ML20153B228
| ML20153B228 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/21/1998 |
| From: | Jenkins D COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#398-19532 98-744-04-LA-2, 98-744-4-LA-2, LA-2, NUDOCS 9809230025 | |
| Download: ML20153B228 (16) | |
Text
_ . - _. - _ . . -- -- .. - ~.
.FROMs COMED LAW DEPT FAX HO. 312 394 3456 09-21-98 02:4BP P.02
. gf.)Y %
4 3I
-4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION _
E
- SEF # 393 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BO NF j
~ ~ a, -
) % -
/
In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-295/304-11-%
) !
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) ASLBP No. 98-744-04-LA-2 l
)
- (Zion Nuclear Power Station, )
Units 1 and 2) ) September 21,1998 i
) l l
. \
i COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY'S REPLY TO l PETITIONERS' RESPONSE TO SEPTEMBER 2.1998 SHOW CAUSE ORDER l l
i I. INTRODUCTION On September 2,1998, this Board ordered Petitioners to show cause why their petition .
l seeking to intervene in the NRC Staff's (" Staff") no significant hazards consideration determins-tion should not be dismissed as precluded by 10 CFR Q 50.58(b)(6).I' As di :cted by the Board's Show Cause Order, Commonwealth Edison Company (" Conf 1") hereby files its reply to Petitioners' Response to the Show Cause Order.
As demonstrated below, Petitioners fail to show why their petition to intervene shoidd not
. be dismissed. Petitions to intervene in no significant hazards consideration determinations are directly prohibited by Commission regulations as well as firmly established Commission administrative decisions. Funhermore, contrary to Petitioners' representations, the NRC never 1/ In its Show Cause Order, this Board also denied Petitioners' request for a stay of the implementation of the Staff's finding because Petition:rs failed to address any of the stay criteria contained in 10 CFR % 2.788(e) and nothing in their regt!est demonstrated irrepuable injury.
Board Order at 3. l pg923OO25980921
- g ADOCK 05000295 u
% D)
.. = _ - . - . - _ _ _ _ . . - . - . .
- FROMs COMED LAW DEPT FAX HO. 312 394 3456 09-23 98 P?t48P P.03 published a Federal Register notice inviting suchintervention Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed and this proceeding terminated t
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUNJ)
Comed decided to permanently shut down the Zion Nuclear Power Station in January 1998. On March 30,1998, the company applied for license amendments to make the Technical Specifications more consistent with the plant's shutdown and defueled condition?
On May 6,1998, a notice was published in the Federal Renister. informing the public that the NRC had received the license amendment application and that the NRC Staff proposed to find that the amendments involved no significant hazards. Sn 63 Fed. Reg. 25101,25105-25107. l Among other things, the Staff based this proposed determination on the grounds that, with the i
plant permanently shutdown and defueled the spectrum of accidents and events that remain credible is significantly ;cduced and that the proposed amendments do not affect the probability or ,
i consequences of any accidents that do remain credible. E at 25105.
The May 6,1998, notice invited "public comments" on the proposed no significant hazards consideration detennination, noted that any comments must be filed within 30 days of the notice, and provided directions on how comments should be submitted. E at 25101. The May 6,1998, notice also invited interested persons to request a hearing on the license amendments, I
also within 30 days, and provided instructions on how to file a Petition to Intervene for a hearing.
The notice specifically explained that if "the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and These amendments are fully described in Commonwealth Edison Company's March 30, 2/
1998 Amendment Application.
r
. . . . . ~ . . - _ n - - ~ ,. -- - - . . - . _ . . - _ . ~ . . _ . . . . - . . . _ ~ - ~ - . . . . ~ . . - ~ . . . - . _
. . Frons COMED LAW DEPT FAX NO.8 312.394 3456 21 02:4BP P.04-make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment." 63 Fed. Reg. at 25102. The May 6 notice did nal-imite " intervention" or a request for a heanng on the proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. 'l!
On June 4,1998, Petitioner Edwin Dienethal submitted a petition for leave to intervene m ;
l the license amendment application.I' However, Mr. Dienethal did not submit any comments on j
. the proposed no significant hazards consideratio~ determination. On June 17,1998, a Federal Register Notice was published noting the establishme.d of an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i
to address Mr. Dienethal's Petitica. I On July 24.1998, the NRC issued the Zion License Amendments and directed that the ,
license amendments be implemented within 30 days Over the next several weeks, Comed .
proceeded to implement the license amendments, including document and procedure changes, termination of operators' licenses, and replacement of the licensed operator training program with i i
. a Certified Fuct Handler training program. !
On August 12,1998, a notice was published in the Federal Reaister announcing that the f license amendments had been issued. See 63 Fed. Reg. 43200,43217. This notice simply informed the public that issuance of the license amendments had been completed and noted that i
no comments had been received from the public concerning the proposed no significant hazards i consideration determination.11 Contrary to Petitioners' representations, the August 12,1998, t
t 1/ Both Comed and the NRC Staff have opposed Mr. Dienethal's petition on the ground that he lacks standing to intervene. A Board ruling on whether Mr Dienethal has standing is pending. !
l v !
'p. .
.?
l I
.FROMs COME9 LAW DEPT FAX HO.s 312 390 3056 09-21-98 02:00P P.05 I
l 1
Federal ReRistel notice did noj include any invitation to intervene in any matter related to the Zion i
Station.
On August 18,1998, Petitioners filed with the Commission their Petition to Intervene and Irutial Statement of Contentions and Request for Stay. Petitioners are Edwin Dienethal, who previously sought leave to intervene before the Board, the Committee for Safety at Plant Zion
("CSPZ") and Randy Robarge. CSPZ and Mr. Robarge did not seek to intetvene in the license amendment proceeding nor did they submit comments on the Staff s no significant hazards consideration determination. In filing their Petition, Petitioners purport to rely on an August 12, 1998, Federal Register notice, which they erroneously claim "provided an opportunity for persons with interest in the Finding to file a petition for leave to intervene on or before September 11, 1998." Petition at 1. By order dated September 2,1998, this Board denied the Petitioner's request for a stay, and ordered Petitioners to show cause why the Petition to intervene should not be dismissed. Petitioners filed their Response to that order on September 10,1998.
In sum, the instant Petition seeks review of the Staff s no significant hazards consideration determination. Such review is prohibited by both NRC regulations and administrative case law.
Petitioners' claim that the August 12,1998 Eederal Reeister notice " invited" intervention mischaracterizes that notice and is incorrect.
1 IB. A
_RGUMENT In every license amendment proceeding the NRC makes a procedural determination as to whether any public heatings must be held prior to the issuance of the license amendment or may be conducted after issuance of the amendment. This procedural determination is based upon ,
J
-4
. . - , - . _ .- - - - . - . . _ ~ ~ . - . . - ..- - .
.FROMs COMED LAW DEPT FAX NO.s 312 394 3456 09-21-98 02:49P P.06 whether the amendment presents a "significant hazards consideration," as defined in 10 CFR 50.92. ,
if the NRC staff determines that an amendment presents a sig.ificant hazards considera- l tion, any hearing on the amendment must be completed prior to issuance. On the other hand, if the staff detelmines that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, the hearing may take place after issuance of the amendments. Src 10 CFR $ 50.91(a)(4). This process is :
well-established and govemed by explicit NRC regulations .Se_e 10 CFR { 2.105,50.58,50.91, 50.92.
In this case, Petitioners are attempting to "short circuit" this process by " intervening" in
- the Staffs no significant hazards consideration determination. By doing so, they seek to create a new proceeding to which they have no right and which this Board has no jurisdiction to entertain.
Sie 10 CFR { 50.58(b)(6). As described in more detail below, Petitioner's attempt to inteivene i
must be denied and this proceeding terminated.
A. NRC Process For Issuing immediately Effective License Amendments The NRC's process for issuing an immediately effective license amendment is explained in l l
10 CFR { 50.918 When a licensee requests a license amendment it must, among other things, provide its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration using the standards set 4/ The 1983 Amendments to the Atomic Energy Act directed the NRC to establish standards for determining whether an amendment for an operating license involves no significant hazards consideration. 42 USC @ 2239a(2)(C). See also Final Procedures and Standards on No significant I hazards consi'.erations,51 Fed. Reg 7744 (March 6,1986). This legislation authorized the NRC to issue and :nake immediately effective a license amendment, "upon a determination that the L amendme< < involves no significant hazards consideration (even though the NRC nas before it a request 'or a hearing by an interested person) and in advance of the holding and completion of any j requi:ed hearing " 11 at 7745.
.FROMs COMED LAW DEPT FAX NO.s 312 394 3456 09-21-98 02:49P P.07 fonh in 10 CFR { 50.92. Sg 10 CFR } 50.91(a)(1). Thereafter, if the NRC StatYbelieves that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission publishes in the Federal Register a notice ofits proposed determination that no significant hazards consideration is involved.10 CFR 50.91(a)(2)(i). This notice contains the staff s proposed determination under the standards in 10 CFR Q 50.92, provides a description of the amendments, and solicits "public comments" (within 30 days) on the proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
10 CFR { 50 91(a)(2)(ii). In addition, interested parties may petition to intervene and request a hearing on the license amendments 10 CFR % 2.714 However,
[w]here the Commission makes a final determination that no significant hazards ,
consideration is involved and that the amendment should be issued, the amendment is effective upon issuance. even if adverse public comments have been received and even if an interested person meeting the requirements for intervention contained in 10 CFR % 2.714 of this chapter has requested a hearing on the license amendments.
10 CFR { 50.91(a)(4) Unless the Commission determines that a significant hazards consideration is involved, any hearing on the license amendment is conducted afin the issuance of the tmend-ment. Id. See also 10 CFR s 2.105(a)(4)(i); 10 CFR % 50.58(b)(5).
B. Petitioners Mischaracterize the August 12,1998, Federal Reelster Notice On a biweeldy basis. the NRC issues Federal Register nntices that describe the no significant hazards consideration determinations that the NRC Staff proposes to make. The '
l biweekly notice also lists the no significant hazards consideration determinations that were ,
I previously noticed and have become final. On May 6,1998, the Staff properly issued a Federal Register notice indicating that it proposed to find the Zion license amendments did not involve a significant hazards consideration. Sn 63 Fed Reg 25101,25105. In the May 6 notice, the NRC Staffinvited "public comment on this proposed determination" and provided instructions on how 6-I
s
.FROMs cCMED' LAW DEPV FAX NO. 312 390 3G36 09-21-98 0280CP P.08 those public comments should be submitted. 63 Fed. Reg. 25101. Petitioners did not subrnit any i
comments on the proposed no significant hazards consideration determination in response to the May 6 notice. .
On August 12,1998, after receiving no comments on the proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, the NRC published another biweekly Federal Register notice, which notified the public that the Zion license amendments described in the May 6 notice had been j issued. Sg 63 Fed. Reg. 43200,43217. The August 12 biweekly notice invited public comment on several newly-proposed no significant hazards consideration determinations relating to facilities other than Zion, but did nat invite intervention or comment on the aheady issued no significant hazards consideration determination for Zion Station. Petitioners have apparently misread, and have certainly mischaracterized, this Federal Reaister notice. In addition, contrary ;
to Petitioners' assertions, nowhere in either the May 6 or August 12 Fedc al Reaister notices was there any invitation for" intervention" or a request for hearing with respect to the Zion no significant hazards consideration determination. ;
C. NRC Regulations And Case Law Prohibit Petitioners' Attempt To Obtain Review Of The Stafrs "No Significant Hazards Consideration" j Deterrninstion NRC regulations expresd, - Sit any petition or other request for review of a NRC staff l no signi6 cant hazards consideraticn determination.10 CFR s 50.58(b)(6) provides:
No petition or other request for review of or hearing on the staffs significant ,
hazards consideration determination will be entertained by the Commission. The staff s determination is final, subject only to the Commission's discretion, on its own initiative, to review the determination.
Petitioners' filing clearly violates this unequivocal requirement.
1 l
I
l
.FEOMs COMED LAW DEPT FAX N0.8 312 394 3456 89-21-98 02:50P P.09 j l
l Sirmlarly, NRC admmistrative decisions have consistently held that 10 CFR Q 50.58(b)(6) is ajurisdictional bar to challenges to the Staff's no significant hazards consideration determinations and the immediate effectiveness of an amendment See e n . Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Comoration (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-90-6,31 NRC 85, 90-91 (1990), Florida Power and Light Comoanv(Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4) LBP- S9-15,29 NRC 493, 499-500 (1989); Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corocration (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-88-19,28 NRC 145,153-54 (1988) This jurisdictional bar forecloses any direct appeal regarding the merits of the Staff's no significant hazards consideration detennication. Pacific Gas and Electric Comoany (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Powe~ Plant, Units 1 and 2) CLI-86-12,24 NRC 1,4 (1986), rev'd in can on other arounds. San Luis Obisbo Mothers for Peace v NRC,799 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir.1986)?
In sum, Petitioners' request to intervene in the Staff's no significant hazards consideration determination is directly prohibited by NRC regulations and administrative decisions. Despite i
numerous NRC decisions on this topic, Petitioners
- Response does not cite a single case that would recommend a contrary result. Accordingly, the Petition must be dismissed.
5/ In Pacific Gas & Electric, the Commission exercised its inherent authority to review a Staff no significant hazards consideration determination The Commission performed this review on its own initiative because of"special circumstances" surrounding a license amendment authorizing the expansion of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant's spent fuel pool Those special circumstances included " Congress' special concerns about significant hazards considerations for spent fuel license amendments' in a spent fuel pool expansion and reracking case.11 at n. 2.
That Congressional concern had been specifically aniculated in the legislative history of the statutory amendments authorizing post issuance hearings for license amendments involving no significant hazards considerations. Ld, at n 2. No such "special circumstances" exist in this case.
In any event, pursuant to 10 CFR { 50.58(b)(6), only the Conunission itself may undertake discretionary review of a no significant hazards consideration determination, which it has not done in this case.
.g.
_. - .. -. - .- - - . - -~~~- - - - ~ - - - - - ~ - " - " ~ ' * ^ ~ ~ " " ^ * ^ "
.FROMt COMED LAW DEPT FAX NO.s 312 394 3456 09-21-98 02158P P.10 l r
- I D. Petitioners' " Legal Analysis" of 10 CFR I 2.105 Is Wrong and Flatly -l Contradicted By Commission Regulations i i
Petitioners assen that, pursuant to 10 CFR { 2.105, "the NRC has an exception to the f
general rule that no hearings are permined on matters related to 'No Significant Hazards' deter- !
l t
minations." Pet, Resp; at 4. Petitioners allege that this exception is contained in 10 CFR l i 2.105(a)(4)(i) and applies when the Commission makes a "[no significant hazards consideration] l
/.
determination . . in a proceeding related to a Class 104 license under 10 CFR l 50.21(b) . j f j Petitioners' unique interpretation is inconsistent with the plain language of 10 CFR {
2.105, as well as the provisions of 10 CFR ll 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92. Apparently, Petitioners )
- confuse their right to comment on a proposed no significant hazards consideration determination (which concems only the timing of any hearing) with their opportunity for a hearing on the j substance of the license amendments.
The regulations contained in 10 CFR 6 2.105 are notice provisions which track the NRC's j i
regulations -(10 CFR ll 50.91, 50.92) for issuing immediately effective license amendiaents.
r
. Section 2.105 provides in pan:
{ 2.105 Notice of proposed action ;
/
If a hearing is not required by the Act or this chapter, and if the k (a)
Commission has not found that a hearing is in the public interest, it will, j i
i 6/ Petitioners appear to place significance on the fact that Zion's license was issued under ;
j Section 104 of the Atomic Energy Act, rather than Section 103 (prior to December 19,1970, j
nuclear power plant licenses were issued under Section 104b; since that time they have been issued under Section 103). However, the process for amendment of ficenses is identical for both l classes of reactor licenses. Sg 10 CFR (( 50 21(b),50.22,50.91. j l
1 9
i
.FROM COMED LAW DEPT FAX HO. 312 394 3456 09-21-98 02:30P P.11 prior tu acting thereon, cause to be published in the FEDERAL REGISTER a notice of proposed action with respect to an application for:
(4) An amendment to an operating license for a facility licensed under { 50.21(b) or @ 50.22 of this chapter or for a testing facility, as follows:
(i) If the Commission determines under { 50.58 of this chapter that the amendmen1 involves no significant hazards consideration, though it will provide notice of opportunity for a hearing pursuant to this section, it may make the amendment immediately effective and grant a hearing thereafter; (emphasis added.) Section 2.105 does not create any independent hearing rights. It simply describes how the Commission provides public notice ofits proposed action on a license amendment application and the opportunity to petition for a hearing on those amendments. As specified in 10 CFR {50.91(a)(2)(ii), that notice also must include notice of any no significant hazards consideration determination and the opportunity to comment on that determination.2' 7/ The Commission explained the interaction of 10 CFR Part 2 notice provisions with 10 CFR Part 50's substantive provisions in the Statement of Consideration for the Final Rule on Procedures and Standards on No significant hazards considerations:
To implement the main theme of the legislation, the Commission combined a
- notice of opportunity for a hearing with a notice for public comment on any proposed determination on no significant safety hazards consideration. Sec 50.91. New Q 50.91 also permits the Commission to make an amendment immediately effective in advance of the conduct and completion of any required hearing where there has been a no significant hazards consideration determination.
To buttress this point, the Commission has modified j 50.58(b)(5) to state that only it on its own initiative may review the staffs final no signiScant hazards consideration determination. Thus, 6 50 91 builds upon amended @ 2.105, providing details for the system of Federal Restister notices . In sum, this system added a "netice for public comment" under j 50 91 to the former system of
" notice of proposed action under { 2.105 and " notice ofissuance" % 2.106.
51 Fed. Reg. at 7759 (March 6,1986)
.FROMs COMED LAW DEPT FAX HO. 312 394 3456 09-21-98 02:51P P.12 t
However, none of these regulations authorize intervention or petitions for review of a no .
significant hazards consideration determination On the contrary, as noted above, such intervention is specifically prohibited by 10 CFR % 50.58(b)(6).
Petitioneri claim of a hearing right in 10 CFR % 2.105(a)(4)(i)(Pet. Resp at 4) mischaracterizes these rules.# By its terms, the language cited by Petitioners in section 2.105(a)(4)(i), " notice and opportunity for a hearing," refers to the opportunity for a post-effectiveness hearing on the license amendment, not on the Staff s no significant hazards consideration determination. See also 10 CFR { 50.58(b)(5) and 50 91(a)(4). Accordingly, section 2.105 provides no basis for any " exception" to the clear requirements of 10 CFR $ 50.58(b)(6)/ Petitioners' characterization of this regulation is plainly wrong.
H/ Petitioners have repeatedly ignored Comrmssion regulations and procedures governing the conduct of proceedings. Petitioners' actions have included filing of n gang communications, improper service of papers, filing of a petition specifically prohibited by NRC regulations, ;
inclusion oflarge volumes ofirrelevant material by reference into their pleadings, and mischaracterization of official documents (such as the August 12,1998 Federal Restister notice.)
Sig Attachment A, August 25,1998, letter from David W. Jenkins, Senior Counsel, Comed, to Stephen M. Kohn, counsel for Petitioners: Attachment B, September 4,1998 letter from Robert E. Helfirich, Senior Counsel, Comed to Stephen M. Kohn, counsel for Petitioners; See also Petitioners' August 18,1998, " Petition to Intervene and Initial Statement of Contentions and Request For Stay," and material attached to it. Petitioners are not acting prq Le, but are rgresented by counsel with many years experience in NRC proceedings. Petitioners' unauthorized filings, directly prohibited by Commission regulations, have caused Comed to expend considerable time and resources responding to patently meritless arguments. The mischar- ;
acterization of the August 12,1998, Federal Reaister notice and the misreading of SRC :
regulations in Petitioners' latest filinB continue this pattern.
2/ Again, Petitioners have not cited a single decision that supports their interpretation of 10 CFR % 2.105. As noted in Section III C above, NRC administrative decisions uniformly hold that 10 CFR { 50.58(b)(6) precludes intervention on a Staff no significant hazards consideration determination.
I i
l l I =FROMt COMED LAW DEPT FAX NO.s 312 394 3456 09-21-98 02:51P P.13 f' i
- l. I L,
- 6 I
In sum, the regulations and Federal Register notice cited by Petitioners create no right to i
- t intervene in a Staff no significant hazards consideration detennination, but in fact prohibit such I e
I'
' h intervention. .
i l~ IV. CONCLUSION I i
l For the reasons set forth above, Petitioners fail to show cause why their petition to !
l i
l- mtervene m the NRC Staffs No significant hazards considerations determmation is not prohibited l t >
l v by 10 CFR f 50 58(b)(6). Accordingly, their petition must be denied and this proceeding ;
l l terminated.
l !
l Respectfully submitted, !
l l k s -
I David W. j 'ns, Sh Counsel j Robert E. Hel r. Counsel l
, COhmlONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY {
Law Department, Room 1535 ,
125 South Clark Street !
P.O. Box 767 !
l Chicago,IL 60603 ,
(312)394-4970 Philip E. Troy l l 6531 Chestnut Grove Lane ,
l , DATED: September 21,1998 Charlotte,NC 28210 i l i i !
I L i i
L !
L '
)
4 4 l
. .i 2- !
I !
I
I l ,FROMs COMED LAW DEPT FAX HO.s 312 394 3456 09-21-98 02 51P P Commonwe~.ith Edison 8 pany Alrachme.14nt A l 121 South Clart street !
e P.O. box 76-l Chacgo. IL 60(MMYT6" '
I l
i August 25,1998 l
Via Facsimile and First Class U.S. Mail i
Stephen M. Kohn l
KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO 3233 P Street, NW Washington D.C. 20007
Dear Mr. Kohn:
This letter is to inform you that your pleading, "Petiuoner's Opposition to Applicant's Motion to Delay Proceedings,' was no: prope~rly served upon Commonwealth Edison Company (Comed). US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations require that
"[w] hen a pany has appeared by attorney, service mg.g be made upon the attorney of record." 10 CFR Q 2.712(b)(1995)(emphasis added). Your response in opposition to Comed's Motion was not served on the attorneys ofrecord for Comed - Messrs. Jenkins.
Helfrich and Troy. Etc Commonweahh Edison Company's Answer to Petition for Leave to Intervene (July 1,1998) (which includes the Notices of Appearance for the attorneys of record in this case. copies are attached). As a result. I did not receive the response until several days after the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ruled on the matter. In order to avoid unnecessary delay and confusion during the remainder of this proceeding, please serve my office with any future pleadings.
ely, ,
avid W. J Senior Counsel DWJ/pak l Enclosures A t;nacom Compant
,FR Ms C MED L g Dg (T , FAX No.s 312 394 3456 09-21-98 02 51P 5
- 1li % uth 4. lark :>treet
, e o n,,x <,-
Clue:ago. IL fn6WF6-September 4,1998 By Certified U.S. Mail, Retum Receipt Requested and Facsimile: 202-342-6984 Stephen M. Kohn, Esq.
David K Colapinto, Esq.
Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, P.C:
3233 P Str~et, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20007-2756 Re: Ex Parte Communications Regarding Zion License Amendment Proceeding
Dear Sirs:
I am writing regarding your August 11,1998 letter to NRC Chairman Jackson conceminglicense amendments issued by the NRC for the Zion Nuclear Power Stauon.
The letter described contentions filed in the currendy ongoing proceeding on those amendments before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and, on the basis of those contentions, requested that the Commission issue a stay of the issuance of the license amendments. This let;er evidendy was not mailed to artomeys for Comed or the NRC Staff until August 21,1998. ,
Even then, the letter was not sent to Comed's attomeys of record in the license amendment proceeding, but was sent to a different artomey, who has not filed m appearance in that proceeding. As noted in David Jenkins' ,
August 25,1998 letter to you, service must be made on the attomeys of '
1, record for the Zion license amendment proceedings.
l l
A Usutusn Company l
l
. . .-- . . . - - - . _ _ . . _ . . _ . . - . .~. _. .
.FROMs COMED LAW DEPT FAX NO. 312 394 3456 09-21-98 02:51P P.16 1 ,
Page 2 September 4,1998 While we appreciate finally gemng a copy of your August 11,1998 letter,
( that letter was clearly an exparre communication specifically prohibited by
- NRC regulations. See 10 C.F.R. 2.780. Effectrvely, your failure to comply with the expane rules precluded Comed and the NRC Staff from becoming aware of your letter until after the 10-day time for response to a request for i
a stay had expired. This is precisely the kind of abuse that the exparte rules
- ! are intended to prevent. All communications with Commission adjudicatory employees (including the Commission, the Licensing Boards, etc.) regarding the merits of a proceeding are required to be served on all parties to the proceeding. Failure to comply with these rules can subject your clients to severe consequences, including dismissal of the proceeding. ,
See 10 C.F.R. j 2.780 (d).
- We appreciate your attention to this mattet.
Sincerely, b ]s --
i Robert E. Helfrich Senior Counsel, Nuclear i a
j cc: Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
! REH/pak
[...HelhichJtehn090498Lar.dvej i
4 I
4 l
l
~FROMt COMED LAW DEPT FAX NO. 312 394 3456 09-2 -' 152P P.17 1 k g s 4-D0QWTED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
{ SEP 211998 3 RUUi M KsGAND h I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Reply to Petit 'WF
- September 2,1998 Show Cause Order was served via postage prep t-cl M (a . 'v facsimile to those persons indicated by an asterisk [*]) on this 21st da tember '
1998, on the following persons. jM Thomas S Moote, Chairman
- Office of the Secretary (original & 2 copies)*
Administrative Judge ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Mail Stop T-3 F23 Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. D.C. 20555 Office ofCommission Appellate Adjudication U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Jerry R. Kline* Washington, D C. 20555 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Pane! Adjudicatory Fi!c (2 copies)
Mail Stop T-3 F23 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 ,
Dr. Frederick J. Shon* Stephen M. Kohn, Esq.*
Administrative Judge Michael D. Kohn, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel David K. Colapinto, Esq.
Mail Stop T-3 F23 Kohn, Kohn, & Colapinto, P.C.
U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3233 P Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20007 Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.*
Robert M. Weisman, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 e
BY:
David'W. Jenkins Senior Counsel COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY l
l'
( j
$