ML20127H389

Forwards Fact Sheet Sent to DM Fraser by Constituents in Advance of Meeting of Mn Water Pollution Control Agency on 690311,at Which Decision on Plant Reportedly Will Be Made

ML20127H389
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	03/06/1969
From:	Fraser D HOUSE OF REP.
To:	US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 9211180501
Download: ML20127H389 (4)

Text

'

l

• igp ?n M. rm.sca PoamN urame couMirres F)

-o =. a - -= -

( w ,,,. . ., I 1 e.e.m 4-u..

l'B!Eil! Congressof t0ct!!nitebStates *'" = == = = = -

8strismaat.onas. OneaantAtwees I ..a - .  %)ouge of Representatibeg y * ***** .

' " "" ~ '"'" ~ '

Madington,33.C. 40515 "'""E7*%W" ,

March'6, 1969 - I12 yg.2n57 4

D .

' i Congressional Liaison Atomic Energy. Commission .

Washington, D.C.

Gentlemen For some time, I have been' concerned with the whole question of discharging radioactive wastes into our country's streams.

My recent cause for concern is the proposed construction of a nuclear power plant near Monticello, Minnesota.

Enclosed is a copy of a fact sheet sent to me by one of my constituents in advance of a meeting of the Minnesota Water Pollution Control Agency March 11, at which a decision on the plant reportedly wil'. e made. I would appreciate knowin your answers are to tne questions raised in the enclosed'gsheet. what Best wishes. *

. Sincerely,

/ ,

~.  %.c m nald M.'Fraser s

Encl. ..

l ,

6 7

8ec'd Off. Dir. of Reg, Date_ 3/wks

< Time- > d - ~ ~ ~ ~DL 2057 9211180501 690306 ,

PDR ADOCK 05000263 _ _.

H PDR

',y' 4

?

HONTICELLO: h nucicar energy gamble The stakes mutation, cancerg death ,

) i Citizens are concerned about the idea of radioactive wastes being; dumped i

into the Mississippi at Monticello. We should be. . It's our drinking .

l water. And in spite of the assurances of safety from the Atomic Energy Commission and Northern States Power Company -- the safety and performance j -

records of nuelcar energy plants have been dismal. '

s

' of the original 12 nuclear power plants that have been put into op'eration, 8 have failed -- including the one at Elk River where radioactive 1eaks forced shutdown -- and the Northern States Powor " Pathfinder" plan {t in Sioux Falls which exceeded its yearly concentration limit despite being ,

1 operated below full power. Threeplantshavebeenabandoned(onehtan

• estimatM $7 million decontamination cost, paid by the taxpayer, of Course).

! In all cases where these plants failed, citizens had been assured, as now, of complete safety.

(

Q. If there were a real danger to health f rom radioactive waste, would the Atomic Energy Commission approve of such a plant?

I A.

It appears that the AEC not only would but in ' fact has approveg of i

such plants. The Hanford, Washington Atomic Energy facility on the Columbia River is an example. '

I A 1965 study-showed that Oregon counties bordering the Columbia River g

i downstream from the Hanford facility had a 53 percent higher cancer rate than the rest of the state. The JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH reported: "This physiographic pattern of malignancy provides st rong circumstantial evidence that not just leukemia but all types or pcancer are influenced by bodily ingested radioisotopes in quantities teretofore thought safe."2 We might add, ' declared safe' by-the'AEC.

Q. But why would the AEC approve a nuclear power installation where even

( - the slightest question of safety exists?

t A.

It is important to keep .in mind that the AEC was established to promote

. . , " .. the use of nuclear energy. Limi. ting such use, even for safety reasons, l is clearly a conflict of interest for the AEC. '~

4 Q. What is a ' safe level' of radioactivity in the environment?

A. _There is no ' safe icvel' of radioactivity. Radiation as minimal as X-ray exposure of an unborn child is associated with Icukemia in later e life.2 Standards depend ~ on how many' deaths and mutations we are willing to accept.

I

' For example, the Federal Radiation Council has set its standards -at j .5 rem yearly exposure. "If we assume the population of the Twin Cities j metropolitan area to be two million, then a continuing yearly exposure t.

of .5 rem -- the FRC standard dose -- would be expected to cause from 10 to 100 cases of leukemia per year and about an equal number of other i

p , ' &

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

. l, z '"I i- [d, - .

' ~ ' '  !

(2) types of neoplasms (cancer) ... Whether a loss of this magnitudo is acceptable to society can only be determined by considering the benefits -

to be gained from a particular use of atomic energy."'

\

A question one might ask is 'whose benefits and whose deaths?'

4 Q. How much radioactive waste would the proposed Monticello Plant discharge into the Miasissippi?

A. Northern States Power estimates a total waste, including fuel leaks, of 91.4 Curies yearly.4 .

General Elcetric, who has a reputation for seriously underestimating radioactive discharge, guesses 30,000 Curies the first year. { Note the discrepancy: 29,990.6 Curies. The real figure is anybody's guess.

("A curio is equivalent to the activity of one gram of radium} We can .

all recall the excitement and intensive searches instituted when capsules containing a few milligrams of radium were lost or misplaced. Yet the quantity of radioactivity proposed for release from a single nluclear power plant each year, even under the most optimistic assumptions as to its operation, is several times the activity of the entire world supply of radium.")4 Q. What about the present argument between Northern States Power and the Pollution control Agency as to allowable limits of radioactive contami-nation?

A. This is a sham battle diverting attention from the real point that rgt amount ofitradioactive dumping wastewater in our drinking is safe beand under r31 conditions should tolerated.

Eugene P. Dolum, in his widely used textbook, PUNDAMENTALS OF ECOLOGY, says: "Should a system receive a higher level of radiation than that under which it evolved, nature will not take it 'lyingdown,'!soto speaks adaptations and adjustments will occur along with elimination of sensitive strains or species."

l i

Put another ways radioactive waste dumped into the Mississippi will "T ' '.* ' result in mutations or freaks in plants, animals, fish and people.

Cancer and the death rate due to cancer will increase. No limits have been set on the increase of illness and death that is " acceptable." '

That will apparently depend on how loud people protest as they learn what is happending.

Q. Is is necessary to discharge radioactive waste into the Mississippi River?

A. NO.

"The quantity of radioactive wastes which is discharged depends on the extent of the waste treatment system. Radioisotopes in the wastes can vary from none to several million Curies per year. There need be no radioactive discharge since those that are released are the result of deliberate decisios.s. The only gain offsetting these. releases is a slightly lower, and as yet unspecified electrical cost to the consumer."4 b

i. . . . .

a

'  : ; v. ..s* ig,e . .

J (3)

z. ,

Q. What can you do?

a- .

3 i A. Make your voice heard. Don't leave it to the other guy.-. Protest now -

l

, against dumping radioactive waste in any amount into the Misslosippi .

River or any-other body of water in Minnesota.

I

Send your protest to

.

. Governor liarold LeVander, State Capitol Bldg. , St. Paul , Minnesota.

j . Mayor Arthur Naf talin, Minneapolis Court House, Minneapolis, Minnesota i

. Your Own State Legislator, Stato. Capitol Bldg. ,- St. Pau L, Minnesota

. Mr. John Badalich, Chairman - Pollution Control Agency, Department of Health Building, University of Minnesota, Minneapoli s, Minnesota j '

i ATTEND POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY MEETING l,

(Permit for NSP will be granted or denied at this meeting)

! Tuesday, Marc 6 11' +

h/* ~ , i Veterans Service Building --

l' 9:00 AM Capitol Approach - St. Paul i -

1 7 . . . . .

,t Source Material 3

L l (1) United States Atomic Energy Commission, " Operating History of i

l U. S. Nuclear Reactors" -

i -

(2) Robert Cunningham Fadeley, " Oregon Malignancy Pattern Physiograph-i ically Related to Hanford Washington Radioisotope Storage,"

l JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL-HEALTH, May-June, '65 (3) R. E. Pogue and D. E. Abrahamson, " Benefits, Rinks, and Regulations,"

i JOURNAL OF MINNESOTA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, Vol. 35, No.1,i1968.

1 -~

!- (4) Abrahamson and Pogue, " Discharge of Radioactive- and Themal Wastes," JOURNAL OF MINNESOTA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, Vol. 35, No. le

!- 1968.

l I

t- c p ,;.,~,. . + , + ~; , et . ,+ g > c es., , ;,vp;. *.<';;s.,n

....i . ., .7 .

: ol, Vx * ;f? ': >

'Q: ; <. y a . z_.

s F

l- .3 .., ,

m

(

9, Prepared'and Distributed by Russell Hatling, 2nd Ward  ;

. s ,

l I

.. .+ _,

(. .

j j ..- , .

'.i< ,

9 5

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