ML20031A944
| ML20031A944 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 09/21/1981 |
| From: | Willman P ILLINOIS, STATE OF |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8109280416 | |
| Download: ML20031A944 (14) | |
Text
L MLATED nonnaseoxnExc3 o
A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCNagg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p.
IJSpfsc SEP2 3;gggj, "z IN THE MATTER OF
)
- $e ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY,
)
Bra.c SOYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE, INC.
)
9 g
N and WESTERN ILLINOIS POWER
)
COOPERATIVE, INC.
)
50-461 g G d g' h
)
Docket Nos.
50-4670L (Operating Licenses for Clinton
)
Power Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
c co a
!.~
m m 3
aT e-3 s
~
ny2 N tm ILLINOIS' MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TOl s5 ot p
'6-g ITS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO ILLINOIS Q g Q POWER COMPANY t m, C 7 A l
I
.D On June 26, 1981 the State of Illinois-(IllinYi'a Ofd its First Set of Interrogatories to Illinois Power Company (IP) and its First Request for Production of Documents.
On July _27, 1981 IP filed its Response to Illinois' First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents.
Then, on August 31, 1981 Illinois filed a Request for Guidance on Discovery.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (the Board) held a telephone conference with representatives of all pcrties on September 10, 1981, and during that conference granted Illinois' ten days to. file a motion _to compel answers to its discovery requests.
Pursuant to the Board's allowance of time Illinois now files this motion.
Illinois moves the Board to compel IP to answer Interro-gatories 3, 4.c.,
5.c.,
30-32, and 38-41, and to make available for inspection all documents.in its possession, custody, or con-trol within the scope of Document Requests Nos.
3-6.
In support g o3 of this motion Illinois statea as follows.
g
, /,
n
' kg Oh 1
_g nPDR
I.
.IP's Interrogatory Answers A.
Answers To Interrogatories Regarding Quali*
Control In Interrogaotry 3 Illinois asks IP to identify all persons IP has employed in Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) positions at the Clinton Power Sta-tion (CPS).
IP identified QA employees only.
Iv's answer to Interrogatory 3 is incomplete, be-cause it should have identified QC as well as QA employees.
B.
Objections to Interrogatories Regarding Termination of Employment Interrogatory 3.c.
asks IP to state for each person employed by IP in QA and QC positions the reasons for ter-mination of employment.
IP objected to Interrogatory 3.c.
on the grounds that it is not relevant, it is exempt from dis:1csure under 10 C.F.R. 52.790, and disclosure is not necessary to a proper decision in this proceeding.
Inter-rogatory 4.c.
asks IP to identify documents related to ter-mination of employment of any person in QA and QC positions.
And, Interrogatory 5.c. asks for documents related to the termination of employment of persons who manage the cor.-
struction of the CPS.
IP objected to these interrogatories-on the same grounds..
1.
The information sought in these interrogatories is relevant to Contentic.n 2, which alleges that IP has not shown that it has the requisite management and techni-cal qualifications to operate the CPS.
These intarroga-tories easily satisfy the general relevancy test, because the information sought therein clearly has some bearing on the issues raised in Contention 2.
See Commonwealth Edison CA (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-185, 6 AEC 240 (1974).
Information concerning the reasons for termina-tion of employment definitely relates to the issue of whe-ther IP has hired competent, experienced and qualified per-sonnel for QA and QC functions.
In turn, it tends to have a bearing on whether IP will be able to hire and retain competent, experienced and qualified personnel to safely operate, maintain, backfit and shut down the CPS.
More-over, it is related to the specific factual allegation in Contention 2 that IP's QA and QC program is deficient because, among other things, it does not have "a sufficient
(
number of experienced personnel.
It will tend to show whether -IP had retained a sufficient number of per-sonnel, and, if not, why not.
2.
For several reasons IP's reference to 10 C.F.R.
l 52.790 is not a proper objection to answering these inter-rogatories.
First, the purpose of Section 2. 790 is to state I
the general rule that, with certain specific exceptions,
e final NRC records and documents s',all be made available for public disclosure.
Thus, in the absence of a com-pelling reason for nondisclosure, NRC staff documents that are relevant to a licensing proceeding must be made available to the public for inspection and copying.
See Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. and Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAD-613, 12 NRC 317, 323 (1980).
Sec-tion 2.790 does not permit IP to refuse on a generic basis the inspection by Illinois of the documents in question.
- See, e.g.,
Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-410, 5 NRC 1390, 1403 (1977).
Section 2.790 was not intended to create such an obstacle to discovery.
Second, the exceptions under Sectiet 2.790 concern the nondisclosure of records and documents in NRC's cus-tody or control.
They do not directly involve the dis-covery of information in the hands of a non-governmental party such as IP.
Kansas Gas and Electric Co. and Kansas City Power and Light Co. (Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-327, 3 NRC 4 08, 415 (1976).
Pre-sumably, information concerning the reasons for termin-ation of IP employees has not been submitted to the NRC as part of the construction or operating license pro-ceedings for the CPS.
Therefore, the exceptions of Sec-tion 2.790 cannot shield IP, as a private party in the proceeding, from disclosure under discovery.
However, even if documents containing the infor-mation Illinois seeks are in NRC's custody or control, and therefore subject to Section 2.790, IP has not asserted the specific exemption under which the in-formation falls.
10 C. F. R. S2. 79 0 (a).
Nor has IP shown that it has followed, for Exemption 4, the ape-cific procedure for requesting nondisclosure.
Under Section 2. 790 (b) IP must make a timely application to the NRC if it proposes that a document be withheld from public disclosure, if it contains trade secrets or privileged or confidential commercial or financial information.
Kansas Gas and Electric Co. and Kansas City Power and Light Co., supra at 416.
To Illinois' knowledge IP has not done so.
Finally, even if IP has made a timely application and the NRC has granted it, Illinois has the right to inspect the documents. containing the information it seeks.
10 C. F. R.5 2. 790 (b) ( 6 ).
This right may be sub-ject to a protective order or other precautionary mea-sures.
Florida Power and Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-435, 6 NRC 541, 544-45 f.n.
12 (1977); Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-600, 12 NRC _ _ - _ - _ _ _
3,4 (1980).
But, these precautionary measures do not diminish the right of Illinois, as a party to this proceeding, to inspect the documents.
Even site se-curity plans, which have special protection under Sec-tion 2. 790 (d) (1), are subject to this right of inspec-tion.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-410, 5 NRC 1398, 1404 (1977).
3.
IP's objection on the ground that disclos'dre is not necessary to a proper decision in the proceeding is also inappropriate.
It is not clear what IP means by this objection.
The scope of discovery is governed by, among other things, the concept of general rele an-f, cy, but not by one of necessity.
IP is more likely raciting the language of 10 C.F.R.52. 744 (b) (1), which sets forth one of the grounds upon which the NRC staff may object to discovery requests.
This section is in-applicable to discovery propounded upon applicants such as IP.
Rather, this objection is properly raised by the NRC, through the Executive Director for Opera-l tions, and not by a private party such as IP.
Objections to Interrogatories Regarding the ATWS Contention C.
i Interrogatory 30 asks IP to state ea;1 anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) condition it has consid-ered or will consider with respect to the operation of..
the CPS, and then asks IP to' identify documents and per-sons related to each ATWS condition so considered.
IP objected to Interrogatory 30 on the ground that the information requested is beyond the scope of Conten-tion 5 and is therefore irrelevant.
IP asserts that there is no increased likelihood of an ATWS event at 1
the CPS because all control rod drive tubes ~ with faulty welds have been replaced.
Therefore, discovery relating to the " generic aspects" of ATWS is irrelevant.
Interrogatory 31 requires IP to describe all analyses or assessments to be performed with respect to the occurrence of an ATWS condition at the CPS.
Interrogatory 32 asks IP to state all the measures it will take to reduce the risk of an ATWS event at the CPS.
Interrogatories 38-40 ask IP to state whether IP will comply with NRC recommendations found in NUREG-0460, particularly the proposal to revise the standby liquid control system to provide for higher flow rates.
IP objected to these interrogatories for the reason stated in response to Interrogatory 30.
Contention 5 alleges that the CPS is particu-larly vulnerable to ATWS due to faulty welds of con-trol rod drive tubes.
It also alleges that the CPS should not be licensed until IP completes an ATWS analy-.
sis for (1) redundancy, (2) systems interaction, (3) loss-of-coolant accident, and (4) incidents ex-perienced at other GE boiling water reactors.
The information sought in these interrogatories is relevant to Contention 5 for several reasons.
First, these interrogatories satisfy the general re-levancy test, because the information sought has sore bearing on the issuas raised in Contention 5, parti-I' cularly as to the four conditions enumerated above.
See Commonwealth Edimen Co., supra.
Information con-cerr.ing the ATWS conditions and analyses IP has con-sidered relates directly to the issue of whether IP has completed the analysis for the four conditions t
enumerated above.
IP has taken an overly narrow view of the scope of Contention 5.
It has limited its answers to the specific factual allegation that faulty wieds on the control r( 3 drive tubes expose the CPS i
to a particular vulnerability to ATWS.
IP ignores the subsequent allegation that it must complete an ATWS analysis under four conditions.
l
(
Second, the information sought relates directly t
1 to the specific factual allegation concerning faulty welding of the control rod drive tubes.
By definition an ATWS ovent is t?e occurrence of an anticipated tran-l l l l
l
F sient--that is, a condition of normal operation--fol-lowed by a failure of the control rod system to insert and therefore attain reactor shutdown.
See Division of Systems Safety of NRC, Anticipated Transients Without Scram For Light Water Reactors, NUREG-0460, vol. 2 at IV-5 (1978).
The allegation in Contention 5 is that the assumption necessary to an ATWS analysis--that for some reason the control rod system will fail--is exa-cerbated by faulty welding at the CPS.
IP's complete response to these interrogatories will show whether it took into consideration in its ATWS analysis the alleged increase in the likelihood of control rod system failure.
If so, its ATWS analysis for each anticipated transient must demonstrate how IP in-tends to mitigate the consequences of an ATWS event, with the alleged increased likelihood of control rod failure part of the analysis.
C.
Objection To Interrogatory 41 Interrogatory 41 directs IP to describe the sys-tems to be installed for the detection of reactor cool-ant pressure boundary (RCPB) leckage, and for each sys-tem to provide specific information.
IP objected on the ground that the information requested is beyond the scope of Contention 8 and is therefore irrelevant'.
However, following IP's objection is an answer to In-terrogatory 41.
Contention 8 asserts that IP has not demonstrated the capability to comply with NRC requirements con-cerning RCPB leaks, particularly because sump flow monitoring calculation and indication devices are not seismically qualified and transmitters for sump flow monitoring instruments are not accessible.
The information requested in Interrogatory. 41 is relevant to the allegation that IP has not shown com-pliance with requirements as to RCPB leaks.
This in-formation will show to what extent IP has satisfied NRC requirements.
It will also aid in the determina-tion of whether the systems for detecting RCPB leakage must include seismic qualifications for the sump flow monitoring calculation and indication devices and accessibility for the sump flow monitoring instruments.
At any rate, IP has waived its objection to Interroga-j 1
i tory 41 by providing at least a partial answer.
l l
II.
IP's Response To Request For Production Of Documents IP objected to making available for inspection docu-ments, requested by Illinois in Requests 3, 4, and 5, concerning tne ATWS contention.
IP restated the objection it made to Inter-rogatory 30.
Illinois restates its response to IP's objection to -
Interrogatory 30 in moving for the production of these documents.
IP objected to making available for inspection docu-ments, requested by Illinois in Request 6, concerning the employ-ment records of persons employed in QA and QC functions within the last five years.
IP restated the objection it raised to In-terrogatories 3.d.,
4.c.,
and 5. c.
Illinois restates its re-sponses to IP's objection to these interrogatories in moving for the production of documents under Request 6.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above Illinois asks the Board to order IP to answer Interrogatories 3, 4.c.,
5.c.,
30-32, and 38-41, and to produce documents in response to Requests 3-6.
Respectfully submitted, TYRONE C.
FAHNER Attorney General I
State of Illinois BY:
PHILIP L'.
WILLMAN Assistant Attorney General Environmental Control Division l
l 188 West Randolph Street l
Suite 2315 l
Chicago, Illinois 60601 OF COUNSEL:
[312] 793-2491 I
Reed Neuman l
' Philip L. Willman l
Assistant Attorneys General i
l l
.l
7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE L!ATTER OF
)
CLL40IS POWER COMPANY,
)
SOYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE, INC.
)
and WESTERN ILLINOIS POWER
)
COOPERATIVE, INC.
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-461 OL j
(Operating Licenses for Clinton
)
50-462 OL Power Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served copies of Illinois' Motion To Compel Answers To Its First Set Of Interrogatories To Illinois Power Company on the persons on the attached Notice by causing them to be deposited in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, on this 21st day of September, 1981.
8 L. WL PHILIP L.
WILLMAN
- + - - - -
v o
,r-aw+
.,w--
e
-r, m
o,-
- -,-, +
m-
-we,
-,n-..
w-,
--*w-,
e-
-ea~~
v~
O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMI4ISSION IN THE MATTER OF
)
ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY,
)
SOYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE, INC.
)
and WESTERN ILLINOIS POWER
)
I COOPERATIVE, INC.
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-461 OL (Operating Licenses for Clinton
)
50-462 OL Power Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
NOTICE TO:
Hugh K.
Clark, Esq., Chairman P.O.
Box 127A Kennedyville, Maryland 21645 Dr. George A.
Ferguson School of Engineering Howard ~Jniversity 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 l
Richard J. Goddard Office of the ' Executive Legal Director United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Peter V.
Fazio, Jr.
Scniff, Hardin, & Waite 7200 Sears Tower 233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 Prairie Alliance i
P.O. Box 2424 l
Station A Champaign, Illinois 61820 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
Washington, D.C.
20555 l
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
~,,
n g
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT I have caused to be filed with the Secretary, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Wash-
- ington, D.C.
20555, Attention:
Chief, Docketing and Service Sec-tion, one original and two conformed copies of Illinois' Motion To Compel Answers To Its First Set Of Interrogatories To Illinois Power Company.
A copy of this document is attached and served upon you.
[. k f;=
PIIILIP L. WILLMAN Assistant Attorney General Environmental Control Division 188 West Randolph Street Suite 2315 Chicago, Illinois 60601
[312] 793-2491 DATED:
September 21, 1981