Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Recommendations

Info

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Two second-generation fuel cell technologies using molten carbonate and solid oxide technology are currently being developed for commercial use. As market acceptance and manufacturing capacity increase, natural gas-fueled fuel cell plants are projected to become available (DOE 2004). At the present time, fuel cells are not economically or technologically competitive with other alternatives for baseload electricity generation. Fuel cells are, consequently, not a feasible alternative to renewal of the Monticello OL. 8.2.6.10 Delayed Retirement Extending the lives of existing non-nuclear generating plants beyond the time they were originally scheduled for retirement represents another potential alternative to license renewal. However, delaying retirement in order to compensate for Monticello generally would be unreasonable without major construction to upgrade or replace plant components. NSP undertakes upgrades of its older baseload plants in cases where it is reasonable to do so. Such actions are currently accounted for in NSP's plans to meet anticipated demands irrespective of the loss of generating capacity if the Monticello OL is not renewed and, therefore, does not represent a realistic option. For this reason, delayed retirement of other NSP generating units would not be a feasible alternative to renewal of the Monticello OL. 8.2.6.11 Utility-Sponsored Conservation The utility-sponsored conservation alternative refers to a situation in which Monticello ceases to operate, no new generation is brought online to meet the lost generation, and the lost generation is instead replaced by more efficient use of electricity. More efficient use would arise from utility-sponsored conservation programs, potentially including energy audits, incentives to install endrgy-efficient equipment, and informational programs to inform electricity consumers of the benefits of, and possibilities for, electricity conservation. Under provisions of Minnesota Statute 216B.241, Minnesota public utilities, rural electric cooperatives, and municipal utilities are required to invest 1.5 percent of in-state revenues in projects designed to reduce their customers' consumption of electricity and improve efficient use of energy resources. Utilities that operate nuclear generating facilities like Monticello are required to invest 2.0 percent of revenues in this manner. NSP has in place a wide variety of electrical energy conservation programs and activities including conservation programs, energy efficiency programs, and load management programs. Conservation programs such as NSP's Energy Solutions newsletter and internet-based information resources are designed to educate and inform customers about energy efficiency and NSP offerings. Energy efficiency programs like ConservationWise from Xcel Energy help customers increase energy efficiency by providing rebates, pricing, or other incentives to purchase energy-efficient systems or components; renovate facilities that meet specific energy efficiency standards; undertake energy conservation assessments; and obtain expert energy conservation design assistance. Load management programs such as OperationWise from Xcel Energy encourage customers NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-50 August 2006 1
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives to switch load to customer-owned standby generators during periods of peak demand, and include features like Saver's Switch that encourages customers to allow a portion of their load to be interrupted during periods of peak demand. In its order approving Xcel Energy's 2000 Integrated Resource Plan, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) adopted the DSM goal referred to as the 175 percent incentive scenario for the 2000-2014 planning period. This scenario established aggressive targets of 3253 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of cumulative energy savings and 1174 MW of cumulative peak demand savings in NSP's service area over this period. NSP surpassed its annual goals in the early years of the program, but anticipates that it will become increasingly difficult to cost-effectively maintain annual targets (50 to 80 MW) in the future. Additionally, even if these aggressive annual DSM savings targets are achieved, the cumulative savings through 2010 would be insufficient to replace generation lost as a result of Monticello operations termination at the end of its current operating license. Moreover, NSP credits these DSM goals in its demand forecasts; therefore, they cannot be used as credits to offset the power generated by Monticello. Therefore, the staff does not consider energy.efficiency, by itself, as a feasible alternative to license renewal. However, the staff recognizes that energy conservation is promoted and increases in energy efficiency occur as a normal result of replacing older equipment with modern equipment. It is reasonable to include conservation in a combination of generation.. sources that could replace Monticello. Combined alternatives are discussed in Section 8.2.7. 8.2.7 Combination of Alternatives Even though individual alternatives to renewal of the Monticello OL might not be sufficient on their own to replace Monticello's generating capacity due to the small potential generating capacity of the resource or lack of cost-effective opportunities, it is conceivable that a combination of alternatives might be cost-effective. There are many possible combinations of alternatives. As discussed previously, these combinations could include baseload gas-fired or coal-fired plants, purchased power, alternative and renewable technologies, and conservation. For the purpose of this discussion, one combination of alternatives has been assumed: 300 MW(e) of combined-cycle natural gas-fired generation using closed-cycle cooling, 150 MW(e) purchased from other generators, 50 MW(e) produced by new wind power facilities in southern Minnesota state, and 100 MW(e) of energy conservation. The impacts of other combinations, such as those from combinations that include solar power, would be different and possibly less than from the assumed i combination. In some areas, such as the aesthetic impact of solar panels, the impacts would be at least as large as the impact of the assumed combination of alternatives. In other areas, such as waste, impacts would be smaller for these alternative technologies. Table 8-7 contains a summary of the environmental impacts of the assumed combination of alternatives. The impacts are based on the gas-fired generation impact assumptions discussed August 2006 8-51 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:
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?