Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Recommendations

Info

Environmental Impacts of Operation hazard if the transmission lines that were constructed for the specific purpose of connecting the plant to the transmission system do not meet the recommendations of the NESC for preventing electric shock from induced currents. Two 345-kV transmission lines (Monticello to Coon Creek and Monticello to Parkers Lake circuits) were originally constructed to connect Monticello to the transmission system. However, changes to the 345-kV transmission system and to these lines have fully integrated Monticello Substation into the 345-kV transmission system. Based on these considerations, Monticello Substation now constitutes the transmission interconnection for Monticello. All lines emanating from Monticello Substation were designed, constructed, and are operated in compliance with the applicable sections of the NESC, including the most recent edition. These lines meet the requirements in effect since the 1990 edition of the Code for lines exceeding 98 kV alternating current to ground, which limits "the steady state current due to electrostatic effects to 5 mA if the largest anticipated truck, vehicle or equipment under the line were short-circuited to ground." This current is induced in vehicles by the transmission line electric field and is proportional to the voltage of the line and inversely proportional to the distance from the line. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has performed measurements on objects beneath lines to determine the level of electric field that will induce current in various objects. Results indicate that an electric field of 7.8 kV per meter at 1 meter above ground is required to induce a 5 mA current through a large tractor-trailer (EPRI 1987). The 345-kV lines associated with Monticello Substation produce a maximum electric field at 1 meter above ground of 6.0 kV per meter. The unloaded sag at 120°F is limited by the NESC to a minimum distance to ground of 30 ft in order to meet the minimum clearance required for operation at 212'F, the highest operating temperature. For a large vehicle, the electric field values indicated above could potentially generate an induced current of 3.84 mA, which is below the NESC code criteria of 5 mA (NMC 2005a). Transmission line compliance with the provisions of the NESC code discussed above is verified by periodic air patrols (monthly), which monitor construction activities beneath and near the lines that could alter corridor terrain and clearances. Based on these considerations, NMC concluded that the Monticello 345-kV transmission lines meet the NESC recommendations for preventing shock from induced currents and further assessment of the impact of the proposed action on the potential shock hazard is not required (NMC 2005a). NMC's assessment under 10 CFR Part 51 concludes that electric shock is of small significance for Monticello transmission lines. Due to the small significance of the issue, mitigation measures, such as the installation of warning signs at roadway crossings or increasing wire clearance, are not warranted. The staff has reviewed the available information, including that provided by the applicant, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, and other public sources. Using this information, the staff evaluated the potential impacts for electric shock resulting from operation of Monticello and associated transmission lines. It is the staff's conclusion that the potential impacts for electric shock during the renewal term are SMALL. NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-26 August 2006 1
Environmental Impacts of Operation 4.2.2 Electromagnetic Fields-Chronic Effects In the GElS, the chronic effects of 60-Hz electromagnetic fields from power lines were not designated as either Category 1 or Category 2, and will not be until a scientific consensus is reached on the health implications of these fields. The potential for chronic effects from these fields continues to be studied and is not known at this time. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) directs related research through the U.S. Department of Energy. A recent report (NIEHS 1999) contains the following conclusion: The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF (extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field) exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that exposure may pose a leukemia hazard. In our opinion, this finding is insufficient to warrant aggressive regulatory concern. However, because virtually everyone in the United States uses electricity and therefore is routinely exposed to ELF-EMF, passive regulatory action is warranted such as a continued emphasis on educating both the public and the regulated community on means aimed at reducing exposures. The NIEHS does not believe that other cancers or non-cancer health outcomes provide * sufficient evidence of a risk to currently warrant concern. This statement is not sufficient to cause the staff to change its position with respect to the chronic effects of electromagnetic fields. Footnote 5 to Table B-1 states: "If, in the future, the Commission finds that, contrary to current indications, a consensus has been reached by appropriate Federal health agencies that there are adverse health effects from electromagnetic fields, the Commission will require applicants to submit plant-specific reviews of these health effects as part of their license renewal applications. Until such time, applicants for license renewal are not required to submit information on this issue." The staff considers the GElS finding of "uncertain" still appropriate and will continue to follow developments on this issue. 4.3 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 that are applicable to Monticello in regard to radiological impacts are listed in Table 4-5. NMC stated in its ER (NMC 2005a) that it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of the Monticello OL. The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GELS. For these issues, the staff concluded in the GElS that the impacts are SMALL, and additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted. August 2006 4-27 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:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68: Descfiption of Site and Environment
Page 69 and 70: Description 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 160 and 161: Environmental Impacts of the Uraniu
Page 168 and 169:
Environmental Impacts of the Uraniu
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?