ML20116F099

Submits Questions Remaining After 920829 Public Meeting in Plymouth,Ma Re Faulty Rosemount Transmitters,Faulty Reactor Vessel Water Level Instrumentation & Failure of Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Matl

ML20116F099
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	08/31/1992
From:	Lampert M DUXBURY NUCLEAR ADVISORY COMMITTEE
To:	Martin T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
Shared Package
ML20116F060	List: ML20116F095 ML20116F099 ML20116G639
References
NUDOCS 9211100172
Download: ML20116F099 (8)

Text

09/25 92 15:49 NO.907 P003 4

148 Washington Street Duxbury, Hassachusetts 02332 August 31, 1992 Thomas T. Martin Regional Adtninistrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region 1 47S Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415 Re: QUESTIONS REMAINING AFTER NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PUBLIC HEETING HELD AT PLYMOUTH, MASS.

AUGUST 29, 1992

Dear Mr. Hartin:

Lant Saturday, August 29. 1992, you and other representatives of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission met with concerned members of the public regarding three current inches of naraty:

1. Faulty Rosemont Transmitters

2. Faulty Reactor Vessel Water Level Instrumentation

3. Failure of Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Haterial to Pasa Fire Endurance Tests -

Wu greatly appreciated the information furnished at the.

meeting. In reviewing both materials; handed out by the NRC ,; , i at the meeting, and extensive notes on various matters discussed, we remain somewhat unclear on a few matters. To thin end, we ask the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to promptly answer each of the following questions.

To-insure that there is no misunderstanding of the question or answer,-we ask that each question be answered in the format presented; if.the NRC staff feels that further explanation is required, this can be noted in the format provided.

! 1 l-

) 8 9211100172 921104 P

. {DR ADOCK 05000293 PDR

~_ - . . . -

69/25/92 15:49 NO.907 P004 I. Rosemont Transmitters The Background Information provided by the NRC for the public meeting said that the first indiention of the problem with Rosement transmitters occurred on March 232 12AA, and that the problem was caused by loss of fluid. The NRC also said that seventy three Rosemont transmitters (s1X of which have been found to be faulty and were replaced) are used at Pilgrim, and that.a safety inspection in May of 1990 concluded that aan effective program for identifying and at tracking performance of transmitters has been implementada Pilgrim. We have the following questions:

1. Arc all known failures and instancos of faulty performance (at Pilgrim and elsewhere) caused only by fluid loss? See Explan.

Yes No

2. If not, has the cause of each failure been identified? ___

Yes No See Explan.

3. In there is more than one computer program for " tracking performance." ___ ,.

Se. ' plan.

Yes No

4. If the answer to Question 3 is.anything but an unqualified"No", what program is used at pilgrim?

Answer: .

5. Have any failures or instances .

'2 8 of faulty performance of Rosemont transmitters been noted at Pilgrim Station since May of-19907 ._

See Explan.

Yes No

6. If the answer to Question 5 is.anything but an unqualified "No",

a. how many occurrences?. (insert number)

b. Involving how many transmitters?- (insert number) 2

-) a

09 CS 92 15: 49 l0.907 P005 i

II. Water Level Instrumentation Thore have been a number of instances of faulty readings of the instrumentation uned to determine the water level in boiling water reactorn of the type used at Pilgrim. l'or example, according to NRC Report 50-293, sensed high reactor water levels cauned primary containment isolation system (PCIS) isolationn on Rarch 26, 1992, and again on March 27, 1992. The NRC report attributed those PCIS isolations to faulty instrument readings (e.g., " spiking") during rapid depressurization, and, after system modifications were nada, permitted reactor restart on April 8, 1992. We have the following quentions:

7 Have there been any reactor vessel depressurizations at at Pilgrim Station sinco April 8, 19927 Yes No See Explan.

8. Have there been any PCIS isolations at Pilgrim Station since April 8, 19927 __

Yes No See Explan.

9. If the answer to either Question 7 or Question 8 is other than an unqualified "No", have any of the PCIS isolations

i. occurred during rapid depressurizations? ___

Yes No See Explan.

ii. been the result of water level instrumentation .

readings? _.__

Yes No See Explan.

10. The background material handed out by the NRC at the public meeting said that an error in more than one reference leg was unlikely.

Isn't it true that there were errors in both the "A" and "B" legs at Pilgrim on March 27?

Yes No See Explan.

3 i '

. l I

1 l

11. If the answer to question 11 is anything except an unqualified "No",

on how many instances has there been a level indication error in more than one reference leg

a. At Pilgrim? (insert number)

b. At the other boiling water reactors under the j supervision of the NRC? (insert number) l l

12. Has the " spiking" phenomena been observed at Pilgrim (or any other  ;

boiling water reactor) except (1) during reactor depressurization and (2) at pressures of about 450 psig?

Yes No See Explan.

13. If the answer to Question 12 is anything except an unqual-itled "No", are the thermo-dynamic conditions'in every -

i instance at which " spiking" been observed such that the entire observed spike could.be attributed to condensed or dissolved gases. coming rapidly out of solution? See Explan.

Yes No

14. I. understand that a preliminary 1 analysis by General Electric .

concluded that the potential  ;

error in water level readings

'due to condensible gases coming '

1-out of solution is about 4".-

Is my understanding correct?. ___

Yes' No See_Explan.

15. During the March 1992 PCIS at Pilgrim', the " spiking" of water level indications was much more

-than 4". Has the NRC attributed.

" spiking".to anything other than dissolved gases coming.out of- -

solution?

Yes No See Explan,.

4' I. I <

s M '- q* ~dr -~wJF.t1--t*"t**T-t*T***1-*T-*07"f--TITF T'- -9EuPrvt-g+T yr1?*/ $ ^ pef-gsz-~

09/25/92 15:49 NO.907' P007 )

16. If the answer to question 15 is "Yes", to what causes other than dissolved gssos does the NRC attribute the " spiking", and what has been done to eliminato each such cause?

Pleaso attach a complete explanation.

17. Would NRC_regulationc require Pilgrim station to shut down if the reactor water icvel instrumen-tation was complotely inoperative?

Yes No See Explan.

III. Thermo-Lag The NRC Background Material provided at the August 29 meeting said that Thermo-Lag 330 is a fire barrier system used in many nuclear power plants, and We thathave potential problems with the following Thorno-Lag data back tQ 1987.

questions. ,

18. In there any Thermo-Lag fire barrier material (of any_ type, not simply Thermo-Lag 330) at Pilgrim?.

Yes No See Explan. -

19. Has all fire barrier mur,erial .

at Pilgrim been tested to see if it meets the NRC 3-hour minimum fire resistance rating *N 4 required by the NRC?

Yes -No See Explan.

20. Has the NRC ever been notified that any fire barrier untarial i

of any type used at Pi3 grim may I not meet the NRC 3-hour-minimum-L fire resistance-rating?

Yes No- See Explan.-

[

t I

h 5

l I

- , , . , . . , - . , , - , . -, v ,. r-, - .,,-m,. , w --

03/25 42 15:49 NO.907 P008 1

j

21. Does all the fire barrier material '

used at Pilgrim moet the NRC 3-Hour minimum fire resistance l rating?

Yes No See Explan. j

22. If the answer to Question 21 is anything except an unqualified "Yes", is all fire barrier material used at Pilgrim that does not meet the NRC 3-hour minimum fire res-istance rating used in con-junction with an automatic fire detection and suppression system?

Yes No See Explan.

Thank you for your interest in these matters. We appreciated having NRC technical staff in Plymouth to answer questions; but, wishod some of those technical people had also attended the prior hearings in Washington, once again, wo express disappointment in your response to our requests (and similar requests from the Plymouth Selectman) for NRC resident inspectors at Pilarim to be onsite at all timos. Your response seems to ignore that emCI2!QDCZ PlanniD2 in DQ.t in Dlace and that other long 0%Qndind safety issues remain unresolved such ast

- storage of hydrogen at Pilgrim too close to the reactor

- inadequacies of stack monitoring as pointed out by Alfred Semidt_in his 1992 EPA comuent .

- overcrowding of spent fuel rods

- unfiltered, direct torus vent... etc C

• The multiplicity of problems and failure of your agency to acknowledge and "fix" them in a timuly manner erodes our confidence in your commitment to protecting our safety.

We look forward to a quick responso to our questions and in the format provided.

Sincerely, r y w < z n $ ) p T. ( Gi + @C . s C Mary Elizabeth Lampert chairman, Duxbury Nuclear Advisory committee 6

8 I

1. pa ts:

. 4 'o,, UNITED STATES

! n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[ ,j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 f

p m ent u [h k.....,/ EDO Principal Correspondence Control a N([ h j lj FROM: DUE: 10/05/92 EDO CONTROL: 0008107 DOC Dr: 09/15/92 FINAL REPLY:

Rop. Gerry E. Studds TO:

Dennis Rathbun, OCA FOR SIGNATURE OF: ** GRN ** CRC NO: 92-0789 Executive Director DESC: ROUTING:

ENCLOSES LETTER FROM MARY E. LAMPERT, DUXDURY Taylor NUCLEAR ADVISORY COMMITTEE WITH Q'S FROM THE NRC Sniezek PUBLIC MEETING 8/29/92 AT PLYMOUTH, MA RE PILGRIM Thompson Blaha DATE: 09/23/92 Murley, NRR Scinto, OGC ASSIGNED TO: CONTACT:

RI TTMartin

--- ~ -

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:

REPLY TO PEMBROKE, MA OFFICE.

MARK ENVELOPE ATN: MARY LOU BUTLER.

y

/d' l

l l

l

I- ,'

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER HUMBER: CRC-92-0789 LOGGING DATE: Sep 22 92 ACTION OFFICE: EDO AUTHOR: GERRY STUDDS AFFILIATION: U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ADDRESSEE: RATHBUN LETTER DATE: Sep 15 92 FILE CODE: ID&R-5 PILGRIM

SUBJECT:

PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT ACTION: Direct Reply DISTRIBUTION: OCA TO ACK, DSB SPECI AL !!ANDLING: NONE CONSTITUENT: MARY E. LAMPERT NOTES:

DATE DUE: Oct 6 92 SIGNATURE: . DATE SIGI,UD:

AFFILIATION:

EDO --- 000107 91 el 7 z- r . g _ re r