ML20002E554
| ML20002E554 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1981 |
| From: | Fox C ILLINOIS POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20002E549 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101290069 | |
| Download: ML20002E554 (25) | |
Text
f',b 0llD I
p)
(
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF
)
ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY,
)
SOYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE, INC.
)
and WESTERN ILLINOIS POWER
)
COOPERATIVE, INC.
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-461 Operating Licenses for Clinton
)
50-462 Power Station, Units 1 and 2
)
ANSWER OF APPLICANTS TO THE SUPPLEMENT OF PRAIRIE ALLIANCE TO ITS PE?ITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST TOR HEARING Illinois Power Company ("IP"), by its attorney, Peter V. Fazio, Jr.,
submits this answer to the Prairie Alliance Supplement To Its Petition For Leave To Intervene And Request For Hearing on behalf of itself, Soyland Power Cooperative, Inc. and Western Illinois Power Cooperative, Inc.
(collectively " Applicants").
A.
General Comments 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 intervention 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 the Prairie Alliance would not serve these goals because the Prairie 81012 90 C)ll%l
Alliance's petition involved' numerous issues falling outside 1
the ambit of the present operating license proceeding which were fully examined and resolved in the construction permit hearings.
After-reviewing the 41 contentions contained in the Prairie Alliance Supplement filed January 14, 1981 ("Sup-plement"), Applicants find that IP's previously expressed concerns were well-founded.
Contrary to the express' requirements of 10 CFR
- 52. 714 (b), the Prairie Alliance contentions are entirely devoid of the specific factual bases necessary to understand and evaluate the alleged issues.
Representations of this type do nothing to further the licensing process and have histG; cally been rejected.
See e.g., Offshore Power Systems (Manufacturing Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants) LBP-77-48, 6 NRC 249 (1977) ("To be admissible, contentions must be specific and factually supported.
Contentions which are conclusional or barren and unfocused are of no assistance in the resolution of the issues to be decided and are inad-missible.").
Even conceding that a pro se petition is not
" held to those standards of clarity and precision to which a lawyer might reasonably be expected to adhere," Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1) ALAB-590, 11 NRC 542, 546 (1980); Public Service Electric and Gas Company (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-136, 6 AEC 487, 489 (1973),
l l. - - -.
Petitioner's supplement still fails to meet even the minimal standards of factual specificity required to state an intel-ligible contention.
The contentions further reflect the Petitioner's continued failure to recognize issues decided at the con-struction permit stage.
A significant number of the Prairie Alliance contentions merely restate design issues exhaustive-ly considered and resolved in that proceeding.
Reexamina-tion of these issues in the operating license proceeding would not only be inconsistent with the Commission practice, Alabama Power Company (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) CLI-74-12, RAI-74-3, at p.
203-204 ("In our view, an operating license proceeding should not be utilized to rehash issues already ventilated and resolved at the construction permit stage."); Houston Lighting and Power Company (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2) LBP-79-10, 9 NRC 439 (1979),
but would also waste time and resources.
[ ~.
Finally, Petitioner raises several contentions which could only pertain to nuclear facilities with designs radically different from the Clinton design or which merely restate other contentions presented in the Supplement.
B.
Applicants' Response to Petitioner's Specific Contentions 1.
Applicants answer contention No. 1 by stating that the contention is impermissibly vague and fails to l
adentify the basis for the contention with reasonable speci-ficity as required by 10 CPR 52.714(b).
2.
Applicants answer contention No. 2 by stating that 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., et al. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2),
LBP-79-6, 9 NFC 291, 293 (1979).
3.
Applicants answer contention No. 3 by stating that paragraph 1 of the contention deals with a subject which was resolved at the construction permit stage.
- Moreover, Petitioner fails to allege any changed conditions which would justify reconsideration of the subject in the present proceed-ing.
Paragraph 2 of the contention is impermissibly vague and fails to identify the basis for the contention with reasonable specificity as required by 10 CFR 52.714 (b), and the subject matter thereof is being dealt with generically.
See 45 Fed. Reg. 63466-74 (10/2/80).
4.
Applicants answer contention No. 4 by stating that it is premature at this time for Applicants to commence testing of the Clinton containment design since construction is not yet sufficiently completed.
To the extent that the contention raises issues with respect to the adequacy of that design, it was fully resolved at the construction permit stage.
Petitioner has failed to identify any changed condi-tions which would justify reconsideration of issues related to containment design at this time.
5.
Applicants answer contention No. 5 by stating that the contention is impermissibly vague and fails to iden-tify the basis for the contention with reasonable specificity as required by 10 CFR S2.714 (b).
In addition, the contention pertains to design issues fully resolved at the construction permit stage.
Petitioner has failed to identify any changed conditions which would justify reconsideration of those issues in the present proceeding.
6.
Applicants answer contention No. 6 by stating that the contention is impermissibly vague and fails to iden-tify the basis for the contention with reasonable specificity as required by 10 CFR 52.714 (b).
Applicants further answer that the contention pertains to design issues which were fully resolved at the construction permit stage.
Petitioner has failed to identify any changed conditions which would justify reconsideration of those issues in the present proceeding.
7.
Applicants answer contention No. 7 by stating that the contention is impermissibly vague and fails to iden-tify the basis for the contention with reasonable specificity as required by 10 CFR 52.714 (b).
8.
Applicants answer contention No. 8 by stating that it is nothing more than a repetition of contention No.
3.
Applicants incorporate their answer to contention No. 3 herein.
9.
Applicants answer contention No. 9 by stating that the contention is nothing more than a repetition of con-tention No. 4.
Applicants incorporate their answer to conten-tion No. 4 herein.
10.
Applicants answer contention No. 10 by stating that it is impermissibly vague and fails to identify the basis for the contention with reasonable specificity as required by 10 CFR 52.714(b).
In addition, Applicants answer that the contention pertains to design issues fully resolved at the construction permit stage.
Petitioner has failed to identify any changed conditions which would justify a reconsideration of those issues in the present proceeding.
11.
Applicants answer contention No. 11 by stating that it is impermissibly vague and fails to identify the basis for the contention with reasonable specificity as required by 10 CFR S2.714 (b).
In addit..., Applicants answer that under applicable Nuclear Regulatory Commission procedures, environmental issues which were considered during a construc-tion permit proceeding may only be considered in an operating license proceeding if there has been a showing of changed conditions.
Since Petitioner has made no effort to demon-strate any changed conditions, the contention must fail.
Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (William H.
Zimmer Nuclear Station) LBP-80-24, 12 NRC 231 (1980).,
l l
l
12.
Applicants answer contention No. 12 by stating that the contention is impermissibly vague and fails to iden-tify the basis for the contention with reasonable specificity as required by 10 CFR S2.714 (b).
Applicants further answer that under applicable Nuclear Regulatory Commission procedures, environmental issues which were considered during a construc-tion permit proceeding may only be considered in an operating license proceeding if there has been a showing of changed conditions.
Since Petitioner has made no effort to demon-strate any changed conditions, the contention must fail.
Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (William E..
Zimmer Nuclear Station) LBP-80-24, 12 NRC 231 (1980).
13.
Applicants answer contention No. 13 by stating that the contention is impermissibly vague and fails to iden-tify the basis for the contention with reasonable specificity as required by 10 CFR S2.714(b).
Applicants further answer that the contention pertains to issues which were fully re-solved at the construction permit stage.
Petitioner has failed to identify any changed circumstances which would justify reexamination of those issues in the present proceed-ing.
14.
Applicants answer contention No. 14 by stating that the FSAR was submitted in conformity with Commission rules and regulations as required by 10 CFR 550.34.
There-l fore, the contention must be dismissed as groundless..
15.
Applicants answer contention No. 15 by stating that the contention is impermissibly vague and fails to iden-tify the basis for the contention with reasonable specificity as required by'10 CFR S2.714(b).
16.
Applicants answer contention No. 16 by stating that the contention is impermissibly vague and fails to specify the basis for the contention with reasonable specificity as required by 10 CFR S2.714 (b).
Applicants further answer that the contention involves issues which are protected from public disclosure pursuant to Commission rules and regulations.
17.
Applicants answer contention No. 17 by stating that the contention is impermissibly vague and fails to specify the basis for the contention with reasonable specificity as re-quired by 10 CFR S2.714 (b).
18.
Applicants answer contention No. 18 by stating that the contention is impermissibly vague and fails to specify the basis for the contention with reasonable specificity as required by 10 CFR 52.714(b).
19.
Applicants answer contention No. 19 by stating that the contention pertains to design issues which were fully resolved at the construction permit stage.
Petitioner has failed to identify any changed conditions which would justify reexamination in this proceeding.
Applicants further answer that there is no requirement of law or regulaticn that they 4
demonstrate their financial capability to meet the cost of an accident similar to the accident which occurred at Three Mile Island Unit Two.
20.
Applicants answer contention No. 20 by stating that the issue raised by this contention was recently the subject of a generic proceeding by the Commission which re-sulted in the promulgation of guidelines.
See NUREG-0737.
Applicants intend to satisfy those guidelines.
Petitioner has failed to provide any basis for the concern which it expresses in the contention and, therefore, has failed to meet the requirements of 10 CFR S2.714 (b).
21.
Applicants answer contention No. 21 by stating that the contention pertains to design issues which were ful-ly resolved at the construction permit stage.
Petitioner has failed to identify any changed circumstances which would justify reconsideration of those issues in the present pro-ceeding.
22.
Applicants answer contention No. 22 by stating that it raises an issue which is not a proper subject for consideration in the present proceeding.
Applicants further answer that the contention pertains to issues which were re-solved at the construction permit stage.
Petitioner has failed to identify any changed circumstances which would justify reconsideration of those issues in the present proceeding.
See Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.,
et al. (Susquehanna
_g.
Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-6, 9 NRC 291 (1979).
23.
Applicants answer contention No. 23 by stating that the_ contention pertains to an issue which was fully re-solved at the construction permit stage and that all matt
- s bearing on this issue have been updated subsequent to that proceeding.
Petitioner has failed to identify any changed conditions which would justify reconsideration of the need for power in the present proceeding.
See Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (William H.
Zimmer Nuclear Station), LBP-80-24, 12 NRC 231-235 (1980); Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.,
(Sus-quehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-6, 9 NRC 291, 303 (1979), Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), LBP-79-1, 9 NRC 73, 86 (1979).
24.
Applicants answer contention No. 24 by stating that Applicants have developed their emergency evacuation plan in strict accordance with Commision requirements. 10 CFR 550, App. E.
Applicants further answer that the contention is impermissibly vague and fails to identify the basis for the contention with reasonable specificity as required by 10 CFR S2.714(b).
25.
Applicants answer contention No. 25 by stating that the contention pertains to design issues which were ful-Petitioner has ly resolved at the construction permit stage.
failed to specify any changed conditions which would justify reconsideration of those issues in the present proceeding.
6 26.
Applicants answer contention No. 20 by stating that the contention is impermissibly vague and fails to identify the basis for the contention with reasonable specificity.
- Further, this contention pertains to design issues which were fully re-solved at the construction permit stage.
petitioner has failed to raise any changed circumstances which would justify reconsidera-tion of those issues in the present proceeding.
27.
Applicants answer contention No. 27 by stating that this issue is inappropriate for consideration in the present proceeding.
Applicants further answer that there is no require-ment in the rules and regulations of the commission that would require consideration of phychological stress and trauma in the aftermath of accidents.
Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island, Nuclear Station, Unit 1).
CLI-80-39, NRC (December 5, 1980).
28.
Applicants answer contention No. 28 by stating that the contention is inpermissibly vague and fails to specify its basis with reasonable specificity as required by 10 CFR S2. 714 (b).
29.
Applicants answer contention No. 29 by stating that the contention is impermissibly vague and fails to specify the basis for the contention with reasonable specificity as required by 10 CFR 52.714 (b).
30.
Applicants answer contention No. 30 by stating that the contention is impermissibly vague and fails to ryecify the basis for the contention with reasonable specificity as required by 10 CFR S2.714(b).
31.
Applicants answer contention No. 31 by stating that the contention is impermissibly vague and fails to specify the basis for the contention with reasonable specificity as required by 10 CFR S2.714 (b).
32.
Applicants answer contention No. 32 by stating that the contention is impermissibly vague and fails to specify the basis for the contention with reasonable specificty as re-quired by 10 CFR 52.714 (b).
33.
Applicants answer the first sentence of conten-tion No. 33 by stating that Clinton Power Station does not contain a reactor coolant secondary system.
Thus, the issue raised by Petitioner is irrelevant to the present proceeding.
Applicants ansvar the second sentence of contention No. 33 by stating that the contention is impermissibly vague and fails to specify the basis for the contention with reasonable speci-ficity as required by 10 CFR S2.714 (b).
34.
Applicants answer contention No. 34 by stating that the contention is impermissibly vague and fails to specify the basis for the contention with reasonable specificity as required by 10 CFR S2.714 (b).
35.
hpplicants answer contention No. 35 by stating that the contention is impermissibly vague and fails to specify the basis for the contention with reasonable specificity as required by 10 CFR S2.714(b).
36.
Applicants answer contention No. 36 by stating that with respect to the primary coolant system, the conten-tion is impermissibly vague and fails to state the basis for the contention with reasonable specificity as required by 10 CFR 5 2. 714 (b).
Applicants further answer that the Clinton nuclear steam supply system will not have a steam generator and, thus, that aspect of the contention is irrelevant.
37.
Applicants answer contention No. 37 by stating that the contention is impermissibly vague and fails to state the basis for the contention with reasonable specificity as required by 10 CFR 52.714(b).
38.
Applicants answer contention No. 38 by stating that the contention pertains to design issues which were fully resolved at the construction permit stage.
Petitioner has failed to identify any changed conditions which would require reexamination of those issues in the present proceeding.
Ap-plicants further answer that the contention is impermissibly vague and fails to identify the basis for the contention with reasonable specificity as required by 10 CFR S2.714(b).
39.
Applicants answer contention No. 39 by stating that the contention is impermissibly vague and fails to speci-fy the basis for the contention with reasonable specificity as required by 10 CFR 52.714 (b).
40.
Applicants answer contention No. 40 by stating that the issue raised by the contention has been treated generically and has resulted in the issuance of a report, NUREG-0612, entitled " Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants - Resolution of TAP A-36."
In further answer to the contention, Applicants state that Petitioner has failed to state any basis for its contention whatsoever as required by 10 CFR 52.714(b).
41.
Applicants answer contention No. 41 by stating that the contention is impermissibly vague and fails to set forth the basis for the contention with reasonable specifi-city as required by 10 CFR S2.714 (b).
WHEREFORE, Applicants respectfully submit that the Supplement fails to present any justiciable contention and, consequently, fails to cure any of the substantial defects which IP noted in the Petition For Leave To Intervene and Request For Hearing filed by Petitioner on October 29, 1980.
Consequently, Applicants assert, as IP did in its Answer to the original Petition, that the Petition For Leave To Inter-vene and Request For Hearing, as supplemented, fails to raise any " aspect" which is a proper subject of inquiry at the operating license stage or any " aspect" which was not i
fully and conclusively resolved in the construction permit proceedings.
Accordingly, the Petition must be denied.
Dated:
January 26, 1981
'N' i
l'L m %.
t Peter V. Fazio), J r,c,
1 One of the Attorneys for Applicants l
Sheldon A. Zabel William G. Southard Charles D. Fox IV Schiff Hardin & Waite 7200 Sears Tower 233 South Wacker Drive 4
Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 876-1000 i
y a
a 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.00-461
)
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 additional' appearance in the captioned matter.
In accordance with Section 2.713, 10 CPR Part 2, the_following information is provided:
Name
- Peter V. Fazio, Jr.
Address
- Schiff Hardin & Waite 7200 Sears Tower 233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 876-1000 Telephone number Admission
- United States Supreme Court Names of Parties
- So'yland Power Cooperative P. O. Box A1606 Decatur, Illinois 62525 4
- Western Illinois Power Cooperative P. O. Box 609 Highway 67 South Jacksonville, Illinois 62651
' -Respectfully submitted, w.
.. s, if; l'~l.,>',.' '
Peter V. Fazio, Jr.
Counsel for Illinois Power Company Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 26th day of January, 1981 r
1 I
+
(
t
-1 e9 c-y m
eww
---m--
+
t 9y
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 CPR Part 2, the following information is i
provided:
Name
- Sheldon A. Zabel Address
- Schiff Hardin & Waite 7200 Sears Tower-233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 Telephone number (312) 876-1000 Admission
- United States Supreme Court Name of Parties
- Illinois Power Company 500 South 27th Street Decatur, Illinois 62525
- Soyland Power Cooperative P. O. Box A1606 Decatur, Illinois 62525 i
f
-~ Western Illinois Power Cooperative P. O. Box 609 Highway 67 South Jacksonville, Illinois 62651 Respectfully snbmitted, 44
'f3 ;f-7 I
eldon A. Zab Counsel for I'111nois Power Company Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 26th day of January, 1981 i
i i
i t
i o,
,.,e
~.
=-
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 G. Southard Address
- Schiff Hardin & Waite 7200 Sears Tower 233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 Telephone number (312) 876-1000 Addmission
- 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, Illt.nois 62525
- Western Illinois Power Cooperative P. O. Box 609 Highway 67 South Jacksonville, Illinois 62651 Respectfully submitted, o,l
\\.
(U William G. Southard Counsel for Illinois Power Company Dated at Chicago, 1111ncis this 26th day of January, 1981 4
i 7.'
-w w
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
- Charles D. Fox IV Address
- Schiff Hardin & Waite 7200 Sears Tower 233 South Wacker Drive Cnicago, Illinois 60606 Telephone number (312) 876-1000 Admission
- Supreme Court, State of Illinois Names of Parties
- Illinois Power Company j
500 South 27th Street j
Decatur, Illinois 62525
- Soyland Power Cooperative P. O. Box A1606 Decatur, Illinois 62525 4
l
- Western Illinois Power Cooperative P. O. Box 609 Highway 67 South Jacksonville, Illinois 62651-Respectfully submitted, I. !il '.b. '
b;th Charles D.
Fox IV Counsel for Illinois Power Company-2 Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 26th day of January, 1981 a
I,,,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that an original and twenty conformed copies of each of the foregoing documents we're 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 each 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.
Wathington, 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 l
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 i
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 January 26, 1981.
\\
N..
h!
\\
-fQ.
Peter-V. Fa,io,-Or.
Attorney for Illinois Power Company Schiff Hardin & Waite 7200 Sears Tower l
233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 876-1000 l.
i
.