Text

Applicant Reply to NRC Staff & New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Response to Applicant Suggestion of Mootness.* Issue Re Environ Qualification of RG-58 Coaxial Should Be Ordered as Moot
	ML20196A538
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	06/17/1988
From:	Steenland D; PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY
To:	; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20196A543	List: ML20196A538; ML20196A619;
References
	CON-#288-6590 ALAB-875, ALAB-891, OL-1, NUDOCS 8806300059
	Download: ML20196A538 (7)
	v • d • e

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

} Nh.

b8 y

CCCKCil0

+

UMRC Dated:

June 17, 1988

'88 JN 22 P3 :35 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA e,pgg y m.,

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIht ru; ; '

,.yi,

~

DRupt before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY

)

Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.

)

50-444-OL-1

)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1

)

(On-site Emergency and 2)

)

Planning Issues)

)

APPLICANTS' REPLY TO NRC STAFF AND NECNP'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' SUGGESTION OF MOOTNESS l

BACKGROUND Following the Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision,1 ("PID") NECNP challenged, inter alia, the Licensing Board's finding that the RG-58 coaxial cable was environmentally qualified by comparison with RG-59 coaxial cable.

In ALAB-875 the Appeal Board agreed with NECNP and I

stated that a letter from the cable vendor to Seabrook's architect-engineer and constructor was an insufficient i

1 Public Service Connany of New Hanoshire, (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) LBP-87-10, 25 PRC 177 (1987), rev'd i

i in part, ALAB-875, 26 NRC 251 (1987).

PDR ADOCK 05000443 O3 8806300059 800617 O

PDR

m*

e evidentiary basis for the Licensing Board's finding.2 The Appeal Board requested that the Licensing Board indicate any additional support in the existing record for its finding, or take further evidence.3 Unpersuaded by the submissions from the Licensing Board and the Applicants, the Appeal Board, in ALAB-891, reversed the decision of the Licensing Board in the PID and remanded the issue of whether RG-58 coaxial cable is environmentally qualified.4 In ALAB-891, the Appeal Beard stated that new evidence introduced on this issue, following the remand, "must be sponsored by a competent affiant or witness."S Cn May 19, 1988, the Applicalits filed a "Suggestion of Mootnees" in which they stated, on the basis of affidavits of experts, that they had:

1) identified which RG-58 coaxial cables are required to meet the environmental qualification requirements of 10 CFR 50.49; and 2) directed that those RG-58 coaxial cables be replaced by RG-59 coaxial cables -- an 2

Public Service Company of New Hamushire, (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-875, 26 NRC 251, 271 (1987).

3 g,

r 4

Euhlic Service Company of New Hampshiru, (Seabrook l

Station, Units 1 and 2) A LAB-891, 27 NRC (April 25, 1988).

l 5

Id. slid 9R at 22.

l l )

Te I

1 environmentally qualified, technically acceptable t

substitute.6 The NRC Staff responded on June 2, 1988.

In its response, the Staf f agreed that (a) fourth option available to Applicant'

.is to replace all RG-58 coaxial cablea requiring environmental analification with another type cable that has previously been J.amoretratad to be environmentally quali.iied for itc intended use.

This course of Lction is appropriate because it addresses auf aliminates the central claim of remanded NECNP Contention I.B.2."7 Furthermore, the Staff agreed that the requirements of 10 CFR 50.49 apply only to RG-58 cables which are important to safety and located in harsh environments,8 agreed that spare cables need not neet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.49,9 and agreed that RG-S8 cables located ir a mild environmental do not need to be environmentally qualif f.*d in accordance with 10 CFR 50.49.10 Finally, the Staff also agreed th't the replacement of the 1

RG-58 cable by the RG-59 cable "would satisfy the 6

On May 27, 1988 Applicants filed the Supplemental Affidavit of Richard Bergeron, and in accordance with that affidavit, slightly revised the pleading.

7 "NRC Staf f Response to J.pplicants' Suggestion of Mootness" (June 2, 1988) at 3.

8 Id. at 5-6.

9 Id. at 7.

10 Id. at 8. ~

i

c 4

environmental qualifications of 10 CFR 50.49 for those cables."11 Nevertheless, while seemingly endorsing the Applicants' course of action, the Staff in effect faulted the affidavits of the Applicants' experts based on the alleged failure to supply sufficient information to substantiate certain claims.

While not conceding that such additional information is necessary, the Affidavit of Richard Bergeron (June 16, 1988) responds to the issues raised.

On June 9, 1988 NECNP filed its response, together with the affidavit c f Robert D. Pollard.12 NECNP argues that the Applicants' Suggestion of Mootness must be rejected for three reasons, all of which are without merit.

First, NECNP seeks discovery, specifically the examination of documents supporting Applicants' position.13 Second, NECNP argues that it is entitled to a hearing to 1

test the credibility of Applicants' witnesses.14 Third, NECNP asserts that there are remaining disputes of material facts because Applicants have failed "to 1

11 Id. at 11.

12 "New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution's Response to Applicants' Suggestion of Mootness Regarding Environmental Qualification of RG-58 Cable" (June 9, 1988).

13 Id. at 1-2.

14 Id. at 2-3.

4_

)

establish that Applicants have identified all uses and locations of RG-58 cable, that they know what qualification requirements the cable must meet, or that RG-59 is an adequate substitute."15 NECNP's arguments are without merit.

NECNP may not use the Applicants' Suggestion of Mootness as a basis for random inquiry or to raise new contentions.

The issue remanded to the Licensing Board concerns only whether the RG-58 cable is environmentally qualified.

This is the only issue remanded to this Licensing Board and therefore the sole issue over 16 and the sole which the Licensing Board has jurisdiction

., sue which NECNP properly may litigate.

Applicants have

z. coted that issue by agreeing to remove all RG-58 coaxial caoles presently required to meet the environmental l

qualification requirements of 10 CFR 50.49.

There is no contention in this case, and never has been, that Applicants l

were not capable of selecting what components have to be environmentally qualified.

Indeed, there has never been a contention that the Seabrook organization was not fully l

technically qualified.

1 15 Id. at 3.

L 16 Carolina Power & Licht Co, (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2,

3 and 4), A LAB-52 6, 9 NRC 122, 124 l

and n.3 (1979); Portland General Electric Comoany (Trojan l

Nuclear Plant), A LAB-5 3 4, 9 NRC 287, 289 at n.6 (1979).

l l

l i J

A Nevertheless, without conceding that NECNP's inquiries are proper, the affidavit of Richard Bergeron (June 16, 1988) responds to the issues raised.

Finally, NECNP, in disagreement with the NRC Staff and Applicants, claims that it has not been established that RG-59 coaxial cable is environmentally qualified.

This is incorrect; the environmental ovalification of RG-59 coaxial cable has been already established.17 Moreover, NECNP's motion 18 to reopen the record and admit a late-filed conlention concerning whether RG-59 coaxial cable was environmentally qualified was denied.19 On the basis of the foregoing, Applicants press their motion that the Licensing Board enter an order that the issue regarding the environmental qualification of RG-58 coaxial cable as moot.

Any possible remaining matters of concern are fully capable of resolution by a purely objective l

17 See LBP-87-10, suora n.1, 25 NRC 177 at 210-211, rev'd in part on other arounds, ALAB-875, 26 NRC 251 (1987);

NECNP Ex. 4 (Environmental Qualification File No. 113-19-01);

ML20196A538

Text

Navigation menu

Search