ML19281A566
| ML19281A566 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/13/1979 |
| From: | Rosolie E NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES (FORMERLY COALITION |
| To: | Mccollom K, Mark Miller, Paxton H AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, OKLAHOMA STATE UNIV., STILLWATER, OK |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903210301 | |
| Download: ML19281A566 (2) | |
Text
'
February 13, 1979 Coalit o For Safe Power t
215 S. C. 9 th Portland, Or, 97219RC FLTi!C b,,,,,., y g
" ^ " "
Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman Dr. Kenneth A. ':cCollom, Dean Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Division of Engineering, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Architecture & Technology Washington, D.C.
20555 Oklahcma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Dr. Hugh C. Paxton 1229 41st Street Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 WI g
7) b'.\\
t A
1 h 'r 7 8i In the Matter of g
0.7, @f Portland General Electric Company, et al.
j ?!
(Trojan Nuclear Plant) k Y
NJ 4^ g,9 [v[c-*
Docket No. 50-344 C
Q g/
(Control Building) gf,*/ 7
%,g Gentlemen:
Both the NRC Staff and Licensee have submitted letters concerning Phase II of the Trojan Control Building hearings.
'ie would now like to make the Board aware of our position concerning certain matters.
The first issue we vould address is that of the prehearing conference to consider contentions.
'ie agree with Staff that an appropriate date would be March 13 However, due to a conflict in schedule which requires this Intervenor to be out of town I would request that the date be March 20th.
I don't believe this date in anyway will jeopardize the rights of any of the parties or further delay hearing dates.
The final matter is that of interrogatories.
It was our understanding that the March 28th date set by the Board meant the last day interrog-atories could be filed. Since there seems to be a misunderstanding on the part of parties concernince this matter a clarification by the Board would be helpful.
Further we would ask the 3; ed that they consider extendin6 the discovery.
We make this request in light of statements contained in Staff's letter dated February 3,1979; in particular the statement on page 2 stating that Licensee will be submitting a supplement to PCE-1020 which is to be filed in mid-to-late March.
The Staff goes on to state "...that M O32 l C53ol
\\
this supplemental information and analysis will give rise to addition-al Staff questions." We believe it is reasonable to assume that if the Staff will have further questions Intervenors will also have questions; and to allow one party the benefit of discovery and not another is highly prejudical.
Extending the discovery period will not ir.pede or cause undue
. delay, however the opposite may occur.
Therefore we request that the end of discovery be set at April 16th.
w One in the Spirit
$c8 2',p ss Eucone Rosolie Intervenor pro g CFSP cc:
Sevice List e