ML20114E765
| ML20114E765 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 04/08/1969 |
| From: | Tsivoglou E AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML093631134 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9210120265 | |
| Download: ML20114E765 (8) | |
Text
-
\\O l
STATEMDTT OF E. C. TSIVOGWU-
' April 8, 1969~
Tne nain purpose of q/ statemnt today is to myiew with you the Pemit that has been recormended for the first year of operation of the Monticello nuclear geaerating plant by the Northern States "ower Company. First, I will briafly outline the pmmises upon which the Pemit is based.
I will then discuss the main features of the Permit in tems of the safeguards that have been built into it.
I hope that we will be able to stick to hard facts today, to tne extent-that they are available, and tnat we can avoid the kind of_ exaggcratior that
~
has charactericed sor:n of the recent public statements regarding radioactivity v.d the Mocticello plant.
I hope that decisions regarding this new facility can be based upon rational consideration of mal facts, and not upon unfounded speerlations, erotions or politics.
TdE ?? M SES I
Tne pemit that has been recorrended-for the first year of cperation.of the Monticello facility is designed on the basis of two major premises. Tney are as follows; (1) Tne radioactiv5ty limits that have been recormended by the Internation=1 Commission on Radiolce,1 cal Pmtection (ICRP) represent the best available infcrmation in the world-today reganiing the hazanis of radiation exposure and the degree of protection that must be provided.
(2) All radiation exposure must be actively mirdmized-to the full extent that is both technologically feasible ard economically reasonable.
'Ihis means that in no case-can the limits reco: mended by the (ICRP) be exceeded, but in addition, the actual ~ level of radiation exposure should be kept as far j
below those 3bnits as is achievable in a practical sense.-
j ggGAL
% 2.
b l
SM W5
%nNSE 42 M1 &l L
4 i
l Ye Ant.v
$Y l
ggc. MMm j#
. M/
9210120265 920520 g'
i h
2-In regard to th first premise, the radiation protection 1=.its j
reco= ended by the ICRP are accepted by responsible public health and '
a i
pollution control agencies throughout the world.- They fom the basis for 3-l virtually all other radiation protection standards, such as those provided.
{
by our National Comittee on Radiation Protection (NCRP) and those enforced f
by the U.- S. Atomic Energy Comission '(AEC). The limits recommended by the 1:
TCP2 have been designed to restrict radiation exposure on a continuous i
i casis and over a whole lifetim3 to levels that will.not produce. detectable l
or significant bodily or genetic ham.
j Reganiing the necond premise, which I refer to as the Principle of 4
Minimum Exposure, all responsiMe agencies also agree that human radiation 1
j.
exposure should be dnimized.
Even exposure at the low levels recorarended j
as limits by the ICRP is taken to ba hamful in principle, although this j
has not been demonstrated as fact, and so it is comonly agreed that actual exposure should be kept below those lia tts to the full extent possible in a practical sense. As I describe the rev rements of the permit for the first 3
year of operation of the MontiesDe facility, and the safeguards that have f
been included, I think it..; - t become quite evident that a very high degree 5
l of radiation protection will >e provided.
The pemit that has been recc::mnded does not provide for absolute zero radioactivity release, as i
l that goal is not reganied as practical at this tine. The Pemit does provide j
for a higner degree of protection than has yet. been required at any con, mial lear power plant in the United-States.
It is worthy of trention also that l
no public agency, state, federal or international,-has felt.that absolute i
l tero radicactive pollution is either a practical or a necessary goal'.
l These, tian, are the premises upon which the recomended. Permit -is based:
i j
that the radiation protection limits recommended by the ICRP would, by
}
themselves, provide a high and an adequate degree of protection of the public
[
- and its envirorcent; that actual radioactivity releases frorv the Monticello-nuclear power plant should be kept as far below those limits as possible; and-that a geal of' absolute zero radioactivity release from the plant is'neither j-practical nor necessary at this time, i
i 5
P Y
1
+-
.yw w-
.,p sg,
w,-w,-
p
~y-,
-,9<,wri--9. m,-
w.em.,,.r.eeqr.-t*
.3-T E PER CP AND THE SAFEGUARDS The Pemit that has been reconmnded for the Monticello nuclear generating stations sets limits on radioactive waste releases that are much rcre stringent than the limits that are presently enforced or planned'at any other co=ercial nuclear power plant in the United States.
In keeping with the Agency policy of eliminating radioactive pollution of the environment to the full extent possi,ble, the Permit also requires certain D
waste trr ttment and control measures ' hat are new to the nuclear power c
industry, but these are included to provide additional assurance of environ ental safety.
In addition to these features, the Pe=dt requires the operation of eccprehensive effluent and environmental monitoring programs-that are fully capable of detecting any failure to comply with the sp(:ified radicacMve release limits, both liquid and gaseous.
Quite franL/,:1f the Permit is adopted as recomenc.ed, I axpact the environrental nonitoring program to demonstrate clear y that the radic, active waste releases from the Monticello plant are so low as to be extremely difficult if not inpossible to detect in the roarby env ronment.
d To be more specific, and to stick to facts, let us consider some of the rrercur cafeguarxis that are contained in the Permit. They include:
J 1.
The liquid and gaseous radioactive waste release limdts-specified by the Permit would restrict such releases to no acre than two or three percent of the amounts that can be released according to the current ICRP or AE., require: rents. The Pemit specifies effluent limits, rather than more co=cnly used environmental limits, for *he specific purpose of providing for closer control of the radioactivity releases. 'Ihe limits that are specified ara thus much nore stringent than those in effect ut other cormercial nuclear power plants. Enforcement of the f
requirements of the Perndt means that the actual radioactivity releases will in most cases be well below the two or three percent rentioned above.
,i
l s
i i ;
f 2.
The Femit that has been reconnended specifies limits on l
individual radioisotopes, as well as on gross radioactivity l-releases. This is an unusual precaution at connercial l~
nuclear power plants, and provides additional protection against error or unsafe procedures.
3 A thorough liquid and gaseous effluent monitoring progran is required by the Pemit. This monitoring program is quite t
{
capable, by itself, of promptly detecting any deviation from j
the limits specified by the Femit.
It is a considerably more f
thorough effluent ronitoring progrcm than is practiced at i
other corrercial nuclear power reactors.
i l
4.
A quite extensive and thorough monitoring program for envirorcental radioactivity is also required by the Permit.
l It will require comprehensive monitoring and surveillance of l
all phases of the air and water environment that might be affected by the Monticello plant. The environmental monitoring program will be capable, by.itself, of detecting any significant deviation from tha radioactivity release-limits-2 l
specified by the Permit.
10 wili be considerably more compre-i hensive and thorough than environnental monitoring programs j
required in the vicinity of other cornercial nuclear power plants.
l 5.
The recommende; Pemit requires that all liquid waste releases be i mated and ronitored on a batch basis, rather than i
as a conti2.w s flow. 'Ihis provides a very positive system of control, so that any batch of liquid waste that contains more
[
than the allowed amount of radioactivity can ar.d will be with-
{
held from the Mississippi River for further treatment. This practice is commonly required at nuclear pawer plants. Vnat is not so conmon elnewhere is the' Permit requirenent that l
essentially all liquid waptes, even those from building floor L
drains, be routinely subjected to a high degree of. treatment by l
-O i
,~
4 l-4 l-
-5 t
relatively cost'y ion exchange methods. With procer handling j--
and treatm nt of liquid wastes, there will be no significant radioactivity in the liquid effluents from the plant. Never-i theless, the monitoring programs specified by the Permit will i
require that every effort be made to evaluate the radioactivity that is released, to insure this result.
c.
The Permit under consideration also requires the installa-tion of a_ highly efficient treatment masure for the removal l
of radiciodine from the gaseous waste stream. Radiciodine is one of the nest hazardous radioisotopes that can be given off.
- (
by nuclear power reactors, as it very soon finds its way into 4
the milk produced by dairy cattle. Even though very little radiciodine would be expected from the Monticello plant during l
nomal operation, the new treatmnt measure is required by.ne l
Permit to provide positive assurance of safety from this j
radioisotope.
Essentially none chould escape via the plant
{
~
stack. The required treatment melsure *:r. positive removal of-f radiciodine represents another 'first'- for Minnesota, -I believe -
j_
this measure has not been required as vet at other comercial l
nuclear power plants.
i j
7.
The main source of radiaactivity from any such reactor is ura.ium feel elements that develop tiny leaks, and thereby pe mit fission products to leak out into the primary cooling c/ stem. The Pemit also requires the Northern States Power i _
Company to make every feasible positive effort to 'stop eny radioactive waste releases at their source--;ra m]y in the t
ll reactor itself. Even though great efforts are m:1c'in manu-
{
facture to do so, it is extremely difficult to present such-leaks in an absolute sense - for example, the Monticello rea: tor will contain 23,716 individual fuel rods, and it is a
~
unlikely that'none will develop pinhcle-leaks. The Permit.
i 4
9
4 i -
i e6-will require the plant operator to develop a positive program for finding any leaky fuel elenents or fuel assemblies, so l
that they can be selectively removed from the reactor, either 4
j curir6 usual refueling operations, cr, should it prove j
nocoanary, as a special operation.
This is another measure that has not been Nulred before
.t conmercial nuclear power plants.
It may i n *:ove an easy
]
burden to assume, but the Pemit requires th < ompany to i
demonstmte that it is naking every effort to -do so.
It is i
enphasized that the successful development and conduct of an l
effective pmgru for finding and selectively renoving leaky fuel eierents or fuel assemblies would introduce a new and higher level of control over radioactive wast ;s fr~n reactors.
j It would constitute a substantial practical step forward in j
terms of really minimizing radioactive pollution of the envirar::ent.
8.
One other vely important safeguard, which seems to be l
either unrecertired or consistently ignored by some others, j
deserves emphasis. This safeguard ata,,omatically provides for a::ple time in dich to take corrective actions, should they I
becom necessary.
Tne limits on radiation exposure that have been recom-ended by the ICRP refer quite specifically to continuous l
exoosure over a lifetime. They are decidedly not taomentary or instantaneous limits.
The ICRP-recocrended limit for trititrn, for example, refers to th'e amount of tritium that can l
be ingested every day, over a lifetire, without producing i
detectable or significant harm.
The inportant point. is that it is the cumulative radia-tion e..posure over a lifetime that_is beire regulated, not i
just the nomentary exposure. The risk of harm due to l
rw.
-e-*-
4 exposure at the ICRP limit for a period of one year, instead of lifetire, is proportic,nately smaller than the risk of -
exposure at the sare level over a lifetime, which is almady taken to be negligible. We limits that are contained in the Per tit also refer to continuous lifetire exposure. As they are considerably m re restrictive than the_ICRP recom-mendations, the associated risk of ham is that much smaller again. As a result, the very important safeguarti of available time in which orrective actions can be taken, _if they are ever needed, is definitely present.
1 l
SEUM To sumarine the real factc, the radioactivity release limits that have f
teen recomended for the first year of operation of the Monticello nuclear 1
power plant will restrict such releases to quite small fraction of the
}
releases that could be permitted according to currently accepted worldwide practice. A numoer of new and positive protective waste treatment and f
control measures are rec,uired by the Pemit.
A system of safeguards and cnecks, one superinposed upon another, is incorporated in the Permit, to the i
extent that the risk of hrm due to radioactive releases from the plant is clearly negligible in tems of conparison to all currently accepted national 1
and international radiation protection standards._ Taken collectively, the j
Pe=it requirerents are much rcre restrictive as reW, environmental e
radiation protection than any that have been placed upon any other conmercial power reactor thus far.
i Tnere are sore who insist that no radioactivity at all should be j
released from nuclear plants - that absolute zero release is the only I
acceptable answer.
I can agree zero pollution of our environment is an ideal that we should always seek as a 2atter_or principle and no matter what-kind of pollution is involved.
I cannot agree that absolute zero radio-activity release' is a reascrable _or necessary Permit requirement at this time.
I would point out, however, that thic Permit comes a good deal closer to
-,,e.-,.-eer-m-art w=r-m v
vvw m
- """"T"W"
--,r
8-
.7:;uiring zero release of radioactivity than trany people seem to realize -
in point of fact, if we reasure this in tems of the limits that are emntly regarded.as safe throughout the world, we have.come nore than 93 percent of the way toward zero.
4 3
s e
d
-