Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Recommendations

Info

Appendix A instead of nuclear. You preserve the jobs. You get rid of nuclear. You don't have to deal with those types of environmental issues, and I'll submit information in detail about that. (MS-G-1) Comment: I am also concerned about alternatives. And again I live in Red Wing, which is right by Prairie Island, down river from Prairie Island, and also down river from this plant. So I would urge you to consider everything that Kristen particularly was talking about, and I will just give details on this later. But in alternatives, there are options being considered for Minnesota that would work really well here. This site is set up for it. It's time to consider some of those. (MS-G-3) Comment: The "permanent" solution is transition to gasification, wind, solar roof panels, weather stripping, tighter windows a thousand improvements to improve our quality of life and also boost local employment. (MS-U-9) Comment: No Action Alternative. Comment 1: EIS must consider current levels of load and generation in the region and state. Comment 2: EIS must consider load and generation to evaluate impact of no action alternative: MAPP 2004 Load and Capability Report. MAPP Form 3 (most recent version) NERC 2004 Long-Term Reliability Assessment Report' CapX2020 Report Rationale for Comments 1 and 2: The Federal Register notes that the "No Action" alternative will be considered. As a part of this alternative analysis, the NRC must consider the current levels of load and generation in the region and state to put the "No Action" alternative in context, including, but not limited to the MAPP 2004 Load and Capability Report and the MAPP Form 3 list of generation, the 2004 NERC Reliability Assessment Report, particularly the MAPP and MAIN sections, and the CapX2020 report claiming a "need" of 6,000 MW and the MISO queue with 16,712 MW in generation waiting in line. (MS-V-2) Comment: Reasonable Alternative Energy Sources. Comment 3: The EIS must consider reasonable alternatives including natural gas fueled combined cycle plant as a reasonable alternative to Monticello. Comment 4: The EIS must consider the Mesaba coal gasification plant as replacement, electrically and physically, for Monticello. Comment 5: The EIS must consider the efficiencies and environmental benefits of utilizing pre-existing infrastructure and plant components in replacing Monticello with the Mesaba coal NUREG-1 437, Supplement 26 A-32 August 2006 1
gasification generation balanced against continuation of Monticello nuclear generation and construction and operation of Mesaba elsewhere. - Comment 6: The EIS must consider system wide distributed, renewable generation as a reasonable alternative to Monticello. Appendix A Rationale for Comments 3, 4, 5 and 6: Rationale: Xcel claims it needs generation and that it should rely on coal and nuclear. The coal gasification option was mandated by the legislature, yet because of the market realities of high electrical availability, a power contract was also mandated. Because of these mandates, Mesaba should be analyzed as the first replacement option for nuclear power. Monticello relicensing is before us right now, and the Mesaba application to the EQB is imminent. (MS-V-3) Comment: Comment 7: The NRC must evaluate, as reasonable alternatives, combinations of different intermittent generation, such as wind with gas and/or biomass, to give capacity equivalent to capacity percentages of "baseload" coal and nuclear. Rationale for Comment 7: Xcel unreasonably relies exclusively on coal and nuclear when combinations of other fuel options could provide generation equal to, for example, the 70% or so availability of Monticello (40% wind plus just 30% gas = 70% capacity! See, that wasn't so. hard.). (MS-V-4) Comment: We would also suggest that alternatives to continued operations at the Monticello facility be properly evaluated, particularly part 5 titled "Systemwide Renewable, distributed generation" which could include the construction of wind farms, solar farms, or other renewable energy sources where the fuel is present locally and the method of generation not inherently dangerous. The # four option of "Wind and Gas" would also be a much more benign scenario to continued operations and infinitely long storage of nuclear waste on-site. (MS-X-3) Comment: WHEREAS, replacement of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant would result in an electric rate increase and significantly increased emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide. (MS-AA-4) Comment: WHEREAS, replacement of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant would result in an electric rate increase and significant increased emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide... (MS-AC-4; MS-AD-5) Response: The comments are related to the environmental impacts of alternatives to license renewal at Monticello. The GElS included a discussion of alternative energy sources. <strong>Environmental</strong> impacts associated with various reasonable alternatives to renewal of the Monticello operating license will be evaluated in Chapter 8 of the SEIS. Comment: The latest scientific evidence needs to be researched and referenced. The references of the generic EIS are testimony that the document is at the minimum 11 years old August 2006 A-33 NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 I
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:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225: 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: the coal chain What about all the s
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?