Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Recommendations

Info

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives During the construction of a coal-fired plant, fugitive dust would be generated. In addition, exhaust emissions would come from vehicles and motorized equipment used during the construction process. Carbon monoxide emissions. NSP estimates that the total carbon monoxide emissions from a new coal-fired plant would be approximately 675 tons per year. This level of emissions is greater than the OL renewal alternative. Hazardous air pollutants including mercury. In December 2000, the EPA issued regulatory findings on emissions of hazardous air pollutants from electric utility steam-generating units (EPA 2000b). The EPA determined that coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam-generating units are significant emitters of hazardous air pollutants. Coal-fired power plants were found by the EPA to emit arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, dioxins, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, lead, manganese, and mercury (EPA 2000b). The EPA concluded that mercury is the hazardous air pollutant of greatest concern. The EPA found that (1) there is a link between coal consumption and mercury emissions; (2) electric utility steam-generating units are the largest domestic source of mercury emissions; and (3) certain segments of the U.S. population (e.g., the developing fetus and subsistence fish-eating populations) are believed to be at potential risk of adverse health effects due to mercury exposures resulting from consumption of contaminated fish (EPA 2000b). Accordingly, the EPA added coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam-generating units to the list of source categories under Section 112(c) of the Clean Air Act for which emission standards for hazardous air pollutants will be issued (EPA 2000b). Uranium and thorium. Coal contains uranium and thorium. Uranium concentrations are generally in the range of 1 to 10 parts per million. Thorium concentrations are generally about 2.5 times greater than uranium concentrations (Gabbard 1993). One estimate is that a typical coal-fired plant released roughly 5.2 tons of uranium and 12.8 tons of thorium in 1982 (Gabbard 1993). The population dose equivalent from the uranium and thorium releases and daughter products produced by the decay of these isotopes has been calculated to be significantly higher than that from nuclear power plants (Gabbard 1993). Carbon dioxide. A coal-fired plant would also have unregulated carbon dioxide emissions that could contribute to global warming. The level of emissions from a coal-fired plant would be greater than the OL renewal alternative. Summary. The GElS analysis did not quantify emissions from coal-fired power plants, but implied that air impacts would be substantial. The GElS also mentioned global warming from unregulated carbon dioxide emissions and acid rain from SO,, and NO,, emissions as potential impacts (NRC 1996). Adverse human health effects such as cancer and emphysema have been associated with the products of coal combustion. The appropriate characterization of air impacts from coal-fired generation would be MODERATE. The impacts would be clearly noticeable, but would not destabilize air quality. NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-14 August 2006 1
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Waste Coal combustion generates waste in the form of ash, and equipment for controlling air pollution generates additional ash and scrubber sludge. The representative coal-fired plant would generate 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 in a landfill on site, accounting for approximately 120 ac of land area over the 40-year plant life. Waste impacts to groundwater and surface water could extend beyond the operating life of the plant if leachate and runoff from the landfill occurs. Disposal of the waste could noticeably affect land use and groundwater quality, but with appropriate management and monitoring, it would not destabilize any resources. After closure of the waste site and revegetation, the land could be available for noninvasive uses. Debris would be generated during construction activities. In May 2000, the EPA issued a "Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes From the Combustion of Fossil Fuels" (EPA 2000a). The EPA concluded that some form of national regulation is warranted to address coal combustion waste products because: (a) the composition of these wastes could present danger to human health and the environment under certain conditions; (b) EPA has identified 11 documented cases of proven damages to human --health and the environment by improper management of these wastes in landfills and surface impoundments; (c) present disposal practices are such that, in 1995, these wastes were being managed in 40 percent to 70 percent of landfills and surface impoundments without reasonable controls in place, particularly in the area of groundwater monitoring; and (d) the EPA identified gaps in state oversight of coal combustion wastes. Accordingly, the EPA announced its intention to issue regulations for disposal of coal combustion waste in landfills or surface impoundments under subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). For all of the preceding reasons, the appropriate characterization of impacts from waste generated from burning coal is MODERATE; the impacts would be clearly noticeable, but would not destabilize any important resource. * Human Health Coal-fired power generation introduces worker risks from coal and limestone mining, from coal and lime/limestone transportation, and from disposal of coal combustion waste. In addition there are public risks from inhalation of stack emissions. Emission impacts can be widespread and health risks difficult to quantify. The coal alternative also introduces the risk of coal-pile fires and attendant inhalation risks. In the GElS, the staff stated that the operating impacts of new coal-fired plants would result in substantial human health impacts (cancer and emphysema) from inhalation of toxins and particulates, but it did not quantify these impacts (NRC 1996). In addition, the discharges of uranium and thorium from coal-fired plants can potentially produce radiological doses in excess of those arising from nuclear power plant operations (Gabbard 1993). August 2006 8-15 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:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137: 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?