Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

information in the Final SEIS as part of the risk that would be associated with the license
extensions and providing the specific methodology used to estimate risk. (H-1 1)
Appendix A
Response: Environmental impacts from the activities associated with the decommissioning of
any reactor before or at the end of an initial or renewed license are evaluated in the GElS
(NUREG-1437) and in NUREG-0586 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear
Power Reactors, published in 2002. The findings from these two documents are used to
support the findings in the SEIS by the use of tiering. Tiering is a process by which agencies
eliminate repetitive discussions. The effects of license renewal on the impacts of
decommissioning are stated in Chapter 7 of this SEIS. The radiation doses to the public during
the period of extended operation are expected to be well below applicable regulatory limits, and
the occupational dose during the time the station undergoes decommissioning would be
expected to increase only slightly. The comment provides no new and significant information;
therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS text.
A.2.17
Comments Concerning Alternatives
Comment: My question is would the statement have been changed at all if you hadn't used
natural gas or oil in your analysis (A-i)
Comment: Just basically if you hadn't used it, I think that the impact of this facility being shut
downwould have been much greater in your analysis if you couldn't use natural gas or oil. You
-pretty well explained the wind and solar. (A-2)
Comment: And then, finally, I think that I want to explain a little bit on the natural gas and oil
question that I had, because I feel that with using that in Minnesota, it puts us at a
disadvantage, because this last winter our natural gas costs went up 30 percent-and not
necessarily because of the gas-fired plants that have already been built around the country,
Katrina definitely caused some problems with it, but it's just not a good source for generating
electricity in Minnesota. (A-5)
Comment: Minnesota's power supply cannot be replaced by conservation and renewables
alone; forcing migration to natural gas for base-load power generation is a short-sighted
squandering of a very limited resource. (E-3)
Comment: Wind, 30 percent capacity factor I don't think so. Go look at the Minnesota
Department of Commerce website for their wind maps and see what kind of capacity factors
they come up with.
When you have a decision-making process like this one in which there is not even attempt to
make a reasonable simulation of 600 megawatts of baseload to compare it with and then come
to the conclusion that alternatives such as wind have moderate to large impacts while a reactor
August 2006 A-53 NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 I