Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Recommendations

Info

Appendix A BEIR reports since 1972 (BEIR I, Ill, and V); the BEIR VII report does not constitute new and significant information. The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS text. Comment: We are concerned about the abnormal releases mentioned in the Draft SEIS. The Draft SEIS references abnormal releases of fission and activation products and tritium during the period from 2001 to 2004 (page 2-9). This is the only place these releases are discussed in the document, and their mention raises questions that are not addressed. Information on the abnormal releases is unclear. For example, it is not clear whether there was one releases event or more, or where the event occurred. In addition, while the concentration of the release(s) is given, readers are referred elsewhere in the document and regulations to determine for themselves whether this is within effluent limits or how this impacts the public or the environment. This section implies that occasional abnormal releases are expected during the renewal period. The Final SEIS needs to explain the past and future expected frequency of these releases. Finally, the Draft SEIS also claims that if future abnormal release occur, they will be below design dose objectives. It is not clear how this statement could be supported for hypothetical incidents. We also note that abnormal releases are not discussed in sections on radiological impacts or water quality, presuming that these abnormal releases were issued to a water body. With the GElS approach, NRC generally does not include an analysis of impacts where staff. reviewers have not found .new or significant information. We believe that past abnormal releases, and the potential for future abnormal releases, qualify as new and significant information: We therefore recommend that the subsequent Final SEIS discuss the abnormal releases fully and in context to the environmental impacts-analyses. We recommend including a discussion of past or potential future releases and steps to prevent releases. Specifically, the Final SEIS needs to explain the number of releases and where releases occurred (i.e., describe whether the release was effluent into the Mississippi River, an on-site spill, or some other release). It should clarify how abnormal releases are difference from liquid effluent releases, if this is the case. We recommend that where concentrations are mentioned, the document place these concentrations in context by giving effluent limits, dose limits, or other relevant measurements. We also recommend that abnormal releases be discussed in Chapter 4.0 Environmental Impacts of Operation. (H-2) Response: The releases that occurred between 2001 and 2004 are listed as "abnormal"by NMC because Monticello is a "zero-liquid-release facility," which means that the goal of NMC is to have zero liquid radioactive discharges to the Mississippi River. Although NMC's goal is zero-liquid release, under the terms of its operating license, NMC is allowed by NRC regulations to periodically release liquid effluents to the Mississippi River, provided that the releases are below regulatory limits. Future releases of tritium, as well as other isotopes, are possible during the renewal period. The releases that were mentioned in Section 2.1.4.1 of the draft SEIS were monitored, and the concentrations of all liquid releases were well below regulatory limits. The text in Section 2.1.4.1 of this SEIS has been clarified to reflect the above information. NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 A-48 August 2006 1
Appendix A A.2.12 Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues Comment: Page 4-32, Line 8: Add "In the bounding analysis, Monticello assumes..." This should eliminate any confusion with 4-31, line 25. (F-17) Response: The text in Section 4.4.2 of this SEIS has been changed based on the information provided in this comment. Comment: Page 4-35, Line 27: Change "procedures that will be in place" to "procedures that are in place". (F-1 8) Response: The text in Section 4.4.5 of this SEIS has been changed based on the information provided in this comment. A.2.13 Comments Concerning Cumulative Impacts Comment: Page 4-48, Line 16-17: Change sentence to read: 'Three other wells have an annual usage of under 1.9 gpm and do not require appropriations permits." (See page 2-16) (F-20) Response: The text in Section 4.8.5 of this SEIS has been changed based on the information provided in this comment. Comment: We are concerned that the Draft SEIS does not discuss potential power uprates at Monticello or estimate resulting increases in radiological emissions, spent fuel, and other emissions. We recognize that NRC's regulations (10 C.F.R Section 51.53(c)(2)) state that an applicant's environmental report need not discuss the demand for power, and we are not asking for an assessment of need. Separate from purpose and need, we consider power uprates to be reasonably foreseeable actions that contribute to a cumulative radiological impact, under 40 C.F.R Section 1508.7, and therefore should be discussed in NRC's final SEIS. (H-i) Response: The Commission has stated that for NEPA purposes, a possible future action "must at least constitute a proposal pending before the agency" for it to be considered along with the proposed action, which here is license renewal. The Commission's decision was set forth in the following case: Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) CLI-02-14, 55 NRC 278,294-297 (2002). Since NMC does not at this time have a proposal pending before the NRC that relates to a power uprate for Monticello, the SEIS does not address future power uprates in the evaluation of the impacts of license renewal on individual issues or on cumulative impacts. In addition, the Commission in the aforementioned case stated that, for the license renewal action and a separate proposal (such as a power uprate application) to be considered together, both actions must be "interdependent," such that one cannot go forward without the other. -License renewal does not depend on a power uprate, and a power uprate does not depend on license renewal; each action has separate utility. Should a power uprate amendment for Monticello be filed, the staff August 2006 A-49 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 26
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:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
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 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: Appendix A turns out that we don't
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?