ML20206J729
| ML20206J729 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 11/17/1988 |
| From: | Curran D HARMON, CURRAN, SPIELBERG & EISENBERG, LLP., NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#488-7525 LBP-88-20, OL-1, NUDOCS 8811290096 | |
| Download: ML20206J729 (5) | |
Text
>
November 17, 1988 POLKETED U%C UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOAMB MW 18 P3 :06 In the Matter of
)
$cN7am 4; M$l
)
Bute Public Service Company of
)
New Hampshire, et al.
Docket No. 50-443 OL-1 //I-b (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
ONSITE EMERGENCY
)
PLANNING & TECHNICAL
)
ISSUES
)
NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' AND NRC STAFF'S BRIEFS IN OPPOSITION TO NECNP'S APPEAL OF LICENSING BOARD' ORDER DATED AUGUST 8, 1988 Introduction As permitted by the Appeal Board's order dated November 3, 1988, the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution ("NECNP")
hereby gesponds to Applicants' and the NRC Staff's briefs in opposition to NECNP's appeal of LBP-88-20, the Licensing Board's August 8, memorandum and order regarding low power operation of the Seabrook nuclear power plant.
In its appellate brief, NECNP made two basic arguments.
First, NECNP challenged the authority of the Licensing Board to issue a license to operato Seabrook at low power before it has resolved all isuuos that are relevant to full power operation.
Second, NECNP assorted that even assuming for purposes of argu-mont the validity of the Ccmmission's interpretation of 10 C.F.R.
S 50.57(c), the Licensing Board erred when it failed to apply one of the criteria proferred by the NRC Staff for dotarmining the relevanco of the romanded cablo qualification issue to low power operation, or to explain why the criterion should not apply.
0011090096 00111/
{DR ADOCK 05000443 PDR b
]p50
i NECNP responds here to several assertions made by Applicants.and the NRC Staff in opposition to NECNP's second argument.
Response to Aeolicants P
In its brief to the Appeal Board, NECNP challenged the
[
Licensing Board's failure to apply the second criterion proferred by the Staff for determining relevance to low power operation, i.e. whether failure of the RG-58 cables could mislead plant operators.1' Noting that the Staff acknowledged that it had not l
performed any analysis to determine whether its criteria were met, NECNP went on to show that Applicants' filing did not demonstrate that operators would not be misled by failed RG-58 cables.
App,licants claim that NECNP is barred from making these arguments to the Appeal Board because it did not make them before the Licensing Board.
Applicants overlook the fact that the Licensing Board required simultaneous filing of the parties' briefs on the relevance of the remanded contention to low power operation.2 NECNP would have nooded telepathic powers to anticipato the arguments the Staff and Applicants would make to the Licensing Board.
1 The Staff claimed that as a general mattor, environmental qualification was relevant to low power oporation, unless it could be demonstrated that unqualified equipment would not result in significant degradation of any safety function or provido mis-loading information to plant operators.
2 Egg unpublished Licensing Board order of July 1, 1988.
, More important, the purpose of NECNP's argument was to show that the Licensing Board acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner when it failed to even consider the applicability of the second Staff criterion for relevance to low power operation.
The Board offered no rationale for rejecting this criterion, but merely stated that the Commission, if it wished, could order the Staff to supply an analysis at a later date.
NECNP legitimately demonstrated that this was error in its appeal brief.
Citing case law, Applicants also argue that the Staff's standard for determining relevance of environmental qualification issues to low power operation should carry no particular weight in this proceeding.
NECNP does not contend that the second criterion offered by the Staff must be conclusively accepted by the Licensing Board.
However, given the fact that the Commis-sion's regulations offer ne guidance whatsoever on determining the relevance of technical issues to low power operation, it is imperative that the Licensing Board at least give reasoned con-sideration to the Staff's views.
That was not done here.
The Licensing Board failed to state why the second criterion sug-gosted by the Staff should not apply; nor did it attempt to apply it and versfy that it was was mot.
Recoonse to NRC Staff In its rosponse to NECNP's appeal, the Staff continuos to insist that the question of the remanded environmental qualifica-tion issuo's relevance to low power operation can be resolved on the marits of the contention.
As the Licensing Board pointed
. out, however, it was simply premature for the Licensing Board to attempt to resolve the contention on the merits while discovery on the remanded issues was still underway.3 In the meantime, the Appeal Board's ruling in ALAB-875, 26 NRC 251 (1987), that RG-58 was not demonstrably qualified, constitutes "the lxw of the case."
LBP-88-20, slip op. at 12.
In order to support its posi-tion in favor of low power operation, it was incumbent upon the Staff to demonstrate that Saabrook cod 1d be operated safely at low power in soito of the environmental qualification deficien-
)
cies raised in the remanded proceeding.
This the Staff failed to do.
pectfull submitted, i
b j
D ane Curran HARMON, CURRAN & TOUSLEY 2001 "G" Street N.W. Suite 430 i
Washington, D.C.
20009 (202) 328-3500 November 17, 1988 i
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, I cortify that on November 17, 1988, copios of the forogoing pleading were norved by hand or by first-class mail on all parties to this proceeding, as dos 4nated on the attached service 1
i
% C_
Diano Curran 4
3 Since the tino of the Licensing Board's August 8 decision, discovery has boon completed and Applicants' summary disposition motion and responses thoroto are pending.
The RG-58 cable qualification may ultimately be resolved againut NEClip in the summary disposition proconding on the marits.
Howevor, it would have boon inappropriato for the Licensing Board to mako a merits decision beforo discovery was comploto, and before the parties had an opportunity to make their full case on the merits.
('
SEABROOK SERYlCE LIST Onsite AppealBoard i cMUi:l' uWC William S. lord, Selectman Matthew T. Brock, Esq.
S )ct 18 P3 :06
' Alan S. Mosenthat, Chairman Town Hall-Friend Street Shainoa & McEachern Asomac Safety and IJcensine -
Ameabury,MA 01913 P.O. Bos 360 Appeal Boar # ~
Maplewood Avenue 60CKE IE ?.L"'*l r,c s in M ; ate
.U1 NRf*',
Jane Doughty Portsmouth,5H 04t01 Washir.pon, D.C 20555 SAPL
$ Market Street Sandre Govute 6?ANW 8Howard A.Wilber Portsmouth,NH 03801 RFD 1. Bos 1154 Asomse Safety and IJcensing East Kensington,NH 03827
/
Appeal Board Carol S. Sneider, Esquh UA NRC Assistant Attorney General Judith H. Mirner, Esq.
Washington, D C. 20535 1 Ashburton Place,19th floor Silverelate, Gertne r, et at Boston MA 02108 88 Broad Street Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman Bos on, MA 02110 Asomse Safety and 1) censing Posrd Stanley W. Knowles US Nuclear Replasory Commission Board of Selectmen "Thomas G. Dignan. Esq.
Cashington, D.C 20$55 P.O. Boa 710 R.K. Gad 11 Esq.
North flamptoe, bli 03825 Ropes & Grey Dr. Emmeth A.1mebke 225 Franklin Street Atontic Safety and 1Jeensing Snard J.P. Nedeau Bostoa,MA 02110 5500 Friendship Doulevard Town of RF Apartment 1923N 155 Washington Road Robert A. Backus, Faq.
ChevyChase,MD 20015 Rye, New Hampshire 03810 Backus, Meyer & Solomon til le= ell Street Dr. Jerry liarbour Gary W. Ilotmea, Esq.
Manchater, Nil 03105 Atomic Safety and 1) censing Board llolmes & E11ts U1 Nuclear Replatory Commission 47 Winnacunnent Road George Dana Bisbee, Esq.
i Whisston, D.C 20535 llampton, N1103842 Geoffrey M. Iluntington, Esq.
Office of the Attorney Geners!
Atomit Safety and tJcensing William Armstrong State llouse Annes Civil Detense Director Concord,bli 03301 Appeal Board Panet U1 Nuclear Reptatory Commission 10 Front Stress Washington,D.C 20555 Exeter, bli 03833 Richard A. Itampe, Esq.
llampe and McNicholas Atomic Safety and 1Jcensing CaMn A. Canney
,e 35 Pleasant Street l
Decrd Panet City Manager Concord, h1103301 US Nuclear Reptatory Commission City flatl I
Washington,D.C 20$35 126 Daniel Stree R. Scott Ilill-Whitton i
Portsmouth, Nil 03801 tagoviis. Clark,Ilill %1ulton i
Decketisg and SerWee Drsach and McGuire j
U1 Nuclear Replatory Comminion Charles P. Orsham, Esq.
79 Sute Street l
Washington, D.C 20555 McKay, Murphy and Graham Newbur) Tort.MA 01950 100 Main Stnet Mrs. Anne E.Goodenan Amesbury,MA 01913 Diana Sidebotham ikerd of Selectmea RIV d 2 Dan 12rA) 1315 New Market Road Alfred V. Sargent, Chairman Putney,VT 05146 Durham.N1103442 Deerd of Selectmen Town of Salisbury, MA 01950 Senatot Gordon J. Ilumphrey
_ _ _ _ _*lly lland UA Senate Rep. Roberta C Pewar Whington, D C, 20510 Dnnk= ster Road "Dy Overnight (Atta. Tom Burack) llampton Faits, bli 03&&4 Sese Gorbe 1, ilumphrty Phallip Ahrens, Esq.
1 Itgle Square, See 507 Asustaat Attorney Generst Concord, bli 03301 State llouse, Station #6 Aupsta.ME 04333 Ma:hati Saatcovosso, Chairman Daard of Selectmen "Gregory A. Derry, liq.
Jewell Street, RIT) # 2 Office of General Counsel Sowth llaerton, N11 OM42 U1 Nuclear Regulatofy Commissen Wuhington, D.C 20535 Allea larnprt CMI Defenae Director Tous of Brento u4 Eseter, bli 0M33
_-