ML20199K790
| ML20199K790 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 07/02/1986 |
| From: | Curran D HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20199K773 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8607090248 | |
| Download: ML20199K790 (31) | |
Text
,
July 2, 1986 t 0 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,,
. ~
j:
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
(
) [Tgg In the Matter of ) .
C i
) Docket Nos.*50 $- 43 OL Public Service Company of ) 4.;Og New Hampshire, et al. ) rg;py (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2) ) Onsite Eme'rg'ency , .
) Planning and Safety - .'
) Issues .
NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION AUTHORIZING LOW POWER OPERATION Introduction On June 17, 1986, Applicants filed a motion requesting the Licensing Board to incorporate sections of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") SEaf f's Sa fety Evaluation Report ( "SER") into the hearing record, to order the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution ("NECNP") and other intervenors to state whether they desire cross-examination on any materials incorporated into the record, to close the record, and to issue a partial initial deci-sion authorizing the operation of Seabrook Unit 1 up to and in-cluding 5% of rated power.
NECNP does not oppose Applicants' motion to supplement the record. As discussed in Section II. below, NECNP seeks an op-portunity to cross-examine Applicants and the NRC regarding NECNP contention I .'B.2 (duration of environmental qualification.)
However, NECNP opposes Applicants' motion for an operating license authorizing low power operation. Regardless of whether this Board is able to resolve the few technical and onsite emergency planning issues now before it, the Atomic Energy Act
~
8607090248 860702 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G PDR 6
e -m e ,, -,g-- ~ , -
,-m.
does not permit the Board to authorize Applicants to operate the Seabrook plant at any power level unless and until it has com-pleted public hearings on all issues that are material to the question of whether Applicants have constructed and will operate the Seabrook plant in conformance with the law, including offsite emergency planning and issues that have not been fully appealed through this Commission. The NRC's practice of permitting low power authorization before completing hearings and safety find-ings violate the Atomic Energy Act and Congress' expressed intent to require the completion of public hearings before a license may be issued.
This opposition challenges the Commission's interpretation o f 10 C .F.R. S 50.57(c), under which Licensing Boards have tradi-tionally deferred the resolution of some licensing issues until after the granting of a low power license. It also challenges '
the Commission's regulations at 10 C .F.R. S 50.4 7(d) , which waives the requirement for approval of offsite emergency plans at the low power authorization stage. With respect to the Commis-sion's interpretation of 10 C.F.R. 50.57(c), NECNP demonstrates below that it may only be interpreted to require the completion of all hearings relevant to full power operation before any li-cense, including a license authorizing low power operation, is issued. With respect to NECNP's challenge to 10 C .F.R. S 5 0. 4 7( d ) , NECNP is aware that under 10 C.F.R. S 2.758, a Commis-sion regulation may not be challenged in a licensing case, unless the challenging party shows special circumstances that warrant an
-3 5-exception to the rule. NECNP believes that, although special circumstances may exist that would warrant the waiver of 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(d) in this case, it is neither necessary nor ap-propriate to request a waiver, because S 50.47(d) is contrary to the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act. The rule of deference to the regulations and practice of the NRC cannot overcome the plain language of the Atomic Energy Act and its legislative his-tory, which require the Commission to complete the Seabrook oper-ating license hearings before issuing a low power license. See Sholly v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 651 F.2d 780, 789
- n. 2 6 (D. C. Ci r. 1980) .
Background
The Seabrook operating license proceeding opened in 1981.
NECNP and other intervenors filed numerous contentions covering a broad spectrum of technical and onsite amergency planning is-sues.1 The Licensing Board denied over half of NECNP's conten-tions. Later, the Board granted summary disposition motions on over half of NECNP's contentions. The NRC's regulations require that NECNP may not appeal these rulings until the licensing hear-ings are completed. See Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-731,17 NRC 1073 (1983) .
In the summer of 1983, the Licensing Board held hearings on four contentions: NECNP I.B.2 (duration of environmental I See NECNF's Supplemental Petition to Intervene,
- dated April 21, 1982.
i l.
, o 1
qualification), NECNP III.1 and New Hampshire 20 (emergency classification system, emergency action levels, and notification times), and NECNP III.12/13 (evacuation time estimates) . At the hearing, NECNP cross-examined witnesses on NECNP Contentions I.B.2 and III.l. NECNP also submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on all of the contentions.
The Licensing Board has not ruled on any of the contentions litigated in the 1983 hearings. By order of November 4,1985, the Board ordered supplementation of the record on contentions NECNP I.B.2, NECNP III.2, and New Hampshire 20.2 Subsequently the Board and the parties received Applicants' environmental qualification report and the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report supplements concerning environmental qualification and emergency classification. Applicants have now moved the Board to incor-porate those sections of the SER into the hearing record, to order NECNP and other intervenors to state whether they desire cross-examination on any materials incorporated into the record, to close the record, and to issue a partial initial decision au-thorizing the operation of Seabrook Unit I up to and including 5%
of rated power.
A RGUM ENT 2
This Board has apparently declined to review NECNP Conten-tion III.12/13 on the basis that evacuation time estimates are being reviewed by the offsite emergency planning board chaired by Judge Hoyt.
l l
l
- 5 '--
a .
I. The Board May Not Issue a License Until Completion of Hearings on All Issues Relevant to Full Power Operation.
Applicants' motion for authorization of low power operation is governed by 10 C.F.R. S 50.57(c). That regulation provides that an operating license applicant may move the Licensing Board to issue an operating license authorizing low power testing and further operation short of full power operation. Be fore issuing a license that is opposed by any party, the Licensing Board must find, with respect to all contested issues, that the applicant has substantially completed construction of the facility, in con-formance with the construction permit, the Atomic Energy Act, and Commission regulations; that the plant will be operated in con-formance with the operating license application, the Act, and the regulations; and that there is reasoncale assurance that the ac-tivities authorized by the license will not endanger the public health and safety and will be conducted in compliance with the NRC's regulations. See 10 C . F.R. 5 0. 5 7( c ) , referencing 5 50.57(a).
In acting on a motion for low power authorization, the Licensing Board must act with due regard to the rights of the parties to the pro-ceedings, including the right of any part to be heard to the extent that his contentions are relevant to the activity to be authorized.
Id,.
In their motion, Applicants seek permission to load fuel and operate the Seabrook nuclear power plant at low power levels be-I fore the Commission has completed operating license hearings on m +-- - -- ._
the technical and onsite planning issues now before the Board.
First, Applicants would place a burden on NECNP and other inter-i venors to show why they should be permitted to cross-examine Ap-plicants on newly submitted portions of the hearing record before low power operating is authorized. Mo reover, Applicants seek the authority to operate before the states of Massachusetts and New Hampshire have even submitted the offsite emergency plans that they intend to implement during a radiological emergency.3 Thus, the Licensing Board has held no hearings on the adequacy of of fsite emergency planning for the Seabrook Emergency Planning Zone.
! NECNP contends that the issuance of a license authorizing i low power operation under these circumstances would violate its
, right under the Atomic Energy Act to a full operating license hearing before the license is granted. The Act makes no dis-tinction between low power and full power licensing requirements; nor does its legislative history support such a conclusion.
Under the Act, all issues that are material to the full power op-4 3
To date, no emergency plans have been submitted to the NRC by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Although the parties have been in the procees of litigating offsite plans for the State of New Hampshire, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (" FEMA")
has just informed the Licensing Board in the offsite emergency planning porceeding that those plans are not " operative." Ap-parently the State plans to submit a whole new set of emergency
- plans in late August of this year. See " Motion by the Federal Emergency Management Agency for Continuation of Hearing on
, Emergency Planning Contentions," filed June 30, 1986.
I
{
, , eration of a nuclear power plant must be considered relevant to the issuance of a license for any level of operation, and must be resolved before that license can issue. Before this Board may issue a license authorizing low power operation, NECNP is~
entitled to litigate the contested issues that remain from the 1983 hearing, to challenge the offsite emergency plans, and to take an agency appeal of the Board's final initial decision, as guaranteed by 10 C.F.R. Part 2 for the appeal of full power licensing decisions.
A. The Atomic Energy Act provides no authority for the granting of licenses authorizing low power operation before the completion of licensing hearings.
The Coalition's rights in this proceeding are governed by Section 189(a)(1) of the Atomic Energy Act, which requires that in any proceeding "for the granting, suspending, revoking, or amending of any license or construction permit,"
the Commission shall grant a hearing upon the request of any persen whose interest may be affected by the proceeding, and shall admit any such person as a party to such proceeding.
i 42 U.S.C. S 2239(a). The hearing must be held before the Commis-sion takes the proposed licensing action. Sholly v. U.S. Nuclear i
Regulatory Commission, 651 F.2d 780, 789 (D.C. Cir. 1980),
vacated on other grounds,103 S.Ct. 1170 (1983).
The Atomic Energy Act contains no provision permitting the Commission to authorize the operation of a nuclear power plant at low power levels before full power license hearings are complete; I
nor does it dispense with the prior hearing requirement for any initial operating license decision.
i L
In fact, on the two occasions when Congress perceived a need to permit low power operation before licensing hearings were com-plete, it gave the Commission only temporary authority to do so.
Moreover, although Congress has amended Section 189(a) to permit the Commission to waive the prior hearing requirement for license amendments that pose "no significant hazard," it has not included original licenses within the ambit of that authority. Thus, the Atomic Energy Act and its legislative history demonstrate that Congress never intended to allow the Commission to compromise the public's right to a full operating license hearing before it took the irreversible and consequence-laden step of allowing a nuclear power plant to load fuel and operate at any level of power.
B. The legislative history of the Atomic Energy Act demonstrates that Congress has not authorized issuance of licenses that would creat irreversible consequences until completion of all hearings relevant to licensing.
- 1. In the past, Congress has given the Commission only temporary authority to issue low power licenses before completing licensing hearings.
Only twice during the past has Congress made provision for the authorization of low power operation before the completion of licensing hearings. In both instances, Congress was responding to a perceived emergency, and in both instances Congress strictly limited the duration of the NRC's authority to issue a " temporary operating license" or "TOL." The legislative history of these two enactments demonstrates the strength of Congress' intent that in the absence of specific Congressional authorization, the pub-lic's statutory right to full hearings on the issuance of opera-O
ting licenses may not be compromised by the issuance of a low power license before those hearings have been completed.
l (a) 1972 temporary operating license amendment In 1972, responding to a perceived threat of imminent 1
energy shortages, Congress amended the Atomic Energy Act to permit the NRC to issue temporary operating licenses without the completion of the full adjudicatory hearings required by Section 189a of the Act.4 According to the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, the legislation was needed in part to allow the NRC to speed reactor testing and thereby
" properly anticipate emergency power needs." Statement of James S. Schlesinger before Joint Committee on Atomic Ener-g21 March 16, 1972, at 7 4.
The new provision required that before the Commission could issue a TOL, it must have received the letter of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards ("ACRS"), the Staf f's Safety Evaluation Report ("SER"), and the environ-mental impact statement. However, intervenors were entitled to no more than an informal hearing on whether the plant could be operated safely on a temporary basis.
Section 192 did not eliminate the full licensing hear-ings required by Section 189a, but allowed the NRC to post-4 Section 192 of the Atomic Energy Act [42 U.S.C. S 2242],
added June 2, 1972, Pub. L.92-307, 86 Stat. 191. The full text of the amendment is attached as Exhibit 1.
6
pone them until after issuance of the low power license. As the House Report explained, Under this new authority, the Commission is authorized to issue a temporary license to operate the reactor under these circumstances even though the full-term license is being contested by in-terested members of the public. The temporary li-cense would not deprive the public of a full review of the health and safety and environmental matters which may be contested. All substantive requirements of applicable law would have to be satisfied.
The issuance of a temporary license would not prejudice in any way the rights of parties who are participating in the contested hearings on the full-term license nor would it prejudice the ac-tions which the final decision on the full-term license may require in the interest of additional conditions pertinent to full-term operation.
House Rept. No. 9 2-1027, 1972 U. S . Code Cong, and Admin.
News 2351-52.
In permitting the expedited issuance of TOLs, Congress attempted to avoid or ameliorate " threatened shortages" der-ing the summer of 1972 and the winter of 1972-3. 1972 U.S.
Code Cong. and Admin. News at 2352. Congress was also con-cerned that litigation of environmental impact statements under the NRC's newly promulgated regulations for the imple-mentation of the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA")
would result in " prolonged" hearings that would delay licensing. Id. at 2355.5 In particular, the legislation
- As the House Report explains, after passage of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1970, the issues open for litigation in licensing hearings "were expanded so that the Commission had to consider all significant environmental, matters in its deci-
- 11'-
was designed to overcome the court's ruling in Izaak Walten League of America v. Schlesinger, 3 37 F .2d 287 (D. C.D.C.
1971), in which the District Court enjoined issuance of a low power license because the Commission had failed to file an environmental impact statement for the plant or to offer a hearing on the adequacy of the EIS. See Statement of James S. Schlesinger before Joint Committee on Atomic Ener-gy, March 16, 1972, at 77-78.
Sensitive to the interest of the public in participa-ting in licensing hearings, Congress stressed that the temporary licensing provision should be used by the Commis-sion only where there was an " urgent need" for the energy.
Id. at 2356. More important, the legislation contained an expiration date that gave the NRC less than a year and a half to implement the TOL provision. Thus, Congress gave the NRC only so much authority to issue TOLs as it deemed was necessary to cope with a perceived short-term energy (continued) sionmaking process, which, under the Atomic Energy Act, includes the hearing requirements summarized above." 1972 U. S. Code Cong.
and Admin. News at 2355. In response to the U.S. Court of Ap-peals' 1971 decision in Calvert Clif f s Coordinating Committee v.
United States Atomic Energy Commission, 4 49 F .2d 1109 (D.C. Cir.
1971), the Commission had " issued regulations which impose a very stringent environmental review" of proposed nuclear teactor li-censes. Id.
crisis. Clearly, Congress intended that under ordinary cir-cumstances and in the absence of special legislation, the public was entitled to full adjudicatory hearings before the issuance of an operating license.
(b) 1982 temporary operating license amendment After the 1972 temporary operating license legislation expired, nine years passed before Congress again perceived the need to grant utilities relief from the Atomic Energy Act's strict prior hearing requirements. In January of 1983, in response to licensing delays caused by the Three Mile Island accident, Congress again enacted a special, limited term temporary operating license provision. This new version of S 192 allowed the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion to issue temporary licenses for fuel loading and opera-tion at up to 5% of rated power, with special provision for incremental increases in power levels.6 According to the Senate Report, the legislation was de-signed to alleviate the licensing delays that had been caused by the imposition of additional safety requirements following the Three Mile Island accident :
Largely as a result of this situation, it became apparent in late 1980 that some delays would be l
l 6
42 U.S.C. S 2242, Pub.L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2072 (January 4, 1983). The complete text of this provision is attached as Exhib-j it 2.
L
- 13'-
experienced between the time when construction of these plants would be sufficiently complete to allow fuel loading and the start of operation, and the time when all requirements for the issuance of an operating license, including the hearing recuirements, of the Atomic Energy Act, would be met.
Sen. Re p . No .97-113, 1982 U.S. Code Cong. and Admin. News at 3593 (emphasis added) .
As summarized in debates on the bill, The temporary operating license provision confers upon the NRC a much-needed authority arising out of the Post-TMI licensing delays, authorizing the NRC to issue operating licenses to applicants prior to the completion of that certain public hearing required under the Atomic Energy Act, if all other statutory requirements are met.
128 Cong. Rec.15314 (December 16,1982) (r emarks of Rep.
Simp son) .
Like the original version of S 192, the 1982 amendment established as prerequisites for a TOL the filing of the ACRS letter, the Staf f's Safety Evaluation Report, a final environmental impact statement. In addition, the 1982 law required that no TOL could issue before the submission of a State, local, or utility emergency preparedness plan.
7 42 U.S.C. S 2242(a). By allowing the submission of
" utility" plans as an alternative to state or local plans, Sec-tion 192 creates the confusing impression that a utility's onsite emergency plan could suffice to meet this requirement. However, as explained during Congressional debates on the bill, the provi-sion was only intended to allow the NRC to substitute utility plans for State and local plans if no approved State and local plans existed. 128 Cong. Rec. 8823 (December 2, 1982)(Remarks of Rep. Ottinger) That has not been attempted here.
4
Were either of these two temporary operating license provi-sions in place today, they might give the Licensing Board the au-thority to issue an operating license permitting low power opera-tion before completion of licensing hearings.8 However, both provisions expired within a short time of their enactment. The legislative history of the TOL bills demonstrates unequivocally that Congress considered pre-hearing licensing such as the low power authorization sought here to constitute a short-term emergency stopgap measure. In the absence of such specific au-thorization from Congress, the Commission may not issue an opera-ting license authorizing any level of operation at the Seabrook nuclear power plant until it completes hearings on all issues that are material to full power operation.'
- 2. Congress has not extended the "no signficant hazards" exemption f rom prior hearing requirements to the initial issuance of operating licenses.
Congress' rationale for requiring prior licensing hearings was illumined in its debates on the "Sholly Amendment," which created an exception to the prior hearing rule for amendments to 8
In this case, however, the lack of emergency plans for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would have been fatal to an ap-plication for a TOL f or Seabrook under the 1982 TOL legislation.
See 42 U.S.C. S 2242(a).
9 These hearings include the appeals within the Commission that guaranteed in 10 C.F.R. Part 2 for full power licensing de-cisions.
. 6
- 15' -
operating license and construction permit that involved "no sig-nificant hazards."10 It is clear from the following colloquy between Rep. Markey and Rep. Ottinger, that under ordinary cir-cumstances, Congress will not permit the NRC to take licensing actions with " irreversible consequences" without granting a prior hearing on those actions. Only for license amendments which, despite their " irreversible consequences," pose "no significant hazards" to the public, has Congress made an exception.
MR. MARKEY: I note that with respect to section 12 of the bill, the so-called Sholly provision, the statement of managers emphasized that, in determining whether a proposed amendment to a facility operating license in-volves no significant hazards consideration, the Com-mission should be sensitive to those license amendments that involve irreversible consequences. As chairman of the subcommittee that originated the Sholly provision in this House, do you understand that statement to mean that the Commission should be especially careful in evaluating, for possible hazards consideration, amend-ments that involve irreversible consequences:
MR. OTTINGER: Yes, that is exactly what I understand our intent to have been. Once a license amendment with irreversible consequences has received the Commission's approval and has gone into effect, as a practical mat-ter it will be impossible to correct any errors that may have entered into the Commission's decision.
Therefore, we believed that the Commission has an obli-gation, when assessing the health and safety considera-tions of amendments having irreversible consequences, to insure that only those amendments that very clearly raise no significant hazards issues will be allowed to take effect before the required hearings can be held.
I 10 42 U.S.C. S 2239(a), Pub. L.97-415 S 12(a), 96 Stat. 2073 (January 4, 1983).
128 Cong. Rec. 8823 (December 2, 1982). The Sholly Amendment contains no provision that would e::empt operating licenses from prior hearings based on a "no significant hazards" finding. Be-cause the issuance of a license authorizing low power operation would have the irreversible effect of causing the contamination of the Seabrook plant and posing a risk to the public health and safety, no matter how insignficant, it may not be granted until the Commission has concluded the operating license hearings for the Seabrook plant. Thus, the Atomic Energy Act does not au-thorize this Board to conclude that there are some licensing is-sues that need not be resolved at the low power stage because they would pose no significant risk to tne public health and safety. Nor does the Act contain any authority for the Commis-sion's regulation at 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(d), which relies on a finding that low power operation involves no significant risk to the public health and safety in waiving the requirement for the approval of offsite emergency plans before low power licensing.
II. NECNP seeks further hearings before this Board on the ade-quacy of Applicants' environmental qualification program with regard to duration of qualification.
In hearings before the Licensing Board in 1983, NECNP litigated four contentions: NECNP I.B.2 (duration of environmen-1I See Proposed Rule, " Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production ano Utilization Facilitieo,' 46 Fed. Reg. ' 6113 (December 15, 1981).
r
- 17~-
tal qualification), NECNP III.1 and New Hampshire 20 (emergency classification system, emergency action levels, and notification times), and NECNP III.12/13 (evacuation time estimates). At the hearing, NECNP cross-examined witnesses on NECNP Contenticns I.B.2 and III.l. NECNP also submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on all of the contentions.
Applicants now seek to supplement the hearing record with respect to Contentions NECNP-I . B.2, NECNP-III.2, and New Hampshire 20. NECNP has no objection to that motion.
Applicants also ask this Board to close the record of the onsite emergency planning and technical phase of this proceeding.
NECNP asks that the Board hold the record open and permit it to conduct discovery, present testimony, and cross-examine witnesses regarding NECNP's Contention I.B.2. At this time, NECNP does not seek to litigate any of the other contentions that are before the Board.
At the. hearings in 1983, NECNP demonstrated that Applicants had not completed their program for environmental qualification of electrical equipment important to safety, with respect to the duration of environmental qualification. Applicants have now submitted an environmental qualification report that purports to satisfy these requirements. However, after reviewing the en-vironmental report, the Staf f Supplemental SER, and the report of the environmental qualification report, NECNP has concluded that this record does not demonstrate compliance with the Commission's environmental qualification requirements. Based on the informa-1 I
- ~ - - - - - - - - - - - . - - -
. tion that has been made available to date, NECNP has found the following deficiencies on which it seeks discovery and the op-portunity for additional hearings, if necessary:
A. Applicants have not adequately demonstrated that safety equipment is qualified for submergence.
- 1. For many components that may be submerged during an accident, Applicants' documentation of qualification times is contradictory and confusing. For some components, qualification time for submergence is described as "N/A" or "not applicable,"
even though they may occur below flood level. To give just one of many examples, Equipment Qualification File No. 171-01-01 for Samual Moore Instrument Wire (attached as Exhibit 3) s tates that submergence qualification is "n/a," even though the component may be located at -23' 6", three feet below the flood level. Even worse, the worksheet states the following: " Above Flood Level:
Yes."
- 2. In spite of postulated environments that specify an operating time of at least one year, some pieces of equipment are qualified for only 30 days' submergence. See, e.g., Eq uip-ment Qualification File No. 113-03-01 f or Okonite Cable, attached as Exhibit 4.
- 3. For other pieces of equipment, the information supplied by Applicants is simply incomplete. In equipment qualification file No. 600-01-05, which describes certain wire connection kits, for example, submergence qualification is listed as "N/A" and no submergence qualification times are ,given.
- 19'- l l
(Exhibit 5) The worksheet gives the flood elevation as "-21'6",
but does not describe the elevation of the equipment. The reader is referred to " note 3," which states that " verification with respect to whether this splice is submerged subsequent to design basis events is completed and addressed in Reference 9," which is described as an " assessment report." NECNP simply did not have enough information to evaluate this inconclusive qualification worksheet. In another worksheet (Equipment Qualification File No. 600-03-01, Exhibit 6), Applicants state that submergence qualification time for PIDG electrical terminals is "N/A," but f ail to describe the flood elevation or the elevation of the com-ponents. The note reference in the report states that these ter-minals constitute " generic equipment which may be installed throughout the plant." Requirements for submergence qualifica-tion "are based on the safety function and operability require-ments of this attached equipment." Reference is then made to a footnote in a qualification file checklist. Obviously, based on this information there is no way to determine whether necessary submergence qualification times have been achieved.
B. The NRC's audit of Applicants' equipment qualification files on February 24-27, 1986, demonstrated that Applicants are not keeping reasonably accurate equipment qualification files.
Half of the files that the NRC audited were incomplete or inac-curate. Some equipment could not be identified. One piece of equipment had two different qualification numbers. Another file lacked adequate information concerning submergence qualification.
Any audit that shows this high a proportion of deficiencies in hpplicants' qualification program casts serious doubts on the l
reliability of Applicants' representations regarding qualifica-tion times. NECNP wishes to litigate the adequacy of the Staff's audit for the purpose of obtaining a more comprehensive evalua-tion.
C. One of the issues litigated in the 1983 hearing con-sisted of whether Applicants had properly defined the scope of equipment requiring environmental qualification to include non-safety related equipment whose failure could prevent the satis-factory accomplishment of safety functions. See 10 C .F.R. S 50.49(b)(2). According to Supplement 5 of the Staff's SER, Ap-plicants have committed to conform with Reg. Guide 1.75. How-ever, Applicants have not yet submitted an analysis supporting conformance with the Reg. Guide. SSER 5 at 5. NECNP seeks ac-cess to that analysis and any evaluations performed by the Staff, in order to determine whether Applicants have indeed met the re-quirements of S 50.49(b)(2).
D. The Staff's SSER also indicates that there may be a dispute between Staff and Applicants regarding qualification of i
post-accident monitoring equipment. NECNP wishes to monitor the resolution of this dispute. If NECNP is dissatisfied with the i
resolution of the matter, we may seek to litigate this issue.
CONCLUSION 1
For the reasons given above, NECNP opposes the issuance of a license authorizing low power operation of the Seabrook nuclear i
(
e
- 21' -
power plant. In' addition, NECNP seeks a hearing before this Board on the adequacy of Applicants' environmental qualification program with respect to qualification times.
Respectfully submitted, Diane Curran HARMON & WEISS 2001 S Street N.W.
Suite 430 ,
Washington, D.C. 20009 July 2, 1986 9
9 e
w e , --, -
Exhibit 1 Ch. 23 ATOMIC ENERGY 42 2242 9 2242. Temporary operating licenses for nuclear power reactors-Prerequisites for filing applications; affidavits; hearing (a) In any proceeding upon an application for an operating li-cense for a nuclear power reactor, in which a hearing is otherwise required pursuant to section 2230(a) of this title, the applicant may petition the Commission for a temporary operating license authoriz-ing operation of the facility pending final action by the Commission on the application. Such petition may be filed at any time after fil-Ing of: (1) the report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safe-guards required by section 2232(b) of this title; (2) the 8afety evaluation of the application by the Commission's regulatory staff; and (3) the regulatory staff's final detailed statement on the envi-ronmental impact of the facility prepared pursuant to section 4332(2)(C) of this title or, in the case of an application for operat-Ing license filed on or before September 9,1971, if the regulatory staff's final detailed statement required under section 4032'2HC) of this title is not completed, the Commission must satisfy the appli-cable requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act prior to issuing any temporary operating license under this section. The petition shall be accompanied by an affidavit or affidavits setting forth the facts upon which the petitioner relies to justify issuance of the temporary operating license. Any party to the proceeding may file affidavits in support of, or opposition to, the petition with-in fourteen days after the filing of such petition, or within such ad-ditional time not to exceed ten days as may be fixed by the Commis-Ston. The Commission shall hold a hearing after ten days' notice and publication once in the Federal Register on any such petition and supporting material filed under this section and the decision of the Commission with respect to the issuance of a temporary o1.crat-ing license, following such hearing, shall be on the basis of findings on the matters specified in subsection (b) of this section. The hear-ing required by this section and the decision of the Commission on the petition shall be conducted with expedited procedures as the Commission may by rule, regulation, or order deem uppropriate for a full disclosure of material facts on all substantial issues raised in connection with the proposed temporary operating license.
negul.Ite findinge of Commiselong terme and conditions of temporary lleenses judicial retlew (b) With respect to any petition filed pursuant to subsestion (a) of this section, the Commission shall issue a temporary operating li-cense upon finding that:
(1) the provisions of section 2235 of this title have been met with respect to the temporary operating license; (2) operation of the facility during the period of the tempo-rary operating license in accordance with its terms and ccndi-165 O
Exhibit 1 42 s 2242 PunuC HEALTH AND WELFARE Ch.33 tions will provide adequate protection of the environm?nt dar.
ing the period of the temporary operating license; and
'(3) operation of the facility in accordance with the term.
and conditions of the temporary operating license is essentiai toward insuring that the power generating capacity of a utility system or power pool is at, or is restored to, the levels required to assure the adequacy and reliability of the power supply, tak.
ing into consideration factors which include, but need not be limited to, alternative available sources of supply, historical re.
serve requirements for the systems involved to function relia.
bly, the possible endangerment to the public health and safety in the event of power shortages, and data from appropriate Federal and State governmental bodies which have official re.
sponsibility to assure an adequate and reliable power supply, The temporary license shall contain such terms and conditions as the Commission may deem necessary, including the duration of the licen e and any provision for the extension thereof, and the require.
ment that the lic,ensee not retire or dismantle any of its existing generating capacity on the ground of the availability of the capacity from the facility which is operating under the temporary license Any decision or other document authorizine the issuance of an[
temporary license pursuant to this section shall recite with specigje, ity the reasons justifying the issuance. The decision of the Com.
mission with respect to the issuance of a temporary operating li, cense shall be subjet.t to judicial review pursuant to the Act of p,,
cember 29,1950, as amended (ch. 1189,64 Stat.1129).
4 mention of teenparary license (c) The hearing on the application for the final operating licen ,
otherwise required pursuant to section 2230(a) of this title shall bh concluded as promptly as practicable. The Commission shall vacate the temporary operating license if it finds that the applicant is Mt prnsecuting the application for the final operating license with due diligence. Issuance of a temporary operating license pursuant to subsection (b) of this section shall be without prejudice to the po3;.
tion of any party to the proceeding in which a hearing is otherwi.,
required pursuant to section 2239(a) of this title; and failure to a[.
sert any ground for denial or limitation of a temporary operating li.
cense shall not bar the assertion of such ground in connection with the ibuance of a subsequent final operating license.
Espiration of authority (d) The authority under this section shall expire on October 39*
1973.
Aug.1,1946, c. 724, i 192, as added June 2,1972. Pub.L.92-307, g Stat.101.
166
T Exhibit 2 e s ,
42 { 2242 PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE 142 The temporary operating license shall become effective upon issuance and shal:
contain such_ terms and conditions as the Commission may deem necessary,includme the duration of the license and any provision for the exter.sion thereof. Any final order authorizing the issuance or amendmert of any temporary operating licensa pursuant to this section shall recite with specificity the facts and reasons justifying the fmdmgs under this subsection, and shall be transmitted upon such issuance to the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs and Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate. The final order of the Commission with respect to the issuance or amendment of a temporary operating license shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to chapter 158 of Title 28. The requirements of section 2239(a) of this titly with respect to the issuance or amendment of facility licenses shall not apply to the issuance or amendment of a temporary operating license under this section.
(c) Hearint for final operating license: suspension, issuance. compliance, etc., with tempu.
rary operating license ,
Any hearing on the application for the- final operating license for a facility '
required pursuant to section 2239(as of this title sha!! be concluded as promptly as practicable. The Commission shall susperal the temporary operating license if n fmds that the applicant is not prosecuting the application for the final operating license with due diligence. Issuance of a temporary operating license under subsee- i tion (b) of this section shall be without pre.iudice to the right of any party to rain I any issue in a hearing required pursuant to section 2239fa) of this title; and failure to assert any ground for denial or limitation of a temporary operating license shah not bar the assertion of such ground in connection with the issuance of a subsequer.'
final operating license. Any party to a hearing required pursuant to section 2239N of this title on the final operating license for a facility for which a temporary operstmg license has been issued under subsection (b) of this section, and ar>
member of the Atomic Safety and beensing Board conducting such hearing, shal:
promptly notify the Commission of any information indicating that the terms and cond;tions of the temporary operating beense are not bemg met, or triat such term' ,
and conditions are not sufficient to comply with the provisions of paragraph (2) M subsection (D) of this section.
(d) Adn inistrative remedies for minimization of need for licenae The Commission is authorized and directed to adopt such administrative remedies as the Commission deems appropriate to minimize the need for issuance of tempo-rary operating licenses pursuant to this section.
te) Emptrstion of issuing authority The authority to issue new temporary operating licenses under this section shall expire on December 31,1983. ,
(As amended Jan. 4,1983, Pub.L 37-415, i 11,96 Stat. 2071.)
O
Exhibit 2 e . e i 2242. Temporary operating licenne (a) Fuel loadins. testing, and operation at specific power level; petition, affidasit etc.
In any proceeding upon an application for an operating license for a utilization facility required to be licensed under section 2133 or 2134(b) of this title, in.which a hearing is otherwise required pursuant to section 2239(a) of this title, the applicant may petition the Commission for a ternporary operating license for such facility authorizing fuel loading, testing, and operation at a specific power level to be determined by the Commission, peading final action by the Commission on the application. The initia' petition for a temporary operating license for each such l facility, and any temporary operating license issued for such facility based upon the initial petition, shall be limited to power levels not to exceed 5 percent of rated full thermal power. Following issuance by the Commission of the temporary operating license for each such facility, the licensee may file petitions with the Commission to amend the license to allow facility operation in staged increases at specific power levels, to be determined by the Commission, exceeding 5 percent of rated full thermal power. The initial petition for a temporary operating license for each such facility may be filed at any time after the filing of: (1) the report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards required by section 2232(b) of this title; i2) the filing of the initial Safety Evaluation Report by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staffs first supplement to the report prepared in response to the report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safe-guards for the facility; (3) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staffs final detailed statement on the environmental impact of the facility prepared pursuant to section 4332(2XC) of this title; and (4) a State, local, or utility emergency preparedness plan
- for the facility. Petitions for the issuance of a temporary operating license, or for l an amendment to such a license allowing operation at a specific power level greater
- than that authorized in the initial temporary operating license, shall be accompanied
' by an affidavit or affidavits setting forth the specific facts upon which the petitioner
- relies to justify issuance of the temporary operating license or the amendment
- thereto. The Commiulon shall publish notice of each such petition in the Federal Register and in such trade or news publications as the Commission deems appropri-ate to give reasonable notice to persons who might have a potential interest in the grant of such temporaiy operating license or amendment thereto. Any person may file affidavits or statements in support of, or in opposition to, the patition within thirty days after the publiestion of such notice in the Federal Register.
(bi Operation at greater power level; criteria, effect, terms and conditions, etc.; procedures applicable With respect to any petition filed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Commission may issue a temporary operating license, or amend the license to authorize temporary operation at each specific power level greater than that autho-rized in the initial temporary operating license, as determined by the Commission, upon findmg that-t!) in all respects other than the conduct or completion of any required hearing, the requirements of law are met; (2) in accordance with such requirements, there is reasonable assurance that operation of the facility during the period of the temporary operating license in accordance with its terms and conditions will provide adequate protection to the public health and safety and the environment during the period of temporary operation: and (3) denial of such temporary operating license will result in delay between the date on which construction of the facility is sufficiently completed, in the judgment of the Commission, to permit issuance of the temporary operating license, and the date when such facility would otherwise receive a final operat-ing license pursuant to this chapter.
EXHIBIT 3 N .
%M%, _________________________________________
c -
3 ' 5I
- aa :I_a
). ;3
\.S,.
.i
'2
- g p '
53: =a
$. =g v y a e =
1 W"W E:-?k i. '/
i.
s g', :a. t,la
- f. a
.a z
-s s-
=
t
=
t 2 l _ _ _ _ _
1 1
E
_ _ _ . _ _ _ 2,
___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3. i >.
s,
.'$ s2 2 -
- i p: :? g.- <
) . X _s $ i
- a.
- _at *'..e*
i
- t. 2 I. 1 1 , A. .., u .o
\ :
. - . a.i 4 }
A A
A 5
v A 1 e+ t
= 4 4*
- = .= ;a 3 >3
_t _$ E _.
=
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l es, .;
% \.d.
33' 4de
,,A __
% 3 I _, ( s. . , s. ;
lJ w;jjj jj aej -a c . , a e g
.- , . < i. .* a e j I~ .J I yd;. a , a .o 4 o .
- aeuy, 5
i r g g -l .
a.
a.
2.
- a. a. r 4.
. J 21
.$ S .o .l ). f :
_ _ _ _ _ _ __ .___. i___________
p:s .i _._
.g ,.
l, ,1 ,
1:j I: yl'
- 53 8 e a 3
. ip s i -
a -Iyi. - 2 i.
-l 5 ? ; >, dI 1 : .
. . e.
i
. ?
g 3
a:
a - l ,
9 i -
lt I : l i '. : 1 4. 31 2! .
-g , __f.____,'... .._ _ ,..
___I___~_____.
s,} .- i . i -
s.
-4e ll .
1 l i
.a l I2
_s ,i
?!
~
. f .3:
- :i
'l t
. _ . I__ . . . .. . . . . ,
. gj 4 : . :: . . n
- : i -
a.
- s_
_.- l _: _I ._e ; .,o
,a t g
_ i i I l
i- :**
- =
- j. t 2 is.ii _ _ _ ! . _ _ _ _ ! _ _ -- _ ___ . .
_g_ __
i
_;______!____ 8 2' i sa ?' l s !!r .
I l .f : : -
':. ; . I t
- i : , .*. l e i
i .s* E 3 :. -
2 3 32 -
,, ,: '3 3 4 s
- a p 2 7T;. 8 :1
.- :. 3 8 ?A
., :i i - . p :-;*
i I * ;,
1<- z , *_-
l
-? 827l 1;
. t r . .
sas s
4 es - 1 : :.
- 3 e _____ 2:. _.,2 .,,
i j-____ '_____ _____ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,3 2.i' s.n 3
. 1 j.. .
w i , . r .. 3-e t!
.1
. ., :,_ _ t ,,a s. :s.
an. i ,,
.i
. .s .e).r s. 3 .i .l f, a 3. ,, _c a> f.
3 1
- T.-
- n: :.: .
11 ,12 .-. A c{_,:ta; a?_
a :
!.;!!!y r
- i .
31 I f ==: : : = = --
j : : = = .= .e : : : = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ::.. : : = u= = ~
-1 s ea.
= = =k -
s: :
t zs.ss2 e t
s ,
2
.. .:. :f, e>
I g,1 s *g y 2_ a.1 3 :. .. -
3 d .a .2 5-- '::.
.,. s : .: 5 i
- 2r H- g- 7 m
,r . ,
- ia 23 s
- s=3 s 2 ;1' a j ?.
0- y f :. <, -r . . .
u, . . . . . m.
v1
=
. 31,.s1 f..
3 s
r ., s 4, _a . .
5_ _,,
- 1 1 2 =g .j
. s. a s. f. 3 T i..., , .
y . -
-1
- . > .- 0 ,s v 3
- 5 g> l x s e.
R a : 12 $_"-jJ a l i
A Y yI :
s : 3".
s -3 )3 .,~~ J- J ., I.3
( ?*' 1. ! * $ 4
$ .t . .Eg y =% 41 e m'.=
l Ae' . . b. h J -
s
- - 33 - y tc -A = 3,.
- 3 s.
3I g *s. o _7 sI . =
}ka X.3 w
}- 3
- i
- 3 i
T- J r.' e f., . , e .t .] 3 : : 2 M-
-_.h_ _ 1
-8O O .
3 3< , _.y w -__S 1
I .
l
-/
- WAl il ICAil0N E .'loid w0sX SalLET PrepareJ Dy:
,w /h 7/_ at&!(
Checked By: g A g //'m Public Ser.. . Company of Now Hampshire Date:.J[ /y,' '
. Semprook Statton EVdleNi ter von if ICArluti F ILL NO. Il3-03-JI / I Dock;t: 50-443 qua:Tilod invironment vuositication i uussianTihg i I Method i Items I si l'ostiiT3tiiTInv ir onmont T vasuo a uererence i 1 I rar eastor 1 7a r uo i Hu ron unco i I Equipment Description li (~
g I tbne i 1
'l 3 i Test and l Vurcnase urder no. . ll i 1 I I Year 1 1 Appendix 4 i Analysis l I 9763-006-193-03 11 Operating i I foar I Nte 2 l i I I p. I l 11 Ilmu I l l i I I I l 1 i l I I Equipment 10 No(sl.: ll i i I I I EDE-m L-l il i T 3 l lest I tbne l 11 1 1 390 1 I t i i Pena i 512 1 I l p. 3 l i il I p. I I ,
I 11 Temger ature i I I >
i l i I I l 11 ( F) i i I l i i I I I i None l l Il 1
T- 1 l lit 1 3 i Test l l il 1 p.3,9 i ll Peak l 60 1 I I 1 l l
! i i p. I l Appendix 5 l il Pressure 1
- i l
! Equipment Type: (Psij) l l I i i 600 Volf s Power Cable ll I I i i 1
11 1
1
~
~T' I i Test I tbne 1 l I l 100 l .i i
II < l I I ll Helativo I 100 1
- p. I l I p . 3, i i I ns l Manufacturer: Okonite ll Humidity I I 1
I I i IX l 1 i l ~ld ll (1) I I I I i I I ~~ T - 1 los I hiot w eer:
18 - T ~'-- 4, ) i Test i None
!! i I floric Acid l IM l 600 Voit w/0konito i Uoric AclJ l /
l p. 4 1 1
d I (EHil Insulat ion ll Chomical L p. I i 1.li WT Appendia 4 l l e ld Spray (PHI l 3.1% WI l pH = 10.') l I I l
ll l pt f = 1. 5 - l o. 's I I l P. I T i l
ll l _
_l I I I Itbne i i Accuracy: Spec: N/A ll I l 3 l Test I l Demon: N/A ll 40 Year Normal l d 1 2 I/x 10 i p. 3, 9 I I 11 Radiation Dosei 12x id I p. e i l (Rads) I l l I
II ~T I I l
ll 1 lear Acesdont i -- I / I l l I i
l Limiting Environmont: 11 Radiation Oose ! I p. I I i i ll (etafst l l l None 1 l i ~- T"~ i 3 l Iest and il I l l 194/40 1 I Appendix 2 l Analysle I #
l Location: Containment Quilding (All Zones) ll Aging l 194/40 pp. S. 4 l (90*C) 1 I
l 1 (10*Cl I l l I l Ra.t Zone: Primary Aun. II ( *F/ Tear s) l l l l l l e
I i I Building (Pu-15A, Pu-lel ll l l i i I tbno e I Note i 11 i i i 1 30 days i Nte 2 I test and i 31 I 7, 8, 10 l Analysis I l .
l 3' dolow l l I I I Lowest Elevation: (-123't1* llll Submergence I floo.1 Levnt i l I I l _l l Flood Level: (-120'd* I l l I il l l
! Above Flood Level: tu ll l P42tes:
l
- 3. The limiting radiation rosass aru hi-t4A and IU-lo. Envirosamental tonomfu-4 anJ IU-lA Documentation
References:
916 5-00t2-18 3-3, Hov. /, d s tod I I/30/J2.
- 1. Utw specsi scaTion No. II, Sor wico Loviron.uont Char t , I s t ed 1/12/u's. have beoh escludod sinco no oloctr ical
- 2. UEEC Drawing tb. 9163-F-300219, Nov. f or Okon t to i n*,ula t+1 Cahlo, oquipinont is InstalloJ is temu sanas
- 3. FP-33412-06, Nuclear Quall fication Docunsnt Assessmont th.,cklist , skito 9. triolorence of .
Catilos at o quall f lod f or 50 tars sut,-
- 4. Seabrook E.Q. F ile L. 113-03-01, Assessmont thotkilst i&2to 2.
l.
183-03-03, morgonce ongy (Ho tor enc.o vi .
- 5. Seabrook 500-92005, E.O. File No.UE&C's let ter to impoll, dato 1 1/13/ers.
6.
- 7. 500-9626), Seabrook St ation F looding St.vsf nits is.
- 8. Impell letfor No. 0510-032-l*>o, Anowm..nl dated 2///th.Ch.nkil.', Nto.8 Ho v t l. .n I
- 9. Sostn=>h EQ f ile ib. 113-05-01, /////me. e'sg. I ..I l
- 50. nimor andu.e f rom G. Moor e i lmpol li to a. til ,wa . t imp.si l) .
/VYe ,
QUAI il 1CAI 1(N I VAL C3 W(NK 8.111[] -
Pseptrud fly: -
M b '; t .e:2 2 I'ublic Sntvice umpany of New Napshire ,Q Dat e : ,*j[
Cinded Dy: ,
Sn ab roi.A S t a t ion IOllllHI NI QWI If f( Alif N l !!! NO. 60:)-01-05 , .
Ikx 4 t : 50-443 i Nuai s i acai s on i uur siaiuTTng l rosTiir sm.1 Tiivi s oum'ni s vual n uu s nvi r65tn 1/ Met ted I i tewns l t
is V.ilIso I He t e renc o s value I neforunco i l ra ramnte r i I L l E qui pmont tev r lpt ion il i I I l Test and I hone l Il l I year 1 5 l Opernt Ing i i year l I i Ana ly sis 1 i l Tbachase Order No. : ll l p. I l l l I Ilsne l I I l 9763-006-600-08 II i I I 1 I l l 1 i Il l I I 3
I I l Equipment ID No(s) : ll 1 1 1 2 l l l
!! I I None l l I(1 -SPL-5 leak I I I I p.10 (Fig. 5) 1 Test i I il I p. I 1 442 I I Temperatu re 3 75 I ll ( *f )
1 I l i I I I I l II I I i 1 I I i i
- i 11 i # l I 11 1 I 2 I i l I l None i il Ped i I l P. 1 I
l 1 32 i p. 10 (fig. 5) i Test l l 18 Pressure 1 60 I l I Equipment type: (Psig) l I I I i 1 I I I l 120V wire Connection Kits il II i I I i i l
I I I I I I 2 I I 13 I I l None l
ll Hela tl w) l I
- p. I l 100 I p.10 (F ig. 5 ) 1 Test l
I Manuf ac tu rur : 100 I l I ll Ilumid i ty l I l l l l Hayc tem Co rpora t ion l I ! I trl l ll 85) I l i l X l I 1 3
l :C l Hxfol Number: Il I
poric Acid i 2 I l l I t'KV -2 Il l Boric kid 1 I I
- 1. 7% ty wt I p. 9 I lost i Nono i $
11 Ctemical i I l s l ll Spray (piti i f 25 ty wt I p. I l pit = 10.5 l 6 I l H l I pil=7.5 to 80.5 l l l 11 I I I l l I i i g i I I Accu racy :4>ec : N/A ll i i I l l Dumon : N/A 11 40 Icar riormal I l l 2 !
l ll Radiation Dose 1i 2.0 = 10 0 l p. 3 l 2.2 x 100 I p. (6 (Table l) l Iest l Hone I
i I tble 2 App. A I I (Rad s) l i l l ll 7 a I l I 15 i rear eccioont i I p. 3 I I I I I i LImi t i ng E n vi runment : ll Radiation Dose !
l l I (Rads) I l i 3 1 1
l None 1 1
ll ll 1 T' I l 1 p. 9 (Flg. ?! l Test and l l I Locatim: Aging l l 2 l Analy s is 1 194(90*C)/40 1 l I l Containment tell rones3 ll (*f/ Years) l 194t90*C1/40 l ti. . l e - 1 I P.S,I6 (T able t il I l R2d lone: Prim. Aux . Bldg.ll l l I I 4, p. 8 (Fig. 211 1
I I l (l'B-ISA, F11-18) ll 1
1 I I I ll I I I I i 7 l l None !
l lI l l l N/A l l I N/A l N/A I I I Lowest E levatim: Note 3 ll Sulnergence i N/A l 8 I I I
I I F lood Leet: (- 3 21 ' 6" I l 1 I I l l I Abo e I lood Le vel : Note 3 ll ll l l N'805*
l l
(bc ume nt a t i on #<e r o tuncos :
17, dated 7/22/85. l . Ita) temperatu rn 194*f (90*C) is consistent with tin Ut &C Drawing No. 9N33-F-300219, Service E nvi runn=3nt Char t , rinnental IN v. manuf actuser's and Seabrook Class il cable
- 8. Sts722-1, i nst Qualificatlun specification.
- 2. I P-34174 -01, W ie Laboratories Test (<epar t No.S tute Connec ilon Kit ., dated U/24/02. 2. lie total Integrated radiation dose in E nvi rsp' ental lest Report of Rayctuim NPKV Nuc tuar Plant Analysis of theat Aging flata on 1( M 2mos (11-4 and (11-19 is g reater than 2.0 x 10 raJ s.
IP-34183-OI, Rayc tevn Encryy Ol vision Report No. IIN-SO4f>, /02. No elect rical equipsum,9 Is Installed In finse arnas
- 3. Material to dotermine pre-aging corvJltims f or Nu lear Qualill(allon lesting, dated 5,2 3/4IIH-SO40, Analy sts of final Aqing Data on litet 71 4 IP-34182-01, Hayc tem E ne rgy Di vi s ion lupor t No. Quali f ic al lnn Test f ruj. 3. Veri f icallnn wit h enspect to wholisir t his sp lice is H)lding Mate r ial to rintermine pre-agirw; cornfillons for Nur I,*er sulnwrigod subsequent to deslqn taasis owints is g 0570-0 32-042. Rev. O. 3. (repinted arut aditiessed in Hotenmr.e 9 S. ImpellSeabrock Calculat ion No.(Q F i le No. (.00-1 -05, Assessment fler b li st , thf e
- 6. PSNI,
- 7. $110-92f.05 let tor trum Ul&C to Impell, dated //13/st**. Mat la, ifat e'd 4 /d /85.
- 8. Sitt)-96763. UI &C IeI for ad< tressed to YAIC on i hen!I =; 5 tmly N.ste H.
Soar.r ew sk Statlon, tQ llin f,00-01-05, Assessount ihjeori ' . % l . f . .. #
9.
f at wiuK SigTI j v pM OlAl it ICAl liti i V*t n' Pr marod liy.b' D. '5L Te
_(
.ptny of Hos llampshire Putalle Servico S., m ook Statieri i Oniku.HI ysAt IF ltAllots r Ill. 140. 600 03 01 Cinickod Df : _k j pr,., oat : c/,3/jp
, l>> kst : 50-443 r ,
7 vual#:Inf Lovsconmont i vualiIicaT non i uur51anoing f ii nist ui ar.iT Th e iroimiET ~~ ~ TGror once Mothod I liums I I GI so I ' iTJ foron .+ 1 Valoo l 1 Par sme t or i g I f quipeont Descript ion ll i I I I g g I
l Il i i ) i rear 1 4 i tost ind 1 Operating i i y o.ir l Analysis i None l i Purchtse OrJor No.: ll Time I i p. I I l i l i 9753-006-600-03 Il I l I l g Il I l g I l l l g l , i l Equipn>+nt ID No(s).: ll i i- i i i
i Lot-lHM-l ll i : I l 2 g i Poas I i Nono l i 11 Tompor at uro I sh I p. I l 4;0 l P. 9 l Iest l l l ll I l l 11 (*rl l I i l l l , 1 i i I l i i
1 Il I l l l I l I ll I I 2 l 1 Peak I I I l Test i None i i Equipment ivpe: il 60 l p. I i 74. J l P. 10 l l Electrical Terminal ll Prossure 1 l i l l I ll (PsiIl l I l I l l g
ll 1 l 2 l I l Manuf e:turor: Rol st i vo I I I I i Nono i 1 A W , Inc. il 100 I p. I I too l p. 9 I lost l
11 flu ni di t y I l l l i i I i 1 I I
'I til l l l 1 i g l MxtoI Number: Il l I I I I I x
I l l 1 l PIDG ll l Bor ic A. l d i I I floric Acid I /
l Nono l :Z:
l ll Chomical p. I i 1.125 by wt. I p. 9 I test I H Spray (pill i 1.2% by et. I 3 I I l il l l ll 1 pH 7.5-10.*> l I pH 10.*> - 12.'s l l 1 l [
l 1 l 3 3 I Accuracy : Spec: N/A ll l I I l l l l l l Demon: N/A ll 40 Tuar teormal 1 l l l
- il Radiation Doso l 2.Os 10 3 l p. 5 2.*>9 a 10" l 2 l Inst i None I I l I i l ll (Rads) i ' testo 1 I l p. It i l
l I l l I I t i ioar sc iaont i N/A l l i 11 Radiation Doso 1
--- -- I l I i I Liniting Environnsat: l Rads) i l I a i i ll i s l i I l l i
l l 2 I Locction: Cont ainment ll Aging i i I p. 6 i Tost I thano 1 l (All Zones) ll i 191/40 I t&)lo / l 194/40 l l 1 l Red Zono: Prim. Auc. Oldg.ll ( *r /Yoar si l l ( W*Cl l I I (lonos Pu-15A, PG-IS) ll l IWN) I I I i I I I I i I il I I l !
T I N/A l tiono l Lowest Llevalion: Not o 3 il l II/A I 5 l N/A I N/A l 1 l l I Sutathirgonc s l
- F lood Level: tioto 3 fl I I l I I l I l l Above Flood Levol: Noto 3 II i I I Il Holos:_
i .
The total Integrated radiatiori doso in Environ-Drzumont at Ion Motorencos: 1/22/tra. Sorwico E nvironmont Chart , l.
mont al lonos 08-4 arid IV-19 is greator thari UL&C Drawing No. 9 /b)-r-300139, Rev. 17, 1.0=10 . No electrical equipmeent is Installed I. 0
- 2. A W Qual. Test Roport No. 110-14004, Hov. O, 7/1/dl.
In t hoso zonos (UL&C Lot t or No Stlu ').%05, dated
- 3. Seabr nok EQ File ib. 600-3-08 Assessment Chockil .t . N eto 4. 2/13/U')), t horo f or e t hose loc at ion s wi l l not be 4 Impell Calculat ion too. 09 0-051-0>d. lost Prof i le ta t s apol it fini. l2 530-96263 UC&C Flooding Study Matrlw. 600-03-04, (tumAllst thlo 7. conslJorod.
this tumporature, 194T 590*C), is consistoof with the 5.
- 6. Seabrook $ tat ion, E%alpment Quali f icat ion file No. 2.
man.sixturors speci ficallon and Soabrook Class II. cable spoci f icaf f ort.
- 3. This is gonoric equipmont unich may la installed I hr oughout t he pl ant . A f ormitial loj i s considoro f anli o.ossory to tho specif ic Itom of equipesnt to uhlers e f
1., at t act>>.1 and any roqotr oment s f or sutanorgor.
goallili.at lon oro tsawsJ un the salot y f urx.f lors and on n atiliIt y roquiromoot 5 of Ihl5 a t i a..ti.s.1 o.l a l wooni l t uot.u on.o t 9 it.. a . l . ... '
e >o CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on July 2, 1986, copies of NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION AUTHORIZING LOW POWER OPERATION were served on the following by first-class mail or as otherwise indicated:
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq. Rep. Roberta C. Pevear Administrative Judge Drinkwater Road Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Hampton Falls, NH 03844 U. S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Phillip Ah rens, Esq.
Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney Atomic Safety and Licensing Board General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission State House, Station #6 Washington, D. C . 20555 Augusta, ME 04333 Dr. Jerry Harbour Robert A. Ba ckus, Esq.
Administrative Judge 111 Lowell Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Manchester, NH 03105 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Thomas G. Dignan, Es q .
Washington, D. C . 20555 R.K. Gad, III, Esq.
Ropes and Gray Atomic Safety and Licensing 225 Franklin Street Board Panel Boston, MA 02110 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Saf ety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Mrs. Anne E. Goodman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board of Selectmen Commission 13-15 New Ma rket Rd. Washington, D. C. 20555 Durham, NH 03824 Rober t G. Perlis, Esq.
Docketing and Service Sherwin E . Tu r k , Es q .
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Of fice of the Executive Commission Legal Director Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission William S. Lord, Se lec tman Washington, D. C . 20555 Town Hall - Friend Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Mr. Angie Machiros, Chairman Board of Selectmen Jane Doughty Newbury, MA 01950 1
SAPL 5 Market St.
Portsmouth, NH 03801 Carol S. Sneider, Es quire H. Joseph Flynn, Es q .
Assistant Attorney Of fice of General Counsel General Federal Emergency
i
< > 0 Ospartment of the Attorney Mansgem:nt Agency ;
General 500 C Street, SW {
l Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Washington, D.C. 20472 Boston, MA 02108 George Dana Bisbee, Es q .
Stanley W. Knowles Stephen E . Me rrill, Es q .
Board of Selectmen Assistant Attorneys Generals P.O. Box 710 State House Annex North Hampton, NH 03826 Concord, NH 03301 J. P. Nadeu, Selectman Allen Lampert Town of Rye Civil Defense Director 155 Washington Road Town of Brentwood -
Rye, NH 03870 Exeter, NH 03833 Sandra Gavutis Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
Town of Kensington Hampe and McNicholas RFD 1 Bon 1154 35 Pleasant Street East Kensington, NH 03827 Concord, NH 03301 Richard E. Sullivan, Ma yo r Gary W. Holmes, Esquire City Hall Holmes & Ellis Newburyport, MA 01950 47 Winnacunent Rd Hampton, NH 03842 Alfred V. Sargent, Chairman Board of Selectmen William Armstrong Town of Salisbury, MA 01950 Civil Defense Director 10 Front Street Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Exeter, NH 03833 U.S. Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Calvin A. Canney
( At tn: Tom Burack) City Manager City Hall Selectment of Northampton 126 D iel Street Town of Northampton Po r tsn. .uth, NH 03801 New Hampshire 03862 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mathew T. Br ock , Es q.
1 Pillsbury Street Shaines & McEachern Concord, NH 03301 P.O. Box 360 Maplewood Ave.
Michael Santosuosso, Ch airman Portsmouth, NH 03801 Board of Selectmen Jewell St. , RFD #2 South Hampton, NH 03842 -
Diane Curran a
..e.- , , , - - - - - -- . - . _ - - . - .