ML19296B873
| ML19296B873 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1980 |
| From: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Duncan R HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19296B874 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002220303 | |
| Download: ML19296B873 (3) | |
Text
'%
,,[pa areg%
UNITED STATES
,#([,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
3
/. t WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
%,',~'.7*/
IMyy /9g S
Docket No. 50-344 The Honorable Robert B. Duncan United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Duncan:
I have received your letter of January 14, 1980 in which you express your appreciation for my January 9, 1980 response to your letter to Chairman Ahearne of December 14, 1979 regarding the Trojan Nuclear Plant in Oregon.
In your January 14 letter, you indicate that, from my suggestion that it was inappropriate for Chairman Ahearne to respond to your letter, I was suggesting that your letter to the Chairman was somehow inappropriate. Let me assure you that this is not the case.
Under 10 CFR 8 2.780 of the Commission's rules of practice, Commissioners are prohibited from engaging in any off-the-record communications regarding any' substantive matter at issue in a proceeding on the record pending before the NRC. As a result of this ex parte rule, inquiries directed to the Com-missioners with regard to pending proceedings are routinely, and as a matter of practice, referred to other NRC offices and officials for response. Out of an abundance of caution and in order to preclude any possible claims of prejudgment in such cases, such referrals are of ten made even when an inquiry and responses thereto are basically procedural in nature and are not directed toward any substantive matters in issue.
In the case of Trojan, there is currently pending before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board the matter of certain seismic design deficiencies in the facility's Control Building. At the time of your letter of December 14, 1979, the facility was shut down because of certain other seismic design deficiencies which, though unrelated to the Control Building deficiencies which are the subject of the pending proceeding, nevertheless involved some of the same struc-tures and safety-related piping.
In this setting, your letter of December 14, 1979 to Chairman Ahearne was referred to me for response, even though you did not address the merits of the Trojan shutdown or substantive issues in the Control Building proceeding but, instead, were concerned with the timing of a decision on whether Trojan would be permitted to operate. Again, your letter was referred to me for response out of prudence and an abundance of caution in order to preclude any future claims that, in responding himself, Chairman Ahearne may have somehow prejudged any matters now pending before the Licensing Board in the Trojan Control Building proceeding.
I did not imply, and did not intend to imply, any impropriety on your part in writing to Chairman Ahearne and regret that any such impression may have been given.
80022203 0
The Honorable Robert B. Duncan,
In your letter of January 14, you also ask why a hearing was required in Decem-ber before Trojan was permitted to operate, what was learned from the hearing that was not already known on November 30, 1979, and what the additional 30-day d< lay (before Trojan was permitted to operate) accomplished.
As I have previously indicated, there is currently pending betore a Licensing Board the matter of certain seismic design deficiencies in the Trojan Control Building.
Pursuant to hearings held in October, November and December of 1978, that Licensing Board determined that the facility could safely operate for an interim period of time until modifications to correct the Control Building design deficiencies were approved and implemented. After being informed by the NRC Staff in October and November of 1979 that certain additional seis-mic design problems had been discovered at Trojan and that the facility was shut down pending resolution of those problems, the Licensing Board, on Novem-ber 30, 1979, ordered that the facility remain shut down pending further Board order, apparently based, in part, or the Board's concern that the new design pro-blems had a direct bearing on the Control Building proceeding, that such problems may have been overlooked by the Licensing Board in the interim operation hearing, and that additional conditions to assure safe operation might be necessary. Although no hearing was requested by the NRC Staff, the Licensee or any other party to the Control Building proceeding, the Licensing Board determined that a hearing, scheduled and conducted expeditiously, should be held so that the Board's concerns could be addressed. That hearing was held on December 28 and 29, 1979.
Based on the record made at that hearing, the Board determined that the new seismic design deficiencies would not'have been considered at the interim operation hearings and that safety-related piping in the Control Building and adjacent structures had been reanalyzed and, where nec,essary, modified to assure that it was seismically qualified. The Board did not find it necessary to impose additional license conditions because of the newly-discovered design deficiencies and it went on to rescind its order prohibiting operation.
This was not the end of the problem, however.
The NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement and Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation had indicated to the Licensee that Trojan should not be operated until the newly discovered seismic design deficiencies had been corrected to the NRC Staff's satisfaction. Meetings were held between the NRC Staff and the Licensee on December 5, 6, 28, 29 30 and 31, 1979 on the matter and numerous requests for information and analyses were made by the Staff during December 1979.
Thus, during the period from November 30 to December 31, 1979, the Licensee performed analyses verifying that modifications it had made, and was in the process of making up to December 21, 1979, were ade-quate to satisfactorily correct the newly-discovered design deficiencies. Such new information and analyses were submitted by the Licensee as late as December 30.
Based on the information submitted during December, the Staff determined, on December 31, that the newly-discovered design deficiencies had been satis-factorily corrected and that facility operation c?uld safely resume. While the modifications identified by the Licensee as of November 30, 1979 were essentially the same as those that were ultimately found to be adequate, com-plete implementation of those modifications and the submission of information
i.
The Honorable Robert B. Duncan.
demonstrating their adequacy did not take place until the end of December 1979.
Both a demonstration of the adequacy of the corrective modifications and the completion of the modifications themselves were necessary before the Staff could determine that there was reasonable assurance that plant operation would not endanger the public health and safety.
I trust that this has been responsive to your letter of January 14, 1980.
If I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely, CE!O "" : ^ ~ ~
Lee V. Gossick Executive Director for Operations
.