ML20127M086

Forwards to Rc Tuveson,Chairman of Mn Pollution Control Agency Re Possible Radioactive Contamination from Proposed Facility

ML20127M086
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	09/03/1968
From:	Badalich J MINNESOTA, STATE OF
To:	Price H US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20127M079	List: ML20127M076 ML20127M086
References
NUDOCS 9211250349
Download: ML20127M086 (12)

Text

____ _______ _ __

/

3C-1845 STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 459 BOARD OF HE ALTH BUILDING UNIVE R$17Y CAMPU$

MINNE APOLIS 55440 September 3, 1968 Mr. Harold L. Price Director of Regulations U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.

20545

Dear Mr. Price:

The matters of nuclear pwer plants and nuclear radiation still hold end play an important part in our mou+.hly Agency meetings. The AEC-owned reactor at Elk River, Minneaota, periodically makes news, as does the NSP Monticelle riant now under construction.

One of oe Agency members, Mr. Steve J. Gadler, is greatly concerned about the operation c' 'he Rural Electric Cooperative Association's nuclear power plant at Elk Riva, and I am enclosing for your information a letter dated August 12, 1968, aodicased to Mr. R-C. Tuveson, Chairman of this Agency.

This letter was read into the record at one of our recent meetings and does emphasize Mr. Gadler's concern about this AEC-owned reactor and its future operation.

I am also enclosing for your review and comment six pages of questions posed by Mr. Gadler that need clarification.

I believe the AEC is in the best position to answer these questions. Would it be possible for your staff to prepare these answers? An acknowledgment of this request would be appreciated.

Another question that has been discussed at various times is the level of tritium in the Mississippi River below and above the location of the RECA's nuclear plant at Elk River.

It is my understanding that information is avail-able from the AEC on these tritium levels, and I would therefore request that the MPCA be supplied this available data.

The infomation should encompass the period prior to the construction of the Elk River reactor to the present date.

Our consultant, Dr. E. C. Tsivoglou, is presently under contract with our Agency and is gathering pertinent infomation, meeting with persons other than the Agency who are concerned with nuclear radiation, and with representatives of Northern States Power Company, General Electric Company, and others.

It is an-ticipated that an interim report on nuclear radiation standards for Minnesota will be presented to the Agency by Dr. Tsivoglou within 45 days, and final recommendations made within 100 days.

In the event Dr. Tsivoglou requests f],Y'I h g@&

9lcIL-2 ~'

9211250349 681119 7

pon noocaosoog3 r

'c : a>Ae-1845

Mr. Harold L. Price 9/3/1968 Washington, D. C.

additional infopM ion from the AEC regarding nuclear power plants in Minnesota, t

We would appreciate your cooperation in this matter.

Again, I wish to express scy appreciation to you and others of the AEC staff for your cooperation in the past, and I trust this cooperative effort will con -

tinue in the future.

lery truly yours, k6 v

John P. Badalich, P.E.

Executive Director JPB:mmb Enclosures

( ! l 7 j'

'I TA

.J l

l

L to

.S t ew '_J. C a d l e r 2120 Carter Avenue St. Paul, Mlnnesota 55100 6LS-5005 e

j August 12, 1%D Mr. R.O Tuveson, Chairman Minnesota Pollution Control Agency l

Albert Lea, Minnesota Dcar Mr. Tuvoson:

At the July meeting of the MinnesMa Pallutloo Control Agency, Ms.

j Hiller read into the record a 1ctter addressed to the agency wWch had been signed by Mr. Edward E. Valter, General Mana:er of the Rural Electric Cooperative Association at Elk River, Minnesota.

In view of tha fact that the letter cast aspersions on the Minnesota Pollution Control Ascncy and specifically upon the integrity and motives of enc of lts er.ocrs, I asked j

far permissica, which has been granted, to make o.pubile state: cant conccrr-inD the referenced letter, The letter appears to indicate to me at least, that it maybe an attempt to silence the many people who are cor. corned by the amount and type of radio

, active coatcminants discharged and being discharged into the Mississippi River et Elk River by the AEC owned reactor, i

i Since the ope otor of this facility hcs admitted discharging radio active conteninants including tritium into the Mississippi River which is tlc source of St. l'aul and Minnenpolis water supplies both for drinking and industrial purposes, it may just be possible that clams placed in watcr taken from or near the recctor discharge point may up-take some of this discharged radio activity.

Clams and other Biota are unaware that the radio active contaminants have been diluted by wa:cr to AEC Specifications, t

The literatnre is replete with references to the bioaccuraulation in i

the fish, shall fish and the biota.

Apparently all blota has the captbility of up taking and concentrating radio activity.

Evidence for this is ucil documented. As an exempic:

Dr. T.R. Rice, Chief Radiobiological Program, Bureau of Cowacrcial Fisheries Biological Lcboratory, Beaufort, North Calo' lina, in U.S. Dept of lienith T. Ucifare publication (!999-R-3 Studies of fate of certain " Radio-nuclidos in Estuarine and other Acquatic Environents", Page 35 and 36, scid r

"di en the Maximum Perraissible Concentrations (MPC's) ucro calculated for the different radionuclides unich occur in drinking water, the assumption I

pust have been mode that such concentration of radionuclides in the cquatic envirorcent would resul t in not only an insiginificant return of activity to raon, but would also be of no harm to aquatic organisms.

This assumption has not been validated and will require the collection of considerchic d!.ta beforc iny confidence ccn be attached to it."

And..e cont inues, "I t i s knc'an f rom experir.antal evidence tl.at certain organisms, in addition to those.of l

~

w--

1 r

'Mr.'R. A. Tuveson 2-August 12, 1900 i

1 i

com ercial value, service as a vital link in certain food webs and can

}

concentrate some radioisotopes to levels much greater than those occurs ing i

j in the aubicht water."

1 I

And finally, "With the expanding nuclear energy industry which has developed in less than 15 years, man will probably find that keeping his environment free f rom radioactive pollution will be more and more diffleult..

j Thus a responsibl_lity rests upon those who pollute the environmcat with these natcrials and upon those ubu r.mst protect human health and insure the

}

safekeeping of the living resources."

i F

in addition to the liter 0ture, man / cxperiments have been conducted

)

in this area as an example, Dr. Villiam A. Drungs, Jr, Research Acquatic

(

DioloD st, Fish Toxicology Activities, FUPCA, J.S. Dept of the Interior, i

discusses an experiraent by the Cooperat ive Studies Unit, Radiological _

j Health Research Activitics of the Taf t Engineering Center, in Public Health j

Service publication //9994H-24 lhe experiment concerns bloaccupaulation

- of hadlonuclides in fish, tadpoles, snails, clams, including Lcmps111s and Anodonta clans and other biota.

A large pond, specifications detailed in i

cited publication, was used for this experiment According to Dr. Brungs, all blota,d into the.adio active water.lncluding the clens, concentrated redionucli l

Introduce l

The HPCA is concerned with the prcblems of water and air pollution i

and I, in addition, am concerned with the integrity of the St. Paul and i

Minneapolls water supplies that may beca.c unrafe because of the radio 'act ive -

l contaminants discharged into the river '/ the AEC reactor.

Why am I concerned, first, because the American Health Association In their pub)lcotton entitled "Public Exposure to ionizing Radiations" l

caution that the eventuel contaninstion of the environment by ret ctor pro-i ducts are a grave health question and the effects are cumulat,ive and l

1rreversible.

1 f

Second, Dr. Kari 2. Morgan, Director, itealth Physics Olvision cif the I

U.S. Attelc Energy Co. mission's Oak _ Ridge National Laboratory on Page 39 of the July 1968 issue of the Ainarican EnD neer said, and I quou, "I 1

believe that it is probable and desirabic1that-the woiking level will be i

further reduced In the near future. - This is because present scientific evidence seems to indicate there is no threshoid level of exposure to'eny -

form of lonizing radiation so low that the risk of rodlation damage beco:c.cs

xero, in other words, there are certain= types of radiation induced risks ruch

- as leukemia, bone-tumors, thyroid cancers, and genetic dcrage that secta to relate more or less linearly.with the dose".

Quest ion, are genet ic autat lons' a future event in spite of AEC regulations to the contrary.

- tri his letter, Mr. Valters-said,The Rural Cooperative Puner Assocint-lon'hos niways operated and-will continue to operate the ERn with the utmost concern for the safety of the public and fccis that the public is_cntitled to the fccts and information concerning any ecziter af fecting the public int' crest." No_one can disagree with: this sthlcment since et are all con-

~

-corned uith the Leblth and uctfare of:the public and particularly in facten).

Inform: tion,-'so -lets give the public a chance to look at the' record.

u,

..c

.,9-.,..,

..,n-#.,-n.,%,,,m.

,,,,,,,,,..,,,%,.--,,n%%,,3,,

w-.y o r

• ,.,..,+,v,

,e.

,w

i

]

j Mr. R. A. Tuveson August 12, 1968 1

}-

1.

RCPA lettert dated Jan. 18, 1967, addressed to Dr. P. A. l'arris, Director Division of Reactor Licenting, U.S. Atcralc Energy 1

l Commission, VashinDton, D.C. thru lir. K. A. Dunbar, l!anager, Chicagi/

j Operationr. Of fice f rod fir. Edward E. Walters, Ceneral Manager.

explaining the accident which released radio active lodine 131 to the environment and stating that ' corrective rneasures have i

been tchen to -- avoid repetition of this incident'.

2.

Letter

• f rom Lawrence D. Low, Director, Division of Coapilance, j

U.S. AEC, Washington, D.C., dated Deccaber 26, 1967, sent thru Mr. K. A._ Dunbar, Ocneral Mcnager, Chicago' Operations Of fice, addressed to RCPA, Elk River,at tention of Mr. Eduard E. Walter.

Hr. l.cw complains that reactor operations at a relatively high power level without reactor c'oro emergency cooling and primary j

cooling nake up ccpabillty and 'your associated increase of the i

reactor power level to 100% of the licensed limit, are contrary l

to prudent safety practices and should be discont inued'.

3.

Page 501 of the Jan.Feb.1968 Mearings before the Joint -Comalttoc on Atexaic Energy Congrcss of the United States (Part 1), the U.S.

AEC presented the following, "A reactor can potentially be des-troyed by a nuclear excursion or by the loss of core coolant re-l sulting in relcano of fission products".

This loss of cora q

coolant could lecd to a raclt dcwn of the fuel tihich would probably j

result in a breach of the containr.,ent releasing radio activo

' fission products to the environment._ Reactor core emergency cool-Ing system is for use in prevention of a core r.icit down in the event of loss of primary coolant.

J l

4.- Publication C00-651-49 " Elk River Reactor System; Monitoring Data" I

for July 1, 1966, through June 30, 1967, reports 23 leaking cicmants, increase in priraary coolant activity and lodino 131, higher tritluar levels, fission gcsses migration from the primary to secondary and l

primary system leakage.

5.

Mr. Marold L. Price,-Director of Regulation, U.S. AEC by lettern dnted 28 March 1968 advised Mr. Jchn 7. Conway, ExecutIvc Director l -.

Joint Committoc on Atcmic Energy: Congress of the United States

that ' prior to current shutdcen of ERR minor lcahage of.tiater into i

the lower reactor cavity was experienr.ed' and as a result of l=

further checks water conttir.1r.9-radio cctive lodine was found-which he said was ' indicative of a leak. in the primary system'.

This-lotter then reemphasizes my concern about the-radio active con-tcainats that'are dischargad into the % sits 1ppi R1ver chove the St. Fcul l

and Minneapolis water intches and my conc 6rn' for;the safety.and health of our 1

ci.lzens.

t l-

.-e.,,-.

_y

,~,...,,4,,..,_.,,,,,,..,,.,%,

,g.#

w%, % u r,

c,.,_u-.,.,,,-7

i 1

'ir. s. A. Yuveson

/

Augu'.t 12, 1%8 3

i a

I believe a rer.ponsibili ty res ts upon tho;,c who conts:..it.aic the er.vi ron!-

l ment with radio active materials but I know that a greater responsibility rests upon those of us whose duty it is to protect and insure the present and future pubile wolfare.

'y j

S inc7t'cl l

r=/ky(L., /h SL G.dler

/.

Iic%+r of liPCA i

l i

j Letters attached as follows:

l.

Page 3, item 1.

]

Page 3, Item 2.

Paco 3, Item S.

i 4

l l

i a

l 4

1 i

~

1 4

g a

e t

4 4

W e

4

c.N e.

o w.,r-. s.m.y n:. bv G a.. u.s ty.,e U

u..v" J W r j

t "The hazards cssociated with potential alrborne radioact ivity requlrc develop-

)

nent of nethods for removing these radio active fission products f rc;.1 the gas I

streaus and for determininD the disposition of raolo actJv.Ity released to the cnvironment" app:ars on page 504 of the Dudget Hearings.S toes this Indicata or huply that NSP has not been given complete Information by the ACC on the i

dangers of radio activo discharges?

i j

O.

le stainless steel to be utilized in the feed water heaters to prevent occumu atl of corrosion products?

i I

p Broken Icmer tic rods, forced the closing of the Selnl roector in April,1907,,

what preventive cction hcs been taken to prevent similar occurance at the Montic~el?o reactor?

j.

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

Due to erratic operation the Sonn reactor was closed dowa on January 21, 1968 and 2

i upon renovel of the reactor head it was discovered that broken pieces tentatively identificd as part of the reactor Internals were found in the steam generators

}

in this respect will the Monticello operation take preventive action to prevent i

__, _ such an occurance7 OHow?

i

(.'

Will the vessel crack problem of the Oyster Crock Jersey Central Power and Light i

Company which required recheck of all field welds employed to install control housings in stub tubes attached to bottom head of reactor vessel because 137 stub welds contained defects require NSP to reassess to insure integrity of the Monticello reactor and insure safety of the operation?

j f Does the Tarapur reactor problems which are similar to Oyster Creek in that 67 stub tubes in vessel #1 and 70 of 89 in vessel #2 were cracked require welding control practices at Monticello to prevent the extensive delays being experienced at i

Tarapur?

C/

In the event of a Fermi type of accident does AEC authorize NSP a lleense to i

abandon the plant?:?What are the provisions in the peralt issued by AEC to NSP7 Are chandoning procedures, in event of nuclear excursion, provided for in the license?

p Does the extensive cracking of fuel elements cladding in the SSEP, facility regulrc i

qualitive and quantative check clearances between fuel rods and the cladding tubes in the Monticello reactor to insure improved safety?

(481) p l

// Should, slhcc AEC states that "a reactor can potentially be destroyed by a nuclear excursion or by loss of core coolant resulting In the release of fission products",

action be taken by NSP to protect i ts position and.to acet both the goals of safety and economic operation?

(501)'

i

/2 Het t.EC furnished NSP with the necessary technical criteria for the controlled dis-posal of radio active contcoinants into the environment under both normal operations

--and in the event of a reactor accident or nuclear e.,cursion?

(503) g in the Safety Evaluation for the Monticello plant and in other documents it is referred to cs Monticello in does this mecn that there will be two reactors at this location?

1

1. 6 f *r e

g-wrm*

g y

wtn7

=T**T-*Try w

ga fy'D-T+-

p p

-s hpaw mp

,g-tv--*-g-----g+wof*wn

-ye-*--ve*

• --sman'4

'**PT'F' er 4 W*ew nig#et-ag

j i

('

i l

i

,,.. In the event that a number of fuel reds slipp.d f r(..a the charte ucchinc end i

drepped into the parklog hole of the core reflector and several leet of the j

eicaent would break ofI and bounce back out of the hole es hcppened at the i

Peach Doite.u itecctor on February 21, 1963, usald this constitute the 4

5 postulated t.crious accident on page lh of !!SP Accid:;nt Analysis?

/f/ Ilas the Feral Plant " incredible accident" so classified by Mr. Si,aw of AEC 1

in the hearing before the Joint Cccaittee on Atoalc Energy Congress of the Unitcd States point up to llSP that nuclear powas plants are r.ot checp?

i

)

/p t!c.uld the amount of redlo active contuainants relcased to the environment by this nucicar c::cursion be of concera to the Metropollton residcnts?

4 I

j f.; it is noted that the Public Service Co:apany of Colorado contract speelfles l

termlnation if Price-AnJerson coverage and prc9erty dcmLDc and liabilit.y i

are not obicined and in this respect dods fiSP heve a contract of this type i

with AEC?

l jf Peach Cottom reactor cperated by Phil. Electric Company was shut doan on Janucry 11, j

1968 after 150 days of operation to investigate the increase in princry loop

{

activity of a rise. fro:a 1/3 curle to appro:: Ic::tely h curles cpperently due to i

cracked cicant or blocked parte flos through the element in this' respect has !;5P folicr. cad up cn this cccurance to becoam famillar ulth the reason for such risc in curic production?

jQ. Has !!SP considcred the fort St. Vraln contalnuent probicn in building the Monticello plant since cpparently this added protectica ulli help safeguard the enviro..:acnt?

9 ilhat will be the totc) amount of thermal additives that ullt be discharged to thn j

HississipplRlvorwaterbyMonticello#1and#2?h!illwatercarryingthermal additiver. be-contaminated with radio activo trltlum?

t

~2 n AEC experience on the Columbia River, what will be-the effect on the i

Basec) 4 ecology of the Mississippl P.lver by the thermal additives to the water?

g I

Ccn the extensive release of lodine 131 which spread the radio cctive contamincnt o

over Europe in the 1/indscale accident occur at the Monticello fccility?[!f such an accident occurs who pays for all the radio active rallk that sould have to be destroyed due to lodine 1317

)

.fg Becausa Piqua f:uclear Facility which experienced 12 major shut down periods and experienced difficultles with control rod drives Was perconently closed dcrin will this necessitate a re-evaluation of the Monticello reactor with reference to control rod drives?

'"..g fro:a page 171 of 19% AEC publication " Major Activitics of Atccic Energy" uc learn that tritium was produced by fission through fuel elczent cicdding and Battile Memnricl Institute.recomanded collection of the_ priraary leakage et PM-1 facility with off r.it: disposal of the radio active-tritium.M!!11 Monticello follow thesc recor.r.end:.t lons and dispose of all trit iura contmalnated water byvs t te shipment l

to AEC burial grounds?-

cj/

R$ Since fission product releases to the environment are the pain. hazards of nuclear recctors hca will MSP gucrantee the integrity of-the Monticello reactor to provent' a public-heacrd?

h..j o Z cf {

g 0

4

• What are costs per 13!HR produced for necessary equipment to provide tsximum cleaning of,all radio active gases destined for discharge into the atnosphere?

3 m for water?'.Uhat will be costs for off shipment of all radio active liquid, solid and particulate matter?

3A AEC has cccnitted about 100,000,000 in fiscal 1969 for safety cnd reactor technology and in this respect will AEC cxpect Monticello to be utilized to assist in carrying out the experimental program that'in any case will reduce its cwn st.fety due to the gemml-type of event that can't happen but did?

(491-497)

?l, What new method will Monticello cr.hloy to prevent the discharge of sn 90, C 137, 1 131, and il 3 Into the river?

'in view of the water supply uses down river from the MoritIcello site why was this site chosen for the facility?

$r'Has NSP become familar with delay occassioned in Dresden #1 of Cor.monwealth Edison due to cracks in the primary system in April of of Dresden in February, 1968 to check and repair all cracks'regulrc a new19677 material program at Monticello?

M Will Monticello have enough capacity to contain and hold up dischorge of casens wastes pending favolable winds?

33 Hou taany venting or exhaust methods will be employed and will be nvallable to vent radio active gases and materials to the atmosphere by the Monticello plant?

,in the event of the escape accidentally of radio active gases from the plcat

'y' cither through the regular channels or through a riuclear excursion penetr the Integrity of the building wlli-the Twin Citics be notified and warned about the forthcoming radio activo cloud? How will the officials be notified? Who will do the notification?

g is all radio cctive materials and waste released through the stack or other out-side vents properly filtered before release?'. Vill any radio cctive contaminant be released to the atmosphere without filtroYlon even af ter delay for one-half life decay?

f, What will it cost NSp to operate the towers on cl'osed cycle to prevent thermal discharge to the river 7M'What is the cost expressed in cost per KWHR 7e/In both capital equipment and In operating costs?

.gS What are the costs for transporting the radio active Monticello wastes to the AEC perpetual burial grounds?.; What arc'the cost for burial by gallon bnd by cubic fect?<How many curles of activity ulll be shipped by mega watt of electricity genertted?

' dTWhat action will NSP take to prevent installing the engineering field adaptations employed at Feral which was the probable cause of the incredible accident that forced closing and kept the $120,000,000- plant closed down for' the past two years?

7? During periods of fumigation or during fumignting conditions what means'will be coployed to withhold radio' active discharges to the atmosphere f rom the stack?

hcjp,]gh_

n o

S hf.g o',,Q A*'C' it) _ l t s bud wt reque.,t of ? billion, nine hundred ulll ion in f iscal f/) J.~. Y'/

t U

bud.p:3 $775,000.00 for t.tudica of the cavironant including envirotu.ntal espat s of nuclec.r operat ion:, tra! the eik ct s of these radio ac tive cf flucnis on the cavironaent which is oppiontuqtely one p;any for every $30,000.00 in the ACC budget. L.' ' ' " " Y -

c%;

N.9,.. ~,,

' ', )

./'

ff/ Preeperctional icsting of the ERR facility developed thout.cral of gallons of radio

^

active boric acid which wcs relcased into the river by Allis Chcluers Crepony'.'?

Ulli this performance be repected at lionticello by G.E.7 g) Does AEC 1mpose a requirement on !!SP lionticello plant to test safety systems cod safety fet.tures and to conduct in-plant and enginecr!ng secle tests related to safety icatures design and engineering of Inrge nuclear plcnts?.Q!ould this type of resenrch and development endanger facility and in tur_n the metro aren?

(507)

1. i.! Does h'5P plan to join in the CSE (Contalr.nent Syr.tems Experiment) Program in studying the effects of a sinulated loss of coolant accident and consequcnt release of radloactivity upon syste:as employed to reduce the post ccclbr.t prest,ure and upon the ef ficiency of engincered safety systems in restricting' the novcment of redloactivity?

(507)

1. 5 in event of a taximum accident as postulate:d by the _AEC in the " Theoretical Possibilit ics and Conseqicnces of tiajor Accidents in 1.orge Nuclear Plan'ts", are plans bcInc formulated for retrabursing property losses _ for evacuted arcos end evccuted people?

j.i Will suf ficient rndical f acilitics be avallcbic in the event of such an cmartency?

gy Have plans been made for the nedical requircents for this probcbly traposclhic nucienr event?

.t$ Please present an evaluotlon of the amounts of radio active products cscapir.g f roa the containment st ructure in the event of a partial raelt down'tf/in the event of a50%naltdownofthefuel?M! hat is the significance of the dancers f rors ti.ese radio active contaalaants released to the environment from this type of accident?

ff What action will bc _taken toacieguerd the 230,000 talions retention tanks con-talning radio activo uaste 4*.A! hat protection is provided to prevent scopasc of f

radioactiveconteminantsintothe_undergroundwaters?))Dhatcmountofradio activity is contained in these tanks?

6e.' What action to prch. ent sabotage of the tenh,s by a foreign enemy or our country?

.p g Yhe current operation of Peach Bottoa Plant-and'thrt planned PSC_ Plant is to de.tont.trate fuel clements, prestressed concrete pressure vessels and other key coroonents of the liTGR _ Plant which is beyond the present. state of techriology of 'this plent and the research and development is required-for-devcloping larger nuclect plants and la this respect ulli AEC regulrc the P.onticello plcat to enter into these AEC r.cs'carch and developract,t objectives?

'" Ulli dliction of the radio active crentaalnnnt discharg cAi~1t7tbraterpreventthe

.9 k reconcentrttien in the blota and the food chain?

Q.

j o. c; 3 4, -

if (i t

4

67.

The St. paul Dir. patch for 0 August 1908 contained information thct AK closed down the Elk River Reactor because of leaks in the primry ccolcnt sy s t ua.

Ulli this closing increase araount of concern to MP and to AFC?

68 In addition to the 16 nuclear facilities that have been closed permantely dcun it now appears that Termi, Pathfinder, Elk River, Bonus and i'cach Bottom Reactor plants may never reopen in view of these developments has AEC advised NSP to porticipate in reactor safety progrcms thru assi,nment t

of personnel to specific safety projects such as CSE and LCFT progrcms?

69. When will AEr re lcas t-the study of the upper Mississippi on the predicative capability of a river basin?

70 Triltlum which is produced in nuclear reactors and becomes a consituent of water making the water a radio active and extremely dangerous and capable of contaminating all parts of the environment and all life is called a radio active contaminant by Chairman Secborg of the AEC.

How much vill be shippcd from Monticello to AEC burial grounds?

71.

Since shell fish, according to radiological Health Data and Reports Vol.8 1957, are sensitivo indicators of radio contcminants in water, will Sept.

Monticello operations in testing the environment include shell fish in the scmpling program for determination if their uptake exceeds the proposed concentration guide?

72. AEC divulges that cs the fuel rr.aterial is recycled in the recovery operat-lons the concentration of contaminants increases since the highly irradicted power fuel will contain gcama or neutrons or both which emit contaminants which increase the bilological shleiding req. rements.

Has AEC instructed NSP in this matter to in order to protect the safety and hecith of the peopic at the Reactor.

73. When will AEC furnish MPCA complete information on tritium production in all the reactors liscensed by AEC in this state?

74. Will AEC and NSP furnish to the MPCA the total amount' of tritlun that the proposed plants on the Minnesota and Mississippi rivers in Minnesota will discharge into the environment?

75. what will be th total amount of this rad!o' active contcminant, that cannot be removed, altered, changed or chemically treated coursing down the heart of America via the. Mississippi River to the Gulf.

76. What amount of insurance protecting the public from nuclear excursions does NSP plan to carry? Will insurance be carried for darcage to property, soil, plant life, people, etc. from radio active contaminants continually discharged into the environment or from a nuclear excursion of the type which occurred in the Fermi Nuclear Plant?

77 From AEC docket of May 4,1967, it is learned that ground level inversions will take place at Monticello about 30% of the time will radio active contaminant discharges be automatically controlled to preverit discharges when wind is not in cooperation.

78. What is meant by the statement " maximum credible accident" in relation to the stfety of the residents of the Twin City metropolitan area and the Monticello reactor?

v[ r b 40

/3

r

+

,,f,,-

79.'

15 Infomation avalltible as to the amount of tritium produced in a (Al Reactor?

Will this be furnished to the liPCA?

S0.

tiow c:och radio active ccntaminants will be discharged into the Atmosphere, the river and the soll by the closed ERR at Elk River?

SI.

For how long?

82. Whct amount and types?

83. Why was ERR closed down?

How much radio active contaminants was it actually discharging to environment?

What was offect on Plant Personnel? Did fear of a Nucicar Excursion impel close down to prevert Ferial type experlence?

9 e

0 4

e

+

</)ag e Cp' f

___a