Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Recommendations

Info

Environmental Impacts of Operation 4.1.1 Water Use Conflicts (Plants with Cooling Ponds or Cooling Towers Using Makeup Water from a Small River with a Low Flow) Water use conflicts for plants with cooling ponds or towers using makeup water from small river with low flow is a Category 2 issue, requiring a site-specific assessment before license renewal. Monticello utilizes cooling towers and withdraws make-up water from the Mississippi River which has annual flow rate of less than the 3.15 x 1012 cubic ft per year threshold value in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A). The impact of consumptive loss on the downstream riparian communities is associated with the small difference it can cause in the river surface elevation. Section 2.2.2 describes Monticello surface water withdrawal from the Mississippi River, which is regulated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) NPDES permit and by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) Surface Water Appropriations Permit. During normal conditions, river flows in the Mississippi River exceed 860 cfs and cooling of circulating water meets NPDES permit limits. Under these conditions, the NPDES permit allows Monticello to withdraw a maximum of 645 cfs and Monticello operates in a once-through mode. When water temperatures approach NPDES permit limits, Monticello operates: in helper cycle (see Section 2.2.2) and some of the cooling water is passed through the cooling towers before discharging into the discharge canal. United States Geological Survey (USGS) gage station data is available approximately 26 mi upstream from Monticello since 1988 (Station 05270700, Mississippi River at St. Cloud). This gage station represents a conservative estimate of flow, at Monticello because this does not take into account additional flow inputs between the USGS gage station and Monticello. Furthermore, review of the MNDNR online database of water allocation permits indicate there are no significant surface water withdrawals between the measuring station and the intake at Monticello (MNDNR 2005a). From September 1988 through September 2004, the maximum and minimum daily flows at the upstream USGS gage station were 45,100 cfs and 1010 cfs, occurring on April 9, 1997, and August 24, 1989, respectively (USGS 2005). A separate flow analysis was conducted by NMC in the ER using data from USGS gage stations both upstream and downstream of Monticello. In this analysis, the flow at Monticello was estimated based on its drainage area relative to the drainage areas of the USGS gage stations. This analysis estimated the lowest daily river flow at 586 cfs (NMC 2005a). If the Mississippi River is between 240 and 860 cfs, NMC is only allowed to withdraw 75 percent of the river flow (see Section 2.2.2). At a river flow of 586 cfs, NMC is allowed to withdraw 440 cfs. Under these conditions, and with an assumed evaporative loss of water from the cooling towers of 18 cfs (AEC 1972), the consumptive loss due to evaporation from the cooling towers represents four percent of the river flow, which is not considered significant. The staff independently reviewed the NMC ER, visited the site, and reviewed the Monticello NPDES permit, the Surface Water Appropriations permit, and other reports. Based on this information, the staff concludes that the potential impacts of water use conflicts are SMALL. During the course of this evaluation, staff considered mitigation measures for continued 'operation of Monticello. Based on this evaluation, the staff expects that the existing State NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-12 August 2006 1
Environmental Impacts of Operation restrictions on water withdrawal during low-flow conditions in the Mississippi River are appropriate and no additional mitigation measures are warranted. 4.1.2 Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages For plants with a once-through cooling system, entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages into cooling water systems associated with nuclear power plants is considered a Category 2 issue, requiring a site-specific assessment before license renewal. To perform this evaluation, the staff reviewed the applicant's ER (NMC 2005a) and related documents (including the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 316(b) Demonstration [Amish et al. 1978]); visited the Monticello site; and reviewed the applicant's State of Minnesota NPDES Permit No. 0000868, issued on August 22, 2002, and in force until July 31, 2007 (MPCA 2002). Section 316(b) of the CWA requires that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. Entrainment of fish and shellfish into the cooling water system is a potential adverse environmental impact that can be minimized by use of the best available technology. On July 9, 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule in the Federal Register (EPA 2004) addressing cooling water intake structures at existing power plants, such as Monticello, whose flow levels exceed a minimum threshold value of 50 million gpd. The rule is Phase II in the EPA's development of CWA 316(b) regulations that establish national requirements applicable to the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures at existing facilities that exceed the threshold value for water withdrawals. The national requirements, which are implemented through NPDES permits, minimize the adverse environmental impacts associated with the continued use of the intake systems. Licensees are required to demonstrate compliance with the Phase II performance standards at the time of renewal of their NPDES permit. Licensees may be required as part of the NPDES renewal to alter the intake structure, redesign the cooling system, modify station operation, or take other mitigative measures as a result of this regulation. The new performance standards are designed to significantly reduce entrainment losses due to water withdrawals associated with cooling water intake structures used for power production. Any site-specific mitigation would result in less impact from entrainment during the license renewal period. Condenser cooling water is withdrawn from the Mississippi River through an approach channel angled at 81 0 to the shoreline (Amish et al. 1978; NMC 2005a). Water enters the intake over a concrete sill equipped with a 12.5-ft wide stop log section in the center of the sill. After passing over the sill, the water passes through a bar rack. The water is then diverted into two separate streams that each pass through paired traveling screens with 3/8-in. mesh (NMC 2005a). The Mississippi River is also used for service water cooling, screen wash, and fire protection (MPCA 2002). August 2006 4-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 1
Page 1 and 2:
NUREG-1437 Supplement 26 Generic En
Page 3 and 4:
Generic Environmental Impact Statem
Page 5 and 6:
Abstract The U.S. Nuclear Regulator
Page 7 and 8:
Contents Abstract........... ......
Page 9 and 10:
Contents 4.8.7 Conclusions Regardin
Page 11 and 12:
Figures Figure 2-1. Figure 2-2. Fig
Page 13:
Contents Table 5-1. Category 1 Issu
Page 16 and 17:
Executive Summary The Commission ha
Page 18 and 19:
Executive Summary NMC and the staff
Page 21 and 22:
0 degree pCi microcurie(s) pCi/mL m
Page 23 and 24:
Abbreviations/Acronyms IPE IPEEE J
Page 25:
Abbreviations/Acronyms rem REMP RHR
Page 28 and 29:
Introduction and (4) present the st
Page 30 and 31:
Introduction (1) The environmental
Page 32 and 33:
Introduction I assessment of the re
Page 34 and 35:
Introduction This definition of pur
Page 37 and 38:
2.0 Description of Nuclear Power Pl
Page 39 and 40:
Description of Site and Environment
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54: Description of Site and Environment
Page 67 and 68: Descfiption of Site and Environment
Page 71 and 72: Table 2-10. Land Use in Sherburne C
Page 87: Description of Site and Environment
Page 90 and 91: Environmental Impacts of Refurbishm
Page 92 and 93: Environmental Impacts of Refurbishm
Page 94 and 95: Environmental Impacts of Operation
Page 148 and 149: Environmental Impacts of Postulated
Page 154 and 155:
Environmental Impacts of Postulated
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Environmental Impacts of the Uraniu
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Environmental Impacts of Decommissi
Page 172 and 173:
Environmental Impacts of Decommissi
Page 174 and 175:
Environmental Impacts of Alternativ
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 231 and 232:
9.0 Summary and Conclusions By lett
Page 233 and 234:
Summary and Conclusions The GElS co
Page 235 and 236:
Summary and Conclusions not reached
Page 237 and 238:
z a :m G) CA, Table 9-1. Summary of
Page 239:
Summary and Conclusions U.S. Nuclea
Page 243 and 244:
Appendix A: Comments Received on th
Page 245 and 246:
Appendix A Commenter ID Commenter A
Page 247 and 248:
Appendix A A.1 Comments and Respons
Page 249 and 250:
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant
Page 251 and 252:
3. General Comments Regarding Licen
Page 253 and 254:
Appendix A nuclear power (I) and Mo
Page 255 and 256:
Appendix A scoping process. If an i
Page 257 and 258:
Appendix A Comment: The NRC does no
Page 259 and 260:
Appendix A Comment: The EIS needs t
Page 261 and 262:
Appendix A Comment: The EIS needs t
Page 263 and 264:
Appendix A cognitive impairment. We
Page 265 and 266:
Appendix A Despite available eviden
Page 267 and 268:
Appendix A Comment: The Hospital Di
Page 269 and 270:
Appendix A Comment: The NRC also fa
Page 271 and 272:
Appendix A The NRC fails to acknowl
Page 273 and 274:
the coal chain What about all the s
Page 275 and 276:
gasification generation balanced ag
Page 277 and 278:
Appendix A 14. Comments Concerning
Page 279 and 280:
Appendix A Part II Comments Receive
Page 281 and 282:
Appendix A Table A-2. (contd) Comme
Page 283 and 284:
Appendix A Table A-2. (contd) Comme
Page 285 and 286:
Appendix A A.2.4 General Comments i
Page 287 and 288:
Appendix A Comment: Page 2-7, Line
Page 289 and 290:
Appendix A turns out that we don't
Page 291 and 292:
Appendix A A.2.12 Comments Concerni
Page 293 and 294:
Appendix A Response: As described a
Page 295 and 296:
information in the Final SEIS as pa
Page 297 and 298:
Appendix A Response: The impacts to
Page 299 and 300:
Appendix A Response: The text in Se
Page 301 and 302:
aging management aspects of the lic
Page 303 and 304:
Appendix A A-2 PURVES TODD: Just ba
Page 305 and 306:
Appendix A PURVES TODD: Thank you v
Page 307 and 308:
Appendix A So you don't look for wh
Page 309 and 310:
Appendix A Yes CHUCK HOSTOVSKY: I t
Page 311 and 312:
Appendix A information a little bit
Page 313 and 314:
Appendix A Return-path: Received:
Page 315 and 316:
Appendix A tAY-W8-2006 11! 07 'ENCL
Page 317 and 318:
Appendix A ta W.Y United States Dep
Page 319 and 320:
Appendix A MAY-17-206 13:11 P.04 U.
Page 321 and 322:
Appendix A IMAY-17-20O6 13:12 P.06
Page 323:
Appendix B Contributors to the Supp
Page 326 and 327:
Appendix B Name Karen McWilliams Na
Page 329 and 330:
Appendix C: Chronology of NRC Staff
Page 331 and 332:
Appendix C May 27, 2005 May 27, 200
Page 333 and 334:
Appendix C June 1,2005 June 2, 2005
Page 335 and 336:
Appendix C January 23, 2006 Februar
Page 337:
Appendix D Organizations Contacted
Page 340 and 341:
Appendix D Wright County Assessor,
Page 343 and 344:
Appendix E: Nuclear Management Comp
Page 345 and 346:
Cn N0 Table E-2. (contd) Expiration
Page 347 and 348:
Appendix E UNITED STATES -" NUCLEAR
Page 349 and 350:
Appendix E N. Archabal -2- potentia
Page 351 and 352:
Appendix E D. Stinnett -2- miles of
Page 353 and 354:
Appendix E FIGURE 2.1-3 SITE BOUNDA
Page 355 and 356:
Appendix E Common Name Scientific N
Page 357 and 358:
Appendix E A. Stinnet : -2- ' !We a
Page 359 and 360:
Appendix E 1.0 Introdution. The U.S
Page 361 and 362:
Appendix E 6-M.LE SITE VICINITY Fig
Page 363 and 364:
Appendix E agriculture and industri
Page 365 and 366:
Appendix E -" .. " MWNTICELLO 345-K
Page 367 and 368:
Appendix E Table 2. Terrestrial and
Page 369 and 370:
Appendix E During the June 2005 sit
Page 371 and 372:
Appendix E Vegetation management ma
Page 373 and 374:
Appendix E Lehman, R.N. 2001. Rapto
Page 375 and 376:
Appendix E MAY-31-206 15:31 P.02 MI
Page 377:
Appendix F GElS Environmental Issue
Page 380 and 381:
Appendix F References 10 CFR Part 5
Page 383 and 384:
Appendix G: NRC Staff Evaluation of
Page 385 and 386:
Appendix G Table G-1. Monticello Co
Page 387 and 388:
Appendix G * The MACCS2 analyses pe
Page 389 and 390:
Appendix G relative risk significan
Page 391 and 392:
" Permanently posting an operator a
Page 393 and 394:
Appendix G accident sequences to em
Page 395 and 396:
Appendix G The staff noted that the
Page 397 and 398:
Appendix G (testing of the boron in
Page 399 and 400:
somewhat higher than what would act
Page 401 and 402:
C Cn N, a) % Risk Reduction Total B
Page 403 and 404:
Appendix G G.6 Cost-Benefit Compari
Page 405 and 406:
Appendix G monetary equivalent of u
Page 407 and 408:
Appendix G * SAMA 16- provide passi
Page 409 and 410:
Appendix G several other SAMAs, res
Page 411 and 412:
Appendix G Generating Plant, Docket
Page 413 and 414:
NRC FORM 335 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATOR
show all

Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?