ML20212G066
| ML20212G066 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 09/23/1999 |
| From: | Matthews J DUQUESNE LIGHT CO., MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212G064 | List: |
| References | |
| LT, NUDOCS 9909290074 | |
| Download: ML20212G066 (7) | |
Text
'.
R 1
\\
00CKETED i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA C
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'99 SP 27 P2 :18
)
[
, In the Matter of
)
F
)
FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR
)
Docket Nos.
J OPERATING COMPANY,
)
50-334-LT PENNSYLVANIA POWER COMPANY, )
50-412-LT
)
I And
)
)
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY
)
)
(BEAVER VALLEY POWER
)
(License Nos. DPR-66 STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2)
)
)
ANSWER OF DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY OPPOSING PETITION TO WAIVE TIME LIMITS AND SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS OF LOCAL 29, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERIlOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS I. INTRODUCTION Duquesne Light Company (DLC), one of the co-applicants in the above-captioned proceeding involving the proposed transfer of Operating Licenses No. DPR-66 and NPF-73 for the Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (BVPS),l' hereby respectfully submits the following Answer to the Petition to Waive Time Limits and Supplemental Comments of 1/
On May 5,1999, DLC and FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) filed a joint application requesting the consent of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) to the transfer of DLC's ownership interests in BVPS to Pennsylvania Power Company and DLC's operating authority over BVPS to FENOC and the approval of certain conforming administrative license amendments associated with the transfer (Application).
9909290074 990923 PDR ADOCK 05000334 O
y-
- i i
Local 29, Intemational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Local 29), dated September 15,1999.
l In its petition, Local 29, on behalf ofits members, (A) seeks leave to interject at the eleventh i
l hour untimely " Supplemental Comments" regarding issues that are collateral to the pending Application, (B) requests that the NRC hold hearings or other proceedings which are both untimely requested and outside the scope of the NRC's rules governing the consideration of license transfer applications, and (C) seeks to raise irrelevant and immaterial issues and to impose requirements on the Applicants beyond those provided for by the NRC's rules and s
practice. DLC respectfully requests that the Commission deny Local 29's Petition and decline to invoke the various extraordinary procedures requested therein.
II.
DISCUSSION A.
Local 29's Supplemental Comments are Untimely As discussed in greater detail in the " Answer of FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company and Pennsylvania Power Company in opposition to Petition to Waive Time Limits and Supplemental Conunents of Local 29, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers" dated September 21,1999, Local 29's Supplemental Comments are untimely, and its request for leave to file late fails to meet the NRC's five factor test for untimely intervention. See 10 CFR
{ 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v). DLC submits that Local 29 has failed to show good cause for its late-filed Supplemental Comments. Acceptance of the union's comments under these circumstances would be unfair and is inconsistent with "the public interest in the timely and orderly conduct of i
[NRC] proceedings." Houston Lighting & Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-549,9 NRC 644,648-649 (1979).
3 i
.B.
Local 29 Requests Extraordinary Hearing Procedures Which Are Untimely and Outside the Scope of the Governing Rules
. In promulgating the " Streamlined Hearing Process for NRC Approval of License Transfers," the Commission explicitly acknowledged "the need for expeditious decision making from all agencies, including the Commission," for transactions involving license transfers, and
. opined that " timely and effective requests for transfers on the part of the Commission is essential." 63 FR 66721,66721 (Dec. 3,1998). Therefore, the Commission developed procedures which were " designed to provide for public participation in the event of requests for hearing under these provisions, while at the same time providing an efficient process that recognizes the time-sensitivity normally present in transfer cases." 63 FR at 66722. As such, the j
Commission's procedures were fashioned to " provide a fair process to consider any issues raised 4
conceming license transfers while still proceeding in an expedited manner." Id.
In accordance with the procedures set forth in Subpart M, Local 29 filed a timely petition to intervene regarding the pending Application on June 3,1999. At that time, Local 29 explicitly stated that it was not requesting a hearing, and thus, in the absence of such a request, the Commission had no choice but to deny the petition and determine to treat it "as a submission of comments on the license transfer application." CLI-99-23,49 NRC (July 23,1999). Now, at the eleventh hour in the NRC's review process, Local 29 seeks to interject additional comments and request extraordinary hearing proce' ures that are provided for nowhere in the d
NRC's rules governing the streamlined hearing process for license transfer applications. These extraordinary hearing procedures conflict with the very underlying purpose of the Subpart M rules, and granting any such requests not only would unfairly prejudice the Applicants involved 4
i
)
p.
L l
l I-here, but also would undennine the public interest in a fair and orderly decision making process
- for reviewing license transfer applications l C.
Local 29's Supplemental Comments Raise Issues that are Irrelevant, Immaterial and Beyond the Scope of NRC's Requirements Local 29's Supplemental Comments must also be rejected because the staffing
)
issues raised in the petition are not relevant and material to the findings the Commission must make to consent to the BVPS license transfer and approve the conforming administrative license amendments associated with the transfer.10 CFR 0 2.1306(b)(2)(ii). NRC regulations provide that Applicants must submit their organizational structure for NRC review, and the regulations establish specific operator and senior operator staffing requirements. See 10 CFR Q 50.34(b)(6),
50.54(m). DLC currently meets these NRC requirements, and FENOC has committed to continue to meet all of these requirements after the license transfer occurs. Application at 10-11.
j In evaluating license transfer applications, the Commission does not require applicants to demonstrate that the staffing levels will exceed the requirements set forth in NRC regulations or the plant's licensing basis. Accordingly, the issues which Local 29 seeks to raise are not relevant and material to the findings that the Commission must make in this proceeding.
To the extent that Local 29 is advocating that the Commission impose stricter requirements on FENOC in connection with the proposed license transfer than those imposed by the Commission's own regulations, such a contention constitutes a collateral attack on those regulations. However, petitioners are not permitted to raise issues that collaterally attack the Commission's regulations in licensing proceedings. Seabrook CLI-99-06,49 NRC at
, slip op. at 15; see also Public Service Company ofNew Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
5
G.
1 LBP-82-106,' 16 NRC 1649,1656 (1982); accord Private Fuel Storage (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142,179 (1998).
DLC remains committed to assuring that BVPS staffing levels throughout the transition process will comply with all NRC requirements. Moreover, contrary to Local 29's speculation, j
the additional personnel, resources, and nuclear operating experience available to FENOC I
through its operation of multiple nuclear units at multiple sites, coupled with the operating experience of the BVPS nuclear organization being transferred to FENOC by DLC, will likely enhance the continued safe operation of BVPS. Thus, Local 29's Supplemental Comments are not only untimely, but also substantively unfounded.
j CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, DLC respectfully requests that the Commission deny Local 29's request for leave to file untimely Supplemental Comments. DLC also reiterates the Applicants' request that NRC review and approve the pending Application by September 30, 1999.
Respec y submitted, f/
/
i
[8 ohn E. Matthews Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1800 M Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20036-5869 202-467-7000 Fax: 202-467-7176 E-mail: jematthews@mlb.com j
6
)
p.
l' l.
1 l
Larry R. Crayne Assistant General Counsel Duquesne Light Company 411 Seventh Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 412-393-6049 Fax: 412-393-6645 E-mail: larry _r_crayne@dic.dge.com Counsel for Duquesne Light Company 1
3 i
j
\\
(.
7 l
i L
FS l
e l
00CKETED USNRC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l
I hereby certify that copies of the ' Answer of Duquesne Light CEpa5y tNet (Snd
. Waive Time limits and Supplemental Comments of Local 29, International Brotherhood of 1
Electrica! Workers were served upon the persons listed below by e-eail or facsimile, with a l
conforming copy deposited in the U.S. mail, first class, postage pregthis 23rd day of g September,1999.
l Office of the Secretary.
Office of the Commission Appellate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Adjudication Attn:. Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
- (E-mail: secy@nrc. gov,elj@nrc. gov)
(E-mail:jfc@nrc. gov)
Office of the General Counsel Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P.
Washington, D.C. 20555 1333 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.
(E-mail:ogcit@nrc. gov)
Washington, D.C. 20036 1
(E-mail: riessy@akingump.com)
Scott J. Rubin, Esq.
3 Lost Creek Drive Mary E. O'Reilly, Esq.
Selinsgrove,PA 17870 FirstEnergy Corp.
i
'(E-mail: sjrubin@ptd. net) 76 South Main Street Akron,OH 44308
)
l (E-mail: meorcilly@firstenergycorp.com) 2m fohn E. Matthews Counsel for Duquesne Light Company 8
l
,