ML20137A855

Discusses Generic Ltr, Effectiveness of UT Sys in Isi

ML20137A855
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/24/1996
From:	Conran J NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD)
To:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
Shared Package
ML20137A682	List: ML20137A678 ML20137A733 ML20137A764 ML20137A778 ML20137A816 ML20137A834 ML20137A844 ML20137A855 ML20137A866 ML20137A893 ML20137A912 ML20137A928 ML20137A956 ML20137A974 ML20137A980 ML20138E103
References
FOIA-96-466 NUDOCS 9703210100
Download: ML20137A855 (2)

Text

- -- . .- -- -- . - . -

,8 From: James Conranj N To: WND2.WNP6.DGN i Date: 10/24/9610:39am

Subject:

Generic Letter" Effectiveness of UT Systems in ISI"-Reply l >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Jim!

Scheduling the above generic (GL) letter for a CRGR briefing in mid-to-late November 1996 does not support EMCB's schedule. Its been suggested that EMCB send the GL out for public comment and resolve the comments then schedule a CRGR briefing. I understand that the GL on "PWSCC of CRDM and Other VHPs" was handled this way.

. What, if any, problems will sending the GL out for public comment before a CRGR

. briefing cause? How do I go about initiating this? What other options are there for scheduling a CRGR briefing.

Don:

I don't think there's much chance of getting a "by" on this GL at the draft stage; the topic has to be very simple, straightforward, non-controversial, etc. for CRGR to do that. This topic is defintitely not in that category. This is item is complex enough, you will recall, that Denny Ross has been asking for a briefing for the Committee for several months now in advance of actual review by CRGR to acquaint the members with the new/ improved inspection method involved. I think that consideration alone is enough to tip the balance in favor of CRGR review before publication for comment in this casef further complication is that this item has the " required vs requested" policy issue i associated with it. CRGR endorsed another recent letter with that wording in it; but it I was recognized that the circumstances involved were very unique; and CRGR endorsement was given to that letter with the caveat that OGC make the final call on f " required vs requested". Based on the OGC legal analysis provided, CRGR members had no objection to the unusual " required" wording going out in that final [50.54(f)] letter; but final member comment indicated an interest in hearing more about the rationale for ~

j going with that unusual wording.E If we receive any Category I review item (s) in the near future (i.e., requiring 2-day turn around by CRGR), your GL could be scheduled into the special meeting (s) that would be needed to discuss such item (s). I've heard that at least two such items were in preparation (a GL on SG ISl; and a GL on NPSH topics that were separated out of the recent urgent Haddam Neck GL); why don't you check with Jim Shapaker on their status. Let me know what you hear; maybe I can get a running head start (for a change) on the urgent items involved, and it would also serve your interest in getting quicker treatment on this lower priority item. We can try to work with you on that basis.

As a final suggestion, I think it would help your cause considerably if you could persuade RES to support the discussion of your GL with a good pre briefing of the 9703210100 970314

_. L g gp PDR

. - . - . . . ~ . . - - . . - . - - - . - - . . - - - - - . - -. - - - - - - . -

l*

. l I members (even at the same meeting that your GL is reviewed) on the technical issues

and innovations involved., Denny Ross is VERY interested in this topic from the time j that you started talking with me about it several months ago; so much so that I think he j may have discussed the possibility of such a RES/NRR presentation separately with j someone in RES (Mike Mayfield?). I know that a lot of things happened in the j intervening time to help those early 'best laid plans' for CRGR treatment of this item go '

j awry; but I think the original thought about a RES/NRR pre-brief of the Committee on i this topic was a sound one; and I think it could help get and focus usefully attention on

{ this (relatively) low priority item now when you need it. It's more effort, I know; but

maybe it's worth a shot.

4 1

i

Jim

! CC: DFR, WND2.WNP6.JRS2 1

l 4

l j k i i

i I

i i

i i

4 i

}

3

-- . . . .