ML19095A133

Advising, Based on Commission Hearing & Inspection Record, VEPCO Deserves License Revocation at Surry & North Anna for Repeated Improper Safety Actions, & Request for NRCs Response for Intended Actions

ML19095A133
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: ML19095A133 (6)

Text

NNA ~VIRONMENTAlr COAlJT!ON P.O. B 3951 Mro William Ao Anders, Chairman CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22903 1/16/76 (804)293-6039 U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C01Ii\\USSION Washington, D. Ce 20555 In the Matter of Virginia Eiectric and Power Company (Surry a...~d North Anna Nuclear Power Stationa) 50-280..,.281, -134. -435 and 50-338....339 * -404. -405

Dear Mr e Anders:

. Criteria for Determining Enforcement Action a.'ld Categories of Noncom...

pliance with AFJJ/NRC Regulatory Requirementa -

Modifications, Dec. 31, 1974, clearly state (pe 6):

An order is ordinarily issued to revoke a license when:

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

6. Any material false statement is made in the application or in any statement of fact required under Section 182 of the Act.,

Commission hearing and inspection records provide firm e*1ridence that Vb*.,,.

ginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO) is deserving of complete nuclear license revocation at SUrry and North Anna sites under both of the abov~ pro-visions on the basis of repeated improper safety actions and reporting.

NRC documents show a three.-.year lag between the discovery of four major safety problems and their reporting to the NRO:

Prob.lem Fault in NA excavation Abnormal settling at Surry beneath rea.ctors Abnormal pumphouse settling at NA Reactor design neglect of pressure vessel supports Known to VEPCO Reported to AEC /NRC February, 1970 May 17, 1973 February, 1972 May 6, 1975 (by a "con-fidential informant")

December, 1972

• April 16, 1975 1971 -

1972 Mey 7, 1975 In May 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 seven:iwarning in 1972 in which the then Aro called VEPCO's Surry reoord "an object lesson to the industry." The 1973 $40 9000 fine and notice of Violation included:

Appendix A, Item E--

Failure to report unusual safety~related events to the A]X},

Succeeding events -- including four additional failures to report -- demonstrate civil penalties to be "ineffective as an enforcement action with VEPCO.

¥ro William Ander~

• e............... e*... Page 2 Material False Statements It is a matter of record that VEPCO was convicted in April of 1975 of ha7ing submitted twelve material false statements to the Atomic Energy Com-mi.~sion regardi*ag the fault zone beneath the North Anna reactors. These

• stata~ents 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 significant report by Dro Paul Roper, Piedmont geologisto Now lffi.C inspection reports document additional false statements regard-ing settling beneath North Anna~a pu.>nphouse, a Ola.sa I Structure:

Inspect ion Report Nos" 50-338 /7 5....S and 50339 /15-5,., page 2:

tt **

• The inspection revealed that SAR predicted settlement for the servioe water reservoir pumphousa (a Class I Str~cture) for Units land 2 was exceeded with the com.~encement of monitoring in December 1972.o."

(Einphasis added)

The predicted settlement was lo44 incheao Nevertheless 9 (paga I--2) ".~.This value was incorporated in the FSAR dated Janua.r.y 3~ 19730 On Februar-J' 12.--13, 1~73, measure.'nent showed that the S't/PH (pumphouse} had settled Oo36 inches in the S'B corner to 20928 inches inches in tha NW corner ** *"

(May 20, 1975)

Thus by simple comparison of December 1972 and January 1973 figures, an ad-ditional material false statement is established:

VEPCO repeated low figi..u-es known to be false at the time of submissiono Further, such a key foundation a.~d construction probla~ should have been brought before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board when it convened L~ May of 1973 to consider construction licenses for North Anna Units =/1=3 and 4o Failure to adduce North.Anna ~house information clearly constitutes another material false statement.,

.According to the NRC inspection report (page M}

"* ** The SWPR for Units 3 and 4 is several hundred feet west of the SWPH for Units land 2 and ties into the sa~e dike *** When asked about the adequacy of the dusign and construct ion for Units 3 and 4,

~ concern ~

expressed ~

the licensee (VEPCO} ~:n (Dnphas is added)

The inspectors from ~lRG at SUrry find the same attitude as reported on October 16 of 1975 (page 7}:

tt *** There was !!£. evidence of concern EX_ the licensee to resolve the movements of the reference datum at this time (1972) o. 0 11 regarding the several indication~ that abnormal settling was occurring. beneath Surry 11 1i1 reactors which went critical in 1972 and 1973.

De3pita ~

penaltiesv threa altogether, intervening between 1972 and 1975, the record supports }1.AEC's contention that VEPCO e:::hibits consistent and intraotable nuclear negligence with "no evidence of concern."

• Mr. Willia~ Andera e

e 0

• .. ***** Page 3

• Material False Statements..l_conto)

"Site suitability" hearings were held in regard to SUrry Units #3 and 4 in July of 1974 0 Surely such key foundation and construction information as ab-normal settling beneath Reactors :/f.l and 2 should have been adduced at this timao NB.Cf s investigation shows that VEPCO neYer reported this problem, which came to the attention of the Col!l!llission only through the call of a concerned individual

• on May 6 9 1975.

Nevertheless, NRC 0 s SUrry Investigation 50-280/75-1, 50-281/75~1 documents not only the fa.ct that VEPCO was aware of' the settling problem from February of*

1972 on but also that VEPCO allowed the reactors to go critical with the problem u.~resolved~and w~ dilatory and uncooperative in response to repeated questions from an insistent engineering consultant from the Nuclear Energy Liability In-snra.~ce.Associationo (NELIA)

Correspondence included as exhibits in the SUrry L~vestigation substantiate the existence of the settling beneath the Surry reactors, ita progressive charac-ter,* and VE.Pcoes reluctance to confront this aerioua safety iefsue:

Exhibit# 4 -- Letter from NELIA's Engineering Consultant to Henderson and PhHlips, Inc. 0 VEPCO's Norfolk Insurance 1:}roken:,.dated December 8 11 1972.

"Tha."lks sincerely for the informa.t ion accompanying your letter of

• December 4.

(N.A:Ea note:

Dec.. 4 letter not a.'Ilong exhibits) It is interesting and rather surprising to note settlements in the range of 3 to 4tt and continuing~ It would be advisable to discuss the import of these observations at the time of our next visito In the meantime 9 it is hoped that additional uu to date levels will ba run." {Emphaafa in the Exhibit}

Exhibit :/I= 5 -

Letter from VEPCOts Insurance Department to Henderson and

• Phillips, Inc., dated April 5, 1973:

"SURRY POWER STATION NELIA POLICY NO. :NF..... 186 On December 28, y<Y'~

advised us of ~

Individual A' a comments regarding the settlements at Surry Power Station.

We have been advised by

~

Individual C that additional settlement readings have not been taken and are.not anticipa.tedo ~

further ad...

vised us that because of nbench marks" which have been covered up 11 it would be almost impossible to secure any settlement readings now.. 11

• Exhibit fr 6 -~ Letter from N.E1IA9 s Engineering Consultant to VEPCO's Insurance Department, dated February 4~ 1974:

"Also while in Richmond, we discussed the progressive settlement that has taken place~ confirmed in.x.7"~~- Individual Gqa (VEPCO Insurance Department) letter of August 4? 1972.

Thia settlement has been of concern because it has shown a differential~

, Mr. William A.,.ders.... *-*** o.........

• 0 o P~ 4 E:mibit if 6 (cont e) ment between structures. and in addition. has been progressive in some instances. This settlement has been even more surprising be-cause the weight of some of the structures has been less than the weight of the mat0ria1 removedQ (S9.7-l:8-12-67)

Mention is also made in that reference to the 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.... "

Exhibit # 7 -- Letter from Henderson and Phillips to VRPCO"s Insurance Department. dated(?) April 21, 1974:

"RE:

NELIA Policy NF-186 Confirming our telephone conversation of tod~, ~

Individual A {}TELlAis Engineering Consultant) is extremely upset over the time it is talcing you to get the informa-tion as outlined in his letter to you of February 4, 1974.

"If he does not receive a reply from you within the next ten days, his only alternative ia to inform the :NE.LIA underwriters that he is unable to complete his report. due to his inability to get certain information from VEPCO *** "

(Emphasis in Exhibit)

We are sure that you must agree that the Exhibits in the NRC Investigation clearly prove VEPCO~s knowledge of the Surry settling problem from 1972 on?

that there is no evidence of the problem's denial (now the stance of b~.

VEPCO and the NRO}.

Rather9 there is firm evidence of the discussion of "progre:ilsive" a.lld "differential settlement problems between VE:PCO and

• . NELIA in Exhibit 4F 6.

The settlement problem is recognized and realo Thus it is the :position of N.4.EC that VEP00 9 s failure to adduce known settlement problems beneath Reactors :fl:1 and 2 at Construction License or Site Suitability hearings for Reactors 4f3 and 4.constitutes a material

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

" ** (The Atomio Safety and Licensing) Board properly held that failure to make timely disclosure of information which is significant for purposes of safety review gives rise to a

material false* statement. eei*

NRC Brief' of 11/28/75 One must aliao inquire why the SUrry Atomic Safety and Licensing Board did not question foundation conditionso MA.IDO, made a limited appearance at th~

July 1974 hearing for the precise purpose of' raising questions on a site labeled "suspecttt by the NP..C:.o who also comments (page 2~25 of S.i\\.ti\\8TY EV.ALU-

.ATIONH "The integrity of certain 2ones.... is questiona.blev with liquefac...

t.ion ~ t,o s s ib il i ty under dyn8l1l ic _oondi t ions *** "

Mro William Anders **

.. e.........

G

• Page 5 Reactor Desiga Neglect According to an NRC meeting summary of May 9, 1975 by North Anna Project Manager Robert Ferguson, and a letter of July 28, 19759 by NB.Otts A. Schwencer:

Between 1971 and 1972, VEPCO recognized th&\\t asymmetric loads had been neglected in the original design of the reactor pressure vessel (P.PV} supports for North An..~a Units land 2o Not till :Mey 1975 did VEPCO report thia problem to the :tmo, with Mr. Ferguson noting on Mey 9:

nul),results to data indicate that.

the existing reactor vessel supports will not withsta~d loss of coolant accident (LOCA) loads.. o" (Emphasis added} -- -

Since Surry Units frl and 2 are twins o~ North Anna Units fl and 2, the above is further documentation of intractable nuclear negligence:

VEPCO allowed Surry Units =f/:1 and 2 to go critical with a significant reactor design neglect problem unresolved. Further, the inadequate ve@sel supports provide dubious seismic protection for a plant that also has unreported abnormal settling problems 9 foundation problems that also were unresolved when the reactors went criticalo Both of these situations should have figured heavily in VEPCO~s precedent-set-ting $40,000 fine of May, 1973 They d.id not..

Nevertheless, ApPendi.."t A, Appendix B 9

• and.Appendix C of.

that May 1973 document deff.oribe an unfortunate pattern of incompetent and untrustworthy behavior that has been consistent from that time.. "AID In-spection Findings" listed in Appendix O all show serious misrepresentation of safety actions.., described as accomplished by VEPcoes Vice-President, proven false by subsequent AEC inspections.

Inspection and study of current OPERATING UNIT STATUS REPORTS 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 r~quirement for license revocationo License Revocation If NRC Regulatory Requirements have meaning, then the Commission must, by the force of its own revocation oriteria, act to remove VEPC0 11 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 7 plus the following additional false statements, following the ASL:B finding that "failure to make timely disclosure of in-formation which is significant for purposes* of safety review gives rise to a material false statement":

Mr. William Ander&

• e G

G -

Q

• *~&e********o e

... **** Page. 6

.ADDITIONAL UATERIAL Fl.l.LSE STATENIEHTS lo Failure to report abnormal settling beneath Surry reactorso 2.,

Failure to adduce Surry settling proble:ms at Site Suitability and Construction License hearings 9 July and October, 1974.

3. Failure to report excessive North A.'Yfila Pumphouse settling in December, 1972.

(Report made in April, 19750}

4c Submission in JanuarJ., 1973 of' pumphouse figares known to be false at the time of submission, actual measurements having already 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 9 whose pumphouse ties into the same dikeo 60 Failure to report reactor design neglect problem in 1971.... 1972.

{Report made in M~,, 19750}

7 <1-Fi1:lure to adduce reactor design neglect :problem at. Con-struct ion License hearings for North -4.nna Reactors #3 and 4 in M8lf of 19730.Also at Surry hearings in 1974 0 a..

Submission of false pipe stress measurements:

2300 psi when the actual measurement was 28 9000 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 AFfJ/IrRC on the subject of Surry founda-tions..

Given new USGS findings regarding Coastal Plain geology, further E!i.1..'Plore.tion of the Hampton Roads Fault might be in order by the NRCo We bring this letter to a close by asking that the Nuclear Regulatory Com.~ission abide by its own regulations and protect the public by revoking the nuclear licenses of a utility that is unimproved by frequent civil

. penalties and warnings) and unable to adhere to integrity and avoid safety...

related material false statementsc We respectfully request your prompt response advising the Coalition of your intended actionso Tha..">J.k you for your professional consideration" Sinoerely 11 q~ANNA~ION I*

I I I I