Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Recommendations

Info

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 8.2.1 Coal-Fired Generation The staff believes that the Monticello site would not be a viable location for a representative coal-fired plant. The configuration of the area, the proximity to County Road 75 and Interstate 94, and the fact that the river bisects the site all present significant constraints to an optimal layout of plant facilities. Potentially significant issues include the possible need to realign County Road 75 and insufficient suitable area for onsite disposal of air emission control waste south of the river. The latter constraint would necessitate transport of this waste to an existing disposal facility at NSP's Sherburne County Generating Plant site or a new facility developed offsite or on suitable land on the Monticello site north of the river. Construction at an alternate site would necessitate approximately ten miles of new rail for delivery of coal and limestone. In addition, approximately five miles of new 345-kV transmission would be needed to connect to the grid (NMC 2005). Unless otherwise indicated, the assumptions and numerical values used in Section 8.2.1 are from the NMC ER (NMC 2005). The staff reviewed this information and compared it to environmental impact information in the GELS. Although the OL renewal period is only 20 years, the impact of operating the coal-fired alternative for 40 years is considered (as a reasonable projection of the operating life of a coal-fired plant). The coal-fired plant would consume approximately 2.7 million tons per year of pulverized sub-bituminous coal with an ash content of approximately 5.7 percent. NMC assumes a heat rate(a) of 9800 BTU/kWh and a capacity factor(b) of 85 percent in its ER. After combustion, 99.9 percent of the ash would be collected. Thirty percent of this ash would go to beneficial uses such as concrete products and roadbed material. The remaining 69.9 percent would be disposed of at the plant site. In addition, approximately 51,000 tons of scrubber sludge would be disposed of at the plant site based on annual calcium hydroxide usage of approximately 31,000 tons. Calcium hydroxide is used in the scrubbing process for control of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) emissions. (a) t Heat rate is a measure of generating station thermal efficiency. In English units, it is generally expressed in British thermal units (BTUs) per net kilowatt-hour (kWh). It is computed by dividing the total BTU content of the fuel burned for electric generation by the resulting kWh generation. The corresponding metric unit for energy is the joule (J). The capacity factor is the ratio of electricity generated, for the period of time considered, to the energy that could have been generated at continuous full-power operation during the same period. NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-8 August 2006 1
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Table 8-2. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation at an Alternate Greenfield Site Using Closed-Cycle Cooling Impact Category Impact Comment Land Use Ecology Water Use and Quality-Surface Water Water Use and Quality- Groundwater Air Quality Waste Human Health Socioeconomics Socioeconomics (Transportation) MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE SMALL SMALL to LARGE SMALL to MODERATE The total site could consist of approximately 1700 ac for facilities and an appropriate buffer for adjacent land uses. Land occupied by a 120-ac landfill would be permanently restricted to noninvasive uses for the long term. Offsite, an estimated 60 ac of land would be converted to transportation use and 90 ac would be converted for utility use. Impact depends on whether the site has been previously developed. Factors to consider include location and ecology of the site, transmission line route and rail spur route. In total, impacts could include habitat degradation, fragmentation, or loss as a result of construction activities and conversion of land to industrial use. Ecological communities might experience reduced productivity and biological diversity from disturbance of previously intact land. The impact on the surface water is site-dependent and would depend on the volume of water needed for makeup water, the discharge volume, and the characteristics of the receiving body of water. Impact depends on volume of water withdrawn and the characteristics of the groundwater source.. Sulfur oxides: 1755 tons/yr. National and regional impacts would be minimal because of emissions offsets through the SO 2 trading program. Nitrogen oxides: 486 tons/yr Particulates: 18 tons/yr of PM, 0 Carbon monoxide: 675 tons/yr Small amounts of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants and naturally occurring radioactive materials-mainly uranium and thorium. Total waste volume would be approximately 107,000 tons of ash and 51,000 tons of flue gas desulfurization waste annually for 40 years. Approximately 30 percent of the ash would be beneficially used and the remainder of the waste would be disposed of onsite, accounting for approximately 120 ac of land area over the 40-year plant life. Impacts are uncertain, but considered SMALL in the absence of more quantitative data. Construction impacts depend on location, but could be LARGE if the plant is located in an area that is more rural than the Monticello site. Wright County would experience loss of tax base and employment, potentially offset by projected economic growth. Transportation impacts associated with construction workers could be SMALL to MODERATE. For rail transportation of coal and lime, the impact is considered SMALL to MODERATE. For barge transportation, the impact is considered SMALL. August 2006 8-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 I
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:
Page 130 and 131: 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 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?