ML20249B154
| ML20249B154 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07003091 |
| Issue date: | 06/16/1998 |
| From: | Hoadley D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9806220116 | |
| Download: ML20249B154 (3) | |
Text
._
47 9
o is o
e O
v-June 16,1998
~7 W3c>1/
MEMORANDUM FOR:TMie'We THRU:
Michael Tokar, Section Chief TWRS Section Special Projects Branch, FCSS/NMSS FROM:
D.A. Hoadley, Licensing Assistant ~, j j g6 TWRS Seedon Special Projects Branch, FCSS/NMSS
{
SUBJECT:
MINUTES OF JUNE 4,1998 TELECONFERENCES WITH DOE /RU
)
i The following tembers of the TWRS Section, FCSP, were in attendance for the May 4,1998, teleconference with DOE /RU:
Robert Pierson Merritt Baker Amy Bryce Lydia Chang Amy Hoadley Rob Lewis Alex Murray Bob Shew'naker Jack Spraul
)
M. Srinivasan Mike Tokar Rex Wescott
/
Walt Pasciak D
DOE members in attendance were:
Clark Gibbs Rob Bart George Kalman 4
h%
lewis Miller The following topics were discussed:
o Standard Revie.w Plan (RRP_)
+ DOE advised that they would like to use the TWRS SRP as the primary guidance for the RU SRP. They need to start reviewing it right now as they have begun drafting the SRP. PNNL, a DOE contractor, has been assigned the job of reviewing the NRC's SRP and drafting the RU's SRP. DOE also mentioned that PNNL has past experience with drafting an SRP for NRC (NUREG-0800, Advanced Reactors).
+
R. Pierson, once again, explained that the Special Projects Branch has not received authorization from the Commission yet to release the draft SRP or draft Part 70 to DOE. The source of the hold up is unknown, but at the Commission level. Upon receiving approval, we would send the documents to DOE immediately.
+ DOE also mentioned that they are revising three "J" documents which would also need to mesh with NRC's SRP.
.. -. n
~ ?Y~ ~
~ " *y PDR ADOCK 07003091-
",. J a 9906220116 990616.
rm m
C PDRg
a 4
I Memo to File l I
f o
MoreERC Oncita Participation
[.
+. Topical meetings will begin in July or August with the contractors and DOE would like to E
have NRC in attendance at these meetings. So far, the follow' g dates have been established:
m
\\
July 14th at 1:00 p.m.
l l
August 4th at 1:00 p.m.
August 25th at 8:00 a.m. (pouibly continuing into the next day) t
'+ NRC agreed to provide staff attendance at these meetings.
o ESER
+ DOE sugested that a joint SER would be needed. In their opinion it would be an embarrassment, after 3-4 years ofjointly working on this project, v.ithout documented NRC j
agreement / approval.
l
+ R. Pierson stated that NRC did not envision a joint SER. NRC would offer comments, but L
no commitment on design. This would be contrary to the present MOU. In order to change
[
this, the MOU would need to be rewritten and the Commission would need to change direction l
as to how they presently envision this project proceeding.
+ DOE would need NRC's concurrence before hardware was in place and construction started.
L
+
M. Tokar advised that we would review against the draft SRP and draft Part 70 documents.
'Ihis would highlight areas that have insufficient data /information.
+ DOE advised that they plan to revise the MOU before the end of the year to resolve this issue.
l June 11th Maating nn Licmic icenac o
i
+
R. Shewmaker to listen in on phone call.
l
-+ Seismic values need to be established.
~ t
+ R. Pierson stated that the Seismic Issues paper should be forwarded to DOE by next week.
l I
l l
l 4
j
- Memo to File i o
En.T untad Wnrker Enmmiccion Paner
+ RU felt that there were several errors in the co-located worker Commission Paper (SECY 038). NRC staff believed that the errors were the result of RU misunderstanding what was stated in the Commission Paper. Both agreed that these differences were not significant and did not change the conclusions of the Commission Paper or letter. After discussion of each, some of the differences were resolved; but some, primarily involving differences between Part 20 and Part 835, were deferred for further discussion at the staff level. RU may prepare a response to the co-located worker lettter (5/21/98 ttr from C. Paperiello, NRC, to J.
Wagoner, DOE) that further clarifies their points. RU has added the differences between Part 835 and Part 20 to its list of transition issues that the RU and NRC staffs are working on.
j i
ec:
R. Pierson, FCSP '
i E. Ten Eyck, FCSS j
W. B. Brach, FCSS TWRS Section Staff i
1 l
DISTRIBUTION:
i i
Docket 70-3091 0;a+eal File Public FCSP r/f S(
FCSP DAHoadi
. 6/16./
l m__o__2
__.-_.2_
______c___.
_ _ _ _