Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Recommendations

Info

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 8.2.6.3 Solar Power Solar technologies use the sun's energy and light to provide heat and cooling, light, hot water, and electricity for homes, businesses, and industry. The two leading solar technologies are photovoltaic and solar thermal. Photovoltaic devices use semiconducting materials that absorb sunlight and convert it directly into electricity. Solar thermal devices use direct heat from the sun, concentrating it in some manner (such as by reflection) to heat a transfer fluid to useful temperatures. In the GElS, the staff noted that by its nature, solar power is intermittent. Therefore, solar power by itself is not suitable for baseload capacity and is not a feasible alternative to license renewal at Monticello. The average capacity factor of photovoltaic cells is about 25 percent, and the capacity factor for solar thermal systems is about 25 percent to 40 percent. Solar power, in conjunction with energy storage mechanisms, might serve as a means of providing baseload power. However, current energy storage technologies are too expensive to permit solar power to serve as a large baseload generator. In addition, solar technologies require high operation and maintenance cost, due to the need to clean reflectors or collectors to ensure efficient operation. Therefore, solar power technologies (photovoltaic and thermal) cannot currently compete with conventional fossil-fueled technologies in grid-connected applications, due to high costs per kilowatt of capacity (NRC 1996). There are substantial impacts to natural resources (wildlife habitat, land-use, and aesthetic impacts) from construction of solar-generating facilities. .As stated in the GElS, land requirements are high-approximately 14,000 ac per 1000 MW(e) for solar thermal and 35,000 ac per 1000 MW(e) for photovoltaic systems. Approximately 8000 and 21,000 ac would be required for 600 MW(e) of solar thermal or solar photovoltaic generating capability, respectively, to replace the Monticello site. Neither type of solar electric system could be accommodated at the Monticello site, and both would have large environmental impacts at a greenfield site. The Monticello site receives approximately 3.3 to 4.4 kWh of solar radiation per square meter per day, compared to 6 to 8 kWh of solar radiation per square meter per day in areas of the western United States, such as California, which are most promising for solar technologies (NMC 2005). Some solar power may substitute for electric power in rooftop and building applications. Implementation of non-rooftop solar generation on a scale large enough to replace Monticello would likely result in LARGE environmental impacts. Because of the natural resource impacts (land and ecological), the area's relatively low rate of solar radiation, and high cost, solar power is not deemed a feasible baseload alternative to renewal of the Monticello OL. However, the staff recognizes that distributed solar power can provide generation and that during the license renewal period generation from solar power could continue to grow. NUREG-1 437, Supplement 26 8-46 August 2006 1
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 8.2.6.4 Hydropower Minnesota has an estimated 137 MW(e) of undeveloped hydroelectric resources (NMC 2005). This amount is far less than needed to replace the 600 MW(e) capacity of Monticello. In Section 8.3.4 of the GELS, the staff points out hydropower's percentage of U.S. generating capacity is expected to decline because hydroelectric facilities have become difficult to site as a result of public concern about flooding, destruction of natural habitat, and alteration of natural river courses. The staff estimated in the GElS that land requirements for hydroelectric power are approximately 1 million ac per 1000 MW(e). Replacement of Monticello's generating capacity would require flooding approximately 600,000 ac. Due to the large land-use and related environmental and ecological resource impacts associated with siting hydroelectric facilities large enough to replace Monticello, the staff concludes that local hydropower is not a feasible alternative to Monticello OL renewal on its own. Any attempts to site hydroelectric facilities large enough to replace Monticello would result in LARGE environmental impacts. 8.2.6.5 Geothermal Energy Geothermal energy has an average capacity factor of 90 percent and can be used for baseload power where available. However, geothermal technology is not widely used as baseload generation due to the limited geographical availability of the resource and immature status of the technology (NRC 1996). As illustrated by Figure 8.4 in the GELS, geothermal plants are most likely to be sited in the western continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii where hydrothermal reservoirs are prevalent. There is no feasible location in the MAPP for geothermal capacity to serve as an alternative to Monticello. The staff concludes that geothermal energy is not a feasible alternative for replacement of the baseload generating capacity by renewal of the Monticello OL. 8.2.6.6 Wood Waste The use of wood waste to generate electricity is largely limited to those states with significant wood resources, such as California, Maine, Georgia, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Michigan. Electric power is generated in these states by the pulp, paper, and paperboard industries, which consume wood and wood waste for energy, benefitting from the use of waste materials that could otherwise represent a disposal problem. A wood-burning facility can provide baseload power and operate with an average annual capacity factor of around 70 to 80 percent and with 20 to 25 percent efficiency (NRC 1996). The fuels required are variable and site-specific. A significant barrier to the use of wood waste to generate electricity is the high delivered-fuel cost and high construction cost per MW of generating capacity. The larger wood-waste power plants are only 40 to 50 MW(e) in size. Estimates in the GElS suggest that the overall level of construction impact per MW of installed capacity should be approximately the same as that for a coal-fired plant, although facilities August 2006 8-47 NUREG-1437, Supplement 26
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:
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?