Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Recommendations

Info

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Environmental Justice In Chapter 4, the staff concluded that the environmental justice impact of continued operation of the plant would be SMALL because continued operation of the plant would not have a disproportionately high and adverse irnpact on minority and low-income populations. Permanent shutdown of the plant could have disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations because of the loss of employment opportunities at the site and because of secondary socioeconomic impacts (e.g., loss of patronage at local businesses). The staff concludes that the environmental justice impacts of plant shutdown could range from SMALL to LARGE. Some of these impacts could be offset if new power generating facilities are built at or near the current site. See Appendix J to NUREG-0586, Supplement 1 (NRC 2002), for additional discussion of these impacts. 8.2 Alternative Energy Sources This section discusses the environmental impacts associated with alternative sources of electric power to replace the power generated by Monticello, assuming that the OL for Monticello is not. renewed. The order of presentation of alternative energy sources in Section 8.2 does not imply which alternative would be most likely to occur or to have the least environmental impact. The following generation alternatives are considered in detail: • coal-fired generation at an alternate greenfield site(a) (Section 8.2.1) " natural gas-fired generation at an alternate greenfield site (Section 8.2.2) * coal gasification at an alternate greenfield site (Section 8.2.3) * nuclear generation at the Monticello site and an alternate greenfield site (Section 8.2.4). The alternative of purchasing power from other sources to replace power generated Monticello is discussed in Section 8.2.5. Other power generation alternatives and conservation alternatives considered by the staff and found not to be reasonable replacements for Monticello are discussed in Section 8.2.6. Section 8.2.7 discusses the environmental impacts of a combination of generation and conservation alternatives. (a) A greenfield site is assumed to be an undeveloped site with no previous construction. NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-6 August 2006 1
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Each year the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a component of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), issues an Annual Energy Outlook. In its Annual Energy Outlook 2005 with Projections to 2025, EIA projects that combined-cycle(a) or combustion turbine technology fueled by natural gas is likely to account for approximately 60 percent of new electric generating capacity between the years 2005 and 2025 (DOE/EIA 2005). Both technologies are designed primarily to supply peak and intermediate capacity, but combined-cycle technology can also be used to meet baseload() requirements. Coal-fired plants are projected by EIA to account for approximately 35 percent of new capacity during this period (DOE/EIA 2005). Coal-fired plants are generally used to meet baseload requirements. Renewable energy sources, primarily wind, biomass gasification, and municipal solid waste units, are projected by EIA to account for the remaining 5 percent of capacity additions. EIA's projections are based on the assumption that providers of new generating capacity will seek to minimize cost while meeting applicable environmental requirements. Combined-cycle plants are projected by EIA to have the lowest generation cost in 2005 and 2025, followed by coal-fired plants and then wind generation (DOE/EIA 2005). EIA projects that oil-fired plants will account for very little of new generation capacity in the United States during the 2005 to 2025 time period because of higher fuel costs and lower efficiencies (DOE/EIA 2005). EIA also projects that new nuclear power plants will not account for any new generation capacity in the United States during the 2005 to 2025 time period because natural gas and coal-fired plants are projected to be more economical (DOE/EIA 2005). In spite of this projection, a new nuclear plant alternative for replacing power generated by Monticello is considered for reasons stated in Section 8.2.4. NRC established a new reactor licensing program organization in 2001 to prepare for and manage future reactor and site licensing applications (NRC 2001). Monticello has a net rating of 600 megawatts electric (MW[e]); therefore, for the coal alternative, the staff assumed construction of a 600-MW(e) plant. For the natural gas alternative, the staff assumed construction of a 550-MW(e) plant consisting of two team combustion turbines (CTs). These assumptions are consistent with the NMC Environmental Report (ER) (NMC 2005). For the coal gasification alternative, the staff assumed construction of two 340-MW(e) modules. This assumption slightly overstates the environmental impacts of replacing the 600 MW(e) from Monticello. For the new nuclear alternative, the staff assumed construction of a 600-MW(e) plant. This assumption is roughly equivalent to the environmental impacts of replacing the 600 MW(e) from Monticello. (a) In a combined-cycle unit, hot combustion gas In a combustion turbine rotates the turbine to generate electricity. The hot exhaust from the combustion turbine is routed through a heat-recovery boiler to make steam to generate additional electricity. N A baseload plant normally operates to supply all or part of the minimum continuous load of a system, and consequently produces electricity at an essentially constant rate. Nuclear power plants are commonly used for baseload generation; i.e., these nuclear units generally run near full load. August 2006 8-7 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:
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 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129: 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 228 and 229:
Environmental Impacts of Alternativ
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?