Radiation Sampling by MNDH

Monitoring for radioactivity in Minnesota began in 1953 in response to nuclear weapons testing. The Minnesota Department of Health (MNDH) has a database with over 50 years of information regarding the monitoring of radioactivity levels.  The most recent Environmental Monitoring Report was completed in 2010.

Factors considered in monitoring radioactivity:

  • Long term trends (data analysis)
  • Sample Collection
  • Interpretation (comparing the information to historic data, standard levels, laws, etc.).

Quantifying Potential Exposure:

  • Proximity of residence to reactor
  • Length of residence at this address
  • Proximity of individual’s job site to reactor
  • Length of employment at this site
  • Frequency residence or job site downwind from reactor, based on prior site specific meteorological analysis
  • Residence and job site location

Sampling Sites

  • Air
  • Surface Water
  • Milk
  • Well Water
  • Ambient Gamma Radiation
  • Data from two Pressurized Ion Chambers (PIC)
  • Data Radiation Monitors located around the plant

Air results are compared to data from the St. Paul sampler, historical data, EPA standards, and MNDH Radioactive Material Rules, Chapter 4731.2750.

Water results are compared to the EPA Safe Drinking Water Standards (limiting gross alpha particles to 15 pCi/L, tritium to 20,000 pCi/L, and beta/photon emitters to doses equivalent to 4 mrem per year) and MNDH Chapter 4731.2750 for compliance. They are also measured against the historical data for changes that may have occurred due to releases from the power plant.

Since there are no standards for Milk, except for emergency situations, sample analysis is compared to the EPA Safe Drinking Water Standards and MNDH Chapter 4731.2750. Samples are also compared to historical data and reviewed for trends. The EPA Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) limits the total body or critical organ dose from a single beta/photon emitter to 4 mrems.

Ambient Gamma Radiation results are compared to control readings, historical data, and MNDH regulatory limits. 

Posted in Corridors, Documents and Reports, Minnesota, Monitoring, Monticello Nuclear Power Plant, People, Radiation Information, Radioactive, Safety, Sampling, Watershed, Wildlife | Leave a comment

CapX2020: An Introduction

CapX2020 expands the upper Midwest transmission corridor—bringing power from North Dakota’s coal, natural gas, and wind farm reserves through Minnesota, into the Monticello Nuclear Power Plant, and on to Milwaukee and Chicago.  The CapX2020 proposal comes from an alliance of three utilities collectively known as The Applicants: Northern States Power Company, Xcel Energy, and Great River Energy.  The proposed routes include a preferred route, an alternate route, and five segment alternatives along the preferred route.  Public hearings were held throughout 2010 and 2011 for public comment.

During these hearings it became clear that the proposed routes—which by law are supposed to follow existing power line or railroad corridors—were actually projected onto section lines and half-section lines, AKA political and property boundaries, farming and logging roads, not existing or appropriate corridors. The section and half-section lines were widened to the width of a county road (63 ft road right away access and 93 ft road right of way access) and labeled as pre-existing corridors—thus diluting the statutes on corridors and exaggerating the route information as a way to skirt the responsibilities to the law and the community.  In this way The Applicants tried to use misleading maps to expand the list of acceptable corridors which, had they succeeded, would have resulted in an increased proliferation of corridor expansion—not to mention extensive damage to the environment and the community.

Community involvement played a pivotal role in identifying false or misleading information and providing accurate maps with new routes that would have the least amount of impact on the environment and community.  The health risks due to line lossage (stray voltage) make it so no human dwelling can exist within 150 feet of the CapX2020 power lines (150 ft. being the minimum because the line poles are 140 ft. tall and would devastate whatever was in their path if they fell). The full impact of line lossage is not known, but the result is serious enough that had one of the proposed routes been permitted to pass through the backyard of an epileptic child on a neighboring property it is thought that the stray voltage would have triggered seizures in the child.  Impact on wildlife and watershed was similarly ignored in The Applicants’ route proposal although some wetlands, flora, and fauna were identified in the Draft EIS.

No recent discussion has adequately addressed the issues that could arise from reliance on a single nuclear site not only for the production of nuclear power but also as a major transfer point.  Even in the 1980s the Pentagon was referencing Amory Lovins’ “Brittle Power” in National Security briefings regarding the risks and increased vulnerability associated with the concentration of power sources and production.  If Monticello has a nuclear shutdown or accident how will this affect the energy transfer to Chicago?  The recent CapX2020 expansion of the transmission corridor has only increased the need for higher standards of accountability from the utility companies and their regulators.

Here is a letter introducing the CapX2020 project and the process behind permit application:

October 1, 2009

TO: Local government units in or near the proposed routes included in the CapX2020 Fargo-St. Cloud 345 kV Transmission Line Project Permit application.

RE: Notice of filing a Route Permit application for the Fargo-St. Cloud 345 kV Transmission Line Project by Northern States Power Company and Great River Energy with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MN PUC Docket Number: ET2, E002/TL-09-1056)

Letter and CD-ROM containing the Route Permit application sent via certified US mail. For additional copies of the CD-ROM or for a print copy of the Route Permit application please call 1-866-876-2869 or email fargoinfo@capx2020.com

Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation (Xcel Energy), and Great River Energy, a Minnesota cooperative corporation (collectively, the Applicants), on behalf of themselves and other CapX2020 utilities, filed a Route Permit application with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (Commission) on October 1, 2009 for the Fargo-St. Cloud 345 kilovolt (kV) transmission line project (Project). This letter, which was sent on October 1, 2009 to approximately 2,300 landowners whose property is within the proposed routes, provides information on the Project and on the routing process as well as how to register your name, agency or organization with the Commission on the Project contact list to ensure that you’ll receive further notices.

As part of the Minnesota Route Permit process, the Commission determines the final route and design of the transmission line. Under the full permitting process, the rules require that an applicant for a Route Permit identify at least two routes and state a preference for one of them. A series of route maps showing the proposed routes for the Fargo-St. Cloud 345 kV line are enclosed. The proposed routes include a preferred route, an alternate route, and five segment alternatives along the preferred route. These proposals were developed based on a thorough analysis of the state’s routing criteria and input received from interested stakeholders, including state agencies, local government officials and landowners in the Project area.

Public Notification and Involvement

The Project is one of three 345 kV transmission lines proposed by CapX2020, a joint initiative of 11 transmission-owning utilities in Minnesota and the surrounding region. The initiative is designed to expand the electricity infrastructure to ensure continued reliable service, meet the growth in electricity demand and support renewable energy expansion. The CapX2020 utilities include cooperatives and investor-owned and municipal utilities.

A Certificate of Need from the Commission is required for the Project. Great River Energy and Xcel Energy filed a Certificate of Need application (MN PUC Docket No. ET-2/E-002/CN-06-1115) for the three 345 kV projects with the Commission on August 16, 2007 pursuant to Minnesota Statues Section 216B.243. Prior to filing the Certificate of Need application, the CapX2020 utilities mailed notice letters detailing the proposed projects to approximately 73,000 landowners and 400 local government officials and placed ads in more than 100 local newspapers.

The CapX2020 utilities have been and continue to be committed to working with all interested parties during the need and routing processes. In the past two years the utilities have pursued an aggressive public outreach effort that has provided opportunities for potentially affected landowners, local governments and other to be involved in the process. These efforts have helped the utilities provide information and answer questions on the need for the three 345 kV lines and to gather local information to assist in the development of route options.

As part of the statute regulatory process for the Certificate of Need, the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Office of Energy Security (OES) hosted 10 public environmental scoping meetings on the Projects in December 2007 and the Commission held 19 public hearings in 13 cities in June and July 2008. The Commission unanimously approved the Certificate of Need application, which establishes the size, type and timing of the Project on May 22, 2009.

Project Location

The proposed Fargo-St.Cloud project includes approximately 211 miles of 345 kV transmission line between a new Quarry Substation west of St. Cloud and a substation west of Fargo, North Dakota. The proposed line will interconnect with the existing Alexandria Switching Station south of Alexandria. The Minnesota Route Permit application includes the portion of the project between the Quarry Substation and the Red River.

The Applicants will negotiate easements with landowners for all required right-of-way. There may be circumstances where Applicants will be required to exercise the right of eminent domain to acquire easements for the Project in accordance with their authority under state law pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 117.

The Route Permit Process

A Route Permit from the Commission will be required before the Project can be constructed. The Power Plant Siting Act (Minnesota Statues Chapter 216E) and implementing rules in Minnesota Rules Chapter 7849 establish the requirements for submitting and processing a Route Permit application. The statues and rules also establish notice requirements for various stages of the process.

The Route Permit application will be considered under the full permitting process in Minnesota Statues Section 216E.03 and Minnesota Rules parts 7850.1000 to 7850.5600. The Commission has up to one year from the time the Route Permit application is accepted to complete its process and make a decision according to Minnesota Statues Section 216E.03, subdivision 1 and Minnesota Rule 7849.5340, Subpart 1.

Within 60 days after the Commission accepts the application as complete, the OES will hold public meetings on behalf of the Commission to provide information and seek public comment. At the meetings, members of the public may propose additional route alternative for consideration in the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that the OES will prepare.

After the draft EIS is prepared, the OES will hold an informational meeting to provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the document. A public hearing (conducted by an administrative law judge from the Office of Administrative Hearings) will be held once the draft EIS is issued. Anyone may speak at the public hearing, present documentary evidence, ask questions of the Applicants and OES staff, and submit comments.

The Project Contact List

As you represent an area in or near the routes shown on the enclosed map, the Applicants will provide you written notice of the initial public meetings, the informational meeting, and the public hearing. If you wish to receive written notice of Project milestones regarding the environmental review process, including notice of the availability of the draft EIS, please sign up for the Project contact list.

Register for the Project contact list at http://energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us/ or by contacting the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Office of Energy Security:

David Birkholz, OES Permitting Staff Project Manager (651) 296-2878 davi.birkholz@state.mn.us

Minnesota Department of Commerce, Office of Energy Security, 85 7th Place East, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55101  P): 1-800-657-3794  (F): (651) 297-7891 or 1-800-627-3529 or 711 (TTY: Minnesota Relay Service)

If you have questions about the Project, contact Mr. Birkholz at the OES or Mr. Bret Eknes at the Commission:

Bret Eknes, Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, 121 7th Place East, Suite 350, St. Paul, MN 55101   P): (651) 201-2236  (E): bret.eknes@state.mn.us  (W): www.puc.state.mn.us

Enclosed is a CD-ROM copy of the Route Permit application filed on October 1, 2009. If you would like a print copy of the application, please contact Xcel Energy at 1-866-876-2869 or fargoinfo@capx2020.com.

Xcel Energy, PO Box 9451, Minneapolis, MN 55440-9451, P): 1-866-876-2869, (E): fargoinfo@capx2020.com

Posted in CapX2020, Contact Info, Corridors, Documents and Reports, Energy, Get Involved, Great River Energy, Minnesota, Monticello Nuclear Power Plant, Northern States Power Company, People, Power, Safety, Transmission, Utilities, Xcel Energy | 1 Comment

CapX2020: Notifications and Involvement

Exhibit A:

October 1, 2009

TO: Local government units in or near the proposed routes included in the CapX2020 Fargo-St. Cloud 345 kV Transmission Line Project Permit application.

RE: Notice of filing a Route Permit application for the Fargo-St. Cloud 345 kV Transmission Line Project by Northern States Power Company and Great River Energy with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MN PUC Docket Number: ET2, E002/TL-09-1056)

Letter and CD-ROM containing the Route Permit application sent via certified US mail. For additional copies of the CD-ROM or for a print copy of the Route Permit application please call 1-866-876-2869 or email fargoinfo@capx2020.com

Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation (Xcel Energy), and Great River Energy, a Minnesota cooperative corporation (collectively, the Applicants), on behalf of themselves and other CapX2020 utilities, filed a Route Permit application with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (Commission) on October 1, 2009 for the Fargo-St. Cloud 345 kilovolt (kV) transmission line project (Project). This letter, which was sent on October 1, 2009 to approximately 2,300 landowners whose property is within the proposed routes, provides information on the Project and on the routing process as well as how to register your name, agency or organization with the Commission on the Project contact list to ensure that you’ll receive further notices.

As part of the Minnesota Route Permit process, the Commission determines the final route and design of the transmission line. Under the full permitting process, the rules require that an applicant for a Route Permit identify at least two routes and state a preference for one of them. A series of route maps showing the proposed routes for the Fargo-St. Cloud 345 kV line are enclosed. The proposed routes include a preferred route, an alternate route, and five segment alternatives along the preferred route. These proposals were developed based on a thorough analysis of the state’s routing criteria and input received from interested stakeholders, including state agencies, local government officials and landowners in the Project area.

Public Notification and Involvement

The Project is one of three 345 kV transmission lines proposed by CapX2020, a joint initiative of 11 transmission-owning utilities in Minnesota and the surrounding region. The initiative is designed to expand the electricity infrastructure to ensure continued reliable service, meet the growth in electricity demand and support renewable energy expansion. The CapX2020 utilities include cooperatives and investor-owned and municipal utilities.

A Certificate of Need from the Commission is required for the Project. Great River Energy and Xcel Energy filed a Certificate of Need application (MN PUC Docket No. ET-2/E-002/CN-06-1115) for the three 345 kV projects with the Commission on August 16, 2007 pursuant to Minnesota Statues Section 216B.243. Prior to filing the Certificate of Need application, the CapX2020 utilities mailed notice letters detailing the proposed projects to approximately 73,000 landowners and 400 local government officials and placed ads in more than 100 local newspapers.

The CapX2020 utilities have been and continue to be committed to working with all interested parties during the need and routing processes. In the past two years the utilities have pursued an aggressive public outreach effort that has provided opportunities for potentially affected landowners, local governments and other to be involved in the process. These efforts have helped the utilities provide information and answer questions on the need for the three 345 kV lines and to gather local information to assist in the development of route options.

As part of the statute regulatory process for the Certificate of Need, the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Office of Energy Security (OES) hosted 10 public environmental scoping meetings on the Projects in December 2007 and the Commission held 19 public hearings in 13 cities in June and July 2008. The Commission unanimously approved the Certificate of Need application, which establishes the size, type and timing of the Project on May 22, 2009.

Project Location

The proposed Fargo-St.Cloud project includes approximately 211 miles of 345 kV transmission line between a new Quarry Substation west of St. Cloud and a substation west of Fargo, North Dakota. The proposed line will interconnect with the existing Alexandria Switching Station south of Alexandria. The Minnesota Route Permit application includes the portion of the project between the Quarry Substation and the Red River.

The Applicants will negotiate easements with landowners for all required right-of-way. There may be circumstances where Applicants will be required to exercise the right of eminent domain to acquire easements for the Project in accordance with their authority under state law pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 117.

The Route Permit Process

A Route Permit from the Commission will be required before the Project can be constructed. The Power Plant Siting Act (Minnesota Statues Chapter 216E) and implementing rules in Minnesota Rules Chapter 7849 establish the requirements for submitting and processing a Route Permit application. The statues and rules also establish notice requirements for various stages of the process.

The Route Permit application will be considered under the full permitting process in Minnesota Statues Section 216E.03 and Minnesota Rules parts 7850.1000 to 7850.5600. The Commission has up to one year from the time the Route Permit application is accepted to complete its process and make a decision according to Minnesota Statues Section 216E.03, subdivision 1 and Minnesota Rule 7849.5340, Subpart 1.

Within 60 days after the Commission accepts the application as complete, the OES will hold public meetings on behalf of the Commission to provide information and seek public comment. At the meetings, members of the public may propose additional route alternative for consideration in the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that the OES will prepare.

After the draft EIS is prepared, the OES will hold an informational meeting to provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the document. A public hearing (conducted by an administrative law judge from the Office of Administrative Hearings) will be held once the draft EIS is issued. Anyone may speak at the public hearing, present documentary evidence, ask questions of the Applicants and OES staff, and submit comments.

The Project Contact List

As you represent an area in or near the routes shown on the enclosed map, the Applicants will provide you written notice of the initial public meetings, the informational meeting, and the public hearing. If you wish to receive written notice of Project milestones regarding the environmental review process, including notice of the availability of the draft EIS, please sign up for the Project contact list.

Register for the Project contact list at http://energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us/ or by contacting the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Office of Energy Security:

David Birkholz, OES Permitting Staff Project Manager (651) 296-2878 davi.birkholz@state.mn.us

Minnesota Department of Commerce, Office of Energy Security, 85 7th Place East, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55101  P): 1-800-657-3794  (F): (651) 297-7891 or 1-800-627-3529 or 711 (TTY: Minnesota Relay Service)

If you have questions about the Project, contact Mr. Birkholz at the OES or Mr. Bret Eknes at the Commission:

Bret Eknes, Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, 121 7th Place East, Suite 350, St. Paul, MN 55101   P): (651) 201-2236  (E): bret.eknes@state.mn.us  (W): www.puc.state.mn.us

Enclosed is a CD-ROM copy of the Route Permit application filed on October 1, 2009. If you would like a print copy of the application, please contact Xcel Energy at 1-866-876-2869 or fargoinfo@capx2020.com.

Xcel Energy, PO Box 9451, Minneapolis, MN 55440-9451, P): 1-866-876-2869, (E): fargoinfo@capx2020.com

Exhibit B:

Exhibit C:

Exhibit D:

Exhibit E:

Posted in Avon, Bills, CapX2020, Contact Info, Corridors, Documents and Reports, Energy, Get Involved, Great River Energy, Image, Minnesota, Newspaper, Northern States Power Company, Nuclear, People, Performance Evaluation, Photos, Power, Safety, Supplemental Information, Township/Local Government, Transmission, Utilities, Xcel Energy | Tagged | 1 Comment

Toxic Plumes

From “AIR APPARENT” (by Mark Monmonier):

“To assess the effects of complex terrain and whimsical weather, planners and environmental engineers use hourly data on wind, temperature, and humidity to simulate the proposed the proposed facility’s operation throughout a more or less typical year. The simulation will treat the region as a huge grid of half-mile-square cells extending ten miles or more outward from the plant—the grid’s resolution and extent depend on terrain as well as the height of the smokestack.—and use one or more air-dispersion models to estimate fallout at each square for every hour of every day throughout the period. In addition to compiling cumulative totals, which are used to make maps of average annual deposition, the simulation will keep track of highest and second-highest concentrations for 1-, 3-, 8-, and 24-hour periods” (108).

“Vulnerability modeling is not foolproof. Emergency managers need to experiment with different models and understand their simplifying assumptions, which usually ignore the influence of terrain on toxic clouds of heavy gasses like chlorine and phosgene. They should also be wary of what the models might not tell them”—such as changes in atmosphere and the effects of terrain and of local winds (107).  Some chemicals will react with atmospheric moisture to produce even deadlier chemicals with a greater toxic reach than those initially released.

25 Mile Radius Fallout Map

The center of this Toxic Plume is located approximately 23 miles southeast of St. Cloud, Minnesota. This plume is produced by 1 reactor located at the Monticello Nuclear Power Plant site. The reactor that produces this plume has 579 Mega Watts of radiation generating power. There is a total of 471 tons of Highly Toxic Radioactive spent fuel stored at this Nuclear Power Plant.

For Monticello’s Ground Deposition Modeling please see Off-Site Dose Assessment and Protective Action Recomendations (2003).

For more images of Toxic Plumes please see Intro to Plume Modeling and Issues to Consider.

Posted in Aerial, Emergency Planning, Evacuation Information, Image, Map, Monitoring, Monticello Nuclear Power Plant, NRC, Nuclear, Photos, Radiation Information, Radioactive, Safety | 1 Comment

ORISE Protocol for an Analysis of Cancer Risk in Populations Living Near Nuclear-Power Facilities

ORISE Protocol for Analysis of Cancer in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities, concerning populations in Southern United States  (NRC, 2009).

Excerpts:

Posted in Documents and Reports, Map, NRC, Nuclear, ORISE, Other Power Plants, Radiation Information, Radioactive, Safety, Sampling, Supplemental Information | 1 Comment

Monitoring Global Fallout

Monitoring global fallout–a PDF about improving radiological assessment of doses to humans from terrestrial ecosystems.

Abstract:

The NKS B-programme EcoDoses project starthued in 2003 as a collaboration between all the Nordic countries. The aim of the project is to improve the radiological assessments of doses to man from terrestrial ecosystems. The present report sums up the work performed in the second phase of the project. The main topics in 2004 have been: (i) A continuation of previous work with a better approach for estimating global fallout on a regional or national scale, based on a correlation between precipitation and deposition rates. (ii) Fur- ther extension of the EcoDoses milk database. Estimation of effective ecological half lives of 137Cs in cow’s milk focussing on suitable post-Chernobyl time-series. Modelling integrated transfer of 137Cs to cow’s milk from Nordic countries. (iii) Determination of effective ecological half lives for fresh water fish from Nordic lakes. (iv) Investigate ra- dioecological sensitivity for Nordic populations. (v) Food-chain modelling using the Eco- sys-model, which is the underlying food- and dose-module in several computerised deci- sion-making systems.

Sample Tables:

Posted in Documents and Reports, Global Fallout, Image, Monitoring, Nuclear, Other Power Plants, People, Performance Evaluation, Radiation Information, Safety, Sampling, US Nuclear Power Plants | 1 Comment

Explosions

Posted in Image, Nuclear, People, Photos, Radioactive, US Nuclear Power Plants | Leave a comment

Groundwater Protection Initiative: Voluntary Data Collection Questionnaire

Opening note from Edward J. Weinkam (Director, Nuclear Licensing and Regulatory Services, Nuclear Management Company, LLC), July 31, 2006:

“The nuclear industry, in conjunction with the Nuclear Energy Institute, has developed a questionnaire to facilitate the collection of groundwater data at commercial nuclear reactor sites. The objective of the questionnaire is to compile baseline information about the current status of site programs for monitoring and protecting groundwater and to share that information with NRC. The competed questionnaire for the above listed sites operated by Nuclear Mangement Company, LLC are enclosed.” 

Enclosure 3

Industry Groundwater Protection Initiative

Voluntary Data Collection Questionnaire 

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 

The Nuclear Energy Institute has developed a questionnaire to facilitate the collection of groundwater data at commercial nuclear reactor sites. The objective of the questionnaire is to compile baseline information about the current status of site programs for monitoring and protecting groundwater and to share that information with NRC. The completed questionnaire for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP) follows.

1. Briefly describe the program and/or methods used for detection of leakage of spills from plant systems, structures, and components that have a potential for an inadvertent release of radioactivity from plant operations into groundwater.

  • Permanent outdoor radioactive water storage tanks at MNGP (condensate water) are located within a basin designed to contain leakage. Leakage from the tanks would be detected either visually or during routine sampling and analysis, which is preformed prior to periodic removal of accumulated precipitation.
  • The MNGP spent fuel pool has a leak detection system that includes a skimmer surge tank low level alarm, a fuel pool low level alarm, and an inspection of the fuel pool liner drains once per shift.
  • Engineers perform periodic walk downs of the systems for which they are responsible. These walkdowns include the requirement to identify and report leaks and spills. Leaks and spills are addressed through any of the following: decontamination, notifying supervision for assistance, writing a work request or initiating a Corrective Action Report.
  • Operations personnel conduct shiftly walkdowns of plant systems and are required to identify and report leaks and spills. Leaks and spills are addressed through ay of the following: decontamination, notifying supervision for assistance, writing a work request or initiating a Corrective Action Report.
  • The site corrective action program is used for reporting and trending leaks and spills. The process facilitates anonymous reporting.
  • The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) includes periodic sampling and analysis of onsite and offsite groundwater wells.

2. Briefly describe the program and/or methods for monitoring onsite groundwater for the presence of radioactivity released from plant operations.

  • MNGP has one onsite groundwater monitoring well, which is sampled as part of the REMP. This well is one of several that supply water for employee consumption.
  • In addition, MNGP samples two offsite groundwater wells (one residential and one public) as part of the REMP.
  • The wells are sampled quarterly and analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides and tritium.
  • The samples are analyzed to the site’s REMP criteria.
  • Typical sample Minimum Detectable Activities (MDAs) are as follows.
Nuclide Typical MDA (pCi/l)
3H 500
54Mn 10
59Fe 30
58Co/60Co 10
65Zn 30
95Zr-Nb 15
131I 1
134Cs/137Cs 10
140Ba-La 15

3. If applicable, briefly summarize any occurrences of inadvertent releases of radioactive liquids that had the potential to reach groundwater and have been documented in accordance with 10 CFR 50.75(g).

Not applicable. There are no inadvertent releases of radioactive liquids documented in accordance with 10 CFR 50.75(g).

4. If applicable, briefly summarize the circumstances associated with any onsite or offsite groundwater monitoring result indicating a concentration in groundwater of radioactivity released from plant operations that exceeds the maximum contaminant level (MCl) established by the U.S. EPA for drinking water.

Not applicable. No groundwater monitoring results have exceeded the maximum contaminant level (MCl) established by the U.S. EPA for drinking water.

5. Briefly describe any remediation efforts undertaken or planned to reduce or eliminate levels of radioactivity resulting from plant operations in soil or groundwater onsite or offsite.

Not applicable. No remediation efforts have been planned or undertaken to reduce or eliminate levels of radioactivity resulting from plant operations in soil or groundwater onsite or offiste.

Posted in Boiling Water Reactor, Documents and Reports, Monitoring, Monticello Nuclear Power Plant, Performance Evaluation, Radiation Information, Radioactive, Sampling | 3 Comments

Monticello’s Emergency Planning: Dose Assessment

Off-Site Dose Assessment and Protective Action Recomendations (Monticello, 2003)

For more information about Toxic Plumes, please see this excerpt of Mark Monmonier’s “Air Apparent.”

Posted in Documents and Reports, Emergency Planning, Evacuation Information, Image, Monitoring, Monticello Nuclear Power Plant, NRC, Nuclear, Performance Evaluation, Radiation Information, Radioactive, Safety, Sampling | 1 Comment

Plant Leak/Spill Detection Program

[Excerpted & re-formated from the Groundwater Protection Initiative: Voluntary Data Collection Questionnaire (2006) – Nuclear Licensing and Regulatory Services]

Program and/or methods used for detection of leakage of spills from plant systems, structures, and components that have a potential for an inadvertent release of radioactivity from plant operations into groundwater:

  • Permanent outdoor radioactive water storage tanks at MNGP (condensate water) are located within a basin designed to contain leakage. Leakage from the tanks would be detected either visually or during routine sampling and analysis, which is preformed prior to periodic removal of accumulated precipitation.
  • The MNGP spent fuel pool has a leak detection system that includes a skimmer surge tank low level alarm, a fuel pool low level alarm, and an inspection of the fuel pool liner drains once per shift.
  • Engineers perform periodic walk downs of the systems for which they are responsible. These walkdowns include the requirement to identify and report leaks and spills. Leaks and spills are addressed through any of the following: decontamination, notifying supervision for assistance, writing a work request or initiating a Corrective Action Report.
  • Operations personnel conduct shiftly walkdowns of plant systems and are required to identify and report leaks and spills. Leaks and spills are addressed through ay of the following: decontamination, notifying supervision for assistance, writing a work request or initiating a Corrective Action Report.
  • The site corrective action program is used for reporting and trending leaks and spills. The process facilitates anonymous reporting.
  • The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) includes periodic sampling and analysis of onsite and offsite groundwater wells.

Program and methods for monitoring onsite groundwater for the presence of radioactivity released from plant operations:

  • MNGP has one onsite groundwater monitoring well, which is sampled as part of the REMP. This well is one of several that supply water for employee consumption.
  • In addition, MNGP samples two offsite groundwater wells (one residential and one public) as part of the REMP.
  • The wells are sampled quarterly and analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides and tritium.
  • The samples are analyzed to the site’s REMP criteria.

Full Reports:

Nuclear Licensing and Regulatory Services –  2006 Groundwater Protection Initiative: Voluntary Data Collection Questionnaire 

Minnesota Department of Health (MNDH) – 2010 Environmental Monitoring Report (for Full list of 2010 Sampling Maps submitted by Monticello to the NRC see Appendix D).

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) – 2008 Radioactive Effluents and 2006 Environmental Impact Statement

Posted in Documents and Reports, Environmental Impact Statement, Environmental Monitoring Report, Minnesota Department of Health, Monitoring, Radiation Information, Radioactive, Safety, Sampling, Watershed | Leave a comment