ML18232A108

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Summary of 08/30/2018, Meeting to Discuss the Draft Safety Evaluation for PWROG-15060, Pump Suction Gas Accumulation Operability Criteria Guidance (CAC No. MF8075; EPID L-2016-TOP-0006)
ML18232A108
Person / Time
Site: 99902028
Issue date: 09/26/2018
From: Joseph Holonich
NRC/NRR/DLP/PLPB
To: Dennis Morey
NRC/NRR/DLP/PLPB
Holonich J
References
CAC MF8075, EPID: L-2016-TOP-0006
Download: ML18232A108 (3)


Text

September 26, 2018 MEMORANDUM TO: Dennis C. Morey, Chief Licensing Processes Branch Division of Licensing Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Joseph J. Holonich, Senior Project Manager /RA/

Licensing Processes Branch Division of Licensing Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF AUGUST 30, 2018, MEETING TO DISCUSS THE DRAFT SAFETY EVALUATION FOR PWROG-15060, PUMP SUCTION GAS ACCUMULATION OPERABILITY CRITERIA GUIDANCE (CAC NO. MF8075; EPID L-2016-TOP-0006)

On August 30 2018, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff held a Category 2 meeting with representatives from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and Pressurized Water Reactor Owners Group (PWROG). The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the draft safety evaluation (DSE) for PWROG-15060, Pump Suction Gas Accumulation Operability Criteria Guidance. All information related to the meeting and discussed in this summary can be found in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML18232A071.

The NRC staff opened the meeting by discussing the reasons why a DSE was provided for comment. In its discussions, the NRC staff said that it had provided NEI and the PWROG with the framework for commenting on the DSE. This framework was to: 1) identify any proprietary information not already marked by the NRC staff; 2) identify any areas where the DSE did not accurately reflect the topical report; and 3) provide recommended clarifications.

Also, the NRC staff stated that once a DSE was issued, it would not entertain technical arguments for changing the conclusions reached unless new information not already available during the review is formally submitted. Continuing, the NRC staff noted that it had received an email, a copy of which is in the ADAMS package referenced earlier, that provided general information and comments, identified some specific comments, and stated that a revised DSE would be provided to NRC staff documenting the PWROG view of the intended use of the topical report.

The NRC staff emphasized that providing a revised DSE documenting the PWROG view of intended use of the topical report was outside of the framework provided for comment on the DSE. In addition, the NRC staff emphasized that at this stage in the review it would not CONTACT: Joseph J. Holonich, NRR/DLP 301-415-7297

D. Morey entertain technical arguments for changing the conclusions reached unless new information not already available during the review is formally submitted.

In the meeting, the PWROG made a presentation providing more focus and details than were provided in the emailed comments. During this presentation, the NRC staff and the PWROG had detailed discussions on the comments. A copy of the presentation can be found in the ADAMS package referenced earlier.

As a result of these discussions, it was agreed that there were several comments where the NRC staff could clarify the DSE. The PWROG identified other comments where additional information could be provided. The NRC staff indicated that, based on the discussions, it appeared that the information could support a revision to the DSE. However, the NRC staff emphasized that until the information was docketed and a detailed review was completed, no decision on revising the DSE could be made.

When the presentation and discussions were completed, the NRC staff explained that the PWROG could provide the additional information as part of the response to the DSE comment process. The PWROG stated that it would have to internally decide how it wanted to approach providing information. Therefore, the PWROG said that it would take some time before it made a decision on providing the information supporting its comments.

Given the PWROG need for more time to decide how to handle the additional information supporting its comments, the NRC staff explained that the current schedule, which is reported to Congress, calls for a final safety evaluation by September 30, 2018. Therefore, the PWROG agreed to provide a letter asking the NRC staff to hold the review in abeyance until a final decision on the additional information was made. This was the only action from the meeting.

Docket No.: 99902028

PKG ML18232A071 Summary ML18232A108 *concurrence via email NRC-001 OFFICE DLP/PLPB/PM* NRR/DSS/SRXB DLP/PLPB/BC DLP/PLPB/PM NAME JHolonich JWhitman DMorey JHolonich DATE 09/17/2018 09/17/2018 09/24/2018 09/26/2018