systems Safety and Analysis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION DOCKET FILE NCAMPBELL
[7 D q SRXB R/F GMARCL'S MCHATTERTON BGRIMES MCHATTERTON R/F TALEX10N TCOLLINS JPARTLOW RJ0NES EC-
/
DOCUMENT NAM G:\\ROG ~ NRR/nYB NRR/0GCB iAD:0NRR SRXB:DSSA y SRXB:DS5 RXB:
R MCHATTERT0!f:EAH TCOLLINS RJONE NCAMPBELL GMARCU RUSSELL 7/tI/93 7/22/93 7/2893 7/J.2/93 7/22/9 7/2) /93 y l
D/TSB/N PD/NR W h
iQ k
BGRIMES TA - 1 I R r -
r 7/22/93 7
93
)
s I
. - _.