ML20064G026

Requests Info on Concerning Measurements of Containment Settlement,Leaking & Silt Clogging

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: ML20064G019 ML20064G026
References
NUDOCS 7812060220
Download: ML20064G026 (2)

Text

.

s

! ORTH ANNA ENVIRONMENTAL harlottesville, Virginia .

Mailing Address:

COALITION 412 Owens Drive

-Ettatsville, Alahsma ' 35801 Mr. Edson G. Case, Deputy D'ireot'or ~ (205) T J

Nuclear Reactor Regulation g

/

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co=nission J' , 1 78 h Washington, D. C. 20555 ,

Dear Er. Case:

N (/j g; 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 '

i meeting of the Advisory Cc=mittee on Reactor Safeguards ( ERS ).

As you are probably aware, North A=na foundation and settling prob 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 sc urce 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 . ..

- 4. 'What are the aettlement measurements to date l for the turbine , building at North Annaf '

s t

5. Eas YEPC0 had to continue shi::xning the sh:ft -

of the turbine generatorf to what measurement? i 6 That ire the settlement measurements to date for the service building at North incAf 5 f

What are the settlement measurements to date fer 7.

the Auxiliary building at North Annaf

8. That are the settlement measurements to date .

for the fuel building at North Annaf ,

9. What additional settisment risks would be caused  !

by doubling the number of assemblies in the spent  ;

fuel pool?

i

10. Do you agree with YEPCO's statecient quoted in l 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

- , - - - . . _ - --. . - - - - . . - ~ . - . , - - - . - ,__ - - - , .