ML20198H382
| ML20198H382 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1986 |
| From: | Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#186-895 79-421-07-OL, 79-421-7-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8601310016 | |
| Download: ML20198H382 (3) | |
Text
1
~ ; 7/f
[LE[g i
92 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA o
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,-+
JAN 301905* liO 4/
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD' mcmm g C/tdMiA '(it
/
T
~ ' " " ~
Before Administrative Judges h
Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman g
Dr. James C. Lamb Frederick J. Shon
$lRVED JAN 01995 3
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-498 OL
)
STN 50-499 OL HOUSTON LIGHTING AND
)
)
)
(South Texas Project
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
January.29, 1986
)
MEMORANDUM (Telephone Conference Call - January 28,1986)_
On January 28, 1986 the Licensing Board convened a telephone conference call to discuss two matters.
Participating in the call in addition to the Board members were: Maurice Axelrad, Esq. for the Applicants, Edwin J. Reis, Esq. for the NRC Staff, and Lanny Sinkin, Esq. for CCANP.
1.
On January 10, 1986, the Applicants submitted to the Staff (with copies to the Board and parties) a document which concerned the STP design for tornado depressurization effects near the Mechanical Electrical Auxiliary Building (MEAB) HVAC louvers (ST-HL-AE-1574, File No: G9.18,N3.8.9.2). This document in the Board's view raised a question concerning the continuing validity of certain affidavits previously filed by the Applicants and Staff with regard to summary disposition of CCANP Contention 4.
The Board asked the Applicants and 0601310016 060129 PDR ADOCK 05000490 C
e 2
Staff to update those affidavits on the basis of the January 10, 1986 submittal. The Applicants indicated that another structure should also possibly be covered by the updated affidavits and the Board agreed that the updated affidavits should evaluate that structure as well.
Furthennore, the Board asked the Applicants and Staff to respond to the following inquiry:
We have found that the fact that the IVC cubicle roof does not meet deterministic tornado criteria is acceptable because the probability of a serious release by this mechanism is low. We are now confronted with a similar argument with respect to certain MEAB HVAC louvers. Are two or three such failures to meet the deterministic requirements permissible,provipedthesumoftheprobabilitiesdoes not exceed 1 X 10 ?
The Applicants indicated they would advise us in the near future of the date by which they could submit their revised affidavit (s). The Board agreed that the Staff would respond to the Applicants' affidavit (s) within two weeks and that CCANP would respond to both sets of affidavits within another two weeks. After receiving advice from the Applicants, we will indicate the precise response dates for other parties.
2.
The Board also discussed with the parties whether there was any necessity for changing the schedule for Phase III preparation as a result of the slippage to February 14, 1986 of the target date for issuance of the Staff's SER. The Staff indicated that it is now prepared to respond to discovery on Issue F.
That being so, we found no reason at this time to adjust the current schedule.
(Thatschedule calls for the completion of discovery by March 7,1986, and for a prehearing conference during the week of March 17,1986.)
h 3
We noted that CCANP has filed a new motion to reopen the Phase II record and, as part thereof, seeks a suspension of Phase III activities.
We stressed that we would not rule on that motion at this time and that, until we did so, Phase III preparation activities should continue.
We also discussed the schedule for considering the update to Issue C which we had directed in our Phase I Partial Initial Decision (LBP-84-13, 19 NRC 639, 698 and 787 (1984)). The Applicants indicated that they would file this update prior to the filing of their Phase III testimony (which currently is scheduled to be filed on April 14,1986).
They suggested that the Staff respond within two weeks, and that CCANP within an additional two weeks would identify any matters which it claims warrant additional litigation (including a basis for such claim).
We accepted the proposed schedule but agreed that we would be prepared to modify the response date for the Staff if the Staff found that it needed additional review time for the Issue C update.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
,A ~ b >$ $
~/
CharlesBechhoefer,Chapan ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 29th day of January, 1986