ML20126E584
| ML20126E584 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/17/1992 |
| From: | Shewmon P Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| ACRS-R-1504, NUDOCS 9212290207 | |
| Download: ML20126E584 (2) | |
Text
- _ - - _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - ___
- j=c NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RE ACTOR SAFEGUMIDS ACRSR-1504 WASHWGT ON, D. C. 20%5 PDR
4 . . . . '
December 17, 1992 The Honorable Ivan Selin Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dear Chairman Solint
SUBJECT:
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY RICHARD GRILL FOR RULEMAKING ON ELECTRICAL TRANSIENTS, PRM-50-56 During the 392nd meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, December 9-11, 1992, we reviewed the NRC staff's response to the petition submitted by Richard Grill for rulemaking on electrical trancients. During this review, we had the benefit of discussions with representatives of the NRC staff and of the documents referenced.
The petitioner requested that the NP.C quantify the potential adverse consequences of lightning and other electrical transients on the safety of nuclear power plants, and provide regulations and guidance to require licensees to analyze for, and take protective measures against, these potential consequences.
The staff contends that the potential consequences of lightning and other electrical transients are known and have been adequately dealt with in the design of nuclear power plants. The staff maintains that its licensing review of operating plants for conformance to GDC 2 and GDC 4 includes consideration of protective measures against these potential consequences. The staff's review was based on the use of established industry standards and practices, satisf actory performance of equipment and components in electromagnetic environments, and . qualification testing of components and systems. The staff stated it had previously determined that additional industry-wide regulation of lightning protection is not cost effective, based on an assessment done'at the request of the ACRS in 1981. The staff's review of lightning related event reporte, since 1980 concludes that.the risk of core damage from such events is not significant.
The staff stated that it has issued guidance for plants with historien of lightning strikes that have caused more malfunctions than just a loss of cifsite power, to include those events in their Individual Plant Examination of External Events. In addition, the I j 9212290207 9212.17 PDR ACRS l
--R-15D4 PDR _ ,
[)
I . ___ -- _
h 9
g ..
n The lionorable Ivan Selin 2 December 17, 1992 staff is requiring digital components to be qualified against electrical transient induced failure. Finally, advanced plant designs are being evaluated against EPHI requirements for lightning and electrical transient protection.
We agree with the staff's conclusion that current operating nuclear +
power plants are adequately protected at this time, and that rulcmaking is not needdd.
We note that for future reviews the staff is currently developing d reQulatory guide on electromagnetic intOrference, reconsidering-dcveloping a regulatory guide on lightning protection, reviewing industry standard NFPA-78 on lightning protection, and augmenting guidance for staff review. We recommend that the staff use and endorse industry guides and standards, to the extent practical,-- and work with industry toward the development of additional guidance as needed.
Sincerely, >
cus bb% %
Paul Shewmon Chairman
References:
- 1. Memorandum dated November 5, _ 1992, from W. Minnera, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, NRC, for R. Fraley, ACRS,
Subject:
Staff Response to the Petition for Ruler:.aking on Electrical Transients Submitted by Richard Grill, PRM-50-56
- 2. National Fire Protection Association, Inc., Lightning Protection Code (NFPA-78), August 7, 2989 s
6 l
- - ,e~ w