ML20236Q200

Summary of 980608 Meeting W/Nuclear Energy Inst in Rockville,Md to Review Current Status Public Comments & Path Forward for Completion of Rulemaking on Critically Accident Requirements.List of Participants Submitted

ML20236Q200
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/22/1998
From:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
NUDOCS 9807200063
Download: ML20236Q200 (2)

Text

. _ .- - - - .-_ .-_ - - _ _ _ _ --

r, OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

' NRC Staff Meeting with the Nuclear Energy Institute Concerning Criticality Monitoring Disect-Final Rule 38 g Rockville, MD - June 8,1998 pyOUCDOCUH w y Meeting Duratiot.: 1 Hour

Participants:

Mike Jamgochian (NRR/DRPM/PGEB) Dave Modeen- NEl Larry Kopp (NRR/DSSA/SRXB)- Kurt Cozens- NEl Eric Wedss (NRR/DSSA/SRXB) Bob Schmidt- NUS Raj Auluck (NRR/DRPM/PGEB) Theresa Sutter- Bechtel

]

The purpose of this meeting was to review with the industry (as represented by 1% clear Energy

' Institute - NEI) the current status public comments, and path forward for the completion of the rulemaking on Criticality Accident Requirements.

Mike Jamgochian, the project manager for this rulemaking, summarized the current status. The staff received 7 comment lettns from the industry on the direct final rule published on December 3,1997 (62 FR 63825). Because of the nature of the comments (and the administrative proced iss under which the rule was published) the rule was withdrawn to allow a detailed analysis of comments. This analysis is now underway. It is the staff intention to revise the rule and/or the supplementary information, based on these comments, and then, if there are no substantial changes, issues the rule.

NEl representatives stated that the staff was going in the right direction and that the cover letter transmitting NEl comments on the rule summarized the three comments that the industry feels are the most important. They had the additional suggestion that this was a good opportunity for a performance based risk-informed rule. They have leamed from other on-going activities that  ;

there are significant advantages to taking specific detailed criteria out of the body of the rule and

. put them in guidance documents.

?

Eric Weiss indicated that there are three ways the rule can go. The first would be a major j  !

change, such that just suggested by NEl, the second would be wording changes in the present O/ #

rule with the intent of clarifying the rule and third would be leaving the rule alone and putting any 3 needed clarifications in the supplementary information. The first approach would mean going

.o back to the starting point on the rule. The second approach might mean that intemal reviews 9g (ACRS and CRGR) would have to be repeated. The third approach would be the most expeditious.

NEl agreed that the restarting of the rulemaking process was not desirable but that there was a

' substantial benefit, particularly in future years, to putting r.eeded clarifications in the rule itself. ,

The staff indicated that the schedule for issuing the rule depended on the comment resolutions. ,

If there are no policy changes and ACRS and CRGR do not need to consider the rule, then  !

~>~50 . (/ M } , NC 9907200063 990622 PDR REVGP ER C 4 g - {, feap ,

1 L _ - - - - _ - - . _ - - - - - - - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - - - _ _ - - - - _ - - - --_-

o a-l issuing the rule in September is possible. Again the staffs interest is to do it in the fastest manner while meeting procedural requirements and adequately resolving the comments. To achieve the latter, the NRC project manager may need some clarification from NEl on the intent and significance of some of the industry comments.

Handouts:

None I

i i

i i

_ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . ____._J