ML20150E782
| ML20150E782 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/12/1978 |
| From: | Mccollom K, Mark Miller, Paxton H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7812220004 | |
| Download: ML20150E782 (164) | |
Text
..
f f
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSloN Records Facilities Branch (2)'
016 Phil IN THE MATTER OF:
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.
(Trojan. Nuclear Plant)
Docket No. 50-C44SP
-(
i 1
Place - Salem, Oregon.
Date -
12 December 1978
'Pages 2574 - 2738 l
'l Teieonone:
(202)347 3700 ACE FEDERALREPORTERS,INC.
j OfficialReporters A44 Ner*h C:p tci Street l
Weshingten O.C. 20001 78122200o NAT1CNWIDE CCVERAGE DAILY
=,.
~.u
'~"
-wn
- (. p -
.x l'
s q g g-.
5_
- , e; a,e-
-.o
'incdon'
?,0.:. t 2 0:.
n. p u. t, lln t, -
..-,.3
.m. u.. - a,,, m. n. r, o 9.
.>. a..
.......-s
<21i :.
l7
.~
- 2 "%yl _
I
. ~ u^.-.a u'm,, 5'.'.
~'c.t '.'.' a o a w...
U C a' a' n* y"'.
a s.
N
- 3 d - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - -- ------ - - -- - - - - :
g.
l(i{Cnthe.!!attereft e) 1 i
,s
? ';t - FO TLICD C-ENER7J., ELECTRIC CCl?AN*!, :
Cochat lio. 50-344CP-I
~ ct1 'a l.
6-(Trojan Nuclear Plant):
7 1 -------------- - -- ---
I 8
^
' nearing Room.A-l e.'
State Cap.4.tol
' i
'l
~
Sclem, Oregon 10 Tuesr':.y,12 Lace:Wer 1973 11
+
12 The hearing in the above-antitled matter was 13 r reconvened,; pursuant to adjournment, at.9:00 a.n.
14 EE FOPS : --
1 D'
.MARSUALL E. MILLER, Esq., Chai=an, p
Atomic Safety cnd-Licansing Ecard.
'16 p~
DR. KEliNETH A. - MC COLLOM, Member.-
17 DR. HUGH C. ?IJ: TON,11enber.
18 APPEAPJd;CES :
19
'?
On behalf of Licensee 20 T AURICE AXELEAD, Esq.,. Lowenstain, Metman, Reis, Axelrad & Toll, 1025 Connecticut Avc., N.W.
21
. Suite 1214, Ucshington, D.C. 20036.
~ gg ROLId?D ?. E.A14KS, Jr., Esq., Souther, Spaulding,
'%q;)'.
733.
t 6th AV,enus,-Portland, Oregon 97'04.
Kinsey,-Williamson & Schwnbo, 1100 S.W.
[
RONALD.70HN3ON, Esq., 121 South! cst Ecir.cn.St.,
2 Portland, Oregon.
o h.
L...~--_..---_
, ~,,. ~ -. -,.,,. -, _.,,
...,., _.......,,., -,., _... _....... _, _ ~. -.,......---.;,..--_... _
_~
~. _
~
2'5 7 4A -
- wet 2 a
1 APPEARANCES: (Continued)-
4 2-
.On behalf of Benneville'Pcker Administration:
%s
.{I'
. WILLIAM RIMSEY, Esq.,'P.O. Dox 3621, Portlan'd, 3
l Oregon 97203
- I 4
On behalf of the State of Oregon:
5
.d JOHN SOCOLOPSKY, Esq.
6 On behalf.of NRC Regulatory Staff 7
JOSEPH. GRAY, Esq., and MARJORIE UIJULN, 'EEq.,
8
' U. S. Nuclear Regulatory. Cotunission, Washington,.
D.,C.
?
9 On behalf of Coalition.for. Safe Power and pro se:
10
' EUGENE ROSOLIE, 215 SU 9th Street, Portland, 11'
' Oregon.
. 7 12 On: behalf.of Consolidated Intervenors and pro se:
' 13 '
NINA DELL, 632 SW 18th Street, Portland, Oregon.
14 On behalf of Columbia Environmental Councils 15 14ICIIAEL ROSE.
10
+. L
' & s q
18'
-19 20 21 22 23 h
2s.
p g
,,--,y y.-pg.-g-
-,w-e-,9-p-
..M'mi
,u.=
. =. -,
9 l!
2S75 -
mm1 ji 2576
.I. N D E X.
-~
l.
age
.i
.s
.w, LTIIITED J ?PEAF.AITCE STATEMENT OF e
~ 8 t
ROBIRT D. PCLLARD, UNION CF CONC 2EUED SCIENTISi'S AS DELIVZP.ED BY MS, N. DELL 2455 er tue
}
f
(,'
ii l.
1, i
T a
s
,9 4
4 6
o a
'1 e,'
,'.y.
l-;
1C 1
- s
.* c i
4e e
i I
t
,I s '.
.t_
I *v 9
- 5 4
f
$N l'
e
)'n <
. 4..-
j-1,.
c
- ! i >
$ 4,-
,C e
d h
is
.c 20 w-,,_
O.
I l
9 f.~?
- 6. %
l
- 4.
e k,/
l pg*
l
,;,.}'
%.s-g h
l l
l'-
. lj i
L
~
., - ~.
.J..L_
- m.
.e.,,
- = ' ' "
I
.g
'g T
i;
...z,.-
t
+
m
.r.
- 3 4
i
'4
' s
'a i
r o,, ne v.e.
g
'n?;e f I -,
4.
t
- m. -
e..
9
.,..J g.. _
+.9-. O s...
..y.. '
.-9.
- f. u r..
,.3s-.g..',.e,..
- i
...-L...
- s...
m
- p
-4.fU i.n'4 J,'.,.....,...,.,
t."..#. s -
,C.".. e s. '.-...1 e
3,
.u,
- 4. L.. -
p ar s
- r.. g...
u.
.u.
.~
~
- , 5.
mQ.
.. y t /
w:, _1a. a.. o;. y...... g.
.s
,..a....,.
L r.
3
...,,...e r
y...
.y
.s u-....
n y
s.
t a
- ' A;
.,.>..t._...,.,s v o c.
o L..r.c..:.,
.o.,,.
m.
o a
6 i,[ gcingi to ' fine in an 7.dninistrative. proceeding,
' l
' 1 A word'about"the' ground rules.,Innsmuch as the i
t
[-
.N I
n
...-.n-4:.
- e....?
V s
c a. e a
s p 3,.. o.,
.-.3.e
.. av,..a
.A.,.
3.n c a..
... A.
... s 3 4..
4.
L.
?!CupOctG, Ud h'i 1 pC1*.7..$.'t ths. 7 00n 2 e4 5,.. ' $ ' M' Ch OC t; - M t.".
.,/..
{
i f*g S.
, ')
00 OC.Gn C.Od ClOJ'3; 1
We roquas: chat you foll&.? tr.c cu::tocary.trici l
c 12
- i. 7:actice of a hiir.Opentng, in the sensa to ' cover uhr : ;cr is l
~
t i
v.
l'. going to be: cover:3, so-.that,the pcrties will hcva a ch:..ca Y 3
. d.
s e e 4%.ce.. T..
I #
g ao
..u c
g2 2 n' t, sav.: 'im othar wordsf fOr rGCuttaJ., nn'f r.3'.?
16 types of atters.. Rabu:tal then will bc chiefly respence 30-
- r. o.s iml' 17 the preceding arguments.
.w g er
. :.m.
.The Sta.ff will be -- whht 'do they cal'1 it, the 18 P - h. -
10 penultir. ate -- the second last at any rato, in vieu of i-
.)..
...i
,,4
...-,4 20 ll'
.s its spacia.'. public. interest res.'onsibili ica.
4 i
2'
.y.
4 21
':'he order thc.n, ether than that, will be n
1, t u.,
. a....
- n. c..:.
., s..,....: v...i.
t.
= > ' -
L.a.,a rw
,.e....i c.,..,
v.
- w...
uu
.i i.
a
.o
..e.._.,2 c.s,.. p,.,...,.s m.
...... a.,
.o
.m
- c..
- a.....i
.~
i..
- v. - h,...,1 e,,r.,
--..:.,...,.,,:...o..
a.., u,,,
nu
+,.
.. - a 4
s
.-6.,D g"
I i$
j I
I I,'.
1 4 -
y
".1y4-
- .W'y ry
=d-
"T.Tg4.1 7
Tr
'y P'q eVMT-'
$+
.g5
'S
- 1g %e. f
- 'We-'v V
'W 4 M ? YY
.F.y'.n-.W 3
1.&-e'a.e-.4M3.--
1-
- TWe'f T.'9."F
'e
'44Y
a e:
r.
~
s.
- ...~....
rl 1,
t Q
..,. o.
t I.-
g f.!
j 4.
- j
.,11
.u. ;
o.h-
'.T...
.-3... J. a,.;.
.r 9
a...
- or.i
..a a.
,3 We1
..... p
.4
. ~..
g I
_, ~.... c.
e.
i s
I
.r y,
...,.2..
a....
.,e u.,
. w....,,
,,.3 s,,.,.
, a...:
. a.... e.....:
.c
- h..
..,<,u.~...
.t...
w
......a
..>.s.
- u..
e..,,
..a..
\\-
i.
..e...z........
1, p
e..y_.,,
- m.. 4
- 4...,,
..... ~..
.. ~ -.
s.,
.y.....
s.p y.........
.a 1
.e p
a e d tha: fl:.L' therefron.
j i
7l Ws do not have the pouer nor is it an issus as to
..,.,.4.
... u e.,. 3.,,.,q.
,. a-c.c.
3, t.'. 4 +-" :-
e..
c...
- r. c...tu. W..
~^
g
. ~ -.
es....
_4,., _.gc.,.
- u..,._...
c.' o..... '
e..
..s,
e, I, e
" *,,. e *..; '. 49' w.g 3 - n,n
.s.
p., ~ o ' e-' e -'. s., ~
a 1
g
a
,. -.,"'- "~--'en~~
' ' ' - - - - "- - ~
10 n
- l public interes c di
- .
- cated the usa of nuc1w r jo'..2.: for the ge.ne ra': ion,transmi.i:sion, and distric.ution ci cice: ici y, g
~s
'o~~'t~es"
-aa~l'v o
~'o ~4-"a
- ~w i -
Oc' i*
i d
~-
- ~ '
13 Ca :ars as to nuclear *ecwer oer sa, or c:e thing dat a cunts i
14 4
to en attsck n'.acn the statuter that control uc, the At:.i:
S ~c r
Ecergy A:*. of 1954, as amandad.
l 16 i
NEPA, the Tational Onvironmental. Policy Act, the 17 Administrative Procedure Act,. car own..re;ula t. ions -- attacks I
uren these are pointless, beyond the scope of the issues and D
our '>dver to do anything chou't' it.
20 3
l', 3-Dut it u uld be nost helpful if the conersr.e,
.o
... 29CiliO, fa uc*. issucs,
- 0 n ck-r chi.'.r Wall delin3f.tsi by ':nC, '
i; d.
b' Og.
z C.c.s 1. :, C.:.,,, s 6.,.-
- c. w-,,.,,,.LL -n.
2 r:
t,
-a
-,7
-...,.. -
- c n w _ a
,A.-.-
. +. -
g;,,;,
t i
l
- i..... S.... :,.,...: c..,. e. e,
s..
o.
t v,.
n -.:...,.,
_.4
..c a..
w.
2, 6.,.
--c
!r r.
R,,.1 N
.2.,-
cd A.
n.g e..n e... r. e
.s..-
6., a. r.., 2 1. t.
-.c e
,,_i.
6.
3 ' p.i.,+s.
.n.,
- r C *"...c 4 de.-
w
.. i f1s y
j
).
i e
h r
h i,I
}
(!
8 g
w-
..=.sa T
w
r_
.m..
t
- r-..
4 c.,.,
v ori hi inferences; cr.y ur cwn vicws thereof.
Ik.thcss.marnra.
t r..
2i 'J11s is the 1:s: tire on tnis. nterY c-ert ica issue t e-i 4
d i
M 3-uill bc Calc - to hava the benefit of the arguments cnd I?
. h'
' I f, :.t.tamants c Ocunzel.
~
5.l I: thin.:' that va ~have indicated that vi a::poct I
I, S'
totissue a partiel initial decision next week..
i 7
There is the-question of the limited cppearance 3.
statement by Mr. Sellard.
I
- Is :ncra anything~further en that
'Ms. Scll?
3 I
P 10 i MS. HEL*.,:
No, just that it is' coming in this t
t.
11 5 r.orning.
12 CHAIPJitd1 MILLER:
Thank you.
Ne will handle'that whenir appears, insofar as.it 13 i
e}
is not rc:.senably covered by t.L.a statements:of counsel,-ycu wil.
'be given reasonable-opportunity.
.Are.there any questions on the procedure?
16; 4
)s4' (No response)'
^
- 17 Very well, Licensee counsel, Mr. Axelrad, hM 18 b,
19 Mr. Banks?
- 75.,
MR, AXELRAD:
Yes.
Mr. Chairman, we had not.
20 t
planned to make any forrei opening 'r closing statement at o
21 this point.
Aa the Board is aware we filed 2:< tensive r:ronssed
.e t
findingc of f::t snd conclusions of :.cw on November 20th.
h.,.
'g3 We supp12mented these with our filing c,5 November y.
-g 25 -- I'm scrry, of December 6th with respect to'the F
,3 w
E
-w--,
g-n..
~, --
,,-n
...,.m
,,,,,y
,s,,,
, ~,,,,,
e n., e
-.w,w,,
e, A.,e v.,,,,.,,.
.-,w.,,,n,
.,,s
p. -..
n - -.m u. _y
..; ' _.. _......,. x a m.
2.1
.v. L, l'
{' :,
i
. ~.1 -
I(
Eupp'.33entary uttt9r'. Of.' thO C'. C-".iO quLlification of
{.
li
~
AN rEf c ty-r ei.';'""l Ogr.ip'.. ant ; ECCd 03
}
f.n O STA..~~:'.Z E fi c0r C O.Open te-il
.s c.
sb 6e EOC0tra..
I b '
.e Af to have net he.d nn :pportu.ity obvion:..:N to-go-j.
r p
". l.' threagh the tran:cript cf yeateri :' tc at :engt cciinccrporata j
- l3
.I t.
G f.11 within.the findingc thct vere previcuuly :sabnitted, specific s.
4 7
referenccc to.yosts dav.5-c testidany.
But v.es:crdav.'s I
A S
tectintonv.
r.c t?e necrd it, esse,ntially buttresse.d ever,rthina.
n T.* ] : 9.at we h d'nrovicun'/ subnitted'in sufiled testimony.and.
x i
chs.t the Staff hcd filed !.n the way.of profiled tcsti=ony 11 and.ics fully consistent with the proposed findings and i
i 12j' ccnclusions that va have previously submitted to the Ecard..
13 I would like to simpiv uait and see what any of
~
14l'the ocher ;crtic,s have to'cav. which do-not accord with 13 the proporod findings and conclusions that ue have previously 16
.iubnitted, and in rebuttal I would.then prepose to answer i
k4
.17
.thoccithe best I'can.
v K
. av.7.e We did indicate in.our subnittal of De'cember.6th Jb.M.,.;
18
~
k, s.
k.? -
19 that we would provide-to you the nissing paragraph 22, afcar n; E 20' paragraph 22 in our proposed findings which would deal with.
.r 21 the procedural matters that took place since that time.
m I have a couple cE'parngraphs i ceuld just read 22 l
(%
y into
.the record now, if tant wculd ha useful to the Board 24 -
for purpo:cs of itt ultinati. decicicn.
j
~
W a: vould be fine.
)
CIIAIPJM MILLEn:
J25
./
}
.i
.I
'I i
4 2
.. _ n.,_
v u.
= _.
__t w;q -
Y
't :
)
y 2 s.*%9 _ _9 S
i i
I,
.-)
1 1
'MR. ;JELne: De numbering hera nocid-be beni.ninc{
l s.
I f, u; C.
- 22.
I: *?:2 c. Ic.atw 'paragr.?.ph 22 of Ot r devedar 20 1:
O culmittal.
l
'f O
^
CHAIPFAM :'IL'ZR: The Eovadar 20th sub.ittal?
y's, wp l
-.c HR. AXELEAD:
Yes.
t G
Parcgraph No. 22 ccvered the matter: up until l
7 the close of the previous hearing.
t 8
Paragraph'22A:
On November 20, 1978, Licensee.,
.l 1
9 D 'i. the URC Staff and the State of Oregon filed proposad fim5ings l
/r H
It to '. and conclusions of law on all itars except the seismic I.
1 i
l c,uclification of safety-related equicmant in the ccmplex 11 I
12 based on the STARDYME ficor response spectra.
j 13 On November.22 and 24,1978,. Licensee submitted I
. ( h.
5 I
14 further information on floor response spectra in reply be j
15 NRC Staff questions (Licensee Exhibits 21 and 22).
i
.o.
10 With this cdditional-information, the NRC. Staff i
. gf,,,
submitteditsprofiledwrittentestimonyon;seiamicqualifica-l
[..,,$.].
17 g :- x
~
, n, c
,a 1.
m.
~3 n k, (JW ' '*vg".,, 't a tion of. safety-relatedTeq;uipment on November.25 r197Bip.
?%
m~
- ' W 19 (Herriner III, MRC Staff Exhibit 9).
WW,;
Q u x.
. W..-
20 The Board informed tho' parties by telegram of g : in-1 i
4t/ #1..,
q%.y 21 December 4, that any additional proposed findings or conclusion::
4
.s.,.,..
22 or responses thereto, crcl or written, should be submitted by 4
'r
.n tho Ocnclunion of the recember 11 hearing session,and that t.
t 24 the Board planned. to issue c pcruini inicial decision on j
C) 25 intei:im operation by Dece=ber 20 to 22.
v s.
t e
1 9
~=-
. :- u-m n: tux : w s..:
_.a
- r -
u =
-.s m w_
t
..)
1 1
-2502 mn4 1
Cn December 6th, Licensee then filed its j
2 supplemantary proposed findings and concl.usions:on tnis.
[
v
'3 limited: remaining issuc-based on the record to date and. the.
Q 4-prefiled tactimony.
g, -
5 j
Paragraph 223:
Hearings on seismic qualification t
4
.6
-safety-related squipment were resumed on December 11, 1978.
i
--presented Messrs. Anderson and White 7
Licensee 8'
for limited additional direct testinony:and cross-examination j
g by the parties.(Transcript 2405-2511).
.i N
The MRC Staff then presented Mr. Herring as a 10 witness (Transcript 2532'-2581).
=
/.
- 'Ihe State of Oregonlindicated that it had no
'12-ifurther testimony,.Lbutethatthe materials submit *.ed to date 13 4
w
/
had been reviewed by -their1 consultant, Dr. Larson, who 'was 34.
satisfied'with the answers.and natarials submitted by the 15 Applicant on this subject bothLin their pray 1'ous testimony cb 16 E d -,,. '
. 4 Wst and the supplementary materials;(T.t..ranscript.2416-2417).
- g. -.y.w. -
,17 ~
v.x :'
..The Board'Ac, cept 52l.'the' Limited'Xppearance.
em, m.&.;wg:Yps,pysyi gjM
..+
- w,.
tA7h.pn;
?.
^., ;, (
y ya:4.,.;yg, s,a
~ ' '. '
4
^
xpyy;k;ff 4
y v W_
~
Mgin 9', '.7 statements :of the Trojan Decommissier.1$1g Alliance and of 4'
.,,i....:.
r gg
.c
- ~n f
Q,[$g.En go
~.,.
.x y. _.,.
x.
t
- he'iridividual'~ members of the Columbi'a Environmental' Council o
.. y:
A. M,y
.Ve 21
.a
.x, m. -
and'a letter from Mr. Robert Pollard da!former NRC' employee,'
- g,,
stating he_ wished to submit
- a written limited appeararca 22 statement (Beard Exhibit 2: Transcript 2397-2398.and 2509).
(:
3
't -
.Cpportunity was to be*given the partiac to provida
- A ra s a amen s pr p se n
ngs an c
sions and 25 1.1
/
A d.
)
-,,.,w a
,,.-~.a,w,,
.+
s
-,,se?
,--~~.e,,
,.,.mn..
...-~-w.an..,n.-
c
-,wn
---.~~------.,-..,+-,,--.o
- ;_ a _,;,, 2 :,
_m c_
.--.m
^ 5S3 m-.5. ; 1 '
concluding. arguments.
I The Eoard nico indiented that any cdditional
~
s I
3 written findings and conclusions' received by the Board prior
~ !
4i to Tucsday, December 19, 1978, would be~ considered by the l
5; Board' (Transcript;2527-2529).
6 The Board denied a motion for consideration and r
7 introducti6n of testimony concerning need for power 8
(Transcript 2572).
o Paragrcph 22C:
The evidentiary record on the 3
~
10 issue of iterita cparation was official closed en adjournr.ent t1 of the henring..
12 Those would be the additional procedural matters-13 that I woul ave included in our propesal today.
.i]
14 CFAIRMAN MILLER:. Thank'you.
I think there may be.a question or two as to 15 16 some of the proposed findings.
$y
~
6.s yW -
. 17 Dr. McCollom?..
+
~
a:
..t
.-; p;n pt: +.p
. w9._l.
[-,@e-a%,,
DR. JIC. COLLOM2 I' would like to refer <to. yo'ur 18 s,,:
e
' ' t. ! '.g~,
December 6, Licensee's Suppleme5tary Proposed Findings of g
39 eL:4 v.
Fact and Conclusions of Law
.Concernin's Iterim Operation, 7%[
20 j.
if.
..,, t page 49C, paragraph 92B..
end 71 22 0
2:
=
9 25 I
4 8
9 9
y w
v...
av w-5 g-y e
wy
-w v
+
me.e-
-r-a d-
,#e
.c n.
-w w~w e >
w m erc
~
--u=:..: : -
e_.a_.. a _..;.. ;......_- __
l l.
.i 2:52
?""""
ii What. I would like to nake sur2 of is in the ucrding I
jl-1 t
2!c this ;,c.rcgrapr. i: su.ygasts that t:u nau s.c;21erstion tira,
I s
. 42 ti
- 2. ' f. histcry was used for-tha ground metic for the hori: ente.1 l-t.
1 9
response sr>ectra,- based cn cha rc sults of the STA2DTE i
f, 5 $ 2nalY388*
l l
Then, the next sentance suggects that the new time l
6 history.for ground motion was not uced -- that is, by implica-7 tion -- for tha vertical re'aponce spectra.-
g Is.this true?
9 I
.4 -
If I could have all of your questiens
/
to!
un: mzLnD:
-- if I could consult wikh our technical people.before respond-g; ing to it --
12 DR. MC COLLOM:
That is the complete question.
I g
just want to have it clarifie'd as to whether the new time 3
14 history for ground motion was used only for the horizontal response spectra and not for the reanalysis of the vertical u-f.'
ui 16 e I,.. -.N ;W ?!
.rcsponse spectra.
m
+-
nx a.
17
.,u o u...,
,g. o,..t;,1 MR. AXELRADe can I have just a ymant?
... m. m.,.
- s..
w.v 7'Kh 4.,
18
.m
- e-r.: e, a woe,
.xa.
,cqs g DD, MC COLLOM:
Surely.
$g+. '
w.
19
. m,sh. ',
DV.w ;f: -
(pause.) - ', i f, i r.. si i,.,
h, 20 MR. AXELRkD:.You are correct,.,Dr,. McCollom, the r
,a ?S.t
- 21 new timo history was not used with respect to the vertical
- , co 7-22
~
response spectra.
That was based upon the original one, the
)
is I
'77 one.
24 i
1.h -
DR. MC COLLOM:
Okay.
f 2s s
J JIS
h.
L a Y.
-.x$u
.- ?.N
= -
~ - ~ ~
=..
2595 41'2.
,J-1 CHAIR.%N ; MI ZLER ' Verylwell.
m ;
Wh.
'2
'43 Ville turn noV to the State of Oregor.
- y_
. lit..Socolofsky.
3 l.
'4 MR.05000LOPSKY:
Thank'you.
5-ILhave maybo about four points hera that I might-6 mention..
7 First of all, as we.have~ said beforer an'd[I' am sure
. f'3 3
8
.the Board agrees, the matters' decided"as part of the initial.
g
. application for this facility should not be relitigated in thih
,.ys jo proceeding, and the ' decision should be confined to.the issue set out in'or.frened by the ' Staff's original order and th'e
~
gj
. i f..
12 riginal-rder of the NRC in this case.
a.
r f% '<
. j+_
l
-As our. proposed findings indicata on the shear wall, 1
13 m'i we are sat:,isfied, 'af ter reviewing-the evidence,-; that tha ' chear l
hy.
14 q
m:'
f.
wall can ' withstand a safe. shutdown earthquake, and the plant 15
'W.t K.,.,.
can safely operate pending modification.
l
~. ;-p 16 i
r]. -....,@.j So far as the 1ast. two ' days.of hiearings; are con.
, l
~
1 QWh 17 is,.l-a d%G; A
y my #glM:4.m.
AlTff ' 5, '
. ft.,m.,18._
carned,.;I. think the Applican't: 1:- well,[I"should Suf,it this~
i
- ~
% As,M 2 9 p W4W,46 a
1 4
~
756.'..19 way, so far! as tha' last tiro' ' days;.of' hearings ' are -conce,rned, -
, l 9
..t
,m 20
- t day..and ye tarday, we did nokhdar k.kything new that was gyd &
~ -
l pig p %.M. 9 1.
a ' surprise. to :. us. -
.45* 9.Y
., r*
p.: wg>, - -
m
- apWy '.s ~a.,2 4
- 1. -
..u
. +:
..- +
.n.
~
- ~ >
- 4a:M.
And, as I said yesterday, after we heard the
-w; 22
.~..,:...~.,
d,,_
23
. testimony of' the Bechtel people on the seismic qualification of the ' safety-related equipcant, we had conferences with them, 3_
... h. ;
g
~
l requested additional information to satisfy ourselves' 25
%. =.F.us
+
1
- ik' y, n
.f,3 j
, ;.sj -
- .g i
-v""",
j e
-y g-t 0r y
v v-y,r-er-g--
y
~
e-1 e a'
w W&f
- + i W e at tv--*
- u
+1e eae-.-e ei.* se
'vm-d- y e w=
ann.
-r.-e.)
=
a-w-
ihW.h 4:tg2w.g.wW*c,.
+
, wd@m ~m. s.*.. W27.%..(- ';.. A..
igiW '9):a'y#w.41.tgQ::e:;.Q.4m ',4' o
"W py
- ~.
~"41: ***';k'$g1;Y.'i l'G$i% ^%51
, N., a~ fd'..#. s r,b %%m- - - o ~ 3 x. p.
,,49 M w. -9 e
n
- r
..w s
-~
, ~..
-~.
x Il i
2566
,a I
i
- ]
than the repressneations they cada en the subject bafera
~.
i i
2 ac t dj ourne.d on :: cyan.;er ' rd. were satisfs::to:.7, end.I stas ab:.e i g
- [
t say yasterday tha4: we had receivad the rzport fron. the j
f c:nsulcrn: from the Dapart cat cf Enargy, and' ha vac satisfdad d.
tht t wha: they said was correct.
l g
nerefore, wo did not request or sea any reason to 6
7 j
cdd any additional testinony on the subject.
t 3
- regard to the equipnent, our positien 8
I w uld be that is, too, was qualified to operate safely, and j
s g
I therefore tha plant --- that tho ' structure and the equipnent l
g l
can withstand the safe shutdown earthquake, pending modific's-j 11 I
tion of the facility.
12 g
k Since the plant, we believe, can safely operate l a, i
..OT sueseantie11y es.su11e, d==ing thie interim persed, it 1e 1,
the State's position that no environmental impact statement is s:
l a, y " -
necessarf, and that the original environmental impact state-
't,
+jjQ,.Ng,g
~ ~
.w gnweh n
T y > ~ 17
' ment which was' prepared,wheni.lEhis plants:stadforiginally ~ [ c l
N
f, J;g h y WW/S.%.A..; '
J m ::.-W "
bp*L&;.,,
a.
s n4%a qualified, should, by definition,' be able to cover 'this interini D'
- dM.
. ;g 1
j&+B :;.
operation.,
7..v,.. s t9
$. m,;.., 7 v g. _s I~think that is all I have.~
M...-
S * !yp ! 20 Thank you,'Mr. Socolofsky.
@.w w-
..t.
~
W *b.
CHAIRMAN KILLER:.
y 21 All right.
Nent we will ask the Interver. ors to I
22' i
~
i p
state their positions.
G
~~
In what order do you wish to go?
24 1
5 p~
MR. ROSOLIEt
'I will go first.
l 4.
9 -
t
.,..,m
...g
.._..,s....,.
m&fyNm
.m
. ~pypggy:n,uma k,:.pdmi _
m.pjg.
.~ m y:.k.c;#;:-
ar;qvya muum%pm%w;.,. ;~:egW^-
j.
t" ~4.y ns m ic w, w y :, m;m r Q ~s.
n:
.w w' 4
?.-
u +a :w
- iw ~
s~ ~ ~ ~
w u
^ " "
.xw J u6w 2537 "M 4
- CHAIPJWi: MILLER:
Very Vall, Mr. Eccolis.
1 l'
y MA.- m SCLIS:- Unfertunately,Ldue to cur asinly finscial conditions,;we were unable to.present cny uitncoces
,I
~
3 4,. 'in this cass.-
l I
We wish.we were'able'to, because we de-fesi that
~'
th'ere were several. issues here which in our mind are'still 6
7' mrasolved.; _Ve seriously question -.and I think the record will show what has occurred here is basically Bechtel Power 3_
l
- t
-g Corporation reviewing their past work cad dcing some updated
- .g studies,.and the NRC Staff merely reviewing those studies and 10 saying that they look right.'
f 3;
.s
.We feel that this is not adequate assurance of the i
12 t
't
.aMW of Man to meet and OR or an SE.
We feel baskaW 13 to have;been threc studies done on the plant sinc' e
.there seem 4-y
/g..:
the original' study.
B,E 1
1g
)
'WSg' We have what is known as:the square root of the sum
' W, M.t rve 1G 1pd
,...... /.
. % n.;
' [a 2;;.Q squared, calculation.i We have the STARDns.And.We,have the g; bt i
?
- a yfy%;8.17 z.
z.
.,, qpy:.;;nepr u
a.a.
w,-.
i, n
.-g t, n,.. n. n; f a.f ' 1 absolute sum calculation.
g l
- n?tn e., v. c.s,,., to
.ai.. g -
y-g
(-
4 J
%.g.e.f.. r 3. tg All three,come up with different figures, so which fi.,.1 y.
a w
.~
'.. i choose the absolute sums, we' find out I
Wel1~, if we
?.1 t
,: ' s that the plant doesn't meet the 03D, and it doc 3n't maat the 1
y SSE.
23 If we nich tha STARDl".IE, we find out that it M
1
.x; y ',
'doesn' t meet the OBE, but it does meet the SSE.
25' u._
.i r
.. v M J
l y
1
\\
- Q
_. = -., -
?
~
= ~
- =.
2590 1
- If we rich the sque.rc root of the sum squares, we l ff.nd that it rects the SEE,.but dot:Sn't 0.eet the OEF..
'.3 2
v;,:
3 Well, which one' are we to choose?
4 I think this Board has to be.se that choice on soce-qD 5
thing, and I think this Board should bcss it on the FS.U.,. which G
states that the square root of the sum squared. or the absolute 7
cum 'should be used; and since the original study used the absolute sum; that the Board should base its decision en that O
g original., and that the absolute sum should be used to deter-J.r N
mine the present condition of Trojan.
10 And, if we use the absolute sum, we find' it even.
g meets with the' reccmmendations of the NRC Staff that the 03E 12 M set at a.00.
.g3 Of course, the SSE is in conflict, but we should
,s 14
-i
^
15
-lA e absolute sum, which, I believe, was
.2.
16 y#+,k (
1.3 Wti And, also', I think that'.s the. reason why we still my:
1_s v.
.% -. o. >.
~p:y.... : s.
,A ; v, &
,E 1,
g%.g' 7w, s.18 y
Le s,. 9 '
,, ;. a we n
(pid%g needisome type of. independent ' study to sol,ve,this' ; controversy.-
Ol
~ -
9:w v.wm
_s Mi" As for the safety-related equipment and what occurrod a y ';
3..
/
yesterday, basically, once',' 'again, it is thle same old story of
- y.
,20
..< j, /,
5;p ;.;rs / '. c Bechtel turning out some type of study and.then, the NRC Staff, j
21 u
whom we depend on, and the State of Oregon, whom we depend on, 22 j
em.
20Baly just looking at that and saying, "Well, it looks okay,"
() J 23 and really not taking any t'me to de any in depth analysis of
( d i,
25 their own.
v a o
~
s j
1 y
-r "r
4-,vy--
r--
w
- t---
t tr-rV 4
~ = ~
c - _
25ES J
%5
' 1 If we had the funds, we woulf. do it.
~
l S
2 Yestardny no heard tir. Her:ing en une str.nd say -.q
%r, 3
the URC Staf f has basica11', not lecked at tha Tr:a.
Chcy ara Rh 4
not. going'to rs"lew them to see if they'are c.doquate.
They-are V
S jusi' going te tahs the Applicant's word.
6 We feel that this in no way should be' allowed,.th:t 7
before ---if this Board rules that Trojan chould opera:c in g
the interim, that this Board rule that the NRC Staff review all RDCs before Trojan is 2!.lcred to operans.nnd - to assure that 9
I.V those RDCs are'adequato.
10 j
I guess probably the last thing that was a ma or 33 12 j c noern of ours was the Applicant's,,or' Licensee's, continual r
insistance in numerous lettern to the Board and in other
. 33 _
')
numerous filings about - and numerous statcmants to the Board g4 1
about the nead for the Trojan Nucler.r Power plant to *oegin I
t o. -.
7 s.Q,-
perati n, the need that the.public has for the. power that is 16 n.w,
g.v g
^
4A-produced by Trojan.
u-sf; @
,,- 17
.;,. %.. s
,_ -./
~
.. ~, n,.
- c:..
..d. ;
..., ~1 B f., c /';s.
L>,.._.
.I live in this, area, and as 'far' as I can tell, and
-yy.gu
- s m a,.
n
- s..
pr N,
sn2 people I have talked to, nobody's lightc have gone cut, and we v 'S e(%;Cf,
- w.
$s. "
have had adequate power.
And if we were given t chance to put 20 6.M[i,71
.,?
. n testimony to that effect,8ve would show that even thought 21
.u PGE has had der.and that has been its highes; in its history, they were still able to nnst the demands of their custo:cers.
2.:.
So we fegl that, in light of that, that there is no 24 s
- h.
need to proceed with this proceedings in this manner and for 2s m
y :.
.m
~
e
~* %' *fv$ W.a +
, w,e n.e?g~d..k~ r S._i,,m..,,ri.kl6Ju, 2,s wgy_ p.,.y.. _pu.g... w nw.im a w ey a.Q Q.~. w<,yxC.
ixtew j
y.y, %.
ig.;,
r yjet
.g.
, 3_,,..
z _.
i '
I n s0 h ::-. irassdiccy of this decision, and that giv2n :rora cins, thct j
er 16 y
10
,D30 tar
.,0.2 r.nd he mOrg aCO.Or3d Cf the 1
- 9 Ob1C.
'.O 4
4 2 ;
?
+ F., thquscy of: T xjtn to rtfe y chut down in cr.sa of an e rth"na'co:
~
a J.n ;'
balisn that is til I havs for ri @ t'nov.
i E j..
?
i C117.!r.:Gci MIL"',E?.:
Tha-W. you, Mr. I.csol'ie.
l e l.
6
- Miss Bell.
t M3, :5 ELL:
one of Imr major censiderations. throu.ghout i'
- s 7
i
)
g!
this hearing has been that we have' all relied so hecvily on 2 tion and the dat? that conse fren ths *pplicant,
.l d
g lL che inic :
s w
y.
and that their's cctes-from Bechts1 Power Corporation.
e 10. j; I
I realice that it ic the relo of ths NRC'cimply t.7
[
11 s
^
6
- 12 l
l review what ecnac from these corporatiens who provide thia i
information, but I think that in an entremely dangercue.rele 13 i
l to be in, for them to play.-
14 l
So my rr.Jor concern is ths we. rely so heavily'upen I 15
. =.,
- d. Y...
then, and we are relying upon corporations, including Bechtcl, sa j e.
4(,e & * -,..,
..c.
and including Portland Genbiral'EI.ectric, both.'cf..whom have 4-g:n(Lpf r (
.. s
...,.xw..,. v r,,e.. :. u. :
n.
nn A
3
+ -
2 -
y-9
-s
%)y.,, _,., -f.,' lgreat financini Esteh8in the'. OutCCme Of._the30, proceGdl'ig$,' haVS
+n 4
8
, 3, n >.
18 I hr?- -
great financial stake in how much - to what great s:ctent n
1g.
- . f..'
39 rapairs have to be done, have grant financial staka in making s%. u m'.,
20
-......s
".jM '.
sure that any safety issues that might be ircund are kept in
.. r g,
the closet, 22 t
No4, wo ?ro I.lso L'ith the inbreduction of curs' ' ' 4 s
23
' i d,e safety-related eg'.:i;mant ' and its asisted.c qualifications.
~
24
.we ara bringing in a new party, which is - hasn' t '...
.Jc.
15,.
i i
g i
)
i.
.w~
h3 kb hkih.
N M
I N
2591-
^3,.3 J
really been talked abcut very much, but we e.ra talking abcut.
g.
2 th2 contrcetcr, h'estinghouse.
w i
3 Westinghouse has provided safety-related equipr.ent 4
for ths Trojan plant.
Wastinghouse has also provided other 3 ] sorts of equipnent, and it has been cbvious, if you-look at the t
6 I history of' other operating nuclear plants in the United States, I
1 that Westinghouse has had continual failures with 'their j
.7 g
designs.
Gy I.9ht now we'are ic king-at steam generators that t
g seem to fall apart on the average of seven years.
And I think 10 the Zion plant -- I. don' t know, maybe it wasn't Zion -- s[:me
- g other plan't -- they collapsed af ter two years.
12 Looking at the Trojan plant,' whose reactor design l
13 s\\
n uas-untested up until the point that it was put into the 14 Orojan plant -- and many problens have arisen from that kind of 15
- 'g
- s D@g..
v approach.
.. ' s
?g' 16 h[/.N, j '.,17 "Westinghousehaspbb5$.EeNa#bhhMpIhiiNEIf[aral 1
(S4Qfy, -
- r. <
rt 4
' > ;>< j Egy-N;;-3 3'-@ W v-;3.>
u]Q;,cY lot of plants that hasn' t stood up to where it should, sc.
18 ww$$.,.Q ; 19
+.;
.Mi given that.we are talking n'uclear power, which is a dangerous T.,.; +.
m thing to be tcying with,, and,I won't gcIinto that, since the-
%. 7 1...,.. s. 20
- y. m r
W.c l'-
Boa.rd requestad thht wo don't talk"about ' nuclear power a's 'a '
21 generic question.
We are looking at lawecJ.ts all across the counef u.
that have to do "ith faulty eglipr.snt and f aulty dacign, lookin; at Bechtal and We stinghouse, who are baing the subject of 1
!; U2b5?sitt*,
M ag.i n: & al ' % : O * = a _a n. m.,:.+u L
1..
..g 2592
.j'3
'1'
~ these lawsuite, we are.1 coking at a 'very interesting relation-
+
x 2
. thip bec.;een Pornand Generr.1 Electric csi Bechtel, a=caun
-(G sechtel did provide ' a lot of the design and e.rdnitecturci 3
i 4
4' ple.a for Trejan.
Bechtel'is-also.a contractor for tM.se enginuring
=
d andL architectural designs fcr nu=2rotis other PG2 c0nstruction L.
G 7
PX*b*****
Now, it is obW.ous that PGE doesn' t want to iget' on
)
..e I
the bad sid6 of Bechtel at this point, and yet they both nosd' z;
.fr-to make money, because that is theirigame,
- a y
So, it seems to be two wa 's that you' can' find.
g dscign problems, and normally,-in plant operations, one expects 12 4
t ind design problems; and that is during operation they come 13 up, and' you - take care of them at tliat point, as. they ccce up g
15 Then there are other sorts of design problams that 16 n e.e <;..
~
a w.y
~(fgr.[W only com up inln way that. the one in the:oontrol building e%,_.:.u.%!e p. " a - oO,. 3,.
17
^,
,s a
a.-
g a..," 2 cams.up, and we don'.t know how many of:.those are?around iN the
~
s,..
.. n r
c; W
.a. ;; s 18 e m a
9 -
' Trojan plant or other nuclear plautis; and we don't know -- we L
.19
,,,..,s., -
w..,
O don!t'hnva any guarantee that thoss design problams are going
.l g
to aired at all,, that: they are' going to be made: obvious.
]
g 1P
- ..p w,',ri.
21 It seams to me that it. just ' luck that' we didn' t have m
23 a problem with the control building.
We don' t have any idea y.,, =
p y
how many Other design errors will not be Ecuad.- Gesa design 24 errors could potentially mean disaster, but we will never know
.. ')L 25
~
until that disaster hr.ppents.
- c y
+ -, r
- re ew-mr
++w e
-e v.-
1 g
+ w e e w ',+ e e, -
- 9-e w w w w w - -o e -
e
-ew+=w'-ww e -met w e-we
---vn**,w-
---weh----
==v
-e--*
--= - - - - - - - -
- pr.. -, _
o
=.m.,,,s.....
2593
.>. a ue1 1 1
I:too am very concerned abcut the issue of need 2
for pcwor.
As T said beforc, in support of my motion 3
yectardcy, tho'P.pplicant has essentially introduced nee 2-for-
)
4 pcuer testim:ny in every monien and every me;corandum, ever 5
letter the.t they have written. And I believe that this has 6
prejudiced our case.
7
- Because I do have access to witnesses that I would 8'
be able to bring in, without spending huge sums of money for air fare, because they live in the nortihwest and' huve studied
,f.
.e dr
.19 the northwest power situation, and.they know what they're-I 11 talking about.
12 But given that I haven't been able to bring in any-experts on the need foa power,.I can only say that I also 13 live in the northwest.
y
~
Uc're talking about the Trojan Nuclear Plant, 93 4.,
which producc.s nore electricity-than any other operating
[s.,.. '..
16 T E:;.
nuclear plant in the United States, and more electricity than 37-
$y; ;.;,; z tj 3(~
.gy _ y.
a
.any other source in the northwest 1 dItfis_down now, and has 4v5"'
18
. ~
,e (
y
.M 4 gg been down for quite a long time, sinca mid-March.
And we
+ w,,,, Fg;;3., y v.
.r..
' : *( [
20 don't have any problems here'with the, power.
We don't have
^
t* N any brownouts.
We're not seeing anything-that is causing 21
,7-w us problems with electricity.
22 Uc're clso not seeing that our rates are going 23 o
up because Trojan is down.
y Twice portland General Electric has submitted an 2:. -
v i
,1 e
,.v, v,
s..-
e,-m.
~.o
.u _-
- - ma,.-
- _2 : = -- -
m_ _. m u.
2594 wol 2-amergenep curcharge request.to the Public Utility Commicsion,
.1 i
i
-2
'and the first time they withdrew it and the sacend time it l
w.
3
- tas tu ned down.
. ll It was turned down because apparently,'for once, g
4 the Public Utility Commissioner decided that the ratepayers 3
1 I
-shouldn't have to' pay the burden of Portland General Electric s
mismanagement and Bechtel design problems, and that those 7
who are reaping the -profits - that is, the shareholders --
a cught to pay.for those problems.
9 y
I think that is the way it'should be.
to
.I don't think that any threats to either shareholder 33 profits or ratepayers' rates"should be the reason why we 12 rush this proceeding through.
13 - l
~
Me, obviously, have the burden as Intervenors to 14
(
. bring in anybody who is not already involved in this case.
15 And that is to bring'in the people who don't get. paid by We ff;.
16 ihg.Q.
.those with the financial or career stake in nuclear power.
~
2.N[,
!$k%, 17 f r= ; ~. ' a; 0%Nr '~
M; yL;MWf/f'~'18 At this point :it's obvious ~that.as people who~
~
x y% u
- w.
m,ur :,s -
y
.n 4 41 j9
.without funds, and who are also jeopardising our jobs by 5khl.l spending hours in hearing. rooms'and trying to get other things W: W 20
.n.
- m3 yjdI21 done and produce; paper, we simply can't afford,to bring.
y P'0E '~i"*
I
.~
22'
.It seems to me that -'I renlize that this is 23 f a generic.prcblen,"but the role of the imC ought to l.
24-s rt be expanded to the point where they bring in people who do 3
'-(.
s
G.?1&Wiw;gg;mg.g-ypmL2&mb..~,.~ ~._ 7. a.-u g..g~ w** n:e+gs w%
.te.-9Meip..a _.. -.
.. 4
- 7*t 3~EBw@&:8.tp@.
q,vt#
- -2 M r + 2 2 m Mm ---
~
&=
Mn
,2595' wels 1
have different.. opinions, and they provide some sort of 2
. independent cnalysic procedures such that we rely en Teople 3
who do not.have financial stakes.
h A
The. NRC at this point, the Staff, seems tojplay.
5
~the role of simply reviewing whatever the Applicant produces.'
' l'+
~
'6 And I believe that if you're going to actually want to find
~
s 7
the problems in what the Applicant produces, you re' going to
. 8' have to lock a lot more underLthe surface, rather-than just 4O 9
at the results..Because I simply don't trust the utilities 10 and' corporations like Dechtel to'come 'up with.results that 11 might jeopardize their financial situation.
12 I am also extremely concerned that we weren't 4.(,
j 13 allowed to cross-examine on the original seismic qual'ifica-1.t tions.of safety-related equipment.
a.
15 Trojan was licensed with a problem with the diesel v;m.^ ',
"$.y g -h.
16 generatorsintermsofthekse'ismicqualification,andthat
.: % g.y.p y,y _p..gq;g,y %, p y %. 3 -
s*JW., -
, u.r wi.%.;,
41D was ' supposed to have' been &yyw; og-qq:y,t.ypy4%rc.y;g,.
fixed 7six monthsiafter7the license:
Q., Q,, O...
17
%h c
.. ; y.s,,. y
- g ;;..e ;.4
%!$p',,,
18 was issued.
yj,.'f.,
z utu..gg..,
'2: y Jr:
e a 1
(,,ge 19 Well,giventhe(NRC'3s spot check type of quality J',
2.,.8 3Pl 6 s '
assurance programs that..they:have, it seems,to me that;if they
- w c,
1 4-
. 20 c:e,f,,,M.,,,:.-
- y. gy.
-2
- + 1 -
x m.O
.. u.
~ -.
pg
-+.-t~
,g~ ~ 'g ha'd found one thing that needed to be corrected that uns in 21 3 -
]
l22 the license to be corrected, that there ought te be a more
.?
]
- m; 23 thorough way of making sure that the cricinal scismic 24 qualifications of all safety-ralated. equipment is. completely
,,{,
25 checked. out.
.c -
Y I
0
.e s
--,y e- - - -
y.
y
,.,f*g"T'e-w"'u.'-*r-'
r se e
- P**
r' ert e-
-V*-f e
e+F' cw '* E. e rr er
-*--i='8
---** *--" sew'
.ra=v
'<'i=-'
=*n'-*
-*+v
e
._+;ge.mm w:ss. w;;,w nww s.-c..w L w=r xy g sec&e s&,. a.- u am.co.w w
v. pu..
..u-w
%41s=. y,.uri.
.- w a y :-a v
-~
.3 w
.: s c=-
1 1
2596 eel 4 I
(
1 Civen that in the testireny th?t va '.aerd 's=
trds.;
s g
2 y criginz 1 seisnic efualifica.:iont., veas braucht un ac the basis p
i 2 /: for cencluf.ing th:.t our neu results cra just fine,'it escms i
1 I'
i g
.?
to re that w:: ought to quectica the original seisr.ic q;..lifi-5 cations, ospecially when tnera cosms to be'some foubt as to 6
whether or not they were or still are completely acceptabic.
I 7
Lastly, it's been obvious, I guess, throughout e.
thic proceeding that I have an interest in having the Locrd t
v$.
9 revieu the original seismic siting of the Trojan Muclesr
~
~10 Plant.
11 My interest in that is not just to burden the l
12 record.
My interest is that it has como up over and over
' ~ " * '
13 again, and I realice it came up in the spent fuel pool caso j
t.g '
that concluded early this year,.and it car.a up and it's been 15 shuffled and shuffled aside, over and over again.
ySW -
16 So I an going to read parts of the brief that
_ v.:..
/"W).f.
4 cE,%$u!4.E g7 attempted'tio have. put into th,e record jes'terday'[ Tin order "ym..i.9A,w. + 'i M... T u
t&, m u.., e
$$..$ygF;M 7, c
Qt.
,6:,,6,0
. simply.to rake clear'what these considerations are that I ta
. djper h* +%
4;,,,,gf, e - f,p e h
,_ a:j would like the Board to take:
g.; i,
' 1,9 M.. '
'[% Q r.
_t go It is the Intervonors' position that evidence as
- g
- v.., -<
s'
- s.,
to seicmic siting.is an issue crucial to the. determination of 4 "' "
21 the catter that is neu before us.
22 I
h#
The issues detallad in what I an scing to cite l
23 later are not issues -- cuote -- provicusly decidad, and hence.
p are aporocriate for 2.206 consideration.
l 25 4_
J
---m.
._.~.,..-
&..~. ;_. -
- .1
, a ~. _
....s. _,
_._...u
- a - -
u.__.,
l l
- 19 i 2537' I i'
&ny scisc.ic.insuas wera raised prior to the 1
_j
- 2. gj. oratruction permit c.earingu, but f z.: of the. ;cr actual.:.y x
8-3 1 ; quote -- decided by tha ASLE, which eventua-.ly granted tDe O
4, cc.struction n.ormit of unr. rv 1,71.
.t-,
l3, 5
Thuc opinion which.s ccidian11y noted it was e
G hanpered by the lhch cf saismic site avaluation criteria 7
based-its order on a very narrar and brief discus.fion'of 6
cartain'ceicnic issues.,' ignoring'=any cf those which had 0-boon raised prier to the hearing sad a: the hearing. i;self.
{
1
. f 10-It, thus, did not -- quote, unquota -- decide.
11' many issues raised, and'specifically noted that no criterir.
12 at the time Trojan was initinlly sited.
Many issues were not adequately cddressed by' 13 14 today's applicable standards, and many vare left undecided, remaining as genuinely u.troselved issues of fact invciving 15 16.
cignificant-safsty issues.
t'&
And there's a cite on thats l
37 7.
n.
y.
,e Vermont Tankee Huclee.r.. Power' Corporation,.6 AEC
~
n gyp..
18 n:'.i 19 522~and 522, 1973.
5-ma-
.;,M..a, I'd'like to briefly. quote from some of the 20 geologic and seismic studies that were produced prior to 21 construction permit issuance by Bechtel.
22 The first var in October, 1966.
It was-Bechtel's 23 site 1=catien study for PGE.
This study, conducted by'
'24 L
2echtel, ca.scussed several possible cites, noting:
=
25 L
~
l:
n 6
. t g
-4.
-..,,, - - ~,,.,,
,spw-
..,_..,,-y
,,,,,,y,,,.--.-w-
.-y.,,w..
.,e.,-n
.+
a
-w w:.
2593 de.i 6
" Prior to purchens of e.ny site, a detailed o
.J-geologic survey should be: carried out to esecblich
~
'3' the absence-of indications of netive faulting ir the
'h
' mmediate vicinity."
i a
With regard to the Trojan site, specifically, the c.
report. observed:
7 "Since the Trojan site is founded on.bedrc=k, 8
there should be'no licencing problem, unless faults b
are discovered."
+
ijr IU Now, the point here is they did say that the and the
'Il detailed geologic survey should be carried.out, _
12 problem is that later on there never was a detailed geolcgic I3 survey..
e-14 The ner.t study was done in October, 1967, by the i
i t
I 15 Bechtel Corporation, and it was called, " Evaluation of Dh '
16 Foundation, Groundwater:aud Seismic conditions, Trojan Power-
$C IN.,,iiE --
I
Company Property."
n" m W.
g.". i: M f.: W h&%,w~
."?,
u.
py:
gff;$".-
,18 '
VA '.
It'was revised'in January,,196E # -
t
.p g m..
This study reached,the following. conclusion:
na
- 1. '"*y'r ',
19 p% y,.3
. n s.
i
~M "The area is seismically active, and the records yS.-
f?P 2.f
' ndicate-an earthquake with'a' mar.imum phobable' intensity i ~
7 t
l 22 of B:must be concidered.
The evaluation of' foundation f
. ?
23 conditions and scismic history of the area indicates 24l that c surface acceleration of.157 should be adequate for design of the nuclear plant, and that a value.of 25 f
I t
t 4
. Y......
$ bh$
YY b
N b
$h
~
2599 wol 7 1
.25g surface acceleratien'is recommended for safa
.G 2
chutdown."
b 3
Again they said that no geologic conditioni have D
4 been found which would preclude the construction of ths v.:p 5
. nuclear power plant at the proposed site.-
~
6 Now, the point, again, is that'nothing had been 7
found, but' they did think that one ought to be clear on 8
whether or not something was going to be found'befers the
,y
~
i,.
9 nuclear power plant was constructed; 10 This study based ii:s conclusion primarily on 11 two data sources:
12 First was a general study of the seismic history-13 of the area.
h' l
11 The second was a drilling of only four holes at l.
J;...
- 15 the site.
- 9. y.y 7
te Although some - quote - geclogic.investigatiens--
@A f..
,5 ww(fC.L..
tinquote - and geophysical' surveys areivaguely mentione'd,; -'
~....a
.. 9
. p.
I Mh 17 i
..%;; ;96- ~
4G@: W t ;+.
. % g'
^
y y
l
'I,li(<.J,, -
18 the report does not indicate what, if any, work was involved
- ~n ; -
o.:
lm ]{tf g
beyond a visual surface examination at the site.
- Indeed, 19 n
a 20 the context in which these - quote - investigations were e.g. -yr A.,-
l Ned"'
surfaced or intreduced suggested they were'done primarily-21 22 as engincaring foundation studies, and not specifically to h
-23 check for faulting that could consticure seismic hazard.
A Boomer survey, conducted in May of 1967, was 24-
.g l
i 25-referenced in the study.
The Boomer survoy was conducted by e
i
~s q
,,g e.
w rw+
m n 4
-,n-v>
,4p
>er.s
,w-
--w,,
- wsw
,,-4 n.-
n w
. +. " m
~mm-a
. e, h Ae;-w':>Lp.+t%+;m'Y'Yg:wp.w.;,;;.,.ww4es}y"gwsm.n,.c..,
rc GM
_. mL:as.tyy'v:
./nW rw t w.2, a.a;.%w-N us.,~u+:<ua-vsw wa gi c.a 1
2600 wel 6 i 1!
ths engineerinc firm of 201E for the scle pu p;se of happing l
t 2'
tha contours of the bottom of the Columbia Rivar adjacan'c e.
a C"
l 3l to the site, and was not intended tc probe beneath the 4
bedrock in any way.
5' It was thus useless for determining whather any l
i 6
faulting existed beneath the Columbia River adjacent to the l
7; plant, although apparently the survey revealed extremely l
I 1
8 irregular and precipitous terrain under the river in the
.h 9'
area sur; eyed.
10 The report also notes in discussing the seismic j
)
are.a of the region that two carthquakes of Intensity 8 t i:
i I
12' l cccurred in 1949 cnd 1965 at only 70 and 95 niles northecst i
I l
13 cf the site respectively.
These earthquakes caused -- quote ---
,3 i
i 14 heavy damage, death and injuries.
l
(
i 15 I uill just remind the Board that this was only
}
n '~
16 70 and 95 miles from the site we're talking about.
^n-37 In April 30, 1970 a supplementar. geologic study d( p.
, -r
.f....
i t
4 * ',
, g'..b *J U"
was done, and the source is' unclear on thic.
It was 18 l
- . 2 2.l;'
ig possibly Aacndment 6 to the Trojan PSAR.
This study was l /
t probably done by Dcchtel, and details miditional efforts made 20 m.q.., -.
21 in early 1970 - quote -- to locate and further' evaluate 1
22 all faults significant tc the Trojan site -
'..nquote.
l In sumcary, tha tecnniques used by the investignterc l
/] #
23 U
y are limited to the fellowing:
h The literature survey, aerial reconnaissance and 25 I
- . w.w a-,u u+-
a: w.w w...
a m-
~ --. -
u w.,.
wel 9 l'.
study of ierial photographs, ' visual surf ace a::c.tination of i
E persible. or confir:0.ing. fault areas, convarsttions with two s
1 3*
geclogists whose writing in the litarature had indiented
-[
4-possibic faults, and.a two-lins survey of con: cur of bcirock j
N).
}
l 5
neross the valley ndjacent to and west of the 'rojan Ridge.
M2delon fis0 pp 8
o 10 6
11 12 13
- 14 4
- g. r'g 16 beily e
Nk k
g ug i.. e +;,
1 w # c..
17 9m4_. :5
\\..,'
s.., " 'i,. a -
.pr. n,-3
. :,. s 3 ;.-
' :V a
'- 6 r; :
r
- 4 I t f
.7,,,
4 flu:' ~
/..
[ ~,
.%'4.g6 e
.c
. jg
. s
+r
- a
+
y, 4 *:
a
.t v ~, ;,,. s r.,.,,.,,.v,-.,
,..g.
.-..g.
s we%....
e x,
.,,A..=.
- A s..,.i
?s 0 sf-p.c3y.',,
N.
p '."f f ' '6' '{ -(.'
g
+
.t.
n;x gb.e
".. ~,. W 6N C ' '
Spk.ig;f., 21
+
i~
y 22 23 r
25 t
6 rew t-
--N%-
n as-
+
4
= wr*p ra k M' a
v 5*-w-eem-Wwe a-r TVig 9
d-e
.y Wg4 g?
w*
-m.p &**1y+r en ge *1 TNg g=gw^+ymM -re y
y_ :: s _ ~
a:--
~ -. - =, t-2 a.
u s- ~ -
..'.a
.n.c.~..
t-il l-ne
~ o. s.
M;mL7.:/ !l Thc investig. i'.c *.tas.:.pparently confined p~.../.-.
f.
l.
seria :c fee. urec, with tna Ocetien of a tue mile survsf l
4]
el
+
o I
, "h cr :sc.reck wast o_o the rid.ge.
.V no :,ma c,id tac study i.n-
{
4 g
,j)
' /, i.
vcive subcurface grebig t chnir.ues, c::.cn a: trenchino or i ;,
I 1
5,"
dril.'.ing of suspected or confirmed faule, arcas.
Sincs Ear-g Gi face terrane is often obscured by vegehdon or 'ddrh, uh t
7-invaatigation wan. particularly significant.
i l
0 A particularly striking exar.ple of th2 supt:-
i 9I ficial annreach was the investigation ci poss'*1a ^ # c
. i, 3
j beneath the Columbia Rivar. Theinvestigatorscadauhattheyj 1
- 10 11 deceribcd as a -- quote, ' unquote -
" concentrated effort.tc 12 find any evidecce of.a fault in the river -- quota -
"by 1,3 littrature studies, study of ' areal photographer and by 14 mapping rock odtcrops and attitudes en both sides of the
- .ver.
~
15 up-3.nd dcynstrect from the site."
16 Tha actual riverbed was not probed in any way.
WJ,a...
' g 17-Not surprisingly, the study _concludsakthat;-- quote -
"The.
. lm%.
e.
~w+
m.
.m, ;,..p.
- s. +. ;,. 4:
- 1.
n.
@ Q N
.to available geologic evidence's 9t unquota '- #did not' indicate 1
- .d fly 19 the existence of such a fa. tit.
dit - < u.t
,((c 20 tiow generally Bechts1's initial tasting, with 9.
.. F -.
, a..
.,1,. :
... n.. m
+ ' : fj
- tha exception of the drilling of.'four to ?'~ 16 holes, nens of 4
n Eccht::1's saismicity'investigt.tionn invcived more t'.an mere
],,
'serface examinatic.n of tha terrane of thc'bedrcch.
hrtner-g 3
- more, mest of the investigation that-was dcne uns confined to a very limited aren around the sitcc
^
3 l
e4 -
g
.,w w
afv er.
-we--
.=w we-r-e*-r,*
-4.m.=
.-=m
. * - = =
+
.e
u _..
,. w -
m_;_..._.-.
m
_t epo2 1 Sy way of contrcst. noto seme-of tha-presently I
applica:la. suisti,:: siting cr:. aria of'i0 '.~ ! E tr:
N, 3 ' y:
AppendinlA:
~(~
"Investigatiens" --'this is a qucta'fr:m Part 4:
4 S
"Investiganions shall includenha felicwin';I G
" Number ene, detarmination of tho ciructural T
a.
.-q 7
'gaologic conditions of the site and th.e region "jy g
.p.
8' surrounding the sits, including its gac10gic 3'
F. 'Mi
..(.
.s,
.9 history.
c",;
.p..
y
- 10'
" Number two, identification and. evaluation
?J m
f
'1 of tactonic' structures underlying the sica in.the 1
e 12-region: surrounding the sitei whether burisd or 13 enpressac at tcc sur:cco.
s 4
t
.. )
t..g "Evaluaticn of pnysical evi-lencaf:encarning 15 I behavior during prior etrthqurkes ei tha surficia' t
t
-16 geologic r.u.teriala and.ubstrata nederlying t.w site.
11 "Getericin:.t:.cn of cropars.:.as nzcicd t; 18 determine tha behavier of the underlying =ntsrinia 39[i 4
during earthg.akes and the che.rr. teristics es 20 cuake.-induced r.otions on foundations 'of tne.oler.t,-
i
- e. 2 VN1cci=yj dbNbi
+3 a%t bCch ac h(sisPa N '*a').Vdbf a.e 1
l-s
!I A
,s g s.e.nJ.e ge e.e.n as e.4 al. 9
- w w*
Ja
~e**
.e a e.n g s ww m>
- s
~
w a-e
";;"-+ r n// n, for fcults, any W r
.;I hich
.., {
~
i.
1 ic within 200 miles Of f.a site and which nay be l
ca E
-ki
=.....
_m
--.~.-
.I 2504:
mpb3 I significant in catablishing c safa shttdown s._ ;
2
.m 4 earthquake, datermination of whether b esc-
' 029.
3
-faults are to be considered as capcbic faults.l' 4
Number eight says for capabla fcults greater taan 5
'1000 feet long, any part of which is located.Eithin' five
't 5
miles of the' sits, determination of various probicas or a
,~
7 natures of those faults.
'21 1
4; i
B That 'was a paraphrase.
,. M n :c.:
w - %:,.
Now during the construction permit hearing which,t f.l;<~yj
'sm
~
~
9 C
4-10 was in November 1970, PGE's seismic experts admitted that their ;.m
~
c.f.
11-geologic mapping only encompassed an area of one to two miles
- i'
[
12 around the sitef-. quota -
"on a few sides" -- close quote.
l 13 ;
The transcript there was 3604.
.j 14
..One of.PGE's witnesses was sched what was.done l'
15 to locate possible faults at the cita that might not.be
[
L I
16 1:nmodiately visable on surface examination.
The witasas responded:
17l y
!3l "It would be' difficuit in tha subcurfr.cs t
i 19
. exploration,'like a drill hois,-to determine
+
1 ~
20
'whether a rock was faulted or not becausa of 1.
I 11 L
21 li the type of roch and'the way that they care I
w 1cid down.
So we stuck to the triad r.e hods,
-i I
3 cearching for surface outcrops.
- da lid not do 2.4-binnkct drilling-in.scarch cf sone undoreseen
\\
+
I
,.C i feature."
- -l
.t t
v.,,
r
+
t.
-e,
,M%
.,,.s,
,_.-.,L,,
,.w-m.-..
1
-_a__..__,
I I
i l
2605.
i s
mpb4 Dr. Dobrin, another v[tnass for PGE, admitted I
(
2'
- that there ara semo ein s"-*-4 jeopcysical te.sbs whicn 3
gaologists and seismologists ncrually use to determine whetheI
[Lh or not a fault esists in a given ersa.
4 t
5 j
Now, what happenan is of those six I believe 8
only $ne of'thces was used.
.'s,
'A i
7 Now there are experts on the geo ogy and seis-.
O l
i
. g!
'8 mology of this sita who believe that there are problems.
[$
].
' 1$9mi%:.:e ;~ a.
y)$,
9 Now'this is:regardless of the fact that boards hava conclud-J
./.JG n.
10 ed over and.over again that there are no problems, and tnat
'j
'i'
- 043 11 the State of Oregon did producs a $ hat we have termed " white-12
' wash" report-on the seismic siting of Trojen.. I uill not go' 13 into the many criticisms of the seismic sita because there.
14 are many, a.
15 I would simply say that pecple ought to refer 16 themselves to the briefs filed in the spent fuel pool appeal 17,
which was called Request Dursuant to 10 Cr'R 2.206 to s
la Institute precaadings to Revcha Operating Licence Aftar
- ataria Raicace.
19 'I
~
20 But Dr. Palney who I believe Mr..Tafoury 2; j mentioned he wculd hava likad to have b::ought as a witness I
2 he.s concluded that ths T jan cite ctudy is most biccc =- nly i.
I
.n l lacki2g in any of tha acreal geolo;ria inf:: ne.tw..
Mo pre.-
2.1 ta.st was evar nada c. hat asy ricciogical :ritaria for siting l
were fo11cwed.
25 a
m Mw-)
9 r
a%4
.sptag*r-
+<-+rr
--WA3a-4
^T4-de f PT-t m
<m====M-4 G*+f g4=y-=**f v
349Wm W
2606 neb 5 ' 1 Givan that thera are sarious questions, it
-2 see.ns to me r.ha.h it is vary importar.t-in date_~ining une her 1
g 3
or not tne CBE.and the SS1 tnat have been cot up cra going
.~
4 to -- shculd ramain as thay are.
We're also talking about j g 5
the effect of seismic events on safety-related equipment.
6 Now the plant can be designed, and it can be 7
designed to the right standards or it could not be at this N'
8 point.
But if we are going on the assumption that the
. a
- 5
'h
. ess +
- 7 g
original" siting was done'in i certain way and that the-y
-+,
10 probability of.a seismic event is low because we believe g !$
.3 11.
that tha siting was faultless, then we're going to have a 5
12 problem, because it's been said over and ovar in testimony 13 that the probability of a seismic avant is scmewhat the
-7 y
reason why interis operation should ba allowed.
Now I, for one, hava serious questions on the 15 saiscic citing, and that is cna reacen why I have concerns 16 about the probability of a caismic event at this site. ' And q
3
/- a f
33lI given that, it ces=s to me that auch much mora cenaarvative approaches to what we're going to consider alicuacia or 19 l
20'I applicabis 3SEs and OBEs during interim opsratic..
cught i
to be taken.
g I
3 gain, I would just sing'.y say th.:.t I thick g
i thic is an important.asce, idat tha Soc.rd shoula 3 ring up g
g$
and icok it.
3
/
ha last point I havo to meJ:s in my cicsing 1
y
. _., i r
i.
y
-y...
7 w--
g 9
9
-y
,r yg,
.>w,---
.y-.---
a,*r w.rr-='"
vvn*r-w-N..w w w iW ww-w4w m--
1---
f, 2607 1
.mpb6.1 statement is that I do intend to file proposed findings of y
~
2 f act and conclusions of inw.
I'm not doing them orally at 3
this time because I think it's just absurd to try and do it
.~
'l 4
orally.
They will be with the Scard prior to December 19,
g i:
5 which is Tuesday of next v.::ek.
lv l
6
~
~, And I'would just ask the Board to try to keep 4
7 in mind that that;is still working from evidence and witnesses 1,
O' that were only provided by those who were so well involved'.
.A W i{
..,- Q~ W,5 w,..
nwd
-.l
<iit this s' hole procedure.that they probably don't have much j (..]g n.:~.
l u...
J s
's
. s.t
- y,g
~~
l 10~
of.an' objective viewpoint.
Q However, I have appreciated the fact that l
11 I
these hearings have existed and that we hr.ve been able to 12 cross-examine witnesses on the subject of the control build-
?
13-s 14 ing.
I was somewhat concerned that nobody appeared before us 14 from - who had expertise in the safety-rel'ated equipment I
e itself, and that we were essentially cross-examining structural 16 i
3 7.,
engineers about safety-related equipment.
And that seems c'
A" I
i
(_
33 somewhat cra::y to me.
f But I would just hope that the Board takes all i
g of this under consideration and does read our proposed findings 20 of fact when they finally do reach your desk.
- 9. ; l i
Thank you.
e g,
^
CHAIRIG.Il MILLER:
Thank you, Ms. Ball.
d L.,
i Yes, we will ba happy to raad your proposed i.-
j a
j 1
findings of fact and conclusions of Icw.
I i
J
- 25 a
I 3
.I i
i 7y- _ -
N
- ep-s g
ay..
2608 I
There is one matter that you alluded to that mpb7 h
2 the Board would like to have'some further reference on, if 3
you have it.
I think you made the statement'that one of 4
the reasons for the Board considaring the issue of interim
'(g 5
cperation was the probability of sarthquakes, or the rela-
'6 tive probabilities.
o A
7 My recollection from both hearing the witnesses
~3
.l w'
8 and from reviewing.recently the regular proposed ~ findings.'is j
NC
~.43; 9
'I that there 'were witnesses who were asked,and we asked some 10 ourselves,'who
. stated to the contrary, that their con - ' }l < :.,ps.;.y
- p,,
j.'.33 ~ 11 clusions were not based on probabilities. If you believe 'I i 12 therefore that the record does containisomething to the 'f 13 contrary of that, or-in support of your own, I wish that ) ~- l 14 you.would supply it to us, if not now, if it is convanient -l 15 -by. Tuesday of next week. 16 MS. BELL: Yes, I will. That will be included 17' in my proposed findings of fact. d' 18 CHAIR W MT W R:. '2 hank you. 'l 19 Let's see, I don't see Mr. Rose, who was 1 j' 20 appearing -- well, I think he's an associate, at any rate, 1 of Mr. Kai'oury's, Counsel of record for the Columbia 4 21 22 Environmental Council. Does anyone know, do Mr. Rose and Mr. Xafoury 1 23 plan to be' hers today?' 24 <A Y MS SCOTT: !!O - 25- _.. _e I 1 " ' * '.. - ~ /
I j 2609 i~ mpb8 I CHA!m WI MILLER: We hope that they -- or one 2 cf them will hr.va proposed findings. If thay wish to file 3 thee, we'd lika for then to file ther., :lthough us have 4 indicated.for the record that we will waive the candatory I 1 5 nature of proposad findings in terms of limiting the rights 65 of appeal. But we certainly would like to have.them and we ' EI ~ 3 ,e. /,A 1 7 would find it most helpful,if they could be in our hands by - p.. u ~ 4,7,c!4 8' Tuesday, December the 19th. c t E .e..j? And we?.11'let it go'at that. , y,e gr: 4,.; :,fs a ~ 9' i" '
- 4. +;~+ a-y
.~ 3:f u s 10~ MS. SCOTT: Mr. Kafoury, whan he realized that d?3 y ? I *I 11 he was going to be in trial on this date, sent lettar -- <4-y. ~ 12 CHAIE WI MILLER: Ne have that. 6 t 1 13 MS. SCOTT:- Yes. -- requesting a-late file ^ 14 leave of the proposed findings of fact. 15 CHAIRMAM MILLER: I thish we have oweruled that 16 as presented by Mr. Rose. But if not, the record uill ba t 17
- clear,
? t;3 We vill stat:a that we cannot nave furth0: I jg delays on,a matter that was criginally schedulsd for Septaf>ed i 20' 6th and subsequently. r i + We apprecic.to the difficulties and we hope that 1 i 1 .on somethine. will be able to be dor.e and su=.. ly thera; but - te 3 I i can/t delay the prdccedinga. h 23,i j i I I ,4 i MR. AELRAO: Mr. Chairste.n, juct to mrks that l l r,n ~ clear, you did not allow until -- I thinh it was until l l +' I I I I i l - -,, e m y Y, Y7 m ~, T#w. e y r,- ,}', p,. x,ne,,g3V 9 +Q.I T' - m --- ' M *f w s vM, -[ *, K.,7 l --.[ r r T,, s .. +, n w. t,. ~ er.. vn, -
a L 2610 i r.pb 3 i Christmas tnat was requested by Mr; Eafoury, but, of coe.rse, qg as you hava pointed out, you have allowed until Friday, 2 -l. 3 ' December 19th for the submiseien. 4 CHA5RMAN MI WsR Yes, we hhv7 extanded-that g 5 tima.out of.consideraP. ion for Mr. Rose,.**r. I"aio.ury, or any-3., - $ f, 'f st? 9 'so; ~. ~ p f s, 7 6' one 'else as fer as that is concerned. 4 7 ): 'All right.
- /a.:;.9
. e.. .r .[ 8 I guess then -- i,.,. c? 4 M'4 S .d _e .. < ~. - . M,%.~ g"' %g ~;y;$s(1 MS. ' SCOTT: ~ Mr. Miller, I wo fMs-i -yge p .';;g 9.y-yep..cg>
- y,,
gg g 10 short closing ~ statement in lieu of the fact that nc Counsel - N.../ c. .m 11, is here representing Columbia Environmv.atal Council. _ 9, l j 12 CEAIRMAILMILLER: Well, do you intend, or dcas 1~ l 13 your Counsel intend'to fils proposed findings?. 14 You see, the difficulty is the.t you have an 15 intervening' party that is represented by Councol. Parties can either he represented by Counsel'and file appes.ranc d, l 16 I for the:::civas, as scma of '&.s S 17 or they en.n appsc: cro 33 I
- 3 I individuals hava done.
But you're'no'c re.z.11y 1.. either ,i
- I 19
- category, 1
!! ^ We. don' t 'fant to impair your organintion's 20
- a i*
21 rights. We're assuriing, as we indicatLd, that us vould hcVe some filing by Tuesday, the 13t's. -22 l Is that your u:darstandi ;? I
- ,M 23 ;
i 24 ' MS. SCCCT: I've n t Les: 10 to speck to R. 1 l I Kafoury to~ find out what dcto. 4.,,. v n
- -4 4
1 .j. 1! ,y y ' '- - - ' " " ' - * " ' " ' ~ ~ - ' ' 7 L-- -- : u _ ;, - .vc
h 2611 mpb111 CHitIM1AN ?CLLER: ' hat about Mr. Rese? 2 115. SCOTT: Nor Mr. 10Ja e!.ther, to find out. what dc.te they're going to file, so I don't have that info 2m 3 4 tion. Maybe, you know, it's aircady been set up, but I don't g 5 have it. 1 6 . M> s>.' * ' CHAIMAN. MTTMR: How :.ong would it take -you to .. ? ! ..,.c pg; j '"K make such a' - are you going to confine your statement to the t i 7 ~ ~ issuss? ' -I know you've been hora o s and off during most of.'
- i.,j%
1 e 8 e f m$ Y t'ths hearinct. : Do you plans to confAna them, as Counsel would,,, c. . - :3 .j.g w j., s fTQ 'e ' '.T w,.m.., u..., e. 9 eata.,;.._, m to the issiles that'are before um and to the 'evidance, the jh . T,26 10 I }Mll. testimony and axhibits? 11 ,u In other uords, !.t's not in the nature of a '? 12 limited appearance statemant,,is it, that you wish to maka7 13 \\) i MS. SCOTT It's :eally hard to tall, becausa 14 1 didn't know that 'I was goint; to speak, and I'm just going 15 to have to do.it off tha' top of my head and to try and 16 couch it into legalise. I don't knew if that's what I'm i t a-going to be doing, 18 CitAIMAN biILLER: I'll tell you what. 'Ja'11 gg -take a tan cinute recoss. ,0 c I'd 1.'hy don't you consult with your associatss. .1-rather not have it off tha top of your head in the sense o:~ I it being cu:crficir1 or ganarie, cs M.s. 3211 underst _e.ds our g ' ccaments, but rather we simply u=t to ' i.72 you c 2 Ar'.ppor-44 A f tunity. ,a J 4 s 't L -s.n z,- - g.,-, m, nn . - - ~. -
Mu, 2612-L mpbl21 So.why don't you take ten minutes er so to 2 j) prepare yourself? i 3 (Ascess.) l ce d.4 q 4 .5
- ,4 [
L .fp, p '
- -i i e
I ~ / ? y 7' ~. a"- e1 - "Q.c. p.
- m;
..i. 8-l+4 . _,,3 ~ ...a . & g.4,j ' t'{+d., - . ', - al.'A y., j '.e nf
- *.n, -T,,.9.,.g...,,. s,
c ;*, 3"..3 4;Qg,.--.pg y :... e s n> v 2 7,a;3 c',' L T.' t.. . g, g f ggt 9 r s ~
- ;?,
m I' ,1,'. s
- i..
)j t 17. YTe L 13 G 14 a. 15 .I 16 17 s.:.- 18 <l. I 19 i s. 20 i. i i 21 1 4 23 2A l.). .. s 23 ..i -l c G g .r h' em --+%_*=ue ar-. - ar ++ =* e= s.=,em _ e pp ey y w%~
..lii .2613 ICLT ZR .1 CHAIRIGN MILLER: Ara wo ready tc ? cceed? jlL -1 2 The 3 card, "as we indicated, will e:::rcise its 4 v I discretien to allow ycu to make a statenant. 3 02 4 .Uould you please idan ify yourself, name, address, j. j/ m g and. organizational affiliation?- Then, you may than raake your ,v..
- (
I-S atatacent.'
- p;?
. r.. MS; SCOTT I h' ave decidad that we.Will. Incorporate >{.,, .w our closing statement as part of our proposed findings of[ fact. Q g h, :_.:x 4;,R$f* CHAIRMAN.MILLERQVerywell., s S. en), t I .~MS. SCOTT: D.1 t thank you for ' the considaration. - "ifd 10 ..m -")
- e CHAIR Wi MILLER:
Surely. 11 i You will be able to have those in tho her.d cf tha Board by Tuesday of ner.t week, will you? 1a, v) MS. SCOTT: Surely. I.,,,i CHAIRMAN. MILLER: Thank you. MS. BELLt Mr. Chair.ran? 16 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Yes. 17 Mb'. MS. DELL: I just talked to P.ichael F.cce, who said 18 i that the reason he wasn't here, he would -like the 20crd to 19 know, is that he was 'ill,. and what vna couing ever him i yesterday I guess hit. 21 !. s Il CHAI?5d? MILTER: Yes. 172 h.n w he earr.t. 2ce125 2A l well. We aporcciata the informatien. 23 $]i i w. MS. 'iELL: THo othtr thing is that I ha"1 jn:t found i 24
- I Fr..
cut that the airplano, ?cdoral 2nprecs cirplane carrfing ~. 25 l Mr. Pollard'c limitad appearraca stater. cat [ i L,. i g [- [ n. f. t ~^.r. ~ "? ..= ,.r-e - r - r-VM*z ---'. 1 ri s' - -. ',. -,, - -. ,,-s -d.+4- .em#-. ~(:.-
l i 4 2614 jl2 1, m,. Pollard's limited appearanco state:tont, is in Seattle, ' = ]
- pending the clearing of fog at the Portland International 2
3
- Airport, t
4' .It seems to me that the Board would want" to make ** g 5-f scr.e sort of procedural decision on what to do, that if.that r , 'i s,.& y.'> .; 3 6' were based on what is. contained in Mr. Pollard's statsmant. At -t . m. <9 .-.n 3
- 7. 'l that he said if there were any questions aSou;- that that he '.
y;. g tyi!I., i 8 Lwould,ask the Board to have a conference call with him, and hef 3 %s + would be ha.ppyn to discuss what is actually contained in the 86 l~'%... 9 c , p* w. x
- , s.' m
? :.
- n. :
7,.,.,,.e.,.,..~ j .,.a.,':k AVO d].L .u s2 r .% f.M. p q..M a,s . + s ' " ' ~ ' e
- Nf t,fMeapt to'
'atatement.,j* " O: 3%t g wu ~w wp . ~ '.;g.. j it CHAIR:W1 MTTLER:. Wall, procedura.lly, the: Board i we 12 would not.be able to use the ccnference call devica, in fair-p a n However, we would lika to 1 vv, 13 ness to all to the parties. 97 q 14 receiva Mr.P'ollard's statement. . You have, I suppose, reason to believe that it will. 15 7 he in somtime 'teday, at any rata? I
- g i
MS. DE
- . ' os, it Vill. -
17 CHAI1O!T MILLER: If we finish our business this
- 3 gg' morning -- well, prior to. ncon -- we will raturn at the appropriate time this afterncen for the purposa of rocaiving 20 the statsmant and obtaining come.cnt thereon by any parties who l
21 w!.sh to do so. . 3, ) 23 p Ara thera a.y oths: mattsrs sw hafere w.2 go co the v t Gtaff for discussion? y ,n. ~) a{ (No respenca.) M l, l s.- l i, 1 g I l w--; pc".' "~~~j :. +i'7 ~. %g.gGy,p.g.& ;Mw~;sr.; :,.c,.WFpci&%G.; +yjyW> ~
2615 ji 3 1 CHAIRMAN ELLER: I guess not. 3 2 Mr. Gray, while you are -doing that, we would like 3 to know, first of all, if you wish to add anything further to I 4 the record concerning i:he Staff's position on the Trojan g i 1 5 Decorsaissioning A111anca letter, which has bean turned over i 1 d-6 to this Board, as you know? You won't be able to say anything about the Hollard 7 i a comments, of course, as yet. It might also be helpful if you. 4 ;- could describe the relationship of the various. sagments of the_. 7, 9 j .,w _ N/ I Nuclear Regulatory Connissioh. In the course of'this go ,a1 hearing and in the 'li*:!ited appearances, it 'became apparent jj that there isn't a complete understanding gp the various seg-12 ments'of staff, Board, Appeal Boards,' Corraissioners and - 13 the like. J. ja 5 In fact, I think one individual at the limitad 15 appearance thought we were the Commiss.icners of the NRC. ,g l We declined that honor, you know. 1 17 (Laughtsr.) 13 l CIUCMIAN MIL *.CR: B2 t that indicates there isn' t a 10 l ; full awareness. It. might be helpful if you 'iould s:rplain hev 20 these things work. As ycu and I kncv, we =cet each. ther in hearings, p say hollo on the strcat but 'cs haver cur c.c. iMapendent dutier n 23 l ann f',r Cti0nS, L"If I " 2 n o t S u r3 that DiO LS full? kT.dOrCtcOda 1 24 l} You might cover that. l s s --[ r gy 4 'g p #w- --N _b 7 7
2616 t' '1 ' MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairnan, with regard to the + ss 4 - 2' Trojan.Deconnissioning Alliance document, the Staff has no Y further comment as to that. p - 3 As to your que=tica just now on relationship cf 4 vari us segments' within the unc, I would indicate that, number 5 y one, the ; supreme body,.so to speak, in the NRC is. the I,. 6 e 1 Cor. mission. itself, which censists of five corrtissioners,- one -~ j 7 v.y. j of whom is the Chairman of' the Commission. ~M.9 8 i %g.T!w? YAll' power within, the NRC stems frcm the' Colamissione ','3g W,WM ' :... 1' 9(... , /l .J which acts to' implement the Atcmic Energy Act and various g -=e w, J statutes under which the MRC is established and must act. g Now, the Commission ecn delegate,cnd has delegated, g certain duties and certain of its' duties and powers and i 13 l I d responsibilities to various other segments within the NRC. 14 For example, the NRC Technical Staff has been 15 delegated cortain powers and responsibilities in. dealing with 16 ~ licensing matters in review of licensing applications, license g i amendment applicatiens, and varicus roguletory ratters; and, j 18 I guess if'we get down to it, the Staff itself does the log wor 19 on many ei the things thct ultir,ately the Commission would act-20 cn.. 21 Obviously, the Conniczien is made up of only fiva mechcrs, and its snail support stcffs cannot deal with each and 3) - 23 8: every - 6eal initially with each and every action which 24 3' ccmes before the SRC; and in this vein, many dutics hava heen 25 I j t s = m r-, = = - - - - w 57 g wu v = y3-w ,y-- =z--- y,-
~ .w.__.-.. 2617 i 1f . delegated to the Staff. 2 Now, in a proceec'.ing such as chis that we ara
- d. 5
= i, ' involved in here, initially the actions with ::cyard to tha ~tI-f' 4p initial 1IRC action, thct being tha crds: which vac issuad by [ }- 5-the Director of Tuclear 2anctor negulation,. was in the hands 6 Of.the staff. x Hosever, once a hearing is requested anf granted,, 4 7 w. g the authority to ac
- v. the particular licancing action -- in-
. - i-3 e..;.,e . m 1 *.. e - M,g,. tiiiis.....,..,-... :casel'the matter',of" interim operation anc1 modifi '. ions " " 9-W . d 9 *gb, [;.-t'ae~ h 'dC t the control building passed.from the Staff'c handa into a -' ; j j A.' s ' f,i - 10 . separate.und independent decision-c.nking body, which 1.3 tha } 7 Licensing Board. 33 The L.?. censing Board is cc plately caparate and .to. ,s,.- s. %ed independent from the Staff. We have ragulauions with regard i ,,m I to ex parte conununications, which means that, among other things 4 i the staff me: bars are prohibited from cc:.:1unicating with l u,, I Licensing Board marbars as to the matturs pertaining to tha 17 ~,. .. ' ' Dro:Gedin9 .4 f We are prohibited from casual conversahiens raga.:d-13,, 1 l 3 ing such matters, and any ccer.unicatienc havn to bc such that i 20 i all the parties are made fully aware of precicely O'.d 2::ccf.y P.2,;l'. ".Ihat 10 diScuCSdd. 'I 1 Ih C'" ' ' ' ^ ~ ' " ~D 2.'on i fC: ':0.'T[. ? h 0.4 ?.3**
- .y' 8.
Lli3 4 ,3 yap ( q t s U OOr.ZunicationS Curt go to 2.'1 MIS pir i1J. n .fo *f }- h 7t.e Licensing 2 card is truly indepandan! fr:n 2.0 ee: .r t. 3. ,t f. fl ~ - -nr g., = m yg,_,; ;_ g,3.[;;' [-'3 ; 3 3 ; -
a .,,,a u u ~ u.. #.c ~ -..- mumh - m mm_ m s- _ - 2G13 i-I 4.,1 - 6 1 Staff, and in a' procaeding like this the Staff 'is rarely e anothar party to the proc 22 ding, although it dces have'a public ' {. ?;. 2-3 interest responsibility in that the Staff is -- dces have the i 4 responsibility to protect the public health and safety. g ,4 that is part of the Staff'.t So, from that standpoint, 5 s s,..e 6 ' interest. But,f nevertheless, fit is merely another part.y to 'the-]{ l 7 proceeding. Once the Licensinc Board makes.a' decision, that' ff -rz. .. ~.. particular decimien may be -- all consideration of it may be N. 2Mi. g 3lk.
- 3. & G j.y:.d f &
~;'.l. Q S-W, M.:.< . :4.:. y.f +n escalated. to.what 'is called;the' Appeal Board, which.is' an Mg ,,g g~ gig ,.9 ,+ marq., ym.y appellate tribunal also de1egated authority from thd Com:nission j.Q 10 ..o to review Licensing Beard decisiens. //hj.,4 e' s 12 The Appeal Board P.lso in totally indspendent from ~D the Staff. 13 .c D' C N ately, any decisic$m or lic.ancing natter also y 1 may be reviewed by the ccmmission. ,1 t o. } I I. don't knov if this briaf outlinc answerc your 16 i decires. 6#' 17 { d ,2-
- l CliA P.".74i MILLIR
Yec. Thank you, ".r. Gray. It ,_* * t t ,j does describe it vary wc11. 19 l With rc'sc.rd to the Staff's ciccing .o ! ICt. GPA7: t I 1 stntcoent, I would juct touch en a nunber of matt:rs that wora l I 0, 4 9-' e 4 L raiat:d by cor.e of the pr vicc.c statacente. se : ~~ ,l u 9l Firg'. of. 211, with regr.rd to the S taf.." s nvic- ..,i ,~w ' c.c -,b, function hC3, th0 Etaff 5c3: CO t 22 /* Uf,0 rO O's.10212 t3 ? "Ir"? i kt ') single n'.mber the t has tecn generated by Licanecas in IL. j l s g .-e .,m-m, -.,.y%-y e-. -,--y ,...y..r. ~ w. er-w - -r-== i-- = -
- t
_m.:awu, - - - +. - s e -- - - - -- 2613' i N' 1' . proceedings such as this.. The Staff A, views, in detail, the 2 nethodology, the criteria, the standards by which T.he Licensee hi 3 .has acted to deterriine if the proper rethodology end critsria ]' 4 nave been applied. ll In mani instances, and particularly~in this case, 5 4 'the '. Staff haN done some of its own tindependenc calculat' w. 6 to confirm that ths material submitted by the Lir 7
- p
. ~, a 8 fact, valid and correct. In~this case, we ** < q. C , s,ltyp ird2h w .:. y,.. 'g many instances, 'althoudh _we'have not cetapI , y gg i d 1- .r -..g 3 -.:>g[s what the Licensee has done. 10 s ' But the Staff's rol. t:.:.s ase,.is w 11 m re than merely looking at numbers presented by ths Licensee a 12 y r its agents. It is more than*1 coking at these numbers and 4 13 - bh saying they icoh about right. 34 t There was a question raised with regard to the 15 ! ., f request for design change, the. F.DCs, with regard to pipe lO supports and pipe restraints. Tr.e Staff has not checked in t I,' -?! ~~ t an e w ests for d2c h chan g dat de 13 I q Licensee proposes to perform as a result of the ficer 7g rdspense cpectra analysee. g Ecuever, the Staff has reviewed in detail the. g . h analysis techniqu2s, accet tance criteria, :ho standards by- .3..,,. g[vhich these modifications cat nre.necessny v r: idsnti21:.5 .s 6"
- p p-S e
een W 9 emme g. 44 4 .m &nd haS d3t2rm n that the CCeptEnC Cr tCria analySi3 t i j.' 1 y a- - ;c:, _.. _- ;;n ;n
-l 2620 jl.8 techniques are in accordance with approved standards for i I F - 2 Trojan. . i: : The RDCs must be performed in accorrhnee with those [. 3 e license criteria. g 4 The Staff has also indicated that the Office of. i Inspection and Enforcement.uill further confirm, prior to
- z.,
- 6 interim operation, if it is permitted, that the pipe restraint 7
- g (s.
additions and modifications necessary as a result of the J' e,w' L g /t.ggi g I
- y revidedl floor response;epectra analysis have been properly
- i..;r.:m;&
pr:?. implemented ~j:k,% i%.L..; yin accordance with the design of the particula ~.$ ~- . #1 10 ..:. ? :,, modifications and in*accordsnee with the existing cpprovad t 33 4 111ty assuranca, quality control precadures for Trojan, f 12 which are a part of the Trojan license. ~ 13 .) So, as I say, the Stnff has net, jus +i as for the 1,, t rest of the analysis that has bean done here, has not duplicated' i. 15 the Licensee's calculations; but we have reviewad in detail the f5 1 methods by which it was determined that pipa modificatien7, I or f ripe restraint modifications, have to be made. g And we have datermined that those modificaticas were
- g. hp properly identified according to the proper criteria.
8 - 20 Miss Bell, in her closing argument, referred to the 1 21 22l cualification of Wactinghcure equipment. Thers is safety-i I g li relatad equipment. The Staff would ce=ent in thip vsin, Unat qua2ifi-24 ' E cation of equipment was decle with at provicus licensing stages g P .g 4 k I - y-(w
- ?,,,
y < m ;,. 7 -, '- .4., ? ~ ;,.~ &MF - --- n -,..... ' ~--~ ~ + - .. ~
._._.__r._ 8621
- jl 9
1-at the. operating lic2nse stage, that the equipasnt was found to 'I 2 be. qualified properly at that tima and tnct in this precaeding, 3 in the Staff's' view at least, we are act -- cannot be 4 . concerned with the necessity to recpon the reatters of howl 'g. 5 squipment was qualified or whether it was qualified properly, 1 g.
- and'SO On. hU
[ ~ j ..1 @. r{ 7 - tinat we are confronted with is that given equipments --,h a qualification, as qualified at the operating license stage, y mA .. e- ~
- y..r.
..9,,,s o j%
- g!
does 'thatt. qual!fic:ation envalepe the new response spectra; and; Q Q@g ' ,, '>, uf..m[e... ..an ~, W --- w g 10 I believe the evidence shows that for all equipment, components., g r 11 and systems, safety-related compcnents and. systems, and the .] 12 control building complex,that, in fact, the qualificatiens do 4 13 envelope the revised floor rssponse scectra. J 1,. i
- 4 Miss Esil read frem a docume.nt, appt.rantly praptred g3,
by Miss Susan Garret, with regard to the siting of Trojen. i I 16 [ This, too, we believe is not z. matter the.t either can cr should be considered 'in this proceeding. 3.,, 4 Once again, the citing of I'rojan uts daalt with ct
- m. wi,-
tha construction permit and operaH g licenza atages. 7g The control building design deficiencies do net call i 20 I i into question the siting of Trojan, and we believe that is 21 I L beyond, the scope of this. precaeding. s_ I r;,..:. 3., j I would note in pan 31ng that h dcm ca': tha i-l i Miss Bell was reading from actually sou: dc rather $2miliar. I g j e) v:s involved in the spent fuel pool p;Teeading, at which ~ el',- s v. ,, [ * " *.'i. e------- [.,,, l' ,__l*
-2622 ji 10 1 ' proceeding this natter was raised and determined by the ip Licensing Board there to be beyond the: 3 cope of that proceed- ~ [ 2 I 3 ing. Miss Garret then did file a requect for a:show g 4 cause order, pursuunt to 10 CF2 Section 2.206; 'and after 5 [l r detailed consideration.by the, Office of Nuclear P.aactor - c.-f l_ 6 ~ . s.n Regulation of" tha matters which ware referred. to by Miss Bell 7 o.- %.g today and the matters referred to in Miss Garrat's docurent oni .s.e. 0 Gle C @h ittik,sitifg 'of' Trojan,"it Was determined that~ the' siting of J ^ ,}b g a y mM%Q.:.*t. . ;y; i. ' ;k yn }& was done properly,'the'licanse criteria with regard to: r 10 , ; 6p J an SSE, and so on, were properly set,land that thera 'tsrd so j' gg M@ l 7.Cecuate/ studies that had been done to support those siting g 1
- ." t criteria. -
13 .ri f., Ue would point out that at the same tir.%-- this was g I March of 1978 -- at the same time, the State of Orcgen, through ,15 y its State Gaologists, did conduct a cur-sy of persons invcived 1, h. { 0 ._ y -in the original geological, coisr.ological siting of the Trojcn 1., i ., A T1 f acility, and did get corrrents en the cdcquacy of the siting 13 { studies that were dono. 19 4 And,. basod on that, cnd I wi3.1 he corrected by c0 i h 2r Socelo'fsky 'if I misstate this, but, based en the.t, the i c1 I l ., n State Geologist did recound to the Oregen 2nprgy Facility a e d' Es gaolc7 c cad 331.3:o1c7i s i _-in i Sit? ; , canc.il that.-- @?..:. g)
- .3. F 1
v p studies were adaquate, and ths Scato of Oregon shoulC. not { H t )- P Atself request an ordar for show causa pursu nt to 10 07n 2.205.! 4 i 25-i ?. l .t o e v--- _--_u
. - -. ~ - ..~ ? 2623-So : chis ' catter was considared. Ms. Bell' indicated it has 1 .g 11 I been ' shuffled aside, from one side to t'.e other, but, in facti o .l ~ it has been = considered, we believe, in the appropriate forum. I ' 3 t -- that is, ' thrbugh a 2.205 req: set.. j 4 And,as far a's the Staff knows, there is no rencon 5 .Es ~~~ there is nothing that has arisan,since it.was considered . ;.y 4. - 5 .g.L;... lact' Warch, that.would bring into questien disposition of the ' $. - l 7 ~ ? h,t,. rv 7 matter 't that time. Qg-l a 8 .:u _g <yj GMgone final Lattar -- the Staff has prepared' addition-4.. . 3 is,* ' _b rJ4 4, o v a al proposed fin' dings with regard to the floor response spectra ' gt - to 3h-- 4 question. Those~ proposed findings were prepared' prior to c/[ g yesterday's evidentiary.. :Thny vore based on the ' prefiled j g. .a. 'm. 0" " "**
- ~
- ' ' f14dbshny.
. c 13 / We - have reviewed the written proposed. findings in. g 9 15 detamined that these proposed findings ~ are consistant with. 16 the evidence that was adduced ysstorday. And somahcw wa will 17 cubr.it this - these additional p:cycsed find 6p at thic tir.e is .e as - tne final part of the Staff's propossd fhdings. I will g and 120 ji pass bose out. 20 3L fla g c n d -;,.5 22 I l 'n - 23 m 4 ' 24 $) .a .J' 4 l l rn m,a r - m m w w.., ' _ .4 ?' v .n. n. s- ~ <-.,g.,, r ir 2-' 1yw 6w
- v
- y. y...,,
- y..r 3
- a.. -..
2524 6WEL. 'wel 1 3 I rnere are several corrsetiens the Staff would wish 2 Q to make to its proposed findings filed en :Icverbsr'20, 1970. 3 I would like to dirsict the Board and' the part:iss, g to page 28 of those proposed findings, paragraph 42. 4 b CHAIRMAN MILL 2R: Page 287 6 W ~hs. MR.. GRAY: a ~ 7 CHAIRMAN MILLER: 427 8 MR. GRAY:. Yes. The fourth line above the footnote, M + ~ - e. . d.v $$h W%%ip,y kD.iQ y.% ?_- i + .P 'Ithef, sentence.begins,'"Tha second system consists of five
- ..; 7 [c.,% -
+ - .4 %,.m c, 9.:. 3. 3E i 10 triaxial time history reporting accelerographs wh'ich...' 11 At this point I would delete the words, " measure and record," 12 and insert tho words, " provide data." Pardon me. I didn't get that. 13 CHAIPXY4 81 ILLER:' ~ i ,'M _j 14 Mit. GRA7: " Provide data, allowing a determination 15 of..." and tihe sentence continues. 16 In the last line on that page, also delete the ~ 17 couraa af ter the second ucrd, after the word "inchruments"- g I j 18 and deletc the word "which." lg i-19 Place.a' period after the word "st:tetures" instead l '.I 20 of a comma there, and delete the word "are" and on page 29, lj i. l-21 "not' direction dapendent." i l 22~ CdAIP2.AN !! : ER: los.ving th2 citntion7 (( i f e l (. 23 lj "R. CIPaY: a.vring the ci stien. j s 2.2 And, finally, en p:.go 29, 307ing 'dOwn four 1.inesi ./ 25.. at the'end of the fourth line a ncv 33ntenea 32 gins which . j 'l 2: O-,.
- .<>-r
) 2G25' ' wal - 2 1 l l 1 says, "This system is also not directly dependent," I would 2 delete that sentence, leaving, again, the citacicn. 3 And I said " finally" too soon, because I do have, I, l Q 4 ene additional correction. i 5 That is, in the ner.t sentence it says: "The t. .c ( recorders"for'these systems." That should be changed.to i 7 " recorders for the second system.' 8 DR. MC COLLCM: Is " recorders" singular or -- ,,I g' &Ibf:. H D ~. ' : ~; ' ' %. e,&.'!' -. + g ~^ ~.;' L :.
- yrm
_ &%,pq;i Jy MR. GRAY M.No,' recorders, plural. ,,'?. W] 9.' u s;.y.;.:. ...y_ yy 9 10 CHAIRMMI MILLER: Let the record show that Staff p 11 is filing and distributing to the parties copies of its 12 additional proposed findings'en the matter of interim ~ ~~ .i 13 operation of the. Trojan facility prior to modifications. t J 14 (Documents distributed.). l' i 10 MR. GRAY: We beliove that with the Stnff's I 18 filing on November 20 and the additicnal proposed findings j ; l ; t-just handed cut, that would summari:o the s':sff's position. 4: fa So we don't intend to procaed further to suntarise the l l evidence in any more detail. 20 CHAIR *G.N MILLER: Dr. McCollom has a yact: tion. 21 DR. MC COLLO!!: I think that this is scing to ha 22 parhaps more the Licensee's problam, but let me refer vou s- / ' to page 2', paragrcph 36 in the propeced findir.g3 ef & d d 23 1 Stnff, and to page 33, pars. graph 55 in :ha proposed findings 2d i.)- 25 of the Licensee. l r i t y, i 7 r_-- u,- - - - - -
__ _ _- ~ _ - , c __._ - I,, 3 l' 2526 vel '3 ' l i: 1 I have.not-gone back through ths raccrd to try to m . A,g, - 2l straighten this out for nyre12, but let na :cl*. ycu whct.*."r 3I, probism is, the way it's werded hers. ' 'Q 4 .I will read paragraph 30 of the Staff: i '5
- m. Considering the estimated ma::imu. disulacement.
+: -6 of kh control buifding iN the ncrth-south and east-westi' f- .7 directions and calculated, turbine building and. contain- ,,i -8 ment deflections, the gaps between the centrol and pqq y W.p p 9,,.;; + y.9 ;,_
- turbine, buildings were shown to be reduced by. n. maximum' y,,':*
9 n-4- -c 10 of 2.4 and 2.49 inches in the north-south and east-wast ,l 11 directions, respectively." 1 l i' 12 I'll stop the quotation there. 13 Now, I rcmember the sketches of the b'.'ildinge, d L 14 and I understood when you were talking cbcut tuc control i 15 building and' the turbine building where the sect wall of tha o .I
- 16. '
control building was, and that displacament. I l, 17 Sut I'm not nearly a: cari : table cbcuc saying .e l l. Ia I[ that 2.49 inchas betrean the c:ntrol buildin; anc :he tur: ino 19 building in the othar aran. And I'= asking: Coas t'r
- go 2rf into an el around the control building, and is thac t:.s 1
i 21 dinension we're talking about here en 2.4 r.d 2.49? nit la i n! the dimancica this 2.4 and 2.49 is refnerir; ."T } 4 ~ 9*M %**"80* g 3$ 4' 8-n'4 A 6 4 ad b=m e.e* m. ear *
- d P-eq. y v
I 24 i ' 02. ':0 COLLOM: The 3acerd 0 artica. :.nsa, il 107 I ] L 'Q- . go down St-ther,.in the staff's it saya r abcut eicht : ins i ,_3 - t 4 '} t I 6 -(.- s ,r , 4 ' m._ww-w... _,,,. ..x--. L. _- _ u,w-
i 1 J 2627 wel. 4, i -e 1 down,.it starts: ~. g 2, "Similarly, the minimum sacaration actuaan ti.e l ) O '- . control building and centainment, considering ma):imum - t. - [. Q 4~ building deficctions, is.76 inches."- 5 . -N o w,. that containment is the containment' of the ,7 {- 4 .. > c:;n:. 6 nuclear.rcactor itself?.. 1 d.dk. 7 MR. GPAY: Yes. j W1-8'
- DR. MC COLLOM:. Where is the. 76 inches measured?
j"PO" a JL h$f
- .< f.g f M g[.-f k s-x y *. m'
- .
~...,ey,. y . h, 9. Ef7 G Q. MRK GRAY: I believe - and I don't have this gys;A . g-. n-D.,. 50 recollection myself, but Mr. Tramnell informs me it's at . y..s'
- .L 11 about olevation 77 feet,.which is'the place of minimur.
[' e 12 clearance. And there are cables running across at that .y ld 13 - elevation. DR. MC COLLCM: Frem tna control building to the 14~ 15 containment building? 16" MR. GRAY: Se8-DR. MC COLLCM: D ec the centrcl building interface i t-/ j iS all tha way up with the centainrant buildin;? i jf-MR. GPAY: They are separate structuras, and I 2'O believe -- t 21 DR. MC CCLLOM: t:hnt I mcan is do they go up sida 22 - by.sida, so us're ucrried ahcut displacescntc? E c'.7 far? . f!N . ~, i (?ausa.) L/ i .i gj. imy fon't un ash the Liconsc.a to provide acma L.;. n informatien en that? l; i. 1 ls t i '. L. W.. , ~. - - s m-~
p mgse6 MA$ rhWM W i ,y ; 5 1 M R. A::::L R7 0 : Could you repeat the quaction, 2f~please,.Dr.dcCollem?' li F 3 DR. MC COLLOM: I'm concerned about the intarface ]Q or separation between the control building and. the containment) ? f', ..If I had allithe drawings here I could look it up, but. what I l t G ;j I want to'know is, in this area wher2 we're worried'about the .. \\' - s 7' displacement between them, in measuring it, does it go up , f: - 3' all the way from the ground level all the way.up? Or how 4 9 f ar does.. it_ go up, that they are ne:tt to each other where .j, f 10 dinplacement is a concern and we'ra maasuring it? 11 I MR. BROEHL: The particular,arca wc're speaking of 12 hora in related generally.to the.accoas hatch going into the 13 containment. You. enter it from the" control and auxiliary 14 building. At that point there's a ncminal three-inch gap, ~ is bott.uan'the two structuras. 5 10 MR. A G RAD: The record shciald rafiset th2t the i n' l person speaking at that point.was Mr. Zonald Troahl, of y 10 ?GE. 16 DR. MC COLLOM: Then is it just a one-storey 10 interface where they're close together? This three-inch gap, P,1 how far does that three-inch gap go up? I 22 MR. 1i200:I3: I'd h mo to check it for sura, but i
- ' uen12 say to my recollectica it' z apprc::i~.ataly M fset
.j that wo have this inr_arface. It's from the procacticn crac, I r
- b
- g there the electrical cables do fren the 0
- ntrol building to I'
h x s ..,1, k g ~ m e- +.w e - d + n g aw.e e w e
2629'- wel 6 1 the containment, and that extends up to a roof abos this 2 containment acceso hatch. The total distance would be -3 approximately 40 feet. ! g 4 CHAIRMAM MILLER: Could that information'be 4 5 verified and supplied for'the record, before the sun' sets l i f o 6 this" day? I 7 XR. BROERL: That information'is in the Safety a) ~t 8 Analysis Report. .M i +.,,,., - .3di .9 CHAIRMAN MILLER: All right. If you'd;.give us 7jlf v 10 the reference, we'd'apprecinto it. 11 All right, I guecs we're. ready, then, to hear 12 from the Licancee. Has overyone alce beca' heard who wishes 13 to be heard? ,I.Q TW All right, you may proceed. wel 7 15 MR. AXELRAD: A couple of preliminary matters 16 first. 17 With respect to the telegram from the Trojan + l is Decommiscioning Alliance, we have nothing to add to the 1 i 19 - connonts that the NRC Staff Coun3el made at the hearing cf 20 yesterday on page - 2536 of the transcript. 21 CilAIRMAM MILL 2R: Do you concur in those? l l 22 MR. A M RAD: We concur, yes, sir. (] -n CE1.IRLf101 MII~ ER: All right. liR. A>Z RAD: I would lika to taka just a minute 24 g 25 to recpond to the motion that Mr. Rose filed yesterday, which btL ,n , _. ?l l,.,
I I 2630 we1 7 1-I thought we were going to be discuscing today, but in his - ] 2' absence ~ .g -3 CHAIRFJ MILLER: Did Mr. Rose file a motion?
- i. @
4 MR. AXELRADs. A motion pertaining to the need for 5 an environmental impact statement. And it was my under-6 standing that it was going'to be taken up as part of the!-- 7 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Do we have a copy of that y _s.. 8' . motion, or was it made orally? ,'d, 9 MS. BELL: ' You should have a copy of it. 9p to CHAIRMAN MELLER: I have a motion for leave to L 11 introduce evidence on the.need for power, filed by you, -12 Ms. Bell, but I have no other written motion. 13 Well, let's take a moment to get a copy. ,.d l I 14 MR. GRAY: .Mr. Chairman, as I recall-the status + 15 of that was, I believe, the Chairman asked Mr. Rose to 16 reconsider whether he. wanted to introduce that motion after i 17 he had read the proposed findings of the staff, and I is believe that is where we stand at this point. 19 CHAIRMAN MILLER: I thought he stated then that 20 after he had had an opportunity to review the proposed 21 ; findings of the Staff that he wished to withdraw that motion. I I 22 Isn't that the stata of the reccrd? MR. GRA*1 I don't recall.that particular part cf 23l $$ li I I A.- 4 [ f/ . 23 l MR. AxzL mo: I do not recall thct, eithar. He ai I t a
l i 2631 sel 3-1 gave'me a copy. ~ 2 Could we just. check the. record? a 3 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Well, I think they usually inde>c (}}- 4 the transcript on motions. I understood him to say -- my 5 memory is, although I'm not infallible -- that he had. 6 decided to withdraw.the motion. 7 (Pause.) } @- 8 MR. AXELRAD: The discussion begins at page 2402.- 'd., 9 of the transcript, and-runs to page 2405. k '. ) Mc 10 Unfortunately, beginning on lina 6 of that page, ' I* Ti Mr.. Rose is referred to as Ms. Ball. It was Mr. Rose who 12 was speaking at that tima. 15 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Well, do you concur with that? Eu) 14-MS. BELL: I'm sure I do. 15 MR. AXELRAD: 1 think a transcript correction- ~ 16 should reflect that Mr. Rose made that -- L 11 CHAIRMAN MILLER:' Yac, I'd like to have it 18 reflected in the transcript that that was.an arror. Thic 19 is page 2402, line 6. Where is says MS. BELL it should be 20 MR. ROSE. 21 Do you agree with that, Ms. Doll? I '22 MS. ECLL: Well, I should see it, I suppose, balora (- Ih 23 I agree. 24-CHAIRMAN MILLER: Yas, I suppose you should. l/ k 25 . MR. AXCLEAD: Page 2403r line 3 -- -~- w- - 0 9"' -w- --m= a 1 ~ -~ o,. p%v v v-
m-- <_,_._.a 2632 ' i ~ i dC~. 9 1~ CHAIRMAM MILLEn: 'That's again Mr. Rose? '2 MR. A:GLRAD: ' Yec. And page 2404, lins 3.. ij: ) .!-Finally, then, 2405, line 3,'Mr. Rosa is properly, identified. 3 l 4 I ,h CHAIRMAILMILLER: Where is the. correct.one?. 5 MR. A:GLEAD:. 2405,.~1ine 3. At that poir' 9 6-l{ Chairman Miller ' asked - well, at 2404 he said .m d .n - t s 7' the.right to re-argue the motion. .yj-
- gi; l
O Chairman Miller asked: "Have you handed up tho fd; x- .W.. ~ 1 . 2,. - 4. yKQ 4> :;;a. a,1 s ~ . copy of'.-...itten motion.F 4 IFiB the.wr... 19 , ' t 9 w. es .10. "MR. ROSE: I'll do'it right nc1. 14-11 " CHAIRMAN MILLER: You have copies of theca for all: 12 the parties?" 13 And' ha aaid, Lyes, and he gave : us a -copy, but ~ %) 14 Perhaps.he didn't gitela copy to'anycna else. 15 I didn't'mean to dwell en this t0c nuch, $nt -- 16 CHAIRMAN MIM 'R: Uc11, we'd'rather correct the 17 l record as vc go along. 4 MR. AXELnAD: Mr. Rcse is a partner cf Xs. Napom, 15 [ . 10 who, as the Board may recall, ~ has a limited appearanco 20'I stater.ent. She handed in a document which was, in ' ecsence, l 4
- a legal document.
01 l .i l 3 1 + $2 4 CHAIR!!AM MILLER: We rest.ll that. t I it . ll h -v 'j 20] ' MR. - A:GLItAD:- AnG ve rs.sponded-to ths.: Our
- i 24 9. - pr:pcsed findings, l.
~ e 3 .J CHIGEMAM MILLER: Ic.d-co did the Stdff. UG ' r's i' ' 25.I l h i , i:. 3 --1-- / y.= -"'] y- ,, -. -, ~ -.m.... , ~., w ._.-,:__-,..w
2633 I.I vel 10 1 familiar with it. ~ We've been working. Me met in Wachington 2 ~ for over a weak,.the week befors last. 570've been through : .g. 3 this. g 4 MR.'A CLRAD: At page 67.cf our proposed findings-- I' 5 I don't know exactly where the Staff did, but 1cohing -- .t t ' ' M " CHAIRN MILLER:- Staff.footnotad it, I believe. W, 6 i 7 ~ MRs AELRAD About the only thing I would add', ' yip - ?/^h. g based upon my review of Mr. Rose's version, whether er not fj t-t s IM .u Mayr e - hem; m::c q.vw[y :re,arg. + 4 ooses tb ue it, is that he"did make several errors,s p@j f A i ygsyp q. j -. M- ,l 3, ~ M with respect lto his interpretations of the NRC regulations, %? 10 -m 3; and he treated this particular procccding as involving the M 12 issuance of a license to operate a plant at less than design-7 + 1 -13 capacity, within the meaning o'f Section 31.5 -- ~ ~ ' - ; y) i. 14 CHA*RMAN MILLER: tiell, the Eoard would like to 4 15' cake a correction on page 2403, then, at lins 11, where ths 16 Chairman apparently statedt l 17 "We request, particularly since there have not d~n J-
- g been preposed findings of 2act filcd by any of the ig'
.Intervenors, or by your acocciato, or partner, 20 The reccrd should be corrected in that "by y/ cur associata, 21 or partner," should be changed to "by Mr. Kafoury." i 22 I was under the impression at tho tima that l natement was made that Mr,7. ce vn: 3 7,rt or ;?!!. Raf:'.r1, i i l C.,. 23. i 1-y l1 so we will correct that statm.ent en t'.c record. l g .c. / W Now, what about the question c2 whether er not .J l .-,.g. f ? J ,..,.,.. ~ "
2634 wel 11 I Mr. Rose informed the Board that he had decided, after j J reviewing, as we had asked him to, the proposed dindings of 2 I' 3 the Staff, and that after considering that he withdrew his 4 motion? l 5' s My memory is that that's what he said, but I l .do# t'aea it here in.any'of the transcript. 4 j 6' .n 7 MS. BELL: I believe that he was going.to wait Q;4G
- .4. 8.
8' until he had. reviewed the Staf:s proposed findings of fact. " %v Tsm I ' Ug- "'I.h h.$ h ig 6Eeva$ g t?NLchance to do thdt. " ' "M* V N v w
- , $;b W
n e W g y' % % i l X ? f ; g. ~ Could I' confer a moment? Y'/ 10' .. :) 11 CHAIPJGli MILIER: My memory is that he did tell-12 . us that - I think it was after a recess -- unless I'm 13' thinking of some'other motion he made - he told us he was ^ ] i t 14 withdrawing that motion. i 1 15 'M 'Has anyone had n' chance to try to find that? 16 MR.' GRAY: Mr. Chairman, were you referring to n'... 17 a luncheon iecess? .ng I don t know. It just seems to 8 18 CHAIRMM7 MILLER: 19 me it was after a recess.. I'm not very pracise at the &c w = i l I thought he had had some cpportunity, which 20 moment on that. 1 21 seems t3 ce was at a recess, to review it. And then after 1 22 he had reviewed it, he thsa, I thought, nede a statement t: l<,. 23 the Scard that he had decided to withdraw the motion. m l 24 MR. A%ELRAD: Parhaps the Ecard.is thinking M 25' Mr. Roso11a's decicien to withdraw c line of' questiening .s l 4 a a l. a' W h w a r:,;. , +, e. n.., m ...y. c n,. 4 % 2+ w+ y:Le y G.:MMar.u.v,r;WRT . - ~,
2635 -ws1.12 1 after the luncheon recess. 2 ~ CHAIRMAN MILLER: That's possible, too. ] 1 3 As I say, I'm neithc infallible, under oath, and Q 4i I don't always - 5 MR. ROSOLIE:
- Well, the names are awfully close. -,
-[
- g. +
I .e t 6' Vm.yX"CHAIRMANMILLER: All right, I don't want to takeC 'o 7 up any more time with this. p. ', t 8 <MR. AXELRAD: Well, my comments are going to be 50.4 .,....t;.; N '*L % s ~
+ 2636' wel 13 1 possibilit.y that when an operating license is first issued, 2 it might not be issued for full power or full design capacity, 3' .but for something less than that. So that's tied to a 3 < g 4 licensing proceeding. And this is not the situation here. 5 As both the Staff has indicated previously, and (i[g m..: y, :. 6- ' we have prev, iously indicated, 51.5 (b) 4 is 'the portion of 'T' I -t 7 the regulation that would cover this type of action taken Nt ( . '.d ;g ..x S here.- And, of course, to the extent that Mr. Rose's motion m:w+. '. 4;. g .. p.=:; p %.,... 3 +^. Mrv;, ~. .7 ~ -a %.M s'.<tries to indicate that" thera are significant environmenta13,.- J.& : 4 . 3,..: , m. .,. V:; y1
- y.,,.
a. .-a. l 10 impacts associated with this particular licensing action', i .'4 ch9 ~ t c-q 1i the record is uncontroverted that this proceeding does not, iy; i 3 12 and t}ia. Staff, in fact, testified to that effect, introduced .e i, ~ m. 13' as an exhibit MRC Staff Exhibit 6, its views on.that subject. V v. 4 l 14 And a witness for the Staff testifiad and presented this a: l w. 15 exhibit and was not' cross-examined. tg So there is nothing in the record to t.ne contrary. jf CHAIRMAN MILLER': Pardon me just a minute. '1 w is Are you through now with your response to Pz. 4 1si!. Ross's motion or non-motion, as the case may be? 1 20.' MR. AXELRAD: Yes, I am. i 1 1 I 2 t. CF. AIRMAN MILLER: One thing.I am sure cf is that
- 22. ;
I do not have it, and I've net seen a copy. /}. I would like to have at least a ecpy in casa the 23 .y[. natter does come up in the future. 26 al . MS. EELL: I'll provide a ccpy fc( fou. y ", M r.#aan sMinCDM mamp,. i emy - eeVM WM'* AM
F 2637- .;wel-14'l CHAIRMAN MILIER: Very well, you may proceed.- . 2 MR.-.AXELEAD: With re9pect to the. bulk of the f Q. 1 3 matters that have been raised this morning by the Intervenors, 1 h 4' we have in our proposed findings of November 20,'in Section. p t 5 Roman Numeral VI, which begins on page 61, addressed the .ph dh ' n- ; m.iq. 6' position of --.we had a section there which dealt with the l'
- a4
'7 position of Intervenors'as reflecced in the opening statements, Tf. < .c >q 8~. and as we were able to deduce from the matters they sought yr.fh +% Q$$ MWft-9?lqi l V n&%w&,N . ;Qc e a . o.1;lo$..%,y.gY . ' [; _.. .I ti raise'~duri,ng t.he jrocedding.] '. -m 3- ~@f to 'We discussed those at some length in the course 5.i F 11' of that entire section VI, and since many of.the points that f yJ } q. 12-were made this. morning are simply repetition of the points ..[ *
- .v.-;
1 13 that were made at that-time, we don't feel any need to MY >y. j' burdenthisBoarpwitharepetition,ofthat. 14 15" We did' deal with their allegation 9 concerning the 1s credibility of Bechtel. witnesses, and we pointed out hcw ~1 the' testimony was wholly credible and unbiased. l 1 18 We dealt with.the type of review performed by 19 the Staff, and we dealt with their request thet a safety 20 audit be. conducted which, again, is a shorthand form of the 21~ type of argument they made today to have a number of matters l . 22-explcred which are not at all within the scope of this .h-23 preceeding. I j . 24 As:a result, I do not feel it is necessary to 7 f ~ a} ' ..s. 25 repeat those. d ? g 4 e m. - m x .2
2638 i vel 15 i .One specific point made by Mr. 2ccelie,',:hich we } 2 had not addressed under that section, was his allagation, in 3. essence, that the SRSS nethed was not appropriate. We have .Q 4 ' pointed out-in our findings, at pages 20 to.21, we pointed ~:o 5 the uncontroverted testimony -- let ne just turn to that 6 pags 20 and 27 cf our proposed findinge -- 7[ We pointed to the uncontroverted testimony of F 0 8 witnesses for the Licensee, for the Staff, our independent i ~ .m 9 experts, and the experts for-hhe State of Oregon, as to the ll ' l'O acceptability ~of the SnSS method,.its reliance on the original- ). I1 criteria, its acceptability under current standards, and it 12 has proven to provide more realistic values, and that is the' i:, 13 basis for its use. m Q 1,{ As* o the allegations by'both Mr. hosolie and, I 15' believe, Ms. Bell, that the NRC Staff has not' locked at the tG RDC's and has not reviewed the adequacy, and things of tha: ( 17 kind, we join in the statsmants'that were mada by Counsel for _e 1 l 18 the NRC Staff. 19 We. would additionally point to transcript 2558 ' to i 2$0 2560 of yesterday, where questions were asked by us ~ of the. 21 witness for the NRC Staff cs to the entensive review perforr.ed j2 by the Staff. m /l-j3 Similarly, there are other pertions in our proposed v i -t i 24 findings of November 20, as I mentioned, under Soction V, .s 3 _.. c, L / ag which does discuss the entonsive review performed by tha i, ',n,,,,.,. -,,' M., n.w.a-
- '**F 1
eww.e-*+--*'***e * * - * * * * * * ", ' * " ' - + - - -. - ~ - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - m -,~ --~
. - u. f +.-. _. _, a-
- _,.-.m t-i
- 2639=
s t - wel 16j l-l - NRC Staff. ,s - 3 ,.g -2 In Ms. Bell's statement she.soucht to bring in (L . yr sema extraneous matters concerning Westinghouse equipment, j-p [-C 4[ and other such matters.- I. Again, we join in the remarks of the Counsel for- '5 fl. 'S [ the NRC Sta$f responding to those. matters, and indicating . { t t o 7 why they are not applicable to this proceeding. t 3 Similarly, with respect to the NRC Staff Counsel's .l ~ ) 9' remarks as to the seismic siting, which has cons up at. l c I ,i 10 various times'in this proceeding.' ti Ms. Bell alleged that the Intervences have been' a 12 prejudiced by the way this particular proceeding has.been- ,1 is . handled by the' Board.in terms of its timing. M l. . [. 14 I would Jpoint out that'the Intervenors' case j
- S has.not been prejudiced in any way.
This proceeding began-j ' 1G back in June. It has-lasted many, many months. The l
- 7 Intervencrs have had access to all the informntion that thay s
L ' i is would need at the discovery roem established by the Company l 3 back on July 26. j. l 20 The matter of bifurcation of this proceeding came [ l l 2r ! up at a'very early stage, and at transcript 6504 and 07, whera, ~ i the Intervenors were represented by, I believo, Mr. l s h 33 Uillingham, Mr. McCcy, it was generally reflected that tha ~ i l:
- 4 i proceeding by bifurcation was appropriate.
They have had i l -) opportunity to present testimony, many months to prepara such { %f ' .c { nh- . s. a
- s w.
w w ,,s.. we==e.*** -,gma d s*
- a** egen w - - -="r-m* * * * -
-'m '*~*d**'** '+***'**'*""M* '89"**d" --wu-v-ft.Trt'--Wr+ tam um
- w wm e uwr*weydr-w 4e -r w 1B
- r f
7gea. -r v ~ y e h-g- +'g4-4 qv-- ,.9-=gry g p go. g g-wwi,my,y--. w.4 --w y,-c.,,~.grg.- ss('e yy. y up, w g-gg.,g,+go-q'.-g,g-,-+9-
m I, 2640 - 1 wel_17 a 18 testimony, and did not choose.to do so. i 2 They have had ample opportunity to proptre for 1 G 5 cross-enamination and uero given wide 1:.titude by the Deard h 4' to cross-examine all the *.4itnesses presented by the parties. 5 They were given-ample opportunity to submit ,{ a. '6 proposed-findings since the close of the mass bulk of this 7 hearing'on. November 3, and as late as yesterday the Board 8-chose to provide, in' essence, almost un additional week for 'S the filing..of additional. proposed findings and conclusions al s g .t ,.~ "h - f0 of-law. r li 1t is very 63?fi. cult for anyone to justify an ]j N ~ ?. allegation that this proceeding-has been rushed. -13 Ifith respect to the reccrks of Ms. Bell as to the t .i ?, probabi.lity of a seismic event being 'one of the bases for' 'f )i t 5 operation being allowed, our recollection gibes with that of 4 . I the Chaiman..The only testimeny that uns provided with tI respect to the prebability of earthquake events was in y
- r
- .G response to Board questions.
The Board was interested in Y' G some aspects of that. OUr witnesses answered some questions, ic. as did the NRC Staff witnesses. But specifically, at paga l .d 2230 of the transcript, Mr. Ecrring, witness for the NRC 1 6 I 2 Staff, was asked whether his evaluation was f.epenfent upon \\. ,) the probabilities, and he answered thc.t.it was not. l 23 v We referred to the subj2c.:. also in Econnete 10, p e i ,3 g page.61 of our preposed findings, that the matter of 1 r f ar 'I 9. e =BamW NrWe **, ese.Ds** r$ *Mwep h*Wem - 4d 4*--e** gem mer,y
- se w aWme MWr9tM,-
r e r*, - e
- m
,e
= s e u.,_. _ _ a:p . % a.m _. 1
- f 2641;
); wel18[I p r 3 1 a '1; probability is not. relied.on, sicher by ; the NRC-Staff or. by 3 i s \\. r. 7 2" the Board, in. reach'.ng'its decisions. L { Q. P 8 Ms. Bell stated a concern that. witnesses did'not [ -appear *who were qualified in' connection'withfsafety-related f i. e, a .:I would point'out:again, in the transcript'of-l k 5-equipment. g.
- d. yesterday's, hearing at pages~~ 2434-38, the two witnesses for i)t i
G,3 ^ the Licenda wers questioned with refspect to their qualifica..{ l .i- - Jc j y.4 r I. j .O,)(;'tions,'and clearly'showed their' ability and. background-to- .jg . : ;r r e w ; ~ n. .c , s gi testi y.withirespect to such matters, and'they fully and!
- 5[. - -
l ~ .3 ygg I jac completely answered lall questions they were asked 1with 1 jg , - n
- .g;;
respect to'that subject, j ',f f 3 ';r 1 We have locided at the NRC Staff's additional-i 1..
- ef, j t. proposed findings that were handed up just now..Again, I-
^l Q + ,g i ; say we.-- I cannot. s[y we've reviewed: the proposed findings, ~ j I' .t + of courso.but as mentioned in the letter of the Staff,.the 'j
- 3, ' '
r n U ll ,3 h Staff has proposed that another condition be included in y;j the order. That condition, which appears at the botten.of y 3, page 8 and running through the top of page 9, requires that F '.i @ ',.operatica - asst.ning that 'the license amendment were issued-- j 29,jj that operation w uld commence only after ecmpletion of the V p. ..I additions and modifications of pipe supports, pipe restraints,
- i.,
w.- p g
- .z [ that have been referred to before,
.1 n) I am willing to state on behalf of the Licensde ] e ..b. n h .;h .,,/ j j that'we would have no objection to so.ch a condition being A h: g.]f'includedinthelicenseamendment. [ g, .c._ , [.h l l a n~ , 'G p l,l -
- a, R m. x -
. a. a ~,. ,_. I,
- y.. -
,,. - _ ~
y.- f ~.. ~, -. ,,.y. ,p 3 1-. g: L) - 2512 wel'. - 19 ' .I i. * 'l May'I'have'a ninute:toLconfar? i i .g ty = CHAIPJfA:7 HILLER:- Yas. 4 2d', "(Pause. ) : .':t Q ifnile you're doing that, Ms. Jell, could you let ~ p 1 5 cencarned abcut having-2i me.have a copy of that'nction? - d, 5 }: an unresolved notion flapping around in the.breece..- j i ?. 7i MS. BELL: Do'you!wan,t it right this minuta? i , ; ;., z.;. j. ;.-, '. 2-Well, in the ne:ct ten' mh.nutes, 3 CIIAIRMAN MILLER: 4, .s .r
- c. x.
9 maybe?: Oh,' are you going' to have.to get it somewhere?
- j. Qr I
Iy %+ ../ 10 MS.' BELL: Yes, it's in the car.. - < e)3 3 ',7 ' .i. - C11 AIRMAN MILLER: I see. All right.. Does anyone [ 1 .,j
- 2 ',,
else have a. copy?- if' w. .fy' pl. C. .39 - MR. AXELRAD: <Yes. . - f.. 1- ,j' .4 ii _ ~CI!AIPJIAM MILLER: Lot r>e - saa that, t;ould your N i -
- 5 ql :
( please? i, a
- ,i (Dccument handed,to the 3 card.)
{ ,1. 4 '7 (. s;. - .s t h l g i1 u a a. j 1 1 ..: j ..t. i. t is
- h
): 1., 1 a f .s 1 !4 -e .i j y .1 + .. g g 3 'l J. -
- ?)
~ f,1 L.,1f E-
- .);.
4 's .sv b4 4 4 4 ';w,.. y.. - -, - 4 ' ?, d. ...... w u.. e , e ;.,+. +,,..,:*%, -.,+. .,,...,2 4, =
l o. 2643 ' 3D.DELON/, 1 CEAIP. MAN MILLER: Then ~ we'll t.Ge 'a tan minuts R )
- mpbi 2-recass
.cw. Tha 3 cad ~*c to ha-a a chance to reviaw this, Q, 3 and you said you vantad to revicw sece papers. Ih '4 If thera's anything else that anyone wishes to 5 br.b:tg up you will have an opportunity. 6 We are in recess. 7 MR. SOCOLOFSKY: Mr. Chairman, I have a point 5 y that I'would like to make right now. 7h-6 ~I l D' CHAIRMAN MTLtP.R: 'tes. y,; i 10 MR. SOCOLOFSKI: First of all, with respect M J 11 to Mr. Gray's statement about the spent fuel case, I was not 12 part of the spent fuel caso, so I have no reason to beliove 13 that what he says is not correct, but I was not a pa.'.ty, so .j ,V W I don't really know. G And I8ve been asked by the Energy Department to 16 clarify one statement I made this' morning and yesterday too. l We raised a question earliar in M a hearing 17, l 1 1 ja ' about the probability that a finito elenant analysia applied 1 1 1 to other structures in this fac.11ty would prcduce substan-19 l 20 tial aneralias in the flocr responses. In other vordc, at "1 I the time we wanted s ma assurance that such ancnalies vara 1 I I l 22 peculiar to thic threFcuilding cor.ph: that *..'a ' r e de2 ling i .i I ') - 13, vi2 hers. And in its r..:3.n:. ::cc:imeny, e.2 1.: on :Teve,1a.: l I l-i g,1, ', 3rd, ar.d caterial submi%ed titcr dat, E :ch",el nad:: repre-m, 3$ntations and r6prGSM IOd kn si 3Ct that M S ?.n00*.1ba3 Dat 1 .S c.;, e 4 5 il ' A i. -wm.~- w-~~-u.- + ~ m_
'2644 mpb2'1. Wa found hero were pei::uliar-to this thrac-building complex. ,m '2 That is, they. wara substantially attributable to this type 3 of complex. g . Q. I _ And it's that reprasantation that I was max.ing-4 ~ 5" reference to when I said that the report of Dr. Larsen, dated December 3rb,thatwehavereceivedindicatedthathewas I 6 7 ratisfied,after -looking at studies that Bechtel had en the a .u:a3 S subject, and after doing his own work, that he was satisfied 3 04 ..W/:,- J.ff.fh: 9 that those' representations were correct, and that he was i 'g v.. g5. :_ to willing to accept it. 92 ya: 11 And I.just want to make clear from what I had 12 said this momaing and yesterday that you could draw the sama j ;-:" 1.. 13 conclusions if you gathared together all.the material that }V 12 I was making referecca to. But the Energy Dagartment wcnted l-15-it at'one spot in the transcript so they could say This is 16 what we meant to say. Thad yo'u. 17 C3 AIR!!AN MILLER: Vary well. Than't you. The -i 18 truscript will rafisct that additional information.
- g Ten minutes.
gg-21 l % cess.) CH.U'tMAN ICLLU?.: The Scard now has the .+ a r .s yrittan copy of the noti 0n made hy ilr. hae. It may well -) f .n., j be that ha intended to raise i: this nornin g. Since he m, 6 isn't hsra due to 111nssa, va will censider that the motion /- 33 1 a', l
- ehe< -
esp.ggyre.4eg .. ee,sese 'g** = -*****esme + en.*--gree m e.p ap e **--= yp.gey ges-a vie -- = _.w. go 4
- We v-
%*w,-g .v*-p c.i pqg.--
4 -4.-. 4 2645 1^
- cpb2 - 1 has been filed.
2 The motion saks ths Board to requira the [.] 1 3 J Applicant'to provide an onvironnental impact statsrant detail- { f hl 4 ing the environmental impact of the proposed modifications, ard I 5 .the like. 6 The motion w'11 be denied. He will say that, 7 first, we do not agree that this is an appli^ cation. It's .jg' 4 B' 'an interin operation issue involving the operation at power y., l
- e. d4
'o e4 9-less than daign capacity.. 7, g 10 And the othar matters that were rsferred to, T.. a 11 we're familiar with r.ost of the cases that nra cited in the 12 Inotion. They do deal with 3ational Environmental Policy Act, 13 or NEPA, considerations. However, the se casas are bened upon 1 V 4 14 tha factual situations which partai.D - tna bulk cf them i 15 pertain either in the field of nuclear 2acility liccasing 16 to construction permit or operating license proceedings. In ono instance, the SIPI cacc, '.;hich is citcd, 37. ; 6 13 i pertains to the ongoing prcgran, that progra.n being the i 19 liquid metal fast breeder reactor. And we concider that ths t i go i case which has been cited hero, the Vorflo case, as ecl1 as ~ l e the Farne und Prairie Island cases, which may be sunmerized 21 f l 21, in the quotati0n to the fc1M ri g eff ctt i 9 i That in an amend.wn h precnii y, '.m.ich this :.::, j ") 3 y, 'l t licensing heard nay net: ./. "...ambark broadly upon a frech assecsment j a.. s i h l _m .. p, -a. ;. 7 ;.w-==. 4 = - +=- = + *
- 2646 mpb4 1 of the environmental issues which he.ve airsady 2
bean thoroughly considered.ud which wera-e,J 3 decided in tLe initial decision. Ra here the 4 board's role in the environmental sphere will ' z) 5 be limited to assuring itself that the ultimate 4 6 NEPA conclusions rea::hed in the initial decisions-., 7 are not affected by such new davelop::sents." 14 'if 0, ::g,,.. 8 From our review of.the record in this case' with I .y ' 3; s .y.-~ u%f nY$ .g regard to interim operation -- the only= issue considered by.l b3y .u ..a.,. t.. -t 10' us so far -- we have found no evidence which shcws or could ', 'dj '
- A ;
g t-reasonably be infarred to imply that the issue.cf interim ij,l. 12 operation itself would be any different or pose any other 1 kinds of environmental impacts than those which were con- . i p~ i. sidered by the previous licensing boards an the constructica 14 permit and operating license stages of this proceeding; that 15 the SSE and the potantini environmental Effects ara'no diffar-16 bnt, the evidence in this case showing that the SSE was anc is Is C. at the same level of applicability. 18 We will address the mattar in our partial init-gg ial decision - if Mr. Rose or anyone else sechs to raise J 20 the mattar further by proposed cenclusions of law by Tuesday 21 it will be considered hr the 3ocrd. , 2 O But since this is a pending notion in its J <.s present phasa of tha svidcntiary haaring,.tha notics will ce 24 ,m J danied. g ...---..--~...Q .u + = w y' .-m.-. ,,...wn. ..,.g.
4 9 p,sw - M -: = g re ,3 T '**A*t "*'M a t 7 .2647' i mpb 5 'l I will return the '.culy copy to, I thi'nk. it uas i ..m. 9 ..- f . Mr. Ic:airad. ..1 4 s9' 2A IJ.ZLRAD: Thank you. i i 4 CHAIRMP20 MILLER: Aad, Ms. Sell, when you hava. p o -o j - the opportunity, if you could supply a copy of it for t.ha-s 6 . record, we would appreciata'it. t. - - ~. r 7 Do you have any further inforr.ation regarding' N 2 I v.,4 .a + 8 the Howard limited appearance statoment? 7 I.J.b i F ,-y. b.g _ q - - gn c .m. -f([Lln.(MS. BELL: Jp 'No; simply'that as coon as it can.' 'F .X { ? wj, tw y .j . 10 get down here, it will. According to the weather raport, the (l47. ; 11 fog is going to. clear. So hopefully by scrly cftarnoon..... ,?f - 12 CEAI N.N MILLER:. All right. 3 -N [.;': ' 13 What arrangements ara being muis to have it . j. I 14
- dalivored to ycu, or to whosvar the racipient is?
j. .j-r 15 MS. BELL: Well, somebcdy is going to pick it-13 up at the Federal-Express office and bring it straight to 17 this rocm, and at that peint ':a'll cp n chs hen c.d 22:0 it r v 18 out. I CEAI N Jf MILLIR: Ns'rs pin-ing to ::co:s until 19 20 about t:fo o' clock. iThat we're vendari. .1 if ac=:en2 -- ca.n 21 scesone assist to get copias to th: 2o;. if it turne cp in i t: 22[ that interi=, Oc that Ne watid ha72 2n 0 7-crtr.:itu ho - " " l r) s. t i.t? ..t s t 2 3 ;- MS.-23LL:- '7c11, since.: c.:..L :;s int cae ' ;.tc e. i. .s . 33 ' , fill ha tha recipient, I'll be glad is do it, t 6 L 4 '4 E 8".-- N. ~ ,, -, '-,m.'.,1. ,,'....-,_.m___,.-.....m_...,~ ... ~. _ _ -,.. e e usemymy 6****Wa* ..~y,..- ,..m. ..m
~. t. -2G48 f a a cpb6,i ~CHAI2 Mali MILLER: Will you do it?- He will ask i - '2I .._) someone to pick it t? if'you'ra not able 'o. c 2L ".5. SELL: 'les, I'll be c.bla to. s! t* h 4 CHAIE!@.2! MILLER: viell, all right. 5 .:.f it could be dropped by -- that is,' assuming 6 it comes in sometime prior to two o' clock -- we will be at 7 the Manor' Executiva In', rooms 328,.329, or'330, which ara ~ . -y n 1 4 '.-v. S[ the'three rooms occupied by the me=bers of tha Board. And: . A. l ,.pq .s: .~t. a .if.you need any assistance. I'.c sure the.t the Licenses or. W: '9 ,-l
- < c.,..
i .-r~ 10 Staff people would help with the distribution, 'and it could j '," l + ^ 11 be cooperatively arre.sged for-all of us. j 1 12 I believe thare's nothing further, then, to i u come before us.at this time,"is there?
- .1 (No response.)
5 Well, if noti, we will recess until t.co e elock. l r 4 16 Ms. Dell, if you should receive r_ny further 17 l information, if you would, plet.se let the Eo?.rd cad tha y l'
- c parties know.
l 1 19 MS. DELL:, I will. } ~ 33 CHAIP. MAN MILLER: Thank ycu. s-We'll stand in rectsc. 1, +- .u nj 07hr.rsupen, s.t II:45 1..:, 4" h ring in-tha l i ]-
- gyfe
.,u.2mi -,3cter wr.s raceccad, to rs an nns.- t r. I 2:30 o.m., this sa c. day ) i .e + t .'s' f .n..e f, t ) s u is j. .i 1 i#< any m. -., h ew= wswewee. I 1 )
.I
- q 9.2 %es s
). ..'".e-,-an, .ng .s', a r l'. .;, ;.. -. c c v a.,...,.., .n e c .~x . u.. a <. A.';. 1 p 'g-(2:00 "2.'n.) ..p ,n.*a b.4 '4. 7..*.....k. ,.h..4 v.s c..n, O.,.; 3,. n 5t t u *3 .a+;m....m. s.. 7 - .s 6 .j. w-f .J1 ease. 'l g, What is tha s4.atus rarcrt? e- ,t e o Ir MS. 3 ELL: Welli. the stat.'.s is idut it has been -u y
- a. '; pickad up at icast half r: hour vic w.6 takes an hour to get in
. e y 42' down here, so it should be here within a few minutes I would P. j say -- definitely before 2:30'-- I'mean, by 2:30. J'D 9 l ,s -i CHAIRMM; MITLERt-It has been picked up? h 10 I MS. BELL: Tec. il d I l! CHAIR'G2I MILT 2R: Uhaca? 12 ] MS. m ~: In Portland.- l a., d N CHAIR!GN HILLER: Oh,'1a are in Pert 1:nd nen? 14 a i 1:f MS. HELL: Well, bet *ceen Dcrtland and Salem, in_a h '.,l 10 o i: c: r. e j.r d q CHAIM:NI MILLED.: I sao
- I b.7
). I o 1 c.m. A.. .e s.v. a -- .,. a,o ;,t..- ..o,,. a.. -. ~, ~ n _ n. - s 15 i 4 ..-_...a. , u ; <..- 3 i.R.. ora... n,. ,,,,,4,..., ,.,. ~e _,... n c..
- s.....n -
u v.. p~ II q 4.. L., & u-, o,,.:,, y s.n. t 3se a.,.:. 4 -..,.. _ J c.. _. s., e. a. a .s. m .y C, i,, s. [i regard to Dr. McCo11ca's questi6n this norhin. .O 7 cr. E ;n 25 of i
- )
l ...a.=.,.. e. .,.,.-.c, =4 .u. ,n..-...... n .e -- a ... ~....... .' i - M..s
- s. 2.,
.%..... /...s. (......~ .L.. : ~. l..-.....m.e. -.w-.- ^ .a .;4 .n .e ..~.:.1. 2.;. r...w .e.s..e......p- ~ .m .r.. .e -.. :. 1 .-.s.-*..*s. w.- ~ % g -.s y.t 4 g% .?. 4 *q.4..,..*... m...m.a .%.. 4.c.. f J'.~.'..m,...2 4.3 -4 6.4..c .3.,s. %...'. - h. l a.* ., p 1 l 0.4 9 l 3
- (
\\ i I F l
- l I
.' i e 7
2650 1 j l' 2 The sentence 1.' would be in -the reighth line down from the top. 2 begins, "Simila*!1y the minimum separation between. " - and w) - t 3 then it goes on.. 4 Actually, what was intended nere was to deal with Q 5 the separation of the control building and containment separation with regard to its effects en cables that run 2 -- 6 between the building, the concern being that the cables would.
- -3 7
- - ' m
- :-
be stretched or broken. !.!,ry; 8 9 , "lE"YS,o, I would modify that sentence to say' '"Similarly, [1m .,e .s
- 7g5 prm
- y;.n,
- ,_.;
..y a maximum additional ~ separatien, relative to ' the nominal ~ separa-1M 10 ^:yb tion between the control building and the containmerit..." -- a<s 11 and the rest of tne sentance remains the. sam.. , e,' 12 ,DR. 14C COLL 0ii:- Okay. t o, N CHAIRMAN MILLER: Very good. 14 15
- * ' ' "" Y "# I"#E 9'
amended? t g MR. GRAY: Yes. 17 4 GAIRMAN' M2I1ER: o will' bo closing. the avidentiarf record shortly. We might start giving cccc consideration to
- 9"
- I* **
- I 20 scard en the Phase one or interi.T. operatica matter.
tee record indicates that the Licensees e:Gect to 22 the proposed modificatica and a. detailed description th rs- ,d 23 of in January of 1979. There are tuo natters thaa Will thorsby be triggered. The first will be the filing of cententions by 2s A ....-.,,,.-...,-...._,....-,..,~,...~.-...~,~.-.m..r.... ,....-,,.,,_.w..
-m 4
- 2651'
.p~ 3-IEtervenors in accordance with our regulatioris,,aslamanded. 1 2 "And' tha second will be.the designation of ths - i 3
- period of-discovery upon the preposed modificaticas to the l
4 control building. -h y 5 Do: counsel'have any suggestions as to those'two V 'k ~ 6 . matters? By. " counsel" Ij::ean counsel, and parties. a; 1 7 (No responce.)' - ' :j Y
- w CHAIRMAN MILLER: : Well,(ifnot, then 60 ~ days. from '
jd 8 +, w, ..x.;m e t.:. 5 y,.,. % j;y ,0 g. the..date :that: the proposed,modificationa of~ the control build-x p@"sj .cp7 % P.
- j.. &
- s h
ing and the detailsd description thereof are filed will be tha; M'* y ' 10 s s close-of~the period ~of' discovery. ~, g g In other words, discovery will comrtance' on' the datia k, 12 x g -that they are' filed, will continue fo'r a p'6riod-of 50 days ,i- 'd thereafter. g y days after de dewed desdpdon of ^ 15 m a ns, proposed modifications, has been filed, ' the 16 Interveners will be required to file'their cententions in' g accordance with Section -- is that 2.714, Mr. Gray? t g MR. GPJLY: 7es, it is. 19 l - CHAIRMAN ICLLER: ' Section 2.714 of 10 Code of F2dera: l l 20 l. That is the procedure section of 'p'ert. 2. That E l' Regulations. has been er: ended. I don' t think it chancas subst!.ntively the g requirsnant to state one er :ve:s valid contentions Wich cre ~ <d 23 - v ich sufficient 0pecificity and dettil, are to be cm.15ble by ey / -tho'Scard. 25 L I I. . w eppe asam-=e - ++->!* E-l I,- ;, .-,,.--.....-w _.g,.. ._..,_,._._/... .._.,s,.
m 2652 1 If you:hava any questions, I am sure the Staff will 31 4 .2' g, .be. glad. to advise ' you as to the change in terminology, if you 3 arc not familiar with'it, and the requirements. h '4 So, the contentien then will be required to 'be i 5 filed 30 days after the modifications, and the period o'f 6 - discovery will be 60 days. J 7 Any questions? 8 (No response.) '[; ni, p i + .2 . r-g ~ -F ; 3yc MR.: AXELRAD:. Mr.. Chairman, on another matter,we ,:' yj,f. t 'd pPW ~ ,a,: 4 to have been reviewing the tra5 script of yesterday, and we have Q..,,j ... m 11 a couple of ccrrections that we would like to make in view of 12 the current situation. 13 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Fine. i J 14 MR. AXELRAD: At'page 2445,'on lir}e 3, the first 15 sentence reads,."I don't there are. and differences." And to 16 correct that, after the word " den't", there should be added the word "think". 17 And, instead of the word "and", tnere should be 18 jg substituted the word "any", so that the cnswer would read, I' don't think there are any differences." 20 CHAIRM*Ji MILLER: All right. 21 MR.'AXELRAD: At page 2412, in line Si there appears 22 33,0 f.na werd -- the number "*1". At that point, the wiress for tre Licenses was giving the number of the U-bolt clamps that wculd 24, q have to be added to the. r=all piping, and he misread his nota. - 25; .,Aw..-. .w eme. ._,a.w r cp ..,r,--,.,,. .....p% w. s .m-..- -,.e..._,.-....,,,.,,
.:,.~---.. ..g.-.. 2653.. j 2, 5 ' 't i The correct number should be "43" instead of "41". 2 That refers to the:small clamps on~the.small pipes. 'O" CHAIRMAN MILLER: 'Very well. ~.{ H
- r.,.
.MR. AXELRAD:- And then two lines belcw that, line' i 10, there is, after the word " system", there appears.a. period 5 and the word "The" as the beginning of a now sentence...
- . '.. ~.
Q.y 6 a. That period'should be delsted, and.the' word "The" ,. 1,. i 1 should be deleted;. and, instaad, the word "t-o" should be M g
- Ft f,..m. -.,
.f substituted,#so that' lines 9 through 13 on that page.would t 9 l3.@
- ..n 7}
, ~
- pp jj.
m,#c;, n g . fg) ' reflect an entire sentence and not' two separate sentences. We have not finished reviewing the transcript "Q.- 11 altogether. If we have any additional corrections,.we will g be. submitting that:to the Board. 13 V CEAIRMAN MILLER:- All~right. We will consider those corrections have been made, and any additional cues may be g i I. brought to the Board'siattention. 16 l Any other matters that you woulb lip.s to discuss - at l \\ _t ' I this tine? IB ,C (No respons's.) 19 CHAIRMAN MILLER: All right. We will recess.till about 2:30. We will keep sn eye on Miss Bell. She will let tis know if anything happens. en/ W jl j (Recess.) enLt9 - M{ f 24 b ...') 25 1 a w - H-7 ~~~~-c- ..-,_.-._.._..~.-_.._ __.._.._._
.u.. , ~ -.. 2654 I I. 10tTEL i wal 1 ( 1 CI! AIRMAN MILLER: A',lright, the evidentiary hearing; t. 2 will' resume. .:/. 3 We have new been tendered a letter dated December 4 11, 1978 t.o the Board by Mr. Robert D. Pollard indicating r d the enclosure of the written limited appearance statement t which he previously asked. permission to make. 3 _' 72 ? 7 The limited appearance statement will be accepted A..1-4i M ~ r,, :.:,l? 5, by the Board.
- R'?
>~ < s g$ M c , *.. c.
- e.
.p,, .. s. eg r43fn.~I note that the text seems to cover about 28 pag'es',?'mf;g;y 9-
- s a g'y 7 -f,-
+- .4;.g;p 10 and there are a number of enclosures. ' s.o R ,,a
- g Miss Bell, would you like to read the text?
You 4 1
- 2 need not read the enclosures, but would you read the text and i
2, it will thereby be-in the transcript, as, requested by Mr. ' Pollard. And'I assume that's what you desire, also? i L .s t ,3 j MS. ELLL: Well, Mr. Pollard did provide 30 i 16 copies for the record, if that would take care of it. ,7 CHAIRMAN MILLER: That will take care of the m,. 4
- g transcript, but if you read it we'll all be hearing it at
- s the same time, and I think it will save time for all of us, 20 just as though he were here.
I n MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, it could simply be i 22 incorporated in the transcript and thereby eliminate the O need for reproduction of transcript eng.es. w v g CHAIF. MAN MILLER: tiell, I thir.k in this event we'll 3g pay for the transcript pages. He'd like to hear it, since t i p w g -'dr W g.+r 9 yW34* 't-+F F y--w..- -m,-- ---g.--+% -f >t-
- gr w
y ,vvv
~_. 4 F - 26.55' n wel'2 . h;. 1 o '. ) none of us.has had a chance to study it, as far as I kncv. it - ~ ~ l 2 1 l~ ?. IM'11 all'be reading',it at the same. time, andLit will be in y., as if the limited appearance. statement were presented.I L f a form l t p h a f orally by Mr. Pollard.- . p+ t y 5 You may hand a copy of it, if you wish, to the t. 7 (. 0 }d Reporter, who' won't Tave ' to follow you word for word. But I- {; [ ~ m 7I .think that it will bring.us 'all~together at the same point T'1' 1 h, as to the subject matter, and we will then be mor h S q [M;
- 7. s w m.
,,a n. 1 n-- 4;ly'able:to'addressfiti,e s. umn$ Rt. 9 -, y, a ., v y'- ,: ~ y-un ' 10 I take it you don't mind, Miss Bell?
- .... i g 7
[ n i M j / MS. BELL: Well,-if my voice gives out -- i 3-q g-17, 1h CIIAIRMAN MILLER: If you get tired, let us know } -j
- t L
m' and we'll provide.a substitute. Maybe'cne of your associates Q could assist. a .LIIIITED APPEARAW'.E STATEMENT OF RCECRT D. POLLanD, g [ is ;j f.MION OF CONCHENED SCIEUTISTS, A3 DELIVERCD { I ii i v gj ORALLY BY MS. BS*,L. ?,. t ~, e i c. h MS. DELL: I d=n't know hcw to read the firse .I e 1 n J g sentence, but -- n 20 lt. [ "My name is Robert D. Pollard. I am presently s. y 0 employed as a Nuclear Safety Engineer by the Union of i ft p J Concerned ~ Scientists (UCS). My business address is i, > -. y j ,g 1025 15th Street, N.W., Washingten, D. C. 200C5. i 's n, i UCS, a non-profit, public interect organi:stion, e.: is n coclition of ccientists, engineers and othsr professional.3 ...y p n
- l. i '
= ~ *e, m.mp +mee+aur g ow e ry. meseem.** ** ep -== 4enam *w - e ** -"'+-+-r '*aww % 4N g 9-F +-*'5 +M*Nw*****--*~ -,.~ -.*.n.- ..... w. 3,... ...m.... ..,_,,u ,,..e.y- ,+_,m.:.,...,w,g,.,. .,m._,r,,-.,,,,,c,y,- .,_rw,,--,.,,,,,-.y,-
~2656-wel 3 i i I 1 supported by contributions from over 50,000 members of the 2 public. .UCS' primary areas of interst are the health, safety, l g f environmental and national security issues posed by civilian g. a nuclear reactor development and nuclear weapons proliferation. s I UCS has published numerous technical reports on' 5 various aspects of nuclear technology and han been involved j w. 7 in a number of proceedings before the Mu. lear Regulatory tf.c;; 4 ,. ~ 0 1 Con: mission (NRC). .. 73 . :g g a ;pg.C ef ? ~ <.n4g6 y. ~ w.. J UCS is not opposed to nuclear _ power per se. Rather.d ig, 3-o .,c g4 4 -.x.4 10 UCS is in favor of resolving known safety hazards before o [m{- nuclear plants are licensed. I have concluded that this was t l a[ not the procedure used to license the $rojan nuclear Plant. m 23l The purpose of this limited appearance is as v stated in my letter of December 6, 1978 to the Board: 5 I
- c.
to identify specific technical subjects that 1 I. i.3 deserve additional inquiry by the Deard. My attention was drawn to this proceeding by s. t requests from one of the parties, Ms. Nina Sell, that I
- 3li gg agree to be an expert witness in this proceeding.
The p principal reason I declined those requests is that my
- ,1 observation of many prior proceedings has dictated the g
I g conclusion that my participati:n as an enpart witness would j /' '% . i em be unlikelv to change the outcome. Future ections bv the v = 3 card in this proceeding may alter this cenclusion. -] ~. Officials of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and u. 4
- = tewe day-moryewy-em = - m9a=Nem esm aeas +
--N
- emmi_,
==**mme..e===e-**es>gep ma.
. _ -. ~. ~.. .-u._-.....-.-_._. 2657 I i l wel 4 - other nuclear power advocates are fond of. describing a .n(j. Eh.,'licensingprocessthatisopento.thepublic,freeofeconomic ' 3 f and political' considerations, and. deilicated solely to j-y: 3 lh A f protecting the health and safety of the public. { t y i j 5 Unfortunately, such pronouncements are not F I - t l. 6.. statements of fact about'an existing decision-making ~ h,' .f O-4 7 process. At best, they are at tements of goails that are far -. '.1 e i .., e, k 3b from being' achieved. However, since I. remain hopeful that
- .i c![J
- c?ik
.h L a -.0,. 5Qc.. - Q; . 9-J.this situation can change for the better, I decided to make -1G .,u.., ,g p 10 this limiYed' appearance statement. 76,,. j a = 1 I appreciate the courtesy extended by Ms. Bell 12 in delivering this statement to-the hearing location. 3 ) However, in the interest of fairness, I requested that the I V g shipping carton not be opened until all parties-had the
- 5 cpportunity to receive their copies simultaneously, as would 5
ts be the case if.I were present.. L PMFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS f. '7 m t e .i
- g I am aware that in making a limited appearance l
i 7;, it is not necessary to present my professional qualif,1 cations. 23 nowever, since I am recommending further inquiry ~by this I Doard, I believe the statement of my qualifications would i I J .' 2 help the Board decide what weight should be accorded my i / % 'J g3 j statements and recommendations. My formal education in nuclenr technology began y 3 in May 1959 when I was selected to serve as an electronics { y J en p.ultst-M M W -,,, _, _.. -... _.. ~.. .. -.. _..-..,.. _, ~. -. -.,. -,.. --
-..s-.. 2658 wal 5 ' 1 technician'in.the nuclear power program.of the United States k 2 ~ Navy..'After completing the required training, I became an 3 instructor responsible for teaching naval personnel both the 4 . theoretical and practical aspects of operation, maintenance L 5' and repair o'f naval nuclear-power plants. l 6 .s. r ' Prom February 1964 to April 1965, I serve'd as the-i 7 senior reactor operator and supervised the reactor control N 1 8 ..,m,a division aboard the USS SARGO, a nuclear-powered submarine. ,, {. o..,G,;t. g.-. cM d.?. T '. M.N.. . - < ' ' !* -y .. I . 9 ' s W. yin 1965 I'was honorably discharged from the U.S.- l g e :; 4, 3.. q. u,ct. g 1 10 Navy and attended Syracuse University, where I received the ~' f,
- i%
11 degree of Bachelor of Science magna cum laude in Electrical 7 12 Engineering in June 1969. 13 In July 1969, I was hired by the U. S. Atomic 1 14 Energy Commission (AEC) and continued as a technical expert 15 with the 'AEC and 'its successor the NRC until February 1976. 4 f6 After joining the AEC, I' studied advanced electrical and 17 nuclear engineering at the Graduate Schoci of the University 13' of New Mexico in Albuquerque. I subsequently advanced to l l 19 the positions of Reactor Engineer (Instrumentation) and 20 Project Manager. 21 As a Reactor Engineer assigned to the Electrical, l 22' Instrumentation and Control Systems Eranch, I was primarily l ] . 23 responsible for analy::ing and evaluating the adequacy of the 24 i design of reactor protection systems, control systems and 25 ' emergency slectrical power systems in proposed nuclear i i q i 1 ,,gme.e.,ee=y..%s**="-M* ,,,,,.,p,.., ,w .-**-tw*'
2659 y -vel 5 1 facilities..It was in this capacity that I was assigned to L g review the' operating licensa application for the Trojan 0 s 35. Nuclear Plant. j ~ 4 The specific subject =atter which was assigned to 3 the Electrical, Instrumentation and Contrcl Systems Branch e i. 6' is that discussed in Sections 3.10 and 3.11 and Chapters 7 i 1 j j and 8 of the licensee's Final Safety Analysis Report and ^ ~3 i 8-the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report, copies of the ' job. .e c r '.- Q'iL .p. M G,; t i g, description %. for the position of Reactor Engineer (Instrumenta- ~T. l q_ yg.7 + a. j 10 tion).. and' comments by Dr. Joseph M. Hendria on my performance. W g l 11 j in that position are attached (Enclosures 1 and 2, 16 respectively.) jf'l In September 1974, I was promoted to the position i a y of Project. Manager and became responsible for pir.nning and l l 13 ccordinatincJ all aspects of the design and safaty reviews of l' 16 applications for licenses to construct and operate several !? I cc=cercial nuclear power plants.
- 3 '
- When I resigned my position with the Unc in l to February 1976, I was serving as Project Manager for the to roview of the following nuclear power plants which, like the g i i d t y1. Trojan Nuclear Plant, are Westinghouse-designed pressurized I ? -- ; water reactorc: w 'l 1 /% -) Indian point Unit 3 in New Y:rk; Cw anche Pad: 3 ~ 1 M %. :, Units 1 and 2 in Te :as; Catawba Units 1 and 2 in South g Carolina; and McGuire Units 1 and 2 in Ncrth Carolina. _e,.. I 4 It j u 1 c ,n,., +. -.,, ,,a.,,.a a-~- -. - - -..,, - -., ~,. ,-,.n..~ ~, - ,.-r,
2660
- q
- wel. 7 1
. Copies of-the " job description" for the position' j i 2 l of Project Manager and the last NRC appraisal: of my 3 performance in that position. are atteehed (Enclosures 3 and l ,h '4 4 respectively.) 5' I am a member of the Institute of Electrical and . Electronics Enginears (IEEE). I hava served as'the NRC l 6' i 7 representative on various IEEE committees'that developed some ,;[ n. 8 of.the IEEE: standards used-by the NRC to evaluate the safety . mf., z gCd~:9. " n., '. . +.. f, e iQ i-3.p, e s J I 1-9' of nuclear ~ power plants. 6 c;.'. g,, 1 24 m. w.e c..g g, M f 10 TECHNICAL SUBJECTS DESERVING ADDITIONAL-INQUIRY g [ 11 Time pracludes my discussing in detail all of the 4 12 specific.technica1' subjects that I believe deserve additional f' 13 inquiry by.the Board if~this limited appearance statement is d i,. .a ~: 14 to be delivered.by December lith..'Therefore, I have' chosen ~ p 15 just a few examples which support my conclusion that,,if 16 these matters are left unresolved, interin operation.of the 17 Trojan Nuclear Plant will posa an undue risk to the health 18 and safety cf the public. i 19 Seismic Qualification of Safety-nelated. Electrical Equipment. t 20 Based'on the Board's crder, ' Order Regarding 21 Conclusion of Evidentiary Hearing en Interim Cperation,' 22 _ dated Novsmber 6, 1978, it is clear that-the Ecard is of the ) ]) L 23' ' cpinion that there is'cnly one issue ::maining.. Sedore 24 turning to other issues deserving the Board's attention, I' ~> will address this one issue to the extent that 'it relatas to M 25-4 6 4 - - ~ - - -
2661 wel 3~ 1 the seismic qualification of safety-related electrical l _r,a 2 aquiposnt. .4 3 .The scismic qualification of safety-related Q 4 equipment is of vital importance to public health and 5 safety. If aquipment needed to protect the public cannot ~~ G' withstand the effects of an earthquake, then the probability ~ t of a catastrophic' accident'affecting the public is about p g equal to the probability of an earthquake occurring. , /.
- ~ - -
- .4
- w.yd. 3Q;c ;.%Since the Staff's goal is to assure that the Q$
r m. p' ~ r ,?.~. ? 4 10 probability of a nuclear plant catastrophe is no greater ?? than 10-6 to 10 per reactor year and since no competent ), 7 I t-12 witness would testify _that it is possible to predict earth-13 quake probability in this range with tihe high level of i ~ 14 ccafidence needed, the only safeguard available is proper l 15' seismic qualification. 1G Tha regulations applicabla to seismic qualification include: 37 ,,s 13 (1) Ceneral Design Critorion 2 of Appendia A to 19 10 CFR Part 50, which requires that equipment important 20 to safacy be designed to withst6-1 natural phencmena 21 such as marthquakes, gg (2) 13E2 Standard 273 which is incorpcrated in ~ ~) 10 CFR 50.55a(h) and which requires qualification of 23 g3 safety-relatad equipment and q j g3 (3) Criterion II.~. of Appendin 3 to 13 CFR 50 which requires that design control measures provide .) \\ L
2562 wel 3 1 for 'rerifying the adequacy of design such as by the 2 s,) performance of a suitable testing program. 3 The input to the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report (]) 4 for the Trojan plant from the Electrical, Instrumentation 5 and Control Systems Branch was prepared by me. After review 6' and approval by my Section Leader, Faust Rosa, the Branch 7 Chief, Thomas Ippolito, and the Assistant Director for 8 Reactor Safety, Victor Stello, Jr., it was sent to the ,[ s, . <r v_
- .y 9
iProject Manager, J. M.:Cutchin. A copy of this transmittal. g -s ,. _ a 10 letter, pages 7 and 10 of its Enclosure 1, and its Enclosure 11 2 are attached (Enclosure 5.). 12 I direct the Board's attention particularly to 15 the second paragraph of the transmittal letter, Sections .) I ha 14 7.8 and 8.3.2 of the SER input, and Enclosure 2, 'Raferenced 15 Topical Reports Not Reviewed or Reviewed and Found 16 Unacceptable.' 17 ; It can be seen that the seimnic, radiation, and I i 18- [ environmental qualification areas are listed amen; these ~ 19' topics which were either found unacceptable as bases for a I 20 t favorable Staff evaluation, or had not yet been reviawed by i I 21 ! the Staff. 1 5 22 !i The official (i.e.r publicly disciocef) version o q_) 25/ cf the Trojan Safety Evaluation naport (52R) v:s publ_shed i i ii 21 p! by the Staff on October 7, 1974. I:: amination c2 tha cfficial s 2 23 SER discloses the following f acts. Sectica 7.G is assentially f. n i
2663 wel 10 t identical to the SER' input supplied by the Electrical, ,_g. 2-Instrumentation and. Control Systems Branch (EISCSB) in April V 3 1974. However,.Section 3.10, ' Seismic Qualification'of 4 Seismic Category I Instrumentation and Electrical Equipment,' 5 contradicts the earlier EISCSB input to the SER in stating 3 that the. Staff had concluded"that the seismic qualification 1 program was acceptable. Similarly, Section 8.3.2, ' Seismic ,4 9 3 Qualification of Engineered Safety Features Switchgear,' of .M 'g $he ol' bY SER d ffa s id $stbstantive respects from the .m ,.:%%)h p 5.+: n yi v. w . - - xg'... f, 'r earlieN EfE5CB. input to the SER. .I } to g g. Supplement No. 1 to the Safety Evaluation Report N .w f 12 was issued by the Staff on November 21, 1975, the same day J 3~,- 13 on which the Trojan Operating License was granted. j, l ..t ^/ ' Sections 3.10, Se'ismic Qualification, and 3.11, t .d y 15 Environmental ~ Qualification, simply refer to Section 7.8, c. 16 Seismic, Radiation and E'nvironmental Qualification, of the 37 same document. There are at least two significant points to bc 13 noted about-Section 7.8 of SER Supplement No. 1. First, the g9 20 plant is allowed to begin operation even though the Staff 21 states that it cannot find that certain relays satisfy the 22 seismic qualification critoria and that these releys will t' 23 have to be replaced after the conmenescent of ope::ction 24 (939" 27A)' Second, although the title of Saction 7.8 includes ~~3 .3 cnd WEL jl'fis: I a i ~~ p =
2564 l-o WEL:$1-1 10.'centu t 1 the subjects " Radiation and Environmental Qualification" and i T 2 Section 3.11 of the E22 promised further discussion of i N:.:/ 3 environmental qualification in a WER supplement, the ter.t never!
- . g 4
mentions these subjects. 5 I consider it highly probable, if not a certainty, 6 that a centested operating license hearing would have prevented 7 this blatant violation of the Staff's review of equipment s -. ~. 8 qualification. y . <.,. /. 14 , p < 's' With the above as an introduction, I will now l , w A.sc. . ;s n " y' - ff 4' 'g - u. ~ } jo proceed to explain the Staff's review process and the current ,9 .e.' l status of the seismic qualification of safety-related equipment 11 in the Trojan Nuclear Plant. 12 Wen a s@ ject was Ming reviewed by de Staff on a ~ i 13 .) ~ review a licanse generic basis, the Staff member assigned to .t g l1 i application that referenced tha generic submittal from the 15 vendor was clirected to make no reviaw of tha generic submittal. 16 I This is the reascn I prepared the cacond snclosure g to the April 19, 1974 letter transmitting the ::I&CSB input to ,t 18 i l the SIR to the Project Manager. It was intendad to inform the g je a@r, eng odors, 2nt W Wesdngb.me Whal 20 i
- i' I reports had been referenced in the Trojan Final Safety Analysia t
i i f ! Report, (2) the tcpical rsperta contninad information tc I l l ~ G
- support issuance of an operating license for Tro
- icn, and (3) i l
a u I the review of the tcpical repcrts either hcd not Ocen ecmpleted ' 7 or had been completed cnd the rapert judged unccceptchie. l.! l' 1 l l l.__,.,..-...-... .- ~
l' 2665 2, .n 4 1 It is apparent that my warnings had no affect. ]. .A 2 According to a Staff report, NUREG-0390, " Topical Report v. 3 Review Status," dated October 15, 1978, the current status. of i> 4 the five Westinghouse topical raporto is about the same as or P S-worse than;the status described in Enclosure 2 to the EI&CSB 't 6 letter of' April 19, 1974. ~ 7 The current status is.as follows: h'
- W
.1. - WCAP-7821 (NP) - The Staff' received additional' .h g Q
- y
.3 y - y fg' information'by letter' dated September 29, 1979. The review i's' x ,3 yo " scheduled to be completed by January.1, '1978. [{ j j) -2. WCAP-7744 (NP and 3 CAP-7410-L (P) - still tmder review. The most recent request for additional information was 12 +' sent by the Staff to LWestinghouse on September 29,. 1973. y '.y Another Staff request for additional informatien was scheduled-g for October 31, 1973.- The review is e::pected to be coq:rleted 15 \\ by January 1,1979.. 5 !C 3. 'SCAP-7672,(NP) and SCAP-7408-L (P) - Accosted .I.,, i 1 March 6, 1974, provided the Safety Analysis Psport includes a )g . discussion of' qualificaticn, connection, independence and )g safety function. 20 4. WCAP-7705 "Not Accepted." According i:o 2'l. 4 l NUP2G-0390, this "...teans that th6 topical report has been I i i l j ! revia.wi by the staff and has boon ound not to ha accentchic
- O'.
7,
- for referr.nce."
24 i l 5. St.u -7819 (MP) and eCAP-7505-L (?) - Accanted 1 2c I i-i i j. .l i o
ji 3 2666 1 on September 31, 1974. However, the Safety Analysis Report 2 must show ad ?quate separation of connections. 3 If, in its review of the Trojan application, the 4 Staff simply overlooked the fact that review was incomplete or 5 unsatisfactory on the subject of equipment qualification, i 6 Trojan should remain shutdown until the Board can elicit 7 evidence demonstrating adequate qualification. 8 If the Staff claims that it relied on plant-g' specific information other than these topical reports, the 10 Board should require the production of a Staff witness capable of identifying the specific documant(c) roliad upon and the 11 basis for concJuding that the Westinghouso-aupplied equipment 12 is seismica'lly qualified (as well as environmentally qualified) 13 in spite of the fact that the generic qualification programs of g i j Westinghouse remain unreviewad and/or unaccaptable to the lo 8D*II" 16 For the balance-of-plant safaty-related equipment j., jl (i.e., equipment supplied by vendors other than Westinghocce), 18 i it appears from the SER and Supplement 1 to the SSR that no f 99 Staff review of the seismic qualification (or, for that matter, 20 theradiation Itnd environmental qualification) has yet taken 21 place, other than the spot-check which I periormed. I requestad informanica frcm Portland G2neral s 22 v Electric (PGE) concerning the seismic enalification of the m j balance-of-plant safety-related equipment. -~ i i 4
rE' a.-.
- , b.
s b F fjl C ]- 2667 ,,.y .n ihl ' This request" led to the submission. of 'a sheet of C, .1. 3 3., .v .s 2: - paper which, as I recall,; appeared to be a page from a relay' -- g.: 7f,4 manufacturor's cales catalog. It centained two columns of ? o. . 1 L 4)l~ data. t 1 ~ 1 One column listed the model or. stock numbers of the 3)' relays and the other column listed the purported seismic.- 'I T N s.j! qualification, level of the relay. !r. 7f Since I could not relate the part numbers to any., _. p-a, i i en i 8 data I had, I ~ could not determine which,' if : any, of,those. g y .-.1 W-;i ..... + J-relays ;were used in+ safety systems. ~ Therefore, I asked PGE to : t: ;c.su 'S
- T 9:
to - identifywhichrelayswereusedinwhichsafetycircuitsand'p?- ..M w v.," p + l to indicata the' acceleration the relays wculd e:GeEie'nce -at i
- j i
n their respective munting locations during a'scfa shutdown - n~ {. earthquakei. .) c -.3 :- 34 l ' I was surprised when PGE replied that soi.e. relaya -i i ' usad f in. safety circuits wuld. experience earthqunke dnduced. i p. R _gj vibrations exceeding their seismic qualificahien level. In s . the case of other ralays, ?GC could not deteritine whather they -[ a l f g' p y 9 q ware seismically qualified. { 1 l 79 ll The' reason given for this was that durin7 scismic q f 1 10[ qualification tasting of the cabinets, no acceleronstera had
- 3....] bten installed at the ralay'o.. mounting locatien in ti.e 3.
. P !,; cabinets. j l r Ohis r.sc ac 'hw had'no knculc&- c 2 ':h r.c031sra :.icn'; 3, m. G. .g 4 during an carthquaha-te which the relays uould~ ta subjectsd .,n ) .i ,). . a j I have no ad earlier the action that tha 5 taff toc % -- th t .r w-1 j i l' 3'. 'l [ g t i. Ir l ~4 lj a i Nb**'DD-* T+WWW49
- t4F>lW-' W @w'9844 gm '<N N 888""8'r WWOASU'91A
'"'Casu p* 4. 4us euP4 M 'u We Sel.W'M ea $'M-WM_b s 84AD Mf.
1 -l 1 \\ 2668 Ij l ji 5 1. j 4-i -l 1 operating liccuse was issued with the conditien that the o g 2[ unqualified relays be replaced c removed from safaty circuits 1: and WEL:jl 3: within cir. months. l a t10 l j t.: ! w l. 5 I g t, s 7l tal ... -; e: - /
- 4. (f
....t, ? f ';, g,.,,
- c~
^' .. s .; 4 c; 9 .-.- m r -n ~ s s gj* ~
- ,(
10 t 11 12 13 d 14 1 15 16 17 10 19, l t 20 21 !i ( 22 t, 'w/ . Gem,,*.( I. llq ,,, t. l Le*'t t i 25 F I f f, i-i; =v-e==+ __,__p.,.w. w...,,.., ._.,9,
- -*f-+ *;. a
~-
2669 i. l .t l 11-MADELON/ 1 I' performed no similar' spot-chack to determine I: mpbl. 2 whether the balance-of-plant safety-related equipment had g I ' 3 undergone adequate envircamental qualification. This was + .f. h. 4 not then and is not now unusual. -l. The NRC adopted the ACE's policy of " limited 5 j I 6 self-iagulation". That.phrast means that the principal 7 source of assurance that.the Trojan Nuclear Plant has been t, - O designed and constructed safaly is PortLLad General Electric n ^ 3-: - *, i,,; y.. s ~9 company. and its contractors isuch. as Westinghouse and Bechte1~.. + i 10 In view of the obvious. inadequacy of the Staff review, I 11 recommend that the -Soard conduct further inquiry into the 12 subject of seismic qualificatics of safsty-related equipment, l 13 which is a part of the sole issue the Board has determined 14 remains. In addition, I recommend further inquirl into 15 16 the subject of environmental qualification. (which includes radiation qualification.) 17 + If the Board adopts the first or both of diesa 18 recommendations, I further recommend that the Board require l gg. conformance with IEEE Standsrd 344-1975, as endorsed and ~ (. 20 modified by Regulatory Guide 1.100, and I25.2 Standard 21 323-1374, as endorsed and modified by Regulatory Guide 1.d9, 22 /"') as the method of demonstrr. ting conformance with tne 23 w Ccmmission's regulations. g l 3 The Board can note frca Section 3.10 (pagos 5 o li I i. =.-
2670 1 mpt2 1 3-24) and Appendi.v. C (page C-7) of tne official SER for o t.J 3 Trojan that the 1971 vercien of IEEE standard 344 was used i 3 in the safety review cf seismic qualification, l , h 4 During the brief pericd I was assigned to the '5 Division, of Reactor Standards, I was assigned respcasibility i i to prepare a Regulatory Guide endorsing IEEE Standard 5-4 7 344-1971. Several members of.the Staff had strong'technica'l 9 arguments that this standard did not prescribe an acceptable-mg g -seismid. qualification program. I encountered strong i go resistence from management officials to my suggestion that 1I we not issue a Regulatory Guide endorsing IEEE Standard 12 344-1971. j 1.9 The principal reason for this resistance was a i J ja previous agreement with the nuclear industry's standards i 33 ccmmittees that if the industry developed a standard, the 16 agency would endorsa its use in the licensing process. Fortunately, at least in this specific case, the technical jg arguments prevailed and IESE St.udard 344-1971 was nevar gg endorsed by a Regulato.ry Guide. The Board'can note from Regulatory Guide 1.100 20 that SEEE Standard 344-1975 is an ancillary standard of IEEE g Standard 323-1974, "IEEE Standard for Ou.lify:.ng Class 12 g, I (v~. ,,, 'j Equipment for Muclear Power Gener7xing Strciens." IEEE Standard 323-1974 is endorsed, with exceptiers, by Esgulatory g Guide 1.89. Houcvsr, if knis standard was usad in the ,a_ 4 0 l l
2671 mpb3 1 licensing review of Trojan (the official SER and SER 2 Supplement number 1 do not identify the use of any standards 2 pertaining to environmental qualification), it had to be the I 4 1971 version. 5 As in the case of IEEE Standard 344, the 1971 6-version of IEEE Standard 323 was never endorsed by a 7 Regulatory Guide. IEEE Standard 323-1971 was issued in g April 1971. si. 9 "'~ ~Ti} In July 1971, Dr. Stephen Hanauer wrote a m+- t i + a jo letter that expresses in a succinct manner the reasons that IEEE Standard 323-1971 was never endorsed by a Regulatory 11 Guide. (A copy of the letter is attached as Enclosure 6.) 12 l 33 Dr. Hanauer stated, in part: I cannot find a single redeeming feature 14 j { in this worthless document." 15 The Staff has, on several construction pernit '6 reviews, stated that unless the applicant agreed to comply 37 with the provisions of IEEE Standard 323-1974, de Staff 3g. w uld add a condition in the construction permit requiring 19
- "E 20 I share the Staff's view that compliance with 21 IEEE Standard 323-L974 is of vital importance to protecting g
i the health and safety of the public. Therafere I recommend g that tne 3 card require, prior to allowing resumption of g '_ o y operation, a showing. that the seismic and environtcental 23 I l 3. 7 - ~ -
2672 I mpb4 ! qualification of the safe; -related equipment in tne Trojan i { g 2 Nuclear Plant meets or is equivalent to the provisions of L 3 IEEE Stancard-323-1974 and IEEE Standard 344-1975 as en-h 4 .dorsed, with exceptions, by Ragulatory Guides 1.89 and 1.100, i 5 respectively, 6 Since Regulatory Guides are not regulations, 7 requiring conformance witn. Regulatory Guides 1.99 and 1.100. j 3 (and the IEEE standards they endorse) is not an attack on 5 ,,e T- '9 r 3 j s 9' the regulations..:These two Regulatory Guides define what ~}.?, i. 10 the Staff believes to be an' acceptable way of meeting the I 11 regulations applicable to equipment qualification. 12 Therefore they can be used to judge the 13 adequacy of the equipment qualification program used for 14 Trojan. If they are so ussd, I feel confident that the 15 Board will agree with my conclusion that the safety-related i 16 equipment in the Trojan helear Pla.nt has not been camon-strated to be seismically or environmentally qualified. j -r Therefore, since the regulations are 'ct met, 13
- g the. plant must remain shutdown.
CHAIPJIAN MILLER: How is your voice holding out? 23 gj MS. BELL: It's sort of going. CILEPJGli :CLLER: Would *you like to switch over? ~,u I Does aOybody Vish to *JoluntEar? Volunte3rs? (No rosponse.) wo ^'h-/ All right. I'll take it. J, l t I e j
- - - +
~ _ y-;
~._a.__. 1 2673' mpb5 1 Fire Protaction. 2 The inadequacy of the fire protacticn provided ).g. 3 for the Trojan Nucisar Plant is another speific subject 4 desa.rves additional inquiry by the Scard. The Staff han ] determined that a fire in the Trojan Plant may destroy.al: S 6 methods.o'f achieving and maintaining safe shutdown condi- -e 7 tions. D Therefore, the Staff has requirsd that an altar- ); O ..:., : n 3{.r. ~ ~ilata or dedicated shutdown system be installed in the Trojan ~ F 9 i
- y. 3 m,
10 Nuclear Plant. The Staff reportad to the Commission that this 11 system will be installad by Tuna 1979. Hevertheless, the' Staff intends to. allow the Trojan Pirnt to rasm.e operation 12., I based on the alleged low probability of the occurrence of a 13 i O fire that would prevent achieving and maintaining safa shut-g down conditions. t o. Attached is a copy of that part of the Staff's g 1 testimony before tha Commissics which confirus the accuracy i 17 s l g' of the above statements (Enclosura 7}. Sinca the f Con: mission's regulations pertaining to fire protectica and 39 safe shutdown do not allow operation of a plant if a fire 20l uld destroy all mathods of achieving and mai.ctaining [ 21 1 safe shutdewn conditions, tha "roj an Nuclear Plcnt should 2.,,. i not be allowed to rssuma operation unt:.1 this h*sard to r.e G
- l.
-i r V 20 i health and safety of the public is resolved. l w,. i }' i ). Furthermore, t.u 3 card Jhoul.10::crine the ,, o, 1 j l + } l- ~ { _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ __ a_
.a 2674: r;, ~ epb6 1 criteria being. used by ths Staff as a basis for approving a 2 y 'the desian -of the dedicated enutdewn system to be-inctalled - 3 in'the Trojan Nuclear Plant. y ' 4 Nuclear plants must be designed to minimise 5 the probability and effects of firas and explosions in order . e t 6 to provide adequate protection for the health cnd safety 'of;'... 1 s. i i 7 the public.- (See criterion 3 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part + p f ., r. 4,. 8 50.) ~ ~ j.. c )e T,' #[I" 's,2~%. ;M ' s <. 7 /..~ .. +... ,. ?t' U,"*'
- dbi '
'I - L.sk .. p,. I'd.$h) Theesign of. systems used for ~ achieving and. '??- t.g ', a. 8 gn a + 10 maintaining safe shutdows conditions must' meet the singla 'y 11 ' f a ~
- ritorion.-
(For exa=ple, see General 12csign Critaria 12 17 i of'Appandix A to 10 CFR Part,50.) 13 J Therefore, the design of the dadice. tad shutdown [ ~ { V . j u[ system must include a sufficient amount of infcpandent equip-j f' l 15 ; ment so that, after discounting all equ.tpment tnat could be. t I 16 castroyed by a fire, the remaining equipment meets.the single i . 11 failura criterien. 's-
- 1. '
ic Tha Staff has previously stated in ancther } 13 proceeding that its fire protection evaluations have the goal t go of datarmining: r ...whether thare-is recsonabla :ssurance g$ t that c: les.st one mathed of achiaving e.:.d main- ,- ;( r \\ I)- ~, !! tainiac safe sh?.tdown is independent of tas- \\._ w influencs of the p0stulated fires." 24 4 c.
- [
(Me.morandum for Chair =an Hendrie, etlal., from i ~, 7 i .',l :. 4 f I h I k I ' ' " i r w y gr gr y .y er r..y , pry q g__ yy y,4 37 p 9 wy,,g,4, p 4,,. ,,g
A-JE S I e- ,~ *.- ---w ~. - - ~a 2675 mpb7.'1 EdsonlG. Case, " Union of Concerned Scientists Petition," j A 2 dated December 15,'1977,- enclosure'1, page 36, emphasis w/, 3 -added.) . Q 4 I believe.that the sincrle failure criterion 1 4 5~ requires two methods of achieving and maintaining'safa shut- .c P ^' ~ 6~ down which are independent of the influence of the fire.. 7 Therefore, I believe the Board'should elicit evidence to-8 determine whether the single failure criterion has been 1,..
- s. e-1 3 j' '
? S5tlGY. b.. ,. m *?.I ' * * ; fey. 'fh Y ,s bb. 4" e 9' iproperly applied in the design of the dedicated' shutdown - '.i ' y* p. g 10 system being installed in the Trojan Nucicar Plant. Jp 11 The Staff and Licensees may argue that the j' j i z 12 issue of adequate fire protection is before the Commissioners .y (p..- 13 and therefore cannot be taken up by this Board. It is L ,,j 14 correct thah'UCS' Petition for Emergency and Remedial Action 15 is before the commission for reconsideration. - Howevar, 3 10 specific details of the Trojan Nuclear Plant, such as tho in-37 adequacy of the present fire protection, tne design details P
- g of Trojan's dodicated shutdoun cystem, the Staff's ba. sos 39 for requiring the additional system and the Staff's bases for 20 approving its design, are not before the Commission.
These 21 specific detaih are subjects that this Board can and, I l 22 believe, must examine. i l ' Gene-ic Unresolved Proolems. I h 23 2'1 l In the Acpeal Board's niver Send decision last m l 7 fall, the significance of unresolved generic safety issues.in I i 4 3 ---,n--., .e-m-... ,..,-m.., ,-4 m..,-._. m
I. 1 2676-mpb8 ! a construction permit prcceeding was deait with at come 2 length. ~ More recently, in its sua scente review cf the licen-g 3 singproceedingsthatauthorizedissuanceofcperatinglicensi 1' 4 ao for North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 Lad 2, the '5 Appeal Ecard undertook: 6 '"...tc ascertain whether the staff. dealt 7 appropriately with the ' unresolved' issues in er$.. 3 this operating licensa proceading." s 4. s< + - + y s 9 The Appeal Board discussed the facts that the f, ' f-9,..- a 10 SER identified some of the ACRS generic. issues germans to the j North Anna reactors but did not do so for other generic issuesconta.k.nedintheStr.ff'sTaskActionPlans. The ^ 12 13 Appeal Board stated; n.) 14 "And, equally i=portant, for scre of'the ACRS issues the statemert in Supplement 7 [cf the gg 16 SER] was inadaquate on its face. In pa.rticular, we'found it unhelpful for ths etaff s12917 to 3; i note that a search for a generic solution was gg still underway without analyzing why the absence jg of a generic solutien did not call into ques-20 tien the safety of currant opere. tics. S4~dtarly, g there w ea d -atances in which ths :"' ' ~'y of 2; k h the SER did net alert us to the cristanca of a i g l 24l generic proble= bearing en the particular aspect of plant design under discussion." g 4 m.
- .m=***'*
- ~
o m
2677 mpb9 1- - ( ALAB-4 91) - . n.... ) 2 { The problems noted by the Appeal Board in v. 3-North Anna are present in this proceeding. 4 The entira operating license review for the 5 Trojan Nuclear Plant took place when the Staff was with-6 holding from public disclosure the existence of-unresolved -7 generic safety issues germane to the Trojan Nuclear Plant 8 (except for those issues the.ACRS identified)'. It was not. 9 'until I. resigned and disclosed the existence of the Staff's j ...a ...~. 10 Technical Safety Activities Report that the public became 11 aware of the existence of a large number of unresolved 12 safety issues. However, Trojan's operating license was issued 13 ..)~ before I resigned and, therefore, the opportunity for the ~ ja public to raise these issues was, for all practical purposes, IS foreclosed. 16 With respect to the ACRS issues germane to 37 Troj an, examination of Supplement number 1 to SER for the 33 1 Trojan Nuclear Plant demonstrates that, at least for some ( 19 1 items, the Staff simply noted that a search for a generic ~ 20 . solution was underway. This is precisely the same treatment 21
- r. hat the Appeal Board found " unhelpful" in North Anna.
22 (For example, see Section 7.2.2, " Anticipated Transiants g Without Scram," and Section 18.219, " Generic Problents," of l 1 m ./ ,g Supplement Number 1 to the Trojan SER.) i l
t, II 2678 3, . }d! mpb10'] There cra.several other unrescived safet*/ s h issues germane tO the Troja.r. Nuclaar Plant which the Shaff p
- 'o:;
acgiccted tc-mention in the SUR. It also z.ppars thct the l i ~ Staff does not intend to bring these issues to tha attan-l tion-of thei Ecard during this proceeding. Therefore, I 1 ,j S '. will give the Board some examplec of issuss that I hcVe .u I 7f, concluded bear en the question of whether operation of' the n Trojan, Nuclear Plant will posa undna risk to the health and .g w y w v. 7... u c A
- l
- f _, f.', l_ % U.N f', h "f '. 9j
- safett ofj,.the public7l,,
'Q . v I' 10 { .The inadequato fire pretmetics~at the Trojan-I II i} Ncclear iiant was discussed earlier. I mantion it again now. IE t;! because,_evan though the S+"#f has determined tha't firo 13 E protschion modifications "will provide substantial, addit- .%) i [ M '. icnal protection which is re g ircd for the'public health and il 10 d safat.v" (10 CFR 50.109), the Staff supports cparation of the o 9 Wh plant before the modifications are completed. il E i! This is particularly signific?nt escruso it h il l
- 3. !l indicates a raluctance on the pznt cf ::he Staff to give the
[ r t i i l9f highest priority to protection of the public if that uculd l-l c e 1 i i 20 j interfere with continued operation of. the Trojan. Linclear i I 11 Plant. H 1; I N:other ararpia of an unrasc1*.%d p 'n r'.c c fety fi( 'a. fi isaun germans te Trcjrn which th Staff may hecta fail d ts i i t 4 2.' .i bring to tha 3ccrd's attentien is the forces on mora internt.laj e t' [ y ., 6 during a loss-cf-cocicnt eccident. This prchie. aross in tha ,4 u I il end mob y i j2.-fis d m 8 21 - - ~ ~ 4 ,,, -,,,,....~ . s ,.., _ ~, .,_g -... nm w, r f.C
-( ~. -. - l 2679 fis mpb -j1 1 1 course of attempting to resolve the generic issue identified 11 g td 2' in NUREG-0410 as " Task A-2, Asy=.etric 31owdown Loads on PWR j 3 Reactor. Vessel." [ Q 4 This subject was discussed in Section 3.9 of-Sup-5 - plement No.1 to the Trojan. 53R. In addition to the fact 6 that this'is another instance where the Staff simply noted' the I 7 search for a generic' resolution, new information has been y 8 brought to the Staff's attantion, but perhaps not to.this E s e "M Board's' attention. g - p.,.. -M, 10-In November 1977, a consultant notified the Staff
- j that the impact force on fuel asse=bly spacer grids, caused by.;
asymmetric loads diring blowdown following a loss-of-collant 12 i 13 accident, could be more sansitive to core plate cotion than it ! was originally believed. i g3 Specifically, the consultant found that a 10 percent 13 variation in the frequency of core plate motion during blowdown! g3 could ; more than double the crushing lord enperienced bv the 17 s fuel assembly spacer grids. l
- g This raises the question of whether there would be 99 permanent def mation of the spacer grids during a less-of-20 c lant accident and, therefor 3, whether the reactor core would 21 g ] have a coolable gacmstry, _ as recuir2d by'10 C7R 50.46 (b) (4).
.i I _i The attached latter (Snc10sur3 S) has recently been { 4 V s.s y i 2.,, { intrcduced by the Staff in cthan prcceaf.ings, with tha notation j l- 's l 1-i that the information is pralin.ina::f. I recorrisnd that thi. ,,,3 i l 6 e.~.., ,. ___.,,3.. .,3.,-.. _ ,--,,,r-m ,~+.,..--......,m.._m r_. -.,, ~,,., . ~ - ~
t-j 2690-l y ji 2 c t j j 'h. 1 !j F.,oard inquire further into the metter of cryntstric leads to i. I determine whether there is a buis for concluding that Trojan ?. g I 3l meets. tha requirement of 10 CFR 50.M (b) (4), "Coolabio l F I 4l h Gecmetry." l 5 The Staff should not be permitted to call year-old 1 - t g ' 0' 'information " preliminary", and' allow operation of the Trojan ') 7 Nuclear Plant. ~ The last example of a gensric issue germane to 0 a
- n.,
i .M: *, %. a.; x.: Trojan '^that'I will, bring to 'the.Scard's attention "is the j g a v adverse interaction between non-cafaty centrol-svotsas and i. - a i to safety-related protection systems. 11 Interaction betueen control and protacticn systams 12 ! can.~' result in an event which ersatsc a situation requirbg 33 I protective action and concurrently disables all the protection y ll systems designed to perforn the requirsd protsetivo acticn. i g. l l Based en my revicy of sover:1 pl:.ta, inciciing g Trojan, and events that have Occurred in Op3 rating p12nts, I 4 p' i cenclude that the Wastinghouse design is unsafe. g "I am supported in.this conclusien by at 12act come [ 19 members of the staff. For c, ample, folicwing un ovent in the g Westinghouss designed'Zic plant, Dr. Stephan F.antu:r,. ., l a 3 l Technien1 ?.aviccr to the Exacutiva Direct:r fer C.;;.rnti:ns, c.T,ressed hi view that th: UItinghouca design. css 'un; ado." i 33 l q i I In the Zicn svont vcrkr.sn h.;d disablad 30 inctrt=cner 2, j .i ] I monitoring the reacter. The result vec that water wcc haing j g 4 F om,e.. w ~.w-. op , pe.ew m em em _mn,a -w u* no. -~ _-r-= w -wes_
1 2681 . ji '3 - .4-1 drained from the reactor cooling system and all systems capable of
- detecting the loss of water ware inoperative.
3 Dr. Hanauer stated that: "The ceceptability of al1 a g 4 systems, Westinghouse and non-Westinghouse, old.and new, 5 needslto be ' reviewed in the light of the Zion event and any ~. ~ 6 unacceptable interactions removed." (Enclosure 9) ~, 7 I. agree with Dr. Hanauer and recommend that the~ g o 8 Board require that such a* review be performed before the .m w w. x s: M 'i~.q:w; ~ t.*+
- 4%. @5
~, g Trojan,Naclear Plant is permitted to resume operation. The.7] :ff' y 37, o7 e. to results of that review should be. tested by cross-examination of M witnesses under oath. 12 As I noted above, I have not discussed every technical issue which.T believe I should be examined before 13
- v. )
34 the Trojan Nuclear Plant is permitted to resume operation. 15 I recommend that the Board require the Staff to-16 identify all the unresolved safety issues germane to this plant 37 and to explain why the plant can be permitted to operate -in the face of each unresolved. issue.'. 18 + I To have a complete list of. all unresolved generic gg l 20 safety issues that may be germane to Trojan, the 3 card should not raly solely on NUREG-0410 or some other list of the Staff's 21 Task Action ;'lans. 22 h c B ard sheuld. also exa.nine de min ::tes of r.eeting: 23 f the Staff's " Technical Activities Steering Ccamittee." 24 Thes. Huutes disclose a host of other cafety issues which the 25 J y e r y,, .n. v v-e- 4 .c eev 1 ts -e e ~-w. .m-,- ,-o --o-w rmer-m e w e. - + =., r e e -e e s on, - ~ -w -,.ms--en e < -a me n
- ,--w?
w ~ e -o w~ em r < w -. we ~
-41 i .ij 2682 .'l' ' Il 4 hff Ms not included in its published lists of unresolved 1 a, ]; 3.j<. .. safety issues. a d end til ,] l 5 .} IO '4 L s 1 5 k. a t 6 ,pg 3 I 'k g. . t, s 7; e.d v 4 ~ 5 P z + *,, i 8 i. .. u ,p.. ~ - 4(. (} J.n. *
- 4 4..s " /.Deaa'p,4. o. gg,
., - s . ~ e,4 ' '.,. e . :, a m) 1 , L, ., ',., } P-y,, >.
- e
(., ,d ^ - 'p', . j/ - a A go p : +e.,,, fir ,.,v .,9 Ty .I , l%h .J# [50*. av,I." ' *N ,S' Qff ' %,. ,h, [
- r. '
- Q s
- ia' L
^l. , :.y,e%: r ,g ,@+ = ,*w .M P a.- ( L to ' y ,A 11 12 i 13 i .%,. 4 -~ g i 15 13 17 13 19 . n: ?- M O 21 ~n kee f 'F
- 9 e4 M
ea h4 Q l 'f + f-s g; s n.,.-.- . = m
2683 - HE2,TZER METHOD OF ELICITING EVIDENCE y In addition to identifying subjects which I t12 2 - d believe deserve additional inquiry by the Board, I want to 3 ~ recommend a technique of eliciting evidence that could result. 4 < O. i in c mpiling a m re mplete and accurate race-rd. 5 l A r reviewing sore of the recent direct testimony 6 in this proceeding, I detect a reluctance by the witnesses to 7 ? address directly the question of equipment qualification. g - Witnesses for the Licensees, Richard C. Anderson 4 .:q 4 g .. as,.
- a i
and William H. White, limit their testimony to the new response g spectra.and conclude "that there would be no effect on previously qualified equipment, piping, and electrical equipment. " (Transcript 2337, emphasis added.) l These witnesses go on to state that "we find that w the equipment still remains qualified, based on th's original qualification of the equipment." (Transcript 2339, emphasis 16 j l added.) l 17 During examination by the Board, Witnsss White 10 continued this theme by stating that " essentially everything 19 that was qualified prior to that tire was still qualified." 20 j (Transcript 2351.) 21 } The key point, which I addressed at length earlier, 1 22l l is whether the original equipment qualification was acceptable.l-(_T 23 j It is this point which the Licensees' witnesses apparently. m would rather not discuss. / 25 --w.me.me =uryan se
... - - - - -. = . II 4- '2684^
- D.
n e J- ~ H .I fi-j i
- The Staff's-testimony on this point is even more m.*
2! circumspect. In his testimony dated October 13, 1978,.- James.E.: ~ V I-t( F. night specifically dicclaims any evaluttica of the seismic n Q 4.f qualificatien of safety-related electrical equipment. He b l 3' testified'as follows:' "The effect of thb postulated earthquake on suchi ~ cj 1 7; equipment as batteries, switchgear,' control panels, 'et catara. located within the control building was not' f; 3 r . m.2. G.,3. #... w.:".. N -;... e t .....e > 7A;# sM 9 E *a?part,.;of my sitvaluahion, but has been addressed as a-V.> "E .g wt 2.,e m,,- w. n. ;.,,m,., ,r ,.,. v.:. l-part of Mr. Herring's tiestimony." to .'(Testimony'of' James E. Knight, page 2,~Octcher 13,.1978.) I find this curious because, according to the ?rofessional.- .g 'a i Qualifications decompanying Mr. Knight's testimony, ha holds _ a p degree in elect 2iciti engineering and frca 1975 to the present g has been employed 5y the Nuclecr Regulatory Ccmmi331cn as a t. eactor Engh.eer pns&mntadon). 16 Although now assigned to ths Picat System Branch . } 7 l -, d' in the Division of Operating 2aactors, I halia d Mr. Knight 19 F.1 g* Il was previously. assigned to the Electrictd., Instrumentation l aC[ and control Systems. Branch.. ... I O ' 7 *' fas -t.his Branch that had respcnsibility for ll o . 'I revisving the sciamic qutiification of ch.fot-r ralatzd alocuri - j~ ~ ",,. y cal equipre.nt. j [ y ~ In centrast, Eennath S. Earring holds a degree in m, .1 3 2:., 9 ' civil engineering and, in his statsment of Prefec31cnal J-i I i I
0 '2685. ji 3, Qualifications, he describes his "dur.ies and responsibilities" 1 64 2 as involving'"the review, analysis, and evaluation of W structural r.d mechanical aspects ralated to safety issues for 3 4 - reactor facilities. (Professional Qualifications of > .h t. ^ Kannath S. Herring, undated, attached to "Tostimony of-5 Kenneth S. Herring, ~ Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, "on' ~ 6 Structural Adequacy of the Trojan Control Suilding for Interim 7 Operation," undated, emphasis added.) 8 ~.. s s s 7 h
- y..
i .v ~ .",. <.JI haveiaiso"examinddf Mrl. Herring's' most' recent ' 9 ~ ya .p > v. .y: y testimony, " Testimony of Kenneth S. Herring, Office of Nuclear! to Raactor Regulation, on Floor Spectra and Qualification of - 33 Safety-Related Equipment and Systems in the As'-Built Control 12 Building Ccaplex," November 25, 1978. .13 The subject of ecuipment qualification is mentioned ja three times in Mr. Herring's November 25, 1978 testimony: in. 15 the title; in the first paragraph, which describes the purpose 16 of the testimony; a".d in the first "sentenca" on page 2 of the g w testimony..
- g In each instance,.the same amount of information is jg nveyed.
For the Board's convenience, the "sentenca" on 20 page 2 is repeated in its entirety: g "Further, given that the appropriate mcdificaticns .g { are performed to assure confer:"ance of the aquipment, j aystems, piping and ccmponents with th2 spectra as ] y w-defined in the October 27 and Mo tember 2, 1978 submittals t -20.
w~ ..-..-...a-- .[ :..... :a - -il 4 il. ] 2686' p G il 1 - 0. u-and further videned~as' indicated in the november 22, 1978' - {!. --g submit::.1, those investigations are adequata to make the t
- I
' determination that there is reasonable assurance that the .:x Q af safety-related equipment, systems, piping and components g 5( in the Control / Auxiliary / Fuel Building couplex will s e:% s s !l withstand an earthquaka up to and including the 0.25gu.',. SSE." 8 e s % $.i_s a I am aware that engineers, myself included, 7 '{: .-m
- -q@w :.
u.. u. u. g 1l,E f' .g so,metimes, hava difficulty expressing their thoughts:in clear *. m. g.; ; s . x.. ~ a.. I language, but Mr. Herring's " sentence" is total gibberish. 10 0 ft ~ t: r tjy If it is comprehensib\\e. at all,.this. " sentence" ,3 1:, seems to say nothing' more than that,. if something is done ~'; . ~.
- i. n
,h Y t' .a. ] corractly in the future, someone might be' able.to determine p' (, c whether. the safety-related equipment is seismically qualified. 14 1 Mr. Harring' could' have simply stated, as Mr. Knight g. s g {.did, ths.t he has not evaluated the seismic qualificatien of thet safety-related equipment used in the Trojan Mucisar Flant. ,p g; l Why dee the Boa'rd face a situation where not a . no l, I single witness is willing'to answed a direct question - "Is gI t d the safety-related equipment seismically qualified?
- 0{
.t I'believe this si.tuation arices becausefthe equipment, ,1 4 F il never was properly qualified r.nd neither d.c professional l- ..,.q O j omployees cf the Staff acr PCE ars frs to a testify.. 'Che, [ 4 j L il bases-for these cenclusions ara my cvn raviaw of the Crojcn i ,,t
- i.,
a: Sppli0ation and my personal knoW1 edge of the Operating licCnSO i L 1 l l (- a 4 l-t _....._~. ~ _,... - _,. . " ' ' * * * '. " ~ ~. ~* ~~' ~" ~ ~ ~ ++ ~ .s. J.. ca. r
~ ji 5 2687 pressures faced by professionals employed by the NRC and PGE. 9 I can give innumerable examples of the actions by 2 C management officialc that inhibit members of the Staff from 3 expressing viewpoints that could delay or preclude operation 4 of a nuclear plant. It should suffice here simply to state 5 4 i ' that my. resignation from the Staff was caused by such actions. 6 However, since I have never been employed by PGE, I 7 ~ should explain the reasons why I reach the same conclusion. 8 q. regarding. PGE's profesaional employees A l ':i ' 9 'ggg], ~\\ Attached' are copies of correspendence between me and 10 an individua1' employed by PGE in a professional capacity - 11 (Enclosures 10, 11 and 12). I have deleted all information 12 that could aid in identifying the PGE employee and. my home y ld address and telephone number. 14 i 0 is a memo I received from the PGE 15 employee. Since the esco was handwritten, I have retyped the 16 l text in its entirety. The enclosure to that undated PGE memo 17 (the envalope was postmarked in Portland, Orsgen on November 23, 18 1976) is attached to Enclosure 12, together with rf latter to 19 NRC Commissioner Gilinsky and the reply from the G3neral 20 Counsel. 21 There are at laast two significant aspects of these 22 docu::ents. First, it can be cbcarved that Wettinghouce O 23 believed "that site boundary doces :.n oncess of c::posure 24 7 guidelines set forth in 10 CFR 100 could result frca a frel j 25 l. },_ _.=
- = - -.. - ~. li i 2688 ji 6 s 1 handling accident inside containment. (Second attachment 2 to Encicsure 12.) (.J 3 Second, the PGE amployee thought that this matter should 1:ebrought to NRC's attention, but apparently was afraid h 4 I l 5 to do so except through a_ third party. e v '.% y 6 Therefore,1 conclude that there is evidence that ~,. ; neither-Westinghouse emploirees nor PGE employees are free toi
- .f.
7 a. M Se 3 bring potential safety. hazards to thi attention of NRC. ~ . ~ Cf f, '
- k kh l i
A ; W f d r i. b.;..': N S $ N.1 ff #,lg g4If.the., Board ad, opts my recommendations and requires'.g 7 9 .,,g .v. n.; 9.~,... .7 9 .a 9 ' S% s.c f 10 further to'stimony on'the specific technical subjects I have identified, the witnesses proferred by the Staff and Licensees 11 12 should be carefully chosen and instructed. a With respect to the Staff's vitnesses in particular, 13 ! 9 the Board should require testimony by the individual pro-14 fessional who performed the reviaw, rather than by a superior 15 16 of the reviewer. Furthermore, such testimony should be given orally 17 er the Staff should be instructed that written testinony should' gg I' be prepared without review or concurrence by supervisory 19 4 personnel un+ D after the' testimony is filed. 20 I believe these precautions are absciutely essential 21 in order to assure candid testimony by profesdient.1 empicyees 22 ef the Staff. 23 Furthermore, all prospective witnessez cheuld be 3 4 provided with guidance from the Board concerning the meaning of / g i i. 4 t l l __-__-___--__-__-____a
. ~ .,- ~ =a 3 e ..-w_ 1 ..I 2589 7 1 their ' oath or affirmation that their testimony represents the 3 truth, the uhole truth, and nothing but the tr.:xh. 3 In addition, the Board should e::pinin to each 4 prospective witness the protection, if any, available to pre-5 vent reprisal by his amployer should the witness offer testi-6 mony unfavorchie to a decision authorizing operation of the 7 Trojan Nuclear Plant. -t 0 .: CONCLUSION ' e, * - ~w g, .,..p 1 44 t: cyf]
- I am, aware that adoption' of rf racemmendations may g
10 delay the prciupt' resumption 'of operation of the Trojan Nuclear + 11 Plant envisioned by the Staff and Licensees. However, since 12 modifications to the. control building ara needed and since the g dedicated shutdown system determined to be naeded by.the Staff i' y will not be installed until June 1979, thera appears to be sore 3 time available to conduct the additional inqui91 which I 13 roc moend. i 1.,. But the principal test of whethar d.c cddi-icn:1 3g inquiry should be undertaken is not the tima availabla. Rathern g the test is whether, in the absence of such inquiry, ders is k 20 adequate assurance that the health and safouy of the public will be protected. I have concludad thth such assurcnce does 3 2 i not now c:i:ist. 4 Ik i b , l-l a 23 1 l .b I i 4 .j l I .1 l } ... -... - ~. -,,.
~ -, -... - .- - - - ~ - - - - -. l' 2690 i l Il2 contin'd1 There are'a number of enclosures attached, ,TZER/mm 2 which I won't read. ? ' rw)- 3 2, I see. Apparently Enclosure 12 .j 4 consists of several exchanges and the like, and is the last. . Q appearance statement which has '5 'The limited .a
- 1
+ 6 just been read is incorporated in the transcript together e 2:. 7 with the enclosures'that are attached thereto' v g. E s~-s.. , ~. N , Enclosur,es to statement follow)' ( ~ 8 / - g* '4 ^'-) h -= 8' 3 { %l f]'f_i g gg.,.. ~ .g l2 ' M; ?.81 ~ . L-. y. g :., .s ,~ f. ' 10 e y s. e-11 l 12 ~ ~ i H2 V 14 15 i 16 17 18 4 19 y s 21 22 ~) 23 24 .. m ) u .2s h .. _ -.. ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~ Rea:eori r.ngineer i(Iaetrumentation), ';S-1*. ENCLOSURE 1 El e c t rical', Ins tru-entat ion and Con:rol Sys tems Branch ] Directorate of-Licensing l; I' FUSCTIONAL S~. ITEM 2NT: Servas as a highly qualified specialist in the field of reactor instrumancation and control in' performing Leechnical reviews, an'alysas and evaluations of system and co=ponent designs necessary to;the safe operation under normal, abnormal and escrgency conditions 'of. power, testing, production, and research= reactors, including DOD and AEC-owned. reactors as 'well as licensed and authorized facili-ties. c RICU* AR DUTIES: Participatesias a senior member of the Directorate of Licensing, 21cetrical, Instrumentation and Control Systems Branch, whose function is prinarily one of performing technical reviews, analyses, and evaluations of designs of sys-tems and co=ponents necessary to the safe operation of reactor facilities under normal, abnormal, and emergency conditions for the purpose of'(a) deter =1ning the adaquacy of-the -bases for.such designs, (b) of determining the adequacy,of -such designs to =eet these bases and to withstand the limits of environ = ental effects.without loss of mini =us required functional capabilitics, .(c) of deter =ining' the acceptability of procedures for fabrication, inspection,. testing, and post-licensing surveillanca of such designs, and (d) of developing guidelina proceduras, methods and =odals for the systematic evaluation of such l designs by the Division. t ( Rev1evs Safacy Analysis Reports as to the adequacy of the presented data -pertaining to ins ru=entation, controls, and electric power and to the sound- ~ ness of conclusions made on the basis of the presented information;and preparac - reports of such reviews. Develops standard procedures, methods, and models for evaluations to determine whether or not the design. of reactor protection syste=s, controls for engineered f safety features, safety aspects of regulating systems, and emergency pever sys-li ca.ms is creatad in an acceptable manner. l. Evaluates industry and AIC-sponsored research and development programs directed towards establishment of additional ~ basic information.on racetor' instrumenta-tion and control, and to -the use of such information for safety avaluation pur-poses, and correlates cud interprets the results of such progra=s for 'tha gencen1 use of the regulatory staff. Prepares technical studies and reports bearing on' uniqua and unusual. davelop= cats in the field of reactor plant instrumancation, control, and electric power -for presentation of the ' Advisory Co==1ttee on Reactor Safeguards. i Reco== ends, through the Branch Chief, safety research programs to be sponsored by the AZw. l. Ll -m Y I 1 f l' N., r nn n..,, .- i n ...,.. -- -.., - - - - -. -. -... -... - ~... ~ ~ - a7 m+.,
d ' Reactor-Engineer (Ins trumenta tion), CS-14 ~ Electrical,. Instrumentation.and Control Systems Branch Directorate of. Licensing Page 3 .In epen ent-Action: d d Responsible for making recontandations for action to be taken by the Chiaf l of the Elcetrical, Instrumentation and Control Systems 3 ranch. i Develops standard procedures. =achods, and models for those aspects of safety evaluations involving physio-che=ical considerations. t SU?E?#tSION: i None l L'02XING CONDIT!CNS: 1 Kom11' office conditions while at official sation. I:cposure to -d d radia-& n .f. from reactors may be encountered occasienally during field trips.
- r. rORT:
Nor=al effort involved in any ad=inistra'.1ve position. Increased phys 1 cal effort may be required while on field trips. O t e e 8 e i a 9 6 I .1, I t I O e I e C..,..........,. _ / --
1 ENCLOSURE 2 i I ( g<.,Ng [h(i ' UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION P l', l 'I) WASHWnTON, D.C. 20545 March 20, 1974 w,,.. # 1 2-, Op f l NOTE TO Robert Pollard's Personnel File f g al \\ I have received the. attached note from Mr. Herschel Specter h coc: mending the performance of Robert Pollard of the Electrical, j [k Instrumentation and Control Systems Branch. Mr. Specter was l the Licensing Project Manager for the Indian Point Units, and I is, therefore, well qualified to speak to Bob Pollard's per-formance on those reviews. i I have had occasion myself to observe Pollard's work in ' the review of several' plants and in the review of reference designs under the Cocmission's standardization policy. I find Pollard exceptionally expert in his technical area and articulate and effective in his work as a technical reviewer. I am pleased to add my cocments to those of Mr. Specter and to forward them to Bob Pollard's personnel e. i _. s S oseph M. Hendrie, Deputy Director. for Technical Review - Directorate of Licensing e Attachmen t h ( As Stated) t i cc: F. Schroeder V. Stello i( I j t s a 5 3_ a,
2 M ,4 NM T q- +. [ ( 3 . D T- .A.o k 5 t-W a -x-A %. y AmA }A 7Jbd. b g T. .g 2 A ~i r a. &1-A\\_ A. L2 A+ _e pg u 4A p, A .s1A., :h m. 4 T, ' m a v. 9_ weA b__ QA_, d 4 -A -T a. & n w =. W,-13.%' i. tp. i = M M . w _.,-s 4 -- s M b. Nw \\[ d, e b1#.o. - -- 2 : >2 Th ha, eA4 A pJL ^ .. - p &%M.Q f % c::_n -t- _% .g ,n,
- u. u m.m
.w _ u w A hk, Ax Af4 Q a-c: C_ = L o 1 4 -m l e u-g >v-w v f -wr w p g + m
.~. Y 1 ENCLOSdRED3- ~ 1 a l -4 ~ Project Manay,cr,-CS-14 . Directorate of. Licensing-a FUNCTIONAD ' TATD2h'? S ExperiencedLin. che' engineering and physics aspects of nuclear reaccors.. the'incuchent. plans land. coordinates the technical reviews, analyses, . and evalua:icasiof applicationsLfor. licenses and a'uthorizations'for the: construe:Lon:and operation of reaccors and the reviews of certain - aspects;of their design and' operation.. REGULAR' DUTIES Plans and~ coordinates the pre-review of. applications'to determine if ' they are sufficiently-complete'to-accept =as'an. application.. i ~ Plans and coordinates che review of. Safety' Analysis Reports as co the-adequacy of the teqhnical and, engineering design' da:n and information ~ contained therein, the soundness of the' basis for the conclusions of the proposed designs and operating procedures. 'Coordina:es the' pre-paration of' the safety evaluation in conjunction with: such reviews. Serves as. project manager for ' group evaluation of power reactor:licensa applicanta for which he has been assigned responsibility. 0:afc6 vit!. tccLa*c41'..yr..fLL.w... v6asuA'a-svi* psouvalua new-vu ' ~ reactors to. identity or resolve' general questions of doubt concerning design and operating characteristics which have a bearing on safety. Coordinates the preparation of safety evaluation. reports relating to-license applications for power reactor plants, as well as militar; and AEC reae:or plants for presentation to the Advisory Cc==ittee on Reactor Safeguards. A:: ends such =eetings and subec:mittee 'ceecings-as a represen=ative of the Directorate of Licensing's evaluacion s:aff. May participate at public hearings on reae:or licensing proceedings to assist other. AEC representatives or testify as an AEC staff witness ~ to present' technical testimony. Serves as a mechsr of reactor inspection teams. as m' y be necessary ro a discharge reac:or safety evaluation and judg=ent. Plans and coord'inates the review of nuclear safety aspecta of proposals- - j to build any AEC-owned reactors exempt from licensing. ] Assists in :ho prepration.of technical specificatiens fc operating i reactors; reviews operating expericace reports during initial phases-of operation; and avsluates requests for licensa amendman:s and technical specfica: ion changes during initial phases of operacion, Jutili:ing the expertise of persons outside of his 'i==ediata division . where1necessary. . (. E ,4-., ,,ver.,w ,r -,..,v.,,. L r ,,,.m.J ,4. .---,...v .. +,.., .ve.,....,n y v.. o .r.+..- mo.,,,,, 4.,,w,y.,- ,r.,~,,w.-,+c.,
l i 3-Project flanagst, GS-14 Directorate of Licensing Indannandent Action Incu= bent is. respossible for preparation of and adherecca to review schedules and for caking reco==andations on conventional engineering matters for action to be teken by the Branch Chief in regard to the acceptability of the. hazards involved in specific reactors. Incu= bent's judge =act, in many, cases, is subject to only a general. - . review, .1 .. r. SUPEK7ISION Monei WOR. gig CONDTI'ICNS. - ~ Normal. offica, cc.=di:1cesO'1Liy be-Linosed.'Es.eLid $zdiht$ca d[G :- on fiela crips ' s g ET! ORT Nor=al. i, e S (e',e Mi e ,gI m 9 .-i r. ,,r I e 4 e l 9 4 e e a ~ s g e 4. O e b e t 9
- eem en ends ee e
sM .es-e e gymmmesums
i. ' ENCLOSURE 4 1 n. ' PERFORMANCE ' APPRAISAL. AND RECORD OT' I::TERVIE!!'FOR M0!!-SUPEri"ISon? . PROFESSIO::AL IEC:C:IC.tL D2LOYT_E, PROFILC NAME: 'Robere D. Pollard-C?stDE/ STEP: -14/2 . / TIME IM GRADE: '19 months POSITION: ProjectManager/ c/s D APPRAISE.t !='DAU :' ssa] i l /4/4-Zp/ TIME.IN STEP:- I"/ months + _ g'C. 'D}eYp{ung g //-/5 .~b_ f jfm.. - - -. "EVIEliER 5 DATE: 1. TIME IM ?REVIOUS CRADE: 12; months PREVIOUS APPRAISER & DATE: D. B.~Vassallo. AEChTRC SERVICC - (YEARS) : l6-1/4: 11/11/74 PROFESSIONAL EXPERI ::CE' (Y"ACS): 6 Ilot! LONG SUPERVISED BY APPRAISER: 13 months .'2/13 /40 DATE OF BIRTH: EDUCATION'(DEGREE & YEAR):. 3 B.S. '(Elec..Eng.) 1969-i DISCUSSION TOPICS BACKGROUND ~L EXPERIENCE
SUMMARY
- Bob' received a B.S. in Electrical Engineering
J l from Syracuse University in 1969. ; Af ter joining the' AEC in 1969, he studied electrical and nuclear engineering.at.the Graduate School of.the University of New Mexico (1970-1971). in conjunction.with -the AEC Intern Program. Bob served for six years with the -U.. S.. Navy. as an electronic technician.' ~ He served as an instructor, reactor operator,< and was in charge of the-reactor control division aboard a nuerear-powered submarine. Af ter joining the AEC in July 1969, Bob' participated primarily in technical-review groups in the review of~1nstrumentation, control, and electrical systems of nuclear power plants.. For a brief period, he was a member of 1 the Standards-group and participated in developing standards and safety, guides'. He also served as a member of IEEE Committees. Bob transferred to RL~as a project' manager'in September 1974. KNOWLEDGE OF JOB 'Although Bob has excellent expertise in the inst x.entation, control, and -electrical systems of nuclear power plants, he has also developed 'very good overa11' knowledge of nuclear power plant design. Since transferring .- l to RL,_he has shown the capability to rapidly expand.his knowledge and under- ~ standing of the diverse technical review areas with which a project manager must. be familiar. Although he may require a little more e<posure in certain review areas (e.g., auxiliary systems and site related matters), Bob'is l .n. 9 4.] . i
3-Bob does not require much supervision. On the contrary, he seems to have a unique instinct of knowing the type of licensing action that a situation 7-requires and then begins to take the appropriate action without waiting for direction fro = the branch chief. In this regard, Bob has an out-standing knowledge of the Regulations and ucrks very effectively with lawyers (e.g., has prepared some quite involved technical - legal documents in conjunction with the Catawba and Indian Point 3 projects). He is very persistent in trying to get stalled actions =oving. Bob does an excellent job of keeping his branch chief apprised of major review catters. JUDCMENT - Bob is a careful thinker and-uses good logic in making judgments. He has a very good understanding of the licensing program and uses good judg=ent consistent with regulatory objectives. ColcGNICATIONS Oral - Bob has very good oral co=munication skills. He speaks clearly, with thought, and is very easily understood. He handles meetings extremely well. When he was a me=ber of TR, he had considerable experience and was very effective in presentations before the ACRS and was also exposed-to public hearings. Writtag - Bob writes extre=ely well. The docu: ants he prepares are concise and clear. As mentioned above, he has a decided instinct for knowing the type of action required and can translate this in writing without any apparent difficulty. His written work requires very little editing. PERSONAL CHAR.ACTERISTICS - Basically, Bob is a very serious minded but personable employee. He does not make rash decisions, but rather uses a more deliberative approach. Bob canages to maintain a rather even composure no =atter how difficult a situation =ay get. Bob is an extre=ely conscientious, responsible, and dependable e=ployee. Occasionally he appears to become somewhat perplexed in rationalizing the i=plementation of licensing policy. In my opinion, this is because Bob has an exceptional understanding of the Commission's rules and regulations l and takes his role of regulator very seriously. However, this has not affected his perfor=ance as a project ca9.ager. AREAS NEEDING IMPROVDfENT - Since transferring from TR, Bob is becoming exposed to a nu=ber of review areas with which he did not previously have - a great deal of familiarity. These are principally in the areas of site safety, effluent treat =ent, and some portions of auxiliary syste=s. He. has cade great strides in understanding what the major review objectives are for these areas. With the continued expos,ure he is now obtaining l in managing his projects, I do not foresee any problem in Bob bec :ing completely conversant in all review subjects. -n- -. - - --_a._.-
1 ENCLOSURE'5 i APR li 1974 - P
- e r>ocket l'o, 50-344
- e
[' i '.( t i .g R.- C. DeYoung,. Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors Group 1, L y['(( f PORTLAND GENERAL ELECIR1C CCMPANY,. TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT; SAFETT EVALUATION [ ~.; M 0F THE INSTRLEENTATION, CONIROL AND ELECTRIC PCWER SYSTEMS; DOCKET UO. 50-344 Plant J 2:ne: Trojan l!=rlear Plant Docket Number: 50-344 Licensing Stage: Operating License Responsible Branch and Project Manager: LWR 1-1, 3. H. Cutchin .j Description of Response: Safety Evaluation of the Instrumentation, l Control and Electric Power Systems Requested Completion Date: April 12, 1974 Applican,t's Response Date Necessary for Completion of Hext Action Planned on Project: Not Applicable Review Status:, Complete except: for Technical Specifications and Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report The enclosed report (Enclosure 1)' was prepared by' the i:RS, Electrical Instrumentation and Control Systems Branch for use in the Safety Evaluation Report for the Trojan Suclear Plant. The report is based on a review - of the Final Safety Analysis Report through Amendment 12 and selected schematic diagra:2s contained in PGE-1001 and PCE-1002, " Safety-Reinted Schematic Tiagrams". The principal reviewer was R. D. Pollard, L:EI&CS. '~ is a list of topical reports that: 1) have been referenced in the Trojan FSAR, 2) co*ntain information necessary to support the issuance of an operating license for Trojan and 3) have either been found unacceptable as bases for a favorable staff evaluation or have not yet been reviewed by the staff. Since topical reports are being F~ reviewed cio a generic basis, Portland General Electric will either have to $upply the equivalene information on the Trojan docket for review on an individual case basis or avait generic resolution by Westinghouse. We reco= mend that the latter approach be taken because hi the reports not' yet reviewed are scheduled for completion of their ~0 generic review prior to the decision date for Trojan, and there appears lf u a-s 1 .1 1
s ,a s. ~.. 7.7 CONTROL SYSTEMS"NOT REQUIRED FOR SAFETY f-~ N} Welhave reviewed the, plant control system provided for Trojan
- ){
and find that the design is similar to those. of other' recently-yy "[yx licensed plants. We have concluded that the differences in the ,.i design-details do not.af fect our ' previous conclusions that the design of the control systems is also acceptable for the Trojan 'f,i Nuclear Plant. JD jy' ~ 7.8 SEISMIC, RADIATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION We have not completed.our review of'the qualification test programs y applicable to the Trojan instrumentation systems.. Major portions .of.the review are being conducted.on a generic basis with the n6clest steam iystem supplier. 'We will report the results of the review and their applicability ta) Trojan in a supplement to this safety evaluation.- 8.0 ELECTRIC POWER 8.1 GENERAL I ' The Commission's General Design Criteria 17 and 18, Regulatory Guides 1.6,1.9 and 1.41, J and IEEE Std 308'1971 ~were utilized as the primary bases for evaluating the adequacy of the electric - 1 power systems' of the Trojan Nuclear Plant, I-8.2 OFFSITE POWER . Four 230 kV circuits are provided to carry the station electrical to and suoply offsite' power from the transmission network. output l There are two sets of double-circuit transmission towers located on separate rights-of-way with two 230 kV circuits mounted on each set of towers. One circuit of each set is' connected to one switching station bus on' the site and the other circuit is ~ connected to the second suitching station bus. With this r-k= arrangement-there are only two cocbinations (of the six possible : combinations) of two circuits that mcat the requirement of GDC-17 ' for two independent circuits' to supply power from the transmission F. network. These. two combinations of two circuits are:
- 1) Trojan-St. Marys circuit and' Tro,'an-Allston No. 2 circuit and 2) Trojan-Harborton circuit and Trojan-Allston No.1 circuit..The technical specifications will require that, as a minimum, one of, 60
_J ' the s two ' co6b'inations '6f two ciredits be availabic as a limiting ~~~ t condition for operatio'n' of' the " plant. The other four combir.'ti ns ' ~ - of two circuits do not' meet the requirement of CDC-17 because the two circuits 'are either mounted on ' the same transmission towers or are connected to the same switching - station bus. -~ L
r ENCLOSURE 2 i Referenced Topical Reports Not Reviewed or Reviewed and Found Unacceptable P-1. WCAP-7821, Seismic Testing of Electrical and Control Equipment [] l (High Seismic Plants),- December 1971 't Status - Not reviewed - TAR scheduled for completion 6/15/74. g? (E ( 2. WCAP-7744' Environmental Testing of Engineered Safety Features uf... Related Equipment (NSSS - Standard Scope), August 1971. 18!? ? Status - Reviewed and found unacceptable because "it can not i be determined that the equipment and systems tested under the subprograms can complete their safety functions for the time required following a design. bases accident." (Ref: Letter to R. Salvatori f rom D. B. Vassallo, dated March 12, 1974.) 3. WCAP-7672, Solid State Logic Protection System Description, June 1971 Status - Found acceptable provided "the equipment is adequately qualified seismically and environmentally and the appropriate documentation has be,en provided." (
Reference:
Letter to R. Salvatori from D. B. Vsssallo, dated March 6,1974.) PGE has ( not. supplied information specifically applicable to the Trojan solid state logic protection system. Perhaps WCAP 7821 and WCAP-7744 discussed above will be revised to include the solid state logic protection system, 4. WCAP-7705, Engineered Safeguards Final Device or Activator Testing, Narch 1973 Status - Reviewed and found unacceptable (
Reference:
Letter to R. Salvatori from D. B. Vassallo, dated September 10, 1973.) WCAS-7705, Revision,1l Testing of Engineered Safety Features Actuation Systems, February 1974, was recently submitted. Letter to D. V. Vassallo from R. Salvatori dated (
Reference:
7-March 26,1974.)- 5. WCAP-7819 Revision 1, Test Report, Nuclear Inst rumentation System Isolation Amplifier, January 1972 Status - Not reviewed. TAR scheduled for completion S/5/74 (
Reference:
Status Report - Review of Wbstinghouse Topical Repotts, D. B. Vassallo, February 20, 1974.) g d.
. ENCLOSURE 6 i l
- ,N. \\,,
UNITED STATES - ,, f ATOMIC ENERGY COMMIS510N. -[, h-, ) 't a wassencros, o.c. zous - )~ I) %.qg/i . July 21. 1971 Mr. J. Forster Atomic Power Equipment Department General Eleecric Company - M/CO37 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125 Subj ec t : IEEE.*123
Dear Jay:
My comments on this document were solicited by Mr. Sherr in his letter of June 24, 1971. He should not have done it. -I cannot findJa. single redeeming feature'in this worthless document. Far from' being what its; title suggests, it contains only the most gener-al kind of stuff on how to qualify something - anything. The body of' 'the document is not even speci*ic enough to be related to electrical equipment. Furthermore, the various clauses are so general that it's, essentially impossible to determine compliance. For these reasons the referenced document in its present form is, as I said above, without value. Sincere,1y yours, bJM St phen H. ' Hanauer cc: Louis Costrell Sava I. Sherr-i 1 e Y i )/
i } ENCLOSURE 7; 1 ;. 's. +,,, ( O J1)L gsg \\ .ORAfiDUet FOR: _ Chairman Hendrie Consnissioner Gilinsky I Cosmissioner Kennedy ) Commissioner Bradford g,4 4 THRU: Mxecu'tive Director for Operations ROM: Edson G. Case, Acting Director, MRR SU' JECT: UNION OF CONCEP.NED SCIEt!TISTS' ?ETITION FOR RECCMSIDERATICn DATED MAY 2, 1978 provides answers to the five asterisked items identified in-the Secretary's =emorandum of June 21,1976, for which staff response was recuested by July 5,1978. A response to the other items will be provided by August 25,1978. I g Edson G. Case. Acting Director Cffice of Muclear Reactor Regulation
Attachment:
As stated cc: Secretary l UCS PDR i ( E\\. ,n -+ ,y 4-e e
- n. w-m r-,1--..
e.
5 i ~t (- ENCLOSURE 1 PARTIAL RESPONSES TO THE SECRETARY'S JUNE 21, 1978 MEMORANDUM CONCERNING THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS' PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
- 1.
UCS quoted the staff as stating that in at least some presently operating plants, a fire could have the same effect as the Browns Ferry fire. Identify those plants, if any, and the basis for permitting such plants to continue operation. (pages1,2)
Response
The Brown's Ferry fire was an unmitigated fire which burned in excess of seven hours, disabling redundant safety systems. The staff has recognized since the Brown's Ferry fire that there are certain locations in some operating plants in which an unmiti-1/ gated fire could affect redundant systems. Fires causing cables to burn in such locations could disable the normal operation of such safety systems, but would not necessarily' prevent operator action from perfor' ming the safety function. Every nuclear power plant has some flamable materials that are either fixed or transient; therefore, at least a limited potential' for fires in nuclear power plants exists; however, such fires should not adversely affect safe plant shutdown. Since the total ) elimination of unforeseen fires is not an achievable goal, the staff i _1/ See page 34, staff report dated December 15, 1977. b l r=% - :.C -" M. --eMr--- 4, i l u. A,...,,, s ,,...6 .6.
,,The results to date of the ongoing staff evaluations of fire protection programs show that each plant contains a few fire areas where a postu-lated unmitigated cable fire may affect both divisions of redundant safety systems. Such potential fires are then carefully analyzed to determine whether the existing and proposed fire protection features would assure compliance with BTP ASB 9.5-1 and its Appendix A. Particular attention is given.to assuming for each critical area, that either the fire protection systems would mitigate the fire so that the fire would disable no more than a single division, or that an alternate method of shutdown is available independent of the systems affected by the fire in a particular area. Where it is not clear that a potential fire would be limited to one division, or that at least one method of achieving and maintaining safe shutdown is independent of the postulated fire, additional fire protec-tion features or additional shutdown capabilities, or both, have been required by the staff. The operating plants for which our fire protection evaluations are suffi-ciently complete tn indicate the need for an alternative method of shutdown are identified in Table 1. l I l M ee pages 23-26, staff report dated December 15, 1977. S I -p 7. .--M-
a Table 1 (' 'l Status of Review Findines for Operatino Plants I ~ Plants Shown to Date to Have Adecuate Shutdown Capability (1) Arkansas 1 j - Fort Calhoun ,~. Kewaunee Maine Yankee Oyster Creek - Turkey Point 3 & 4 Verfaont Yankee Browns Ferry 1, 2 & 3 j Plants Which Have Installed Alternate or Dedicated Shutdown' System { a J D. C. Cook 1 & 2 t Hatch 'l & 2 Ft. St. Vrain. Plants Recuiring an Alternate or Dedicated Shutdown Svstem Brunswick 1 & 2 (To be installed by January 1979) Haddam Neck (To be coordinated with SEP schedule) Oconee 1-3 (To be installed-by October 1980) Pilgrim (2) ' Rancho Seco (To be installed by December 1979) Robinson 2 (2) Three Mile Island 1 (2) Three Mile Island'2 (To be installed by March 1980) Trojan (To be installed by June 1979). (1)' All except Browns Ferry subject to verification analysis. (2) Schedule for implementation not yet detennined; staff expects it l l to be prior to October 1980. l' + t 9 0 .I .w .n., nm.,..-, 1-~ '. _ - ....__.-...7_ j j L' l . _ ~,
ENCLOSURE 3 /' HOV - 4 1977 i. P.. E. Tiller, Directer Reactor Operations a Programs Divisten Idaho Operations Office - 00E Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401 FWR FtJEL ASSEMBLY MECllAli!C."1 RESP 0'ISE A!!/ LYSIS - Stig-316-77 Ref: (a) R. L. Grubb, P'.:R Fuel Assembly Hechanical Respcnse Analysis, Idaho flational Encincering Latoratory. RE-E-77-141. Ibrch 1977 (b) R. L. Grubb, PHP. Fuel Assc=oly t'echanical Responso Analysis, Arendment I:o.1 Idaho ft:tional Engineerina Laboratory, RE-E-77-140, !! rch 1977 (c) R. L. Grabb and B. F. Saffell, Jr, llon-linear Lateral Mechanical Response of Pressuri:ed Water Rescter Fuci Assemblics, ASt:E Paper 77-UA/0E-lS, Decemcer 1977 (d) H. !!uno, !!. lif zuts, cr.d !!. Tsumuna, Develo;eent of Advt.nced Hethod For Fuci Seis :ic Analysis, ath International Conference on Structural l'cchantes in Reactcr Technology, San Francisco, California, (JSA, August,1977 (c) R. L. Grubb, Feasability Study for Bounding the Lateral PWR Fuel Assembly itechanical Res::ense Analysis, Idaho Hatienal 7' Engineering Laboratory, RE-E-77-160 Rev.1, poly,1977
Dear !!r. Tiller:
l A pararetric study to assess the effect of variations in cere plate cottons on fuel assembly spacer grid crushing loads is currently in progress. A sucrary de:criptien of this study inciuding crelininary results ha: been prepared at the recuest of the !:acTear Regulaccry Corrission's Civisien of Sys'en Safety, Ccre Perfercnce Err.ncn. Results of this study incicate that a zall variaticn in ccre plate frecuency rey nave a significant l effect on spacer grid crushing loads. As the study is not cor plcte, thesc l results should be considered preliminary. A rnechantsim s.hs pcstuicted in Reference (c) ach indicated that the in-put core plate rotien could significantly affect spacer ocid crushina loads. The prinary cbjective of the present study we.s to deternine if this rechanisim could be shown to exist. A seccndary nb.!cetive is to l compare linear end nonlinear analysis tecnniques. In surmary then the purpose of this study is toofold: l (1) Statistically detarr.ine the effect of c:r plate frec,uency and ragnitude en :ne fuel assc= sly raximun spacer grid l crushing leads, and l f l^ (E) Statistica1b c: pare iincar and acnlinear analysis ~;thods d ' for lateral fuel 2 :ently ~acunical respenso in an attc st to simplify the nenlinear analysi:. 9
?- O P lid'lE. Tiller R' 4 'bl[ . Stig-316-77 .l. 'Page 3 .I Reference (e) could actually be clicited Lin the nonlinear analysis. The rech-I I anisin appears to cr.isti thcreby causing concern that per anent deforr.ation of spacer grids.Tay cccur. Upon completion of this study th'e' conclu: ion:: prc:ented in Ocference (b) vill be. ren::cssed. i yery truly yours, crfc:N Ar Sicico LY R. R. Stigct, l'anaccr. Reactor Dehavior Division BFS:cij
- ::' V. Stello, NF.C-CGR
's P. S.~ Check, fiF.0-OSS S. B.* Kim, URC-035 ^~ R. J. liattsen, tir,C-OSS. R. O. l'cycr, flP.C-CSS D. F. Ross, !!RC-OSS i R. 11. Kichn, EGLG Idaho bec: R. L. Grubb R. \\l. ' Itacek'. C. A. Peore C.F.Obenchain65.A' H B. F. Saffcil SF ~"' G. L. Thinnes D T. R. Thempscn P. H. Vander Hyde L. J. Ybarrendo Central File File %s e y i u 1 ~
- y..
3
t ^ f - UMITED STATES a- - t NUCLEAR HEGULATOnY COMMisslON-ENCLOSURE 9 L j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20505 C \\....y/ August 18,'1977 ~ i MEMORANDUM FOR: E. G. Case, Acting' Director. i Office'of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Stephen H. Hanauer, Technical-Advisor to Executive Director for Operations ' SbBJECT:. INTERACTION BETWEEN CONTROL SYSTEM AND PROTECTION t SYSTEM The Zion incident of July. 12, 1977, apparently shows a design defect as well as the obvious gross management deficiency. The 31 dumy signals disabled the primary system level control, which initiated ~ a transient involving decreasing level. Concurrently, the same i sequence of events disabled portions of the protection' functions associated with the same level. Thus a single sequence of events ~ caused the transient' and paralyzed. the safety provided for that very transient. Westinghouse designs are characterized by the large number and types of interactions between control systems and related safety systems. They think this is great. I think it is unsafe. This feud has.been going on for years. I have not so far. H able.to find out whether at single signal or group of signale ' to both control and safety, whether the interaction wa, <r e i)scure. It almost doesn't na cter. I also don't know (and "s much care) whether the. interaction, whatever its nature, is a'..ed by the -various meticulously crafted clauses in.IEEE-279. For existing plants, I believe the. lesson of the Zion incident should be taken to heart and acted on constructively. The fact that', this time, nothing bad happened is a tribute to good operator action and defense in depth, and should not keep us from learning the lesson. All~ interactions between control functions and safety function should be reviewed in the light of this experience. A statement that no such dummy signals are allowed is not to the point; next time, some different and not now foreseen sequence of events may start the ball rpiling. What is.needed is adequate inde.pendence of control functions from safety functions that provide against control malfunctions. e i ' i SS 1-a, h b
ENCLOSURE 10 u - ~._. 1 I ,.7-firYC$?4'*,,;1$>2 :.,-xQ&, _.4'46 **S.&Xid"5?.'US 7 nom O iTOm ' u C+'.E.=<!t~Q0N.W. u.i%..+'~~~,,Q.79i- '&.'. "'..N.&-lK..l*.:5...,W ? .:' dnr: W ? : #% W ..hE%M ,.~."4 e ...r.. smgg%pA=:'n;k.:2,7,.v2 h.L*ty.%.-;Qr.v;%s ~';t.c.:.,::a.:.:. pa..:iY{ mj%ak.s '.re:.<..s.. u r-. w* m > > %.. $2 Re-
- . s. -
a .q ... i m.. c; *: , h: >+&c~ c usic 7:cm ~ww.n;yyp=MMM k r@N*Mr 82.ENYM N5I t,q:~k@!? pr,~,D;nr%# -*g[.v-6.N.M..,1dM a ',: uk - so. 2;.1 L. M 55 4 J I
- y w h. w h dd.W D
,,;v e-:r-w.hz..ve h. e .Q. p + jY hr .,, %w.e.h.g ~< %* %:,,:w-r[.,,.w'C'2?,p'#,,a,&.MV'?.-g e.h bl;% f.,..itN.dt M. ZI" i l [v.g e ; M% m.:: . yQa y.: 7c;=.. w..,, g.n,,Q,:.-*,'%;. Jq; p -:.., - p.w... ',"W.c?*cw..s,- w, '&&'4***p.g"Q;...-><4<.iR Q '. %.ty a&? l f.,,7 9.r. 3, 6,v% ,Q a e: .~a Mg y~M C.mf;'.f.9>w.rc-l.i _ ~._ ~- k ,.r%. -Gn.igt d enew.:.~.-f:% y*,,,;,,,',75PQ.~)J:g; p ~ '.
- q'
..~ '.*v <.',,y-y :,.( f.;
- .
- - ~s
. w ? a. i C;~ /- by.j+ ;.;;'.'.p~ 43:f"c :. na. ::.~ .6m
- 4. r,,
,. r.a:.;..J:.,r C .*g,y ,7 :.' .W ar* 'r.. d M ,,w.M**n:%. 7.A- ~ & m.....p k w: g== qf.9 w.u.. %.. <:k. m...m) a.,.ceg. qSnwn-e-M'
- i,..
v-c. 2 + + f.>ty'.y.f.%.w:+"% nq'Of., !%&'--A,$,.*4'&'%:i.e
- 4wred,;W cp* e-mY c'.
~ " 4._.W;W.~ tv%:pyy,. p-ave .h s. h; y kW.C EQ ~ a d. e.?
- ,,,,.,m n.v s >;o,f.v.Q@-l?.1.gf,.
ik W.,9.w&. n y <7 gg! W g,59%,v"N;p;.3,1.,4.#.~..s&q.m':ph;m u.w . L.m-
- 4. e,-
W. ,w
- 9e.e ~0 r
.s
- % y.,e
- -d'3,9QM9,r,
.a./- 6g. . L. j w .- Qe%;..%g??%.gt 'Wg, M tid =q-x. r+W2.'.WG.M:.G 'a..f@~2;? gp Ow m n..:,k.-p&w pe% x r :~m.&,. v., - T 9 m% .N - ' w u.0, m % [N. M. x,,:.. i:3. W.$.M W'id,M31 Q!,ma.Ym u.'*w w,, a..w..m. w,3YG44TL7 o a.: p M
- ,.k. v-sc s v& g,w#g2h;c-N.%.-u+.
- ca. ; ;er,.y.wryc'y#. ww; ::,m.
- :n w:~p;m..
- :aw ,t r; ,e .:u s ; -k:@c.4 a , 6.e..,W:y5N?EM%, gN$e--~..wliW;fW. s:g;.f.s;g.m,py: .-4 n t5.2. c. 4,,g&;4..ws.g,c..;6.c%,;.. .c. o.w.p.+r..u,f.-p *.te;
- a< w.eg.>.
xy e,y A, . ~ 9,w -- $N . x y v= g k f y Sf? $ W l ($ h2.x i The complete text of this memo, with the exception of the writer's identity, is as i follows: l 4 f " Memo from (Name Deleted] f BOB POLLARD ENCLOSED NOTE FROM @ IS FLOATING AROUND THE ~ INDUSTRY AND DESERVES YOUR RAISING IT IN SOME PROCEEDING. OBVIOUSLY KEEP ME OUT OF IT. [ Initials Deleted]" Porrtond General Decmc t'==== m,5 c. N .sh S.=* .T t***
ENCLOSURE 11 4 l Deesm%r 2,1976 Dear Many thanks for your recent nets and the acciosure. I'll try to put it to good use. I no lenger have an office so the Wahington a:! dress I new werk out of my home you have is enthted. which is: -s S ? %,,,,.,.,;, f' - ,; :*',. si:hr'. w;*- Y, ;y' ft.;t m .p. y 4, ~ ~, g.* P..
- ~
'T. I' Lt.$" :'.) _'r ~ 4,.. _ Sincers17, Robert D. "ellard 4 4 0 l
ENCLOSURE 12 { I ~ I F_,'f'_kS?,f?h;m$hh, f? - :n.. s f. ~~, ' d *yij %.7 ~ January lb,1977 l
Dear I passed the 'lestiny,
house decinant en fuel handling acci!ents inside containment to sene interveners and sent a copy to the TRC. A copy of my letter to Gilinsky and the reely from Strauss arn enclosed, as you can nos they would like more infomation. If have any other info you want.?.e to forward to NRC, send it along. Contrary to Strauss' sucestien, there are no circu:r. stances where I would dicolose the seureo. Sincersly, Robert D. Pe11ard l 1
- p. ea
.e d O~.D (D UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS l January 3, 1977l 4 Comissioner Victor Cilincky U.S. I?ucicar Regulator / Cemissien Washington, D.C. 2C$$$ -i
Dear Comissioner:
We received the enclosed docunent fron an individual who wishes to rensin anonymous. We are sending it to you in the hope that the 1;uclear Regulatory Cer:tissien vill take prest action to protect the health and safoty of the public - from the known riska discussed in the docunent. The docunent correctly indicates that the censequences of a fuel handling accident inside the reactor containment building are not considered by the %RC in deciding. whether a nuclear power plant chould receive a license. In addition, the document indicates that Westinghouse belinves that a fuel handling accident inside contain-mont could result in radiation doses to the public in excess of 10 CF?. Part ICO limits, i.e., in excess of' 25 rem to the whole b:dy and 300 rem to the thyroid. In view of these statenents, it appears that a fac1 handling accident inside containnent is an "unreviewed safety question" and a "significant safety hazard.* We recomend that the PRC review the desir;n and procedures of each oterating nuclear power riant to detem ine whether a fuel hanm 'ig accident inside contain-nent will result in doses that "are well within the guideline values of-10 C73 Pa:-t 100," as roecified in Section 15.7.h of the Standard Review Flan..Until such reviews are cen1sted, tre believe that the Rtc should issue orders to halt all refueling enerations in nrogress and to orchibit all future refueling opera-tiens. In addition, we believe that it is 27propriate for the :IRC to initiate investigations to detemine whether Section 206 of the Energy Reorganisation Act of 197h has been viointed by individual directors or responsible efficers of Westinghouse and other firns which received the enclosed document. We veuld ayereciate hearing fren you premstly regarding the action that :EC will take to resolve this natter. We also veuld like an - ermlanation. of t he, reasons i for lac not previously requiring analysis of a fuel handling acciderd inside containment and the stees that will be taken to correct this deficiency in tha licensing process. By copy of this letter, we are also sending the enciesed document to the chai=en l of the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safe ;urrds, the Atoaic Safety and Licensing Board Pa el and the Atenic Safety and licensing Apn:1 Panel. I'l Sincerely, ' l /Y '. .? 4Q! s' .j/Q-y;'?,
- <cD'.%
Robert D. Pell:rd 1-12CS Masechusotts Avon.;0
- Carnbridge. Massschuntts C21M. Telephone (617) 517-5532
s' As you are aware, a. fuel handling accident in the spnt fuel storage building is analy/cd in plant Safety Analysis P.cports. The assumpti'ons utili:cd for this ' analysis are outlined in licgulatory Guide 1.25. " Assumptions Used for Evaluating the. Potential Consequences of'a fuel Handling Accident in the fuel Handling and Storage facility." The off-site consequences of this accident are compared to 10CTR100 limits of-300 rem to the th/roid and 25 rem whole body dose in: the Safety Analysis Reports. In addition, the-t:RC compares the resultant doses with unofficial limits of 30 - rem to the thyroid and 5 rem whole body dose. However, a fuel handling accident inside the containment is not addressed in. the Safety Analysis Reports, other than indirectly in Standard Tech Specs. W is not aware of the f.RC tases for not addressing a fuel handling accident inside con-tainment, the bases may include: 1. The assumption' that the containment will be isolated during refueling operations; i 2. that the containment could be isolated quickly enough to-limit off-site ConscQuences; or i 3. that filtration capability comparable to that in fuel storage building exhausts exists in the containment purge exhaust. These bases are similar to the ' bases used to address the fuel handling accident in the fuel handling building. Inf ormation available to us, including results of scoping analyses using very ~ conservative assu ptions based'upon Regulatory Guide 1.25, indicates that site boundary doses in excess of exposure guidelines set forth in 10CFR100 could result from a fuel handling accident inside containment if one assumes no credit for containment isolation, iodine filtration, or mixing within containment. In addition to using Regulatory Guide 1.25 assumptions in'the scoping analyses, we assumed operaticn of systems which would result in the most conservative dose. For e.vample. it ses assumed that a push-pull typc or exhaust only sweep ventila-tion system is in operation over the refueling canal so that activity releases are routed imrediately to the purge exhaust. Much of the inforr.ation required to do an evaluation for specific plants is not available to us. We do 'recorsnend, newever, that you evaluate. the consequences of this potential incident to assure that unacceptable doses are not a probable result. Since the T RC regulations do not require.the analysis, we do not believe [- this situation requires reporting to the fiRC unless your engineering evaluation shows unaccontabic results. In accomplishing tne evaluation for your plant, we recccrend t"at you use Regulatory Guide 1.25 assumptions or othoc conwrvative-justifiaele paracaters. We also believe that y:.,u should not tale credit for the function of any system or com;)onent that is not qualified for operation during this particular incident,' for example, we think you might take credit for equip-ment not qualified for the post accident contaiment environment but seismic 1 qualification may very well be required. Picase feel free to contact us if further information or assistance is required. e, i 1 U
--t. y -f iM" "'4 t UNITED STATES. 1-er NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ; +y.. W WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 ' .5 Q**** / January.6, 1977 .. j . Mr. Robert D. Pollard 4 i Union of Concerned Scientists 1208 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138-j
Dear Mr. Pollard:
.Comissioner Gilinsky has asked me to respond to your letter of-January 3,1977,. forwarding an otherwise unidentified attachment' raising certain questions regarding fuel handling accidents. The letter and its enclosure have been. forwarded to Mr. Lee-Gossick. the Conmission's Executive Director, of Operations,.with a request th_at he ' provide.it to the proper Staff. offices,.and assure. a timely.- . direct and appropriate. response to your statements of. concern and to' .the issues raised by the' partial' document youlhave supplied. 'The Conmission has asked to be promptly informed of the outcome. If there are circumstances which would permit you to supply further contexting information regarding the attachment forwarded with your ' letter,. the Comission would appreciate having that information. I-am sure that procedures. can' be devised to provide the necessary con-fidentiality for your source, should that.be an' issue in~ this' regard. Obviously, knowledge of the full context will assist the Commission's staff in evaluating the concerns you have raised and the documentary fragment you have provided.' (. Sincerely. i l_ h-hWe Peter L. Strauss General Ccunsel t I f-
2691 I f;. CHAIR.t'AM MILLCR: Nell, we tre going to ask for =m2 1, s -8 come ec=ments, reaction cf cctnscl or partias. s 3, Do you want to take e. bout tan minut2s cc let O , I. ~ me get my breath and ycu get yours, r;et all your thoughts y S together? 6 MS. BELL: Yes. 7 (Recess) ~ 3, O CHAIRMAN MILLER: All right, the hearing will _w. t' ~~ 9 resume, pleace. 10 We would like to have the responsa of counsel and 11 parties to these matters that have been raised. 12 Docs Staff wish to go first? 13 MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, first of all the Staff is (.,,/ 14 of tha vieu that the matters raiced by Mr. Pollard ara 15 once again beyond the secpe of what can be censidered here. 16 Mr. Pollard himself states on page 23 that what he I 17 j, ia addressing here is thc original equipmen: q:clificaticn. nl' la / That was an operating licence matter. An 0;erating licenc:o 13 was issued for this facility. 20 Meyertheless, the Staff dcas hcVe concern for 1 a 21 I the safety of this plant. l i i CHAIrlitm MILLER: Th2 neard, qui:2 ?ra. '.1.7, he.c s,n2 .n. c.,: y.. i, r/ 23 g questmen. 4. L: 24 't Me subscribe to the stat.: of the recorf pr r.-ice.31y sie 3 '; with our established principle that re don't rede anf that 'cre ') er j {: ,4 r, i. r_n:r-..____ _ r rn _ _ r r _ n y___ _.__ n__-_-__ u __
.l 4, I f 2692 .i. ll l' !! m.:.y. excep t.. TL g 2:1- . tiowever, I think there tre cases, Mr. Gray, if S J there are significant. issues raised in a variaty of forms, 11 g 4I whether it be new information, whether it be new knowledge l 5 on the state of the art, whether it he information from %t ~ 5- .utiliti s.and others that didn't surface, I think there'ar( j sv / exceptions.
- id-
.A ~M~ 8-Isn't that the rule that we have been following? . n;is.,V . :.w.. -wr .., s,
- eMR. GRAY:
I celieve the excepf. ions are.still y% 9 i +. ~ r h& - m e to within the scope of -- they must still be brithin the scop'e of' &j 11 the jurisdiction of thS Board. .f 12 CHAIRMAN MILLER: What are the exceptions, first? i 'Let's have a little discussion of that. 13 b) ~ MR. GPM: If what I understand to be the e::ceptions }.4 referred to, there are those situations in an operating jg
- g license or operating license ar.endment proceeding in which matters other than issues in controversu raised by the 1.,.
i gg parties can be considered.- And I believe the established rule is that in an 19 20, operating license prcceeding and in a license amendment pro-l ceedi'ng, only matters placed in controversy by the parties 21 a 1 I belie *e; heweiter, che.3 2.3 CFn 2.~60A ma'r ba consid red. .t ']. - j wat.es thct in 4xtrcordinary circ =ctancas, cdditienel tatters j y may be raised by the Licensing 3 card on its own. 2.4 .e. u. . } I also balieve that Appandix A to part 2 indicatos ti -- l j "' + t il ~ n i I ,e. t .._r.,- ,m ,. %_ =- -- - _ x
2693 mm4 I that such additional matters must, nevertheless within the j 2 l (j scope of the jurisdiction.of the Board, within the general 3 ccope of what that proceeding is concerned with. ] Q 4 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Well, are there not findings, and l i 5 probably in your proposed findings, statements to the effect 6 that there l's no significant' difference in thoca matters 7 that were found, such as. safety of equipment, let us say,- 8 which was found by the previcus proceeding. ?,. 9
- Jr s ey 3
- If-there have been no significant changes testified j,
10 to or brought to the Board's attention, isn't that language 11 included, isn'b that based upon, if there are significant 12 changes that thorse may be inquired into by the Beard or the 13 parties? O 14 MR. GRAY: Significant cnanges because of the l ; j 15 reason we are here, wnich is the control building design 16 deficiencies. 17 CHAIRMET MILLER: Well, we will pass to that than 18 if we are in agreement that significant changes may be 19 considered by the Board. 20 That is a different qu'estion. 21 MR. GRAY: I guess I cannot agree that matters of 22 acymmetrie-loadings on reactor vessels and the containment pJ 23' is a matter that may be consid red here. i 24 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Well, what about the reliability m l '25 of safety-related equipment? mNm. m 9.t---<.~+y.. _.y y,.._
- a....:.~..
- - ~. - - - - - - - - - - - - 2694 mn3 I' MR. GRAY: If the safety-related eqilipment was Q '2 previously found, pursuant to issuance of che operating 3 license, to be' qualified according Oc certain standards. h 4 And'what I mean by that'is thera were qualification curves 5 generated of acceleration versus fraquency. + e ~ !a '6 'Th'a question then arices -- that arises, is 7 whether the control building complex in its as-built V.] y 8 condition and the equipment therein, the effects of that ..q.. ...s > s ;w .g 9 are such that the origina,lly_ developed qualification curves ,.j. = 10 are not exceeded. That is, for e.Tample, floor response 1.j ii 11 spectra now for the as-built control. building were regenerated 12 and.if those response spectra are still enveloped by the 13 original equipment qualification curves, we believe that as h) 14 far as this proceeding is concerned, that is the end of the 15
- inquiry, 16 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Well, I don't think we are still 17 quite addressing the core question.
k 19 The Trojan operaing license proceeding,was that 19 a contested preceeding? 20 MR. GRAY: I believe it uns contested on one ~ 11 issue not having to do with sci:=ic quclificatice of equip =cnt. 22 CHAIRMAN 14 ILLER: Well then, as far as the sai.snic g3 qualifications is concerned it was net contest:d, c.nd henco y could net preceed as a centssted hearing. 18 th3D CUTICCt? 23 I %-e---.__ . wN eer.
- '*"N*****'**"'*****
N #P# *"** ' ' " *
, -.. _ _, r. __ u 2695 g MR. GRAY: As to that matter, that's true. 2 CHAIRFA11 MILLI:R: And then if not insubstantial-Y 3 questions.are raised as to what was.actually done or not done 4 in.the seismic qualification of the ' equipment, do ycu not approach a'threshhold issue which was discussed-in
- w, 5
6 Aeschliman, and although limited and cut down by.the Supreme? { ' ?,l L;.; Court's decision, Vermont" Yankee, nevertheless is there not' e 7 ,,w- ?' *(&, a triggering point for which the Board,' irrespective of g 8 ~ N NN the tobligatioEs of' other' parties - could not t!ie Board 1 g ~ Q Qiq f.,:;;;;
- 3 p w ; ;' : '
reach a ;certain threshhold. pcirit' at which it may have an jQy 10 wff obligation in the public interest, to at least. develop a l gy l C mplete record on matters which are'thus triggered by the i 12 1.hreshhold, initiation thereof? 2M 13 .M MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, I have doubts about that, y seri us y, ecause f the fact that if tha't is the case, 15 een every s ug1e u soe ynd eere can de an.u nn =,of I -issues. - every single issue that was not explicitly raised 17 4 and centested in any operating license proceeding is then ~ g subject to being raised at some later time years and years g away in an unrelated operating license and amendment proceeding 20 And I don't believe that that was the intent of the regulations of the AtomicEnergy Act, or of anything else.. I believe t.bere are other appropriate mechanisms -where those things can be raised. That is th: ough requests ] for orders to show cause.
- A;.O gi.
w---- T-zri "n.m D' PW g-
- M
_W d
2696 mr.7 1 And, in fact, il Mr. Pol. lard hr.d these real ) ,2 concerns we are at a loss as to why they were not raised in 3 that matter. h 4 CHAIRMAN MILLER: The Board is at a loss as to 5 why they were not raised in August or September, frankly. e 6~ But there is no point in pur. suing that. t 7 However, you cite an extreme example of what <[* s Y 8 happens if you don't indulge in the resumption of regularity ,,....{. -n @ 9 of our Administrative procedures, of thousands of things ("? 3~ pg
- V 10 being raised' unrelated matters.
11 That is really not the case that we are confronted 12 with here. 4 13 We are confronted with a case where there was 14 a serious question raised by the Licensee and Bechtel, and 15 quite appropriately became known for the first time that 16 there were ancmalies - call them whatever you wish -- but tp there were two respects in which the seismic capability of 4 ja the plant was not in accordance with the FSAR, nor with the 19 requirements of the. Staff. end T1229 wel fis 2f 22 ) 23 24 D i 1 25 l l ._..-~~-...-.--.mn-- --- ~ ~~--
= - a..a -... s 2697 v?EL 13 wel 1 1 That being so, it's not a thouse.nd thinas that 2 happened in unrelated matters. What we're concerned with f 2: right here is with the knowledge of those facts whether or 4 not this plant can be said to be capable of safe operation g 5 during an interin period whi;!.e modifications are being made. J 6 Now, we can't just ignore the fact,-it seems to' [ 7 me, as a member of the Board, that when you're 1 coking at-7;!n ..y a seismic questions, seismic capabilities of a building, seismic . g .o ; g capacities.of a complex in that area which contains safety-f~ig ,i 10 related and other equipment, that this is scrothing that's - Ty"{ 6ird, 1; so extraneous that you may not have a serious gutstion of the 12 presumption of regulcrity of the prior proceedings, uhich is
- I 13 the rule we have been following.
4. { lh But cnce the quastion is raised, which is not 14 1'S unrelated, this is direct seismic, this is Trcjan, this is 16-the impact of a seismic event upon a building that has certain deficiencies, whatever they may be. ~4e've had extansive testimeny and ctudieu. Jur 3; responsibility and yours. You've accepted it. Now we-do 3g have, it seems, at least possible the raising of issues and ; 20 matters that do ralate to saismic capability and the rasults 2! of soirmic e' rents, and that in's not 0.n tren that we can 22 o i 23 0 just ci ply say that the precumpticn of ad=inistr:ci?2 regularity is sufficient to dispose of the T:2stien, given gf. the fac th:t this Eccrd, and you, as Staff, h m public - g i-1 i .l I i w 4 w w w w - * ' ' -w-M -#6w de. + V-4 W w
- -t_W--4 1
g u-y.PyirFSa
.a +. - ~._e a j-2698 ual I 1 1 interest re.cpons'ibilities which transcend those of the 1 + 6 parties in an adversary proceeding, . V.. T - i 2 And that's-why I'm asking for advice from the 4 Staff. 5' MR.-GPAY: Well,'Mr. Chairman, I was going to go .s ( on further'to say that decpite the fact that'we do think.at ' "lT y this point that these matters are beyond the ' scope of what hp m,. .s 3L we're. involved with here, nevertheless the Staff has.in -y A+. 4 die. past'.doneL a number of things which give us confidence s g%' g c :. v 16' that the pl' ant is safe, despite the allegations of Mr. 3'(l 8 t gy.; Pollard. h ta: [ Now, I'may -- C*/.AIRME MILLER: 'Well','look~at it from the Board's ' ~;
- 15) l w!
point of view. i I ggd We recognize the Staff is a party end we consider i .g. them to be capable. But the 3oard has to go a little bit farther than that, doesn't it? Dosan't the 3cnrd h:ve to
- 7
" -c 1,. I have the record sufficiently developed such that revi wing 18: I authorities may look at all sides and all fr_cets,.and not rg.. simply th= se that might satisfy the Staff, with its technical g expertise and so forth? But a record sufficient to sustain g up n appeal that the Scard perfonT.s its stOlic duty? 22, h
- 2. GE 2 10 s t m, and I sucsc tbn bri.1;a b) 23 I
us again te cur being at odds as to just what 9.he Board's .y [ g' duty is here. w 'j. ~ CHAIR.NAIT MILIM: It's easy to stcte, but it's 4 . - ~ ~, i --~ ~~w-- ~ - - - - e w n ,w n- ,-+.m.-- m.w .e
l i 2699 ) wel 3-I '1 ' hard-to appl', to see whether or not during an interim period { \\ t rg of operation when some yet-to-be-fully-developed plans for 2 i 3 modifications because of seismic deficiencies take place, Q 4-whether or.not we have'a fully developed record so that we 5 can say with assurance that safe oparation can reasonably be 6 expected. 7 We now have some questions raised.. If.the Staff's S s advice to the Board is simply based new upon administrative > 4:p, .+ ~ m g + . y,, 9. ~ regularity, we have a serious question in our minds.that the,. jg -52 Id threshold has not been reached, by virtue of the Supreme 0 11 Court's decision, which modifies but nonetheless -- as we 12 read it, at least - does not obliterate the threshold 13 situation of) Aeschliman and other D.C. Court of Appeals \\.) ~ 14 decisions. We really don't know. 15 We're asking.for serious advice frem the Staff, 10.: now, cn this threshold question. 17 Secondly, we're pointing cut that if t'le Staff j 19 has probicas because this is a limited appecrance statement - 19 which it is - the Daard certainly.has the pov2r to subpoena 20 lir. Pollard and start teking some testimeny under oath, and 21 would ash the Staff and the Licenses to develop the tasti.;ony 2g which will cover fully, if there's not adequat. exterage in 2:3 this record, of this particular problem. 2.1 Mcw, have you gi'ren it sericus thencht? Iss the 25 Staff's respensibility, now. I'm not asking you to give the t y, c. t,we= - - r y,- -?-- ~** T - ,,. + * ~
2700 wel' 4 ' l 1 Staff's view as if you were writing-a brief, but the Staff 2 (g looking at the Board as another segment of' the NRC, 3 and charged with certain responsibilities which may be Q. different from, and are certainly independent from, Staff's.. 4 i 5 The Board is therefore asking Staff for counsel, 6 and it's a little bit different now from some other-types of ~7 proceedings. I think you understand what I mean, Mr. Gray. ] 3. { 8 Do you want to take more time to think about it? 4% o 'b '."y,MR, ' GRAY:. I guess I would. VCf 1 9 10 CHAIRMAN MILLER: All right. I think the Board t 11 would feel better, too. I think the Licensees are entitled 12 to be heard from, and I would tell you frankly, the Board 13 has some prcblems in this regard with refersace to at least U 14 the safety-related equipment, and perhaps and.perhaps not -- 15 ws'11 discuss this -- the fire protection aspects. There 16 are other matters, generic in nature, where we do not-believe 11 it is a question that this Board or any Board could go inte is generic matters to be' handled by the Commission, or in other 19 areas. 20 But we do have some concerns, and I'll tell you 21 that frankly. 22 We'd 1.tke to hear from you. ( ) 23 MR. AXILR?.D: Yes, Mr. Chairman. 24 I would like to address first the questien >hich 'hk 25 the Chairman has raised with respect to what the proper scope k
_.._u__;___..-.-_- _ - = 2701 l .wel-5 1 of the responsibilities of the Board..might bo in this pcrticular. proceeding, in light of.the particular issues [- p 2 3 which Mr.. Pollard has' sought to raise. fh 4 I would like to emphasi::e, as Counsel for the .s - Staff just pointed out, that this is not a construction permit 1. <p, l f proceeding'or an' operating license proceeding. Iti'is a-l 1 f proceedingonan'amendmenttoan'operatinglicensd. !M MI
- w W
8 CHAIPJ1AN MILLER: Which might be worse, and which ..l.
- gj6@
.g y,,, .jQ 1 - e e a,'E;p, s j- , 9 might; raiser deeper and more significant. issues, as 'I' know ' fy s Q = 'll
- 49 10 you were about to tell us.
.r, .y. tt MP;. A:GlLRAD: Certainly. 7 d "And the proceeding arises because of one specific .p is matter, and that is design deficiencies in the control V s 14' building wells that were discovered by Bechtel and reported j
- 15. -
-.to the Ccomission by PGE. g 16l -The scope of this Board's jurisdiction ~is to icok gt-into these matters. As,the Board has pointed out'on a number of ocessions in the course of this proceeding, it is not the 14 Board's f[2nction or responsibility to re-try any'of the ~ ~ 19 issues that were considered at the time the operating license 20 21 was issued. 22 The problem, I think, that we're having at this I rs particular time in attempting to identify what this Board's C) 23 respo.tsibilities are, is perhaps the.use of the word " seismic." 24 ^% Just because this particular proceeding has arisen in the '.35.. c...,......
~ m f 2702 wel.6
- 1
~ course of, or because.of some deficiency in the teismic design 2 of the wcil,-does not mean that svary matucr thEt somehcw '.Q
- 0 relates to seisnic issues is new before this Ecard and could.
h be encompassed in what this Board should look at or need 5 'look at. 6* x. Perhaps one of the clearest examples cf that is 7 a matter which has come up a number of times in the course of ..j ii this proceeding, and that is the seismic siting of this . ~. .-p i ~g ;..m.m..a c.,, ,4 w..
- h. ei m s
r-. ,,r-r S plant.Just.because the. word 1" seismic" was used in that n y' .y t 10 context, did not mean that tu Board could er shculd "d I !!ll reexamine the seismic r D under which this plant was i 12 ! designed. 1I, CHAIEIAN MILLER: We recognize that, and we ruled O 14 l that we wouldn't go into it, and we still cra nec going to If i go into it. ; 1N l" But that is not addressing.the Ecard's question. I i 1-i 170've got a seismic situation uhich the Sc+ rd cni you, en h 1 ri I behalf of your client, have studied the inp2.ications, the m!. ramifications of the se'.smic event upon both'a building, upon 20' ! a building complex and upon safety-relhted equipment. That'.s a little bit differant frca the provicucly 2: t 21 I determined iccuts cf siting. That's what we'd liha to lwve t i I
- 2) f you address yourself to.
f
- ?
2A 't IG,. A:C:LUAD: I'm trying uc got to th.t 'Ir. j f m P i il 1 Chairman. The principles involved in dotarrining that seismic 25j r 0-i h f I o e ge.igym#,
- 2 y vme
2703' wel 7 I I siting ~is not an issue before this Board, tnd should not he i '! g exactined by this Board, we rsspectfully suggest are identical' 3 .when they refer to the' origins 1 seismic qualifications of p 4 the equipment that was used and that is used in this facility. m .,{ 5' Those matters were explored thoroughly by the 'h5 - 59;; 6' NRC Staff in its dotermination that an operating license .? . j w, 7 was to be issued.
- ff,, _
.A cg ? , J 'e ' ' ' W ' w. &.'- l[J "h 0 The fact that there was not a contestad proceeding ? l 'i:.&W,.' l } 9 on that particular issue does not change the significance ,s.,f , y'p. t c ..c 10~ of the mission's. action in issuing an operating license. M lr1 11 The Commission acts so=etimes through.the Director of 12 Nuclear Rea:: tor Regulation, and it acts sometimes through J.s i. 13 its Boards. -l -Q .14' But in any event decisions are mcde cri" behalf of I 15~ the Commission. Those decisiens-determine the particular T 16 matters that have to be reviewed by the Corcissicn at that - 5 't / time, and those decisions prsvall throughout subsequent h j 18' proceedings until thero is ancther appropritto proceeding 19 com:tenced to. review that particular me.tter. 20 CHAIPl%N MILLER: With due respect, you're giving 21 us legal reasoning with which wo are familiar in respense to t l 22 a cafety questien with which we are'cencerned. Ycu are still O. 23 not art =ca=hi=s thi. We can spell it out f r you in legal terns, I 24 O' .23 -think, whareby this.cculd be within the Board's not enly t .. _ _ _ _....,.,--,-._.,%-~.-
- .,...---.__._.. y - -- --
n--- _m, 7-1 ;-y,
-g 'l - [ 2'704 j wel. 9 - 1 jurisdictien, but its duties. 3o I'm asking you to set aside the legalisms, ( 2 i .3 because those.cen cut both ways, and address yourself to,the h 4 safety implications of the questions raised in this context. 5-MR. AXELRAD:. I'm trying to get to. those, fir. - Ar.. ~,(.% 6 Chairman. 'Y ~4/ 1 CHAIRMAN MILLER: I'd rather you'd get?to them .,I/ 5 7 , l. E first, and discuss. legalisms later, because I understand-
- >;;@1
.= &
- .a,
(IF legalism perhaps a little bit better than I do some of the .].yh I 10' safety matters that are the cause'of some concern here. l i f' MR. AXELRAD: Well, I'm not quite sure how to 12 separate the legalisms from the technical matters. 1 13 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Just assume we've got full. \\i.) 14 jurisdiction and w'e intend to look into it. Just make that 15 assumption, and then tell us whers this leads us. That'll 16 cut through it real fasta 1*/ I'm not saying we're going to do it,'but I'm e is saying assume that we are, because that will guida you right if to the heart of what we want to hear from you. 20' MR. AXELRADs If I may go just a minute fu*ther on l 21' what you might consider to be legalisms -- l 22 - 03AIFRAN MILLER: I didn't :nsan to interrupt your k 25 train of. thought. Go' ahead. 24 MR. AXT.,LFAD: I'was going to.say thers are two .) 2-i procedures that can be utilised if a :tember of the public, l -- _ _ m ..y.__._. -m., ,_.__...,,,...-.4....... ... r - - -. _,...m._..
b' och e e ah M$ @4-n 64 rmd - em aiWe Mr+.M--- 2705 wel'9 1 L whether he's a local citizen or a representative of an 'Q 2 organization such as Union of Concerned Scientists, can 3 precaed'in order to-bring what he considers to be a safaty-j [Q. 4 related issue properly before the Commission. 5 .One is he can file a petition under Section 2.206 1 6' for an order to show cause. 7 Mr. Pollard specifically acknowledges in his j 1 h B petition that that is an appropriate mechanism, but-one he ,t .. n. n.. m L'$y 9' chooses not to use because he has'no faith in'its application. g 10 The second is the organi=ation could petition the 'l 17 Commission directly itself, in view of what it considers to 12 be the urgency of the situatien, and havo the Commission take ' ~ 13 urgent acticn. { g) 4. 14 h petition of this' type with respect to fire 15 protection, an71ronmental qualification, was in fact filed 16' by the Union of Concerned Scientiets with the Commission 17 back in 1977. In April of 1978 the Commission denied that y l 18 petition, and I would li'ce to quote just one paragraph cut 19 of that decision in order to show vhat is the procedure within 20 the Commission that is utilized ir,ordar to make sure that H 21 appropriate safety-related issues are, shall we say, properly 22 considered. O 23 ^=a : wt11 de -12o:i=9 nore f=== =ae co:=1 ato=' = 24 Mamorandu= and Or:iar published in the Federal Register on m). 25' April 19, 1978. I'm sure it appears in the yellow book that g,
- 9"*****'"""*T
- ~
= vucq
- M e e8*=*we ge*
-- W*M*Itenf84W,p N W9 98"'*-*-'N*-*"*= 9PW94S'* *'%
1 . -... ~ 2706 wel 10' I publishes Commission decisions, which I don't happen to have (j 3 here, but I did have the Federal Register publication. 3 It's the decision on the petition for emergency h 4' interim remedial action w? ch was issued at that time, and 5' the specific paragraph that I will quote is on page 16567. 4 It {eads As follows: ^ 6 ' Confirmation of the safety, adequacy and .:'J '? I .4
- < t B"
environmental qualification of all Class 13 electrical - m i
- 4.. ;
~ ..N. .y. <[equipmen$ (not) limited to connectors, penetrations or ~ I 10' terminal blocks) in operating plants, will be examined 7ly if as a first priority matter in the NRC's. Systematic 15. . Evaluation Program (SEP)" Footnote 23.
- j
.' Footnote 28 reads as follows: If 14 "In the first phase of the SEP review t.he Staff , if will review a group of 11 reactors, including the 16-oldest operating units. These reactors are Dresden 1 M and 2, Yankee Rcwe, B'ig Rock Point, San Onofre 1, g. 1s [ Haddam Heck, Lacrosse,. Oyster Creek, Ginna, Millstone 1, g 19 and'. Palisades." 2C_ Now, back to the test: 21 ?It is expected that in about one month the 22' Staff review will be reported to the Cermiscion and e 15 [ made available to the public. The Staff review wil h l 24 be sufficient to assess and state the implications in ? 25 detail to adequately decide whether or not additional li l 11' i
._.u. 2707 . el 11 3 w 'I review of plants other than those incicded in the SEP l l j; ( Q 2 are rzquired."' 3; ifnat the Comission has done is really two things, 1 Q' 4' here: i ) 5: One is that there was a petition filed by UCS. t I The Commission is methodically reviewing the information that 6' 7 UCS has ~ provicted, and has decided how it's going to proceed . ?s .g It denied that particu~.ar,petitiom,' f i ~ 8 in that particular matter. a.y. 1, UCS has. filed a petition for reconsideration, and this is g.o , t. j ,F ' Ct ' 10 still pending before the Comission.. 11 The Commission, in the normal course of events, 12' will act as it believes is appropriate. That will include If ' mmediate action if it believes it appropriate, it will i 14' include non-immediate action as it believes appropriate also. 15 CHAIM1AN MILLER: That's aczewhct a generic inquiry, 15-isn't it? 17 i MR. A*CLRTO: Yes. It is a generic inquiry, and g i !I is specifically 19 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Well, we're suggesting to you, 20 as we've suggested to the Interrenors previously, that 21 j we're not interested here in generic unttars and have no ti - 22' d jurisdiction in generic matters, but wa are certainly chargsd u O 2a # with the resson=isitier en crecieic =esee=2. i - 24 ' Now, there have been certein~speciffic natters I j; -} raisedhereentheTrojanplantanditsinterimoperation,andl 2j i I
- t ai
-..- ~~. - --
-~'
n-
. ~. ,,_...n,,n.,,n.,
1708 f wel 12 il I suggest to you, counsel, that going into the issues of our 1 f] 2', jurisdiction, and going inte questions of generic matters 1lb are no fair confrontation of the issues that are raised or h 4j could be raised. 5' MR. AXELRAD: But, Mr. Chairman, what I'm trying .l - ;si.; S' to suggest is that the types of matters which F.r. Follard -I 3, 7' is raising here, whether or not IEEE-344 of 1971 or IEEE-344 jg U' S' } of 1975 is the appropriate standard by which plants should ,f .~ ,..f... $ c. 4 7 be judged (currently, those are matters that are being raised ng i x.3 10'I obviously with respect to all plants. i 1 What the Commission has -- II' Y CHAIFF.AN MILLER: We're Icoking at Trojan. We're 'h is h looking at his comments upon Trojan. W re looking at his d i
- .1 comments on the Westinghouse equipment.
We're looking upon I t, i li ; sts.ements he makes which could be rendered evidentiary if 1 16j we deem it necessary to subpcena the gentleman. I 17 And those aren't general, and these are not 4 is,[ IEEE things. They a o specific as to Trojan. 1s. Now, your response so far has been general, it i 20'],hasbeentellingusthatthereareothermethods,whichwe ..l 2; i know. But we are in the mifsti.of a hearing involving a 4 I 22 'i specific plant, with particular issues, with certain j j O 22 j, sefety-relesea eauirmene, ee :o which ecme cueseien h.s eeen i z.;. I raised, cnd as to which the Board is new inquiring whether .) ^ 3r, ' the raising of these Trojan-specific matters are net.cf : l ~ 1 I I I d _n _:_ _ _ - = _. _ _
l - - kom.*e= S - m .,_..m..oo 1 .2709 t a if
- 3. 5 1..^'
c 1 typa which approach the threshold cf triggering'a4responsi- - 2.t bility.of the 3oard to develop a r.cre cor. plate record cn it,
- [
-3 n at any rate, in light.of the Suprema. Court *z decision ] g 6 modifying,' but not elininating, the Aeschliman type of g i i 5 ' inquiry. .i 6 ~ "";That's what"we'he asking. Specific,'not generic L t -f l What can be'done? Don't tell us what ue'can't do cr !i -a9;,. 8l shouldn't do.. Tell us wha.t wa should 6o in this case with O
- .a. e.
s t -'*% 05 k'j.f, N * * * "E ' ) ;.. V,. - . * ^ }- w t yN '., v $% &9 j? - 's y ;-
- 'y
'.'A_..,,;r
- sp
- ^*,.,, a w -
s
- A 49 j
g .this a, tuation.- A o w z.u, ,:p, _. . :=.g.g~,._ = s r,. ~, 10 MR AXELRAD: On that particular quest'icn, Mr. n lf.f{ =. Chairr.an,._this particular Licensee cbtained an operating. }- - g; l 1 jg j licence on..the' basis of a review whicWwas based upon the a standards that were applicable. 13 3 -4 i y-There is no quentien that the app *.icati:n itself gg s. i satisfied the standards at the time the operating license ba W e t l to 9 was issued. These standards were the' standards that wera 34'. l P properly applied by the C:m=iasion. 47 ~;r .-a u&; i Mr. Pollard was one of the raticuers ct that rir.e. ' l~Ifhehaddifficultiesbackin1974and1975withrespectto g ge. I ~ c g.? the SER and the SER Supplement uhich he participated in the l. 9 -g; N preparation-of, it is very strange that he in waiting'until i I t the j g l.1978,three years '1ater, to bring those urgent tr.tter:: '3 J '. ntte.tien c5 the cerr.issicn or .n y : r.-. 2 *. 2. 3 - v 1 ,I, CEAIF.Tdi HILn;n: This is not cn adversar:,- z.) 3 g l 11: 26 !b pr ceeding,. as far. as wd're concerned, with Mr. Ec11ar i. I)- 6 ti ._~...p.....,,.=om.e*,***..e.= pea
==~-*q=4-- ,_m_m_._______________.__,_,________.,.________,_____ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _, _ _ _ _ ' _ ' * ' = * ~ =_ _ . = * - , p 7 *$ - *F ~ v-=*4- [paecyeen.p 7 v '
~. ... ~ - -..~.... - - .~.------ -c 2710
- wel 14 1
We're not seeking to vindicate Mr. Follard. We have no l 1 aF} concern with him as an individual, and we are asking the 2 3 question in terms of our public interest responsibility. 4 It doesn't matter why he waited so leng. The y 5 questien is does he have a point which we should ask counsel, 6 by witnesses, to look into and to supply informatien for the 7 record about. That's the issue. Ad hominum approaches 7 8 aren't going to answer that question. .1 .c . Macy ,(,, m.e 9 MR. AXELRAD. Mr.. Chairman, what I'm trying to [f 10 suggest to you is that there is obviously material both in 11 the FSAR and in the SER that the Staff issued which points 12' out exactly the qualification that the equipment has. These 13 qualifications were fully adequate to meet the standards that Q) ~ applied, and would certainly provide - u 14 16' CHAIRMAN MILLER: Pardon me. We would like to 16: get to the heart of this thing. We have a problem hers. 17 What about the ccaments he makes as to the g 18 testimony of the witnesses regarding the previously qualified 19 cquipment, and the statements -- I'm not asking you to 20 accept them as valid, but I'm asking whether or not they do 21 not raise issues which this Board should look into, which 22 is to say it's a bit different from going en the e.dministra-3 23 tive prest:mptien of the presumed regularity, and so forth. 24 If we ve got some specific questions as to whether er not the 8 25 Westinghouse type of equipment was adequately reviewed
i ~ ...~ 2711 l wel 15 1 initially, not in the sense of redoing it, but it's then 2.. connected in some way with the present testimeny of the j ~ 3' witnesses whom.he cites, which include, I guess, Mr. Anderson, l I, 4 .Mr'.' White, Mr. Herring and others. 6 'That's a little bit different question now. .i
- 4' 6,.
M2. AXELRADt' Certainly, Mr. Chairman. The 7. witnesses'that were presented did not redo the original /q
- il 8
' qualification of equi.pment. The original qualification of f:lt , y:w... - +a. Q.. : ',99.
- g..
,'.3.y .j ec... iuipment was done at',that. time. . 2 i- ~ 3 .c 10 What we have done at this time that. the Licensees' 1T witnesses were testifying to is that in light of the new 12' information,12.th respect to design deficiency'and the 5 15 STARDETE analysis, that qualification of theaquipment was V 14 reviewed to assure that the new information did not affect 16 this qualification, that the equipment. continued to be f6' qualified. 17 CHAIRMAH MILLE 3: What if it was nsvar really le', qualified? Uhat if it was never really addquate? Would 19 you, by going back step by step to wint B, where it was 27 either not determined or improperly determined, is there some 21 suggestion ~that you -- do ycu think by sheer repetition going . 22' through sophisticated analyses and the like, getting back 23' to the same point, you really address the questien of whether 24 cr not there are issues of the adequccy of equipnent which 2f could be affected by seismic events with which we are concerned? .. __ _ _=::===_ rr 2 ____-
_ _ _ ~.. _ _.,.. 2712 ( iMADELON/ 'I 'MR. AXELRAD
- Well, Mr. Chairmani we'did not mpbl 1;,g
. 2 'in'our te.3timony address'a raraview of the qualification of-3 the'old equipr. ant. p 4 CHAIRMAN MILLER: At that' point you weren't' g ' 5 required'to. 6 - The question is whether the scene has changed 7 when issues'are raised which now may or might go beyond 1 ,~ ? 8 which might require the Board, and, hence, you to do that $M .. y.. p $ii 9 !which you were not required' to do in the first instance. y-10 You can rely on presumpr.i:.,a; there's nothing. wrong with ';.g. 'T If this. There's no criticism of you. 12 .The question is ws're trying to get you to. 13 direct when these issues are raised, are these issues raised .c 14 - are they 'of such quality as to trigger inquiry, 'and if 15 so, what can be done to have attention directeda for the 16 first time in this proceeding, to those things that wera 17 not necessary as the prima facie case is made, but which m 18 may require some further review by the Board to develop a 19 record when an issue is raised. 20 Now there are,two different things, and we're 21 trying to see ~ we're not criticizing. The' case was put . 22 on, and'the witnesses and so forth. But has a nsw fa.. tor (m - 1 been added?- 23 .) This is what we'ra trylag to get all Counsel 24 ?*% to react to. And by giving us the reasons, which we agreed 9 25 ( ['&' '**'T
- M r.
- iP4 4dP--hA 4 'WW
- bN_N***"80488+@M $.T88 g M '*4 W
- W em.W*
'N*'** 4' l' N# 8'
- M
2713- ) mpb2 with befora -- we kncu the rules, we knew things can'be done, I' Q ws'know what a prima f_: cia case is, and se on. But the issue, 2 3 you see, is a little bit differant, and that I think is what y:- you had better focus on. I think you'd better think about 4' 5 it overnight, because I don't think we're going to get to go:home$onight. "~ 6 7 I.think there are important issues here, and -{ 8-we don't.want to decide tiiese things either impossibly or lk; F
- 5 :
- 4bl.
- a.y'43x a
N: 9 'without idequate reflection. c. 3.._.., -,. .,i r 10 ? .I didn't interrupt you - because I wanted to 11 interrupt you -- to break your train of thought; but I did 12 want to break your train'of reascning in the sense that l 13 that which was acceptable, let us say, yesterday and through- .u 14-out',-- you tried perfectly well as a lawyer en behalf of 15 your clieht'- may or may not address this possibl'y ner and 15 different situation, at least in certain respects. 17 We haven't prejudged at all. But there are 1 I is some matters here which we think require reflection by all 19 counsel and. parties and in. the. discharge of our duties and 20 in the discharge of your duties. ~ 21 There is no criticism on the part of any 22 counccl or parties. We'think there is a situation hers O 23 which should be seriously reviewed in tha light of possible 24 implications on the record at this point, and se recognize that everything you said -- in fact, we concurred with =ost 25 . =. - -- e - i uP NN eew%.g .,gp*'*'e'-**WWW E _____,______-_______i_"_____,______,_____ _
'_ [ 2714 t-I' mpb3 of the reasoning by which issues previously determined were if) not gone into. 3 l We know what a prima facia case is and so forth. 4 But_there may be something different now, and that's what 5 j I'd like.you to give some serious thought to~ j w 6 I don't say this in the sense you haven't, but 7 7 we've been presented with this suddenly. There is a necessity G, O to sort out sc:ne matters which vary in degree, which I (
- r;
@i j 9 think the Staff is going to want'to go into perhaps. O.[ 10 I'm not sure but what -- we're going to hear + 11 from anybody. But I wonder -- we'd like to leave it with-12 out anybody trying to prejudge anything at the momsnt, but. } 13 recognizing thera are some problems thth need to be addressed.
- g 14 MR.,u2LRAD:
Mr. Chairman, I approciate that. 15 I assure you, we will consider the matters that you raised 16 very seriously. 17 But the main thrust of my comments is that ! i 18l did want to be sure that the Board members realize -- soma i 19 of them are not lawyers, two of the members are not full-20 time employees of the NRC - that in addition to whatever 21 l opportunity for reviewing matters may or may not e':ist in ~ 22 this proceeding, a procacding of this type is not the only (l ) 21 mechanism through which any importaa; safsty-relttad issues 24 j can be raised before the conmission. ) l l 25 I wantad to make sure that the members werc i 1
._..._._.a-2715 mpb4 ' I aware of the Union of Concerned Scientists' petition before tj the Coimaission itself card the Cc=ission s present handling 2 i 3 of it. 4 I wanted to be sure that the csmbers of tha 5 Board ware aware of the systematic evaluatics taking place + a_ sp 6 and the'particular emphasis on those issues. I just wanted ij 7 to be sure those matters were on the Board's mind --
- -3 8
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Those are very valid points, -i - 7,.c . a
- jggh
. qf9 so they could considar these. 'V.I' .'x.,we MR; AXELRADic g. .4 Qf 10 matters overnight also. 11 CHP.IPJ1AN HILLER: Those ira very v=Alid points. 12 And before we reccas for the evening, are there 1 13' any more mattara that you would like to bring to the atten-14 tion of the Board and the parties? 15 Those are certainly matters that need to be t 16 taken into consideration and evaluated. 17 (Tha Board ccnferring.) a 14.050 I 16 I think the Board will take about fiva minutes. 19 Like avarybody else, we're trying to avaluats'whera de stand 20 on this thing. 2! Make it a short one. Wo're not going to cut you I 22 Off-l
- )
23 l (Briaf recess.) I CHAIK GN MILLER: Mr. Sanks, I think you had not 24 L 25 i had an opportunity to indicats some of tha things that
- t.,
i. z____19_:__.__J. _~l_.I_~__YY_'I f_I_.'_m_'_m_______i___I_*__ .I_I.__
1.. 2_ 2716-mpb5 1 should be brought to the attention of the Board and the i . A_ 2 parties, or Mr. Axelrad, or both. GJ 3 You may proceed. 4 MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I caucused with the 5 Licensees during this brief recans. As the Board is well 4 J 1 . r it is of the__ utmost importance to us.to ha've any 1. 6 aware .t. 7' issues which are either~of importance to'tha' Board to be .f. s .,[ .8 resolved as promptly as.possible. JQ& 1 _ q [. - CHAIRMAN MILLER: Yes. " $ {' ~ - gJ ', ~ ,.-n.-.,.,.. r 10' MR. AXELRAD: 'For the reasons we graviously ~ 4 1 t-stated,- va do 'not' believe that the issues raised by Mr. ~ 12 Pollard are. within the matters that have to be addressed.. 4 ] 13 However wa do have people with us to work with us this even- .s 14 ing. 15 If the Board believes that in light of Mr. 16 Pollard's lotter it wculd like to have a full record with 17 respect to the seismic qualification of safety-related ,? 18 elsctrical equipment, we would try to do what we could to 19 make a presentation for the Ecard some time tomorrow. CHAIRMAN MILIIR: Would it be helpful if va 20 had the technical members'of the Board tell you some areas 21 22 that they think might be helpful to have in the record? (mi MR. SAMKS: That's what I was going to ask. 23 v CHAIRMAN MILLER: I'm a Ir.wyer, and I'm suro not 24 going to do it myssif. But this would be helpful. 25 ~^^M-m-- _X_ W v}*'***^* ~
2717 mpb6 1 We'ra not trying to i:4 pose upon you, but we r3 2 know that you have witnesses. And we know that you have w 3 problems, as everyone has in a trial. (, 4 If you wish,.why.I think Dr. Paxton and Dr. 5 McCollom'would make some suggestions. ~, 6' 7 I * ~'" MR, BANKS : ' Cartainly. Ue'd appreciata it. ' J '- 7 .DR. PAXTON: One thing that I see that may be. .,4) ,(( 8-missing from the record is an itemized,ecount of the safety-G:l& ..-= 4 QQ:. .i r .y. -q-r related equipment.in the control building, and 'an ir.dication
- .;p;',
T., ..e \\
- ,v,.
,~ 7 ~... a. 10' as to. why the people who haite judged the seismic qualificaticI. TI of these items are satisfied that they should resist, say', ~ 7~ 11 12 an SSE. i nd n 93-Y 15 16 17 m 19 20 21 12 e l i 23 s l 24 3 25 'l i 4 l --,--- ~n m me-e_
- ___=._
_..____e_
.....w
- u
~ a_ _ ... ~ ~ 2718'. 315 mal I 'I wondor whether.such a thing,-whether it is i' W ZER ,2 ~ .. 3p reasonSble to ask for such within the, oh, next day, two 'C 3 . days, somethingJ11km that? 4 Is it clear? re. 5 Did I make myself clear as to what I want? a 1 6 'We haven't seen an item -- well, let me say that ~ 7-if Bechtel witnesses could go'through these items one by one g 8 and.tell us why they believe that these items could resist 5 ?.. L [L J. -. 9 an SSE, than' that would,. I believe, help a great deal to .j .y 10 complete the racord. .w. 11 .MR. AXELRAD: We wculd certainly.be willing and able to do th't and I believe we could do that tonorrow 12 a 13 morning. . Dr. McCollom may have some 14 CHAIRMAN MILLER: 15 suggestions. 16 DR. MC COLLOM: I'm not sure how this suggestion' 17 is practical, but I would lika to give you my concern and-18 maybe you can address it. 19 I would not want to presume that any previous l 20 seismic qualifications of equipment necessarily relieves me 21 of responsibility of. knowing what the current abilities 22 of safety-rel'ated equipment.is able to take. py. ']; -23 So'I don't want to debate whether these qualifica-24 tions were or'weren't done in the past and whether it was n-.); 25 Ldone according to.any kind of ecde. ? -_-_-_ _, n_n._]
1 l 1 1 0 I : 2719 l i. 1 - As-a Board member, I feel the recpensibility 2' of kncwing because the seismic situation was net as originally 5 s a 3 .desigr:ad to be according 'to the codas of the tims, I feel that I need to know what the qualifications are now because' 4 c th'e building was not changed -- I mean was not the same. It 3 6 has changed over what the code was. So that to me, cpens it back up to.my.need to 7 know what the' qualifications ar2 cc::ipcred to what the g d.- ^ seismic: behavior'of the building is, and-'within which that g i
- z equipmenta is located..
10 There are two aspects, I think, that need to 39 be addressed as you'think;about it tonight. Maybe'more than 12 two.. But.one of them'is that I concur with Dr. ?axton that g really need now to go dcun the list one by ena. ' we 14 15 -"99"" E "U ~~
- ""Y "I ' ~~
"8* 16 17 - generic--about the collection cf piping, or che eclitation - li !!. of relays, or the collection of mctorc or 'inc:.v.ver etner I ,8
- s equipment that is safety-relatad, that you cr.n categori::e 19
.i. I L them anti give us.some information as to hcw thone hinde of I 20 l-pc>'l ithings nou -are qual'ified, and then co down the indiva. dual ' l, J og !";. P ' lit t that Dr. Paxton suggastad, and give ur.u/ :::c2ptions l .cr giva us any qualificaciens to tha gancrai fra.11 2, c 0 p chn::ceteristic cf analificaticas. / 24.. + p-j 'DR. PA3TOMi Pardon me. I difn't int?nd to ignora .l .)
- 23 jj I
l ]l l 'Op- ,i se 9g
2720 I mm3 the Staff. 1 2 I think we should also hear from the Staff's 3 witnesses on this matter. 4 DR. MC COLLOM: That was the other question. 5 I think.that we have t'o have, if at all possible, '6 any' additional testimony'and' exports that have been j 7 significantly involved with looking at the qualifications - [- + 8 of this equipment and have not been on our witness stand .;M J 7M, .->t ... R% Y . W:p .,upjto thi.;s point., ; ' ~.$ 9 = y...~ _ .e 10 I don't know whether that is practical. I. I'e ~ 11 just say that that is one of the questions that has been 12 brought into play in.the limited appearance that wo have just .v.. 13 heard. And so I suggest that you at least give that some [ l 'ad 14
- thought.
l 15 CHAIRMAN MTTER: Mr. Socolofsky, I'm sorry, I 16 didn't mean to overicok you. You are so far at the'end. 17 MR. SOCOLOFSKY: That's quite all right. 18 CHAIRMAN MILLER: But we would like to hear from 19 you. c 20 MR. SOCOLOFSKY: If it is possible to, of course, 21 satisfy the Boazd that the safety-related equipment is 22 qualified within the next few days, then I chink that i)j 23 probably that is the bect solution. l 24 If I were sitting in the Board's position -- and \\ ) 23 I can't make my cc=nents too broad here 5.*ithout talking to ~ --=mn.ww m.
- m m
_ mmro. oe.,-~.-=.
. }l 'l 2721 h U t , r,?' 1'E the Energy Department, they don't know anything about this i 2 so we will discuss it tenight. Maybe I will have something i 3 i additional to say tomorrow, c .{ '4 But, I think in approaching a problem liko this, 5 the'first thing I would do would be to detarmine what weight 6 I was going to give to the limited appearance filed; 7 recognizing that I might give a different weight to a had been filed or if these points 8 limited appearance if it had been..v,,. raised earlier in the proceeding. g And I' guess the reascn is that I am not satisfie'd 10 that this material ~could'not have been presented at least i yj in an outline form at or shortly after the prehearing 12 conferences, or at least befora this hearing started, in 3 13 -time to determino whether, first of all, thece questions were 14 valid and still remain unresolved. 15 I have to assums with Mr. Pollard's background, that' 16 he knew precisely the effect of a limitad appa:rance at this. 97 ti=c in the case. And' withcut regard - to heu much of this 18 material Ms. Ball might have known, at least we know that 99 Mr. Pollard knew these things, perhaps, years ago. 20 And he is asking us.to assume, it seems to me, 21 in this document, 4ct only that the facts he'111eges ;cre g O trua at the time, but that nothing hac ch aged in the V
- 23 intervening years.
g
- ).
And it seems to ma, as I said from a practical m af.J .-~-.----------------4 .o - -. ~ 7 7 - -.-
l \\ ~- 2722 mm5 1 standpoint if you can resolve the questiens within the next i g 2, few days, that is all'well and good. But 'I would not have 3 any reservations from a legal standpoint from finding that, 4 based on the record that I have right now, that the plant 5 was safe to operate.' ) ) ~ 6 . And I think that there is no question in my mind 7 but what it would be sustained. 8 There is also no question in my mind but what the j '.1 - ~ w: . 0.. l 9 limited appearance filed at this point in the case and the 1 to manner it was filed,would not constitute something that 1 l 11 the courts would say I wits required to consider. 12 But, as I said, as a practical matter, if the I, 7 13 3 card can be assured within the next few days that everything 'j 14 is okay, ' fine. But I would look very skeptically at the l l 15 charges made in this context. l 16 That is all I can say. 17 CHAIRMNT MILLER: I think you understand, 1 18 Mr. Socolodiky, that we have in no sense pr2 judged the validity -19 or nonvalidity of any o* the so-called charges and that we 20 have attached no weight to the, motives or attempted to assess the credibility of Mr. Pcilard any more than we icok 21 22 beyond the merits of cubstantiva issues to the motives that ( 1 '23 might cause him to surface. v 24 MR. SOCOLOFSKY: That's correct. 25 But it seems tc me if thin limited appearance - ~* 6 m
- ' MWWustNep- --
e ebe *** =upumen aPN ge **
m_y.__.._.__._.
- u. -
1 ( 2723 e 1 , hr.dn't been filed, as would be going under the assumption l {} 2( that the safety-re**"** 'cuipment was p:c.porly qualified for l 3 f any. initial licencing. b i 4 Q CHAIRMMI. ILWR: And if it hadn't bean.for 3 STARDETE, we would have made other assumptions -- f 61 '.MR.. SOCOLOFSKY :.That's correct. ~ t 7 But the' difference between STARDDIE and what we 3 . havrs here, is that STARDn1E came in as -- had acknowledge-6.
- f
~ ~ ll . [;:% . i; 9' ment.bfthe" Applicant, and testimony.in this case. ,} 10 .And this' limited appearance doesn't have that 11 status. 12 L CHAIR!G.N-MILLER $ We don't say i~t dnas. L N 13 We are not happy with' it. 'Ncnet.ieless, we must ~ %) ..look at the substantive issues and cur own respense to it, 14 .i 15- ' I appreciate what you are sayiridt 16 I MR. SOCOLOFSKY: I thin't that is al1 I batt: say 17 j today. 3 Il 18} CHAIR!!AN MILLER: We are not cutting you off. 19 i MR. SOCOLOFSK r I think it is appropria+.e thou'gh, d , that I talk to.the peop1h in the. Energy Department before 20 II 21 h[ commenting any further.. CHAIRic.N MILLER: I understand. 22 3;. 1 q ) ( 1 20 g; MR. BANKS: Mr. Chairman, could I ask Dr. McCo11cm { V 24 l1 one additonal question because.I think we would like to, ac ) h-25g best we could, put together tonight the hinda of things th:t p J .t m ,.--4 ...v, ,,,m---r------
2724 mm7 1 you want. And I am a little concerned and I think- ) 2 there are a couple of others back here that are, too. 3 And I think you said it was a little difficult to 4 explain; and that's the first point. 5 You indicatad that you wanted - I think you 4 ' ndicated ~~ to me, anyway -- that you wanted to know what 6 i 7 the equipment qualifications were -- what t.he standing of 8 equipment qualifications v r now. And I think you said in 9 ,'. relation: to the building now. ] 10 But I guess what our problems are, are you 11 concerned about whether the equipment today has been 12 analyzed so that we can satisfy ourselves that it meets the 7 13 qualifications that it was required tomeet at the time of i V 14 licensure in connection with the status of the building 15 today? 16 DR. MC COLLOM: That does not bother me. 17 I would like to separate out the fact, when 18 things were done to what. 19 I'm not trying to say thatI want. you to justify ~ 20 that qualification back when it really started, all 21 over again. I'm not saying that. 22 I'm saying, here we are today and we have a ( 23 certain set of time-varying analyses that have gene on and 24 cartain response spectra of the floors and the equi. cent 25 sitting on it.
.,.._..c.2.y___...._... _ _. ~.. - _.._ _ _. 2725 1 When a scismic avant cecu a, with th:.t ccmbinatien m t 2' cfthings, what is tho ::2fety-rsisted equipmont going to do g \\ '3 l today? n ,] 4 MR. BANKS: And'in that regard, does the ultimate 5 question come acun, whether the safety-related equipment 6 will be'able to withstand the SSE,considering the building ~ ' ( 7 ans it is today? J 8 DR. 7.C 00LLOM: Yes. That is es:actly it. i 1-g C9EIRMAN MILLER:.'Yes, considering the additional 10 informtion.STARDYME hao brcught with its sophisticated 11 analysis, to the as-built building and to the a -present-12 condition equipment. 13 MR. BANKS: We are not talking about ccdes then~or 14 now. We are ta2. king'about the building ceing cble to withstand 15 the seismic event, considoring what-we knew about the floors 16 and so forth today, equipment? DR. Mc COLLOM: 'ie s. 17_ CHAIM.N MILLIR:- We are pragmatic, we are going 18 gg as of nov. DR. MC COLLOM: Do you still waat to ask ancther' 20 21 question,~Mr. Axelrad? 22 MR. AXELRh0: One minute, please. 1. CUA2R O.N 2 TILLER: haa' ther e 'any other questions. J 23 l 3 or cro tharc any 00T.mancs? l' I haven't really called on the Intervenors. It 25 io. ..< me .~-. _e-3 y_ --- - 3. e-- w
...+..y...-_.:-_;-_. 7._= .. a..... - _ a. - 2726
- 9
. seemed like yt.,u had.a pretty good ' shot. - 1 Is'there anything.= ora you want to say?- l < j : M. 2 l h-Go-ahead. '3 LOh,.I'm sorry, Mr. Axelrad. 4 . M. M LRAD: Dr. McCollom, I~ guess I may M a-s 'little' confused. I thought" that was what we had -done -in i 6 .the proceeding to date.We have identified a new floor response y spectra,.and we have indicated that'we have taken the q - 8 ' qualification of th's equi.pment, that we broadened'theicurves- [ lg \\- e.lfy and all that, and we determined that the equipment continues [ 10 to be qualified under the'new curves. 33 LN w,:have we not provided enough details as to 12 j }. 13 -how we reached that conclusion?'.Is thatthe problem?_ ,I Y DR.MC COLLOM: Thatwould'bemyl conclusion,yes. g .. A m,AD o o...nt ore eetait as to ho. we went
- about --
16 DR.MC COLLOM: That's correct. Specific. classes of. 17 it. And, as Dr. Paxton suggests, let's go.down the' list. List the numbers of equipment, safety-related equipment, g g and led s get dat,in M 2 e-record. gn 'MR. AXELRAD: And not go back to 1971 versus 1974 standards or anything of that kind'. .'DR. MC COLLOM: Now, in the evaluation of that, if 2 23 that was done back in 19, whenever, then I think you should -24 l- #) state that that is.what it.was, and'this is what the as- _.____._._________._.___..__-___.___.______.m.
1 3 . - - -... ~. - 1 2727 ^l .=m10-1 . avaluation was, and this is'why'the evaluatien is such that . I
- ] -
its safety is assured. 2 3l-MR. AXELRAD: I believe we can do that. r. , d'? 4 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Dr. Pa:: ton? 5 DR. PAXTON: I avoided mentioning qualification. e, G I really;want opinio"s.of the a:gerts, what makes-ei .r 7 them feel that the equipment is okay now. 3 sg 8- -MR. BANKS: I'm' clear. M., h .apst ~ -. 9. DR. MC COLLOM: That does imply a well-qualified p %>f 09 to e:: pert to make that statement and jtidgment.. '.;? i 11 MR. A:'ELRAD': Yes..
- 'L 12 CHAIRMAN MILLER
- dualified Tin that
- field, is what
-o,i .. d, .+ ,..jp 3 13 we mean. .d Yes. 14 DR. MC COLLOM: 15 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Anything further fr.n anyone? f tC MR. AXELRAD:, And I do assume that is all we are
- 7,
talking about, is the seismic qualificatio:D !cne of the - h d ~ jg'fothermattersthatWereraised? + 6 19[ CHAI'd4AN - MILLER: Well I don't know becauco I ii 20 fI' haven't had a cnance to digest this. I'm not sure whether 21 1 there might be some othcr matter rais2d th'.it if we gave ycu 1 22 [ n categorical answer we mig'ht miclead you. f n I. I ( i ) 23 I'think in part yCU arS going tQ I avg tC CCC1738. ~ i 2;l[ I am not asking you to pasz.en credibility or motivation eg
- r., 4 25-or anythi'ng else.
. ji,fic I l,,. l! ...n. -,- m ...., - gw -, - - - - ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ - - -.
..~ . MELTTES '!t. l l t f. q._r p; - mg .a. .- t t +4fst15 . F,l. - But are - there matters here that should be more T t:d O h, /. 4 !!. In11y developed, frcm the Scard's point cf vir.:, in-2e - record. v 9 ti l' !j MR.~DANKS: Do we havo to get into tha generic: i L f things though? That is what I was concerned 2 cut. j.[ 4 CHAIRMAN MILLERr ' I wouldn' t think so, but, once 2 3 s 6 agairi, you see I was rda' ding:it. - ITnat.are the generic things; c: 6,. -i y you want to eitclude? When I let you e::clude something, I have m.. a; to lie rather cautious, because I might mislead you and ack '. - a.: e.- ..e: .c[.. 'f q.. .9 ' for' proof that.you wouldn'E have avai.'.abla, or would need n. , v. t ^ to E, g 9 i 3.j - [ MR. 3ANKS:. I just want to be aura we challenga. 1I our effort inthe best' directions.that's the main thing I want y ., to~do. ~w .CEAIPHAN MILLER: I appreciata that. I 'culd say, g generally, speaking, generic is not any. : core involvad now 1 r 1 .e L~
- I a
1 than it was before these matters ucre raid-d. l g 6 But I must have a little sadaty.valv ' Acro,-
- 4..f N
Mc&use it is conesivable scmsthbg could.:ba Onlied 7:neric .u. and still Would csusa concern.'en ' interim operation, so yo'u hav I to o g' to use a little concern on that; but, g0nerally.p: Ming, we c ars not.tryintj tosredo; generic. a4 .Hc;s.ver, a cauti narf neta -- juct u.nu v corettig, t l .( ) d .n .a r.c; to cd112d generic.and bec:.u::
- .rt:in ci.n: C d ~i f.S be f
)
- > I.,
s i unGarway, ac the Ap.parl' Board has indica: d nyarr.1': 2:ac l l " ii j l [ Est doesn't nacocsaril1 dischargo the duties :r 2 ni'.icn: cf 7 t o. a I l 3 . 6} r j } t. s ,i } e -re. --- &.e e g e .p.sse.,-. .~.*[e. E v h ,p-ev, p. p ,g, c a=='s=*.r .m., -p 7 ~.
..il 3 ' 2729 a g .the Board. I You will rscall the River Bend case was cited? I 'i 2 Vs was on the River Bend' case. I didn't write the opinion. I 3 C' came in at the and and I knew what.the Appeal' Board said. 4 '=j "" f""Ali"# with the record. 5 M var Bend, remember, had some unresolved safety 6 7 matters. in there, and what you do specifically in a case, even 7 though -- yotd'mightwantto--doyouhavePiver'Bendwith 8 o you? You;might want to consider the implication of River Bend. "~ 9 .y ,3 As I say, ~ I wasn't the Chairman who wrote the 10 opinion, but I sure saw some of the fallout. So that is r something you want to take.into consideration. 'MR. AXELRAD: Mr. Chairman, I might suggest tha,t 'M as long as we are talking about things that will be doneeover-night, if the' Board would wish to refresh its recollection,.in E:thibit 9-D, as in David, there is a table IB-1, which identifies all of the equipment that was reviewed and the A 17 qualification method that was used. 18 CHAIRMAN MII&ER: 9-D, as in dog? 3-3, as in boy. 17 20 MR. AXELRAD: Yes. Table 33-1. Mechanical equipment 21 Table.33-2r ralating to electrical equipment, 22 b seismic qualification. 23 s DR. MC COLLOM: Would you be able to give us a copy 24 ,f of that to make sure that we find it? Do you have an extra .___._m.-,---_ mm_ -- -- -we - ---e ~ ~
k- $1'3 2730 i': I cop 7?- g 2 CHAIRMAN MITY"R: We are not certain what is back. i in our briefcasas. And 'it might be useful if we can borrow one 3 h 4 copy. 5 '.DR,. MC COLLOM: We will even retrun 'it. i CHAIRMAN MIILER: Yes, we will do that. g MR. ROSOLIE: Mr. Chair 2 nan. 7 CHAIRMAN MTTTER: Mr. Resolie. ~.. cndt15 g Y l%lf ;g.:. ., y ; l 4 l 9 '<e',, 1 10 11 12 Q ^ l 15 16 17 4 10 19 20 1 21 22 ) 1 23 ? u - - - - _ __ _ _ _ _ m __ _ _____ _ __
2731 I MR.,ROSOLIE: Mr. Chairman, I think I will
- WEL/mpbl 2
rese ve most of what I have to say until tomorrow. 3 However, I think what he's addressing-is thers i 4 seems to be-a question whether these issues were raised time-5 ly or not, and I think the Board is aware that it seems' okay } 6 when the Applicant all of a sudden found out that something 7 such as STARDYNE showing something different, that at that J;- M 2 8 point, even though the hearing was sat, the hea.fings 'were cr m. s 3 9 set over, and I don't think it should be any different. '"A 7p to It 'nk when new information becomes available, 11 no matter at what point in the hearing, that it should be 12 fully considered. .A 13 CHAIRMAN MII4ER: I think the question of Q) STARDYNE was made available. Wo wera informed of it, first all, before the studies were complated. The Board, w sua sponti, took the ' action of setting over. 17 The quest. ion raised by Mr. Socolofsky was q 13 whether or not this information wasn't kncwn to Mr. Pollard 19 for years, and whether it was made available to tha Board 20 and to the parties is a timely fashion, whether we had a 2; hearing in September, October, Novenbar, or Deceaaber. 22 However, we're not passing on the credibility a or motivation of anybody. Wa will face what issues we, must, 24 and we're not going to worry about it. '9 / 25 It would have been m'y helpful, however, had ' ~ * '
- e-7
~9 e **w - {v** --
- ---~~
~ - - - ~ v.. ;-..a u. 2732 \\ mpb2 1 this information been more seasenably mada available to the a 2 Board..However, you're not penalized, so.... {} ..3 MR. ROSOLIE:- Well, I had nothing to.do with h
- 4 it, so, you know.....
7 5 CHAIRtM MILLER: Very well. g n U 6-MR. ROSOLIE:- I'm in the same place everybody .c B 7 else is in this matter. g. 8. CHAIRMAN HILLEP: Very well. ..t- .yg 9 y . MS. BELL: Mr. Chaizman, I'd like to make a-w f,, b ',
- c. -
( 10 few points before we go, and I reali::a you'd like to. yl 11. First of all, as regards the matter of the 12 contested issues in the operating license, I would just ll .a 13-Point.- to the'part in this t.hing where Mr. Pollard talks d rg ' (. 4 14 about the supplemental SER being issued the same day as the l 15 operating license was granted, and just point yon in tha 16 direction of that discussion rather than repeat it now. 17 ' Secondly, it sects to me that as long as we're f 33 talking about safety and sort of requalification based on t 19 the original qualification of the equipment, we definitely 20 need to talk abor' That we're basing our raqualification on. 2; Thirdly, it seems to ma that from my understand-22 ing of how equipment is qualified that either wo need to wait s V 2; -- and this is sort of along the lincs of what Dr. McCollca gg ! was talking abcut - we either need.to wait for the NRC to t 3 .2 find the Westinghouse ethical reports that are referenced I 3 ,,,y,' +
- ?, 9-{ j iT
""""'{ ]__
2733 mpb3 1 aceptcle or we :aeed to have site specific tests on all V,a of the equipment to qualify it. l 2 3 And I don't think that that can happen in a } 4 period of a few days. 3 And I just have to recpond to what Mr. Socolofsk7 6 said, which was that if we take a few days it will be okay 4 ,:) 7 and if we take a little bit longer it won't. And I just is D .y 8 have to say that I thought that extrs:nely disturbing.bacause d!y 4 i 9 we're **n%g about jeopardizing the public health and safety. 'M
- g;f
^ i to And I don't think that a matter of time is the question here. i { 11 ~ I would lik's to make a few clarifications on 12 .the record about Mr. Pollard's role in filing this limitad 13 appearance simply becaus's the allegations have been flying ! d i g back and forth. 15 First of all, the issue of the safety-related 16 equipment came up-late in the game; it came up in the tacti-p mcny filed by the Staff. } 18 The other thing that -- =.s soon as I pcssit1y 39 could I tried to find a witness on that subject, and I did 20 contact him, asd he basically said to me he wasn't sure if he had the time, 21 i We vent arcund and around in terra of that gg G question. And ha, at a cerr.ain point, said"I si-gly cannot g J be your witness. For all cther renzonc acide, I don't have g m ../ the time to profile testimony, to e'ren write tastimony by g ___________w
i t' 2734 =po; i the date that I'd have to get it in." ) 2i se that is whera =y rcle fits in, and I just ^ W 3 want the record to be clear on that. (} 4 'As to whether or not the limited appearanca 5 could have ccms in sooner, et catera, et cetera, well, from 6 my understanding of Mr. Pollard's life, he's a very busy
- 7. ~
man. He is at this point working on what you'd call, I
- r.
3 suppose, more generic issucc through the Comissien, and I a u j 9-don't think. that osa could arpect that any given person '. ;[..* r .J I g) 10 could be checking up on all the 70-cdd nuclear power plants. 11 in this country. 12 And I just wanted to set the record' straight on 13 that. d i 14 Lastly, it seems to me that - again~, I would i 15 prefer to argus on this temcrrow, but I would just li%a to 16 point the Ecard in the direction of.Mr. Pollard's discussion t on page 17 of his limitec appearanca about the interim
- / ;
.s. I 10 ; cporation as' regards the fire protection, and whr.t nppendix 19 A to 10 CFR, Appenais A says about the single failurs criteria j 20, and ten that would apply to Trojan. Because I think this is I I a scricus scfety probicm which doc.s hava to do with interim 2! l 22f operation. 4 ] tc wher0 WO ar3 right nch, and that i lot Of this cculd be It sc:Es to n.e that therc's a 10: cf doubt as 23 i. I g,g cleared up if we !ctually did have testi=cny er I i l .l ' a +..w++e,.e.9 w.
- -==-e w.
seen----+wo-+
- * *. * - - + * * *. * * - -mar '- " * ' * * * ' * * * * *
. * * * * * - -* * - + -
2735 mpb5 1 . cross-examination of Mr. Pollard. And I would recommend -- l s 2 I would make a motion'to the Board that the Board subpoena v 3 dr. Pollard. 4 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
- lou've mention Mr. Pollard.
i Q / 5 I think as I recall in one of our special prehearing confer-6 ances you were in consultation with him, I think you told us 7 then. 8 MS. BELL: No, I was referring to other witnesses 9 that I was thinking of bringing. I had no knowledge of 10 safety-related equipment, and I had not talked to Mr. Pollard 11 until after the Staff. testimony was filed. 12 CHAIRMAN MILLER: That was when? Cctober? 13 MS. BELL: I only ramember it was filed somewhat J 14 late, but - CHAIRMAN MILLER: It was October -- well, there 15 16 were two filings by the Staff. MS. BELL: I don't know tha exact date when I 97 bogc.n to talk to Mr. Pollard, bu+ I didn't apprcach him the gg minute after I got the Staff testimony. It didn't occur to gg me who I could approach in order to find expert witnesses. 20 But just to clarify your question, the expert 21 witnesses I was talking about then were people who had done 22 ] some work; actually seismic goologists frcm the Humboldt 23 area who had tactified at the Humboldt Plant. Those ware 24 R 'f the witnessas I was referring to then. 3 i-i l + = ~ ~ ~ ~. , - ~ - - -
-.. - - -. ~ - ~. 2736 mpb6 1 CHAIRMAN MILI3R: Thank you. 2 DR. MC COL'.AM: I'd like to make another comment V 3. to the Licensee. Q 4 I' don't know what questions will be. asked 5 tomorrow with respect'to the safety-related equipment,'but' 57 1 c."i n 6 I would suggest that' you have the resources available to you! .a 7 that when the questions ~do cose up, you will know where .;fy : 8 'that fits into the safety system, the given device or ' equip- %V
- x..s.
.w .e ..t g-
- ment, what it affects, because that's likely to come up. ' And Why 4
,ry egs; k 4 y.o V L 3.y a to ' I would hope that you would have that resource available to ' $... o 3 e 11 you. tg CHAIRMAN MILLER: We didn't mean, by the way, _] I 'j' & .d[ toexcludethefireequipmentquestionswhenwe'were'talkingf 13-14 about safety-related equipment. We donft know, but we Z suggest that everybody consult all of the reasonably avail-15 able; factual or other questions of" issues might ba involved. 16 We weren't trying to express judgI:wnt.. Safety-17 relatsd was certainly the most obvious. 10 But I have no conception one way or another what ~ j gg >4 other matter 1 there might be, but we woran't excluding any-
- 1 20 thing that could be said to be reasonably related to the 21 seismic question and its ramifications.
22. All right, if thera's nothing further, we will-- ] -- 21 t MR. GRM: Mr. Chairman, there is one further y 1 item. 25; l' + _m_ ___m_______._
w- ~~ _. ~.--... 2737-mpb7 1-The. Staff is out here with somewhat limited ~ 2 - resources, and we do 'have a document issued by the Staff . v 3 some time ago relating to Staff seismic audit of all g -'4 Westinghouse. electrical equipment that had to be performed 5 by the Staff. And actually Mr. Harring might be'able to her. .i Y $;$ 7 "O ' f f' 6 explain ~in.a little bit bettsr detail just what it is. 1$$ .s 7 What I was proposing to do woul'd be just to hand ,5jd f;y. 8-this to the Board and the parties for their information. IM j w *9 M .,d;; CHAIRMAN MILLER Iksoundslik'sagoodisuggesk 9 10 tion, Mr. Gray. It might be helpful. ' g
- p..
m ' af -y
- j MR. HERRING
In 1975 there was a seismic audit 12 performed' by the NRC of Westinghouse-supplied equipmant which .' c i 13 consisted of the Staff watching equipment as it was going into,[ Q .. - ~ v 14 plants checking on the' equipment for all Westinghouse equip-p mant which was tested prior to May of 1974. 15 This is a report which. documented the results of 16 the review. You'll hava to --on the last page you will note 17 4 that there are come WCAP numbers penciled in nart to it which 18 at that time were drafts. And I got this cut of a Staff 39 member's file, and the drafts later beccme WCAPs and those 20 numbers are noted. 21 1 l You will also find in the conclusions that there 22 are five conditicus which were put upon the acceptchility 23' of the electrical equipment. And based upon my discucsiens y, q t / with the. Licenses, tasse five conditions are met, and they g ',p' s l -w-i ..w.
-y.4, ,y ,r--- 'l 2738 i-if apb8 1' should be e.ble to cubctantiate. j ') 2j CHAIF.:w! M".m",: 'les. 17e think that if you s LF '/ 3 'I could make sor.e copies availablo that that would be useful . (] 4 to the Board and I'm sure to Counso3.. 5 One will be enough fer the Board. We'll chare 6 it,Iir. Gray. .7 (Documents distributed.) .J ~ S Is there anything further? Is someone asking ]f 9 for ths floor? i 'i 10 (No response.) ~ 11 Very well. 12 Is nina o' clock convaient in the :norning? Wa'11 recess'until 9i00 a.m. 13 d 14 (Whereupon, at 5:20 p.m., the hearing in the above-entiticd mattar was adjourned, to reconvena at ~ 15 16 9:00 a.m.r the following day.) 17 6: IB ' 19 20 El 22 s 23 ' 24 .M
- t
_ _ _ _ -}}