ML20062C306
| ML20062C306 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/18/1978 |
| From: | AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062C287 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7811080089 | |
| Download: ML20062C306 (2) | |
Text
.
hLATED connEsroNDENCF o
y UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
/\\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/d*
d.
~.
.t.
\\
T
}
Q f
y e.g+<f, )L;5
'1 B FORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD c;.'.)
Q In the Matter of
)
)
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
)
Docket 50-344 et al.
)
)
(Control Building (Troj an Nuclear Plant )
)
Proceeding)
COLUMBIA ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL INTER 9OGATORIES TO NRC STAFP Interrogatory 1 What was the formal role and what was the actual role of the
(
AEC Staff in supervisina the original design of the Control Room?
Interrogatory 2 Did tne AEC Staff independently derive any of the information erroneously relied upon?
Interrogatory 3that the scales can be compared, what is the basic To tne extent Richter scale equivalent of.25g and of,15 T 6
Interrogatory 4 Describe in detail the planned and the actual on-site supervision of the construction of the Control Room by employees of AEC.
Interrogatory 5 Please state your response of the major paragraph on page two (2) of the letter to Dr. Fred Mill.er from Harold I. Laursen, Ph.D., P.E.,
of May 18, 1978. (See Control Building Docket Correspondence, No.5)
Interrogatory 6 The NRC Staff concluded on May 26, 1978 that there was " reasonable assurance" that the f a&lity would " withstand the SSE*' but that "the intended and desired margins of safety are not present."
(Soe Control Room Decket Correspondence, No. 10)
The Staff (per Trammell) also estimated that the Control Building had approximately 60;6 of the seismic capacity originally intended and approved.
In the ligns of the STARDYNE analyses, what would you new estimate the short-f all to be?
Interroaatory 7 As a result ofthe two recent major downgradings of the seismic capacity of the Control Room as calculated by Licensee and its agents, has the NRC Staff to any extent concluded that Licensee and its agents are less reliable sources of information than previously thought?
If se, to what extent?
If not, why not?
77/(b 5?O0776
Cic Intorrogstorloc to NRC Staff continued.
Interrogatory 6 l
Has tne Staff received the STARDYNE computer programa?
If so, have they conducted their own program calculations.
If not, why not?
Interrogatory 9 i
Has tne Staff independently derived all or any of the information upon wnich the STAhDYNE programs are bas ed?
If not, why not?
Interrogato ry 10 If che SSE represents the maximum potential earthcuake for the site and OBE repm sents the maximum earthcuake which can be ex-pected to occur at the site during the life of the plant, on what basis is the distinction between these two made?
(See letter from A.
Schwencer to Dr. Miller, Control Building Docket Correspondence, No. 12)
Interrogatory 11 Please supply the study or d; her materials on which it was con-cluced that the concerns expressed in a June 23, 1970 review of the seismic design critaria for the Troj an Nuclear Plant by Jchn A.
Bloom and Associaten could be disregarded.
Interrogatory 12 Does the Staff unow the basis for the statement in the minutes of the Directors meetin6 of PGE on Sept. 6, 1978 that there was,
" general agreement among NRC Staff,.BFehtel, the Company's con-sultant, and une Company that no safety problems would arise due to interum operation."1 Interrogatory 13 If possible, please computs the horizontal ground displacement of an eartnquake at.25g.
Interrogatory 14 To wnat extent is it within the state of the art to predict the pattern of nonlinear behavior of the control room structure across the spectrum up to and including.25g?
Please supply all available informstion en the subject.
Interrogatory 16 In tne opinien of the Staff what areas of information supplied by licensee would ideally be independently derived by the Staff itself?
If greater staff recourses existed, what would be the priorities for tne independent derivation of f acts wnich are presently sup-plied by Licensee?
Interrogatory 16 Nhy nave cnere oeen no CBE and SSE test shutdowns?
In the absence of suen tes ts, how tas it been determined that all relevant em-ployees would repond properly in such an event?
Interrogatory 17 Provice a nistory of reportable occurrences which have involved design errors.
)