ML19345D494
| ML19345D494 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/09/1980 |
| From: | Gray J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| TAC-13152, NUDOCS 8012150231 | |
| Download: ML19345D494 (27) | |
Text
%
UNITED STATES OF RtERIC A NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0ft.'tISSION BEFORE THE ATO'ilC SAFETY AND LICErilN3 APPEAL B0APQ In the Matter of
)
)
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
)
)
(Control Building)
(Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)
NRC STAFF'S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO THE APPEAL OF THE STATE OF OREGON Joseph R. Gray Counsel for NRC Staff December 8, 1980 hh
^
TABLE OF CONTENTS Pace I.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
II.
REFERENCE TO RULINGS...................
5 III.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW.........
6 IV.
ARGUMENT.........................
7 Accelerated Reporting and Revier of Changes to be Performed Without Prior NRC Approval Under 10 CFR 5 50.59 Would Give Additional Assurance That the Public Health and Safety Will Be Protected 7
A.
The Provisions of 10 CF'. 9 50.59, ermit Accelerated Reporting................
7 B.
Changes to the Authorized Control Building Modifications and the Procedures for Imple-menting Them Could Have Safety Significance.....
11 C.
The " State of the Art" Nature of the Engineering Design and Review of the Pro-posed Modifications Does Not, of Itself.
Require That Changes Under 10 CFR 6 50.59 Be Reported on an Accelerated Basis.........
12 D.
The Licensing Board Did Not Err in Finding No Evidence to Support a Requirement for Accelerated Reporting But New Information Indicates That Such Reporting and Early Staff Review Would Be Appropriate..........
13 V.
CONCLUSION........................
20
r
! i TABLE OF CITATIONS Pa"c e NRC CASES General Electric Company (Vallecitos Boiling Water
- keactor), Com'n Memo. & Order, 1 AEC 541 (1960)..........
8, 9 i
Illinois Power Co. (Clinton Power Station, Units 1&2),
ALAB-340, 4 NRC 27, 52 at n. 39 5
Portland General Electric Comoany. et al. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), LBP-80-20, 12 NRC 77 (Replacement I s sue) (1980)......................
1, 2, 5, 11, la Portland General Electric Company, et al. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), LBP-78-40, 8 NRC 717, 720-23 (1978)............
2 Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc. (Marble Hill Nuclcar G9nerating Station, Units 182), ALAB-461, 7 NRC 313, 315 (1978).......................
5 Viroinia Electric & Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Station. Units 182), ALAB-578,11 NRC 189, 217-18 (1980)......................
9-10, 12, 18, 19 i
e
- -. _ _ =...-. _ _ - __
=
i i
- iii -
- i Pece REGULATIONS
~ ~ ' ' '
10 C FR 6 2. 715 ( c )....................
2 10 CFR 6 50.59 2,3,4,5,6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 10 C FR 9 5 0. 5 9 ( a )....................
18 10 CFR 6 50.59(a)(1) 2, 7 10 CFR 5 50.59(a)(2) 7,8,9 10 C FR 6 5 0. 5 9 ( b )....................
2,3,8 10 C FR 5 5 0. 5 9 ( c )....................
7 10 CFR 9 50.90
-7
- 0THER
^
26 Fed. 1901 3030 (April 8, 1961) 9 27 Fed. Rec. 5491, 5492 (June 9, 1952)..........
8, 9 43 Fed,fytl. 23768 (June 1, 1978)............
1 45 Fed. Reg. 45916 (July 8, 1980)......,.....
18 6
12/08/80 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI.0N BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Docket No. 50-344 ET AL.
)
(Control Building)
(Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)
NRC STAFF'S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO THE APPEAL 0F THE STATE OF OREGON I.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE On July 11, 1980, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Licensing Board or Board) in the captioned proceeding issued an Initial Decision on modifica-tions to the Control Building at the Trojan Nuclear Plant.M In that Initial Decision, the Licensing Board found that modifications proposed by Portland General Electric Company (PGE or Licensee) will be adequate to correct deficiencies in the seismic design of the Control Building and bring the Control Building into substantial compliance with Technical Specifications l
in the Trojan operating license as required by the NRC's Order for Modifi-cation of License of May 26, 1978.E Accordingly, the Board authorized perfomance of the modification work and imposed a number of license con-ditions related to the modifications and to perfomance of the modification y
Portland General Electric Company, et al. (Trojan Nuclear Plant),
LBP-80-20,12 NRC 77 (Replacement Issue) (1980) (hereinaf ter " Initial Decision").
43 Fed. R_eg. 23768 (June 1,1978).
2f e
- work during plant operation.1# One such license condition imposed by the Board is a requirement that the Licensee proceed wii.h modifications to the Control Building in accordance with certain plans, specifications and pro-cedures submitted on the hearing record.
That license condition also provides that any deviations or changes from such plans and procedures are to be accomplished in accordance with 10 CFR 9 50.59 O Section 50.59 provides, in pertinent part, that changes in the facility or procedures as described in the safety analysis report may be made without prior NRC approval only when such changes do not involve an unreviewed safety question or a change in technical specifications (10 CFR h 50.59(a)(1)) and that reports of such changes are to be submitted to the NRC annually or at such shorter intervals as may be specified in the license (10 CFR 5 50.59(b)).
I In imposing this license condition, the Licensing Board rejected a recom-mendation, proffered by the State of Oregon (State or Oregon)N n its i
proposed findings of fact, that the Licensee be required to report such 3/
Ine background events and procedural history leading to issuance of the Initial Decision are set forth in detail in the Initial Decision itself (at 12 NRC 81-85), and in an earlier Partial Initial Decision in this matter which authorized operation of the Trojan facility pend-ing a hearing and detennination as to the adequacy of the proposed modifications (Portland General Electric Company, et al. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), LBP-78-40, 8 NRC 717, 720-23 (1978)).
That procedural history need not be repeated here.
4/
LBP-80-20, 12 NRC 77 at 112, Order item A.I.
5/
Oregon participated in the proceeding as an interested State under 10 CFR 6 2.715(c).
i 3-changes and deviations on an accelerated basis relative to the annual report-ing explicitly required by 10 CFR 5 50.59(b).O
~
6/
The license conditions proposed by the State of Oregon are the following:
(1) Add the following statements to Licensee's proposed license con-dition (1) af ter the sentence "Any deviations or changes from the foregoing accuments shall be accomplished [ph esuant to 10 CFR 50.59["]:
Reports required by 10 [CFR] 50.59(b) shall be made for information in accordance with the following schedule:
(a) Any deviations or changes which require or cause the Licensee to perfom calculations to ensure compliance with the criteria of Trojan Operating License, Appendix A, Paragraph 5.7.2.2 (per Licensee's proposed condition 2(a)) shall be reported prior to commencement of the deviations or changes.
(b) All other deviations or changes shall be reported within fourteen (14) days after the Licensee initially decides to implement them.
(c) A copy of all reports subnitted to the NRC pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 shall be sent to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
(2) Add the following statements to Licensee's proposed l' cense con-dition 1(q) after the sentence "Any changes to piping systems necessary to ensure that the condition is met shall be perfomed before the structural modifications are made.":
The evaluations to detemine whether such changes are required shall be submitted to the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for infomation prior to implementation.
State of Oregon's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Con-cerning Design Modifications for the Trojan Control Building, May 19, 1980, pp. 4, 5.
=
te s
.. --/b.
~.. _. ~ ~,. _ _
~_.., _.- _
4-On July 23, 1980, the State of Oregon filed a Motion to Reconsider the Initial Decision / related to Oregon's recommeridation for accelerated 1
reporting of design and procedure changes and the Licensing Board's failure to adopt that recommendation in its Initial Decision.
By Order issueo on September 4,1980, the Licensing Board adhered to its rejection of Oregon's proposed license conditions requiring accelerated reporting based on the Board's determination tLat "... there is no evidence of record... which demonstrates in any way that accelerated reporting of minor changes or deviations undertaken pursuant to Section 50.59 is necessary."8/ Subse-quent to that Licensing Board ruling and in accordance with the schedule set by the Appeal Board, Oregon filed amended exceptions to the Initial J
f 7/
Simultaneously the State filed exceptions to the Initial Decision.
On July 28, 1980, the Appeal Board tolled the period for the filing of Oregon's brief in support of exceptions to await the Licensing Board's ruling on the State's motion for reconsideration of the Initial Decision, directed Oregon to notify the Appeal Board subse-quent to the Licensing Board's ruling of its intent as to withdrawing, modifying or pursuing its exceptions of July 23 and set a schedule for Oregon's briefing of those exceptions it intended to pursue.
-8/
Order Regarding Motion by State of Oregon for Reconsideration of Initial Decision, September 4,1980 (Order on Reconsideration),
pp. 2-3.
_ _ Decision and to the Order on the motion for reconsideration which are addressed herein.
II. REFERENCE TO RULINGS Oregon's amended exceptions are specifically directed to the following rulings and findings in the Initial Decision and the Licensing Board's Order on Reconsideration which Oregon claims to be incorrect:
(1) the Licensing Board's rejection of the accelerated reporting requirements and completion of piping support evaluations proposed by Oregon in its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (Initial Decision, Slip Op. p.54, 12 NRC 77, Ill, Conclusions of law, first paragraph);
(2) the Licensing Board's finding that there is no evidence of record demonstrating the necessity of accelerated reporting (Order on Reconsideration, pp. 2-3);
(3) the Licensing Board's finding that the evidence indicates accelerated reporting is not necessary (Order on Recon-sideration, p.3);
9_/ 7aT~ three of Oregon's exceptions (exceptions 1, 8, and 9) are expressly directed to the Licensing Board's rejection of Oregon's proposal for a modification to license condition 1(q) relating to piping support evaluations.
Apart from a reference to those exceptions in section headings (State of Oregon's Brief in Support of Its Exceptions to the Initial Decision and Order Regarding Motion by State of Oregon for Reconsideration of Initial Decision, October 22, 1980 (hereinafter "Gregon Brief"), pp. 4,12), Oregon does not address the need for, or the Licensing Board's rejection of, Oregon's proposed condition on piping support evaluations in its appeal brief.
Instead, Oregon's Brief is directed to its proposal for accelerated reporting for changes made pursuant to 10 CFR 6 50.59.
Since exceptions not briefed are waived, Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc. (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 182), ALAB-461, 7 NRC 313, 315 (1978) and cases cited therein at n.6, and reply briefs are to be directed to matters briefed by the appellant rather than to the exceptions, Illinois Power Co. (Clinton Power Station, Units 182), ALAB-340, 4 NRC 27, 52 at n.39,the Staff does not address herein those exceptions deal-ing with the Licensing Board's rejection of Oregon's proposal related to piping support evaluations.
(4) the Licensing Board's finding that accelerated reporting i
would bc July burdensome on the Licensee (Order on Recon-sidera.. e., p.3);
(5) the Licensing Board's finding that there is nothing unique which would warrant other than annual NRC review (Order on Reconsideration, p.3);
(6) the Licansing Board's finding that Oregon had never raised an issue a to accelerated reporting (Crder on Reconsideration, pp. 3, 4);
(7) the Licensing Board's finding as to the existence of evidence on the necessity and reasonableness of accelerated reporting (Order on Reconsideration, p.4);
(8) the Licensing Board's finding that Oregon failed to show any rearon for requiring the submission to the NRC Staff of evaluations of changes to piping supports (Order on Recon-sideration, p.5); and (9) the Licensing Board's adherence to its rejection of Oregon's proposed license conditions (0-der on Reconsideration, pp. 4, 5).
III.
STATElidNT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW As set forth in Oregon's amended exceptions and as elaborated upon in Oregon's brief on its exceptions, the issue raised by this appeal is:
i Is accelerated reporting and timely NRC Staff review of changes to the authorized modifications to the Control Building and changes to procedures for implementing those modifications, made without prior NRC approval in accordance with 10 CFR 6 50.59, necessary to protect the public health and safety?
Wnile the evidence of record in the proceeding dess not establish a need for accelerated reporting P.ad an independent Staff review of changes, new infor-mation indicates that the relief sought by Gregon would be appropriate.
, ~
~
IV. ARGUMENT Accelerated Reporting and Review of Changes to be Performed Without Prior NRC Apprwal Under 10 CFR 6 50.59 Would Give Additional Assurance That the Public Health and Safet e Will Be Protected A.
The Provisions of 10 CFR @ 50.59 Pennit Accelerated Reportina Under the license condition imposed by the Licensing Board, any deviations fron, or changes to, the Control Building modifications and procedures for implementing then described in the documents listed in the license condition could be undertaken only in accordance with 10 CFR 5 50.59.
Section 50.59 provides in pertinent part that a licensee may
... (i) make changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report, (ii) make changes in the procedures as described in the safety analysis report, and (iii) conduct tests or experi-nents not described in the safety analysis report, without prior Commission approval, unless the proposed change, test or experi-ment involves a change in technical specifications incorporated in the license or an unreviewed safety question.
10 CFR 9 50.59(a)(1).
The criteria for determining whether a change, test or experiment involve.
i an unreviewed safety question a e set forth in 10 CFR $ 50.59(a)(2). Where l
a change, test or experin.?nt involves an unreviewed safety question or a l
change in technical specifications, a licensee may not undertake such activity without first having applied for a license amendment pursuant to 10 CFR 5 50.90 (10 CFR 5 50.59(a)(1), (c)).
For those changes, tests and experi-f ments not involving an unreviewed safety question or a change in technical specifications, the licensee is to maintain a rc.:ord which includes written safety evaluations providing the bases for the licensee's detennination that the changes, tests and experiments do not involve an unreviewed safety
. m m -.
m
. - s question (10 CFR 5 50.59(b)).
The licensee is to furnish to the appropriate NRC Regional Office and to the NRC's Director of Inspection and Enforcement, i
" annually or at such shorter intervals as may be specified in the license, a report containing a brief description of such changes, tests and experiments, including a summary of the safety evaluation of each".
(10 CFR 5 50.59(b)).
In essence, Section 50.59 permits a licensee to make a change to its facility or procedures without first having obtaine NRC approval in those instances d
in which the change does not conflict with a technical specification and does not increase the probability or consequences of accidents or equipment malfunctions previously evaluated, create the possibility of an accident or equipment malfunction different from any type previously evaluated, or decrease s margin of safety as defined in the basis for any techincal speci-fication G0 CFR 5 50.59(a)(2)).
According to the Statement of Consider-i ations issued upon the promulgation of Section 50.59 (27 Fed. RS. 5491, 5492, June 9,1952), the regulation is based in large part on a condition incorporated into the license for the Vallecitos facility.E Such a con-dition "makes it clear that [the licensee] has complete freedom to make changes within the parameters of the technical specifications, provided no M / General tiectric company (Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor), Com'n Memorandum & Order, 1 AEC 541 (1960). See license condition 48 set l
forth at 1 AEC 543.
--,,.--,,,,,,.n..,,
,.,y,
. ~ -.,,
7
-.y,
9 unreviewed safety question is involved." Vallecitos,1AEC541.b The regulation differs in at least one important respect from the condition in the Vallecitos license, however.
Both the Vallecitos license and the version of 10 CFR s 50.59 originally proposed by the Commissior, provided that any changes made without prior Commission approval were to be reported promptly to the Commission.
The regulation, as ultimately adopte and as currently in force, requires the submission of reports only annually or at such shorter intervals as may be specified in the license. Thus, reporting on other than an annual basis is not required as a matter of law.
It is clear from Section 50.59 that accelerated reporting of changes to a facility or procedures undertaken without prior NRC approval, as recommended by Oregon, may be required under Section 50.59.
In fact, there is at least one recent case in which accelerated reporting has been required.
In Virginit Electric & Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 182),
& Contrary to Oregon's apparent belief, however, that the Licensee is totally free to make substantial changes in design and procedures which have been closely reviewed and ultimately authorized by the Licensing Board (see Oregon Brief, pp. 9-10), the Licensee is substantially con-strained by Section 50.59.
It carnot make changes which would conflict with other explicit requirements of the license since that would require prior authorization in the tem of t license amendment.
In the same vein, very substantial changas in design or procedures would likely involve an unreviewed safety qi estion (which is clearly defined in 10 CFR $ 50.59(a)(2)) that would be identified in any bona fide evaluation perfonned by Licensee as required by Section 50.59.
See " Licensing of Production and Util zation Facilities - Statenent 12] TConsioerations", 26 Fed. R_eg. 3030 (April 8,1961).
g See Vallecitos,1 AEC at 543; 26 Fed. Reg. at 3031.
1_4/ See 27 Fed. Reg. 5491, 5492.
4
A t;~
d-m, a
e e ALAB-578, 11 NRC 189, 217-18 (1980), the Appeal Board dealt with the question as to whether a licensee could unilaterally change its internal procedures
' nonitoring the settlement of a pumphouse at the facility without prior NRC approval in those instances in which the procedures themselves were not a part of the technical specifications.
The Appeal Board determined that such procedures could, in fact, be changed without prior NRC authorization consistent with the tems of 10 CFR 6 50.59 and the facility l' cense.
Nevertheless, to ensure that any change to the internal procedures would be brought to the NRC Staff's " attention early enough to pemit an evalua-tion of the justification for the [ change] before it night have safety implications" (11 NRC 218), the Appeal Board ordered the Licensee to notify the Staff of any changes to the internal procedures within 10 days of the Licensee's internal approval of such changes. While little guidance is provided as tJ when such accelerated reporting, as opposed to annual reporting under 10 CFR % 50.59, is required, North Anna at least indicates l
that accelerated reporting may be appropriate where it would provide an I
independent evaluation (i.e., an evaluation by the NRC Staff) of changes l
potentially significCnt to safety before such changes would have safety implications.
This is not inconsistent with what Oregon has requested in its appea'. What is not delineated in North Anna is the basis upon which it l
is to be determined that the licensee's own detennination of the safety significance of a proposed change may he suspect and should be subject to an independent review.
l l
L.
B.
Changes to the Authorized Control Building Modifications and the Procedures for Implenentino Them Could Have Safety Significance Oregon argues that the adequacy and accomplishment of the modifications to the Control Building is an issue directly affecting the public health and safety and that changes by the Licensee to modification plans and procedures could be of substantial safety significance.E/
In the Staff's view, there can be no question that significant changes in the design of the modifications could have a direct effect on the seisaic capability of structures important to the safety of the Trojan facility.
Similarly, since modification work is, for the most part, to be perfomed during plant operation,E changes in work procedures that might be made without prior NRC approval cculd directly affect the safety of plant operation.E Thus, it is the Staff's view that Oregon is correct in its assertion t~at changes to the authorized modifi-cations or to the implementing procedures could directly affect plant safety.
Moreover, changes tc the authorized modifications of a type that would affect seismic capacity of the Control Building would have such effects M/ Oregon Brief, pp. 5, 6.
M/ Initial Decision,12 NRC at 101.
1J7] It should be noted that, based un the evidence of record and pursuant to the recommendations of certain of the parties, the Licensing Board imposed a series of license conditions requiring that specified pro-tective actions be undertaken during perfomance of the modification work (Initial Decision,12 NRC at 113-14, conditions A.1(c)-(p)) and that the work be perfomed in a sequence that will assure the. maintenance of the seismic capacity of the Control Building during perfomance of the work (Initial Decision,12 NRC at 115, conditions A.1(t) and (u)).
Obviously, the Licensee must comply with such license conditions and cannot deviate from the requirements of those conditions without prior NRC approval through a license amendment.
, immediately upon implementation of the change.
Similarly, the effects of changes in construction procedures could occur immediately upon : alementa-tion of the changed procedures.
In this respect, the changes involved n' e
could be of immediate safety significance in contrast to changes in the procedures which were the subject of accelerated reporting requirements in North Anna, supra.18/
C.
The " State of the Art" Nature of the Engineering Design and Review of the Proposed Modifications Does Not, of Itself, Require That Chances Under 10 CFR 6 50.59 Be Reported on an Accelerated Basis Oregon asserts that the design of the Control Building nodifications were of such a nature as to require a unique " state of the art" engineering design I
and review effort involving substantial differences in engineering judgment between the Staff and the Licensee.12/ The Staff agrees with Oregon's assessment in this regard and that assessment is adequately supported by the evidence of record cited by Oregon.
Where the Staff parts company with Oregon is in the assertion, implied in Oregon's argument, that the complex " state of the art" nature of the engi-i neering d& sign effort required for the proposed modifications and the fact 18/ In North Anna, the procedures which were subject to accelerated report-ing requirements were licensee procedures for promptly obtaining pumphouse settlement monitoring data from contractors who collected such data. The failure to complete a monitoring procedure or to receive the monitoring results within the specified period would "not indicate per se a potential safety problem".
North Anna, ALAB-578, 11 NRC at 217.
19/ Oregon Brief, pp. 6-9.
, ~ -. - - -. - -, -
that the Staff and the Licensee of ten differed in their engineering judgments during the course of the design and review of the proposed modifications somehow dictate that accelerated reporting of changes to the proposed modi-fications made pursuant to 10 CFR 6 50.59 is re:91 rad.
There is nothing in Section 50.59 or in the statements of consideration issued in relation to its promulgation that would in any way indicate that accelerated reporting would be appropriate where changes relate to matters involving complex and difficult engineering and analysis.
As to differences in engineering judg-ment between the Staff and Licensee uuring the course of the review of the Control Building modifications, such differences are not at s'.1 unusual during licensing reviews.
The mere existence of such differences during the review process does not, however, indicate that accelerated reporting and independent review of a licensee's determinations on whether changes involve unreviewed safety questions are needed.
l D.
The Licensing Board Did Not Err in Finding No Evidence to Support a Requirement for Accelerated Reporting But New Information Indicates That Such Reportino and Early Staff Review Would Be Appropriate Oregon argues that the Licensing Board erred in concluding that Oregon had not demonstrated the need for accelerated reporting and contends that there is substantial evidence in the record showing the need for such reporting.2p/
In fact, Oregon has not identified any portion of the hearing record which 20/ Oregon Brief, pp. 12-13.
1
= -
indicates that accelerated reporting is needed. What limited evidence there is in the hearing record indicates that accelerated ~ reporting is not necessary.EI The Staff, for its part, had originally proposed that the license conditions i
authorizing and requiring perfomance of tne Control Building modifications include a provision allowing deviations and changes from the authorized modifications and procedures in accordance with the provistens of 10 CFR
@ 50.59.El The intent of the Staff in this regard was to provide flexibility to the Licensee, su'sjcct to the constraints of Section 50.59, to make adjust-ments or changes to the modifications and procedures, nany of which are anticipated tc oe trivial, where the need for such changes was not foreseen at the time the modifications were proposed (Tr. 4026-27 (Trammell)).EI In recommending that the Licensee be pemitted to make such changes under A/ See Tr. 4621-4625 (Herring) wherein the Staff expressed the view that minor deviations from, or changes to, the proposed work sequence could be undertaken in certain circumstances without the need for prior reporting or NRC review.
Subsequently, work sequence was made a con-dition of the license (Initial Decision,12 NRC 115, conditions 1(t) and (u)), and now cannot be changed or deviated from without a license amendment.
-22/ Staff Exh.13A, SQ 6.2.1, 6.2.2, pp. 87-88; NRC Staff's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Modification to the Trojan 19,1980 (Staff's Proposed Findings), pp.172-73, Control Building, May( A)(1).
proposed Order, item
-23/ In those instances in which the Staff believed proposed modification work or procedures to be important to safety, the Staff recommended the imposition of specific license conditions and technical specifi-cations which would require such procedures to be followed and would preclude deviations from those procedures without a license amendment.
See Staff Exh.13A, 9% 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, pp. 86-91; Staff's Proposed Findings, pp. 28, 37, 45 and footnote 23, 47, 52, 54, 55, 58, 60, 62, 68-69, 75, 86, 88, 94 at footnote 24, 100-101, 104 at foot-note 26,163-69,173-80. E. Tr. 4026, lines 10-14 (Trammell).
. - - - - -,. -, ~
we.
~w rs,-<
c
- - -, + - - -
Section 50.55, the Staff did not intend to seek accelerated reporting of changes, particularly in view of the fact that the snodificatien work would be closely monitored through periodic inspections by construction inspectors from Region V of the Office of Inspectian and Enforcenent (Tr. 4027, 4055 (Trammell); Staff Exh.13A, 6 4.9, p.50) and on a daily basis by the NRC's resident inspectors at the site (Tr. 4027-28 (Trammell)).
From the evidence of record then, as outlined above, the Staff's view, as expressed to the Licensing Board, was that there was simply no justification for accelerated reporting.
Consistent with the evidentiary record, the Licensing Board, in both its Initial Decision and its Order on Reconsideration, refused to require accel-erated reporting by the Licensee and prompt review by the Staff of changes i
to the authorizM modifications ana procedures made under 10 CFR $ 50.59.
Contrary to Oregon's assertion, the Licensinc Board did not err in this regard since the evidentiary record wars..
ther result. However, 1
l information that has come to light since the 1. sua. O of the Initial Decision and the Licensing Board's Order on Reconsiceration indicates that there may be merit to Oregon's request for accelerated reporting and a basis upon which that request should be granted.
l On September 9,1980, a Regional Performance Evaluation Board (RPEB), consist-ing of representatives from the Reactor Operations, Construction, Radiation Protection and Safeguards Branches of Region V of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement as well as the Trojan Project Manager from the Office of l
j Nuclear Reactor Regulation, perfomed an evaluation of Licensee's perfom-ance for Trojan activities for the period of Septem'ber 1,1979 through Augus t 31, 1980.
Based on that evaluation and on a recently completed Health Physics Appraisal of Tmjan Activities, the RPEB identified the Licensee's review process in meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 6 50.59 and the existence and adequacy of written safety evaluations for changes to facility structures, systems and components under Section 50.59 as an area in which problems exist for Trojan and one in which increased inspection efforts are warranted. The Licensee was informed of the results of the evaluation in writing in a letter dated October 14, 1980 from J. Crews of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
Because of the relevance to the Oregon appeal, both the letter to the Licensee and the RPEB arnraisal report were forwarded to the Appeal Board and parties in the instant proceeding on November 24, 1980 in a letter from Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors in the Division of Licensing of the Office of Nuclear l
Reactor Regulation.
On the bash of the RPEB perfomance appraisal, it is the Staff's view that there is now arguably some question as to the adequacy of the Licensee's review process and safety evaluations for detemining whether a proposed
~
i change sought to be undertaken without prior NRC approval under '10 CFR l
9 50.59 involves an unreviewed safety question.EI If, in fact, the Licensee's review process and safety evaluations are deficient,' such deficiencies could result in the Licensee's going forward with changes in Control Building modifications or procedures which might, in fact, involve unreviewed safety questions and ought not be perfomed without prior NRC approval. More importantly, such changes might give rise to safety problems. While the increased ir.spection effort in this area by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement should help to identify and bring to the Licensee's attention any deficiencies in the Licensee's procedures and safety evaluations for changes under Section 50.59, the Staff believes that additional assurance that such changes have been adequa:ely evaluated and will only be undertaken when they do not give rise to a safety problem would be provided if the accelerated reporting and prompt NRC Staff review proposed by Oregon were required.
While it may be argued that such accelerated reporting imposes an unnecessary burden on the Licensee,E Oregon has pointed out that the determinations 2_4/ The Licensee argues, in " Licensee's Brief in Opposition to Exceptions Filed by the State of Oregon," November 26, 1980, at p, 20, n. 14, that the instances which gave rise to questions about the adequacy of the Licensee's change review process did not relate to the performance of Control Building modification work and that, accordingly, there is no reason for a change in position with regard to the need for accelerated reporting. While it is tree that the changes for which an inadequate review under Section 50.59 was found we,e not changes involving the Control Building modifications, Licensee's argument misses the point.
It is immaterial that the change in question was unrelated to the Control Building modifications. Wat is important is that a possible deficiency in the general manner in which Licensee undertakes its reviews and evaluations under 10 CFR 6 50.59 has been identified.
,2_5 / See " Licensee's Response to the Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions 5
of Law Filed by the NRC Staff and the State of Oregon," May 29, 1980 at p. 8, and " Licensee's Brief in Opposition to Exceptions filed by the State of Oregon," November 26, 1980, at pp. 20-22.
_ ~
required by 10 CFR i 50.59(a) should be made in advance of any change pro-posed by the Licensee.
Since Section 50.59 provides" that changes made without prior NRC approval may only be undertaken if such changes do not involve an unreviewed safety question or a change to technical specifica-tions, it is clear that the Licensee's safety evaluation of a change and determination as to whether the change involves an unreviewed safety question must be completed before the change is made.
In these circum-stances, it is not obvious that accelerated reporting of the Licensee's safety evaluation and detennination would constitute a significant burden on theLicensee.E The accelerated reporting proposed by Oregon would entail an additional burden on the Staff which would have to promptly review each change and determination submitted by the Licenseeb regardless of the nature of the change or the press of other business. At the same time, the
& Licensee, in its brief in opposition to Oregon's exceptions (pp. 21-22),
cites the Commission's recent notice of proposed rulemaking on technical specifications (45 Fed. Rec. 45916, July 8,1980) as support for the l
prop.esition that unnecessary paperwork burdens imposed on licensees and the NRC Staff should be reduced where no significant benefit with regard i
to protecting the public health and safety would accrue. The Staff agrees that unnecessary papemork and review should be avoided and that, to the extent that changes to or deviations from the approved Control Building modifications are trivial in nature, Oregon's proposed accelerated reporting could involve unnecessary review.
At the same time, it is not possible to predict with any confidence that all changes to the Control Building modifications the Licensee may wish to undertake will be trivial in nature or that Staff review of such changes will result in no signifi-cant benefit with regard to protecting the public health and safety.
Moreover, since the Licensee must prepare a safety evaluation and make its own determination as to whether a change involves an unreviewed safety question prior to undertaling the change, the only apparent addi-l tional " paperwork" burden accelerated reporting would entail for the j
Licensee would be the transmittal of its safety evaluation and determi-I nation to the NRC Staff. Such additional burden to the Licensee is, on
(
its face, insignificant.
27/ Cf. North Anna, ALAB-578, 11 NRC at 218.
l
~ _..
~ -
=. _ _.
t..
burden on the Staff would not necessarily be substantial. No Stal ' apprrval of proposed changes w ld be required.
In addition, the Staff expects that.
for the most part, chai' gas proposed by the Licensee would be of a minor or trivial nature and would not require excessive manpower for review. Those cases involving significant and complex changes, while requiring a greater degree of Staff review effort, would involve precisely the type of proposed changes for which Staff review would be most useful and beneficial in assuring that the proposed change would not result in safety problems.
On balance then, it is the Staff's view that the accelerated reporting and Staff review sought by Oregon would provide some measure of additional assurance that deviations from, and changes to, the authorized Control Building modifications and procedures will not involve unreviewed safety questions or otherwise give rise to safety problems and that such accel-erated reporting and review would not entail undue costs in reporting burdens on the Licensee t review burdens on the Staff. The accelerated l
reporting and review is permitted by, and consistent with, the terms of 10 CFR s 50.59. would allow an independent review of the licensee's proposed j
changes to the approved Control Building modificetions and procedures before such changes would give rise to safety problems (North Anna, ALAB-578, 11 NRC at 218), and would be appropriate at this time when the adequacy of the Licensee's review process for changes under Section 50.59 has been brought into question. Accordingly, the Staff is of the view that Oregon's
. l s
proposai for accelerated reporting of changes to the Control Building modi-fications and procedures E should be adopted.
V.
CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, it is the Staff's view that the Licensing Board did not err in refusing to require accelerated reporting of changes to Control Building modifications and procedures under 10 CFR 6 50.59 but that new infonnation identifying inadequacies in the Licensee's change review process indicates that the accelerated reporting proposed by Oregon could increase the level of assurance of safety for changes to the authorized Control Building modifications and procedures. Accordingly, the relief sought by
)
Oregon should be granted.
Respectfully submitted, Y7
[9sep R. Gray.
{
ou el for NR Sta f Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 8th day of December,1980 I
b Oregon's proposal is with regard only to the Control Building modifi-cations and procedures.
It does not apply to changes to the Trojan facility in general.
Changes to the facility other than those related to the Control Building modifications and procedures are beyond the scope of this proceeding and cannot be the subject of license condi-l tions imposed ir. this proceeding.
f
UNITED STATES GF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEN!NG APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.
)
Docket No. 50-344
)
(Control Building)
(Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO THE APPEAL OF THE STATE OF OREGON" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Con-mission's internal mail system, this 8th day of December,1980:
I Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman
- Dr. Hugh C. Paxton
~
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 1229 41st Street Board Los Alamos, NM 87544 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Mr. John A. Kullberg 15523 S.E. River Forest Drive Dr. John H. Buck, Member
- Portland, OR 97222 Atomic Safety and LirsnF ng Appeal Board Frank W. Ostrander, Jr.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Counsel for Dept. of Energy Washington, DC 20555 500 Pacific Buildiaq 520 S. W. Yamhill Dr. W. Reed Johnson, Member
- Portland, OR 97204 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Maurice Axelrad, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Washington, DC 20555 Axelrad & Toll Suite 1214 Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman
- 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, DC 20036 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Mr. David B. McCoy 348 Hussey Lane Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Grant s Pass, OR 97526 Division of Engineering, Architecture & Technology Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK 74074 Ronald W. Johnson, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Corporate Attorney Panel
- Portland General Electric U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Company Washington, DC 20555 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, OR 97204 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (5)*
William W. Kinsey U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Robert L. Jones, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555 Bonneville Power Administration P.O. Box 3621 Docketing and Service Section (7)*
Portland, OR 97208 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Nina Bell Washington, DC 20555 728 S.E. 26th Portland, OR 97214 Mr. Eugene Rosolie Coalition for Safe Power 215 SE 9th Avenue Portland, OR 97214 lhs '
M 'l J3eph/R. Gray
/
, unsgl for NRC Maff l
__