ML20127L993
| ML20127L993 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 05/24/1969 |
| From: | Engstrom P MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL CITIZENS ASSOCIATION |
| To: | Seaborg G US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9211250326 | |
| Download: ML20127L993 (6) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
B4-2197 e..
- s
. MECCA
~
MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL CITIZENS ASSOCI ATION 1053 South McKnight Road, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55119 May 2h, 1969 Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairt..an United States Atomic Energy Connission Washington, D. C.
Doar Dr. Seaborg:
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency recently gave its approval for a waste discharge permit for a nuclear reactor at Monticello, Fdnnesota.
In the haste to pass this permit many questions about thin facnity renained unanswered to the satisfaction of the people of this state.
One member of the Minnesota PCA drafted several lists of questions he felt should be answered. One such list was intended for the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission. A copy of this set of questions was released to the press but it is our understanding that this list was never fonrarded to you from the PCA. The-questions, there-fore, remain unanswered.
I am enclosing a copy of these questions for you. I hope you will give then your prompt attention.
Very truly yours, Y
syWh Paul H. E55strom m
e-g President 9
\\/
($
cc: Senator Eugene McCarthy D %.
Senator Walter Mondale Congressman Joseph Karth
(
s V
Congresscan Donald Fraser Congressaan Clark MacGregor
/
4 Rec'd Off. Dir of Reg.
Dale _ 6fJ h 9 9211250326 690524 BR-2197 PDR ADOCK 05000263 Tl Tile / /, ?p _
s H
PDR 1
m.....,, - -,.......
- I, 5 * ' ' '
p, Aprii 30,1969 1
i Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant-Questions Pertaining to the AEC (List #3) by l
E Steve J. Gadler, P.E.
Member of the Minnesota Pollution Control' Agency i
l 1.
Since the health and safety of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan popu _
^
1ation down river and down wind from the Monticello Nuclear Reactor plant is of concern, why did-the AEC -
1 i
a.
Approve the request to build and operate a reactor which according'to-the NSP Final Safety and Analysis Report has undeveloped components?
b.
License the construction and operation of an experimental type of reactor under the Research and Development section of the' Atomic Energy -
l
' Act?
m 1.
.Is the Monticello site or plant licensed? Or are both licensed?
l c.
Permit the discharge of radioactive pollutants into the Mississippi-i which is the-source of drinking water for_approximately one third of l
the p'eople living'in Minnesota and for the down river populations to the '
gulf of Mexico and a source of water for industry and for agricultural-irrigation?
f d.
Fail to make any plans to provide a source of water supply for down-river users in the event of a nuclear accident at Monticello which'
.would destroy the river as a source of drinking water?
h y
e.
Not advise the LGPHS that the Mississippi River' water was used for irrigation down river from the Monticello plant?
i l
f.
Overlook producing complete and. thorough studies on the total.effect; to the Mississippi River Valley ecological system from the contemplated radioactive waste discharges into the air and water _ environments from L
Monticello, Elk River,_ Prairie Island and other reactors?
4
(
g.
Neglect to consider the damage to the quality of the water and to the river biota from the thermal pollutants to be discharged from Monticello, l
Elk. River, Prairie Island and other being planned for this area?-
2.
Since the public health-is.of-concern what control will be imposed en the operator by AEC In event the plant is closed d'wn because of accident or obsolescence?-
o a.
g Page 1 Of 5 e
l..
April 30 '1969
.~
c W
I (Listh3)
Monticello Nuclear Gonorating Plant Questions Pertaining to the AEC t
b.
Por disposition of site, radioactive structure and reactor after i
final close down?
I c.
To prevent abandonment in order to protect the public' interest?
d.
To decontaminate and control area as long as necessary to protect the public health and safety?
l 3.
The AEC literature indicates that many reactors such as Fermi, Pathfinder, j
Piqua, Boms, Hallum, Elk River, etc., have been closed and others such as Dresden, Peach Bottom, Oyster Creek, etc., have experienced difficulties -
j
_due to many factors such as equipment failures, deterioration of metal, which
.has resulted in unscheduled radioactive waste releases to the environment.
It therefore appears that the reactors are still in various stages of r.ascarch j
and development and that all the necessary experimental work has not been accomplished and in view of these salient facts affecting the health and 2
safety of all Americans, why did AEC not -
a.
Conduct and complete all research and development work to develop a
'. reactor technology before -
4 j
1.
Imposing experimental nuclear plants' on the econo =y?
L
~-
2.
Exposing American citicens to the risks of ionizing radiation from the radioactive waste discharged to the environment from i
these reactors?
/
b.
Disesminate complete information to the public concerning -
l
'1.
The present health and future risks to the population f*om t
exposure to the radioactive wastes discharged into the environ-
/
ment?
- 2. ' Accidents and accidental discharges of radioactive wastes from reactors?
3.
Total amount of radioactive wastes being discharged to environ-ment, to be discharged, and the probable effects to health?
c.
Close down reactors discharging radioactive wastes above. AEC limits rather than to permit operations when reactors were, experiencing difficulties?
-d.
Develop positive and secure instrumentation and monitoring methods to insure complete and effective data concerning amounts of radioactive wastes discharged to the environment?
e.
Withdraw all operational licenses under the research and development -
section of the Atomic Energy Act?
Page 2 of 5 i
Apr 130, 3969 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Questions Partaining to the AEC f.
Provide complete plans for establishing -
i 1.
Alert m rning networks?
2.
Adequate medical facilities and evacuation procedures in the event of a nuclear accident?
4.
The Sacramento Municipal Utility District plant is designed by'Wastinghouse-to eliminate the discharge of any radioactivity to the water environment. _
l Mr. Seaborg, Chairman of the AEC in a speech to an Air Pollution Symposium in i
Kashington D. C.. in 1967 said that the AEC is capable of designing plants
.without smoke stacks._ In view of the SMUD system and the Seaborg statement --
a.
How much time will be necessary to develop a reactor plant that can l
contain all radioactive wastes?
b.
h t are these costs per negawatt of electric power produced?
l c.
h t is the amount of radioactive vastes produ'ced per megawatt of
......, electric. power in a BWR type plant of the Monticello sizo?
5.
The literature indicates that the AEC has permitted all nuclear reactors to
.discharga. tritium substantially above level permitted for other. radioactive m ates, why does AEC -
a.
Permit tritium discharges to the environment?
b.
Only utilize estimates instead of accurate on-line measurements for tritium discharges from reactors?
s c.
Why has USPHS recently established a tritium monitoring network?
- 6. According to information released by AEC, it appears hold up tanks will be l
utilized at the Monticello plant to meet the requirements of the limitations j
imposed by 10 CFR 20.
In event of an inversion which should preclude dis-l
' charge of radioactive wastes to the atmosphere -
i h t action can be taken by plant operators if tanks are already full a.
when inversion occurs and more radioactive gaseous wastes must be:
)
handled?
f b.
Will plant be closed down under these conditions?
c.
Are tanks at Monticello of sufficient capacity to hold up all gaseous radioactive wastes under adverse conditions to protect the public health and safety?
d.
ht wi31 be done with wastes produced during shut down if tanks are i
full?
Page 3 of 5
. ~, - _. _ _. _.,,
I Apgl]O 969
- V
!!onticello Nuclear G:norating Plant Questions Partaining to the AEC 7.
Accordin6 to AEC if excessively high radiation levels are detected.during periods wher. radioactive gases are held up from discharge to environment or if unfavorable weather conditions prevail, release to tho atmosphere will probably not bo able to meet conditions of 10 CFR 20.
a.
In such an event does AEC advocate violation of its own regulations?---
b.
What are the possible courses of action and recomondations to avoid the discharges under the conditions set forth in item 7 above?
8.
The Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards of the Atomic Energy Comission by. letter to Chairman Seaborg dated April 13, 1967 recommended -
a.
Stress analysis report for the reactor vessel be reviewed by indepen-dent experts since this is the first Nuclear plant to use a field welded and erected pressure vessel, a procedure new to the industry b.
That the AEC Regulatory staff satisfy itself with respect to a ade-quacy of the isolation valve test program and follow the development
, of the detailed design since in the event of a steam line rupture external to the reactor containment the steam line isolation valves must close rapidly.
_ _, c. _ That NSP provide supplementary facilities for retention of radioactive --
-wastes,during periods of low river flow since during periods when cooling -
tower are utilized for recirculation of condenser cooling water the volume of discharge water into which the radioactive wastes can be di-luted will be greatly reduced.
In view of the importance of the above items to the. health and safety of l
the public, detailed information should be presented to the Agency on the status and results of the ACRS Committee's recommendations?
9.
The Monticello Unit #1 design incorporated at least 12 features (itemized on l
page 16 of Partial Summary of the Facility Description and Safety Analysis Report) which have not yet been demonstrated in reactor plant operation. All of these items were reviewed by the AEC Staff and the Advisory Committee for l
Reactor Safeguards, however since these important safety features which j
concern health and safety were only reviewed and not approved detailed infor-i mation must be presented to the Agency showing -
Where and when the listed items were found approvab'le and capabic of a.
meeting all safety requirements to protect the health and safety of l
the public?
~
b.
Recomendations as to the possibility of safe operation of these it' ems which are new features and have not previously been operated in BWR reactors, without undue risk to health and safety of the public?
i Page 4 of 5-l
April 30,1969 (List //3)
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Questions Pertaining to the AEC Of the 12 listed items, which items have been completely developed c.
and approved for use at Monticello by the AEC Staff and the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards?
When and by whom approved?
d.
Of remaining items needing approval how many require additional re-search and development?
What is estimated approval date?-
e.
What are recomendations on operating the plant without AEC approval f.
of all the tested and necessary engineeral safeguards?
,..,c,1 '.,
4
)ij1 s,.>.(
3 c
....,....-.s...,
- . f-i L
r.
g.-.
. i i,..g
.3 ;.;. y x
- ,,..),,
..t,,,..,,,.. j J,
.i
.6 4
r
~
., _ n
'f' d
I
.i 4
- n.
- g.
~
Page 5 of 5 1
N/
j.-
.,a i
j
,.a
- c,r.
- @.K M.
ga. y c s JUN 171969 Ib Mr. Paul H. Fagstrtsa, President Minnesota Fiwimmental Control Citizens Association 1053 South McKnisrht Mogi St. Paul, Mimesota 55119
Dear Mr. Engstmm:
I am pleased to mapend to your letter of May 24, 1969, addressekto Chaiman Glem T. Seaborg of the Atomic Energy Ccomission, submittinc a series of questions by Mr. -Steve J. Gadler, a merber of_ the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
.,/
In a letter to me dated Septenber 3,1968, Mr. John P. Badalich, Executive Director of the Mimesota Pollution Contml Agency, submitted certain w.~ois and a list of B3 cuestions by Mr. Gadler. On November 19, 1968, a msponse to this letter with enclosums was sent-to Mr. Badalich.
A copy of this-letter and its enclosures is enclosed for your infomation.
On December 20, 1968, the Executive Director of the Minnesota Pollutxent Control Agency addmssed another_ letter to me sthmitting another series-of 27~ further questions by Mr. Gadler. Copies of the msponse to,this letter, dated Febmary 17, 1969, and its enclosum (0angmssional' Joint Comittee on Atomic Energy Hearings on Licensing arsi Betulation of Nuclear Reactors held in April and May_1967)- are also enclosed.
We trust that the enclosums which represent a ccmprehensive respcose to-questions posed by Mr. Gadler in two earlier series are adequately!
responsive to the series submitted with your letter in 8GL..tst different form. Copies of the two-letters frun the Executive Dimetor of the
/.
- -}r l(h
\\
\\
fylf9,-$ d]O SY 4 ee
4 Mr. Paul H. F2v:stre,
Minnesota Pollution Control Am above referred to and the irquiries of W. Gadler themto attached are enclosed so that their character and t
the references in the respective msponses may be identified.
- Sinoemly, Oried ssw tv 4 s. w Harold L. Price Dimotor of Rerulatim
[
Enclosures:
1.
Ltr fm Mr. Badalich dtd 9/3/68 Distribution:
w/ enclosures Chairman (2) Comistimer Panev 2.
Ltr to Mr. Badalich dtd 11/19/68 HLPrice Comissioner.Tohnson J
w/enclosums CKBeck comissioner Costarlio19 3
Ltr rm Mr. Badalich dtd 12/20/68 NMMann Comissioner Thomnson w/enclosum RLDoan ny l
4.
Ltr to Mr.1%dalich dtd 2/17/69 CLHenderson
'mC J
w/enclosums HKShapar
=
Secretary PAMorris Western VOSchmidt (50-263) PDR ^,
'~I DR Reading GErtter (DR-2197)._
l a
i i
s OFFICE >
SURNAME >
,k '...
e__
s 6$(.
..L
.:. bk N9 6lll!6.9..
ont>
Form AEC-318 (Rev. 9-53) A)kM M k W u. s. eovanwant.amtma orries: sees o-320 so?
-