ML20128B184
| ML20128B184 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 07/17/1969 |
| From: | Jenny Murray US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Hennessey US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128B176 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9212030587 | |
| Download: ML20128B184 (12) | |
Text
. --..
t i
July 17, 1969
!!OTE TO MR.1:E!!!!ESSEY Re:
HOLIFIELD-SEABORG DRAIT IITTER Attached is a final draft of thic Ictter incorporating core.cnts received earlier this veck from Merrill 1;hitman of 1:r. Shaw's office and from Dr. Beck.
/
.--f.
s
- f..
, James P. Murray
/
At ta ch:r.cnt :
Holificid-Scaborg draft letter cc:
Dr. Beck /
Mr. Shaw e
9212030587 690731 PDR ADOCK 05000263 A
PDR l
DRATT 7 /16/69
Dear Dr. Seaborg:
I write to you to express my concern and dismay over a recent-action taken by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
I refer, of course, to that Agency's assertion of comprehensive regulatory controls over the radiological health and safety aspects of the Northern States Power Company's nuclear generating plant in Monticello, Minnesota. The plant, which is currently under con-struction pursuant to a construction permit issued by the Atomic Energy Commission approximately two years ago, is, as I understand it, expected to be ready for operation sometime this year.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), by means of a
'%'aste Disposal Permit" issued May 12, 1969, has unwarrantedly, and in my judgment illegally, imposed on the Company extensive require-ments relating to the radiological safety of the plant. This action by the MPCA was taken in spite of the fact that the Atomic Energy Commission has the important and exclusive responsibility under Federal law (the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) to control nuclear reactors from the standpoint of radiological health and safety. Moreover, it is my understanding that the Minnesota Attorney General's office provided the MPCA with a Memorandum of Law dated January 31, 1969, which concluded that there is no concurrent state-lederal jurisdiction in this area of regulatory responsibility and authority.
a m 7/I0/09 Finally,-on May 3 of this year, I addressed a letter to Mr. Robert C. Tuveson, the Chairman of the MPCA.
In that letter I noted that the MPCA was considering what was then merely a pro-posal to include in its otherwise legitimate waste disposal permit conditions or limitations relating to radioactive waste discharges from the plant, both gaseous and liquid,- I expressed my very deep concern with the proposal to regulate radiological effluents, since it contemplated that the MPCA would be attempting to exercise control in an area that has been specifically preempted to the Federal' Govern-ment. My letter set forth my personal assurances, as a charter member of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy and'the llouse-Military Affairs Committee which drafted the very first Atomic Energy Act over two decades ago, that it was theintention of the Congress to vest responsi-bility for radiological effects of reactors exclusively in the Federal Government.
In this connection I noted.that this deliberate action was not taken solely in order =that the_ regulations would be uniform, although this was a' factor.
In large measure the action was taken because of the AEC's and the Federal Radiation Council's vastly greater-expertise respecting the potential hazards'of radiological effects, and the control thereof, than any single state reasonably could be expected to have or. acquire.
My letter to Mr._ Tuveson enclosed a detailed memorandum of law prepared by the ?cint Committee's staff which makes clear beyond doubt the validity of.the legal conclusion concerning the exclusive juris-
t DRAPI 7 /*6/69 diction of the AEC. My letter closed with an expression of interest on ey part in discussing the entire matter with Mr. Tuveson and, in particular, learning why the MPCA might feel it necessary to set up standards even more restrictive than the AEC. To my dismay, the MPCA not only went ahead with the proposal in the face of these facts, but Mr. Tuveson did not even reply to my offer to discuss the situation.
As you know, the MPCA " permit" in question is nine pages long, more than half of which are devoted to "Special Conditions Relating to Radioactive Waste." Governor LeVander himself has referred to the
" stringent regulations the State Pollution Control Agency requires."
And that is an understatement.
For example, notwithstanding the fact, which the key consultant to the MPCA has explicitly recognized, that the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiation Protection represent the best available information in the world today regarding the hazards of radiation exposure and the degree of protection that must be provided, the MPCA permit contains limits very much lower than those approved by the ICRP.
In some cases the limits are as low as one billionth of the ICRP values.
Another example of unnecessary over-regulation can be found in Section 2(c) of the Special Conditions, which provides, in part, for
"... initial thorough inspection of fuel rods to identify those that might develop fission product leaks, and rejection of such rods for use in the reactor..."
DRAPI 7/16/69 Under the Atomic Energy Commission's regulations, reactor fuel elements are required to be designed to function throughout their lifetime without exceeding acceptable fuel damage limits which have been specified and ustified in the reactor license application..The AEC also requires rigid quality assurance programs, test procedures and inspection criteria to be used in the fabrication of fuel elements.
I understand that the AEC has established limits on and procedures for coping with the problem if fuel elements should develop leaks in un-acceptable amounts.
The Commission', requirements, which experience has shown to be technically and economically feasible, have been demonstrated in practice to result in the limiting of radioactive releases to the environment to levels far below the established upper limits.
In fact, as you know, actual experience has shown that normally releases are a very small percent of the maximum permissible under AEC's regulations.
I do not know whether the company co;1d comply with some of the more extreme provisions of the MpCA permit even if it should try to do so.
I doubt it.
In any event, it seems somewhat ironical that in the enforcement area the MPCA vill probably have to rely on the AEC for the necessary professional expertise to 1 carn whether the Company is in compliance with the harsh conditions imposed by the MPCA.
It is not desirable for the States to enact different nr more exacting controls over radioactive discharges than those the AEC may apply. One of the main reasons why Congress reserved the control of the radiation hazards from reactors to the AEC was because the techni-D cal safety considerations are of such compicxity that it was unlikely i
4 4
DRAPT 7/16/69 l
that any state would be prepared to deal with them for the foresee-abic future.
It was recognized that the AEC had much greater expertise 4
in the radiological safety area than any state could reasonably be expected to have or obtaint moreover, it is highly doubtful that dual regulation - by the States and the AEC - of the same activity contrib-utes to the public health and safety.
In fact, conflicting require-
,i ments on the reactor operator in this highly complex area might sery i
well detract from the public health and safety.
l The concerns and actions of the MPCA might be more understandable if the safety record of the nuclear power industry were something less than the outstanding one it is.
That record, as you know Mr. Chairman, reveals some 90 reactor years of operating experience without exposure of any member of the public to harmful quantities of radiation.
I feel this safety record is directly attributable to a high degree of safety consciousness on the part of the industry, the AEC and the i
Joint Committee.
It has been this very safety consciousness on the part of all concerned which has produced the safety philosophy of comprehensive controls before unfortunate accident experience - rather then af terward - which so uniquely characterizes the nuclear reactor 4
industry.
It could be asserted that the only thing the Northern States Power Company needs to do in order to comply with the unnecessary and unreasonable requirements of the MPCA permit is spend a few more millions of dollars which can then be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher rates for. electricity.
(
DRAPI 7/16/69 Such an assertion, however, completely fails to recognize that the few unnecessary additional millions could render nuclear plants unable to compcto economically with other types of generating plants which are not subjected to similar unnecessary requirements. The ultimate result, of course, would be to tip the scales heavily.in favor of fossil fuel sources which do in fact produce adverse environ-mental effects.
Mr. Chaireen, according to a National Academy of Sciences report on vaste management and control, the generation of electricity contrib-utes 12.5% of the total atmospheric pollutants.
Hawever, power plants
. contribute a highly significant quantity of three of the individual pollutants - 46% of the sulfur oxides, 25% of the particulates and 23%
of the nitrogen oxides.
I understand that small quantities of uranium and thorium are associated with fossil fuel, and that the release of these naturally occurrin; radioactive materials and their daughter products to the environment also occurs in the case of fossil fueled plants.
I am told that most of the released radioactivity from fossil fueled plants can 226 228 be attributed to Radium and Radium
, which is associated with the particulate emission of the fossil fueled power plant. These isotopes are not present in nuclear plant effluents. The behavior and hazard to man of this radioactivity source apparently is not cicarly under-stood.
However, in any case the radiation doses resulting from such releases are considered to be inconsequential.
In order to effectively deal with the problems of pollution from
_=
1 DRAFT 7/16/69 future power plants, several alternatives are available. The gradual 1
shift from fossil to nuclear power plants will surely help reduce the chemical pollutants discharged to the environment since nuclear plants do not discharg auch matesials. The significant pollutants i
that are discharged from nuclear plants are, as you know, primarily 1
l radioactive noble gases. The magnitude of this radiation source must J
be placed in proper perspective with regard to the natural radiation I
environment in which we live and its inherent variation from place to place throughout the 11nited States.
In considering the release of radioactivity from nuclear power plants, it should be remembered that the environment was "contar.inated" with radioactivity long before man, much less nuclear energy, came on the scene. In fact, penetrating radiation is as much a part of man's environment as is air, water, or sunlight. Furthermore, like climate, the natural radiation level varies from tine to time and from place to i
place, depending on weather, temperature, altitude, and other factors, t
In sea-1cvel regions, the exposure to people from cosmic rays and i
l naturally-occurring radionuclides varies according to actual tests I
that have been made from 70-150 mr/yr, with an average of about 100 mr/yr.
In Denver, because of the higher altitude, it is about 170 mr/yr and in some areas of India and Brazil, radiation levels range higher than 1000 mr/yr due to radioactivity in the soil. An individual who works and
{
lives inside a brick or stone structure may be exposed to as much as l
i
!)
DRAPI 7 /16/69 twice the amount of radiation as one who lives in a frame house and works outdoors. There is naturally-occurring radioactfvity in the I
food we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breathe, and this.
all contributes to 100 mr or so per year which an individual living i
in the Washington area receives from natural sources.
The significance of the radioactivity introduced into the environment by nuclear power plants should be viewed against this background. On the basis of actual. field measurements taken in the vicinity of presently operating nuclear power plants, it is-estimated that radiation levels due to gaseous releases at a distance of five miles from the reactor are less than 4 mr/yr, and 2 mr/yr at 10 miles.
These Icvels are well within the normally occurring variations in-natural background radiation discussed above, Increases in environ-mental background radiation level as_a result of activity releases from nuclear power plants to water courses are even less significant.
Critics of nuclear power express concern over the undetermined effect that an additional 10 or 4 or 2 mr/yr will have on the population. The reason the effect is not known is not because of lack of study or con'cern, but because trying to find the effect of an increase of a few mr/yr against a natural background of-a hundred or more ar/yr is like trying to listen to the tick of a wristwatch when standing near the exhaust of a jet engine._ It will take many years of intense study of large population groups by biologists and I
7- -
DRAFI 7/16/69 geneticists to establish whether there are any effects from living in Denver and receiving 70 mr/yr more than would be received living at a sea level location. Even when this information is available,-
little can be said about exposures which are a factor of 10 lower, except that the effects, if any, vill be far less.
Mr. Chairman, it is my view that the goal of abundant, reliable, economic power, on the one hand, and the need for a clean and healthy environment in which to live, on the other hand, require a careful balancing in the overall public interest. Unnecessary economic burdens imposed out of a misguided - however well-intentioned - con =
cern for the environment, would in fact be contrary to the public interest in a reliable economic electrical supply. We cannot continue to degrade our environment.
Ibwever, neither can we afford to deny our follow citizens the benefits of scientific progress unnecessarily.
~
Careful, informed administration in the public interest can harmonize these goals.
I believe the action of the MPCA suggests that the AEC and the Joint Committee have perhaps been somewhat remiss in not bringing home to the American people in a more forceful way not only the advantages of nuclear power, but also the adverse environmental effects of fossil fueled plants. Uc have been too reticent, I think, in not making really cicar how much " cleaner" nuclear power really is. Hr. Chairman,.
I believe the time may have come for us to stop " turning the other I
J DRAFT 7/16/69 check" to the coal lobby and others whose interests are served by engaging in a fear campaign against nuclcar power.
Perhaps the utilities themselves ought to be faulted for failing to inform their customers adequately of the advantages of nuclear i
power. The passivity of the utilities, however, is certainly under-standable, if not excused, in view of their need to live in the communities they serve, and the fact that there will continue to be requirements for conventional plants. I can understand that for them to point out the disadvantages of conventional plants might well seem to them like cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
For its part, the Joint committee on Atomic Energy is going to take steps to remedy the apparent " advantages gap" of nuclear power.
We will embark on detailed hearings into environmental effects generally, as a means of setting the record clear.
+
The Congress has gone as far as it can to make it perfectly cicar that nuclect reactors are to be subject to uniform Federal regulation.
We sought to avoid - in the interests of the public health and safety -
dual and possibly conflicting regulation by the states and the AEC.
The action of the MPCA conflicts with this aim. For this reason it appears that the only solution is a contest in the courts to establish judicdally the illegality of the radiation control requirements in the MPCA permit.
If and when such a contest develops, I urge that the AEC support the Company in all appropriate steps to carry out effectively l
f
s i
l
{
o l
t i
l DRAFI 7/16/69 I
a the intent of the Congress that the authority to regulate nuclear i
l:.
power plants from the standpoint of radiological health and safety should be exercised by the AEC and not by the individual states.
1 j
Sincerely yours, 1
i i
i Chairman llolifield 4
l 4
1 4i 1
a l
1 4
I i
1 i
I 5
1 I
E 4
?
\\
i i
g t
1 a
8 e
3 1
e
.k.
Y i
.l5 3.
,,L r.
,r..,,
,1,n. ~, -.
,,,na,..,
.,--n--,.-w,-,----~r