ML20128C770
| ML20128C770 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 08/12/1970 |
| From: | Quie A HOUSE OF REP. |
| To: | Oneill R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128C738 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9212040527 | |
| Download: ML20128C770 (3) | |
Text
___
i
.; e 1
L?
j HOUhi OF HFPn".9r.I,lTATIVES, U.S.
WASHINUi ON, D. C.
.l e
70
'j Au3.ttet 12
.............. 39 1
Mr. Robert O'Nei)1 D$ rector of Congretrional Relratiens i
U.S. Atomic Bergy Cc:m.tocicn vathington, D.C. 205hy The attached communication is sub-i mitted for your consideration, and to' ask that the request made therein be complied 1<
with,ir possible.
If you will advise me of your action in this niatter and have the letter returned to me with your reply,I will appreciate it.
i i
'/
l-
/
Very truly yours, i
i
(.
. {.L.L..t.Y....~.....ty.n s. t. $....
1 M.C.
ALSEE H. QUIE
+
L
.... District.
F
..lPJ:"c.S.9t3>.....N"t l
p s
- ~
c
\\
~
, Rec'd Off Djr. of Reg.
f i'
~
^ '1
?d-.- 3 6 2.755 Date 9212040527-7o0917-PDR ADOCK 05000263 T. e l
sm U
PDR 24
7 93h DcIlous Street'
/
k (';
West St. Paul, Minnesota 55113
]
l j
,/
August 7, 1970 h Honorablu Altat !! Quic United States Houne of Representatives Washington, D. C. ?0515 Doar Congresonan Quio:
Thahk you for your letter of June 23, which has' given no much food for thquhht, and which has prompted ne to write again.
.UWe did not receive n questionnaire from you this year, no knew nothing 1
/
of the questions until the result was printed in our local newsnoer -
just a couple of days before your letter came.
From the newscacer, we
}
loamed that one of the questions dealt with radioactive emission from atomic power plants, and that cichty per cent of thote resoonding favored giving the states authority to set up more stringent standards
~
than those established by the Federal Government.
It is a honcrul sign
.d, that co many felt that way.
ip Iour letter of June 23 also montjoned the Air Quali.ty.4ct, which you d; U, - (
undcrdood..gave states the right to cctablish stricter standards if.
0,
~
ji they could proya..the need for then. ' Apparently, the Air Quality Act 4
You sent me a copy of the _ Act back in 1967.
P' is easily misunderstood.
4 Upon reading it, I interpret:d it that only California was given permission to adopt nore stringent standards, and I wrote you to that t,.3 i
effect on November 22, 1967.
I believe you were of the oodnion that I had misinterpreted the Act. Recently, a neuspaper column by Stcwart Udall concerning a clean air bill passed by the U S. House of Representstivos,
...Liko its 196Lpredecessor, the new act prevents h9 states stated:
from setting automobile pollution standards as high as those in California.
She%.cuse for this provision is that California's air pollution nrdbibi '
is ' unique'...n It would seem that Mr. Udall is as confused as I was iri"iEterpriting the 1967 Air Quality Act.
Be that as it many, the sentence in~ your June 23rd letter that has given me so much food for thought 18: "Under the Air-Quality Act, states were given the right to' establish stricter standards IF TIEY OWLD PROVE THE NEED FOR THEM (cmphasis mine)".
You stated you were honoful that this appmach could be written into more of the Federal anti-nollution orograms, My question is this.
Why should any state HAVE to-PROVE the right to establish strictor standards? It is my belief that the Federal Government i
should have national standards, to which every state must adhere, but that the states should bc.alloued to set more strict standards in ANY kind of pollution without having to prove anything!
i
\\
This business of nuclear power' plants is just one examole.
It ncw c.ones out at' the hearing being conducted in St. Paul that the ' AEC makce no tests lof its own while inspectin5 riucidar power plants to nake 'sure they neet I
{ requirements, but instend relics heavily on reports of tests actually.
g conducted by the BUILDERS of the plants.
Doesn!t that sound ridiculous I believe Rinnesota should not have to prove.such negligence, 4
to you?
~
toiorotect but should be able to establish as strict standards as it vants, k ts citizens.
i
~
.m m..,
-e.
v--
4 i
?.
A August 7,1970 e The Honorablo Albert 11. Qvic h ld Lc Each state can; and does, hr.vc different problena, and they s o 3
Federal standardo allowed to deal with then to ANY extent over and above without hav'ng to prove anyt,hing.
If there are speciald sten in again states do not correct, then the Federal Govciment couThin is f
and force cleanup.
l d for your past passed.
'Ihank you for your cohcideration of my personal op l
We nodde, sulohur have our choice of nereury, lead, hydrocarbonn, stroke,
lotters.
i-dumoed into the non, t 4conite tailinga, ponticides, nerve gac, oil, ooinonsNot a very plea j
Picase blens.
nitrates, noise, etc., etc,let un be as strict as possibic in dealing w 4
- Ros octfully yours, l
'714b Lu
.AC -
t.
g (hlrh. Eugene A. Irrhoff)
L 1
l I
l
= t i
i 4
-.. -., -.,