ML20138F333
| ML20138F333 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/10/1985 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Asselstine, Palladino, Roberts NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-44, REF-GTECI-EL, TASK-A-44, TASK-OR AB38-1-052, AB38-1-52, NUDOCS 8512160063 | |
| Download: ML20138F333 (2) | |
Text
,
UNITED STATES e
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
,j WASHINGTON,D C.20555 J
DEC 10 7I5 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Palladino Comissioner Roberts Comissioner Asselstine Comissioner Bernthal Comissioner Zech FROM:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED STATION BLACK 0UT RULE (SECY-85-163)
By Staff Requirements Memorandum dated November 11, 1985, Chairman Palladino and Comissioner Zech requested the staff to inform the Comission whether or not the Comittee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) has significant technical reservations regarding the " Proposed Station Blackout Rule."
As you know, the CRGR expressed its concerns to me about the proposed Station Blackout Rule when it reviewed this matter in the spring of 1984 during Meetings 59, 60 and 61. The staff considered these CRGR concerns and recom-mendations by its subsequent modification of the proposed rule and regulatory guide. Largely, these modifications (1) increased the flexibility for licensees to argue in favor of shorter coping durations for blackout (if agreements about reliability of their AC power systems would permit a shorter duration), and (2) addressed the matter of integration of other closely related generic issues.
A major consideration by CRGR during its review of the USI A-44 issue was the continued approach by the staff to the " piecemeal" resolution and implementation of major generic issues. Questions were raised about whether continuance of such an approach was effective in terms of the resultant costs and safety benefits.
In this regard, CRGR expressed concern whether the proposed USI A-44 resolution would discourage other equally effective incentives by the licensees to enhance the overall AC power reliability or perhaps in other ways improve on the protection against core-damage / core-melt accidents.
In view of this, CRGR questioned the imediacy of need for such a major rule.
I believe these concerns capture those major reservations CRGR expressed to me about the pro-posed rule.
Enclosed for your further consideration are the Minutes of CRGR Meeting Number 60 on this matter. Note that CRGR did recomend the issuance of the pro-posed rule for public comment. CRGR also indicated an intent to revisit this matter of integration of the generic issues in its review of the proposed final g
\\ A))
V B512160063 851210 PDR REVGP NRCCRQ
, rule.
I would expect CRGR to advise me of any significant technical reservations, should such be found to exist, in the final version of the rule when it is proposed by the staff.
($gned)Vrilliam J.Dirds William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
CRGR Minutes for Meeting No. 60 dtd 5/8/84 cc: OGC OPE SECY Distribution:
WJDircks VStello JRoe HDenton GCunningham TRehm JHSniezek KKniel MTaylor ED0 rf Central File PDR(NRG/CRGR)
DEDR0GR cf CRGR File (#60) d
/1
- EDO p:DEDROGR 0FC :ROGR/
- ROGR/D NAME Hjr yk__r_____fe:dHSniezek
- VStello'ffI/ WJDircks o
' DATE :12/6/85-
- 12/6 85
- 12/ 4 /85
- 12/f//85 t
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
_-