ML19256A353
| ML19256A353 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 12/13/1978 |
| From: | Jennifer Davis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7901050063 | |
| Download: ML19256A353 (1) | |
Text
.
UtilTED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM SSION VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER COMPANY (fiorth Anna Power Station, Docket Nos. 50-338 Units 1 & 2) 50-339 REQUEST FOR ENFORCEMENT ACTION TO REV0KE OPERATING l
LICENSES OF VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER COMPA!iY FOR NORTH ANNA UNITS 1 & 2 Not.ce is hereby given that by letter dated November 1, 1978, the Nor th Anna Environmental Coalition (NAEC) requested that the Commission revoke the operating licenses of the Virginia Electric & Power Company (VEPCO) for North Anna Power Station, Units 1 & 2.
The NAEC requests license revocation as enforcement action against VEPC0 for allegedly material false statements, in that VEPC0 failed to report to the Commission until April 1978 information measured in August 1977 regarding the settlement of foundations at North Anna.
This request is being treated under 10 CFR 2.206 cf the Commissian's regulations, and accordingly, action will be taken on the request within a reasonable time.
A copy of the request is available for irspection in the Commission's Public Document Roori, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20555, and at the local public document rooms for the North Anna Power Station located at Louisa County Courthouse, Louisa, Virginia 23092, and University of Virginia, Alderman Library, Charlottesville, Virainia 22901.
~ ' THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
//
.b
'/
/ ohh G. Davis, Acting Director J
b0ffice of Inspection and Enforcement Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 13 day of December,1978 7901050 663 (g.
PD2
,.g%
.[
UNITED STATES
,6 7
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM!sslON
~
[%
[tj
\\%g)k]!
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 y g e.m f DEC 131978 Mrs. June Allen, President tiorth Anna Environmental Coalition 412 Owens Drive Huntsville, Alabama 35801
Dear Mrs. Allen:
This letter is sent to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated November 1,1978, on behalf of the North Anna Environmental Coalition.
You requested that the Commission revoke the operating licenses of Virginia Electric & Power Company for North Anna Units 1 and 2 as an enforcement sanction for alleged material false statements.
You allege that VEPCO's failure to report until April 1978 information regarding foundation settlement measured in August 1977 constitutes a material false statement warranting license revocation.
Your request is being treated under 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations and is currently under consideration.
We will inform you of our decision within a reasonable time.
I enclose for your information a copy of the notice that is being filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
Sincerely,
[/
ohn G. Davis Acting Director Office of Inspection and Er.iorcement
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice lujat
? f /3196 / 9 ?
, g....,*e UNITED STATES 3,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,M WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 y
DEC 13 578 Docket fios.
50-338/339 Virginia Electric & Power Company ATTil:
Mr. W. L. Proffitt Senior Vice President-Power P. O. Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261 Gentl emen:
I enclose for your information copies of letters from the fiorth Anna Environmental Coalition (f'AEC) to the Commission and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards requesting revocation of VEPC0's operating licenses for fiorth Anna Units 1 and 2.
Specifically, f1AEC requests license revocation as an enforcement sanction for allegedly material false statements made by VEPC0 to the Commission, in that VEPC0 failed to report until April 1978 information, measured in August 1977, regarding foundation settlement at florth Anna -
This request is being treated under 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations.
I enclose, also for your information, a opy of the notice that will be filed with the Office of the Federal Register.
Cincerely, John G. Davis Acting Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosures:
1.
Ltr dtd 11/1/78 to f4RC fm f4AEC 2.
Ltr dtd 11/3/78 to ACRS fm NAEC 3.
Federal Register Notice Op 72/2/90/79
.NOPJH ANNA ENVIRONMEN AL COALFION Charlot tesville, Virginia Mailing Address:
412 Nns Drive Komber 1,1978 Euntsville, Alabaea 35501 (205) 536-0676 Chair =an Joseph P. Hendrie Cc=1s sioner John Ahearne Ee:
1977 Material False Co==issicner Victor Gilinsky St ate =ent s Cc=iss icner E1 chard Eennedy Decket Fos.50-33S Cc=issioner Peter Bradford and 50-339 OL U. S. NUCLEAR EIGULATORY C010/ISSION Was hington, D. C.
20555 Gen tlurent As the Cc==issicners are surely aware, Criteria for Deter-
=ining Inforcement Action and Categories of Konco=pliance with NEC Regulatory Requirements (Modifications, Dece=ber 31, 1974) clearly state (page 6):
As crder is ordinarily issued to reycke a license when:
2 Civil penalty proves to be ineffective as an enforce-
=ent action; or 6.
Any =sterial f alse state =ent is =ade in the applicatics or in any statement of fact required under Section 162 o f the Act.
These Criteria were further clarified by the Cc==issioners' ruling of Nove:ber 12, 1976 which found that c=issiens of sig-nifict. -t safety infor=ation did. indeed constitute "=aterial false state =ents."
Because of action initiated by the Kcrth Anna Enviren= ental Coalition ( N130 ), VIPCO was ulti=ately fined $32,500 for having sub=1tted s even =aterial false state =ents to the Ato:ic EnerEy Cc==ission regarding foundation conditions at its North Anna site.
Unfortunately, the need for this regulatory action was originally denied by the regalatcry staff and ignored by the Advisory, Cc=-
=ittee on Reacter Safeguards when approached by EAIX: in 1974.
Once again, in 1976, it wor oppear fro = infc=ation avail-able to KAl% that significant safety infomation regarding foun-dation conditions at the Ecrth Anna site was withheld fro = KRC for seven =onths and never supplied to the Ato=ic Safety and Li-censing Soard during Operating License deliberations:
-37 Augus t o f 1977, average settle =e=t beneath the North Anna pu=pheuse for Unite 1 an d 2 had already reached 5.86 inches or 75% of its allow-able li=it for the 40-year lif e of the plant.
(See p. of 7-19 Ei::e report & Fig. 4-C cf 5-31 TIPCO report)
-No report was =ade until April 28, 1978 per KRC Region II.
(Nerth Anna's Operating Licens e was granted April 1,1976. )
D p nuno-uo
2-Althcuch the Operating License Hearing ~tas re-cpened en Decusber 29, 1978 for the consideration of other infer =atic:
withheld by 7EPCO, cc mention was made at that ti=e of the new li=its reached in abnor=al and dif ferential s ettlement at the site.
VEP00 had k cwn these li=its in Au;,-as t.
The Northwest Corner had reached 8.42" of settle =ent four
=enths prior to the hearing as ceasured by VIPCO's cons tructor Stone & Webster.
Although the averare settle =ent of 5.88" was significant and reportable in Aug2st of 1977, we =ention the NW measure =ent because the pipes enter the north wall, and are at riek frc= differential settle =ent.
This additional risk fro = the rapid additional settle =ent measured between May ani Aurast of 1977 was repertable under the provision of 10 CFR 50.55(e) even before it fulfilled the reporting rec' 're=ents of the Technical Specifications o f the License.
That VESCO f ailed to ti=ely report the settlement in Aug2s t of 1977 leads the Coalition once again tc ask the Cc==iseicners to revoke VIPCO's North Anna Operating License en the grounds that
--Previcus civil penalt ies fer inaccurate, (2) false, or c=itted reperting have been in-effective as enforcurent actions; and
-Failure to report the%nc=alous settlenent (6)
=easured in Augast of 1977,cenetituted a
"=aterial fals e state =ent" in accordance with the Cc==iss ion's ruling of Nove=b er 12, 1976 Further, as the eettle=ent proble: has been discuesed before the ACRS, it has been obvious that because settle =e=t cauces and sapro-11:10 behavior are se poorly understood, surveillance and timely reporting were the only safety ceasures availabl e.
7Eo00 's f ailure, hab i tua.1, in this area gives the Oc==issioners no choice of integrity but to enfcree their own reg 21ations and reycke the North Anna li-cenee.
We urge your pro =pt action against thie caterial false state-cent. and hope that in this instance a hearing and enforec=c=t will he initiated by the Oc==issicners rather than by a citizen group.
Thank ycu for your professional interest.
Sincerely,
y_
e Alltn (Mrs. p. M.)
r es ident, Elm
NOR~H ANNA ENVIRONWtENTAL COA _ITION Charlc t t es ville, Virginia Mailing addrees:
412 Cwns D-ive 0:teter 29,1976 Hunt s ville, Alcaea 25601 (205) 536-0676
\\
UNRISCLVED SAFE?! ISSUES RIGARDING A3?;CREAL & DIFFIRI';TIAL SITTIa52;T g
AT 2I IC.:CE ANNA NUCLTAR POTIR S!aTION IN ele.AL, VIRGD;IA 1.
What caused the pu=p hcuse to settle 0.66 inches in 50 days in late 1974 and early 1975?
- i.. Inat caused the pu=p house to settle 0.57 inches in 23 days between July 11 and lugast 2,1977?
The settlement has been attributed to the installation of hori: ental drains, but according to lir. Drc=erick's su==ary of March 26, 1976, "the grcund water level was telcw the draine during their instal-lat io n. " F.:rther, "the past su==er's (1977) drcurht resulted in low pie:cretric levels."
3.
Was the arene causal =echanis: invcived in the two periods o f s et tle=ent described in Questicas 1 and 27 Mr. Dro:erick notee in the sa=e March 26 su==ary that "Mr. Eeller indicated that s ettle=ent of the str.e type had b een ex-perienced by the pump hcuse previously."
Clearly, s ettlement prior to the drain installation =ust be attributed to a dif ferent caus e.
This would be in keeping with VIPCO's testi-
=eny at the June 1,1977 Operating License Hearing, Tr. 3251:
Interrenor Attorney Poster:
So you do not erp ec t, then, any add 1Qnal s ettlement due to the use of the drain Jyste=?
VEP00 Engineer Rob inson:
Not with this particular syste=, that 's right.
4.
If the groundwater level was below the drains during their in-etallation post drought in the su=mer of 1977, how were the dr ains able to significantly affect the grcundwater level?
Note VIPCO's Hesponse of 9-6-78, elf S3-2:
"~he incre=ent of settlement in late July 1977, however, is clearly the result cf a lowering o f the grcundwater level under the pu=p house by the installation of Drain 4 en July 13, 1977."
2-5.
Has it ever be n clearly established that chanfes jg creundwater level were responsible for settle =ent at the Ncrth Anna site?
\\
Altheuch Mr. Heller wrote on March 3,1976 that r
settle =ent was " influenced by rainfall and grcund-water cc diticus," two years later on August 4, 1976 he told the 10RS that there was "no known reason f or the s ettlement that occurred in 1974. There are many postulations, most of the= reasonable, but none that 1 know of based on factual data La ter=s of actual infiltratien of rainfall, changes in groundwater levels, and so forth."
6.
Have the causes of rotation and tilt been clearly established?
Dr. Hi::o wrote on July 11, 1977 that "this rigid structure...has shown its ability to accumulat e differential =ove=ents of up to 0.3 foot and to
=ove in a planer fashion." He did not explain the causes of this =ovement but noted that " drains will not affect the stability one way er other."
Dr. Richart wrote on July 2,1976 that "the tilting cf the building ie i=pe rt ant " and t ha t
"=o s t i=pertant is the settle =ent of the ncrth. side of the building where the pipes leave the structure."
7.
Give:the significance of tilt to the integrity of the pipes, what is the safety ratienale of basing re=edial actione eat reporting en " average settlebent"?
Dr. Richart also wrote on July 2,1975 that " average s ettle=ent" is " infer =at ion of secondary i= pert ence" agreeing with Dr. Siess' ec==ent of August 10, 1978 that he "doesn't get =uch info = sticn fro = average settle =ent," that he's " concerned with how much
=c r e=en t there le where those pipes co=e into the pumpheuse..."
Dr. Siess cces en to sgy that the " tech spec iten ought to be tied to the =cre=ent of interest and not to an average... "
6.
How is the safety of the Nerth Anna eite protected by changins the Technical Suecifications to allow dcuble the a=ount of s et t le= ent ?
Er. Eeller reported te the AORS on August 4,1978 that "...the fiz they propose is to increase the allowable settle =e:3...they will be required to repcrt te um when the settle =e reaches three quarters of that new value.
L., not before."
3-9.
If settlement surveillance and prc pt and accurate reporting
\\
s ignificance of the follcwings
/
are the key to fcundatien safety at North Anna, what is the a.
7-conth delay between measurecent of =ajor settlenent in Augus t of 1977 and its report to the NRC in April cf 1976 b.
No Stone and Webster measureccnts in June and July cf 1977 c.
No Moore, Eardee & Carrouth measurements between July and Dece=ber of 1977 Discrepancies in the reports regarding the dates of the drain installations:
YEP 00 gives October 1976 and July August 1977 NBC's Reller told the ACRS en August 4, 1976 that "the subdrains were installed under Unit 1 & 2 pu=pheuse in late 1977 and in 1976" and "the installation of the last drain was in l at e 19 77. "
(If settlement is to be attributed to the drains, the ex ac t dates of their installation is impo rt ant. )
e.
Report by NRC Inspectors (Ell Rpt. Uc. 50-336/76-11):
"3etween July 7 and Dece ber 14, 1977, which spans the b:s t all at ic c f t he drain sys t ec,
average s ettlement cf the fcur points on the p1=pheuse wse.0395 feet.. In that np _ eadings were t aken 'b etween thos e dat es, it could not be deternined how much cf the settlement was attributed to the drain system installatien.
The inspector had no questions in this area."
(Were NRC inspectors unaware of Stone & Webster data?
Was this the first t ime they had inquired abcut the effect of centroversial drains Lnstalled S =cnths before?)
10.
If VZPCO and NRC predictions of saprolite behavier have been consistently in errer, if their " highly practical experience with saprolites at North Anna" did not i= prove that prediction by July 6, 1977, if saprolites do not confor: to textboot the-cries of soil mechanics, upon what basis are future predictions to be given credence and the saprelites te be found "indeed suitable" for North Anna's foundation?
11.
If the causes of the s ettlement, t il t, and rotation have never been fir =ly diagnosed, upon what basie can preper " remedial actions" be taken er a prognoe is made regarding the 40-year foundation integrity at the North Anna site?
.