ML20148P192
| ML20148P192 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/08/1977 |
| From: | Case E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148P180 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-REGGD-01.072, RTR-REGGD-01.122, RTR-REGGD-01.191, RTR-REGGD-1.072, RTR-REGGD-1.122, RTR-REGGD-1.191, TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 7811280141 | |
| Download: ML20148P192 (2) | |
Text
.[A
]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
WASHING TON. D. C. 20355
.,, R..
e 8
%, *.... p December 8,1977 A
O MEf40RANDUM F0k:
Lee V. Uossick, Executive Director for Operations i
FROM E. G. Case, Chairman, Regulatory Requirements Review Comittee SUBJECT
SUMMARY
OF REGULATORY REQUIRENENTS REVIEW CCMetITTEE MEETING NO. 6B, NOVEMBER 15, 1977 The Comittee reviewed:
1.
Request for RRRC Review of Regulatory Guide " LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS OF S0ILS FOR ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS",
dated July 21, 1977, and recommended approval subject to the following comments:
a.
In paragraph C.I.a of the proposed guide (page 1.XX-19 of the June 1977 draft), the statement concerning "... experienced g
professional engineers and geologists..." should be replaced with
(
"... engineers and geologist of cemonstrated qualifications...",
or other such suitable wording.
D.
In paragraph C.l.d (page 1.XX-20 for tests where standard procedures are not utilized, in addition to the requirements listed, a require-ment should be included for describing the bases for deviations from standard procedures.
The Committee characterized this guide as Category 1 - No backfit.
2".
Proposed Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.122, " DEVELOPMENT OF FLOOR DESIGN i
RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR SEISMIC DESIGN OF FLOOR SUPPORTED EQUIPMENT OR l
COMPONENTS", cated July 27, 1977, and recomended approval.
The Committee cha'racterized this guide as Category 1 - No backfit.
3.
Joint Branch Position and Regulatory Guide on PERMANENT DEWATERING SYSTEi4S",
I dated August 9,1977, and recommended approval subject to the following coments.
a.
In Section IV, paragraph (a), and at other citations where appropriate, alternate language should'be used to indicate trie safety significance of the system rather than using the designation
" Category 1".
p2s os41
n 4
Additional emphasis should be given to requiring either the capability b.
of the system to survive design-basis events (or an appropriate
(~,
backup capability) or to show that failure does not result in a safety concern.
Incidental issues, as discussed, will be jointly resolved by the Director, Division of Site Safety, and the Director, Division of c.
Systems Safety, ana will not require return to the Committee.
The Comittee recommended further staff consideration of the long-implications of this position; for example, its impact on term decomissioning.
The Committee recommends preparation of a regulatory guide on this posi tion.
The Committee characterized this position as Category 1 - No backfit.
Working Paper "D" Regulatory Guide 1.91, Rev.1, " EVALUATIONS OF EXPLOSIONS POSTULATED TO OCCUR ON TRANSPORTATION ROUT 4.
POWER PLANTS", dated September 12, 1977, and recommended approval subject to the following comments:
In Paragraphs C.1 and C.3 of the Regulatory Position, language should be included to allow the use of specific blast equivalency when a.
properly justified in lieu of the envelope blast requirements.
f
\\,
~'
The Implementation Section should indicate that the guide is effective D.
immediately on publication.
The Committee characterized this guide as Category 2 - Further staff consideration of individual cases required in order to detennine the need for backfitting.
(
Oraft Regulatory Guide 1.72, Revision 1, ' SPRAY POND PLASTIC PIPING (Draf t B. September 1977)", dated September 19, 1977, and recommended 5.
approval.
The Committee charac'terized this guide as Cateoory 1 - No backfit.
s
)
)
~
f
'Edson G. Case, Chairman Regulatory Requirements Review Committee ccs:
See next page
(-
.