Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Recommendations

Info

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Table 8-2. (contd) Impact Category Impact Comment Aesthetics SMALL to Impacts could include visual impairment and infrastructure for delivery of MODERATE coal and limestone. The severity of impacts is dependent on location. Historic and SMALL An alternate location would necessitate cultural resource studies. Archaeological Resources Environmental SMALL to Impacts will vary depending on population distribution and makeup at the Justice MODERATE site. For purposes of this evaluation, the staff assumed that a coal-fired plant located at an alternate site would use a closed-cycle cooling system. The overall impacts of the coal-fired generating system are discussed in the following sections and summarized in Table 8-2. The extent of impacts at an alternate greenfield site will depend on the location of the particular site selected. Land Use Although potential impacts on land use from a new coal-fired plant would be location-specific and therefore conjectural for a greenfield site, potentially affected areas are predominantly rural agricultural land interspersed in some areas with natural vegetation, all of which are abundant in the region. The total site could consist of approximately 1700 ac to provide flexibility in facility arrangement and appropriate buffer from adjacent land uses. Land uses would be entirely precluded on 380 ac onsite for plant facilities and waste disposal. The waste would be disposed of onsite, accounting for approximately 120 ac of land area over the 40-year plant life.(a) Offsite, an estimated 60 ac of land would be converted to transportation use (rail spur) and 90 ac would be converted to utility use (transmission line). Land occupied by the 120-ac landfill would be permanently restricted to noninvasive uses (e.g., recreation) for the long term. In view of the large amount of land affected and the permanent land use change from the landfill, the staff concludes that land use impacts would be clearly noticeable but not destabilizing. Therefore, the staff concludes that land use impacts from construction and operation of a new coal-fired plant at an alternative greenfield site would be MODERATE. The impact would be greater than the OL renewal alternative. * Ecology Potential impacts on ecological resources from construction and operation of the representative coal-fired plant are highly site-dependent. Development of the representative coal-fired plant at a greenfield site in southern Minnesota would likely result in the loss of 380 ac of terrestrial habitat for onsite plant facilities and air emission control waste landfill, loss of approximately 60 ac of offsite habitat for the rail line, and modification of 90 ac of offsite terrestrial habitat for a new transmission line to serve the plant. Development of the transmission line would limit (a) Because the new coal-fired plant is assumed to have a 40-year life, only half of the land area needed for byproduct disposal is directly attributable to the alternative of renewing the Monticello OL for 20 years. NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-10 August 2006
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives changes in future land uses in the transmission corridor to those that are compatible with the line, but most agricultural practices and other currently compatible uses could continue. Depending on route specifics, clearing of forest and shrubland, some of which may qualify as wetland, would also likely be required. However, hydrologic regimes of wetlands would not be appreciably affected and the conversion of transmission corridor areas currently in forest to open habitats could be advantageous to species with affinities for remnant prairie habitats. The most significant potential impacts to aquatic communities relate to the operation of the cooling water system; however, regulatory controls would be expected to ensure appropriate protection of aquatic communities from thermal discharges and the location and operation of cooling water intakes. In addition, because the new coal-fired plant is assumed to use closed-cycle cooling, the cooling water intake and discharge flows would be much lower than that of Monticello, the impact from which is considered to be SMALL. Given this information, the staff concludes that development of the representative coal-fired plant at a greenfield site would have a SMALL to MODERATE impact on ecological communities. * Water Use and Quality-Surface Water Impacts on water quality of greatest potential concern from construction of a new coal-fired plant at a greenfield site include (1) erosion and sedimentation associated with land clearing operations, and (2) suspension of bottom sediments during construction of cooling water intake and discharge structures (NRC 1996). These adverse effects would be localized and temporary. Potential impacts on water quality and use associated with operation of the representative coalfired plant would be site-dependent. The impact on the surface water would depend on the volume of water needed for makeup water, the discharge volume, and the characteristics of the receiving body of water. Cooling water, wastewater, and storm water discharges would be regulated under the Clean Water Act and corresponding state programs by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Cooling water intake and discharge flows for the representative coal-fired plant, assumed to use a closed-cycle cooling system, would be substantially lower than those for Monticello, which primarily operates in a once-through mode that results in SMALL impacts. The staff concludes that the impacts of surface water use and quality from operation of a representative coal-fired plant located at a greenfield site would be SMALL to MODERATE, depending on the site chosen. Water Use and Quality-Groundwater Use of groundwater is possible for a coal-fired plant at an alternate site. Any groundwater withdrawal would require a permit from the local permitting authority. Overall, impacts to groundwater use and quality of a new coal-fired plant with a closed-cycle cooling system at an alternate site are considered SMALL to MODERATE, depending on the volume of groundwater withdrawn and the characteristics of the groundwater source. August 2006 8-11 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:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133: 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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?