ML19283B741
| ML19283B741 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/08/1979 |
| From: | Gray J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Mccollom K, Mark Miller, Paxton H AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, OKLAHOMA STATE UNIV., STILLWATER, OK |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903060713 | |
| Download: ML19283B741 (3) | |
Text
"
f UNIT ED STATES d'
- I'.,,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMJSSION m.,
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 N~
j j
s
\\ %3%f l
'% ' .'. * /
FEB 0 81979 Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Division of Engineering, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Architecture & Technology Washington, D.C.
20555 Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Dr. Hugh C, Paxton
[~;;i.T.1'..
1229 41st Street
, yg,-
W, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544
! 4;#
~/
,-.e
.,Y%,\\
./ N j 2l A
C\\
H In the Matter of Portland General Electric Company, et al. { -,
,cp i--
(Trojan Nuclear Plant) s-Docket No. 50-344 (Control Building)
Gentlemen:
On January li, 1979, the Licensee in the referenced proceeding filed with the NRC its " Report on Design Modifications for the Trojan Control Building" (PGE-1020). Subsequent thereto, by letter dated January 18, 1979, the Licensee proposed a schedule for Phase II of the rcferenced proceeding in which it suggested dates for a prehearing conference, the filing of testimony and the commencement of hearing.
The purpose of this letter is to inform th9 Board and parties of the status of the Staff's review of PGE-1020 and to respond to the Licensee's suggested schedule.
The Staff would first note that while PGE-1020 provides a generally detailed description of the proposed modifications to the Control Building and of the analytical techniques and criteria which have been and will be employed to establish the effects and adequacy of the proposed modifi-cations, important information on the proposed modifications has not yet been ;upplied.
Specifically:
(1) As to Control Building strength after the modifications, the assumptions of 5000 psi concrete and 40,000 psi reinforcing steel for shear walls, as required by the Order for Modification of License of May 26, 1978, have not yet been factored into the analysis for the modi-fied structure. Nor have the effects of the columns been included in that analysis.
(2) As to the effects of the modifications on floor response spectra, stiffnesses and stiffness degra-dation factors, to be derived from ongoing tests 7903060 1(3
s
~
' being conducted by the Licensee, are not yet avail-able.
Since these parameters are to be used in the calculations which result in the revised floor response spectra for the modified structures, the floor response spectra analyses will not be completed until these parameters have been derived.
The Licensee has indicated that additional information as to item (2) will be supplied by the end of February and 'that information on item (1) will be submitted in a supplement to PGE-1020 which is to be filed in mid-to-late March.
The Staff anticipates that this supplemental infor-mation and analysis will give rise to additional Staff questions. The Staff's review and evaluation of PGE-1020 is progressing pending the filing by the Licensee of the supplemental analysis and information.
However, since the Staff's review schedule is dependent to a considerable degree on the quality of the additional information to be submitted, the Staff is unable to predict with any accuracy at this time when its review will be completed. The Staff, therefore, suggests that the hearing be scheduled based on issuance of the Staff's Safety Evaluation on the proposed modifications. This will allow for a proper, full and adequate evaluation of all relevant aspects of the proposed modifications and will avoid last-minute postponement of the hearing or other delays brought about by the need to seek additional information from the Licensee.
While we recognize that this does not allow for the establishment of a firm hearing schedule at this time, for the reasons set forth above we canaot now suggest one.
For the information of the Licensing Board and parties, it appears at this time that the Staff's Safety Evaluation will likely be issued on or about May 14, 1979 provided that the additional information is submitted by the Licensee in the time periods indicated above.
In any event, the Staff will keep the Board fully informed as to the progress of its review and will give firm notice two weeks prior to the issuance of the Safety Evaluation so that a firm hearing schedule can be established.
In the proposed schedule set forth below, the Staff has tentatively assumtd an issuance date for the Safety Evaluation of May 14.
We have also assumed that all parties would be prepared to file written testimony on that date.
Secondly, the Staff would point out that while the Licensee has proposed the week of February 26, 1979 as a period for a prehearing conference to consider contentions, scheduling and procedural matters, this was predi-cated on the assumption that contentions would be filed by Intervenors on February 16.
By Order dated January 30, 1979, the Licensing Board directed that contentions be filed on February 26, 1979.
In view of this, it appears that a prehearing conference should more appropriately be scheduled for the week of March 12, 1979.
=
~
. Considering the foregoing, the Staff suggests the following tentative schedule for Phase II of this proceeding:
March 13 Prehearing Conference to consider contentions, further scheduling and any other procedural matters (15 days after the filing of contentions).
March 28 Completion of discovery (pursuant to Licensing Board's Order of January 30, 1979).
April 30 Tentative date on which Staff would confirm date of issuance of Safety Evaluation.
May 14 Tentative date for issuance of Staff's safety Evaluation.
Tentative date for filing of written testimony.
May 29 Tentative date for start of evidentiary hearing.
(15 days after issuance of Safety Evaluation and filing of written testimony).
At this point, without knowing the number or scope of contentions, the Staff cannot estimate the length of the hearing.
Nor is it possible to predict the complexity of matters that may be addressed at the hearing.
In view of this, the Staff suggests that the periods provided in 10 CFR 92.754 for the filing of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law be followed in Phase II of this proceeding subject to possible shortening of these periods as the scope of the hearing becomes apparent.
With regard to another matter related to Phase II of the proceeding, the Staff is currently reviewing interrogatories previously submitted to the Staff and will update, as necessary, those responses for interrogatories related to Control Building modifications and Phase II of the proceeding.
The Staff understands the Licensing Board's Order setting the date for completion of discovery as March 28, 1979 to mean that responses to discovery are to be filed by that date. This would mean, of course, that discovery requests would have to be filed sufficiently in advance (i.e., 14 days plus 5 days for mailing, 10 CFR 82.740b) of March 28, 1979 to allow for the time provided by the regulations for responding to discovery requests.
Sincerely,
^
os ph R. Gra Counsel for NRC Staff cc: Service List