ML20127G937

Forwards Two Articles from Minneapolis Tribune Which Might Be of Interest

ML20127G937
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	05/20/1970
From:	Mcelroy D NORTHERN STATES POWER CO.
To:	Mccool W US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20127G930	List: ML20127G927 ML20127G937
References
NUDOCS 9211170466
Download: ML20127G937 (2)

Text

_ - _ _ - - - _ _ _ - -

p O J'3 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY M I N N E A P O L.l S. M I N N E S OT A 95401 May 20, 1970 Mr. W. P. McCool, Secretary U. S. Ato--ic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545

Dear Mr. McCool:

In connection with my letter yesterday, transmitting ten copies of Mr. Ewald's letter to Mr. liadalich, enclosed are ten copies of two articles from the Minneapolis Tribune which I thought might be of interest to you.

Ve ry truly ycm . e ,

/

N *

/

n D. P. McELPOY Vice President-Engineering Enc.

msf 9211170466 700519 PDR ADOCK 05000263 p PDR

,, , wie x1 A . a xs m e e t::an=d:y, a:s 3,197o - OM3 Burying the Nuclear Hatchet NORTHERN STATES Power Com. Minnesota has no authority to control l pany's agreement to install additional . radioactive emissions will not be af-equipment in order to meet require- fected, according to the company. J ments of the Minnesota Pollution Con. Now that NSP has agreed to the 4 trol Agency (PCA) for radioactive gas permit, it's difficult to see what the a discharges from the Monticello nu. company has to gain by continuing ,

clear generating plant marks an im- . the federal case. We suspect that ,

portant milestone in environmenMI many Minnestitans will be hard put to 4 control in Minnesota, and perhaps na- understand why NSP should carry a .

tionally, test case against the state for the .;

The state permit for the plant rep. AEC and the nuclear power industry resents the first effective state regu. which would like to develop r'uclear "4 lation of radioactive waste emissions plants unhampered by state regula-in the country. It shows that states tions tougher than AEC's. t can make a contribution in raJioac , Federal standards are essential in i tive waste regulation - despite the ' tho radioactive waste field, we think. s claim of the U.S. Atomic Energy Com- - Dut states should be free to impose .3 mission (AEC) that it possesses over- stricter controls (to "go the extra n' riding wisdom and sole jurisdiction in mile,". as Gov. LeVander put it) if this field, NSP's agreement will mean ' they want a* highw quality environ. -

a sharp reduction below AEC stand- ment. Congress clearly allows states ,

ards in radioactive gas discharges to do this in more conventional as-from the Monticello plant. pects of air and water pollution; a The agreement'also offers an ex. - drive is shaping up in Washington to ,

ample, we think, of how patient nego- make the authority explicit for radio e tiations can be productive: The state active wastes, as well. 4 and NSP both remained willing to dis- On the Monticello plant dirpute i cuss the Monticello problem over the and other issues, NSP has shown dur ,

last year, following PCA adoption of ing the last few years that industry "

the stringent requirements. .a the established system ccn make Since there no longer appears to ' major accommo6ations in response be a controversy over the terms of to t.ke new public awareness of enJ '.

the state permit for the Monticello vironmental needs. The company l plant, NSP is expected to drop its suit could make another significant con . t in, state court challenging that permit, tribution by dropping its federal suit !

But a federal court suit arguing that '

against the state of Minnesota.

• t e

a e e e b

______m____.__ = _ -.. - . _ _ _ . - _ - - - -