ML19209A347
| ML19209A347 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/27/1979 |
| From: | PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES (FORMERLY COALITION |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19209A316 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910030633 | |
| Download: ML19209A347 (5) | |
Text
_
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,)
Docket No. 50-344 et al.
)
)
(Control Building Proceeding)
(Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)
..RGUMENT AND DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF COALITION FOR SAFE POUER'S CONTENTION NO. 22 AND CONSOLIDATED INTERVENORS' CONTENTION NO. 20 I.
The Contentions At the prehearing conference on March 29, 1979, Coalition for Safe Power's Contention No. 22 was rephrased to be identical to Consolidated Intervenors' Contention No. 20.
(Tr. 3110).
These two contentions were then admitted (Tr. 3110-11) and read as follows.
The effect of the steel plate on displacement in the Complex has not been completely analyzed.
II.
Material Facts As to Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard A.
The analyses performed for the entire Complex in the as-built condition for purposes of interim operation established that, during a seismic event, relative dis-placements between the Control Building and adjacent structures would not result in contact between structures or unacceptable effects on equipment attached to two 1086 074 19100.8og33
. structures and that relative displacement between floors of the Control Building would not adversely affect the functioning of equipment supported by more than one floor.
B.
The modification work will increase the stiffness of the Complex by the addition of a 3-inch thick steel plate to the west wall (R-line wall) of the Control Building and by adding new concrete walls along column lines N, N' and R.
C.
Such added stiffness will reduce displacement of the Con-trol Building, thereby reducing relative displacement between the Control Building and adjacent structures and relative displacement between floors of the Control Building.
D.
Addition of the steel plate, without more, would affect the sufficiency of the existing space (" gap") between the Control Building and Turbine Building at two elevations (93 ft. and 69 ft.) where there are adjacent girders and floor slabs of the Turbine Building.
E.
Prior to installation of the steel plate, appropriate portions of the girders and slabs of the Turbine Building at such elevations will be removed.
F.
Analyses have demonstrated that, after the foregoing actions are taken, the gap between the Control Building and Turbine Building in the modified Complex will remain adequate to prevent the structures from touching during a seismic occurrence.
1086 075
. G.
In addition, the effect of relative displacements between adjacent structures on equipment attached to those structures will be acceptable and equipment in the Control Building will not be adversely affected by displacements between floors of the Control Building.
These material facts are supported in the attached affidavit of Dr. William H.
White on Coalition for Safe Power's Con-tention No. 22 and Consolidated Intervenors' Contention No. 20.
III.
Discussion The material facts listed above and the attached affidavit of Dr. White demonstrate that a complete analysis has been per-formed of the effects of the addition of the steel plate on displacement in the Complex.
In explaining its Contention No. 22 at the pre-hearing conference, Coalition for Safe Power (CFSP) made clear that its concern related to the possibility that the addition of the steel plate to the west wall of the Control Building would reduce the gap between the Control Building and Turbine Building so that such buildings might hit each other during a seismic occurrence (Tr. 3096-97).
This concern was also stated in CFSP's supplemental response to Licensee's Interrogatory 12(c) and its response to NRC Staff Interrogatories C22-2 and C22-4.
This matter has been fully addressed in the affidavit of Dr.
White (paragraphs 9 and 10) and there are no undisputed facts relating thereto.
1086 076
. No other specific concerns relating to this contention have been identified by CFSP or Consolidated Intervenors (CI).
CFSP has admitted that the steel plate will not increase de-flection.
(See Tr. 3096; CFSP response to NRC Staff Interro-gatory C22-4).
Although CI indicated that its Contention No. 20 referred to "all types of displacement discussed in Phase I hearings" (CI re3ponse to NRC Staff Interrogatory C20-2), it failed to respond to the NRC Staff's Companion interrogato2y (C20-4) relating to the scope of any additional analyses needed.
Moreover, CI has never responded to Licensee's Interrogatory 22 which requested specific information re-lating to CI's concerns (notwithstanding the Board's Order of June 5, 1979, directing it to respond to Licensee's interrogatories). In any event, the attached affidavit of Dr. White (paragraphs 8 and 11) reflects that, in addition to analyzing the gap between the Control Building and the Turbine Building, the modified Complex has been fully analyzed to assure that the effect of relative displacements on equip-ment attached to two adjacent structures will be acceptable and that equipment in the Control Building will not be adversely affected by displacements between floors of the Control Building.
Since no factual issues have been raised by CFSP or CI which contradict the facts recited in Dr. White's affi-1086 077 davit, the motion for summary disposition related to CFSP's Contention No. 22 and CI's Contention No. 20 should be granted as a matter of law.
In addition, both CFSP and CI have failed to respond adequately to relevant interrogatories filed by Licensee. /
Moreover, CI is in clear default- / on the Board's Order of June 5, entered pursuant to 10 CFR S2.740, ordering it to respond to Licensee's interrogatories.
Therefore, with respect to CI, the Board is entitled, pursuant to 10 CFR S2.707(a) to " find the facts as to matters regarding which the order [ issued pursuant to S2.740] was made in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order..."
Thus, the Board should now find in favor of Licensee, and in a manner adverse to CI, as to the facts set out in the affidavit of Dr. White.
For this additional reason, the Board should grant summary disposition of CI's Contention 20.
-*/
Though CFSP did file responses to Licensee's interrogatories 12 and 13 addressed to CFSP's Contention No. 22, these re-sponses were in large measure inadequate, as pointed out in Licensee's Motion to Compel, dated June 11, 1979, and Licensee's Supplemental Motion to Conpel, dated July 10, 1979.
Those Motions are now pending before the Board.
-~**/
CI has never responded to Licensee's Interrogatory 22 (Second Set of Interrogatories) addressed to CI's Contention No. 20.
See Licensee's Motion to Dismiss Nina Bell and Consolidated Intervenors, dated July 13, 1979.
1086 078