ML20127J593

Forwards Proposed Ltr in Response to Governor Levander of Minnesota Ltr Re Permit Recently Issued by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

ML20127J593
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	05/20/1969
From:	Price H US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Johnson, Ramey, Seaborg US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20127J596	List: ML20127J593 ML20127J632
References
NUDOCS 9211190378
Download: ML20127J593 (8)

Text

_ _ _. _ _ _ _. - _ _.__

5 4

4 n y 1

J

[

MAY 0 01969 So-243 1

j Chaiman Seaborp' Ca missioner Ramey Carmissioner Johnson l

Ccrr:issioner Costar 11ola i

i TROIWTD REPLY % 00VfRDR OF MIMNF37PA I an attaching a pmnosed letter in reoly to the 3etter Prm Commor l

LeVander of Finnesota dated M'ty.12,1969, i

i I wrmid-like to' discuss this mtter at an early Incomation Meeting.

I o

(Signed) EP t-Farold L. Price l

Dimetar of Derulation

Attachment:

l Proposed ltr to Gov..LeVander Distribution:

l w/ attachment gLppice CKBeck l

M1Hann-cc: General Manager (2) g g.

General Counsel (2)

CLHenderson l

Secretary (2)

Miestern i-PAMorris l-BHSchur l

HKShapar i

Reg Files i

GErtter OGC Files (Beth/GT)L e

71 - --

t AWells, ASLB h

i-

.......D!Lp[

omcs >

W-CLHenderson/jd's HLPrice -

sumuc >

am >.5/2D59..... 5/EM9.%

rm AEC-S ts (Rev. 9-S3) AECM 0240 v s. novannavnt PRiGTan4 0FFIC5 1944 0-394*417

'9211190378 690520

= - -

~-"

--c PDR-ADOCK 05000263-.

A

_PDR u

__...-,u.._

-. ~.. -

4 g# f%g UNITED STATES 4

ff 94 ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION X

• M; j

L' WASHIN GTON. D.C. 20540 l

Y m

1 t

E i

a i

lionorable Harold LeVander l

Governor of Minnesota

Dear Governor LcVandcr:

l Thank you for your letter of May 12, 1969, regarding the permit recently iscued by the !!innesotn Follution Control Agency (MPCA) setting emiesion standards for the Monticello nuclear power plant of the Northern Sectos Pouer Company (NSP) which,'you crate, cro " considerably more restrictive than ctandarde cet by the Atomic Energy Ccamission."

Our position on preemption has been communiccted on severcl occacions, both orally and in uriting, to rho Il?CA. The

!!?CA has roccived icgal opinions frca the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, the AEC cnd en Ansistant Attorney Ocneral of Minnesota - all of uhich point up the icgal impediment to the cetion taken by the 1@Ct..

i As to our pact assertion of jurisdi.ction, the AEC, before issuing a construction permit for the_Monticello pinnt, held a public hearing in Duffalo, Minnecota, on May 25-26, 1967. Representativoc of the Minnesota Daperttacnt of licalth, the Minnecotn Conservation Department and ~ the Minnesota Unter Control Cc=nission made appearaneco ct the hearing and had no objections to the granting of the con-struction pennit by the AEC.-

As you crate in your letter, en AEC operating license is necescary before USP is locally permitted to operate the Monticello nuclecr pcuer plant. The vicuc of the M?CA and any other intercated Minaccota agency on the insunnec of the operating licence vill be carefully concidered.

Although vc have not yet received c copy of the pe.rmit

-l thich vac issued by thn MPCA oa May 12, uc have revicued cn earlier version which vac sent to un by the IFCa. Aside v'

v*-i v

ey wy-W--www-iws-'+-e v

.e fee.--

1rbiwp vi--

p--

T y-V i-yrt v'

t

\\

3 1

i I

i t

!!onornlo Harold LcVcnder '

- i u

1 4

l fres the Ican1'impediccat, va hnvc scro cubci;cntiva difficultice 4

2 vith the pc =it uhich arc deceri':2d in :h stecch= cat to thic ictter.

4 a

Wa in cha (CC u't.dcratcad end.hcre your interect in the he.01th i. -

cad. alfora. of the pccpla of Mir.r.aco.:0 and in the proceed.oa

[

of our naturci recoureca.

1 Cordially, i

1 1

a 4

4

- Cs..u. 4.....n

~aciccura:

3 l-

.h c:cted sorc

.i t

ec:.::r.ornblo Chat 201101c10, Chair..:n Joint C: aittca on.'.tenic Z.or.a~.

Listribution:

_-Chairrcc.n Seaborg. (2)

Cc=issionar Rc=cy 4

Cc.missioner Johnson.-

I Ccamincionar Cost:31icic H e ro a,,..L.

./rica 1

Josep.a r. Hennesccy

-LHSchur PAMorric Forrect Western (L. Ro3crs)

C. L. Hendercon Secrc tt.rict (2) j F

, Cong.- Rol. (2)

/REGTilen 03rtcer 4

OGC Files-(Bath /GT)'

PDR 4

-OCC 3

I

.........../j.f j... DR l

.........l _............la

--am:E >

t 4I Sh n p c r : ca'd lIL? rice suanwI >

....t...

c...a. l 5 /15../. 6 9..........-l

'/.. /.&

l

....... =..

...................k...

-,u.~.=

=.,

, MC-M F t Rev. 'LW d.iCM 0: 50 u n ce ? u esimawr*

'w m..o

" ' +., -.

.g,pw.g.y.q,yp,.yyng..

pg9i.iv p-ym y e,'

7 yr dyM'g t ey='ty er&f+

g' V y*VW'-

+P p'

'P**

.'"+V"'

+' *

.'$"$1 5

---.-a--.

_ _. - ~..

4 CC' CMS ON FE JGT E0 POSED 3Y "IIMX/TA TOUR" TOM COV":0L /RECY Tr.e fo11cuite cements relate to reconnendations to the Minnesota Pollution Cent e. Ar,ency (FFCA) by its consultant, Dr. Ernest Tsiveglou, and to the MPC/L pernit vinich is based on those reemrendations.

l Beleares frem Power Plants Relative to AEC Bemilations Releases of radioactivity from the operation of licensed nuclear pcuer clants have generally been small percentages of Ibits imposed under current

{

AEC regulations. Attached is a su=arv (Attachment 1)_ of releaces in water and air from licensed reactors durirv, 1967.

i Durint the oneration of nuclear Dower plcnts, small c.uantities of-sw l

radioactivity are released from the olents as paceous and licuid effluents l

under controlled conditions in accordance with the Ato.ic Energy Cc=niscion's regulation,10 CFR Pa"t 20, '"Stanistds for Protection-Acainst Radiation" Federal Radiation Council 1/ n Part 20 are based en ruides develcocd b (Attachment 2). The limits i l

In evaluatin; acceptable risk frcm radiation exoosurel the Fedaral Acencies.

l Federal Padiation Council uses the best technical expertise in the fie3d, and-takes into account the recontendations of the National Ccuncil on Radiaticn Protection and y2asurements (UCRP) and the Intewaticnal Cc:nissicn on i

Radiolonichl Pmtection (ICRP)2/. Tne continuous hu~an use of air and water containir ; concentrations of radicactivity at Part 20 linits would not result in individual exr.ccures exceeding national or international nt;niards.

4 1

k 2/

Tne PRC wac created by Executive Crder 10531',-- Auc.wt -14,1959, snd rade

~~

i s'catutory in Secte %r 1959 hv an e~mment to the At;nic Fmrcy Act of F

1954. One Council advises the Precident on radiatien matters affectine he21th, includ'n; fatidance for all Federal Agencies in the fer~ulation of radiation standards and in the ectnblishment aniexecution of nec; rams of cooperatica with the States.

-2/ The MORP was forred in 1929 under the auspices of the National Eureau of Standarde of tho' United States.

It was inco ncrated by' Act or Con ~ress in 1964. The r.erberchip consists of-some 65 recccniced croerts in the field of radiation protection.

The ICRP van established-in 1928 by the Internatiensi Corgecs of Radio 3cc to provide;radiaticn protecticn r.uidance, it_is Inched to.by ne.tional

. governments an1 by such international ar,encies es tha Wo"1d H#tth Orranic.a-tien, the Fced and A;;'iculture Crrnnization, End theInternaticral Labor Crranication, all of Wich maintain liaison uith the IC'iP, fc" basic guidance in all areas of protectica crainst icninir rediation.

• w s74 4merg p* ae.:$ $

• a wee geo e-we "

,..w.

s==e-e arsnes** =.,..

= w** =e* yg f y,

g.,,%

4 w

e-

--,+,.,-mh.-.

ew, c

e.,

v w".

mr,,,-,.

..,rwiir,=-ir -

-aryv

=

,r"- r w -v w ++ wre ~m, rm -w-ev + we=

• • w -r-y t r + e -

>wr~

y'-t*

t - w e N "v e

• m-me- *'

'*=v=-*

_. _ _ _. ~.. _ _

i 4

2-a i

In view of recent substantial increases in nicher and sisc of po.:cr reactors under construction er planned, we have our regulations i-under review to detemine whether changes may be desirable. Any j

chan3cs the Oc:mtission decides to trake will be rade only after opnor-tunity is afforded all interested groups to participate in the rulo makinr; pmcedure.

t l

Technical and Econtmic Feasibility of i

Recom,endations in the Recors and IFCA Permit; 5

l Wnether oneration of the Monticello plcnt in accordcnce with the MPCA perrit will be-technically and. economically feasible will decend-l in large rensure on the technical competence and subjectivo jud? ment of I

the people administering it, and the: extent to which some of the specini requirements will be rigidly interoreted and applied. This is due to the many provisions in the ICCA consultant's report and in the pomit i

l which are qualified by such words as "to the full extent that is feasible and reasonable,"... "such measures shall include at least but not be limited to,"...- and "to the full extent possibic."

l i

Eecorrmendations 1 throur,h 14 in Section III or the I@CA's l

consultant's report deal genarally cith limits on releases of radio-activity from nuclear facilitics within the State. Rectatendctions 5 and 9 provide radioactivity standcrds which, in mny ways, do not i

differ substantially frcm those provided in AEC's ramlation,10 CFR i

Fa't 20. Mcwever, the effluent limits that would be establishcd by the j

nutorical.;aidence in the-radicactivity standards in the report cro I

us w lindts. Itch icwcr lir. tits would be drseced on cach -rcactor, j

int chilcacphy ic roficered ir. Esec=endatie' nc 6 and 7, ns, as 59-50,

[

which provide that, notwithstanding recermended nt=erical 1$mits, nuclear nlants shculd be reautrad to keep effluent radicactivity concentraticrs as far belc.'t these limits as is feasibic cnd reasonable i

and that cach nuclear plant should be reorded as an irtiividual and l-different caso so far as radicactivity releases are cencerr.ed.

In view of the Qct that the consultant proposed no definitive-

-criteria or standa ds for detennining on ti cace-by-case basis vfnat l

concentrationn should.be considered to be "as far belcu those limits l

as is feasible and renscnsble" we believe that l technical and econbmic feasibility of implernnting -the roccmendatienc= dn Sectica III of the i

report depend uniuly on tha technical cc:getance er.d subjectivo judgment.

of the persons adminictorin3 thsm.

A I.

+

l' I

f -

I-

+....,.

,m s -

i-

. - _ -. +

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

..~,,,..

m,

.e l

4 1-4 j-3-

1 The reco:rir.endations in Sectionc l'! and V of the report deal specifically.

i -

I-with the Monticello reactor and have been ig lemented, with r:odifications and:

i.

additions, in the MPCA pemit to Northern States Power Ccgany.1 The pemit 4

establishes (1) nurrarical limits on concentrations of individual radio-nuclides in air and liquid effluent, and (2) special requirements on plant l

operation and monitoring to assure that the jndividual limits are not exceeded.

1 As Irentioned earlier, the feasibility of these requirements is dependent _

i on how they will~ be interpreted and applied. Following are two examples of j

requirements that, if strictly enforced, would be questionable from a-technical and economic standpoint and could inpose a burden greatly out of j

proporcion to the small increrantal reduction of radioactivity in the effluent

?

that would be achieved.

Effluent Limite and Monitorin~ Reauirements i

MPCA's concultant emphasices in his statexent of April 8 that tha recomndations of the International Comniscion on Radiological Protection i

represent tha best available information 'in the world tcday rogaming the I

hacards of radiation expocure and the der;ree of protection that must be pmvided.

Neverchalecc, the pamit contains limits for nsny different rrilCICliCO2 Which aro Irach ic~.cr than those r2cora2nded in th2 Lener:11-j radica tivity ctandards contained in th concultnnt's report and by the ICP2.

i In some cases the limits in tha permit for radionuclides in liquid effluent l

are as low as one billionth of tha ICRP values, f

Althotch tha effluent monitoring requirc: rants in the permit are not :

l clear, it appearc that the ccncentration of each of these radienuclidas is requirad to be monitored to dronstrate co:pliance with the specified limito.

Such monitoring requirements vould be unnecessarily burdensema because trnny I

of the radionuclidas are kno'.n frcm experience to occur in relatively I

uni:rpor:cnt concentrations. For exa nle, the-pemit spccifice limits for 14 different radionuclides of noble Ocss cxpected to be raleased to tha l

ntmcsphare. Tha ssme degree of radiation protection could be achieved oy specifying a single limit for tha total radicactivity in the fom of. noble cases, and the case of traking thelreasurament uould be r.aeh greater cecausa -

of the difficulty of Iraasurin; the concentrations of individual nuclidas in l

the presence of no reany others.-

h.

.tn vicw of tha low offluent release lir.tlts we do not believe that an environmental monitoring prcram as-cc prehensive as that_ required in the pemit is harranted.

In the pracentation of the draft pe=it to tha TECA it was stated that the requiren monitoring propcm vill' be "...conciderably 4

37

- The pemit containing "special conditions relatirg; to radicactive vasten,"

'.as approved by tha IECA at a maatim held May 12, 1969 A copy of th0 draft pe=it and t copy of the consultant's ctatement presented to tha l

IGCA in tha meeting of April 8-93 1959, are attached (Attacl=ent 3). AEC l

comrants, herein, are address d to tha drafb par:rdt.-

5

.-'.ew.-,,-m.

-v

--e

.,,--v,

. +, -

ev-

-,-e, ww

-.,e_.r

.-..,.,c.r-.m_ni-.e-%.-,r,-er-n--.-ri.-e.

-ew,,..,,,-,,-

e vw -v

,e-

--w-m..--v

c.vl re a tal programs required in nare cgrenensive and tbrcc -

the vicinity of other ccrr r =

30;

'pk".sa."

At the same t he, doubt was cast on the value of.mch

nmr =d costly monitoring program with the st.com nt, "Quite fr=lly, if the perettt is adopted as recom-rended, I expect the envirorc.esal nonitoring program to demonstrate clearly that the radioactive waste releases from Monticello are so low as to be extremely difficult, if not inpossible, to detect in the nearby.

On the basis of existing infomation, including special-environment."

studies in the envimns of the nuclear power plants at Dresden and Indian.

Point by the U. S. Public Health Service and New York State Departrant of Health respectively, we agree with this evaluation.

Fuel Element Inspection and Leak Detection Requirement Section 2(e) of the permit provides, in part, for "... initial thorough inspection of fuel mds to identify those that might develop fission product leaks, and rejection.of such rods for use in the reactor..." It is not clear whether this requirement is intended to impose inspection procedures over and above the extensive fuel eierent inspection procedures required to be carried out under the AEC licensing program.

Under 10 CFR Part 50 of the Co mission's regulations, reactor fuel ele.mnts are required to be designed to function throughout their lifetha without excceding acceptable Paal damvA limits which have been specified The AEC also requires _

and justified in the reactor license application.

quality assurance pmgrama, test procedures and inspection criteria to be used in the fabrication of fuel elements.

With regard to reactor fuel, a typical AEC license application describes rigid quality controls that are applied at every stage of fuel Written ranuf'acturing to ensure that the design specific'ations are met.

ranufacturing procedures and quality control plans define the steps in the manufacturing process. Fuel cladding is subjected to 100 percent dit:nsional inspection and ultrasonic inspection to roveal defects in the Destructive tests are perfomad on representati'le samples c1cdding wall.

from each lot of tubing, including chemical analysis, tensile, bend, and All tubos are subjected to a corrosion resistcnce test burst tests.

(autoclave).

Integaity of end plug welds is assurad by standardization :

of.>ield processes based on radiographic 2nd metallographic inspection of Completed fuel rods are helittn leak tessed to detect the escape welds.

UO, powder of helium through the tubes and end plugs or welded regions.

characteristics and pellet densities, conposition, and surface f1,nish are

- UO weights at every stage controlled by regular samplire inspection.

3 in ranufacturdng are recorded. Dinansional measuremants and visual inspections of critical areas,such as fuel rod-to-rod clearances are perforrad after assembly and after arrival at the reactor site.

Tne AEC believes that reactor fuel elements which are ranufactured-and inspected in accordance with such quality assurance procedures will perform safely,and satisfactorily without the need for any additional M8+ * * * *

-98*

• 6 ew me.__-

en e=,

{

D6 wp f-u

_, _ - - ~

. _. ~

d 3 --

4 inspaction requirements such as ray be igoced under the IGCA pennit.

Furth r, th3 Cc =ission's requirerrats, which cxperience has shown to be

.~

l technically and econcrdcally feaible, have been demonstrated in practice l

j to result in the 11:niting of radicactive releases to the environment'to levels well below acceptable standards.

E 1

Section 2(c) of the MPCA permit further provides for " development 1

j and application of taethods and techniques for 'locatirG and identify 1rG.

leaking fuel rods after operaticn of the reactor begins... Tne operator chall report in detail to the Agency the actual measures taken in both of these regards before startup of the reactor.

If necessary, he shall initiate research and development activities designed.to develop the needed l

i procedures." In the presentatien of the draft pennit to the i7fCA, it was stated: "This is another measure that has not been required before at-j cor:rarcial nuclear power plants.

It may not prove an easy burden to assume, but the permit requires the ccgany to domenstrate that it is trakirs every j

i effort to do so.

It is erphasized that the successful develop:3nt and-l

{

conduct of an effective program for finding and selectively removing leaky fuel elements or fuel assemblies would introduce a new and higher level 1

of control over radioactive wastes frca reactors.

It would constitute &

substantial practical step formrd in tents of-really minimiting radioactiv:

pollution of the enviror.mont."

Tne practicality of the above requirement depends on how'it would be i

intercreted and administered. Under a strict interpretation it cannot be man w'ith presently dorigned reactors. Redesign could be costly.

It is more practical to fix limits on radioactivity in the pritrary cochnt and f

monitor it.

Qaeratin; experience with these reactors indicates that radio-activity levels in plant effluants has not resulted in cny safety prcblem even though operation has been continued with smli lea':s in the fuel. This experience has not demonstratcd the need for such changes in present reactor designs or dr. existirg; regalatica requirements. Further,;the incentive for xeeping radic;ctivity levels 1cv in the pri:rary system to n.inin Lee diffi-cultics during refuelin; and mainterance operanions has led to devoicpment and current-use of fuel cladding with very high intci;rity. These efforts hwe rasulted in actual radioactivity levels well uithin ths Cc:rmincion's regulatory requirements.

j Danirability of Adontion of Recor~.endations i

4 contaihac in R A Heocrc and Ir mit In view of tha ' forego 12% ve believe that many of the reco=3rdations in che report canno; be justifica End, acart from the legal jnpediment. to the issu?mce of the parmit, that-the inclusion of the radiolt;;ical conditiene p

in th: permit is not decirable. As diacucced above, cc 2_of tha reccn-meniations ;of th0 report and bestrictions in the permit, dependin~., on hcw.

1 they aw: interpreted nnd adrdnietored, could be unculy burdanscme Without thic, the reporc and tha permit reflect an "Od hoc" gprcach to tha rGlatica

nkin; a manninsful centributica to the public health and carcty.- E2ycnd of nuclear power plante rhich, '.a our view, cannot' er.5 shoald not be rade the bault for c fatr and effective rc;ulatory progrc;c. -

4 v~

-,,,,4

,,..,,.,.in-.,

,--.--.-,-----a

,,-,-----n,..._

..-n-.-

,,----,. -,-, ~,,'