ML20064G026
| ML20064G026 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1978 |
| From: | Allen J NORTH ANNA ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION |
| To: | Case E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20064G023 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7812060220 | |
| Download: ML20064G026 (2) | |
Text
.
s
! ORTH ANNA ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION harlottesville, Virginia Mailing Address:
412 Owens Drive Mr. Edson G. Case, Deputy D'ireot'or ~
-Ettatsville, Alahsma ' 35801 J
(205)
T g
Nuclear Reactor Regulation
/
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co=nission J'
, 1 78 h
Washington, D. C.
20555
- N (/j g
Dear Er. Case:
j We have been waiting since April 11, 1978 for the r
6 mised in your letter of that dates
"...The investigation you requested is underway...
Measurenents g contain=ent settle =ent is contin-uing...
"...The source of the silt which is reported to have clogged the screens g the pumns which renove ground-water leakare under the containment is not now known...
~
g
"... Data concerning the pre-operational performance
(
of the cumphouse underdrain system should beco=e avail-able this spring due to the heavy rains this past win-ter season...
"...We intend to obtain the information we need to ad-dress your concerns during the next two weeks. Please consider this letter an interim response."
(
Since your April 11 letter was a reply to a January 24 Nim inquiry, we trust that by now that the answers are available to the questions raised on leaking and silt-clogging seven months ago.
i We are writing to you today in recognition of the August 3 meeting of the Advisory Cc=mittee on Reactor Safeguards ( ERS ).
As you are probably aware, North A=na foundation and settling prob i
lems are on the ACHS agenda on Friday between 9:30 and 10:45 a.m.
We shall send a copy of this letter plus er.P' sr correspondence t
to the ERS, and ask that they hold the NRC sta,'r t aponsible to answer the questions and issues raised. We respeu. fully ask that you answer the following questions in writing to the Coalition at the above address:
1.
Enen were measurs=ents of contair.=ent settle-ment begun at North Anna, and what is the amount of settle =ent to date?
2 That is the scurce of the silt which clogged the contnin=ar,t pumps?
3 If the silt in Q.f2 is indeed from the " joints and fractures in the bedrock," what is your basis for g g' @ M assuming that its removal would not caus e "=ea.surable settle =ent of the contain:ent"?
g
- P : '.,
'What are the aettlement measurements to date l
4.
for the turbine, building at North Annaf s
t Eas YEPC0 had to continue shi::xning the sh:ft 5.
of the turbine generatorf to what measurement?
i That ire the settlement measurements to date 6
for the service building at North incAf 5
r f
What are the settlement measurements to date fe 7.
the Auxiliary building at North Annaf That are the settlement measurements to date 8.
for the fuel building at North Annaf What additional settisment risks would be caused 9.
by doubling the number of assemblies in the spent fuel pool?
i Do you agree with YEPCO's statecient quoted in l
10.
Mr. Dromerick's 3-28-78 summary that "no addi-tional settlement has occurred einoe the instal - -
ation of the groundwater control system"?
and with TEPCO's 5 3173 Report that "the majority of the recent settlement resulted from the in-sta11ation of the groundwater control system"?
11.
If, as YZPCO argues, "all known construction ac-tivities and changes in loading that might influ-l ence pump house settlement have been completed" and future settlement riska are at a mini::mm, why is there any necessity to double the allowable pump house settlement fran 1.8 to 3.96 inches?
t
- 12. 'On the other hand, since all previous prediations of settlement amounts have been grossly in error, on what basis do you validate current predictions?
l
- 13. How do you interpret the pattern of continuing i
settlement reflected in YZP00's readinge of i
April 25, May 10, and May 157 Did June and
[
July readings show a aimilar trend?
- 14. 30th 7EPCO and the RRO staff speak of " remedial i
actions. " What remsdial actions are being considered beyond those of changing the allowable limitaf j
- 15. Since NRC has no experience with co= parable expansion l
joints at another installation, should this not be considered "an unreviewed aafety question"?
i
}
Thank yc2 for your professional interest.
Sincersly, J:ne Allen President, Kim l
.i
~. -., - - -. -
- -,.