ML20128C690

Requests Response to Following Listed Questions Re J Badalich Testimony on Topic of Power Plant Sites Located Above Public Water Intakes

ML20128C690
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	09/17/1970
From:	SENATE
To:	Seaborg G US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 9212040509
Download: ML20128C690 (17)

Text

, ,. . .

y- m, .. c .... m n - -

.,,....u,

"";"'""'"".% ""'^"- .m. S. w

,.u.

- t..',.:.,*.:,y;T. .t.JO.. . . . -u. ~ . -, m. a . :

.. . u. w.,, .. m,

. . u,,, #""4MUt' . . t t, s

'ZCnifeb Sfcdco Sourde COMM(TTEC ON GOVCANMENT OPC8tATIONS SUDCOMMITTtt ON $NT[R00VtftHMENTAL RCLAT40NS t . . ~ , ,. .. - .. ... . ..c..) .

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20HO September 17, 1970 Dr. - Glenn T. Seaborg -

Chairman Atumic Energy : omission '

1717 E atreet,,H.W.

Washington, D. C. 20 % 5 1

Dear Dr. Scaborg:

In the course of hearings held on September 16, 1970,

~

concerning Devel S. 2752, the Intergovernmento.1 Coordinction of Power

%. ment and Environmental Protection Act, Mr. John Bcdelich,

Executive Director, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, in testi-

~

mony on the ' topic of power plant sites located above public water intakes, mede special note of an appa. rent inconsistency between Atomic Energy Comission- criteria and practice. Hic comments concerned the Monticello facility, located approximately 35 miles north of and upst.eam of the Minneapolis water intake. He indi-cated that no public explanation of this exception to the stand-

, ards 'of the Comission hed been offered.

issue by response to.the following specific questions:I .wou 1.

Does the Commission have a specific policy

' - in regard to the location of power facilities above

, water intches?

2.

Did the Comission set aside cuch e policy -

in the instenece referred to by Mr. hdalich? (These  ;

concorhed the experimental 25 norawett plent t.t Elk River, end the 550 nie

'Monticello fecilig) gawatt pitnt referred to t s tho-1 .T O t}m C- is j h 9 ':M.n-es c. delGer t; J :. cision, ;. , p:a n - .W~

j-n e ,,w;,

to Censider the issues invol.ca in rei, tin; uside thut

' policy?.

I

,e mg=*~er** * *

• 4..

• h^

"d, .PDR. ADOCK_O 2 U.

L

[hfbb .,

' Tv.line.is.

- + -

' STh E OF MINNESOTA -.

i "",,00.4^-Y@l.c';

. d N 'h nc K,' - ' *Lt.UTION CONTROL AGENCY .

717 DCt. AWARE STREET S.E.

2. k"."$.$o noTH1r> HetsoN.

gurusu, g,on, MINNUAPo!.lS' 50440 '

- sta.s70.isao *

, STATEMENT BY JOP.N P. .

- BADALICll, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 5 of THE MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL-AGENCY-before-the ..

UNITED- STATES SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERGOVE EDMUND S. MUSKIE, CHAIRMAN

, September 16, 1970 '

at the .

' SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittea :

m I am appreciative of this opportunity to appear before you to -

express our views _ with respect to S. 2752, _ the Intergovernmental Coordination of Powe'r Development and EnvironmentaliProtecti on Act, and to further discuss the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's c es poli i as they relate to power siting and the associated environmental ems probl '

of great. concern to us. -

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is required to protect the

}! citizens of Minnesota against pollution of the air, ; water or-land 3

1-i The Agency is responsible for"the management of the _of quality Minnesota's waters, both surface and underground; the quality of the I air:

1and the collection,. transportation and disposal of solid wastes. '

The basic-policy, as set down by the Minnesota -Legislature, is to e

prevent n_ew pollution' and control and abate _ existing pollution e

for th purpose of:

1; Protecting the public health andConserving the air- and water re ,

-t Developing the economic welfare of the state .

's r

• f.

e

._ 1 ...__o

i

,. f '

It is on the basis of this policy that the Agency has adopted standards and regulations for the protection and enhancement of its interstate and intrastate waters, including _ offluent standards as well-

~

as water quality standards, air quality s tandards, including emission ,

standards as well as ambient air quality ' standards; and standards and regulations for the collection, transportation and disposal of solid wastes.

4 Minnesota is bicssed with an abundance of wate'r, most of which is of excellent quality.

One need only' to look at a map of the state to g,ain an appreciation of the quantity of water with which we are dealing.

In order to protect and preserve this valuable resourec, the Agency's regulations assign water quality criteria for the various classifications and uses and in addition, include an effluent standard as a minimal requirement. t In o',her words, in order to protect-and enhance the stream quality, a discharger must think and design treatment works in terms of effluent quality.

Included in these regulations are temperature' criter'i'a.that provide, all yecr around protection of the fishery. All dischargers of sewage, industrial wastes or other wastes including .

nuclear power and fossil fuel power plants, must obtain permits for such discha.rges under such conditions as the Agency may prescribe for the prevention of pollution and in compliance with our standards ~ and regulations. '

In some cases, more stringent requirements are contained in the -

permit than are in the 9tneral water quality r%uirement.

I m L h e t r/

ho report that all. dinchargers on the inters tate waterways of itinnesot :

have. .or will ac;hibife compliance with the Agency 's ef fluent s tandards i

l' l

l i  %

1 "

t ,

' e by December of 1973.

Complianco has been achieved through stipulation

{t notice, orders and through litigation, In the field of air pollution control, the standards for ambient

. air quality and emissions have been adopted by the Agency and~ these standards became effective July 7, 1969. 4

l The regulations established a requirement, that all existing sources of air pollution achieve compliance by January 7, 1970, or i

submit to the Agency an acceptable. cgapliance program, prior to this

date, i

and in turn the Agency would allow an additional 21/2 years to 2'

meet standards. .

j ,

The regulations also-established a requirement that all new 4

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 forns designed and procedures established for both existing and new sources. ~

' Since N ., the Agency's division of ' Air Quality became active ~ just two

) years ago' ,

' [ it has esthblished an air monitoring program and is operating a network of 166 sampling . sites and gathering da'ta and evaluating it from 326 sites in the state. The bulk of these have been furnishirig s

data for over two years.. - '

Computer programs have been developed to analyse data obtained

and this -is furnished -to the National Air Scimpling Network and to the ci ties af fected.

Since the Agency is subjne: ad to tha rsjuirmeni.s of the PedEai Air Quality Act of 1967, nany r.;eetings and conferences have been held I

relating to aii quality control and proposed establishments of air I.

t-quality regions in Minnesota.

J The rederal Government has established t

t ,

i r -- -

.an ai r quality regioli in the Metropolitan Area, .he Duluth-Superior Area, the Winona-Lacrosso Area and in the Pargo-Moorhead Area. The

.; Agency has also worked -with and provided technical assistance to St. Paul,'

Minneapolis, Rochester, Duluth , S t. Cloud and other municipalities in estpblishing and coordinating air pollution. control programs. . Federal grants for these various municipalities are reviewed by the Agency before l monics are received 'from the Department of Health, Education and~ Welfare.i -

i l Ambient A'ir Quality Standards for the following air pollution '

I

have been adopted

,

l

1) '

Sulfur Oxides- *

, a. Sulfation rate 1 b. Sulfur Dioxide levels

• j c. Suspended sulfates ,.

. . d. Sulfuric acid mist

2) Hydrogen sulfide ~  ;

.3) Total oxidants ,

4)._ Dustfall i

j 5) Suspended-particulates

,,' 6) ,

Soiling Index Emission standards for particulate matter from ftiel burning i

eqtiipment for indirect heating, industrial sources and power are.in-cluded in these regulations. -

I To our knowledge, every major point source of air pollution, in-

! t cluding all existing power generating plants have submitted approved schedules for compliance with the Agency's' air quality regulations.

At the time the , Agency was created, following the 1967 Legislative Session, the Agency was chargud to attdy and invan ticate pro:.,lems of

, solid waste and problems concerning the uses of land in areas of the

. s' e t

• t.

. . . , , - - , . - ~, , , - - . _ . _ . , . . , . - ,

. _ . _ ___ . _ _ . _~

, . _=.. . , .

=.6

. fl state which are af fected by tho pollution of air and water and report This report was 1.

to the Governor and the 1969 Legislative Sossion.

the. statutes submitted and during the 1969 session of the legislature, governing the activities of the Agency were' amonded giving the Agency trans-authority to adopt standards and regulations for the- collcetion, portation and disposal of solid waste. After.a series of state-wide hearings, the, Agency did adopt standards and regulations relating to disposal of solid wastes and these regulations became ef fective on 4

February 10, 1970.

Briefly, the solid waste regulations require 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 prelimi, nary compliance i

i steps prior to thi.s date.

2)

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

f 4

' s's. compliance with the regulations must be submitted.

{ '

3) The regulations outline procedures for sanitary iandfill practices that must be followed for new and existing

}.

operations.

I ,

To my knowledge, the State of- Minnesota is one of the first .

states in the nation to have a couplete set of standards and regulations a

for the disposal of solid wastes. ,

Th5 Agoney, since its it.ception in August of 196'i, has grant.ed

, or acted upon a permit for a 550 M.W.H. nuclear power pla,nt at

.I nuclear power plant near Rod Monticello, Minnesota, an 1100 M.W.E.

Wing, Minneso ta , a 350 M.W.E.* fossi1 fuel plant at Cohanset, Minnesota I

7-

. e

1 4

l 'and, modifications-to several other-power genera' ting facilities throughout the state. With the exception of the plant at Cohasset, issuance of a permit for the operation of these power facilitics was not considered by the Agency until after construction had commenced. -

+

j -

The Agency, during the 1969 Session of the Legislature,- secured j the following legislation which required a waste disposal permit for J' .

large installations in. unincorporated areas prior to construction,

, thereby, further preventing the Agency from acting a'f ter the fact.

j A just recently announced 680 M.W.E. fossil fuel plant, to be located i at Monticello, Minnesota will be subject to this statute.

Minnesota Law 1969, __ Chapter 1) .03, Subd. 4:

i "It is unlawful for any person .to issue or grant a building permit or otherwise permit, the " instruction, enlargement, or 1

relocation of a commercial or ine.ustrial building to be used

• i as the place of employment of more than 12' persons, or any i

other commercial or industrial building to house a process s

producing industrial or other wastes, unless the sewage or industrial or othor waste originating in such buildings is or will be discharged into a disposal system for which a permit l has first been granted by the Agency provided ,that this sub-division shall not apply ~to building- permits issued for buildings i

which have an -estimated value of less than $500,000, -located or to be located within an incorporated municipality. If an appli-cation for such permit is not acted upon by the Agency within 90 days after submitted, the permit shall be deemed to be granted, -

j provided that the Agency, for good cause, may order said 90 day period to be extended for a reasonable time."

9

. . -V

. .. t 9 B

- , - . .-- ~ .,. . w. , - , . - . . ver ,.,,,-y. ----,.,,y -

~,w-

' ' = - - , . . . . _ . . _ . ,

i i 4 The site solcetion of the steam power plants in Minnesota to-date. ,

has been made by the electric utility. After the sito selection is made by the utility company, the company th'en applies to the Agency for the required. waste disposal permit which covers all liquid dis-d ch a rg e s,, including temperature requirements, air pollution- control equipment, solid wastes disposa'l (such as fly aph) and radioactive l

wastes (air .and water) in the case of nuclear power plants. It should

! be noted that in the case of nuclear power plants, the question of 1,

state or federal jurisdiction in the control of radioactive discharges is'being litigated in Minnesota. The tentative trial date has been . ,

1 set for Oct'ober 5, 1970, in the Federal District Court in St. Paul, Minnesota.

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

s s, In s'e'locting a si'te for a steam e3cctric generating f acility, the i

l Agency ' gives consideration .to the followin'g crlteria:

A. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL CRITERI A 1)- Sites above public water intakes shoilld be avoi'ded whe/ever possible. .

2) Suf ficient water should be available in dependab3c supply i

+

from either surf ace or ground source.s to provide at least i

the make--up retju5 t. ... ;tn e' a cNacd sys te.n in continuous o w . --

3) Sites involving discharger to lakes or reservoirs shoun.

i be avoidbd and proforence given to sites adjacent to rivers.

-n-y, - , - - ,---><-+,--a,t- ,, ,,m, --, ,

t, .

4) Sites upstream f rom or in proximity to major sport or commercial fishery waters should be avoided.-

5) Sites upstream from intakes .for water for irrigation of truck gardens and other food crops should be avoided.

6) proximity to highways, airports and population con-centrations should be avoidad. ,

7) Sites with a good supply of available low cost or sub-marginal 3 and for suitable conversion to cooling ponds or

- landfill areas are preferred.

The soil of the plant site and- associates areas should

~

8) l -

be relatively impervious and the ground water flow direction well established so as to minimize possible ground water pollution.

I 9) Sites located in the flood plain should be avoided but if this may be the case, comple te flood protection shall be provided. .

B'.' .,. AIR POLLUTION CRITERIA l 1. Topography .

a. Site should be located away [ rom deep valleyt to the maximum extent possible, as these are sub; ject to recurrent tempeiature inversions which trap pollutants in the valley. ,

b. - Usc of unusually tall stacks to get the ef fluent well above the level of the area adjacent to the valley is the only ef fective way to avoid such trapping and pollutant build-up. .

t c. Other rough terrain features may also affect dispersion

of pollutants, and must be considered. ,

g

- - ,m e ..w- -+ -r .- ,

. ~ - . . _ _ . ,

4

. 2e viv Luc ro. Log; 7~ t

a. ' Meteorology of the area should be well-known, with prevailing wind directions and velocity for all seasons of the year available on a percentage of " wind rose" .

3 basis. ,

b. Prevailing winds should carry pollutants away from Thus, population centers to the maximum extent possible. ,

L.for. the Twin City Metropolitan Area, the least_ frequent ,

Wind direction is from the North East, so an ideal plant 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 drastically i af fect the dispersi,on and dilution of pollutants. This information is often not available, so studies should be made of potential sites well in advance of any decision' making so these factors will be adequately considered, as I they are of extreme importance to the health of the adjacent

population add the general ecology of the area.

'3. Fuel Use ,

n. The most commonly used fossil fuel for power plants .

'in this area is coal. Factors of importance are sulfur I and ash content.

Minimum sulfur content, preferably' below 10 is highly

~

b.

[ desirable, to limit emissions of SO 2.

The present source l .

of 3 v.: sulfur coals is the :'.ontana - h'ye:aing area, which

' produces a sub-bituminous coal of generally uncler le sulfur I

t content.

J e

7 ,

I c. Some light #2 oil is being used in some of the older .

> - metropolitan area plants which have been converted from coal burning, because of serious air pollution problems, I although costs are extremely high.

d. Natural gas should be used 'to some extent in mild weather months, where it is not needed for residential

. . heating. ,

e 4. Air Pollution Control Requirements

• s .

a. Particulate collection equipment must be capable of f

- 99.'5% to .99.7% collection ef ficiency. Newer boilcr and

firing equipment produce as high as 70% of particulates in less than 10 micron size which is difficult to collect, i and is of a size range which gives very high light re-1 flectance. Thus, even if a highly efficient collector

! '~is used, some visible plume may stil.1 be in evidence.-

b. Sulfur Dioxide removal f rom combustion gases is still

in a research and development s tage, and~large size proven units are not in uso as yet. May be required at a futur6 date

c. Removal of radioactive vent gases is in a research stage.

/

i e' .

A method of cryogenic recovery and purification has been dev' eloped in laboratories and further investigations as to 4

j production practicality is being- conducted.

J

d. Nitrogen Oxidos are of growing concern and are produced in any combustion procesn. As yet, technology for control and/or removal docs-not exist. ,

6 e e

s. ,

_ 7

' i t

wo wunoAueroLAun UA UL5cct CE CoOjing toWOT UGe on surrounair area must also be givenc ' dater vapor emissions C

from large cooling towers may create local fog and icing conditions, and should be located far enough_away from ,

highways and other buildings - so as not to adversely af fect the} _

5. General Principles ,

Local sites as far from population centers as possible with proper consideration for Topography, Meteorology, Fuel Supply Ar 3ss and Cooling Water Supply. .

ENVIRONMENTAL CABINET During the past two years, a considerable amount of concern has been expressed by the general public in matters dealing with our on- ,

vironment and with the preservation of our natural res6urces. - This- ,

concern, and rightfully so, was brought out strongly by scientists, I

engineers, lawyers and conservation groups in the hearings the Agency held with respect to Northern States Power Company's Monticello Nuclear Power Plant and the company's Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant permits.

- s, .

l ,

In order for all'. state departments to be fully informed on en- ,

vironmental matters and that their effort's be coordinated with all otheli departments dealing with the environment and our natural resources, Governor Harold.LeVander, on September 30, 1969, created the state's fir Environmental' Quality Cabine t. This cabinet is composed of the_follo9ir department heads:

{ Commissioner of'Conservat' ion . -

Commissioner of Economic Davelopment-Comuissioner of Agriculture Executive Officer of the Department of Health

!  : Executive Director of the~ Pollution-Control Agency l

Executive Secretary of _ Sail and Conservation Service l . ABministrative Secretary of Water Resources Board e

. f

• . 1

+ =

-~ r . - ,. -m , r.,- n.--,-, - , --,av ne r ,

.-_ . ~ .

7-. ,

' ( *

- I

.- Regular meetingd are held by the Cabinet and the Governor to discuss major problems and programs dealing with the state's on-vironment. Several day-long meetings were held by tile cabinet in viewing and discussing the 1976 site of Northern States Power Company's fos'sil fuel power generating plant. In this particular case, UTc

, company choose the cabinet's second choice for this site although the 4

Monticello site was the first choice of the Ad Hoc Environmental Task Force Committee. Company of ficials and personnel s' pent countless days 1 .

j bringing forth information on various site locations and sta.istics on their powe'r needs. The NSP Company is to be- complimented for their leaders' hip and precedence for bringing this information to the En-vironmental Cabinet and the Site. Ta'sk Force Committee prior to their l

commitment as to a site and preliminary design in this future powar i

[ generating unit, i,t is my further understanding that the c'ompany intent to start discussion with all concerned on their 1978 unit in the very i near future. ,

I'trusi the precqding information may have been of interest to the committee as this background does serve as a basis for my comments

! with respect to S.2752, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Bill for site selection and control of bulk power facilities under consideration.

today. ,

My comments 6ro referenced to the form of the bill furnished me by Mr. Edwin M. Webber, Staf f Director of this Subcommittee whieh .was introduced by Senator Muskie in the Senate of the United States on' '

4 July 31, 1969. .

i 3 ,-

~

0 e W#

8 e $

e e t 9

.n.

.- Referring to Pc ,o 3, Section 2, (b) (2)

As I previously-pointed out, Minnesota has taken a icadership s

role in the matter of power plant siting through the Governor's Environmental Quality Cabinet and the Citizens' Plant Siting Task Forco f Committee. I believe Minnesota has shown it is well' able to protect its interests in this field, l'f permitted to do so by the Federal

• Government.

I Page 3, Section 2, _(b) (3)_ '.

i 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 different froin ours in some respects.

l Page 4, Section 3 (1)

This act wi11 govern those electric generating plants of 400 M.W.E. or greater. What is the reasoning for this limit'ation? Just i recently, the Agency approved a site for a 340 M.W.E. fossil fuel plant:

s .. .

which, if not checked 'by the Agency 's regulat' ions , would have posed a i far greater environmental ' problem because of its Jocation'than would

. have a much larger facility located near an abundance of water.

• Page 4, Section 4 (a)

With respect .to the establishment of regional district boundaries, i

j difficulties may arise since some states have already an established siting group ( cither statutory or administrative) such as Minnesota, therefore, any regional grouping should take al] of a s tato and not 4

~

i

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

.' e g .,

E n,,. - , ., n .-.. . ~ - , -

5 e')

Section . (b) l

..Page 5, .

' This subsection sets forth the mechanics and representation of regional districts. One wonders if this proliferation of regional

~

the boards is always a go-d approach to. certain problems' and may lead to j mors federal control thereby minimizing the control and responsibility 4

of the states in controlling their own environmental problems.

j .

Page '8, Section 5 _(a) (1)

As I understand the use of the word or in this context (applicable State or Federal law) means one or another and thus, the state law could be disregarded. Suggest this be changed to read

! applicabic local state and_ federal , laws, regulations ,r o ordinances.

Fu rthe r , the use of the word "standarbs" and " established" pro-cludes at this time the inclus' ion of what may be informal criteria or policies which the ' Pollution Control Agency may use in the issuance of permits because of special condi'tions. For example., the requirement l

placed o.n the Prairic Island Plant of no more than 5'F above natural in the'ef fluent is not a part of established standards nor are our 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

Thus, if the criteria to NSP Company's Monticello-Nuclear Power Plant.

were adopted today_ on the basis stated herein,. it presumably could exclude the wishes of the Pollution Control Agency and Governor because l

they are not ombodied in regulations, unless the Agency, designated by I this Ac t , chooses to do so under Section 5 (a) (8) page 9.

• [

. 4

• . t

+ . <

s

,. , - , --,,-,.--,~,,.--.n-,- , , - , ,,

- '. A The regional boards and- councils still havo'no real power as the Agency (under this Act) promulgates the criteria unilaterally. As an

example, if one assumes the Atomic Energy Commission can sell it to the Agency (under this Act) the Agency could in effect, promulgato the i

ABC's own standards as its criteria. . .

3 Page 9, Section 5, (b) .

f

]

Suggest the inclusion of a requirement that the procedure must include' a provision similar to the on recently incorporated in the amendment, to the rederal Water Quality Act - (PL 91-224,Sec.21 (b) ,3Ap70 )

as it related to state certification of compliance with pollution contro a .

. s tand a r,ds . '. .

Page 12, Section 8, (b)

There also should be in here a statement to the offect that grantin of an Agency (under this Act) license based on its own criteria is in 4

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 -

s. .

On dio advice of ' legal counsel, why ,should this 6xtra right of i eminent domain be given, when utilities already have the right under state law? ,

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

l This provisipn socmc totally unnecessary and appears to be throwing state' eminent domain proceedings in this . area right out of- the picture.

4 e

. i 4

y. m~,. --,. , - - , e-, . -.- , , - - -

4, ., Mr. Chairman, J. am dooply gratified to have'had this-opportunity to appear before this commk.ttee in behalf of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and present to you our views and comments regarding S.2752 and also the State of Minnesota's role in the control of site sel'ection and construction of electric power generating facilitics.

• Intergovernmental cooperation, coordination and consultation is most welcome in this matter providing that tho' right of the state or locality to regulate and control these f acilities 'is not pre-empted by the federal government.

• 4 JPB/ec '

W d

l 4

9

' e 5 6

'O 6  %

9

. 'nt .

4 4

e' ,

t

_ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ . . _ . - - _ _ - - _ _