ML19224B783
| ML19224B783 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/10/1979 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906220329 | |
| Download: ML19224B783 (2) | |
Text
'
's g)pa na,,\\,
u UNITED STATES 2
it.
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C((M -d fd ;
3.*i.M) s*>,NM't ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 1j
/* f ff,,
g WASHINGTON. D. c. 20555 i
May 10, 1979 b
ACRS Members
SUBJECT:
SUSCCMMI?!EE REPORT CN TESE MILE ISIR!D I have prepared the below listed sumary of recommendations and ccaments of the ACRS Sobecmmittee on the Long Term Effects of the Three Mile Islar? Accident as preser.ted by Dr. Okrent on May 10.
Reccamendations:
1.
The Ccemittee shculd precare a letter at this meeting which covers the comments made orally to the Commissioners at the April Special Meeting and which covers recommendations subsecuently developed.
(Dr. Okrent has asked both ACRS members and Subcommittee con,sultants to providc hi a their additional recommendations by Friday morning.)
2.
Dr. Carbon shculd, as soon as practical and by Friday if possible, assign to existing or new Subcommittees the responsibility for the various items identified so that
~
subecamittee meetings can be scheduled during this meeting.
(The ACRS Staff should provide to each member a list of tcpics so that the member can identify his view of priorities.)
Comments:
1.
'Ihe ACRS should ask the NRC Staff what it plans to do in regard to Salem (CL) and Perkins (CP). We ACRS may wish to comment on the proposed actions. The ACRS needs to decide what it wishes te do concerning plants with ACRS letters but without operating licenses. These plants are North Anna 2, Diablo Canyon, McGuire and Zimmer in addi-tien to Salem.
2.
hhat ACRS action is exmeted by both Congress and NRC regarding the shutdown of B&W plants? Is a letter expected?
2e 57 001 B & h, *1 e..
_ rpt swsca_ e L.;- 2 n-95 -I 9 0 6 2 '3Q'
\\%.
u s.
Report on T4I May 10, 1979 3.
Does the ACRS wish to review aspects of the shutdown of 5
B&W plants other than the five items identified by the URC Staff?
4.
The Subcommittee only briefly discussed philosophical approaches to icactor safety in the light of 24I.
Dr. Okrent believes the full Ccmmittee should discuss this.
5.
Should the ACRS review in detail reactor operating ptocedures?
6.
Should the ACKS Ieview the RES supplemental budget request for FY-30?
Dr. Cktent says yes. 7ne ICRS may want to go on record supporting care explorator:
research.
7.
Does the ACRS wish to pursure its recomendation for level indicators on reactor vessels?
(The NRC Staff has not yet agr eed with this r eco=endation.)
8.
Should the ACRS examine accident chains other than that of 241-2 accident?
9.
Should the ACRS reco m.end improved feedback to the utilities from the LER system?
10.
Should the ACRS examine details of operator training?
11. Should the ACRS examine plant specific features with regard to natural circulation?
For example UHI poses a special question.
12.
Should the ACRS tecor:Taend earlier resolution of generic tratters?
13.
Should the ACRS recommend that industry studies (pro and con examinations) be solicited as a method to expedite the review process? (instead of NRC studies.)
g 4
'Ihomas G. McCreless, Chief Ptoject Review Branch No. 2 257 002 1
YM