•AEC-MN-710355-0
24623
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
BY THE
U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE OF LICENSING
MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY
DOCKET NO. 50-263
NEPA COLLECTION
Transportation Library
Northwestern University Library
Cranston, IL 60201
Issued: May 1972
1
O
- i -
3 5556 031 325418
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This Draft Environmental Statement was prepared by the U. S. Atomic
Energy Commission, Directorate of Licensing.
1.
This action is administrative.
2.
>
The proposed action is the conversion of the Provisional Opera-
ting License No. DPR-22, dated January 19, 1971, granted to the
Northern States Power Company (NSP) for the Monticello Nuclear
Generating Plant, Docket No. 50-263, to an operating license.
The Monticello Plant which is located on the southwest bank of
the Mississippi River near Monticello, Minnesota, utilizes a
boiling water reactor which generates 545 MW of electricity for
distribution to the NSP system. The discharge of waste heat is
accomplished through use of once-through-cooling or mechanical
draft cooling towers in helper, partial recirculation or closed
cycle mode depending on river flow and temperature in order to
meet restrictions given in the thermal release permit issued by
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and in the water appro-
priation permit issued by the State of Minnesota Department of
Conservation.
3.
Summary of environmental impact and adverse effects:
Reassignment of about 60 acres of agricultural and natural
land for the plant facilities;
A predicted small increase in fogging effects near the
cooling towers and the reactor cooling water outfall;
Small increase in chemical wastes released to the Mississippi
River;
Installation of about 60 miles of transmission lines with
associated aesthetic detraction;
Discharges of small quantities of radioactive gases (augmented
system) and liquids to the environment;
Creation of a low probability risk of accidental radiation
exposure to nearby residents;
- ii -
Alteration of the benthic population in 5-15 acres on the
plant side of the river and adjacent to the thermal effluent
discharge as a result of an elevation in water temperatures
in excess of 5°F. Release of heated water will create a
zone of open water during winter and will aid in the pre-
vention of ice jams and flooding downstream from the plant;
Creation of a potential source for cold-shock mortality of
fish attracted to the discharge canal in the event that the
reactor is shut down during cold weather; and,
Possible mortality of up to 15% of passing drift organisms
through entrainment into the cooling system followed by
chemical, mechanical and thermal shock.
4.
Principal alternatives considered were:
Purchase of power from other sources ;
Use of fossil fuels; and
Alternative cooling methods.
5.
The following Federal, State and local agencies will be requested
to comment on the Draft Detailed Environmental Statement:
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation;
Council on Environmental Quality;
Department of Transportation;
Department of Commerce;
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare;
Department of Army, Corps of Engineers;
Federal Power Commission;
Department of the Interior;
Department of Agriculture;
Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Environmental Protection Agency;
Governor of the State of Minnesota;
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency;
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources;
Wright County Planning Commission; and
Monticello Planning Commission.
- iii -
6.
On the basis of the analysis and evaluation set forth in this
statement, after weighing the environmental, economic, technical
and other benefits of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant
against environmental costs and considering available alterna-
tives, it is concluded that the action called for is conversion
of the provisional operating license to an operating license
for the facility subject to the following conditions for
protection of the environment:
(a) The applicant should operate the plant in such a manner
that the maximum temperature of the river, as a result
of plant operation, does not exceed 90°F over more than
one-half the width of the river at any time in addition
to compliance with the State of Minnesota thermal release
permit,
(b) The applicant should obtain data to assure that corrective
actions, if needed, may be taken to reduce the possible
loss of biota at the intake structure due to impinge-
ment and entrainment, and in the discharge canal due
to cold shock in the event of cold weather outages.
(c)
The applicant should take appropriate actions as nec-
essary to assure that the release of radioiodine to the
atmosphere meets the requirements of the proposed
Appendix I, 10 CFR 50, as formalized.
>
7.
The date on which this Draft Detailed Environmental Statement
was made available to the public, to the Council on Environmental
Quality and to the other agencies noted in Item 5 above was
May 1972,
- iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS....
i
LIST OF FIGURES...
viii
LIST OF TABLES.....
Х
FOREWORD.
xii
I.
INTRODUCTION....
I-1
A.
B.
Site Selection....
Applications and Approvals.
I-1
I-1
II.
THE SITE..
II-1
A.
B.
Location of Plant...
Regional Demography and Land Use..
Historic Significance.
Environmental Features.
II-1
II-1
II-1
II-4
C.
•
D.
.....
1.
2.
3.
4.
Geology ...
Hydrology.
Meteorology.
Other Features.
II-4
II-4
II-10
II-11
E.
Ecology of Site and Environs.
II-11
1.
2.
Terrestrial...
Aquatic..
II-11
II-14
III.
THE PLANT...
III-1
A.
B.
External Appearance.
Transmission Lines ..
Reactor and Steam-Electric System.
Effluent Systems.
III-1
III-1
III-4
III-4
C.
D.
1.
2.
Heat...
Radioactive Wastes.
III-4
III-10
.
a.
Gaseous Wastes.
b. Liquid Wastes...
III-10
III-18
.
- V -
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
C.
d.
Operational Experience..
Solid Wastes..
III-22
III-22
3.
Chemical and Sanitary Wastes...
III-27
.
IV.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF SITE PREPARATIONS AND PLANT
CONSTRUCTION..
IV-1
V.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PLANT OPERATION....
V-1
A.
B.
Land Use...
Water Use....
Biological Impact.
V-1
V-1
V-14
C.
.
1.
2.
Terrestrial..
Aquatic.......
V-14
V-15
a.
b.
C.
d.
Effects of Intake Structure....
Effects of Entrainment.
Effects of Discharge Canal..
Effects of Chemical Releases ..
Effects of Elevated River Temperature.
Biological Monitoring....
V-15
V-16
V-18
V-19
V-19
V-24
e.
f.
D.
Radiological Impact of Routine Operations......
V-24
1.
2.
3.
4.
Dose to the Individual...
Dose to the Population.
Radiation Dose to Species Other Than Man...
Environmental Radiation Monitoring Program.
V-26
V-29
V-31
V-32
E.
Transportation of Nuclear Fuel and Solid
Radioactive Waste..
V-35
1.
.
2.
V-35
V-35
V-36
V-36
.
Transport of New Fuel..
Transport of Irradiated Fuel..
Transport of Solid Radioactive Wastes.
Principles of Safety in Transport..
Exposures During Normal (No Accident)
Conditions...
3.
4.
5.
V-37
a.
b.
New Fuel.....
Irradiated Fuel....
Solid Radioactive Wastes.
V-37
V-37
V-38
c.
- vi -
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
VI.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS...
VI-1
A.
B.
Plant Accidents...
Transportation Accidents.
VI-1
VI-6
1.
2.
3.
4.
VI-6
VI-7
VI-8
New Fuel.....
Irradiated Fuel.....
Solid Radioactive Wastes....
Severity of Postulated Transportation
Accidents....
Alternatives to Normal Transportation
Procedures...
VI-8
5.
VI-9
VII.
ADVERSE EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED....
VII-1
VIII.
SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY..
.....
VIII-1
IX.
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF
RESOURCES....
IX-1
X.
THE NEED FOR POWER..
X-1
XI.
ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED ACTION AND COST-BENEFIT
ANALYSES OF THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS..
XI-1
A.
Summary of Alternatives...
XI-1
.
1.
2.
Using an Alternative Fuel Power Source...
Heat Dissipation Alternatives..
XI-2
XI-2
a.
bo
XI-3
XI-3
XI-4
C.
d.
Dilution..
Cooling Pond..
Spray Pond...
All-Weather Mechanical Draft Cooling
Towers...
Natural Draft Cooling Towers.
Dry Cooling Towers..
e.
.
XI-4
XI-5
XI-5
f.
B.
Cost-Benefit Summary of the Monticello Nuclear
Generating Plant..
XI-5
REFERENCES....
XII-1
GLOSSARY..
•. XIII-1
- vii -
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
APPENDIX A - Taxonomic List of Aquatic Organisms in
the Mississippi River Near Monticello....
A-1
APPENDIX B
Bioaccumulation Factors..
B-1
- viii -
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
PAGE
II-1
Monticello Nuclear Generating plant and Environs
to Approximately 50 Miles ..
II-2
II-2
View Looking at the Monticello Site and Immediate
Environs...
II-3
II-3
Daily Average and Extreme River Flows at the
Monticello Site, 1962 through 1967..
II-7
II-4
Daily Average and Extreme Water Temperatures at
the Monticello Site, 1962 through 1967.......
II-8
II-5
River Flow Duration Data for Mississippi River
at the Monticello Site, 1962 through 1967....
II-9
II-6
Pre-Construction View of the Monticello Site......
II-12
III-1
Aerial View of Monticello Nuclear Generating
Plant....
III-2
III-2
Monticello Transmission Lines.
III-3
III-3
Transmission Line Towers Near Monticello Site....
III-5
III-4
Monticello Plant Plot Plan...
III-9
III-5
Monticello Nuclear Generating
Ventilation System
Plant.
III-12
III-6
Monticello Nuclear Generating
Radwaste System
Plant....
III-21
V-1
Observed Temperature Patterns in the Mississippi
River Below the Monticello Site, September 20,
1971..
....
V-3
V-2
Surface Temperature Rise Predictions, August,
Average Flow, Helper Tower Operation.
V-5
V-3
Surface Temperature Rise Predictions, August,
Average Flow, Open Cycle Operation.
V-6
- ix -
LIST OF FIGURES (cont'd)
FIGURE
PAGE
V-4
Surface Temperature Rise Predictions, January-
February, Average Flow, Open Cycle Operation...
V-7
V-5
Surface Temperature Rise Predictions, August, Low
Flow, Helper Tower Operation...
V-8
V-6
Surface Temperature Rise Predictions, August, Low
Flow, Open Cycle Operation..
V-9
V-7
Surface Temperature Rise Predictions, January-
February, Low Flow, Open Cycle Operation..
y-10
Approximate Service Area of Northern States Power
Company....
x-1
X-2
х
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
I-1
Summary of Permits and Approvals.
I-2
II-1
Percentage Composition of Invertebrate Populations
at all Transect Locations, Mississippi River Near
Monticello, Minnesota, 1969 and 1970....
II-16
II-2
Fish Collected by Shoreline Seining Near Monticello
Nuclear Generating Plant (May-August 1970)....
II-18
II-3
Proportion of Rough and Game Fishes Near the
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant..
II-19
II-4
Fish Captured by Electrofishing in a Six-Mile Section
of River Near Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant........
II-20
II-5
Age Versus Length Relationship of Fish Captured by
Electrofishing Near Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant
1968-69...
II-21
III-1
Estimated Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous
Effluent from Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant........
III-14
III-2
Gaseous Effluents Summary.
III-15
III-3
Conditions Used in Determining Releases of Radioactivity
in Effluents from Monticello Nuclear Generating Station..
III-16
III-4
Calculated Curie Releases of Radioactive Materials in
Gaseous Effluent from Monticello Nuclear Generating
Plant--Augmented System. ..
III-19
III-5
Calculated Annual Release of Radioactive Material in
Liquid Effluents from Monticello Nuclear Plant....
III-23
III-6
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Liquid Releases--1971
III-25
III-7
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Gaseous Releases--
1971....
III-26
III-8
Amounts of Chlorine Released and Residual Concentrations
in Discharge Canal....
III-29
xi
LIST OF TABLES (cont'd)
TABLE
PAGE
III-9
Chemical Holdup Pond Releases to Discharge Canal.........
III-29
V-1
Downstream Extent of Thermal Plumes from the Monticello
Plant...
V-12
V-2
Analysis of Mississippi River Water Characteristics Near
and at the Monticello Plant, February 28, 1972....
V-13
V-3
Provisional Maximum Temperatures Recommended as
Compatible with the Well-Being of Various Fish and
Their Associated Biota...
V-21
V-4
Monticello Nuclear Plant Aquatic Ecological Studies
Program, Sampling and Analysis Summary....
......
V-25
V-5
Radiation Dose to the Individuals from Effluents
Released from the Monticello Plant...
V-27
V-6
Cumulative Population, Annual Man-Rem Dose, and Average
Doses from the Gaseous Effluent Released from the
Monticello Plant.....
V-30
V-7
Monticello Nuclear Plant Radiation Monitoring Program,
Sampling and Analysis Summary..
V-33
VI-1
Classification of Postulated Accidents and Occurrences...
VI-3
VI-2
Summary of Radiological Consequences of Postulated
Accidents..
VI-4
X-1
Electrical Statistics, Northern States Power Company.....
X-3
XI-1
Differential Cost of Cooling Alternatives..
XI-7
XI-2
Differential Environmental Impact of Cooling
Alternatives..
........
XI-8
xii
FOREWORD
1
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)? states that
it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to
use all practicable means, consistent with other essential con-
sideration of national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal
plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the
Nation may :
Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as
trustee of the environment for succeeding generations.
Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive,
and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings.
Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the
environment without degradation, risk to health or
safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences.
Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural
aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever
possible, an environment which supports diversity and
variety of individual choice.
Achieve a balance between population and resource use
which will permit high standards of living and a wide
sharing of life's amenities.
Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach
the maximum attainable recycling of deplet able resources.
Further, with respect to major Federal actions such as nuclear
power plant licensing, Section 102 (2) C of the NEPA calls for
preparation of a detailed statement on:
(i)
The environmental impact of the proposed action,
(ii)
any adverse environmental effects which cannot be
avoided should the proposal be implemented,
(iii)
alternatives to the proposed action,
xiii
(iv)
the relationship between local short-term uses of
man's environment and the maintenance and enhance-
ment of long-term productivity, and
(v)
any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
resources which would be involved in the proposed
action should it be implemented.
In order to implement, NEPA, to reflect the guidance of the Council
on Environmental Quality
.
the enactment of the Water Quality
Improvement Act of 1970,
3
and the "Calvert Cliffs" decision by the
United States Court of Appeals, dated July 23, 1971, the Commission
revised Appendix D of its 10 CFR Part 50 regulations, pertaining
to reactor construction permits and operating licenses.
In the case of operating plants for which an operating license
had been granted between the effective date of NEPA (January 1,
1970) and the effective date of regulation changes (September 9,
1971) the revised regulation requires the applicant to submit an
environmental report and requires the Director of Regulation or
his designee to analyze the report and to prepare a detailed state-
ment of environmental considerations.
It is within this framework that this Draft Detailed Statement
on environmental considerations related to the operation of the
plant (Docket No. 50-263) has been prepared by the Directorate
of Licensing (the staff) of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
(AEC or Commission). The Monticello Plant has been in commercial
operation providing a maximum of 545 Mile of power since June 30,
1971.
>
In August, 1966, the Commission forwarded copies of the appli-
cation to construct the Monticello Plant to the Department of
Interior and in November, 1968, forwarded copies of the Final
Safety Analysis Report also to that department. Comments
involving possible radiological and thermal impacts on aquatic
biota of the area were received from the Fish and Wildlife Service,
Department of Interior on February 23, 19678 and April 4, 1969.9
The Geological Survey commented on hv drological aspects of the
Monticello Site on December 4, 1969.10 In November 1971, the
Northern States Power Company (the applicant) submitted an Environ-
mental Reportil in compliance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix D.
This Draft Detailed Statement takes all of the foregoing writings
into account and also uses information available in the applicant's
xiv
amendments to the Final Safety Analysis Report, the Commission's
Safety Evaluation, 12 the applicant's submission pursuant to Section
E.3 of Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50 ("show cause statement") 13
and the applicants Environmental Report - Supplement 1, dated
April 4, 1972.14
The statement also takes into account discussions
held with the Northern States Power Company, Mr. George Isaacson,
Wright County Planning Administration and Messrs. Robert Davis
and Dale Lungwitz of the Monticello Planning Commission during a
visit to the site by the Staff on February 24 and 25, 1972.
Further, independent calculations and sources of information were
utilized as a basis for the Commission's assessment of environmental
impacts.
The application, the operating license, the report of the Commis-
sion's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), the Safety
Evaluation by the Commission's regulatory staff, the applicant's
Environmental Report, supplements to the Environmental Report,
and other pertinent documents are being made available for in-
spection by members of the public in the Commission's Public Docu-
ment Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20545 and
in the Environmental Resource Center, Minneapolis Public Library,
1222 S.E. 4th St., Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55414.
As a part of its safety evaluation leading to the issuance of con-
struction permits and operating licenses, the Commission makes a
detailed evaluation of the applicant's plans and facilities for
minimizing and controlling the release of radioactive materials
under both normal operating and potential accident conditions
including the effects of natural phenomenon on the facility, of
the adequacy of the applicant's effluent and environmental moni-
toring programs, and of the potential radiation exposure that might
be received by plant workers and members of the public. Inasmuch
as these aspects are considered fully in other documents, only
the salient features that bear directly on the anticipated dose
to the public are repeated here. The comments that have been
received from other Federal and State agencies relative to radio-
logical aspects are being taken into account by the Commission
Staff in respect to. overall safety evaluations and are not elaborated
on here.
The applicant must comply with all requirements of Section 21(b) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, under the
terms of the license to be issued by the AEC.
I-1
I.
INTRODUCTION
The AEC Division of Reactor Licensing issued a full power operating
license to the Northern States Power Company for the Monticello
Nuclear Generating Plant Unit No. 1 on January 19, 1971. Plant test-
ing was terminated and the plant was considered to be commercially
"in service" on June 30, 1971. The plant is located on the
west bank of the Mississippi River in Wright County, Minnesota and
is about 30 miles northwest of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Monticello
Plant was designed for initial operation at a rated net electrical
output of 545 MW.
A.
SITE SELECTION
The Northern States Power Company has owned the property on which the
Monticello Plant is located since the early 1920's. The Applicant
states that the sites on which the A. S. King (574 MW fossil) and the
Prairie Island (530 MW 1973 and 530 MW 1974, nuclear) Plants are
situated were considered as alternatives for the Monticello Plant.
Each of these sites is located near a large supply of water, near
highways and railroads and close to Twin-City load centers. Instal-
lation and electrical production costs and environmental interactions
appear comparable at the three sites. The choice for the Monticello
site was based on the need for additional capacity in the Monticello
area and the northwestern portion of the Twin-City metropolitan area.
As stated by the applicant in a 1966 press release concerning instal-
lation of a nuclear unit near Monticello, Minnesota, "This will provide
capacity at the location needed at the lowest cost with maximum ser-
vice reliability to our system. "l5
B.
APPLICATIONS AND APPROVALS
In addition to applying to the Atomic Energy Commission for the re-
quisite licenses under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the
Northern States Power Company has applied for other necessary federal,
state and local permits and approvals. A summary of these permits and
approvals is presented in Table 1-1.
1-2
TABLE 1-1
SUMMARY OF PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Permit
Description
Cognizant
Agency
Submitted
STATUS
Approved
Pending
Revised
Construction Permit
07-25-66
06-19-67
Atomic Energy
Commission
Operating License
11-07-68
Atomic Energy
Commission
01-19-71
02-18-71
х
Building Permit
Authorization to proceed
with construction and
approval of design
Authorization of fuel
loading and approval
of full power oper-
ation with restrictions.
Revised to allow full
power operation.
Authorization for construc-
tion of plant at specified
location
Authorization for construc-
tion of offgas modifi-
cation buildings
Authorization of air navi-
gation obstruction, ele-
vation, and lighting
Informational filing
03-01-67
04-12-67
Wright County,
Minnesota
Building Permit
х
Wright County,
Minnesota
Exhaust Stack
Permit
Federal Aviation
Administration
10-11-67
01-28-69
10-19-69
02-17-69
х
05-02-66
Exhaust Stack
Registration
Surface Water Appro-
priation Permit
Minnesota Dept.
of Aeronautics
Minnesota Dept.
of Natural
Resources
10-03-66
07-11-67
05-20-69
Х
Intake & Discharge
Structure permit
Department of
Army Corps of
Engineers
09-08-67
03-07-68
12-13-67
04-08-68
х
Authorization to appropri-
ate Mississippi River water
under specified operating
conditions.
Construction authorization
and design approval for
river water intake and
discharge structures and
river bank and river bed
modifications
Construction authorization
and approval of excavation
and removal of river bed
materials
Authorization to drill 7
wells and dewater exca-
vations for plant con-
struction
Intake & Discharge
Structure permit
Minnesota Dept.
of Natural
Resources
07-11-67
03-07-68
07-28-67
03-19-68
Х
11-18-66
11-23-66
Ground Water Appro-
priation permit
Minnesota Dept.
of Natural
Resources
1-3
TABLE 1-1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Permit
Cognizant
Agency
STATUS
Approved Pending
Description
Submitted
Revised
02-04-67
Ground Water Appro-
priation Permit
Minnesota Dept.
of Natural
Resources
02-09-67
04-02-71
х
Authorization to drill and
dewater 2 wells for domes -
tic use.
Revised to approve
use of water to seal pumps
in plant river intake
structure.
03-15-68
03-19-68
Ground Water Appro-
priation Permit
Minnesota Dept.
of Natural
Resources
Authorization to drill
and dewater 22 wells
for construction of
circulating water
systems
Approval of construction
plans and operation of
storage tanks
09-23-68
02-08-71
Permit to Store
Condensate Water
Minnesota Pollu-
tion Control
Agency
Plant Waste Disposal
Permit
Minnesota Pollu-
tion Control
Agency
10-04-66
07-11-67
05-20-69
07-01-71
х
Discharge Permit
Under Refuse Act
07-01-71
Department of
Army Corps of
Engineers
Minnesota Pollu-
tion Control
Agency
Certification of
Compliance
х
Approval of plant liquid
and gaseous discharges
to the environment
subject to specified
conditions
Approval of all plant
discharges to the
Mississippi River
State of Minnesota
acknowledgement of no
objection to issuance
of discharge permit
under Refuse Act
Approval of plant sani-
tary sewage treatment
system.
Heating boiler safety
check
Requirement for noti-
fication of possession
and utilization of
radioactive material
06-17-69
07-29-69
Sanitary Sewage
Disposal Permit
Minnesota Dept.
of Health
Reactor Boiler Test-
ing & Inspection
Registration of
Radioactive Material
Minnesota Dept. of 08-26-69
Labor & Industry
Minnesota Dept of 01-13-70
Health
II-1
II.
THE SITE
A.
LOCATION OF PLANT
The Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant is situated on about 1,325
acres most of which had been leased by NSP to individuals for farming.
The site is located on the Mississippi River about 3 miles northwest
of the town of Monticello in Wright County, Minnesota. The site in
relation to the surrounding area is shown in Figures II-l and II-2.
B.
REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHY AND LAND USE
The area in which the Monticello Plant is located is principally rural
in character and the land is used primarily for farming. The nearest
communities are Monticello, about 3 miles southeast of the plant with
a population of about 1,600; Becker (population 365) about 4 miles
northwest; Big Lake (population of about 1,015) about 5 miles east;
Maple Lake (population 1,124) about 10 miles southwest; and Buffalo
(population 3,275) about 10 miles south. The closest large cities
are St. Cloud (population 39,691) about 20 miles northwest and the
Minneapolis-St. Paul area (population 1,813,000) about 30 miles south-
east of the plant.
The population within a 10 mile radius (300 square miles) of the plant
was about 12,300 in 1970. Similarly, within a 50-miles radius of the
plant (~7,850 square miles) the population was about 1,956,000 of which
about 93% resided in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. The
projected population within the 50-mile radius in the year 2000 is
approximately 3 million.
In Wright County and in Sherburne County, immediately across the
Mississippi River to the northeast, about 82% of the land is used
for farming. The principal crops in these two counties, which in-
clude all land within 10 miles of the site, are soybeans, corn, oats,
and hay. It is expected that these two counties will remain largely
agricultural and that the population will remain essentially constant.
C.
HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE
There are no known historical features on or near the plant site.
The National Registry of Historic Sites has no listed historic land
marks within 15 miles of the Monticello Plant. The area has a history
of Indian and early French trader activity, however, no evidence of
this activity has been found at the site. Similarly, investigations
in cooperation with the Minnesota State Archaeologist have not revealed
any archaeological values on the site.
11-2
LONG PRAIRIE
LITTLE FALLS
MORA
PINE CITY
MILACA
SAUK CENTRE
*193195IPPI RIVER
RUSH CITY
FOLEY
ST. CLOUD
SHER BURNE NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE
PRINCETON
ST. JOSEPH
CAMBRIDGE
NORTH
BRANCH
PAYNESVILLE
BIG LAKE
ELK RIVER
MONTICELLO
NUCLEAR
GENERATING PLANT
MONTICELLO
FOREST
LAKE
3
ANOKA
BUFFALO
LITCHFIELD
WHITE
BEAR
LAKE
COKATO
NEW
BRIGHTON
STILLWATER
50
ST. PAUL
MINNEAPOLIS
HUTCHINSON
WACONIA
GLENCO
HECTOR
BIRD
ISLAND
HASTINGS
FIGURE 11-1. MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT
AND ENVIRONS TO APPROXIMATELY 50 MILES
11-3

FIGURE 11-2. VIEW LOOKING AT THE MONTICELLO SITE
AND IMMEDIATE ENVIRONS
II-4
D.
ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES
1.
Geology
The Monticello site occupies a low bluff which forms the southwest
bank of the Mississippi River. Several flat alluvial terraces com-
prise the main topographic features on the property. These terraces
lie at average elevations of 930 and 918 ft above sea level, and in
general slope away from the river at grades of 2 or 3%. The topography
at the site is typical of that in the area.
The rocks which underlie this region of Minnesota, including the plant
site, are very old. Glaciation probably less than 1,000,000 years in
age, as well as recent alluvial deposition have mantled the older rocks
with a variety of unconsolidated materials in the form of glacial
moraines, glacial outwash plains, glacial till and river bed sediments.
This cover of young soils rests upon a surface of glacially carved bed-
rock consisting of sandstone, shale and granitic rocks. The bedrock
surface is irregular and slopes generally to the east or southeast.
The nearest known or inferred fault, the Douglas Fault, is 23 miles
southeast of the site. There is no indication that faulting has
affected the area of the site in the last few million years. Within
the last 110 years only two earthquakes were recorded as occurring
within 100 miles of the plant. The plant was designed for safe shut-
down under a Design Basis Earthquake.
2.
Hydrology
The plant lies on the outwash plain of the Mississippi River. This
plain is bounded by a glacial moraine containing numerous lakes and
swampy areas. Drainage from the moraine converges with drainage from
the terraces and swales, and flows generally southeast into the river.
Mississippi River tributaries close to the plant are Silver Creek, 5
miles NW, and Otter Creek, 3 miles SE. Elk River flows parallel to
the Mississippi River along a line 4 miles north of the plant, flowing
into the Mississippi 15 miles downstream.
The natural surface drainage of the immediate plant area is mainly to
the southwest away from the river. Surface runoff will tend to collect
in the depression at the south end of the terrace where it is bounded
by higher ground.
1
1
1
II-5
Large supplies of ground water are available from the Mississippi
River outwash plain alluvium, glacial moraine and from underlying
sandstones in the area. The general course of deep ground water
flow is to the southeast. The regional gradient broadly parallels
the trend of the topography and the surface drainage.
The groundwater levels in the vicinity of the plant are relatively
flat and slope toward the river during normal river stages. During
periods of high river flow, there may be some reversal of ground
water flow. These reversals will be of short duration and infiltra-
tion of water from the river should be limited in extent. The
gradient toward the river will be re-established after the recession
of the high water.
The Monticello site lies about one-third of the river distance from
Elk River, Minnesota to St. Cloud, Minnesota. Stream flow records
of the Mississippi were kept at Elk River by the U.S. Geological
Survey and at St. Cloud by Northern States Power Company. The gaging
station at Elk River was about 2,500 ft downstream from the confluence
of the Elk River (the only river of significant size entering the
Mississippi River between the cities of Elk River and St. Cloud) and
the Mississippi River. The Northern States Power Company gaging
station was located at the Whitney Steam Plant which is on the south
side of St. Cloud.
River flow information based on data from the above gaging station is
as follows:
Location
Elk River St. Cloud
b
Number of Years of Record
38(a)
40(6)
Average Annual Flow, cfs
5,260
4,360
Minimum Recorded Flow, cfs
278
220
Maximum Recorded Flow, cfs
49,200
46,780
(a)
(b)
Flow rate measurements discontinued in 1957.
Flow rate measurements discontinued in 1965.
Based on flow data from the above gaging station, the average and
minimum river flow for the Mississippi River at the Monticello site
is estimated as follows:
II-6
-
Average Annual Flow -
Minimum Flow
4,600 cfs
240 cfs
The maximum river flow of 54,000 cfs was based on the flow at
St. Cloud and Anoka, Minnesota since it occurred in 1965 after
the Station at Elk River was closed.
River flow and temperature data were generated for the Monticello
Plant site for calendar years 1962 through 1967, and are shown in
Figures II-3 and II-4, respectively.
Flow duration data for the Mississippi River calculated at the
Monticello Plant site are shown in Figure II-5. Based on these
data, the flow at Monticello is expected to exceed 1,800 cfs 90%
of the time, and 950 cfs 99% of the time. It should be emphasized
that these data represent only 6 years of record.
The average river velocity at the site varies between 1.5 and 2.5
fps for flows below 10,000 cfs. The river drops about 10 ft from
1 1/2 miles upstream to 1 1/2 miles downstream of the plant. Rapids
frequently occur in this stretch of the river,
The maximum probable 1 in 1000 year flood would be expected to reach
921 ft MSL (mean sea level) and the maximum flow of record (1965) was
estimated to have reached 916 ft MSL. Normal river stage at the plant
site is about 905 ft MSL and the plant grade is 930 ft MSL.
A study was conducted by the Harza Engineering Company to determine
the predicted flood discharge flow and water level at the site re-
sulting from the "maximum probable flood" as defined by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. The "maximum probable flood" was estimated as
364,000 cfs with a corresponding peak stage of elevation 939.2 ft MSL
at the Monticello site. The peak level at the site would be reached
in about 12 days from the onset of the worst combination of conditions
resulting in the "maximum probable flood." Data from this study were
used to identify flood protection requirements. The applicant plans
to use sand bags and steel plates (stored onsite) at selected doors
and openings to temporarily protect vital structures and components
in the extremely unlikely event of the occurrence of the "maximum
probable flood."
The nearest domestic water supply reservoir is the Minneapolis Water
Works Reservoir. This reservoir is located in northern Minneapolis and
is fed by the Mississippi River from an intake about 37 miles from the
plant, St. Paul uses a chain of lakes in their water system. These
are located about 40 miles north of St. Paul. The intake which feeds
these lakes is about 33 river miles from the plant.
11-7
100,000
50,000
SIX-YEAR MAXIMUM ENVELOPE
20,000
10,000
5,000
CFS
པའ་
2,000
FLOW
1000
SIX-YEAR AVERAGE
500
SIX-YEAR MINIMUM ENVELOPE
200
100
J F F M
M
А мЈ J
J
A S
0 N
D
-
FIGURE 11-3. DAILY AVERAGE AND EXTREME RIVER FLOWS AT MONTICELLO SITE-1962 THROUGH 1967
8-11
100
90
SIX-YEAR MAXIMUM ENVELOPE
80
6-YEAR
AVERAGE
70
(°F)
TEMPERATURE (
60
50
40
SIX-YEAR MINIMUM ENVELOPE
30
JAN
FEB
MARCH APRIL
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
FIGURE 11-4.
DAILY AVERAGE AND EXTREME WATER TEMPERATURES
AT THE MONTICELLO SITE, 1962-67
6-11
28,000
24,000
2000
1500
20,000
1000
FLOW (CFS)
500
16,000
FLOW (CFS)
0
94
95
96
97 98
99 100
12,000
PERCENT OF TIME FLOW HAS
BEEN EQUALED OR EXCEEDED
8,000
4,000
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
PERCENT OF TIME FLOW HAS BEEN EQUALED OR EXCEEDED
FIGURE 11-5.
RIVER FLOW DURATION DATA FOR MISSISSIPPI RIVER
AT THE MONTICELLO SITE, 1962-67
II-10
In the event of contamination of the Mississippi River the Minneapolis
water supply system would normally be more critical than the St. Paul
system because Minneapolis has a lower storage capacity per capita
than St. Paul. Under emergency conditions, withdrawal of river water
for the Minneapolis system could be suspended for about 48 hr without
curtailment of non-essential use. With curtailment of non-essential
use, this period could be extended to about 100 hr.
The groundwater table under normal conditions is higher than the river;
thus ground water and runoff drain to the river. Between the plant
site and Minneapolis, the cities of Monticello, Elk River, Anoka, Coon
Rapids, and Fridley obtain groundwater from near bedrock for their
domestic water supplies. Private wells other than residential wells
near the river include Cargill Research Farm, the NSP well at Coon
Rapids Dam, the Minnesota Potato Starch Company well at Anoka, and
the State Asylum well at Anoka. There are numerous shallow wells
supplying residences and farms along the river terrace. The closest
public water supply well is the Monticello well obtaining water 237 ft
below ground level.
3.
Meteorology
The climate of the site is that of a marked continental type character-
ized by wide variations in temperature, scanty winter precipitation,
normally ample summer rainfall, and a general tendency to extremes in
all climatic features. Climatologically, January is the coldest month
with an average daily maximum, mean, and minimum temperatures of 21, 12,
and 3°F, respectively and July is the warmest with corresponding temper-
atures of 83, 72 and 61°F. The number of days with maximum temperatures
of 90°F and above is estimated to be 12. The number of days with a
minimum temperature of 32°F or below and 0°F or below is estimated to
be 168 and 40, respectively. The January relative humidities at 7:00
am, 1:00 pm, and 7:00 pm, EST, are estimated to be 76, 68, and 70%,
respectively. The corresponding humidities for July are 86, 55, and
55%.
>
The months of May through September have the greatest amounts of pre-
cipitation with an average rainfall during this period of 17-18 in.
(70% of the 24-in. annual rainfall). Thunderstorms which have an
annual frequency of 36, are the principal source of rain from May
through September and produce the heaviest rainfalls. Snowfall in the
area has an annual average of 42 in. with occurrences recorded in all
but the months of June, July and August. The extremes in annual snow-
fall of record are a 6-in. minimum and an 88-in. maximum.
Annually, the winds are predominately from the northwest or from the
south through southeast. This bimodal distribution is characteristic
II-11
of the seasonal wind distributions as well.
The average wind speed
for Spring is 7 mph and for each of the other seasons approximately
10 mph.
The maximum reported windspeed of 92 mph was reported in
July of 1951, and was associated with a tornado. Tornadoes and
severe storms occur occasionally. Eight tornadoes have been reported
in the period 1916–67 in Wright County. With the exception of the
main stack all major structures were designed to withstand tornado
loadings of a 300 mph tangential wind speed and a 2 psi differential
pressure drop. The 328-ft-high stack is located more than 328 ft
from the major structure and its failure is not expected to jeapordize
safe shutdown of the plant.
It is estimated that natural fog restricting visibility to 1/4 mile
or less occurs approximately 30 hr/yr. Icing due to freezing rain
can occur during the period from October through April with an
average occurrence of one to two storms/yr. The mean duration of
icing on utility lines is 36 hr.
Diffusion climatology comparisons with other locations indicate that
the site is typical of the North Central United States with relatively
favorable atmospheric dilution conditions prevailing. Frequency of
thermal inversion is expected to be 30-40% of the year and the fre-
quency of thermal stabilities is 46% stable, 20% neutral, and 34%
unstable.
Considerations of the temperature, humidity, and diffusion of the
region results in ranking the Monticello site as an area of low to
moderate fogging potential from cooling tower operations.
16
4.
Other Features
The Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge is located about 9 miles NE to
12 miles N of the site. Since this refuge is at a considerable
distance from the site, not connected with it, and is not in the
direction of prevailing winds, no impact from plant operation is
expected,
Lake Maria State Park is located about 6 miles WSW of the site and
the Sand Dunes State Forest and campground are located about 9 miles
NE of the site.
E.
ECOLOGY OF SITE AND ENVIRONS
1.
Terrestrial
An aerial photograph of the site before construction was started is
shown in Figure II-6.
11-12

FIGURE 11-6.
PRE-CONSTRUCTION VIEW OF THE MONTICELLO SITE
II-13
Vegetation in the Monticello area was originally identified as sup-
porting a climax deciduous forest. Farming has resulted in the
removal of a large portion of this forest. Remnants of the native
climax hardwood forest of maple, basswood, elm, oak, and hackberry
are found on the larger islands with some lesser stands in isolated
pockets along the river bank.
No survey of the terrestrial plants or animals has been made for the
Monticello site but limited studies have been done at NSP's Sherburne
Power Plant site located approximately 5 miles upriver. 18,19
Historically at the Sherburne site such activities as farming, grazing
and logging, have caused considerable change from the native climax
vegetation. For the most part areas now actually in use at the
Monticello site (e.g., buildings, parking lot, switchyard, towers)
occupy land formerly cultivated. The portion of the site on the south
side of the Mississippi River is in various stages of recovery from
weedy species. In a cooperative program with local school children
the applicant has planted approximately 100 acres of mixed lowland
and bench land with pines. This attempt to introduce conifers in a
climax hardwood area may not be completely successful since the local
native understory plants are not suited to a conifer environment and
are typically unable to invade and survive. There is no evidence of
the existence of rare or endangered species of plants at the Monticello
site.
The soil in the area is thin and varies from sand to silt loam, with an
underlay of glacial till. The water table in lower areas is close to
the surface and during river flood these areas are frequently inundated.
The pine plantings in such areas show poor survival in the most fre-
quently flooded zones. The applicant has indicated his intention to
continue leasing portions of the site on the north side of the river
for farming. In all, approximately 220 acres of cropland have been
withdrawn from agriculture and, of this, nearly 160 acres are being
allowed to return to native vegetation or planted with conifers.
The mammals of the area include white-tailed deer, red fox, raccoon,
red and gray squirrels, short tailed shrews, red backed and meadow
voles, various species of mice, pocket gopher, white tailed jack
rabbit, beaver and muskrat. Squirrel is the principal animal hunted
in the area. A one-day season for hunting deer with a gun and a pro-
longed season for bow and arrow hunting suggest a limited deer popula-
tion. There is also some hunting of fox and racoon. A chain link
fence at the boundary of the exclusion area is a partial barrier to
the movement of the larger animals. Nevertheless, deer can cross the
fence and all animals have ready access across the river on the ice
during winter months and through ungated roadways throughout the year.
II-14
As native cover develops a larger animal population is to be ex-
pected.
Bird hunting is primarily directed at ducks, both by jump shooting
and from blinds. This portion of the river is not a preferred hunt-
ing area nor is it used to a significant extent as a resting area
for migrating water fowl. Ruffed grouse are occasionally hunted but
there is little hunting for other birds. There is no evidence of
rare or endangered species of mammals or birds at or near the
Monticello power generating site.
2.
Aquatic
The ecosystem in the Mississippi River near the Monticello Plant,
according to Hopwood, is very diverse and is capable of alteration
with no apparent damage.
10
Pre-operational studies of the river
have shown the presence of over 40 species of algae, more than 70
species of invertebrates, and 25 species of fish (see Appendix A).
Brooks reports that there are no true plankton present in this part
of the riverll and vascular aquatic plants are scarce, found mostly
in the backwater areas where current velocities are low.
The dominant species of attached algae, based on collections made on
artificial substrates in July and August of 1970, include the blue-
green algae, Chroococcus minimus, C. minor, Phormidium fareolarum,
Ocillatoria geminata; the green algae Stigeoclonium spp., and the
diatoms Cocconeis placentula, c. pediculus, Diatoma vulgare,
Fragillaria spp. Melosira varians, Navicula tripunctata, N. spp.
and Nitzschia spp. Algal productivity, as indicated by pigment
measurements (chlorophyll "a") was at a minimum in winter, reached
a maximum in September, followed by a marked decrease in early
October and a considerable increase in late October and early
November. No clear reason for this pattern of periodicity can be
Differences in pigment concentration in the attached
algae from different locations were noted but these were not con-
sistent throughout the season, i.e. stations having comparatively
low concentrations during one part of the year would have the
highest levels at other times. Chlorophyll "a" pigment concentra-
tions ranged from 0.3 to 13.4 ug/cm2. Reported average values for
chlorophyll "a" in some other streams in the United States are
1.85 g/cm2 in Valley Creek, Minnesota;23 2.2 ug/cm2 in the Columbia
River; 24 and 30 ug/cm² in the Logan River, Utah.
2.
25
The annual range
in the Columbia River was 0.36 to 5.4 ug/cm2.24 Based on these
values, the pigment concentrations of attached algae in the upper
Mississippi River are fairly typical of other temperate zone streams.
offered. 22
II-15
Algal biomass determinations made at 14 different locations were
relatively constant throughout the summer and fall, with a range
of 0.2 to 0.37 mg dry weight/cm2.
Biomass values for other U.S. streams range from 0.42 to
2.5 mg/cm2. 23,25 The annual range for the Columbia River was
0.055 to 0.998 mg/cm2. 24 Cell density varied from 1600 to 1,700,000
cells/cm2 in the same period. Studies on the attached algal com-
munities show a rather wide natural seasonal and annual variation,
which may limit their value in defining post-operational environmental
changes.
Insects are the dominant group in the benthos of the river near
Monticello. The two major habitats are best described in terms of
bottom substrate which in turn is a reflection of current velocities.
The first type is stable and productive and is composed of sand,
gravel and rubble. The major invertebrates in this area are the
caddisflies (Trichoptera) and mayflies (Ephemeroptera). The second
type has a bottom composed of silt and muck, and is usually repre-
sentative of areas of low or rapidly fluctuating current velocity.
Dipterans, isopods and beetles (Coleoptera) are dominant in this
area. There is a marked difference in the numbers of species found
near shore as compared to the off-shore areas. Qualitative shore-
line collections produce representatives of 66 genera of invertebrates
whereas a qualitative analysis of off-shore river bottom fauna pro-
duced representatives of only 25 genera.
The seasonal variation in abundance of the major groups obtained in
the quantitative study of the river are shown in Table II-1.
20
The
caddisflies (Trichoptera) are the most consistently numerous group
in the main river. The 1969 average annual biomass for the major
benthic organisms was about 2 grams dry weight/m2.
Surveys of the upper Mississippi between Minneapolis and Crosby,
Minnesota in 1939 showed an average bottom fauna biomass of 9.24
grams dry weight/m2, 26 considerably greater than that reported in
the recent studies near Monticello.
The presence of fairly abundant populations of caddisflies and
mayflies in the benthos of the Mississippi River near Monticello
is an indication that the river at this point is relatively un-
spoiled compared with downstream areas. The stonefly population
in the Monticello area is low in number and diversity, and may be
an important index of future environmental stress. The stoneflies
make up less than 5% of the bottom invertebrates and one genus,
Neoperla, comprises more than 80% of the stonefly population,
II-16
TABLE II-1
PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION OF INVERTEBRATE POPULATIONS AT ALL
TRANSECT LOCATIONS, MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR MONTICELLO,
MINNESOTA, 1960 and 1970
Trichoptera Ephemeroptera
Diptera
Others
Feb
1969
43.73%
34.53%
8.44%
13.30%
May
6.94
0.31
92.68
0.07
June
21.62
9.38
68.48
0.53
July
61.12
11.70
26.50
0.68
Aug
59.28
19.46
19.95
1.31
Sept
75.14
11.23
11.11
2.52
Oct
41.42
6.57
35.05
16.97
Nov
24.75
3.91
49.30
22.05
TOTAL %
41.75
12.14
38.94
7.18
Feb
1970
52.47%
8.89%
37.53%
1.11%
May
51.53
1.57
45,71
1.19
June
53.34
11.79
34.23
0.64
July
78.76
8.61
12.12
0.50
Aug
57.13
28.23
13.38
1.26
Sept
63.08
19.68
16.27
0.97
Oct
43.74
8.82
25.93
21.52
Nov
16.70
6.08
63.65
13.57
TOTAL %
52.10
11.71
31.10
5.10
II-17
.
In the section of the Mississippi River from one-half mile above
the plant to four miles downstream, the bigmouth shiner, sand
shiner, spotfin shiner and blunthead minnow were the most abundant
species near shore (see Table II-2). The smallmouth bass was the
most numerous game fish in this habitat although comprising only
2.5% of the population. Crappie and bullheads were rarely obtained
in shoreline collections, which were made with 1/8 in. by 1/4 in.
mesh seines. 27 The relative numbers of the several most numerous
species often differed markedly in areas close to each other,
indicating a species preference of habitat. No information is
available on the distribution of these fishes during winter, but
they probably seek the deep, slow water areas during the period of
ice cover.
The structure of the fish populations inhabiting the main river
channel was studied by capture with electrofishing gear. A portion
of the population was tagged for recapture to permit population
estimates and degree of movement in the river.27 Summer (June to
September) fish populations in the reach of the river from one mile
upstream from the power plant to five miles downstream are made up
primarily of rough fish (see Tables II-3 and II-4). The apparent
increase in the proportion of game fish to rough fish with time may
not be real, but the result of sampling variation. The cyprinids,
northern redhorse and carp, are by far the most abundant species
found offshore in the river near Monticello. The redhorse is fre-
quently the only species found in the shallow riffle areas with
gravel and stony bottoms. The dominance of the redhorse is clearly
the result of favorable river characteristics; swift current, shallow
depth, stone and gravel bottom.
28
Carp were most commonly found in
the deep, slowly flowing pools, but were not necessarily confined to
these areas. The game fish, walleye, smallmouth bass, crappie, rock
bass and northern pike inhabited areas where there is cover in the
form of submerged brush, piled stumps and boulders.
Because of their more specialized and localized habitat preference,
these game fish were probably not sampled by electrofishing in the
same proportion as some of the rough fish with less restricted
habitats. The population estimates in Table II-4 were adjusted to
compensate for this difference. 27
The limited suitable habitat for
the game species may be one of the factors limiting their numbers
in this area. There is no marked migration of fish in this part of
the river.
28
The age versus length of fish collected by electrofishing near
Monticello is given in Table II-5. This method of collection tends
to be selective for the larger size animals and the data in Table
II-18
TABLE II-2
FISH COLLECTED BY SHORELINE SEINING
NEAR MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT (MAY-AUGUST 1970)
Species
Total Catch
% of Catch
Bigmouth Shiner
Notropis dorsalis
1400
29.4
Sand Shiner - N. stramineus
987
20.9
Spotfin Shiner
X. spilepterus
793
16.6
Blunthead Minnow - Pimephales notatus
568
11.9
Johnny Darter
Etheostoma nigrum
262
5.5.
White Sucker
Catostomus commersoni
164
3.4
Longnose Dace -
Rhinichthys cataractae
156
3.3
Common Shiner
Notropis cornutus
155
3.3
Smallmouth Bass
-
Micropterus dolomieui
117
2.5
Hornyhead Chub
Hyb opsis bigutta
95
2.0
Shortnose Dace
Rhinichthys atratulus
24
0.5
-
Semotilus
Northern Creek Chub
atromaculatus
19
0.4
Spottail Shiner - Notropis hudsonius
11
0.23
Redhorse
Moxos toma spp.
8
0.17
.
Crappie
Pomoxis sp.
2
<0.1
Bullhead
-
Ameiurus SPP.
1
<0.1
Golden Shiner
Notemigonus crysoleucas
1
<0.1
II-19
TABLE II-3
PROPORTION OF ROUGH AND GAME FISHES NEAR
THE MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT
Year
% Rough Fish
% Game Fish
7.6
1968
92.4
1969
88.9
11.1
1970
1971
76.0
24.0
II-20
TABLE II-4
FISH CAPTURED BY ELECTROFISHING IN A SIX MILE SECTION
OF RIVER NEAR MONTICELLO 'NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT 27
1969
1968-69
Number
Captured
% of
Total
Catch
Estimated Total
Population
Species
Northern Redhorse
Moxostoma macrolipidotum
867
51.2
33,376
Carp
Cyprinus carpio
443
26.1
21,666
Silver Redhorse
Moxos toma anisurum
112
6.6
3,576
Black Crappie
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
107
6.3
2,360
White Sucker
Catostomus commersoni
68
4.0
2,270
Smallmouth Bass
Micropterus dolomieui
46
2.7
1,359
Walleye
Stizostedion vitreum
33
1.9
1,609
Bullhead
Ameiurus spp.
10
0.5
179
Rock Bass
Ambloplites rupestris
7
0.4
608
Burbot
Lota lota
1
0.05
143
Northern Pike
Esox lucius
1
0.05
161
Perch
Perca flavescens
54
-- --
Bowfin
Amia calva
18
II-21
TABLE II-5
AGE VERSUS LENGTH RELATIONSHIP OF FISH CAPTURED BY ELECTOFISHING
NEAR MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT 1968-1969
Northern
Redhorse
Age
Length
(in yr) Number
Silver
Redhorse
Length
Number
Carp
Length
Number
Walleye
Length
Number
Smallmouth
Bass
Length
Number mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
1
18
227.8
O
0
--
15
158.2
2
228.5
2
100
275.2
3
197.0
3
379.3
6
241.7
11
271.8
3
113
378.0
3
380.7
26
405.5
19
260.7
9
285.9
4
478
429.8
5
464.4
102
448.5
15
304.9
9
327.7
5
513
455.2
33
485.3
157
461.2
11
363.9
12
355.0
6
110
466.9
57
503.0
137
477.6
2
444.5
8
378.6
7
19
477.8
34
498.1
61
491.8
1
403.0
4
372.0
8
6
488.3
15
518.8
18
522.1
1
552.0
2
433.0
9
3
527.3
10
538.6
8
528.8
0
0
10
0
0
1
749.0
O
1
470.0
11
0
-
0
0
1
673.0
0
11-22
II-5 may be biased because of this. The age structure in the rough
fishes shows a definite dominance of two or three consecutive year
classes. This is not apparent in the game fish, possibly as the re-
sult of small sample size and/or croping of the dominant age classes
by sport fishing.
No diet analyses of the fishes in the river near the plant were made,
but the important food items can be inferred from studies of other
areas. In Minnesota lakes, large northern pike, walleye and bass
had a diet composed principally of fish; black crappie consumed about
40% insects, 21% plant and 6% crustaceans; the diet of the black bull-
head was made up of molluscs, crustaceans and plants. 29 Primary foods
of the northern and silver redhorse in an Iowa stream were immature
chironomids, may flies and caddisflies. 30 The diet of a Minnesota lake
population of spottail shiner was mainly small crustaceans, chironomids
and algae. 31
Although fishes are selective in their diet, food avail-
ability is controlling in diet composition. All the food items, with
the possible exception of crustaceans and vascular plants are abundant
in the river near the power plant.
The reported pre-operational studies did not identify the fish spawning
areas in the vicinity of the Monticello plant. The eggs of the major
species are demersal or adhesive. The problem of entrainment of fish
eggs in the condenser cooling water is therefore not one of major con-
sequence. Larval fish, however, are likely to be impinged on the
cooling water intake screens or entrained in the cooling water. This
potential cause of fish mortality is discussed in Section V-C
(Biological Impact).
gear. 32
Although sizeable populations of fish are present in the river near
the Monticello Plant, no commercial fishing is conducted due to
obstructions in the stream that limit the use of commercial fishing
The sport fishery for walleyes, northern pike, smallmouth
bass and crappie has an estimated annual value of about $345,000 in
the 30-mile stretch of river from the plant downstream to Anoka,
Minnesota. 32
This fishery is supported entirely by natural
production.
Fishing and other recreational uses of the river, such as boating
and canoeing, are presentlyy limited by the lack of public access
to the river. 33 No actual measurement has been made of the amount
of canoeing, a growing form of recreation near Monticello, or boat-
ing conducted on the river.
Based on casual observation, there is
an average of about 14 canoe trips weekly in this part of the river
during summer. Motor boating in the summer is limited to those who
are familiar with the summer low-water channels.
III-1
III.
THE PLANT
A.
EXTERNAL APPEARANCE
A low altitude aerial photograph taken in 1971 of the Monticello
Plant is shown in Figure III-1. Except for modifications to
permit increased holdup of gaseous radwaste, construction
activities were nearly completed in February 1972. Landscaping,
however, had not been accomplished. In areas not actually needed
for plant operation the applicant intends the natural return of
native vegetation (but not noxious weeds) except in areas planted
with conifers.
Whether or not the installation is aesthetically appealing or
repelling is an individual judgment. Some generalizations can be
made, however. The plant itself follows the criteria of form
following function and has been crisply executed. The present
state of engineering cannot obviate the more intrusive elements
such as the tall off-gas stack erected to provide better dilution
of radioactive gases. The mechanical draft cooling towers that
limit the thermal discharge to the river may not be considered by
some as an attractive addition to the landscape. Switch yards have
a mixed visual impact. Except for the stack it may be premature
to judge the long term aesthetic impact until the bulk of the
vegetation has become re-established.
B.
TRANSMISSION LINES
The transmission lines installed as a direct result of construction
and operation of the Monticello Plant consist of the Monticello-
Coon Creek 345 kV line and the Monticello-Parkers Lake 345 kV
line for a total of 60 miles. The route taken by these lines is
shown in Figure III-2. Each of the above stations are about 30
miles from the Monticello Plant but are only about 12 miles apart.
The reason for the independent lines was, according to the appli-
cant, a result of added consideration of greater system reliability.
The routings attempted to avoid active farm areas and, where
possible, municipalities, county parks, recreational, natural
scenic and historic areas. In addition established corridors such
as railroad rights-of-way and highways were used when possible.
Wood pole construction was used in rural areas and double
111-2

ANI
FIGURE III-1.
AERIAL VIEW OF MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT
111-3
SHERBURNE CO
MONTICELLO
ST. CROIX RIVER
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
COON
CREEK
MONTICELLO
TRANSMISSION
LINES
A.S. KING
RIVERSIDE
PARKERS
LAKE
TERMAE
PRE-EXISTING
TRANSMISSION
LINES
MIGHBROOK
RED
ROCK
BLACK DOG
TO
MILWAUKEE
BLUE
INVER
HILLS
MINNESOTA RIVER
MISSISSIPP RIVER
10
TO
OMAHA
TO
ST. LOUIS
POWER SUPPLY PLANNING
SCALE IN MILES
FIGURE III-2.
MONTICELLO TRANSMISSION LINES
III-4
circuit steel towers were utilized near the plant and substations.
An example of the latter may be seen in Figure III-3. When the
lines were constructed the only trees removed were those necessary
to obtain sufficient electrical clearance and allow safe operation
of the transmission lines.
The 60 miles of transmission line rights-of-way are to be main-
tained by selectively hand spraying the tall tree species with
Dow Chemical Company's TORDON 155, a spray approved by the USDI
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife for use on their lands.
Native grasses short woody species such as sumac will be left
undisturbed. Land along transmission rights-of-way may be used
for purposes which are compatible with the necessary safety con-
siderations such as farming, trails and grazing.
C.
REACTOR AND STEAM-ELECTRIC SYSTEM
The nuclear power unit is a direct-cycle boiling water reactor
which will produce steam at about 1000 psig for use in a steam
driven turbine-generator.
The reactor vessel was designed, fabricated and erected by the
Chicago Bridge and Iron Company. The nuclear steam supply system
was designed and manufactured by the General Electric Company
under a "turn key" contract. General Electric contracted with
the Bechtel Corporation for architectural engineering services and
construction of Monticello. The design power rating is 1670 MWE
with a net electrical power output of 545 MW.
D.
EFFLUENT SYSTEMS
1.
Heat
The thermodynamic process by which steam electric generating
plants produce electricity, yields large quantities of exhaust
steam which must be condensed. The condensation process requires
that heat be removed. This process occurs in the main condenser
and heat is removed by the circulating water system.
The principal thermal effluent consists of condenser cooling
water taken from the Mississippi River. The flow of water
through the condenser at mean river flow is approximately 645 cfs,
or 14% of the average annual river flow. This water passes through
the main condenser and the water temperature is raised about 26.8°F
111-5

TY
FIGURE III-3.
TRANSMISSION LINE TOWERS NEAR MONTICELLO SITE
III-6
above the intake temperature at full plant load. The water is
then returned via a canal to the river. Cooling towers are provided
as a supplemental mechanism for dissipating heat to the atmosphere.
These towers are required when river stream flows are insufficient
to supply adequate cooling water for the plant because of water
appropriation restrictions and, in addition, they are required
to limit the temperature rise of the river water that results
from the discharge of the heated cooling water. The permit
limitations specified by the State of Minnesota regarding the dis-
charge of heated water are as follows:
"Cooling facilities shall be provided and operated
to insure that the heat content of the cooling water
after reasonable dilution and mixing in the river does
not raise the temperature of the river above limits
specified below:
Period
Maximum Temperature
July and August, inclusive 86°F (or 5°F above the
ambient temperature
June and September, inclusive 80°F of the river, which-
ever is greater
May and October, inclusive 67°F except that in no
case shall the river
April and November, inclusive 55°F temperature be
raised above 90°F
March and December, inclusive 43°F by the discharge of
this effluent.)
January and February, inclusive 37 °F
The design of treatment works for compliance with the
stream standards, unless otherwise specified, shall
be based on the seven consecutive day low flow of the
river which is equal to or exceeded by 90% of such
seven-day minimum average flows of record (the lowest
seven-day flow with a once-in-ten-year recurrence
interval) for the critical month. The extent of the
mixing zone to be permitted will be determined by the
Agency at a latter date after reviewing the data made
available on the characteristics of the river and the
effluent and other pertinent considerations.
1134
The mechanical draft cooling tower system is not designed for
operation during the severe Minnesota winters. Reduction in
III-7
plant operation load may be required to meet thermal discharge
limitations in the winter when cooling towers are not in operation.
Although it would not be necessary to operate the cooling towers
in order to meet the permit temperature limits during much of the
year, NSP has made a commitment to the MPCA to operate the cooling
towers to the maximum extent practical.11
The circulating water and cooling tower systems have been designed
to provide a high degree of operating flexibility. The various
modes of operation are as follows:
-
Open cycle - The open cycle operation does not utilize
the cooling tower system. Water is withdrawn from the
river, passed through the main condenser system and
returned to the river via the discharge canal. In
this mode, the river receives all heat that is rejected
to the circulating water in the main condenser. The
water withdrawn from the river is returned essentially
undiminished in quantity.
.
Helper cycle - In this mode, all or a portion of the
circulating water is diverted to the cooling tower
system after passing through the main condenser. Heat
is removed from the portion of circulating water
diverted through the cooling tower. All of the water
withdrawn is returned to the river with the exception
of the evaporative losses that occur in cooling tower
operation.
.
Recirculation cycle - In this mode, it is necessary to
withdraw from the river only a portion of the total
circulating water flow. The balance of the circulating
water flow is provided by an inventory of water
maintained and recirculated through the system.
The
water withdrawn, less the cooling tower evaporative
losses is returned to the river.
Closed cycle - In this mode of operation, the maximum
quantity of water is recirculated through the system.
Some withdrawals from the river are still required to
replace that lost by evaporation and that required by
blowdown. The blowdown water is returned to the river.
The intake structure for plant cooling water is located near the
turbine building and is at the end of a short canal which extends
III-8
approximately 150 ft in from the bank of the Mississippi River,
as shown in Figure III-4. The bottom of the river was dredged
out for a distance of about 170 ft to establish an elevation of
898 ft MSL at the canal bottom. The canal is about 62 ft wide
at the intake structure. River water passes into the canal,
through trash racks to retain large pieces of debris and then
through two traveling screens constructed of 7/64 in. wire mesh
with openings about 3/8 in. square. The water then enters a
service water pump bay and passes by two parallel motor-operated
sluice gates before reaching the circulatory water pumps. A center
dividing wall permits dewatering of either pump bay. In the wall
is a gate that is normally closed but which can be opened manually
during normal operation if a traveling screen is in need of main-
tenance and out of service. Water for cooling station equipment,
closed-cycle make up water, screen wash, and fire protection are
taken from the service pump bay.
The flow velocity in the canal is about 0.5 fps whereas just ahead
14
of the traveling screens it is less than 1 fps.
The ice thickness on the Mississippi River was measured at three
locations near the intake structure in February 1968 and found to
be 27 to 28 in. Even if the thickness of the ice reached 40 in.
as sometimes occurs on lakes in the region, there would be at
least 2.5 ft of open water below the ice (which would amount to
roughly 1000 cfs) and that is adequate to supply the cooling water
required.
In order to prevent the intake structures from becoming clogged
with ice in winter some of the heated water from the condensers
can be routed to the intake structure apron. Steam is also
available at the intake structure to perform the same function.
In the open-cycle mode of cooling, the water passes from the intake
structures through the condensers to the discharge structure (see
Figure III-4) through two motor operated sluice gates and is
released to the river through the 1000-ft canal. In the closed
cycle mode the cooling water is pumped to the top of the cooling
towers from the discharge structure. The cooled effluent returns
by gravity to the intake structure from the cooling tower basins.
Blowdown overflows the side weirs of the basins and is piped to
the discharge canal. The outfall structure for this effluent is
located just downstream from the discharge structure on the near
bank of the discharge canal (Figure III-4).
111-9

MISSISSIPPI RIVER
CHEMICAL
HOLDUP POND
INTAKE STRUCTURE
DISCHARGE
STRUCTURE
DIESEL
EMER. GEN.
BUILDING
TURBINE
BUILDING
TRANSFORMER
AREA
CONDENSATE
STORAGE
TANKS
DISCHARGE_CANAL
-OVERFLOW
DISCHARGE
8
REAC-
STOR
BLDG
8
RADWASTE
BLDG.
SECURITY FENCE
COOLING TOWER
E-100 B
COOLING
TOWER E-100 A
OFF-GAS
STACK
RAILROAD SPUR
FIGURE 1/1-4.
MONTICELLO PLANT PLOT PLAN
III-10
Each cooling tower is a 9-cell, induced (mechanical) draft, cross
flow tower constructed of redwood with one 26-ft diameter fan per
cell. Each tower is 270 ft long by 59 ft wide by 61 ft high.
Together they have a flow capacity of 645 cfs and a heat transfer
of 3.9 x 100 Btu/hr with a wet bulb temperature of 73°F for an
entering water temperature of 116.9°F and a leaving temperature of
90°F. Evaporative loss of water amounts to about 18 cfs. Figure
III-l shows an aerial view of the cooling towers.
The average river temperature for July, August and September has
been calculated to be 71°F. Therefore, average summer effluent
discharge temperatures are expected to be about 97.8°F under open
cycle operation and about 80 to 85°F for helper cycle operation.
The effects of discharge of the heated condenser cooling water will
be discussed in Section V-C-2.
2.
Radioactive Wastes
During the operation of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant,
radioactive material will be produced by fission and by neutron
activation reactions in metals and other materials in the reactor
system. Small amounts of gaseous and liquid radioactive wastes
will enter the wastes streams, which are monitored and processed
within the plant to minimize the amount of radioactive nuclides
that will ultimately be released to the atmosphere and to the
Mississippi River. The radioactivity that may be released during
operation of the plant will be in accordance with the Commission's
regulations, as set forth in 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 50.
The waste handling and treatment systems installed at the plant
are discussed in the Final Safety Analysis Report of October 17,
1968, and in the applicant's Environmental Report dated November 5,
1971. The waste treatment systems described in these reports and
in the following paragraphs are designed to collect and process
the gaseous, liquid and solid waste which may contain radioactive
materials.
a.
Gaseous Wastes
During power operation of the plant, radioactive materials that
may be released to the atmosphere in gaseous effluents include
fission-product noble gases (krypton and xenon) and halogens
(mostly iodine); activated argon, oxygen and nitrogen; tritium
contained in water vapor; and particulate material including both
fission products and activated corrosion products. Fission products
III-11
are released to the primary coolant and carried to the turbine by
the steam.
The major source of gaseous radioactive waste during normal plant
operation will be the offgas from the main steam condenser air
ejectors. In the present system, offgases from the main condenser
consist of approximately 200 cfm of hydrogen and oxygen from de-
composition of water and 20 cfm of air from inleakage plus trace
concentrations of radioactive xenon and krypton. The noncondensible
gases are delayed for a minimum of thirty minutes in a holdup pipe
to allow for the decay of short-lived fission product noble gases
and activation gases, filtered through high efficiency particulate
filters, and released to the atmosphere through the main stack with
dilution air. The radioactive materials released through this system
represent greater than 90% of the activity available from gaseous
effluents. In our evaluation we assumed that 90% of the radio-
iodine which may be present in the offgas from the air ejectors
will be removed in the steam jet condenser.
Other sources of gaseous waste include the main steam turbine gland
seal system; offgases from the mechanical vacuum pump used during
startup; ventilation air released from the radwaste, reactor and
turbine building exhaust systems; and purging of the drywell and
suppression chamber. The systems for the processing of radioactive
gaseous waste and ventilation paths are shown schematically in
Figure III-5.
The turbine gland seal system which provides a seal on the turbine
packing gland is being operated with primary steam and therefore
expected to be a contributing source of airborne activity. The
steam air exhaust from this system passes through a gland seal con-
denser where the steam is condensed and non-condensibles exhausted
to the gland seal holdup line. Radioactive gases released by way
of this system are delayed for about 2 minutes to allow decay of
the major activation gases (N-16 and 0-19) and released without
additional treatment through the 328 ft stack. The mechanical
vacuum pump, used during startup, exhausts air and radioactive gases
from the main steam condenser. Offgases from this system are dis-
charged to the gland seal holdup line before being released to the
main stack. In our evaluation we assumed that the mechanical
vacuum pump will be operated approximately 10 hours per year with
stimated release of 1040 curies of noble gases. The isotopic
mixture will vary depending on the decay time in the condenser.
The turbine building, reactor building and radwas te building
ventilation systems are once-through ventilation with air passing
111-12

328 11
CATALYTIC
RECOMBINERS
(2)
00 00
A
C
FUTURE
NONCONDENSABLE
GAS FROM MAIN
CONDENSER
2-STAGE
AIR EJECTOR
CONDENSERS
(2)
A
c
2
COMPRESSORS
|
PRESENT OFF-GAS
30 MINUTE DELAY PIPE
(IN FUTURE WILL BE 2 HOURS DELAY)
WASTE
GAS
DECAY
TANKS
1250 ft
EACH
STARTUP MECHANICAL
VACUUM PUMP
FUTURE
PRIMARY
STEAM
FROM
TURBINE
SEALS
1.75 min.
HOL DUP
PIPE
350 cm
CONDENSER
WASTE GAS SYSTEM
0-100, 000 cm
HPCI GLAND SEAL
2poo ctm
UPPER AREA
AIR EJECTOR ROOM
EQUIPMENT ROOM
6,300 cm
LOWER AREA
63,800 cfm
TURBINE BUILDING
OFF GAS
STACK
4,000 cf
AIR --
AIR
120 11-
STANDBY GAS TREATMENT SYSTEM
REFUELING
FLOOR
18,500 cm
P
43,500 cm
ס
SAMPLING STATION
2,000 em
TORUS
AND
DRYWELL
REACTOR BUILDING VENT
REACTOR BUILDING
2,750 cm
ROOF
RAD. WASTE BUILDING GOVENT
-
PIA
2,750 cm
94,000 cfm
94,000 cm
POTENTIAL
CONTAMINATION
RECOMBINER BUILDING (FUTURE)
POTENTIAL
CONTAMINATION
94.000 cm
MAIN
EXHAUST
PLENUM
P. PREFILTER
A-HIGH-EFFICIENCY PARTICULATE FILTER
C-CHARCOAL ADSORBER
NORMAL OPERATION
---- ABNORMAL OPERATION
VENTILATION SYSTEM
-- FUTURE
AIR DAMPER
MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT
FIGURE III-5.
III-13
from relatively clean areas to those with higher radioactivity
potential. Normally the ventilation air in the reactor building
is discharged to the building vent without treatment; however, in
the event of abnormal air activity levels, this air will be routed
through the standby gas treatment system (HEPA and charcoal
adsorbers in series) prior to being released through the main stack.
Potentially contaminated areas of the radwaste building are exhausted
through prefilters and HEPA filters and released through the plant
vent.
Release of radioactivity from the upper area of the turbine
building through a roof mounted exhaust fan is not anticipated.
The purpose of this system is to maintain desired ambient conditions
above the operating floor utilizing once-through ventilation. The
ventilation air from equipment areas and lower levels of the turbine
building is exhausted to the main plenum and released through the
plant vent without treatment.
The primary containment (drywell) is normally a sealed volume. How-
ever, during periods of refueling or maintenance it may be neces-
sary to purge the drywell and suppression chamber and, when this
occurs, the potential exists for the release of airborne radio-
activity to the environment. The system is arranged such that the
purge exhaust can be directed to the standby gas treatment system
in the event of abnormal air activity levels. Releases through
this system are not expected to be a contributing source of
radioactivity.
Estimated annual releases of radioactive materials in gaseous
effluent from the plant during normal operation, including expected
operational occurrences, are shown in Table III-1. Estimated
releases from primary and secondary sources are summarized in
Table III-2. The estimated releases were based on a minimum hold-
up time of 30 minutes for gaseous effluent released from the main
condenser air ejectors. Conditions and principal assumptions con-
sidered in our evaluation of the waste treatment systems are given
in Table III-3.
During the first year of operation of the plant (March 1971), re-
leases of radioactivity have been lower than expected. From the
values shown in Table III-1, a release rate of 44,000 uCi/sec is
expected; however, the level of release during the startup and
shakedown period at full power operation has been approximately
10,000 Ci/sec as shown in Table III-7.
III-14
TABLE III-1
CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS IN GASEOUS EFFLUENT
FROM MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT
CURIES PER YEAR
Main Condenser
Air Ejector
30 Min.
Holdup
Gland Seal
2 min.
Holdup
Reactor Turbine
Building Building
Nuclide
Total
Kr-83m
15
42
35,600
35,500
65,000
Kr-85m
25
70
65,170
Kr-85
0.1
0.4
364
365
Kr-87
75
207
Kr-88
81
226
160,500
201,300
1,150
160,800
201,600
1,950
Kr-89
280
517
Xe-13lm
0.1
0.3
320
320
Xe-133m
1.6
4.5
Xe-133
44
125
Xe-135m
129
333
Xe-135
127
357
4,430 4,440
124,600 124,800
96,800 97,300
344,200 344,700
5,900 7,340
336, 300 337,800
1,376,000 1,382,000
Xe-137
484
953
Xe-138
406
1055
Total
1670
3890
I-131
0.009
0.57
0.16
8.0
8.7
I-133
0.03
2.8
0.8
39.
42.6
III-15
TABLE III-2
GASEOUS EFFLUENTS
SUMMARY
Ci/yr
Present System
Noble Gas
I-131
Main Condenser Air Ejector
1.38 x 106
8.0
Turbine Building
1.67 x
103
5.7 x 10-1
Reactor Building
9
x 10-3
Mechanical Vacuum Pump
Gland Seal
1.04 x 103
3.89 x 10
103
1.38 x 106
1.6 x 10
10-1
8.77
Ci/yr
Augmented System
Noble Gas
I-131
Main Condenser Air Ejector
7
* 10-3
1.06 x 105
1.67 x 103
Turbine Building
5.7 x 10-1
Reactor Building
9
* 103
Mechanical Vacuum Pump
1.04 x 103
3.89 x 10
103
Gland Seal
1.6 x 10-1
1.12 x 105
7.5 x 10
10-1
III-16
TABLE III-3
CONDITIONS USED IN DETERMINING
RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVITY IN EFFLUENTS
FROM MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT
Thermal Power
Total Steam Flow
Plant Factor
Cleanup Demineralizer Flow
Failed Fuel
1670 Megawatts
6,770,000 lb/hr
0.8
80,000 lb/hr
equivalent to 100,000
Ci/sec with 30 min. holdup
480 lb/hr liquid
2,400 lb/hr steam
20 cfm - air
0.1% of steam flow
Leaks
Reactor Bldg.
Turbine Bldg.
Condenser Air Inleakage
Turbine Gland Seal Steam
Partition coefficients (Iodine)
Steam/Liquid in reactor
Reactor Bldg. liquid leak
Turbine Bldg. seam leak
Gland Seal
Air Ejector
Holdup Times
Gland Seal Gas
Air Ejector Gas
Modified System
Clean Waste System liquids
Dirty Waste System liquids
Chemical Waste System - liquids
0.012
0.001
1.0
0.1
0.005
2 minutes
30 minutes
50 hours
1 day
1 day
1 day
21,000 god
8, 200 gpd
500 gpd
10
Flow Rate
Clean Waste System
Dirty Waste System
Chemical Waste
Decontamination Factors
Powder filter/demineralizers
(except Y, Mo and 3H)
Mixed bed demineralizer
except: Cs and Rb
Y, Mo and 3H
Removal factors to account for plateout
Mo and TC - 99m
Y
100
10
1
100
10
Dilution Flow
280,000 gpm
III-17
TABLE III-3 (cont'd)
Number and Capacity of Collector Tanks
No.
Name
Capacity (gals.)
1
Waste Surge Tank
35,000
2
Waste Sample Tanks
10,000 each
1
Condensate Backwash
Receiving Tank
8,500
1
Waste Collector Tank
10,000
2
Condensate Phase
Separator Tanks
12,000 each
2
Condensate Storage Tank
220,000 each
1
Waste Sludge Tank
7,500
2
Clean-up Phase Separator Tanks
3,000 each
N
Laundry Drain Tanks
1,000 each
1
Floor Drain Collector Tank
10,000
1
Floor Drain Sample Tank
10,000
1
Chemical Waste Tank
4,000
III-18
To reduce the quantities of radioactive gaseous .effluents released
to the atmosphere, Northern States Power Company has undertaken a
plant modification to install additional holdup equipment. In the
modification, expected to be completed by December 1972 (see
Figure III-5); offgases from the main condenser will be processed
through a catalytic recombiner where the hydrogen and oxygen will
be reacted to form water, thereby reducing by tenfold the volume
of gases which must be treated. The water will be removed by the
offgas condenser and moisture separator and discharged to the
liquid waste system for further treatment. The noncondensible gases
will be delayed for a minimum of five hours in the present holdup
pipe, filtered through charcoal adsorbers and HEPA filters, com-
pressed to 300 psig and stored in one of five (1250 ft3) holdup
tanks. Prior to discharge through the main stack, the offgases will
again be filtered through charcoal adsorbers and HEPA filters. The
system will provide at least 50 hours additional decay time. In
our evaluation we assumed that nearly all of the radioiodine which
may be present in the offgas from the main condenser will be re-
moved in either the recombiner condenser or by the double treatment
through the charcoal adsorbers. The calculated annual releases of
gaseous waste after the modification has been completed are shown
in Table III-4. Based on our evaluation, the calculated annual
release rate of 44,000 uCi/sec of noble gases from the 30-minute
holdup pipe will be reduced to about 3,600 uCi/sec after the
modification which consists of a 50-hour holdup. The iodine
and particulate releases have been calculated at about 0.75 curie
per year as I-131.
b.
Liquid Wastes
Radioactive and potentially radioactive liquid wastes are collected,
monitored, processed, stored and prepared for disposal by the rad-
waste treatment system. These wastes are classified, collected and
treated as high purity, low purity, chemical, laundry and sludge or
concentrated wastes. The system is designed to handle these wastes
separately or on a combined basis. Cross connections between the
subsystems provide flexibility for processing by alternate methods.
High purity wastes (low-conductivity) consist of liquids collected
by equipment drains from the drywell and the reactor turbine and
radwaste buildings and the decantate from the centrifugation of
backwashed resins and sludges. Low-purity wastes (high conductivity)
are collected by floor drains from the drywell and the reactor tur-
bine and radwaste buildings. Miscellaneous chemical wastes are
collected from the laboratory and from the laundry and decontam-
ination areas.
III-19
TABLE III-4
CALCULATED CURIE RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS IN GASEOUS EFFLUENT
FROM MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT
AUGMENTED SYSTEM*
(Ci/yr)
Main Condenser
Gland Seal Air Ejector
Reactor Turbine
2 Min.
50 Hr.
Nuclide Building Building Holdup Holdup Total
Kr-83m
15
42
57
Kr-85m
25
70
27
120
Kr-85
0.1
0.4
364
365
Kr-87
75
207
282
Kr-88
81
226
0.9
308
Kr-89
280
517
798
Xe-131m
0.1
0.3
280
280
Xe-133m
1.6
4.5
2,360
2,366
95,170
Xe-133
44
125
95,000
Xe-135m
129
333
460
Xe-135
127
357
8,300
8,790
1,440
Xe-137
484
953
Xe-138
405
1,005
1,460
111,900
Total
1,670
3,890
106,340
I-131
0.009
0.57
0.16
.007
0.75
I-133
0.03
2.8
0.8
.007
3.64
*To be installed by the end of calendar year 1972.
III-20
The applicant plans to recycle water as a fundamental plant process.
Both the condensate powdex filter and the reactor water powdex
filter are designed to assure requisite purity and activity levels
to permit recycling of most of the water processed by the liquid
radwaste system. In addition, nearly all of the high purity and
low purity, along with some portions of the miscellaneous chemical
wastes and laundry rinses, are combined, processed and reused in
the reactor. The sources of liquid waste and the systems for pro-
cessing these wastes are shown in Figure III-6.
To carry out this program of combined treatment, the liquids in the
waste collector tank and floor drain collector tank are blended and
continuously recirculated through a powdex filter and sent back to
the waste collector tank with occasional input from the chemical
waste collector tank. These latter wastes are normally mixed with
cement to aid in solidification of sludges as solid wastes. The
combined wastes are recycled through the filter system until the
collector tank is filled, at which time the waste is processed
through a fresh powdex filter and mixed-bed demineralizer and
collected in one of two waste sample tanks. The design of the
system is such that one of the fuel-pool storage filter-
demineralizers can be used as a backup for the radwaste filter-
demineralizers. After the batch has been sampled and analyzed,
the wastes are normally returned to the condensate storage tanks
for reuse in the reactor. A recycle line is provided to return
off-standard water either to the waste collector or the waste
surge tanks for reprocessing. Presently, all liquid wastes
generated during normal operation are being returned to the plant
for reuse. In our evaluation, considering expected operational
occurrences and equipment availability, we assumed that 10 percent
of the water processed through the mixed-bed demineralizer will be
released from the plant each year.
.
Liquid waste from the plant can only be released by one pathway,
i.e., from the floor drain sample tanks in the radwaste treatment
system. If after sampling and analysis the radioactivity is below
a prescribed level, it will be discharged and monitored. Should the
liquid waste require further processing, it will be routed back to
the waste collector tank.
Chemical was tes, including laundry rinses, are collected in the
chemical waste tank where they are sampled and analyzed. If found
suitable for combining with the lower conductivity wastes, they are
sent to the floor drain collector tank for further processing. The
chemical wastes and filtered laundry wastes, which would require
too much processing to render the water suitable for eventual reuse
III-21
FILTER
DE MINERALIZER
CONDENSATE
DE MINERALIZER
CONDENSER
CONDENSATE
STORAGE TANKS
220,000 gol (2)
CLEAN WASTE
CONDENSATE AND CLEANUP
SLUDGE DECANTATE
COOLING
TOWER
FUEL POOL
FILTER
EQUIPMENT DRAINS FROM
DRYWELL
REACTOR BUILDING
RADWASTE BUILDING
TURBINE BUILDING
RHR SYSTEM
FILTER
DIRTY WASTE
RHR SYSTEM
FLOOR DRAINS FROM
DRYWELL SUMP
REACTOR BUILDING
RADWASTE BUILDING
TURBINE BUILDING
FLOOR DRAIN
COLLECTOR
TANK
10,000 gol
FILTER
FLOOR DRAIN
SAMPLE TANK
10,000 gol
LABORATORY DRAINS
DECONTAMINATION SOLUTIONS
FROM SHOP & RADWASTE BUILDING
CHEMICAL
WASTE TANK
4,000 gol
LAUNDRY
DRAIN TANK
1,000 gol
FILTER
CONVEYOR FLOOR DRAIN
FILTER SLUDGE FROM RADWASTE
FILTERS AND FUEL POOL FILTERS]
WASTE
SLUDGE
TANK
CENTRIFUGES
CONDENSATE FILTER
DE MINERALIZER BACK WASH
(2)
10 pm
}
CONDENSATE
PHASE SEPARATOR
13,000 gol
WASTE DE MINERALIZER
RESIN
}
SPENT RESIN STORAGE
1,000 gol
HOPPERS
40113 (2)
CLEAN-UP FILTER
DE MINERALIZER BACK WASH
}
CLEAN-UP
PHASE SEPARATOR
55 GALLON DRUMS
OFF - SITE
DISPOSAL
STEAM
TURBINE
REACTOR
WASTE
COLLECTOR
TANK
10,000 go!
WASTE
DE MINERALIZER
WASTE
SAMPLE TANKS
10,000 gol
CENTRIFUGE
EFFLUENT
TANK
280,000 gpm
INTAKE
STRUCTURE
DISCHARGE
STRUCTURE
MISSISSIP
SPP
RIVER
FIGURE 111-6. MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT
RADWASTE SYSTEM
III-22
as coolant, are used as a wetting agent for the cement in the solid
waste packaging system. For purposes of this analysis, it was
assumed that 10 percent of the chemical and laundry wastes are
released after filtration through a precoated filter unit to the
discharge canal.
Phase separator tanks receive sludges and spent resins from the
reactor cleanup system and the condensate demineralizer system.
The backwash liquid decantate is returned to the waste collector
tank and recovered for reuse. The waste filter sludge, the fuel
pool filter/demineralizer sludge, and the floor drain filter sludge
are collected in the waste sludge tank and eventually dewatered and
solidified with cement in 55-gallon drums.
Based on our evaluation of the liquid waste treatment, it appears
that the system as installed is capable of reducing the amount of
radioactivity in liquid effluents during normal operation to well
within the limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20. This is particularly
true if the treatment system is operated as it presently is, through
combining of waste streams coupled with continuous recirculation
through filters and polishing with a mixed-bed demineralizer. Based
on the first year of operation, releases have been a fraction of
those values shown in Table III-5. However, to compensate for process
equipment malfunction and downtime and expected operational occur-
rences, the values have been normalized to 5 curies. The calculated
releases of tritium shown in Table III-5 are based on operating
experience.
C.
Operational Experience
During the course of operating the Monticello reactor under normal
conditions and at an annual average full load factor of 80%, the
amount of radioactivity released to the environment is anticipated
to be greater than that shown for the first year of operation.
applicant expects the total annual release of radioactive materials
in liquid effluents will be about 3 curies including tritium and
that the annual average gaseous radioactivity release rate with the
existing 30-minute offgas holdup system will be about 25,000 uCi/sec.
The actual releases of radioactivity for the first year of operation
(approximately 49% plant capacity factor) are shown in Tables III-6
and III-7.
d.
Solid Wastes
Solid wastes are generated from the operation and maintenance of
waste process systems, reactor systems, and plant support systems.
The solid waste processing and handling operations are carried out
remotely in ventilated areas.
III-23
TABLE III-5
CALCULATED ANNUAL RELEASE OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL
IN LIQUID EFFLUENTS FROM MONTICELLO NUCLEAR PLANT
(100% Power)
Nuclides
Ci/yr
Nuclides
Ci/yr
Rb-86
0.00040
Rh-103m
0.0017
Sr-89
0.26
Rh-105
0.0018
Sr-90
0.015
Rh-106
0.00050
Sr-91
0.17
Sn-125
0.000016
Y-90
0.053
Sb-125
0.0000077
Y-91m
0.12
Sb-127
0.00013
Y-91
0.18
Te-125m
0.000071
Y-93
0.22
Te-127m
0.00046
Zr-95
0.0028
Te-127
0.0013
Zr-97
0.0019
Te-129m
0.0045
Nb-95
0.0025
Te-129
0.0029
Nb-97m
0.0019
Te-131m
0.0059
Nb-97
0.0019
Te-131
0.0010
Mo-99
0.47
Te-132
0.060
Tc-99
0.44
I-130
0.0021
Ru-103
0.0017
I-131
0.36
Ru-106
0.00050
I-132
0.060
III-24
TABLE III-5 (cont'd)
Nuclides
Ci/yr
Nuclides
Ci/yr
I-133
0.74
Pm-149
0.00093
I-135
0.10
Sm-153
0.00042
Cs-134
0.20
Na-24
0.012
Cs-136
0.076
P-32
0.000076
Cs-137
0.19
Cr-51
0.017
Ba-137m
0.18
Mn-54
0.0031
Ba-140
0.43
Fe-55
0.075
La-140
0.23
Fe-59
0.024
Ce-141
0.0093
Co-58
0.17
Ce-143
0.0075
Co-60
0.017
Ce-144
0.0017
Cu-64
0.019
Pr-143
0.0029
Zn-65
0.00077
Pr-144
0.0017
Zn-69m
0.00016
Nd-147
0.00095
W-187
0.019
Pm-147
0.00023
TOTAL
5 Ci
H-3
20 Ci
III-25
TABLE III-6
MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT
LIQUID RELEASES 1971
Ci/Month
Gross Activity
Ci/Month
Tritium
1971
January
3 x 10-7
Vol. of Liquid
(Liters)
2 x 10
105
9.2 x 10
105
x
1 x 10-3
February
1.4 x 10
6 x 10->
10-3
March
April
4 x 10-6
1 x 10-5
4 x 10-4
6 x 10-4
7 x 10-3
4 x 10-4
4 x 10-3
x 10-4
7.8 x 104
4.9 x 104
104
May
8
8.6 x 10
June
6 x 10-3
1.4
х
105
July
9 x 10-3
9
7.9 x 10
104
104
August
1.5 x 10
10-4
-4
4 x 10
1.9 x 10
September
6 x 10-3
1 x 10-5
2.5 x 10-1
3.2 x 10-4
October
x
November
2 x 10
10-4
3.2 x 10-1
1.4 x 105
1.6 x 104
105
8.8 x 104
1.2 x 106
2 x 10
-3
December
8 x 10-5
1 x 10
TOTAL
0.014
0.6
III-26
TABLE III-7
MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT
GASEOUS RELEASES 1971
Ci/Month
Noble Gases
Ci/Month
Iodine
1971
Ci/sec.
January
February
March
12
0.000006
150
April
58
0.000026
900
May
710
0.00032
1,875
June
550
0.00025
900
July
1,283
0.0017
11, 250
August
16,700
0.0017
14 , 250
September
21,100
0.015
15,000
October
26,300
0.0082
14,250
November
9,140
0.0046
11,500
December
0.00044
11
76,000
TOTAL
0.032
III-27
Filter sludges from the reactor clean-up, fuel pool, condensate-
filter/demineralizers, radwaste filters and spent resins from the
mixed-bed demineralizer make up the largest volume of solid waste.
The sludges and resins are dewatered by centrifugation after storage
in phase separator tanks. The dewatered material is mixed with
cement, and placed in a 55-gallon drum. The drum is sealed remotely,
decontaminated, and placed in an appropriately shielded area.
Bulk wastes from the reactor system, such as control rod blades,
fuel channels, and in-core-ion chambers are stored in the spent-
fuel storage pool before being removed from the plant in approved
shipping containers. Compactible dry wastes are collected in drums
at the source locations, transferred to the radwaste building, and
compressed by a hydraulic press-baling machine.
Certain chemical wastes that are not suitable for reuse are mixed
with cement during drumming operations or are placed directly in
55-gallon drums previously filled with an absorbent and removed from
the plant as solid waste.
Based on present operating conditions, it is estimated that
approximately 33,000 ft3 of solid waste per year containing
53 curies will be shipped offsite for disposal. In addition,
approximately 80 barrels of compacted wastes will be shipped
offsite annually. All solid waste will be packaged and shipped
in accordance with AEC and DOT Regulations.
3.
Chemical and Sanitary Wastes
A chemically resistant drain system collects and transports
chemical was tes to a retention basin for treatment and subsequent
discharge into the Mississippi River. The retention basin is made
up of two 20,000-gal compartments. The retention basin is covered
and is located between the cooling water intake and discharge
structure as shown in Figure III-4. The compartments are used
separately,. one for standby operation and the other to permit
settling-out of particulate matter. Primary sources for these
was tes are a "solids-contact-unit" and regeneration was tes from
the makeup demineralization system. The "solids-contact-unit"
is a predemineralization process used to remove particulate matter
from river water used as make-up in the steam system. This unit
is followed by two mixed-bed demineralizers for treatment of about
50 gpm of river water.
III-28
Chemical wastes from the floor and sink drains from the non-
radioactive laboratory join the floor drain from the acid and
caustic storage tank area and are directed to the retention basin.
The regeneration wastes from the two mixed demineralizers, contain-
ing about 6,400 lb/yr of sulfuric acid and about 5,500 lb/yr of
100% sodium hydroxide as well as approximately 220,000 gal/yr of
backwash, dilution and rinse water, are also delivered to the
retention basin.
Chlorine is the only chemical used to treat the circulating water
system. Based upon a flow rate of 280,000 gpm, the estimated
amounts of chlorine released from the system and approximate
residual concentrations for the several modes of circulating
water system operation are listed in Table III-8.
The significant chemical agents present in the chemical holdup
pond are listed in Table III-9. The residual concentrations in
the discharge canal are based upon an assumed flow of 280,000 gpm
during the month for dilution and release of about 80,000 gal/
month from the pond.
Blowdown from the plant heating boiler flows to the retention
basin and contains some trisodium phosphate and caustic. Blow-
down from the "solids-contact-unit," a cold lime softening
process, is also transported by the chemically resistant drain
system to the retention basin. This blowdown contains about
2,750 lb/yr of lime sludge. Sand filters in the makeup demineral-
ization system are backwashed with about 117,000 gal/yr of water
and this flow, containing some solids, is also directed to the
retention basin.
The lime sludge from the solids contact unit blowdown causes
the pH of the water to be high. However, the demineralizer
regeneration wastes tend to lower the pH value. The clarified
effluent from the compartment in use flows to a monitoring com-
partment where the pH is measured and corrected, if necessary, by
the addition of sulfuric acid.
All sanitary wastes are collected and transported to the treatment
facility by the sanitary sewer system. A septic tank soil absorp-
tion system is utilized for treatment and disposal of sewage. The
design capacity of the septic tank accommodates a maximum popula-
tion of 260 people, assuming 30 gal of sewage/person/day. The
tile drain field consists of 10 trenches, 2 ft wide, each with 80 ft
of 4-in. tile pipe, and conforms to Minnesota State Board of Health
regulations. Based on design calculations, soil test borings, and
percolation tests, the sanitary sewage system effluent will have no
adverse effect upon the groundwater in the plant site area.
III-29
TABLE III-8
AMOUNTS OF CHLORINE RELEASED AND RESIDUAL CONCENTRATIONS
IN DISCHARGE CANAL
Pounds of Chlorine
Added/day
Residual Chlorine
Concentration ppm
Short Duration
Average
Peak
Mode of Operation
Open Cycle
100
0.03
0.30
Helper Cycle
125-150
0.045
0.45
Recirculation
within the range of the
above values
closed Cycle
No provision is made for sustained closed
cycle operation. Chlorination in that mode
is expected to be within the range noted for
open or helper cycle modes.
TABLE III-9
CHEMICAL HOLDUP POND RELEASES TO DISCHARGE CANAL
Pond
Concentration
(ppm)
Amount Released
to Discharge Canal
(1b/month)
Discharge Canal
Concentration
Chemical
(ppm)
Sulfate
275
183
0.0018
Sodium
250
167
0.0017
Phosphate
-6
<0,5
0.3
<3.0 x 10-
IV-1
IV.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF SITE PREPARATIONS AND
PLANT CONSTRUCTION
Initial site grading and excavation for the construction of the
Monticello plant began in September 1966. Construction started
on June 19, 1967, and was completed during the fall of 1970.
Following a period of testing full commercial operation began on
June 30, 1971. With the Monticello Plant completed and in opera-
tion, environmental impacts associated with construction have
already been incurred.
Construction of the plant resulted in permanent conversion of
about 50 acres of farmland to plant usage. In addition, about
10 acres have been used for construction of an access road and
railroad and as a landfill site for disposal of excavated mate-
rial. A total of 220 acres of land in the immediate vicinity
of the site has been removed from agricultural use and about
160 acres are being allowed to return to its natural state.
Conifer trees have been planted on about 100 acres of this land,
and a portion is reserved for warm water fish growth studies by
the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. The only construction
area previously having anything approaching native cover was a
short section of tree covered river bank which was leveled to
provide sites for water intake facilities, the chemical waste pond
and cooling towers. Excavated material was used to raise and
level the site. The small amount of such clearing and leveling
associated with construction of the site does not appear to have
had a significant impact on the native terrestrial flora or fauna
of the site as a whole.
The shoreline at the plant site appears undistrubed by the con-
struction, except for the openings required for the recirculating
system intake and discharge. Stabilization at locations of
potential erosion appear to have been obtained primarily by
sloping. Concrete wing walls were installed at the intake house
to prevent bank collapse. The construction impact on the aquatic
environment was restricted primarily to that associated with the
construction of the cooling water intake structure and effluent
canal. A plastic coating was placed on the outside face of the
earthen cofferdam around the intake structure to prevent excessive
erosion and mud from entering the river.
IV-2
Liquid construction wastes were treated as necessary to meet State
limits for such discharges into the Mississippi River. The bottom
of the river was dredged out for about 170 ft from the bank to
establish an elevation of 898 ft MSL at the canal bottom. About
one-third of an acre was disturbed in that operation. Construc-
tion of the effluent canal resulted in disturbance of a similar
area of river bottom. It is unlikely that the benthos of these
two areas survived the construction activities. The increased
silt loads during construction of the canals, particularly along
the south bank, were likely to have adversely affected the bottom
organisms for a few hundred feet downstream. No measure of this
impact is available and, in view of its temporary nature, it is
not considered to be significant.
>
The average work force during construction was about 750, over
2 1/2 yr with the peak force at about 1000. The majority of the
construction workers were permanent residents of the surrounding
area and did not need special housing.
V-1
V.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PLANT OPERATION
A.
LAND USE
Prior to construction of the Monticello Plant most of the site was
leased by NSP to several individuals for farming. Some of the site
located in Sherburne County has been leased again for farming.
About 60 acres of the site in Wright County was used for construc-
tion of the generating plant. This amounts to about 5% of the
total site that was converted to this use. The total 220 acres
reduction in agricultural land is not considered to be significant
in view of the thousands of acres of similar land used for farming
in this region.
Thompson Island (extreme left-center near bend in river - Figure 6)
)
is established as a recreation area for NSP personnel and is fre-
quently used as a stopping point by occupants of canoes passing
along the river during the sunmer season.
Lands in Sherburne County continue to be used for agriculture,
grazing, etc., in the same general ways as before the Monticello
plant was established. A small area (7.2 acres) on the southeast
corner in Wright County was given to and is being used by Wright
County for a park, primarily for picnicing.
B.
WATER USE
At full power and with once-through cooling the Monticello Plant
will withdraw water from the Mississippi River at the rate of
about 645 cfs. This water will be heated by 26.8°F and returned
to the river. The addition of this amount of heat will result in
the evaporation of about 5,000 acre-ft/yr more than would otherwise
occur in this reach of the Mississippi River. It is expected,
however, that in order to meet permit limitations on river tempera-
ture that the mechanical draft cooling towers will be operative
through most of the warmer months either in the helper mode or
recirculation mode. Assuming the more likely mode of operation as
helper tower operation during the period April through October and
the once-through mode the rest of the year, the consumptive use of
water would amount to about 9,000 acre-ft/yr. If the closed-cycle
mode could be used through out the year about 54 cfs would be
withdrawn from the river and 36 cfs would be returned to the river
with a net consumption of 18 cfs or about 13,000 acre-ft/yr.
V-2
The average annual flow of the Mississippi River at the Monticello
site is estimated to be about 4,600 cfs or 3.3 million acre-ft/yr.
On an overall basis the consumptive use of water (less than 0.3%)
(
by the Monticello Plant is not significant in relation to that
available. However, to limit withdrawals by the Monticello site
during periods of low flow, the State of Minnesota, Department of
Conservation permits withdrawal of 645 cfs only when the river
flow exceeds 860 cfs and other requirements of the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) are met. When flows are less that
860 cfs and more than 240 cfs the plant may draw a maximum of 75%
of the flow at the intake. Such withdrawals are inadequate to
maintain once-through cooling at full load. For flows below 240
cfs the Commission of the Department of Conservation will pre-
scribe special conditions for operation in order to provide for
other water users including fish and other aquatic organisms.
As stated earlier, the increase in temperature of the condenser
cooling water is about 26.8°F. Whether this water, according to
the permit issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, may
be returned directly to the river or whether it must be partially
cooled before return or not returned at all depends on the
ambient river temperature. The overall criteria is that as a
result of the effluent discharge and after reasonable dilution
and mixing the river temperature must not be raised above
specified limits (see Section II-D-2).
Thermal surveys have been conducted to study the effect of heated
water discharge on the Mississippi River. These studies will
continue until the mixing zone is delineated under various
climatic and hydrologic operating conditions. One such survey
is illustrated in Figure V-l for the following specific condi-
tions as they existed on September 20, 1971:
Average Intake Temperature
60.8°F
Average Condenser Discharge Temperature 84.1°F
Average Dry Bulb Temperature
68.0°F
Average Wet Bulb Temperature
59.0°F
Average Canal Discharge Temperature
74.2°F
Average Plant Load
508.6 MW
Discharge Flow to River
633 cfs
Average Percent Cloud Cover
48%
Average Wind Velocity
6.5 mph
Average Wind Direction
SSW
River Flow
1215 cfs
Tower Operation: Plant on Partial Helper Cycle
V-3
64°
650
66°
67°
MILE 3
66°
620
630
64°
MILE 2
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
MILE 1
LEGEND
5° OR MORE ABOVE AMBIENT
100 OR MORE ABOVE AMBIENT
TEMPERATURE IN OF
DISCHARGE CANAL
71° 67
75°
MILE O
61°
0
1000
2000
MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWERS
FEET
MONTICELLO NUCLEAR
GENERATING PLANT
FIGURE V-1.
OBSERVED TEMPERATURE PATTERNS IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER
BELOW THE MONTICELLO SITE, SEPTEMBER 20, 1971
V-4
Since it may be some time before measured temperature increases
will be available for all combinations of river flows and cooling
modes of interest the Staff has calculated these temperature
increases for representative conditions. Ten thermal surveys
from June 22 to November 9, 1971 and 6-year temperature and flow
records generated for the Monticello site have been used in this
analysis to obtain temperature increase predictions for routine
plant operation under open cycle and helper modes for low and
average flow conditions during summer, and open cycle mode for
low and average flow conditions during winter. Average and low
flow cases have been represented using the 6-year water flow
record generated for the Monticello site. These predictions are
shown in Figures V-2 through V-7.
Predicted river temperatures can be obtained by adding the tempera-
ture rise above ambient in Figures V–2 through V-7 to the 6-year
average temperatures, 6-year maximum temperature envelope, or
6-year minimum temperature envelope that are shown in Figure II-4.
The temperature rise in the discharge canal for all cases was
calculated from plant operating data and from meteorology, tempera-
ture and river flow data generated by the applicant for 1962
through 1967. For August conditions the temperature rise in the
discharge canal for open cycle operation was 26.8°F, and for helper
cycle operation the average rise was calculated to be 7.6°F.
.
Figures V-2 and V-3 are based on summer average conditions helper
tower operation, and under open cycle, respectively during August.
Average 6-year flow for these cases was 4000 cfs. Figure V-4 is
based on the average winter conditions during January and February.
The six-year average river flow for January and February is about
2500 cfs. The temperature distributions shown in Figures V-5 and
V-6 represent the summer extreme conditions under helper tower
operation and open cycle, respectively. This extreme occurs in
August when 6-year low flows are about 1200 cfs. Figure V-7 is
based on the extreme conditions that could occur in January or
February during 6-year low river flow of about 1500 cfs.
During August low flow conditions and helper tower operations, the
5° temperature rise extends less than 1000 ft downstream of the
discharge. During these same flow conditions without the use of
cooling towers, the 5°F temperature rise occupies the whole chan-
nel at the Monticello Bridge.
V-5
1°
MILE 3
1°
MILE 2
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
20
MILE 1
3°
SURFACE TEMPERATURE RISE ABOVE AMBIENT (°F)
50
AUGUST CONDITIONS
AVERAGE FLOW (4000 CFS)
HELPER TOWER OPERATION
MILE O
DISCHARGE CANAL
MECHANICAL DRAFT
COOLING TOWERS
0
1000
2000
MONTICELLO NUCLEAR
GENERATING PLANT
FEET
FIGURE V-2.
SURFACE TEMPERATURE RISE PREDICTIONS, AUGUST
AVERAGE FLOW, HELPER TOWER OPERATION
V-6
2°
1°
MILE 3
1°
2°
MILE 2
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
8°
MILE 1
SURFACE TEMPERATURE RISE ABOVE AMBIENT (°F)
4°
4°
6°
15°
AUGUST CONDITIONS
24°
AVERAGE FLOW (4000 CFS)
MILE O
OPEN CYCLE OPERATION
DISCHARGE CANAL
MECHANICAL DRAFT
COOLING TOWERS
0
1000
2000
MONTICELLO NUCLEAR
GENERATING PLANT
FEET
FIGURE V-3
SURFACE TEMPERATURE RISE PREDICTIONS, AUGUST,
AVERAGE FLOW, OPEN CYCLE OPERATION
1
V-7
8°
60
4°
MILE 3
4°
MILE 2
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
.
8°
MILE 1
SURFACE TEMPERATURE RISE ABOVE AMBIENT (°F)
15°
JANUARY-FEBRUARY CONDIT
AVERAGE FLOW (2500 CFS)
MILEO
OPEN CYCLE OPERATION
DISCHARGE CANAL
MECHANICAL DRAFT
COOLING TOWERS
0 1000 2000
FEET
MONTICELLO NUCLEAR
GENERATING PLANT
FIGURE V-4.
SURFACE TEMPERATURE RISE PREDICTIONS, JANUARY-FEBRUARY
AVERAGE FLOW, OPEN CYCLE OPERATION
24°
V-8
30
2°
MILE 3
30
2°
MILE 2
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
MILE 1
SURFACE TEMPERATURE RISE ABOVE AMBIENT (°F)
50
AUGUST CONDITIONS
7°
LOW FLOW (1200 CFS)
MILE O
HELPER TOWER OPERATION
-DISCHARGE CANAL
MECHANICAL DRAFT
COOLING TOWERS
0
1000
2000
MONTICELLO NUCLEAR
GENERATING PLANT
FEET
FIGURE V-5.
SURFACE TEMPERATURE RISE PREDICTIONS, AUGUST,
LOW FLOW, HELPER TOWER OPERATION
V-9
MILE 3
10°
89
6°
MILE 2
MISSISSIPPI
RIVER
SURFACE TEMPERATURE RISE ABOVE AMBIENT (°F)
AUGUST CONDITIONS
DISCHARGE CANAL
LOW FLOW (1200 CFS)
8°
15°
MILE 1
MILE O
OPEN CYCLE OPERATION
MECHANICAL DRAFT
COOLING TOWERS
0
1000
2000
FEET
MONTICELLO NUCLEAR
GENERATING PLANT
FIGURE V-6.
SURFACE TEMPERATURE RISE PREDICTIONS, AUGUST,
LOW FLOW, OPEN CYCLE OPERATION
24°
V-10
MILE 3
oo
MILE 2
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
10°
SURFACE TEMPERATURE RISE ABOVE AMBIENT (°F)
8°
10°
6°
15°
MILE 1
20°
24.
JANUARY -FEBRUARY CONDITIONS
LOW FLOW (1500 CFS)
MILE O
OPEN CYCLE OPERATION
DISCHARGE CANAL
MECHANICAL DRAFT
COOLING TOWERS
0
1000
2000
FEET
MONTICELLO NUCLEAR
GENERATING PLANT
FIGURE V-7.
SURFACE TEMPERATURE RISE PREDICTIONS, JANUARY-FEBRUARY
LOW FLOW, OPEN CYCLE OPERATION
V-11
Similarly, during August average flow conditions with helper tower
operation, the 5° temperature rise extends downstream only about
600 ft. During these same flow conditions without the use of
cooling towers the 5° temperature rise again extends downs tream as
far as the Monticello Bridge,
Additional calculations have been made to determine the downstream
distance affected by temperature rises greater than 5°F and 0.1°F.
These results are summarized in Table V-l. In that table and for
helper tower operation, the temperature has been calculated for
expected August conditions and would not be representative for
other months, The wet bulb temperatures are generally higher at
other times of year causing lessened evaporation in the cooling
towers and consequent higher temperature rises in the discharge
canal. The August conditions were chosen as the most critical
because ambient river temperatures are high and river flows are
low at this time.
.
.
The discharge of chemicals from the plant is not expected to alter
the quality of the Mississippi River water significantly. The
physical characteristics of the Mississippi River upstream and
downstream of the plant as measured on February 28, 1972 are
presented in Table V-2.
Furthermore, the following table shows the limits specified in
the MPCA permit compared with actual values of release as reported
to the MPCA for the first six months of operation.
Parameter
MPCA Permit
Actual Release
PH
Turbidity Value
5 Day BOD
Total Suspended Solids
6.5 8,5
25 JTU
25 mg/1
30 mg/1
7.7
5.7
0.8
6.0
Release of heated water to the river during winter months in open
cycle operation of the plant will reduce scouring effects along
the river from ice. Down stream flooding resulting from ice jams
may also be relieved somewhat by the production of open water
channels by the heated water.
V-12
TABLE V-1
DOWNSTREAM EXTENT OF THERMAL PLUMES FROM THE
MONTICELLO PLANT
OPEN CYCLE OPERATION
Flow (cfs)
Temperature Rise (°F)
5.0
0.1
1200
5.3 mi.
16 mi.
1500
5.7 mi.
20 mi.
2500
6.0 mi.
29 mi.
4000
3.7 mi.
41 mi.
HELPER TOWER OPERATION
(EXPECTED AUGUST CONDITIONS)
Temperature Rise (°F)
5.0
0.1
Flow (cfs)
1200
950 ft
13 mi.
1500
840 ft
15 mi.
2500
680 ft
22 mi.
4000
600 ft
29 mi.
V-13
TABLE V-2
ANALYSIS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATER CHARACTERISTICS
NEAR AND AT THE MONTICELLO PLANT
FEBRUARY 28, 1972
Plant
Upstream Downstream Discharge
3
ppm
P Alkalinity
M Alkalinity
Ammonia Nitrogen
Organic Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Nitrite Nitrogen
Chloride
ppm
Sulfate
4
Color Units
Turbidity - JTU
Total Hardness
ppm Caco
ppm Caco
Å
ppm N
ppm N
ppm N
ppm SO
0
170
0.05
0.933
0.28
0.001
1.4
7.8
35
3.9
177
122
7.5
288
12
276
0
169
0.02
0.61
0.37
0.003
0.9
6.6
35
2.0
178
114
7.9
272
3
269
0
165
0.02
0.65
0.37
0.002
1.0
7.3
35
2.5
178
122
7.8
247
5
242
-
-
ppm Caco
Calcium Hardness - ppm Cado,
-
-
3
pH
Total Solids - ppm
Non-Filterable Solids - ppm
Dissolved Solids ppm
Fixed Non-Filterable Solids
ppm
Volatile Solids ppm
Total Soluble Phosphorus
m
8
4
2
1
3
2
ppm P
mg/m
3
Total Chlorophyll
Conductivity - mmhos (25°C)
Temp. °C
D.0, mg/1
BOD mg/1
0.035
5.7
364
0.2
8.4
0.9
0.026
1.5
357
8.3
8.6
1.0
0.024
1.6
364
15.5
8.2
0.9
.
Cooling towers not operating
V-14
C.
BIOLOGICAL IMPACT
1.
Terrestrial
Major alterations in land use at the Monticello site, other than
in the immediate operating areas, will be favorable to the native
terrestrial biota. Approximately 220 acres of land were withdrawn
from agriculture with only about 60 of that being used for site
development. Of the remainder, 100 acres in Wright County has
already been planted with pine trees. While the conifers are not
dominant in this particular region and their presence is not
conducive to re-establishing the native "Big Woods" biota, they
will provide cover for some of the birds and animals and thus be
more of an asset to native life than if the fields were continued
in agriculture. A portion of one old field east of the reactor
area is tentatively held for studies of warm water effects on
aquatic organisms. It is anticipated, however, that adjacent land
and other areas removed from grazing and agriculture will be
reinvaded rapidly by the native deciduous forest species (e.g.,
oak, maple, basswood, elm, ash and cottonwood). The weedy stage
in this succession is already well advanced, These old fields
provide good opportunities for ecological studies of plant succes -
sion and changes in population levels of animal species.
The warm water from the plant will help maintain some open water
in what has been otherwise iced over river. This open water may
be attractive to waterfowl and lead to changes in hunting practices
downstream from the plant.
Fog resulting from cooling tower operations will amount to 3 hr/yr
at a maximum distance of 2 miles to the north or 4 miles to the
southeast. The total time for all fogging is estimated at 45 hr/yr.
nis is expected to cause no biological impact.
Since the chemical was te ponds are covered, they are not expected
to affect birds nor is the diluted discharge in the outlet canal
expected to be of any consequences to animal life,
Plant operation involves human activity which may force wildlife
away from the more heavily used areas. Since visitors to the plant
site are not encouraged this type of disturbance to native biota
is minimized and the beneficial effects of increasing native cover
will, with time, probably more than offset the detrimental effects
of human activity.
Surrounding areas contain numerous small parks, campgrounds, the
Sand Dune State Forest, and the large Sherburne Wildlife Refuge
to the North. There is no evidence that the presence of the
V-15
Monticello Plant or its operation will have any adverse effects
on any of these. Boating, primarily canoeing, is unimpeded in
the stretch of the river by the plant.
2.
Aquatic
The principal effects that the operation of the Monticello Plant
may have or may have had on aquatic environment are believed to
be confined to the following:
The attraction of fish to the intake canal and their
impingement on the condenser cooling water intake
screens
The entrainment of aquatic organisms in the condenser
cooling water and their exposure to thermal mechanical
and chemical stress
The effect on aquatic organisms attracted to the
discharge canal
The effect on aquatic organisms from release of
chemicals to the river
The impact on the Mississippi River biota in areas
of elevated river temperature which result from
discharge of condenser cooling water or blowdown.
An analysis of these potential effects by the Staff is as follows:
a.
Effects of Intake Structure
The intake canal may be an attractive habitat to fish preferring
lower current velocities and water depth than that of the main
river. Some of the game fish seem to seek sheltered microhabitats
in the river.
27
An additional attractant during winter may be
provided by an area of warm water in the intake canal resulting
from recirculation of warm condenser effluent water or addition of
steam to the intake canal to prevent or reduce ice formation.
Schools of crappie have been observed in the intake canal in
summer, and several hundred of this species were killed by
impingement on the intake screens immediately following the startup
of the plant after a period of inoperation. No quantitative mea-
surement of fish mortality at the intake screens has been made
V-16
during operation. According to Northern States Power Company
personnel, fish loss by impingement on the intake screens has
been infrequently observed. The material that collects on the
screens is washed off by water jets and returned directly to
the river. It is possible that some fish that are uninjured
after removal from the screens may survive. The Staff finds
that the assessment of possible fish loss is inconclusive and
warrants further quantification to assure that no corrective
measures are necessary.
The ability of fish to maintain their position in water currents
varies with size, species, and temperature. Juvenile striped
bass (Roccus saxatilis) and chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawy tscha) approximately 1 to 1-1/2 in. long can maintain
their position in currents of 1 fps velocity. Smallmouth
bass fry (Micropterus dolomieui) 20 to 25 mm long have a dis-
placement speed ranging from 0.16 to 1.02 fps at acclimation
temperatures of 41°F (5°C) and 86°F (30°C) respectively.
37
The displacement swimming speed of these fish is directly
proportional to temperature in the 41-86°F range; swimming
ability is reduced to 0.82 fps at 95°F (35°C). Dace (Leuciscus
leuciscus) 3.6 cm in length have burst swimming speeds of about
2.3 fps but can not maintain this speed for any length of time.
For some freshwater fishes the maximum swimming speed that can
be attained for brief periods is about ten times their length
38
per second. River temperatures prevailing during the early
summer, the period when small fish are present in the river,
are 68°F (20°C) or greater. At this temperature the maximum
displacement speed for juvenile smallmouth bass would be about
0.7 fps. It therefore seems likely that some impingement or
entrainment of small fish entering the intake canal will occur.
b
Effects of Entrainment
Aquatic organisms entrained in the condenser cooling water are
subjected to a sudden temperature rise of 26.8°F during full
plant load and once-through or cooling tower helper modes of
operation. Additionally, chlorine is added to the cooling water
near the intake. This chemical is used to control fouling in
the condenser cooling tubes and in the cooling towers. It is
added for 40 min/ day in pulses of 20 minutes duration or less.
The concentration in the cooling water is 1 ppm and 5 ppm for
once-through and cooling tower helper modes of operation,
respectively. (The average residual chlorine concentration at
the outfall of the discharge canal will be less than 0.05 ppm.)
V-17
Water flow rate through the condenser tubes is limited to 7 fps.
Transit time for water passage from the condenser inlet to the
discharge canal inlet is about 1.6 min for once-through cooling,
and approximately 4.6 min for the once-through plus cooling tower
helper mode. Estimated transit time through the discharge canal
to the river is about 13 min. The maximum total time before
dilution of the cooling water by mixing with the river is on the
order of 18 minutes. Since true plankton is very sparse in the
21
Mississippi River near the Monticello Plant, the principal life
forms that are expected to be entrained are algae, originating
from the benthos; drift organisms, mainly composed of mayfly and
caddisfly larvae; and small fish. The eggs of the fish indigenous
to the Monticello area are demersal and often adhesive, and
usually would not be present in suspension in the water.
94°F. 39
Planktonic algae passing through power plant condenser cooling
systems show little damage if temperatures do not exceed 93 to
A 20% reduction in photosynthesis has been observed in
entrained phytoplankton exposed to a AT of 10°F and a maximum
temperature of 85°F.40 In one study a temperature increase of
13°F in a power plant cooling system produced no harmful effects
to entrained crustaceans and diptera larvae.
41
The upper tolerance
limits for caddisflies are 95°F with greatest diversity at 82 to
84.2°F. 42,52
The upper limits for the majority of genera of
chironomids are 86 to 91.4°F.42 These are values for prolonged
exposure, much longer than those in the Monticello cooling system.
It is concluded that the Monticello Plant may produce some thermal
stress on entrained algae and invertebrates, but that mortality
from high temperatures will be low.
The expected summer maximum in the cooling system will be about
98°F and will last for about 3 min. As the water passes through
the cooling towers the temperature will fall to 80 to 85°F (10 to
15°F above river ambient) in a period of about 1.5 min.
The ability of small fish to withstand passage through power
plant cooling systems, including the sudden temperature rise, is
not well established but it probably varies widely with life stage
and species. Entrainment studies using the fathead minnow are
planned for the Monticello Plant. Sudden temperature increases
of 14.4°F with maximum temperatures of 86°F were not lethal to
coarse fish at exposure times of 100 min, but trout were killed
by this treatment. 43 Between 65 to 83% of the fish were killed
during studies made at a nuclear power plant in which larval fish
V-18
were entrained in the condenser cooling water system with a ST of
22.5°F and a flow-through time of 93 seconds. At maximum tempera-
tures of 95°F (35°C) no fish survived passage through the
condensers, and 100% mortality resulted from a 50-min exposure
to temperatures above 86°F (30°C). The fish in this study were
2 to 15 mm in length and included carp, spottail shiner, and
johnny darter. The conditions under which these observations
were made are similar in some respects to those at the Monticello
Plant, and suggest that the survival of entrained larval fish at
Monticello will be low.
The addition of chlorine to the cooling water can be expected to
produce additional stress and mortality of entrained organisms.
The lethal threshold of chlorine for fish is well below 1 ppm.
The threshold for rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) is 0.2 ppm and
for tench (Tinca tinca) 0.4 ppm.
46
The interaction of chlorine
and high temperature, or the effect of intermittent brief
exposure have not been measured, but evidence of longer exposure
of fish to chlorine indicates that the level of use at Monticello
(Table III-8) would not be detrimental to other than entrained
aquatic life since the maximum level discharged to the canal
is less than 0.5 ppm with an average concentration through the
canal of less than 0.05 ppm.
C.
Effects of Discharge Canal
Preliminary evidence at the Monticello Plant shows that fish are
attracted to the discharge canal during the colder periods of the
year. An environmental study of the thermal effluents of the
fossil fueled thermal plant on the St. Croix River, Minnesota
shows that the fish population increased 500% in the effluent
discharge canal after the resumption of plant operation following
an extended plant outage.
4 0
The attractiveness of heated waters,
particularly in the winter in the temperate zone, has been
observed in both freshwater and marine environments.43,47–49
It
has been suggested that zones of above normal temperature may
adversely affect aquatic organisms through change in maturation
time, disease resistance, behavior, metabolic rate, and resistance
50
to low temperatures. Abrupt, 18-27°F (10-15°C) temperature
decreases have proven fatal to fish.
Recently, large numbers of juvenile menhaden living in the thermal
discharge of the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in New Jersey
were killed, supposedly from cold shock.51
A drop of 11°F in the
natural water temperatures during the 24 hours preceding plant
shutdown increased the magnitude of the temperature change. The
V-19
discharge canal at the Monticello Plant has the potential for fish
kills during wintertime plant shutdown. Further, it may not pro-
vide an adequate food base for fish trapped there in winter under
"summer" temperatures and the accompanying higher metabolic rates.
The staff finds that the applicant should make further studies of
this possible impact to establish a basis for possible corrective
action if the numbers of fish which might be expected to be
affected are significant.
d.
Effects of Chemical Releases
Plant chemical wastes are produced from the annual use of 6850 lb
of sulfuric acid, 5500 lb of sodium hydroxide, 2750 lb of lime
sludge and 335,000 gal of water used for dilution, backwash and
rinse water. Before discharge to the river, these wastes are
collected in a two-compartment retention basin, where the
particulates are allowed to settle and the pH is adjusted to
6.5-8.5 range.
Periodically the settled materials are removed
and disposed of as solid radwaste. The concentration of this
material after dilution in the discharge canal will be less than
5 ppb (sulfate 1.8 ppb, sodium 1.7 ppb, and phosphate 0.003 ppb)
and will have no measurable impact on the biota in the discharge
canal or river.
e.
Effects of Elevated River Temperatures
Beginning in early June and continuing through early September
the temperature of the Mississippi River can be expected to
exceed 70°F and may reach 83°F. River flow can be expected to
average 4000 cfs or above but occasionally may be on the order
of 1000 cfs. Expected increases in river temperatures resulting
from thermal discharges from the Monticello Plant were presented
in Figures 15 through 20 for average and low river flow condi-
tions and for different modes of cooling tower operation.
The area within which river temperatures may exceed 10°F above
ambient was calculated to be about 2 1/2 acres for a day in
late June (June 22, 1971 data; river temperature 76°F, river
flow 4200 cfs) using the cooling towers in the helper mode.
Similarly. the area within which the temperatures may exceed
81°F (5°F AT) was calculated to be about 4 acres. On a day
in mid-August (August 13, 1971 data, river temperature 74°F,
river flow 1140 cfs) the area within which temperatures may
exceed 84°F (10°F AT) was calculated to be about 1 1/2 acres
V-20
where as the area within which temperatures may exceed 79°F (5°F
AT) was calculated to be about 14 acres. In either case, although
the length of the plume varied, the water, heated an additional
5°F or more, occupied less than 50% of the width of the river.
In terms of biological response to elevated temperatures it was
noted in Section V-2-b that natural caddisfly populations are
found over an upper temperature range of 54 to 95 °F but show the
greatest diversity at 84.2°F.42,52 Laboratory studies on a number
of species of stonefly, caddisfly and mayfly larvae, acclimated
to 50°F exhibit 96-hr median tolerance limits ranging from 70 to
87°F. 53
At temperatures of about 85 °F may flies were least tolerant
to thermal stress, followed in order by caddisflies and stone-
flies.
54
The 22 hr thermal median tolerance limit (TLM) for 7
species of chironomids ranged from 82 to 102°F.55 In addition to
possible lethal effects, the increased temperature may tend to
deplete the insect larvae population by increasing the rate of
In one study of the benthic invertebrate fauna of a
temperate stream thermal additions of 20 to 25°F produced a
marked reduction in the number of taxa and the number of
individuals.57 The upper thermal tolerance for most of the
bottom organisms was 90 to 95°F. Within the zones of temperature
exceeding 90°F adverse effects on some of the sessile benthic
organisms would be expected. Since the zones so effected are
expected to be small in comparison with the area for benthic
production in this stretch of the river even the total loss of
organisms from these zones is not considered to be of major
consequence.
drift. 56
.
The species composition of the algal populations in the area near
the plant discharge will probably change in favor of the generally
more thermally tolerant blue-green forms (Cyanophyta). Indica-
tions of stimulated algal growth have been observed in the dis-
charge canal since the start of power plant operation. In areas
of the river outside the 5 °F isotherm changes in the sessile
algae due to thermal effects may be difficult to identify because
of the effects of other widely varying environmental factors,
such as ambient temperature, light, turbidity and river flow.
Many of the species of fish in the river are classed as warm-water
fish, with relatively high thermal tolerance. The recommended
provisional temperature limits for some of these fishes have been
suggested by the Federal Water Quality Administration (now the
Environmental Protection Agency (see Table V-3). The preferred
V-21
TABLE V-3
PROVISIONAL MAXIMUM TEMPERATURES RECOMMENDED
AS COMPATIBLE WITH THE WELL-BEING OF VARIOUS
FISH AND THEIR ASSOCIATED BIOTA58
Temperature
(°F)
Parameter
Species
93
Growth
catfish, gar
90
Growth
bluegill, crappie
84
Growth
pike, perch, walleye,
smallmouth bass
80
Spawning
Egg Development
catfish
65
Egg Development
perch, smallmouth bass
48
Spawning
Egg Development
walleye, northern pike
V-22
temperatures of some of these species are as follows: Smallmouth
bass, 82°F; bluegill, 90°F, and carp, 90°F. 59 These fall within
the temperature range expected in the Mississippi River outside
the limited zone near the point of plant discharge. The ability
of fish to perceive minute differences in temperature, and to
generally avoid high temperatures 42 supports the conclusion that
thermally produced fish mortality in the vicinity of the Monticello
Plant is unlikely.
However, because the mixing zone (to which the permissible temper-
atures in the river are related) has not been set, the maximum
river temperature which may result from plant operation is, in
effect, un controlled. In order to assure free passage of fish
past the plant and to restrict the area within which significant
adverse effects on biota may occur under extreme summer conditions,
the staff recommends that NSP be required to operate the plant
such that the temperature of the river due to plant operation
does not exceed 90°F over one-half the river width at anytime.
The heated discharge may affect fish spawning in the section of
river immediately downstream. Since the extent and areas of
spawning have not been identified in the area near the plant,
no qualitative estimates of effect can be made. However, most
of the fish in the Monticello area are spring or early summer
spawn and for some of these, particularly the bass and
crappie, slightly warmer temperatures during the spawning
and early life stages may be beneficial.
No extensive movement or migration of the fishes near Monticello
have been observed. 27 In studies on the movement of walleye in
the upper Mississippi River, 85% of the population did not move
more than 50 miles from the original point of capture, and over
50% did not move more than 5 miles.
60
Regardless, less than 50%
of the river width is expected to be heated to more than 5°F
above ambient and there appears to be no reason for concern
that the plant effluents will have an adverse effect on the
movements of fish population.
The influence of the plant dis charges on the river biota has
11
been reported for the first six months of operation. Although
the results of these studies will need verification and extension,
they do indicate the following changes resulting from early plant
operation:
V-23
(1) The bulk of the aquatic population in the zone of elevated
temperature was not significantly influenced by the heated
discharge. There were significant increases in numbers of
Stenonema may flies and two previously unencountered groups,
Alloperla stoneflies and Tipulidae (craneflies), appeared
within 1/4 mile downstream from the plant discharge.
This
may indicate possible trends in the adaptation of benthic
fauna to thermal incursion.
>
(2)
If the thermal discharge produces a mixed water temperature
increase of 5°F the imposed seasonal effect would be to
advance the rising vernal temperatures by about two weeks
and to retard the autumnal heat loss by two weeks, having
the total effect of extending the "growing" season by
about one month.
.
(3)
No differences in algae biomass in the main river were
attributable to plant operation. Attached algae growth
was stimulated in the discharge canal.
In summary the thermal discharge from the Monticello Plant is
expected to produce the following changes in the biota of the
river:
a)
Within the area (approximately 14 acres) immediately down-
stream from the discharge canal, where maximum temperatures
in excess of 90°F are expected to occur, in summer there
will be a change in the structure of the benthic community.
Blue-green algae will be favored over the sessile diatoms
and filamentous green algae, and the normal insect popu-
lations will be reduced by intolerably high temperatures
and increased rate of drift. Species diversity will be
reduced, but populations of thermophylic forms such as
certain species of may flies, stoneflies and craneflies
will increase.
b)
Outside the 90°F zone the effects of the plant discharge
will be difficult to me as ure. No restriction in fish
migration or reduction in spawning area is expected but
some extension in the normal growing season may occur.
V-24
f.
Biological Monitoring
Pre-operational baseline studies of the Mississippi River near the
Monticello Plant were initiated in May 1968 and approximately 900
man-days were devoted to this phase of the program.
>
Operational studies were begun in February 1971 to coincide with
plant operation testing. The applicant intends to "continue these
studies for several years, or until a stable pattern of biological
impact has developed." These studies are under the direction of
Dr. Alfred J. Hopwood, St. Cloud College, St. Cloud, Minnesota;
and Dr. Alan Brook, University of Minnesota at Minneapolis.
An
outline of the aquatic ecological studies program is given in
Table V-4. Special onsite fish entrainment studies, beginning in
1972, will be conducted by Dr. Keith M. Knutson of St. Cloud
College. A land use agreement was made in February, 1970, between
the Northern States Power Company and the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration (now the Environmental Protection Agency)
for the use of part of the Monticello Plant grounds for the purpose
of conducting temperature studies on fish and other aquatic organisms.
The EPA will test the effects of condenser cooling water on river
organisms in experimental ponds that they will establish near the
cooling towers. Start of construction of this research facility is
planned for 1972.
D.
RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT OF ROUTINE OPERATIONS
During routine operation of the plant, small quantities of radioactive
materials will be released to the environment. An AEC compliance
inspection program is conducted to audit plant performance, to deter-
mine that radioactivity releases are within limits prescribed by
Federal Regulations. The staff has made estimates of the annual
rates of release of radionuclides from the Monticello Plant based
upon actual operating experience gained since the plant began
commercial operation in June 1971 and from the release rates
associated with other operating reactors. These release rates,
which take into account the augmented gaseous rad waste system,
were shown in Tables III-4 and III-5 for gaseous and liquid
releases, respectively.
Evaluation of the radiological impact based upon radiation doses
received by residents in the environs is more meaningful than a
consideration of only the rates of release or concentrations of the
radionuclides. Therefore, the staff has calculated the probable
radiation doses to residents that result from the releases listed
in Tables III-4 and III-5 using conservative assumptions to esti-
mate bioaccumulation factors in food chains, and use factors for
people. The bioaccumulation factors used are listed in Appendix B.
V-25
TABLE V-4
MONTICELLO NUCLEAR PLANT AQUATIC ECOLOGICAL STUDIES PROGRAM
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Type of Sample Type of Analysis
Sampling Method and Site
Sampling
Frequency
30 days*
Taxonomic
Organism counts and average
weights
Water temperature, depth, and
Macroinverte-
brates
flow rate
Concrete block substrates on river
bottom at 22 stations upstream and
downstream from the plant discharge.
Surber net sampling is also employed
at 80 stations along four transects.
•
14 days*
Attached Algae Taxonomic
(Periphyton) Attached biomass, weight, and
cell counts, chlorophy11
'a' and phaeophytin 'a'
Microscope slide substrates sus-
pended in river current at 14
stations.
1
1
Fish
Weekly*
Taxonomic
Population estimates
Length, weight, age
General condition
Migratory and local distribu-
tion patterns
Electrofishing, seining, and fishing
tagging in five sectors of the river
upstream and downstream from the
plant discharge
.
Quarterly
Rooted Aquatic Taxonomic
At sampling sites for other types of
Plants and Visual estimation of distribu- samples and in shallow areas along
Bottom Sedi- tion, abundance, and seasonal the riverbank.
ments
variations of plants
Visual classification of
bottom sediments.
River Water
2 weeks
Water samples taken at four stations
Palmer recording thermometers at nine
Chemical
Physical temperature, tur-
bidity, suspended solids,
flow rate, temperature
Continuous
*Sampling frequencies apply to periods when the river is navigable; i.e., free of floating ice,
unstable surface ice, or dangerous currents by flood level flows.
V-26
1.
Dose to the Individual
The persons most likely to receive the highest radiation dose are
those who reside closest to the site, go fishing, boating, or swim-
ming in the Mississippi River downstream of the plant, and drink
milk produced at farms near the plant site. It was assumed that
these individuals consumed 7.3 kg of fish and 7.3 kg of molluscs*
per year 24 hr after they have been caught from waters containing
plant effluent water at about a 3 to 1 dilution. The annual total-
body dose from consumption of these foods would be about 0.2 mrem/yr.
Doses to the other body organs would be somewhat less as shown in
Table V-5.
The individual who spends 500 hr/yr fishing from the river shore-
line harvesting his 7.3 kg of fish and 7.3 kg of molluscs would
also receive an external exposure to the total body of about 0.3
mrem/yr, principally from cesium deposited in the silt along the
shoreline.
Those individuals who spend 100 hr/yr swimming in the parks which
are within the plant boundary and downstream of the outfall would
receive a dose to the total body of about 3 x 10-4 mrem/yr. Canoers
who use the section of the Mississippi River just downstream of the
plant for a total of 100 hr/yr would receive a total body dose of
about 1 x 10-4 mrem/yr.
o
The Twin-Cities resident consuming 2 liters/day of water drawn
from the Mississippi River below the plant would receive an esti-
mated total-body dose of 0.1 mrem/yr.** The total dose received
from all pathways associated with the liquid effluent of the plant
(summarized in Table V-5) was estimated to be 0.5 mrem/yr to the
total body.
sec
The maximum exposure rate at the fenced boundary of the plant
resulting from submersion in the gaseous effluent released from
the plant occurs in the SSE direction. At this location the annual
average atmospheric dilution factor was calculated to be 4.7 x 10-6
• m-3 for ground level releases (i.e., from the turbine building
,
and gland seal) and 1.3 x 10-7 sec . m
-3
for stack releases (i.e.,
from the main condenser). Assuming continuous occupancy the total-
body dose at this location would be 1.0 mrem/yr. The dose to the
skin would be somewhat higher (2.2 mrem/yr) because of the additional
contribution from the beta radiation.
m
*Fresh water molluscs are not now ab undant near the plant due to
a parasitic infection.
Their use as a food item is illustrative
but unlikely.
**Uniform mixing was assumed as was a dilution factor of 0.14;
(645 cfs plant flow ; (4600 cfs river flow).
V-27
TABLE V-5
RADIATION DOSES TO INDIVIDUALS FROM EFFLUENTS RELEASED FROM THE MONTICELLO PLANT
DURING LONG TERM OPERATION WITH THE AUGMENTED GASEOUS RADWASTE SYSTEM
(mrem/yr)
Annual
Exposure
Total-
Body
GI
Tract
Pathway
Skin
Thyroid
Bone
Fish
7.3 kg
0.11
0.062
0.018
0.092
7.3 kg
-
0.12
0.041
0.22
0.11
Molluscs
Fishing
Fishing and
Picnicking
500 hr
0.34
0.29
(a)
(0.29)
(0.29)
(0.29)
-4
3x10-4
Swimming
100 hr
4x10
(3x1024)
(1x1024)
(3x10-4)
(1x1004)
(3x10-4)
(1x10-4)
-4
-4
Canoeing
100 hr
2x10
1x10
Air Submersion
8766 hr
1. 32
0.65
(0.65)
(0.65
(0.65)
Inhalation
3
7300 m
0.51
Milk (Adult)
152 liters
8.04
Total
1.6
1.1
1.0
9.7
0.008
(b)
Water (Adult)
730 liters
-
0.007
0.021
0.12
0.008
Milk (Infant)
152 liters
67
(a)
Indicates dose from external source.
(b)
The doses from drinking water were included as a separate entry because the individual
resident near the plant will not be consuming water drawn from the river.
V-28
The maximum exposure rate at an occupied location occurs at the
nearest farmhouse located 0.8 mile SSE of the plant, where the
atmospheric dilution factor (x/Q) was 2.3 x 10-6 sec
)
• m-3 for
ground level releases and 1.0 x 10-7 sec/m3 for stack releases.
Assuming continuous occupancy, the dose to the total-body at
this location would be 0.65 mrem/yr. The dose to the skin
would be somewhat higher (1.3 mrem/yr) because of the additional
contribution from the beta radiation of the radionuclides released.
The annual average air concentrations of 1311 and 1331 at this
farm were estimated to be 4.2 x 10-2 and 2.5 x 10-3 pCi/m m3
respectively. Doses to the thyroids of adults and children from
inhalation of the 1311 and 1331 in the air at this farm would
be 0.50 and 0.60 mrem/yr, respectively.
The maximum concentration of 1311 in milk would also occur at
this nearby farm. The dose to the thyroid of an infant consuming
milk produced on this farm was estimated to be 67 mrem/yr
(assuming that the cow grazed on fresh pasture for 5 months/yr).
The dose to the thyroid of an adult consuming the same milk was
estimated to be 8 mrem/yr.
Until the augmented gaseous waste holdup system is operational
the dose to the infant's thyroid could be expected to be 140
mrem/yr. However, based on experience during the first six
months of operation this dose is estimated to be about 8 mrem
for the first year of operation.
The reason that the expected annual thyroid dose is not markedly
reduced following installation of the augmented radwaste system
is because a significant fraction of the iodines are released to
the atmosphere via the turbine building vent rather than through
the augmented system. However, the applicant must assure that
effluents will meet the requirements of proposed Appendix I,
10 CFR 50, as formalized.
The combined annual dose to hypothetical individuals who would
receive the most exposure from the several different pathways is
about 1.2 mrem to the total body, almost entirely from air-
submersion.
V-29
2.
Dose to the Population
The integrated total-body dose to the population living within
50 miles of the plant from submersion in radioactive gaseous
effluents was estimated to be about 2.4 man-rem/yr with the aug-
mented system in operation. The cumulative dose and average dose
versus distance from the plant are summarized in Table V-6. Until
the augmented gaseous was te hold up system is operational the
expected integrated total-body dose is calculated to be 93 man-
rem/yr, Based on experience during the first six months of oper-
ation the integrated total-body dose is estimated to be 11 man-rem/yr.
Four pathways were considered when calculating the exposure to the
population from the liquid effluents released from the plant
consumption of drinking water and fish from the river, and swimming
and shoreline fishing below the plant.
To estimate dos es received from drinking water it was assumed
that 85% of the 2 million residents within 50 miles of the plant
derived their drinking water from the Mississippi River near the
Twin Cities, Travel time for water from the plant discharge canal
to the Minneapolis water customer was taken to be on the order of
48 hr. Although the travel time to a Saint Paul water customer
is on the order of weeks, this longer decay time was not taken
into account in the interest of simplifying the calculation,
Ass uming a per capita consumption of 1,2 liters/day of drinking
water by the population of the Twin-Cites, the integrated total-
body dose was calculated to be about 6 man-rem/yr.
Very little swimming but some canoeing is done in the river below
the plant, For purposes of dose calculation, it was assumed that
the average person spent 5 hr/yr swimming plus 10 hrs/yr canoeing
downstream of the Monticello Nuclear Plant. It was also assumed
that the average resident spent an additional 5 hr/yr on the
river shore below the plant engaged in such activities as
fishing. On this basis, the integrated total-body dose to the
2 x 106 persons within 50 miles of the plant was estimated to be
about 2.7 man-rem/yr.
V-30
TABLE V-6
CUMULATIVE POPULATION, ANNUAL MAN-REM DOSE,
AND AVERAGE DOSES FROM THE GASEOUS EFFLUENT
RELEASED FROM THE MONTICELLO PLANT
Radius
Cumulative
(miles) Population (1970)
Cumulative Dose
(man-rem/yr)
Average
Dose (mrem/yr)
1
8
0.004
0.5
2
149
0.026
0.2
3
732
0.074
0.1
4
3,003
0.19
0.06
5
5,129
0.25
0.05
10
12,344
0.32
0.03
20
54, 356
0.43
0.008
30
271,182
0.74
0.003
40
1,105,890
1.7
0.002
50
1,956,232
2.4
0.001
V-31
Consumption of fish caught in the river water below the plant con-
tributes only slightly to the total population dose.
The average
per capita consumption of fish in this area has been estimated to
be 1.1 kg/yr.61 If 10% of this average consumption comes from the
stretch of the river below the plant (a conservative assumption),
the population dose from fish consumption would be 1.6 man-rem/yr.
Thus, the total integrated population dose received by the approxi-
mately 2 million people who live within a 50-mile radius of the
plant from the 4 pathways associated with the liquid effluents
was calculated to be il man-rem/yr.
For comparison, the dose rate received from natural background
radiation is slightly over 0.1 rem/yr which results in a total
population dose to the residents within 50 miles of the plant
of 200,000 man-rem/yr.
3.
Radiation Dose to Species Other Than Man
Radiation dose rates to organisms such as algae entrained in the
Monticello condenser cooling water were estimated, for the radio-
nuclide concentrations anticipated during long term operation, to
be on the order of 10-5 mrem/hr. These dose rates would decrease
rapidly as the effluent moves downstream.
Organisms likely to receive the highest radiation dose from the
plant are aquatic species living in the effluent plume such as
fish and fresh water molluscs. A clam living in the bottom silt
would receive an estimated total dose of about 20 mrem/yr. About
one-half of this dose comes from radionuclides accumulated within
its flesh. The dose to a fish living in the undiluted effluent
water would be somewhat less than that received by the clam.
Annual doses on the order of those predicted for aquatic organisms
near the Monticello outfall (20 mrem/yr) are several orders of
magnitude below the chronic dose levels that might be suspected
of producing demonstrable radiation damage to aquatic populations. 62
The irradiation of salmon eggs and larvae at a rate of 500 mrem/day
did not affect the number of adult fish returning from the ocean or
their ability to spawn. Chironomid larvae (bloodworms) living in
bottom sediments near the Oak Ridge plant that have received irradi-
ation at the rate of about 230-240 rem/yr for more than 130 genera-
tions have a greater-than-normal number of chromosome aberrations
V-32
64
but their abundance has not diminished. The numbers of salmon
spawning in the vicinity of the Hanford reactors on the Columbia
River have not been adversely affected by dose rates in the range
of 100 to 200 mrem/wk. 65
Inasmuch as the planned release of radionuclides from the Monti-
cello Plant will be several orders of magnitude less than has
occurred in the past at several major nuclear facilities 66 where
studies have detected no adverse effects on the aquatic population,
and because the estimated dose rates to aquatic organisms will be
several orders of magnitude less than those expected to cause radi-
ation damage, the populations of aquatic organisms near the
Monticello outfall are not expected to be adversely affected by the
low concentrations of radionuclides added by the plant.
4.
Environmental Radiation Monitoring Program
The objective of the Monticello Radiological Monitoring Program is
to measure the radiological effects of plant operations on the
environment. This objective is being accomplished through moni-
toring of air, water, soil, and other food chain components and
comparing these analyses with the baseline monitoring data col-
lected during the pre-operational phase which began in June 1968.
The operational phase of the monitoring program began in December
1970.
External exposure to gaseous radioactive wastes and ingestion of
radioactive contaminated food and water are the primary exposure
pathways to man. Thus, the environmental surveillance program
emphasizes sampling and analysis of environmental elements which
include these pathways. The sample types, locations, frequencies,
and analyses are summarized in Table V-7.
Sampling is conducted by Northern States Power personnel in
cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Health. The Minnesota
Department of Health assists in sample collection, and provides
laboratory determinations and consultation in selection of sampling
techniques. An Annual Report on the Environmental Monitoring and
Ecological Studies Program is issued by Northern States Power which
describes the program and evaluates the results.
The staff has concluded that the monitoring program around the
Monticello Plant is adequate to detect and measure quantitatively
significant radiation levels which might be present in the environs
of the plant.
V-33
TABLE V-7
MONTICELLO NUCLEAR PLANT RADIATION MONITORING PROGRAM
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Type of Sample
Type of Analysis
Collection
Frequency
Collection Site
River Water
GB, GS,
Weekly
137Cs
90 Sr (Q)
Зн (М),
Upstream 600 ft from intake canal.
Downstream 600 ft from discharge
canal. St. Paul raw water intake.
Lake Water
GB,
,
GS,
137Cs
5 local lakes
1 control lake
Monthly
Зн,
GOSI
Well Water
GA, GB, GS,
137Cs
Quarterly
Зн,
90 Sr
6 sites within 5 miles of plant
site including the Monticello
Well.
GB, GS
Зн
Precipitation
Monthly
1311,
GS GOST
Meteorological Station Plant
Site. State Health Dept. Bldg.
in Minneapolis.
GB, GS
Lake and River
Bottom Sediment.
5 local lakes, 1 control lake.
Semi-annually
90 Sr
1370s
Plankton, Algae
and Fallout
or Insects
5 local lakes, 1 control lake,
Quarterly
GB, GS
905r, 137CS
gosr
Aquatic Vegetation GB, GS,
90sr, 137Cs
5 local lakes, 1 control lake.
Quarterly
Clams
GB, GS,
90 SI,
137Cs
Upstream and downstream of plant.
Quarterly (when
available)
Quarterly
Fish
GB, GS,
90SI,
137Cs
Upstream and downstream of plant.
V-34
TABLE V-7 (contd.)
Type of Sample
Type of Analysis
Collection
Frequency
Collection Site
Milk
GS, 1311, 90sr,
137Cs
Two farms/region, four regions.
Monthly
Topsoil
GB, GS,
90gr ,
137CS
Semi-annually
From 3 fields downwind of plant
site, also 3 fields irrigated
with river water downstream of
plant.
Vegetation
, ,
GB, GS, 1311
From 3 fields downwind of the
plant site.
Semi-annually
Agricultural
GB, GS, 1311, 90Sr,
137
From 3 fields irrigated by river
water downstream from the plant.
Annually (at
harvest)
Cs
.
Air Samples
(filters)
GB, GS (M)
1311
I
Weekly
Meteorological Station (Plant
Site), Clear Lake, Orrock, Becker
Otsego, Maple Lake, Hasty,
St. Michael
Air Samples
(film badge)
Beta Gamma Dosage
Every 4 weeks
Same locations as filters plus
6 on-site stations
Air Samples (TLD)
Gamma Dosage
Every 4 weeks
Same location as filters plus
6 on-site stations.
CODING SYSTEM:
GA
GB
GS
(M)
(Q)
gross alpha
gross beta
gamma scan
monthly
quarterly
-
V-35
E.
TRANSPORTATION OF NUCLEAR FUEL AND SOLID RADIOACTIVE WASTE
The nuclear fuel for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant reactor
is slightly enriched uranium in the form of sintered uranium oxide
pellets encapsulated in zircaloy fuel rods. Each year in normal
operation, about 120 fuel elements are replaced.
The applicant has indicated that cold fuel for the reactor will be
transported by truck from Wilmington, North Carolina, to the plant
site, a shipping distance of about 1400 miles. The applicant has
indicated the irradiated fuel will be transported by truck or rail
and solid wastes by truck. The irradiated fuel will be shipped to
Morris, Illinois, a distance of about 500 miles and the wastes will
be shipped to Sheffield, Illinois, a distance of about 500 miles.
1.
Transport of New Fuel
The applicant has indicated that new fuel will be shipped in AEC-DOT
approved containers which hold two fuel elements per container.
About 4 truckloads of 16 containers each will be required each year.
2.
Transport of Irradiated Fuel
Fuel elements removed from the reactor will be unchanged in appear-
ance and will contain some of the original U-235 (which is recoverable).
As a result of the irradiation and fissioning of the uranium, the
fuel element will contain large amounts of fission products and some
plutonium. As the radioactivity decays, it produces radiation and
"decay heat." The amount of radioactivity remaining in the fuel
varies according to the length of time after discharge from the
reactor. After discharge from a reactor, the fuel elements are placed
under water in a storage pool for radioactive decay and cooling prior
to being loaded into a cask for transport.
The applicant states that the irradiated fuel elements will be
shipped after approximately 4 months cooling period in approved
casks designed for transport by truck or rail. The cask for trucks
will weigh perhaps 30 tons and for rail perhaps 100 tons. To trans-
port the irradiated fuel, the applicant estimates approximately
20 truckload shipments or about 6 rail carload shipments per year.
An equal number of shipments will be required to return the empty
casks.
V-36
3.
Transport of Solid Radioactive Wastes
Spent resins, waste evaporator bottoms and some process liquids will
be dewatered and concentrated and, with other solid wastes, loaded
into containers for shipment and disposal. The applicant estimates
about 33,000 ft3 containing 53 Ci of radioactivity plus approximately
80 drums of compacted wastes to be shipped each year. The staff
estimates 40 truckloads of wastes each year.
4.
Principles of Safety in Transport
The transportation of radioactive material is regulated by the
Department of Transportation and the Atomic Energy Commission. The
regulations provide protection of the public and transport workers
from radiation. This protection is achieved by a combination of
standards and requirements applicable to packaging, limitations on
the contents of packages and radiation levels from packages, and
procedures to limit the exposure of persons under normal and
accident conditions.
Primary reliance for safety in transport of radioactive material is
placed on the packaging. The packaging must meet regulatory
standards (10 CFR Part 71; 49 CFR Parts 173 and 178) established
according to the type and form of material for containment, shielding,
nuclear criticality safety, and heat dissipation. The standards pro-
vide that the packaging shall prevent the loss or dispersal of the
radioactive contents, retain shielding efficiency, assure nuclear
criticality safety, and provide adequate heat dissipation under
normal conditions of transport and under specified accident damage
test conditions. The contents of packages not designed to withstand
accidents are limited, thereby limiting the risk from releases which
could occur in an accident. The contents of the package also must
be limited so that the standards for external radiation levels,
temperature, pressure, and containment are met.
Procedures applicable to the shipment of packages of radioactive
material require that the package be labelled with a unique radio-
active materials label.
In transport the carrier is required to
exercise control over radioactive material packages including
loading and storage in areas separated from persons and limitations
on aggregations of packages to limit the exposure of persons under
normal conditions. The procedures carriers must follow in case of
accident include segregation of damaged and leaking packages from
people and notification of the shipper and the Department of
Transportation. Radiological assistance teams are available through
an inter-Governmental program to provide equipment and trained
personnel, if necessary, in such emergencies.
V-37
Within the regulatory standards, radioactive materials are required
to be safely transported in routine commerce using conventional
transportation equipment with no special restrictions on speed of
vehicle, routing, or ambient transport conditions. According to
the Department of Transportation (DOT), the record of safety in
the transportation of radioactive materials exceeds that for any
other type of hazardous commodity. DOT estimates approximately
800,000 packages of radioactive materials are currently being shipped
in the United States each year. Thus far, based on the best avail-
able information, there have been no known deaths or serious injuries
to the public or to transport workers due to radiation from a radio-
active material shipment.
Safety in transportation is provided by the package design and
limitations on the contents and external radiation levels and does
not depend on controls over routing. Although the regulations
require all carriers of hazardous materials to avoid congested
areas (49 CFR § 397.1(d)) wherever practical to do so, in general,
carriers choose the most direct and fastest route. Routing restric-
tions which require use of secondary highways or other than the most
direct route may increase the overall environmental impact of trans-
portation as a result of increased accident frequency or severity.
Any attempt to specify routing would involve continued analysis of
routes in view of the changing local conditions as well as changing
of sources of material and delivery points.
5.
Exposures During Normal (No Accident) Conditions
a.
New Fuel
Since the nuclear radiations and heat emitted by new fuel are small,
there will be essentially no effect on the environment during transport
under normal conditions. Exposure of individual transport workers is
estimated to be less than 1 millirem (mrem) per shipment. For the 4
shipments, with two drivers for each vehicle, the total dose would be
about 0.01 man-rem per year.
The radiation level associated with each
truckload of new fuel will be less than 0.1 mrem/hr at 6 feet from
the truck. A member of the general public who spends 3 minutes at an
average distance of 3 feet from the truck might receive a dose of
about 0.005 mrem per shipment. The dose to other persons along the
shipping route would be extremely small.
b.
Irradiated Fuel
.
Based on actual radiation levels associated with shipments of
irradiated fuel elements, the staff estimates the radiation level
at 3 feet from the truck or rail car will be about 25 mrem/hr.
V-38
Two truck drivers during the trip will probably spend no more than
15 hours in the cab and about 1 hour outside the truck at an average
distance of 3 feet from the cargo compartment. Under those condi-
tions, each truck driver could receive about 30 mrem from an
irradiated fuel shipment. Actual experience indicates that average
exposures are much less than 30 mrem/trip; in most cases, less than
10 mrem/trip. The same driver is unlikely to be used for more than
30 shipments per year, in which case he would receive about 300
mrem in a year based on 10 mrem/trip. The cumulative annual dose
to all drivers would be about 0.4 man-rem.
>
Train brakemen might spend a few minutes in the vicinity of the car
at an average distance of 3 feet, for an average exposure of about
0.5 millirem per shipment. With 10 different brakemen involved
along the route, the cumulative dose for 6 shipments during the year
is estimated to be about 0.03 man-rem.
A member of the general public who spends 3 minutes at an average
distance of 3 feet from the truck or rail car, might receive a dose
of as much as 1.3 mrem. If 10 persons were so exposed per shipment,
the annual cumulative dose for the 20 shipments by rail would be
about 0.3 man-rem and for the 6 shipments by rail would be about
0.08 man-rem. Approximately 150,000 persons who reside along the
route over which the irradiated fuel is transported might receive
an annual cumulative dose of about 0.03 man-rem if they transported
by truck and 0.009 if transported by rail. The regulatory radiation
level limit of 10 mrem/hr at a distance of 6 feet from the vehicle
was used to calculate the integrated dose to persons in an area
between 100 feet and 1/2 mile on both sides of the shipping route.
It was assumed that the shipment would travel 200 miles per day
and the population density would average 330 persons per square
mile along the route.
The amount of heat released to the air from each cask will be about
30,000 Btu/hr for truck casks and 250,000 Btu/hr for rail casks.
For comparison, 35,000 Btu/hr is about equal to the heat released
from an air conditioner in an average sized home. Although the
temperature of the air which contacts the loaded cask may be
increased a few degrees, because the amount of heat is small and
is being released over the entire transportation route, no
appreciable thermal effects on the environment will result.
c.
Solid Radioactive Wastes
The Staff estimates that about 40 truckloads of solid radioactive
wastes will be shipped to Sheffield, Illinois for disposal. Under
normal conditions, the individual truck driver might receive as much
V-39
as 15 mrem per shipment. If the same driver were to drive 25
truckloads in a year, he could receive an estimated dose of about
400 mrem during the year. The cumulative dose to all drivers for
the year, assuming 2 drivers per vehicle, might be about 1.2
man-rem.
A member of the general public who spends 3 minutes at an average
distance of 3 feet from the truck might receive a dose of as much
as 1.3 mrem. If 10 persons were so exposed per shipment, the
cumulative annual dose would be about 0.5 man-rem. Approximately
150,000 persons who reside along the 500-mile route over which
the solid radioactive waste is transported might receive a
cumulative annual dose of about 0.06 man-rem. These doses were
calculated for persons per square mile, 10 mrem/hr at 6 feet from
the vehicle, and the shipment traveling 200 miles per day.
1
VI-1
VI.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS
A.
PLANT ACCIDENTS
Protection against the occurrence of postulated design basis accidents
in the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant is provided through the
defense in depth concept of design, manufacture, operation, and test-
ing, and the continued quality assurance program used to establish
the necessary high degree of assurance for the integrity of the reactor
primary system. These aspects were considered in the Commission's
Safety Evaluation for the Monticello facility, dated March 18, 1970.
Off-design conditions that may occur are limited by protection systems
which place and hold the power plant in a safe condition. Notwith-
standing this, the conservative postulate is made that serious acci-
dents might occur, even though unlikely; and engineered safety
features are installed to mitigate the consequences of these
postulated events.
The probability of occurrence of accidents and the spectrum of their
consequences to be considered from an environmental effects stand-
point have been analyzed using estimates of probabilities and realistic
fission product release and transport assumptions. For site evaluation
in the Commission's safety review, extremely conservative assumptions
were used for the purpose of evaluating the adequacy of engineered
safety features and for comparing calculated doses resulting from a
hypothetical release of fission products from the fuel against the
10 CFR Part 100 siting guidelines. The computed doses that would be
received by the population and environment from actual accidents
would be significantly less than those presented in the Safety
Evaluation.
The Commission issued guidance to applicants on September 1, 1971,
requiring the consideration of a spectrum of accidents with assump-
tions as realistic as the state of knowledge permits. The applicant's
response was contained in "Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Environ-
mental Report," dated November 5, 1971.
The applicant's report has been evaluated, using the standard acci-
dent assumptions and guidance issued by the Commission as a proposed
amendment to Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50 on December 1, 1971
(Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 231). Nine classes of postulated
accidents and occurrences ranging in severity from trivial to very
VI-2
serious have been identified by the Commission. In general, accidents
in the high potential consequence end of the spectrum have a very low
occurrence rate, and those on the low potential consequence end are
characterized by a higher occurrence rate. The applicant's examples
for each class of accident are shown in Table VI-1 and are reasonably
homogeneous in terms of probability within each class. Certain assump-
tions made by the applicant such as the assumption of an iodine parti-
tion factor in the suppression pool during a loss-of-coolant accident
and the efficiency assigned to the charcoal adsorbers in the standby
gas treatment system, in the staff view, are optimistic; but the use
of alternative assumptions does not significantly affect the overall
environmental risk.
Commission estimates of the dose which might be received by an indi-
vidual standing at the site boundary in the downwind direction, using
the assumptions in the proposed Annex to Appendix D, are presented in
Table VI-2. Estimates of the integrated exposure in man-rem that
might be delivered to the population within 50 miles of the site are
also presented in Table VI-2. These man-rem estimates were based on
the projected population around the site for the year 2000.
To rigorously establish a realistic annual risk, the calculated doses
in Table VI-2 would have to be multiplied by estimated probabilities.
The events in classes 1 and 2 represent occurrences which are antici-
pated during plant operation and their consequences, which are very
small, are considered within the framework of routine effluents from
the plant. Except for a limited amount of fuel failures the events
in Classes 3 through 5 are not anticipated during plant operation
but events of this type could occur sometime during the "40 year" plant
lifetime. Accidents in classes 6 and 7 and small accidents in class 8
are of similar or lower probability than accidents in Classes 3 through
5 but are still possible. The probability of occurrence of large
Class 8 accidents is very small. Therefore, when the consequences
indicated in Table VI-2 are weighted by probabilities, the environ-
mental risk is very low. The postulated occurrences in Class 9
involve sequences of successive failures more severe than those
required to be considered for the design basis of protection systems
and engineered safety features. Their consequences could be severe.
However, the probability of their occurrence is so small that their
environmental risk is extremely low. Defense in depth (multiple
physical barriers), quality assurance for design, manufacture, and
operation, continued surveillance and testing, and conservative design
are all applied to provide and maintain the required high degree of
assurance that potential accidents in this class are, and will remain,
sufficiently small in probability that the environmental risk is
extremely low.
VI-2
serious have been identified by the Commission. In general, accidents
in the high potential consequence end of the spectrum have a very low
occurrence rate, and those on the low potential consequence end are
characterized by a higher occurrence rate. The applicant's examples
for each class of accident are shown in Table VI-l and are reasonably
homogeneous in terms of probability within each class.
Certain assump-
tions made by the applicant such as the assumption of an iodine parti-
tion factor in the suppression pool during a loss-of-coolant accident
and the efficiency assigned to the charcoal adsorbers in the standby
gas treatment system, in the staff view, are optimistic; but the use
of alternative assumptions does not significantly affect the overall
environmental risk.
Commission estimates of the dose which might be received by an indi-
vidual standing at the site boundary in the downwind direction, using
the assumptions in the proposed Annex to Appendix D, are presented in
Table VI-2. Estimates of the integrated exposure in man-rem that
might be delivered to the population within 50 miles of the site are
also presented in Table VI-2. These man-rem estimates were based on
the projected population around the site for the year 2000.
To rigorously establish a realistic annual risk, the calculated doses
in Table VI-2 would have to be multiplied by estimated probabilities.
The events in Classes 1 and 2 represent occurrences which are antici-
pated during plant operation and their consequences, which are very
small, are considered within the framework of routine effluents from
the plant. Except for a limited amount of fuel failures the events
in Classes 3 through 5 are not anticipated during plant operation
but events of this type could occur sometime during the "40 year" plant
lifetime. Accidents in Classes 6 and 7 and small accidents in class 8
are of similar or lower probability than accidents in Classes 3 through
5 but are still possible. The probability of occurrence of large
Class 8 accidents is very small. Therefore, when the consequences
indicated in Table VI-2 are weighted by probabilities, the environ-
mental risk is very low. The postulated occurrences in Class 9
involve sequences of successive failures more severe than those
required to be considered for the design basis of protection systems
and engineered safety features. Their consequences could be severe.
However, the probability of their occurrence is so small that their
environmental risk is extremely low. Defense in depth (multiple
physical barriers), quality assurance for design, manufacture, and
operation, continued surveillance and testing, and conservative design
are all applied to provide and maintain the required high degree of
assurance that potential accidents in this class are, and will remain,
sufficiently small in probability that the environmental risk is
extremely low.
VI-3
TABLE VI-1
CLASSIFICATION OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS AND OCCURRENCES
Class
AEC Description
Applicant's Examples
1
Trivial Incidents
Not considered
2
Miscellaneous small releases
Reactor coolant leaks (below or
just above allowable tech spec
limits) outside PC or RB
3
Radwaste System Failures
Single equipment failure
Single operator error
4
Events that release radio-
activity into the primary
system (BWR)
Fuel failures during normal oper-
ation. Transients within expected
range of protective equipment and
normal parameter operation.
5
Events that release radio-
activity into primary and
secondary systems (PWR)
Primary coolant loop to auxiliary
cooling system secondary side of
heat exchanger leak. (No events
identified)
6
Refueling accidents inside
containment
Dropping of fuel assembly on reactor
core spent fuel rack or against pool
boundary. Dropping of spent fuel
shipping cask in pool or outside pool.
7
Accidents to spent fuel
outside containment
Transportation incident involving
spent and new fuel. Shipment
equipment on site but outside PC
or RB
B.
8 Accident initiation events
considered in design basis
evaluation in the safety
analysis report
Reactivity transient
Loss of reactor coolant inside
or outside primary containment
9
Not considered
Hypothetical sequences of
failures more severe than
Class 8
VI-4
TABLE VI-2
SUMMARY OF RADIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS
Estimated Dose
Estimated Fraction to Population
of 10 CFR Part 20 in 50 Mile
at Site Boundary] Radius, man-rem
Class
Event
1.0
Trivial incidents
2/
2/
2.0
Small releases outside containment
27
2/
3.0
Radwas te system failures
3.1
Equipment leakage or malfunction
0.19
7.6
3.2
Release of waste gas storage
tank contents
0.75
30
3.3
Release of liquid waste storage
tank contents
<0.001
<0.1
4.0
Fission products to primary system
(BWR)
4.1
Fuel cladding defects
2/
2/
4.2
Off-design transients that induce
fuel failures above those expected
0.008
0.78
5.0
Fission products to primary and
secondary systems (PWR)
N.A.
N.A.
6.0
Refueling accidents
6.1
Fuel assembly drop into core
<0.001
0.1
6.2
Heavy object drop onto fuel in core
0.002
0.84
1
|
7.0
Spent fuel handling accident
7.1
Fuel assembly drop in fuel storage
pool
<0.001
0.18
7.2
Heavy object drop onto fuel rack
<0.001
0.34
7.3
Fuel cask drop
0.28
11
VI-5
TABLE VI-2 (contd.)
Estimated Dose
Estimated Fraction to Population
of 10 CFR Part 20 in 50 Mile
at Site Boundaryl Radius, man-rem
-
Class
Event
8.0
Accident initiation events considered
in design basis evaluation in the
Safety Analysis Report
8.1
Loss-of-coolant accidents
inside containment
Small break
<0.001
<0.1
Large break
0.001
7.5
8.1(a)
Break in instrument line inside
reactor building
<0.001
<0.1
8.2(a)
Rod ejection accident (PWR)
N.A.
N.A.
8.2(b) Rod drop accident (BWR)
0.009
0.93
8.3(a)
-
Steamline break (PWR - outside
containment)
N.A.
N.A.
8.3(b)
Steamline breaks (BWR)
Small break
0.006
0.26
Large break
0.033
1.3
1/
2/
Represents the calculated whole body dose as a fraction of 500 mrem
(or the equivalent dose to an organ).
These releases will be comparable to the design objective indicated
in the proposed Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 for routine effluents
(i.e., 5 mrem/yr to an individual from all sources).
VI-6
The information given in Table VI-2 indicates that the realistically
estimated radiological consequences of the postulated accidents would
be the exposure of an individual assumed to be standing at the site
boundary to concentrations of radioactive materials which were within
the Maximum Permissible Concentrations (MPC) listed in Table II of
10 CFR Part 20. The table also shows that the estimated integrated
exposure of the population within 50 miles of the plant from each
postulated accident would be orders of magnitude smaller than that
from naturally occurring radioactivity which is approximately 300,000
man-rem year based on a natural background radiation level of 0.1
rem/year. When considered with the probability of occurrence, the
annual potential radiation exposure of the population from all the
postulated accidents is an even smaller fraction of the exposure from
natural background radiation and, in fact, is well within naturally
occurring variations in the natural background. It is concluded from
the results of the realistic analysis that the environmental risks
due to postulated radiological accidents at the Monticello Nuclear
Generating Plant are exceedingly small and need not be considered
further.
B.
TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENTS
Based on recent accident statistics,* a shipment of fuel or was te
may be expected to be involved in an accident about once in a total
of 750,000 shipment-miles. The staff has estimated that only about
1 in 10 of those accidents which involve Type A packages or 1 in 100
of those involving Type B packages might result in any leakage of
radioactive material. In case of an accident, procedures which
carriers are required (49 CFR $ $ 171.15, 174.566, 177.861) to fol-
low will reduce the consequences of an accident in many cases. The
procedures include segregation of damaged and leaking packages from
people, and notification of the shipper and the Department of Trans-
portation. Radiological assistance teams are available through an
inter-Governmental program to provide equipped and trained personnel.
These teams, dispatched in response to calls for emergency assistance,
can mitigate the consequences of an accident.
1.
New Fuel
Under accident conditions other than accidental criticality, the
pelletized form of the nuclear fuel, its encapsulation, and the low
specific activity of the fuel, limit the radiological impact on the
environment to negligible levels.
* Federal Highway Administration, "1969 Accidents of Large Motor
Carriers of Property," December 1970; Federal Railroad Administra-
tion Accident Bulletin No. 138, "Summary and Analysis of Accidents
on Railroads in the U. S.," 1969; U. S. Coast Guard, "Statistical
Summary of Casualties to Commercial Vessels," December 1970.
VI-7
The packaging is designed to prevent criticality under normal and
severe accident conditions. To release a number of fuel assemblies
under conditions that could lead to accidental criticality would
require severe damage or destruction of more than one package, which
is unlikely to happen in other than an extremely severe accident.
The probability that an accident could occur under conditions that
could result in accidental criticality is extremely remote. If
criticality were to occur in transport, persons within a radius of
about 100 feet from the accident might receive a serious exposure
but beyond that distance, no detectable radiation effects would be
likely. Persons within a few feet of the accident could receive fatal
or near-fatal exposures unless shielded by intervening material.
Although there would be no nuclear explosion, heat generated in the
reaction would probably separate the fuel elements so that the reaction
would stop. The reaction would not be expected to continue for more
than a few seconds and normally would not recur. Residual radiation
levels due to induced radioactivity in the fuel elements might reach
a few roentgens per hour at 3 feet. There would be very little
dispersion of radioactive material.
2.
Irradiated Fuel
Effects on the environment from accidental releases of radioactive
materials during shipment of irradiated fuel have been estimated
for the situation where contaminated coolant is released and the
situation where gases and coolant are released.
(a) Leakage of contaminated coolant resulting from improper
closing of the cask is possible as a result of human error, even
though the shipper is required to follow specific procedures which
include tests and examination of the closed container prior to each
shipment. Such an accident is unlikely during the 40-year life of
the plant.
Leakage of liquid at a rate of 0.001 cc per second or about 80
drops/hour is about the smallest amount of leakage that can be
detected by visual observation of a large container. If undetected
leakage of contaminated liquid coolant were to occur, the amount
would be so small that the individual exposure would not exceed a
few mrem and only a very few people would receive such exposures.
(b) Release of gases and coolant is an extremely remote
possibility. In the improbable event that a cask is involved in
an extremely severe accident such that the cask containment is
breached and the cladding of the fuel assemblies penetrated, some
of the coolant and some of the noble gases might be released from
the cask.
VI-8
In such an accident, the amount of radioactive material released
would be limited to the available fraction of the noble gases in
the void spaces in the fuel pins and some fraction of the low
level contamination in the coolant. Persons would not be expected
to remain near the accident due to the severe conditions which
would be involved, including a major fire. If releases occurred,
they would be expected to take place in a short period of time.
Only a limited area would be affected. Persons in the downwind
region and within 100 feet or so of the accident might receive doses
as high as a few hundred millirem. Under average weather conditions,
a few hundred square feet might be contaminated to the extent that
it would require decontamination (that is, Range I contamination
levels) according to the standards* of the Environmental Protection
Agency.
9
3.
Solid Radioactive Wastes
It is unlikely that a shipment of solid radioactive was te will be
involved in a severe accident during the 40 -year life of the plant.
If a shipment of low-level waste (in drums) becomes involved in a
severe accident, some release of waste might occur but the specific
activity of the waste will be so low that the exposure of personnel
would not be expected to be significant. Other solid radioactive
wastes will be shipped in Type B packages. The probability of
release from a Type B package, in even a very severe accident, is
sufficiently small that, considering the solid form of the waste and
the remote probability that a shipment of such waste would be involved
in a severe accident, the likelihood of significant exposure would be
extremely small.
In either case, spread of the contamination beyond the immediate area
is unlikely and, although local clean-up might be required, no signifi
cant exposure to the general public would be expected to result.
4.
Severity of Postulated Transportation Accidents
The events postulated in this analysis are unlikely but possible.
More severe accidents than those analyzed can be postulated and their
consequences could be severe. Quality assurance for design, manufac-
ture, and use of the packages, continued surveillance and testing of
packages and transport conditions, and conservative design of
* Federal Radiation Council Report No. 7, "Background Material for
the Development of Radiation Protection Standards; Protective Action
Guides for Strontium 89, Strontium 90, and Cesium 137," May 1965.
VI-9
packages ensure that the probability of accidents of this latter
potential is sufficiently small that the environmental risk is
extremely low. For those reasons, more severe accidents have not
been included in the analysis.
5.
Alternatives to Normal Transportation Procedures
Alternatives, such as special routing of shipments, providing escorts
in separate vehicles, adding shielding to the containers, and
constructing a fuel recovery and fabrication plant on the site
rather than shipping fuel to and from the station, have been examined
by the Staff for the general case, The impact on the environment
of transportation under normal or postulated accident conditions
is not considered to be sufficient to justify the additional effort
required to implement any of the alternatives.
VII-1
VII.
ADYER SE EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
It is expected that the operation of the Monticello Plant will
cause some loss of small fish through impingement on the condenser
cooling water intake screens, and through entrainment in the con-
denser cooling system, The potential exists for large fish loss
in winter in the cooling water discharge canal if the plant is
shut down at this time of year. Data presently are not available
for quantitative estimates of these impacts. However, based on a
comparison of plant use of river water at the average river flow,
the entrainment losses may approach 15% of the available drift
organisms and very small fish passing down river. A change in the
aquatic population structure in the area (possibly 5-15 acres) of
the river immediately downstream from the cooling water discharge
canal can also be expected. Some of the present benthic organisms
will be replaced by more heat tolerant forms and the overall result
may be an increase rather than a loss of total productivity.
Significant changes in the river biota are not expected outside
this zone.
The operation of the plant results in a small increase in radio-
activity (for a few individuals this could conceivably be as much
as 25 mrem/yr to the total body until the new gaseous waste system
is operating after which this dose may be as much as 1 mrem/yr),
and will create a very low probability risk of accidental radiation
exposure. The operation of the plant also results in the produc-
tion of radioactive was tes which must be processed and stored,
VII-1
VII.
ADVER SE EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
It is expected that the operation of the Monticello Plant will
cause some loss of small fish through impingement on the condenser
cooling water intake screens, and through entrainment in the con-
denser cooling system. The potential exis ts for large fish loss
in winter in the cooling water discharge canal if the plant is
shut down at this time of year. Data presently are not available
for quantitative estimates of these impacts. However, based on a
comparison of plant use of river water at the average river flow,
the entrainment losses may approach 15% of the available drift
organisms and very small fish passing down river. A change in the
aquatic population structure in the area (possibly 5-15 acres) of
the river immediately downstream from the cooling water discharge
canal can also be expected. Some of the present benthic organisms
will be replaced by more heat tolerant forms and the overall result
may be an increase rather than a loss of total productivity.
Significant changes in the river biota are not expected outside
this zone.
The operation of the plant results in a small increase in radio-
activity (for a few individuals this could conceivably be as much
as 25 mrem/yr to the total body until the new gaseous was te system
is operating after which this dose may be as much as 1 mrem/yr),
and will create a very low probability risk of accidental radiation
exposure. The operation of the plant also results in the produc-
tion of radioactive was tes which must be processed and stored,
VIII-1
VIII.
SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
The land now occupied by the Monticello Plant has been owned by
the Northern States Power Company for nearly 50 years. The con-
struction of the plant has converted about 5% of the land held by
the company from leased farming and natural vegetation to the
production of electrical energy. This reduction is insignificant
in comparison to the amount of farm land and natural areas presently
existing in the vicinity of the plant. Except for the presence of
the physical structures, it is unlikely that future use of the site
for other purposes after decommissioning will have been obviated
as a result of construction and operation of the Monticello Plant.
IX-1
IX.
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
>
At the end of the expected life of the reactor, it will be decommis-
sioned. There is available experience on procedures for dismantling
a reactor facility and methods for negating any potential adverse
effects on the surrounding environment. 67, 68 After decommission-
ing of the reactor, the major portion of the site could be reclaimed
for other purposes if desirable. If it is decided that the area
occupied by the reactor facility should be placed on permanent
restrictive access, that area would be irretrievably lost.
Since the structural components of the reactor facilities will have
become highly radioactive through activation and contamination,
they will not be salvageable. The storage of these components as
well as other radioactive wastes (including those produced and
accumulated during operation of the plant) will require permanent
commitment of some land.
During the production of power by the nuclear plant, some of the
fuel is irretrievably consumed. About 20 metric tons of uranium
fuel will be consumed over the 40 year life of the plant. However,
in this process, another useful resource, plutonium, will be produced.
The recovered plutonium can then be recycled as fuel.
X-1
X.
THE NEED FOR POWER
X-1.69
The Northern States Power Company (NSP) provides electric power to
a 40,000-square-mile service area in the four states of Minnesota,
North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin as indicated in Figure
The major load center of the service area is the Twin Cities
metropolitan area (Minneapolis-St. Paul) which provides about 60%
of the utility's electric revenues. In total NSP serves about 3
million persons in 630 communities.
NSP generated electricity is provided by 77 generating units with
a total capacity of 3436 MW (summer rating). The primary genera-
ting stations are the 455 MW Black Dog, 466 MW High Bridge, 574 MW
King, and 426 MW Riverside fossil plants; and the 545 MW Monticello
Nuclear Plant, all located in the Twin City region. All other
plants have ratings of less than 100 MW.
A summary of electrical
statistics for the Northern States Power Company is presented in
Table X-1.
O
During the ten year period from 1962 to 1971, the system electricity
deliveries grew from 8.3 x 106 Mw-hr to 1.7 x 107 MW-hr. This is a
100% growth for the period, or stated in terms of an average annual
growth rate, it is an increase of 8.0%/yr. A recent acceleration
in demand has increased the average annual growth rate to 9% during
the last 5 years. Although the annual electrical peak load growth
of the NSP system has varied widely during the last 5 years, ranging
from 5 to 17%, NSP forecasts a continuation of the recent 9% average
annual increase until 1973. Thereafter a reduction is expected in
growth rate of 1/4%/yr to reflect the anticipated ultimate saturation
of air conditioning use. This forecast appears reasonable because
the general growth of electricity consumption in most regions of the
United States has followed historical trends. Extensive departures
from the historical trend usually occur only for abnormal conditions
such as severe depressions in the case of small regions, or additions
or deletions of large blocks of power related to startup or shutdown
of large industrial customers. No basis presently exists for fore-
casting such ab normal load changes in the Northern States Power
Company service area.
Large commercial and industrial customers are the principal users of
NSP electricity, accounting for 46% of total system sales. Residen-
tial sales account for 36%. Purchases by small commercial and
industrial customers and others such as municipal services account
for the remaining 18% of sales. In terms of numbers of customers
about 89.5% are residential, 9.4% are small commercial and industrial,
0.4% are large commercial and industrial and 0.7% municipal services.
X-2
MINN.
GRAND
FORKS
MINOT
MINNEAPOLIS-
ST. PAUL
N. DAK.
FARGO
SIOUX
FALLS
WIS.
S. DAK.
FIGURE X-1.
APPROXIMATE SERVICE AREA
OF NORTHERN STATES POWER
COMPANY
X-3
TABLE X-1
ELECTRICAL STATISTICS
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY
Calendar
Year
Generating (a)
Capability
(MW)
Maximum
Demand
(MW)
Percent Reserve
With
Without
Monticello Monticello
Total
Energy Output
(MW-hr x 103)
History
13
10
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1830
1925
2021
2261
2419
2598
2950
3227
3496
3814
1624
1746
1824
1975
2177
2311
2697
2873
3109
3278
Bwuuuu9uuo
14
11
12
8,314
9,017
9,576
10,140
11,154
11,994
13,413
14,637
15,916
16,697
-
12
12
16
Forecast
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
4119
4346
4888
5033
5613
3678
3982
4330
4698
5086
12
9
13
7
10
-2
-4
1
-4
0
18,700
20,560
22,443
24,498
26,736
(a)
At time when peak load occurred,
Includes net purch as es.
X-4
Peak load conditions in the NSP system occur during the summer
season and have increased from 1624 MW in 1962 to 3278 MW in 1971,
an increase of 102% for the period, or an average annual increase
of 8.1%.
NSP's forecast of the system load growth rate is in accord with the
Federal Power Commission's (FPC) forecast of regional load growth.
70
The FPC load growth forecast for Power Service Area (PSA) 16, which
includes most of Minnesota and western Wisconsin, shows an annual
average increase in peak load of 8% from 1970 to 1980. The NSP
system provides most of the elctricity consumed in PSA 16.
Because of prior service NSP is obligated to provide electric power
to all applicants and in order to meet the predicted demand, NSP
plans to make several additions to its generating capability. In
1972 gas turbine units will add 313 MW of peaking power to the system.
In 1973 the 530 MW Prairie Island No. 1 Nuclear Plant and an addi-
tional 62 MW of gas turbines will be added. Subsequent additions will
be the 530 MW Prairie Island No. 2 Nulcear Plant and 187 MW of gas
turbines in 1974, a 680 MW fossil plant in 1976, and a 680 MW fossil
plant in 1977. During this same period ten small fossil plants with
а summer capability of 116 MW will be retired. Thus, it is expected
that 2866 MW of additional generating capability will be added to
the system during 1972 to 1977.
NSP is a member of Mid-Continent Area Reliability Coordinating
Agreement (MARCA) which coordinates planning among 25 member
utilities in the north central U.S.A. NSP as a member of the MARCA
system bases its reserve requirements on a statistical analysis of
equipment failure rates and a reliability index of one day interrup-
tion in 10 yr throughout the MARCA system.
Because MARCA has about a 6% peak load diversity within its system,
the current minimum desirable reserve requirements is 12%. Without
the internal diversity the reserve requirements would be about 18 to
20% which is typical of most utilities. Recent studies have shown
that the NSP reserve requirements should be increased to about 15%
by 1974 because of anticipated increased maintenance problems and
the larger sized units presently being added.
NSP is the largest member of the MARCA system and currently has
about 60% of the dependable generating capability and peak load for
that system.
Loss of the Monticello generating capacity during
the 1972 summer peak load period probably would reduce the reserve
margin for the entire MARCA system to only 4%, an undesirably low
X-5
value. NSP currently is purchasing all available electricity from
the MARCA system. The Federal Power Commission confirmed that the
power generated by the Monticello Plant is needed by stating that
"The shutdown of the Monticello Plant would result in a deficiency
of generating capacity to meet the projected system loads to the
extent that it appears load reduction measures might be necessary
1171
during peak load periods.
XI-1
XI.
ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED ACTION AND COST-BENEFIT
ANALYSES OF THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The proposed action in this case is the continued operation of
the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. The environmental
impact associated with construction, operation to date and
future routine operation have been discussed in previous sections.
.
A. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives of not providing the power or importing power
from other utilities are not considered viable alternatives. As
explained in Section X, not providing the power would reduce the
system reserve capacity to less than the anticipated load require-
ment during the 1972 peak period and would also reduce the
generating reserve of the entire Mid-Continent Area Reliability
Coordinating Agreement (MARCA) to only 4%. Purchase of sufficient
power is not possible because NSP already has purchased all avail-
able surplus power in the MARCA pool and is currently trying to
purchase 200 MW from outside the pool.
In situations where a major unacceptable environmental impact can
be identified with the proposed operation of a facility, abandon-
ment of the project may be considered. No such impact has been
identified with operation of the Monticello Plant and abandonment
is rejected from further consideration.
Other alternatives which may be considered with respect to the refer-
ence case in terms of environmental impact are:
Alternative fuel
Diluting the cooling water effluent with additional river
water
Employing a closed cycle cooling system using:
.
cooling pond
spray pond
all weather mechanical draft cooling tower
natural draft cooling tower
dry cooling towers
XI-2
1.
1.
Using an Alternative Fuel
Major changes in equipment would be required to convert a nuclear
plant to a coal-burning plant, which would involve substantial
new engineering and construction costs in addition to the loss of
capital expenditures for features that are nuclear oriented.
The principal environmental advantage cited for coal (and other
fossil fuels) over current nuclear fuels is the higher efficiency
for converting thermal energy into electricity. For a plant the
size of Monticello, this higher efficiency would result in rejec-
ting about 630 MW of heat to the Mississippi River, rather than
about 1100 M in the case of nuclear fuel. If the present turbine
and condenser cooling water system were to be used, a reduction of
about 40% in total heat discharged in the cooling water effluent
could be expected. However, little change in the temperature
increases near the effluent outfall would be expected.
There are certain distinct disadvantages to the use of coal such
as fuel transportation, handling and storage. A coal-fired unit
having the production capacity of the Monticello Plant would emit
on the order of 48 metric tons of SO 2, 28 metric tons of NO and
х
4 metric tons of particulates as gas eous products each day. The
operating cost of such a coal-fired plant would be about $159
million (present worth) more than the nuclear plant over the life
of the plant. Conversion of a nuclear fueled facility, such as at
the Monticello Plant to a coal-burning facility is not a practical
alternative due to the high cost of conversion as well as increased
operating cost of fuel.
2.
Heat Dissipation Alternatives
The present installation which employs a mechanical draft cooling
tower system capable of (a) off-line, (b) helper, (c) partial
recirculating and (d) closed cycle modes of operation is expected
to be capable of meeting approved water quality standards under
most conditions of river flow and temperature. Conditions under
which it may not be adequate could occur during winter months with
a combination of low flow and freezing temperatures. Restrictions
on water withdrawals may be imposed in the event of low river flows
in winter which may preclude withdrawal of 645 cfs for once-through
XI-3
cooling The cooling towers are inoperable for temperatures at or
below freezing. Under those circumstances the plant may be required
to operate at reduced power,
Alternatives to the present system include:
(1)
Dilution of condenser cooling water
(2)
Cooling pond
(3)
Spray pond
(4) All weather mechanical draft cooling towers
(5)
Natural draft cooling towers
(6)
Dry cooling towers
a.
Dilution
Dilution is one method of reducing the temperature rise in the
outfall canal. Temperature reduction would be proportional to the
amo unt of dilution (sed. For example, use of two-fold dilution
(introducing a flow of river water equal to the plant flow into the
discharge canal) would reduce the temperatures in the canal by a
factor of about 2. The total heat load discharged would be un changed
but the temperature of the effluent would be lower. At distances
beyond a couple of miles down stream it is unlikely that the river
temperature profiles would be significantly different from the refer-
ence case. Dilution does not constitute an improvement over the
presently installed method because whatever improvement could be
realized can be matched with one of the modes of operation of the
present system. Further, at the time when the present system may
not be adequate, the conditions postulated preclude use of dilution
due to the low flows in the river.
b:
Cooling Pond
A cooling pond would dissipate all but a few percent of the heat
produced and would be usable regardless of freezing weather. Low
river flows would not be a problem to pond function. It is estimated
that a cooling pond adequate for the Monticello site would occupy
about 1000 acres . A pond of this size would evaporate on the order
of 11 cfs or about 8,000 acre-ft of water per year and would require
blowdown flows of that same magnitude. Concentrations of dissolved
solids in the water discharged to the river would be greater at the
point of discharge because of water evaporation.
XI-4
Additional land would have to be acquired for a pond since the
present site is split roughly in two by the Mississippi River and
the portion containing the plant does not have adequate land for
that size of a pond, In addition, if the pond were to be adjacent
to the plant, the 4-lane highway (I-94) and a railroad would have
to be relocated,
During periods of temperature inversion, the pond could be expected
to generate surface fogging and because of the relative ly low sur-
face temperature the fog would cling to the low-land areas rather
than rising as in the case of cooling towers ,
C.
Spray Pond
The use of a spray pond in closed cycle would also preclude all but
a few percent of the heat produced from entering the river, The
total consumptive use of water would be on the order of 13,000 acre-
ft/yr. The pond would occupy on the order of 50 acres and employ
about 150 spray modules. One such configuration could consist of
modules composed of four spray units each driven by a 75hp pump
with the whole structure mounted on floats. Each pump would draw
10,000 gpm of warm water from just below the surface of the pond
and discharge it in four coarse sprays to a height of 20 ft in the
air. Because of the increased surface contact with air as compared
to the cooling pond, the spray pond would probably produce more
low-lying surface fog and rime in cold weather, In extreme weather
the fog could be a problem to traffic on the nearby highways.
on components of the substation may also be a problem. About 8 MW
of electricity would be required to operate the pumps.
d.
All-Weather Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers
According to the applicant, the present mechanical draft cooling
towers can be modified to allow wintertime closed-cycle operations,
This modification would entail work on the fans, the electrical
system and installation of a chemical treatment system. The
chemical treatment system is necessary to prevent fouling of the
closed-cycle system. The mechanical draft cooling towers were not
designed and built as all weather towers based on the judgment that
the need was highly unlikely because of a combination of very low
flow and freezing temperatures. The principal deterrent from using
cooling towers is the added problem of fog production. Under full
load the fog at a given point (the maximum; 2 miles to the north
and 4 miles to the southeast) would amount to about 24 hr/yr as
compared with 3 hr/yr if the towers are operated only from April
through October. Total expected fog for year around cooling tower
XI-5
use was estimated to be 243 hr compared with 45 hr for use from
April through October, Fog could be a serious problem since a
freeway (I-94), a railroad and Highway 152 pass within less than
a mile of the plant,
e.
Natural Draft Cooling Towers
Natural draft cooling towers would also permit closed-cycle opera-
tion and result in only a small percentage of the heat from the
condenser cooling water from reaching the river, Again, except in
the event of an unusually severe winter, and possible reduction in
ground level fog, this method of heat dissipation would not offer
any improvement over the presently used mechanical draft cooling
towers. Natural draft towers would also evaporate about 13,000
acre-ft/yr. Natural draft cooling towers would be very obvious at
the Monticello site. Because there is little natural relief near
the site, 400 to 500-ft towers would not blend into the landscape
nor is there any way to camouflage them,
f,
Dry Cooling Towers
While dry cooling towers or heat exchangers may be possible they are
not considered a reasonable alternate due to the high cost and a
lack of experience in operation of such towers of the size required
for Monticello,
In each of the foregoing closed-cycle modes of operation additional
chemicals would have to be added to the water to control fouling.
The amounts that would be necessary were not estimated by the appli-
cant, Operation of either mechanical or natural draft cooling
towers or ponds in closed-cycle would result in the loss of warm
water released to the river in winter which would allow heavier ice
to form on the river with subsequent increased scouring of river
banks with destruction of vegetation and homes of beaver, mus krat,
shrews, etc. occupying the bank areas. Diminution of ice scouring
and ice dams as made possible by the present once-through winter
cooling could also reduce damage to bridges and minimize flooding
of downstream lands during spring breakup.
B.
COST-BENEFIT SUMMARY OF THE MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT
In comparing the economic characteristics of alternatives, it is
recognized that each alternative may have its own time varying
capital expenditure requirements and its own pattern of annual costs.
These differences in expenditure patterns have been factored into
the analysis through the process of "present value" - a widely
accepted me thod of expressing future expenditures and returns in
XI-6
terms of current dollars. As presented in Table XI-1, each of the
alternative cooling schemes requires, capital expenditures above
those required under the proposed design, When expressed in terms
of current dollars, the differential capital costs associated with
the alternative range from $0.2 million for all weather mechanical
draft cooling towers to $13,3 million for the natural draft cooling
towers, Capitalized additional operating costs for the alternatives
range from $-0.8 to +1.6 million,
Assuming that the loss of plant generating capacity associated with
the delay period while the alternative cooling systems are being
installed can be made up by generating the electricity in coal fired
power plants at fuel costs of 3,2 mills/kw-hr, the capitalized
replacement power cost for the delay period ranges from $5 to $12.8
million. It was assumed that during the delay periods the plant
can be operated during the summer months while using the existing
cooling towers.
The economic and environmental differential costs for the major
alternatives that are considered as viable for the Monticello Plant
are summarized in Table XI-2.
About $111 million has been spent in construction of the plant,
The total expenditure for installing the planned improved radwaste
system is estimated to be about $3 million, Based on an average
capacity factor of 80 percent over the expected remaining reactor
life of 29 years and current dollar values, levelized annual fuel
costs are estimated to be $6.1 million/yr; and annual operation,
maintenance, and insurance costs are estimated at $2.8 million per
year. Capitalization of these annual costs over a 29-year period
at 8,75% amounts to a present value of 93 million. Thus, the total
present cost of all expenditures needed to operate the current
plant for 29 years is estimated to be $96 million.
>
.
The comparison of alternative actions to the reference design is
made in terms of differential economic and environmental benefits
versus differential environmental and economic costs. For example
an alternative action which entails some increased expenses but
results in significant environmental savings might well be deemed
preferable to the reference design. In evaluating impacts from
alternatives, it must be realized that unless rather extensive
research has been done on the alternative, the assessment of both
costs and benefits of the alternative may have a greater degree of
un certainty than a well-researched reference design.
L-IX
TABLE XI-1
(a)
DIFFERENTIAL COST OF COOLING ALTERNATIVES
Values in
Millions of Dollars
(present dollar value)
Future
Capital
Costs
Capitalized Annual Cost
Operation Replacement
Fuel
and Maint. Power
Total Future
Cost-Capital
and Annual
Costs
Present
Installation -
Reference Case
3
63.6
29.2
0
95.8
Open-Cycle Cooling
Alternative
Dilution
+1.1
-4.4
-0.8
+9.2
+5.1
Closed-Cycle Cooling
Alternative
Cooling Pond
8.5
-8,4
-0.4
+12.8
+12.5
Spray Pond
+11.4
-8.4
+1.6
+12.8
+17.4
All Weather Mechanical
Draft Towers
+ 0,2
-2.5
+0.8
+ 5.0
+ 3.5
Natural Draft Towers
13.3
-8.4
+0,8
+12.8
+18.5
(a)
+$ expenditure additive to reference case value
-$ saving substractive from reference case value
Land Use (Acres)
Total Future
Cost in
Millions
of Present $
Consumptive
Use-Evaporation
Acre-ft/yr
Reduction in
Farm Land
Total Site
Water Quality
220
220
>
TABLE XI-2
(a)
DIFFERENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF COOLING ALTERNATIVES
Water Use
95.8
9,000
Present
Installation
Reference Case
1. Concentrations of re-
leased chemicals below
toxic levels for humans
aquatic biota
2. Standards met
Open Cycle Cooling
Alternative
+5.1
-4,500
Dilution
No Change
No Change
2-fold reduction in
chemical concentration
near outfall
8-IX
Closed Cycle Cooling
Alternatives
+1200
+1200
Cooling Pond
+12.5
-1,000
+ No river icing reduction
* 5016)
Spray Pond
+17.4
+4,000
+ Same as above
No Change
All Weather
Mechanical
Draft Towers
+ 3.5
+4,000
+ Same as above
+ anti-fouling agents
+ water treatment
chemicals and flocculent
No Change
No Change
<5(b)
+18.5
+
+4,000
No Change
Natural Draft
Towers
+ Same as above for
Mechanical Towers
(a) +
values tend to be in favorable (costs)
values tend to be favorable (benefits)
reduction in natural lands
(b)
TABLE XI-2 (cont'd)
DIFFERENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF WOLING ALTERNATIVES
(a)
Total Future
Cost in
Millions
of Present $
Biological Impact
Meteorological Impact
Aesthetic Impact
Present
Installation
Reference Case
95.8
Localized vapor plume at
cooling water outfall
during cold weather
buildings 60' high
and 300' long do
not blend into
landscape
No significant impact:
Temperature >5°F in about
5-15 acres @ average sum-
mer conditions
Fish may avoid: Max.
pessimistic estimate of
drift organism
mortality 15%
.
S
Open Cycle
Cooling Alternative
6-IX
Dilution
+5.1
-possible reduction in
vapor plume
No change
o
-reduction of plume
temperature maxima to
25°F
+twice as much entrain-
ment of drift organisms
Closed Cycle Cooling
Alternatives
Cooling Pond
+12.5
-70% heat kept from river
+total mortality of drift
organisms in make up
water. Nnegligible impact
on aquatic biota from
heat in blowdown water
+increased vapor plume
at low level
+low fog & rime during
cold weather
+cooling pond larger
than present site
(control dikes pre-
clude natural look)
Spray Pond
+17.4
Same as above
Same as above
Sprays usually
attractive (150
sprays may not be)
(a) + values tend to be unfavorable (costs)
values tend to be favorable (benefits)
XI-10
TABLE XI-2 (cont'd)
(a)
DIFFERENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF COOLING ALTERNATIVES
Total Future
Cost in
Millions
of Present $
Biological Impact
Meteorological Impact
Aesthetic Impact
No change
+increased vapor plume
at intermediate level
+local fog during cold
weather
+3.5
Same as above
1 Weather
Mechanical
Draft
Towers
+18.5
Same as above
atural Draft
Towers
+increased vapor plume
at high level
+local fog during cold
weather
+size is intrusive
on the view for many
individuals at great
distances
a) + values tend to be unfavorable (costs)
values tend to be favorable (benefits)
XI-11
As stated earlier, the Monticello mechanical draft cooling tower
system has been designed and constructed to permit off-line,
helper, partial recirculation and closed-cycle full recirculation
of condenser cooling water. During warm weather none of the
alternative cooling schemes are superior to a mode presently avail-
able. In the event of an unusual combination of low flow and
freezing temperatures the present system may not be operable under
permit stipulations. Since that time of year is not the peak load
period, and since the likelihood of such occurence is small, the
applicant may choose to reduce power in order to meet permit re-
quirements.
Environmental Costs
Major
none identified
Intermediate
none identified
Minor
Mortality of an unknown fraction (but certainly less than
15%) of available drift organisms passing through the
intake water pumps during summer months.
Insignificant
O
Removal of 220 acres farm land from production.
O
Use of about 60 acres for industrial use.
O
Incremental increases in the chemical burden of
the Mississippi River,
O
Long-term incremental dose of about 14 man-rem/yr to the
population within a 50 mile-radius of the plant. (About
20 man-rem/yr to the projected population in year 2000.)
O
Calculated long-term incremental dose of 67 mr em/yr to the
thyroid of a hypothetical 2-year old child consuming
locally produced cow's milk. The applicant must assure
that effluent releases are within the requirement of the
proposed Appendix I, 10 CFR 50, as formalized.
XI-12
O
Creation during summer months of a zone in the river some
5-15 acres in area depending on ambient temperature and
river flow but occupying less than 1/2 the width of the
river where the increase in the temperature above ambient
is expected to exceed 5°F. Fish may find this water
un acceptable and avoid it.
o
Creation of a localized vapor plume in the vicinity of the
cooling water outfall during winter months and an additional
45 hours of annual fogging from the cooling tower operation
from April through October which, for three hours, will
extend two to four miles.
Benefits
Major
o
The supply of about 1,1 x 1011 kw-hr of electrical energy
to the public over a period of 30 years.
Financial support of nearby communities through annual tax
payments of about $2,300,000/yr.
Intermediate
O
Stable employment for 75 individuals on plant.
O
Improved system reliability.
Minor
o
Reduction of icing and resultant flooding potential of the
river due to discharge of heated water.
The Staff concludes that in balance the benefits to be from operation
of the Monticello Plant out weighs the minor to insignificant adverse
effect identified as un avoidable as a result of routine operation
of the plant.
XII-1
REFERENCES
1.
"National Environmental Policy Act of 1969," Public Law 91-190
91st Congress, s. 1075, January 1, 1970.
2.
Council on Environmental Quality, Federal Register, Vol. 36,
no. 79, April 23, 1971, Part II.
3.
.
"Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970," Public Law 91-224 91st
Congress, H.R. 4148, April 3, 1970.
4.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,
opinions, numbers 24,839 and 24,871, (Calvert Cliffs Decision)
July 23, 1971.
5.
US AEC Revision of Appendix D of its Regulation in 10 CFR Part
50, Federal Register, vol. 36, no. 175, September 9, 1971.
6.
US AEC Revision of Appendix D of its Regulation in 10 CFR Part
50, Federal Register, vol. 36, no. 190, September 30, 1971.
7.
Northern States Power Company, "Final Safety Analysis Report
and Amendments thereto, Monticello Nuclear Generating Station,"
Docket No. 50-263.
8.
Letter, Commissioner, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department
of Interior to Director of Regulations, USAEC, February 23, 1967.
9.
Appendix D. to Reference 12.
10. Appendix c. to Reference 12.
11. Northern States Power Company, "Monticello Nuclear Generating
Station Environmental Report, Docket No. 50-263, November 1971.
12. Director of Reactor Licensing US AEC, "Safety Evaluation by the
Division of Reactor Licensing U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in
the matter of Northern States Power Company, Monticello Nuclear
Generating Plant, Unit 1, Docket No. 50-263," March 18, 1970.
13. Northern States Power Company letter to Director of Regulation,
US AEC, "Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant E-5979, Operating
License DPR-22," October 15, 1971. Docket No. 50-263.
XII-2
14, Northern States Power Company, "Monticello Nuclear Generating
Plant Environmental Report, Supplement 1, Docket No. 50-263,
April 4, 1972,
15. News Release from Northern States Power Company, 1966.
16. EG&G (1970), "Potential Environmental Modifications Produced
by Large Evaporative Cooling Towers," EG&G, Inc.
17. Daub enneire, Ecological Monographs 6, no. 2, 233-268 (1931).
18. D. F. Grether, "Population Type, Distribution and Density of
the Flora on the Sherburne County Generating Plant Site,"
October-December 1971.
19. C. Burton "Evaluation of the Terrestrial Animal Communities on
the Sherburne County Generating Plant, Beolser, Minnesota,
17
20. Hopwood, A. J., "Monticello Ecological Studies Program
A Progress Report Covering 1970." In NSP Environmental
Monitoring and Ecological Studies Program 1970 Annual Report,
Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, Minnesota, p. 128, 1971.
21. Brook, A. J., "Attached Algae Studies on the Mississippi River
at Monticello - Interim Report 1971." In Northern States Power
Company Environmental Report, Monticello Nuclear Generating
Plant, Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, Minnesota, p.
+ figs., 1971.
22, Brook, A. J., "Attached Algae Studies of the Mississippi River
at Monticello, Minnesota, In NSP Environmental Monitoring
Program Annual Report 1969. Northern States Power Co.,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, p. 11 + Figs., 1970.
.
11
23, Waters, T, F., "Notes on the Chlorophyll Method for Estimating
the Photosynthetic Capacity of Stream Periphyton, Limnol,
Oceanogr., 6(4): 486-488, 1961.
24. Cushing, C, E., "Periphyton Productivity and Radionuclide
Accumulation in the Columbia River, U.S.A., Hydrobiologia,
29:125-139, 1967.
25. McConnel, W. J. and Sigler, W. F., "Chlorophyll and Productivity
in a Mountain River," Limnol, Oceanogr., 4:335-351, 1959.
•
XII-3
Wisc.
26. Fry, D, G., ed., "Limnology in North America," Uniy.
Press, Madison, Milwaukee, London, P 312, 1966,
27, Hopwood, A. J., wmonticello Ecological Monitoring Program, A
Progress Report Covering 1969." In NSP Environmental Monitoring
Program Annual Report 1969, Northern States Power Co., Minne-
apolis, Minnesota, p. 116, 1970.
28. Hopwood, A. J., "Monticello Ecological Monitoring Program, A
Progress Report Covering 1968." In NSP Environmental Monitoring
Program Annual Report 1968, Northern States Power Co., Minne-
apolis, Minnesota, p. 28, 1969.
>
29. Seaburg, K. G., and Moyle, J. G., "Feeding Habits, Digestive
Rates and Growth of Some Minnesota Warmwater Fishes," Trans .
Am. Fish, Soc., vol. 93, no. 3, pp. 269-285, 1964.
30. Meyer, W. H., "Life History of Three Species of Redhorse
(Moxos toma) in the Des Moines River, Iowa," Trans . Am. Fish.
Soc., vol. 91, no. 4, pp. 412-419.
.
31. Smith, L. L. Jr., and Kramer, R. H., "The Spottail Shiner of
Lower Red Lake, Minnesota, Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., vol. 93,
no. 1, pp. 35-45, 1964.
32. Letter from: Swenson, Hjalmar 0., Division of Fish and Game,
State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Centennial
Office Building, St. Paul, Minnesota, to: Marzolf, G. R., Black
and Veatch, Consulting Engineers, 1500 Meadow Lake Parkway,
Kansas City, Missouri, January 31, 1972.
33. Letter from: Hella, U. W., Division of Parks and Recreation,
State of Minnesota, to: Marzolf, G. Richard, Black and Veatch,
Consulting Engineers, 1500 Meadow Lake Parkway, P.0. Box 8405,
Kansas City Missouri, February 2, 1972.
34. Waste Disposal Permit no. 5633, State of Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, May 20, 1969.
35. Northern States Power Company, Monticello Nuclear Generating
Plant, Unit 1, Gaseous Radwas te System Modification Report,
March 1971, US AEC Docket No. 50-263.
XII-4
36. Kerr, J. E., ''Studies on the Fish Preservation at the Contra
Costa Steam Plant of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
State of California, Department of Fish and Game, Fish Bull.,
no. 92, p. 66, 1953.
11
37. Larimore, R. W., and Duever, M. J., "Effects of Temperature
Acclimation on the Swimming Ability of Smallmouth Bass Fry,
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., vol. 97, no. 2, pp. 175-184, 1968.
38. Gray, J., "How Fishes Swim,
"How Fishes Swim," Sci. Am., vol. 197, pp. 48–54,
1957.
39. Patrick, R., "Some Effects of Temperature on Freshwater Algae,
In Biological Aspects of Temperature on Freshwater Algae,
Krenkel, P.A. and Parker, F.A., editors, Vanderbilt University
Press, pp. 161-185, 1969.
40. "Environmental Monitoring and Ecological Studies Program 1970
Annual Report for the Allen S. King Generating Plan, Oak Park
Heights, Minnesota," Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis,
Minnesota, 1971,
>
41. Markowski, S., "The Cooling Water of Power Stations : A New
Factor in the Environment of Marine and Freshwater Invertebrates,'
J. Anim. Ecol., vol. 28, pp. 243-258, 1959.
>
9
42. Mihursky, J. A., and Kennedy, V. S., "Water Temperature
Criteria to Protect Aquatic Life." In A Symposium on Water
Quality Criteria to Protect Aquatic Life, Am, Fish. Soc., Spec.
Publication No. 4, pp. 20-32, 1967.
>
43. Alabaster, J. S., "Effects of Heated Discharges on Freshwater
,
Fish in Britain." In Biological Aspects of Thermal Pollution,
Krenkel, P. A., and Parker, F. L., editors, Vanderbilt Univer-
sity Press, pp. 354-374, 1969.
44. Marcy, B. C. Jr., "Survival of Young Fish in the Discharge
Canal of a Nuclear Power Plant," J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can.,
vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 1057-1060, 1971.
.
>
45. Doudoroff, P., and Katz, M., "Critical Review of the Literature
on Toxicity of Industrial Wastes to Fish, I, Alkalis, Acids
and Inorganic Gases," Sewage Industr. Wastes, vol. 22 pp.
1432-1458, 1950.
XII-5
46. Jones, E., "Fish and River Pollution," Butterworth, London,
p. 203, 1964.
47. Elser, H. J., "Effect of a Warmed-Water Discharge on Angling
in the Potomac River, Maryland, 1961-1962," Prog. Fish Cult.,
vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 79-86, 1965.
48. Van Vliet, R., "Effect of Heated Condenser Discharge Water
upon Aquatic Life," Am. Soc. Mech. Engrs., Paper No. 57-PWR-4,
p. 10, 1957.
49. USAEC, "Thermal Effects and U. S. Nuclear Power Stations,
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Division Reactor Develop.
Technol., Washington, D.C., WASH-1169, p. 40, 1971.
50. de Sylva, D. P., "Theoretical Considerations of the Effects of
Heated Effluents on Marine Fishes," In Biological Aspects of
Thermal Pollution, Krenkel, P. A., and Parker, F. L. editors,
Vanderbilt University Press, pp. 229-293, 1969.
51. "Sport Fishing Bulletin, " Sport Fishing Institute, Washington,
D. C., no. 232, March 1972.
52. Roback, S. S., "Environmental Requirements of Trichoptera,"
In Biological Problems in Water Pollution, Third Seminar,
August 13-17, 1962, U.S. Dept. HEW, Public Health Service,
Cincinnati, Ohio, p. 118-126, 1965.
53. Nebeker, A. W., and Lemke, A. E., "Preliminary Studies on the
Tolerance of Aquatic Insects to Heated Waters," J. Kansas Ent.
Soc., 41(3): 413-418, 1968.
54. Wurtz, C. B., "The Effects of Heated Water on Freshwater
Benthos. In Biological Aspects of Thermal Pollution, Krenkel,
P. A., and Parker, F. L., editors, Vanderbilt University Press,
p. 199-213, 1969.
55. Walsh, B. M., "The Oxygen Requirements and Thermal Resistance
of Chironomid Larvae from Flowing and Still Waters," J. Exp.
Biol., 25:35 (Quoted from Wurtz, ref. 54), 1948.
56. Wojtalik, T. A., and Waters, T. F., "Some Effects of Heated
Water on the Draft of Two Species of Stream Invertebrates,"
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 99(4): 782-788, 1970.
XII-6
57. Coutant, C. C., "The Effect of a Heater Water Effluent Upon
the Macroinvertebrate Riffle Fauna of the Delaware River,"
Proc. Penn. Acad. Sci., 36: 58-71, 1962.
58. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, "Water Quality
Criteria," National Technical Advisory Rpt. to Sec. Int.,
FWP CA, P. 33, April 1968.
>
59. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, "Industrial
Waste Guide on Thermal Pollution," FWQA, Pacific Northwest
Laboratory, Corvallis, OR., p. 112, 1968.
9
60. Schoumacker, R., "Movements of Walleye and Sauger in the
Upper Mississippi River," Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 94(3): 270-
271, 1965.
61. Miller, M. M., and Nash, D. A., Regional and Other Related
Aspects of Shellfish Consumption -- Some Preliminary Findings
from the 1968 Consumer Panel Survey, Circular 361, National
Marine Fisheries Service, U. S. Department, Seattle, WA, 1971.
62. "Radioactivity in the Marine Environment," prepared by the
Panel on Radioactivity in the Marine Environment. Committee
on Oceanography, National Research Council, U. S. National
Academy of Sciences, 1971.
63. Ibid., Templeton, W. L., Nakatani, R. E., and Held, E. E.,
Chapter 9, "Radiation Effects," citing Donaldson and Bonham,
p. 225, 1964, 1966.
64. Ibid., citing Blaylock, p. 235, 1966.
65. Watson, D. G., and Templeton, W. L., "Thermal Luminescent
Dosimetry of Aquatic Organisms," Third National Symposium on
Radioactivity, Oak Ridge, TN, 1971.
66. Ibid., Ref. 62, Seymour, A. H., Chapter 1, Introduction.
67. Eisenbud, M., "Review of USA Power Reactor Operating Experience,"
Presented as SN-146/15. at the IAEA Symposium on Environmental
Aspects of Nuclear Power Stations, New York, August 10-14, 1970.
68. "Draft Environmental Statement, Elk River Reactor Dismantling,"
USAEC, December, 1971.
69. Annual Report, Norther States Power Company, 1970.
XII-7
70. The National Power Survey, Federal Power Commission, 1970.
71. Letter, T. A. Phillips, Chief, Bureau of Power Federal Power
Commission to R. S. Boyd, Division of Reactor Licensing
USAEC, January 25, 1972.
XIII-1
GLOSSARY
In discussing the environmental effects of construction and
operation of nuclear power plants some words and phrases may be
used, the meaning of which may not be clear. Such terms that
appear in this Detailed Environmental Statement are defined in the
following glossary. A list of abbreviations and conversion factors
is also included.
Aerobic
living or active only in the presence of
oxygen.
algae
any plant of the algae group comprising
practically all seaweeds and allied fresh-
water or non aquatic forms,
Sizes range
from unicells (mi croscopic) to seaweeds
(up to a few hundred feet in length)
.
alluvium
>
sand, gravel, soil or similar material
deposited by running water
artificial substrate
a device suspended or placed on the bottom
in an aquatic habitat to provide a base for
actachment for aquatic plants and animals
and to promote subsequent collection (devices
range from micros cope slides to concrete
blocks)
benthic
referring to bottom dwelling aquatic organisms
biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD)
the quantity of oxygen used by microorganisms
in stabilizing the organic matter in a body
of water (by aerobic chemical reactions)
biomass
the amount of living matter in the form of
one or more kinds of organisms present in a
particular habitat. Usually expressed as
weight of organisms per unit area of habitat
(if in suspension; per unit volume)
biota
the flora and fauna of a region
blow down
release of a portion of the cooling system
contents to prevent excessive buildup of
solids as a result of evaporation of water
XIII-2
chlorine demand
chlorine demand of water is the difference
between the amount of chlorine applied to a
treated supply and the amount of free, com-
bined, or total available chlorine remaining
at the end of the contact period
chlorophyll "a"
pigment
one of a family of pigments produced by
living plants which results when photosynthe-
sis takes place. Used as a measure of
productivity
climax deciduous
forest
the culminating state of development of the
deciduous forest having passed through a
natural succession of transitory states
design basis
earthquake
maximum anticipated earthquake normalized to
0.12 g horizontal ground acceleration
demersal
bottom dwelling, denotes sinking to the
bottom
dose
a general form denoting the quantity of
radiation or energy absorbed. In this
report it is used synonomo usly with dose
equivalent
dos e equivalent
a quantity which expresses all radiations
on a common scale for calculating the
effective absorbed dose. The unit of dos e
equivalent is the "rem."
ecosystem
an interdependent community of organisms
considered together with the nonliving fac-
tors of its environment as a unit
electrofishing
collection of fish by attracting and
immobilizing with an electric current
entrainment
the process of carrying along or over
epicenter
the earth's surface directly above the focus
of an earthquake
genera
a taxonomic category comprising a group of
structually related species
XIII-3
man-rem
a meas ure of the total absorbed dose received
by a large number of persons. The absorbed
dose in man-rem is the product of the number
of persons in the group times the average dos e
absorbed in rem by each member of the group
moraine
an accumulation of earth and stones carried
and finally deposited by a glacier
noble gases
a relatively inert gas (here usually xenon
and krypton)
old field
land used for agriculture which has been
allowed to revert to the native state
phaeophytin "a"
one of a family of pigments produced by
living plants which results when photosynthe-
sis takes place. Used as a measure of
productivity
phytoplankton
plankton consisting of plant life
plankters
planktonic organisms
plankton
the passively floating or weakly swimming
animal and plant life of a body of water
consisting chiefly of minute plants and
animals
present value
the present value of future expenditure is
the amount that must be invested at the
present time to cover the cost of the
expenditure when it occurs
rem
the dos age of any ionizing radiation that
will cause the same amount of biological
injury to human tissue as one roentgen of
x-ray or gamma dose, (The dose from naturally
occurring radioactive materials is usually
taken as 0.1 rem)
residual chlorine
chlorine (in several forms) that is available
to react after the chlorine demand is satis-
fied (free chlorine is the chlorine gas com-
ponent of residual chlorine)
XIII-4
roentgen
a unit of radiation exposure (r) expressed
in terms of the ionization produced in air
by x-ray or gamma radiation
rough fish
a fish that is neither a sport fish nor an
important food fish
seine
a large net having one edge provided with
sinkers and the other with floats that hangs
vertically in the water and enclos es fish
when its ends are brought together or drawn
ashore
sessile
pe rmanently attached and not free to move
about
taxonomic
relating to the systematic distinquishing,
ordering and naming of type groups within
a subject field
thermal inversion
a reversal of normal atmospheric temperature
gradient; increase of temperature of air with
increasing altitude
thermal stability
describes temperature gradients which govern
the bouyancy and mixing properties of the
atmosphere
thermophylic
relating to an organism growing at high
temperature (as various bacteria that thrive
at 122-131 °F)
turn key contract
a contract whereby the contractor constructs
and makes the generating plant operational
then "turns over the key" of the operating
plant to the owners
understory
a foliage layer lying beneath and shaded by
the main canopy of a forest
vascular plant
a higher plant form having a specialized
conducting system (in contrast to algae)
zooplankton
plankton consisting of animal life
XIII-5
Abbreviations and conversion factors
acre-ft
volume equal to product of surface area in
acres and depth in feet. [1 acre-ft = 326,000
gallons 43,560 cubic ft]
-
British thermal
unit (Btu)
amount of heat that raises one pound of water
by one degree Fahrenheit. [1,000,000 Btu =
293 thermal kilowatt-hr = 293 kWt-hr]
-
cfs
3
cubic feet per second or cu ft/sec or ft/sec
[1 cfs = 449 gallons per minute = 724 acre-ft/yr]
=
cubic ft
unit of volume (1 cu ft = 7.48 gallons)
fps
feet per second; ft/sec [1 fps = 30.48 cm/sec)
gpd
gallons per day [1,000 gpd = 0.694 gpm]
=
gpm
3
gallons per minute [1,000 gpm = 2.22 cfs]
megawatt (MW)
1,000 kilowatts; 1 MWt = 3,413,000 Btu/hr =
948 Btu/sec [MWe = megawatts of electrical
power; MWt - megawatts of thermal power]
-
mph
miles per hour [1 mph
1.467 fps]
ppm
parts per million (usually by weight, e.g.
milligrams per kilogram or grams per metric
ton)
A-1
APPENDIX A
TAXONOMIC LIST OF AQUATIC ORGANISMS IN
THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR NONTICELLO
ALGAE
Blue-Green Algae
Chroococcus minimus
C. minor
C. minutus
C. palidus
C. sp.
Homeothrix varians
Leptochaetae rivularium
Merismopedia tenuissima
Microcystis parasitica
Ocillatoria geminata
0. pseudogeminata
0. sp.
Phormidium favoelarum
P. tenue
Rabdoderma sigmoidea
Rhaphidiopsis curvata
Xenococcus minimus
Green Algae
Nephrocytium limneticum
Pediastrum boryanum
Protococcus sp.
Stigeoclonium farctum
Tetraedon caudatum
Diatoms
Achnanthes exiqua
A. minutissima
Cocconeis pediculus
C. placentula
Cymbella prostrata
C. ventricosa
C. spp.
Epithemia sorex
Gomphonema sp.
A-2
Melosira distans
M. varians
Navicula capitata
N. lanceolata
N. radiosa
N. rhyrcocephla
N. salinarum
N. tripunctata
N. SPP:
Nitzschia fasciculata
V. sp.
Pinnularia major
INVERTEBRATES
-
Class Gastropoda - Snails
Order Basommatophora
Family Physidae
Physa sp.
Lymnaea sp.
Family Planoribdae
Gyraulus sp.
Class Crustacea
Order Isopoda
Family Asellidae
Asellus intermedius
A. militaris
Order Amphipoda
Family Gammaridae
Gammarus sp.
Family Talitridae
Hyalella azteca
Order Decapoda
Family Astacidae
Astacus trowbridgi
Class Insecta
Order Ephemeroptera - Mayflies
Family Baetidae
Baetis sp.
Isony chia sp.
Ameletus sp.
Caenis sp.
Centroptilum sp.
Family Heptageniidae
Iron sp
Stenonema sp.
Heptagenia sp.
A-3
Family Trichorythridae
Trichorythodes sp.
Family Caenidae
Brachycercus sp.
Family Ephemeridae
Ephoron sp.
Hexagenia sp.
Order Trichoptera Caddisflies
Family Philopotamidae
Chimarra sp.
Family Hydropsychidae
Hydopsyche_sp.
Cheumatopsyche sp.
Macronemum sp.
Family Psychomyidae
Psychomyia sp.
Order Plecoptera - Stoneflies
Family Perlodidae
Isoperla sp.
Family Chloroperlidae
Allopera sp.
Family Perlidae
Neoperla sp.
Paragnetina sp.
Perlesta sp.
Phas ganophora sp.
Acroneuria sp.
Order Diptera - Two-winged flies
Family Tendipedidae
Calospectra sp.
Tendipes sp.
Glyptotendipes sp.
Family Simuliidae
Simulium venustum
Family - Tipulidae
Order Hemiptera
Family Gerridae
Gerris sp.
Microvelia sp.
Trepobates sp.
Rheumatobates sp.
Platygerris sp.
Family Veliidae
Rhagovelia sp.
Family Mesoveliidae
Mesovelia sp.
A-4
Melosira distans
M. varians
Navicula capitata
N. lanceolata
N. radiosa
N. rhyrcocephla
N. salinarum
N. tripunctata
N. SPP.
Nitzschia fasciculata
N. sp.
Pinnularia major
INVERTEBRATES
Class Gastropoda
Snails
Order Basommatophora
Family Physidae
Pnysa sp.
Lymaea sp.
Family Planoribdae
Gyraulus sp.
Class Crustacea
Order Isopoda
Family Asellidae
Asellus intermedius
A. militaris
Order Amphipoda
Family Gammaridae
Gammarus sp.
Family Talitridae
Hyalella azteca
Order Decapoda
Family Astacidae
Astacus trowbridgi
Class Insecta
-
Order Ephemeroptera May flies
Family Baetidae
Baetis sp.
Isony chia sp.
Ameletus sp.
Caenis sp.
Centroptilum sp.
A-5
Family Heptageniidae
Iron Sp:
Stenonema sp.
Heptagenia sp.
Family Trichorythridae
Trichorythodes sp.
Family Caenidae
Brachycercus sp.
Family Ephemeridae
Ephoron sp.
Hexagenia sp.
-
Order Trichoptera Caddisflies
Family Philopotamidae
Chimarra sp.
Family Hydropsychidae
Hydopsyche sp.
Cheumatopsyche sp.
Macronemum sp.
Family Psychomyidae
Psychomyia sp.
Order Plecoptera - Stoneflies
Family Perlodidae
Isoperla sp.
Family Chloroperlidae
Allopera sp.
Family Perlidae
Neoperla sp.
Paragnetina sp.
Perlesta sp.
Phasganophora sp.
Acroneuria sp.
Order Diptera - Two-winged flies
Family Tendipedidae
Calospectra sp.
Tendipes sp.
Glyptotendipes sp.
Family Simuliidae
Simulium venustum
Family - Tipulidae
Order Hemiptera
Family Gerridae
Gerris sp.
A-6
O
Microvelia sp.
Trepobates sp.
Rheumatobates sp.
Platygerris sp.
Family Veliidae
Rhagovelia sp.
Family Mesoveliidae
Mesovelia sp.
Family Nepidae
Ranatra sp.
Family Notonectidae
Notonecta sp.
Family Belos tomatidae
Lethocerus americanus
Family Corixidae
Trichocorixa sp.
Neocorixa sp.
Family Pleidae
Plea Striola
Order Odonata Dragonflies, Damselflies
Family Calopterygidae
Calopteryx sp.
Family Coenagrionidae
Anomalagrion hastatum
Enallagma sp.
Family Gomphidae
Gomphus sp.
.
Order Coleoptera Beetles
Family Haliplidae
Halipus sp.
Peltodytes sp.
Family Dytiscidae
Hydrovatus sp.
Bidessus sp.
Desmopachria sp.
Hygrotus sp.
Coptotomus sp.
Acilius sp.
Laccophilus sp.
Family Hydophilidae
Enochrus sp.
Laccobius hamiltoni
Tropisternus sp.
Berosus sp.
Paracymus sp.
Hydrochus sp.
A-7
Family Grinidae
Dineutus sp.
Gyrinus sp.
Family Chrysomilidae
Donacia sp.
Family Elmidae
Narpus sp.
Stenelmis sp.
Family Curculionidae
Family Haliplidae
Halipus sp.
FISHES
Family Amiidae
Bowfin - Amia calva
Family Esocidae
Northern pike Esox lucius
Family Cyprinidae
Carp - Cyprinus carpio
Brassy minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni
Hornyhead chub - Hyb opsis biguttata
Golden shiner - Notemigonus crysoleucas
Common shiner Notropis cornutus
Bigmouth shiner - N. dorsalis
Spotfin shiner - N. spilopterus
Sand shiner N. stramineus
Spottail shiner - N. hudsonius
Bluntnose minnow Pime phales notatus
Fathead minnow P. promelas
Shortnose dace Rhinichthys atratulus
Longnose dace R. cataractae
Creek chub - Semotilus atromaculatus
Family Catostomidae
White sucker Catostomus commersoni
Northern redhorse Moxostoma macrolipidotum
Silver redhorse M. anisurum
Family lctaluridae
Bullhead - Ictalurus spp.
Family Gadidae
Burbot Lota lota
Family Centrarchidae
Rock bass - Amb loplites rupestris
-
-
-
A-8
-
Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieui
Black crappie - Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Family Percidae
Johnny darter - Etheostoma nigrum
Yellow perch Perca flavescens
Walleye Stizostedion vitreum vitreum
B-1
APPENDIX B
BIOACCUMULATION FACTORS
(pCi/kg per pCi/liter)
Isotope
Fish
Crustacea
Molluscs
Algae
3H
3.
1
1
1
1
24.
Na
100
100
100
150
328
10,000
10,000
10,000
100,000
51
1
10
10
20
Cr
40,000
59ge
1,000
5,000
5,000
40,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
50
200
200
50
200
200
10,000
5,000
5,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
1,000
5,000
200
54,
Mn
55
Fe
59
Fe
58
Co
60
Co
64
Cu
65
Zn
69m
Zn
69
Zn
86
Rb
89
Sr
90
200
150
5,000
150
5,000
5,000
5,000
2,000
150
5,000
5,000
2,000
2,000
1
20
20
500
gost
1
20
20
500
Sr
gigt
1
20
20
500
91
Sr
.
90,
100
1,000
10,000
10,000
100
1,000
1,000
1,000
91
mY
91.
1,000
100
1,000
1,000
93,
.
100
1,000
10,000
10,000
1,000
95
Zr
10
100
100
B-2
Isotope
Fish
Crustacea
Molluscs
10
100
100
Algae
1,000
1,000
100
100
97.
Zr
95
Nb
97.
Nb
99
Мо
30,000
30,000
100
100
1,000
100
100
100
100
99m Tc
1
25
25
100
5
100
100
un
5
100
100
103+d
Ru
106+d
Ru
105.
Rh
106.
Rh
125
Sn
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
100
100
100
100
100
100
1,000
670
670
33
125
40
0
Sb
127
Sb
10,000
10,000
40
0
125m Te
10,000
127mpe
127.
129m Te
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
Te
Те
129
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
Te
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
1,000
1,000
10,000
10,000
131mte
1,000
10,000
131
Te
132,
1,000
10,000
Te
1301
1
25
25
100
I
131
I
1
25
25
100
1321
1
25
25
100
I
1331
1
25
25
100
1351
1
25
25
100
1,000
1,000
1,000
200
134
Cs
136
Cs
1,000
1,000
1,000
200
B-3
Isotope
Fish
Crustacea
Molluscs
Algae
1,000
1,000
1,000
200
137
Cs
140
Ba
10
200
200
500
140,
50
500
500
50
500
500
La
141
Се
143
Се
144+d
Ce
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
50
500
500
50
500
500
143p7
50
500
500
Pr
50
500
500
100
144.:
Pr
147
Nd
147
Pm
149
Pm
153
Sm
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
100
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
100
100
1,000
187 W
1
30
30
30
|