ML19254D177

Order Denying Licensee 790927 Motion for Clarification of ASLB 790918 Order.Order,Granting Extension to State of or to Respond to Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition,Based on Actual Delay in SER Issuance & Filing

ML19254D177
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	10/11/1979
From:	Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
TAC-08348, TAC-11299, TAC-13152, TAC-8348, NUDOCS 7910220472
Download: ML19254D177 (4)

Text

s A

p UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION A

gcgy y9 p$

g@1qS$Ig gC ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD oG%$h$*

O Marshall E. Miller, Chairman

,p Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Member

• Stil a

Dr. Hugh C. Paxton, Member In the Matter of

)

)

PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.

)

Docket No. 50-344

)

(Trojan Nuclear Plant)

)

(Control Building)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF TIME FOR RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION (October 11, 1979)

The Licensee on September 27, 1979, filed a motion requesting the Board to clarify its Order of September 18, 1979.

By that Order the motion of the State of Oregon for an extension of time in which to respond to the Licensee's motion for summary dispo-sition of specified contentions, concurred in by the Joint Inter-venors,was granted.

Time was " extended to 14 days following service of the SER and completion of discovery among the parties."

The Licensee seeks explicit confinnation that responses to its motion for summary disposition are due for filing no later than 14 days following service of the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER).

The State of Oregon and the Staff have replied that they have no objections to this motion.

r The relief sought by the Licensee would amount to a modifi-cation, not a clarification, of our Order of September 27.

The 2 239 7 9102 2 o, 7 e_.

.. time for responses to the summary disposition motion was inten-tionally extended to 14 days after both service of the SER, and completion of discovery reasonably related to it.

As that Order noted, until the SER is actually issued and served, there can be no termination of discovery, further scheduling or other matters.

For that reason, all prior orders relating to schedules were rescinded.

Because of several delays and slippage in the filing of the SER,1! previously adopted schedules have necessarily been vacated.

On the latest occasion the Staff attributed the continuing delay to a number of unresolved questions between the Staff and the Licensee, which the latter's written responses did net satisfacto-rily resolv,.

Weekly reports to the Board by the Staff have indicated that additional carefully-drafted questions have been submitted by the Staff,2/ and that further information is being and will be supplied by the Licensee.S!

Although we do not question the necessity of the Staff obtaining more precise information from the Licensee concerning the proposed control building modifications, neither do we 1/

See Staff's motions for postponement dated May 21, 1979 and September 6, 1979.

2/

September 14, ten questions; September 20, six questions; September 28, seven questions; and October 2, twenty-five questions.

3_/

See Licensee's letter to the Board dated October 5, 1979.

i' 2 240

. underestLaate its potential significance to the Joint Intervenors.

These matters have been under consideration by the Licensee and the Staff for some period of time.

The original Order for Modification of License, dated May 26, 1978, recited that PG&E had indicated its intent to make appropriate modifications by June 1, 1979.

The Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, determined that interim operation of the facility prior to such date should be permitted, subject to certain condi-tions (43 Federal Register 23768-23770, June 1, 1978).

The issue of interim operation pending the Phase II evidentiary hearing on proposed modifications of the control building, was also the subject of evidence at the Phase I evidentiary hearings, held October-December, 1978.

The Joint Intervenors cannot be held responsible for what-ever delays there may have been in preparing the design for control building modifications, filed January, 1979, and in developing and submitting the additional information presently required by the Staff.

Even at this date that process has not been completed.

We do not intend to guess or specul-te as to the contents of the SER when it is filed.

As indicated in the Order of September 18, 1979, we do not intend to take it on faith in establishing dates for the termination of all discovery, the filing of responses #

summary disposition motions, or other

)

scheduling matters.

Any further schedules will await the actual filing of the SER.

2 241

. This ruling is not meant to allow any party to be dilatory in completing discovery or preparing for the evidentiary hearing.

All parties, especially the Joint Intervenors, are directed to proceed diligently with whatever discovery is presently obtain-able.

After the SER is filed, a schedule will be adopted which will set.the termination date for discovery, especially discovery which could reasoraoly be triggered by the SER.

Such dates will be established after consideration of the additional information requested by the Staff, as well as the SER itself.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD O

q %f! U1 e

Aa$f ll I

ib Marshall E. Miller, Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this lith day of October, 1979.

2 242