ML20024A749
| ML20024A749 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Crane |
| Issue date: | 02/25/1983 |
| From: | Udall M HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS |
| To: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19260F394 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8306220268 | |
| Download: ML20024A749 (2) | |
Text
.
Y 7
.'[.
Amervrowm cceeGaESS STANLEY SCOVfLLE 1
S?AFF DIRECTOM AOR9tS K. Is3ALL. AR2 CHAIRMAN AND COUNSEL esussowA tu.
M.NUP. WJag JR., AL MOL ROY JONES I
^** ^ ' ' " ^ " ' " ' ' ' "
-.i. n,,"J,,.
.. rs = ^4 = s c.u COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR
""n"J L,,,C a,,
i o
2::2 = "6 T ET%h AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
=t= CouNsa E UA7.ies.
U,%'**'m'i'"o' '"' "'
TIMOTHY W. GUDDEN U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES mwueUCAN COUNSE e.t, su m.ws ca.
w am, coto.
U$d,. v.aTi'.Yvn, Emens*os= san"vrn vYn WASH!NGTON, D.C. 20515
~
saucs wr3. n===.
m Mo.
JERRY N'. LA.
JoMN McCAN A*f'.
nWe!'2"50.*^"'-
February 25, 1983
- 0Felesfc".u, 1
'OR'M T
- E"u"".W,i' "
- I"M"."r,."J' "
%.t2ta*"a"ine.
C"%.". '?.M The Honorable Nunzio Palladino Chairman United' States Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In my remarks for the record of our February 22 hearing on the Conmission's FY 1984 and 1985 authorization I referred to litigation involving the $4 billion claim of General Public Utilities (GPU) against the Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) Company.
i As I indicated, it is important that the record be carefully analyzed.to determine, among other things, whether the record
~
contains information bearing on the question of GPU's meeting the competence and' character requirements of a holder of a reactor Operating License.
f The trial transcripts raise several questions relating to GPU's claim against the government and/or to the Commission's pending decision on TMI-l restart.
The questions follow.
{
Sincerely, O
MURRIS K. UDALL 0
f
~ ~
Chairman Enclosures i
f s
1 l
l
/
~9306220268 830602 l
PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
s 2/25/83 QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE ACCIDENT AT TMI-2 1.
Has'the Commission ever received a report on the j'
alleged manipulation of the leak rate calculations performed in the weeks preceding the March 29, 1979 accident?
What was the disposition of any such report?
2.
When did the NRC become aware of'the GPU analysis of the April'23, 1978 transient at TMI-2?
What inference would the Commission make should GPU claim that this analysis did not indicate the need to revise certain of its emergency pro-cedures?
3.
What does the Commission know about the emergency core cooling pumps being turned on at about 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 40 minutes into the accident and being turned off approximately 5-minutes later?
4.
Has the Commission received a report indicating the extent to which the pre-March 28, 1979 literature, available in the NRC Public Document Room and elsewhere, contained ~infor-mation that would have alerted GPU to the fact that pressurizer water level was not an' accurate indication of the level of water above the reactor core?
Does the Commission have information indicating the extent to which GPU fulfilled its commitment to review reports of malfunctions for the purpose of learning from experience obtained at-other utilities?
5.
When did the Commission become aware that the supervisor of the Met-Ed training program had himself not passed certain
. operators' exams?. When did the Commission become aware of an internal document prepared in early 1978 stating, "The quality of operations personnel is on a continuous downhill trend due to lack of training?"
4 4
1.
e 4-c---
v m
--m m&,--
T = - - -
v mr-v
- m
?
i