ML20149K947
| ML20149K947 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 02/17/1988 |
| From: | Berry G, Reis E NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149K949 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5646 OL-1, NUDOCS 8802240050 | |
| Download: ML20149K947 (20) | |
Text
QM
, .. t -. .4
$GLhb. lV \
l ' , ll:
r: "
i1 "--
!" 00CKETED.
USMC llNITED STATES OF AMERICA a _ NUCLEAR REGUI.ATORY -COMMISSION Te 819 P3 :32
~
T.
BEFORE Tile ATOMIC SArtTY :AND LICENSING APPEAE[R6Ah..b.ElMile . SEiiv lCf.
, --- -.. BRANCH In the Matter of )
.) Docket Nos. 50-403 OL-01 :
PUDt.lC: S'lRVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-444 OL-01 V NEW HAMPSHIPsE, et al. ) On-site Emergency Planning
'^ --
and Safety issues
)
.(Seabrook Static . Units 1 and 2 )
NRC STAFPS RESPONSE TO NECNP MOTION TO REOPEN RECORD AND ADMIT NEW CONTENTION 7; /!
i.
2
?
l Gregory Alan Berry Counsel for NRC Staff 4
Edwin J. Reis Deputy Assistant General Counsel February 17, 1980 8902240050 800217 PDd ADOCK 05000443 jd
. G PDR -
h
[hu : . .. . . .
0 t
(INITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEA R REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION
~
BEFORE TH,E ATOMIC SAceTY AND LICENSING APP,EAL BOARD In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-4a3 OL-01 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-444 OL-01 NEW HAMPSHIRE, g g. ) On-site Emergency Planning
) and Safety issues (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2 )
NRC STAFF" ' 2SPONSE TO NECNP MOT - TO REOPEN RECORD AND ADMI'c NEW CONTENT!ON i
l r
l l
l
~
i Gregory A!an Berry Counsel for NRC Staff l.
! Edwin J. Reis l Deputy Assistant General I Counsel i
l rebruary 17, 1980 l
~ .
4 TME OF GMENTS
. Pace I NTRCDJCI I @ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PK YCTK1tD ..................................................... 2 D I SOJSS I CN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 A. L eg a l S t a nda r d s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 B. NEOP's Motion Does Not Meet The Standards Se t Forth in 10 C.F.R. 2. 73 4 (a ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
- 1. NE m P's Motion To Reopen i s No t T i n e l y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
- 2. NEGP's Motion % Reopen Does Not Present A Significant Safety issue ...................... 8
- a. The Feculatory Scheme ....................... 8
- b. The REG-59 Test Results a r e Sa t i s f a c t o ry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
- c. The Po l l a rd A f f i dav i t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
- 3. A Di fferent Resuf t Would Not Be i
1.lkely I f The Newly Prof fered Evidence And late-Filed Contention '
had been considered initially ................... 12 C. BE04P's Late-Filed Contention ........................ 12 CWCLUS I ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
( 15 l
i e
i I
f i
E. ,
b
- TN3tE OF AUTHJP.lTIES Pace Actninistrative Dacisions Camorvealth Edison Ccrrpany (Braickrsed thclear Cererating Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-86-8, 23 NPC 231, 244-45, 247-48 (1986) ........................... 6,13,14 Duke Power Ccripany (Catawba Nuclear Station, Un i t s 1 et c 2 ) , ALN3-813, 2 2 NFC 5 9, 8 2-83 ( 19 8 5 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 l
Kansas Cas and Flectric Ccnpany (V'of f Creek Generating I Station, thi t 1), AIM -462, 7 tir 320, 328 (1978) ................ u,5 l Louisiana Power and Light Camany (Waterford Steam
~
e l ec t r i c St'a ti on , Un i t 3 ) , ALAB 753, 18 FFC 1321, 1325 n.3 (1963) ................................................... 6 Me t ropo l i t an Ed i son _Ccnpany (1hre e Mi l e I s l erc:
bbclear Station, Unit 1), A1AB-815, 22 NRC 198, 201 (1985) ...................................................... 6,7 Mississiropi Pcveer and Light Carpany (Grand Cul f Nuc l ea r S t a t i on, Un i t s 1 and ? ) , Al#B-704, 16 bFC 17 2 5 , 17 3 0 ( 19 8 2 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Pacific fes enc' Electric Ccepany (Diablo Canven Nuc l ea r Powe r Pl ant , Un i t s 1 ar* ? ) , ALN3-775, 19 FFC 1361,1369, a ff'cl sub ncrn. Sanluis Obispo Abther r for Peace v. PRC, 751 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir.1984),
vacated in part ard reh'g en banc granted on,other grounds, 760 F.2d 1320 (1985) ..................... 6 Ftilladelphia Electric Cg, y fl.imerick Generating
~
Etation, Units 1 ano 2 E LLi-86-6, 23 FFC 130, 133-34 (1986) ..................................................... 5 Philadelphia Electr,1c Corrpany (Lirnerick Cenerating S ta t ion, Uni t s 1 and 2 ) , ALAE-834, 23 BFC 263,
, 264 (1986) ...................................................... 4,8 Fbblic Service Caipany of Nev "arrpshire (Seabrook l Yt'a t ion, Uni ts 1 and 21, LEP-8 7-10, 25 FFC 177, l a f f'd i n pa r t , rev 'd in pa r t , ALA8-875, i
26 FFC (October 1, 1987) ................................... 2,12 l
l I
E -
.o 4
- ill -
P,_ age Public Service Conpany of New Hmpshire (Seabrook S t a t i ori, Un i t s 1 and 2 ) , AlR-879, 25 ffC (Noventer 20, 1987) ............................... 2,5-6 Fublic Service Ccepany of New Hmpgire (Seabrook S t a t i on. Un i t's 1 ard 2 ) , ALM- 88'2, 27 PK (January 8, 1928) ................................... 3,4 Fbblic Service Conpany of New Hmpshire (Seabrook
~
Ste t ioh, Uni ts 1 and 2 ), AIM-883, 27 FFC (February 3, 1988) ................................ 12-13 Public Service Cmpanv of Ne.v Hmpshire (Seabrook S tat iers, Ur.i ts 1 and 2 ), ALM-884, 27 NRC (February 4, 19CE) .................................... 6 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Pcwer Forecrat!cn MthEnt Yankee Nuclear Pcwer Station), ALAP-130, 6 AEC 520, 523-24 (1973) ......................................... 5 Regu!ations 10 C. F . R . 9 7 . 714 ( a ) ( 1 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ,12 ,14 10 C.F.R. 6 2.73c(c) ............................................. 5 10C.F.R.62.734................................................4 10 C.F.R. 6 2.734(a) .......................................... 7,12 10 C.F.R. 9 2.734(a)(1) .......................................... 7 10 C.F.R. 5 2.734(a)(3) ......................................... 12 10 C.F.R. 5 2.734(d) ............................................. 12 10 C . F . R . 6 5 0 . 4 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 , 8 10 C.F.R. 6 50.49(b)(1) .......................................... 8 10 C.F.R. 9 50.49(e) ............................................. 8 10 C . F . R . Pa r t 5 0 , Append i x A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Miscellar, ecus 51 Fu:'. lieg. 19535, 19538-39 (May 30, 1986) .................... 4,5 FLFECr-0588 "Interirn Sta f f Posi t ion on EnvirorTrental Qua l i f i ca t i on o f Sa fe ty-Re la ted E lec t r i ca l Equ i pnent" . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 IEEF Standard 383-197'4, "lEEE Standard for (ualifyirg Class 1E Flectrical Cable, Field Spilces, ard Connec t ions for Nuc lear Genera t iry Sta t ions ," . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
REFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL POARD In the Matter of 1
) Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-01 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-444 OL-01 NEW HAMPSHIRE, ej g. ) On-site Emergency Planning
) and Safety issues (Seebrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )
NRC ST AFF F.ESPONSE TO NECNP MOTION TO PEOPEN RECORD AND ADMIT NEW CONTENTION It'TRODUCTION On February 2,1988, the New England Coalition On Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) filed a "Motion To Reopen Record And Adrr.it New Contention"
("Motior'") in which it requests that the evidentiary record in the onsite emergency planning and safety issues phase of this proceedina be reopened and a new contention admitted. The proffered contention alleges that the RG-59 coaxial cable used by Applicants in the Seabrook Station is not environmentally cualified as recuired by 10 C.F.R. 9 50.49 and 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A. Motion at 2. As explained below, NECNP's motion (1) is untimely since it is based upon information which either was known to or reasonably ascertainable by NECNP for at Icast 16 months prior to the filing of the instant motion; (2) does not raise either an exceptional grave or significant safety issue; and (3) would not have led to a different result had the proferred evidence and contention been considered initially. For these reasons, NECNP's motion must be denied.
j i
. RACKCROUbjD in Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station,
. Units 1 and 2), L B P -8 7-10, 25 N P.C 177, aff'd in part, rev'd in part, ALAB-875, 26 NRC (October 1, 1987) and A LAR-879, 26 NRC
( Noverrber 20, 1987), the Licensing Rocrd rejected NECNP's proposed finding of fact that the relevant environmental qualification file did not establish that RG-58 ccaxial cable was sufficiently similar to RG-59 coaxial l
ceble such that the qualification tests results of the latter could serve to cstab!!sh the environmental qualification of the forme r . 25 NRC at 210-211. At no tirae did NECNP raise an issue regarding the envirnornental qualification of either RG-59 coaxial cable or RG-11 triaxial ca b'c . See Id.
l NECNP appea!cd the Licensino Board's finding and conclusion with respect to the environtrental qualification of RG ;8 cable. See ALAB-875, surrt slip op. et 36-37. NECNP, however, did not challenge the environmental qualification of either P.C-11 or RC-59 cable on appeal. ,l_d, .
at 36. On the contrary, as the Appeal Board noted, NECNP "dces not dispute that the RG11 and RG59 coaxial cables were properly der cnstrated to be environmentally qualified." jd.
In A LA P-875, the Appeat Board agreed with NECNP that the record did not disclose a sufficient evidentiary foundation for the Licensing F;ocrci's finding RG-58 coaxial cable to environmentally qualified. Id_. at 38-39. Consequently, the Appeal Board returned the issue to the Licensing Board with instructions either (1) to identify the portion of the existing record that establishes that the dirrensional differences between l
the two types of cable are not significant for environmental qualification
purposes; or (2) to reopen the record for a further exploration of the environmental qualification of RG58 cable. M.
In an unpublished memorandum issued October 16, 1987, the
. Licensing Board stated that "differing requirements for insulation resistance (IR) provice a basis for justifying the similarity of the two cables v. hose primary insulation thickness differs by a factor of approximately 1.5." October 16, 1987 Memorandum at 3. NECNP and the Staff questioned this conclusion, observing that the Licensing Board's "proportionality theory" did hold when applied to R G-11 cable. See NECNP Supplemental Memorancum Regarding Environmental Qualification Of RG58 Coaxlai Cabic (November 4, 1987); NRC Staff Response To Memorardom Of Licensing Roard Ar.d NECNP Regardino Environmental Qualification Of RG-58 Coaxial Cable (December 11, 1987). The Staff, however, explained why "this circumstance does not detract from the [the Licensing Bocrd's] conclusion that the dimenslenal differences between RG-58 anc; R G-59 cuaxial cable are not significant for environmental 1/
qualification purposes [ . ]" M. at 5. The Appeal Board agreed that the Licensing Board's "proportionality theory" did not provide an adequate basis for concluding that RG-5 8 coaxial cable war
~
1/ In its response to the Licensing Board's October 16, 1987 l memorandum, NECNP first questioned the environmental qualification of RG-59 coaxial cable. NECNP Supplemental Memorandum, su ra, at
~
- 6. Noting that the "question was not presented on [ P's]
appeal from the partial initial decision," the Appeal Board declined to consider it. Public Service _ Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Stalon, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-882, 27 NRC Canuary 8, 1988).
The Appeal Board's determinaticn was in accordance with settled case law. E (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2)l. . Duke Power Company, A LA R-813, 2 2 p r. 59, 8'?-83 (1985 ) .
environmentally cuttified and returned the issue to the Licensing Board for futher proceedings not here relevant. ALAB-882, su p ra , 8-9.
Shortly thereafter, NECNP filed the instant motion to reopen the record to adtrit its late-filed contention.
DISCUSSi,0N A. Legal Standards in NRC proceedings, rrotions to reopen a record are governed by 10 C.F. F. 0 2.734. Paragraph (a) of this regulation provides:
(a) A motion to reopen a closed record to consider additional evidence will not be granted unless the following criteria are satisfied:
(1) The motion must be timely, except that an exceptionally grave issue may be considered in the discretion of the presiding officer even if untimely presented.
(2) The trotion trust adoress a significant safety or environrtertal issue.
(3) The trotion must demonstrate that a materially different result would be or would have been likely had the newly proffered evider:ce been considered initia!!y.
The "most important of these criteria is whether the motion raises a signlOcant safety or environrrental issue." Philadelphia Electric Company (Lirrerick Generatino Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAP-834, 23 NRC 263, 264 (1986). In addition, a motion to reopen which relates to a late-filed 1
contention must also meet the standards governing late-filed contentions
- . set forth in 10 C.F.P. 9 2.714(a)(1). See 10 C.F.R. ( 2.734(d).
l Peopening a closed record 15. , es the Commission has noted, an l "extraordinary action" and thus reavires the movant to bear a "heavy burden." See 51 Fed. Reg.19535,19538 (May 30,1986); accord Kansas l
l l
l i
l l
Gas and Electric Company (Y!olf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1),
ALAB-462, 7 NP.C 320, 328 (1978) . The reason a motion to reopen is not to be granted lightly is because of the public interest in ensuring that
, "once a record has been closed and all timely-raised issues have been resolved, finality will attach to the hearing process." 51 Fed. Reg. at 19539.
In passing upon a motion to reopen a board is to consider the rroving papers and any opposing filings. Ve,rmont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yarkee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-138, 6 AEC 520, 523 (1973). Filings in opposition, of ccurse, may be accompanied by "affidavits or other eviclence." 10 C.F.R. r) 2.730(c) (emphasis added).
If the affidavits or cther evidence filed in opp lon to the moticn to reopen indicate that no siv.ificant st.fety issue is presented or that a different result would not have obtained if the movant's evidence had been considered initially, the motion to reopen must be denied. Vermont Yankee, supra, 6 AEC at 523. In such a case:
The ' record' (in the broad sente) will necessarily have been supplanted by the introduction of affidavits, letters or other materials accorrpanying the motion and the responses thereto.
The ' hearing record,' however, has not been reopened.
Typically, in this situation, the result will be designated a denial of the ' motion to reopen the record,' even though that description of the action taken does not precisely reflect what transpired. For clarity, the order denying the moticn should state that the record has been supplemented and that the derial of the motion is based on the absence of a triable issue.
Id. et 523-24; see eg , Philadelphia Electric Company ( Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), CLl-86-6, 23 NRC 130, 133-34 (1986)
(motion to reopen denied based on Staff analysis prepared after cle e of evidentiary record); Public Service Company of New H,amJshire (Seabrook Station , Units 1 and 2), A LA B-879, 25 NRC (November 20, 1987)
O (denial of motion to reopen record upheld on basis of additional tests performed after close of evidentiary record).
~
R. NECNP's Motion Does Meet The Standards Set Forth in 10,C.F.R. 6 2.734(a) ,
- 1. NECNP's Motion To Reopen is Not Timely it hardly can be disputed that NECNP's motion is not timely; indeed, NECNP's readily acknowledges this point. See Votion at 3. The evidence which NECNP clairns establishes the failure of the RC-59 cable is not rew; that information is contained in an exhibit received in evidence in October 1986, more than 15 months ago. NECNP Ex. 4, et Pe f.1 and 2.
Morcover , this exhibit was offered in evidence by NECNP itself, in these circumstances, it is clear the instant motion to reopen the record is not timely. Metropolitan, Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-015, 22 NRC 198, 201 (1985) (motion to reopen denied as untimely where based on inforamtion in movant's possession for over one year); see Pacific Cas ano Ele _ctric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), A LA P-775, 19 NRC 1361, 1369, aff d sub nom. San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir. 1984), vacat,ed in part and reh'g en banc granted on other grounds, 760 F.2d 1320 (1985): Louisiana Power and Light Company (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), A LA B-753, 18 NP.C 1321, 1325 n.3 (1983); Commonwealth Edison Company ( Draidwood Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-86-8, 23 NRC 241, 244-45 (1986)
(late-filed contention untimely where filed 10 months late);
Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), A L A B-684, 27 NRC (February 4, 1988) (petition for directed
_7 certification denied where petitioner delayed seven weeks in seeking review) .
NECNP suggests that the untimeliness of its motion should not weigh heavily against it because the Staff and Applicants similarly failed to detect and notify the I.icensing Board of the failure of RG-50 cable.
A'otion at 3. NECNP is wrong for two reasons. First, time period begins to tol' from the date the information which forms the basis for the motion to reopen becomes available to the movant. Three Mile Island, supra, 22 NRC at 202. Thus, it would be of no consequence whether the Staff or Applicants also failed to detect and report to the Licensing Board the alleged failure of the RG-59 cabic.
Second, and more impor tant , NECNP is simply wrong in asserting that the information in question constitutes "clear evidence" of the failure of RG-59 cable and that this failure is "unquestionably an exceptionally grave issue." Motion at 3, M. As explaineo in detail in the following sections of this response, the joint a ffidavit of Haro'd Walker and Amritpal Gill demonstrates that the evidence in the record -- including that relied upon by NECNP -- establishes that the RG-59 coaxial cable meets the requirerrents set forth in the Corrmission's environmental qualification regulations. See Attached Joint Affidavit of Harold Walker and Amritpal Gill ("Walker / Gill Affidavit"), pyssim. For these reasons, N E C N P's untimely motion is not counterbalanced by an "exceptionally i
grave safety issue" as required by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.734(a)(1). This reason l .
l alone is sufGclent to deny NECNP's motion to reopen. Three Mlle Island, supra, 22 NRC at 201; sec e 10 C.F.R. 6 2.734(a) (reopening standards are conjunctive, not disjunctive).
l l
i l
i
.g-
- 2. NECNP's Motion To Reopen Does Not Present A Significant Safety issue ,_
- As noted earlier, "most imoortant" of the criteria governing motion to reopen "is whether the motion raises a significant safety or environmental issue." Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Statiori, Units 1 and 2), ALAR-034, 23 NRC 263, 764 (1986). As explained helow, NECNP's motion also falls on this score. Contrary to to NECf 4P's assertier, the evidence already in the record demonstrates that the PC-59 coaxial cable meets the standars set fcrth in 10 C.F.R.
5 50.49, the Cerrmissiorh er.vironmental qualification regulation,
- a. The_ Reculatory Scheme Section 50.49 requires an applicar.t to establish a program for qualifying e:cctrical equipment important to safety. Equipn ent is considered "important to safety" if it is "re!Ied upon to remain functional during and following design basis events to ensure (i) the integrity of the reactor coolant boundary, fil) the capability to shut down the reactor er.d rtaintain it in a safe shutdown condition, anc^ (111) the capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents that could result in poter.tial offsite exposures comparablc to the 10 C.F.R. Part 100 guidelines." 10 C.F.R. 6 50.t:S(b)(1). Section 50.49(e) requires that an tpplicant's electrical equipment qualification program taken into the
. account the effects of the following: (1) terspe rature and pressure; (?)
bumidity; (3) chemical effects; (4) radiation; (5) aging; (6) l .
i submergence; (7) syrergy; and (B) safety margins. An item of electrical 1
equiprrent is considered to be environmentally qualified if the results of these qualification test indicate that it will remain functional during and after its postulated design basis event. Walker / Gill Affidavit at A.5-A.8.
L,
_g_
in NUREG-0588, the Staff accepted that conducting qualification tests in accordance with IEEE Standard 383-1974, "lEEE Standard for Qualifying Class 1E Electrical Cable, Field Splices, and Connections for Nuclear Generating S tations ," was an acceptable means of demonstrating .the environr., ental qualification of electrical coaxial cable, such as RC-59. M.
at A.S. Applicant's RG-59 coaxial cable was tested in accordance with this sta ndard . See Id. at 8; NECNP Ex. 4, Ref. 2 at 1 (The test objective wcs "to demcr. strate performance of electrical cables for Class 1E service in nuclear generating stations in accordance with applicable guidelines presented in IEEE Stds 323-1974 and 383-1974"). Thus, there can be no dispute that Applicants used a proper test methodology to c'errorst rate the environtrental qualification of the R C-59 cable , arid NFCNP does not argue otherwise. Therefore, the only pertinent issue is whether the test results obtained indicate that the RC-59 cable "will remain functional during and after the design basis event" as required by 10 C . F. R . 6 50.49. As explained in the next section, the evidence in the record establishes that it will,
- b. The RC-59 Test Results Are Satisfactory The terc results for the RC-59 coaxial cable (and the RG-11 coexlal cable, cs wc!!) are summarized in the RC-59 cable environmental qualification file ("EQF") on the "Quallfication Evaluation Worksheet." See NECNP Ex. 4. That document, which already is in evidence, shows that RC-59 cable must be able to withstand a peak pressure of 60 pounds per square inch (psi) in the postulated design basis environment. M. The test results indicate that tiie cable is capable of withstanding pressure of 113 psi. The postulated design basis environraent requires that RG-50
cable be able to withstand relative humidity of 100 percent. See NECNP Ex. 4, Qualification Evaluation Worksheet. The test results show that RG-59 cable meets this requirement. d ; NECNP Ex. 4, Ref. 2 at 10.
l_d,.
. The cable - must remain functional in a postulated environment where it is exposed to chemical spray consisting of boric acid 1.2% in weight.
NECNP Ex. 4, Qualification Evaluation Worksheet. Again, the test results shew that the cable meets this condition. M. ; NECNP Ex. 4, Ref. 2 at
- 10. Similarly, the test results show that RG-59 cable meets the other environmental qualifyinct conditions. Id.; NECNP Ex. 4, Qualification Evaluation Worksheet. These results were reviewed by the NRC Staff and found to show that the cable meet environmental qualification requirements, t"alker/ Gill Affidavit, Answers ( A.)8-A.12.
The RC-59 coaxial cable also met its functional requirement tests.
Walker, Gill At fidevit at A.10. These required that the total leakage / changing current not be in excess of approximately one amp at any time during the environmental qualification tests and that the cabie rneet requirements for plant specific cable epplications. Id.
The test results for the RG-59 coaxial cable established that the cab!e will remain functional during and after the postulated design basis accident. Walker / Gill Affidavit at A.9 - A.12. Accordingly, the RG-59 coaxial cable satisfies the environmental qualiilcation standards set forth in 10 C.F.R. 5 50.49. No significant safety issue exists regarding the 1
l environmental qualification of RG-59 ceaxial cable. Thus, in addition to i
being untimely, NECNP's motion to reopen the record falls to show that a "significant safety issue" is presentect and therefore must - be denied.
l
- c. The Pollard Affidavit NECNP predicates its clairr that a "significant safety issue" exists on an Affidavit of Robert Pollarr! where an assumption is made that the purchase specifications for new RC-59 coaxial cable are tht; carie qualities which the cable must show a fter it has been subject to environtrental testing. Motion at 4; Pollard Affidavit at 1-2. However, Mr. Pollard is t wrong. The purchase specification describes the properties of new cable in air at ambier.t temperatures. Walker / Gill Affidavit at A.13 - A.14.
The environmental qualification requirements arc properties the cable show at elevated temperatures during tests where it is subject to steam, chemical sprays and high humidity. M. U Thus, the supposed "significant safety issue NECNP has postulated in regard to the RG-59 cobte is based upon a misreading of purchase specifications which have no relevance to resistance the cable was to meet at elevated terrperatures during environmental qualification tests. ,l d .
The cable met the environmental qualification tests. M. at A.9 - A.12.
No significant safety issue is shown.
- 3. A Different Result Would Not De Likely if The Nev.ly Proffered Evidence And Late-Filed Conte:1 tion Had Been Considered initially The third and final standard which must be met in ordce to prevail on a motion to reopen a closed evidentiary record is a shewing that a
-2/ Further, an examination and extrapolations from the environmental test results show that the new cable met the purchase specifications under ambient air and temperature conditions. M.
i "materially different result vreuld be or would have been likely had the nt wiy proffered evidence been considered intially. " 10 C.F.R.
f 2.734(a)(3). Had the Licensing Scard considered NECNP's claim that PC-59 coaxial cable was not environmentally qualified because its insulation resistance during the second -transit.nt of the steam / chemical spray, high humidity test fell to 300 megaohms, a different result would not have cbtained. This fact would not have precluded the Licensing Beard from concluding as it did that "there is reasonable assurance the Seabrc,ok Station, Unit 1, car, be operated at 5% of rated power without endangering the public health and safety, and that adeouate protective rneasures can and will be taken in the event of an emergency." Public Service Company of,New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
LB P-8 7-10, 25 NRC 177, 216 (1987). As Mr. Walker and Mr. Gill conclude, the RC-59 coaxial cabic meets environmental qualification requirements. See Walker /Cill Affidavit at A10 - A.13.
Having failed to satisfy any of the criterion set forth in 10 C.F.R.
f 2.734(a), NECNP's motior. to reopen the record must be denied.
C. NECNP's Late-Filed Contention As noted in Part ( A)(1), a motion to reopen which relates to a late-filed contention must also meet the standards governing late-filed contentions set forth in 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(a)(1). 10 C.F.R. ! 2.734(d);
accord Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units
. 1 and 2), ALAB-883, 27 NRC , slip cp. at 12 and n.20 (February 3, 1988). In view of the failure of NECNP to meet the standards governing motions to reopen, the Staff need only briefly explain why a balancing of the five factors listed in section 2.714(a) militate against admisslor, of
NECNP's late filed contention regarding the environmental qualification of RC-59 coaxial cable.
As with a motion to reopen, there must be good cause for falling to file the proffered contentior in a timely fashion. NECNP does not even attempt to justify its delay in raising the proffered contention. See Motion at 6. Instead, NECNP claims that "any lack of timeliness of this contention is overbalanced by its safety significance." M. NECNP misunderstands the applicable legal sicndard. As the Commission made clear in Braidwoo,d, supra, each of the five factors is to be evaluated on its cwn merit and it is proper to take into account the potential significance of a contention only in connection with the eva!uation of the third factor -- the extent to which a petitione r can contribute to the development of a sound record. CLI-86-8, 23 NRC 241, 2a7-48. An evaluation of the firt,t factor entails a consideration of the reasons offered by the petitioner for its failure to file its contention in a timely fashion.
As noted above, NFCNP has no good reason for not doing so and the lack of good cause weighs heavily against admission of its late-filed contention.
M.at244 The second and fourth tactors -- the availability of other means and parties to protect petitioner's interest -- weighs in NECNP's favor but is accorded less weight than the first, third, and fifth factors. M.at245.
The third factor -- the extent to which petitioner can contribute to l
l
. the development of a sound record -- also weighs against NECNP.
l NECNP claims it has met this standard because of its "track record" on the issue of RG-58 cable qualification and on the basis of Mr. Pollard's a ffidavit. NECNP is wrong. The case law is clear that the third factor
cannot be met on the basis of the past per formance of a party's attorneys. M.at247. Rather, a petitioner must "set out with as much particularity as possible the precise issues it plans to cover, identify 13
. p,r,o,spective witnesses, and summarize their proposed testimony." M. at 2D6, guct!_rio, r Mississipppi Power and Light Company (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station. Units 1 and 2), ALAB-704, 16 NRC 1725,1730 (1982) (emphasis added). NECNP has not identifiea any prospective witnesses. Assumino, however, that NECNP's affidant, Mr. Pollard, will be available to testify in a reopened proceeding , it is clear that his contribution to the development of a sound record will be negligible. Mr. Pollard does not clain ir. his affidavit that he has any expert knowledge concerning the environtnentaf qualification of electrical equipment, and as the joint affidavit of Herold Walker and Amritpal Gill indicates, Mr. Pollard has misinterpreted the pertinent documents. See Walker / Gill Affidavit at A13
- A.14. The third factor weighs against NECNP as does the fifth and final factor -- the delay to the proceeding which would naturally result from the tddition of this issue this late in the proceeding. Thus, on balance the factors listed in 10 C . F . P. , t 2.714(a)(1) weigh against the aoniisslor of the late-filed contention, r l
15 -
_QON_CLUSION For the reascr.s stated in this response, NECNP's motion to reopen the record and admit its late-filed contention must be denied. -I
- Pespectfully submitted, e, .
. y ,y sy ll gb.A/.'75. ..
Gregory ' Alan Berry Counsel for NRC Staff l . ) 4'
,/' W . 1
- c. .' 4 , c., s Edwin J/Reis Deputy Assistant General Counsel i
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland 1his 17th day of February 1988 l
i i i
\
i e
{
i j f l
b
- ,-,~-,-,,,.,w,,,, ,,---------------,-a,-
--~e---- , -
-m - -, - - - - - - - ,