ML20205R485
| ML20205R485 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 11/02/1988 |
| From: | Berry G NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#488-7462 OL-1, NUDOCS 8811100045 | |
| Download: ML20205R485 (21) | |
Text
_ _ _
- i
!. C C,O, , .E i E O ',
u~
~
l '88 ts -8 P4 :57 .
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA !
l l NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0m!SSION ,..<,3 O
t.c 'c' u .
- . t BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD i In the Hatter of /
L Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-01 '
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 50-444 OL-01 i ; NEW HAMPSHIRE, ej al. On-site Emergency Planning :
I and Safety Issues :
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ,
s l I i
! I i
i i;
l NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO NECNP BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF i APPEAL OF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DATED AUGUST 8,1988 :
I l,
l I
i f
Gregory Alan Serry ;
Counsel for NRC Staff ;
- f November 2, 10fS i
I i
l es1110004'JA PDR D O W $ $ b f>o S 4 3 ppg i t>9 !
l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PEFORE THE ATONIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL ROARD In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50 443 OL-01 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 50-444 OL-0; NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. On-site Emergency Planning and Safety Issuos (Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2) )
NRC STAFF RESPON3E TO NECNP BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DATED AUGUST 8,1988 Gregory Alan Berry Counsel for NPC Staff November 2. 1008
. t.
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION .......................... 1 BACKGR0tlND ........................... 3 ARGUMENT A. Legal Standards Governing Low Power Operations ................... 5 B. NECNP's Legal Arguments Are Without Merit ................... 8 C. Th? August 8 Order Is Supported By The Record .................... 9 CONCLUSION ........................... 13 I
e
, , _ _ _,,__.___m.-_ _-- --
J TAB _LE OF AUTCRITIES PAGE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS COPHISSION Long Islant Lightino Company fShorehan NuclearPoi6erStation, Unit 1),CLI-84-21, 20 NRC 1437 (1984) ........................ 6, 8 PacificGasandElectricCom)anv(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Jnits 1 and 2),
CLI-83-?7, 18 NRC 1146 (1983) ................... 7 f APPEAL BOARD ,
Public Service Company of New Fampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 ard 2), ALAI!-892, 27 NPC 485 (1988) .................. ....... 8 Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2), ALAB-891, 27 NRC 341 (1988) ......................... 1 ;
re Public Service (Seabrock Company Station Units 1 ofandNew Hampshi_XB-083, 2), AL 27 !!RC 43 (1988) ......................... I t Public Service Company of New Hampshire [
. (Seabrook Station Unit 1 and 2), ALAB-875, 26NRC251(1987) ......................... 8 Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station Units 1 and ?). ALA5-865, ;
25 NP.C 430, 439 (1987) ....................... 8 ,
t LICENSING BOARD f
Co m m elth Edison Company (Braidwoed Nuclear l
- Dever Station, Units 1 and ?), LBP-86-01, !
24NRC451,(19E6) ........................ 6 l
. Memoru.dum and Urder (Re Low Pcwer Authorization) L (Augi D N S) (unpublished) ................... 1 l Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon i }EicTea7Fower Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-81-15, l 13 NRC 026 (1981) ......................... 7 -
f I
- i
- iii -
PAGE REGULATIONS 10 C.F.R. f 50.49 ......................... 6, 7 10 C.F.R. I 50.57(c) ....................... 7 HISCFLt. ANE0VS 36 Fed. Reg 8862 (May 14, 1982) .................. 6 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSl_NG APPEAL _ BOARD l
In the Matter of ;
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-01 ;
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 50-444 OL-01 ,
NEWHAMPSHIRE,e_t,d.
t On-site Emergency Planning :
and Safety issues !
(SeabrookStation, Units 1and2) j i
l NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO NECNP BRIEF IN SUPPCRT OF "
APPEAL OF MEMORANDt'M AND ORDER DATED AUGUST 0,1988 INTRODUCTION On September 23, 1988, the New England Coalition On Nuclear Pollution
' (NECNP) filed a brief in support of its appeal of an order issued by the I Licensing Board on August 8, 1988, II which held that the contention remanded by the Appeal Beard for further litigation in ALAB-891 1/wasnot relevant to low power operr+1ons and thus did not have to be resolved before the Board could reauthorize low power operations. Aucust S Order l i
at 8, 13-14. El NECNP appeals this order, relying principally on the f I
~
1/ Memorandum and Order (Re Low Power Authorization) ( Auoust 8, !
1988) (unpublished) (heroinafter " August 8 Order"). !
2/
Public Service Compeny of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), AL A B-891, 27 KR C 341 (1955). [
1 3/
~
The Board did not ailthorize the Director of N uclear Reactor t
~
Regulation to make the appropriate findings and issue a low power
. license to the Seabrook Station as it was precluded from doing se by the prohibition of low power reauthorization contained in the Appeal B oard's decision in Public Service Company of New Hampshire I (Seabrcok Station. U nits 1 a n d 2), A L A B-583, 27 N R C 43 (1988).
See August 8 Order at 15.
I f
7 argurent that the Conriission and its adjudicatory board lack legal authority to authori:e Icw pcwer operations prior to the resolution of all issues material to full power licensing. NECNP Brief In Support Of Appeal Of Memorandum And Order Dated August 8,1988 (hereinafter "NECNP Brief)
at 3-6. NECNP also argues that the Licensing Board's decision is arbitrary and capricious, as well as incerrect on the merits. Ld . at 8-11. In support cf this argunent NECNP relies upon a misreading of the following statement made below by the NRC Staff: "[A]s a general proposition, the Staff considers the [envirenmental qualification]
requirenents cf 10 C.F.R. I 50.49 to be applicable during low pcwer as well as full power operation." See NPC Staff Pesponse To Li.ensing Beard Order Of July 1,1988 at 5 and accorpanying Affidavit of Harold Walker at 5 A4 (July C7, 1988) (hereinafter "July C7 Staf f Response" ard "Walker Affidavit"). O For the reasons stated in this brief, NECNP's argurents should be rejected. The Appeal Board recently held that 10 C.F.R. I 50.57(c), a regulation duly promulgated by the Comission, allows the issuance of a inw power license whete pending contentions are not "relevant to the activity to be authorized." In addition, the uncontroverted affidavits and documentary materials submitted by Applicants and relied upon by the Licensing Board denonstrated that the issue raised by renarded NFCNP 4_/ In niaking this argurent NEC NP takes this statement out of context
, anc' fcils to recount that the Staff acknowledged "that a review o' l the particular applications of R G-53 at Seabrook may result in a i determination that the environmental quali'ication of the cable is rot essential for cperation cf the facility at low power." July ?7 Staff Response at 6.
3-Contention I.B.? E/ was not relevant to the activity (operation at 5' of rated power) to be authorized. Consequently, the Board did not err in ruling that the remanded contention did not pose a bar to the reauthorization of low power operations. Accordingly, NECNP's appeal should be denied and the August 8, 1988 Order should be affirmed.
BACKGROUND in an order issued en June 29, 1988, the Comission directed the Licensing Board to "detemine whether the recanded coaxial cable issue
[ remanded NECNP Contentien 1. B . 2.1 need be resolved before low-power operations." Commission Order at 1 (June 29,1988) (unpublished). Two days later, the sicensing Board issued an order directing that briefs addressing this question bc # fled by Applicants and NECNP by July 00, 1988, ar.d by the Staff by July 27, 1988. See Order at 1-0 (July 1, 1088)
(unpublished).
l In their brief, Applicants explained why it maintained remanded NECNP Contention 1.B.2 did not constitute a bar to the reauthorization of low power (5'; rateo level of power) eperations. 5/ Specifically, Applicants presented the affidavits of experts on the issues raised by the remanded ;
centention which demonstrated that there was reasonable assurance that the 5/ As remanded NECNP Contention I.B.? raises the issue whether the i
~
RG-58 coaxial cable installed at the Ceabrook Station complies with :
the requirements set forth in 10 C.F.R. I 50.49. See AL A B-891, supra, i 6/ See Applicants' Memorandum In Support of Pernittin g Low Power FiIeration Prior To Resolution Of " C oa xial C a ble" Issue, passim (July 22,1988).
i 4
dangers alleged by the remanded contention would not occur during low ;
power operations. l t
NECNP. as noted above, opposed the reauthorization of low power '
operations relying principally on the previously rejected argument that the Cortnission and its adjudicatory boards lack the legal authority to f authorize the issuance of any type of license prior to the completion of ;
the full power licensing proceeding. Compare NECNP Brief In Opposition To Authorization Of low Powee Operation At Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant at 3 (July 21,1488), G, ALAB-892, supra. 27 NRC at 489-93. NECNP also claimed that remanded NECNP Contention I.B.2 was relevant to low power operations. Ld . at 3. NECNP's argument was that "[ilf a pending l contention relates to the safe operation of a nuclear power plant, it is f f
necessarily 'relsant' to the operation of the plant, whether it is at low !
power or full power." Ld. wrCNP repeats these arounents on appeal. See NECNP Brief at 3-8.
The Staff took the position that because it had ret had sufficient i oppretunity to review the affidavits and materials submitted by Applicants, it was not in a position to comment on Applicants' assertions that the electrical items to which the RG-50 coaxial cables are connected are not needed to operate the Seabrook Station at low pcwer or to safely l t
shut down the facility. See July 77 Staff Respense at 1-2, 5-6. The !
i Staff advised the Licensing Board that, althcugh as a general proposition. 1 i
the environmental qualification requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 50.49 are
- considered to be applicable during low pcwer as well as full power j operation, the particular applicatiens of equipment had to be reviewed to [
detemire whether the envirorrental qualification of that equipment was [
l l
--_-..-__---._I
5-necessary for safe low power operation, y,at5-6. The Staff further
- stated that in this case "a comprehensive review and evaluation of the i
infonnation submitted by Applicants is not necessary" because the record then before the Licensing Board contained sufficient evidence for the Bears to resolve the contention on the merits favorably to Applicants; which the Staff urged the Board to do. !_d,. at 6-7. The Staff pointed out that this course of action is expressly pennitted and conterplated by 10 C.F.R. i 50.57(cf. M. at 2, 7.
- On August 8,1988, the Board issued an order in which it helo that 3
1 reranded NECNP Contention I.B.2 was not relevant to low power operations t
j "inasmuch as the safety concerns raised therein would not adversely impact upon the public health and safety if Seabrook, '.'.t i t 1, were to be authori:ed to operate only up to 5% of rated power." August 8 Order at D.
On September 23, 1980, NECNPfiledtheinstantappeal.I/
ARGUMENT
!. Legal Standards Governing Low Power Operations Section 50.57(c) of the Comission's regulations permits an applicant in a contested operating license proceeding to request the licensing board 7/ Subsequent to the filing of the instant appeal Applicants moved for summary disposition of remanded NECNP C ontention I.B.2. See
- A p plicants' Motion For S u m mary Dispostion Of NECNP C ontention I.B.2 (September 9,1988). N EC NP filed a response in opposition and the Staff filed a responsa in support of Applicants' notion en October 3,1988. See N R C Staff Response To Applicants' Potion For Su mmary Dispostion Of NECNP Contention I.B.2 ( R G-58 Coaxial Cable); N E C N P'S O pposition To A p plica nts' N otion For S u mmary Dispestion Of N EC N P Contention !.B.2. The Licensing Board has yet to act upon Applicants' motion.
6-to authorize the Director of the 0ffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) to issue a license "permitting activitie", short of full power operation, notwithstanding the pendency of safety contentiens before the I
licensing board." Conronwea?*.h Edison compan (Rraldwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-86-31. 04 NRC 451, 453-54 (1986). Section 50.57(c) was promulgated "to provide explicitly for early consideration of
+
facility testing in the event of a contested hearing en the issuarce of a license for full pcwer operation." M. at 454, citing 36 Fed. Reg. 8862 (May 14, 1982). Thus, as noted by the licensing board in Braidwood. "the regulatten affords relief to an applicant when the pendency of hearings I before a licensirg board threatens to delay the applicant's fuel loading and testing schedule." M.
Section 50.57(c) provides that if an applicant's request for authorization to conduct activities short of full power operation is not opposad, the licensing board shall issue an order authorizing the Director of NRR (af ter naking the findings required by section 50.57(a)) to grant the license for the requeu ed operation. M. The sole ground for opposing a request made pursuant to section 50.57(c) is that the "550.57(a)findingscannotbemadefortherequestedauthoritybecause(a party's contention) is relevant to those cperations and nust therefore be resolved prior to the issuance of the i 50.57(c) license." f.d.; see also Lero Island Lichting Company (Shoreham INelear Power Station, Unit 1),
CLI-84-71, 20 NRC 1437,1439 (1924) (in passing upon a section 50.57(c)
. rotion, the regulation involved "rust be examined to determine its application and effect for fuel loading or sone phase of low pewer testirg"). In such cases, the licensing beard rust detemine whether the
7 contention is in fact relevant to the requested operation, and if it fiiMs that the contention is relevant, section 50.57(c) provides that the board itself make those section 50.57(a) findings "as to which there is a controversy" because of the pendency of a relevant contention. 10 C.F.R.
I50.57(c).
On the other hand, if the licensing board finds that the admitted
- contentions are not relevant to the requested operaticn, and therefore need not be resolved before the requisite section 50.57(a) findings can be i made, the board dees not make any section 50.57(a) findings, but at.thorizes the Director of NRR to do so. Braidwcod, supra, 24 NRC at 454, I
citing 10 C.F.R. I50.57(c), , Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Pcwer Plant. Units 1 and 2), LBP-81-15,13 NRC 226, 233 (1981), and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power
- Plant, Units ) and 2), CLI-83-27, 18 NPC 1146, 1149-50 (1983). l The test of "relevance" is not whether the contention relates to the conduct of the pr9 posed activity, but rather whether it is poses an issue
- relating to the safe conduct of the activity proposed. Braidwood, supra, 24 NRC at 455; see Sht.reham, supra, 20 NRC at 1839. As was explained in a
Et i.idwoed:
[T]he test for relevancy, under i 50.57(c) as in general, is !
whether, if the mat *ers were heard, they could result 's a finding adverse to the other party -- in this case under '
1 550.57(a). Since only matters inimical to the public health or l safety can be decided adversely to Applicant under ! 50.57(a),
and Intervenors have rade no showing that their admitted r i certention raises a safety ratter with regard to fuel loading -
and precritical testing [the activities scught to be .
authorized), they have failed to establish that the centention i is relevant to the requested license.
P4 NRC at 450. Stated ancther way: unless the public health and safety is
, threatenec in a ranner posited by the adnitted cententions in the event !
t j
i the activity sought to be authorized comences, the contentions simply are j not relevant. See shoreham, supra, 20 NRC at 1439.
The Roard did not err in concluding that recanded NECNP Contentions
!.R.? did not raise a safety matter with regard to low pewer operation and thus were not relevant to the activity to be authorized. ;
i
!!. NECNP's LEGAL ARGt1MENTS ARE WITHOUT HERIT i NECNP's argument that tFe formissien and its adjudicatory beards lack j authority to authorite low power operations prior to the retolution of all f issues raterial to full power operation is wholly lacktr.g in merit and must be rejected. Both the Appeal Peard and the Comissien already have f ruled that authori:ation to corrence low power operations need not, as a j matter of law, await the completion of a full power operating license l proceeding, h Loro Island Lighting Company (Shcreham Nuclear Power i
Station Unit 1), CL!-84-21, 00 NRC 1437 (1984); jd., CL!-83-17,17 NRC 1 [
l l 1032 (1983); Public Service ,Corrany of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1and2),ALA3-892,07NRC485(19CP);seePubiteServiceCompanyof l New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-875, 26 NRC 251 f a
f (1907); Public Service Ceepany cf New Parpshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 1
end 2), ALAB-865, 25 NRC 430, 439 (1987). In view of these dispositive i
I determinations NECNP's argument nust be rejected, p
} NECNP's argument that because remanded NECNP Contention I.B.2 is relevant to full power operation, it is necessarily relevant to low pcwer 3
(
4 operation is equally lacking in merit. In fact, this argument is !
l
- contradicted by the text of section 50.57(c). As the Appeal Board I ebserved in ALAB.892, "it is not every contention that need be heard or decided prio_r to the authcrization cf a low power licente. Rather, in so j
i i !
i !
i !
.g.
many words, the section [10 C.F.R. I 50.57(c)] requires a hearing only on those contentions ' relevant to the activity to authorized' -- here, i
operation at levels up to five percent of rated power." 27 NRC at 490 (erphasis added). Thus, an authorization to issue a low power license made pursuant to section 50.57(c) cannot be defeated rerely by pointing to an admitted contention. NECNo's claim that remanded NECNP Contention
!.B.2 is relevant to low powcr oper6: ion because it is relevant to full .
power operat'en rust be rejected.
111. THE AUGUST 8 OPDER M SUPPCRTED BY THE FECCRD NECNP argues that the Board erred in concluding that remanded NECNP Contention I.B.2 was not relevant to low power operations. NECNP Brief at
! 6-11. NECNP is incorrect. Applicants presented evidence, which the Board 1
accepted, showing that none of the 126 RG-58 coaxial cables installed in the Seabrook Station is cernected to ar<y of the devices included within ;
the Seabrp :tatior.'s "Safe Shutdowa Instrumentation" ("S$1") System. In
! other words, the record irdicated that none of the installed RG-58 coaxial cables were needed for shutdown of the facility.
In particular. Applicants demonstrated that none of the installed FG-58 coaxial cables are needed to operate the Feactor Trip Systen ("RTS") (
j or the "Engineered Safety Features Actuation System ("EFSAS"1. These two systers are the only systems centaining the thstrumentation necessary for automatic shutdewn of the facility. Applicants demonstrated that none of {
the installed RG-58 coaxial cables are needed to operate the "Category I ;
- Accident Monitorirg Instrumentation ("AN1") System, sich contains the
! only instrumentation recessary for manual shutdown of the facility.
Finally Applicants presented evidence shewing that were a design basis I
LOCA or steam generator tube rupture to occur during low power operation, the risk to the public health and safety would be exceedingly small and would require no off-site protective actions. Combined, this evidence provided a sound basis upon which the Licensing Board could, and did.
conclude that revended NECNP Contention I.B.2 did not raise any public health or safety concern in the event the Seabrook Station authorized to operate at low power. Not a single one of these statements (all of which were made under oath) was disputed below by NECNr. nuch less controverted by competent and admissible evidence. In these circumstances NECNP's claim that the Board erred in concluding that the remanded contention was
, tot relevant to low power operat,on is baseless. 8/
NECNP places undue emphasis en the Staff's support of the l reauthorization of low pcuer operation even though it did not take an unequivocable position regardirg the relevance of remanded NECNP
- Contention I.B.2 to low power operation. Contrary to NECNP's assertico, 1
l the Staff has not atteepted "to vitiate the implications of its position by ignoring the present legal status of this issue." NECNP Prief at 7.
There is nothing contradictory in the Staff's position. The SttTf stated that although the requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 50.49 were applicable to low power operation as a general proposition, the remanded contention "fecuses not en electrical equipeent in genert.1" but only on RG-50 coaxial cable 8/
~
NECNP clain that " A p plicants have not demonstrated that the failure of RG-58 cable during low power operation could not mislead plant operators." N E C N D Brief at 9. As noted above, Applicants presented affidavits frer experts which purport to show that none of the installed P.0-58 cables are connected to any instrumentation system relied upon by operators for ma nual shut down of the f acility. NECNP presented no evidence to controvert thit fact, i
t
f and "that a review of the particular applications of PG-58 at the Seabrook Staticn may result in a determination that the environmental qualification of RG-58 cable is not essential for safe operation of the facility at low l power." July 27 Staff Response at 6. l f
The Staff explained that it was unnecessary to perfom such a review of l
. t the testircnial and documentary materials subnittcc by Applicants in support of their positien, because the reord then before the Licensine l
Doard was sufficient to enablt the Board to make the findirgs that the I f
cables were environmentally qualified under 10 C.F.R. I 50.A9. M at 2, i l
n.0. The Staff explaired in detail why the record wcs sufficient for the [
l Board to resolve the recanded contention on the rerits favorably to l Applicants without any need +o deal with the matters in 10 C.F.R. I i50.57(c). M. at 7-14 and Walker Affidavit, passim. l t
NECNP suggests that the Staff ignored the Appeal Peard's holding in j ALAB-875 cod ALA'd-891 that "PG-58 cable has not been shown to be qualified." NECNP Erief at 7. n.6. U NECNP misunderstands the scepe of the Appeal Board's rulings in those decisions. The fact is that the l l Appeal Board has not ever ruled that RG-5P ceaxial cable is not I
envircrrentally qualified. Rather, the Appeal Board has held only that j the record, as it stood when the partial initial decision was issued, was l
l l
l i
f/ This view apparently wn shared by the Licersing Peard as well. I See August 8 Order at 12. f
)
I i
not sufficient to support the Licensing Board's ccnclusion that the cable was environmentally qualified for its intended use. E Although it is trut that the Staff has not since the inception of this controversy harbored any doubt concerning the environmental qualification of RG-58 cable, it was not on this hsis that the Staff urged the Licensing Board to resolve the remanded contention favorably to Rather, the Staff was persuaded to take this action based on Applicarts.
infomation presented by the parties after the record had been recpened as directed by the Appeal Board. This rew infomation consists of relevant, competent evidence, ard uncontroverted which demonstrates that Applicants i have satisfied all envircnmental qualificatien requirements applicable to RG-58 coaxial cable. See e.g. Applicants' Suggestien Of Mootness and i affidavits attached thereto (ftay 19,1988); Applicants' Reply To NFC Staff ,
j And hECNP Pesponses To Applicants' Suggestion Of Mootness and attached af'itavit (June 17. 1988); NRC Staff Response To Licensing Board Order Of t
I 10/ In AL A B-875. for example, the A ppeal Board stated that the letter
~
relied upon by the Licensing Board from the cable vender expressing j
- the vendor's "confidence" that the untested RG-58 cable "would have i 2
been approved" had it been su bjected to an environmental i q u alification test was in sufficient to establish the ca ble's !
q ualification. 26 N R C at 270. Since the Appeal Board was unable to !
ascertain any other basis for the Licensing Board's conclusion, the !
4 A p peal Board renanded the m atter to the Licensing Board with i instructions either to identify evidence "in the e xistin g record" l l w hich could s u p port a fin din g that the R G-58 cable was !
environmentally q ualified or to reopen the record for further l j . litigation of the issue. 26 N p C at 271. Similarly , in A L A B-891 4 after affording the Licensing Board several opportunities to point to evidence in the existing record, the Appeal Board remanded NECNP l Contention 1.B.2 because "neither the Licensing Board nor any party ,
I has brought to us any evidence of record that might adequately
! support the Ecard's finding that the environrental qualification o' i j the RG-58 cable has been established." 27 N R C at 351 (emphasis ir 1 original).
l ?
i
l 1
July 1, 1988 and attached affidavit of Harold Walker (July 27, 1988).
It is this information which prompted the Staff to advise tht Board that j in the event it found recanded NECNP Contentien I.B.2 relevant to low power operation, it could and should rake the requisite reasonable assurance finding recuired by section 50.57(c) to reauthorize low pcwer operation at the Seabrook Station, b CONCLUSION For the reascrs stated in this brief, NECNP's appeal should be denied and the August 8, 1988 Crder should be affi ed, fs.ctfullysubmitted
(
h a Berry l
p <
gorj Couns for PC Staff rated at Rockville, Paryland this Ond day of Noverber 1988
~
11/ NECNP claims that it is not yet established that all RG-58 cables that must be environmentally q ualified have been identified since the Applicants have erly confitned the location of the ends of spare RG-58 cables but have not "walked dow n" the cables. NECNP l
B rief at 10. N EC N P enniectures that R G-58 cables could be routed in a harsh environment, even though "as built" drawings show them in other areas has no support here or below and must be dismissed.
Id. at 11. Affidavits There is no nerit to either of these claims.
The record indicates that there is reasona ble assurance that
. Applicants have succeeded in identifying all of the installed RG-50 cables. Staff Pesponse at 0; P alk er Affida vit 56; Bergeron Affida vit. 9-6. NECNP has not identified any record evidence ,
w hich contradicts this peint. R ather. NECNP offers only unsupported statenent that some RG-58 cables instal!ations nay not conform to design d ocu m e nts . The existence of problems at other plants is not probative of the existence of those prcblens at the Seabrook Station. ,
COULIEC UM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPHISSION 88 NDY -8 P4 :57 BEFORE THE ATOPIC SAFETY Ah;D LICENSING APPEAL ROARD (rs. ., .
In the Patter of eum ';' . , at Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-01
- PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 50-444 OL-01 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al,. On-site Emergency Planning and Safety Issues
.- (Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2)
CERTIFICATE OF_ SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "hRC STAFF RESPCNSE TO NEChP BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF f EMORANDUM AND ORDER 0ATED AUGUST 8,1988" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following b,' deposit in the United States rail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commissicr's interral rail syster1, this 2nd day of November 1986..
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq. Chairman
- H. J. Flynn, Esq.
Administrative Judge Assistant General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Federal Erergency Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corsnission Agerey Washington, DC 20555 500 C Street S.W.
Washington, DC 2047?
Or, Jerry Harbour
- Administrative Judge Calvin A. Carney Atomic Safety and Licensing Board City Hall U.S. Nu:: lear Regulatory Comission 126 Daniel Street Washington, OC 2C555 Portsmouth, NH 03F01 Dr. Ernth A. Lueble Robert Carrigg, Chairman Administrative Judge Board of Selectmen 4515 Willard Avenue Town Office Chevy Chase, Paryland 20815 Atlantic Avenue horth Harpton, NH 03870 Philip Ahren. Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Judith H. Mizner, Esq. .
Office of the Attorney General Silverglate. Gertner, Baker, 1 State House Station Fine, & Good i Augusta, FE 04333 88 Board Street
- Boston, MA 02110 Themas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
Robert K. Gad, !!!, Esq. J. P. Nadeau Ropes & Gray Beard of Selectren 225 Franklin Street 10 Central Street Boston, PA 00110 Rye, NH 03870
o .
.P.
Carol S. Sneider Esq. R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Vhilton Office of the Attorney General & McGuire One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor 79 State Street Boston, MA 02108 tiewburyport MA 01950 George Dana Bisbee, Esq. Allen Lampert Assistant Attorney Gereral Civil Defense Director
> Office of the Attorney General Towr of Brentwood 25 Capitol Street 20 Franklin Concord, NH 03301 Exeter, NH C3833 Diane Curran, Esq. William Annstrong Harron & Weiss Civil Defense Director 2001 S Street, NW Tcwn of Exeter Suite 430 10 Front Street Washington, DC 20009 Exeter, NH 03833 Robert A. Bach;s, Esq. Gary W. Holmes. Esq.
Backus, Meyer & Solon>n Holnes & Ellis 116 Lcwell Streat A7 Winnacunnet Road Parchester, NH 03106 Hampton, NH 83842 Paul McEachern. Esq. Atenic Safety erd Licensing l Patthew T. Brock, Esq. Appeal Panel (8)*
Shatnes & McEachern 11.5. t'uclear Regulatory Comission i 25 Papleweed Avenue Washington, OC 00555 P.O. Box 360 Portsnouth, NH 03801 Attric Safety and Licensing Board Panel (1)*
Charles P. Graham, Esq. II.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Feray, Murphy & Grahan Washington, DC 20555 100 Main Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Docketine and Service Section*
Office of the Secretary ,
Sandra Gavutis, Chainnan L'.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmission Board of Selectnen Washington, DC 20555 RFD #1, Box 1154 Kensington, NH 03827 Peter J. Fatthews, Mayor City Hall William S. Lord Newburyport, MN 09150 Beard of Selectmen Town Hall - Friend Street Ashed N. Amirian Esq.
. Artesbury, MA 01913 Town Counsel for Ferrimac ,
376 Main Street Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq. Haverhill, MA C0130 i Administrative Judge 1110 Wimbleden Drive McLean, VA 00101 l
3 Prs. Anne E. Goodran, Chairran Michael Santosuosso Chairman tioard of Selo.;tnen Board of Selectmen 11-15 fleumirket Rcad South Hampton. NH 03827 Curham, NH 03824 Pon. Gorder. 1 Humphrey United States Senate 531 Hart Senate Office Buildirg Washicoton, DC 20510
/
Faregory 'M a' mgrry/wAp/ wuw0 Counsel for fdCSt$
1 l
l l
l l
e
_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _