ML20127M633

Ack Receipt of ,Forwarding Ltr from Govenor Levander on Recent Action Taken by Mn Pollution Control Agency Re Plant

ML20127M633
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	07/03/1969
From:	Seaborg G US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Quie A HOUSE OF REP.
References
NUDOCS 9211300344
Download: ML20127M633 (3)

Text

's;y,

+

' ' ~

.. '3, l

g I t' 3

't g

3g lionorable Albert H. Sale llouse of I' pmeentatives w

Dear Mr. Quie:

Thank you for your transmittal of May 23, 1969, enclosing a letter to you from Governor ImVander, conoeming the moent action taken by the-Minnesota Pollution Control Agency with respect to the Northem States Power Conpany's nuclear Eenerating facility near Monticello, Minnesota.

I have also been asked to respond to your letter of May 26 to lionorable Nils Boe, Director, Office of Intergovernmental Relations.

Executive Offices of the Pasident.

~

As you are undoubtedly awan, them has been an exchange of oarm -

spon$ence on this subject between Govemor IeVander and myself, and between Repmsentative Chet Holitield, Chaiman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, and Mr. Robert C. Tuveson, Chaiman, Minnesota Pollution Contml Ageney. This oorrespondence, which in enclosed, partially answers, I believe, the questions in your letter to Mr. Boe, ard also the points mised in Governor. I4Vander's letter to you of May 12.

In your' letter to Mr. Boe ycu causent on the seeming inoongruity of the AEC's position to insist on far lower standarsia than those set forth by the MFCA.t The fact that the MPCA pemit contains radiological condi-tions that are mon restrictive than those that would be imposed by the AIT does not mean, we believe, that there is a corm lative or even.--

measurable increase in the protection afforded the public.

As discussed in ray aplies to Govemor I4Vander, we feel that some of the restrictions in the pemit, depending on how they are interpmted ard administead, could be unduly burdensame without making a meaningful contribution to the public health and safety. Indeed, again depending on their interpretation and adninistration, certain of the aquimments in the pemit udght actually inpair the safety of the facility.

You raise the question as to whether there is man within the Atomic Energy Act to reach a&ninistrative agreement between the ABC and the State agerney conceming standmis. Urder the Atomic Energy Act the 9211300344 690703 PDR ADOCK-OS000263 U

PDR orres >

su m ec>

- narr >

- Form AEC-3IS (Rev.9 53) AECM 0240..

, o v. s, sovsa=ut= Y pam ten s orrica: toss o.sto.sov N'

. - = _.

d i,

e' Hororable Albert H. @ie 1 Congress placed the responsibility for the licensing and regulation of nuclear materials and of nuclear power mactoes with the AEC. Under section 274 of the Act the C==tasion, by fomal agreement, can M11rquish to the states certain of its regulatory responsibilities for nuclear naterials - for example, radioisotopes. Nineteen states have thus far entered into such agreenarts. The Congress, however,_did not provide for the nlirquistment of the Cossiission's authority over the licensinr,and m gulation of nuclear reactors to the states in mcognition of the very ocuplex, interztlated technical considerations that are involved in the design, construction, and operation of nuclear power plants, and the fact that these plants have the potential to release radioactive unterial that could affect amas outside the state j

in which they am located.

For year irAmation, I have written to Governor leVander offering to meet with him here in Washington, or alternatively or in addition, to have several of our senior technical staff meet with him in Minnesota to discuss the setter. While we have held previous discussions with 4

members of the Mirmsota Pollution Control Agency, I feel that it would be helpful if we discussed this natter personally with the Governor.

In addition, Chaiman Holitield of the Joint Committee on Atomic Erergy, 3

has offered to provide briefings armi background infomation, with AEC participation, to the Minnesota oongressional delegation, either as a group cr individually, on the issues raised by the position Governor IeVander has taken in this natter. If it would be helpful, I and senior members of the AEC staff would also be pleased to meet with you for simi11av discussions.

l I appaciate your intenst in this matter. If we can be of any further j

assistanoe, please let me know.

Corm ally, pige4 W N l

l Chaiman l

l

Enclosures:

l 1.

Exchange of Ltrs between RE'IYPED IN OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF Chaiman Seaborg & Gov.14Vander REGULATION TO ADD TWO NEW SENTENCES 2.

Ltr to RCTuveson dtd 5/3/69 TO SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THIS PAGE fm Hon. Chet Holitield AT THE CHAIRMAN"S SUGGESTION SEE ATTACHED YELEDW FOR PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES. SEE PIBB THREE FOR COPY DISTRIBUTION I

,DIR:D][.5......O..G. C.........._..O_CR......

ADIR:ADM:DR omcr,

sumur, CUgndersonjps. HLPrice_

BSchur

~'

~

~

our>.../.3/#9...

6/30/69 6/2k5,{

]

7 u, uc.,i. #...m ucx mo m...................... m.,.... _ m...,

1

Honorable Albert H. Quie Distribution:

Chairman (2)

Cccmissioner Ramey Cocrnissioner Johnson Conmissioner Costagliola Cormissioner 'Ihonpson Secretary (2) 000 (2)

General Manager (2) i Howard Brown, AGM John A. Erlewine, AGIO Congressional (2)

Dr. John Totter, B&M Milton Shaw, RDI' A. A. Wells, AS&LB Panel Martin Biles, DOS John Harris, DPI H. L. Price a

C. K. &ck M. M. Mann C. L. Henderson R. L. Doan P. A. ft>rris Forrest Western G. Ertter (DR-2192) k i /f. R'S $/ 9$' 4 nec t; 2$t V$n htl<d'u b

.hcLc '

Gu M l'

i

% M flawLs r b /1 l

l l

i I

l

[

,9 gA. M t, y UNITED STATES j-

g r

nTOM:0 INERGY COMMIS31CN

'l - y m *

' 'JN d,*

wasmuoroN. O.C. WS Q"" #$

June 2, 1959 l

N D

/Ns Honorable Harold LeVander J*

/

Govemor of Mirt.esota St. Paul, Xinnesota 55101

Dear Governor leVander:

Tnank you for your letter of by 12, 1969, regandir6 the per.it recently issued by the Mirnesota Pollution Control. Agency (>?CA) setting emission standards for the Monticell; nuclear poscr plant of the Northem States Power Cocpany TS?) which, you state, are " considerably more restrictive than standa.rds set by the Atomic Energy Co=1ssion."

As you recog;. e in your letter, an /ZC operating license is necessary before NS? is legally pem.itted to operate the Monticello nuclear power plant. Tne views of the F?CA and any ;-

r interested Mirr.esota agency on the issuance of the operating lic'ense.._11 be care.^ ally considered.

In your letter you state that, Mcc.us: the C. :.s awre before Xay 12 that regulations stricter than those of 2.a 1."C ucr L..tly to be imposed, and if, as we claim, the AEC has preempt;d th.

.u...r field, you "would have anticipated ths: AEC would have acted affixntively" to assert its exclusive juriediction before the ?CA acted. Tne Cordssion did, in i

fact, take such eff:.ms.tive action. On several otcasions, both orally and in w"itir.g, na have clearly cc:m;cicated ou position on pree ption to the ??CA. Tne !?CA, moreau.r, nas received legal opinions from the Joint Cc=1ttee on Atomic Fiergy, the 120, and an Assistant Attorney g

General of Finnesota - all of which poi'.t up the le p1 ig ediment to the l

action taken by the L?CA. Fina:._y on.c.is point, thI AEC, before issuir6 a construction per.it for the Monticello plant, hcid a public herir6 in l

Buffalo, Firresota, on May 25-26, 1967; and represer.:atives of the l

Minnesota Departman; of Health, the Mir.nesor.a Conservation >partment and l

the Vdnnesota Water Control Commission made appearances at the hearirs and had uo objections to the grantirs of the construction pemit by the t

AEC.

In your letter you express the.. ;e the; we "will new support" the >?CA a' tion. Tnis we cract do. Althoush we have not yet received a copy of pemit w.;ich u.s issued by the MPCA on May 12, we have reviewed an

1..!:

ea"lic" version "1.ich was sent to us by the >?CA.

Aside from the legal irpedirent, we have some substantive difficulties wit'i the pe=it which r

are described in the enclosure to this letter. Tne AEC, in accordance-J with' guidance from the ?ederal Radiation Council, reco.izes that releases 4 W ll96 %27 -

t I

I r

-d 0,

1 2-A ne 2, 1969 Honorable.F.a"old LeVander i

4.

of radicactivity should be kept as low as practicable, and our experience 4

to date with semo fcurteen licensed cperatirg power reactors shows that the radioactivity released in effluer.ts has Eenerally been a Srall i

These percentace of releasea that may be per.itted under AEC' regulations.

-,.... m.:

4...w...a.

t

, %..,'e,

_e.

.s 4., r%s o,,

..u...,,

...u._ea.e..m.

~.

-. m..,.%...

r.,..u..._, -.r. m.....

a..

...,.........e

....,..u.-..

. ~...

..,.. a.,.......,.. ~.

..............,.w.s..

. ~

..m.,.,.c..... o g.

.. ~...

.2

.. ~. -..

....y.<.~...,.,e,.3 oa.....

tion or pla*.ned, we have our regfations under review to dete=dne whether l

chan ;e3 in s:ra instances may be desirable.

If the Cor.ission decides to make arc charses, they will be rzde, in accords:.ce with ou" usual practice, only after c;portunity is afforded all interested groups to participate e

in the rule makin;; procedure.

i 1

The fact that the EA perdt conta1*.s radiological conditions that a"e "more restrictive", a n those that would be irrposed by the AEC does

^

tha l

w o.

3.. c. 4 yg v-". eva.r =..~ s"u c b'.e *. ~~. w~ e s

• e w_

e

.~..

.o

+w.e

.4

m...~, n t.w.-.

woe.

o A

o t

av

.oratection afforded the oublic.

As discussed in the enclosure to this j

letter,'so a of the restrictions in the perdt, dependir.g on how they a"e i

".". u'.'

b u " w*.n s.<...=

'ta 4v.v u 'v r.m k".. ~,, a 4

i

4. ~.vc.p.eted c~ d c*~.. '.r.d s'. a. e',

%o

/

v n

.s

- -- 4

..C w.en..w ~u ocuew/.

T.n. b - 4, c j,,

A enco.

c v..

c e

3,

.,v.r.4. e~fJ'A vo &w4 w,,+ 4 4 o t

r...

e

. v.. - u w..

a..g s.7. gs w + u.,g.,..,.;.. e A e 4 e+v. a-4 cq, s...s n,,. > s cogn A. vs.

n 4

w w

~..-

w

..-w u w up+g A.4 (.u, on.

A.y 1

sw s.4 e.Cc 4

. 4 e

O

k. ~n a.'. 'a. c e. a. sa. g. y u.+e. c.

hm w,b7 4 m y4y.g4 gg e +. p..w.a n.4.ec wo.

m A.

w c.

v.

uv.

~

o 4

w w

e-4 m..., e,.

4..

e ~..s..

a.~.,..s,

.4.,,l o Q...~,, s..o +.s v....s

c. u a

eApg og n v, -. e..cL a vp

.-w

..c, vv w.

ov we o4wa gu

..v w+..

J c.w. at..s._.c.e.n eo.

.;uo v A. 4 eu *Gy..

• k..u 4.. J (*

4 3

4

,W, b. 4.,,, k.....J e..v bv

4..-

n.

s e 6 c, w...e a.wes o4e *cou b3

. s_a n.- s wo uv.,

w3 e

o

.c.eg. oaak.. +wo.wg r,so 1c.. 4 cn

+.wis, we. m g,.4

m..e, e C N A, ' w..v., N w

v.

1

}

=.4..sr..A us..

s.,

v wo y...

.e..go i a r.v. + be

- A y.4 m.

- e.~r.r

...a n,

.4.

.w e e'

..s -w n

c v' ro c.e,,.,. c...e.w p.v.. w s ovo c..u e.

o-y 3

o

.cu.. a.~ c.co.m.v

.u,, =.. r v-,,,/.pn. c.,,e a.

r.

e. e~g,s. ~., w a

a...

~

.w.

. %.. % m. ~. %.e 4.,

. s, ct v

~

c.

o, m.eu,%d a.m

.e x.a +c w.wm

v..-...,, e s.,.a.:.c o.

a u...

m w...

. a w,.n b s..

.,. v. v n %a v

u.

~

.. ~.

4

_c e.

a mv. t e"..e d. "a"+'v

'v..M "ad'o "

• v y" "e cosae o

i. ~4 4.yo,.e.,.. wa

-e e

.r o. _w c".a

.a p

co A.s t. ev.r. 4 e 4,- on.. e

- A aw.,.'.o.

w w

..un.

5, n.o L. u r44. m v.w3

s..e-

,m. e*s.

. v.

• w kg bee

... ~

-a-.

3

.r case-by-case basisydnat concentrations shou'.d be pc mitted. We are not aware that the.70A now has the requisite p*ofessional staff to develop g

4 3

a.d ad~.inister effectivelv permits such as the one issued for the a

J

+ M. ~

. k 9 4 n., e +- k n.+,

4.-

4.o, 2m Ww A.~r 1, _.i n

e n.., a. wr... y ne..g'~. a..

2

.v.u.a1, w

• /..r + 4 e $.19 r o

m a

o d

w,.

~.

m.

a. c

u. w ee us o c-,e,,ti.n c.~ m,,e %....

.,-wli es.,.o.,,

. 4 m..,s #. 1 c. ~a o

..v v e. ~.w s oc.

v m..r

.s s

v v.

1 crA L,,4 +.k.. w...e e..v

.oow. ~ %...

.. 4 % c c.~o u. w o, a,,a.4.c..olc.me.nsens qon14e4eA er e

ma

r..

r m m eu

.o e

i-the technical disciplines. ch.ted to reactor safety in order to establish regulatory proget:ns that wwld cuplicate the AEC prog.'am for the regula-e tion of nuclear reactors.

4 For these reasons we must decline to give you the assurance which you have requested "that the AEC not issue arc / opcrating pe mit for nuclear. power generation in the State of K.

1sota which does not respect the stringent regulations the State Po11utica Control' Agency requires."

i

[9 '>

M rs i 4

t/

1 a

l i

2 A

N e

f-T--

Ti--

-y we W1

.r a-

<e-4--

.c1e-y

.=+y-<y

.*PTe.*.F

• e-"w..

N"v'-

tm41' M$k."W-..-Y

i.

i 3-June 2, 1969 Honorabie Harold LeVander 1

r Father than attegting to duplicate the rGlatory activitics of the AEC, it w:ald seem far r,cre appropriate' that Fdraesota take advantas:e of the nechanism specifically provided by the Corc;ress to accc=odato the interests of the states in radiological health and safety. This mech E sm is a cooperative ageement with the $20 under section 274 of the Atomic l

Energy Act whereunder certain regulatory responsibilities of the AEC may be turned over to a state. Under these ageements the states assume regulatory responsibility for control of the radiological effects of source

' material (thorium and uranium ores), byproduct raterial (radioisotopes),

and small quantities of special nuclear raterial (enriched uranium and plutoniu.).

4 i

We in the AEC underctand and share you" interest in the health and welfare d

i i

of the people of "innesota. We hope that the State of 7.innesota would see fit to join the other nineteen states that have' thus far entered into j

cooperative agreenents with the AEC for the radiological protection of their citizens.

. Cordially, t

/s/ Glenn T. Seaborg 4

Chai=an i

Enclosures:

Co=ents on Pe=it Proposed by Finnesota l

Pollution Control Agency w/Atbe'..ents 4

(1) Su = ary of P.eleases I.

-(2) 10 CFF, Part 20 i

(3) Draft Pe=it & Consu tant's Statement 1.

i cc: Honorable Chet Holifield, Jnairman Joint Cc=dttee on Atomic Energy Crngress of the United States M

, e *g e

Y tvi

)*

s t

E 1

4 P

e l

i Ii 4

t i

m.

,m

i-f i

00&ENTS ON PERMIT PROPOSED BY MINNES0fA POLLITTION CONTROL AGENCY -

j 1

The following coments relate to recomendations to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) by its consultant, Dr. Ernest Tsivoglou, and to the MPCA pemit which is based on those mcormendations.

Releases from Power Plants Relative to AEC Regulations

~

Releases of radioactivity from the operation of licensed nuclear power j

plants have generally been small percentages of limits inposed under curmnt 5

AEC regulations. Attached is a sunmary (Attachment 1) of releases.in water and air from licensed mactors during 1967 i

During the operation of nuclear power plants, small quantities of radioactivity am mleased fmm the plants as gaseous and liquid effluents under controlled conditions in accordance with the Atomic Energy Conmission's regulatibn,10 CFR Part 20, "Standarxis for Pmtection Against Radiation" Federal Radiation Councilg in Part 20 are based on guides developed b

( Attachtrent 2). The limi and approved _by the President for_the guidance of Federal Agencies. -In evaluating acceptable risk from radiation exposure r

the Federal Radiation Council uses the best technical expertise in the field, and takes into account the reconmendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Meas qP) I.r;ts (NCRP) and the International Com l

on Radiological Protection (ICR The continuous human use of air and water containing concentrations of radioactivity at Part 20 limits would 'ot result in individual exposums exceeding national or intemational standa, ds.

l

{

i

1. - 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_

l health, including guidance for all Federal Agencies in the formulation of radiation standards and in the establishment and execution of progranu e

i of cooperation with the S;ates.

E The NCRP was foIred in 1929 under the auspices of.the National Bureaa l

of StandaIxis of the United States.

It was incorporated by Act;of i

Congress in 1964. The membership consists of some 65 recognized experts in the field of radiation protection.

c j

The ICRP was established in 1928 by the Intemational Congress of

~

Radiology to pmvide radiation protection guidance. It is looked to by?

national governments >and.by such international agencies as the World-Health _ Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and the i

International Labor Organization,. all of. which traintain liaison with the I

ICRP, for basic guidance -in all areas of protection against ionizing 4

~

radiation.

. ~.

g l-

)

h e

.**"p

~.

. ~.

e

+

t e

{

'a 4 In view of'recent substantial increases in number and size of power reactors under construction or planned, we have our regulations under review to detemine whether changes may be desirable. Any.

changes the Comission decides to make will te made only after occor-i tunity is afforded all interested groups to carticipate in.the rule making pmcedure.

j.

Technical and Economic Feasibility of I

Recomendations in the Report and MPCA Permit

.i j

Whether operation of the Monticello plant in accordance with the MPCA pemit will be technically and economically feasible will depend j

in large neasure on the technical comnetence and subjective judgment of i

the people administering it, and the extent to which some of the-special l

requirements will be rigidly interpreted and applied. This is due to the many provisions in the MPCA' consultant's repart and in tne permit l

which are qualified by such words as "to the fbil extent that.is feasible j

and reasonable,"... "such measures shall' include at least but not be i

limited to,"... and "to the full extent possible."

Recomendations 1 through 14 in-Section III of the MPCA's consultant's report deal generally with limits on mleases of radio-j activity fron nuclear facilities-within the State. Reccanendations 5 and 9 provide radioactivity standards which, in many ways, do not differ substantially from those provided in AEC's regulation, 10 CFR l

Fart 20. However, the effluent limits that would be established by the l

numerical guidance in the radioactivity standards -in the mport.are unner limits. Much lower limits would be imposed on each reactor.

This philosophy is reflected in Recccmendations 6 and 7, pages 59-60, which provide that, notwithstanding reconmended numerical limits, l

nuclear plants should be reouired to keep effluent radioactivity concentrations as far below these limits as is feasible and reasonable and that each nuclear plant should be reganled as an individual and-different case.so.far as radioactivity releasgs are concerned.-

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

}

feasibility of implementing the reccrmendations in Secticn III. of the report depend' unduly-on the technical-competence' and_ subjective judgment j

i of the persons administering them, 4

?

-l 3

k k

4 i... _ _, L.._ _

-a_

i a

q

n.. i.

3-The recortmendations in Sections IV and.V of the' report deal specifically with the Monticello reactor and have been implemented, with nodifications and I

additions, in the MPCA pemit to Northern States Powe:s Cosipany.Y The pemit establishes (1) numerical limits on concentrations of individual radio--

nuclides in air and liquid effluent, and (2) special mquirements on plant operation and nonitoring to assure that the. individual limits are not a

exceeded.

As mentioned earlier, the feasibility of these requirements is dependent on how they will be interpreted and applied. Following are two examples of requirements that, if strictly enforced,- would,be questionable from a.-

technical and economic standpoint and could inpose a burden greatly out of-proportion to the small incremental reduction of radioactivity in the effluent that would be achieved.

Effluent' Limits and Vonitoring Requiremencs

??CA's consultant emphasizes in his statement of April 8 that the reco:mendations_ of the International Conmission on Radiological Protection represent the best available infomation in the world today regan11ng the nazards of radiation exposure and the degree of protection that must be" provided. Nevertheless, the pemit 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.

Abhough the effluent monitorin6 requirements in the pemit 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.

Such monitoring requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome because many of the radionuclides are known from experience to occur in relatively unimportant concentrations. For example, the permit. specifies limits for 14 different radionuclides of noole gases expected to be released to the atmosphere. The same degree of radiation protection could be achieved by.

specifying a single limit for the total radioactivity in the fom of noble gases, and the ease of making the neasurement would be much greater because of the difficulty of measuring the concentrations of individual nuclides in the presence of so many-others.

l In view of the low effluent release limits we do not'believe' that an envirorrental monitoring program as comprehensive as that required.in the -

pemit is warranted. In the presentation of the draft permit to the MPCA it was stated that-the required monitoring program will be "... considerably-j-

E e pemit containing "special conditions ' relating to radioactive wastes,'.'

Th was approved by the MPCA at-a meeting held May 12, 1969. A copy of the draft pemit and a copy of the consultant's statement presented to the

{

MPCA in the meeting of April 8-9, 1969, are attached (Attachnent 3).- AEC-conments, herein, are addressed to the draft pemit.

i i

l I

.---,m,,.---

1 v

,e

,,-.r,,,

.. -,,+.,

r,mm.,,.-r,

1 I

4 4-nore comprehensive and thorough than environnental programs required in the vicinity of other conmercial power plants." At the same time, doubt was cast on the value of such an elaborate and costly nonitoring progaam

~

with the statenent, "Quite frdly, if the permit is adopted as recom-mended, I expect the environmental monitoring program to demonstrate clearly that the radioactive waste releases from Fonticello are so low as 1

to be extrennly difficult, if not impossible, to detect in the nearby 2

environment." On the basis of existing infcImtion, including special studies in the environs of the nuclear power plants at Dresden and Indian l

Point by the U. S. Public Health Service and I!ew York State Department of Health respectively, we agree with this evaluation.

1 Fuel Element Inspection and leak Detection Recuirement t

.Section 2(e) of the permit provides, in part, for "... initial thorough j

inspection of fuel rods to identify those that might develop fission product leaks, and rejection of euch rods for use in the reactor..." It is not j

clear whether this requirement is intended to inpose inspection procedures over and above the extensive fuel elenent inspection procedures required i

to be carried out under the AEC licensing program.

Under 10 CFR Part 50 of the Conmission's regulations, reactor fuel j

elemnts are required to be designed to function th:taghout their lifetin

- without exceeding acceptable fuel darage limits which have been specified and justified in the reactor license application. The AEC also requires quality asmrance programs, test procedures and inspection criteria to be

]

used in the fabrication of fuel elemnts.

]

With regani to reactor fuel, a typical AEC license application describcs rigid quality controls that are applied at every stage of fuel manufacturing to ensu"e that the design specifications are r.et.

Written nanufacturing procedu es and quality control plans define tha' steps in the manufacturing process.

Puel cladding is subjected to 100 percent dimnsional inspection and ultrasonic inspection to reveal darects in the cladding wall. Destructive tests are perront.cd on representative samples from each lot of tubing, including chemical analysis, tensi3e, bend, and burst tests. All tubes are subjected to a corrosion resistance test (autoclave). Integrity of end plug welds is assured by standardization of weld processes based on radiographic and metallographic inspection of welds. Conpleted fuel rods are helium leak tested to detect the escape U1 powder of helium through the tubes and end plu;s or welded regions.

characteristics and-pellet densities, conpasition, and surface fi,nish are i

controlled by regular sampling inspection. UO weights at every stage in manufacturin7; are recorded. Dimensional meksurements and visual l

inspections of criticalz areas such as fuel rod-to-rod clearances are performd after assembly and after arrival at the reactor site.

i The AEC believes that reactor fuel ele: rents which are manufactured j

and inspected in accordance with such quality assurance procedures will j

perform safely and satisfactorily without the need for any additional 8

1 rve -

• r

..o L

--5_

inspection requirements such as tray be imposed under the MPCA permit.

Further, the-Conmission's requi"ements, which experience has shown to be i

t technically and economically feasible, have been demonstrated in practice to result in the limiting of radioactive releases to the environment to levels well below acceptable standards.

Section 2(e) of the MPCA pentttt further provides for " development 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 3

initiate research and development activities designed to develop the needed procedures." In the p"esentation of the draft pemdt to the MPCA, it was stated: "'1his is another measure that has not been required before at co:Tmercial nuclear power plants.

It may not prove an easy burden to assune, but the pemdt requires the company to demonstrate that it is raking every effort to do so.

It is emphasized that the successful development and conduct of an effective program fcr finding and selectively removing leaky fuel elemnts or fuel assemblies would introduce a new and higher level l

of control over radioactive wastes from reactors.

It wou]d constitute a substantial practical step forward in tems of really minimizing radioactive l

pollution of the environment."

j The practicality of the above requirement depends on how it would be interpreted and a itinistered. Under a strict"interpretatien it cannot be met with presently designed reactors.

Redesign could be-costly.

It is more practical to fix limits on radioactivity in the priury coolant and j

monitor it.

Operating experience with thcce reactors indicates that radio-activity levels in plant effluents has not resulted in any safety p"oblem even though operation has been continued with stall leaks in the fuel. This a

experience has not demonstrated the need for such changes in present reactor designs or in existing regulation requirements. Further, the incentive for keeping radioactivity levels low in the pritury system to minimize diffi-culties during refue1LT; and naintenance operations has led to development and current use of fuel claddings witn very hjgh integrity. These efforts have resulted in actual radioactivity leve}s well within the Cornission's regulatory requirements.

\\

Desirability of Atption of Recorrendations p

Contained in MPCA Qe,rg"t and Femit In view of the foregoing, we believe that many of the recommendations j

in the report cannot be justified and, apant from the le al impediment to i

the issuance of the pemit,. that the Jnclusion of the radiological conditions i

in the pemit is. not desirable. As d3scussed above, som of' the recom-tendations of the report and restrictionc in the pe mdt, depending on how

\\

they are interpreted and administered, could be unduly burdensome 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 m gulation of nuclear power plants which, in our view, cannot and should not be trade i

the basis for a fair and effective regulatory program.

T

=.

e.

4 6-AttachTents:

1.

Sumrary of Releases 2.

10 CFR Part 20 3

Draft Pennit & Consultant's Stater:ent i

4 i

4 1f 4

4 l

4 1

)

e d

i F

I i

s i

l t,

t

{

e

...,e

1967 OPERATING EXPERIENCE IN RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVITY IN-LIQUID AND GASEOUS EFFLUENTS FROM IFLEAR POWER REAC'IORS

~

L l

The release of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents 1

from nuclear power reactors and other AEC licensed nuclear facilities 1s-governed by the Atomic Energy Commission's regulation, 10 CFR Part-20,

" Standards for Protection Against Radiation." The following Tables I and II provide information on actual releases of radioactivity in 11guld and gaseous effluents from 14 licensed nuclear power reactors in 1967 I

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, i

Part 20. rote 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 rad 5ation protection guides developed by the Federal Radiation Council, the National Cowicil on Radiation Protection and Veasure-rents, or the International Comndssion on Radiological Protection.

Actual use of Note 1, Appendix B, to corrpute the gross activity limit that must be met would require the licensee to detemine the radioisotopic j

composition of the radioactivity in the effluent. The licensee may elect, under the provisions of Note 2, to forego sore or all of such determinations if he uses more restrictive limits uhich assu e that all of the unidentified i

i 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 portion 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 products which the licensee elected to use, in accordance with the conditions of Appendix B, Part 20, and the percent of that lifnit actually utilized.are shown in the third and fourth columns, respectively. -The limit of-l 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 d -

without any identification of the specific radionuclides present in the mixture. The typical radionuclides present in water effluents from power reactors are such that,1f the licensee wishes to identify them and measure 1

their concentrations by gadioisotopic analysis, limits which are less restrictive than 1 x 10-1 ue/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

.j' radioisotopic analysis and use a less restrictive limit.

h f> -

Attachsnt'_1 to i

l

~, _

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

.y 4

4 g

2-Radioactive Releases in Gaseous Effluents - 1967 - Table II In practice, releases of radioactivity from nuclear power reactors to the atrosphere 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 4

exposed to radiation in excess of FRC or ICRP radiation protection guides.

To provide this assurance, there is computed for each reactor release rate limits in the atmosphere, taking into account local meteorology, geography, utilization of land and pathways of exposures of people.

Sirplicity of operation and a high degree of effectiveness are achieved by the development 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 sare tire are conservative from the point of view of radiation protection and minimize the effort required by the licensee to neet 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 condition, and number of curies pemitted to be released, and the percent of that limit actually utilized.

4 J

I i

4 i

i I

1 1

i l

9

---T e8-r

-r+

e

.w r

4 t

TABLE I RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVITY FROM POWER REACTORS IN LIQUID EFFLUETES,1967 VTXED FTSSTON & COMSION PRODUr*PS TRITIUM Concentration 1 Limit Percent o/

f Released Percent of MPC -

Released 2

Reactor (C1)

(10-7 uC1/ml)

Limit (C1)

BIG ROCK 10 2

58 1/

DRESDEN 1 4.3 1

35 1/

HUMBOLUP BAY 3.1 1

17 4/

INDIAN POI'E 1 28 30 1.3 297

<1 0.056 10

<1 1589

<1 YANKEE CONN. YANKEE 0 39 30

<1 123

<1 0.02 1

<1 6

<1 SAUDN 0.46 1

<1 12

<1 ELK RIVER 0.002 1

<1 g/

PEACH BOPIOM BONUS 0.035 1

<1 1/

LACROSSE

<0.005 1

<1 1/

j 0.04 1

<1 4/

FERMI SANONOFRE 0.32 1

<1 PATHFINDER 0.19 1

89 0.30 '

l 300

<1 E

LS 2.4 3/, 1/, 1/ See notes on next page

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

/ gainst Radiation." bhere there is a mixture of nore than one radionuclide in the effluent, the permissible concentration is dependent upon the extent 4

to which the licensee determines the isotopic composition of the mixture.

In recognition of the time and effort required to provide complete-informa-l

~

tion on the mixture, Note 3 of Appendix B to Part 20 provides a table for determining the limiting permissible 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.

1

- In view of the considerations expressed in Note 1 above, the values given in this column represent upper bounds to the percentage of a lirdt that would be applicable on the basis of a complete analysis of the composition, 4

Limits based on complete analysis, if perfonmd, would be expected to be i

substantially higher than those used and the percentages in this column i

would be substantially less.

-3 E e maximum pemdssible concentration of tritium in water is 3 x 10 uci/ml.

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

These data are for the first 8 months and the last 4 months of 1967, respectively.

During; the first 8 months the licensee used the concentra-tion limit for a completely unidentified mixture of radioisotopes. hhen it became evident that the average concentration for the year wculd probably exceed that level, he made sufficient analyses to demonstrate j

that the IPC would not be less than 3 x 10-5 uCi/ml.

l i

I

.i i

I L '

{

I TAiRE II RELEASES OF RADICACTIVflY FROM POWER REACIDRS IN GASEOUS EFFLUUlfS,1967 i

NOBLE AND ACTIVATION CASES HAWGENS AI;D PARTICULATES

"# "8

% Permissible Curies

% Pemissible Reactor Released Permissible Released Pemissible HUMBOU7f 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 PATHFJ10ER 5,900 470,000 13 0.2 2.2 9

DRESDEN 1 260,000' 22,000,000 1.1 0.039 100

<1 YANKEE 2.3 6,300

< l' Heg.

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 BOTIOM 7.5 19,000

<1 Neg.

0.09

<1 SAXION 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 Meg.

0.8

<1 FERMI 0.014 8,800

<1 Neg.

7

<1 i

LACROSSE

<5 151,000

<1 Neg.

0.8

<1 s

Where the technical specifications express a release limit in tenns of a constant factor tines the 10 ClTt Part 20 concentration limits, the MPC used is 3 x 10-8 uC1/cc. This MPC 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 MFC is larger)

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

CNN Fer6Hissible melease rate b'Esed on averame MmLdirections from BCES final hszards. stmmary renort MbRA-GNEC..

7 h._re..ll..raisi.nry Drnt t P

orch 31..

1969 P.nvised$pril10,196!(

l

=

I Q.

MINNESDTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 717 Delouarn Street, S.E.

\\

University Compuu Minncupolio

- ke 55440 j

1: TASTE DISPOSAL PEGMIT n

Manticello Nuclear GenaratinD Plant, Northern States Powcr Company, Monticello Townuhip, Wright County 4

Puroucnt,to nuthorization by the M$nncoota Pollution Control Agency, i

+

.und in accordance with the provinions of Minnetata Statutes,1967, Cheptern 115 tnd 116, o prirmit is hereby granted to Northarn Statec Power Company, Minnatpolin, for dinpocal of oaate from a stuum electic gancrating plent being conntructed by the company in the unst hnif of Section 33, Tounship

.122 N, 4tnDe 25 U, Uright County, including the diccharge of ef f'luento, es

' hurain talca cpecified thcrorron to tha Mircianj ppi Tliver, subject tn 'tha f

i conditions given belou:

Gnneral Conditions 1.

This pumit thell not release the pc'raittet from any liability or obligation ini,ored by Minnesota statut.cs or locM ordin9ncus and cho)1 reunin,

in forcr. cubject to all conditiona cnd limitations nos or hercarter iraponad by ina, The punait nhcil b: parminciva only and shall not be construed as

~

cotopping or limitin.J ony claims r.gainct tha permittca for demage or.injw:y to person or property, or omissions of the permittee, its egents, -con'.racto:

.c l

or aanigns, nor em actopping or liuiting any legal c1cim of tha atola ppinn'.

the pemitten, ito rgtnte, contrnctors. or nasigns, for dcmega to stcl.a pro-party, or for any vinlution of cubsequant regulations tc conditio.n cf thic

~

i permit.

f.'o accignment of thic parait chall ba of fcci.iva unhil it is exacutn

• 2.

in writing and signed by' the parM03 tharcto end tharunfter npprovnd by'the Aguncy.

3.

No major citerations or cdditions to the disposul.cyataq thall b3 s

mEds without tha erittnn ntnsent of the Agancy.

i 6.

The ude of i.hc dir.pocal system nhall be linit d to i.ha treatmunt or-r.'luonssl of ths unch materials or substbacou describad in thn parait Opp 310.2.hiGn dut6d s'hily 11. 1967, Lnd cobcc$.LY.Ud mab0riL1 filed Ulth tha*

V; Agancy.

)~

{

t

+

d.

iu;v,k 2 f

i LL4W.(, l, t

r'

.,.g

i 5.. The per. nit is nubject to modification or revocation, and may bc l

• zI*,

sunpended'nt, t.ny timu for railure to comply talth the tcrms stated hercin or regulations or standardo of the Agenc; the provisions or 'nny other npplicublu,h the undcratanding that it doen not i

or its prodcconcoro, and 10 issued ed t ostop subacquant catchlishment or further requ$ rcracnto for treatment or con-trol at any time by insertien or oppropriate additional clausco heroin at th cfincretion of the Agency. in order to p'revent or rodut.o possible pollution of the environment.

G.

Tha permittee or osoigna shall defend, indemnify and' hold harmicss -

the State of Minnesota, its africero, 00cnto and employees, officially or p'ersonally, against any nnd all actions, claims, or demands whatoonver which May arisa from or on account of the inauence of this permit, or the construc l

or maintenance of any f acilitics hereunder.

j

?.

Cortification of completinn or the project shall be modo im:nadiatcli orter conatruction is fininhed.

Reporta on effluent quality and operationel-practicca shall b3 nubmitted regular.ly every month, and the permit holdar shall certify that ha is in all racpects in conformance with the conditions given in the Agnacy policy statement of August 22, 1967 cotitled, "Palicy Regarding Operation Permitu for Scunge and Industrici Uante Trcotment Works.

(

Spec 5 al Condiainriu Palnt' inn to Conunntional Mastes 1.

No raw neuaga or trouted scusgu effluent chall bo discharDed to norrcca waturs of tha utate from the plant uite.

j 2.

Any additinnul construction plens End desi n data uhich may be D

requirad for all dinpoaul systems needed for collection,. treatment and dio-l pocal of neuccc, inductrici unntas end olhar wastes ori.ginating at this cito md for of rcctive canininuent of-utored liquids or other polluticnal materia y

for.the pravantion or imter pollution to conforn with tha requirements of th i

purnit, shull be submi.tted toguth2r uith any othar information requanted for rnvicu by tha Agancy.

All cuch plans shsll rect with the approval of the Ag mcv and the cystene he complatud beforc opuration of the plcat is sturted i

l 3.

The follcuing stendarda of quality und purity opplicable to th:

err 3uant of the holding pcad chall not be excacdad at -the point of discherec Trt:m 1,hu pond:

6.5 - 8.5 pH valua Turbidity valua

' v, 25 5-dny bionhad cel o::ygan dgman'd 29 milliDrutas/litcr Totul suspund.d avlido 30 milligrama/litar

. /.

}

eg g g 4

O 4.*..

4 4

s.

/

g

-.--.a.:..-..-

-~.

,.v..

/

.y

~ - -.,.,

,v----.,,

, ~.

3 4.

Cooling' f acilitico chall be provided und operated to incuraj that the

0. temperature of the coolinD water at thu point of dischar00. to the river doon not excccd tha limits.upacified below; l

i 1

1 Period Maximum Temperaturn.

July and August', incluaive BG6F (or 5"F above tha umbient Oune end September, inclucive BOY temperature of tha river, May and October, inclusive.

67 Y whichnvar is Dreater, c:-

April and f.'ovanbar, inclusive 55Y cept that in no case shall March end December, inclunive 43 F the cooling water tcuperatur

.Jonuary and Februcry, inclusive 37 Y as dischar0cd exceed 86'F)

The docian of trcotment worku for compliance with the strenm stondnrds, l

unicos otharuica spacified, chcIl be based on thu seven consacutivo day low flou of tha rivar uhich is et;ual to or excecdad by 90% of cuch covan-dcy rainimum overage f}owa of record (the lo:9ast seven-day flow uith a once in ten 1

year recurrence interval) for the criticrl month.

S.

(Je industrial utste, or other unsteo, trouted or untreated, ohnli

'bo dinchurend into"the untern. no cc to couac ony nuiennce conditions, includin;,

without limitation, i hn prcsance OI subatential amounta of floating solidn, scum, oil, sunpanded calida, diccoloration, obno::ious odors, nludge deprsito, slii.uz o, or fungua growths, or othar uffenciva of rects; or no es to cause any meteric.1 inaranno in any other churaioni constituents; or cause onij subotentini chenga in cny characterictics which nuy impelr the quality of the unter so i

as to randar it objuntiannble or unsuitrbla for fish end uildlife or as a source of uuter for reunicipel,. industrici or raricultural punoces; or othor-wine impcir the quality of the unturn for any other usen.

6.

The t o:.pany chcIl metrure the qndntitsj end chtracteristico of and semplo nny enalyze the indurtrS ul ut.ci.en, other liautuu and storad liquid;. at the cite un unij be requastari hy L Agcacy, and chall provlde the Agency at:ry month ei th a ccm.plc he report on cur:h rc.aa3urements, st: pir:n t-nd onelyonn, t o..

gather u th :-ny other inf or.nction raloting to wasta dinpocal or pollutica control UMch rny ba raquucted.

7.

Facilition for tonitoring thn quality of the recaiving waters shall be providad end used at requacted by the Agency.

Reruitn of the monitering chall ba rcpo::ted to the Agancy ot' monthly intnrvelc.

t 1

8.

Tha company cho)1 causa to be nede igithout cost to tha utate, tach'.

nical studMa cnd invautiW.icnn of tha biota'bnt qutlity cad raltted nattera pertcining to tha actars of the otste ehi.:h raca*.v.a i;hs pl:nt ef,'luanto, or whic.h nru n tha it:ir.;diata vicinity of the plcnt, cs racy b; requanted by the j

Agent:y.

l Ccz? eta pan:;. t chall ba subait ted cnnually, or tora fraquantly upon request.

.)

% ~.

l o

=0 4.

e d

h o

1 e

.m-..

M.

..n.

5 m,,

4 O.

Cont $.nuous operai, ion of all of the treatment uorks at their toximum 4.copability consistent tdth practicel limitations end maintennnte needs of su::h works nhall bn maintained et all tioco when the plant is,in operation end uhen noccosary to provide udcquato trontment of the ocunge, industriol unutco or othnr taasten by the terms of this permit.

• 3 0.

The company chall expeditinucly mr.ko ony changen in unnto dinpocal, monitoring, and reporting practicen, and provide any additional treatmant works or dinpanel systema or other sereguarda for the prevention'or pollution of the env$ ronment upon the requent of the Agancy.

11.

Liquid subhtances uhich could con.stituto a source or pollution of the unterc of thn ctate chall bu ctored in occordance uith reDulation UPC h.

Other wantoc nu darined by Minnenota statutes, snction 115.01, subdivision 4, shall not br dnponited in cny mnnner cuch that the c.cma ncy be likely to gtin ontry into thece waturo.

In any cece uhnra cuch subntencoc, either lic;uid or t.

nolid, as o rcault of accident or natural catantrophe thould gnin entry into ony watars of the state, it shall be the responsibility cod duty of the cerpeny to infora the Agency in the quickcut time pocaible und ir.undictcly ren av> or.d t

reonvn all such polluU on O cubstnnaca to tha fullcat ertent recconably

, pobolblu under unisting conditione.

^

12.

The induutrial or other unote effluant.c ns discharged shall cc:aply with t.r.y cod 011 cppliceb)n requiromants of effludnb standardr Jr r$ tar cleanifications nnd siend: rda which nny be cdopted by th2 I.g y for th!.c type or Lource cad /or for these uators in the futura.

- _e ci a.l C_o n.d._i t i..o.n_s R..e.l._a t i_n.a....t o.. R._ad.i o sc.t._.i v.e.. U.e n t o.s Sp

,1 1.

It is the pol $ cy of the Agency thet.u.Il rsdiocativa pollution or the envircnment shel' ha held to the int"act level thet is atteinable w.i thin the lir;itaM.ana impobad by technoloD cal feanibility and econcaic rencene'na.

i neso.

In no cene chall tenbarn of th; public be exposed to radiaW on tot '

the limita recomended by' the Internatirnel Comaicaion on nadiological Prs tection.

In addivien, the natual lovels of rndittien expecura of ner'.ura or

/ the puMic shall bn hept ra f ar belou thoce limits en ponnible,.conciatant uith technological fencibility cnd recaonah}enasc or cout.

2.

In keeping oith the above policy of the Ag:ncy, all practicci maucurco for trerh.unt, control End contLin:aent or rcdicentive wantno f.

tha llanticello nuclear gun 2 rating plant of tha Oorthern States Peuar Gm. inny chrll bc employed for the purpcae or preventing the relence of radioac.'.vity to the envirersent.

Such maccuras chdl in:Ilude at lanet, but not be lim.w..d

~to:

s.,

l (a) all nutsures for the trnatment, centrol and containment.

OU liould Cad QUO 2em 2diCEctlVC Offlu2FtS tin,t arO indicuted in.

tha I'inel hraty Andenia ihport of the !.'Orthen States Power Cc::,4 n y,

s, thit 1,.'ianticalln nucic: ' car. crating ph nt; rad p

[

l 3

s 1m

.._m-

~., -

(b) routine removal of rediciodinc and hologens from the,

Onccouc effluents to the full extent feasible, thu dcDr00 Of g*

treattnant end removal bein0 at loost the equivalent of that pro?

vided by effectivo activated'chercon1 filtration of. the entire '

uir ejector off D0 floWi.ond 0

1 (c) routino ion exchcngo trcotment (poudex domincrolization or equ$ valent) cf the corabined low purity unsten (primarily from floor dro5 nn) und the neutralized chemical westco -(primarily from laboretary decins nnd shop decontcmination solution draino).

The combined cotimated flow is 0,000 gal / day; and (d) initial inopcotion of fuel rodo for surfnce contamino-tion' ulth uraniun bafore use in the recctor, and decontuminction

'or replacerent of fuel rods that have detectable or significont-emounts of uranium on their external curf aces, so on to prevent tha use of cuch fuel roda in the renctor.

The plant operator t'

chell report in detail to the ogency the measuras tahcn in thic regard hafore ntnrtup of the reactor; and (c) initial thorough incpection of fuel rods to identify l

those that might d?valop f$ nsion product lecies, and rejection of cuch rods for uce in the reactor;.to thc. full extent poscil'lo, developmunt and cpplicat$ on of uuthods and techniquac for locching and $ dentif ying len':ing f uu.1 rodm after oporation of the reactor begins, so that such rods may be removed during ucusl foal replacn-mont operationn or, at other timen, to provent exccasiva ralocan of radiocativity to the environment.

The oparntor chall report in detail to the Accncy the actual uconurer taken in both of these regardu before stnctup of the reactor.

If necoccory, he shall

/*

initiatu rescarch and development activiities designed to davalop the needed effective procedures.

3.

The grcco bata-grama radioactivity of liquid effluento relected tn the plant discharga crocl shall be limited to the extent that tha. ennual ever-1 l

l cgo Dross bei,n-gcxnr radiopativity concentratinn of tho water in the diocSnrD3 l

canal chull not c::cced 10"/ g.ic/ul (100 pc/1) plus the background rtdioactivity, 4

As on integral pcrt of Special Conditions 3 ebova, the concentrui-ions i

of r,pecific radioi;o' mes $ n the diocherga canal chall not exceed, on en ennual avarena bacis, tha rollowing limit:5:

/3 rd i

Avnrann Doiin Concentrations, i,t,:

Normal ('s)

Low (b)

Rndioicatop:

Y' Ei%j.f1 ?5 V.{. 211

PM

--..., ') , H-3 ~ 4 x 10 2 x 10 ^ F. lO B x 10

• 1 x 10~11

~1 j Na- % - 2 x 10.12 3 x 10.11 r it i ...2 ~... ~..

_c a e \\ Avernqc Dnilo Concentration gac/ml ) o R6dioidotopo tJormal (") Loto (b) 9' Ri v e r.).Fi_n.w.' ---River Floo T - _._.g

== g 4 Cr-51 9.x 10-13 1 x lO-11 5'x 10-12 4 x 10~1,1' Mn-56 Co-50 9 x 10-32 1 x l'O-10 Co-60 9 x 10-13 1 x 10-11 Sr-90 ^6 x 10~13 8 x 10~12 [ Sr-91 2 x 10~11 4 x 1D-10 Sr-92 6 x 10-l?- 8 x 10-11 1 1 Tc-93, Mo-99 1 x 10~10~ 4 x 10 9 -11 -10 .I-131 4 x 10 8 x 10 o i I 133 P. x 10-10 6 x 10"9 i s I-135 6 X 10-3'1 -9 1 x 10 -13 .1 Tc-132 6 x 10 1 x 10 ^1 j Cc-136 6 x 10~l 1 x'10- 2 f I Cc-137 2 x 10"13 6 x 30~13 6 x 10~13. 6 x 10~12 .0c-139 80-160 4 x 10"12 6 x '10~ll l l .( _ Open c'/cle - 93 porcent of dcys; no usu of cooling hauaro; dischergo a) j canal flow Gh5 ci's. l (ts) Clooed cycle - 7 percent of dr.ys; full use of coalitig tcwcrn; discharge l canal flot 35 cf's. I 6 l In aJditit.n to the specific rtSioisotopo concantration limito Diven in i thc.abova Luble, rnd on uninterin banis unt!' plant eparation provides marc ^ definito infomation, the avart gu dnDy diucharen cunal concentrution of Eny other rodioicatcpc chcIl nob eMaudd nau thren thousandth (1/3,000) of; tins f s %..cpecii'it iCRP linit fc.* continuous occup'ational expecure-or one thrad.hundrnd. r } (3/300) of the nwerical. limit for c. hat rndiaisotcpc cs rpucified in Appendi: i j 3, Teblo II, Title 10, Pcct 20 cf tha US?J{C Stundards for Protaction.tgainst i Radiation. In can thcca tes lir.dtu diffnr for any cpecific radioinate;: 2,' tb t e lower limit chall epply. i l y j J t l { N. -~,-

L '5.,In cddi. tion to all of the foregoinD liquid effluent radioactivity concent;rnti.on limito, for. any seven conaccutiva day period the.cVerece gross p.' bato. gnm:aa ra!iloactivity7 concentration of the unter $n the dicchargo cs.nni nhn11 not exceed 5 x 10-pc/ral (500 pc/1) plus the bact: ground radioactivity, and the everage concentration of eny specific radioisotopo in the dinchargn i canal chn11 not excned a limit of riva timan the value given in the above I tabla. 'G. The gross-beta-gamma r.adioactivity of the Occeous affluent released via the plant stack chall not,cxceed, on an annual average basis, a 'rclocsc rate of 0.01 curic per cocond. This rarcra to a total stack cir f]ow of 4,000 cfm, nnd thereby also specifics the limiting concentration of gross bota-gemma radioactivity in tha ctock effluent befora dilution in the atmosphere. 4 7.. As en intngral pcrt of Special Condition 6 above, the concentrctionc j of opacific rndioisal.cpea in the stack before roleocc to the atmonphere shell j not exceed, or en ennua? cvar00c bcsic, the fol)owinD limits: Radioisotope Stac!: Concentration (U p_c/...m..l-. 4 x.10..g j H. 3 3 x 10-6 Ar fl i ~ lir -83:a 1 x 10 ~' lir-05:c. 3 'x 10 .9 lsr -05 2 x 10 / = { 3 1 x 10 s Mr-67 1 x 10"3 i Mr 00 ~ i Kr-09 2 x 10 -6 Xr 131m 1 x 10 -5 Xe-133ia 1 x 10 i p ['. 3 x 10 Xe-133 Xe.135m 4 x 10 ,6 x 10[l' s j XU 133 i i ^Xc 137 S x ID"U 1 a 'n 10"<' -i O. x2..us "(3.T~~ l'.t a tot'al utcck nir flow of" 4,000 cfm. 7 g ..+m-y,og p e

v e. e En additio.n to the specific radiolsotopo limitG D ven in the tablu i n". iinmediately above, nnd on en inwrim bacia until plant oparold on providas nore definito inforinution, the average daily stack concentrution of any' other radioicotopa bcfore release to the atmenphara nhall not excced 10 i i timou the specific ICRP lin! t for continuous occupationni exposure, or.100 i tirass the numerical limit for that radioisotopc as Dpecified in Appendix D, Tablo II, Titlu 10 Part 20, of the USAEC Standarda for Protection Against Rodintion. '8. In eddition to all of the foregoing gascous (atuck) offluent con-centration limits,,tho gross beta-gamina radioactivity of the Daseous offlucat relcaned via the pinnt ctack chall not exceed a relcone rato of 0.05 curie per accond for any savan consecutive day period. During such a pariod, the stack concentratinno of upccific radioinotopes chcIl not exceed five timas the numnrical lirnits given in Spccial Condition 7. j A utack ralence rate of 0.05 curie per accond chall automatically sound n pinnt clarm to.unrn the plant operator that the uackly release rate limit has boon reachad. ~ 9. In addition to all of the foregoinD gocecuo (utack) cff'luant con-l centration limits, the groca heta-gw radloectivity of tha gnacaus offluent relecGed via the pinnt stuck chall not excncd a reinsce rate GT O.30 curie per nucond far any 15 c.:nute period. During such s per' lod, the s tuck con-ccotrstion, of npecif 5 c rad.:os sotopcc 'choll nut exceed 30 tims -the nu:acrict1 litalts D van in Spenini Gondition 7. i A stack release rctn of 0.30 curiu per second nhall automaticclly neund a necond ar.d different alpria tn uarn the pinnb operator that the 'inatentenno; relcece rutu limit h w be n racchud. Af ter n 15-minuta delay, the air epatej off ns $ colation valva shall autcrnatictlly clona, shutting down ths rescinr3 C if thn radienctivity reinacc rote hac not been succenuful.ly raduced to the weckly.relevec rate limit, or 1cnc. 10. During the first year of operation of the nuclear gcncrnting plcat at Ibntf cello, the routine effluent ncaitoring progrc:o of tha i'nriharn R,nbr Pawar Coa.pany chall ha designed to idrntify and gutntitatively account fc:- all spacific radioisotcpan that are relosed in significant e,urnti',len.. Thin , offluent nonitoring progrcm shall provide for End include at ItaM. th.c. kir.63 nmplos, frequcanino, radicocoay procedurac, etc., dcocribed in the l'.? 05 Fin:' Report entitled Radiantive Pollution Centrol in-liinnesota, cnd datad annuary 33, 1969 (aea especially pp. 139-163). 11. During thu firnt year of operation of -the nuclear r.cnertting plcrm et Menticello; tha routin., envirnr. ental radioloDical monitcring rad cur-veillcoce prograa c the ??artharn Sta'as Powr Cogany shall bc dncignnd to - i datuc'; Und evolutte oil cignificnnt radioactiva releanen from the phnt. l Thia environmental monitoring prcgram shall provida for und inclut :c least s tha kinds ci snap.' ao, frequencien, rndiocona/ proccduras, thc., danc"ib;d in, the NPCA Fintl lbs 4 on in dictativa PolluU.00 Control in l'innuach-drted danuar;; 31,1969 (m eupW.clly Tdic Dj, pp 133 snd 136, cad th, ' rrginn-y l includcd in pp 116 1M). b t. e cel,-- +... -. =* e w.. a w t

,m t 12. All cfrluent and environanNtal inonitoring proDrum recults chall be tbported mrothly by the f,'orthcrr. Statec Powar Compnny to the A ency. All i D 4.' monitoring proDrom results chol'1 also be avoilable for inspection by the Agencg at thu plant cite nt ony time. l 13. The fjorthern Stateo Power Co.rpony chall cooperato to the full I extent nccerccry with the NPCA untl with the Minnocotn State Doord of Hecith (MSCH) for purposes of development by thuna n0cncico of r.n erit >quate cod effective emargency protection plan dcoigned to immedintely control and j - ninimixa the offccts of any occidental relenna of unexpectedly large.qucnitici 3 j .cf radior.ctivity from the Montical.in nuclear generating plent.. In particular: i 'the Northern Stateo Pouar Compeny shell imm:dintcly notify both the MPCA cnd the MSDH of any uncontrolled rulesce of unexpectedly large qucntition of rndicac tivitti to the offsite air'and/or voter environment dua to operaticnni f ailure of tny of the pcuer plant sijntems. Also,'the Northern Staten Power Company shkil cooperate in thin rcgnrd to the full extent outlined in the I'PCA Final Report on Radiooctive Pollution Control in Minnesota (ccc pp. 90-- 97), end in any other inanner requeolod by the MSDH.- lle. The "Speciel Conditiona Relating to Radiocchivo Uantes" port of thi: 'perciit is limited tn the first year of operation of the Montico? 10 nucicae guncrating plant. During this period that port of tha parmit any ba mcGified-i by the Agency in any manner and to rny extent docmed necesacry by the Agancy.. f j A new parait rei ntive to radioactiva unstna, modified and changed to thu cx- ~ tent deem:.d nucausary by the Agency, rnd based upon tha resuMn of the firnt year of poner plant operation, uill bn incued by -the Agency for tha cent.nd 4 yact of opan tion. 1 .1 5. It in emphacized that public and environmental rndiation probactlan j { prnctice in baced upon a concept of very lonC term protectSon, rather than / only $ra.cd5ut.c or ncmanicry protect.ien. Tha generally n.;cepted I.C.R.P. T i r? ' cro ducignad to rostrict radiation e::pocura, on n. cont 3nuova hanj o end ova.' i a lifetima, to 10Velu that Hill. not produca dotectehle or significent nonet' - or genut5n hcrm. The ennua) averngc release rate l$mitu coninired in thia } Parmit alco rafar to continuous lifetina radiation exposure, rathat thcn to moment ary levalc.' and an-cLnaiderabl y mora ntringent then ceu.id be pe:. .a t n : according to thu ).R.C,P. renom:,M.mL+sionn.. Hanca, the slight trvnsitoru i (C.G., deily) vbriatiens around thvan limits that are to ba nar.nc1)y expnetrJ chou)d not rauali in avarcipanun to radintion ref any um.bar cf tha public, and cht,uld thrufore not be v1 wad es cauue for gract elcra c:t fer hesty unc unretaanal totien, i 1 i r s i x aahn P.-E.cdalich, W: D:ecut;'.ve Cecratory cnd Chh? Exccutive A Of ficar r., ,,~. Pe rm it f.'a. 5533 I t i s 1 Dated Mut 12. 1959 4 i, 1 1 ~ 3 ,I 4 g

m... I STATDeff 0F E. C. TSIVOGLOU April 8, 1969 i i l The main purpose of g statement today is to review with you the Permit that has been reco'nended for the first year of c.peration of the Monticello nuclear generating plant by the Northern States Power Company. First, I will l i briefly outline the premises upon which the Pennit is based. I will then discuss the main features of the Pennit in terms of the safeguards that have ) been built into it. l [4 l 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' characterized som of the recent public statements regarding radioactivity and the Monticello plant. I hope that decisions regarding this new facility can be based upon rational consideration of real facts, and not upon unfounded l speculations, emc;tions or politics. TrE PREMISE 3 The-pennit that has been reconarnded for the first year of operation of the Monticello facility is designed on the basis of tt:0 major premises. They i are as follows: (1) Tne radioactivity lidts that have been recorr: ended by the International Comission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) l; represent the best available infonntion in the war:d today regarding the bzards of radiation exposure and tha dwee of protection that nust be provided, j (2) All radiation exuosure must be acrN1y minimized to the full extent that is both technolo6 cally feasible and 1 econo:rdcally reacenable. Tnis ceans that 5 no case can the limits recorrmanded by the (ICRP) be exceeded, but in addition, the actual level of radiation exposu"e should be kept as far below those limits as is achievable in a practical sense. f a 1 .1)A10 /MMo5- .i ~

-i l l In regard to the first premise, the radiation protection limits reconmnded by the ICRP are accepted by responsible public health and j pollution control agencies throughout the world. 'Ihey form the basis for 4 [ virtually all other radiation protection standards, such as those provided by our National Comdttee on Radiation Protection (NCRP) and those enforced { by the U. S. Atomic Energy Conmission (AEC). The limits recomended by the l ICRP have been designed to restrict radiation exposure on a continuous basis and over a whole lifetime to levels that will not produce detectable 4 or significant bodily or genetic ham. } Regarding the second premise, which I refer to as the Principle of Minima Exposure, a)) responsible agencies also agree that human radiation i l exposure should be minimized. Even exposure at the low levels recone nded as limits by the ICRP is taken to be harmful in principle, although this has not been demonstrated as fact, and so it is comonly agreed that actual exposure should be kept below thoce limits to the full extent possible in a [ practical sence. As I describe the requjrecents of the permit for the first year of operatjon of the Monticello facility, end the safeguards that have been included, I think it will become quite evid?nt that a very high degrae of radiation pmtection vill be provided. Tne polcit that has been reco= ended does not provide for absolute zero radioactivity release, as that goal is not receded as practical at this tir.ne. The Permit does provide i t i for a higher dw"ee of crotection than has yet been required at any craveial i l nuclear power plant in the United States. It is worthy of tention alsa that I ( no public agency, state, federal or international, haa felt that absolute zero radioactive pollution is either a practical or a necessary goal. l These3 then,_ are the premises upon which the recomended Pemit is based: that the radiation protection limits recomended by the ICRP would, by f themselves, provide a high and an adequate degree of protection of the public and its enviroment; that actus.1 radioactivity releases from the Monticello I, nuclear power plant should be kept as far below those limits as possible; and that a goal of absolute. zero radioactivity release from the plant is neither practical nor necessary at this time, i t I t = t

4 3-THE PIR11T AND TiiE SAFEGUM1DS The Permit that has been recommended for the Monticello nuclear generating stations sets limits on radioactive waste releases that are much more stringent than the limits that are presently enforced or planned at - any other concercial nuclear power plant in the United States. In keeping with the Agency policy of clifrdnating radioactive pollution of the environment to the full extent possible, the Permit also requires certain waste treatment and control measu"es that are new to the nuclear power industry, but those are included to provide additional assurance of 9 envirormntal safety. In addition to these features, the Pemit requires the operation of comprehensive effluent and envirortnental monitoring programs j that are fully capable of detecting any failure to comply with the specified radioactive releane lindts, both liquid and gaseous. s Quite frankly, if the Peratit is adcpted as recon = ended, I expect the i environmntal trmitoring program to do".enctrate clearly that the' ra:iloactive waste releases frcm th? Monticello plant are to low as to be e.<tremely i 3 difficult if not igoscible to detect in the nearby envi"o:nent. To be toh'e specific, and to etick to facts, let us censider come of the nturour cafegiarda that are containad in the Pemit. Tney include: 1. The liquid and ca.seous radioactive waste release litJta l specified by the Pe"mit would restrict such releases to r.o more than two or LPree percent of the an nunts that can be releaced according to the current ICRP or Ef" requirem nts. Tne Ferr'it specifies effluent limits, rather than more cocmonly used environmental limits, for the specific purpose of-providing for I closer control of the radioactivity releases. 'lhe limits that are specified are thus much more strin;cnt than those in effect 3 I at other comercial nuclear power plants. Enforcement of the i requiremnts of the Permit means that tha ' actual radicact,1vity c. 7 ( releases will in most cases be ucll belov. the two or threc percent' mentioned above. 4 4 h

i 3 1 .s 4 s 1 2. The Pemit that has been reconmended specifies limits on 6 individual radioisotopes, as well as on gross radioactivity releases. This is an unusual precaution at connercial nuclear power plants, and provides additional protection against error or unsafe procedurcs. 3 A thorough liquid and gaseous effluent tronitoring program 1 t is required by the Pemit. - This monitoring program is quite capable, by itself, of pronptly detecting any devlation from h the limits specified by the Permit. It is a considerably more thorough effluent ronitoring program than is practiced at 4 other cc=ercial nuclear power reactors. i 4 A quite extensive and thorough monitoring pros; ram for i environmental radioactivity is 2100 required by the Pen dt. 4 It u111 rcquire cc:rprehensive tordtoring and surveillance of all phssca of the air an'i water cavironment that might be l affected by the Monticello plant. The e'nvironmental monitoring program will be capable, by itself, of detecting-4 j any significant deviaticn fro:r the radioactivity release limits j specified by the Pe=lt. It vill be considembly r: ore ccpre-hensive and thorough than envircrcental monitoring programs required in the vicinity of othcr comere tal nuclear power plants. 5 The recom: ended Pemit requires that all liquid waste releasec be treated and mnitorei on a batch basis, rather than t as a continuous flow. Tnis provides a ve:7; positive system of control, so that any bstch of liquid wacte that contains-nore t.han the allowod amount of radioactivity can and will be with-held from the Mississippi River for further treatment. This practice is co=.anly required at nuclear power plants. Unat is i not so comon elsewhere is the Permit requirement that a J

essentially all liquid wastes, even those from building-floor drains, be routinely. subjected to a high degree of treatment by' 4

l-h' I 4 e m y r,. ~ y --y. r .,,,.rv 'r'*w'a-- w w yv '-wr -vr-rvvi'"--*'=-Tr*eM +

a _5_ relatively costly ion exchange methods. With proper handling and treatrent' of liquid wastes, there will be no significant radioactivity in the liquid effluents from the plant. Never-theless, the ror'.toring programs specified by the Pennit will i require that every effort be made to evaluate the radioactivity that is released, to insure this result. 6. '1he Pennit under _ consideration also requires the installa-tion of a highly efficient treatment treasure for the removal i of radiciodine from the gaseous waste stream. Radiciodine is i one of the rest hazardous radioisotopes that can be given off by nuclear power reactors, as it very.soon finds its way into the milk produced by dairy cattle. Even though very little radiciodine would be expected from the Monticello plant dur$ng nonral operation, the new treatmcnt r:easure -is required by the Pen.it to provide positive assurtcce of safety from this radioisotopo. Essentially none s::ald escape via the plant stack. The required treatrent measu"e for positive removal of radiciodine represents another 'first' for Finnesota, I believe - this :reasure has not been required as yet at other cornnercial nuclear power p1&nts. 7. The rain source of radioactivity frox any such reactor is uranium fuel elements that develop tiny leaks, and thereby 4 pernit fission products to leak out into the pritary coolirc system. The Pemit also requires the I;;rthern States Power Corrpany to r:nke every feasible positive effort to stop arv radioactive waste releases at their cource - namely in the reactor itself. Even though great efforts are made in manu- - facture to do so, it is extrerrely difficult to present such leaks in en absolute sense - for examle, the Monticello rea @ r will contain 23,716 individuel fuel rods,'and it is unlikely that none will* develop pinhole leaks. The Penait I 1 1 o y N e ..m.

.6 will mquire the plant operator to develop a positive program for finding any leaky fuel elerrents or fuel assemblics, so that they can be selectively renoved from the mactor, either during usual refueling operations, or, should it prove neceanar/, as a special operation. This'is another measum that has not been required be:* ore i at contrarcial nuclear powar plants. It any not prove an easy burden to assure, but the Pennit requires the conpany to deronstrate that it is making every effort to do so. It is enphasized that the successful developrnent and conduct of an effective program for finding and relectively renoving leaky fuel elenents or fuel ansemblies would introduce a new and higher level of control over radioactive wastea from reactors. It uauld constitute a substantial practic51 step forward in terra of rea11y tr.ininizing radioactive pollutien of the environ:ront. 8. One other very inportant safeguard, Ohich see u to be either ur.reco;nited or consistently ignored by som others, deserves erphasic. This safeguard automatically provides for anple tir.e in which to take corrective actions, should they becom necascary. I The lirdts on radiation exposure that have been recom-mnded by the ICRP refer quite specifically to continuous exposure over a lifetire. They are deejdedly not momentary or instantaneous 13mits. The ICRP-reconme:ded limit for i tritium, for exa"ple, refers to the annunt of tritium that can be ingested every day, over a lifetime, without producing-detectabic or significant harm. The irportant point is that it is the cumuletive radia-tion exposure over a lifetime that is being regulated, not just the mecentary exposure. The risk of ham due to 4-g 4 5 ,-i ..,, - ~.. _.,, - c..,.. ,_.,.,,_.,,_,,,,.,,y g

j 1 7-I exposure at the ICRP limit for a period of one year, instead of lifetire, is propertionately smaller than the rick of i exposure at the sane 3evel over a lifetime, which is aircady a j taken to be negligible. 'Ihe limits that ara contained in j i the Permit also refer to continuous lifetime exposum. As they are considerably more restrictive than the ICRP recom-j mendations, the ascociated risk of harm is that much smaller i { again. As a result, the very inportant safeguard of available i tire in which corrective actions can be taken, if they are 4 l .]. ever needed, ic definitely present. i Sut41GY i a j To numsrize the mal facta, the radioactivity re3 ease limits that have l been reco!xended for the first year of operation of the Mont$ cello nuclear 4 i powr plant will restrict cuch releases to quite mall fraction of the 4 l-rolesses that could be permitttd accordin; to currently accepted worldwide i practice. A number of new and positive protective wicte treatmmt and 1 control neasurec are required by the Permit. A sycten of safeguards and ) checPs, one superinposed upon mother, is incorporated in the Pennit, to the cxtent that the rick of han dm to radioact5ve rc;eaces from the plant is l l clearly negligible in tema of commrison to all currently accepted rntional l an:i international radiation erotection standards. Teken collectively, the I i Penalt requirements are n.uch rnre rentrictive as repuding envirorr. ental i I radiation protection than any that have boon placed upon any other comercial 5 i power resctor thus far. l There are come who insist that no radioactivity at all should be 4 1 releaced from nuclear planta - that absolute zero re3eace du the only I acceptable answer. I can agree zero pollution of.our envirorn.cnt 10 an ideal that we should always seek as a ratter of principle ard no matter what kind of pollution is involved. I cannot agree that absolute zero radio-activity relonse is a reasongble or necessary Pennit requirement at this time. I would point out, howcVer, that this Polmit comes a good deal' closer to i

... -...... - - --- -. _. -... ~. 8-I 25<iuir.'ng zero release of radioactivity than trony people seem to rea?ize - in point of fact, if we treasure this in terms of the limits that alt currently regarded as safe throughout the world, we have come roIT than 98 percent of the way toward zero. I P a 'I . i ei i i n 1 - T I 1 i-r v.2,-ut-, ,s e-- -t s,-s er --w,--ee,r~ -r---z- - >- -e,--,,,e+.rm.wm ,ame r n.

---

r=<e

+ + - -, - t='-r-s--*

- _ _. _ _.. - -~ ,8 \\. a g.oo e,; UNITED ST ATES f>f. M ')) ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION e \\~e 1 WASHINGT ON. D C. 2054$ '~ I y e '/ June 27,1969 %n Honorable Harold LeVander Governor of Minnesota St. Paul, Minnesota 55101

Dear Governor IcVander:

I have received your letter of June 13 expressinc your continuing concern regardirc AEC's and the State of Mirr.esota's jurisdiction over the control of radicactivity releases in effluents from the Norther.; t States Power Cc g any's Monticello nuclear generating fac331ty. I appreciate and sin.re your desire to provide for the safety of the citizens of Minnesota. We recornize and support the interests of the states in the radiological pmtection field. For a rndaer of years 1:0 have supp:rted a cooperative prog a purcu9nt to st?tien 274 of the Ate::.ic herr Act whereby a portion of the D@a regulatory authcrity over nu:lar raterja]s - for exarplc, radiolsctopt.: - han been relinquishad to the states. Congress, bcalever, did not rrovid-fer the relinauishmnt to the statec of the Cor.13sion's rnerorribil!:y under the Act for the 31 censing and regu2a-tion of nuclear poxer reactors. The cstablishment of thic authority within the AEC urs in re:3cnttion of the veri ecr;Oex, $nterrelated technical safety c:nt'dcrations that are involved in the dricn, construction and operation of nuclear power plants End the fact that these plants haw tha potential to release radicactive raterial that could affect areas ouniw the state in which they are Jo:ated. Dtn1 regulation.m cne of the evils that the Cong" esc rpecifjcally cought to avoid, ed sar :2:..;d in avoiding, in enacti.g secticn 274 of 1 the Atomic Enerr;' A%. '; N feel that it is in the ir.terest of public !sith and safety tht ti cre be consistent ard unifom sthndards in this area. In fact, cmflicting design and operating requirercnts in this hichly comle tren micht well detract from the puMic ho11th end safety. i Apart from the legal quection, and the difficulties and confusion which can be expected fra dual regulation, one of the rajor problems we have with the actien taken by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is its imcsition of special requirements that might have an adverse inpact on phnt deaign and operational procedures. For example, j special restrictions 'clating to fuel leak detection, depending on how they are adminictcred, uo' entially could invo2ve design and equipm2nt changes and require frequent changes in operatin3 conditions, including shutdowns and startups of the reactor that night not be justified by the circumstances. Such restrictions, in our belief, do not provide \\ l l .Al // 960945' (- p1f l

i i s 1 J lionorabic !!arold LeVander, 'any additional protection of the public health and safety and indeed might, under certain circumstances, impair the safety of the facility. o 1 i In view of the conplex and technical nature of establishing and exercising radiological health and safety controls over nuclear facilities, we feel that ful'. discussion of the natter might be helpful. I would be pleased to meet with you 1 Washington or, alternatively or in addition, to have several of our senior technical staff meet with you in Klnnesota g to discuss the natter. Such a meeting obviously will not resolve the legal question involved, but I feel that it might be helpful $n allaying ] your concern regarding the standaix]s and the controls which the AEC would place on this reactor for the protection of the public health and safety, .t. i. Perhnpa at the sc re tire we could discoun the possibility of the State of Kinnecota ente. ring into an agrcerent wlth the Atomic Energy Conrrdraton under secLjon 27h of the Ato:rde Encrc* Act to assum regulatory authority I over certain nuclesr materials. On? of the tangible benefitn of this prop - be.; been the general upscading of the states' radiolcylesl prottet.$cn nativities in areas that are not within the regulatory juric-diction of the A10, and which have been traditjanally regulated by the states - for exrple, control of x-ray rnchir.es ed fluoroscopcs. Ilitetcen states have thus far entered this cooperative progm, and I Sm hoperal that un ru ht be able to resolve any obstacles or prob] ens you c might have with regard to Minnesota's entering into such an acreer.cnt. i Cc M ially, 2 i t J s.' Glenn T. Seaborg i { ' hair.3 n W ? d k m.,,f ) V' \\ >r 3

---

y,

,,__y w. .__,4..___

=- ...(. ' ._.V__ ) v 1 l e d

ey 3,1969 i

I Honorable F.obert C. Svesen, Ch.irman j ydnnesota Pollution Control A&n07 c/o 146 '.'.'est Clard Albert Lea, Fdnnesota 56007 Dear V.r. TaVeson* It has recently come to the attention c ' she J0 int Cc.~.ittee on Atcrac Energy that the Minnesota Pollutien Control Agency h.s under j consideration a proposal to include in any '.:aste dispcsal.cr.-it it may issue for the 7.Onticello :.uclear Generating Plant of L'Orthtrn .c' at es P. *.^~ ". Co. co..dd

• i~..s o. '.ir.m' " a+v.4 c.a.s "e'.a* '.*.o~' o *. ad_d m' ". o waste discharges from the plant, both gaseous and liquid.

"^nese 3 i limitaticns, I understand, are considerably differen; from those W... n' *h.. ".,. e n' '.c.. ' "... ~. w-" C.... ' s"ncn v. u'xd.'.,v~u - ~ - *..a 4 a y nt o..

• c =.~..~. of

1. 'm". c. ~. n - *n.. ~..e gro'..%a,~ c' '..e". e'm".~. ',

^ ~..~ '. d c - ~ ~ -c. ~ - * ~ v. be in Eddition to limit.tions en conventional wastes, ine"uding waste heat, w'c.tch state water pol'.ution control agencies traditionally i Co ,,a.. . 4 9. v . +4 yga y ugg3 c. .s n.o..s.n..sa-, wo a ...., e. a. e e e . g u s.. wy. a 4 v, a.....s.o n.arpest. o. ty 3 y .. ~. e ~. ,A v.,% w v..eSy. e c.. o w....s.p,- oa. 1 6o 3.c. n n~ s v.o. 9.~, i.~a

• c.e..

.+e arvm a u ..vs . v vy

n.., y.v.. : c c,.1o....,

n..e..w..n..s..........1 ~. i ^ von..wo1 ne~.. ~ /.,~ s..d

- ~.,. s v ..s be attemptin:; to t..rcice con rol in an a"ec that has been specifically y A a c"..1". 9e. ...e..be. o ' *. ~ .,a...p".,ed ',u -v ' "..e

r.,. ~.. '. G vve"..~..~~..t.

a e. 4+ a cm i c.e n.. u.~s, S C. +r.e.9.A v. w/. n.Aa m.s 3

1. .. ~., c.

nw a - ~ .e vo4 t vo...m1 .s, c., c. ? v.. c. ..~ ao I or. q p s,,. /. r~ v, uc u.w.s .c o,,.4 "4.. 1

c.. v-. 4. -

4m u .c

u. a.c+ r-wn

,..;ba n.. w .u. c v... Co,4o.ec ..w-3 6 w.. ycu that it was the intent of Congress that this irporten'.9 L"es .w cm n.w.. v. tw. 4.,. o .e..a. .s., s

e. w..o. L, d be s v~,,, c an a..,.

w.s..~nc.t.< o.r.a 1 c.o,m,. m.... v, a .. ~. u individual' att.tes. ~Jnis a tica was not tt':cn sir. ply out of a desire n.,..c-in., v..u, a ~.v 4.,/ct.4a,.e,. . v :. ion, l4,h-,..w + h4 e -+

u. 1,..c

4..,,

s .c-w a u c... w o... y v. '+. 1 = a*m*

• on a...s " c *. n. o" *,, c '. ". c~ o -..., o.n o #

.c ^ t s.,- i.n '. e "m= m... y o c. ~. vu... se J.vni s de.e.1 th f.,

h. c. ~J3 wa.,

O..au.4.c. #. v'v... 4 9 1 s 4 ^a m v.... ~. t'ns. n oo _.,4 m

h. ~n....

,p 44 o . ~ ~. .a. e o.c w,44olo cJ..., e.. 4 c.... m.c.er s. u r,_, .~ g % e. 4.e'. wn., e w y 6 w,...- a .m i,aa, t. ly tr.s, y,,, .~. y ~ t. ... k, ,. e.m. m %o1 &. b. ~n.w + e.O, +b.._., .e m. y s..e,+d s. ,4 4 a,. a,e + m r 6 es a m c al c.c.c p.e..eo c... =i e w e .. ~ ret.senably could be exp ::ted to have or acquire. I am enclosirc; for .m,.,,.e.... f e L./na'4n J ma, t e 4 em p. cp.t w. n. e' i ws w,r .m.,f

• ) C. i,s. '. c.e n

- a. ) e 1e..Oow.., *.* n,.. 3 c......./. w.,3 u~tw vu i d. 4 le..m...-.n.- c.eg e.. gu. d g'wgi l A... i c a-M e # w" &.d ^g.e. 4.. i 3 g A v m w. ~ j A # c,.s.t e g gy.o o. w o.w+ ~...r..,., .,. s s -. m... 4c...y, a.

• w:

....g k. .N.........m . > - *,. r c .e. :.. es.., . L ~:,,4.. .e ~ ...s .c 3..w. :.... <...,..,... g. m....a w,, 4 2 .a m

e. - m

.t . s s~ .., o .o s.u... , e. r.r..,4. n..a, ,. e. ~.. .+ 2 . %...,, s _. o e s w ~.o o - 1 effects of the 7:"ious teorde energy "aterials is vested exclusively in the Atomic Energy C:-dssion, vis-a-vis the states, except where the Com-'.ission has undertaken to rel: nquish certain of this authority to qualified states pu"suant to provisions of the Atomic Eneri;y Act. T 4 9h c vv., s r' h - s,.) u ... _, ~ ~,

' ( '1y 1 s y. v I fully reco;;nize ywr Ocncern for the health a.d safety of the ) ) . m..,a. .. e s,/ e. n. vm +.u,,o.e n 4..

4...~.. m.n..~

-o +.u-ov r w ..n. g.sp1.e wne v.e cco, ~ a .m,. M associated with the use of aterde ener, y ratoria.c. Ccncress.alco j n o w 4.,. r.e., / n s o.. o.e., by, .e n.o.,.e.wctln u.,,m,..a.w..r .s..n. e, m ot 4 t,d.-he.. o a... y y .c ~... <. w. sw v c;,4.t,e p,.,o ,. 4c..,.o e r e3 re s. e,a c. a e e,. o,o u../ e o. v. w. w oa.. w., a, sw.. ..y. os.. w... Co. .4 d.4cn.. m.. o, .., by.c..w>.u., .c,, +.4 .x-u a .s. .w ..,.au orp%. a...%n.e , ca, a e-the AEC " afford reasonable opportunity for State reprecentative: to o ce

e.,%. ~ e, 4 a. e,.,,.,o a ve

,.u,, t,s. s., ~.~ s./.sc ts..e C.... w.4~ a 4 e a.a s ..u aa.- u .wa a .u e .. 3 n e e. > a.. 4.. 9 i a.

v. p ~~., o... r, 3 0

e..

.o we c,.yp1.4 cm~ 4.ea-....n n w.. wo almost every /.EC proceedin', to date inv,1 vin; . Icplicaticn for a i i i y ~....4t *wo c-.e*w""~, a u""~. e u'.". ~. ^.. " p '..~.. ".. e.. *

• S*.".e
• h. a", e av~$d1ed a

~ .a r ther.selves of this opp 0rtu.ity to 07. press their viewa en those ratters 8 l within the cogniz;nce of the C =.icsion. /$ s*

• n c + A.

Qe.y ,,*4.> >Jn u s.. e t}. a-. w 1 4 A..,..' u % e 4 p.+ e.v,c. ~. e.4 An r -e. 4 ....w .u v v ow s. o, p. .n.u, ~f..c ,qng1 4 k.~^ co**.Ve.* # eo'- *.. ' '.. " o' '. o e e.- c3 r..v .u..,y s .~ .a n v.u ..... w w

• r4.. g.c a 3

ca. so k. 1e

n. w u

m..

T. 4.= 9 4 o.+ e . S a. o#.,.n,k3. ~ a. . h 4..w. at

u. d. e 4.

~.. ~. a s. ..an; u..s, cJ.3 vvue oaa.4S ~.. ..wo, s vo. cy:. g...v /. w,...,..- ut. >.ejgu .e. e r. w s m.., - l - Cal, 4 .s ,..w o S.,OCess,,., o estaD14.go,. o..... y.' m... w S v. A. f a.~.m.'e..~:. C...o.rO m.t v ..o u e c a ov 1 c.. .t 2

a. g w

.+ e -.ovac o. ..s.t.... 4,, o .....,..e.., . wJe

1. .e e,/.i C O n 3.), et,e.,.

e A.. v.. ca r.. .;a m.3.1

m. s..+. o > 3.

4 c y,.s. r..,,... u%, e, s. v,,

i..e %....t e,

4 va w s... v. w .o ~ o.e 4 ,s v.a..x.c,4.. C., aJ. h ,c.,. o, /..,c. - a r. s.,. s C,,.. 4 ./

6..,,, a., a,., ce

. %S o,. 4. ~vot.,. vs . n. ~ r u a .~... ve..% ),e5y.s.S,. .. t. ...,. 3

j..,,.

wu.,..ee e,.......a.s va g w 4,.g. %,.f. CF, w. Su t, ... ~ ~ ~ w.. .. ~ v u ..o ),c. ...->.n ~,u. 4e..e n.. w..r.v.. u, oun.a. - .a.. w .s ...tz.... v s .c .$7../,.. Ac,. o oLVe c., e... .v v. ow o ..wa v s.4 e.... v v .m v r,,>..t.,. ~. e. .w. wA

v..e of n, co.11es 0,e v p.

~ w y i f I 1c0k forward to hea"ir.;- fran you at your earliest cor.ver.icnce. 4 With wrm personal rap.rds, I 10 4 4 i Cordially yours, 1 4 Chet Holifield a

u..g

~ .I.

m. ~., o -,. c..

j w u,.. -,.... s.- y Le ~n1 Ae.s i .e..n me e e s o, ..,..s. 1969 e i ?. S. I assuv.e that Governor *Ea.. der is aware of EJ.d interested in senu - w4 u, m . s >. o $ an ,.,, So.r .:.w..,. -.+ e 1.4 b e.,,,,. o.o f o u.. ..-s ~.. w c w.. co.oy of this letter. C.H. y t f t 1 e J q ? 1 1 n. ...,.... y

s. (a... ),**. p 4

4 s.4 f r,. ,ey,-w.--.=3 i.,-,r-.- .a-w ev-.r. e c- .ei,v.-ww. ,w-r .m--- e- ..#-u- --e yr---e-e-: -.m ere .--n e-e, e en.w"-- ...-r-w-

e..' ' '

~ ~ . -.-. a -.....

o HOUSE OF REPRESEf 4TATIVES, U.S.

WASHINGTON, D.C. .U... h..........., 1 W 6..k. a i Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg Chairman Atomic Energy Comm. Washington, D. C. 20545 f The attached contuniention is sub.- nitted for your consideration, and to ach that the request madc thoroin be couplied with, if possible. If you rill adviso no of your action in this r:atter End havo the letter returned'to no rith your reply, I will appreciato it. t i Very truly your-( ./ QL 4 11. QUIE !!.C. .UI."."0.s,o t a,,,,,,F i r s t _ _,,,3;,;n.g, l i NM

i N.ih Sy s, i. g 1 /], ) STNPM 0 10 M J N N MHOTA j ors sen or inn am mewn Bio smr.u J.nvoome ST' l' A UId ~~Ibl ouunw. May 12, 1969 4 11onorable Albert Quia House of P.cpresenta:ives Washington, D. C. 20515 1 j Dear Als This is to inform yea of an action taken today by the !!innecota Follution Control Agency vitS respect to the permit for radiological unste emissions sought by Corthern States Pouer Company for its neu Monticello, Minnesota, nuclear generating plant, The regulations cenained in the PCA permit -- which una granted TSP -- arc l considerably nore restrictive than standards naintained by the Atomic Encrgy l Conniis s i ca. 4 The State agency's ctien was taken only af ter mny nonths of study, consul-tation and discusri:n. 'tha Ato:nic Energy Ccmmission'r. radioactivity emission standards ucre revi;ucd clescly. The position of the Secte of Minnesota uith recrect to the Men:icello generating plant, in effect limitc radioactive discharge to about 1/50th the 1cvel alloued by the AEC. i In m:ihing this A:irion, uc are not unmindful of the vast experience of tho l AEC in this field. Ma are, houcver, more cognizant of Minnesotn's fabulous natural resourcen cican air and cican unter. I belicyc that the peopic ~ of Minacsota are r:*_ idly behind our efforts to make Minnesota the acknouledgcd Icadcr in pollutic. centrol. It is for this rec.= :n that I have writ ten to Mr. Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairmnn of the Atomic Enern-Cormd:sion, urging that the AEC refrain frem iscuing any operating perm. for nucicar poucr generation in the State of Minnesota that does not respe:t the stringent regulatioac the. State Po11utica Control 5 Ascncy requires. I am cost hopeful t* nt the AEC will conecdc that regulations nore stringent than those dmandd by the redcral agency can enly result in greater safety to the health and welfarc of the peopic of Minnesota and to the continuad N N execlient conditier. of our natural resources. Hea:ever, in the raeanirac, I respectfully _ request that you use your influence te'see that Congress moves quickly to cicarly define the authority of stetc p.%*;.. o . s" e. 4% 9 .-..,.,.n-- ..>->.e- ,w.y. .n,. ,.,,,,.,,e. ,..ww

l g linnot a'.Cu Alber t Quic May 12,'1969 - Psge 2 d pollution control agencies to set qualifications more stringent than those required by the AEC. It would be tragic for the people of Minnesota to be denied our position of Icadership sinply beenuce of unresolved questions on the relationship betucen the AEC and state regulatory agencies. Your immediate assistance will be greatly appreciated. Sineercly; -f}(%16!.d' i a .-Ilarold LeVander G 0 V I; R H 0 R llL:rh e 9 e 0 e 9. O a - i n}}