Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Recommendations

Info

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives * Air Quality The air-quality impacts of coal-fired generation vary considerably from those of nuclear generation due to emissions of sulfur oxides (SO,), nitrogen oxides (NO,), particulates, carbon monoxide, hazardous air pollutants such as mercury, and naturally occurring radioactive materials. Monticello is located in an area designated by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards as being in attainment for all criteria pollutants. The nearest area of non-attainment is the Milwaukee metropolitan area. However, Monticello is in a non-attainment area with respect to the eight-hour ozone standard (NMC 2005). A new coal-fired generating plant located in southern Minnesota would likely need a prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit and an operating permit under the Clean Air Act. The plant would need to comply with the new source performance standards for such plants set forth in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Da. The standards establish limits for particulate matter and opacity (40 CFR 60.42a), SO2 (40 CFR 60.43a), and NO, (40 CFR 60.44a). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has various regulatory requirements for visibility protection in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart P, including a specific requirement for review of any new major stationary source in an area designated as attainment or unclassified under the Clean Air Act (40 CFR 51.307). Section 169A of the Clean Air Act establishes a national goal of preventing future and remedying existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas when impairment results from man-made air pollution. The EPA issued a new regional haze rule in 1999 (EPA 1999). The rule specifies that for each mandatory Class I Federal area located within a State, the State must establish goals that provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility conditions. The reasonable progress goals must provide for an improvement in visibility for the most-impaired days over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least-impaired days over the same period [40 CFR 51.308(d)(1 )]. If a coal-fired plant were located close to a mandatory Class I areas, additional air pollution control requirements could be imposed. The nearest Class I Federal area is in Northern Minnesota, several hundred miles from Monticello. In March 2005, the EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (EPA 2005b). CAIR will permanently cap emissions of SO, and NO, in the eastern United States. CAIR achieves large reductions of SO 2 and/or NO. emissions across 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia. When fully implemented, CAIR will reduce SO 2 emissions in these states by over 70 percent, and NO, emissions by over 60 percent from 2003 levels. This will result in $85 to $100 billion in health benefits and nearly $2 billion in visibility benefits per year by 2015, and will substantially reduce premature mortality in the eastern United States. The benefits will continue to grow each year with further implementation. By 2015, CAIR will help Minnesota sources reduce emissions of SO by 40,000 tons, or 36 percent, and emissions of NO, by 53,000 tons, or 59 percent (EPA 2005a). NUREG-1 437, Supplement 26 8-12 August 2006 1
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Impacts from the various pollutants that would be expected to result from operation of a new coal-fired plant are described below. Sulfur oxides emissions. A new coal-fired power plant would be subject to the requirements in Title IV of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7651-7651o). Title IV was enacted to reduce emissions of SO2 and NO,, the two principal precursors of acid rain, by restricting emissions of these pollutants from power plants. Title IV caps aggregate annual power plant S emissions and imposes controls on SO 2 emissions through a system of marketable allowances. The EPA issues one allowance for each ton of S that a unit is allowed to emit. New units do not receive allowances, but are required to have allowances to cover their S emissions. Owners of new units must therefore acquire allowances from owners of other power plants by purchase or reduce SO 2 emissions at other power plants they own. Allowances can be banked for use in future years. Thus, a new coal-fired power plant would not add to net regional S02 emissions, although it might do so locally. Regardless, S alternative. emissions would be greater for the coal alternative than the OL renewal NSP estimates that by using the best technology to minimize SO,, emissions, the total annual stack emissions would be approximately 1755 tons of SO,. Nitrogen oxides emissions. Section 407 of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7651f) establishes technology-based emission limitations for NO, emissions. The market-based allowance system used for S emissions is not used for NOx emissions. A new coal-fired power plant would be subject to the new source performance standards for such plants at 40 CFR 60.44a(d)(1). This regulation, issued on September 16, 1998 (EPA 1998), limits the discharge of any gases that contain nitrogen oxides (expressed as NO 2 ) in excess of 200 ng/J of gross energy output (1.6 lb/MWh), based on a 30-day rolling average. NSP estimates that by using NO,, burners with overfire air and selective catalytic reduction (SCR), the total annual NO, emissions for a new coal-fired power plant would be approximately 486 tons. Regardless of the control technology, this level of NOx emissions would be greater than the OL renewal alternative, because a nuclear power plant releases almost no NOx during normal operations. Particulate emissions. NSP estimates that the total annual stack emissions for a new coalfired plant would include 77 tons of filterable total suspended particulates and 18 tons of particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 pm (PM 10 ) (40 CFR 60.6). Fabric filters or electrostatic precipitators would be used for control. In addition, coal-handling equipment would introduce fugitive particulate emissions. Particulate emissions would be greater under the coal alternative than the OL renewal alternative because a nuclear plant releases few particles during normal operations. August 2006 8-13 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:
Page 134 and 135: 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?