ML19095A208

Letter Re VEPCOs License Revocation at Surry & North Anna for Repeated Improper Safety Actions, & Request for NRCs Response for Intended Actions

ML19095A208
Person / Time
Site:	Surry
Issue date:	01/16/1976
From:	Allen J North Anna Environmental Coalition
To:	Anders W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML19095A208 (6)

Text

-

e

.~

/Jdµ NORTH ANNA ENVHRONMENTAL COALITION Mr. William A. Ander11, Chairman.

U. S. tlUCLEAR REGULA.TORY CO:.~USSION Washington, D. Ce 20555 P.O. BOX 3951

~~LE

~*

In the Matter of Virginia Electric and Power CompB.!lS"*

-SU.rry and North Anna Nuclear *Po;;er Station2}

........---"~;..;:

50-280, " 281. -454. -435 and 5 0...33S,.. 339 2...404 ~ --405 Dear Mr.

/

VIRGINIA 22903 (804)293-6039 Criteria for Determining.Enforcement ~ction*a.~d Categories of Noncom-pliance with AFJ;/NB.C Regulatory Require!nents._. ltodifications, Dec. 31, 1974, clearly state (p~ 6),

An order is ordinarily issued to revoke a license when:

• o*;

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

• oo;

6. *.AX!y material false atatament is made in the application or in any statement* of. fact req,uired under Section 182 or the A.ct.

~..;.:::;.;..,.,.,-..--*ission hearing and inspection record*s provide firm evidence that Vir...

ginia Electric and Po*ner Company (VEPCO) is deserving or complete nuclear.

license revocation a.t Surry and. Horth Anna sites under both of the above pro-vision11 on the basis of repeated improper safety actions and reporting.

NRC do*~u:nente show a three.-year lag between the disco*iery of ~

major saf'ety problems and their reporting to the lffiC:

Problem Fault in NA excavation Abnormal settling at Surry beneath reactors Abnormal :pumphouse settiing a.t NA

~eactor*design neglect of pressure vessel supporta Known to VEPCO February, 1970 February, 1972 Dece:nber, 1972 1971 -

1972 Reported to A"ID/lrac May 17 9 1973*

May 6, 1975 (by a "con-fidential informant")

April 16, 1975 Mey 7'i 1975 In !1ey of' 1973, VEPCO was the first nuclea?" utility in the nation to be f'ined for improper performance and attention to safe~yo This 1973 fine followed a

~

warning in 1972 fn which the then Aro called VE:..oCO's S-.irr.y record "an object lesson to the industry~"

The 1973 $40,000 :f'ine and Notice of Violation included:

Appendix A, lte~ :&--

Failure to report unusual safety-related events to tho A.EC.

S-~cceeding events -- including four addi~ionoJ. failurea to report -- d~~onstrate Ci'f'il penalties to ba ineffective as an enforcement action" with VEPCO.

\\.

. I L

Mr. William Andera * *

• o

• ..............* *****, ** Page 2 Material False Statements lt is a ma~ter of record that VEPCO was convicted in April of 1975 of ha~ing submitted twelve material false statements to the Ato~ic Energy Com-mi;sion regarding the fa.ult zone beneath the North Anna reactors. These state.'Ilents included instances* of failure to add.uce key safety inform3.t ion (known to VEPCO at the time) at const~ction license hearings as well as failure to submit a significant r.eport *by.. Dr.~.laul Roper. Pied.:nont geologist..

Now NRC inspection reports document additional false statements regard-

-ing settling beneath North.AnnaQe pumph9use, a Clasa IStr-.i.cture:

Inapeotion lteport Nos.. 50,...338/75~ and 50339/75-5,.. page. 2,

"***The inBpection revealed that SAR predicted settlement for the eerTioe water rese~voir pumphouse (a Class I Structure) for Units land 2 was exceeded with the com.'?lencement of monitoring*

.!!:_ December 1972 ** *"

(:Emphasis added)

The predicted settlement W8,;iJ lo44 inche~ia l'revertheless, (pago *1-2) 'uoThis value was incorporated in the Fs.lR dated January 3 1 1973.

On February 12-13 0 1973, meas},lrement showed that the S71.P'"n. (pumphouse} had settled Oo36 inches in the SR corner to 2.928 inche>> inchea in the NW corner ** *"

(.!.!ey 20, 1975)

Thus by simple comparison of December 1972 and January *1973 i'igures 9 an ad-ditional material false statement is established: 'VEPCO.. repeated low figures known to be false at the tin:e of submission.

Further 0 such a key ioundation and const~~ction problem* should have been brought before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board when it convened in llay of 1973 to consider construction licenses for North.Anna Onita #3 and 4o Failure-~°- adduce North Anna p~house informatio_n clearly constitutes another material false atatemento' According to i:ile NRO inspection report (page Iwl)

• ** eThe SWPH for Units 3 and 4 is several h".indred feet west of the SWPH for Units land 2 and ties into the sa~e dike *** i'lhen asked about the adequacy of the dogign and constr-... ction for Units 3 and 4,,

no concern ~

expressed Ex. the licensee (VEPCO) *" (:Emphasis added)

The inspectors from :NRC at Surry find the same attitude as reported on October 16 of 1975 (page 7):

"'* ** There was.!!2_ evidence of concern~ the licensee to resolve the move:nents of* the reference datum at this ti:ne (1972) ** *"

regarding the several indications that abnormal settling was occ,.irring beneath Surry*s reactora which went critical in 1972 and 1973.

Despite.Q.!!.!! pe?lalties, three altogether,* intervening between 1972 and 1975 9 the record supports NAEC'a contention that VEPCO exhibits consistent Wld

. intraots.b'le nuclear negligence with 19no ~vidence of concern."

I l

e e

\\

Mr. William.Ander11* *** *.......

8

• Page 3 Material l,l'alee Statementa (cont.)

"Site Suitability" hearings were held in regard to Surry Units :fJ3 and 4 in July of 1974. Surely such key f'cundation and constructicn information aa ab...

nor.nal settling beneath Reactors #1 and 2 should have been_ adduced at this tbie.,

NRC' a invest iga.tion shows that VEPCO ~

reported this pro bl~ which can::e to the attention of the Cormia a ion only through_~~& call of' a concerned il'ldividual o:ii May 6, 1975 *.

Nevertheless,* 1"RC's S,... rry* Investi~tlon 50-2.80/75-l, 50-28i/75-l docu:nenh not only the re.ct that VE?CO was aware oi' the settling prcble::i from February of 1972 on but also that VEPCO allowed the reactors to go critical with the proble~

unresolved,and was dilatory and uncooperative in response to repented questions from an insistent* engineering consultant from the iruclear E."lergy Liabj,.lity Ir.-

surance A.ssociation. (NELIA.)

Correspondence included as exhibits in the Surry Investigation substanti~te the existence of the settling beneath the Surr-J reactors, its progressive charac-ter, and VEPOO's reluctance to confront. this eer.iouo safety issue:

Exhibit.# 4 -

Letter from !IBI.l.Ais Engineerjng Consultant to Henderson ond Philli~s, Inco, VE?CO's Norfolk Insurs.nce*broken dated December B, 1972:

"Tha."llcs sincerely for the information accompaizy-il'lg your letter of Deoember 4.

(:r~ nctes DecQ 4.letter not a.T.ong exhibits) It is interesting and rather surprisir.g to note settlements L~ the~e of 3 to. 41t and* cont im.;.ing9 It would be ad.vis able to discuss the import of these observations at the time of our next_ visit~

In the meant1me, it is honed that additional unto date levels will be

~. 11 (E.'llphaaia in the Exhfoit)

. Exhibit tf 5 -

I.ettel". from VEPCO~s lnsur8llCe Department to He:cderson and Phillips, Inc. 0 dated April 5, 1973:

91$URRY POWER STATION

?IB.LIA POLICY NO. NF-186 On December 28. you a.dvieed us of~

Individual A's co=ents regar'tlil'lg the settlement& at S"..u-ry Power Stationo We ha7e been ad*,iaed by

~

Individual C that additional settlement readings have not been taken and are not anticipated., ~

further ad.-

vised us that because of "bench rnarks 11 which have been covered up.

it would be a.lrr.ost im!.)oasible. to se*cure a:ny settlement readings now."

Exhibit #- 6 -- Letter fro!'.!! ::ELIA9 a Engineering Consultant to VEPCO's Insurur.ce Depart:i:ent. dat-ed February 4, 1974; 11..Uso while in Richmond, v,e discussed the pro('.ressive settlement that has taken pla.ce ~

confirmed in ;aJ;JJ.;;..;r.;.;;::;r,._ Individ:"-al G's (V.EPCO Insurance.Dapart:r.ent) letter of' August* 4, 1972.

~his settleoent has been of concern because it has shown a differential~

r

...la

Mr. Willia:n*Andera Exhibit# 6 (cont.)

.... 0 o

o o

o

• .

• Page 4

• ment between structures. and in addition. halil been progressive in aome inatancea.* Thia settle:::ient.has been even more surprising be-cause the weight of some of the structures has been less than the weight of the material re~oved. {S9.7-1:8-12-67) Mention is also made in that reference,to the possibility of elaatic rebound of those lighter iitructures.

(Emphasis added)

. '......... ~,.

"The facility is founded on so:ne 13.00 feet of overburden which puts it in a distinctive class. O *"

Exhibit :fl: 7 -

Letter from Henderson and Phillips to VEP009 s Insurance Department, dated(?) April 21, 1974:

"RE:

nELIA Policy NF-186 Conf1rming our telephone conversation of todey, ~

lndiV'idual A O*TELIA.'a :Ei1gineering Consultant) is extremely upset over the ti~e it is tal<ing you to get the informa-tion a.s 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 is to infor:n the NELIA undarwriters that he is unable to complete his retort due to his inability to get ce:rtain infer.nation fro?:J VEPCO *** 11 (Enphaeia in Exhibit)

• We a.re sure ~hat you muat agree that the Exhibits in the NRC Investigation clearly pro~e VEPC0 9 a knowledge of the Surry settlinff problem from 1972 on, that there is no evidence of the problec*s denial (now tha stance of both VEPCO and th*~ NRC).

Ratr.er. there is firm evidence of the discussion of "progressive" and "differential" settlement problems between VEPCO and NELIA in Exhibit I 6.

The settlement problem is, recognized and. real 0 Thus it is.the position of !!Alro that VEPCO's failure to a~duce known settlement proble!l!a beneath Reactors '/fl and 2 at Construction License or Site Suitability hearings for Reactors :/J3 and 4 constitutes a material false statement, since in the No~th ~

case

~ ** (The Atomic Safety. and Licensing) Board properly held that failure to make timely disclosure of information which fa significant for purposes of safety review gives rise to a

rnat~rial false statement *** "

.. N'.RC Brief of 11/26/75 One must also inquire why the S"..l!"ry Atomic Safety and Licensing-Boa.rci.. did not q_uestlon foundation cc:r:d.iticnso :;u:m made a limited appeara.?1ce at the July 1974 hearing for the precise purpose _o'f raising questiona on a site labeled "suspect" by the :r-rac, who also comments (page* 2.....25 of M::',~ EVlJ.U-

.ATlOi:r):

"Tho ~"'ltegrity of certain zones *** ia questionable. with liquefac-tion !.120:isibility under dynamic conditions *** 11

Kr. iiilliam Andera..

Reaotor Design Neglect_

.....

• Page 5

• Aocording to an NRC meeting sum.~ary or M~ 9, 1975 by North Alina Project

}tanager Robert Ferguson, and a letter of' July 28, 1975, by :mtc* s A. Schwencer:

Between 1971 and 1972, VEPCO recognized that asymn:etric loads had been neglected in the original design of the reactor pressure veasel {RPV) supports. for North.Anna Units l an~2.

?rot till :.ra,,y 1975 did VEPCO report this problem to the NRC, with

~r 0 Fargo.son noting on May 9: * " *** results to date indicate that the existing reactor vessel supports will not withstand loss of coolant accident (LOCA) loada ** *"

(.&lphasis added) -- -

Since 8'.irry Units #1 and 2 ara twins of North Anna. Units #-1 and 2, the above ie further documentation of intractable nu~lear* negligence:

VEPCO allowed Surry Units #1 and 2 to go critical with a significant reactor design neglect problem unresolved. Further, the inadequat~

vessel supports provide dubious seismic protection for a plant that also has unreported abnormal. settling problerns9 foundation problem9 that also were. unresolved when the reactors went crit"ical 0 Both of these situations should have figured.heavily in VEPCO's precedent-set-ting $40,000 tine of May, 1973 I

They did not. Nevertheless, ApPendix A, Appendix B, and Appendix C of that May 1973 document dea*cribe an. unfortunate pattern of' incompetent and untrustworthy behavior that has been consistent from that ti.'na.

11~

In-spection Findines" listed in Appendix C all show serious misrepresentation of safety action~ described as accomplished by VE?CO's Vice-President.

proven false by subsequent J.:E/J inspections.

Inspection and study of current OP~TrnG maT ST.ATUS REPORl'S rovoal mounting numbers of infractions at Surry~ proving repeatedly that with this utility a "Civil penalty" is "ineffective as an enforcement action9 11 fulfilling an NRC requirement for license revocat iono License Revocation If NBC Regulatory Requira~ents-have meaning, then the Co:mnission must, by the force of its own z,evocatfon criteria, act to remove VEPCO'a :rr-iclea.r licenses on the basis of its inability to il:!lprove integrity of performance after repeated oivil penalties, and on the basis of pravious conviction for material false statements, plus the following additional false stateme!lts, f'ollcwing the ASLB findine that "failure to ma."tce timely disclosure of in-formation which is signific::.nt for purr,oses of safety review gives rise to a material false statement":

~-

e Jitr. 'Ri*lliam Andera- * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. * * * * *

• Page 6

.ADDIT lOl'!.U. UATERIAL FALSE 5T~E:,1E!'TTS

1. Failure to report abnormal settling. beneath SUrry reactors*.

2. Faiiure to adduce Surry settling problems at Site S,~itability and Construction License hea.rings 9 July and October, 1974.

3. Failure to report excessive North Anna Pumphouse settling 1n December, 1972.

lReport made in April, 1975.)

4. Submission 1n January, 1973 of* pumphou.se figures known to be false at the time of submission, aotual measure~ents having alreaa.y exceeded the repeated 'low predictions.

6. Failure to addu90 North Anna pumphouse abnormal settling problems _at May 1973 Construction _License hearings for North Alma Reactors* f3 and 4, whose pumphouse tie1s into the_ same d_ikeo

. 60 Failure to report reactor design neglect problem 1n 1971-19'/2.

(Report made in Mey. 1975.)

7. Foilure tq adduce reactor design neglect problem at Co~

struction License hearings for *North.Anna Reactors :!J3 ar.d. 4

• in Mey of 1973. Also at SUrry hearings in 1974.

a *. Submission of false pipe stress measurements, 2300 psi when the~ measurement was *2a,990 psi.

Since the Coalition bas no staff and also has no convenient access to S,.u-ry documents, the Ei>cve list m~ be considered incomplete until a thorough study is made ot aubmissions to the A:ID/?TRC on the subject of' Surry founda-tions. Given new USGS findings regarding Coastal Plain geology, further exp:i.oration o*f the Hanpton Roads Fault might be in order by the NRO.

We bring this*letter to a close by askinB that the Muclear Regulatory Com.~ission abide by its own reg~lations and protect the public by revoking tho nuclear licenaes of a utility that is unimproved by frequent civil penalties and warnings1 and utiable to adhere to integrity and S'{Oid safety-related material ralse statementse We ~espectt'lllly request your prompt response advisine the Coalition of your intended actions.

Thank you for your professional consideration.

Sincerely, - ~

c=~'l'?lA EN'l IRO?t.IB:fl'.AL COALITION

• l