NRC Generic Letter 1995-04
K]
Al K-/
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 April 28, 1995 NRC GENERIC LETTER 95-04: FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION
PROGRAM LESSONS-LEARNED ISSUES
Addressees
All holders of operating licenses or construction permits for nuclear power reactors.
Purpose
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this generic letter to notify addressees about the final disposition of the 27 lessons-learned issues found in the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP). It is expected that recipients will review the information for applicability to their facilities and consider actions, as appropriate. However, suggestions contained in this generic letter are not NRC requirements; therefore, no specific action or written response is required.
Background In 1977, the NRC staff initiated the SEP to review the designs of older operating nuclear power plants, i.e., plants licensed before 1975 when the Standard Review Plan (SRP) (Reference 1) was issued. In Phase I, the NRC
staff identified 137 issues for which the regulatory requirements had changed, and which warranted an evaluation. In Phase II, the NRC staff compared the designs of 10 SEP plants to the SRP issued in 1975. The NRC staff found that
27 of the original 137 issues required some corrective action at one or more of the 10 plants examined in the SEP. The NRC staff also concluded that corrective actions for these 27 issues could benefit safety at older operating plants not in the group of 10 plants examined in the SEP (non-SEP plants).
Therefore, the NRC staff concluded that these 27 issues should be considered at the non-SEP plants to determine whether an adequate level of safety existed at these plants.
Discussion To determine what actions might be appropriate for the non-SEP plants, the NRC
staff determined whether each SEP issue had been resolved by a particular licensee, needed to be resolved, or was addressed by other regulatory programs and activities, and placed the SEP issues in four categories. This RDR ADC) :j 05-000q(3 Pp 'IQ2 L
9504210293
45 foeD
o/I
GL 95-04 April 28, 1995 information was sent to the Commission in SECY-90-343, dated October 4, 1990
(Reference 2), as follows:
(1). Completely resolved (4)
(2). Low safety significance requiring no further regulatory action (1)
(3). Unresolved but covered by existing regulatory programs (19)
(4). Unresolved; existing regulatory program has not yet been identified (3)
Further evaluation by the NRC staff as part of the generic safety issues program (NUREG-0933, NA Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues," Reference 3)
led to some adjustments among the categories after SECY-90-343 was issued.
The final categorizations follow:
(1). Completely resolved (4)
(2). Low safety significance requiring no further regulatory action (2)
(3). Unresolved but covered by existing regulatory programs (20)
(4). Unresolved; existing regulatory program has not yet been identified (1)
Attachment 1 lists the six issues in categories 1 and 2. The NRC staff determined that the 21 issues remaining in categories 3 and 4 did not require immediate action to protect public health and safety, and incorporated them into the established NRC regulatory process for determining the safety importance of generic safety issues. The 20 issues in category 3 are covered by existing regulatory programs described in NUREG-0933. The NRC staff has incorporated the category 4 issue into the generic issues program and is determining the priority of this category 4 issue, SEP Issue 6.1, "Pipe Break Effects on Systems and Components" (now New Generic Issue 156.6.1 in Reference 3). Attachment 2 lists the 21 issues in Categories 3 and 4.
The NRC staff will no longer track SEP issues separately because each original SEP issue is either resolved, need not be resolved, or has been incorporated into the generic issues program. The pipe break issue is currently being assigned a priority under the generic issues program.
Consequently, future consideration of the original SEP issues will be confined to the normal reviews, audits, or inspections carried out in conjunction with the generic issues program. The staff procedure for handling generic issues involves evaluating any proposed actions for each case under existing regulations and procedures and considering backfit implications in accordance with Section 50.109 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
GL 95-04 April 28, 1995 This generic letter requires no specific action or written response. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact the technical contact listed below or the appropriate Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
project manager.
(Mociate ector for Projects ffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Technical contact: Sheri R. Peterson, NRR
(301) 415-2752 References:
1. NUREG-0800, "Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants," 1st Edition, November 1975.
2. SECY-90-343, "Status of the Staff Program to Determine How the Lessons Learned From the Systematic Evaluation Program Have Been Factored Into the Licensing Bases of Operating Plants," October 4, 1990.
3. NUREG-0933, "A Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues," Supplement 17, September 1994.
Attachments:
1. SEP Issues in Categories 1 and 2
2. SEP Issues in Categories 3 and 4
3. List of Recently Issued NRC Generic Letters Iq& 4
Attachment 1 GL 95-04 April 28, 1995 SEP ISSUES IN CATEGORIES 1 AND 2 SEP ISSUE TITLE REFERENCE CATEGORY
NUMBER
3.6.2 Emergency DC Power 3 2
3.7 Leakage Detection at the Reactor Coolant 2 1 Pressure Boundary
5.1 Organic Materials 2 1
5.2 Water Purity in the Reactor Coolant 2 1 System
6.2 Containment Isolation 2 1
6.3 Reactor Coolant System Activity Limits 2 2 Category 1 - Completely resolved Category 2 - Low safety significance requiring no further regulatory action
.\-.1I
Attachment 2 GL 95-04 April 28, 1995 SEP ISSUES IN CATEGORIES 3 AND 4 SEP EXISTING REGULATORY
ISSUE TITLE OF ISSUE PROGRAM RESOLVING CATEGORY
NUMBER SEP ISSUE
(see NOTES) . -
1.1 Settlement of Foundations and IPEEE 3 Buried Equipment ._l
1.2 Dam Integrity and Site Flooding IPEEE 3
1.3 Site Hydrology and Ability to IPE, IPEEE 3 Withstand Floods
1.4 Industrial Hazards IPEEE 3
1.5 Tornado Missiles IPEEE 3
1.6 Turbine Missiles TAP A-37 3
2.1 Severe Weather Effects on IPEEE 3 Structures
2.2 Design Codes, Criteria, and IPEEE 3 Load Combinations ._. -
2.3 Containment Design and NGI 118 3 Inspection
2.4 Seismic Design of Structures, IPEEE 3 Systems, and Components
3.1.1 Shutdown Systems TAP A-45, IPE, 3 IPEEE, SDLOW . -
3.1.2 Electrical Instrumentation and TAP A-45, IPE, 3 Controls IPEEE, SDLOW . -
Category 3 - Unresolved but covered by existing regulatory programs Category 4 - Unresolved; no covering existing regulatory program yet identified
Attachment 2 GL 95-04 April 28, 1995 SEP ISSUES IN CATEGORIES 3 AND 4 SEP TITLE OF ISSUE EXISTING REGULATORY
ISSUE PROGRAM RESOLVING CATEGORY
NUMBER SEP ISSUE
l_ _ _(see NOTES) I
3.2 Service and Cooling Water NGI 51, 130, 143, 3 Systems 153; GL 89-13,
91-13;TAP SW
3.3 Ventilation Systems NGI 83, 106, 136, 3 l _ 143, 148; 10CFR
3.4 Isolation of High and Low NGI 105 3 Pressure Systems
3.5 Automatic Emergency Core NGI 24 3 Cooling System (ECCS)
Switchover
3.6.1 Emergency AC Power TAP A-44, B-56; 3
___ ___
___ ______ ___ ___ ___ __ NGI 128
3.8 Shared Systems TAP A-44; NGI 43, 3
130, 153
4.1 Reactor Protection System (RPS) NGI 142 3 and Engineered Safety Features System (ESFS) Isolation
4.2 Testing of the RPS and ESFS NGI 120; 10CFR 3
6.1 Pipe Break Effects on Systems NGI 156.6.1 4 l _ and Components Category 3 - Unresolved but covered by existing regulatory programs Category 4 - Unresolved; no covering existing regulatory program yet identified
Attachment 2 GL 95-04 April 28, 1995 NOTES
Program Reference IPEEE Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 4, "Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities - 10 CFR
50.54(f)," June 28, 1991.
IPE Generic Letter 88-20, "Individual Plant Examination for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities - 10 CFR 50.54(f)," November 23, 1988;
Supplement 1, August 29, 1989; Supplement 2, April 4, 1990;
Supplement 3, July 6, 1990.
TAP Task Action Plan Items, NUREG-0933, "A Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues," Supplement 17, September 1994, Section 2.
A-37 Turbine Missiles A-44 Station Blackout A-45 Shutdown Decay Heat Removal Requirements B-56 Diesel Reliability NGI New Generic Issues, NUREG-0933, "A Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues," Supplement 17, September 1994, Section 3.
24 Automatic ECCS [emergency core cooling system] Switchover to Recirculation
43 Reliability of Air Systems
51 Proposed Requirements for Improving the Reliability of Open Cycle Service Water Systems
83 Control Room Habitability
105 Interfacing Systems LOCA [loss of coolant accident] at BWRs [boiling water reactors]
106 Piping and Use of Highly Combustible Gases in Vital Areas
118 Tendon Anchorage Failures
120 On-Line Testability of Protection Systems
128 Electrical Power Reliability
130 Essential Service Water Pump Failures at Multiplant Sites
136 Storage and Use of Large Quantities of Cryogenic Combustibles on Site
142 Leakage Through Electrical Isolators in Instrumentation Circuits
143 Availability of Chilled Water Systems
148 Smoke Control and Manual Fire-Fighting Effectiveness
153 Loss of Essential Service Water in LWRs [light water reactors]
156.6.1 Referred to the Office of Research for prioritization as Generic Issue 156.6.1.
Attachment 2 GL 95-04 April 28, 1995 NOTES (continued)
Program Reference SDLOW SECY-91-283, "Evaluation of Shutdown and Low Power Risk Issues,"
September 9, 1991.
GL 89-13 Generic Letter 89-13, "Service Water System Problems Affecting Safety-Related Equipment," July 18, 1989.
GL 91-13 Generic Letter 91-13, "Request for Information Related to the Resolution of Generic Issue 130, 'Essential Service Water System Failures at Multi-Unit Sites,' Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f),"
September 19, 1991.
TAP SW Memorandum from A. Thadani for W. Russell, "Task Action Plan for Resolution of Service Water System Problems," June 27, 1991.
10CFR Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, "Energy"
Attachment 3 GL 95-04 April 28, 1995 LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUED GENERIC LETTERS
Generic Date of I attc,- ISub1ject Issuance Issued To
95-03 CIRCUMFERENTIAL CRACKING OF 04/26/95 ALL HOLDERS OF OLs OR
STEAM GENERATOR TUBES CPs FOR PRESSURIZED
WATER REACTORS (PWRs).
95-02 USE OF NUMARC/EPRI REPORT 04/26/95 ALL HOLDERS OF OLs OR
TR-102348, "GUIDELINE ON CPs FOR NUCLEAR POWER
LICENSING DIGITAL UPGRADES," REACTORS.
IN DETERMINING THE ACCEPT-
ABILITY OF PERFORMING
ANALOG-TO-DIGITAL REPLACE-
MENTS UNDER 10 CFR 50.59
89-04, GUIDANCE ON DEVELOPING 04/04/95 ALL HOLDERS OF OLs OR
SUPP. 1 ACCEPTABLE INSERVICE CPs FOR NUCLEAR POWER
TESTING PROGRAMS REACTORS.
95-01 NRC STAFF TECHNICAL POSI- 01/26/95 ALL CURRENT LICENSEES
TION ON FIRE PROTECTION & APPLICANTS FOR URANIUM
FOR FUEL CYCLE FACILITIES CONVERSION & FUEL
FABRICATION FACILITIES.
94-04 VOLUNTARY REPORTING OF 09/02/94 ALL HOLDERS OF OLs OR CPs ADDITIONAL OCCUPATIONAL FOR NPRs, RADIOGRAPHY
RADIATION EXPOSURE DATA LICENSEES, FUEL PROCES-
SING LICENSEES, FABRICA-
TING & REPROCESSING
LICENSEES, MANUFACTURERS
& DISTRIBUTORS OF BY-
PRODUCT MAT'L, INDEPEND-
DENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE
INSTALLATIONS, FACILITIES
FOR LAND DISPOSAL OF LOW-
LEVEL WASTE, & GEOLOGIC
REPOSITORIES FOR HIGH-
LEVEL WASTE.
94-03 INTERGRANULAR STRESS 07/22/94 ALL HOLDERS OF OLs OR CPs CORROSION CRACKING OF CORE FOR BOILING WATER
SHROUDS IN BOILING WATER REACTORS EXCEPT FOR BIG
ROCK POINT, WHICH DOES
NOT HAVE A CORE SHROUD.
OL - OPERATING LICENSE
CP = CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
NPR - NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS
GL 95-04 '->
April 28, 1995 This generic letter requires no specific action or written response. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact the technical contact listed below or the appropriate Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
project manager.
Ofigina signed by Roy P. Zimmerman Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Technical contact: Sheri R. Peterson, NRR
(301) 415-2752 References:
1. NUREG-0800, "Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants," 1st Edition, November 1975.
2. SECY-90-343, "Status of the Staff Program to Determine How the Lessons Learned From the Systematic Evaluation Program Have Been Factored Into the Licensing Bases of Operating Plants," October 4, 1990.
3. NUREG-0933, "A Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues," Supplement 17, September 1994.
Attachments:
1. SEP Issues in Categories 1 and 2
2. SEP Issues in Categories 3 and 4
3. List of Recently Issued NRC Generic Letters NOTE: JHConran's 4/5/95 e-mail to SRPeterson indicated that ELJordan had determined that no CRGR review of the generic letter is needed.
- SEE FJMiraglia's 3/16/95 memo to an for PREVIOUS CONCURRENCEs OFFICE TA:DOPS
l_NAMEAJrKuge D:
4YG Ares ADP:NRR
RPZimmerman
1 DATE 04,E 95 04/v$/95 004P 95 DOCUMENT NAME: 95-04.GL
E. Jordan -2- The Office of the General Counsel reviewed this generic letter and has no legal objections.
The generic letter is sponsored by Brian Sheron, Director, Division of Engineering.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Generic Letter Titled 'Final Disposition of the Systematic Evaluation Program Lessons-Learned Issues'
2. Response to CRGR Charter Questions
3. SECY-90-343, wStatus of the Staff Program to Determine How the Lessons Learned From the Systematic Evaluation Program Have Been Factored Into the Licensing Bases of Operating Plants,n October 4, 1990
4. NUREG-0933, *A Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues," Supplement 17, September 1994, pp. 3.156-1 through 3.156-31 Distribution:
Central Files JLarkins, ACRS
JMilhoan, DEDR GZech, PMSB
BShelton, IRM/IRMB AKugler DE/RF
AChaffee, OECB
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\TECHASST\SEPGL95.XX
- see previous page for concurrence To toceW a copy of shk documm. htliu In do box. *C'
- Copy without ttachrnent 'E' -CODV with *ttarhmAnt 'N - - UWn
_ _- _ _ _-- __, ._ -- _ .-- _ -.
E
OFFICE TA:DE E TA: DOPS I J TECH ED Z1 D:DE I J OGC I
NAME
DATE J
- SPeterson I*AKugler
02/14 0
- RSanders
/102/15/95
- BSheron
03/01
- SLewis l95 02/28/95 AiCr _______I
_r T ___ I
urr Hor AUI I U!W "/I t AnPR~I&L I\V I - D
10* NRR I I
NAME J*AThadani I $4i _/ - Rmmerman l iFMr I
DATE 103/03195 - i- 7Z.;
19 34 /95 ' 'V J99 OIUMCIAL RECORD COPY
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 March 16, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: Edward L. Jordan, Chairman Committee To Review Generic Requirements FROM:
SUBJECT:
Frank J. Hiraglia, Deputy Director 0
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
94tP'
A
REQUEST FOR ENDORSEMENT WITHOUT FORMAL REVIEW OF THE
PROPOSED GENERIC LETTER TITLED FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE
SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM LESSONS-LEARNED ISSUES*
The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) requests that the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) informally review the subject proposed generic letter. NRR will proceed to issue the proposed generic letter after
10 working days from the date of this memorandum, unless instructed otherwise by the CRGR.
NRR believes that formal CRGR review and public comment for the proposed generic letter are not warranted because the letter does not contain any new staff positions or request any licensee actions. The purpose of this generic letter is to notify licensees about the final disposition of the 27 lessons- learned issues found in the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP).
Attachment 1 is the generic letter proposed by the staff. In 1977, the NRC
staff initiated the SEP to review the designs of older operating nuclear power plants. The staff defined issues for which the regulatory requirements had changed, warranting an evaluation at each of the plants licensed before 1975 when the Standard Review Plan was issued. This generic letter informs licensees that the NRC will no longer track SEP issues separately because each original SEP issue has either been resolved or has been incorporated into the generic issues program. No specific actions or written responses are required. The staff considers this generic letter to be Category 2. However, as mentioned above, the staff believes that formal CRGR review is not warranted because the proposed generic letter does not contain any new staff positions or request any licensee actions.
Attachment 2 is the response to the questions contained in Section IV.B of the CRGR Charter. Attachments 3 and 4 contain the relevant portions of the documents listed as references in the proposed generic letter with the exception of the 1975 edition of NUREG-0800, the first edition of the Standard Review Plan.
The staff will not publish a notice of opportunity for public comment on the proposed generic letter in the Federal Register because the letter does not contain any new staff positions or request any licensee actions. The proposed generic letter will be published in the Federal Register when it is issued.
CONTACT
- Sheri R. Peterson, NRR/DE
415-2752
E. Jordan -2- The Office of the General Counsel reviewed this proposed generic letter and has no legal objections.
The generic letter is sponsored by Brian Sheron, Director, Division of Engineering.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Generic Letter Titled wFinal Disposition of the Systematic Evaluation Program Lessons-Learned Issues'
2. Response to CRGR Charter Questions
3. SECY-90-343, Status of the Staff Program to Determine How the Lessons Learned From the Systematic Evaluation Program Have Been Factored Into the Licensing Bases of Operating Plints,3 October 4, 1990
4. NUREG-0933, 'A Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues, Supplement 17, September 1994, pp. 3.156-1 through 3.156-31
- . ,
- r
_
From: James H. Conran, CRGR Staff (JHC)
To: SRP
Date: Wednesday, April 5, 1995 5:06 pm subject: CRGR Review of GL
Sheri:
This is in response to the memorandum, dated March 16, 1995, from Frank Miraglia to Ed Jordan, regarding the question of CRGR
review of the proposed generic letter titled "Final Disposition of the Systematic Evaluation Program Lessons-Learned Issues", and your followup telephone call today. Because no new backfitiing is intended or approved in connection with the issuance of this letter, Mr. Jordan has determined that no CRGR review is needed.
Jim CC: DFR, ELJ1, FJM