ML20137A893
| ML20137A893 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/18/1996 |
| From: | Conran J NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD) |
| To: | Jacob Zimmerman NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137A682 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-96-466 NUDOCS 9703210108 | |
| Download: ML20137A893 (1) | |
Text
. . .. .-. .__. ._ .-- -. .- -. . - - . - . . -
?
@ l 1
From: James Conran f 88#9 i
i To: crgri, WND2.WNP3.JIZ /. /M0 f l Date: 11/18/96 5:02pm !
1 b
Attached is an issue Sheet for CRGR Meeting No. 296 on 11/19/96. If there are any l questions or comments, give me a call (415-6839) or send an email message (JHC).
Jim CC: WND1.WNP .SF , WND1.WNP , WND1.WNP G
)
l 6
.s i
)
I J
1 i
i T
l f
/
g32gggos97o314 WD-9,AM96-g6 PDR J
/ WWn, ISSUE SHEET for CRGR Agenda Items CRGR Meetina No. 296 - November 19. 1996 .
- 1. Inappropriate use of " required" vs " requested" in invoking 50.54(f)
The three proposed GLs submitted for review by the Committee are characterized as 50,54(f) information requests that do not involve backfitting: but this is not made clear enough in the wording of the letters. The draft letters are not consistent with the intent of applicable guidance given in MC 0720 regarding format and content of generic correspondence; and they do not . employ the appropriate "boilerplate" wording that has typically been used in generic correspondence for several years now in transmitting requests for action /information to licensees. As currently worded, the letters explicitly require the submittal of specific detailed information, not heretofore required of licensees, relating to. the regulatory concerns being addressed therein. This is inconsistent with established Commission policy that new requirements are actually imposed only by regulation, order, technical specification or license condition. It also sounds very much like backfitting (which is not intended in these letters, according to the sponsoring staff).
The appropriate format and wording for the letters is something closer to that employed in the recent Wolf ~ Creek and Haddam Neck generic letters j (see excerpts attached), i.e., include separate sections in each letter l labeled "Recuested Information" and "Recuired Resoonse". Under " Requested "Information", specify in detail the information sought; and under
" Required Response", state that, pursuant to 50.54(f), licensees are recuired to provide a written response under oath and affirmation incicating whether or not they will provide the specific information i requested, if so, provide a schedule for doing so: if not, provide i justification and/or any proposed alternative response. The Committee j should recommend that the staff revise the draft letters in this manner !
to make clearer the stated intent (i .e. , information request - no backfit) ;
and to ensure consistency with Commission policy and applicable procedure.
As a related point, the Committee should also discuss with the staff l why three GLs show up for CRGR review at this time with the noted l deficiencies. On the basis of conversations with cognizant NRR staff, apparently the wording of the letters was originally drafted correctly, ;
but was changed in response to OGC comments. 0GC changed the word 1
" request" to " require" in the sections invoking 50.54 in all three letters as a condition of concurrence. In doing so, the OGC reviewer in at least _
one instance cited an August 29, 1996 memo from Steve Burns 0GC to Ed ;
Jordan regarding the off-normal use of " required" in invoking 50.54(f) in the 50.54(f) letter to licensees on design bases information reviewed by the Committee at Meeting No. 240. That memo stated that as a matter of !
law, a letter m y use the word " required" as it was used in that case. ,
similar to the manner in which it is used in these three proposed generic !
/ ;
letters. The Burns memo did not suggest, however, that as a matter of '
policy all generic correspondence should be written in that manner i.e.,
that the Commission shoulc change (or has changed) its longstanding policy that generic correspondence is not normally to be used.for transmittal or requirements.to licensees. (In that other case, the Commission ap concluded that it was necessary or warranted to deviate from the "parently 4
norm" in this regard due to special circumstances, which included a long history of unfruitful. interactions with industry and licensees on the subject topic and serious possible safety concerns arising out of events involving lack of availability or adequacy of design basis information in the recent/
current-operating experience.)
-It appears, however, that someone (or a few) in OGC and maybe in NRR as well) has misread / misconstrued the Burns memo and attendant circumstances to equate to an intended polic Unless/until that happens officially, however, ythe change staff in this regard.
should continue to follow the established policy and practice in the wording of generic correspondence.
The boilerplate referred to above was developed specifically in response to concern at the Commission level regarding use of.50.54(f) information requests and' informal generic correspondence as a vehicle for imposing new requirements or seeking binding commitments from licensees (ref: SRM SECY-
.91-037 dated 3/8/91): and CRGR 'has given em]hasis accordingly in its
. reviews to maintaining the intended difference 3etween what the staff does normally with generic correspondence vis-avis regulations, orders, license conditions and technical specifications.
As a related matter. Steve Crockett . 0GC will be available to brief the Committee on implementation of the new Small Business... Fairness Act, its relationship and/or possible impications to the CRGR backfit control 3rocess. I will have handouts for this item at the meeting tomorrow..
30 ssible issues / questions for discussion in that context are:
- Was the 50.54(f) letter on design basis information identified as a rule under this Act? If not, why not?
- Could the use of " required" vs " request" as discussed in the above cause generic correspondence to come under rather than be normally exempt from this new Act?
, Excerot from Wolf Creek Generic Letter i
Requested Action (s)
Addressees are requested to determine whether their ECCSs are susceptible to common-cause failure as a result of events similar to the Wolf Creek RCS draindown event of September 17. 1994.
If ECCSs are found to be susceptible to such common-cause failure. addressees are expected to take corrective action, as appropriate, in accordance with the requirements stated in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, to ensure compliance with GDCs 34 and 35.
Reauested Information Within 120 days of the date of this generic letter, addressees are requested to submit a written summary report stating actions taken in response to the requested actions noted above, conclusions that were reached relative to susceptibility to an RCS draindown with a potential for consequential common-cause ECCS failure, and corrective actions that were implemented or are planned to be implemented. If systems were found to be susceptible to the conditions that are discussed in this generic letter, describe potential draindown flow paths. the pipe sizes involved, the valves in the flow path and their normal position, interlocks, control room position indication, potential valve testing manipulations or use. and administrative controls used to control valve manipulations such that draindowns are precluded.
Reouired Response Within 30 days of the date of this generic letter, addressees are required to submit a written res (1) whether or not the requested actions will be completed, ponse (2) indicatingwhe~ther or not the requested information will submitted, and (3) whether or not the requested information will be submitted within the requested time period. Addressees who choose not to complete the requested actions, or choose not to submit the requested information, or are unable to satisfy the requested completion date must describe in their response any alternative course of action that is proposed to be taken, including the basis for establishing the acceptability of the proposed alternative course of action and the basis for continued operability of affected systems and components, as applicable. Address the required written reports to the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ATTN: Document Control Desk. Washington, D.C.
20555-0001, under oath or affirmation under the provisions of Section 182a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended, and 10 CFR 50.54(f). In addition, submit a copy to the appropriate regional administrator.
Excerot for the Haddam Neck Generic Letter Reauested Action (s)
Addressees are requested to determine:
4 (1) if containment air cooler cooling water systems are susceptible to either waterhammer or two-phase flow conditions during postulated accident conditions:
(2) if piping systems that penetrate the containment are susceptible to thermal expansion of fluid so that overpressurization of piping could occur.
With regard to waterhammer, addressees may find Volumes 1 and 2 of NUREG/CR-5220.
" Diagnosis of Condensation-Induced Waterhammer." dated October 1988, informative 4
and useful in evaluating potential waterhammer conditions.
If systems are found to be susceptible to the conditions discussed in this generic letter, addressees are expected to assess the operability of affected systems and take corrective action as appropriate in accordance with the require-ments stated in 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B and as required by the plant Technical Specifications. GL 91-18. "Information to Licensees Regarding Two NRC Inspection Manual Sections on Resolution of Degraded and Nonconforming Conditions and on Operability." dated November 7.1991. contains guidance on the review of licensee
- operability determinations and licensee resolution of degraded and nonconforming
, conditions.
Reauested Information Within 120 days of the date of this generic letter, addressees are requested to submit a written summary report stating actions taken in response to the requested actions noted above, conclusions that were reached relative to susceptibility for waterhammer and two-phase flow in the containment air cooler cooling water system and overpressurization of piping that penetrates containment, the basis for continued operability of affected n vis and components as a)plicable, and corrective actions that were implemented or are planned to be mplemented. If systems were found to be susceptible to the conditions that are discussed in this generic letter, identify the systems affected and describe the specific circumstances involved.
Recuired Resoonse Within 30 days of the date of this generic letter, addressees are required to submit a written response indicating: (1) whether or not the requested actions will be completed. (2) whether or not the requested information will be submitted and (3) whether or not the requested information will be submitted within the requested time period. Addressees who choose not to complete the requested actions, or choose not to submit the requested information, or are unable to satisfy the requested completion date, must describe in their response any alternative course of action that is proposed to be taken including the basis for establishing the acceptability of the proposed alternative course of action.
( Address the required written reports to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, under oath or affirmation, under the provisions of Section 182a. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR 50.54(f). In addition, send a copy to the appropriate regional administrator.
a 4
a 4
l i
l l
4 l
l l
l