ML20236C104
| ML20236C104 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 10/20/1987 |
| From: | Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| References | |
| CON-#487-4633 ALAB-875, OL-1, NUDOCS 8710270015 | |
| Download: ML20236C104 (3) | |
Text
__ _ -.
d
)
SOCEETED' UNITED STATES OF. AMERICA
-USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY 1 COMMISSION W 20 P239 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING' APPEAL BOARD Administrative Judges:
GFFICE 4F 3E RfiAAV
)SCKEi6NG.
ERVICf.
Alan S.-Rosenthal, Chairman October 20,_85 Howard A. Wilber 3
SERVED OCT 2 01387 In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.
)
50-444-OL-1
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1
)
(Onsite Emergency Planning and 2)
)
and Safety Issues)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In ALAB-875, we remanded to the Licensing Board the seginent of the environmental qualification issue (raised by 1
New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution contention I.B.2) that was concerned with the RG58 coaxial cable.I The remand was prompted by our inability to find a sufficient basis in the record for the Board's conclusion in its March 25, 1987 partial initial decision that the environmental
]
qualification of that cable was " adequately documented" in the applicants' equipment qualification file.
In this i
connection, we took note of the facts that (1) the j
i conclusion appeared to rest exclusively on the results of i
r tests performed on RG59 coaxial cable (the RG58 cable went j
l i
I 26 NRC (October 1, 1987) (slip opinion at 35-39).
l l
l h[
8710270015 871020 PDR ADOCK 05000443 O
PDR L-
gA s,
~
' <.;,- g $
~
.2;
- untested)';Tand.(2) there'seemed:to be-significant differences:in:the' dimensions of the conductors and insulation of the two cables.3 LGiven.these circumstances,-
we. thought it' appropriate.to call'upon the' Board to~ identify th'e portion;of1the existing record thatJ" establishes that
'the differen'es-in the two cables are unimportant'for' c
.present-purposes."4 ' Alternatively, the Board Was "to reopen
~
the record'for a further exploration of the question'whether the RG59 cable. test results can serve as the foundation for the' environment'al qualification of the RG58 cable."5 On' October'16, the Licensing Board responded in an unpublished. memorandum.
We are told that, for the reasons developed:in..the. memorandum, the Board. believes that little 7
-(if any) significance attaches for environmental qualificationLpurposes to the differences between the
. cables.
Accordingly, the Board r'emains persuaded that the test'results for'the RG59 cable can serve to qualify the untested RGS8 cable and that there is thus no necessity to reopen the record on the environmental qualification issue.6 3 See ALAB-875, supra, 26 NRC at (slip opinion at 38-39).
i 4 n. at (slip opinion at 39).
l 5
t Ibid.
1 6 Memorandum at 4.
i l
i
)
7 9^
3 The Coalition may file a supplemental memorandum addressed to the Licensing Board's response.
Any such memorandum shall be filed and served on or before November 4,
1987_ and shall not exceed ten pages in length.
If the Coalition elects to avail itself of this opportunity, the applicants and the NRC staff may file and serve replies, also not to exceed ten pages in length, on or before November 20, 1987.
Should the Coalition decide not to file a supplemental memorandum, it is to inform us to that effect in writing no later than October 28.
In that event, we will determine whether there is nonetheless reason to obtain the views of the applicants and the staff on the Licensing Board's belief that the record need not be reopened on t.ie remanded environment) qualification issue.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD b.
.d x
C. J n Shdemaker Secre ry to the Appeal Board 7 The Coalition was the only intervenor that briefed the environmental qualification issue in connection with its I
appeal from the March 25 partial initial decision.
l