Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Recommendations

Info

Appendix A that creates waste that must be managed for 240,000 plus years with routine emissions that aren't managed and that's small, you're sick. That is sickness. (B-3) Response: The SEIS for Monticello presents the staff's analyses of the environmental impacts of the proposed action (i.e., renewal of the operating license for Monticello) and of reasonable alternatives. The decision regarding which type of generation to deploy is made by the applicant and State agencies, not the NRC. Additionally, the staff's evaluation of wind capacity factors in Minnesota identified capacity ranges from 15.8 percent to 44.8 percent (average capacity of 30.2 percent); therefore, the SEIS's projections of wind power generating capacity, as well as the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration's capacity projections in the Mid-Continent Area Power Pool (MAPP), which includes Minnesota, is consistent with the capacities Identified by the Minnesota Department of Commerce. The staff conducted a qualitative assessment of impact due to the construction and operation of a wind' farm and concluded that wind power alone is not a feasible alternative at this time to replace the baseload generation capacity of Monticello. The comment provides no new and significant information, therefore, no change was made to the SEIS text. Comment: Section 8.1, No-Action Altemative, page 8-4, 8-5, under the bullet point Human Health. The actual value representing the cited percent value should be specifically provided in addition to the citation. This will help to reduce unnecessary additional research, except for value verifications, and avoid potential misunderstandings or confusion about the actual value(s). (H-12) Response: .1The staff conducted a qualitative assessment of impact resulting from the no action alternative (permanent cessation of operations followed by decommissioning). A detailed evaluation of radiological consequences of decommissioning is provided in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors (NUREG-0586), November 2002; and is available on the NRC's website. As a supplement, this SEIS relies on tiering or incorporation by reference, from other NRC generic evaluations or publicly available documents consistent with CEQ guidelines. The conclusion presented in the SEIS is based on the logical argument that cessation of operations at Monticello would result in a reduction in radioactive emissions, since the operations producing those emissions would cease. Since the radiological impacts of normal operations were determined to be SMALL (as discussed in Section 4.3), the impact of the no-action alternative, which would result in the cessation of those operations, would logically be even less, and therefore, also SMALL. The comment does not provide new and significant information and, therefore, will not be evaluated further. * Comment: Section 8.2.1, Coal-Fired Generation, page 8-16, under bullet point Human Health. Any dose estimate that would have the potential to fall is the risk range of 106 to 10 4 or greater needs to be specifically evaluated for potential regulatory requirements or risk impacts to the public health. This should be estimated conservatively using the data that is currently available or that can be logically extrapolated from currently available information. (H-13) NUREG-1 437, Supplement 26 A-54 August 2006 1
Appendix A Response: The impacts to air quality and human health resulting from the operation of a coalfired plant are discussed in general in the GElS (NUREG-1437). The GElS acknowledges public health risks from emphysema and cancer would likely result from coal-fired power plant emissions of regulated pollutants and radionuclides. While it is possible to estimate the dose from a coal-fired plant, many assumptions would be required, including location and makeup of the affected population. 'F-or the basis of comparing alternatives, the staff does not perform a complete assessment of impacts of each alternative, but rather a qualitative, and, if possible, a quantitative comparison. Because the location of an alternative to the Monticello and surrounding population is purely speculative, an estimated dose would have little real meaning. The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to this SEIS. Comment: Section 8.2.3, Coal Gasification, page 8-32, under bullet point Waste. We recommend specifically describing waste impacts, rather than making reference to them, to provide a clearer understanding of the risk determination made in this section of the document. (H-14) Response: For the basis of comparing alternatives, the staff does not perform a complete assessment of impacts of the alternatives, but rather a qualitative, and, if possible, a quantitative comparison. For the analysis of coal-gasification waste, the staff did provide an estimate of the projected waste streams. This comment does not provide new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to this SEIS. .Comment: Section 8.2.3, Coal Gasification, page 8-32, 8-33, under bullet point Human Health. We recommend specifically describing human-health impacts, rather than making reference to them, to provide a clearer understanding of the risk determination made in this section of the document. (H-15) Response: For the basis of comparing alternatives, the staff does not perform a complete assessment of impacts of the alternatives, but rather a qualitative, and, if possible, a quantitative comparison. The staff did-provide a qualitative assessment of human health impacts, which is characterized as small (see Table A-4). The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS text. Comment: Section 8.2.4, Nuclear Power Generation, page 8-36. We recommend specifically describing the differences in potential risk-associated with changes in power production, rather than making reference to them, to provide-a clearer understanding of the risk determination made in this section of the document. (H-1 6) Response: As stated in Section 8.2.4, the impacts shown in Table S-3 (of 10 CFR 51.51) are for a 1000-MW(e) reactor and would need to be adjusted to reflect the replacement of 600- MW(e) generated by Monticello. For the basis of comparing alternatives, the NRC staff assumes that a hypothetical plant would produce the same amount of power currently generated by Monticello. Therefore, the risk associated with this hypothetical plant is not August 2006 A-55 NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 1
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 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: information in the Final SEIS as pa
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?