ML20127L740

Expresses Concern That Mn Pollution Control Agency Proposal to Regulate Radiological Effluents from Monticello,Agency Would Be Be Attempting to Exercise Control in Area Preempted to Federal Govt

ML20127L740
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	05/03/1969
From:	Holifield C US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Tuveson R MINNESOTA, STATE OF
Shared Package
ML20127L707	List: ML20127L704 ML20127L712 ML20127L735 ML20127L740 ML20127L760
References
NUDOCS 9211250266
Download: ML20127L740 (2)

Text

____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

0 '

May 3, 1969 U

i i Honorable Robert C. Wyeson, Chairnnn l Minnesota Pollution contnol Agency c/o ll46 West Clark Albert Lea, Minnesota 56007

Dear Mr. Tuveson:

i It has recently come to the attention of the Joint Cccmittee on l

Atomic Energy that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has under l consideration a proposal to include in any waste disposal permit it may issue for the Monticello 11uclear Generating Plant of !brthern

! States Power Co. conditions or limitations relating to radioactive waste discharges from the plant, both caseous and liquid. Rese limitations, I understand, are considerably different from those which the Atcetic Energy Commission would impose pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act and regulations promulgated thereunder, and would be in addition to limitations on conventional wastes, including waste heat, which state water pollution control agencies traditionally control.

!+y purpose in writing is to express ray very deep concern that, with respect to the proposal to regulate radiological effluents from the Monticello plant, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency would be attenpting to exercise control in an area that has been specifically I , preempted to the Federal Government. As a charter member of the Joint Co mittee, and as a member of the House Military Affairs Conmittee which drafted the original Atomic Energy Act, I can assure you that it was the intent of Congress that this important area i

should be regulated by the national government, and not by each of the individual states. 'Ihis action was not taken sirply out of a desire for unifomtity in regulation, althoufh this certainly was a motivating factor; in large masure this action was taken out of recognition of the Atomic Energ Co mission's and the Federal Radiation Council's vastly greater expertise respecting the potential hazards of radiolo-gical effects, and the control thereof, than any single state i

masonably could be expected to have or acquire. I am enclosing for your information a sumwy legal analysis prepared by my staff which discusses in conewhat greater detail the legal situation in this regard. As you will note from the mmorandum, virtually every court, legal scholar and state attorney general who has ever considered this question has concluded that the mgulatory control of the radiological effects of the various atomic energy materials is vested exclusively

< in the Atontic Energy Cecmtssion, vis-a-vis the states, except where the Conmission has undertaken to relinquish certain of this authority to qualified states pursuant to provisions of the Atomic Fnergy Act.

COPY. '

9211250266 690703

{DR ADOCK 05000263 PDR i

CORY, o '

-2 I fully recopiire your concern for the health and safety of the l people of Minnesota,- including safety from the potential hazards I associated with the use of atomic energy materials. Congress also i recognized that concern by specifically requiring in the Atcmic Energy l Act that the AEC give pronpt notice to interested states of any application for a Ccenission licence, and by further requiring that the AEC " afford reasonable opportunity for State representatives to offer evidence, interrogate witnesses, and advise the Contdssion as to the application ...." I lolow from personal knowledge that in alrrst every AEC proceeding to date involving an application for a pemit to construct a nuclear power plant affected States have availed themselves of this opportunity to express their viewa on those natters within the cognicance of the Conmission.

I would be interested in discussing this ratter with you and any other nen,bers of your agency if it would be conveniel.t for you to visit Washington in the near future. I would also be interested in IcarnirE why, and the basis on which, your agency apparently believes it is necessary to establish radiological discharge standards different from and evidently even tr.nre restrictive than those of the Atomic Energy Co" mission. If there is actual reason to believe the Conmissicn's stankrds, and the internationally-recognized standards on which they are based, are deficient in certain respects, I would certainly like to have any ouch infomation brought to my attention and that of my colleagues on the Joint Conmittee.

I look forwan.1 to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

With warm personal regards, I am Cordially yours, Chet llolifield Chaiman

Enclosure:

JCAE Sumery Legal Analysis, April 1969 P. S. I assu're that Governor LeVander is aware of and interested in this inportant tratter, so I am taking the liberty of sending him a copy of this letter. C ll.

1 hin O C 'Na /