ML20055D263

Discusses Resolution of Open Issues W/Epri.Nrc Will Ensure That Commission Decisions on Policy Issues Implemented Through Incorporation Into Evolutionary & Passive Requirements Documents

ML20055D263
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/28/1990
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Roberts NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 9007060065
Download: ML20055D263 (7)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:, ~. .- m m- {l n 'k,. ./* UNITED STATES W$ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION m 8 ef WASHING TON, D. C. 20656 7 itg * ** " / i JUN 2 81990 s 4 h, ' MEMORANDUM FOR: Comissioner Roberts - FROM:

James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations a

SUBJECT:

RESOLUTION OF OPEN ISSUES WITH EPRI a In the May 25 and June 6,1990, staff requirements memorandums (SRMs) to the staff, you expressed concern that there may not be sufficient incentive for EPRI to pursue early resolution of certain issues, and you asked to hear from_ 3~ the staff on ways the Comission could streamline the resolution process. EPRI and the staff-agree that all parties should fully understand the staff's l p{ositions on the open issues discussed in the draft safety evaluation reports -4 DSERs). To clarify positions on these subjects, the staff has met with EPRI. several times to discuss the open issues in the DSERs. In addition, EPRl;and' the staff have been meeting with the ACRS.to discuss identified issues. The_ staff, as directed by the Commission, will be carrying out its standard - plant reviews consistent with SECY-90-065. That process which includes early. staff identification of policy issues for Commission action,-is expected-to-i .c force resolution of issues even in the absence of an-EPRI incentive to reach closure on issues in dispute between the~ staff and EPRI. The' Comission met-with the. staff and EPRI on May 3:and_ June'4.-1990, respectively, to-discuss the j 15 policy issues identified by the staff in SECY-90-016-(January 12,1990)'iand Dhas provided guidance-regarding resolution of these issues (SRM dated' June 26', j 1990) < Although the staff has agreed to continue dialogue on these issues,to ensure EPRI fully understands'our. positions, the staff believes that it is time ~ f to devote its resources to complete its reviews of the rest of the~EPRI: Chapters-i

en:.the evolutionary design criteria and to prepare for the review of the Passive Requirements Document. - Comission action on' the 15 current issues will-i

-serve as the bases for closure of these issues and allow for further progress on the agency's review of EPRI submittals. p -CONTACT: ~T. Kenyon, NRR '[N

• 1120 fb,,p -

t v v $8Eb NRC P"e a5MTER COPY y C

m y y [ Comitsioner Ro' ertsi - 2!- b The staff will continue to interact with EPRI?to ensure the. applicant understands the staff's positions and that Comission decisions on policy issues-are ~ > -implemented through incorporation into the Evolutionary and Passive Requirements Documents'. - - Odshlal Sigfed Byi-Jamal M. Taylor James M. Taylor Executive Director 1 for-Operations ll .i o cc: Chairman Carr Comissioner Rogers. Comissioner Curtiss. Comissioner Remick 1 SECY OGC 1 l I ? i l ) DISTRIBUTION Project No.-669 NRC PDR Local PDR PDS r/f ED0 r/f (Wits 9000130/ i J. Taylor T. Murley J. Partlow D. Crutchfield 9000134) W. Travers C. Miller P. Shea T. Kenyon C. Snyre.

• See previous-concurrences:

Tech. Ed.* PDS/PM* PDS/LA* PDS/D* ADSP/AD* DRSP/D* JMain' TKenyon PShea CM111er WTravers DCrutchfield 06/25/90 06/25/90 06/25/90 06/25/90 06/25/90 06/25/90 -ADP_* DONRR' / ED) g JPartlow -TMurley .06/25/90 ,06/./90 0 // /90 ROBERTS. RESPONSE

9 J}? NEMORANDUM FOR8 Comissioner Roberts Y FROM:- N James M. Taylor [g Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

RESOLUTION OF OPEli ISSUES WITH EPRI In the May 25 nd June 6, 1990, staff requirements memorandums (SRMs) to the staff, you expregsed concern that there may not be sufficient incentive for EPRI to pursue early resolution of certain issues, and you asked to hear from the staff on waysThe Comission could streamline the resolution process. \\ EPRI and the staff agree that all parties should fully understand the staff's positions on the open\\1ssues discussed in the draft safety evaluation reports (DSERs). To clarify positions on these subjects, the staff has met with EPRI severaltimestodiscuss\\theopenissuesintheDSERs. In addition, EPRI and the staff have been meeting with the ACRS to discuss identified issues. The Comission met with the\\ staff and EPRI on May 3 and June 4,1990, respec-- tively, to discuss the 15 policy issues identified by the staff in SECY-90-016 (January 12,1990), and is finalizing its guidance regarding resolution of these issues. Although-the staff has\\a ensure EPRI fully understands our\\ greed to continue dialogue on' these issues _ to positions, the staff believes that it is time to devote its resources to complete its reviews of the rest of the EPRI Chapters on the evolutionary design criteria \\and to prepare for the review of-the Passive Requirements Document. ThestaffiscontinuingtointeractwihEPRItoensuretheapplicantunderstands the staff's positions so they can incorporate these positions in both the ~ Evolutionary and Passive Requirements Dochments; once the Comission has approved .these positions. \\ \\ James \\N. Taylor Executive Director forOperations cc: Chairman Carr \\ Commissioner Rogers K Commissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick SECY-OGC CONTACT:. T. Kenyon, NRR - x21120 DISTRIBUTION \\ Project No. 669 NRC PDR Local iDR PDS r/f ED0 r/f (Wits.9000130/ J. Taylor T..Murley J. Partlow D. Crutchfield 9000134) W. Travers C. Miller P. Shea T. Kenyon C. Sntyre

• See previous concurrences:

i ' Tech. Ed.* PDS/PM* PDS/LA* PDS/D* ADSP/AD* 0 (_, y JMain TKenyon PShea CMiller WTravers DC utchfield 06/25/90 06/25/90 06/25/90 06/25/90 06/25/90 06/ff/90 l ADP* 0 E00 JPartlow Mu JTaylor 06/25/90 06 /0 06/ /90 ROBERTS RES ONSE l

{.4 e + i m-HEMORANDUM FOR8 Comissioner Roberts (FROM: James M. Taylor e Executive Director for Operations I

SUBJECT:

RESOLUTION OF OPEN ISSUES WITH EPRI In the May 25 and June 6, 1990, staff requirements memorandums (SRMs) to the staff, you expressed concern that there may not be sufficient incentive for EPRI to pursue eai;1y resolution of certain issues, and you asked to hear from the staff on ways the Comission could streamline the resolution process. EPRI and the staff a\\ positionsontheopen(eethatallpartiesshouldfullyunderstandthestaff's g issues discussed in the draft safety evaluation reports (DSERs). To clarify po'sitions on these subjects, the staff has met with EPRI i several times to discuss'\\the open issues in the DSERs. In addition, EPRI and the staff have been meeting with the ACRS to discuss identified issues. The Comission met with the\\ staff and EPRI on May 3 and June 4, 1990, respec-tively, to discuss the 15 pol' icy issues identified by the staff in SECY-90-016 (January 12,1990), and is finh11 zing its guidance regarding resolution of these issues. Although the staff has agreed to continue limited' dialogue on these issues to ensure EPRI fully understands our positions, the staff believes that itis-timetodevoteitsresources\\tocompleteitsreviewsoftherestofthe EPRI Chapters on the evolutionary design criteria and to prepare for the review of the Passive Requirements Document The-staffiscontinuingtointeractwithEPRItoensuretheapplicantunderstands-the staff's positions so they can incorpbrate these positions in both the Evolutionary 'and Passive Requirements Dochgents. However, once the NRC has established final positions on issues, the'ptaff believes it prudent to focus its efforts in the review of other outstandi g design criteria issues, rather-than continue review of closed issues. James M. Taylor Executiv Director for Ope tions-cc: Chairman Carr Commissioner Rogers Comissioner Curtiss. Commissioner Remick SECY OGC CONTACT: T. Kenyon, NRR x21120 DISTRIBUTION x Project No. 669 NRC PDR Local PDR PDS r/f ED0 'r/f (Wits 9000130/ -J. Taylor T. Murley J. Partlow D. Crutchfield 9000134) W. Travers C. Miller P. Shea T. Kenyon C. Smyre

• See previous concurrences:

-4 Tech. Ed. kPDS/PM PS APDS/D MDSP/AD 8bRSP/D JM in TKenyon P CMiller WTravers DCrutchfield 06/ /90 06/25/90 06 /90 06/25/90 06/25/90 06/25/90 gA 00NRR EDO TMurley JTaylor - - 6d 06/ /90 06/ /90 i ESPONSE

' MEMORANDUM FOR0 Comissioner' Roberts ~ FROM: ' James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

RESOLUTION OF OPEN ISSUES WITH EPRI In the May 25 and June 6, 1990 staff requirements memorandums (SRMs)'to the staff, you expressed concern that there may not be sufficient incentive for EPRI to pursue early resolution of certain issues, and you asked to hear from the-staff on ways the Comission could streamline the resolution process. EPRI and the staff agree that all parties should fully understand the staff's positions on the open issues discussed in the draft sa ety evaluation reports (DSERs). To clarify positions on these subjects, the taff has met with EPRI several times to discuss the open issues in the DSER. In addition, EPRI and_ the staff have been trecting with the ACRS to' discus identified issues. The Comission met with the staff and EPRI on May and June 4, 1990, respec- .tively, to discuss the 15 policy-issues identifi d.by the staff in SECY-90-016 (January 12,1990), and is finalizing its guid ce regarding resolution of these issues. Although the staff has agreed to con nue limited dialogue on these issues to ensure EPRI fully understands our sitions, the staff believes that it is time to devote its resources to compi e its reviews of the rest of the EPRI Chapters on-the evolutionary design c teria and to prepare for the review of the Passive Requirements Document. l .The staff is continuing to interact wit EPRI to ensure the applicant understands l-the staff's positions so they can inco porate these positions in both the L Evolutionary and Passive Requirements ocuments. - However, once the NRC has established final positions on issue, the staff believes it prudent to focus its' efforts in the review of other tstanding design criteria issues, rather l than continue review of closed iss es. L James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations ) .cc: Chairman Carr Comissioner. Rogers l .Comissioner Curtiss i Comissioner Remick SECY-OGC 6

Contact:

e T. Kenyon, NRR x21120 DISTRIBUTION N63ectNo.669HRCPDR-Local PDR PDS r/f EDO r/f (Wits 9000130/

J. Taylor T. Murley J. Partlow D. Crutchfield 9000134) W. Travers C. Miller P. Shea T. Kenyon C.-Sqyre ~l l Tech.(d. PP /JF PDS/LA PDS/DQfik A F)/AD M ylh T'nkon PShea CMiller 6 Cchfield 06 f/90 06/ /90 06/U/90 90 06]f/90' i 06/25/70 t ADP DONRR E00 JPartlow TMurley JTaylor 06/ /90 06/ /90 06/ /90 ROBERTS RESPONSE'

ist. I Ref: - gne M m\\,, ED0-5326. e. pig,/h ' UNITED STATES. due EDO 6/6/90; > *8 'e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p.. - 5= .E W ASHINGT ON, D.C. 20$$5 ACTION - Murley, NRR I e Pfo / Cys: Taylor Sniezek lI( 'orriCc or THE May 25, 1990 Thompson' stCRETARY Blaha H T LDonatell,NRR-MENORANDUM FOR: James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations -l as ITCH: 1 J. Secretary L i

SUBJECT:

SECY-90-139 - RESIONSE 'IO WESTINGHOUSE EIECIRIC 00RIORATION ON IESIGN CERTIFICATICN FtR AP600 'Ihe camission (with all cammissioners agreeirg) has approved the ra t-aedation to issue the letter of regrasse to Mr. Slember, of Westinghouse I Electric Corporation, on Design Certification for AP600, subject to the i modifications outlined below: 1. Substitute the following.for paragraph two in order to more clearly-l state NRC's intended review pt ===: j 1'^ .\\ As a result or departures frun traditional light water reactor design concepts associated with the passive A1HR design philosophy, the staff is approachirg the review of these designs in a cautious ard methodical manner in order to identify key issues and to effectively use resources. 'Ihe Ctanission has concluded that the AINR Utility Requirements M = nt should play a significant role in the determination of the regulatory approach for passive plants. An' y expeditious review of the AIHR Utility Requirements Pv=qt for. passive plants will utilize NRC resources efficiently and should provide significant regulatory faaihack to the nuclear. industry..e-i W recognize, however, that early dialogue with the nuclear vendors regartling their specific passive designs will be an inportant factor p in reaching regulatory decisions. 'Iherefore, the staff will continue interactions with both the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) ard Westinghouse to facilitate the formulation of regulatory positions for passive designs. l> 2. Substitute the.following for paragraph four: "Ihe (bmmission has requested the staff to keep abreast of activities of the individual vendors so that the staff will be t ' prepared to review the safety analysis reports when they are H received. Also, the staff will consider the information provided in the AP600 IRB in conducting the review of the AIRR Utility Requirements Document; however, technical and policy decisions will be made in the context of the AIHR Utility Requirements Wwnt l .SECY NOTE: 'IO BE MADE IUBIlICLY AVAIIABIE IN 10 NORKING DAYS FRCH 'IHE DATE i OF 'IHIS SRM. P fd Of.EC9 r.J G S o di -, t t /s / o o. g u. A,r,, - v wv -

em

u. :.g.

('., # ~ .R 2 5: [ :, : f.-_ review.' With this understandirg, staff will also provide you with - early h...rits on the Plant Description report, which you have l. already subnitted. No coment with regard to unresolved policy issues will be prwided until these issues are decided in the A1HR Requirements W= ant review. "Accordingly, I suggest that you ocordinate closely with EPRI to provide input consistent with your pwysed design and to receive information relative to technical and policy decisions made. h Cannission will consider the need for and importance of formally l reviewing the IRB haant once major decisions are made in the context.of the EPRI h= ant.. I am confident that this process, 1 designed to provide generically applicable positions on advanced reactor policy issues, will support Westirghouse's intent to sdanit the standard safety analysis report in Juns 1992." L Following revision the letter should be signed and forwarded to Mr. Sletber. .h Comission requests that the staff ocmplete review of the EPRI Passive F Requirements document before conducting formal reviews of specific designs in . order to preclude the situation the NRC currently faces with regard to ,' hc evolutionary plants where significant technical issues have been addressed and resolved for irdividual vendor design, using the licensees review bases as the J vehicle for reaching an agreeirr.uit with the vendor, prior to the resolution of, those issues in the EPRI recpirements document. 1 Comissioner Remick expra==ai the view that staff should continue its technical review activities on any matters which are unaffected by technical policy issues awaiting ACRS review and coment or by policy issues awaiting Otanission disposition. .- g Commissioner Roberts noted that he is concerned that the interactions with EPRI may not be mving as expeditiously as they should and that perhaps the j incentive is not there for reaching resolution on s e e issues. He wouli.be interested _irLhearirs frm the sta.ff on, ways the %=aion coulFstisamline the resolution agreement swass. j (EDo) (SECY SUSPDISE: 6/8/90) oc: Chairman Carr Cmmissioner Roberts .Q Commissioner Rogers Cmmissioner Curtiss gV Q, u Commissione& Remick eQ t- ' cx;C~ 0 '< GPA .i r cY N. 1 I l \\

%g"p +d@w ; G;NQOQ/%q+%;mltf5 s g l @w % % R $,3 9. %., g % %g ig %,; @g g@g jy g pg y gg w gm 3 luy ww , ~+,. :o; w tn gggw %,g4;p w%%.g.qQ.y y p rmg gmg Q4 .>w pp3 y Wp y @g m.y%@d Q.. m @ . e. e m 94g$dyyyag 1 Qgg .q 'y O4g 1 g.p .. y QWy,W$%wngg.ug $ %g Q W; @ ;. h g/f ?? m @,y; W,s.. M:i: M j g& k y i p+ q,; a,. f. q,,, p py y. 9 mgg 7 v 1 d i I a w Q 4' y ; # h % g M,G g! % Q y d & & : m mf 3 0 k g @ m> h n;O;c:c n: m,y3c.yAn Myy W g pxwm,.;quk l vyy y. ,l fN 3Qw:.s

r..m. ;p m

Mw..w p - p gn.ve f5+pg ~:. w. a 3. c.. W, ),l NW: $h..Y.Q fd. k s OL W To.S M.wEM...,B,a*nL ,O me:).. m.. u e 5 1. 4 w - Ff, :&w&Q>y,&h&&f.&$$.p.; &m. 5g %@h....... f.QQ. p k QQfiI g Q } m. ~D, y (r@,p M c? M. S M},%,@ f w w$ 1 . mm.y843 y Z,, 4 7 MM fyyT&. . J .c j.& QQQQ.fyQ.Q: Qg 9 . f 'V Q!Q :; .'..n g q g g;,Q.9 9 p n,y &.g tp %..o e,4 % a:: < p::1. w h g.igd 2qb uypgg y g g .e s ,m

QGp G.-

g lQ%.mQ, g,. G-'y,Q,. pQQQ" <j y y. m. F: 4. '3(

1. p n s <

~ % f g y?TS%:pf Q $ M@g%E M M M b [yJ ' g g , fwg4,gg.,. g r 16.j$h

q8m, r

r ,2 3 ,; < p p.. v mg g,9q4g

g qp ;,p

.o s c -- r,-. -u p n

?.. c, 4M F N p... s r o,

^ .,g,cp. a pr, b;. w s A,,Jlt C_ .s.. enq.WhM1 g.3 3Q g g N q<i %p t, o [-.m.h.c .c o. x v ym w

• d'*

r T. ' '.', 4, ".- [g i {d t QQg!;q gu; gggjgg 8 3 A ,r e MalmR: s 4: pic,. ,.-s.. -.i...hN [ t A NICM: 7.b N DRSP:CRUTCHFIELD N $j, @., M1.c@,g% $ 7 F w,i O eu M ', t o (t"( DOB M: i 0 /90 'St SQ ?% M " ~ ' ' ' Y [' ~ i.QJ t+ .. C f.VV o' p&gh:q ~ ' $Q. Qf. V , vp,(.,mm% e y, e,., . nn, W<e.3 nn . w4 +n, 4 w n. w%.. c ,.e .g gy mG.. i. e,s.t.s > Q C EV,g - Q...h.n%. m, 3 ,3 y .. u s 4p... g s g.,.g.g.y .,g

a..

3 m. w c, e ,Q ',.. a % ', y? ' y s,1 n 7 4 f,y; f n f , QQ jfQ ,y il }' pq,g kfp.;pg i Mg.m;g~m;m... .. wn, w-g , qa. ,c t,,4,.1 p p:: .,. #g y,, +o n jgm. c f g Q x

m

+ o +, .a 9 5 hs ,w; v .g ~ m +".a n.) *.h* Jb

• ' 'M E N E E N E M MMO

,V k y x ,~m cf' " l THE ASSOCIAM DIRECRBtS W.WR.' ' 300 m M CRLL 2;'4, mW / x, 4c g..g. "n ". . -.._. DORIS MNMEM.(2XD2) RE.GDfE.EER M wFwn.artittainais :p@. AQ. gyg s. Ay& ~..,- . Jr ". w t ? = a, sm ;w's y n, o a ..M M.M.,: S N k,,> m- ~ I.m h .[C..E.EmE DY N E E.M.E E

• T d'g A.

9 .t. N's 'a Il h [. h n} t [d e@[ e t 4 ' q j >p f, g t t/ 3 y &ma a0UTIus:~seMJET/BLIRRGUA MM@M,hW@hkN, MMk MM.N$ 1.N - nn w~ w C ets.5 M @@ n y 1 m s. t f'y' B PARTLOW s. ca x-us

yy s v:

a.qM,,M%.M,W 'M.g. MD % ^,.. D CRUTCHFIELD + TW V . L#n%.. 7 GILL'ESPIE "..... d ';a. s .SMYRE x

# A,J i, W M.o w,.

. M., S @w, 3 r.. h pt : Q,_ f g,[>q '. ;,. o y' ' y ._I;! ~ >.. (j ' .,. - ~ e... ' 4 r "c 1,%,,, .'L r [ .N b, , w M-[ h gyg..Vy,w gun:.~., ig i p, ap y qpn,.g, g + g y.m. e a e

w. ny

>.y n -, - n n f m.e: +W. wwp "~...

. ?

o r s d,~ ?3f);QfYh t y l} f [ ..=..n .,wu , u.;.

• d

'c, UNITED STATES .,, t7 .:p % NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION Cys: Taylor ' 5, M - W - i-wassmoton. o.c. rosss Sniezek / Thompson a / Blaha i June 6, 1990 Beckjord, RES cmet or THE Scroggins. OC i SE CRE T AR Y RSingh, NRR CMiller, NRR MEMORANDUM FOR: James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations FROM: m 1 J. Chilk, Secretary

SUBJECT:

SECY-90-146 - EVOLUTIONARY AND PASSIVE ADVANCED LIGHT WATER REACTOR RESOURCES AND SCHEDULES The Commission (with a11' Commissioners agreeing) has disapproved the proposed revised process for the review of evolutionary and passive advanced light-water reactor (ALWR)-projects. Chairman Carr and Commissioners Roberts, Rogers and Curtiss agree that the process established by the Commir 11on, as reflected in SECY-90-065, represents the preferred approach on how the NRC should proceed with these reviews.- Consistent with the Commission's decision on SECY-89-334 (12/15/89 SRM) for the passive plants, highest priority should be awarded to the EPRI Requirements Document.- The major technical and policy issues should be formally resolved in the context of the EPRI review. The staff should implement the process presented in'SECY-90-065, with the understanding that the staff should not be precluded from keeping abreast of information and activities related to a i specific design which could prove useful.in conducting the EPRI review and in preparing for review of that specific design. ' Additionally, in conducting its review of the EPRI Requirements Documents and then specific' designs, staff may continue with its creview activities.on any matters which are unaffected by technical or policy issues awaiting ACRS review and comment or Commission decision. Chammissioner Remick preferred the parallel approach over the serial -- one step at a time -- approach to reviewing advanced . reactor designs. The parallel review approach would have minimal-impact on the review schedule for the EPRI Requirements Document, but it would significantly reduce the schedule for certifying proposed plant designs. If the Commission and the ACRS are kept

fully and timely apprised on all policy and unique technical issues, the' parallel approach should result in similar and expeditious Commission decisions.

SECY NOTE: TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE IN 10 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM. RC'dOli,i.l% Den V ' 'I C Tend %. d

2 . y., In regard to the AP-600 and the SBWR passive plant developmental efforts, it is Commissioner Remick's understanding that the vendors have been active participants in the development of the i EPRI Requirements Document for the passive plant designs. In addition EPRI has been. and will centinue to be an active participant in the design of the lassive reactors (e.g., committed to contribute $30 millicn each to the design of the AP-600 and the SBWR passive plants). As a result, the vendors 1 are fully aware of all industry requirements. Westinghouse, for i example, has indicated that it will meet all requirements j identified by the EPRI Requirements Document. The only potential deviation would-result if the EPRI's document does not go far enough in assuring public health and safety as the vendor would i like (e.g., use of hydrogen ignitors and the location of the core makeup tanks). It is Commissioner Remick's understanding that 'j these issues, if not already resolved, will be resolved in the very near term. The Commission's concern that the vendor's design will precede the definition of industry's needs is therefore not significant. The Commission's decision of a serial review process significantly restrains Commission and ACRS input and influence on the final design of future reactor concepts and could preclude the availability of nuclear power plants with passive designs features at the time that U.S. utilities may need-to consider the nuclear option for essential capacity additions. Chairman Carr (with Commissioner Curtiss concurring) expressed concern that staff's description of the level of design detail necessary for certification of a design appears insufficient to neet the level of design detail which is required by 10 CFR i 52.47 (a) (2). The detail required must be sufficient for the Commission to reach a final conclusion on all safety questions associated with the design before certification. The proposed implementation plan now under preparation, should focus on this issue as well as the level of detail necessary to promote standardization and should address the extent of detail needed in the balance-of plant description. (Wits 9000134) With regard to resources, the Chairman urged staff to apply available resources in a way that will meet or improve on the schedules for completion of the EPRI Design Requirements Documents. Commissioner Rogers would approve the staff's recommended reprogramming of resources to achieve gains in the review schedules. However, his opinion on the sufficiency and comprehensiveness of agency resources for such reviews is still pending awaiting the results of staff's response to his April 16, 1990 request for the numbers of qualified reviewers by reactor type in NRC. (Complete - See 6/4/90 EDO memo) F~ Commissioner Roberts (with Commissioner Curtiss concurring) noted his concern that there may not be sufficient incentive for-EPRI i

< y ;. :.., 3 \\ .; u (to purrae'early resolution!of some issues. As noted in the May: 23, 1990;SRM on SECY-90-139s-he would be interested'in' hearing. F' from'the staff on wa

resolution process. ysithe Commission could streamline the l

' (Wits 9000130) e .. Chairman Carr g_. cc: ' Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick OGC GPA 4 L b Tr. e

,y;c -

m... :.g, e.,;r. i ,... x y,..x t, v > g. ~ -c,q -;g(u. 3 n -u 1 '.,% Lev" .'Y r .., n s l c.i q ;J :$n - ? ggy c c. a '.;.Q,widf:;., %m: W . l;.. ~ 5' y.. i'Q. ~ f j'

q e

%g,*W.UQ&g

p:

, s's ~ 0.: dl4WY . s ?.,'n,.:. '.:.m. u.,., MWITE....,+dEE . @_ g;. . z. :..x. .r.,.r .i.. a... I p. , f,- J'. 1,.4 ,$ 1/.%. tib$ h. ' 'T %Q.L T:piy;?s%., .P 2 r.,9 e,. Mll. 9h,f.;,1::-

g.,y,,y' py";u g.k

.x y 3., -., g,#.t p.. n. y w*. y..:,%gg,p. r s,,,.g. 3. ,.w+4%y ,.r. 4e, .. 'i... .p.n .N n 0 v n@'.j edl.r,.7. 7 . h.:. .j}:g;g..,W ; ;,;y., .,ffi j u v f..NN l 3-r y9~0:c.?. u.y%&..x4.gpgp.%,yp4 4 5.. g. <. f. 9 l g t. g.' $ r:, p

• Q 4.i

.,p ' ?::.rp j. _ %y.1:g 7 .. w.>qwa :.v.y; y...pgyy,y . g..,y ,. g; w 9., n . j, e..,. S - W..,.... ). 5.(y,. % ' x.~ -v c.3pkd@, /[, i..[.. ' .js- - p -{ ' [ 9000134 \\g [ u c v 5<. 'e ' is " gg,,,,, gA?,p.;k, \\ .g ...,. "w. ORSP' UTCHFIELD.. m.... -. 4 DER DIEBt - r.'. r..Jn... : if.- i ,. v..... g%,'.,'m.. ;. q .{ ) , :.% '.pt, . l.;,.. i c e, 0 .f3 ., \\* ' 9, t'=. UtB DGE m M M APIWW W MWUTEM.M m amanr raeur DIRBCERS & E.'WN.'MBE M SLI, ...' l -, tM 's..',,. EGLig ammenmar' (2N12) AE GDR M M.880munum -

" i. t l "ans Jem m asasms nernwumac ima 3 gene. jaxx3 ugli,

" R. -

• l'.1. CRIL m mo's darIts a m. spa ets amm m*'.Emmer 33.

s ' ' y,, u.Y *:

• 4 4.')

' "!. W E 8 W T1 5 ::.M NR.EYJllIR$ GLIA M SE PHONE'- 'N90EDATE SO THAT 1 CAN MARG 0 FROM EDO KNOW.' PARTLOW ALSO A COPY OF IS WITS ITEM HAS BEEN CRUTCHFIELD 4.-4 GIVEN TO TE. APPROPRIATE PERSON FOR GILLESPIE ACTION ON 06/08/90'- ~ ~ SMYRE . + y..' ..s. ;.., :, ..y. , 33 4. - ,y g t ? ^ ..Q Q.....,.. i...,., c v .. _ -... - -}}