Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Appendix A
of the last 50 years there are numerous case studies to argue the opposite point (e.g. Three
Mile Island, Chernoble Disaster). Since the production of nuclear electricity is non-sustainable
in its current form and since there are no methods to properly address long-term storage of
deadly nuclear waste we think it is fairly myopic and somewhat reckless to move forward unless
all risks are clearly delineated in the public's view. (MS-X-1 2)
Comment: The EIS needs to consider transportation accidents involving nuclear material.
(MS-Y-27)
Response: The comments are related to the environmental impacts associated with the
uranium fuel cycle, which were evaluated in the GElS and determined to be Category 1 issues.
The GElS evaluated impacts associated with the uranium fuel cycle for all plants including
Monticello, and determined that the impact was small. 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. ff significant new information is
found, the NRC will perform a plant-specific analysis of these environmental impacts. Chapter
6.0 of the plant-specific SEIS for Monticello will address these issues. The comments provide
no new information and, therefore, will not be evaluated further.
13. Comments Concerning Alternatives
Comment: Our analyses show that keeping Monticello and Prairie Island as part of that
diverse energy mix will benefit our customers by an estimated $1 billion in today's dollars during
the life extension periods, compared with the next best replacement options. Our analysis also
shows that keeping the plants running will result in significantly lower air emissions than would
occur if they were shut down and replaced with the only realistic alternatives, which are coal or
natural gas-fired plants. (MS-B-5; MS-J-5)
Comment: And it's incumbent upon the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in its scoping of a
commitment for an additional 20 years of reactor operations to at least be mindful of what's
happening in the next five years relative to how electric utility services are going to be delivered.
CBED stands for Community Based Energy Development. And what it means is that we have
an opportunity of taking advantage of the modern technologies, as opposed to the obsolete
ones, which we're talking about here today, to look at the distributed dispersed capacity that
can and will be coming on-line very rapidly in the next five years.
CBED enables those energy systems to come on line in a way that we've never experienced
before. It provides a negotiating framework for the power companies to negotiate power
purchase agreements with independent qualifying producers of energy. Locally owned,
community-based energy. The type of energy development that will have to happen if we are
ever to get out of our commitments to central station power and all of the problems that that
represents in terms of how you manage nuclear waste for 140,000 years or more. What do we
do about the mercury contamination What do we do about global warming in particular from
NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 A-30 August 2006 1