ML20127J233

Requests All Correspondence Between NRC & Util Re Expansion of Spent Fuel Storage Capacity at Prairie Island & Fuel Pool Mods to Monticello

ML20127J233
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello, Prairie Island
Issue date:	09/12/1977
From:	Gardebring S MINNESOTA, STATE OF
To:	Stello V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 9211190238
Download: ML20127J233 (2)

Text

Minnesota Polluti Control Agency SEP 121977 Mr. Victor Stello, Director

'M Division of Operating Reactors E ff""_

8 c/o Distribution Services Branch, DDC, ADM i c s. %.

U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

~Q, n-l "c2,

?

Washington, D.C.

20555 RE:

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Docket No. 50-263 License No. DPR-22

~

Proposed Replacement of Spent Fuel Pool Storage Racks

Dear Mr. Stello:

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has recently received a copy of an August 17, 1977, letter from L.

O. Mayer of Northern States Power Company to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in which Mr. Mayer disclosed that company's plans to engage in spent I

fuel pool modification activities at its Monticello nuclear

(

generating plant.

As you may know, the MPCA has been actively involved in Commission proceedings involving the same company's efforts to expand its spent fuel storage capacity at the Prairie Island nuclear generating plant.

As a result of our intervention in those proceedings, i

several changes in the licensee's plans were made.

In particular, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board conditioned its approval of the project on the company's compliance with certain procedures with respect to contaminated rack disposal and radioactive waste cleanup within the pool.

The MPCA is equally concerned with the possible expansion of spent fuel pool storage capacity at the Monticello plant.

I would appreciate it if you would send me copies of all correspondence between the company and the Commission which deal with this matter in the future.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Yours truly, anora 2

e ring Executive Director cc: Gerald Charnoff, Esq.

y/ 2. 5 6o 3 5 3 1935 West County Road B2, Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Regional Offices

• Duluth / Brainerd / Fergus Falls / Marshall / Rochester / Roseville Equal opportunity Employer 9211190238 770912 PDR ADOCK 05000263 P

PDR

tRCsOQM 195-V.S. NUCLEAR QEGULATOQY CC

't SS IO N DOCKET NUM SEQ f"C.gf3 3.w '

NRC DISTRIBUTION FOQ PART 50 DOCKET MATERIAL

'O.

5. "S t e l l o.

FROM:

OATE OF COCUMENT I

Minnesota Polution Control Ag. ncy 9-12 77 l

Roseville, Minn CATE RECEIVED S S Gardebring g-13 77 nes TTE R O NOTO RI2 E D PROP lNPUT FORM NUMBER OF COPIES RECEIVED N OQlGIN AL h NC LASSIFIE D aCoor l

.Ste3 NCD DESCQloTION ENCLOSU RE Requ st that all possibln clam monitertng

)

& clam sampling & analysis alternatives e

i be explored prior to droping them an a tech spec requirement...

l.

l2 Y

PLANT NAME:

Monticello 9-14-7.7,

,hf CAFFTY FOR ACTION /INFORMATION I BRANCH CHIEF: (?)

I D AU i_S I

I i

l I

I i

i I

I I

i i I

i l

INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION I REG FILD I I I

I i

i i He*PUT I

I I I I

iICE (2)

{ i I

i l

I l lOELD l

i I

I i

I IHANAUER l

l l

l l

l l iCHECK l

i I

i i

i lSTELLO l

1 I

i l

i

!F.ISENHUT I 1 i i i

i iSHA0 I i l

I i

l iBAER I I I

I i

1

] BUTLER i i l I I

I IGRIMES l

1 l

l t

j J.

COLLINS I

I I

j i

I I

l I

I I

i I

i l I

i i

I l

l l

l l

t i

l l i l

i I

I I

I I

i l i

i EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION CCNTROL NUMBER ILPDR: IM; AJA/t"AceLiJ !rM Ale I i iTIC i

'?"e'YSACRSSENTCATEGOY R

i i 7 2 5743 Sk i i i

i

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency SEP 121977

/51 m Mr. Victor Stello, Director "S^'

Division of Operating Reactors

~%y U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555

Dear Mr. Stello:

'~

We are in receipt of a license amendment request dated August 9,1977 from the Northern States Power Company that would modify the Monticello (Docket 50-263 License DPR-22) Radiation Environmental Monitoring Program by removing clam sampling and analysis.

I would agree that Mississippi River conditions in the vicinity of the Monti-cello plant are not conducive to efficient clam sampling.

However, I would suggest that the Northern States Power clam sampling techniques and their vigor in discovery of clam beds might also contribute to the lack of success in clam sampling.

Since clams are an efficient water filter, I would prefer that clams not be dropped from the monitoring program until all alternatives that might improve clam sampling efficacy have been explored. A few methods to improve efficacy come immediately to mind: sampling during times when the clam population is optimally largest, search and discovery of the best clam beds, utilization of submerged clam traps, implantation and containment in suitable trap-like containers of clams at desirable locations relative to the plant wtfall and intake.

I am sure these suggestions do not exhaust all possibilities.

Would you let me know whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission intends to investigate clam sampling alternatives or other means by which clam monitoring can be improved.

Sincerely, Sandra S. Ga etring Executive D' rect 3r SSG:sl 9 q 'Z, S88 3 S[

1935 West County Road B2, Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Regional Offices Duluth / Broinerd / Fergus Folls / Marsnoll / Rochester / Roseville r

Ecual Opportunity Employer

. > j / (; 6 7 5 & 3 6 F