ML20027D827
| ML20027D827 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/04/1982 |
| From: | Aggarwal S NRC |
| To: | Rehm T NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027A669 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-82-426 NUDOCS 8211100166 | |
| Download: ML20027D827 (4) | |
Text
.
N' RAPIFAX 6,
a
+
I-t a
t 3,
May 4, 1982 J
.1 1
FROM: SATISH K. AGGARWAL i,
l TO:
T. RNiM J.
CC:
R. MIN 0GUE, H. DENTON, R. DeYOUNG,'V. STELLO
'?
1 e
~
r-
[ log 8211100166 821014 PDR FOIA CURRANO2-426 PDR
.~
3,
...~..
l 4
3 i
CHRONOLOGY j
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION RULE d
May 1980 Connission Memorandum and Order i
Qualification of electiic equipment to be completed by '
June 30,1982. "
j
- Does not cover Seismic Qualification of Electric Equipment.
i Juif 1981 ACRS Subcommittee' Meeting Proposed rule,'as presented, included:
Seismic & dynamic qualification of electric equipment.
i
- Expanded scope - all electric equipment important to i
1 safety.
2
.j ACRS Subcommittee criticized the "ill-defined" scope of the rule.
.g 1
]
Aug.1981 Full ACRS ij Staff narrowed the scope essentially to Class lE electric equipment.
ACRS approved the proposed rule for publication to invite. public comments.
Sept.1981 Office Directors decided (1) to exclude " seismic and dynamic requirements" from the proposed rule, (2) to address the question of seismic & dynamic requirements via ANR.
i:
Oct.1981 SECY 81-603 forwarded to the Commission Does not cover seismic and dynamic qualification.
- Incorporated the extension dates for completion of qualification
.as recommended by the Chairman.
Nov.1981 Commissioners Bradford & Aherne directed staff papers to cover their recommenda tions.
e Nov.1981 SECY 81-603A presented three additional alternatives.
Alternative 2:
Incorporated Commissioner Bradford's recommendation on scheduling of qualification.
Alternative 3:
Included scismic and dynamic qualification of electric equipment for NT0L's.
Alternative 4:
Included seismic and dynamic qualification f& all plants.
Nov. 1981 Commission Meeting Staff recoranended alternative 1.
The merits of all four alternatives were discussed, including lengthy discussions on "sequenc'e testing."
~;
Commission favored approval of alternative 1 subject to incorporation R
< - ~
n.- r
.~e
../.
~ <... ~.
i C onology 2-g of certain provisions of alternative 2 (Commissioner Bradford).
)
]
Nov.1981 SECY 81-603B Submitted modified version & the proposed rule to 1
inclu'de' Commission's directives of Nov.10 meeting.
3 I
1 Dec.1981 Additional issue raised by the Commission pertaining to qualification
}
of equipment needed for cold shut-down.
Ij Dec.1981 Staff position submitted with regard to cold shutdown.
i Dec.1981 Stello asked for CRGR review of the proposed rule.
Dec.1981 RES declined to submit the proposed and the final rules for CRGR review 1
unless there were significant. change,s_ in terms of backfitting require-ments. Mr. Dircks Agreed.
l 1
4 Jan.1982 Commission approved (5-0) SECY 81-603B but included the requirement for cold shutdown.
Commission approved the ANR approach for the seismic & dynamic
,f requirements.
Jan. 1982 CRGR Meeting.
Status of E-Q Rule was presented.
Jan.1982 Rule was issued for public comment. Period to expire Mar. 22, 1982.
Mar. 1982 Commission (3-2) denied the industry request for extension of the comment period.
1 April 1982.
Staff resolved the public comments and forwarded the final rule to ACRS.
- Requirement for qualification of equipment needed for cold-shut down was deleted.
- Requirement for a " central file" was deleted.
- Relaxed the requirements for equipment located in mild environment.
Staff maintains that the final rule is 'not significantly different in terms of backfitting requirements for operating nuclear power plants.
No, known staff disagreements.
e 4
p.,,, ; e,
.. _..... m :. 2...
...... _.._...:......... s
- .f'_
.c
,4
.i.
I Schedule'for May'1982 1
e s~..
(
l May 5 Subcommittee Meeting with ACRS e
]
May 7 Full ACRS meeting
.I g
May 21 EDO concurrence on Commission paper 8
.j Week of May 24 tieeting with Commission k -
s
-l
,o
,t i
1 i
I I
l I
l.
c i
e i
9 6
D l
,=-.:.,,.-
- - : 3. - ::.:..
~ ~.
/
- b % >d W. s..,.
^.
UNITED $TATES ION NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSCTOR
",\\gl,e#pn Mauq'o 1-ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REAwAsmwaron, o.c.2 osse o
i' I
I s....+/
May 12,1982 i
dino The Honorable Nunzio J. Palla i
i ion 5
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm ss Chairman
~
Washington, DC 20555 MENT QUALIFICATION OF ELEC j
. j
Dear Dr. Palladino:
d red the proposed RULEMAKING ON ENVIRONMENTAL V) the ACRS consi e Electric Equipment for Nuclear 5,
Subject:
May 6-8, 1982, ld in Washington, DC on During its 265th meeting,l Qualification of A Subcommittee meeting was heith the NRC Sta ittee final rule, "Environmenta
?-
Power Plants."
d during the 256th ACRS meeting, 1982 to discu3s this matter w d for public 1
sidered, Defere it was issue ments, the requirements for 22,1981 an meeting on July was published for public com ining a cold shut-d leted and a requirement was a 1981.
Af ter public comments ath for achieving and mainta rule seismic qualification were' e Before the lified.
variety of equipment must be environmentally quaalification requirement w ment needed to provide one p wide applicable to a response and m
down conditionwere received, the latter qu range of circumstances that a seismic will be The rule h
We note that deferment of t ef final rule.which must perfonn under a requirements.
which cold shutdown requirementsRevision 1 of Regulatory cation S in 1981, cannot be when reviewed by the ACRW understand thatElectric Equipment of le We would Qualification accompanied the proposed ruissued before la rule and revised guideequipme ity to expedite its the proposedunderstand and implement this guide be given prior of availability dustry to new Concurrentsignificantly help the in comply with the rule.
difficult tobe incurred in qualifyin qualification under theclaimed that it will bel bur from i ient amount of informationTO will and that heavy financiaWe understand that a su Industry has with in accordance to test the practicality oare qualify i ws of a rule current qualification rev e equipment.
available and can be usedSince these plantsd NUREG vailable information be per demonstrate its practi-It would be prudent to suggest that analysis of the arulemaking to effect revised.
the "00R Guidelines"- an of the reducing public risk.
codify, we completion cality and its value inundertake such a demo before ion.
n.
t 9
j l
Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino May 12, 1982 We believe that the Staff and industry viewpoints have been effectively reconciled in the public interest and recommend approval of the rule l
subject to consideration of the foregoing, comments.
/
i Si ncerely.
\\.
P. Shewmon
~
Chaiman j
1
.'l
,1,
Em#
=9 g
- 4 g., %
- 1 J
I e
4 I
y.a' g-y
-d y
-