ML20127M972
| ML20127M972 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 06/13/1969 |
| From: | Levander H MINNESOTA, STATE OF |
| To: | Seaborg G US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9211300526 | |
| Download: ML20127M972 (1) | |
Text
am
/0 e gSQb
" hf d\\
p%^g@
g STATIC or M ixxicsoTA brF.22'.5 o rsws: or ru e; o n v e;u x""
HT. 15.\\ U L.5.51 O 1 It A un s.i>
1.>wa pr.u O sn h u sons t
June 13, 1969 Mr. Glenn Seaborg, Chairman Atomic Energy Comission Washington, D. C.
20545
Dear Mr. Seaborg:
I find your letter.of June 2nd disappointing, both personally and to the people of Minnesota.
I had hoped that the Atomic Energy Commission would commend ratter than oppose the efforts of the State of Minnesota to provide greater protection and safety for-our people.
It is perhaps dif ficult to understand the value of Minnesota's natural resources unless one lives in their midst. But I can assure you that Minnesota citizens take great pride in the crystal clear waters and clean air which characterize our state.
For this reason, we will not be content to follow a minimal standard for pollution control. We have, and most likely will in the future, require an added vigilance against radioactivity levels which could be harmful to the environment.
I do not believe that our desire to provide added protection is in any way inconsis-tent with the objectives of the AEC.
If we were attempting to set standards lower than those of the AEC, I could understand your objection.
It is my sincere ' desire that the State and the AEC will not become embroiled in a legal contest over an issue so critical to the protection of this State's environ-ment.
I am hopeful that the AEC will be able to concur with Minneseta's position and grant operating permits for Minnesota nuclcar power plants which are consistent with the standards established by the State Pollution Con ol Agency.
Cord lly,-
Y Ha old LeVander GOVERNOR HL:mr
,q^
ohoofg3 c.L 4 hY PDR J
A.
5 i
.i.
- ~
JlE 3 7 1969 i
f Honorable Harold ImVander C5C l
Govemar of Minnesota i
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Dear Govemor I4Vander:
I have received your letter of June-13 expmssing your continuing concem M6arding AEC's and the State of Minnesota's jurisdiction over the i
control of radioactivity mleases in effluents from the Northem States l
Power Csparg's Monticello rmaclear generating facility. I appreciate and share your desire to pmvide for the safety of the. citizens of Minnesota..
We recognize and swport the intemsts of-the states in the radiological pmtection field. Por a rmsuber of years we have supported a cooperative.
j progran pursuant to section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act whomby a portion of. the AEC's mgulatory authority over nuclear materials.- fbr-example, radioisotopes - has been relirquished to the states. Congrecs, i-however, did not pmvide for the relinquishment to the states of the C=Mmaian's respcasibility under the Act for the licensing and regulation of nuclear power reactors. The establistaient of this authority within j
the AEC was in moognition of the very complex, irterrelated technical-F safety conside ntions that a m involved in the design, ocnstruction and cperation of auclear power plants and the fact that these plants have the potential to elease radioactive material that.could affect areas outside the state-in which they am located.
h Dual agulation was-one of the evils that the Congmsa specifically.
sou6ht to avoid,=and succeeded in avoiding, in enacting section 274 of the Atcaric Ehergy Act. We feel that it:is in the interest of public j
health and safety that there te consistent and unifam standards in this ama. lIn fact, conflicting design andLoperating requimments in this highly complex ama might well detract fran the public health and safety.
1 Apart frosa the legal question, and'the' difficulties.and confusion which-can be expected fmn dual mgulation, one of the major problems we have-j-
with the action taken by the-Minnesota Pollution Ccatzel Agency is itsL
}'
imposition of special requirements that adght have an adverse impact on plant design and opemtional pmcedums. Fbr example, special t
astrictions Mlating to fuel leak detection, depending on how they am L
rdniniste ad, potentially could-involve design and equipment changes and mquim faquent changes in opemting oonditions, includinc shutdowns
[
and startups.of the mactor thtt might not be justified by the, circumstances.- Such matrictions, in our belief, do not pmvide ary mMit irwwl nyntmetism af* the mahlin health avi aahty anr1 fr/ ' amisht L
c '= certain ciraattances,' impair the-saftby of the faallity.
-rm m.
,[
su = =
om s,. AEC-H8 (Rev. 9-53) AECM 0240.
.... L o
. 1lr v. s. sovanne.sant ramtme orrice sees o.sao.so7.
43 c i l.
M ']7
,, se y-U
-~
...m s.., -s
_~,
_s
_m 1
L m.
i a
ikri,mble Hamid ImVander '
In view of the complex and teolnical nature of establishing and exenising ndiological health and safety controls over nuclear facilities, we feel that N11 discussion of the natter might be helpful. I would be pleased to uset with you in Washington or, alternatively or in addition, to have sevemi of our senior technical staff meet with you in Minnesota to i
discuss the natter. &ach a meeting obviously will not resolve the lapl question involved, but I final that it might be helpN1 in allaving your conoom agan11ng the standan$s and the contals which the AEC would place on this reactor for the pmtection of the_public health anA safety.
Perhaps at the_ same time we could discuss the possibility of the State.
of Minnesota entering into an agrwoment with the Atomic Energy Comission i
j under section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act to assume' regulatory authority.
over certain nuclear materials. One of the tangible benefits of_ this pmgram has been the general upgrading of the states' rsdiological protection activities in areas.that are not within the agulatory juris-l diction of the AEC, and which have been traditionally regulated by_ the-l
-states - for example,~ control of x-ray machines and fl w oscopes.
e Nineteen states have thus far entered this cooperative p m gram,-and I am i
hopeful that we micht be able to resolve any obstacles or problems you:
i-might have with m gard to Minnesota's entering into such an agtwesent.
t I
Distribution:
i Chairman (2) 0;ps c*ma L W l-Cwmissioner Ramey Comrnissioner Johnson Ca missioner Costagliola j
Commissioner Thompson
~Chainoan i
General Manager (2) l Howard Brown, AGM Lester R. Rogers J. - A. Erlewine, AGFD E. G. Case
[
000 (2)
Eber R. Price I
Secretary (2)
G. Ertter (DR-2215) l Congressional (2)
Milton Shaw, RDP-Dr. John Totter,'B&M
_ M M2 @~o -R 6 h A. A. Wells, AS&LB Panel Martin Biles, DOS John Harris, DPI Joint Comittee on Atomic Energy H. L. Price i
C. K. Beck I
M.' M. Mann C. L. Henderson RETYPED 'IO INCORPORATE CHANGES SUGGESTED BY COMMISS
[
[.
k AT INFORMATION MEETING JUNE 27, 1969. SEE ATTACIED 13 R MOW CONNEES i
Forrest Western (DIR; R,,,,,,_,, OGC_
,,,,,D
- D k,, _,,jOCR' DEFIBIR
- RPS-DI_R:DRS,
- omcz,
' ice LRRogers WCase 3.LH
,n:ps BSchur
[
sumuc,
6/,2_f/69_, j 6/26/69 6/27/ 69,,
, 6/,,
/69 6/25/69 6/25/69
- out, Form AEC-518 (Rev. 9-33) AECM 0240 o v. s. sovsanusut ramtme orncar sees o-320.sar
Honorable Hamid kVander In view of the hialhly conplex and technical nature of establishing and exercising radiological health and safety controls over nuclear facilities, we feel that full discussion of the natter might be helpful.
I would be pleased to meet with you in Washington, or altematively or in addition, to have several of our senior technical staff meet with you in Minnesuta to discuss the matter. Such a meeting obviously will not msolve the legal question involved, but I feel that it my;ht be helpful in allaying your concern regardin6 the standards and the controls which the AEC would place on this reactor for the protection of the public health and safety.
Perhaps at the same time we could discuss the possibility of the State of Minnesota entering into an agreement with the Atomic Energ Cccinission under section 274 of the Atomic Energ Act to assume responsibility for certain of the AEC's regulatory authority over certain nuclear inaterials.
One of the tangible benefits of this program has been the general-upgrading of the States' radiological protection activities in amas that are not within the regulatory jurisdiction of the AEC and which have been traditionally regulated by the States, for exanple control of,
x-ray machines and fluoroscopes..Nir.eteen states have thus far entered into such section 274 agreemnts and I am hopeful that we might be ab3e to resolve any obstacles you might have to such an agreement between Minnesota and the AEE.
Distribution:
Cordially, Chairman (2)
Comissioner Bamey Commissioner Johnson Comissioner Costag1.Lola Comissioner 'Ihonpson Secreta"y (2)
Chaiman OGC (2)
General Manager (2)
Forrest Western Congressional (2)
O. Ertcer (DR-2215)
Howard Brown, AGM lester R. Rogers J. A. Erlewine, AGID E. G. Case.
Dr. John Totter, B&M A. a. Wells, AS&LB Panel Martin Biles, DOS John Harris, DPI Joint Comittee on Atomic Energy H. L. Price C. K. Beck M. M. Mann h>
gg C. L. Henderson
- Aga - % %
R. L. Doan
/
P. A. Morris QM g
.ADIR:ADM:DR..
DIR:DR OCR hTYMDRS...s) omer >
....,,. p SURNAME 3
~
Form A5C-51s (Rev 9-53) AECM 0240
, 6/ $69 2_
e 6
6/
/69 6/
/69
.Ld.
69.... And6L v.s sovanumsur es.orine oems : me e-a
.<is
. _ _ - --