ML19329F502
| ML19329F502 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 01/15/1972 |
| From: | Reis H CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006300710 | |
| Download: ML19329F502 (7) | |
Text
._
~
- ~ ~ ~
g; UNITED STATES OF IJ4 ERICA ATOMIC ENEncy COmnSSION THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS P00R QUALITY PAGES In the Matter of
)
)
' CONSUMERS POWER C011PANY
)
Docket Mos. 50-329/
)
50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
COMMENTS OF APPLICANT,
/-/[-[M CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY,
.CONCERNING BOARD ORDER OF DECEMBER 22, 1971-In its Order of December 22, 1971, the Board directed all parties to file, on or be, fore January 15, 1972, comments or arguments with respect to the ruling the Board stated it. proposes to make concerning the environmental effects of ultimate high-level waste storage.
The Comments of Applicant, Consumers Power Company, are set forth below.
I The Applicant agrees that the environmental effects of ultimate high-level waste storage are not an issue in this proceeding and that a ruling to that effect and a referral pursuant to 10 CFR 2.730 (f) is appropriate.
Applicant's reasons'for this vieu have in substantial part been set forth in'its Motion (and Supplement thereto) to Refer Questions to 1/
the Commission-and its Answer to the Petition to Intervene 2/.
of the State of. Kansas.~
IHowever, the Board's statements on pages 2 and 3 of the Order of December 22, 1971, would fail lf Dated November.5, 1971; supplement dated November 9, 1971.
~ 2/ - Datied October. 31, 1971.
8006300-710 6
=. _
[
u
.w u.
~
y q
~
~
.r
- expressly-to exclude from this - proceeding ~ the environmental effect of the. activities of the reprocessing plant; what is excluded from consideration is merelh "the offects of
'high-level-wastes'after th'ey leave the reprocessing plant."
- (Emphasis l supplied. )
Similarly, the Board appears to have
-failed to exclude from consideration in this proceeding elements at the other end of the fuel cycle which in our view are too remote to~be considered in this proceeding:
e.g.,
mining,. milling, conversion, enrichment and fabrication.
~In view of the foregoing we urge the Board to modify
'its ruling to provide that neither the Applicant in its draft environmental statement nor the' Staff in its detailed statement is required to consider elements of the nuclear fuel cycle other than, to-the extent. practicable, the environmental effects of:
-(i).the' transportation of. fuel elements from the fuel fabrication
/
3 plant to the reactor; (ii) the transportation of spent fuel 4~/
elements from the reactor to the fuel reprocessing plant; (ifi) the transportation of packaged radioactive' material from the reactor to low level waste burial groands ;~/
5 and (iv)' radioactive discharges occurring at the reactor plant.~6/
3/, " Scope of Applicants ' Environmental Reports With ^ RespecF to Transportation, Transmission Lines, And Accidents," dated
' September 1, 1971.
4/
Id_.
1 15/:- Id.
c6/l#" Draft Guide-to^the Preparation of Environmental Reports For
- Nuclear Power Plants,"'. February 1971, S2.3.7.
.5
.-2'
[
[,'
^'" ^'~^ -^" '
.D '
r?
s s
The ruling as so modified should also provide that no party will be permitted to introduce evidence'with
' respect to, or inquire into (by way of interrogatory or
.otherwise), any environmental effects of the nuclear fuel cycle other than those specified above.
Finally, in this
. connection, Applicant believes the referral to the Appeal Board should include a request that that Board, in turn, refer the issue to the Commission as a novel question of law and policy.~/
7 II Although the Order of December 22, 1971, does not expressly so state, the Applicant believes it to be appropriate tio conclude 'that the Board has, except with respect to the issue discussed above, decided to deny
" Applicant's Motion to Refer Questions to the Commission,",
dated november 5, 1971.~8/
We therefore request that this 7/ ~This suggestion was also made in the " Answer of AEC
~
.. Regulatory Staff to Applicant's Motion to Refer Questions to the Commission", dated November 17, 1971, p. 3.
,8/.~That motion enumerated seven questions which the Applicant
~
- believed to be ' presented by pleadings filed by the opposing intervenors in this proceeding urging that the Board con-sider and-hear evidence concerning alleged issues of environmental impact.-.The Answer of the AEC Regulatory Staff,: dated November 17, 1971, opposed such a referral
- except:with respect to question nunbered 4,-which dealt with the substance of the Board's ruling and reference dis-cussed in'Part I of these Comments.
)
4
.m.
L 1
O I
(;
~4-n Board rule on the remaining _six questions set forth in the Applicant's Hovember.5, 1971 motion.
This Board's' Order of December 22, 1971, contains a
"... schedule for dealing with environmental procedural matters... designed to' encourage all parties to exercise their best efforts
'in good. faith-to refine the contested environ-mental. issues in this proceeding with a view towards disposing of those which are ripe for hearing.or other action at the earliest reason-able time."
That_ goal cannot be achieved _unless the boundaries of the environmental issues are determined as soon as possible.
The Applicant submits that, if this Board has decided not to refer the enumerated questions to the Appeal Board or the Commission, then the Board should itself decide those questions in order to make it possible to proceed with a hearing or other appropriate action _as soon as possible.
For convenient reference'the remaining questions ~are again
' set forth (retaining the enumeration contained in Applicant's original Motion to Refer), as follows :
1.
Is the wisdom of Dow Chemical Company's decision to maintain its manufacturing operations in Midland, as opposed to moving'them elsewhere or discontinuing them altogether, a proper issue in this proceeding?
2.-
Is it a' proper issue in this proceeding to look Linto the relative economic, conservation and environmental merits of using coal, oil or atomic power for producing electricity?
3.
Is the question of whether the' demand for electricity
' should be met a proper issue in this proceeding?
4 g
k;
- ht
a 5.
Are the I.pplicant's past expenditures to promote the use of electricity, if any, relevant to this proceeding?
6.
Is the environmental and operational feasibility of the fast breeder reactor program relevant to this proceeding?
- 7. - Are questions of land use and zoning relevant in this proceeding?
In connection with this-request for a Board ruling, Applicant notes that it is filing simultaneously with this pleading a " Motion for an Order Scheduli'ng Outstanding ECCS and Environmer.Lal Matters."
Adherence to that schedule, or s
-any modification-which the Board may adopt, will be much more feasibleLif the boundaries of the environmental issues are appropriately' defined.
Respectfully submitted,
LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN & REIS 1100 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 m
'[
Dated:_ January 15,1972 By_
llarold F.
Reis
-Attorneys for Applicant Consumers Power Company Of Counsel, L
Harold P. Graves-
~
Robert Lowenstein John K.: Restrick' Richard-G. Smith i
3 y
~
is.
e-12
w.
=.:
'f
~~.. UNITED STATES OF-AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COIGIISSION In the Matter of
}-
)
CONSUMERS POWER COIIPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329-
)
50-330 (Midland Plant', Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby. cer'tify : that copies of " Comments of Applicant, Consumers
-Power Company, Concerning Board Order of D'ecember 22, 1971", dated January 15, 1972, in the above captioned matter have been served on the following in person or by deposit in the United States mail, first class or airmail, this 15th day of January,1972.
Arthur W. Murphy, Esq., Chairman Dr. David B. Hall
. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Los Alamos Scientific Columbia University School of Law Laboratory Box 38, 435 West 116th Street P~.
O.
Box 1663 New York, New York 10027 Los Alamos, New Mexico Thomas F. Engelhardt, Esq.
Honorable Curtis B. Beck David E. Kartalia, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Robert Newton, Esq.
State of Michigan Regulatory Staff Counsel 630 Seven Story Office Bldg.
U.S._ Atomic Energy Commission 525 West Ottawa Washington, D.-C.
20545 Lansing Michigan 48913 William A.
Groening, Jr., Esq.
Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
James N.10'Connor, Esq.
Berlin, Roisman & Kessler The Dow Chemical Company 1910 N Street, N.W.
2030 Dow Center Washington, D.C.
20036 Midland, Michigan 48640 James A. Kendall, Esq.
Myron-M. Cherry,-Esq.
Currie and Kendall 109 North Dearborn Street 135 North Saginaw Road Suite:1005 Midland, Michigan 48640 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Milton R. Wessel, Esq.
-Honorable William-H. Ward Allen Kezsbom,Esq.
Assistant Attorney General J.
Richard Sinclair, Esq.
State of Kansas Kaye, Scholor, Fie,rman, Hays Topeka, Kansas 66612 and Handler 425 Park Avenue Dr. Clark Goodman j
New York, New York.10022 Professor'of< Physics
~ University of Houston-William J.
Ginster,Esq.
3801 Cullen Boulevard suite 4, Merrill Bldg.
Houston, Texas :77004 Saginaw, Michigan 48602 l
- :+i
f'7 i
~
~
.l*[}^['
o-a, q
Irving'Like,LEsq.-
Reilly,-Like'& Schneider 200_ West' Main Street' Babylon, New York-11702 Algie'A. Wells,-Esq'.,-Chairman
' Atomic' Safety-and.Licen'ing s
. Boarcr Panel L-U.S.-Atomi_c' Energy-Commission Washington, D.C.
20545
. Stanley T.- Robinson _,Esq.
Chief, Public Proceedings Branch Office of the Secretary of
- the Commission U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C.
20545 l
y' Wa'
/
b Harold F.
Reis t
e s
9 b
I 9
m e
5My J
b
. 2
_ _ _ _. _ _.. _ _ _.. _. _. _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ ;