Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Recommendations

Info

Environmental Impacts of Operation be SMALL. There are no reasonably foreseeable scenarios that would alter these conclusions in regard to cumulative impacts. Although no archaeological or architectural surveys have been conducted to date at the Monticello site, and the potential exists for significant cultural resources to be present within the site boundaries, it does not appear that the proposed license renewal will adversely affect these resources. The applicant has indicated that no refurbishment or replacement activities, including additional land-disturbing activities, at the plant site (or along existing transmission corridors) are planned for the license renewal period. Therefore, continued operation of Monticello would likely protect any cultural resources present within the Monticello site boundary by protecting those lands from development and providing secured access. On the basis of the staff's analysis of cultural resources, the contribution to a cumulative impact on cultural resources by continued operation of Monticello during the license renewal period is considered SMALL. 4.8.5 Cumulative Impacts on Groundwater Use and Quality Monticello's groundwater appropriations permit for two wells limits groundwater withdrawal to a maximum of 200 gpm for both wells. From 1998 to 2000, actual usage averaged 30 gpm. Three other wells have an annual usage of under 1.9 gpm and do not require appropriation permits. The current impact of Monticello on the alluvial aquifer due to plant operations and current groundwater withdrawals is small, as discussed in Section 4.5. There are no known or planned projects requiring withdrawal of groundwater, either at the plant or within its vicinity, that would potentially cause an adverse impact on groundwater if implemented in addition to the Monticello unit license renewal. On the basis of this analysis, the staff concludes that the cumulative impact to groundwater resources during the license renewal period would be SMALL and that additional mitigation would not be warranted. 4.8.6 Cumulative Impacts on Threatened or Endangered Species The geographic area considered in the analysis of potential cumulative impacts to threatened or endangered species includes the counties of Wright, Sherburne, Minnesota. The Monticello site and its associated transmission line rights-of-way that are within scope of the license renewal review are found within these two counties. As discussed in sections 2.2.5 and 2.2.6, there are three Federally listed species that potentially could inhabit Wright and Sherburne counties. No Federally designated candidate species, nor critical habitat for any threatened or endangered species are known to occur within the geographic area of consideration. The staff's findings on the three Federally protected species are presented in the December 22, 2005 (NRC 2005d) BA (Appendix E) and in Section 4.6 of this SEIS. The staff concluded in the BA and Section 4.6 that continued operation of Monticello, and the continued use of the existing transmission lines within the scope of this review, will have no effect on the Higgins' eye pearlymussel and grey wolf and is not likely to adversely affect the bald eagle. Therefore, the staff determined that since there is currently no adverse impact to these species NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-48 August 2006 1
Environmental Impacts of Operation and there is little or no likelihood of any impact during the renewal period the contributions to cumulative impacts to Federally listed threatened or endangered species due to continued operation of Monticello and its transmission lines is.SMALL and no mitigation is warranted. 4.8.7 Conclusions Regarding Cumulative Impacts The staff considered the potential impacts resulting from operation of Monticello during the license renewal term and other past, present, and future actions in the vicinity of Monticello. For each impact area, the staff has determined that the potential cumulative impacts resulting from Monticello operation during the license renewal term are SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted. rE 4.9 Summary of Impacts of Operations During the Renewal Term Neither NMC nor the staff -is aware of information that is both new and significant related to any of the applicable Category-1 issues associated with the Monticello operations during the renewal term. Consequently, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts associated with these issues are bounded by the impacts described in the GELS. For each of these issues, the GEIS concluded that the impacts would be SMALL and that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation. Plant-specific environmental evaluations were conducted for 13 Category 2 issues applicable to Monticello operations during the renewal term, and for environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields. For1 3 issues and environmental justice, the staff concluded that the potential environmental impacbof renewal term operations of Monticello would be of SMALL significance in the context of the standards set forth in the GElS, and that additional mitigation would not be warranted. In addition, the staff determined that a consensus has not been reached by appropriate Federal health agencies regarding chronic adverse effects from electromagnetic fields. Therefore, the staff did not conduct an evaluation of this issue: Cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably forseeable future actions were considered, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. For purposes of this :analysis, where Monticello license renewal impacts are deemed to be SMALL, the staff concluded that these impacts would not result in significant cumulative impacts on potentially affected resources. August 2006 4-49 NUREG-1437, Supplement 26
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:
Page 87:
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 190 and 191:
Environmental Impacts of Alternativ
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?