ML20128C605

Requests Clarification of Listed Issues Re Power Plant Sites Located Above Public Water Intakes.Statement by Jp Badalich Encl

ML20128C605
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	09/17/1970
From:	Muskie E HOUSE OF REP., GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
To:	Seaborg G US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20128C602	List: ML20128C596 ML20128C605
References
NUDOCS 9212040484
Download: ML20128C605 (21)

Text

=

a m...

NuMI' -

I JulN L. 94CCt84LAN. eP4 (MAS.Qu,.N g'

)

r ~** n. ~unoc. ~~c. cun'=~nu

.,, n,. k.u

., - a w.n.,

w w a m.

,s..

- e,n e uu as..on e,

o. i,

.u,.t ov ne..,.

m r nm. er e,. iu. (.

.4

.uw.s t.

ui

..w

.. n..

.c..u.

o, r,o...m.cu r.com.s.

.-a s..s. au,. rs n.

L,a s.pr.ec~.w w.s.

. s tiwano.., avawe,r.,rt.a.

wta w

rt. =va re n s ur e y. u..

. u.n

.e

a..na u.

eu.a a e. u, A, a2 a.

Lrr s s sua **. po.a.

cuaai.ea uc e. wumas. n.. un.

tW tNC J MC C AR9&T. %Is 4.

&DWIN W. wt t.A..YAFF DuttCTOR e

l

.... c.w.w..

P gmgr Cgy.e%rk AN') B, At t DentCTt'81 3715(CD Min {CS MC1TOIC~

coMMtTTrz CN.

-f.

covenNMr.NT Of'EstAh0NS SUBCOMMITTCE ON INTtR00VfRNMENT AL prLATIONS (PURSWANT TU 6. 805.. HS. 91 7 COhEMfSB)

WA$HINGTON. D.C. 20510 September 17, 1970 i

j Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg Chairman Atomic Energy Cor.ission 1717 H Street, H.W.

Washington, D. C.

205h5

Dear Dr. Seaborg:

In the course of hearingc held on September 16, 1970, concerning S. 2752, the Intergovern-ental Coordination of Power Development and Enviro:cental Protection Act, Mr. John Budalich, Executive Director, Minnesota Po]1ution Control Agency, in testi-many on the ' topic of power plant sites located above public water intakes, nede special not of an apparent inconsistency between

/itomic Energy Comiscion criterj a and practice.

His coments concerned the Monticello facility, located approx $m: toly.35 miles north of and upstream of the Minneapolis water intar.e.

He indi-cated thtt no public explanation of this cr.ception to the stand-s,arda of the Co'v.ission hed bocn offered.

I would c.ppreciate it very much if you would clarify the issue by response to.the following specific questions:

1.

Doce the Commission have a specific policy in regard to tna location of power facilities above water intches?

2.

Did the Co=ission set aside cuch a policy 3

in the instanccc referred to by Mr. Endelich?

(These concerhed th>. experimental 25 megave.tt plant at Elk River, and 'hc 550 megawatt plc.nt referred to as the Monticello facility) 3 If-the Comission did set aside 'such a policy as a deliberate decision, what procedure were taken-to cbnsider the issues involved in setting aside that policy?

l\\

p.t 9212040484 701123 e

PDft ADOCK 05000263 U

PDR

-...~..

.t

...,.w.,.-.m..........

• \\,

f

(

{')

4 r

1.

n.

- ni...

m n.s-..

Pace 2 September 17, 1970 l --

It is my understanding that the Co=nission, thrcach its own regulations, has indiented that if at all possible, all nu-i j

clear power facilitica shoald be ' located away from a metropoli-t tan rrea.

In these two instances, the question of proxinity of I

location of the facilities to public vnter intakes has been j

raiced, with the presumed effect of taMin3 exception to catablished criteria.

Ynank you for year consi6eration of thin requcct. 1 appro-ciate your cooperation in this renLter.

$'iineerely, t

) - i rww ZDD S. Ei3KIE, U.S.S.

Chairman 9

1 6

)

e g

e i'

nn, aa,--,

,---r----

-,e,a-

-,---,.--,..,,,,em,-e.-,-~--.~,

---,..~--r-r

---

,.g-

~

~ = _ _

• ' ' Ca s es '

R#%

s e \\ Jk WA N r ~ '1 T $ k*

a.Y,x.E..P,.A C K.AR D, vscs CMat3WA N, eu.

Q

' %*c,%%hW r&

g%.;

)

v

.70aa J. FELLOW S,

.J'T.'<"/"C.

c..

STATF OF MINNESOTA

> ",". M ^.al!S I.'*

Iv.Unms.

POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY

$N"Lusc K.

717 DELAWARC STHCET S.C.

3."E"c.'YDYROTH Y)

NELSON.

MINNEAPOLIS' 55440

_ gn"I"c'."Y UVE90N.

,AtmentLa*

617. 370 1320 l

.}

STATEMENT BY JOHN P. BADALICII, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR of THE MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY before the UNITED STATES SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS EDMUND S. MUSKIE, CHAIRMAN September 16, 1970 at the i

SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

-1 Mr. Chairman and D mbers of the Subcommittee:

I am appreciative of this opportunity to appear before you to express our views with respect to S.2752, the Intergovernmental Coordination of Power Development and Environmental Protection Act, and. to further discuss the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 's policies as they relate to power siting and the associated environmental problems of great. concern to us.

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is required to protect the I

citizens of Minnesota against pollution of the air, water or land.

The Agency is responsible for the management of the quality of Minnesota's waters, both surface and underground; the quality of the air; and the collection, transportation and disposal of solid wastes.

g.

The basic policy, as set down by the Minnesota Legislature, is to prevent new pollution and ce trol and abate existing pollution for the purpose of5 Conserving the air and water resources of the state, Protecting the public health and a

Developing the economic welfare of the state.

p '

i

1 e.

., f, E T

4 m

( -.a It la on the banin of this policy that the Agency has adopted standards and regulat lonn for the protection and enhancement of its interstato and intrastate waters, including ef fluent standards as well as water quality standards; air quality n tandards, including emission standarda ac well an anhie n t air quali ty ntandarda ; and standards and regulations for the collection, transportation and disposal of solid wastes.

4

!1inntoota in blesned with an rbundance of water, mos t of which is of excel lent quali ty.

One need only to look at a map of the state to gain an app re ci a tion of the quanti ty of wa ter with which we are dealing.

In order to protect and prenerve this valuable resource, the Agency's regul a ti can assign water quality criteri a for the various classifications and unce and in addition, include an effluent standard as a minimal requirenant.

In ot.her words, in ordor to protect and enhance the u tream quali ty, a discharger must think and design treatnent works in terms of ef fluent c;uality.

Included in these regulations are temperature criteria that provide,all yec r around protection of the fishery.

All

~

dischargers of sewage, industrial wanten or other wastes, including nuclear power and fossil f uel power plants, must obtain permits for such dischargen under such conditions as the Agency may prescribe for the prevention of pollution and in compliance with our standards and regula ti on s.

In some cases, more stringent requirementn are contai ned in the i

pe rmi t than are in the general water quality requirement.

I am happy I

to report that all dischargers on the interstate waterways of flinnesota l

i have or will achieve compliance with the Agency 'n of fluent s tandards t

k

~ %.

L.;.

-.a;..

,.z.

~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~

~~-

.y...,

_3.

p

~

'by December of 1973.

Compliance has been achieved through stipulation-1 notice, orders and through litigation.

In the field of-air pollution control, the ls tandards for-ambient 1

air quality and emissions have been adopted by the Agency and these

-4 standards became effective July 7,-1969.

The regulations established a requirement. that-all existing-

}

cources of air pollution achieve compliance by January 7, 1970,;or-i-

submit to the Agency an acceptable compliance program, prior to this -

date, and in turn the Agency would allow an additional 2 1/2' years-to moet standards.

y The regulations also established a requirement that all new potential sources of-air pollution meet emission standards: and have -a permit to construct and operate.

This permit system has been developed-and the necessary forms designed and procedures established' for both existing and new sources.

i Since the Agency's division of Air Quality became active just two_'

years ag'o, it has established an air monitoring program and is' operatiing

~

a network of 166 sampling. sites and gathering data and evaluat). _ it from 326 sites in the state.

The bulk of these have been furnishing data ' for over two years.

Computer programs have been developed to: analyze data:obtained and this is furnished to the National Air Sampling Network and'to the.

citier' af fected.

Since - the Agency -is subjected to' the requirements of the Federal' Air Quality Act of 1967,- many meetings and conferences have been held relating -to air quality control-and proposed establishments of air 7

-{'

The-Federal Government has established.

i quality regions in Minnesota.

i

[

i...-.

__..._~7

-....~.

4

~

i 7

o e

e an air. quality region in the Metropolitan Area, the: Duluth-Superior

' Area,.the Winona-Lacrosse Area and in the Pargo-11oorhead Area.- The Agency has also wor):cd with and provided technical-assistance ~ to Sti. paul,,

j Minneapolis, Rochester, Duluth, St. Cloud and other municipalities-in I

establishing and coordinating air pollution control programs. -Federal b

grants for these variouc municipalities are reviewed by the Agency before f

--i

~

monics are received f rom the Department of..calth, Education and Welfare. ;

' l Ambient A'ir Quali ty Standardc for thc. following ai r pollution have been adopted:

1)

Sulfur Oxidec a.

Sulf at.i on rate b.

Sulfur Dioxide 3evels c.

Suspended sul f ates d.

Sulf uric acid -mis t I

2)

!!ydrogen sulfide 3)

Total Oxidants 4

4)

-Dustfall 5)

Suspended particulates I

6)

Soiling Index Emission standards for particulate matter from fuel burning equipment for indirect hea' ting, industrial sources and power are-in_

i-cluded - in these regulations.

To our knowledge, every major point source of air pollution, in-cluding all exis ting power generating plants have submitte d approved-i schedules for compliance with the Agency s air quality regulations.

At the time-- the. Agency -was created, - following.the - 19 67 Legisla t Ive I

Session, the Agency was charged to study and investigate problems of solid waste-and pr'oblems concerning the.uses of-land :in areas of-thei l

+

+

~u-s y

i s. _. a.. -

.; y,,

y J m

1 state which are_ af fected -by the pollutio_n of air and -water and report 4

I-to the Governor and the 1969 Legislative' Session.-

This : report _ was I

submitted and during the 1969 session of the legislature, the statutes governing the activities of the Agency were amanded giving the Agency-authority to adopt standards and regulations for the collection, trans -

i portation and disposal of solid waste.

Af ter a serj es of state-wide j

hearings, the Agency did adopt standards and regulations relating _to disposal of solid wastes and these regulations became of fective. on February 10, 1970.

Brief3y, the soli d waste regulations requi re the following:

I 1)

That all counties are required to prepare and in-stitute a comprehensive plan for solid waste disposal by July 1, 1972, including-prelimisnary compliance stops prior to this date.

1.

2)

Permits for existing dump facilities must be obtained f rom the Agency within six months and a schedule for

-l

'x compliance with the regulations must be s abmitted.

3)

The regulations' outline proceduree for sanitary landfill j

practices that must be followed for neu and existing operations.

To my knowledge, the State of Minnesota 'is one of the first states in the natlon to have a complete set of standards and -regulations for the disposal of solid wastes.

The Agency, since its inception in August of 1967, has granted or acted upon a permit for a 550 M.W.E. nuclearpowerpla;ntat Monticello, Minnesota, an 1100 M.W.E.

nuclear power plant near Red Wing, _ Minneso ta, a-350 M.W.E.* fossil fuel plant at Cohasset,-Minnesota

.. e u

~.

and modifications to several other power genera ting facilities throughout the state.

With the exception of the p. tant at Cohasset, issuance of a permit for the operation of these power facilities was not considered by the Agency unti.1 af ter construction had commenced.

The Agency, during the 1969 Session of the Legislature, secured I

the following legislation which required a waste disposal permit for large installations in unincorporated areas prior to construction, 1

i thereby, further preventing the Agency from acting af ter the fact.

A just recently announced 680 M.U.E.

fossil fuel plant, to be located at Monticello, Minnesota will be subject to thir s tatute.

Minnesota La# 1969, Ch ap ter 115_._0 3, Subd. Q "It is unlaiful for any person to issue or grant a building permit or otherwise permit, the construction, enlargement, or relocation of a commercial or indus trial building to be used as the place of employment of more than 12 persons, or any other commercial or industrial building tci house a process producing industrial or other wastes, unless the sewage or industrial or other waste originating in such buildings is or will be discharged into a disposal system for which a permit lia s first been granted by the Agency provided.that this sub-division shall not apply to building permits issued for buildings which have an estimated value of less than $500,000, located or to be located within an incorporated municipality.

If an appli-l cation for such permit is not acted upon by the Agency within 90 days after submitted, the permit.shall be deemed to'be granted, provided that the Agency, for good cause, may order said 90 day l

period to be extended for a reasonable time."

t w..

~-

jj '

y

-7 41:

4

( D -.-

j~

d 1-The site selection of. the s team power plants - in Minnesotai o-date.-

t c'~~

.has.been made -by the cicctric utility.

After the site solection is made by the utility company, the company then applies to the Agency

,/;

for the required. waste disposal permit which covers all. liquid _ dis-

'i d charges, including temperature requirements,. air pollution control-f equipment, solid wastes disposal (such as fly ash) and radioactive

'I wastes (air and water) in the case of nuclear 1 sower plants.

It should be noted that in the cm,c of nuclear power plants, the question of state or federal jurisdiction in the control of radioactive discharges is'being litigated in Minnesota.

Ghc tentative -trial date has been set for October 5, 3970, in the Federal District Court in St. Paul, hinnesota.

The utility company, however, prior to actual site selection reviews-the Agency's water quality regulations,' air quality regulations and solid waste disposal requirements and also consults with the Agency's staff as to other guidelines and considerations.-

In selecting a site for a steam electric generating' facility, the Agency gives consideration to the followin'g criteria:

A.

WATER POLLUTION CONTROL CRITERIA 1)

Sites above public water intakes should be avoided

+

wherever possible.

A f

2)

Suf ficient water should be available in dependable; supply from either-surf ace or ground. sources' to provide. at least-the make-up requirements of a c1hsed system in continuous use.

3)

Sites involving discharges to lakes - or reservoirs: should be avoided and preference given' to sites adjacent to rivers.

d Y'

v.

nn,,~,,s-aw'a n.m.---,.,-w

-._+.wo,,

.,e

-r r

n.

n N N ~-,

.a y

--n-.

Z::,;-2 'W

...~..n

~... +. ;f.. :.... ; ^... }..... -. - ~. ~ ~ ~., -..

4, 7

i q

Q

4) ' Sites upstream from or in proximity t? major sport =

y

'or commercial fishery waters should be avdided.

I 5)

Sites upstream from intakes _for water for irrigation 1

]

of truck gardens and other food crops should be avoided..

6)

Proximity to highways, airports - and - population-con -

contrations should be avoided.

7)

Sites with a good' supply of available low cost _or sub-marginal land for suitable con' version to cooling-ponds or i

landfill areas are preferred.

8)

The soil of the plant site and associates areas should

~

be relatively impervious and the ground water flow-direction:

well established so as to minimize'possible ground water pollution.

9)

Sites located in the f]ood plain should be avoided but-if this may be the case, complete flood protection shall be provided.

B

. AIR POLLUTION CRITERIA 1.

Topography a.

Site should be located away-from deep _ valleys to the maximum extent possible, as-these are s.ubjert-to recurrent temperature i nversions which trap pollutants in the - valley,

~

b.

Use of unusually tall stacks to get the ef fluent w' ell

~

"i above the level of the area adjacent to the valley is the only ef fective way to avoid such. trapping and pollutan I

build-up.

c.

Other rough terrain features may also af fect ' dispersion-(

of pollutarjts, and must be considered.

Y

.\\ \\-

., ~ -

-w.

+

a,g q

y

([)

-=

._ w i.uu wiv9y 1

a.: Me toorology of the ~ area should ' be-well-known',1 with prevailing wind directions. and volocity; for.- all seasons -

- of the yearfavailable on a percentage of " wind rose"'

.n 1

- basis.

i b.

Prevailing winds should carry pollutants:awayffrom population centers to the maximum extent possibic. - Thus,.

f or. the Twin City' Metropolitan Area, th'e least frequent;-

[;

wind direction is f rom the North East, so an ideal planti-

~

site would be to the North East of the center'of population.

c., Frequency and duration ' of - temperature: inversions for the projected site should be known, as these dras tically -

a i

affect the dispersion and' dilution of pollutants.

This.

.i information is often not available, so studies should be-5 I

made of potential sites well in. advance of any decision-4 making so these factors will be adequatclp considered, as l

they are of extreme importance. to the health' of the adjacent population and. the general ecology of the area.

3.

Fuel Use The most commonly used fossil fuel' for power plants

+

a.

in this area is coal.

Factors'of importance are sulfur-3 p

and ash content.

b.

. Minimum _ sulfur. content, preferably ~ below 1% is-highly:

2nw desirable, to limit emissions-of SO The present source t

2

.g

,?

~..

of low sulfur -coals is-the Montana - Wyoming area, which q(

i produces -a sub-bituminous coal of generally uncjer 1% sulfur 1

l content.

9

-+

a -

e-

+w i a

,,n

.ee An'-

m w.,,,-

---

n-

+r.-3 w

~.

ax.n-

,.~

a s. - ~ --

- - - -. ~.,. ~.. - -- -. m

-.. =

F

{Q l

1.

- c.

. Somo light fr2 oil is being1 used in' somo' of tho-older i

metropolitan 1a:;ea plants which have been converted from -

L coal burning,'because of serious air pollut' ion' problems,1 q

althou9h costs are extremely high.

l d.-

Natural gas should be used'to some extent in' mild weather months,-whore it is not nooded for residential heating.

g 4.

Air Pollution Control Requirements.

a.

Particulato collection. equipment must be capable "of 99.5% to 99.7% collection officiency.

Newer boiler and-i firing equipment produce as high 'as 70% of particulates in less than 10 micron size which is dif ficult.to icollect,.

and is ' of a. size range which gives very high ilight Lre-

~

flectance.

Thus, even if a-highly - of ficient collector -

is used, some visible plume may still be-in1 evidence.-

b.

Sulf ur Dioxide removal f rom combus tion gases is still in a research and development stage, and large size proven-units are not 'in use as yet.

May be required at a futureLdate.:

Removal of radioactive vent gases is in :a research1 stage.

c.

c-

+

- N method of-cryogenic recovery, and purification has been

- developed in laboratories and further investigations as'to

' production practicality is being ' conducted.

d.

Nitrogen Oxidos-are of growing concern and are producede t

1 in any'. combus tion process.

As yo':, technology for control i

and/or-:romoval does not exist.

t I

fil 1D 7

4 af M

4 1r 3-wt M

q n-

~,

e-

cee wa w-e w

7

-~- -.. ~ ~ ~

-,n-f, M.

b s

I-c.

Consideration of ef fect of cooling tower use on surrouncting.arca must also be given.- Water vapor emissions o

from large cooling towers may create. local fog:and icing i

conditions, and should:be located far enough away from highways and other buildings no as not to adversely af fect -themh 3,

I 5.

General Principles

~

Local sites as far f rom population-centers tus possible with proper

^

consi.deration for Topography, Meteorology, Puol Supply Access and Cooling Nater Supply.

l

--ENVIRONMENTAL CABINET During the pas t two years, a considerable amount of concern has E.

j been expressed by the general public in matters dealing with our en-vironment and with the -preservation of our natural resources.

This-and rightfully so, was brought out strongly by scientists,

concern, engineers, lawyers and conservation groups in the hearings the Agency held with respect to Northern S tates Power Company 's Monticello _ Nuclear-Power Plant and the company's Prairic Island Nuclear Generating. Plant -

permits.

s In order for all state departments to be fully informed on on-vironmental matters and that their ef forts be coordinated with-all other i

departments dealing with the environment and our natural resources,

Governor Harold LeVar. der, on September 30, 19 69, created the state 's - firs Environmental Quality Cabinet.

This cabinet is. composed of the folloWing department heads:

Commissioner of Conservation Commissioner of Economic Development Commissioner of Agriculture

~

Executive Officer of-the Department of Health

('

Executive Director of the -Pollution Control? Agency 1

Executive Secretary of -Soil and Conservation Service Adminis trative Secretary of Water Resources Br ard

\\

L l

r, o

i

~,

-~

~

L&~

~

Y

)

)

-,8 Regular meetings are hold by. the Cabinet and the Governor -to-discuss major problems and programs dealing with thesstate's_ en-vironment.

Sevoral day-long meetings were held by the cabinet in a

viewing and discussing the 1976 site of Northern States Power Company's,

fosi3il fuel power generating _ plant.-

In this parti.cular case,- the company choose the cabinet's second choice for this site although the -

_l Monticello site was the first choice of the Ad Hoc Environmental Task-1 Force Committee.

Company of ficials and personnel s' pent countless days bringing forth information on various site locations and-s tatisti cs ~

l ory their power needs.

The NSP Company is to be complimented for their l

leadership and precedence for bringing this information to the Un -

vironmental Cabinet and the Site. Task Force Committoo prior to their i

{

commitment-as to a site and preliminary design in this future power generating unit.

E,t is my further understanding that the company intendi to start discussion wi th all concerned on their 1978-unit in the very i

near future.

l I^ trust the preceding i nformation may have been of-interest to-l this background does. serve as a basis forimy comments-the committee as l-j L

with respect to S.2752, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Dill-for I

site selection and control of bulk power facilities under consideration l-today.

t' l

My comments are referenced to the form of the bill: furnished me -

c by Mr. Edwin M. Webber, Staf f Director of ' this Subcommittee which was

(

l introduced by Senator-Muskic in the Senate -.of the United. States on l-l July-31, _19 69.

l

\\

E'

,_,i

--y

-m+

.-S,.,~n..

,-,,+3,

.,-,,,,,,e,-w,,m.w.

,w,-,--..,..,#

,,www,-

n e,.

,.,v,,,,,,w..w.w

,.---w

-_+,m

.wm.--

~-,

+. ' = uh.,

c n.

r.

- -.. ]-9 :M:

'~ ~

L

^ }.

~

^ i x-: e;

.. e

~.

~~-a

'}-

j '

Referring-to Page 3, Soction 2,- (b) (2)-

As I'previously pointed out, Minnesota has taken a leadershipL '

role in the matter of power plant siting through the Governor's Environmental Quality Cabinet and-the Citizens' Plant Siting' Task Force

',]

Committee.

I believe Minnesota has 'shown it is' well' able to ' protect

' - I its interests in this field, if permitted to do so by the Federal Government.

Page 3, Section 2, (b) (3)

We are certainly. receptive to advanced technical developments but it may be that through the imposition of national or regional procedures in some instances may result in regional or national approval of a site in Minnesota which may be unacceptable. to Minnesota simply because their-criteria may be dif ferent from ours in some respects.

Pye 4, Section 3 (1)

This act will govern those electric generating plants of-400 M.W.E.

or greater.

What is the reasoning for this limit'ation?

Just recently, the Agency approved a site for a 340 M.W,P.. [ fossil fuel plant which, if not checked by - the Agency 's regulat'io'ns, would have posed a-f ar greater environmental ' problem-because of its location than would.

have a much larger f acility located near an abundance of water.

Page 4, Section 4 (a)-

a

(-

W.t th respect e to the establinhment of regional, district boundaries, diff.tculties may arise since some states have already an established

-t siting-' Croup- ( either ' statutory or adminis trative) such as-Minnesota,

?

e therefore, any regional grouping should take all-of a state and not-

~

leave part in one region and part -in another as intimated by this-j section.

4 i

e m

t-rw&

4

.a-g Am

,.-,4ve,m-,

m,n---,,---pw,ne,. r4 9 ww re-r,-we,.,,em-

-r-ennwv-,-n,-,-,,m,nw,w-w--..,,

,rw,.-a.mr.-e,sw.,-

g-o.

ag-.,=,arys n+-m-w--e.ss.,

s,w 9

J y-s

,=

• 4 4

(

Page 5, Section 4 (b)

This subsection sets forth the mechanics and representation of the regional districts.

One wonders if this proliferation of regional boards is always a good approach to. certain problems and may lead to more federal control thereby minimizing-the control and responsibility of the states in controlling their own environmental problems.

Page'8, Section 5 (a)

(3)

'1 As I understand the use of the word or in this context (applicable-i

{

- State or Federal law) means one or another and thus, the state' law I

could be disregarded.

Suggest this be changed to read i

applicable local state and _ federal. laws, regulations or ordinaneds.

I Further, the use of the word "s tandards" and " established" pro-cludes at this time the inclusion of what may be informal critoria or policies which the ' Pollution Control Agency may use in the issuance of.

permits because of special conditions.

For example, the requirement' placed on the Prairie Island Plant of no more than 5 P above natural in theef fluent is not a part of established standards nor are our i

recommended criteria for mixing zones.

Also, at present, the Pollution; Control Agency has not established state radioactivity standards except the reference to AEC's standards in WPC-14 and 15;and the permit -issued f

to NSP Company's Monticello Nuclear-Power Plant.

Thus, if.the criteria l

)

were adopted today on the basis stated herein,. it presumably could exclude the wishes of the Pollution Control Agency and Governor because they are not embodied in regulations, unless the Agency, designated by this Act, chooses to. do - so under-Section 5 (a) (8) page 9 I,

s 4

= - ~

e s s

mm~

- - ~ - - -. ~. - - ~

~

~

l yr

.p

(-,

=,

~

':Ji'i-

- The regional-boards and councils - still. have no real power-as z the :

Agency (under this Act) promulgates the critoria unilaterally.-.As:an-example, if one assumes the Atomic Energy Commission can ' sell it-to the Agency (under this. Act) the Agency could in ef fect, promulgate _the AEC.'s own standards as its critoria.

Page 9, Section 5, (b)

Suggest the inclusion of a requirement that the procodree must include' a provision similar to the one recently ine,orporyced'in tho-amendment to the rederal Water Quality Act- (PL 91-224,f,ec.21 -(b),3Ap70) as it related to state certification of compliance with pollution control standards.

y Page 12, Section_8 __ (b) 2 There also should be in here a statement to the of fect that aranting of an Agency (under this Act) license based on its own criteria is in no way to be construed as voiding the right of the state or locality-to impose.more stringent requirements, should it so choose.

Page 13, Section'9 On tho-advice of' legal counsel, why,should this 6xtra right of-ominent domain be_ given, when utilities already - have. the right under state law?

Why should ' the utility have an option of which: forum it wants?

This provisipn seems totally unnecessar3 and appears to be throwing state eminent domain proceedings in -this area right out of the picture.-

s t

0 e

+

i

.....__7-._;_..-_

s

\\ ;'") -

,,.. ~

r 1

y v _.....

,e

.4-Mr. Chairman, I-am deeply gratified lto have had this opportunity

~

U N-to appear before this. committee in behalf'.of tho Minnesota-Pollution Control _ Agency and present-to you our; views and comments regarding 3

S. 2752 and also the State of Minnesota's role in.'the control of site sel'oction and construction of e3cctric power generating _facilitics _

i-Intergovernmental cooperation, coordination and con'cultation is

.t most welcome in this matter providing that the right of thc.J state _'or locali ty to regulate and control these f acilities 'is. not pre-empted by the federal government.

es JPB/ec a

e-G 4

'S r

9 4

6 b

6 -

o i

l:

\\

i l --

i d

e-w s

-,-.er+

-n--s

.v

-s~--

-+-n

's--

• m*,,-4v-v

~

r-

--en-n,.

r-, - - * -e s -wm --+ -- =N m

,-w,,

---w--

w,,v,-

->=+-w--==-wNN

yr*

d Y ""'Y.

Q I-Noverther 13, 1970 i

NOTE FOR C. L. HENDERSON Per Mr. Case's request, here is a draf t change to the attached Senator Muskie letter.

Delete Paragraphs 2 and 3, Palej Replace with the following:

4 The Cormnission's policy pertaining to the locating of nuclear i facilities wd.th respect to the proximity of public water intakes is contained in afW Commission Regulations 10 CFR Parts 50 and 100 (copies of these Parts are enclosed for your convenience).

Part 50 Section 50.34 requires an applicant to describe and give a safety assessment of the site on which the facility will be constructed, including as a minimum the site evaluation f actors identified in Part 100. One of these factors is the hydrological characteristics of the site fii 100,10(c)(3}7. Our specific procedure in reviewing the Elk River and Monticello sites, as well as any other site, has been to determine the location of all domestic water supplies such as rivers, lakes, wells, and reservoirs which are in the vicinity of the proposed plant and which may be *ffected by the proposed operation._ Then on an individual basis we evaluate the influence of effluent releases from the plant on the sources of water, c

Page 2. First Full Paragraph Suggest the following change:

"As to your more general..10 CFR Part 10011 100.11 of the Commission's...."

. R. Mil er Special Projecta Branch Division of. Reactor Standards cc:

E. C. Case, DRS R. B. Minogue, DRS J'

b U&

O

/

a ww %Ac g.-f;, m.

o U

Q&

s r

[

-i e,,h

[

~

UNITED STATES k

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

• y f,

wAsmNGTON O i;. 205 4 g 7, p dits 6 i

~I 1

Honorable Edmund S. Muskie

!l Chairman, Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations Committee on Government Operations United States Senate l

Dear Senator Muskie:

1 understand that Chaircan Scaborg has responded to your letter of September 17, 1970, with reference to the testimony of Mr. John Badalich, Executive Director, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. At the Chairnan's request I an pleased to provide the substantive answers to the questions posed in your letter.

The Commission has no published regulation or criterion which states specific policy relative to locating nuclear facilities in the vicinity I

of intakes of municipal or other domestic water supplies. Thus, in the course of our review and approval of the Elk River and Monticello sites, to which Mr. Badalich refers, no policy was set aside.

Our procedure to date in this regard has been to determine the loca-tion of all domestic uater supplies such as rivers, lakes, wells, and reservoirs which are in the vicinity of the proposed plant and which may be af fected by the proposed operation. Then on an individual ij basis we evaluate ef fluent releases f rom the plant to assure that the influence of the plant on the sources of water is acceptable.

The manner in which we handled this specific problem relative to the-location of the Minneapolis-St. Paul water intakes dounstream of the l

Monticello Plant exempli fies this procedure. Our evaluation of this l

problem is given on Pages 32 to 37 of the Safety Evaluation (copy j

cnclosed) prepared by the Division of Keactor Licensing as a part 3

1 i

t k

I l

i e

4 1

y.;,

2-Honorable Edmund S. Muskie-of the review of the safety of the Monticello Plant. In this eval-uation we considered the design of the liquid waste disposal system, the location of the Monticello Plant relative to-the Minneapolis and l

St.- Paul water intakes, the characteristics of the Mississippi River 1

in this area, and potential levels of radioactive releases, both accidental' and routine, from the plant. Our evaluation concluded l

that postulated releases from the Monticello Plant would not endanger the health and safety of the citizens residing in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropol1 tan area.

1 As to your more general question of the distance of-reactor sites from urban areas such as the Minneapolis-St. Paul' metropolitan.arca, 10 CFR Part 100 (copy enclosed) of the Commission's Regulations pro-vides guidance relative to thia question.

The attached excerpt from AEC staff responses to concerns stated by persons making limited appearsaces in the public hearing on the Monticello facility briefly explains the application of 10 CFR.Part 100 in our review of the Monticello facility.

If I can be of any further assistance to you in responding to these questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, l

Harold L. Price f.

Director of Regulation

Enclosures:

1.

Safety Evaluation 2.

AEC Regulations 10 CFR Part 100 0

1 "9

L y--men

--ew-*

y-w

->gm,r.-

rv-+gg ir

-r g-a w-r:rg s

y 4