ML19308C881
| ML19308C881 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 08/19/1974 |
| From: | Case E US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Muntzing L US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8002070632 | |
| Download: ML19308C881 (1) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES
[
4 ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION l
l wAssinaron. o.c. as4s AUG1 9 E L. Manning Muntzing Director of Regulation
SUMMARY
OF REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NO. 8 JULY 23, 1974 1.
The Comittee reviewed the letter from John E. Ward, Chairman, AIF Comittee on Reactor Licensing and Safety, concerning establishment of a period for public comment on new or revised regulatory guides and related matters. The Comittee noted that:
a.
The recomendations in the letter that a policy statement be issued delineating the procedures to be followed would be satisfied by the June 12 Federal Register Hotice in combination with the AEC letter reply to Mr. Ward (to be placed in the Public Document Room).
b.
The suggestion in the letter that more than 60 days be clic; icd for cements sas not acceotable. -
c.
The judgement as to whether a " draft" regulatory guide should be imediately implemented must remain with the Regulatory staff and not be constrained by a requirement for industry review prior to implementation.
Those guides calling for immediate implementation are those reflecting a significant safety problem or those codifying current practice. The latter types of guides included consideration of industry input,.as such practice evolved in the licensing of individual plants.
In any 3
event, the R C reviews the implementation schedules for all guides, including those callino for imediate imple-mentation, to determine need and justification.
2.
The Comittee reviewed the proposed R'egulatory position on the qualification of NDT technicians and recomended approval with the following coments:
a.
This position is not in fact a ratchet, but rather a clarification cf intent regarding a previously-established requirement.
e 8 0 02 070 f3 7 k
l
2-AUG 13 574 L. Manning Muntzing b.
No backfitting, i.e., repeating of tests already performed by Level I technici,ans, is intended.
c.
The proposed 30 day implementation period is acceptable.
3.
The Committee reviewed the " Proposed Regulatory Guide on Tornado Missiles" and returned it to the staff for further development with the following comments:
a.
The proposed guide should be separated into two separate guides, one on applicable type of missiles and related velocities, and another on the systems to be protected from tornado missiles.
b.
While needed aerodynamic studies concerning tornado missiles and their maximum-velocities are. underway,_the_ proposed _ __ _ __._.
missiles and velocities should be clearly labeled as an interim guide' pending the outcome of such studies (similar to the fence-post cow guide). The Committee urges the expeditious conclusion of these studies.
c.
Both guides should be returned for further Committee review.
a c_-
' Edson G. Ca e.
Chairman, Regulatory Requirements Review Committee cc:
L. Rogers D. Knuth L. Gossick S. Hanauer H. Shapar i
A. Giambusso J. Davis R. Minogue J. Peters S. Varga e
e I
4