ML19263B161
| ML19263B161 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/13/1978 |
| From: | Case E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| RTR-REGGD-01.028, RTR-REGGD-01.035, RTR-REGGD-01.104, RTR-REGGD-01.134, RTR-REGGD-08.XXX, RTR-REGGD-1.028, RTR-REGGD-1.035, RTR-REGGD-1.104 NUDOCS 7901080236 | |
| Download: ML19263B161 (4) | |
Text
'
8 k
UNITED STATES 8
[#
'l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 11; 5,%A$5)f WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\
"i December 13, 1978 MEMORANDUM FOR: Lee V. Gossick, Executive Director for Operations FROM E. G. Case, Chairman, Regulatory Requirements Review Comittee SUBJECT
- SU MARY OF REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NO. 80, NOVEMBER 21, 1978 The Comittee reviewed:
1.
Draft 1 of R.G. 8.JB, " RADIATION SAFGY TRAINING AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS" dated July 20, 1978, and while generally concurring with the provisions of the proposed guide, referred it back to the staff for resubmittal with the following coments:
a.
The new procedures should be followed concerning solicitation and resolution of public comments prior to submittal to the Committee.
b.
This and all items subnitted for Comittee review must be accompanied by backfit recomendations and supportive value/
impact analyses for the various classes of plants and applications, i.e. CP and CL reviews, post CP plants, and operating reactors. Particular attention should be given to recommendations concerning the applicability of the proposed guide to PDAs, PDAs in review, and applications referencing various standardization options. Where appropriate, the implementation section of guides should indicate how standardized designs and applications referencing a standardized option are to be treated.
2.
DRAFT 1, REV.1 TO R.G.1.134, " MEDICAL EVALUATION OF PERSONNEL REQUIRING CPERATOR LICENSES" dated October 18, 1978, and recommended approval.
The Comittee categorized this proposed revision as Category 1 -
No backfit, noting that the effective date shown in'!WDI-SpBsed revision should be three months from the date of issuance of the
- guide, l.18
- 1. Af
/. loY
1 e 3.
Draft 2 of R.G.1.104, Rev.
l.,
"0VERHEAD CRANE HANDLING SYSTEMS FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS" dated August 30, 1978, and after extensive discussion, referred it back to the staff with the recommendation that the guide be withdrawn and the material issued as a NUREG information document.
4.
Proposed R.G.1.1XX, "FUNCT!0NAL SPECIFICATION OF SAFETY-RELATED VALVE ASSEMBLIES IN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS" dated September 11, 1978, and referred it back to the staff for resubmittal in accordance with the new procedures concerning public comments.
The Committee again emphasized the comment made in item 1 above, concerning the need for backfit recommendations for the various classes of plants and applications including the various standardization options.
5.
Draft 2, Revision 2 to R.G.1.28 " QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS (CESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION)" dated September 20, 1978, and recommended approval subject to the following comment:
a.
The implementation section should identify the appropriate exemptions from the guide positions for standardized designs and applications referencing the various standardized options.
6.
Draft 1, Revision 3 of R.G.1.35, " INSERVICE INSPECTION OF UNGROUTED TENDONS IN PRESTRESED CONCRETE CONTAINMENTS", and Draft 1, R.G.1.35.1, " DETERMINATION OF PRESTRESSING FORCES FOR INSPECTION OF PRESTRESSED CONCRETE CONTAINMENTS" dated Septeater 26, 1978, and referred it back to the staff for resubmittal in accordance with the new procedures. Again the Committee noted the need for backfit recommendations and supporting value/ impact analyses for the various classes of plants including standardized designs and applications referencing various standardization options. Where appropriate, the implementation section cf guides should indicate how standardized designs and applications referencing a standardized option are to be treated.
The Committee discussed the following items as to whether the changes to these documents were such as to require full Committee review:
7.
Proposed Revisions to the Standard Review Plan: Sections 17.1, "CUALITY ASSURANCE DURING THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASES," and 17.2, " QUALITY ASSURANCE DURING THE OPERATIONS PHASE", dated September 15,1978, and concluded that the changes proposed were not substantive and did not require Committee review.
' 8.
Proposed Revisions to the Standard Review Plan: Sections 14.1, 14.2, and 14.3 dated September 21, 1978, and concluded that with the exception of one item, personnel qualifications, the proposed changes were not substantive and did not require Committee review.
It was left to the staff to determine what course of action to pursue to obtain full Committee review of the one sub tantive item proposed.
?
/
/
,I Edson G. Case,' Chairman
/
Regulatory Requirements Review Corraittee ecs:
See next page
-