ML19241B386
| ML19241B386 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/30/1979 |
| From: | Gustafson P ILLINOIS, STATE OF |
| To: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19241B383 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907160325 | |
| Download: ML19241B386 (3) | |
Text
- .
s T
l
'cwAiau.a cx eusuc usu ins i
PE?atstNiativE ctoacE RAY HUCsoM g
4, J IND J sTRY j
oi,v:c.up, aiaurs
[14@pk (U3ENE C. 8 AILEf s cw custarsow y.
g au.,gs,. 3,ce,m veitutv s N'EINs JR V
- fr,'
jg ggy g D6'
$l,'7'#f 'c'u's"?!:l' tx. v tA,.acR surcanv ointeron
,;71,shihY s
II.LINOIS COMMISSION ON
, [j,,.;l*,'d,,
o
.m.y, y
.. s,. = w -
. cwa ATOMIC ENERGY o
w* " we -
G4 J AN & VC4 UP sastron se.i u noALASENE PEPAf sENT ArWE GEORGE RAY HUCsON 110 EAST ADAMS STREET issuaanca WLUAM M. PERAINs, JR.
aE*,EsEnf ATiv! JCHN M MATEJEK. JR.
SPRINGFIELD,11 LINO!S 62703 TELEPHONE 21? I 782 5057 v::tuaIIUvI4rson fiay 30, D79 Chairman Joseph fi. Hendrie
~
U. S. iluclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
Dear Joe:
Enclosed, as I promised, is a clean copy of the list of questions and topics concerning nuclear safety and related subjects being considered by the Ad Hoc Committee on Nuclear Reactor Safety Review.
We greatly appreciated your invitation to meet with us, and for the forthright and candid way in which you, Dr. Denton, fir. Dorie, and f4r. Russell responded to our questions and comments. This will be very helpful to our Committee in preparing its report to Governor Thompson.
Your view that the safety of nuclear plants ultimately resides with the operators was particularly cogent.
Some of the insight provided will, I believe, lead to a more sound and effective interaction on nuclear matters between the flRC and the State of Illinois.
With best wishes and personal regards, Sincerely y,ours,
/J' b
/"
P. F. Gustafson, Chairman Ad Hoc fluclear Reactor Safety Review Committee PFG:na Enc.
oym t
u sJ G t.. /
cc:
H. R. Denton W. fl. Dorie W. T. Russell 79071603[f
l s
C
" to Letter Gustafson to Hendrie, dated 5/25/79 Topics Formulated by the Illinois Commission on Atomic Energy to be Discussed in the fleeting with Dr. Joseph Hendrie, Chairman of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Cennission on May 29, 1979 F
1.
The accident at Till appears to represent not only a co::.bination of design /
component failure and operator error, but an inadequacy in institutional arrangements on the part of all parties involved during its initial phases.
1 How does NRC propose to use the accident as a means for improvement in these three areas?
2.
How does f1RC view the adequacy of reactor operator training and competence?
Are the appropriate kinds of people so involved?
(For example, should they beengineeringcollegegraduates?) Are they adequately paid for their responsibility? Should they be union or management? Should there be a national institute for training reactor operators (and perhaps other categories associated with nuclear power) such as the U.S. fiaritime Academy for the fierchant flarine?
3.
How will flRC analyze and work into the regulatory process the individual nuclear station responses to IE Bulletin No.79-06A?
4.
How does NRC assure that the experience of other utilities in nuclear operating experience is incorporated into the knowledge or information-base, training and operating procedures of a specific utility? Essentially.this embodies the incorporation of lessons learned into the entire nuclear utility industry.
5.
Because of size should some utilities be discouraged from going nuclear?
6.
How does flRC view multiple nuclear units at a single site?
7.
What attention is being given to bettering the organization _of control board information of a distinctly safety character? There appears to be an inefficient and confusing intermix of safety and non-safety parameters at present including the use of colored lights. As a people we are condi-tioned to regard red as stop (unsafe), and green as go (safe).
i 8.
Who is in control during an emergency situation at a nuclear power plant?
Who is the spokesman regarding the situation and its possible consequences?
Do all parties know their role, and more importantly do they accept their role?
9.
How seriously is NRC considering legislation or regulations which would permit or indeed require the flRC to assume the responsibility [qr,tpO operation of a nuclear plant during an emergency?
och 10.
When will all nuclear stations in Illinois have an !!RC resident inspector?
What are the responsibilities of such an inspector? Uhat training is required? How long will their term of duty be at a specific plant?
11.
What steps are contenplated for insuring a more effective f1RC/ state relationship in regard to both routine and emergency reactor operating conditions?
I
.s l
- 12. Might NRC consider assigning staff from the Division of State Programs to the Regional NRC Offices?
13.
Does NRC have a nationwide raattor operator rating system similar to that - a-developed and in use in Region III?
14.
Who paid for the evacuation expenses at TMI? How much were the expenses?
- 15. What are NRC's views on continuous real-time monitoring of effluent streams having the potential for off-site release (s)?
In the case of TMI such information would have been invaluable. The installation and annual operating costs of such a system are estimated to be about $500K and $70K respectively.
Such costs seem small in comparison to those due to evacuating people, seriously disrupting the lives of additional people, and the fairly widespread loss of public r.onfidence in nuclear power.
16.
Does NRC evaluate its regulations in terms of their effectiveness in achieving technical goals? Does NRC evaluate the cost-effectiveness of its regulations?
17.
In general, do the attitudes and procedures of NRC encourage vendor and operator suggestions regarding improvements in reactor design and/or operation? In other words, is i!RC receptive to suggestions for reasonable change?
In part, any such receptivity may be in initial conflict with the concept of standard plant design.
ME 2
_