ML19351C879
| ML19351C879 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 10/03/1980 |
| From: | Baxter T, Charnoff G SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, UNION ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8010080251 | |
| Download: ML19351C879 (6) | |
Text
-
October 3, 1980 A
.5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l'?
fo h
qp, %Vac NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN
~
E %of b$
BEFORE THE COMMISSION kie N
In the Matter of
)
6 g
)
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-483
)
STN 50-486 (Callaway Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO THE REQUESTS FOR A HEARING FILED BY THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MISSOURI, Alm BY MARJORIE REILLY, ENERGY CHAIRMAN, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF UNIVERSITY CITY, MISSOURI On August 19, 1980, the NRC issued in the above-captioned dockets a notice of Receipt of Application for Facility Operating Licenses, Consideration of Issuance of Facility Operating Licenses and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing ("the Notice").
See 45 Fed. Reg. 56956 (August 26, 1980).
The Notice provided, inter l
alia, that by September 25, 1980, any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding may file a petition for leave to intervene, and that requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commis-sion's Rules of Practice, 10 C.F.R. Part 2.
On September 18 and 19, respectively, two virtually identical Requests for Hearing were filed by Marjorie Reilly, Energy Chairman, League of Women Voters of University City, Missouri, and by the League of Women Voters of Missouri ("the Requests").
Both Requests ask that a public hearing be convened in order to permit members of the League of Women Voters to o
801o go M S
o
. 1 make a limited appearance at such a hearing.
Neither petitioner seeks to intervene as a party in the requested hearing.
Neither Request meets the requirements of 10 C.F.R.
S 2.714, applicable to petitions for leave to intervene.
Applicant therefore opposes both Requests.
Since the Requests clearly were drafted conjointly, l
Applicant is responding to them in the same fashion.
Applicant does not oppose either Request insofar as it entitles members of the League of Women Voters of Missouri, including members of the branch of the League of Women Voters of Missouri located in University City, Missouri, to make limited appearances at a hearing properly convened in response to a petition for leave to intervene filed in accordance with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 2.
Since neither Request meets these requirements, however, Applicant would oppose the convening of a hearing on the basis of either Request.
Initially, Applicant opposes granting the Requests because the petitioners do not seek the intervening party status prerequisite to convening a hearing pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.714.
Rather, they seek 10 C.F.R. S 2.715 (a) limited appearance status.
Thus, on the basis of the interest ex-1 pressed by the Requests, a hearing ought not to be convened.
Moreover, in several other aspects, both Requests fail to meet the requirements set forth in 10 C.F.R. S 2.714.
As specified in the Notice:
As required by 10 CFR 52.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest,of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may
= _ - - -
be affected by the results of the proceeding.
The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with parti-cular reference to the following factors:
(1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the pro-caeding on the petitioner's interest.
The petition should also identify the specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of the pro-ceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene.
Any person who has filed a peti-tion for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amenu his petition, but such an amended petition ruust satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
45 Fed. Reg. at 56957.
In addition to the fact that neither Request asks for or explains the reasons why intervention status should be granted, the Requests also fail to include the necessary showing of standing.
In order for an organization to be admitted as an intervenor, it must show that the individual j
members of the organizaticn would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right.
Houston Lighting & Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377, 393 (1979) citing Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S.
333, 343 (1977).
While both Requests rely generally on the one hundred mile proximity of the members of the League of Women Voters, including the Univer-sity City branch, to the callaway site in asserting their interest in the requested hearing, standing is not described with particularity in either Request.
To the extent Marjorie
J
_4_
Reilly seeks intervention status as an individual, her Request fails to state her personal standing.
Finally, Applicant also disputes the relevancy of the subject matter in which the Requests express an interest.
A purely economic interest, as ratepayers, in an NRC licensing pro-ceeding is an insufficient basis for permitting intervention.
i The Detroit Edison Company (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, i
j Unit No. 2), ALAB-470, 7 NRC 473, 476 (1978).
Petitioners' concerns in this regard therefore are inapposite.
Aside from this concern, petitioners' interest in the financial capability I
of Applicant is tied to their doubts about the need for the power which would be generated by callaway Plant, Unit 2.
But as j
Applicant indicated in its October 19, 1979 application filed with the NRC, it is currently seeking the issuance only of an operating license for Callaway Plant, Unit 1.
Applicant also has requested that the NRC staff review bhe Standardized Nuclear Unit Power Plant System (SNUPPS) FSAR as it applies to Unit 2.
However, Applicant does not currently seek the issuance of a license to operate Callaway Plant, Unit 2, construction of which is scheduled to be completed in October, 1987.
Consequently, insofar as the interest expressed in either Request relates to the need for Unit 2, the Request is not ripe for consideration.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE i
Gerald Charnoff Thomas A.
Baxter Deborah L.
Bernstein Counsel for Applicants 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Dated:
October 3, 1980 (202) 331-4100
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFOPE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
) Docket Nos. STN 50-483 UNION ELECTftIC COMPANY
)
STN 50-486
)
(Cc11away Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
\\
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing
" Applicant.'s Answer to the Requests for a Hearing Filed by the League of Women Voters of Missouri, and by Majorie Reilly, Enargy Chairaan, League of Women Voters of Ur.iversity City, Miccouri" were served this 3rd day of October,1980, by deposit in the U.S.
mas.1, first class, postage prepaid, upon the following:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Roy P.
Lessy, Jr., Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Joseph E.
Birk, Esquire Assistant to the General Counsel Union Electric Company P.O. Box 149 St. Louis, Missouri 63166