ML19093A811

Request for Nrc'S Prompt Response Advising Coalition with Intended Action Regarding Nuclear License Revocation at Surry & North Anna Site

ML19093A811
Person / Time
Site:	Surry, North Anna, 05000434, 05000435
Issue date:	01/16/1976
From:	Allen J North Anna Environmental Coalition
To:	Anders W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML19093A811 (6)

Text

NORTH ANNA jNVIR.ONMENT~ (6AUTI N 1

. ' P.O. BOX 3951. .

]!Ir., William A. Anders, Chairman CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22903

u. s. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l/16/76 (804)293-6039 Washington, D .. Oo 20555 In the Matter of Virginia Electric and Power Company (Surry and North Anna Nuclear Power Stations) 50""'280, ...2s1, -434, -435 and 50...338 .....339, ...404,-1.05

Dear Mr,

, Anders:

Criteria for Determining Enforcement Action and Categories o.f Noncom-pliance with AEn/NRC Reg~latory Requirements-.. Modifications, Deca 31, 1974, clearly state (po 6}:

An order is ordinarily issued to revoke a license when:

• *

• t

2. Civil penalty proves to be ineffective as an enforce-ment action; or

6. Any material false statement is made in the application or in a:ny statement of fact required under Section 182 of the Act ..

Oom.~ission hearing and inspection records provide firm evidence that Vi~~

ginia Electric and Power Compa..'l'!y (VEPCO) is deserving of complete nuclear license revocation at Surry and North Anna sites under both of the above pro-visions on the basis of repeated improper safety actions and reporting.

NRC documenta show a threeo-year lag between the discovery of four major safety problems and their reporting to the 11RC:

Problem Known to VEPCO Reported to AFJJ/NRC Fa.ult in NA excavation February, 1970 Mey 17, 1973 ..

Abnormal settling at Surry February, 1972 }tTay 6 9 1975 (by a "con-beneath reactors fidential informant")

Abnormal pumphouse settling at NA December, 1972 April 16, 1975 Reactor design neglect of pressure vessel supports 1971 - 1972 In :Mey of' 1973, VEPCO was the first nuclear utility in the nation to be fined for improper performance and attention to safetyo This 1973 :fine followed a

~eve~ warning in 197::: in which the then Aro. called VEPCO's Surry record "an object lesson to the industry." The 1973 $40,000 fine and Notice o:f Violation included:

Appendix A, Item E--

Failure to report unusual safety-related events to the A;En.

Succeeding events -- including four a.d.ditiona+ failures to repor~ -- demonstrate civil penalties to be "ineffective a.s an enforcement action" with VEPCO.

Mi- .. William Anderr;i . . . . .*. . . . . . . . . e . ._. . Page 2 Material False Statem.enta It is a matter of record that VEPCO was convicted in April of 1975 of having submitted twelve material false statements to the Atomic Energy Co~-

mission regarding t11e fault zone beneath the North .Anna reactors., Theae statements included instances of failure to adduce key safety information (known to VEPCO at the time} at construction license hearings as well as failure to submit a significa.~t report by Dro Paul Roper, Piedmont geologist 0 Mow 1ffiC inspection reports document additional false statements regard-ing settling beneath North Amla 0 s pumphouse, a Class I Structure:

Inspection Report Nos,. 50-338/75...-5 a.11d 50339/75-5,., page 2:

" *** Tha inspection revealed that S.AR predicted settlement for the servioe water reservoir pumphouse {a Class I Structure} for Units 1 and 2 was exceeded with the commencement of monitoring in December 19720 .. " * (:Emphasis added)

The predicted settlement was lo44 incheso Nevertheless,

{page 1...2) "o;. oThis value was inoorpora.ted in the FSAR dated Ja..~ua~y 3 1 19730 On FebruarJ 12-13, 1973, measurement showed that the SWP"n (pumphouse} had settled Oo36 inches in the~ corner to 20928 inches inche~ in the NW corner ** o" (May 20, 1975)

Thus by simple comparison of December 1972 and Januar-,1 1973 figures, a.n ad-ditional material false statement is established: VEPCO repeated low figures known to be false at the, t:irne of submissiono Further~ suoh a key foundation a..~d construction problem should have been brought before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board when it convened in May of 1973 to eonaider construction licenses for North Anna Units 4f3 and 4 0 Failure to adduca North .Anna pumphouae information clearly constitutes another material false statement. According to the NRC inspection report (page M}

" *** The sw.PH for Units 3 and 4 is several rr..indred feet west of the SWPH for Units 1 and 2 and ties into the sa~e dikeo ** When asked about the adequacy*of the design and construction for Units 3 and 4, no concern ~ ~ E x . the licensee (VEPCO) ~:n (Dnphas is added}

The inspectors from NRC at &..u-ry find the same attitude as reported on October 16 of 1975 (page 7):

" *** There was ~ evidence of concern E;L the licensee to resolve the movements of the reference datum at this tiine (1972) *** 11 regarding the several indications that abnormal settling was occurring beneath Surry 11 s rea.ctora which went critical in 1972 and 1973.,

Despita civil penalties, three altogether, intervening between 1972 and 1975, the record supports }!AEO's contention that VEPCO exhibits consistent and intractable nu.clear negligence with "no evidence of concern .. "

~ ..

e

• • • • • o*******o**o**

e * * * *

• Page 3 Material False Statements (cont.)

nsite Suitability" hearings were held in regard to Surry Units =!f3 and 4 in July of 1974. Surely such key foundation and construction information as ab-normal settling beneath Reactors #1 and 2 should have been adduced at this ti.ma~

NRC" s investigation shows that VEPCO ne*~er reported this probl~ which came to the attention of the Commission only through the call of a concerned individual Oll May 6, 1975,,.

irevertheless, 1'1RC 11 s _Surry Investigation 50-280/75-1, 50-281/75-1 documents not only the fa.ct that VEPOO was aware of' the settling problem from February of 1972 on but also that VEPCO allowed the reactors to go critical with the problem unresolved,.and was dilatory and uncooperative in response to repeated questions from an insistent engineering consultant from the Nuclear Energy Liability In-surance .Assocla.tion .. (!IBL.IA.)

Correspondence included as exhibits in the Surry Investigation substantiate the existence of the settling beneath the Surry reactors, its progressive charac-ter? and VEPCO's reluctance to confront this serious safety is*sue:

E..~hibit # 4 -- Letter from !~I.A's Engineering Consultant to Henderson and Phillips, Inc.* VEPCO's Norfolk Insurance ~roken dated December 8 11 1972:

"Thanks sincerely for the information accompanying your letter of December 4. (NAB(} note: Dec .. 4 letter not among exhibits) It is interesting and rather surprising to note settlements in the range of 3 to 4° and continuing" It would be advisable to discuss the import of these observations at the time of our next visito In the meantimel; it is hoped that additional up to date levels will be-

.run." (E.inphasis in the Exhibit)

Exhibit# 5 -- Letter from VEPCO~s Insurance Department to Henderson and Phillips 9 Inc., dated April 5, 1973:

11 SU1rn.Y POWER STATION NELIA POLICY NO. NF....186 On December 28, you

• advised us o f ~ ~ Individual A's comments regarding the settlements at Surry Power Station~ We have been advised by

~ Individual C that additional settlement readings have not been ta.ken and are not anticipatedo ~~ further ad.....

vised us that because of "bench marks" which have been covered up 9 it would be almost impossible to secure any settlement readings nowo" Exhibit# 6 -~ Latter from NELIA's Engineering Consultant to VEPoois Insuranc~ Department, dated February 4 0 1974:

"Also while in Richmond, we discussed the progressive settlement that has taken place~ confirmed in ;gc~nn- Individual Gfs (VEPCO Insurance Department) letter of August 4, 1972. This settlement has .been of concern because it has shown a differential~

1fr,, ~illia.'11 Anders * *

• e o ... o **** * * * * *

• e ** *

• o Page 4 Exhibit # 6 (cont .. }

merit between structu~, and in addition 9 has been progressive in some instanceso This settlement has been even more surprising be-cause the weight of some of the structures has been less than the weight of the material removed$ {S9.7-l:8-12-67) Mention is also made in that reference to tne possibility of elastic rebound of those lighter structures. (Emphasis added)

"The facility is founded on some 1300 feet of overburden which puts it in a distinctive class o. on Exhibit# 7 -- Letter from Henderson a.~d Phillips to VE.PCO'a Insurance Department~ dated(?) April 21, 1974:

"RE: lIBLll Policy NF-186 Confirming our telephone conversation of tod~, ~~ Individual A {NELIA's Engineering Consultant) is.

extremely upset over the time it is ta~ing you to get the informa-tion as outlined in his letter to you of February 4 9 1974.

0 If he does not receive a reply from you within the next ten days, his only alternative is to inform the NELIA underwriters that he is unable to complete his report due to hi3 inability to get certain information from VEPCOu. 11 (Emphasis in Exhibit)

We are sure that you rrr.ist agree that the Exhibits in the NRC Invest iga.t ion clearly prove VEPCO~s lcnowledge of the Surry settling problem from 1972 on, t:r...at there is no evidence of the problem's denial (now the stance of both VEPCO. and the NR.C}.. Rather 9 there is firm evidence of the discussion of Hprogreasive" a..'ld "differential" settlement problems between VEPOO and NELIA. in Exhibit 'ff' 6., The settlement problem is recognized and realo Thus it is the position of NAEC that VEPC0 9 s.failure to adduce known settlement problems beneath Reactors fl and 2 at Construction License or Site Suitability hearings for Reactors =1J:3 and 4.constitutes a material

'false statement, since in the No~th Anna case

" ** (The Atomic Safety and Licensing) Board properly held that failu1*e to make timely disclosure of information which is significant for purposes of safety review gives rise to a material false statement .... " NRG Brief' of 11/28/75 One muat also inquire why the Surry Atomic Safety and Licensing Boa.rd did not question foundation conditions,, 1t.4EC ma.de a limited appearance at the July 1974 hearing for the precise purpose of raising questions on a site.

labeled "suspect" by the NRC~ who also comments (page 2;....25 of SA.:;tB.:TY EV.ALU-

.A.TION) f "The integrity of certain zones ** .,is questionable, with liquef'ac ....

tion ~ >>ossibility under dynamic conditions *** "

~Ir~ pill i a.lJ'l Andera .. * . .e . . . . . . . .*. . . . . . .e. . . . . e Paga 5 Reactor Design Neglect According to a.n NRC meeting summary of May 9, 1975 by North A.~na Project 11anager Robert Ferguson, and a letter of July 28, 1975, by NB.Cits A. Schwencer:

Bet\veen 1971 and 1972 9 VEPCO recognized th~t. asymmetric loads had been neglected in the original design of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) supports for North An.."l'la Units l and 2o Not till M8ff 1975 did VEPCO report this problem to the NRC, with Mr., Ferguson noting on May 9: 11 . . . . results to date indicate that the existing reactor vessel supports will not withstand loss of coolant accident (Loe.Al loads ** .,n (:Emphasis added} - - -

Since Stirry Units #1 and 2 are twins of North Anna Units #1 and 2, the above is further docu~entation of intractable nuclear negligence:

VRFCO allowed Surry Units #1 and 2 to go critical with a significant reactor design neglect problem unresolved. h"'urther, the inadequate vessel supports provide dubious seismic protection for a pla.~t that also has unreported abnormal settling problems 9 foll!~dation problems that also were unresolved when the reactors went criticalo

.Both of these situations should have figured heavily in VEPC0 9 s precedent-set-ting $40 9 000 fine of May, 1973 They did noto Nevertheless, Append.ix A, Appendix. B, and Appendix C of that May 1973 document des:cribe a.'tl unfortunate pattern of incompetent &"'ld

• untrustwortey behavior that has been consistent from that t imao "AID In...

spection Findings" listed in Appendix C all show serious misrepresentation of safety act ion~ described as accomplished by VEP00i s Vice-President 0 proven false by subsequent A:EC inspections.

Inspection and study of current OPERATING UNIT STATUS REPOF.TS reveal mounting numbers of infractions at Surry, proving repeatedly that with

this utility a "Civil penalty" is "ineffective as an enforcement action,"

fulfilling an NRC requirement for license revocation~

Llcense Revocation If NRO Regulatory RequJrements have meaning, then the Commission must, by the force of its own revocation criteria, act to remove VEPC0 9 s nuclear

_licenses on the basis of its inability to improve integrity of performance after repeated civil penalties, and on the basis of previous conviction for material false statements 9 plus the following additional false statements 9 following the ASLB finding that "failure to make timely disclosure of in-formation 'Mlich is significant for purposes of safety review gives rise to a material false statement":

JJ:z.. -WU1iam .Anders* * * * * *

• 0 ************

• e .. * ** Page 6

.ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENTS I

lo FailtU"e to report abno:rmal settling beneath Surry reactorsc, 2o Failure to adduce Surry settling proble~~ at Site Suitability and Construction License hearing~ 9 July and October, 1974. f

3. Failure to report excessive North Anna Pu.~phouse settling I I

in December, 1972. {Report made in April, 19750) I 4o SUbmisa ion in Januar-3 ~ 1973 of' pumphouse figures known ta I be false at the time of submission, actual measurements having alrea~ exceeded the repeated low predictions.

5o Failure to adduce Horth Anna pumphouse abnormal settling problems at May 1973 Construction License hearings for North Anna Reactors #3 and 4, whose pumphouse ties into the same dikeo 60 Failu.re to report reactor design neglect problem i.'tl 1971~1972. (Report made in Mfl3, 19750) 7~ F~ilure to adduce reactor design neglect problem at Con;..

struction License hearings for North .Anna Reactors #3 and 4 in Mau of 19730 .Also at Surry hearings in 1974 0 8w Submission of false pipe stress measurements: 2300 psi when the actual measurement was 28,000 psio Since the Coalition has no staff and also has no convenient access to Surry documents, the above list may be considered incomplete until a thorough study is made of submissions to the AFJJ/lTRO on the subject of Surry found~

tions. Given new USGS findings regarding Coastal Plain geology, further

~xpioration of the Hampton Roads Fault might be in order by the NROo We bring this letter to a close by asking that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission abide by its own regulations &"1._d protect the public by revoking the nuclear licenses of a utility that is unimproved by frequent civil penalties and. warnings} and unable to aci..'l.ere to integrity and avoid safety~

related material false statementso We respectfully request your prompt response advising the Coalition of yoµr intended act ionso Tha.."1.k you fo:r your professional considerat ionG Sincerely,

~ _ _ . / - ~

~RTH ANNA ENV IR01'1MENTAL COAL IT ION