ML19209A321
| ML19209A321 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/27/1979 |
| From: | Edwards E, Withers B BECHTEL GROUP, INC., PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19209A316 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910030595 | |
| Download: ML19209A321 (8) | |
Text
UNITED STATE OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COIB1ISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the flatter of
)
)
PORTLAND GENEFaL ELECTRIC COMPANY, )
Docket No. 50-344 et al.
)
(Control Building
)
Proceeding)
(Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)
ARGU1ENT AND DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF COALITION FOR SAFE POWER'S CONTENTION NO. 17 AND CONSOLIDATED INTERVENORS' CONTENTION NO. 2D.
At the prehearing conference on March 29, Coalition for Safe Powers' Contention No. 17 and Consolidated Intervenors' contention No. 2d were admitted (Tr. 3065, 3103, respectively) to read as follows:
17.
Performance of modification work will hamper the ability of plant operators to respond to any emergency properly and thus poses an undue risk to the public health and safety.
2.
Licensee has not shown that there will be adequate O
fire protection at the Trojan plant Ftring modifications in the following areas:
d) sufficient fire brigade access ists and will be maintained.
II
?!aterial Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard A.
The general areas in which the work activities related to the modification program will be carried out have been identified, and for each such area the potential interference with access by modification work has also been identified.
1086 031 7910080
. B.
If a fire or other emergency were to occur within the general areas where the modification work will be performed, Plant personnel would need access in that area.
Since con-struction workers would leave such areas in accordance with instructions received under standard plant procedures, their presence would not hamper the ability of Plant personnel to take effective action with respect to a fire or other emergency within such area.
C.
Certain emergency situations may require Plant personnel to proceed to remote locations outside the Control Room to operate equipment.
The only such locations within or adjacent to the work areas have been identified; and, for each such location, at least one alternate access path is available which will be totally unobstructed by the modification work.
There-fore the modification work will not interfere with the ability of Plant personnel to reach such locations during an emergency.
D.
During performance of the modification work, access within the general areas where work will be performed could be temporarily limited in the following ways:
1.
During movement of six steel plates in the Turbine Building at cl. 45, access through the corridor to the railroad bay at the base of the R line wall could be limited for approximately fifteen minutes.
However, at no time would personnel access through that corridor be blocked.
1086 032
. 2.
At el. 93' in the Turbine Building, the steel stairway to the Vi=i tors ' Gallery above the Control Room and the ladder, with safety cage and steel platform, leading to the Turbine Building roof and crane cab will be removed temporarily.
3.
During performance of all other tasks, the only other potential interference with access paths would consist of workers in aisles.
E.
The limitation on access at el. 45' in the Turbine Building is not in an area where safety-related equipment, or equipment needed for normal plar _ operation, is located.
The ladder to the Turbine Building roof and crane and the stairway to the Visitors' Gallery do not provide &ccess to safety-related equipment or equipment needed for normal Plant operation.
More-over, in each case, at least one totally unvestruct eo alternate access route will be available.
Thus, che modification work will not hamper the ability of Plant personnel to respond to an emergency.
F.
Potential interferences caused by workers in aisles will be no greater than those one would expect during routine Plant maintenance.
Even so, should an emergency arise modification work will be halted and construction workers will leave the area in accordance with standard instructions.
1086 033
. G.
Performance of some portions of the modification work will require the presence of a few workers in the Control Rocm at limited times,well away from areas requiring immediate operator attention or action.
The Shift Supervisor will control their presence and actions in the Control Room.
This will preclude interference with operators by these workers in the event of an emergency.
H.
Since noise from the modification work at elevation 93' will be controlled so that it does not interfere with Plant operation, it will not hamper the ability of Plant operators in the Control Room to respond to an emergency.
III.
Discussion The material facts listed above and the attached affidavits of Mr. Edwards and Mr. Withers demonstrate that the modification work will not interfere with the ability of plant operators to respond to an emergency situation, including a fire.
CFSP and CI have responded only in a limited fashion to Licensee's ciscovery requests seeking information on these contention CFSP's concerns appear to be wheth6r, and how, adequate access paths will be maintained in the Complex during modification work; whether tne modification work will interfere with signals necessary to alert Plant personnel to an emergency; and whether workers in the Control Room could prevent necessary Plant operator response to an emergency.
(Response to Licensee's Interrogatory 8 (First Set)).
CI has stated that it believes fire brigard access-might be affected by removal and installation of structures or use of equipment.
(Response to Licensee's Interrogatory 1(d) (iii)
(First Set)).
- Both CFSP and CI have failed to identify any other con-cerns relating to these contentions.
When the Board admitted CFSP's Contention 17 on March 29 it recognized that it lacked specificity and that CFSP would have to refine the contention when more information became available to it.
(Tr. 3065)
CFSP agreed to do so.
(Id.)
However, in the intervening five months, CFSP has done nothing to gather additional information from Licensee with respect to this Contention 17.
It has only filed a single set of interrogatories with Licensee, none of which appears to relate to this contention.
Moreover, CPSP has failed to answer Licensee's Interrogatories adequately.
Though at the prehearing conference CFSP's representative, Mr. Rosolie, indicated that his site visit had led him to an
" initial evaluation.
that thtre would W some problems
[from the modification work with respect to emergency response]"
(Tr. 3064) he has failed to identify what those problems might be and how information gained on his site visit relates to them, notwithstanding Licensee's Interrogatory 16 (Second Set) which specifically sought such information from him. /
CI, for its part, failed to respond to Licensee's Interrogatory 15(e) (Second Set) which requested similar in-formation with respect to its Contention 2d.- /
-*/
CFSP's inadequate responses to Licensee's Interrogatory 16, among others, are the subject of Licensee's Motion to Compel, dated June 11, 1979, and Supplemental Motion to Compel, dated July 10, 1979, now pending before the Board.
--**/
is in clear default of the Board's Order of June 5,
- 1979, CI ordering it to respond to Licensee's Interrogatories.
1086 035
, The concerns which CI and CFSP raised have been reviewed and found to be groundless.
There have been identified the areas of the Plant where the modification work will be performed and the potential interferences with access which the work might cause.
(Edwards' affidavit, paragraph 5; Withers' affidavit, paragraph 6)
Should a fire or other emergency occur, the modi-fication work would not hamper plant personnel access within those areac (Withers' affidavit, paragraph 7) Though there are certain remote locations within or adjacent to the work areas to which plant personnel might need to proceed
.f an emer'ency g
were to occur (Withers' affidavit, paragraph 8), it has been determined that at least one alternate access path to those locations would be available which would Lc an;br actad by the modification work. (Withers' affidavit, paragraph 9)
Thus Plant personnel would be able to reach those locations in event of an emergency.
Certain movement of materials and temporary removal of structures may limit access in the work areas.
(Edwards' affidavit, paragraphs 6 and 7)
However, these activities will not hamper the ability of Plant personnel to ren,ond to an emergency.
(Withers' affidavit, paragraph 10).
None of the other tasks performed during the modification program will hamper access by Plant personnel in the event of an emergency.
If workers or equipment are in an access path needed by Plant personnel to respond to an emergency, they will easily move aside, and move their equipment and materials as well.
(Edwards' affidavit, paragraph 8)
In any event, if a 1086 036
. fire or other emergency did arise, modification work would cease and construction workers, in accordance with instructions given pursuant to standard Plant procedures, would leave the area and report to their supervisor outsid e the Plant buildings.
(Withers' affidavit, paragraph 7) Finally, any workers inside the Control Room for limited periods during modification work will be located in areas away from those requiring immediate' operator attention or action, and will be under the direction ard control of the Shift Supervisor to preclude their inadvertent interference with operations in the event of an emergency.
(Withers' affidavit, paragraph 11).
The modification work will be conducted so that noise in the Control Room does not exceed acceptable levels, and thus will not mask any alarm in the Control Room which will lignal Plant personnel to respond to an emergency.
(Edwards' affidavit, paragraph 1: Withers' af fidavit, paragraph 11)
Since no factual issues have been raised by CFSP or CI which contradict the facts recited in the affidavits of Mr. Edwards and Mr. Withers, the motion for summary disposition related to CFSP's Contention No. 17 and CI's Contentien No. 2d should be granted as a mat _ar of law.
As noted, (footnote, p.
5, supra) both CFSP and CI have failed to respond adequately to relevant interrogatories filed by Licensee.
Moreover, CI is in clear default on the Licensing Board's Order of June 5, entered pursuant to 10 CFR 2.740, ordering it to respond to Licensee's interrogatories.
Therefore, with respect to CI, the Board is entitled, pursuant to 1086 037
_g_
to matters regarding 10 CFR S2.707(a) to ~ ind *he.
,1 s t
which the order [ issued rursuant to S2.740) was made in accordance with the clat of the par obtaining the order..."
Thus, the Board t<nould nca find in favor of Licensee, and in a manner adverse to CI, as to the facts set out in *he affidavits of Mr. Edwards and.tr. Withers.
For this additional reason, the Board should grant sunmary disposition of CI's Contention 2d.
1 1086 038