Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

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