ML20128G368
| ML20128G368 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 03/26/1985 |
| From: | Udall M HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS |
| To: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128G347 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8505300142 | |
| Download: ML20128G368 (4) | |
Text
~~
6 L M M 04AMM
""'EE E"""*".""*
COMMITTEE GN INTERIER "ll"a5".=""""""
- ==
3 gt=g g ""*,,,
. AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
%l=;a _a gy U.S. HOUSE OF IEEPftESENTATIVES gg unum.n y a mg er cm.enna em WASH 20GTON, DC 20618
- "h"" '"""a*
M *.WE*""'
m
%"im' ".E'='m.3=.- -
EEN.I"'
a,,a,a,Ja,Th====*
March 26, 1985
" T.E'.".."."
= '."."."."#"2 "
- "it,.7J'.l=ll*"
The Honorable Nunzio Palladino Chairman United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dear Mr. Chairman I have received a copy of a recent TVA report (B45 '85 9305 309) concernina pressure monitoring instrumentation at Sequoyah Units 1 and 2.
Among cuestions raised by this report are the following:
1.
On what date did the NRC receive B45 '85 0305 309?
2.
Was the condition described in B45 '85 0305 309 reportable pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72 or other NRC reporting requirements?
3.
Does TVA possess an analysis which demonstrates that the conclusions described in B45 '85 0305 309 are invalid?
If so, when was that analysis prepared? When was it given to the NRC?
When was it given to the TVA L
Chief Nuclear Engineer?
What was the TVA Chief Nuclear Engineer's response to it?
4.
Did the Sequoyah Operatino License require that the Secuoyah plants be shutdown following discovery of a condition such as that described in B45 '85 0305 309?
I am considering convenino a hearina on this matter and would appreciate your response to the foregoino cuestions prior to March 39, 1985.
If there is insufficient information to provide l
a complete response by this data, please answer the questions as l
fully as possible and please indicate when the response will be completed.
Thank you for your assistance.
S ncerely, i
8505300142 850510 MORRIS K. UDALL PDR COMMS NRCC Chairman l
CORRESPONDENCE PDR
~
-3 o
i ENCLOSUE ANSWERS TO CONGRESSMAN UDALL'S QUESTIONS QESTIGl E. 1:
ON WHAT DATE DID THE NRC RECEIVE B45 '85 0305 309?
ANSWER:~
REGION 11 RECEIVED A COPY OF REVISION 0 AND REVISION 10F B45 '85 0305 309 ON f%RCH 22, 1985. THIS WAS PROVIDED VOLUNTARILY BY THE LICENSEE IN RESPONSE TO A
-REGION 11 TELEPHONE REQUEST.
REGION Il REQUESTED THIS PEPORT IN RESPONSE TO INGUIRIES FROM TE EDIA milch PUBLISHED NON-TECMICAL DESCRIPTIONS OF REVISION 0 TO THE NONCOWORMANCE REPORT.
l QESTION E. 2:
WAS THE CONDITION DESCRIBED IN B45 '85 0305 309 REPORTABLE PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 50.72 OR OTHER NRC REPORTING REQUIREMENTS?
l ANSIER:
l t
THE CONDITIONS DESCRIBED IN REVISION 0 TO NCR B45 '85 0305 309 WOULD HAVE BEEN
~
REPORTABLE PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 50.72 IF THE CONDITIONS WERE VALID. WE CURRENTLY UNDERSTAND THAT IVA -ON-SITE STAFF CONCLUDED THAT THE NCR WAS NOT TECHNICALLY ACCURATE AND THE CONTAlt@ENT PRESSURE TRANSMITTERS WERE OPERABLE; THEREFORE, A DETERMINATION WAS MADE THAT A REPORT PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 50.72 WAS NOT REQUIRED.
THE ISC IS REVIEWING THE ADEQUACY OF THE LICENSEE'S PROCESS IN MAKING THIS DETEMINATION.
IN AIDITION, OTER REPORTING REQUIREENT RESPONSIBILITIES ARE i
BEING REVIEWED.
,~
,,,,s---,--n
-n a -. -,
.--------,,-,---r-
i
' ENCLOSURE
,2 EESTIM PC. 3:
DOES WA POSSESS AN ANALYSIS WICH DEMONSTRATES THAT THE CONCLUSIONS DESCRIBED IN B45 '85 0305 309 ARE INVALID?
IF S0,' WEN WAS THAT ANALYSIS PREPARED? WEN WAS IT GIVEN TO THE NRC? ~ WEN WAS IT GIVEN TO Tm WA CHIEF NUCLEAR ENGINEER? SIAT WAS WE WA CHIEF NUCLEAR ENGINEER'S RESPONSE TO IT?
r ANSWER:
REVISION 1 TO NCR B45 '85.0305 309 CONTAINED CHANGES TO REVISION 0 0F WAT DOCIMNT AND ADDED A JUSTIFICATION FOR INTERIM OPERATION. THE WA CHIEF NUCLEAR ENGINEER CONCURRED BY SIGNATURE WITH REVISION 10F.THIS DOCtMNT ON MAPCH 22, 1985.
BOTH OF THESE DOCtJMENTS WERE PROVIDED TO WE NRC ON MAPCH 22, 1985, AS STATED ABOVE.
ALTHOUGH WE DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE ANSWERS TO THE OTHER PARTS OF THIS QUESTION, THIS MATTER INCLUDING EXANINATION OF THE UTILITIES ACTIONS BETWEEN RECEIFT OF REVION 0 AND MARCH 22,- 1985 IS PRESENTLY UNDER REVIEW BY THE NRC.
QUESTION NO. 4:
DID THE SEQUOYAH OPEPATING LICENSE REQUIRE THAT THE SEQUCYAH PLANTS BE SHUTDOW FOLLOWING DISCOVERY CF A CONDITION SUCH AS THAT DESCRIBED IN B45 '85 0305 309?
ANSWER:
l EtlCLOStRE 3
THE SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR UNIT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (APPENDIX A TO THE OPERATING LICENSE) REQUIRE THAT W E PRESSURE TRANSMITTERS IN QUESTION BE OPERABLE AND WAT IF THEY ARE NOT OPERABLE, THE UNIT MUST START TO SHUTDOWN IN 48 HOURS AND BE IN HOT SHUTDOWN IN THE NEXT 12 HOURS.
AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE OPERABILITY DETERMINATION FOR THESE PRESSURE TRANSMITTERS DIFFERED BEWEEN REVISION 0 AND REVISION 1 0F B45 '85 0305 309. THE TIMING AND ADEQUACY OF THE LICENSEE'S OPERABILITY DETERMINATION ARE CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW BY WE HEADQUARTERS FACT FINDING TEAM.
B