ML20205S581
| ML20205S581 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/16/1999 |
| From: | Zwolinski J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Wirch R WISCONSIN, STATE OF |
| References | |
| 98-744-04-LA, 98-744-4-LA, 98-750-06-LA, 98-750-6-LA, CLI-99-004, CLI-99-4, NUDOCS 9904260267 | |
| Download: ML20205S581 (2) | |
Text
F April 16, 1999 The H:n:r:ble Robert W. Wirch Wisconsin Sen:te Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7882
Dear Mr. Wirch:
I am responding to your'ietter of February 3,1999, to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in which you urged a full public hearing to be held on the health and safety concems raised by Randy Robarge and Edwin Dienethat related to the Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2.
As you are aware on October 5,1998, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) denied Messrs. Robarge and Dienethal's petition to intervene because the Commission's regulation, 10 CFR 50.5C(b)(6), prohibits the ASLB from entertaining a petition challenging the staff's final no significant hazards consideration determination. The ASLB decision (Memorandum and Order-ASLBP No. 98-750-06-LA) is Enclosure 1.
Subsequently, on November 5,1998, the ASLB denied a separate petition by Mr. Dienethat on the grounds that Mr. Dienethat's " unsubstantiated allegations simply fail to demonstrate a plausible nexus between the challenged ucense amendments and Mr. Dienethal's asserted harm." The ASLB decision (Memorandum and Order-ASLBP No. 98-744-04-LA) is Enclosure 2.
Pursuant to the Commission's regulation,10 CFR 2.714a, Mr. Dienethal appealed the ASLB decision of November 5,1998, to the Commission. On March 2,1999, the Commission issued a memorandum and order (CLI-99-04) affirming the ASLB's decision denying Mr. Dienethat's petition to intervene. The Commission's decision is Enclosure 3.
All issues submitted to the NRC are taken seriously. As you will see from reviewing the
/
enclosures, the concerns of Messrs. Robarge and Dienethat have been thoroughly considered g,' /
by the NRC staff, the ASLB, and the Commission. The NRC will continue to maintain oversight
/
i l
of the Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 during decommissioning and will take i
appropriate action, when warranted, to ensure the continued protection of public health and safety.
Sincerely, Original signed by:
John A. Zwolinski, Director Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
idiLBP No. 98-750-06-LA DISTRIBUTION:
2.
ASLBP No. 98744-04-LA Docket (50-295/304)
EPeyton 3.
CLI-99-04 PUBLIC SECY PDIV&D Reading ASLBP BSheron (05-E-7)
JZwolinski/SBlack 9904260267.990416 SRichards PDR ADOCK 05000295 O
PDR MMasnik DScaletti DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SECY\\MASNIK\\WIRCH OFC PDIV4$
PDIV&D TECH ED*
PDIV&D/SC PDIV&D/D m DLP M NAME D
I EMoI BCalure MMasni SRichards Ywo sh y v DATE 4 /1 /99 4 / (O /99 3 / 24 /99 4 / 0 /99 4 / I'/ /99 4 / b/99 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY CN
F"
[ A RfCk e
.e4 4
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION If WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666 0001
/
April 16, 1999 The Honorable Robert W. Wirch Wisconsin Senate Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7882
Dear Mr. Wirch:
I am responding to your letter of February 3,1999, to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)in which you urged a full public hearing to be held on the health and safety concerns raised by Randy Robarge and Edwin Dienethal related to the Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2.'
As you are aware on October 5,1998, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) denied Messrs. Robarge and Dienethal's petition to intervene because the Commission's regulation, 10 CFR 50.58(b)(6), prohibits the ASLB from entertaining a petition challenging the staff's final no significant hazards consideration determination. The ASLB decision (Memorandum and Order-ASLBP No. 98-750-06-LA) is Enclosure 1.
' Subsequently, on November 5,1998, the ASLB denied a separate petition by Mr. Dienethal on the grounos that Mr. Dienethal's " unsubstantiated allegations simply fail to demonstrate a plausible nexus between the challenged license amendments and Mr. Dienethat's asserted harm." The ASLB decision (Memorandum and Order-ASLBP No. 98-744-04-LA) is Enclosure 2.
Pursuant to the Commission's regulation,10 CFR 2.714a, Mr. Dienethal appealed the ASLB
- decision of November 5,1998, to the Commission. On March 2,1999, the Commission issued a memorandum and order (CLI-99-04) affirming the ASLB's decision denying Mr. Dienethal's petition to intervene. The Commission's decision is Enclosure 3.
Allissues Jbmitted to the NRC are taken seriously. As you will see from reviewing the i
enclosures, the concerns of Messrs. Robarge and Dienethat have been thoroughly considered
{
by the NRC staff, the ASLB, and the Commission. The NRC will continue to maintain oversight i
of the Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 during decommissioning and will take appropriate action, when warranted, to ensure the continued protection of public health and safety._
?'
Sincerely, 1
u Johnh. Zwolinski, Director l
Division of Licensing Project Management l
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
)
l
Enclosures:
1.
ASLBP No. 98-750-06-LA
}
2.
ASLBP No. 98744-04-LA 3.
CLl-99-04
ENCLOSURE 1
/W599 *
~
DOCKETED USHRC LBP-98-24 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA W DCT -5 Pl2:02 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD OFeit : ': E ::
RLL:
~
Before Administrative Judges:
ADJuD U "
iF 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 SERVED 007 - 51998 m gg y,g,,
,,,g,ygg, (Dismissing Intervention Petition)
On August 18, 1998, Mr. Edwin D. Dienethal, Mr. Randy Robarge, and the Committee for Safety at Plant Zion (* Joint Petitioners-) filed a petition to intervene in connection with the July 24, 1998 no significant hatards consideration finding made by the NRC Staff regarding the license amendment application of Commonwealth Edison Company
(* Applicant") for its Zion Nuclear Power Station, Jnits 1 and 2.
This Licensing Board was established on September 1, 1998, to preside over the proceeding initia'ted by the intervention petition.
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
-._..__. u (f? 'J/tN/ - A 8 /2ff.
ENCLDSURE 1
}fQ, I v tvvuL v 5
..J
1 4
-2 50.56(b)(6).
That regulation specifically prohibits any hearing on, or review of, the Staff's no significant hazards determination, except upon the Commissien'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
- interventien request is
)
dismissed.
ESCkground The Applicant filed a license amendment application on March 30, 199E to make certain changes tc the :perating licenses fer the two Zion plants in order to facil: tate plant acttvities following defueling and the permanent shutdcwn of the facility.
Thereafter, on May 6, 199E, the I;F.C published a notice of opportunity of hearing fer the license amendment application.
Egg 63 Fed. Reg. 25,101 (1998).
That notice was part of the Ccmmissien's regular biweekly itsting of applications and amendments to facility operating iteenses involving no significant ha:ards censiderations, tn this instance fo: 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 significant hazards consideration.
1s. at 25,105-06.
The notice also invited the filing of public comments within 30 days on the 1
preposed no significant hazards consideration determination and L
stated that such comments "will be considered in making any final
r.
v t
1 I
d 1
I determination."
M. at 25.101.
- ext, it explained that the Cornission normally does not issue a license amendment until the expiration of the 3 0-day ce=ent period on the proposed no significan hazards consideration dete=ination but that the Commission retained the authority tp do so if circumstances warranted such action.
- 2. at 25.101-Os.
F nally, the May ~,
..v.
.a. e a.e s. e
_ a,
,og0 no.<se s.a.e w...a..
a.. ). -e..oO.
k.w - c.: :,...
o.
ea.
.. a-,r.
e a
c
.e.
us y
-<a a-
- ,..na e.i.n.
.u. a.
.. ; s.w. e,A D,ehe
.s.:
e..se a e..e..e
. a
.m
.. v..J y
. A a.
w r
6.
.y p " o C e e." ". ", o ".
- b. e a*.. e ".. d... e ". *. a - " '.' v*.*. *.d - "....'e*.
- .'.'='.
d ry.
w... e.-
w c.
s..-
.. o. c.
c.4 2
- g. e......
w a
... e.,. t.-..e
- e m.g w e w.
u.
. e
..e 3.998.
g.
a:.::..
a.
.t
.e
,0 0 :....,g
.w
.o..e.r ge
.3
.. n.
.v. 3....
yv....
n,.
s v.
r.
h e a..4.
o. a. c,'
'..'.e
'. ee.',....
e~.4 3-.e.s 4.
w.e
.d.. s. a...
r proceeding. Edwin D.
Dienethal, filed a timely petition to intervene seeking to challenge the Applicant's license amendment
- a. s *. a '. 4 c '. e ", ^.... e *'
' c..'. *^
. e..c...,
oa m"
x r
=c e
eo..
n
- ~
s.
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 96-C1 (Aug.
4.
1998), the Staff informed the Commission of its in*ent to make a final no significant hazards consideration determination and to issue the license amendments i
1 l
for the " ion fac:.lity On August 12, 1998, the Commission u
ss..a. e c.
.u..e
.o..
icen.,e a...o..a..e.... c.
,. b n.
s..e.a..o e
c S.eq 63 Fed. Reg. 43.200. 43.21'? (1998)
That notice was part of 1
I
I s
4 _
another NRC biweekly notice cf applications and amendments to facility cperating ;icenses involving no significant hazards considerations.
- n a s=c_ ion of the notice set out in bold typef ace and entitled 't'otice of Issuance of Amendments to Tacility Operating Lice:ses," the notice set forth the name of the utility applicant, he date of the amendmen: application, a description cf the arendments, the July 24, 199E date the e
amendments were issued, and the May 6, 1995 date and cita:icn :f the initial Federal Register notice.
Further, the notice indicated tha: :he ::RC had received no ccmments en the Staff proposed no significant hazards consideration deternination.
Ij.
1 a,.. 5, e-.,.c_.
In the Augus 18, 1996 petitien now before us seeking to intervene in the matter of the Commission's final no signific=n:
a hazards consideration determination, the Joint petitioners claim
)
1
."a.
~'..e
--.sa-
-..'s n'"t".s.
- .." c...;;
.e e.a
.e.'.e.e.
..o...e e t announcing the issuance of the license amendments for the Zion l
l facility provided an opportunity for persons interested in the 1
i finding to file an intervention petition by September 11, 1998.
Additionally, in responding to the Licensing Board's order directing them to show cause why their petition should not be j
dismissed as precluded by 10 C.F.R S 50.55(b)(6), the Join:
l r
Petitioners argue that section 50.55(b1(6) is not contro11:n; l
here because that regulation only precludes review of NRC Stafi no significan hazards considera::cn determina:icns, not these
. determinations made by the Commission.
The Joint Petitioners assert that 10 C.F.R.
S 2. ;05 (a) (4) (:) provides an exception to section 50.5S (b) (6) and that provision applies in those situations when, as here, the Commission makes the no significan:
ha:ards consideration determination.with respect to the amendment of a Class 104 license issued under 10 C.F.R. 5 I
50.21(b)
The Joint Fetitioners argue. :heref;re, : hat they have a right to a hearing en the no significan: ha:ards considerati:n i
determination noticed in the August
'2, 1995 Federal Register.
-.g..c 8,. u.
g.r..,
e.
a
.....u. g -. e,c o.. g e.e..
-.., _.. w... a... a n. a. u.,_
\\
-e-
.u.e uo.......ee n., e.
re.2....,
s..a..e
- sa-
.e.u.=..a a.
u
..u.a.
u..e ao..
rr August 12. '.996 Federal Register.o:::e and that that notice did i
not provide any opportunity for a hearing on the Staff's final no signi.g cant hazards consideration determination.
Similar3y, they both assert that 10 C.F.R.
S 50.58(b)(6. expressly prohib..s petitions to :ntervene in no significan: hazards consideratien determinations and that the Joint Petitioners characterization of I
section SC.5e(b)(6) and 10 C.F.R. 5 2.1C 5 (a) (4 ) (1) is simply wrong.
I ana ysis 4
1 The Applicant and the Staff are corre:: that 10 C.F.R. 5 1
50.58(b)(6) stands as a bar to the Joint Pet::ioners' intervention petition seek:ng to challenge the Staff's final no significan: ha:ards censideration determination.
That regulation provides:
i l
i I
1 I
I 1
6-
^
No petition er other request for review of or hearing on the staff's signif: cant hazards consideration determination will be entertained by the Commission.
The staff's determination is final, subject only to the Commission's di cretion, on its own initiative, to review :he determina:;on.
10 C.F.R. 5 50.58(b)(6)
This regulat<ry prohibition is clear and unequivocal.
The Licensing Board has no jurisdiction to consider an intervention petition seeking to challenge a Staff's a
1 final no significant hazards consideration determination.
Only i
1 the Cemmission has the discretion up;n : s own 50:1:r 20 reviev such a fina; finding.
Fae 5'.
. red. F.eg.
~~'4.
~~E9 19EE (statement of censiderati:n en final rule)
"To buttress this j
point, the Commission has modified S 5;.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 Lena ~sland Lichtine Co.
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Stat:en, Unit ;). LEP-91
. 33 NEC ;79, ;E3 (;99;)
l stated:
A determination of no significant hazards consideration is not a substantive determination of public health and safety issues for the hearing on the proposed amendment.
Tne only effect of such a determination on the hearing is to establish whether the amendment may be approved before a hearing is held or, if there is a finding of significant hazards consideration, a fina' 4
decision must await the conclusion of the hearing.
Ccmmissicn regulation is very clear that i
a Licensing Board is without authority to review Staff's significant hazards I
L
f~
l-l 0
t I
1 7 -
consideration determination.
10 C.F.F.
5 50.58 (b) (6).
Accord Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corr (Vermont Yankee Nuclear l
Power Station), LEP-9:-E 3 ; NF.
65, 90-91 (199:)
Eecause section 50. 5S (b) (6) deprives the Licens ng Ecard cf jurisdiction l
to entertain the Joint Petitioners' intervention petition seeking 1
to challenge the Staff s final no significant hatards i
consideratio: determ: nation, the petit :n must dismissed, l
The Joint Pecitioners' assertion : hat the Commission's 1
notice in the Augus
- 11. 1995 Federal Fegister invited the filing of intervention petitions en the Staff's no r:gnificant hazards i
s consideration ceterr:naticn anc provicen an opportunity fcr 4
l l
l hearing en that finding is simply incorrect.
No reasonable l
i reading of the entire notice leads to that contiusion.
Indeec.
1 l
even a casual and cursory reading of the notice does not lead to i
l l
that conclucion.
The August 12, 1998 notice did nothing more than announce the issuance of the license amendments for Commonwealth Edison Ccmpany's Zion plants.
The notice did not l
l provide a new opportunity for hearing on the Zion license 1
amendments or invite new public comments on the Staff's no i
significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commissi'on's earlier May 6, 1998 Federal Register notice, 63 Fed.
Reg. 25,101 (1996), did both those things.
And, contrary to the Joint Petitioners' unfounded and erreneous assertion, the August 1
i 12, 1998 notice did not invite the filing of intervention 1
i L
. petitiens on the Staff's final no signif cant ha:ards consiceration cetermination or provice an opportunity,or 3 earing
.4
. c a. -. S a.
- . 3. d '.. e.
~. ". e." m 4..
D. e. 3..' +. e..c ' a.- " ~.. a....
4..
- b..4 e ega.C' s -
1' a eo aa.s, k... u. o..... e. i >
s e
o
.w.
w.
.s.u.e vo.... e.e.4.
..e.-c.
a.-,.. e..
r-,a a,,., w,.4
- u..o u..... e.4,
-s
- b.. a *. "..e. e.. r
. ' '., = )
t'.'. $. (.- )
.-nv d.
e a.. ex..eo.4.... =..". e e
u:w a ;
- n : :
.c.-. u... e,..
.-o.....
.,. co. a
.e-se-..o..-....
1u i
i significant ' hazards consideration detsrm:nat;:ns made by :he l
Commiss cn itself for amendments to C' ass '04 ;icenses issued l
i 1
.=a
..-.g
.e
...a.. e.
..-...e.=.
r =..
,y,
.,....,.,....-... =.
s..
e.v.. e -.
- o... o..". e c.' a."., m e.-. 4 o...*..' '. : :. =.,.'. '..- )-
..- ".. d e s.. -
p e
y.
C..a.,. e.c e s. o. b.. e u -
..,w.. w. -.
. se-.,..
- ,..:.:.wi c e.. a
....e.,
y
-NRC's final no significant ha ards consideration determination.
)
The former section contains the notare provisions that parallel the Commission's regulations found in 'O C.F.R. SS 50.91 and
.. -,....c. e -. e.. a. a... g.
. u. g.
- e.,. e,
.c - -
.gg..;
.... -. g. e. ~, e.c..ce-.
~.e
.c
,a.
provis:or states:
(a) f a hearing is not required by the Act er this chapter. and if the Commission has not found that a hearing is in the public interest. it will, prior to acting thereon.
cause to be published in the FEDERAL REGISTER a notice of proposed action with respect to a. a - e.. e..i n... o.v.
~
e r
- 4) An anendrent to an operating license
...e.oe-....ae.
,r m.,,is) o-r
.cea
.a.
..o c.-i..
a
. o
. u. a...g n u.a p. e.- n.-. cog
.e.c..a.a_
c c.,.- o.
facility as follows:
1
\\
i 9-(i) :f the Commission determines under S 50.58 of this chapter that the ameniment involves no significant hazards consideration, though it will provide notice of opportunity for a hearing pursuant to this section, it may make the amendment immediate'.y effective and grant a hearing thereafter[.]
10 C.F.R. 5 2.105(a)(4)(1) i
. e.- e.- ). ese.
- w. e.e...e.-....t.-
- w..
.x.
.w w
..w. s m os.. s.:
v..
Cornission provides pub 11: r.ot:.ce cf 1:s proposed action cn a l
license amenimen. applica icn and the cpp;rtunity to petition for 1
i
.e
.p-._,,
.e,e-.
n.
. u. e u
a.. a a... e c_.,,
w a..p a.v
.. ~,
m.
.~..
w..
v..
i I
... e " e...#. # *. *. *."
." ^ " e a.". ". " o.". *. ". e
^"*
- 9.aa.6 :, i 3,) (v*)(
) C." t". 7 '.' e 5.
y...
Staff's no signifiran: hazards conside;a.lon determination Nr is there any significar.ce to the Joint Petitioners' reliance upon the fact that the underlying licenses at issue are Class 104 licenses.
Under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.105, the notice requirements for amendments to Cle.~s 114.icenses issued under 10 C.F.R.
S 50.51(b) are the same as the notice req.: rements for amend..ents to Class 103 licenses -- the other class of Cercission licenses -- issued under 10 C.F.R.
S 50.22.
Similarly, in the circumstances presented, the Joint Petitioners' asserted distinction between those actions taken by the Cornission and actions-taken by the Staf f is meaningless because the Staf f.
pursuant to a de'.egation of au;hority is at: n; for the Co.inission in making :he propos ad and final r.: significant g
..arards considerat On cetermination
l.
i l
. s.n.
a 1:I.
Conclusion i
The Commission's regulatiens, 10 C.F.R. 5 50.5S(b)(6),
o a - d # e.. e.. ". e - * =.#.. 4.".,
- b.e J o.i.. w proh.ik.4. - " e ' 4 c e..
.d..- n
-n
=
Petitioners' intervention peti: ion see,,;ing to ena..enge tne Staff's July-2.;, 199E final no significant hazards consideration determination Accordingly, the petitlen is dismissed and the a
A
- n. o C e e,u
.,e s
e,.e...a.e p
... c.
. L. e......
.e..*.o e
e,
- +
^
4 r
P.. s., a o
C. r..=. s
- y. : <- v...:.n.
- n, A. g ). e.
o.c
.a c.
... n. g n.
. u..i e
.e.g....e.n.. A.,.
p.A n.e A g.e,
...n..
c w
.w v
s u..
a.,pL,m.
. u.,.a. a a.-.-.. a.
...c a
c...
p
....... -. ~j yy
.A g w~ n - p g.... i..,,~.;.
v g e. w ow..
1
.. 4s sm.
- m..~.r..r b nr.., n.../
~. ~..
n....w
.n.on. 9
. -.-.r...-
,,.s
,e
....u...
/
r
/ r.,.
fies t/
Thomas S.
Moore, Chairman Administrative Judge
/' c
~,, < ;\\ s.i._
A Dr. Jerry R.
Kline Ad:.iniscative Judge
/
rd-
/
,'^ %m f
,/
L//~J'-
're ve,~
f,"-- - s
, _, _j i rreoeracreo.
-o r.
..... s.
- 1
,,. " u A g e w
.r v
u l
Rockville, Maryland 0w-ww w ~ 6.-
.oc:
.,w l
l t
i l
I 4
l
..--.~.
s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY Docket No.(s) 50-295/304-LA-2 (Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LB MEMO & ORDER (LBP-90-24) 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 CFP. Sec. 2.712.
Administrative Judge Office of Commission 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 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.
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 Commission 3233 P Street, NW Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20007 David W. Jenkins, Senior Counsel Robert E. Helfrich, Senior Counsel Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Commonwealth Edison Company Sidley and Austin Law Department Room 1535 One First National Plaza 125 South Clark Street, P.O. Box 757 Chicago, IL 50503 Chicago, IL 60603
7-
~*-
.. ~ - -.
[..
j ~t Docket No.(s)50-295/304-LA-2.
-Dated at Rockville, Md. this g
j j
5 day of October 1998
$ t fA ct * # _e.,
'w i#
Office of the Secretary offthe Comisst$n I
I l
1
l, L
ENCIDSURE 2 I
=
_/YY DOCKETED U S H R C. n..o. 9 e. v. i
,J1.. eD e. n.. : a-0 :
- n. v. r.. C n.
!!UCLEAR REGULATOR'.' COMM:SS:ch e i P2 :39 ATOMIC SAFETY A1 D L:CE::S!!;3 BOARD r-Or..
Before Administrative Judge hy,
,r J.'-
Thomas S. Moore, Chai.v.an Dr. Jerry R. : Cine Frederick J.
Shon SERVED mv - 5 ma In the Matter of Oo:ket !!os. 50-295/304-LA CCMMCI.'4EALTH EOISO'? COMPA!B.*
n : = r.,. 0. 9 0 1,, - O n,
.n
(~ ion ::u ear ?:wer S:a:::n Units. and ~;
- ove..cer 5,
- 998 4
- v. rv. n... ~ v.
- e..-.
.1 :. -): e.
~. ~.
IResolvir.g Standin; :ssue)
The pet:.tiener. Edwin O. Diene:hal, seeks to intervene in I
this proceeding involving the license ar.end.ent application of the Com.cnwealth Edise:. Oc:pany
(* App;; cant") for its Zion l
- Juclear Power Station, Units.* and !.
- n Lake County, Illinois.
In response to the Co.Tr.ission's notice of opportunity for hearing, fg.g 63 Fed. Reg. 25,101, 25.105-06 (1998), the Petitioner timely filed a petition to intervene and an amended petition opposing the requested license amendments.
The l
Applicant and the :;RC Staff both challenge Mr. Dienethal's standing to intervene, l
WS' T Wr c ---
-er -
g$
ENCLOSURE 2
j a
i:...,,,..
i.
i L
l d
1 i
i
.t ' *C.
- ^ " * "..
- **^
'. '....... '. ~. '.
. g.e
...C
.e g, ;n. g e.. ". 5
...C l
1-1 I
r
'g..n.
. g
. pg
.g l
.c
,. g... p.
g.e.g
.e.,...
3,,
....c..
p s
I I
...S
.C6 e6 a e..,.
e.
w,..ee i
I i
.o 3
I
- pC ',.
.v e.. A
.p 1
e a.. 'j' *.C C.',
- b. e *.*". ".'.'. m..*'. 'A' e a.".'..b.
- 4..':.^..'.-
.". '.'...'.y" a.. ;" ' ' A a..'.' 4 o.d
- 9 wv w
C ' O S e
- b.. e C ".
a ' C '. t a~." 7O 'K e.* 3 ~. a *..'.*.*.
~ b. ' '.c,
.M*..'.
'.'^s.*.
."..'*..e a"e
~
s
- . Q.g
. a..f.. g.. g.a.
g m.
ng m c........
.e.m..... - v e.
.s.....m....
.g....e. g.
..e.
y
.. mc y
...w j
y..
..g-
- k. g g,,
d o
.. e g.i.
g 4..
- u. U nyy..m...
4c
- a..e.. b. g.*
.FC' S
- C' "
J
=......
.,.. g
...- p e
- m. e
.e..e
.w
- c.e
.....,.....e
.e.
- b. C.
.. +.
3..............e.
a..
...s
.e..u.. a...,.
.c..-...
....a L. e
..g.
j
. -...r
.v....
.n
- c..
=,..e
....p.
e.a..~
y..y..
.. -.. ~.....
.6n.u
- .- :-e=..c
.a.=.
.z
. =..
= y. z,. e ; e.. u.
w..:
..z.
I l
i i
i r e.
G 4
.c.....w..a a
.e c
.a
.-.d,,
D.,
a,, C... n.. e
..y.
p j
y.
..v I
1
.S.S.e.
b a 6.A..p
. aA.*. m.,.. ~ A c..
.a e...z e.
~ n..A.;
- e. O.. g
.u.a
.,e e.
ov w
1 i
a ~.
C e. e *. e * "'j' *.."..a *.
- c-'.'.'.*.*.'..e a e.". "..e".*..
- A
". b. e y.
u.
1
....ws.
}
l yy
....... - q <
... =..
- 2.. a
-O
.Mm.
r....e
...e.
..d.....
3....=...,e
.c.
i y.
).
i l
2..... A c.,, a.
. a. c....-..e..e
.. e
- a. c.L
..-... c.
.e.
..w. m.-..L. c.
3..e c
..y i
I
.gg a.
. a.. a..v
.' e... q.. e.a
.m..
.+g
. g a.,, '..... 5 w,
- u. e :~..: u.g y,g v s..g
. g -
A
...y a a,.
.k.e., h.2. 4.a.,. e w..
- n..
o y e C s.4,.....,. S a.
. O.n..
.r,. e. h e.,.,. k. a
-4 a..
w..
a.". a. ' S.'.e.,
e..' a.* *.*..e
- a *. *
- e *.' e ~n' ' e c *. e '
a*.*..e ". C".' e ". *. S a,SO
'4 0 "- ' a e S *.'. O.*' e *.' O
- b.. e ~. ~... '. ' ' '. 'y A.." a *..' ". ':.." " A ". a"..e
'.'.*. e #.'.'.' e..* C e ". S e e
e e "... a..c. #. e.*
- e *. ' ". *
- e *.m." ~.
^#
C^*.***..*^*..a
- a* * **e*.*.'"~e.
.. c'a -.*
r' w.
y.
j s.
g e a g p.e.
g
. u. c
.. e. -...:. A.,..
- a... S as a.
O.
.ye s
. e;.
m s..
a *.*..e.". # .'.e ".. *.
'p.", O " e S.c
.#^*" -.y"..'.".."'
"..". e ". e '.' e. ' **..*.' e."" e.'".' '.' e " * *...
- d d^"
y a
a.
I 1
\\
0 4
\\
l
.m.,,
ru.
- 7.......,e.
n
.-......e..e..., e..3.
.....c
.w2
.e......cw o { ' %..g y.vopoSga g g..A e...
.e.' g. m.. ' A c.'.e..-..;
e A
c..
- u. e- ~ ~ :..
c.. n.,
e u.
,,.%.. e,. S e O.c C e. i.e.a. 4
=
e.
...a..
- c.. A..* e e.
.e.... :.. e.u. :. S a.a.t...e~
c...:.,
e3 ;ve e S a.C
..n...^ -.,.
n m.
~ e a...a m
- e.........ee a.e. -.
n ec.
.e
.vesp y..g b......ea
- O c.
.** A..*. e '
- '.'c y" e... a.. c,."... ja.".*~***".'.
e O.' C. a."..#.'.a *..* 0.".. *
.~ ".. ".. '.":'.'a.~=.'w.
- e*
e'.y" y"..'.~ a."."
S a.'. a '.'7' S.' #
~
A a.
w 4
A.
a
- G, o.
.=.b. a.
. b. e,. b.a,. e.e
- m..b. t
- a.4
,. e.A..., e
- e. b.
- =.
c
.I.J l
,.m..
e
.s
.c.
..y
..... u.s e. o aA
- a...
e
.c..y g g.. ~ -. - - >-*. ~r n.n pne....
.s.e..*a_..
- 2. :.
A :.. * - ~.
6
.j y
- b. e ' ' *..' *..*.,
'd e.*" e " y" e 2 * *
.... c.'.
u".
^ * -
. ~.. '
~~
^
.e.
e
- e. a.v.. p, e
y..en........
.yy
- m..a. ;.,. '. '..
.e..A.g
- v..b
.e..
..y T..A..*.e.
....... *e e g e..e g w1.
... -.e. p p e..
p.
,t
,.g..-.,.e.,
ej,
,. g g.,. e. -.
y,
..s
..L..m.
w.
4,..
.. g. e..w..n e.
....a......
r,.e.g t
.e
....' c e c
w, n.C.
- y....' e" a,.,...
3.
A.
... e, w
t".
y.
,a
.S. sac ; ;..
...a..
p
...-J c,
.v e,s
.~..y" a C
- a
....'.c.
...c...
a.".^-
.e a.# e *.
a.*.u".
- e.". e a.' *..*. a."~'".
e a a.#e *.**
c O.c
- u..; a c.a....t '.,
~
- a... e..u..n..=.. a e..A. e.A.
- e.. : ;.. a.A B,,.
e
.y y.....
CZ:.. 4 1...
g, n..
..i.e..n g.,. e.' -e.
. %. r..
%. t.
- , e.,
A., e.,
c
.g Z..a g.e. =;
p.
.. y..j y
g.
, a.
- A.
e e
....e 3.... e.,.... " g., e.
J e gw. b. g,
.As
..... g e e.. -
2
,.,,v..,,. w a.
C.*.ia..t
.C
..e.kg
,.e.
.2..
"..%. e, m.' e.s, A.i e. n.e>
w.Ow.6 w a.a.
- k. %
ee y
y
.g y e. :
,, e S. A -.S
.c.a. a...
a~ g e.
.c. e.u..
.e...
gA W
...w..
y. g,/ g.g e.v s W-n.v...e e
^.....
a f. e.... a
...^..ee...
v e
ps-y.
a.. -
.a d.
.. d.-, e s e
y e
..e
.y y
e. s.. A..".
- S a ". ; *^ a e. '. o. *.
. ~. a.
s.
~.
"ye"..**..*"".**..~**.*.
-*...'.~a.a
.. " a'.. ~. a, S w*-
s.
3. a *.' e ". b.. a * ". ".. A. '.'*.*c.*.'".a'.
- a.**.. '.' ' '
.#.*' 8.' ~s ' ' e *. *..' 'g'
'w' S e s a'
. ' '. . e *.*." a.".'
- "..a.*.
e r*
. d e g p.e.
A.a.v e r. '..
- z. n...
.c.
v.g
~
.e.
~..u.e
~.,. o. ;. o...
s ne y s
..J
.r y.
~* *
- n
..... c. a..
y'..c.v g ~.' g n y c '.
g....
.a.m n...
.e g p. A
. n n g. p,A e.-
-.'.g.
...g
.e
~~
p n..
a..~
- n. ~ g.. e a
.g...... g. a.. g.gm y. g,:
g,..
..,g
. c.g.
v..
.. - y i
l
. ^..
- ". e a **.. e."..".'. e " y. C.= ~.'..' . ';' S,
. ' ' '. ' '.. "... ".=..c. C. '.c,
.a'.. S
^
- ~
w children play Soccer once a weer. S a montnS
. :ne year..uS: n:ne-c:
l I
... 9.eS 4.,0.9.
..u. tg C4 w
a
...S
- 4...e a * *. e.n., e a e.e.
O p. a. a n. m
..m. 3..
.e. e a.n.
I w
1
- b.. S C.
Q.e E.m, # S S OC o e.,
=..ac.e.b.e.e,
1
~ n.
c... u. g.-
,.,..z..'n,.,,..:.... ~
.u...e g,....;..ge
.. g a.e
..u. g
,. 8.n..
m I
. 'q e... e.v.. g. ~..a. e.
, ' a. 8 :.. S
,. C'.t e. a. e
..u.a.
- u. e S, u. O m... u. e y. e.,, e u.a.-
1 e.
...y m.
- S.a....-~.:
s.. 4. C." e ". a *. '" e.*. ..'.C
. C " a *. e u
.~...~.c..e
.. ". ".. ". " "..'". e e'.y" y*
s i
}
a4.-
..%.e tc.
m.
...r.
T.
, 4
..^ _.c.
e
.e..u. 6.
w
...e
. a m.,.:
.A..,..
- a. c.. e
.-....e r." b..E
- 4.* g." '."
-..4
.e ** b. *.*.*
- b.e A
A...4.A. 4 ee*.i*
-..~:..' s * :., e
- b..n. a.
t me r
I 1
I
- e..%. C
~m TC=
m.
...t G.e..d 6
.Z..
e.a.
e
- . %. *J C
T.I. O,.. ::".. *::.
...C
--t
.....gge y..
...e,.,g,,
...g.
2 3
.g A. g,,....
e,,
s...
w.
,. e.
y.
j yCs g
...e
...c 2
. u..
...... g. e.
,_a c...
- p g., w.
l
....a.
., 3 3
g
.e p ~.
m
-.e a
^
-. ".
- e.>.c. e.". *..* a.." ' '.e..' ". c'.e w*
n S ' ' " y*..' G.**
.w
. O '.'. c *. #..",
y
,.e9....e o.
3.>.2.....
~
..w3....,
.. e
.ea,,.,.
..y S aSSe.
.a.
e w..
j
'"..a ".. ';* O.# '.'.".e.*-.*
'.'.r.'.,"
D. e' *..' *..* * ". e.".'.".
."..'.e w '.e..'.". G S S * *'a*.* G..
wj
~
1 a v e
- u.. c n
....A n' ' *,.,. c.
.c-..o co4.; s.,3,..,..,..
.e. -. e
...e.
\\
yy y..
eggg g s n..
. u. a.
. ~... -
.'=.e...
-..u....
...a.
q... e....,
.c.
- . g e c.
1 C. 8.4.
- e. %.
. * %.. a.
.C *. A
.e. A
. a.
c.,..w g,
C. t... e.
.,..e.g..
a a.
.%. e :n f.*.,
6.
4 4. -
- g. 4 g w.e..e.. g g,p p
m
.e
.W.
- b. g,,
- *.,. n a.". *. D G. " a ' ' S e.' '... '. ' G.7 e *..b.a.'
.j...
p w
i P..,, b..g g g w
.#., m A
- 4..,
4.m.
.e.. e
.a-.u 4
.g
. W..-
pe
..4.gg
. u.. g e
p.
.i
.s
,y. g e..
I
~~.
1 g e. A. %. g *.
.%. g 4v
- e. y ;. e
.g g e c.e
.s e
..e..
g.e
. %. g
.s S.%.
- k. g
- n. a w. p u. p e, c.,. 4 m.
1 2..,,.e af..C
- e. z. e.
.r.
y..
e a e.,.
,gp
. 6. q v p
- k. g
- es*
..... My y.. e.n.
- 4....e.. e.z..ggg.g ww....
A.
..y t
s.,
- u. p 4., ; * +
w...
.w..
.)
M,.
% v. 4.
. b. g,
.n.
6.e.
e ey C._ =.
..y 4
- 3..e. 4 a,,. m n.3.
.w
..y 1
I i
a. 4. 4 A. m e.*.**
4
..b. 6
.'C..*
.e
- b. e D e *..* *..A e e. G.*"
O..". M
- b...*.c
.A a *.......,,e,.
s.
1 l
1 1
l i
L
f
.#d.m...J i g,
.Jn...'.p
.44J,,
- p. 4
. b. C "c...
.".3.
.,, a. 6. c,.
..?
. y
.J c
.J
....y v.
.e u.. e
..e C. a *..'.'. O...e a.....* *
- e "...e
...'."G'.','
' '~ S G S. D. e *. *... e l
w.
%-,p..: C a., e.,
. a, ;
- 2.
e pe,;e a....,
y a. a,, a p w.S
.y aa
+-
v.e
.v.
r
.- a m e.e u.a.=.S a.a.c.; : a.. ;. S a.e.
s 19.
Spe,........ Co e
.e c D n...
.e
..a. 6 v
...e;
...,-..e5 u.
s,,.. f.,. e S...'.
e.
.ca....;.'.. g. e;. -
- u. e o
.' C C a.. C v^.....'...' *..* e 5 *
- a ". C e.'.' '. e.'...*.".. ".".' e y"'.* o p C S e '.'.
g. 9, d, ' e....e
.h. ' '
.".'.". ~.. 'd e a.' *..".
.I' d..*."a ^...
~
De.' e '. G * " a '.
". e
'D.'.* v D ^ S e . a.~.. c.. - ~.. e.**. *. p." e S 6.". ". 5
.w u...c
.w
...e y
L.*
y,,,-
.a.,... w a.. : S c.ee...,
..a
- u. a.
u.e e...
n.
e...,
c.. 4
- a. a.
. k.e
.%. e a.'. k.
..u. c.. e
.,.'... e 5 v.
c
..n,,eeS a.. :-a....
n.
..y
=
. ^. ~...-.A e S..-. '... -
- u. O S.
a.-
a..A
.c... C ; n.
- a..'
. a..m... ~=. g.e..... 3.......
y.-.y..e,a
.L.
.wg
- 3... g 4.. p.
n.-
.C a.e...
. S.a. mp e.
S.%. m.. ' A.
m.e.e.,..
- g 7.' g.e.
" A e.
z.......
... ;=..-..
.-,.,y
.. e
.u n.. c e
- e. t
...C
.u...
y
..Ce
..g a
- 6. C
.n.
E e. 4 g e. e.
..a....
... 4. e. -
.b.. e 4'....
.y
. a ae4g.,
y m.=C-4
..... =
.g y
..S.
. e S
-s c....
..e a.. a
.,,. a _...
.w...e
.,... a....
., x e.,. S.
.........,......., a...a.
. u.e.~ c -,.- e.. ;
o.
- e..
- ...,..a..~e.
m Du: are not ' i.e.i t e d t o : '. LCCA (LoS{S) of c o.~ a...
m-.. c e...
a :. o o g.a, a.- C o.., e.,.n S,
s
.e
.t 4
4 e
- c.. a..C..
.o.
. h. e
... a. a. e. e..,..e.
s.
c
- c.. y.' n..,. g g a c.
. + c.
a... g., ;
- n..u. e.,
g g..g g '
.. w. '.a,
e.
e.-.
y.
ap.e..a. -. n.
w-
,.a
.: a......
z
..a u...n,.w,.,
A k
e...m.' - "; e e.e,
.-...a.......=.4..
n'
...e
' o. a.'
y.
..a
...e
,...e..
...- eace a,......
c.
e
~;..
.a
.o...
.a....
..a..
s.,
v.
. ; e. a.
.c..........
- r.... a.. *.... e a..e.. u-a.. me...... aSSe.-.S
...a.
- .e C..a,'.e.gec y
a.end.en:S pose a r:Sk :: the va'ue of Mr. Diene:hal'S rea;
. cpe a.,..e.--
ae.-
..".c.
.. D. e.~. " ", a.' " a. -
. ". e a" ".- o ". "-.. ~
s y.
y a
CC,...2..
I
I b
l t.
I 1
I e.
l.
.G.gO.O s
v
....g g og
.v g.
9
-pe....n y4n.. g.
~
M y w..n..'....e.c e.
.e g g s.... m.v m.
y-.
. c w.
ep e.v.g e..i.e.m
..ac e.g a.
a.n..g..A e..
m.v p.e-A ~.
.. O.xS
..n..
t e, ;,.,
c,.,,
...a c.
y y
- k g n*
og... w,.
r.". e.* 3'
' n'".'"..
a.e
... e.. Ae-.
.%.. p e.* *.*.4..' e."". *.
2'.'s a.- *,
- b. c- *.*
o f
1 i
Sece.4 0 e. p v o n. togs. u. a..
T.e.
a...,
.,Oeee
.;..n,
.. e.e
- n..u. S v
A
...A
.c, e
. n.
y y no.
e g.vd
- l n,
S y Spg.4-
..g, l
m.
.v e,w
- r.. e..,
e.v 3,.
e e
m Q.C g.. }e 4
.s...
4..4y
.y
'.9.IC e ".S e.
- b. e * *'......'.e.e.* *..*
.e.,.b.."..'.
c"
.b.o.*..".4."."
.D^.."
w v.
." e g. e e *
. a.". * * c...c. ".'6.b..' e W-
.".".,6 c *...a j.. c c.#.# c..,~,e-A
.a, j
- b. e j
y F.e g e g g.a..l.. m n
r.
g.d.,.,,,..,,,
...g m
.y.
ya
- s.
.c n
..y
.w.
,a
.. y,, a y.
. c,.,.. y
- e. I ean..e.
...O-.. b. g
. e, 2..
a..
.,.,,..,,.,.,... A g;-
.L..,,,.
,a...,
e ;..y e g..e./.-
%..eg g.
e..
- m..
g 4
4.;..:
.a.,...
a..4
. 6..
y
...g j s
- p. s er
..y g g.e.*.
.a.
g.v.....ew.s.c e - y
. y u
..f, 4.
.,...e.
pe......
.T
=
/....
.s.
~.
n
. C a.. e.,
.c..C..
r...
a).
- u. e a
a r..
e "v'-. a *..# * ".a*
.# ' '." *. ". e '~ e " e.".' # ' *
- a *. '..'.b.e pa*.#*.#C.
.e.b. a.~.' St*
.#^*.'.".
p y.a e.%..
p a.v..... -... g.v.... a.e AS...
- n. ;
.y.
g,
. ;O e
..e.
...e
.ne y....
m gr=gga*..g,
.-m..
. g., m.
m.
. g.,. g, e.
3.
m,.,.
t.,
4,.
.m, e
~y
..m. g
- v. g e...O...a>
.g
.g e.. g,....t
.........n. t
.t
. g g
.ae
,p A..; g)g.
...,,.C.,
...y
.e> 3..."A w
e, g..y.......-4 c-
.....,.e.
....C.
q -
a-i..'s r' a ) ( s.~i
~*
u
\\
i gw g.v.g.a
.~e
.,,.a. e. u. c-v e...,
- m.. e.- u. a S y.e a S\\,sc. ice es
- A
.... c r...+
i m.a... B.v e.e e.
u.
. ~. w..e n..e a.., O.c
. a.e
- n.. n.n...:
.r.. e.e m f n~ w.n. a.. A.
. u.. e 1
a n
w y
f n
.a. 4 5 5.4C ".. ' S
'.'e "*.'.' a *. 4 ^
- S ww..
- ' "
- e "'.* e *.'. e a.e O
- '"b.".
...a
'.' "'e.".S.'.". "y w.
..y.
O t.: e.4. 4..,. b. g ^.
. e. a -...e a.v gm.
e
....,4
. b.. g *
- e. O ".
- e ** D. O " a ". e O '.' e e
g
- p.
3
.:.. c. 2 : g 1.
, ~.. 9 p e
- n. c S _, :. n.,
..e ke.
- c. n.n e c'.
p n v..n.. g. A.
.w ry l
f'. g... p, a *.
1.l., *. A e *. v...
- "' e..
- p.W W.,.* g.
wg,e
.. y.e
'.'.m.* ege p ' g e.. *.. '. ' ".. ' *$
.E
.w.
=
. g ". -
- a..
a, C~..
- .g.,.<C
.s
... ~.....
..'..a l
l 1
I l
L
4 0
e th, C O. d *". *y'
- ' ". ' ^~."*..*'...'..*.e.*^.~'
~. "...-' e. '".' ".' A.'
".".'."...'4..^.
- ^
w..
s..
w.
y y
.e p,v, g..n. g 3 gg.g.... e.-
.e.,..~..,
.p p..
p......p
..e.
e.g.g c
CC.
e e S..C,a.v....., v.e e a.....,
.g.
z
...v..
..w.
w
.i...cyc.
.'a..
y
-........)
c
. g.
. a,.,r
. g gg p
e
..,.....e..~,,..
.g.. e
, g.. n.n.
g.n. w-
..gp...
s w
r.
.y
...w
- e. g bg q A.v g g g g.A.
~; g
.cg..m.,3 w,. c.
g a. n.;
=
.n
., u..ypp
.z.e. r. a...e e
r*
u
-. p r.,. ;,
- n..
Y8. e e
.*.,.s
.. e.m.
.,,w.
. w w p..e
,. 2
.-. ),
a
.,e g
s
.=~
.m.
(S.'.;
8
.~
. ~
,2 :
.p ; -, - -
t~ '.
4 r's k.,.
- e.. ;
\\
e,.
,..,.1
.. ~.. -
d.p C.
rd.....,
J
....w
.2.... :>... t-6...
.; * *; a
.e....
(.*..c.Ori.
- ....~.a
....e......p
.,..,.w...r_...
q.
w.c...
., e S e a
.w.
.e 2
....,.,:.~.
,. ~.
..a
.L..
- z... z
. a..e.. :.
~
... ~
e--
..". E a.e..c. #." *. r. d. ' ". '. ' ' '. .<.;
~A
~
^'
- ** ^. ' * *. '...
~A.
. u.
.. e... p,.
...ec.
e.. -
..e.
~g
...pnge.
. u.,.
3.
.. s..,..
.w.
. a. t
,e
....,, g.e,. 5 y". w>. 0 " *. e 'd D'y'
- ". e y-.
....e
.e.>.c...
e-y..,e
...;..;....,,,. ge4. s... k. e.
r.
,v e
.. O.,3 y esc.
n.
e...
e
.g.;S.m.g*
r...
g..*.c.-
....a -..
.m,.
g.s.' c;.
5,.a. p p p n. r,,.,.,
.j
.w u.,,.o :,, a.
- e...
a..
.e.. -
c.
m.....
e o r.
a*
.s.
.. m
. y 3.
u.
+
u.
e.
=.-
....v..p..
on....
. pa we c.e ;e;
.w w
~ e e.w2.
e >....
ye....
...., 5.. e :.
...S....e Seens
.O
.a.
- ...e,,p,e.
.w
-.p.Sp ca.. p.a ee...
,..,, e c, A
. a.,. A ya
... a.
e e.
..e w... -
.. g o... g e...
- e.. mp......
w.....e -.E. g.e m g vp
.e
+.. y
.a..v g... e.m. p v v
y......
j
....w
.e e 6.,...e p w.. g.-..,. e.
~a. peg.C wp q.. g..
- u.. n.. q %..
- k.. g g..ee
$ $.c q v....b
..y
. =.
w
...pc
.e..
.e.
s.,..p
., n. v...c..s
.g........
p e.
s, p p e.,.
3
.g j,
...c 1
r
~; g
,e
.c g...
3.
a wp
. ' '.. ' '."w.'e.. A. '. ".".'
a *.. S.'* " e,
y..
.....~....;
e
.,. w...t.,
3,g
,,,,0.......,.p
" e.# ^ e
.C..
~."..c.
.'.A 7...
- e w.
C' l
e e... a.
- e..
a..
.e
. e e,.., g.... g.,,
.g
.,..z.
2 y
e..e e
- y. e,.,.e,,,.
...w
~ %. g ~.;.e.
.c
. %.. e-p......
.g......a.
.e
.e.,..a
.S.
..e.
. u. g.
.v..i5 g
S C *.* *.*.' '.'.' O S. '..
- '.e*.*.*..'..'.'".9.# **e".'..".y"
-. ". ~. y". u".'~ e....
h".'.."..'.".
1 g. g.m...
m.e..
m$.e
..m g
....p g e n......g I
.=. Q.* g 9.
p.
.e. s......e. q.C. q, e
9 ~.
.e. q w
-... v p *.ty y.. C a.".*. ' S
.# a C.4.*.* *. * *.
~..b. e
.d.. e.* *v* 6....-..-
d'.
y.ca
..~.c
.. C P... o.." e y
g
.w...,
g *. 3 *. p
.a...
3
.v..e.gn.eg
.e s.--y.=.......e
..e.e
=
p.v.
m
- e.-
.=
4.,... b.e...
4
...g3..,
.O...6e.
,,,.. =..
. L. g a
..s.
g-....
e..
- 4.h.g e ~..'. e
.O #. *.*...".".A..*'e
-. 5 ' '. c.
y.'.m.- c.
'6...
..".'."e.'..'*.*c~.'
,n. e..
e.
.%. c..:... %.,
a.g C....
g y.g..,
.... a.
. a..z...-.,..e
.p..
g
..y...
e w.
w..g....
.-.e p. c ;. o.
g.
.,.e j
7
.e...,
...e.
.g.
a.
. ;. e
...e.:
a........ge
.g.
-. 2 e
-..; r. a, s.
e t
. ^
5"
.. S e a s "...:' ~..'. e-
- '.'.e
' '. '. '.. ".e.-...
~.. '.. " *.. ' ~.. ' ' ' ' ' ' ' * *'. a
'.r' e' a *' v.** * *.*.* ' *. :
a aAe
..a. e S. a.
..,e
.e..... e w
.e
.%.e n.
..a a
..S
..a n
yy
.Sgo
.e
.n n
.J
=.
.ce.
.e. a.
.e.. g.e.~
.v a. n...v g p e...
- m..e e. g g.e.
,s
..-y
..g
\\
- e. w.. e a. -. e.
e....v..
'I
.e.
w k. a.
g a.,;. e. n.:.
- c..e
.-e....v..
e
.c..
r.'..
C.
. ~..
- a....... e. e
....... e. e e.
w
.Ae.
f c.
g.g p.
. v.. g
- a. n... g
- c.. e... g g. 3...' e.. -. k. g
- p. e. a... g.v.e
...n
....e S.3.
44 v.
%.e e.w..
...S..
a.* S O A,e ye..
a.e.ha.
.)e C.3a.a eO
.c...
. s
...w.
w..
.038 4..e
,3. e a.5. L.
e.:.e eS a o. g y..,v., m e..f
.. a... e A.;..,.... O..
.s O,
..Ew.
w
......w.
O.c.c a
e A
5..e
.,e ease.>.:
.ea
,n..c.....e s SS C.
y.
A.
v O..
5 a.
. %.. e.
m
- ~..
p a..S
_S
.ea......
a, eau.e.
. w e.
.a e..e.e
.,. a
..p np,y.
Ca.
c...
..... ~
y S e e'f.~e.
a
.e. a.e-
.w.....ee,
.w.
.....n..
...e
.e.........e.
.e b...~^....e a a..e a.
.w
.~
~.2.... u,0.. ' e e..
u.
S
.z.e.e. a.
.. A
- u. a.n. -..a
.+c
-...3 S g -.' c e n. ~ e A
e-6
..e-e..r an...e.:.e e.
S.
........e.
.v a. n.:..- a-
.g
-.... e.e
- n. -
. u
.e. -.i e g. g A A
.a n.
~g m
.. ~.
r i
l l
l
e o-at 5~..,y1.. a A6.e,
- .a..;n
.a A=. r..;e.
..e....u.e.-
.u.e.
v.c y
- cc
- u. g...;
.n. ;
.c. n, Wg A
,e..<..
- v.-
- a. a d...e.rea g.n...a.n -
- a
~
u,.
~
u..wo. g.. g..,..-
l
- L. e C.. a.#.".
b s.#
a '.e d *..' *.*. '
'a s
- . - 2 '.'.'.' a'.' '.. "
.O A " ' * * ' S.' '.
7"A'9 C ^. ". ').
^
g
( G o. e.
9w'..' a b. '.".'. a
.C..' *. e- ),
".'-0'.'.9..
-s.'
.'.'.m:;' !'
- ..', ~,.. '..'.0.Q. s' )
.W*e, a.e
. m
. k.e n' pp..4c *.". . a.". 4
- b. e C '.". a.#.#
"".".".e'."..***a.*****a.
cy"p o s.#.".g
- b.e Pe#..#*d.. on e."'.e.,
s
- a.. d..'.. ~.
.'e..-
.".' a...c..'.c.'
.e,
.# a.'.' e 4
- O es*ab.'.#s.k. a
^
1 p.' g. 5.: ~u.' e
- u. g.
,. c i
w.
... e.,.. C
. e...e e.-
.u. e g.'. e r ; A
.....v..
g.. A ~..w. e
.u.
.n I
o Ann.'.'CE.".*.*S y"." ^. y.. e -.'..' a e. 5 e ^ ~ c... 4. c..". *..e.
ry e....e n..
-.. -3.,,.,.
.. g..
e.
c
. w 2...
s..
y, e...
.m..e,.O..
us.......a e w-
.e.g e c m......
p.
-a...a.=g..,.
p4.
.=e. g.c.
.,ge,.
m
- c..
v.
, 6 g
..,,..7&
..v e
y..,,,
g.n.
- a...w...e.
,,,,e.-.;.
.g e..,,
p..
...... y
- r..,,
e.
G.e.ae.e
.W y
..e y g g.. e-..y..e.
- ..e.-
-v
.r.
, g, y
z g. ;,..e...
.e..f.,.
e n. e...Ege e
, y...y
.c.. A
- e. y.
.C..
e. 6.,...
-..g.
..3 g.....g c.e 2 e.e.
,v.
w g, 6. ; 3 e,... 4.. g. e.
~.
s, a '..* *.'.# * # e 5."
- b. e
.'.'...'."...y i.'..#
u^
.. ' ' .' p a.
s p O'A'e. p.' a '.'.' '.' a p p.'.' e s ' ". ".. ' ' '
m s
a
- .. e.
.w
...e s.6.a..* e G 4 ee a e.. 2... =.. S
.eSe. a
.. gD,.,.4O.. e.-
c....
y.
.- e
..:g.
.-. c.z.e
...e
.-....e,..=....a...
.=.
..a-g
.m., -
..a - w...
e I..^.
- ..,..p
- .. a.* g, 2..y
- .. mp y
- a
- ,..e
- c... 4 s.. ; ;,.
3 r"**
w
.c
- v.. u. C.., a.e
..e. e a
. e
. c).
ea,.o e a.e a
perr.anent'y shutdown and defueled, :. : canno*. reasonably be conc.3ucec tnat tne
.. cense ar. enc. ents o, the type at issue i.-
1 l
. o o. s,. 4 e
2
. u.. 4 c. p oceec'.4ng,.ea.e a c~..a..o..e n.
.e..a.a w
s s.a..
C o.". S e a' e"..*. e 5.
'.'.".e." G.#.^." a., '. '". e
.O e *.* *..".. a. " " *"m' ' 5
- a ' ' e C. e S C.'..e
.s
.epe
.e.4
-,......,... e 3,
.w
..a.
.e g g...
e.
.w
... e a C *..' 0 ".
..q.,
p..c.
n.e.,....
.g
. g.-.. p.. m.. p ' g g A.:.n.,3 a
. g g. g
.a u.
e i
9a.e
.s. g..
e g k '...
i sv
. q.. a
.s.
n.v g.e o
.e
,e..... g.e.a c.
g. e A. e n.
.v.
s y.
1
e e
e
.v a n..; v e g,
n_ g, e
- a. g p
c..;;.. f.*.'..:. ~ g.. '..:
~ ~
~ ~
.. e
~.a..=.u..=..~
.e w...
_m
. ^ "**
m., e a w".'.".C. S #a '
.# a." S.". O." *. C.*.
- "*c p
." e.~:... e "
e....,..S *.." a *..* *..". O.*
Ca,Sa..O
~..u. en.u. a.~.~ e-. re4 a... e.. w.i e.e.. e.
.e s o...v.e
...e.~..
. u.a.
- u. a m.ue e..
An-
~ u-
~~~
a w..
.e.SaCed b)*
'..'".e
".e ". e " ' "..".'. e.'..e *.* c'.4 a.*. 4
- e.4."..e. *. a
- e. aS y" a.. O.#
~~
... y
%. e C ~. d.
.c.a.e
. ne..Se
.C A.;
- u. a.
.u. a.A. D'ee
,u.&..ged
.O
~
e **'
.#." e.".*. e.". *..C -...d.
m.4 4. e.4
..". e.
g'
.'.'. e...e.' ". ~ "".'-'.'.'"..e.".*S a5
.D a. '.
a y..
2g4...
y
.e.e
.g
.x.a.
s
...C.
V * '.c e
~...e.~~..~.".a..
^
y....r
.".A.*.*g.**
.* e c. e,
.. = =..
.c.
.. 4 a.
.,L, -. ~*
..o c.
. s... =,.
-. " a... y e.... a.. t.,.,.". *. y' '
- y ga
@.....4..'*..
.r 4
- 4. T.J...4
. W *-. =....
g.' u.,, 4
...t
- '. T.
,.3.e..
.,. e e -..e
..a..
O.46.
- . O..
.O T.. v 'l.:'..
t C....t
.. ll*
.t..G.
.O
. L. C
.e.;. C....
g
- g. g
.j.
O
.b..a. 4,,.6.
..g
- g
- c... e..
.. b. 4.
.4.
.... L.
.. +..
..yt..
. m.
. b.. g,,
J e.
g, e r,,.
p..., e
.pe..
s..
.e...........e.
,., e S t-a.,.. e.r.
.ac,.n...e.
.a..-
yt.........
.e g
- b. 4..
- ee
.Wa..
L2.e...
g.,
. L. p
. b. t*
.~. 4 e.n.
Q...J.
.e...,. c..
..m m
...y
. -. =.
v
.v v
- , m.4...c. e e e
.e
.g..g...,
. g,
=.;:. e,.,.
. b. e ee..Bm
.e. v ir e,. p O t.;, :.>
..v w
e
. Co
... e e,.e. y..s e.
c'..e
%. 3
,. A g, v
- e. n.
e e. a k, ' S.%.
.e
.c. e. -.e. A.s.. e.
p e.::.
.... p.,6 6.
.b...
.4..,.
t.
,,...'4 g.C.,... e.4 w *,,.eag
.. C.e.,
3...t
.....c
. b. C A
.j w
.n
- s..e..g..
.n
. e. e -.e. e..,. n.. x.,
.... e
.e..e
.-,,.,,.S
+,mn.
- e..., e.e n.t p
v w
w
...e
.e>... 4..mA.. a4 4m e.c., 6. a. e. 4 ~. 2,
- a..
e.
~w
...e
- a. a.. o.
., G. a e C e.
c.>. a.SO A
A
.* a
.,, O 4 c.,. a. e ~. 4 O.
C~.c-O c.
O'A.
y
.w e
...e t,.S e O.
E.
. c.. e,
.r,. e.-
.... A
.u..m:. y e...e..
5 a. < e, s.. S w.. 4 6 e...
S a c.., g
.m e... a ". a
- e ~... e ".. *. *..* *.. O S a *.. C."eSD,O".S.*b.'.,**4...e5
- ^
." e *w. " e.~.. e ".,, *
- a.*. *e
. r i
l l
l 6.e e
.w.
. C_.,. a. e....
e.w.... A n.
y
.........j....
6
... a...e a. 4,.
a..C 3
a.e CO a.4..
...e v...
. '." a.
E"ye~~.."**~..**.*'."."
- ** e *".'. M' A a"..)'
.... a a e...... e ~. 5.' . "...'
..r r
.a
%,. 4 a.,4. a e.
. h. g *.
- b. g
.'.'.4 A. e.
e.
. e.
g e m^ "y e " a *. * * * a.'.
O.'.c e a c a....
L
' O e
s.O,s,en e,... e. e..
s..
e.,
.z e.v.S y.ez---.n. e..e 2 - ::. -.. z. ;..
v y
.o... e S e E.'. e.". '."..'. e.*. *. S
'."v''.~
n.
e.' c" 'u' c.' ~. :. e'. -
' *
- e v*.*..*.e.' *. e." e c' a e a.
C.
- a A. ' 0 5 ' '..' '.*.' ' 'y'
.# #.~. ~
.# e a ~ ~ *. ' e '.'.. B '.
- e~
ye..~..S.~.e.*.*..'.*.*.'.*.*-.*'v.~..
c.'. s
^
C e.c.l e. e SO. u.. u.a...e e.v...
O.z 4.
u.
v,
..e>.. e w
,...a C on S eg.: enc e S :. S vast.y c:= n'.Snec.
Y a *. ". e.- *.". a.. e N-#. a.'.. ". ". s'
~
"; /....". * ". e-y.wyo$ed y.uCeee n - - -
y a
l
.C e.". S e *.~- e.". *.. e.*. *. S.. '. -
.=. ' '.e A.
.c.
". e = "..' '.' e.'". e a. *.'.'.
c'.*.* 6 ~ ~..e
- * *.. ~
s
'*'^" **
a.". u*
.'~...'."..~.c.'".
- .. e '.' a
-a.
...".c
~.~.yo..*.*.
- e'
.- e *....... c"..'."
."*e
...a i
- e." e ';
.S*.S S e '.' 6.".
a ~.. e.**. - e * " e '.'.' *..*.^.". ^.~..~ a...*.**.*'.*....'..~
a***
.~
e
-... ~ =,. ' *..
..e
.. u. a.
- u. c
-.- - -.e
. _. e c:
...c.
c.u. s a..u. e.
...a
,.o
)
...-.j a... e.. a. a.... e.. n,A.y.. -. n..a.
.e n.e....
a.
..n e,.
.e.,. e.e
. u..,..
u.
e a.
.w
,;.y g., s..e a - -
b
.a 4.
..... y
. r..e ; ;
.z
- .a a.
.e a
D a n g... e e.
.a O;
.ba......
- e.
. s.e $ O.;
,0 0. a.,,.
- d. C C.; C e..e. S C a..
e.
....: a..
..a...
Oe.').
O C C..,.
w a
n S.
..m.
eaC,O e E n' a. ave yme a...y.. -
.4 e
permanent.y SnuncOc., cene.ec. anc cepresSur:::ec.
n.e o.g.;.;
.g.-
-.~.e.
-~
, -.,...... ~. u.,.. u. g.. a.., r..a.
g.,,.. a. e... a
.n.e e. u.. e a
e
-y
.v. g..
g
. A. a... e
- n.....:..
'.z...
- ..... u.,,. n.d g,; gap.
~
v.
y.
......j.
. u. g......,4 u.*.,
..-.4
-pnp..'.
.u...
a.... 4 g.
g.4 4 g....4 e
- p.4
=-. j y....
.a. nn... ~. u. g.e g.
- c... g n.
g-.Ae..a e g..,:,
- u..i.n a_.u ~ ~. e g.'.c.
.v e g.,. c.
...e.-..
e s
- e.. 4 Ce..
..,.s.ue e - pe. u.e a
.e...;
e.
s o
.e e.. m.
u.. a
. a.. e ; w e C,
w a.a.
, e e w.; u.~ e.
, a.. S a.~
- u.. a A
u a.A... - e e.
C.,. e X. g a.
- u. 0..
. u.. e a..e..C..
6 s
- Sy
,.s. s..
- u. a. e. ; a.e
..e
-.-,eacea u,
c u..e n.pp.;Ca.., p,cp..e;
.s a..e..d. e..*. w.
..... ' a..' ;
~."..a. S. a.. *. 4 ^. a,..'. S ~..c>
. a C. O.' O "w.4Ca'.
p S--
O
_,l..#1... m e.S.
..f:. a.
.. a 98.4
- Q
..'.gi i..
g.
e.9
- h.
.F a M-.E vaO.9 I.* e f.d'% g....ag,
.....a...g.
c*.g
.s
.Y e a#,.OO. N
.YO
.[
M. O.
O 8
h.
.R. e
..Y.N
...e aM...e..
%..e%... s.
lg
.9sO.;
y
I r-1-
e.
4 e.a.t... o.e g pn. e g a...n.e g.-,..=...a...
... u..c.e e...,
r r
...~,..,..e....,.
j
~.
a s *..... +. s ".~..
..c.-..".* ~...=......a...+...e.e"....-.,
w..a..
w e.
.w...e c..a,3.. e...,.e e a...e..x e
s.
w In short, the Peti *ioner's unsubstantiated a;;egations simp,y
,al., to demonstrate a piaus c.e nexus oe: ween the challenged license amendments and Mr. Diene:hal's asserted har.~..
=
e. a " s e
.v..-
.". e.. e... a. s... ~. e.-". e...... e.' e a _=... s a..'.
e s. z.u..'..e..u.
s
..". e. a ' s a. ~.. e.' e... e.. ~. e s.c. o.....' a.'.- = :. _=.'.:..'.
.e.c..=.....
.u.. s ye
.;...eS..s ae...
.s..a e.u.,.-
.w..ne....-.e.- has standin: ::
m
.... g.-.. g. a.
.. -. u.
e.
.e;
,..e... a g....
1
,-... ; a..a..,.
............a..
. a c.
- .. a.
.... e
.a_
.e.
e.
.,,,. g
.c....a
. a. c.
.c........c...
r.
- a 'A. ;.
.ae.a.
.a....:..
c c.a
,.. e...
. e. es,.
- 6..
- u..;..
- u. e 0 a.. -
m o.r s e w-..' o..
'.0 0. 8 o#
- b. e.. *..*.*...'..
- 7... e. C '
n'-*.,
"w. C. C.. $
i I
ly
%..ap..q.y...g.' e e
)
a
- p.. r-.. p e.
. %.3.
...c
%..p e
.e., e. a
- e. n. m.
.. e. g.e
, g.e. a.
\\
%g.eg
..m.
%e g '.. g 3... e..e
. %. a....k. e n* y y.*.e. a.e. e
.' g o g..e
. %. e
.e. g. c. g.-.
ee w
y
.a
.g
-C a
...a.w. a - e a.. a...
.e..G.... e.
a..a e
.u.,.
r
.. s..
4..,. a.a.eo.;s
.a.....
....w-...
......a.
..g..
w.-..,-..
.- '. e D e *..* *..- '. *'. n. ' e
- a..e..e e." *..' ".' .' s.*""e
..w.;
- ire se-S... c. e. a p..
..... y.. e c,. a
- e. :.- Am..
m.
m
- e. e e e.
k.e nyy.'.iC a e....s m
.es
- 3. c. ; '. u a.
- e. m g. g n s
-. g..'.,. eu.e
.;n-y.g e.
- g. u. g,,
.b.e ggop.
n.:
w....
y.
y a
...e - a-~ee
. ~.y
.s ue~...e o'; ~.e s'
s~a.~..n. o.'
'.e
'ce.se y.
w a...e.." ~s.e....e
~..
w."..' c.'..." e.. ^.. 4 e.' o. o p p... "...' * ".' o.-
- k. e a..'... g-.'s 2
based; g,..ere, the c..a.
engec 2 cense amencments no no: imp u,.cate w
.w
...e n p..4
- a..s w,,.aC.e a..a.
C C...y e..., e a., C
..e Pe..e e.. C. o.,.. s y
o var:.ous a..egat:.ons acou: :g..e npplicant's past managemen
~.~ a
.'. e.e a e w ".. a ' ' ';
o'm s.' A e *.>. e s ~ ~y.
c '. **e
.ocee'.'*v'.
n y
P w
.v
.v.o e o..e.
. :e
.a w
. o... e. 2
..v,...
..w. e
. g. n.. p ~. 4
- a o..
. a.. n.
e.e.. n.....
e and activ;;ies near a nuclear power plant, without more, confer l
standing upon a peti:icner, the u
c..a.
enged license amend.ents w.-
.c. o <. o.,. c.
o,.s e ~,, e., e s.
.c,_
ese.~ a. o,;o..s
.pm.
e.
e.
.o C..
c..o.,.
.v... w-a....,.o..~.
.s..,..
a.e y,
D.; e. e
- u.,.-
the Fetit;cner'.s cwn a....egations abou: the c;.; site wou.c nave it, c...s e,..e. e s o:
.u.e n.
yy.
a.
_e w...a....
.y a.
...a.r e s. u.. e
. w presump::.on app... :. c a r..e.
F l
e l
4 n,c ( a ) l '
.r'.',,
.n.. A.
S,: *.. ; e..
. ~. ~ ' -
'..'*z T - ~..~...;. c.=.' ~ ~ ' o
=
e w-.
.. e,,.,.. ' a :.. s,
. C..:..:.
y > ~ n.,
.m
.v a
p
.. e.-.. a..n. e.. -
..s
.. e e...~e a...e.. A.. g.o..
p'. O C e e A :....
n'""O*.d.".~.~.;'
7 ^ ~..d * # "'.". c." ' C 4.". *. e." V e.". *..' ".".
x
.e
..w pe.:
o.. 4 s ae...;eg a.A.ge...- eca.;..-
3.e
.r.g e-.
....... - 4 P,,.SUan.
.O
. ~s t....;.
r,
~
.e a.a... C.n. o..,
- h. ; e.k..t. 4 e..
...sc
... e.
.w
(.* V } day,.3 o. g e.r..;
e wn.. '. -
r\\
r
..w
.. -. c.o..
2.. 4...
-..A.
g.e Ae
...a y' ' aPPea' ".'". e m
w.
w O.
. n.
o.
- e. 7... g.e.
...~o.
s a
mc..
g y G.
3*.=
ug
....=
v.
p g e e z.e....
n..p..s,
k, s
.y c.
.O
.e.: O
^;"
v.. ~.r.;. 7.."
..~,L r.,,.....
.~ r..' :. ;
r.
-.:..:.... - c. e... %
l t e d &*. y d' <
/'
CC"V'
...: a v
...s,, e,
C. a,...a..
e
.. A...e e..=..., e.~... A e
-y t
/ /
/
! 0Vs.f, :'\\./, _
. -t
.r.
. s : y.-.
.. ". e
.* 4 n..4 c.....c...=..4e
-e o
f.
/
N
- e
.m.'
f.. *s 1 i L L a
(,
c'
.v C' vn. '.
~
.a....
.m
... S. a
.. e
.. A.., e m
wy
. C C.,......'. =..
.s e. u,.. ',.. a a
...e.
..,w.
..-p,v.
.v.
l 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
.~.
l l
In the Matter of COMMONWEALTH 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-gB-27) have been served upon the following persens 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 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 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 Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Sherwin E. Turk, c.sq.
Robert M. Weisman, Esq.
Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel Sidley and Austin Mail Stop 15 BIB One First National Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Chicago, IL 60603 Washington, DC 20555 David W. Jenkins, Senior Counsel Stephen M. Kohn, Esq.
Robert E. Helfrich, Senior Counsel Michael D. Kohn, Esq.
Comonwealth Edison Company Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, P. C.
Law Department Room 1535 3233 P Street, NW 125 South Clark Street, P.O. Box 767 Washington, DC 20007 Chicago, IL 60603
L 1
1 e
Docket No.(s)50-295/304-LA LB MEMO & ORDER (LBP-9S-27) 3 Dated at Rockville, Md. this 5 day of November 1998
/ g ws
/. 9ty/lhnv/1 Office of the Secretarp of the CyffFmission I
s
ENCLOSURE 3
- 7& 35 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:
3
-2 E '4 Shirley Ann Jackson. Chairman Greta Joy Dicus Nils J. Diaz Edward McGaffigan, Jr.
Jeffrey S. Mernfield
..;,L W W - 2 l999 in the Matter Of
)
)
CLt.4MONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY )
Docket Nos. 50-295/304-LA
)
(Zion Nuclear Pows Station.
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)
CLI-99-M MEMORAN:.'UM AND ORDER I. Introduction In this decision we review an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Memorandum and i
Order, LBP-98-27,48 NRC 27 (1998), that denied a petition for leave to intervene and request for hearing filed by Edwin D. Dienethal. Mr. Dienethal challenges particular license amendments issued to the Commonwea!th Edison Company (" Comed" or " licensee"). The Board found that he lacks standing to chal19nge the license amendments. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.714a, Mr. Dienethal has appealed the Board's ruling. The licensee and the NRC staff support the Board's decision. We affirm the decision.'
' Mr. Dienethal not only has challenged LBP-98-27 on appeal to the Commission, but also recently filed a petition for review (No. 99-10G1) in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging the same Board order. But, as we recently indicated in identical circumstances, simultaneous appeals to the Commission and to the court of Popeals are impermissible. See Baltimore Gas & Electric Company (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power.>lant, Units 1 & 2), CLl-98-25,48 NRC 325,336 n.1 (1998). Mr. Dienethal apparently (continued...)
g o H u i^2 4 ~ l Y w
m4&
l i
L i
i 1.
l ll. Background This proceeding concerns a license amendment application filed by the Commonwealth Edison Company for the Zion Nuclear Power Station. Units 1 and 2.
The license amendments are intended to facilitate and reflect the plant's now shutdown and defueled condition. The NRC staff issued the amendments on July 24.1998.
1 Previous license amendments issued by the NRC in December of 1997 when neither Zion unit was in operation - had replaced the Zion Station's Custom Technical Specifications
)
(CTS) with a set of improved Technical Specifications (ITS), which were to be implemented i
prior to resumption of operations at the Mode 4 level (hot shutdown). However, the very next month, Comed decided to cease operations at Zion Station permanently. Consequently, both units are now shut down and nuclear fuel has been removed from both reactors. Noting "no benefit to expending the resources that would be needed to complete the ITS implementation process,"2 Comed has continued to conduct all plant activities in accordance with the CTS, and, on March 30,1998, filed the license amendment application at issue in this proceeding.
Among the changes made by the license amendments is that of formally restoring the CTS as the specifications governing Zion Station. The amendments also reinstate 5 license l
conditions which are associated with the CTS and thus were de!eted at the time of the ITS amendment. Besides restoring the CTS and associated license conditions, the license j
'(... continued) misunderstands our rules. "Although petitions secking discretionary Commission review are
' deemed denied' if not acted on in 30 days (10 C.F.R. 2.786(c)), no comparable provision governs appeals as of right, such as IMr. Dienethal's) (see 10 C.F.R. @ 2.714a). In appeals as of right, the final agency action is a Commission decision resolving the appeal." Calvert Cliffs, Slip op. at 2 n.1. As Mr. Dienethat's appeal has been neither " deemed denied" nor withdrawn, we proceed to decido it.
Letter to NRC Document Control Desk, from John C. Brons, Site Vice Pres., Zion 8
Nuct' ear Station (Mar. 30,1998), Att. A at 4.
i
I l
l 3
amendments also make several changes to the CTS to take account of the station's now permanently shutdown and defueled units. These changes (1) alter particular verbiage implying the units are operational; (2) reduce required shift staffing numbers and on-shift crew composition because of the units' non operational status; (3) permit Certified Fuel Handlers --in lieu of licensed operators -- to satisfy shift staffing requirements; and (4) change particular management titles and responsibilities to reflect a permancntly shutdown organization.
On June 4,1998, Mr. Dienethal filed his petition for leave to intervene in this license amendment proceeding. Directed by the Board to " address any shortcomings in his petition,"
Mr. Dienethal on July 31,1998, filed an Amended Petition to Intervene, including 19 proposed contentions. His Amended Petition outlines various activities which bring him within Plant Zion's general vicinity, and alleges that the license amendments willincrease the potential of an accident or other incident which could cause radiological injury to him and his family. In LBP.
98-27, the Licensing Board ruled that Mr. Dienethal lacks standing to intervene. The Board concluded that Mr. Dienethat's " unsubstantiated allegations simply failed [ed] to demonstrate a I
plausible nexus between the challenged license amendments and Mr. Dienethal's asserted i
harm." LBP-98-27 (Nov. 5,1998), Slip Op. At 12.
i Ill. Analysis Under section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act, the Commission must grant a hearing upon the request of any person "whose interest may be affected by the proceeding." 42 U.S.C.
6 2239(a). Accordingly, NRC regulaiions require a petition for intervention to " set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding,.. and the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which [the) petitioner wishes to intervene." 10 C.F.R. @ 2.714(a)(2). In evaluating whether a petitioner's asserted interest provides an appropriate basis for l
l
I l
l-l 4
L intervention, the Commission has long looked for guidance to judicial concepts of standing.
Portland General Elec. Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLl 76-27,4 NRC 610,613 14 (1976). Accord, Yapkee Atomic Electne Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-a 98-21,48 NRC 185,195 (1998): Georaia inst. of Technoloov (Georgia Tech Research Reactor)- CLl 9512,42 NRC 111,115 (1995). Judicial concepts of standing require a petitioner to allege (1) a particularized injury (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged action and (3)is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Ouivira Minino Co. (Ambrosia Lake Facility), CLi-9811,48 NRC 1,5-6 (1998); sy Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 118 S. Ct.1003,101617 (1998). Accordingly, a petitioner seeking to intervene in a license amendment proceeding must assert an injury-in-fact associated with the challenaed license amendment, not simply a general objection to the facility. See Ouivira,48 NRC 1 at 6; Florida Power & Licht Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-21,30 NRC 325,329-30(1989).
On appeal before the Commission, Mr. Dienethal submits that his Amended Petition
" unquestionably set forth facts sufficient" to link the Zion license amendments with a particularized injury -- that of an increased potentral for an offsite release of radiation. Brief in Support of Petitioner's Appeal (Nov. 16,1998)(" Appeal Brief") at 4. Any such offsite release, 4
Mr. Dienethat claims, could threaten his health, safcty and financial. interests because he resides approximately 10 miles from the Zion plant, purchases food from farms located within 10 miles of the plant, drinks water that comes f rom Lake Michigan (in which Plant Zion dumps wastes), and regularly ergages in various activities within the plant's general vicinity. See aenerally Petitioner's Amended Petition to intervene and Statement of Contentions (July 31, j
1998)(" Amended Petition") at 6 9.
f 1
ll.
e The Licensing Board in LBP-98-27 acknowledged that Mr. Dienethat conducts activities within the plant's general area. But the Board nevertheless noted that Mr. Dienethal simply had failed to indicate how the particular license amendments at issue would increase the risk of an offsite release of radioactive fission products. We agree with the Licensing Board, and follow our usual practice of deferring to its standing determinations. See, e.a., Pnvate Fuel Storaae.
L.L.C. (ISFSI), CLl-98-13,48 NRC 26,32 (1958)(collecting cases). On appeal, Mr. Dienethal points to vanous kinds of potentialinjury as sufficient for standing: harm from poor management, proximity-based harm from accidents or contamination, and harm from a reduction in radiation protection personnel on duty, None of Mr. Dienethal's claims of injury is persuasive in the context of this case.
A.
Manaaement Virtually all of the claims Mr. Dienethal advances in this proceeding either reflect or directly rely upc allegations of deliberate violations of regulatory or plant requirements by plant supervisors and managers. See Appeal Brief at 2,4-6,812; Amended Petition at 9,12-17,19.
The heart of Mr. Dienethal's grievance appears to be tae " character" and " integrity" of Plant Zion's management -- matters of considerable significance, to be sure, but matters not at issue in this license amendment proceeding. It is not at all clear how the relief sought by Mr.
Dienethal -- denial of the current license amendments -- would either rectify or reduce his risk of harm from corrupt or ineffective management. Management integrity, in other words, is not linked to the agency action Mr. Dienethat challenges, and he therefore lacks standing to intervene.
l Mr. Dienethal apparently believes that any license amendment proceeding can be turned into an hquiry into the applicant's management character by the simple device of l
making allegations about " unfitness or lack of character." See Amended Petition at 9. On the
p I
6 i
contrary, the Commission has stressed that licensing actions as a rule do not " throw [] open an opportunity to engage in a free-ranging inquiry into the 3haracter' of the hcensee." Georaia Power Co. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. Units 1 and 20),38 NRC 25,32 (1993). For l
management " character" to be an appropriate issue for adjudication in a licensing proceeding,
"[t]here must be some direct and obvious relationship between the character issues and the licensing action in dispute." % (emphasis added). The Voatle proceeding Mr. Dienethat cites, for instance, involved a " total transfer" - to a new organization -- of the " operational control and responsibility over a nuclear power plant licensed to operate at full power." M at 31-32. The Commission explicitly distinguished the proceeding in Voatie from more common licensing actions. Id. at 32.
i i
The present proceeding concerns specific technical, administrative, and crew composition changes to Plant Zion's technical specifications. It does not, contrary to Mr.
)
Dienethal's view," concern [] the failure of Applicant to properly manage Plant Zion." Amended Petition at 3. The license amendments at issue here have no bearing on Plant Zion's overall management structure, personnel, or culture. Denial of the license amendments accordingly would have no impact on the plant's management " character" or " integrity." Although the license amendments do change some particular job titles and responsibilities to reflect the f
facility's reduced activities and significantly lower risk of offsite radiological consequences now that it ne longer is operational, Mr. Dienethat raises no credible claim of harm from these particular changes. At bottom, his is a broad-brushed claim of wholesale corruption at Plant Zion -- corruption allegedly condoned and thus perpetuated by "the highest levels" and indeed "every level of management." See, e.a., Appeal Brief at 9-10. In short, as the Board held, Mr.
Dienethat's numerous allegations about Plant Zion's managers and supervisors are beyond the scope of this proceeding. His concerns about deliberate violations of regulations may be raised
in a petition under 10 C.F.R. 2.206. If found to have merit, his concerns could then be addressed by appropnate enforcement action.
None of Mr. Dienethal's management-driven concerns explains how any of the specific license amendments at issue here might cause him radiological injury. In a characteristic statement, Mr. Dienethal sets forth the following general claim:
The Applicant engages in willful and knowing violations of mandatory safety related procedures and the harassment and intimidation of employee's (sic) who seek to raise safety concerns.
Due to these practices. Applicant cannot insure that any of the work to be performed under any of tne proposed amendments to the license shall be performed in a manner consistent with the controlling procedures, regulations laws and/or requirements of pubhc safety.
Amended Petition at 19. To accept Mr. Dienethal's claim as a basis for standing, however, would mean that a petitioner could insert management integnty issues into all license amendment proceedings, no matter the nature of the amendment, simply by (1) alleging that management character is bad; and (2) then claiming that no license amendments should be granted because of the alleged bad character.
Indeed, Mr. Dienethal argues as much:
The applicant cannot be grt2.'ted a_ny license amendments which would directly or indirectly permit it to conduct any future work at Plant Zion or participate in any manner in the decommissioning process. The Applicant lacks the character, competence, and integrity to engage in gny licensed activities at Plant Zion, including those licensed activities directly or indirectly authorized under the pending amendments to the license.
No chances should be made to Applicant's license until the i
(
harassment and intimidation of employees is halted.
Amended Petition at 19 (emphasis added); id; at 39 (emphasis added); see also Appeal Brief i
at 7. Mr. Dienethal's position is rnuch too open-ended. The NRC has no legal duty, and also i
lacks the resources and expertise, to assess management integrity and character every time the
)
e t
8 agency considers a reactor license amendment request (which annually number nearly a thousand),
in sum, Mr. Dienethat has not explained how denial of the contested license amendments would enhance his personal safety or even remedy the management deficiencies that concern him. Rejecting the hcense amendments at issue here, which simply cor form existing requirements to Zion's new snutdown status in which no operational activities remain, would do nothing to cure an ingrained culture of management misconduct at Zion, if it exists, and would f
do nothing to protect Mr. Dienethal from radiological injury.
- 8. Proximitv-Based Iniury Mr. Dienenthal's Amended Petition also relied heavily upon his claimed frequent contacts in the plant's general area. On appeal, he reiterates his general claim. See Appeal Brief at 3, 1415. But in an operating license amendment proceeding, a petitioner cannot base his or her standing simply upon a residence or visits near the plant, unless the proposed action quite
" obvious [ly]" entails an increased potential for offsite consequences. See, gg, St. Lucie,30 NRC at 329 30.
Here, given the shutdown and defueled status of the units, the license amendments do i
not on their f ace present any " obvious" potential of offsite radiological consequences.
All of the fuel at Plant Zion is in the spent fuel pool.- The significant nuclear activities still ongoing at Plant Zion are the storage and handling of spent fuel bundles in the pool. Because neither reactor will ever operate again, the scope of activities at the plant has been greatly reduced.
See Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (July 24,1998)(" Safety Evaluation") at 2 3, attached to Board Notification 98-01 (Aug. 4,1998). Accordingly,"the spectrum of accidents and events that remain credible is significantly reduced." 63 Fed. Reg. 25101,251(;5 (May 6,1998). The challenged license amendments, including reductions in crew
r i
l-l i
9 i
shift staffing, are based largely on the non-operational status and concomitant reduced scope of work at the facility.'See Safety Evaluation at 13. The Licensing Board thus reasonably concluded that "the type of accident that credibly could occur... from these license amendments is anything but self evident." 48 NRC at 277.
As the Licensing Board noted, it was incumbent upon Mr. Dienethal to provide in his Amended Petition some'" plausible chain of causaticn," some scenario suggesting how these particular license amendments would result in a distinct new harm or threat to him.
Mr. Dienethal, however, based his claims of standing ont pon conclusory allegations about j
potential radiological harm from the facility. His Amended Petition contains a 5 page section specifically focusing upon the standing question. See aenerally Amended Petition at 5-10. In it, Mr. Dienethal alleges that "if Plant Zion functions under the proposed amendments, the risk of potential injuries.. will be increased as a result of inte, alia:
j (1) LOCA (Loss of Coolant Accident),
(2) radiological concerns, (3) unsafe levels of radiation for the emp'oyees at the plant and the general
- public, (4) undetectable radiation contamination by employees, (5) contamination of the local community and the environment, (6) increase [d] risk of accident at Plant Zion, and (7) contamination of Lake Michigan."
E at 8 (citation to affidavit omitted) He goes on to claim that "if Commonwealth Edison Co.'s request for amendment is approved, other imminent risks would result due to the increased I
~ potential of fa;lirg to detect radiation in adequate time and the increase [d] risk of the plant functioning unsafely and outside NRC regulations." 1 Having cited the above-listed general
10 concerns, the Amended Petition then simply concludes that "[t]hese allegations are more than sufficient to satisfy the injury in fact and other standing requirements necessary to grant Petitioner leave to intervene." ld; We must disagree.
Mr. Dienethal fails to indicate how these various harms might result from the license L
amendments, particularly given not only the shutdown status of the facility, but also the continued applicability of the NRC's safety oriented regulations governing defueled nuclear plants. As the Board stated, "[n]owhere does the Petitioner set forth [a] plausible or credible causal chain for any such accident or explain how the risk of such an accident is increased by the Applicant's proposed amendments." 48 NRC at 277. A petitioner cannot seek to obtain standing in a license amendment proceeding simply by enumerating the proposed license changes and alleging without substantiation that the changes will lead to offsite radiological' consequences.
l
)
Indeed, some of Mr. Dienethal's allegations quite patently have no relation to the license amendments at issue. For example, his first listed concern is over an increased risk of a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA). Yet, as the Licensing Board noted, such accidents could only conceivably occur in operating reactors. IcL; see also 10 C.F.R. 50.47(c)(description of-LOCAs). Mr. Dienethat's Amended Petition is rife with unsubstantiated claims, including the
. unsupported (and implausible) claim that now that the plant no longer is operational, "[t]he hazards to the public health a'nd safety... are as severe, and in many cases more severe, than those that existed during the full operational phase of the plant." Amended Petition at 4. He needs more than conclusory statements like these to justify triggering an adjudicatory hearing to
' consider the Zion license amendments.
l h
e e
lI C. R_adiation Protection Personnel l
l Mr. Dienethal's appeal focuses in particular on one of his 19 contentions, Contention 10, i
1 i
which "directly challenged Applicant's request to eliminate the continuous onsite presence of a
' Radiation Protection Person."' Appeal Brief at 3-4. Citing at length the statements made in Contention 10 (which essentially alleges that a Radiation Protection Person (RPP) must be
(
onsite at all times), Mr. Dienethal declares that he "placed in the record" sufficient facts to l
indicate how "the elimination of the ' cont!r'uous onshift presence of a RPP' could result in the improper release of radioactive materials." Lcl at 5. Thus, Mr. Dienethal concludes, "[a]Ithough the ASLB did not address this issue." his Amended Petition " unquestionably set forth facts sufficient" to link "this requested amendment and the potential offsite release of radioactive fission products." Id. at 4.
For two separate reasons, Mr. Dienethal's radiation protection argument fails as a l
justification for his standing. First, the argument appears to be newly minted for appeal. It was never properly called to the Licensing Board's attention, which, understandably enough, did not rule on it. Second, Mr. Dienethal's claims about radiation protection staffing deficiencies do not suggest any scenario of potential harm more plausible than his general proximity claims.
l
- 1. New Araument On ADoeal l
Before the Board, Mr. Dienethal's five-page discussion labeled " Standing" nowhere even mentioned the RPP or a reduction in radiation protection staffing. At most, his Board pleading l
l can be said to allude generally to " radiological concerns" or " unsafe levels of radiation." But he l
l never suggested how these alleged harms might result from the amendments or from a change in radiation protection staffing.
Mr. Dienethal says that an examination of his Contention 10 would show his concern
. about RPP. deficiencies. But the " standing" discussion in his Amended Petition did not cross-l
1 i
a 12 reference or even mention Contention 10. And Contention 10 was just one of some 19 contentions, which spanned diverse topics. including Fuel Handlers, control room personnel, the fuel assembly tubing. decommissicaing, loss of coolant accidents, and complaints about the l
. applicant's management integnty. There was no reason for the Board, facing a decision on standing, to look beyond Mr. Dienethal's expressly-denominated " standing" arguments to find support for Mr. Dienethal's position. It is by no means clear from Mr. Dienethal's discussion of
" standing," and from the set of submitted contentions and attached items, which included affidavits and lengthy Department of Labor hearing transenpts, that he was basing his standing claim on the elimination of a round-the clock Radiation Protection Person. (The voluminous transcripts from DOL proceedings, for instance, deal only with alleged deliberate violations by particular supervisors in the radiation prctection department and at no point address crew staffing.)
We do not expect our adjudicatory Boards, unaided by the parties, to sift through the parties' pleadings to uncover and resolve arguments not advanced by litigants themselves. The burden of setting forth a clear and coherent argument for standing and intervention is on the petitioner. "It should not be necesscry to speculate about what a pleading is supposed to i
mean." Kansas Gas & Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No.1), ALAB-279,1 NRC 559,576 (1975). _C_f Curators of the University of Missouri, CLl 95-1,41 NRC 71,132 n.
2 81 (1995). Mr. Dienethat therefore bears the responsibility for any Licensing Board misunderstanding of his Arnended Petition. Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-93 3,37 NRC 135,143 n.17 (1993). He cannot revive his case on appeal on the basis of a new argument that the Board had no fair opportunity to l-consider. See Seouoyah Fuels Corp. (Gore, Okla. Site), CLI 97-13,46 NRC 195,221 (1997).
I 1
[
]
V 13 We note parenthetically, that Mr. Dienethal is represented by counsel experienced in NRC l
proceedings, a factor adding to his obligation to provide clear pleadings.
l
- 2. Plausibility of Harm Even 'were we to disregard Mr. Dienethal's failure to raise his RPP based standing l
argument before the Board, his argument would not suffice for standing. His appellate brief j
suggests no plausible scenario whereby elimination of a continuous onshift RPP might lead to j
offsite radiological harm.
At bottom Mr. Dienethal does not address why a shutdown and defueled facility must 1
continue to have an around-the-clock RPP. The NRC staff found the license amendments to be
" consistent with the quantity, complexity, and hazard level of the activities required for the storage and handling of nuclear fuel," the remaining major nuclear activities at the site. 63 Fed.
l l
Reg. 25101,25106 (May 6,1998). Nowhere does Mr. Dionethat provide any specific grounds to 1
i question this view. The staff's findings, we note, are consistent with its treatment of other 1
shutdown nuclear power facilities, where the staff did not require a continuous onsite RPP.
Of further note, the Zion Station procedures will still require an onsite RPP during any I
handling of irradiated fuel' This requirement is consistent with the Proposed Standard l
Technical Specifications for Permanently Defueled Westinghouse Plants, which only call for an l
l RPP to "be on site during fuel handling operations or movement of loads over storage racks l
l See, e.a., Operating License DPR-36 for the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station, j
Docket No. 50-309 (Amendment 160)(Nov. 26,1997); Operating License DPR-61 for the j
Haddam Neck Plant, Docket No. 50-213 (Amendment 192)(Mar. 27,1998).
- See Letter from John C. Brons, Site Vice President, Zion Nuclear Station, to Document Control Desk, NRC (Mar. 30,1998), Re: License Amendment Application, Attachment E.
L
l o
t l
l.-
14 containing fuel." 5 Mr. Dienethal, however, neither addresses nor otherwise throwd into question l
l the sufficiency of the ongoing Zion Station radiation protection procedures.
In addition, the mere fact that an RPP may not be onsite does not mean that no radiation j
l-protection measures are being taken. The Commission's radiation protection requirements l
obligate the licensee to maintain an approved radiation protection program that is
" commensurate with the scope and extent of licensed activities." 10 C.F.R. { '11101(a). Such a program must satisfy regulatory requirements under Part 20. which include restrictions on the offsite release of radioactive matenals (
20.1101,20.1301); mandatory surveys of both -
l l
unrestncted and controlled areas to demonstrate comp iance with radiation limits (
20,1302, I
20.1501); monitoring of personnel to assure compliance with established occupational dose limits (@ 20.1501,20.1502); controlled access to high radiation areas (@ 20,1601,20.1602);
i detailed records of the radiation protection program, to include information on occupational doses and radiation survey results (@@ 20.2102,20.2103); and numerous requirements for waste l
disposal (@ 20.2001, gt h_e_q:).
l In light of the reduced number of radiological activities at Plant Zion, and of the radiological safety requirements still applicable to the plant --including the requirement that an RPP always be onsite during the handling of irradiated fuel-- Mr. Dienethal's sweeping allegations simply do not lend credible support to his claim that "any reduction in radiation protect' ion staffing does create a cognizable potential harm to the public, including but not limited
{
to an increased risk in the release of radiation off site." Appeal Brief at 6 (emphasis added).
Perhaps the closest Mr. Dienethal comes to even attempting an explanation of how the license amendment changes might lead to radiological injury is when in one of his contentions l
NUREG-1625, " Proposed Standard Technical Specifications for Permanently 5
Defueled Westinghouse Plants" (Draft Report for Comment)(Mar.1998) at 5.0-3; see also id. at 5.04 4 (Table 5.2.2-1, titled " Minimum Shif t Crew Ccmposition," which does not require an onsite RPP),
O
l b
4 15 he alleges that "the combination of staffing changes"- such as the elimination of the continuous onsite RPP coverage, the use of certified fuel handlers, and the elimination of the site Vice President "would result in the elimination of expenenced professionals onsite which could reasonably result in a LOCA due to human error." Amended Petition at 40. As we have already noted, however, LOCAs are not possible at a permanently defueled facility. In this and all of Mr.
Dienethat's arguments, he simply never suggests why the license amendment changes are not commensurate with the plant's now shutdown and defueled status and therefore increase offsite risk We agree, therefore, with the NRC staff and the licensee that Mr. Dienethal has failed to provide any plausible scenario linking any of the hcense amendments, including the RPP change, with his alleged radiological harm.
There is yet another reason why Mr. Dienethal's claims about the onsite RPP are an unpersuasive basis for standing: it seems unlikely tnat Mr. Dienethal would obtain any effective redress of his grievances even if he were to prevail at a hearing. After all, Mr. Dienethal's basic and oft-repeated claim is that radiation protection supervisors directed others to violate technical specifications, Radiation Work Permits, and other procedures, and that the radiation protection program is " riddled with intentional violations by supervisors." See Appeal Brief at 4-5,6,9-12, 15; Amended Pctition at 15-17,29; DOL Testimony at 228-30,235. The mere presence of one round-the-clock radiation protection person would add little or nothing to Mr. Dienethat's personal safety if, as he insists, Zion's management routinely directs a scheme of non-compliance with safety-related procedures. Indeed, an RPP presumably was onsite during the historical incidents Mr. Dienethal alleges, since the time period he most frequently references - 1995-96 --
was prior to the Zion facility being shut down and defueled. According to Mr. Dienenthal, the f
f alleged corruption bedeviling the radiation protection department has resulted in a " complete I
breakdown of OA (quality assurance) within that department," and, unless this " root cause" of 1
)
o 4
16 violations is " investigated, identified, and corrected," " numerous health and safety violations" will occur. Appeal Brief at 5,12. Denial of the current license amendments, the only remedy Mr.
Dienethal seeks in this proceeding. would do nothing to improve a situation of that kind.
As we noted above, the NRC maintains a public petitioning process precisely to consider enforcement-type grievances like Mr. Dienethal's,10 C.F.R. 2.206, and it is to that process, not to a license amendment adjudication, that he must resort if he wishes to pursue his claims further.
I We add one final point. Having focused his appeallargely upon the change involving the radiation protection person (Contention 10), Mr. Dienenthal then concludes his appeal with the catch-all statement that "[t]he Commission should find that Petitioner set forth sufficient facts to justify standing related to the proposed amendments identified in contentions 1,2,3,5,7,8,9, 10,12,13,17, and 18." Appeal Brief at 17. Just as Mr. Dienethal raised for the first time on appeal a standing argument based upon Contention 10, he now apparently attempts to interject more new claims on appeal based upon these other contentions. For the reasons given above, raising new arguments on appeal to reverse a Board decision is unfair to the Board and the parties, and therefore impermissible in NRC practice. See p.12, suora.
Not only did Mr. Dienethal not develop his new standing claims before the Licensing Board, he also fails to address them in any meaningful fashion on appeal. We cannot readily discern from the license amendment application, for example, what change in " radiation
(
- monitors" (contention 17) these amendments make, if any; we note that the licensee stated that the amendments "do not affect radiation monitoring systems at Zion." Comed Reply to Amended Petition (Aug. 18,1998) at 9. We also see a contradiction in Mr. Dienethal's complaint that harm will result from "any reduction (in] management oversight" (see contention 5), when it i
h L
17 is his overarching claim that the plant's manaoement - including " site management," the
" highest levels of management," and indeed "every level of management" -- is responsible for j
l the alleged deficiencies and safety risks at Zion. See Appeal Brief at 910. It is these very supervisors and managers who allegedly give " instructions that safety-related procedures be intentionally violated "" conduct [] illegal field modifications" of Problem Identification Forrn (PlF) requirements, and harass employees who follow procedures. See id, at 810. It is odd, to say the least, for Mr.-Dienethal to claim injury from a reduction in their presence.
In short, we are not inclined to parse these numerous contantions, which Mr. Dienethal never properly addressed before the Licensing Board, and now makes no pretense of explaining on appeal, to find a basis for standing.
l Ill. Conclusion and Order For the reasons stated in this decision, the Commission hereby affirms LBP-98 27.
It is so ORDERED.
B REC g
/ -l.
o For the Commission g (7f,*n M-w
- g c.
,.7
- i.
{
y g
hh Annette L. Vietti-Cook Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockwlle, Maryland, this day of March,1999.
e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
l in the Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-295/304 LA
)
(Zion Nuclear Power Station.
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLi 99-04) have been served upon the following persons by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, as indicated by an asterisk (*) or through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's l
internal mail system as indicated by double asterisks ("), with copies by electronic mail as l
indicated.
Administrative Judge Office of Commission 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 (E-mail: tsm2@nrc.aov)
A'dministrative Judge Administrative Judge Jerry R. Kline" Frederick J. Shon" p
Atomic Safety and Lice:. sing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel l
Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC ~20555 Washington, DC 20555 (E-mail: irk 2@nre aov)
(E-mail: fis@nre aovi Sherwin E. Turk, Esq."
Stephen M. Kohn, Esq.*
Robert M. Weisman, Esq."
Michael D. Kohn, Esq.*
Mail Stop 15 318 -
Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, P.C.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3233 P Street, NW Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20007
-(E-mail: set @nre aov. rmw@nre ao_yj (E-mail: smk@whistleblowers. ora; mdk@whistleblowers oral L -.
n l..
l 0 50-295/304-LA Docket Nos.
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-99-04) l l
Michael I. Milier. Esq,*
David W. Jenkins. Senior Counsel *
.Sidley and Austiri Robert E. Helfnch, Senior Counsel
- l' One First National Plaza Commonwealth Edison Company Chicago,. IL 60603 Law Department Room 1535 (E-mail: mimiller@sidiev com) 125 South Clark Street, P.O. Box 767 Chicago,IL 60603 (E-mail: david w ienkins@uem.com; rqbert e helfrich@ucm.com)
/
01brw 'l WI w
Office of the Secretary ofthe CommisMon
~
Dated at Rockville. Maryland.
l this E day of March 1999
-