ML20247N231

FOIA Request for pre-low Power Insp Rept,Readiness Assessment Team Rept,Low Power Insp Rept,Low Power Team Rept,Resident Inspector Insp Rept,Region I Inspector Insp rept,94.300 Ltr from Regional Director & Computer Programs

ML20247N231
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	07/12/1989
From:	Brock M MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	Grimsley D NRC
References
FOIA-89-309 NUDOCS 8909260176
Download: ML20247N231 (12)

Text

_ _ - , -- - - - .

y..

b'y THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

. w & . DEPARTMENT QF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL l'A - .. . JOHN W. McCoRMACK ST ATE OFFICF BUILotNG

ONE ASHBURToN PLACE BOSTON 02108-1698 r ..

JAMES M SHANNON ATTORNE* GENE AAL '

July 12, 1989 BY fax FREEDOM 0F INf0RMATC1 ACT REQUEST Donnie H. Grimsley, Director Division of Rules and Records "c89 f Office of Administration

-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission #ld [- -[

7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland

Dear Mr. Grimsley:

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. S552, and 10 C.F.R. $9.1 et seg., the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office (" MAG") request; that you produce to MAG the following documents, including, but not limited to, records as defined in 10 C.F.R. S9.13 (" Documents"), concerning low power testing for the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant. All requested documents within the possession or control of NRC, or its agents or contractors, should be produced, whether generated by NRC, Applicants, their agents or contractors, or otherwise.

Please note this FOIA Request (Request #24) seeks all documents that refer or relate to the shutdown of the Seabrook Reactor on June 22, 1989, or the cessation or suspension of low power operation. This did not appear in our prior FOIA Request dated June 5, 1989.

1. All documents identified or referred to by NRC Staff Counsel Elaine Chan at Seabrook Transcript pages 23586 through 23591,l/ including, but not limited to:

a) pre-low power inspection report; b) readiness assessment team report; c) low power inspection report; 1/ A copy of these pages is attached as Exhibit A.

8909260176 090712 ADR FOIA PDR

'BROCKB9-309

Do5nic H. Grimsley, Director July 12, 1989 Page 2 d) low power team report; e) resident inspector inspection report; f) Region 1 inspectors' inspection reports; g) 94.300 letter from regional director to NRC including any assessment on readiness for full power and the NRC Staff's recommendations; h) all documents that identify or refer to any problem arising during low power testing; i) all computer programs used or relied upon to conduct or evaluate low power testing including special computer programs to track core exposure.

2. For each document identified by Staff Counsel Chan in the prior request #1, produce all supporting documents reviewed or relied upon by NRC, including logs and evaluation notes, to prepare each such document.

3. All documents reflecting test protocols for low power testing.

4. All documents reflecting:

(a) the process to determine core exposure during low power testing program (LPTP);

(b) data obtained through this process; (c) the process computer program to record IR detector currents and the time between program executions and to evaluate core exposure; (d) all other documents identified in the enclosure to letter of Victor Nerses to Edward A. Brown, May 21, 1989.2/

5. All instructions, documents, evaluation criteria, and information concerning the LPTP given to federal evaluators, controllers, and observers prior to and/or during the Low Power Testing Program. This includes instructions, documents, and information provided at training sessions and/or meetings.

2/

Exhibitgyoftheletterandenclosureisattachedas A co

Don'nie H. Grimsley,' Director.

.cJuly 12;, 1989 Page 3

6. All communications or.other documents c neerning the

. scope, methodology or implementation of the LPTP, and the specific' tests or procedures to be performed or actually.

performed.

7. All documents and information concerning the Lower Power Testing Program or concerning roles, functions, duties, or events expected to occur during the LPTP that were.

provided by the NRC, or Applicants to federal evaluators, simulators, controllers, observers, or NRC personnel, or any other-persons at any time prior to the' exercise.

8. All logs-generated or maintained by each and every

. evaluator, controller, or observer, including NRC or Applicants, during or subsequent to the LPTP, including all appendices, comments, and summaries which are a part thereof.

9. All audio, . video or other electronic recordings, or transcripts of recordings, of conversations involving NRC or p Applicants' personnel concerning the LPTP.

i l 10. All docu...ents describing or pertaining to discussions or communications on the LPTP, and occurring before, during, and after the LPTP between or among NRC evaluators, controllers, and observers; NHY. controllers-and evaluators, or between NRC and Applicants' personnel.

l

11. All photographs of events occurring during the LPTP.

l l 12. All reproductions of " status boards" as they existed L throughout the LPTP.

13. All time lines prepared by participants, evaluators, controllers, or observers of any events occurring during the LPTP.

14. All charts, graphs, maps, diagrams, drawings, or physical evidence pertaining to events which occurred during.

the LPTP.

15. Any and all documents which describe the purpose of the LPTP, or the NRC evaluation process of the LPTP.

16. All summaries, notes, logs, or other documents which reflect the observations and other matters that took place at any meeting (s) with the NRC or Applicants' evaluators, controllers, and observers concerning the LPTP, regardless of meeting date.

- _ - _ _ . - - _ = _ _ _ -

Do'nnie H. Grimsley, Director

- July 1,2, 1989 Page 4 l ..

l 17. All documents containing factual or evaluative I information, prepared during or after the LPTP, by NRC or Applicants' participants, evaluators, controllers, or observers.

18. All other information, communications, or documents provided to federal evaluators after the LPTP to be used in developing their evaluations or reports.

19. All other documents, summaries, notes, logs, time lines, evaluations, comments, critiques, or reports concerning the LPTP and prepared after the LPTP by federal or Applicants' participants, evaluators, controllers, or observers.

20. All documents, including minutes, transcripts, summaries, or notes, concerning any meetings at which NRC or Applicants' evaluations, critiques, or comments on the-LPTP were discussed.

21. All correspondence, memoranda, or other records of communications between NRC personnel or between NRC and Applicants about drafts of documents or records on the LPTP.

22. All correspondence, memoranda, or other documents regarding the preparation and/or content of the low power testing program.

23. For each document previously requested herein, produce all drafts of each document.

24. All notes, logs, memoranda, records, reports, manuals or other documents that refer or relate to the shutdown of the Seabrook Reactor on June 22, 1989 or the suspension of low power testing or operation, including, but not limited to:

a) all operator manuals or other documents that relate to procedures, directives, or management policies for the start up or shut down of the reactor; b) all documents that identify, describe or relate to the responsibilities or authority of personnel involved in the start up or shut down of the reactor, including those involved in low power testing or the shut down of the reactor on June 22, 1989; c) all documents that identify or describe the steam valve involved in the June 22, 1989 shutdown;

_\

l ,

~ Donnie.H. Grimsley,' Director July 12,;19'89 N-y page 5-

.d) all documents.that describe or refer to the conduct of.the natural circulation start'up test, as performed at Seabrook-Station as part of. low power: testing; e)' all documents that identify the. individuals i present in.the control room at the time of plant shutdown on June'22, 1989, or their roles, responsibilities, actions, or functions-in low power testing or the shutdown; f) all documents that refer or contain the statements, comments, or opinions concerning. low-power. testing or the shutdown, of the individuals.

-identified in Request 24(e);

g) -all'd'ocuments that relate or refer to George S.

Thomas,.and his resignation or removal as vice president in charge of plant operations; h) all records, reports, memoranda'or other documents that refer or relate to the reactor shutdown on June 22, 1989, the facts and circumstances surrounding this event, or opinions or conclusions as to the causes of this event; i) all records, . reports, memoranda or other documents that refer or relate to the cessation or suspension of low power testing; j) all documents that refer or relate to confirmatory action letter (CAL) 89-11, or to any statements or actions undertaken by Applicants or NRC on the issues raised in the CAL (a copy of the CAL is attached);

l k) all documents generated on or after June 1, 1988 that refer or relate to events or problems involving plant personnel, plant operation, or plant valve systems, whether related to low power testing or otherwise;

1) for each document identified in response to L Request'24, provide all drafts of each document; ,

and m) for each document identified in response to Request 24, provide all supporting documents relied upon in the preparation of each document.

Donnie H. Grimsley, Director.

July 12, 1989 Page 6 If, for any reason, you withhold any document or part thereof, please describe the material that is withheld, by title, date, author, and summary of content, and explain your reasons for believing it is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. In addition, please explain why the public interest does not require disclosure.

Please notify me of the copying and mailing costs for production.

I look forward to receiving your response within ten (10) working days, as provided in the Act.

Si cerely,

\ -

. ~.

Matthew Brock Assistant Attorney General Nuclear Safety Unit (617) 727-2200 MB/ld Enclosures cc: Edwin Reis Deputy Assistant General Counsel Reactor License Branch 1549n

EXHIBIT A.

23586 1

Secondly, the Board has already referred to the 1

'2 fact the regulation-itself restricts the-discovery to 3 contentions in an operating license proceeding to matters 4

relevant to contentions that have been admitted.

5 More importantly, what-we really heard here is the 6- old argument that I'm entitled to discovery to frame my 7 contentions. That argument'has been made to the Commission 8 since at:least 1973. It was-first turned down in Nortan 9 States Power Company, ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188. Reconsideration 10 denied,,ALAB-110, 6 AEC.247. Affirmed CLI 73-12, 6 AEC, 11 241.

12 It was turned down again in 1974 in Wisconsin 13 Electric Company, Koshkonong Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, 14 CLI 74-45, 8 AEC, 928, 1974.

15 The doctrine th'at you do not have discovery to 16 bring your contentions was upheld jurisdictional 1y in BPI 17 versus AEC, 502 f.2nd 424, 428-29.D.C. Circuit 1974.

18 That whole second argument you heard has been made 19 to the Appeal Board, the Commission, and the Courts and it 20 has lost every time. That's all I have to say.

21 JUDGE SMITH: Ms. Chan?

22 MS. CHAN: I think Mr. Dignan has probably covered 23 the field on the lack of rights of discovery for the purpose 24 of framing contentions.

25 However, specifically I would like to address the' 1

Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

23587 1

Mass AG's argument that they need this observational status 2 to make their hearing right meaningful.

3~

The NRC documents, the entire low power testing 4

procedure, at.the present time now there is a-prelow power 5 inspection going on and that will produce a readiness 6 assessment team report.

7 . Following the completion of that there is a low-8 power inspection which results in a low power team report 9

plus the resident inspector produces an inspection report.

10- And Region 1 inspectcrs also produce an inspection report.

11 Excuse me, the regional inspectors produce more 12 than one inspection report on the low power testing..

13 All that information is put together and released 14 in the form of a 94.300 letter which is from the regional 15 director to Murley of the NRC. And this contains an 16 assessment on readiness for full power and the NRC Staff's 17 recommendation.

18 If any problem arose during the low power testing 19 it would be documented in one of these NRC inspection l

20 reports.

21 Since low power testing must be successfully 22 conducted prior to full power operation, I don't think that 23 the Mass AG is being deprived of any information.

24 The availability of all these various reports, the 25 prelow-power report; the low power report by the low-power Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

~

, 23588 1 team; the inspection reports by the resident inspector and 2 the regional inspectors plus the 94.300 1$tter make the Mass 3 AG's hsaring right meaningful.

4 Massachusetts Attorney General has a right to 5 propose contentions based on this information and seek their

.6 admission, and if admitted, litigate those contentions.

7 This.is the opportunity afforded the'public to litigate the-8 low power testing.

9 JUDGE SMITH: You are.not stating at this time 10 that they do have a right to litigate the low-power testing, 11- are you?

12 MS. CHAN: No , this is --

13 JUDGE SMITH: They do have the right, is that it?

14 MS. CHAN: 'This is based on the assumption we made 15 that they had a right to litigate. And also, that they had 16 some right to observe or obtain information. And this makes 17 this hearing right meaningful because this information is 18 available. '

i 19 MR. TRAFICONTE: Could I just respond to that (

l 20 statement about the documents.

21 Could I have the Board either request, urge, or l

22 order the Staff to retain any and all documents generated by 23 the inspectors or anybody else in the control of the Staff, 24 all documents that then become the basis for these various  !

25 repo rts .

1

)

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l

l l

, 23589 1 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Traficonte, every time this 2 comes up you are faced with the same problem.

3 MR. TRAFICONTE: The jurisdictional problem is the 4 same.even with regar'd to --

5 JUDGE SMITH: We have absolutely no administrative 6 authority over the Staff. No supervisory authority over the 7 Staff.

8 We only have authority over the Staff as a party 9 to a proceeding on issues that are given before us.

10 MR. TRAFICONTE: I see.

11 JUDGE SMITH: In fact, the Commission has made it 12 clear in other decisions that if we believe that there is 13 some nonperformance upon the Staff, we are not to order them 14 to perform; we are to report the matter up the appellant 15 line.

16 MR. TRAFICONTE: So document retention is not in 17 your jurisdiction.

18 JUDGE SMITH: Absolutely not.

19 HR. TPAFICONTE: I just wanted to indicate, and 20 again I am not happy to have to report this the second week 21 in a row, but I would want to seek an interlocutory review 22 and seek directive certification on the portion of the 23 denial, if the Board would officially deny, that portion of 24 the motion granting us some relief as to access or 25 observational status, and specifically the last request Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

lL l 4 l ,

23590 1 .having to-do with making sure that the documentation'that is 1, ..

l '2' generat'ed is retained.

3 MS. CHAN: Mr. Traficonte, I can assure you at 4- this: point that I will make sure that the documentation is 5 retained.

6 MR. .TRAFICONTE:- Would that' include the special 7 computer program that has been written, . so that the core 8 exposure-can be tracked as well?

9 MS. CHAN: Well, the information I have as to the 10 reports that I have . discussed on the record, and as to that 11 information I will assure you and the Board that those 12 documents will be retained. As to other documents I'm not 13 aware of, I can't make that same assurance.

14 But las to the ones that I have mentioned on the 15 record, all documentation pertaining to those will' be 16 retained.

~

17 JUDGE SMITH: The portion of your motion to be 18 ' granted observation opportunities during the power 19 ascendancy'is denied.

20 Your motion that we certify the matter is being 21' denied.

22 We will, however, provide for the most rapid 23 transmission of the transcript of this morning's arguments 24 and rulings to headquarters as we can possibly get them.

1 MR. TRAFICONTE:

25 Thank you, Your Honor.

Heritage Reporting Corporation )'

(202) 628-4888 I

_ _ _ - - _ _ _ - - -_ i

2 J5 91 -

1- JUDGE SMITHE It will be down in the hands of my

~

2

, secretary for further ~ transmission depending upon what you ..

3 need.

4 Off the record.'

5 (The' Board confers.)

6 JUDGE SMITH: We' re off the record here.

7 (Discussion off the record.)

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 h

20 21 22 23 24 25 l

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

1

'y)

.13 userrte atA1ts

NUCLIM MOULAT1MY COMhtt480N j M80s@$d I g*****/ .

475 ALLANDAL4 ROAD KING CF PRU641A. Pf.NNSYkVANIA 1$e48 --

Ocekets No.: 50-443

~

s CAL No.: 49-1] I

)

Public Service of New Hampshire (P5NH)

ATIN: Mr. Edward A. Brewn. Pessident and Chief Executive Officer New Hampshire Yankee Division Post Office Box 300 Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874 dentleren:

Subject:

CONFIRMATORY ACTION LETTER (CAL) E9-11 This letter confirms our understanding of those actions you intend to take in response to the react,0r ma.SuAl trip which occurrod on June 22, 1989 during the performance of the natural circulation staetup test. Those actions were discussed during a June 23, 1989 phone conversation between yourself and Mr.

Thomas T. Martin, Deputy Regional Administrator, NRC Region 1.

Specifically, we understand that, prior to startup of the unit, PSNH will:

(1) Complete and document the results of the post-trip review process

., associated with the Juee 22, 1989 event; (2) Establish those short ters corrective actions to be coepleted prior to resta*t of the un't to address the specific deficiencies identified during your post-trip rev'aw; (3) Determine those longer ters corrective actions and their respective schedules, to address any potentially broader implications associated with the specific deficiencies identified as a result of your review; and, (4) Review the results of itens (1), (2) and (3), above, with the NRC staff.

l 1 Ve further understand that the agreement ot' the Regigeal Administrator, j< Region 1, would be obtaired prior to restart of the unit. .

a g

h u

m

.=::--z s 1 - -:-_c'**

ublic Se'rvice of New Hampshire t

estanding differs from that set forth abe e v . please call re

.Sinceret ,

i William f. Russell tagional Acministrater ec:

J.C.C.Falgeebaue T. Duf fett, President. and Chief Executive Off t cer F1NM J.EM.

D. Peschel, Moody StationRe. Maf ager. Vice NMYgulatory President, Esgtater Services Manager, ng,1.tcens,ing gram,NNY NHY

&Q P. W. Agnes,, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Publi Commonwe41tb c $4fety, Public Document Aconof(PCR Massachusetts Local Pubite Document Room) (t.POR)

NRC Resident 16spectorNuclear Safety Information Center (h3!C)

State of New Nampshire ,

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Seabrook Hearing Service List i

_ - - - - - ' ' - ' _ _ _ _ _ , , _ _ _ - - - - - - ' " ' - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - ^ - ' -

%~

,r ~. ugay,y,

[ , ,. . g ,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l y j WAssiNcTON. O C. 20555 1

%,%...../ May 21,1989 Docket No. 50-443 I

(

Mr. Edward A. Brown i President & Chief Executive {

Officer 1

.New Hampshire Yankee Division i Public Service Company of New Hampshire Post Office Box 300 i Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874

SUBJECT:

SEABROOK LOW POWER PHYSICS TESTS In accordance with the Comission Order, CLI-88-10 dated December 21, 1989, for any low power testing license that may be. issued for Seabrook Unit 1, the license will be conditioned to allow operation at power lavels not in excess of five percent and shall permit no more than 0.75 effective full power hours (EFPH)ofoperation.

In consideration that such a license may be issued, we have reviewed the manner in which your staff intends to perform low power physics tests and remain within the license restriction of 0.75 EFPH and 55 maximum power level. The enclosure presents a sunnary of our understanding of how the two restrictions are expected to be met. We find the approach to be satisfactory.

Sincerely, f- e Victor Nerses, Project Manager Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor Projects I/II

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/o enclosure:

See next page

)

j Enclosure

. Seabrook 51/0.75 EFPH Operation GENERAL INFORMATION' O.75 effective full power hours (EFPH) operation for Seabrook is equiva-1ent to 0.75 x 3411MW g x 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> = 2558 W t

-hr. At 55 power (or 170.6 Wg ),

Seabrook could operate continuously for 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br />. The tests to be conducted are primarily low power physics tests and a natural circulation test. The majority of the low power physics tests are conducted in the zero power test range. (approximately .015 power). Low power flux mapping will be conducted at approximately 15 power and the natural circulation test will be conducted at approximately 35 power.

The process that will be used to determine core exposure during the low power' test program will be identical to that used to determine core exposure during normal plant operation. however, instead of using a secondary calorimetric to calibrate (normalize) the power range nuclear instruments the core AT power will be used to calibrate (normalize) the intermediate range (IR) nuclear instruments. This calibration will be based on the full power core temperature rise (core A T). One of the first evolutions to be performed in the low power test program will be to increase reactor power to 35 (based on core &T) and record the IR detector currents. From the data obtained by this evolution, the normal-izationconstantsforeachintermediaterangedetector(amps /5 power) will.be determined.

A process computer program has been written to record the IR detector currents and the time between program executions. The program then utilizes this data along with the IR detector normalization constants to calculate core exposure. The EFPH will be the sum of the test power levels times the test time and this sum will be maintained below 2558 Mw -hr.

t

2-SPECIFIC INFORMATION -

Reactor power will be measured using the core temperature rise normalized to the full power core temperature rise (connonly referred to as AT power). The IR detector outputs will then be normalized to the measurec

- core A T power. -It will be necessary to calibrate (normalize) the IR detectors to trace core exposure because most of the' low power testing is conducted in the zero power test range where core &T is O'T but the IR

!~

detectors are producing a current equivalent to approximately .011 power.

The uncertainties associated with the measurement of coreAT are about the same magnitude as the measurement itself. To offset this, a full power core AT of 57.0*F is used to determine the IR detector normalization constants. A full power core AT of 57.0*F is conservative with respect to the expected full power value of 59.4*F. The process of normalizing the IR detector output to match core 4T power also normalizes.out any uncertainties associated with the IR detector outputs. Thus, the IR detector outputs simply inherit the error associated with'the core AT ~

measurements which has already been accounted for.

All instruments necessary to monitor core exposure are calibrated with the exception of,the IR detector output normalization. IR detector normalization will be performed during normal plant startup regardless of any core exposure limitations.

There is no specific plan or schedule for expending the .75 EFPH. The only plan that exists is the low power test sequence which, if goes as planned and without any unforeseen test or equipment difficulties, should be completed within the allotted exposure limit. The tests are expected to be completed in about ten days.

A special computer program has been written for the main plant computer to calculate and track core exposure. An administrative procedure will be written to ensure that the exposure limit will not be exceeded and to document core exposure. The administrative procedure that tracks and documents core exposure will contain a section on manual tracking of core exposure if the plant computer is unavailable.

u

'{

m .

h. -.

g.

JUN 2 71989 l

MEMORANDUM FOR: William F. Kane,' Director Division of Reactor Projects 'l i

4 FROM: William T. Russell Regional Administrator

SUBJECT:

AUGMENTED INSPECTION TEAM (AIT) - MANUAL REACTOR TRIP DURING NATURAL CIRCULATION TEST ~AT SEABROOK STATION UN You are directed to perform an Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) review of-the causes, safety implications, and associated licensee actions which-led to -  :

and followed, both immediately and subsequently, the manual reactor trip that '

occurred June during-the natural circulation test at Seabrook Station Unit 1 on 22, 1989. The. inspection shall be conducted in accordance'with NRC ,

l Manual Chapter 0513, Part III, and additional instructions-in this memorandum.

DRp is assigned responsibility for the overall conduct of this inspection. Jim Wiggins is designated as the Regional Team Manager and Peter Eselgroth as the onsite Team Leader. The Team will also include participants from the Division of Reactor Safety and from NRR. ,

OBJECTIVE The general objectives of this AIT are to:

a. . Conduct a timely, thorough, and systematic review of the circumstances surrounding the June 22, 1989 event; 4 I

i b.

Collect, analyze, and document all relevant data and factual information  ;

to determine the causes, conditions, and circumstances pertaining to the J event, including the response to the event by the operations and i technical support staffs and by licensee management;

c. \

Assess the safety significance of the event and communicate to Regional  !

management the facts and safety concerns related to the problems identified; and to ~

d. Evaluate the adequacy of the licensee's internal post-trip review of the event.

I J

)

l

c

' Memorandum for William F. Kane 2 SCOPE OF THE INSPECTION the probable causes of the event.The AIT response should identify and licensee's response to the event. It should also critically examine the a specific, onsite. detailed inspection plan addressing this event upon his a As a minimum, the AIT should:

a.

Develop a detailed chronology of the event; b.

Determine the root cause(s) of the event; c.

Determine the. expected response of the plant during a transition to natural circulation cooling and compare it to the actual plant dynamic response observed during the event; d.

Assess the adequacy lof the training and briefings provided by the licensee to its staff in preparation for the natural circulation test; e.

Assess support thestaffs adequacy of the responses of the operations and technical to the event; f.

Assess the. scope and quality of the licensee's internal review of the event, including its initial (preliminary) and final (detailed) post-trip review; and, g.

Assess the scope and quality of short-term actions and gather information related to the long-term actions intended to prevent recurrence of the event, licensee-identified concerns and corrective actions. including int SCHEDULE the inspection no later than 9:00 28, a.m.,

1989.

JuneThe AIT shall be dispat inspection effort.

inspection will be provided to me within 3 weeks of completion of on-siteA written rep 1

.1 1

- . - - - - 1

1 I

l. Memorandum for William F. Kane 3' i

TEAM COMPOSITION The assigned Team members are as follows:

Regional Team Manager -

James Wiggins, RI

-Onsite Team Leader -

Peter Eselgroth, RI Onsite Team Members -

Noel Dudley, Senior Resident Inspector James Trapp, RI Lambros Lois, NRR/SRXB Fred Guenther, NRR/LOLB William T. Russell Regional Administrator cc:

S. Varga, NRR R. Wessman, NRR I. Martin, DRA S. Collins, DRP B. Boger, DRS .

Team Members k__._-_________._.

4* 'o

^.,, UNITED STATES 4, ! 3 n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g * ,I

, WASMNG TON, D. C. 20555 1

j

• • e , ,', e

• MAY t 21989

[ l l

l

~

MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas Murley, Director l

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Lawrence J. Chandler Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement

SUBJECT:

Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)

CLI-89-08 On May 18,1989, the Comission issued an order (CLI-89-08) in which it denied motions filed by interveners SAPL, NECNP, ti'e Massachusetts Attorney General, and the Town of Hampton seeking to stay p_endente lite authorization for Applicants to conduct low power testing. In denying the requested stays, the Comission found that a consideration of the stay criteria set forth in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.788(e) did not weigh in interveners' favor. CLI-89-08, slip op. at 5-29. In this regard the Comission took special note of interveners' failure to show they would suffer irreparable harm if a stay was not granted. TheCommissionstatedthat"[1]ackingany meaningful showing of irreparable harm." which is by far the most significant factor in deciding whether to grant a stay request, "there is scarce basis for the Comission to gran+. Intervanors' a stay." Id. at 11.

The Comission further found that interveners' stay motions dict not make the " overwhelming showing" of likely success on the merits "needed to outweigh a weak case on irreparable ham." M.at12. Accordingly, the Comission denied interveners' request for stay pendente lite. Ld.at2, 29.

The Comission did, however, accede to interveners' request for a one week housekeeping stay so as to enable them to pursue a stay from United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Id. at 29-30. In this connection, CLI-89-08 provides that "[nJo liceiise authorizing low-power testing for Seabrook shall issue before May 25, 1989 at 4 p.m.

EDT, or such earlier date as the Court may deny the stay requests now before it." g.at30.

W q

4 A

<=,- -2 Gregory Berry (x21573) and Edwin Reis (x21580) are available to discuss the enclosed decision with your staff.

~

Lawrence J. Chandler Assistant General Counsel I for Hearings and Enforcement

'i

Enclosure:

CLI-89 08 cc: J.F. Scinto, DGC W. Russell, Region I 1

I I

i l

DISTRIBtfTION:

GABerry l

RBachmann SBergquist EChan ,

STurk MMcDonald EReis JScinto l LChandler STreby  ;

WTravers JGutierrez OGC FF I OGC R/F l

l l, ,

i i: :0GC. :0GC  :

, ASGCH&

GABerr

...:....... f.......:..............:..............::............

l 4E i pReis .LChar 16  :  :  :

,.....:...h :5// ...

/.....

TE V

(

.....b4/TT::......

( ...:..............:..............:............

l d[F F'I C I A l ' RECORD COPY

_ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . - _ _ _ . _ .- )