ML19269C186

Requests Public Hearing Re Abnormal & Differential Settlement & Questions 3 Sets of Tech Specs Re Problem

ML19269C186
Person / Time
Site:	North Anna
Issue date:	01/14/1979
From:	Allen J NORTH ANNA ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION
To:	Buck S, Mike Farrar, Rosenthal A NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
NUDOCS 7901290291
Download: ML19269C186 (4)

Text

NORTH ANNA ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION C..el ttesville, Virginia Mailing Address: 412 Onons Drive Huntsville, Alabama 35801 January 14, 1979 (205) 536-0678 Re: Settlement Hearing Messrs. Rosenthal, Farrar, & Buck @ q 6

Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U. S. N2 clear Regulatory Cc= mission 8 4

Washington, D. C. 20555 NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ISI g

@oc 2 Il in the Matter of Virginia Electric and Power Company b g22 $7.37 ~

(North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2)

, g gN '

Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339 OL q Vf.sa 8 s .

4

• Gentlemen: ,

Once again the Coalition would cc= mend the Appeal 3 card for re-taining jurisdiction over the vexed issue of settlement at North Anna.

In the brief period of just over one year, three sets of Techni-cal Specifications on North Anna's abnormal and differential settle-ment have been issued by the KRC Staff in conjunction with VEPCO.

Two sets of these Technical Specifications are now admitted to contain significant errors. The third set -- issued just 18 days af ter the second - contains several changes and additions of a highb ques-tionable naturo. ( Example: the unexplained abandonment of the measurement of average pumphcuse settlement, that measurema2 t whose limit was rapidly being reached. )

Both the format and the content of the December 22, 1978 and January 9,1979 settlement docu=ents reflect the internal ca nfusien of the KRC Staff, pessibly combined with intent to confuses

--They fail to juxtapose old and new Tech Spec figures.

-They fail to point out significant changes in " base dates."

--They fail to mark textual changes, both cmissions and t he inclusion of new material,, or to explain them.

-They fail to address causes of " unanticipated" settle::mt.

But most significantly,

~They fail to provide settlement measure =ents as of December 1978 and to relate those current measurs:e nts, total, average, and differential, to the new limits propcs ed.

We are arre that if the Appeal Board has done the line by line co= pari-son and analysis these disordered documents require, it is well aware of the foregoing deficiencies.

The Appeal Board must also be tware of, and addressing, the contin-uing question of integrity surrounding the settlement matter: is YEPCO guilty of additional " material false statements" for failure to report major settlement in Au6ust of 1977 under require =ents of 10 CFR 50.55(e}7 That are the results of the Inspection and Enforcement investigation into "Destrcyed and Reset Survey Points" which prevented proper t.,ettlement measure::ent of Class I stmetures? 79029oM\

h

' ~

~.

In its letter of January 3 to the Appeal Board, the Coalition requested the Appeal Board to take no action pending the receipt cf certain infor=ation.

In this letter of January 14, the Coalition asks the Appeal Board to hold a public hearing on the "unreviewed safety question" of abnormal and differential settle =ent at the North Anna si te, and to acquire its necessary information from the cross-examination of expert witnesses under oath. NAEC would hope the Appeal Board would call the following:

Dr. Paul Rizzo, ACRS consultant Dr. Antonio Segovia, University of Maryland Dr. Milan Pavich, USGS (saprolite studies)

Dr. J. Paul Mulilis, U.S. Army Engineers Te suggest the foregoing na=es as a mini =um, and also urge t hat :he Appeal Board call Dr. Lyman Heller and his staff to explain their choice of limits and changes in limits on the record. VEPCO's geo-technical people shculd also be questioned en their contradictory state =ents and predictions regarding the effect of horizontal drains upcn additional settle =ent.

The Coalition believes that the erratic settlement record, the approaching settle =ent limit (as of August 1978 per Mr. DeYoung),

and the recent unncrving performance by the NRC Staff are in the=~

selves adequate and eloquent arg=:ents for a hearing by the Appeal Board. Additionally, we would re=ird the Appeai 30ard that former NEC Project Manager, Robert Ferguson, earlier recc== ended a Shcw cause hearing on settle =ent, and later described staff concern as to whether "this settle =ent would preclude the issuance of an operat-ing license."

Such a hearing might help to dispel the public i=pression that no =atter the cost, EC's elastic regulations and VZFCO's flexible pipes will rescue a defective reactor foundation.

The nuclear industry frequently tells the public how tightly and meticulously regulated they are by the NRC, but the original North Anna Technical Specifications allowed =ain steam valve houses to settle .45 and .31 feet respectively when the safe and correct a=ount we are now told is .045 and .031, an error by a factor of 10, written by VEPCO and approved by the NRC Staff.

In the second edition of the Technical Specificaticna, issued on Dece=ber 22, 1978, the NRC Staff argued at the bottem of page 5 under "ltem to change 1" that average excesgg/I, rom .15 feet .33 pu=phouse toefeet jjg could result if M 0's request were granted.

Thus it " modified" VEPCO's request to .22 feet.

C,[t?g

~0~

?

It is only inspection of Table 3.7-5 (Revision 1) which re-veals this to be an EC modification without a_ difference because the " base date" has been changed frcm December 1975 to July 1977:

VEPCO has asked to be allowed total a etticnent of 8.52".

- EC'S modification grants them exactly that:

-using Dr. Rizzo'[ August 1977 total avera6, settlement of 5.88"

-adding EC's modification of 2.64" from July 1977 Allowable total 8.52" ,

Richard Foster, Attorney for Intervenor Arnold, called NRC Attorney Daniel Swanson to inquire if perhaps an error had been made in regard to the allowable total average settlement of the pumphouse...

The third edition of the Technical Specifications, issued on January 9,1979, had quite a dif ferent treatment of " Item 1" on pages 5 and 6. A major section of the first paragraph had been omitted. Mr. Foster's question had a remarkable affect.

The second paragraph omitted any mention of modifying VEPCO's request from .33' to .22' and total average settlement of the pu=p-house was dropped without ceremony or explanation (or mention of its proximity to the current limit of .15 feet). Instead, the EC Staff proceeds to take a new position on differential settlement.

EC's December 22 second edition of the Technical Specifications stated on page 6 that

" .. differential settlement. ..should not exceed the design basis of 0.25 feet for the expansion joints." (date not mentioned)

NRC's January 9 third edition of the Technical Specifications stated on page 6 that

" .. differential settlement...should not exceed the revised proposed Technical Specification limit of 0.22 feet after July,1977..."

No explanation is given for the change in the third edition, just as in the second edition no explanation is given for the change in base date to August 1978 on Table 3.7-5 (Revision 1), a fact which makes a material difference in measurement but is not alluded to in the text. To be allowed .25 feet from August 1978 provides a considerable =argin over

.25 feet from January 1976 and is inaccurately represented by the state-ment, "The technical specification of 0.25 feet for the expansion joints remains the same."

Is the NRC Staff itself confused, or is it attempting to deceive?

Either situation puts the public at discomfiting rit.k.

~

4 .

" Item 3," starting on page 7 in both the second and third edi-tions, is a very disturbing paragraph regarding " uncertainties and gaps La settlement measurement data for the buried pipes..."

It appears that pipe-stress limits cculd be reached if the dike settles another 2.4 to 3.6 inches from the last reported measure =ent of August 3,1978 (not given). Given the " uncertainties and gaps" in data, it is impossible to understand how NRC arrived at the same number it had originally chosen as allowable additional average settlement for the pumphouse from July of 1977: .22' or 2.64" as the current limit for the buried pipes. Here, however, the new reference date is August 1978, with any reference to July 1977 having been dropped from this entry on Table 3.7-5 (Revision 1). (Shouldn't that be Revision 27)

" Item 5," starting on page 9 in both the second and third edi-tions, deals with cracking of the pumchouse structure. In the 18 days between the two editions, the.NRC Staff appears to have become con-siderably more concerned about this cracking prospect, doubling the text of that paragraph, adding some lines about the "Dat-of-Plane Distortion" limit not previously mentioned despito its inclusion in Table 3.7-5 (Revision 1).

Both editions are full of optimism about untested auxiliary service water pumps. Given the questionable conditions at the site, it would seem a mini =um action on the part of the NRC Staff to rescind the re-lief from testing granted TEJC0 in 1977, and, in the light of the new situation, require the pumps to be tested regularly.

The NRC Staff concedes that certain maximum allowable limits are possibly within reach and "cannot be increased without modifications if any pumphouse settlement occurs beyond the limits herein specified."

3ecause of that admittedly narrower margin, the Coalition believes that the Appeal Board should require reporting when 50% of the current limit is reached as ~ opposed to 75% now in effect. 75% and a 60-day report make an erroneous assumption about the predictably gradual rate of set-tlement which actual experience of 1975-75 and 1977 does not support.

NAID has no time for necessary further analysis. We do, however, ask that the Appeal Board honor and explore those questions raised before it by the Coalition from May 1978 on plus those to the ACRS and Staff which were also submitted to the Appeal Board. We are sure that the Appeal Board has serious questions of its own arising from the troubling differences in the three editions of Technical Specifications, questions which may parallel and go beyond those raised by NAEC in this letter.

We close by asking once again that the Appeal Board hold a public hearing on North Anna's abnormal and differential settlement and the significant hazards considerations which it represents.

Sincerely, e Allen (Jrs. P. M.)

. resident, NAEC cc: Dr. Paul Rizzo Dr. Antonio Segovia, Messrs. Poster, Maupin, & Swanson, Esq.

NORTH ANNA ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION

' Charlottesville, Virginia Mailing Address: 412 Owns Drive January 14, 1979 Huntsville, Alabassa 35801 (205) 536-0678 Re: Settlement Hearing Messrs. Rosenthal, ?arrar, & Buct

1. g @t / 4 Atc=ic Safety & Licensing Appeal 3 card s U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc==issien .m 7ashington, D. C. 20555 2C PUBLIC DXL"E"- ' ,/8 MP: (

) I In the Matter of Virginia Electric and Power Cc=pany b# 332.2Ig7'37 3 (North Anna Power Staticn, Units 1 and 2) , ,, ., ,. 5%

Decket Nos. 50 338 and 50-339 OL u %i.= 8

/s W Gentle =en: 4 .*

Once again the Coalition wculd ec==end the appeal 3 card fer re-taining jurisdiction over the vexed issue of settle =ent at North Anna.

In the brief period of just over one year, three sets of Techni-cal Specifications on North Anna's abucr=al and differential settle-

=ent have been issued by the 3RC Staff in conjunction with VEPCO.

No sets of these Technical Specifications are now ad=itted to contain significant errors. The third set - issued just 18 days af ter the second - contains several changes and additiens of a high17 ques-tionable nature. ( Exa=ple the unexplained abanden=ent of the

=easure=ent of average pu=pheuse settle =ent, that =easure=m t whose li=it was rapidly being reached. )

Both the for=at and the content of the Dece=ber 22, 1978 and January 9,1979 settle =ent docu=ents reflect the internal c: nfasien of the KEC Staff, pcssibly co=bined with intent to confase:

--They fail to juxtapcse old and new Tech Spec ficares.

-They fail to point cut significant changes in " base dates."

--They fail to mark textual changes, bcth c=issions and t he inclus icn of new =aterial, or to explain the=.

-They fail to address causes of " unanticipated" settle =mt.

3ct = cat significantly,

-They fail to provide settle =ent =easurements as of Dece=ber 1978 and to relate these current =easurere nts, total, average, and differential, to the Lew li=its propcs ed.

Te are sure that if the Appeal Scard has done the line by line ec= pari-son and analysis these disordered dccu=ents require, it is well aware of the foregoing deficiencies.

The Appeal 3 card =ust also be aware of, and addressing, the centin-uing question of integricy surrounding the settle =ent =atter: is 7IPCO gailty of additional "=aterial false stace=ents" for failure to report major settle =ent in Augast of 1977 under require =en ts o f 10 CFR 50.55(e }7 That are the results of the Inspection and 2nforce ent investigation into "Destrcyed and Reset Survt y Points" which prevented proper settle = cut

=easurement of Class I structures 7 7901290am

s In its letter of January 3 to the Appeal 3 card, the Coalition requested the Appeal Soard to take no action pending the receipt cf certain information.

In this letter of January 14, the Coalition asks the Appeal Board to hold a nublic hearing on the "unreviewed safety question" of abnormal and differential settle =ent at the North Anna si te, and to acquire its necessary information from the cross-exami.1ation of expert witnesses under oath. NAEC wculd hope the Appeal 3 card would call the following:

Dr. Paul Rizzo, ACES cenaultant Dr. Antonio Segovia, University of Maryland Dr. Milan Pavich, USC8 (saprolite studies)

Dr. J. Paul Mulilis, U.S. Army Engineers Te suggest the foregoing na=es aa a mini ==m, and also urge t hat the appeal 3 card call Dr. Ly=an Heller and his staff to explain their choice of limita and changes in limits on the record. YEPCO's gec-technical people should also be questioned on their contradictory statements and predictions regarding the effect of horizontal drains upon additional settlement.

The Coalition believes that the erratic settle =ent record, the approaching settlement limit (as of August 1978 per Mr. DeYoung),

and the recent unnerving performance by the 3RC Staff are in the=-

selves adequate and eloquent arg==ents for a hearing by the Appeal Board. Additionally, we would re.nind the Appeal 3oard that former NEC Project Manager, Robert Ferguson, earlier recc== ended a Shcw Cause hearing on settlement, and later described staff concern as to whether "this settle =ent wculd preclude the issuance of an operat-ing license."

Such a hearing might help to dispel the public impression that no matter the cost, REC's elastic regulations and 72PCO's flexible pipes will rescue a defective reactor foundation.

The nuclear industry frequently tells the public how tightly and =eticulously regulated they are by the NEC, but the original North Anna Technical Specifications allowed =ain steam valve houses to settle .45 and .31 feet respectively when the safe and correct a= cunt we are now told is .015 and .031, an error by a factor of 10, written by 7EPCO and approved by the 3RC Staff.

In the second odition of the Technical Specificaticna, issued on December 22, 1978, the NEC Staff argued at the bottes of page 5 e

under "; tan 1" that exceg?g could result if 72PCO's request to chat.gs average pt=phouse/ rem .15 feet to .33 feet were granted.

Thus it "=cdified" YZPCO's request to .22 feet.

p

• uvs e

' 3 It is only inspection of Table 3.7-5 (Revision 1) which re-veals this to be an EC modification without a_ difference because the " base date" has been changed frem December 1975 to July 1977:

7EPC0 has asked to be allowed total s ettle:ent of 8.52".

EC'S modification grants them exactly that:

-using Dr. Ri:zo'alugust 1977 total average settlement of 5.88"

-adding EC's =odification o f 2.64" from July 1977 Allowable total 8.52" Richard Foster, Attorney fer Intervenor Arnold, called EC Attorney Daniel Swanson to inquire if perhaps an error had been =ade in regard to the allowable total average settlement of the pn=pheuse...

The third edition of the Technical Specifications, issued on January 9,1979, had quite a different treatment of " Item 1" on pages 5 and 6. A major section of the first paragraph had been omitted. Mr. Foster's question had a remarkable effect.

The second para 6raph omitted any mention of = edifying YIPCO's request frcm .33' to .22' and total average settlement of the pn=p-hcuse was dropped without cere=cny or exclanation (or =ention of its proximity to the current limit of .15 feet). Instead, the EC Staff proceeds to take a new position en differential settlenent.

EC's December 22 second edition of the Technical Specifications stated on page 6 that

" . . differential settlement...should not exceed tb design basis of 0.25 feet for the expansion joints." (da not =entioned)

EC's January 9 third editics of the Technical Specifications stated on page 6 that

.. differential settle =ent...shculd not exceed the revised proposed Technical Specification limit of 0.22 feet after July,1977..."

No explanation is given for the change in the third edition, just as in the second edition no explanation is given for the changs in base date to Anaust 1978 cu Table 3.7-5 (Revision 1), a fact which =akes a material difference in measurement but is not alluded to in the text. To be allowed .25 feet item August 1978 provides a considerable =argin over

.25 feet from January 1976 and is inaccurately represented by the state-

=ent, "The technical specification of 0.25 feet for the expansien joints remains the sa=e."

Is the EC Staff itself confused, or is it atte=pting to deceive 7 Sither situation puts the public at disec=fiting risk.

4

" Item 3," starting on page 7 in both the second and third edi-ticus, is a very disturbing paragraph regarding " uncertainties and gaps in settlement =easurement data for the buried pipes..."

It appears that pipe-stress limits could be reached if the di%e settles another 2.4 to 3.6 inches frcm the last reported =easurement of Aug2st 3,1978 (not given). Given the " uncertainties and gaps" in data, it is impossible to understand how NRC arrived at the sa=e m:=ber it had originally chosen as allowable additional average settle =ent for the pamphouse from July of 1977: .22' or 2.64" as t he current limit for the buried pipes. Here, however, the new reference date is Angust 1978, with any reference to July 1977 having been dropped from this entry en Table 3.7-5 (Revision 1). (Shouldn't that be Revision 2,7)

" Item 5," starting on page 9 in both the secend and third edi-tiens, deals with crackine of the numcheuse structure. In the 18 days between the two editions, the 3RC Staff appears to have become ecn-siderably =cre concerned about this cracking prospect, doubling the text of that paragraph, adding seme lines about the " Cut-of-Plane Distortion" limit not previcualy mentioned despite its inclusien in Table 3.7 5 (Revision 1).

30th editions are fall of optimism about untested auxiliary service water pumps. Given the questionable conditions at the site, it would seem a mini =am action on the part of the 3RC Staff to rescind the re-lief frem testing granted VIPCC in 1977, and, in the light of the new situation, require the pu=ps to be tested regularly.

The 3RC Staff concedes that certain mazi=um allowable limits are possibly within reach and "cannot be increased withcut =cdifications if any pu=phouse settle =ent occurs beyond the linits here in specified."

3ecause of that admittedly narrower margin, the Coalitien believes that the Appeal Board should reauire reporting when 504 of the current limit is reached as opposed to 75% new in effect. 75% and a 6C-day repcrt make an erroneous assu=ption about the predictably gradual rate of set-tlement which actual e.rperience of 1975 75 and 1977 does not suppcrt.

NA:iI: has no ti=e for necessary further analysis. We do, however, as% that the Acceal 3 card honor and explore these questions raised before it by the Coalition from 1[ay 1978 on plus these to the AC33 and Staff which were also submitted to the appeal 3 card. We are sure tnat :he Appeal 3 card has seicus questions of its cwn arising frem the trcubling differences in the three editicus of Technical Specificatiens, questions which =sy parallel and go beyond those raised by NAEC in this letter.

We close by asking cuce again that the Appeal 3 card hold a public hearing on North enna's abnormal and differential settlement and the significant hazards consideratiens which it represents.

Sincerely, 7 ne Allen Mrs. ?. M. )

resident, NAIC cc: Dr. Paul Ris:o Dr. antenio Segevia, Messrs. Poster, Maupin, i Swanscn, Esq.