ML20127J678

Summary of 680604 Meeting W/Monticello Pollution Control Agency Re Concerns W/Monticello Plant

ML20127J678
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	06/21/1968
From:	Price H US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Ramey, Seaborg, Tape US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20127J682	List: ML20127J678 ML20127J708
References
NUDOCS 9211190396
Download: ML20127J678 (8)

Text

. . - - . . - . _ _ - - . - - - - _ - - _ - . _ _ - . - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _

1 w

lj .

=

v 6p(L June 21, 1968 l

1

[d -26 Chairman seaborg Commissioner Ramey Coasmissioner Tape i Cosmait.,Jioner Johnson  !

l d

j MEETING ON JUNE 4, 1968, WITH MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY - MONTICELLO NUCLEAR POWER PLANT OF NORTHERN STATES POWER C(MPANY i

The attached clippings do not contain accurate accounts of i the meeting which I and ncabars of my staff had with represen-

! tatives of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on June 4.

i .

j Robert Tuveson, Chairman, Howq.. Anderson, M.D., Member, and

! John P. Badalich,. Director of the Agency, came in to discuss l their concerns with the Monticello plant. Mr. Badalich's l 1etter of May 22, 1968, which served as a basis-for discussion,

is attached. They characterised their basic problem-as a j " political" one arising mainly from the public opposition to l the operation of the plant that had-developed in Minnesota.

1 The Mayor of Minneapolis and various, State university pro-l fessors have publicly opposed the plant. It.is also apparent t

that there is a split within the membership of the Agency.

I Many of their questions centered around the basis for and the

( validity of tne AEC radiation standards-contained in Part L of our regulations. .They expressed an interest in having AEC l representatives appear.before_their Agency.in a public meeting L to explain the safety of the plant and justify AEC standards, as well as to describe AEC safety. review procedures.

i I offered to cooperate.with them in every appropriate manner, j but explained that there were difficulties, from the standpoint

, of our public posture as a regulatory agency, in appearing publicly, in a forum other than our own public hearing, to L defend the' merits of-a particular plant.- I said we had held i a public hearing in Minnesota and were satisfied with our omer>  :-_...... . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

su m = > . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

me> .. . . . _ . . . .. .. . . . . . =. . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . .

Form AEC.818 (Rev.6-63) u,s,sonnutwf Pastths errKt itse-o-21442s l 9211190396 680620 PDR ADOCK'05000263 A PDR O

1 i e l

Mesmrandum for the Commissioners June 21, 1968 i . - i decision. I expressed our willingness to send representatives  ;

l to explain to the Agency - outside the context of a pubiic i i hearing - our safety review and inspection procedures, as well

! as our safety standards. I told them that we would not rule i out *he idea of sending AEC representatives to a public meeting  ;

j but a t there would be many difficulties. j q .

l The Agency representatives did not request that we answer their >

l questions in writing; in fact, there was no discussion of such

! an approach.

We discussed in detail a comparison between radiation protection '

i standards formulated by the International Commission on Radio-i logical Protection (ICRP), National Committee on Radiation i Protection and Measurements (NCRI98) and guidance of the Federal  !

! Radiation Council (FRC). The application of these standards by the U. S. Public Health Service (USPHS) and the World Health j organization (WHO) to drinking water standards and by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to release limits on radioactivity in

l. effluents from nuclear facilities was reviewed.

i l We explained that differences between standards pu',iished by the ICRP and NCRPM are of a minor nature. In some cases the FRC- '

! standards for members of'the general public are more restrictive '

l than those of the ICRP and NCRPM. Under guidance from the FRC

where ICRP and FRC standards differ, the AEC's 10 CFR Part 20 l standards as _ well as _ USPHS standards follow the recommendations ,

of the FRC. Because of the different manner in which USPHS-and _-

l AEC standards are applied, they are frequently considered to be '

! very different. However, they are in fact quite compatible.

' We pointed out that the affluent release limits in 10 CFR Part j 20 are applicable for all kinds of nuclear plants and were not j l formulated to be applicable to . nuclear power reactors for the i indefinite future. As a matter of regulatory practice, we do not .!

permit our licensees to approach the Part 20 limits and we-expect  !

nuclear power reactors to operate well below these limits._ We i j reviewed with them the power reactor operating-experience to date j which shows that liquid affluent releases are only a small

! fraction (about 17.)- of ' the amount of radioactivity permissible i

, omcc > .... _ . . . .. _ . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . -... ....... . . . . . . . .

$URNAME > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -

DATE > . . . . . . .

man AEC.818 (147.9-831 UA sovrnnurnt rmatine orrKI t im.-o tte-429

e Memorandum for the Commissioners June 21, 1968 under 10 CFR Part 20. We said that we presently have applicable standards under review and may propose to the Commission some modifications.

They agreed that the principal problem involved was the contention on the part of those opposing the plant that "any amount of radiation may be harmful." This problem was discussed at some length including a discussion of the feasibility of prohibiting all releases. We explained that it would be technically feasible to reduce the limits almost, but not quite, to zero, but that it is a matter of balancing costs against further reduction. At icvels substantially below the levels of radioactivity now being released by power reactors in liquid effluents, the cost of removal of the remaining small quantities of radioactivity rises sharply and the reduction in exposure to the public is not substantial. The removal of all radioactivity from gaseous effluents is more difficult and is not at present time practical.

To date we have not considered it necessary to remove all radio-activity from effluent streams.

I told them that, even if we came out there to discuss this question, the people opposing the plant will not be satisfied.

The State agency will still have the problem. I suggested that '

from their standpoint they should consider the advantages of their engaging, as independent consultants, persons of the stature of Drs. C. Rogers McCullough and Theos Thompson to come out and explain in a public meeting what reactors are all about, and persons of the stature of Dr. Shields Warren and Dr. John Bugher to discuss radiation doses and to give some perspective on how low the low limits on effluent releases really are. They indicated that they had unsuccessfully tried to obtain the services of some of these persons. It was apparent, however, l

that their lack of success was probably due to the fact that the scope of work specified by the Agency (an in-depth review of the design of the plant) was too time-consuming to be acceptable.

Actually the Agency had invited proposals from various people, including Shields Warren, to do a complete design and sito review whien would have been an attempt to duplicate everything that the  ;

l staff, the ACRS and the hearing board haveniready done. They were I

OmCE > . . . , . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . .

$URNAME> . .. .. . . . .. . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . -

DATE > .. .. . . . . - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . j lbrin AEC. DIS (Rev. D-53) u s covranterwi rewfino onu i me-o-ste See l l

i z' .

. Masorandum for the Cossaissioners - 4- June 21, 1968 j i~ thinking in terms of a $50,000 contract. I-told them that frankly they would not get their money's worth; that they could

! hardly hope to bring to bear on the problem as much competence l and experience as the AEC had already put into the case. This  ;

! discussion brought up the question of' the authority of the state - i

in this area. We stated our position that the authority and l

jurisdiction of the Commission preempt the field, but we also cold them that we didn't foresee any situation under which the l Commission would directly challenge the State.  !

l 1 offered to do what I could to help the Agency obtain the '

[ services of people like-Shields Warren. They_ told me_at the conclusion of the aseting that they had decided to adopt the

" independent consultant" approach with a much more limited scope l of work than they had previously planned, r

i l In addition to the adequacy of Commission standards and-the feasibility of prohibiting all-effluent releases, one of the

! questions in Mr. Badalich's letter asked for a justification of

) the dual role of the Commission in regulating and promoting- the l nuclear industry. We simply explained that the law imposes both

responsibilities upon the Commission and that we thought that i the record of safety in the industry indicated that a good job  ;

was being done in both areas.

l They stated that there was nothing further that we could do at 4 this tims, but that they would get in touch with us at a later

. date for help in gotting. consultant services. ,

i The meeting = lasted all morning and about half of the af ternoon.

It-was an open and frank discussion on both sides and they seemed highly pleased about the entire discussion.

'(signet 'ILB Harold L. Price Director _of Regulation Attachments:

As stated bec: CKBeck BSchur MMMann HShapar cc: General Manager (2)' CLHenderson TEngelhardt Canaral Con.amel (2) ntnoan h e -*

omet > 8.ec,repary, (,2) . .

pg. ./

su-t >- . . . . . . . . . . . ... ...

HLPrice/mm out> ... . , . . ..

. . . . . . . . _ 6./2.1/.68...h .h ..

, n>rm Arc. sis tner.e-u> n m ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,, , % m ,,,

, n - -. . .. - ..:.. ... . . - . -

4

,.v.m .-vw..=--,v..-..-> wn-w,.,. ,, , , v em,wv.mb-m_,-,,.ymm-.---.y- w ,w,,.v. r.e-.eew.-,--e . ..--,-..,..%..r . .,.---6--w.--..I

\ \

Chatrusa Seaborg Commaissioner namey Commaissioner Tape Commissioner Johnson METD00 ON JUNE 4,1968, WITE MIISIBSOEA POLLUT10It CDNTROL AGENCY -

NDNTICELLO NUC12AR POWER PLANT OF NORTHERN STATt8 POWER COMPANY The attached clippings do not contain accurate accounts of the meeting Wieh I and members of my staff bad with representatives of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on June 4.

Robert Tuveson, Chairman, Houard Anderson, M.D. , Member, and John F. Badalich, Director of the Agency eene in to discuss their concerns with the Meetieello plant. Mr. Badalich's letter of May 22,1968, dich served as a basis for discussion is attached.

They characterised their basic problem as a " political" one stie-ing mainly from the public opposition to the operation of the plant that had developed in Minnesota. The Mayor of Minneapolis and various state university professors have publicly opposed the plant. It is also apparent that there is a split within the membership of the Agency. Many of their questions centered around the basis for and the validity of the ABC radiation stan-dards contained in Part 20 of our regulations. They empressed an interest in beving ABC representatives appear before their Agency in a public meeting to explain the safety of the plant and justify AEC standards, as well as to describe ABC nafety review procedures.

I offered to cooperate with them in every appropriate manner, but explained that there were difficulties, from the standpoint of our public posture as a regulatory agency, in appearing publicly, in a forum other than our own public hearing, to defend the merits of a particular plant. I said we had held a public hearing in Minnesota and were satisfied with our decision. I expressed our willingness to send representatives to explain to the Agency -

outside the context of a public hearing - our safety review and omer> . . . . . . . .. . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . .

su m ut> . . . . . . . ._. . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ ...

DATE > . . . .

ITrm AEC.319 (fter. > 83) U.S.sovrn%utu P.mtino orract . ipata-ez.

inapaction procedures, as well as our safety standards. I told then that we would not rule out the idea of sending ABC repre.

sentatives to a public meeting but that there would be many difficulties.

The agency representatives did not request that we answer their questions in writing 3 in fact, there was no diseussion of such an approach.

We discussed in detail a comparison between radiation protec.

tion standards formulated by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), National Consittee on Radia.

tion Protection and Measurements (WCRPN) and guidance of the Federal Radiation Council (FRC). The application af these standards by the U. S. Public Health Service (USPMs) and the World Health Organization (WHD) to drinking water standards and by the Atomic Energy Commission (ABC) to release limits on radioactivity in offluents frami nuclear facilities was reviewed.

-We explained that differences between standards published by the ICRP and MCRPM are of a minor nature. In souse cases the FRC standards for members of the general public are more restrictive than those of the ICRP and NCRPM. Under guidance from the FRC where ICRP and FRC standards differ, the ABC's 10 CFR Part 20 standards as well as 15F58 standards follow the recomesadations of the FRC. Because of the different menner in which USFES nad ABC standmeda are applied, they are frequently considerei to be very different. However, they are in fact quite cc patible. s We pointed out that the affluent release limits in 10 CPR Part 20 are applicable for all kinds of nuclear plants and were not formulated to be applicable to nuclear power reactors for the indefinite future. As a matter of regulatory practice, we do not permit our licensees to approach the Part 20 timits and we espect nuclear power reactors to operate well below these' limits. We re-viewed with them the power reactor operat14ssemperience to date which shows that liquid of fluent releases are only a small fraction (about 11) of the amount of radioactivity permissible under 'O CFR OFFICE > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . - .- +- .-- ~~..~

SURNM4E > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . ~ . . . . . . . . - . . . - . ~ . - ~ . . *= - ~ . .

DATE > . . . . . . . . . . . . . - .. . . . . . . . . . - . . -. . - . . . . - -.

Imrtu AEC. SIB (R.t. 9- A1) u.s.sommmttT rasmtsh6 0tFlu i te tiMas

...im... .

=

I i

- 3-i l

i-i Part 20. We said that we presently have applicable standards under review and may propose to the Cossaission some modifica-  !

j i

tions.

' l They agreed that the principal problem involved was the contention

on the part of those opposing the plant that any amount of radia-tion may be harmful. This probteva was discussed at some length

including a discussion of the feasibility of prohibiting all i releases, we explained that it would be technically feasible to reduce the limits sinost, but not quite, to zero,-but that, from an economic standpoint. it wouldn't be worth it-because the i

numbers are already so very low. I told them that, even if we ,

came out there to discuss this question, the people opposing the plant will not be satisfied. The State agency will still have i

j the problem. I suggested that- from their standpoint they should

consider the advantages of their engaging, as independent con-i sultants, persons of the stature of Drs. C. Rogers McCullough  !

I and Theos thospoon to come out and amplain in a public meeting l what reactors are all'about, and persons of the stature of Dr.

j. Shields Warren and Dr. John Busher to discuss radiation doses j and to give some perspective on how low the low limits on effluent releases really are. They indicated that they had

unsuccessfully tried to obtain the services of some of these

persons. It was apparent, however, that their lack of success j was probably due to the fact that the scope of work specified i

by the Agency (an in-depth review of the desiga of the plant) l was too time-consuming to be acceptable. I offered to- do what

I could to help the agency obtain their services. They told me l

at the conclusion of the meeting that- they had decided to adopt j

i

( the " independent consultant" approach with a much more limited scope of work.

i l In addition to the adequacy of Cossatssion standards and'the feasibility ofpprohibiting all effluent releases, one of the

questions in Mr. Badalich's letter asked - for a justification l

of the dual role of the Commission in regulating and. promoting i

i l1 l

l i omer > . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,._ .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

sumur > ..... . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . .. .

DATt>

Form AEC=318 (Rev.9-SM u.s r.onnugntPamtmeartica les.-o-*ta sa

. , . _ - _ . --..m- . _,.._.1 ._l._ ._ i .. . . _ - . - _ _ _ _ _

~,v,v-,-a ,,n, - - _,w,n-na~ .+m,,.,-.- +,.,.,,--,,.va...--w.,,-r-~,,, .w, , . . , . . , - . , , ,n. . , , , - . . . r,. w , - . - 4v.-.--.- , m.,, 4.s,---( , . . , , , ,

s .

I i

9 1 -

i . 4 the nuclear industry. We sissply explained that the law insposes I both responsibilities upon the Commaission and that we thought that the record of safety in the industry indicated that a

] good job was being done in both areas.

i They stated that there wassnothing further that we could do at this time, but that theys would get in touch with us at a 1 later date for help in getting coneuttant services. They expressly abandoned their request that we cause out and partic-ipate in an adversary public hearing.

The meeting lasted all inorning and about half of the afternoon.

It was an open and frank discussion on both sides and they seemed highly pleased about the entire discussion.

i 4

l liarold L. Price Director of Reguistion cc General Counsel (2)

General Manager (2)

Secretariat (2) 2nclosures: As stated Distribution:

Harold L. Price CKBeck HMMann ClJtenderson RLDoan BilSchur

(,. HKShapar

~

TEngelhardt REG Files - CErtter OGC Files - (GT - Beth) omet > 0GC . .. ..,. . . . . . I.. .. REG .. . . , _ . , ,, , , ., ,,_ ,,,,, ,

.oo- ,

Shapar .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .

SATE > ..Q 20/68., 6/_j68,,, , , , , , _,, ,, _ ,,, . , , , _,, , , , , , , ,,, ,,,,

Wr1H A EC*318 (Rev. H.31 vs soutamistnt raint:N5 ctrK.E . ime--oria 42s

~" --.__.. . _ . , . _ _.m.,__

i=-g s- wm- . . -

• em a-ew- - e , w w 3- y-- .-