United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Protecting People and the Environment

Generic Letter 2004-02 Plant-Specific Correspondence Prior to 2008

This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.

Each licensee has made multiple responses to GL 2004-02 as shown in the tables below. The GL 2004-02 requested licensees to provide a significant amount of information by September 1, 2005; so that the NRC would have assurance that effective action was being taken. The September 2005 licensee GL 2004-02 responses revealed that licensees of 66 of the 69 PWRs committed to replace sump screens; the licensees of the remaining 3 PWRs had previously replaced their sump screens.  However, much of the information submitted by licensees for the GL was incomplete.  For example, the September 2005 licensee GL responses revealed that licensees did not appear to have made significant progress in addressing chemical, downstream, and coatings issues.  As a result, the staff sent requests for additional information (RAIs) to PWR licensees to supply the information missing from the September 2005 GL responses. In a letter dated February 28, 2006, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) stated that the effort necessary to prepare responses to the RAIs on the originally requested schedule would divert resources and attention from the plant strainer modifications and jeopardize the current modification schedules.  In addition, NEI stated that some of the requested information was not yet available due to ongoing evaluations of chemical effects, downstream effects, and coatings effects potential to impact sump performance.  The NRC staff sent a letter to NEI on March 3, 2006 that agreed with the NEI proposal.  As a result, licensees would provide a supplement to their GL 2004-02 responses by December 31, 2006 for those plants that were installing new strainers in 2006 and by December 31, 2007 for plants installing new strainers in 2007.  The proposed supplemental responses would update the information previously provided to the NRC and would describe the evaluation methodology that was used to address GSI-191 concerns, would include evaluation results, and would incorporate plant-specific details requested in the RAI letters.

In late 2006, the NRC became aware that plants installing modified strainers in 2006 would not complete all their supporting evaluations in time to support the December 31, 2006, submission date. The delays were the result of ongoing testing and analysis to support resolution of chemical effects and downstream effects. Rather than seek a partial response by the end of 2006 for certain licensees, the NRC stated in a letter to NEI dated November 14, 2006 that the due date for all supplemental responses would be revised to December 31, 2007.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, May 09, 2013