ML20148G558
| ML20148G558 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Sequoyah |
| Issue date: | 05/14/1985 |
| From: | Myers H AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Kammerer C NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082310280 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-728, FOIA-87-853 NUDOCS 8801260540 | |
| Download: ML20148G558 (3) | |
Text
-t 4
May 14, 1905 To Carl Kammerer From Henry Myers
. Chairman Palladino's May 19 letter to Chairman Udall leaves
. unanswered.the following questions pertaining to the Sequoyah pressure transmitter matter.
1.
Did the engineers who prepared NCR SONNEB8501 have access to the May 1982 SON Equipment Qual i f i cati on Sheet (EOS) and associated documents prior to NCR SONNEB8501 having been sent'to the Sequoyah site?
Did the engineers who prepared NCR SONNEB8501, Revision 0
agree witn the reclassification of the g
"Deficient Condition Evaluation" from CategoryfT in Revision O to Category II in Revision 1?
If so, what documentation is avaialble to demonstrate such concurrance?
2.
Were persons who nigned NCR SONNEB8501 Revision 1 aware of internal inconsistencies?
For example, the SON EOS attachment states (see Conclusion 1 sheet 3 of 4) that "our transmitters are located in the annulus and therefore need not be environmentally qualified for a
LOCA/HELB inside containment."
At the same time. NCR SONNEB8501, page 2 of 3.
item I states that the pressure transmitters
"... located in the annulus are subjected to the environmental conditions resulting from the LOCA/ HELD inside containment."
The SON EOS also appears to state that the transmitters were and were not qualified.
Which is it?
3.
The attachment to the SON EOS (Item 5.
sheet 4 of 4) states that "The installed transmitters will be replaced with qualified transmitters that have demonstrated accuraci es which will meet the FSAR commi ttments. "
When was NRC first informed that the transmitters did not meet the FSAR commitments?
Was TVA required to compile a list of Sequoyah items which did not meet the FSHR commitments?
When was the list compiled?
Does NRC Region II have a copy of such a list?
Does NRC Headquarters have such a list?
Do (or did)
NRC regulations (in the words of Revision 1) permit Sequoyah to operate with transmitters that "may not be capable of perf cr ming their postaccident moni torino f unctions?"
Do (or did) NRC regulations (in the words nf Reviston u) permit Sequoyah to operato in circitmstances where "cnntainment design limi ts may be e::cPeded in the event of a lon of coolant accident (LOCA) or main tteem line hersal (MSLB) wtthin containment due to the inaccuract M.."
of the pressure transmitters.
8801260540 880122 PDR FOIA CONNOR87~728 PDR
1 Y
e, 4.
'NCR SPNiihDHb91 Rev. I roters to IOCFRGo. 49 (1 )
as the j usti f i ca ti on ~ for mation a
determination that the e:: t oti ng transmitters "will be capable of performino their intended
'long-term safety function...which is post accident monitoring."-
Is this justification (Item 8) valtd?
Doen this statement mean that it was TVA's position on. March 22. 1985 that.the pressure transmitters unuld provide su'ficiently accurate information "to mitigatte a LUCA or NFLD event within cotainment?"
I f. co, what is the basis for the channe vis-a-vis Revision U. which stated in Iam 8 that "Due to the failure mode, the operators will have inaccurate information to mitigate a LOCA or MSLB event'inside c-)n t a i nmen t.
Because of this.
the safety functions or actions identified i n flo. 7 will be defeated or delayed, resulting in the failure of the required safety functions to-be performed, hence g
the Category III. designation?"
/
5.
What was the date and nature of discussions between EN DEE g
and Sequoyah
<! i t is personnel prior to March 5.
1985 with respect 5
to the pressure tr enmi t t er accuracy issue?
When was the Sequoyah Il Si te Director or any of his subordinate managers first aware of
'T the EN DES review indicating a
problem with-the pressure
.jA transmitters?
V:
6.
Ruvision I
staten that documents for the installed transmitters cannot suppcet the FSAR accuracy requirement and that the transmitters m a's not be capable of performing their post-accident monitoring functions.
Supporting documentation J.
(dated 5/19/02) states on environmental analye,in has been prepared, that qualification by similartty ha3 been made, and that the componunts were unqualified. (Sic?)
States that non-NCA instruments can L t the.tand NCA conditions.
What is basis for stating that ma:tmimum ten.mrature is 150 degrees, when it states that MCA ma::imum in 3187 Sheet 3 states states identif'ed design changes are not appli :abl e qince transmitters were located in annulus?
Is this correct in view of cover memo statement that the transattters are located in the annulus and are nuojetted to the environmental conditions resulting from a
LOCA/HELB inside the containment?
Ghent 3 si.ates tiis t the non-MCA trannmtiters are designed to withstand environmental conditions qrcAter than the accident rendition for which these transmitters muut function.
What is t'io basis for t h i s
Shent 7.
staes te.ht the
-t-term t.afetv condtionn wilI be accomptished pr1or to L an,
in envirenment for whtch the t ransm t t t.or n were qi- -
4 fa.
- lmi t t r an t ai ninen t spray Lerminal.1on' Shoot 4 of 4
v t"at m tal l ett transmitter wt1I be renlaced wttb
'> L c r ei that have demonstrated accurar:t en which c.ommttments.
Did NRC know in May 1982 that
'. e.
+
lid not meet the FSAR commitmentu?
s
_r c
/
~,p
- 7.
With reference to Chairman Palladino's May,10. letter. *. hat is
~ the' provision ofc10 CFR 50.47 which permittt'd. TVA to make a finding.that the precusur.e transmitters' were. qualified for interim-une?
Did the Chief Nuclear Engineer agree. with this
' statement?
Wtia t - docun,en t s e::i s t indicating the agreement (or
. disagreement) on the part'of the Chief Nuclear Engineer?-
8.
Does NF<C _ bel i eve. t h r:'
pressure transmitters PD-30-44 and PD-50-45 wore in fact qualified in accord with 10 CFR SO,497-'If so what documents has NRC staff sn:ami ned (and on wha:.
date) to
. determine that the transmitters were so qualified?
1.',
.s e
9
', 6 g,};*
{*
':e 3
4 MO
's, e
O 4 2
r-E e
0!
t O
%=
4
--._