ML20128C639

Responds to Re Testimony of J Badalich.Info on Commission Policy Pertaining to Locating Nuclear Facilities W/Respect to Proximity of Public Water Intakes Contained in regulations,10CFR50 & 100

ML20128C639
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	11/23/1970
From:	Price H US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Muskie E SENATE
References
NUDOCS 9212040495
Download: ML20128C639 (7)

Text

- - . . -

4 8*

50 .2 f,3 e

'NOV 2 31970 Honorable Edmund S. Muskie Chairman, Subcomittee on Intergoverncental Relations Cocmittee on Government Operations United States Senate

Dear Senator Maskie:

I understand that Chairman Seaborg has responded to your letter of September 17, 1970, with reference to the testimony of Mr. John Dadalich, Executive Director, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. At the Chairman's request I am pleased to provide the substantive answers to the qucstions posed in your letter.

The Comission's policy pertaining to the locating of nucicar facilities with respect to the proximity of public water intales is contained in the Comission's regulations,10 CFR Parts 50 and 100 (copies enclosed). Part 50 Section 50.34 requires an applicant to describe and give a safety assessment of the site on which the facility will be constructed, including as a minimum the site evaluation factors identified in Part 100. One of these factors is the hydrological characteristics of the site (5100,10(c)(3)]. Our specific procedure in reviewing the Elk River and Monticello sites, as well as any other site, has been to detennine. the location of all domestic water supplies such as rivers, lakes, wells, and reservoirs which are in the vicinity of the proposed plant and which may be affected by the proposed operation. Then on an individual basis we evaluate the influence of effluent releases from the plant on the sources of water.

The ranner in which we handled this specific problem relative to the location of the Minneapolis-St. Paul water intakes downstream of the Monticello plant exerplifies this procedure. Our evaluation of this problem is given on pages 32 to 37 cf the Safety Evaluation (copy enclosed) prepared by the Civision of Reactor Licensing as a part of the review of the safety of the Monticello plant. In this evaluation we considered the design of the liquid waste disposal systems, the location of the Monticello plant relative to the Minneapolis and St. Paul water intakes, the characteristics of the Mississippi River in this area, and potential levels of radioactive releases, both accidental and routine, from the plant. ' Our evaluation concluded that postulated releases from the Monticello plant would not endanger7 -I ;fg, ge health and safety of the citizens residing in the Minneapolis-

.u . , au. m .wevi. un . iso,

/

g OmCE > . . . . . .. . - . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - ~ - - . - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -

SURNAME > . . ~ . _ . . . . . - --- -- - -- -- -- -- " ' - - - - -

Form A EC-S t ( . .-53) us$ovtRNurnTPs' [inearber as 9212040495 701123 PDR ADOCK 05000263 U PDR

4 . ,... s ., w.,m/. -]

(;

\ ./ -

i

. Honorable Edmund S. Muskie (

As to your more general question of the distance of reactor sites from-urban areas such as the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area, 10 CFR Part 100, 5100.11 (copy enclosed) of the Commission's regulations provides guidance relative to this question. The attached excerpt from AEC staff responses to concerns _ stated by persons making limited appearances in the public hearing on the Monticello facility briefly explains the application of 10 CFR Part 100 in our review of the Monticello facility.

If I can be of any further assistance to you in responding to these questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

• a % , , , m Harold L. Price Director of Regulation

Enclosures:

1. 10 CFR Part 50

2. 10 CFR Part 100

3. Monticello Safety Evaluation [m)

4. Excerpt REVISED IN OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF REGULATION TO REVISE PARAGRAPHS 2 & 3, PAGE 1, AND INCLUDE 6100.11, FIRST FULL PARAGRAPH PAGE 2, THIRD LINE.

SEE ATTACHED YELLOW FOR PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES \

Distribution: ' ~

P. A. Morris H. K. Shapar Public Document Room (50-263)

Congressional (2)

G. Ertter (DR-2801)

E. G. Case Secretary (2)

H. L. Price R. C. DeYoung B. Schur

=wm) 91L

. R A. More-:s n /A /7 0 7

omu> . . DRL@WR . . ...._ .._DRL :. L R. ..... .. . 0 C R. .

BrppQQiiith ..See

_0GC.[ . 0.lR:c'gp....Mtu at /&/.

sunu4ut > CL M M son;ps . ..QMull e yelloML ,fL nW .M[m. ..

om > 11/_13/7.0_

vorm ac.m um. na,

_. .. . _.10/19/ 70 10/20/70 9 11/14 70 , ll).g/71 we us m.mimm=g.. ((

-l + 1, .

. 1~ -  ? .s

,MR. KNOTTS:- In the .tatement made by the_ City of.Si.' Paul (St.1 Paul ,

' ', Statement Page 18) a_ question was raised as to the placement ofLnucicar

'i I power plents in relation to population centers. The statement went on

=l further to raise a question as to why the provisions of 10CFR 100,11 (a)(3) shouldn't be read as requiring the siting of nucicar reactors even

. s further away from population centers such as the Twin City metropolitan j area. Mr. Vassallo would you please comment?

MR. VASS A1.1.0 : Part 100 is the Commission's regulation on reactor site

~! criteria. First, I would lik: to note, that the provisions of 10CTR 100.11 (a)(3), which deals with establishing population center distances

is dependent on subsections (a)(2) of 10Crn 100.11. Subsection 100.11 (a)

(2) deals with establishing low population zones.

t As discussed in the AEC regulatory staff's Safety Evaluation, the low population zone distance is one mile which nects the guidelines of

. 10CFR 100,11 (a)(2) as shown on page 44 of the Safety Evaluation. Since i

the low population zone distance satisfies the provisions of'10CFR 100.11 (a)(2), thic distance is used directly to deternine the population center distance in accordance uith 10 Crn 100.11(a)(3), which states, "A pop-ulation center distance of at 1 cast one and one-third times the distance from the reactor to the outer boundary of the lou population zone. In applying this ruide, due consideration should be given to the population distribution within the population center. Where very large cities are involved, a greater distance may be necessary because _of total integrated

~~k population dose consideration." This means that for the Monticello- site the required population center distence vould have to be at least one-and-As defined in 10 CFR 100.3, " Population

~

i one-third uilec from the rccetor.

center distance means the d ista-nce iron the reactor to the nearest boundary i.

l

,m - - -

-m-- . , um m .,r. . . g; . .;. . . . _ , ,,m_ _

7

• . a c Ly , , ps. '

n, i

6

- Attached excerpt is a response provided by the AEC regulatory staff to limited appearance statements made by representatives of the City of St. Paul in the Matter of 'iorthern States Power Company Olonticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-263.

The attached was provided for the record (Inserted following Transcript page 2029) during the August 7, 1970 session of the public hearing in the subject matter.

G S

. ' [ ..'.:r- .. y + -

. . . - , l e-

, .2- -

6 of. a densely populated center containing more than about 25,000 residents."

-- . - i-

}

There is no such population center 'onc and one-third miles from the reactor, St.- Cloud with a population of approximately 33,000 is- 22 miles from th'c t

site. The distance of the Twin City metropolitan area is approximately

,j 30 miles from the site, and meets the requirements of 10 CFR 100,11 (a)(3).

4 meem k

w 0

e

'1 1.

k-I P

h _

,;g , u . _. _. s . - - - - - - - -

s . . .

I- -i_Y_ s.__~. . i~i--.--- - - - - -

~. ~- H e.J ; . nttt ,_ + . . vm . - aua m . ; . 3 . " r.a w . . v .e

.- . 3 S tay. u N y -1D) a cycstiou Ur . raised as . t!.; W cec: . at "of nuclear o power plz ;ts in relnt oa to p;, : u.o:. c: u . -. S c., s enta _. :. v;;at c,n:

^: f_

g ~ ..

furth:r to rait .c que; tion: ca. w thy th , a visicas of 10'4 n 100.11 (c)(3)

.i shouldn't be reed as' requiring th citin;-c uekcc reactors ovcu ,

e-further cway fron. population ecnters se:: . .:n 3 In City Matrcyl.iten'

{

1 area. . Mr. Vcesalle vould y.* 1,?:

. ce.- cet';.: '.

,. 8 1:n. VASSALLO: P.m 100 is tN Cc;n:;csicr5 -r:plction on r actor site criteria. Firs. t , I would likc to c.cte, th'. ': provi:. c. c; 100rk-1 r

I 100.11 (d (3) > w;:ich Genic wi th c;tchlich .. x.rc.latic: a .:: c'i o t u c c :., .

, is dependent on ;Lsactions (a) (2) of 20Cc , .::.11. Lx:.c..i.cn 103.11 (c)-

(2) deals with cmc.bli shing lo . pgulaticc. . .m.

As ,ccu m d in the AEC re3W nory s u.J 's Safe ty ic. , ,,_ s:, th.,

low population zona distance is one n11c2 M :. := cts the ryidelincs of 4

l 100Fn 100.11 (a)(2) as shoua on y;c 4 4 of 'the scfety-Evcluction. Since i the lou ponulation zonc distenec catisfict L:

4 provi r.ioc.e of 10CFR.100.11 (c)(2), this distance ic used directly to de tcrmine th.  :

.cpulatior center distenec w. cc:ordcnce uith 10 C"I n 100.11( )(3), which s;ctec, "A pop-ulation ecatcr distance of at Icest one cad one-tFird tinas the W ;:. re fro; the rece tor to the outer hourdcry o f- th; lw populction zone. Ir applyi ng, :.1. aide, due considerction shoLid bc givcn ' to the pc; ;ction i

distributica uithin the populction conte;. Uhcrc verj Icrge citice c'e involved, c greater distance may be racerccry beccucc of' tot:1 integrcted

,j pcpulation doce conrideration." This .2: Jc a t for the Monticcilo. cite f thy reguired population ecn:cr distance would -hnvc to be at lenet c: cud one-thi rd tiles from.the reac tor. As defined in 3 CT~.: .- 100. 3, "ropulction t

ccnter distence nenns tu' distance frm; the cecetor to the .ncarest boundary T

1

.y ,, en ..~e., . . . , - . ,

, , , . , - - , , , . v., .

n -

.,n., - ...

. . . . . . I

- l ' r[ f. ,

{ ',

, +

, of a densely populated center containing noro than about 25,000 residents."

There is no such population center one and one-third miles from the reactor.

St. Cloud with a population of approxirnately 33,000 is 22 miles from th'e 1'

site. The distanco of the Tuin City metropolitan area is approximately 30 miles from the site, and reets the requirements of 10 CFR 100.11 (a)(3).

l t

9 4

't .

1 1

i . .

. . . . . .