ML062070668
| ML062070668 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs, Nine Mile Point, Saint Lucie, Seabrook, Turkey Point, Ginna, Duane Arnold  |
| Issue date: | 07/26/2006 |
| From: | Annette Vietti-Cook NRC/SECY |
| To: | |
| Byrdsong A T | |
| References | |
| 50-220-LT-3, 50-244-LT-2, 50-250-LT, 50-251-LT, 50-317-LT-2, 50-318-LT-2, 50-331-LT, 50-335-LT, 50-389-LT, 50-410-LT-3, 50-443-LT, 72-8-LT-2, CLI-06-21, RAS 12032 | |
| Download: ML062070668 (8) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RAS 12032 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:
DOCKETED 07/26/06 Dale E. Klein, Chairman SERVED 07/26/06 Edward McGaffigan, Jr.
Jeffrey S. Merrifield Gregory B. Jaczko Peter B. Lyons
)
In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-250-LT FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. ) 50-251-LT FPL ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC ) 50-335-LT FPL ENERGY DUANE ARNOLD, LLC ) 50-389-LT CONSTELLATION ENERGY GROUP, INC. ) 50-443-LT
) 50-331-LT (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 & 2; )
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, ISFSI; ) 50-317-LT-2 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 & 2; ) 50-318-LT-2 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant ) 72-8-LT-2 Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 3 & 4; ) 50-220-LT-3 St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2; ) 50-410-LT-3 Seabrook Station; ) 50-244-LT-2 Duane Arnold Energy Center) )
)
CLI-06-21 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This proceeding stems from the Applications of FPL Group, Inc., and the Constellation Energy Group, Inc. (collectively, the parent corporations of various NRC licensees) for approval of the indirect transfers of the operating licenses for the captioned Turkey Point, St.
Lucie, Seabrook and Duane Arnold facilities. The parent corporations seek approval of these indirect license transfers as necessary to those corporations pending merger. The parent corporations also request a threshold determination that no indirect transfer of control over the captioned Calvert Cliffs, Nine Mile Point and R.E. Ginna facilities requires Commission approval pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §§ 50.80 and 72.50 in connection with the merger.
On June 6, 2006, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 97 (the Union) petitioned to intervene and sought a hearing to challenge the Applications, including the request for a threshold determination.1 We deny the Unions hearing and intervention requests.
BACKGROUND The Union represents employees at the Nine Mile Point facility - employees whose employment and financial well-being2 will, according to the Union, be adversely affected by the consummation of the proposed merger. The Union asserts that Nine Mile Points management intends to reduce the facilitys already-insufficient staffing level by 22 percent (more than 250 employees). According to the Union, this reduction in force would adversely affect the operation of Nine Mile Point in general and the facilitys Emergency Plan in particular.
The Union directs our attention to two specific changes which it believes to have safety implications. First, the Union claims that Constellation intends to abolish all eight existing Chief Firefighter positions. The occupants of these positions are trained not only as firefighters but also as emergency medical technicians. According to the Union, Constellation plans to replace them with auxiliary operators who have minimal firefighting and first aid training.3 Second, the Union claims that Constellation intends to run less frequently its preventive maintenance, corrective maintenance, elective maintenance, and surveillance testing programs, or move them to a run to fail status.4 1
The Unions pleadings are styled Petition to File Motion to Intervene and Protest Out-of-Time (Petition) and Motion for Hearing and Right to Intervene and Protest (Motion).
2 Motion at 3.
3 Id. at 4.
4 Id. at 5.
DISCUSSION As the Union acknowledges, its filings are untimely. Our notices of opportunity for hearing with regard to the Applications specified that potential parties must file their petitions to intervene no later than March 14, 2006.5 The Unions June 6th filings are therefore nearly three months late. As such, they must satisfy not only our requirements that intervenors demonstrate standing (10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d)) and submit at least one admissible contention (10 C.F.R.
§ 2.309(f)(1)), but also our stringent requirements for untimely filings (10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)) and late-filed contentions (10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2)).
A. Tardiness of Pleadings The Union seeks to excuse the tardiness of its filing by explaining that it initially believed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was the appropriate forum for its arguments, and only belatedly realized that it could also present various operating and safety arguments before the NRC. We find this explanation insufficient. As we stated in another license transfer decision, [w]e cannot agree that [the petitioners] failure to read carefully the governing procedural regulations constitutes good cause for accepting its late-filed petition.6 In addition, the Unions petition makes little effort to meet our requirements governing late-filed contentions. The Union does not address any of the factors in section 2.309(f)(2),
which provides for consideration of late-filed new contentions only ... upon a showing that::
(i) [t]he information upon which the . . . new contention is based was not previously available; (ii) [t]he information . . . is materially different than information previously available; and (iii) [t]he . . . new contention has been submitted in a timely fashion based on the availability of the subsequent information.
5 71 Fed. Reg. 9168-9176 (Feb. 22, 2006).
6 North Atlantic Energy Service Corp. (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), CLI-99-6, 49 NRC 201, 223 (1999).
Likewise, the Union does not address two of the factors specified in section 2.309(c)(1) regarding untimely filings:
(v) The availability of other means whereby the . . . petitioners interest will be protected; [and]
(vii) The extent to which the . . . petitioners participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
Section 2.309(c)(2) clearly provides that a petitioner shall address all eight factors set forth in section 2.309(c)(1).
The Unions failure to comply with our pleading requirements for late filings constitutes sufficient grounds for rejecting its intervention and hearing requests.
B. Failure to Submit an Admissible Contention Section 2.309(f)(1) provides that a petitioner must set forth with particularity the contentions sought to be raised. The Union has not done so. Although we are disinclined to step into the middle of a labor dispute7 or involve [ourselves] in the personnel decisions of licensees,8 we have recognized that there may be cases where employment-related contentions which are closely tied to specific health-and-safety concerns or to potential violations of NRC rules[] can be admitted for a hearing.9 But in this case, the Unions health-and-safety assertions are much too general to warrant a hearing. It is not enough under our contention-pleading rules -- whose hallmark is specificity10 -- simply to say that a merger will result in personnel reductions that will adversely affect safety. General assertions, unsupported 7
Power Authority of the State of New York (James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant; Indian Point Unit 3), CLI-00-22, 52 NRC 266, 314 (2000).
8 Id. at 316.
9 Id. at 315.
10 Northeast Nuclear Energy Co. and Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.
(Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), CLI-00-18, 52 NRC 129, 132 (2000).
by specific facts or expert opinion, that personnel reductions may adversely affect health and safety are inadmissible.11 The Union provided no such factual or expert support, by affidavit or otherwise.
C. Lack of Standing To establish standing, the Union must show (among other things) that its potential injury is fairly traceable to a grant of the Applications (i.e., to the approval of the indirect license transfers). The Union describes no causal nexus at all between the asserted potential injury to its members employment and financial well-being and the indirect transfer of licenses for the Turkey Point, St. Lucie, Seabrook, Duane Arnold, Calvert Cliffs, and R.E. Ginna facilities.
Indeed, the Union does not even claim to represent employees at those facilities. We therefore find that the Union lacks standing to intervene insofar as the Applications concern those six facilities.
As for the remaining facility, Nine Mile Point, the Union does assert a causal link between the proposed merger and the personnel decisions. Yet the Union provides no factual support (i.e., affidavits) for this proposition, instead resting its assertions on speculation. This shortcoming is particularly damaging given the Unions acknowledgment that the personnel actions of which it complains were planned in late 2004 and beg[u]n in earnest in January 2005"12 - at least a year before the parent corporations filed their Applications. For these reasons, we find that the Union has failed to establish a link between the Nine Mile Point license transfers and safety concerns sufficient to show standing to challenge the indirect transfers.
11 FitzPatrick, CLI-00-22, 52 NRC at 315.
12 Motion at 4.
CONCLUSION We deny the Unions intervention and hearing requests.
For the Commission
/RA/
Annette L. Vietti-Cook Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of July, 2006.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant, ) Docket Nos. 50-250/251-LT Units 3 and 4 )
St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 ) 50-335/389-LT Seabrook Station ) 50-443-LT Duane Arnold Energy Center ) 50-331-LT Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, ) Docket Nos. 50-317/318-LT-2 Units 1 and 2 )
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, ISFSI ) 72-8-LT-2 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, ) 50-220/410-LT-3 Units 1 and 2 )
R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant ) 50-244-LT-2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-06-21) have been served upon the following persons by electronic mail this date, followed by deposit of paper copies in the U.S. mail, first class, or through NRC internal mail on July 27, 2006.
Office of Commission Appellate Susan L. Uttal, Esq.
Adjudication Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop - O-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: slu@nrc.gov Richard J. Koda Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq.
KODA CONSULTING, Inc. John E. Matthews, Esq.
Consultant to Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP Local 97, IBEW 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 409 Main Street Washington, DC 20005 Ridgefield, CT 06877-4511 E-mail: jgutierrez@morganlewis.com; E-mail: rjkoda@javanet.com jmatthews@morganlewis.com Carey W. Fleming, Esq. David R. Lewis, Esq.
Constellation Generation Group, LLC Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 750 E. Pratt Street, 17th Floor 2300 N Street, NW Baltimore, MD 21202 Washington, DC 20037-1128 E-mail: carey.fleming@constellation.com E-mail: david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com
2 Docket Nos. 50-250/251, et al.
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-06-21)
Mitchell S. Ross, Esq.
Associate General Counsel Florida Power & Light Company 700 Universe Boulevard Juno Beach, FL 33408 E-mail: mitch_ross@fpl.com
[Original signed by Evangeline S. Ngbea]
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 26th day of July 2006