Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Recommendations

Info

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives impairment of rural landscape could result from development of the transmission line. However, the topography throughout most of southern -Minnesota is rolling, and forested tracts occur in some parts of the area. Both of these attributes would act to reduce the viewshed and limit potential for impairment of visual aesthetics. In addition, the presence of transmission lines is not out of character for the existing rural southern Minnesota landscape. The staff expects that routing of the line could be accomplished such that highly incompatible land uses, important habitats and associated important species, and areas of potentially high impact on visual aesthetics would be recognized and avoided or appropriately mitigated such that important attributes of these resources would not be destabilized. If power to replace Monticello capacity were to be purchased from sources within the United States or a foreign country, the generating technology would likely be one of those described in this SEIS and in the GElS (probably coal, natural gas, coal gasification, or nuclear). The description of the environmental impacts of other technologies in Chapter 8 of the GElS is representative of the purchased electrical power alternative to renewal of the Monticello OL. Thus, the environmental impacts of imported power would still occur but would be located elsewhere within the region, nation, or another country. 8.2.6 Other Alternatives Other generation technologies considered by the staff in its analyses are discussed in the following subsections. 8.2.6.1 Oil-Fired Generation EIA projects that oil-fired plants will account for very little of the new generation capacity in the United States during the 2000 to 2020 time period because of higher fuel costs and lower efficiencies (DOE/EIA 2000). NSP has several oil-fired units; however, they produce less than one percent of NSP's power generation (NSP 2004). Oil-fired operation is more expensive than nuclear or coal-fired operation. In addition, future increases in oil prices are expected to make oil-fired generation increasingly more expensive than coal-fired generation. The high cost of oil has prompted a steady decline in its use for electricity generation. In 2001, only 0.82 billion kWh of electricity was generated from petroleum in the Mid-Continent Area Power Pool (MAPP), 0.5 percent of the total generation in the region. The percentage of total generation from oil in MAPP is projected to decrease to 0.1 percent by 2010 (DOE/EIA 2004). Also, construction and operation of an oil-fired plant would have environmental impacts. For example, in Section 8.3.11 of the GELS, the staff estimated that construction of a 1 000-MW(e) oil-fired plant would require about 120 ac. Additionally, operation of oil-fired plants would have environmental impacts (including impacts on the aquatic environment and air) that would be similar to those from a coal-fired plant. NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8 -44 August 2006 1
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives For these reasons, the staff does not consider oil-fired generation, by itself, a feasible alternative to replace the baseload generating capacity at Monticello. 8.2.6.2 Wind Power Wind power, by itself, is not suitable for large baseload capacity. As discussed in Section 8.3.1 of the GELS, wind has a high degree of intermittency, and average annual capacity factors for wind plants are relatively low (on the order of 30 percent). Wind power, in conjunction with energy storage mechanisms, might serve as a means of providing baseload power. However, current energy storage technologies are too expensive for wind power to serve as a large baseload generator. Wind turbines are economical in wind power Classes 4 through 7 (average wind speeds of 12.5 to 21.1 mph) (DOE 2001). In Minnesota, Class 4 wind potential exists in exposed uplands in the southern part of the state and in the Red River Valley between North Dakota and northern Minnesota. These resources, particularly in the Buffalo Ridge area in the southwestern part of the state, could support development approaching 3000 MW(e) by 2010, but significant transmission constraints exist (MDC 2004). EIA projects that wind-power generating capacity in MAPP totaled 1120 MW(e) in 2004 and will increase by 590 MW(e) by 2010 (DOEEIA 2004). From a practical perspective, the scale of this technology is too small to directly replace a * power generating plant equivalent to the output capacity of Monticello. There are substantial impacts to natural resources (wildlife habitat, land-use, and aesthetic impacts) from construction of wind power facilities. As stated in the GElS, land requirements are high-1 50,000 ac of land to generate 1000 MW(e) of power. Approximately 90,000 ac would be required for 600 MW(e) of wind power generating capacity to replace the Monticello plant. The installation of large-scale wind farms requires construction of access roads for turbine installation and maintenance and installation of transmission lines. The impacts associated with large-scale construction, particularly in remote or sensitive areas, could be LARGE. After the turbines and transmission lines are installed, the continuing impacts from operation would include the aesthetic impact of the turbines and transmission lines, and impacts to terrestrial biota, primarily birds, as a result of physical impacts with the turbine blades. For these reasons, the staff concludes that wind power alone is not a feasible substitute at this time for the base load generation from Monticello. However, the staff recognizes that wind power projects are being developed in areas with significant wind potential. Therefore, it is reasonable to include wind power in a combination of alternatives that could replace the generation from Monticello. Combined alternatives are discussed in Section 8.2.7. August 2006 8-45 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:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Environmental Impacts of Postulated
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Environmental Impacts of the Uraniu
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167: Environmental Impacts of the Uraniu
Page 168 and 169: 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?