ML19312D771
| ML19312D771 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/17/1980 |
| From: | Trammell C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19312D762 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003250317 | |
| Download: ML19312D771 (9) | |
Text
- _ _
- I' 'N)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
=*
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-344 PORTLAND GENEAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL. )
(Control Building)
)
(Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)
NRC STAFF TESTIMONY OF CHARLES M. TRAMMELL, III ON QUESTIONS REGARDING RELOCATION OF THE RAILROAD SPUR AND REDUCTION IN SIZE OF AN EQUIPMENT HATCH UNDER THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS Q.1 Please state your name and position with the NRC.
A.1 My name is Charles M. Trammell,III.
I am a Senior Project Manager, Division of Operating Reactors, Office of Nuclear Reactor ReFulation.
Q.2 Have you prepared a statement of your professional qualifiestions?
A.2 Yes.
A copy of my statement of qualifications is attached to this testimony.
Q.3 What are your responsibilities with regard to the NRC Staff's review of the proposed modifications to the Trojan Control Building?
A.3 I am the NRC Staff's project manager for the Trojan Nuclear Plant.
In this capacity, I am responsible for the overall coordination of all aspects of the Staff's review of the proposed modifications and for administration of license changes which may be required as a result of the proposed modification.- In addition, I am responsible for specific aspects of the review itself, including those aspects of the Staff's review regarding concerns with regard to relocation of the railroad spur and reduce,1cn it. size of an equipment hatch under the proposed modifi-cations which were asked at the Prehearing Conferencg on, March 30, 1979, 80032 50 h
Q.4 What is the purpose of this testimony?
A.4 The purpose of this testimony is to respond to the following questions which were raised by the Intervenors and the Licensing Board at the Pre-hearing Conference on March 30, 1979:
1.
With regard to the sliding equipment hatch on the east wall of the control Building at elevation 65':
(a) What was its intended use?
(b) Now that it is being sealed, how will the things it was originally intended to be used for be accomplished?
(c) Are there any safety problems that arise from sealing this hatch?
(Tr. 3184) 2.
With regard to the railroad spur which is to be relocated:
(a) _ Clarify and describe the route of the modified railroad track. Will the existing spur be re-moved to the extent that it will terminate at the east face of the Control Building?
(b) Why was the railroad spur routed through the Control Building in the first place?
(c) What would a typical railroad loading consist of and is there any possibility that an impact of railroad cars on the rail stop to be installed on the face of the Control Building might break through and damage the building?
(Tr. 3174) l Q.5 Please describe the modifications that are proposed for the equipment hatch on the east wall of the Control Building.
A. 5 Pursuant to the proposed modifications, an exisiing equipment hatch at elevation 65' on the east wall (column line N) cf the Control Building approximately midway between column lines 41 and 46 will be reduced in size from 8 feet high by 7 feet vide to 4 feet high by 4 feet wide. This equipment hatch will not be permanently sealed or closed off but only reduced in size.
3
Q.6 What was the original purpose of this hatch?
A.6 This equipment hatch was provided in the original design of the Control Building to allow movement of equipment into and from the Mechanical and Electrical Auxiliary Rooms at elevation 61' and the Battery Rooms at ele-vation 65'.
The large accessway provided by the existing hatch allows such equipment as motor-generator sets, transformers, switchgear cabinets, cooling units and battery chargers to be brought into and removed from this elevation of the Control Building easily without the need for dis-assembly of the equipment.
Q.7 Now that the hatch is being reduced in size, how will the things it was o.iginally intended to be used for be accomplished?
A.7 Although the eouipment hatch is being reduced in size, it is not being eliminated and will still be usable for transferring some eauipment into and out of the Control Building at this elevation.
Nevertheless, after the modifications, it will be necessary to disassemble some equipment which was previously unnecessary in order to fit it through the smaller equipment hatch or to move equipment to or from this area by use of the Control Building elevator or Auxiliary Building access ways.
Q.8 What safety concerns does the reduction in size of this equipment hatch raise?
A.8. hile the need to disassemble some equipment to a greater degree would W
be more inconvenient than moving eauipment through the existing hatc' without disassembly, we can identify no safety significance from this.
The existing hatch is not usable for fast, emergency transfere of equip-ment'into and out of the Control Building since the hatch is 20 feet
above grade and is. closed with a steel door and a heavy missile shield.
?:
Consequently,' the proposed reduction in the size of the eouipment hatch should have no rafety significance'vith regard to personnel or equipment access to the Control Building.
Q.9 With regard to the railroad spur relocation, describe the existing spur and the manner in which it will be changed under the proposed modifications.
A.9 The existing railroad spur enters the Turbine Building at-the west end of the building between column lines 41 and 46 and proceeds east through the Turbine Building, through the Control Building (entering at column line R and exiting at column line N), parall'el to the Auxiliary Building, and into the Fuel Building (entering at column line D) where it terminates.
The proposed modifications involve closing of the existing railroad bay openings in the Control Building by the addition of walls at the existing railroad bay opendinis at column lines R and N between column lines 41 and 46.
Consequently, :52 existing railroad spur will terminate in the Turbine Building, with a rail stop installed in that building just west of the west wall of the Control Building. The existing track in the Control Building railroad bay will no longer be usable and the existing railroad bay will be converted to office space. An additional railroad spur will be added running outside the Control and Turbine Buildings.
This spur will join the existing spur at a point next to the Auxiliary
-Building.where the existing spur runs between the Control Building and the Fuel Building.
w e
Q.10 Why was the existing railroad spur routed through the Control Building in the first place?.
A.10 The existing railroad spur wae taken through the Control Building as a matter of convenience and efficiency. Since it was necessary that railroad cars enter the Turbine Building (to facilitate the movement of large pieces of equipment into the Turbine Building operating floor through the Turbine Building railroad bay) and also the Fuel Building (for movement of fuel casks), the most convenient and efficient path for the railroad spur was through the Turbine and Control Buildings and into the Fuel Building. The 45' elevation of the Control-Building merely prnvides a path for the track between the Turbine and Fuel Buildings.
Q.11 What safety concerns are raised by elimination of the capability of having a train pacs through the Control Building railroad bay?
A.11 None. The capability of moving railroad cars through the Control Building is not needed for any purpose, and in point of fact, there are no existing provisions (e.g., cranes) or need for loading or unloading railroad carc in the Control Building railroad bay. Consequently, the removal of the track through the Control Building will have no safety-related impact with regard to removing the capability of having railroad cars pass through the Control Beilding since there is no need for railroad cars to pass thro'gh the Control Building and since the capability to move railroad cars into both the Turbine Building and the Fuel Building where they may be needed will be retained with the relocated and modified railroad spurs.
Q.12 What might a typical railroad loading consist of?
-A.12 Typically, a railroad loading might consist of at least one flatcar (with an empty weight of about 60,000 lbs.) carrying equipment and a locomotive
. weighing on the order of 300,000 to 400,000 pounds.
0.13 What measures would prevent such a loading from impacting the west wall of the Control Building?
A.13 As previously mentioned, the Licensee will install a bumping post in the Turbine Building railroad bay just west of the west wall of the Control Building. However, as set forth in Section 5.7 of the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER), staff structural analysts have concluded that the bumping post cannot be relied upon to prevent a typical train load-ing from impacting the west wall of the Control Building.
At the same time, the Licensee has in place administrative proceoures to control the movement of trains on site.
In this regard, speed'of the train is controlled and kept low once the train is onsite. Licensee personnel accompany the train on site giving instructions on its movement.
The bumping post would be located about 33 feet from the normal spotting (stopping) position of the railroad car in the railroad bay of the Turbine Building.
Considering the slow speed of the train, this distance should be adequate to allow the train to stop before impacting the post, and provide an adequate allowance for any movement inaccuracies.
The fis'.cc would be in full view of ;he train engineer, so the position of the es, yl be observab1h, and any approach to either the bumping post or the end of the Turbine Building railroad bay obvious.. In addition, the rail
-~.
3:
7,,
4 bed from the derailer at the security fence to the Turbine Building railroad -
bay is level, which wouI'd-simplify train maneuvering.
~
The accidental approach of a train'to the railroad bay from the main track
.is prevented by 2 derailers-located both outside and inside the security fence.
-~ Based.on the above we have concluded that administrative controla v111'be adequate to prevent -a train fiapacting the bumping post or the Control Build-
' ing west-wal1~.
I s
\\
r.
e CHARLES M. k.MMELL, III DIVIS107 OF OPERATING REACTORS U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
^
I am a senior project manager in the Division of Operating Reactors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
As such. I am responsible for managing and participating in the safety and environmental reviews associated with licensing actions regarding the design and operation of assign'ed operating power and research reactors.
~'
This includes planning and coordinating the efforts of other Commission personnel involved in the reviews.
I have a Bachelor of Arts degree in mathematics from Brown University, and one year of graduate studies in mathematics at Rennselaer Polytechnic Institute where I worked as a graduate assistant.
i From November 1962 until February 1964, I attended U. S. Naval Destroyer
\\
School at Newport, Rhode Island, and was subsequently assigned as Engineer Officer of USS.Farragut (DLG-6), where I was responsible for all aspects of propulsion engineering and related auxiliary equipment.
My experience in the nuclear field began in 1964, when I entered the Navy Nuclear Power. Program.
I attended a one-year course in naval nuclear power, and was subsequently selected for a staff position at the Navy's prototype nuclear power plant (D1G) at West Milton, New York.
There I i
,. ?< :
L
- , '. + '
Professional Qualifications,
Charles M. Trammell, III was in charge of a shift crew which operated the plant for training and engineering testing.
I was responsible for the training and nuclear
_ qualification of assigned officers and enlisted men.
From 1967 until 1974, I was employed by Public Service Electric and Gas Company where I was responsible initially for the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station.
Later. I attended the Westinghouse Reactor Operator Training Program (10 months) which led to certification of equivalency as Reactor Operator thereby establishing eligibility for a " cold" senior reactor operator license at Salem.
In 1969, I was promoted to Reactor Engineer at the Salem station tihere I was responsible for developing physics and core performance tests and fuel handling procedures while the plant was under construction.
Training at Westinghouse Nuclear Operations Division and startup testing experience at Indian Point, Ginna, H. B. Robinson and Surry stations led to qualification as nuclear engineer in accordance with ANSI Standard N18.1.
In September 1973, I was promoted to the position of Quality Assurance Engineer at the Salem site, where I was responsible for developing the quality assurance program for the operational phase of the Salem station.
I have held my position with the. Commission since September 1974.
I have participated in numerous safety and environmental reviews of all types of commercial nuclear power plants, including testifying as an expert witness in the Trojan Spent Fuel Pool Expansion Hearing.
5 9