ML20125B375
| ML20125B375 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 09/15/1969 |
| From: | Holifield C CONGRESS, JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY |
| To: | Seaborg US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9212090334 | |
| Download: ML20125B375 (6) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:~
*., M'y f **L**= %
W=.% b .
'"ly***;
- "::: = = % .
*[ '
==.' ". % :". ':,:.==.. . -
- *.=:0;",1.
60ilgtcds Dt t.,g e TM1tiltc b h ti!!c 5 :=o.n^_. r/,.=,. .,.
.~ .
edv 2 U.^.5.Nievn m m eu JOINT COMMITTEC ON ATOMIC ENERGY " "' " " WASHINGTON; D.C. 20510 September 15, 1969 lionorable Glenn T. Scaborg Chairman /
),yc
~ [M D U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
Dear Dr. Seaborg:
I It has come to my attention that the Northern States Power om'pany of Minneapolis, Minnesota has instituted court action to contest those portions of a waste disposal permit issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency purporting to regulate radiological discharges from the company's proposed Monticello nuclear power plant. I understand that an action was filed by the utility on August 26, 1969 in the U. S. District Court at St. Paul and a companion suit instituted on August 29 in the Minnesota state court system, both of ~~--' which in effect reqt.est the courts to determine whether the State of Minnesota has jurisdiction to regulate radiological discharges from nuclear power plants or whether the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction in this regard. I think it is fairly well known that the Joint Committee is strongly of the view that, under the Atomic Eiiergy Act as it is presently constituted, there is no room for the exercise of dual or concurrer.t jurisdiction by states to control radiation hazards by regulating byproduct, source, or special nuclear materials; that such materials are to be regulated and licensed either by the Commission or by state and local governments, but not by both; that certain, but not all, of the AEC's regulatory responsibilities may be transferred to interested and qualified states whose regulatory programs are compatible with the Commission's and adequate to protect the public health and safety; and that specifically, included within the regulatory responsibilities that are at all times to be reserved to the Commission, vis-a-vis the states, is the regulation of the construction and operation of nuclear reactors, including the discharge of radioactive effluents from such facilities. My own views in this regard as a charter member of the Joint. Committee have been enunciated on a number of occasions, most recently, ( p b, y 9212090334 690915 - PDR ADOCK 05000263 A PDR Y - W m y , ,,
'% ~.x y~ g , ~ ~%
. ~ %.
' ~y~.
!T : jr#'. Glenn T' San .g_ . ll O"* .
.OMM for example, in my letter of May 3,1969 to Mr. Robert C. Tuvoson, the Chairman of the Minnesota 15ollution Control Agency (copy attached; no reply received); during the Joint Committee's April 24, 1969 hea ring s on the Commission's fiscal year 1970 authorization legislation (Part 2, ~
- p. 931); and during the April 16, 1969 House floor debate on H. R. 4148 when I discussed that section of the House Public Works Committee's . i report thereon which recognized the AEC's preemptive authority in '
this regard (p. H2691 of the Congressional Record for April 16, 1969,
~
daily edition). I gather from the Icgal analyses of the question prepared by the Commission's General Counsel and the Joint Committee's Staff Counsel that virtually every court, legal scholar and state attorney general who has ever considered the question has also concluded that . the Atomic Energy Act has preempted the regulation of the radiological effects of the various atomic energy materials to the AEC. The list - of authoritics includes the Honorable Richard A. Emerick, Special Assistant Attorney General of the State of Minnesota, who I understand reached the same conclusion and so advised the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency well before it took final action on the Northern States Power Company's application for a waae disposal permit. .-
. Based on the foregoing, I hope and expect that the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Justice will seek to participate in the legal action initiated by the Northern States Power Company to bring their views on this important legal question to the attention of N relevant United States' District Court.
While legal action here'seems unavoidable, and while I believe the legal issue involved will be resolved against the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, I do not believe that a purely legal solution will bc _ completely satisfactory. The action by the Minnesota PCA would seem to suggest that not enough has been donc to convince the public that the AEC's regulations are fully adequate to protect the public health and safety, or to demonstrate to the public that, in terms of their relative impact on the environment, nuclear plants a.rc by far the Icast offensive of the various thermal generating units. Whether addic onal and more , intensive efforts by the AEC to remove the apparent doubts of the members of the Minnesota PCA would have succeeded in view of the circumstances. prevailing in Minnesota at this time is not free from doubt. Neve r thele s s , I believe the Commission must henceforth make a considerably greater ~ effort in this ' direction in Minnesota and elsewhere. I was therefore pleased - i 4 4 n---.,.,-. ..=.
.: 4
} ."' br. Glenn Ti. Sc[)rgz c -
- .to learn that.the Commission will be well represented at forthcoming '
public meetings, such as that-recently held in Vermont and scheduled
' in Minnesota, at which the health and safety and the environmental effects of producing electric power through nucicar : motion will be '-
explored in detail. .
, The Joint Committee shares responsibility in this area and I can assure you that greater efforts will be made in the future to place environmental effects of producing electric power--regardless of the fuel employed--into overall per spective. At the same tirae I believe the electric utilitics, who are most cognizant of local conditions, must be acutely aware of their responsibility to enlighten the local citizenry
~
by conveying to them all relevant data on environmental effects, the need for the plant, and the reasons for its proposed location at a parti- -- cular site, the reasons for sc1ceting one type power source over another, and so forth. In the final analysis it is the local electric utilitics who must assume the heaviest responsibility in this respect. Sincerely yours,
, / .
/, / /.
l: - J f.- L -. Chet Holiiicid' Chairrnan Atta chment: - Ltr Holifield/Tuveson dtd 5/3/69 d a 4 N j .. - 4 e m e en*' L " l.. .,- . 1 Lk .
_. _ . < . ~ _ . ._.___,_.-.__L -- ,__._ .~.. _ _ _ .. _ . , q
, "Ihy a~~ ~# .
t .
~
v.c c . . a.
..u. .a.w.
i
. . . ~ ...
. .n.
.....,...%.,uu.
.a. .m.,. . ....
. w . < ~ ,
m., ,a
.co.a
..u..... u..v,.w...,n..
- f. . . .r . .
. C.d , y..e r
pf.L 0, . ?%,J.c.
,% f ' t. f.p p ~
l
; ! .. .m . . uu .. .. t.
i; .s xa
- v. n. . l . 1.. c.i,, .. . s.e
..aa
. ..u. c. m .. 6 ..
.*'"..>*.*.o". w"'.a'^a,'n*'u
. uw..n*.**. .IOINT COMM TTEC ON ATOMIC ENEMY
- - +
, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20510
- 1,l '
..' i May 3,1969 ' -
t . , l
].' .
9 v. l
.. l Honorr.ble Robert C. Tuveson '
I i [ . Chairman . . ( - 1-
.. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 7 i c/o 146 West Clark ,
Albert Lea, Minnesota 56007
~
n
Dear Mr. Tuvoso,
n: !
)~
t
' l' j It has recently come to the attention of the Joint Committec '
on Atomic Energy that the Minnesota Ppilution Control Agency hac under ,
.j
.l consideration a proposal to include in any wasto disposal permit it may ',
! issue for the Monticello Nuclear Cenc' rating Plant of Northern States ,
'~~
Power Co. conditions or limitations relating to radioactive waste dis-charges from the plant, both gaseous and liquid. The se limitations,
)
1 I unders.tand, are considerably differen.t from those which the Atomic . Energy Commission would impose pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act .' j ,,.
. and regulations promulgated thereunder, and would bc in addition to
.' ! ' limitations on conventional wastes, includin~g waste heat, which state
.j ,
water pollution control agencics traditionally control. , 1 j My purpose in writing is to express my very deep concern l that, with respect to the proposal to regulato radiological effluents from I the Monticello plant, the Minnesott. Pollution Control Agency would bc l attempting to exercise control in an arc:. that has been specifically ' a preempted to the Federal Government ~ As a charter member of the ' ** t i j Joint Committee, and as a member of the House Military Afinirs Committeo
- which drafted the original Atomic Encr;y Act, I can assure you that it was the intent of Cengress that this im .srtant area shoc.1d be re;ulated by thc na!iGnal govcrr.mant, ar.d r.ot by cach Of the individual sta;cs. This
.i , action we.s not taken simply out of a desire for uniformity in regul:. tion,
^
.i .
although this certainly was a motivating factor; in largo measure this action was taken out of recognition of the Atomic Energy Commission's and the e .. Federal Radiation Council's vastly great 9r expertisc respecting tho
. potential hacards of iadiological effects, and the control thereof, than any. ;
f* N 1 {^ 1
- l ,
,I Q.1 g.eu.ip$w-
% * . g
. l
[.c
, 't 1 -
't
)*
.q l L
- a % . g i ...
g' *l* . u--. aL b11, w- . - _ _- . - _. . _ %- -- . = ~~ . w. -- e. o. m w. ,y - * --o m- - ' '
ev - - _ _ . _
.._ .-..--r-. --
==~ - - - ~ . - , .
/. . ., A. ,, , ~ , ., , 4 - N i
- -J v
. w- ~
1:
.2 '
, s.
- single stato reasonably could be expected to have or t.cquire. Iam -~
cnclosing for your information a summary legal analysis prepared
; by my staff which discusses in somewhat greater detail the Icgal
- situation in this regard. As you will note from the memorandum.
j f virtually every court, legal scholar and stato attorney general who ' has'cVer considered this question ht.s concluded that the regulatoriy .
, control of the radiological effects of the various atomic energy materials
, is vested exclusively in the Atomic Energy Commission, vis - a - vi t, the l- 6tates, except where the Commission has undertaken to relinquish , _
certain of this authority to qualified state s pursuant to provisions of
'f f , the Atomic Energy Act. 4
, i.
I l ; I fully recognize your concern for the health and safety of the L people of Minnesota, including safety from the potential hazards associ- i
) , ated with the use of atomic cncrgy' materials. Congress also recognized that concern by specifically requiring in the Atomic Energy Act that --
the AEC give prompt notice to interested states of any application for , { a Commis sion license, and by further requiring that the AEC "ailord
- reasonable opportunity for S: ate represcatatives to offer evidence, j inte rrogate witne sse s, and advise the Cc= mis sion as to the applica-l tion . . . . " I know from personal knowledge that in almost every AEC 1 '
j proceeding to date involving an I.pplict. tion for a permit to construct i a nuclear power plant affected Smtes have availed themselves of this opportunity to express their views on those matters within the cognizance , of the Commission, , , I would be interested in discussing this matter with you and any other members of your agency if it would be convenient for you to visit . Washington in the near future. I would also be interested in Icarning why, and the' basis on which, your agency apparently believes it is 1 necessary to establish re.diological ' discharge standards different from
!, and evidently even more restrictive than those of the Atomic Energy
' Commis sion. If there is actual reason to believe the Commission's standards, and the internationally-recognizou standards on which they
'].i are based, are deficient in certain respects, I would certainly like to -
.have any such infoimation brought to my attention and that of my-
-l colleagues on the Joint , Committee.
\
e 5 i . ,f
"! m .
yl e g .
- e t 7, '
/
f , *
' ^ *
$ 4 ,
.~
i - We .
.Y } * '
, s
?. '
'- e. u, w-
r
. a-. _ , _ e -- - - - - . - - - - - - - - -
-rg,g
= * (,* {. j,* .
]-
, ,c t . e . .+ , g ,
, e . ',
. .i .
i . ,. . f' . .
- e
. . , i
- 3 . .
3~ i
, -s. ., ,
P & Ilook forward to hearing from you at year earliest convenience. ,- , __
.t . i l With ' warm personal regards, I am - i t
o
, n . . .
. Cordially yours, 1
i-
, . . .. i. e a .
< r r .
).,qcf, '& _ .
- f ..
Chet Holifield t - s * ( J. 4 . Chr.irman 3, , . .
Enclosure:
. l- . ; '
j '. JCAE Summary Legal' ' ' ' i l' . Analysis, April 1969 :
, !~4 ,
l
, P. S. I assume that Governor Le Vander is aware of and interested in 4 r j_ this important matter, so I am taking'the liberty of sending him a copy
~
-{
3
. of tms Ictter. C. H., .
\ ,,
g a
- s. ,. .' -
* * ~
e .I a. + . <
+.g 4 q ,
j . .
. .,s. .
, g
, , r, - ,
,q
-A . ,
. _';. . s- g
- i
. s F '*.
J -.r. . $' t.j . y g, t
, ..j. .' : + / .-> '
- ne'
. . a/....- : , ,-
* # ,i g / . .s
<.p. ' N /.
' -s i .
.:: f '.',q~4 r. .
_ ,,j).s p .<. q'/p. ,
*; . . s 4
6,. ! e .* ', ,
-p. .
'
- I ' '
"(
3 ' *- l . ,
/ ;.
.e .
,t s , ,
.1
- g ,e
. r. t ' m'i '
- e
-A m
.e. . . t
. p.. . .. .. . . ,
*1, , * ,?- s
,b j
[ 4, i' 3, , ,, , - ! ~ (1 .
- 4.
t' , ! - I
~ "' ..f i, , , .
f i
.f !-'-(-
. i s', # .. _ . _ .
'e
. 3 6*
's.,.
4 ai.
. - s ,a, r, 1
w ..s-. -
.. n ~. . _
o** s-w' ' ~,v,
- -}}