ML20024D448
| ML20024D448 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1983 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Udall M HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8308050034 | |
| Download: ML20024D448 (4) | |
Text
.
W h
4 O..
j+.
UNITED STATES
{,.l.g[lgf j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHIN GTON,0.C. 20555 g l!
'ig.
OFF CE OF THE C H AIR 9,1 AN The Honorable Morris Udall, Chairman
' Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Your letter to me of February 25, 1983 requested a response to five questions. Our reply dated June 1,1983, responded to your request.
Dr. Myers of your staff pointed out that the response to question 2 contained in my letter was incorrect. He indicated that we had referred to a report in our response as a report prepared by GPU, when in fact, the reference report was prepared by Met Ed Company, a subsidiary of GPU.
Please change all references in the answer to Question 2~from GPU to Met Ed. This will clarify our earlier response.
In addition, Dr. Myers also asked four questions relating to this subject.
The response to these questions (Enclosure 1) further clarifies our response to the above question. Also included (Enclosure 2) are the answers to
.Dr. Myers' oral questions of June 14, 1983.
Sincerely,
' s L / g b s^-d
-D*(f J Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman Enclosures 1.
Response to Dr. Myers' June 6, 1983 Questions.
2.
Response to Dr. Myers' Oral Questions of June 14, 1983, s
r 8300050034 830713 PDR COMMG NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR i
-,._.n
Response to Henry Myers' June 6, 1983 Ouestions.
QUESTION 1:
Why did the response to Chairman Udall's February 25 letter not mention B&W Exhibit 186?
ANSWER:
Wnen preparing the response to Question.2 of Chairman Udali's letter, a distinction was not made between General Public Utilities ('GPU), General Public Utilities Service Corporation (GPUSC) and Metropolitan Edison (Met Ed). The June 1, 1983 response identified a Met Ed report which contained a conclusion that steam formation in the reactor coolant system outside the pressurizer had occurred during the April 23, 1978 transient. This response also identified a B&W report which was sent to Met Ed.
B&W's conclusion was that steam did not form in the reactor coolant system outside the pressurizer during the April 23, 1978 transient.
'A correct respcnse to Question 2 could have been to simply provide the date on which the HRC became aware of a report.
However, in preparing the response to Question 2, the answer was not limited to the date when the NRC becama aware of Met Ed's May 4, 1978 report.
Rather, the answer was expanded tc include a brief discussion of one of.the conclusions of this report and the B&W analysis of this transient.
The response noted Met Ed's conclusion that steam had formed in the reactor coolant system outside the pressuriz r and NRC's knowledge of this conclusion.
The answer was not intended to include all documents related to the April 23, 1978 transient.
Part A could therefore, have been interpreted to refer to the August 1978 GPUSC report concerning the April 23,.1978 transient.
However, the staff interpreted Question 2 to-be directed-to the licensee's, i.e., Met Ed's, knowledge concerning this transient.
This interpretation is consistent with the app rent intent of Question 2, Part B.
Part B discusses changes to emergenc. operating procedures at TMI-2.
Such procedures would be Met Ed procedure..
4 The June ?
1983 response to Question 2 did not attempt to refer to all of the exhibits used during the B&W-GPU lawsuit and related to the April 23, 1978 tran'sient.
While both the May 4, 1978 Met Ed report and the May 5, 1982 B&W report were attached to the GPUSC report (B&W Exhibit 186), each was identified in the lawsuit with a separate exhibit number. The May 4, 1978 Met Ed report was B&W Exhibit 246.
The May 5, 1978 B&W report was GPU Exhibit 2048.
In additicn to these, there are other B&W and GPU exhibits related to this transient which were not referred to in the June 1,1983 response.
One example is the May 8, 1978 B&W report (GPU Exbibit 366) which cuplicates information contained in the May 5,1978 B&W report.
9
1 2-OUESTION 2:
Did GPU modify its procedures _ prior to March 28, 1979 to take account of ' bubble-formation in the primary coolant system outside the pressurizer, such as that occurred on April 23, 1978 at TMI-2?
ANSWER:
The NRC is not aware of any changes to "GPU" procedures based upon an analysis of the April 23, 1978 transient.
If the reference to GPU is intended to refer to the TMI-2 operating pro-cedures, the answer is that the NRC is not aware of any changes made to Met Ed operating procedures, at either TMI-1 or 2, based upon an under-standing.or recognition of steam formation in the primary cooiant system outside the pressurizer prior to March 28, 1979.
Also see the answer to Question 3 below.
OUESTION 3:
Prior to the March 28, 1979 accident, how did GPU respond to its data showing that pressurizer level was increasing at a time when pressure.was decreasing during the course of the April 23,1978 event?
ANSWER:
The NRC is not aware of any specific response on the part of Met Ed or GPUSC prior to March 28, 1979, related to this data other than the development of the reports prepared by Met Ed, B&W and GPUSC.
While the initial Met Ed report and the GPUSC report (B&W Exhibits 246 and 186, respectively) con-cluded that steam was formed outside the pressurizer of the primary coolant system, the B&W report of May 5, 1978 (GPU Exhibits 2048) concluded that steam did not form in the primary coolant system outside the pressurizer.
QUESTION 4:
When did the NRC first receive the August 1978 GPU report (B&W Exhibit 186)?-
ANSWER:
As far.ps; ye haye been.ab.le..to.. determine, ;the NRC,.fi.rst rece.ived _this GPUSC s
s l
report'in'early'1983'as" partio1 thelddcuments associated ~with the B&W-GPU trial court record.
l l
1.
i
Response to Oral Ouestions received from'Mr. Myers on June 14, 1983.
QUESTION 1-When did the NRC first receive the Final Summary Report of General Public Utilities Service Corporation's Accident Review Task Force dated December 15, 1980 (B&W Exhibit 356)?
ANSWER The NRC received and reviewed _this report (B&W Exhibit 356) in November-1981.
The NRC also reviewed this report in early 1983 as part of the review associated with the B&W-GPU trial court record.
QUESTION 2 Did the NRC examine drafts of this report (B&W Exhibit 356)?
ANSWER The NRC reviewed draft versions of this report (B&W Exhibit 356) in April and May of 1983 as part of the review associated with the B&W-GPU trial court record.
QUESTION 3-Did the NRC make a comparison of the draft versions to the Final Task Force. Report (B&W Exhibit 356)?
ANSWER No.
S e
4
-s a
G
.%