ML19338C078
| ML19338C078 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 11/01/1971 |
| From: | Collister E, William Ward KANSAS, STATE OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007310661 | |
| Download: ML19338C078 (4) | |
Text
-
.. -/, -
Q p
DOCKET NUMBER
~
-s.,
g g
PROD. & UTIL. l'AC. E" D,% O
- sectin,
,a 4
8me '
M Z';
~
p NOV q 197; g 9 3
". r"e" d
- been IltiiTI:l) 0TNN':S OF Mil l'TCA
,F
. s,-;
rm ee,
//
}G
,g
- sma i,. --
grto ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSIO!!
g
()
\\-: :k,.
sy In.:the Matter.of
)
.)
CONSUMERS POWER-COMPANY
)
Docket. Nos. 50-329
).
50-330
.'(Midland Plant,. Units 1 and 2)
)
/l -/A /
PETITIONER'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO THE PETITION TO INTERVENE OF THE STATE OF KANSAS i
i
^
VERN MILLER-Attorney General State of Kansas i
Statehouse.
Topeka, Kansas 66612 i
By:
Edward G. Col'.is ter, Jr.
William H.~ Ward Assistant-Attorncys Goncral Attorncys for State-of Kansas 8.0g73.1 shy.
w reecWWLe 4
76
,.g
f
' 00CNET NUMOEA p.
N PA00. & UTIL. EAC,56-319lYO g
- D e.cis s t a b i
f UMfC
_ p NOV J q 1971 m d0
-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- o m,w m, p,,,,,-
N has 17 ATOMJC 1:NHitGY COMMi5010;f
' -q sr=
UtQ -
r
'In.the Matter of
)
)
~ CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY-
)
Dockel Non. 50-329
)
50-330
- (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
PETITIONER'S~' RESPONSE TO APPLICANT 'S ANSWER
~
TO THE PETITION TO INTERVENE OF THE STATE OF KANSAS Applicant has filed its Answer to the Petition of the -
Siatn of-Mannan to intorvono in the above proceeding.
Kansas herchy files its Response to 'that Answer.
i-Petitioner cannot' agree with the Applicant that Kansas '
only source of administrative; or judicial-relief lies in a Petition under the' Administrative Procedure.Act to the AEC for a moritorium on licensing nuclear reactors until the waste issue
'is resolved.*
The decision regarding Kansas ' ' intervention should not be
-made-on the basis of a simple choice ~of forum analysis.: The
~
Board should understand'the essential concern which-Kansas-feels neces 4tates its-intervention ~in'this. proceeding.
Our fear is
-that'tho atomic waste' problem will dictate its solution; that lins t e.ut ' otl f i ndi t
- a narc" _ place for the want on, the AEC
- will bc
- 5. U.S.C....S553 (2)l -permits an interested person". to make such
' :a-petition, but, - should the AEC adopt. the Applicant's vicwpoint,-
~
Kansas would inot:be such an' " interested person" even for those purposes.-
" ~-
f m
.2
__ a_ __. w.
~
- i'l.
p ida cod 1toi cant. about. for a place ; they ' docm. " acceptable"--ai place
- wh icie :mayihi L ar' f rom; :are.
'We:can'forocco,.as atomi~c power plants f
pi oil f erate, Congre:;nional' Iteprenantat i ve:: -in <1istricLn Lh rough oo f.
the~ Country. demanding, understandably, that wastes be rcn.oved lfrom;their state, Kansas:does not want t'o be a place of'last resort.
Yet, despite the!AEC's: renewed scarch for an acceptablo saltibed in Kansas,'no definite indication-has been forthcoming thatLthe Lyons site'will.bc abandoned.
We are told mercly that,
~ shouldl water circulation and well-plugging problems be found
.insurmountabic, alternate sites should be available.*
We have no indication 'that fundamental concerns over such things as rock-
~
' phimring,.walr r migraLj on and energy abnorpt}on-rcleanc by salt-f will-be dispelled before the.. AEC reaffirms its existing commitment I
to deposit' wastes in Kansas.
~ Applicant tells us.the use of Kansas salt beds as a nuclear
.wasterdump is:"too unce'rtain" to create an interest supporting, such an intervention. ;If it-is possible that it-will be shown that 4
Jeither.the plac'e,~the'means,.or the' concept'of dispasal, itscif,
- is undesirable, it would be sfoolhardy for us to simply. cit' by and wait until thef appearance.of the-first waste canister 'makes the-
~
~
emplaccmont.of.'such wastes in" Kansas:"certain."
Welchoose tihis licensing proceeding through which to e
reach thonAEC.because:the, commission's' interest seems absorbed in
~
- (Sce_Mr. Putnam's statomont; attached to Applicant's Answer bo? our Petition. ) '
.n >
~=,
=
,.~
~
. ~ -
w-2.'
y>
w.t - + = ~+ f e,.. --
b
+v-~..
- - + < - -.:==-.
-~ M yyni-
~-n-+--
'm - ; -~~ ~ ~
r'..
'w c
L i -
.. ;;;f..,..I.:
w j
L' -
f X
a s
L
^r T
promoting the > usc of.. atomic: energy.
Thellongtime fruitless' efforts ~
~
l of16ur; ncionf int.n: Loiraine even the. smallest - doubts in Commission mindsircgarding theisafetyi of' the Lyons : site Memonctrated thei r pre-eminenticoncern with promotirg such use as against: protecting
- the
- public fsomlits hazards.- Regardless of tho' extent to which the:Commiss' ion-hasMaltered its. thinking:concerning wasto disposal
-g
~issucs, it91s; incumbent 1upon us"to. resist'AEC action which
'increascr -the pressure ' to come.up with a solution,- however unsafe..
?!
. We moved tol intervene to -assert the requirements of the National Environmental Pol' icy Act.
Two of those regtilrements are -
of particular concern to us.
First, NEPA. requires that government l
agencias considor the environmental impact of the'ir' actions "to
- the f.u))nst extent'ponnibic."
- In the case of nuclear reactor I
licerining, this; includes tho ; impact of ' wastes Linovitably produced.
- 3 f t
This is'not solely Kansas'~ issue. - This'is an environmental issuc'
~ which1should,.as'we~ understand the Calvert Cliff's decision, be <p considered 1by the'~AEC in thisLproceeding even-without the efforts 1 of an intervenor. -(Calvert Cliff's. Coordinating Committee, Inc., 4 i ? I' et al. vs.1C.C.D;C.' July 23,'1971', p. 18.): C 3 Second, NEPA re'uires1that agencies " study, develop and q Jdescribe: appropriate 1 alternatives ltc.' recommended courses of ~ a cetion51n :any - proposal which1 involves. unresolved conflicts concern- [ .in~g alternstivo; uses 'of.~ available resources. "' (NEPA S1022c)' Here, ?the alternative to the; generationiof power by-nuclear energy, and- ~~ y findeed ;thcTalterndtivecof;notiproducing that power munt be weighed. ' lNof propo;r?" balance" can be' struck Luntil the - environmental- ~ 3 "-['- 1 . 8 u y p s = be wy- .'n .4_= .m yy, 4 f L. y, i y,i,, on,. 43-
+ 1 + AA ~ - - - = e *s .a: q.. ~q f ]. . contr anur; cia t;dd Lwi th tho' generation of. the wastes bisIdotermined.- .it'h.:, bee n pre'::inne el tha t th in ' cj em< n L to' la halanced harl:a weight' of f zero, y since : the AEC's. plan was: " safe. "- I.t.may bc [how,- ever, thaticach; canister of-waste produced createn a quantifiable ' hczard for the environment. and - the. hazard must~ be quanti fica and weighed agalnst'the' benefits deris. '.n the-course of producing the wastes. Finally, it may woll bo, as Applicant intimate..(Anawer,
- p. 2) that the-requisite-" balancing" can'only be done with refer-encclto a yet,to be developed National Energy Policy.
This fact, ~ 'in itself, should not, be grounds for defering consideration of the. wa:it o clinpocal probicm' to another proceeding, fer, even if such .a National' Energy Policy existed it'would be.left to such proceed-ings an.the instant:one to' determine whether a given power -fac ill tyfis consonant, with that' plan. For these reasons','we respcctfully submit that the Motion i-of Kansas to Intervene in the.above proceeding should be granted. 3 2 -Dated: November 1, 1971 Respectfully submdtted, f 2 i hl VERN MILLER ~
- '{'!
Attorney General State.of Kansas. Statehouse ~ . Topeka, Kansas ~66612 h 'r By: EDWAltD C. Col.I l::'I'l-:lt, J it. and .0 ' WILLI AM II. WAl(D D D ' )' d Assistant'Attorncyn Ccncral m 4.h
- L, u 3 _
c214. m.u f h,- [e M k, : )/, v.o Ju c Ju j ' Edward =G - Collister, dE'{ ~[ k- [yg M
- A
'. Willia h Wm d 'A
- f
,}}