ML19296D804
| ML19296D804 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/07/1980 |
| From: | LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL, PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19296D792 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003130247 | |
| Download: ML19296D804 (6) | |
Text
@
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CCMPANY, )
Docket No. 50-344 et al.
)
(Control Building
)
Proceeding)
(Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)
)
ARGUMENT AND DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF COALITION FOR SAFE POWER'S CONTENTION NO. 17 I.
The Contention At the prehearing conference on March 29, 1979, Coalition for Safe Power's Contention No. 17 was admitted (Tr. 3065) to read as follows:
17.
Performance of modification werk will hamper the ability of plant operators to respond to any emergency properly and thus poses an undue risk to the public health and safety.
II.
Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard A.
The general areas in which the work activities related to the modification program will be carried out have been identified and for each such area the potential interference with access by modification work has also been identified.
B.
If a fire or other emergency were to occur within the general areas where the modification work will be 80 0318 o 2.GF}7 perf o rrued, Plant personnel would need access in that area.
Since construction workers would leave such areas in accordance with instructions received under standard Plant procedures, their presence would not hamper the ability of Plant personnel to take effective action with respect to a fire or other emergency with-in such area.
C.
Certain emergency situations may require Plant person-nel to proceed to remote locations outside the Control Room to respond to the emergency.
The only such loca-tions within or adjacent to the work areas have been identified; and, for each such location, at least one alternate access path is available which will be totally unobotructed by the modification work.
There-fore the modification work will not interfere with the ability of Plant personnel to reach such locations during an emergency.
D.
During performance of the modification work, access within the general areas where work will be performed could be temporarily limited in the following ways:
1.
During movement of six steel plates in the Turbine Building at el. 45',
access tl. rough the corridor to the railroad bay at the base of the R line wall could be limited for approximately fifteen minutes.
However, at no time would personnel access through that corridor be blocked.
2.
At el. 93' in the Turbine Building, the steel stairway to the Visitors' Gallery above the Control Recm and the ladder, with safety cage and steel platform, leading to the crane cab will be removed temporarily.
3.
During performance of all other tasks, the only other potential interference with access paths would consist of workers in aisles.
E.
The limitation on access at el. 45' in the Turbine Building is not in an area where safety-related equip-ment, or equipment needed for normal Plant operation, is located.
The stairway and ladder at el. 93' will be replaced with temporary ladders, and at least one totally unobstructed alternate access route will be available to the Visitors' Gallery.
Thus, the modi-fication work will not hamper the ability of Plant personnel to respond to an emergency.
F.
Potential interferences caused by workers in aisles will be no greater than those one would expect during routine Plant maintenance.
Even so, should an emergency arise modification work will be halted and construction workers will leave the area in accordance with standard instructions.
G.
Performance of some portions of the modification work will require the presence of a few workers in the Control Room at limited times, well away from areas requiring immediate operator attention or action.
The Shift Supervisor will control their presence and actions in the Control Room.
This will preclude inter-ference with operators by these workers in the event of an emergency.
H.
Since noise from the modification work at el. 93' will be controlled so that it does not interfere with Plant operation, it will not hamper the ability of Plant operators in the Control Room to respond to an emergency.
III.
Discussion The material facts listed above and the attached affidavits of Mr. Anderson and Mr. Yundt demonstrate that the modifi-cation work will not interfere with the ability of Plant operators to respond to an emergency situation including a fire.
CFSP has responded only in a limited fashion to Licen-see's discovery requests seeking information on this con-tention.
CFSP's concerns appear to be whether, and how, adequate access paths will be maintained in the Complex during modification work; whether the modification work will interfere with signals necessary to alert Plant per-sonnel to an emergency; and whether workers in the Control Room could prevent necessary Plant operator response to an emergency.
(Response to Licensee's Interrogatory 8 (First Set)).
CFSP has failed to identify any other concerns relating to these contentions.
When the Board admitted CFSP's Contention 17 on March 29 it recognized that it lacked specificity and that CFSP would have to refine the contention when more information became available to it.
(Tr. 3065) CFSP agreed to do so.
(Id.)
However, in the intervening ton montns, CFSP has done nothing to gather additional information from Licensee with respect to this Contention 17.
It has filed t' iets of interrogatories with Licens2e, none of which appears to relate to this contention. Moreover, CFSP has failed to answer Licensee's Interrogatories adequately.
Though at the prehearing conference CFSP's representative, Mr. Rosolie, indicated that his site visit had led him to an " initial evaluation that there would be some problems [from the modi-fication work with respect to emergency response]" (Tr.
3064) he has failed to identify what those problems might be and how information gained on his site visit relates to them, notwithstanding Licensee's Interrogatory 16 (Second set) which specifically sought such information from him.
The concerns which CFSP raised have been reviewed and found to be groundless.
There have been identified the areas of the Plant where the modification work will be performed and the potential interferences with access which the work might cause.
(Anderson affidavit, paragraph 5; Yundt affidavit, paragraph 6)
Should a fire or other emergency occur, the modification work would not hamper plant personnel access within those areas.
(Yundt affidavit, paragraph 7) Though there are certain remote locations within or adjacent to the work areas to which plant personnel might need to proceed if an emergency were to occur (Yundt affidavit, paragraph 8), it has been determined that at least one alternate access path to those locations would be available which would be unobstructed by the modification work (Yundt affidavit, paragraph 9).
Thus Plant personnel would be able to reach those locations in the event of an emergency.
Certain movement of materials and temporary removal of structures may limit access in the work areas (Anderson affidavit, paragraphs 6 and 7).
However, these activities
. will not hamper the ability of Plant personnel to respond to an emergency (Yundt affidavit, paragraph 10).
None of the other tasks performed during the modifi-cation program will hamper access by Plant personnel in the event of an emergency.
If workers or equipment are in an access path needed by Plant personnel to respond to an emergency, they will easily move aside, and move their equipment and materials as well (Anderson affidavit, para-graph 8).
In any event, if a fire or other emergency did arise, modification work would cease and construction workers, in accordance with instructions given pursuant to standard Plant procedures, would leave the area and report to their supervisor outside the Plant buildings (Yundt affidavit, paragraph 7).
Finally, any workars in-side the Control Room for limited periods during modifica-tion work will be located in areas away from those requiring immediate operator attention or action, and will be under the direction and control of the Shift Supervisor to preclude their inadvertent interference with operations in the event of an emergency (Yundt affidavit, paragraph 11).
The modification work will be conducted so that noise in the Control Room does not exceed acceptable levels, and thus will not mask any alarm in the Control Room which will signal Plant personnel to respond to an emergency (Anderson affidavit, paragraph 11; Yundt affidavit, para-graph 11).
Since no factual issues have been raised by CFSP which contradict the facts recited in the affidavits of Mr. Anderson and Mr. Yundt, the motion for summary disposi-tion related to CFSP's Contention No. 17 should be granted as a matter of law.