ML20155B999
| ML20155B999 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/02/1988 |
| From: | Berry G NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#288-6456 OL-1, NUDOCS 8806140048 | |
| Download: ML20155B999 (15) | |
Text
- _
I ~
'06/02/88
- C0CKETED US$1RC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AM :22 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 3 .-8
,y..--
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSINGiBOARD In the Matter of Dccket Nos. 50-443 OL-01 FUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 50-444 OL-01 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. On-site Emergency Planning (Seabrook Station, Units I ard ')
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' SUGGESTION OF MC0TNE_SS INTRODUCTION On May 19, 1988, Applicants filed a "Suggestion Of Mootness" in which they reouest the Licensing Board "to enter an order that the issue regarding the environmental qualification of RG-58 coaxial cable pending before the Licensing Board is moot." I_d. at 1. On May 23,1988, the Licensing Board directed the Staff and NECNP to respond to Applicants' filing by June 3,1988. See Vay 23, 1988 Order at 1. The Staff's views concerning Applicants' "Suggestion of Mootness" are set forth below.
BACKGROUND In ALAB-891, the Appeal Board reversed the Licensing Board's conclusion in the March 25, 1987 Partial Initial Decision (LBP-87-10) that the environmental qualification of RG-58 coaxial cable had been established and remanded the matter to the Licensing Board for "a further evidentiary exploration." Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-891, 27 NRC , slip op. at 22 (April 25, 1988). The next day, April 26, 1988, the Licensing Board
$$k $Do$ 0 f o p5 07
l
. l l
~
issued its order soliciting the parties' views as to how best to effectuate the Appeal Board's order. See April 26, 1988 Order at 1.
In its response to the 0 card's April 26, 1988 order II, the Staff noted that the Licensing Board's finding regarding the environmental qualification of RG-58 coaxial cable was reversed by the Appeal Board for only one reason -- that the evidentiary record contained insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the cable was environmentally qualified to perform its intended function. May 6 Staff Response at 3, citing, ALAB-891, slip op. at 22. The Staff pointed out that the Appeal ;
Board did not rule that RG-58 cable was not environmentally qualified.
M. The Staff advised the Board that to cure this deficiency it was necessary to receive additional evidence from the parties sufficient to enable the Board to reach a sound deci; ion as to whether RG-58 coaxial cable is qualified for its intended uses. J_d . The Staff further advised that because Applicants bear the burden of proof, see 10 C.F.R. 6 2.732, they should be required to present such evidence in the first instance.
The Staff identified three ways in which Applicants could carry their burden. See May 6 Staff Response at 3-4. First, Applicants can subject the RG-58 cable itself to the tests necessary to establish its environmental qualification. M. at 3, citing, ALAS-891, slip op, at 26, n.66. Second, Applicants can submit additional evidence demonstrating that RG-58 coaxial cable is sufficiently similar to RG-59 coaxial cable such that the acceptable test results of the latter can serve to
'-1/ NRC Staff Response To Board Order Of April 26, 1988 (May 6, 1988)
("May 6 Staff Response").
derronstrate the environmental qualification of the former under 10 C.F.R. 550.49(f)(2). M. Third, Applicants can attempt to demonstrate that RG-58 coaxial. cable is not intended to be uced for any purpose in which it may be required to perform an accident mitigation function and that the cable is qualified to perfonn its intended function function. Id_. at 4.
A fourth option available to Applicants which the Staff did not address is to replace all RG-58 coaxial cables requiring environmental qualification with another type cable that has previously been demonstrated to be envirorcentally qualified for its intended use. This course of action is appropriate because it addresses and eliminates the central claim of remanded NECNP Contention I.B.? -- that RG-58 coaxial cable was being utilized in a harsh environment at the Seabrook Station without first being environmentally qualified pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 50.49.
Applicants state that remanded NECNP Contention I.B.2 should be distmissed as moct because they plan to replace the RG-58 coaxial cables with RG-59 coaxial cable in each instance where the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 50.49 are applicable. Suggestion Of Mootness at 5-6. To the extent that Applicants suggest that the Board dismiss remanded NECNP Contention I.B.2 without making the appropriate findings of fact and ,
conclusion of law, the Staff does .ot agree that Applicants' submission in itself moots the issue. U Rather, as the Staff outlined in its May 6 2/ There is no inconsistency between this position and the one taken by the Staff with respect to remanded NECNP Contentions I.V and IV. See Letter from Gregory Alan Berry, Esq. to Licensing Board at 1 (ApriF 28,1988). Since rerranded NECNP Contentions I.V and IV were aoandoned by the intervenor, they properly were dismissed by the (FOOTNOTECONTINUEDONNEXTPAGE)
\
l
1
. response, the affidavits submitted by Applicants in support of their mootness motion should be received into the record as evidence offered to establish that the safety concern alleged in remanded NECNP Contention I.B.2 has been satisfact fly resolved. See May 6 Staff Response at 3-5.
Thus, the Board should follow the procedure outlined by the Staff and afford NECNP and the Staff a reasonable opportunity to present evidence in support of or in cpposition to Applicants' position. Id. at 4-5. 3_/
The Staff may submit a further presentation after reviewing Applicants' evidentiary submission. It is useful at this juncture, however, for the Staff to provide the following comments on Applicants' sut' mission based upon a preliminary review of that information.
[I_SCUSSION Applicants state that a review cf all installed RG-58 coaxial cable at the Sea broo'r. Station resulted in the identification of 126 RG-58 coaxial cables, grouped into five categories. Suggestion of Mootness at (F0OTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)
Board. See May 12, 1988 Order. In contrast, PECNP has not abandoned or withdrawn remanded NECNP Contention I.B.2. The only thing changed by Applicants' instant filing is the n'anner in which Applicants have elected to address the safety concern raised in remanded NECNP Ccr '.ention I .B.2.
-3/ The ;'.aff advised the Board in its May 6 response that the need for an evt'entiary hearing would be obviated "[i]f, upon review of all the materials submitted, there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact and Applicants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law [.]" May 6 Staff Respcnse at 5. In such case, "the Board should close the record and issue an initial decision favorable to Applicants." Id. The Staff advised the Board that if, upon review of all the traterials sembitted by the parties, there existed genuine issues as to any material facts, the Board should then schedule a hearing to resolve those issues. Id.
, 1, citing, Affidavit of Richard Bergeron at ti 3-6. According to Applicants, only the cables (a total of 12) in one the five categories are required to meet the environtrental qualification standards set forth in 10 C.F.R. 9 50.49. Bergeron Affidavit at i 15. Applicants take the position ,
that for various reasons, the remaining 114 cables in the four other categories need not satisfy the requirerrents of section 50.49. See Id. at 15 12-14. As explained below, the Staff agrees with Applicants that the requirerrents of 10 C.F.R. { 50.49 apply only to RG-58 cables located in i harsh environments. S Section 50.49 governs the environmental qualification of electrical equipment important to safety. 10 C.F.R. 6 50.49. An item is considered "importent to safety" if it (i) has an accident mitigation function; (ii) its failure under postulated environmental conditions could prevent satisfactory performance of safety related equipment relied upon to remain functional during and subsequent to design basis events; or (iii) involves "certain post-accident monitoring equiptrent." 10 C.F.R. 6 50.49(b)(1-3). ]
i However, not every item of electrical equipment which is "important to safety" need be environrxntally qualified in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 9 50.49. paragraph (c)(3) provides that "[r]equirements for . . .
l l
-4/ It should be noted that Applicants have not submitted the source I uaterial upon which the claini that a total of 126 RG-58 cables have I been installed in the Seabrook Station is founded. Similarly, Applicants have not submitted the materials evaluated by them in determining which category grouping a particular RG-58 cable belonged. Consequently, the Staff is not in a position to confirm or deny the accuracy of Applicants' representations that (1) 126 RG-58 cables have been installed at the Seabrook Station and (2) the ,
particular category groupings are appropriate. The Staff after I reviewing the nature of this submission may make a further i presentation on its sufficiency.
. (3) environmental qualification of electric equipment important to safety located in a mild environment are not included within the scope of this section." 10 C.F.R. 9 50.49(b)(3). A "mild" environment is defined as "an environment that would at no time be significantly more severe than the envirorment that would occur during nomal plant cperation, including anticipated operational occurrences." Id. In view of the foregoing, electrical equipment must be environmentally qualified in accordance with !
10 C.F.p. 6 50.49 if it (1) is "inportant to safety" as that tenn is defined in sectior 50.49(b)(1-3) and (2) is located ir a harsh (i.e.,
non-mild) environment. Unless both of these conditions exist, the electrical equipment item need not be environmentally qualified. The Staff has applied these criteria to Applicants' RG-58 coaxial cable groupings.
A. [pplicants' RG-58 Cable Category Groupings
- 1. Spsre RG-58 Coaxial Cables Applicants' expert, Mr. Bergeron, states that 18 of the 126 installed RG-58 coaxial cables are spares. Pergeron Affidavit at f 9. According to Mr. Bergeron, none of these cables need be environmentally quelified pursuant to 10 C.F.R. { 50.49 because, inter alia, they "are not functioning or energized and therefere do not pose any threat to other cables in the same raceway." Id. at i 14. Nr. Bergeron further states
s that before a spare RG-58 cable may be used, "a design change has to be initiated prior to its incorporation into the plant design." Id. El Eased on- the information presented by Applicants to date, the Staff agrees that spare cables need not meet the requirements of 10 C. F. R.
6 50.49. As noted above, the Commission's environmental qualification requirements do not apply to nonsafety related electrical equipment unless the failure of such equipment unde postulated environmental conditions could prevent satisfactory performance of safety related equipment relied upon to remain functional during and after a design basis event. See 10 C.F.R. !50.49(b)(2). An electrical cable that is not energized or functional does not present any threat to the ability of other electrical cehles or components to perform their safety functions during or subsequent to an accident. Consequently, such cables are not "important to safety" as that phrase is defined in 10 C.F.R. 5 50.49(b) and thus need not satisfy the environmental qt'alification standards even if located in a harshenvironment.5/
~5/ Although the Staff possesses no information to dispute this claim, it should be noted that no documentary materials are cited or provided in support of this claim. For this reason, the Staff has indicated that the Seabrook Final Safety Analysis Report should be amended to reflect this design comittment. See n.6, infra. '
-6/ It should be noted, however, that should Applicants choose in the !
future to utilize any spare RG-58 coaxial cable located in a harsh j environment, it will be necessary for Applicants to first establish l the environmental qualification of the cable in accordance with section 50.49. In the meantime, the Seabrook Final Safety Analysis Peport should be amended to reflect that no spare RG-58 coaxial cable itay be utilized in a harsh environment.
- 2. RG-58 Coaxial Cables Routed Through A Harsh Environment Applicants have identified twelve RG-58 coaxial cables routed througii harsh environments. Bergeron Affidavit at t 9. Applicants state that these cables must corrply with the environmental qualification requirements of 10 C.F.R. 9 50.49. M.atf15. Although Applicants do not expressly state, it appears that these cables are important to safety (i.e., their failure under postulated environmental conditions could impair the ability of safety related equipment to perform its safety function satisfactorily). SeeJ_d. If this assumption is correct, the Staff agrees that the requirements of section 50.49 are applicable to the subject cables since they are located in harsh environments.
- 3. pG-58 Coaxial Cables Located in A Mild Environment Applicants' expert, Mr. Bergeron, states that 77 of the 126 installed RG-58 coaxial cables are exempt from the requirements of 10 C.F.R. G 50.49 t,ccause they are located in mild environments. Bergeron Affidavit at 51 9, 12. Section 50.49(c)(3) expressly provides that electrical equipment irrportant to safety located in mild environments is not subject to the environmental qualification requirements set forth in 10 C.F.R.
s 50.49. See 10 C.F.R. E50.49(c)(3). Thus assurring Applicants are correct in stating these 77 RG-58 coaxial cables are located in "mild" environments, they need not be environmentally qualified in accordance withsection50.49.1/
l
-7/ Again, Applicants have not provided any documentary materials to substantiate the claim that the environment ir, which these cables are located is a mild one; and the Staff has no independent infortration to confinn or deny the accuracy of this claim. I l
- - . - - - .- N
4 RG-58 Coaxial Cables Routed With Other Nonsafety-Related Cables Outside The Nuclear Island Ten RG-58 coaxial cables are routed with other non-safety related cables outside the Seabrook nuclear island according to Mr. Bergeron.
Bergeron Affidavit at i 9. Amonc the structures included in the Seabrook nuclear island are the containment, control room, fuel storage, diesel generator, and primary auxillary buildings. ge, Seabrook FSAR, Figure 8.3-58. According to Applicants, RG-58 cables routed with other nonsafety related cables outside the nuclear island need not comply with 10 C.F.R. 0 50.49 because they are not "important to safety." M. at 1 13. Mr.
Bergeron opines that failure of the subject RG-58 coaxial cables would not prevent the accomplishn:ent of safety functions but his affidavit does not re)erence or contain any factual information against which this conclusion can be evaluated. See M . 8/ The Applicants fails to show that important
)
to safety RG-58 cable might not be exposed to a harsh environneent outside j i
of the nuclear island. As the basis of the Applicant's assertion that these cables will not be exposed to a harsh environment is only that they are not in the nuclear island, the Staff is not able to take a position at this tin;e as to whether the RG-58 coaxial cables routed with other nonsafety related cables outside the nuclear island must be environmentally qualified in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 6 50.49.
-8/ Non-safety related equipment is "important to safety" and subject to environmental qualification requirements, if (1) it is located in a harsh environment and (2) its "failure under postulated environmental conditions functions." Compare could prevent satisfactory 10 C.F.R. 6 50.49(b)(2 acccmp)lishment
, with, 10 C.F.R. of safety
$50.49(c)(3). If either of these conditions are lacking, the requirements of section 50.49 do not apply. Mr. Bergeron's affidavit does not explain clearly why one or the other of these conditions is not present with respect to the RG-58 coaxial cables routed with other non-safety related cables outside the nuclear island.
- 5. RG-58 Coaxial Cables Routed In Mild Environments Within The Nuclear Island And Routed With Nonsafety-Related Cables Outside The Nuclear Island According to Mr. Bergeron, nine RG-58 coaxial cables are routed in mild environments within the nuclear island and with nonsafety related cables outside the nuclear island. Bergeron Affidavit at i 9. Electrical cables, even ones important to safety, which are located in mild environments within or outside the nuclear island are not subject to environmental qualification requirements of section 50.49. See 10 C.F.R. 5 50.49(c)(3). Electrical cables routed outside the nuclear isl.ind need not be qualified where it is shown that such cables (1) are located in mild er.vironments or (2) the failure of such under postulated environmental conditions would not prevent satisfactory accomplishment of safety functions. As noted in Part A(4) of this response Mr. Bergeron's afficavit does not clearly explain the besis for the determinatien that 1 the RG-58 coaxial cables routed with other nonsafety related cable outside the nuclear island is not in a harsh environment as those environments are also present outside of a nuclear island. Consequently, the Staff has ro current position as to whether the subject cables must be qualified in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 5 50.49.
B. The Acceptability Of RG-59 Coaxial Cable In Place Of RG-58 Coaxial _ Cable As discussed in the preceding section of this response, the Staff agrees with Applicants that only RG-58 cables located in harsh environments need be environmentally qualified. Rather than establish the environmental qualification of RG-58 coaxial cable, Applicants propose
- instead to use RG-59 coaxial cable in lieu of RG-58 coaxial cables in which it recognizes are subject to harsh enviornments. Affidavit of
t
. Gerald A. Kotkowski at t 2; Affidavit of Ted C. Felgenbaum at 5 7. The Staff agrees that the substitution of RG-59 coaxial cables for the twelve RG-58 coaxial cables would satisfy the environmental qualification requirements of 10 C.F.R. 9 50.49 for those cables. This is because the environmental qualification of RG-59 coaxial cable already has been established. See Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Unit 1 and 2), LBp-87-10, 25 NRC 177, 210-11, rev'd in part on der grounds, ALAB-875, 26 NRC 251 (1987); NECNP Ex. 4 (Environmental Qualification File No. 113-19-01); Affidavit of Amritpal S. Gill and Harold Walker, attached to NRC Staff's Response To NECNP Motion To Reopen The Pecord And Admit New Contention (February 17,1988).
Although from an environrr. ental qualification standpcInt no concern is presented by the propcsed substitution of RG-59 coaxial cable in place of the twelve RG-58 coaxial cables located ir harsh environments, it remains to be considered whether the PG-59 coaxial cable is a technically acceptable replacement for the PG-58 coaxial cable. Applicants' expert on this issue, Fr. Kotkowski, concludes in his affidavit that RG-59 coaxial cables would be acceptable substitutes. , Sed Kotkowski Affidavit at
!T 3-8. On the basis of this affidavit, providing matters set out therein are not rebutted, the Licensing Board might find that the RG-59 cable is an acceptable substitute for the sebject 12 RG-58 cables.
CONCLCSION For the reasons stated in this response, the Board should deny Applicants' motion for an order dismissing remanded NECNP Contention I.B.2 as moot. The Board should reopen the record to receive the affidavits of Messrs. Bergeron, Kotkowski and Feigenbaum submitted by Applicants and L_-_________________-_-__-__-______-_-_-__ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ - _ - - _ _ - - _ - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - -
any other relevant and admissible evidence which Applicants may offer to support their position en remanded NECNP Contention I.B.2 or to address the questions raised by the Staff herein. The Board should then afford NECNP and the Staff a reasonable amount of time to submit, if they so elect, relevant and admissible evidence in support of or opposition to Applicants' position. If, upon review of all the materials submitted, there. exists no genuine issue as to any material fact and Applicants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the Board should close the record and issue an initial decision favorable to Applicants. If, however, a review of all the materials submitted by the parties reveals the existence of genuine issues as to material facts, the Board should then schedule a heering to resolve those issues. E ReSkctfullysubmitted, Ih Greg5ry 1gnyB.rhyin<
Counsel r NRQ Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 1st day of May 1988 i
l
-9/ On May 31, 1988, the Staff received a May 27, 1980 filing from the 1 Applicants concerning its May 19, 1988 Suggestion of Mootness. In i this filing the Applicants change the number of cables in two categories and set out matters which they believe are relevant to their Suggestion of Mootness. This additional filing and the changes reinforces the Staff's position that the record should be reopened to receive material proffered by the Applicants and other parties in order to detemine whether this environmental qualification issue tray be disposed of on the bases of those submissinns or whether a hearing is needed on the subject issue. j
l l
l l
UNITED STATES OF AMERIC A '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC S AFETY AND LICENSING BO ARD In the Matter of )
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-01 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 50-444 OL-01 N EW H AM PSHIR E, et al. On-site Emergency Planning (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2 )
CERTIFIC ATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "N R C STAFF RESPONSE TO APPLIC A NTS' SUGGESTION OF M00 TNESS" in the above-captioned proceeding have been -
served on the following by deoosit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asteris k , by deposit in the N uclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 2nd day of June 1988.
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman
- A'.omic Safety and Licensing Administrative Judge Board
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Fuclear Pegulatory Commission Washington, D C 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour
- Docketing and Service Section*
Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission Washington, D C 20555 Washington, DC 2C555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke T homas G. Dignan, Jr. , Esq.
Administrative Judge Robert K. Gad, III, Esq.
4515 Willard Avenue Ropes & Gray Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815 225 Franklin Street Boston, F A 02110 Atomic Safety and Licensing H . J . Fly n n , E s q .
Appeal Panel
- Assistant General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, DC 20555 500 C Street, SW Washington, D C 20472
, Philip Ahren, Esq. Calvin A. Canney Assistant' Attorney General City Hall Office of the Attorney General 126 Daniel Street State House Station Portsmouth, NH 03801 Augusta, ME 04333 Mr. Angie Machiros, Chairman Carol S. Sneider, Esq. Board of Selectmen Assistant Attorney General 25 High Road Office of the Attorney General Newbury, M A 09150 One Ashburton Place,19th Floor Boston, M A 02108 George Dana Bisbee, Esq. Allen Lampert Assistant Attorney General Civil Defense Director Office of the Attorney General Town of Brentwood i 25 Capitol Street 20 Franklin Concord, NH 03301 Exeter, NH 03833 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq. William Armstrong Diane Curran, Esq. Civil Defense Director Harmon & Weiss Town of Exeter P001 S Street, N W 10 Front Street ;
Suite 430 Exeter, N H 03833 .
Washington, D C 20009 '
Robert A. Bcckus, Esq. Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
Backus, Meyer & Solomon Holmes & Ellis 116 Lcwell Street 47 Winnacunnet Road Manchester, N H 03106 Ham pton, N H 03842 l
Paul McEachern, Esq. J. P. Nadeau '
Matthew T. Brock, Esq. Board of Selectmen '
Shaines & McEachern 10 Central Street 25 Maplewood Avenue Rye, NH 03870 l P.O. Box 360 '
Portsmouth , N H 03801 Judith H. Mizner, Esq.
Charles P. Graham, Esq. Silverglate, Gertner, Baker, McKay, Murphy & Graham Fine & Good i
~
100 Main Street 88 Board Street Amesbury, M A 01913 Boston, M A 02110 Sandra Gavutis, Chairman Robert Carrigg, Chairman Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen R FD #1, Box 1154 Town Office Kensington, N H 03827 Atlantic Avenue i North Hampton, N H 03870 '
William S. Lord Peter J. Matthews, Mayor Board of Selectmen City Hall Town Hall - Friend Street Newburyport, M N 09150 Aniesbury, M A 01913
t t
Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairman Michael Santosuosso, Chairman Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen 13-15 Newmarket Road South Hampton, NH 03827 Durham, NH 03824 .
Hon. Gordon J. Humphrey Ashed N. Amirian, Esq.
United States Senate Town Counsel for Merrimac 531 Hart Senate Office Building 376 Main Street Washington, D C 20510 Haverhill, M A 08130 f
l Edwin J.f eis Deputyf Assistant General Counsel f
i l
1 e
f 4
J 4
1
[
-. _ _.._ _ __,_.._ ___, . _ _ _ . _ . , , _ _ _ . ~ . _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ .