ML19249F075
| ML19249F075 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/18/1979 |
| From: | Beltracchi L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Mattson R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910050273 | |
| Download: ML19249F075 (3) | |
Text
--_
i SEPTEMBER la,1979 NOTE TO:- Roger M ttson i.
j FROM:
Leo Beltracchi
SUBJECT:
MEETING MINUTES AIF CONTROL ROOM CONSIDERATI0 (S SUBCOMMITTEE l
At the request 6f the subcomittee, the undersigned met with them on Thursday, September 13, 1979. The purpose of thi meeting was to inform 2
the subcomittee on the nature and status of the L TF Icog term j
recommendations regarding the control room and human factors. After i
prr.senting the informacion, the discussion focused on the following:
1.
Implementation Schedules M
2.
Safety status monitoring of the plant,jr discussion was also held regarding comunication links between nuclear power plantz pnd the NRC.
g The subcomittee was concerned with all of the tentative dates that were stated regarding implementation schedule. The lack of resources was stated as a main reason why schedules could not be achieved.
It was also stated that their "best people" were currently comitted in responding 2
to and implementing B 0TF and L TF short term recomendations. They 2
requested that the NRC consider " staging" of the requirements in order to allow industry time to bes1 nilize resourcer.
As input to our decision making process, I requestec ht they provide us with a schedule they feel they can meet.
The subcommittee was also concerned with the requirement for a ' minimum set of plant parameters that define the safety status of the plant process.
While they understood the need to concentrate the ? formation, and not to evaluate plant safety from one parameter alone,'it was luglied that this might require extensive modifications to achieve, especially for older plants.
However, in recognition of the problem, they referenced the 7910050 N ]
2 following statement made in response to a question from the TMI-2
. presidential commission:
"There is no one modification that is best for all situations but we believe thers are actions, that can be taken to present 3more clearly data and alarm conditions of those plant parameters considered to be most critical for safety, namely:
i 8 Reactivity Control 8 Reactor Coolant System Pressure 8 Reactor Coolant Inventory 8 Reactor Coolant Flow (core heat removal) 8 Heat Removal from Primary System (heat sink) 8 Containment integrity
.Thespresentation of these critical parameters and attendang controls s-and alarms should be organized and arranged such that they are easily monitored and understood by the supervising / senior reactor operator."
Upon evaluating the above defined parameters, I conclude that they are ir. sufficient for what I would define as a safety state vector:
A SAFETY STATE VECTOR OF THE NUCLEAR PLANT: A MINIhCM SET OF PLANT PARAMETERS (VARIABLES) WHICH IS SUFFICIENT TO EVALUATE THE SAFETY STATUS OF THE PLANT PROCESS.
With this basis, radiation monitoring of the primary ccolant and possibly subcooling of the core coolant should.also be considered.
Furthermore, I would restrict the vector only to plant variable IIhe conitoring of r-safety systems, such as containment integrity will be done through a backfit of R.G. 1.47.
i'~0 125 s
r
! 1 As a final note, the use of a computer data link, from a nuclear l
plant to the NRC, is highly unpopular in the industry.. It was grudgingly admitted that radiation. data would be useful to the NRC, but the industry saw no need to transmit plant parameters.
I suspect that this will be a
" lively" subject in the weeks to come.
~
y)
.s s.
L o Beltracchi cc:
R. Tedesco J. Milhoan b
12b
^
Q.
1