ML20236J113
| ML20236J113 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/01/1998 |
| From: | Jenkins D COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#398-19279 98-744-04-LA, 98-744-4-LA, LA, NUDOCS 9807080053 | |
| Download: ML20236J113 (14) | |
Text
- - - - - - - - - - -- --- ----- -- __
h DOCKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION % JUL -6 P1 :10 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BQARDg . g gn ,g RUL E"J ' e ': _ .D ADJUOKA % TAcF In the Matter of: )
) Docket No. 50-295/304-LA COMMONWEALTH EDISON )
COMPANY ) ASLBP No. 98-744-04-LA
)
(Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2) )
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY'S ANSWER TO PETITION TO INTERVENE I. Introduction l
In accordance with 10 C.F.R. Section 2.714(c), Commonwealth Edison Company
(" Comed"), licensee in the above-captioned matter, hereby files its answer to the petition for leave to intervene (" Petition") submitted by Mr. Edwin D. Dienethal (" Petitioner")
dated June 4,1998. The Petition responds to a May 6,1998 notice of proposed determination by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) statTthat the issuance of 4 certain operating license amendments to Comed for the Zion Nuclear Power Station
(" Zion" or " Zion Station") would involve no significant hazards considerations. I a
1 As desenbed further in Comed's Answer to the Petition to Intervene, Petitioner has provided no basis for standing but asserts that additional information that will allegedly preside this basis will be ,
forthconung in an amended petition. It is not clear why Petitioner could not include this additional j infonnation in the original Petition, but expects the Board and Comed to await an amended petition. !
Comed respectfully requests the Board to direct Petitioner to file his amended petition as soon as {
practicable to avoid redundant pleadings and unnecessary delay, and to permit Comed to respond once an actual purponed basis for standing is aniculated. ]
4 i
l !
l 9807080053 980701 F" PDR ADOCK 05000295 i O PDR i
l psos {
' ]
. e-i l
The amendments to Facility Operating Licenses DPR-39 and DPR-40 consist of I changes to the Zion Technical Specifications that have been proposed by Comed to l facilitate plant activities following the permanent shutdown and defueling that occurred in early 1998. Specifically, the amendments would withdraw the " Improved Technical Specifications" that were approved by the NRC in December 1997 but were never implemented due to the decision to permanently close the station. The station would thus -
continue to use the " Custom Technical Specifications" that were previously approved and ;
have been in use for many years. 2 Withdrawal of the ITS therefore simply maintains the status gug at Zion Station. '
The amendments would also modify the Custom Technical Specifications (CTS) l 4
to:_ (1) eliminate verbiage implying the units are operational; (2) allow the use of Certified ;
I Fuel Handlers to satisfy certain shift staffing requirements; and (3) change management titles and responsibilities to reflect a management structure appropriate for a permanently shutdown facility.
The amendments also provide for staffing levels fully adequate to ensure safety in I l
the units' permanent defueled and shutdown condition and compliance with NRC !
J regulations. It should be noted that the Custom Technical Specifications currently in force at Zion (as well as the ITS) contain no requirement that a Shift Control Room Engineer be present when both reactors are defueled. Funher, the proposed staffing levels for ;
j i
2 - The'" Improved Technical Specifications" (ITS) were sought by Comed and approved by the NRC at a time when it was thought that Zion would continue to operate for a number ofyears. However, the i necessary procedural changes were not implemented and the ITS have never been used at Zion. The Custom Technical Specifications, which remain approved for Zion Station, continue to be used. i rx
- l. 2 L __- _ _ _ _ _ - - - - -- - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ --_---------____--__-____--__--_____---_______-_a
radiation protection personnel is consistent with that approved in the ITS. Therefore, the
- proposed amendments make no changes in this regard.
The Petition submitted by Mr. Dienethal alleges, as grounds for standing to intervene, that Mr. Dienethal resides within 50 miles of the Zion Nuclear Station. The Petition also alleges general health, safety, and property interests due to proximity to the Zion Station and broadly asserts that these interests would be protected by a decision in favor of Petitioner. However, the Petition does not describe any specific injury that Petitioner will suffer, does not explain how any injury would flow from the proposed amendments, and does not specify how denial of the proposed amendments would prevent such injury.J Accordingly, the Petition fails to establish a basis for standing, and therefore, intervention must be denied.
1 H. : The NRC's Standine Requirements NRC's standing requirements are well established.' Under 10 C.F.R. Section
- 2.714(a)(2), to establish standing the person seeking intervention must submit a Petition which shall:
. setforth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, including the reasons why petitioner should be permitted to intervene, with particular reference to the factors in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, 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. Section 2.714(a)(2) (emphasis added). ,
I 3
Ei_________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ .
In the Yankee Atomic decommissioning case, the Commission recently summarized the requirements for establishing standing in NRC license amendment proceedings.
In order to establish standing to intervene in a
, proceeding, a petitioner must demonstrate that: (1)it
- i. has suffered a distinct and palpable harm that constitutes b injury-in-fact within the zone ofinterest arguably protected by the governing statute; (2) the injury can fairly be traced to the challenged action; and (3) the -
injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.
l ; Yankee Atomic Electric Comoany (Yankee Nuclear Power Station) CLI 96-1,43 NRC 1,
- 6 (1996). Ssg generally, Luian v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61,112 S.Ct.
2130,2136'(1992); Dellums v. NRC. 863 F.2d 968,971 (D.C. Cir,1988).
L As demonstrated below, the Petition meets none of these requirements.
I l
l-IIL The Petition Fails To Meet the NRC's Standine Requirements
- Petitioner asserts that his residence is within 50 miles of Zion Station and relies on
- this proximity as the basis for his alleged right to participate in the license amendment
. proceeding. However, proximity alone is insufficient to establish the Petitioner's standing
(-
' to intervene in this case. Moreover, Petitioner has not alleged any specific offsite consequences or " injury in fact" that would result from the license amendments and fails to state how such injury would flow from the proposed amendments or how such injury L might be redressed by a decision in his favor. Therefore, the petition to intervene should be denied.
1 1
4 l
i i.
A. : Geographic Proximity. Without More. Does not Establish Standina In License Amendment Proceedings Petitioner's stated basis for standing to intervene in this proceeding is his assertion )
i that he is "a resident of Kenosha, Wisconsin who resides within fifty miles of Zion Nuclear Station and for other reasons which will be stated in my' amended petition." Petition at 1.
Petitioner evidently attempts to invoke the "50 mile presumption" that the NRC has i
recognized in cases involving construction permits and initial operating licenses. Egg, gg, I i
Virginia Electric Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-
' 522,9 NRC 54 (1979).
i However, a different standard applies to proceedings involving license amendments. Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), LBP-85-24,22 NRC 97 (1985). In license amendment proceedings, standing is conferred only when the Petitioner demonstrates some specific injury-in-fact from the proposed action that extends to his residence. 22 NRC at 97-99. Sgg Northeast Nuclear Enerav Comoany (Millstone
- Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2), LPB 92-28,36 NRC 202,212 (1992). The fact that a Petitioner may reside within a 50-mile radius is not alone sufficient to establish standing to intervene in'a license amendment proceeding. Florida Power and Light Co (St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2), CLI 89-21,30 NRC 325 (1989).- The Commission explained that a Petitioner's residence within 50 miles of a nuclear facility was insufficient, by itself, to I establish standing where the proceeding did not have a clear potential for offsite
- l L consequences. 30 NRC at 329-30.
1 5
^
6 L--=---_-_------------ - . - - - - _ _ -
In this case, the proposed action involves reinstatement of previously approved requirements and administrative changes, with no obvious offsite consequences. In I
addition, the Petition fails to describe any specific injury that would extend to Petitioner's '
residence. - Accordingly, Petitioner does not establish standing to intervene in this proceeding and the Petition should be denied. ,
1
(
B. Ihe Petition Fails to Set Forth Any Panicularized Iniurv-In-Fact Tracaahle l to the Proposed License Amendments for Which ReliefCould Be Granted - I The Petition claims broadly that "the operations at Zion Nuclear Station impact the health and safety of myself and my family, as well as the health and safety of the community," and alleges that Petitioner's property and financial interests would be affected, but does not specify any particular harm that might occur. Petition at 1.
Such broad allegations and abstract hypothetical injuries are insufficient to
- establish standing to intervene. Ohio Edison Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), and Cleveland Electric illuminating Co. and Toledo Edison Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1; Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-91-38,34 NRC 229,252 (1991), aff'd in part on other grounds and aopeal denied. CLI-92-11,36 NRC 47 (1992).
To confer standing, the alleged future injury must be realistic and immediate and not j merely speculative. En Envirocare of Utah. Inc.. LBP 92-8,35 NRC 167,- 178-79 l
(1992); 1eauovah Fuels Coro. and General Atomics (Gore, Oklahoma Site), CL1-94-12,
'40 NRC 64 74 (1994).
' There must also be a concrete demonstration that harm could flow from a result of -
i' the proceeding. Nuclear Engineering Co. Inc. (Sheffield, Ill. Low-level Radioactive Waste l
l 6
h h e L
Disposal Site) ALAB-473,7 NRC 737,743 (19'78). For an amendment case such as this one, the Commission has held that a Petitioner must allege a clear potential for offsite consequences resulting from the amendment at issue. Elp_rkla Power and Light. 30 NRC at 329,330.
' Petitioner's assertion of general health, safety, property, and financial interests in the proceeding falls well short of these requirements. Petitioner fails to set fcnh any particularized harm or injury that he might suffer as a result of the proposed amendments, has not described any clear potential for offsite consequences, and does not explain any mechanism by which harm might occur.
Similarly, the " contentions" raised by the Petitioner (Petition at 2) do not allege l any injury resulting from changes made by the proposed amendments. 3 With respect to
" contention" A, neither the Custom Technical Specifications nor the Improved Technical Specifications, each previously reviewed and approved by the NRC, require a Shift Control Room Engineer in the current plant configuration (reactors shutdown and defueled). The proposed radiation protection staffing was previously approved by the NRC in the ITS Amendments (Contention B). Furthermore, contrary to contention C, !
under the proposed amendments, shift staffing is e:onsistent with that approved for other plants certified as permanently defueled. Thus, none of the " contentions" allege a specific i
- 3. Pursuant to the process desenbed in 10 C.F.R. 2.714, contentions are to be advanced only after standing has been confe:Ted and a date for a pre-hearing conference selectal. Accordingly, the
" contentions" advanced in the petition are premature. Comed believes thesc " contentions" do not meet the NRC's requirements for admissibility in a licensing proceeding. However, because standing has not been conferred, and because the " contentions" are premature, we have not attempted to respond specifically to them at this time.
's
offsite injury that would result from the proposed amendments. Accordingly, these
" contentions" also fail to establish a basis for standing. 4 IV. Conclusion For reasons set forth above, Petitioner's request for hearing and petition to intervene does not satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Section 2.714. Accordingly, the Petition should be denied.
Respectfully Submitted, David W. Ankins COMM -
T DISON COMPANY Law Department, Room 1535 125 South Clark Street P.O. Box 767 Chicago,IL 60603 (312)394-8230 4 As a separate matter, petitioner states that he possesses information concerning "the threat to public health and safety posed by Zion Station". Petition at 1 but does not explain what this threat is or how it relates to the proposed amendments. To the extent that thi,50sgation concems historic procedure violations, the allegation is more properly addressed by the f CC staff, and thus not relevant here.
The focus of this proceeding is prospective only -- the proposed action involves changes to the Zion technical specifications and plant organization to reflect the station's changes to shutdowTi status.
Other matters not relevar.t to these changes are not properly within the scope of the proceeding and do not form a basis for standing to intervene. Srs Yankee Atomic. 43 NRC at 9.
8 I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ __ _ _ _ .___.___..__.___._J
- m. . . .
l.
1 -
l!
l Robert E. Helfrich COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY Law Department, Room 1535 123 South Clark Street P.O. Box 767 l
Chicago,IL 60603 (312) 394-4970 Philip E. Troy 6531 Chestnut Grove Lane i Charlotte, NC 28210 (312)394-5306 ATTORNEYS FOR l COMMONWEALTH EDISON l COMPANY
- Dated in Chicago,IL This 1" day of July,1998 l
l-9 1 _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
W.
l I
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMB.IISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD j In the Matter of: )
) Docket No. 50-295/304-LA COMMONWEALTH EDISON )
COMPANY ) ASLBP No. 98-744-04-LA
)
(Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2) )
i NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney herewith enters an appearance in the above captioned matter. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. Section 2.713(b), the following information is provided:
Name: David W. Jenkins, Senior Counsel Address: Commonwealth Edison Company Law Department Room 1535 125 South Clark Street P.O. Box 767 Chicago,IL 60603 E-Mail: David.W.Jenkinsguem.com Telephone Number: (312)394-8230
' Facsimile Number: (312)394-3456
' Admissions: Supreme Court ofIllinois Supreme Court of Maryland Name of Party: Commonwealth Edison Company 10 South Dearborn Sjsp
- o. IL 60603 f i
[
-Chicag%D ME d tvid W. Je' s,Se r Counsel Commonwealth ompany Counsel for Commonwealth Edison Company Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 1st day of July,1998 t
'10
___ _ - - - - - - - .-- l
l l
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD in the Matter of: )
) Docket No. 50-295/304-LA COMMONWEALTH EDISON )
COMPANY -) ASLBP No. 98-744-04-LA
)
(Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2) )
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney herewith enters an appearance in the above captioned matter. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. Section 2.713(b), the following information is provided:
Name: Roben E. Helfrich, Senior Counsel Address: Commonwealth Edison Company Law Department Room 1535 125 South Clark Street j P.O. Box 767 Chicago,IL 60603 !
i E-Mail: Roben.E.Helfrich%ucm com Telephone Number: (312) 394-4970 Facsimile Number: (312) 394-3456 Admissions: Supreme Judicial Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts District of Columbia Coun of Appeals Name of Pany: Commonwealth Edison Company 10 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 03 i 7 gv$1b ,1 1: --
Roben E. Helf Senior Counsel Commonwealth ' son Company Counsel for Commonwealth Edison Company !
Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 1st day of July, ifs 8 i 11
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
In the Matter of: )
) Docket No. 50-295/304-LA COMMONWEALTH EDISON )
COMPANY ) ASLBP No. 98-744-04-LA
)
(Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2) )
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney herewith entcrs an appearance in the above captioned matter. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. Section 2.713(b), the following information is provided:
Name: Philip E. Troy Address: 6531 Chestnut Grove Lane Charlotte, NC 28210 E-Mail: PETroy@msn.com Philip.E. Troy @uem com Telephone Number: (312) 394-5306 (704) 643-7047 Facsunile Number: (312)394-3456 Admissions: Supreme Court of Louisiana Name of Party: Commonwealth Edison Company 10 South Dearborn Street Chicago,IL 60603 V
Philip E. Troy C Counsel for Commonwealth Edison Company (
Dated at Chicago, Illinois //
this 1st day of July,1998 12
l l
L DOCKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 118 JL -6 P1 :10 OFF*CE OF SEO ?uiny !
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 1ULEMAIC G /ND I ADJUDCha! ORS GTAFF. l l
In the Matter of: ) i
) Docket No. 50-295/304-LA Commonwealth Edison Company )
)
(Zion Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) )
t .- ,
I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby ccmfy that copies of" COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY'S ANSWER TO REQUEST TO INTERVENE: APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO FACITLITY OPERATING LICENSE," and a " NOTICE OF APPEARENCE" for Roben E. Helfrich. David W. Jenkms, and Philip E. Troy in the above-captioned proceedmg, have been served on the l following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 1st day of July,1998, in addition,_
l for those parties marked by an asterisk (*), a courtesy copy has been provided this same day by e- ;
' mail.
i Edwm D. Dienethal . Dr. Jerry R. Kline *
' l 8354 47* Coun ' Administrative Judge Kenosha,WI 53142 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion '
{
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 !
l l . Office of the Secretarv Dr. Frederick J. Shon
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion l Administrative Judge i Washmgton, DC 20555 - Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Attn: Rulemakmg and Adjudications U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (original and two copies) Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 l
Adjudicatory File 'lhomas S. Moore *
. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel ' Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washmgton, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washmgton, DC 20555-0001 i
13
t i
OfYice of Commission Appellate Sherwin E. Turk. Esq.
- Adjudication Robert M. Weisman, Esq.
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 I
o -
David W. kakms Senior Counsel Commonwealth Edison ompany
)
I i
l 1
i i
I l 14 )
i l l
e-____-___-_______