[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12887-12888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5150]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339; NRC-2012-0051; License Nos. NPF-4 and
NPF-7]
Virgina Electric and Power Company; Receipt of Request for Action
Notice is hereby given that by petition dated September 8, 2011
(Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession
No. ML11256A019), as supplemented by letters dated September 8, 2011
(ADAMS Accession No. ML11334A152), and October 21, 2011 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML11308A016), Thomas Saporito (the petitioner) requests
that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission)
take action with regard to Virginia Electric and Power Company's (the
licensee's) North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (North Anna 1 and
2). The petitioner requests that the NRC:
(1) Take escalated enforcement action against the licensee and
suspend, or revoke, the operating licenses for North Anna 1 and 2;
(2) Issue a notice of violation against the licensee with a
proposed civil penalty in the amount of 1 million dollars; and
(3) Issue an order to the licensee requiring the licensee to keep
North Anna 1 and 2, in a ``cold shutdown'' mode of operation until such
time as a series of actions described in the petition are completed.
As the basis for this request, the petitioner states that:
(1) On August 23, 2011, North Anna 1 and 2, automatically tripped
offline as
[[Page 12888]]
a direct result of ground motion caused by an earthquake centered in
Mineral, Virginia, approximately 10 miles from North Anna 1 and 2. The
licensee has not determined the root cause of this event, nor has it
explained why the reactor tripped on ``negative flux rate'' rather than
on loss of offsite power.
(2) Subsequent to the earthquake, the licensee initiated various
inspection activities and tests to discover the extent of damage to the
nuclear facility, but these inspection and testing activities continue
and remain incomplete and non-validated.
(3) The licensee had set an overly aggressive schedule for
restarting North Anna 1 and 2 that was based on economic considerations
rather than safety.
(4) The licensee needs to amend its licensing documents, including
its licenses and the updated facility analysis report. As a result of
ground motion experienced at, and damage sustained to, North Anna 1 and
2, due to the earthquake of August 23, 2011, which is greater than the
licensee's design and safety bases, North Anna 1 and 2, are in an
unanalyzed condition and current licensing documents are erroneous and
incomplete. As a result, the licensee cannot rely on them to provide
reasonable assurance to the NRC that these nuclear reactors can be
operated in a safe and reliable manner to protect public health and
safety.
(5) The licensee needs to conduct new seismic and geological
evaluations of the North Anna 1 and 2, site that are independent. These
evaluations should ascertain the degree and magnitude of future
earthquake events and address a ``worst case'' earthquake.
(6) There are numerous issues with the seismic instrumentation at
North Anna 1 and 2, including lack of free field instrumentation,
issues associated with conversion of analog data to digital data,
issues with lack of on-site personnel with sufficient training in
seismic measurements, and potential skewing of ground motion data due
to the location of the ``scratch plates.''
(7) Retrofitting of North Anna 1 and 2, is required due to damage
to North Anna 1 and 2, from the earthquake of August 23, 2011.
(8) There are concerns with the impact of the August 23, 2011,
earthquake on the North Anna 1 and 2, Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation (ISFSI) including the fact that 25 casks weighing over 115
tons were not supposed to shift as much as 4.5 inches during a
predicted earthquake, validation of the integrity of the seals inside
the spent fuel casks, assessing whether spent nuclear fuel storage
facilities could topple or otherwise sustain significant damage
resulting in a release, and assessing whether the licensee's emergency
plans adequately addressed damage to the ISFSI as a result of a severe
earthquake.
(9) The petitioner is concerned that the licensee cannot be trusted
to communicate reliable information to the public or the regulator
based on the fact that the licensee in the 1970s failed to promptly
disclose the discovery of geological information and was subjected to a
monetary fine for the violation.
The request is being treated pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 2.206, ``Requests for action under this
subpart,'' of the Commission's regulations. The request has been
referred to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
As provided by Sec. 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this
petition within a reasonable time. The petitioner met with the NRR
petition review board on September 29, 2011 (transcript at ADAMS
Accession No. ML11332A046), and November 7, 2011 (transcript at ADAMS
Accession No. ML113530035), to discuss the petition. The results of
these discussions were considered in the PRB's final recommendation to
accept the petition for review and in establishing the schedule for the
review of the petition.
A copy of the petition is available for inspection at the
Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North,
Public File Area O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland 20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the
NRC are accessible electronically through the NRC's Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by
telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by email to PDR
[email protected]
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of February, 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Eric J. Leeds,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-5150 Filed 3-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P