ML20073J676
| ML20073J676 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1983 |
| From: | Curran D, Jordan W HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20073J657 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8304190369 | |
| Download: ML20073J676 (6) | |
Text
m g
t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION DW.f?
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'83 - APR 18 A9.58-3 Insthe Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
D
~#"~'
NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1
)
and 2)
)
)
NECNP OBJECTION TO LICENSING BOARD'S REFUSAL TO ALLOW TIME FOR RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF AFFIDAVIT CONCERNING ENVIRONMElfTAL QUALIFICATION OF ELECTRIC VALVE OPERATORS.
At the April 7 and 8, 1983 prehearing conference in Boston, the Licensing Board considered oral arguments on summary disposition of a number of NECNP contentions, including Contention I.A.2., concerning environmental qualification of electric valve operators.
During the oral argument in support of its summary judgment motion, the NRC Staff asr,erted for the first time in this proceeding chat it had reviewed the electric valve operators inside the containment and determined that none of the unqualified electric valve operators was important to safety.
NECNP objected that the Board could not consider summary disposition based on an unsupported assertion of which NECNP had no prior notice.
On April 14, 1983, the Licensing Board conducted a conference call with counsel for NECNP, the NRC Staff, and 8304190369j3O OO 3
r-n-
.. +
1 Applicants, The -Board requested from the NRC Staf # a written affirmation of - the Staf f's representation at the April 7 prehearing conference.
NECNP asked for an opportunity to review the affidavit and supporting analyses:by the NRC staff.
The Staff agreed to make all documents supporting the determination available to NECNP'for review.
When NECNP asked the Board how much time would be permitted for a response to
.i the affidavit, the Board stated that it did not wish any responses, and that the only thing it wanted was the affirmation from the NRC Staf f.
In requesting the affirmation from the staff,-the Roard has given the Staff an opportunity to make an additional summary judgment motion on Contention I.A.2.,-without allowing NECMP to respond to that motien.
In so doing, the Board flagrantly violates the Commission's summary disposition rules, which require that parties be afforded an opportunity to answer the allegations made in summary disposition motions.
10 C.P.R.
S 2.749(a).
The affidavit that the NRC Staff plans to submit early next week, and the analyses and documents on which it may rely, have never before been provided to NECNP, yet the Board has not allowed NECNP an opportunity to respond to these materials.
Nct only has the Board informed NECNP that it does not wish a response from NECNP to the NRC Staff, but the Board has indicated that it has no interest in the factual basis for the
I I NRC's determination'.
When counsel.for the NRC Staff offered to supply an affidavit' outlining the_ methodology applied by the-Staff in its analysis, the Board stated that it wouldn't be necessary, and that-the Board was only interested in receiving an affirmation that the determination had been made.
A determination tha a piece of equipment is not "important to safety" requires a technical evaluation of'whether'the 5
failure of a particular component will impair the-function of safety related equipment.
10 C.F.R.
S 50.44(b)(2).
Pr esumably, the staf f's af firmation will be supported by sone technicalidiscussion of why each of the unqualified electric valve operators inside the containment do not meet the criteria of 10'C.F.R. S 50.49(b).
NECNP is entitled to some reasonable period of time in which to evaluate the staff's technical determination at least the 20 days allowed by 10 C.P.R.
S 2.749 (a) for answers to summary disposition motions.
In determining that no response to the NRC Staff affirmation is necessary,'and refusing to set a reasonable l'
period for a response, the Board is essentially entertaining a summary judgment motion without al'owing the regulatory period l
for response.
As a result, the Board is undertaking ex parte consideration of the Staff's position in total disregard of NECNP's position.
Moreover, by its willingness to accept mere I
staff assertions without examining the facts on which the t
assertions are based, the Board would abdicate its own I
i
y
]-
1 responsibility independently to review the record and make a reasoned' determination on the' facts.
_For these reasons, NECNP objects to the Board's decision in-the conference call of April 14, 1983,- not to provide for a response by NECNP to.the Staff's
'new assertions.
' Finally, NECNP objects to any further unrecorded telephone p
conference calls between the Board and the parties.
The conversation of April 14, 1983, resulted-in a_ ruling.that seriously affects the rights of NECNP in this proceeding and could have a precedential effect on the particpation of other parties.
Such conversations should be recorded for the record, so that there is a clear basis for comment by other parties and l
for appellate review.
Respectfully submitted, W
Diane Curran P,.i S f :.
, III William V ordan HARMON & WEISS 1725 I Street, N.W.
' Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 833-9070 April 15, 1983 t
I
i.:
k.h L
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A
Il certify that on April 15,1983, copies ' of NECNP OBJECTION TO.
' LICENSING BOARD'S-REFUSAL 'TO ALLOW TIME' FOR RESPONSE TO NRC ~ STAFF AFFIDAVIT CONCERNING' ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF ELECTRIC VALVE OPERATORS 'were served by; first-class mail on :the following-
^
Helen Hoyt, Esq., Chairperson.
Rep.ERoberta C. Pevear Atomic Saftey and Licensing Board Drinkwater~ Road Panel' Hampton Falls, NH- 03844 U.S. Nuclear -Regulatory Commission
+
Washington, DC.20555-
- Dr. Emmeth A. Lu ebke.
Phillip_ Ahrens, Esq.
Administrative Judge 1 Assistant Attorney General
-r Atomic Saf tey and Licensing Board State House. Station (6
-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory. Commission
. Augusta, ME 04333 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour Robert A._ Backus, Esq.
1 Administrative Judge 111 Lowell Street
' Atomic Saf tey and Licensing Board Manchester,'NH 03105 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Saf tey and Licensing Board Thomas G. Dignan, Esq.
F Panel R.
K'. Gad, III, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ropes and Gray Washington, DC-20555 225 Franklin Street
-Boston, MA 02110 Atomic Saftey and Licensing Appeal Dr. Mauray Tye, President 1
Board Panel-Sun Valley Asociation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 98 Emmerson Street Washington, DC 20555 Haverhill, MA 01830 Docketing'and Service Roy P. Lessy, Jr. Esq.
L U.S. ' Nuclear Regulatory Commission Robert G.-Perlis, Esq.
Washington,'DC 20555 Office of the Executive Legal Director Maynard B. Pearson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Director of Civil Defense Commission I
Town Hall Washington,'DC 20555 Amesbury, MA 01913 Rep. Beverly Hollingworth Anne Verge, Chair Coastal Chamber of Commerce Board of Selectmen 8 22 Lafayette Rd.
Town Hall P.O. Box 596 South Hampton, NH 03842 Hampton, NH 03842
n-9
].
Jo Ann Shotwell, Esq.
George-nana nisbee,.Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Edward L.
"r os s,.Tr., E sq.
Department of the Attorney Asst. Atty. General s General State House Annex 1 Ashburton Place,19th Floor-Concord, N9'03101 Boston, MA 02108 John B. Tanzer.
Letty Hete,.selackman-Town of Hampton Town of nrentwood 5 Morningside Drive RFD -Dal ton Rond Hampton, NH 103842 nrentwood, Nn n1871 Edward.F. Meany Sandra Gavutis Town of Rye Town o# Kensington
-155 Washington' Road RPD 1 Rye,-NH 03870 East Kensington, Mn 019??
Ruthanne G.
Miller, Esq.
Diana P.
Sidebothan Law Clerk to the Board R.P.D.2 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Putnev, Vm-05146 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wa,shington, DC 20555 j
i e
t Diane Curran i
e
+
I 9
9 4
I I
l l
t I
i s
p e
.-