ML19340C615
| ML19340C615 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1979 |
| From: | Parler W NRC - NRC THREE MILE ISLAND TASK FORCE |
| To: | Deyoung R NRC - NRC THREE MILE ISLAND TASK FORCE |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8012110561 | |
| Download: ML19340C615 (5) | |
Text
.
a
>R Rf Cg 4
3o UNITED STATES g
8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
h e$
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- %...../
JUN 11 WN NOTE T0: Richard DeYoung FROM:
William Parler SUBJ:
CROSSCUTS I have discussed Bob Budnitz's crosscut draft with Group 1.
Our position is that we will go into any topic which comes up as a significant item in the licensing and regulatory process. We do not plan to study additional items. We do not have the resources to do this. Such studies would not appear to be germane to the historical review which is the focus of Task 1.
1 7
illiam Parler 9%,pg,d,[A.wg ~
p&
cc:
B. Bednitz g
ggw a.9 C.
so1211o SQ
I L4*
o..
1, 0
)
$f h
h I
f
\\
h g
o
- y
.,,p y, j,.,
'... ~
,...,s
. ;...,_,1
' ' i r., ~ "
..~~, t
.,~~;,.,,_
l',
. ~
- st ;
...i.-...,*,A e
t'
,h
..,,r".,.
4'
~
, e',,;
m, g " g
.g -
. : ' i *~
_ 3 n, 1
~:- :
=
I I
\\
ss c
.~
w f
,[
4 8
4
/ 77 J, t%.L, e
L
/%
sg W
- u.. _ g.
- m 5
A 8
.d a.. A a wa.
a f.u
. ~) 71, ~ 2 _ n i Slyl
^
W
~
t W
O
. $hW k~k *5'MY
/
P 4 M J 1 3 : L ; g. - i 2
n
-.. m-g.
g -
.. ~
A sh LeLL *k~ k.. -
~
I..... 4M
/ZW
~
ngudW A 4w
,]k j
o.
e w
o 9
g b '
p 6-
,t
, 1
~~
hN te y[
UNn ED SI AIEs NUCLEAR REGULATORY COfilt.1tSSION j',
p, e c WAsmno T on, o. c. 205ss
\\
~~
kry 14EMORAt10UM FOR:
E. Kevin Cornell, Interim Director g
tiRC/TMI Special Inquiry Group y
M Richard C. DeYoung, Interim Deputy Director RC/TMI Special Inquiry Group FROM:
Robert J. Budnitz
SUBJECT:
CROSS-CUT ISSUES These were selected by me with the This is a short list of cross-cut issues.
following criteria:
either they " cut _across" more than one task group, or I am not sure whether the group where~l think they fit has included them in its l (,,
^
=
scope.
- l. M ole in runn W plants during accidents.
Tasks 1, 4, 57 2.
Evaluation of operator training and examination.
Task l? 17 a.)
O 3.
Evaluation of TMI licensing review ro o If this involves issues esign adequacy of various systems it cuts across and 3 heavily.
If it involves ' interface with
/
the ut' it may need assistance from Task 4.
-f, Odnat %ninf__miQgC hidM@is@(%ite ;= Task 57 jp 5.
Evaluation of equipment qualification in accident conditions.
Tasks 2, 37
- 6. " Design error" and how it affects " operator error".
Tasks 1, 2, 37 '
- u. h T
ere do we uncover the facts about liRR not considering certain accident M[6 ypes in their review?
(General inadequacies in philosophy, such as design "y
t Miases accidents / single failure criterion).
Task I?
/ ystem were such a Op 8.
How is it that non-combustible gases iC
/
surprise to llRC? Tasks 1, 2, 57
-[-
9.
Evaluation of adequacy of control room
~ n and function.
Task 27 l.
1 O
r
~
- - ~ = -
f cy --
<c) C. L) h[E.~7 [
peop
- opanyn,
=..
f _ d d silk bfd O
/
/
j j
Institutional problem within tiRC that inhibited innovation in computer 10.
control of hardware.
Task 2?
11.
Is utility /t1RC communications covered in Task 4 alone?
Design adequacy against high-pressure fires / explosions for 12.
primary system, containment, components.
Task 27 Research results and their possible role in TMI regulatory review.
0 13.
Were there any results that were not applied? Task 27 Task 57 Maybe Task 17 Adequacy of the tiRC research program; its content? Were there projects, 14.
underway at the time of the accident, that might have had an impact if i
they had been completed? Were there proposals, not acted upon, of relevance f
Task 17 m
15.
Same as question 14 for standard' development program.
16.
h u overs facts to adequacy of I;RC use of operational data Question of division of responsibility for safety among vendor, utili y, 17.
NRC; evaluation of present situation.
Task 17 ~
p Evaluation of t;RC's existing role and DGE's new role in " imp ed bg 8.
safety research"; within our scope?
If so, where?
19.
Is it outside of our scope to discuss general adequacy ofd he Co, ifsion
)
/
form of regulation?
.M N
~
}Wf 1,
20.
... of accident respons gi y
r
- 21. Adequacy of legislative authority for NRC: Task 17 Task 57 V
M)f#
GAC Dispersion of authority among the several NRC o'ffices; effectiveness 22.
of checks and balances, difficulties with dispersion.
Task l? Task 5?
O C
Question of mismatch between NRC design reviews during licensing stage and operational requirments, especially requirements during accidents. k l
23.
l Tasks 1, 2, 4, 5?
/)
l Adequacy of procedures for notifying all interested parties of safety-24.
related issues (license reviewers, inspectors, research program, 00R, M ACRS, boards, etc.). Tasks 1, 5, 6?
- v v
W A
J I
f
.)
25.
Question of standards, reg. guides, etc. as they force design require-O g
ments that are inadequate to cope with accidents producing severely M ;\\
I damaged cores.
Task l? Task 27 Task 37 26.
General question of inadequacy and inconsistency of egulati ons and
~
r h damaged standards in addressing those accidents leading t '
e cores. Tasks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 67 27.
General issues of NRC's role in accident response in advising the j
licensee on who is responsible for what in the control room.
Task 47 /
Issue of operational decision-making when " " "$the core" is balanced 28.
against " preventing small radioactive releases."
Evaluation of NRC regulations concerning this issue.
Task 47 c
29.
Evaluation of adequacy of regulatory system in which degredation beyond the design basis is not generally included.
Task 17 4,
Sd$g : &h 1,
?
A 30.
P 4
Robert J. Budnitz e
/
.