ML19329F435
| ML19329F435 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 01/31/1972 |
| From: | Reis H CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL |
| To: | KANSAS, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006270476 | |
| Download: ML19329F435 (6) | |
Text
.
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS
's P00R QUAUTY PAGES UNITED STATES OF AliUnlCA ATOli1C CUCRGY COMMISSION
/-BI ?S In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 '
)
50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
APPLICANT'S RESPONSU TO KANSAS' LETTER TO CHAIRMAN MURPHY, DATED JANUARY 12, 1972 In its order of December 22, 1971, the Board stated that:
"... Counsel for Kansas has indicated to the Board that the State 's interest in this proceeding is limited to the effect of wastes from this reactor on Kansas in light of the proposal to establish a permanent high-level aste repository in that State.
On November 23,
~
the Chairman by oral order granted the petition to intervene for the gurpose of arguing the question of whether the impact on the State.of ultimate waste storage is an issue in this procdEding and,-if so, to participate fully with respe,ct to that issue.
In order to focus the question of Kansas' intervention, the Board proposes to make the following ruling:
the nnvironmental effects of ultimate high-level unste storage are not an issue in this. proceeding; neither the applicant in its draft environmental statement, nor the staff in its detailed statement is required to consider the effects of high-level wastes after they-1 cave the reprocessing plant, nor will any party be permitted to introduce evidence ~with respect thereto, or inquire into such effects ~by way of interrogatory or otherwise.
Pursuant to S 2.730 (f) of the Rules of Practice, the ruling of the Board is duly referred to the Appeals Board for f further proceedings. "
(Emphasis supplied.)
18006270 h 42 7
. The order also directed all parties to file comments or arguments with respect to the proposed ruling by January 15, 1972.
Kansas' responso to that. directive was submitted in the form of a let.or from Mr. Ward to Chairman Murphy, dated January 12, 1972.
In accordance with the o portunity extended at the meeting of counsel on January 19, 1972 (Tr. 5060 - 5061), Applicant, Consumers Power Company, hereby responds to Kansas' letter.
Applicant notcc that, with one possible exception, the letter merely restates or reargues positions which have been extensively 1/
argued earlier in the proceeding.- Kansas appears now to be arguing that the issuance of the proposed ruling (and presumably its affirmance upon reference) will not be "depositive [ sic] of the issue of our intervention," and appears now to state that it wishes to participate as a party in this proceeding even if the Board's proposed ruling on the environmortal effects of ultimate 1/
See " Petition to Intervene, Or in the Alternative to Join Prior
~
Interventions, Or in the Alternative Notice of Participation
' Under 10 CFR S2. 715 (c)," filed September 22, 1971; Applicant's
" Answer to the Petition to Ihtervono of the State of Kansas,"
filed October 11,'1971; " Petitioner's Response to Applicant's Answer to the Petition'to Intervene of the State of Kansas,"
. filed November 1, 1971.
2/
In its " Comments of Applicant, Consumers Power Company, ' Concern-ing Board Order of December 22, 1971," filed January 15, 1972, Applicant urged the Board to refine its ruling as there suggested.
Applicant takes this occasion to reiterate that request.
l f
. 4 high-level waste storago is adopted and sustained.
!!owcVer, the pleadings already filed and the discussions at the mootings of counsel make it abundantly clear that Kansas' only particular interest in this proceeding derives from the possibility that a high-level waste storage site may be located there in the future.
Conscquently, if the high-level waste storage issuc is removed from ASLB consideration in this proceed-ing, Kansas has no standing to intervene.
Whatever " interest" Kansas retained in the Midland plant would be too general and 3/
remote to confer standing.~
See Sierra Club v. Morton, 433 F. 2d 24 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. granted, 401 U.S. 907 (1971).
Accordingly, there is no valid reason why the Board should contemplate reconsideration or modification of its earlier ruling on the boundaries of Kansas' intervention.
3/ Nor could Kansas be an " interested state" within the meaning of 10 CFR 2.715 (c).
That pr6 vision of the Commission's regulations permits limited participation in Commission pro-ceedings by "an interested state which is not a party...
However, the provision merely implements Section 274 (1) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2021(1),
which makes it clear that th'e interested state is the one where the activity for which a license is being sought will l
be conducted.
No license for-the disposition of.high-level l
wastes is being sought in this proceeding.
See Applicant's
" Answer to the Petition to Intervene of the State of Kansas,"
filed October 11, 1971,.pp. 24 - 25.
4-Respectfully submitted, LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN & REIS 1100 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Dated:
January 31, 1972 By.
't'.
I Harold F. Reis Attorneys for Applicant Consumers Power Company Of Counsel, Harold P. Graves Robert Lowenstein John K.
Restrick Richard G. Smith 4
4 y.
, m
.w
==..k~.
+e d=
~-
/
. 70:i!.C 11m V... N CO.T11SS.' O.1 3p t hc. Jin t ie r o f
)
)
comrws Mt.: m CO:W/"/
)
Dacket. Hon. 50 329
)
$0* 330 4
(j]i di t. id j') int (,
U.
- 3 i 1; 1 und 2)
)
9Rff E 6.9 O M.'.l M YZCG-1 horchy c o!L ity t. bot copics of "/.pplicant's Respcasc to Kansas '
. Letter To Chairnan Murphy, Dated January 12, 1972", dated Janunry 31, 1972, in the above captio:1cd matter have been served on the following in person or by deposit in the United States racil, first class or a.'.rnnil, this 31st day of Janunry,1972.
Arthur W. :'urphy, Esq., Chairman Dr. David B. !!all Atondo Safety and Licensing Board Los Alarass, Scientific Coltu bia Univers! ty School of Law Laboratory no:.: 38, 435 West 116th Street P. O.
Dco: 1663 Neu York, "c.
York 30027 Los Alarc.os, Mcw Mc:dco Thoraas P. Enc,c1h a rdt, Esq.
Davjd U.
Kartelin, Esq.
11onornble Cuhtis B. Doch Robert Mcito"., Esq.
Assistant Attorney Goncral Regulatory Set.ff Councel State of I*1chigan U.S. J.to:lic i:r.or:,y CO:2:aission 630 Seven Story Of fico Bld.;;.
525 Ucst Ottawa Washington, D.
C.
20545 Lansing Michigan-4S913 Wi} )iara A.
Grooning, Jr., Esq.
James N. O'Connor, Esq.
Anthony 2. Roistaan, Esq.
The Doa Chenic!.1 Co:;penY Berlin, Roisrc.cn E Kessler 2030 Do.t Cc.nter 1712 N S trc o t, N.W.
Mid3 and, !!ichigan 48540 Washington, D.C.
200'36 James A. Kendall, Esq.
Myron II. Cherry, Esq.
109 North Daarborn Strcct Currie and Kendall Suite 1005 135 Horth Saginaw Road Midland, Michigan 48640 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Honorable Willian H. Ward Milton R. Messel, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Allen Kozsbora, Esq.
J. Richard Sinclair, Esq.
State of Kansas Kaye, Scholcr, Fiorman, Hays Topcha, Kansas GGG12 and Handler Dr. Clark Goodrann 425 Park Avenue Ucu York, New York 10022 Professor of Physics University of Hour. ton 3001 Cullen Boulevard Williara J. Ginster,Esq.
Houston, Texcc
- /7004 Suite 4, Morrill Blds.
Saginaw, Michigan 48G02 e
,o h
D
- o. #
.4:
3;.
p
.m,
..p.
- 3..
t e
- 3 r v.16g 3,
- : ht, Yng.
. ):ei ) 1 y, M ).O - fe 'Scletc d: r 200 Ment i*nin. Street
. 11al.>ylon, Now York 11*/02 Algic A. Mells, Esq., Chairsaan Atomic Safety and.Licen' sing
);onrdtPanel U.S. Atontic 1:ncrgy Commission Washington, D.C.
20545 Stanlcy T.
Robinson,Esq.
Chief, Public Prococdings 13 ranch Office of the-Secretnry of
.the Coumission U.S. Atomic T:ncrgy Conmission
+
Washington, D.C.
20545 d
' N h.
. / $6h 4
~
llarold P.
Reis O
O M
e e
e b
9 9
e e
e 8
O O
O q+.<,
O IV _