ML20198C726

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to ,By Informing That NRC Sent Response to C Paxton on 980924 Which Stated That NRC Continues to Review Concerns Raised by Petitioners.Nrc Will Continue to Maintain Oversight of Zion NPP During Decommissioning
ML20198C726
Person / Time
Site: Zion  File:ZionSolutions icon.png
Issue date: 12/15/1998
From: Travers W
NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To: Durbin R
SENATE
Shared Package
ML20198C733 List:
References
NUDOCS 9812220147
Download: ML20198C726 (11)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:h)g ~ y . UNITED STATES s j NUCLEAR REZULATeRY COMMISSION ,U WASHINGTON, D.C. 20565 4 001 gp December 15, 1998 72t]f QP Wh The Honorable Richard J. Durbin United States Senator 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604

Dear Senator Durbin:

Your letter of October 21,1998, to Mr. Dennis Rathbun has been referred to me for a response. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) responded to your constituent, the Honorable Chuck Paxton, Mayor, City of Zion, on September 24,1998. In our response to Mayor Paxton, we stated that the NRC staff continues to review and evaluate concerns raised by petitioners. The NRC also stated that it intends to maintain oversight of the Zion Nuclear Plant during decommissioning and that the NRC would take appropriate enforcement actions when safety and regulatory issues are identified. The hearing process was also described in our response. A copy of our response is enclosed for your information. The NRC also received a letter from the Honorable Adeline Geo-Karis, Assistant Majority Leader, Illinois State Senate, requesting information similar to that requested by Mayor Paxton. A copy of our response is enclosed for your information. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), which is independent of the NRC staff, has the authority to determine whether to grant the petitioners' request for a hearing, in addition, potential regulatory concerns, documented in U.S. Department of Labor proceedings and identified in materials the petitioners filed before the ASLB on July 31, 1998, are under review by the NRC's Region til office in Lisle, Illinois. On October 5,1998, the ASLB reached a decision with respect to the petition to intervene that was filed on August 18,1998, by Edwin D. Dienethal and two other petitioners, seeking to challenge the NRC staff's "no significant hazards consideration" (NSHC) determination concerning Commonwealth Edison Company's license amendment application of March 30,1998. The ASLB determined that the Commission's regulations in / 10 CFR 50.58(b)(6) specifically prohibit the consideration of petitions challenging the A staff's NSHC determinations, and it therefore denied the petition. The petitioners did not appeal this decision to the Commission. A copy of this decision is enclosed,for your i information. b \\ l @ 9/7 UA**$$$$l Es$$$39s EEEE H PM

~... ~.. _ - _ _ _. ~ j i The Honorable Richard J. Durbin 2 On November 5,1998, the ASLB in a related proceeding reached a decision on the petition to intervene that was filed on June 4,1998, concerning the license amendment application of March 30,1998. The ASLB determined that the petitioner, Mr. Dienethal, had failed to demonstrate a plausible causal connection between the challenged license amendment and any harm to his interests, which is required to satisfy the requirements for standing to l intervene in an adjudicatory proceeding. Accordingly, the ASLB denied his petition for leave to intervene. A copy of this decision is enclosed for your information. On November 16,1998, the petitioner appealed the November 5,1998, ASLB decision to the Commission, where the matter is currently pending. l l As you are aware, the NRC has maintained oversight of the Zion Nuclear Plant throughout l its history in your community. Whenever regulatory issues have been identified by l concerned citizens or through its oversight efforts, the NRC has taken appropriate l-enforcement action. The NRC will continue to maintain oversight of the Zion Nuclear Plant during decommissioning and, when warranted, will take appropriate regulatory action to i l ensure the continued protection of public health and safety. Sincerely, lW LW l William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

1. Letter to Mayor Paxton
2. Letter to Senator Geo Karis
3. October 5,1998, ASLB Decision
4. November 5,1998, ASLB Decision cc: Senator Carol Moseley-Braun Senator Adeline Geo-Karis Mayor Chuck Paxton l

i I f I

l 5

      • 0 yo UNITED STATES
r j

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i WASHINGTON, D.C. 205554001 September 24, 1998 The Honorable Chuck Paxton Mayor of Zion 2828 Sheridan Road Zion, Illinois 60099

Dear Mayor Paxton:

In your letter of August 26,1998, you requested additionalinformation regarding the resolution of potential safety issues raised by Mr. Dienethat and Mr. Robarge. As you may know, Mr. Dienethal, Mr. Robarge and the Committee for Safety of Plant Zion have petitioned to intervene in a licensing action, citing concerns with management integrity and public safety. Although the license action was issued, in accordance with our rules and regulations, on July 24,1998, we continue to review and evaluate the concerns raised by Messrs. Dienethal and Robarge. A brief description of our review process is enclosed. The NRC will continue to maintain oversight of the Zion Nuclear Plant during decommissioning. When regulatory and safety issues are identified, the NRC will continue to take appropriate action, including enforcement, to ensure protection of public health and safety. Thank you for your continued interest in potential safety issues associated with the Zion Nucicar Plant. If you should have additional concerns or questions, please contact Mr. Sy Weiss or Mr. Tony Markley of my staff at (301) 415 2170. Sincerely, L. s ph Caltan Exe tive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

As stated cc: Senator Adeline J. Geo-Karis Senator Dick Durbin Senator Carol Moseley Braun ,w._,,- w- ~...a.-- au ENCL 0SURE 1 '9&f W0lh $f*

t. l g* i I V Mr. Edwin Dienethal, Mr. Randy Robarge, and their Committee for Safety at Plant Zion have petitioned the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for leave to intervene in a licensing action at Commonwealth Edison's Zion Nuclear Plant. In their petition, they have presented a number of contentions regarding management integrity and public safety for which they are seeking a hearing in this licensing action. Under the Commission's regulations, an interested party can petition to intervene in a licensing action. Once a petition to intervene is received, an Atomic Safety Licensing Board (ASLB) is established to evaluate the petition. This evaluation includes a determination of the petitioner's standing and whether any of the petitioner's contentions should be admitted for hearing. The ASLB, which is independent of the NRC staff, has the authority to determine whether to grant the petitioner's request for hearing. Under the Comin;:sion's regulations, the NRC staff is permitted to issue a licensing action on which a petition to intervene has been received. The NRC staff may issue the challenged licensing action provided a "No Significant Hazards Consideration" (NSHC) determination is made and the Commission does not object to the issuance of the licensing action. The Commission's rules provide that hearings, if warranted, may be conducted after the issuance of the subject licensing action if a final NSHC finding is made. With respect to the challenged Zion license amendment, the NRC staff did make an NSHC determination and the Commission did not object to the issuance of the requested license amendment. The license amendment was issued on July 24,1998. These proceedings are ongoing and may provide an adjudicatory forum for the resolution of some of the concerns expressed by the petitioners. Further, some of the petitioners' concerns, documented in U.S. Department of Labor proceedings, have come to our attention in materials the petitioners filed before the ASLB on July 31,1998, and are under review by the NRC's Region lli Office in Lisle, Illinois.

p p ~%,*^ UNITED STATES [ C NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTCN. D.C. 20555 0001 October 1, 1998 The Honorable Adeline J. Geo Karis. Assistant Majority Leader

  • lilinois State Senate P.O. Box 248 Zion, Illinois 60099

Dear Senator Geo-Karis:

In your letter of August 24,1998, you requested additionalinformation regarding the resolution of potential safety issues raised by Mr. Dienethal and Mr. Robarge concerning the Zion Nuclear Plant. As you know, Mr. Dienethal, Mr. Robarge and the Committee for Safety of Plant Zion have petitioned to intervene in a licensing actien, citing concerns with management integrity and public safety. Although the license action was issued on July 24,1998,'in accordance with our rules and regulations, we continue to review and evaluate the concerns raised by Messrs. Dienethal and Robarge. In addition to the information provided in a September 24,1998, letter from John Hoyle, Secretary of the Commission to you, we have enclosed a brief description of our review process. The NRC will continue to maintain oversight of the Zion Nuclear Plant during decommissioning. When regulatory and safety issued are identified, the NRC will continue to take appropriate action, including enforcement, to ensure protection of public health and safety. If you should have additional concerns or questiens, please contact Mr. Sy Weiss or Mr. Tony Markley of my staff at (301) 415 2170. Sincerely, L. Jo eph Callan Jjive Director Exec for Operations

Enclosure:

I As stated cc: Mayor Chuck Paxton Congressman John Porter _,,m.. _,- ~.- :,%.m.w_. 2 -.a ENCIDSURE 2 i

\\ ) 8 i j 4 1 ~ Mr. Edwin Dienethal, Mr. Randy Robarge, and their Committee for Safety at Plant Zion i have petitioned the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for leave to intervene in a licensing action at Commonwealth Edison's Zion Nuclear Plant. In their petition, your l ' constituents have presented a number of contentions regarding management integrity and public safety for which they are seeking a hearing in this licensing action. Under the Commission's regulations, an interested party can petition t.o intervene in a licensing action. Once such a petition is received, an Atomic Safety Licensing Board (ASLB) is established to evaluate the petition. This evaluation includes a determination of the petitioner's standing and whether any of the petitioner's contentions should be admitted for a hearing. The ASLB, which is independent of the NRC staff, has the authority to determine whether to grant the petitioner's request for a hearing. Under the Commission's regulations, the NRC staff is permitted to issue a licensing action on which i a petition to intervene has been received. The NRC staff may issue the challenged ] licensing action provided that a No Significant Hazards Consideration (NSHC) determination is made and the Commission does not object to the issuance of the , licensing action. The Commission's rules provide that hearings,if warranted, may be conducted after the issuance of the subject licensing action if a final NSHC finding is made. With respect to the challenged Zion license amendment, the NRC staff did mak*e an NSHC i determination and the Commission did not object to the issuance of the requested license amendment. The license amendment was issued on July 24,1998. These proceedings are ongoing and may provide an adjudicatory forum for the resolution of some of the concerns expressed by the petitioners. Further, some of the petitioners' concerns,. documented in U.S. Department of Labor proceedings, have come to our attention in materials that the petitioners filed before the ASLB on July 31,1998, and are being reviewed by staff in the NRC's Region ill Office in Lisle, Illinois, i ENCLOSURE

p g -,- .s.. ~ DOCKETED USNRC LBP-98-24 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA W D -5 R2'02 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD OF9C:; s:.ci.. a RUL f',V: ' ~

  • Before Adm'nistrative Judges:

ADJUD:C i:( - Mc,F i Thomas S. Moore,' Chairman Dr. Jerry R. Kline Frederick J.. Shon In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-295/304-LA-2 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ASLBP No. 98-750-06-LA (Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2) October 5, 1998 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Dismissing Intervention Petition) On August 18, 1998, Mr. Edwin D. Dienethal, Mr. Randy Robarge, and the Cr.nmittee for Safety at Plant Zion (* Joint Petitioners") filed a petition to intervene in connection with the July 24, 1998 no significant hazards consideration finding made by the NRC Staff regarding the license amendment application of Commonwealth Edison Company (" Applicant") for its Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2. This Licensing Board was established on September i998, to preside over the proceeding initia*ted by the intervention petition. l On September 2, 1998, the Licensing Board directed the Joint Petitioners to show cause by September 11, 1998 why th'eir petition should not be dismissed as precluded by 10 C.F.R. S r-, ,u..n jl00'0053 L W acwguae 3 1

I C \\ i l 2'- 50.58 (b) (6). That regulation specifically prohibits any hearing on, or review of, the Staff's no significant hazards determination, except upon the Commission's own initiative. The Applicant-and the Staff were ordered to file responses to the Joint Petitioners,' filing by September 21, 1991. For the reasons set forth below, the Joint Petitioners' intervention request is dismis sed. ' I.

Background

The Applicant filed a license amendment application on March 30, 1998 to make certain changes to the operating licenses for the two Zion plants in order to facilitate plant activities following defueling and the permanent shutdown of the facility. Thereaftei, on May 6, 1998, the NRC published a notice of opportunity of hearing for the license amendment application. Eg2 63 Fed. Reg. 25,101 (1998). That notice was part of the Commission's regular biweekly listing of applications and amendments to facility operating licenses involving no significant hazards considerations, in this instance for the period of April 10 to April 24, 1998. It indicated that the . Commission, inter alia, had made a proposed determination that the Commonwealth Edison Company's amendment request' involved no 1 significant hazards consideration. Id. at 25,105-06. The notice 'also invited the filing of public comments within 30 days on the f proposed no significant hazards consideration determination and l I stated that such comments "will be considered in making any final 1

z. , determination." Id. at 25.101. Next, it explained that the Commission normally does not issue a license amendment until the expiration of the 30-day comment period on the proposed no significant hazards consideration determination but that the Commission retained the authority tp do so if circumstances warranted such action. Id. at 25,101-02. Finally, the May 6, 1998 notice stated that any person whose interest may be affected by the license amendment and who wished to participate in the proceeding on the amendment application must file a written request for a hearing and a petition to intervene by June 5, 1998. Id. at 25,102. In response to the May 6, 1998 notice of opportunity for hearing,'one of the three Joint Petitioners in the instant proceeding, Edwin D. Dienethal, filed a timely petition to intervene seeking to challenge the Applicant's license amendment request. A Licensing Boetu 2m established on June 11, 1998 to rule upon the Dienethal petition and preside over that proceeding. Thereafter, in a communication served upon all participants in that pending proceeding as part of Board Notification 98-01 (Aug. 4, 1998), the Staff informed the Commission of its intent to make a final no significant hazards consideration determination and to issue the license amendments ( for the Zion facility. On August 12, 1998, the Commission published notice of the issuance of the Zion license amendments. F.eg 63 Fed. Reg. 43,200, 43,217 (1998). That notice was part of 1

l,'y. o l ?.e II ; ancther NRC biwtekly notice of applications and amendments to facility operating licenses involving no significant hazards considerations. In a sectic n of the notice set out in bold typeface and entitled " Notice of Issuance of Amendments to l Facility Operating Licenses," the notice set forth the name of the utility applicant, the.date of the amendment application, a descriptionJof the amendments, the July 24, 1998 date the amendments were issued, and the May 6, 1998 date and citation of the initial Federal Register notice. Further, the notice ' indicated'that the NRC had received no comments on the Staff's proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. Id. at 45,216-17. In the August 18, 1998 petition now before us seeking to intervene in the matter of the Commission's final no significant hazards consideration determination, the Joint Petitioners claim that the Commission's August 12, 1998 Federal Register notice announcing the issuance of the license amendments for the Zion facility provided an opportunity for persons interested in the L finding to file an intervention petition by September 11, 1998. L Additionally, in responding to the Licensing Board's order directing them to show cause why their petition should not be l7 -dismissed as precluded by 10 C.F.R. S 50.58(b)(6), the Joint I Petitioners argue that section 50.58 (b) (6) is not controlling here because that regulation only precludes review of NRC Staff no significant hazards consideration determinations, not those l l 1 ~ -

.~ f ; s-1 l .2 l 5-l i~ ^" determinations made by the Commission. The Joint Petitioners i assert that 10 C.F.R. S 2.105(a)(4)(i) provides an exception to section 50.58(b)(6) and that provision applies in those situations when,-as here, the commission makes the no significant hazards consideration determination.with respect to the amendment of a Class 104 license issued under 10 C.F.R. S j 50.21(b). The Joint Petitioners argue, therefore, that they have I a right to a hearing on the'no significant hazards consideration determination noticed in the August 12, 1998 Federal Register. l In their responses, the Applicant and the Staff both argue that the Joint Petitioners have misapprehended the Commission's August 12, 1998 Federal Register notice and that that notice did ) not provide any opportunity for a hearing on the Staff's final no significant hazards consideration determination. Similarly, they both assert that 10 C.F.R. S 50.58 (b) (6) expressly prohibits j l petitions to intervene in no significant hazards consideration l determinations and that the Joint Petitioners characterization of section 50. 58 (b) (6) and 10 C.F.R. S 2.105 (a) (4 ) (i) is simply wrong. II. Analysis The Applicant and the Staff are correct that 10 C.F.R. S 50.58 (b) (6) _ stands as a bar to the Joint Petitioners' intervention petition seeking to challenge the Staff's final no significant hazards consideration determination. That regulation provides: i-l- l l

. _ ~.. '( J... t No petition or other request for review of or hearing on the staff's 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. 10 C.F.R. S 50.58 (b) (6). This regulatory prohibition is clear and unequivocal. The' Licensing Board has no jurisdiction to consider an intervention petition seeking to challenge a staff's final no significant hazards consideration determination. Only .the Commission has the discretion upon its own motion to review such a final finding. Ses 51-Fed. Reg. 7744, 7759 (1986) (statement of consideration on-final rule) ("To buttress this point, the Commission has modified S 50.58 (b) (6) to state that only it on its own initiative may review the staff's final no significant hazards consideration determination.") As the Licensing Board in Lono Island Lichtino Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-91-7, 33 NRC 179, 183 (1991), stated: i A determination of no significant hazards consideration is not a substantive determination of public health and safety issues for the hearing on the proposed t amendment. The only effect of such a determination on the hearing is to establish whether the' amendment may be approved before j a hearing is held or, if there is a finding of significant hazards consideration, a final decision must await the conclusion of the hearing. f Commission regulation is very clear that i i a Licensing Board is without authority to o [ review staff's significant hazards L i i h. x

~ c 's. y_ consideration determination. 10 C.F.R. S 50.58(b)(6). Accord Vermont Yankee Nucl' ear Power Coro. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-90-6, 31 NRC 85, 90-91 (1990) Because section 50.58(b)(6). deprives'the Licensing Board of jurisdiction to entertain the Joint Petitioners' intervention petition seeking to challenge the Staff's final no sianificant hazards consideration' determination, the petition must dismissed. The Joint Petitioners' assertion that the Commission's notice in the August 12, 1998 Federal Register invited the filing of interventici, petitions on the Staff's no significant hazards consideration determination and provided an opportunity for hearing on that finding is simply incorrect. No reasonable ' reading of the entire notice leads to that conclusion.

Indeed, even a casual and cursory reading of the notice does not lead to that conclusion.

The August 12, 1998 notice did nothing more than announce the issuance of the license amendments for Commonwealth Edison Company's Zion plants. The notice did not provide a new opportunity for hearing on the Zion license amendments or invite new public comments on the Staff's no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's earlier May 6, 1998 Federal Register notice, 63 Fed. Reg. 25,101 (1998), did both those things. And, contrary to the Joint Petitioners' unfounded and erroneous assertion, the August 12, 1998 notice did not invite the filing of intervention L

~... _.., _. _ _. ~. _., _ i .+ r 1 j i s ^ .. L pehitions.on the staff's final no significant hazards I consideration determination or provide.an opportunity for hearing cni that finding. The Joint Petitioners' argument in this regard is totally without merit. Equally without merit is the Joint Petitioners' argument that 10 C.F.R. 5 2.105 (a) (4 ) (i) provides an exception to the prohibition " contained in section 50.58 (b) (6) for those no j i - significant hazards consideration determinations made by the Commission itself for amendments to Class 104 licenses issued under 10 C.F.R. S 50.21(b). Contrary to the Joint Petitioners I claim, section 2.105 (a) (4 ) (i) provides no exception to the i prohibition in section 50.58 (b) (6) against challenges to the NRC's ;'inal no significant hazards consideration determination. The former section contains the notice provisions that parallel the Commission's regulations found in 10 C.F.R. SS 50.91 and 50.92 for issuing immediately effective license amendments. That provision states: l l (a) If a hearing is not required by the ? Act or this chapter, and if the Commission ~ has not fou'nd that a hearing is in the public interest, it will, prior to acting thereon, ~ cause to be published in the FEDERAL REGISTER l-a notice of' proposed action with respect to an application for: l (4) An amendment to an operating license for-a-facility licensed under S 50.21(b) or S [ 50.22 of this chapter or for a testing facility, as follows: ll: t

- - i LI c. i m. l l (1) If the Commission determines under S i 50.58 of'this chapter that the amendment ~ j involves no'significant hazards l consideration, though it will provide notice 'of opportunity for a hearing pursuant to'this i i .section, it may make the amendment l. immediately effective and grant a hearing thereafter[.) { i i 10 C.F.R. S 2.105 (a) (4) (i). This provision merely describes the manner in which the 1 Commission-provides public notice of its proposed action on a license amendment application and the opportunity to petition for a hearing on the amendments. By its terms, section 2.105 (a) (4 ) (i) creates no independent right to a hearing on the Staff's no significant hazards consideration determination. Nor l is there any significance to the Joint Petitioners' reliance upon 'the fact that the underlying licenses at issue are Class 104 licenses. Under 10 C.F.R. S 2.105,-the notice requirements for amendments to Class 104 licenses issued under 10 C.F.R. S 50.51(b) are the same as the notice requirements for amendments to Class 103 licenses -- the other class of Commission licenses -- issued under 10 C.F.R. S 50.22. Similarly, in the E circumstances presented, the Joint Petitioners' asserted l-distinction between those actions taken by the Commission and I actions taken by the Staff is meaningless because the Staff, s pursuant to a delegation of authority, is acting for the Commission in making the proposed and final no significant hazards consideration determination. l l

....~.... ~...,..,... -.. ~...... o. -<[ C e , III. Conclusion u The. Commission's regulations, 10 C.F.R. 5 50.58 (b) (6), prohiblt the Licensing Board from entertaining the Joinc Petitioners' intervention petition seeking to challenge the Staff's July 24, 1998 final no significant hazards consideration determination. Accordingly, the petition is.dist.tissed and the l ' proceeding is. terminated. J . Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.714a, the Joint Petitioners, within 10 days of service of this Memorandum and Order, may appeal the Order to the Commission by filing a notice of appeal and accompanying brief. It is so ORDERED'. THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND i LICENSING BOARD Y . [ Moore, $/ca Thomas S Chairman Administrative Judge .bOl4 - Y e. Dh. Jerry R. Kline Admin ative' Judge /. y .x s ' Frederic)Q[J. jn l e l. Administrht-iv -Judge i Rockville, Maryland October 5,-1998 4 c. t i t' I i . = -., n 4

^~ ~ ~ j -{ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA m NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY Docket No.(s)- 50-295/304-LA-2 1 (Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby. certify that copies of the foregoirg LB MEMO & ORDER (LBP-98-24) have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712. Administrative Judge Office of Comission Appellate Thomas S. Moore, Chairman Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Jerry R. Kline Frederick J. Shon - Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. I Robert M. Weisman, Esq. Stephen M. Kohn, Esq. Office of the General Counsel Michael D. Kohn, Esq. Mail Stop 15 B18 Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, P. C. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 3233 P Street,'NW Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20007 David W. Jenkins, Senior Counsel Robert E. Helfrich, Senior Counsel Michael I. Miller, Esq. Comonwealth Edison Company Sidley and Austin Law Department Room 1535 One First National Plaza 125 South Clark Street, P.O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60603 Chicago, IL 60603

~ - - _ - f

?

E. Docket No.(s)S0-295/304-LA-2 LB MEM0 & ORDER (LBP-98-24) Dated at Rockville, Md. this 5 day of October 1998-M/ 7 A (A&w /< fj (4A Office of the Secretary of6the Comiss n 4

S n A 00CKETED USHRCLBP-98-27 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOWJB R)v -5 P2 :39 ' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l OFFn. k' T Before Administrative Judge gl;

pp Thomas S. Moore, Chairman i

Dr. Jerry R. Kline i Frederick J. Shon SERVED fl0V - 5 Mo In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-295/304-LA ~ COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ASLBP No. 98-744-04-LA (Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2) November 5, 1998 4 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Resolving Standing Issue) The petitioner, Edwin D. Dienethal, seeks to intervene in this proceeding involving the license amendment application of the Commonwealth Edison Company (" Applicant") for itu Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, in Lake County, Illinois. In response to the Commission's notice of opportunity for hearing, s.g.g 63 Fed. Reg. 25,101, 25,105-06 (1998), the ' Petitioner timely filed a petition to intervene and an amended' . petition opposing the requested license amendments. The Appl' cant and the NRC Staff both challenge Mr. Dienethal's standing to intervene. i I na 7 0f/(AOCOb b f([ l _m....,,,.,.,, . m,-..awme _2;ua ENCLOSURE 4

g- ....._a,,- I e ~ #.. 2-For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the l l Petitioner has failed to establish his standing to intervene in L this license amendment proceeding. l I.

Background

In early 1998, the Commonwealth Edison Company decided to close the Zion Nuclear Power Station. Thus, both Zion units are l now defueled and permanently shutdown, although neither unit has yet.been decommissioned. The Applicant seeks the requested license amendments in order to facilitate activities at the now shutdown facility. According to the Commission's hearing notice, 1 "[t]he proposed' amendments would restore the Zion Custom Technical Specifications (CTS) that had been replaced with Improved Technical Specification [s] [(ITS)] by a previous amendment and would reinstate License Conditions that were deleted by that previous amendment." -Id. at 25,105. The Applicant's no significant hazards consideration enalysis ' included in the Commission's hearing notice states that the ITS were never implemented at the facility so the CTS have remained as-the binding technical specifications at Zion. Further, that analysis explains that the requested amendments also would restore to the Zion operating licenses the five license conditions that previously had been transferred in the form of I requirements to other licensing documents as part of the t l amendment process for adopting the never-implemented ITS. Id. j'

~. - -.. L* I-I* l ! Additionally, the Commission's hearing notice states that "[t}he proposed amendment (s) would also modify the CTS to allow i the use of Certified Fuel Handlers to satisfy shift staffing requirements and would change management titles and t responsibilities to reflect the permanently shutdown organization." Id. In this regard, the Applicant's analysis indicates that the changes to the CTS would reduce shift staffing numbers and crew composition as well as modify language implying ~ the units were operational. Id. at 25,106. In his intervention petition opposing the Commonwealth Edison Company's license amendment application, Mr. Dienethal asserts that he resides in Kenosha, Wisconsin, within 50 miles of i . the Zion Nuclear Station and that the Applicant's facility directly impacts his health and safety and the health and safety of his family. Mr. Dienethal's amended petition and an accompanying affidavit explain that he resides with his wife and two minor children 10.4 driving miles, or 8.5 to 9 miles as the crow flies, from the Zion plant. The pleadings state that the Petitioner and his family boat, fish, swim, and play water sports in Lake Michigan where the Applicant's facility discharges effuents and wastes. The amended petition and affidavit also . state that the Dienethal family frequently uses a bike trail that passes directly in front of the plant in the town of Zion, Illinois, where the Applicant's facility is located and that the Petitioner also plays golf and frequents a park in the town. In

\\ + i 4 _ 4_ the amended pleadings, Mr. Dienethal further asserts that his e children play soccer once a week six months of the year.just nine-miles from the Zion plant and that he and his wife attend each of l l his children's soccer matches. l In further cataloguing his activities near the Zion plant, the intervention pleadings indicate that the school the Dienethal children attend is located 12 miles from the Applicant's facility and the Pet'itioner and his wife share the task of driving their children to and from school. -The amended petition states that the Petitioner and his wife also travel within one mile of the nuclear plant three or four times.a week to shop, buy gasoline, visit the post office, or attend movies and that Mr. Dienethal visits o'n a regular basis an essential business supplier located one mile from the plant. Additionally, the pleadings assert that - many of the roads used by the Petitioner in his business travel are the'same ones used by the Applicant to transport radioactive waste from the Zion plant. Finally, the intervention filings i claim that the food and water the Petitioner and his family consume are affected by the Zion plant because Mr. Dienethal purchases food from farms located within ten miles of the plant and that his drinking water, as well as the fish he catches and eats, come from Lake Michigan where the Applicant dumps waste from the Zion facility. According to the amended petition and accompanying affidavit, the various activities of the Petitioner and his h --.,o y

~. i l i family in t;ie vicinity of the Zion plant place them at risk of future negative health effects directly traceable to-the I Applicant's facility. Specifically, paragraphs 19 and 20 of Mr. Dienethal's affidavit state: 19. I have specific concerns about the injuries that could result to my family and the local communities that derive from the proposed amendments by Commonwealth Edison. I believe that the proposed amendment presents many threats to the public health and safety, harm to the environment, and harm to the health of employees at Plant Zion. These injuries would result from the structural and functional changes in Plant Zion proposed by the amendment or if any mishap should occur while Plant Zion is functioning under the proposed changes of the amendment.

20. (I]f Plant Zion functions under the proposed amendments, the potential injuries to me and my family, Plant Zion workers, the community, and the local environment include, but are not limited to:
1. LOCA (Los(s) of Coolant Accident),
2. radiological concerns, 3.

unsafe levels of radiation for the employees at the plant and the general public, 4. undetectable radiation contamination by employees, S. contamination of toe local community and the environment, 6. increase risk of accident at plant Zion, and 7. con-tamination of Lake Michigan. Finally, the amended petition asserts that the challenged amendments pose a risk to the value of Mr. Dienethal's real property as well as to the property values of the surrounding community.

, II. Analysis A petitioner's right to participate in a Commission reactor operating license amendment proceeding flows from section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended. In pertinent part, that section provides that "[i]n any proceeding under this Act, for j the granting, suspending, revoking, or amending of any license. the Commission shall grant a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding." 42 U.S.C. 5 2239(a) (1) ( A). Parroting the language of section 189a, the Commission's regulations provide that "(a]ny person whose interest may be affected by a proceeding and who desires to participate as a party shall file a written petition for leave to intervene." 10 C.F.R. 5 2. 714 (a) (1). The regulations further specify that "[t]he petition shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, [and] how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, including the reasons why petitioner should'be' permitted to intervene." 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(2). In ascertaining whether a petitioner has pled a sufficient " interest" within the meaning of the Atomic Energy Act and the Commission's regulations to intervene as of right in a licensing proceeding, the Commission years ago held that contemporaneous judicial concepts of standing are to be applied. Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 613-14 (1976).

l c l i [ o. 7-l 'According to the Commission, those judicial principles ) y require that to establish standing the petitioner must state a 'l concrete and particularized injury, i.e., an injury in fact, that 'is fairly traceable to the challenged licensing action and likely to be. redressed by a favorable. decision. Yankee Atomic Electric .Eq. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-98-21, 48 NRC __, (slip op,'at 3)- (Oct. 23, 1998); Ouivira Minina Co. (Ambrosia Lake Facility, Grants, New Mexico), CLI-98-11, 48 NRC 1, 6 (1998); Georoia Institute of Technoloav (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia), CLI-95-12, 42 NRC 111, 115 (1995). The asserted injury may be either an actual one or harm that is threatened in the future, but the.i:. jury must be to an interest that is arguably within the zone of interests protected by the t statutes governing NRC proceedings -- the Atomic Energy Act or the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Yankee Atomic, CLI-98-21 48 NRC at __ (slip op. at 3); Ouivira, CLI-98-11, 48 NRC at 6. In both his initial intervention petition and his amended petition, Mr. Dienethal explicitly states that he seeks to intervene in the license amendment proceeding and his intervention petitions only refer to a singular petitioner seeking intervention. Therefore, even though he also asserts various injuries to his wife, family, employees at the Applicant's facility, and the community at large, Mr. Dienethal is the sole petitioner before us. Thus, it is only Mr. L

= - _ = =. =.. .L L = : = :::2 :: m' ~ ~' ' ~

~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~'~:":+

,e-1 L * \\ a _ g. ~ Dienethal's standing th'at is determinative of his right to t e intervene in-this proceeding. l l The gist of the Petitioner's standing claim is that his many activities 1in the vicinity of the Zion plant place him within a- [ zone of harm of possible future negative health effects from the Applicant's facility..The intervention pleadings nowhere c l explicitly state that a release of radioactive fission products from the two unit Zion Nuclear Power Station into the environment I where the Petitioner's activities take place will negatively impact his health, safety, and property values, but that fact is clearly implicit in the pleadings. Thus, the Petitioner's long list of activities, that, inter alia,-regularly place him as l close as one mile to the Zion plant throughout the year provides an adequate statement of future harm from the Applicant's facility to meet the-standing requirement of pleading a threatened injury in fact. L The pleading of an injury in fact, however, is only one l element of the requirements for establishing the Petitioner's stan'ing. Mr. Dienethal must also demonstrate that the claimed d negative health. effects and property value diminution from the l offsite' release of radioactive fission products at the Zion i l plants is fairly traceable to the amendments that the Applicant seeks. Stated otherwise, the Petitioner must show the causal link between his asserted-harm and the proposed license ( amendments. In this regard, the Commission has indicated that p .---a >Wi

j . "Is]uch a determination is not dependent on whether the cause of t the injury flows directly frora the challenged action, but whether the chain of causation is plausible." Secuovah Fuels Coro. l (Gore, Oklahoma Site), CLI-94-12, 40 NRC 64, 75 (1994). Here, as the Applicant and the Staff correctly argue in opposing the Petitioner's standing, Mr. Dienethal has failed to establish a plausible chain of causation between his alleged injury and the Applicant's proposed license amendments. Contrary to Mr. Dienethal's apparent belief, in Commission license amendment proceedings.-- in contrast to proceedings for reactor construction permits or operating licenses -- the presumption found in agency precedents that confers standing, without'more, on a petitioner who resides or otherwise conducts activities in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant applies only i if the challenged license amendments present an " obvious potential for offsite consequences." Florida Power & Licht Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-89-21, 30 NRC 325, 330 (1989). When, as here, the Zion reactors are permanently shutdown and defueled, it cannot reasonably be concluded that the license amendments of the type at issue in this proceeding create an obvious potential for offsite consequences. Therefore, the Petitioner "must allege some l specific ' injury in fact' that will result from the action taken." Id. Yet, even construing the intervention pleadings t. i. most favorably for the Petitioner, as Commission precedent

-e-t ) L.,*. - L - w -requires, Georcia Tech, CLI-95-12, 42 NRC at 115, Mr. Dienethal's j l ' pleadings' fall far short of this required demonstration of i i causation. t 'The challenged amendments restore the Zion CTS that had been replaced by the never-implemented ITS and reinstate, as part of .the CTS, five license conditions that had been changed to L L requirements and added to other licensing documents as part 1 of the amendment process adopting the ITS. Because the ITS had never been implemented at the time the' Applicant permanently shutdown and defueled the-Zion plants, the. instant license amendments merely restore the Applicant's facility to the status ~ - it had while operating. In other words with respect to the technical specifications for the facility,. these amendments do j nothing more that restore the status quo to the Zion plants. - Nowhere in his intervention pleadings, however, does the Petitioner explain, a's he must in order to establish his standing - to intervene, how these amendments could plausibly lead to the ~ offsite release of radioactive fission products from either of I the shutdown and defueled Zion reactors. L The challenged amendments also modify the Zion CTS to allow t the use.of Certified Fuel Handlers to satisfy shift staffing requirements, change management titles and responsibilities to reflect the permanently shutdown organization, and alter certain i language in the technical specifications to remove any implication that the Zion units are operatic..tal. Once again. ,9, e p.... 2,,---w e-- v-_--r-, w w

,...~ Ine. e 11 _ r h l 'however, che Petitioner's pleadings _ fail to explain adequately L how these amendments could plausibly lead'to the offsite release of radioactivity from reactors.that are permanently shutdown and defueled'so that the spectrum of accidents with offsite ~ -consequences is vastly diminished. Rather'than explain th'e: process by which the proposed l license amendments could.cause him future negative health effects-and-diminish the value of his property, the Petitioner in his amended petition ~and accompanying affidavit merely lists seven items that he claims. increase his' risk of injury should the amendments be adopted. First, the Petitioner states that his risk of' injury.from the proposed amendments is increased because of loss,of coolant accidents. Yet loss of coolant accidents can - only occur in operating reactors, _not reactors that are permanently shutdown, defueled, and depressurized. The Petitioner also claims the challenged amendments increase the risk of accidents at the Zion plants. But the type of accident that credibly could occur in permanently shutdown and defueled l reactors from these license amendments is anything but self-evident. Nowhere does the Petitioner set forth a plausible or I ' I g credible causal chain for any such accident or explain how the L risk of such an accident is increased by the Applicant's proposed i amendments. Similarly, the Petitioner lists radiological concerns and various on-and-off site radioactive contamination as s increasing his risk'of injury from these amendments. But the 1

-. -. -... ~. - -. - - - --

5 s

Petitioner's' pleadings are silent with respect to any plausible chain of causation for such radioactive ccntamination resulting ) i from the challenged amendments. l In_short, the Petitioner's unsubstantiated allegations simply fail toLdemonstrate a plausible nexus between the challenged license amendments.and Mr. Dienethal's asserted harm. Because Mr. Dienethal's intervention pleadings fail to establish the causation element essential to establish standing, his petition fails to demonstrate that the Petitioner has standing-to intervene in this license amendment proceeding.- III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we find that the Petitioner, Edwin D, Dienethal, lacks sufficient interest within the meaning L 4 - of section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act,.42 U.S.C. S 'Mr. Dienethal's argument that he has standing to intervene l based upon his allegations that the Applicant lacks the necessary character and competence to manage the Zion facility also is without merit. Contrary to the Petitioner's assertions, this license amendment proceeding does not concern the Applicant's ) -failure to manage properly the Zion plants. Rather, the scope of the proceeding is defined by the substance of the license amendments on which the notice for opportunity for hearing is. based. Here, the challenged license amendments do not implicate .the Applicant's character and competence and the Petitioner's i .various allegations about the Applicant's past management practices are wholly outside the scope of'the proceeding. Moreover/Lin' order to benefit from the presumption that residency and ac'tivities near a nuclear power plant, without more, confer I standing ~upon'a petitioner, the challenged license amendments i must present an obvious potential for offsite consequences. St. i-Lucie, CLI-89-21, 30 NRC at 329-30. It is not, as Mr. Dienethal [ would have it, the Petitioner's own allegations about the offsite consequences of the Applicant's conduct that makes the _ presumption applicable. e

j. 2239 (a) (1) ; A), and section 2.714 (a) of the Commission's i regulations, 10 C F.R. S 2.714(a), to intervene in this license amendment proceeding. Accordingly, the Petitioner's intervention petition is' denied and the proceeding is terminated. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.714a. the Petitioner, within ten (10) days of service of this Memorandum and Order, may appeal the Order to the Commission by filing a notice of appeal and ~ accompanying brief. It is so ORDERED. THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD -/ ,oo .elchtug 3 / / CW Th'omas S. Moore, Chairman Administrative Judge ~ f._ - e p.Jerrh'R. Kline administ ative Judge ) ~ .l. k it i y* ~. q / fr'ederick J. non Administra e udge Rockville, Maryland November 5, 1998

~. e' . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of COMMONWEALTN EDISON COMPANY Docket No.(s) 50-295/304-LA (Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LB MEMO & ORDER (LBP-98-27) have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712. Administrative Judge Office of Comission Appellate Thomas S. Moore, Chairman Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 I Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Jerry R. Kline Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. Robert M. Weisman, Esq. Michael I. Miller, Esq. Office of the General Counsel Sidley and Austin Mail Stop 15 B18 One First National Plaza i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chicago, IL 60603 Washington, DC 20555 l David W. Jenkins, Senior Counsel l Stephen M. Kohn, Esq. Robert E. Helfrich, Senior Counsel l Michael D. Kohn, Esq. Commonwealth Edison Company Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, P. C. Law Department Room 1535 l 3233 P Street, NW 125 South Clark Street, P.O. Box 767 l Washington, DC 20007 Chicago, IL 60603 i 4

r. Docket No.(s)50-295/304-LA LB MEM0 & ORDER (LBP-98-27) Dated at Rockville, Md. this 5 day of November 1998 $NJ / /. btt4sbann Office of the Secretarf of the C fliinission f s 'b j 4 -4 4 e m J

Th3 Honor:bl3 Rich:rd J. Durbin 2 On November 5,1998, the ASLB in a related proceeding reached a decision on the petition to intervene that was filed on June 4,1998, concerning the licenso amendment application of March 30,1998. The ASLB determined that the petitioner, Mr. Dienethal, had failed to demonstrate a plausible causal connection between the challenged license amendment and any harm to his interests, which is required to satisfy the requirements for standing to intervene in an adjudicatory proceeding. Accordingly, the ASLB denied his petition for leave to intervene. A copy of this decision is enclosed for your information. On November 16,1998, the petitioner appealed the November 5,1998, ASLB decision to the Commission, where the matter is currently pending. As you are aware, the NRC has maintained oversight of the Zion Nuclear Plant throughout its history in your community. Whenever regulatory issues have been identified by concerned citizens or through its oversight efforts, the NRC has taken appropriate enforcement action. The NRC will continue to maintain oversight of the Zion Nuclear Plant during decommissioning and, when warranted, will take appropriate regulatory action to ensure the continued protection of public health and safety. Sincerely, William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

1. Letter tb Mayor Paxton
2. Letter to Senator Geo-Karis
3. October 5,1998, ASLB Decision
4. November 5,1998, ASLB Decision cc: Senator Carol Moseley-Braun Senator Adeline Geo-Karis Mayor Chuck Paxton DISTRIBUTION: See next page

'See previous concurrence / PDND:P TECH ED* PDN.LA PDND:(A)SC Py N. AMark! RSanders di on MMasnik % 'SWeiss y 12/f/98 11/24/98 12/4/98 12/ f/98 12q /98 (k ED DRPM:(A)D* DONRR' OG OCA JRoe SCollins d vers 12//N98 11/30/98 12/2/98 12/g/98 /8 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 7 DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SECY\\ACTN_lTM\\GT655.AM Y l 1

v. DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SECY\\ACTN_ITM\\GT655.AM DISTRIBUTION: HARD COPY Docket File 50-295/304 (w/ incoming) PUBLIC (w/ incoming) EDO#GT980655 WTravers (016-E15) FMiraglia (016-E15) PNorry (016-E15) JBlaha (016-E15) SBurns, OGC (015-B18) JCaldwell, Rlli EHalman (T7-D59) SCollins/RZimmerman (05-E7) BBoger (05-E7) BSheron (05-E7) JRoe (012-ES) TCarter, NRR Mail Room (EDO#GT980655 w/ incoming) (05-E7) OGC (015 B18) STurk (015-B18) OPA (02-G5) OCM (016-C1) SWeiss MMasnik - I AMarkley DScaletti PDND r/f (w/ incoming) MBoyle (E-Mail MLB4) MManahan (GT655) (012-ES) EHylton (w/ incoming) OCA (017A-3) E-MAIL COPY RBurrows RDudley MFairtile TFredrichs PHarris WHuffman TKenyon-JMinns Pray LThonus MWebb DWheeler

.=- The Honorable Richard J. Durbin 2 l On November 5,1998, the ASLB in a related proceeding reached a decision on the petition to intervene that was filed on June 4,1998, concerning the license amendment application of March 30,1998. The ASLB determined that the petitioner, Mr. Dienethal, had failed to dr.monstrate a plausible causal connection between the challenged license amendment and l any harm to his interests, which is required to satisfy the requirements for standing to intervene in an adjudicatory proceeding. Accordingly, the ASLB denied his petition for leave to intervene. A copy of this decision is enclosed for your information. On November 16,1998, the petitioner appealed the November 5,1998, ASLB decision to the Commission, where the matter is currently pending. As you are aware, the NRC has maintained oversight of the Zion Nuclear Plant throughout its history in your community. Whenever regulatory issues have been identified by concerned citizens or through its oversight efforts, the NRC has taken appropriate enforcement action. The NRC will continue to maintain oversight of the Zion Nuclear Plant during decommissioning and, when warranted, will take appropriate regulatory action to ensure the continued protection of public health and safety. Sincerely, j l William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

1. Letter to Mayor Paxton
2. Letter to Senator Geo-Karis
3. October 5,1990, ASLB Decision
4. November 5,1998, ASLB Decir; ion ec: Senator Carol Moseley-Braun Senator Adeline Geo-Karis Mayor Chuck Paxton i

DISTRIBUTION: See next page

  • See previous concurrence PDND:P TECH ED*

PDN PDND:(A)SC PyN RSanders on MMasnik % 'SWeiss AMark! y 12/f/98 11/24/98 1 'I/98 12/ f /98 12/] /98 DRPM:(A)D* DONRR* ED OCA OGg( d 4 vers JRoe SCollins 11/30/98-12/2/98 12/g/98 /8 12/ /08 l OFFICIAL RECORD COPY I DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SECY\\ACTN ITM\\GT655.AM i

= \\e at DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SECY\\ACTN_lTM\\GT655.AM DISTRIBUTION: HARD COPY l Docket File 50 295/304 (w/ incoming) l- . PUBLIC (w/ incoming) - EDO#GT980655 WTravers (016-E15) l FMiraglia (016-E15) PNorry (016-E15) JBlaha (016-E15) l SBurns, OGC (015-B18) JCaldwell, Rlli i. . EHalman (T7-D59) ' SCollins/RZimmerman (05-E7) BBoger (05-E7) BSheron (05-E7) l JRoe (012-E5) 1-TCarter, NRR Mail Room (EDO#GT980655 w/ incoming) (05-E7) OGC (015-B18) STurk (015-B18) OPA (02-G5) . OCM (016-C1) Sweiss ' MMasnik AMarkley i l DScaletti PDND r/f (w/ incoming) MBoyle (E-Mail MLB4) i MManahan (GT655) (012-E5) i EHylton (w/ incoming) OCA (017A-3) E-MAIL COPY RBurrows RDudley MFairtile l TFredrichs . PHarris j. WHuffman TKenyon JMinns Pray LThonus MWebb DWheeler l l

(RDLCLL s L M r o The Honorable Rir. nard J. Durbin 2 (On November 5,1398, the ASLB reached a decision on the petition to intervene that was filed on June 4,1998. The ASLB determined that the petitioner had presented an adequate I st ement of future harm from the applicant's facility but failed to demonstrate a plausible cau tion of the harm due to the challenged license amendments in order to meet the requir ents for standing in a hearing proceeding. A copy of this decision is enclosed for your inf mation. On November 16,1998, the petitioner appealed the November 5,1998, ASLB dec ion to the Commission, where the matter is pending. As you are a are, the NRC has maintained oversight of the Zion Nuclear Plant throughout its history in y r community. Whenever regulatory issues have been identified from concerned citize or through its oversight efforts, the NRC has taken appropriate enforcement actio The NRC will continue to maintain oversight of the Zion Nuclear Plant during decommissio 'ng and, when warranted, will take appropriate regulatory action to ensure the continued otection of public health and safety. Sincerely, William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

- 1. Letter to Mayor Paxton

2. Letter to Senator Geo-Karis
3. October 5,1998, ASLB Decision l
4. November 5,1998, ASLB Decision cc: Senator Carol Moseley-Braun Senator Adeline Geo-Karis Mayor Chuck Paxton DISTRIBUTION: See next page

'See previous concurrence (L W )S b [fissg;D D PM:(A)DS D NRR i PDND:P TECH ED* PDN EA PDN ' EDO AM RSanders EMyon // /6)ar i 11/24/98 ji ;-198 [rAMh/la nik pSC lins WTravers Q J e /98 l[ / 7/98 Ull /A'/98 s 0/98 k D /? 198 / /98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY \\ DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SECY\\ACTN_ITM\\GT655.AM I

=_- c-J The Honorable Richard J. Durbin 2 On November 5,1998, the ASLB reached a decis.an for the petition to interve e that was i filed on June 4,1998. The ASLB determined that the petitioner had presenft d an adequate statement of future harm from the applicant's facility but failed to demonstrate a plausible causation of the harm due to the challenged license amendments in orde to meet the { requirements for standing in a hearing proceeding. A copy of this deci ion is enclosed for your information. On November 16,1998, the petitioner appealed t e November 5,1998, ASLB decision to the Commission, where the matter is pending. As you are aware, the NRC has maintained oversight of the Zi Nuclear Plant throughout its history in your community. Whenever regulatory issues ve been identified from concerned citizens or through its oversight efforts, the NR has taken appropriate enforcement action. The NRC will continue to maintain 'ersight of the Zion Nuclear Plant during decommissioning and, when warranted, will tak appropriate regulatory action to ensure the continued protection of public health and fety. Sincere illiam D. Travers xecutive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

1. Letter to Mayor Paxton
2. Letter to Senator Geo-Kavis
3. October 5,1998, ASLB D ision
4. November 5,1998, ASL Decision cc: Senator Carol Mose y-Braun Senator Adeline G o-Karis Mayor Chuck Pa. on DISTRIBUTION: S e next page

'See previous co/ ncurrence / PDND:PM JECH ED' PD PDND:(A)SCfDND:DJRPM:(A)D DONRR EDO NJRoe SCollins WTravers MMasnikFif SWje ss AMarkle gRSanders E on [/7J[98 11/24/98 ll /98 ll /yI98 il /P/98 / /98 / /98 / /98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SECY\\ACTN_lTM\\GT655.AM

9 The Hon:rabla Richard J. Durbin 2 2 causation of the harm due to the challenged license amendments to meet the requirernents for standing in a hearing proceeding. A copy of this decision is enclosed for your information. On November 16,'1998, the petitioner appealed the November'5,1998, ASLB decision to the Commission where the matter is pending. j As you are aware, the NRC has maintained oversight of th'e Zion, Nuclear Plant throughout its history in your community. Whenever regulatory issues have' been identified from concerned citizens or through its oversight efforts, the NRC has taken appropriate enforcement action. The NRC will contir.ue to maintain oversight of the Zion Nuclear Plant during decommissioning and when warranted will take appropriate regulatory action to ensure the continued protection of public health and safety. Sincerely, William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations /

Enclosure:

As stated / / cc: Senator Carol Moseley-Braun / Senator. Adeline Geo-Karis / Senator Chuck Paxton l I / / / i ,9 DISTRIBUTION: See next page / PDND:P TECH ED PDND:LA PDND:(A)SC PDND:D DRPM:(A)D AMarkl N EHylton MMasnik SWeiss JRoe II / b8 / /98 / /98 / /98 / /98 // /5//98 S / DONRR ,EDO SCollins WTravers / /98 / /98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SECY\\ACTN_ITM\\GT655.AM

p3 ACTION f ws t EDO Principal Correspondence Control I2-f4f& FROMt DUE : /1.M EDO CONTROL: G19980655 DOC DT: 10/21/98 FINAL REPLY: Sin. Richard J. Surbin TO Rnthbun, OCA FOR SIGNATURE OF :

    • GRN CRC NO: 98-1016 Travers, EDO DESCt ROUTING:

SAFETY OF ZION NUCLEAR PLANT (Chuck Paxton) Travers DEDE Thompson Norry Blaha DATE: 11/05/98 Burnsf Caldwell, RIII Halma'n, ADM ASSIGNED TO: CONTACT: (j s NRR Collins SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS: ,j f l 0/ 7] h O 5I gg ges,d : Anjeg 4/#f DUE T0 iiRR D iECTOR'S OFFl:E y/fL d//adMpu h L

  1. d BY Led u dh fiYI"v?M

'l

. -.... ~. - - ~ -. -. ~ ~. ~ - -

. 0 6.
-

o,. f .d[ OFFICE OF.THE SECRETARY

c. -'A CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET L

PAPER NUMBER: CRC-98-1016 LOGGING DATE: Nov 2 98 ^ ACTION OFFICE: EDO AUTHOR: RICHARD J DURBIN, SEN. . AFFILIATION: U.S. SENATE ADDRESSEE: RATHBUN LETTER DATE:

Octl21,98-FILE CODE: IDR 5 ZION

SUBJECT:

SAFETY-OF ZION NUCLEAR PLANT ' ACTION: Signature of.EDO DISTRIBUTION: . CHAIRMAN, COMRS SPECIAL' HANDLING: OCA TO ACK CONSTITUENT: CHUCK PAXTON NOTES: / DATE DUE: Nov 98 l SIGNATURE: DATE SIGNED: ~ AFFILIATION: i l I ~ t 1 "Y L l: i I.l. .i l I

i. :

l C EDO -- G980655 ....}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20198C726&oldid=4101906"