ML20127L735

Ack Receipt of Expressing Recipient Continuing Concern Re AEC & State of Mn Jurisdiction Over Control of Radioactivity Releases in Effluents from Monticello

ML20127L735
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	06/27/1969
From:	Seaborg G US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Levander H MINNESOTA, STATE OF
Shared Package
ML20127L707	List: ML20127L704 ML20127L712 ML20127L735 ML20127L740 ML20127L760
References
NUDOCS 9211250265
Download: ML20127L735 (2)

Text

_.

~ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _

S

'f.

du e

[D cD, UNITED STATES

'e f

4 ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION XJ' l

wmmmote o c. mn

"%, % e f' i

June 27, 1969 Op Honorable Harold LeVander Governor of Minnesota St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 l

Dear Govemor IrVander:

I have received your letter of June 13 expressing your continuirc concern regarding AEC's and the State of Rinnesota's jurisdiction over the control of radicactivity releacca in effluents from the Northern Strtes Power Com any's Monticello nuclear generating facility. I appreciate and share your desire to provJde for the safety of the citizens of Minnesota.

We recognice and su; port the inte10sts of the statcs in the radiological protection field.

For a number of yen.rs we have supported a cooperative program pursuant to section 2714 of the Atomic Energy Act whereby a portion of the AEC's reculatory authority over nuclear rnterials - for exngle, radioisotepes - has been relinquished to the states. Concress, however, did not provide for the relinquish ent to the states of the Comission's responcibility under the Act for the licensinz ard reculo-tion of nuclear power reactors. The establishment of this authority i

within the AEC was in recognition of the very coglox, interrelated technical safety considerations that are involved in the des!Gn, construction and operation of nuclear power plants and the fact that these plants have the potential to release radioactive enterial that could affect areas outside the sttte in which they are located.

(

Dual regulation was one of the evils that the Congress specifically sought to avoid, ard succccded in avoiding, in enac' ing section 2714 of t

the Atomic Energ/ Act. We feel that it is in the interest of public health and safety that there be consistent and uniform standerds in this area. In fact, conflicting design and operating requircrc;nts in this highly emplex area mi ht well detract from the publie health E

and safety.

Apart from the legal question, and the difficulties and corWusion which can be expected frem dual regulation, one of the rajor problems I

we have with the act. ion teken by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is its i g osition of special requtrc ants that might have an adverae irpact on p1 tnt design and operational procedures. For example, special restrictions relating to fuel leak detection, depending on how they are administered, potentially could involve design and equipnent changes and require frequent changes in operating conditions, including l

shutdowns and startups of the reactor that alsht not be justified by l

the circumstances.

Such restrictions, in our belief, do not provide I

i

("' (~') EN

~

h5 PAS $$E$8f8363

^

PDR

_____7._..

1 I

,9 e.

i i

4

• o Honorable Halv1d loVander i f

any additional protection of the public health and cafety and indeed i

might, under certain circumstances, impair the safety of the facility.

In view of the corplex and technical nature of establishing and exercising radiological health and safety controls over nucicar facilities, we feel that full discussion of the matter might be helpful. I would be pleased to meet with you in Washington or, alternatively or in addition, j

i i

to have several of our senior technical staff meet with you in Minnesota to discuss the matter. Such a meeting obviously will not resolve the legal question involved, but I feel that it might be helpful in allaying

(

your concern rega141rg the standards and-the controls which the AEC would place on thic reactor for the protection of the public health and safety.

Perhaps at the na~e time we could discuss the pocsibility of the' State of Minnesota enterin; into an egreerrent with the Atomic Energy Co:mtission under cection 274 of the Atomic Energ Act to assume regulatory authority over certain nu': lear materials. One of the tangible benefits of this prei; ram has been the general upgrading of the states' radiological-j protection activities in areas that are not within the regulatory juric-diction of the AEO, and which have been traditionally regulated by the states - for exarp]c, control of x-ray machines and fluoroscopes.

N1nsteen states have thus far entered thin cocperative program, and I am hopeful that we might be able to recolve any obctaclen or p cblems you might have with regard to Minnesota's entering into such an agreement.

I Cordially, s/ Glenn T. Scaborg i

Chainen

(

t I

},

4 l

m o

l

.