29.01.2015 Views

Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Impact</strong>s of Operation<br />

(MPCA 1979). Under conditions of the current State of Minnesota NPDES permit, the location<br />

and operation of the intake will continue to have minimal environmental impact.<br />

During the course of the SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for the<br />

continued operation of Monticello. Based on the assessment conducted, the staff expects that<br />

the measures in place at Monticello (e.g., the intake structure is situated in a location devoid of<br />

unique spawning habitat and the capability of the plant to operate in a partial recirculation or<br />

closed-cycle mode) provide mitigation for impacts related to entrainment. The staff concludes<br />

that the potential impacts of entrainment of fish and shellfish in the early life stages into the<br />

cooling water intake system are SMALL, and further mitigation measures would not be<br />

warranted.<br />

4.1.3 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish<br />

For plants with once-through cooling systems, impingement of fish and shellfish on debris<br />

screens of cooling water system intakes is considered a Category 2 issue, requiring a<br />

site-specific assessment before license renewal. To perform this evaluation, the staff reviewed<br />

the applicant's ER (NMC 2005a) and related documents [including the CWA 316(b)<br />

Demonstration (Amish et al. 1978)]; visited the Monticello site; and reviewed the applicant's<br />

State of Minnesota NPDES Permit No. 0000868, issued on August 22, 2002, and in force until<br />

July 31, 2007 (MPCA 2002).<br />

Condenser cooling water is withdrawn from the Mississippi River through an approach channel<br />

angled at 810 to the shoreline (Amish et al. 1978). Water enters the intake over a concrete sill<br />

equipped with a 12.5 ft wide stop log section in the center of the sill. After passing over the sill,<br />

the water passes through a bar rack. The water is then diverted into two separate streams that<br />

each pass through paired traveling screens with 3/8-in. mesh (NMC 2005a). The Mississippi<br />

River is also used for service water cooling, screen wash, and fire protection (MPCA 2002).<br />

The traveling screens at Monticello are normally rotated and rinsed every 12 hours, but run<br />

continuously when the river temperature is higher than 50 0 F. The screen rinse sluiceway was<br />

installed in 1973 to decrease mortality of impinged fish. During periods of continuous screen<br />

washing, the sluiceway produces up to 95 percent survival of impinged fish (Amish et al. 1978).<br />

Monticello may withdraw a maximum of 645 cfs for once-through or helper-cycle mode cooling<br />

and plant process water from the Mississippi River. Special operating conditions are required<br />

when the river flow is less than 860 cfs. For example, plant water intake may not exceed<br />

75 percent of river flow when the river flow is less than 860 cfs but greater than 240 cfs (NMC<br />

2005a). When river flow is less than 240 cfs, there are further restrictions, including use of a<br />

closed-cycle mode of operation (NMC 2005a). Withdrawn water is returned to the river except<br />

for that amount evaporated in the discharge canal and cooling towers. During 2002, the mean<br />

river flow was 6351 cfs, while mean intake flow was approximately 529 cfs; similar means for<br />

2003 were 4572 cfs and 491.9 cfs, respectively (Xcel Energy 2004).<br />

NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-16 August 2006 1

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!