Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Recommendations

Info

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Prior to construction at an alternate greenfield site, studies would likely be needed to identify, evaluate, and address mitigation of the potential impacts of new plant construction on cultural resources. The studies would likely be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at the proposed plant site and along associated corridors where new construction would occur (e.g., roads, transmission corridors, rail lines, or other rights-of-way). Historic and archaeological resource impacts can generally be effectively managed and as such are considered SMALL. * Environmental Justice Closure of the Monticello site would result in a decrease in employment of approximately 519 operating employees, possibly offset by projected growth in Wright and Sherburne counties. Following construction of a new coal-fired plant, it is possible that the ability of local government to maintain social services could be reduced at the same time as diminished economic conditions reduce employment prospects for minority or low-income populations. Overall, impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE, and would depend on the extent to which projected economic growth is realized and the ability of minority or low-income populations to commute to other jobs outside the Wright County area. Impacts at other sites would depend upon the site chosen and the nearby population distribution, but are likely to also be SMALL to MODERATE. 8.2.2 Natural Gas-Fired Generation The staff believes that the Monticello site would not be a viable location for a representative natural gas-fired plant. Optimal arrangement of the natural gas-fired plant would likely require locating it within 0.5 mi of Monticello spent fuel storage, which would require specific NRC approval. Assuming this constraint were overcome, approximately 35 mi of 16-in. natural gas pipeline occupying a 30-ft wide corridor would be required to supply the plant. The Viking Gas Transmission interstate pipeline, which traverses Benton and Mille Lacs counties north of Monticello, is the closest pipeline with the potential for sufficient capacity. This additional infrastructure needed to support a natural gas-fired plant represents an economic and environmental constraint. The environmental impacts of the natural gas-fired alternative are examined in this section for an alternate greenfield site. The staff assumed that the plant would use a closed-cycle cooling system. Construction at an alternate site would necessitate approximately 5 mi of new natural gas supply pipeline to supply the natural gas-fired plant. In addition, an estimated 5 mi of new 345-kV transmission lines would be needed to connect to the grid (NMC 2005). The staff assumed that a replacement natural gas-fired plant would use combined-cycle technology. In a combined-cycle unit, hot combustion gases in a CT rotate the turbine to generate electricity. Waste combustion heat from the CT is routed through a heat-recovery boiler to make steam to generate additional electricity. The staff assumed the construction of the natural gas-fired units would be timed to coincide with the expiration of the Monticello operating license period. Consistent with the NMC ER NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-18 August 2006 1
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives (NMC 2005), the representative plant would consist of two team CTs, each with an associated heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) that together supply steam to a single steam turbine generator. Net generating capacity of the representative plant is approximately 550 MW(e). This assumption understates the environmental impacts of. replacing the 600 MW(e) from Monticello. However, the staff has determined that the differences in impacts between 550 MW(e) and 600 MW(e) of natural gas-fired generation would be less than 10 percent and would not change the magnitude (SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) of any impacts. The staff assumed that the plant would use closed-cycle cooling using a mechanical-draft cooling tower, which is assumed to be approximately 45 ft tall. Exhaust from the two HRSGs would be dispersed through individual 200-ft high stacks. Unless otherwise indicated, the assumptions and numerical values used in Section 8.2.2 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 overall impacts of the natural gas-generating system are discussed in the following sections and summarized in Table 8-3. 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 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. Approximately 110 ac of rural agricultural land and/or natural plant communities abundant in the region would be converted to industrial use, of which 25 ac would be occupied by plant facilities. The staff assumes that non-conflicting land uses (i.e., agriculture) on the balance of the plant site would remain unaffected and would provide appropriate buffer with respect to any highly incompatible land use such as residential development. Development.of offsite infrastructure (i.e., transmission line, gas pipeline), involving a corridor of approximately 110 ac, would similarly limit development of future land uses; however, compatible land uses, including most agricultural practices, could continue. Regardless of where the gas-fired plant is built, additional land would be required for natural gas wells and collection stations. Partially offsetting these offsite land requirements would be the elimination of the need for uranium mining to supply fuel for Monticello. In the GElS (NRC 1996), the staff estimated that approximately 1000 ac would be affected for mining the uranium and processing it during the operating life of a nuclear power plant. Overall, land-use impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE depending on site-specific factors. August 2006 8-19 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:
Page 140 and 141: 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?