ML20133P861

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Proposed Summary of ACRS State of Nuclear Power Safety Subcommittee 851009 Meeting in Washington,Dc Re Proposed Subcommittee Rept
ML20133P861
Person / Time
Issue date: 10/11/1985
From:
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
References
ACRS-2363, NUDOCS 8511010234
Download: ML20133P861 (2)


Text

'

~ '

gdn'.5- o? 363 l TPf/bAff5 DATE ISSUED: 10/11/85 fo/## /pg PROPOSED MINUTES /

SUMMARY

OF THE i STATE OF NUCLEAR POWER SAFETY SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 9, 1985 WASHINGTON, D.C.

Purpose The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the proposed Subcomittee Report on the State of Nuclear Power Safety. Full Comittee action was also discussed.

Meeting Attendees ACRS W. Kerr, Chairman H. Lewis, Member C. Michelson, Member G. Reed, Member A. Cappucci, Staff Highlights, Agreements, and Requests

1. Draft 2 of the report was discussed. This report was a shorter version of Draft I and incorporated coments previously offered by Dr. Shewmon. Subcomittee coments are as follows:
  • Dr. Lewis agreed with the general approach of the draft report but expressed concerns that the beaucracy at NRC is and would become more rigid and get further away from plant safety. He used the Davis Besse loss of feedwater event and its subse-quent investigation as an example.
  • Mr. Reed stated that it was a tremendous challenge to write this kind of a report. He suggested that the report should cover more than generalities but should also address certain

" cosmic" issues and discuss their status r*lative to nuclear safety. Two examples he cited were the selection and DESIc::A za c;;1c1:;AL 8511010234 e51011 PDR ACRS PDR 2363 Certificd ty_ _

l'

A 3

i SONPS Meeting Minutes October 9,1985 motivation of nuclear power plant personnel and the entire valve issue.

  • Mr. Michelson expressed his concern that obtaining Committee consensus would be very difficult because of the wide range of opinions on the Committee relative to the state of nuclear safety.
  • Dr. Kerr indicated that there was no clear consensus for a complete report among the Subcommittee members. He suggested that the first few paragraphs of Draft 2 commenting on the general level of safety be maintained with some modification.

, He also suggested adding a paragraph stating that recent operating experience suggests potential problems which should be dealt with quickly. It would also state that the Connittee couldn't reach consensus on one or two issues but would contain one issue from each Committee member (most important issue).

2. The Subcommittee agreed with Dr. Kerr's recommendations and with Dr. Kerr preparing a Draf t 3 for discussion with the Connittee on October 11, 1985.

1

- - __, , . - . , ,,- , - - , .