Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant - Final Report (NUREG-1437, Supplement 26)
On this page:
Download complete document
This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.
Manuscript Completed: August 2006
Date Published: August 2006
Division of License Renewal
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) considered the environmental impacts of renewing nuclear power plant operating licenses (OLs) for a 20-year period in its Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GELS), NUREG-1 437, Volumes 1 and 2, and codified the results in 10 CFR Part 51. In the GElS (and its Addendum 1), the staff identifies 92 environmental issues and reaches generic conclusions related to environmental impacts for 69 of these issues that apply to all plants or to plants with specific design or site characteristics. Additional plant-specific review is required for the remaining 23 issues. These plant-specific reviews are to be included in a supplement to the GELS.
This supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) has been prepared in response to an application submitted to the NRC by Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC), to renew the OL for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (Monticello) for an additional 20 years under 10 CFR Part 54. This SEIS includes the NRC staff's analysis that considers and weighs the environmental impacts of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse impacts. It also includes the staff's recommendation regarding the proposed action.
Regarding the 69 issues for which the GElS reached generic conclusions, neither NMC nor the staff has identified information that is both new and significant for any GElS generic conclusion that applies to Monticello. In addition, the staff determined that information provided during the scoping process did not call into question the conclusions in the GELS. Therefore, the staff concludes that the impacts of renewing the Monticello OL would not be greater than impacts identified for these issues in the GElS. For each of these issues, the staff's conclusion in the GElS is that the impact is of SMALL(a) significance (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and high-level waste and spent fuel, which were not assigned a single significance level).
Regarding the remaining 23 issues, those that apply to Monticello are addressed in this SEIS. The staff concludes that the significance of the potential environmental impacts of renewal of the OL is SMALL for each applicable issue, with one exception. The magnitude of impact for the chronic effects of electromagnetic fields is "uncertain." The staff also concludes that additional mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial as to be warranted. The staff determined that information provided during the scoping process did not identify any new issue that has a significant environmental impact.
(a) Environmental impacts are not detectable or are so minor that they would neither destabilize nor
noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.