Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

Mr. BADALICH. Well, at the time the permit was issued I sent the permit to the Atomic Energy Commission for review and the response I got verbally and in writing, indicating that we have no jurisdiction in this matter, that our standards are unreasonable and that they feel the standards they have at the present time are all that is necessary to protect the public health and safety of the country.

Senator MUSKIE. Have they said this formally?

Mr. BADALICH. Yes, they have.

Senator MUSKIE. In a letter?

Mr. BADALICH. Yes. I have that in a letter, I believe, even from Dr. Seaborg.

Senator MUSKIE. In that letter they say two things as I understand it. One, that the State has no jurisdiction in this field.

Mr. BADALICH. That is correct.

Senator MUSKIE. And two, what the State is asking is unreasonable. Mr. BADALICH. That is correct.

Senator MUSKIE. And they make that statement even though the company and the agency on the basis of the letter we already have discussed, achieved a result or appeared to have achieved a result that the company could live with.

Mr. BADALICH. That is correct.

Senator MUSKIE. One challenge between you and the company is jurisdiction.

Mr. BADALICH. That is correct.

Senator MUSKIE. The challenge between you and AEC is, one, jurisdiction, and two, whether you have asked something that is unreasonable.

Mr. BADALICH. That may be true, Senator, but we have nothing normally, no formal challenge with AEC. Our litigation is through the company.

Senator MUSKIE. I understand. I am trying to understand what you believe to be the attitude of AEC and the attitude of the company. Forgetting formal challenges and all the rest of it, the attitude of the company is that they should do technologically what they can do. You agreed on that?

Mr. BADALICH. Yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. But, No. 2, they question your jurisdiction to enter into that field at all.

Mr. BADALICH. That is right.

Senator MUSKIE. The attitude of AEC on the jurisdictional question is the same as that of the company.

Mr. BADALICH. That is right.

Senator MUSKIE. But in addition the AEC says you are asking something of the utility that is unreasonable.

Mr. BADALICH. That is right.

Senator MUSKIE. Even though the company has said it could do this. Mr. BADALICH. That is right.

Senator MUSKIE. Is that the issue?

Mr. BADALICH. That is certainly the issue.

Senator MUSKIE. Did you talk to AEC officials about their standards?

Mr. BADALICH. Yes. I have on many occasions. This was done by trips here to Washington and also to Bethesda, Md.

Senator MUSKIE. I am sorry. I missed that.

Mr. BADALICH. Yes. I have been here on several occasions in Washington talking to officials of the AEC, and also to Bethesda, Md., talking with their people. This was at the time that the proposal of Northern States Power first came under review and it was very surprising that on the several occasions that I met with Harold Price, Dr. Beck, Dr. Morris, and also their counsel, Mr. Shapiro-they indicated to me that there is no commercial power facility in the United States that would be allowed to operate at any greater extent than 5 percent of what is allowable under the MPC's (maximum permissible concentrations). So, they themselves have told me that you can bringthe operational level of a commercial power facility down to 95 percent of what they allow under the MPC's. So, I very bluntly asked them the question, why don't you lower the numbers down to this amount? They said we cannot.

We have to allow this flexibility because there are abnormal operations, and they cited a few like out at Hanford, at one time operating within 30 percent but not any more. As an example of what can be done is to look at the operating levels of Dresden No. 1. They are operating at 1 percent of what is allowable under MPC numbers. As a further example of what is happening with the Monticello plant let me cite the following: Under the maximum permissible concentrations under AEC, the Monticello plant, I believe, could release 15 million curies of radioactivity per year. Under our permit they can only release 330,000 curies. We are bringing the levels down 98 percent. AEC themselves, to show how they deviate, during the hearings of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board the AEC indicated that they would allow the company a release, I believe, of only 7 million curies per year. So, they themselves in issuance of a license, from the time the construction license was given to hearings on the operating license have cut their own numbers down 50 percent. Our requirement is down to 330,000 curies per year.

A similar plant to Monticello is Dresden No. 1. Dresden No. 1 in 1968 operated at only about 220,000 curies which is about 12 percent allowed by AEC, so it can be done and the AEC even recognized this by the fact they they lowered the amount of allowable radioactivity release in the Monticello plant from the original maximum permissible concentration down to 50 percent under the license.

Senator MUSKIE. Let me ask the question this way. As I understand the AEC position, they say that they will permit only those standards that can be met under abnormal conditions?

Mr. BADALICH. They feel that is the AEC, I think see on an overall average, that a commercial nuclear power facility can operate at a low level, an extreme low level, 2 to 5 percent of the maximums, but there are these abnormal operations and we feel the best way to cope with this condition is to put in additional equipment like off-gas storage, charcoal filtration. This is nothing new, it is used in Europe but not in this country.

Senator MUSKIE. If I understand what you believe to be AEC's policy, they are not saying that the standards that shall be set are those that can be met in abnormal conditions. They concede that you can have one standard for normal conditions and another standard for abnormal conditions.

Mr. BADALICH. Yes, but on an overall average, this can be compensated for. In our permit we indicate that you can release, say, during a period of 1 week, about five times the normal radioactivity for the entire week above the annual daily average. But if you do this, then during the other 51 weeks of the year you are going to have to have better than average operation. We also have a requirement for a maximum 15-minute release. If the release of radioactivity is, I believe, 50 times of what is normal, then the plant automatically shuts down and you have to find out the problem before starting again. With our suggested off-gas storage containment, if this happens, they do not have to shut the plant down.

This excessive gaseous release is shunted into these tanks, allowed to decay and operation can continue.

Senator MUSKIE. I want to get at the policy. The difference between you and the AEC is the question of how to handle the problem of abnormal operating conditions.

Mr. BADALICH. Yes.

Senator MUSKIE. Now, what you would do is to set stiffer standards in normal situations

Mr. BADALICH. Yes, we have.

Senator MUSKIE (continuing). And meet the abnormal problem by requiring additional equipment.

Mr. BADALICH. That is correct.

Senator MUSKIE. The AEC prefers to meet this problem by averaging

out

Mr. BADALICH. That is right.

Senator MUSKIE (continuing). The results in abnormal situations with those of normal situations.

Mr. BADALICH. That is right.

Senator MUSKIE. And the net effect of this is to dilute the potential performance in normal conditions.

Mr. BADALICH. That is right.

Senator MUSKIE. The policy set by AEC is to average out abnormal conditions so that the utility is given authority to release more radiation in normal conditions.

Mr. BADALICH. Yes. That is what it would amount to. Mathematically this would actually be the case.

Senator MUSKIE. Now, that is as you understand the conflict to be. Mr. BADALICH. Yes, and you have to consider also the maximum permissible concentrations, the numbers given by the AEC, are those numbers measured in the environment at the boundary line. We have gone one step further and indicated to the company that we want to know exactly what is coming out of the plant, out of the stack, and coming out of their effluent into the water before the dilution and dispersion, takes place. The numbers AEC uses are those concentrations at the property line. The way to get down to the reduced AEC numbers is to buy more property.

We are not concerned only with the numbers at the boundary line. We are also concerned as to what comes out of the stack and that is the reason why we have set these limits down so low. In fact, some of the effluent limits we have set are the same numbers the AEC allows at the property line after taking into account the dilution and dispersion effects.

Senator MUSKIE. I am trying to get at why the AEC objects to all this. Is the cost of the equipment unreasonable?

Mr. BADALICH. No, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. Is the cost something the company is willing to absorb?

Mr. BADALICH. That is right.

Senator MUSKIE. So cost has nothing to do with it.

Mr. BADALICH. No, sir. At least, in the case of Northern States Power Co. They feel that the cost is reasonable.

Senator MUSKIE. Why does AEC object to the installation of this equipment?

Mr. BADALICH. That, I do not know yet, sir. Let me state that the company is willing to install it but the company has not applied to the Atomic Energy Commission yet for this additional equipment.

Senator MUSKIE. So AEC has not yet made a decision on that.
Mr. BADALICH. That is right. Informally, yes, but not formally.
Senator MUSKIE. What is its informal attitude?

Mr. BADALICH. I do not know that. The company tells me that they do not want to apply at this time because they are afraid this would delay the issuance of their operating license. As I indicated earlier, any new amendment or any additional piece of equipment installed on any nuclear power facility must go to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, must go to the Reactor Safety Committee for approval, and this would create a long delay in getting approval for a license.

Senator MUSKIE. Is it your impression that what is involved here is simply routine delay in the consideration of an additional element that would otherwise be considered in an application to AEC or is it your impression that AEC is so resisting this proposal which has been developed by the State agency that it threatens delay if the company should go forward with the application incorporating this equipment?

Mr. BADALICH. I do not think the latter is the case. I believe that the company in all sincerity will go ahead and install this equipment but they are afraid of the redtape and routine that would be involved if they applied for approval of this additional equipment at this time as this would delay their receiving an operational license.

Just last week we served a temporary restraining order against the company when they started their low-power operation and loaded the fuel. We were reversed on this in the district court because the company did indicate to the court that they will operate within the terms of our permit during this low-level operation.

Senator MUSKIE. Is there any indication whether or not the company has discussed with the AEC the possibility of delay connected with this problem?

Mr. BADALICH. I believe informally, Senator, but not anything formal.

Senator MUSKIE. And has your agency discussed it with AEC?

Mr. BADALICH. I think the agency or rather the AEC is well informed of what is going on between us and NSP. We have not discussed this with them personally, however.

Senator MUSKIE. Has AEC indicated to you whether or not the inclusion of this equipment in the company's application would result in delay?

Mr. BADALICH. No, they have not.

Senator MUSKIE. So that is sort of a vague kind of a problem that has not yet crystallized?

Mr. BADALICH. That is correct.

Senator MUSKIE. And it is being held in abeyance while the appeal to the courts goes forward.

Mr. BADALICH. It is being held in abeyance by the company. The company is fearful, as I indicated, of asking for approval of this equipment because it might delay their getting their full power operating license.

Senator MUSKIE. Mr. Badalich, this has been very useful testimony to me. It has given me a better understanding of what the issues are and I want to express my appreciation.

Mr. BADALICH. Thank you, sir. I appreciate the opportunity of appearing and I will furnish Mr. Webber with the letters and other information he might want. Thanks very much, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. May I say to the other witnesses that I regret I have to go to a housing subcommittee because we are involved in marking up the final version of the housing bill for this session. Senator Metcalf has agreed to continue the hearings for me. I appreciate that.

I might ask the Rev. Paul Engstrom, president, Minnesota Environ. mental Control Citizens Association, to come to the witness table and I apologize to you, Mr. Engstrom, for my absence during your testimony. But I assure you that I will read it and follow it.

May I express my appreciation to Senator Metcalf?

Reverend ENGSTROM. I understand, Senator.

Senator METCALF (now presiding). Now that we have readjusted, go ahead.

STATEMENT OF REV. PAUL ENGSTROM, PRESIDENT, MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL CITIZENS ASSOCIATION

Reverend ENGSTROM. Senator Metcalf, members of the committee and staff, I am Rev. Paul Engstrom, president of the Minnesota Environmental Control Citizens Association. On behalf of our organization, I wish to express appreciation for the opportunity to present comments on S. 2752, a bill to promote intergovernmental cooperation in the control of site selection and construction of bulk power facilities for environmental and coordination purposes.

At the outset let me say that I do not appear as an expert. I am not an engineer or chemist, or any other type of scientist, but I am a citizen who is concerned about our environment and what is happening to it because what happens to our environment, of course, directly affects what will ultimately happen to us.

The Minnesota Envnronmental Control Citizens Association is vitally interested in the impact on the environment of electric power generation, transmission, and consumption. Our organization has devoted substantial quantities of time, thought, effort, expertise, and money toward solutions to the many problems created by electric power generation.

I have been asked by the committee staff to present here a résumé of significant events in our experience with these problems in Minnesota,

« ÎnapoiContinuă »