ML20127M788

Forwards Revised Draft of Reply to Ewald Incorporating Changes as Requested by Commission

ML20127M788
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	07/24/1970
From:	Hennessey J US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Johnson, Ramey, Seaborg US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 9211300473
Download: ML20127M788 (13)

Text

_.

33 ---

3,_ ;-- -

g M-d E.

UNITED ST AT S N,W'l[

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

/

I lI s

wasmsca os, o c. roso r

July 24, 1970

' /'j S

h Cheiraan Seeborg Commienioner Rozey Co.~:miscionor Johncon Commissioner The.pson Co.missioner Larson RESP 0:1SE TO LETTER FRO:11:R. EARL EUALD, CHAIPJ:Ali 07 Tile DOARD, 1;0RTHERli STATES POWER COMPAliY

}!y ecmorandum of July 13, 1970, trcusnitted to the Commission a draft reply to the letter to Chairman Secborg of June 19, 1970, from 1:r. Earl Euald, Chairman of the Board of liorthern States Power Company. The Com:nission considered the proposed reply at the Information 1:ecting held on Friday, July 17, end requested certcin changes. Attached is a revised draft of the reply to 1-ir. Evald which incorporates the changes requested by the Commicsion.

For the Ocamission's convenience, I cm alco attcching a copy of the letter from lie. Ewald and a relcted letter from counsel for llECCA, one of the intervenors in the IIonticello proceeding.

nk)l s

)

w.-

/ Jop ph F. llennessey j

Cen rol Counsel I

}

Atts.

I As stated i

f I

cc: Secrctcry (1)

I

+

'j 9211300473 700724 PDR ADOCK 05000263 A

PDR

~

- ~ ~

-.~-. - -

g J

DRAFT, Door IIr. I:viild:

i This to in response to your 1ctter of June 19, 1970, concerning the -

procccding on the application of 1:orthern States Power Company for o pro-visional operating licenne for the Ibnticello nuclear Generating Plant, Since thio licence opplication is precently in the proccsc of odjudico-tion before an ctomic safety and licensing board, it would be inoppropr'inte for the Commissionera to express a view on any of the cafety or o'ther insucs involved. Ue believe, however, some conraent on our part is warranted regard-ing the underlying natter you have raised, that of delay in liccMing pro-ceedingc, and your reco=asadotion that uo convene a tach force of interected '

governmental and privcte percons "to consider hou the regulctory procceset a

can be improved end modified to reduce delay and uncertainty without com-I promising the legititnate interests of the public".

/,s a preliminary obccrvation, it docc appear that some of the dolo ly

'" encountered in the Monticello procccding stems from the fact' that coversl l

novel icgal and policy questionc have been raiced and there hcs been need I

[

for their consideration as natters of first impression. Uc also understand l

your Ictter to indicate that, becauce of other factors bearing on co$ipletion of facility construction, the 11 clay experienced in the licensing proceeding i

i has not actually been the determinative factor as respects scheduling of the Monticello facility for operation.

Ij j

e t

,+6e w

4.w.

..,a y y,y%y.. eg

. _... _ ~

s

(

,J 2

1 I

' Speaking in a broader context, ua bc11cvc uc can fairly ottte thct, historically, the /.EC hoc had a basically good record as respects the 8

tnatter of tirac concumed in its licensing hecrings. ITnile any agency'c experi-ence in this regard vill neccccarily not be uniform, our over~all record t

on timo required for hearings has co:rpared favorably with that of other

• Federal regulatory agencies.

/s backward look at histoiy cannot, of cource, be the ncasure for asseccing the adequacy of a cyctem to deal with current problems and future necdc; and thic is particularly so in a cphere ao dynamic ac that of nucicar f

' pouer. Uc have, accordingly, alunyc been raindful that our regulatory ro-cedures enunot reir.oin stetic and that experience and anticipated requiremente j

vill point the voy to, desirabic changes. Uc have recognized for come time i

i that operating licenne applications vould be peaking about thin time and that personnel limitations on the regulatory cLaff uould create prob 1 cmc.

Unfortunately, we are experiencing perconnel limitations despite our efforte

" to avert them.

Consistent uith our recognition of the need for continuing revicu of our regulatory procedures, ve ha've periodically commissioned special

. groupc, with members of professional competence and breadth, to examine and recommend ways in which the AEC licencing proccco can be unde a more l

cfficient instrument for accomplishing its important public purposes. The tuo 111tchc11 panc1c, of 1965 and 1957, and last year's Internal Study The Joint I

Group ucro cpecial tack groups uith this as their charge.,

f Conraittee on Atomic r.ncrgy has alco closely folh.oucd thic aspoet of the regulatory program, holding in-depth hearings on the subject and reco:cmndita Icgiclation authorizing changcc in tho' licensing procccs when thir, vac unrranted.

.~

3 (O

m

()

bn a Governnent-ulde basis, the 1.dninistrative Conference of the United States, in which representotives of this agency plcy ca octive role, hos made o scrics of recornendations for:: improving the efficiency of the, coministrative henring process and it plans to continue examination of this I mi;ht note, parenthetically, that many matter in its future activitics.

t of the steps which have becn recommended by the '/.dministrctive Conference i

i ucre already a part of our licensing process. These include procedural lrules designed to cssure that regulotory cetivitics racy be carried out expeditiously in the public interest by limiting the issues to be considered in particulcr types of cocco, prescribing the requircaents opplicable to l

intervention in a proceeding, providing for prehearing conferen'ecs, and for the filir.g of testimony in written form before hearing.

The foregoing is not intended as a recitation of lourcic; still 1 css, 1

i should it be tchen as a sign of complacency on our port.

The progressively

~.

increasing number of nuclear facilitics, the possage of neu 1ccislation

.. ?.. e

{

bearing on our licensing proceedings and the need to accommodate effectively i

the desire for participation in licensing hearings by affected members of j

{

the public, make constant attention to the fair and efficient workinge of l

l our regulatory procedures an egency irnperative. !!oreover, it would be j

misicading to create the impression that it is en easy tosh to strike that i

ffne balance uhich properly accoraodates the goal of conducting renconably

}

t expeditious hearings: and at the some tima safeguards the Icgitimate interests I

{

of the public in participating in the regulatory review procces. Reconciling these oftticas conflicting considerctions has been end vill remain a para-i l

challenge for the ndministrativo process.

mount

~

s'

~ ' > = = ~ -

r mwprewn,..

p q;

~4-Uc vill, therefore, continue to revicu our procedurco and nahe those chennes from tita2 to titna that cornend themselvco es being beneficial.

Insofer os licensing hearings are concerned, it vill remain our objective to e.arry out the importont purposes of the public hearing in a canner tdiich vill safeguard the right to b.ecningful participation by effected personc While at the scme tiina niniinizing dolcys in meeting the flation's need for

.pove r.

\\

}

In accordonce uith our regulations, your Ictter and this response hiove been.mnde a part of the public records of the Contnission.

Copico are

,also being furnished to c11 of thc parties to the Monticello procceding for their information.

Sincercly, Chairman 8

3D '.

e t

I,.

4 i

b i + -ryse w-

-r.

~w...

e-w. - u -

~

hGQQED i}

! ORTHERN STATES P O V/ E R Ci O rd P A N Y kil N N C A PO LI D. MIN N C S OT,A D 54 01 y

• _=*=.... -. - -

E A R L E W A L t3 C 64 A t h M A N OFTHE DOAmp June 19, 1970 Dr. Glenn T.

Seaborg, Chairman United States Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.

C.

20545 i

Dear Dr. Seaborg:

Thip 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 foj the second time, are likely to rqsult in g

subrtantial costt 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 conseqtient 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 proceduro.

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 competitivo cost advantages and the environmental protection advantages of nuclear. power, no electric utility with any sense of its responsibility to assure a reli.able 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 Safeguards concluded that the Monticello Plant could bc

~ --

. yy.. g q.y

..,(.

7

j '-

o.

. ~.

9-

.. v:

Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg June 19, 1970 Page 2 3

2

+

operated without undue risk to the hc' alth and safety of the public.

While certain final details were left-to be resolved with the regulatory staff, i t took the AEC until March 11, 1970, to decide to hold a public hearing-on its own motion and to announce such decision.

This delay in initiating the public heating procedure automatically put off the public I

hearing until April 28, 1970, a date so close to the sched-uled plant completion date that unusual procedures would. have been required to permit a license to issue following ~such a i

l hearing in a timely manner,'yonsistent with plant completion.

i We thereupon proceeded with a. mot 3pfo'r authorization to

{

load fuel and conduct low power istartup tests - activities j

which, carry no potential for harm to persons or property off-i site and activities with respect to which~none of the inter-

[

venors' contentions was reasonably rela ted.s The regulatory l

staff, which by this time had concluded that the full pow, t

}

license could be issued upon completion of the plant, concurred j

in the motion.

The motion was denied by the ' Atomic Safety 1

and Licensing Board, not on grounds of safety, but because the regulatory staff couldn't decide how to respond to a F

subpoena for AEC inspection reports.

At this time, May 1, tbc first adjournment of.the hearing took place.

I When the adjournment was declared, NSP decided to proceed with modification of the furnace-sensitized stainless steel components in the Monticello reactor.

This program, which had been, under consideration for some time, was' undertaken at this -time because of the recess. in the hearing.

This-work has now been completed and has been approved by the ACRS and the regulatory staff.

s I

i Finally, two weeks af ter the subpoena was issued, the staff on May 9 agreed to furnish the inspection-reports _ subject to certain very appropria te - deletions, i.e. information of a j

j proprietary nature, certain names of -individuals, names of lother plants, and identification of certain internal AEC guides'and memoranda.'

On or about' June 2 the reports, with-i out the deleted material, were actually made available and the hearing was reconvened on June 115.

In reply to objections

. I.

i

-y &

• -e

,w-u

+-c m,

wpg

. sa4p. -

-- w y

-er,,9

F,

,1 a.

- - - w w " v '" A.?. v ~ ~

j

~"

(

o-g.

Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg

^.

'9 -

j June 19,. 1970 Page_3 y

i

'~

i 4

by the.interdonors as to the dolctions, NSP secured' permission

[

from its contractors, in the deleted information,whose propriotary. data were. included to make such data available to F

the intervenors on~a confidential bas 3s which would not pre-3 clude their use of the material for the only_ purpose for L

d which it muy have been properly requested,;i.e.,

cross-examination.

to conduct

(

claiming their abhorrence of secrecy.-The intervonors rejected the offer 1

h the deleted proprietary material, the entire public~must seo If they were to=see O

it too, they claimed.

This, of course; would destroy the U

L value of-the proprietary data to'its owners.

O The -Board,- in the face of, this patent mischief, k

refused to determine whether tho'jntervenors would.in.any way be pre-q.

judiced, and professing to perceive a prin'ciple of law at h

-issue, ' announced that it would again adjourn the hearing t

Q pending a determipation as to whether 'it has jurisdiction to c

y further consider'the matter of the -deletions and as to whe'ther Q

k the intervenors have.any. rights to the deleted-material.

y In the end, the Board-announced'that'it would send these mat-

]

ters. to the Atomic Safety 'and Licensing' Appeal Board for 4

resolution before again convening the1 hearing.

This, appar-ently 'will produce another delay of several' weeks,- at least.

=1 1

Public hearings on the location and licensing-of nuclear power j

plants, in principle, are. desirable.

They provide,a means for public participation in decisions.affecting1the health =and -

[

safety-of the public.

But the hearint s.have. to be scheduled -

J and conducted in a mann'er which fully recognizes _all of the

[

public interests involved in' power plant installations.

4 d

In.

. oing this, means have to be. developed-to distinguish between j

the~ headline sccking dissident,

{

' the public,. the competent and the incompetent..the true. representatives of-j j-penalties-to society lcould be largo'indeed.

- If not, the

^

The intervonors in the Monticello' hearing' are three college graduate students, a high school student, and two lawyers.

S..

[

. alternating in representing a group of citizens concerned.

ji about the invironment.

'it q-q w

. m + @ w avA' T T :P

- - - ~ ~ ~

~ ~ " ' ~ ' ~ ^

~ ~

~

N

o-

_g Dr. Glenn T.

Seaborg s

i June 19, 1970 cs 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 s' ingle aspect of the plagt or its operation which requires modification in the interest of public safety.

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

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

a When tha hearing was reconvened on' June.15, more than two months af ter reference was made to the Operations Manual in the intervonors' presenge'at' the.prehearing conference on and despite numerous references to it in the FSAR, April 7, these intervonors requested the right to review the Operations 1

Manual.

The request was characterized'.by the Board as late "in the extreme".J The Board is currently considering the appropriatenes's of the inclusion of this six-volume document in the record.

The high school. student, could contribute little to the safety I

review process and has prbs.cntly withdrawn from the hearing, and the two attorneys purporting to represent the citizens j

group and their witnesses have contributed no technical or

• safety commentary worthy of consideration.

J Unless the renewed motion-presented by NSP to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board before the second. adjournment i'or authority to load fuel is promptly, granted, the hearing pro-cess will surely delay startup of the plant af ter' it is com-j plete and ready for startup.'

This assumes that current labor j

difficulties will be resolved in' the. near future.

Delays due j

to the regulatory process in the start. p of the plant af ter u

j it is complete and ready for fuel loading will have at least

~

]

three major adverse effects upon NSP and the public it serves:

j

..i Reduced' reliability of electric power supply by reduced 1.

generating margin and lowering.of coal reserves in the' Upper Midwest.

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

$1,100,000 per month.

b y

p.**caveo g se yw g 'e=mme - - -

vww w

v.

g-Dr. Glenn T.,Seaborg June 19, 1970 Page 5' 3

r i

3.

Increased detrimental effects on.cnvironmental quality _

from electrical generation by older fossil-fueled plan'ts not presently equipped with modern emission controls.

Such delays will also cause the General Ele'ctric 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 grented, any delay in reconvening the hearing will-result in i

the same adverse consequence,s to the public_ interest when the fuel loading and low power startup tes. ting program' are g

i concluded.

l Strong and innovative leadership,is required now 1f the li-

,I censing process is not,to break down entirely.

I urge you,~

as promptly a,s ' practicable, to convene a task force of inter-ested governmental and private persons, including, if appro-priate, legislators and menibers of the judiciary, to consider how the present. regulatory processes can be improved and modified to reduce delay and un' certainty without compromising

[

the 1cgitimate interests of the,public'.

Delay in proceeding l

l mont and utilization of nuclear power.

j on this matter will undoubtedly seriously impede the develop-l Because of the relationship of matters in this letter to is-suos now subject to the hearing process, I recognize that you-may wish to place this letter in the public doc'ument room.

I Sincerely, ad AfAd-.

EARL EWALD cc:

Conimissioner James T. Ramey Commissioner Wil,frid E. Johns 6h Commissioner Theos J.

Thompson Commissioner _ Clarence E.

Larson Chairman John N.

Dassikas Congr'essman Chet Holifield Governor Harold LeVander_

Mr. Harold L.

Price f

e e

=

,w

0 (V

^

F1UTTCNDERG ORREN. GRIGWOLD & COHCN AT T OHN EYG AT LAW 1730 C OM M [nC g; tive t t>lNo SAIN T PA UL.,

MINN E SO T A $1106

.e a m pg, g mwvTgNogme 324.1364 Z^.I,*,. C'".wo,

July 6, 1970 j

6.~m. ~ c e o c o-

o. oc.ase s

F RE D C. NortToN

}

Valentine B. Deale, Esp.

j 1001 Connecticut Avenue NW Suite 504 Washington, D. C. 20036 Dr. Eugene Creuling Professor of Physics Duke University Durham, North Carolina 27706 Dr. John C. Geyer Chairman, Department of Geography and Environmental Engineering

' John Hopkins University Baltimore, !!aryland 21218 Re: In the Matter of Northern States Power Company Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1 Docket No. 50-263 Gentlemen:

1 On June 19, 1970, Mr. Earl Ewald, Chairman of NSP, sent a letter to Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg.

It was a five page letter, essentially consisting of complaints as to the nature of the AEC proceedings concerning the Monti-cello Plant.

It was interesting to note that FECCA did not obtain a copy of this letter in the usual manner with an Affidavit of Mailing attached, but rather received it as an AEC document. NSP is ably represented by Washing-ton counsel, Mr. Gerald Charnoff, a local Minneapolis law firm, as vc11 as i

house counsel.

Any of these attorneys could have informed Mr. Ewald that j

it was necessary to send copics of communications to all parties.

I There is no doubt, on the basis of this letter, that Mr. Ewald was trying to put pressure on the AEC to affect the outcome of the Quasi-Judicial proceeding now pending in this matter. The letter is repicte with threats of the things which will happen if NSP is not immediately given its own way.

It attacks the three physics graduate students, the MECCA lawyers i

. or anyone else who questions NSP.

When NSP first applied to build a plant at Mon'ticello, it accepted all of the rules and regulations of the AEC.

The present hearings, along with the intervention, are a part and parcel of that proceeding.

It is para-doxical that on one hand, NSP is suing the State of Mitmesota in defense of the AEC, but on the other hand, when those AEC rules conflict with NSP's vishes, they too become the object of NSP8s scorn.

F i

l h.

_ [.

~'

~

f j

1 t

Valentine B. Deale, Esq.

Dr. Eugene Greuling

(

e Dr. John C. Ocycr July 6, 1970-Page No. 2.

HECCA is confident'that the threats contained in Mr. Ewald's

^

letterwillhavenoeffectontheoutcome-ofanyofthfsBoard'lsdecisions. '

If Mr. Ewald does not realize that this is a Quasi-JudLcial proceeding, MECCA does.

NSP has consistently attempted to bring..iodo press'ures on

/this Board in Mr. Ewald's letter and otherwise by.trying to place-the bur-4 den of any of our electrical shortages tipon this Board.- Such is simply not.

the case. The Monticello plant has suffered from labor problems and is, at this present time, in the throes of a.scrious strike which has virtually 3

i shut down construction.

The plant is not-completc and under'no--set'of cir-

~

l,l

' cumstances could it be operational.

i e

MECCA believes that your Board shoul'd make it absolutely cicar that Mr. Ewald's letter to Dr. Seaborg can and will have no affect on the '

outcome of these proceedings.

It. would not hurt to clarify that your Board j

is independent from any other aspects of the Atomic Energy Commission and ii

,once licensing proceedings are commenced, cannot be affected by.any other branch 6f the AEC.

o Yours-.very truly, f-MECCA ll - s Lawrence D. Cohen %*f?,$ ' William J. Hennessy i.r LDC/kl s 4 O t I ~. S 7 d i m 9 y t.wpe--- .w-%m..e,-..,.,,.---..,w..-.,,,_,ym,,m,. ,,,,,y,,

t 0 United States of Amerien Atomic Energy Commission

• In the raat t er of Northern States Power Company llonticello Nuclear Plant Unit 1 Docket No, 50-06')

cert i fi en t e, o f S e--vi ce I 1 heroby certify that copico of 11ECCAb lotter to the Atouio Safety ri and Licens$ng Doard dated July 6,1970 van served upon the.followin; by deposit in the U.S, ranil, first clace, thia 6th day of July,197C Valentine D. Dcole, Esq., Chairman Cerald Chernoff, Isq. Atomic $cfcty and Licensing Dcard Shaw, Pit tman, Pot ts, T rowbridge i Solte 504 & Madden I 1001 Connecticut Avenec 910 - 17th Street, N. W. Vashington, D. C.

2003f, Washington, D. C.

20006- ' James P. C letson, E sq. Mr. Donald E helson /siternate Chal tran Vice President and General Cou sel r Atomic Safety and LicensInD Doord florthern States Powcr Company Donohue, Ehrmant raut & Cleason 414 Nicollt t Mall 11125 Rockville Plte tiinneapolls, ninnesota $5401 Rockville, Maryland 20052 Honorable Harold E. LcVander Dr. Eugene Creuling Covernor, State of Minnesota l Professor of Physics St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Dulo Universi ty Durham, North Carolina 27706 - C. Robert Johnson, Esq. i Special Assis tant At torney Cenc ral Dr. John C. Ccyc r, Chai rman - State of tilnnesota Department of Ccography and 717 De lawa rc S t ree t, 5. E. inviront. ental EngineerinD Hinneapolls,itInnesota 55440 The Johns Hopkins University Bal timore, liaryland 21218 tir. John P. Dadallch Executive Di rector Dr. Rolf Ellessen State of flinnesota Pollution Deperiment of Civil Engineering Control Agency Stanford University 717 De laware S t ree t, 5. E. Stanford, Call fornla Minneapolis, ninnesota $547.0 l { Thomas F. Engelhart, Esq. ~ Counsel for AEC Regulatory Sta f f U. S. Atomic Energy Connission ~ r Se r a e Executive Of ficer i State Departe.2nt of Health Washington, D. C. 20545 l University Campus Willlem J. Hennessy, Esq. M!nneapolls,liinnesota 55440 Hall and Hennessy Mr. L. J. Serthcl . Attorneys at Law Chairman 55 Sherburne Avenue Wright County Board of St. Paul, Hlonesota 55103 Commi ssione rs Buffalo, Hinnesota 55313 ttr. Stanley T. Robinson, Jr. Chief, Public Proceedings Branch Rcycrend Paul Engs trom, President - Of fice of the $ccretary Hlnnesota Environmental Control U. 5. Atomic Energy Co:rmission " Ci tizen's Association Washington, D. C. 20545 26 East Exchcnge Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Algic A. UcIls, Esq. Chairman, Atomic Safe ty and Mr. Kenneth Dzugan Licensing Doard Panel Mr. Theodore Pepin U. 5. Atccile [ncrDy Comission Hr. Ccorge Durne t t WashinDton, D. C. 20545 Department of Physics Universi ty of Minnesota Minncopolls, Mlbnesota 55'iS5 CWCW. d.V . ' " ' - - - - ~ Lawrence D. Cohen Attorney for MECC A e . ~ -. _.. .u - ~. ~}}