Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Recommendations

Info

Description of Site and Environment I found that there were no indications of radiological effects of Monticello on the environment (NMC 2005d). A review of historical data on releases from Monticello and the resultant dose calculations revealed that the calculated doses to maximally exposed individuals in the vicinity of Monticello were a small fraction of the limits specified in the Monticello ODCM (NMC 2004b) to meet 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I design objectives, 10 CFR Part 20 dose limits, and EPA radiation standards in 40 CFR Part 190. For 2004, dose estimates were calculated based on actual liquid and gaseous effluent release data and conservative models to simulate the transport mechanisms. The results are described in the 2004 Radioactive Effluent Release Report (NMC 2005e). A breakdown of the calculated maximum dose to an individual located at the Monticello boundary from liquid and gaseous effluents released during 2004 is summarized as follows: " The maximum whole-body dose to offsite member of the general public from liquid effluents was 1.94 x 10"10 mrem, well below the 3 mrem dose design objective in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. * The maximum whole-body dose to the likely most exposed member of the general public from gaseous effluents was 0.022 mrem, well below the 5 mrem dose design objective in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. The applicant does not anticipate any significant changes to the <strong>radioactive</strong> effluent releases or exposures from Monticello operations during the renewal period and, therefore, the impacts to the environment are not expected to change. 2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors 2.2.8.1 Housing Approximately 414 permanent employees and 105 contract and matrixed employees work at Monticello (NMC 2005a). Approximately 41 percent of these employees live in Wright County, 32 percent live in Sherburne County, 7.5 percent live in Hennepin County, and 7.5 percent live in Stearns County. The remaining employees (approximately 12 percent) live in various other locations (NMC 2005a). Given the predominance of NMC and NSP employees living in Wright County and Sherburne County, as well as the absence of the likelihood of significant socioeconomic effects in other locations, the focus of the analysis undertaken in this supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) are on these counties. I NMC refuels Monticello on a nominal 22- to 24-month cycle. During refueling outages, site employment increases by as many as 600 temporary workers for 30 to 40 days. Many of these workers are assumed to be temporarily located in the same geographic areas as the permanent staff. NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 2-30 August 2006 1
Descfiption of Site and Environment Table 2-6 provides the number of housing unit vacancies for Wright and Sherburne counties for 1990 and 2000, the latest year for which information is available. Table 2-6. Housing Units and Housing Units Vacant (Available) by County During 1990 and 2000 Approximate Percentage 1990 2000 Change WRIGHT COUNTY Housing Units 26353 34355 30 Occupied Units 23013 31465 37 Vacant Units 3340 2890 -14 SHERBURNE COUNTY Housing Units 14964 22827 53 Occupied Units 13643 21581 58 Vacant Units 1321 1246 -6 Sources: USCB 1990, 2000b 2.2.8.2 Public Services * Water Supply This discussion of public water systems focuses on Wright and Sherburne counties because. the majority of Monticello employees reside in these counties (NMC 2005a). Local municipalities provide public potable water service to residents who do not have individual onsite wells. These providers are subject to regulation under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, as implemented by the State of Minnesota Department of Health. • Description of Site and Environment Most water systems in the two-county area are operating below maximum capacity. Portions of both Wright and Sherburne counties are experiencing significant population growth, and several municipal water systems (Elk River, Joint Powers Water Board, and Otsego) are responding by increasing capacity with additional wells (EPA 2005). Table 2-7 provides the details of Wright and Sherburne counties' respective water suppliers and capacities. August 2006 2-31 NUREG-1437, 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 65: Description of Site and Environment
Page 71 and 72: Table 2-10. Land Use in Sherburne C
Page 87: Description of Site and Environment
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 116 and 117:
Environmental Impacts of Operation
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 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?