ML20058L298
| ML20058L298 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 02/08/1972 |
| From: | Bloch E US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Merritt G, Morgan J MINNESOTA, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058L300 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9105140445 | |
| Download: ML20058L298 (4) | |
Text
b0 &V4)
Altse-co?
FED 8 1972
--gnMRC,N, FC] (::pA)
Mr. Grant J. Merritt Jonathan !!. Morgau, Esq.
Executive Director Assistant Attorney General Minnesota Pollution Control Office of Attorney Ceaeral Agency Hinnesota Pollution Control 717 Delaware Street, S.E.
Agency Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 717 Delaware Street, S.E.
14inneapolis, Minnesota 55440 In the 11atter of Northern States Power Cor, :ny Monticello Nuclear Gcneratin7 Plant, u.a t 1 I)ocket No. 50-263 Gentlemen:
Tuis is in response to I:r. iierritt's letter of January 11, 1072 to Chairr.an Schlesinger and :.r.
"orryn 't letter of January 31, 1972 La.x. Joseph imatts, staff couns:1 for the !.onticello proceediry.
As you knoa, the necting with the regulatory staff requested in
.:r. :'erritt's letter took place at our hetht sda offices ou 1.eJ a c s d a y, J:muary 19, 1972.
- ir. !iorgan and i:r. 1:enneth D ugan represented the State of Minnesota and f:essr.;. Boyd, Llanc, i:nt,th, Etnaroya, and 1:notts represented the staff.
At the January 19, 1972 nceting, and in ensuing discussions duriu;:
the intervening wccLs between !!r. l. organ and
- r. iactts, s gencn 1 agreem nt was reachcd so tact, as requested by the State of 'anae;cta, our review schedule for pendin;: cases cc altered to per;.it accelerate '
co:gletic,a of the full enviroar.catal revie.+ for :anticello.
...e tar:et date for the issuance of our environr.catal statemnt has bee:
noved up fror August 1972 until the first week of,u.y 1972.
It was also recognized that this review schedule nigat not be attain-a'>1e if the Minnesota Enviro uental Control Citizen's Association's
(!':ICA) pending request for a hecrin;; on car deterr.inntion not to suspend oporation of the Monticello plant were granted by the Co:.:uis-sicn and were to result in a substantial diversion of our staff and laboratory resources fron work on the draft detailed statccent to preparation for and participation in such a hearing. Subject to the forepoing, the AEC regulatory staff vill use its best efforts to rect the targct date of on or about May 1,1972 for issuance of our draft h
M I
. I detailed st atement. tlc v,uld be pleased to notify you in the event of a subsequent signif' ant delay in our schedule such that the May target appears unattainable.
It is our understanding that the State of Minnesota does not intend to request a hearing on our determination not to suspend Monticello operations because of your interest in the earliest possibic corple-tion of cur full environmental review, and in an opportunity for hearing, in light of that review, on environnental a.spects of Monticello operations and on full-term licensing as noted below.
It is further our understanding that you wish to reserve the right to seek a hearing on our detemination not to suspend in the event of substantial delay in our current schedule for the issuance of the draft detailed statement.
We tmderstand that the licensee, Qrthern States Power Corpany, in-tends to anply for conversion of its present provisional operatinc license to a full term (40 year) license, and it would be our inten-tion to afford an opportunity for a conibined he::rine on this natter and on environr.: ental issues as provided in the Co=ission's rules.
ile would anticipate providing this opi)ortunity for hearing no later than the notice of availability of our draft detailed statenent on Monticello, i.e. about May 1, 1972 on the planned schedule. He notice would provide thirty days for the filing of petitions for leave to intervene in accordance with the Comission's rules.
The AEC regulatory staff would not object to the standing of Hinnesota er !!ECCA to seek such a hearing, but we have agreed that specifica-tien of contentions in accordance with the Comission's rules will be necessary and rutually desirable.
As to the tiraine of any hearing, given the thirty day notice provi-sion, the tire for raailing, for responses to petitions and for rulinas thereon, the enrliest date for an initial prehearing confer-i ence would be sore six to cipht weeks following the notice, and the precise schedule would norcally be set by the independent presiding officer or board taking into account the availability of the board and parties.
We are pleased that we have been able to accommodate your interests in this matter.
Sincerely, j
Drtginal Signed tpf E. J. Bloch E. J. Eloch Deputy Director of Legulation for
. - T 4
,s OFTICE >
U.0GC
\\OG.G/,,,, _,
_DRL_
e,,,,,,;d dry'5 4 J]3 cc-see page s/
4LL.]'.N.,
sumwe >
Inplu. tid.A J........
om >
. 21 ED2.........
... W rm,uc_m M.su ucw mo
~:n G;;A...~. o., Tiah
O
.O detailed statenent., We would be pleased to notify you in the event I
of a subsequent siglaificant delay in our schedule suca that the May target appears unatjainable.
It is our understand ng that the State of Minnesota doos not intend to roquest a. hearing 'sp our determination not to suspend Monticelle.
operations because of your interest in the earliest'possible emuple-'
tion of our full envi ental review, and in an opportunity for -
i hearing, in light of tha review, on environmental asper:ts of Monticello operations an on full-term licensing as noted below.-
' It is further our underst ing that you wish to reservo the right to seek a hearing on our de ermination not to suspend in the event of substantial delay in our urrcnt schedule for the issuance of the draft detailed statement.
We understand that the licensee, Northern Stater Power Conpany, in-i tends to apply for conversion of its present provisional operating i
licensotoafulltera(40 year)\\icense,anditwouldbeourinten-l l
tion to afford an opportunity for 'q combined hearing on this matter l
and on environrental issues as pro ded in the Cos:nnission's rules.
^
3 Ke would anticipate providing this opp'ortunity for hearing no later than the notice of availability of ourN, raft detailed stetement on
!!onticello, i.e. about May 1,1972 on the Innned schedule. The notice would provide thirty days for the f ling of petitions for leave to intervene in accordance with the maission's rules. The AEC regulatory staff would not object to th standing of liinnesota l
or HECCA to soci such a hearing, but we have ngreed that specifica-tien of contentions in accordance with the Cc anission's rules will j
be necessary and cutually desirable.
l i
ns to the timing of any hearing, given the thi ty day notice provi-l sion, the tine for mailing, for responses to pc itions and for rulings thereon, the earliest date for an initi prehearing confer-ence would be some six to eight weeks following to notico, and the
- J precise schedule would normally be set by the ind pendent presiding i
officer or board taking into account the availabil ty of the board l
suid parties.
ased that we have been able to acco::nnodate y r interests,in
-1 this matter.
a f
Sin orely q
j
' r 'y" }
L. Ma iing Muntzinn CN m V'
I i
omer >
..OGC..
.0GC....._Itar of nogulatian p{
Dire h -. -CRE F. -- DR cc: Sco Page 2
M y
f9 I
...g g. Jp e"t =."a Form AIC. H 8 tRn 9-S3! ALCM 0240
- u a wn w.mo pow c. or r e t 4*m 4m N j
'i i
I
\\
i
\\
\\' cc: Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
llow::rd J. Yonel, Esq.
liatitaniel 11. Goodrich, Esq.
Algic A. Wells, Esq.
!tr. Stanley 7.1:obinson, Jr.
i r
Distribution:
DRReading
!JMunt:ing OGC Files Docket Files 1BKnotts DRL blTf' l
l OFTICE >
50= Naut >
I D ATT >
........._...............I.
Form AIC-9 s sRev 9 51) AICM c240
.<ren.-
eu 4.... t4e e,
e.
-