ML19290C022
| ML19290C022 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/21/1979 |
| From: | Gray J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19290C023 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001090046 | |
| Download: ML19290C022 (5) | |
Text
'
~
,3
__ 7
'Q l
Q
,; fliY
~b
{)
3 ) \\ eC ;U w-
.of
/~
Gf-yg.s & l'@'
e :v v.v p
UNITED STATES OF At1 ERICA t,f 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
)
(Control Building)
(Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO LICENSEE'S MOTION TO RESCIND SHUTDOWN ORDER AND AFFIDAVIT ON STATUS OF REACTION FORCE PROBLEM I.
Introduction By Order dated November 30, 1979, the Licensing Board in the captioned pro-ceeding directed that operation of the Trojan facility not be resumed until further order of the Board (Order, p. 4, paragraph 1).
In a response to that Order filed on December 8,1979, the Licensee requested that the Licensing Board issue a further order removing its prohibition on resumption of operation of the plant on the basis of infomation submitted by the Licensee.M In an Order issued on December 12, 1979, the Licensing Board stated that it is treating the Licensee's request for a further order allowing resumption of operation as a motion and directed that a hearing be held on the matter and on other issues implicit in the November 30,19 79 Order.
i 1/
The Licensee, in essence, renewed this request in a letter dated December 14, 1979.
1729
.545 80010900
. The NRC Staff's position on the Licensee's notion for further order allowing operation Uf Trojan is set forth below.
O II.
Staff's Position The basis for the Licensing Board's Order requiring the Trojan facility to remain shut down is not fully apparent from the November 30,1979 Order.
If, in fact, the Licensing Board's prohibition on operation is based on a concern that the facility has become unsafe solely because of the length of time that interim operation has been pennitted without modifications to bring the Control Building into substantial compliance with original license requirements, the Staff is of the view that such matters are within the Board's jurisdiction since both the scope and timeliness of the modifications from a safety standpoint remain to be adjudicated in Phase II of this proceeding.
Nevertheless, as set forth in the letter and attached affidavit filed by the Staff on December 19, 1979, the analyses demonstrating the adequacy of the as-built Control, Auxiliary and Fuel Building Complex for interim operation were detenninistic and had no time dependence.
It is, therefore, the Staff's view that there is no need for an explicit time limit on interim operation.
Accordingly, if the Licensing Board's prohibition on the resumption of operation is based on a concern that safety requires an explicit time limit on such operation, it is the Staff's view that no such time limit is now
- required, i
If, on the other hand, the Licensing Board prohibited resumption of operation because of concerns over the safety of interim operation independent of the 1729 346
. length of time interim operation has been permitted, the Staff believes that such matten are appropriately dealt with, in the first instance, by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement and the Office of fluclear Reactor Regulation wherein the responsibility for continually monitoring and assuring the safety of operation under the existing license lies.2_/
The Staff has previously informed the Licensing Board of a " reaction force problem" involving single block, mortared double block and composite walls at the facility. I Additional infornation on the current status of that problem is contained in the attached joint affidavit of Charles M. Trammell, III and Kenneth S. Herring. As set forth in that affidavit, this problem remains unresolved at this time and is being actively pursued by the f1RC Staff.
The Office of Inspection and Enforcement has issued a supplenent to its immediate action letter of October 22,1979 (appended to the attached joint affidavit of Herring and Trammell) clarifying that the Trojan facility is not to be operated until the problem has been fully resolved to the satisfaction of 2/
As set forth in detail at pp. 9-10 in the "tiRC Staff's Response to Intervenors' Motion to Reopen Evidentiary Hearings, Revoke Interim Operation Authorization and Compel Full Disclosure," filed currently, matters related strictly to the safety of interim operaticn (without regard to issues to be addressed in Phase II of this proceeding) and the enforce-ment of existing license and regulatory requirements with regard to opera-tion fall within the bailiwick of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement and Office of fluclear Reactor Regulation.
The Staff's views as to whether the Licensing Board retains jurisdiction to even consider such matters is set forth in detail at pp. 3-9 of the Staff's response to Intervenors' motion to reopen.
-4 3/
See Staff's Board flotification documents of flovember 13 and tiovember 30, 1979 and Attachment 3 to the Staff's December 7,1979 letter in response to the Licensing Board's directive in paragraph 2 of its tiovember 30, 1979 Order.
1729 347
. As indicated in previous submittals of the Staff,b the the NRC Staff.
reaction force problem does have a bearing on interim operation.
- However, this matter is being vigourously pursued by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement and the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and an understand-ing has been reached with the Licenset that " prior to resuming reactor power operation... [the reaction force problem will be resolved]... to the sa tisfaction of the NRC Staff...."5_/
Accordingly, it is the Staff's view that the Licensing Board order requiring the plant tr remain shut down, if it was based on concerns over the reaction force problem, is unnecessary.
III. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, it is the Staff's position that:
(1)
If the Licensing Board's Order prohibiting resumption of operation is based on a concern that interim operation may be unsafe strictly because of the passage of time since operation was authorized without Control Building modifi-cations being implemented, the Licensee's motion for rescission of the Board's Order prohibiting operation should be granted.
(2)
If the Licensing Board's Order prohibiting resumption of operation is based on a concern over the safety of interim y
See documents cited in note 3 supra, d.
5/
Letter from Office of Inspection and Enforcement to PGE, dated December 20, 1979 (appended to attached affidavit of Herring and Trammell).
1729 348
. operation independent of the time that has elasped since interim
+
eperation was authorized, such matters are, in tne first instance, e
the responsibility of the Offices of Inspection and Enforcement and Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
In view of the vigorous action being taken by these Offices in requiring that the reaction force problem be fully resolved to their satisfaction prior to the resumption of operati,n, the Licensing Board's order prohibiting operation is unnecessary.
Respectfully submitted, W
.C Nj oseph R. Gray Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 21st day of December,1979 1729 349 s