ML20151N531

Order (Denying New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Motion of 880713).* Part of 880713 Motion Requesting Clarification & Reconsideration of Board 880623 Order Re RG-58 & RG-59 Cables Denied.Served on 880802

ML20151N531
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	08/01/1988
From:	Harbour J, Luebke E, Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION
References
CON-#388-6846 88-558-01-OLR, 88-558-1-OLR, OL-1, NUDOCS 8808090029
Download: ML20151N531 (5)

Text

,

b i

[8b I DOLKERD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges: qmctc _s' W i

' Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chainnan uoCKii?")."' '"j a w Emeth A. Luebke Jerry Harbour SERVE 0 AUG 2 39gg

~

4 Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 .

4 In the Matter of 50-444-OL-1 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY (On-Site Emergency Planning and Safety Issues) l OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, g al. .

I

, (ASLBPNo. 88-558-01-OLR)  :

1 - (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) '

i 1 August 1, 1988 ORDER i (Denying NECNP Motion Of July 13,1988)

I

! On July 13, 1988, NECNP filed a Motion For Clarification Or l

Reconsideration Of The Board's Order Of June 23, 1988. Previously,  !

during a June 23 transcribed telephone conference, the Board had ruled inter alia that Applicants must prove that the twelve RG-59 cables are a  !

f technically acceptable replacement for the twelve RG-58 cables i

(Tr. 1178-79), but that it would not either allow or give any j consideration to any arguments or to any efforts to contend that the RG-59 cable is not environmentally qualified. (Tc.1179) NECNP's motion requested that we clarify whether in so ruling we had intended to preclude litigation upon the question of whether the RG-59 cable is l r

environmentally qualified for the twelve applications in which it is to j l

f be substituted for the RG-58 cable (Mot, at 1, 2). If we hold that it [

l i

880B090029 800001 3 ADOCK O p,

gDR

. - . . . _ -_- - --- _ .. - - - - - - - - - . - . - , --2

t I

\

l was our intention to preclude litigation of that question, theri NECNP l t

requested that we reconsider because, inasmuch as the equipment qualification file for RG-58 coaxial cable and RG-59 coaxial cable f

contains no performance criteria for either type of cable, there is no j valid basis for detennining either whether the RG-59 cable is ,

environmentally qualified for use in the circuits that presently use  !

l RG-58 cable, or that the RG-59 cable is technically acceptable as a substitute for the RG-58 cable. (Mot,at3,4) On July 19, 1988 the -

8 Staff and the Applicants filed opposing responses.

I Since, for some reason, neither Applicants nor Staff responded to NECNP's assertion that the EQF contains no performance criteria for s either type of coaxial cable, in a telephone call on July 20 the Board requested that supplemental briefs be filed by them addrescing this assertion and advised that a reply brief thereafter could be filed by  ;

NECNP. (This has not been the first time that a party has failed to file an exhaustive brief before this Board.) We also requested that we be advised whether performance specifications are required to be ir.cluded in the equipment qualification file -- since all parties have j advised that they agree that this is required by 10 C.F.R. 650.49, and i since we agree, we do not discuss this matter further.

l On July 21. Applicants filed a supplemental response in the form of [

t an affidavit of Newell K. L'oodward and on July 22, the Staff filed a supplemental response supported by a joint affidavit of Amritpal S. Gill j and Harold Walker, that had been submitted to the Appeal Board on February 17, 1988 in opposition to NECNP's Motion to Reopen the Record l l

t i

r o

E and Admit New Contention. On July 27. NECNP replied to the supplemental responses of Applicants and Staff. NECNP's reply was not supported by affidavit.I In their supplemental responses of July 21 and July 22 respectively, the Applicants and Staff, both citing the environmental [

qualification file (NECNP Exhibit 4), attest that the environmental qualification acceptance criteria -- e.g., "performance specifications" for RG-58 and RG-59 coaxial cables -- are contained in the environmental qualification file. However, the performance spec lfications cited by each differ.2 NECNP, noting this difference in its reply of July 27, asserts that neither party presents an adequate description of the performance specifications. NECNP also states that Applicants' characterization is incomplete. Finally, NECNP alleges that the Staff's criterion was one "set by the tester in the absence of plant-specific performance criteria." This, and NECNP's following arguments, go to the issue of the environmental qualification of RG-59 coaxial cable, concluding at page 5 with the claim "to the extent that Applicants' affidavit and the equipment qualification [ file] provide any performance -

l l

1 On July 29, without requesting leave to do so. Applicants submitted ,

i a supplemental affidavit of Mr. Woodward. Accordingly, we reject this filing. In passing, we also note that much of the substance of the supplemental affidavit could have been and should have been presented in Mr. Woodward's initial affidavit.

2 This is another example of parties failing to file exhaustive

) briefs.

L

1 6

ik specifications for the equipment included in that file, they address only the non-safety uses of the cable , , ."

We deny that part of the motion requesting clarification. Our

' June 23 ruling made it clear that, for the reasons stated in the transcript at pp. 1179-80, we would not allow any litigation upon the i

question of the environmental qualification of the RG-59 cable. In addition, we deny that part of the motion requesting r1 consideration-since that was the first time NECNP advanced the argument that there are no perfcrmance specifications for either type of cable in the equipment qualification file, and thus that matter cannot be the subject of a motion for reconsideration. Moreover, in its new arguments, advanced in

its reply of July 27, NECNP changes its original premise of no performance specifications and instead argues that the performance specifications in the environmental qualification file, as referred to by the Applicants and the Staff, are inadequale. Once again NECNP is attempting to raise the issue of the environmental qualification of l

RG-59 cable, the litigation of which has been barred by the Appeal Board and by this Board.

4 l

I l

e It is so ORDERED.

THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

.  % hlo ~

Sheldon J. Wo}f#, Chairhan ADMINISTRATIV(/ JUDGE Uf' JeYry Harbour v <

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE y> w i d d O.. '

. b Enyneth A. Luebke ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland ,

this 1st day of August,1988.

A e