NRC Generic Letter 1984-20: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 14: Line 14:
| page count = 1
| page count = 1
}}
}}
{{#Wiki_filter:August 20, 1984TO ALL LICENSEES OF OPERATING REACTORS AND APPLICANTS FOR OPERATINGLICENSEGentlemen:SUBJECT: SCHEDULING GUIDANCE FOR LICENSEE SUBMITTALS OF RELOADS THATINVOLVE UNREVIEWED SAFETY QUESTIONS (Generic Letter 84-20)The purpose of this letter is to provide guidance on the scheduling oflicensee submittals on any reload analyses that contain an unreviewed safetyquestion or require a revision to the Technical Specifications (TS), and whichtherefore require approval and/or a license amendment from NRC prior to restart.When the submittals involve the reanalysis of FSAR Accident Analysis Chaptertransients and accidents, and these analyses are not based on NRC-approvedanalysis models and methods, they should be submitted at least six months priorto the date of issuance (restart date) of the needed license amendment ordesign approval.In many cases, the analyses of transients and postulated accidents submittedin support of the reloads have been performed using analysis models and methodsthat have not yet been approved by NRC. Full confirmation of the acceptabilityof such models and methods frequently has required more review time thanavailable prior to the needed date and has resulted in interim findings subjectto later confirmation.In order to avoid possible delays in restart, sufficient time should be allowedin the reload review process for the staff to make a finding of acceptabilityon previously unapproved analysis models and methods. We therefore providethe following for your guidance:1. Any licensee planning to submit reload analyses based on analysismodels and methods that are not yet approved by the NRC staff shouldsubmit the models and methods at least six months prior to the datethat a license amendment is needed to authorize restart.2. For a licensee that submits reload analyses less than six months priorto the date that a reload license amendment is needed based on modelsand methods that are not approved by the staff, the staff cannot assurean approval can be given within the six month period, and we stronglysuggest that justification for restart should be primarily based onpreviously approved analyses or analysis models and methods.As this letter does not contain any requests for information, an Office ofManagement and Budget clearance number is votsvequiWediDarrell G. ELsenauiDarrell G. Eisenhut, DirectorDivision of Licensing*PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE SEE DATEORAB:DL* ORAB:DL* ELD* C:ORAB:DL* AD/SA:DL* D/DSIMFairtile:dm JZwolinski BShields GHolahan DCrutchfield RBernero6/27/84 6/28/84 7/2/84 7/02/84 7/17/84 V/0/840820027 <O  
{{#Wiki_filter:August 20, 1984 TO ALL LICENSEES  
}}
OF OPERATING  
REACTORS AND APPLICANTS  
FOR OPERATING LICENSE Gentlemen:
SUBJECT: SCHEDULING  
GUIDANCE FOR LICENSEE SUBMITTALS  
OF RELOADS THAT INVOLVE UNREVIEWED  
SAFETY QUESTIONS (Generic Letter 84-20)The purpose of this letter is to provide guidance on the scheduling of licensee submittals on any reload analyses that contain an unreviewed safety question or require a revision to the Technical Specifications (TS), and which therefore require approval and/or a license amendment from NRC prior to restart.When the submittals involve the reanalysis of FSAR Accident Analysis Chapter transients and accidents, and these analyses are not based on NRC-approved analysis models and methods, they should be submitted at least six months prior to the date of issuance (restart date) of the needed license amendment or design approval.In many cases, the analyses of transients and postulated accidents submitted in support of the reloads have been performed using analysis models and methods that have not yet been approved by NRC. Full confirmation of the acceptability of such models and methods frequently has required more review time than available prior to the needed date and has resulted in interim findings subject to later confirmation.
 
In order to avoid possible delays in restart, sufficient time should be allowed in the reload review process for the staff to make a finding of acceptability on previously unapproved analysis models and methods. We therefore provide the following for your guidance: 1. Any licensee planning to submit reload analyses based on analysis models and methods that are not yet approved by the NRC staff should submit the models and methods at least six months prior to the date that a license amendment is needed to authorize restart.2. For a licensee that submits reload analyses less than six months prior to the date that a reload license amendment is needed based on models and methods that are not approved by the staff, the staff cannot assure an approval can be given within the six month period, and we strongly suggest that justification for restart should be primarily based on previously approved analyses or analysis models and methods.As this letter does not contain any requests for information, an Office of Management and Budget clearance number is votsvequiWedi Darrell G. ELsenaui Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing*PREVIOUS  
CONCURRENCE  
SEE DATE ORAB:DL* ORAB:DL* ELD* C:ORAB:DL*  
AD/SA:DL*  
D/DSI MFairtile:dm JZwolinski BShields GHolahan DCrutchfield RBernero 6/27/84 6/28/84 7/2/84 7/02/84 7/17/84 V/0/84 0820027 <O}}


{{GL-Nav}}
{{GL-Nav}}

Revision as of 12:24, 31 August 2018

NRC Generic Letter 1984-020: Scheduling Guidance for Licensee Submittals of Reloads That Involve Unreviewed Safety Questions
ML031180062
Person / Time
Site: Beaver Valley, Millstone, Hatch, Monticello, Calvert Cliffs, Dresden, Davis Besse, Peach Bottom, Browns Ferry, Salem, Oconee, Mcguire, Nine Mile Point, Palisades, Palo Verde, Perry, Indian Point, Fermi, Kewaunee, Catawba, Harris, Wolf Creek, Saint Lucie, Point Beach, Oyster Creek, Watts Bar, Hope Creek, Grand Gulf, Cooper, Sequoyah, Byron, Pilgrim, Arkansas Nuclear, Three Mile Island, Braidwood, Susquehanna, Summer, Prairie Island, Columbia, Seabrook, Brunswick, Surry, Limerick, North Anna, Turkey Point, River Bend, Vermont Yankee, Crystal River, Haddam Neck, Ginna, Diablo Canyon, Callaway, Vogtle, Waterford, Duane Arnold, Farley, Robinson, Clinton, South Texas, San Onofre, Cook, Comanche Peak, Yankee Rowe, Maine Yankee, Quad Cities, Humboldt Bay, La Crosse, Big Rock Point, Rancho Seco, Zion, Midland, Bellefonte, Fort Calhoun, FitzPatrick, McGuire, LaSalle, 05000000, Zimmer, Fort Saint Vrain, Shoreham, Satsop, Trojan, Atlantic Nuclear Power Plant, Skagit, Marble Hill
Issue date: 08/20/1984
From: Eisenhut D G
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
GL-84-020, NUDOCS 8408200275
Download: ML031180062 (1)
v • d • e


August 20, 1984 TO ALL LICENSEES

OF OPERATING

REACTORS AND APPLICANTS

FOR OPERATING LICENSE Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: SCHEDULING

GUIDANCE FOR LICENSEE SUBMITTALS

OF RELOADS THAT INVOLVE UNREVIEWED

SAFETY QUESTIONS (Generic Letter 84-20)The purpose of this letter is to provide guidance on the scheduling of licensee submittals on any reload analyses that contain an unreviewed safety question or require a revision to the Technical Specifications (TS), and which therefore require approval and/or a license amendment from NRC prior to restart.When the submittals involve the reanalysis of FSAR Accident Analysis Chapter transients and accidents, and these analyses are not based on NRC-approved analysis models and methods, they should be submitted at least six months prior to the date of issuance (restart date) of the needed license amendment or design approval.In many cases, the analyses of transients and postulated accidents submitted in support of the reloads have been performed using analysis models and methods that have not yet been approved by NRC. Full confirmation of the acceptability of such models and methods frequently has required more review time than available prior to the needed date and has resulted in interim findings subject to later confirmation.

In order to avoid possible delays in restart, sufficient time should be allowed in the reload review process for the staff to make a finding of acceptability on previously unapproved analysis models and methods. We therefore provide the following for your guidance: 1. Any licensee planning to submit reload analyses based on analysis models and methods that are not yet approved by the NRC staff should submit the models and methods at least six months prior to the date that a license amendment is needed to authorize restart.2. For a licensee that submits reload analyses less than six months prior to the date that a reload license amendment is needed based on models and methods that are not approved by the staff, the staff cannot assure an approval can be given within the six month period, and we strongly suggest that justification for restart should be primarily based on previously approved analyses or analysis models and methods.As this letter does not contain any requests for information, an Office of Management and Budget clearance number is votsvequiWedi Darrell G. ELsenaui Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing*PREVIOUS

CONCURRENCE

SEE DATE ORAB:DL* ORAB:DL* ELD* C:ORAB:DL*

AD/SA:DL*

D/DSI MFairtile:dm JZwolinski BShields GHolahan DCrutchfield RBernero 6/27/84 6/28/84 7/2/84 7/02/84 7/17/84 V/0/84 0820027 <O

Template:GL-Nav

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=NRC_Generic_Letter_1984-20&oldid=1010903"