ML20024G245

Requests Prompt Handling of Licensing Procedure for Plant Due to Listed Safety & Environmental Concerns

ML20024G245
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	06/19/1970
From:	Seaborg G NORTHERN STATES POWER CO.
To:	Ewald E US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 9102080406
Download: ML20024G245 (5)

Text

. . _ _

Y. .

Y fl

~'

Nsum =" "+

HENDERSON_ h d4 NORTHERN 5TATES POWER COMPAN

• J ' f b5#

u ,e., p -V MI N N E A PO LI S. M I N N E S OT A 9 5401

( W 4(, JG fSt .2(,4)

June 19, 1970 t 5 s

htsm /3 J .or- ,

Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman ./ hap hQj United States 1/omic Energy Commission c/ / (3 Washington, D. C, 20545 ,,

Jt.,(s,//),i/ * ; /' ,

/j / .

/

Dear Dr. Seaborg:

y -

This letter is prompted by the extraordinary AEC public hear-ing proceedings concerning the licensing of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. These proceedings, which have just been recessed for the second time, are likely to result in substantial costs to Northern States Power Company and its customers, and to expose the people in our service area to the substantial risk of a curtailment of electric power with consequent hazards and losses. Delay or curtailment of serv-ice from Monticello requires excessive use of old generating plants which poses serious environmental considerations.

Indeed, but for the coincidence of an extended strike of the sheet metal workers at the site, both of these very likely eventualities would be currently attributable to the delays encountered in the licensing procedure.

If the delays encountered in this licensing procedure are duplicated in connection with the other nuclear power plants scheduled for commercial service in the next few years, it can safely be asserted that the splendid promise of nuclear power will have had a very short life. Without regard to the competitive cost advantages and the environmental protection advantages of nuclear power, no electric utility with any sense of its responsibility to assure a reliable power gen-erating system could rely on the timely availability of new nuclear power generating plants.

On January 10 of this year the Advisory Committee on Reactor safeguardr., concluded that the Monticello Plant could be Md Off. Dir. of fleg, m4 : c '-

91onocc406 700619 INIl0

~' '..'

PDR ADOCK 05000D60 3 fi PDR Q

j .

Dr. Glenn~T. Seaborg June 19, 1970 Page 2 operated without undue risk to the health and safety of theWh with the regulatory staff, it took the Arc until March 11, public.

1970, to decide to hold a public hearing on its This delay in own motion initiating the and to announce such decision.

public hearing procedure automatically put of f the public hearing until April 28, 1970, a date so close to the sched-uled plant completion date that unusual procedures following would suchhave a

been required to permit a license to issueconsistent with plant completion.

hearing in a timely manner, We thereupon proceeded with a motion for authorization to load fuel and conduct low power startup tests - activ ' ~ es which carry no potential for harm to persons or property of f-site and activities with respect to which none of the inter-was reasonably related. The regulatory venors' contentions staff, which by this time' had concluded thet the full power concurred license could be issued upon completion of the plant, The motion was denied by the Atomic Safety in the motion.

and Licensing Board, not on grounds of safety, but because the regulatory staff couldn' t decide how At to thisrespond time, Mayto a1, subpoena for AEC inspection reports.

the first adjournment of the hearing took place.

NSP decided to proceed When the adjournment was declared, with modification of the furnace-sensitized This program, stainless which steel components in the Monticello reactor. was undertaken had been under consideration for some time, in the hearing. This work at this time because of the recess has now been comoleted and has been approved by the ACRS and the regulatory staff.

the staff Finally, two weeks af ter the subpoena was issued, on May 8 agreed to furnish the inspection reports subject of a to certain very appropriate deletions, i.e. information certain names of individuals, names of proprietary other plants, nature,and identification of certain internal AEC On or about June 2 the reports, with-guides and memoranda.out the deleted In material, reply towere actually made availab objections the hearing was reconvened on June 15.

c. .

i Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg June 19, 1970 Page 3

+

by -the intervenors as to the deletions, NSP secured permission from its contractors, whose proprietary data were included-in the deleted information, to make such data available to the intervenors on a confidential basis which would not pre-clude their use of the material for the only purpose for which it may have been properly requested, i.e., to conduct cross-examination. The intervenors rejected the offer pro-claiming.their abhorrence of secrecy. If they were to see the deleted proprietary material, the entire _ public must see it too, they claimed. This, of course, would destroy the value of the proprietary data to its owners.

The Board, in the face of this patent mischief, refused to determine whether the intervenors would in any way be pre-judiced, and professing to perceive a principle of law at issue, announced that it would again adjourn the hearing pending a determination as to whether it has jurisdiction to further consider the matter of the deletions and as to whether the intervenors have any rights to the deleted material.

In the end, the Board announced that it would send these mat-ters to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board for resolution before again convening the hearing. This, appar-ently will produce another delay of several weeks, at least.

Public hearings on the location and licensing of nuclear power plants, in prf~.iple, are desirable. They provide a means for public participation in decisions affecting the health and safety of the public. But the hearings have to be scheduled and' conducted in a manner which fully recognizes all of the public interests involved in power plant installations. In doing this, means have to be developed to distinguish between the headline seeking dissident, the true representatives of the public, the competent and the incompetent. If not, the penalties to society could be large indeed.

The intervenors in the Monticello hearing are three college graduate students, a high school student, and two lawyers alternating in representing a group of citizens concerned about the environment.

l Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg June 19, 1970 Page 4 A review of the more than -fourteen hundred pages of testimony '

already accumulated at the public hearings would disclose that there has not been identified any single aspect of the plant or its operation which requires modification in the interest of public safety.

The three college graduate students, who may be capable in their fields of specialization, have no expertise in nuclear power. They have been permitted to extend the hearing unnec-  ;

essarily while enjoying the rare opportunity to " play lawyer". '

When the hearing was reconvened on June 15, more than two months af ter reference was made to the Operations Manual in the intervenors' presence at the prehearing conference on l April 7, and despite numerous references to it in the FSAR,

these intervenors requested the right to review the Operations

[ Manual. The request was characterized by the Board as late "in the extreme". The Board is currently considering the appropriateness of the inclusion of this six-volume document j in the record.

The high school student, could contribute little to the safety l

review process and has presently withdrawn from the ' hearing, and the two attorneys purporting to represent the citizens group and their witnesses have contributed no technical or l- safety commentary worthy of consideration.

Unless the renewed motion presented by NSP to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board before the second adjournment for authority to load fuel is promptly granted, the hearing pro-cess will surely delay startup of the plant af ter it is com-plete and ready for startup. This assumes that current labor difficulties will be resolved in the near future. Delays due to the regulatory process in the startup of the plant af ter it is complete and ready for fuel loading will have at least three major adverse effects upon NSP and the public it serves:

1. Reduced reliability of electric power supply by reduced generating margin and lowering of coal reserves in the Upper Midwest.

2. Increased costs to NSP and its customers in excess of

$1,100,000 per month.

l

c w.

G O

+.. .

Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg June 19, 1970 Page 5

3. ' Increased detrimental effects on environmental quality from electrical generation by older fossil-fueled plants not presently equipped with modern emission controls. s such delays will also cause the General Electric Company to incur additional costs of $500,000 per month of delay. Au-thority to load fuel without delay following completion of the Monticello Plant is needed to ameliorate these adverse effects.

Even if the renewed motion for fuel loading authority is granted, any delay in reconvening the hearing will result in the same adverse conse,quences to the public interest when the fuel loading and low power startup testing program are concluded.

Strong and innovative leadership is required now if the li-censing process is not to break down entirely. I urge you, as promptly as practicable, to convene a task force of inter-ested governmental and private persons, including, if appro-priate, legislators and members of the judiciary, to consider how the present regulatory processes can be improved and modified to reduce delay and uncertainty without compromising the legitimate interests of the public. Delay in proceeding on this matter will undoubtedly seriously impede the develop-ment and utilization of nuclear power.

Because of the relationship of matters in this letter to is-sues now subject to the hearing process, I recognize that you may wish to place this letter in the public document room.

Sincerely, 44b EARL EWALD cc: Commissioner James T. Ramey Commissioner Wilfrid E. Johnson Commissioner Theos J.' Thompson Commissioner Clarence E. Larson Chairman John N. Nassikas Congressman Chet Holifield

, Governor Harold LeVander Mr. Harold L. Price en-wrznarramwnnmenwemzzamentemumuscematww"-%#enuncrmc:,summam 9mur#wvdmuld _ ;