IR 05000348/1981002
| ML19240B085 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 03/06/1981 |
| From: | Robert Lewis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Mcdonald R ALABAMA POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19240B086 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104080006 | |
| Download: ML19240B085 (2) | |
Text
.
.
.
,,~..............m....
( De.L rND g My st if u.a
.Ggtt se ? Y t arp
.al D VT
.,........
.<...,,.....,,~~
66 0 V f, $14 7 5 t p
- f a
,4 v r ' & MC-t
,. e4 Q
,s-( bgl i F. Se 51tsad-( W
.
.R PT f f y f Ml 9 My (
....
" ',
..-
...
....
3.,{3gg{gh ${g{gg ggjzg{g g
.
u.,<
..
.m.
m
...
.~....,..,...
.
,
,,, _,,
COMMIT TEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUDi !C WORKS s..u.av.. >. u rgo o r u.r r : =u'""
W ASHINGT ON. D. C.. 20510
October 19, 1977
'tr. Joseph Hendrie Chairman. 'uclear Regulatory Commission Washincton, D.C. 20555
Dear :
'!r. Chair.an:
Let me express my appreciation for your testimony concerning the handling by the Nuclear Rc;ulatory Comission of the Virginia Electric Power Comoany's ': orth Anna Virginia Nuclear site. The hearings were timely and infomative, and your contribution was imaortant to the Subccm.ittee's ongoing investigative effort.
Unfortunately, due to time constraints, we were unabic to fully deal with the w.ide rance of issues surrounding the case.
Thus,-for inclusion in the hearing record, I would appreciate your answering the attached questions.
If you have further inquiries, please direct them to Haven hhiteside of the Subcommittee staff (202/224-2664).
Thank you in advance for your response.
,
Sincerely, L/s T
'
r Garyllart
_\\ Chaiman, Subcommittee on
'
Nucle Q Regulation
!
N A
Enclosures: 3 THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS POOR QUAUTY PAGES 81040 8 0 cow
QJESTIO.','S FOR JOSEPH IENDRIE 1.
On page 6 of the Departnet of Justice meno, reference is mad. o a May IS, 1973 telephone caU between '!r. Cardone and Mr. Spencer of VEPCO, as a follow-up to the May 17 conversation.
This phone call was also mentioned by Mr. Case on page 3 of his prepared testirony.
-- Please supply for the record the log of that phone conversation.
2. Please provide a breakdown of VEPCO funds expaded on the North lona ?Aiclear project (all four units), from 1969 to the present tine, at six-month intervals.
3.
Item 7 in the July 20, 1973 affidavit of A.T. Cardone state 3 " Based upon the applicant's preliminary finding, which is consistent with the absence of identified ' capable' faults in the region of the site, I do not see any reason to change the conclusion in the Safety Evaluation Report for Units 3 and 4 that the site is acceptabic." Item 7 in the revised August 3,1973 affidavit reads,
"At this tine, taking into account the applicant's preliminary finding, my own observations, and the absence of identified ' capable' faults in the region of the site, I see no reason to change the conclusion in the Safety Evaluation for Units 3 and 4 that the site is acceptable."
-- hho was responsible for these changes in the affida' fit and
-
- .
why were they made?
-- Is this kind of review and modification a routine procedure for the treatment of NRC affidavits?
- 4.
Please provide for the record any photographs in your possession of the North Anna Nuclear Site. They should be cicar prints if possible.
5.
Please provide a two-page background paper on the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Reactor, including pertinent information concerning its history and current status.
.
.
-2-
.
6.
It has been detemined that the geological fault in the North Anna Nuclear Site is not " capable".
-- Asstrning that the fault has not noved within the last 35,000 years, dat is the mathematical probability that it will nove in the next 40 years?
-- b'nat is the probability of movenent if the fault has been inactive for 500,000 years? 75 million years?
7.
The record would benefit from further explanation of the exact causes of several delays in the NRC's action toon being infomed of the chlorite sean on May 17, 1973. Please give detailed reasons for the following:
(1) One month delay from May until June 18 before the AEC visited the site.
(2) One r:onth from June 18 until July 20 before staff geologist, A.T. Cardone supplied the affidavit on the site visit.
(3) Two-week delay from July 20 until August 3, before filing the affidavit with the licensing board.
8.
Apparently AEC regulatory practice in 1970-1973 did not require factual disclosure of geological issues. The opinion of th
experts were sufficient. Thus, for exa ple, VEPCO's failure to file
"
the Stone and Webster geological report until 3 years after it was written might not have been contrary to AEC policy.
-- Were you responsible for inplenenting that policy? -
-- Ths it changed since then?
The NRC has indicated that several technical meetings and visits _o the North Ann. site took place in 1969-70, at 1 cast on August 14-15, Septembe-11, 1969, and February 18-19 and September 10, 1970.
-- Please provide all internal documents relating to such visits and meetings to the North Anna Nuc1 car site, which were
-
generated in 1969 and 1970.
_
.
.
-3-
-
10. One witness at the hearings, in describing the construction license hearint of 1970, said, "Ihe Eoard asked no questions regarding foundation conditions, and the staff and applicant adduced no infomation.
The staff did not tell the Board of collapsing walls at the site nir.e nonths earlier." It would seen that knowledge of such criteria as foundation conditions would be an essential prerequisite to granting a construction license.
-- Did the Board fail to address or pursue this area?
-- Did the staff fail to bring natters of such irportance to the attention of the Board? If so, in either case, please explain.
11. On page 16 of the May 11, 1977 Department of Justice nono, the following sentence appears, "Had it not been for the persistent efforts of Ms. Allen and her group, it is entirely likely that the NRC would not even have convened a full adjudicatorv hearing on the fault provision or have assessed a penalty against VEPCO."In addition, 5's. Allen testified that "in proper regulatory circumstances, surely such a dis-ciplinary hearing should have been initiated by the AEC, not left to the research and initiative of an unfunded group of citizen intervenors."
-- Please coment.
12.Please supply a cocplete list of fines which have been levied against licensees for actions occurring during the course of nu: lear plant construction.
Include the nanes of
licensees and the dates, amounts and reasons for fines, as well as the dates of fine pannent.
13. On page 10 of Ms. Allen's testinony, it is stated that, 'The Coalition learned,iust weeks ago...that in both instances [abnomal and differential settling problems at North Anna and Surry] NRC Region II recomended civil Iienalties be inposed.
In both instances, higher authorities in NRC Inspection and Enforcement wiped out the penalties."
-- Please provide Region II documents and NRC Inspection and Enforcenent documents dealing with these issues.
.
-
4-14. The NRC has vigorously emphasized that new, more effective procedures for the coordination and disclosurc of technical inforr ation have been develcped and utilized in the past few years. Ikreever. Ms. Allen testified that, 'Tne roard is served tn favorable facts about nuclear utility by the NRC staff,..
Such was the case recently in regaid to gaseous release and radiation exposure figures at Surry. EC rer.ounced its cwn annual reports when its figures were presented by the Coalition to the ACRS. That was October,1976."
-- Please explain this and provide all doctments pertinent to this charge by the Coalition.
15. The NRC stated at the hearings that the NRC staff " reported its 1 ans for developing fomal procedures (for the coordination and
disclosure of technical infomation] on June 17, 1976, and issued the procedure on November 2, 1976."
-- Please furnish this for the record.
16. Tne cover letter which was transmitted with the NRC
"'bseley Report" of March 25, 1974 stated that, "No violations of Federal regulations were identified during the investigation." In the May 11 Departnent of Justice nemorandum, this investigation was described as having been performed "without even interviewing the prinary VEPCO personnel or examining nenoranda of VEPCO and SSW. The Executive Legal Director later comenced his own investigation which resulted in the inposition of civil penalties."
-- Was the scope of the initial investigation as limited as described? If so, why?
q
-- On what basis was the investigation reopened? h"nat cauted the dramatic change in NRC's judgement concerning alleged VEPCO improprieties?
17. You were asked during the hearings whether or not you and the other Commissioners are satisfied that a definitive investigation of possible concealnent or nisconduct by NRC (AEC) officials in this case has been completed.
-- If so, please explain the range of the investigation and its results.
-- If not, please discuss plans for future action.
--
- -. _.
-.
. -..
..
.
5-
.
-
Please reconcile the attached chrono 1cc which was read into the record by Senator McClure, with that appearing in your prepared testinony.
'
-.,
W ef 4mw
,g
QlESTIONS FOR MR. GD3 SICK 1.
On page 5 of your prepared testimony, you stated that
"some tine lag in doctnentin; infomation can occur because of the need to coordinate among several disciplines within the staff..."
You also stated that routine and new infomation is documented in incoming correspondence and staff su. aries of reetings.
-- To what extent is coordination necessary before naking these kinds of documents available?
2.
On page 18 of your prepared testimony you stated that the prinary goal of the NT).C is " assurance of the safety and environ-rental acceptability of nuclear plants," and that the proliferation of papen,'ork caused by new infornative procedures night hager the inplementation of this objective.
-- Is it your opiaion that carrying out these new procedures will produce paper.eork "without real benefit to the central mission of the agency"?
-- Please give exagles of how such efforts in the past have been detrirental to car:ying out the NRC's mission.
.
QUECTIONS FOR MR. CASE CUPRENT SITE-PILATED PROBLE!S 1.
Is it true that settling beyond predictions had been going on at North Anna since 1972 but was only reported in 1975?
2.
Are you faniliar with the remedial drainage syster which nust be installed at North Anna to remove excessive ground-water in an attegt to arrest abnomal and differential settling? Do any other sites have such an installation?
If not, will North Arma's re.nedial drainage system go through a testing period before thr. reactors go critical?
3.
We understand that the ACRS requested that the NRC staff
"affim that the hydrology of the (North Anna) site is under control."
-- Is it unler control? If not, please explain your statement on August 1 to the ACRS that "the applicant's program regarding ground-water levels is acceptable 4.
At the false statement penalty hearing in ?by 1975 you testified "I have unifomly received reports that things were being taken care of in a responsibic and timely runner".
-- Didn't VEPCO allow Surry to go critical without checking out or infoming the NRC of a known settling problem?
-- Was VEPCO's reporting on site problems really " responsible" and" timely?
5.
Did the NRC staff originally find that a program of vertical wells would be acceptr.ble but later find that it had to be abandoned as unsuccessful? Shouldn't the drain system be demonstrated to be workable before NRC staff approval is given?
--
--
-..
.
...
......,
.
.
.
...
-2-
.
.
NRC'S Present Procedures 6.
You have stated that present staff procedures are to inforn the licensing board as soon as' innortant safety-related information becones bmwn.
Zion (Illinois)- The August IS,1977 memo from Stephen Fxcluer to E.G. Case ider.tifies a possible design defect in the zion reactor. Tnis defect relates to interactions between the control systez and the protection system, a property co on to all Westinghouse reactors.
-- Are the Licensing Board panels that are presently considering construction pe=its or operating licenses for cther Westin Souse reacters aware of this possible safety problem *
7. St. Lucie (Flerida)
- On July 16, 1977 off-site power for St. Lucie DiaT 71 was lost. There is a history of grid disturbances in Florida dating back to the blackouts of 1973-74.
-- Is the Board that is considering the constniction permit for St. Lucie #2 aware of this possible safety problem?
8. North Anna (Vircinial - The linited appearance statement by intenenor Robert nT$iHFd to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board May 31, 1977 in reference to the operating License for North Anna i and 2 identifies four potential safety issues:
(a) independence of redundant safety equipment
.
(b) turbine missiles (c) seismic and environmental qualification of safety equipment (d) integrity of steam generator tubes
-- Were any of these issues called to the attention of the Board by the staff? If not, why not?
9.
On page 11 of your prepared testimony you stated that several drafts of A.T. Cardone's affidavit and cover memo were developed between July 18, 1973 and /.ugust 3,1973 when the final version was presented to the Beard.
-- How many drafts were prepared?
_._.
.
.....
.
... _.. _. _ _ _..... _.. -
_
,,
,
.
-3-
.
-
The affidavit of August 3 appears to have received only minor changes from that of July 20.
In addition, the correspondin;;
cover nenoranda fer both dates are identical.
-- khat exactly was being drafted between June 20 and August 3 which required two wechs of preparation?
Mr. Eradford hhitran of the Departnent of Justice stated at the iearings that, "On April 20, 1977, we net with !aC lawers to discuss the fact that we developed this evidence that tended to show I
a false statenent by VEPCO... The second meetinc or series of intereiews was on April 29, which I held with the.2C staff people to detemine the
'
facts in the case."
,
3..
,
s
,,
-- Please provide docu entation of these nectings.
.6 011 Ms. Allen testified that there nay be some reason to believe ulat some parts of Dr. Funkhauser's deposition nay have been deleted before placement in the Public Document Roon.
-- Is this true?
i
-- If so, what was deleted, and why?
-- Is it comon practice to revise doctrents before they are nade publicly available?
I
~
.
....
--.
..... _..,
..... _..
-..
........................