ML20058L660

Applicant Reply to Joint Revised Contentions of Minnesota Environ Control Citizen Assoc,Rj Hatling,E T Hare & Sj Gadler.*

ML20058L660
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	04/15/1974
From:	Silberg J NORTHERN STATES POWER CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 9106100530
Download: ML20058L660 (6)

Text

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

.

• a-  !

l I

April 15, 1974 t UNITED STATES OF ICERICA ATOMIC ENERGY CO101ISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board f

In the Matter of )

) l NORTHERN STATES. POWER COMPIRY ) Docket No. 50-263 l

) ,

(Monticello Nuclear Generating ) ,

Plant, Unit 1) )

I f

i APPLICANT'S PIPLY TO JOINT FIVISED l CONTENTIONS OF MINNESO'I A ENVIRON'1 ENTAL [

CONTROL CITIZEN 'S ISSOCIATION , {

RUSSELL J. HATLING, E. TAYLOR HAPI, i AND STEVE J. GADLER

1. On April 4, 1974, Minnesota Environmental Control i Citizen's Association, Russell J. Hatling, and E. Taylor  !

Hare (collectively " MECCA") and Steve J. Gadler ("Gadler") [

filed four joint revised conter.tions. In addition, their [

l filing adopted the contentions of Minnesota Pollution [

i Control Agency ("MPCA") "as revised through April 4, 1974"  !

i and consented to the consolidation of the parties for the i purpose of litigating the MPCA contentions. Gadler on l April 3, 1974, also filed a separate document requesting  ;

I 1

'that he be allowed to join in MECCA's and MPCA's contentions and agreeing to a joint presentation of evidence with  !

l respect to these contentions. l t

\

4 .

l 9106100530 740415 CF U '

ADOCK 0500026:3 f  !

CF g _ y_ j i

I  !

i'

{

i

2. Northern States Power Company (" Applicant")

i i

supports the request by MECCA and Gadler that they be f l

consolidated with MPCA with regard to MPCA's contentions j and supports Gadler's request that he be consolidated with  !

MECCA with regard to MECCA's contentions.  !

4

3. As to the four contentions jointly submitted by f MECCA and Gadler, Applicant notes that there has not been j compliance with the requirement of the Licensing Board's f June 19, 1973 Memorandum and Order that revised contentions l

l,

" comply with the provisions of the Commission's Restructured (

Rules of Practice, 10 CFR Part 2, effective August 28, f 1972". Specifically, there has.been no attempt to file the supporting af fidavits required by the Restructured Rules, ,

t 10 CFR S2.714. In addition to this defect, Applicant f

opposes the admission of Contentions II, III and IV for the  ;

reasons set forth below. Aside from the failure to meet j the affidavit requirement of 10 CPR S2.714, Applicant does

]

! not oppose the admission of Contention I, with the exception of those sections discussed below.

d Contention I

4. Contention I is a collection of allegations which [

t are apparently intended to call into question Applicant 's technical qualifications with respect to operation of the f j Monticello facility during the course of a full-term license.  :

i l i [

s i I 4

t, i

r j j i

l

__ __ _ . . _ _ . . _ -. . _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ ...m .

I-

. i i l i

i Two of the examples set forth in the contention do not f l

relate to issues within the scope of this proceeding and j should therefore be excluded from the contention. The j second " event" to which the contention refers, " refusal to cooperate with the requests of the Minnesota Pollution [

Control Agency (MPCA) so as to assist that State agency in {

l fulfilling its duty to the public", is irrelevant to j Applicant's technical qualifications to operate the l

, Monticello facility. Similarly, the fourth " event", i.e.,

r

" issuance of inaccurate and misicading information to the  !

l general public through its advertising and public relations ~ f i

campaigns", bears no relationship te any issue before the l i

Licensing Board. Whether or not either of these assertions have any factual basic, they are not within the jurisdiction of the Licensing Board as set forth in 10 CFR S2.104 (c) . }

i Contention II {

i

5. This contention, dealing with decommissioning, [

?

should be rejected as vague, unspecific and without basis. j i

There is no identification, description or quantification i d

of the " economic or environmental costs and difficulties  !

I j connected with decommissioning the Monticello plant". Nor i

4 is there any explanation of why these unspecified and ('

unquantified costs and difficulties do not justify continued  :

operation of the facility. Most importantly, the contention j seems to ignore the rather obvious fact that if continued  !

- [

t t

{

)

l

- i i i

o i

operation of Monticello is prohibited (as sought by MECCA) , j the facility would still have to be decommissioned. The .

contention is therefore logically untenable. Applicant  :

notes that the contention does not allege that the Staff's ,

evaluation of decommissioning in the Final Environmental l l

Statement is inadequate. l l

f Contention III  !

i

6. Contention III, dealing with fossil fuel and  ;

purchased power as alternate sources of electricity, should [

t t

be rejected as vague, unspecific and without basis. The l 2

f contention does not exp1'ain why " fossil fuel technology"  ;

or purchased power are " attractive" alternatives to continued  !

I operation of Monticello. The contention does not even specify j the type or types of " fossil fuel technology" to which it {

refers or the source of the "available" power to be l purchased. Nor does it identify or quantify the " environ-f mental and public health costs" of continued operation which  ;

)

would be greater than the similarly unidentified and l

unquantified " environmental and public health costs" of I

?

" fossil fuel technology" or purchased power. The contention j

also ignores the fact that,one of the costs of substituting  :

i l " fossil fuel technology" or purchased power for continued {

I operation of the Monticello facility would be the loss of i an investment of over 100 million dollars.  ;

i i

i,

r

.  ?

,- i i - ,

r i

Contention IV

7. Contention IV, relating ~ to the. Ftaf f ' u enui ron-mental review, should also be rejected as vague, unspecific j v

and without hasis. It does not specify any " environmental {

i i

amenitics and values" which the Staf f f af .ed to quantify, or [

which it claims did not receive "requisiite consideration".

i Nowhere does the contention indicate that such quantificatica i L

is even feasible. Nor does it explain what is meant by a i

"1.rmula/ approach".

I

8. The assertion that a deficiency in the Staf 2's. }

i l cost-benefit evaluation somehow invalidates the Staf f 's  !

analysis of environmental effects, alternatives, rclatic'nship  !

batween long and short term use and productivity, and i, resource commitments constituter neither a contention nor an I

(

l accurate statemer_t of law. The cost-benefit evaluation is -[

t in addition to, and independent of, these other phases of an }

!. environmental analysis. The contention, while clitming that ,

. the alleged (and unspecified) defects in the ecst-benefit  !

t I

evaluation substantially affect tne balance struck in the l l Final Environmental Statement, never specifies how the j l t L balance is affected, the degree to which it is affected, or [

l  !

l ,

the natrre of this effect. Finally, the contention fails to _[

I l

l identify or quantify the "long-term environmental costs" t associated with continued operation of the Monticello plant, or the long-term social benefits which the cc aten tion implies ,

i are outweighed by the unspecified costs. Contention IV f r

r i

i i

I t l  !

,l

- i i ,

i presents no factual issues appropriate for litigation. Nor does it set forth an understandable Icgal issue.

9. For the reasons set forth above, Applicant respectfully requests that the Board reject Contentions II, III and IV. Should affidavits complying with 10 CPR S2.714 be submitted, those portions of Contention I not objected to in 4 ,

paragraph 4 above could be admitted as issues to be litigated.

Ilaving had more than ample opportunity to submit adequate f contentions, MECCA and Gadler should be limited to the MPCA contentions admitted by the Eoard and, if suitable affidavits  !

f are submitted, the appropriate portions of Contention 1.

Respectfully s'.lbmitted,  !

SHAW, PITTMIG, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE }

l F

> f n j

$V -

- n/  %% A. z '

Jay E. Silberg ,i l

' Wm.j.,Bradford Reynolds L' i Counsel for Applicant l

Dated: April 15, 1974  !

[

t i

2

! i

r. -

, m#r, -.. ,..,..-.,,4..m__,---,--_-,__ - - . - _ _ . . , . . ~ . , . . . - _ , , , . . . . . . - . _ . . . - . . . . - - . - , . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ - - . , . - . - . . - . . . i