ML20062B891
| ML20062B891 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/12/1978 |
| From: | Rosolie E NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES (FORMERLY COALITION |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7811020037 | |
| Download: ML20062B891 (6) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I'o
( ) f 'I E'
. s sm n,
NUCZ, EAR REGULATORT COMMISSION Q-M.
. x.
(
g3
,}
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA 8/
@ 73 \\, g% 7
.g b i %
-jh In the Matter of
\\ [}
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
)
Docket N 50-344 et al.
)
q
' ' ~ ~ ~ ~
)
(Control BN1 ding Proceeding) f (Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)
j
)
COALITION mR SAFE POWER AND EUGENE ROSOLIE RESPONSE TO NRC INTERROGATORIES f
i S1. Yes.
j (a) NRC Order dated May 26, 1978, page 5, where it is stated:
j
...the NRC Staff has determined that there is adequate assurance J
of safety in the interim before the Control Building modifications in that, in the event of the occurrence of the SSE established for the facility, the facility has the capability to withstand such event i
and bs brought to a safe shutdown condition. In addiction, the NRC Staff has determined that the facility may be operated during the j
interim period without endangering the health and safety of the public provided certain conditions are imposed...."
Safety evaluation.
{
(b) For (a) I see Amendment to Petition to intervene, dated July 23, 1978.
For (a) 2 see (c).
(c) In the same order it states:on page 3:
" The shear walls do not have the intended capacity to resist the Operation Basis Earthquake (OBE) nor the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE),....since they do not aanform to the appropriate seimic-design criteria of FSAR Sections 3.7, and 3 8 as referenced by,
f FS AR S ection 3. 7. 2.1.... "
5 3.
As for the safety evaluation, it is not that we disagree but rather we believe it to be inadequate. We have stated before,that this is a mere review;of j
the Applicants documents and nothing more. To base any decision on this alone is biased and does not serve the public. I would refer the NRC Staff to a recent report by the Government Accounting Office (GAO). Althought this report deals main-
{
ly with NRC practices in regards to construction we have a similar situation here.
l El.
We feel all consideration should be given to the requirements of the National Environmectal Protection Act.
If the NRC Staff feels after such consideration that an EIS is not needed we would not press the issue.
f E2. See Amended Petition to Intervene dated July 23, 1978.
d (b' We do not question the impact of the license amendement or the modification.
The impact we are concerned about is that which would occur if the plant is to 1
7 9
i
\\.
c 787.103 2 3'?
(
i kb i
2
'l 7
operate under present conditions.
(c) The Control Building would be able to withstand the earthquake it was designed to withstand.
(d) WASH-740 WASH-1400 The disk of Nuclear Power Reactors, Union of Concerned Scientists,1977 Gl. (a) 1 "Our investigation and analysis...show that this occurrence does not constitute an unreviewed safety question nor require a license amend-ment."
For our position see answer to S1 (c).
O "...because 5 percent damping is a reduction in the conservatism intended
i in our original OBE design, we woud expect it to be allowed only until we have restored the original conservatism to the Control Building." p.3 NRC has made certain requirements to operate the ',
Reportable Occurrence.
when it was licenset. To allow the operation of the plant now is to make those requirements arbitrary and the whole licensing process a mere joke.
3-"... capability of the Control Building to withstand the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) has not been violated."" See answer to S1 (c).
l 4-"...the acceptable margin of safety or safety limit is not being reduced."
See answer to Si (c) 4 6 "Like wise, since the structure can still meet the regulatory design criteria, j
no substantial safety hazard exists." See answer to S1 (c).
1 J
(b) none at this, time.
(c) "The staff concluded, on the basis of the oral presentation, that the tech-
]
evaluation by Bechtel indicated that approval of an interim operating J
period seemed likely without. further modification of the plant...,"
l Obviously the Staff was merely going on the word of Bechtel and7 eel any judgesent based on that alone is not very sound.
(d) none at this time.
I (e) none at this time.
G2 (a) The SSE is defined in 10 CFR 100, App A.
(b) No.
~
(c) A need for the plant and that any work will not interfere with the operation h
of the plant.
I (d) As to the need for the plant, it is our reasoning that if the plant is not j
needed it would be in the best interest of the public health and safety not to operate the plant. We also believe that work on the Control Building must not interfere with the plants operation and to :nini:nize
[
such interference it would be best to keep the plant shutdown.
l r
i
w...........
5 i
f G3 (a) Those outlined by the Applicant and the NRC staff.
(b) We have not separately evaluated the precise significance of each mistake, but believe the accumulated effect is important.
G8 All material submitted by parties in this proceeding.
j I
One in the Spirit j
[ff!
Coalition For) Safe Power
(
Eugep Rosoli i
Dated this day,12th of October,1978 i
(
- m e a
e t
e t
1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RELAXED Cor.TCC2....
-s NUCLEAR REGULATORT COMMISSION g\\
//
6
[
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSINC 2 OARD "c,::a s
j g I l \\$73 P t
=
L 7
a 4
s;Gl In the Matter of
)
N J
)
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
)
Docket No. 5 et al.
)
~
)
(Control Buildi. g Proceeding)
(Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)
)
i I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " COALITION FOR SAFE POWER AND EUGENE ROSOLIE RESPONSE TO NRC INTERROCATORIES" in the above-captioned proceeding have been I
served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, ffirst class
)
this 12th day of October,1978:
l 1
1 i
I Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co= mission l
[
Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Ato=ic Safety and Licensing Appeal Division of Engineering, Board i
Architecture and Technology U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co= mission Oklahoma State University Washington, D. C.
20555 Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Robert M. Johnson, Esq.
i Dr. Hugh C. Paxton Assistant Attorney General 1229 - 41st Street 100 State Office Building Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 Salem, Oregon 97310 Joseph R. Gray, Esq.
Robert Lowenstein, Esq.
Counsel for NRC Staff Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & Axelrad U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 1214 Washington, D. C.
20555 1025 Connecticut Ave., N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036
}
Columbia County Courthouse Law Library H. H. Phillips, Esq.
4 Circuit Court Rocs Portland General Electric Company r
St. Helens, Oregon 97051 121 S.W. Salmon Street l
Ms. Nina Bell
-Portland. Cregon 97204 l
632 S. E. 18th Street Mr. Stephen :1. Willingham Portland, Oregon 97214 555 N. Tcmahawk Drive Portland, Oregon 97217
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I
Columbia Environmental Council John H. Socolofsky, Esq.
P. O. Box 611 Assistant Accorney General St. Helens, Oregon 97051 Of Attorneys for the State of Oregon 100 State Office Building Mr. John A. Kullberg Salem, Oregon 97310 Route 1, Box 250Q Sauvie Island, Oregon 97231 Gregory Kafoury, Esq.
Counsel for Columbia Environmental Mr. David B. McCoy Council 348 Hussey Lane 202 Oregon Pioneer Building Grants Pass, Oregon 97526 320 S. W. Stark Portland, Oregon 97204 Ms. C. Gail Parson P. O. Box 1852 William Kinsay, Esq.
Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Bonneville Power Administration P. O. Box 3621 Docketing and Service Section Portland, Oregon 97208 Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 A
Euggg'e Rosotti Coalition, For. Safe Power G
l l
l
_ _ - -,.,.,. -,. - - - - - _