ML19224C856
| ML19224C856 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/10/1979 |
| From: | Mccreless T Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-SM-0116, ACRS-SM-116, NUDOCS 7907090458 | |
| Download: ML19224C856 (2) | |
Text
!
P
$) -),
/
UNITED STATES
)
NUCLEAR CEGULATORY COf.1T,1tSS10N
[t.553r cf1
[ [f f g f"
[", lf o
c AoviSony cot...ilT TEE ON HE ACTOil SAFEGUARDS
.l l wnunucion. o. c. rssus
,.a May 10, 1979 Y!i
(
Ek Q Q((
(,
ACR3 rerhet s 3Cr1ECT: SU2CUciITTEE TSFORT CN THREE MILE ISL'd!D I ha/e prepat ed the below listed summar y of r ecommendations and coments of the 1.CR3 Subcommittce ca the Lcng Term Effects of the Thr ee Mile Island 7:.ccident as presented by Dr. Okrent on Msy 10.
Rec =.en dati ons :
1.
The Committee should ptepare a letter at this meeting which covel s the coraents nr.de orally to the Cornissioners at the April Special "aeting and which covers recommendations subsequently developed.
(Dr. Ckt ent has aned both AC2S members and Subecraittee consultants ta provide him their additional recorcendations by Friday morning.)
2.
Dr. Carbon should, as soon as practical and by Friday if possible, assign to existing new Subcommittens the responsibility for the var icus items identified so that subcraittee meetings can be scheduled during this meeting.
(The ACRS Staff should pr ovide to each nember a list of topics co that the membct can identify his view of pr iot itles. )
Coments :
1.
21e ACRS chould ask the "RC Staf f what it plans to do in r egar d to 91cm (CL) and Petkins (CP).
'Mic ACRS r.ay with to corrent on the pt epuced actions. The ACRS needs to decide what it wishes to do..mncer ning plant <3 with ACRS letter s but without op2t at i.ng licenses. These plants are Not th Anna 2, Diablo Canyon, McGuire and Zircet in addi-tion to Salem.
2.
h'aat ACRS action is exp2cted by both Congress ani ';RC itga Jina the chutdcun of B&W plants? Is a letter expacted ?
'){J) ()b J f
L 7907090@I d i
Report on 74I May 10, 1979 3.
Does the 7.CRS wish to t eview aspects of the shutdown of Bel plants other than the five items identified by the
!!RC Staf f ?
4.
The Subcc m ittee only briefly discucsed philosophical
]
acst oaches to t eactor safety in the light of T1I.
t
.y Di. Okt ant eclieves the full Cccraittee should discuss
't this.
s,
.,.y tl a.wr 5.
Should the ACRS revicw in detail teactor opelating i,. :,,i j pr ocedut es?
.c d p "
Dr.:d 6.
Should the I.CRS t eview the RES sunclemental budget MC t equest fot Fl-S0? Ct. Ckrent SM,[3 yes. The ACRS
[M y['j'.*
may want to go on recor d supporting rare explorator y f
teseatch.
7.
Does the ACRS wish to pursure its reccmendation for og level indicators on reactor vessels?
(The !!RC Staff M6 has not yet qteed with this recon.mendation.)
.xh w3) 8.
Should the ACPS examine accident chains othat than A
that of T'I-2 accident?
9.
Should the ACRS reccmend incroved feedback to the utilities f r om the LCR system?
10.
Should the ACRS examine details of operator training?
11.
Should the ACRS excmine plant specific features with iegatd to natural citculation?
Foi exa ple !.UI poses a special question.
12.
Should the ACRS tecommend earlier ternlution of generic mattets?
13.
Should the A7RS teco m end that industry studies (pro and cun exrlinations) be solicited as a method tc, exPMite the t eview pr ocess? (inctead of I.~sC studies.)
3W_
Thomn - G. McCi elem, Chief Ptoject Review G anch !Jo. 2
/
l~
f im
/t. U '<)
() L) V oc-