Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Appendix A
And there were ten -- this has been like a six-month or eight-month, year-long process
identifying the inventory, the service water inventories. And then determining what the priority
contaminants were that they were going to consider. And one of those priority contaminants
was specifically radioactive contamination from Monticello plant. And so this is something that
is on the docket in this review, EPA review. (MS-F-i)
Comment: The Monticello nuclear power plant is located upstream from the Twin Cities on the
Mississippi River. Residents of Minneapolis, St. Paul, as well as substantial numbers of people
who live in sections of first-ring suburbs such as Edina get their drinking water from the
Mississippi. (MS-S-2)
Comment: The NRC has failed to adequately address risks to ground water contamination.
According to the NRC's own study the soils at the Monticello site are primarily Hubbards which
are highly permeable and also have limited available water capacity. These soils readily
transmit rainwater and surface water to groundwater supplies. In the event of radio-active
material seeping out of containment units it is quite likely that groundwater sources and even
aquifers could become contaminated. (MS-S-25)
Response: The comments are related to the impacts of design basis accidents and severe
accidents. The impacts of design basis accidents were evaluated in the GElS and determined
to be small for all plants; therefore, it is a Category 1 issue. The GElS evaluated severe*
accidents for all plants including Monticello, and concluded that the impact was small.
However, alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that have*
not considered such alternatives. During the plant-specific environmental review of Monticello,
the NRC will determine whether there is any new and significant information bearing on the
previous analysis in the GELS. Section 5.1.2 of the plant-specific SEIS for Monticello will
address severe accidents. The applicant provided a severe accident mitigation alternatives
(SAMA) analysis as part of the license renewal application for Monticello. The NRC staff's
review of the SAMA analysis will discussed in Section 5.2 of the plant-specific SEIS for
Monticello.
12. Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues
Comment: Relicensing Monticello will result in more spent nuclear waste being generated near
this valuable water resource. (MS-S-3)
Comment: The NRC makes no provisions to ensure that the energy needed to process
uranium, and extract uranium is generated by sources such as wind or solar that do not
produce harmful mercury, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen oxide emissions. (MS-S-1 8)
Comment: The NRC fails to acknowledge that there is no way to access accurately the true
cost of securing and storing spent nuclear fuel for future taxpayers. Such an exercise is futile
as there is no way to know how strong future economies will be.
NUREG-1 437, Supplement 26 A-28 August 2006 1