ML061280620: 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 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:May 8, 2006Tim Hope, RUG IV Chairman4200 South Hulen Drive Suite 630 Fort Worth, Texas 76109
{{#Wiki_filter:May 8, 2006 Tim Hope, RUG IV Chairman 4200 South Hulen Drive Suite 630 Fort Worth, Texas 76109


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
IMPLEMENTATION OF NUREG 1022 REVISION 2 GUIDANCE REGARDING THEREPORTABILITY OF LOSS OF SHUTDOWN COOLING  
IMPLEMENTATION OF NUREG 1022 REVISION 2 GUIDANCE REGARDING THE REPORTABILITY OF LOSS OF SHUTDOWN COOLING


==Dear Mr. Hope:==
==Dear Mr. Hope:==


Thank you for your letter, dated February 28, 2006. In your letter, you referenced NRCInspection Report 05000397/2005004 for the Columbia Generating Station, which documentedthe closure of Unresolved Item (URI) 50-397/04-04-07 related to the reportability of loss ofshutdown cooling events under 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(v)(B). Your letter also indicated that the closure of this URI stated that two events determined by Columbia Generating Station as notreportable in accordance with the Reporting Guidelines of NUREG-1022, Revision 2, "EventReporting Guidelines 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73," were in fact considered reportable as a loss of safety function in accordance with the reporting guidance and as safety system functionalfailures (SSFFs) within the Reactor Oversight Process performance indicator (PI) protocol. The report also stated that the NRC concluded that the licensee had misinterpreted therequirements of 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(v)(B) and the guidance provided in NUREG-1022,Revision 2.In your letter, you stated that the Regional Utility Group (RUG) IV members' position on thistopic from a generic standpoint is that RUG IV does not believe that the specific instances citedin the inspection report constitute a reportable loss of safety function under 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(v)(B). You also stated that, in submitting this position, RUG IV wanted to convey that its primary concern and focus is on consistency in regulatory implementation by thelicensees and the consistency of NRC enforcement of the regulatory guidance. You indicatedthat, regardless of the final position taken on this issue, providing additional clarifying guidance in NUREG-1022 on this subject should be considered by the NRC.While we believe that your letter provided no information beyond that which was alreadyconsidered by the staff in addressing this issue in the subject inspection report, the NRC currently plans to review and evaluate NUREG-1022 in Fiscal Year 2007 to determine whetheradditional clarification is needed with respect to this and other reporting issues. As part of this process, the NRC plans to obtain stakeholder input.
Thank you for your letter, dated February 28, 2006. In your letter, you referenced NRC Inspection Report 05000397/2005004 for the Columbia Generating Station, which documented the closure of Unresolved Item (URI) 50-397/04-04-07 related to the reportability of loss of shutdown cooling events under 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(v)(B). Your letter also indicated that the closure of this URI stated that two events determined by Columbia Generating Station as not reportable in accordance with the Reporting Guidelines of NUREG-1022, Revision 2, "Event Reporting Guidelines 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73," were in fact considered reportable as a loss of safety function in accordance with the reporting guidance and as safety system functional failures (SSFFs) within the Reactor Oversight Process performance indicator (PI) protocol. The report also stated that the NRC concluded that the licensee had misinterpreted the requirements of 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(v)(B) and the guidance provided in NUREG-1022, Revision 2.
Tim Hope- 2 -Thank you for providing your feedback. Should you have any questions regarding ourresponse, please contact Mr. Claude Johnson at 817-860-8148.Sincerely, /RA/Arthur T. Howell III, DirectorDivision of Reactor Projects cc:B. Mallett, RIV T. Gwynn, RIV Z. Dunham, RIV P. Hiland, NRR R. Laura, NRR S. O'Conner, OEDO Tim Hope- 3 -bcc:L. Owen (RAI 06-166 input)SUNSI Review Completed: __CEJ___   ADAMS:   Yes G No   Initials: _CEJ___   Publicly Available G   Non-Publicly Available G   Sensitive   Non-SensitiveS:\DRP\DRPDIR\Letter to Tim Hope - Rug IV Response.wpdML061280620RIV:C:DRP/ADD:DRPNRRD:DRPRCCEJohnson;mjs;dlfAVegelRALauraATHowell IIIKDFuller/RA//RA/E-CEJohnson/RA//RA/ 4/27/065/1/064/27/065/1/065/2/06D:DRP   signATHowell III     /RA/5/8/06OFFICIAL RECORD COPY T=Telephone           E=E-mail       F=Fax}}
In your letter, you stated that the Regional Utility Group (RUG) IV members position on this topic from a generic standpoint is that RUG IV does not believe that the specific instances cited in the inspection report constitute a reportable loss of safety function under 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(v)(B). You also stated that, in submitting this position, RUG IV wanted to convey that its primary concern and focus is on consistency in regulatory implementation by the licensees and the consistency of NRC enforcement of the regulatory guidance. You indicated that, regardless of the final position taken on this issue, providing additional clarifying guidance in NUREG-1022 on this subject should be considered by the NRC.
While we believe that your letter provided no information beyond that which was already considered by the staff in addressing this issue in the subject inspection report, the NRC currently plans to review and evaluate NUREG-1022 in Fiscal Year 2007 to determine whether additional clarification is needed with respect to this and other reporting issues. As part of this process, the NRC plans to obtain stakeholder input.
 
Tim Hope                                   Thank you for providing your feedback. Should you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr. Claude Johnson at 817-860-8148.
Sincerely,
                                                /RA/
Arthur T. Howell III, Director Division of Reactor Projects cc:
B. Mallett, RIV T. Gwynn, RIV Z. Dunham, RIV P. Hiland, NRR R. Laura, NRR S. O'Conner, OEDO
 
Tim Hope                                   bcc:
L. Owen (RAI 06-166 input)
SUNSI Review Completed: __CEJ___ ADAMS: / Yes             G No Initials: _CEJ___
/ Publicly Available G Non-Publicly Available G Sensitive / Non-Sensitive S:\DRP\DRPDIR\Letter to Tim Hope - Rug IV Response.wpd                    ML061280620 RIV:C:DRP/A          DD:DRP          NRR            D:DRP            RC CEJohnson;mjs;dlf AVegel            RALaura        ATHowell III    KDFuller
/RA/                 /RA/           E-CEJohnson /RA/               /RA/
4/27/06              5/1/06          4/27/06        5/1/06          5/2/06 D:DRP sign ATHowell III
    /RA/
5/8/06 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY                             T=Telephone     E=E-mail     F=Fax}}

Latest revision as of 19:54, 23 November 2019

Letter to Tim Hope Implementation of NUREG 1022 Revision 2 Guidance Regarding the Reportability of Loss of Shutdown Cooling
ML061280620
Person / Time
Site: Columbia Energy Northwest icon.png
Issue date: 05/08/2006
From: Howell A
NRC/RGN-IV/DRP
To: Hope T
Region IV Utility Group (RUG IV)
References
IR-04-004, IR-05-004, NUREG-1022, Rev 2
Download: ML061280620 (3)
v • d • e


Text

May 8, 2006 Tim Hope, RUG IV Chairman 4200 South Hulen Drive Suite 630 Fort Worth, Texas 76109

Subject:

IMPLEMENTATION OF NUREG 1022 REVISION 2 GUIDANCE REGARDING THE REPORTABILITY OF LOSS OF SHUTDOWN COOLING

Dear Mr. Hope:

Thank you for your letter, dated February 28, 2006. In your letter, you referenced NRC Inspection Report 05000397/2005004 for the Columbia Generating Station, which documented the closure of Unresolved Item (URI) 50-397/04-04-07 related to the reportability of loss of shutdown cooling events under 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(v)(B). Your letter also indicated that the closure of this URI stated that two events determined by Columbia Generating Station as not reportable in accordance with the Reporting Guidelines of NUREG-1022, Revision 2, "Event Reporting Guidelines 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73," were in fact considered reportable as a loss of safety function in accordance with the reporting guidance and as safety system functional failures (SSFFs) within the Reactor Oversight Process performance indicator (PI) protocol. The report also stated that the NRC concluded that the licensee had misinterpreted the requirements of 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(v)(B) and the guidance provided in NUREG-1022, Revision 2.

In your letter, you stated that the Regional Utility Group (RUG) IV members position on this topic from a generic standpoint is that RUG IV does not believe that the specific instances cited in the inspection report constitute a reportable loss of safety function under 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(v)(B). You also stated that, in submitting this position, RUG IV wanted to convey that its primary concern and focus is on consistency in regulatory implementation by the licensees and the consistency of NRC enforcement of the regulatory guidance. You indicated that, regardless of the final position taken on this issue, providing additional clarifying guidance in NUREG-1022 on this subject should be considered by the NRC.

While we believe that your letter provided no information beyond that which was already considered by the staff in addressing this issue in the subject inspection report, the NRC currently plans to review and evaluate NUREG-1022 in Fiscal Year 2007 to determine whether additional clarification is needed with respect to this and other reporting issues. As part of this process, the NRC plans to obtain stakeholder input.

Tim Hope Thank you for providing your feedback. Should you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr. Claude Johnson at 817-860-8148.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Arthur T. Howell III, Director Division of Reactor Projects cc:

B. Mallett, RIV T. Gwynn, RIV Z. Dunham, RIV P. Hiland, NRR R. Laura, NRR S. O'Conner, OEDO

Tim Hope bcc:

L. Owen (RAI 06-166 input)

SUNSI Review Completed: __CEJ___ ADAMS: / Yes G No Initials: _CEJ___

/ Publicly Available G Non-Publicly Available G Sensitive / Non-Sensitive S:\DRP\DRPDIR\Letter to Tim Hope - Rug IV Response.wpd ML061280620 RIV:C:DRP/A DD:DRP NRR D:DRP RC CEJohnson;mjs;dlf AVegel RALaura ATHowell III KDFuller

/RA/ /RA/ E-CEJohnson /RA/ /RA/

4/27/06 5/1/06 4/27/06 5/1/06 5/2/06 D:DRP sign ATHowell III

/RA/

5/8/06 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY T=Telephone E=E-mail F=Fax

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML061280620&oldid=2192017"