Virginia Electric and Power Company, 26321-26323 [2012-10707]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2012 / Notices
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012–10698 Filed 5–2–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–288; NRC–2011–0172]
Reed College, Reed Research Nuclear
Reactor, Renewed Facility Operating
License No. R–112
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of issuance.
AGENCY:
Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2011–0172 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may access information related to
this document, which the NRC
possesses and is publicly-available,
using the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2011–0172. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–492–3668;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publiclyavailable documents online in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. To begin the search,
select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and
then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. For
details with respect to the application
for renewal, see the licensee’s letter
dated August 29, 2007 as supplemented
by letters dated January 26, July 30,
October 15, 2010, and May 20, August
3, December 12, 2011, and January 27,
and March 26, 2012, is available
electronically under ADAMS Accession
Nos. ML092310567, ML100610121,
ML102360016, ML102990489,
ML111520559, ML11222A026,
ML113630145, ML12039A147 and
ML12100A075. Also see the license’s
annual reports for years 2003–2004
(ADAMS Accession No. ML043620310),
2004–2005 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML052930194), 2005–2006 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML062850518), 2006–
2007 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML073040191), 2007–2008 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML082890533), 2008–
wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:32 May 02, 2012
Jkt 226001
2009 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML092720865), 2009–2010 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML102440042), and
2010–2011 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML11221A161).
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Geoffrey Wertz, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD
20852. Telephone: (301) 415–0893; fax
number: (301) 415–3031; email:
Geoffrey.Wertz@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC
or the Commission) has issued renewed
Facility Operating License No. R–112,
held by Reed College (the licensee),
which authorizes continued operation
of the Reed Research Reactor (RRR),
located in Portland, Oregon. The RRR is
a pool-type, natural convection, lightwater cooled, and shielded TRIGA
(Training, Research, Isotope Production,
General Atomics) reactor fuel. The RRR
is licensed to operate at a steady-state
power level of 250 kilowatts thermal
power. The renewed Facility Operating
License No. R–112 will expire 20 years
from its date of issuance.
The renewed facility operating license
complies with the standards and
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the
Commission’s rules and regulations.
The Commission has made appropriate
findings as required by the Act and the
Commission’s regulations in Title 10,
Chapter 1, ‘‘Nuclear Regulatory
Commission,’’ of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), and sets forth
those findings in the renewed facility
operating license. The agency afforded
an opportunity for hearing in the Notice
of Opportunity for Hearing published in
the Federal Register on August 19, 2011
(76 FR 52018–52022). The NRC received
no request for a hearing or petition for
leave to intervene following the notice.
The NRC staff prepared a safety
evaluation report for the renewal of
Facility Operating License No. R–112
and concluded, based on that
evaluation, the licensee can continue to
operate the facility without endangering
the health and safety of the public. The
NRC staff also prepared an
Environmental Assessment and Finding
of No Significant Impact for the renewal
of the facility operating license, noticed
in the Federal Register on March 30,
2012 (77 FR 19362–19366), and
concluded that renewal of the facility
operating license will not have a
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26321
significant impact on the quality of the
human environment.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day
of April, 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jessie F. Quichocho,
Chief, Research and Test Reactors Licensing
Branch, Division of Policy and Rulemaking,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012–10705 Filed 5–2–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339; NRC–
2012–0051; License Nos. NPF–4 and NPF–
7]
Virginia Electric and Power Company
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Director’s Decision; issuance.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or the Commission)
is giving notice that the Director of the
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
(NRR) has issued a Director’s Decision
with regard to a petition dated
September 8, 2011, filed by Mr. Thomas
Saporito, hereinafter referred to as the
‘‘petitioner.’’
SUMMARY:
Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2012–0051 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may access information related to
this document, which the NRC
possesses and is publicly available,
using the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2012–0051. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–492–3668;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly
available documents online in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. To begin the search,
select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and
then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced in this notice (if
that document is available in ADAMS)
is provided the first time that a
document is referenced.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\03MYN1.SGM
03MYN1
wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
26322
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2012 / Notices
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Notice is hereby given that the
Director, NRR, has issued a Director’s
Decision with regard to a petition dated
September 8, 2011 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML11256A019), filed by Mr.
Thomas Saporito. The petition was
supplemented on September 8, 2011
(ADAMS Accession No. ML11334A152),
September 29, 2011 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML11332A046), October 21, 2011
(ADAMS Accession No. ML11308A016),
and November 7, 2011 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML113530035). The
petition concerns the operation of the
North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and
2 (North Anna 1 and 2), by the Virginia
Electric and Power Company (VEPCO or
the licensee). The petition requested
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 in summary that:
(1) On August 23, 2011, North Anna
1 and 2, automatically tripped offline as
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 final safety
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,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:32 May 02, 2012
Jkt 226001
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 an 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.
On September 29, 2011, and
November 7, 2011, the petitioner and
the licensee met with the NRC staff’s
petition review board via telephone
conference (meeting transcripts at
ADAMS Accession Nos. ML11332A046
and ML113530035) regarding the
petition. These meetings gave the
petitioner and the licensee an
opportunity to provide additional
information and to clarify issues raised
in the petition.
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The NRC sent a copy of the proposed
Director’s Decision to the petitioner and
the licensee for comment by letter dated
February 22, 2012 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML11356A164), and February 28,
2012 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML11357A117), respectively. The
licensee provided comments by letter
dated March 12, 2012 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML120720519). The
comments and the NRC staff’s response
to them are included in the Director’s
Decision, the complete text of which is
available in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML12094A250.
The NRC staff has evaluated the
petitioner’s requests to: (1) Take
escalated enforcement action against the
licensee and suspend, or revoke, the
operating licenses for North Anna 1 and
2, and (2) issue a notice of violation
against the licensee with a proposed
civil penalty in the amount of 1 million
dollars. With respect to these two
requests, the evaluations of two NRC
inspection teams as documented in
inspection reports dated October 31,
2011 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML113040031), and November 30, 2011
(ADAMS Accession No. ML113340345),
did not find any violation of NRC
regulations that would merit such
enforcement actions. Further detail
regarding this decision on these two
requests is provided in the Director’s
Decision. With respect to the petition’s
third request for enforcement action: ‘‘to
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,’’ the NRC staff concluded
that it had partially granted that request
in Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) No.
2–2011–001 dated September 30, 2011
(ADAMS Accession No. ML11273A078),
which stated the following:
This Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL)
confirms that NAPS [North Anna Power
Station] Units 1 and 2 will not enter Modes
1–4 (as defined in the technical
specifications), until the Commission has
completed its review of your information,
performed confirmatory inspections, and
completed its safety evaluation review. The
permission to resume operations will be
formally communicated to Virginia Electric
and Power Company (VEPCO) in a written
correspondence.
VEPCO shall submit to the NRC all
documentation requested by the NRC as
being necessary to demonstrate that NAPS
Units 1 and 2 can be operated safely
following the seismic event that exceeded the
safe shutdown event analyzed in the current
revision of the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report.
This CAL will remain in effect until the
NRC has (1) reviewed your information,
E:\FR\FM\03MYN1.SGM
03MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2012 / Notices
wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
including responses to staff’s questions and
the results of your evaluations, and (2) the
staff communicates to you in written
correspondence that it has concluded that
NAPS can be operated without undue risk to
the health and safety of the public or the
environment.’’
This CAL, therefore, confirmed the
licensee’s understanding that North
Anna 1 and 2, could not be restarted
unless and until the licensee had
demonstrated to the NRC staff’s
satisfaction that ‘‘* * * no functional
damage has occurred to those features
necessary for continued operation
without undue risk to the health and
safety of the public,’’ consistent with the
requirements of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 100,
Appendix A, Section V(a)(2). Restart
was contingent upon addressing a
number of issues before startup, many of
which had been identified, in whole or
in part, in the petition as concerns.
Issues in the petition, previously
identified and discussed as concerns 1,
2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8, were discussed and
substantially addressed, either in the
inspection reports issued October 31,
2011, and November 30, 2011, or in the
NRC technical evaluation dated
November 11, 2011. The activities by
the NRC staff were completed before
restart to ensure that, before resuming
operations, the licensee had
demonstrated no functional damage had
occurred to those features at North Anna
1 and 2, necessary for continued
operation without undue risk to the
health and safety of the public. In that
respect, these concerns described in the
petition as requiring completion before
the restart of North Anna 1 and 2, were
addressed before restart, consistent with
the third request for enforcement action
described in the petition. Issues in the
petition, previously identified and
discussed as concerns 4 and 9, were
evaluated by the NRC staff before restart
of North Anna 1 and 2, but disposition
of these concerns by the NRC staff
differed from the course of action
requested in the petition. In that respect,
these aspects of the petition were
denied.
A copy of the Director’s Decision will
be filed with the Secretary of the
Commission for the Commission’s
review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206
of the Commission’s regulations. As
provided for by this regulation, the
Director’s Decision will constitute the
final action of the Commission 25 days
after the date of the decision, unless the
Commission, on its own motion,
institutes a review of the Director’s
Decision in that time.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day
of April 2012.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:32 May 02, 2012
Jkt 226001
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Bruce A. Boger,
Deputy Director, Reactor Safety Programs,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012–10707 Filed 5–2–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
26323
Secretary of the Board, Julie S. Moore,
at (202) 268–4800.
Julie S. Moore,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012–10854 Filed 5–1–12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710–12–P
POSTAL SERVICE
Board of Governors Sunshine Act
Meeting
Board Votes to Close April 25, 2012,
Meeting
By telephone vote on April 25, 2012,
members of the Board of Governors of
the United States Postal Service met and
voted unanimously to close to public
observation its meeting held in
Washington, DC, via teleconference. The
Board determined that no earlier public
notice was possible.
ITEMS CONSIDERED:
1. Strategic Issues.
GENERAL COUNSEL CERTIFICATION: The
General Counsel of the United States
Postal Service has certified that the
meeting was properly closed under the
Government in the Sunshine Act.
CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Requests for information about the
meeting should be addressed to the
Secretary of the Board, Julie S. Moore,
at (202) 268–4800.
Julie S. Moore,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012–10852 Filed 5–1–12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710–12–P
POSTAL SERVICE
Board of Governors; Sunshine Act
Meeting
Board Votes to Close April 26, 2012,
Meeting
By telephone vote on April 26, 2012,
members of the Board of Governors of
the United States Postal Service met and
voted unanimously to close to public
observation its meeting held in
Washington, DC, via teleconference. The
Board determined that no earlier public
notice was possible.
ITEMS CONSIDERED:
1. Strategic Issues.
2. Financial Matters.
GENERAL COUNSEL CERTIFICATION: The
General Counsel of the United States
Postal Service has certified that the
meeting was properly closed under the
Government in the Sunshine Act.
CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Requests for information about the
meeting should be addressed to the
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–66871; File No.10–206]
In the Matter of the Application of BOX
Options Exchange LLC for
Registration as a National Securities
Exchange Findings, Opinion, and
Order of the Commission
April 27, 2012.
I. Introduction
On December 19, 2011, BOX Options
Exchange LLC (‘‘BOX Exchange’’ or
‘‘Exchange’’) submitted to the Securities
and Exchange Commission
(‘‘Commission’’) an Application for
Registration as a National Securities
Exchange (‘‘Form 1 Application’’) 1
under Section 6 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’).2 On
December 28, 2011, BOX Exchange
submitted Amendment No. 1 to its Form
1 Application.3 Notice of the Form 1
Application, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, was published for
comment in the Federal Register on
January 31, 2012.4 The Commission has
not received any comment letters
regarding the Form 1 Application. On
April 2, 2012, BOX Exchange submitted
Amendment No. 2 to the Form 1
Application.5
1 On January 26, 2012, the Commission issued an
order granting BOX Exchange exemptive relief,
subject to certain conditions, in connection with the
filing of its Form 1 Application. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 66241, 77 FR 4845
(January 31, 2012). Because BOX Exchange’s Form
1 Application was incomplete without the
exemptive relief, the date of filing of such
application is January 26, 2012.
2 15 U.S.C. 78f.
3 Amendment No. 1, among other things, provides
the unconsolidated financial statements for certain
affiliates of BOX Exchange that are required in
Exhibit D to Form 1 but were not included in BOX
Exchange’s initial Form 1 Application. In its initial
Form 1 Application, BOX Exchange only submitted
consolidated financials for certain of these affiliates.
4 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66242
(January 26, 2012), 77 FR 4841 (‘‘Notice’’).
5 In Amendment No. 2, BOX Exchange, among
other things: (1) Amends the BOX Exchange Bylaws
to provide: (a) That at least one public, nonindustry director of BOX Exchange will not be
associated with a broker or dealer, as required by
Section 6(b)(3) of the Act; (b) that BOX Exchange
will have a chief regulatory officer (‘‘CRO’’) with
general day-to-day supervision over BOX
Exchange’s regulatory operations; (c) that a majority
of the members of the BOX Exchange nominating
E:\FR\FM\03MYN1.SGM
Continued
03MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 86 (Thursday, May 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26321-26323]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10707]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339; NRC-2012-0051; License Nos. NPF-4 and
NPF-7]
Virginia Electric and Power Company
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Director's Decision; issuance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission)
is giving notice that the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation (NRR) has issued a Director's Decision with regard to a
petition dated September 8, 2011, filed by Mr. Thomas Saporito,
hereinafter referred to as the ``petitioner.''
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0051 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You
may access information related to this document, which the NRC
possesses and is publicly available, using the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0051. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the
search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-
based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's
Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number
for each document referenced in this notice (if that document is
available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is
referenced.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at
[[Page 26322]]
the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Notice is hereby given that the Director, NRR, has issued a
Director's Decision with regard to a petition dated September 8, 2011
(ADAMS Accession No. ML11256A019), filed by Mr. Thomas Saporito. The
petition was supplemented on September 8, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML11334A152), September 29, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11332A046),
October 21, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11308A016), and November 7,
2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML113530035). The petition concerns the
operation of the North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (North Anna 1
and 2), by the Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO or the
licensee). The petition requested 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 in summary
that:
(1) On August 23, 2011, North Anna 1 and 2, automatically tripped
offline as 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 final safety 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 an
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.
On September 29, 2011, and November 7, 2011, the petitioner and the
licensee met with the NRC staff's petition review board via telephone
conference (meeting transcripts at ADAMS Accession Nos. ML11332A046 and
ML113530035) regarding the petition. These meetings gave the petitioner
and the licensee an opportunity to provide additional information and
to clarify issues raised in the petition.
The NRC sent a copy of the proposed Director's Decision to the
petitioner and the licensee for comment by letter dated February 22,
2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11356A164), and February 28, 2012 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML11357A117), respectively. The licensee provided
comments by letter dated March 12, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML120720519). The comments and the NRC staff's response to them are
included in the Director's Decision, the complete text of which is
available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12094A250.
The NRC staff has evaluated the petitioner's requests to: (1) Take
escalated enforcement action against the licensee and suspend, or
revoke, the operating licenses for North Anna 1 and 2, and (2) issue a
notice of violation against the licensee with a proposed civil penalty
in the amount of 1 million dollars. With respect to these two requests,
the evaluations of two NRC inspection teams as documented in inspection
reports dated October 31, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML113040031), and
November 30, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML113340345), did not find any
violation of NRC regulations that would merit such enforcement actions.
Further detail regarding this decision on these two requests is
provided in the Director's Decision. With respect to the petition's
third request for enforcement action: ``to 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,'' the NRC staff concluded that
it had partially granted that request in Confirmatory Action Letter
(CAL) No. 2-2011-001 dated September 30, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML11273A078), which stated the following:
This Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) confirms that NAPS [North
Anna Power Station] Units 1 and 2 will not enter Modes 1-4 (as
defined in the technical specifications), until the Commission has
completed its review of your information, performed confirmatory
inspections, and completed its safety evaluation review. The
permission to resume operations will be formally communicated to
Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO) in a written
correspondence.
VEPCO shall submit to the NRC all documentation requested by the
NRC as being necessary to demonstrate that NAPS Units 1 and 2 can be
operated safely following the seismic event that exceeded the safe
shutdown event analyzed in the current revision of the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report.
This CAL will remain in effect until the NRC has (1) reviewed
your information,
[[Page 26323]]
including responses to staff's questions and the results of your
evaluations, and (2) the staff communicates to you in written
correspondence that it has concluded that NAPS can be operated
without undue risk to the health and safety of the public or the
environment.''
This CAL, therefore, confirmed the licensee's understanding that
North Anna 1 and 2, could not be restarted unless and until the
licensee had demonstrated to the NRC staff's satisfaction that ``* * *
no functional damage has occurred to those features necessary for
continued operation without undue risk to the health and safety of the
public,'' consistent with the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 100, Appendix A, Section V(a)(2).
Restart was contingent upon addressing a number of issues before
startup, many of which had been identified, in whole or in part, in the
petition as concerns.
Issues in the petition, previously identified and discussed as
concerns 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8, were discussed and substantially
addressed, either in the inspection reports issued October 31, 2011,
and November 30, 2011, or in the NRC technical evaluation dated
November 11, 2011. The activities by the NRC staff were completed
before restart to ensure that, before resuming operations, the licensee
had demonstrated no functional damage had occurred to those features at
North Anna 1 and 2, necessary for continued operation without undue
risk to the health and safety of the public. In that respect, these
concerns described in the petition as requiring completion before the
restart of North Anna 1 and 2, were addressed before restart,
consistent with the third request for enforcement action described in
the petition. Issues in the petition, previously identified and
discussed as concerns 4 and 9, were evaluated by the NRC staff before
restart of North Anna 1 and 2, but disposition of these concerns by the
NRC staff differed from the course of action requested in the petition.
In that respect, these aspects of the petition were denied.
A copy of the Director's Decision will be filed with the Secretary
of the Commission for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR
2.206 of the Commission's regulations. As provided for by this
regulation, the Director's Decision will constitute the final action of
the Commission 25 days after the date of the decision, unless the
Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the Director's
Decision in that time.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of April 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Bruce A. Boger,
Deputy Director, Reactor Safety Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-10707 Filed 5-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
