Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives
nuclear plant would have a 40-year period of plant operation. Consideration of a new nuclear
generating plant to replace Monticello was not included in the NMC ER.
NRC has summarized environmental data associated with the uranium fuel cycle in Table S-3
of 10 CFR 51.51. The impacts shown in Table S-3 are representative of the impacts that would
be associated with a replacement nuclear power plant built to one of the certified designs, sited
at Monticello or an alternate greenfield site. The impacts shown in Table S-3 are for a
1 000-MW(e) reactor and would need to be adjusted to reflect impacts of 600 MW(e) of new
nuclear power. The environmental impacts associated with transporting fuel and waste to and
from a light-water cooled nuclear power reactor are summarized in Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.52.
The summary of NRC's findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants in
Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, is also relevant, although not directly
applicable, for consideration of environmental impacts associated with the operation of a
replacement nuclear power plant. Additional environmental impact information for a
replacement nuclear power plant using closed-cycle cooling is presented in Section 8.2.4.1 and
using open-cycle cooling in Section 8.2.4.2.
8.2.4.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System
The overall impacts of the nuclear generating system are discussed in the following sections.
* The impacts are summarized in Table 8-5. The extent of impacts at an alternate greenfield site
* will depend on the location of the particular site selected.
* Land Use
The existing facilities and infrastructure at the Monticello site would be used to the extent
practicable, limiting the amount of new construction that would be required. Specifically, the
staff assumed that a replacement nuclear power plant would use the existing circulating water
system, switchyard, offices, and transmission line rights-of-way. Much of the land that would be
used has been previously disturbed.
A replacement nuclear power plant at the Monticello site would alter approximately 500 to
1000 ac of land to industrial use. There would be no net change in land needed for uranium
mining because land needed for the new nuclear plant would offset land needed to supply
uranium for fuel for Monticello.
The impact of a replacement nuclear generating plant on land use at the existing Monticello site
is best characterized as MODERATE. The impact would be greater than the OL renewal
alternative.
Land-use impacts at an alternate greenfield site would be similar to siting at Monticello except
for the land needed for a transmission line to connect to existing lines to transmit power to
NSP's customers in the Southern Minnesota area. Assuming a 60-mi transmission line, an
additional 2500 ac would be needed. In addition, it may be necessary to construct a rail spur to
August 2006 8-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 1