ML20127P525

Applicants Answer to Minnesota Environ Control Citizens Association Petition for Leave to Intervene & Motion Thereto

ML20127P525
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	03/25/1970
From:	Charnoff G SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:
Shared Package
ML20127P514	List: ML20127P511 ML20127P525 ML20127P539 ML20127P544
References
NUDOCS 9212020242
Download: ML20127P525 (7)

Text

.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l.' ,

ATOMIC ENER0Y COMMISSION In the Matter of NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPAIN Docket No. 50-263 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Unit 1 I

APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO MINNESOTA EINIRONMENTAL

. CONTROL CITIZENS ASSOCIATION'S PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND MOTION RELATING THERETO I. Answer -

1. Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the regulations in Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, " Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities, and Part 2, " Rules of Practice," the Atomic Energy Commission

("AEC") in its discretion "in view of the substantial public interest expressed," provided, by notice in the Federal Reg-ister on March 11, 1970 (35 Fed. Reg. 4344), for a public hearing to be held on April 28, 1970. The purpose of the \

hearing is to consider the application by Northern States Power Company (" Applicant") for a provisional operating li-cense which would authorize operation of the Monticello Nu-clear Generating Plant, Unit 1, at steady state power levels up t,o 1670 megawatts (thermal).

2. By telegram received and docketed by the AEC Office of the Secretary, Public Proceedings Branch, on March 24, 1970, j Minnesota Environmental Control Citizens Association (" Peti-tioner") petitioned for leave' to intervene in the public

! hearing.

9212020242 7003 M PDR ADOCK 05000263 A PDR

i I

i 3 Section 2.714(a) of the AEC's " Rules of Practice," in pertinent part, providest

. "The petition (for leave to intervene]

uhall set forth the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, how that

, interest may be affected by Commission action, and the contentions of the pe-titioner in reasonably specific detail."

. The words "in reasonably specific detail" were added at the end of the quoted sentence by amendment of the Rules of Practice effective July 12,-1968.

4. Petitioner's telegram alleges only generally that it wishes to "present information about public safety in the event of accidents associated with operation of this re-actor" and that it wishes to express its " views on the radioactive and thermal discharges" from the Plant. Pe-titioner's telegram petition is deficient in that it fails to set forth Petitioner's contentions "in reasonably spo-cific detail." The specific details of Petitioner's con-tentions are required to assure their orderly consideration at the prehearing conference, to enable the AEC Regulatory Staff and the Applicant to prepare to respond thereto at the public hearing, and to ensure an orderly and efficient

. hearing process.

! Subject to the condition that Petitioner's participa-5

-! tion in the proceeding is limited to matters within the 1

9 substantive regulatory jurisdiction of-the'AEC and to mat-ters within the11ssues. set forth in the Notice of Hearing i

l I

j published in the Federal Register on March 11, 1970, and i

subject to the prompt filing by Petitioner of its conten- i tions in reasonably specific detail, Applicant does not object to the granting of Petitioner's request for leave to intervene in the proceeding. So that the Atomic Safety

l 1

and Licensing Board and the parties to the proceeding may usefully consider at the prehearing conference the matters i

4 set forth in Section 2.752 of the AEC's" Rules of Practice,"

inc]uding the simplification and clarification of the issues, the Petitioner's detailed contentions should be received by the Board and the parties at a reasonable interval prior to j the prehearing conference.

4 II. Motion Pursuant to Section 2.730 of the Commission's " Rules 3

of Plactice," Applicant moves the Atomic Safety and Licens-ing Board to require the Petitioner to serve a statement of its contentions in reasonably specific detail on the members of the Board, the AEC Regulatory Staff.and Counsel for the j Applicant, ,

Donald E. Nel'aon-l 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis,' Minnesota 55401 I

and

' Gerald Charnoff Shaw, Pittman, Potts

'

• Trowbridge & Madden 910 17th Street, N.W.

., Washington, D.C. 20006 in such manner that it will be received at least twenty four hours prior to the prehearing. conference which is to be held t

I

,, - - , ~ , - ,,---r, --g-y, , --s--

. , y y- w.-c- ur , - - .c-- y-oe

16 -

i .

i on April 7, 1970. A proposed form of order, as provided in Section 2.730(b), is attached hereto as Appendix A.

3 Respectfully Submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS TROWBRIDGE & MADDEN 0 0t d 1

By. 3 D 'A a A (.ur.:il Obrald Charnoff Attorney for Applicant, llorthern Stateo Power Company March 25, 1970 '

O 4

I

APPENDIX A In the Matter of NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY Docket No. 50-263 Monticello Nucicar Generating Plant Unit 1 PROPOSED FORM OF ORDER ORANTING LEAVE TO INTERVENE TO

, MINNESOTA- EINIRONMENTAL CONTROL CITIZENS ASSOCIATION

1. Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,

\g and the regulations in Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, " Licensing of Production and Utilization Facili-ties," and Part 2, " Rules of Practice," the Atomic Energy Commission ("AEC") in its discretion "in view of the sub-stantial public interest expressed," provided, by notice in the Federal Register on March 11, 1970 (35 Fed. Reg. 4344),

for a public hearing to be held on April 28, 1970 The pur-poce of the hearing is to consider the application by North-ern States Power Company (" Applicant") for a provisional operating license which would authorize operation of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1, at steady state power levels up to 1670 megawatts _(thermal).

2. By telegram received and docketed by the AEC Office of the Secretary, Public Proceedings Branch, on March 24, 1970, ,

'f41nnesota Environmental _ Control Citizens Association ("Pe-titioner") petitioned for leave to intervene in the pub,lic

! hearing.

4

3. The Applicant filed an Answer, dated March 25, 1970, to Petitioner's request for leave to intervene stating that

l-it has no objection to granting the petition,provided the Petitlener is required to file its contentions in reasonably specific detail and provided the Petitioner's participation does not thereby enlarge the issues before the Board.

4 "In contested proceedings, the use of the prehearing conference to identify what matters are in controversy and to clarify their relationship to the issues before the board is of primary importance" (Section VI (c), Appendix A, 10 CFR Part 2). To allow full.use of the prehearing conference to accomplish its purposes, as set out in Sec-tion 2.752 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, good administrative practice requires parties to the proceeding to give timely notice of their contentions in reasonably j specific detail. Recognition of this principle-is con-tained in the amendment to Section 2.714(a), effective July 12, 1968, in which the Commission expressly provided that a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth, among other things, "the contentions of the petitioner in reasonably specific detail."

5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

(a) Subject to Petitioner's compliance with.

, the provisions of paragraph (b) of this ORDER, Petitioner's request for leave f 'to intervene in the proceeding is here-

, by granted. .

j ,

! (b) Petitioner shall serve upon the members I

of this Board, the AEC Regulatory Staff, Donald E. Nelson 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 and Gerald Charnoff

, Shaw, Pittman, Potte Trowbridge & Madden 910 17th Street, N.W.

i Washington, D.C. 20006 and such other parties who may be permitted to participate in this proceeding a written u statement of Petitioner's contentions in reasonably specific detail. Service of such written statement shall be made in such manner that the statement shall be received no later than 9:00 a.m. April 6, 1970.

(c) This ORDER does not in any manner enlarge the issues before the Board as set out in the Notice of Hearing, 35 Fed. Reg. 4344.

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING $0ARD BY '

~

l ~

,