ML20054B756
| ML20054B756 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1982 |
| From: | Goddard R, Gutierrez J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8204190170 | |
| Download: ML20054B756 (19) | |
Text
.
04/15/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
ILLIN0IS POWER COMPANY, et _al.
)
Docket No. 50-461 OL
)
(Clinton Power Station, Unit 1)
)
Ch
.a W.
NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO S.
7$
THE STATE OF ILLIN0IS' MOTION FOR LEAVE 2
gc3 TO FILE STATEMENT OF ISSUES ep[%; CftS
,,cp E
r" t
cQ$U p.
I.
INTRODUCTION Dgr \\
- On March 26, 1982, ten months after its admission to this pro-ceeding, the State of Illinois filed with this Board two issues it seeks to litigate herein.1/ Illinois argues in its pleading that as an
-1/
See, " Motion For Leave To File Statement Of Issues," dated March 26, T9F2. These issues are:
1.
The Applicants have failed to establish and execute a Quality Assurance (QA)/ Quality Control (QC) program during construction of CPS-1 that adheres to the criteria set forth in 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B.
Numerous problems in the QA/QC program have been discovered during construction of CPS-1, resulting, in some instances, in the termination of construction work. Many of these problems directly affect the construction at CPS-1 of safety related systems.
Yet, the NRC Staff in its SER has failed to adequately address these problems. Thus, there is no assurance that CPS-1 has been constructed in such a way that it will not endanger the health and safety of the public.
FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE DESIGNATED ORIGINAL Certified By b) 8204190170 820415 j
PDR ADOCK 05000461 G
PDR s
I /
interested state it need not satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R.
l 2.714(a) for late filed contentions and that, in any event, it has made the requisite showing in its Motion. Motion at 2.
Illinois further argues that the two issues raised are sufficiently detailed and precise so as to satisfy the basis and specificity requirements of 9 2.714(b).
j Motion at 2.
The Staff opposes the admission of Illinois' two proffered issues and subnits:
(1) as a 9 2.715 interested state, once Illinois elects to raise issues to be litigated, it must adhere to the procedural requirements governing parties admitted under i 2.714; (2) the two pro-posed issues are untimely and a balancing of the five factnrs set forth in 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(a)(1)(1-v) dictate against their admission; and, (3) Illinois' two proffered issues are overly broad and vague and, con-sequently, fail to meet the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(b).
If FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE 2.
The Applicants and the NRC Staff in its SER have failed to provide a comprehensive evaluation of CPS-1 for adverse systems interaction, as re-quired by 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A, Criteria 19, 20, 22 and 29.
Neither the Applicants nor the NRC Staff has adequately addressed the interaction of nonsafety grade components, equipment, systems, structures, and human and functional factors with safety systems and the effect this interaction will have during operations, transients, and accidents. This inadequacy is exacerbated by the Applicants' failure to adhere to a satis-factory Quality Assurance / Quality Control pro-gram during construction of CPS-1.
II. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE Notice of an opportunity for a hearing in this proceeding was published in the Federal Register on September 29,1980(45 Fed. Reg.
64307-09).
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714, the Prairie Alliance submitted a " Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Hearing" on October 29, 1980. The State of Illinois, by authority of 10 C.F.R.
$ 2.715(c), submitted a " Petition for Leave to Intervene" as an in-terested state on the same date. On March 25, 1981, a " Prairie Alliance Revised Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Hearing" was submitted. Among the contentions set forth in that pleading were two contentions very similar to what Illinois currently proposes:
(2) The CPS should not be licensed to operate until IP has demonstrated, as required by 10 C.F.R.
$ 50.34(b), and Part 50, Appendix B, that it possesses sufficient management and technical qualifications to assure that the CPS will be (a) maintained in a safe condition while operating normally, (b) safely operated and patrolled in the event of an abnormal occurrence or emergency, and (c) decommissioned in a safe manner.
Past mismanagement of the construction of Clinton Unit I has been documented in proceedings before the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) and is currently the subject of a separate ICC docket.
ICC Docket #80-0167. Since the start of con-struction on Unit 1 there have been shifts in IP organizational and personnel structure. Repeated Quality Assurance and Quality Control problems are noted in NRC Region III inspection reports.
Specifically, IP's Q.A. and Q.C. program is consistently deficient in its ability to assure (1)asufficientnumberofexperiencedpersonnel, (2) integrity of welding procedures, and (3) numerous other Q. A. and Q.E. functions.
Additionally, IP has not provided sufficient documentation of deviations from current regulatory practice in the form of Regulatory Guides, Standard Review Plans and Branch Technical Positions. These
g 4 - ".
incidents, among others, raise serious questions as to IP's management and technical capability to x
operate, backfit, and decommission the CPS in '
s compliance with regulatory requirements.
s (8) The CPS should not be licensed to operate until there has been a comprehensive evaluatior of, systens interaction, including the interplay of
~
human error and systems safety, as required by 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A, Criteria 19, 20,22 and 29.
In specific, the FSAR is inadequate in its focus on major failures within a single system.
Full consideration is not, but should be, given to multiple equipment failures, minor failures, and failures of non -safety related systems that interact with safety systems.
The State of Illinois in " Illinois' Response to Prairie Alliance's Revised Petition for Leave tn intervene and Request for Hearing" of April 9,1981, particularly supported the admission of these Prairie Alliance's contentions (pp. 2-3). At the Second Special Prehearing Conference of April 14, 1981, this support of the subject contentions was reiterated by the State of Illinois (Tr. 90-91,99,132,136). By "Menorandum and Order" of May 29, 1981, this Board revised and admitted Prairie Alliance Contention 2, providing:
2.
The CPS should not be licensed to operate until IP has demonstrated, as required by 10 CFR 50.34(b) and Part 50, Appendix B, that it possesses suf-ficient management and technical qualifications to assure that the CPS will be (a) maintained in a safe condition while operating normally, or (b) safely l
operated and controlled in the event of an abnormal occurrence or emergency, or (c) permanently shut i
down and maintained in a safe condition.
Repeated Quality Assurance and Quality Control problems are noted in NRC Region III Inspection Reports. Specifically, IP's Quality Assurance and Quality Control prooram is consistently deficient in its ability to assure (1) a sufficient number of experienced personnel, (2) integrity of welding procedures, and (3) numerous other Quality i
Assurance and Quality Control functions. These incidents, among others, raise serious questions as to IP's management and technical capabilities to operate, backfit, and permanently shut down the CPS in compliance with regulatory requirements.
Prairie Alliance Contention 8, however, involving systems interaction, was denied admission on the ground, inter alia, that it was not set forth with sufficient specificity.
(Memorandum and Ordcr, pp. 9-11, Appendix A, pp. 4-5).
Ten months thereafter, on March 26, 1982, the State of Illinois submitted the subject Motion wherein it states it wishes to participate in these proceedings on issues involving the purported failure of the Applicants to have a proper quality assurance and quality control program during construction and the purported failure of the Applicants to properly provide a comprehensive evaluation of adverse systems interactions. See fn. 1, supra.
III. DISCUSSION A.
As An Interested State, Once Illinois Elects To File Issues To Be Litigated, Illinois Must Adhere To The Procedural Requirements Governing Parties Admitted l
Under % 2.714 l
In its Motion,. Illinois states the lateness factors of 10 C.F.R.
l 2.714(a) do not apply to it as an interested state. Motion at 2.
The Staff disagrees.
It is true that by virtue of its status as an in-terested state Illinois has certain privileges not enjoyed by other parties to this proceeding.
For example, Illinois may participate with respect to a pending issue without taking a position on that issue.
However, once Illinois raises, as it has here, specific issues it must i
comply in all respects with the procedural requirements of 10 C.F.R.
l l
I 1
% 2.714. See, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), LBP-81-5, 13 NRC 226, 233, 246-47, modified in part, CLI-81-5, 13 NRC 361, 364 (1981); Gulf States Utilities Company (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760, 768 (1977); contra, Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company, et al.
(William H. Zimmer Nuclear Station), LBP-79-22,10 NRC 213, 216-17 (1979).
In light of the instant pleading, it must be stressed that an interested state, by reason of that status, is not relieved of its obligation to comply with all procedural rules governing other parties before this Board. Diablo Canyon, supra, LBP-81-5 at 247, CLI-81-5 at 364; River Bend, supra, at 768; Gulf States Utilities Company (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-317, 3 NRC 175, 180 n.7 (1976).
Indeed, with respect to the very procedural question before this Board, the Comnission in Diablo Canyon, CLI-81-5, supra, recently ruleo that both the specificity and lateness requirements for contentions must be followed in a proceeding wherein a % 2.715(c) party seeks to raise new i
issues.
In Diablo Canyon, the Commission reviewed certain portions of the Licensing Board's Prehearing Conference Order (LBP-81-5) which had earlier ruled on the intervention c# Governor Brown on behalf of the State of California as a % 2.715(c) party. The Commission, in reviewing the Licensing Board's Order, stated:
l In addition, of course, the specificity and l
lateness requirenents of 10 C.F.R. 2.714 must be satisfied, where applicable, and the standards for reopening records must be satisfied, where ap-plicable. Thus, to have a late filed contention admitted, [the five factors of 2.714(a)]... must be considered.
i i
CLI-81-5 at 364.
I
The Licensing Board in the Diablo Canyon case had earlier stated:
... an interested state participating under 10 CFR. 2.715(c) Governor Brown is not required to submit contentions of his own, but is free to fully participate in the litigation of any con-tentions which are otherwise accepted by the Board. However, if the Governor wishes to raise specific issues not otherwise accepted by the Board he must comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.714(b) for acceptable contentions, just as any other party must.
[SeeGulfStates Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-444, E NRC 760 (1977).] The Governor agrees to this proposition (Tr.117-18). To determine the admissibility of Governor Brown's subjects as issues in this proceeding (as limited by the Board's Order of October 2,1980) they will be considered individually as contentions and subject to the same tests as have been applied to the contentions submitted by joint intervenors.
LBP-81-5 at 246-7.
Nothing in the Diablo Canyon decisions indicate the State of California, or here Illinois, should be relieved of any of the showings required under either 5 2.714(a) or (b).2_/
B.
Illinois' Two Proposed Issues Are Untimely And A Balancing Of The Five Factors Set Forth In 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(a)(1)(i-v)
Dictate Against Their Admission When a contention, or, in the case of an interested state, an issue, is filed late in a proceeding its admissibility must be judged by a balancing of the five factors listed in 10 C.F.R. % 2.714(a)(1)(i-v) of the Comission's regulations.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-81-5, 13 NRC 361, 364 (1981). The five factors are:
-2/
The only authority Illinois cites for the proposition that the factors governing late filed contentions do not apply to it is a Licensing Board opinion in Zimmer, supra. That opinion was rendered prior to the Comission's decision in Diablo Canyon, supra, and did not even discuss the relevant River Bend Appeal Board decisions, and accordingly, the Staff submits the Zimmer case should have no weight.
1.
Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time; 2.
The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected; 3.
The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record; 4.
The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties; 5.
The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issue or delay the proceeding.
To facilitate the Board in weighing these five factors, it is in-cumbent upon the proponent of a contention or issue to address these factors in its motion and affirmatively demonstrate that, on balance, its contentions or issues should be admitted as matters in controversy.
- See, Diablo Canyon, CLI-81-5, supra, at 364; Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), ALAB-615, 12 NRC 350, 352 (1980);
cf_., Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc (West Valley Reprocessing Plant),
CLI-75-4, 1 NRC 273, 275 (1975); Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-582,1) NRC 239, 241-42 (1980); Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-289, 2 NRC 395, 398 (1975); Project Management Corporation (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant), ALAB-354, 4 NRC 383, 388-89 (1976).
In addition, the burden is on the proponent of a new contention or issue to justify its tardiness. Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2), ALAB-384, 5 NRC 612.
615 (1977).
At the onset it should be stressed, contrary to the above require-ments, Illinois in its pleading has addressed the 9 2.714(a) factors in only the most general fashion, and consequently, has not sustained its burden of evaluating its proposed new issues against each of the five factors. The Staff will next address each applicable factor.3/
1.
Good Cause For Late Filing Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, an untimely intervention petition, or as here, a motion for the admission of a new issue, may not be granted in the absence of a determination by the Licensing Board that the petitioner has made a substantial showing of good cause for failure to file on time.
10 C.F.R. % 2.714(a); Diablo Canyon, supra, at 364; Perkins, supra, at 462.
Illinois asserts newly discovered information constitutes good cause for filing its two issues late. While new information which may impact a plant's licensability might constitutes good cause justifying late filed contentions, Illinois has not set out the substance of this new infor-mation which assumedly justifies its late filing.
It has not identified with any degree of specificity the exact nature of such new information, as is required to assist this Board in assessing the correctness of Illinois' assertion that it should belatedly accept these issues for litigation.
Illinois merely asserts as good cause for its late filing of both Issues 1 l
and 2 that "new information is found in a series of NRC inspections that have occurred since Prairie Alliance submitted its first round of l
-3/
The Staff notes that factor four, asking whether petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties, is uniquely applicable to a late motion to intervene, and accordingly, will not be addressed in a context of a motion to file new contentions.
l contentions on March 30, 1981...." Motion at 2.
Although with respect to Issue 1 Illinois states that certain Inspection and Enforcement Reports (I&E Reports) cover "a range of noncompliance activities related to the QA/QC program governing CPS-1 construction,"
Illinois does not state specifically what deficiencies in the Clinton QA/QC program have been cited in which particular I&E Report, or more importantly, why these matters have not been resolved by the Applicant followingthereceiptoftheunidentifieditemsofnoncompliance.b/
Similarly, with respect to Issue 2 Illinois states "[t]he new information forming the basis for Issue 2 is found in these inspection reports and in the NRC Staff's review of unresolved safety Issue A-17, Systems Interaction in Nuclear Power Plants, in the CPS-1 Safety Evaluation Report (SER)." Motion at 2-3.
However, Illinois does not cite a single I&E Report addressing the systems interaction question. Similarly, as required for the litigation of an unresolved generic safety issue such as systems interaction, Illinois does not (1) show that the fashion in which the application deals with the systems interaction problem is unsatisfactory, (2) identify a failure to consider a particular aspect of the systems interaction question, nor (3) explain how short term solution offered for the systems interaction question is unsatisfactory.
See generally, Gulf State Utilities Company (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760, (1977).
4_/
See, 10 C.F.R. 5 2.201 imposing certain obligations upon an applicant once in receipt of an item of noncompliance and 5 Bii, infra.
Indeed, the charges set forth in the two recent issues are neither more specific nor based upon any different information than that originally given by Illinois as a reason for seeking intervention as far back as October, 1980.
In that initial " Petition for Leave to Intervene" the State of Illinois stated:
Illinois has no assurance that the station will be operated in a safe manner. At various times since at least 1978 representatives of the Commission's Office of Inspection and Enforcement have inspected the station and discovered that certain activities there were not in compliance with the Commission's requirements and the Applicant's design plans.
These investigations have uncovered problems that raise questions of whether the operation of the station will affect public health and safety.
Petition For Leave To Intervene, dated October 29, 1980, at 2-3.
Similarly, the State of Illinois took part in the Second Prehearing Conference which particularly dealt with defects in Applicants' con-struction phase cuality assurance and quality control program, and the lack of a proper systems interaction analysis.
(Tr. 90-91, 99, 132, 136). Thus no basis exists for Illinois to claim it has good cause to raise these issues on the basis of "new information" in 1982, when a hearing has been long set and discovery is all but complete.
No good cause exists for Illinois' failure to raise these two issues earlier and this factor weighs against admission of either of the two proffered issues.
2.
Availability Of Other Means To Protect Interest The Staff submits this is an important factor in the disposition of the instant motion inasmuch as alternate means exist to protect Illinois'
interest in the area of QA/QC for construction, systems interaction or any other item cited in an I&E Report. Pursuant to the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.201, Illinois Power is required to submit to the regional office of the NRC a written statement or explanation in reply to any item of noncompliance cited in an I&E Report.
Such replies are to include at a minimum:
(1) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved, (2) the corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violation, and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Thus, to the extent the two issues raised are based upon violations contained in I&E Reports, as asserted by Illinois, the Applicant is already obliged to take corrective steps and to keep the Staff informed.
For Illinois to base a new issue on something in an I&E Report, as it alleges here, it would seem incumbent upon Illinois at a mininum to state why the corrective action proposed in accord with 6 2.201 is inadequate.
In this case, Illinois has not even identified the I&E Reports upon which it premises its two new issues.
Issue 2 further seeks to litigate an unresolved safety issue, A-17, l
relevant to systems interaction. This is already the subject of a task action plan (NUREG-0660) Item II.C.3.
As required by River Bend, ALAB-444, supra, before a generic safety issue under study by the Staff may be litigated in a particular proceeding, Illinois must show that the fashion in which the application deals with systems interaction is un-satisfactory, or that because of the failure to con ~ ider a particular s
item there has been an insufficient assessment of a specific type of risk for the Clinton reactor, or that the short term solution offered in the application to the systems interaction question is inadequate.
t
Illinois has not met this burden here, and accordingly, has not shown alternate means do not exist to protect its interest in Issue 2.
This factor, then, should weigh heavily in denying the admission of either Issues 1 or 2 to the extent they are based upon either I&E Reports or generic safety issues currently under evaluation by the Staff, since alternate means exist to protect Illinois' interest in the two issues.
3.
Development Of A Sound Record Illinois has sinply failed to provide sufficient detail to put the parties on notice as to what its concerns are apart from general concerns relative to QA/QC for construction and the generic systems interaction problem.
Its motion gives ".o indication that the State's concerns are sufficiently focused so as to contribute meaningfully to the development of a sound record.
Illinois has not identified which ISE Reports allegedly generated its concerns in these areas. The Board and the parties have not been put on notice as to whether the Applicant has attempted to remedy any deficiencies cited in past I&E Reports or even whether these reports are the sane as those alluded to by the State in its petition to intervene back in October, 1980. To permit such vague issues at this late date would not promote the development of a sound record.
In short, Illinois never explains to this Board or the parties how it reasons from an unidentified series of problems set forth in unidentified I&E Reports to the conclusion that there is no assurance Clinton Power Station has been constructed in such a way that it will not
d.
endanger the health and safety of the public. Accordingly this factor e
mustbeweighedagainsttheadmissionofthetwoprofferedissues.El 4.
Broaden Issues Or Delay Hearings The admission of either of the proposed issues will inevitably broaden the current issues before this Board and prolong the hearing scheduled to begin in August. The only QA/QC issue currently before this Board is Drairie Alliance Contention 2.
This contention questions the adequacy of the QA/QC program for operations, it represents a specific inquiry into the adequacy of the planned QA program to be implemented at the time Clinton becones operable.
In contrast, Illinois' proposed issue suggests this Board should hear evidence on all past QA/QC related con-struction problems, without regard to whether corrective actions have been taken or the ultimate impact of those problems on plant safety. This un-restricted inquiry into undefined " numerous problems in the QA/QC program" would both broaden the issues and prolong the hearing with no countervailing assurance that a safer plant would result.
In addition, with respect to proposed Issue 2, Illinois simply calls for a general inquiry into a generic unresolved safety issue and does not state specifically how the Applicant's or Staff's treatment of the systems interaction problem for the Clinton station is deficient as outlined on pages C-9 through C-11 of
-5/
It should be kept in mind that Illinois, as a party, has demonstrated no unique capability to develop the two proffered issues and thereby pronote the development of a sound record.
Specifically, Illinois' participation throughout this proceeding has not involved any persons demonstrating technical expertise; rather, its participation has been limited to observation and facilitation of discussions between Intervenors, Applicant and Staff by two lawyers representing the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Illinois. fio technical exhibits have been filed by Illinois to date.
the Staff's SER. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of denying the admission of both proposed contentions.
C.
Illinois' Two Proposed Issues Are Overly Broad And Vague, And Consequently, Fail To Meet The Basis And Specificity Requirements Of 10 C.F.R. Ei 2.714(b)
Assuming this Board finds there exists good cause why Illinois did not file its proposed issues in a timely manner,10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b) requires that a list of matters which an Intervenor seeks to litigate be filed with the Board along with a reasonably specific basis for those contentions. A contention muit be rejected where:
(a)
It constitutes an attack on applicable statutory requirements; (b)
It challenges the basic structure of the Commission's regulatory process or is an attack on the regulations; (c) It is nothing more than a generlization regarding the Intervenor's view of what applicable policies ought to be; (d)
It seeks to raise an issue which is not proper for adjudication in the proceeding or does not apply to the facility in question; (e)
It seeks to raise an issue which is not concrete or litigable.
Philadelphia Electric Company (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20-21 (1974). The purpose of the basis requirement of 10 C.F.R. % 2.714(b) is to assure that the matter sought to be put into question does not suffer from any of the infirmities set forth in Peach Bottom, supra, at 20-21, to establish sufficient foun-dation to warrant further inquiry into the subject matter and to put the other parties sufficiently on notice so that they will know at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose.
Peach Bottom, supra, at 20.
The Staff recognizes that at the early stages of a proceeding i
initial contentions need only identify the reasons for each contention.
See, Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590, 11 NRC 542, 548 (1980).
In contrast, where, as here, extensive discovery has already occurred and the hearing is imminent, general allegations are clearly insufficient and Illinois should be required to come forward with a specific factual basis for any late filed issue.
Cf_. Philadelphia Electric Company, et al. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-654,14 NRC 632 (1981),
wherein the Intervenors were required to make a stronger showing of basis for their contentions in order to gain an evidentiary hearing on the health effects of radon emissions.
Falling far short of making a stronger showing of basis for their proposed issues, Illinois has utterly failed to rake any showing of basis for the two issues it proffers. A review of Illinois' two proffered contentions or issues results in a conclusion neither is sufficiently specific to be liti p ted.
In Issue 1, Illinois refers to numerous problems in the QA/QC program for construction, yet the State doesn't identify one such problem.
Illinois further alleges such unidentified problems have neither been addressed by the Staff nor corrected by the Applicant.
Illinois' failure to identify specific problems in the QA/QC area, and to indicate the basis on which the State contends that they have not been satisfactorily resolved, does not create an issue to be litigated.
Similarly, with respect to Issue 2, Illinois alleges that both the Applicant and the Staff have failed to adequately address the interaction of nonsafety components with safety related systems, yet has not cited a single example of where such FSAR or SER treatment is l
inadequate and does not follow the mandate of River Bend, ALAB-444, supra.
It further does not specify what failure in the QA/QC program for construction has exacerbated this generic safety issue.
Illinois has utterly failed to identify how the Applicant's or Staff's treatment of this unresolved generic safety issue fails to follow the regulations and case law. Thus, there is nothing in Issue 2 which can be litigated and hence it should be rejected as lacking the requisite basis and specificity.
IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons aforesaid, the Staff submits that (1) once Illinois elects to raise issues it must comply with all the procedural require-ments governing parties admitted to this proceeding under 9 2.714; (2) the two proposed issues are untimely and a balancing of the five factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a) dictate against their ad-missions, and, in the alternative, (3) Illinois' two proposed issues are overly broad and vague, and consequently, fail to meet the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b).
Respectfully submitted, k
ay M. Gu ierrez Counsel for NRC Staff 0
M f.
R.9 '
Richard J. Goddard
()
Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 15th day of April,1982.
I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
ILLIN0IS POWER COMPANY, e_t__a_l.
)
Docket No. 50-461 OL
)
(Clinton Power Station, Unit 1)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE STATE OF ILLIN0IS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE STATEMENT OF ISSUES" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States nail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk. through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal nail system, this 15th day of April,1982:
Hugh K. Clark, Esq., Chairman William van Susteren, Esq.
Administrative Judge Schiff, Hardin & Waite P.O. Box 127A 7200 Sears Tower Kennedyville, Maryland 21645 233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 Dr. George A. Ferguson Administrative Judge Philip L. Willman, Esq.
School of Engineering Assistant Attorney General Howard University Environmental Control Division 2300 Sixth Street, N.W.
188 West Randolph Street, Suite 2315 Washington, D.C.
20059 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Dr. Oscar H. Paris
- Mr. Herbert H. Livermore Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Bcard Clinton Nuclear Power Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RR 3, Box 229A Washington, D.C.
20555 Clinton, Illinois 61727 Prairie Alliance Jeff Urish, Vice President P.O. Box 2424 Bloomington-Normal Prairie Alliance Station A 730 Wilkins Champaign, Illinois 61820 Normal, Illinois 61761
Reed Neuman, Esq.
Gary N. Wright Assistant Attorney General Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety 500 South Second Street 1035 Outer Park Drive, 5th Floor Springfield, Illinois 62701 Springfield, Illinois 62704 Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- Appeal Board Panel
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section*
Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Jan L. Kodner, Esq.
173 W. Madison Street Suite 1004 Chicago, IL 60602 h
K. G ibrrez f
unsel or NRC StaW j
1 l
1 1
I
_ _,