Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Recommendations

Info

Environmental Impacts of Operation not identify any new issue that requires site-specific assessment. The staff reviewed the discussion of environmental impacts associated with operation during the renewal term in the GElS and has conducted its own independent review, including public scoping meetings, to identify issues with new and significant information. Processes for identification and evaluation of new information are described in Section 1.2.2. 4.8 Cumulative Impacts The staff considered potential cumulative impacts of operations of Monticello during the renewal term. For the purposes of this analysis, past actions are those related to the resourcesat the time of the plant licensing and construction, present actions are those related to the resources at the time of current operation of the power plant, and future actions are considered to be I those that are reasonably foreseeable through the end of the current license term, as well as I during the 20-year license renewal term. Therefore, the analysis considers potential impacts through the end of the current license term as well as the 20-year renewal license term. The geographical area over which past, present, and future actions would occur is dependent on the type of action considered and is described below for each impact area. The impacts of the proposed action, as described in Section 4, are combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions at Monticello regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. These combined impacts are defined as "cumulative" in 40 CFR 1508.7 and include individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. It is possible that an impact that may be SMALL by itself could result in a MODERATE or LARGE impact when considered in combination with the impacts of other actions on the affected resource. Likewise, if a resource is regionally declining or imperiled, even a SMALL individual impact could be important if it contributes to or accelerates the overall resource decline. 4.8.1 Cumulative Impacts Resulting from Operation of the Plant Cooling System For the purposes of this analysis, the geographic area considered for cumulative impacts resulting from operation of the Monticello cooling system is primarily the upper portion of the Mississippi River, particularly that area bounded by St. Cloud upstream of the plant (RM 900) and St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam (RM 854) downstream of the plant. As discussed in Section 4.1, the staff found no new and significant information that would indicate that the conclusion regarding any of the cooling system-related Category 1 issues related to Monticello is inconsistent with the conclusions in the GElS (NRC 1996). Additionally, the staff determined that none of the cooling system-related Category 2 issues would have greater than a SMALL impact on local water quality and aquatic resources. The cumulative impacts of past actions have resulted in the existing water quality and aquatic resource conditions near Monticello. The major changes and modifications within the upstream reach of the Mississippi River that have had the greatest impacts on aquatic resources include NUREG-1 437, Supplement 26 4-44 August 2006 1
Environmental Impacts of Operation physical and chemical stresses and introduction of nonnative species. The physical and chemical stresses include urban, industrial, and agricultural contaminants (e.g., nutrients, toxic chemicals, sediments); stream modification; water diversions; land-use changes (e.g., residential, recreational, agricultural and industrial development); dredging; shoreline modifications; wetland elimination and modification; dams and impoundments; impingement and entrainment in water-intake structures; thermal loading from cooling water; and major degradative incidents or catastrophes (Weitzell et al. 2003; Genet and Chirhart 2004). These in turn can affect fish, benthic macroinvertebrates, and plankton populations; cause a loss of habitat; cause deformities or tumors in fish and other biota; and contaminate fish, which leads to restrictions on human consumption. Industrial, municipal, agricultural, and power plant usage of the Mississippi River occurs between St. Cloud and the Twin Cities (NMC 2005a). While pollution from domestic sewage has been reduced since passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (CWA), the Mississippi River still receives contaminants from agricultural, industrial, municipal, and residential sources (Fremling and Drazkowski 2000). The Monticello intake area requires dredging every six to eight years to prevent excess sand and silt from being drawn into the plant circulating water system (Amish et al. 1978). This causes a temporary, localized stress to aquatic biota within the immediate area near the Monticello plant. The river water supply is adequate to meet the needs of the facility for cooling purposes under * all conditions. The staff, while preparing this assessment, assumed that other industrial, commercial, or public installations could be located in the general vicinity of the Monticello site prior to the end of Monticello operations. Any discharge of water by such facilities into the Mississippi River would be regulated by the MPCA. The discharge limits are set considering the overall or cumulative impact of all of the other regulated activities in the area. Compliance with the CWA and its NPDES permit minimizes Monticello's cumulative impacts on aquatic resources. Continued operation of Monticello would require renewed discharge permits from the MPCA, which would address changing requirements so that cumulative water quality objectives would be served. Future contributions to cumulative impacts to aquatic resources within the Mississippi River would generally occur from those actions that currently cause impacts (e.g., human habitation, urban and industrial development, agriculture, recreational fisheries, and spread of nonnative species). The quality of the aquatic resources within the Upper Mississippi River will continue to decline unless inputs of sediments, nutrients, and toxic substances are reduced or eliminated (Fremling and Drazkowski 2000). The potential exists for the expansion of nonnative species that have already begun to occur in the Upper Mississippi River, and for additional nonnative species to become established within the river. Four species of Asian carp are established within the Upper Mississippi River. As mentioned, the common carp (Cyprinus carplo) is a prominent species within the Monticello area, while the grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molotrix), and bighead carp (H. nobilis) have become established within the Upper Mississippi .August 2006 4-45 NUREG-1 437, 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:
Page 71 and 72:
Table 2-10. Land Use in Sherburne C
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86: Description of Site and Environment
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 170 and 171: Environmental Impacts of Decommissi
Page 172 and 173: Environmental Impacts of Decommissi
Page 174 and 175: Environmental Impacts of Alternativ
Page 186 and 187:
Environmental Impacts of Alternativ
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?