Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives
Table 8-7. (contd)
Impact Monticello Site Alternate Greenfield Site
Category Impact Comment Impact Comment
Environ- SMALL Impacts on minority and SMALL Impacts vary depending on
mental low-income communities population distribution and
Justice should be similar to those
experienced by the
makeup at site. Wright County
would lose tax revenue and jobs;
population as a whole.
however, the impacts on
Some impacts on housing
may occur during
minority and low-income
populations would be SMALL.
construction; loss of 519
operating jobs at Monticello
likely SMALL due to the
proximity of the plant to a
diverse urban job market.
8.3 Summary of Alternatives Considered
The environmental impacts of the proposed action, renewal of the Monticello OL, are SMALL
for all impact categories, except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and
from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal. Collective offsite radiological impacts from the
fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal were not assigned a single
significance level but were determined by the Commission to be Category 1 issues
nonetheless. The alternative actions, i.e., no-action alternative (discussed in Section 8.1), new
generation alternatives (from coal, natural gas, coal gasification, and nuclear power, discussed
in Sections 8.2.1 through 8.2.4, respectively), purchased electrical power (discussed in
Section 8.2.5), alternative technologies (discussed in Section 8.2.6), and a combination of
alternatives (discussed in Section 8.2.7) were considered.
The no-action alternative would require the replacement of electrical generating capacity by
(1) demand-side management and energy conservation, (2) power purchased from other.
electricity providers, (3) generating alternatives other than Monticello, or (4) some combination
of these options. For each of the new generation alternatives (coal, natural gas, coal
gasification, and nuclear power), the environmental impacts would not be less than the impacts
of license renewal. For example, the land-disturbance impacts resulting from construction of
any new facility would be greater than the impacts of continued operation of Monticello. The
impacts of purchased electrical power (imported power) would still occur, but would occur
elsewhere. Alternative technologies are not considered feasible at this time and it is very
unlikely that the environmental impacts of any reasonable combination of generation and
conservation options could be reduced to the level of impacts associated with renewal of the
Monticello OL.
The staff concludes that the alternative actions, including the no-action alternative, may have
environmental effects in at least some impact categories that reach MODERATE or LARGE
significance.
NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-54 August 2006 1