Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Recommendations

Info

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Regulatory agencies, including the EPA and State agencies, set air emission standards and requirements based on human health impacts. These agencies also impose site-specific emission limits as needed to protect human health. As discussed previously, the EPA has recently concluded that 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 from sources such as coal-fired power plants. However, in the absence of more quantitative data, human health impacts from radiological doses and inhaling toxins and particulates generated by burning coal are characterized as SMALL. Socloeconomics Construction of the coal-fired alternative would take approximately 5 years. The staff assumed that construction would take place while Monticello continues operation and would be completed by the time Monticello permanently ceases operations. The work force would be expected to vary between 400 and 1000 workers during the 5-year construction period (NRC 1996). These workers would be in addition to the approximately 519 workers employed at Monticello. During construction, the surrounding communities would experience demands on housing and public services that could have SMALL impacts. These impacts would be tempered by construction workers commuting to the site from other parts of Wright County or from other counties. After construction, the communities would be impacted by the loss of the construction jobs, although this loss would be possibly offset by other growth currently being projected for Wright and Sherburne counties (USCB 2004). Construction of a replacement coal-fired power plant at an alternate greenfield site would relocate some socioeconomic impacts, but would not eliminate them, The communities around Monticello would still experience the impact of Monticello operational job loss, although this impact would be potentially tempered by projected economic growth, and the communities around the new site would have to absorb the impacts of a temporary work force (up to 1000 workers at the peak of construction) and a permanent work force of approximately 80 workers. Communities in Wright County in particular would experience losses in both employment and tax revenues due to the Monticello site closure, assuming the plant is constructed outside the area. This impact could be MODERATE to LARGE. In the GELS, the staff noted that socioeconomic impacts at a rural site would be larger than at an urban site, because more of the peak construction work force would need to move to the area to work. Alternate greenfield sites would need to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Socioeconomic impacts at a rural site could be LARGE. The appropriate characterization of socioeconomic impacts from coal-fired generation would be SMALL to LARGE. * Socloeconomics (Transportation) Transportation-related impacts associated with the commuting of construction workers at an alternate greenfield site are site-dependent, but could be SMALL to MODERATE. NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-16 August 2006 1
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Transportation impacts related to commuting of plant operating personnel would also be sitedependent, but can be characterized as SMALL to MODERATE. Coal and limestone would likely be delivered to an alternate site by rail or barge. Socioeconomic impacts associated with rail transportation would likely be SMALL to MODERATE. For example, there would be delays to highway traffic as trains pass and there could be negative impacts on the value of property close to the train tracks. The socioeconomic impacts of barge delivery of coal and limestone would likely be SMALL. Aesthetics Potential aesthetic impacts of construction and operation of a coal-fired plant include visual impairment resulting from the presence of an industrial facility, particularly a 500-ft high exhaust stack and condensate plume from the cooling tower. However, the topography throughout most of southern Minnesota is rolling, and forested tracts are common in some areas. Both of these factors act to reduce the viewshed and limit potential for impairment of visual aesthetics from onsite and offsite infrastructure. Coal-fired generation using cooling towers would introduce mechanical sources of noise that would be audible offsite. Sources contributing to total noise produced by plant operation are classified as continuous or intermittent. Continuous sources include the mechanical equipment associated with normal plant operations. Intermittent sources include the equipment related to coal handling, solid-waste disposal, transportation related to coal and lime delivery, use of * outside loudspeakers, and the commuting of plant employees. Noise impacts associated with rail delivery of coal and lime to a plant would be most significant for residents living in the vicinity of the facility and along the rail route. Although noise from passing trains significantly raises noise levels near the rail corridor, the short duration of the noise reduces the impact. Nevertheless, given the frequency of train transport and the many residents likely to be within hearing distance of the rail route, the impacts of noise on residents in the vicinity of the facility and the rail line is considered MODERATE. The staff assumes that adequate buffer and vegetation screens would be provided at the plant site as needed to reduce visual and noise impacts. Overall the aesthetic impacts associated with locating at an alternate site can be categorized as SMALL to MODERATE. * Historic and Archaeological Resources At an alternate site, a cultural resource inventory would likely be needed for any onsite property that has not been previously surveyed. Other lands, if any, that are acquired to support the plant would also likely need an inventory of field cultural resources, identification and documentation of existing historic and archaeological resources, and possible mitigation of adverse effects from subsequent ground-disturbing actions related to physical expansion of the plant site. August 2006 8-17 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:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139: 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?