Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Recommendations

Info

Appendix A The NRC failed to provide people with contacts who would respond to their questions in a timely way; the NRC undermined the ability of the public to participate. People who were able to make it to the June 30th Open House in Monticello were given a handout "Welcome to the NRC's Open House Associated with the Environmental Review for License Renewal at the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant" that clearly stated in the first sentence of the second paragraph that the NRC was seeking comments supporting relicensing: "The NRC is gathering information necessary to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in support of the proposed renewal of the operating license for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant" (I have added the italics). This sentence alone may have discouraged members of the public who showed up intending to make a statement against the relicensing from voicing their concerns or entering them into the record. In the "Welcome to the NRC's Open House Associated with the Environmental Review for License Renewal at the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant" the first sentence of the second paragraph makes it clear that the EIS Scoping period was not a time for the NRC to consider the pros and cons of relicensing; for the NRC it was a time to gather information that supported a predetermined course of action relicense the plant. (MS-S-6) Comment: Because the NRC failed to inform large communities that will be effected by the relicensing of Monticello about the EIS Scoping, because the NRC did not demonstrate a - credible effort to engage members of the public in the EIS Scoping process, and because the NRC appears to have consciously set out to undermine participation from members of thepublic who are against the relicensing of Monticello the entire EIS Scoping Process needs to start over. To fail to do so will result in damage to Xcel Energy's reputation and damage to the credibility of all relicensing efforts for nuclear reactors throughout the United States. At this point in our nation's history undermining the democratic process for something as serious as relicensing nuclear power plants could have significant and harmful negative fallout as far as public confidence in the government's ability to put the long-term needs of the people before corporate desires for profit and gaining market share is concerned. Failure to engage in honest dialog regarding relicensing the plant creates the very real possibility that Monticello will be relicensed without the public or the NRC considering very serious problems; this is public policy at its worst. (MS-S-8) Comment: I wish to underscore the opening comments made by Christine Ziebold, MD, PhD, MPH, and Julie Risser, who both pointed out ways in which the NRC, and NRC process, worked against public participation. I have an anecdote of my own: I emailed the contact person listed, Jennifer Davis, a day or two prior to the June 30 meeting to verify place and time because it was listed as "tentative" on the site, and did not receive a response until July 5! I live in Red Wing, and Monticello is a ways away, and I had no way to confirm. It was not clarified for the audience the purpose of the meeting, that it is for determining the scope of the EIS, and what that meant, what types of Comments were specifically being solicited. Because this is not clear, the record contains comments from people supporting NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 A-1 0 August 2006 1
Appendix A nuclear power (I) and Monticello, but not offering anything relevant to the comment purpose. People attending the meeting were not able to tailor their comments to be effective. (MS-V-1) Comment: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) relicensing process has dramatically deteriorated over the past decade. NRC needs to clearly communicate, best establish a SEARCHABLE website, indexed on major search engines regarding Monticello. NRC's EIS scoping is a non-transparent process, EXTREMELY poorly communicated through the media. The search engine on NRC's website will not retrieve the website for Monticello on the first 20 hits, and neither will Google. If NRC wants to enjoy any credibility for its "seeking public involvement" it needs to fix this problem. (MS-Y-1) Comment: NRC needsto honestly relate information about realistic health and environmental concerns due to the routine release of fission products to air, water and land and the unsolved long term storage situation, aside from issues due to catastrophic events. The NRC EIS scoping process as is and NRC communications in general keep the public at large uninformed. In my experience NRC meetings are tightly controlled and orchestrated. NRC's public relations have replaced solid information or even public health education. The process is virtually exclusive of the public at large. (MS-Y-3) Comment: I kindly request that NRC hold another EIS scoping meeting in the TwinCities ASAP. The Monticello meeting on June 30, 2005 serves as a case in point. The public meeting (which really was one, not two as stated in the NRC press release, even though there might have been two basically back to back sessions within the same 12 hours) took place at the virtual exclusion of Twin Cities stakeholders, due to its location at Monticello and its timing. Twin Cities residents are stakeholders too, since a catastrophic event would affect a disproportionately larger number of us. (MS-Y-4) Response: As outlined in the Introduction section, the NRC published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register (70 FR 32381) on June 2,2005. This was the official notice to inform the public of its opportunity to participate as the NRC undertakes the environmental review of the request to renew the operating license of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. Every Federal agency is required to publish its notices in the Federal Register, which is issued every work day, to ensure that the public is informed of its opportunity to participate in the work of the Federal Government. In the Notice of Intent, the NRC invited the applicant; Federal, State, and local government agencies; local organizations; and individuals to participate in the scoping process and to provide comments to the NRC about the scope of the environmental review no later than August 2, 2005. The NRC staff is supported by its contractors and any interested member of the public in undertaking this environmental review. The outcome is not predetermined, but an environmental review will be performed and an EIS will be prepared to support the review whether or not the request to renew the license is granted. The NRC August 2006 A-1 1 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 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203: 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: 3. General Comments Regarding Licen
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?