ML20077G509

Questions Possible Loss of Strength of Epoxy Grout Used at Plant & Burial of Radwaste at Plant.Related Correspondence

ML20077G509
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	07/27/1983
From:	Romano F AIR AND WATER POLLUTION PATROL
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
References
NUDOCS 8308040283
Download: ML20077G509 (4)

Text

-

g connG,nswa AIR and WATER *

• s Pollution Patrol f M' DROAD M PA. pyg July 27, 1983 - 3 f983 r>

Ofitt of the sec, .

C

% %Q7 & Sn.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement k' ~ ~ ~ ~

Washington, D.C.20555 Judge Lawrence Brenner, Judge Richard Cole, Judge Peter Morris In The Mater of PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353 Gentlemen:

Enclosed are comment and questions re possible loss of strength of epoxy grout used at Limerick, and burial of radioactive wastes from Limerick. Also included is copy of letter to Applicant's counsel Wetterhahn.

Very truly yours, AIR & WATER POLLUTION PATROL Frank R. Romano, Chairman 61 Forest Ave.

FRR/jch Ambler, Pa. 19002 I hereby certify that copies have been served by First Class Mail to: Lawrence Brenner; Richard F. Cole: Peter A. Morris; Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel; Docketing and Service Section; Ann P. Hodgdon, Elaine I Chan; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel; Philadelphia Electric Company, Edw. G. Bauer; Mark J. Wetterhahn; Troy B. Conner; Robert L. Anthony *: Marvin I Lewis *;

Judith A. Dorsey; Jackie Ruttenburg, Keystone Alliance *; Thomas U. Au;* Thomas Gerusky* Walter W. Cohen *; Managing Director Phila.*:

Steven P. Hershey *; Donald S. Bronstein*; Joseph White *; Dr. Judith Johnsrud*; Robert J. Sugarman*; James M. Neill* Director PEMA*.

t

• without enclosure 8308040283 830727 PDR ADOCK 05000352 l G PDR l .

T)SD3

AIR and WATER p nm c"#

Pollution Patrol BROAD AXE, PA. June 29, 1083 Conner and lletterhahn V N'k 1747 Pennsylvania Ave. , !!.t?. Y I: m i Washington, D.C.20006 y UI \ '

5'y ll~2 In The fiatter of d fp33 ,

PHILADELPl!IA ELECTRIC cot! PAW (Linerich Concrating Station, Units 1 & 2)

Qq,^ cy, e cp".d.uQ"8e. ,

Dochet ?!os. 50-352 & 50-353 '/

Dear ifr. Metterhahn:

..r I ':

s ne your letter to ne of .Tuly 25, 1983, as later discussed uith you by telephone, a I will, follou the sano procedure Applicant required relative to copies of documents j requested, nanely, nark what specific parts or conplete docunent you want. I will then take then to a connercial copier nearby and you can pichup and pay ten centn per m copy.

c U As it relates to the July 12, 1983 second round interrogatories on Contention u V-4 objections re "n", "q" and "u" rc wind shear, I contend wind shear is relevent

[ to carburetor icing because in shear the pilot would suddenly be fighting to pre-g vent loss of control of the aircraft as I personally know fron a recent accident.

p Reduction of throttle vould he instinctive, but a pilot not familar with the localized and unsuspected higher hunidity within the plune area of Lincrick would, 3 in fighting to naintain control, have no time to adjust fuel nixture, flap settings,

[ scan panel readings, or apply carburetor heat, etc. As a result reduced throttle o

could cause ice in the carburetor uith potential for crashes.

@ As it relates to vour reply to ny request for data on specific tests uithout a

which the Applicant could not assure hazzards from carburetor ice (3rd par. 7/25/83 letter), no where in the documents you supplied under informal discovery was there y answers to these soccific questions I asked which involved conditions specifically c at Lincrich. "urther your statements that it would involve too much work for you o to provide specific, factual, relevent, and critical infornation cannot he nade an d

attenpt to transfer the burden to ne, or to otherwise neglect to supply the requested 4 infornation. The rules of the Connission are paranont in such natters to insure no e part of your activity results in injury or death.

O w

> Re your last paragraph, I find it difficult to believe the Applicant can under-

$ take to build nuc1 car reactors but it is too much to supply calculations, for in-W stance to questions like uhat percentage of airplanes based uithin ten miles of o Limerich are without carburetor ice indicating instruments.

A o

y My that type of refusal, the Applicant has not provided answers to at least c twenty questions...and then cr'ncludes that "it is inpossible to reach resolution of d our differences regarding (F.P..) discovery request."

u If the very pertinent information is obtained by the Anplicant and forwarded to Y Air & 'fater Pollution Patrol, it uill help to deternine the necessary facts of the y situation.

O Sincerely, Frank R. Romano, Chairnan FRR/jch Air & "ater Pollution Patrol

"pec AIR and WATER ,sp co **' l Pollution Patrol g BROAD AXF, PA. July 27, 1983/ 'O U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission h,[Q' Office of Inspection and Enforcement Washington, D.C.20555 P AUS 3 ;283 -

Judge Lawrence Brenner, Judge Richard Cole, Judge Peter M c is Merar,3 9 $$Ej'4 SeI '

In The Matter Of '

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY - '

(Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353 .

Gentlemen:

Air and Water Pollution Patrol's 2nd set of requests for docu-ments re quality control and quality assurance contention VI-I.

Item 50: Please provide documents re tests done by Applicant re neutron sheilding, in particular copy of 12.3.2.6 of LGS-FSAR and how neutron shielding relates thereto.-

Item 51: Please provide correspondence between staff and Appli-cant re neutron shielding involving the control rod drive (CRD) removal hatch openings.

Item 52: Provide literature on written description of epoxy grout used by Applicant everywhere in the construction of LGS Units 1 and 2.

Item 53: Provide documents indicating locations and amounts of epoxy grout applied (weight and volume) in void repair of dry well wall Unit 1 reactor.

Item 54: Please provide records on amouht of epoxy grout used in the CRD hatch opening areas.

Item 55 Please provide reports on quality assurance (including neutron effects) as to strength VS. time as to creep characteristics of epoxy grouts used at Limerick in par-ticular, in the CRD hatch openings.

Item 56: Re strength-creep tests, provide records of test dates, who made the tests, qualifications of testers, and results.

Item 57: Re item 56 provide documents re test proceedures, parameters tested, and umpire testing by an independent corrobatory testing entity.

Item 58: Provide documentation re quality assurance and control on suitability of packed radioactive wastes discussed in PECO

& NRC Conference call dated May 5, 24, and June 8, 1983 as to burial location, effect on ground water, and safety for full radioactive life.

Sincerely, Frank R. Romano AWPP

AIR and WATER e W Pollution Patrol

" ~' #

1. m BROAD AXE, PA.

Ju ly 27, 1983 @ N 9

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission knees MNac \i Office of Inspection and Enforcement g: AUg Washington, D.C.20555 --

3 I983 - (

Attn: Edward L. Jordan, Director %e of t%sec q,^ Opfg- r. ,r Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Gentlemen:

12.3.2.6 of LGS-FSAR re "Outside Drywell Structure" dis-cusses need for neutron sheilding in the Personnel access and equipment removal areas and CRD removal hatch openings.

It further states that high density' concrete must be used for wall".

neutron shielding in such "large openings in the drywell This is the same area where massive vt, ids were produced by improperly placed, _and improperly mixed concrete and resulting damage done to rebar during removal of faulty concrete.

More particularly, because of the nature of the area of the ment.

CRD... grout, and epoxy material were'used as repair replace-Please advise if grout-concrete substitutes such as the epoxy grout used at Limerick is qualified re nuetron shielding ~.

Further the June 22, 1983 IE Information Notice No.83-40: "Need to Environmentally Qualify Epoxy Grouts and Sealers", states that TVA has halted use of epoxy grout and is analyzing those grouts used earlier because of loss of strength due to creep in the epoxy grout.

Please supply assurance of quality through reports of periodic verification of strength characteristic of the epoxy grout used in the drywell wall of the Limerick Unit 1 and 2 reactors.

l Please provide documentation re epoxy brand name, manufac-turer, and test dates with results.

Sincerely, AIR & WATER POLLUTION PATROL

( l ' k w. % N.. J Fra'nk R. Romano, Chairman 11 S. Ridge Ave.

FRR/jch Ambler, Pa. 19002