ML20137U713

Staff Requirements Memo Re 850918 Continued Briefing in Washington,Dc on 850609 Event.Plant Maint Suggested Topic of Discussion for Next Meeting W/Nuclear Util Mgt & Human Resources Committee

ML20137U713
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	10/01/1985
From:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
References
REF-10CFR9.7 M850918, NUDOCS 8510030229
Download: ML20137U713 (2)

Text

. _-

IN RESPONSE, PLEASE

% '* UNITED STATES REFER TO: M850918 k ((~ g 'g g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHIN GTON,0.C, 20555 l.A d'_ 3 g

October 1, 1985

%....J OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations FROM: Samuel J. Chilk, e retary

SUBJECT:

STAFF REQUIREMENTS - CONTINUATION OF BRIEFING ON DAVIS-BESSE, 9:30 A.M., WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1985, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, D.C. OFFICE (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)

The Commission continued the discussion with the NRC staff of their response to the June 9, 1985 event which resulted in the loss of all feedwater at the Davis-Besse plant.*

Commissioner Asselstine suggested that at the next meeting that the Commission has with NUMARC, one of the topics of discussion should be plant maintenance. He suggested that questions for NUMARC consideration should include:

1. What is NUMARC doing in the plant maintenance area, including NUMARC's schedule and plan of action with respect to all utilities?

2. What priority does NUMARC give to improving the maintenance program of the utilities?

3. When does NUMARC expect the utilities to upgrade their maintenance programs?

4. To what extent is NUMARC obtaining the benefits of existing plant maintenance programs?

5. What are the indications of a good maintenance program?

6. To what extent is NUMARC obtaining the benefits of maintenance programs in other countries such as Japan?

• On Tuesday, September 17, 1985 the Commission met with representatives of Toledo Edison to discuss the Davis-Besse event. Although the staf f was scheduled to follow the briefing by Toledo Edison, in the interest of time the Commission decided to reschedule the staff portion of the briefing for September 18, 1985.

\l 8510030229 851001 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR

\[ 'bjI

.. - .- . .- _ _ = - .__ . - - - . . - _ . . . - - _ - . . _ - _ _ _

i

'?

. }

7. To what extent does NUMARC make a distinction between safety related, important to safety and non-safety related components in the maintenance program.

Chairman Palladino noted that the Commission would expect '

continued close coordination between the staff and the Com-mission on Davis-Besse and raised the issue of whether the Commission should be the body to approve restart. Commis-

! sioners are requested to advise SECY of their views no later i than September 30, 1985.

l cc: Chairman Palladino Commissioner Roberts ,

Commissioner Asselstine '

Commissioner Bernthal 2 Commissioner Zech Commission Staff Offices PDR - Advance DCS - 016 Phillips 4

9 i

]

J f

i i

4 I

t l

1

. . _ . _ - _ _ . _ . _. _ _ . . . _ , _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ . _ . . _