ML20127M800

Forwards Draft Reply to to Seaborg from E Ewald for Consideration

ML20127M800
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	07/13/1970
From:	Hennessey J US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Johnson, Ramey, Seaborg US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 9211300476
Download: ML20127M800 (12)

Text

.

g,,L./ 'IfG-.4

)

~

~

• ' M

^

umTED STATCS d,

• O

,44 )3,<h '

m, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION wn.,una,ou. o c. mn l

Q47~ Gt s' hi$ /,a. i Jul.13 YJ70 a e c n L<a.,, Cheirean Seaborg / h Co:xniccioner Rnecy / Coniseloner Johnson 4 i Coualcof oner Thompcon Conciccioner Larcon RESP 02:SC TO 1.EITER l'n0:1 IL EARL EUALD, C1141RMAll 07 Tilt BOARD,1:0M11rn!! STMT.S PO*!dn 00:1PAirl i { Transnitted horcuith for Corniccion consideration is a droit reply to the letter to chairman Scoborg of June 19, 1970, from !!r. Earl Evald, Chaircan of the Doard of the llorthern 2 Stateo Power Conpany. A copy of lir. Eunid's letter is attached. I have nico attached a copy of n letter dated July 6, 19'/0, l fro:a councol for cac of the intervenors (1;CCCA) in the llatiec11o licensing proceeding. This let.s (oddressed to the chairman of the ntonic onfety rmd licencing board uhich is preciding in the !!onticcilo proceeding) chargoo, f.n cubstance, that "on the bacio of [ hic] Ictter,

• 4* 11r. Euald uno trying to put preocure on the AEC to affect the outcomo of the *A* proceeding".

I would like to discuss thin matter uith the Conniosion at nn carly Inforaation !!coting. L l Signed 208ePh f. flennessey i Joseph F. llennecocy Cencral Counsc1 Atto. As stated cc Secretary (2) q-4 l

s. c'c (.n. Mghs s

M c. &, M C, --w.% 92113o0476 7oo713 hn10 INM PDR ADDCK 05000263 A PDR

m i..;.' g 9 DRAl'T Dear Mr. Evald j l r This is in responce to your letter of June 19, 1970, concerning the i l j proceeding on the application of Northern States Power Company for a pro. I vision-1 operating license for the Monticello Nucicar Cencrating l Plant. Si e this if cense application is' presently in the process of adjudica-tion before an atomic s,afety and licensing board, it would be inappropriate for the Comissioners.to express a vicu on any of the safety or other issues involved. I believe, houcver, some comment on our part is warranted regard-inp, the underlying metter you have raised, that of delay in licensing pro-ccedingc, and your recommen'dation that uc convene a tack force of interested governmental and private personc "to consider how the reguintory procecces can be improved and modified to reduce delay and uncertainty without com-promising the legitimate interects of the public". As a preliminary observation, it does appear that some of the delay. encountered in the Monticello proceeding stems from the is.ct that several. novel icgal and policy questions have been raised and there has been need for their consideration ac matters of first impression. I also understand your Ictter to indicate that, because of other factois bearing on completion of facility construction, the delay experienced in the licensing proceeding has not been the determinative factor as recpects scheduling of the Monticello facility for operation. 4 N 1 J 8 .m e ..t*1 l-i

g ,) 2 Specking in a broader context, I believe I can fairly state that, historically, the AEC has had a basically r;ood record as respects the in'atter of time concuned in its licensing hearings. L'hile' any agency's exper-tence in this record vill necessarily not be uniform, our over-all record on time required for hearingc has compared favorably with that of other Federal reguintory t:gencies. I A bockward look et history cannot, of course, be the incesure for aqoesningthenacquocyofacyctentodentwithcurrentproblemsandfuture i needs; and this is particularly ro in a ?ophere t:s dynamic an that of nucleer poyer, tic bnve, cecordingly, alvays been raindful that our regulatory pro-I ceduren cannot rennin static and that experience and enticipated requirements vill point the way to desirabic changes. Connictent uith thic recognition, we have periodically commicsioned special groops, vith nenbers of profeccionn1 competence end bretidth, to ~ examine end recour.iend voys in uhich the AEC licensing process con be ecdc a more efficient instrument for acco.mpliching its important public purposci. The two !!itchell panels, of 1965.nnd 1957, end Icot ycor's Internal Study 4 Group vere special task groupo vith this as their charge. The Joint Committee i on Atomic Energy has also closely followed thic aspect of the regulatory ( l program, holding in-depth hearingo on the subject and recommending legisla-tion authorizing changes in the licensing process when this was untranted. On a Government-vide basis, the Administrative Conference cf the United f i States, in uhich reprcsentatives of this egency play an active role, hne t 4 inade a ocries of recoraendations for improving the officiency of the odninis-trtitive hearing process nnd it plans to continue exaninntion of this rutter i 1 c' w r y. .k.

~ O O ' in its future activitics. 1,might note, parenthetien11y, that many p. of the steps which have been recomended by the Adminictrative Conferenec ucre aircady a part of our licensing procces. The foregoing is not intended ac a recitation of laurcis; I still less, ohould it be taken no a sign of complacency on our part. The progressively incroacing number of nucicar facilitics, the paccage of neu Icgislation bearing on our licensing proceedinan and the need to accommodato effectively the desire for participation in licensing hearings by affected mmbers of the public, nake constant attention to the fair and efficient workings of our regulatory procedurco an agency imperative, llorcover, it vould be micicading to create the iniprecsion that it is cri cacy task to strike that fine balance uhich properly acconodates the goal of conducting reasonably c>:peditious hearingo end at the scma tirac safeguntds the icgitimato interests of the public in perticipating in the regulatory revicu procccc. Reconciling these ofttimes conflicting considerations has been and will remain a paramount challenge for the administrative proccan, j Uc vill, therefore, continue to revicu our procedures and make those changes from time to time that commend themselves as being beneficial. Insofar as licenoing hearings are concerned, it will remain our objective to carry out the important purposes of the public hearing in a reanner which will safeguard the right to meaningful participation 4 k e G l nm. - u r wo, mem4yve ~ - +-y r

e O 4 by affected personc while at tho same titte minituizing delays in necting the Nation's need for power. r In accordance with our reguiccions, your 1ctter and thic recponse havo been ttado a part of the public records of the Corniocion. Copics are niso being furniched to all of the parties to the Monticello proceeding for their information. Sincerely, Chairman s 0 I t 4 4 9 S .3 ___.____.__.____.___...._..________._.______J__

e s = >.=gA- +*= i-a" ,2,... U + H O I1711 E 11 N STATEG P o W C If C; O M P A N Y 4 8 $11 N H C A PO L.lD. kil N t4 C 0 0T,A D 5 4 04 _p., i..j -. _- - --~;*"..~.~.._... - -. -+

• \\
• E ARL CWALD

...~ ..w..n. Juno 19, 1970 e e Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman Unite 3 States Atomic Energy Commission ~ Washington, D. C. 20545 Dear Dr. Seaborg Thip letter is prompted' by the extraordinary AEC public hear- !: g proceedings concerning the licensing of the Monticello nuclear Generating. Plant. Those proceedings, which havo just' been recessed'fo',q the second timo, are likely to rqsult in substantial costb to Northern States Power Company and its customers, and to exyjoso the people in our service area to the substantial risk of a curtailment of electric power with conseqtient hazards and lossos. Delay or curtailment of serv-ice from Monticello requircis excessivo use of old generating ~ plants which posos serious environmental considerations. In,dood, but for the coincidence of an, extended strike of the sheet metal workers at the site, both of those very likely cventualities would be currently attributable to the delays encountered in the licensing proceduro. If the delays encountered in this licensing procedure are duplicated in connection witp the other nucicar 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 conse of its responsibility to assure a reliable power gen-crating system could rely on the t_imely availability of nev( nuclear power generating plants. On January 10 of this year the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards concluded that the Monticello Plant could bc ..... ~ -

9,ty g. 3..y 3

( U vE' e.=m -+ ' 9 r.p.+,, ..m m [

~ f k.,,-, Dr. Glenn T. Scaborg June 19, 1970 Page 2 ( operated without. undue risk to the h'ealth and safety of the public. While certain final details were left to be resolved with the regulatory staff, it 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 hearing until April 20, 1970, a date so close to the sched-uled plant completilon date that unusual procedures would, have been' required to permit a license to issue following such a hearihg in a t imely mannet[,Donsistent with plant completion. ~ \\ t VLc thereupon, proceeded with a mot g for authorization to load fuel and conduct lou power 1startup tests - activities which carry no potential for harm to persons or property off-si te and activities with respect to which' none of the inter-venors' contentions was reasonably rela ted.; The regulatory staff, which by this timo had co.cluded that the full power license could be issued upon completion of the plant, concurred in the motion. The motion was denied by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Doard, not on grounds of safety, but because the regulatory staff couldn't decide how to respond to a subpoena for AEC inspection reports. At this time, May 1, tbo first adjournment of the hearing took place. When the adjournment was declared, NSP decided to proceed with modification of the furnace-sensitized stainless steel s components in the Monticello reactor. This program, which had been,under consideration for some time, was undertaken at this time becauno of the recess. in the hearing. This work has now been completed and has been approved by the ACRS and i the regulatory staff. I Finally, two weeks af ter the subpoena was issued, the staff j on May B agreed to furnish the inspection reports subject to cortain very appropriate deletions, i.e. information of a proprietary nature, certain names of individuals, names of, i other plants, and identification of certain internal AEC e guides'and memoranda.' On or about' June 2 the reports, with-out the deleted material, were actually made available and the hearing was reconvened on June 15 In reply to objections 1 l } n --"w

r-- ,l)! 2 Dro Glenn Tc Seaborg '(, June 19,. 1970 s ' Page 3 't i t by the.interEenors as to the deletions, NSP secured'penn'iscion i from its contractors, whose proprietary data were included in th;c deleted information, to make such data available t' the intervenors on a confidential basis which would not p're-o cludetheiruseofthematerialfortheonlypurposefor! which it muy have been properly requested, ,i.e., to condupt cross-examination. The intervenors rejected the offer pro-claiming their abhorrence of secrecy. If they were to see the deleted proprietary material, the entiro public must see it too, they claimed. This, of course, would' destroy the value of the proprietary data to 'its owners. ) 1 The Board, in the face 'of this patent mischief, refused to i determine whether the.intervenors would in any way be pre-judiced, and professing to perceive a prin~ciple of law at issue, announced that it would again adjourn the hearing pendin,g a determipation as to whether "it has jurisdiction to further consider'the matter of the deletions and as to whe'ther the intervenors have, any rights to the deleted material. In'the end, the Board announced that it would cond these mat-tors to the Atomic Safety 'and Licensing Appeal Board for resolution before again convening the ' hearing. This, appar-ently 'will produce another delay of several wecks, ut least. i Public hearings on the location and licensing of nuclear power-plants, in principle, aro desirable. They provide a means for public participation in decisions affecting the health and safety of the public. But the hearinbs have to be scheduled and conducted in a mann~cr which fully recognizes all of the public interests involved irc power plant installations. doing this, means have to be developed to distinguish between In the headline seeking dissident, the.true, representatives of the public, the competent and the incompetent. penalties to society could be large indeed. _ If not,- the The intervonors in the Monticello hearing ar'e three collego graduate students, a high school student, and two lawyers- . alternating in representing a group of citizens concern 6a about the invironment. 9 0 9 6 e e ef.j ~.

• w

-Y

g Dr. Glenn T. Scabog s June 19, 1970 .s ~ 4 Page 4 ~ A review of the more than fourtc.cn hundred pages of, testim, ony already accumulated at the public hearings would disclose that there has not been identified any singic 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 ficids 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". When the hearing was reconvened on June 15, more than two j i months af ter reference was made to the operations Manual in the intervonors' presonge' at' the prehearing conference on and despito numerous references to it in the FSAR, April 7, those intervenors requested the right to review the Operations The requesti was characterized'.by the Board as lato Manual. "in the extremo".7 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 procently withdrawn from the heari,ng, and the two attorneys purporting to represent the citizens group'and their witnesses have contributed no toc 1,mical or

• safety commentary worthy of consideration.

[! 8 Unless the renewed motion presented by NSP to the Atomic I Safety and Licensing Board before the second. adjournment for authority to load fuel is promptly, granted,.the hearing pro-lf cess will surely delay startup of the plant af ter it 'is com-l This assumes that current labor .l ploto and ready for startup., Delays due difficultics will be resolved in the near future. to the regulatory process in the. startup of the plant af ter

l it is complete and ready for fuel loadin'g will have at least l;

three major adverso offects upon NSP and the public it servos: ll , i Reduced' rollability of electric power supply by reduced 1. generating margirl and lowering of coal reserves in the' Upper Midwest. to USP and its customers in excess of 2. Increased costs , $1,100,000 por month. 'j e 93 4 p ?. e s '*'*mA en~ ~ g

i . Dr. Glenn d'.,Seaborg O I.,.. June 19, 1970 Page 5' 3 r 3. Increased detrimental effects on,cnvironmental quality ~ from electrical generation b'y older fossil-fueled pian'ti ~ not presently equipped with modern emission contro3s. .I Such delays will also cause the General Ele'ctric Company tol incur additional costs of $500,000 per month of delay. AuJ thority to ' Load fuel without delay following completion of l the Monticello Plant is needed to ameliorate those adverse effects. i Even if the renewed motion for fuel loading authority is g greuted, any delay, in reconvenirig the hearing will result in the same adverse consequences to the public interest when the fuel loading and low power s artup testing program are concluded.' Strong and innovative leadership is required now if tihe li-7 censing process is not to break down entirely. I urgo you, as promptly as ' practicable, to convene a task force of inter-ested governmental and private persons, including, if appro-1cgislatore and members of the judiciary, to consider present res.ilatory processes can be improved and t modified to reduce delay and uncertainty without compromising the legitimate interests of the public. Delay in proceeding off this matter will undoubtedly seriously impedo 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 l ublic docun i ~' room. I 5 t ,' Sincerely, GAlb f Y .d EARL EWALD cc: Commissioner James T. Ramey Commissioner Wi3,frid E. Johns 5Ti Commissioner Theos J.. Thompson Commissioner Clarence E. Larson Chairman John N. Nacsihas Congri saman Chet llolificld Governor llarold LeVander Mr. Ilacold L. Price f \\

o' o. l I Valentine B. Deale, Esq. g Dr. Eugene Creuling Dr. John C. Ceyer ~ July 6, 1970 1 ~ Page No. 2. MECCA is confident that the threats contained in Mr. Ewald's letter will have no effect on the outcome of any ;> his Board',s decisions. If Mr. Ewald does not realize that this is a Qua licial proceeding, MECCA does. NSP has consistently attempted to br:c.c, undo press'urcs on this Board in Mr. Ewald's letter and otherwisc by trying to place tuo bur-den of any of our electrical shortages Opon this Board. Such is simply not the case. The Monticello plant has suffered from labor probicms and is, at this present time, in the throer of a serious strike which has virtually shut doun construction. The plant is not complete'and under no set of cir- ' cumstances could it be operational. MECCA believes that your Board shoul'd make it absolutely cicar that Mr. Ewald's letter to Dr. Scaborg can and will have no affect on the outcoir.c of these proceedings. It-would not hurt to clarify that your Board is independent from any other aspects of the Atomic Energy Commission and once licensing proceedings are commenced, cannot be affected by any other branch 6f the AEC. Yours very truly, s MECCA ' ~ J i s P 1awrence D. Cohen @ggdM ~ ~ j William J. Hennessy 4 LDC/h1 e s e 4 ,,.mP e 6 t ' 85 4, Iby A_ } Gr.pers e yaw' y 3,P' T C

WidWc4 Etates of Anariert y 3 i Monic Energy Commis.sion t In the rantter of Xorthern Stat or. l'owcr Compr.y Monticello Nuclonr P.lant Unit 1 Docke t No. 50,'!O hrt s ti cqt_r, _of_ serv 3_co I hereby certify that copico of ErCCA'o let ter to tho Atotaic Snfou ' and Licens$ng Doard dated July 6,1970 van torved upon the follow!r u, i by deposit in the U.S. sarail, first clans, thir. 6th dny of July,1V, Valentine B. Decle, Esq., Chaltracn Cereld Chernoff, Esq. 7, Atomic Sefety and Licensing Board Show, Pit tman, Pot ts Trcubridge i Suite 504 f, Madden 1001 Connecticut Avenec S10 - 17th Street,11. V. Veshinston, D. C. 20036 Poshington, D. C. 20006- ' Jones P. Ciceson, Esq. Hr. Donald E. helson tilternate thc1 rcian Vice Prestcent end General Coursel litcelc Sofety end licensing Board Northern Stetes Powe'r Company Donahue, Ehrment rout & Cleeson 4th Nicollet i;all 11125 Lockville Pihe Minneapolis, ninnesoin 5slOI Lockville,f:aryland 20052 i Dr. Eugene Ceculing. lionordile llorold E. LeVonder Covernor, $tetc of Minnesota Professor of Niysics St. Poul, tilnnesote 55101 Duke Universi ty Durbca, North Ca'rolina 27706 - C. F.ober t Johnson, T sq. Special Assistent At torney Cencral . Dr. John C. Ccyer, Chaltman State of itinnesoto Depdrtment of Ccoprophy and 717 De ltworc St reet, 5. f. invironc. ental Engineering Minnacpolis, illnnesota 55640 1he Johns Hopkins University Dal t1raore, Marylond 21210 Mr. John P. Dodellch i Dr folf Ellessen Executive Director State of tilnnesota Pollution Depcrtment of Civil Ingineering Cont rol Agency 5tanford University 5tonford, Coll fornic 717 Delewarc $ t tec t, 5. E. . Minne0 polls, Minnesoto 55460 s } Tho: nan P. Engelhart, Ecy. Dr. R. H. Dan " Counsel for AEC negulatory Staff Secre tary end Executive Of ficer 11 S. Atom.ic Energy Co.winnich State Departr.cnt of Heal th Wanhington, D. C. 2054a. University Campus -" ~ 4 Minnc0 polls, Minnesote 55M0. Villitm J. Hennessy, Esq. Mr. L. J. Carthe l Hall end Hennessy Choirrmn Attorneys et Lew Vright County Board of 55 Sherburne Avenue Ccanis s ione rs St. Pau), Minnesota 55103 Duffalo, ninnesota 55313 Mr. Stanley T. Robinson, Jr. kcycrend Paul Ings t rom, President Chief, Public Proceedings Brcnch Minnesotr C'nvi ronmen tol Cont rol Office of the Secretcry 'Ci tiren's Asso;;!at ten U. 5. Atcele incrgy Coxmtssion 26 Ecst Exchence 5treet Voshington, D. C. 20545 5t. Poul, Minnesote 55101 Algic A. volls, Esq. Mr. Kenneth Dzugon Chotroen Aton!c Safety and Mr. Theodore Pepin Licensing Doord Ponel hr. Ocorge Durne t t U. 5. Atomic Encroy Co:nmission ~ Department of I'hysIcs WashinDlon, D. C. 20545 ~ Universt ty of Hlnnesota hinnecpolis, Mlhnesota 55455 <!CM. .Gr ^'% Lawrence 1). Cohen Attorney fer MECC A e a .... ~.... J

• • WsS '

4 m a.. ,4. + n S ....,...Ls

• n

$., s. a., 'al l_ l_,,,y _.,, _p, L '}}