ML20148K332

New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Supplemental Memorandum on Environ Qualification of RG-58 Coaxial Cable.* Naslap Urged to Remand Isssue W/Nondiscretionary Instructions.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20148K332
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	03/22/1988
From:	Tousley D NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION
To:
References
CON-#188-5954 OL-1, NUDOCS 8803310080
Download: ML20148K332 (10)

Text

_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - .

l . , ,

51 5/

March 22, 1988 00CKETE0 USNRC UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'M MR 28 P4 :26 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Crr;cc y gc: fir,; .

) -

m !.

In the Matter of ) 00CKEi;.. ..

)

Public Service Company of )

New Hampshire, et al. ) Docket No. 50-443 OL-1 pp/p/-6d'/

)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2) ) ONSITE EMERGENCY

) PLANNING & TECHNICAL

) ISSUES

)

NEW ENGIAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF RG-58 COAXIAL CABLE In ALAB-882, the Appeal Board for the second time remanded to the Licensing Board in this proceeding its earlier decision that untested ITT Suprenant RG-58 coaxial cable was environmen-tally qualified based on its comparison with tested RG-59 cable.

After briefing by all the parties, the Appeal Board had concluded that there was inadequate support in the record for the Licensing Board's earlier conclusion, and directed the board to either reopen the record on the issue or, if it accepted Applicants' newly proferred theory that RG-58 cable need not be fully qualified, to submit a supplemental memorandum explaining its acceptance of that theory.

On March 2, 1988, the Licensing Board submitted its Memorandum to Appeal Board on Environmental Qualification of Coaxial Cable RG-58, and the Appeal Board on March 4 issued an order granting NECNP leave to respond if we disagree. NECNP does 88033100B0 880322 PDR ADOCKOSOOOgg3 Y 3

-2 -

disagree with the conclusions of the Licensing Board in its March 2 Memorandum, as detailed below.

The Licensing Board had based its earlier finding of environmental qualification of untested RG-58 cable on (approxi-mate) proportionality in its insulation resistance and high potential withstand capability relative to tested RG-59 cable.

October 16, 1987 Memorandum to the Appeal Board, at 3-4. In their November 25, 1987 Response Regarding Environmental Qualification of RG-58 Coaxial Cable, Applicants for the first time proferred the theory that there is no insulation resistance environmental qualification requirement for RG-58 cable, but rather only a requirement that it survive a high potential with-stand test with respect to environmental effects. As authority for that novel proposition, Applicants cited only a brief tele-phone memorandum between two of their contractors that was included in the Equipment Qualification File (EQF) for the cable.

EQF No. 113-19-01, Reference 6 (NECNP Exhibit No. 4, Ref. 6).

The Licensing Board's March 2 Memorandum accepts in total the new theory of the Applicants for qualification of RG-58 cable. It finds that (T]here is an adequate evidentiary record to show that full environmental qualification of coaxial cable RG-58 is not required, that requirements of the high potential withstand test are all that is needed to demonstrate its environmental qualification, and that the successful environmental qualification of coaxial cable RG-59 can serve to qualify the untested RG-58 cable by comparison.

Licensing Board Memorandum at 9. The "evidentiary record" referred to consists solely of the following: 1) RG-58 cable is

3 -

color coded black with a red trace. EQF 113-19-01, Ref. 1 at A1, Ref. 7 at 2. 2) According to the telephone memo in the EQ file, one contractor told another that only cables with solid colors of red, white, blue, or yellow need to satisfy performance require-ments such as insulation resistance and accuracy during enviro' -

mental qualification; all other colors need only remain intact (e.g. no shorting to ground). EQF 113-19-01, Ref. 6.

In our December 10, 1987 reply to Applicants' argument that RG-58 cable need not satisfy insulation resistance requirements, NECNP argued that a very brief telephone memo between two of Applicants' contractors is an inadequate evidentiary basis for establishing the environmental qualification requirements for this cable. The Appeal Board apparently agree ' with that assess-ment, as it declined to accept Applicants' new theory without remanding to the Licensing Board for establishment of a more com-plete record on the issue.

The Licensing Board in its March 2 Memorandum has done noth-ing to enhance the record, but rather has simply repeated the Applicants' new rationale lock, stock, and barrel, without the slightest embellishment. The Licensing Board casts aside NECNP's challenge to the citation of contractors' telephone memos as authority for environmental qualification requirements, as well as all of the substantial technical questions concerning this llth hour argument, by noting that NECNP did not challenge that aspect of the record during cross examination at the hearing.

Licensing Board Memorandum at 7.

9

The response to that observation is that at the time of the hearing, nobody--including Applicants--had yet argued that RG-58 cable need not satisfy the insulation resistance _ requirements for environmental qualification, let alone that a telephone memoran-dum was sufficient authority for that proposition. As the Licensing Board itself notes, that claim was not presented until Applicants' November 25, 1987 filing. Licensing Board Memorandum at 2. As recently as the Licensing Board's October 16, 1987 Memorandum, the issue was whether the sufficiency of untested RG-58 cable for both insulation resistance and high potential with-stand could be inferred from comparison with tested RG-59 cable.

NECNP could not have been expected to challenge the EQ file at the hearing with respect to the allegation that RG-58 need not satisfy insulation resistance requirements, because it was assumed during the hearing, and by the Licensing Board in its initial decision, that the cable did have to meet the require-ments. The issue was whether it met them. It was only after the Licensing Board's reasoning was shown by NECNP to be in error that Applicants put forward the current argument that RG-58 need not be qualified for insulation resistance. The Licensing Board has strained to find an untenable means of avoiding the serious issues before it rather than confronting them.

The foregoing points to the conclusion that NECNP is entitled to an adjudicatory hearing on this issue. The Appeal Board has now sent the issue back to the Licensing Board twice

( ALAB-875 and ALAB-882) with instructions to either reopen the

record or identify evidence in the record supporting its favor-able conclusion about the environmental qualification of RG-58 cable. Both times the Licensing Board has declined to reopen the record, instead attempting to find sufficient evidence in the existing record to justify its conclusion.

The Appeal Board rejected the Licensing Board's first attempt. On the second try, the Licensing Board adopted a new theory, espoused in the interin by Applicants, that RG-58 cable need satisfy only a high potential withstand test. As their sole authority in the record for this proposition, first Applicants and now the Licensing Board cite a telephone menu between two of Applici.nts' contractors which simply claims that the color coding of cables can be used to identify which cables must perform safety functions following accidents. NECNP Ex. 4, Ref. 6.

According to this memo, multi-colored cables such as RG-58 need not satisfy performance requirements such as insulation resistance and accuracy, but need only to remain intact.

This memo raises more questions than it answers.

1. What is the ultimate source of the requirements averred in the memo? The last sentence of the memo suggests there is a "UE&C separation document which defines these color schemes," and claims that a copy will be forwarded for inclusion in the EQFs. There is no copy of the referenced document in EQF No. 113-19-01, and none has subsequently been produced by Applicants. NECNP is entitled to explore this issue in an adjudicatory context.

l l

l

2. It is not clear that the telephone memo in fact refers to the purchase order in question. The subject entry refers to "P.O. 113-18" and the first sentence refers to "P.O. 113-18 and the other cable specifications," whereas the subject purchase order is number 113-19. Does this memo encompass every purchase order involved in the Seabrook plant? If not, which are included and which are not? NECNP is entitled to explore this issue in an adjudicatory context.

3. There is evidence in the EQ file which tends to throw some doubt on the correspondence of cable color coding with EQ requirements. Purchase Order 113-19 indicates that all of the purchased RG-58 cable is colored black with a red trace.

However, the RG-11 and RG-59 cables in the same purchase order include numerous colors, including both solid (pur-portedly subject to full EQ requirements) and multi-colored l (purportedly required only to remain intact) . NECNP Ex. 4,

! Ref. 1, at A1. Is the same cable used for purposes that 1

require full qualification as well as for purposes which do not? Possibly, but the relationship between color and EQ requirements is certainly not clear on the record. This

{ should be explored in a hearing.

4. Applicants state that "RG-58 coaxial cable does not perform an accident mitigating function but must withstand the l environment such that it does not compromise the safety l

function of other components. *** (A]cceptable performance of the RG-58 cable when exposed to harsh environmental con-l

-7 -

ditions is measured only by the cable's ability to remain intact such that its insulation system will not catastrophi-cally fail and result in a short to ground." Applicants' Response Regarding Environmental Qualification of RG-58 Coaxial Cable, November 25, 1987, at 3. There is nothing in the record which indicates why shorting to ground is the only failure mode by which RG-58 cable could compromise the safety function of other components, or what safety com-ponents might be compromised by the failure of RG-58 cable.

When the Appeal Bcard remanded this issue to the Licensing Board for the second time with instrt'ntions to "pass initial judgment upon the applicants' nes claim," ALAB-882 at 8, it can-not have been asking the Licensing Board to simply repeat the rationale offered by Applicants, based entirely on the unembellished cryptic telephone memo. If that were all that was called for, the Appeal Board could surely have done it themselves without the need for a remand. Yet that is all that the Licens-ing Board has done.

The rationale for finding that RG-58 cable is environmen-tally qualified has changed completely since the Licensing Board issued its Partial Initial Decision a year ago. The Applicants' new rationale has effected a de facto reopening of the record which has thusfar been subject only to written pleadings. As the questions above show, there are many factual issues concerning the new theory which are not adequately explained on the record.

NECNP should have the opportunity to explore those issues by

cross-examining Applicants' and Staff's witnesses with respect.to them in a hearing.

For the foregoing reasons, NECNP urges the Appeal Board to remand chis issue to the Licensing Board once again, with non-discretionary instructions to reopen the record and convene a hearing devoted to the subject of environmental qualification.of RG-58 cable.

Respectfully submitted,

,,- ptu*

Dean R. Tousley V ATTORNEY FOR NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON b'ICLEAR POLLUTION

cou.nEC' Ut inc CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

'88 MAR 28 P4 :26 I certify that copies of the attached New Engl % Qoaljtiog 00cKEnnu i, st:.y on Nuclear Pollution's Supplemental Memorandum on Enviroftin4fntal ;cr' Qualification of RG-58 Coaxial Cable was served on March 22, 1980, by First Class Mail except as otherwise indicated, upon the persons on the attached service list.

W~ h . s (j

Dean R. Tousley

SEABROOK SERVICE 1.lST -- ONSITE APPEAL BOARD Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman J.P. Nadeau Charles P. Graham, Esq.

U.S.NRC Town of Rye ' Gregory A. Berry, Esq. SicKay, hlurphy and Graham Washington, D.C. 20555 155 Washington Road Office of General Counsci 100 hiain Street Rye, New Hampshire 03870 U.S. NRC Amesbury, hfA 01913 Dr. Jerry liarbour Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. NRC Richard E. Sullivan, hiayor ' Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Washington, D.C. 20555 City Hall Afr. Angie hiachiros, U.S. NRC Newburyport, AfA 01950 Chairman Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Town of Newbury 5500 Friendship Boulevard Alfred V. Sargent, Chairman Town Hall,25 High Road *Howard A. Wilber Apartment 1923N Board of Selectmen Newbury, AIA 01951 U/J.NRC

~ Chesy Chase, h1D 20815 Town of Salisbury, h!A 01950 Washington, D.C. 20555 George Dana Bisbee, Esq.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Geoffrey hl. Huntington, Esq. _

Board Panel U.S. Senate Office of the Attorney General U.S. N RC Washington, D.C. 20510 State House Annex

• By hand Washington, D.C. 20555 (Attn. Tom Burack) Concord,NH 03301

" By overnight Atomic Safety & Licensing Selectmen of Northampton Allen Lampert Appeal Board Panel Northampton, New Hamp- Civil Defense Director U.S. NRC shire 03826 Town of Brentowood Washington, D.C. 20555 Exeter, NH 03833 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Docketing and Service 1 Eagle Square, Stc 507 Richard A. Hampe, Esq.

U.S. NRC Concord, NH 03301 Hampe and hicNicholas Washington, D.C. 20555 35 Pleasant Street hiichael Santosuosso, Concord, NH 03301 Sirs. Anne E. Goodman Chairman Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen Gary W. Holmes, Esq.

13-15 New hiarket Road JewellStreet, RFD #2 Holmes & Ellis Durham, NH 03842 South Hampton, NH 03842 47 Winnacunnent Road Hampton, NH 03S42 William S. Lord, Selectman Judith H. hiizner, Esq.

Town Hall - Friend Street Silverglate, Gertner, et al. William Armstrong Amesbury, hfA 01913 88 Broad Street Civil Defense Director Boston, hfA 02110 10 Fror.t Street Jane Doughty Exeter, NH 03833 SAPL Rep. Roberta C. Pevear 5 Alarket Street Drinkwater Road Cahin A. Canney Portsmouth, NH 03S01 Hampton Falls, NH 03844 City 51anager, City Hall 126 Daniel Street Carol S. Sneider, Esquire Phillip Ahrens, Esq. Portsmouth, NH 03801 Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorney General 1 Ashburton Place,19th Floor State House, Station #6 hiatthew T. Brock, Esq.

Boston,h1A 02108 Augusta,51E 04333 Shaires & NfcEachern P.O. Box 360 Stanley W. Knowles "Thomas G. Dignan, Esq. 51aplewood Avenue Board of Selectmen R.K. Gad !!, Esq. Portsmouth, NH 03S01 P.O. Box 710 Ropes & Gray North Hampton, Nil 03826 225 Franklin Street Sandra Gavutis Boston, hfA 02110 RFD 1, Box 1154 East Kensington. NH 03827 Robert A. Backus, Esq.

Backus, h!cycr & Solomon 111 Lowell Street hianche<.ter, NH 03105