ML19320D352
| ML19320D352 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/24/1975 |
| From: | Case E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8007210272 | |
| Download: ML19320D352 (2) | |
Text
.. - - _
c M/
W NUCLEAR REGULATO,RY, COMMisSE e
W ASHIN STcN. D. C. 20555
====;
=+ :; a SEP t 4 515
....:J.
==,t I.ee V. Gossick'
[=:.._
?=i
. Executive Director for Operations
~~D REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS REVIEW COMiITTEE MEETING NO. 31, JULY 11,1975 1.
The Comittee discussed issues related to the implementation of
~
. Regulatory Guides on existing plants and the concerns expressed in the June 24, 1974 memorandum, A. Giambusso to E. G. Case,
~~-*
subject: REGULATORY GUIDE IMPLEMENTATION, and made the following recomendations and observations:
'::=#
a.
Approval of new Regulatory Guides and approval of revisions
=="'
of existing guides should move forward expeditiously in order that the provisions of these regulatory guides be available
_j for use as soon as possible in on-going or future staff reviews of license applications.
The Committee noted that over the
==
recent past, the approval of proposed regulatory guides whose
===!
content is acceptable for these purposes has experienced significant delays in RRRC review pending the determination
===1 of the applicability of the guide to existing plants, often
__g
,~-
requiring significant sta'ff effort.
To avoid these delays,*
- ~ ~ ~ ~-
ZY the Comittee concluded that, henceforth, approval of proposed regulatory guides should be uncoupled from the consideration
=j of their backfit applicability.
l.1
-=
b.
The implementation section of new regulatory guides should address, in general, only the applicability of the guide to applications in the licensing review process using, in so far as possible, a standard approach of applying the guide to those applications docketed 8 months'after the issuance date of the guide for comment.
Exceptions to this general cpproach
~Tl.1. :j will be handled on a case-by-case basis.
==7,gj
: =.
c.
The regulatory position of each approved proposed guide (or proposed guide revision) will be characterized by the Committee F==
as to its backfitting pot'ential, by placing it in one of three.
categories:
Category 1 - Clearly forward fit only.
No further staff
==E:
consideration of possible backfitting is required.
y
..)
.q
.~~::
...)
~::.
~M
......]
~
8
...~..E....:.
- ===
-)
w=:5
[!!!
==
=
U
'W E
- 2-i
- ' Lee V. Gossick
==
T'.T:
g.
. = =...
T x
Cateoory 2 - Further staff consideration of the need for back-
~
fitting appears to be required for certain identified items of the regulatory position--these individual issues are such that existing plants need'to be evaluated to determine their status
_. e+=
with regard to these safety issues in order to determine the
.._...Z need for backfitting.
Category 3 - Clearly backfit.
Existing plants should be f.fl.f.fj:
evaluated to determine whether identified items of the
~~~;
regulatory position are resolved in accordance with the
- j guide or by some equivalent alternative.
- .;l From time to time, for a specific guide, there will probably be
- ;j
-~ ::.1 some variation among these categories or even within a category,
- 1 and these three broi; category characterizations will be qualified as require aet a particular situation.
=~
.attee categorization appear
~
~
d.
It is not intended t s in the guide itself.
n._ rorpose of the categorization is to indicate those items of the regulatory position for which the Comittee can make a specific backfit recomendation without additional staff work (Categories' ' and 3), and to indicate those items for which additional staff work is
~~~EE required in order to determine backfit considerations (Category 2).
e.
The Comittee recomends that for approved guides in Category 2, staff efforts be initiated in parallel with-the process leading to publication of the guide in order that specific backfit requirements for existing plants be detennined within a reasonable period of time after publication of the guide, f.
The Comittee observed that more attention needs to be given to the identification of acceptable alternatives to the positions outlined in the guides in order to = provide additional options and flexibility to applicants and licensees, with the possible benefits of additional innovation and exploration in the solution of safety ' issues.
2.
The Comittee reviewed the proposed Regulatory Guide 1.XX:
TliERMAL E
m OVERLOAD PROTECTION FOR MOTORS OM MOTOR-OPERATED VALVES and EEa recommended approval. This guide was characterized by the Comittee as Category 1 - no backfitting, with the stipulation that as an appropriate occasion presented itself in conjunction with the review of some particular aspect of existing plants, the i.hennal overload protection provisions be audited.
, ~ ".
4 h======
~
..=;
= ;.
?
...:E
~~~
~-
i=T=
7+:=:==
==:
~"=
=
===.
=== _
W w
Lee V. Gossick....
- t..i.-._.
--=.2/
....'=
3.
The Comittee reviewed the proposed Regulatory Guide 1.XX:
INSTRUMENT SPANS AND SETPOINTS and recomended approval
. = =
subject to the following coment:
Paragraph 5 of Section C (page 4 of the proposed Guide) should be reworded in light of Comittee comments, to
~-:
the satisfaction of the Director, Office of Standards Development. This guide was characterized by the Comittee as Category 1 - no backfit.
4.
The Comittee reviewed Proposed Regulatory Guide 1.97:
~
INSTRUMENTATIOM FOR LIGHT WATER COOLED MUCLEAR POWER PLAf!TS TO ASSESS PLANT CONDITIONS DURING AND FOLLONIt!G AN ACCIDENT and deferred further consideration to a later meeting in order to permit incorporation of recent coments by the Division of Technical Review.
==
Edson G.
ase, Chairman
==
Regulatory Requirements Review
- e--
~ ~4 Committee
- g cc:
H. Kouts
^==
B. Rusche D. Knuth S. Hanauer H. Shapar J. Gallo R. Boyd R. Minogue J. Davis G. Arlotto
=s F. Schroeder L
S. Varga e-D. Eisenhut F-T. Rehm L
R. Cunningham
[
L. Rouse
~
RL ads TR ads 2.5.~
~
...... k 7, - ;,,
. Q =:::.
...I
- .7::*
!!