Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Recommendations

Info

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives using wood waste for fuel would be built at smaller scales. Like coal-fired plants, wood-waste plants require large areas for fuel storage and processing and involve the same type of combustion equipment. The biomass power generating capacity in MAPP was 160 MW(e) in 2004 and is not expected to increase through 2025 (DOE/EIA 2004). Due to uncertainties associated with obtaining sufficient wood and wood waste to fuel a baseload generating facility, ecological impacts of large-scale timber cutting (e.g., soil erosion and loss of wildlife habitat), and high inefficiency, the staff has determined that wood waste is not a feasible alternative to renewing the Monticello OL. 8.2.6.7 Municipal Solid Waste Municipal waste combustors incinerate the waste and use the resultant heat to generate steam, hot water, or electricity. The combustion process can reduce the volume of waste by up to 90 percent and the weight of the waste by up to 75 percent (EPA 2001). Municipal waste combustors use three basic types of technologies: mass burn, modular, and refuse-derived fuel (DOE/EIA 2001). Mass burning technologies are most commonly used in the United States. This group of technologies process raw municipal solid waste "as is," with little or no sizing, shredding, or separation before combustion. Growth in the municipal waste combustion industry slowed dramatically during the 1990s after rapid growth during the 1980s. The slower growth was due to three primary factors: (1) the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which made capital-intensive projects such as municipal waste combustion facilities more expensive relative to less capital-intensive waste disposal alternative such as landfills; (2) the 1994 Supreme Court decision (C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown), which struck down local flow control ordinances that required waste to be delivered to specific municipal waste combustion facilities rather than landfills that may have had lower fees; and (3) increasingly stringent environmental regulations that increased the capital cost necessary to construct and maintain municipal waste combustion facilities (DOE/EIA 2001). The decision to burn municipal waste to generate energy is usually driven by the need for an alternative to landfills rather than by energy considerations. The use of landfills as a waste disposal option is likely to increase in the near term; however, it is unlikely that many landfills will begin converting waste to energy because of unfavorable economics, particularly with electricity prices declining in real terms. In 2002, only 110 MW(e) of municipal solid waste generating capacity was available in MAPP, and only 10 MW(e) of additional capacity is anticipated to be developed in the region through 2025 (DOE/EIA 2004). Municipal solid waste combustors generate an ash residue that is buried in landfills. The ash residue is composed of bottom ash and fly ash. Bottom ash refers to that portion of the unburned waste that falls to the bottom of the grate or furnace. Fly ash represents the small NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-48 August 2006 1
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives particles that rise from the furnace during the combustion process. Fly ash is generally removed from flue-gases using fabric filters and/or scrubbers (DOE/EIA 2001). Currently there are approximately 102 waste-to-energy plants operating in the United States. These plants generate approximately 2800 MW(e), or an average of approximately 28 MW(e) per plant (IWSA 2004), much smaller than needed to replace the Monticello site. The initial capital costs for municipal solid-waste plants are greater than for comparable steam-turbine technology at wood-waste facilities. This is due to the need for specialized waste-separation and -handling equipment for municipal solid waste (NRC .1996). Furthermore, estimates in the GElS suggest that the overall level of construction impact from a waste-fired plant should be approximately the same as that for a coal-fired plant. Additionally, waste-fired plants have the same or greater operational impacts (including impacts on the aquatic environment, air, and waste disposal). Some of these impacts would be moderate, but still larger than the environmental effects of license renewal of Monticello. Therefore, municipal solid waste would not be a feasible alternative to renewal of the Monticello OL, particularly at the scale required. 8.2.6.8 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels In addition to wood and municipal solid-waste fuels, there are several other concepts for fueling electric generators, including burning crops, converting crops to a liquid fuel such as ethanol, and gasifying crops (including wood waste). In the GELS, the staff points out that none of these technologies has progressed to the point of being competitive on a large scale or of being reliable enough to replace a baseload plant such as Monticello. For these reasons, such fuels do not offer a feasible alternative to renewal of the Monticello OL. 8.2.6.9 Fuel Cells Fuel cells work without combustion and its environmental side effects. Power is produced electrochemically by passing a hydrogen-rich fuel over an anode and air over a cathode and separating the two by an electrolyte. The only by-products are heat, water, and carbon dioxide. Hydrogen fuel can come from a variety of hydrocarbon resources by subjecting them to steam under pressure. Natural gas is typically used as the source of hydrogen. Phosphoric acid fuel cells are generally considered first-generation technology. These fuel cells are commercially available at cost of approximately $4500 per kilowatt of installed capacity. By contrast, a diesel generator costs $800 to $1500 per kilowatt, and a natural gas turbine can be even less (DOE 2004). Higher-temperature second-generation fuel cells achieve higher fuel-to-electricity and thermal efficiencies. The higher temperatures contribute to improved efficiencies and give the second-generation fuel cells the capability to generate steam for cogeneration and combined-cycle operations. DOE has a performance target to reduce the cost of fuel cells to $400 per kilowatt by 2010 (DOE 2004). August 2006 8-49 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 26 I
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:
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?