ML20236T565

Responds to to Chairman Jackson Expressing Concern W/Nrc Schedules for Reviewing Portland General Electric Co Applications for on-site Sf Storage & for one-time Shipment of Reactor Vessel

ML20236T565
Person / Time
Site:	07109271, Trojan  File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	07/21/1998
From:	Knapp M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Edvalson P OREGON, STATE OF
References
NUDOCS 9807280263
Download: ML20236T565 (2)

Text

- -- - - - -- -

,,f fL--_ - - _ - - - - --- - . Jy-3f f/- Y27f g

g"g i UNITED STATES 72 4 "

.g g

{

g-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

. WASHINGTON D.C. enmaa mang j

l g*-****,/- July 21,1998 j l

I Mr. Patrick T. Edvalson  !

Chair, Energy Facility Siting Council Oregon Office of Energy 625 Marion Street NE '

Salem, OR 97310

)

Dear Mr. Edvalson:

4 I am responding to your letter to' Chairman Jackson, dated June 15,'1998, in which you express

'i concem with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) schedules for reviewing -

Portland General Electric Company's (PGE's) applications for on-site spent fuel storage, and for i the one-time snipment of its reactor vessel; in particular, you expressed a concem that NRC's  !

lack of progress in reviewing these applications has had, and continues to have, a significant impact on the schedule and costs for decommissioning PGE's Trojan Nuclear Plant. Finally, you asked the Chairman if she could help impress the staff with the importance of making timely progress in reviewing these applications.

1 First, let me assure you that both NRC management and staff appreciate the potential impact l that NRC review schedules have on the Trojan decommissioning schedules and costs. Staff i met with Mr. David Stewart-Smith and Mr.- Adam Bless of your staff on June 25,1998, to '

discuss the Council's concems. We believe we have properly taken these considerations into account when assigning staff resources and priorities. However, as you may be aware, staff

- has identified important safety and regulatory issues during the initial reviews for both of these applications. In each case, schedules and resources have been adjusted to focus on resolving outstanding issues, many of which require additional PGE or third-party input or actions. In l short, we believe that PGE's applications have bean assigned appropriate resources and

. priorities to process these applications in a timely manner. fg As you may not be aware, the review schedule for the Trojan reactor vessel was recently l accelerated to support PGE's request for an August 1999 shipment schedule.' Previously the Commission had approved staffs plan to resolve outstanding issues involving the waste

/) e ! l l

classification and disposal of the Trojan reactor vessel, before committing resources to a transportation review. The waste classification and disposalissues were identified by staff in its initial review of PGE's application. The revised schedule calls for processing both the waste classification and transportation reviews in parallel, recognizing the risk to PGE if the waste and disposal issues are not favorably resolved. The success in meeting this accelerated schedule l will, of course, depend on the PGE's ability to resolve all safety and regulatory issues in a

' timely manner.

.The Council was also concemed with the length of time it has taken the staff to review the Trojan independent spent fuel storage facility license application. The Council is correct in that NRC gives first priority to operating nuclear plants versus plarets that are in the process of decommissioning. However, this is not the reason that the staff has been delayed in approving the application. Rather, there have been delays because the original application that PGE submitted did not, in all cases, provide complete or technically adequate evaluations. Because l-9907290263 990721 PDR ADOCK 05000344 3 b

. ~ .

RA& w % /. y

.+

y- PDR S o

7, -

P. T. Edvalson 2 July 21, 1998 >

of concerns raised by NRC during its review of the application, PGE redesigned its cask transfer station and the concrete storage pad. Trojan submitted these revised design changes to NRC in December 1997. However, the submittal again lacked complete or technically adequate information. This resulted in PGE retracting the origir;*l cubmittal and resubmitting it in March 1998. The staff is currently reviewing those responses.

For the independent spent fuel storage facility license application there are technical issues that require additional review. The issues include, but are not limited to, welding the closure lids onto the cask, coatings to be used with the cask, the accident drop analysis for the casks and

.the adequacy of the operating limitations and technical specifications. If these issues are resolved in a timely manner by PGE, NRC could issue PGE a license as early as April 1999.

I trust'this responds to your concerns.

- Sincerely, .

Original signed by Malcolm R. Knapp, Acting Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

}

Distribution: G980424; CRC-98-0639 Dockets: 50-344;71-9271;72-17 NRC F/C CPoland WTravers, EDO ~ MMasnick, NRR EMerschoff, RIV PUBLIC ESchultz HThompson, EDO SWeiss, NRR SBums, OGC

, NMSS D/r# VTharpe PNorry, EDO RBangart, OSP

. NMSS r# JCallan, EDO PTressler, EDO SGagner, OPA SFPO r# ' JBlaha, EDO SCollins, NRR - TJohnson, DWM Proofed by:

NAME: LMG

' DATE: 07/15S8

• see previous concurrence OFC SFPO C DD:SFPO:SFL1 C D:SFPO Tech. Editor OD:NMSS NAME EEaston*/img/dd SShankman* WKane* EKraus DATE 07/15/98 07/15/98 07/15/98 07/ @ /98 079-//98 C = COVER E = COVER & ENCLOSURE N = NO COPY DISK INCLUDED:

= , .

is It%Q f LI UCUdQ3 M8 $

_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _