ML20062C281
| ML20062C281 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/18/1978 |
| From: | AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062C287 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7811080059 | |
| Download: ML20062C281 (3) | |
Text
.
g* Wf UNITED STATES OF AMERIC A D cc,r ig s,'
NUCLEAR REGUITATORY COMMISSION
['Q:(q
' ) \\ * ) ') -
?.S
-g?
4 a:r p
BEFCRE THE ATCMIC SAPETY AND LICENSING BOARD
, sc3 b
3:[s
.f
,-[INhn tror of
)
)
f
/
P0fC.'<' JD GENERAL ELECTRIC COMP ANY,
/,/
)
Docket No. 50-344 (Control (Buildin V
-- a t al.
)
)
(Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)'
Proceeding)
COLUMBIA ENVIRONMENT AL COUNCIL INTERROGATCRIFS TO LICENSEE Interrotratory 1
' Vere these entirely indepen-How many design errors were made?
dent, or were some errors caused by earlier errors?
Please provide details.
Interrogatory 2
,Inat metnoca or supervision were employed by those who had the du ty to supervis e the man who made the errors ?
Interrogatory 3 Jhat was the formal role and what was the actual role of the AEC Staff in supervising the original design of the Control Room?
i l
l Interrogatory 4 t
Did the supervisors of the man who made the original errors independently derive any of the information erroneously relied upon?
Interrogatory 5 Why is it unat such ccmposite snear wall designs are not us ed on other nuclear plants constructed by Bechtel?
Interrogatory 6 What was the precise reason that it was thought necessary in the Spring of 1978 to cut a hole in the Control Roca '.Vall?
Is the hole going to be cut?
Are other holes in the Control Rocm or other buildings contemplated?
Please provide details.
l Interrogatory 'l In exactly wnat manner aas the error discovered?
Is it a f ac t l
that a Bechtel employee simply looked at the blueprints for the Control Room and Thougnt they looked a little light"?
Who had reviewed tnose blueprints before that =cment, and why didn't tney notice the same problem?
Interrogatory 8 Lescrice in cecail the planned and the actual on-site super-7 17/690057 G
- CEC Interrogatorico to Licenseo continuad.
vision of the construction of the Control Room by employees of PGE, and by employees of Bechtel.
Interrogatory 9 Please state your response to the major paragraph on page two (2) of the letter to Dr. Fred killer from Harold I. Laursen, Ph. D., P.E.
of May le, 197e.
(See Control Building Docket Correspondence, No.5)
Interrogatory 10 The NRC Staff concluded on May 26, 1978 that there was " reasonable assurance" that the f acility would "withs tand the SSE," but that "the intended and desired margins of safety are not present."
(See Control Room Docket Correspondence, No.lO. )
The Staff (per Trammell) also estimated that the Control Building had approximately 50% of the ceismic capacity oriFinally intended and approved.
In the light of the STARDYNE analyses, what would you non es timate the short-fall to be?
Interroaatory 11 Licensee is requested to provide a copy of the recent order of the Public Utility Commissioner denying a 331/3% emergency rate increase reques t.
Interrogatory 12 The minutes of the Directors meetinr of PGE of Sept. 6, 1978 contain the following entry:
" Never-theles s, there is general agreement among NRC Staff, Bechtel,the Company's consultant and
~
the Company tnat no safety problems would arise due to interim operation."
Please provide all information upon which the con-l c lusion was made that the NRC Staff had decided by Sept. 6, 1978, that no safety problems would arise due to interim operation.
Interrogatory 13 Witn regard to the minutes of the Directors meetinF of Sept. 6, 197o, i
it is noted that af ter the finite element analysis had been performed, that Doctors Holley and Bresler still felt that there were "sub-stantial questions which needed more work."
What were those questions, and what answers were arrived at?
Interroaatory 14 l
Has Licensee snown the Public Utility Commissioner for Oregon the l
construction and design contracts with Bechtel regarding the Trojan Nuclear Plant?
Interrogatory 15 In wnat regard if any does the structure and composition of the ceiling of the Control Room differ from that of the walls?
Interroaatory 16 has the state of the art developed to the point where the effect of an earthquake on the Trojan facility could be tested by the use of scale models?
w
_3_
CEC Intorrogatorics to Licensco continucd.
Interrogatory 17 If tne sdh represents tne maximum potential earthcuake for the site and OBE repre sents the max 1=um earthquake which can be expected to occur at tne site du ring the life of the plant, on wnac basla is the distinction between these two made? (8ee letter from A. Schwencer to Dr. Miller, Control Building Docket Corres-pondence, No. 12)
Interrogatory lb Please supply the study or other materials on which it was con-cluded chat the concerns expressed in a June 23, 1970 review of the seismic design criteria for the Troj an Nuclear Plant by John A.
Bloom and Associates could be disregarded.
Interrogatory 19 Please provide details on all com=unications in any fo rm which the Licensee has bad with the office of the Public utility Com-missioner of Oregon, with the news media, or the NRC Staff, with regard to the possibility of recovering consequential damages from r
Bechtel Corporation.
Interrogatory 20 If, possible, please compute the horizontal ground displacement of an earthquake at.25g.
Interrogatory 21 Yhy nave cnere been no OBE and SSE test shutdowns?
In the absence of such tests, how has it been determined that all relevant em-ployees would respond properly in such an event?
Interrogatory 22 Provide a nistory of reportable occuenaces which have involved design errors.
6 e
- - - - - - - - -