ML19256F937
| ML19256F937 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1979 |
| From: | Axelrad M LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL |
| To: | Mccollom K, Miller W, Paxton H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912270091 | |
| Download: ML19256F937 (9) | |
Text
..:
LAW OFFICES LoWENSTEIN. Ni$WM AN. REIS, iDCELHAn & TOLL 10 2 5 CON N ECTICUT AV E N U E N. W.
I montatLowthsTEin A
CE AAC AO QAveO m, TOLL E AT H L C E N M.SMEA J A. Soum M8GMT. JR.
E.GmEGomy SARNES MrCM AE L A. S AUSE 4 DESOmAM L. S E m pe S T E l as ALS E n f V. C Am m. J a mosE nt M Cusp PE 7 E R G, F Lv no g wall 4 AM J. F R A se n kt m FREDEm'C S G R A' DOuGL AS G Om E E ms December 11, 1979 Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Hugh C.
Paxton 1229 - 41st Street Los Alamos, NM 87544 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Division of Engineering, Architecture & Technology Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK 74074 Re:
Portland General Electric Company, et al.
(Trojan Nuclear Plant)
Docket No. 50-344 (Control Building Proceeding)
Gentlemen:
In Paragraph 5 of its November 30, 1979 Order, (p.4),
the Licensing Board directed all parties to state and document their views "as to how long interim operation of the Trojan facility should be permitted, in the absence of the submission of firm plans for control room modifications, adequate from a safety standpoint to bring the facility into substantial compliance with the license."
In accordance with our December 8 letter to the Licensing Board, Licensee hereby submits its views on this matter, documented by appropriate references to the record.
1645 133 7 912 2700 c) 7
Low s.N sT n t N, N Ew hi AN. R EI M, A X E LH A D & To LL Marshall E. Miller, Esq. '
Dr. Hugh C.
Paxton Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Page Two December 11, 1979 It is the view of Licensee that the length of the period of interim operation of the Plant under the imposed license conditions has no effect on the public health and safety.
As we will show below, this view is supported by the record of this proceeding, the Board's findings in the Partial Initial Decision, and subsequent filings by the parties.
Accordingly, there is no public health and safety reason why interim operation of the Plant should not continue until the Board has reached a decision with respect to proposed modifications of the Control Building and such moditications, as approved and conditioned by the Board, have been completed.
Since the Phase I record on this subject is voluminous, we will not attempt to refer to all portions thereof which demonstrate that the Plant can operate safely until the modifications are completed, but will only summarize key portions.
As the Board will recall, such operation is safe because the Plant, with the Control Building in the as-built condition, has adequate structural strength to w thstand the Safe Shutdown Earthquake ("SSE") of 0.25g and be shutdown safely if such a seismic event occurs. A license condition added as a result of the Board's Partial Initial Decision requires shutdown and inspection of the Plant if a seismic event equal to or greater than 0.08g occurs during the period of interim operation.
The record on these subjects includes testimony with respect to the capacity of the as-built structure to withstand seismic events presented on behalf of Licensee by a panel of witnesses and by independent consultants.
(Licensee's Exhs.
10, 12).
Licensee's panel explained in detail the manner in which they evaluated the ability of the structure to withstand an earthquake of 0.25g, and concluded that the as-built structure will safely withstand the seismic shear forces imposed by a 0.25g SSE.
(Licensee's Exh. 10, p. 18).
In
~
fact, considering the conservatisms in seismic design analysis and design margin, Licensee's panel concluded that the as-built structure will withstand an actual earthquake at least 50% larger than the SSE. */ (Licensee's Exh. 10,
- p. 28).
Licensee's independent consultants concluded that in their judgment the as-bu lt Control Building can withstand the 0.25g SSE with no consequences that could interfere with safe shutdown.
(Licensee's Exh. 12, p. 16).
- / The State of Oregon's witness, Dr. Harold I.
- Laursen, sImilarly agreed that the as-built structure will withstand an earthquake in excess of 0.25g SSE.
Tr. 2097-2099, 2105, 2109-2110.
1645 134
LOWENSTEIN, N EWM AN. R EIN, AXE LR AD & TOLL Marshall E. Miller, Ecq.
Dr. Hugh C. Paxton Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Page Three December 11, 1979 Licensee's panel of experts concluded that:
Based on all our investigations and evaluations, the large margins of safety designed into these structures and the calculated strength of these structures, we conclude that the Con-trol Building is entirely suitable for continued safe operation of the plant.
(Licensee's Exh. 10, p. 29).
The Staff also presented testimony with respect to the adequacy of the as-built structure.
(Staff Exh. 5; Staff Exh. 6).
Staff witness Herring concluded, based on his extensive review, that:
There is adequate assurance that the structure has the required strength to resist an earthquake up to, and including the SSE.
(Staff Exh.
5, p.
28).
See also Staff Exh.
6, pp.
11, 16. */
Witness Herring recommended that, in light of the Staff's concern that nonlinear behavior (first cracking) of one wall will begin at 0.087g, the Plant be shutdown and inspected if, during interim operation, an earthquake equal to or greater than 0.08g peak ground acceleration should occur. **/ (Staff Exh.
6, pp. 11-12).
Though Licensee's testimony demonstrated the ability of the as-built structure to meet an OBE criterion of 0.11g, Licensee comitted to shut down the Plant and inspect it if an earthquake of 0.08g occurs during interim operation.
(Tr. 1807-1808).
- / In fact, Staff witness Herring testified that, in his opinion, the as-built structure can safely withstand an SSE of 0.35g.
(Tr. 2291).
- / The Staff, for purposes of additional conservatism, rounded down the 0.087g figure.
(Staff Exh.
- 6. pp. 11-12, 16).
1645 135
Low ENST EIN, N EW M AN, H EIS, AX E LH A D & TOLL Marshall E. Miller, Esq.,
Dr. Hugh C. Paxton Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Page Four December 11, 1979 In response to questioning from the Board, witness Herring specifically stated that, absent occurrence of an earthquake "at some unspecified level" greater than 0.08g, interim operation could continue for an indefinite period of time.
(Tr. 2255-2257). */
Thus, witnesses for the Staff and Licensee took the same positions:
the specific period of interim operation need not be of concern to the public health and safety.
There was no testimony or other evidence to the contrary.
In its Partial Initial Decision the Board found that the as-built Complex can withstand an SSE of 0.25g during interim operation (141) ; that gross failure or collapse of the Control Building or shear walls is not credible up to and including the SSE (Id.); that the Control Building can safely withstand an earthquake at least 50 percent higher than the SSE (Id.); and that in the event of an SSE, the Plant could be shutdown safely (165). 8 NRC 717 at 735, 741.
The Board concurred that a seismic event equal to or greater than 0.08g during the interim operation period should require shutdown and inspection, although recognizing that this value may be overly conservative (142).
(pl.,
at 735).
The Board therefore issued an order which authorized the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to amend the Operating License to permit interim operation "upon the effective date of [such) amendment to Facility Operating License No. NFP-1, and until further order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued in conjuction with the decision on the scope and timeliness of modifications required by the Order for Modification of License of May 26, 1978.
(Id., at 747).
- / Witness Herring's prepared testimony stated that " interim operation for the approximately one-year period necessary to effect structural repairs and improvements is appropriate.
." (Staff Exh. 6, p. 16).
It is cLJar from both the context of the statement and the witness' response to the Board questions that the period alluded to was not intended as a limitation on the length of " safe" interim operation.
It was simply a reference to the prospective period that might be necessary for completion of the work.
1645 136
LOWENSTEIN, NEWM AN, REls. AXELRAn & TOLL Marshall E. Miller, ESq.
Dr. Hugh C.
Paxton Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Page Five December 11, 1979 Since the date of the Board's Partial Initial Decision, none of the delays which have occurred in Phase II of the proceeding has raised any question that the length of the period of interim operation would have any effect on the public health and safety.
As we have pointed out to the Board on several occasions, Licensee is anxicas to complete Phase II of the proceeding and the modification program as quickly as possible, consistent with a sound decision. Some of the events which have transpired since the. Board issued its Initial Decision in Phase I and which have contributed substantially to the delays in Phase II, have been beyond the control of the parties. */ The parties have recognized that such delays do not affect the public health and safety.
As stated by the Staff in its Motion of May 21, 1979:
- / For example, the NRC Staff in its May 21, 1979, " Motion for Postponement of Hearing and Adoption of Alternate Hearing Schedule," based its request to postpone the then-scheduled hearing date on conflicting demands on Staff personnel:
[T]he accident at the Three Mile Island facility, the shutdown of five facilities because of analytical errors in pipe stress analysis codes used for those plants, an incident at the Oyster Creek facility on May 3, 1979, and a numberof unresolved generic safety questions that are of very high priority have unexpectedly required Staff manpower which would other wise have been involved in the review and evaluation of the Trojan Control Building modifications and the preparation of an SER thereon.
Moreover, resolution of these matters, which is of exteme importance, will continue to require the attention of key personnel and will thus further impact the preparation of Trojan SER.
Those affected by recent
,ccurrences are K. Herring and J. Martore.
and J.
Knight and H.
George.
These are the Staff's principal reviewers for
[ Phase II.].
(Staff Motion pp. 2-3).
(Footnote continued on page six) 1645 137
1.owessTEIN, NEWM AN. Ruts. AxEtnAn & TOLL Marshall E. Miller, Esq.
Dr. Hugh C.
Paxton Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Page Six December 11, 1979
[Als found by the Licensing Board based on the uncontroverted evidence, and as affirmed by the Appeal Board in ALAB-534, there is reasonable assurance that operation of the Trojan facility prior to approval and implementation of Control Building modifica-tions will not endanger the health and safety of the public provided that such operation is in accordance with the conditions in
.corporated into the Trojan license pursuant to the Partial Initial Decision on interim operation.
That finding remains valid.
Consequently, it is the Staff's view that the need for expedition in Phase II does not stem from any safety concern with regard to interim operation and that the postpone-ment requested herein is of no safety signi-ficance.
(Staff Motion, pp. 5-6).
In response to the Motion, the Licensee, the State of Oregon and the Staff all expressed a desire to conclude the Phase II proceeding and complete the modification work in as timely a fashion as possible, consistent with a sound decision.
(Staff Motion, p.
- 6).
No party to the proceeding objected to the Motion, thus reflecting that none believed that the period of.nterim operation has a bearing on the public health and safety. */
(Footnote continued from page five)
An example of delays beyond the control of the Licensee is explained in the Broehl Affidavit (pp. 2-3) provided with our December 8 submittal to the Board.
- / In fact, Intervenors Rosolie and Bell stated a preference-for the later of the two hearing dates (Sepetmber or October) then suggested by the Staff in its Motion.
This in itself indicates the Intervenor's recognition that the period of interim operation does not have any bearing on the health and safety of the public.
(Staff Motion, p.
- 8).
1645 138
LOWENSTEIN, Newx AN, HE!S, AXELRAn & TOLL Marshall E. Miller, Esq. -
Dr. Hugh C. Paxton Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Page Seven December 11, 1979 In our December 8 submittal to the Licensing Board, we committed to answering the remaining NRC Staff questions by December 22, 1979.
As we noted there, the information re-quested by the Staff concerning the proposed modifications raises no question with respect to the safety of continuing interim operation. */
Accordingly. the ter.m of the period of interim operation of the Plant has no 9ffect on public health and safety.
Respectfully submitted, MAURICE AXELRAD, ESQ.
ALBERT V.
CARR., JR., ESQ.
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad and Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 RONALD W. JOHNSON, ESQ.
Corporate Attorney Portland General Electric Company
~
121 S.
W.
Salmon Street Portland, OR 97204
- / As pointed out in the affidavit of Donald J. Brochl, attached to our submittal of December 8, 1979, to the Licensing Board, the matters raised in LER 79-15 do not affect the structural capacity of any wall i'n the Complex which must be relied upon to resist the forces imposed by the 0.25g SSE.
The one wall modeled in the STARDYNE analysis on which modifications to piping supports pursuant to LER 79-15 are required need not be relied upon to resist seismic forces from the SSE.
Moreover, any such modifications have already been performed. (Broehl Affidavit, pp. 8-10).
Therefore the matters raised in LER 79-15 have no effect on the conclusions previously reached with respect to the seismic capacity of the Complex.
1645 139
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)
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the attached letter in the above-captioned proceeding to the members of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this llth day of December, 1979:
Marshall E.
Miller, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commissior Washington, D.
C.
20555 Washington, D.
C.
20555 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Docketing and Service Section Division of Engineering, Office of the Secretary Architecture & Technology U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissior Oklahoma State University Washington, D. C.
20555 Stillwater, OK 97074 (Original & 20 copies)
Dr. Hugh C.
Paxton Columbia County Courthouse 1229 - 41st Street Law Library, Circuit Court Room Los Alamos, NM 87544 St. Helens, OR 97051 1645 140
e, Joseph R.
Gray, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Counsel for NRC Staff Appeal Board U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissiot Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D.
C.
20555 Ms. Nina Bell Ronald W.
Johnson, Esq.
728 S. E.
26th Street Corporate Attorney Portland, OR 97214 Portland General Electric Company 121 S. W.
Salmon Street Mr. Eugene Rosolie Portland, OR 97204 Coalition for Safe Power 215 S.
E.
9th Avenue Frank W.
Ostrander, Jr., Esq.
tland, OR 97214 Assistant Attorney General State of Oregon Mr. David B.
McCoy Department of Justice 348 Hussey Lane 500 Pacific Building Grants Pass, OR 975?6 520 S. W. Yamhill Portland, OR 97204 Mr. John A.
Kullberg Route One William W.
Kinsey, Esq.
Box 2500 Bonnevilla Power Administration Sauvie Island, OR 97231 P.O.
Box 3621 Portland, OR 97208 Ms.
C. Gail Parson P.O.
Box 2992 Kodiak, AK 99615 t
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad & Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW washington, D.
C.
20036 (202-862-8400)
Dated:
December 11, 1979 1645 141