Generic Environmental

Impact Statement for

License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants

Supplement 26

Regarding

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant

Draft Report

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

NUREG-1437

Supplement 26

a

Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably

alter any important attribute of the resource.

January 2006 iii Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Abstract

2 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) considered the environmental impacts of

3 renewing nuclear power plant operating licenses (OLs) for a 20-year period in its Generic

4 Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437,

5 Volumes 1 and 2, and codified the results in 10 CFR Part 51. In the GEIS (and its

6 Addendum 1), the staff identifies 92 environmental issues and reaches generic conclusions

7 related to environmental impacts for 69 of these issues that apply to all plants or to plants with

8 specific design or site characteristics. Additional plant-specific review is required for the

9 remaining 23 issues. These plant-specific reviews are to be included in a supplement to the

10 GEIS.

11 This draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) has been prepared in response

12 to an application submitted to the NRC by Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC), to

13 renew the OL for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (Monticello) for an additional 20 years

14 under 10 CFR Part 54. This draft SEIS includes the NRC staff's analysis that considers and

15 weighs the environmental impacts of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of

16 alternatives to the proposed action, and mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding

17 adverse impacts. It also includes the staff's preliminary recommendation regarding the

18 proposed action.

19 Regarding the 69 issues for which the GEIS reached generic conclusions, neither NMC nor the

20 staff has identified information that is both new and significant for any issue that applies to

21 Monticello. In addition, the staff determined that information provided during the scoping

22 process did not call into question the conclusions in the GEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

23 that the impacts of renewing the Monticello OL will not be greater than impacts identified for

24 these issues in the GEIS. For each of these issues, the staff's conclusion in the GEIS is that the

impact is of SMALL(a) 25 significance (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel

26 cycle and high-level waste and spent fuel, which were not assigned a single significance level). 

27 Regarding the remaining 23 issues, those that apply to Monticello are addressed in this draft

28 SEIS. For each applicable issue (with the exception of chronic effects from electromagnetic

29 fields, for which the impact is “uncertain”), the staff concludes that the significance of the

30 potential environmental impacts of renewal of the OL is SMALL. The staff also concludes that

31 additional mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial as to be warranted. The

32 staff determined that information provided during the scoping process did not identify any new

33 issue that has a significant environmental impact.
Abstract

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 iv January 2006

1 The NRC staff's preliminary recommendation is that the Commission determine that the adverse

2 environmental impacts of license renewal for Monticello are not so great that preserving the

3 option of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. This

4 recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS; (2) the Environmental

5 Report submitted by NMC; (3) consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) the

6 staff's own independent review; and (5) the staff's consideration of public comments received

7 during the scoping process.
January 2006 v Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Contents

2 Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

3

4 Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv

5

6 Abbreviations/Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix

7

8 1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

9 1.1 Report Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

10 1.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2

11 1.2.1 Generic Environmental Impact Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

12 1.2.2 License Renewal Evaluation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4

13 1.3 The Proposed Federal Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7

14 1.4 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7

15 1.5 Compliance and Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8

16 1.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8

17

18 2.0 Description of Nuclear Power Plant and Site and Plant Interaction 

19 with the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

20 2.1 Plant and Site Description and Proposed Plant Operation During the 

21 Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

22 2.1.1 External Appearance and Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

23 2.1.2 Reactor Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

24 2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

25 2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems and Effluent Control Systems . . . 2-8

26 2.1.4.1 Liquid Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9

27 2.1.4.2 Gaseous Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls . . . . . . . . . 2-10

28 2.1.4.3 Solid Waste Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10

29 2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11

30 2.1.6 Plant Operation and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11

31 2.1.7 Power Transmission System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12

32 2.2 Plant Interaction with the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14

33 2.2.1 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14

34 2.2.2 Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15

35 2.2.3 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16

36 2.2.4 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17

37 2.2.5 Aquatic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19

38 2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-24

39 2.2.7 Radiological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-29

40 2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30

41 2.2.8.1 Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30

42 2.2.8.2 Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31

43 2.2.8.3 Offsite Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-34

44 2.2.8.4 Visual Aesthetics and Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-36
Contents

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 vi January 2006

1 2.2.8.5 Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-36

2 2.2.8.6 Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-38

3 2.2.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-40

4 2.2.9.1 Cultural Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-40

5 2.2.9.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources at the Monticello Site . . . . . . . . . 2-41

6 2.2.10 Related Federal Project Activities and Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-41

7 2.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-42

8

9 3.0 Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

10 3.1 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

11

12 4.0 Environmental Impacts of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

13 4.1 Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

14 4.1.1 Water Use Conflicts (Plants with Cooling Ponds or Cooling Towers Using

15 Makeup Water from a Small River with a Low Flow) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11

16 4.1.2 Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12

17 4.1.3 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15

18 4.1.4 Heat Shock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18

19 4.1.5 Microbiological Organisms (Public Health) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20

20 4.2 Transmission Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21

21 4.2.1 Electromagnetic Fields—Acute Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25

22 4.2.2 Electromagnetic Fields—Chronic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-26

23 4.3 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-27

24 4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts of Plant Operations During the License Renewal Term . . 4-28

25 4.4.1 Housing Impacts During Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-30

26 4.4.2 Public Services: Public Utility Impacts During Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-31

27 4.4.3 Offsite Land Use During Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-32

28 4.4.4 Public Services: Transportation Impacts During Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-34

29 4.4.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-35

30 4.4.6 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-36

31 4.5 Groundwater Use and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-37

32 4.5.1 Groundwater Use Conflicts (Make-Up From a Small River) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-41

33 4.6 Threatened or Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-41

34 4.6.1 Aquatic Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-42

35 4.6.2 Terrestrial Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-42

36 4.7 Evaluation of Potential New and Significant Information on Impacts of Operations

37 During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-43

38 4.8 Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-44

39 4.8.1 Cumulative Impacts Resulting from Operation of the Plant Cooling System 4-44

40 4.8.2 Cumulative Impacts Resulting from Continued Operation of the 

41 Transmission Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-46

42 4.8.3 Cumulative Radiological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-47

43 4.8.4 Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-47

44 4.8.5 Cumulative Impacts on Groundwater Use and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-48

45 4.8.6 Cumulative Impacts on Threatened or Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-48
Contents

January 2006 vii Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 4.8.7 Conclusions Regarding Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-49

2 4.9 Summary of Impacts of Operations During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-49

3 4.10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-50

4

5 5.0 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

6 5.1 Postulated Plant Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

7 5.1.1 Design-Basis Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

8 5.1.2 Severe Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

9 5.2 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

10 5.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

11 5.2.2 Estimate of Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6

12 5.2.3 Potential Plant Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

13 5.2.4 Evaluation of Risk Reduction and Costs of Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8

14 5.2.5 Cost-Benefit Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8

15 5.2.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10

16 5.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10

17

18 6.0 Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management . . . . 6-1

19 6.1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

20 6.2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9

21

22 7.0 Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

23 7.1 Decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

24 7.2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4

25

26 8.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives to License Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

27 8.1 No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

28 8.2 Alternative Energy Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6

29 8.2.1 Coal-Fired Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-8

30 8.2.2 Natural Gas-Fired Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-18

31 8.2.3 Coal Gasification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-27

32 8.2.4 Nuclear Power Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-35

33 8.2.4.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-36

34 8.2.4.2 Once-Through Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-43

35 8.2.5 Purchased Electrical Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-44

36 8.2.6 Other Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-45

37 8.2.6.1 Oil-Fired Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-45

38 8.2.6.2 Wind Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-46

39 8.2.6.3 Solar Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-47

40 8.2.6.4 Hydropower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-48

41 8.2.6.5 Geothermal Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-48

42 8.2.6.6 Wood Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-48

43 8.2.6.7 Municipal Solid Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-49

44 8.2.6.8 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-50

45 8.2.6.9 Fuel Cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-50
Contents

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 viii January 2006

1 8.2.6.10 Delayed Retirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-51

2 8.2.6.11 Utility-Sponsored Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-51

3 8.2.7 Combination of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-52

4 8.3 Summary of Alternatives Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-55

5 8.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-56

6

7 9.0 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1

8 9.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action – License Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-4

9 9.1.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-5

10 9.1.2 Irreversible or Irretrievable Resource Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6

11 9.1.3 Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6

12 9.2 Relative Significance of the Environmental Impacts of License Renewal and

13 Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6

14 9.3 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-7

15 9.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-9

16

17 Appendix A: Comments Received on the Environmental Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

18

19 Appendix B: Contributors to the Supplement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

20

21 Appendix C: Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence Related to 

22 Nuclear Management Company, LLC’s Application for License Renewal of Monticello Nuclear

23 Generating Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

24

25 Appendix D: Organizations Contacted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

26

27 Appendix E: Nuclear Management Company, LLC's Compliance Status and Consultation

28 Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

29

30 Appendix F: GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to Monticello Nuclear Generating 

31 Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

32

33 Appendix G: NRC Staff Evaluation of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) for

34 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1

35 G.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1

36 G.2 Estimate of Risk for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-2

37 G.2.1 Nuclear Management Company, LLC's Risk Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-2

38 G.2.2 Review of Nuclear Management Company, LLC's Risk Estimates . . . . . . . . G-4

39 G.3 Potential Plant Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-13

40 G.3.1 Process for Identifying Potential Plant Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-13

41 G.3.2 Review of Nuclear Management Company, LLC's Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-14

42 G.4 Risk Reduction Potential of Plant Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-16

43 G.5 Cost Impacts of Candidate Plant Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-16

44 G.6 Cost-Benefit Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-21

45 G.6.1 Nuclear Management Company, LLC's Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-21
Contents

January 2006 ix Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 G.6.2 Review of Nuclear Management Company LLC's Cost-Benefit Evaluation . G-25

2 G.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-28

3 G.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-29
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 x January 2006

1 Figures

2 Figure 2-1. Location of Monticello, 50-mi Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2

3 Figure 2-2. Location of Monticello, 6-mi Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3

4 Figure 2-3. Monticello Site Powerblock Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

5 Figure 2-4. Monticello Cooling and Auxiliary Water System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

6 Figure 2-5. Monticello Transmission Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13

7

8 Figure 4-1. Geographic Distribution of Minority Populations (Shown in Shaded Areas) 

9 Within 50 mi of Monticello Based on Census Block Group Data . . . . . . . . . . 4-38

10 Figure 4-2. Geographic Distribution of Low-Income Populations (Shown in Shaded 

11 Areas) Within 50 mi of Monticello Based on Census Block Group Data . . . . 4-39

12
January 2006 xi Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Tables

2 Table 2-1. Monticello Transmission Line Rights-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14

3 Table 2-2. Circulating Water System Operating Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15

4 Table 2-3. Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity

5 of Monticello and the Associated Transmission Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23

6 Table 2-4. State of Minnesota Identified Natural Communities in the Vicinity of the

7 Transmission Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26

8 Table 2-5. Threatened and Endangered Terrestrial Species Potentially Occurring in the

9 Vicinity of Monticello and the Associated Transmission Corridors . . . . . . . . . . 2-28

10 Table 2-6. Housing Units and Housing Units Vacant (Available) by County During 

11 1990 and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31

12 Table 2-7. Major Public Water Supply Systems in Wright and Sherburne Counties . . . . . 2-32

13 Table 2-8. Traffic Counts for Roads in the Vicinity of Monticello . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33

14 Table 2-9. Land Use in Wright County, 1980s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-34

15 Table 2-10. Land Use in Sherburne County, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-35

16 Table 2-11. Estimated Populations and Average Annual Growth Rates in Wright and Sherburne

17 Counties from 1970 to 2040 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-37

18 Table 2-12. Major Employment Facilities Within 10 mi of the Monticello Site . . . . . . . . . . . 2-38

19 Table 2-13. Property Taxes Paid from 1998 to 2002; Monticello Contribution to County Property

20 Tax Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-39

21

22 Table 3-1. Category 1 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

23 Table 3-2. Category 2 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

24

25 Table 4-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Operation of the Monticello 

26 Cooling System During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

27 Table 4-2. Category 2 Issues Applicable to the Operation of the Monticello 

28 Cooling System During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11

29 Table 4-3. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Monticello Transmission Lines 

30 During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22

31 Table 4-4. Category 2 and Uncategorized Issues Applicable to the Monticello Transmission

32 Lines During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25

33 Table 4-5. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Radiological Impacts of Normal 

34 Operations During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-27

35 Table 4-6. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics During the 

36 Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-29

37 Table 4-7. Environmental Justice and GEIS Category 2 Issues Applicable to 

38 Socioeconomics During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-30

39 Table 4-8. Category 1 Issue Applicable to Groundwater Use and Quality During 

40 the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-40

41 Table 4-9. Category 2 Issue Applicable to Groundwater Use and Quality During 

42 the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-40

43 Table 4-10. Category 2 Issue Applicable to Threatened or Endangered Species 

44 in the Vicinity of Monticello During the License Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-42
Contents

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 xii January 2006

1

2 Table 5-1. Category 1 Issue Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the 

3 Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

4 Table 5-2. Category 2 Issue Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the 

5 Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

6 Table 5-3. Monticello Core Damage Frequency for Internal Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6

7 Table 5-4. Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

8

9 Table 6-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste

10 Management During the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

11

12 Table 7-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Decommissioning of Monticello 

13 Following the Renewal Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

14

15 Table 8-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3

16 Table 8-2. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation at an 

17 Alternate Greenfield Site Using Closed-Cycle Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-9

18 Table 8-3. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas-Fired Generation at an

19 Alternate Greenfield Site Using Closed-Cycle Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-20

20 Table 8-4. Summary of Environmental Impacts of a Coal Gasification Generation 

21 Plant at an Alternate Greenfield Site Using Closed-Cycle Cooling . . . . . . . . . 8-28

22 Table 8-5. Summary of Environmental Impacts of New Nuclear Power Generation 

23 at the Monticello Site and an Alternate Site Using Closed-Cycle Cooling . . . . 8-37

24 Table 8-6. Summary of a Comparison of Environmental Impacts of a New Nuclear 

25 Power Plant Sited at the Monticello Site with Once-Through Cooling . . . . . . . 8-43

26 Table 8-7. Summary of Environmental Impacts for an Assumed Combination of 

27 Generating (Combined-Cycle Natural Gas-Fired Generation, Wind Power 

28 and DSM) and Acquisition Alternatives at Monticello and a Greenfield Site . . 8-53

29

30 Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Significance of License Renewal, the 

31 No-Action Alternative, and Alternative Methods of Generation Using 

32 Once-Through Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-8

33

34 Table A-1. Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period . . . . . . . . . A-2

35

36 Table E-1. Consultation Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

37 Table E-2. Federal, State, Local, and Regional Licenses, Permits, Consultations, and 

38 Other Approvals for Monticello . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-2

39

40 Table F-1. GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to Monticello . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

41

42 Table G-1. Monticello Core Damage Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-3

43 Table G-2. Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . G-4

44 Table G-3. Monticello PSA Historical Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-6

45 Table G-4. SAMA Cost-Benefit Screening Analysis for Monticello . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-18
Contents

January 2006 xiii Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1
a

The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all

references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 xiv January 2006

1 Executive Summary

2 By letter dated March 16, 2005, Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC), submitted an

3 application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the operating license

4 (OL) for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (Monticello) for an additional 20-year period. If the

5 OL is renewed, State regulatory agencies and NMC will ultimately decide whether the plant will

6 continue to operate, based on factors such as the need for power or other matters within the

7 State's jurisdiction or the purview of the owners. If the OL is not renewed, then the plant must

8 be shut down on or before the expiration date of the current OL, which is September 8, 2010.

9 The NRC has implemented Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

10 (42 USC 4332) in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51). 

11 In 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), the Commission requires preparation of an environmental impact

12 statement (EIS) or a supplement to an EIS for renewal of a reactor OL. In addition,

13 10 CFR 51.95(c) states that the EIS prepared at the OL renewal stage will be a supplement to

14 the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS),

NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2.(a) 15

16 Upon acceptance of the NMC application, the NRC began the environmental review process

17 described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and conduct

18 scoping. The staff visited the Monticello site in June 2005 and held public scoping meetings on

19 June 30, 2005, in Monticello, Minnesota. In the preparation of this draft supplemental

20 environmental impact statement (SEIS) for Monticello, the staff reviewed the NMC

21 Environmental Report (ER) and compared it to the GEIS, consulted with other agencies,

22 conducted an independent review of the issues, following the guidance set forth in

23 NUREG-1555, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants,

24 Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal, and considered the public comments received

25 during the scoping process. The public comments received during the scoping process that

26 were considered to be within the scope of the environmental review are provided in Appendix A,

27 Part 1, of this SEIS.

28 The staff will hold two public meetings in Monticello, Minnesota, in March 2006 to describe the

29 preliminary results of the NRC environmental review, to answer questions, and to provide

30 members of the public with information to assist them in formulating comments on this SEIS. 

31 When the comment period ends, the staff will consider and address all of the comments

32 received. These comments will be addressed in Appendix A, Part 2 of the final SEIS. 

33 This draft SEIS includes the NRC staff's preliminary analysis that considers and weighs the

34 environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the

35 proposed action, and mitigation measures for reducing or avoiding adverse effects. It also

36 includes the staff's preliminary recommendation regarding the proposed action.
Executive Summary

January 2006 xv Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 The Commission has adopted the following statement of purpose and need for license renewal

2 from the GEIS:

3 The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) is to

4 provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a

5 current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs,

6 as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and, where authorized, Federal

7 (other than NRC) decisionmakers.

8 The evaluation criterion for the staff's environmental review, as defined in 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4)

9 and the GEIS, is to determine

10 ... whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that

11 preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be

12 unreasonable.

13 Both the statement of purpose and need and the evaluation criterion implicitly acknowledge that

14 there are factors, in addition to license renewal, that will ultimately determine whether an

15 existing nuclear power plant continues to operate beyond the period of the current OL.

16 NRC regulations [10 CFR 51.95(c)(2)] contain the following statement regarding the content of

17 SEISs prepared at the license renewal stage:

18 The supplemental environmental impact statement for license renewal is not required to

19 include discussion of need for power or the economic costs and economic benefits of

20 the proposed action or of alternatives to the proposed action except insofar as such

21 benefits and costs are either essential for a determination regarding the inclusion of an

22 alternative in the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation. In addition,

23 the supplemental environmental impact statement prepared at the license renewal stage

24 need not discuss other issues not related to the environmental effects of the proposed

25 action and the alternatives, or any aspect of the storage of spent fuel for the facility

26 within the scope of the generic determination in § 51.23(a) ["Temporary storage of spent

27 fuel after cessation of reactor operation—generic determination of no significant

28 environmental impact"] and in accordance with § 51.23(b).

29 The GEIS contains the results of a systematic evaluation of the consequences of renewing an

30 OL and operating a nuclear power plant for an additional 20 years. It evaluates 92

31 environmental issues using the NRC's three-level standard of significance—SMALL,

32 MODERATE, or LARGE—developed using the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines. 

33 The following definitions of the three significance levels are set forth in footnotes to Table B-1 of

34 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B:

35 SMALL—Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither

36 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.
Executive Summary

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 xvi January 2006

1 MODERATE—Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to

2 destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

3 LARGE—Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize

4 important attributes of the resource.

5 For 69 of the 92 issues considered in the GEIS, the analysis in the GEIS reached the following

6 conclusions:

7 (1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply

8 either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling

9 system or other specified plant or site characteristics.

10 (2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned

11 to the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle

12 and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal).

13 (3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the

14 analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation

15 measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

16 These 69 issues were identified in the GEIS as Category 1 issues. In the absence of new and

17 significant information, the staff relied on conclusions as amplified by supporting information in

18 the GEIS for issues designated as Category 1 in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

19 Appendix B.

20 Of the 23 issues that do not meet the criteria set forth above, 21 are classified as Category 2

21 issues requiring analysis in a plant-specific supplement to the GEIS. The remaining two issues,

22 environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, were not categorized. 

23 Environmental justice was not evaluated on a generic basis and must be addressed in a

24 plant-specific supplement to the GEIS. Information on the chronic effects of electromagnetic

25 fields was not conclusive at the time the GEIS was prepared.

26 This draft SEIS documents the staff's consideration of all 92 environmental issues identified in

27 the GEIS. The staff considered the environmental impacts associated with alternatives to

28 license renewal and compared the environmental impacts of license renewal and the

29 alternatives. The alternatives to license renewal that were considered include the no-action

30 alternative (not renewing the OL for Monticello) and alternative methods of power generation. 

31 Based on projections made by the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information

32 Administration (DOE/EIA), gas- and coal-fired generation appear to be the most likely

33 power-generation alternatives if the power from Monticello is replaced. These alternatives are

34 evaluated assuming that the replacement power generation plant is located at either the

35 Monticello site or some other unspecified alternate location.
Executive Summary

January 2006 xvii Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 NMC and the staff have established independent processes for identifying and evaluating the

2 significance of any new information on the environmental impacts of license renewal. Neither

3 NMC nor the staff has identified information that is both new and significant related to

4 Category 1 issues that would call into question the conclusions in the GEIS. Similarly, neither

5 the scoping process nor the staff has identified any new issue applicable to Monticello that has

6 a significant environmental impact. Therefore, the staff relies upon the conclusions of the GEIS

7 for all of the Category 1 issues that are applicable to Monticello.

8 NMC's license renewal application presents an analysis of the Category 2 issues plus

9 environmental justice and chronic effects from electromagnetic fields. The staff has reviewed

10 the NMC analysis for each issue and has conducted an independent review of each issue. 

11 Three Category 2 issues are not applicable, because they are related to plant design features or

12 site characteristics not found at Monticello. Four Category 2 issues are not discussed in this

13 draft SEIS, because they are specifically related to refurbishment. NMC has stated that its

14 evaluation of structures and components, as required by 10 CFR 54.21, did not identify any

15 major plant refurbishment activities or modifications as necessary to support the continued

16 operation of Monticello for the license renewal period. In addition, any replacement of

17 components or additional inspection activities are within the bounds of normal plant operation,

18 and are not expected to affect the environment outside of the bounds of the plant operations

19 evaluated in the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission's 1972 Final Environmental Statement

20 Related to Operation of Monticello Plant.

21 Fourteen Category 2 issues related to operational impacts and postulated accidents during the

22 renewal term, as well as environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, are

23 discussed in this draft SEIS. Five of the Category 2 issues and environmental justice apply to

24 both refurbishment and to operation during the renewal term and are only discussed in this draft

25 SEIS in relation to operation during the renewal term. For all 14 Category 2 issues and

26 environmental justice, the staff concludes that the potential environmental effects are of SMALL

27 significance in the context of the standards set forth in the GEIS. In addition, the staff

28 determined that appropriate Federal health agencies have not reached a consensus on the

29 existence of chronic adverse effects from electromagnetic fields. Therefore, no further

30 evaluation of this issue is required. For severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs), the

31 staff concludes that a reasonable, comprehensive effort was made to identify and evaluate

32 SAMAs. Based on its review of the SAMAs for Monticello, and the plant improvements already

33 made, the staff concludes that one of the candidate SAMAs is potentially cost-beneficial. 

34 However, this SAMA does not relate to adequately managing the effects of aging during the

35 period of extended operation. Therefore, it does not need to be implemented as part of license

36 renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54.

37 Mitigation measures were considered for each Category 2 issue. Current measures to mitigate

38 the environmental impacts of plant operation were found to be adequate, and no additional

39 mitigation measures were deemed sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

40 Cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably forseeable future actions were considered,

41 regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. 
Executive Summary

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 xviii January 2006

1 For purposes of this analysis, where Monticello license renewal impacts are deemed to be

2 SMALL, the staff concluded that these impacts would not result in significant cumulative impacts

3 on potentially affected resources.

4 If the Monticello operating license is not renewed and the unit ceases operation on or before the

5 expiration of the current operating license, then the adverse impacts of likely alternatives will not

6 be smaller than those associated with continued operation of Monticello. The impacts may, in

7 fact, be greater in some areas.

8 The preliminary recommendation of the NRC staff is that the Commission determine that the

9 adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Monticello are not so great that preserving

10 the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. This

11 recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS; (2) the ER submitted by

12 NMC; (3) consultation with other Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) the staff's own

13 independent review; and (5) the staff's consideration of public comments received during the

14 scoping process.
January 2006 xix Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Abbreviations/Acronyms

2 ° degree

3 μCi microcurie(s)

4 μCi/mL microcurie(s) per milliliter

5 μm micrometer(s) (microns)

6

7 ac acre(s)

8 AC alternating current

9 ACC averted cleanup and decontamination costs

10 ADAMS NRC documents access and management system

11 AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

12 ALARA as low as reasonably achievable

13 AOC present value of averted offsite property damage costs

14 AOE present value of averted occupational exposure

15 AOSC present value of averted onsite costs

16 APE present value of averted public exposure

17 ASDS automatic (or alternate) shutdown system

18

19 B.C. before the common era

20 BTU British thermal unit(s)

21 BTU/kWh British thermal unit(s) per kilowatt-hour

22 BWR boiling water reactor

23 BWROG boiling water reactor owners group

24

25 CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule

26 CDF core damage frequency

27 CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

28 CFR Code of Federal Regulations

29 cfs cubic feet per second

30 Ci curie(s)

31 CO carbon monoxide

32 CO2 carbon dioxide

33 COE cost of enhancement

34 CRD control rod drive

35 CST condensate storage tank

36 CT combustion turbine

37 CWA Clean Water Act

38

39 DBA design-basis accident

40 dc direct current
Abbreviations/Acronyms

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 xx January 2006

1 DOE U.S. Department of Energy

2 DOI U.S. Department of the Interior

3 DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

4 DSM demand-side management

5

6 EDG emergency diesel generator

7 EIA Energy Information Administration (of DOE)

8 EIS environmental impact statement

9 ELF-EMF extremely low frequency electromagnetic field

10 EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

11 EPRI Electric Power Research Institute

12 ER Environmental Report

13 ESW emergency service water

14

15 F Fahrenheit

16 FES final environmental statement

17 FIVE fire-induced vulnerability evaluation

18 FPS fire protection system

19 FR Federal Register

20 FSAR final safety analysis report

21 FSW fire service water

22 ft foot/feet

23 ft/s foot/feet per second

ft3 24 cubic foot/feet

ft3 25 /s cubic foot/feet per second

26 FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

27

28 GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,

29 NUREG-1437

30 GL generic letter

31 gpd gallons per day

32 gpm gallons per minute

33 GWh gigawatt-hours

34

35 HLW high-level waste

36 HPCI high-pressure coolant injection

37 hr hour(s)

38 HRSG heat recovery steam generator

39 Hp horsepower

40 Hz hertz

41
Abbreviations/Acronyms

January 2006 xxi Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 in. inch(es)

2 IPE individual plant examination

3 IPEEE individual plant examination of external events

4

5 J joule(s)

6

7 kV kilovolt(s)

8 kW kilowatt(s)

9 kWh kilowatt hour(s)

10

11 lb pound

12 lb/MWh pound(s) per megawatt-hour

13 LLW low-level waste

14 LOS level of service

15

16 MAAP modular accident analysis program

17 mA milliampere(s)

18 MACCS2 MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 2

19 MAPP Mid-Continent Area Power Pool

20 MCBS Minnesota County Biological Survey

21 MDC Minnesota Department of Commerce

22 MDEED Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development

23 MDOT Minnesota Department of Transportation

24 mi mile(s)

mi2 25 square mile(s)

26 mL milliliter(s)

27 MMACR modified maximum averted cost-risk

28 MNDNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

29 MNSHPO Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office

30 MOU Memorandum of Understanding

31 mph miles per hour

32 MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

33 MPSDC Minnesota Planning State Demographic Center

34 MPUC Minnesota Public Utilities Commission

35 mrem millirem(s)

36 mrem/yr millirem(s) per year

37 MSA metropolitan statistical area

38 mSv millisievert(s)

39 mSv/yr millisievert(s) per year

40 MTED Minnesota Trade and Economic Development

41 MTHM metric tons of heavy metal (a conventional unit for high-level nuclear waste)
Abbreviations/Acronyms

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 xxii January 2006

1 MTU metric ton(s) uranium

2 MW megawatt(s)

3 MWd megawatt-days

4 MWd/MTU megawatt-days per metric ton(s) uranium

5 MW(e) megawatt(s) electric

6 MW(t) megawatt(s) thermal

7 MWh megawatt hour(s)

8

9 N/A not applicable

10 NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

11 NAS National Academy of Sciences

12 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

13 NESC National Electrical Safety Code

14 ng/J nanogram(s) per joule

15 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

16 NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

17 NMC Nuclear Management Company

18 NO2 nitrogen dioxide

19 NOx nitrogen oxide(s) 

20 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

21 NPSH net positive suction head

22 NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

23 NRHP National Register of Historic Places

24 NSP Northern States Power Company

25

26 ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual

27 OL operating license

28

29 PARS publically available records

30 PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

31 pCi/L picocuries per liter

32 PIO Public Information Officer

33 PM10 particulate matter, 10 microns or less in diameter

34 ppm parts per million

35 PRA probabilistic risk analysis

36 PSA probabilistic safety assessment

37 PSD prevention of significant deterioration

38

39 RAI request for additional information

40 RCIC reactor core isolation cooling

41 RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Abbreviations/Acronyms

January 2006 xxiii Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 RDS rapid dewatering system

2 rem roentgen equivalent man, equal to 0.01 sievert

3 REMP radiological environmental monitoring program

4 RHR residual heat removal

5 RM river mile(s)

6 ROW right-of-way

7 RPC replacement power costs

8

9 SAMA severe accident mitigation alternative

10 SAR safety analysis report

11 SBO station blackout

12 scfm standard cubic feet per minute

13 SCR selective catalytic reduction

14 SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement

15 SER safety evaluation report

16 SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

17 SMITTR surveillance, monitoring, inspections, testing, trending, and record keeping

18 SO2 sulfur dioxide

19 SOx sulfur oxide(s)

20 SRV safety/relief valve

21 Sv sievert(s) (special unit of dose equivalent)

22 SW service water

23

24 TB turbine building

25 TVA Tennessee Valley Authority

26

27 U.S. United States

28 USAR updated safety analysis report

29 USC United States Code

30 USCB U.S. Census Bureau

31 USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

32 USGS U.S. Geological Survey

33 USI unresolved safety issue

34

35 V volt(s)

36

37 WMD Wetland Management District

38

39 yr year

a

The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all

references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

January 2006 1-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 1.0 Introduction

2 Under the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) environmental protection regulations

3 in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, which implement the National

4 Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license (OL)

5 requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). In preparing the EIS, the

6 NRC staff is required first to issue the statement in draft form for public comment, and then

7 issue a final statement after considering public comments on the draft. To support the

8 preparation of the EIS, the staff has prepared a Generic Environmental Impact Statement for

9 License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996;

1999).(a) 10 The GEIS is intended to (1) provide an understanding of the types and severity of

11 environmental impacts that may occur as a result of license renewal of nuclear power plants

12 under 10 CFR Part 54, (2) identify and assess the impacts that are expected to be generic to

13 license renewal, and (3) support 10 CFR Part 51 to define the number and scope of issues that

14 need to be addressed by the applicants in plant-by-plant renewal proceedings. Use of the GEIS

15 guides the preparation of complete plant-specific information in support of the OL renewal

16 process.

17 Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC), operates the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant

18 (Monticello) in southern Minnesota under OL No. DPR-22, which was issued by the NRC. NMC

19 is a licensee for the purposes of its current OL and an applicant for the renewal of the OL. 

20 Monticello is owned by Northern States Power Company (NSP) which is a wholly owned utility

21 operating subsidiary of Xcel Energy Inc. (Xcel Energy). This OL will expire on

22 September 8, 2010. NMC submitted an application dated March 16, 2005, to the NRC to renew

23 the Monticello OL for an additional 20 years beyond the expiration of the current license

24 pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54. Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.23 and 51.53(c), NMC submitted an

25 Environmental Report (ER; NMC 2005a) in which NMC analyzed the environmental impacts

26 associated with the proposed license renewal action, considered alternatives to the proposed

27 action, and evaluated mitigation measures for reducing adverse environmental effects.

28 This report is the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS (the supplemental EIS [SEIS]) for the

29 NMC license renewal application. This SEIS is a supplement to the GEIS because it relies, in

30 part, on the findings of the GEIS. The staff will also prepare a separate safety evaluation report

31 in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54.

32 1.1 Report Contents

33 The following sections of this introduction (1) describe the background for the preparation of this

34 SEIS, including the development of the GEIS and the process used by the staff to assess the

35 environmental impacts associated with license renewal, (2) describe the proposed Federal
Introduction

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 1-2 January 2006

1 action to renew the Monticello OL, (3) discuss the purpose and need for the proposed action,

2 and (4) present the status of NMC's compliance with environmental quality standards and

3 requirements that have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies that are

4 responsible for environmental protection.

5 The ensuing chapters of this draft SEIS closely parallel the contents and organization of the

6 GEIS. Chapter 2 describes the site, power plant, and interactions of the plant with the

7 environment. Chapters 3 and 4, respectively, discuss the potential environmental impacts of

8 plant refurbishment and plant operation during the renewal term. Chapter 5 contains an

9 evaluation of potential environmental impacts of plant accidents and includes consideration of

10 severe accident mitigation alternatives. Chapter 6 discusses the uranium fuel cycle and solid

11 waste management. Chapter 7 discusses decommissioning, and Chapter 8 discusses

12 alternatives to license renewal. Finally, Chapter 9 summarizes the findings of the preceding

13 chapters and draws conclusions about the adverse impacts that cannot be avoided; the

14 relationship between short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and

15 enhancement of long-term productivity; and the irreversible or irretrievable commitment of

16 resources. Chapter 9 also presents the staff's preliminary recommendation with respect to the

17 proposed license renewal action.

18 Additional information is included in appendixes. Appendix A contains public comments related

19 to the environmental review for license renewal and staff responses to those comments. 

20 Appendixes B through G, respectively, list the following:

21 • the preparers of the supplement

22 • the chronology of NRC staff's environmental review correspondence related to this SEIS

23 • the organizations contacted during the development of this SEIS

24 • NMC's compliance status in Table E-1 (this appendix also contains copies of consultation

25 correspondence prepared and sent during the evaluation process)

26 • GEIS environmental issues that are not applicable to Monticello

27 • severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs).

28 1.2 Background

29 Use of the GEIS, which examines the possible environmental impacts that could occur as a

30 result of renewing individual nuclear power plant OLs under 10 CFR Part 54, and the

31 established license renewal evaluation process supports the thorough evaluation of the impacts

32 of renewal of OLs.
Introduction

January 2006 1-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 1.2.1 Generic Environmental Impact Statement

2 The NRC initiated a generic assessment of the environmental impacts associated with the

3 license renewal term to improve the efficiency of the license renewal process by documenting

4 the assessment results and codifying the results in the Commission's regulations. This

5 assessment is provided in the GEIS, which serves as the principal reference for all nuclear

6 power plant license renewal EISs.

7 The GEIS documents the results of the systematic approach that was taken to evaluate the

8 environmental consequences of renewing the licenses of individual nuclear power plants and

9 operating them for an additional 20 years. For each potential environmental issue, the GEIS

10 (1) describes the activity that affects the environment, (2) identifies the population or resource

11 that is affected, (3) assesses the nature and magnitude of the impact on the affected population

12 or resource, (4) characterizes the significance of the effect for both beneficial and adverse

13 effects, (5) determines whether the results of the analysis apply to all plants, and (6) considers

14 whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted for impacts that would have the

15 same significance level for all plants.

16 The NRC’s standard of significance for impacts was established using the Council on

17 Environmental Quality (CEQ) terminology for "significantly" (40 CFR 1508.27, which requires

18 consideration of both "context" and "intensity"). Using the CEQ terminology, the NRC

19 established three significance levels—SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The definitions of the

20 three significance levels are set forth in the footnotes to Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51,

21 Subpart A, Appendix B, as follows:

22 SMALL—Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither

23 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

24 MODERATE—Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to

25 destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

26 LARGE—Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize

27 important attributes of the resource.

28 The GEIS assigns a significance level to each environmental issue, assuming that ongoing

29 mitigation measures would continue.

30 The GEIS includes a determination of whether the analysis of the environmental issue could be

31 applied to all plants and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues

32 are assigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1

33 issues are those that meet all of the following criteria:
Introduction

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 1-4 January 2006

1 (1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply

2 either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling

3 system or other specified plant or site characteristics.

4 (2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned

5 to the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle

6 and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal).

7 (3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the

8 analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation

9 measures are likely not to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

10 For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is

11 required in this SEIS unless new and significant information is identified.

12 Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria of Category 1, and

13 therefore, additional plant-specific review for these issues is required.

14 In the GEIS, the staff assessed 92 environmental issues and determined that 69 qualified as

15 Category 1 issues, 21 qualified as Category 2 issues, and 2 issues (environmental justice and

16 chronic effects of electromagnetic fields) were not categorized. Environmental justice was not

17 evaluated on a generic basis and must be addressed in a plant-specific supplement to the

18 GEIS. Information on the chronic effects of electromagnetic fields was not conclusive at the

19 time the GEIS was prepared. 

20 Of the 92 issues, 11 are related only to refurbishment, 6 are related only to decommissioning,

21 67 apply only to operation during the renewal term, and 8 apply to both refurbishment and

22 operation during the renewal term. A summary of the findings for all 92 issues in the GEIS is

23 codified in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B.

24 1.2.2 License Renewal Evaluation Process

25 An applicant seeking to renew its OL is required to submit an ER as part of its application. The

26 license renewal evaluation process involves careful review of the applicant's ER and assurance

27 that all new and potentially significant information not already addressed in or available during

28 the GEIS evaluation is identified, reviewed, and assessed to verify the environmental impacts of

29 the proposed license renewal.

30 In accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) and (3), the ER submitted by the applicant must

31 C provide an analysis of the Category 2 issues in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

32 Appendix B in accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)
Introduction

January 2006 1-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 C discuss actions to mitigate any adverse impacts associated with the proposed action and

2 environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action.

3 In accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2), the ER does not need to

4 C consider the economic benefits and costs of the proposed action and alternatives to the

5 proposed action except insofar as such benefits and costs are either (1) essential for making

6 a determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative in the range of alternatives

7 considered, or (2) relevant to mitigation

8 C consider the need for power and other issues not related to the environmental effects of the

9 proposed action and the alternatives

10 C discuss any aspect of the storage of spent fuel within the scope of the generic determination

11 in 10 CFR 51.23(a) in accordance with 10 CFR 51.23(b)

12 C contain an analysis of any Category 1 issue unless there is significant new information on a

13 specific issue—this is pursuant to 10 CFR 51.23(c)(3)(iii) and (iv).

14 New and significant information is (1) information that identifies a significant environmental

15 issue not covered in the GEIS and codified in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

16 Appendix B, or (2) information that was not considered in the analyses summarized in the GEIS

17 and that leads to an impact finding that is different from the finding presented in the GEIS and

18 codified in 10 CFR Part 51.

19 In preparing to submit its application to renew the Monticello OL, NMC developed a process to

20 ensure that information not addressed in or available during the GEIS evaluation regarding the

21 environmental impacts of license renewal for Monticello would be properly reviewed before

22 submitting the ER, and to ensure that such new and potentially significant information related to

23 renewal of the license for Monticello would be identified, reviewed, and assessed during the

24 period of NRC review. NMC reviewed the Category 1 issues that appear in Table B-1 of

25 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, to verify that the conclusions of the GEIS remained

26 valid with respect to Monticello. This review was performed by personnel from NMC and its

27 support organization who were familiar with NEPA issues and the scientific disciplines involved

28 in the preparation of a license renewal ER.

29 The NRC staff also has a process for identifying new and significant information. That process

30 is described in detail in NUREG-1555, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for

31 Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal (ESRP), (NRC 2000). The

32 search for new information includes (1) review of an applicant's ER and the process for

33 discovering and evaluating the significance of new information; (2) review of records of public

34 comments; (3) review of environmental quality standards and regulations; (4) coordination with

35 Federal, State, and local environmental protection and resource agencies; and (5) review of the

36 technical literature. New information discovered by the staff is evaluated for significance using
Introduction

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 1-6 January 2006

1 the criteria set forth in the GEIS. For Category 1 issues where new and significant information

2 is identified, reconsideration of the conclusions for those issues is limited in scope to the

3 assessment of the relevant new and significant information; the scope of the assessment does

4 not include other facets of the issue that are not affected by the new information.

5 Chapters 3 through 7 discuss the environmental issues considered in the GEIS that are

6 applicable to Monticello. At the beginning of the discussion of each set of issues, a table

7 identifies the issues to be addressed and lists the sections in the GEIS where the issue is

8 discussed. Category 1 and Category 2 issues are listed in separate tables. For Category 1

9 issues for which there is no new and significant information, the table is followed by a set of

10 short paragraphs that state the GEIS conclusion codified in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51,

11 Subpart A, Appendix B, followed by the staff's analysis and conclusion. For Category 2 issues,

12 in addition to the list of GEIS sections where the issue is discussed, the tables list the

13 subparagraph of 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) that describes the analysis required and the draft SEIS

14 sections where the analysis is presented. The draft SEIS sections that discuss the Category 2

15 issues are presented immediately following the table.

16 The NRC prepares an independent analysis of the environmental impacts of license renewal

17 and compares these impacts with the environmental impacts of alternatives. The evaluation of

18 the NMC license renewal application began with publication of a notice of acceptance for

19 docketing in the Federal Register (FR); (70 FR 25117 [NRC 2005a]) on May 12, 2005. The staff

20 published a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping (70 FR 32381 [NRC 2005b])

21 on June 2, 2005. Two public scoping meetings were held on June 30, 2005, in Monticello,

22 Minnesota. Comments received during the scoping period were summarized in the

23 Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process: Summary Report, Monticello Nuclear

24 Generating Plant, Monticello, Minnesota (NRC 2005c) dated October 7, 2005. Comments that

25 are applicable to this environmental review are presented in Part 1 of Appendix A.

26 The staff followed the review guidance contained in NUREG-1555, Supplement 1 (NRC 2000). 

27 The staff and contractors retained to assist the staff visited the Monticello site on June 28 and

28 29, 2005, to gather information and to become familiar with the site and its environs. The staff

29 also reviewed the comments received during scoping, and consulted with Federal, State,

30 regional, and local agencies. A list of the organizations consulted is provided in Appendix D. 

31 Other documents related to Monticello were reviewed and are referenced.

32 This draft SEIS presents the staff's analysis that considers and weighs the environmental

33 effects of the proposed renewal of the OL for Monticello, the environmental impacts of

34 alternatives to license renewal, and mitigation measures available for avoiding adverse

35 environmental effects. Chapter 9, “Summary and Conclusions,” provides the NRC staff's

36 recommendation to the Commission on whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of

37 license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning

38 decisionmakers would be unreasonable.
Introduction

January 2006 1-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 A 75-day comment period will begin on the date of publication of the U.S. Environmental

2 Protection Agency Notice of Filing of the draft SEIS to allow members of the public to comment

3 on the preliminary results of the NRC staff's review. During this comment period, two public

4 meetings will be held in Monticello, Minnesota, in March 2006. During these meetings, the staff

5 will describe the preliminary results of the NRC environmental review and answer questions

6 related to it to provide members of the public with information to assist them in formulating their

7 comments.

8 1.3 The Proposed Federal Action

9 The proposed Federal action is renewal of the OL for Monticello. Monticello is located in

10 southeastern Minnesota on the southern bank of the Mississippi River, approximately 22 mi

11 southeast of St. Cloud, and 30 mi northwest of Minneapolis, St. Paul. The plant has one

12 General Electric Company-designed boiling-water reactor, with a design power level of

13 1670 megawatts thermal (MW[t]) and a net power output of 545 megawatts electric (MW[e]). An

14 authorized power uprate in 1998 increased power levels to approximately 1775 MW(t)

15 (600 MW[e]). Plant cooling is primarily provided by an open-cycle system that draws and

16 discharges water to the Mississippi River. Monticello is also equipped with two mechanical draft

17 cooling towers which enable complete or partial recirculation of the cooling water when required

18 by special permit conditions. Monticello produces electricity to supply the needs of more than

19 585,000 homes. The current OL for Monticello expires on September 8, 2010. By letter dated

20 March 16, 2005, NMC submitted an application to the NRC (NMC 2005b) to renew this OL for

21 an additional 20 years of operation (i.e., until September 8, 2030). 

22 1.4 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

23 Although a licensee must have a renewed license to operate a reactor beyond the term of the

24 existing OL, the possession of that license is just one of a number of conditions that must be

25 met for the licensee to continue plant operation during the term of the renewed license. Once

26 an OL is renewed, State regulatory agencies and the owners of the plant will ultimately decide

27 whether the plant will continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power or other

28 matters within the State's jurisdiction or the purview of the owners.

29 Thus, for license renewal reviews, the NRC has adopted the following definition of purpose and

30 need (GEIS Section 1.3):

31 The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) is to

32 provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a

33 current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs,

34 as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and where authorized, Federal (other

35 than NRC) decisionmakers.
Introduction

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 1-8 January 2006

1 This definition of purpose and need reflects the Commission's recognition that, unless there are

2 findings in the safety review required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 or findings in the NEPA

3 environmental analysis that would lead the NRC to reject a license renewal application, the

4 NRC does not have a role in the energy-planning decisions of State regulators and utility

5 officials as to whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to operate. From the

6 perspective of the licensee and the State regulatory authority, the purpose of renewing an OL is

7 to maintain the availability of the nuclear plant to meet system energy requirements beyond the

8 current term of the plant's license.

9 1.5 Compliance and Consultations

10 NMC is required to hold certain Federal, State, and local environmental permits, as well as meet

11 relevant Federal and State statutory requirements. In its ER, NMC provided a list of the

12 authorizations from Federal, State, and local authorities for current operations as well as

13 environmental approvals and consultations associated with Monticello license renewal. 

14 Authorizations and consultations relevant to the proposed renewal action are included in

15 Appendix E.

16 The staff has reviewed the list and consulted with the appropriate Federal, State, and local

17 agencies to identify any compliance or permit issues or significant environmental issues of

18 concern to the reviewing agencies. These agencies did not identify any new and significant

19 environmental issues. The ER states that NMC is in compliance with applicable environmental

20 standards and requirements for Monticello. The staff has not identified any environmental

21 issues that are both new and significant.

22 1.6 References

23 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental

24 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

25 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, "Requirements for

26 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."

27 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part

28 1508, "Terminology and Index."

29 Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA). 42 USC 2011, et seq.

30 Nuclear Management Company (NMC). 2005a. Applicant's Environmental Report—Operating

31 License Renewal Stage, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. Docket No. 50-263, License No.

32 DPR-22. Monticello, Minnesota. 
Introduction

January 2006 1-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Nuclear Management Company (NMC). 2005b. Application for Renewed Operating License, 

2 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. Monticello, Minnesota.

3 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended. 42 USC 4332, et seq.

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

5 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

7 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1,

8 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final Report. 

9 NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Standard Review Plans for Environmental

11 Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Main Report, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal. 

12 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Washington, D.C.

13 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005a. "Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of

14 the Application and Notice of Opportunity for a Hearing Regarding Renewal of License No.

15 DPR-22 for an Additional Twenty-Year Period." Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 91, pp.

16 25117-25119. Washington, D.C. May 12, 2005.

17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005b. "Notice of Intent to Prepare an

18 Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process." Federal Register, Vol. 70,

19 No. 105, pp. 32381-32382. Washington, D.C. June 2, 2005.

20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005c. Environmental Impact Statement Scoping

21 Process: Summary Report, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Monticello, Minnesota. 

22 Washington, D.C. October 7, 2005.
January 2006 2-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 2.0 Description of Nuclear Power Plant and Site and

2 Plant Interaction with the Environment

3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (Monticello) is located in the City of Monticello, Wright

4 County, Minnesota, on the southern bank of the Mississippi River. The plant consists of one

5 unit. The unit is a boiling-water reactor that produces steam which passes through turbines to

6 generate electricity. Plant cooling is primarily provided by an open-cycle system that draws and

7 discharges water to the Mississippi River. Monticello is also equipped with two mechanical draft

8 cooling towers which enable complete or partial recirculation of the cooling water when required

9 by special permit conditions. The plant and its environs are described in Section 2.1, and the

10 plant's interaction with the environment is presented in Section 2.2.

11 2.1 Plant and Site Description and Proposed Plant Operation

12 During the Renewal Term

13 Monticello is located in southeastern Minnesota on the southern bank of the Mississippi River,

14 approximately 22 mi southeast of St. Cloud, and 30 mi northwest of Minneapolis/St. Paul. The

15 area within 6 mi of Monticello includes portions of Wright and Sherburne counties and is

16 primarily agricultural. The Monticello site is located in a region dominated by rivers, streams,

17 and lakes, with numerous public recreational and natural areas located within 50 mi of the site. 

18 The site consists of 2150 ac with approximately 2 mi of frontage on the north and south banks

19 of the Mississippi River. Approximately 50 ac are occupied by the plant and its supporting

20 facilities (NMC 2005a). Figures 2-1 and 2-2 show the site location and features within 50 mi

21 and 6 mi, respectively. 

22 2.1.1 External Appearance and Setting

23 Site structures include a reactor building, a turbine building, a radioactive-waste building, an

24 off-gas stack, two mechanical draft cooling towers, a diesel emergency generator building, and

25 the Monticello Substation. Transmission lines and corridors are also prominent features on and

26 near the Monticello site. The site's exclusion zone has been designated as being within the

27 Owner Controlled Area fence. Of the site's 2150 ac, approximately 450 ac are located on the

28 north bank of the Mississippi River, with the majority of the acreage on the southern bank. 

29 Approximately 50 ac on the southern bank are occupied by the facility structures, and the

30 remaining acres are undeveloped with land leased by local farmers for growing row crops, and

31 under lease for recreational use.
Description of Site and Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 2-2 January 2006

1

2

3 Figure 2-1. Location of Monticello, 50-mi Region
Description of Site and Environment

January 2006 2-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Figure 2-2. Location of Monticello, 6-mi Region

2
Description of Site and Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 2-4 January 2006

1 Natural surface drainage of the Monticello site is generally to the southwest at a 2- to 3-percent

2 grade away from the Mississippi River. The land cover of the site is predominated by formerly

3 cultivated fields in various stages of ecological succession (NMC 2005a).

4 2.1.2 Reactor Systems

5 Monticello is a single-unit electric generating plant. The unit is a single-cycle, forced circulation,

6 low-power density boiling water reactor. General Electric Company designed and supplied the

7 nuclear steam supply system, the initial reactor fuel, and the turbine-generator unit and its

8 related systems. Monticello was designed for operation at power levels up to 1670 megawatts

9 thermal (MW[t]) and an electrical output of up to 545 megawatts electric (MW[e]) (AEC 1972). 

10 However, an uprate license amendment was submitted and subsequently approved by the

11 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on January 21, 1998 (NRC 1998). The current rated

12 thermal power level for the unit is 1775 MW(t) and 600 MW(e). 

13 The Monticello facility is depicted in Figure 2-3. The reactor containment structure consists of a

14 drywell, which encloses the reactor vessel and recirculation pumps; a pressure suppression

15 chamber, which stores a large volume of water; a connecting vent system between the drywell

16 and the suppression chamber; and isolation valves. The concrete reactor building serves as a

17 radiation shield and fulfills a secondary containment function. The reactor building is

18 maintained under a slight negative pressure, with the building exhaust monitored prior to

19 release to the atmosphere through the reactor building ventilation exhaust stack. The

20 containment for the unit is designed to withstand an internal pressure of 56 pounds per square

21 inch above atmospheric pressure (NMC 2005b). Monticello uses low-enriched uranium dioxide

22 fuel with enrichments below 5.0 percent by weight uranium-235, and fuel burn-up levels less

23 than 62,000 megawatt-days per metric ton uranium (MWd/MTU) (NMC 2005c). 

24 2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems

25 The Mississippi River is the source of water at Monticello for plant condenser cooling and some

26 auxiliary water systems, such as service water cooling, screen wash, and fire protection. Four

27 groundwater wells provide water for other auxiliary systems, such as water for the reverse

28 osmosis/make-up demineralizer system used to produce purified water for the plant primary

29 systems and seal water to pumps located at the intake structure. Groundwater is also used for

30 domestic potable use, including drinking water, lavatories, and showers at the plant. Figure 2-4

31 shows the locations of the two induced-draft cooling towers and the discharge canal.
Description of Site and Environment

January 2006 2-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Figure 2-3. Monticello Site Powerblock Area
Description of Site and Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 2-6 January 2006

1

2 Figure 2-4. Monticello Cooling and Auxiliary Water System
Description of Site and Environment

January 2006 2-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Mississippi River water enters the intake structure through an approach channel formed by

2 sheet pile structures that are 98 ft apart and extend 59 ft into the river, angled at 81 degrees to

3 the shoreline. At the intake structure, the approach channel reduces to approximately 63 ft

4 wide. Water enters the intake structure over a 63-ft wide concrete sill that serves as a sediment

5 barrier. At the center of the sill is a 12.5-ft wide stop log section that can be removed during 

6 low river levels to allow water to flow unobstructed. On the plant side of the sill is a concrete

7 apron extending the width of the approach channel and 16 ft upstream of the bar rack. The bar

8 rack includes a motor-operated bar rack rake that prevents large debris from entering the intake

9 structure. The bar rack rake lifts debris into a trash hopper to prevent the debris from

10 re-entering the river. After the bar rack, the water is divided into two separate streams that 

11 pass through two parallel traveling screens located 10 ft behind the bar racks. The traveling

12 screens have 3/8-in. mesh that removes fine debris. The traveling screens are normally rotated

13 and rinsed every 12 hours and are run continuously when the river temperature is above 50°F. 

14 The debris, as well as any impinged organisms, are rinsed from the traveling screens into a

15 common sluiceway that extends back to the river downstream of the intake structures. From 

16 the traveling screens, water passes through the service water pump bay and two parallel

17 motor-operated sluice gates before reaching the circulating water pumps.

18 The circulating water system consists of two circulating water pumps, each rated 140,000 gpm,

19 mounted over each end of the intake structure. These pumps are designed to circulate 

20 292,000 gpm of cooling water through the main condenser. The plant service water system

21 consists of three service water pumps each with 6000 gpm capacity. Two of these pumps

22 supply over 10,000 gpm to meet all nonreactor requirements during normal operating

23 conditions. 

24 Effluent from the condenser and service water system is piped approximately 600 ft through two

25 108-in. steel pipes to the discharge structure at the head of the discharge canal. The discharge

26 structure is constructed of reinforced concrete and measures 50 ft by 54 ft by 38 ft high, with 

27 the roof approximately 5 ft above grade. The discharge structure includes two isolation and two

28 sluice gates. The motor-operated sluice gates can isolate the discharge flow from the 

29 discharge canal. During once-through or open-cycle operation, the sluice gates are open and

30 the circulating water is returned to the Mississippi River through the discharge canal. The 

31 bottom of the discharge canal was constructed on a 0.25 percent slope in an easterly direction

32 approximately 1000 ft to where it enters the river. An overflow weir was added in 1980 to allow

33 normal outflow of cooling water from the discharge canal, re-establishing the previously existing

34 shoreline of the river. The weir inhibits fish from entering the canal. The discharge weir

35 consists of an earth filled dike and a vertical sheet-pile overflow section.

36 Monticello also has the capability of utilizing two mechanical draft cooling towers to meet

37 surface water appropriations limits and thermal discharge limits as needed (see Section 2.2.2.). 

38 Two cooling tower pumps are located at the discharge structure and are designed to deliver

39 151,000 gpm to each cooling tower. In this mode of operation, control gates can isolate the

40 Mississippi River from the main intake structure and the discharge structure. Cooled water 
Description of Site and Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 2-8 January 2006

1 from the cooling tower basins is then allowed to flow by gravity to the circulating water pumps in

2 the intake structure. Cooling tower blowdown is piped by gravity to the discharge canal. 

3 Makeup water to replace water lost from cooling tower evaporation, drift, and blowdown is

4 serviced by two designated pumps, each rated 14,000 gpm, located at the intake structure. 

5 Cooling towers are normally operated in May through September, when Mississippi River

6 temperatures have typically exceeded 68°F, or during periods of extremely low flow. One tower

7 is used occasionally during the winter to provide a flow path of heated water to the intake if

8 suspended ice is present on the river.

9 Four groundwater wells at Monticello provide water for domestic potable use and some auxiliary

10 systems. Two wells, each equipped with a 100-gpm capacity pump, are manifold together and

11 provide raw water to the reverse osmosis/make-up demineralizer system, and seal water to

12 pumps at the plant intake structure. The other two wells provide additional domestic water as

13 needed.

14 2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems and Effluent Control Systems

15 The Monticello radioactive waste (radwaste) systems are designed to collect and treat

16 radioactive materials that are produced as a byproduct of plant operations. The design

17 objective for the radwaste systems is to provide equipment, instrumentation, and operating

18 procedures such that the discharge of radioactivity from the plant will not exceed the limits set

19 forth in 10 CFR Part 20. The radwaste systems are also designed and operated to meet the

20 dose design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, to meet the criterion "as low as

21 reasonably achievable,” or ALARA.

22 Radioactive material produced from fission of uranium-235 and neutron activation of metals in

23 the reactor coolant system is the primary source of liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste. 

24 The radioactive fission products build up within the fuel and are contained in the fuel pellets and

25 sealed fuel rods, but small quantities escape from the fuel rods into the reactor coolant. 

26 Neutron activation of trace concentrations of metals entrained in reactor coolant such as

27 zirconium, iron, and cobalt creates radioactive isotopes of these metals. Both fission and

28 activation products in liquid and gaseous forms are continuously removed from reactor coolant

29 and captured on filter media followed by demineralization. Monticello operates separate liquid,

30 solid, and gaseous radwaste processing systems (NMC 2005b). 

31 Fuel rods that have exhausted a certain percentage of their fuel and that are removed from the

32 reactor core for disposal are called spent fuel. Spent fuel assemblies, removed from the 

33 reactor core, are stored in a spent fuel pool located on the refueling floor of the reactor building. 

34 Xcel Energy has applied for a Certificate of Need from Minnesota Public Utilities Commission

35 that would authorize construction of a dry fuel storage area for additional spent fuel assemblies. 

36 Dry active waste includes contaminated protective clothing, paper, rags, and other trash

37 generated during operation and maintenance activities. Filter media include paper and glass

38 fiber cartridge filters, resin beads or powder, and metallic filters. Class A, B, and C solid waste,
Description of Site and Environment

January 2006 2-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 as defined in 10 CFR Part 61, may be processed for volume reduction, or is shipped to a

2 licensed disposal facility. 

3 The Monticello Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) (NMC 2004b) contains the

4 methodology and parameters used in the calculation of off-site doses resulting from radioactive

5 gaseous and liquid effluents, in the calculation of gaseous and liquid effluent monitoring alarm

6 and trip set points, and in the conduct of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program

7 (REMP). The ODCM also contains the radioactive effluent controls and radiological

8 environmental monitoring activities and descriptions of the information that should be included

9 in the Radiological Environmental Operating Program report and Radioactive Effluent Release

10 reports required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, and 10 CFR Part 50.36a.

11 2.1.4.1 Liquid Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls

12 Liquid waste from various equipment and floor drains and discharges from the reactor process

13 and auxiliary systems is processed through the radwaste system. Final disposition of

14 processed liquid includes either return of the liquid to the condensate system for plant re-use, 

15 or solidification of chemical liquid waste and shipment of the resulting solid to an off-site

16 location. There are no releases of liquid radioactive wastes to the Mississippi River. 

17 Liquid waste is collected in sumps and drain tanks in the various buildings and then transferred

18 to the appropriate subsystem collection tanks in the radwaste building for subsequent treatment

19 and disposal. In order to keep the releases to a minimum, modifications were made to the 

20 liquid radwaste system to allow reclaiming of floor drains as well as equipment drains. The

21 modified system limits the release of liquid effluents to the minimum practicable extent and to

22 satisfy the design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. The radioactive and chemical

23 contaminants are removed from the liquid waste streams by either filtration or filtration followed

24 by mixed deep-bed demineralization. The filters remove insoluble particulate contaminants and

25 the demineralizer removes soluble materials. The filter and demineralizer sludge are

26 backwashed into receiving tanks, dewatered to less than 0.5 percent liquid and packaged as

27 solid waste for disposal off-site at NRC-approved sites.

28 A review of the 2004 Radioactive Effluent Release Report (NMC 2005e) confirmed that no liquid

29 waste was released from Monticello. A review of previous years release reports (NMC 2004a,

30 2003, 2002, 2001) also confirmed that no liquid effluents were released during normal

31 operations; however, abnormal releases occurred during this five-year period. In 2nd Quarter

32 2003, one abnormal release of 904 liters of liquid effluent diluted with 66,600 liters of water was

released from Monticello. A total of 5.07 x 10-7 33 curies (Ci) of fission and activation products

(with average diluted concentration of 7.61 x 10-9 μCi/ml) and 1.06 x 10-3 34 Ci of tritium (with

average diluted concentration of 1.59 x 10-5 35 μCi/ml) were released. 

36 Based on the system description above, design, and previous performance, no liquid effluents,

37 other than occasional abnormal releases, are expected from Monticello during the renewal
Description of Site and Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 2-10 January 2006

1 period. If abnormal releases were to occur, they would result in doses to members of the public

2 that are well below the dose design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, as discussed in

3 Section 2.2.7

4 2.1.4.2 Gaseous Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls

5 The gaseous radwaste system provides for sufficient off-gas holdup time to allow decay of the

6 short-lived radioisotopes (such as nitrogen-16 and oxygen-19) and fission product noble gases

7 (primarily xenon and krypton). The gaseous radwaste system also removes radioactive

8 particulates and iodine from the off-gas stream, and recombines radiolytic hydrogen and 

9 oxygen to form liquid water to be treated in the liquid radwaste system. Radioactive gases are

10 then filtered and released through the plant off-gas stack. During normal operations, the

11 gaseous radwaste system operates on a continuous basis with effective monitoring and control

12 provided so as not to exceed the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 or the dose objectives of Appendix I

13 to 10 CFR Part 50 (NMC 2005b). 

14 Off gas from the main condenser air ejector effluent passes through a 42-in. diameter delay line

15 and is stored in the compressed gas storage system near the base of the off-gas stack. Five

compressed gas storage tanks, approximately 1250 ft3 16 each, provide for a minimum total 

17 holdup time of approximately 50 hours at a design off-gas release rate of 28 standard cubic feet

18 per minute (scfm). For typical off-gas rate of 10 scfm, the holdup time could be as high as

19 140 hours. Off gases from the steam packing exhaust system, the mechanical vacuum pump

20 effluent, and the high-pressure coolant injection (HPCI) gland seal effluent are all collected and

21 processed in the steam packing exhauster off-gas subsystem. These gases are discharged on

22 a continuous basis into a 1.75-minute holdup line and mixed with the air ejector off-gases at the

23 stack base. The off-gas stack provides for mixing, dilution with fresh makeup air, monitoring,

24 and release of the off gas to the atmosphere at an elevation of 328 ft above ground. The stack

25 height and plume buoyancy aids in the dispersion of the gases into the atmosphere (NMC

26 2005b).

27 A review of the 2004 Radioactive Effluent Release Report (NMC 2005e) provided data on

28 radioactive effluent release rates for Monticello. For calendar year 2004, the total fission and

activation gas activity released was 1371 Ci; iodine-131 was 1.5 x 10-3 29 Ci; particulates were

1.2 x 10-3 30 Ci; and tritium was 16.2 Ci. These activities are typical of past years, and are

31 expected during the renewal period. See Section 2.2.7 for a discussion of the theoretical doses

32 to the maximally exposed individual as a result of these releases.

33 2.1.4.3 Solid Waste Processing

34 The solid radwaste system is designed to process, package, store, monitor, and provide

35 shielded storage facilities for solid waste to allow for radioactive decay and/or temporary

36 storage prior to shipment from the plant for off-site disposal. The solid radioactive waste is

37 shipped off-site in vehicles equipped with adequate shielding to comply with Department of
Description of Site and Environment

January 2006 2-11 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Transportation (DOT) regulations. Radioactive solid waste generated from the plant includes: 

2 process waste filter sludge and spent resins from the liquid processing systems; reactor system

3 spent control rod blades, temporary control curtains, fuel channels, and in-core ion chambers;

4 maintenance waste contaminated clothing, tools, rags and small pieces of equipment; operating

5 waste laundry cartridge filters, paper, rags, off-gas filters, and ventilation filters; and

6 miscellaneous solidified chemical and liquid wastes. 

7 A rapid dewatering system (RDS) is a waste processing system installed for use at Monticello. 

8 This self-contained system is used for accelerated dewatering of particulate waste material. 

9 Extracted water from this system is routed to the liquid drains and subsequently routed back to

10 the plant for processing. Radioactive sludge from the RDS unit is stored in the radwaste

11 storage building and shipped offsite to a licensed facility in accordance with applicable DOT and

12 NRC regulations (NMC 2005b).

13 In 2004, Monticello made a total of five low-level waste shipments. The solid waste volumes

were 3.41 m3 14 of spent resins, filter sludge, evaporator bottoms, etc., with an activity of

approximately 264 Ci; and 151 m3 15 of dry compressible waste, contaminated equipment, etc.,

16 with an activity of approximately 3.81 Ci. No irradiated components or control rods were

17 shipped. These solid waste volumes and radioactive material activity levels are typical of

18 annual waste shipments for Monticello and are not expected to increase during the renewal

19 period.

20 2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Systems

21 Nonradioactive liquid waste at Monticello consists of wastewater from lavatories, showers, and

22 sinks. These wastewaters are discharged from the Monticello sanitary sewer system to the City

23 of Monticello sanitary sewage disposal system. A lift station and forced main were installed in

24 1983 to connect the plant to the city system. Nonradioactive solid waste at Monticello consists

25 of hazardous waste (such as oils) and nonhazardous waste (such as office waste, garbage, and

26 demolition debris materials). The Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC), is required to

27 manage its hazardous waste in accordance with the Hazardous Waste Generator License from

28 the State of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).

29 2.1.6 Plant Operation and Maintenance

30 Maintenance activities conducted at Monticello include inspection, testing, and surveillance to

31 maintain the current licensing basis of the facility and to ensure compliance with environmental

32 and safety requirements. Certain activities can be performed while the reactor is operating,

33 while others require that the facility be shut down. Long-term outages are scheduled for

34 refueling and for certain types of repairs or maintenance, such as replacement of a major

35 component. NMC refuels Monticello on a nominal 24-month interval. During refueling outages,

36 site employment increases by as many as 600 workers for temporary duty (NMC 2005a).
Description of Site and Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 2-12 January 2006

1 The updated safety analysis report (USAR) (NMC 2005b) regarding the effects of aging on

2 systems, structures, and components was included as part of the Monticello application for

3 renewal of its operating license (OL), in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54. Appendix A of the

4 application includes a supplement to the facility USAR that describes the programs and

5 activities that will manage the effects of aging during the license renewal period. NMC expects

6 to conduct activities related to the management of aging effects during normal plant operation,

7 or refueling and other outages, but plans no outages specifically for the purpose of

8 refurbishment. NMC does not plan to add additional full-time staff (non-outage workers) at

9 Monticello during the period of the renewed license. 

10 2.1.7 Power Transmission System

11 The transmission corridors of concern for license renewal are the corridors that were

12 constructed for the specific purpose of connecting the plant to the electrical grid. Thus, for this

13 license renewal, the transmission lines subject to review are the Monticello-Coon Creek 345-kV

14 line and the Monticello-Parkers Lake 345-kV line (see Figure 2-5 and Table 2-1).

15 The Monticello-Coon Creek 345-kV line (Line #0991) exits the substation to the northeast and

16 continues 5.9 mi northwest to the Sherburne County Substation on a 240-ft wide easement (the

17 Sherburne County corridor). It then extends 37.2 mi to the southeast to connect to the Coon

18 Creek Substation on an easement that varies in width from 125 ft to 150 ft (Xcel Energy 2005a). 

19 The original Monticello to Coon Creek Line was modified in 1975 to connect the Sherburne

20 County Generating Plant to the 345-kV system. The NRC addressed the configuration of the

21 Monticello to Coon Creek Substation line in its environmental review for the initial Monticello

22 operating license application. 

23 The Monticello-Parkers Lake 345-kV line (Line #0978) exits the substation to the southeast on a

24 240-ft wide easement for approximately 23.8 mi and then continues approximately 13.3 mi on a

25 165-ft-wide easement to the Parkers Lake Substation (Xcel Energy 2005a). The line was

26 originally constructed to connect Monticello directly to Parker Lake and was energized in 1971. 

27 The NRC also addressed the line’s impacts in its environmental review for the initial Monticello

28 operating license application. The Elm Creek Substation was installed on the Monticello-Parker

29 Lake line in 1996 (NMC 2005a).

30 Major portions of both corridors pass through rural areas, utilizing railroad rights-of-way and

31 highways where possible. The Monticello-Coon Creek corridor is predominantly cultivated fields

32 with scattered forests and some wetlands. The Monticello-Parkers Lake corridor is a mix of

33 agriculture, rural residential, scattered forests, and wetlands (NMC 2005a). Vegetation control

34 within the transmission line corridors is performed every four years to ensure the continued

35 reliability of the lines. Vegetation control includes removing or trimming woody vegetation to

36 ensure adequate line clearance and to allow vehicle access along the corridor. Qualified

37 line-clearance tree trimmers manually cut and prune using approved mechanical equipment 
Description of Site and Environment

January 2006 2-13 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 and perform selective application of approved herbicides to remove all tall-growing trees and

2 brush from the complete width of the corridor (Xcel Energy 2005b). 

3 Figure 2-5. Monticello Transmission Lines
Description of Site and Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 2-14 January 2006

1 Table 2-1. Monticello Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

2 Substation

No. of

Lines kV

Approximate

Distance (mi) Corridor

Corridor

Width (ft)

Corridor

Area (ac)

3 Sherburne

4 County

1 345 43 Monticello-Coon

Creek

Varies from

125 to 240

750

5 Elm Creek 1 345 37 MonticelloParkers LakeVaries from

165 to 240

957

6 Source: Xcel Energy 2005a

7

8 2.2 Plant Interaction with the Environment

9 Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.8 provide general descriptions of the environment near Monticello as

10 background information. They also provide detailed descriptions where needed to support the

11 analysis of potential environmental impacts of refurbishment and operation during the renewal

12 term, as discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. Section 2.2.9 describes the historic and archaeological

13 resources in the area, and Section 2.2.10 describes possible impacts associated with other

14 Federal project activities.

15 2.2.1 Land Use

16 The Monticello site is located in the City of Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota, on the

17 southern bank of the Mississippi River. The nearest large city is St. Cloud, 22 mi northwest and

18 upstream of the Monticello site. The Twin Cities area of Minneapolis/St. Paul, and its

19 surrounding suburbs, is approximately 30 mi southeast and downstream of the site. This is the

20 largest urban area within 50 mi of the site exerting a strong influence on the region as the

21 surrounding cities and townships respond to the Twin City area's demand for suburban

22 development. 

23 The Monticello site is located in an upland region of gently rolling hills dominated by rivers,

24 streams, and lakes. The site consists of approximately 2150 ac, with roughly 2 mi of frontage

25 on the north and south banks of the Mississippi River in Wright and Sherburne Counties. The

26 majority of the acreage is located on the southern side of the river, with approximately 450 ac

27 on the northern side of the river. Approximately 50 ac are occupied by the plant and its

28 supporting facilities. The remaining acres are undeveloped, with approximately 174 ac leased

29 by local farmers for growing row crops, and 144 ac under lease for recreational use (NMC

30 2005a). 
Description of Site and Environment

January 2006 2-15 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 2.2.2 Water Use

2 Monticello draws water from the Mississippi River for plant condenser cooling and auxiliary

3 water systems, such as service water cooling, intake screen wash, and fire protection. Under

4 typical river conditions, the circulating water system removes heat from the Monticello

5 condenser by the once-through circulating water system. Under certain discharge canal

6 temperature, river temperature, and river flow conditions, the circulating water system can

7 utilize the two mechanical draft cooling towers in partial or complete recirculation of the cooling

8 water in compliance with permit limits. The operating modes for the circulating water system

9 are required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit discharge

10 limits and the Surface Water Appropriations Permit. The Surface Water Appropriations Permit

11 allows NMC to withdraw up to 645 cfs (or 290,000 gpm) of water from the Mississippi River,

12 with special operating conditions if the river flow is less than 860 cfs, and further restrictions if

13 river flow is 240 cfs or less (see Table 2-2). The NPDES permit specifies maximum daily

14 average temperature at the end of the discharge canal depending on the month: 95°F in April

15 through October; 85°F in November and March; and 80°F in December through February. The

16 operating modes and conditions are summarized in Table 2-2.

17 Table 2-2. Circulating Water System Operating Modes

18 Operating Mode Temperature and River Flow Conditions

19 OPEN CYCLE OR ONCE-THROUGH: WHEN:

20 W ater is withdrawn from and discharged directly

21 to the Mississippi River.

- Discharge canal temperature is below permit

limits, and

- River flow exceeds 860 cfs.

22 HELPER CYCLE: WHEN:

23 W ater is withdrawn from and discharged directly

24 to the Mississippi River.

25 Cooling towers cool water prior to discharge to the

26 river.

- Discharge canal temperature approaches permit

limits, and 

- Upstream river temperatures are consistently at

or above 68°F.

27 PARTIAL RECIRCULATION: WHEN:

28 75% of the Mississippi River flow is withdrawn.

29 Cooling towers are operating. A portion of the

30 cooled water is recirculated to the intake and the

31 remainder is discharged to the river.

- River flow is less than 860 cfs but greater than

240 cfs, and

- River temperature is elevated.
Description of Site and Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 2-16 January 2006

1 Table 2-2. (contd)

2 Operating Mode Temperature and River Flow Conditions

3 CLOSED CYCLE: WHEN:

4 Cooling towers are operating and all cooled water

5 is recirculated to the intake, except for cooling

6 tower blowdown, which is discharged to the

7 discharge canal.

- River is at or less than 240 cfs, and

- River temperature is elevated.

8

9 Four groundwater wells provide domestic water for potable use, including drinking water,

10 lavatories, and showers at the plant, and raw water to the reverse osmosis/make-up

11 demineralizer system which is used to produce purified water for the plant primary systems and

12 seal water to pumps located at the intake structure. Two wells, each equipped with a 100-gpm

13 capacity pump, are connected together and are regulated under a single water appropriations

14 permit with a withdrawal limit of 200 gpm. From 1998 to 2000, actual usage averaged less than

15 30 gpm. These two wells provide domestic potable water to the plant administration building,

16 raw water to the reverse osmosis/make-up demineralizer system, and seal water to pumps at

17 the plant intake structure. The other two wells, each equipped with a 45-gpm pump, provide

18 additional domestic water to a warehouse and the site administration building. Annual usage

19 for these wells is less than 1.9 gpm, for which water appropriation permits are not required. 

20 2.2.3 Water Quality

21 Potential environmental issues associated with water quality at the Monticello plant include

22 surface water quality in the Mississippi River. During 2002 and 2003, the MPCA conducted

23 stream assessments under Section 305b of the Clean Water Act to estimate the extent to which

24 Minnesota water bodies meet the goals of the Clean Water Act and attain state water quality

25 standards (MPCA 2004a). The Mississippi River in the area of the Monticello plant is identified

26 as impaired; however, the MPCA is still developing its strategy for addressing these findings.

27 Water quality discharges at Monticello are regulated by a NPDES permit with the MPCA. This

28 NPDES permit regulates effluent water quality to the Mississippi River and discharges from

29 certain in-plant processes. The NPDES permit also has monitoring, reporting, and permit limit

30 requirements on water quality parameters including chlorine, pH, temperature, total suspended

31 solids, oil and grease, and oxidants. Based on these monitoring reports, plant discharges are

32 typically within MPCA limits. Discharges from the Monticello sanitary sewer system to the City

33 of Monticello sanitary sewer system is covered under a separate permit with the City of

34 Monticello. 

35 NMC applies biocides at the service water and circulating water pump bays located in the intake

36 structure to control biofouling in the circulating water system and service water systems. NMC

37 applies a non-oxidizing biocide at the service water header to control biofouling in several
Description of Site and Environment

January 2006 2-17 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 service water systems that are only operated intermittently (residual heat removal service water,

2 emergency diesel generator service water, and fire water protection). NMC also applies

3 anti-scalant during warm summer months to control scale buildup in the condenser tubes. NMC

4 uses these approved chemicals in accordance with all the use and discharge requirements of

5 the NPDES permit. 

6 2.2.4 Air Quality

7 The climate surrounding the Monticello site has wide seasonal variations in temperature, with

8 relatively light winter precipitation, and substantial summer rainfall. Representative weather

9 data was found at the nearby Buffalo, Minnesota, weather station located 10 mi southwest of

10 the plant. Average total annual precipitation is approximately 30 in. per year, with 54 percent

11 falling in the months of May through August. For the period of 1948-2004, rainfall ranged from

12 a monthly average high of 4.25 in. in June, to a monthly average low of 0.89 in. in December. 

13 Average total annual snowfall is approximately 43 in. per year, with 94 percent falling in the

14 months of November through March. For the period of 1948-2004, the highest average

15 monthly snowfall was 9.6 in. in the month of January (HPRCC 2004). 

16 Minnesota lies along the north edge of the region of maximum tornado occurrence in the United

17 States. Tornadoes have occurred in Minnesota in every month from March through November. 

18 Nearly three quarters of all tornadoes in Minnesota have occurred during the three months of

19 May (16 percent), June (33 percent), and July (27 percent) (SCO 2004). Between 1950 and

20 2004, eighteen tornados were reported in Wright County (NMC 2005a). The tornado strike

probability for the Monticello Plant is approximately 6 x 10-4 21 (Ramsdell 2005). 

22 The strongest winds typically occur in the early spring and the lightest winds in late summer. 

23 The topography of the region is generally flat plains to rolling hills and uplands, with few

24 obstructions to wind. Wind energy potential is generally rated on a scale of Class 1 through

25 Class 7. The western part of Minnesota has Class 3 and 4 wind resources at exposed areas. 

26 Areas suitable for wind turbine applications have a rating of 3 or higher. The wind power class

27 for the Monticello site is Class 2 (Elliot et al. 1987). 

28 Nonradioactive air emissions from the Monticello site are regulated by the Minnesota Pollution

29 Control Agency. With respect to National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), there are

30 currently no non-attainment areas in the state of Minnesota. In prior years, some areas of the

31 state have been designated non-attainment, but were later re-designated as attainment based

32 on improved air quality data. The most recent re-designation by U.S. Environmental Protection

33 Agency (EPA) became effective on September 24, 2002. Areas that were previously

34 non-attainment areas are now referred to as maintenance areas (MPCA 2005). The Monticello

35 plant is located in Wright County, a portion of which was in non-attainment for carbon monoxide

36 (CO) during the 1990s, and therefore continues to be a maintenance area for CO.
Description of Site and Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 2-18 January 2006

1 In 1997, the EPA revised the national standard for ground-level ozone from a 0.12 ppm 1-hour

2 "peak" standard to a 0.08 ppm 8-hour "average" standard, now commonly called the 8-hour

3 standard. In April 2004, EPA published the 8-hour ozone non-attainment designations, and

4 announced that the 1-hour “peak” standard will be phased out. The entire state of Minnesota is

5 in attainment with the new 8-hour ozone standard (EPA 2004). 

6 There are no mandatory Class I Federal areas, in which visibility is an important value

7 designated in 40 CFR Part 81, within 100 mi of the Monticello site.

8 Diesel engines, a boiler, and other sources associated with the Monticello site emit various

nonradioactive air pollutants to the atmosphere, such as NOx, SO2 9 and CO. Air emissions from

10 these sources are subject to the terms and conditions of a Title V air pollution control operation

11 permit issued by the MPCA (Air Emission Permit No. 17100019-003). The Monticello plant

12 must comply with the associated conditions of the permit, including fuel specifications, source

13 testing, emissions limitations, record-keeping, and reporting requirements. Plant compliance

14 with the air permit conditions has been good, and some minor compliance issues were

15 successfully resolved in the mid-1990s. Permitted equipment with nonradioactive air emissions

16 at the facility includes:

17 A. EU 001 Boiler

18 B. EU 002 Diesel Generator 11

19 C. EU 003 Diesel Generator 12

20 D. EU 004 Security Diesel Generator

21 E. EU 005 Fire Pump Diesel Engine

22 F. EU 006 Diesel Generator 13

23 G. EU 007 Temporary Engine > 600 Hp

24 H. EO 008 Temporary Engine < 600 Hp

In calendar year 2003, the total annual NOx 25 emission was 5.55 tons and the total annual CO

26 emission was 1.32 tons, while all other emission constituents were less than one ton (MPCA

27 2004b). There are no significant changes proposed for nonradioactive air emissions from the

28 Monticello site, and there are no significant changes proposed to the limits and conditions of the

29 air permit.
Description of Site and Environment

January 2006 2-19 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 2.2.5 Aquatic Resources

2 The principal aquatic resource in the vicinity of Monticello is the Mississippi River, which is the

3 source and receiving body of the water for the Monticello cooling system. The main aquatic

4 habitats on the Monticello site are the Mississippi River and the cooling-system discharge canal. 

5 The discharge canal is approximately 1000 ft long by 200 ft wide at the surface, sloping down to

6 a width of 92 ft on the bottom. It is 18 ft deep at the center. In 1980, an overflow weir was

7 added to the discharge canal that closely approximates the shoreline of the Mississippi River. 

8 The weir was added to minimize cold shock mortality from sudden plant shutdowns within the

9 discharge canal and in the river area adjacent to the discharge (MPCA 1979). It allows normal

10 outflow of water while reducing the movement of fish into the discharge canal (NMC 2005a).

11 The transmission lines associated with Monticello cross several streams and rivers. The

12 Monticello-Elm Creek-Parkers Lake line crosses Otter Creek, County Ditch #9, Crow River,

13 Rush Creek, and Elm Creek; while the Monticello-Sherburne County-Coon Creek line crosses

14 the Mississippi River, Elk River, St. Francis River, Tibbits Brook, Trott Brook, and the Rum

15 River. Transmission line right-of-way maintenance activities in the vicinity of stream and river

16 crossings employ procedures to minimize erosion and shoreline disturbance while encouraging

17 vegetative cover.

18 The Monticello plant facilities are located on the southern bank of the Mississippi River in

19 Wright County at Mississippi River Mile 900. Near Monticello, the Mississippi River is broad and

20 turbulent. The average river velocity varies from about 1.5 to 2.5 ft/s. The river 1.5 mi

21 upstream to 1.5 mi downstream of the plant loses 10 ft in elevation, resulting in rapids and

22 current velocities that exceed 4.9 ft/s (NMC 2005a). The main channel of the Mississippi River

23 is approximately 980 ft wide in the vicinity of the Monticello site. This portion of the river is also

24 shallow, averaging about 6.2 ft deep (Knutson et al. 1976). Within backwaters and protected

25 shoreline areas, the river is less than 2 ft deep with silt and mud substrates, whereas the main

26 channel substrates consist of gravel, rubble, and boulders with some sand (Afzal et al. 1975).

27 River flow past Monticello averages 7217 cfs, which meets the NRC's annual flow criterion for

28 classification as a small river. Flow has ranged from a minimum of 240 cfs to a maximum of

29 51,000 cfs. It exceeds 1100 cfs 90 percent of the time, and 300 cfs 99 percent of the time. 

30 Ambient river temperature in summer averages 71oF, while winter temperatures are at freezing

31 (32/F) (NMC 2005b). 

32 A number of physical and chemical stresses have caused major changes and modifications to

33 the aquatic resources within the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Dams and six associated

34 headwater reservoirs occur on the Mississippi River between its headwaters at Lake Itasca and

35 St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam (river mile [RM] 854) near the Twin Cities. However, as the

36 river is not used for commercial navigation above the Twin Cities, there are no locks on these

37 headwater dams (NMC 2005a). The Mississippi River in Minnesota is used for a variety of

38 purposes, including drinking water, industrial use, irrigation, recreation, tourism, and
Description of Site and Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 2-20 January 2006

1 conservation. The warm water discharges from Monticello provide year-round fishing

2 opportunities at Montissippi County Park (the nearest point of access to the river downstream

3 from Monticello) (NMC 2005a).

4 Fish consumption guidelines have been established in Minnesota due to the high levels of

5 mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) found in some species (Minnesota Department

6 of Health 2005). The guidelines are more restrictive for pregnant women, women who may

7 become pregnant, and children under age 15 than for the general population. Consumption

8 guidelines exist within the reach of the Mississippi River that includes Monticello for various

9 species of sunfish, suckers, catfish, and other game fish mainly due to the presence of

10 mercury; although guidelines for common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and channel catfish (Ictalurus

11 punctatus) are also associated with potential PCB contamination (Minnesota Department of

12 Health 2005).

13 Despite the modifications and multiple competing uses of the Upper Mississippi River, the

14 overall fish biodiversity has been persistent and resilient (USGS 1999). In Minnesota,

15 75 species of fish have been reported within the upper portion of the Mississippi River (Hatch

16 and Schmidt 2004). Fifty-one species have been collected by electroshocking and seining in

17 the Monticello site vicinity (Xcel Energy 2004). The fish community in the Monticello area has

18 remained about the same since before the plant became operational, with only minor

19 differences occurring between areas upstream and downstream from the Monticello discharge

20 (Xcel Energy 2004). Among the 27 species collected by electroshocking, the major species

21 include the shorthead redhorse (Moxostoma macrolepidotum), silver redhorse (M. anisurum),

22 common carp, smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), northern hog sucker (Hypentelium

23 nigricans), white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), channel catfish, and walleye (Sander

24 vitreus). The channel catfish was first collected in electroshocking samples in 1988, and has

25 been consistently collected since then (Xcel Energy 2004). Forty-four species have been

26 collected in seining samples since 1970. The major species collected included the sand shiner

27 (Notropis stramineus), spotfin shiner (Cyprinella spiloptera), bluntnose minnow (Pimephales

28 notatus), and bigmouth shiner (N. dorsalis) (Xcel Energy 2004).

29 The Monticello area is considered rough fish habitat due to the prevalence of shorthead

30 redhorse, silver redhorse, white sucker, and common carp (Afzal et al. 1975). The spotfin and

31 sand shiners are the major forage fish species in the area (Xcel Energy 2004); common game

32 species included smallmouth bass, black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), yellow perch

33 (Perca flavescens), and walleye. Other sport fish include northern pike (Esox lucius), common

34 carp, and black bullhead (Ameiurus melas) (Amish et al. 1978). There is no commercial fishery

35 near Monticello (Amish et al. 1978).

36 Some Mississippi River species such as quillback (Carpiodes cyprinus), gizzard shad

37 (Dorosoma cepedianum), lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens), and paddlefish (Polyodon

38 spathula) were absent in the upper reaches of the Mississippi River due to river blockage at

39 St. Anthony Falls. However, the construction of St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam in 1963

40 removed this barrier to fish passage. As a result, species such as channel catfish, flathead
Description of Site and Environment

January 2006 2-21 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), gizzard shad, northern hog sucker, golden redhorse (Moxostoma

2 erythrurum), and white crappie (Pomoxis annularis) now occur above St. Anthony Falls. The

3 Coon Rapids Dam (RM 866), located approximately 12 mi upstream from St. Anthony Falls,

4 remains a barrier to upstream movement; although some fishes can circumvent the dam at

5 times (e.g., during floods) (Hatch et al. 2003). This may account for the presence of channel

6 catfish, northern hog sucker, white crappie, and, most recently, flathead catfish near Monticello.

7 The major primary producers within the Monticello area are periphyton. The periphyton

8 community consists of diatoms, blue-green algae, green algae, and golden algae; periphyton

9 contributes an estimated 60 to 82 percent of the primary production in the Monticello area. 

10 Nearly 150 species of periphyton were collected near Monticello between 1968 and 1976, and

11 were dominated by diatom species throughout the year. During the summer, blue-green algae

12 were co-dominant with diatoms (Amish et al. 1978). Peak periphyton production occurs in

13 summer. Species composition was found to be similar between preoperational and operational

14 years (Amish et al. 1978). Phytoplankton is generally not abundant in flowing waters. Most of

15 the phytoplankton that occurs in the main river channel originates from backwater areas and

16 from periphyton scour. Phytoplankton in the Upper Mississippi River is dominated by diatoms

17 and green algae, and contributes 18 to 40 percent of the primary productivity in the Monticello

18 area (Amish et al. 1978).

19 Between 1968 and 1970, the only macrophytes found in the immediate area near Monticello

20 were the American pondweed (Potamogeton nodosus), sago pondweed (Stuckenia pecinatus),

21 and antifever fontinglis moss (Fontinalis antipyretica). The macroscopic green alga Cladophora

22 glomerata also occurs in the area. Overall, macrophytes abundance is low in the Monticello

23 area due to fast-moving currents and shifting sand and gravel substrates (Amish et al. 1978).

24 Zooplankton populations are limited within the main channel of the Mississippi River near

25 Monticello due to high gradients. Near Monticello, the zooplankton community is comprised of

26 protozoans, rotifers, cladocerans, and copepods (Afzal et al. 1975; Amish et al. 1978).

27 The benthic macroinvertebrate community near Monticello includes oligochaetes (aquatic

28 annelid worms), mayflies, caddisflies, aquatic beetles, midges, black flies, aquatic snails, and

29 fingernail clams (Amish et al. 1978). The non-channel areas of the Upper Mississippi River

30 consistently support more species than the main channel area (USGS 1999). Near Monticello,

31 66 genera of macroinvertebrates were collected in the backwaters, while only 24 genera were

32 collected from the main channel (Amish et al. 1978).

33 The Upper Mississippi River contains a rich assemblage of freshwater mussels. Historically, as

34 many as 50 species of mussels have been documented from the Upper Mississippi River, but

35 only 30 species have been reported in recent surveys. Many are rare (e.g., listed as

36 endangered, threatened, or of special concern by one or more states [USGS 1999]). The

37 freshwater mussels within the Upper Mississippi River have been adversely impacted by

38 activities such as collection for the pearl button and cultured pearl industries, siltation

39 (associated with agriculture, poor land management, and impoundments), pollution from
Description of Site and Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 2-22 January 2006

1 agriculture and industrial chemicals, establishment and maintenance of the navigation channel,

2 dams, loss of appropriate fish host species, and competition from exotic species, particularly

3 the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) (USGS 1999; Weitzell et al. 2003).

4 The range of some mussel species has been expanding above St. Anthony Falls as fish hosts

5 for mussel glochidia (ectoparasitic larvae of native freshwater mussels) can now circumnavigate

6 the two navigation locks at this location (Kelner and Davis 2002). Approximately 13 mussel

7 species currently occur upstream of St. Anthony Falls (Siteman 2003). Only six species were

8 recently collected above Coon Rapids Dam: white heelsplitter (Lasmigona complanata), giant

9 floater (Pyganodon grandis), plain pocketbook (Lampsilis cardium), fatmucket (Lampsilis.

10 siliquoidea), black sandshell (Ligumia recta), and pink heelsplitter (Potamilus alatus) (Kelner

11 and Davis 2002). No information on mussel species within the immediate area of Monticello is

12 available. 

13 The zebra mussel became established in the Upper Mississippi River by 1992 and has

14 continued to spread throughout the river system. Its increase causes a decline among many

15 native mussels, as it can out-compete native species for oxygen and food and is so prolific that

16 it can smother native mussel beds (FWS 2001). To date, populations of the zebra mussel

17 within the Mississippi River have not been found above the Twin Cities area (St. Anthony Falls

18 Lock and Dam) (MNDNR 2005). They were not observed between RM 854 and RM 848

19 (Pool 1) and were found to be sparse between RM 848 and RM 797 (Pools 2 and 3) (Kelner

20 and Davis 2002). Similarly, the Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea), another invasive mollusc

21 species that can cause condenser tube clogging problems, has not been found above the Twin

22 Cities area of the Mississippi River (Siteman 2003).

23 Few Federally or State-listed aquatic species (see Table 2-3) are known to occur in the four

24 counties in which Monticello and the related transmission lines of concern occur (i.e., Wright,

25 Sherburne, Hennepin, and Anoka counties) (see Table 2-3). No Federally or State-listed fish

26 species have been collected from the Mississippi River near the Monticello site (Xcel Energy

27 2004). The Higgins' eye pearlymussel (Lampsilis higginsii) is the only Federally listed aquatic

28 species reported from the four-county area (Hennepin County), and this species is both

29 Federally and State-listed as endangered (FWS 2005a,c). Two State-listed mussel species of

30 special concern (MNDNR 2005), the creek heelsplitter (Lasmigona compressa) and black

31 sandshell, have been reported downstream from the Monticello site within the Coon Rapids

32 Pool of the Mississippi River and within the Rum River in the Hennepin and Anoka counties

33 area (Kelner and Davis 2002). 
Description of Site and Environment

January 2006 2-23 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Table 2-3. Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of

2 Monticello and the Associated Transmission Corridors

3 Status(a)

4 Scientific Name Common Name Minnesota U.S.

5 Lampsilis higginsii Higgins’ eye pearlymussel E E

6 Lasmigona compressa creek heelsplitter SPC —

7 Ligumia recta black sandshell SPC —

8 Source: FW S 2005a,c; MNDNR 2005; Kelner and Davis 2002

(a) 9 E = endangered, SPC = species of concern, — = no listing.

10

11 The Higgins' eye pearlymussel was Federally listed as an endangered species on

12 June 14, 1976 (FWS 1976). It is only found in the Mississippi River, the St. Croix River in

13 Wisconsin, the Wisconsin River, and the Rock River in Illinois. It was never abundant,

14 historically comprising approximately 0.5 percent of the mussel population. At the time the

15 original recovery plan was written in 1982, the Higgins' eye pearlymussel had undergone a 53

16 percent decrease in its known range (FWS undated). The Higgins' eye pearlymussel most

17 frequently occurs in medium to large rivers with current velocities of approximately 0.5 to 1.5

18 ft/s and in depths of 3 to 20 ft, with firm, coarse sand or mud-gravel substrates (FWS 2000,

19 2001). It is generally found in mussel beds with at least 15 other species present (Hornbach

20 2004).

21 Much of the historic habitat for the Higgins' eye pearlymussel has been altered from a

22 free-flowing river system to an impounded river system. This has altered flow patterns,

23 substrates, and fish host habitats and movements (FWS 2001). Other impacts to the species

24 have included water quality degradation from municipal, industrial, and agricultural run-off;

25 dredging; waterway traffic; and, particularly, zebra mussels (FWS 2004a; Hornbach 2004).

26 No critical habitat has been designated for the Higgins' eye pearlymussel. However, ten

27 Essential Habitat Areas (EHAs) for the Higgins' eye pearlymussel occur within the Upper

28 Mississippi River watershed. EHAs are locations known to contain reproducing populations of

29 the Higgins' eye pearlymussel in association with a healthy and diverse unionid community

30 (e.g., mussel beds) (Hornbach 2004). No EHAs within the Mississippi River occur close to the

31 Monticello site (RM 900). The most upstream area is at Whiskey Rock, Iowa, (RM 656) which

32 is over 240 RM downstream of the Monticello site. However, three EHAs occur in the St. Croix

33 River, which flows into the Mississippi River at RM 811, downstream from Lock and Dam 2

34 (Hornbach 2004). The furthest upstream Essential Habitat Area on the St. Croix River is the

35 only EHA that is free of zebra mussels (Hornbach 2004).

36 Suitable fish hosts for the glochidia of the Higgins’ eye pearlymussel include freshwater drum

37 (Aplodinotus grunniens), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), black crappie, yellow perch,

38 sauger (Sander canadensis), and walleye; while marginal fish hosts include northern pike,

39 bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and green sunfish (L. cyanellus) (Hornbach 2004).
Description of Site and Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 2-24 January 2006

1 In 2000-2001, an empty Higgins' eye pearlymussel shell was collected from Upper Pool 3

2 (RM 815) of the Mississippi River (near the area where the St. Croix River enters the Mississippi

3 River) (Kelner and Davis 2002). Since 2000, individual Higgins' eye pearlymussels have been

4 transplanted from areas near Cassville, Wisconsin, and Cordova, Illinois, to Pools 2 and 3 near

5 Minneapolis and Hastings, Minnesota, respectively. Additionally, cleaning of mussels infested

6 with zebra mussels and artificial propagation and release have been conducted to alleviate the

7 effects of zebra mussels on the Higgins' eye pearlymussel (Hornbach 2004).

8 The State-listed creek heelsplitter is a widespread but generally uncommon species. It

9 generally occurs in fine gravel or sand substrates of small- or medium-sized rivers (NPS 2004). 

10 Host fish species for the creek heelsplitter include the spotfin shiner, guppy (Poecilia reticulata),

11 slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus), black crappie, and yellow perch (NPS 2004). It is most

12 common, but seldom abundant, in headwater streams (Siteman 2003).

13 The black sandshell, which is also State-listed, is a widespread but generally uncommon

14 species. It occurs in medium to large rivers, in gravel or firm sand substrates (NPS 2004). 

15 Host fish species include common carp, green sunfish, bluegill, largemouth bass, rock bass

16 (Ambloplites rupestris), and white crappie (NPS 2004). It can be common to abundant where it

17 occurs (Siteman 2003).

18 2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources

19 The plant site comprises approximately 2150 ac and has roughly 2 mi of shoreline on the north

20 and south banks of the Mississippi River in Wright and Sherburne counties (NMC 2005a,b). 

21 The Monticello site is located in an upland region of low relief dominated by rivers, streams, and

22 lakes (NMC 2005a). Land use within the region is primarily agricultural; therefore, natural

23 deciduous climax vegetation communities previously found within the city limits of Monticello

24 have been reduced to remnant patches of maple (Acer spp.), basswood (Tilia americana), elm

25 (Ulmus spp.), oak (Quercus spp.), and hackberry (Celtis occidentalis). These remnants are

26 restricted mostly to larger river islands and small isolated pockets along the river banks (AEC

27 1972). Prior to European settlement, the southern sections of the Upper Mississippi River

28 Basin, where Monticello and its associated transmission line corridors are located, were a mix

29 of prairie, wetland prairie, oak woodland, brushland, and maple-basswood forest (MPCA 2000). 

30 Terrestrial habitats on the Monticello site include formerly cultivated fields in various stages of

31 ecological succession, with remnant climax hardwood forest in isolated pockets along the river

32 and on the larger islands, and some actively cultivated fields (AEC 1972). Of the 2150 ac

33 encompassed by the Monticello site, the majority of acreage is located on the southern side of

34 the Mississippi River, with approximately 450 ac on the northern side of the river (NMC 2005a). 

35 Approximately 50 ac are developed and occupied by the Monticello plant and supporting

36 facilities, with an additional 174 ac leased to local farmers for row crop production (NMC

37 2005a). Approximately 144 ac are leased for recreational purposes, while the remainder is

38 undeveloped. 
Description of Site and Environment

January 2006 2-25 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 The terrestrial habitats near the Monticello site support a variety of plant and animal species

2 that are typical of free-flowing, upper-midwestern rivers (NMC 2005a). In general, facilities in

3 use at the Monticello site are located on previously cultivated areas and consist of early

4 succession forbs and grasses. Upland forests on the Monticello site are predominately

5 northern pin oak (Quercus ellipsoidalis), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), basswood, and

6 prickly ash (Zanthosxylum americanum). Forested wetlands on the northeast bank of the river

7 and the river islands include American elm (Ulmus americana), box elder (Acer negundo), silver

8 maple (A. saccharinum), cottonwood (Populus deltoides), and black willow (Salix nigra) (MCBS

9 1998).

10 MNDNR has identified the following native plant communities as occurring on the Monticello

11 site: floodplain forest, silver maple–Virginia creeper floodplain forest, bur oak woodland, oak

12 woodland brushland, willow swamp, dry oak savannah, and dry prairie. Representative

13 localities are as follows: the floodplain forest community is known to occur on the northeast

14 bank of the Mississippi River and on the portion of the Monticello site in Wright County. The

15 silver maple–Virginia creeper floodplain forest community is found to occur on Cedar Island

16 (NMC 2005a). Patches of bur oak woodland community occur south and west of the power

17 block (Hoffman 2004). Two patches of oak woodland brushland occur adjacent to the river in

18 Sherburne county (Hoffman 2004; Delaney and Epp 1993; MNDNR 1993). The willow swamp

19 community, dominated by shrubby willow (Salix spp.), occurs on Oxbow Island located on the

20 north side of the Mississippi River and downstream of the station. An area of dry oak savannah

21 occurs on the Sherburne County side of the site, on the first terrace north of the Mississippi

22 River (NMC 2005a). An area of dry prairie occurs to the west of the power block on the narrow

23 sloping area between the railroad right-of-way and the Mississippi River (NMC 2005a).

24 Extensive farming, logging, and grazing have occurred throughout these plant communities,

25 which are, therefore, much changed from the original climax condition (AEC 1972). There are

26 no public waters or wetlands within the Monticello site that are designated as protected under

27 Minnesota Statute 103G.005 (MNDNR 1983, 1984, 2004a), although the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

28 Service (FWS) National Wetland Inventory indicated that wetlands exist along the Mississippi

29 River and on islands as seasonally flooded patches of scrub-scrub, deciduous forest, and

30 emergent vegetation (DOI 1991). 

31 Mammals typical of the area and identified within the Monticello site include white-tailed deer

32 (Odocoileus virginianus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), raccoon (Procyon lotor), red squirrel

33 (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), short-tailed shrew (Blarina

34 brevicauda), southern red-backed vole (Cleithrionomys gapperi), meadow vole (Microtus

35 pennsylvanicus), mice (Peromyscus spp.), pocket gopher (Geomys bursarius), white-tailed

36 jackrabbit (Lepus townsendii), beaver (Castor canadensis), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), gray

37 fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), coyote (Canis latrans), fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), chipmunk

38 (Tamias striatus), mink (Mustela vison), weasels (Mustela frenata, M. erminea, M. nivalis), and

39 striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) (AEC 1972; NMC 2005b). 
Description of Site and Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 2-26 January 2006

1 Furthermore, the Sherco Environmental Monitoring and Ecological Studies Program identified

2 99 avian species over a ten-year monitoring period during breeding season road transects

3 surveys and in a floodplain near the Monticello site. The most abundant species observed

4 during these surveys were mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), cliff swallow (Petrochelidon

5 pyrrhonota), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), American robin (Turdus migratorius), European

6 starling (Sturnus vulgaris), vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), red-winged blackbird

7 (Agelaius phoeniceus), common grackle (Quiscalus quicula), American goldfinch (Carduelis

8 tristis), and house sparrow (Passer domesticus). Game species commonly harvested within the

9 vicinity of Monticello are ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), grey partridge (Perdix perdix) and

10 ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) (NMC 2005a). Waterfowl commonly encountered

11 along the river shoreline are Canada goose (Branta canadensis), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos),

12 and wood duck (Aix sponsa). Grassland/woodland ecotone avian species include eastern

13 meadowlark (Sturnella magna), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), American robin, blue

14 jay (Cyanocitta cristata), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus),

15 red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and American kestrel (Falco sparverius) (NMC 2005a)

16 Two transmission lines in two corridors that are within scope of the license renewal review

17 originate from the Monticello site. These are discussed in Section 2.1.7. Major portions of both

18 corridors pass through rural areas, utilizing railroad rights-of-way (ROW) and highways where

19 possible. The Monticello-Coon Creek corridor is predominantly cultivated fields with scattered

20 forests and some wetlands. The Monticello-Parkers Lake corridor is a mix of agriculture, rural

21 residential, scattered forests, and wetlands (NMC 2005a). MNDNR identified native plant

22 communities of significant biodiversity associated with transmission corridors, as shown in

23 Table 2-4. The majority of transmission corridors are adjacent to the areas where native plant

24 communities occur and do not traverse them (NMC 2005a).

25

26 Table 2-4. State of Minnesota Identified Natural Communities in the Vicinity of the

27 Transmission Corridors

28 General Location Communities

Site Biodiversity

Significance

29 WRIGHT COUNTY

30 Immediately south of Monticello—ROW passes

31 through area

Dry prairie High

32 SHERBURNE COUNTY

33 Approximately 3 mi northeast of Monticello and

34 south of the Thompson Lake Area—ROW adjacent

35 to southernmost edge of area

Alder swamp

Rich fen 

Dry oak savanna

Moderate

36
Description of Site and Environment

January 2006 2-27 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

12 Table 2-4. (contd)

3 General Location Communities

Site Biodiversity

Significance

4 Approximately 4 m i northeast of City of Elk

5 River—ROW adjacent to southwest corner of area

Oak forest

Mixed hardwood swamp

Alder swamp

Tamarack swamp

W illow swamp

High

6 Approximately 1 m i northeast of City of Elk

7 River—ROW adjacent to northern boundary of area

Oak forest Moderate

8 ANOKA COUNTY

9 Approximately 3.5 mi southwest of Andover and

10 immediately west of Bunker Hills Regional

11 Park—ROW runs through area

Oak forest

Dry oak savanna

Outstanding

12 Approximately 1 m i south of Andover along State

13 Highway 78—ROW is adjacent to area

Dry oak savanna

Dry prairie

High

14 HENNEPIN COUNTY

15 Approximately .5 mi north of intersection of I-494

16 and Highway 9 in Plymouth—ROW adjacent to area

Maple-basswood forest High

17 Source: Hoffman 2004

18

19 There are no Federally designated critical habitats for threatened or endangered species within

20 the Monticello site or along the associated transmission corridors (FWS 2004b). The FWS has

21 designated 13 species known to occur in Minnesota as threatened or endangered, and 4

22 species known to occur in the state have been designated as candidates for such listing. 

23 However, only 2 of these species, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and the gray wolf

24 (Canis lupus) are indicated by the FWS as potentially occurring on or in the vicinity of the site or

25 transmission lines associated with Monticello (Table 2-5) (FWS 2005c). 

26 The bald eagle, listed as Federally threatened, is known to occur in the vicinity of the Monticello

27 site. Originally listed as endangered by the FWS in 1967, the bald eagle was down-listed to

28 threatened in 1995, and is currently proposed for delisting (Hoffmann 2004). The State's first

29 bald eagle survey in 1973 found 115 active nests; by 1995 the survey found over 600

30 (NMC 2005a). MNDNR has concluded that Minnesota's bald eagle population is growing slowly

31 but is at a healthy level (MNDNR 2004b). Bald eagles are typically associated with forested

32 areas near rivers and lakes where nest sites are readily available near food sources. One nest

33 site is known to occur just north-northwest of the power block on Beaver Island (NMC 2005a). 

34 One additional nest occurs on a transmission tower on the Monticello-Coon Creek transmission

35 line.
Description of Site and Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 2-28 January 2006

1 Table 2-5. Threatened and Endangered Terrestrial Species Potentially Occurring

2 in the Vicinity of Monticello and the Associated Transmission Corridors

3 Status(a)

4 Scientific Name Common Name Minnesota U.S.

5 BIRDS

6 Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle SPC T

7 Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike T —

8 Falco peregrinus peregrine falcon T —

9 Cygnus buccinator trumpeter swan T —

10 MAMM AL

11 Canis lupus gray wolf — T

12 REPTILE

13 Emydoidea blandingii Blanding’s turtle T —

14 INSECT

15 Hesperia uncas Uncas skipper E —

16 PLANT

17 Scleria triglomerata tall nut-rush E —

18 Source: Hoffman 2004

(a) 19 E = endangered, T = threatened, SPC = species of concern, — = no listing.

20 The gray wolf was listed in Minnesota as Federally endangered in 1974 as a result of human

21 persecution and reduced prey availability. Gray wolves in Minnesota were reclassified from

22 endangered to threatened in 1978, to allow for special regulation under Section 4(d) of the

23 Endangered Species Act. Since 1977, gray wolf populations in Minnesota have expanded. 

24 Population recovery goals of 1250 to 1400 individuals have been achieved, with populations at

25 or above that level since the late 1970s (FWS 2005e). Today, wolves live in areas with higher

26 road and human densities than previously believed to be suitable for wolf survival. Wolves

27 continue to disperse to areas in west-central and east-central Minnesota (just north of

28 Minneapolis/St. Paul), North and South Dakota, and Wisconsin (FWS 2005e). As gray wolf

29 populations recover, it is likely that they will be within the vicinity of transmission corridors of

30 interest to the license renewal of Monticello. However, gray wolves have not been sighted in

31 the Monticello area to date.

32 The MNDNR has determined that the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), loggerhead shrike

33 (Lanius ludovicianus), and trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator) are known to occur within the

34 vicinity of Monticello and associated transmission line corridors (MNDR 2004c). All of these

35 species are listed as threatened by the State of Minnesota. With the installation of a nest box

36 on the Monticello Off Gas Stack in 1992, peregrine falcons have been breeding successfully at

37 the site since 1995 (NMC 2005a). The loggerhead shrike, a grassland and open-land species,

38 is known to occur on site and in the vicinity of Monticello. It has been documented in several

39 areas along the transmission corridors in Anoka and Sherburne counties (NMC 2005a).
Description of Site and Environment

January 2006 2-29 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Trumpeter swans are increasing in numbers on the Mississippi River, and wintering swans

2 readily use open water associated with warm water discharged to the river and available food

3 (NMC 2005a). 

4 One State-listed threatened reptile, the Blanding's turtle (Emydoidea blandingii), is documented

5 by MNDNR as occurring in the vicinity of the transmission corridors in Anoka and Sherburne

6 counties. In Sherburne County, the transmission corridor passes through land classified by

7 MNDNR as "known concentration areas" of Blanding's turtles. There are fifteen known areas

8 throughout Minnesota (Hoffman 2004).

9 A State-listed endangered butterfly, the Uncas skipper (Hesperia uncas), is documented by

10 MNDNR as occurring in the vicinity of the transmission corridor in Sherburne County (Hoffmann

11 2004). Uncas skippers are associated with xeric prairies and open woodlands, which are

12 declining due to fire suppression and natural forestation (Hoff 2000). 

13 The tall nut-rush (Scleria triglomerata), a State-listed endangered species, occurs in the vicinity

14 of the transmission corridor that passes through Bunker Hills Regional Park. Tall nut-rush is

15 associated with dry or moist sandy ground in prairies and in the borders of marshes

16 (Hoffmann 2004).

17 2.2.7 Radiological Impacts

18 Monticello conducts an annual REMP in and around the Monticello site and publishes an

19 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report (NMC 2005d). Through this program,

20 radiological impacts to employees, the public, and the environment are monitored, documented,

21 and compared to the appropriate standards. The objectives of the REMP are the following:

22 • Provide representative measurements of radiation levels and radioactive materials in the

23 exposure pathways and of the radionuclides that have the highest potential for radiation

24 exposures to members of the public; and

25 • Supplement the radiological effluent monitoring program by verifying that the measurable

26 concentrations of radioactive materials and levels of radiation are not higher than expected

27 on the basis of effluent measurements and the modeling of the environmental exposure

28 pathways. 

29 Radiological releases are summarized in two Monticello reports: the Annual Radiological

30 Environmental Operating Report (NMC 2005d) and the Radioactive Effluent Release Report

31 (NMC 2005e). The limits for all radiological releases are specified in the Monticello ODCM

32 (NMC 2004b), and these limits are used to meet Federal standards and requirements. The

33 REMP includes monitoring of the waterborne environment (ground, water, and shoreline

34 sediment); airborne environment (airborne radioiodine, gross beta, and gamma); ingestion
Description of Site and Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 2-30 January 2006

1 pathways (milk, fish and invertebrates, and food products); and direct radiation. The REMP

2 found that there were no indications of Monticello effects on the environment (NMC 2005d).

3 A review of historical data on releases from Monticello and the resultant dose calculations

4 revealed that the calculated doses to maximally exposed individuals in the vicinity of Monticello

5 were a small fraction of the limits specified in the Monticello ODCM (NMC 2004b) to meet

6 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I and EPA radiation standards in 40 CFR Part 190. For 2004, dose

7 estimates were calculated based on actual liquid and gaseous effluent release data and

8 conservative models to simulate the transport mechanisms. The results are described in the

9 2004 Radioactive Effluent Release Report (NMC 2005e). A breakdown of the calculated

10 maximum dose to an individual located at the Monticello boundary from liquid and gaseous

11 effluents released during 2004 is summarized as follows: 

12 • The maximum whole-body dose to offsite member of the general public from liquid effluents

was 1.94 x 10-10 13 mrem, well below the 3 mrem dose limit in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. 

14 • The maximum whole-body dose to the likely most exposed member of the general public

15 from gaseous effluents was 0.022 mrem, well below the 5 mrem dose limit in 10 CFR

16 Part 50, Appendix I. 

17 The applicant does not anticipate any significant changes to the radioactive effluent releases or

18 exposures from Monticello operations during the renewal period and, therefore, the impacts to

19 the environment are not expected to change.

20 2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors

21 2.2.8.1 Housing

22 Approximately 414 permanent employees and 105 contract and matrixed employees work at

23 Monticello (NMC 2005a). Approximately 41 percent of these employees live in Wright County,

24 32 percent live in Sherburne County, 7.5 percent live in Hennepin County, and 7.5 percent live

25 in Stearns County. The remaining employees (approximately 12 percent) live in various other

26 locations (NMC 2005a). Given the predominance of NSP employees living in Wright County

27 and Sherburne County, as well as the absence of the likelihood of significant socioeconomic

28 effects in other locations, the focus of the analysis undertaken in this supplemental

29 environmental impact statement (SEIS) are on these counties. 

30 NSP refuels Monticello on a nominal 22- to 24-month cycle. During refueling outages, site

31 employment increases by as many as 600 temporary workers for 30 to 40 days. Many of these

32 workers are assumed to be temporarily located in the same geographic areas as the permanent

33 staff. 
Description of Site and Environment

January 2006 2-31 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Table 2-6. Housing Units and Housing Units Vacant (Available) by County During

2 1990 and 2000

3 1990 2000

Approximate Percentage

Change

4 WRIGHT COUNTY

5 Housing Units 26,353 34,355 30

6 Occupied Units 23,013 31,465 37

7 Vacant Units 3,340 2,890 –14

8 SHERBURNE COUNTY

9 Housing Units 14,964 22,827 53

10 Occupied Units 13,643 21,581 58

11 Vacant Units 1,321 1,246 –6

12 Sources: USCB 1990, 2000b

13 Table 2-6 provides the number of housing unit vacancies for Wright and Sherburne counties for

14 1990 and 2000, the latest year for which information is available. 

15

16 2.2.8.2 Public Services

17 • Water Supply

18 This discussion of public water systems focuses on Wright and Sherburne counties because

19 the majority of Monticello employees reside in these counties (NMC 2005a). Local

20 municipalities provide public potable water service to residents who do not have individual

21 onsite wells. These providers are subject to regulation under the Federal Safe Drinking Water

22 Act, as implemented by the State of Minnesota Department of Health. 

23 • Description of Site and Environment

24 Most water systems in the two-county area are operating below maximum capacity. Portions of

25 both Wright and Sherburne counties are experiencing significant population growth, and several

26 municipal water systems (Elk River, Joint Powers Water Board, and Otsego) are responding by

27 increasing capacity with additional wells (EPA 2005). 

28 Table 2-7 provides the details of Wright and Sherburne counties’ respective water suppliers and

29 capacities.
Description of Site and Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 2-32 January 2006

1 Table 2-7. Major Public Water Supply Systems in Wright and Sherburne Counties

2 Water System

Maximum Daily 

Capacity (ft3/s)

Average Daily 

Capacity (ft3/s)

3 WRIGHT COUNTY

4 Annandale 2.67 0.39

5 Buffalo 8.47 1.86

6 Cokato 2.23 0.53

7 Delano 3.34 0.62

8 Howard Lake 1.34 0.16

9 Joint Powers Board System 13.14 2.74

10 Maple Lake 0.67 0.26

11 Monticello 12.13 1.72

12 Montrose 2.45 0.23

13 Otsego 8.91 0.48

14 Rock ford 5.46 0.62

15 SHERBURNE COUNTY

16 Becker 1.86 0.39

17 Big Lake 8.91 0.81

18 Elk River 12.25 5.73

19 Zimmerman 1.11 0.60

20 Source: NMC 2005a

21

22 • Education

23 In 2002, 19,991 students attended Wright County mainstream public schools and 15,156

24 students attended Sherburne County mainstream public schools (NCES 2005). Although the

25 region’s two school districts do not keep track of the number of Monticello employees’ children

26 attending district schools, it is likely that they are served by these schools because a majority of

27 these employees live in Wright and Sherburne counties.

28
Description of Site and Environment

January 2006 2-33 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 • Transportation

2 Road access to Monticello is south of the power block via Wright County Road 75, a two-lane

3 paved road that runs roughly parallel to Interstate 94 in the vicinity of the site. Interstate 94

4 runs northwest from Minneapolis and passes within a mile southwest of the site. Access points

5 to the Interstate are approximately 4 mi to the southeast and 6 mi to the northwest of the site, at

6 the State Highway 25 intersection in Monticello and the Wright County Road 9 intersection,

7 respectively. Access to Sherburne County is via the State Highway 25 bridge in the City of

8 Monticello, approximately 3.5 mi to the south, and the State Highway 24 bridge at Clearwater,

9 approximately 11 mi to the north. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MDOT) does

10 not normally calculate and keep up-to-date Level of Service (LOS) determinations for either

11 state or county roadways; however, LOS information based on threshold values developed by

12 MDOT for use in District Long Range Transportation Plans was available for State Highways 24

13 and 25 and Interstate 94 in Wright County. LOS determinations were made for current traffic

14 volumes and with the addition of 60 additional vehicles assumed for license renewal. Results

15 reveal that these roadways could accommodate the demand represented by the NMC bounding

16 estimate for additional employees during the renewal term without a noticeable effect on level of

17 service. MDOT long-term future plans (10 to 20 year time frame) included adding capacity to

18 I-94 in the area and constructing a new river crossing that would improve conditions on

19 Highway 24. 

20 Table 2-8 lists roadways in the vicinity of Monticello and the average number of vehicles per

21 day, as determined by MDOT (2002).

22 Table 2-8. Traffic Counts for Roads in the Vicinity of Monticello

23 Roadway and Location

Annual Average Daily

Traffic

24 WRIGHT COUNTY

25 State Highway 25 from bridge south to I-94 22,600

26 State Highway 25 from I-94 south 6.6 mi 14,200

27 I-94 east of Highway 24 39,000

28 I-94 adjacent to the Monticello site 4,800

29 I-94 in the City of Monticello 45,400

30 State Highway 24 from I-94 south 5,500

31 W right County Road 8 north of I-94 1,700

32 W right County Road 8 south of I-94 1,500

33 W right County Road 75 south of State Highway 24 1,850

34 W right County Road 75 in vicinity of Enfield 1,050
Description of Site and Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 2-34 January 2006

1 Table 2-8. (contd)

2 Roadway and Location

Annual Average Daily

Traffic

3 SHERBURNE COUNTY

4 State Highway 24 bridge to Wright County Road 52 15,500

5 State Highway 24 from W right County Road 52 to

6 State Highway 10 

12,800

7 Highway 25 bridge 31,300

8 Highway 25 north of bridge 0.5 mi 16,200

9 Source: MDOT 2002

10

11 2.2.8.3 Offsite Land Use

12 In order to accommodate and regulate growth and development, Wright and Sherburne

13 counties have developed county-specific comprehensive growth management plans which

14 encourage growth in areas that can be served by existing infrastructure, while preserving open

15 space and environmentally sensitive areas. Sherburne County's plan was adopted in

16 December 1992 and updated in 2004. Wright County's plan was adopted in May 1988. Land

17 use planning and zoning regulations are primarily developed by the cities and towns within

18 Wright and Sherburne counties. Therefore, land use standards may vary greatly in different

19 regions within the counties. Neither county implements growth control measures that limit

20 residential housing development. As shown in Tables 2-9 and 2-10, land is available for new

21 housing developments in both Wright and Sherburne counties.

22 Table 2-9. Land Use in Wright County, 1980s

23 Land Use Acres Percent of Total

24 Cultivated fields 242,280 52

25 Residential (urban or rural) 73,890 16

26 Forest 63,740 14

27 W ater bodies 29,600 6

28 Pasture and open land 28,360 6

29 Marsh/wetland 17,170 4

30 Urban and misc. 7,680 2

31 Total 462,720 100

32 Source: W right County 1988

33
Description of Site and Environment

January 2006 2-35 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Table 2-10. Land Use in Sherburne County, 1991

2 Land Use Acres Percent of Total

3 Residential 14,440 5

4 Commercial/industrial 1,240 0.5

5 Incorporated areas 39,990 13.5

6 Agriculture 73,700 26

7 Open lands designated for environmental

8 protection and not available for development

34,100 12

9 Open lands available for development 122,530 43

10 Total 286,000 100

11 Source: Sherburne County 1992

12

13 Thirteen of the sixteen cities in Wright County have developed comprehensive land use plans

14 and guide growth and development in their communities through zoning subdividison

15 ordinances. The three cities that do not have active planning programs are the smallest in the

16 county (MDEED 2005a). Residential growth has been strongest in the northeastern cities, and

17 the United States Census Bureau (USCB) estimates show that Wright County was the 60th

18 fastest growing county in the nation for the period of 2000 to 2003 (USCB 2004). Agriculture is

19 the predominant land use in the county, accounting for 52 percent of total acreage (Wright

20 County 1988). 

21 Wetlands are an important natural resource in Wright County and development of associated

22 flood prone areas is restricted. Preservation of farmland is a major concern and goal of

23 planning efforts, as Wright County contains approximately 337,240 ac of farmland that the

24 State of Minnesota classifies as either prime or of statewide importance, based on soil quality,

25 growing season, and moisture supply characteristics (Wright County 1988). 

26 Sherburne County encompasses less land area than Wright County. Four of the six cities in

27 Sherburne County have developed comprehensive land use plans. The two that do not have

28 active planning programs are the smallest in the county (MDEED 2005b). Residential growth

29 has been the strongest in the southeastern cities and eastern townships, and the USCB

30 estimates show that Sherburne County is the 30th fastest growing county in the nation for the

31 period of 2000 to 2003 (USCB 2004). Open land is the county’s largest land use category,

32 accounting for 43 percent of the county's total land area (Sherburne County 1992). 

33 Wetlands are also an important natural resource in Sherburne County, and development is

34 restricted by county, State and Federal regulations. Only a small percentage of Sherburne

35 County is characterized by the State as prime farmlands or of statewide importance; however,

36 preservation of farmland and/or the rural character of the county is a major concern and goal of

37 planning efforts in Sherburne County (Sherburne County 1992).
Description of Site and Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 2-36 January 2006

1 Sherco, a coal-fired plant also owned by Xcel Energy, is the closest industrial facility on the

2 Mississippi river. Over 4500 ac comprise the Sherco site, the majority of which are leased for

3 agricultural purposes. 

4 Numerous public recreational and natural areas are located within 50 mi of the Monticello site.

5 Federal properties include 35 ac owned by the National Park Service in the Mississippi National

6 River and Recreation Area, as well as three Federal wildlife refuges. Three State parks, three

7 State forests, eighteen State Scientific and Natural Areas, and numerous State wildlife

8 management areas are also located within a 50-mi radius of the Monticello site (NMC 2005a). 

9 2.2.8.4 Visual Aesthetics and Noise

10 Monticello is situated on the north and south banks of the Mississippi River in Wright and

11 Sherburne counties. The local terrain is level to gently undulating. The area around Monticello

12 is largely small residential communities, farmland and forest. There are two 9-cell cooling

13 towers and one off-gas stack that is 328 ft high on the site. The Monticello site is visible from

14 the highway along its border. The off-gas stack is visible from the local community. The

15 majority of the physical plant is not visible from the local communities. Noise has not been

16 considered a problem due to the plant's distance from other communities.

17 2.2.8.5 Demography

18 Census data from 2000 found at the USCB website and geographic information system

19 software (ArcView) were used to determine demographic characteristics in the Monticello

20 vicinity. NRC guidance calls for the use of the most recent USCB decennial census data,

21 which, in the case of publication of the NMC ER (NMC 2005a), was the 2000 Census. 

22 Population was estimated from the Monticello site out to 50 mi. 

23 As derived from 2000 USCB information, approximately 166,860 people live within 20 mi of

24 Monticello. Applying the GEIS sparseness measures, Monticello has a population density of

133 persons/mi

2 25 within 20 mi of the plant, and therefore falls into Category 4 of NRC’s GEIS

26 sparseness classification. The City of Buffalo is the largest city in Wright County and has a

27 population of 10,097 persons (USCB 2000a). As estimated from 2000 USCB information,

28 approximately 2,740,995 people live within 50 mi of Monticello. This equates to a population

density of 349 persons/mi2 29 within 50 mi, and falls into Category 4 of NRC’s GEIS proximity

30 classification.

31 According to the GEIS sparseness and proximity matrix, the ranking (sparseness Category 4

32 and proximity Category 4), indicates that Monticello is located in a high-population area. All or

33 parts of 21 counties are located within 50 mi of the plant. 

34 The Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, Minnesota-Wisconsin Metropolitan Statistical Area

35 (MSA), which lies partially within a 50-mi radius of the plant, includes eleven Minnesota
Description of Site and Environment

January 2006 2-37 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 counties: Anoka, Carver, Chisago, Dakota, Hennepin, Isanti, Ramsey, Scott, Sherburne,

2 Washington, and Wright. This MSA also includes two Wisconsin counties: Pierce and

3 St. Croix. It is the 16th most populated MSA, with a current total population of approximately

4 2,968,806 (USCB 2000a). The St. Cloud, Minnesota MSA is entirely within Monticello’s 50-mi

5 radius and includes both Benton and Stearns counties. It is the 22nd most populated MSA,

6 with a current total population of approximately 167,392 (USCB 2000a). From 1970 to 2000,

7 Minnesota's average annual population growth rate was 0.9 percent, while the average annual

8 population growth rates of Wright and Sherburne Counties were 2.8 percent and 4.3 percent,

9 respectively (USCB 2000a).

10 In 2000, Minnesota reported a population count of 4.92 million people (USCB 2000a), or

11 1.75 percent of the U.S. population, ranking 21st in population among the 50 states and the

12 District of Columbia. By the year 2030, Minnesota is projected to have 6.27 million residents

13 and remain the 21st most populous state (USCB 2000a). Between the years 2000 and 2030,

14 Wright and Sherburne counties are projected to grow at average annual rates of 1.8 percent

15 and 2.97 percent, respectively (Sherburne County 2004). 

16 Table 2-11 shows estimated populations and annual growth rates (1980 to 2040) for Wright and

17 Sherburne counties, Minnesota, the counties with the greatest potential to be socioeconomically

18 affected by license renewal activities at Monticello. 

19 Table 2-11. Estimated Populations and Average Annual Growth Rates in Wright

20 and Sherburne Counties from 1970 to 2040

21 Wright County Sherburne County

22 Year Population Percent(a) Population Percent(a)

23 1970 38,933 --- 18,344 ---

24 1980 58,681 4.19 29,908 5.01

25 1990 68,710 1.59 41,945 3.44

26 2000 89,986 2.73 64,417 4.38

27 2010 109,700 2.00 86,320 2.97

28 2020 126,420 1.43 105,620 2.04

29 2030 139,020 0.95 121,920 1.45

30 2040 152,876 0.95 140,736 1.45

31 Sources: Years 1970 through 1990, USCB 1990; Year 2000, USCB 2000a; Years 2010

32 through 2030, MPSDC 2002; Year 2040 is a projection using previous decade’s rate of growth. 

(a) 33 Annual percent growth rate calculated using the equation N[t] = N[o] (1+r)t where N is

34 population, t is time in years, and r is the annual growth rate expressed as a decimal.

35
Description of Site and Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 2-38 January 2006

1 2.2.8.6 Economy

2 The economy within a 50-mi radius of Monticello is dominated by the cities of St. Paul and

3 Minneapolis. The Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area has an economic employment profile

4 led by services (29.6 percent), manufacturing (16.4 percent), trade (23.9 percent), government

5 (11.6 percent), construction (4.2 percent), transportation and public utilities (5.5 percent),

6 agriculture (1 percent), and finance, insurance and real estate (7.8 percent).

7 The annualized unemployment rate for the state of Minnesota in June 2005 was 3.9 percent. In

8 June 2005, Wright County had an unemployment rate of 3.5 percent and Sherburne County

9 had an unemployment rate of 3.8 percent (MDEED 2005c). The major employment facilities

10 within 10 mi of Monticello are listed in Table 2-12. The estimated per capita household income

11 in Minnesota in 2000 was $23,198. Wright and Sherburne counties had estimated per capita

12 household incomes of $21,844 and $21,322, respectively (USCB 2000b). 

13 In 2002 there were over 251,832 ac of farmland in Wright County, with an estimated market

14 value of $92,839,000. Within Wright County, major crops consisted of corn (8,573,296

15 bushels); wheat (90,974 bushels); barley (24,578 bushels); oats (67,850 bushels); soybeans

16 (2,249,289 bushels); and hay (90,307 tons, dry). A total of 178,451 ac were planted, with an

17 average farm size of 171 ac (Cornell 2004). 

18 Table 2-12. Major Employment Facilities Within 10 mi of the Monticello Site

19 Employer

Number of

Employees

20 Outlet Mall at Albertville 800

21 Progressive Contractors, Inc. 540

22 Buffalo Public Schools 514

23 W right County Government 450

24 Monticello Public Schools 450

25 Monticello-Big Lake Hospital 432

26 Xcel Energy 792

27 W al-Mart 890

28 Guardian Angels Care Center 372

29 Great River Energy 316

30 Source: MTED 2004

31

32 In 1997 there were over 105,042 ac of farmland in Sherburne County, with an estimated market

33 value of $42,760,000. Major crops consisted of corn (3,106,412 bushels); wheat (6,477

34 bushels); oats (22,423 bushels); sunflowers (38,800 pounds); soybeans (505,869 bushels); and
Description of Site and Environment

January 2006 2-39 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 hay (19,276 tons, dry). A total of 66,029 ac were planted in 1997, with an average farm size of

2 205 ac (Cornell 2004).

3 Monticello paid between $7.95 million and $12.22 million in property taxes each year between

4 1998 and 2002, which accounted for approximately 11 percent of the property taxes collected

5 over this period (see Table 2-13). 

6 Table 2-13. Property Taxes Paid from 1998 to 2002; Monticello Contribution to County

7 Property Tax Revenues

8 Year Total Revenues ($)

Property Tax Paid by

Monticello ($)

Percent of Total

Property Taxes

WRIGHT COUNTY(a) 9

10 1998 46,199,186 3,201,300 6.9

11 1999 48,271,892 2,915,700 6.0

12 2000 51,180,648 2,834,800 5.5

13 2001 56,286,501 2,692,600 4.8

14 2002 59,680,999 2,019,300 3.4

CITY OF MONTICELLO(b) 15

16 1998 9,395,052 2,803,500 29.8

17 1999 9,639,772 3,222,200 33.4

18 2000 12,320,300 3,166,500 25.7

19 2001 12,463,189 3,145,300 25.2

20 2002 13,782,998 3,384,700 24.6

SCHOOL DISTRICT 882(b) 21

22 1998 N/A 6,222,300 N/A

23 1999 28,056,186 5,725,500 20.4

24 2000 30,032,343 5,425,700 18.1

25 2001 33,301,451 5,445,300 16.4

26 2002 35,555,509 1,856,200 5.2

STATE GENERAL TAX(b) 27

28 2002 12,211,949,000 691,600 < 1

Source: (a) 29 Havala, Robert, W right County Auditor-Treasurer. Personal comm unication, 2005.

30 (b)W olfsteller, Rich, City of Monticello. Personal comm unication, 2005.

31

32
Description of Site and Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 2-40 January 2006

1 2.2.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources

2 This section discusses the cultural background and the known historic and archaeological

3 resources at the Monticello site and surrounding area. Information was obtained from review of

4 previous work conducted at the facility, consultations with the Minnesota State Historic

5 Preservation Office (MNSHPO), and reports of recent cultural resource work conducted in

6 Wright County.

7 2.2.9.1 Cultural Background

8 The basic prehistoric cultural framework for central Minnesota is broadly divided into three

9 periods based upon patterns documented in the archaeological record (Minnesota State

10 Museum 2005). The earliest time period when people were known to have been in the region is

11 referred to as the Paleoindian Period (10,000 B.C. to 6000 B.C.). The economy is thought to

12 have centered on big game hunting. Finely made projectile points such as Clovis and Folsom

13 are characteristic of this period. 

14 During the Archaic Period (6000 B.C. to 500 B.C.), settlement in the general area increased

15 significantly. The economy also changed, as Archaic peoples lived as semi-nomadic hunters

16 and gatherers, exploiting a much greater range of local resources than people had previously. 

17 The diversity of tools used similarly increased. 

18 The final prehistoric period is referred to as the Woodland Period (500 B.C. to A.D.1750), which

19 is marked by several changes in prehistoric life. The people made extensive use of burial

20 mounds during this time, some complex and containing many grave goods. Earthenware

21 pottery is also characteristic of the period. Evidence also reveals an increase in plant cultivation

22 and a more sedentary way of life compared to earlier periods. 

23

24 In the mid-17th century, when European explorers and fur traders began arriving in the region;

25 the area was mostly occupied by Dakota Indians. The French initially claimed the land, sold it

26 to Spain in 1762, repurchased it in 1800, and sold it to the United States in 1803 as part of the

27 Louisiana Purchase. In the mid-17th century, people of Ojibwe tribal descent began moving

28 westward into the area, in some cases causing conflict with the resident Dakota tribes. The

29 Minnesota Territory formed in 1849, Indian Treaties were agreed to in 1850, and statehood was

30 achieved in 1858 (Blegan 1975; Folwell 1956). 

31 Settlers, mostly of German and Swedish descent, began arriving in present-day Wright County

32 in the 1850s to farm. Settlement increased following the Civil War, stimulated by the arrival of

33 the railroad. Farming continued to dominate the local economy into the modern era

34 (Farnham 1976).
Description of Site and Environment

January 2006 2-41 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 2.2.9.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources at the Monticello Site

2 An archaeological records and literature search was conducted at the MNSHPO to identify

3 important resources that may be located in the area of potential effect. The area of potential

4 effect is defined by the NRC as the plant and its immediate environs. The plant is located on

5 the Mississippi River in an area typically considered to have high potential for archaeological

6 sites, and the area is known in Minnesota's early Indian and fur trade history.

7 The Final Environmental Statement (FES) for Monticello identified several properties within a

8 10-mi radius listed on the National Register of Historic Places, but none within the proposed

9 plant boundaries (AEC 1972; NSP 1971). The MNSHPO determined that there were no known

10 archaeological or architectural sites known in the immediate vicinity of the plant (Fridlay 1971).

11 Since the original FES was published, additional cultural resource work in the area has

12 confirmed the presence of cultural and historic resources in the vicinity of Monticello. No

13 resources have been identified within the plant boundaries, however, and none are anticipated

14 because of the disturbance created by the construction of the plant, as documented by aerial

15 photographs (Bloomberg 2005). Based on the absence of input from tribes with current or

16 historical ties to the region, no traditional cultural properties are believed to be located within the

17 area of potential effect. A review of plat maps from 1894, 1901, 1915, and 1931 housed at the

18 Minnesota State Historical Museum Library indicated that parts of the Monticello site were

19 owned as early as 1894. By 1915, the parcels had been purchased by Mississippi River

20 Electric Power Co., which planned to construct a dam at this location. 

21 2.2.10 Related Federal Project Activities and Consultations

22 The staff reviewed the possibility that activities of other Federal agencies might impact the

23 renewal of the OL for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. Any such activities could result in

24 cumulative environmental impacts and the possible need for the Federal agency to become a

25 cooperating agency for preparation of the SEIS.

26 The Mississippi National River and Recreation Area is located approximately 20 mi from the

27 Monticello site. The park's boundaries enclose approximately 54,000 ac and 72 mi of river that

28 extend in a narrow corridor along the river from Dayton to Hastings, Minnesota. The National

29 Park Service owns 35 ac (NPS 2005).

30 Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge is located approximately 9 mi to the northeast of the

31 Monticello site. This refuge is 30,700 ac and its primary mission is to represent a diverse

32 biological community characteristic of the transition zone between tall-grass prairie and forest. 

33 It also provides resting, nesting and feeding habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds, and

34 habitat for resident wildlife (FWS 2005b). 
Description of Site and Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 2-42 January 2006

1 The Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge is located approximately 41 mi from the

2 Monticello site. The refuge comprises 14,000 ac stretching for 34 mi from Fort Snelling State

3 Park to Jordan, Minnesota. The Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge also manages

4 fourteen county Wetland Management Districts (WMDs). This refuge assists in restoring

5 wetland and prairie habitats, and is a well-known area for bird watching (FWS 2005d). 

6 Crane Meadows National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1992 to preserve a large, natural

7 wetland complex. The 1825-ac refuge is located approximately 58 mi from the Monticello site,

8 and is an important stop for many migrating bird species. It harbors one of the largest nesting

9 populations of greater sandhill cranes in Minnesota. The refuge also serves as the base for the

10 Federal private lands program in Morrison County, which focuses on restoring drained wetlands

11 through voluntary agreements with landowners (FWS 2005f). 

12 The NRC is required under Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

13 to consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or

14 special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved. The NRC consulted with

15 the FWS. Consultation correspondence is included in Appendix E. 

16 2.3 References

17 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for

18 Protection Against Radiation."

19 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50,

20 Appendix I, "Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to

21 Meet the Criterion 'As Low as is Reasonably Achievable' for Radioactive Materials in

22 Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents."

23 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing

24 of Production and Utilization Facilities."

25 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, "Requirements for

26 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."

27 10 CFR Part 61. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 61, "Licensing

28 Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste."

29 40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,

30 "Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations."

31 40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 81,

32 "Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes."
Description of Site and Environment

January 2006 2-43 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Afzal, M., B.R. Oblad, B.B. Owen, F.P. Richards, and G.C. Slawson. 1975. "Effects of a

2 Heated Discharge on the Ecology of the Mississippi River 316(a) Type I Demonstration on the

3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Monticello, Minnesota." Prepared by NUS Corporation,

4 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

5 Amish, R.A., V.R. Kranz, B.D. Lorenz, D.B. Wilcox, L.K. Davis, and B.B. Owen, Jr. 1978. 

6 "Section 316(b) Demonstration for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant on the Mississippi

7 River at Monticello, Minnesota (NPDES Permit No. MN 0000868)." Prepared by NUS

8 Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis,

9 Minnesota.

10 Blegan, T.C. 1975. Minnesota: A History of the State. Second Edition. University of

11 Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

12 Bloomberg, B.L. 2005. Letter to Mr. James Holthaus, NMC. Subject: "Monticello Nuclear

13 Generating Plant." Minnesota Historic Preservation Office. Saint Paul, Minnesota. 

14 March 30, 2005.

15 Cornell. 2004. Ag Census. The U.S. Census of Agriculture 1987, 1992, 1997.

16 Delaney, B., and A. Epp. 1993. "Natural Communities and Rare Species of Sherburne County,

17 Minnesota. St. Paul, Minnesota." Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

18 Elliott, D.L., C.G. Holladay, W.R. Barchet, H.P. Foote, and W.F. Sandusky. 1987. Wind

19 Energy Resource Atlas of the United States. DOE/CH 10093-4, U.S. Department of Energy,

20 Washington, D.C.

21 Endangered Species Act. 16 USC 1531, et seq.

22 Farnham, D.R. 1976. D.R. Farnhams's History of Wright County. Wright County Historical

23 Society, Buffalo, Minnesota.

24 Folwell, W.W. 1956. A History of Minnesota, Volume I. Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul,

25 Minnesota.

26 Fridlay, Russell W. 1971. Letter to Mr. Daniel Muller, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. 

27 Subject: "Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit No. 1." Minnesota Historical Society. 

28 July 7, 1971.

29 Hatch, J.T., and K. Schmidt. 2004. Fishes of Minnesota Distribution in 8 Major Drainage

30 Basins. James Ford Bell Museum of Natural History, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Accessed at: 

31 http://www.gen.umn.edu/research/fish/fishes/distribution_table.html on June 17, 2005.
Description of Site and Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 2-44 January 2006

1 Hatch, J.T., K.P. Schmidt, D.P. Siems, J.C. Underhill, R.A. Bellig, and R.A. Baker. 2003. A

2 New Distributional Checklist of Minnesota Fishes, with Comments on Historical Occurrence. 

3 Minnesota Academy of Sciences, St. Louis Park, Minnesota. Accessed at: 

4 http://www.mnacadsci.org/Journal/03_ANewDistributionListOfMNFisheries.htm on

5 August 15, 2005.

6 High Plains Regional Climate Center (HPRCC). 2004. "BUFFALO, MN (211107) Period of

7 Record Monthly Climate Summary, Period of Record: 8/ 1/1948 to 3/31/2004." Accessed at: 

8 http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/cgi-bin/cli_perl_lib/cliMAIN.pl?mn1107 on September 1, 2005.

9 Hoff, M. 2000. "A Forest for All People." Minnesota Conservation Volunteer. Minnesota

10 Department of Natural Resources. Accessed at: 

11 http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/sepoct00/dunes.html on August 1, 2005.

12 Hoffmann, S.D. 2004. Correspondence from S.D. Hoffman, Minnesota Department of Natural

13 Resources, to Y. Abernethy, Constellation Nuclear Services. Subject: "Request for Natural

14 Heritage Information." July 28, 2005.

15 Hornbach, D.J. 2004. Higgins Eye Pearlymussel (Lampsilis higginsii) Recovery Plan: First

16 Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. Accessed at: 

17 http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plans/2004/040714.pdf on July 22, 2005.

18 Kelner, D., and M. Davis. 2002. Final Report: Mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) Survey of the

19 Mississippi National River and Recreation Corridor, 2000-01. Contract Report to the National

20 Park Service Mississippi National River and Recreation Areas and the Great Lakes Network

21 Inventory and Monitoring Program. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of

22 Ecological Services, St. Paul, Minnesota. Accessed at: 

23 http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/ecological_services/nongame/projects/consgrant_reports/2002_keln

24 er_davis.pdf on August 4, 2005.

25 Knutson, K.M., S.R. Berguson, D.L. Rastetter, M.W. Mischuk, F.B. May, and G.M. Kuhl. 1976. 

26 Seasonal Pumped Entrainment of Fish at the Monticello, MN Nuclear Power Installation. 

27 Prepared by Department of Biological Sciences, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud,

28 Minnesota for Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

29 Minnesota County Biological Survey (MCBS). 1998. Natural Communities and Rare Species of

30 Carver, Hennepin, and Scott Counties, Minnesota St. Paul, Minnesota.

31 Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (MDEED). 2005a. 

32 "Community Profile Results on MNPRO, Wright County." Accessed at: http://www.mnpro.com

33 on June 7, 2005.
Description of Site and Environment

January 2006 2-45 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (MDEED). 2005b. 

2 "Community Profile Results on MNPRO, Sherburne County." Accessed at: 

3 http://www.mnpro.com on June 7, 2005.

4 Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (MDEED). 2005c. 

5 Minnesota Department of Health. 2005. Fish Consumption Advice. Minnesota Department of

6 Health, St. Paul, Minnesota. Accessed at: http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/fish on

7 June 17, 2005.

8 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR). 1983. "Protected Waters and

9 Wetlands, Sherburne County Minnesota." Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,

10 St. Paul, Minnesota. Accessed at: 

11 http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/pwi/SHER1OF1.pdf on August 1, 2005.

12 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR). 1984. "Protected Waters and

13 Wetlands, Wright County Minnesota." Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul,

14 Minnesota. Accessed at: 

15 http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/pwi/WRIG1OF1.pdf on August 1, 2005.

16 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR). 1993. "Minnesota's Native

17 Vegetation. A Key to Natural Communities." Version 1.5. Minnesota Department of Natural

18 Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota. Accessed at

19 http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/ecological_services/nhnrp/nckey.pdf on August 1, 2005.

20 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR). 2004a. Public Water Inventory Maps

21 and Lists." Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota. Accessed at: 

22 http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/pwi/maps.html on August 1, 2005.

23 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR). 2004b. 2000 Minnesota Bald Eagle

24 Survey, December 2000. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota.

25 Accessed at: 

26 http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecological_services/nongame.project/baldeagle_survey.html on

27 August 1, 2005.

28 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR). 2004c. "Birds-Endangered,

29 Threatened & Special Concern Species." Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,

30 St. Paul, Minnesota. Accessed at: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ets/birds.html on August 1,

31 2005.

32 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR). 2005. Invasive Species of Aquatic

33 Plants & Animals in Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul,

34 Minnesota. Accessed at: 

35 http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/ecological_services/invasives/annualreport.pdf on June 17, 2005.
Description of Site and Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 2-46 January 2006

1 Minnesota Department of Transportation (MDOT). 2002. Average Annual Traffic AADT.

2 Minnesota Planning State Demographic Center (MPSDC). 2002. Minnesota Population

3 Projections, 2000-2030.

4 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 1979. Letter from T. Hoffman, Minnesota

5 Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, Minnesota, to D.E. Sells, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

6 Commission, Washington, D.C. Subject: "Environmental Issues—NSP Monticello Nuclear

7 Generating Plant." September 18, 1979.

8 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 2000. "Upper Mississippi River Basin Information

9 Document." Northern District, Brainerd Office. Accessed at: 

10 http://www.pac.state.mn.us/water/basins/uppermiss/bid-uppermiss.pdf on August 1, 2005.

11 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 2004a. 2004 Integrated Report: Surface Water

12 Section. St. Paul, Minnesota.

13 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 2004b. Letter from T. Biewen, Minnesota

14 Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, Minnesota, to Air Facility Operator. Subject: “Summary of

15 Facilities Pollutant Emissions.” October 5, 2004.

16 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 2005. “State Implementation Plans.” Accessed

17 at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/reports/sip-2004.pdf on September 1, 2005.

18 Minnesota State Museum. 2005. Minnesota Prehistory. Accessed at: 

19 http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/ on November 14, 2005.

20 Minnesota Trade and Economic Development (MTED). 2004. Accessed at: 

21 http://www/teed.state.mn.us2004.

22 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2005). Search for Public School Districts. 

23 Accessed at http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/district search on June 16, 2005.

24 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et. seq.

25 National Park Service (NPS). 2004. “Mississippi National River and Recreation Area.” 

26 National Park Service, Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, St. Paul, Minnesota. 

27 Accessed at: http://www.nps.gov/miss/index.html on August 5, 2005.

28 National Park Service (NPS). 2005. "Mississippi National River and Recreation Area." 

29 Accessed at: http://www.nps.gov/miss on June 7, 2005.

30 Northern States Power Company (NSP). 1971. Environmental Report Monticello Nuclear

31 Generating Plant. Minneapolis, Minnesota. November 3, 1971. 
Description of Site and Environment

January 2006 2-47 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Nuclear Management Company (NMC). 2001. 2000 Radioactive Effluent Release Report,

2 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Docket No. 50-263, License No. DPR-22, Nuclear

3 Management Company, LLC. Monticello, Minnesota. April 27, 2001.

4 Nuclear Management Company (NMC). 2002. 2001 Radioactive Effluent Release Report,

5 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Docket No. 50-263, License No. DPR-22, Nuclear

6 Management Company, LLC. Monticello, Minnesota. May 15, 2002.

7 Nuclear Management Company (NMC). 2003. 2002 Radioactive Effluent Release Report,

8 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Docket No. 50-263, License No. DPR-22, Nuclear

9 Management Company, LLC. Monticello, Minnesota. May 9, 2003.

10 Nuclear Management Company (NMC). 2004a. 2003 Radioactive Effluent Release Report,

11 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Docket No. 50-263, License No. DPR-22, Nuclear

12 Management Company, LLC. Monticello, Minnesota. May 15, 2004.

13 Nuclear Management Company (NMC). 2004b. Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, Monticello

14 Nuclear Generating Plant, ODCM-01.01, Revision 3. Monticello, Minnesota. February 11,

15 2004.

16 Nuclear Management Company (NMC). 2005a. Applicant's Environmental Report—Operating

17 License Renewal Stage, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. Docket No. 50-263, License No.

18 DPR-22. Monticello, Minnesota. 

19 Nuclear Management Company (NMC). 2005b. Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR),

20 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Docket No. 50-263, License No. DPR-22, Revision 21.

21 Monticello, Minnesota. February 2005.

22 Nuclear Management Company (NMC). 2005c. License Amendment Request - Full Scope

23 Application of an Alternate Source Term, Docket No. 50-263, License No. DPR-22, Nuclear

24 Management Company, LLC. Monticello, Minnesota. September 15, 2005.

25 Nuclear Management Company (NMC). 2005d. 2004 Annual Radiological Environmental

26 Operating Report, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Docket No. 50-263, License No.

27 DPR-22, Nuclear Management Company, LLC. Monticello, Minnesota. April 29, 2005.

28 Nuclear Management Company (NMC). 2005e. 2004 Radioactive Effluent Release Report,

29 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Docket No. 50-263, License No. DPR-22, Nuclear

30 Management Company, LLC. Monticello, Minnesota. May 9, 2005.

31 Ramsdell, J.V., Pacific Northwest Laboratory. 2005. E-mail correspondence to D. Armstrong

32 at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory documenting tornado probability estimate. ADAMS

33 Accession No. ML053260577. E-mail dated November 14, 2005.
Description of Site and Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 2-48 January 2006

1 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). 42 USC 201.

2 Sherburne County. 1992. Sherburne County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 

3 Sherburne County. 2004. Sherburne County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Updated.

4 Siteman, B.E. 2003. Field Guide to the Freshwater Mussels of Minnesota. Minnesota

5 Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota.

6 State Climatology Office (SCO). 2004. Accessed at: 

7 http://climate.umn.edu/doc/historical/tornadic.htm on August 2, 2005. 

8 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1972. Final Environmental Statement Related to

9 Operation of Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Northern States Power Company. Docket

10 No. 50-263, Washington, D.C.

11 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 1990. Census 1990. Table DP 1, General Population and

12 Housing Characteristics, 1990; Geographic Area Wright County, Minnesota and Sherburne

13 County, Minnesota.

14 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000a. Census 2000. Minnesota State Demographic Center. 

15 Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development.

16 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000b. Census 2000. Table DP-1, Profile of Selected Housing

17 Characteristics. Geographic Area Wright County, Minnesota and Sherburne County,

18 Minnesota.

19 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2004. "Population estimates for the 100 fastest growing U.S.

20 counties in 2003: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2004. Accessed at: 

21 http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/CO-EST2004-09.html on June 7, 2005.

22 U.S. Department of Interior (DOI). 1991. National Wetlands Inventory. Monticello Minnesota

23 15 Minute Quadrangle.

24 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. "8-Hour Ground-Level Ozone

25 Designations: Region 5, State Designations." Accessed at: 

26 http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/regions/region5desig.htm on September 1, 2005.

27 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. Safe Drinking Water Information System.

28 Accessed at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/sdw on November 14, 2005.

29 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1976. "Title 50—Wildlife and Fisheries. Chapter I—

30 United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. Part 1—Endangered and
Description of Site and Environment

January 2006 2-49 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Endangered Status for Taxa of Animals." Federal Register.

2 Vol. 41, pp. 24062-24067. June 14, 1976.

3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2000. Biological Opinion for the Operation and

4 Maintenance of the 9-Foot Navigation Channel on the Upper Mississippi River System. U.S.

5 Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered Species, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. Accessed

6 at: http://www,fws.gov/midwest/endangered/section7/umrbofinal.pdf on August 15, 2005.

7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2001. Saving the Higgins' Eye Pearly Mussel

8 Propagation at Genoa National Fish Hatchery May 2001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

9 Division of Endangered Species, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. Accessed at: 

10 http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/clams/higginseye/propagation_fs.html on

11 August 15, 2005.

12 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004a. Endangered Species Facts Higgins' Eye

13 Pearlymussel. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, Division of Endangered Species, Fort

14 Snelling, Minnesota. Accessed at: 

15 http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/clams/higginseye/higgins_fs.html on August 15, 2005.

16 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004b. "Listed Species with Critical Habitat." Accessed

17 at: http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TESSWebpageCrithab?listings=0&nmfs=1 on

18 August 1, 2005.

19 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005a. Minnesota's Federally-Listed Threatened,

20 Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species—County Distribution. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

21 Service, Region 3, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. Accessed at: 

22 http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/lists/minnesot-cty.html on June 17, 2005.

23 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005b. "Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge." 

24 Accessed at: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Sherburne on June 7, 2005.

25 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005c. Letter from D.P. Stinnett, Bloomington,

26 Minnesota, to P.T. Kuo, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Subject:

27 "List of Federally Threatened or Endangered Species." July 13, 2005.

28 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005d. "Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge.” 

29 Accessed at: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/minnesotavalley on June 7, 2005.

30 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005e. Gray Wolf Recovery in Minnesota, Wisconsin,

31 and Michigan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Accessed at: 

32 http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/recovery/r3wolfct.htm on August 1, 2005.

33 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005f. "Crane Meadow National Wildlife Refuge.” 

34 Accessed at: http://midwest.fws.gov/cranemeadows on June 7, 2005.
Description of Site and Environment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 2-50 January 2006

1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Undated. Higgins' Eye Pearly Mussel Recovery. U.S.

2 Fish and Wildlife Service, Rock Island, Illinois. Accessed at: 

3 http://www.fws.gov/midwest/RockIsland/activity/endangered/higgins.htm on August 12, 2005.

4 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1999. Ecological Status and Trends of the Upper Mississippi

5 River System 1998: A Report of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program. U.S.

6 Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, Wisconsin. 

7 TRMP 99-T001. Accessed at: 

8 http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/reports_publications/status_and_trends.html on February 21, 2003.

9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1998. Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant -

10 Draft Environmental Assessment Related to Issuance of Amendment R.E. Power Uprate

11 Program (TAC M96238). Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Washington, D.C. 

12 January 21, 1998.

13 Weitzell, R.E., Jr., M.L. Khoury, P. Gagnon, B. Schreurs, D. Grossman, and J. Higgins. 2003. 

14 Conservation Priorities for Freshwater Biodiversity in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Nature

15 Serve and The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. Accessed at: 

16 http://www.natureserve.org/library/uppermsriverbasin.pdf on June 17, 2005.

17 Wright County. 1988. Wright County Land Use Plan.

18 Xcel Energy Environmental Services (Xcel Energy). 2004. Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant

19 Environmental Monitoring Program 2002 - 2003 Report. Prepared by Xcel Energy

20 Environmental Services for Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

21 Xcel Energy Environmental Services (Xcel Energy). 2005a. E-mail correspondence from

22 P. Rasmussen to J. Holthaus at Monticello documenting transmission corridor lengths and

23 widths. E-mail dated June 29, 2005.

24 Xcel Energy Environmental Services (Xcel Energy). 2005b. "Vegetation Management

25 Guidelines." March 2005.
(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all

references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

January 2006 3-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 3.0 Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

2 Environmental issues associated with refurbishment activities are discussed in the Generic

3 Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437,

Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999).(a) 4 The GEIS includes a determination of whether the

5 analysis of the environmental issues could be applied to all plants and whether additional

6 mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues are then assigned a Category 1 or a

7 Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1 issues are those that meet all of

8 the following criteria:

9 (1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply

10 either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling

11 system or other specified plant or site characteristics.

12 (2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned

13 to the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle

14 and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal).

15 (3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the

16 analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation

17 measures are likely not to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

18 For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is

19 required in this supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) unless new and

20 significant information is identified.

21 Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria for Category 1 and,

22 therefore, additional plant-specific review of these issues is required.

23 License renewal actions may require refurbishment activities for the extended plant life. These

24 actions may have an impact on the environment that requires evaluation, depending on the type

25 of action and the plant-specific design. Environmental issues associated with refurbishment

26 that were determined to be Category 1 issues are listed in Table 3-1.

27 Environmental issues related to refurbishment considered in the GEIS for which these

28 conclusions could not be reached for all plants, or for specific classes of plants, are Category 2

29 issues. These are listed in Table 3-2.

30 Category 1 and Category 2 issues related to refurbishment that are not applicable to Monticello

31 because they are related to plant design features or site characteristics not found at Monticello

32 are listed in Appendix F.
Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 3-2 January 2006

1 Table 3-1. Category 1 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation

2 ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

3 SURFACE-WATER QUALITY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE (FOR ALL PLANTS)

4 Impacts of refurbishm ent on surface-water quality 3.4.1

5 Impacts of refurbishment on surface-water use 3.4.1

6 AQUATIC ECOLOGY (FOR ALL PLANTS)

7 Refurbishment 3.5

8 GROUND-WATER USE AND QUALITY

9 Impacts of refurbishm ent on ground-water use and quality 3.4.2

10 LAND USE

11 Onsite land use 3.2

12 HUMAN HEALTH

13 Radiation exposures to the public during refurbishment 3.8.1

14 Occupational radiation exposures during refurbishment 3.8.2

15 SOCIOECONOMICS

16 Public services: public safety social services, and tourism and

17 recreation

3.7.4; 3.7.4.3;

3.7.4.4; 3.7.4.6

18 Aesthetic impacts (refurbishment) 3.7.8

19

20 The potential environmental effects of refurbishment actions would be identified, and the

21 analysis would be summarized within this section, if such actions were planned. The Nuclear

22 Management Company (NMC) indicated that it has performed an evaluation of structures and

23 components pursuant to 10 CFR 54.21 to identify activities that are necessary to continue

24 operation of Monticello during the requested 20-year period of extended operation. These

25 activities include replacement of certain components as well as new inspection activities and

26 are described in the Environmental Report (ER) (NMC 2005).

27 However, NMC stated that the replacement of these components and the additional inspection

28 activities are within the bounds of normal plant component replacement and inspections;

29 therefore, they are not expected to affect the environment outside the bounds of plant

30 operations as evaluated in the final environmental statement (AEC 1972). In addition, NMC's

31 evaluation of structures and components as required by 10 CFR 54.21 did not identify any

32 major plant refurbishment activities or modifications necessary to support the continued

33 operation of Monticello beyond the end of the existing operating license. Therefore,

34 refurbishment is not considered in this draft SEIS.
Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

January 2006 3-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Table 3-2. Category 2 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation

2 ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

3 Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

10 CFR

51.53(c)(3)(ii)

Subparagraph

4 TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

5 Refurbishm ent impacts 3.6 E

6 THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES (FOR ALL PLANTS)

7 Threatened or endangered species 3.9 E

8 AIR QUALITY

9 Air quality during refurbishment

10 (nonattainment and maintenance areas)

3.3 F

11 SOCIOECONOMICS

12 Housing impacts 3.7.2 I

13 Public services: public utilities 3.7.4.5 I

14 Public services: education (refurbishm ent) 3.7.4.1 I

15 Offsite land use (refurbishm ent) 3.7.5 I

16 Public services: transportation 3.7.4.2 J

17 Historic and archeological resources 3.7.7 K

18 ENVIRONMEN TAL JUSTICE

19 Environmental justice Not addressed(a) Not addressed(a)

(a) 20 Guidance related to environmental justice was not in place at the time the GEIS and the

21 associated revision to 10 CFR Part 51 were prepared. If an applicant plans to undertake

22 refurbishment activities for license renewal, environmental justice must be addressed in the

23 licensee’s environmental report and the staff’s environmental impact statement.

24

25 3.1 References

26 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

27 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

28 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, "Requirements for

29 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."
Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 3-4 January 2006

1 Nuclear Management Company (NMC). 2005. Applicant's Environmental Report—Operating

2 License Renewal Stage, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. Docket No. 50-263, License No.

3 DPR-22. Monticello, Minnesota. 

4 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1972. Final Environmental Statement Related to

5 Operation of Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Northern States Power Company. Docket

6 No. 50-263, Washington, D.C.

7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

8 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

10 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1,

11 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final Report. 

12 NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.
(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all

references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

 January 2006 4-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 4.0 Environmental Impacts of Operation

2 Environmental issues associated with operation of a nuclear power plant during the renewal

3 term are discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999).(a) 4 The GEIS

5 includes a determination of whether the analysis of the environmental issues could be applied

6 to all plants and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues are then

7 assigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1

8 issues are those that meet all of the following criteria:

9 (1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply

10 either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling

11 system or other specified plant or site characteristics.

12 (2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned

13 to the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle

14 and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal).

15 (3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the

16 analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation

17 measures are likely not to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

18 For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is

19 required unless new and significant information is identified.

20 Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria for Category 1, and

21 therefore, additional plant-specific review of these issues is required.

22 This chapter addresses the issues related to operation during the renewal term that are listed in

23 Table B-1 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B

24 and are applicable to the Monticello plant. Section 4.1 addresses issues applicable to the

25 Monticello cooling system. Section 4.2 addresses issues related to transmission lines and

26 onsite land use. Section 4.3 addresses the radiological impacts of normal operation, and

27 Section 4.4 addresses issues related to the socioeconomic impacts of normal operation during

28 the renewal term. Section 4.5 addresses issues related to groundwater use and quality, while

29 Section 4.6 discusses the impacts of renewal-term operations on threatened and endangered

30 species. Section 4.7 addresses potential new information that was raised during the scoping

31 period, and Section 4.8 discusses cumulative impacts. The results of the evaluation of

32 environmental issues related to operation during the renewal term are summarized in

33 Section 4.9. Finally, Section 4.10 lists the references for Chapter 4. Category 1 and
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-2 January 2006

1 Category 2 issues that are not applicable to Monticello because they are related to plant design

2 features or site characteristics not found on the Monticello site are listed in Appendix F.

3 4.1 Cooling System

4 Category 1 issues in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, that are applicable

5 to the Monticello cooling system operation during the renewal term are listed in Table 4-1. 

6 Nuclear Management Company (NMC) stated in its Environmental Report (ER) (NMC 2005a)

7 that it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of the

8 Monticello operating license (OL). The staff has not identified any new and significant

9 information during its independent review of the NMC ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping

10 process, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that

11 there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For all of

12 these issues, the staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL, and additional plant13 specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

14 Table 4-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Operation of the Monticello

15 Cooling System During the Renewal Term

16 ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

17 SURFACE WATER QUALITY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE (FOR ALL PLANTS )

18 Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures 4.2.1.2.1

19 Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity 4.2.1.2.3

20 Scouring caused by discharged cooling water 4.2.1.2.3

21 Eutrophication 4.2.1.2.3

22 Discharge of chlorine or other biocides 4.2.1.2.4

23 Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills 4.2.1.2.4

24 Discharge of other metals in wastewater 4.2.1.2.4

25 W ater use conflicts (plants with once-through cooling systems) 4.2.1.3

26 AQUATIC ECOLOGY (FOR ALL PLANTS )

27 Accum ulation of contam inants in sediments or biota 4.2.1.2.4

28 Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton 4.2.2.1.1

29 Cold shock 4.2.2.1.5

30 Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish 4.2.2.1.6

31 Distribution of aquatic organisms 4.2.2.1.6

32 Premature emergence of aquatic insects 4.2.2.1.7

33 Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease) 4.2.2.1.8

34 Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge 4.2.2.1.9
Environmental Impacts of Operation

 January 2006 4-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Table 4-1. (contd)

2 ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

3 Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms

4 exposed to sublethal stresses

4.2.2.1.10

5 Stimulation of nuisance organisms 4.2.2.1.11

6 AQUATIC ECOLOGY (FOR PLANTS WITH COOLING TOWER-BASED HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEMS )

7 Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages 4.3.3

8 Impingement of fish and shellfish 4.3.3

9 Heat shock 4.3.3

10 TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

11 Cooling tower impacts on crops and ornamental vegetation 4.3.4

12 Cooling tower impacts on native plants 4.3.5.1

13 Bird collisions with cooling towers 4.3.5.2

14 HUMAN HEALTH

15 Microbiological organisms (occupational health) 4.3.6

16 Noise 4.3.7

17

18 A brief description of the staff’s review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for

19 each of these issues follows:

20 C Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures. Based on information in the

21 GEIS, the Commission found that

22 Altered current patterns have not been found to be a problem at operating

23 nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license

24 renewal term.

25 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during the staff's

26 independent review of the NMC ER, the scoping process, the staff's site visit, or its

27 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are

28 no impacts of altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures during the

29 renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

30 C Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity. Based on information in the GEIS, the

31 Commission found that

32 These effects have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

33 plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-4 January 2006

1 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during the staff's independent

2 review of the NMC ER, the scoping process, the staff's site visit, or its evaluation of other

3 available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of temperature

4 effects on sediment transport capacity during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the

5 GEIS.

6 C Scouring caused by discharged cooling water. Based on information in the GEIS, the

7 Commission found that

8 Scouring has not been found to be a problem at most operating nuclear power

9 plants and has caused only localized effects at a few plants. It is not expected to

10 be a problem during the license renewal term.

11 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during the staff's independent

12 review of the NMC ER, the scoping process, the staff's site visit, or its evaluation of other

13 available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of scouring

14 caused by discharged cooling water during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the

15 GEIS.

16 C Eutrophication. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

17 Eutrophication has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

18 plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

19 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during the staff's independent

20 review of the NMC ER, the scoping process, the staff's site visit, or its evaluation of other

21 available information, including plant monitoring data and technical reports. Therefore, the staff

22 concludes that there are no impacts at intake and discharge structures during the renewal term

23 beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

24 C Discharge of chlorine or other biocides. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

25 found that

26 Effects are not a concern among regulatory and resource agencies, and are not

27 expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

28 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during the staff's independent

29 review of the NMC ER, the scoping process, the staff's site visit, or its evaluation of other

30 available information, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

31 permit for Monticello. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of discharge of

32 chlorine or other biocides during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

 January 2006 4-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 C Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills. Based on information in the GEIS,

2 the Commission found that

3 Effects are readily controlled through NPDES permit and periodic modifications,

4 if needed, and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

5 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during the staff's independent

6 review of the NMC ER, the scoping process, the staff's site visit, or its evaluation of other

7 available information, including the NPDES permit for Monticello and the Sanitary Sewer

8 Wastewater Discharge Agreement. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of

9 discharges of sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills during the renewal term beyond those

10 discussed in the GEIS.

11 C Discharge of other metals in wastewater. Based on information in the GEIS, the

12 Commission found that

13 These discharges have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear

14 power plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems and have been

15 satisfactorily mitigated at other plants. They are not expected to be a problem

16 during the license renewal term.

17 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during the staff's independent

18 review of the NMC ER, the scoping process, the staff's site visit, or its evaluation of other

19 available information, including the NPDES permit for Monticello. Therefore, the staff

20 concludes that there are no impacts of discharges of other metals in wastewater during the

21 renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

22 C Water use conflicts (plants with once-through cooling systems). Based on information in

23 the GEIS, the Commission found that

24 These conflicts have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

25 plants with once-through heat dissipation systems.

26 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during the staff's independent

27 review of the NMC ER, the scoping process, the staff's site visit, or its evaluation of other

28 available information, including the NPDES permit and the Surface Water Appropriations

29 Permit. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of water-use conflicts for

30 plants with once-through cooling systems during the renewal term beyond those discussed in

31 the GEIS.

32 C Accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota. Based on information in the GEIS, the

33 Commission found that

34 Accumulation of contaminants has been a concern at a few nuclear power plants
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-6 January 2006

1 but has been satisfactorily mitigated by replacing copper alloy condenser tubes

2 with those of another metal. It is not expected to be a problem during the license

3 renewal term.

4 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

5 the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of available information. 

6 Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of accumulation of contaminants in

7 sediments or biota during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

8 C Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton. Based on information in the GEIS, the

9 Commission found that

10 Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton has not been found to be a

11 problem at operating nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem

12 during the license renewal term.

13 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

14 the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

15 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of entrainment of

16 phytoplankton and zooplankton during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

17 C Cold shock. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

18 Cold shock has been satisfactorily mitigated at operating nuclear plants with

19 once-through cooling systems, has not endangered fish populations or been

20 found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or

21 cooling ponds, and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal

22 term.

23 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

24 the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

25 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of cold shock during the

26 renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

27 C Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

28 found that

29 Thermal plumes have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear

30 power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal

31 term.

32 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

33 the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available
Environmental Impacts of Operation

 January 2006 4-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of thermal plume barriers

2 to migrating fish during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

3 C Distribution of aquatic organisms. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found

4 that

5 Thermal discharge may have localized effects but is not expected to effect the

6 larger geographical distribution of aquatic organisms.

7 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

8 the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

9 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts on distribution of aquatic

10 organisms during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

11 C Premature emergence of aquatic insects. Based on information in the GEIS, the

12 Commission found that

13 Premature emergence has been found to be a localized effect at some operating

14 nuclear power plants but has not been a problem and is not expected to be a

15 problem during the license renewal term.

16 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

17 the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

18 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of premature emergence

19 of aquatic insects during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

20 C Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease). Based on information in the GEIS, the

21 Commission found that

22 Gas supersaturation was a concern at a small number of operating nuclear

23 power plants with once-through cooling systems but has been satisfactorily

24 mitigated. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

25 plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem

26 during the license renewal term.

27 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

28 the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

29 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of gas supersaturation

30 during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

31 C Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

32 found that

33 Low dissolved oxygen has been a concern at one nuclear power plant with a
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-8 January 2006

1 once-through cooling system but has been effectively mitigated. It has not been

2 found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or

3 cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal

4 term.

5 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

6 the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

7 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of low dissolved oxygen

8 during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

9 C Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal

10 stresses. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

11 These types of losses have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear

12 power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal

13 term.

14 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

15 the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

16 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of losses from predation,

17 parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses during the renewal

18 term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

19 C Stimulation of nuisance organisms. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

20 found that

21 Stimulation of nuisance organisms has been satisfactorily mitigated at the single

22 nuclear power plant with a once-through cooling system where previously it was

23 a problem. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

24 plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem

25 during the license renewal term.

26 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

27 the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

28 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of stimulation of nuisance

29 organisms during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

30 C Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages (cooling tower based systems). Based

31 on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

32 Entrainment of fish has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear

33 power plants with this type of cooling system and is not expected to be a

34 problem during the license renewal term.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

 January 2006 4-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

2 the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

3 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of entrainment of fish and

4 shellfish in early life stages for cooling tower based systems during the renewal term beyond

5 those discussed in the GEIS.

6 C Impingement of fish and shellfish (cooling tower based systems). Based on information in

7 the GEIS, the Commission found that

8 The impingement has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear

9 power plants with this type of cooling system and is not expected to be a

10 problem during the license renewal term.

11 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

12 the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

13 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of impingement of fish

14 and shellfish for cooling tower based systems during the renewal term beyond those discussed

15 in the GEIS.

16 C Heat shock (cooling tower based systems). Based on information in the GEIS, the

17 Commission found that

18 Heat shock has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

19 plants with this type of cooling system and is not expected to be a problem

20 during the license renewal term.

21 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

22 the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

23 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of heat shock for cooling

24 tower based systems during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

25 C Cooling tower impacts on crops and ornamental vegetation. Based on information in the

26 GEIS, the Commission found that

27 Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or increased humidity associated with

28 cooling tower operation have not been found to be a problem at operating

29 nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license

30 renewal term.

31 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

32 the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

33 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no cooling tower impacts on crops

34 and ornamental vegetation during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-10 January 2006

1 C Cooling tower impacts on native plants. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

2 found that

3 Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or increased humidity associated with cooling

4 tower operation have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

5 plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

6 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

7 the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

8 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no cooling tower impacts on native

9 vegetation during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

10 C Bird collisions with cooling towers. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

11 found that

12 These collisions have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

13 plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

14 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

15 the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

16 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of bird collisions with

17 cooling towers during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

18 C Microbiological organisms (occupational health). Based on information in the GEIS, the

19 Commission found that

20 Occupational health impacts are expected to be controlled by continued

21 application of accepted industrial hygiene practices to minimize worker

22 exposures.

23 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

24 the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

25 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of microbiological

26 organisms during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

27 C Noise. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

28 Noise has not been found to be a problem at operating plants and is not

29 expected to be a problem at any plant during the license renewal term.

30 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

31 the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

32 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of noise during the

33 renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

 January 2006 4-11 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 The Category 2 issues related to cooling system operation during the renewal term that are

2 applicable to Monticello are discussed in the sections that follow, and are listed in Table 4-2.

3 Table 4-2. Category 2 Issues Applicable to the Operation of the Monticello

4 Cooling System During the Renewal Term

5 ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B,

6 Table B-1 GEIS Section

10 CFR

51.53(c)(3)(ii)

Subparagraph

SEIS

Section

7 SURFACE WATER QUALITY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE (FOR ALL PLANTS )

8 W ater use conflicts (plants with cooling ponds or

9 cooling towers using makeup water from a small

10 river with a low flow)

4.3.2.1;

4.4.2.1

A 4.1.1

11 AQUATIC ECOLOGY (FOR PLAN TS WITH ONC E TH ROUGH AND COOLING PON D H EAT-DISSIPATION SYSTEMS )

12 Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages 4.2.2.1.2 B 4.1.2

13 Impingement of fish and shellfish 4.2.2.1.3 B 4.1.3

14 Heat shock 4.2.2.1.4 B 4.1.4

15 HUMAN HEALTH

16 Microbiological organism s (public health) (plants

17 using lakes or canals, or cooling towers or cooling

18 ponds that discharge to a small river)

4.3.6 G 4.1.5

19

20 4.1.1 Water Use Conflicts (Plants with Cooling Ponds or Cooling Towers Using

21 Makeup Water from a Small River with a Low Flow)

22 Water use conflicts for plants with cooling ponds or towers using makeup water from small river

23 with low flow is a Category 2 issue, requiring a site-specific assessment before license renewal. 

24 Monticello utilizes cooling towers and withdraws make-up water from the Mississippi River

which has annual flow rate of less than the 3.15 x 1012 25 cubic ft per year threshold value in

26 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A).

27 The impact of consumptive loss on the downstream riparian communities is associated with the

28 small difference it can cause in the river surface elevation. Section 2.2.2 describes Monticello

29 surface water withdrawal from the Mississippi River, which is regulated by the Minnesota

30 Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) NPDES permit and by the Minnesota Department of Natural

31 Resources (MNDNR) Surface Water Appropriations Permit. During normal conditions, river

32 flows in the Mississippi River exceed 860 cfs and cooling of circulating water meets NPDES

33 permit limits. Under these conditions, the NPDES permit allows Monticello to withdraw a

34 maximum of 645 cfs and Monticello operates in a once-through mode. When water

35 temperatures approach NPDES permit limits, Monticello operates in helper cycle (see
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-12 January 2006

1 Section 2.2.2) and some of the cooling water is passed through the cooling towers before

2 discharging into the discharge canal. United States Geological Survey (USGS) gage station

3 data is available approximately 26 mi upstream from Monticello since 1988 (Station 05270700,

4 Mississippi River at St. Cloud). This gage station represents a conservative estimate of flow at

5 Monticello because this does not take into account additional flow inputs between the USGS

6 gage station and Monticello. Furthermore, review of the MNDNR online database of water

7 allocation permits indicate there are no significant surface water withdrawals between the

8 measuring station and the intake at Monticello (MNDNR 2005a). From September 1988

9 through September 2004, the maximum and minimum daily flows at the upstream USGS gage

10 station were 45,100 cfs and 1010 cfs, occurring on April 9, 1997, and August 24, 1989,

11 respectively (USGS 2005). A separate flow analysis was conducted by NMC in the ER using

12 data from USGS gage stations both upstream and downstream of Monticello. In this analysis,

13 the flow at Monticello was estimated based on its drainage area relative to the drainage areas

14 of the USGS gage stations. This analysis estimated the lowest daily river flow at 586 cfs (NMC

15 2005a). If the Mississippi River is between 240 and 860 cfs, NMC is only allowed to withdraw 75

16 percent of the river flow (see Section 2.2.2). At a river flow of 586 cfs, NMC is allowed to 

17 withdraw 440 cfs. Under these conditions, and with an assumed evaporative loss of water from

18 the cooling towers of 18 cfs (AEC 1972), the consumptive loss due to evaporation from the

19 cooling towers represents four percent of the river flow, which is not considered significant.

20 The staff independently reviewed the NMC ER, visited the site, and reviewed the Monticello

21 NPDES permit, the Surface Water Appropriations permit, and other reports. Based on this

22 information, the staff concludes that the potential impacts of water use conflicts are SMALL. 

23 During the course of this evaluation, staff considered mitigation measures for continued

24 operation of Monticello. Based on this evaluation, staff expects that mitigation measures in

25 place at Monticello (e.g., ability to use the cooling towers as needed during low river flows) are

26 appropriate and no additional mitigation measures are warranted.

27 4.1.2 Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages

28 For plants with a once-through cooling system, entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life

29 stages into cooling water systems associated with nuclear power plants is considered a

30 Category 2 issue, requiring a site-specific assessment before license renewal. To perform this

31 evaluation, the staff reviewed the applicant's ER (NMC 2005a) and related documents

32 (including the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 316(b) Demonstration [Amish et al. 1978]);

33 visited the Monticello site; and reviewed the applicant's State of Minnesota NPDES Permit No.

34 0000868, issued on August 22, 2002, and in force until July 31, 2007 (MPCA 2002).

35 Section 316(b) of the CWA requires that the location, design, construction, and capacity of

36 cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse

37 environmental impacts. Entrainment of fish and shellfish into the cooling water system is a

38 potential adverse environmental impact that can be minimized by use of the best available

39 technology.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

 January 2006 4-13 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 On July 9, 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule in the

2 Federal Register (EPA 2004) addressing cooling water intake structures at existing power

3 plants, such as Monticello, whose flow levels exceed a minimum threshold value of

4 50 million gpd. The rule is Phase II in the EPA's development of CWA 316(b) regulations that

5 establish national requirements applicable to the location, design, construction, and capacity of

6 cooling water intake structures at existing facilities that exceed the threshold value for water

7 withdrawals. The national requirements, which are implemented through NPDES permits,

8 minimize the adverse environmental impacts associated with the continued use of the intake

9 systems. Licensees are required to demonstrate compliance with the Phase II performance

10 standards at the time of renewal of their NPDES permit. Licensees may be required as part of

11 the NPDES renewal to alter the intake structure, redesign the cooling system, modify station

12 operation, or take other mitigative measures as a result of this regulation. The new

13 performance standards are designed to significantly reduce entrainment losses due to water

14 withdrawals associated with cooling water intake structures used for power production. Any

15 site-specific mitigation would result in less impact from entrainment during the license renewal

16 period.

17 Condenser cooling water is withdrawn from the Mississippi River through an approach channel

18 angled at 81o to the shoreline (Amish et al. 1978; NMC 2005a). Water enters the intake over a

19 concrete sill equipped with a 12.5-ft wide stop log section in the center of the sill. After passing

20 over the sill, the water passes through a bar rack. The water is then diverted into two separate

21 streams that each pass through paired traveling screens with 3/8-in. mesh (NMC 2005a). The

22 Mississippi River is also used for service water cooling, screen wash, and fire protection (MPCA

23 2002).

24 Under the current Surface Water Appropriations Permit, Monticello is allowed to withdraw a

25 maximum of 645 cfs for once-through or helper-cycle mode cooling and plant process water

26 from the Mississippi River. Special operating conditions are required when the river flow is less

27 than 860 cfs. For example, plant water intake may not exceed 75 percent of river flow when the

28 river flow is less than 860 cfs but greater than 240 cfs (NMC 2005a). When river flow is less

29 than 240 cfs, there are further restrictions, including use of a closed-cycle mode of operation

30 (NMC 2005a). Withdrawn water is returned to the river except for that amount evaporated in

31 the discharge canal and cooling towers. During 2002, the mean river flow was 6351 cfs while

32 mean intake flow was approximately 529 cfs; similar means for 2003 were 4572 cfs and 491.9

33 cfs, respectively (Xcel Energy 2004).

34 The cooling water flow path for open-cycle or once-through cooling includes (1) the Mississippi

35 River, (2) the intake, (3) the condenser, (4) the discharge structure, (5) the discharge canal,

36 (6) the discharge weir, and (7) the Mississippi River. From the discharge canal, the cooling

37 water returns to the river at a point approximately 1500 ft downstream from the intake. For the

38 other modes of operation (see Table 2-2), all, part, or none of the cooled water from the cooling

39 towers can be sent back to the circulating water pump intake (Afzal et al. 1975). Approximately

40 5 to 6 percent of total cooling water flow needs to be replaced with makeup water from the

41 Mississippi River during closed-cycle operation (NMC 2005a). Makeup water is supplied by two
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-14 January 2006

1 31 cfs pumps that replace water lost by cooling tower evaporation, drift, and blowdown (Afzal et

2 al. 1975).

3 Entrainment samples were collected at Monticello from September 12, 1973, to

4 August 18, 1974, by Knutson et al. (1976). During that period, river flow used for cooling

5 ranged from 1.6 to 19.4 percent of river flow with a mean of 10.1 percent (Knutson et al. 1976). 

6 Entrainment rates for young-of-the-year fish were estimated at 9.2/hr from September 12, 1973,

7 to March 13, 1974; 5986/hr from May 22, 1974, to June 28, 1974; and 35/hr from June 28 to

8 August 18, 1974. The entrainment rate was estimated to be 1617/hr or 38,805/day for all

9 fishes. The maximum estimated entrainment rate was 22,635/hr on June 12, 1974.

10 Approximately 98 percent of all entrainment occurred between May 22 and June 28, 1974

11 (Knutson et al. 1976).

12 Entrainment losses consisted of twenty-three fish species or species groups (Knutson et al.

13 1976). Catostomid (sucker) fry comprised 96.5 percent of the entrainment. Black crappie

14 (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) comprised 1.3 percent, walleye (Sander vitreus) comprised 0.5

15 percent, and cyprinids (minnows) comprised 0.8 percent of total fish entrained (Knutson et al.

16 1976). Entrainment of young-of-the-year shorthead redhorse (Moxostoma macrolepidotum),

17 silver redhorse (M. anisurum), and white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) during April to

18 August 1974 was estimated at 7.8 million individuals; while only a combined 8400 black

19 crappie, walleye, and smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) were entrained (Knutson et al.

20 1976). Since regular fish surveys have been initiated at Monticello before the plant started

21 operation, suckers have been the predominant species collected in electroshocking samples

22 (Xcel Energy 2004). Thus, entrainment has not apparently had an impact on sucker species

23 production.

24 In addition to elevated temperatures, entrained organisms are exposed to biocides and

25 mechanical stresses. Experimental studies using fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) fry

26 demonstrated that up to 11.8 percent survived temperature elevations of 25.6 to 41.6oF; while

27 8.5 to 42.4 percent showed signs of mechanical damage from passing through the condensers. 

28 The incidence of external injuries for fish that were alive at recapture was only approximately

29 2 percent (Knutson et al. 1976). However, survival was found to be very low (0.0 to

30 1.6 percent) when ambient river temperatures were 55.0oF or higher or when the change in

31 temperature was 59.4oF (Knutson et al. 1976). Overall, it was concluded that sublethal thermal

32 and mechanical effects would result in long-term survival of less than 10 percent of entrained

33 fishes (Knutson et al. 1976).

34 Entrainment monitoring was also conducted at Monticello between April 23 and

35 September 4, 1976, for the CWA 316(b) Demonstration. This sampling period encompassed a

36 low-flow year in the Mississippi River. Therefore, Monticello withdrew a relatively high

37 percentage of river water, and consequently, entrainable organisms (Amish et al. 1978). During

38 the year, an average of 19.3 percent of the Mississippi River flow passed though the plant,

39 ranging from a high of 36 percent in August 1976 to a low of 7 percent in April 1976 (Amish et

40 al. 1978).
Environmental Impacts of Operation

 January 2006 4-15 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 In the 1976 study, 2.83 million young-of-the-year fish and 1.08 million fish eggs were estimated

2 to have been entrained at Monticello. The predominant species entrained as larvae were

3 879,000 logperch (Percina caprodes) (31.8 percent); 633,000 shorthead redhorse (22.4

4 percent); 388,000 unidentifiable darters (13.7 percent); and 308,000 unidentifiable minnows

5 (10.9 percent). The eggs were not identified to species (Amish et al. 1978). The maximum

6 number of equivalent adult fish estimated to have been lost due to this entrainment was

7 250,124 fishes, including 218,000 logperch, 9230 shorthead redhorse, 1410 darters, and

8 13,600 minnows (Amish et al. 1978).

9 Generally, buoyant eggs are the only ones capable of being entrained at Monticello. Most fish

10 species in the area of Monticello have adhesive eggs. Therefore, it was assumed that

11 free-floating eggs were either diseased or accidentally removed from the riverbed by current

12 and scouring action. These eggs would have had a naturally low potential for survival (Knutson

13 et al. 1976).

14 To interpret the impacts of entrainment on fish community species populations and structure,

15 entrainment losses must be compared to the distribution, abundance, and life cycles of the

16 species that occur near Monticello. The ultimate impact of entrainment losses must be

17 evaluated in terms of a system's resiliency (i.e., environmental stability, productivity, population

18 compensation, and ecological and economic importance of the individual species) (Noguchi et

19 al. 1985). The fish community has been persistent and stable since the plant became

20 operational; and species composition has been similar between locations upstream and

21 downstream of the Monticello site (Xcel Energy 2004). Based on the CWA 316(b)

22 Demonstration (Amish et al. 1978), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency concluded that

23 entrainment at Monticello does not pose a substantial detrimental effect on the fish population

24 (MPCA 1979). Under conditions of the current State of Minnesota NPDES permit, the location

25 and operation of the intake will continue to have minimal environmental impact. 

26 During the course of the SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for the

27 continued operation of Monticello. Based on the assessment conducted, the staff expects that

28 the measures in place at Monticello (e.g., the intake structure is situated in a location devoid of

29 unique spawning habitat and the capability of the plant to operate in a partial recirculation or

30 closed-cycle mode) provide mitigation for impacts related to entrainment. The staff concludes

31 that the potential impacts of entrainment of fish and shellfish in the early life stages into the

32 cooling water intake system are SMALL, and further mitigation measures would not be

33 warranted.

34 4.1.3 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish

35 For plants with once-through cooling systems, impingement of fish and shellfish on debris

36 screens of cooling water system intakes is considered a Category 2 issue, requiring a

37 site-specific assessment before license renewal. To perform this evaluation, the staff reviewed

38 the applicant's ER (NMC 2005a) and related documents [including the CWA 316(b)
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-16 January 2006

1 Demonstration (Amish et al. 1978)]; visited the Monticello site; and reviewed the applicant's

2 State of Minnesota NPDES Permit No. 0000868, issued on August 22, 2002, and in force until

3 July 31, 2007 (MPCA 2002).

4 Condenser cooling water is withdrawn from the Mississippi River through an approach channel

5 angled at 81o to the shoreline (Amish et al. 1978). Water enters the intake over a concrete sill

6 equipped with a 12.5 ft wide stop log section in the center of the sill. After passing over the sill,

7 the water passes through a bar rack. The water is then diverted into two separate streams that

8 each pass through paired traveling screens with 3/8-in. mesh (NMC 2005a). The Mississippi

9 River is also used for service water cooling, screen wash, and fire protection (MPCA 2002). 

10 The traveling screens at Monticello are normally rotated and rinsed every 12 hours, but run

11 continuously when the river temperature is higher than 50oF. The screen rinse sluiceway was

12 installed in 1973 to decrease mortality of impinged fish. During periods of continuous screen

13 washing, the sluiceway produces up to 95 percent survival of impinged fish (Amish et al. 1978). 

14 Monticello may withdraw a maximum of 645 cfs for once-through or helper-cycle mode cooling

15 and plant process water from the Mississippi River. Special operating conditions are required

16 when the river flow is less than 860 cfs. For example, plant water intake may not exceed

17 75 percent of river flow when the river flow is less than 860 cfs but greater than 240 cfs (NMC

18 2005a). When river flow is less than 240 cfs, there are further restrictions, including use of a

19 closed-cycle mode of operation (NMC 2005a). Withdrawn water is returned to the river except

20 for that amount evaporated in the discharge canal and cooling towers. During 2002, the mean

21 river flow was 6351 cfs, while mean intake flow was approximately 529 cfs; similar means for

22 2003 were 4572 cfs and 491.9 cfs, respectively (Xcel Energy 2004).

23 Section 316(b) of the CWA requires that the location, design, construction, and capacity of

24 cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse

25 environmental impacts. Impingement of fish and shellfish on the traveling screens of the

26 cooling water intake system is a potential adverse environmental impact that can be minimized

27 by use of the best available technology.

28 On July 9, 2004, the EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register (EPA 2004) addressing

29 cooling water intake structures at existing power plants such as Monticello, whose flow levels

30 exceed a minimum threshold value of 50 million gpd. The rule is Phase II in the EPA's

31 development of CWA 316(b) regulations that establish national requirements applicable to the

32 location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures at existing

33 facilities that exceed the threshold value for water withdrawals. The national requirements,

34 which are implemented through NPDES permits, minimize the adverse environmental impacts

35 associated with the continued use of the intake systems. Licensees are required to

36 demonstrate compliance with the Phase II performance standards at the time of renewal of their

37 NPDES permit. Licensees may be required as part of the NPDES renewal to alter the intake

38 structure, redesign the cooling system, modify station operation, or take other mitigative

39 measures as a result of this regulation. The new performance standards are designed to
Environmental Impacts of Operation

 January 2006 4-17 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 significantly reduce impingement losses due to plant operation. Any site-specific mitigation

2 would result in less impact due to continued plant operation. 

3 Impingement studies at Monticello were conducted from 1972 to 1975, and were summarized

4 by Amish et al. (1978):

5 C Between June and September 1972, an estimated 2,952 fish were impinged; 65 percent

6 were black bullheads (Ameiurus melas) and nearly 26 percent were black crappies.

7 Impinged smallmouth bass, northern pike (Esox lucius), and common carp (Cyprinus

8 carpio) were mostly young-of-the-year.

9 C Between July and December 1973, an estimated 18,030 fish were impinged; 75 percent

10 were bluegills (Lepomis macrochirus) and 8 percent were black crappies. 

11 Young-of-the-year (including all of the bluegills) made up 94 percent of the impinged fish.

12 C During 1974, an estimated 16,343 fish (52 percent being young-of-the-year) were impinged. 

13 Among these, 28 percent were black crappies and 35 percent were black bullheads. 

14 Smallmouth bass and white sucker each comprised 4 percent of the impinged fish. Highest

15 impingement occurred in late summer and fall when young-of-the-year had attained an

16 impingeable size.

17 C During 1975, an estimated 34,157 fish were impinged; 73 percent were black bullheads. 

18 Common carp and black crappies together comprised 9 percent of the impinged fish. 

19 During the year-long study, only 20 percent of the impinged fish were young-of-the-year. 

20 However, Monticello was shut down in the fall of 1975 when young-of-the-year impingement

21 primarily occurs.

22 Additional impingement studies were conducted at Monticello between April 16, 1976, and

23 April 8, 1977, as part of the CWA 316(b) Demonstration (Amish et al. 1978). An estimated

24 39,767 fish were impinged. The predominant fish impinged were 15,295 shorthead redhorse

25 (38.5 percent), 7,385 silver redhorse (18.6 percent); 3,381 logperch (8.5 percent); 2,506

26 common carp (6.3 percent); 2,254 black crappie (5.7 percent); 2,121 white sucker (5.3 percent);

27 and 1,799 black bullhead (4.5 percent) (Amish et al. 1978). The maximum number of

28 equivalent adult fish estimated to have been lost due to this impingement was 10,838,

29 including: 1,820 shorthead redhorse; 635 silver redhorse; 3,381 logperch; 215 common carp;

30 230 black crappie; 252 white sucker; and 1,799 black bullhead (Amish et al. 1978).

31 Based on the CWA 316(b) Demonstration (Amish et al. 1978), the Minnesota Pollution Control

32 Agency concluded that impingement at Monticello does not pose a substantial detrimental

33 effect on the fish population (MPCA 1979). The Mississippi River fish community has been

34 persistent and stable since the plant became operational, and species composition has been

35 similar between locations upstream and downstream of the Monticello site (Xcel Energy 2004).

36 Under the current State of Minnesota NPDES permit, the location and operation of the intake

37 will continue to have minimal environmental impact.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-18 January 2006

1 During the course of the SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for the

2 continued operation of Monticello. Based on the assessment conducted, the staff expects that

3 the measures in place at Monticello (e.g., the intake structure located in an area where fish

4 congregation does not occur and that is devoid of unique spawning habitat, and a screen wash

5 system that returns impinged fish to the river) provide mitigation for impacts related to

6 impingement. Based on the results of past impingement studies and the operating history of

7 Monticello's intake structure, the staff concludes that the potential impacts of impingement of

8 fish and shellfish in the early life stages into the cooling water intake system are SMALL, and

9 further mitigation measures would not be warranted.

10 4.1.4 Heat Shock

11 For plants with once-through cooling systems, the impacts of heat shock are listed as a

12 Category 2 issue and require plant-specific evaluation before license renewal. The NRC made

13 impacts on fish and shellfish resources resulting from heat shock a Category 2 issue because

14 of continuing concerns about thermal discharge impacts and the possible need to modify

15 thermal discharges in the future in response to changing environmental conditions (NRC 1996). 

16 Information to be considered includes (1) the type of cooling system (whether once-through or

17 cooling pond) and (2) evidence of a CWA Section 316(a) variance or equivalent State

18 documentation. Heat shock can be defined as thermal stress caused by exposure to a sudden

19 elevation of water temperature that adversely affects the metabolism and behavior of fish and

20 can lead to death. Heat shock is most likely to occur when an offline unit returns to service. To

21 perform this evaluation, the staff reviewed the applicant's ER (NMC 2005a) and related

22 documents (including the CWA 316(a) Demonstration [Afzal et al. 1975]); visited the Monticello

23 site; and reviewed the applicant's State of Minnesota NPDES Permit No. 0000868, issued on

24 August 22, 2002, and in force until July 31, 2007 (MPCA 2002).

25 Monticello has a once-through heat dissipation system. However, due to a potential

26 combination of low flows and high ambient water temperatures, Monticello has two cooling

27 towers that can be used to meet thermal discharge standards through helper cycle mode or by

28 complete or partial recirculation of the cooling water (NMC 2005a). The Surface Water

29 Appropriations Permit requires that the cooling towers must be operated in partial recirculation

30 mode when the river flow is between 240 and 860 cfs, or closed-cycle mode when the river flow

31 is less than 240 cfs, and in accordance with allowable thermal discharge limits set forth by the

32 MPCA in the NPDES Permit. NPDES Permit stipulations specify that the maximum daily

33 average temperature at the end of the discharge canal cannot exceed the following limiting

34 temperatures: 95oF from April through October; 85oF in November and March; and 80oF from

35 December through February (MPCA 2002). However, discharge temperatures in excess of

36 these limits is allowed, on a limited basis, when the plant is required to operate in a partial

37 recirculation or closed-cycle mode to meet the Surface Water Appropriations Permit limitation

38 (NMC 2005a). When reduced river flows and/or elevated ambient river temperatures limit the

39 ability for Monticello to meet thermal discharge limits, plant procedures require a reduction in

40 power output to maintain compliance with the State of Minnesota NPDES permit (NMC 2005a).
Environmental Impacts of Operation

 January 2006 4-19 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 The cooling towers are normally used when the ambient river temperature reaches 68oF or

2 when the discharge canal temperature approaches permitted temperature limits (NMC 2005a). 

3 In partial recirculation mode, a portion of the cooled water from the cooling towers is

4 recirculated to the intake, while the remainder is discharged to the river. When river flow is less

5 than 860 cfs, a maximum of 75 percent of river flow at the intake may be withdrawn. Partial

6 recirculation may used to comply with this restriction (NMC 2005a). During extreme low flow

7 conditions, Monticello can operate as a closed system. During this operational mode, the

8 makeup requirement is only 54 cfs (NMC 2005a). Occasionally, one cooling tower may be

9 used during winter to provide a flow path for heated water to the intake structure when

10 suspended ice is present in the river (NMC 2005a).

11 Monticello has operated in a once-through or helper mode approximately 98 percent of the time

12 (NMC 2005). The remainder of the time Monticello has operated in a partial recirculation or

13 closed-cycle mode.

14 In 2002, the mean ambient river temperature was 49.7oF while the discharge canal temperature

15 was 77.9oF. In 2003, these temperatures were 50.9oF and 78.2oF, respectively (Xcel Energy

16 2004). In winter, when ambient river temperatures were near freezing (32oF), the discharge

17 temperatures generally ranged between 70 and 75oF; whereas in summer when ambient river

18 temperatures range from approximately 70 to 80oF, the discharge temperatures ranged from

19 approximately 84 to 91oF (NSP 2004). The main body of the thermal plume is generally

20 confined to the south bank of the river; and 30 to 70 percent of the river was unaffected by the

21 thermal plume (NMC 2005a). The 9oF plume is considered the immediate discharge zone,

22 while the 3oF plume is considered the intermediate discharge zone (Afzal et al. 1975). During

23 approximately 70 percent of the period from June through September, the 9oF isotherm

24 extended less than half the river width and less than 700 ft downstream of the discharge. The

25 intermediate discharge zone extended across the entire river at spots and extended at least

26 3.5 mi downstream (Afzal et al. 1975).

27 Afzal et al. (1975) noted that some fish remained in the discharge canal (during the early years

28 of operation before the weir was installed) when temperatures were 91 to 95oF, but avoided the

29 canal when temperatures reached 104oF. In 1980, an overflow weir that closely approximates

30 the preconstruction shoreline of the Mississippi River was added to the discharge canal. Under

31 normal conditions the weir effectively prevents movement of fish from the river into the

32 discharge canal. Fish species that frequent the area immediately downstream of the weir

33 included smallmouth bass, black crappie, walleye, northern pike, common carp, shorthead

34 redhorse, silver redhorse, and white sucker. The fish population inhabiting the discharge canal

35 in the fall and winter of 1974-1975 was estimated at 147 black bullhead, 354 rock bass

36 (Ambloplites rupestris), 22 black crappie, and 216 bluegill (Afzal et al. 1975). These

37 observations were made before the channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) first appeared in the

38 Monticello area.

39 Spawning areas for shorthead redhorse, silver redhorse, white sucker, and black crappie were

40 identified from both sides of the Mississippi River and from areas both upstream and
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-20 January 2006

1 downstream of Monticello (Afzal et al. 1975). Thus, thermal effects would not be expected to

2 have a significant impact on local fish production. The fish community has been persistent and

3 stable since the plant became operational, and species composition has been similar between

4 locations upstream and downstream of the discharge (Xcel Energy 2004).

5 The Monticello thermal discharge to the Mississippi River does not entrap fish in an area of

6 elevated temperatures. Thus, acute thermal impacts (e.g., death or immediate disability) are

7 unlikely. Generally, the maximum plume temperature differential would be within the tolerance

8 range of most warmwater species (Talmadge and Opreska 1981). Furthermore, the thermal

9 plume in the Mississippi River encompassed by the 3oF isotherm is sufficiently large that fish

10 would rarely be exposed to abrupt temperature differentials that would be high enough to be

11 potentially harmful. Also, no currents or physical deterrents are present that would force fish to

12 remain in areas of potentially harmful water temperatures.

13 There have been periods of non-compliance with the NPDES permit; however, there have been

14 no indications of adverse impacts to the aquatic biota within the area of influence from the

15 Monticello discharge (Afzal et al. 1975). Based on the results of the CWA 316(a)

16 Demonstration, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency concluded that the thermal discharges

17 from Monticello do not pose a substantial detrimental effect on the fish and benthic

18 macroinvertebrate communities (MPCA 1979).

19 The staff has reviewed the available information, including that provided by the applicant, the

20 staff's site visit, the NPDES permit, the CWA 316(a) demonstration, and other public sources. 

21 During the course of the Draft SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for

22 the continued operation of Monticello during the license renewal period. Based on the staff's

23 assessment of measures in place at Monticello (e.g., the discharge is located in an area where

24 fish congregation does not occur and that is devoid of unique spawning habitat, the installation

25 of the discharge canal fish weir that limits fish movement into the discharge canal, and the

26 capability of the plant to operate in a partial recirculation or closed-cycle mode) further

27 mitigation measures are not warranted. It is the staff's preliminary conclusion that potential

28 impacts to fish and shellfish due to heat shock during the renewal term are SMALL, and further

29 mitigation measures would not be warranted.

30 4.1.5 Microbiological Organisms (Public Health)

31 The effects of microbiological organisms on human health are listed as a Category 2 issue and

32 require plant-specific evaluation before license renewal for those plants with closed-cycle

33 cooling on a small river. The average annual flow of Mississippi River discharge in the vicinity

of the Monticello site is approximately 2.3 x 1011 34 cubic ft per year (NMC 2005a), which is less

than the 3.15 x 1012 35 cubic ft per year threshold value in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G) for thermal

36 discharge to a small river. Hence, the staff considers this a small river and the effects of its

37 discharge on microbiological organisms must be addressed for Monticello. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation

 January 2006 4-21 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Thermophilic bacteria generally occur at temperatures of 77 to 176oF, with maximum growth

2 occurring between 122 and 140oF. Bacteria pathogenic to humans typically have optimum

3 temperatures of approximately 99oF (Joklik and Willett 1976). Populations of the pathogenic

4 amoeba Naegleria fowleri can be enhanced in thermally altered water bodies at temperatures

5 ranging from 95 to 106oF or higher, but this organism is rarely found in water cooler than 95oF

6 based on studies reviewed and coordinated by Tyndall et al. (1989).

7 The Mississippi River in the vicinity of the plant is a broad turbulent stream with a boulder

8 substrate. Recreational uses including boating, fishing, and canoeing are frequent in the

9 vicinity of the plant. NMC employees also perform sampling in the river. All of these activities

10 create the potential for human exposure. The ambient temperatures of the Mississippi River

11 near the Monticello site vary from freezing (approximately 32oF) in the winter to 83oF in the

12 summer (AEC 1972). Therefore, ambient river conditions are not likely to support the

13 proliferation of pathogenic organisms of concern. 

14 The Monticello site discharge monitoring data collected from 1999 through 2001 for the months

15 of June through September were reviewed. During those months the monthly average water

16 temperature within the discharge canal ranged from 86 to 91oF. Additionally, the plant's

17 NPDES permit limits the maximum daily average temperature at the end of the discharge canal

18 to 95oF, the temperature specified for the warmer months of the year (April through October). 

19 Based on monthly average water temperatures within the discharge canal and maximum

20 discharge temperatures at the end of the discharge canal, coupled with the dilution provided by

21 the Mississippi River, thermophilic microorganisms are not expected to cause any appreciable

22 public health risk (NMC 2005a). 

23 The staff independently reviewed the NMC ER, visited the Monticello site, and reviewed the

24 applicant's State of Minnesota NPDES permit. Based on the evaluation presented above,

25 thermophilic microbiological organisms are not likely to occur as a result from Monticello

26 discharges to the Mississippi River. The staff concludes that impacts on public health from

27 thermophilic microbiological organisms from continued operation of Monticello in the license

28 renewal period are SMALL, and further mitigation would not be warranted.

29 4.2 Transmission Lines

30 The Final Environmental Statement (FES) for the Monticello site (AEC 1972) describes two

31 transmission lines that connect Monticello substation with the transmission system. These

32 transmission corridors cover approximately 1441 ac over a total corridor length of approximately

33 80 mi. There are five additional transmission lines emanating from the Monticello substation;

34 however, they are not part of this review. The Xcel Energy program for conductor and tower

35 maintenance includes monthly fixed-wing aerial patrols for the 345-kV lines and annual

36 helicopter patrols on all lines in the system. These patrols include surveillance for system

37 anomalies and land use changes that could impact design assumptions. The objective of Xcel

38 Energy's transmission line vegetation management program is to keep the corridors clear of
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-22 January 2006

1 trees, bushes, and other tall-growing vegetation that could come into close proximity with the

2 conductors and cause line outages. They achieve this objective by selectively removing

3 tall-growing trees and brush from the transmission corridors while encouraging the growth of

4 lower-growing trees, shrubs, and grasses. Herbicides are used occasionally, primarily applied

5 to individual trees or shrubs to prevent re-sprouting (Xcel Energy 2005).

6 Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 that are applicable to

7 transmission lines from the Monticello Site are listed in Table 4-3. NMC stated in its ER that it

8 is not aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of the

9 Monticello site. The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its

10 independent review of the NMC ER (NMC 2005a), the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or

11 its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no

12 impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For all of those issues,

13 the staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL, and additional plant-specific

14 mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

15 Table 4-3. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Monticello Transmission Lines

16 During the Renewal Term

17 ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

18 TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

19 Power line right-of-way management (cutting and herbicide application) 4.5.6.1

20 Bird collisions with power lines 4.5.6.2

21 Impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants, agricultural crops,

22 honeybees, wildlife, livestock)

4.5.6.3

23 Flood plains and wetlands on power line right-of-way 4.5.7

24 AIR QUALITY

25 Air quality effects of transmission lines 4.5.2

26 LAND USE

27 Onsite land use 4.5.3

28 Power line right-of-way 4.5.3

29

30 A brief description of the staff’s review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for

31 each of these issues follows:

32 C Power line right-of-way management (cutting and herbicide application). Based on

33 information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

34 The impacts of right-of-way maintenance on wildlife are expected to be of small

35 significance at all sites.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

 January 2006 4-23 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

2 the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, consultation with the U.S. Fish and

3 Wildlife Service (FWS), or its evaluation of other information. Therefore, the staff concludes

4 that there are no impacts of power line right-of-way maintenance during the renewal term

5 beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

6 C Bird collisions with power lines. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found

7 that

8 Impacts are expected to be of small significance at all sites.

9 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

10 the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, consultation with the FWS, or its

11 evaluation of other information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of bird

12 collisions with power lines during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

13 C Impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants, agricultural crops, honeybees,

14 wildlife, livestock). Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

15 No significant impacts of electromagnetic fields on terrestrial flora and fauna

16 have been identified. Such effects are not expected to be a problem during the

17 license renewal term.

18 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

19 the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, consultation with the FWS, or its

20 evaluation of other information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of

21 electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna during the renewal term beyond those discussed in

22 the GEIS.

23 C Flood plains and wetlands on power line right-of-way. Based on information in the GEIS,

24 the Commission found that

25 Periodic vegetation control is necessary in forested wetlands underneath power

26 lines and can be achieved with minimal damage to the wetland. No significant

27 impact is expected at any nuclear power plant during the license renewal term.

28 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

29 the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, consultation with the FWS, or its

30 evaluation of other information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of

31 power line rights-of-way on flood plains and wetlands during the renewal term beyond those

32 discussed in the GEIS.

33
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-24 January 2006

1 C Air quality effects of transmission lines. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

2 found that

3 Production of ozone and oxides of nitrogen is insignificant and does not

4 contribute measurably to ambient levels of these gases.

5 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

6 the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, public comments, or its evaluation of

7 other information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no air quality impacts of

8 transmission lines during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

9 C Onsite land use. Based on the information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

10 Projected onsite land use changes required during ... the renewal period would

11 be a small fraction of any nuclear power plant site and would involve land that is

12 controlled by the applicant.

13 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

14 the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, consultation with the FWS, or its

15 evaluation of other information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no onsite land use

16 impacts during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

17 C Power line right-of-way. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

18 Ongoing use of power line rights of ways would continue with no change in

19 restrictions. The effects of these restrictions are of small significance.

20 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

21 the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, consultation with the FWS, or its

22 evaluation of other information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of

23 power lines on land use during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

24 There is one Category 2 issue related to transmission lines, and another issue related to

25 transmission lines is also evaluated. These issues are listed in Table 4-4 and are discussed in

26 Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.

27
Environmental Impacts of Operation

 January 2006 4-25 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Table 4-4. Category 2 and Uncategorized Issues Applicable to the Monticello 

2 Transmission Lines During the Renewal Term

3 ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B,

4 Table B-1

GEIS

Section

10 CFR

51.53(c)(3)(ii)

Subparagraph

SEIS

Section

5 HUMAN HEALTH

6 Electromagnetic fields, acute effects (electric shock) 4.5.4.1 H 4.2.1

7 Electrom agnetic fields, chronic effects 4.5.4.2 N/A 4.2.2

8

9 4.2.1 Electromagnetic Fields—Acute Effects

10 Based on the GEIS, the Commission found that electric shock resulting from direct access to

11 energized conductors or from induced charges in metallic structures has not been found to be a

12 problem at most operating plants and generally is not expected to be a problem during the

13 license renewal term. However, site-specific review is required to determine the significance of

14 the electric shock potential along the portions of the transmission lines that are within the scope

15 of this SEIS.

16 In the GEIS (NRC 1996), the staff found that without a review of the conformance of each

17 nuclear plant transmission line with National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) criteria (NESC

18 2001), it was not possible to determine the significance of the electric shock potential. 

19 Evaluation of individual plant transmission lines is necessary because the issue of electric

20 shock safety was not addressed in the licensing process for some nuclear power plants. For

21 other nuclear power plants, land use in the vicinity of transmission lines may have changed, or

22 power distribution companies may have chosen to upgrade line voltage. To comply with

23 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H), the applicant must provide an assessment of the potential shock

24 hazard if the transmission lines that were constructed for the specific purpose of connecting the

25 plant to the transmission system do not meet the recommendations of the NESC for preventing

26 electric shock from induced currents.

27 Two 345-kV transmission lines (Monticello to Coon Creek and Monticello to Parkers Lake

28 circuits) were originally constructed to connect Monticello to the transmission system. However,

29 changes to the 345-kV transmission system and to these lines have fully integrated Monticello

30 Substation into the 345-kV transmission system. Based on these considerations, Monticello

31 Substation now constitutes the transmission interconnection for Monticello. 

32 All lines emanating from Monticello Substation were designed, constructed, and are operated in

33 compliance with the applicable sections of the NESC, including the most recent edition. These

34 lines meet the requirements in effect since the 1990 edition of the Code for lines exceeding

35 98 kV alternating current to ground, which limits "the steady state current due to electrostatic
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-26 January 2006

1 effects to 5 mA if the largest anticipated truck, vehicle or equipment under the line were

2 short-circuited to ground." This current is induced in vehicles by the transmission line electric

3 field, which is proportional to the voltage of the line and inversely proportional to the distance

4 from the line. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has performed measurements on

5 objects beneath lines to determine the level of electric field that will induce current in various

6 objects. Results indicate that an electric field of 7.8 kV per meter at 1 meter above ground is

7 required to induce a 5 mA current through a large tractor-trailer (EPRI 1987). 

8 The 345-kV lines associated with Monticello Substation produce a maximum electric field at

9 1 meter above ground of 6.0 kV per meter. The unloaded sag at 120oF is limited by the NESC

10 to a minimum distance to ground of 30 ft in order to meet the minimum clearance required for

11 operation at 212oF, the highest operating temperature. For a large vehicle, the electric field

12 values indicated above could potentially generate an induced current of 3.84 mA, which is

13 below the NESC code criteria of 5 mA (NMC 2005a). 

14 Transmission line compliance with the provisions of the NESC code discussed above is verified

15 by periodic air patrols (monthly), which monitor construction activities beneath and near the

16 lines that could alter corridor terrain and clearances. Based on these considerations, NMC

17 concluded that the Monticello 345-kV transmission lines meet the NESC recommendations for

18 preventing shock from induced currents and further assessment of the impact of the proposed

19 action on the potential shock hazard is not required (NMC 2005a). NMC’s assessment under

20 10 CFR Part 51 concludes that electric shock is of small significance for Monticello transmission

21 lines. Due to the small significance of the issue, mitigation measures, such as the installation of

22 warning signs at roadway crossings or increasing wire clearance, are not warranted.

23 The staff has reviewed the available information, including that provided by the applicant, the

24 staff's site visit, the scoping process, and other public sources. Using this information, the staff

25 evaluated the potential impacts for electric shock resulting from operation of Monticello and

26 associated transmission lines. It is the staff's conclusion that the potential impacts for electric

27 shock during the renewal term are SMALL.

28 4.2.2 Electromagnetic Fields—Chronic Effects

29 In the GEIS, the chronic effects of 60-Hz electromagnetic fields from power lines were not

30 designated as either Category 1 or Category 2, and will not be until a scientific consensus is

31 reached on the health implications of these fields.

32 The potential for chronic effects from these fields continues to be studied and is not known at

33 this time. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) directs related

34 research through the U.S. Department of Energy. A recent report (NIEHS 1999) contains the

35 following conclusion:
Environmental Impacts of Operation

 January 2006 4-27 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF (extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field)

2 exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that

3 exposure may pose a leukemia hazard. In our opinion, this finding is insufficient to

4 warrant aggressive regulatory concern. However, because virtually everyone in the

5 United States uses electricity and therefore is routinely exposed to ELF-EMF, passive

6 regulatory action is warranted such as a continued emphasis on educating both the

7 public and the regulated community on means aimed at reducing exposures. The

8 NIEHS does not believe that other cancers or non-cancer health outcomes provide

9 sufficient evidence of a risk to currently warrant concern.

10 This statement is not sufficient to cause the staff to change its position with respect to the

11 chronic effects of electromagnetic fields. Footnote 5 to Table B-1 states: “If, in the future, the

12 Commission finds that, contrary to current indications, a consensus has been reached by

13 appropriate Federal health agencies that there are adverse health effects from electromagnetic

14 fields, the Commission will require applicants to submit plant-specific reviews of these health

15 effects as part of their license renewal applications. Until such time, applicants for license

16 renewal are not required to submit information on this issue.” The staff considers the GEIS

17 finding of “uncertain” still appropriate and will continue to follow developments on this issue.

18 4.3 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations

19 Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 that are applicable to

20 Monticello in regard to radiological impacts are listed in Table 4-5. NMC stated in its ER (NMC

21 2005a) that it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of

22 the Monticello OL. The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its

23 independent review of the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation

24 of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts related

25 to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For these issues, the staff concluded in

26 the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL, and additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not

27 likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

28 Table 4-5. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Radiological Impacts of Normal

29 Operations During the Renewal Term

30 ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

31 HUMAN HEALTH

32 Radiation exposures to public (license renewal term) 4.6.2

33 Occupational radiation exposures (license renewal term) 4.6.3

34

35 A brief description of the staff’s review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for

36 each of these issues follows:
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-28 January 2006

1 C Radiation exposures to public (license renewal term). Based on information in the GEIS,

2 the Commission found that 

3 Radiation doses to the public will continue at current levels associated with

4 normal operations.

5 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

6 the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

7 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of radiation exposures to

8 the public during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

9 C Occupational radiation exposures (license renewal term). Based on information in the

10 GEIS, the Commission found that

11 Projected maximum occupational doses during the license renewal term are

12 within the range of doses experienced during normal operations and normal

13 maintenance outages, and would be well below regulatory limits.

14 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review

15 of the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

16 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of occupational radiation

17 exposures during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

18 There are no Category 2 issues related to radiological impacts of routine operations. 

19 4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts of Plant Operations During the

20 License Renewal Term

21 Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 that are applicable to

22 socioeconomic impacts during the renewal term are listed in Table 4-6. NMC stated in its ER

23 (NMC 2005a) that it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with the

24 renewal of Monticello. The staff has not identified any new and significant information during

25 its independent review of the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its

26 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no

27 impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS (NRC 1996). For all of

28 those issues, the GEIS concluded that the impacts are SMALL, and plant-specific mitigation

29 measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

 January 2006 4-29 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Table 4-6. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics During the

2 Renewal Term

3 ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

4 SOCIOECONOMICS

5 Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and

6 recreation

4.7.3; 4.7.3.3; 4.7.3.4;

4.7.3.6

7 Public services: education (license renewal term) 4.7.3.1

8 Aesthetic impacts (license renewal term) 4.7.6

9 Aesthetic impacts of transm ission lines (license renewal term) 4.5.8

10

11 A brief description of the staff's review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for

12 each of these issues follows:

13 C Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation. Based on

14 information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

15 Impacts to public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation are

16 expected to be of small significance at all sites.

17 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

18 the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

19 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts on public safety, social

20 services, and tourism and recreation during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the

21 GEIS.

22 C Public services: education (license renewal term). Based on information in the GEIS, the

23 Commission found that

24 Only impacts of small significance are expected.

25 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

26 the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

27 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts on education during the

28 renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

29 C Aesthetic impacts (license renewal term). Based on information in the GEIS, the

30 Commission found that

31 No significant impacts are expected during the license renewal term.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-30 January 2006

1 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

2 the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

3 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no aesthetic impacts during the

4 renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

5 C Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines (license renewal term). Based on information in the

6 GEIS, the Commission found that

7 No significant impacts are expected during the license renewal term.

8 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

9 the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

10 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no aesthetic impacts during the

11 renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

12 Table 4-7 lists the Category 2 socioeconomic issues, which require plant-specific analysis, and

13 environmental justice, which was not addressed in the GEIS.

14 Table 4-7. Environmental Justice and GEIS Category 2 Issues Applicable to

15 Socioeconomics During the Renewal Term

16 ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

17 Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

10 CFR

51.53(c)(3)(ii)

Subparagraph SEIS Section

18 SOCIOECONOMICS

19 Housing impacts 4.7.1 I 4.4.1

20 Public services: public utilities 4.7.3.5 I 4.4.2

21 Offsite land use (license renewal term) 4.7.4 I 4.4.3

22 Public services: public transportation 4.7.3.2 J 4.4.4

23 Historic and archeological resources 4.7.7 K 4.4.5

24 Environmental justice Not addressed(a) Not addressed(a) 4.4.6

(a) 25 Guidance related to environmental justice was not in place at the time the GEIS and the associated revision to

26 10 CFR Part 51 were prepared. Therefore, environmental justice must be addressed in the staff’s environmental

27 impact statement.

28

29 4.4.1 Housing Impacts During Operations

30 In determining housing impacts, the applicant chose to follow Appendix C of the GEIS

31 (NRC 1996), which presents a population characterization method that is based on two factors,

32 "sparseness" and "proximity" (GEIS Section C.1.4 [NRC 1996]). Sparseness measures
Environmental Impacts of Operation

 January 2006 4-31 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 population density within 20 mi of the site, and proximity measures population density and city

2 size within 50 mi. Each factor has categories of density and size (GEIS Table C.1 [NRC 1996]),

3 and a matrix is used to rank the population category as low, medium, or high (GEIS Figure C.1

4 [NRC 1996]).

5 According to the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) 2000 information, the population living within

6 20 mi of the Monticello site was estimated to be approximately 166,860. This translates to

approximately 133 persons/mi2 7 living on the land area present within a 20-mi radius of

8 Monticello.

9 This concentration falls into GEIS sparseness Category 4. As estimated from 2000 USCB

10 information, approximately 2,740,995 people live within 50 mi of Monticello. This equates to a

population density of 349 persons/mi2 11 within 50 mi. According to the GEIS proximity measures

12 (NRC 1996), Monticello is therefore classified as Category 4. Applying the GEIS sparseness

13 and proximity matrix (sparseness Category 4 and proximity Category 4) results in the

14 conclusion that Monticello is located in a high-population area.

15 SMALL impacts result when no discernible change in housing occurs, changes in rental rates

16 and housing values are similar to those occurring statewide, and no housing construction or

17 conversion is required to meet new demand (NRC 1996). The GEIS assumes that no more

18 than a total additional staff of 60 permanent workers might be needed during the license

19 renewal period to perform routine maintenance and other activities. The number of vacant

20 housing units in Wright County and Sherburne County are 8.4 percent or 2890 housing units

21 and 5.5 percent or 1246 housing units, respectively (USCB 2000). Therefore, the addition of

22 60 workers and 74 indirect jobs generated by those additional employees (NMC 2005a) could

23 be comfortably absorbed without significant impact to the housing market during the license

24 renewal period.

25 Monticello is not projecting new employment due to license renewal activities. As a result, NMC

26 indicated that the impacts would be SMALL and mitigation measures would not be necessary

27 (NMC 2005a).

28 The staff reviewed the available information relative to housing impacts and NMC conclusions. 

29 Based on this review, the staff concludes that the impact on housing during the license renewal

30 period would be SMALL, and additional mitigation measures are not warranted. 

31 4.4.2 Public Services: Public Utility Impacts During Operations

32 Impacts on public utility services are considered SMALL if there is little or no change in the

33 ability of the system to respond to the level of demand, and thus there is no need to add capital

34 facilities. Impacts are considered MODERATE if overtaxing of service capabilities occurs

35 during periods of peak demand. Impacts are considered LARGE if existing levels of service

36 (e.g., water or sewer services) are substantially degraded and additional capacity is needed to
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-32 January 2006

1 meet ongoing demands for services. The GEIS indicates that, in the absence of new and

2 significant information to the contrary, the only impacts on public utilities that could be

3 significant are impacts on public water supplies (NRC 1996). 

4 Analysis of impacts on the public water supply system considered plant demand and

5 plant-related population growth. Section 2.2.2 describes the Monticello permitted withdraw rate

6 and actual use of water. There are no plans for refurbishment at Monticello, so plant demand

7 would not change (NMC 2005a).

8 Monticello assumed 60 new employees and 74 indirect jobs created by the new employees due

9 to license renewal activity. Most area water capacities are below maximum withdraw capacities

10 (see Table 2-7). The additional direct and indirect employees would use less than 1 percent of

11 the current usage from these facilities. The staff finds that the impact of increased water use

12 on area water systems is SMALL, and that no further mitigation measures are warranted.

13 4.4.3 Offsite Land Use During Operations

14 Offsite land use during the license renewal term is a Category 2 issue (10 CFR Part 51,

15 Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1). Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 Subpart A, Appendix B notes

16 that "significant changes in land use may be associated with population and tax revenue

17 changes resulting from license renewal."

18 Section 4.7.4 of the GEIS defines the magnitude of land use changes as a result of plant

19 operation during the license renewal term as follows:

20 SMALL—Little new development and minimal changes to an area's land use pattern.

21 MODERATE—Considerable new development and some changes to the land use

22 pattern.

23 LARGE—Large-scale new development and major changes in the land use pattern.

24 Tax revenue can affect land use because it enables local jurisdictions to be able to provide the

25 public services (e.g., transportation and utilities) necessary to support development. 

26 Section 4.7.4.1 of the GEIS states that the assessment of tax-driven land use impacts during

27 the license renewal term should consider (1) the size of the plant's payments relative to the

28 community's total revenues, (2) the nature of the community's existing land use pattern, and

29 (3) the extent to which the community already has public services in place to support and guide

30 development. If the plant's tax payments are projected to be small relative to the community's

31 total revenue, tax-driven land use changes during the plant's license renewal term would be

32 SMALL, especially where the community has pre-established patterns of development and has

33 provided adequate public services to support and guide development. Section 4.7.2.1 of the

34 GEIS states that if tax payments by the plant owner are less than 10 percent of the taxing
Environmental Impacts of Operation

 January 2006 4-33 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 jurisdictions revenue, the significance level would be SMALL. If the plant's tax payments are

2 projected to be medium to large relative to the community's total revenue, new tax-driven land

3 use changes would be MODERATE. If the plant’s tax payments are projected to be a dominant

4 source of the community’s total revenue, new tax-driven land use changes would be LARGE. 

5 This would be especially true where the community has no pre-established pattern of

6 development or has not provided adequate public services to support and guide development.

7 Northern States Power Company (NSP) is assessed annual property taxes for the Monticello

8 site by Wright County, the City of Monticello, School District 882, and the Monticello-Big Lake

9 Hospital District. NSP is also assessed the State General Tax. Property taxes are paid directly

10 to Wright County, which in turn distributes the money to the aforementioned taxing jurisdictions. 

11 Property taxes fund local government services such as highway maintenance, education, public

12 health, public safety, public libraries, and various other social services (NMC 2005a). 

13 From 1994 to 2001, NSP's largest annual property tax contributions for Monticello went to

14 School District 882. Payments during the period from 1998 to 2002 decreased by 70.2 percent

15 as a result of the passage of a tax bill by the State in 2001 which replaced the State Assessed

16 School Levy with the State General Tax. Assessments under the State General Tax are paid

17 into the State General Fund and redistributed by a State-determined formula to school districts

18 statewide in part based on student numbers. The State Assessed School Levy had been

19 included in School District 882 payments prior to year 2002. Contributions to School District

20 882 accounted for 20.4 percent of the school district's total revenues and 18.5 percent of the

21 total operating budget in 1999. By 2002, payments for Monticello represented a much smaller

22 percentage of both the school district's total revenues and total operating budget, 5.2 percent

23 and 5.5 percent, respectively (NMC 2005a). 

24 Annual property tax payments to Wright County decreased from approximately 3.2 to 2.0 million

25 dollars from 1998 to 2002, a 36.9 percent decrease. These contributions represented 6.9 to

26 3.4 percent of the county's total annual revenues during the period. 

27 Annual payments to the hospital district decreased 30 percent during the period from 1998 to

28 2003. These payments represented an increasingly smaller percentage of total revenues from

29 1998 to 2002, 1.4 to 0.5 percent. When viewed in relation to total Wright County property tax

30 dollars received by the hospital district, NSP's tax payment for Monticello represented between

31 27.9 percent and 21.3 percent of the total tax levy during the period. 

32 Annual NSP payments to the City of Monticello increased from approximately 2.8 to 3.4 million

33 dollars from 1998 to 2002, a 20.9 percent increase, but represented a smaller percentage of the

34 city's total revenues than in previous years, decreasing from 29.8 to 24.6 percent between 1998

35 to 2002. In addition, these annual payments represented a slightly increasing percentage (11.7

36 to 12.8) of the total operating budget for the City of Monticello during the same period (NMC

37 2005a). 
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-34 January 2006

1 NSP projects that future tax payments will gradually increase due to increased levies by the

2 aforementioned taxing jurisdictions. NSP's tax liability for Monticello could also be influenced by

3 changes at higher levels of government. The Minnesota Department of Revenue is currently

4 reviewing the rules determining the way electric utilities are valued. These reviews may result

5 in a reduction of NSP's apportionable value regarding its Monticello property, thereby potentially

6 lowering future tax payments for NSP. However, state lawmakers have discussed reducing

7 some of the exemptions currently available to NSP, resulting in potentially higher future tax

8 liabilities for Monticello (NMC 2005a). 

9 Because (1) Monticello does not propose to employ additional personnel during the license

10 renewal period, and (2) Monticello does not anticipate major refurbishment or construction

11 during this period, and therefore, does not anticipate any increase in the assessed value of

12 Monticello during the license renewal period, the staff concludes that the net impact of

13 plant-related population changes is likely to be SMALL. However, if the operating license for

14 Monticello was not renewed and the plant was decommissioned, the impacts to the tax base for

15 Wright County, the City of Monticello, School District 882, and the Monticello-Big Lake Hospital

16 District could be significant. Therefore, the staff concludes that the net impact of tax-related

17 land use impacts related to renewing the operating license for Monticello are MODERATE.

18 4.4.4 Public Services: Transportation Impacts During Operations

19 Table B-1, 10 CFR Part 51 states: "Transportation impacts (level of service) of highway traffic

20 generated... during the term of the renewed license are generally expected to be of small

21 significance. However, the increase in traffic associated with additional workers and the local

22 road and traffic control conditions may lead to impacts of moderate or large significance at

23 some sites." All applicants are required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J) to assess the impacts of

24 highway traffic generated by the proposed project on the level of service of local highways

25 during the term of the renewed license.

26 Expected population growth in the area around Monticello is not due to changes in employment

27 at Monticello, but due to the migration away from the Minneapolis/St. Paul area and the

28 successful recruitment of outlet malls and retail. Current employment associated with

29 Monticello is approximately 414 permanent employees and 105 contract and matrixed

30 employees (NMC 2005a). Monticello refuels on a nominal 24-month cycle. During refueling

31 outages, site employment increases by as many as 600 temporary workers for 30 to 40 days. 

32 During surveillance, monitoring, inspections, testing, trending, and recordkeeping (SMITTR),

33 Monticello believes that these tasks can be performed within this schedule and employment

34 level. NRC uses 60 workers as a conservative estimate of additional permanent workers

35 needed per unit for license renewal SMITTR activities. GEIS Section C.3.1.2 was written using

36 this approach in order to "...provide a realistic upper bound to potential population-driven

37 impacts...." (NRC 1996). NMC submitted its opinion on the effects of an additional 60 workers

38 and concluded that there would be no significant transportation impacts during operations.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

 January 2006 4-35 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 This additional analysis did not change the staff's conclusions related to impacts on

2 transportation service.

3 The staff reviewed Monticello's assumptions and resulting analysis. The staff concluded that

4 any impact of Monticello employees on transportation service degradation is SMALL and no

5 further mitigation measures are warranted.

6 4.4.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources

7 The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that Federal agencies take into account

8 the impacts of their undertakings on historic properties. The historic preservation review

9 process mandated by Section 106 of the NHPA is outlined in regulations issued by the Advisory

10 Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR Part 800. Renewal of an OL is an undertaking that

11 could potentially affect historic properties. Therefore, according to the NHPA, the NRC is to

12 make a reasonable effort to identify historic properties in the areas of potential effect. If no

13 historic properties are present or affected, the NRC is required to notify the State Historic

14 Preservation Officer (SHPO) before proceeding. If it is determined that historic properties are

15 present, the NRC is required to assess and resolve possible adverse effects of the undertaking.

16 In accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.8, the NRC informed the Advisory Council on Historic

17 Preservation, the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (MNSHPO), and tribes with

18 current and historical ties to the region that the Section 106 process is being integrated with the

19 NEPA process and “the SEIS will include analyses of potential impacts to historic and cultural

20 resources” (NRC 2005b,c). The NRC then conducted an archaeological records and literature

21 search at the MNSHPO in June 2005 to identify important resources that may be located in the

22 area of potential effect. 

23 Based on the site records search, the input from SHPO (Bloomberg 2005), and absence of

24 input from tribes concerning traditional properties in the vicinity, the NRC has determined that

25 no historic properties will be affected by this undertaking. Further, due to the extensive

26 disturbance resulting from the original plant construction, no impacts to historic properties are

27 anticipated during operation. According to plant procedures that will be in place, ground28 disturbing activities will be reviewed by the Environmental Coordinator, and, in the unlikely

29 event that resources are discovered within the area of potential effect during the course of

30 operations, the SHPO will be notified and consulted in developing any response needed to

31 address the discovery.

32 Due to the extensive disturbance present in the area of potential effect, and the lack of

33 substantial land-altering aspects of this license renewal, it is the staff's conclusion that the

34 potential impacts to historic and archaeological resources are expected to be SMALL and

35 mitigation is not warranted.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

(a)The NRC guidance for performing environmental justice reviews defines "minority" as American Indian

or Alaskan Native; Asian, Native Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander; or Black races; or Hispanic ethnicity. 

"Other" races and multiracial individuals may be considered a separate minority category (NRC 2004a).

(b)A census block group is a combination of census blocks, which are statistical subdivisions of a census

tract. A census block is the smallest geographical entity for which the USCB collects and tabulates

decennial census information. A census tract is a small, relatively permanent statistical subdivision of

counties delineated by local comm ittees of census data users in accordance with USCB guidelines for the

purpose of collecting and presenting decennial census data. Census block groups are subsets of census

tracts (USCB 2001).

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-36 January 2006

1 4.4.6 Environmental Justice

2 Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy that Federal agencies identify and address, as

3 appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its

action on minority(a) 4 or low-income populations. The memorandum accompanying Executive

5 Order 12898 directs Federal executive agencies to consider environmental justice under the

6 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The Council on Environmental Quality

7 (CEQ) has provided guidance for addressing environmental justice. Although the Executive

8 Order is not mandatory for independent agencies, the NRC has voluntarily committed to

9 undertake environmental justice reviews. Specific guidance is provided in NRC Office of

10 Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office Instruction LIC-203, Procedural Guidance for Preparing

11 Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues Rev. 1 (NRC 2004a). In

12 2004, the Commission issued a Final Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental

13 Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions (NRC 2004b).

14 The scope of the review as defined in NRC guidance (NRC 2004a) includes identification of

15 impacts on minority and low-income populations, the location and significance of any

16 environmental impacts during operations on populations that are particularly sensitive, and

17 information pertaining to mitigation. It also includes evaluation of whether these impacts are

18 likely to be disproportionately high and adverse. 

19 The staff looks for minority and low-income populations within the 50-mi radius of the site. For

the staff's review, a minority population exists in a census block group(b) 20 if the percentage of

21 each minority and aggregated minority category within the census block group exceeds the

22 corresponding percentage of minorities in the state of which it is a part by 20 percentage points,

23 or the corresponding percentage of minorities within the census block group is at least

24 50 percent. A low-income population exists if the percentage of low-income population within a

25 census block group exceeds the corresponding percentage of low-income population in the

26 state of which it is a part by 20 percent, or if the corresponding percentage of low-income

27 population within a census block group is at least 50 percent.

28 For the NMC review, the staff examined the geographical distribution of minority ands

29 low-income populations within 50 mi of the site, employing the 2000 census for low-income and
Environmental Impacts of Operation

 January 2006 4-37 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 minority populations. NMC conducted its analysis for minority and low-income populations

2 using the convention of including a census tract or block group if any part of its area lay within

3 50 mi of Monticello. The 50-mi radius includes 2166 census block groups. NMC used USCB

4 2000 census data to determine the minority and low-income characteristics on a block-group

5 level. NMC included in its analysis census block groups that were 50 percent or more within the

6 50-mi radius of Monticello. The criterion of more than 20 percentage points was used to

7 determine whether a census tract or block group should be counted as containing a minority or

8 low-income population. Figures 4-1 and 4-2 show the distribution of census blocks for the

9 minority and low-income populations, respectively. 

10 Based on the NRC criterion, the staff determined that Black minority populations exist in

11 149 block groups. American Indian or Native American minority populations exist in 3 census

12 block groups. Asian minority populations exist in 46 census block groups. Hispanic or Latino

13 minority populations exist in 52 census block groups. "Other" minority populations exist in

14 11 census block groups. Figure 4-1 shows the location of census block groups with minority

15 populations. By the NRC criteria, 91 census blocks contained areas of low-income populations,

16 as shown in Figure 4-2.

17 With the locations of minority and low-income populations identified, the staff evaluated whether

18 any of the environmental impacts of the proposed action could affect these populations in a

19 disproportionately high or adverse manner. Based on staff guidance (NRC 2004a), air, land

20 and water resources within 50 mi of the Monticello site were examined. Within that area, a few

21 potential environmental impacts could affect human populations; all of these were considered

22 SMALL for the general population.

23 The pathways through which the environmental impacts associated with Monticello license

24 renewal can affect human populations are discussed in each associated section. The staff

25 evaluated whether minority or low-income populations could be disproportionately affected by

26 these impacts. The staff found that a specific ethnic group, the Hmong, identified within the

27 Asian minority population, depends on fishing and consuming fish from local rivers at a

28 disproportionately higher level than other populations. However, the staff did not identify any

29 significant effects from the plant on local fish. In addition, the staff did not identify any

30 location-dependent disproportionate impacts affecting these minority and low-income

31 populations. The staff concludes that offsite impacts from Monticello to minority and

32 low-income populations are SMALL, and no mitigation actions are warranted.

33 4.5 Groundwater Use and Quality

34 The Category 1 issue in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 that is applicable to

35 Monticello groundwater use and quality is listed in Table 4-8. NMC stated in its ER that it is not

36 aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of the Monticello OL

37 (NMC 2005a). The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its

38 independent review of the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation 
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-38 January 2006

1 Figure 4-1. Geographic Distribution of Minority Populations (Shown in Shaded

2 Areas) Within 50 mi of Monticello Based on Census Block Group

3 Data
Environmental Impacts of Operation

 January 2006 4-39 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Figure 4-2. Geographic Distribution of Low-Income Populations (Shown in

2 Shaded Areas) Within 50 mi of Monticello Based on Census Block

3 Group Data
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-40 January 2006

1 of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts related

2 to this issue beyond that discussed in the GEIS. For this issue, the GEIS concluded that the

3 impacts are SMALL, and additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be

4 sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

5 A brief description of the staff's review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1,

6 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, follows.

7 Table 4-8. Category 1 Issue Applicable to Groundwater Use and Quality

8 During the Renewal Term

9 ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

10 GROUND-WATER USE AND QUALITY

11 Ground-water use conflicts (potable and service water; plants that use < 100 gpm) 4.8.1.1

12

13 C Ground-water use conflicts (potable and service water; plants that use < 100 gpm). Based

14 on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

15 Plants using less than 100 gpm are not expected to cause any ground-water use

16 conflicts.

17 As discussed in Section 2.2.2, Monticello groundwater use is less than 100 gpm. The staff has

18 not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of the NMC ER,

19 the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available information. 

20 Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no groundwater use conflicts during the renewal

21 term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

22 The Category 2 issue related to groundwater use and quality during the renewal term that is

23 applicable to the Monticello site is discussed in the section that follows. This issue, which

24 requires plant-specific analysis, is listed in Table 4-9.

25 Table 4-9. Category 2 Issue Applicable to Groundwater Use and Quality

26 During the Renewal Term

27 ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B,

28 Table B-1

GEIS

Section

10 CFR

51.53(c)(3)(ii)

Subparagraph

SEIS

Section

29 GROUND-WATER USE AND QUALITY

30 Ground-water use conflicts (plants using cooling

31 towers withdrawing m ake-up water from a small river)

4.8.1.3;

4.4.2.1

A 4.5.1

32
Environmental Impacts of Operation

 January 2006 4-41 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 4.5.1 Groundwater Use Conflicts (Make-Up From a Small River)

2 Groundwater use conflicts for plants that have cooling towers withdrawing makeup water from a

3 small river is a Category 2 issue, requiring a site-specific assessment before license renewal.

4 Surface-water withdrawals from small water bodies during low-flow conditions may result in

5 groundwater use conflicts with nearby groundwater users.

6 Groundwater use at Monticello is regulated by a Water Appropriations Permit with MNDNR. 

7 The permit required NMC to measure groundwater elevations during 1967 to 1994, which

8 showed that the groundwater level is higher than river elevations (NMC 2005a). The impact of

9 consumptive loss on nearby groundwater users is associated with the difference it could

10 potentially cause in aquifer recharge, especially if other new groundwater or upstream surface

11 water users begin withdrawals. However, since groundwater flows towards the Mississippi

12 River, groundwater withdrawals would not be impacted by changes in river flow.

13 The staff reviewed available information relative to potential groundwater-use conflicts due to

14 consumptive loss of aquifer recharge. Based on this review, the staff concludes that the

15 potential impacts are SMALL, and additional mitigation is not warranted.

16 4.6 Threatened or Endangered Species

17 Federally threatened or endangered species are listed as a Category 2 issue in 10 CFR

18 Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. This issue is listed in Table 4-10.

19 This issue requires consultation with appropriate agencies to determine whether threatened or

20 endangered species are present and whether they would be adversely affected by continued

21 operation of the nuclear plant during the license renewal term. The presence of threatened or

22 endangered species in the vicinity of the Monticello site is discussed in Sections 2.2.5 and

23 2.2.6. On June 3, 2005, the staff contacted the FWS to request information on threatened and

24 endangered species and the impacts of license renewal (NRC 2005a). In response, on

25 July 13, 2005, the FWS provided additional information regarding Federally listed species that

26 have been observed or may occur in the four-county area (Wright, Sherburne, Hennepin, and

27 Anoka counties) that includes the Monticello site and its associated transmission lines, as well

28 as concerns that the FWS has regarding those species (FWS 2005). The staff has prepared a

29 biological assessment (BA) documenting its review of Federally listed threatened or

30 endangered species at the Monticello site and associated transmission lines and submitted it to

31 the FWS for concurrence (NRC 2005d). 
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-42 January 2006

1 Table 4-10. Category 2 Issue Applicable to Threatened or Endangered Species

2 in the Vicinity of Monticello During the License Renewal Term

3 ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51,

4 Subpart A, Appendix B,

5 Table B-1 GEIS Section

10 CFR

51.53(c)(3)(ii)

Subparagraph SEIS Section

6 THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES (FOR ALL PLANTS)

7 Threatened or endangered

8 species

4.1 E 4.6

9

10 4.6.1 Aquatic Species

11 The Higgins' eye pearlymussel (Lampsilis higginsii) is the only Federally listed (endangered)

12 aquatic species reported from the four-county area that includes the Monticello site and its

13 associated transmission lines (FWS 2005). As discussed in Section 2.2.5, the closest Essential

14 Habitat Areas for the Higgins' eye pearlymussel occur in the St. Croix River (RM 811), which

15 flows into the Mississippi River approximately 89 mi downstream from Monticello. Also, the

16 Higgins' eye pearlymussel is not known to occur further upstream than Pool 2 (RM 848 to RM

17 815) of the Mississippi River, which is mostly located downstream from the Twin Cities area

18 (Kelner and Davis 2002; Hornbach 2004). Therefore, potential impacts from the operation of

19 Monticello are too far removed to adversely affect the species. The Monticello cooling-water

20 intake and discharge are closely monitored under the NPDES program. NPDES permit limits

21 are reviewed on a regular basis by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to ensure the

22 protection of aquatic biota, including fish species that can serve as hosts for the glochidia of the

23 Higgins' eye pearlymussel.

24 There are no plans to conduct refurbishment or construction activities at Monticello. Therefore,

25 the staff has concluded that continued operation of the plant during the license renewal term will

26 have no effect on the Higgins' eye pearlymussel. Thus, it is the staff's finding, as documented

27 in its BA (see Appendix E), that the impacts on threatened or endangered aquatic species from

28 an additional 20 years of operation of Monticello would be SMALL, and additional mitigation is

29 not warranted.

30 4.6.2 Terrestrial Species

31 There are two Federally listed threatened or endangered terrestrial species that have the

32 potential to occur on or in the vicinity of the Monticello site and its associated transmission lines. 

33 These two species are discussed in Section 2.2.6. One Federally threatened species, the bald

34 eagle, is known to occur on the Monticello site and on one of its associated transmission

35 corridors. The gray wolf, also a Federally threatened species, occurs in the northern portions of

36 Minnesota and has recovered significantly, compared with its numbers in past decades.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

 January 2006 4-43 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Continued recovery and dispersal of this species into central and southern portions of

2 Minnesota is probable.

3 Two active bald eagle nests occur in the vicinity of the Monticello site. One nest is located on

4 Beaver Island in the Mississippi River north-northwest of the Monticello power block; the second

5 nest is located in a transmission tower along the Monticello-Coon Creek 345 kV line. Public

6 access to both nest sites is limited. The nest located on Beaver island is approximately 1000 ft

7 from the Monticello power block in which the majority of site activity occurs and would not be

8 affected by routine site operation or maintenance activities. The nest located in the

9 transmission tower is in a remote area and Xcel Energy has restricted right-of-way maintenance

10 activities in the vicinity of the nest (NMC 2005b).

11 NMC has not identified any additional construction or refurbishment activities that would result

12 in greater land disturbance during the license renewal period (NMC 2005a). Furthermore, Xcel

13 Energy has in place a program to install flight diverters on its transmission lines to reduce the

14 potential for avian collisions and has entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with

15 the FWS and MNDNR to develop and implement an Avian Protection Plan (Xcel Energy et al.

16 2002). Electrocutions in the U.S. of large raptors almost always occur on comparatively low

17 voltage distribution lines, not transmission lines. NMC and Xcel Energy are not aware of any

18 adverse impacts to threatened or endangered species that have resulted from the operation of

19 the Monticello plant during its 30-year operating history (NMC 2005a). Therefore the staff

20 concludes that operations and maintenance activities on the Monticello site or its associated

21 transmission line corridors are not likely to adversely affect the bald eagle.

22 The gray wolf currently does not occur on the Monticello site or associated transmission line

23 corridors. Operations and maintenance activities at Monticello and its associated transmission

24 corridors will have no effect on the gray wolf.

25 Based on this information, as documented in its BA (NRC 2005d), the staff concludes that the

26 potential impacts on threatened or endangered terrestrial species from an additional 20 years of

27 operation of Monticello on terrestrial threatened and endangered species would be SMALL, and

28 additional mitigation is not warranted.

29 4.7 Evaluation of Potential New and Significant Information

30 on Impacts of Operations During the Renewal Term

31 The staff has not identified new and significant information on environmental issues listed in

32 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, related to operation during the renewal

33 term. The staff also determined that information provided during the public comment period did

34 not identify any new issue that requires site-specific assessment. The staff reviewed the

35 discussion of environmental impacts associated with operation during the renewal term in the

36 GEIS and has conducted its own independent review, including public scoping meetings, to
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-44 January 2006

1 identify issues with new and significant information. Processes for identification and evaluation

2 of new information are described in Section 1.2.2.

3 4.8 Cumulative Impacts

4 The staff considered potential cumulative impacts of operations of Monticello during the renewal

5 term. For the purposes of this analysis, past actions are those related to the resources at the

6 time of the plant licensing and construction, present actions are those related to the resources

7 at the time of current operation of the power plant, and future actions are considered to be

8 those that are reasonably foreseeable through the end of plant operation. Therefore, the

9 analysis considers potential impacts through the end of the current license term as well as the

10 20-year renewal license term. The geographical area over which past, present, and future

11 actions would occur is dependent on the type of action considered and is described below for

12 each impact area.

13 The impacts of the proposed action, as described in Section 4, are combined with other past,

14 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions at Monticello regardless of what agency

15 (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. These combined impacts

16 are defined as "cumulative" in 40 CFR 1508.7 and include individually minor but collectively

17 significant actions taking place over a period of time. It is possible that an impact that may be

18 SMALL by itself could result in a MODERATE or LARGE impact when considered in

19 combination with the impacts of other actions on the affected resource. Likewise, if a resource

20 is regionally declining or imperiled, even a SMALL individual impact could be important if it

21 contributes to or accelerates the overall resource decline.

22 4.8.1 Cumulative Impacts Resulting from Operation of the Plant Cooling System

23 For the purposes of this analysis, the geographic area considered for cumulative impacts

24 resulting from operation of the Monticello cooling system is primarily the upper portion of the

25 Mississippi River, particularly that area bounded by St. Cloud upstream of the plant (RM 900)

26 and St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam (RM 854) downstream of the plant. As discussed in

27 Section 4.1, the staff found no new and significant information that would indicate that the

28 conclusion regarding any of the cooling system-related Category 1 issues related to Monticello

29 is inconsistent with the conclusions in the GEIS (NRC 1996). Additionally, the staff determined

30 that none of the cooling system-related Category 2 issues would have greater than a SMALL

31 impact on local water quality and aquatic resources.

32 The cumulative impacts of past actions have resulted in the existing water quality and aquatic

33 resource conditions near Monticello. The major changes and modifications within the upstream

34 reach of the Mississippi River that have had the greatest impacts on aquatic resources include

35 physical and chemical stresses and introduction of nonnative species. The physical and

36 chemical stresses include urban, industrial, and agricultural contaminants (e.g., nutrients, toxic
Environmental Impacts of Operation

 January 2006 4-45 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 chemicals, sediments); stream modification; water diversions; land-use changes (e.g.,

2 residential, recreational, agricultural and industrial development); dredging; shoreline

3 modifications; wetland elimination and modification; dams and impoundments; impingement

4 and entrainment in water-intake structures; thermal loading from cooling water; and major

5 degradative incidents or catastrophes (Weitzell et al. 2003; Genet and Chirhart 2004). These in

6 turn can affect fish, benthic macroinvertebrates, and plankton populations; cause a loss of

7 habitat; cause deformities or tumors in fish and other biota; and contaminate fish, which leads

8 to restrictions on human consumption.

9 Industrial, municipal, agricultural, and power plant usage of the Mississippi River occurs

10 between St. Cloud and the Twin Cities (NMC 2005a). While pollution from domestic sewage

11 has been reduced since passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (CWA), the

12 Mississippi River still receives contaminants from agricultural, industrial, municipal, and

13 residential sources (Fremling and Drazkowski 2000). The Monticello intake area requires

14 dredging every six to eight years to prevent excess sand and silt from being drawn into the

15 plant circulating water system (Amish et al. 1978). This causes a temporary, localized stress to

16 aquatic biota within the immediate area near the Monticello plant.

17 The river water supply is adequate to meet the needs of the facility for cooling purposes under

18 all conditions. The staff, while preparing this assessment, assumed that other industrial,

19 commercial, or public installations could be located in the general vicinity of the Monticello site

20 prior to the end of Monticello operations. Any discharge of water by such facilities into the

21 Mississippi River would be regulated by the MPCA. The discharge limits are set considering

22 the overall or cumulative impact of all of the other regulated activities in the area. Compliance

23 with the CWA and its NPDES permit minimizes Monticello's cumulative impacts on aquatic

24 resources. Continued operation of Monticello would require renewed discharge permits from

25 the MPCA, which would address changing requirements so that cumulative water quality

26 objectives would be served.

27 Continued operation and maintenance of these transmission corridors are not likely to

28 contribute to a regional decline in wildlife, aquatic biota, and habitat resources. 

29 Future contributions to cumulative impacts to aquatic resources within the Mississippi River

30 would generally occur from those actions that currently cause impacts (e.g., human habitation,

31 urban and industrial development, agriculture, recreational fisheries, and spread of nonnative

32 species). The quality of the aquatic resources within the Upper Mississippi River will continue

33 to decline unless inputs of sediments, nutrients, and toxic substances are reduced or eliminated

34 (Fremling and Drazkowski 2000).

35 The potential exists for the expansion of nonnative species that have already begun to occur in

36 the Upper Mississippi River, and for additional nonnative species to become established within

37 the river. Four species of Asian carp are established within the Upper Mississippi River. As

38 mentioned, the common carp (Cyprinus carpio) is a prominent species within the Monticello

39 area, while the grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-46 January 2006

1 molotrix), and bighead carp (H. nobilis) have become established within the Upper Mississippi

2 River (but not within Minnesota) during the past two decades (Chick 2002). These species can

3 impact native species by destroying habitat, reducing water quality, and by consuming aquatic

4 vegetation (grass carp) or planktonic organisms (silver and bighead carp) (USGS 2004). The

5 silver and bighead carp have the potential to adversely affect every species of fish within the

6 Upper Mississippi River (Chick 2002). These three carp species are moving towards

7 Minnesota. The closest known populations are in the Iowa waters of the Mississippi River

8 (MNDNR 2005b).

9 The Higgins' eye pearlymussel is the only Federally listed aquatic species that is reported from

10 the Mississippi River in the four-county area being considered for cumulative impacts. As

11 mentioned in Section 2.2.5, past actions that have adversely affected this species have

12 included siltation; impoundments; in-stream habitat disturbance; contaminants; pearl button and

13 cultured pearl industries; and introduced species, particularly the zebra mussel (Dreissena

14 polymorpha) (Hornbach 2004).

15 As discussed in Section 4.6.1, existing Higgins' eye pearlymussel populations are too far

16 removed from Monticello for plant operations to contribute to the cumulative impacts that are

17 affecting this species. Additionally, entrainment, impingement, thermal discharges, and

18 infrequent cold shock events have only a minimal localized impact on fish species that are

19 suitable hosts for the glochidia of the Higgins' eye pearlymussel.

20 The staff concludes that the potential cumulative impacts of the Monticello cooling system

21 operations, including entrainment and impingement of fish and shellfish, heat shock, or any of

22 the cooling system-related Category 1 issues (including cold shock) contributed by the

23 continued operation of the facility will be SMALL and that no further mitigation measures are

24 warranted.

25 4.8.2 Cumulative Impacts Resulting from Continued Operation of the

26 Transmission Lines

27 Continued operation of the electrical transmission facilities associated with renewal of the

28 operating license for Monticello was evaluated to determine if there is the potential for

29 interactions with other past, present, and future actions that could result in adverse cumulative

30 impacts to terrestrial resources (e.g., wildlife populations, the size and distribution of habitat

31 areas), wetlands, floodplains, or aquatic resources. For the purposes of this analysis, the

32 geographic area that encompasses the past, present, and foreseeable future actions that could

33 contribute to adverse cumulative impacts includes those Minnesota counties that contain the

34 transmission lines associated with the Monticello site (Wright, Hennepin, Sherburne, and Anoka

35 counties). The staff is unaware of any planned activities within the area of consideration that

36 could potentially produce additional impacts in association with the continued operation of the

37 transmission lines. The presence of transmission lines generally precludes further activities

38 that could affect the environment.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

 January 2006 4-47 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Therefore, the staff has determined that the cumulative impacts of the continued operation of

2 the Monticello transmission lines are SMALL, and that no additional mitigation would be

3 warranted.

4 4.8.3 Cumulative Radiological Impacts

5 The radiological dose limits for protection of the public and workers have been developed by

6 the EPA and NRC to address the cumulative impact of acute and long-term exposure to

7 radiation and radioactive material. These dose limits are codified in 40 CFR Part 190 and

8 10 CFR Part 20. For the purpose of this analysis, the area within a 50-mi radius of the

9 Monticello site was included. The radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP)

10 conducted by NMC in the vicinity of the Monticello site measures radiation and radioactive

11 materials from all sources, including Monticello; therefore, the monitoring program measures

12 cumulative radiological impacts. There are no other nuclear power plants within a 50-mi radius

13 of Monticello. Monitoring results for the 5-year period from 1999 to 2004 were reviewed as part

14 of the cumulative impacts assessment. Additionally, in Sections 2.2.7 and 4.3, the staff

15 concluded that impacts of radiation exposure to the public and workers (occupational) from

16 operation of Monticello during the renewal term are SMALL. The NRC and the State of

17 Minnesota would regulate any future actions in the vicinity of the Monticello site that could

18 contribute to cumulative radiological impacts.

19 Therefore, the staff concludes that cumulative radiological impacts of continued operations of

20 Monticello are SMALL, and that no further mitigation measures are warranted.

21 4.8.4 Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts

22 The continued operation of Monticello is not likely to result in significant cumulative impacts for

23 any of the socioeconomic impact measures assessed in Section 4.4 of this SEIS (public

24 services, housing, and offsite land use). This is because operating expenditures, staffing

25 levels, and local tax payments during renewal would be similar to those during the current

26 license period. Similarly, the proposed action is not likely to result in significant cumulative

27 impacts on historic and archaeological resources.

28 When combined with the impact of other potential activities likely in the area surrounding the

29 plant, socioeconomic impacts resulting from Monticello license renewal would not produce an

30 incremental change in any of the impact measures used. The staff therefore determined that

31 the impacts on employment, personal income, housing, local public services, utilities, and

32 education occurring in the local socioeconomic environment as a result of license renewal

33 activities, in addition to the impacts of other potential economic activity in the area, would be

34 SMALL. The staff determined that the impact on offsite land use would be SMALL because no

35 refurbishment activities are planned at Monticello, and no new incremental changes to

36 plant-related tax payments are expected that could influence land use by fostering considerable

37 growth. The impacts of license renewal on transportation and environmental justice would also
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-48 January 2006

1 be SMALL. There are no reasonably foreseeable scenarios that would alter these conclusions

2 in regard to cumulative impacts.

3 Although no archaeological or architectural surveys have been conducted to date at the

4 Monticello site, and the potential exists for significant cultural resources to be present within the

5 site boundaries, it does not appear that the proposed license renewal will adversely affect these

6 resources. The applicant has indicated that no refurbishment or replacement activities,

7 including additional land-disturbing activities, at the plant site (or along existing transmission

8 corridors) are planned for the license renewal period. Therefore, continued operation of

9 Monticello would likely protect any cultural resources present within the Monticello site boundary

10 by protecting those lands from development and providing secured access. On the basis of the

11 staff’s analysis of cultural resources, the contribution to a cumulative impact on cultural

12 resources by continued operation of Monticello during the license renewal period is considered

13 SMALL.

14 4.8.5 Cumulative Impacts on Groundwater Use and Quality

15 Monticello's groundwater appropriations permit for two wells limits groundwater withdrawal to a

16 maximum of 200 gpm for both wells. From 1998 to 2000, actual usage averaged 30 gpm. Two

17 other remote wells have annual usage of 1.9 gpm and do not require appropriation permits.

18 The current impact of Monticello on the alluvial aquifer due to plant operations and current

19 groundwater withdrawals is small, as discussed in Section 4.5. There are no known or planned

20 projects requiring withdrawal of groundwater, either at the plant or within its vicinity, that would

21 potentially cause an adverse impact on groundwater if implemented in addition to the Monticello

22 unit license renewal. On the basis of this analysis, the staff concludes that the cumulative

23 impact to groundwater resources during the license renewal period would be SMALL and that

24 additional mitigation would not be warranted.

25 4.8.6 Cumulative Impacts on Threatened or Endangered Species

26 The geographic area considered in the analysis of potential cumulative impacts to threatened or

27 endangered species includes the counties of Wright, Sherburne, Minnesota. The Monticello

28 site and its associated transmission line rights-of-way that are within scope of the license

29 renewal review are found within these two counties. As discussed in sections 2.2.5 and 2.2.6,

30 there are three Federally listed species that potentially could inhabit Wright and Shelburne

31 counties. No Federally designated candidate species, nor critical habitat for any threatened or

32 endangered species within the geographic area of consideration. 

33

34 The staff’s findings on the three Federally protected species are presented in the

35 December 22, 2005 (NRC 2005d) BA (Appendix E) and in Section 4.6 of this SEIS. The staff

36 concluded in the BA and Section 4.6 that continued operation of Monticello, and the continued

37 use of the existing transmission lines within the scope of this review, will have no effect on the

38 Higgins’ eye pearlymussel and grey wolf and is not likely to adversely affect the bald eagle. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation

 January 2006 4-49 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Therefore, the staff determined that since there is currently no adverse impact to these species

2 an there is little or no likelihood of any impact during the renewal period the contributions to

3 cumulative impacts to Federally listed threatened or endangered due to continued operation of

4 Monticello and its transmission lines is SMALL and no mitigation is warranted. 

5

6 4.8.7 Conclusions Regarding Cumulative Impacts

7 The staff considered the potential impacts resulting from operation of Monticello during the

8 license renewal term and other past, present, and future actions in the vicinity of Monticello. 

9 For each impact area, the staff's preliminary determination is the potential cumulative impacts

10 resulting from Monticello operation during the license renewal term are SMALL, and mitigation

11 is not warranted.

12 4.9 Summary of Impacts of Operations During the Renewal

13 Term

14 Neither NMC nor the staff is aware of information that is both new and significant related to any

15 of the applicable Category 1 issues associated with the Monticello operations during the

16 renewal term. Consequently, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts associated

17 with these issues are bounded by the impacts described in the GEIS. For each of these issues,

18 the GEIS concluded that the impacts would be SMALL and that additional plant-specific

19 mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

20 Plant-specific environmental evaluations were conducted for 13 Category 2 issues applicable to

21 Monticello operations during the renewal term, and for environmental justice and chronic effects

22 of electromagnetic fields. For 13 issues and environmental justice, the staff concluded that the

23 potential environmental impact of renewal term operations of Monticello would be of SMALL

24 significance in the context of the standards set forth in the GEIS, and that additional mitigation

25 would not be warranted. In addition, the staff determined that a consensus has not been

26 reached by appropriate Federal health agencies regarding chronic adverse effects from

27 electromagnetic fields. Therefore, the staff did not conduct an evaluation of this issue.

28 Cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably forseeable future actions were

29 considered, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such

30 other actions. For purposes of this analysis, where Monticello license renewal impacts are

31 deemed to be SMALL, the staff concluded that these impacts would not result in significant

32 cumulative impacts on potentially affected resources.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-50 January 2006

1 4.10 References

2 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for

3 Protection Against Radiation."

4 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental

5 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

6 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property,

7 Part 800, "Advisory Council on Historic Preservation."

8 40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,

9 "Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations." 

10 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part

11 1508, "Terminology and Index."

12 Afzal, M., B.R. Oblad, B.B. Owen, F.P. Richards, and G.C. Slawson. 1975. Effects of a Heated

13 Discharge on the Ecology of the Mississippi River 316(a) Type I Demonstration on the

14 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Monticello, Minnesota. Prepared by NUS Corporation,

15 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

16 Amish, R.A., V.R. Kranz, B.D. Lorenz, D.B. Wilcox, L.K. Davis, and B.B. Owen, Jr. 1978. 

17 Section 316(b) Demonstration for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant on the Mississippi

18 River at Monticello, Minnesota (NPDES Permit No. MN 0000868). Prepared by NUS

19 Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis,

20 Minnesota.

21 Bloomberg, B.L. 2005. Letter to James Holthaus “Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant.” 

22 Minnesota Historic Preservation Office. Saint Paul, Minnesota. March 30, 2005.

23 Chick, J.H. 2002. "Asian Carp in the Upper Mississippi River System." Illinois Natural History

24 Survey Reports. Spring 220, No. 371, p. 6.

25 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1987. Transmission Line Reference Book, 345 kV

26 and Above. Second Edition. Palo Alto, CA.

27 Executive Order 12898. 1994. “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority

28 Populations and Low-Income Populations.” Federal Register. Volume 59, No. 32, p. 7629. 

29 Washington, D.C. February 16, 1994.

30 Fremling, C., and B. Drazkowski. 2000. Ecological, Institutional, and Economic History of the

31 Upper Mississippi River. St. Mary's University of Minnesota, Resources Studies Center. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation

 January 2006 4-51 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Accessed at: http://www.umbsn.org/news/documents/UMR_Ecological_History.htm. Accessed

2 February 21, 2003.

3 Genet, J., and J. Chirhart. 2004. Development of a Macroinvertebrate Index of Biological

4 Integrity (MIBI) for Rivers and Streams of the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Minnesota

5 Pollution Control Agency, Biological Monitoring Program, St. Paul, Minnesota. Accessed at: 

6 http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/reports/biomonitoring-mibi-uppermiss.pdf on

7 June 17, 2005.

8 Hornbach, D.J. 2004. Higgins Eye Pearlymussel (Lampsilis higginsii) Recovery Plan: First

9 Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. Accessed at: 

10 http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plans/2004/040714.pdf on July 22, 2005.

11 Joklik, W.K. and H.P. Willett (eds.). 1976. Microbiology. 16th edition. Appelton Centry-Crofts. 

12 New York, NY.

13 Kelner, D., and M. Davis. 2002. Final Report: Mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) Survey of the

14 Mississippi National River and Recreation Corridor, 2000-01. Contract Report to the National

15 Park Service Mississippi National River and Recreation Areas and the Great Lakes Network

16 Inventory and Monitoring Program. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of

17 Ecological Services, St. Paul, Minnesota. Accessed at: 

18 http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/ecological_services/nongame/projects/consgrant_reports/2002_keln

19 er_davis.pdf on August 4, 2005.

20 Knutson, K.M., S.R. Berguson, D.L. Rastetter, M.W. Mischuk, F.B. May, and G.M. Kuhl. 1976. 

21 Seasonal Pumped Entrainment of Fish at the Monticello, MN Nuclear Power Installation. 

22 Prepared by Department of Biological Sciences, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud,

23 Minnesota for Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

24 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR). 2005a. "DNR Water Appropriation

25 Permits." Accessed at: 

26 http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/appropriations/wateruse.html on

27 August 1, 2005.

28 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR). 2005b. Invasive Species of Aquatic

29 Plants & Animals in Minnesota: Annual Report for 2004. Minnesota Department of Natural

30 Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota. Accessed at: 

31 http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/ecological_services/invasives/annualreport.pdf on June 17, 2005.

32 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 1979. "Environmental Issues—NSP Monticello

33 Nuclear Generating Plant." Letter from T. Hoffman, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,

34 St. Paul, Minnesota, to D.E. Sells, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 

35 September 18, 1979.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-52 January 2006

1 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 2002. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

2 System (NPDES) and State Disposal System (SDS) Permit MN 0000868. Minnesota Pollution

3 Control Agency, Majors and Remediation Division, St. Paul, Minnesota.

4 National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). 2001. Institute of Electrical and Electric Engineers,

5 New York.

6 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et. seq.

7 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). 16 USC 470, et seq.

8 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 1999. "NIEHS Report on Health

9 Effects from Exposure to Power Line Frequency and Electric and Magnetic Fields." Publication

10 No. 99-4493, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

11 Noguchi, L.S., D.L. Bimber, H.T. Tin, P.J. Mansfield, and D.J. Jude. 1985. "Field Distribution

12 and Entrainment of Fish Larvae and Eggs at the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant,

13 Southeastern lake Michigan, 1980-1982." Special report No. 116 of the Great Lakes Research

14 Division. Great Lakes and Marine Waters Center, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,

15 Michigan.

16 Northern States Power Company (NSP). 2004. Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant

17 Environmental Monitoring Program: 2003-2004. Monticello, Minnesota.

18 Nuclear Management Company (NMC). 2005a. Applicant's Environmental Report—Operating

19 License Renewal Stage, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. Docket No. 50-263, License No.

20 DPR-22. Monticello, Minnesota.

21 Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC). 2005b. E-mail from J. Holthaus, NMC, to

22 J. Davis, NRC, Ecology Information Request. Monticello, Minnesota. November 18, 2005. 

23 Talmadge, S.S., and D.M. Opreska. 1981. Literature Review: Response of Fish to Thermal

24 Discharges. EPRI EA-1840, Research Project 877, ORNL/EIS-193. Prepared by Oak Ridge

25 National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee for Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto,

26 California.

27 Tyndall, R.L., K.S. Ironside, P.L. Metler, E.L. Tan, T.C. Hazen, and C.B. Flierman. 1989. 

28 "Effect of Thermal Additions on the Density and Distribution of a Thermophilic Amoebae and

29 Pathogenic Naegleria Fowleri in a Newly Created Cooling Lake." Applied and Environmental

30 Microbiology. 55(3): 722-732.

31 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1972. Final Environmental Statement Related to

32 Operation of Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. Northern States Power Company. Docket

33 No. 50-263. November 1972.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

 January 2006 4-53 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000. Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights. Accessed

2 at: http://factfinder.census.gov/sevlet on August 1, 2005.

3 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2001. Glossary of Basic Geographic and Related Terms -

4 Census 2000. Accessed at: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/glossary.html#glossary on

5 December 21, 2005.

6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

7 System-Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at

8 Phase II Existing Facilities." Federal Register, Vol. 68. pp. 41576-41693. July 9, 2004.

9 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005. "List of Federally Threatened or Endangered

10 Species." Letter from D.P. Stinnett, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota, to

11 P.T. Kuo, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. July 13, 2005.

12 U.S. Geological Service (USGS). 2004. Asian Carp. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest

13 Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, Wisconsin. Accessed at: 

14 http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/invasive_species/asian_carp.html on September 3, 2005.

15 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2005. "USGS 05270700 MISSISSIPPI RIVER AT ST.

16 CLOUD, MN." Accessed at: 

17 http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/discharge?search_criteria=station_nm&submitted_form=introduc

18 tion on August 1, 2005.

19 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

20 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

22 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1,

23 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final Report. 

24 NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

25 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004a. Procedural Guidance for Preparing

26 Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues. Office of Nuclear Reactor

27 Regulation Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 1, Washington, D.C.

28 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004b. "Treatment of Environmental Justice

29 Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions." Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 163,

30 pp. 52040-52049. Washington, D.C. August 24, 2004.

31 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005a. Letter from P.T. Kuo, Program Director,

32 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to D.P. Stinnett, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

33 Service, Bloomington, Minnesota. June 3, 2005.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 4-54 January 2006

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005b. Letter from P.T. Kuo, Program Director,

2 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to D. Klima, Director, Advisory Council on Historic

3 Preservation, Washington, D.C. May 27, 2005.

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005c. Letter from P.T. Kuo, Program Director,

5 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to N. Archabal, State Historic Preservation Officer,

6 Minnesota State Historical Society, St. Paul, Minnesota. June 2, 2005.

7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005d. Letter from NRC to D. Stinnett, Field

8 Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Subject: Biological Assessment for

9 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant License Renewal Review. December 22, 2005.

10

11 Weitzell, R.E., Jr., M.L. Khoury, P. Gagnon, B. Schreurs, D. Grossman, and J. Higgins. 2003. 

12 Conservation Priorities for Freshwater Biodiversity in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Nature

13 Serve and The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. Accessed at: 

14 http://www.natureserve.org/library/uppermsriverbasin.pdf on June 17, 2005.

15 Xcel Energy Environmental Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Minnesota Department of

16 Natural Resources, North Dakota State Game and Fish Department, South Dakota Game, Fish

17 and Parks Department (Xcel Energy et al.). 2002. Memorandum of Understanding. 

18 April 19, 2002.

19 Xcel Energy Environmental Services (Xcel Energy). 2004. Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant

20 Environmental Monitoring Program 2002 - 2003 Report. Prepared by Xcel Energy

21 Environmental Services for Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

22 Xcel Energy Environmental Services (Xcel Energy). 2005. "Vegetation Management

23 Guidelines." March 2005.
(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all

references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

January 2006 5-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 5.0 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

2 Environmental issues associated with postulated accidents are discussed in the Generic

3 Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437,

Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999).(a) 4 The GEIS includes a determination of whether the

5 analysis of the environmental issue could be applied to all plants and whether additional

6 mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues are then assigned a Category 1 or a

7 Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1 issues are those that meet all of

8 the following criteria:

9 (1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply

10 either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling

11 system or other specified plant or site characteristics.

12 (2) Single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned

13 to the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle

14 and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal).

15 (3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the

16 analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation

17 measures are likely not to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

18 For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is

19 required unless new and significant information is identified.

20 Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria for Category 1, and

21 therefore, additional plant-specific review of these issues is required.

22 This chapter describes the environmental impacts from postulated accidents that might occur

23 during the license renewal term.

24 5.1 Postulated Plant Accidents

25 Two classes of accidents are evaluated in the GEIS. These are design-basis accidents (DBAs)

26 and severe accidents, as discussed below. 

27 5.1.1 Design-Basis Accidents

28 In order to receive NRC approval to operate a nuclear power facility, an applicant for an initial

29 operating license must submit a safety analysis report (SAR) as part of its application. The
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 5-2 January 2006

1 SAR presents the design criteria and design information for the proposed reactor and

2 comprehensive data on the proposed site. The SAR also discusses various hypothetical

3 accident situations and the safety features that are provided to prevent and mitigate accidents. 

4 The NRC staff reviews the application to determine whether the plant design meets the

5 Commission's regulations and requirements and includes, in part, the nuclear plant design and

6 its anticipated response to an accident.

7 DBAs are those accidents that both the licensee and the NRC staff evaluate to ensure that the

8 plant can withstand normal and abnormal transients, and a broad spectrum of postulated

9 accidents, without undue hazard to the health and safety of the public. A number of these

10 postulated accidents are not expected to occur during the life of the plant, but are evaluated to

11 establish the design basis for the preventive and mitigative safety systems of the facility. The

12 acceptance criteria for DBAs are described in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

13 (CFR) Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 100. 

14 The environmental impacts of DBAs are evaluated during the initial licensing process, and the

15 ability of the plant to withstand these accidents is demonstrated to be acceptable before

16 issuance of the operating license (OL). The results of these evaluations are found in license

17 documentation such as the applicant's final safety analysis report (FSAR), the staff's safety

18 evaluation report (SER), the final environmental statement (FES), and Section 5.1 of this

19 supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). A licensee is required to maintain the

20 acceptable design and performance criteria throughout the life of the plant, including any

21 extended-life operation. The consequences for these events are evaluated for the hypothetical

22 maximum exposed individual; as such, changes in the plant environment will not affect these

23 evaluations. Because of the requirements that continuous acceptability of the consequences

24 and aging management programs be in effect for license renewal, the environmental impacts

25 as calculated for DBAs should not differ significantly from initial licensing assessments over the

26 life of the plant, including the license renewal period. Accordingly, the design of the plant

27 relative to DBAs during the extended period is considered to remain acceptable and the

28 environmental impacts of those accidents were not examined further in the GEIS.

29 The Commission has determined that the environmental impacts of DBAs are of SMALL

30 significance for all plants because the plants were designed to successfully withstand these

31 accidents. Therefore, for the purposes of license renewal, DBAs are designated as a Category

32 1 issue in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. The early resolution of the DBAs

33 makes them a part of the current licensing basis of the plant; the current licensing basis of the

34 plant is to be maintained by the licensee under its current license and, therefore, under the

35 provisions of 10 CFR 54.30, is not subject to review under license renewal. This issue,

36 applicable to Monticello, is listed in Table 5-1. 
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

January 2006 5-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Table 5-1. Category 1 Issue Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the

2 Renewal Term

3 ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

4 POSTULATED ACCIDENTS

5 Design basis accidents 5.3.2; 5.5.1

6

7 Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that:

8 The NRC staff has concluded that the environmental impacts of design basis accidents

9 are of small significance for all plants.

10 Nuclear Management Company (NMC) stated in its Environmental Report (ER) (NMC 2005a)

11 that it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of the

12 Monticello OL. The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its

13 independent review of the NMC ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation

14 of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts related

15 to design basis accidents beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

16 5.1.2 Severe Accidents

17 Severe nuclear accidents are those that are more severe than DBAs because they could result

18 in substantial damage to the reactor core, whether or not there are serious offsite

19 consequences. In the GEIS, the staff assessed the impacts of severe accidents during the

20 license renewal period, using the results of existing analyses and site-specific information to

21 conservatively predict the environmental impacts of severe accidents for each plant during the

22 renewal period.

23 Severe accidents initiated by external phenomena such as tornadoes, floods, earthquakes,

24 fires, and sabotage have not traditionally been discussed in quantitative terms in FESs and

25 were not specifically considered for the Monticello site in the GEIS (NRC 1996). However, in

26 the GEIS the staff did evaluate existing impact assessments performed by NRC and by the

27 industry at 44 nuclear plants in the United States and concluded that the risk from sabotage

28 and beyond design basis earthquakes at existing nuclear power plants is SMALL. Additionally,

29 the staff concluded that the risks from other external events are adequately addressed by a

30 generic consideration of internally initiated severe accidents. 

31 Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that:

32 The probability weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open

33 bodies of water, releases to groundwater, and societal and economic impacts from
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 5-4 January 2006

1 severe accidents are small for all plants. However, alternatives to mitigate severe

2 accidents must be considered for all plants that have not considered such alternatives.

3 Therefore, the Commission has designated mitigation of severe accidents as a Category 2

4 issue in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. This issue, applicable to

5 Monticello, is listed in Table 5-2.

6 Table 5-2. Category 2 Issue Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the

7 Renewal Term

8 ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart

9 A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)

Subparagraph

SEIS

Section

10 POSTULATED ACCIDENTS

11 Severe accidents 5.3.3; 5.3.3.2; 5.3.3.3;

5.3.3.4; 5.3.3.5; 5.4; 5.5.2

L 5.2

12

13 The staff has not identified any new and significant information with regard to the

14 consequences from severe accidents during its independent review of the NMC ER, the staff's

15 site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the

16 staff concludes that there are no impacts of severe accidents beyond those discussed in the

17 GEIS. However, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L), the staff has reviewed severe

18 accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) for Monticello. The results of its review are discussed

19 in Section 5.2.

20 5.2 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

21 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) requires that license renewal applicants consider alternatives to

22 mitigate severe accidents if the staff has not previously evaluated SAMAs for the applicant's

23 plant in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or related supplement or in an environmental

24 assessment. The purpose of this consideration is to ensure that plant changes (i.e., hardware,

25 procedures, and training) with the potential for improving severe accident safety performance

26 are identified and evaluated. SAMAs have not been previously considered for Monticello;

27 therefore, the remainder of Chapter 5 addresses those alternatives.

28 5.2.1 Introduction

29 This section presents a summary of the SAMA evaluation for Monticello conducted by NMC,

30 and described in the ER, and the NRC's review of this evaluation. The details of the review are

31 described in the NRC staff evaluation that was prepared with contract assistance from

32 Information Systems Laboratories, Inc. The entire evaluation for Monticello is presented in

33 Appendix G.
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

January 2006 5-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 The SAMA evaluation for Monticello was conducted with a four-step approach. In the first step

2 NMC quantified the level of risk associated with potential reactor accidents using the

3 plant-specific probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) and other risk models. 

4 In the second step NMC examined the major risk contributors and identified possible ways

5 (SAMAs) of reducing that risk. Common ways of reducing risk are changes to components,

6 systems, procedures, and training. NMC initially identified 40 potential SAMAs for Monticello. 

7 NMC screened out 24 SAMAs from further consideration because they are not applicable at

8 Monticello due to design differences, require extensive changes that would involve

9 implementation costs known to exceed any possible benefit, or exceed the dollar value

10 associated with completely eliminating all internal and external event severe accident risk at

11 Monticello. The remaining 16 SAMAs were subjected to further evaluation. During the second

12 phase of the evaluation, NMC screened out one additional SAMA based on risk insights and

13 other factors, leaving 15 SAMAs.

14 In the third step NMC estimated the benefits and the costs associated with each of the

15 remaining SAMAs. Estimates were made of how much each SAMA could reduce risk. Those

16 estimates were developed in terms of dollars in accordance with NRC guidance for performing

17 regulatory analyses (NRC 1997a,b). The cost of implementing the proposed SAMAs was also

18 estimated.

19 Finally, in the fourth step, the costs and benefits of each of the remaining SAMAs were

20 compared to determine whether the SAMA was cost-beneficial, meaning the benefits of the

21 SAMA were greater than the cost (a positive cost-benefit). NMC found seven SAMAs to be

22 potentially cost-beneficial in the baseline analysis, and three additional SAMAs to be potentially

23 cost-beneficial when alternative discount rates and analysis uncertainties are considered (NMC

24 2005a).

25 NMC recognized that a combination of low-cost SAMAs can provide much of the risk reduction

26 associated with higher-cost SAMAs, and may act synergistically to yield a combined risk

27 reduction greater than the sum of the benefits for each SAMA if implemented individually. 

28 Since the ER was submitted, NMC has implemented six SAMAs, and reassessed the value of

29 the remaining SAMAs. Implementation of the six SAMAs reduces the benefit of the remaining

30 SAMAs such that only one SAMA remains potentially cost-beneficial.

31 The one potentially cost-beneficial SAMA does not relate to adequately managing the effects of

32 aging during the period of extended operation; therefore, it need not be implemented as part of

33 license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54. NMC indicates that it plans to further evaluate the

34 potentially cost-beneficial SAMA for possible implementation. NMC's SAMA analyses and the

35 NRC's review are discussed in more detail below. 
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 5-6 January 2006

1 5.2.2 Estimate of Risk

2 NMC submitted an assessment of SAMAs for Monticello as part of the ER (NMC 2005a). This

3 assessment was based on a slight modification of the 2003 Level 1 and Level 2 PSA model, a

4 plant-specific offsite consequence analysis performed using the MELCOR Accident

5 Consequence Code System 2 (MACCS2) computer program, and insights from the Monticello

6 Individual Plant Examination (IPE) (NSP 1992) and Individual Plant Examination of External

7 Events (IPEEE) (NSP 1995a,b).

8 The baseline core damage frequency (CDF) for the purpose of the SAMA evaluation is

approximately 4.5 x 10-5 9 per year. This CDF is based on the risk assessment for internally

10 initiated events. NMC did not include the contribution to risk from external events within the

11 Monticello risk estimates; however, it did account for the potential risk reduction benefits

12 associated with external events by increasing the estimated benefits for internal events by a

13 factor of two. The breakdown of CDF by initiating event is provided in Table 5-3.

14 Table 5-3. Monticello Core Damage Frequency for Internal Events

15 Initiating Event

CDF

(per year)

% Contribution

to CDF

16 Fire protection system (FPS) line break in turbine building

17 (TB) 931-ft elevation west

3.2 x 10-5 71

18 Service water (SW) line break in TB 931-ft elevation west 5.8 x 10-6 13

19 SW line break in TB 911-ft elevation 1.8 x 10-6 4

20 Loss of offsite power 1.8 x 10-6 4

21 SW line break in residual heat removal (RHR) A room 8.9 x 10-7 2

22 SW line break in RHR B room 8.9 x 10-7 2

23 SW line break in reactor building 896-ft elevation 4.5 x 10-7 1

24 Turbine trip 4.5 x 10-7 1

25 Loss of feedwater 4.5 x 10-7 1

26 Other 4.5 x 10-7 1

27 Total CDF (internal events) 4.5 x 10-5 100

28

29 As shown in Table 5-3, internal flood events initiated by FPS and SW pipe breaks are the

30 dominant contributors to CDF. Loss of offsite power and other transient initiators contribute

31 about 6 percent of the CDF.

32 In the ER, NMC estimated the dose to the population within 50 mi of the Monticello site to be

33 approximately 38 person-rem per year. The breakdown of the total population dose by

34 containment release mode is summarized in Table 5-4. Containment failures within the late
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

January 2006 5-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 time frame (6 to 24 hours following event initiation) and early time frame (less than 6 hours

2 following event initiation) provide similar contributions to the population dose risk at Monticello.

3 Table 5-4. Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode

4 Containment Release Mode

Population Dose 

(person-rem(a) per year) % Contribution

5 Late containment failure 20.4 54

6 Early containment failure 17.6 46

7 Intact containment Negligible Negligible

8 Total 38.0 100

(a) 9 1 person-rem per year = 0.01 person-Sv per year

10

11 The NRC staff has reviewed NMC's data and evaluation methods and concludes that the quality

12 of the risk analyses is adequate to support an assessment of the risk reduction potential for

13 candidate SAMAs. Accordingly, the staff based its assessment of offsite risk on the CDFs and

14 offsite doses reported by NMC.

15 5.2.3 Potential Plant Improvements

16 Once the dominant contributors to plant risk were identified, NMC searched for ways to reduce

17 that risk. In identifying and evaluating potential SAMAs, NMC considered insights from the

18 plant-specific PSA, SAMA analyses performed for other operating plants that have submitted

19 license renewal applications, as well as SAMAs that could further reduce the risk of the

20 dominant internal fires. NMC identified 40 potential risk-reducing improvements (SAMAs) to

21 plant components, systems, procedures and training.

22 Twenty-four SAMAs were removed from further consideration because they are not applicable

23 at Monticello due to design differences, require extensive changes that would involve

24 implementation costs known to exceed any possible benefit, or exceed the dollar value

25 associated with completely eliminating all internal and external event severe accident risk at

26 Monticello. The remaining 16 SAMAs were subjected to further evaluation. During the second

27 phase of the evaluation, NMC screened out one additional SAMA based on risk insights and

28 other factors. A detailed cost-benefit analysis was performed for each of the 15 remaining

29 SAMAs.

30 The staff concludes that NMC used a systematic and comprehensive process for identifying

31 potential plant improvements for Monticello, and that the set of potential plant improvements

32 identified by NMC is reasonably comprehensive and, therefore, acceptable. 
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 5-8 January 2006

1 5.2.4 Evaluation of Risk Reduction and Costs of Improvements

2 NMC evaluated the risk-reduction potential of the remaining 15 SAMAs. The SAMA evaluations

3 were performed using realistic assumptions with some conservatism. 

4 NMC estimated the costs of implementing the 15 candidate SAMAs through the application of

5 engineering judgement, use of other licensees' estimates for similar improvements, and

6 development of site-specific cost estimates. The cost estimates conservatively did not include

7 the cost of replacement power during extended outages required to implement the

8 modifications, nor did they include contingency costs associated with unforeseen

9 implementation obstacles.

10 The staff reviewed NMC's bases for calculating the risk reduction for the various plant

11 improvements and concludes that the rationale and assumptions for estimating risk reduction

12 are reasonable and somewhat conservative (i.e., the estimated risk reduction is similar to or

13 somewhat higher than what would actually be realized). Accordingly, the staff based its

14 estimates of averted risk for the various SAMAs on NMC's risk reduction estimates.

15 The staff reviewed the bases for the applicant's cost estimates. For certain improvements, the

16 staff also compared the cost estimates to estimates developed elsewhere for similar

17 improvements, including estimates developed as part of other licensees' analyses of SAMAs for

18 operating reactors and advanced light-water reactors. The staff found the cost estimates to be

19 consistent with estimates provided in support of other plants' analyses.

20 The staff concludes that the risk reduction and the cost estimates provided by NMC are

21 sufficient and appropriate for use in the SAMA evaluation.

22 5.2.5 Cost-Benefit Comparison

23 The cost-benefit analysis performed by NMC was based primarily on NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC

24 1997b) and was executed consistent with this guidance. NUREG/BR-0058 has recently been

25 revised to reflect the agency's revised policy on discount rates. Revision 4 of NUREG/BR-0058

26 states that two sets of estimates should be developed—one at three percent and one at seven

27 percent (NRC 2004). NMC provided both sets of estimates (NMC 2005a).

28 NMC identified seven potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs in the baseline analysis contained in

29 the ER (using a seven-percent discount rate):

30 C SAMA 2—enhance DC power availability by providing a direct connection from diesel

31 generator 13, the security diesel, or another source, to the 250-V battery chargers or other

32 required loads.
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

January 2006 5-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 C SAMA 4—install a direct-drive diesel injection pump as additional high-pressure injection

2 system.

3 C SAMA 6—install additional fan and louver pair for emergency diesel generator heating,

4 ventilation, and air conditioning.

5 C SAMA 11—enhance alternate injection reliability by including the residual heat removal

6 service water and fire service water cross-tie valves in the maintenance program.

7 C SAMA 12—proceduralize the use of a fire pumper truck to pressurize the fire service water

8 system.

9 C SAMA 16—provide passive overpressure relief by changing the containment vent valves to

10 fail open and improving the strength of the rupture disk.

11 C SAMA 36—install an interlock to open the door to hot machine shop and change swing

12 direction of door to plant administration building to divert water from turbine building

13 931-foot elevation east.

14 When benefits are evaluated using a three-percent discount rate, two additional SAMAs were

15 determined to be potentially cost-beneficial:

16 C SAMA 39—upgrade the automatic shutdown system (ASDS) panel to include additional

17 system controls for opposite division.

18 C SAMA 40—add emergency level control sensor and control valve to the hotwell.

19 NMC performed additional analyses to evaluate the impact of parameter choices and

20 uncertainties on the results of the SAMA assessment (NMC 2005a). If the benefits are

21 increased by a factor of 2.5 to account for uncertainties, one additional SAMA (SAMA 9,

22 dedicated alternate low-pressure injection/drywell spray system) was determined to be

23 potentially cost-beneficial. 

24 NMC recognized that a combination of low-cost SAMAs could provide much of the risk

25 reduction associated with higher-cost SAMAs, and may act synergistically to yield a combined

26 risk reduction greater than the sum of the benefits of each SAMA if implemented individually

27 (NMC 2005a). NMC identified six low-cost SAMAs as a recommended combination of SAMAs

28 which substantially reduces risk at Monticello for a relatively low cost of implementation. These

29 include previously identified SAMAs 2, 11, 12, and 36, and two additional SAMAs not identified

30 as being cost-beneficial:

31 C SAMA 28—develop a procedure to refill the condensate storage tank with fire service water

32 system.
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 5-10 January 2006

1 C SAMA 37—develop guidance to allow local, manual control for reactor core isolation cooling

2 system operation.

3 Since the ER was submitted, NMC has implemeted the six recommended SAMAs (SAMAs 2,

4 11, 12, 28, 36, and 37), and has reassessed the value of the remaining SAMAs. 

5 Implementation of the six recommended SAMAs reduces the benefit of the remaining SAMAs

6 (including SAMA 9, which was identified as a result of the uncertainty analysis), such that only

7 one SAMA that has not been implemented yet, remains potentially cost-beneficial. SAMA 16

8 (passive overpressure relief for containment) becomes even more cost-beneficial because the

9 set of SAMAs implemented by NMC shifts the risk to categories influenced by containment

10 venting, which could be mitigated by SAMA 16. NMC stated that the improvement is being

11 pursued to determine if cost-effective modifications can be implemented (NMC 2005b).

12 The staff concludes that, with the exception of the one potentially cost-beneficial SAMA

13 discussed above, the costs of the SAMAs evaluated would be higher than the associated

14 benefits.

15 5.2.6 Conclusions

16 The staff reviewed NMC's analysis and concluded that the methods used and the

17 implementation of those methods were sound. The treatment of SAMA benefits and costs

18 support the general conclusion that the SAMA evaluations performed by NMC are reasonable

19 and sufficient for the license renewal submittal. Although the treatment of SAMAs for external

20 events was somewhat limited by the unavailability of an external event PSA, the likelihood of

21 there being cost-beneficial enhancements in this area was minimized by including several

22 candidate SAMAs related to dominant fire events, and increasing the estimated SAMA benefits

23 for internal events by a factor of two to account for potential benefits in external events.

24 Based on its review of the SAMA analysis, and on the implementation of the six recommended

25 low-cost SAMAs by NMC, the staff concurs with NMC's identification of areas in which risk can

26 be further reduced in a cost-beneficial manner through the implementation of one potentially

27 cost-beneficial SAMA. Given the potential for cost-beneficial risk reduction, the staff agrees

28 that further evaluation of this SAMA by NMC is warranted. However, this potentially

29 cost-beneficial SAMA does not relate to adequately managing the effects of aging during the

30 period of extended operation. Therefore, it need not be implemented as part of the license

31 renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54.

32 5.3 References

33 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing

34 of Production and Utilization Facilities."
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

January 2006 5-11 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental

2 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

3 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, "Requirements for

4 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."

5 10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, "Reactor Site

6 Criteria."

7 Northern States Power Company (NSP). 1992. Letter from Thomas M. Parker, NSP, to U.S.

8 NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: “Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Docket No.

9 50-263, License No. DPR-22, Submittal of Monticello Individual Plant Examination (IPE)

10 Report,” February 27, 1992.

11 Northern States Power Company (NSP). 1995a. Letter from W.J. Hill, NSP, to U.S. NRC

12 Document Control Desk. Subject: “Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Docket No. 50-263,

13 License No. DPR-22, Submittal of Monticello Individual Plant Examination of External Events

14 (IPEEE) Report,” March 1, 1995.

15 Northern States Power Company (NSP). 1995b. Letter from W.J. Hill, NSP, to U.S. NRC

16 Document Control Desk. Subject: “Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Docket No. 50-263,

17 License No. DPR-22, Submittal of Monticello Individual Plant Examination of External Events

18 (IPEEE) Report, Revision 1; Seismic Analysis, Revision 0, and Internal Firest Analysis,

19 Revision 1 (TAC M83644),” November 20, 1995.

20 Nuclear Management Company (NMC). 2005a. Applicant's Environmental Report—Operating

21 License Renewal Stage, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. Docket No. 50-263, License No.

22 DPR-22. Monticello, Minnesota. 

23 Nuclear Management Company (NMC). 2005b. Letter from John T. Conway, NMC to U.S.

24 NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: “Response to Request for Additional Information

25 Regarding Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant

26 (TAC MC6441),” July 27, 2005.

27 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

28 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

29 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997a. Individual Plant Examination Program:

30 Perspectives on Reactor Safety and Plant Performance. NUREG-1560, Washington, D.C.

31 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997b. Regulatory Analysis Technical

32 Evaluation Handbook. NUREG/BR-0184, Washington, D.C.
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 5-12 January 2006

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

2 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1,

3 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants. 

4 NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S.

6 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NUREG/BR-0058, Rev. 4, Washington, D.C. 
(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all

references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

January 2006 6-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 6.0 Environmental Impacts of the Uranium

2 Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management

3 Environmental issues associated with the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management are

4 discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear

Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999).(a) 5 The GEIS includes a

6 determination of whether the analysis of the environmental issue could be applied to all plants

7 and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues are then assigned a

8 Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1 issues are those

9 that meet all of the following criteria:

10 (1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply

11 either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling

12 system or other specified plant or site characteristics.

13 (2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned

14 to the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle

15 and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal).

16 (3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the

17 analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation

18 measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

19 For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is

20 required unless new and significant information is identified.

21 Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria for Category 1, and

22 therefore, additional plant-specific review of these issues is required. There are no Category 2

23 issues for the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management.

24 This chapter addresses the issues that are related to the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste

25 management during the license renewal term that are listed in Table B-1 of Title 10 of the Code

26 of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, and are applicable to Monticello. 

27 The generic potential impacts of the radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of

28 the uranium fuel cycle and transportation of nuclear fuel and wastes are described in detail in

29 the GEIS based, in part, on the generic impacts provided in 10 CFR 51.51(b), Table S-3, “Table

30 of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data,” and in 10 CFR 51.52(c), Table S-4, “Environmental

31 Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear

32 Power Reactor.” The staff also addresses the impacts from radon-222 and technetium-99 in

33 the GEIS.
Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 6-2 January 2006

1 6.1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle

2 Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 that are applicable to

3 Monticello from the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management are listed in Table 6-1. 

4 Table 6-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid

5 Waste Management During the Renewal Term

6 ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, 

7 Table B-1 GEIS Sections

8 URANIUM FUEL CYCLE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT

9 Offsite radiological impacts (individual effects from other

10 than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste)

6.1; 6.2.1; 6.2.2.1; 6.2.2.3; 6.2.3; 6.2.4;

6.6

11 Offsite radiological impacts (collective effects) 6.1; 6.2.2.1; 6.2.3; 6.2.4; 6.6

12 Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel and high-level

13 waste disposal)

6.1; 6.2.2.1; 6.2.3; 6.2.4; 6.6

14 Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle 6.1; 6.2.2.6; 6.2.2.7; 6.2.2.8; 6.2.2.9;

6.2.3; 6.2.4; 6.6

15 Low-level waste storage and disposal 6.1; 6.2.2.2; 6.4.2; 6.4.3; 6.4.3.1; 6.4.3.2;

6.4.3.3; 6.4.4; 6.4.4.1; 6.4.4.2; 6.4.4.3;

6.4.4.4; 6.4.4.5; 6.4.4.5.1; 6.4.4.5.2;

6.4.4.5.3; 6.4.4.5.4; 6.4.4.6; 6.6

16 Mixed waste storage and disposal 6.4.5.1; 6.4.5.2; 6.4.5.3; 6.4.5.4; 6.4.5.5;

6.4.5.6; 6.4.5.6.1; 6.4.5.6.2; 6.4.5.6.3;

6.4.5.6.4; 6.6

17 Onsite spent fuel 6.1; 6.4.6; 6.4.6.1; 6.4.6.2; 6.4.6.3;

6.4.6.4; 6.4.6.5; 6.4.6.6; 6.4.6.7; 6.6

18 Nonradiological waste 6.1; 6.5; 6.5.1; 6.5.2; 6.5.3; 6.6

19 Transportation 6.1; 6.3.1; 6.3.2.3; 6.3.3; 6.3.4; 6.6,

Addendum 1

20

21 Nuclear Management Company (NMC) stated in its Environmental Report (ER) (NMC 2005)

22 that it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of the

23 Monticello operating license (OL). The staff has not identified any new and significant

24 information during its independent review of the NMC ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping

25 process, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that

26 there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For these

27 issues, the staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL except for the collective

28 offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel
Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management

January 2006 6-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 disposal, as discussed below, and that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not

2 likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

3 A brief description of the staff review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1,

4 10 CFR Part 51, for each of these issues follows:

5 C Offsite radiological impacts (individual effects from other than the disposal of spent fuel and

6 high-level waste). Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that 

7 Off-site impacts of the uranium fuel cycle have been considered by the

8 Commission in Table S-3 of [10 CFR 51.51(b)]. Based on information in the

9 GEIS, impacts on individuals from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases

10 including radon-222 and technetium-99 are small.

11 The staff has not identified any new and significant information on this issue during its

12 independent review of the NMC ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation

13 of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no offsite

14 radiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle during the renewal term beyond those discussed

15 in the GEIS.

16

17 C Offsite radiological impacts (collective effects). In the GEIS, the staff found that

18 The 100-year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from the

19 fuel cycle, high level waste and spent fuel disposal excepted, is calculated to be

20 about 14,800 person rem, or 12 cancer fatalities, for each additional 20-year

21 power reactor operating term. Much of this, especially the contribution of radon

22 releases from mines and tailing piles, consists of tiny doses summed over large

23 populations. This same dose calculation can theoretically be extended to include

24 many tiny doses over additional thousands of years as well as doses outside the

25 U.S. The result of such a calculation would be thousands of cancer fatalities

26 from the fuel cycle, but this result assumes that even tiny doses have some

27 statistical adverse health effect which will not ever be mitigated (for example no

28 cancer cure in the next thousand years), and that these doses projected over

29 thousands of years are meaningful. However, these assumptions are

30 questionable. In particular, science cannot rule out the possibility that there will

31 be no cancer fatalities from these tiny doses. For perspective, the doses are

32 very small fractions of regulatory limits, and even smaller fractions of natural

33 background exposure to the same populations.

34 Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some judgement as to the regulatory

35 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implications of these matters should

36 be made and it makes no sense to repeat the same judgement in every case. 

37 Even taking the uncertainties into account, the Commission concludes that these

38 impacts are acceptable in that these impacts would not be sufficiently large to
Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 6-4 January 2006

1 require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation

2 under 10 CFR Part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission

3 has not assigned a single level of significance for the collective effects of the fuel

4 cycle, this issue is considered Category 1.

5 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

6 the NMC ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

7 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no offsite radiological impacts

8 (collective effects) from the uranium fuel cycle during the renewal term beyond those discussed

9 in the GEIS.

10 C Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel and high-level waste disposal). Based on

11 information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

12 For the high level waste and spent fuel disposal component of the fuel cycle,

13 there are no current regulatory limits for offsite releases of radionuclides for the

14 current candidate repository site. However, if we assume that limits are

15 developed along the lines of the 1995 National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

16 report, “Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards,” and that in accordance

17 with the Commission’s Waste Confidence Decision, 10 CFR 51.23, a repository

18 can and likely will be developed at some site which will comply with such limits,

19 peak doses to virtually all individuals will be 100 mrem per year or less. 

20 However, while the Commission has reasonable confidence that these

21 assumptions will prove correct, there is considerable uncertainty since the limits

22 are yet to be developed, no repository application has been completed or

23 reviewed, and uncertainty is inherent in the models used to evaluate possible

24 pathways to the human environment. The NAS report indicated that 100 mrem

25 per year should be considered as a starting point for limits for individual doses,

26 but notes that some measure of consensus exists among national and

27 international bodies that the limits should be a fraction of the 100 mrem per year. 

The lifetime individual risk from 100 mrem annual dose limit is about 3 x 10-3 28 .

29 Estimating cumulative doses to populations over thousands of years is more

30 problematic. The likelihood and consequences of events that could seriously

31 compromise the integrity of a deep geologic repository were evaluated by the

32 U.S. Department of Energy in the “Final Environmental Impact Statement: 

33 Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste” [DOE 1980]. The

34 evaluation estimated the 70-year whole-body dose commitment to the maximum

35 individual and to the regional population resulting from several modes of

36 breaching a reference repository in the year of closure, after 1000 years, after

37 100,000 years, and after 100,000,000 years. Subsequently, the NRC and other

38 Federal agencies have expended considerable effort to develop models for the

39 design and for the licensing of a high level waste repository, especially for the

40 candidate repository at Yucca Mountain. More meaningful estimates of doses to
Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management

January 2006 6-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 population may be possible in the future as more is understood about the

2 performance of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. Such estimates would

3 involve very great uncertainty, especially with respect to cumulative population

4 doses over thousands of years. The standard proposed by the NAS is a limit on

5 maximum individual dose. The relationship of potential new regulatory

6 requirements, based on the NAS report, and cumulative population impacts has

7 not been determined, although the report articulates the view that protection of

8 individuals will adequately protect the population for a repository at Yucca

9 Mountain. However, EPA’s generic repository standards in 40 CFR Part 191

10 generally provide an indication of the order of magnitude of cumulative risk to

11 population that could result from the licensing of a Yucca Mountain repository,

12 assuming the ultimate standards will be within the range of standards now under

13 consideration. The standards in 40 CFR Part 191 protect the population by

14 imposing “containment requirements” that limit the cumulative amount of

15 radioactive material released over 10,000 years. Reporting performance

16 standards that will be required by EPA are expected to result in releases and

17 associated health consequences in the range between 10 and 100 premature

18 cancer deaths with an upper limit of 1000 premature cancer deaths worldwide for

19 a 100,000 metric tonne (MTHM) repository.

20 Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some judgement as to the regulatory

21 NEPA implications of these matters should be made and it makes no sense to

22 repeat the same judgement in every case. Even taking the uncertainties into

23 account, the Commission concludes that these impacts are acceptable in that

24 these impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for

25 any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 should be

26 eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of

27 significance for the impacts of spent fuel and high level waste disposal, this issue

28 is considered Category 1.

29 Since the GEIS was originally issued in 1996, the EPA has published radiation protection

30 standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada in the Federal Register (EPA 2001). The Energy Policy

31 Act of 1992, Public Law No. 102-486, § 801, 106 Stat. 2921 (1992) (codified at 42 USC 10141

32 note) directs that the NRC adopt these standards into its regulations for reviewing and licensing

33 the proposed repository. The NRC promulgated its regulations on November 2, 2001 (NRC

34 2001). These standards include the following: (1) 0.15 mSv/yr (15 mrem/yr) dose limit for

35 members of the public during the storage period prior to repository closure, (2) 0.15 mSv/yr (15

36 mrem/yr) dose limit for the reasonably maximally exposed individual for 10,000 years following

37 disposal, (3) 0.15 mSv/yr (15 mrem/yr) dose limit for the reasonably maximally exposed

38 individual as a result of a human intrusion at or before 10,000 years after disposal, and (4) a

39 ground-water protection standard that states for 10,000 years of undisturbed performance after

40 disposal, radioactivity in a representative volume of ground water will not exceed (a) 5 pCi/L

41 (radium-226 and radium-228), (b)15 pCi/L (gross alpha activity), and (c) 0.04 mSv/yr (4
Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 6-6 January 2006

1 mrem/yr) to the whole body or any organ (from combined beta and photon emitting

2 radionuclides).

3 On February 15, 2002, based on a recommendation by the Secretary of the Department of

4 Energy, the President recommended the Yucca Mountain site for the development of a

5 repository for the geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste. The

6 U.S. Congress approved this recommendation on July 9, 2002, in Joint Resolution 87, which

7 designated Yucca Mountain as the repository for spent nuclear waste. On July 23, 2002, the

8 President signed Joint Resolution 87 into law. Public Law 107-200, 116 Stat. 735 (2002)

9 approved Yucca Mountain as the site for the development of a repository for the disposal of

10 high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. This development does not represent new

11 and significant information with respect to the offsite radiological impacts from license renewal

12 related to disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste.

13 EPA developed Yucca Mountain-specific repository standards, which were subsequently

14 adopted by the NRC in 10 CFR Part 63. In an opinion, issued July 9, 2004, the U.S. Court of

15 Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) vacated EPA’s radiation protection

16 standards for the candidate repository, which required compliance with certain dose limits over

17 a 10,000 year period. See Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. v. EPA, 373 F.3d 1251, 1273, 1299

18 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Court’s decision also vacated the compliance period in NRC’s licensing

19 criteria for the candidate repository in 10 CFR Part 63.

20 Therefore, for the high-level waste and spent fuel disposal component of the fuel cycle, there is

21 some uncertainty with respect to regulatory limits for offsite releases of radioactive nuclides for

22 the current candidate repository site. However, prior to promulgation of the affected provisions

23 of the Commission’s regulations, the staff assumed that limits would be developed along the

24 lines of the 1995 National Academy of Sciences report, "Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain

25 Standards," and that in accordance with the Commission’s Waste Confidence Decision,

26 10 CFR 51.23, a repository that would comply with such limits could and likely would be

27 developed at some site. Peak doses to virtually all individuals will be 1 mSv (100 mrem) per

28 year or less. 

29 Despite the current uncertainty with respect to the criteria that would ultimately apply to any

30 license application for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository, some judgment as to the

31 regulatory NEPA implications of offsite radiological impacts of spent fuel and high-level waste

32 disposal should be made. The staff concludes that these impacts are acceptable in that the

33 impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion that the option of

34 extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 should be eliminated.

35 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

36 the NMC ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

37 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no offsite radiological impacts related

38 to spent fuel and high-level waste disposal during the renewal term beyond those discussed in

39 the GEIS.
Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management

January 2006 6-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 C Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle. Based on information in the GEIS, the

2 Commission found that 

3 The nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle resulting from the renewal

4 of an operating license for any plant are found to be small.

5 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

6 the NMC ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

7 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no nonradiological impacts of the

8 uranium fuel cycle during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

9 C Low-level waste storage and disposal. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

10 found that

11 The comprehensive regulatory controls that are in place and the low public

12 doses being achieved at reactors ensure that the radiological impacts to the

13 environment will remain small during the term of a renewed license. The

14 maximum additional on-site land that may be required for low-level waste

15 storage during the term of a renewed license and associated impacts will be

16 small. Nonradiological impacts on air and water will be negligible. The

17 radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of

18 low-level waste from any individual plant at licensed sites are small. In addition,

19 the Commission concludes that there is reasonable assurance that sufficient low20 level waste disposal capacity will be made available when needed for facilities to

21 be decommissioned consistent with NRC decommissioning requirements.

22 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

23 the NMC ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

24 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of low-level waste (LLW)

25 storage and disposal associated with the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

26 C Mixed waste storage and disposal. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

27 found that

28 The comprehensive regulatory controls and the facilities and procedures that are

29 in place ensure proper handling and storage, as well as negligible doses and

30 exposure to toxic materials for the public and the environment at all plants. 

31 License renewal will not increase the small, continuing risk to human health and

32 the environment posed by mixed waste at all plants. The radiological and

33 nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of mixed waste from

34 any individual plant at licensed sites are small. In addition, the Commission

35 concludes that there is reasonable assurance that sufficient mixed waste

36 disposal capacity will be made available when needed for facilities to be

37 decommissioned consistent with NRC decommissioning requirements.
Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 6-8 January 2006

1 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

2 the NMC ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

3 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of mixed waste storage

4 and disposal associated with the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

5 C Onsite spent fuel. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

6 The expected increase in the volume of spent fuel from an additional 20 years of

7 operation can be safely accommodated on site with small environmental effects

8 through dry or pool storage at all plants if a permanent repository or monitored

9 retrievable storage is not available.

10 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

11 the NMC ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

12 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of onsite spent fuel

13 associated with license renewal beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

14 C Nonradiological waste. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

15 No changes to generating systems are anticipated for license renewal. Facilities

16 and procedures are in place to ensure continued proper handling and disposal at

17 all plants.

18 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

19 the NMC ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

20 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no nonradiological waste impacts

21 during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

22 C Transportation. Based on information contained in the GEIS, the Commission found that

23 The impacts of transporting spent fuel enriched up to 5 percent uranium-235 with

24 average burnup for the peak rod to current levels approved by NRC up to

25 62,000 MWd/MTU and the cumulative impacts of transporting high-level waste to

26 a single repository, such as Yucca Mountain, Nevada, are found to be consistent

27 with the impact values contained in 10 CFR 51.52(c), Summary Table S-4 —

28 Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from One

29 Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor. If fuel enrichment or burnup

30 conditions are not met, the applicant must submit an assessment of the

31 implications for the environmental impact values reported in § 51.52.

32 Monticello meets the fuel enrichment and burnup conditions set forth in Addendum 1 to the

33 GEIS. The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

34 review of the NMC ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other
Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management

January 2006 6-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of transportation

2 associated with license renewal beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

3

4 6.2 References

5 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

6 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

7 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for

8 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

9 10 CFR Part 63. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 63, “Disposal of High10 Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” 

11 40 CFR Part 191. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 191,

12 “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear

13 Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Waste.”

14 Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law No. 102-486, § 801, 1069 Stat. 2921. (codified at

15 42 USC 10101 note).

16 National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 1995. Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards. 

17 Washington, D.C.

18 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. 42 USC 4321, et seq.

19 Nuclear Management Company (NMC). 2005. Applicant's Environmental Report—Operating

20 License Renewal Stage, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. Docket No. 50-263, License

21 No. DPR-22. Monticello, Minnesota. 

22 Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. v. EPA, 373 F.3d 1251, 1273, 1299 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

23 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1980. Final Environmental Impact Statement: 

24 Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste. DOE/EIS-0046F. 

25 Washington, D.C.

26 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. “Public Health and Environmental

27 Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Federal Register, Vol. 66,

28 No. 114, p. 32132. Washington, D.C. June 13, 2001.
Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 6-10 January 2006

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

2 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2. Washington, D.C.

3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

4 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report. Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1,

5 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final Report. 

6 NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001. “Disposal of High-Level Radioactive

8 Wastes in a Proposed Geological Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” Federal Register,

9 Vol. 66, No. 213, p. 55792. Washington, D.C. November 2, 2001.
(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all

references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

January 2006 7-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 7.0 Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

2 Environmental impacts from the activities associated with the decommissioning of any reactor

3 before or at the end of an initial or renewed license are evaluated in the Generic Environmental

4 Impact Statement for Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Supplement 1, Regarding the

5 Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors, NUREG-0586 (NRC 2002). The staff’s

6 evaluation of the environmental impacts of decommissioning presented in NUREG-0586,

7 Supplement 1 identifies a range of impacts for each environmental issue.

8 The incremental environmental impacts associated with decommissioning activities resulting

9 from continued plant operation during the renewal term are discussed in the Generic

10 Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437,

Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999).(a) 11 The GEIS includes a determination of whether the

12 analysis of the environmental issue could be applied to all plants and whether additional

13 mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues are then assigned a Category 1 or a

14 Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1 issues are those that meet all of

15 the following criteria:

16 (1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply

17 either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling

18 system or other specified plant or site characteristics.

19 (2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned

20 to the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle

21 and from high level waste and spent fuel disposal).

22 (3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the

23 analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation

24 measures are likely not to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

25 For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is

26 required unless new and significant information is identified.

27 Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one of more of the criteria for Category 1, and

28 therefore, additional plant-specific review of these issues is required. There are no Category 2

29 issues related to decommissioning.
Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 7-2 January 2006

1 7.1 Decommissioning

2 Category 1 issues in Table B-1 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51,

3 Subpart A, Appendix B that are applicable to Monticello decommissioning following the renewal

4 term are listed in Table 7-1. Nuclear Management Company (NMC) stated in its Environmental

5 Report (ER) (NMC 2005) that it is aware of no new and significant information regarding the

6 environmental impacts of Monticello license renewal. The staff has not identified any new and

7 significant information during its independent review of the NMC ER, the staff’s site visit, the

8 scoping process, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes

9 that there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For all

10 of these issues, the staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL, and additional

11 plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

12 Table 7-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Decommissioning of Monticello

13 Following the Renewal Term

14 ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

15 DECOMMISSIONING

16 Radiation doses 7.3.1; 7.4

17 W aste management 7.3.2; 7.4

18 Air quality 7.3.3; 7.4

19 W ater quality 7.3.4; 7.4

20 Ecological resources 7.3.5; 7.4

21 Socioeconomic impacts 7.3.7; 7.4

22

23 A brief description of the staff’s review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for

24 each of the issues follows:

25 C Radiation doses. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

26 Doses to the public will be well below regulatory standards regardless of which

27 decommissioning method is used. Occupational doses would increase no more

28 than 1 man-rem [0.01 person-Sv] caused by buildup of long-lived radionuclides

29 during the license renewal term.

30 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

31 the NMC ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

32 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no radiation dose impacts associated

33 with decommissioning following the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

January 2006 7-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 C Waste management. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

2 Decommissioning at the end of a 20-year license renewal period would generate

3 no more solid wastes than at the end of the current license term. No increase in

4 the quantities of Class C or greater than Class C wastes would be expected.

5 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

6 the NMC ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

7 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts from solid waste

8 associated with decommissioning following the license renewal term beyond those discussed in

9 the GEIS.

10 C Air quality. Based on information found in the GEIS, the Commission found that

11 Air quality impacts of decommissioning are expected to be negligible either at

12 the end of the current operating term or at the end of the license renewal term.

13 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

14 the NMC ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

15 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts on air quality associated

16 with decommissioning following the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

17 C Water quality. Based on information found in the GEIS, the Commission found that

18 The potential for significant water quality impacts from erosion or spills is no

19 greater whether decommissioning occurs after a 20-year license renewal period

20 or after the original 40-year operation period, and measures are readily available

21 to avoid such impacts.

22 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

23 the NMC ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

24 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts on water quality

25 associated with decommissioning following the license renewal term beyond those discussed in

26 the GEIS.

27 C Ecological resources. Based on information found in the GEIS, the Commission found that

28 Decommissioning either after the initial operating period or after a 20-year

29 license renewal period is not likely to have any direct ecological impacts.

30 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

31 the NMC ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

32 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts on ecological resources
Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 7-4 January 2006

1 associated with decommissioning following the license renewal term beyond those discussed in

2 the GEIS.

3 C Socioeconomic impacts. Based on information found in the GEIS, the Commission found

4 that

5 Decommissioning would have some short-term socioeconomic impacts. The

6 impacts would not be increased by delaying decommissioning until the end of a

7 20-year relicense period, but they might be decreased by population and

8 economic growth.

9 The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

10 the NMC ER, the staff’s site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

11 information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no socioeconomic impacts

12 associated with decommissioning following the license renewal term beyond those discussed in

13 the GEIS.

14 7.2 References

15 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

16 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

17 Nuclear Management Company (NMC). 2005. Applicant's Environmental Report—Operating

18 License Renewal Stage, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. Docket No. 50-263, License No.

19 DPR-22. Monticello, Minnesota. 

20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

21 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

22 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

23 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1,

24 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final Report. 

25 NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

26 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

27 on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of

28 Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.
(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all references 

 to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

January 2006 8-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 8.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives to License

2 Renewal

3 This chapter examines the potential environmental impacts associated with denying the renewal

4 of an operating license (OL) for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (Monticello) (the no-action

5 alternative); the potential environmental impacts from electric generating sources other than the

6 Monticello site; the possibility of purchasing electric power from other sources to replace power

7 generated by Monticello and the associated environmental impacts; the potential environmental

8 impacts from a combination of generating and conservation measures; and other generation

9 alternatives that were deemed unsuitable for replacement of power generated by Monticello. 

10 The environmental impacts are evaluated using the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's

11 (NRC's) three-level standard of significance—SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE—developed

12 using the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines and set forth in the footnotes to

13 Table B-1 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B:

14 SMALL—Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither

15 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

16 MODERATE—Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to

17 destabilize important attributes of the resource.

18 LARGE—Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize

19 important attributes of the resource.

20 The impact categories evaluated in this chapter are the same as those used in the Generic

21 Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437,

Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999)(a) 22 with the additional impact category of environmental

23 justice.

24 8.1 No-Action Alternative

25 NRC’s regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 specify

26 that the no-action alternative be discussed in an NRC environmental impact statement (EIS),

27 (see 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix A[4]). For license renewal, the no-action alternative

28 refers to a scenario in which the NRC would not renew the Monticello OL. The Northern States

29 Power Company (NSP) would then cease plant operations when the current license expires and

30 initiate the decommissioning of the plant.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

(a) Appendix J of NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 discusses the socioeconomic impacts of plant closure, but

the results of the analysis in Appendix J are not incorporated in the analysis presented in the main

body of the NUREG.

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-2 January 2006

1 NSP would be required to shut down Monticello and to comply with NRC decommissioning

2 requirements in 10 CFR 50.82 whether or not the OL is renewed. If the Monticello OL is

3 renewed, shutdown of the units and decommissioning activities will not be avoided, but will be

4 postponed for up to an additional 20 years.

5 The environmental impacts associated with decommissioning following a license renewal period

6 of up to 20 years or following the no-action alternative would be bounded by the discussion of

7 impacts in Chapter 7 of the license renewal GEIS (NRC 1996), Chapter 7 of this supplemental

8 environmental impact statement (SEIS), and the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement

9 on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, NUREG-0586, Supplement 1 (NRC 2002). The

10 impacts of decommissioning after 60 years of operation are not expected to be significantly

11 different from those occurring after 40 years of operation.

12 Impacts from the decision to permanently cease operations are not considered in

NUREG-0586, Supplement 1.(a) 13 Therefore, immediate impacts that occur between plant

14 shutdown and the beginning of decommissioning are considered here. These impacts, which

15 will occur when the unit permanently shuts down regardless of whether the license was to be

16 renewed or not, are discussed below, with the results presented in Table 8-1. Plant shutdown

17 will result in a net reduction in power production capacity. The power not generated by

18 Monticello during the license renewal term would likely be replaced by (1) power purchased

19 from other electricity providers, (2) generating alternatives other than Monticello, (3)

20 demand-side management (DSM) and energy conservation, or (4) some combination of these

21 options. The environmental impacts of these options are discussed in Section 8.2. 

22 C Land Use

23 In Chapter 4, the staff concluded that the impacts on land use of continued plant operation

24 during the renewal term would be SMALL. Onsite land use will not be affected immediately by

25 the cessation of operations. Plant structures and other facilities are likely to remain in place

26 until decommissioning. The transmission lines associated with the project would be expected to

27 remain in service after the plant stops operating. As a result, maintenance of the transmission

28 corridors will continue as before. Therefore, the staff concludes that the impacts on land use

29 from plant shutdown would be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

January 2006 8-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Table 8-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

2 Impact Category Impact Comment

3 Land Use SMALL Impacts are expected to be SMALL because plant shutdown is not

expected to result in changes to onsite or offsite land use.

4 Ecology SMALL Impacts are expected to be SMALL because current aquatic

impacts are SMALL. Terrestrial impacts are not expected

because there will not be any land use changes.

5 W ater Use and

6 Quality—Surface

7 W ater

SMALL Impacts are expected to be SMALL because surface water intake

and discharges will decrease.

8 W ater Use and

9 Quality—

10 Groundwater

Impacts are expected to be SMALL because groundwater use will

decrease.

11 Air Quality SMALL Impacts are expected to be SM ALL because releases related to

plant operation and worker transportation will decrease. 

12 W aste SMALL Impacts are expected to be SMALL because generation of

high-level waste will end, and generation of low-level and mixed

waste will decrease.

13 Human Health SMALL Impacts are expected to be SM ALL because radiological doses to

workers and m embers of the public, which are within regulatory

limits, will be reduced.

14 Socioeconomics SMALL to

LARGE

Impacts are expected to be SMALL to LARGE because of a

decrease in employment and tax revenues.

15 Socioeconomics

16 (Transportation)

SMALL Impacts are expected to be SMALL because the decrease in

employment would reduce traffic.

17 Aesthetics SMALL Impacts are expected to be SMALL because plant structures will

rem ain in place. 

18 Historic and

19 Archaeological

20 Resources

SMALL Impacts are expected to be SMALL because shutdown of the plant

will not result in changes to onsite or offsite land use.

21 Environmental

22 Justice

SMALL to

LARGE

Impacts are expected to be SMALL to LARGE because loss of

employment opportunities is expected.

23

24 C Ecology

25 In Chapter 4 of this SEIS, the NRC staff concluded that the ecological impacts of continued

26 plant operation would be SMALL. Cessation of operations will be accompanied by a reduction

27 in cooling water flow and the thermal plume from the plant. The environmental impacts to

28 aquatic species, including threatened and endangered species, associated with these changes
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-4 January 2006

1 are generally positive. The impact of plant closure on the terrestrial ecosystem will be

2 negligible because the transmission lines to the plant will remain energized. Therefore, the

3 staff concludes that ecological impacts from shutdown of the plant would be SMALL.

4 C Water Use and Quality—Surface Water

5 In Chapter 4 of this SEIS the NRC staff concluded that impacts of continued plant operation on

6 surface water use and quality would be SMALL. When the plant stops operating there will be

7 an immediate reduction in the consumptive use of water because of reduction in cooling water

8 flow and in the amount of heat rejected to the Mississippi River. Therefore, the staff concludes

9 that the impacts on surface water use and quality from plant shutdown would be SMALL.

10 C Water Use and Quality—Groundwater

11 In Chapter 4, the staff concluded that impacts of continued plant groundwater use on

12 groundwater availability and quality would be SMALL. When the plant stops operating, there

13 will be an immediate reduction in use of groundwater for makeup. In addition, there will be a

14 gradual reduction in groundwater use for potable water as the plant staff decreases. Therefore,

15 the staff concludes that groundwater use and quality impacts from shutdown of the plant would

16 be SMALL.

17 C Air Quality

18 In Chapter 4, the staff found the impacts of continued plant operation on air quality would likely

19 be SMALL. When the plant stops operating, there will be a reduction in emissions from

20 activities related to plant operation, such as use of diesel generators and workers’

21 transportation. Therefore, the staff concludes that the impact on air quality from shutdown of

22 the plant would be SMALL.

23 C Waste

24 The impacts of waste generated by continued plant operation are discussed in Chapter 6. The

25 impacts of low-level and mixed waste from plant operation are characterized as SMALL. When

26 the plant stops operating, the plant will stop generating high-level waste, and generation of

27 low-level and mixed waste associated with plant operation and maintenance will be reduced. 

28 Therefore, the staff concludes that the impact of waste generated after shutdown of the plant

29 would be SMALL.

30 C Human Health

31 In Chapter 4 of this SEIS the NRC staff concluded that the impacts of continued plant operation

32 on human health would be SMALL. After the cessation of operations the amount of radioactive

33 material released to the environment in gaseous and liquid forms will be reduced. Therefore,
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

January 2006 8-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 the staff concludes that the impact of shutdown of the plant on human health would be SMALL. 

2 In addition, the variety of potential accidents at the plant will be reduced to a limited set

3 associated with shutdown events and fuel handling. In Chapter 5 of this SEIS the NRC staff

4 concluded that the impacts of accidents during operation were SMALL. Therefore, the staff

5 concludes that the impacts of potential accidents following permanent shutdown of the plant

6 would be SMALL.

7 C Socioeconomics

8 In Chapter 4, the NRC staff concluded that the socioeconomic impacts of continued plant

9 operation would range from SMALL to MODERATE. There would be immediate socioeconomic

10 impacts associated with the shutdown of the plant because of the reduction in the staff at the

11 plant. There may also be an immediate reduction in property tax revenues for Wright County. 

12 The NRC staff concludes that the socioeconomic impacts of permanent plant shutdown could

13 range from SMALL to LARGE. Some of these impacts could be offset if new power generating

14 facilities are built at or near the current site. See Appendix J to NUREG-0586, Supplement 1

15 (NRC 2002), for additional discussion of the potential impacts of plant shutdown. 

16 C Socioeconomics (Transportation)

17 In Chapter 4, the staff concluded that the impacts of continued plant operation on transportation

18 would be SMALL. Cessation of operations will be accompanied by a reduction of traffic in the

19 vicinity of the plant. Most of the reduction will be associated with a reduction in the plant

20 workforce, but there will also be a reduction in shipment of material to and from the plant. 

21 Therefore, the staff concludes that the impacts of plant shutdown on transportation would be

22 SMALL.

23 C Aesthetics

24 In Chapter 4, the staff concluded that the aesthetic impacts of continued plant operation would

25 be SMALL. Cessation of operations will be accompanied by a reduction in visible plumes from

26 the cooling towers. Plant structures and other facilities are likely to remain in place until

27 decommissioning. Therefore, the staff concludes that the aesthetic impacts of plant shutdown

28 would be SMALL.

29 C Historic and Archaeological Resources

30 In Chapter 4, the staff concluded that the impacts of continued plant operation on historic and

31 archaeological resources would be SMALL. Onsite land use will not be affected immediately by

32 the cessation of operations. Plant structures and other facilities are likely to remain in place

33 until decommissioning. The transmission lines associated with the project are expected to

34 remain in service after the plant stops operating. As a result, maintenance of transmission line

35 corridors will continue as before. Therefore, the staff concludes that the impacts on historic and

36 archaeological resources from plant shutdown would be SMALL.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

(a) A greenfield site is assumed to be an undeveloped site with no previous construction.

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-6 January 2006

1 C Environmental Justice

2 In Chapter 4, the staff concluded that the environmental justice impact of continued operation of

3 the plant would be SMALL because continued operation of the plant would not have a

4 disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations.

5 Permanent shutdown of the plant could have disproportionately high and adverse impacts on

6 minority and low-income populations because of the loss of employment opportunities at the

7 site and because of secondary socioeconomic impacts (e.g., loss of patronage at local

8 businesses). The staff concludes that the environmental justice impacts of plant shutdown

9 could range from SMALL to LARGE. Some of these impacts could be offset if new power

10 generating facilities are built at or near the current site. See Appendix J to NUREG-0586,

11 Supplement 1 (NRC 2002), for additional discussion of these impacts.

12 8.2 Alternative Energy Sources

13 This section discusses the environmental impacts associated with alternative sources of electric

14 power to replace the power generated by Monticello, assuming that the OL for Monticello is not

15 renewed. The order of presentation of alternative energy sources in Section 8.2 does not imply

16 which alternative would be most likely to occur or to have the least environmental impact.

17 The following generation alternatives are considered in detail:

C coal-fired generation at an alternate greenfield site(a) 18 (Section 8.2.1)

19 C natural gas-fired generation at an alternate greenfield site (Section 8.2.2)

20 C coal gasification at an alternate greenfield site (Section 8.2.3)

21 C nuclear generation at the Monticello site and an alternate greenfield site (Section 8.2.4).

22 The alternative of purchasing power from other sources to replace power generated Monticello

23 is discussed in Section 8.2.5. Other power generation alternatives and conservation

24 alternatives considered by the staff and found not to be reasonable replacements for Monticello

25 are discussed in Section 8.2.6. Section 8.2.7 discusses the environmental impacts of a

26 combination of generation and conservation alternatives. 

27 Each year the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a component of the U.S. Department of

28 Energy (DOE), issues an Annual Energy Outlook. In its Annual Energy Outlook 2005 with
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

(a) In a combined-cycle unit, hot combustion gas in a combustion turbine rotates the turbine to generate electricity. 

 The hot exhaust from the combustion turbine is routed through a heat-recovery boiler to make steam to generate 

 additional electricity.

(b) A baseload plant normally operates to supply all or part of the minimum continuous load of a system, and 

 consequently produces electricity at an essentially constant rate. Nuclear power plants are commonly used for 

 baseload generation; i.e., these nuclear units generally run near full load.

January 2006 8-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

Projections to 2025, EIA projects that combined-cycle(a) 1 or combustion turbine technology

2 fueled by natural gas is likely to account for approximately 60 percent of new electric generating

3 capacity between the years 2005 and 2025 (DOE/EIA 2005). Both technologies are designed

4 primarily to supply peak and intermediate capacity, but combined-cycle technology can also be

used to meet baseload(b) 5 requirements. Coal-fired plants are projected by EIA to account for

6 approximately 35 percent of new capacity during this period (DOE/EIA 2005). Coal-fired plants

7 are generally used to meet baseload requirements. Renewable energy sources, primarily wind,

8 biomass gasification, and municipal solid waste units, are projected by EIA to account for the

9 remaining 5 percent of capacity additions. EIA's projections are based on the assumption that

10 providers of new generating capacity will seek to minimize cost while meeting applicable

11 environmental requirements. Combined-cycle plants are projected by EIA to have the lowest

12 generation cost in 2005 and 2025, followed by coal-fired plants and then wind generation

13 (DOE/EIA 2005).

14 EIA projects that oil-fired plants will account for very little of new generation capacity in the

15 United States during the 2005 to 2025 time period because of higher fuel costs and lower

16 efficiencies (DOE/EIA 2005). 

17 EIA also projects that new nuclear power plants will not account for any new generation

18 capacity in the United States during the 2005 to 2025 time period because natural gas and

19 coal-fired plants are projected to be more economical (DOE/EIA 2005). In spite of this

20 projection, a new nuclear plant alternative for replacing power generated by Monticello is

21 considered for reasons stated in Section 8.2.4. NRC established a new reactor licensing

22 program organization in 2001 to prepare for and manage future reactor and site licensing

23 applications (NRC 2001).

24 Monticello has a net rating of 600 megawatts electric (MW[e]); therefore, for the coal

25 alternative, the staff assumed construction of a 600-MW(e) plant. For the natural gas

26 alternative, the staff assumed construction of a 550-MW(e) plant consisting of two team

27 combustion turbines (CTs). These assumptions are consistent with the NMC Environmental

28 Report (ER) (NMC 2005). For the coal gasification alternative, the staff assumed construction

29 of two 340-MW(e) modules. This assumption slightly overstates the environmental impacts of

30 replacing the 600 MW(e) from Monticello. For the new nuclear alternative, the staff assumed

31 construction of a 600-MW(e) plant. This assumption is roughly equivalent to the environmental

32 impacts of replacing the 600 MW(e) from Monticello. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

(a)

 Heat rate is a measure of generating station thermal efficiency. In English units, it is generally expressed in 

 British thermal units (BTUs) per net kilowatt-hour (kWh). It is computed by dividing the total BTU content of the 

 fuel burned for electric generation by the resulting kWh generation. The corresponding metric unit for energy is 

 the joule (J).

(b) The capacity factor is the ratio of electricity generated, for the period of time considered, to the energy that could 

 have been generated at continuous full-power operation during the same period.

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-8 January 2006

1 8.2.1 Coal-Fired Generation

2 The staff believes that the Monticello site would not be a viable location for a representative

3 coal-fired plant. The configuration of the area, the proximity to County Road 75 and

4 Interstate 94, and the fact that the river bisects the site all present significant constraints to an

5 optimal layout of plant facilities. Potentially significant issues include the possible need to

6 realign County Road 75 and insufficient suitable area for onsite disposal of air emission control

7 waste south of the river. The latter constraint would necessitate transport of this waste to an

8 existing disposal facility at NSP's Sherburne County Generating Plant site or a new facility

9 developed offsite or on suitable land on the Monticello site north of the river. 

10 Construction at an alternate site would necessitate approximately ten miles of new rail for

11 delivery of coal and limestone. In addition, approximately five miles of new 345-kV transmission

12 would be needed to connect to the grid (NMC 2005).

13 Unless otherwise indicated, the assumptions and numerical values used in Section 8.2.1 are

14 from the NMC ER (NMC 2005). The staff reviewed this information and compared it to

15 environmental impact information in the GEIS. Although the OL renewal period is only

16 20 years, the impact of operating the coal-fired alternative for 40 years is considered (as a

17 reasonable projection of the operating life of a coal-fired plant).

18 The coal-fired plant would consume approximately 2.7 million tons per year of pulverized

19 sub-bituminous coal with an ash content of approximately 5.7 percent. NMC assumes a heat

rate(a) of 9800 BTU/kWh and a capacity factor(b) 20 of 85 percent in its ER. After combustion,

21 99.9 percent of the ash would be collected. Thirty percent of this ash would go to beneficial

22 uses such as concrete products and roadbed material. The remaining 69.9 percent would be

23 disposed of at the plant site. In addition, approximately 51,000 tons of scrubber sludge would

24 be disposed of at the plant site based on annual calcium hydroxide usage of approximately

25 31,000 tons. Calcium hydroxide is used in the scrubbing process for control of sulfur dioxide

(SO2 26 ) emissions.

27 For purposes of this evaluation, the staff assumed that a coal-fired plant located at an alternate

28 site would use a closed-cycle cooling system. The overall impacts of the coal-fired generating

29 system are discussed in the following sections and summarized in Table 8-2. The extent of

30 impacts at an alternate greenfield site will depend on the location of the particular site selected.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

January 2006 8-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Table 8-2. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation at an

2 Alternate Greenfield Site Using Closed-Cycle Cooling

3 Impact

4 Category Impact Comment

5 Land Use MODERATE The total site could consist of approximately 1700 ac for facilities and an

appropriate buffer for adjacent land uses. Land occupied by a 120-ac

landfill would be permanently restricted to noninvasive uses for the long

term. Offsite, an estimated 60 ac of land would be converted to

transportation use and 90 ac would be converted for utility use.

6 Ecology SMALL to

MODERATE

Impact depends on whether the site has been previously developed.

Factors to consider include location and ecology of the site, transmission

line route and rail spur route. In total, impacts could include habitat

degradation, fragmentation, or loss as a result of construction activities

and conversion of land to industrial use. Ecological communities might

experience reduced productivity and biological diversity from disturbance

of previously intact land. 

7 Water Use and

8 Quality—Surface

9 Water

SMALL to

MODERATE

The impact on the surface water is site-dependent and would depend on

the volume of water needed for makeup water, the discharge volume,

and the characteristics of the receiving body of water.

10 Water Use and

11 Quality—

12 Groundwater

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impact depends on volume of water withdrawn and the characteristics of

the groundwater source.

13 Air Quality MODERATE Sulfur oxides: 1755 tons/yr. National and regional impacts would be

minimal because of emissions offsets through the SO2 trading program.

Nitrogen oxides: 486 tons/yr

Particulates: 18 tons/yr of PM10

Carbon monoxide: 675 tons/yr

Small amounts of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants and

naturally occurring radioactive materials—mainly uranium and thorium.

14 Waste MODERATE Total waste volume would be approximately 107,000 tons of ash and

51,000 tons of flue gas desulfurization waste annually for 40 years. 

Approximately 30 percent of the ash would be beneficially used and the

remainder of the waste would be disposed of onsite, accounting for

approximately 120 ac of land area over the 40-year plant life.

15 Human Health SMALL Impacts are uncertain, but considered SMALL in the absence of more

quantitative data.

16 Socioeconomics SMALL to

LARGE

Construction impacts depend on location, but could be LARGE if the

plant is located in an area that is more rural than the Monticello site. 

Wright County would experience loss of tax base and employment,

potentially offset by projected economic growth.

17 Socioeconomics

18 (Transportation)

SMALL to

MODERATE

Transportation impacts associated with construction workers could be

SMALL to MODERATE.

For rail transportation of coal and lime, the impact is considered SMALL

to MODERATE. For barge transportation, the impact is considered

SMALL.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

(a)

 Because the new coal-fired plant is assumed to have a 40-year life, only half of the land area needed for 

 byproduct disposal is directly attributable to the alternative of renewing the Monticello OL for 20 years.

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-10 January 2006

1 Table 8-2. (contd)

2 Impact

3 Category Impact Comment

4 Aesthetics SMALL to

MODERATE

Impacts could include visual impairment and infrastructure for delivery of

coal and limestone. The severity of impacts is dependent on location.

5 Historic and

6 Archaeological

7 Resources

SMALL An alternate location would necessitate cultural resource studies.

8 Environmental

9 Justice

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impacts will vary depending on population distribution and makeup at the

site. 

10

11 C Land Use

12 Although potential impacts on land use from a new coal-fired plant would be location-specific

13 and therefore conjectural for a greenfield site, potentially affected areas are predominantly rural

14 agricultural land interspersed in some areas with natural vegetation, all of which are abundant

15 in the region. The total site could consist of approximately 1700 ac to provide flexibility in

16 facility arrangement and appropriate buffer from adjacent land uses. Land uses would be

17 entirely precluded on 380 ac onsite for plant facilities and waste disposal. The waste would be

18 disposed of onsite, accounting for approximately 120 ac of land area over the 40-year plant

life.(a) 19 Offsite, an estimated 60 ac of land would be converted to transportation use (rail spur)

20 and 90 ac would be converted to utility use (transmission line). Land occupied by the 120-ac

21 landfill would be permanently restricted to noninvasive uses (e.g., recreation) for the long term. 

22 In view of the large amount of land affected and the permanent land use change from the

23 landfill, the staff concludes that land use impacts would be clearly noticeable but not

24 destabilizing. Therefore, the staff concludes that land use impacts from construction and

25 operation of a new coal-fired plant at an alternative greenfield site would be MODERATE. The

26 impact would be greater than the OL renewal alternative.

27 C Ecology

28 Potential impacts on ecological resources from construction and operation of the representative

29 coal-fired plant are highly site-dependent. Development of the representative coal-fired plant at

30 a greenfield site in southern Minnesota would likely result in the loss of 380 ac of terrestrial

31 habitat for onsite plant facilities and air emission control waste landfill, loss of approximately

32 60 ac of offsite habitat for the rail line, and modification of 90 ac of offsite terrestrial habitat for a

33 new transmission line to serve the plant. Development of the transmission line would limit

34 changes in future land uses in the transmission corridor to those that are compatible with the
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

January 2006 8-11 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 line, but most agricultural practices and other currently compatible uses could continue.

2 Depending on route specifics, clearing of forest and shrubland, some of which may qualify as

3 wetland, would also likely be required. However, hydrologic regimes of wetlands would not be

4 appreciably affected and the conversion of transmission corridor areas currently in forest to

5 open habitats could be advantageous to species with affinities for remnant prairie habitats. 

6 The most significant potential impacts to aquatic communities relate to the operation of the

7 cooling water system; however, regulatory controls would be expected to ensure appropriate

8 protection of aquatic communities from thermal discharges and the location and operation of

9 cooling water intakes. In addition, because the new coal-fired plant is assumed to use

10 closed-cycle cooling, the cooling water intake and discharge flows would be much lower than

11 that of Monticello, the impact from which is considered to be SMALL.

12 Given this information, the staff concludes that development of the representative coal-fired

13 plant at a greenfield site would have a SMALL to MODERATE impact on ecological

14 communities. 

15 C Water Use and Quality—Surface Water

16 Impacts on water quality of greatest potential concern from construction of a new coal-fired

17 plant at a greenfield site include (1) erosion and sedimentation associated with land clearing

18 operations, and (2) suspension of bottom sediments during construction of cooling water intake

19 and discharge structures (NRC 1996). These adverse effects would be localized and

20 temporary.

21 Potential impacts on water quality and use associated with operation of the representative coal22 fired plant would be site-dependent. The impact on the surface water would depend on the

23 volume of water needed for makeup water, the discharge volume, and the characteristics of the

24 receiving body of water. Cooling water, wastewater, and storm water discharges would be

25 regulated under the Clean Water Act and corresponding state programs by a National Pollutant

26 Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Cooling water intake and discharge flows for

27 the representative coal-fired plant, assumed to use a closed-cycle cooling system, would be

28 substantially lower than those for Monticello, which primarily operates in a once-through mode

29 that results in SMALL impacts. The staff concludes that the impacts of surface water use and

30 quality from operation of a representative coal-fired plant located at a greenfield site would be

31 SMALL to MODERATE, depending on the site chosen.

32 C Water Use and Quality—Groundwater

33 Use of groundwater is possible for a coal-fired plant at an alternate site. Any groundwater

34 withdrawal would require a permit from the local permitting authority. Overall, impacts to
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-12 January 2006

1 groundwater use and quality of a new coal-fired plant with a closed-cycle cooling system at an

2 alternate site are considered SMALL to MODERATE, depending on the volume of groundwater

3 withdrawn and the characteristics of the groundwater source.

4 C Air Quality

5 The air-quality impacts of coal-fired generation vary considerably from those of nuclear

generation due to emissions of sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx 6 ), particulates, carbon

7 monoxide, hazardous air pollutants such as mercury, and naturally occurring radioactive

8 materials.

9 Monticello is located in an area designated by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards as

10 being in attainment for all criteria pollutants. The nearest area of non-attainment is the

11 Milwaukee metropolitan area. However, Monticello is in a non-attainment area with respect to

12 the eight-hour ozone standard (NMC 2005).

13 A new coal-fired generating plant located in southern Minnesota would likely need a prevention

14 of significant deterioration (PSD) permit and an operating permit under the Clean Air Act. The

15 plant would need to comply with the new source performance standards for such plants set

16 forth in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Da. The standards establish limits for particulate matter and

opacity (40 CFR 60.42a), SO2 (40 CFR 60.43a), and NOx 17 (40 CFR 60.44a).

18 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has various regulatory requirements for

19 visibility protection in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart P, including a specific requirement for review of

20 any new major stationary source in an area designated as attainment or unclassified under the

21 Clean Air Act (40 CFR 51.307). 

22 Section 169A of the Clean Air Act establishes a national goal of preventing future and

23 remedying existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas when impairment

24 results from man-made air pollution. The EPA issued a new regional haze rule in 1999 (EPA

25 1999). The rule specifies that for each mandatory Class I Federal area located within a State,

26 the State must establish goals that provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural

27 visibility conditions. The reasonable progress goals must provide for an improvement in

28 visibility for the most-impaired days over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no

29 degradation in visibility for the least-impaired days over the same period [40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)]. 

30 If a coal-fired plant were located close to a mandatory Class I areas, additional air pollution

31 control requirements could be imposed. The nearest Class I Federal area is in Northern

32 Minnesota, several hundred miles from Monticello. 

33 In March 2005, the EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (EPA 2005b). CAIR will

permanently cap emissions of SO2 and NOx 34 in the eastern United States. CAIR achieves large

reductions of SO2 and/or NOx 35 emissions across 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia. 

When fully implemented, CAIR will reduce SO2 36 emissions in these states by over 70 percent,
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

January 2006 8-13 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

and NOx 1 emissions by over 60 percent from 2003 levels. This will result in $85 to $100 billion in

2 health benefits and nearly $2 billion in visibility benefits per year by 2015, and will substantially

3 reduce premature mortality in the eastern United States. The benefits will continue to grow

4 each year with further implementation. By 2015, CAIR will help Minnesota sources reduce

emissions of SO2 by 40,000 tons, or 36 percent, and emissions of NOx 5 by 53,000 tons, or 59

6 percent (EPA 2005a). 

7 Impacts from the various pollutants that would be expected to result from operation of a new

8 coal-fired plant are described below. 

9 Sulfur oxides emissions. A new coal-fired power plant would be subject to the requirements

10 in Title IV of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7651-7651o). Title IV was enacted to reduce emissions

of SO2 and NOx 11 , the two principal precursors of acid rain, by restricting emissions of these

pollutants from power plants. Title IV caps aggregate annual power plant SO2 12 emissions and

imposes controls on SO2 13 emissions through a system of marketable allowances. The EPA

issues one allowance for each ton of SO2 14 that a unit is allowed to emit. New units do not

receive allowances, but are required to have allowances to cover their SO2 15 emissions. Owners

16 of new units must therefore acquire allowances from owners of other power plants by purchase

or reduce SO2 17 emissions at other power plants they own. Allowances can be banked for use in

future years. Thus, a new coal-fired power plant would not add to net regional SO2 18 emissions,

19 although it might do so locally. 

Regardless, SO2 20 emissions would be greater for the coal alternative than the OL renewal

21 alternative.

NSP estimates that by using the best technology to minimize SOx 22 emissions, the total annual

stack emissions would be approximately 1755 tons of SOx 23 .

24 Nitrogen oxides emissions. Section 407 of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7651f) establishes

technology-based emission limitations for NOx 25 emissions. The market-based allowance system

used for SO2 emissions is not used for NOx 26 emissions. A new coal-fired power plant would be

27 subject to the new source performance standards for such plants at 40 CFR 60.44a(d)(1). This

28 regulation, issued on September 16, 1998 (EPA 1998), limits the discharge of any gases that

contain nitrogen oxides (expressed as NO2 29 ) in excess of 200 ng/J of gross energy output (1.6

30 lb/MWh), based on a 30-day rolling average.

NSP estimates that by using NOx 31 burners with overfire air and selective catalytic reduction

(SCR), the total annual NOx 32 emissions for a new coal-fired power plant would be approximately

486 tons. Regardless of the control technology, this level of NOx 33 emissions would be greater

than the OL renewal alternative, because a nuclear power plant releases almost no NOx 34 during

35 normal operations.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-14 January 2006

1 Particulate emissions. NSP estimates that the total annual stack emissions for a new coal2 fired plant would include 77 tons of filterable total suspended particulates and 18 tons of

particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 μm (PM10 3 ) 

4 (40 CFR 60.6). Fabric filters or electrostatic precipitators would be used for control. In addition,

5 coal-handling equipment would introduce fugitive particulate emissions. Particulate emissions

6 would be greater under the coal alternative than the OL renewal alternative because a nuclear

7 plant releases few particles during normal operations.

8 During the construction of a coal-fired plant, fugitive dust would be generated. In addition,

9 exhaust emissions would come from vehicles and motorized equipment used during the

10 construction process.

11 Carbon monoxide emissions. NSP estimates that the total carbon monoxide emissions from

12 a new coal-fired plant would be approximately 675 tons per year. This level of emissions is

13 greater than the OL renewal alternative.

14 Hazardous air pollutants including mercury. In December 2000, the EPA issued regulatory

15 findings on emissions of hazardous air pollutants from electric utility steam-generating units

16 (EPA 2000b). The EPA determined that coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam-generating units

17 are significant emitters of hazardous air pollutants. Coal-fired power plants were found by the

18 EPA to emit arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, dioxins, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen

19 fluoride, lead, manganese, and mercury (EPA 2000b). The EPA concluded that mercury is the

20 hazardous air pollutant of greatest concern. The EPA found that (1) there is a link between

21 coal consumption and mercury emissions; (2) electric utility steam-generating units are the

22 largest domestic source of mercury emissions; and (3) certain segments of the U.S. population

23 (e.g., the developing fetus and subsistence fish-eating populations) are believed to be at

24 potential risk of adverse health effects due to mercury exposures resulting from consumption of

25 contaminated fish (EPA 2000b). Accordingly, the EPA added coal- and oil-fired electric utility

26 steam-generating units to the list of source categories under Section 112(c) of the Clean Air Act

27 for which emission standards for hazardous air pollutants will be issued (EPA 2000b).

28 Uranium and thorium. Coal contains uranium and thorium. Uranium concentrations are

29 generally in the range of 1 to 10 parts per million. Thorium concentrations are generally about

30 2.5 times greater than uranium concentrations (Gabbard 1993). One estimate is that a typical

31 coal-fired plant released roughly 5.2 tons of uranium and 12.8 tons of thorium in 1982 (Gabbard

32 1993). The population dose equivalent from the uranium and thorium releases and daughter

33 products produced by the decay of these isotopes has been calculated to be significantly higher

34 than that from nuclear power plants (Gabbard 1993).

35 Carbon dioxide. A coal-fired plant would also have unregulated carbon dioxide emissions that

36 could contribute to global warming. The level of emissions from a coal-fired plant would be

37 greater than the OL renewal alternative.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

January 2006 8-15 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Summary. The GEIS analysis did not quantify emissions from coal-fired power plants, but

2 implied that air impacts would be substantial. The GEIS also mentioned global warming from

unregulated carbon dioxide emissions and acid rain from SOx and NOx 3 emissions as potential

4 impacts (NRC 1996). Adverse human health effects such as cancer and emphysema have

5 been associated with the products of coal combustion. The appropriate characterization of air

6 impacts from coal-fired generation would be MODERATE. The impacts would be clearly

7 noticeable, but would not destabilize air quality.

8 C Waste

9 Coal combustion generates waste in the form of ash, and equipment for controlling air pollution

10 generates additional ash and scrubber sludge. The representative coal-fired plant would

11 generate approximately 107,000 tons of ash and 51,000 tons of flue gas desulfurization waste

12 annually for 40 years. Approximately 30 percent of the ash would be beneficially used and the

13 remainder of the waste would be disposed of in a landfill on site, accounting for approximately

14 120 ac of land area over the 40-year plant life. Waste impacts to groundwater and surface

15 water could extend beyond the operating life of the plant if leachate and runoff from the landfill

16 occurs. Disposal of the waste could noticeably affect land use and groundwater quality, but

17 with appropriate management and monitoring, it would not destabilize any resources. After

18 closure of the waste site and revegetation, the land could be available for noninvasive uses. 

19 Debris would be generated during construction activities.

20 In May 2000, the EPA issued a "Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes From the

21 Combustion of Fossil Fuels" (EPA 2000a). The EPA concluded that some form of national

22 regulation is warranted to address coal combustion waste products because: (a) the

23 composition of these wastes could present danger to human health and the environment under

24 certain conditions; (b) EPA has identified 11 documented cases of proven damages to human

25 health and the environment by improper management of these wastes in landfills and surface

26 impoundments; (c) present disposal practices are such that, in 1995, these wastes were being

27 managed in 40 percent to 70 percent of landfills and surface impoundments without reasonable

28 controls in place, particularly in the area of groundwater monitoring; and (d) the EPA identified

29 gaps in state oversight of coal combustion wastes. Accordingly, the EPA announced its

30 intention to issue regulations for disposal of coal combustion waste in landfills or surface

31 impoundments under subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

32 For all of the preceding reasons, the appropriate characterization of impacts from waste

33 generated from burning coal is MODERATE; the impacts would be clearly noticeable, but would

34 not destabilize any important resource.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-16 January 2006

1 C Human Health

2 Coal-fired power generation introduces worker risks from coal and limestone mining, from coal

3 and lime/limestone transportation, and from disposal of coal combustion waste. In addition

4 there are public risks from inhalation of stack emissions. Emission impacts can be widespread

5 and health risks difficult to quantify. The coal alternative also introduces the risk of coal-pile

6 fires and attendant inhalation risks.

7 In the GEIS, the staff stated that the operating impacts of new coal-fired plants would result in

8 substantial human health impacts (cancer and emphysema) from inhalation of toxins and

9 particulates, but it did not quantify these impacts (NRC 1996). In addition, the discharges of

10 uranium and thorium from coal-fired plants can potentially produce radiological doses in excess

11 of those arising from nuclear power plant operations (Gabbard 1993). 

12 Regulatory agencies, including the EPA and State agencies, set air emission standards and

13 requirements based on human health impacts. These agencies also impose site-specific

14 emission limits as needed to protect human health. As discussed previously, the EPA has

15 recently concluded that certain segments of the U.S. population (e.g., the developing fetus and

16 subsistence fish-eating populations) are believed to be at potential risk of adverse health effects

17 due to mercury exposures from sources such as coal-fired power plants. However, in the

18 absence of more quantitative data, human health impacts from radiological doses and inhaling

19 toxins and particulates generated by burning coal are characterized as SMALL.

20 C Socioeconomics

21 Construction of the coal-fired alternative would take approximately 5 years. The staff assumed

22 that construction would take place while Monticello continues operation and would be

23 completed by the time Monticello permanently ceases operations. The work force would be

24 expected to vary between 400 and 1000 workers during the 5-year construction period (NRC

25 1996). These workers would be in addition to the approximately 519 workers employed at

26 Monticello. During construction, the surrounding communities would experience demands on

27 housing and public services that could have SMALL impacts. These impacts would be

28 tempered by construction workers commuting to the site from other parts of Wright County or

29 from other counties. After construction, the communities would be impacted by the loss of the

30 construction jobs, although this loss would be possibly offset by other growth currently being

31 projected for Wright and Sherburne counties (USCB 2004).

32 Construction of a replacement coal-fired power plant at an alternate greenfield site would

33 relocate some socioeconomic impacts, but would not eliminate them. The communities around

34 Monticello would still experience the impact of Monticello operational job loss, although this

35 impact would be potentially tempered by projected economic growth, and the communities

36 around the new site would have to absorb the impacts of a temporary work force (up to 1000

37 workers at the peak of construction) and a permanent work force of approximately 80 workers. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

January 2006 8-17 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Communities in Wright County in particular would experience losses in both employment and

2 tax revenues due to the Monticello site closure, assuming the plant is constructed outside the

3 area. This impact could be MODERATE to LARGE. In the GEIS, the staff noted that

4 socioeconomic impacts at a rural site would be larger than at an urban site, because more of

5 the peak construction work force would need to move to the area to work. Alternate greenfield

6 sites would need to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Socioeconomic impacts at a rural

7 site could be LARGE. 

8 The appropriate characterization of socioeconomic impacts from coal-fired generation would be

9 SMALL to LARGE.

10 C Socioeconomics (Transportation)

11 Transportation-related impacts associated with the commuting of construction workers at an

12 alternate greenfield site are site-dependent, but could be SMALL to MODERATE. 

13 Transportation impacts related to commuting of plant operating personnel would also be site14 dependent, but can be characterized as SMALL to MODERATE.

15 Coal and limestone would likely be delivered to an alternate site by rail or barge. 

16 Socioeconomic impacts associated with rail transportation would likely be SMALL to

17 MODERATE. For example, there would be delays to highway traffic as trains pass and there

18 could be negative impacts on the value of property close to the train tracks. The

19 socioeconomic impacts of barge delivery of coal and limestone would likely be SMALL.

20 C Aesthetics

21 Potential aesthetic impacts of construction and operation of a coal-fired plant include visual

22 impairment resulting from the presence of an industrial facility, particularly a 500-ft high exhaust

23 stack and condensate plume from the cooling tower. However, the topography throughout

24 most of southern Minnesota is rolling, and forested tracts are common in some areas. Both of

25 these factors act to reduce the viewshed and limit potential for impairment of visual aesthetics

26 from onsite and offsite infrastructure.

27 Coal-fired generation using cooling towers would introduce mechanical sources of noise that

28 would be audible offsite. Sources contributing to total noise produced by plant operation are

29 classified as continuous or intermittent. Continuous sources include the mechanical equipment

30 associated with normal plant operations. Intermittent sources include the equipment related to

31 coal handling, solid-waste disposal, transportation related to coal and lime delivery, use of

32 outside loudspeakers, and the commuting of plant employees. 

33 Noise impacts associated with rail delivery of coal and lime to a plant would be most significant

34 for residents living in the vicinity of the facility and along the rail route. Although noise from

35 passing trains significantly raises noise levels near the rail corridor, the short duration of the
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-18 January 2006

1 noise reduces the impact. Nevertheless, given the frequency of train transport and the many

2 residents likely to be within hearing distance of the rail route, the impacts of noise on residents

3 in the vicinity of the facility and the rail line is considered MODERATE.

4 The staff assumes that adequate buffer and vegetation screens would be provided at the plant

5 site as needed to reduce visual and noise impacts. Overall the aesthetic impacts associated

6 with locating at an alternate site can be categorized as SMALL to MODERATE. 

7 C Historic and Archaeological Resources

8 At an alternate site, a cultural resource inventory would likely be needed for any onsite property

9 that has not been previously surveyed. Other lands, if any, that are acquired to support the

10 plant would also likely need an inventory of field cultural resources, identification and

11 documentation of existing historic and archaeological resources, and possible mitigation of

12 adverse effects from subsequent ground-disturbing actions related to physical expansion of the

13 plant site.

14 Prior to construction at an alternate greenfield site, studies would likely be needed to identify,

15 evaluate, and address mitigation of the potential impacts of new plant construction on cultural

16 resources. The studies would likely be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at the

17 proposed plant site and along associated corridors where new construction would occur (e.g.,

18 roads, transmission corridors, rail lines, or other rights-of-way). Historic and archaeological

19 resource impacts can generally be effectively managed and as such are considered SMALL.

20 C Environmental Justice

21 Closure of the Monticello site would result in a decrease in employment of approximately

22 519 operating employees, possibly offset by projected growth in Wright and Sherburne

23 counties. Following construction of a new coal-fired plant, it is possible that the ability of local

24 government to maintain social services could be reduced at the same time as diminished

25 economic conditions reduce employment prospects for minority or low-income populations.

26 Overall, impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE, and would depend on the extent to which

27 projected economic growth is realized and the ability of minority or low-income populations to

28 commute to other jobs outside the Wright County area. Impacts at other sites would depend

29 upon the site chosen and the nearby population distribution, but are likely to also be SMALL to

30 MODERATE.

31 8.2.2 Natural Gas-Fired Generation

32 The staff believes that the Monticello site would not be a viable location for a representative

33 natural gas-fired plant. Optimal arrangement of the natural gas-fired plant would likely require

34 locating it within 0.5 mi of Monticello spent fuel storage, which would require specific NRC

35 approval. Assuming this constraint were overcome, approximately 35 mi of 16-in. natural gas
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

January 2006 8-19 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 pipeline occupying a 30-ft wide corridor would be required to supply the plant. The Viking Gas

2 Transmission interstate pipeline, which traverses Benton and Mille Lacs counties north of

3 Monticello, is the closest pipeline with the potential for sufficient capacity. This additional

4 infrastructure needed to support a natural gas-fired plant represents an economic and

5 environmental constraint. 

6 The environmental impacts of the natural gas-fired alternative are examined in this section for

7 an alternate greenfield site. The staff assumed that the plant would use a closed-cycle cooling

8 system. Construction at an alternate site would necessitate approximately 5 mi of new natural

9 gas supply pipeline to supply the natural gas-fired plant. In addition, an estimated 5 mi of new

10 345-kV transmission lines would be needed to connect to the grid (NMC 2005).

11 The staff assumed that a replacement natural gas-fired plant would use combined-cycle

12 technology. In a combined-cycle unit, hot combustion gases in a CT rotate the turbine to

13 generate electricity. Waste combustion heat from the CT is routed through a heat-recovery

14 boiler to make steam to generate additional electricity.

15 The staff assumed the construction of the natural gas-fired units would be timed to coincide

16 with the expiration of the Monticello operating license period. Consistent with the NMC ER

17 (NMC 2005), the representative plant would consist of two team CTs, each with an associated

18 heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) that together supply steam to a single steam turbine

19 generator. Net generating capacity of the representative plant is approximately 550 MW(e). 

20 This assumption understates the environmental impacts of replacing the 600 MW(e) from

21 Monticello. However, the staff has determined that the differences in impacts between

22 550 MW(e) and 600 MW(e) of natural gas-fired generation would be less than 10 percent and

23 would not change the magnitude (SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) of any impacts. 

24 The staff assumed that the plant would use closed-cycle cooling using a mechanical-draft

25 cooling tower, which is assumed to be approximately 45 ft tall. Exhaust from the two HRSGs

26 would be dispersed through individual 200-ft high stacks. 

27 Unless otherwise indicated, the assumptions and numerical values used in Section 8.2.2 are

28 from the NMC ER (NMC 2005). The staff reviewed this information and compared it to

29 environmental impact information in the GEIS. Although the OL renewal period is only

30 20 years, the impact of operating the coal-fired alternative for 40 years is considered (as a

31 reasonable projection of the operating life of a coal-fired plant).

32 The overall impacts of the natural gas-generating system are discussed in the following

33 sections and summarized in Table 8-3. The extent of impacts at an alternate greenfield site will

34 depend on the location of the particular site selected.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-20 January 2006

1 C Land Use

2 Although potential impacts on land use would be location-specific and therefore conjectural for

3 a greenfield site, potentially affected areas are predominantly rural agricultural land

4 interspersed in some areas with natural vegetation. Approximately 110 ac of rural agricultural

5 land and/or natural plant communities abundant in the region would be converted to industrial

6 use, of which 25 ac would be occupied by plant facilities. The staff assumes that

7 non-conflicting land uses (i.e., agriculture) on the balance of the plant site would remain

8 unaffected and would provide appropriate buffer with respect to any highly incompatible land

9 use such as residential development. Development of offsite infrastructure (i.e., transmission

10 line, gas pipeline), involving a corridor of approximately 110 ac, would similarly limit

11 development of future land uses; however, compatible land uses, including most agricultural

12 practices, could continue. 

13 Table 8-3. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas-Fired

14 Generation at an Alternate Greenfield Site Using Closed-Cycle

15 Cooling

16 Impact

17 Category Impact Comment

18 Land Use SMALL to

MODERATE

Approximately 110 ac of rural agricultural land and/or natural plant

communities converted to industrial use, of which 25 ac would be

occupied by plant facilities. An additional 110 ac would be developed as

a transmission and pipeline corridor.

19 Ecology SMALL to

MODERATE

Impact depends on whether the site has been previously developed.

Factors to consider include location and ecology of the site, transmission

line route and rail spur route. In total, impacts could include habitat

degradation, fragmentation, or loss as a result of construction activities

and conversion of land to industrial use. Ecological communities might

experience reduced productivity and biological diversity from disturbing

previously intact land. 

20 Water Use and

21 Quality—Surface

22 Water

SMALL to

MODERATE

Intake and discharge would involve relatively small quantities of water

compared to the coal alternative. The impact on the surface water would

depend on the volume of water needed for makeup water, the discharge

volume, and the characteristics of the receiving body of water.

23 Water Use and

24 Quality—

25 Groundwater

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impact depends on volume of water withdrawn and the characteristics of

the groundwater source.

26 Air Quality MODERATE Sulfur oxides: 9 tons/yr 

Nitrogen oxides: 134 tons/yr

Carbon monoxide: 203 tons/yr

Particulates: 26 tons/yr of PM10

Other: (1) hazardous air pollutants, including arsenic, formaldehyde, and

nickel and (2) CO2 emissions, which contribute to global warming.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

January 2006 8-21 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Table 8-3. (contd)

2 Impact

3 Category Impact Comment

4 Waste SMALL Natural gas-fired alternative would generate only small quantities of

municipal and industrial waste, including spent catalyst used for NOx

control. 

5 Human Health SMALL Impacts are considered to be minor.

6 Socioeconomics SMALL to

MODERATE

During construction, impacts would be MODERATE. Up to 450 additional

workers would be required during the peak of the 2-year construction

period. Wright County would experience loss of tax base and

employment, potentially offset by projected economic growth in Wright

and Sherburne counties.

7 Socioeconomics

8 (Transportation)

SMALL to

MODERATE

Transportation impacts associated with construction workers would be

SMALL to MODERATE depending on the site selected. Transportation

impacts associated with operational workers would be SMALL.

9 Aesthetics SMALL to

MODERATE

The significance of impacts would depend on the characteristics of the

alternate site. 

10 Historic and

11 Archaeological

12 Resources

SMALL Any potential impacts can likely be effectively managed. 

13 Environmental

14 Justice

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impacts vary depending on population distribution and makeup at the

alternate site.

15

16 Regardless of where the gas-fired plant is built, additional land would be required for natural

17 gas wells and collection stations. Partially offsetting these offsite land requirements would be

18 the elimination of the need for uranium mining to supply fuel for Monticello. In the GEIS (NRC

19 1996), the staff estimated that approximately 1000 ac would be affected for mining the uranium

20 and processing it during the operating life of a nuclear power plant. Overall, land-use impacts

21 would be SMALL to MODERATE depending on site-specific factors. 

22 C Ecology

23 Potential impacts on ecological resources from construction and operation of the representative

24 natural gas-fired plant are highly site specific. Development of the representative natural

25 gas-fired plant at a greenfield site in southern Minnesota would likely result in the loss of

26 approximately 25 ac of terrestrial habitat for onsite plant facilities and modification of

27 approximately 110 ac of existing offsite terrestrial habitat for a new natural gas supply pipeline

28 and transmission line corridor. Development of the transmission line would limit changes in

29 future land uses in the transmission corridor to those that are compatible with the line, but most

30 agricultural practices and other currently compatible uses could continue. Depending on route

31 specifics, clearing of forest and shrubland, some of which may qualify as wetlands, would also
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-22 January 2006

1 likely be required. However, hydrologic regimes of wetlands would not be appreciably affected

2 and the conversion of transmission corridor areas currently in forest and woodland habitats

3 could be advantageous to species with affinities for remnant prairie habitats.

4 The most significant potential impacts to aquatic communities relate to the operation of the

5 cooling water system, but regulatory controls would be expected to ensure appropriate

6 protection of aquatic communities from thermal discharges and the location and operation of

7 cooling water intakes. In addition, because the plant is assumed to use closed-cycle cooling,

8 the cooling water intake and discharge flows would be much lower than that of Monticello, the

9 impact from which is considered to be SMALL.

10 Given this information, the staff concludes that development of the representative natural

11 gas-fired plant at a greenfield site would have a SMALL to MODERATE impact on ecological

12 communities. 

13 C Water Use and Quality—Surface Water

14 Each of the natural gas-fired units would include a heat-recovery boiler, using a portion of the

15 waste heat from the combustion turbines to make steam. The steam would then turn an

16 electric generator. The net result would be an overall reduction in the amount of waste heat

17 rejected from the plant, with an associated reduction in the amount of cooling water required by

18 the plant. Thus, the cooling water requirements for the natural gas-fired combined-cycle units

19 would be much less than for conventional steam-electric generators, including the existing

20 nuclear unit. Plant discharge would consist mostly of cooling tower blowdown, with the

21 discharge having a higher temperature and increased concentration of dissolved solids relative

22 to the receiving body of water and intermittent low concentrations of biocides. In addition to the

23 cooling tower blowdown, process waste streams and sanitary wastewater might also be

24 discharged. All discharges would be regulated through an NPDES permit. Finally, some

25 erosion and sedimentation would probably occur during construction (NRC 1996). These

26 adverse effects would be localized and temporary. 

27 A natural gas-fired plant at an alternate greenfield site is assumed to use a closed-cycle cooling

28 system with cooling towers. The staff assumed that surface water would be used for cooling

29 makeup water and discharge. Intake and discharge would involve relatively small quantities of

30 water compared to the coal alternative. The impact on the surface water would depend on the

31 volume of water needed for makeup water, the discharge volume, and the characteristics of the

32 receiving body of water. The staff expects that these impacts would range from SMALL to

33 MODERATE. 

34 C Water Use and Quality—Groundwater 

35 Use of groundwater is possible for a natural gas-fired plant at an alternate site. Any

36 groundwater withdrawal would require a permit from the local permitting authority. Overall,
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

January 2006 8-23 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 impacts to groundwater use and quality of a new natural gas-fired plant with a closed-cycle

2 cooling system at an alternate site are considered SMALL to MODERATE, depending on the

3 volume of groundwater withdrawn and the characteristics of the groundwater source. 

4 C Air Quality

5 Natural gas is a relatively clean-burning fuel. The gas-fired alternative would release similar

6 types of emissions, but in lesser quantities than the coal-fired alternative.

7 A new gas-fired generating plant located in Minnesota would likely need a PSD permit and an

8 operating permit under the Clean Air Act. A new combined-cycle natural gas power plant would

9 also be subject to the new source performance standards for such units at 40 CFR Part 60,

Subparts Da and GG. These regulations establish emission limits for particulates, opacity, SO2 10 ,

and NOx 11 .

In March 2005, the EPA issued CAIR, which will permanently cap emissions of SO2 and NOx 12 in

the eastern United States (70 CFR 25162). CAIR achieves large reductions of SO2 13 and/or NOx

14 emissions across 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia. When fully implemented,

CAIR will reduce SO2 emissions in these states by over 70 percent and NOx 15 emissions by over

16 60 percent from 2003 levels. This will result in $85 to $100 billion in health benefits and nearly

17 $2 billion in visibility benefits per year by 2015, and will substantially reduce premature mortality

18 in the eastern United States. The benefits will continue to grow each year with further

implementation. By 2015, CAIR will help Minnesota sources reduce emissions of SO2 19 by

40,000 tons, or 36 percent, and emissions of NOx 20 by 53,000 tons, or 59 percent (EPA 2005a).

21 The EPA has various regulatory requirements for visibility protection in 40 CFR Part 51,

22 Subpart P, including a specific requirement for review of any new major stationary source in an

23 area designated attainment or unclassified under the Clean Air Act (40 CFR 51.307). Wright

24 County is an area designated by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards as being in

25 attainment for all criteria pollutants. However, the area is in non-attainment with respect to the

26 eight hour ozone standard. 

27 Section 169A of the Clean Air Act establishes a national goal of preventing future and

28 remedying existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas when impairment

29 results from man-made air pollution. The EPA issued a new regional haze rule in 1999 (EPA

30 1999). The rule specifies that for each mandatory Class I Federal area located within a state,

31 the State must establish goals that provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural

32 visibility conditions. The reasonable progress goals must provide for an improvement in

33 visibility for the most impaired days over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no

34 degradation in visibility for the least-impaired days over the same period [40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)]. 

35 If a natural gas-fired plant were located close to a mandatory Class I area, additional air

36 pollution control requirements could be imposed. The nearest Class I Federal area is in

37 Northern Minnesota, several hundred miles from Monticello. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-24 January 2006

1 NMC projects the following emissions for the natural gas-fired alternative (NMC 2005):

2 Sulfur oxides—9 tons/yr

3 Nitrogen oxides—134 tons/yr

4 Carbon monoxide—203 tons/yr

PM10 5 particulates—26 tons/yr

6 A natural gas-fired plant would also have unregulated carbon dioxide emissions that could

7 contribute to global warming.

8 In December 2000, the EPA issued regulatory findings on emissions of hazardous air pollutants

9 from electric utility steam-generating units (EPA 2000b). Natural gas-fired power plants were

10 found by EPA to emit arsenic, formaldehyde, and nickel (EPA 2000b). Unlike coal- and oil-fired

11 plants, the EPA did not determine that emissions of hazardous air pollutants from natural

12 gas-fired power plants should be regulated under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.

13 Construction activities would result in temporary fugitive dust. Exhaust emissions would also

14 come from vehicles and motorized equipment used during the construction process.

15 Impacts from the above emissions would be clearly noticeable, but would not be sufficient to

16 destabilize air resources as a whole. The overall air-quality impact for a new natural gas-fired

17 plant at an alternate greenfield site is considered MODERATE.

18 C Waste

There would be spent selective catalyst reduction (SCR) catalyst from NOx 19 emissions control

20 and small amounts of solid-waste products (i.e., ash) from burning natural gas fuel. In the

21 GEIS, the staff concluded that waste generation from gas-fired technology would be minimal

22 (NRC 1996). Gas firing results in very few combustion byproducts because of the clean nature

23 of the fuel. Waste-generation impacts would be so minor that they would not noticeably alter

24 any important resource attribute. Construction-related debris would be generated during

25 construction activities.

26 Overall, the waste impacts would be SMALL for a natural gas-fired plant sited at an alternate

27 greenfield site.

28 C Human Health

29 In Table 8-2 of the GEIS, the staff identifies cancer and emphysema as potential health risks

from gas-fired plants (NRC 1996). The risk may be attributable to NOx 30 emissions that
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

January 2006 8-25 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

contribute to ozone formation, which in turn contribute to health risks. NOx 1 emissions from any

gas-fired plant would be regulated. For a plant sited in Minnesota, NOx 2 emissions would be

3 regulated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Human health effects would not be

4 detectable or would be sufficiently minor that they would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter

5 any important attribute of the resource. Overall, the impacts on human health of the natural

6 gas-fired alternative sited at an alternate greenfield site are considered SMALL.

7 C Socioeconomics

8 Construction of a natural gas-fired plant would take approximately 2 years. Peak employment

9 would be approximately 450 workers (NMC 2005). The staff assumed that construction would

10 take place while Monticello continues operation and would be completed by the time it

11 permanently ceases operations. During construction, the communities surrounding the

12 Monticello site would experience demands on housing and public services that could have

13 MODERATE impacts. These impacts would be tempered by construction workers commuting

14 to the site from other parts of Wright County or from other counties. After construction, the

15 communities would be impacted by the loss of jobs. The current Monticello work force

16 (519 workers) would decline through a decommissioning period to a minimal maintenance size. 

17 The gas-fired plant would introduce a replacement tax base at an alternate greenfield site and

18 approximately 24 new permanent jobs. For siting at an alternate greenfield site, impacts in

19 Wright County resulting from decommissioning of Monticello may be offset by economic growth

20 projected to occur in Wright and Sherburne counties.

21 In the GEIS (NRC 1996), the staff concluded that socioeconomic impacts from constructing a

22 natural gas-fired plant would not be very noticeable and that the small operational work force

23 would have the lowest socioeconomic impacts of any nonrenewable technology. Also, the

24 shorter construction time frame and the smaller size of the operations work force for a natural

25 gas-fired plant would result in smaller socioeconomic impacts than the coal-fired or nuclear

26 alternatives. 

27 For these reasons, gas-fired generation socioeconomic impacts associated with construction

28 and operation of a natural gas-fired power plant would be SMALL to MODERATE for siting at

29 an alternate greenfield site. Depending on other growth in the area, socioeconomic effects

30 could be noticed, but they would not destabilize any important socioeconomic attribute.

31 C Socioeconomics (Transportation)

32 Transportation-related impacts associated with commuting construction workers at an alternate

33 greenfield site are site-dependent, but could be SMALL to MODERATE. Transportation

34 impacts related to commuting of plant operating personnel can be characterized as SMALL.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-26 January 2006

1 C Aesthetics

2 Potential aesthetic impacts of construction and operation of a natural gas-fired plant include

3 visual impairment resulting from the presence of an industrial facility and associated

4 transmission line corridors, particularly 200-ft high exhaust stacks and the condensate plume

5 from the cooling tower. However, the topography throughout most of southern Minnesota is

6 rolling, and forested tracts are common in some areas. Both of these factors act to reduce the

7 viewshed and limit potential for impairment of visual aesthetics from onsite and offsite

8 infrastructure. 

9 Natural gas generation would introduce mechanical sources of noise that would be audible

10 offsite. Sources contributing to total noise produced by plant operation are classified as

11 continuous or intermittent. Continuous sources include the mechanical equipment associated

12 with normal plant operations. Intermittent sources include the use of outside loudspeakers and

13 the commuting of plant employees.

14 The staff assumes that adequate buffer and vegetation screens would be provided at the plant

15 site as needed to reduce visual and noise impacts. Overall the aesthetic impacts associated

16 with locating at an alternate site can be categorized as SMALL to MODERATE, depending on

17 the location.

18 C Historic and Archaeological Resources 

19 At an alternate greenfield site, a cultural resource inventory would likely be needed for any

20 onsite property that has not been previously surveyed. Other lands, if any, that are acquired to

21 support the plant would also likely need an inventory of field cultural resources, identification

22 and recording of existing historic and archaeological resources, and possible mitigation of

23 adverse effects from subsequent ground-disturbing actions related to physical expansion of the

24 plant site.

25 Before construction at an alternate greenfield site, studies would likely be needed to identify,

26 evaluate, and address mitigation of the potential impacts of new plant construction on cultural

27 resources. The studies would likely be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at the

28 proposed plant site and along associated corridors where new construction would occur (e.g.,

29 roads, transmission and pipeline corridors, or other rights-of-way). Impacts to cultural

30 resources can be effectively managed under current laws and regulations and kept SMALL.

31 C Environmental Justice

32 Closure of Monticello would result in a decrease in employment of approximately 519 operating

33 employees, possibly offset by growth in Wright and Sherburne counties. Following

34 construction, it is possible that the ability of local government to maintain social services could

35 be reduced at the same time as diminished economic conditions reduce employment prospects
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

January 2006 8-27 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 for minority or low-income populations. Overall, impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE, and

2 would depend on the extent to which projected economic growth is realized and the ability of

3 minority or low-income populations to commute to other jobs outside the Wright County area. 

4 Impacts at other sites would depend upon the site chosen and the nearby population

5 distribution, but are likely to also be SMALL to MODERATE.

6 8.2.3 Coal Gasification

7 Coal gasification is a method of producing relatively clean, burnable gas from almost any type

8 of coal or from petroleum coke. The basic process involves crushing the coal and partially

9 oxidizing the carbon in the coal. Partial oxidation converts the coal into a gaseous fuel

10 composed primarily of combustible hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The gas can be piped

11 directly into a gas turbine to generate electricity. The exhaust from the gas turbine is ducted

12 into a heat recovery steam generator to produce steam for a conventional steam turbine

13 generator. To make the overall process both environmentally safe and thermally efficient, a

14 coal gasification plant must integrate a number of different technologies. Major systems include

15 fuel preparation, an air separation unit, a gasifier, acid gas removal, sulfur recovery, a

16 combustion turbine generator, a heat recovery steam generator, and a steam turbine generator

17 (TVA 2003).

18 Consideration of a coal gasification generating plant to replace Monticello was not included in

19 the NMC ER. Due to size constraints, the staff believes that the Monticello site would not be a

20 viable location for a representative coal gasification plant. The environmental impacts of the

21 coal gasification alternative are examined in this section for an alternate greenfield site. The

22 staff assumed that the plant would use a closed-cycle cooling system. To replace the 600-

23 MW(e) generating capacity of Monticello the coal gasification plant would have two 340-MW(e)

24 modules, each consisting of one coal gasification plant, one combustion turbine, and one heat

25 recovery steam generator. The steam recovered from each module would be collected and

26 routed to a low-pressure steam turbine generator. An air separation plant would be constructed

27 for each gasifier to supply the pressurized 95 percent (by volume) oxygen required for the

28 oxygen-blown gasifiers (TVA 2003). This assumption overstates the environmental impacts of

29 replacing the 600 MW(e) from Monticello. However, the staff has determined that the

30 differences in impacts between 680 MW(e) and 600 MW(e) of coal gasification would not be

31 significant and would not change the standard of significance (SMALL, MODERATE, or

32 LARGE) of any impacts.

33 Delivery of coal and/or petroleum coke to an alternate greenfield site would be needed. 

34 Approximately 3698 tons would be shipped in daily, probably via barge (TVA 2003). 

35 Approximately 38 tons of limestone per day would likely be required for air pollution control. 

36 Trucking would be used for limestone delivery. Fuel oil would be required for startup activities,

37 but would not be used as a backup fuel (TVA 2003).
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-28 January 2006

1 The overall impacts of constructing a coal gasification plant using closed-cycle cooling at an

2 alternate greenfield site are discussed in the following sections and summarized in Table 8-4. 

3 The impact categorizations in Table 8-4 are based on 680 MW(e) of coal gasification

4 generating capacity.

5 Table 8-4. Summary of Environmental Impacts of a Coal Gasification Generation Plant at an

6 Alternate Greenfield Site Using Closed-Cycle Cooling

7 Impact Category Impact Comment

8 Land Use MODERATE

to LARGE

Several hundred acres would be impacted for the power block;

fuel handling, storage and transportation facilities; infrastructure

facilities; waste disposal; and an appropriate buffer for adjacent

land uses. There would be additional land impacts for coal and

limestone mining, electric power transmission lines, and cooling

water intake and discharge pipelines.

9 Ecology SMALL to

LARGE

Impact depends on whether the site has been previously

developed. Factors to consider include location and ecology of the

site, transm ission line route, and rail spur route. In total, impacts

could include habitat degradation, fragmentation, or loss as a

result of construction activities and conversion of land to industrial

use. Ecological comm unities might experience reduced

productivity and biological diversity from disturbing previously

intact land. 

10 W ater Use and

11 Quality—Surface

12 W ater

SMALL to

MODERATE

Total impacts depend on the volume of water withdrawn, the

constituents of the discharge water, the characteristics of the

surface water body, and the new intake structures required.

13 W ater Use and

14 Quality—

15 Groundwater

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impact depends on volume of water withdrawn and the

characteristics of the groundwater source.

16 Air Quality MODERATE Sulfur oxides: 1815 tons/yr. National and regional impacts would

be minimal because of emissions offsets through the SO2 trading

program.

Nitrogen oxides: 828 tons/yr.

Particulates: 259 tons/yr of PM10.

Carbon monoxide: 960 tons/yr.

Sm all amounts of m ercury and other hazardous air pollutants

would be discharged along with approximately 4.7 million tons/yr of

unregulated carbon dioxide.

17 W aste MODERATE W aste stream s from the 680-MW (e) plant would be approxim ately

126,000 tons/yr of slag, 10,000 tons/yr of fly ash, 50,000 tons/yr of

sulfur, 320 tons/yr of raw water treatment sludge, 201 tons/yr of

general waste water treatment sludge, and 10 tons/yr of sludges

from the biotreatment of gasification process waste water.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

January 2006 8-29 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Table 8-4. (contd)

2 Impact Category Impact Comment

3 Human Health SMALL Impacts are uncertain, but considered SMALL in the absence of

more quantitative data.

4 Socioeconomics SMALL to

LARGE

Peak construction employment would be approximately 1000

workers. The operating workforce would be between 100 to 150

em ployees. Construction impacts depend on location, but could

be LARGE if plant is located in an area that is more rural than the

Monticello site. Wright County would experience loss of tax base

and employment, potentially offset by projected economic growth.

5 Socioeconomics

6 (Transportation)

SMALL to

MODERATE

Transportation impacts associated with construction workers could

be SMALL to MODERATE.

For rail transportation of coal and lime, the impact is considered

SMALL to MODERATE. For barge transportation, the im pact is

considered SMALL.

7 Aesthetics SMALL to

LARGE

Impacts could include visual impairment, infrastructure for delivery

of coal and limestone, and noise. The severity of impacts range

from SMALL to LARGE and are dependent on location.

8 Historic and

9 Archaeological

10 Resources

SMALL A new plant at a greenfield location would necessitate cultural

resource studies. Any potential impacts can likely be effectively

managed.

11 Environmental

12 Justice

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impacts will vary depending on population distribution and makeup

at the site. 

13

14 C Land Use

15 NMC assumes siting of the coal gasification plant at an alternate greenfield site. Approximately

16 1700 ac would be impacted for the power block; fuel handling, storage and transportation

17 facilities; infrastructure facilities; and waste disposal. There would be additional land impacts

18 for coal and limestone mining, electric power transmission lines, and cooling water intake and

19 discharge pipelines. 

20 In the GEIS, the staff estimated that approximately 21,745 ac would be affected for mining the

21 coal and disposing of the waste to support a 1000-MW(e) coal plant during its operational life

22 (NRC 1996). A replacement coal gasification plant to replace the 600-MW(e) capacity of

23 Monticello would affect proportionately less land. 

24 Overall, land use impacts can be characterized as MODERATE to LARGE.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-30 January 2006

1 C Ecology

2 At an alternate site, the coal gasification alternative would introduce construction impacts and

3 operational impacts. Even assuming siting at a previously disturbed area, the impacts would

4 alter the ecology. Impacts could include wildlife habitat loss, reduced productivity, habitat

5 fragmentation, and a local reduction in biological diversity. Use of cooling makeup water from a

6 nearby surface water body could have adverse aquatic resource impacts. Construction and

7 maintenance of a transmission line and a rail spur or barge facility, if needed, would also have

8 ecological impacts. 

9 Overall, with the large degree of uncertainty in the magnitude of impacts resulting from not

10 analyzing a specific site or design, the ecological impacts from a new coal gasification

11 generating plant at an alternate greenfield site could range from SMALL to LARGE.

12 C Water Use and Quality—Surface Water

13 At an alternate site, water use and quality impacts would depend on the volume of water

14 withdrawn and discharged, the constituents in the discharge water, and the characteristics of

15 the surface water body. The highest sustained water needs during operation would be

16 approximately 5645 gpm. Of the 5645 gpm almost half would be for cooling system makeup

17 water (TVA 2003). Discharges would be regulated by the State or by the EPA. 

18 Construction-related impacts would be mitigable and temporary. 

19 Overall, surface water use and quality impacts at an alternate greenfield site can be

20 characterized as SMALL to MODERATE depending on the location chosen.

21 C Water Use and Quality—Groundwater

22 Any impacts to groundwater during operation would most likely be associated with storage and

23 handling of feedstocks and the storage, handling, and disposal of wastes generated. Runoff

24 from the coal and petroleum coke storage areas would be collected in a drainage basin and

25 treated as needed (TVA 2003). Impacts would depend on the volume of groundwater

26 withdrawn and the characteristics of the groundwater source.

27 Overall, groundwater use and quality impacts at an alternate greenfield site can be

28 characterized as SMALL to MODERATE depending on the location chosen.

29 C Air Quality

30 The air quality impacts of coal-fired generation vary considerably from those of nuclear

generation emissions of SO2, NOx 31 , particulates, carbon monoxide, hazardous air pollutants

32 such as mercury, and naturally occurring radioactive materials. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

January 2006 8-31 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Estimated air emissions for a coal gasification plant meeting all applicable regulatory

2 requirements and sized to fully replace the 600-MW(e) capacity of Monticello are shown in

3 Table 8-4 (TVA 2003). The estimated emissions are based on using petroleum coke as fuel. 

Emissions of SOx 4 are higher for petroleum coke than if coal is used as the fuel. 

5 A new coal gasification generating plant would need to meet the new source review

6 requirements in Title I of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401-7515). The plant would need an

7 operating permit issued under Title V of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7661-7661f). The plant

8 would also need to comply with the new source performance standards for new generating

9 plants in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart D. The standards establish limits for particulate matter and

opacity, SO2, and NOx 10 . 

11 The EPA has various regulatory requirements for visibility protection in 40 CFR Part 51,

12 Subpart P, including a specific requirement for review of any new major stationary source in an

13 area designated as attainment or unclassified under the Clean Air Act (40 CFR 51.307). 

14 Section 169A of the Clean Air Act establishes a national goal of preventing future and

15 remedying existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas when impairment

16 is from air pollution resulting from human activities. In addition, the EPA issued a new regional

17 haze rule in 1999 (EPA 1999). The rule specifies that for each mandatory Class I Federal area

18 located within a state, state agencies must establish goals that provide for reasonable progress

19 towards achieving natural visibility conditions. The reasonable progress goals must provide for

20 an improvement in visibility for the most-impaired days over the period of the implementation

21 plan and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least-impaired days over the same period

22 (40 CFR 51). If a new coal gasification power plan were located close to a mandatory Class I

23 Federal area, additional air pollution control requirements could be imposed. 

In March 2005, the EPA issued CAIR, which will permanently cap emissions of SO2 and NOx 24 in

the eastern United States (EPA 2005b). CAIR achieves large reductions of SO2 25 and/or NOx

26 emissions across 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia. When fully implemented,

CAIR will reduce SO2 emissions in these states by over 70 percent, and NOx 27 emissions by over

28 60 percent from 2003 levels. This will result in $85 to $100 billion in health benefits, and nearly

29 $2 billion in visibility benefits per year by 2015, and will substantially reduce premature mortality

30 in the eastern United States. The benefits will continue to grow each year with further

implementation. By 2015, CAIR will help Minnesota sources reduce emissions of SO2 31 by

40,000 tons, or 36 percent, and emissions of NOx 32 by 53,000 tons, or 59 percent (EPA 2005a).

33 Any new fossil-fired power plant sited in Minnesota would be subject to the CAIR limitations.

34 A coal gasification plant would also have unregulated carbon dioxide emissions that could

35 contribute to global warming. The staff estimates that coal gasification plants sufficient to

36 replace the power generated at Monticello would emit approximately 4.7 million tons per year of

37 carbon dioxide (TVA 2003).
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-32 January 2006

1 Overall, the air quality impacts associated with new coal gasification plants to replace the power

2 generated at Monticello would be MODERATE. The impacts would be clearly noticeable, but

3 would not destabilize air quality. 

4 C Waste

5 The major solid waste and by-product streams would be generated by the gasifiers. Slag, fly

6 ash, and sulfur account for more than 99 percent of the solids produced by coal gasification

7 plants, with the remaining 1 percent consisting of spent catalysts and water treatment sludges. 

8 The generation rates in tons per year for a 680-MW(e) plant are shown in Table 8-4 (TVA

9 2003). The slag produced is an inert, glass-like material that has been found in coal

10 gasification demonstrations to be non-leachable (TVA 2003). Based on testing at gasification

11 demonstration plants, the slag and fly ash from gasification of eastern bituminous coal is

12 expected to be below the RCRA threshold limits for hazardous designation (TVA 2003). Most

13 of the sulfur in the coal is converted to hydrogen sulfide in the synthetic gas. The hydrogen

14 sulfide is removed by acid gas removal and then converted to elemental sulfur by-product in the

15 sulfur recovery system. 

16 There would be three process solid waste streams composed of sludges from raw water or

17 waste water treatment: raw water treatment sludge, general waste water treatment sludge, and

18 sludge from the biotreatment of gasification process waste water. Generation amounts are

19 shown in Table 8-4. These sludges are typically not hazardous and would be disposed of at

20 nearby State-approved municipal disposal sites (TVA 2003). 

21 Construction-related debris would be generated during construction activities for the coal

22 gasification units and disposed at a landfill.

23 For all the preceding reasons, the appropriate characterization of waste impacts from coal

24 gasification is MODERATE; the impacts would be clearly noticeable but would not destabilize

25 any important resource. 

26 C Human Health

27 Power generation from coal introduces worker risks from coal and limestone mining, worker

28 and public risks from coal and lime/limestone transportation, worker and public risks from

29 disposal of coal combustion wastes, and public risks from inhalation of stack emissions. 

30 Emission impacts can be widespread and health risks difficult to quantify. The coal gasification

31 alternative also introduces the risk of coal-pile fires and attendant inhalation risks. 

32 The staff stated in the GEIS that there could be human health impacts (cancer and

33 emphysema) from inhalation of toxins and particulates from a coal-fired plant, but did not

34 identify the significance of these impacts (NRC 1996). In addition, the discharges of uranium
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

January 2006 8-33 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 and thorium from coal-fired plants can produce radiological doses in excess of those arising

2 from nuclear power plant operations (Gabbard 1993).

3 Regulatory agencies, including the EPA and State agencies, set air emission standards and

4 requirements based on human health impacts. These agencies also impose site-specific

5 emission limits as needed to protect human health.

6 Overall, human health impacts from radiological doses and inhaling toxins, and particulates

7 generated by burning coal at a newly constructed coal gasification plant are characterized as

8 SMALL.

9 C Socioeconomics

10 Peak employment during construction would be approximately 1000 workers (Bily 2005). 

11 During construction of the coal gasification plant, the surrounding communities would

12 experience demands on housing and public services that could have SMALL impacts. These

13 impacts would be tempered by construction workers commuting to the site from other parts of

14 Wright County or from other counties. After construction, the communities would be impacted

15 by the loss of the construction jobs, although this loss would be possibly offset by other growth

16 currently being projected for Wright and Sherburne counties (USCB 2004). The permanent

17 operating staff would be between 100 to 150 workers (Bily 2005). 

18 Construction of a replacement coal gasification plant at an alternate greenfield site would

19 relocate some socioeconomic impacts, but would not eliminate them. The communities around

20 Monticello would still experience the impact of the loss of permanent employees, contractors,

21 and temporary workers associated with Monticello operations. This would be partially offset by

22 projected economic growth; the communities around the new site would have to absorb the

23 impacts of a temporary work force and a permanent work force of approximately 100 to 150

24 workers (Bily 2005). Communities in Wright County in particular would experience losses in

25 both employment and tax revenues due to the Monticello site closure, assuming the plant is

26 constructed outside the area. This impact could be MODERATE to LARGE. In the GEIS, the

27 staff stated that socioeconomic impacts at a rural site would be larger than at an urban site,

28 because more of the peak construction work force would need to move to the area to work. 

29 Alternate greenfield sites would need to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Socioeconomic

30 impacts at a rural site could be LARGE. 

31 Overall, socioeconomic impacts of a new coal gasification plant would be SMALL to LARGE

32 depending on the site.

33 C Socioeconomics (Transportation)

34 Transportation-related impacts associated with commuting construction workers at an alternate

35 greenfield site are site-dependent, but could be SMALL to MODERATE. Transportation
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-34 January 2006

1 impacts related to commuting of plant operating personnel would also be site-dependent, but

2 can be characterized as SMALL to MODERATE.

3 Coal and limestone would likely be delivered to an alternate site by rail or barge. 

4 Socioeconomic impacts associated with rail transportation would likely be SMALL to

5 MODERATE. For example, there would be delays to highway traffic as trains pass and there

6 could be negative impacts on the value of property close to the train tracks. The

7 socioeconomic impacts of barge delivery of coal and limestone would likely be SMALL.

8 C Aesthetics 

9 Potential aesthetic impacts of construction and operation of a coal gasification plant include

10 visual impairment resulting from the presence of an industrial facility, particularly exhaust stacks

11 and flaring stacks to burn waste gas. Flaring operations would generally be visible within a 3-mi

12 radius, particularly at night. Vapor fog from the cooling towers and stack emissions could be

13 visible up to 10 mi or more. However, the topography throughout most of southern Minnesota

14 is rolling, with forested tracts common in some areas. Both of these factors act to reduce the

15 viewshed and limit potential for impairment of visual aesthetics from onsite and offsite

16 infrastructure. If needed, new electric power transmission lines and/or a rail spur could have

17 significant aesthetic impacts. 

18 Overall, the aesthetic impacts at an alternate site would be SMALL to LARGE depending on the

19 location chosen.

20 A coal gasification plant would introduce mechanical sources of noise that would be audible

21 offsite. Sources contributing to total noise produced by plant operation are classified as

22 continuous or intermittent. Continuous sources include the mechanical equipment associated

23 with normal plant operations. Intermittent sources include the equipment related to coal

24 handling, solid-waste disposal, transportation related to coal and lime delivery, use of outside

25 loudspeakers, and the commuting of plant employees. 

26 Noise impacts associated with rail delivery of coal and lime to a plant would be most significant

27 for residents living in the vicinity of the facility and along the rail route. Although noise from

28 passing trains significantly raises noise levels near the rail corridor, the short duration of the

29 noise reduces the impact. Nevertheless, given the frequency of train transport and the many

30 residents likely to be within hearing distance of the rail route, the impacts of noise on residents

31 in the vicinity of the facility and the rail line is considered MODERATE. Overall, the noise

32 impacts at an alternate site would be MODERATE to LARGE depending on the location

33 chosen.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

January 2006 8-35 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 C Historic and Archaeological Resources

2 At an alternate site, a cultural resource inventory would likely be needed for any onsite property

3 that has not been previously surveyed. Other lands, if any, that are acquired to support the

4 plant would also likely need an inventory of field cultural resources, identification and recording

5 of existing historic and archaeological resources, and possible mitigation of adverse effects

6 from subsequent ground-disturbing actions related to physical expansion of the plant site.

7 Before construction at an alternate greenfield site, studies would likely be needed to identify,

8 evaluate, and address mitigation of the potential impacts of new plant construction on cultural

9 resources. The studies would likely be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at the

10 proposed plant site and along associated corridors where new construction would occur (e.g.,

11 roads, transmission corridors, rail lines, or other rights-of-way). Historic and archaeological

12 resource impacts can generally be effectively managed and as such are considered SMALL.

13 C Environmental Justice

14 Environmental justice impacts would depend upon the population distribution around the

15 chosen location. Construction activities would offer new employment possibilities, but could

16 have negative impacts on the availability and cost of housing, which could disproportionately

17 affect minority and low-income populations. Overall, environmental justice impacts are likely to

18 be SMALL to MODERATE.

19 8.2.4 Nuclear Power Generation

20 Since 1997, the NRC has certified three new standard designs for nuclear power plants under

21 10 CFR Part 52, Subpart B. These designs are the 1300-MW(e) U.S. Advanced Boiling Water

22 Reactor (10 CFR Part 52, Appendix A), the 1300-MW(e) System 80+ Design (10 CFR Part 52,

23 Appendix B), and the 600-MW(e) AP600 Design (10 CFR Part 52, Appendix C). All of these

24 plant designs are light-water reactors. Although no applications for a construction permit or a

25 combined license based on these certified designs have been submitted to NRC, the

26 submission of the design certification applications indicates continuing interest in the possibility

27 of licensing new nuclear power plants. In addition, recent escalation in prices of natural gas

28 and electricity have made new nuclear power plant construction more attractive from a cost

29 standpoint. Consequently, construction of a new nuclear power plant at either the Monticello

30 site or an alternate greenfield is considered in this section. The staff assumed that the new

31 nuclear plant would have a 40-year period of plant operation. Consideration of a new nuclear

32 generating plant to replace Monticello was not included in the NMC ER.

33 NRC has summarized environmental data associated with the uranium fuel cycle in Table S-3

34 of 10 CFR 51.51. The impacts shown in Table S-3 are representative of the impacts that would

35 be associated with a replacement nuclear power plant built to one of the certified designs, sited

36 at Monticello or an alternate greenfield site. The impacts shown in Table S-3 are for a
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-36 January 2006

1 1000-MW(e) reactor and would need to be adjusted to reflect impacts of 600 MW(e) of new

2 nuclear power. The environmental impacts associated with transporting fuel and waste to and

3 from a light-water cooled nuclear power reactor are summarized in Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.52. 

4 The summary of NRC's findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants in

5 Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, is also relevant, although not directly

6 applicable, for consideration of environmental impacts associated with the operation of a

7 replacement nuclear power plant. Additional environmental impact information for a

8 replacement nuclear power plant using closed-cycle cooling is presented in Section 8.2.4.1 and

9 using open-cycle cooling in Section 8.2.4.2.

10 8.2.4.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System

11 The overall impacts of the nuclear generating system are discussed in the following sections. 

12 The impacts are summarized in Table 8-5. The extent of impacts at an alternate greenfield site

13 will depend on the location of the particular site selected.

14 C Land Use

15 The existing facilities and infrastructure at the Monticello site would be used to the extent

16 practicable, limiting the amount of new construction that would be required. Specifically, the

17 staff assumed that a replacement nuclear power plant would use the existing circulating water

18 system, switchyard, offices, and transmission line rights-of-way. Much of the land that would be

19 used has been previously disturbed.

20 A replacement nuclear power plant at the Monticello site would alter approximately 500 to

21 1000 ac of land to industrial use. There would be no net change in land needed for uranium

22 mining because land needed for the new nuclear plant would offset land needed to supply

23 uranium for fuel for Monticello.

24 The impact of a replacement nuclear generating plant on land use at the existing Monticello site

25 is best characterized as MODERATE. The impact would be greater than the OL renewal

26 alternative.

27 Land-use impacts at an alternate greenfield site would be similar to siting at Monticello except

28 for the land needed for a transmission line to connect to existing lines to transmit power to

29 NSP's customers in the Southern Minnesota area. Assuming a 60-mi transmission line, an

30 additional 2500 ac would be needed. In addition, it may be necessary to construct a rail spur to

31 an alternate site to bring in equipment during construction. Depending particularly on

32 transmission line routing, siting a new nuclear plant at an alternate greenfield site would result

33 in MODERATE to LARGE land-use impacts.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

January 2006 8-37 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 C Ecology

2 Locating a replacement nuclear power plant at the Monticello site would alter ecological

3 resources because of the need to convert roughly 500 to 1000 ac of land to industrial use. 

4 Some of this land, however, would have been previously disturbed.

5 Table 8-5. Summary of Environmental Impacts of New Nuclear Power Generation at the

6 Monticello Site and an Alternate Site Using Closed-Cycle Cooling

7 Impact Monticello Site Alternate Greenfield Site

8 Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

9 Land Use MODERATE Requires approximately

500 to 1000 ac for the

plant and 1000 ac for

uranium mining.

MODERATE

to LARGE

Same as Monticello site plus

land for transmission line

(2500 ac assuming a 60-mi line).

10 Ecology

11

12

13

MODERATE Uses undeveloped areas

at current Monticello site.

MODERATE

to LARGE

Impact depends on location and

ecology of the site, surface

water body used for intake and

discharge, and transmission line

route; potential habitat loss and

fragmentation; reduced

productivity and biological

diversity.

14 Water Use

15 and Quality—

16 Surface

17 Water

SMALL Uses existing cooling canal

system.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impact will depend on the

volume of water withdrawn and

discharged and the

characteristics of the surface

water body.

18 Water Use

19 and Quality—

20 Groundwater

SMALL Uses existing cooling canal

system.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impact will depend on the

volume of water withdrawn and

discharged and the

characteristics of the

groundwater source.

21 Air Quality SMALL Fugitive emissions and

emissions from vehicles

and equipment during

construction. Small

amount of emissions from

diesel generators and

possibly other sources

during operation.

SMALL Same impacts as Monticello site.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-38 January 2006

1 Table 8-5. (contd)

2 Impact Monticello Site Alternate Greenfield Site

3 Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

4 Waste SMALL Waste impacts for an

operating nuclear power

plant are set out in 10 CFR

51, Appendix B, Table B-1. 

Debris would be generated

and removed during

construction.

SMALL Same impacts as Monticello site.

5 Human

6 Health

SMALL Human health impacts for

an operating nuclear

power plant are set out in

10 CFR 51, Appendix B,

Table B-1. 

SMALL Same impacts as Monticello site.

7 Socio8 economicsSMALL to

MODERATE

During construction,

impacts would be

MODERATE. Up to

2500 workers during peak

period of the 6-year

construction period.

Operating work force

assumed to be similar to

current Monticello plant;

tax base preserved. 

Impacts during operation

would be SMALL.

SMALL to

LARGE

Construction impacts depend on

location. Impacts at a rural

location could be LARGE. 

Wright County would experience

loss of tax base and

employment, possibly offset by

economic growth.

9 Socio10 economics

11 (Transpor12 tation)

SMALL to

LARGE

Transportation impacts

associated with

construction workers could

be MODERATE to LARGE. 

Transportation impacts of

commuting plant personnel

would be SMALL. 

SMALL to

LARGE

Transportation impacts of

construction workers could be

MODERATE to LARGE. 

Transportation impacts of

commuting plant personnel

could be SMALL to MODERATE.

13 Aesthetics SMALL No exhaust stacks or

cooling towers would be

needed. Daytime visual

impact could be mitigated

by landscaping and

appropriate color selection

for buildings. Visual

impact at night could be

mitigated by reduced use

of lighting and appropriate

shielding. Noise impacts

would be relatively small

and could be mitigated. 

SMALL to

LARGE

Greatest impact is from the new

transmission line that would be

needed.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Table 8-5. (contd)

Impact Monticello Site Alternate Greenfield Site

Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

January 2006 8-39 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Historic and

2 Archaeo3 logical

4 Resources

SMALL Any potential impacts can

likely be effectively

managed. 

SMALL Any potential impacts can likely

be effectively managed. 

5 Environ6 mental

7 Justice

SMALL Impacts on minority and

low-income communities

should be similar to those

experienced by the

population as a whole. 

Some impacts on housing

may occur during

construction.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impacts will vary depending on

population distribution and

makeup at the site. Impacts to

minority and low-income

residents of Wright County

associated with closure of

Monticello could be significant,

but could also be mitigated by

projected economic growth for

the area.

8

9 Siting a replacement nuclear plant at Monticello would have a MODERATE ecological impact

10 that would be greater than renewal of the Monticello OL.

11 At an alternate site, there would be construction impacts and new incremental operational

12 impacts. Even assuming siting at a previously disturbed area, the impacts would alter the

13 ecology. Impacts could include wildlife habitat loss, reduced productivity, habitat fragmentation,

14 and a local reduction in biological diversity. Use of cooling makeup water from a nearby

15 surface water body could have adverse aquatic resource impacts. Construction and

16 maintenance of the transmission line, if needed, would also have ecological impacts. Overall,

17 the ecological impacts of a replacement nuclear plant at an alternate site could range from

18 MODERATE to LARGE.

19 C Water Use and Quality—Surface Water

20 The replacement nuclear plant alternative at the Monticello site is assumed to use the existing

21 circulating water system, which would minimize incremental water-use and quality impacts.

22 Surface-water impacts are expected to remain SMALL; the impacts would be sufficiently minor

23 that they would not noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

24 Cooling towers would likely be used at an alternate site. For an alternate site, the impact on the

25 surface water would depend on the volume of water needed for makeup water, the discharge

26 volume, and the characteristics of the receiving body of water. Intake from and discharge to

27 any surface body of water would be regulated the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

28 (MNDNR). The impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-40 January 2006

1 C Water Use and Quality—Groundwater

2 The staff assumed that a new nuclear power plant located at Monticello would obtain potable,

3 process, and fire-protection water from onsite wells similar to the current practice for Monticello

4 (see Section 2.2.2). NMC operates four groundwater wells to meet the domestic water needs

5 of the Monticello site. It is unlikely that groundwater use for an alternative nuclear power plant

6 at Monticello would be significantly different than existing use at Monticello. Any groundwater

7 withdrawal would require a permit from the local permitting authority. 

8 Overall, the impacts of the nuclear alternative at the Monticello site would be SMALL. The

9 impacts of the nuclear alternative at an alternate site would be SMALL to MODERATE.

10 C Air Quality

11 Construction of a new nuclear plant at Monticello or an alternate site would result in fugitive

12 emissions during the construction process. Exhaust emissions would also come from vehicles

13 and motorized equipment used during the construction process. These emissions are not

14 regulated. An operating nuclear plant would have minor air emissions associated with diesel

15 generators and other minor intermittent sources. These minor operating emissions for a plant

16 sited in Minnesota would be regulated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Overall,

17 emissions and associated impacts at either the Monticello site or an alternate site are

18 considered SMALL.

19 C Waste

20 The waste impacts associated with operation of a nuclear power plant are set out in Table B-1

21 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B. Construction-related debris would be generated

22 during construction activities and removed to an appropriate disposal site. Overall, waste

23 impacts of a new nuclear plant at either the Monticello site or an alternate site are considered

24 SMALL.

25 C Human Health

26 Human health impacts for an operating nuclear power plant are set out in 10 CFR Part 51,

27 Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. Overall, human health impacts of a new nuclear plant at

28 either the Monticello site or an alternate site are considered SMALL.

29 C Socioeconomics

30 The construction period and the peak work force associated with construction of a new nuclear

31 power plant are currently unquantified (NRC 1996). In the absence of quantitative data, staff

32 assumed a construction period of 6 years and a peak work force of 2500. The staff assumed

33 that construction would take place while the existing nuclear unit continues operation and would
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

January 2006 8-41 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 be completed by the time Monticello permanently ceases operations. During construction, the

2 communities surrounding the Monticello site would experience demands on housing and public

3 services that could have MODERATE impacts. These impacts could be tempered by

4 construction workers commuting to the site from other parts of Wright County or from other

5 counties. After construction, the communities would be impacted by the loss of the construction

6 jobs, although this loss would be possibly offset by other growth currently being projected for

7 Wright and Sherburne counties. 

8 The replacement nuclear unit is assumed to have an operating work force comparable to the

9 519 workers currently working at Monticello. The replacement nuclear unit would provide a new

10 tax base to offset the loss of tax base associated with decommissioning of Monticello.

11 For all of these reasons, the appropriate characterization of non-transportation socioeconomic

12 impacts for replacement nuclear units constructed at Monticello would be SMALL to

13 MODERATE; the socioeconomic impacts would be noticeable, but would be unlikely to

14 destabilize the area.

15 Construction of a replacement nuclear power plant at an alternate greenfield site would relocate

16 some socioeconomic impacts, but would not eliminate them. The communities around the

17 Monticello site would still experience the impact of Monticello operational job loss (although

18 potentially tempered by projected economic growth). The communities around the new site

19 would have to absorb the impacts of a large, temporary work force (up to 2500 workers at the

20 peak of construction) and a permanent work force of approximately 519 workers. In the GEIS

21 (NRC 1996), the staff indicated that socioeconomic impacts at a rural site would be larger than

22 at an urban site because more of the peak construction work force would need to move to the

23 area to work. The Monticello site is within commuting distance of the Minneapolis/St. Paul

24 metropolitan area and is therefore not considered a rural site. Impacts at an alternate

25 greenfield site would need to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis and could range from

26 SMALL to LARGE. 

27 C Socioeconomics (Transportation)

28 During the 6-year construction period, up to 2500 construction workers would be working at the

29 Monticello site in addition to the 519 workers at Monticello. The addition of the construction

30 workers could place significant traffic loads on existing highways, particularly those leading to

31 the Monticello site. Such impacts would be MODERATE to LARGE. Transportation impacts

32 related to commuting of plant operating personnel would be similar to current impacts

33 associated with operation of Monticello and are considered SMALL.

34 Transportation-related impacts associated with commuting construction workers at an alternate

35 greenfield site are site-dependent, but could be MODERATE to LARGE. Transportation

36 impacts related to commuting of plant operating personnel would also be site-dependent, but

37 can be characterized as SMALL to MODERATE.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-42 January 2006

1 C Aesthetics

2 The containment buildings for a replacement nuclear power plant sited at Monticello and other

3 associated buildings would likely be visible in daylight hours over many miles. The replacement

4 nuclear units would also likely be visible at night because of outside lighting. Visual impacts

5 could be mitigated by landscaping and selecting a color for buildings that is consistent with the

6 environment. Visual impact at night could be mitigated by reduced use of lighting and

7 appropriate use of shielding. No exhaust stacks would be needed.

8 Noise impacts from a new nuclear plant would be similar to those from the existing Monticello

9 site. Mitigation measures, such as reduced or no use of outside loudspeakers, can be

10 employed to reduce noise levels and maintain the impact of noise SMALL.

11 At an alternate greenfield site, there would be an aesthetic impact from the buildings, cooling

12 towers, and the plume associated with the cooling towers. There would also be a significant

13 aesthetic impact associated with construction of a new 60-mi transmission line to connect to

14 other lines to enable delivery of electricity to the southern Minnesota area. Noise impacts from

15 a new nuclear plant would be similar to those from the existing Monticello site. Mitigation

16 measures, such as reduced or no use of outside loudspeakers, can be employed to reduce

17 noise levels and maintain the impact of noise SMALL. Aesthetic impacts at a greenfield site

18 would be mitigated if the plant is located in an industrial area adjacent to other power plants. 

19 Overall the aesthetic impacts associated with locating at an alternative site can be categorized

20 as SMALL to LARGE. The greatest contributor to this categorization is the aesthetic impact of

21 the new transmission line, if needed.

22 C Historic and Archaeological Resources

23 At both Monticello and an alternate greenfield site, a cultural resource inventory would likely be

24 needed for any onsite property that has not been previously surveyed. Other lands, if any, that

25 are acquired to support the plant would also likely need an inventory of field cultural resources,

26 identification and recording of existing historic and archaeological resources, and possible

27 mitigation of adverse effects from subsequent ground-disturbing actions related to physical

28 expansion of the plant site.

29 Before construction at Monticello or another site, studies would likely be needed to identify,

30 evaluate, and address mitigation of the potential impacts of new plant construction on cultural

31 resources. The studies would likely be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at the

32 proposed plant site and along associated corridors where new construction would occur (e.g.,

33 roads, transmission corridors, rail lines, or other rights-of-way). Historic and archaeological

34 resource impacts can generally be effectively managed and would be SMALL at either

35 Monticello or a greenfield site.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

January 2006 8-43 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 C Environmental Justice

2 No environmental pathways or locations have been identified that would result in

3 disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts on minority and low-income

4 populations if a replacement nuclear plant were built at the Monticello site. Some impacts on

5 housing availability and prices during construction might occur, and this could disproportionately

6 affect the minority and low-income populations. After completion of construction, it is possible

7 that the ability of the local government to maintain social services could be reduced at the same

8 time as diminished economic conditions reduce employment prospects for the minority and

9 low-income populations. Overall, impacts are expected to be SMALL. Projected economic

10 growth in Wright and Sherburne counties and the ability of minority and low-income populations

11 to commute to other jobs outside the Wright County area could mitigate any adverse effects.

12 Impacts at other sites would depend upon the site chosen and the nearby population

13 distribution, but are likely to be SMALL to MODERATE. Impacts to minority and low income

14 residents of Wright County associated with closure of Monticello could be significant, but could

15 also be mitigated by projected economic growth for the area.

16 8.2.4.2 Once-Through Cooling System

17 This section discusses the environmental impacts of constructing a nuclear power plant at the

18 Monticello site using once-through cooling. The impacts (SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) of

19 this option are the same as the impacts for a nuclear power plant using a closed-cycle system. 

20 However, there are minor environmental differences between the closed-cycle and

21 once-through cooling systems. Table 8-6 summarizes the incremental differences.

22 Table 8-6. Summary of a Comparison of Environmental Impacts of a New Nuclear Power Plant

23 Sited at the Monticello Site with Once-Through Cooling

24 Impact Category Change in Impacts from Closed-Cycle Cooling

25 Land Use Impacts may be less (e.g., through elimination of cooling towers) or greater

(e.g., if a reservoir is required).

26 Ecology Impacts would depend on ecology at the site. Possible impacts associated

with entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages, impingement of

fish and shellfish, and heat shock.

27 W ater Use and

28 Quality—Surface W ater

Increased water withdrawal leading to possible water-use conflicts, thermal

load higher than with closed-cycle cooling.

29 W ater Use and Quality—

30 Groundwater

No change.

31 Air Quality No change.

32 W aste No change.

33 Human Health No change.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-44 January 2006

1 Table 8-6. (contd)

2 Impact Category Change in Impacts from Closed-Cycle Cooling

3 Socioeconomics No change.

4 Socioeconomics

5 (Transportation)

No change.

6 Aesthetics Elimination of cooling towers.

7 Historic and

8 Archaeological

9 Resources

No change.

10 Environmental Justice No change.

11

12 8.2.5 Purchased Electrical Power

13 If available, purchased power from other sources could potentially obviate the need to renew

14 the Monticello OL. Purchased power accounted for approximately 25 percent of NSP power

15 sales in 2004 (NSP 2004). 

16 In Canada, 62 percent of the country's electrical generation capacity is derived from renewable

17 energy sources, principally hydropower (DOE/EIA 2001). Canada has plans to continue

18 developing hydroelectric power, but the plans generally do not include large-scale projects

19 (DOE/EIA 2001). Canada's nuclear generation is projected to increase by 1.7 percent by 2020,

20 but its share of power generation in Canada is projected to decrease from 14 percent currently

21 to 13 percent by 2020 (DOE/EIA 2001). Consequently, it is unlikely that electricity imported

22 from Canada would be able to replace the Monticello generating capacity.

23 The staff assumes that 100 mi of new 345-kV transmission lines on a 150-ft wide corridor in

24 southern Minnesota, potentially affecting approximately 1800 ac, would be required to import

25 purchased power. Considering the nature of transmission line development and potential

26 mitigation measures available, impacts of greatest concern are those related to change in land

27 use, terrestrial ecological communities, and aesthetics. Land use and terrestrial ecological

28 habitats in the region where it is assumed the line would be built consists predominantly of rural

29 agricultural land interspersed in some areas with natural vegetation. Development of the

30 transmission line would limit changes in future land uses on the corridor to those that are

31 compatible with the line, but most agricultural practices and other currently compatible uses

32 could continue. 

33 Establishment of a corridor for the transmission line would have little effect on either the amount

34 or value of habitat represented by agricultural land, the predominant habitat expected on lands

35 traversed by these facilities, because compatible agricultural practices could continue. 

36 Similarly, open wetlands would be spanned and therefore little effected. Some visual

37 impairment of rural landscape could result from development of the transmission line. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

January 2006 8-45 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 However, the topography throughout most of southern Minnesota is rolling, and forested tracts

2 occur in some parts of the area. Both of these attributes would act to reduce the viewshed and

3 limit potential for impairment of visual aesthetics. In addition, the presence of transmission

4 lines is not out of character for the existing rural southern Minnesota landscape. The staff

5 expects that routing of the line could be accomplished such that highly incompatible land uses,

6 important habitats and associated important species, and areas of potentially high impact on

7 visual aesthetics would be recognized and avoided or appropriately mitigated such that

8 important attributes of these resources would not be destabilized.

9 If power to replace Monticello capacity were to be purchased from sources within the United

10 States or a foreign country, the generating technology would likely be one of those described in

11 this SEIS and in the GEIS (probably coal, natural gas, coal gasification, or nuclear). The

12 description of the environmental impacts of other technologies in Chapter 8 of the GEIS is

13 representative of the purchased electrical power alternative to renewal of the Monticello OL. 

14 Thus, the environmental impacts of imported power would still occur but would be located

15 elsewhere within the region, nation, or another country. 

16 8.2.6 Other Alternatives

17 Other generation technologies considered by the staff in its analyses are discussed in the

18 following subsections.

19 8.2.6.1 Oil-Fired Generation

20 EIA projects that oil-fired plants will account for very little of the new generation capacity in the

21 United States during the 2000 to 2020 time period because of higher fuel costs and lower

22 efficiencies (DOE/EIA 2000). 

23 NSP has several oil-fired units; however, they produce less than one percent of NSP's power

24 generation (NSP 2004). Oil-fired operation is more expensive than nuclear or coal-fired

25 operation. In addition, future increases in oil prices are expected to make oil-fired generation

26 increasingly more expensive than coal-fired generation. The high cost of oil has prompted a

27 steady decline in its use for electricity generation. In 2001, only 0.82 billion kWh of electricity

28 was generated from petroleum in the Mid-Continent Area Power Pool (MAPP), 0.5 percent of

29 the total generation in the region. The percentage of total generation from oil in MAPP is

30 projected to decrease to 0.1 percent by 2010 (DOE/EIA 2004). 

31 Also, construction and operation of an oil-fired plant would have environmental impacts. For

32 example, in Section 8.3.11 of the GEIS, the staff estimated that construction of a 1000-MW(e)

33 oil-fired plant would require about 120 ac. Additionally, operation of oil-fired plants would have

34 environmental impacts (including impacts on the aquatic environment and air) that would be

35 similar to those from a coal-fired plant.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-46 January 2006

1 For these reasons, the staff does not consider oil-fired generation, by itself, a feasible

2 alternative to replace the baseload generating capacity at Monticello.

3 8.2.6.2 Wind Power

4 Wind power, by itself, is not suitable for large baseload capacity. As discussed in Section 8.3.1

5 of the GEIS, wind has a high degree of intermittency, and average annual capacity factors for

6 wind plants are relatively low (on the order of 30 percent). Wind power, in conjunction with

7 energy storage mechanisms, might serve as a means of providing baseload power. However,

8 current energy storage technologies are too expensive for wind power to serve as a large

9 baseload generator.

10 Wind turbines are economical in wind power Classes 4 through 7 (average wind speeds of 12.5

11 to 21.1 mph) (DOE 2001). In Minnesota, Class 4 wind potential exists in exposed uplands in

12 the southern part of the state and in the Red River Valley between North Dakota and northern

13 Minnesota. These resources, particularly in the Buffalo Ridge area in the southwestern part of

14 the state, could support development approaching 3000 MW(e) by 2010, but significant

15 transmission constraints exist (MDC 2004). EIA projects that wind-power generating capacity in

16 MAPP totaled 1120 MW(e) in 2004 and will increase by 590 MW(e) by 2010 (DOE/EIA 2004). 

17 From a practical perspective, the scale of this technology is too small to directly replace a

18 power generating plant equivalent to the output capacity of Monticello. 

19 There are substantial impacts to natural resources (wildlife habitat, land-use, and aesthetic

20 impacts) from construction of wind power facilities. As stated in the GEIS, land requirements

21 are high—150,000 ac of land to generate 1000 MW(e) of power. Approximately 90,000 ac

22 would be required for 600 MW(e) of wind power generating capacity to replace the Monticello

23 plant. The installation of large-scale wind farms requires construction of access roads for

24 turbine installation and maintenance and installation of transmission lines.

25 The impacts associated with large-scale construction, particularly in remote or sensitive areas,

26 could be LARGE. After the turbines and transmission lines are installed, the continuing impacts

27 from operation would include the aesthetic impact of the turbines and transmission lines, and

28 impacts to terrestrial biota, primarily birds, as a result of physical impacts with the turbine

29 blades.

30 For these reasons, the staff concludes that wind power alone is not a feasible substitute at this

31 time for the base load generation from Monticello. However, the staff recognizes that wind

32 power projects are being developed in areas with significant wind potential. Therefore, it is

33 reasonable to include wind power in a combination of alternatives that could replace the

34 generation from Monticello. Combined alternatives are discussed in Section 8.2.7.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

January 2006 8-47 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 8.2.6.3 Solar Power

2 Solar technologies use the sun's energy and light to provide heat and cooling, light, hot water,

3 and electricity for homes, businesses, and industry. The two leading solar technologies are

4 photovoltaic and solar thermal. Photovoltaic devices use semiconducting materials that absorb

5 sunlight and convert it directly into electricity. Solar thermal devices use direct heat from the

6 sun, concentrating it in some manner (such as by reflection) to heat a transfer fluid to useful

7 temperatures. In the GEIS, the staff noted that by its nature, solar power is intermittent. 

8 Therefore, solar power by itself is not suitable for baseload capacity and is not a feasible

9 alternative to license renewal at Monticello. The average capacity factor of photovoltaic cells is

10 about 25 percent, and the capacity factor for solar thermal systems is about 25 percent to

11 40 percent. Solar power, in conjunction with energy storage mechanisms, might serve as a

12 means of providing baseload power. However, current energy storage technologies are too

13 expensive to permit solar power to serve as a large baseload generator. In addition, solar

14 technologies require high operation and maintenance cost, due to the need to clean reflectors

15 or collectors to ensure efficient operation.

16 Therefore, solar power technologies (photovoltaic and thermal) cannot currently compete with

17 conventional fossil-fueled technologies in grid-connected applications, due to high costs per

18 kilowatt of capacity (NRC 1996).

19 There are substantial impacts to natural resources (wildlife habitat, land-use, and aesthetic

20 impacts) from construction of solar-generating facilities. As stated in the GEIS, land

21 requirements are high—approximately 14,000 ac per 1000 MW(e) for solar thermal and

22 35,000 ac per 1000 MW(e) for photovoltaic systems. Approximately 8000 and 21,000 ac would

23 be required for 600 MW(e) of solar thermal or solar photovoltaic generating capability,

24 respectively, to replace the Monticello site. Neither type of solar electric system could be

25 accommodated at the Monticello site, and both would have large environmental impacts at a

26 greenfield site.

27 The Monticello site receives approximately 3.3 to 4.4 kWh of solar radiation per square meter

28 per day, compared to 6 to 8 kWh of solar radiation per square meter per day in areas of the

29 western United States, such as California, which are most promising for solar technologies

30 (NMC 2005). Some solar power may substitute for electric power in rooftop and building

31 applications. Implementation of non-rooftop solar generation on a scale large enough to

32 replace Monticello would likely result in LARGE environmental impacts.

33 Because of the natural resource impacts (land and ecological), the area's relatively low rate of

34 solar radiation, and high cost, solar power is not deemed a feasible baseload alternative to

35 renewal of the Monticello OL. However, the staff recognizes that distributed solar power can

36 provide generation and that during the license renewal period generation from solar power

37 could continue to grow. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-48 January 2006

1 8.2.6.4 Hydropower

2 Minnesota has an estimated 137 MW(e) of undeveloped hydroelectric resources (NMC 2005). 

3 This amount is far less than needed to replace the 600 MW(e) capacity of Monticello. In

4 Section 8.3.4 of the GEIS, the staff points out hydropower's percentage of U.S. generating

5 capacity is expected to decline because hydroelectric facilities have become difficult to site as a

6 result of public concern about flooding, destruction of natural habitat, and alteration of natural

7 river courses. 

8 The staff estimated in the GEIS that land requirements for hydroelectric power are

9 approximately 1 million ac per 1000 MW(e). Replacement of Monticello's generating capacity

10 would require flooding approximately 600,000 ac. Due to the large land-use and related

11 environmental and ecological resource impacts associated with siting hydroelectric facilities

12 large enough to replace Monticello, the staff concludes that local hydropower is not a feasible

13 alternative to Monticello OL renewal on its own. Any attempts to site hydroelectric facilities

14 large enough to replace Monticello would result in LARGE environmental impacts.

15 8.2.6.5 Geothermal Energy

16 Geothermal energy has an average capacity factor of 90 percent and can be used for baseload

17 power where available. However, geothermal technology is not widely used as baseload

18 generation due to the limited geographical availability of the resource and immature status of

19 the technology (NRC 1996). As illustrated by Figure 8.4 in the GEIS, geothermal plants are

20 most likely to be sited in the western continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii where

21 hydrothermal reservoirs are prevalent. There is no feasible location in the MAPP for

22 geothermal capacity to serve as an alternative to Monticello. The staff concludes that

23 geothermal energy is not a feasible alternative for replacement of the baseload generating

24 capacity by renewal of the Monticello OL.

25 8.2.6.6 Wood Waste

26 The use of wood waste to generate electricity is largely limited to those states with significant

27 wood resources, such as California, Maine, Georgia, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and

28 Michigan. Electric power is generated in these states by the pulp, paper, and paperboard

29 industries, which consume wood and wood waste for energy, benefitting from the use of waste

30 materials that could otherwise represent a disposal problem.

31 A wood-burning facility can provide baseload power and operate with an average annual

32 capacity factor of around 70 to 80 percent and with 20 to 25 percent efficiency (NRC 1996). 

33 The fuels required are variable and site-specific. A significant barrier to the use of wood waste

34 to generate electricity is the high delivered-fuel cost and high construction cost per MW of

35 generating capacity. The larger wood-waste power plants are only 40 to 50 MW(e) in size. 

36 Estimates in the GEIS suggest that the overall level of construction impact per MW of installed
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

January 2006 8-49 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 capacity should be approximately the same as that for a coal-fired plant, although facilities

2 using wood waste for fuel would be built at smaller scales. Like coal-fired plants, wood-waste

3 plants require large areas for fuel storage and processing and involve the same type of

4 combustion equipment.

5 The biomass power generating capacity in MAPP was 160 MW(e) in 2004 and is not expected

6 to increase through 2025 (DOE/EIA 2004). Due to uncertainties associated with obtaining

7 sufficient wood and wood waste to fuel a baseload generating facility, ecological impacts of

8 large-scale timber cutting (e.g., soil erosion and loss of wildlife habitat), and high inefficiency,

9 the staff has determined that wood waste is not a feasible alternative to renewing the

10 Monticello OL.

11 8.2.6.7 Municipal Solid Waste

12 Municipal waste combustors incinerate the waste and use the resultant heat to generate steam,

13 hot water, or electricity. The combustion process can reduce the volume of waste by up to

14 90 percent and the weight of the waste by up to 75 percent (EPA 2001). Municipal waste

15 combustors use three basic types of technologies: mass burn, modular, and refuse-derived

16 fuel (DOE/EIA 2001). Mass burning technologies are most commonly used in the United

17 States. This group of technologies process raw municipal solid waste "as is," with little or no

18 sizing, shredding, or separation before combustion. 

19 Growth in the municipal waste combustion industry slowed dramatically during the 1990s after

20 rapid growth during the 1980s. The slower growth was due to three primary factors: (1) the

21 Tax Reform Act of 1986, which made capital-intensive projects such as municipal waste

22 combustion facilities more expensive relative to less capital-intensive waste disposal alternative

23 such as landfills; (2) the 1994 Supreme Court decision (C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of

24 Clarkstown), which struck down local flow control ordinances that required waste to be

25 delivered to specific municipal waste combustion facilities rather than landfills that may have

26 had lower fees; and (3) increasingly stringent environmental regulations that increased the

27 capital cost necessary to construct and maintain municipal waste combustion facilities

28 (DOE/EIA 2001).

29 The decision to burn municipal waste to generate energy is usually driven by the need for an

30 alternative to landfills rather than by energy considerations. The use of landfills as a waste

31 disposal option is likely to increase in the near term; however, it is unlikely that many landfills

32 will begin converting waste to energy because of unfavorable economics, particularly with

33 electricity prices declining in real terms. In 2002, only 110 MW(e) of municipal solid waste

34 generating capacity was available in MAPP, and only 10 MW(e) of additional capacity is

35 anticipated to be developed in the region through 2025 (DOE/EIA 2004).

36 Municipal solid waste combustors generate an ash residue that is buried in landfills. The ash

37 residue is composed of bottom ash and fly ash. Bottom ash refers to that portion of the
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-50 January 2006

1 unburned waste that falls to the bottom of the grate or furnace. Fly ash represents the small

2 particles that rise from the furnace during the combustion process. Fly ash is generally

3 removed from flue-gases using fabric filters and/or scrubbers (DOE/EIA 2001).

4 Currently there are approximately 102 waste-to-energy plants operating in the United States. 

5 These plants generate approximately 2800 MW(e), or an average of approximately 28 MW(e)

6 per plant (IWSA 2004), much smaller than needed to replace the Monticello site.

7 The initial capital costs for municipal solid-waste plants are greater than for comparable

8 steam-turbine technology at wood-waste facilities. This is due to the need for specialized

9 waste-separation and -handling equipment for municipal solid waste (NRC 1996). Furthermore,

10 estimates in the GEIS suggest that the overall level of construction impact from a waste-fired

11 plant should be approximately the same as that for a coal-fired plant. Additionally, waste-fired

12 plants have the same or greater operational impacts (including impacts on the aquatic

13 environment, air, and waste disposal). Some of these impacts would be moderate, but still

14 larger than the environmental effects of license renewal of Monticello. Therefore, municipal

15 solid waste would not be a feasible alternative to renewal of the Monticello OL, particularly at

16 the scale required.

17 8.2.6.8 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels

18 In addition to wood and municipal solid-waste fuels, there are several other concepts for fueling

19 electric generators, including burning crops, converting crops to a liquid fuel such as ethanol,

20 and gasifying crops (including wood waste). In the GEIS, the staff points out that none of these

21 technologies has progressed to the point of being competitive on a large scale or of being

22 reliable enough to replace a baseload plant such as Monticello. For these reasons, such fuels

23 do not offer a feasible alternative to renewal of the Monticello OL.

24 8.2.6.9 Fuel Cells

25 Fuel cells work without combustion and its environmental side effects. Power is produced

26 electrochemically by passing a hydrogen-rich fuel over an anode and air over a cathode and

27 separating the two by an electrolyte. The only by-products are heat, water, and carbon dioxide. 

28 Hydrogen fuel can come from a variety of hydrocarbon resources by subjecting them to steam

29 under pressure. Natural gas is typically used as the source of hydrogen.

30 Phosphoric acid fuel cells are generally considered first-generation technology. These fuel cells

31 are commercially available at cost of approximately $4500 per kilowatt of installed capacity. By

32 contrast, a diesel generator costs $800 to $1500 per kilowatt, and a natural gas turbine can be

33 even less (DOE 2004). Higher-temperature second-generation fuel cells achieve higher

34 fuel-to-electricity and thermal efficiencies. The higher temperatures contribute to improved

35 efficiencies and give the second-generation fuel cells the capability to generate steam for
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

January 2006 8-51 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 cogeneration and combined-cycle operations. DOE has a performance target to reduce the

2 cost of fuel cells to $400 per kilowatt by 2010 (DOE 2004). 

3 Two second-generation fuel cell technologies using molten carbonate and solid oxide

4 technology are currently being developed for commercial use. As market acceptance and

5 manufacturing capacity increase, natural gas-fueled fuel cell plants are projected to become

6 available (DOE 2004). At the present time, fuel cells are not economically or technologically

7 competitive with other alternatives for baseload electricity generation. Fuel cells are,

8 consequently, not a feasible alternative to renewal of the Monticello OL.

9 8.2.6.10 Delayed Retirement

10 Extending the lives of existing non-nuclear generating plants beyond the time they were

11 originally scheduled for retirement represents another potential alternative to license renewal. 

12 However, delaying retirement in order to compensate for Monticello generally would be

13 unreasonable without major construction to upgrade or replace plant components. NSP

14 undertakes upgrades of its older baseload plants in cases where it is reasonable to do so. 

15 Such actions are currently accounted for in NSP's plans to meet anticipated demands

16 irrespective of the loss of generating capacity if the Monticello OL is not renewed and,

17 therefore, does not represent a realistic option. 

18 For this reason, delayed retirement of other NSP generating units would not be a feasible

19 alternative to renewal of the Monticello OL.

20 8.2.6.11 Utility-Sponsored Conservation

21 The utility-sponsored conservation alternative refers to a situation in which Monticello ceases to

22 operate, no new generation is brought online to meet the lost generation, and the lost

23 generation is instead replaced by more efficient use of electricity. More efficient use would

24 arise from utility-sponsored conservation programs, potentially including energy audits,

25 incentives to install energy-efficient equipment, and informational programs to inform electricity

26 consumers of the benefits of, and possibilities for, electricity conservation.

27 Under provisions of Minnesota Statute 216B.241, Minnesota public utilities, rural electric

28 cooperatives, and municipal utilities are required to invest 1.5 percent of in-state revenues in

29 projects designed to reduce their customers' consumption of electricity and improve efficient

30 use of energy resources. Utilities that operate nuclear generating facilities like Monticello are

31 required to invest 2.0 percent of revenues in this manner. NSP has in place a wide variety of

32 electrical energy conservation programs and activities including conservation programs, energy

33 efficiency programs, and load management programs. Conservation programs such as NSP's

34 Energy Solutions newsletter and internet-based information resources are designed to educate

35 and inform customers about energy efficiency and NSP offerings. Energy efficiency programs

36 like ConservationWise from Xcel Energy help customers increase energy efficiency by
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-52 January 2006

1 providing rebates, pricing, or other incentives to purchase energy-efficient systems or

2 components; renovate facilities that meet specific energy efficiency standards; undertake

3 energy conservation assessments; and obtain expert energy conservation design assistance. 

4 Load management programs such as OperationWise from Xcel Energy encourage customers

5 to switch load to customer-owned standby generators during periods of peak demand, and

6 include features like Saver's Switch that encourages customers to allow a portion of their load

7 to be interrupted during periods of peak demand. 

8 In its order approving Xcel Energy's 2000 Integrated Resource Plan, the Minnesota Public

9 Utilities Commission (MPUC) adopted the DSM goal referred to as the 175 percent incentive

10 scenario for the 2000-2014 planning period. This scenario established aggressive targets of

11 3253 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of cumulative energy savings and 1174 MW of cumulative peak

12 demand savings in NSP's service area over this period. NSP surpassed its annual goals in the

13 early years of the program, but anticipates that it will become increasingly difficult to

14 cost-effectively maintain annual targets (50 to 80 MW) in the future.

15 Additionally, even if these aggressive annual DSM savings targets are achieved, the cumulative

16 savings through 2010 would be insufficient to replace generation lost as a result of Monticello

17 operations termination at the end of its current operating license. Moreover, NSP credits these

18 DSM goals in its demand forecasts; therefore, they cannot be used as credits to offset the

19 power generated by Monticello.

20 Therefore, the staff does not consider energy efficiency, by itself, as a feasible alternative to

21 license renewal. However, the staff recognizes that energy conservation is promoted and

22 increases in energy efficiency occur as a normal result of replacing older equipment with

23 modern equipment. It is reasonable to include conservation in a combination of generation

24 sources that could replace Monticello. Combined alternatives are discussed in Section 8.2.7.

25 8.2.7 Combination of Alternatives

26 Even though individual alternatives to renewal of the Monticello OL might not be sufficient on

27 their own to replace Monticello’s generating capacity due to the small potential generating

28 capacity of the resource or lack of cost-effective opportunities, it is conceivable that a

29 combination of alternatives might be cost-effective. 

30 There are many possible combinations of alternatives. As discussed previously, these

31 combinations could include baseload gas-fired or coal-fired plants, purchased power,

32 alternative and renewable technologies, and conservation. For the purpose of this discussion,

33 one combination of alternatives has been assumed: 300 MW(e) of combined-cycle natural

34 gas-fired generation using closed-cycle cooling, 150 MW(e) purchased from other generators,

35 50 MW(e) produced by new wind power facilities in southern Minnesota state, and 100 MW(e)

36 of energy conservation. The impacts of other combinations, such as those from combinations

37 that include solar power, would be different and possibly less than from the assumed

38 combination. In some areas, such as the aesthetic impact of solar panels, the impacts would
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

January 2006 8-53 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 be at least as large as the impact of the assumed combination of alternatives. In other areas,

2 such as waste, impacts would be smaller for these alternative technologies. 

3 Table 8-7 contains a summary of the environmental impacts of the assumed combination of

4 alternatives. The impacts are based on the gas-fired generation impact assumptions discussed

5 in Section 8.2.2, adjusted for the reduced generating capacity. While the DSM measures would

6 have few environmental impacts, operation of the new gas-fired plant would result in increased

7 emissions and environmental impacts. The environmental impacts associated with power

8 purchased from other generators would still occur but would be located elsewhere within the

9 region or nation, as discussed in Section 8.2.5. The impacts of purchased power are not shown

10 in Table 8-7. The staff concludes that it is very unlikely that the environmental impacts of any

11 reasonable combination of generating and conservation options could be reduced to the level of

12 impacts associated with renewal of the Monticello OL.

13 Table 8-7. Summary of Environmental Impacts for an Assumed Combination of

14 Generating (Combined-Cycle Natural Gas-Fired Generation, Wind

15 Power, and DSM) and Acquisition Alternatives at Monticello and a

16 Greenfield Site

17 Impact Monticello Site Alternate Greenfield Site

18 Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

19 Land Use SMALL to

MODERATE

23 ac for gas-fired plant

power block, offices, roads,

and parking areas. 

Additional impact at wind

power sites (at least 50 ac). 

Additional impact for

construction of underground

natural gas pipeline, electric

power transmission line,

and cooling-water

intake/discharge piping. 

SMALL to

MODERATE

Same as Monticello site.

20 Ecology SMALL to

MODERATE

Uses undeveloped areas at

current Monticello site, plus

gas pipeline. Habitat loss

due to development of wind

power sites could have a

MODERATE impact. Some

increase in bird mortality at

wind turbines. 

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impact depends on location and

ecology of the sites, surface

water body used for intake and

discharge, and transmission and

pipeline routes; potential habitat

loss and fragmentation; reduced

productivity and biological

diversity. Some increase in bird

mortality at wind turbines.

21 Water Use

22 and Quality—

23 Surface

24 Water

SMALL Uses existing circulating

water system.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impact depends on volume of

water withdrawn, the

constituents in the discharge

water, and the characteristics of

surface water body.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-54 January 2006

1 Table 8-7. (contd)

2 Impact Monticello Site Alternate Greenfield Site

3 Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

4 Water Use

5 and Quality—

6 Groundwater

SMALL Uses existing groundwater

wells.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impact depends on volume of

water withdrawn.

7 Air Quality MODERATE Sulfur oxides: 4.5 tons/yr

Nitrogen oxides: 67 tons/yr

Carbon monoxide: 102

tons/yr

PM10 particulates: 13 tons/yr

Some hazardous air

pollutants. Additional

emissions from producers of

purchased power.

MODERATE Same as Monticello site.

8 Waste SMALL Minimal waste generated. SMALL Same as Monticello site.

9 Human

10 Health

SMALL Impacts considered to be

minor.

SMALL Same as Monticello site.

11 Socio12 economicsSMALL to

MODERATE

During construction,

impacts would be SMALL to

MODERATE. Up to 250

additional workers during 

the peak of the 2-year

construction period,

followed by reduction from

current Monticello work

force of 519 to 24. Impacts

during operation would be

SMALL.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Construction impacts depend on

location, but could be significant

if location is in a more rural area

than Monticello. Wright County

would experience loss of tax

base and employment with

potentially SMALL to

MODERATE impacts. 

13 Socio14 economics

15 (Transpor16 tation)

MODERATE Transportation impacts

associated with construction

workers would be

MODERATE.

MODERATE Same as Monticello site.

17 Aesthetics SMALL SMALL aesthetic impacts

due to impacts of plant units

and stacks for gas plant

(similar to current Monticello

plant). Additional impact

from wind turbines.

MODERATE

to LARGE

MODERATE to LARGE impact

from wind turbine towers as well

as the gas-fired plant, stacks,

and cooling towers and

associated plumes. Additional

impact that could be LARGE if a

lengthy new electrical power

transmission line is needed.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Table 8-7. (contd)

Impact Monticello Site Alternate Greenfield Site

Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

January 2006 8-55 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Historic and

2 Archaeo3 logical

4 Resources

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impacts can generally be

managed or mitigated. 

Wind turbines often placed

along ridgelines that may

have higher likelihood of

historic or archaeological

significance.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Same as Monticello site.

5 Environ6 mental

7 Justice

SMALL Impacts on minority and

low-income communities

should be similar to those

experienced by the

population as a whole. 

Some impacts on housing

may occur during

construction; loss of 519

operating jobs at Monticello

likely SMALL due to the

proximity of the plant to a

diverse urban job market. 

SMALL Impacts vary depending on

population distribution and

makeup at site. Wright County

would lose tax revenue and jobs;

however, the impacts on

minority and low-income

populations would be SMALL.

8

9 8.3 Summary of Alternatives Considered

10 The environmental impacts of the proposed action, renewal of the Monticello OL, are SMALL

11 for all impact categories, except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and

12 from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal. Collective offsite radiological impacts from the

13 fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal were not assigned a single

14 significance level but were determined by the Commission to be Category 1 issues

15 nonetheless. The alternative actions, i.e., no-action alternative (discussed in Section 8.1), new

16 generation alternatives (from coal, natural gas, coal gasification, and nuclear power, discussed

17 in Sections 8.2.1 through 8.2.4, respectively), purchased electrical power (discussed in

18 Section 8.2.5), alternative technologies (discussed in Section 8.2.6), and a combination of

19 alternatives (discussed in Section 8.2.7) were considered.

20 The no-action alternative would require the replacement of electrical generating capacity by

21 (1) demand-side management and energy conservation, (2) power purchased from other

22 electricity providers, (3) generating alternatives other than Monticello, or (4) some combination

23 of these options. For each of the new generation alternatives (coal, natural gas, coal

24 gasification, and nuclear power), the environmental impacts would not be less than the impacts

25 of license renewal. For example, the land-disturbance impacts resulting from construction of

26 any new facility would be greater than the impacts of continued operation of Monticello. The
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-56 January 2006

1 impacts of purchased electrical power (imported power) would still occur, but would occur

2 elsewhere. Alternative technologies are not considered feasible at this time and it is very

3 unlikely that the environmental impacts of any reasonable combination of generation and

4 conservation options could be reduced to the level of impacts associated with renewal of the

5 Monticello OL.

6 The staff concludes that the alternative actions, including the no-action alternative, may have

7 environmental effects in at least some impact categories that reach MODERATE or LARGE

8 significance.

9 8.4 References

10 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing

11 of Production and Utilization Facilities."

12 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental

13 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Functions."

14 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, "Early Site Permits;

15 Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."

16 40 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 51,

17 "Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans."

18 40 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 60,

19 "Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources."

20 Bily, B. 2005. Energy Plan Sparks Interest: Mesaba coal-gasification project lights up Itasca

21 business community. Mesabi Daily News. July 21, 2005. Accessed at: 

22 http://www.virginiamn.com/mdn/index.php?sect_rank=1&story_id=204418 on August 19, 2005.

23 C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, New York, 511 U.S. 383 (U.S. Supreme Court

24 1994).

25 Clean Air Act. 42 USC 7401, et seq.

26 Gabbard, A. 1993. Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger. Oak Ridge National

27 Laboratory Review. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Summer/Fall

28 1993. Accessed at: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html on

29 October 20, 2003.

30 Integrated Waste Services Association (IWSA). 2004. About Waste to Energy. Accessed at: 

31 http://www.wte.org/waste.html on September 16, 2005.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

January 2006 8-57 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Minnesota Department of Commerce (MDC). 2004. Draft Energy Policy and Conservation

2 Report. Accessed at: 

3 http://www.state.mn.us/mn/externalDocs/Commerce/2004_Quadrennial_Report_071404101313

4 _DraftQuadRpt11-04.pdf on July 13, 2005.

5 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et seq.

6 Northern States Power Company (NSP). 2004. NSP Resource Plan—Appendix D. July 2004.

7 Nuclear Management Company (NMC). 2005. Applicant's Environmental Report—Operating

8 License Renewal Stage, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. Docket No. 50-263, License No.

9 DPR-22. Monticello, Minnesota. 

10 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2003. Applicant's Environmental Report—Operating

11 License Renewal Stage, Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant Units 1, 2, and 3. Tennessee

12 Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee.

13 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2004. 100 Fastest Growing Counties. Accessed at: 

14 http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/CO-EST2004-09.html on June 8, 2005.

15 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2000. The

16 Changing Structure of the Electric Power Industry 2000: An Update. DOE/EIA-0562(00). 

17 Accessed at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/chg_str_update/update2000.html on

18 July 13, 2005. 

19 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2001. Renewable

20 Energy 2000: Issues and Trends. DOE/EIA-0628 (2000). Washington, D.C. Accessed at :

21 http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/renewables/06282000.pdf on July 18, 2005.

22 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2004. Table 80: 

23 Renewable Energy Generation by Fuel Mid-Continent Area Power Pool. Accessed at: 

24 http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/supplement/index.html on July 13, 2005

25 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2005. Annual

26 Energy Outlook 2005. Accessed at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity.html on

27 July 14, 2005.

28 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2001. U.S. Wind Energy Resource Map. Accessed at: 

29 http://www.eren.doe.gov/wind/we_map.html on February 27, 2001.

30 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2004. Future Fuel Cells R&D. Accessed at: 

31 http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/fuelcells on September 16, 2005.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 8-58 January 2006

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. “Revision of Standards of Performance

2 for Nitrogen Oxide Emissions From New Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generating Units; Revisions

3 to Reporting Requirements for Standards of Performance for New Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam

4 Generating Units, Final Rule." Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 179, pp. 49442-49455. 

5 Washington, D.C. September 16, 1998.

6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. "Regional Haze Regulations, Final Rule."

7 Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 126, pp. 35714. Washington, D.C. July, 1, 1999.

8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000a. "Notice of Regulatory Determination on

9 Wastes From the Combustion of Fossil Fuels." Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 99,

10 pp. 32214-32237. Washington, D.C. May 22, 2000.

11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000b. "Regulatory Finding on the Emissions of

12 Hazardous Air Pollutants From Electric Utility Steam Generating Units." Federal Register,

13 Vol. 65, No. 245, pp. 79825-79831. Washington, D.C. December 20, 2000.

14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. Municipal Solid Waste Disposal.

15 Accessed at: http://ww.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/disposal.htm on 

16 September 16, 2005.

17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005a. CAIR Reduces Minnesota's Emissions. 

18 Accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/cair/state/mn.html on July 13, 2005.

19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005b. "Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of

20 Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program;

Revisions to the NOx 21 %g SIP Call; Final Rule.” Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 91, pp. 25162-

22 25405. Washington, D.C. May 12, 2005.

23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

24 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

25 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

26 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Main Report, Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1

27 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final Report. 

28 NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

29 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001. NRC Organizes Future Licensing Project

30 Organization. Press Release No. 01-035, March 30, 2001. Accessed at: 

31 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/1001/01-035.html on August 3, 2004.

32 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Final Generic Impact Statement on

Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1. NUREG-0586, Washington, D.C.
(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all

references to the GEIS include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

January 2006 9-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 9.0 Summary and Conclusions

2 By letter dated March 16, 2005, Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC), submitted an

3 application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the operating license

4 (OL) for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (Monticello) for an additional 20-year period (NMC

5 2005a). If the OL is renewed, State regulatory agencies and NMC will ultimately decide whether

6 the plant will continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power or other matters

7 within the State's jurisdiction or the purview of the owners. If the OL is not renewed, then the

8 plant must be shut down at or before the expiration of the current OL, which expires on

9 September 8, 2010. 

10 Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 USC 4332) directs that an

11 environmental impact statement (EIS) is required for major Federal actions that significantly

12 affect the quality of the human environment. The NRC has implemented Section 102 of 

13 NEPA in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51. Part 51 identifies licensing

14 and regulatory actions that require an EIS. In 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), the Commission requires

15 preparation of an EIS or a supplement to an EIS for renewal of a reactor OL. Further, 10

16 CFR 51.95(c) states that the EIS prepared at the OL renewal stage will be a supplement to the

17 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS),

NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996; 1999).(a) 18

19 Upon acceptance of the NMC application, the NRC began the environmental review process

20 described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing a notice of intent in the Federal Register to prepare

21 an EIS and conduct scoping (NRC 2005a) on June 2, 2005. The staff visited the Monticello site

22 in June 2005 and held public scoping meetings on June 30, 2005, in Monticello, Minnesota

23 (NRC 2005b). The staff reviewed the NMC Environmental Report (ER) (NMC 2005b) and

24 compared it to the GEIS, consulted with other agencies, and conducted an independent review

25 of the issues following the guidance set forth in NUREG-1555, the Standard Review Plans for

26 Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal

27 (NRC 2000). The staff also considered the public comments received during the scoping

28 process for preparation of this draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for

29 Monticello. The public comments received during the scoping process that were considered to

30 be within the scope of the environmental review are provided in Appendix A, Part 1, of this

31 SEIS.

32 The staff will hold two public meetings in Monticello, Minnesota in March 2006 to describe the

33 preliminary results of the NRC environmental review and to answer questions to provide

34 members of the public with information to assist them in formulating their comments on this draft

35 SEIS. When the comment period ends, the staff will consider and address all of the comments

36 received. These comments will be addressed in Appendix A, Part 2, of the final SEIS.
Summary and Conclusions

(a) The title of 10 CFR 51.23 is “Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operations—Generic 

 Determination of No Significant Environmental Impact.”

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 9-2 January 2006

1 This draft SEIS includes the NRC staff's preliminary analysis that considers and weighs the

2 environmental effects of the proposed action, including cumulative impacts, the environmental

3 impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and mitigation measures available for reducing

4 or avoiding adverse effects. It also includes the staff's preliminary recommendation regarding

5 the proposed action.

6 The NRC has adopted the following statement of purpose and need for license renewal from the

7 GEIS:

8 The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) is to

9 provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a

10 current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs,

11 as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and, where authorized, Federal

12 (other than NRC) decisionmakers.

13 The evaluation criterion of the staff's environmental review, as defined in 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4)

14 and the GEIS, is to determine:

15 ... whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that

16 preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be

17 unreasonable.

18 Both the statement of purpose and need and the evaluation criterion implicitly acknowledge that

19 there are factors, in addition to license renewal, that will ultimately determine whether an

20 existing nuclear power plant continues to operate beyond the period of the current OL.

21 NRC regulations [10 CFR 51.95(c)(2)] contain the following statement regarding the content of

22 SEISs prepared at the license renewal stage:

23 The supplemental environmental impact statement for license renewal is not required to

24 include discussion of need for power or the economic costs and economic benefits of

25 the proposed action or of alternatives to the proposed action except insofar as such

26 benefits and costs are either essential for a determination regarding the inclusion of an

27 alternative in the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation. In addition,

28 the supplemental environmental impact statement prepared at the license renewal stage

29 need not discuss other issues not related to the environmental effects of the proposed

30 action and the alternatives, or any aspect of the storage of spent fuel for the facility

31 within the scope of the generic determination in § 51.23(a) and in accordance with

§51.23(b).(a) 32
Summary and Conclusions

January 2006 9-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 The GEIS contains the results of a systematic evaluation of the consequences of renewing 

2 an OL and operating a nuclear power plant for an additional 20 years. It evaluates

3 92 environmental issues using the NRC's three-level standard of significance—SMALL,

4 MODERATE, or LARGE—developed using the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines. 

5 The following definitions of the three significance levels are set forth in the footnotes to

6 Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B:

7 SMALL—Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither

8 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

9 MODERATE—Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to

10 destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

11 LARGE—Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize

12 important attributes of the resource.

13 For 69 of the 92 issues considered in the GEIS, the staff analysis in the GEIS shows the

14 following:

15 (1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply

16 either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling

17 system or other specified plant or site characteristics.

18 (2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned

19 to the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle

20 and from high-level waste [HLW] and spent fuel disposal).

21 (3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the

22 analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation

23 measures are likely not to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

24 These 69 issues were identified in the GEIS as Category 1 issues. In the absence of new and

25 significant information, the staff relied on conclusions as amplified by supporting information in

26 the GEIS for issues designated Category 1 in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

27 Appendix B. The staff also determined that information provided during the public comment

28 period did not identify any new issue that requires site-specific assessment.

29 Of the 23 issues that do not meet the criteria set forth above, 21 are classified as Category 2

30 issues requiring analysis in a plant-specific supplement to the GEIS. The remaining two issues,

31 environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, were not categorized. 

32 Environmental justice was not evaluated on a generic basis and, therefore, must be addressed

33 in a plant-specific supplement to the GEIS. Information on the chronic effects of

34 electromagnetic fields was not conclusive at the time the GEIS was prepared.
Summary and Conclusions

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 9-4 January 2006

1 This draft SEIS documents the staff's consideration of all 92 environmental issues identified in

2 the GEIS. The staff considered the environmental impacts associated with alternatives to

3 license renewal and compared the environmental impacts of license renewal and the

4 alternatives. The alternatives to license renewal that were considered include the no-action

5 alternative (not renewing the OL for Monticello) and alternative methods of power generation. 

6 These alternatives were evaluated assuming that the replacement power generation plant is

7 located at either the Monticello site (nuclear generation) or some other unspecified greenfield

8 location.

9 9.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action –

10 License Renewal

11 NMC and the staff have established independent processes for identifying and evaluating

12 the significance of any new information on the environmental impacts of license renewal. 

13 Neither NMC nor the staff has identified information that is both new and significant related

14 to Category 1 issues that would call into question the conclusions in the GEIS. Similarly,

15 neither the scoping process, NMC, nor the staff has identified any new issue applicable to

16 Monticello that has a significant environmental impact. Therefore, the staff relies upon the

17 conclusions of the GEIS for all Category 1 issues that are applicable to Monticello.

18 NMC's license renewal application presents an analysis of the Category 2 issues that are

19 applicable to Monticello, plus environmental justice and chronic effects from electromagnetic

20 fields. The staff has reviewed the NMC analysis for each issue and has conducted an

21 independent review of each issue plus environmental justice and chronic effects from

22 electromagnetic fields. Three Category 2 issues are not applicable because they are related

23 to plant design features or site characteristics not found at Monticello. Four Category 2

24 issues are not discussed in this draft SEIS because they are specifically related to

25 refurbishment. NMC has stated that its evaluation of structures and components, as

26 required by 10 CFR 54.21, did not identify any major plant refurbishment activities or

27 modifications as necessary to support the continued operation of Monticello for the license

28 renewal period. In addition, any replacement of components or additional inspection

29 activities are within the bounds of normal plant component replacement and, therefore, are

30 not expected to affect the environment outside of the bounds of the plant operations

31 evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Monticello Nuclear

32 Generating Plant (AEC 1972).

33 Fourteen Category 2 issues related to operational impacts and postulated accidents during

34 the renewal term, as well as environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic

35 fields, are discussed in detail in this draft SEIS. Five of the Category 2 issues and

36 environmental justice apply to both refurbishment and to operation during the renewal term

37 and are only discussed in this draft SEIS in relation to operation during the renewal term. 

38 For all 14 Category 2 issues and environmental justice, the staff concludes that the potential

39 environmental effects are of SMALL significance in the context of the standards set forth in
Summary and Conclusions

January 2006 9-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 the GEIS. In addition, the staff determined that appropriate Federal health agencies have

2 not reached a consensus on the existence of chronic adverse effects from electromagnetic

3 fields. Therefore, no further evaluation of this issue is required. 

4 For severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs), the staff concludes that a reasonable,

5 comprehensive effort was made to identify and evaluate SAMAs. Based on its review of the

6 SAMAs for Monticello, and the plant improvements already made, the staff concludes that

7 one of the candidate SAMAs is potentially cost-beneficial. However, this SAMA does not

8 relate to adequately managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation. 

9 Therefore, it does not need to be implemented as part of license renewal pursuant to

10 10 CFR Part 54.

11 Mitigation measures were considered for each Category 2 issue. Current measures to

12 mitigate the environmental impacts of plant operation were found to be adequate, and no

13 additional mitigation measures were deemed sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

14 Cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably forseeable future actions were

15 considered, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such

16 other actions. For purposes of this analysis, where Monticello license renewal impacts are

17 deemed to be SMALL, the staff concluded that these impacts would not result in significant

18 cumulative impacts on potentially affected resources.

19 The following sections discuss unavoidable adverse impacts, irreversible or irretrievable

20 commitments of resources, and the relationship between local short-term use of the

21 environment and long-term productivity.

22 9.1.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

23 An environmental review conducted at the license renewal stage differs from the review

24 conducted in support of a construction permit because the plant is in existence at the license

25 renewal stage and has operated for a number of years. As a result, adverse impacts associated

26 with the initial construction have been avoided, have been mitigated, or have already occurred. 

27 The environmental impacts to be evaluated for license renewal are those associated with

28 refurbishment and continued operation during the renewal term.

29 The adverse impacts of continued operation identified are considered to be of SMALL

30 significance, and none warrants implementation of additional mitigation measures. The adverse

31 impacts of likely alternatives if Monticello ceases operation at or before the expiration of the

32 current OL will not be smaller than those associated with continued operation of this unit, and

33 they may be greater for some impact categories in some locations.
Summary and Conclusions

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 9-6 January 2006

1 9.1.2 Irreversible or Irretrievable Resource Commitments

2 The commitment of resources related to construction and operation of Monticello during the

3 current license period was made when the plant was built. The resource commitments to be

4 considered in this draft SEIS are associated with continued operation of the plant for an

5 additional 20 years. These resources include materials and equipment required for plant

6 maintenance and operation, the nuclear fuel used by the reactors, and ultimately, permanent

7 offsite storage space for the spent fuel assemblies.

8 The most significant resource commitments related to operation during the renewal term are the

9 fuel and the permanent storage space. Monticello replaces approximately thirty percent of the

10 fuel assemblies in the unit during every refueling outage, which occurs on a nominal 24-month

11 cycle.

12 The likely power generation alternatives if Monticello ceases operation on or before the

13 expiration of the current OL will require a commitment of resources for construction of the

14 replacement plants as well as for fuel to run the plants.

15 9.1.3 Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity

16 An initial balance between short-term use and long-term productivity of the environment at the

17 Monticello site was set when the plant was approved and construction began. That balance is

18 now well established. Renewal of the OL for Monticello and continued operation of the plant will

19 not alter the existing balance, but may postpone the availability of the site for other uses. Denial

20 of the application to renew the OL will lead to shutdown of the plant and will alter the balance in

21 a manner that depends on subsequent uses of the site. For example, the environmental

22 consequences of turning the Monticello site into a park or an industrial facility are quite different.

23 9.2 Relative Significance of the Environmental Impacts of

24 License Renewal and Alternatives

25 The proposed action is renewal of the OL for Monticello. Chapter 2 describes the site, power

26 plant, and interactions of the plant with the environment. As noted in Chapter 3, no

27 refurbishment and no refurbishment impacts are expected at Monticello. Chapters 4 through 7

28 discuss environmental issues associated with renewal of the OL. Environmental issues

29 associated with the no-action alternative and alternatives involving power generation and use

30 reduction are discussed in Chapter 8.

31 The significance of the environmental impacts from the proposed action (approval of the

32 application for renewal of the OL), the no-action alternative (denial of the application),

33 alternatives involving nuclear, coal, coal gasification, or natural gas-generation of power, and a
Summary and Conclusions

January 2006 9-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 combination of alternatives are compared in Table 9-1. Continued use of an open-cycle cooling

2 system for Monticello is assumed for Table 9-1.

3 Table 9-1 shows that the significance of the environmental effects of the proposed action are

4 SMALL for all impact categories (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel

5 cycle and from HLW and spent fuel disposal, for which a single significance level was not

6 assigned [see Chapter 6]). The alternative actions, including the no-action alternative, may

7 have environmental effects in at least some impact categories that reach MODERATE or

8 LARGE significance.

9 9.3 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations

10 Based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS (NRC 1996, 1999), (2) the ER submitted by

11 NMC (NMC 2005b), (3) consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies, (4) the staff's own

12 independent review, and (5) the staff's consideration of public comments received during the

13 scoping process, the preliminary recommendation of the staff is that the Commission determine

14 that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Monticello are not so great that

15 preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be

16 unreasonable.
1 Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Significance of License Renewal, the No-Action Alternative, 

2 Alternative Methods of Generation Using Once-Through Cooling

3 Proposed Action No-Action Alternative

Coal-FiredGeneration

Natural GasFiredGeneration

CoalGasification New Nuclear Generation Com

4 Impact Category

License Renewal

Denial ofRenewal

AlternateGreenfieldSite

AlternateGreenfieldSite

AlternateGreenfieldSite

MonticelloSite

AlternateGreenfieldSite

MontSite

5 Land Use SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL to

MODERATE

MODERATE toLARGE

MODERATE MODERATE to

LARGE

SMAMOD

6 Ecology SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL toMODERATE

SMALL toLARGE

MODERATE MODERATE to

LARGE

SMAMOD

7 Water Use8 and Quality—9 Surface Water

SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL toMODERATE

SMALL toMODERATE

SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMA

10 Water Use11 and Quality—12 Groundwater

SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL toMODERATE

SMALL toMODERATE

SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMA

13 Air Quality SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE SMALL SMALL MOD14 Waste SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMA15 Human Health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMA16 Socioeconomics SMALL SMALL to

LARGE

SMALL toLARGE

SMALL toMODERATE

SMALL toLARGE

SMALL toMODERATE

SMALL toLARGE

SMAMOD

17 Socioeconomics18 (Transportation)

SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL toMODERATE

SMALL toMODERATE

SMALL toLARGE

SMALL toLARGE

MOD

19 Aesthetics SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL toMODERATE

SMALL toLARGE

SMALL SMALL to

LARGE

SMA

20 Historic and21 Archaeological22 Resources

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMA

MOD

23 Environmental24 Justice

SMALL SMALL to

LARGE

SMALL toMODERATE

SMALL toMODERATE

SMALL toMODERATE

SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMA

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 9-8 January 2006
Summary and Conclusions

January 2006 9-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 9.4 References

2 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

3 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

4 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for

5 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

6 Nuclear Management Company (NMC). 2005a. Application for Renewed Operating License,

7 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. Monticello, Minnesota.

8 Nuclear Management Company (NMC). 2005b. Applicant's Environmental Report—Operating

9 License Renewal Stage, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. Docket No. 50-263, License No.

10 DPR-22. Monticello, Minnesota. 

11 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Section 102 (NEPA). 42 USC 4332.

12 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1972. Final Environmental Statement Related to

13 Operation of Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. Northern States Power Company. Docket

14 No. 50-263, Washington, D.C.

15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

16 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

18 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Main Report, Section 6.3, – Transportation, Table 9.1,

19 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final Report. 

20 NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Standard Review Plans for 

22 Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: “Operating License

23 Renewal.” NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Washington, D.C.

24 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005a. "Notice of Intent to Prepare an

25 Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process." Federal Register, Vol. 70,

26 No. 105, pp. 32381-32382. Washington, D.C. June 2, 2005.

27 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005b. Environmental Impact Statement Scoping

28 Process: Summary Report, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Monticello, Minnesota. 

29 Washington, D.C. October 7, 2005.
1 Appendix A

2 Comments Received on the Environmental Review

January 2006 A-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Appendix A: Comments Received on the

2 Environmental Review

3 Part I—Comments Received During Scoping

4 On June 2, 2005, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a Notice of Intent

5 in the Federal Register (70 FR 32381), to notify the public of the staff’s intent to prepare a

6 plant-specific supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal

7 of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, to support the renewal application

8 for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant operating license and to conduct scoping. The

9 plant-specific supplement to the GEIS has been prepared in accordance with the National

10 Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance, and

11 10 CFR Part 51. As outlined by NEPA, the NRC initiated the scoping process with the issuance

12 of the Federal Register Notice. The NRC invited the applicant; Federal, State, and local

13 government agencies; Native American tribal organizations; local organizations; and individuals

14 to participate in the scoping process by providing oral comments at the scheduled public

15 meetings and/or submitting written suggestions and comments no later than August 2, 2005. 

16 The scoping process included two public scoping meetings, which were held at the Monticello

17 Community Center in Monticello, Minnesota on June 30, 2005. Approximately 50 members of

18 the public attended the meetings. Both sessions began with NRC staff members providing a

19 brief overview of the license renewal process and the NEPA process. After the NRC’s prepared

20 statements, the meetings were open for public comments. Ten attendees provided oral

21 statements that were recorded and transcribed by a certified court reporter. The meeting

22 transcripts are an attachment to the July 28, 2005, Scoping Meeting Summary. In addition to

23 the comments received during the public meetings, thirteen comment letters and seven e-mail

24 messages were received by the NRC in response to the Notice of Intent.

25 At the conclusion of the scoping period, the NRC staff and its contractors reviewed the tran26 scripts and all written material to identify specific comments and issues. Each set of comments

27 from a given commenter was given a unique identifier (Commenter ID), so that each set of

28 comments from a commenter could be traced back to the transcript or letter by which the

29 comments were submitted. Specific comments were numbered sequentially within each

30 comment set. Several commenters submitted comments through multiple sources (e.g.,

31 afternoon and evening scoping meetings). All of the comments received and the staff

32 responses are included in the Monticello Scoping Summary Report dated October 7, 2005. 

33 Table A-1 identifies the individuals who provided comments applicable to the environmental

34 review and the Commenter ID associated with each person’s set of comments. The individuals

35 are listed in the order in which they spoke at the public meeting. To maintain consistency with

36 the Scoping Summary Report, the unique identifier used in that report for each set of comments

37 is retained in this appendix.
Appendix A

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 A-2 January 2006

1 Specific comments were categorized and consolidated by topic. Comments with similar specific

2 objectives were combined to capture the common essential issues raised by the commenters. 

3 The comments fall into one of the following general groups: 

4 C Specific comments that address environmental issues within the purview of the NRC

5 environmental regulations related to license renewal. These comments address Category 1

6 or Category 2 issues or issues that were not addressed in the GEIS. They also address

7 alternatives and related Federal actions. 

8 C General comments (1) in support of or opposed to nuclear power or license renewal or (2)

9 on the renewal process, the NRC’s regulations, and the regulatory process. These

10 comments may or may not be specifically related to the Monticello license renewal

11 application. 

12 C Questions that do not provide new information.

13 C Specific comments that address issues that do not fall within or are specifically excluded

14 from the purview of NRC environmental regulations related to license renewal. These

15 comments typically address issues such as the need for power, emergency preparedness,

16 security, current operational safety issues, and safety issues related to operation during the

17 renewal period.

18

19 Table A-1. Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period

20 Commenter

21 ID Commenter Affiliation (if stated)

Comment Source and

ADAMS Accession

Number(a)

22 MS-A John Grubb Nuclear Management Company Afternoon Scoping

Meeting

23 MS-B Charles Bomberger Xcel Energy Afternoon Scoping

Meeting

24 MS-C W ayne Mayer Magic Mom ents Photographic

Studio

Afternoon Scoping

Meeting

25 MS-D George Crocker North American W ater Office Afternoon Scoping

Meeting

26 MS-E Lea Foushee North American W ater Office Afternoon Scoping

Meeting

27 MS-F Kristen

Eide-Tollefson

R-CURE Afternoon Scoping

Meeting
Appendix A

Commenter

ID Commenter Affiliation (if stated)

Comment Source and

ADAMS Accession

Number(a)

January 2006 A-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 MS-G Carol Overland Overland Law Office Afternoon Scoping

Meeting

2 MS-H Clint Herbst City of Monticello Evening Scoping Meeting

3 MS-I Tom Palmisano Nuclear Management Company Evening Scoping Meeting

4 MS-J Kent Larsen Xcel Energy Evening Scoping Meeting

5 MS-K Joseph Steffel City of Buffalo Letter (ML051960028)

6 MS-L Lynne Dahl-Fleming DESIGN for PRINT [&W eb!] Letter (ML051810330)

7 MS-M Alan Loch Loch Jewelers Letter (ML051810327)

8 MS-N Mike Benedetto Monticello Public Schools Letter (ML051810325)

9 MS-O Barbara Schwientek Monticello-Big Lake Community

Hospital District

Letter (ML051810324)

10 MS-P Dan Olson State Farm Insurance Letter (ML051810543)

11 MS-Q Mark Ourada State of Minnesota Senate

District 19

Letter (ML052090152)

12 MS-R Susan Struckness Monticello Chamber of

Commerce

Letter (ML051810333)

13 MS-S Julie Risser Citizen of Edina, Minnesota Email (ML052220380)

14 MS-T Pat Sawatzke Commissioner-District 2 Email (ML052220387)

15 MS-U Susu Jeffrey Citizen of Minneapolis Email (ML052220381)

16 MS-V Carol Overland Overland Law Office Email (ML052220353)

17 MS-W George Crocker North American W ater Office Email (ML052220384)

18 MS-X Justin Eibenholzl Southeast Minneapolis

Neighborhoods

Email (ML052220382)

19 MS-Y Christine Ziebold Citizen of Minneapolis Email (ML052220355)

20 MS-Z Bruce Anderson Minnesota House of

Representatives

Letter (ML052220378)

21 MS-AA Don Orrock Big Lake City Council Letter (ML052220378)

22 MS-AB Ewald Petersen Big Lake Township Board of

Supervisors

Letter (ML052220378)

23 MS-AC Bruce Thielen Monticello City Council Letter (ML052220378)
Appendix A

Commenter

ID Commenter Affiliation (if stated)

Comment Source and

ADAMS Accession

Number(a)

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 A-4 January 2006

1 MS-AD Tom Fenski Monticello Chamber of

Commerce

Letter (ML052220378)

(a) 2 The afternoon and evening transcripts can be found as an attachment under accession number

3 ML052030005.

4

5 The subject areas the comments were grouped into are as follows:

6 1. Comments in Support of License Renewal at Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant

7 2. Comments in Opposition to License Renewal at Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant

8 3. General Comments Regarding License Renewal and Its Processes

9 4. Comments Concerning Water Quality and Use Issues

10 5. Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology Issues

11 6. Comments Concerning Terrestrial Resource Issues

12 7. Comments Concerning Air Quality Issues

13 8. Comments Concerning Land Use Issues

14 9. Comments Concerning Human Health Issues

15 10. Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues

16 11. Comments Concerning Postulated Accidents

17 12. Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues

18 13. Comments Concerning Alternatives

19 14. Comments Concerning Aging Management

20 Each comment is summarized in the following pages. For reference, the unique identifier for

21 each comment (Commenter ID letter listed in Table A-1 plus the comment number) is provided.

22 In those cases where no new information was provided by the commenter, no further evaluation

23 will be performed.
Appendix A

January 2006 A-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 The preparation of the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS (which is the SEIS) will take into

2 account all the relevant issues raised during the scoping process. The SEIS will address both

3 Category 1 and 2 issues, along with any new information identified as a result of scoping. The

4 SEIS will rely on conclusions supported by information in the GEIS for Category 1 issues, and

5 will include the analysis of Category 2 issues and any new and significant information. The

6 draft plant-specific supplement to the GEIS will be made available for public comment. The

7 comment period will offer the next opportunity for the applicant; interested Federal, State, and

8 local government agencies; local organizations; and members of the public to provide input to

9 the NRC's environmental review process. The comments received on the draft SEIS will be

10 considered in the preparation of the final SEIS. The final SEIS, along with the staff's Safety

11 Evaluation Report (SER), will provide much of the basis for the NRC's decision on the

12 Monticello license renewal application.

13 A.1 Comments and Responses

14 1. Comments in Support of License Renewal at Monticello Nuclear Generating

15 Plant

16 Comment: I'm here today to provide my support for this request for license renewal from the

17 Monticello station. The mission of everybody who works and supports Monticello is clear; and

18 that's safe, reliable, economic operation of the plant. The safety of the public and the

19 employees being the No. 1 priority. Two of our key values include being a good neighbor, a

20 steward of the environment in which we operate. (MS-A-1)

21 Comment: In conclusion, the Monticello plant has been a productive contributor to the energy

22 needs of the State of Minnesota and a valuable asset and good neighbor to the surrounding

23 communities. We remain committed to operating safely, reliably, economically, and focus on

24 being a good neighbor and a good steward of the environment. I and the rest of the employees

25 at Monticello look forward to serving you and meeting the needs of the community for many

26 years to come. (MS-A-8; MS-I-8)

27 Comment: And I would like to share why license renewal is the most economic and

28 responsible energy choice for our million and a half customers here in the Upper Midwest. 

29 (MS-B-1; MS-J-1)

30 Comment: In closing, we believe that continued operation of Monticello is vitally important to

31 the state's energy needs, important to the local economy, and important to more than 500 

32 employees who keep it running every day. We look forward to operating Monticello safely for

33 many years to come. (MS-B-9; MS-J-9)

34 Comment: The City looks forward to working with Xcel Energy into the future, especially as

35 our city continues its growth and expands its boundaries towards the west. In closing, I would
Appendix A

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 A-6 January 2006

1 like to commend all personnel working at the Monticello nuclear generating facility for their

2 excellent safety management. (MS-C-3)

3 Comment: I guess I was asked to come and speak just a little bit about what I feel Xcel has

4 been for the community. And I kind of consider myself an expert, not as far as the day-to-day

5 operations, but being that we moved here in 1972 and I've continued to raise my family here.

6 Also, I feel that it's a very safe operation, a much needed operation, being that now I'm on the

7 government side of it, to see what kind of impact Xcel does have on the community and what

8 kind of impact they could potentially have on the community if there was any problem with

9 relays and things.

10 I feel very confident that I can speak for previous councils because this is an issue that came

11 up quite some time ago, and Xcel kind of delayed it for some reason. They're looking at

12 different things. But, past councils and the present council, I think are well behind Xcel, hoping

13 that everything goes well, hoping that they stay a part of, a huge part of the community like they

14 have been. (MS-H-1)

15 Comment: I'm here tonight to provide my support and comments on our request to renew the

16 operating license for the Monticello plant. The mission of everyone who works at Monticello is

17 very clear and very simple: safe, reliable, and economic operation of the plant. And, quite

18 frankly, the safety of the public and the safety of our employees is the No. 1 priority and has

19 been and continues to be as we operate. And as part of that, two of our key values includes

20 being a good neighbor and a good steward of the environment in which we operate, and

21 certainly that's very pertinent to tonight. (MS-I-1)

22 Comment: I would like to recommend to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission that Xcel

23 Energy be granted an operating license renewal for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. 

24 (MS-K-1)

25 Comment: I am writing to express my support for the relicensing of the Monticello Xcel (sic)

26 Energy Nuclear Power Plant. I have been a resident of Monticello for over forty years. During

27 that time, I have had ample opportunity to see the impact of the plant in our community. This

28 impact has been nothing but positive throughout that time. (MS-L-1)

29 Comment: I am writing to give my support for the renewal of the license of the Xcel Energy

30 Monticello plant. Loch Jewelers has been in Monticello since 1977. Our personal experience

31 with the staff and employees of the Xcel plant has been very positive. They have always

32 worked well with the business community, exhibiting good ethics and sound business practices

33 and putting the safety of the community first. (MS-M-1)

34 Comment: Please accept this letter as our school district's [Monticello Public Schools] support

35 for the license renewal of the Monticello Nuclear Plant. (MS-N-1)
Appendix A

January 2006 A-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Comment: The Monticello-Big Lake Community Hospital District Board of Directors and staff

2 members support the license renewal for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. (MS-O-1)

3 Comment: I have lived and worked in Monticello for the past twenty one years. I am writing

4 you a letter in support of the license renewal for the Monticello plant. I cannot think of any local

5 business who has been a better good neighbor than our local nuclear plant. (MS-P-1)

6 Comment: I would like to express my strong support for the license renewal application for the

7 Monticello Nuclear Power Plant. (MS-Q-1)

8 Comment: BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Monticello Chamber of Commerce, located in

9 Monticello, Minnesota, does hereby take a position of support for the re-licensing of the

10 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. The Nuclear Plant and its employees are of great

11 importance to the City of Monticello, and to Minnesota as a whole. (MS-R-1)

12 Comment: The Monticello Chamber of Commerce also is a strong supporter of nuclear energy

13 as a power source for our State, thereby working to produce energy with no greenhouse gas

14 effects. Nuclear is a clean, reliable source of energy for our state. (MS-R-3)

15 Comment: As a member of the Wright County Board of Commissioners that represents the

16 area in which the plant exists, please let me extend my support to NMC in their efforts to

17 re-license the Nuclear Power Plant in Monticello, Minnesota. (MS-T-4)

18 Comment: I write today in support of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant and advocate for

19 a license extension for its continued operation. (MS-Z-1)

20 Comment: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Big Lake,

21 Minnesota, that the City of Big Lake go on record supporting construction of an Independent

22 Spent Fuel Storage Installation, and License Renewal at the Monticello Nuclear Generating

23 Plant. (MS-AA-5)

24 Comment: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Big Lake, Sherburne

25 County, supports the license renewal to continue operations for up to 20 years,... (MS-AB-3)

26 Comment: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the City of Monticello go on record

27 supporting construction of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, and License

28 Renewal at the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. (MS-AC-6)

29 Comment: We, the Monticello Chamber of Commerce, support construction of an Independent

30 Spent Fuel Storage Installation, and License Renewal of our local Monticello Nuclear

31 Generating Plant, owned by Xcel Energy and managed by Nuclear Management Company. 

32 (MS-AD-1)
Appendix A

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 A-8 January 2006

1 Comment: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Monticello Chamber of Commerce

2 Board of Directors, go on record supporting construction of an Independent Spent Fuel

3 Installation, and License Renewal at the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. (MS-AD-6)

4 Response: The comments are supportive of license renewal at Monticello Nuclear Generating

5 Plant and are general in nature. The comments provide no new and significant information;

6 therefore, the comments will not be evaluated further.

7 2. Comments in Opposition to License Renewal at Monticello Nuclear

8 Generation Plant

9 Comment: And you're going to find that the political support for the commercial nuclear

10 industry may be broad, but it's skin deep. And when that event happens, and when you've

11 made the commitment to keep us committed to nuclear operations, what will happen then is

12 we'll have chaos in the utility industry because we can't use the reactors anymore, and that will

13 be piled on top of somebody's nuclear nightmare. (MS-D-14)

14 Comment: Extending the license to operate until 2030 will mean future generations will have to

15 spend valuable resources safeguarding and storing more spent nuclear fuel; this is hardly

16 beneficial to environmental resources. (MS-S-11)

17 Comment: Remaining dependent on nuclear power puts Minnesotans at risk for bearing the

18 environmental and economic costs of maintaining toxic waste for centuries; the economic cost

19 of maintaining this waste outweighs the value of the energy generated by it. (MS-S-19)

20 Comment: Given the location of the Monticello plant upstream from a densely populated urban

21 area, the fact that Minnesota's current economic and political climate is weak, the fact that

22 political leaders from the two major parties cannot function adequately to keep the government

23 running under normal circumstances, and the fact that the soils at Monticello raise the

24 prospects of groundwater contamination, it is clear that relicensing Monticello is inappropriate

25 and irresponsible at this time. The NRC should reject Xcel Energy's application for license

26 renewal. (MS-S-27)

27 Comment: We have no guarantees. We do however have a rising cancer rate, relative

28 disincentives for alternative, decentralized energy production, and huge inefficiencies in energy

29 use accounting for about half of the energy produced according to experts. It would be safer

30 and cheaper to become efficient. Where is the leadership for tightening-up? (MS-U-6)

31 Comment: Nuclear technology is dinosauric it's from the last millennium. It's too big,

32 inappropriate, uncontrollable. Transmitting electricity from big generating stations is wasteful,

33 destructive of the environment, and extremely profitable until something goes wrong. (MS-U-8)
Appendix A

January 2006 A-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Comment: Are you the heroes who will say no to nukes and yes to progressive, decentralized,

2 safe energy production? This is America. We invented modern citizen democracy. We are an

3 inventive society. We can supply the world with smart power tools or continue our decline and

4 deliver to ourselves a dirty bomb of our own making. "The peaceful atom is a bomb." 

5 (MS-U-10)

6 Comment: NRC currently gravely underestimates the risk of Monticello's operations to human

7 and ecosystem health, uses outdated non-protective radiation standards, procures no tracking

8 of health effects, provides lax oversight over safety and security, and by delivering a flawed

9 alternatives-analysis seeks to ensure Xcel Energy's continued nuclear power operations. 

10 (MS-Y-41)

11 Response: The comments oppose license renewal at Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant and

12 are general in nature. The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, the

13 comments will not be evaluated further.

14 3. General Comments Regarding License Renewal and Its Processes

15 Comment: Because the scope of public outreach was limited to Buffalo, Minnesota and

16 Monticello, Minnesota the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) failed to provide residents of

17 other effected communities with information and opportunities to participate in the EIS Scoping

18 process; people were denied the chance to weigh in on whether or not the Monticello nuclear

19 power plant should be relicensed. Furthermore the NRC appears to have intensionally (sic)

20 undermined the process for allowing the public to participate at the public meetings that it did

21 hold in Monticello to discuss the EIS Scoping. (MS-S-1)

22 Comment: The residents of the Twin Cities Metro Area have a vested interest in this resource 

23 it is a fundamental component of their survival - and they need to be included in public

24 discussion about license renewal for Monticello. (MS-S-4)

25 Comment: The NRC failed to hold one public meeting in the Twin Cities during the EIS

26 Scoping period. 

27 The NRC failed to publish information about the Open Houses that it held in Monticello, MN on

28 June 30th in both the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the Saint Paul Pioneer Press.

29 The NRC failed to get any local television stations to provide information about the Open

30 Houses in Monticello.

31 The NRC failed to get any radio stations to provide information about the Open Houses in

32 Monticello.
Appendix A

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 A-10 January 2006

1 The NRC failed to provide transport from the Twin Cities to Monticello for those who do not own

2 cars or have the financial resources to take a taxi to Monticello. (MS-S-5)

3 Comment: During the EIS Scoping period the NRC failed to provide libraries in the Twin Cities

4 Metro Area with any documentation regarding the license renewal for Monticello; the NRC

5 made this documentation available only at public libraries in Buffalo and Monticello.

6 People who learned about the Open Houses were instructed to contact Jennifer A. Davis

7 301-415-3835 or Jason Flemming 301-415-5787. I called Jason Flemming long-distance and 

8 left messages twice. Jason Flemming never returned my calls even though I clearly stated in

9 both messages that I wanted to participate in the Monticello Open House as a concerned

10 member of the public.

11 The NRC failed to provide people with a toll-free number so they could learn about the forum;

12 public comments are likely to be skewed toward views of the middle-class and wealthy the poor

13 were not provided a means to participate in this basic dialog.

14 The NRC failed to provide people with contacts who would respond to their questions in a timely

15 way; the NRC undermined the ability of the public to participate.

16 People who were able to make it to the June 30th Open House in Monticello were given a

17 handout "Welcome to the NRC's Open House Associated with the Environmental Review for

18 License Renewal at the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant" that clearly stated in the first

19 sentence of the second paragraph that the NRC was seeking comments supporting relicensing:

20 "The NRC is gathering information necessary to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

21 (EIS) in support of the proposed renewal of the operating license for the Monticello Nuclear

22 Generating Plant" (I have added the italics). This sentence alone may have discouraged

23 members of the public who showed up intending to make a statement against the relicensing

24 from voicing their concerns or entering them into the record. 

25 In the "Welcome to the NRC's Open House Associated with the Environmental Review for

26 License Renewal at the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant" the first sentence of the second

27 paragraph makes it clear that the EIS Scoping period was not a time for the NRC to consider

28 the pros and cons of relicensing; for the NRC it was a time to gather information that supported

29 a predetermined course of action relicense the plant. (MS-S-6)

30 Comment: Because the NRC failed to inform large communities that will be effected by the

31 relicensing of Monticello about the EIS Scoping, because the NRC did not demonstrate a

32 credible effort to engage members of the public in the EIS Scoping process, and because the

33 NRC appears to have consciously set out to undermine participation from members of the

34 public who are against the relicensing of Monticello the entire EIS Scoping Process needs to

35 start over. To fail to do so will result in damage to Xcel Energy's reputation and damage to the

36 credibility of all relicensing efforts for nuclear reactors throughout the United States. At this

37 point in our nation's history undermining the democratic process for something as serious as
Appendix A

January 2006 A-11 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 relicensing nuclear power plants could have significant and harmful negative fallout as far as

2 public confidence in the government's ability to put the long-term needs of the people before

3 corporate desires for profit and gaining market share is concerned. Failure to engage in honest

4 dialog regarding relicensing the plant creates the very real possibility that Monticello will be

5 relicensed without the public or the NRC considering very serious problems; this is public policy

6 at its worst. (MS-S-8)

7 Comment: I wish to underscore the opening comments made by Christine Ziebold, MD, PhD,

8 MPH, and Julie Risser, who both pointed out ways in which the NRC, and NRC process,

9 worked against public participation. I have an anecdote of my own: I emailed the contact

10 person listed, Jennifer Davis, a day or two prior to the June 30 meeting to verify place and time

11 because it was listed as "tentative" on the site, and did not receive a response until July 5! I live

12 in Red Wing, and Monticello is a ways away, and I had no way to confirm.

13 It was not clarified for the audience the purpose of the meeting, that it is for determining the

14 scope of the EIS, and what that meant, what types of Comments were specifically being

15 solicited. Because this is not clear, the record contains comments from people supporting

16 nuclear power (!) and Monticello, but not offering anything relevant to the comment purpose. 

17 People attending the meeting were not able to tailor their comments to be effective. (MS-V-1)

18 Comment: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) relicensing process has dramatically

19 deteriorated over the past decade. 

20 NRC needs to clearly communicate, best establish a SEARCHABLE website, indexed on major

21 search engines regarding Monticello. NRC's EIS scoping is a non-transparent process,

22 EXTREMELY poorly communicated through the media. The search engine on NRC's website

23 will not retrieve the website for Monticello on the first 20 hits, and neither will Google. If NRC

24 wants to enjoy any credibility for its "seeking public involvement" it needs to fix this problem. 

25 (MS-Y-1)

26 Comment: NRC needs to honestly relate information about realistic health and environmental

27 concerns due to the routine release of fission products to air, water and land and the unsolved

28 long term storage situation, aside from issues due to catastrophic events. The NRC EIS

29 scoping process as is and NRC communications in general keep the public at large uninformed. 

30 In my experience NRC meetings are tightly controlled and orchestrated. NRC's public relations

31 have replaced solid information or even public health education. The process is virtually

32 exclusive of the public at large. (MS-Y-3)

33 Comment: I kindly request that NRC hold another EIS scoping meeting in the Twin Cities

34 ASAP.

35 The Monticello meeting on June 30, 2005 serves as a case in point. The public meeting (which

36 really was one, not two as stated in the NRC press release, even though there might have been
Appendix A

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 A-12 January 2006

1 two basically back to back sessions within the same 12 hours) took place at the virtual

2 exclusion of Twin Cities stakeholders, due to its location at Monticello and its timing. Twin

3 Cities residents are stakeholders too, since a catastrophic event would affect a

4 disproportionately larger number of us. (MS-Y-4)

5 Response: As outlined in the Introduction section, the NRC published a Notice of Intent in the

6 Federal Register (70 FR 32381) on June 2, 2005. This was the official notice to inform the

7 public of its opportunity to participate as the NRC undertakes the environmental review of the

8 request to renew the operating license of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. Every

9 Federal agency is required to publish its notices in the Federal Register, which is issued every

10 work day, to ensure that the public is informed of its opportunity to participate in the work of the

11 Federal Government. In the Notice of Intent, the NRC invited the applicant; Federal, State, and

12 local government agencies; local organizations; and individuals to participate in the scoping

13 process and to provide comments to the NRC about the scope of the environmental review no

14 later than August 2, 2005. The NRC staff is supported by its contractors and any interested

15 member of the public in undertaking this environmental review. The outcome is not

16 predetermined, but an environmental review will be performed and an EIS will be prepared to

17 support the review whether or not the request to renew the license is granted. The NRC

18 provided the public with information on the application located in the NRC Public Document

19 Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system

20 (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html, the

21 Public Electronic Reading Room. Toll free telephone numbers were provided in the Notice to

22 assist the public with the use of ADAMS and in contacting key NRC personnel on the project. 

23 Although not required by NEPA, the NRC has elected to take steps during the scoping process

24 to ensure that interested parties have additional opportunities to become informed about the

25 project and to gain access to process and site-specific information to enhance their participation

26 at the level they so choose. In addition to the official source of information in the NRC Public

27 Document Room and ADAMS, the NRC believed that it would be useful to the public to provide

28 a copy of the environmental information associated with the application for inspection at a

29 public library close to the site area; for the Monticello project, two public libraries (Monticello

30 and Buffalo) were kind enough to support our effort. The local libraries also have information to

31 assist the public in using ADAMS if an individual does not have internet access from another

32 source. Consequently, any individual who is interested in obtaining information from the NRC

33 related to any environmental review for any license renewal project can go to any public library

34 and use library resources to obtain access.

35 The NRC has established an open process to permit all members of the public to participate in

36 the scoping process. Comments can be provided to the NRC in person, by mail, and by e-mail. 

37 In addition, the NRC has elected to conduct public meetings during the scoping process to

38 ensure that interested parties have an additional opportunity to gain access to information about

39 the project and the process to effectively participate. The NRC provided the information about

40 the public meetings in the Federal Register Notice and posted the meeting time and location at

41 the NRC's website (www.nrc.gov). The NRC also published a press release to inform the
Appendix A

January 2006 A-13 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 media about the purpose, time and location of the meetings, but the NRC does not control the

2 actions of the media; consequently, the NRC also pays for advertisements in a reasonable set

3 of local newspapers (the St. Cloud Times and the Monticello Times) to share the information

4 with the public. The NRC meetings were facilitated and, in advance of the meetings, the

5 facilitator contacted elected and appointed officials as well as known representatives of interest

6 groups so that they could inform their constituencies of the opportunity to participate in the

7 meetings. Finally, the NRC placed posters about the meeting in public places in the Monticello

8 site area. 

9 Two meetings were held on the same day to make it convenient for interested parties who had

10 obligations (e.g., work or family) to choose whether they would participate in one or both

11 meetings. Preregistering for either of the meetings assists the staff in determining the quantity

12 of materials that it should bring to enhance the level of understanding and participation. During

13 the days leading up to the meetings, the environmental review team generally conducts an

14 audit in the site area and may no longer have access to office resources; consequently, the

15 public was encouraged to contact the staff by June 23, 2005, to preregister. However, the NRC

16 attempts to accommodate all interested parties at the public meetings whether they were

17 preregistered or not. No member of the public was denied the opportunity to participate in the

18 scoping process. If an individual made the effort to attend the public meeting, then she or he

19 was given the opportunity to share her or his views on the record to ensure that it would be

20 captured by the NRC and treated equally as any written comment submitted by August 2, 2005. 

21 If an individual was unable to attend the meeting or elected to defer offering her or his

22 comments at that time, then she or he still had the opportunity to share views with the NRC

23 through the end of the comment period as outlined in the Notice. Those who provided

24 comments at the public meetings were not precluded in any way from providing additional

25 comments through the end of the comment period. 

26 The comments raised concerns about the additional opportunities provided by the NRC to

27 comment during the scoping process, but do not provide new and significant information. 

28 Therefore, the comments will not be evaluated further. 

29 Comment: In a telephone conversation with Jennifer Davis, NRC contact for Monticello on

30 8/1/05 at 3pm CST I learned that NRC has a generic EIS for all nuclear plants and that "2/3 of

31 the issues contained therein won't be revisited." Even if true, this was not a great motivation to

32 submit comment. This generic EIS however is NOT posted under "Documents Available for

33 Comment" which is the hyperlink provided for Public Involvement on NRC's Monticello website,

34 which I only found today. (MS-Y-2)

35 Response: The impact evaluation performed by the staff and presented in the Generic

36 Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants NUREG-1437 (GEIS)

37 identified 92 environmental issues that were considered within the scope of a license renewal

38 review. For each of the 92 issues, the staff evaluated existing data from the nuclear power

39 plants throughout the U.S. From this evaluation, the staff determined which issues were

40 amenable to generic consideration and which issues can only be resolved on a site-specific
Appendix A

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 A-14 January 2006

1 basis. Sixty-nine of the issues were found to be generic to all sites, whereas, 23 of the issues

2 would require a site-specific analysis. Generic issues are termed Category 1 because the

3 conclusions related to their environmental impacts were found to be common to all plants or all

4 plants with certain design features (e.g., cooling towers), mitigation of adverse impacts was

5 considered, and it has been determined that additional mitigation measures are likely not to be

6 beneficial to warrant implementation. Absent "new and significant information" that the NRC

7 may obtain during its independent site-specific review, which includes public comments in the

8 scoping process, Category 1 issues are not reevaluated in the site-specific EIS. Nevertheless,

9 the conclusions from the applicable 69 Category 1 issues are adopted (using a NEPA concept

10 known as tiering) in the site-specific EIS. 

11 Category 2 issues are those that require a site-specific review, prepared in the staff's site

12 specific supplement to the GEIS. The NRC staff evaluates site-specific data provided by the

13 applicant, other Federal Agencies, State agencies, tribal and local governments, as well as

14 information from members of the public. 

15 The GEIS is available on the NRC's website at

16 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/. The comment provides no

17 new and significant information; therefore, the comment will not be evaluated further.

18 Comment: The NRC must evaluate the environmental impact of ownership and operation

19 scheme, in this case, where Xcel is the owner of the plant with full liability for operations as

20 conducted by NMC.

21 The application was made in the name of Nuclear Management Company, LLC. Xcel Energy,

22 the owner of Monticello, should also be an applicant. (MS-V-6)

23 Response: Nuclear Management Company (NMC) is the holder of the operating license, and

24 has applied for license renewal of the operating license of Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. 

25 NMC submitted the application, dated March 16, 2005, individually and as agent for the owner

26 of the plant, Northern States Power Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy

27 Corporation. 

28 4. Comments Concerning Water Quality and Use Issues

29 Comment: There is (sic) some thermal issues. They may be generic, but they may be pretty

30 specific to Monticello, being as Monticello is really on the upper waters of the Mississippi River. 

31 You cannot count on the cooling that this river has historically provided over the forecast period

32 for a re-licensing period. (MS-D-10)

33 Comment: The NRC analysis on water quality and surface runoff fails to adequately address

34 issues concerning erosion, changing weather patterns we are experiencing in Minnesota, and

35 the risks to ground water contamination. (MS-S-23)
Appendix A

January 2006 A-15 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Comment: The EIS needs to define the impact on water. The EIS needs to assess in detail

2 how reactor operations impacts water contamination. (MS-Y-33)

3 Response: Temperature effects and other water quality issues were evaluated in the GEIS

4 and determined to be Category 1 issues. Water quality will be discussed in Chapters 2 and 4 of

5 the SEIS.

6 Comment: And it was '95 -- or '85 or '86, maybe it was '87 when we did experience extremely

7 low flow. Some of you who were here at the plant at that time remember those low flows. 

8 7Q10 I believe it's called, is what we named it. Very, very close to opening up some of the

9 reservoirs in the dams upstream from Monticello certainly, upstream from the Twin Cities to

10 provide greater flows. We're going to see more and more of that. We're going to see less

11 flows with higher temperatures. We know what happened a year ago in France when they had

12 very, very high temperatures and the waters were too hot to take the cooling water from the

13 reactors, and they had to shut the reactors down. Your EIS needs to take much more account

14 of that than I think we historically have. (MS-D-11)

15 Comment: The NRC does not address the fact that while torrential down pours followed by

16 days of hot dry weather used to be unusual in the state ten years ago, they have become

17 common; cities are scrambling to address rapidly changing water levels that fluctuate from

18 unusually high to unusually low. (MS-S-24)

19 Comment: Item 12 & 13, Physical Impacts on Water resources, Water Use. Xcel Energy uses

20 water to cool reactors and this topic should be addressed in the EIS, because of the definite

21 and apparent impacts on local aquifers and water resources. (MS-X-4)

22 Comment: The EIS needs to tabulate concisely how much of which contaminant is estimated

23 to have been released for the past 2 decades of operation. The EIS needs to show water flow

24 rates and respective volumes in which continuous and batch releases have and are expected to

25 occur, and model the effects of these releases, taking into consideration latest scientific

26 evidence (see 3,4,5)- not the references from 10 years ago as in the generic EIS. This

27 modeling should include mitigating factors related to global climate change, such as volatile

28 changes in available water quantity, especially of the Mississippi River. The EIS needs to show

29 how adequate water monitoring would be performed, by whom and who would pay for it. 

30 (MS-Y-35)

31 Response: The specific impacts of climate change within a particular region or watershed are

32 highly speculative, and are therefore beyond the scope of a NEPA review for reactor license

33 renewal. Furthermore, any changes in watershed characteristics would likely be gradual,

34 allowing water use conflicts to be resolved as needed. Operating license holders are required

35 to submit Annual Effluent Monitoring Reports and are also required to submit event reports

36 during abnormal conditions. Water use conflicts will be discussed in Chapter 4 of the SEIS.
Appendix A

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 A-16 January 2006

1 5. Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology Issues

2 Comment: The EIS must consider the impact of hot water discharges into the Mississippi river

3 on aquatic plant, animal and human life. (MS-V-10)

4 Response: The comment is related to aquatic ecology. Impacts to aquatic species will be

5 addressed in Chapter 4 of the SEIS.

6 6. Comments Concerning Terrestrial Resource Issues

7 Comment: Monticello is a strong supporter of the environment. We take great care in our

8 daily activities to ensure that the environment is well protected. Our employees feel fortunate

9 that the location of Monticello rests on the bank of the Mississippi River within the reaches of

10 the Montissippi County Park and the Lake Maria State Park. The site is home to numerous

11 wildlife, aquatic species and plant life. Our efforts have made Monticello a safe and sound

12 habitat for many years, and it remains our commitment to maintain that for years to come. 

13 (MS-A-6; MS-I-6)

14 Comment: Item 25, Nearby resources. First glance appears to be an incomplete list which

15 does not include resources identified by the local community other than one "biologically

16 sensitive area." This section also needs more discussion about impacts in the event of a

17 release or accident. (MS-X-8)

18 Response: The comments are related to terrestrial resource issues, which will be addressed in

19 Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS. 

20 7. Comments Concerning Air Quality Issues

21 Comment: The next thing I would like to just mention briefly is that we are moving into a totally

22 different climate paradigm. Global warming is on us. Nuclear reactors were not designed and

23 built, and the functions that are provided within the redundant safety systems and so forth were

24 not designed for the brave, new global warming world. (MS-D-9)

Comment: The EIS must consider the CO2 25 releases of the nuclear cycle in comparison with

26 other generation fuels, including uranium mining, milling, and other aspects of fuel production,

transportation and concrete CO2 27 emissions. (MS-V-9)

28 Comment: Item 22, Vehicle Emissions. More discussion is needed as this is the only

29 identifiable source of air emissions. Trucks, hauling equipment, and vehicles used to perform

30 ongoing maintenance need to be quantified and compared to USEPA guidelines especially

31 considering the fact that this area is in danger of falling out of "attainment" for ozone. Vehicle

32 emissions are a primary source of ozone precursors as identified by the Minnesota Pollution

33 Control Agency and Xcel Energy in various publications. (MS-X-6)
Appendix A

January 2006 A-17 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Comment: Item 23, Stationary Source Emissions. This topic should include a more complete

2 discussion of the radioactive emissions and also the impacts of particulate from construction of

3 cask storage facilities and other activities related to plant operation that are on-going (back up

4 systems for heating, cooling, etc). (MS-X-7)

5 Comment: The EIS needs to describe the impact on air quality and green house gas

6 emissions.

The specific EIS needs to consider CO2 7 production. The EIS needs to include data on CO2

8 production numbers by the nuclear fuel cycle. (how much has been released should be

9 concisely presented in table format for the past 2 decades of operation). In comparison to

renewable energy, energy from nuclear power releases 4-5 times more CO2 10 per unit of energy

produced. Contrary to the generic EIS and public belief, CO2 11 is emitted at every stage of the 7

12 stages of the nuclear fuel cycle: mining uranium milling, conversion, enrichment (90% of CO2

13 production), fabrication into fuel rods, reactor operations and finally waste "disposal". 

14 (MS-Y-36)

15 Comment: The EIS needs to quantify air releases, show how adequate air monitoring would

16 be performed, by whom and who would pay for it. The generic EIS only admits that small

17 amounts of ozone and smaller amounts of oxides of nitrogen are produced by transmission

18 lines (how much should be concisely presented in table format for the past 2 decades of

19 operation). (MS-Y-37)

20 Comment: The power created is clean, with virtually no harmful air emissions. (MS-Z-3)

21 Response: Air quality issues were evaluated in the GEIS and determined to be Category 1

22 issues. The comments provide no new and significant information on air quality and will,

23 therefore, not be evaluated further. 

24 8. Comments Concerning Land Use Issues

25 Comment: The EIS must consider the impact of the growth of the Metropolitan area, which is

26 now encroaching on the plant, putting more people in harms way, downwind and downriver. 

27 (MS-V-11)

28 Response: Land use issues were evaluated in the GEIS and determined to be Category 1

29 issues. The comment provides no new and significant information on land use and will,

30 therefore, not be evaluated further. 

31 9. Comments Concerning Human Health Issues

32 Comment: The second issue I would like to address has to do with, well, this new information

33 out. As we spoke yesterday or the day before, the National Academy of Scientists, it's not the
Appendix A

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 A-18 January 2006

1 BEIR [Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation] reports anymore. They don't call them the BEIR,

2 but the panel of the National Academy of Science that looks at biological consequences of

3 long-term, low-level exposure released the next round. And they confirm that there is no safe

4 threshold. In other words, if you are exposed to the degree that you are exposed, particularly

5 we will find if the exposure is not background, but rather internal because then it's ongoing, it

6 doesn't stop. It never stops if it's internal. And you can't escape it if it's internal, if you've

7 ingested or inhaled beta in particular. There is no safe threshold for that; and the degree of

8 exposure, the symptoms that will be exhibited increase proportional to the amount of exposure

9 that has happened all the way down to zero.

10 So based on that knowledge, why, we have a problem, in my opinion, with the monitoring that

11 goes on because we don't know -- we do know that these reactors as they explode uranium

12 atoms and provide the entire periodic chart of other elements, including all of their radioactive

13 sons and daughters. And then we release many of them because they're gases in particular.

14 And we store them for a while. And then we wait for a while. And then at some point we decide

15 it's time to let them go. And they report them to the NRC, and we've got a boxful of reports as

16 to how many curies of this and that went out. And the monitoring looks very convincing if you

17 don't know what you're looking at because it's dominated with TLD's, thermoluminescent

18 dosimeters, which are gamma ray detectors. 

19 Well, that's fine. We have a monitoring system that essentially will tell us when we have an

20 accident. We shouldn't need a monitoring system to tell us that. We should know that from

21 other sources. And what we should know is where are the reported releases going? Because

22 unless we know where they go, we don't know where the receptors are. And unless we know

23 where the receptors are, we don't know what the biological consequences of that reception are.

24 And so the scope of this EIS needs to include a requirement -- you need to have data included

25 in this EIS if what you're talking about is whether the consequences -- I saw it on the slide. 

26 What are the consequences of continued operation? You need to know before you can say

27 with any veracity what the consequences of continued operations are. You need to know where

28 do reported releases go? If you don't know that and if the EIS can't say that, you have no

29 business making any conclusions on whether the consequences, the environmental

30 consequences of your continued operations. (MS-D-7)

31 Comment: Extending operations at Monticello for 20 more years will also mean more

32 cancer-causing radiation emissions will be pumped into the atmosphere. (MS-S-10)

33 Comment: As with problems surrounding public involvement, problems surrounding

34 environmental concerns reveal broad segments of the population have been ignored by the

35 NRC. The NRC relies on studies that assume a healthy adult male who weighs approximately

36 150 pounds is the recipient of radiation emissions. (MS-S-12)
Appendix A

January 2006 A-19 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Comment: The NRC does not consider how radiation effects women, children, developing

2 fetuses, the elderly, people with immune deficiency problems, people who are obese, and

3 people who are underweight. The studies of radiation used by the NRC reveals a clear

4 discrimination against well over 50% of the population; it is sexist, ageist, and elitist. On this

5 latter point subjects are assumed to be healthy, i.e., individuals who have the resources to care

6 for their bodies and their diets. (MS-S-14)

7 Comment: The NRC does not consider long-term radiation exposure. It does not weigh basic

8 facts about human physiology. For example girls are born with all of their eggs intact. What is

9 the effect of long-term exposure to human eggs? Will there be decline in human health and

10 abilities over the next two to ten generations? (MS-S-15)

11 Comment: Generating electricity from nuclear material requires tremendous amounts of

12 energy to process the uranium. Much of this electricity comes from coal plants which produce

13 high levels of global warming carbon dioxide and high levels of mercury emissions which

14 ultimately end up in human bodies; the EPA now estimates that one in six pregnant women

15 have levels of mercury in their bodies high enough to jeopardize the development of the fetal

16 nervous system. (MS-S-17)

17 Comment: The EIS needs to acknowledge that there is no safe threshold for radiation

18 exposure. The widely acknowledged absence of a "safe" threshold for radiation exposure

19 should provide a strong reason for NRC not to renew Xcel Energy's reactor license. Its routine

20 operations cause radioactive pollution. "The fact that humans cannot escape exposure to

21 ionizing radiation from various natural sources, is no reason to let human activities increase the

22 exposure." (MS-Y-5)

23 Comment: The EIS needs to accurately reflect actual radiation exposure.

24 The EIS needs to consider the so-called "routine radioactive releases" for Monticello

25 specifically. During Monticello's operation radioactivity is both continuously emitted and

26 periodically batch-released to air and water. It is unclear in what quantities, and how often. 

27 These data should be presented in concise table format for the past two decades of operation. 

28 Dilution with large volumes of station circulating water into reservoirs, rivers and lakes makes

29 the releases "disappear." This is not "natural background" radiation. (MS-Y-6)

30 Comment: The EIS needs to consider that NRC does not tightly regulate radioactive releases.

31 NRC only asks Xcel Energy to "make every reasonable effort to maintain radiation exposures,

32 and releases of radioactive materials in effluents to unrestricted areas, as low as reasonably

33 achievable" (ALARA, 10 CFR 20). This is unacceptably vague and not considered a standard

34 procedure for health risk limit settings in regulatory toxicology. (MS-Y-7)

35 Comment: The EIS needs to consider, and if none is available or found, fund the collection of

36 up-to-date, in vivo radiation exposure data. NRC's generic EIS at 4.6.2 "Public Radiation
Appendix A

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 A-20 January 2006

1 Doses" presents unacceptably outdated, crudely modeled and ultimately uninformative data of

2 "maximally exposed individuals" from 1985-87. NRC's so-called "latest" report, Population

3 Dose Commitments Due to Radioactive Releases from Nuclear Power Plant Sites (1989), is 16

4 years old. None of the data are actual in-vivo measurements. (MS-Y-8)

5 Comment: The EIS must not exclusively rely on projections of radiation exposures. NRC

6 needs to review the population density around the plant. NRC need to review and reference

7 recent health studies that would confirm any low cancer incidence it assumes in the generic

8 EIS. (MS-Y-9)

9 Comment: The EIS for Monticello needs to use a dose commitment that integrates radiation

10 dose over time. NRC calculates radiation exposure only for the year of radiation release. In

11 contrast, most European nations use a dose commitment that integrates dose over time, rather

12 than only a one-time release. This non-dynamic modeling is akin to determining the cost of a

13 loan merely on the basis of the principal. (MS-Y-10)

14 Comment: The EIS needs to consider the effects and costs of long-term exposures by several

15 radionuclides including tritium. While most radionuclides emitted from Monticellos' nuclear

16 power reactor are relatively short-lived, there are some with long half-lives (like C14), and some

17 with infinitely long half lives (Ur238, 4.5 billion years) that can deliver harmful exposures for

18 months, years, thousands and millions of years. Despite of its relatively short half-life (12 y)

19 tritium is of high concern. It is a highly mobile radionuclide moving anywhere hydrogen does.

20 While it is a relatively weak beta emitter, humans can inhale, ingest and absorb tritiated water

21 and food, where it becomes an internal hazard, irradiating the tissue. Tritium can

22 bioaccumulate through the aquatic foodchain. However, NRC 's generic EIS at 4.6.1.1

23 (Radionuclide Deposition) argues on the one hand that Tritium is not known to build up, but

24 admits on the other hand that buildup is not explicitly accounted for in the aquatic food pathway. 

25 NRC 's tritium release limits remain lax, despite animal, human cell and DNA studies indicating

26 its toxicity. Paragraph 4.6.1 on public exposure falls woefully short on what needs to be

27 considered at Monticello, and seems more intent to deliver assurances than science based

28 information. (MS-Y-11)

29 Comment: The EIS needs to consider physiological or ecological interactions that would

30 mitigate exposures. Radionuclides can unite with carbon in the human body, plants, or animals.

31 Even though Tritium passes through the human body in 12 days, some becomes organically

32 bound and can remain in a person for much longer (450 to 650 days). One study even found

33 traces of tritium in the body 10 years after exposure. Similar processes happen in the natural

34 environment: As released radioactive gases decay, some form particulate and join other

35 persistent radioactive isotopes released as fallout. Long-lived isotopes persist, accumulate and

36 "bio-magnify" in biota through the food chain. (MS-Y-12)

37 Comment: The EIS needs to accurately estimate radiation-induced health risks in the general

38 population both at Monticello and the larger region.
Appendix A

January 2006 A-21 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 NRC needs to include emerging evidence on health effects in its EIS. More specifically the

2 1992 Energy Policy Act requires EPA to set public health and safety standards "based upon

3 and consistent with" the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences. NAS just

4 published their latest report on radiation risk in June 2005 (BEIR VII report). Sixty years after

5 Hiroshima, the full scope of effects of radiation on human beings is still incompletely

6 understood, but progress has been made in the past 10 years since writing of NRC's (sic)

7 generic EIS. (MS-Y-14)

8 Comment: The EIS needs to consider that NRC's radiation protection standards are not

9 protective of the majority of the US population. (MS-Y-16)

10 Comment: The EIS needs to consider that cancer risks from radiation exposure are higher

11 than previously estimated. The BEIR VII report is an improvement in so far as it estimates

12 cancer incidence and mortality according to age of exposure, gender and by cancer type. The

13 average risks to the population are estimated to be 10-15 % higher than the reference value

14 currently used for radiation protection of the general population (565 cancer fatalities per million

15 rem exposure in BEIR VII compared to 500). (MS-Y-17)

16 Comment: The EIS needs to consider non-cancer health risks. Newly emerging evidence

17 points to the fact that radiation can cause a spectrum of effects, such as reproductive and

18 cognitive impairment. We now know that certain life stages and situations exist, when exposure

19 to both radiation and hormonally-active compounds pose an increased risk to human health. 

20 As the BEIR VII report does not touch on publications after 2000, it is likely still underestimating

21 the true health impact. See below. (MS-Y-18)

22 Comment: The EIS needs to show how NRC intends to monitor for health effects in the

23 general population. The EIS needs to specify how NRC would achieve the monitoring rather

24 than relying on projections assisted by third parties with significant interest in a downplaying of

25 effects. In the absence of other tracking systems in Minnesota this should include at a

26 minimum an annual review of data from the state's cancer surveillance and birth defect registry,

27 and the specification as to who would pay for the monitoring of health effects. (MS-Y-19)

28 Comment: The EIS needs to account for sensitive subpopulations. NRC models still use a

29 hypothetical 154-lb. adult white male for dosimetric modeling and protection standard setting.

30 This does not take sensitive or divergent populations into account, such as 

31 a) women

32 b) infants and children

33 c) the unborn

34 d) the elderly
Appendix A

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 A-22 January 2006

1 e) immunocompromised (MS-Y-20)

2 Comment: The EIS needs to account for women's increased vulnerability. Women's critical

3 organ doses and effective doses (as defined in International Commission on Radiological

4 Protection 60) are about 25% higher than for men. Women's gonad doses may even be as

5 much as factors of 10-30 higher than in men. The risk for women to contract solid tumors like

6 lung, breast, kidney, and liver cancer due to radiation exposure is about double those for men.

7 The cancer mortality risks for females are 38% higher. Only for a few cancers, including

8 leukemia, the risk estimates for men are higher. The special hormonal status of females

9 increases cancer risk from exposure to ionizing radiation. Pregnant women appear to have an

10 increased risk of cancer. Furthermore, research in both humans and animals has shown that

11 interactions between hormonally-active chemicals and ionizing radiation may increase some

12 types of cancer. For instance, low doses of neutrons were more effective in inducing breast

13 cancer in female rats in combination with prolactin than without it. Hence radiation during

14 pregnancy, when prolactin is increased is adding to the cancer risk. (MS-Y-21)

15 Comment: The EIS needs to account for infants and children's increased vulnerability. 

16 Current NRC standards and models do not consider newborn's special vulnerability to radiation. 

17 Many radionuclides are excreted in breast milk, providing a special exposure pathway for

18 infants. The brain continues to develop during the first 2 years of life. Numerous studies show

19 that ionizing radiation can impair the developing human brain and affect cognitive processes. 

20 Further evidence is from children treated for leukemia or brain tumors, although confounding

21 factors cloud the issue somewhat. A recent study from Sweden examined 3000 men who

22 received irradiation for a skin problem as young children. It clearly demonstrated a significant

23 dose-response relationship for all cognitive tests at doses equivalent to those from computed

24 tomography of the skull. IQ loss is a lifelong health effect. Several longitudinal birth cohort

25 studies have shown that optimal brain development in utero and in the first years of life are a

26 determinant for how well cognitive abilities are preserved in old age. In other words brain

27 development impaired through radiation exposure during infancy and early childhood predicts

28 cognitive decline in old age. Therefore costs from this health effect accrue over a long time. 

29 The risk for children to contract radiation-induced cancer is high, even higher than for women. 

30 For instance, the same radiation in the first year of life for boys produces 3-4 times the cancer

31 risk as exposure between age 20 and 50. Female infants have almost double the risk as male

32 infants. A study in the August 2003 issue of the Archives of Environmental Health showed that

33 children growing up in regions with nuclear power plants develop cancer twice as frequently as

34 controls/the national average. Milk teeth from the 47 cancer-stricken children contained higher

35 levels of Sr-90. Radiation induced child health effects that need to be considered in the EIS are

36 not merely loss of life and cancer, like leukemia later in life, but also chronic health conditions,

37 such as an increased chance of birth defects, impaired fertility or IQ loss. The societal impacts

38 and costs due to lost earning potential and mental retardation deserve NRC's special

39 consideration. Unfortunately NRC de facto ignores the risk of low dose radiation in its

40 protection standards. (MS-Y-22)
Appendix A

January 2006 A-23 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Comment: The EIS needs to account for the increased vulnerability of the developing fetus.

2 Since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki it is well known that the unborn child is very

3 sensitive to the effects of radiation. One reason is that the cells of the embryo are rapidly

4 dividing and growing into specialized cells and tissues. This is accomplished through a

5 complicated orchestration of high-level hormonal activity. A growing body of literature informs

6 on synergism between hormonally-active compounds and radiation. The hypothalamo pituitary

7 axis is a major regulator for endocrine activities, which are increasingly impacted by ubiquitous

8 endocrine disrupting chemicals. There is general support for the view that development and

9 programming of this axis during fetal life is the most sensitive window to permanently alter the

10 homeostatic mechanisms of the endocrine system, including the mature reproductive system.

11 Prenatal radiation exposures clearly are causes of endocrine-related cancers or susceptibility

12 thereto. Low doses of X-rays to the fetus, especially during the last trimester, cause an

13 increased risk of leukemia and all other types of cancer during childhood. Even use of

14 therapeutic X ray of infants is associated with thyroid and breast cancer later in life. It is my

15 understanding that current models to calculate internal radiation doses do not permit adequate

16 modeling of the dose to individual organs within the fetus, even though this would obviously be

17 quite important for safety assessments. Very few authors have attempted to make such

18 individual organ dose estimates. However, with each additional study it is becoming clearer

19 that placental transfer and fetal dose estimates have historically been underestimated. For

20 example, the fetus is cradled above and behind the mother's bladder, which concentrates

21 radionnuclides and can provide additional radiation exposure, a source previously discounted. 

22 Despite available evidence the quantification of the unborn child's health risks from exposure of

23 parents to radiation is a task that NAS still has to tackle. Yet, NRC cannot afford to wait

24 another 15 years fort the next NAS report. NRC needs to err on the side of caution and

25 consider birth defects, intellectual and reproductive impairment as radiation related health effect

26 in its impact analysis. (MS-Y-23)

27 Comment: The EIS needs to account for the increased vulnerability of the elderly. Older age

28 radiation exposures are associated with higher cancer mortality. (MS-Y-24)

29 Comment: The EIS needs to account for the increased vulnerability of the

30 immunocompromised. Radiation-induced cell damages are less likely to be repaired by a

31 person with an incompetent immune system as can be gleaned from the secondary cancer rate

32 in cancer survivors after radiation therapy. The number of people whose immune system is

33 compromised is rapidly increasing in our region due to immunosuppressive medical treatments

34 and increased survival of people with infections and congenital immune deficiencies. 

35 (MS-Y-25)

36 Response: The comments are related to human health issues. Human health issues were

37 evaluated in the GEIS and were determined to be Category 1 issues. The GEIS evaluated

38 radiation exposures to the public for all plants including Monticello, and concluded that the

39 impact was small. During the plant-specific environmental review of Monticello, the NRC will

40 determine whether there is any new and significant information bearing on the previous analysis
Appendix A

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 A-24 January 2006

1 in the GEIS. The information provided by the comments will be reviewed as part of that search.

2 In addition, evaluation of new studies and analyses of the health effects of radiation exposure,

3 such as BEIR VII, is an ongoing effort at the NRC. If significant new information is found, the

4 NRC will perform a plant-specific analysis of this environmental impact. This issue will be

5 addressed in Chapter 4 of the SEIS.

6 10. Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues

7 Comment: On a different note, Monticello is more than a power plant operated by highly

8 skilled workers. Monticello is part of this community. Not only does the plant rely upon many

9 local companies for goods and services, but our employees live in and contribute to these

10 communities and the surrounding communities on a daily basis.

11 We're proud to participate and give back to the community in a variety of ways, including

12 serving on city and town boards, as leaders in civic and community organizations, as sports

13 coaches, on church committees, boards and councils, and as members of charitable

14 organizations. Our employees also help raise money for our local United Way organizations,

15 the Relay for Life, the American Cancer Society, the Rotary Club, STARS Hockey Association,

16 just to list a few. (MS-A-7; MS-I-7)

17 Comment: Monticello provides significant benefits, as John has pointed out, to the local and

18 state economies by providing more than 500 full-time, family-supporting jobs. The plants and

19 its employees purchase numerous goods and services from the local businesses and contribute

20 and support the local charities and community organizations.

21 The plant also provides significant tax support to the local community. Xcel Energy is

22 committed to being a good neighbor and fostering those continued economic growth in the

23 region. (MS-B-8; MS-J-8)

24 Comment: This facility with the 500 jobs it does offer our community offers excellent career

25 growth and retirement for the residents. It brings about economic vitality to all of our

26 community. 

27 Xcel closely works with city officials and county officials dealing with safety and security issues. 

28 During refueling, hundreds more contractors and subcontractors frequent our hotel, motels and

29 restaurants, bringing more economic vitality to our community. (MS-C-1)

30 Comment: Previously you heard many examples of Xcel being a good neighbor. Another

31 example is its commitment to youth and actually other older residents, such as myself. They

32 have provided excellent softball and youth league baseball/softball facilities. It's a modern

33 facility where many residents and non-resident families come to spend quality time. Prior to this

34 location, NSP had provided a men's softball complex adjacent to Montissippi Park. This has

35 now been converted to an area for radio-controlled model airplane enthusiasts. (MS-C-2)
Appendix A

January 2006 A-25 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Comment: The plant has provided stable good paying jobs for many people in the community

2 and has aided the community in this respect by bringing many people to Monticello for

3 employment. A great number of these individuals have contributed much to the town in terms

4 of leadership and volunteerism. (MS-L-2)

5 Comment: Xcel (sic) has made it a policy to aggressively seek to provide sponsorship for a

6 great for a large number of community activities designed to make Monticello a cleaner, safer

7 and better place to live. Their contribution to Monticello's tax base alone has also assisted

8 many community residents by lowering property taxes. (MS-L-4)

9 Comment: The Monticello Nuclear Plant has been an excellent neighbor to our community and

10 school district for more than 35 years. Over the years many of the employees have resided in

11 our community and sent their children to our schools. In addition, the employees have been

12 civic minded members of our community. Numerous employees have joined local organizations

13 and have served as community volunteers. Members of the Monticello Nuclear Plant have

14 historically supported various community events such as the United Way and the annual River

15 Fest Celebration. (MS-N-2)

16 Comment: The plant has also provided the area with a substantial tax base for our city,

17 township and school district. (MS-N-4)

18 Comment: The Hospital District provides several programs such as Home Delivered Meals,

19 Childbirth Education Classes, and music therapy for our Nursing Home residents that receive

20 financial support from the United Way. Employees of the nuclear plant have supported the

21 United Way. Plant employees are a part of our volunteer activities for our patients and

22 residents. The local economy is better with the tax support provided by the nuclear plant. 

23 Monticello is growing rapidly and having the license renewal for the nuclear plant will provide

24 stability for our community. (MS-O-3)

25 Comment: I also operate a local business and we say that many of our best customers are

26 employees of the plant. They have been known to hire first class people and pay a very nice

27 wage. In addition you will find employees to be active in local churches, coaching a youth

28 hockey and baseball team, president of a local group like rotary. They do a wonderful job of

29 having a quiet and almost invisible physical location while being very visible around the

30 community. In addition to the employees it is easy to see and notice how the plant itself prides

31 itself in supporting a whole variety of local efforts and charitable type events. (MS-P-3)

32 Comment: Last but not least is that I know they pay a whole lot of money in taxes. This is

33 critical for all of us locally here in Monticello, but also spreads much further throughout all of

34 Minnesota. (MS-P-4)

35 Comment: The plant employs nearly 500 people with an annual payroll of over $50 million

36 dollars, which is of course of great benefit to our community. But these employees are also a
Appendix A

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 A-26 January 2006

1 wonderful asset to the spirit of Monticello with their generosity, volunteerism and support of our

2 local business and school district. Both the employees and the Company have been extremely

3 generous to the United Way and many additional local charities in our continuing quest for an

4 active and vibrant community. (MS-R-2)

5 Comment: Beyond this fact, there are many local benefits to the Nuclear Plant in Monticello. It

6 plays an important role in the local economy, both as an employer and taxpayer to local families

7 and governments. The company and its employees have demonstrated their support to the

8 community through donations and volunteer efforts to various local groups, organizations and

9 charities. (MS-T-2)

10 Comment: The plant is a vital asset to our state and important to my community. More than

11 500 people are employed full time at the plant. (MS-Z-2)

12 Comment: WHEREAS, a reliable, low cost and environmentally sound electric supply with a

13 diverse energy mix is critical to economic well-being; (MS-AA-1; MS-AC-1)

14 Comment: WHEREAS, the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant provides nearly 500 full-time

15 jobs and contributes significantly to the local and state economy; (MS-AA-3; MS-AC-3;

16 MS-AD-4)

17 Comment: WHEREAS, the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant is now, and will continue to

18 be, a significant contributor to the local tax base, ... (MS-AC-5)

19 Comment: WHEREAS, nuclear power is a reliable, low cost and environmentally sound source

20 of electricity, and is an important factor in a diverse energy mix that is critical to our economic

21 well-being; (MS-AD-2)

22 Response: The comments are supportive of license renewal at Monticello Nuclear Generating

23 Plant, and are general in nature. The comments provide no new and significant information on

24 socioeconomic issues, and therefore, will not be evaluated further.

25 Comment: The EIS needs to assess the negative socioeconomic impacts on Monticello

26 a) The EIS should specify Monticello nuclear plant tax payments as the percentage of the total

27 city and county revenue. The data under 4.7.2 Taxes in the generic EIS show tremendous

28 variation and are not helpful (<1 - 88%).

29 b) The EIS should specify how many jobs and how many families depend on the Monticello

30 nuclear plant as the percentage of the total city and county population. This would better

31 illustrate an impact that needs to be explicitly considered, not projected. Dependence on

32 the nuclear plant is a risk factor to the region.
Appendix A

January 2006 A-27 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 c) The EIS should provide actual details about the change in land use pattern since licensing 

2 of the reactor. The generic EIS paragraph 4.7.4 Off-Site Land Use is insufficient in judging

3 whether sprawl with all its negative human and ecosystem health impacts is a result of the

4 plant. The area to the immediate southeast of the reactor is one of the fastest growing

5 communities in Minnesota. (MS-Y-32)

6 Response: The comment is related to socioeconomic impacts on taxes, employment, and land

7 use issues specific to Monticello. Socioeconomic impacts such as taxes, employment, and land

8 use are Category 2 issues. These issues will be addressed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the SEIS.

9 Comment: It's interesting as the severe accident mitigation alternatives, whatever that is, we

10 have a substantial southeast Asian immigrant population in Minnesota, and they don't speak

11 English and they eat a lot of fish. And so if we have a severe accident at Monticello and we

12 contaminate a stretch of the river, we need to have a specific methodology of notification of all

13 those communities and those individuals that may fish in the upper reaches of the Mississippi. 

14 And so that includes like four southeast Asian languages and all that type of thing. And they

15 don't necessarily follow the strict rules and regulations that we might have. And so it's going to

16 be a substantial effort of notification. Otherwise you're going to have missed a large population

17 that would be directly impacted. And also a large Hispanic, Latino community as well that in

18 fact probably also does not speak English. And so you have all these groups that you must

19 include in your analysis. (MS-E-3)

20 Comment: The NRC also fails to address how low-income people in the Twin Cities Metro

21 area would be able to procure safe drinking water in the event that the Mississippi River

22 became contaminated by nuclear material. (MS-S-13)

23 Response: Environmental justice is an issue specific to Monticello and will be discussed in

24 Chapter 4 of the SEIS.

25 11. Comments Concerning Postulated Accidents

26 Comment: I also work with the North American Water Office, and my primary interest is that

27 the Monticello Nuclear Facility is upstream from water intake, drinking water intake, for the

28 Minneapolis city. And it is the only source of drinking water.

29 And so I would charge the NRC in their EIS analysis if there is an accident and there is a

30 substantive discharge into that waterway, we have no alternative drinking water. And I would

31 charge you that it is a severe environmental justice issue because people can't go and buy

32 bottled water. Who is going to supply the water supply for 2 million people? And what are the

33 costs of that, and how are you going to protect the water supply of Minneapolis?
Appendix A

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 A-28 January 2006

1 St. Paul also gets a substantive percentage of its water from the Mississippi. They do have

2 some deep wells and some lakes that they can also -- that they do also use. And so there is an

3 additional exposure for St. Paul that you must consider. (MS-E-1)

4 Comment: So I'm inquiring about the severe accident mitigation alternatives. I found the

5 analysis in they call it consequence bins quite helpful and, you know, easy to follow. But what

6 was very unclear to me when the EIS explained these different categories of release potential,

7 extreme, more than 50 percent of the inventory of cesium iodine being released. And then

8 large, between 20 and 50 percent, which, of course, is really a huge range I think in terms of

9 impact. Medium, small and negligible.

10 It explained that the severity depends upon the amount of the release in relation to the time in

11 which general emergency was declared and people were alerted and were able to be,

12 mitigation measures were able to be taken.

13 What was completely unclear to me in the environmental review is whether or not the NRC has

14 any specific standards for this. How that decision is made? Who makes the decision as to

15 whether the general emergency is declared? When people are notified? Whether they're --

16 and I think this bears upon the question of the water supply as well. I became aware of this

17 question when I was sitting in on a technical representatives meeting, which they have monthly

18 in the Environmental Quality Board.

19 And I think it's the Health Department. I'm not sure if it's the Health Department or the PCA, but

20 many of the agencies are involved right now in a review of protections for service waters that

21 serve as drinking waters under the EPA requirement, voluntary requirement. 

22 And there were ten -- this has been like a six-month or eight-month, year-long process

23 identifying the inventory, the service water inventories. And then determining what the priority

24 contaminants were that they were going to consider. And one of those priority contaminants

25 was specifically radioactive contamination from Monticello plant. And so this is something that

26 is on the docket in this review, EPA review. (MS-F-1)

27 Comment: The Monticello nuclear power plant is located upstream from the Twin Cities on the

28 Mississippi River. Residents of Minneapolis, St. Paul, as well as substantial numbers of people

29 who live in sections of first-ring suburbs such as Edina get their drinking water from the

30 Mississippi. (MS-S-2)

31 Comment: The NRC has failed to adequately address risks to ground water contamination.

32 According to the NRC's own study the soils at the Monticello site are primarily Hubbards which

33 are highly permeable and also have limited available water capacity. These soils readily

34 transmit rainwater and surface water to groundwater supplies. In the event of radio-active

35 material seeping out of containment units it is quite likely that groundwater sources and even

36 aquifers could become contaminated. (MS-S-25)
Appendix A

January 2006 A-29 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Response: The comments are related to the impacts of design basis accidents and severe

2 accidents. The impacts of design basis accidents were evaluated in the GEIS and determined

3 to be small for all plants; therefore, it is a Category 1 issue. The GEIS evaluated severe

4 accidents for all plants including Monticello, and concluded that the impact was small. 

5 However, alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that have

6 not considered such alternatives. During the plant-specific environmental review of Monticello,

7 the NRC will determine whether there is any new and significant information bearing on the

8 previous analysis in the GEIS. Section 5.1.2 of the plant-specific SEIS for Monticello will

9 address severe accidents. The applicant provided a severe accident mitigation alternatives

10 (SAMA) analysis as part of the license renewal application for Monticello. The NRC staff's

11 review of the SAMA analysis will discussed in Section 5.2 of the plant-specific SEIS for

12 Monticello. 

13 12. Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues

14 Comment: Relicensing Monticello will result in more spent nuclear waste being generated near

15 this valuable water resource. (MS-S-3)

16 Comment: The NRC makes no provisions to ensure that the energy needed to process

17 uranium, and extract uranium is generated by sources such as wind or solar that do not

18 produce harmful mercury, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen oxide emissions. (MS-S-18)

19 Comment: The NRC fails to acknowledge that there is no way to access accurately the true

20 cost of securing and storing spent nuclear fuel for future taxpayers. Such an exercise is futile

21 as there is no way to know how strong future economies will be. 

22 The NRC fails to acknowledge that a large percentage of our financial resources will be diverted

23 from other areas in order to provide financial resources for securing nuclear facilities and

24 storing nuclear waste. (MS-S-20)

25 Comment: An obscure amendment to the federal energy bill (S706, HR2189) just passed

26 7/29/05, eases the restriction on overseas export of bomb grade uranium. (Sorry, I don't have

27 the section number.) Exporting toxic and hazardous waste is a common practice for a rich

28 country such as ours. 

29 With the clear and present threat of nuclear terrorism, exporting bomb grade uranium would be

30 unthinkable if it were not real. Amassing deadly bomb-grade materials tempts corporate

31 decision-makers to take the export "solution." What guarantees exist to keep this waste in our

32 own state or nation? (MS-U-1)

33 Comment: There is an assumption that the federal government will somehow "take care of"

34 the N-waste. However, since the last century when nuclear weapons/power came on-line there
Appendix A

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 A-30 January 2006

1 is no clear solution about long term storage. There has been a lot of money spent and rhetoric

2 said, but nothing is settled. (MS-U-5)

3 Comment: The EIS must address the environmental impact due to continued operation for an

4 extended (sic) license term, where there is more radioactive material to be stored, higher

5 burnup rate waste is dangerous for longer periods, more casks needed, etc. Assemblies will

6 increase from 1630 to 4512, nearly tripled, by 2030. (MS-V-8)

7 Comment: Is this temporary or permanent storage? The EIS must determine what will happen

8 to the nuclear waste at the end of the term of licensure. If there is no answer, a number of

9 reasonable scenarios must be fully analyzed, with caretaking of waste and maintenance of

10 casks and facility assured to end point. (MS-V-13)

11 Comment: Additionally, due to the fact that a long-term storage facility is unlikely to be built

12 anytime soon, and that facility will not have room for additional waste from Monticello, this issue

13 will be affecting generations of Minnesotans and metro residents. (MS-X-1)

14 Comment: Item 28, Infrastructure impacts. More information needs to be included including

15 impacts of transporting nuclear fuel to the facility by truck or rail and explanation of why the

16 plant needs electricity, it is a nuclear power plant after all. (MS-X-9)

17 Comment: Item 30, Social, Economic, and Community impacts (Other). There needs to be a

18 discussion of the larger impacts of transporting nuclear fuel into the Monticello Community and

19 metro area, the ongoing operations of the plant, and the long term impacts of storing highly

20 reactive nuclear waste at a site for 200-10,000 years. (MS-X-11)

21 Comment: The long-term ability of humans to store, contain, and manage nuclear waste is

22 something yet untested. While some may argue that we have done so effectively for the most

23 of the last 50 years there are numerous case studies to argue the opposite point (e.g. Three

24 Mile Island, Chernoble Disaster). Since the production of nuclear electricity is non-sustainable

25 in its current form and since there are no methods to properly address long-term storage of

26 deadly nuclear waste we think it is fairly myopic and somewhat reckless to move forward unless

27 all risks are clearly delineated in the public's view. (MS-X-12)

28 Comment: The EIS needs to consider transportation accidents involving nuclear material. 

29 (MS-Y-27)

30 Response: The comments are related to the environmental impacts associated with the

31 uranium fuel cycle, which were evaluated in the GEIS and determined to be Category 1 issues. 

32 The GEIS evaluated impacts associated with the uranium fuel cycle for all plants including

33 Monticello, and determined that the impact was small. During the plant-specific environmental

34 review of Monticello, the NRC will determine whether there is any new and significant

35 information bearing on the previous analysis in the GEIS. If significant new information is
Appendix A

January 2006 A-31 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 found, the NRC will perform a plant-specific analysis of these environmental impacts. Chapter

2 6.0 of the plant-specific SEIS for Monticello will address these issues. The comments provide

3 no new information and, therefore, will not be evaluated further.

4 13. Comments Concerning Alternatives

5 Comment: Our analyses show that keeping Monticello and Prairie Island as part of that

6 diverse energy mix will benefit our customers by an estimated $1billion in today's dollars during

7 the life extension periods, compared with the next best replacement options. Our analysis also

8 shows that keeping the plants running will result in significantly lower air emissions than would

9 occur if they were shut down and replaced with the only realistic alternatives, which are coal or

10 natural gas-fired plants. (MS-B-5; MS-J-5)

11 Comment: And it's incumbent upon the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in its scoping of a

12 commitment for an additional 20 years of reactor operations to at least be mindful of what's

13 happening in the next five years relative to how electric utility services are going to be delivered.

14 CBED stands for Community Based Energy Development. And what it means is that we have

15 an opportunity of taking advantage of the modern technologies, as opposed to the obsolete

16 ones, which we're talking about here today, to look at the distributed dispersed capacity that

17 can and will be coming on-line very rapidly in the next five years.

18 CBED enables those energy systems to come on line in a way that we've never experienced

19 before. It provides a negotiating framework for the power companies to negotiate power

20 purchase agreements with independent qualifying producers of energy. Locally owned,

21 community-based energy. The type of energy development that will have to happen if we are

22 ever to get out of our commitments to central station power and all of the problems that that

23 represents in terms of how you manage nuclear waste for 140,000 years or more. What do we

24 do about the mercury contamination? What do we do about global warming in particular from

25 the coal chain? What about all the security threats from the nukes and all of the routine

26 releases from the nukes and the catastrophic threats that nuclear power represents?

27 If we're going to work out of those binds, we will need to make a transition. And CBED is a

28 profound tool that will enable that transition to happen. Right now it's true. It's for wind, and we

29 recognize that wind can be an intermittent resource, not a base-load resource. And we all like

30 to have the lights turned on even when the wind isn't blowing.

31 But it's also true that CBED projects provide an opportunity for us to now move forward to the

32 hybrid systems where wind is married to combustion technologies. And right now -- well, there

33 is the Public Utilities Commission meets next week, where we will be authorizing a test burn of

34 a 2-megawatt diesel generator to a wind system in Southwest Minnesota in Rock County by

35 Luverne.
Appendix A

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 A-32 January 2006

1 And what will happen there is we're going to figure out how, as the wind tapers off, the

2 combustion capacity can come on. And before very long, before this year is out, we'll have a

3 pretty good handle on how to handle about 600 megawatts of peak during the year, which will

4 be extremely lucrative to power producers because having 600 megawatts -- 600 hours, having

5 a megawatt available on demand for 600 hours a year, your call utility, that's worth about six or

6 seven thousand dollars a month, in addition to the energy, to have the capacity.

7 So we have the economic opportunity for this development to happen. And before two or three

8 years are up, we'll be down on the shoulders of that peak. We'll be up to 14, 16, 1800 hours a

9 year. And before this plant gets renewed, we're going to be swinging with a load duration curve

10 just like Sherco 3 does. And then we're in business. (MS-D-3)

11 Comment: And as an afterthought, we go through the IRP, the Integrated Resource Planning

12 process, to figure something out about conservation, because that's in the public good. Well,

13 we're going to figure out at some point it is my fondest hope -- well, maybe second fondest --

14 that we figure out how to tie the financial health of the utility systems to what we all really want,

15 which is the efficient use of resources, rather than the wasteful consumption. 

16 And when we do that, we're going to find that we're wasting right now well over 50, 60, 70

17 percent of all of the kilowatt hours we consume. We don't need to if what we're focused on is

18 how to get us the light that we want, or the refrigeration that we want, or the industrial drive that

19 we want, rather than just selling bulk kilowatt hours.

20 So these are changes that are coming at you, NRC, in the time period that you're looking at for

21 renewing this license. And I'm just really, I'm confused as to how you are going to evaluate

22 that. (MS-D-5)

23 Comment: But when you consider alternatives, which you need to do, I would like to urge you

24 to consider putting coal gasification that is slated to go elsewhere in Minnesota down here

25 instead of nuclear. You preserve the jobs. You get rid of nuclear. You don't have to deal with

26 those types of environmental issues, and I'll submit information in detail about that. (MS-G-1)

27 Comment: I am also concerned about alternatives. And again I live in Red Wing, which is

28 right by Prairie Island, down river from Prairie Island, and also down river from this plant. So I

29 would urge you to consider everything that Kristen particularly was talking about, and I will just

30 give details on this later. But in alternatives, there are options being considered for Minnesota

31 that would work really well here. This site is set up for it. It's time to consider some of those. 

32 (MS-G-3)

33 Comment: The "permanent" solution is transition to gasification, wind, solar roof panels,

34 weather stripping, tighter windows a thousand improvements to improve our quality of life and

35 also boost local employment. (MS-U-9)
Appendix A

January 2006 A-33 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Comment: No Action Alternative. Comment 1: EIS must consider current levels of load and

2 generation in the region and state.

3 Comment 2: EIS must consider load and generation to evaluate impact of no action alternative:

4 MAPP 2004 Load and Capability Report

5 MAPP Form 3 (most recent version)

6 NERC 2004 Long-Term Reliability Assessment Report

7 CapX2020 Report

8 Rationale for Comments 1 and 2: The Federal Register notes that the "No Action" alternative

9 will be considered. As a part of this alternative analysis, the NRC must consider the current

10 levels of load and generation in the region and state to put the "No Action" alternative in

11 context, including, but not limited to the MAPP 2004 Load and Capability Report and the MAPP

12 Form 3 list of generation, the 2004 NERC Reliability Assessment Report, particularly the MAPP

13 and MAIN sections, and the CapX2020 report claiming a "need" of 6,000 MW and the MISO

14 queue with 16,712 MW in generation waiting in line. (MS-V-2)

15 Comment: Reasonable Alternative Energy Sources. Comment 3: The EIS must consider

16 reasonable alternatives including natural gas fueled combined cycle plant as a reasonable

17 alternative to Monticello.

18 Comment 4: The EIS must consider the Mesaba coal gasification plant as replacement,

19 electrically and physically, for Monticello.

20 Comment 5: The EIS must consider the efficiencies and environmental benefits of utilizing

21 pre-existing infrastructure and plant components in replacing Monticello with the Mesaba coal

22 gasification generation balanced against continuation of Monticello nuclear generation and

23 construction and operation of Mesaba elsewhere.

24 Comment 6: The EIS must consider system wide distributed, renewable generation as a

25 reasonable alternative to Monticello.

26 Rationale for Comments 3, 4, 5 and 6: Rationale: Xcel claims it needs generation and that it

27 should rely on coal and nuclear. The coal gasification option was mandated by the legislature,

28 yet because of the market realities of high electrical availability, a power contract was also

29 mandated. Because of these mandates, Mesaba should be analyzed as the first replacement

30 option for nuclear power. Monticello relicensing is before us right now, and the Mesaba

31 application to the EQB is imminent. (MS-V-3)
Appendix A

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 A-34 January 2006

1 Comment: Comment 7: The NRC must evaluate, as reasonable alternatives, combinations of

2 different intermittent generation, such as wind with gas and/or biomass, to give capacity

3 equivalent to capacity percentages of "baseload" coal and nuclear.

4 Rationale for Comment 7: Xcel unreasonably relies exclusively on coal and nuclear when

5 combinations of other fuel options could provide generation equal to, for example, the 70% or

6 so availability of Monticello (40% wind plus just 30% gas = 70% capacity! See, that wasn't so

7 hard.). (MS-V-4)

8 Comment: We would also suggest that alternatives to continued operations at the Monticello

9 facility be properly evaluated, particularly part 5 titled "Systemwide Renewable, distributed

10 generation" which could include the construction of wind farms, solar farms, or other renewable

11 energy sources where the fuel is present locally and the method of generation not inherently

12 dangerous. The # four option of "Wind and Gas" would also be a much more benign scenario

13 to continued operations and infinitely long storage of nuclear waste on-site. (MS-X-3)

14 Comment: WHEREAS, replacement of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant would result in

15 an electric rate increase and significantly increased emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen

16 oxides, and sulfur dioxide. (MS-AA-4)

17 Comment: WHEREAS, replacement of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant would result in

18 an electric rate increase and significant increased emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides

19 and sulfur dioxide... (MS-AC-4; MS-AD-5)

20 Response: The comments are related to the environmental impacts of alternatives to license

21 renewal at Monticello. The GEIS included a discussion of alternative energy sources. 

22 Environmental impacts associated with various reasonable alternatives to renewal of the

23 Monticello operating license will be evaluated in Chapter 8 of the SEIS.

24 Comment: The latest scientific evidence needs to be researched and referenced. The

25 references of the generic EIS are testimony that the document is at the minimum 11 years old

26 and largely outdated when it comes to renewable energy literature. The EIS needs to show, for

27 example, that solar power holds tremendous promise in our region now, as there is increased

28 PV efficiency, state governmental support, and PV panel costs continue to decline an average

29 of 5% annually. The argument of land use and solar is incredibly exaggerated, as PV-panels in

30 urban areas are readily mounted on existing buildings. Solar energy has one of the highest job

31 intensities per unit of output of any energy technology, and thus has huge benefits to the local

32 economies that adopt them. In addition to jobs from the contractors that install systems, the

33 Minnesota economy is projected to benefit from an expanding solar energy manufacturing

34 industry including growth in such areas as semiconductors, plastic films, electronic equipment,

35 instrument measuring, switchgear and switchboard apparatus, wiring, storage batteries, sheet

36 metal, and flat glass. (MS-Y-39)
Appendix A

January 2006 A-35 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Response: The GEIS is subject to periodic review and update; in 2003, the NRC initiated an

2 effort to update the GEIS. As new information becomes available, the NRC determines

3 whether it is sufficiently significant to change a position. In Section 8.3 of the GEIS, the staff

4 described the alternative energy technologies and evaluated the environmental impacts of

5 supply and demand alternatives with the focus of "... the purpose and need of the proposed

6 action [i.e., to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a

7 current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs as such

8 needs may be determined by state, utility, and, where authorized, federal (other than NRC)

9 decision makers]...." The staff focus is on the power generation capability of a baseload

10 nuclear power plant. Alternative energy sources will be discussed in Chapter 8 of the SEIS. 

Comment: The EIS needs to be sensitive to the issue of CO2 11 reduction. (MS-Y-40) 

12 Response: The comment raises issues related to alternative energy sources, which will be

13 evaluated in Chapter 8 of the SEIS.

14 Comment: The EIS needs to present a fair and accurate alternatives analysis.

15 The energy alternatives need to be discussed in an impartial manner. The generic EIS has a

16 definite inherent pro-nuclear spin. Could it be because the nuclear power industry has been

17 given more taxpayer dollars for research and development than any other energy sector? 

18 (MS-Y-38)

19 Response: The comment is outside the scope of license renewal related environmental

20 impacts. The NRC's regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 require the NRC to consider all reasonable

21 alternatives to a proposed action as part of its NEPA review. The license renewal review

22 evaluates a reasonable range of alternatives to supply baseload electric power generation. The

23 analysis of alternatives to license renewal presented in the GEIS will be supplemented by a

24 plant-specific alternatives analysis of license renewal at Monticello. The comment fails to

25 provide any new and significant information, and will not be evaluated further.

26 14. Comments Concerning Aging Management

27 Comment: The Monticello plant has also been well maintained over its lifetime. Approximately

28 every two years we perform a refueling and maintenance outage, in which we typically carry out

29 over 2,500 individual maintenance and inspection activities. This is in addition to the ongoing

30 maintenance, inspection, and rigorous testing activities that are performed at the time the plant

31 is operating on-line.

32 Over on the years, we have continued to invest in a wide range of equipment improvements to

33 take advantage of technology and materials to ensure future reliable and safe operation. As

34 computer training methods have evolved, we are able to broaden the training available. As we
Appendix A

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 A-36 January 2006

1 move forward, we will continue to upgrade the equipment and technology at the station. 

2 (MS-A-4; MS-J-4)

3 Comment: And then we get to the aging issues for these reactors. Now, I understand, as I

4 said in my opening remarks, I understand the commitment of the work force and the intent of

5 the work force. But I also know that we have part of the fail-safe systems bolted to the packing

6 crate at Monticello as well as at Duane Arnold for 35 years before it was discovered. Never

7 took the bolts off. 

8 So just because you're good and paying attention doesn't mean things can't happen. I know

9 what happened at Davis Besse, where they were looking really hard, and they didn't find it

10 because they weren't looking in the right place. I know it happened at Point Beach when the

11 nuclear physicists forgot their high school chemistry and they caused an explosion in a cask. 

12 Damned near tipped the lid into the pool, which could have drained the pool; and then we would

13 have some fire works. It didn't happen, fortunately.

14 But these are all examples; and there is many, many more. NRC knows them, so I won't bore

15 you with them, but we're pushing the envelope with all of this stuff. You guys to got to do a

16 better job of figuring out where to look when. You have to have more different ways of -- you

17 have to find more diverse ways of looking at things. You've got to figure out not only where to

18 look, but when to look. And you have to do that in a way that provides more assurance, than

19 we have in the past, you're not overlooking things.

20 Things age. As things age, I mean it's the bathtub curve. Are you familiar with the bathtub

21 curve concept? Things of life where in the early -- using a human example, there is a death

22 mortality rate for infants which is higher than for juveniles and adults. And then it goes up again

23 at the end, and in the long run we'll all be dead.

24 Well, the same with reactors or any other piece of equipment. It goes through a curve. And

25 now that we're doing re-licensing, you see we're getting into the tail end of that curve, and that's

26 why we look at aging things. But you're not looking at them good enough is the point. And the

27 unfortunate point is that there is no way that you can look at it good enough because you can't

28 always look everywhere. (MS-D-12)

29 Comment: Objectively, relicensing an old nuclear power plant beyond its expected peak

30 performance is an accident waiting to happen. Picture a Bell Curve, problems with a

31 complicated energy plant occur at the beginning and end of its production-time. Where is

32 Monticello on that curve? Three Mile Island, Chernobyl the lesson will be repeated until it is

33 learned. (MS-U-7)

34 Response: The NRC's environmental review focuses on environmental impacts relevant to the

35 extended period of operation requested by the applicant. Safety matters related to aging are

36 outside the scope of this review. An NRC safety review for the license renewal period is

37 conducted separately, and will be documented in an NRC staff Safety Evaluation Report. The
Appendix A

January 2006 A-37 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 comments provide no new information and will not be evaluated further in the context of the

2 environmental review. However, the comments will be forwarded to the project manager for the

3 license renewal safety review for consideration.

4 Comment: In addition, it has recently come to our attention that there are some age related

5 component degradation (sic) issues the EIS needs to address. Specifically, the potential of

6 mounting base plates, grout, and/or mounting hardware for pumps, heat exchangers,

7 compressors, tanks, turbines and motors to fail due to age-related degradation needs to be

8 examined.

9 Further, valve stem and pump shaft packing and gasket material, and other sealing materials

10 required to prevent system leakage to the environment where shafts penetrate through a pump

11 casings, valve body/bonnets, and other components needs to be analyzed for age-related

12 degradation.

13 Further, consumables such as lubrication media including oils and greases must be analyzed

14 from the perspective of age-related degradation.

15 Finally, valve internals flow isolation sealing subcomponents such as valve discs, plugs, and/or

16 gates must be analyzed from an aging management program perspective. (MS-W-1)

17 Response: The NRC's environmental review focuses on environmental impacts relevant to the

18 extended period of operation requested by the applicant. Safety matters related to aging are

19 outside the scope of this review. An NRC safety review for the license renewal period is

20 conducted separately, and will be documented in an NRC staff Safety Evaluation Report. The

21 safety review looks at the applicant's aging management programs for passive long-lived

22 systems, structures and components. The comments provide no new information and will not

23 be evaluated further in the context of the environmental review. However, the comments will be

24 forwarded to the project manager for the license renewal safety review for consideration.
1 Appendix B

2 Contributors to the Supplement

January 2006 B-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Appendix B: Contributors to the Supplement

2 The overall responsibility for the preparation of this supplement was assigned to the Office of

3 Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The statement was

4 prepared by members of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation with assistance from other

5 NRC organizations, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory,

6 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Energy Research Incorporated, and the Information

7 Systems Laboratory.

8 Name Affiliation Function or Expertise

9 NUCLEAR REGULATOR Y COMMISSION

10 Jennifer A. Davis Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Manager

11 Robert G. Schaaf Nuclear Reactor Regulation Backup Project Manager

12 Andrew Kugler Nuclear Reactor Regulation Section Chief

13 Rani Franovich Nuclear Reactor Regulation Section Chief

14 Barry Zalcman Nuclear Reactor Regulation Program Manager

15 Jason Flemming Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Support

16 Robert Palla Nuclear Reactor Regulation Severe Accident Mitigation

Alternatives

17 James W ilson Nuclear Reactor Regulation Alternatives

18 Michael Masnik Nuclear Reactor Regulation Aquatic/Terrestrial Ecology

19 Stacey Imboden Nuclear Reactor Regulation Health Physics

20 Meghan Thorpe-Kavanaugh Nuclear Reactor Regulation Health Physics

LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY(a) 21

22 Crystal Quinly Task Leader

23 Lily A. Sanchez Deputy Task Leader/Water Use,

Hydrology

24 Lisa Crawford Alternatives/Land Use, Related

Federal Programs

25 Hank Khan Health Physics

26 Dave Armstrong Meteorology/Air Quality

27 Jeff Stewart Socioeconomics/ Environmental

Justice

28 Jim W oollett

29 Michael van Hattem

Terrestrial Ecology
Appendix B

Name Affiliation Function or Expertise

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 B-2 January 2006

1 Karen McW illiams Technical Editor

2 Nancy Woods Technical Editor

3 Jennifer Nivens Adm inistrative Support

4 Kim Martin Adm inistrative Support

ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY(b) 5

6 Bill Vinikour Aquatic Ecology

PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY(c) 7

8 Darby Stapp Cultural Resources

9 INFORMATION SYSTEMS LABORATORY

10 Robert Schmidt Severe Accident Mitigation

Alternatives

11 Kimberly Green Severe Accident Mitigation

Alternatives

(a) 12 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by the University of 

13 California.

(b) 14 Argonne National Laboratory is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by the University of Chicago.

(c) 15 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by the Batelle Memorial 

16 Institute.
1 Appendix C

2 Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence

3 Related to Nuclear Management Company, LLC’s Application for

4 License Renewal of Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant

January 2006 C-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Appendix C: Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental

2 Review Correspondence Related to Nuclear

3 Management Company, LLC’s Application for License

4 Renewal of Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant

5 This appendix contains a chronological listing of correspondence between the U.S. Nuclear

6 Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Nuclear Management Company (NMC), and other

7 correspondence related to the NRC staff's environmental review, under Title 10 of the Code of

8 Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, of NMC's application for renewal of the Monticello operating

9 license. All documents, with the exception of those containing proprietary information, have

10 been placed in the Commission's Public Document Room, at One White Flint North, 11555

11 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, MD, and are available electronically from the Public

12 Electronic Reading Room found on the Internet at the following Web address: 

13 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. From this site, the public can gain access to the NRC's

14 Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and

15 image files of NRC's public documents in the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of

16 ADAMS. The ADAMS accession number for each document is included below. 

17 March 16, 2005 Letter from Mr. Thomas J. Palmisano, NMC, to the NRC, submitting

18 the application for renewal of the operating license for Monticello

19 Nuclear Generating Plant (Accession No. ML050880241).

20 March 24, 2005 NRC press release announcing the availability of the license

21 renewal application for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant

22 (Accession No. ML050830481).

23 March 31, 2005 NRC letter to Mr. Thomas J. Palmisano, NMC, Receipt and

24 Availability of the License Renewal Application for Monticello

25 Nuclear Generating Plant (Accession No. ML050900052).

26 May 5, 2005 NRC letter to Mr. Thomas J. Palmisano, NMC, forwarding the

27 Determination of Acceptability and Sufficiency for Docketing,

28 Proposed Review Schedule, and Opportunity for a Hearing

29 Regarding the Application from Nuclear Management Company,

30 LLC for Renewal of the Operating License for Monticello Nuclear

31 Generating Plant (Accession No. ML051260029).
Appendix C

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 C-2 January 2006

1 May 9, 2005 NRC letter to Ms. Margo Askin, Head Librarian Monticello Public

2 Library regarding the maintenance of documents related to the

3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant license renewal review

4 (Accession No. ML051300167).

5 May 9, 2005 NRC letter to Ms. Amy Wittmann, Branch Librarian Buffalo Public

6 Library regarding the maintenance of documents related to the

7 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant license renewal review

8 (Accession No. ML051300195).

9 May 12, 2005 NRC press release announcing the opportunity for hearing on

10 application to renew operating license for Monticello Nuclear Power

11 Plant (Accession No. ML051320170).

12 May 12, 2005 Federal Register Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of the

13 Application and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing Regarding the

14 Renewal of Facility Operating License No. DPR-22 for an Additional

15 20-Year Period (70 FR 25117).

16 May 26, 2005 NRC letter to Mr. Thomas J. Palmisano, NMC, forwarding the

17 Federal Register notice of intent to prepare an Environmental

18 Impact Statement and conduct scoping process for license renewal

19 for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (Accession No.

20 ML051460549).

21 May 27, 2005 NRC letter to Mr. Don Klima, Director, Advisory Council on Historic

22 Preservation, regarding the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant

23 license renewal review (Accession No. ML051470309).

24 May 27, 2005 NRC letter to Mr. Thomas J. Palmisano, NMC, requesting additional

25 information regarding Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

26 (SAMA) for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (Accession No.

27 ML051470339).

28 May 27, 2005 NRC letter to the Fond Du Lac Reservation Tribal Council, inviting

29 participation in the scoping process for the Monticello Nuclear

30 Generating Plant license renewal review (Accession No.

31 ML051520264). 

32 May 27, 2005 NRC letter to the Flandreau Santee Sioux Executive Committee,

33 inviting participation in the scoping process for the Monticello

34 Nuclear Generating Plant license renewal review (Accession No.

35 ML051520356). 
Appendix C

January 2006 C-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 May 27, 2005 NRC letter to the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Tribal Council,

2 inviting participation in the scoping process for the Monticello

3 Nuclear Generating Plant license renewal review (Accession No.

4 ML051520418). 

5 May 27, 2005 NRC letter to the Upper Sioux Indian Community, inviting

6 participation in the scoping process for the Monticello Nuclear

7 Generating Plant license renewal review (Accession No.

8 ML051520483).

9 May 27, 2005 NRC letter to the Bois Forte Reservation Tribal Council, inviting

10 participation in the scoping process for the Monticello Nuclear

11 Generating Plant license renewal review (Accession No.

12 ML051520372). 

13 May 27, 2005 NRC letter to the White Earth Tribal Council, inviting participation in

14 the scoping process for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant

15 license renewal review (Accession No. ML051520395).

16 May 27, 2005 NRC letter to the St. Croix Chippewa of Wisconsin, inviting

17 participation in the scoping process for the Monticello Nuclear

18 Generating Plant license renewal review (Accession No.

19 ML051520525). 

20 May 27, 2005 NRC letter to the Spirit Lake Tribe, inviting participation in the

21 scoping process for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant license

22 renewal review (Accession No. ML051520546).

23 May 27, 2005 NRC letter to the Sokaogon Chippewa Community, inviting

24 participation in the scoping process for the Monticello Nuclear

25 Generating Plant license renewal review (Accession No.

26 ML051520568).

27 May 27, 2005 NRC letter to the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse

28 Reservation, inviting participation in the scoping process for the

29 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant license renewal review

30 (Accession No. ML051520578).

31 May 27, 2005 NRC letter to the Keweenaw Bay Tribal Council, inviting

32 participation in the scoping process for the Monticello Nuclear

33 Generating Plant license renewal review (Accession No.

34 ML051530421).
Appendix C

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 C-4 January 2006

1 May 27, 2005 NRC letter to the Lac Courte Orielles Governing Board, inviting

2 participation in the scoping process for the Monticello Nuclear

3 Generating Plant license renewal review (Accession No.

4 ML051530539).

5 May 27, 2005 NRC letter to the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior

6 Chippewa, inviting participation in the scoping process for the

7 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant license renewal review

8 (Accession No. ML051540187). 

9 May 27, 2005 NRC letter to the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior

10 Chippewa, inviting participation in the scoping process for the

11 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant license renewal review

12 (Accession No. ML051540250).

13 May 27, 2005 NRC letter to the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, inviting participation

14 in the scoping process for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant

15 license renewal review (Accession No. ML051540294).

16 May 27, 2005 NRC letter to the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, inviting participation in

17 the scoping process for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant

18 license renewal review (Accession No. ML051540402). 

19 May 27, 2005 NRC letter to the Prairie Island Community Council, inviting

20 participation in the scoping process for the Monticello Nuclear

21 Generating Plant license renewal review (Accession No.

22 ML051540436).

23 May 27, 2005 NRC letter to the Red Lake Tribal Council, inviting participation in

24 the scoping process for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant

25 license renewal review (Accession No. ML051540461).

26 May 27, 2005 NRC letter to the Santee Sioux Tribal Council, inviting participation

27 in the scoping process for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant

28 license renewal review (Accession No. ML051540473).

29 May 27, 2005 NRC letter to the Shakopee Dakota Community Council, inviting

30 participation in the scoping process for the Monticello Nuclear

31 Generating Plant (Accession No. ML051540487).

32 May 27, 2005 NRC letter to the Grand Portage Reservation Council, inviting

33 participation in the scoping process for the Monticello Nuclear

34 Generating Plant license renewal review (Accession No.

35 ML051550002).
Appendix C

January 2006 C-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 June 1, 2005 NRC letter to the Lower Sioux Indian Community of Minnesota

2 Mdewakanton Sioux Indians, inviting participation in the scoping

3 process for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant license renewal

4 review (Accession No. ML051560007).

5 June 2, 2005 NRC letter to Dr. Nina M. Archabal, State Historic Preservation

6 Officer for Minnesota, inviting participation in the scoping process

7 relating to the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant license renewal

8 review (Accession No. ML01560004).

9 June 2, 2005 Federal Register Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental

10 Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process of Facility

11 Operating License No. DPR-22 (70 FR 32381).

12 June 3, 2005 NRC letter to Mr. Dan P. Stinnett, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and

13 Wildlife Service, requesting list of protected species within the area

14 under evaluation for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant license

15 renewal review (Accession No. ML051560006).

16 June 3, 2005 NRC letter to the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa,

17 inviting participation in the scoping process for the Monticello

18 Nuclear Generating Plant license renewal review (Accession No.

19 ML051560008).

20 June 3, 2005 NRC letter to the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa,

21 inviting participation in the scoping process for the Monticello

22 Nuclear Generating Plant license renewal review (Accession No.

23 ML051560009).

24 June 6, 2005 NRC meeting notice informing public of scoping meeting to be held

25 in Monticello, Minnesota, on June 30, 2005 (Accession No.

26 ML051610403).

27 June 14, 2005 NRC letter to Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant summarizing the

28 telecommunication to discuss the Severe Accident Mitigation

29 Alternatives (SAMA) Requests for Additional Information (RAIs)

30 (Accession No. ML051650157).

31 July 27, 2005 Letter from John T. Conway, NMC, to NRC providing the responses

32 to Request for Additional Information Regarding Severe Accident

33 Mitigation Alternatives for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant

34 (Accession No. ML052130197).
Appendix C

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 C-6 January 2006

1 July 28, 2005 NRC letter to NMC, summarizing telephone conference concerning

2 draft Request for Additional Information pertaining to the Monticello

3 Nuclear Generating Plant license renewal application (Accession

4 No. ML052100060). 

5 July 28, 2005 NRC letter to NMC forwarding summary of public scoping meetings

6 for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant license renewal review

7 (Accession No. ML052030005).

8 August 4, 2005 NRC letter summarizing the site audit regarding the Monticello

9 Nuclear Generating Plant license renewal review (Accession No.

10 ML052200039).

11 August 16, 2005 Letter from John T. Conway, NMC providing response to Request

12 for Additional Information regarding Monticello Nuclear Generating

13 Plant (Accession No. ML052340510).

14 September 1, 2005 NRC letter to NMC summarizing a telephone conference call held

15 on August 10, 2005, to discuss follow-up items regarding the

16 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Request for

17 Additional Information (RAI) for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant

18 (Accession No. ML052450030).

19 October 7, 2005 NRC letter to John T. Conway, NMC, forwarding the Environmental

20 Scoping Summary Report regarding Monticello Nuclear Generating

21 Plant license renewal review (Accession No. ML052800329).

22 December 22, 2005 NRC letter to Dan P. Stinnett, FWS, forwarding the Biological

23 Assessment for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant license

24 renewal review (Accession No. ML053570019).
1 Appendix D 2 Organizations Contacted

January 2006 D-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Appendix D: Organizations Contacted

2 During the course of the staff's independent review of environmental impacts from operations

3 during the renewal term, the following Federal, State, regional, local, and Native American tribal

4 agencies were contacted: 

5 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C.

6 Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Odanah, Wisconsin

7 Bois Forte Reservation Tribal, Net Lake, Minnesota

8 City of Monticello, Administrator and Planning, Monticello, Minnesota

9 City of Monticello Economic Development, Monticello, Minnesota

10 City of Monticello Administrator, Monticello, Minnesota

11 Flandreau Santee Sioux Executive Committee, Flandreau, South Dakota

12 Fond Du Lac Reservation Tribal Council, Cloquet, Minnesota

13 Grand Portage Reservation Council, Grand Portage, Minnesota

14 Keweenaw Bay Tribal Council, Baraga, Michigan

15 Lac Courte Orielles Governing Board, Hayward, Wisconsin

16 Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Lac du Flambeau, Wisconsin

17 Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Watersmeet, Wisconsin

18 Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, Cass Lake, Minnesota

19 Lower Sioux Indian Community of Minnesota Mdewakanton Sioux Indians, Morton, Minnesota

20 Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, Onamia, Minnesota

21 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota

22 Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office, St. Paul, Minnesota

23 Monticello Area Chamber of Commerce, Minnesota
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 D-2 January 2006

1 Wright County Assessor, Buffalo, Minnesota

2 Wright County Assessor, Auditor-Treasurer, Buffalo, Minnesota

3 Prairie Island Community Council, Welch, Minnesota

4 Red Lake Tribal Council, Red Lake, Minnesota

5 Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Bayfield, Wisconsin

6 Santee Sioux Tribal Council, Niobrara, Nebraska

7 Shakopee Dakota Community Council, Prior Lake, Minnesota

8 Sherburne County, Auditor-Treasurer, Elk River, Minnesota

9 Sherburne County Department of Public Works, Elk River, Minnesota

10 Sherburne County Emergency Management, Elk River, Minnesota

11 Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, Sisseton, South Dakota

12 Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Crandon, Wisconsin

13 Spirit Lake Tribe, Fort Totten, North Dakota

14 St. Croix Chippewa of Wisconsin, Webster, Wisconsin

15 Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Tribal Council, Belcourt, North Dakota

16 United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota

17 Upper Sioux Indian Community, Granite Falls, Minnesota

18 White Earth Tribal Council, White Earth, Minnesota

19 Wright County Emergency Response Management (Civil Defense), Monticello, Minnesota

20 Wright County Treasury Department, Buffalo, Minnesota
1 Appendix E

2 Nuclear Management Company, LLC’s Compliance Status and

3 Consultation Correspondence

January 2006 E-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Appendix E: Nuclear Management Company, LLC’s

2 Compliance Status and Consultation Correspondence

3 Correspondence received during the process of evaluation of the application for renewal of the

4 license for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant is identified in Table E-1. Copies of the

5 correspondence are included at the end of this appendix.

6 The licenses, permits, consultations, and other approvals obtained from Federal, State,

7 regional, and local authorities for Monticello are listed in Table E-2.

1 Table E-1. Consultation Correspondence

2 Source Recipient Date of Letter

3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Advisory Council of Historic

Preservation (D. Kilma)

May 27, 2005

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Minnesota Historical Society, State

Historic Preservation Officer 

(N. Archabal)

June 2, 2005

5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(D. Stinnett)

June 3, 2005

6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

7 (D. Stinnett)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission July 13, 2005

8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(D. Stinnett)

December 22, 2005

9
aThis permit does not expire.

1 Table E-2. Federal, State, Local, and Regional Licenses, Permits, Consultations, and Other Approvals for Mo2 Agency Authority Description Number Issue Date

ExpirationDate Remarks

3 NRC 10 CFR Part 50 Operating license,

Monticello

DPR-22 09/8/10 Authorizes 

Monticello 

4 FWS Migratory Bird Treaty

Act (16 USC 703-712)

Permit MB074020-0 03/31/06 Authorizes 

and dead m

5 DOT 49 CFR Part 107, 

Subpart G

Certificate ofRegistration forTransportation ofHazardousMaterials

062504551041M 06/30/06 Authorizatio

hazardous 

6 ACOE Section 10 of the

Rivers and HarborsAct of 1988

General Permit 01-02982-GPGAE N/A(a) Authorizes 

dredging, dsettling sysdredged ma

7 MDNR Minnesota Statutes

Chapter 103G.271

WaterAppropriationsPermit

67-0083 N/A(a) Authorizes 

withdrawals well #2.

8 MDNR Minnesota Statutes

Chapter 103G.271

WaterAppropriationsPermit

66-1172 N/A(a) Authorizes 

withdrawals Mississippi 

9 MDNR Minnesota Statutes

Chapter 103G.315Minnesota RuleChapter 6115.0200

State DredgingPermit

67-0743GP-100-MN

N/A(a) Authorizes 

dredging, dsettling sysdredged ma

10 MDNR Minnesota Statutes

Chapter 97A.401

Division of Fishand WildlifeSpecial Permit

12674 12/31/05 Authorizes 

biological e

11

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 E-2 January 2006
aThis permit does not expire.

1 Table E-2. (contd)2 Agency Authority Description Number Issue Date

ExpirationDate Remarks

3 MDNR Minnesota Statutes

Chapter 97A.401

Division ofEcologicalServices SpecialPerrmit

12683 12/31/08 Authorizes c

mussels for exposure an

4 MPCA Minnesota Statutes

Chapters 115 and 116

NPDES permit MN0000868 07/31/07 Authorizes d

wastewaters state.

5 MPCA Minnesota Statutes

Chapters 115 and 116

GeneralStormwaterPermit forIndustrial Activity

MN G611000 10/31/02 Authorizes d

stormwater tstate. (Permapplication s

6 MPCA Minnesota Statutes

Chapters 115 and 116

State DisposalSystem Permit

12915 N/A(a) Authorized t

operation of extension.

7 MPCA Minnesota Statutes

Chapters 115 and 116

State DisposalSystem Permit

MN0058343 03/31/04 Authorizes m

dredging, desettling systedredged ma(Permit renesubmitted 9/

8 MPCA Minnesota Statutes

Chapters 7045.0225

Hazardous WasteGeneratorLicense

MND000686139 06/30/06 Authorizes fa

a hazardous 

9 MPCA Minnesota Statutes

Chapters 7007.0105

Air EmissionPermit

17100019-003 08/16/05 Authorizes fa

emission facfired heating emergency dand an emediesel enginapplication s

January 2006 E-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26
Table E-2. (contd)

Agency Authority Description Number Issue Date

ExpirationDate Remarks

aThis permit does not expire.

1 City of2 Monticello

Ordinance Title 14,Chapter 4

Sanitary SewerWastewaterDischargeAgreement

001 N/A(a) Authorizes d

domestic sathe City of Msewer collec

3 South Carolina4 Department of5 Health and6 Environmental7 Control

SC ADC 61-83 South Carolina

radioactive wastetransport permit

0026-22-04-X 12/31/05 Authorization 

radioactive mCarolina.

8 Tennessee9 Department of

10 Environment11 and12 Conservation

TDEC 1200-2-10-30 Tennessee

radioactiveshipment license

T-MN002-L04 12/31/05 Authorizatio

material to a processing fTennessee.

1314 ACOE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers15 CFR = Code of Federal Regulations16 DOT = U.S. Department of Transportation17 FWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service18 MDNR = Minnesota Department of Natural Resources19 MPCA = Minnesota Pollution Control Agency20 NRC = Nuclear Regulatory Commission21 SC = South Carolina22 TDEC = Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation23 NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System24 NYSDEC = New York State Department of Environmental Conservation25 USC = United States Code

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 E-4 January 2006
Appendix E

January 2006 E-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26
Appendix E

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 E-6 January 2006
Appendix E

January 2006 E-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26
Appendix E

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 E-8 January 2006
Appendix E

January 2006 E-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26
Appendix E

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 E-10 January 2006
Appendix E

January 2006 E-11 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26
Appendix E

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 E-12 January 2006
Appendix E

January 2006 E-13 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26
Appendix E

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 E-14 January 2006
Appendix E

January 2006 E-15 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26
Appendix E

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 E-16 January 2006
Appendix E

January 2006 E-17 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26
Appendix E

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 E-18 January 2006
Appendix E

January 2006 E-19 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26
Appendix E

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 E-20 January 2006
Appendix E

January 2006 E-21 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26
Appendix E

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 E-22 January 2006
Appendix E

January 2006 E-23 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26
Appendix E

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 E-24 January 2006
Appendix E

January 2006 E-25 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26
Appendix E

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 E-26 January 2006
Appendix E

January 2006 E-27 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26
Appendix E

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 E-28 January 2006
Appendix E

January 2006 E-29 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26
Appendix E

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 E-30 January 2006
Appendix E

January 2006 E-31 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26
Appendix E

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 E-32 January 2006
1 Appendix F

2 GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to Monticello

(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all

references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

January 2006 F-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Appendix F: GEIS Environmental Issues Not

2 Applicable to Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant

3 Table F-1 lists those environmental issues listed in the Generic Environmental Impact

4 Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2

(NRC 1996, 1999)(a) 5 and 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are not

6 applicable to Monticello because of plant or site characteristics.

7 Table F-1. GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to Monticello

8 ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

9 Appendix B, Table B-1 Category

GEIS

Sections Comment

10 SURFACE WATER QUALITY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE (FOR ALL PLANTS )

11 Altered salinity gradients 1 4.2.1.2.2;

4.4.2.2

Monticello cooling system does not

discharge to an estuary.

12 Altered thermal stratification of lakes 1 4.2.1.2.2;

4.4.2.2

Monticello cooling system does not

discharge into a lake.

13 GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY

14 Groundwater use conflicts (potable and

15 service water, and dewatering; plants

16 that use >100 gpm)

2 4.8.1.1;

4.8.1.2

Monticello does not use more than

100 gpm groundwater.

17 Groundwater-use conflicts 

18 (Ranney wells)

2 4.8.1.4 Monticello does not have or use

Ranney wells.

19 Groundwater quality degradation

20 (Ranney wells)

1 4.8.2.2 Monticello does not have or use

Ranney wells.

21 Groundwater quality degradation

22 (saltwater intrusion)

1 4.8.2.1 Monticello does not discharge to

saltwater.

23 Groundwater quality degradation

24 (cooling ponds in salt marshes)

1 4.8.3 Monticello does not have or use

cooling ponds.

25 Groundwater quality degradation

26 (cooling ponds at inland sites)

2 4.4.4 Monticello does not have or use

cooling ponds.

27 TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

28 Cooling pond impacts on terrestrial

29 resources

1 4.4.4 Monticello does not have or use

cooling ponds.

30
Appendix F

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 F-2 January 2006

1 References

2 10 CFR 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental Protection

3 Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

5 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

7 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Main Report, Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1,

8 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final

9 Report.” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.
1 Appendix G

2 NRC Staff Evaluation of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

3 (SAMAs) for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant

January 2006 G-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Appendix G: NRC Staff Evaluation of Severe Accident

2 Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) for Monticello Nuclear

3 Generating Plant

4 G.1 Introduction

5 Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC) submitted an assessment of severe accident

6 mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (Monticello) as part of

7 the environmental report (ER) (NMC 2005a). This assessment was based on the most recent

8 Monticello probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) available at that time, a plant-specific offsite

9 consequence analysis performed using the MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 2

10 (MACCS2) computer code, and insights from the Monticello individual plant examination (IPE)

11 (NSP 1992) and individual plant examination of external events (IPEEE) (NSP 1995a,b). In

12 identifying and evaluating potential SAMAs, NMC considered SAMAs that addressed the major

13 contributors to core damage frequency (CDF) and population dose at Monticello, as well as

14 SAMA candidates for other operating plants which have submitted license renewal applications. 

15 NMC identified 40 potential SAMA candidates. This list was reduced to 16 unique SAMA

16 candidates by eliminating SAMAs that: are not applicable to Monticello due to design

17 differences, are of low benefit in boiling water reactors, have already been implemented at

18 Monticello or whose benefit has been achieved at Monticello using other means, or have

19 estimated costs that would exceed the dollar value associated with completely eliminating all

20 severe accident risk at Monticello. NMC assessed the costs and benefits associated with each

21 of the potential SAMAs and concluded in the ER that several of the candidate SAMAs evaluated

22 may be cost-beneficial and warrant further review for potential implementation.

23 Based on a review of the SAMA assessment, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

24 issued a request for additional information (RAI) to NMC by letter dated May 27, 2005 (NRC

25 2005). Key questions concerned: changes to the Level 2 PSA model and source terms since

26 the IPE; MACCS2 input data (core inventory, releases, meteorology data, and offsite economic

27 costs); further information on several specific candidate SAMAs; additional

28 information/clarification regarding SAMAs related to external events; and the rationale used by

29 NMC to arrive at a set of "recommended" SAMAs for further evaluation. NMC submitted

30 additional information by letter dated July 27, 2005 (NMC 2005b). In the response, NMC

31 provided: a description of the current Level 2 model and dominant risk scenarios for each

32 accident consequence bin; results of sensitivity studies related to radionuclide inventories,

33 release heights and thermal content of the plume; rationale for seemingly larger offsite

34 economic cost risk at Monticello; specific requested information for SAMAs related to external

35 events; and the rationale used to arrive at the set of "recommended" SAMAs. NMC's responses

36 addressed the staff's concerns.

37 An assessment of SAMAs for Monticello is presented below.
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 G-2 January 2006

1 G.2 Estimate of Risk for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant

2 NMC's estimates of offsite risk at the Monticello are summarized in Section G.2.1. The

3 summary is followed by the staff's review of NMC's risk estimates in Section G.2.2.

4 G.2.1 Nuclear Management Company, LLC's Risk Estimates

5 Two distinct analyses are combined to form the basis for the risk estimates used in the SAMA

6 analysis: (1) the Monticello Level 1 and 2 PSA model, which is an updated version of the IPE

7 (NSP 1992), and (2) a supplemental analysis of offsite consequences and economic impacts

8 (essentially a Level 3 PSA model) developed specifically for the SAMA analysis. The SAMA

9 analysis is based on a slight modification of the 2003 Monticello Level 1 and 2 PSA model,

10 referred to as the SAMA model. The scope of the Monticello PSA does not include external

11 events.

The baseline CDF for the purpose of the SAMA evaluation is approximately 4.5 x 10-5 12 per year. 

13 The CDF is based on the risk assessment for internally-initiated events at extended power

14 uprate conditions. NMC did not include the contribution from external events within the

15 Monticello risk estimates; however, it did account for the potential risk reduction benefits

16 associated with external events by doubling the estimated benefits for internal events. This is

17 discussed further in Section G.6.2.

18 The breakdown of CDF by initiating event is provided in Table G-1. As shown in this table,

19 events initiated by internal floods are the dominant contributors to CDF. Station blackout (SBO)

sequences contribute 1.52 x 10-6 20 per year (about 3 percent of the total internal events CDF),

21 while anticipated transient without scram sequences are insignificant contributors to CDF

(8.24 10-8 22 per year). NMC defined SBO as loss of offsite power and both emergency diesel

23 generators. This definition excludes the SBO-like conditions resulting from flooding-induced

24 loss of electrical buses which are large contributors to the internal flooding CDF. When the

25 contribution from flooding events is also included, events resulting in SBO-like conditions

26 account for the majority of the CDF.
Appendix G

January 2006 G-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Table G-1. Monticello Core Damage Frequency

2 Initiating Event

CDF

(per year)

% Contribution

to CDF

3 Fire protection system line break in turbine building (TB)

4 931-ft elevation west

3.2 x 10-5 71

5 Service water (SW) line break in TB 931-ft elevation east 5.8 x 10-6 13

6 SW line break in TB 911-ft elevation 1.8 x 10-6 4

7 Loss of offsite power 1.8 x 10-6 4

8 SW line break in residual heat removal (RHR) A room 8.9 x 10-7 2

9 SW line break in residual heat removal (RHR) B room 8.9 x 10-7 2

10 SW line break reactor building 896-ft elevation 4.5 x 10-7 1

11 Turbine trip 4.5 x 10-7 1

12 Loss of feedwater 4.5 x 10-7 1

13 Other 4.5 x 10-7 1

14 Total CDF (from internal events) 4.5 x 10-5 100

15

16 The Level 2 Monticello PSA model that forms the basis for the SAMA evaluation represents an

17 adaptation and updating of the IPE Level 2 model. The IPE Level 2 model involved the

18 development of containment event trees that describe the response of the containment to the

19 severe accident phenomena for each of the Level 1 accident classes. The current Level 2

20 model retains the IPE containment event tree logic and is directly linked with the Level 1 model

21 via the linked fault tree process. In addition, the SAMA model incorporates several modeling

22 changes to better reflect an improved understanding of Level 2 PSA issues as suggested by an

23 independent peer review, most notably, drywell shell failure due to contact with core debris,

24 several items related to radionuclide release states, and net positive suction head (NPSH) limits

25 following containment venting.

26 The result of the Level 2 PSA is a set of release categories with their respective frequency and

27 release characteristics. The results of this analysis for Monticello are provided in Table F.2-4 of

28 the ER. The frequency of each release category was obtained from the quantification of the

29 linked Level 1 - Level 2 models. The release characteristics were obtained from the results of

30 modular accident analysis program (MAAP) analyses that were determined to bound the

31 release fraction for the sequences in each release category.
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 G-4 January 2006

1 The offsite consequences and economic impact analyses use the MACCS2 code to determine

2 the offsite risk impacts on the surrounding environment and public. Inputs for these analyses

3 include plant-specific and site-specific input values for core radionuclide inventory, source term

4 and release characteristics, site meteorological data, projected population distribution (within an

5 80-kilometer (50-mile) radius) for the year 2030, emergency response evacuation modeling, and

6 economic data. The core radionuclide inventory is based on the generic boiling water reactor

7 (BWR) inventory provided in the MACCS2 manual, adjusted to represent the Monticello uprated

8 power level of 1,775 megawatt thermals [(MW(t)]. The magnitude of the onsite impacts (in

9 terms of clean-up and decontamination costs and occupational dose) is based on information

10 provided in NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997b).

11 In the ER, NMC estimated the dose to the population within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the

12 Monticello site to be approximately 0.38 person-sievert (Sv) (38 person-rem) per year. The

13 breakdown of the total population dose by containment release mode is summarized in

14 Table G-2. Containment failures within the late time frame (greater than 6 hours following

15 declaration of a general emergency) and within the early time frame (less than 6 hours following

16 declaration of a general emergency) provide similar contributions to the population dose risk at

17 Monticello.

18 Table G-2. Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode

19 Containment Release Mode

Population Dose 

(person-rem(a) per year) % Contribution

20 Late containment failure 20.4 54

21 Early containment failure 17.6 46

22 Intact containment Negligible Negligible

23 Total 38.0 100

(a) 24 1 person-rem per year = 0.01 person-Sv per year

25

26 G.2.2 Review of Nuclear Management Company, LLC's Risk Estimates

27 NMC's determination of offsite risk at Monticello is based on the following three major elements

28 of analysis:

29 • The Level 1 and 2 risk models of the 1992 IPE submittals (NSP 1992) and the external

30 events analyses of the 1995 IPEEE submittals (NSP 1995a,b),

31 • The major modifications to the IPE models that have been incorporated in the Monticello

32 PSA models used to support the SAMA analyses, and
Appendix G

January 2006 G-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 • The MACCS2 analyses performed to translate fission product release frequencies from the

2 Level 2 PSA model into offsite consequence measures.

3 Each of these analyses was reviewed to determine the acceptability of NMC's risk estimates for

4 the SAMA analysis, as summarized below. 

5 The staff's review of the Monticello IPE is described in an NRC report dated May 26, 1994 (NRC

6 1994). Based on a review of the original IPE submittal and subsequent supplements and

7 revisions, the staff concluded that the IPE submittal met the intent of Generic Letter (GL) 88-20;

8 that is, the IPE was of adequate quality to be used to look for design or operational

9 vulnerabilities. The IPE did not identify any severe accident vulnerabilities associated with

10 either core damage or poor containment performance. 

11 Although no vulnerabilities were identified, a number of modifications to the plant, procedures

12 and training were identified that had either been implemented, were to be implemented, or were

13 being considered at the time of the completion of the IPE process. The outstanding items have

14 subsequently been implemented, further evaluated and found not to be sufficiently beneficial to

15 be considered further, or have been included as a SAMA in the current evaluation (NMC

16 2005a,b).

17 There have been numerous revisions to the IPE model since its submittal. A comparison of

18 internal events CDF between the IPE and the SAMA PSA models indicates an increase of

approximately 1.9x10-5 per year in the total CDF (from 2.6 x 10-5 per year to 4.47 x 10-5 19 per year). 

20 The increase is mainly attributed to modeling and hardware changes that have been

21 implemented since the IPE was submitted. There has been a significant increase in internal

flooding CDF from 6.8 x 10-6 per year to 4.15 x 10-5 22 per year and a sizeable reduction in the loss

of offsite power contribution from 1.3 x 10-5 per year to 1.8 x 10-6 23 per year due to hardware and

24 modeling changes. A summary listing of those changes that resulted in the greatest impact on

25 the internal events CDF was provided in the ER (NMC 2005a) and are summarized in Table G-3.

26 The IPE CDF value for Monticello is close to the average of the CDF values reported in the IPEs

27 for BWR 3/4 plants. Figure 11.2 of NUREG-1560 shows that the IPE-based total internal events

CDF for BWR 3/4 plants ranges from 9 x10-8 to 8 x10-5 28 per year, with an average CDF for the

group of 2 x 10-5 29 per year (NRC 1997a). It is recognized that other plants have updated the

30 values for CDF subsequent to the IPE submittals to reflect modeling and hardware changes. 

31 The current internal events CDF results for Monticello are comparable to other plants of similar

32 vintage and characteristics.

33
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 G-6 January 2006

1 Table G-3. Monticello PSA Historical Summary

2 PSA

3 Version Summary of Changes from Prior Model CDF

4 1992 IPE Submittal 2.6 x 10-5

5 1995 • Added non-safety diesel generator to supply battery chargers

• Added hard pipe containment vent

• Improved safety/relief valve (SRV) pneumatics

• Added cross-tie for diesel fire pump for low-pressure makeup

• Replaced instrument air compressor with one not dependent

on service water

• Established more realistic success criteria for service water

pumps

1.37 x 10-5

6 1999 • Incorporated effects of extended power uprate 1.44 x 10-5

7 2003 • Updated failure rate data

• Revised operator error structure to explicitly model

dependencies

• Credited manual alignment of low pressure safety systems

when control power not available

• Incorporated new findings on two significant flood scenarios

• Modified recovery modeling for offsite power and emergency

diesel generators

• Credited control rod drive injection under certain conditions

4.43 x 10-5

8 SAMA • Small number of event failure probability changes resulting

from data update tasks

• Lowered truncation limit to 1 x 10-11

4.47 x 10-5

9

10 The staff considered the peer reviews performed for the Monticello PSA, and the potential

11 impact of the review findings on the SAMA evaluation. In the ER, NMC described the previous

12 peer reviews, the most significant of which was the Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group

13 (BWROG) Peer Review of the 1995 PSA model conducted in 1997. The BWROG review

14 concluded that the Monticello PSA can be effectively used to support applications involving

15 relative risk significance. NMC stated that all peer review comments, or the evolutions of those

16 peer review comments, are captured by the 2003 model, and that no outstanding model issues

17 exist outside the normal PSA maintenance program and that none of the PSA maintenance

18 tasks are known to have the potential to impact the SAMA conclusions.

19 Given that the Monticello internal events PSA model has been peer-reviewed and the peer

20 review findings were either addressed or judged to have no adverse impact on the SAMA

21 evaluation, and that NMC satisfactorily addressed staff questions regarding the PSA, the staff
Appendix G

January 2006 G-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 concludes that the internal events Level 1 PSA model is of sufficient quality to support the

2 SAMA evaluation. Further consideration of the Level 2 PSA model is provided below.

3 As indicated above, the current Monticello PSA does not include external events. In the

4 absence of such an analysis, NMC used the Monticello IPEEE to identify the highest risk

5 accident sequences and the potential means of reducing the risk of posed by those sequences,

6 as discussed below.

7 The Monticello IPEEE was submitted in March 1995 (NSP 1995a), in response to Supplement 4

8 of Generic Letter 88-20. A revision to the IPEEE was submitted in November 1995 (NSP

9 1995b). Northern States Power did not identify any fundamental weaknesses or vulnerabilities

10 to severe accident risk in regard to the external events related to seismic, fire, or other external

11 events. In a letter dated April 14, 2000, the staff concluded that the submittals met the intent of

12 Supplement 4 to Generic Letter 88-20, and that the licensee's IPEEE process is capable of

13 identifying the most likely severe accidents and severe accident vulnerabilities (NRC 2000).

14 The Monticello IPEEE uses a focused scope Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) seismic

15 margins analysis. This method is qualitative and does not provide numerical estimates of the

16 CDF contributions from seismic initiators. The seismic IPEEE identified a number of outliers of

17 items within the scope of the Unresolved Safety Issue (USI) A-46 program. Resolution of these

18 outliers was accomplished in the context of USI A-46. Given the satisfactory resolution of these

19 outliers, Monticello found that none of the plant's high confidence in low probability of failure

20 values were less than the 0.3g review level earthquake used in the IPEEE. The NRC review

21 and closure of USI A-46 for Monticello are documented in a letter dated November 12, 1998

22 (NRC 1998).

23 Notwithstanding the conclusions of the IPEEE as part of the SAMA evaluation, NMC reviewed

24 the seismic analysis results and history to determine whether there were any unresolved issues

25 that could impact the seismic risk at Monticello, particularly, any unfinished plant enhancements

26 that were needed to ensure equipment on the safe shutdown list would be capable of

27 withstanding the review level earthquake, or any additional plant enhancements that were

28 identified as means of reducing seismic risk but were discarded due to cost considerations. 

29 Based on their review, NMC concluded that there were no outstanding issues that could impact

30 the SAMA results.

31 Based on the licensee's IPEEE efforts to identify and address seismic outliers and the expected

32 cost associated with further seismic risk analysis and potential plant modifications, the staff

33 concludes that the opportunity for seismic-related SAMAs has been adequately explored and

34 that there are no cost-beneficial, seismic-related SAMA candidates.

35 The Monticello IPEEE fire analysis employed a combination of a probabilistic risk analysis

36 (PRA) and EPRI's fire-induced vulnerability evaluation (FIVE) methodology. An initial screening

37 phase was performed for fire areas outside of the main reactor/turbine building complex. Fire
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 G-8 January 2006

1 boundaries were then developed considering spread of fire across area boundaries using the

2 FIVE methodology. PRA techniques were then utilized to progressively analyze the various fire

3 accident sequences that could lead to core damage. This involved using the IPE model of

4 internal events to quantify the CDF resulting from a fire-initiating event. The CDF for each zone

5 was obtained by multiplying the frequency of a fire in a given fire zone by the conditional core

6 damage probability associated with that fire zone including, where appropriate, the impact of fire

7 suppression and fire propagation. The potential impact on containment performance and

8 isolation was evaluated following the core damage evaluation.

The total fire CDF was estimated as 7.81 x 10-6 9 per year (NSP 1995b). The following seven fire

10 areas (room/burn sequences) are considered to be the dominant contributors and comprise

11 more than 80 percent of the total fire CDF:

12 Fire Area Area Description CDF

13 VIII/9 Control room 1.5 x 10-6

14 XII/BS5 Turbine building 931-ft elevation 1.3 x 10-6

15 IX/BS4 Feedwater pump area 1.2 x 10-6

16 VI/8 Cable spreading room 9.0 x 10-7

17 II/BS2 Reactor building 935/962-ft elevation west 5.6 x 10-7

18 IX/12A Lower 4kV switchgear room 5.1 x 10-7

19 XXII/BS6 Div. II area of the emergency filtration train building 4.1 x 10-7

20

21 The fire CDF is approximately 17 percent of the current internal events CDF. In the ER, NMC

22 described each of the fire areas listed above and identified candidate SAMAs to potentially

23 reduce the associated fire risk. As a result, NMC identified potential enhancements which it

24 further considered as SAMAs. These include:

25 • Permanently posting an operator at the alternate shutdown system (ASDS) panel

26 • Modifying the ASDS panel to include additional system controls, and

27 • Adding an emergency level control system to the hotwell.

28 The staff inquired about the status of several insights/potential improvements that were

29 identified by NMC in the IPEEE and Revision 1 to the IPEEE. NMC indicated that two of three

30 improvements identified in the original IPEEE submittal were actually PSA modeling changes

31 that would better reflect actual risk (NMC 2005b). These improvements involve a revision to the

32 service water pump success criteria and the elimination of the SRV dependence on alternating
Appendix G

January 2006 G-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 current (ac) power for depressurization to be consistent with a previous plant change. Both

2 enhancements have been incorporated into the current SAMA PSA model. The third

3 improvement, taking credit for control rod drive (CRD) injection after bypassing the load shed

4 logic, has been incorporated into emergency operating procedures and credited in the current

5 PSA model. 

6 Revision 1 of the IPEEE identified two additional modeling improvements (NSP 1995b). These

7 two improvements involve crediting manual fire suppression in areas other than the control

8 room, and crediting CRD injection and the main condenser as a heat sink for fires that do not

9 cause their failure. These improvements have not been credited in the Monticello fire analysis

10 but would tend to reduce the analyzed risk and the potential for cost-beneficial SAMAs; their

11 omission is therefore conservative.

12 The IPEEE analysis of high winds, floods and other external events followed the screening

13 specified in Supplement 4 to GL 88-20 (NRC 1991) and did not identify any significant

14 sequences or vulnerabilities (NSP 1995a). The Monticello ER qualitatively discusses the risks

15 from high winds, external flooding and probable maximum precipitation, and transportation and

16 nearby facility accidents. NMC considered the potential for SAMAs to reduce these risks, but

17 concluded that no further modifications would be cost-beneficial. It is noted that the risks from

18 aircraft were explicitly excluded since this was being considered in other forums along with

19 other sources of sabotage.

20 Due to the relatively low contribution to CDF from fire and other external events, NMC doubled

21 the benefit which was derived from the internal events model to account for the contribution

22 from external events. This doubling was not applied to those SAMAs that specifically addressed

23 fire risk (i.e., SAMAs 38 through 40), since these SAMAs are specific to fire risks and would not

24 have a corresponding risk reduction in internal events. The fire risk analysis is described in the

25 IPEEE and in the environmental report as producing conservative CDF results. While

26 conservative assumptions were used for the majority of fire areas, other aspects of the analysis

27 were considered to be optimistic (NRC 2000). Thus, the degree of conservatism in the result is

28 not clear. Notwithstanding the above, the staff agrees with the applicant's conclusion that the

29 risks posed by external events is less than that due to internal events. Therefore, the staff

30 concludes that the applicant's use of a multiplier of two to account for external events is

31 reasonable for the purposes of the SAMA evaluation.

32 The staff reviewed the general process used by NMC to translate the results of the Level 1 PSA

33 into containment releases, as well as the results of this Level 2 analysis. NMC characterized

34 the releases for the spectrum of possible radionuclide release scenarios using a set of seven

35 release categories, defined based on the timing and magnitude of the release. The frequency

36 of each release category was obtained from the quantification of a linked Level 1 - Level 2

37 model which effectively evaluates a containment event tree for each Level 1 accident sequence. 

38 Four containment event trees were utilized that differentiated between intact or failed

39 containment at the time of reactor vessel failure and events with and without SBO. The release
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 G-10 January 2006

1 characteristics for each release category were obtained from the results of MAAP 4.0.5

2 analyses of conservatively determined representative sequences for each category. The

3 process for assigning accident sequences to the various release categories and selecting a

4 representative accident sequence for each release category is described in the ER and in

5 response to RAIs (NMC 2005a,b). The release categories and their frequencies are presented

6 in Tables F.2-2, F.2-3, and F.2-4 of the ER (NMC 2005a). All releases were modeled as

7 occurring at ground level and with a thermal content the same as ambient. The staff concludes

8 that the process used for determining the release category frequencies and source terms is

9 reasonable and appropriate for the purposes of the SAMA analysis.

10 The total frequency of releases resulting from the Level 2 analysis is slightly greater than the

11 CDF. In the ER and in response to an RAI, NMC stated that the difference is due to the

12 inclusion of some non-minimal cutsets for scenarios that have higher releases than the

13 corresponding minimal cutsets for the scenarios assessed for the CDF (NMC 2005a,b). The

14 frequency of these non-minimal cutsets should have been subtracted from the frequency of the

15 lower release categories. Therefore, this introduces a slight conservatism in the SAMA

16 analysis.

17 The staff's review of the Level 2 IPE (NRC 1994) concluded that it addressed the most

18 important severe accident phenomena normally associated with the Mark I containment type,

19 and identified no significant problems or errors.

20 The Level 2 PSA model was independently reviewed in 2004 by an NMC contractor who

21 concluded that the model was adequate to support the SAMA analysis subject to the resolution

22 of three issues. These issues are:

23 • Updating the drywell shell failure probabilities due to debris contact

24 • Addressing items related to radionuclide release states (including shell failure timing and

25 application of drywell spray for the prevention of shell failure, matching order of events in

26 accident sequences to emergency procedure instructions, and how accident scenarios are

27 represented in MAAP)

28 • Including established NPSH limits for low pressure coolant injection/containment spray

29 operation following containment venting in the MAAP analysis.

30 These items were resolved in the Level 2 model used for the SAMA analysis. The staff notes

31 that the above issues could be important to accident progression. Therefore, the decision to

32 incorporate updates in these areas appears reasonable.

33 Based on the staff's review of the Level 2 methodology, and the fact that the Level 2 model was

34 reviewed in more detail as part of the BWROG peer review and a more recent independent
Appendix G

January 2006 G-11 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 contractor review and updated to address the review findings, the staff concludes that the Level

2 2 PSA provides an acceptable basis for evaluating the benefits associated with various SAMAs.

3 As mentioned previously, the reactor core radionuclide inventory used in the consequence

4 analysis is based on the generic BWR inventory provided in the MACCS2 manual, adjusted to

5 represent the Monticello power level of 1775 MWt. In response to an RAI concerning the impact

6 of current and future fuel management practices, NMC performed an additional

7 Monticello-specific MACCS2 sensitivity calculation assuming a 65 percent increase in the

8 inventories for Sr-90, Cs-134, and Cs-137. This level of increase was based on a prior

9 calculation for Nine Mile Point in which the end-of-cycle activity levels for a bounding case of

10 1400 effective full power days were compared to the reference BWR inventories. Use of this

11 increased inventory results in an approximately 29 percent increase in the total costs associated

12 with a severe accident at Monticello. Using realistic mid-life or average conditions would result

13 in a smaller increase. NMC assessed the impact that this change might have on the SAMA

14 screening process and determined that one SAMA (SAMA 39) could become marginally

15 cost-beneficial. However, this SAMA was already identified as potentially cost-beneficial when

16 using a 3 percent real discount rate and when 95th percentile values are used, as discussed in

17 Section G.6.2. Based on this limited impact, the staff concludes that the scaling based on the

18 plant-specific power level yields sufficiently accurate and reasonable results for the dose

19 assessment.

20 The staff reviewed the process used by NMC to extend the containment performance (Level 2)

21 portion of the PSA to an assessment of offsite consequences (essentially a Level 3 PRA). This

22 included consideration of the source terms used to characterize fission product releases for the

23 applicable containment release category and the major input assumptions used in the offsite

24 consequence analyses. The MACCS2 code was utilized to estimate offsite consequences. 

25 Plant-specific input to the code includes the source terms for each release category and the

26 reactor core radionuclide inventory (both discussed above), site-specific meteorological data,

27 projected population distribution within an 80-kilometer (50-mile) radius for the year 2030,

28 emergency evacuation modeling, and economic data. This information is provided in

29 Appendix F of the ER (NMC 2005a).

30 NMC used site-specific meteorological data for the 2000 calendar year as input to the MACCS2

31 code. The data were collected from the onsite meteorological tower. In response to an RAI,

32 NMC stated that it considered the year 2000 data to be representative of 5-year meteorological

33 data previously tabulated for the alternate source term project. Small data voids were filled

34 using interpolation between data points. Larger data voids were filled using data from the

35 previous, or following, week for the same time of day. The staff notes that previous SAMA

36 analyses results have shown little sensitivity to year-to-year differences in meteorological data

37 and concludes that the use of the 2000 meteorological data in the SAMA analysis is reasonable.

38 The population distribution the applicant used as input to the MACCS2 analysis was estimated

39 for the year 2030, using SECPOP2000 (NRC 2003), U.S. Census block-group level population
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 G-12 January 2006

1 data, and population growth rate estimates (USCB 2000a). The 1990 and 2000 census data

2 were used to estimate a regional annual average population growth rate (USCB 2000b). This

3 annual average population growth rate was applied uniformly to all sectors to calculate the year

4 2030 population distribution, which NMC has determined is conservative relative to the

5 population projections based on the county-specific growth rates. The staff concludes that the

6 methods and assumptions for estimating population are reasonable and acceptable for

7 purposes of the SAMA evaluation.

8 The emergency evacuation model was modeled as a single evacuation zone extending out

9 10 miles from the plant. It was assumed that 95 percent of the population would move at an

10 average speed of approximately 2.5 miles per hour with a delayed start time of 30 minutes

11 (NMC 2005a). This assumption is conservative relative to the NUREG-1150 study (NRC 1990),

12 which assumed evacuation of 99.5 percent of the population within the emergency planning

13 zone. The staff concludes that the evacuation assumptions and analysis are reasonable and

14 acceptable for the purposes of the SAMA evaluation.

15 Much of the site-specific economic data was provided from SECPOP2000 (NRC 2003) by

16 specifying the data for each of the counties surrounding the plant, to a distance of 50 miles. 

17 SECPOP2000 utilizes economic data from the 1997 Census of Agriculture (USDA 1998). In

18 addition, generic economic data that applied to the region as a whole were revised from the

19 MACCS2 sample problem input when better information was available. These included the

20 value of farm and non-farm wealth and the fraction of farm wealth from improvements (e.g.,

21 buildings, equipment). Information on the duration of growing seasons for the remaining crops

22 (pasture, green leafy vegetables, roots/tubers and other food crops) were the same as those

23 used in all five NUREG-1150 sites (NRC 1990). NMC compared these data against the

24 information that was available for Minnesota and judged them to be reasonable.

25 The staff noted that the offsite economic cost risk at Monticello is larger than that estimated at

26 other sites having similar core damage frequency and population doses. In response to the

27 staff's RAI, NMC stated that the economic value parameters used as input to the Monticello

28 MACCS2 analyses are consistent with industry guidance, and produced results that are

29 considered to be appropriate for the Monticello site. Upon further review by the staff, the

30 differences in offsite economic cost risk between sites appear to be due to the differences in the

31 site-specific 50-mile population distributions.

32 The staff concludes that the methodology used by NMC to estimate the offsite consequences

33 for Monticello provides an acceptable basis from which to proceed with an assessment of risk

34 reduction potential for candidate SAMAs. Accordingly, the staff based its assessment of offsite

35 risk on the CDF and offsite doses reported by NMC.

36 G.3 Potential Plant Improvements
Appendix G

January 2006 G-13 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 The process for identifying potential plant improvements, an evaluation of that process, and the

2 improvements evaluated in detail by NMC are discussed in this section.

3 G.3.1 Process for Identifying Potential Plant Improvements

4 NMC's process for identifying potential plant improvements (SAMAs) consisted of the following

5 elements: review of the most significant basic events from the Levels 1 and 2 PSA,

6 • Review of Phase II SAMAs from license renewal applications for seven other U.S. nuclear

7 sites,

8 • Review of potential plant improvements identified in the Monticello IPE and IPEEE, and

9 • Review of seven dominant room/burn areas, and SAMAs that could potentially reduce the

10 associated fire risk.

11 Based on this process, an initial set of 40 candidate SAMAs, referred to as Phase I SAMAs, was

12 identified. In Phase I of the evaluation, NMC performed a qualitative screening of the initial list

13 of SAMAs and eliminated SAMAs from further consideration using the following criteria:

14 • The SAMA is not applicable at Monticello due to design differences,

15 • The SAMA is of low benefit in boiling water reactors,

16 • The SAMA has already been implemented at Monticello or its benefit has been achieved at

17 Monticello using other means, or

18 • The SAMA costs more than $8.6 million to implement (the modified maximum averted

19 cost-risk (MMACR), which represents the dollar value associated with completely eliminating

20 all internal and external event severe accident risk at Monticello).

21 Based on this screening, 24 SAMAs were eliminated leaving 16 for further evaluation. The

22 remaining SAMAs, referred to as Phase II SAMAs, are listed in Table F.5-4 of the ER (NMC

23 2005a). 

24 During Phase II of the evaluation, NMC screened out one additional SAMA because its benefit

25 was small compared to its relevant importance ranking. A detailed evaluation was performed

26 for each of the 15 remaining SAMA candidates, as described in Sections G.4 and G.6 below. 

27 To account for the potential impact of external events, the estimated benefits based on internal

28 events were multiplied by a factor of two (except for those SAMAs specific to fire risks, since

29 those SAMAs would not have a corresponding benefit on the risk from internal events.)
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 G-14 January 2006

1 NMC also assessed the impact on the initial screening if the MMACR were based on a

2 3 percent discount rate rather than 7 percent, or if the MMACR were increased by a factor of 2.5

3 to reflect the potential impact of uncertainties. As a result, three additional SAMAs would have

4 been retained for the Phase II analysis. Theses SAMAs are discussed further in Section G.6.2.

5 G.3.2 Review of Nuclear Management Company, LLC's Process

6 NMC's efforts to identify potential SAMAs focused primarily on areas associated with internal

7 initiating events and internal fires. The initial list of SAMAs generally addressed the accident

8 sequences considered to be important to CDF from functional, initiating event, and risk

9 reduction worth perspectives at Monticello, and included selected SAMAs from prior SAMA

10 analyses for other plants.

11 The preliminary review of NMC's SAMA identification process raised some concerns regarding

12 the completeness of the set of SAMAs identified. The staff requested information on certain

13 improvements that were identified during the IPE but that did not appear to be addressed by a

14 candidate SAMA (NRC 2005). In response to the RAI, NMC explained that one of the

15 improvements (assure faster operation of the condensate demineralizer bypass valve on loss of

16 air) should have been considered as a SAMA but was not. Upon further review by NMC, the

17 potential benefit for the modification would be less than $2000, which is significantly less than

18 the cost, and therefore, would not be justified (NMC 2005b). NMC stated that a second

19 modification (operator training on recovery of the failed RHR) is addressed by SAMA 26,

20 operator training on a failed main condenser. For the remaining modification in question

21 (testing of the boron injection hose), NMC stated that the alternate boron injection has a very

22 small impact on CDF, and that the associated recommendation was subsumed by SAMA 13

23 (NMC 2005b).

24 The staff also questioned the ability of two SAMAs to accomplish their intended objectives, i.e.,

25 SAMA 7, rupture disk bypass line, and SAMA 36, divert water from TB931 East. SAMA 7 was

26 subsumed by SAMA 16, passive overpressure relief. The staff noted that SAMA 16 does not

27 address the same failure modes that are relevant to SAMA 7 (NMC 2005a). NMC stated that

28 SAMA 16 does not directly address rupture disk failure; however, SAMA 16 was chosen as the

29 best method to address containment vent reliability (NMC 2005b). With regard to SAMA 36, the

30 staff noted that in Table F.5-1 of the ER, basic event IEF_FS-TB931W, which is a flood in the

31 turbine building at the 931-foot elevation west, is indicated to be addressed by SAMA 36 (NMC

32 2005a). NMC clarified that this SAMA is only applicable to the east region of the turbine

33 building but was included in the importance list as part of the recommended flood mitigation

34 package (NMC 2005b).

35 Lastly, the staff questioned the applicant about two basic events that have a risk reduction worth

36 of 1.005, but for which no candidate SAMAs were considered. In response to the staff's

37 question, NMC stated that the components involved are a manual bypass switch and a manual

38 disconnect switch that support operation of an instrument ac panel. This particular instrument
Appendix G

January 2006 G-15 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 panel is important because its failure precludes operation of all three containment vent paths,

2 fails division II containment heat removal, trips the mechanical vacuum pump, and fails high

3 pressure coolant injection. NMC argued that manual switches are extremely reliable (i.e., have

4 a very low failure probability); therefore, only an inexpensive modification that could mitigate the

5 consequence would be cost-beneficial (NMC 2005b). The staff agrees that there would be no

6 cost-beneficial SAMAs to address these basic events.

7 Based on this additional information as described above, the staff concludes that the set of

8 SAMAs evaluated in the ER addresses the major contributors to CDF and offsite dose. 

9 NMC identified Monticello-specific candidate SAMAs for fire events using a combination of the

10 Monticello PSA model and the IPEEE. The fire risk at Monticello is dominated by seven

11 room/burn sequences, the largest contributor being the control room. As a result, three

12 fire-related SAMAs were identified and retained for the Phase II evaluation. Potential plant

13 enhancements for other external events (high winds, external floods, and transportation and

14 nearby facility accidents) were determined to be too costly or bounded by existing scenarios. 

15 The staff concludes that the applicant's rationale for eliminating these enhancements from

16 further consideration is reasonable.

17 The staff notes that the set of SAMAs submitted is not all inclusive, since additional, possibly

18 even less expensive, design alternatives can always be postulated. However, the staff

19 concludes that the benefits of any additional modifications are unlikely to exceed the benefits of

20 the modifications evaluated and that the alternative improvements would not likely cost less

21 than the least expensive alternatives evaluated, when the subsidiary costs associated with

22 maintenance, procedures, and training are considered. 

23 The staff concludes that NMC used a systematic and comprehensive process for identifying

24 potential plant improvements for Monticello, and that the set of potential plant improvements

25 identified by NMC is reasonably comprehensive and therefore acceptable. This search included

26 reviewing insights from the plant-specific risk studies, reviewing plant improvements considered

27 in previous SAMA analyses, and using the knowledge and experience of its PSA personnel.

28 G.4 Risk Reduction Potential of Plant Improvements

29 NMC evaluated the risk-reduction potential of the 15 remaining SAMAs that were applicable to

30 Monticello. The changes made to the model to quantify the impact of the SAMAs are detailed in

31 Section F.6 of Appendix F to the ER (NMC 2005a). The SAMA evaluations were performed

32 using realistic assumptions with some conservatism.

33 NMC used model re-quantification to determine the potential benefits. The CDF and population

34 dose reductions were estimated using the SAMA model version of the Monticello PSA. 

35 Table G-4 lists the assumptions considered to estimate the risk reduction for each of the
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 G-16 January 2006

1 evaluated SAMAs, the estimated risk reduction in terms of percent reduction in CDF and

2 population dose, and the estimated total benefit (present value) of the averted risk. The

3 determination of the benefits for the various SAMAs is further discussed in Section G.6.

4 For those SAMAs that specifically address fire events (i.e., SAMAs 38 through 40), the

5 reduction in CDF and population dose was not directly calculated. For these SAMAs, a

6 bounding estimate of the impact of the SAMA was made based on general assumptions

7 regarding the approximate contribution to total risk from external events (relative to that from

8 internal events), the fraction of the external event risk attributable to fire events, and the fraction

9 of the fire risk affected by the SAMA and associated with each fire compartment (based on

10 information from the IPEEE.) For example, it is assumed that the contribution to risk from

11 external events is approximately equal to that from internal events, and that internal fires

12 contribute 85 percent of the external events risk. The IPEEE fire analysis was then used to

13 identify the fraction of the fire risk that could be eliminated by potential enhancements in various

14 fire rooms/burn sequences. A similar process was applied to the proposed fire enhancements

15 for each fire room/burn sequence considered.

16 The staff has reviewed NMC's bases for calculating the risk reduction for the various plant

17 improvements and concludes that the rationale and assumptions for estimating risk reduction

18 are reasonable and somewhat conservative (i.e., the estimated risk reduction is similar to or

19 somewhat higher than what would actually be realized). Accordingly, the staff based its

20 estimates of averted risk for the various SAMAs on NMC's risk reduction estimates.

21 G.5 Cost Impacts of Candidate Plant Improvements

22 NMC estimated the costs of implementing the 15 candidate SAMAs through the application of

23 engineering judgement, use of other licensees' estimates for similar improvements, and

24 development of site-specific cost estimates. The cost estimates conservatively did not include

25 the cost of replacement power during extended outages required to implement the

26 modifications, nor did they include contingency costs associated with unforeseen

27 implementation obstacles. The cost estimates provided in the ER did not generally account for

28 inflation. When using costs estimates prior to 1995, NMC applied a 2.75 percent per year

29 inflation rate to arrive at year 2004 estimated costs (e.g., SAMA 39).

30 The staff reviewed the bases for the applicant's cost estimates (presented in Section F.6 of

31 Appendix F to the ER). For certain improvements, the staff also compared the cost estimates to

32 estimates developed elsewhere for similar improvements, including estimates developed as part

33 of other licensees' analyses of SAMAs for operating reactors and advanced light-water reactors. 

34 The staff reviewed the costs and found them to be consistent with estimates provided in support

35 of other plants' analyses.
Appendix G

January 2006 G-17 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 The staff concludes that the cost estimates provided by NMC are sufficient and appropriate for

2 use in the SAMA evaluation. 
1 Table G-4. SAMA Cost-Benefit Screening Analysis for Monticello

2 % Risk Reduction Total Benefit Tot

3 SAMA Assumptions CDF

Population

Dose

Using 7% 

Discount Rate ($)

U

Disco

4 2—Enhance direct current (dc) power5 availability by providing a direct6 connection from DG-13, the security7 diesel, or another source to the 250-volt8 (V) battery chargers or other required9 loads.

Additional credit given for alignment andoperation of direct feed line to batterychargers from DG-13. Failure probabilityof modification is 1E-02 

<1 1 79,000 

10 4—Install a direct drive diesel injection11 pump as additional high pressure12 injection system.

Failure probability of 1E-02 for alignmentand operation of this system with nodependencies on other plant systems andnot subject to flooding failures. Added toall high-pressure injection failure gates.

98 8 460,000 11

13 6—Install additional fan and louver pair14 for emergency diesel generator (EDG)15 heating, ventilation, and air conditioning.

Additional credit given for modification incase of failure of both trains of existingEDG room cooling. Failure probability ofmodification is 1E-02.

2 1 103,000 

16 8—Improve EDG-emergency service17 water (ESW) pumping capability by18 utilizing the fire service water (FSW)19 system as a back up for EDG cooling.

Failure probability of 1E-02 for actuationand operation of system. Added to allgates for failure of both divisions ofEDG-ESW.

1.8 2.4 211,000 

20 10—Install drywell igniters or passive21 hydrogen ignition system.

Additional credit given to new system toprevent hydrogen deflagration with failureprobability of 1E-02 for new system.

0 3.5 272,000 

22 11—Enhance alternate injection23 reliability by including the residual heat24 removal service water and FSW25 cross-tie valves in the maintenance26 program.

Assumed valve testing every 5 yearsleading to a factor of 10 reduction in valvefailure probability.

<1 9 687,000 

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 G-18 January 2006
% Risk Reduction Total Benefit Tot

SAMA Assumptions CDF

Population

Dose

Using 7% 

Discount Rate ($)

U

Disco

1 12—Proceduralize use of fire pumper2 truck to pressurize the FSW system.

Replaced existing failure of fire pump thatcredits a fire pumper truck, with a failureprobability of 1E-02, and reduced dieselfire pump failure probability by a factor of10 based on plant experience.

<1 34 2,12,000 3

3 13—Enhance, test and train on alternate4 boron injection with the control rod drive5 system.

Additional credit given by revising thefailure probability for boron injection viathe reactor water clean up system to1E-03 with complete dependence onoperator action to inject boron via thestandby liquid control.

<1 0 3500 

6 16—Provide passive overpressure relief7 by changing the containment vent valves8 to fail open and improving the strength of9 the rupture disk.

All hard pipe vent failures replaced witheffective rupture disk failure probability of1E-03.

2.5 3.5 279,000 

10 28—Develop procedure to refill11 condensate storage tank (CST) with12 FSW system.

Insufficient CST volume failure ANDedwith 1E-02 failure probability to refill CST.

0 ~0 1300 

13 36—Install interlock to open door to hot14 machine shop and change swing15 direction of door to plant administration16 building to divert water from turbine17 building 931-foot elevation east.

Failure probability of door to open anddivert water to "safe zone" set to 1E-03.

13 23 1,900,000 2

18 37—Develop guidance to allow local,19 manual control for reactor core isolation20 cooling (RCIC) operation.

Failure probability of manual operation ofRCIC is set to 1E-02 and credit for RCICinjection given following heat removalfailure and containment vent success. Dependence on electric power removedfor operator success in late injection. 

16 -82(a) -5,581,000 -7

January 2006 G-19 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26
% Risk Reduction Total Benefit Tot

SAMA Assumptions CDF

Population

Dose

Using 7% 

Discount Rate ($)

U

Disco

1 38—Post an operator at the ASDS panel2 full time.

Eliminate all risk for Class 1A sequencesdue to fires that require control roomevacuation.

Not estimated 331,000 

3 39—Enhance the ASDS panel to include4 additional system controls for opposite5 division.

Eliminate all risk for Class 1D sequencesdue to fires that require control roomevacuation.

Not estimated 753,000 1

6 40—Add an emergency level control7 system to the hotwell.

Eliminate all risk for Class 2 sequencesdue to fires that require operator-basedhotwell makeup.

Not estimated 178,000 

8

(a) 9 Implementation of this SAMA is estimated to result in an 82-percent increase in dose-risk due to the timing of core damage relative to c

10

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 G-20 January 2006
Appendix G

January 2006 G-21 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 G.6 Cost-Benefit Comparison

2 NMC's cost-benefit analysis and the staff's review are described in the following sections. 

3 G.6.1 Nuclear Management Company, LLC's Evaluation

4 The methodology used by NMC was based primarily on NRC's guidance for performing

5 cost-benefit analysis, i.e., NUREG/BR-0184, Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation

6 Handbook (NRC 1997b). The guidance involves determining the net value for each SAMA

7 according to the following formula:

8 Net Value = (APE + AOC + AOE + AOSC) - COE where, APE = present value of averted public

9 exposure ($)

10 AOC = present value of averted offsite property damage costs ($)

11 AOE = present value of averted occupational exposure costs ($)

12 AOSC = present value of averted onsite costs ($)

13 COE = cost of enhancement ($).

14 If the net value of a SAMA is negative, the cost of implementing the SAMA is larger than the

15 benefit associated with the SAMA and it is not considered cost-beneficial. NMC's derivation of

16 each of the associated costs is summarized below.

17 NUREG/BR-0058 has recently been revised to reflect the agency's policy on discount rates. 

18 Revision 4 of NUREG/BR-0058 states that two sets of estimates should be developed one at

19 3 percent and one at 7 percent (NRC 2004). NMC provided both sets of estimates (NMC

20 2005a).

21 • Averted Public Exposure (APE) Costs

22 The APE costs were calculated using the following formula:

23 APE = Annual reduction in public exposure (person-rem/year)

24 x monetary equivalent of unit dose ($2000 per person-rem)

25 x present value conversion factor (10.76 based on a 20-year period with a

26 7 percent discount rate).
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 G-22 January 2006

1 As stated in NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997b), it is important to note that the monetary value of

2 the public health risk after discounting does not represent the expected reduction in public

3 health risk due to a single accident. Rather, it is the present value of a stream of potential

4 losses extending over the remaining lifetime (in this case, the renewal period) of the facility. 

5 Thus, it reflects the expected annual loss due to a single accident, the possibility that such an

6 accident could occur at any time over the renewal period, and the effect of discounting these

7 potential future losses to present value. For the purposes of initial screening, which assumes

8 elimination of all severe accidents, NMC calculated an APE of approximately $817,000 for the

9 20-year license renewal period.

10 • Averted Offsite Property Damage Costs (AOC)

11 The AOCs were calculated using the following formula:

12 AOC = Annual CDF reduction

13 x offsite economic costs associated with a severe accident (on a per-event basis)

14 x present value conversion factor.

15 For the purposes of initial screening which assumes all severe accidents are eliminated, NMC

16 calculated an annual offsite economic risk of about $253,600 based on the Level 3 risk analysis. 

17 This results in a discounted value of approximately $2,730,000 for the 20-year license renewal

18 period.

19 • Averted Occupational Exposure (AOE) Costs

20 The AOE costs were calculated using the following formula:

21 AOE = Annual CDF reduction

22 x occupational exposure per core damage event

23 x monetary equivalent of unit dose

24 x present value conversion factor.

25 NMC derived the values for averted occupational exposure from information provided in

26 Section 5.7.3 of the regulatory analysis handbook (NRC 1997b). Best estimate values provided

27 for immediate occupational dose (3300 person-rem) and long-term occupational dose

28 (20,000 person-rem over a 10-year cleanup period) were used. The present value of these

29 doses was calculated using the equations provided in the handbook in conjunction with a

30 monetary equivalent of unit dose of $2000 per person-rem, a real discount rate of 7 percent,
Appendix G

January 2006 G-23 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 and a time period of 20 years to represent the license renewal period. For the purposes of

2 initial screening, which assumes all severe accidents are eliminated, NMC calculated an AOE of

3 approximately $17,000 for the 20-year license renewal period.

4 • Averted Onsite Costs

5 Averted onsite costs (AOSC) include averted cleanup and decontamination costs and averted

6 power replacement costs. Repair and refurbishment costs are considered for recoverable

7 accidents only and not for severe accidents. NMC derived the values for AOSC based on

8 information provided in Section 5.7.6 of NUREG/BR-0184, the regulatory analysis handbook

9 (NRC 1997b).

10 NMC divided this cost element into two parts the onsite cleanup and decontamination cost, also

11 commonly referred to as averted cleanup and decontamination costs, and the replacement

12 power cost.

13 Averted cleanup and decontamination costs (ACC) were calculated using the following formula:

14 ACC = Annual CDF reduction

15 x present value of cleanup costs per core damage event

16 x present value conversion factor.

17 The total cost of cleanup and decontamination subsequent to a severe accident is estimated in

18 NUREG/BR-0184 to be $1.1 x 109 (discounted over a 10-year cleanup period). This value

19 integrated over the term of the proposed license extension. For the purposes of initial

20 screening, which assumes all severe accidents are eliminated, NMC calculated an ACC of

21 approximately $529,000 for the 20-year license renewal period.

22 Long-term replacement power costs (RPC) were calculated using the following formula:

23 RPC = Annual CDF reduction

24 x present value of replacement power for a single event

25 x factor to account for remaining service years for which replacement power is

26 required

27 x reactor power scaling factor

28 NMC based its calculations on the value of 587 megawatt electrics (MWe), which is the current

29 electrical output for Monticello (after the extended power uprate). Therefore, NMC applied
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 G-24 January 2006

1 power scaling factors of 587 MWe/910 MWe to determine the replacement power costs. For the

2 purposes of initial screening, which assumes all severe accidents are eliminated, NMC

3 calculated the AOSC to be approximately $227,500 for the 20-year license renewal period.

4 Using the above equations, NMC estimated the total present dollar value equivalent associated

5 with completely eliminating severe accidents at Monticello to be about $4,320,000. To account

6 for additional risk reduction in external events, NMC doubled this value (to $8,642,000), to

7 provide the MMACR, which represents the dollar value associated with completely eliminating

8 all internal and external event severe accident risk at Monticello.

9 For each of the SAMAs remaining after the initial screening, the averted costs associated with

10 the SAMA were estimated using the above equations in conjunction with the CDF and

11 population dose reductions for the SAMA.

12 • NMC's Results

13 If the implementation costs for a candidate SAMA were greater than the MMACR of $8,642,000,

14 then the SAMA was screened from further consideration. A more refined look at the costs and

15 benefits was performed for the remaining SAMAs. If the implementation costs for a candidate

16 SAMA exceeded the calculated benefit, the SAMA was considered not to be cost-beneficial. In

17 the baseline analysis contained in the ER (using a 7-percent discount rate), NMC identified

18 seven potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs. Based on an analysis using a 3-percent real discount

19 rate, as recommended in NUREG/BR-0058 (NRC 2004), two additional SAMA candidates were

20 determined to be potentially cost-beneficial. The potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs are:

21 • SAMA 2—enhance dc power availability by providing a direct connection from diesel

22 generator 13, the security diesel, or another source to the 250 V battery chargers or other

23 required loads. 

24 • SAMA 4—install a direct drive diesel injection pump as additional high pressure injection

25 system.

26 • SAMA 6—install additional fan and louver pair for EDG heating, ventilation, and air

27 condition.

28 • SAMA 11—enhance alternate injection reliability by including the residual heat removal

29 service water and FSW cross-tie valves in the maintenance program.

30 • SAMA 12—proceduralize the use of a fire pumper truck to pressurize the FSW system.

31 • SAMA 16— provide passive overpressure relief by changing the containment vent valves to

32 fail open and improving the strength of the rupture disk.
Appendix G

January 2006 G-25 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 • SAMA 36—install an interlock to open the door to hot machine shop and change swing

2 direction of door to plant administration building to divert water from turbine building 931-foot

3 elevation east.

4 • SAMA 39—upgrade the ASDS panel to include additional system controls for opposite

5 division (cost-beneficial at 3 percent discount rate).

6 • SAMA 40—add emergency level control sensor and control valve to the hotwell

7 (cost-beneficial at 3 percent discount rate).

8 NMC performed additional analyses to evaluate the impact of parameter choices and

9 uncertainties on the results of the SAMA assessment (NMC 2005a). If the benefits are

10 increased by a factor of 2.5 to account for uncertainties, one additional SAMA candidate

11 (beyond those identified in the 3 percent discount rate case) was determined to be potentially

12 cost-beneficial. The potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs, and NMC's plans for further evaluation

13 of these SAMAs are discussed in more detail in Section G.6.2.

14 G.6.2 Review of Nuclear Management Company, LLC's Cost-Benefit Evaluation

15 The cost-benefit analysis performed by NMC was based primarily on NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC

16 1997b) and was executed consistent with this guidance. 

17 In order to account for external events, NMC multiplied the internal event benefits by a factor of

18 two for each SAMA, except those SAMAs that specifically address fire risk (SAMAs 38 through

19 40). Doubling the benefit for these SAMAs is not appropriate since these SAMAs are specific to

20 fire risks and would not have a corresponding risk reduction in internal events. Given that the

21 CDF from internal fires and other external events as reported by NMC is less than the CDF for

22 internal events, the staff agrees that the factor of two multiplier for external events is

23 reasonable.

24 NMC considered the impact that possible increases in benefits from analysis uncertainties

25 would have on the results of the SAMA assessment. Currently, an uncertainty distribution is not

26 available for the SAMA PSA model. Therefore, NMC reviewed the point estimate and 95th

27 percentile CDFs for several SAMA submittals. The factor by which the 95th percentile CDFs

28 exceed the point estimate CDFs ranged from 2.35 to 2.45 (NMC 2005a). NMC re-examined the

29 initial set of SAMAs to determine if any additional Phase I SAMAs would be retained for further

30 analysis if the benefits (and MMACR) were increased by a factor of 2.5. Three such SAMAs

31 were identified, specifically, SAMAs 1, 9, and 14. However, based on further consideration of

32 costs and limited effectiveness, NMC concluded that SAMAs 1 and 14 could not be 

33 cost-beneficial even if the systems were 100 percent reliable. NMC also considered the impact

34 on the Phase II screening if the estimated benefits were increased by a factor of 2.5 (in addition

35 to the factor of two multiplier already included in the baseline benefit estimates to account for
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 G-26 January 2006

1 external events). One additional SAMA (SAMA 9 dedicated alternate low-pressure

2 injection/drywell spray system) became potentially cost-beneficial in NMC's analysis.

3 NMC recognized that a combination of low-cost SAMAs can provide much of the risk reduction

4 associated with higher-cost SAMAs, and may act synergistically to yield a combined risk

5 reduction greater than the sum of the benefits for each SAMA if implemented individually. NMC

6 identified the following six low-cost SAMAs as a "recommended" combination of SAMAs that

7 substantially reduces risk at Monticello for a relatively low cost of implementation. They are:

8 • SAMA 2—enhance dc power availability by providing a direct connection from diesel

9 generator 13, the security diesel, or another source to the 250 V battery chargers or other

10 required loads.

11 • SAMA 11—enhance alternate injection reliability by including the residual heat removal

12 service water and FSW cross-tie valves in the maintenance program.

13 • SAMA 12—proceduralize the use of a fire pumper truck to pressurize the FSW system.

14 • SAMA 28—develop a procedure to refill the CST with FSW system.

15 • SAMA 36—install an interlock to open the door to hot machine shop and change swing

16 direction of door to plant administration building to divert water from turbine building 931-foot

17 elevation east.

18 • SAMA 37—develop guidance to allow local, manual control for RCIC operation.

19 To assess the impact of the implementation of the recommended SAMAs, NMC made the same

20 modeling changes to the PSA as used previously to represent to the implementation of the

21 SAMAs individually. The combined implementation cost of the set was assumed to be the sum

22 of the individual SAMA implementation costs, without consideration given to the timing or

23 manner in which the SAMAs are implemented. Implementation of the recommended SAMAs

24 was estimated to result in an 86-percent reduction in CDF and an 80 percent reduction in dose,

25 yielding a total benefit of almost $7 million. The combined implementation cost for the set is

26 estimated to be $425,000.

27 The staff noted that two of the SAMAs in the set (SAMAs 28 and 37) were not previously

28 identified as cost-beneficial, and that one of the two SAMAs (SAMA 37, manual RCIC operation)

29 was actually estimated to result in an 82-percent increase in dose risk if implemented

30 individually. The staff questioned how the implementation of SAMA 37, in combination with

31 several other SAMAs, results in a large (approximately 80-percent) net decrease in risk (NRC

32 2005). In response to the staff's question, NMC stated that for a prolonged SBO, RCIC alone

33 does not represent a success path, i.e., SAMA 37 would not create a success path (NMC

34 2005b). During SBO, containment heat removal and containment venting are both unavailable. 
Appendix G

January 2006 G-27 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 Containment failure due to overpressure would preclude the operators from occupying the RCIC

2 room to support manual operation of the RCIC. Even with manual operation, the RCIC will

3 eventually fail due to lack of water in the CST or overheating if taking suction from the

4 suppression pool. Manual operation of RCIC (i.e., SAMA 37), therefore, delays the core

5 damage while the containment pressurizes due to lack of heat removal. Core damage and

6 vessel melt through in a pressurized containment results in a greater chance of containment

7 failure than if they occur in an unpressurized containment. 

8 When SAMA 37 is implemented in combination with other SAMAs, particularly SAMAs 12 and

9 28, a new success path is created. SAMA 12 provides a source of containment spray and CST

10 makeup independent of electric power, while SAMA 28 provides for refilling the CST so that

11 RCIC can continue to function; i.e., SAMA 37 (manual operation of RCIC) is successful due to

12 the refill of the CST. SAMA 2 provides power to solenoid valves allowing containment venting

13 for prolonged SBO scenarios, and SAMA 36 delays or prevents loss of dc so that time is

14 available for manual operation of RCIC. The net result is a significantly reduced CDF and risk

15 when these SAMAs are implemented as a group.

16 Since the ER was submitted, NMC has implemented the six "recommended" SAMAs (SAMAs 2,

17 11, 12, 28, 36, and 37), and has reassessed the value of the remaining SAMAs. 

18 Implementation of the recommended SAMAs reduces the benefit of the remaining Phase II

19 SAMAs (including SAMA 9, which was identified as a result of the uncertainty analysis) such

20 that only one SAMA remains potentially cost-beneficial. SAMA 16 (passive overpressure relief

21 for containment) becomes even more cost-beneficial (to approximately $1 million) because the

22 set of SAMAs implemented by NMC shifts the risk to categories influenced by containment

23 venting, which could be mitigated by SAMA 16. NMC did not identify SAMA 16 as a

24 modification planned for further consideration in the ER. However, in response to an RAI (NRC

25 2005), NMC stated that after re-evaluating SAMA 16, the value of modifying the hard pipe vent

26 design was found to still be significant, and that the improvement is being pursued to determine

27 if cost-effective modifications can be implemented (NMC 2005b).

28 The staff concludes that, with the exception of the one potentially cost-beneficial SAMA

29 discussed above, the costs of the SAMAs evaluated would be higher than the associated

30 benefits.
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 G-28 January 2006

1 G.7 Conclusions

2 NMC compiled a list of 40 SAMAs based on a review of: the most significant basic events from

3 the plant-specific PSA, Phase II SAMAs from license renewal applications for other plants, and

4 insights from the plant-specific IPE and IPEEE. A qualitative screening removed SAMA

5 candidates that (1) were not applicable at Monticello due to design differences, (2) were of low

6 benefit in BWRs, (3) had already been implemented at Monticello, (4) had been achieved at

7 Monticello using other means, or (5) exceeded $8.6 million to implement (the modified

8 maximum averted cost-risk). Twenty-four SAMAs were eliminated leaving 16 for evaluation. 

9 Another screening removed one additional SAMA leaving 15 SAMAs for further evaluation. 

10 For the remaining SAMA candidates, a more detailed design and cost estimate were developed

11 as shown in Table G-4. The cost-benefit analyses showed that seven of the SAMA candidates

12 were potentially cost-beneficial in the baseline analysis. NMC performed additional analyses to

13 evaluate the impact of parameter choices and uncertainties on the results of the SAMA

14 assessment. As a result, several additional SAMAs were identified as potentially

15 cost-beneficial. NMC evaluated the impact of implementing a selected set of six

16 "recommended" low-cost SAMAs. The evaluation indicated that the remaining SAMAs, with the

17 exception of one SAMA, would no longer be cost-beneficial. Since the ER was submitted, NMC

18 stated that it has implemented all six of the "recommended" SAMAs (SAMAs 2, 11, 12, 28, 36,

19 and 37). NMC is in the process of further evaluating the one remaining cost-beneficial SAMA

20 (SAMA 16).

21 The staff reviewed the NMC analysis and concludes that the methods used and the

22 implementation of those methods was sound. The treatment of SAMA benefits and costs

23 support the general conclusion that the SAMA evaluations performed by NMC are reasonable

24 and sufficient for the license renewal submittal. Although the treatment of SAMAs for external

25 events was somewhat limited by the unavailability of an external event PSA, the likelihood of

26 there being cost-beneficial enhancements in this area was minimized by: inclusion of several

27 candidate SAMAs related to dominant fire events, improvements that have been realized as a

28 result of the IPEEE process, and inclusion of a multiplier to account for external events.

29 The staff concurs with NMC's identification of areas in which risk can be further reduced in a

30 cost-beneficial manner through the implementation of all or a subset of the identified, potentially

31 cost-beneficial SAMAs. The staff agrees that the implementation of the "recommended" SAMAs

32 by NMC is beneficial, and that after implementing the recommended SAMAs, only one

33 additional SAMA remains potentially cost-beneficial. However, this SAMA does not relate to

34 adequately managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation. Therefore, it

35 need not be implemented as part of license renewal pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal

36 Regulations, Part 54. 
Appendix G

January 2006 G-29 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26

1 G.8 References

2 Northern States Power Company (NSP). 1992. Letter from Thomas M. Parker, NSP to U.S.

3 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk. Subject: “Monticello Nuclear

4 Generating Plant, Docket No. 50-263, License No. DPR-22.” Submittal of Monticello Individual

5 Plant Examination Report. February 27, 1992.

6 Northern States Power Company (NSP). 1995a. Letter from W. J. Hill, NSP to NRC Document

7 Control Desk. Subject: “Submittal of Monticello Individual Plant Examination of External Events

8 Report.” March 1, 1995.

9 Northern States Power Company (NSP). 1995b. Letter from W. J. Hill, NSP to NRC Document

10 Control Desk. Subject: “Submittal of Monticello Individual Plant Examination of External Events

11 Report, Revision 1; Seismic Analysis, Revision 0 and Internal Fires Analysis, Revision 1 (TAC

12 M83644).” November 20, 1995.

13 Nuclear Management Company (NMC). 2005a. Applicant's Environmental Report—Operating

14 License Renewal Stage, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. Docket No. 50-263, License No.

15 DPR-22. Monticello, Minnesota.

16 Nuclear Management Company (NMC). 2005b. Letter from John T. Conway, NMC to NRC

17 Document Control Desk. Subject: “Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding

18 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (TAC

19 MC6441).” July 27, 2005.

20 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000a. Census 2000 Summary File 1 - 100 percent data. 

21 Available online at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/SumFile1.html

22 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000b. 2000 Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171) Summary File and

23 1990 Census. Table 1 Counties in Alphabetical Sort within State, 1990 and 2000 Population,

24 Numeric and Percent Change: 1990 to 2000. April 2, 2001. Available online at: 

25 http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t4/tab01.xls

26 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1998. 1997 Census of Agriculture, National

27 Agriculture Statistics Service, 1998. Available online at: 

28 http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/volume1/vol1pubs.htm.

29 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1990. Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment

30 for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1150, Washington, D.C.
Appendix G

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 G-30 January 2006

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1991. Supplement 4 to Generic Letter 88-20,

2 “Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities,

3 10 CFR 50.54(f),” June 28, 1991. 

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1994. Letter from Beth A. Wetzel, U.S. NRC, to

5 Roger O. Anderson, NSP. Subject: “Staff Evaluation of the Monticello Nuclear Generating

6 Plant Individual Plant Examination - Internal Events Submittal (TAC M74435).” May 26, 1994.

7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997a. Individual Plant Examination Program: 

8 Perspectives on Reactor Safety and Plant Performance. NUREG-1560, Washington, D.C.

9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997b. Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation

10 Handbook. NUREG/BR-0184, Washington, D.C.

11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1998. Letter from Tae Kim, U.S. NRC to

12 Roger O. Anderson, NSP. Subject: “Plant-Specific Safety Evaluation for USI A-46 Program

13 Implementation at Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (TAC No. 69460).” 

14 November 12, 1998.

15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Letter from Carl F. Lyon, U.S. NRC to

16 Michael F. Hammer, NSP. Subject: “Review of Monticello Individual Plant Examination of

17 External Events Submittal.” April 14, 2000.

18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003. SECPOP2000: Sector Population, Land

19 Fraction, and Economic Estimation Program. NUREG/CR-6525, Rev. 1, Washington, D.C.

20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S.

21 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NUREG/BR-0058, Washington, D.C.

22 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005. Letter from Jennifer A. Davis, U.S. NRC,

23 to Thomas J. Palmisano, NMC. Subject: “Request for Additional Information Regarding Severe

24 Accident Mitigation Alternatives for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (TAC MC6441).” May

25 27, 2005.