ML19209A703
| ML19209A703 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/16/1979 |
| From: | Ostrander F OREGON, STATE OF |
| To: | PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910050249 | |
| Download: ML19209A703 (7) | |
Text
=
on 3G PUBLIC DOCUEiI ROCM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
)
)
(Control Building)
)
(Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)
STATE OF OREGON INTERROGATORIES TO, AND REQUEST FOR THE PROCUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM, THE' PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CCMPANY ON CONTROL BUILDING MODIFICATIONS The State of Oregon hereby requests that the Portland General Electric Company, pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.740b. answer separately and fully, in writing under oath or affirmation, the following interrogatories within 14 days after service hereof.
For each response to the interrogatories listed below, identify the person or persons who erer.ared, or substantially contributed to the preparation of the response.
The State of Oregon further requests tha: the Portland General Electric C0mpany, pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.741, provide copies of, or make available for inspection and ccpying, any documents designated by the Portland General Electric Cc=pany in response 0 certain of the acccmpanying interroga: cries within 3C days after service thoreci.
lO, nA)
- ' t. o o
4 2
' (i st 7 910050 4
C@
~
INTERROGATORY 1.
Table 3.5-1 of PGE-1020 shows that the calculated total forces during an OBE on w&lls 6 and 8 between elevations 45' and 61' exceed the calculated wall capacities.
Please justify in technical detail the consequences of this result including:
(a) the fact that these walls are not centin-uous plane walls as modeled in the STARDYNE computer program; (b) wall deflections; (c) load transfers to other walls and the acceptability of such load transfers; (d) the probability and extent of damage to walls 6 and 8 including spalling; (e) the consequances of such wall damage to equipment, cables, and piping contained within, penetrating, adjacent to, or in the vicinity of the walls and identify all such equipment, cables and piping; (f) the personnel hazard associated with such wall damage.
INTERRCGATORY 2.
What are the consequences of a design basis hurricane, tornado, earthquake, etc.
cccuring during movement of the steel plates into position and prior to tensioning of the attacnment bol:s?
Please include in the response the effects or the lifting and transporting equipment and the effects of the places slanming against nearby structures and equipment.
1 - 3 TATE IF OREGCN INTERRCGATORIES 1106 043
INTERROGATORY 3.
Please justify in detail the quality and acceptability of the transporting equipment..ncluding each item in the system such as chains, slings, etc.
the qualification test procedures and acceptance criteria, and when testing will be done.
Also, regarding PGE's response to NRC question 1(c) of July 20, 1979, Please state the operators' actual qualifi-cations and the actual extent of supervision during lifting and transporting the plates.
INTERROGATORY 4.
(a)
Although PGE states that in response to NRC ques-tion 2,cf July 20, 1979 that in the event of a plate drop sufficient equipment will remain operable to achieve and main-tain a safe shutdown condition, please justify how the plant operator can be expected to take the appropriate actions to achieve a safe shutdown condition considering all of the pcssible alarms, failure indications, inoperable instrument meters,
false meter indications, noise, smoke, dust, etc., that may occur as a result of cables, piping, and equipment being damaged or rendered inoperable as a result of the plate drop.
(b)
Please estimate the time required for the cperator to achieve a safe shutdcwn condition in the event of a plate drop and ;ustify the acceptability thereof including specific reference to the standards on which the respense is based.
2 - STATE OF CREGCN !"TERRCGATCRIES 1106 044
INTERROGATORY 5.
(a)
What are the estire :ed time intervals between the initiation of the lifts of partes 7 and 8 and ccepletion of attacb=ent of these plates to the wall?
(b)
Please state why these two dperations could not be scheduled to coincide with plant shutdown in order to minimize the risks involved.
INTERROGATORY 6.
Please set forth the standards PGE considers conmitted to follow during the modification work.
For example, will PGE specifically and fully comply with the License Technical Specif,ications, the modification procednres contained in PGE-1020, as well as each statement in response to cuestions and interrogatories in the proceeding?
INTERRCGATORY 7.
Please justify in detail the technical acceptability of the partial penetration welds between the plate segments.
In your response please identify and discuss each of the folicwing:
(a) the minimum defect s.ze detectable by the proposed non-destructive examination; (b) the acceptance criteria for the prcposed ncn-destructive examination; (c) the effect of the maximum undetectable er maximum acceptable defect (whichever is worse) in the wors: case configuration and crientaticn; 3 - STATE OF OR-ccN INTERRCGATORIES 0,13
(d) welder qualification.
IN!ERROGATORY 8.
Please state whether the bumping post will be of sufficient strength to stop a runaway rail car of the maximum possible load and speed (see NRC question 19 of July 20) and provide the basis for your conclusion including all assumptions and the sources thereof.
Respectfully submitted, 4
FRK1K W.
OSTRANDER Assistant Antoiney Ge..eral Of Attorney fc the State of Oregon 4 - STATE OF ORIGCN INTERRCGATORIES j j Qf Qp, h
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,
Frank W.
Ostrander, Jr., hereby certify that en this day of August, 1979, I served the within State of Oregon Interrogatories upon the following parties of record by then depositing in the United States Post Office at Portland, Oregon, full, trua, and correct 'opies thereof, addressed to the said parties of record at the following addresses listed below, and prepaying the postage thereen:
Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chair.
Mr. David B. McCoy Atemic Safety and Licensing Board 348 Hussey Lane U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Gran:s Pass, Oregon 97256 Washington, D.
C.
20555 Ms.
C.
Gail Parson Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean 800 SW Gree.5 s 6 Division of Engineering, Portland, OR 97206 Architecture & Technology Oklahoma State University Ronald W.
Johnson, Esq.
Stillwatar, Oklahoma 74074 Corporate Attorney Portland General Electric Dr. Hugh C.
Paxton 121 SW Salmon Street 1229-41st Street Portland, OR 97204 Los Alancs, New Mexico 97544 William W.
Kinsey Mr. John A. Kullberg 1002 UE Holladay Route One, Bcx 2500 Portland, OR 97232 Sauvie Island, Oregon 97231 Ms. Nina Bell Columbia Environmental Council 632 SE ISth 203 S.
1st Street Pcrtland, Oregen 97214 St. Helens, Oregon 97051 Mr. Stephe,n M.
Willingham Joseph R. Gray 555 N. Temahawk Drive Counsel for NRC Staff Per land, Oregon 97217 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Wcshington, D.
C.
20555 Mr. Eugene Rosolie Coalition for Safe Pcwer Maurice Axeirad, Esq.
215 SE 9th Avenue Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Portland, OR 97214 Axeirad & Tell Suite 1214 1025 Ccrnecticut Avenue NW Washington, D.
C.
20036 1 1 0 6 thi */
n-,
-r ver-
,CATE CF SER72CE a
Dr.
W. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Washington, D.
C.
20555 Washington, D.
C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Alan S.
Rosenthal, Esq.
Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Appeal Board Washington, D.
C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmm'n Washington, D.
C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Dr. John H.
Buck U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmm'n Atcmic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.
C.
20555 Appeal Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Washington, D. C.
20555
[b F PJdK W.' OSI.GD ER, Jp.
Assistant Attorney General Of Attorneys for State of Oregon
\\