ML20238D099
| ML20238D099 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 12/23/1987 |
| From: | Weiss E HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5226 OL-1, NUDOCS 8801040099 | |
| Download: ML20238D099 (7) | |
Text
__
December 23, 1987 00CKETED USNRC
}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 87 DEC 28 A11:38 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board DFFICE Ci h0rThR
)
DGCKEiiNr; & 'Ti vir.r.
M ANM In the Ma tter of
)
)
Public Service Company of
)
New Hampshire, et al.
)
Docket Nos. 5 0-443 OL-1
)
5 0-4 44 OL-1 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
ONSITE EMERGENCY
)
PLANNING & TECHNICAL
)
ISSUES NECNP RESPONSE TO STAFF REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF RG-58 COAXIAL CABLE As permitted by order of the Appeal Board, NECNP responds herein to the new evidentiary material presented by the NRC staff, namely the Affidavit of Harold Walker attached to "NRC Staff Response to Memorandum of Licensing Board and New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Regarding Environmental Qualifica-l l
tion of RG-58 Coaxial Cable," December 11, 1987.
To begin with, questions and answers 4 and 5 have no relevance to the issue before the Appeal Board.
The quoted sec-tion of the Licensing Board decision relates only to the dimen-sions of the copper conductors; the question raised by NECNP, on the other hand, relates to the dimensions or thickness of the insulation.
The answers to question 6 and 7, although artfully phrased, do not support the Licensing Board's rationale.
Mr. Walker does not express agreement with the ASLB's central finding of "propor-8801040099 871223
{DR ADOCK 05000443 PDR
()
1
_____=__-____ -
{
.- tionality", namely, that the differing requirements for insula-tion resistance between RG-59 and RG-58 " provide a basis for justifying the similarity of the two cables" when their insula-tion thickness dif fers by a f actor of 1.5.
Instead, he opines that the different operating requirements are "important in determining similarity of performance," but-that a variety of other f actors must be' considered, including 1) the functional requirements of the cables 2) the potential failure modes 3) the materials used in construction, 4) the type of cable, and 5)'
whether the cable was made by the same manufacturer.
The affiant states that "the staf f" believes that "all these factors collec-tively, provide a basis for justifying the similarity of the j
cable."
A6, p.3, emphasis added.
See also, All, p. 6.
Affiant also concedes in A7, pp. 3-4, and A9, p. 5, that the Licensing Board's " proportionality" rationale for finding RG-58 qualified 1
is not correct.
While NECNP relied solely on the record to l
demonstrate that proportionality does not hold, our position is strengthened by the Staff's acknowledgement that proportional i
performance under the conditions of environmental qualification testing "is not assured."
A7, p. 4.
It should be noted then, that it is now virtually undisputed that the Licensing Board's rationale for finding RG-58 qualified was wrong and NECNP was correct that the proportionality argument
]
regarding insulation thickness does not justify a conclusion that
)
l 1
See New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Environmental Qualification of RG-58 Coaxial Cable, Nov. 4, 19 87, pp. 3-4.
' RG-58 is qualified.
In response to this situation, the Applicant claims that RG-58 need not be qualified, based solely upon an ambiguous and inherently nonprobative memo of a telephone con-versation.
The staff simply accepts this assertion of the Applicant's, citing nothing f urther than the same memo.
- All, p.6.
This is claimed, in a logical non sequitur, to prc' aide "added conservatism" to the Staff's belief that RG-58 is qualified by similarity to RG-59.
Beyond this, the Staff lists a variety of factors which, in the abstract, questionably Saar on whether RG-58 is qualified, and offers the bald conclusion that these factors " collectively" justify finding similarity.
For example, while noting that the
" potential failure modes" are important in determining similarity (A6, p.3), the Staff provides no information whatsoever as to what the pertinent f ailure modes for RG-58 are.
Without such l
information, the staff's " belief" that RG-58 is qualified pro-vides no basis for a rational finding, particularly when the issue is contested.
1 The plain fact is that there is no credible evidentiary basis in this record for finding RG-58 qualified.
The only way Applicants can prevail is by proving that RG-58 need not function in an accident environment - a fact which they have yet to prove and which is inconsistent with the record as it stands.
To the i
contrary, the record indicates, that RG-58 has to be environmen-tally qualified.
The mere. listing by the Staff of other f actors arguably relevant to a demonstration of similarity does nothing l
- ~
4_
l
(
to rebut NECNP's observation that this record fails to support a
{
finding that RG-58 is qualified by similarity to RG-59.2 l
In sum, there are some ten (10) miles of RG-58 installed at Seabrook.
The EQ file for RG-58 specifies an insulation l
resistance which it has to meet.
NECNP Ex. 4, Re f. 1, p. 6 There is no evidence that it meets this specified requirement.
The Board's basis for finding that it meets the requirement is incorrect.
The Applicant now argues that RG-58 does not have to meet this requirement but has presented no credible evidence to support that assertion.
The Staff argues by affidavit both that RG-58 does not have to meet the specifications ( All, p. 6) and/or that RG-58 does meet the specifications by collective considera-tion of a list of factors (A6, p. 3), which staff judgment is said to be conservative because RG-58, in fact, does not have to meet the specifications ( All, p. 6).
Beyond all this confusing verbiage lies the absence of any convincing information regarding where the ten miles of cable is used, what the pertinent failure modes are, what would happen if resistance goes below the speci-fication but the cable stays intact, or what the proper environ-mental qualifications specifications are for RG-58 if they are other than those contained in the EQ file.
If, as Staff and Applicant now assert, RG-58 must only remain intact, then why do the operating requirements for RG-58.
contain a specific insulation resistance requirement?
NECNP Ex.
2 In this regard, the Applicant's argument that NECNP has not proven the lack of qualification, is misplaced.
It is funda-mental that the burden of proof lies with the Applicant.
l
. 4, Re f. 1, p. 6.
At best, the record.contains two inconsistent
. assertions regarding the performance requirements of RG-58.
Of
. the two, the Applicant and-Staff ask the Board to rely on a phone memo (Ref. 6) which on its f ace does not reference RG-58 and, in fact, refers to a different purchase order, i.e. P. O. 113-18.
NECNP, Ex.
4',
Re f. 6.
However, the purchase order for RG-58 is,.
in' fact, is P. O.9763. 0 06-113-19.
NECNP Ex. 4, cover sheet and Re f. 7.
The Board is asked to ignore the document which does purport to.specify the performance requirements for RG-58, namely.
NECNP Ex. 4, Re f. 1.
Finally, the Appeal Board cannot disregard the f act that the staff affidavit demonstrates that RG-59 is not qualified.
Assum-ing the equation presented by the staff in A12 (p. 7) is the cor-rect one for calculating insulation resistance, RG-59 would fail in the middle of an accident, precisely when it is required to function.
Indeed, application of the formula indicates that the insulation resistance'of RG-59 would fall more than a decade below the required resistance.3 While this does not appear to 3
NECNP Ex. 4, Re f. 2, Table 2, Cable numbers A5550-2C and A5550-2D.
See also New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Environmental Qualification of RG-58 Coaxial Cable, p. 6.
.__________-___--_O
. trouble the Staff or the Applicants, the Appeal Board has an independent obligation that goes beyond adjudicating disputed matters and NECNP urges the Appeal Board to exercise its authority to ensure an adequate resolution of this issue.
Respectfully submitted, Ellyn R. Weiss Harmon & Weiss 2001 S Street, NW Suite 430 Washington, D. C.
20009 (202) 328 - 3500 j
Counsel for NECNP l
I certify that on December 23, 1987, copies of the foregoing pleading were served by first-class mail on the attached service list.
-Andrea Ferster '
1
e N'd ED CCMcFONDEg SEABROOK SERVICE LIST - ONSITE APPEAL BOARD Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman North Hampton, NH 03826 111 Lowell Street McKay, Murphy and Graham NRC Manchester, NH 03105 100 Main Street 4350 East. West Highway J.P. Nadeau Amesbury,MA 01913 West Tower - 3rd Floor Town of Rye Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Bethesda, MD 20814 155 Washington Road NRC Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Rye, New Hampshire 03870 7735 Old Georgetown Road NRC Dr. Jerry Harbour Bethesda, MD 20814 4350 East-West Highway NRC Richard E. Sullivan, Mayor West Tower - 3rd Floor 4350 East-West Highway City Hall Mr. Angie Machiros, Bethesda, MD 20814 West Tower - 3rd Floor Newburyport, MA 01950 Chairman Bethesda,MD 20814 Town of Newbury Howard A. Wilber Alfred V. Sargent, Chairman Town Hall,25 High Road NRC Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Board of Selectmen Newbury, MA 01951 4350 East-West Highway 5500 Friendship Boulevard Town of Salisbury, MA 01950 West Tower - 3rd Floor Apartment 1923N George Dana Bisbee, Esq.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Chevy Chase, MD 20815 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Geoffrey M. Huntington, Esq.
U.S. Senate Office of the Attorney General Atomic Safety & Licensing Washington, D.C. 20510 State House Annex Board Panel (Attn. Tom Burack)
Concord, NH 03301 U.S. NRC Washington, D.C. 20555 Selectmen of Northampton Allen Lampert Northampton, New Hamp-Civil Defense Director Atomic Safety & Licensing shire 03826 Town of Brentowood Appeal Board Panel Exeter, NH 03833 U.S. NRC Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Washington, D.C. 20555 1 Eagle Square, Ste 507 Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
Concord,NH 03301 Hampe and McNicholas p
g Docketing and Service 35 Pleasant Street nr U.S. NRC Michael Santosuosso, Concord,NH 03301
$9 g-)
J Washington, D.C. 20555 Chairman M
c 7;q Board of Selectmen Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
Q tg
%'Fj 2
Mrs. Anne E. Goodman Jewell Street, RFD #2 Holmes & Ellis 24 Board of Selectmen South Hampton, NH 03842 47 Winnacunnent Road 21 c$
[
13-15 New Market Road Hampton, NH 03842 Durham,NH 03842 Judith H. Mizner, Esq.
Silverglate, Gertner, et al.
William Armstrong William S. Lord, Selectman 88 Broad Street Civil Defense Director Town Hall-- Friend Street Boston, MA 02110 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Exeter, NH 03833 Rep. Roberta C. Pevear Jane Doughty Drinkwater Road Calvin A. Canney SAPL Hampton Falls, NH 03844 City Manager, City Hall 5 Market Street 126 DanielStreet Portsmouth,NH 03801 Phillip Ahrens, Esq.
Portsmouth, NH 03801 Assistant Attorney General Carol S. Sneider, Esquire State House, Station #6 Matthew T. Brock, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Augusta,ME 04333 Shaines & McEachern 1 Ashburton Place,19th Floor P.O. Box 360 Boston, MA 02108 Thomas G. Dignan, Esq.
Maplewood Avenue R.K. Gad II, Esq.
Portsmouth,NH 03801 Stanley W. Knowles Ropes & Gray Board of Selectmen 225 Franklin Street Sandra Gavutis P.O. Box 710 Boston,MA 02110 RFD 1, Box 1154 East Kensington, NH 03827 Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Backus, Meyer & Solomon Charles P. Graham, Esq.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _