ML20127J805

Ack Receipt of Re Permit Issued by State of Mn Pollution Control Agency Setting Emission Stds for Plant

ML20127J805
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	06/02/1969
From:	Seaborg G US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Levander H MINNESOTA, STATE OF
Shared Package
ML20127J802	List: ML20127J799 ML20127J805
References
NUDOCS 9211190429
Download: ML20127J805 (13)

Text

...

-~. f

.. , o. .

t r

• p.u e

• UNITED STATIS ATOM 0 ENERGY COMMISS:ON

', M, , 5 Y* J WASHmGTON. D.C. 20HS *

%,,a u+

""" # p June 2, 1969 A

Honorable Harold LeVander Governor of Mirnesota .

b g ,/h /

St. Paul, Minnesota 55:01 / .-

Dear Governor LeVander:

i Thank you for your letter of May 12, 1969, regarding the pe m.it recently j issued by the Mirnesota Pollution Control Agency (F?CA) setting emission i standards for the Menticello nuclear power plant of the !!orthern States t Power Corpany (NS?) vfnich, you state, are " considerably nore restrictive than standards set by the Atomic Energy Co=dssion."

As you recognize in your letter, an AEC operating license is necessary before NS? is legally per.itted to operate the Monticello nuclear power i

I plant. The views of the F?CA and any other interested Mirnesota agency on the issuance of the operating license will be ca"efully considered.

t In your letter you state that, because t'.e 15.C was awa~e before May 12 that regulations stricter than th: e o; ne .'EC were li.:31y to be i g osed, and if, as we claim, the EC hac pree pte .c.e nuclear field, you "would

• have anticipated that EC would have acted tfrirntively" to assert its exclusive jurisdiction before the F?CA acted. 2.e Ccrission did, in fact, take such affi mative action. On severs; o ne.c cns, both orally and in v.~'iting, we have clearly comunicated ou ;csiticn on preemption

, to the IGCA. Tne ??CA, moreover2 has receivai legal opinions from the Joint Cc=ittee on Atcmic Energy, the AEC, and an Assistr.t Attorney General of Minnesc:a - all of .^.ich point up the legal ig edinent to the

. action teen by :ne !?CA. Fincy on this ;cin:, the AEC, before issuing I a constru::1on p0=it for the '= icello Cr. , held a public hearirs in Buffalo,.Yinnesota, on May 25-25, 1967; 2._ representatives of the Minnes:,ta Department of Health, the Firnesc:a Conserva; ion D3partment and the Fdrnesota Water Control Cc=lssion made ap?eerances at the hearing and hai no objections to the granting of the constructicn pe=dt by the AEC.

In you" letter s cu express the ';pe th: : we "will now support" the :?CA acticc. Tnis we ca act,do. A ^ough .c. . have not yet received a copy of the perdt which was issued by .z.e MPCA on May 12, we have reviewed an earlier version ':hich was sent to us by the F?CA. Aside from the local impedimnt, we have some substantive difficulties with the pemit vinich are de m ibed in the enclosure to this letter. he AEC, in accordance with p iance from the Federal Fadiation Council, recognizes that releases

e f

, Honorable Harold LeVander June 2, 1969 P

of radioactivity should be kept as low as practicable, and our experience to date with some fourteen licensed operating pow reactors shows that the radioactivity released in effluents has generally been a small percentage of releases that may be pennitted under AEC regulations. These limits, which are discussed in the enclosure, are based on guides developed by the Federal Radiation Council, and approved by the President for the guidance of Federal agencies. As to .the future, in view of recent substantial increases in number and size of power reactors under constnic-tion or planned, we have our regulations under review to detemine whether changes in some instances may be desirable. If the Comission decides to make any changes, they will be made, in accordance with our usual practice, only after opportunity is afforded all interested groups to participate

in the rule making procedure.

I

' .The fact that the MPCA pemit contains radiological conditions that are "more restrictive" than those that would be imposed by the AEC does not mean that there is a correlative or even measurable increase in the protection afforded the public. As discussed in the enclosure to this letter, some of the restrictions in the permit, depending on how they are j interpreted and administered, could be unduly burdensome without making a meaningful contribution to the public health and safety. Indeed, again depending on its interpretation and administration, the pemit could be viewed as not enhancing the public health and safety at all since it might require frequent changes in operating conditions, including shutdowns and startups of the reactor, which might not be justified by the circumstances.

Beyond this, the permit reflects an "ad hoc" apprcach to the regulation of nuclear oower plants which, in our view, cannot and should not be made the basis for a fair and effective regulatory program. The approach taken by the MPCA is that each nuclear plant should be regarded as an individual case so far as radioactivity releases are concerned; but the MPCA has no definitive criteria or standards for detemining on a case-by-case bcsis what concentrations should be permitted. We are not j aware that the NPCA now has the requisite professional staff to develop

, and administer effectively permits such as the one issued for the Monticello nuclear power plant. Nor do we believe that it is in the public interest for Minnesota and other states to compete with one another

! and with the AEC for the limited number of available persons qualified in I the technica?. disciplines related to reactor safety in order to establish i regulatory plograms that would duplicate the AEC program for the regula-tion of nuclear reactors.

For these reasans we must decline to give you the assurance which you have requested "that the AEC not issue any operating pemit for n.f.1 nuclear power g?neration in the State of Minnesota which does not respect the stringent ragulations the State Pollution Control A6ency requires."

' C%

O ~~ } /

A b

e e

L

Honorable Harold LeVander ,

June 2, 1969 Rather than attenpting to duplicate the regulatory activities of the AEC, it would seem far nere appropriate that Minnesota take advantage of the nechanism specifically provided by the Congress to accomTodate the interests of the states in radiological health and safety. This mechanism is a cooperative agreement with the AEC under section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act whereunder certain regulatory responsibilities of the AEC may be turned over to a state. Under these agreements the states assume j regulatory responsibility for control of the radiological effects of source naterial (thorium and uranium ores), byproduct material (radioisotopes),

and small quantities of special nuclear material (enriched uranium and plutonium),

1

+

We in the AEC understand and share your interest in the health and welfare of the people of Rinnesota. We hope that the State of Minnesota would see fit to join the other nineteen states that have' thus far entered into cooperative agreerents with the AEC for the radiological protection of their citizens.

-l , Cordially, I

/s/ Glenn T. Seaborg ~

Chairman

Enclosures:

Corments on Permit Proposed by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency w/ Attachments (1) Sumnary of Releases j

(2) 10 CFR Part 20

(3) Draft Pemit & Consultant's Statement l ,

cc: Honorable Chet Ho11 field, Chaiman l

Joint Conmittee on Atomic Energy I

Congress of the United States l

0r h- J qG I

l

! 4 1 l

" ,m..e l

- - , x. .., ;----- ----

1 s

h ' . ,, ,

COMMS ON PERMIT PROPOSED BY MINNESOTA POLLUTION ONTHOL AGENCY

, The following comments mlate to recocmendations to the Minnesota .

Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) by its consultant, Dr. Er Est Taivoglou, and to the MPCA permit which is based on those rec.cnmendations.

Releases from Power

• Plants Relative to AEC Regulations .

Releases of radioactivity from the operation of licensed nuclear power plants have generally been small percentages of limits inposed under current AEC regulations. Attached is a sunmary (Attachnent 1) of releases in water-and air from licensed reactors during 1967.

During the operation of nuclear power plants, small quantities of radioactivity are mleased fmm the plants as Gaseous and liquid effluents

< under controlled conditions in accordance with the Atomic Energy Cocmission's l regulatibn,10 CFR Part 20, "Standarxis for Pmtection Against Radiation"

! (Attachment Federal Radiation2). 'Ihe limi Councilg in Part 20 are and approved bybased on guides the President developed for the guidanceby the of Federal Agencies. In evaluating acceptable risk from radiation exposure the Federal Radiation Council uses the best technical expertise in the field, )

and takes into account the recommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measuremgrjts (NCRP) and the International Conmission j on Radiological Pmtection (ICRP)E . The continuous human use of air and water containing concentrations of radioactivity at Part 20 limits would not result in individual exposuma exceeding national or international standarxis.

~

I -

c l .  ?

M The FRC was created by Executive Order 10831,- August 14, 1959, and made statutory in September 1959 by an amendment to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The Council advises the President on radiation matters affecting health, including guidance for all Federal Agencies in the formulation of radiation standards and in the establishment and execution of-programs

, of cooperation with the States.

Y 'Ihe NCRP was formed in 1929 under the auspices of the' National- Bureau of Standards of the United States. ,It was in*corporated by Act of Congress in 1964. The membership consists of some 65 recognized experts in the field of radiation protection.

The ICRP was established in 1928 by.the International Congress of Radiology to provide radiation protection guidance. It is looked to by*

national governnents and by such international agencies as the World- ~

Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and the '

International Labor Organization, all of which. maintain liaison with the ICRP,: for basic guidance.-in all areas of protection against' ionizing radiation.

O g j g .

M-' m n w _ w.w. .

\

l

i i

- - ~2-l

' '* In view of recent substantial increases in number and size of -!

power reactors under construction or planned, we have our m gulations under review to detemine whether changes may be

• desirable. Any changes the Comission decides to make will be'mde only after opoor-

, tunity is afforded all interested groups to participate in the rule

i. making procedure.

Technical and Econcmic Feasibility of

! Recormendations in the Report and MPCA Permit Whether operation of the Monticello plant in accordance with the MPCA permit will be technically and econmically feasible will depend j in large neasure on the technical certpetence and subjective judgment of the people administering it, and,the extent to which some of the special requirements will be rigidly interpreted and applied. This is due to  !

• the many provisions in the MPCA consultant's report and in the pemit which are qualified by such words as "to the fbil extent that is feasible ,

and reasonable," ... "such measures shall include at least but not be limited to," .. . and "to the full extent possible."

Reconmendations 1 through 14 in Section III of the MPCA's consultant's report deal generally with limits on mieases of radio-activity from nuclear facilities within the State. Reccrimendations 5 and 9 Drovide radioactivity standards which, in many ways, do not differ substantially rom those provided in AEC's regulation, 10 CFR Part 20. However, toe effluent limits that would be established by the numerical guidance in the radioactivity standards in the report a m unoer limits. Much lower limits would be-imposed on each reactor.

l- This philosophy is reflected in Recomendations 6 and 7, pages 59-60, which provide that, notwithstanding recomended numerical limits, j nuclear plants should be required to keep effluent radioactivity concentrations as far below these limits as is feasible and reascnable

, and that each nuclear plant should-be regarded as an individual and different case so far as radioactivity releases am concerned.

In view of thefhet that the consultant proposed no definitive criteria.or standards for detemining on a case-by-case basis what concentrations should be considered to be "as far below those limits I as is feasible and reasonable" we believe that technical and econmic

! feasibility of implementing the reccrnmendations in Secticn III of the report depend unduly on the technical ccanpetence and subjective. judgment of the persons administering them.-

T

- 2

. e

, .e

-- ,re 9

. i.%. . .

l I ,- -

e

. s .

a -

3-The recontrendations in Sections IV and.V of the report deal specifically with the !bnticello reactor and have been implemented, with noitfications and additions, in the MPCA permit to !brthern States Power Cocpany.M The pemit establishes (1) numerical limits on concentrations of individual radio-nuclides in air and liquid effluent, and (2) special requirenents on plant operation and monitoring to assure that the individual limits are not 4

exceeded. ,

As mentioned earlier, the feasibility of these require _ments is dependent

! on how they will be interpreted and applied. Following are two examples of mquirements that, if strictly enforced, would be questionable from a technical and economic standpoint and could inpose a bunien greatly out of

,' proportion to the small incremental reduction of radioactivity in th9 effluent

! that would be achieved.

EffluentiLimits and Monitoring Requimments MPCA's consultant emphasizes in his statement of April 8 that the reconmendations of the Intemational Conmission on Radiological Protection represent the best available information in the world today regarding the hazards of radiation exposure and the degree of protection that must be provided. Nevertheless, the permit contains limits for many different radionuclides which are much lower than those reconmended in the general radioactivity standards contained in the consultant's report and by the ICRP.

In some cases the limits in the pemit for radionuclides in liquid effluent

are as low as one billionth of the ICRP values.

{ I Although the effluent monitoring requirenents in the pe'mit are not clear, it appears that the concentration of each'of these radionuclides is required to be monitored to demonstrate compliance with the specified limits.

t Such monitoring requirenents would be unnecessarily burdensome because nnny j cf the radionuclides are known from experience to occur in relatively unimportant concentrations. For example, the permit specifies limits for 14 diff*"ent radionuclides of noble gases expected to be released to the atnesphere. The same degree of radiation protection could be achieved by specifying a single limit for the total radioactivity in the fom of noble gaps, and the ease 'of mking the reasurement would be much greater because of de difficulty of neasuring the concentrations of individual nuclides in i .

the presence of so many others.

~1n view of the low effluent' release limits we do not believe that an l environmental monitoring program as comprehensive as that required in the l permit is warranted. In the presentation of the draft pemit to the MPCA l it was stated that the required monitoring program will be "... considerably E The pemit containing "special conditions relating to radioactive wastes,"

was approved by the MPCA at a meeting held May 12,1969 A. copy of the draft permit and a copy of the consultant's statement presented iso the MPCA in the neeting of April B-9,1969, are attached (Attachment-3).' AEC corrents, herein, are addressed to the draft pemit.

1

. , _ , , ~ _ - - - -. - - - - ~ -+v,-,,-*-- -e.- . . - - - - -

.e

.. . 4

, , 4 rore comprehensive and thorough than enviromental programs required in

.the vicinity of other commercial power plants." At the same time, doubt was cast on the value of such an elaborate and costly monitoring program with the statement, "Quite frankly, if the pemit is adopted as recom-rrended, I expect the environmental monitoring program to demonstrate

" clearly that the radioactive waste releases from Monticello are so low as

!' to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to detect in the nearcy environment." On the basis of existing infomation, including special studies in the envimns of the nuclear power plants at Dresden and Indian l Point by the U. S. Public Health Service and New York State Department of Health respectively, we agree with this evaluation.

Fuel Elenent Inspection and Irak 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 element inspection procedures required to be carried out under the AEC licensing program.

Under 10 CFR Part 50 of the Comnission's regulations, reactor fuel elements are required to be designed to function throughout their lifetifre without exceeding acceptable fuel damage limits which have been specifjed and justified in the reactor license application. The AEC also requires quality assurance programs, test procedures and inspection criteria to be

{ used in the fabrication of fuel elements.

With regard to reactor fuel, a typical AEC license application describca rigid quality controls that are applied at every stage of fuel manufacturing to ensure that the design specifications are met. Written i mnufacturing procedures and quality control plans define the steps in i the manufacturing p"ocess. Fuel cladding is subjected to 100 percent dimensional inspection and ultrasonic inspection to reveal defects in the claddin; wall. Destructive tests are perfomed on representative samples L from each lot of tubing, including chemical analysis, tensile, bend, and burst tests. All tubes are subjected to a corrosion resistance test (autoclave). Integrity of end plus welds is assured by standardization of weld processes based on radiographic and totallographic inspection of welds. Completed fuel rods are helium leak tested to detect the escape of helite through the tubes and end plugs or welded regions. UO powder p

< characteristics and pellet densities, composition, and surface finish are

' I contmlled by regular sampling inspection. UO weights at every stage i in manufacturing are recorded. Dimensionalme$surementsandvisual

, inspections of critical areas such as fuel rod-to-rod clearances are perform 2d after assembly and after arrival at the reactor site.

'Ihe AEC believes that reactor fuel elements which are manufactured l

and inspected in accordance with such quality assurance procedures will perform safely and satisfactorily without the need for any additional-r I l t l

l f

4 . ,

, . inspection requirements such as may be irposed under the MPCA pennit.

Further, the Conmission's requirements, which experience has shown to be technically and economically feasible, have been denonstrated in practice i' to result in the limiting of radioactive releases to the environment to levels well below acceptable standards.

Section 2(e) of the MPCA pennit further provides for " development j and application of methods and techniques for locating and identifying-leaking fuel rods after operation of the reactor begins .. . The operator

~

shall report in detail to the Agency the actual measures taken in both of these regards before startup of the reactor. If necessary, he shall 1 initiate research and development activities designed to develop the needed procedures." In the presentation of the draft penrdt to the MPCA, it was

" stated: "This is another measure that has not been required before at comrercial nuclear power plants. It ray not prove an easy burden to assu:re, j but the pennit requires the conpany to demonstrate that it is raking every effort to do so. It is ecphas$ zed that the successful development and conduct of an effective program for finding and selectively removing le@y fuel elements or fuel acccmblies would introduce a new and higher 3evel 3

of control over radioactive wastes from reactors. It would constitute a substantial practical step forward in terms of really rrdnimizing radioactive pollution of the envirorcrent."

The practicality of the above requirement depends on ho',t it would be 4

' interpreted and administered. Under a strict

• interpretation it cannot be met with presently desig.ed reactors. Redesign could be costly. It is more practical to fix lindts on radioactivity in the primary coolant and monitor it. Operating experience with these resctors indicates that radio-activity levels in plant effluents has not resulted in any safety problem even though operation h=.s been continued with c all leaks in the fuel. This

. experience has not demonstrated the need for such changes in present reactor designs or in existing regulation requirements. Further, the incentive for l

keeping radioactivity levels low in the urifr.ary system to rintmize diffi-culties durin:; refueling and maintenance operatior.s has led to development and current use of fuel claddings with very high integrity. These efforts have resulted in actual radioactivity levels well within the Ccanission's regulatory requirements.

. Desirability of Adootion of Recomr.endations Contained in NPCA Report and Pennit In view of the foregoing, we believe that many of the recommendations in the report cannot be justified and, apart from the legal impediment to the issuance of the pennit, that the inclusion of the radiological conditions in the penrit is not desirable. As d$ scussed above, some of the recom-mendations of the report and restrictions in the penrdt, depending on how they ,are interpreted and a&rdnistered, could be unduly burdenseme without making a meaningful contribution to the public health and safety. _ Beyond -

this, the report and the permit reflect an "ad hoc" approach to the regulation of nuclear power plants which, in our view, cannot and should not be made the basis for a fair and effective regulatory program.

I i

i

-- a- , -

1 i, ..

Attachments:

1. Sunmary of Releases

2. 10 CFR Part 20 3 Draft Fermit & Consultant's Statenent 1

4 4

8 l.

i' k

l l

l l l' l.

i -

I s

4 I

,.g- - - p .i w w - - -

1967 OPERATING EXPERIENCE IN RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVTIY IN LIQUID t.ND OASEOUS EFFLUMTS FROM NUrLEAR POWER REAC'IORS The release of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents from nuclear power m actors and other AEC licensed nuclear facilities is governed by the Atomic Energy Comission's regulation,10 CFR Part.20,

" Standards for Protection Against Radiation." The following Tables I and

! II provide infomation on actual releases of radioactivity in liquid and gaseous effluents from lli licensed nuclear power reactors in 1967.

5 Radioactive Releases in Liould Effluents - 1967 - Table I Licenses authorizing the operation of nuclear power reactors limit concentrations in liquid effluents to concentrations given in Appendix B, j Part 20. Note 1 of Appendix B requires that the concentration permitted for any one radioisotope take into account other radioisotopes that may be present. Under this requirement an individual member of the general public could use continuously the water released by a nuclear power reactor without exceeding radiation protection guides developed by the Federal Radiation Council, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measure-ments, or the International Commission on Radiological Protection.

Actual use of Note 1, Appendix B, to compute the gross activity limit that must be met would require the licensee to detemine the radioisotopic composition of the radioactivity in the effluent. The licensee may elect, under the provisions of Note 2, to forego some or all of such determinations if he uses more restrictive limits which assume that all of the unidentified

, radioisotopes in the mixture have the same concentration limit as does the most restrictive radioisotope which has not been determined to be absent from the unidentified portien of the mixture.

l Table I of this attachment lists for each of the operating licensed nuclear power reactors the curies of fission and corrosion products (second column), and the curies of tritium (fifth column) released in effluent waters. Part 20 concentration limit for fission and corrosion-l products which the licensee elected to use, in accordance with the conditions l of Appendix B, Part 20, and the percent of that limit actually utilized are shown in the third and fourth columns, respectively. The limit of 1 x 10-7 uc/ml selected by most of the licensees is sufficiently restrictive that it can be used for any mixture of fission and corrosion products l . without any identification of the specific radionuclides present -in the j mixture. The typical radionuclides present in water effluents from power reactors are such that,1f the licensee wishes to identify them and measure their concentrations by radioisotopic analysis, limits which are less 1

restrictive than 1 x 10-I uc/ml by a factor of 100 or more could be selected.

For five of the reactors shown in Table I the licensee elected to perform

.1.j , radioisotopic analysis and use a less restrictive limit.

I r

! I 2

l l -l Attachment 1 to Enclosure 1 a - - . . . ,- - - , , , ,

. i . ,

Radioactive Releases in Gaseous Effluents - 1967 - Table II In practice, releases of radioactivity from nuclear power reactors to the atmosphere are controlled by release rate limits incorporated in the respective operating licenses. Each release rate limit is designed to make it unlikely that any individual in the vicinity of the reactor will be exposed to radiation in excess of FRC or ICRP radiation protection guides.

To provide this assurance, there is computed for each reactor release rate e limits in the atmosphere, taking into account local meteomlogy, geography, utilization of land and pathways of exposures of people. Simplicity of operation and a high degree of effectiveness are achieved by the develope nt of limits for two basic groups of radioisotopes -

- a) noble and activation gases, and

. b) halogens and particulates.

By-assuming that each group consists entirely of the most hazardous isotope

- likely to occur, limits for the total activity of each group can be established which at the sam time are conservative from the point of view of radiation protection and minimize the effort required by the licensee to met the limit and demonstrate that he has done so.

Table II lists for each of the operating licensed nuclear power reactors the number of curies of radioactivity released, the limit in the license 4 condition, and number of curies permitted to be released, and the percent of that limit actually utilized.

{

1 4

t l'

l l

.o.

a a

I. -- _ . . _ _ . , . .

1

+,

J TABIE I . .

RELEASES OF RADIOACIIVITY FROM P0h'ER REAC'IORS IN LIQUID EFFLUEfffS,1967 MTYFD FTSSTON & CORROSION PRODUCTS TRITIUM

-Released Concentration 1/ Limit Percenty Released Percent of MPC 3/ 1 Reactor. (10-7 uC1/ml) ' Limit - (C1)

(C1)

!: BIG ROCK - 110 2 58- y DRESDEN 1 4.3 1 35 4f hug 30LDr ' BAY :. 31- 1 17 -4/  ;

' INDIAN POINT 1 28 30 1.3 297: <1 -

l - YANKEg 0.056 10. <1 1589 <1 4

CONN. YANKEE 0 39 30 < 1, 123 <1 0.02 1 <1 .6 <1

! SAXIDN ,

!- 'O.46 1 _ <1 12. <1 ELK RIVER ,

! PEACH BOTIOM 0.002 1 <1 i

-4/

I f BONUS 0.035 1 <1 y t.

' LACROSSE <0.005 1 ~<1 af.

I 0.04 1 <1 _4/

i FERE I - SANON0FRE 0 32 1 <1 I  !

i PATHFINDER 0.19. 1 - 89 .

0.30E 300. <1 j

.. . t lg 2g 3/, F , 5[ See notes on next page i ,, _ , - . . . _.

~ .

I '

Facility licenses require that the release of radioactive liquids in plant effluents be in accordance with 10 CFR Part 20, " Standards for Protection j

Against Padiation." Where there is a mixture of core than one radionuclide

in the effluent, the permissible concentration is dependent upon the extent to which the licensee determines the isotopic composition of the mixture.

In recognition of the time and effort required to provide corplete informa-tion on the mixture, Note 3 of Appendix B_to Part 20 provides a table for '

-, determining the limiting pemissible concentration if it can be demonstrated that certain isotopes are not present. The values selected by licensees

{ from that table are shown in this column.

2_/I n view of the considerations expressed .in Note 1 above, the valueu given in this column represent upper bounds to the percentage of a Jimit that would be applicable on the basis of a complete analysis of the composition.

l Limits based on conplete analysis, if performed, would be expected to be substantially higher than those used and the percentages in this column would be substantially less.

-YThe maximum pemissible concentration of tritium in water is 3 x 10-3~uci/ml.

Y Th ese reactors use no lithium or boron in the primary coolant and their only significant source of tritium is fission. The fraction of fissions prcducing tritium is so small that none of these reactors can produce 100 curies per year, and most of the tritium produced is retained in the fuel elements until they are dissolved in a chemical reprocessing plant.

! E!These data are for the first 8 ronths and the last 4 fonths of 1967, respectively. During the first 8 months the licensee used the concentra-tion limit for a completely unidentified mixture of radioisotopes. khen it becare evident that the average concentration for the year would probably exceed that level, he made sufficient a;n fses to demonstrate that the MPC would not be less than 3 x 10-5 uci/ml.

f 1

.e .

a - -

• ~ ' '

TABIE II '

RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVITY FEO'4 POWER REACIORS IN GASEOUS EFFUTSTIS,1967 ,!

NOBLE AND ACTIVATION CASES HALOGENS N!D PARTICUIATES '.'-

Reactor wies  % Pe.W ssBle Cries  % Pemissible Released Pemissible Released Pemissible .

IIUMBOLDT BAY 900,000 1,600,000 57 0.64 57 11 ELK RIVER 4,400 19,000 23 0.003 0.1 3 BONUS 1,300,000 45,000,000 3 0.0038 215 <1 PATHFINDER 5,900 470,000 13 0.2 2.2 9 DRESDEN 1 260,000 22,000,000 1.1 0.039 100 <1 YANKEE 23 6,300 < l' Neg. 0.03 <1 BIG ROCK 264,000 31,000,000 <1 0.25 38 <1 INDIAN POINT 1 23 1,600,000 <1 Neg. 7 <1 PEACH BOPIOM 75 19,000 <1 Neg. 0.09 <1 SAX' ION 22 3,750 <1 0.0025 10 <1 CONN. YANKEE 0.02 28,000 <1 .001 0.2 <1 SAN ONOFRE 4 170,000 <1 .Neg. 0.8 <1 FERMI 0.014 8,800 <1 Neg. 7 <1 LACROSSE <5 151,000 <1 Neg. 0.8 <1 Where the technical specifications express a release limit in tems of a constant factor times the 10 CFR Part 20 concentration limits, the MPC used is 3 x 10-8 uCi/cc. mis Iec is based on typical noble mixture release with less than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> holdup. (For holdup longer than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> the ITC is larger)

Where the technical specifications do not state ai .nnual limit for the iodines and particulates, an MPC value of 1 x 10-10 uCi/cc was used. 'Ihis MPC is based on the nest restrictive isotope nomally found - I-131. The annual limit was reduced by a factor of 700 to account for reconcentration.

Permissible release rate based on average wind directions from BONUS final. hazards su:m6 PRWRA-GWC.

~ , - _

! - - - P 6 ./ .

M.relimiriarv Irch 3 D.rss.rt1, ih . . ,

'<. ..,...r- Rnvised. April 10, 1959 l

,. q, .. .

.- *i.

. c. ' '.* ';

l' MIf.'t.'ESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY

'. . ?l?' Oe.l eutro Stroe t > S.E,. .

E Univnralty Ccrpuu . ,\ .

H1nncopolin . . . ', : i, .

.. . .A

• '.m.

e .

55440 .

- ...a . .

OASTE DISPOSAL PERMIT .

1

- . Monticello Nucleer GenaratinD Plant, '

4

- Northern Statec Poucr Company, '

Monticello Tounchip, Wright County ,

t ,

.Purnuont to authorization by the Minncoota Pollution Contral AD0i;CY:

.und in accorA.nce uith the provinions or M$nntacta Stetutos,1967, Cheptern 115 rnd 116, o parmit is hereby grented to NortSzrn Statec Powar Company, Minnanpolin, for disposal or uente from a stces elcctic generating plent being conntructed by the compcny in the wast half or Section 33, Teenship

! .122 N, hngu 25 U, Uright County, $ncluding the diccharge of ein uento, a3 ihurnin be.'ca tpacified therefrun to tha Micsian$ppi River, subject to tha condit' ion; givan belou: ,

s G ntn .a..l. Po.n. d. i t.i o. n..s-

-.n.-.

! 1. Thin pa:.cuit thell not rt>1cima tha .pmcoitten f' rom any lithility or i

ob)1gotion ':',morer: by Minnes6tu statutes or local ordinrnnes end chal? reunin:

in forna ouhjrz-', to cl.1 cnndit.ican end limitr tions now or herr.arter it:.ptn :d by 13.u Tht parait t& U hn porre$ naiva a:i]y and shnll not be construed un ontopping n: limit'ing eny clsirr r.gainnt t!.a perm tuta for de ma;.c or .inj'.*:.'y .

la pavnto er property, or ombrd e,o of th2 por:nlltec, its aguiato, con':t wtc .

or aan:icnn , nnr an o.etappin'J or llui tin,. uny Iqal clrim or the rtata e,,rinn the por:;itt: :, itu q ate, contrLctors o:- nst:Igan, fa dc.mga ta ettto prs p':: ,.s.. ty, or 00,' ony vini :t3 cn or nu'.Jann,uant > cculttions 0; cor.ditions of i.blu

.L L ,

I

}s....L 4

2. flu nmd gnnunt of thic parait ch 111 ba eff ectiva unhil it is c:acui: '

in uriting and n$ gned by' the p . t4.cs tharat:; und tharunf tar cp;rcavad by 'the Aguncy.

2 . .

3. Na I

ejar t.R;rctic:.s n' cddii. ions to 'tha disposM. .cystm sholl bs

• g mum uith'mt tha 01.ttnn ocnsso t. of the Ananov. e o

- N

k. Th1 up Of thC 'dirpOHOl Sydter.1 r :.:ll ba .*ifiiit0d to tha trentmant OP diuGOBEl Oi' thG i 0 '0 1, imht ?id s Dr si:bE ti.aGua d1Horibad 'in th" [.0ri.1%

1U07, 7,i d Ci/M '.'. htad 'i.f. .' "[ E. fi.Cd L; .th thO '

hpp.l iC ?. h i bn dD E $ d l': y 11 *

"/ -

Ag3ncy. <

. 1 r

.- - '\

l

• 4

,I

1. )

'1[,

.; ,.g Ia . S.'

( ',,. Sh.dg /.I " * *

m. . (e. , . l i .

I

I . 6 s .

?

.e. 5; .The permit is nubject to modification or revocation, and may bc

= cuopended at any timu for failuro to comply uith the terms otated 'herein o 4I' the proviolonc or 'any other cpplicable, regulations or standardo of the A 00n r

or its prodcconcors', and is issued toith tha undernbanding that it doca not

, , estop cubncquant establishnient or further requircracnto for treottaant or cor.

trol at any tir.ic by insertien or oppropriate additional clauces heroin at t

. discretion of the Agency. in order to p'covent er reduc.o possible pollution of the environment.

-}4  !

6. The permittoc or conigna shall defend, indemnify and' hold h'ntmlose

the Stato of Minneenta, its arricuro, 00cntu and craployeca, officially or p'crsonally, nDainct cny cnd all actionn, clairan, or demands whetconver whic

. racy arina from or on cccount of the inuuence or this perrait, or the constru or maintenance of any f acilities herounder. ,

?. Certification of com;;1ction of the project chall be medo in:nodictc i orter conatruction is fininhad. Reports on effluent qunlity and operatione practicon chall ba nut'd tted rcDularly every month, and the permit holdar ohnll certify that ha in in cll recpects in conformance with the condit*.cno nivun in the Agancy palicy ntatement of Aucun' 22,1%7 cntitled, " Policy

. Regarding pp eration Pcr:.dtn for Snunge and Industriol Uactc Treatment Ucrhv i . .

c S.pe. n..$ al. C. ondii.' onc Haintinn to Conunnt$ onal llaston

1. U0, rm smm'  ; e or trnated oceagu crrluant chall ba discharged to

. nuricca uni.:m. of tha un.te from th : plant nite.

i 2. Any t.ddi.Linnul conntruction pleno End danign data which may bo i roquired rcr cll d$ r.rGunt Bystrma nended for col)ection, trentracnt and d5 n

• p Dc t:1 Or bCu:tr::, induu h ?Ii'I i'unta. L.nd otlier UUStOG or. i'inut.I nf at th.5 3 Si'c

,, , tod for arrec..ive canid r. . tnt or storad liquido or other pollutienr.1 nated 00: .the provenM t n 0 einer pollutiLn to acarorn with tha rar;nireu. ante or .

porn 4.t , thou ba oubittad tanu tha. ulih any othat intornctio.. requented ra

~

re vi ce. by tha Aga;.cy. All auc h p? uia ch?.1 rect ulth -tha approval of t;.a hanucy cad tha.::gnit:c.c he cot g? ated barora o,7.aration of the plcnt in ntre'

'3. The follwing utenturd:: of quu'!.ity nd purity applienble to l.hr cf fluan i: cr the holdinc pcn2 chall not -be c::c.7cdad at the point or dia.ht.20 f rn;a tha pund: . , .

G.S - 0. 5 pH vslaa Turbitiitu valun  % 25 . .

29 m?.llig:eu:as/ liter

' 5-dc.y b5 hnhenia a a::yasa dahnn'd Totcl su:gcadcd polida -

30 uilli r0D c:/lf be:> . .

g g

9 .

g

%g 6 . e s.. .

8 , .

" - i-f *.

~

~ . .

t, ..m_... ,

6

,, ..n.-.

.3 .

4, , .

h. C"coling'fncilitico chull be prov1' dad end operated to incure'

).ttemperature of the cooling unter ot thu point of dischar00. to the ri'ver that tho does not exccad tha limits.upacified bolow: g l t . .

4 1 - '. . Period -

Maximum Temperaturn '

JulyandAugust',incidsive OG'F (or 5 F obove tha umbient June end September, inclusivo 80*F .tcrr,perature of the rive ,

, , May and Octobar, inclusivo. 67*F whichnver.is'Orcator, ex-April end November, inclusivu 55'F copt that in no case sh:11

. March end December, inclunive 43 F the cooling water temperah

. . ,Junusry and Februcry, inclusive 37 F as. discharacd exceed DP'F)

,The dncign of treatment worhu for comp'lionce with' the strenm DN:ndards,

, j un3can otheruica spacificd, nhall be based on the ocvan cDosecutivo day 1ca flou of, tha rivar uhich is et;ual to or exceed 1t! by 90% of cuch coven-day minimuT. overe,c flows of record (the lowent novan-day flow uith a ence in ton

year racurrence interval) for the critict0. month.

5. No industrial W:.ste, or other u$ctec, trouted 01 untreated, shall

'bc diochargud li.to the uttern. no en to counc eny nuisritice ronditiona, includ!n; Withotel. lit.c.tetiert , the prcEence of subatuntini cmaunto of floating calit!n, S C t l*3 , oil , BUT, pond'2d CO2 iri ;, d.'. UGU1 C ri;l.i ch , OL*)OMiOUM OdOYD Sltidg0 :Uppsitn, 3

climes, Dr fungun growthu, 0:: othcr of fenr.ivo uf fects) matt!riUl inGrniWn in Orly Ollr. r chCMical Conn d$ tvun U5j01: . orcUuh*3 so on Unyto csuse subntenti:,df.ny change in any chm ootm stica wM eh uny irguir the qmdity of the un?.ar f o i

DC tO YOndOr it ohjuCliMi:OlO or UnbuitEU13 TDr fi0h find Uiltilif(1 Or 7.iG e ocurce of uu'.mr fur Ru.0 cipel,. int ut trial or v;ricultural purposes; or other-WiDc 3tpulr thO f;uP2 .ty oI the W5tsWD TOP nrrj (7ther uups, ti . Thu efspcny tholl accrura tho quantity -ad chs.'ac'arintico of end Scf3plO ;31y Enuly%C the induy!..riul -tn aLea, other tiastuu. ond storad liquida nt th r.; OiEC US May h3 r e q U N .h fi by t! u.: Ay;acy, cnd chnll provich thn Ap: icy overy raont.h nii.h a oc: f.ata .ceport en cunh rc.arnurcents , se:cplan t nd onely:en , to~

g U tiie r l'Ii'h Sn y O lhy2 inIOr:r.LtiOn palating to 1.M Stu diUpODOl Gr pollution cUntrn) IDiCh m';y bU P3yDE UDd.

7. I30il.ibica for EOnitnring thO yt:ality -of thU TUC3iVing Haturs shall ba prDvidad md e; ad n' rc ;uantad by tha Agency. Rerusta of thu monitorinD chau ha repu: tad tc the Agancy nt' ncnthly intervala. -

C. Thu compcny t.holl caue; to b:e nade L;ithout coct to tha state, tn$h !.

niotO ubudien cnt inv.:otiM. .icnn of the bintu l.nt' qunlity end ::da.ted nattera.

,i PCr#'*9 ning Y." tha 1.;ctar;; C;' the r,tntq ,i ; ,3h c 3c3,iya p. pigg gg py gg.,.;g., gg WhiCh 3r. in th3 $ DU ;diH{. ; viO'.a;[y Of thj pl ,', [7 mh,r M _ ygqup,gg .g

} g A00nay. Camplata Japm t:: th: '.I' t : subit ted c..nually, or :fors frat.c.mtiv u,nn l.

rcqem. .

c

~ m- .

• )

\

. . l

%f '

s .

. . t . .

. g a.

.. __...__s_... . _

- - .~ - - - - --

.y. -

, , 9. Continuous operation or all or the treatment uorks at their' raaximum

i. 'q.copability conslutent with practicel litaitations tnd maintenance needs of suct.

worhu nhall ha racintcined et all timca when' the plant is,in operation end uhtil noccocory to provide adocuato trootment of the sewage, industrial unstcc or -

othstr vaston by the torma of this permit. .

i

• 10. Thu company choll expeditinuoly mee ony changco in wante dispoool, raonitoring, and reportin0 practicen, and provide cny etiditional trqatment

, works or dinpcnol systeino or other unreguarda for the provention 'or pollution -

i I

j or the environment upon the request of the Agency. .

• 11. Liquid cubhtonceo uhich could con.stituto si nource or pollution or

' the untera or tha state chall be ctored in accordance with regulation UFC 6.

j Othnr wantec nu darined by Minnenote statuter., contion 115.01, cubdivision 4, shall not he doposited in any mannor auch that the DEma may be likt'ly tn Ocin i entry into thuac waters, In uny caso uhora cuch subatancoc, either liquid or colid, na c reault or ncoidant or natural' catantropha thould gnin entry into any untara of the ntute, it shal) he tha racponsibility and duty or the compcn to inforn thn Agency in the quic':tyt timo pocaible and irnadit tely remova r.nd recover til Duch pollui,ional subotnncea to tha fullent DNLnnb rococnub}.y

,. pohsible under tmistinD conditions -

\

} l. 'fhe $ndustrj al ni' nther uncto cir$tEnto nn disch.rged t:hn12 comply with t.ny und all oppM rab.'n requiromanto or erflodnt standardu or rivar c)cacif$nntionn nnd sc;/nderda th3ch mLy br ndopted ty th3 Agency for thic i

type or tourco nnd/m for thene uM ern $n th,o futuro. _

I Spucial Cod.tionc f'alution to Hediorctive Urnton .

s j

1. It in the policy or thr Agency that ell rMinnativa pollution of the environ. ant uhell h' hnid' to the lomat icval thtt is attainnblu uithin the liigi' .W ooa it.:pnb W hy t echneln;;ical f aelhility and occr.ca$ c racconeb'; u-nom. In no rnne sh > 1 i.ah s or ihn publin be cMpocad to radiation L: ydM tjW liniYi ra cO Sen d ' by thu InternutienP1 CD:7.'31 Cn10G ten Ib.df.O l u g i U pl P Y O .

tOnt1Un, in EddiDiOn , N." Ou t ual 1Dv0lO Uf radf.Lt10n U@cCUra Of mejiU:;, of

! '. tha puhlin chall ba pt ca f ar below thoca limits to ponniblo c cansintent

. Ujth tachnological ranj b5.lity and rabaan::hlenass of coat. .

i

• P. lit huup31ig Uith thO UbOV3 puliUy or thO AgCOCi, Ull prDcticcl unusures for trert:..nt, control nnd coattinment of redicentiva wantau f:..:.

tha Monticalin nuclear gun.yrst37p plant or th i!ortharn Statcc Pcem.' Cc: , nny  :

chnll be enpitynd for the purpnac of provn%.'.no tha relenen of radioactidiy in thS CGVirOnMOnte CUch ii_03GUW.,

• Gh011 int [1UdC Ob 106Dt, UUt nCD lic liR.ta d .

• t0: \

(a) all noeauren for the trantmnt, contro cad containmant.

, of lic,uid end- cm ax redicativr arrluento that tra indicated in j s

' the Tinal Straty And.1 nia f.eport n.7 ti.n i!crtha ?n M3P;c Paw.2r Cc:rguny, t hi * - 1, bnticclin n.Mc:e car.s asir.. pl:nt; cad .

. . g E R  %.

O h *

• g g* .

• a *

..r. 4 t .

t j .. .. . . _ . _ . _ . . _ . . _ . s -

s.... .~ , _

.'. J-(b) routina 8cuoval or rediciodinc and hologens from the , ' '

4)*

. Onocous effluents to tha full exbont reunible, thu dagene or j

' ' treatracnt end remcval bein0 et 1 cost the equivalent of that. prop vided by effectivo cativated'chorcoal filtration of.the entiro

. air ejector 000 0D 0 flDWi .ond *

(c) routinc ion exchcnge trcotment'(Poudex domineralizution l or equivalent) er the corabined low purity unsten (primarily from ..

floor drainn) und thn neutralized theinical westco -(primarily from

laboretary drains and shop decontamination solution draino). The -

i ,- combined cotiinutnd flow is 0,000 gal / day; and . .,

e (d) initial incpection of fuel rods for currnce contamino g tion'ulth uranium barore uce in the reactor, and decontuminetion

'or replaceracnt or rual rn::'u that hava detectable or significant- .

emounta or uranium on thpir external surfaces, no os to prevent the use or auch rual roda in the reactor. The plant operator .

,j chell report in deteil to the cgency the unenurca teken in thic '

. regard before ntnrbup of the renctor; and

.- (u) -initial thorough inspection or fuel rods to identify .

l . thow that might develop r$ soien product lenko, and rejection or auch rods for une in .the reactor; to the full extunt p03cible, ,

, develop'aont and applicat.icn pr nathoda and techniquan for locating

• nnd $ dontifying Ico':ing rual rodm urter oporation or tha rnactor -

beginn, no the:. ruch roda racy be removed during uvuni fuc;l replnco.-

inant op' rctiuno nr, at other timaa, to provent exaccalva ralecen or

~

l rndir.mativity to the environ:ar.nt. The ogrrator chall report in detail to tha Agency the actual saansuvao t2cn in b3th of thuac regr>da burore sta.etup of the raector. Ir noccavary, he shall /

, initicto r'usaarch cad devalopant activ3itico decignad to davolop the nauded errectlvc procedures,

3. The grosn batu-.nur.nn rad nnctivity er liquid crrluants relacced to thG pl6nt dipt;hL:.'Q3 Crncl shall ba . limited to the extent thr,t thu en.Tucl ever-oga gran.. ch.1ha tt...gcunn ri.e.t

- op/ctivity coacentr uina or.thn unte:' in thn d$cchargo cene) not c;:cand 10 c/ul (10'J pc/1) plun tha bechground r Wiccativf.ty.

6 A:: un'integrnl part or Spacial Conditions 3 tbuva, tha concentrations

. of.' opacAr5 c rad 5.oiaW .aa in ::hn dicchrrga canal chell hat excaud, en an nnnu. .

ayorugt h m.ir. , tha follcaing lid tp:- ,

Avarann - Doliv Concentrations , pc./,.r.d.. .._

{. Radioinat. -op

' UnrLat. (a) Loa (b) '

1 .

R..i.v. e r ._F i.ca_, -

...,...).

. _ ., ~ .R~iv.a r..._F 3. 9...a .

(1 (2)

(M

- .j ,

u. 3 2 x 10 - '

, . 6 x 10? ,

op. , g - p g yg"13 1 x 1.g' 11 ' , '

j . . .. - ' *

. No 4.6 ...

2 P.1D.12 -

3 x 10.11".

. g .

en.. J .'$.- -e, -

i .

..i'.

4

. . Averng,n Onilo w - --- C.oncentra. tion,_p. /- nl _ - - - - .

'(b)

.'W ' -

Rdbloisotope Normal (U) ,. .... L o w River T River. Finw 3

._,1 )._ - (23,Flon -(

~~-- - 3 )-

. . L. -

~ ~ - - -

~~.

Cr-51 '

O.x. 10-13 1 xi10-11 y.

En-SS .

5'x 10~12 4 x.10-11'

~.. Co-50 .

9 x 10-12 1,x l'O .10 Co-GU 9 x 10..) 3 1'x 10~11 ,

. Br-90 , .

'4 x 10-13 ,

O x 10-12 ..

Sr-91 .

2 x 10~11 4 x 10-10 t

, Sr"92 -

4 x 10.1.2 '

8 x 10-11

. Tc 99,'Mo-99 .

1 x 10 10 "

6 x 10.9 I / '3-131 s la x 10"11 0 x 10"10 l.133 ~1U 2 x 10 4 x 10"9 I-135 .

6 M 10 11

• 1 x 10-9 Tc-132 . .

6 x 10..)", . 1 x 10.11 I.

Un.33G

. . 6 x 10..)' ' 1 x 10..) p*

C!i 13'/ E x 10" "3, h x 10~"3..#

4 x 10..)e, o

.Ga4 39 '

6 x 10-)'"

O u-lf: 0 6 x ).O .1 . "y' 6 x .10 11" 1

l ,

.(n .H) UpCit G'j G l" "

4..i p u r C C n t O f di;y 3 ] !)O L10!. Of CDDlihtj t DFl!!rS j (li D Uh ET7U ccoal f]ca Gto cfu.

, (b) Cluced cycle . 7 pare::r.l. OP dnyo; full uan or coa)itig to :crn; dia:hng; l

cin:d floa 3G r.fr. s.

~

, in tidditiUit t!) th0 Spudi 10:. Yhdi:liUDi G[:0 con. *'hirstihn lil.litU Di V00 in ill': , hhDV 9 tid d.t:, i:nd hn bri durir.i bar. I t' UMDil plu!!i UpO 2'D hiDrl prGVit!Of M M O l dG fifli tO irtf CI!!,U ti Cil the DU.!rLp>u daily dig'.!hur{.0 CEDD1 CODCOntrutif,n OI i.: "

s .

Othur .ti.;M.O l.L i;Cp0 Dh:.'ll nDt Ux00dd Ca0 thrOU thDUDDGCIbh (1/3,000) C..Chu

• s '* .0pDf!1 Eil. ICi!? linit CC:' CO/1ti n*JDUB UCCUpDtiO3D'l CXpCOUY'O Dr onD thru:' I*'JMd"~.l

} (1/300) Of the IP &Ur'.C -) 1:' nl *, fL." 'd R.. 'r" digi0iCp0 L5 CpHCiIind #.a f,. ppa:!.i .

'3; Ti.cle 1I, Yitic 10, Fr.rt 20 c/ tb. UE.';.iG Sti:.dr:^da far Prctnatican 'sc.i n :A R a di t.i.kn. Xn occa th..ra ti.f5 lim' h: d. f fn.s for Pay up'nii ic radioid.opa,' '. .

j '

louer l'.rdt :snll egly. $. . -

3

. * ~

y t

r l

i

, ..- ~ ,- .,,n-~,. , - , , .

.- . 5. In cddition to all of the foregoinD liquid effluent rr.dioactivity

. . 'concentrction limite, for. uny caven conaccutiva doy perind the overego OP003:

!. , .n. buto-Octn!.10 radioactivity concentration of th:: unter in the dicchargo etnnl

! ohell not excend 5 x 10~7 c/rd (500 pc/1) plus the bact:0round radioactivj tyi orld the uvarago concentrat on of eny specific radi'oir.otopo in thu' din:harga i

canal' chall not oxened a lirait of fivo timan tha volun givon. in the cbovu toblo. . .

G. Tilo grous-beta-On:ama r.cdioactivity of the Oconous affluent reltaned;

', . via the plant stac!: chall not.oxcocd, on en onnual average basic, a 'rulocsn ratn of 0.01 curie por cecond. Thic refers to a total stack cir flow of i,0L t cfm, and thuruby r.lco specifics tha limiting concentrat3on of Dross bato-gtsr-radioactivity in tha stock offluent barora tiilution in the otraosphure.

?. . Ao ; . intn0ral pcrt of Special Condition 6 obove,- the concent .utionc .'

of spacific radioisotopea in the oteck barnra rolcar.c to the c.ttr.or.phnra chtll not exceed, or un ennual necrogn besia, the following limits:

Radioisotopo Stnc!: Concentrntion ("}

-... ... .p c. /n.1..

~

}j. 3 di x.1O .

Ar !i l .

~

3 x 1D"b '

~

lir.03a '

1 x 10"4

-6 lir..uD:a .

3 'x 10 .

2: 10"7 lir-SS .

lir- 67 1 x 10'! 3

! lb 8B ,

1 x 10"3 lir 09 . 2'x 10"U -

. Xc 131ta ,

1 x 10 n

XO-133n 1 x 10_

Xo.133 3 x 10"b j' Xo-135:a ,

. 6 x 10

t -

~ . . .

Xc-135 .

.6 :: 10..t'. .

S X 10",.

l. 'Xc 137 .

! O- . Xa-13a 2 k 109

-)

i i -

l- . .

(. .t ' !. I ! } .'.'f

.1 o 4,050 nf a,

• f a .

N i

. . , , m_ ,~

_, , . - , . . 1 , y .__.

e 4

l.

In cddition to the cpecific radioisotopu limits Oiven in the tn'ble

! * .

• p" imindjiett:1y abovn, and on en in';urim basic until plant opnrat$ on providan

• inoro dcrinito l'nrormation, the ovarnge daily stnch concentration of anij i

other radiciuotapu beforn relonna to the atmonphare shall not excced 10 timou the opecific XCHP limit for cont.inuova occupntional exposure, or 300 j

. tiuss the nuir.crical lirait for that radioisotope ss opecifierf in Appundir. O,

'rublu II, Titlu 10, Part 20, nr the USM.C Standardn for Protection A0 ninst f(odiation. .

i '8. In eddition to all 'or the foregoing gecocus (stack) offluent con-centration limits, .tho gross betw Ocm:na red 5ccctivity of the Ouccous err)uen-released vie the pir nt ctack chall not exoned a releoce rato or 0.05 curic per cecond for any scvan conuncutive day period. During such a period, the stoch concentrut!nna or cpecific rndioinotopn chall not exceed rive timac the nuti.arical limits given in Special Condition 7.

3 A ntuch ro3enne rote or 0.05 curie per necond chn13 rutomntically cound n.pinnt nlarm to unrn the plcot operctor that the t.:ackly leleaso rote linit han been ret :had. -

1

9. In addit' ion to all or the foregoing gnsucun (stack) crrluant enn-l centrut$ nn limit.e, the graan betn-gu m radioectiviiy or tha gnouaun cIrle a.'

rC10dOd U$D lhD plIWJ. Ot! d Lhull nDi UxGD'~;d G r0lP UU rDbl cI ba 30 CUriU pur DUCDT rGP n!iy 19 Ic *..liU ';; pDf 3 od s- D u rII:', OUG!i T. pr.3Dd, thC 0100 cGn-cUn tri i3 Dn', 00 UpDM) I',0 ai DIUDIOp?P'OhD11 '

li.it UxCOUd 30 tiDOS thO I l U!.C ' ' C '

15ults nivnn in Ep n ir,i Dt.ndition 7, ,

l's Ginch PU)UDDP PCit! D[ 'U. 50 Utifi'! pOr cDcDit!I Ch'111 DillOMiUl$ CLily GCU l a necond U.d.tB,rre:. mt ab ra to tmrn thu plcat opnrator that tha 'inntraten:"

relreo i r u ta lir. '.t he u Unnn re t.d.'.!d.

o i'{F J' 3 bu1 G l 3 t'"t lirtar n )S..nin;', d?lny, thu air of '~

U31VL ! !!bl.1 Lt tC' niiP.*lly U1L2,1

$I ihL rL;. ,GliV3iy Fr.li:i P rDit hi:P hat li00D SUcCL rhu 3 DIu).'.y di.$ ng dol'n tht, r a ?., u P radUO3d YO ti a.; 3 t00r ly .rulDP, J rnte lidt 3 Dr 1CJ.L .

10.

at !'. r t: c9llDuring o , ti.therou ri'Ji yanr or opnration er the nualt.in gancrr. ting plcnv Pov. t in:: nIrluen t n;ni to: Irg prUcro or the Cm'ib aa m c tur CL .g;.:iy Mll Epnu$II C chr.ll h: designed to identiry und quin.t.1 cat vely accuen', ic -

r id. D i M u t t ,' ~i iligt Dr01BlcD50d in Dig /.)Ij UNt ,qu;Gi D.,im , . Th#

, DIf1UNti M'.n3 lt c3 n( pr,*g r1 Ul;E1 prMVidC 0 03' i. td . inC1'Jd: .it 1LMC' t h, dim PlP'. , IYOr;UEitOI DG, va'!iC bCDUy prDOi:dMPU!. , UtC,, dDUCrihMi $ n iiin "

' ' l .i I".  ; F ., G '

RcpDrt La ti':.) ud ih:d!.u' :V$ VM Pol) Cti U:t Control iriIIInnCnutt; cad dntOd danuary 3.' ,1969 (na onpocicily, pp. 139-163).

1 11.

f- Du: ing t ha rira+

Ot E3t ti iut'.l.' O j bhk 'JD u tii .

yne c.r ope ration nr the nuclcar t.cnartting plomi OnVi;cO'liimW.Bl Tr:diDlDpluul 1;3'iitCking Und D' '-

vid11coca p J0ipran of the Cartha: n S.:atas Powr Cor.g: ny choll L:n daLir,nnd ..n dQtOC' DTid WU li'r ! - 011 cignifiCb!!i rUdioculiV3 rul*? Hl.2 0 CNiii th:' p)..bli t .

'fhiM OriVi r3rJ o.mi zd Tai ter

• r:g p;;Gjram hhal.1 prDvidO tt ;' Dnd inulUdl. ;a t lo :.g t N thDt h',' h).nt.H of O C' p t. ;' D , r?/Cqut'nG'.US, rEdiOLUDU;' prOCOiii?20; i Ot% , daDCrib';d 'n

+

NPU '. Fit is *. .b... 'b Dri ih ii;."TiJ1V3 pD11W: I,Un COD,"D1 in I'.3nnU?.Dh1 d'dn',M cy ./S ' 'd/3 (e .:7;

• 3 d*:tud

, , g : : l. *D[.1/ I T. '*U. L IU, pp . 13.5 Fild ,U ;.i, ti','I J $h3 "' c fjr.,-

j incl uth.cd

• U, [jp 110 ~1V .

' ~

t, j

O

. - ~

d ..

d w ,

i .-

S.;.. 12; ,

AJ1 crfluent enti environnerital.rntanitoring progrna resultu ohnll bei

.repcited

. D. n:onitoring progror.1 nonthly by the fiorthern Stutco Powar Company to the Agency. All recults chall niso be available for inspection by the 4

AD DOCV. ut thu plant site nt or>y tiina.

• 1-

13. The fjorthern Staten Pcuar Componij chall cooperato to the full extent ncceracry idth the HPCA und with thn Minnecota State Doord or Moolth (IGO!!) for purpocos of developinunt by thono nDencico or r;n edequate and effe ctive emargency protection plan deuigned to $mmedictaly. control ninisa} xa the ofrocts of -any occidental relcone or unexpectedlV largo,and . .

'l of rudintotivity from the Monticello nuclear generatin;; plcnt. qucnitig I.n perticula.

'the Nurthern Stateo Powar Company shell itxn:niictaly notify both the MPCA cnd

the 13D

1 of any uncontrolled ruicean or unexpectedly Inrge quantition of rntiinor:tivitij to the offolte air and/or tanter environment dua to operatientd f ailurq or tny of the power pinnt sijntems. Also, the f.'orthern Staten Power

' Compeny sh' ell cooperate in thin rcgurd to the full cr. tent outlinctf in the

' DPCA Final Report on Rtallochtive Pollution Control in Minnesota (cac pp. 90-97), rnd in any other it nnner requented by the I*SBH,

16. Thu "Dpaclel Conditionn nulating to Rndinactive Uanten" pert or th; t'peredt iu limited to the first year or operalion of the Manticollo nuclent guntrating plant.

During this purind that part of tha parait t..ny ha muifir-by th;! Aynny in any unnoor and tu eny tu: tant dacued nacranar./ by the l.gunuy.

A ra:u pmc.ali rel ativa to_ rl.d; oar: liv.! oaatna, modiriod and chun:;ud to thu t.x. .

tun t t!ntru:;d lebu?GDR 'y h'./ tilt? IQ t'O cy rnd UDDUd UFOli thy ri;Buli U of thD fiTOi yO Or Of pD:' **P pl:'al UpO.Ui,tiDa 3 Uill hO iDDtNfd by thU NgOnCy IQi' thL C O G n.'d year or oparistion, .

IN It is caphnc.1xed thi.t public and environmatul rad $ ation probn:'".

j prfiCl$Ce ID IUOhd U; ion o l'ent;Gt of very 1D00 tare.1 prDiOct01 ThthH thiin /

Only iri.Cfj$ d.i; Di MT!PJi l iliPy p ?otec t.lon, 3

Th: gimc ai 13 y cc. Ji p tnd 1.C.H. i'. J i r. '

UPC d u D $ y n ti d If' "M;rini rHdiDt$ on M:pODU1'U 3 on D, cUntiiiL W.3 U C.. : .I D //n d P VC.

u M Iotim, to . lvvch. that t.111 nt,t produca detecL:: bin or signf.M nent vo:ct or gN Ut$ C h t'?i.h ThD 1.TUlu!O

.  !. VDrEOC ruluhBG rl:$U 153dtu CDistidnCd in th*U I'UDd ? h1DO rufDY tb dun t if E '.Miu 11 O U.$ f.:7 yndiDtiUn D;;po.M:7D, rhihP)* th' h hO menChiloly 1;Y;1D; ' D7;d U M C fiai dCri;Ul y i.iori! Girildjunt ilH?n cin't d b;? pDr.:itiu '

BC00.'?i 0 0 , 10 ihu ) ,il . C . P. rc T:012?.n d; i.i bnu.. l' Uni;O 3 ih3 Elf ' jill tri nbItur"

([.b. , d' i.I.y) VDi $iltiCnD hYoun.I thNu limits' thDt DrD tu h3 WJ r n Dl J' 'l Ch'iOCSUG i

' che'.9d cM .- -alt '. n avmsc1,, mat e , to rod 5 n'. ion n? r.ny :imobar _ cP- tha puY.$ c ,

L.nd Sh".Y.d thr dOrt OD I. b0 VIL;M(? CD CEUGO IOr g/ Gat 03 F ';u U.

• for hp, Tty un:!

unrd!..!OOCd 'CGtiU f: .

k

\

b!Ml . .8 e f. U '..ch, R I ~ ~ ~~" ~

,: _E::eauM.va DocNtcry tnd ChisP Exf.cutiv.

Of fi CO

.

• e. *

.g,. b .. . ,e

.) , _ _ . ,

_..~._...J g ,

, i

, +

-...,4.d ~ ..a..

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

g + 8

• ^

1. * *D , ,

. s .

i

. .s

• *~

9 g

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

STNIDETT OF E. C. TSIV0GIDU April 8, 1969 i

The main purpose of my statement today is to review with you the Permit that has been recormended for the first year of cperation of the Monticello nuclear generating plant by the Northern States Power Company. First, I will briefly outline the premises upon which the Pemit is based. I will tnen

- discuss the main features of the Permit in tems of the safeguards that have been built into it.

1 hope that we will be able to stick to hard facts today, to the extent that they are available, and that we can avoid the kind of exaggeration that has 'charactericed so:re of the recent public staterents regarding radioacti'/ity i

and the Montice]1o p] ant. I hope that decisjons regarding this new facility can be based upon rational consideration of real facts, and not upon unfo=ded

=

speculations, emotions or politics.

i TrIE PFSIISES Tne permit that has been recomended for* the first year of operation of the Monticello fac131ty is designed on the basis of two major premises. Tr.ey I

are as follows:

(1) The radioactivity limits that have been m c = ended by the j .

International Cor.ission on Radiological Pmtection (ICRP) l represent the best available infomation in the world today l

regarding the haards of radiation exposure and the degree of protection that must be provided.

(2) All radiation expcsure must be actively minimized to the j full extent that is both technologically feasible and i

economically reasonable. 7his means that in no case can the i limits recommended .by the (ICRP) be exceeded, but in ad:lition,

! the actual level of radiation exposure r.hould be kept as far I below those limits as is achievable in a practical sense.

1 I

i I

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

s ,

4 e

, - 2-In regard to the first premise, the radiation protection limits recormended by the ICRP are accepted by responsible public health and pollution control agencies throughout the world. .They Tom the basis for virtually all other radiation protection standards, such as those provided

! by our National' Corm:ittee on Radiation Protection (NCRP) and those enforced by the U. S. Atomic Enercy Comnission (AEC). The limits recomre'nded bk the ,

ICRP have been designed to restrict radiation exposure on a continuous -

basis and over a whole lifetime to levels that will not produce detectable or significant bodily or genetic ham.

)

! Regarding the second premise, vhich I refer to as the Principle of

' Minimum Exposure, all responsible agencies also agree that human radiation exposure should be minimized. Even exposure at the low Jevels reco:=3nded as limits by the ICRP is taken to be hamful in principle, although this has not been demonstrated as .'act, and so it is co:monly agreed tha't actual exposure should be kept below those limits to the full extent possible in a practical sense. As I describe the requirements of-the permit for the first year of ope"ation of the Monticello facility, and the safeguards that have been included; I think it will become quite evident that a very high degree of radiation protection will be provided. -The pemit that has been reco: mended does not provide for absolute zero radioactivity release, as that goal is not regarded as practical at this time. - The Pemit does provide for a higher degnee of protection than has yet been required at any corrercial nuclear pcwcr plant in the United States. It is worthy of r;.ention also that no public c;ency, state, federal or international, has felt that absolute zero radioactive pollution is either a oractical or a necessary goal.

1 These, then, are the premises upon which the recoranended Pemit is based:

that the radiation protection limits recorrmended by the ICRP would, by-the= elves, provide a high and an adequate degree. of. protection of the public and its environtrent; th9t actual radioactivity releases from the Monticello nuclear power plant'should be kept as far below those limits as possible; and that a:Ecal of absolute zero raitoactivity release from the plant is neither-practical nor necessary at this -time.

i

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

. - - 4 THE PERMIT AND THE SAFFIiUARDS

! The Pemit that has been reco:rcended for the Monticello nuclear ~ 3 s i' generating stations sets ljJnits on radioactive waste releases that are much nore stringent than the limits that are presently enforced or planned at-any other corarercial nuclear power plant in the United States. In keeping with the Agency policy of eliminating radioactive pollution of the j ,

environnent to the full extent possible, the Per:ait also requires certain waste treatrent and control neasures that are new to the nuclear power industry, but these are-included to provide additional assurance of '

I i environnental safety. In addition to these features, the Pemit requires 4- the operation of cceprehensive eff]uont and environaental monitoring programs

that are fully capab]e of detecting any failure to comply with the specified

, radioactive release Jinits, both liguld and gaseous.

Quite frhnkly, if the Pe mit is adopted as recontended, I expect'the I

)

environmental ronitoring proccam to demonstrate clearly thht the radioactive

waste releases from the Monticello plant are so low as to be extremely difficult if not irpossible to detect in the nearby environment.

i To be mo$r specific, and to stick to facts, let us consider some of the nunerour safeguards that are contained in the Permit. They include:

1.. The liquid and gaseous radioactive waste release limits specified by the Permit would restrict such releases to no more than two or three percent of the amounto that can be released according to the current ICRP or AEC requircrents. The Permit specifies effluent limits, rather than more commonly used environmental lin3ts, for the specific purpose of p"oviding for' closer control of the radioactivity releases. The limits that are specified are thus nach more stringent than those in effect

at other cccmercial nuclear power plants. Enforcement of the requirenents of the Pennit means- that the actual- radioactivity _

releases will in rost cases be well below the two or threc .

percent mentioned above.

t I

t i

l It

2. The Pemit that has been reconrnended specifies limits on individual radioisotopes, as well as on gross radioactivity releases. This is an unusual precation at conmercial l ,

nuclear power plants, and provides additional protection against error or unsafe procedures. ,

3 A thorough liquid and gaseous effluent ronitoring program is required by the Permit. 'Ihis monitoring program is quite capable, by itself, of promptly detecting any deviation from ,

' the limits specified by the Permit. It is a considerably more thorough effluent ronitoring program than is practiced at other conrercial nuclear power reactors.

11 . A quite extensive and thoroash ronitoring program for environmental radioactivity is also required by the Permit.

It will require comprehensive monitoring E:r] surveillance of all ph2ses of the air and water environment that might be affected by the Monticello pla .t. Tne e'nvironmental monitoring program will be cap @le, by itself, of detecting any significant deviation from the radioactivity release lir.its specified by the Permit. It will be considerably more compre-l hensive and thorough than environmental ~ranitoring programs l- required in the vicinity of other cor:*arcial nuclear power plants.

, S. The recomiended Pemit requires that all 11guld waste

! releases be treated and monitored on a batch basis, rather than i

as a continuous fJow. Tnis-provides a very positive system of

! control, so that any batch of liquid waste that contains nore than the allowed amunt of radioactivity can and will be with-held from the Klesissippi River for further treatment. This .

l practice is cor=only required at nuclear power plants. Wnat is

, not so co ron else'<:here la the Perm 3t requireTont that essential'ly all 11guld wastes, even those from building floor 4

drains, be routinely subjected to a high degree of treatment by i

b i  !

l

a .

p .

-- 5-reintively coctly ion exchange rrcthods. With proper handling and treatrrent of 1.iquid wactwo, there will be no significant i

radioactivity in the liquid effluents from the plant. Never-theless, the ronitoring programs specified by the Pennit will i require that every effort be ende to evaluate the radioactivity '

that is releared, to insure this result.

j 6. 'lhe Pennit under consideration also requires the innta11a-

- tion of a highly efficient tmat'wnt reasure for the retroval of radiciodinc from the gaseous wante strenm. Radiciodine is '

one of the rost hazanlouu radioicotopcc that can be given off by nuclear power reactern, as it very coon fin!s its way into f

the railk predaced by dairy cattle. Even though very little radiciodine would be expected from the !"onti';c]Io plant during i narral operation, the new treatment t.uncure is requimd by the Pcnnit_to provido positjve accurar.ce of cafety from this radj oisoto,Le. E"nentially nor.c thculd escape via the plant stack. 'ihe rquired treatrent trasure for positive renoval of l raddoiodine repreunts hnother 'first' for Iilnnesota, I believe -

I' thic reasure han not been required as yet at other comercial ,

nuclear power plants.

7. 'fna rain source of radloactivity reca any such reactor is uranium fuel elements that develop tiny lenks, and thereby porcit fission products to leak out into the prinary coo]$ns system. The Permit also requirca the l'orthern States Power Co:rpany to nte every feasible positive effort to stop eny radioactive waste releasen at thdr source - nanely in the reactor $trelf. Even though great efforts are trade in nnnu-

- facture to do so, it is extremely difficult to present auch leaks in an abcolute cense - for entmple, the Monticello reactor will contain 23,716 individual Tuc1 roda, and it is unlikely that none will* develop pinhole. leaks. The Pennit k

r,,,,-w, , .e, --,,----yw,w+ -cy.w.-,- ,y,--,4- ,-2--,--+-w- -., -.-w,- y . - - + , , ,-y,

,,-,y , -e n ,->y, , w, - e vw-, -

. G 4

will mquire the plant operator to develop a positive program for finding any leaky fuel ele ents or fuel assemblies, so that they can be nelectively renoved from the mactor, either during usual refueling operations, or, chould it prove necessary, ao a cpecial operation.

This'ic another reature that has not been required before *

. at comercial nuclear power plants. It may not prove en easy burden to assu"c, but the Tennit requires the company to denenstrate that it is making every effort to do so. It is ,

cnphasized that the successful development and conduct of an n

effective program for finding and selectively recoving ledy fuel elemnts or fuel accetablies would introduce a new and hie)ier level of control over radioactive wasten from reactors.

It vould constitute a subetantial practical step foretard in tene of really rainimining rad.ioactive pollution of the environment.

8. One other very inportant safeguard, 5thich tear to be eithen tr.rocomized or consictently ignored by some others, deserves eg;hanic. Tnic cafeguard autoratically provides for e@le tira in which to take corrective actions, choulfi they beco~e necessary.

7he lirr.its on radjation exposu"o that have been recom-menicd by the ICRP refer quite specifically to continuous expocure over a lifetire. They are decidedly not rxcentary l or instantaneous li::.lts. Tne ICP.P-recormended linit for i tritiu . , for exanple, refera to the arount of tritium th;t een be ingested every day, over a lifetinc, without producing detectab]c or significant harm.

! 'ihe important point is thht it in the cu"ulative radia-tion exposure over a lifeti::e that is being ragulated, not just the nxrentary exposure. Tno risk of haum due to

}

7_

exposure at the ICRP lirlt for a period of one year, instead of lifetire, is proportionately rmller then the rick of e:'posure at the sare IcVel over a lifetime, which is almady taken to be negligible. '1hc limits that are contained in

+

the Pomit also refer to continuous lifetime exposure. As they are conalderably rare restrictive than the ICRP recom-rrendations, the associated risk of harm is that much cmaller again . As a result, the very 11rportant nafeguan) of avai]able tjre in which corrective actions can be taken, if they are .

I ever needed, it definitely present.

StM&J<Y To nutimrine the rea} facts, the radioactivity release limite that have been recorrended for the first year of operation of the MonticeHo nucicar power plant w131 rentrict cuch relenses t o quite cra13 fraction of the relea:.'n L!nt ceu3d be pertatted according to currently accepted urldwide practice. A nu-ber of new and positive protective wante trentrent and centro) reasurec are required by the Pcnidt. A rystem of sarccuards and I checks, one superimposed upon another, in incorpomtcd in th? Percdt, to the extent th'it the rink of hr. due to rt/1!oacth" rc:eaces frem the plant je clearly neglf zible in tenr/ of corparincn to al.1 currer.t2y accepted national and Jnternational radint2cn protection standvds. Taken co))ectively, the Penvlt requirmnte nne nuch tare rectrictive an recanitrc enviror;.wntal radiation protection then any that have bacn pheci upon hny other cceraial pov;cr rehotor thus far.

There are corre who innist that no radio.ctivity at all should be l

releaned from nuc]cor plants - that absolute zero release in the only accept.able anrwer. I can agree zero pollution of our envincrcrent is an ideal that we should theys seek an a matter of pri.nciple and no mtter what j hlnd of pollution is involved. I cannot agree that absolute cero radio-activity relcace is a reasorgble or n'.consa27 Penrdt requirement at this tbne.

I would point out, hov:ever, that this Penrlt co:ms a good deal cloecr to I

i l.

. - - w w ,.4+- , - -w- g -

4 I l

I s

i ryquiring zero release of radioactivity than runy people seem to realize -

in point of fact, if we reasure thin in tettic of the 31ndts that are curwntly regalded as safe throurJhout the world, we hwe ccme trore than l 98 percent of the way toward zero.

9 4

t 4

4 J

l l

. -