ML20127N585
| ML20127N585 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 12/29/1969 |
| From: | Dooly W US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Henderson US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9212010316 | |
| Download: ML20127N585 (4) | |
Text
-
PW d Pf s.
~.
,' n~ gg Q - Q j, } I
- s Note for t'r. lleMernon nDTOT'1 ^" am CP"Mr "11PP t'UWTF"A RFSMIC'rTom PIO}P TMDAT9 PAm"(
nn mrE W'PTcEf10 ".EWD3" 1.
Testtor ne 'Sv 20, 10/0, fmn Ch'tirmn tn Fenator Nskie
'"ho nmsit'ility that recuirenents of the Minnesota Pollution Contml Arency's remit fo" the %nticello plant rtirbt necessitate erecuent chnmea in nnerntir~ coMitims nni shutdowns an1 startuas, with an inn 1ct on n tfety, wn a topic n" discussion Inst "av in rentinco in "r. t'" ice'n n rien when cemntn wem in r"enaratirn e
e " realv tn n
Penato" umkie's letter ne Anril 22. AtteMin" these nentirn at va"40un tinen vere H. L. "rd ee, P.1. Nck,
't. ". **srn, f'. T. Pende"s'Y1
". % n 'in, P. A. 'forris, E. c. "ane, W. "estern, T,.
ti. Morers, o
!!. M. Shnnrt" aM U. n. TW1v. Powever, 7 fiM no statement to this eeeect in danets coim to the Cerrdssion.
"be chaimn'n letter or "ev ? rentvir to Senato" t'unkie (mr -
1'. O. non1v/C.
T,. For esen, v*th concu m nces or". 's'entern.
T,.
R.
d n ne-9, P. A. Morrin, ". c. Case aM H. L. "" ice) did mt centmin at o
statment that meetinc recuironents of the "innesota nemit nicht I'mir reacto" naretv. It vas Md"essed mainiv to the thrust of
'%nkie's inquirv:
"... the technical and eenrmic fensibilitv" ne P. *nivor. lou's nvennned renuimnents aM "the reasibility aM desW1111ty
of innlenantinr. these "eccrriendations, nit" renly nadd artne requircrnents, le rie;!dly Simlied, would be "uMuly burdenscrr=," and a nrte" o r require-nents "tr>uld annear tn entnil a rrtica effort without a cernensurate reduction in the amunt of radinneti.vity that would be relessM free the mactor." "he detni. led coments attached to the letter also dwelled on this thene, and did not tie "innescta renuirementr to T3ossible reactc" safety irwtirment.
2.
Totte" of.Tu_nn 2,196c, to new. LnVande" On May 22, tha Cert-inston didcussed (Rer.. In o. "tr. 3115) '.'r. P"tce's c
!ty 20th memrandtri re. trdirr the pmposed reply to Governor TeVander'n lette" of May 12, aM requested a revised draft letter.
"he revised draft letter van circulated by the Secretarv on May 26
( AEr-9 3 68/6). It contained no such statement, thn closest annroach beinr:
"As discussed in tha encionum to this letter, sene of the restrictions in the pemit, denendinr on how they are internreted aM administered, could be unduly burdenscre withrut naking; a meaninc ul r
contritnition to the oublic health and anfetv."
omer>
$URNAn4E >
ni
[,,,,)\\
^ " ~
~'~
~""
i< wen A70.4 e
e.m a g
m,g, 9212010316 691229 PDR ADOCK 05000263 A
PDR I
2-The letter fimlly signed by Chaiman Seaborg on June 2 (per 11. }. Shanar, with }{. L. Price aM C. L. lienderson concurrences) was retyped in the Director of Refulation's office to take into account surrested revisims by the Cermissim at an infomation meetim on May 28, 1969
'the revisions included the following insert:
"Inieed, arain depentinc on its interpretation ani W.inistmtion, the nemit could be viewed as not enhancim the public health ani safety at all since it mirbt remtim frement channs in operatin conijtionn, inc1Wim s%t-downn ani
.= tart-unn of the reactor, which niv.ht not be justified by the cirettmetances. "
"he atatement nunte1 above frm the letter is nnt bac1 ed un by any similar lanruare in the attacted docuaent containine detailed emsents, which are essentially tha sam as sent to Senator Wskie.
'"he ccrrents tnik about tha turden on the annliennt "frm a technical rni econarde staMooint," and cite Mirrenota's effluent lirits and rmitorim require-rnents, aM fue) ole ent irrN!ction a.nA leak detection require"lents.
"he rimi letter alno contYned additional lanntare (as cannared with the dra t discunsei with the comissim) recantine. Minnesota's ad hoc e
annroech, lach of the renuisite nrofessinnni sta"", aM tha isniie~of states ccroetine with one another mi AT for technical parsonnel.
3 Chairrnn'n June 27,1M9, Tetter to cov._ Tevander
'the most elaborate statenent alit >1tnc to innairrent of reactor safety anpears in the Thaiman's letter of. Tune 27 in renly to Gov. LeVanier's letter of June 13 (rer C. L. l'enierson with concurrences of B. Ectur, L. R. Rogers, E. G. Case, ani H. L. Price). It states:
" Dual remdntim une one of tha evils that the Conrress specifienlly smcht to nvoid, and.micceeded in avoidim, in enactim nectinn P7b of the Atcrnic Enerfy Act. We feel that it in f n the intc*ent of rublic henith an! safety that there he connintent tM unifem standards in this area. In fact, conflictim desirn and operating requirements in this highly ccrriex area micht well detract frm the public health and safety.
" Apart fran the 1eral question, and tie dieficulties and con-fusion which can be expected recru dual rerulation, one of the major problems we have with the action taken by the Minnesota Pollutim Control Agency is its imposition of special require-ments that micht have an adverse innact en plant desien sni operational nrocedures. Por examnie, snecial restrictions m -
latim to fuel-leak detection, depeMim on how they are administered, potentially could involve design ani equipnent chances an$
W= P-~awnt chq in mentim ccMitimn, imiuW OFTICE >
$URNANE>
DM_t >___.
.._:::.._.,-..y_.g., =;.,.-
-.y n.-.....
f unn AIC-M, (1 Lev. 9-S$) AICM 0240
- u. e r,o vt.w a s t e.m n.,a etnce:
1,6, o.sto-,07 l
m.-.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = - -. - - - - - - - - - _ - -
3-i slutdowns and startups of the reactor that miPht not be justified by the circumstances. Such restrictions, in our belief, do not provide any additicruti protection of the l
public henith and safety aM indeed miPht, uMer certain ciretratances, irpair the safety of the facility."
4.
Chairp.n's Stste-ent into Recorsi for Cerrrenaevin n bism o
In the questims an1 answers furnished in June for inaertion in the Hou::e Apprmriations cerrnittee hearing record (concrensman a bienn),
n the Chailmn states, in twrt:
"In v$ew of the actions by several of the states recentiv in enactinc or consider $nc, rnd$ologica) emtro38 over n"claar renctors, there in en obvious Totentini for dual wmti$t?cn and confl$ctinc starvinnds.... Ve feel that it im ret m3y in the interent of pub 3$e be.91th nni mfety, but also in tha interest-of the nut'lic in the develnrrrent of its elactric'il Ocear resources that thnre be consictent and uniform staWW.s in thin aren. In fact, conflictinr desirn and eneratine require-ments in this h$rhly emnlex area micht well detract from the public health aM safety."
The %binon statenent want throttrb a tmber of evolut4mn inni concurrences.
5.
Letter frm chairmn to navid Preman, nm', fp1v pr. _1v9 Tte letter of July 25 to fnvid Freenan forwnniine ccreents far une in Dr. DuRridre's rentenae to a letter s$gned by Senater "oniale et p1, stated with reference to the Minnesota actim m " entice 110 that:
"We feel that $t 9P in the interest of fuhlic trelth Mni shfety that there be consistent and unifom staMeds in this area.
In fact, conflictinc desirn ani operatinr recuiremnts in this hichly cer:nlex arem micht well detract from the rub 11o health and anfety."
(The W eenan letter was not placed in tha Public Doctrmnt 90m.)
6.
AEC's Premred Statement for MinnenntaA'inconn$nyelemtim Priefin' In sumarizine the states' role in nuc] ear ener$' mculatico, the-AEC statenent of netober 9, 1960, distributed at the Blinnesota briefing unier 1
OST auspicen, stated:
"The licensinP and remilatico of nuclear rmetors by the states could give rise to dual and conflicting desicn and operating requirements. This might very well detract from tha public health aM safety."
omer >
$URNAMr >
04tr >
Foren AEC. SIS LRev.9 53) AECM 0240.
- w s. aove nwant n invin,o aeritt: inte o.sto.sov
..e..
4-7.
remissioner o -cy's Minnesota Sreech n
Ccmisoloner Raney's speech at the Minnesota synposium of October 11, 1969, stated:
"It is nuite possible tMt conflicting ('enim and eneratim requirerents in this highly ccrplex luva by dual mulatim mirbt very well detract ihrt the public health ani rarety.
e e
a e
e a
Aniy Prennesh enllei re this norninn recnrdine t!e orf.cin of ccrrdssioner Ramy's statcrent, cuoted above, in the Minnesota nreech. I ref' erred him to the correntenience with Goverre LeVander, conies of which he his. 13e stated they have scre difficulty with how to hanile it, clone with other stat (rents sent in by Northem States Power Co. *111tm.Traw ani others are to meet in a few days with Ccmissioners "arcy and "himonon.
In view of the ntrier of public pinces this has been said, I think we may need to develop scrn explicit "fer exa.ple" bacirrouni in preparation
~
for an inevitable nuestion.
fSl
%'. G. Dooly cc: !!. K. Shapar, n0C bec:
DR Rea11rm WGDoo]y s.
OFFICE >
5..
$URNAME>
' h0),7:*.).hh..
DATE >
1 h[ ).
a Form AEC-Sl8 t ev. 9-51) AECM 0240 o v. s, eov s==wa= r enin t e= e orric a: t ese <>-320 907 R
.., _.