ML20127N056
| ML20127N056 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 12/04/1969 |
| From: | INTERIOR, DEPT. OF |
| To: | Price H US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9211300551 | |
| Download: ML20127N056 (4) | |
Text
-..
kN
~ '
. n.
j*~
- e i,,yshn p'
m.
~
UNITED STATES vl
-71
' (f DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
-. 45 /
GEOLOGIC AL SURVEY 01w' '
4% s H i N C. 7 O N, O C.
.2 D ? 82
.bf
.A f J:
v., -
' v DEC 4 - 1969 x
'i.
~,...
' 4 41
!:t. P.crole Irict Director o f 1:c e,ulat ion l'. S. /.t omic Ener gy Co,ini r t. ion 792 3 1,or f olk liverac Irthttdo, Maryland 20MB liec t tir, l'ric e :
1 ran sm1L tei herevith in renpande to a a q u e r t by Mr. P.or e r S. Eoyd, is a review of the hydrologic aspectr of the liontict llo I ueleer Centratini I'l a n t
';C l>ocket !!o. 16 propond by I:orthern Statec IV er Company.
lue revi.. wnr prepare, t,y l'.
J. Car pento r anG ha r L4 en di rc u r ved with n< m5c t : of yout rtcfi.
1e anve no obj<(tion to your makin); thic revi(w a p:rt of the public record.
1;ineerely yourt.
~
s :
C,<.
a
,. / >
{ g ' _-
4 isirec t or
- f..,,~, _
1.u c 1 or o r e ec: WI ter (. l' o l t ( 1, /J i
+
V C
9211300551 691204 ADOCKOSOOg3 PDR A
f.
A
_ ____ _ _. _.. _ _. _ - _ _._. _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ m.-.
~ _ _.
r i
vs, Northern States P&aer Company
)){
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant
^
I ALC Lochet No. 50-263
/
f Hydrolo-v NS The Monticello buclear Generating Plant is located on the south bank of the Mississippi River, h'right County, Minnesota.
It is 3 miles' south-west of the Village of Monticello, 22 miles southeast of St. Cloud, and 30 milec northeast of the suburbs of Minneapolic. The boiling-water reactor wi'l operate up to a power level of 1,(70 megawatts -thermal or 545.4 megawat ts cle ctrical.
Commente on the hydrologic analysis as presented by the applicant are 1
bancd on a review of the " Final Safety Analysis Report" and " Amendments",
an independent check of available data and literature, and a site visit I
conductec August 1E,1959, and are made in. regard to the application-f or an operating license. The analysis as presented by the applicant apposts to pret,ent an adequate assessment of the hydrologic conditione pertinent to-the enfcty evaluationlof the site. Reference is made to an cttached copy i
of the hydrologic review-prepared by E. L. Meyer on Apri1~ 3,1967, in re-rurd to the application for a construction license.
4 Tue discharte computed for the probable maximum flood, ar defined by the Corpo of Engineers, is 364,900' cubic feet per second. This discharge is approximately 2.1 times greater than maximum discharges observed for nearby, like-sized, drainage basins which appear to exhibit similar ex-treme-flood producing characteristics, and-it is 7.0 times greater than the maximum discharr.e obscrved at the cite in April, 1965 (52,000Jeubic fee t por second; sta ;c - 916.2 feet above mean sea level). The stage corresponding to the probable maximun flood discharge (939.2 feet above mean sea level) was tietermined using standard backwater computations and it appears to be a reasonable figure. All structures have been designed for a flood icyc1 of 131 feet above mean. sea level.
Condenser cooling vill be accomplished with or without cooling torers; aw: if with cooling towers, with full, partial,. or no recirculation.
The method of cooling will be such that the. thermal releases will meet the standards of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Once-through circu-lation with or without cooling towers will require a river supply of-650 cubic feet'per second. A closed cycle circulation with cooling towers will require approximately 54 cubic feet per second. The river-water require-ment for safe shutdown of the plant is less than: 50 cubic feet per second.
Tae applicant's estimate of the minimum flow (240 cubic feet per second) and average annual flow (4,600 cubic feet per,second);at the site are.
reasonable. - -Dased on 35 years of streamfine record for the Miisissippi f,1ver.near Royalton and on 40 years of streamflow record for the Mississippi River at L1h River, the annual minimum, 7-consecutive-day' discharge that may.
bc expected to recur at the site at an average interval of 10 years is about.
. f:.
9+t
-s M u-4 9w u'*
9 t
-'WW'!?t Nae-WTWN3"F FW N4M ' 9 W MM#*"F
J
~
740 cubic feet per second. Ihc_streanbed el(vation at the site is about 905 feet above mcan sea level and the intake canal uill be excavated to an elevation of S90 f ?ct above mean sea level. To prevent icing, provisions have bcen mart to 61 vert a portion of the varm condenstr-cooling vater to tm intakt structure. Rerlectin;; any exieting diversions of Mississippi hiver water and rovernmental regulations concerning future diversione and ure of river water, it appears that an st e quate supply of cooling water i
will be available ct the rite for refe operation ane/or rhutt'cun of the plant.
The water supplies of St. Paul and Hinneapolis are taken directly from the Mitcissippi River so:ae 33 and 37 milet downttream respectively froa the site.
In ad 'ition, thc Mississippi River downstrcam from the site is used for 'trination and recreation. The applicant states that operationally produced radionuclides will be released to the condenser-cooling water on o batch barir such that their concentration in the dischtirce canal vill alvays be at or below the limits given in 10 CIT. 20, i.e., the annuti sveraning provision of 10 CFR 20 vill not be used. The applicant's etti-matec of the concentrations of raGionuclides in the river at. thc plant cite rerulting fran various accidental relearts by discharge or by rupture of the applicable radioactive waste tanks are belar limits given-in 10 CFR 20. _The_
assumptione concerning movement of accidentally releascd radionuclides to the 1'
river are reasonable. The estimates of concentratione of radionuclides-oc--
- curring in the river under variour river flow and discharte rates and at the irrinntion and water supply intaher, resulting frun cither operational or ctoidcntal releases, cre based on the rcaronable accumption of conplete tining of the efDucrt with the receiving river wat(r and the conservative asso:ptione of no Gilution by river-water accretient, no dirperrion after initial mixin,, no deporition in the river bed, and no radioactive decay.
Rumerous cities along the Miscissippi River downstreaa from-the site obtain their vater supplier from the arteolan aquiftr in the concolidated sandstonce underlying the curficial glacial drift.
In addition, numerous private water-table wells arc finished in the glacini drift. The normal hycraulic gradient in the glacial drif t near the river is toward the _ river.
/.l s o, the shallcu drif t is hydraulically connecte( uith the river and pround water icvelr fluctuate with the river'leve1~. The normal direction of the by-!raulic r,radie nt could b'e reverr,ed locally by pumping from shallev wells or, during flooding, the direction of the gradient could also be re-L versed, causing river water to move into the_ shallow aquifers.- If pumpage from the artesian aquifer vere to increase sufficiently some downward per-j L
colation of.this river. water into the artesian aquifer could occur. -Eence, l
if. radionuclides were present in the river water they could enter both the L
water-tabic and artesian aquifers under the specified, conditione. It should be noted, however..that the concentration of radionuclides in the.
river water is at all times expected to be.belme limits specified in 10 CM 20.
l-l m
I' b
I,
- r
~.
.,.., - n a._-._,---~nnn.-nn._.,.-.,,.,n_n,.,-
,..-,. _ - -,,-,a.,,,,,- +,, w.n
.1
^
In the plant area, recharge to the aquifers in the p,lacial drift and to the consolidated sandstone is from local precipitatio.,. If accidentally releost? niri,orne radionuclider were to be c'epositcJ on the giccial drift er on the rechar;g arcat-of tnc sandstone, they could enter these ground-kater supplier, t
Y 1-4 Y
E i
1 4
t h
L.
-}
p a,
3 s
+
f:
i-r e
d -r.*n c.w..
- r....w--..,.-w-=m...+--,.--m, v...-%w
,-rwt
.-n.--
,+'r-,.,
9.-,+~,.--
,-e
,-- - +
- t 1