ML20238C256
| ML20238C256 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Sequoyah |
| Issue date: | 04/05/1985 |
| From: | Myers H HOUSE OF REP. |
| To: | Hayes B, Marsh T NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082310219 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-726 NUDOCS 8712300155 | |
| Download: ML20238C256 (2) | |
Text
'-
- - 4TJ M Nr(alm,
om, /A y
'lW85'
~
Fm Hy nyeu m
QUESTIONS re SEOUOYAH PRESSURE TRANSMITTERS 1.
Did engineers who prepared NCR SCNNEBS501 have access to the May 1982 SON Equipment Quali f i cation Sheet (EOS) and associated documents prior to NCR SONNEB8501 having been sent to the Sequoyah site?
2.
Were persons who signed NCR SCNNEB8501 Revision 1 aware of internal inconsistencies?
For example, the SON EDS attachment states (see nelusion 1,
sheet.3 of 4) that "our transmitters are located the annulus and therefore need not be envi ronmentall y.'
[, qual i f i ed for Ca LOCA/HELB inside cont'ainment."
l At the same time, NCR SONNEB8501, page 2 of 3, item i states that the pressure' ' transmitter
' " M ' l oc at ed in the 4...n ul u s are subjected to the environmental. c ondi tions resulting from the LOCA/HELB inside containment. "
The EON EOS also appears to state that the transmitters were and were net qual i f i ed.
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 accuracies which will meet the FSAR commitments."
When was NRC first informed that the transmitters did'not meet the FSAR commitments 7 Was TVA required to compile a list of Sequoyah items which did not meet the FSAR c ommi t ment s?
When was the list compi l ed?
Does NRC Region II have a copy of such a list?
Does NRC Headquarters have such a list?
Eo (ce did) NRC regul ati ons (in the words of* Revi si on 1) per.it Swcucyeh to cperate with te nsmitters that "may not be capaole cf performing their postacci cent monitoring f unctions?"
Do (or did) NRC regulations (in the words of Revision O) permit Sequoyah to operate in circumstances where
" containment design limits may be exceeded in the event of a loss of coolant accident (LOCA) or main steam line break (MSLB) within containment due to the inaccuraci es.. " of the pr essure transmitters.,
4.
NCR SONNEB8501 Rev. 1 refers to 10CFR50.49(1) as the justification for making a
determination that the existing transmitters "will be capable of perf orming their intended long-term saf etV f unction...wh'ich is post accident monitoring."
Is this j usti f i c ati on (Item B) valid?
Does this statement mean March 22, '1985 that the pressure that it was TVA's position on provide suf ficiently accurate i:/
transmitters would nformation "to mitigate a LOCA or MSLB event within cotainment?" /If so, what is the basis for the change vi s-a-vi s. Revision O which stated in Item 8 that "Due to the failure mode,' the opera ors will have inaccurate inf ormation to mitigate a LOCA or MS event inside containment.
Because of this, the safety functio or actions identified in No. 7 will be defeated or delayed, resul t yg in the f ailure of the required safety functions to be performed, hence the Category III designation?"
I t
8712300155 871222 PDR FOIA s v.a.. c....
+3 WANN87-726, PDR
- 4.<
.. u.
-_ _ _ _ __-_______ _ w
.f.
~
5.
What was-the date and nature of - discussions between EN DES and 'Sequoyah si te' personnel prior to-March 5, 1:35 wi th respect to the pressure tran.witter accuracy. issue?
When was the Sequoyah-
' Site Director'or any of his ' subordinate managers f : rst. aware :of -
l the EN DES review
. indicating a
problem with.the pressure-transmitters?
4 4
4 4
e
,\\"'
u sE e
A.5 9.
..c
. 2,-; ;4 3,
y*
- 9..
~
. s e
I 9
0 9
O 9
9
+
b e
a em "
- 9 a
O e
- Ff a
1 1.
4 p
r..
. a:
y
., -,.,. s
... ;.., ;.,.,,,,.;~
- - - - - -