ML20239A045

Informs That NRC Staff Has Prepared Answer to Petition to Intervene Filed by E Dienethal,R Robarge & Committee for Safety at Plant Zion on 980818

ML20239A045
Person / Time
Site:	Zion  File:ZionSolutions icon.png
Issue date:	09/04/1998
From:	Sherwin Turk NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Kline J, Moore T, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#398-19490 LA-2, NUDOCS 9809080099
Download: ML20239A045 (1)

Text

/WP UNITED STATFS f

[km nerog'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00CKETED g

/ c, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20666-0001 USNRC

• - a

• September 4,1998

%,..."../ 36 SEP -4 P4 :08 OFFICE oF THE GENERAL COUNSEL OFFL _ . )F G , y RUL't l# <" F C Thomas S. Moore, Esq., Chairman Frederick J. ShorADJUD'C il: .

.TAFF Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 in the Matter of Commonwealth Edison Company (Zion Nuclear Power Station)

Docket Nos. 50-295/304-LA-2

Dear Administrative Judges:

In accordance with 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(c), the NRC Staff (" Staff") has prepared an answer to the

" Petition to Intervene" filed by Edwin Dienethal, Randy Robar0e and the Committee for Safety at Plant Zion on August 18,1998, which the Staff intended to file today. See "NRC Staff's Response to Request for Stay Filed by Petitioners Edwin Dienethal, Randy Robarge and Committee for Safety at Plant Zion," at i n.2. In part, the Staff's answer addresses the Commission's prohibition, in 10 C.F.R. S 50.58(b)(6), against petitions to intervene on "no significant hazards consideration" findings. See Id. at 5-6. On September 2,1998, however, prior to filing its answer to the Petition, the Staff received the Licensing Board's Order directing the Petitioners to show cause why the Petition "should not be dismissed as precluded by . . 10 C.F.R. S 60.58(b)(6)."

The Staff understands the Licensing Board's Order to establish a procedural approach whereby the Petitioners'show cause filing (and the Applicant's and Staff's responses thereto) would be considered as a threshold matter prior to the consideration of standing, the admissibility of contentions. and other issues. Inasmuch as the Order renders it premature for the Staff to file its answer to the Petition at this time, the Staff has determined that it should and will defer the filing of that answer pending the Licensing Board's consideration of responses to its Order and the issuance of further rulings in this procerding.

Sincerely, M

Sherwin E. Turk Counsel for NRC Staff cc: Service List 7 9909090099 990904 PDR ADOCK 05000295 0 PDR