ML19329F590

Response of Sj Gadler to CPC & AEC Answer to Sj Gadler Petition to Intervene

ML19329F590
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	01/28/1972
From:	Vogel H VOGEL, H.J.
To:
References
NUDOCS 8007010614
Download: ML19329F590 (5)

Text

. - - - - .-

us u u w . s (0., .s. :. .. .. . o , i g$

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PRm x m, fg gMG (C/ \3 POOR QUAUTY PAGES

_j.

?o

/;4 b- '.) UllITED fiTATES OF AfiURICA b ~

4 . '/ ATOfiIC ENERGY COFC4ISSIOil Bi: PORE Ti!'; ATO'iIC SAFETY AIID LICE'ISI!!G I?OARD In the Matter of )

)

COUSUMERS DOh'ER COMPA.lY ) Docket !!os. 50-123 /

) c.o- 3 3 0 (Midland plant, Units 1 and 2) )

REPLY OF PETITIONER STEVE J. GADLER TO APPLICA.iT'S AND AEC REGULATORY STAFF ANSI.'ERS TO PETITION TO INTERVE;ic  :

_ OF STEVE J. GADLER '

.tc :'ctition of Steve J. Gadlcr . lated Decer.bor 20, 1971, to intervene in the above-captioned proceeding was filed purauant to the Supplementary :fotice of IIcaring published in the Federal Re.Ister on .iovember 29, 1971 (36 F.R. 23169). That Supplementary

.otico set forth ad litional issues for conni< tera tion and determin-ntion by t:tc Atomic Safety and Licensinr1 toard in the abovc-captioned nroceeding. The issues set forth in the Supplementary

\

iotice snecificall" relate to those considern tionn set forth in Appenlix u, 10 CFR Part 50 of the Commission's renulations wnich purport to implement the policy and procedurcs required under the  !.~. tion?1 Cnvironmental Policy Act of 1969 (M.2 USC Scctions 4321, 4331-4335, 4341-4347). These additional issues were not set forth in tac comnission's initial ilotice of IIcaring published in the Fcticral Register (35 F. R. 16749). Petitioner has filed his neti-tion to intervene for the exeress purpose of raisinq contentions recarcing the e,nvironmental_ effects of the operation of the nro-e:c..:4idland Plant. Pctitioner urges the Atomic Safety and Licon-sing Board to grant his petition for the following reasons:

18 o o 'r 010 [/p'

ff . .

("

1. Pctitioner.has a legally protected interest in this pro-cceding.

The hydrology, atmosphere, and soil of the carth which Peti-tioner socks to protect by his intervention in the abovr.-captioned

,' proceeding arc national natural resource treasures held in trust for the full benefit, use and enjoyment of all tne people of the United States, subject only to wise use by the current holder of

{

nominal titic.

(-

?

The rights which Petitioner socks to protect by intervening 7 in the above-captioned proceeding are additionally secured by the v

fl  ::inth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, L

b' The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

and under the due process and equal protection clauses of the

( Pifth and Fourtcenth Amendments of the Constitution.of the Uni,ted Statos:

g:

<t . . . nc' shall any person . . . be deprived D of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; . . .

f. .

-(.

y. . . . no State shall make or enforce any law i;

which shall abridge the privileges or immun- ,

itics of citizens of the United States; nor jb shall any State deprive any person of life, c.

La; liberty or property, without due process of lew nor deny to any person within its M

jurisdiction the equal protection of the k laws.

S Finally Petitioner's interest is set forth in the National y[

h Environmcntal Policy Act of 1969. There, Conaress has declared M

l a national policy to M1, Encouraqc productive and enjoyable harmony be-tween man and his environment: to promote cff-

"g orts which will prevent or eliminate damace to g tnc environment and biosphere and stimulate

, '4 N _m. (

_. . . . . . . . - - --~

sy . ' . p '~')

2

't, l 1:h s ' health and welfarc of man; tn enrich r lht- un<lorntanding of the ecological syn-tems and natural resources important to the nation; . . . (42 USC Section 4321)

This policy is based on recognition of "the profound inpact of man's activity on the inter-rclations of all components of the national environment" to protect these national natural resource treasurcs the Federal Government has been specifically directed to

1. fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succccding generations;

?. annuro for all Americans safe, health-ful, productive, and osthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;

3. attain the widest range of beneficici uses of the environment without degra-dation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended con-ncquences:

4. preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heri-tage, and naintain, wherever possibic, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice; 5 achieve a balance betwocn population and resource use which will permit high

• standards of living and a wide sharing of ,

life's ancnitics; and

\

A. enhance the quality of renewable re- '

nources ano ap-roach the maximum attain- 1 able recycling of depletable resources. '

(42 USC Section 4331. (B))', -

2. Petitioner has sufficiently alleged that the proposed o'cre tion of the 'lidland Plant nay af fect his legally protecte !

inte re::t.

'etitioner has amply set forth in his Petition to Intervenc his c.- .tentions which substantiate the specific way in which his l

.- ~ . _ _ ._ _- __ _

Q )

lertally protected interest may be affected by the operation of the proposed Midland Plant. The burden of proof in licensing procccdingn such as the above-captioned proceeding ia c1carly on the applicant. (10 CFR 2 Appendix A III (c) (1)). To requirc that Petitioner set forth his contentions in detail beyond that already specified in his Petition to Intervene would offectively shift the burden of proof to Petitioner which is not contemplated under the Commission's regulations.

3. '.'he interests sought to be represented by Petitioner is not auequately reprcsented in the abovo-captioned proceeding.

Applicant avers that the interests and contentions of Pc-titioner Gadler are " receiving adequate representation and ex-pression by existing parties" (Applicant's Answer p. 3). There is no basis in fact set forth in either Applicant's answer or the answer of the AEC Regulatory Staff for this assertion. Indecd, it appears to be based on the falso hope that the additional issues, relating to the environmental impact of the operation of the pro-posed Midland Plant which have been added to the above-captioned proceeding by the Supplementary Notice will in . fact be addressed by those parties permitted to intervene prior to the issuance of the Supplementary Notice. To the contrary, it is highly unlikely that the additional issues relating to environmental matters will be adequately considered since Petitioner Gadler appears to have been the only pernon requenting leave to intervene piirnunnt to the Supplementary Notice.

O-

)

.IllEREFOR1::, for the above-stated reasons, Petitioner requests his Pctition to Intervene be, granted.

Respectfully submitted, Da t=ad :

2, m_.>

~

g {/ fg7g lioward J. Jel Attorney Peti ioner 814 Flour 'xchange Building Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 Telephone: 333-3481 k

i i

i d

i i

i l

.i ji

-S- l.

-i t

)

S

-. -.-. .-