ML20127H566

Requests Comments on Questions Raised in Encl Constituent R Hatling Ltr W/Respect to Proposed Nuclear Power Plant in Monticello,Mn

ML20127H566
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	04/08/1969
From:	Mccarthy E SENATE
To:	US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 9211180547
Download: ML20127H566 (5)

Text

_

,e

,u..6.......

O'~i' ".i'!.',."C'"'

!!i*/.'. ",I"R'.'.'

I.

0,."!.Z..' O...'.'J:." '.".'.'!.".'*.t.". ".d..'#,0 ';!i

'{

/.

p.

M.niIeD J,,lGICf' J CU GIC s,

.u

_,.. f,,".'/.,'.'0'.J. 0.1;....

'.'... m

.,. "".'.! L'.'#f,*,"......

So" a* * * " " ***

WASHiNotoN D.C. 30510 April 8, 1969 Chairman Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C.

20545 i

Dear Sir:

I am onclosing a. copy of a letter which I received from

)

j a constituent regarding the proposed nuc1 car power plant J.n Monticello, Minnesota.

I would apprecinto having your comments on the questions l

raised about this matter and a report on the status of the proposed plant.

Sincerely yours,

[

u M Ca 8

}

EJM:jw i

e i'

{

1

• h Rac'd Off. Dir, gf Reg.

Date 4/inik) 9 11180547 69040s PDR ADOCK 05000263 PDR

- - L.

1.

- 2_

a u..

u.-

a.

L,.

144 Melbourne Avenuo Southeast Minneapolis, Minnesota 65414 s.

i l

j Son:. tor i;usene Uc0arthy 3 nste Offico Buildin;

• 'achington D.C.

i Lonr Jonator 1'c0a thys r

.a a citizen of '!innosota. I hsve stjocted to the proposed nucioar po.ior

]

pi:.nt in Monticello. I toliove no one his the ri;ht to subject any cit.

I 1:en to the dangers of r..diation... no cne ht.c the richt to n:.he a j

v lue judstont;thr.t the rick to life is offset by the tenefits of such a i

no one'htis the richt to fou". ie rivers,cnd lakes trhich belong sy6 tem.

to the poo;1e of the ctt.to.

i l

I I t.: encusing a report I hava prepared and circulated at the L7I, City l

Convention in Min'neapolis. I have asked othors to, join no 'in protostint; _

the licensing of this plant to du:ap r:.diodetive taste into the Mississippi.

)

I find the ider. aluost unbelievable.

l I imploro you to use evory mee.no at your disposal to help tiock this licensins.

Sincerely,

'.,. M wv j

Russell "de.tling j

f 9

(

S 4

9 e

e 4

l

- t g

~

y-g-w.

.r'

---

a~*yas>+.er m

e e

-y-y I,-p,y

.,.gm py.s,-9 g9

+

-++eer

,w-ri v-mm w,

A

h ~

.I'.

.y

,.. 4 1__..

.g........,,

~

w 8.

a h

-3

~~

.)

l

()

.sa

~ _

.g

, e i

J 'ei MONTICELLO: A nuclear energy gambl,e The stakes autatiori, cancer, death m

j i

I i

Citizens are concerned about the idea of radioactive wastes being dumped into F

• Mississippi.at Monticello.,We should be. It's our drinking ind in spite of the assurances of safety from the Atomic Energy.

water.

Co.~ hiss..n and Northern States Power Company -- the safety and performance records of nuclear energy plants have been dismal.

f i

/

of the original 12 nuclear power plants that have been put into operation, 8'have f ailed -- including the one at Elk River where radioactive leaker

• i forced shutdown -- and the Northern titates Power " Pathfinder *' plant in-sloux ra11s which exceeded its yearly concentration limit despite being' operated below full power. Three plants have been abandoned (one at an

.I

' estimated $7 million decontamination cost, paid by the taxpayer, of course).1 J.

In all cases where these plants failed, citizens had been assured, as now, of complete safety.

h. If there were a real dancer to health free raf.loactive waste, would the Atomic Energy Commission approve of such a plant?

It ' appears that the AEC not only would but in fact has approved of A.

l The Hanford, Washington Atomic Energy facility on the such plants.

4 Columbia River is an example.

, *s-A 1965 study'showed that oregon counties bordering the Columbia River l

-l downstream from the Hanford facility had a 53 percent higher cancer j

rate than the rest of the state. The JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH j

i reported: "This physiographic pattern of malignancy provides strong circumstantial evidence that not just leukemia but all types of cancer are influenced by bodily ingested radioisotopes in quantities heretofore thought safe. 2 We might add, ' declared safe' by the AEC.

i l

11 1'

a nuclear power installation where even' f

O.

But whv would the AEC aDprove l

the slightest question of safety exists?_

It is 'important to keep in mind that the AEC was establis'hed to promote A.

l the use of nuclear energy _ Limiting such use, even for safety reasons, is clearly a conflict of interest for the AEC.

l Q.

What is a ' safe level' of radioactivity in the environment?>

~. There is no ' safe level' of radioactivity. Radiation as minimal as.>

l

-A.

X-ray exposure of an unborn child is associated with leukemia-in later, j

~

life.2 standards depend on how many deaths and mutations we are willing i

to accept.

'For' example, the Federal Radiation Council has set its standards at

~

.5 rem yearly exposure.

If we assume the population of the Twin cities metropolitan area to be two million, then a continuing yearl'y exposuia-of.5 rem -- the FRC standard dose '- would be expected to cause from

,g 10 to 100 cases of leukemia per year and about an equal number 'of other l

3 4

s p

4 k.

~ \\

• s

=

e.

a a

[

=

.,y.,,m-

..,.7

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

mp.--

. ~.

., woy,.,.p-,wy._-,y

.,...,-.q-..%

g..,

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

m v

. -..4 y

y. v m,y s.,

-.e...:

h... _.

( p..j...... :

-L :. Q-......,.-._.__...

. g f.

4

.,, )

6

~

(2)

\\

t

... Phether a loss of this magnitude is types of neoplasms (cancer)

I acceptable to society can only be determined by consgdering the benefits I

to be gained from a particular use of atomic energy."

A question one might ask is 'whoso benefits and whose deaths'/'

How nuch radioactive waste would the prooosed Montleello Plant discharge Q.

~into the Mi=sissipoi?

l waste, including fuel leaks, of.

?'g $. Northern States Power estimates a tota 91.4 Curies yearly 4 I

cencral Electric, who has a reputation for seriously underestimating f

Note radioactive discharge, guesses 30,000 cvcies the first year.

29,998.6 Curies. The real ficure is anybody's guess.

the discrepancy:

We can

("A curie is equivalent to the activity of one gram of radium.

all recall the excitomont and intensivo searchos. instituted when capsules Yet the containing a few milligrams of radium were lost or misplaced.

quantity of radioactivity proposed for release from-a single nucicar' power plant each year, even under the most optimistic assumptions as 1

to its operation, is several times the activity of the entire world.

supply of radium.")4 What about' the present argument between Northern States Power and the.

• Pollution Control Aconey as to allowable limits of radioactive contami__

Q.

nation?

i l

This is a sham battle diverting attention from the real point that no, A.

amount of radioactive waste is safe and under g conditions should dumping it in our drinking water be tolerated.

Y, Eugene P. Dolum, in his widely used textbook, TUNDAMENTALS OF ECO l'

"Should a system receive a higher level of radiation than that says:

' under which it evolved, nature will not take it ' lying down,' so to speak; adaptations and adjustnents will occur along with elimination of t

l sensitive strains or species."

t Put another ways radioactive waste dumped into.the Mississippi vill l

result in mutations.or freaks in plants, animals, fish and people.

No limits have Cancer and the death rate,due to cancer will increase'.

I been set on the increase of illness and death that is " acceptable."

i That will apparently depend on how loud people protest as they learn

'. what is happending.-

Is is necessary to discharce radioactive waste into the Mississipoi River?_

f Q.

f "Tho quantity of radioactive wastes which is discharged depends on, j

l A.

NO.

the extent of the waste treatment system. ' Radioisotopes in tho wast.cs can vary from none to several million Curies per year., There need be no l

p radioactive discharge since those that are released are the result of deliberata decisions.. The only gain offse'tting these. releases is au slightly lower, and as yet l

jI-7.

1 l

l\\~

~

jk

$h l

4

I,

~. -

4

.-~*-4,,

• • .y~'

h.

1 4.. ;\\. _ _.

.s. (y

. 1,. i.

7 I

(N

~

(3)

Q.

What can you do?

A.

Make your voice heard. Don't leave it to the other guy. Protest now 1

against dumping radioactive wasto in any amount into the Mississippi l

Aiver or any other body of water in Minnesota.

/

Send your protest tor 4

/

. Governor Harold LeVander, State Capitol Bidg., St. Paul, Minnesota'

,,r, ',,

'". Mayor Arthur Naftalin, Minneapolis Court House, Minnoapolis, Minnesota

. You'r own State Legislator, State Capitol Bldg., St. Paul, Minnesota

. Mr. John Badalich, Chairman - Pollution Control Agency, Department h

of Health Building, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 4

ATTEND POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY MEETING (Permit for NSP will be granted or denied at this meeting)

Tuccday, March 11

• Votorans Service Building 9:00 AM Capitol Approach - St. Paul 1

5.

ki SourceMateri$11 0.

(1) United States Atomic Encrgy Commission, " Operating History of U. S. Nuclear Roactors"

~

(

'(2), Robert Cunningham Fadeley, " Oregon Malignancy Pattern Physiograph-ically Related to Hanford Washington Radioisotopo Storage,"

,[

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, May-June, '65 1[,

(3)' R. E. Pogue and D. E. Abrahamson, " Benefits, Risks, and Regulations,",

l JOURNAL OF MINNESOTA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, Vol. 35, No. 1, 1968.

t c

(4) Abrahamson and Pogue, " Discharge of Radioactive and Thcrmal

(

Wastes," JOURNAL OF MINNESOTA ACADEMY OF_ SCIENCE, Vol. 35, No. 1, i

1968.-

~

3 i

f.

,'e 1

s.

Prepared and Distributed by Russell Hatling, 2nd ',;ard 4

l

_ ___ a