ML19242A116
| ML19242A116 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1979 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19242A113 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907310277 | |
| Download: ML19242A116 (8) | |
Text
.
DD-79 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COP!ISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Victor Stello, Jr., Director In the Matter of VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CD.
Docket Nos, 50-338 (North Anna Power Station.
50-339 (2.206)
Units 1 and 2)
DIRECT 0E'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 REQUEST FOR ENFORCEMENT ACTION
~
By letter dated November i 1978, June Allen on behalf of the North Anna Environmental Coalition (NAEC) requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission revoke the operating licenses issued to the Virginia Electric and Powcr Company (VEPCO) for the North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, as an enforcement sanction for material false statements stemming from VEPCO's alleged failure to timely report information concerning settlement of foundations at the North Anna site. This letter is being treated as a request for action pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations.
Notice of receipt ef this request was published in the Federal Register on December 20, 1978.
43 fed. Reg. 59451 (1978).
For the reasons set forth below, the request is denied.
The asserted basis for '.he NAEC's request is as follows:
(1) By August 19
, the average settlement beneath the North Anna pumphouse for Units 1 and 2 had corched 75% of its allowable limit according to measurements made by Stone & Webster Company; 7007310 i?JC7,22 462 2i. i Saeme va
2 (2) VEPC0 did not report this condition until April 28, 1978, more than 60 days after the report was required under the technical specifications; and (3)
License revocation is an appropriate sanction in this instance because previous civil penalties for false or omitted reporting have been ineffective enforcement actions and failure to report constitetes a material false statement for which a license may be revoked.
Under Technical Specification 3.7.12.1 VEPC0 is required to submit a specici report to the Commission within 60 days when either the total settlement of any structure or the differential settlement of any structures exceeds 75% of the al,owable settlement value for Class I structures.A! The Service Water Pump
~
1/ The NAEC also alleges that the settlement mr ured by Stone & Webster in August 1977 should have been reported in accoiJance with 10 CFR 50.55(e),
which requires reporting of certain deficiencies found in design and construction.
However, VEPC0 reported the problem of continuous settle-ment of the Service Water Pump House in 1975.
The Staff was aware of the continuous settlement problem, and noted it in its Safety Evaluation Report.
Stone & Webster's August, 1977 data revealed no new design or construction deficiency caused by settlement.
Moreover, the figure of 75% of allewable settlement has relevance only to the reporting requirements of the technical specificatioa, which did not become effective until November 26, 1977.
Thus, VEPCO was not required under 10 CFR 50.55(e) to make an additional report of the Stone & Webster data.
462 242
3 House is a Class I structure.
Technical Specification 4.7.12.1 further required that settlement "shall be determined to the nearest 0.01 foot by measurement and calculation at least once per 6 months." VEPC0 was bound to comply with the technical specifications upon issuance of the operating licenses for the North Anna Units on November 26, 1977.
Since the technical specifications became effective, VEPC0 has retained Moore, Hardee & Carrouth Associates (MH&C) to perform the settlement survey in order to comply with the survey and reporting requirements of the specifications.
MH&C had been curveying settlement for VEPCO since November 1975.
Surveys performed by MH&C on various dates showed the following measurements of settlement at the pump house:
Percent of Allowable Average Settlement Date Settlement (Feet)
(0.15 Feet) 12/1/75 0.000 0
7/11/77 0.063 42 12/12/77 0.103 69
~
3/15/78 0.12.
81 3/30/78 0.119 79 4/25/78 0.106 71 5/10/78 0.110 73 8/3/78 0.117 78 11/06/78 0.126 84 11/20/78 0.124 83 1/03/79 0.128 85 2/06/79 0.127 84 3/07/79 0.126 84 2/ Measurements taken between November 1975 and July 197/, prior to the effectiveness of the technical specifications, do not show settle-ment in excess of 75% of allowable value under the currently applicable standard.
4c,2 243
4 The data indicate that 75% of the maximum allowable average pumphouse settlement was exceeded on March 15 and March 30, 1978.
Based on this information, VEPCO reported to the NRC on April 28, 1978, that settlement of the pumphouse exceeded 75% of the allowable value.
Although the NAEC does not dispute that VEPC0 repr ted settlement conditions to the NRC on April 28, 1978, the NAEC contends that VEPC0 should have made a report to the NRC within 60 days after the measurements of settlement made by Stone & Webster on approximately August 3, 1977.
As earlier noted, however, the technical specifications aid not come into effecu until November 26, 1977 when the operating licenses were issued.
Thus, VEPC0 had no obligation under the technical specification to report data measured prior to its effective date.
Even if the technical specifications were in effect in August 1977, Stone & Webster's measurements were not calculated with the precision required by Technical Specification 4.7.12.1.
The technical specifications, in estab-lishing a requirement for a settlement survey program, required measurements of a certain frequency and accuracy, i.e., measured at least every six months by precise leveling, with second order Class 2 accuracy as defined by the U.
- 5. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atomospheric Administration, National Ocean Survey and calculated to the nearest 0.01 foot.
This specified accuracy exceeded that which Stone & Webster could assure with its equipment and techniques.
On the other hand, the surveys by MH&C, the firm retained by VEPC0 to perform the surveys required by the technical specifications, did meet the specified accuracy required by Technical Specification 4.7.12.1.
The surveys performed by MH&C exceeled the required frequency.
kb
s 5
As part of our review of the NAEC request, the NRC conducted an inspection on December 6-8, 1978, and an inspection / inquiry on March 5-15, 1979 of data collected on settlement of the pumphouse.3/ (See Inspection Report No.
50-338/78-44 and 50-338/79-13 which are made part of this decision and attached as Appendix A and B.)
The inspection findings confirm the accuracy of the MH&C data for purposes of compliance with the requirements of the technical specifications.
The inspectors found that the Stone & Webster data generally indicated approximately 0.01 foot more settlement than the MH&C data.
Moreover, the inspectors concluded that the accuracy of the Stone &
Webster surveys was questionable and that some average settlements computed by Stone & Webster were based on inccmplete data.
In cases of conflict between the MH&C data and the Stone & Webster data, the inspectors determined that the MH&C measurements should be accepted as co rect because the MH&C survey was more carefully controlled and more accurate than the Stone & Webster survey.
It should be emphasized that the two surveys served different purposes. The Stone & Webster survey was not performed to meet specific requirements of the PSAR, FSAR or the technical specifications, but was performed in accordance with standard engineering practice to confirm design assumptions and monitor S! The inspection team also reviewed the data and inspected the expansion joints for d;fferential settlement between the pump house and the north side service sater piping expansion joint.
The inspectors found that the data indicated insignificant differential settlement and detected no proble!..s in the expansion joints.
462 245
6 settlement during construction.
By comparison, the MH&C survey assures compliance with iechnical Specification 3.7.12.1 within the accuracy required by Technical Specification 4.7.12.1.
Accordingly, MH&C made the required surveys for VEPC0 within the specified frequency and VEPC0 reported within 60 days the measurements exceeding 75% of allowable settlement when indicated by the MH&C survey.
Although the Stone & Webster da'a may have indicated settlement of the pump house earlier than the data of MH&C, the Technical Specifications require the licensee to report settlement exceeding 75% of the allowed value only when settlement is measured in a survey of a certain accuracy after the technical specification's effective date.
Unlike the Stone & Webster survey, the MH&C survey met the accure required by the specification <
Relying on the results of the MH&C survey, VEPC0 appropriately reported settlement to the NRC after receiving measurements taken by MH&C in March 1978.
VEPCO was not required to repcet the results of the Stone & Webster surveys.4/ Therefore, I conclude that:
4/ The NAEC misplaces reliance on a report dated July 19, 1978, Paul Rizzo to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards in which Mr. Rizzo reviewed VEPCO's special report of May 31, 1978.
Upon review of the data contained in Figure 4C of the VEPCO report, which shows settlement measurements by Stone & Webster and MH&C between June 1977 and May 1978, Mr. Rizzo commented that 75% of allowable settlement " occurred, for all practical purposes, as early as August 1977."
This is not to say, however, that VEPCO was obligated under the technical specification to report the Stone & Webster data or that the MH&C survey made to comply with the technical specification indicated 75% of allowable cettlement in August 1977.
iz *c 3 qe i l-(_ y Q
7
~
1)
The survey performed to meet the requirements of Technical Specification 3.7.12.1 indicated that the average pumphouse settlement exceeded 75% of the allowable value in March 1978; 2)
The surveys were made at the frenuency required in the technical specification; and 3)
The licensee notified the NRC within 60 days of the time the survey detected settlement of 75% of the allowable value.
As VEPC0 was in compliance with the technical specifications and 10 CFR 50.55(e), no enforcement action is appropriate, and accordingly, the NAEC's request to revoke the North Anna operating licenses is denied.
It is therefore unnecessary in this contc.t to reach the question of a material false statement.
A copy of this determination will be placed in the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20555, and the local Public Document Rooms for the North Anna Powei Station located at the Louisa County Courthcuse, Louisa, Virginia 23092, and th. University of Virginia, Alderman Library, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901.
A copy of this docuaent will also be filed with the Secretary of the Commission for its review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c) of the Commission's regulations.
462 247
8 In accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, this decision will constitute the final action of the Commission twenty (20) days after the date of issuance, unless the Commission on its own motion institutes review of this decision within that time.
/ [ -;-
.. ' )
'1
.c j7
-. c ? ;' >
y Victor Stello, Jr.
Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosures:
Appendix A:
(IE Inspection Report No. 50-338/78-44)
Apendix B:
(IE Inspection Report No. 50-338/79-13)
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 1 6' day of June 1979
.o c, o
?48 oc m