ML19345G921
| ML19345G921 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 04/11/1981 |
| From: | Fazio P ILLINOIS POWER CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345G922 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8104220735 | |
| Download: ML19345G921 (19) | |
Text
. * .
. g'~~T W r, N %-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 8
- 5 sr NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o IN THE MATTER OF ) O- #
ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY, SOYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE, INC.
) 4'
,-g #
M I' 4[\Y
)
and WESTERN ILLINOIS POWER )
COOPERATIVE, INC. )
) Docket Nos. 50-461 OL
) 50-462 OL (Operating Licenses for Clinton )
Power Station, Units 1 and 2) )
RESPONSE OF APPLICANTS TO THE PRAIRIE ALLIANCE REVISED PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND l REQUEST FOR HEARING Illinois Power Company ("IP") , Soyland Power Cooperative, Inc. and Western Illinois Power Cooperative,
( Inc. (collectively " Applicants"), by their attorney, Peter V. Fazio, Jr., submit this Response to the Prairie Alliance Revised Petition For Leave to Intervene and Request For Hearing.
A. General Comments l
On November 10, 1980, IP filed its Answer to the Prairie Alliance (" Petitioner") Petition to Intervene.
In that Answer, IP stated that it does not oppose interven-tion by parties who have a legitimate interest in, and who will make a valuable contribution to, these proceedings.
However, IP expressed the concern that intervention by 05 Petitioner would not serve these goals because the Petition
//
i Qsi04220735
l to Intervene involved numerous issues falling outside the ambit of an operating license proceeding.
On January 14, 1981, Petitioner filed its Supple-l l ment to its Petition to Intervene and Request For a Hearing
(" Supplement"). This supplement contained 41 contentions.
l After reviewing the Supplement, Applicants found that IP's previously expressed concerns were well-founded. In their Answer to the Supplement, filed on January 26, 1981, Applicants l stated that Petitioner's contentions were inadmissible t
for three primary reasons:
- 1. Contrary to the express requirements of 10 CFR
[
S2.714(b), Petitioner's contentions were entirely devoid of the specific factual basis necessary to understand and evaluate the alleged issues.
i
! 2. Many of the Petitioner's contentions concerned issues decided at the construction permit stage.
l 3. Several of Petitioner's contentions raised issues which could only pertain to facilities with designs l radically different from the design of the Clinton Power Station, or restated other contentions
( presented in the Supplement.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in its Memorandum l
and Order (Summarizing Special Prehearing Conference, Sum-marizing Telephone Conference, and Ordering Second Special
Prehearing Conference), issued March 18, 1981, voiced con-cerns similar to those raised by Applicants when it stated:
A Special Prehearing Conference was held on January 29, 1981 in Urbana, Illinois.
During a general discussion of the contentions of the petitioner for intervention, Prairie Alliance (PA), and a detailed discussion of a number of such contentions, it became apparent that many of the contentions failed to meet the specificity and basis requirements of 10 CFR S 2.714(b).
As a consequence of the readily-perceived deficiencies in Petitioner's contentions, the Board granted Petitioner an additional six week period in which to consult with the Nuclear Reguletory Commission ("NRC") Staff and submit revised contentions. On March 30, 1981, after such consul-tation, Petitioner filed its Revised Petition For Leave to Intervene and Request for Hearing ('nevised Petition")
which contained nineteen new contentions.
Petitioner has incorporated in its Revised Petition the 41 contentions previously advanced in the Supplement.
Since these 41 contentions have not been revised, the nineteen contentions advanced in the Revised Petition are new conten-tions. At the first special prehearing conference, the Board authorized only the filing of revised contentions; it did not grant an extenaion of time in which to file new contentions. Before any of the new contentions can be admitted, the Board must consider the criteria for non-timely filings set forth in Section 2.714 (a) (1) of the NRC Rules of Practice.
Since Petitioner has incorporated its 41 original contentions in the Revised Petition, Applicants hereby incorporate their responses to those original contentions as set forth in their Answer to the Supplement. Applicants renew their request that all 41 of the original contentions be rejected for the reasons previously given.
Section 2.708(c) of the NRC Rules ot' Fractice requires that the original of each document filed with the NRC shall be signed in ink by the filing party or his authorized representative. No provision for a signature appears on the copy of Petitioner's Revised Petition received by Applicants. Section 2.708 (c) further states that if a document is not signed "it may be stricken." The person appearing on behalf of Petitioner at the second special i
prehearing conference should be required to make the represen-tation set forth in Section 2.708(c) that "to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, the statements made in the [ Revised Petition] are true, and that it is not interposed for delay." If the person appearing on behalf of Petitioner is unable to make this representation, the Revised Petition should be stricken.
Section 2.714(b) of the NRC Rules of Practice requires that a petitioner shall file a list of contentions, l
l
with "the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity." Therefore, Petitioner must set forth with reasonable specificity the knowledge, information, and belief, on which each contention is based. See, e.g. Off-shore Power Systems (Manuf acturing Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants) LBP-77-48, 6 NRC 249 (1977) ("To be admissible, contentions must be specific and factually supported."
Emphasis added.) Some of Petitioner's new contentions have no basis in fact at all. Others are so vague that they fail to provide the Applicants and Staff with "a fair opportunity to know precisely what the issues are, exactly what proof, evidence or testimony is required to meet the issue and exactly what support Intervenor intends to adduce for its allegations." Gulf States Utilities Company (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760, 771 (1977).
A number of Petitioner's new contentions fail to raise litigable issues because the allegations in those contentions, even if true, would not establish a violation of statutory or NRC requirements. Other new contentions address matters resolved at the construction permit stage.
l l Reexamination of these issues in the operating license proceeding would not only be inconsistent with NRC practice, Alabama Power Company (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant,
( .
i
Units 1 and 2) CLI-74-12, RAI-74-3, at p. 203-204 (1974),
but would also waste time and resources.
Some of Petiticner's new contentions are premature because they raise issues which are the subject of generic study by the NRC staff and are therefore incapable of proper evaluation for admission as valid contentions until after the issuance of the Safety Evaluation Report ("SER").
See Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-6, 9 NRC 291, 312 (1979).
Other new contentions, which address matters under review by Applicants, are likewise premature. These contentions cannot be evaluated until Applicants complete related work required by the NRC regulations. As with the generic issues, the admissibility of these contentions cannot be determined at this time.
B. Applicants' Response To Petitioner's New Contentions
- 1. Applicants object to Petitioner's new conten-tion No. 1 on the grounds that it is premature.
The Emergency Plan ("EP") as originally drafted met all applicable NRC requirements. After the EP was submitted, the NRC issued a new set of final regulations governing emergency planning, which are set forth in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, and were effective November 3, 1980.
45 Fed. Reg. 55402 (August 19, 1980). Applicants are in the process of revising the EP to meet the new requirements.
The allegations in subparagraphs (a)-(g) provide no basis for the new contention since consideration of these matters is either not required by the NRC, or the allegations are too vague to allow Applicants to frame a response.
- 2. The first paragraph of Petitioner's new con-tention No. 2 does not state a contention. If Petitioner means to allege that Applicants are in violation of 10 CFR 550.34 (b) (7) by failing to include in the FSAR a state-ment of "the technical qualifications of the Applicant,"
then there is no factual basis for this contention.
If Petitioner means to allege that Applicants possess insufficient management and technical qualifications to operate the Clinton Power Station safely, Applicants object on the arounds that there is no basis in fact for this contention and none has been alleged by Petitioner.
l None of the specific allegations made by Peti-tioner in the second paragraph support the contention that Applicants lack sufficient management and technical quali-fications. There has never been any finding by the Illinois Commerce Commission, or any other regulatory agency, of any mismanagement. Changes in organization and personnel, and quality assurance and quality control problems noted
i in inspection reports and solved in the normal course of construction, provide no factual support for a contention of mismanagement. There is no factual basis for the allegation that IP has provided insufficient documentation of deviations from current regulatory practice.
Petitioner's new contention No. 2 is merely a general challenge to IP's management skills. 10 CFR 550.34 (b) (7) is not intended to turn an operating license proceeding into a general management audit.
- 3. Applicants object to Petitioner's new conten-tion No. 3 on the grounds that it has no basis in fact.
f i Applicants have complied fully with the requirements of 10 CFR 550.34(b) and Part 50, Appendix C, for demonstrating the necessary financial qualifications.
The only purported basis for Petitioner's new contention is regulatory uncertainty. This is far too broad and vague to serve as an adequate basis. If regulatory uncertainty were a basis for contesting the construction or operation of a power plant, no license would ever be l
issued.
l
- 4. Applicants object to Petitioner's new conten-tion No. 4 on the grounds that it has no basis in fact.
Applicants have submitted to the NRC a security plan which complies fully with the requirements of 10 CFR S73.55.
1
Applicants also object to Petitioner's contention that the FSAR lacks adequate assurance of compliance with all regulatory requirements. This contention has no basis in fact. The relevant sections of the FSAR fully comply with all requirements, either by following applicable regula-tory guides or by following permissible alternatives.
- 5. Applicants object to the first paragraph of Petitioner's new contention No. 5 on the grounds that it has no basis in fact and is impermissibly vague.
Applicants object to the second paragraph of Petitioner's new contention No. 5 on the grounds that it has no basis in fact. Applicants have fully complied with all NRC requirements in the design of the Clinton Power Station.
Applicants' object to the third paragraph of Peti-tioner's new contention No. 5 on the grounds that the NRC policy as set forth in 45 Fed. Reg. 40101 does not apply to the Clinton Power Station FSAR and ER.
- 6. Applicants object to Petitioner's new conten-tion No. 6 on the grounds that it has no basis in fact and is impermissibly vague.
To the extent that the contention raises design issues considered at the construction permit stage, such issues are not a proper matter for consideration in the present operating license proceedings.
-g-l - - - --- _.
There is no basis for the allegation in the third paragraph of Petitioner's new contention No. 6, that the l Clinton Power Station is especially vulnerable to ATWS.
Mr. T..J. Koch's letter of July 18, 1980, provides no basis for the allegation that the control rod drive tubes have not been adequately repaired. In fact Mr. Koch's letter 4 shows precisely the opposite. Applicants have designed and constructed the Clinton Power Station in full compliance i
with all applicable NRC requirements.
- 7. Applicants object to Petitioner's new conten-tion No. 7 on the grounds that the allegatiore antained in subparagraphs (a)-(i) provide no basis for the contention.
Subparagraphs (a)-(g) and (i) cite NUREG-0660, which is not now an NRC requirement.
The allegation in subparagraph (a) has no basis in fact, since Applicants have provided sufficient instrumen-tation for displaying and recording the reactor pressure
! vessel level.
The allegations in subparagraphs (e) and (f) have no basis in fact and are impermissibly vague.
The allegation in subparagraph (h) provides no '
basis for the new contention since Applicants have complied with the provisions of Regulatory Guide 1.114, as clarified in $1.8 of the FSAR.
The allegation in subparagraph (j ) is premature.
Applicants will amend the FSAR to comply with all future NRC requirements.
- 8. Applicants object to Petitioner's new conten-tion No. 8 on the grounds that it has no basis in fact.
Applicants have fully complied with the criteria cited by Petitioner, and the FSAR meets all applicable NRC require-ments.
- 9. Applicants object to Petitioner's new conten-tion No. 9 on the grounds that it has no basis in fact.
Applicants have considered the economic and social effects of construction and operation to the extent required by the NRC.
The allegations in subparagraphs (a)-(e) provide l no basis for the new contention because Applicants complied with all NRC requirements.
l The allegations in subparagraphs (f) and (g) provide no basis for the new contention since they concern matters outside the scope of the present proceeding. See, e.g., Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-80-39, 2 Nuc. Reg. Reptr. (CCH) 129,637 (December 5, 1980).
- 10. Applicants object to Petitioner's new conten-tion No. 10 on the grounds that it has no basis in fact.
Applicants have fully complied with all NRC requirements l
t l
relating to the general design criteria in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A.
- 11. Applicants object to Petitioner's new conten-tion No. 11 on the grounds that it has no basis in fact and is impermissibly vague. Applicants have fully complied with all NRC requirements regarding radiation monitoring systems. The allegations of subparagraphs (a)-(e) fail to specify any violation of NRC requirements.
- 12. Applicants object to Petiticner's new conten-tion No. 12 on the grounds that it has no basis in fact.
Applicants have fully complied with all NRC requirements regarding detection of reactor coolant pressure boundary leaks.
- 13. Applicants object to the first paragraph and subparagraphs (a)-(d) of Petitioner's new contention No. 13 on the grounds that they have no basis in fact.
Applicants have fully complied with all NRC requirements regarding radiation exposure levels, either by following the applicable regulatory guide or by following a permissible alternative.
Applicants object to subparagraph (e) of Petitioner's new contention No. 13 on the grounds that it is premature.
- 14. Applicants object to Petitioner's new conten-tion No. 14 on the grounds that it has no basis in fact.
Applicants have complied with all applicable NRC requirements relating to the Emergency Core Cooling System.
- 15. Applicants object to Petitioner's new conten-tion No. 15 on the grounds that it has no basis in fact.
Applicants have fully complied with all applicable NRC requirements relating to the release of low-level radiation.
The allegations in subparagraph (a) repeat matters raised in Petitioner's new contention No. 5, and should be rejected for the reasons set forth in Applicants' response thereto.
The allegations in subparagraphs (b)-(e) have no basis in fact since Applicants have complied sith all applicable NRC requirements relating thereto.
- 16. Applicants object to Petitioner's new conten-l tion No. 16 on the grounds that (1) issues relating to the transportation of nuclear fuel and nuclear waste are outside the scope of an operating license proceeding, See e.g., Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, ALAB-50, 4 AEC 849, 863 (1972); Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-31, 4 AEC 689, 693 (1972); Pennsylvania Power & Light Co, (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-6, 9 NRC 291, 293 (1979) and (2) Petitioner's allegations concerning the storage of nuclear fuel and nuclear waste have no basis l
l l
l
in fact. Applicants have ccmplied fully with all NRC require ~
ments relating thereto.
l The allegations in subparagraphs (a)-(d) provide no basis for the contention because they are impermissibly vague.
- 17. Applicants object to Petitioner's new conten-tion No. 17 on the grounds that it has no basis in fact.
The allegations in subparagraphs (a)-(f) provide no basis for the contention since the matters to which they refer need not be considered in the OL-ER. 10 CFR *
$51.21. Moreover, the allegations in subparagraphs (a)-(f) are impermissibly vague.
- 18. Applicants object to Petitioner's new conten-tion No. 18 on the grounds that it has no basis in fact.
The allegations in subparagraphs (a)-(c) refer to matters which need not be considered in the OL-ER. 10 CFR 551.21.
The allegation in subparagraph (d) is impermissibly vague.
- 19. Applicants object to Petitioner's new conten-tion No. 19 on the grounds that it is premature.
WHEREFORE, Applicants respectfully request that the Revised Petition be dismissed, and that the Petition to Intervene be denied.
J . A Peter V. Fativ,W d
One of the Attorneys for Applicants Dated: April 11, 1981.
Sheldon A. Zabel William Van Susteren Charles D. Fox IV Schiff Hardin & Waite' 7200 Sears Tower 233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 876-1000 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD IN THE MATTER OF )
ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY, )
SOYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE, INC. )
and WESTERN ILLINOIS POWER )
COOPERATIVE, INC. )
) Docket Nos. 50-461
) 50-462 (Operating Licenses for Clinton )
Power Station, Units 1 and 2) )
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney here-with enters an appearance in the captioned matter. In accordance with Section 2.713, 10 CFR Part 2, the following information is provided:
Name - William Van Susteren Address - Schiff Hardin & Waite 7200 Sears Tower 233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 Telephone number -
(312) 876-1000 Admission - Supreme Court, State of Illinois Names of Parties - Illinois Power Company 500 South 27th Street Decatur, Illinois 62525
- Soyland Power Cooperative P. O. Box A 1606 Decatur, Illinois 62525
~. . . -
- Western Illinois Power Cooperative P. O. Box 609 Highway 67 South Jacksonville, Illinois 62651 Respectfully mit d,
}V '
b~-/ -
William Van Susteren Counsel for Illinois Power Company, Soyland Power Cooperative and Western Illinois Power Cooperative Dated at Chicago, Illinois j this 10th day of April, 1981 i
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that an original and two con-formed copies of each of the foregoing documents were served upon the following:
Secretary of the Commission United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch and that one copy Of wach of the foregoing documents was served upon each of the following:
Hugh K. Clark, Esq., Chairman P. O. Box 127A Kennedyville, Maryland 21645 Dr. George A. Ferguson School of Engineering Howard University 2300 Sixth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20059 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Executive Legal Director United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Philip L. Willman Assistant Attorney General Environmental Control Division 188 West Randolph Street Suite 2315 Chicago, Illinois 60610 Prairie Alliance P. O. Box 2424 Station A Champaign, Illinois 61820 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 in each case by deposit in the United States Mail, postage prepaid on April 11, 1981.
J N .%
b
- Peter V. Fazio,M r N Attorney for Applicants Schiff Hardin & Waite '
7200 Sears Tower 233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 876-1000 i
e I
l t
l l l
l
. __ _ . . . - _ .. . . - . _ - . _ .