and to measure the proposed bill against this experience. My statement will be made in three parts: First, a rough chronology of events; second, comments on the bill; third, a list of proposals and suggestions. I have with me exhibits if you want them. Senator METCALF. If you want them, they will be made a part of the record. CHRONOLOGY Reverend ENGSTROM. 1. May 25 and 26, 1967. Hearing at Buffalo, Minn., before the Atomic Energy Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on the granting of a construction permit to Northern States Power Co., for its nuclear generating unit No. 1 at Monticello, Minn. Among those present were representatives of two citizens' groups appearing in opposition to the granting of the permit. One was "Clear Air-Clear Water Unlimited." The other was a citizens' committee (Citizens Committee To Preserve the Homeowners From a Nuclear Catastrophe at Monticello, Minn.) now merged with MECCA. I include three statements and a list of questions submitted during said hearing by Mr. John Pegors, who is now chairman of MECCA's legislature task force. (The documents referred to follow :) HEARINGS ON THE APPLICATION OF NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., TO CONSTRUCT A BOILING WATER NUCLEAR REACTOR NEAR MONTICELLO, MINN., BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD, MAY 25, 1967, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION-BUFFALO, MINN. Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, my name is John Pegors, I am a resident of Hopkins, Minnesota and acting chairman of the Citizens Committee to Preserve the Homeowners from a Nuclear Catastrophe at Monticello, Minnesota (now merged with MECCA). I am appearing here to challenge the granting of a provisional construction permit for a boiling water nuclear reactor, designed to operate at 1469 megawatts (thermal), future operation at 1674 MWT, to be located on a site in Wright County, Minnesota, approximately three miles west of Monticello, Minnesota and operated by Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 1. This "new-generation" nuclear power plant, built in close proximity to a metropolitan center with approximately 1,880,000 inhabitants, would subject the public to a hazard of unprecedented magnitude. The drinking water supply for more than 870,000 persons would be jeopardized both by the normal operating discharges of cumulative radioactive effluents to the Mississippi River and to the atmosphere, and by any unforeseen nuclear accidents that might occur. 2. There is no valid or compelling reason for locating this design power plant in this particular place. Construction of this first unit would subject future population of the area, expected to reach 4,000,000 persons within thirty years, to construction of an additional 2,000,000 plus kilowatts of inestimable hazardous nuclear generating capacity. 3. Well-established and sound engineering alternatives which could largely have eliminated the gross danger to the public have been disregarded by the applicant. 4. The general financial qualifications of the applicant are challenged due to the lack of sufficient catastrophe insurance. The capacity of the applicant to adequately compensate possible victims of a nuclear disaster are totally inadequate. Until such time as the applicant is able to secure sufficient insurance capability for adequate compensation to possible victims, construction of a nuclear facility should be prohibited. The burden of disaster insurance should not be shifted from the applicant to the homeowners in the area. 5. Radioactive release by the proposed nuclear reactor would place a lifetime, cumulative burden of known carcinogenic substances upon residents of the area. 46-966-71-pt. 2—17 Without knowledge of the amounts of each isotope, as well as its chemical and physical form as released, very little meaningful interpretation of biological risk can be made from the reports of the total radioactivity of the effluvia. 6. The granting of the operating license to the applicant would constitute a dangerous encroachment of governmental authority on independent professional judgment, the best interests of the public would suffer gravely. 7. In conclusion, there are valid reasons for challenging the legitimacy of this kind of hearing procedure for the purposes of determining what is safe and what is unsafe. Substitution of the principle of indemnifying the survivors of a disaster rather than preventing the introduction of a major public peril to a population is unprecedented in commerce and public safety. HOPKINS, MINN. JOHN PEGORS, LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENT BY THE VICE PRESIDENT OF CLEAR AIR, CLEAR WATER UNLIMITED, FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION HEARING TO BE HELD MAY 25, 1967, BUFFALO, MINN. Mr. ARTHUR W. MURPHY, Chairman: The Mississippi River from its source in Lake Itasca to Anoka is one of the principal recreation rivers of Minnesota. Canoeing, swimming and camping are major activities along this stream. It is an angling stream of high quality, supporting the highly prized muskellunge in its waters. Because of intensive recreational usage, the highest quality water should be maintained in this reach of the Mississippi River. Another paramount reason for maintainence of the highest quality water in the reach of the river is its use as a source of drinking water supply for the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul and the suburbs which draw their water from the core cities treatment plants. Minneapolis draws all its water from the Mississippi River and St. Paul obtains about 90% of its water supply from the river. The Minneapolis and St. Paul systems supply 11 suburbs and governmental agencies with their water supply. Approximately 870,000 people are dependent upon the Mississippi River for their daily water supplies. In view of the lower efficiency of the proposed boiling water nuclear reactor at Monticello and the subsequent staggering thermal load to be placed upon the river at the plant site, Clear Air, Clear Water-Unlimited respectfully requests installation and operation of condenser cooling water capacity to protect the beneficial forms of aquatic life in the river. No provision is made for this protective factor in the documents available to us for inspection. Water temperatures in this reach of the river range from 74 degrees at Sauk Rapids, 25 miles upstream; 73 degrees Fahrenheit at Elk River, 11 miles downstream; 80.5 degrees Fahrenheit at Anoka, 23 miles downstream from the proposed plant. Continuance of this temperature profile is recommended for the cooling water discharged by the proposed nuclear plant. In the light of documented carcinogenic and mutative genetic effects of radioactive pollution, we strongly urge the absolute prohibition of the disposal of radioactive wastes in the Mississippi River and its tributaries. The same total prohibition of radioactive waste dumping in the atmosphere is strongly urged for the proposed facility. Citizens consuming Mississippi River water all their lives will be subjected to cumulative buildup of radioactive substances in their bones, vital organs and connective tissue as well as blood. If the applicant constructs additional nuclear facilities at this site in the future, in conformity with previously announced plans, citizens consuming the river water will find severe carcinogenic and mutative biological effects occurring. Meaningful interpretation of biological hazards to the area residents cannot be made from reports of the total radioactivity in the wastes discharged in the river and atmosphere without knowledge of the amounts of each isotope, as well as its chemical and physical form as released. We urge the establishment of a comprehensive study of mortality and morbidity rates for the downstream populations consuming Mississippi River water at all towns downstream from the proposed facility. This study should be correlated with radioactive levels occurring naturally in the river, as shown by the radioactive monitoring program conducted by state agencies. JOHN PEGORS, Vice President. HEARING ON THE APPLICATION OF NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., TO CONSTRUCT A BOILING WATER NUCLEAR REACTOR NEAR MONTICELLO, MINN., BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, BUFFALO, MINN., MAY 25, 1967 Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, my name is John Pegors. I am a resident of Hopkins, Minnesota, and acting chairman of the Citizens Committee to Preserve the Homeowners from a Nuclear Catastrophe at Monticello, Minnesota. The intention of the applicant, Northern States Power Company, to construct and operate a boiling water nuclear reactor on a site approximately three miles west of Monticello, Minnesota, jeopardizes the major investment most homeowners will make during their lifetimes. We, as homeowners in the area, are being asked to underwrite the total loss that could occur from a nuclear accident at the Monticello plant. This crushing burden of responsibility, resulting from a nuclear accident, which Northern States Power Company refuses to shoulder, could conceivably wipe out our lifetime savings and investment. We are here to petition for relief from this awesome burden and to request the applicant assume its rightful obligations and fulfill all its responsibilities to residents of this area. As you gentlemen of the Board are aware, the Brookhaven Report (WASH740) of March, 1957, entitled "Theoretical possibilities and consequences of Major accidents in large Nuclear Power Plants," presented an informed opinion of the extent of damage to human beings and property resulting from various sizes of accidents in nuclear power plants. $7,000,000,000 in damages was the estimated maximum result from the worst conceivable accident postulated by the Report. In addition, an estimated 3,400 persons would pay with their lives; 43,000 would be injured in varying degrees and amounts, and up to 150,000 square miles, approximately the combined land area of the states of Minnesota and Wisconsin, would be under some restrictions on the use of land and crops. It was also assumed that 3,800,000 persons would have to be evacuated under conditions postulated by the Atomic Energy Commission experts who developed the 1957 Brookhaven Report. Unfortunately for the citizens and homeowners of this area, the Brookhaven Report does not apply to us now. The plant-size designated as large in 1957 was 175,000 kilowatts; the plant-size we are discussing here today is over three times that theoretical plant. The applicant intends to build a plant of 540,000 to 545,000 kilowatt capacity as the first unit, ultimately there could be 2,500,000 plus kilowatts generating capacity located in the Monticello area. As citizens, taxpayers and homeowners who are being asked to carry the enormous burden of possible catastrophe, we would appreciate an explanation of whether or not we should multiply the Brookhaven Report figures by three. Or have the dangers from this proposed nuclear powerplant been increased by nine times? In view of the fact Northern States Power Company cannot secure more than $60,000,000 worth of insurance from the major underwriters, we as taxpayers and homeowners will be forced to put our modest homes in the position of underwriting the balance of compensation that might arise from an accident at the Monticello plant. The United States Government, which includes many homeowners like the members of our group, underwrites an additional $500,000,000 worth of insurance in the event of a nuclear accident. When the $560,000,000 limit is reached, there is no more insurance available for victims of such a catastrophe and the liability of Northern States Power Company ceases then and there. No recourse remains to those poor citizens who might be affected by such a nuclear accident of the proportions we are discussing here today. Not only are we asked to underwrite nearly 90% of the total available insurance through our taxes and our homes, we find two cruel features of the $560,000,000 insurance working to reduce still further any relief we might obtain. The first irony states that the cost of the government's determining the losses that have occurred must be paid out of the $560,000,000; secondly, a portion of the remaining money must be set aside to pay for latent injuries and disease arising from the effects of the radioactivity. In reality, the $560,000,000 is not that amount at all. New estimates of the scope of the catastrophe similar to the one postulated in the 1957 Brookhaven Report, using the latest facts and figures relating to the nuclear power industry, state that property losses would probably amount to $35,000,000,000 and damage could conceivably occur over a 740,000 square mile area. This is equal to the combined land area of the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois and Indiana, as well as the entire province of our northern neighbor Manitoba, Canada. Another factor we urge the distinguished members of the Board to consider is the more highly populated area in which you are being asked to license this nuclear reactor. In the 1957 Brookhaven Report, all estimates were predicated on a nuclear plant of 175,000 kilowatts size located at least 30 miles from a major population center. The Monticello plant has a design capacity of 545,000 kilowatts for the first unit and is located just 25 transmission miles from the MinneapolisSt. Paul population centers. Large suburban populations are located between the Monticello plant and the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. In addition, the heavily populated St. Cloud, Minnesota, area lies only 22 transmission miles west and north of the proposed Monticello nuclear plant. Every insured homeowner in our group, as well as every owner of commercial buildings will find a nuclear exclusion clause similar to the following in their insurance policy: "Nuclear Exclusion-section 1: This policy does not insure against loss by nuclear reaction or nuclear radiation or radioactive contamination, all whether controlled or uncontrolled, or due to any act or condition incident to any of the foregoing, whether such loss be direct or indirect, proximate or remote, or be in whole or in part caused by, contributed to, or aggravated by any of the perils insured against by this policy; and nuclear reaction or nuclear radiation or radioactive contamination, all whether controlled or uncontrolled, is not 'explosion' or 'smoke' ". So we find ourselves as taxpayers, required to underwrite the applicant's nuclear reactor in the event of an accident, we also find we have no insurance on our homes, according to the nuclear exclusion clause in our insurance policies. In effect, we are at the mercy of concomitant parts of luck, skill and a myriad of variables that could wipe us out, if we survive the nuclear accident. We ask only that Northern States Power Company use the normal channels of commerce and engineering before constructing this plant so dangerously close to our homes. Commerce to obtain the customary financing and insurance coverage they have so many years with outstanding success on their other generating facilities and engineering that will permit the design and construction of a nuclear plant acceptable to the major insurance companies now operating in the free market place. Acceptance by the applicant of their full measure of responsibility in this matter will permit us to sleep undistrubed in our homes and our children will play unharmed by a radioactive environment. Future generations can inhabit this area with no danger of radioactive poisons. At the Price-Anderson hearings in June, 1965, all utilities claimed that nuclear power was safe, however, none of the companies appearing before the committee were willing to build nuclear power plants unless they were assured of the complete release from financial obligations under the Price-Anderson Act. There have been no engineering breakthroughs that justify construction of the proposed Monticello plant. According to recent testimony by the applicant, the Monticello area is scheduled for 2,500,000 plus kilowatts of nuclear generating capacity. How much does this proposal increase the hazards to homeowners in this area? Will the next proposed plant construction be of the 1,000,000 or more kilowatt capacity? If it is this size, what will be the magnitude of the burdens we, as homeowners and residents, will be asked to shoulder? Our only plea is for the applicant to assume its proper place in the community by adhering to the tested and safe forms of power generation until research, engineering and constructon can demonstate the commerical feasibility as well as safety of nuclear power generating facilities. In the words of former Atomic Energy Commission Chairman David E. Lilienthan. "(We) believe that the existing plans are irresponsible, because the safe functioning of these power plants would require the solution of problems that are still unsolved." JOHN PEGORS, Acting Chairman, Citizens Committee to Preserve the Homeowners From a Nuclear Catastrophe at Monticello, Minn. HOPKINS, MINN. 55343 QUESTIONS FOR SUBMISSION TO APPLICANT FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AT MONTICELLO, MINN., MAY 25, 1967, BY MR. JOHN PEGORS I. What is the total radioactive discharge by the proposed plant during peakoperating periods? How much to the atmosphere, how much to water? II. What is the total discharge of the following radioisotopes during peakoperating periods of the proposed plant to the atmosphere and/or water? Cobalt 58; Strontium 91; Iodine 135; Krypton 85; Iodine 133; Lanthanum 140; Yttrium 90; Molybdenum 99; Tellurium 132; Xenon 133; Iodine 131; Barium 140; Cesum 136; Phosphorus 32; Chromium 51; Tellurium 129; Iron 59; Strontium 89; Sulfur 35; Zinc 65; Ruthenium 106; Iron 55; Cobalt 60; Krypton 85; Tritium; Strontium 90; Cesium 137; Carbon 14; Iodine 129? III. What alternative sites were considered that would remove the reactor from the proximity of the Minneapolis-St. Paul area? If alternatives were considered, on what basis were these sites rejected? IV. What alternative engineering solutions were considered for construction of this plant? V. What were the considerations which caused this/these alternative solution (s) to be rejected? VI. Would the applicant construct and operate this proposed nuclear reactor without the Price-Anderson Act indemnification provisions? VII. Has the applicant secured, or attempted to secure, public liability insurance beyond the indemnification provisions of the Price-Anderson Act? VIII. Does the applicant propose any kind of analysis of area morbidity and mortality statistics, before and/or after operations of the proposed plant? IX. By what means and over what routes, does the applicant propose to move the radioactive wastes from the proposed plant? X. Does the applicant propose now or in the future the operation of any radioactive waste storage facilities in the area? If such facilities are planned, where are they to be located and how large is the radioactive waste storage area planned? XI. Are any studies of cumulative radioactive burdens in the population of the Minneapolis-St. Paul area planned by the applicant, either before or after, or both, of the construction of the proposed nuclear reactor? XII. How many additional nuclear reactors are planned by the applicant in the Monticello area? XIII. Does the applicant propose to install a strong-motion accelerograph on the plant site? XIV. What precautions for protection of public safety and health does the applicant propose for transport of the first core fuel, and what precautions are planned for subsequent core fuel transport? ADDED ORALLY XV. Does the applicant contemplate implementation of any type of nuclear fuel reprocessing facility in the area? Is the applicant aware of any outside concern that might implement a nuclear fuel reprocessing facility in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area? Reverend ENGSTROM. In spite of this opposition the construction permit was granted in June of 1967. 2. February 1968. Hearing in St. Paul before the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on the granting of a waste discharge permit to Northern States Power Co., for its Monticello nuclear plant. Appearing in opposition were: (a) Citizens committee now merged with MECCA. (b) Clear Air-Clear Water Unlimited. (c) Minnesota League of Women Voters. (Partial list includes Dr. Charles Huver, associate professor of zoology and curator of fishes, University of Minnesota; State Repre |