ML19249A316
| ML19249A316 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/10/1979 |
| From: | Gray J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908220013 | |
| Download: ML19249A316 (9) | |
Text
07/10/79 H;tg C
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
/ ' f; NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0FMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD jz In the Matter of
)
h
)
s PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPT.NY,
)
Docket No. 50-344 g-ET AL.
)
(Control Building)
')
~
f
)
m,%,_ / y (Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)
STAFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING EUGENE ROSOLIE/
C0ALITION FOR SAFE POWER TO RESPOND FULLY TO STAFF INTERR0GATORY C16-4 I.
Introduction and Backaround On May 15, 1979, the NRC Staff (Staff) filed a series of interrogatories directed to Eugene Rosolie and the Coalition for Safe Power (Intervenor). These interroga-tories, totalling three in number, were related to Intervenor's contentions for Pahse II of the captioned proceeding.
On June 14, 1979, 10 days after Intervenor's responses were to be submitted, the Staff filed a motion requesting the Licensing Board to compel Intervenor to respond to the Staff's interrogatories since no responses had been received at that time.
On June 15, 1979, the Board issued the requested order, directing Intervenor to file full, direct and responsive answers to the Staff's interrogator es.
d Intervenor's responses were filed on June 23, 1979. For the reasons set forth below, the Staff again finds it necessary to seek a Licensing Board order com-pelling a full, complete and responsive answer to interrogatory C16-4 which was a part of the set of interrogatories filed by the Staff on May 15, 1979.
\\
s 79082200)$
. II.
Basis for Reouest for Order Compelling Responsive Answer to Staff Interrogatory C16-4 The Staff's interrogatory C16-41/ o Intervenor reads as follows:
t C16-4 In response to the Staff's interrogatory C16-3 you stated that, in your view, there are no plans, apart
~from snut ooivn, that, as a practical matter, could protect safety-related equipment during the modifica-tions. You indicate that the reasons for your position in this regard are "the numerous errors that have occurred in the past at the Trojan plant and other nuclear power plants."
In this regard, (a)
Specifically identify the " numerous errors" at Trojan and other plants to which you refer in response to Staff interrogatory C16-3.
(b)
Indicate the relationship between the errors identified in (a) and measures taken to protect safety-related equipment from the effects of construction work.
(c)
State specifically the reasons why, in your view, each of the errors identified in (a) will prevent the formulation and effective implementation of measures to protect safety-related equipment during the modifications at Trojan.
Intervenor's response was C16-4.
See response to Licensee's Interrogatory 13.
Intervenor's response to Licensee's interrogatory 13EI is as follows:
Interroaatory 13 (a) Yes.
(c)
(i)
Date of Report LER Number 2-18-76 76-08 2-06-76 76-07 1/ Interrogatory C16-4 relates to Intervenor's admitted contention 16 -in which it is asserted that
[1]icensee has not made adequate plans to pro.ect all safety equipment and equipment for safe operation during the modifi-cation work.
El Licensee's interrogatory 13 related to Intervenor's admitted contention 3 on the alleged inadequary of plant staff review for assuring that the (FOOTNOTECONTINUEDONNEXTPAGE) 842 134 3-01-76 76-11 3-12-76 76-04A 3-12-76 76-16 3-12-76 76-17 4-09-76 76-24 4-09-76 76-26 4-12-76 76-28 6-18-76 76-48 8-26-76 76-48 9-03-76 76-54 11-10-76 76-61 11-18-76 76-65 3-08-77 77-05 2-22-77 77-03 3-31-77 77-04 3-31-77 77-05 4-29-77 77-08 5-12-77 77-09 5-24-77 77-10 5-25-77 77-11 6-02-77 77-14 6-03-77 77-15 6-27-77 77-17 6-29-77 77-20 7-06-77 77-20 7-22-77 77-24 8-26-77 77-29 10-19-77 77-30 9-16-77 77-34 11-15-77 77-41 (i) Broehl, trancript pages 1949-1955 and Consolidated Intervenors Exhibit 2.
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE 2I proposed modification} will not result in violations of the facility's Technical Specifications. That interrogatory states:
Interrogatory 13 This Interrogatory relates to your Contention 3 and to your responses to Licensee's Interrogatory 1:
(a) Licensee's letter to you dated April 20, 1979 provided the additional information which you requested at the prehearing conference (TR 31dl-3182) with respect to review by the Plant Staff.
In light of that informa-tion, please state whether you still allege that Plant Staff review of the modifications is inadequate "in that the Plant Staff will not be able to determine whether or not a Technical Specification will be violated".
p (b)
If your answer to (a) is yes, please answer (c) and (d) below.
If your answer to (a) is no, pl:ase answer (e) below.
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
. (iii) LER's show that plant staff is unable to avoid cr forsee problems arising at the Trojan Plant. Broehl testimony shows that plant staff has a different view of what the Technical Specifications are and when they have been violated. Consolidated Intervenors Exhibit 2 show (sic) that plant staff has been lack (sic) in identifying and fixing prob-lems at the Trojan Plant. Add to this the recent revela-tion that plant operators have been goofing off on the job for a two year period in our mind, and we are sure the ASLB will find the same, that the plant staff lacks the ability
, to determine whether or not a Technical Specification will be violated. Attachment 1 is provided concerning the opera-tor goof-off problem.
(d) No.
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) 2/
(c)
In your response to Licensee's Interrogatory 1(c) you stated that the bases for your allegations were "LER's and testimony given at Phase I hearings of this proceeding".
(i)
Please identify, by number and date, each LER on which you rely as the basis for your allegations; (ii)
Please identify, by witness and transcript page, each part of the testimony given during Phase I of the hearings on sich you rely as the basis for your allegations:
(iii) For each item identified in (i) and (ii) above, state why you believe it provides a basis for your allegations.
(d) Do you allege that there are particular circumstances regarding the modification program which will make it difficult to determine whether Technical Specifications might be violated? If your answer is yes, please indi-cate the nature of those circumstances and how they will affect the Plant Staff review. Please provide the bases for your response.
(d) Please explain whether Contention 3 is withdrawn.
If not:
(i)
Explain why you think Plant Staff review will be inadequate; (ii)
Specify the type and scope of review that you believe would be adequate; (iii)
If the bases for your response are those quoted in (c) above, please answer (c)(i),
(ii) and (iii).
842 1%
}
In response to a previous Staff interrogatory (C16-3) on Intervenor's contention 16, Intervenor stated, in essence,that no plans or provisions could be formulated that could protect safety-related equipment during modification work. The alleged bases for this statement were numerous undefined errors that occurred at Trojan and other nuclear plants.
Intervenor did not indicate what " errors" were being referred:to and, in any event, presented no basis for belie /ing that past " errors" at Trojan and elsewhere have any bearing on the Control Building modifications or preclude the formulation of plans to protect Trojan equipment during the modifications.
Accordingly, interrogatory C16-4 sought a specific identification of the alleged
" errors" at Trojan and other nuclear plants as well as specific indication of the relationship between those " errors" and measures to protect safety-related quip-ment and the specific reasons why each " error" would prevent the formulation of such measures.
Intervenor did not prepare a specific response to Staff interrogatory C16-4 but instead referred to a previous response to Licensee's interrogatory 13.
That interrogatory dealt with Intervenor's contention 3 on the violation of Technical Specifications rather than with contention 16 on provisions for protecting safety-related equipment. The entire response to Licensee Inter-rogatory 13 is directed toward the Trojan plant staff's perception of technical specificationsanditsallehedinabilitytodealwithproblemsortooperate the plant. There is no discussion of any sort with regard to plans or provi-sions for protecting safety-related equipment during the modifications and, as shown below, the specific questions posed by parts (a), (b) and (c) of Staff interrogatory C16-4 are not answered in Intervenor's response to Licensee's interrogatory 13. Thus, that response does not even appear to be applicable to Staff interrogatory C16-4.
) {}
M,L Assuming that the referenced response is applicable to Staff interrogatory C16-4(a),
Intervenor has listed a series of Trojan Licensee Event Reports (LERs) which apparently constitute the " errors" that preclude the formulation of provisions to protect safety-related eugipment. There is no listing of the " errors" at other nuclear plants which Intervenor claimed (in response to Staff Interrogatory C16-3) formed the basis for Centention 16. Thus, Intervenor's " answer" to 5taff interrogatory C16-4(a) is not complete or fully responsive. Accordingly, the Staff requests that Intervenor be directed to provide a specific, full, complete and responsive answer te Staff interrogatory C16-4(a).
Staff interrogatory C16-4(b) requests that Intervenor state the relationship between each " error" identified in response to C16-4(a) and measures taken to protect safety-related equipment during the modification work. Staff interrog-atory C16-4(c) requests that Intervenor state specifically the reasons why each
" error" identified in interrogatory C16-4(a) will prevent the formulation and implementation of measures to protect safety-related equipment. No response of any kind is presented by Intervenor, even assuming that the referenced response to Licensee's interrogatory 13 is somehow applicable. Absent a response, there is no basis whatscever for Intervenor's contention 16. Accordingly, the Staff requests that Intervenor be directed to provide, with regard to each error identified in response to C16-4(a), specific, full, complete and responsive answers to parts (b) and (c) of Staff interrogatory C16-4.
e O
QL o
7,-
III.
Relief Requested
~~
Based on the foregoing, the Staff respectfully requests that the Licensing Board' issue an Order directing Intervenor to previde separate, detailed, full, direct and responsive answers to each part of Staff interrogatory C16-4 by 'uly 23, 1979.3/
Respectfully submitted, I
h]
(.
ose@ R. Gray Counsel for NRC Sta f Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 10th day of July, 1979
~
-3/
Since approximately 8 weeks have elapsed since this interrogatory was filed, July 23, 1979 provides ample time, in 'the Staff's view, for Intervenor to prepare and file a full and responsive 3nswer to the interrogatory.
N t
9 a
i to
\\)I s
()k P
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND '.ICENSING BOARD i
In the Matter of
)
)
PCRTLAND GENdRAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL. )
Docket Nos. 50-344
~ ~ - -
)
(Control Building)
(Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " STAFF'S MOTION' 0R ORDER COMPELLING EUGENE ROSOLIE/
COALITION FOR SAFE POWER TO RESPOND FULLY TO STAFF INTERROGATORY C16-4" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 10th day of July, 1979:
Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman
- Richard M. Sandvik, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board F*ank Ostrander, Jr.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Cou sor Oregon Dept. of Washington, DC 20555
.gy 500 Pacific Building Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean 520 S.W. Yamhill Division of Engineering, Portland, OR 97204 Architecture & Technology Oklahoma State University Maurice Axelrad, Esq.
Stillwater, OK 74074 Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad & Toll Dr. Uugh C. Paxton Suite 1214 1229 41st Street 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Los Alamos, NM 87544 Washingtoo, DC 20036 s
Mr. John A. Kullberg Mr. David B. McCoy Route one 348 Hussey Lane Box 250Q Grants Pass, OR 97526 Sauvie Island, OR 97231 Ms. C. Gail Parson Columbia Environmental Council 800 S.W. Green #6 203 S. 1st Street Portland, OR 97206 St. Helens, OR 97051 (l[b M
e
2-Ronald W. Johnson, Esq.
Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq.*
Corporate Attorney Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Portland General Electric Board Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 121 S.W. Salmon Street Washington, DC 20555 Portland, OR 97204 Dr. John H. Buck
- William W. Kinsey Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 1002 N. E. Holladay Board Portland, OR 97232 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Ms. Nina Bell 728 S. E. 26th Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Portland, OR 97214 Panel
- U.S. huclear Regulatory Co= mission Mr. Stephen M. Willingham Washington, DC 20555 555 N. Tomahawk Drive Portland, Oregon 97217 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (5)*
Mr. Eugene Rosolie U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Coalition for Safe Power Washington, DC 20555 215 SE 9th Avenue Portland, OK 97214 Docketing and Service Section (4)*
Office of the Secretary Dr. W. Reed Johnson
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, DC 20555 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 M%
[fosep R. Gray /
/Co wsel for IEC St ff
\\ A\\~
2,4'l
-e w
m.
O