NUREG-1278, Summary of CRGR Meeting 117 on 870626 Re Licensing Review Bases to Be Used by Staff in Initiating Certification Review Process for GE Advanced BWR & Request for CRGR Review of Proposed Changes to Rules Re Record Retention Period
| ML20245C276 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/24/1987 |
| From: | Jordan E Committee To Review Generic Requirements |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245B532 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-1278 NUDOCS 8708260373 | |
| Download: ML20245C276 (11) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
(cyg,.o
%&<N August 24, 1987 l
1 y
&p#70A MEMORANDUM FOR:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations FR3M:
Edward'L. Jordan, Chairman RiiEASED TO THE POR Committee to Review Generic Requirements
SUBJECT:
MINUTES OF CRGR MEETING NUMBER 117 l
I The Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) met on Friday June 26, 1987, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.
A list of attendees for this meeting is enclosed
.(Enclosure 1).
The following items were addressed at the meeting:
1.
The Committee was briefed by the staff on proposed Licensing Review Bases to be used by the staff in initiating the certification review process for the GE Advanced Boiling Water Reactor design.
The Committee provided several comments and suggestions regarding the proposed format and l
content of the LRB and the vehicle for transmitting the proposed LRB to GE.
This discussion of this matter is. documented in Enclosure 2.
2.
The Committee also discussed briefly a request for CRGR review of proposed changes to the rules regarding retention period for records.
The Committee decided that this matter was an appropriate one for CRGR review and would be scheduled for consideration by the Committee at an upcoming meeting in the near future.
As noted above, the proposed Licenring Review Bases for the GE Advanced Boiling Water Reactor design was covered in the meeting as a briefing.
The CRGR, however, did have substantive comments on the proposal that have been reflected by the staff in the final document.
Questions concerning these meeting minutes should be referred to Jim Conran (492-9855).
OHeind Soaed en tk W Edward L. Jordan, Chairman Committee to Review Generic Requirements
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
See next page Q
M E7o726o373 XA U fD,
- y s
4
'V 2
3.? ^
l 2
cc:
Commission (5)-
SECY Office Directors Regional Administrators CRGR Members W. Parler' D. Crutchfield H. Berkow r,
Distribution: w/o encl.
' Central File PDR(NRC/CRGR)
R. Hernan S. Treby W. Little M. Lessar-J. Zerbe J.' Johnson (w/ enc.)
J. Conran (w/ enc.)
CRGR SF (w/ enc.)
NAME :
Zer e dan DATE $ 8/$#/87 i 8/a//87 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
_ _ = _ - - _ _.
.y lY i:
Enclosure l' LIST OF ATTENDEES CRGR MEETING NO. 117 June 26,.1987 CRGR MEMBERS j
E. Jordan D. Ross
.R. Bernero J.~Sniezek J. Scinto OiHERS
'~
J. Zerbe-
'J.
Conran T. Cox D. Crutchfield F. Schroeder H. Berkow R. Palla B.:Doolittle-P. Leech G. Vissing G. Bagchi-
'J. Joyce R. Houston R. Hernan H. Alderman-
-W. Houston T. Dorian
3
! to the Minutes of CRGR Meeting No. 117
)
Briefing on Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) j Proposed Licensing Review Bases
{
J TOPIC The Committee was briefed by the staff on proposed review guidelines that will be used by the staff to initiate the licensing review process for the GE Advanced Soiling Water Reactor (ABWR).
The staff planned to publish the proposed guidelines as NUREG-1278.
BACKGROUND The request to brief the CRGR on the proposed ABWR Licensing Review Bases (LRB)
.was made in a memorandum dated June 18, 1987 from T. E. Murley to E. Jordan.
1 Copies of proposed NUREG-1278, "GE Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Licensing Review Bases, dated June 17, 1987, were also transmitted by this memo in advance of the briefing for the information of the Consittee members.
No
{
request for formal review of this document by CRGR was made at this time; but Committee comments on any aspect of the format and content of the proposed
{
LRB were solicited.
The staff view was that formal review of the proposed LRB and NUREG by CRGR was not necessary, because no new requirements or positions were to be established or imposed with respect to ABWR at this time by these documents.
Copies of the slides used by the staff to guide their presentation and discussions with the Committee at this meeting are attached to this Enclosure.
DISCUSSION Major areas of discussion regarding the proposed ABWR Licensing Review Bases (LRB), and the principal comments provided by CRGR in those areas, are summarized in the following:
1.
Publication of the Proposed Licensing Review Bases as a NUREG
^
The Committee questioned the staff's plan to issue the proposed LRB as a NUREG, because it appeared that some new requirements or positions were included in the document.
E00 policy states that NUREGs are not to be used to impose or establish new requirements or positions.
The staff i
stated that it was not their intent that the proposed "'JREG contain new requirements or positions, but only that it indicatt,
direction of the staff's current thinking on review bases for ABWR, and reflect a certain minimum level of mutual understanding regarding the form and content of GE's expected ABWR submittal.
The off does not consider the proposed LRB to be legally binding on the staf f as firm or final review criteria for l
ABWR, or that it limits in any way the staff's ability to establish diff-erent review criteria, or impose different requirements or positions, if the need to do so becomes apparent during the detailed review process for ABWR. The staff believes that the proposed LRB are useful and sufficient I
I 4
i-
, lL for the purpose of beginning the ABWR review; but they are not necessarily l
sufficient for completing the ABWR review and certification process.
The Committee suggested, if that were the case, that the wording of the proposed document should be revised.to better reflect that intent.
As a specifk exaple, the Committee suggested deletion of the sentence near the bottom of page 5 that reads:
" Based on current status and direction of these resolutions, the staff believes that.the preliminary positions included in this document will be compatible with the final positions."
After much further discussion on this question, CRGR came to the view that publication of the proposed LRB in the form of a NUREG could too easily" lend the impression that the proposed LRB have some regulatory " stature not intended by the staff, notwithstanding the staff's explicit caveats and disclaimers to the contrary.
Accordingly, the Committee felt that the LRB should not be published as a NUREG, but suggested instead that the staff
]
transmit the proposed LRB to GE as an attachment to a letter from the.
Director, NRR. That letter and attachment should contain careful caveats to clearly convey the intended stature / status of the proposed LRB (i.e.,
not binding on the staff as firm requirements, and not sufficient for use by the staff in completing the ABWR licensing review).
The Committee further suggested that, in the process of ripening the current proposed LRB into firm requirements (i.e., binding on both the staff and GE, and sufficient to complete ABWR certification process), the staff should obtain ACRS review and public comment on the proposed LRB.
2.
' Efficient Use of Staff Resources Under Proposed Review Scheme / Schedule The Committee questioned the staff's plan to review the ABWR Safety Analysis Report on the piecemeal and strung out basis indicated in Table 3-1 on page 6 of NUREG-1278.
Specifically, they questioned whether this review plan and schedule represented an efficient utilization of staff resources, and whether this approach would allow proper integration of the many aspects of the overall ABWR review.
The staff acknowledged that review of the ABWR SAR chapters on the fragmented basis indicated in Table 3-1 will involve significant inefficiencies; but they felt that, given the circumstances surrounding the ABWR design development, the inefficiencies had been minimized by the review scheme proposed, and in any case the inefficiencies involved were simply a price to be paid in furtherance of the Commission's policy of encouraging submittal of improved standardized designs.
And with regard to the Committee's concern regarding the piecemeal review of SAR chapters, the staff noted that this approach was adopted to permit early initiation of the ABWR review effort.
They also called attention to the 12-month period set aside specifically for an integrated review of the ABWR SAR following the initial chapter-by-chapter review.
3.
Narrow App?icability of Proposed Site Envelope Parameters l
Another aspect of the proposed ABWR LRB questioned by the Committee was
{
the proposed site envelope parameters set forth in Appendix A of the NUREG, specifically in the areas of precipation and design temperatures
'(wetbulb. values).
The proposed values appeared'to some to drastically restrict the available sites for ABWR in this country.
As a specific' example, it'was noted that the wet bulb value proposed in Table 3-1 on.
page A-2 of NUREG-1278 might disqualify the Grand Gulf site as an ABWR location.
The Committee raised these questions as another aspect of the general question of efficient utilization of staff resources (i.e., use of substantial staff review time in certifying a design that cannot be applied widely in the U.S.).
The staff indicated that they will reexamine the specific site envelope parameters questioned by the Committee to assure that they do not reflect inadvertent errors.
1 1
n
l i
1 1
BRIEFING TO CRGR i
(N GE ADVANQD BOILING WATER REACTOR 1
\\
LICENSING EVIEW BASES i
{
I I
i DENNIS M. CRLITOFIEl.D-0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION JlNE 26, 1987
e E ABWP EVIEW C00PEPATIVE DEVEl.0 PENT EFFORT:
GE,TEPCO,HITACHI,TOSHIBA, DOE EPRIRELATIONSHIP IWA0VED DESIGN / OERATIONAL FEATURES SCOPE -- NUCLEAR ISLAND 3
SCHEDULE / REVIEW ETHODOLOGY FDA / DC CONCURRENTJAPANESELICENSING 1
k
\\
I I
)
)
l i
v 4
LICENSING REVIEW BASES DOClf9ff PHILOSC5HY STATEENT OF IhTENTIONS BY GE E STAFF-PA0VIDES GUIDANCE IN DESIGN AND REVIEW NED PRIOR GESSAR II EXPERIENCE SUPPLEENT SRP DEFINE PROCESS AND CERTAIN KEY PARATERS CONTAINS NO EW EQUIREENTS NOT EQUIRED BY EGULATIONS NOTLEGALLYBINDING STE PORTIONS PRELIMINARY / PARTIAL; SUBJECT TO CiANGE i
l
P%JOR ISSUES IN DOCifDU DEVELOPPOR TITLE SCKDULE SAPS IPPL98HATION SITE ENVELOPE PAP #ETERS QUALITYASSURANCE
{
INSTP1tDRATION AND CONTROLS l
STANDARDIZATION POLICY STATEPDE IPPLEPENTATION l
t
\\
Y
DOClMM ISSUANCE PLAN L
ISSlE AS NUREG TRANSMIT BY LETTER MJRLEY TO GE i
i FR NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY STELLO t90 TO COMilSSION INFORMING THAT DOCLfeT HAS BEEN ISSlED l
[d'f un s*
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
W ASHINGTON, D. C. 205S5 k.....
June 19, 1987 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Robert M. Bernero, NMSS Thomas T. Martin, RI Denwood F. Ross, RES Joseph Scinto, 0GC James H. Sniezek, NRR FROM:
Edward L. Jordan, Chairman Committee to Review Generic Requirements
SUBJECT:
CRGR MEETING N0. 117 The Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) will meet on Friday, June 26, 1987, 11 a.m.-1 p.m. in Room P-422. The agenda is as follows:
11-1 p.m.
D. Crutchfield will brief the CRGR on the enclosgd draft Advanced Boiling) Water Reactor Review Guidelines, NUREG-1278 (Category 2 Item.
If a CRGR member cannot attend the meeting, it is his responsibility to assure that an alternate, who is approved by the CRGR Chairman, attends the meeting.
This meeting of the CRGR was scheduled on short notice to assist in meeting an NRR commitment and because the nature of the presentation (briefing as contrasted to full review) involves less preparation on the part of CRGR and their staff. The regularly scheduled CRGR meeting on July 8,1987 will be announced in a separate agenda notification to follow shortly.
Persons making presentations to the CRGR are responsible for (1) assuring +.at the information required for CRGR review is provided to the Committee (CRGk Charter - IV.B), (2) coordinating and presenting views of other' offices, (3) as appropriate, assuring that other offices are represented during the presenta-tion, and (4) assuring that agenda modifications are coordinated with the CRGR contact (T. Cox x24148) and others involved with the presentation.
Division Directors or higher management should attend meetings addressing agenda items under their purview.
l l
i flo 24 0 310 5,(.
i
,, In accordance with the ED0's March 29, 1984 memorandum to the Comission con-cerning " Forwarding of CRGR Documents to the Public Document Room (PDR) " the enclosures, which contain predecisional information, will not be released to the PDR until the NRC has considered (in a public forum) or decided the matter dddressed by the information.
<ir an, Chairman omitt to Review Generic Requ ements
Enclosure:
Memorandum, T. Murley to E. Jordan, dated June 18, 1987,
Subject:
Briefing of CRGR on Draft Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Review Guidelines, NUREG-1278 cc: SECY Comission (5)
V. Stello, Jr.
Office Directors Regional Administrators W. Parler ' eld (w/o ene.)
D. Crutchfi l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -