ML19347B443
| ML19347B443 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 10/09/1980 |
| From: | Lessy R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8010150082 | |
| Download: ML19347B443 (5) | |
Text
,
10/09/80 UNITED STATES OF AftERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0 MISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-483
)
STN 50-486 (Callaway Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
RESPONSE OF THE NRC STAFF TO REQUESTS FOR HEARING FILED BY " LEAGUE OF WOMEN V0TERS OF MISSOURI" AND BY " MARJORIE REILLY, ENERGY CHAIRMAN, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF UNIVERSITY CITY, MISSOURI" I.
INTRODUCTION On August 28, 1980, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published in the Federal Register (45 Fed. Reg. 56956) notice of opportunity for a hearing on the application for operating licenses for the Callaway Plant, Units 1 and 2.
The notice, inter alia, provided that any person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding could submit a petition for leave to intervene in accordance with 10 C.F.R. Part 2 of the Comission's Rules of Practice by September 25, 1980.
On September 18th and September 19th, respectively, nearly identical pleadings entitled " Request For a Hearing" were filed by Marjorie J. Reilly, Energy Chairman, League of Women Voters of University City, Missouri, and by the 1
" League of Women Voters of Missouri."
Neither petitioner seeks to intervene as a full party in the requested hearing.
Both petitioners, however, request:
(1) that a hearing be held on the instant 1
operating 1,icense application and, (2) that each petitioner be permitted "to make a limited appedrance at such a hearing." The substantive concerns expressed in both petitions are based upon a study of documents in a Proceeding before gelo 15 0 OTL -
, 4 1
the Missouri Public Service Commissian. That study of documents,as summarized in nearly identical terms in both petitions, indicates a concern on the part of petitioners with respect to the ability of Union Electric Company to meet the revenue and financial requirements " associated with either or both unit (s),"
i the failure of Union Electric to adequately consider altarnabve sources of j
energy, and the lack of substantial construction completion for Unit 2 of the i
project.
I j
,For the reasons set forth below, the NRC Staff believes that each petitioner
]
should be afforded an opportunity to make limited appearance statements in accor-l dance with 10 C.F.R. 52.715 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, but that the l
petitions should be denied without prejudice as requests for an operating license hearing pursuant to 10 C.F.R.12.714.
Inasmuch as both petitions are virtually identical, both petitions will be discussed together in the following
~
section of this response.
4 1
II.
DISCUSSION 1
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.12.715, a person who is not a party to a proceeding may be permitted to make a limited appearance statement on the issues at any session of the hearing or any prehearing conference. The statement may be either oral or written and is to be made upon such conditions as fixed by
~
the presiding licensing board. Other than making such a statement, such a limited appearee may not otherwise participate in the proceeding except to file an " amicus curiae" brief in the event of any appeal on the matter before m
r g
the Appeal Board or Commission when a motion requesting permission to file such a brief has been granted.
In an operating license proceeding, however, a hearing is not mandatory in the absence of the granting of intervention including the filing of at least one good contention by an intervenor. Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-305, 3 NRC 8,12 (1976). Whereas the instant requests for opportunities to make limited appearance statements should be granted, the accompanying request of both petitioners that a hearing be held in this v.atter must abide the granting of intervention by the licensing board to another l
party or to petitioners pursuant to the terms of 10 C.F.R. 62.714, because l
an operating license hearing cannot be convened solely on the basis of requests to make limited appearance statements.
As the petitions both request a hearing, they must also be evaluated in light of the requirements for intervention established in 10 C.F.R. 52.714. A review of both petitions indicates that petitioners have not set out with particularity:
(1) the interest of petitioners in the proceeding, or (2) how that interest may be affected by the proceeding, including the reasons why petitioners should be permitted to intervene, or (3) the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioners seek to intervene.
l l
l l
l L
V Accordingly, when evaluating the petitions as intervention petitions in light of the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 52.714, the petitions as drafted are inadequate.
A mere summary of concerns emanating from a study does not satisfy the require-ments for intervention as outlined above.
III.
CONCLUSION As requests to make limited appearance statements on the instant application, both requests should be granted by the licensing boards at any hearing or prehearing conference in this proceeding, if such a hearing or prehearing conference is held. As requests for a hearing in this operating license j
proceeding, the petitions should be denied for failing to satisfy the require-ments of 10 C.F.R. 52.714, for an operating license hearing cannot be con p vened simply on the basis of requests to make limited appearance statements pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.715. Moreover, at this time, no intervention petitions have, as yet, been granted. The denial of the requests for a hearing should, however, be without prejudice to a timely renewal (within twenty-one days of a ruling on intervention) should either or both petitioners seek full party status pursuant to 10 C.F.R. f 2.714.
Respectfully submitted, O
J Roy P. Lessy Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 9th day of October, 1980
4 UNITED STATES OF Ai1 ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
UNION ELECTRIC C0ftPANY
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-483
)
STN 50-486 (Callaway Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l
l I hereby certify that copies of " RESPONSE OF THE NRC STAFF TO REQUESTS FOR HEARING FILED BY ' LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MISSOURI' AND BY 'i1ARJORIE REILLY, ENERGY CHAIRMAN, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF UNIVERSITY CITY, MISS0VRI'" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 9th day of October,1980:
James P. Glez -]n, Esq., Chainnan Atomic Safety and Licensing l
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board Panel
- 513 Gilmoure Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Silver Spring, MD 20901 Washington, DC 20555 Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Thomas A. Baxter, Esq.
Appeal Board
- Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20036 Docketing and Service Section
- Mr. John G. Reed Office of the Secretary Rt. 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Kingdom City, MO 65262 Washington, DC 20555 Treva J. Hearne Marjoric Reilly Assistant General Counsel for the Energy Chairman of the League of Missouri Public Service Comission Women Voters of University City, M0 P.O. Box 360 7065 Pershing Avenue Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 University City, MO 63130 Barbara Shull Lenore Loeb.
League of Women Voters of Missouri 2138 Woodson Road
/ [' "
St. Louis, Missouri 63114 j
., (. _ 4 Edwin J. Reis-l Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel
_- -