ML20206J231

Motion to Admit Encl late-filed Contention on Overstress of Structural Columns.Requests ASLB Defer Ruling on Admission of Contention Pending Initial NRC Rept on Anonymous Allegations Received on 860623.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20206J231
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	06/23/1986
From:	Cassel D CASSEL, D.W., ROREM, B.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#286-684 OL, NUDOCS 8606270045
Download: ML20206J231 (10)

Text

,

June 23, 1986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9 0

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR .g A }' bo -

In the Matter of: )

)

M 7

4__'

gg gh A f  ;

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) -i ,

J

) Docket Nos. 50-4 6' an -

0 (Braidwood Nuclear Station, ) 50-45'{p{_ ,

Units 1 and 2) ) .

MOTION TO ADMIT LATE-FILED CONTENTION ON OVERSTRESS OF STRUCTURAL COLUMNS Intervenors Rorem, et al., pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.417, by their undersigned attorney, move the Board to admit the attached late-filed contention concerning overstress of structural columns at Braidwood. In the alternative, Intervenors ask the Board to defer ruling on admission of the contention pending an initial NRC staff report on anonymous allegations, purportedly made by a field engineer at Braidwood, and received by Intervenors in the mail on June 23, 1986.

THE CONTENTION The proposed new contention is based on a latter dated June 19, 1986, purporting to be from a field engineer at Braidwood, received by Intervenors' counsel on June 23, 1986. The letter alleges that the structural columns at Braidwood are overstressed due to the addition of "many new dead and live loads" not in the original design, but added due to rework. The alleger states that no program has been started to analyze the columns for these i

8606270045 860623 6 PDR ADOCK 0500 G)66

additional loads and to reinforce accordingly. The alleger contends i that the probable cause for this omission is "the almost impossible task of reinforcing these columns due to the fact that you have members framing into the columns on all four-sides." The alleger further contends that a major earthquake would lead to a " major structural failure," and crushing of pipe lines, instrument lines, control lines, valves and other equipment.

i A copy of the letter and the envelope is attached as Exhibit A to the proposed new contention.

i THE FIVE FACTORS Intervenors' proposed late-filed contention satisfies the five factor test of 10 CFR Section 2.714 for admission of late- ,

filed contentions, for the following reasons:

(1) Good Cause j Intervenors first learned of the alleger's contentions l by his or her letter dated June 19, 1986, and received by i

Interveno rs ' counsel on June 23, 1986, the same date on which this additional contention is being filed. Intervenors previously had no reason to be aware of the alleger's contentions.

In these circumstances, there is no question that Intervenors have good cause for not filing the contention sooner.

(2) and (4) Other Means, Other Parties l

In the extensive litigation over Intervenors' earlier late-filed contentions,.all partiec, including.the

! Commission and this Board, consistently recognized that Factors i

(2) and (4) weigh in favor of admitting Intervenors' late-filed i

l l

i 1

i contention. Nothing about the structural column overstress contention suggests any different conclusion with respect to 2

these two factors.

(3) Sound Record i

Although the alleger is anonymous, the alleger purports to be a field engineer at Braidwood with experience at Braidwood's

! design " sister," Marble Hill, and a formal education in struc-d tural engineering. In addition, the alleger's letter contains

sufficient specific information to suggest that the individual is in fact a field engineer at Braidwood with demonstrable knowledge of structural columns and beam conditions at the plant.

< Moreover, if the alleger's contentions are true, they l appear to raise an extremely serious question about whether Braidwood is safe to operate.

Because the allegations have been received at such a late date, Intervenors have filed this contention immediately, 'rather than delay its filing in an effort to investigate the contention.

f However, in the event the contention is admitted, Intervenors 4

are prepared to investigate fully and promptly, through 4 discovery and otherwise, as well as to retain witnesses with expertise in structrual engineering.

On the other hand, if the alleger's contentions are simply i

erroneous - that is, if there is indeed an adequate program to analyze structural columns for all additional loads and to reinforce accordingly - then litigation of this alleger's

! contentions would likely not contribute to a sound record.

l 1

i I

,- - - - - ---,r - , -

. , , , - - . - - , , , - - ,,-. .--,w,- m -.,,,w, , - - ~.-,-..,,,-,.--rewa-rrm --my-w--,---T ,,-me,ey.- ,.,-e-.-m-v--

4-1 There fore , Intervenors move in the alternative that the Board defer ruling pending an initial report from the NRC staff on wiiether such a program exists and is being implemented.

(5) Broadening and Delay Admission of this new coritention would clearly broaden and delhy the proceeding (unless Applicant were to show immediately i that'an adequate program to analyze and reinforce structural i columns-exists, and were therefore to prevail on a motion for summary disposition).

However, if the alleger's contentions are true, they are too import' ant to ignore, and a careful c' valuation of their i

safety significance is essential if Braidwood is to be permitted

~

to operate.

CONCLUSION Of the five factors, the first four all tend to favor admission of the contention, outweighing the fifth factor, broadening and delay, which argues against' admission of the contention. On balance, therefore, Intervenors ' late-filed contention on structural column overstress should be admitted in this proceeding. In the alternative, Intervenors move the Board to defer ruling on admission of this contention pending an initial report from the NRC staff on whether an adequate program to analyze and reinforce structural columns exists and is being implemented.  ;

DATED: June 23,1986 Respectfully submitted, f

Douglass W. Cassel, Jr.

Robert Guild erk W Timothy W. Wright III Dougla'ss W. Cassel, Jr. 59) 109 North Dearborn One of the Attorneys for Intervenors Rorem, et al.

h ago L 60602 (312) 641-5570 i

-._.. -,~ - --

. - . -- _ -. . - - . . - = . _ - - - . - - - _ - - -. -_ . --.

i I

l INTERVENORS' LATE-FILED CONTENTION ON STRUCTURAL COLU!CI OVERSTRESS 1

l For the reasons stated by an individual purporting to be a f: field engineer at Braidwood in his or her letter dated June 19, 1986, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference in its entirety:

i . many of the structural columns at Braidwood are I

overstressed;

. through June 19, 1986, no program has been started to analyze the columns for additional loads and to reinforce accordingly;

. reinforcing the columns would be very difficult because of members framing into the columns on all four sides; and I

. the foregoing conditions would compromise the structural integrity of the plant during a seismic event.

For these reasons, there does not exist reasonable i assurance that Braidwood is safe to operate. No operating i

license should be issued until all structural columns have been analyzed for additional loads and reinforced accordingly.

B.P.I.,

109 NORTH DEARBORN SUITE 1300 CHICAGO ILL. 60602 June 19, 1986 DEAR SIRS:

I AM A FIELD ENGINEER AT BRAIDWOOD STATION I HAVE WORKED AT THE SISTER PLANT MARBLE HILL AND WOULD LIKE TO SHARE SOME INTERESTING INFORMATION WITH YOU. ,

FIRST I HAVE A FORMAL EDUCATION IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING.

WHAT I WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU IS TE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THIS STATION, THE INITIAL DESIGN DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT VARIOUS MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL PIPING AND BEAM MODIFICATIONS.

ATTAChWENTS TO TE WIDE-FLANGE BEAMS (t#4ICH DO NOT WITHSTAND TORSIONAL LOADS ) . THIS IPFLEfENTED TM REWORK OF MANY HUNDREDS OF BEAMS WITH THE MOST UNUGUAL DESIGNS EVER CREATED BY MAN.

THE STRUCTURE IS NOW SEEING MANY MANY NEW DEAD AND LIVE LOADS THAT WERE NOT ORIGINALLY FOUND IN TFE DESIGN.

WHAT THIS ALL PEANS IS THAT THE COLLNWS ARE VERY OVERSTRESSED.

TO THIS DATE NO PROGRAM HAS BEEN STARTED TO ANALYIZE THE COLUMNS FOR THESE ADDITIONAL LOADS AND REINIFORCE ACCORDINGLY.

THE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR NOT DOING THIS IS DUE TO THE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TASK OF REINFORCING THESE COLUNS DUE TO THE FACT THAT

YOU HAVE MEMBERS FRAMING INTO THE COLUMN ON ALL 4-SIDES.

WHAT THIS ALL MEANS - IF LETS SAY THERE WAS A MAJOR EARTHQUAKE THERE WOULD BE A MAJOR STRUCTURAL FAILURE.

MAIN FLOORS FALLING IN, CRUSHING PIPE LINES OF ALL SIZES, INSTRUMENTATION LINES, CONTROL LINES, VALVES AND UNTOLD EQUIPMENT WOULD BE WIPED OUT AND YOU WOULD BE ON YOUR WAY TO A PRJCLEAR ACCIDENT-AS WORSE AS CHERNOBYL.

THE STRUCTURAL PROBLEM CAN BE VERIFIED, FOR YOUR INFO BY CONTACTING ANYONE AT B15-458-2801--EXT. 2683 THIS IS THE SARGENT AND LUNDY ENGINEERING OFFICE AT THE SITE. THEY MIGHT SHARE THIS WITH YOU-I HOPE THIS INFORMATION IS HELPFUL FROM A CONCERNED CITIZEN 1173

c~

lllt1i i  ;

\\kkk<

\

,b i,=],5 l

~

Q .

.)

! @ 3 Is 5:s I'

ga$ -

~--

,3_3 e

4b 2%

~

Cu

/ll' '

4GI dl . f b t  ;

I

>..-s -- . -- _ . .

l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )

)

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-456 and

) 50-457 (Braidwood Nuclear Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served copies of Motion To Admit Late-Filed Contention on Overstress of Structural Columns on all parties to this proceeding as shown on the attached Service List, by having said copies placed in envelopes, properly addressed and postaged (first class) , and deposited in the U.S. mail at 109 North

Dearborn,

Chicago, Illinois 60602; except that the Licensing Board and counsel for Edison and the NRC Staff were served personally at the hearing held in Joliet on this 23rd day of June, 1986.

W -

m

PPAIDWOOD SERVICE LIST Herbert Grossman, Esq. Michael I. Miller, Esq.

Chairman and Administrative Judge Peter Thornton, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Isham, Lincoln & Beale U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Three First National Plaza Washington D.C. 20555 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Richard F. Cole Docketing & Service Section Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Washington D.C. 20555 A. Dixon Callihan C. Allen Bock, Esq.

Administrative Judge P.O. Box 342 102 Oak Lane Urbana, Illinois 61801 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Bridget Little Forem Stuart Treby, Esq. 117 North Linden Street NRC Staff Counsel Essex, Illinois 60935 U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission 7335 Old Georgetown Road Thomas J. Gordon, Esq.

Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Waller, Evans & Gordon 2503 South Neil Joseph Gallo, Esq. Champaign, Illinois 61820 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1150 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Lorraine Creek Suite 1100 Poute 1, Box 182 Washing ton D.C. 20036 Manteno, Illinois 60950 Region III Office of Inspection &

Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Poad Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Washington D.C. 20555 l

l l