ML20059H174
| ML20059H174 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/22/1993 |
| From: | Norrholm L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Kovach T COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9311090343 | |
| Download: ML20059H174 (3) | |
Text
pm RECg)t
)
(
M)
UNITED STATES
- k [' i S I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION if WASHINGTON, D.C. 20565-0001 I
'%,,{,#
October 22, 1993 Mr. Thomas J. Kovach, Nuclear Licensing Manager Commonwealth Edison Company 1400 Opus Place Downers Grove, Ii in: 3 60515
Dear Mr. Kovach:
SUBJECT:
AVAILABILITY AND REPORTABILITY OF 10 CFR PART 21 MATTERS In your letter of May 5,1992, you requested information regarding the policy of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the expeditious dissemination of Part 21 tracking system monthly reports, and the utility requirement for reportability when a vendor has already transmitted the information to the NRC as a " potential" Part 21 issue. Our response to your concerns is as follows:
Monthly UDdate of the Part 21 Data Base:
The NRC's Vendor Inspection Branch (VIB) has been assigned responsibility for maintaining the Part 21 data base in an up-to-date status and for issuing monthly updates.
The monthly updates are placed in the Public Document Room in Washington, D.C. and are therefore available to the general public including the nuclear industry.
In your letter, however, you have indicated a strong interest in receiving the updates in a more expeditious manner, i.e., by direct mailing. Since Part 21 type information is of direct importance to the safe design and operation of nuclear power plants, we will provide monthly updates of the Part 21 data base to nuclear plant licensees by direct mail.
It is our intent to further expedite the availability of this information in the not too distant future by permitting direct access to the Part 21 data base by licensees through their personal computers.
Reportino of " Potential" Part 21 Issues by Vendors:
The NRC's Part 21 regulation requires that all component deviations and failures to comply that could create a substantial safety hazard if not corrected, be evaluated and reported to the Commission in a timely fashion (See Part 21.21 for specific time limits for reporting) by either the licensee or vendor.
It is often the experience that at the time the report / notification is due to the NRC, the evaluation as to whether the deviation / failure to comply represents a substantial safety hazard has not been completed, or the submitter is not in a' position to perform the evaluation due to a lack of knowledge regarding the use of the component relative to safety (See Part 21.21(b)). Therefore, the transmittal is designated as a " potential" Part 21 issue, which satisfies the Commission's requirements under Part 21 regarding initial notification. The licensee need not also report the same matter if it is known that the initial notification was made in writing to the FN2 !?!?
38M!L 002057 e6/ Pro'@ M 6) 93 PDR y y y g fi 4 U" NBC RE CENTER 00PV (6a s
l Mr. Thomas J. Kovach ]
i I
Commission by the vendor and vice versa (See Part 21.21(c)(2)). A subsequent final report (and possibly interim reports as needed),
however, is required to be submitted by the evaluator (which may be either the vendor or licensee depending upon which party possesses the necessary information to perform the evaluation, as discussed above) to provide final disposition of the evaluation for reportability of the issue. Additional reporting is necessary by either or both parties to describe the corrective action taken/ recommended, and by the vendor to identify other affected licensees, if known.
If the above information is not responsive to your concerns, please contact Walter P. Haass of the Vendor Inspection Branch at 301-504-3219.
I would also like to apologize for the delay in our response to your letter. The shifting i
of organizational responsib iities for the Part 21 data base and the press of i
other important matters e.;ed this delay.
Sinc rely,
,$,ft c+.
WArvJ c~
^' Leif d. forrholm, Chief l
Vendor Inspection Branch i
Division of Reactor Inspection and Licensee Performance e
i l
i l
i 1
.,,...,_.n.,_,,
,.n-,_,_,,,,,_-
Mr. Thomas J. Kovach October 22, 1993 l
I Part 21.21(c)(2)). A subsequent final report (and possibly interim i
reports as needed), however, is required to be submitted by the i
evaluator (which may be either the vendor or licensee depending upon which party possesses the necessary information to perform the evaluation, as discussed above) to provide final disposition of the j
evaluation for reportability of the issue. Additional reporting is necessary by either or both parties to describe the corrective action taken/ recommended, and by the vendor to identify other affected licensees, if known.
If the above information is not responsive to your concerns, please contact Walter P. Haass of the Vendor Inspection Branch at 301-504-3219.
I would also like to apologize for the delay in our response to your letter.
The shifting of organizational responsibilities for the Part 21 data base and the press of other important matters caused this delay.
Sincerely, Leif J. Norrholm, Chief Vendor Inspection Branch Division of Reactor Inspection and Licensee Performance DISTRIBUTION:
VIB R/F DRll R/F Central Files /PDR SEE PLEVIOUS CONCURRENCE c 'd 0FFICE VIB/DRIL VIB/DRIL VIB/DRIL OGC DRIL/NRR /?J-CERossi EV~
NAME WHaass UPotapovs LNorrholm DATE 9/16 /93*
9/20 /93*
9/23/93*
10 f21 793 g /22/93 COPY YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO NO DOC 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY Document Name: G: CEC 0LETT