ML20140C928
| ML20140C928 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/12/1984 |
| From: | Reiter L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20140B566 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-535 NUDOCS 8406200445 | |
| Download: ML20140C928 (2) | |
Text
-~ ;. _ _ . m . _ _ -.
. 4' 's \
s \ ..
/ 'o, UNITED STATES
! NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION F) ,g 2,. ; WASHWGTON D. C. 20$55
- %...../
JUN 12 W .
NOTE TO FILE FROM: Leon Reiter, Leader Seismology Section Geosciences Branch, DE
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH EPRI AND ED0 ON LIVERMORE, EPRI PROGRAMS On May 2, 1984 a meeting was held with W. Dircks (EDO). Attending were Leon Reiter, R. Jackson, L. Beratan, J. Knight, R. Vollmer, C. Stepp (EPRI) and Sherwood Smith (CP&E, Owners Group Advisory Board to EPRI).
J At this meeting, Smith was concerned that the LLNL Final report on 10 sites be issued as a NUREG. He felt that if so released it would be taken as an NRC position and preclude consideration of EPRI results due~
in March. We indicated that this was not so, that Consultant Reports in the Geosciences area are never automatically taken as final positions 2 and that the EPRI results in March would be timely for assistance in our screening. process which will take place in sumer and fall of 1985. We also indicated that we viewed that the EPRI program as an independent one in~which its use was to help the staff evaluate the LLNL results.
4 It was not intended, nor is the LLNL program so structured so as to allow formal modification due to EPRI results. We indicated we would be soliciting coments from utilities, thru AIF, on the LLNL program.
With respect to .the Final LLNL Report on the 10 sites,. it was suggested by Smith that perhaps this report be issued in October only as a Livermore Report and that issuance of a NUREG be delayed.
It was agreed that such an approach would be considered. It was further
-agreed that increased interaction between AIF/EPRI/NRC might be useful in communicating ongoing activities. Also Reiter and' Jackson carefully explained the current use of the LLNL results in~ assisting in evaluation of non-Charleston type earthquake issues such as the New Brunswick earthquake and PRA seismic hazard assessments. It was indicated that NRC felt that such use was appropriate but that continued use of LLNL results for such cases would be carefully evaluated on a case by case basis.
Carl Stepp indicated that the EPRI study will utilize the same 10 sites for testing as were used by NRC with the exception of Lacrosse.
S
/
., ~' g.
o .. . ..
QUN 12 W The meeting concluded with agreement that NRC would brief AIF/EPRI on the current use of the LLNL results that NRC would formally solicit AIF comments on the LLNL work ~, and that EPRI would meet with NRC to explain the status of their program and solicit NRC and consultant connents. ,,/
I -
V Leon Reiter, Leader Seismology Section Geosciences Branch cc: R. Jackson R. Vollmer J. Knight A. Murphy O