ML20055B413
| ML20055B413 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/13/1982 |
| From: | Stello V Committee To Review Generic Requirements |
| To: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8207220184 | |
| Download: ML20055B413 (3) | |
Text
. - _ _
1 a
JUL 131982 1
MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Victor Stallo, Jr., Chairman Committee to Review Generic Requirements
SUBJECT:
MINUTES OF CRGR MEETING N0.15 l
The Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRC 9.), met on Wednesday, July 7 1982 from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m.
A list of attendees is enclosed.
1.
E. Case (NRR) presented to the Committee the proposed guidance to assist applicants in documenting deviations from the Standard Review Plan (SRP). The guidance is to be issued for public coment,
~
in accordance with the final rule on Deviations from the SRP issued i
as-74 FR 11651, March 17,1982. Several editorial changes were
' discussed as suggestions to improve the clarity and precision of both the staff intent and the directions to applicants embodied in the guidance. The proposed guidance included three examples of deviations from the SRP, along with a justification that the staff would find acceptable for each deviation.
The first example, concerning pressure vessel surveillance test I
specimens, was recognized as a deviation for which it should be noted, in the example, that an exemption to existing regulations was necessary and would be sought. The specific regulation (or portion thereof) for which an exemption was needed should be identified.
The second example,concerning isolation of Control Rod Design (CRD) withdraw lines was considered by the CRG:1 to be adequate.
The third example, concerning deboration events, was considered to need rewriting to more accurately define and describe the applicant's perceived necessity for the deviation (loss of shutdown margin or attainment of criticality), to state more explicitly and correctly l
exactly what limits will not be exceeded, and to make corre9 ~4 complete reference to the relevant General Design Criteria b 1
The CRGR felt that with appropriate revisions as discussed, the new guidance could be issued for public coment, and that the CRGR would so recommend to the EDO.
2.
The CRGR Chairman asked Comittee members, NRR representatives and i
others at the meeting to discuss their perceptions of office staff views of the CRGR. There was considerable discussion about perceived l
staff hesitation to propose new requirements because they may be (J7)/
subiect tn PRf:D review uhich, 4a +"==, ral d gin ::=if;7dy more staff effort.
OFFICE )
.. " "........ ~..
"a"*
sonnae>
8207220184'820713
~
~~~"-
" " " " ~ " " " -
~"""
om>
i i
> nne ronu m oo aoi nacu om OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usce mi-mm
-.wy.
~
I L I 3 I332 William J. Dircks 2-In this regard, it was noted that CRGR reviews are not intended to discourage or repress the proposal of requirements by the staff, but are intended to make sure that requirements contribute effectively and significantly to the health and safety of the public and lead to utilization of both NRC and licensee resources in as optimal a fashion as possible in the overall achievament of protection of public health and safety.
Nevertheless, in order to address the perceived staff hesitancy to propose requirements that are safety beneficial and cost effective, the Chairman asked CRGR members, NRR representatives and others attending the meeting for recommendations to improve the situation.
The following recomendations were made:
(a) Senior office management at the Division Director or higher level should attend CRGR meetings that address items under their responsibility, in order to add their perspective to the proposed requirements under consideration by the Comittee.
(b) DEDROGR staff should interact with Program Office staff during the development of a requirement to help ensure that the packages submitted for CRGR review are thorough and technically correct.
(c) The Committee Chairman should arrange for a briefing for senior office management and staffs. The briefing should address the following:
(1) CRGR Purpose (2) CRGR Scope (3) CRGR Operating Procedures to include what is expected of a proposed requirement in terms of safety benefit and cost effectiveness.
.1611.al s1sted by lict or Stollag Victor Stello, Jr., Chairman Comittee to Review Generic Requirements
Enclosure:
List of Attendees Distribution :
VStello I*
cc: Comission (5)
TEMurley C ' * ' "
Regional Administrators WSchwink Office Directors 3
OEOR0GR cf CRGR Members
[/
PDR (NRG/CRGR) g/
!3
- n. c :,2:.;.n T0ini10M/S....0 s/!1.,E.QB001.
Cenya.1, Fi 1 e.
o,nce>
sua e>.Ws,c,hwink,;bg,
,,,,,E,$,u r ey,,
.Mtkl.,1,L,
.m
~
.7f';.2R.....!!.f82 -
LEl"2..
omy anc ronu m oo sa nncu om OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usam m-m.=
l
t CRGR MEETING # 15 ATTENDANCE (July 7, 1932)
CRGR MEMBERS Vic Stello Don Mausshardt Joe Scinto Jack Hel temes Darrell Eisenhut Ed Jordan Guy Arlotto (for Bob Bernero)
OTHERS Tom Murley Walt Schwink Ed Case Ed Goodwin Warren Hazelton Mat Taylor Steve Stern Chris Grimes Tom Cox Vicki Harding John Austin Ed Abbott Walt Butier Tad Marsh