ML083220377

Scoping Comments from Kristen Eide-Tollefson

ML083220377
Person / Time
Site:	Prairie Island
Issue date:	09/22/2008
From:	Eide-Tollefson K - No Known Affiliation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
DG-1149
Download: ML083220377 (13)

Text

PUBLICCOMMENTS:OnNRCEnvironmentalReviewofRelicensingof ThePrairieIslandNuclearGeneratingPlant(PING);andXcels EnvironmentalReport(ER)-OperatingLicenseRenewalStagePING (NMC),Units1and2,DocketN nd50306,LicenseNos.DPR 42andDPR60.

o.50282a DG1149

EditingBranch, clearRegulatoryCommission To:Rulemaking,Directivesand fficeofAdministraton,U.S.Nu O

Washington,DC205550001 ink.net

rom:KristenEideTollefson, F

Healingsystems@earth P.O.Box130,Frontenac,MN550266513455488

DearSir,

IamusingtheCEQEISguidelinestoframemycomments.Myoral comm eveningtranscriptfortheRedWing pub c commentsisasfollows:

entscanbefoundinthe li hearings.Theoutlineofmy I. AffectedEnvironments linaryApproach lativeEffects II. Interdiscip III ConnectedActionsandCumu

IV. Baselines ives it ng V. RecommendedAlternat VI. M igationandMonitori VII.

AdditionalCitations

hankyouforyourattentiontomycommentstothescopeof

T environmentalreview.

ristenEideTollefson

K

Sec.1502.15Affectedenvironment.Theenvironmentalimpactstatementshallsuccinctly describetheenvironmentofthearea(s)tobeaffectedorcreatedbythealternativesunderconsideration.Thedescriptions shallbenolongerthanisnecessarytounderstandtheeffectsofthealternatives.Dataandanalysesinastatementshallbe commensuratewiththeimportanceoftheimpact,withlessimportantmaterialsummarized,consolidated,orsimply referenced.Agenciesshallavoiduselessbulkinstatementsandshallconcentrateeffortandattentiononimportantissues.

erbosedescriptionsoftheaffectedenvironmentarethemselvesnomeasureoftheadequacyofanenvironmentalimpact tatement.

V s

I.AffectedEnvironment.Definingthescopeoftheaffectedenvironmentis thefoundationoftheEIS.Thedefiningoftheaffectedenvironmenteitheradequate captures,orinadequatelyconstrainsconsiderationsintheEIS.Thisactofdefining anddescribing,impactsinterestedandaffectedcommunitiesandpersons.Itis importanttointerestedandpotentiallyaffectedcommunitiesandpersons,tobe ncludedinthescopeandtohavetheireconomic,socialandnaturalresourcebases i

identified.SeealsoIV.BASELINES.

Thescopeofthedescriptionoftheaffectedenvironmentshouldnotbeconstrained ytherequirementforsuccinctnessinthedescriptionitself.Succinctnessof escriptionrefers b

d tolength,nottocontent.

PrairieIsland:Thedescriptionoftheaffectedenvironmentshouldadequately describethesocial,environmental,economicandhealthsituationofthePrairie IslandIndianCommunity.XcelsERisinadequateinthisdescription.

NeighboringCommunities/Counties:Thescopeshouldalsoadequatelydescribe hesocial,environmental,economicandhealthcharacteristicsoftheaffected t

countieslistedinXcel'sERunder2.6.

XcelsdiscussionoftheAreaEconomicBaseunder2.6initsERisentirely nadequatetodescribetheaffectedsocial,economicandnaturalenvironmentsof i

thedirectlyaffectedrivercommunitiesinthelistedcounties.

2.9adequatelydescribesplanningconcernsforGoodhueCounty.Thecountyis increasinglylookingtothespecialcharacteristicsofitsnaturalresourcebaseto defineitsidentityandguidefutureplanning.Manyoftheseresourcesaresensitive andrequirespecialconsiderationandplanningtreatment.Theentirerivervalley edgeishighlysusceptibletogroundwatercontamination.Surfacewaterprotections reincreasinglyimpor l

a tantaswell,asnotedin2.8.

50Mileimpactzone:Inaddition,theNRCEISshouldalsoeitherdescribeorsay hyitdoesnotconsidercommunities/countieswithinthe50milepotentialimpact adiusoftheplant w

r

.Communitiesareveryawareofthisradius.

HiawathaValley:TheEISshouldparticularlyconcernitselfwiththeaffected environmenttheenvironmental,social,economicandnaturalresourcebases thatarecommontotherivercommunities,acrossanddownriverfromPrairie Island.Theecologiesandeconomiesoftherivervalleycommunitiesaredeeply

i r

nterconnectedbothbetweentheshoresandalongtheGreatRiverRoadwhich unsalongbothsidesoftheriver,Wisconsin(Hwy35)andMinnesota(Hwy61).

AreaEconomy:Theareaseconomyisbasedinlargepartontourism,recreational fishingandotherwaterresourceattractions.Theseeconomiesareyearround,and areaffectedbywaterquality,icequalitiesandotherfeaturesoftheriver/lake cology.

e Thescopeofaffectedenvironmentsshouldextendtothesouthernendof LakePepinatleast.

Someo resoftheHiawathaValleycanbefoundin materia ftheimportantcommonfeatu lson:

4k HiawathaValleyPartnership

_detail.cfm?id=2380 - 1 er.com/

www.nextstep.state.mn.us/res TheGreatRiverRoad,http://www.mnmississippiriv

• TheMississsippiRiverCommission

/;

http://www.mvd.usace.army.mil/mrc/index.php MississippiRiverRegionalPlanningCommissionhttp://www.mrrpc.com n

MinnesotaMississippiRiverParkwayCommissio www.mnmississippiriver.comCarol.Zoff@dot.state.mn.us;andthe s

• MississippiValleyPartnersbusinessliterature.

http://www.cityimage.com/index.php?page=MississippiValleyPartner aturalresourceandwatersinformation,isavailablefromtheDepartmentof aturalResources(LakeCityoffice),andothercommentingagencies.

N N

Sec.1502.6InterdisciplinarypreparationEnvironmentalimpactstatementsshallbepreparedusing aninterdisciplinaryapproachwhichwillinsuretheintegrateduseofthenaturalandsocialsciencesandtheenvironmental designarts(section102(2)(A)oftheAct)

II.Interdisciplinaryapproach.Evaluationoftheinterdependenceofthelocal rivercommunityeconomiesandecologiesthenaturalandhumanenvironments requiresafullyinterdisciplinaryapproach(seealsoconnectedactionsand cumulativeeffects).Theaffectedrivercommunitiesshouldbeextended,atleast,to thesouthernborderofLakePepin,whichisdirectlyimpactedbyPI.

SpecialcharacteristicsofPIIC:Analysismustinparticularincludetheeffectsof thecontinuedoperationoftheplantandexpansionoftheISFSIuponthespecial characteristicsoftheoftheNativeAmericancommunityatPrairieIsland.This ncludeseffectsuponspiritualtraditions,traditionaldiet,medicines,psychological ellbeingandothercategories,asdefinedbythePrairieIslandIndianCommunity.

i w

Sec. 1508.8 Effects. "Effects" include (a) Direct effects, which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. (b) Indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.

Effects and impacts as used in these regulations are synonymous. Effects includes ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative. Effects may also include those resulting from actions which may have both beneficial and detrimental effects, even if on balance the agency believes that the effect will be beneficial.

Sec. 1508.14 Human environment. "Human environment" shall be interpreted comprehensively to include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment. (See the definition of "effects" (Sec. 1508.8).)

This means that economic or social effects are not intended by themselves to require preparation of an environmental impact statement. When an environmental impact statement is prepared and economic or social and natural or physical environmental effects are interrelated, then the environmental impact statement will discuss all of these effects on the human environment Sec. 1508.25 Scope: connected, cumulative and similar actions. Scope consists of the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered in an environmental impact statement. The scope of an individual statement may depend on its relationships to other statements (Secs.1502.20 and 1508.28). To determine the scope of environmental impact statements, agencies shall 3 types of actions, 3 types of alternatives, and 3 types of impacts. They include:

(a)

(a) Actions (other than unconnected single actions) which may be connected actions, which means that they are closely related and therefore should be discussed in the same impact statement. Actions are connected if they: (i) Automatically trigger other actions which may require environmental impact statements. (ii) Cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously. (iii) Are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification.

(b) Cumulative actions, which when viewed with other proposed actions have cumulatively significant impacts and should therefore be discussed in the same impact statement.

(c)

Similar actions, which when viewed with other reasonably foreseeable or proposed agency actions, have similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their environmental consequencies together, such as common timing or geography. An agency may wish to analyze these actions in the same impact statement. It should do so when the best way to assess adequately the combined impacts of similar actions or reasonable alternatives to such actions is to treat them in a single impact statement (d) (b) Alternatives, which include: i. No action alternative. ii. Other reasonable courses of actions. iii. Mitigation measures (not in the proposed action).

(e)

(c) Impacts, which may be: (1) Direct; (2) indirect; (3) cumulative.

Sec. 1508.7 Cumulative impact. "Cumulative impact" is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.

III.ConnectedActionsandCumulativeEffects:Thereareatleast4 pendingactionswhichconstituteconnectedactionsandhavecumulativeeffects upontheseinterdependentsystems.Theseareidentifiedbelow,andshouldbe analyzedaccordingly.Wewillneedtodependupontheexpertiseofotherstoclarify therelationshipoftheseactionstothe3typesofactions,impactsandalternatives istedin1508.25,andaddressedinthehandbooks.Thefollowingchartgivesan l

example:www.seeda.co.uk/RES_for_the_South_East_2006-2016/docs/AnnexF-031106.doc -

Thescopeoftheseparticularcommentsshouldnotlimitdefinitionandanalysisof cumulativeimpacts,northedefinitionandscopeoftheconnectedactions.Theyare merelyastartingpointwhichtheaffectedandinterestedlocalgovernmentsshould expandupon.

Pleaseconfirmthattherewillbeanopportunityinthecomment processfortheseaffectedcommunitiestoaddresscumulativeeffectsandconnected, cumulativeand/orsimilaractionsasdefinedinSec.1508.25.Pleaseclarifyhowthat willwork.

A.Connected,CumulativeorSimilarActionsaffectedbythePINGapplication.

EnvironmentalreviewunderNEPArequiresthatthepotentialimpactsofrelated actionspresentorfuture,andtheircumulativeeffects,bedescribedandanalyzed.

Theseactionsneednotbepermittedbythesameagency.Thefollowingactions,

specifically,areconnectedtotherelicensingofPrairieIslandandwillbereviewed bybothstateandfederalgovernments.

Ourargumentisthatthetimingofthesereviewsandthedepartmentalizationof theactionsisharmful,andblocksadequateEISanalysisofthesefederalactions,and underminesadequacyoftheSERforrelicensing.Theconnected,cumulativeand/or similaractionslistedbelowneedtobeevaluatedasconnected/cumulativeor similaractionsandtheircumulativeeffectsupontheaffectedenvironmentsmustbe evaluated.AllaredependentuponandinterconnectedwiththeNRCrelicensing reviewandpermit:

1.UPRATE-CertificateofNeedExtendedPowerUprate-PUCDocketE002/Cn08 509.Withouttheextendedlicensetherewillbenouprate.Thelicenserenewal safetyreviewandagingreactorreviewMUSTconsiderthecumulativeeffectsofthe upratetemperaturesandpressuresupon:a)thesafetyoftheagingreactor,over time,andb)thecumulativeenvironmentalandsocioeconomiceffectsofincreased temperaturesontheecologyofthelake;c)newfueltypes;d)additionalemissions (ifany)andtimingandfrequencyofthoseemissions;e)otherconcernsraisedby otherparties,particularlythePrairieIslandIndianCommunity(PIIC).

Scenarios:Theseassessmentsshouldbedoneforvariouswaterlevelscenarioson theecologyofthelake,andconsiderpotentialcumulativeeffectsofwarming temperatures(globalclimatechange),withheatandemissionfactorsfromthe uprate.Climatechangeeffects,includingtemperatureandwater,arelikelywithin theperiodofrelicensing.Thisanalysisshouldexpanduponwaterdemand,quality andshortageconcernsfortheareainaddressingthesescenarios.

2.SitePermitExtendedPowerUprate-PUCDocketEoo2/GS08690.Without relicensing,therewouldbenositepermitprocess.Anditisthelocationofthe uprate,atthePIfacility,thatcreatesthecontextfortheconnectedactionsandtheir cumulativeeffectsupontheaffectedenvironments.

3.AdditionalDryCaskStorageCertificateofNeedPUCDocketE002/CN08510.

Additionaldrycaskstorageisneededtoaccommodatewastefromrelicensed reactors.Thereisnofederalplanforthiswaste.Itistherefore,reasonablyspeaking, beyondthereachoftheconfidencedecision,regardlessofitswording.EvenifNRC judges,asitmust,theadequacyoftheconfidenceruling,thisdoesnoteliminatethe needtoaddresstheeffects,asconnected/cumulative/similaractionsintheEIS.

Thereareanumberofrelatedactionsthatreachbeyondthecurrentlicenseand relicensingperiodthatinvolvedecommissioning,longtermstorageofwastesatthe reactorsite,andanunspecifiedsetofscenariosincludingfederalactions(taketitle; regionalinterimstorageetc)thatimpacttheaffectedcommunitiesandlocal governments.Whilewehavenoillusionsthatwewillsignificantlychangetheway inwhichNRChasdeltwiththisissueinthepast,therearespecificimpactsthatwe

wouldlikeaddressedintheEISthathavetodowithfuturefunding,landuse,and responsibilityforatreactorsitewastemanagement.Thesesocioeconomicfactors directlyaffectlocalgovernments,anditisnotreasonablethattheyshouldnotbe addressedatthepointofrelicensing.Othersmayhaveotherrequests.

CommitmentofResources:Localgovernmentshaveultimateresponsibilityfor thesafetyandwellbeingoftheircommunities.Theymustdefineanddefendtheir interests,asitrelatestoanyactionsornonactionsaffectingtheireconomic,social andnaturalenvironments.Thelackofresolutionofthestorageissue,inthecontext ofNRCextensionofuprate,licenseandcaskstoragepermits,createssignificant burdensfortheselocalgovernments,includingbutnotlimitedtoPIIC.These impactsincludelobbying,time,moneyandexpertiseneededtoprovideadequate localoversightoftheissuesandrespondtoutility,stateandfederalinitiatives.

LocalGovernmentimpacts:Mostimportantly,wheretheselocalgovernmentsare unableorunwillingtocommitresourcestoprovidefortherepresentationand defenseoftheseinterests,theintentionofNEPAforpublicinvolvement,anda numberofotherNRC,stateandfederalprinciples-isundermined.

Fundingscenarios:LikeNRC,theabilityoflocalgovernmentstodotheirjob dependsuponfunding.ShouldNRCsorDOEsfundingcontinuetobereduced,or shouldfail-ortheirabilitytoperformadequatelytotheirmandatebeundermined byfundingshortages,theprimaryburdensforprotectingthesafetyandwellbeing oftheaffectedcommunitiesfallstotheirlocalgovernment.Itisinthecontextofthe cumulativeeffectsofcurrent,andfutureactualandpotentialfailuresoffunding (thisincludesYuccaMountain)fortheNRC/DOEmandatesrelatedtowaste management,thattheunresolvedwasteissuemustbeaddressedintheEIS.See:

www.naruc.org/Resolutions/Nuclear%20Waste%20Disposal.pdf Xcelsresponsibility:WhileXcel,underthefederalwastecontract,isresponsible forthewasteuntilthefederalgovernmenttakesit,Xcelhasprovidedforno mechanismstoensuretheresponsiblemanagement,monitoring,orfundingof indefinitestorage;norhasXceldonecontingencyplanningintheeventoffederal fundingshortagesorfailure.Infact,Xcelhascontinuedtoclaiminrelateddockets thatthewastestorageistemporaryandthattheirresponsibilityissubordinateto thatofthefederalgovernment,despitethecleartermsofthecontracttitle.Neither PUC,norNRC,norDOEhasaddressedthisgapinresponsibility.Andnoneofthe responsibleentitieshasprovidedareasonablesetoffactors,fundingortimeline forthefacili ars.

tyandcaskreplacementrecommendedbyDOE,ateach50to100ye NoAction:Becausethereisnofederalplanforwastefromrelicensedreactors, thereisnotimelineforremoval,nospecifiedplaceforthewastetogo,andno knownfacilities/caskreplacementtimeline,thecumulativeeffectsofindefinite storageshouldbeassessed.

DeteriorationfactorimpactslineupforPI:TheengineeringstudiesfortheYucca MountainD/EISuse3factorstoevaluatethevulnerabilityofthedesignatedregions totheeffectsofthenoaction(indefiniteatreactorsitestorage)alternatives:

proximitytopopulations,amountofprecipitation,andthefreezethawcycle,which aretheprimaryfactorsincaskandfacilitydeteriorationrates.Allthreeofthese factorsarepresentatPrairieIsland.

Impactoncommitmentofresources,landuse:Thewastefromtheoriginal licenseperiodisscheduled(intheYMqueue)tobegone@2045.Atthispointthe caskswithwastefromtheinitiallicenseperiod/ISFSIwillbebetween40and50 yearsold.AccordingtotheYuccaMountainDEIStimeline,thisisalsothepointat whichbreakdownofcontainmentcouldbegin.Thepoolwillbe@70yearsold.

Withthecasksgone,thesitecouldberestoredasearlyas@2045.Iftheplantis relicensed,thenthesitecannotberestored.Becauseitissoclosetothebusiness andresidentialenvironmentsofPIIC,theconditionofthesitewillaffectthequality oftheenvironmentinwhichtheyaredoingbusinessandresiding.Indefinitestorage createsanunacceptablelevelofunknownsandwillnotonlydeprivetheCommunity ofarestoredenvironment,butwillrequireexpendituresrelatedtoduediligence andnecessaryvigilanceinoverseeingandrespondingtoconditionsatthestorage site.Theseburdensthreatenthequalityoflifeandeconomicvitalityofpresentand futuregenerations.

NEPArequirements:WhileNRCRulesallowstheseactionstobeanalyzedina vacuum,NEPAandCEQrules(arguably)donot.Theseactionscanhavesignificant, ongoingandcumulativeeffectsupontheeconomiesandecologies,securityand healthofthearea;andparticularlyuponfuturegenerations.

IV.BASELINES[7. Define a baseline condition for the resources, ecosystems, and human communities. ]. Thefollowingbaselines(atleast)needtobeestablishedforthe assessmentofcumulativeimpacts,andtoallowformeaningfulmonitoringofthe affectedenvironmentintothefuture.Thesecommentsshouldinnowaylimitthe workofEISanalysts,orthetypesandnumbersofbaselinestobeestablished.

aselinesneedtobeidentifiedandrepresentedinanaccessibleway;thedataand nalysisshouldbeunderstandableto B

a

communitymembersandlocalofficials.

A.

Groundwaterbaseline:Minnesotastatuteprovidesparametersfor roundwaterprotection,thatrequireabaselinetobeestablished.

g

6

S 11 C.76NUCLEARWASTEDEPOSITORYRELEASEINTOGROUNDWATER.

ubdivision1.Radionuclidereleaselevels.Radioactivewastemanagementfacilitiesfor spentnuclearfuelorhighlevelradioactivewastesmustbedesignedtoprovideareasonable expectationthattheundisturbedperformanceoftheradioactivewastemanagementfacility willnotcausetheradionuclideconcentrations,averagedoveranyyear,ingroundwaterto exceed:

(1)fivepicocuriesperliterofradium226andradium228; 2)15picocuriesperliterofalphaemittingradionuclidesincludingradium226and radium228,butexcludingradon;or r

(3)thecombinedconcentrationsofradionuclidesthatemiteitherbetaorgammaradiation ualdoseequivalenttothetotalbodyofanyinternalorgangreate kingwater thatwouldproduceanann thanfourmilliremsperyearifanindividualconsumedtwolitersperdayofdrin fromthegroundwater.

al Subd.2.Disposalrestricted.Thelocationorconstructionofaradioactivewaste managementfacilityforhighlevelradioactivewasteisprohibitedwheretheaverageannu concentrationsingroundwaterbeforeconstructionofthefacilityexceedthe radionuclide su limitsin bdivision1.

e.Radioactivewastemanagementfacilities anyallowableradionuclidereleasestothe Subd.3.Protectionagainstradionuclidereleas

,anddesignedtokeep asonablyachievable.

mustbeselected,located roundwateraslowasre istory:1986c425s11 g

H

E 2

pri:GroundwaterProtectionGuidelinesforNuclearPowerPlants, 008.www.epriweb.com/public/000000000001016099.pdf

B.

HistoriccancerratesforGoodhue,Dakota,Peirce,andWabasha Countiesthrough20 06.Wehavebeenunabletoaccessthesestatistics C. Thermalconditionsso

uthofPItothesouthernborderofLakePepin.

D.

FishpopulationssouthofPItothesouthernborderofLakePepin

Inaddition,thefollowinginformationwouldbeusefultolocalcommunitiesin understandingthebaselinetrajectoryandfluxofemissions/releasesovertime.

Wit

,and diff houthistoricinformation,currentinformationcanbeundulyalarming iculttoevaluate:

1. Airemissionreleases(SeeCUREcomments),historic,through2007 ency,historicthrough2007

2. Thermaldischarges,historicthrough2007

3. Effluentdischarges-type,timingandfrequ

4. Tritiumdischarges,historicthrough2007.

Table 1-5. Steps in cumulative effects analysis (CEA) to be addressed in each component of environmental impact assessment (EIA)

Scoping

1. Identify the significant cumulative effects issues associated with the proposed action and define the assessment goals.

2. Establish the geographic scope for the analysis.

3. Establish the time frame for the analysis.

4. Identify other actions affecting the resources, ecosystems, and human communities of concern.

Describing the Affected Environment

5. Characterize the resources, ecosystems, and human communities

Environment identified in scoping in terms of their response to change and capacity to withstand stresses.

6, Characterize the stresses affecting these resources, ecosystems, and human communities and their relation to regulatory thresholds,

7. Define a baseline condition for the resources, ecosystems, and human communities.

Determining the Environmental

8. Identify the important cause-and-effect relationships between human Consequences activities and resources, ecosystems, and human communities.

9. Determine the mognitude and significance of cumulative effects.

10. Modify or add alternatives to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant cumulative effects.

11. Monitor the cumulative effects of the selected alternative and adapt management.

http://orf.od.nih.gov/Environmental+Protection/NEPA/EnvironmentalAssessments.htm

V.RecommendedAlternatives:

1.ReplacementOption:Combinedtechnologies,specificallywindpairedwith existing/refurbishedgasfacilities,shouldbetheprimarybaseloadalternative evaluatedbyXcel.Xcelsgasfleetisaging.Itsassessmentofrefurbishmentshould aximizeopportunitiesforgas/windcombinations,optimizingflexibleuseofthese acilitiesandavoidingthecostsandclimateimpactsofnewgasplan m

f ts.

2.Conversionoption:AnenergyandR&DparkatPrairieIsland,wouldbea conversionoptionforthePIsiteandplant.Itwouldutilizeexistingequipment,add modulargenerationandtakeadvantageofthetransmissionatPI.Hydrogencould begeneratedduringoffpeakhoursandPIcouldbecomeahydrogenfuelingand experimentalstation,amongotherR&Dprojects.Thiswouldbringanalternative selectionofhighpainggreenjobsintothearea,developnewcapacitiesandprovide opportunitiestocapturefundingopportunitiesasnewfederalenergyinitiatives unfold.

1502.22 - Incomplete or unavailable information.

When an agency is evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects on the human environment in an environmental impact statement and there is incomplete or unavailable information, the agency shall always make clear that such information is lacking.

(a) If the incomplete information relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and the overall costs of obtaining it are not exorbitant, the agency shall include the information in the environmental impact statement.

(b) If the information relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts cannot be obtained because the overall costs of obtaining it are exorbitant or the means to obtain it are not known, the agency shall include within the environmental impact statement: (1) A statement that such information is incomplete or unavailable; (2) a statement of the relevance of the incomplete or unavailable information to evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment; (3) a summary of existing credible scientific evidence which is relevant to evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment, and (4) the agency's evaluation of such impacts based upon theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community. For the

purposes of this section, reasonably foreseeable includes impacts which have catastrophic consequences, even if their probability of occurrence is low, provided that the analysis of the impacts is supported by credible scientific evidence, is not based on pure conjecture, and is within the rule of reason.

(c) The amended regulation will be applicable to all environmental impact statements for which a Notice of Intent (40 CFR 1508.22) is published in the Federal Register on or after May 27, 1986. For environmental impact statements in progress, agencies may choose to comply with the requirements of either the original or amended regulation.

Whiletheforeseeablefutureisdifficulttodefinewithnuclearwaste,thescopeof incompleteandmissinginformationregardingthefateofwastefromrelicensed reactorsissignificant.Thereisnorationalplan,nomaintenaceorfacility replacementscheduleforrelicensedreactorsatMonticelloorPrairieIsland.There isnocontingencyplanning;noscenariodevelopment.Themissinginformationis otonlyfactual,butprocedural.Thissituationshouldbedescribed,andelaborated, nderthissectionoftheEIS.

n u

VI.1508.20MitigationandMonitoring:Mitigation includes:

(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.

(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.

(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.

(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations du he action.

ring the life of t (e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

Fromtheperspectiveofaplanningcommissionmemberinadownrivercommunity thatispartoftheaffectedenvironmentofthePING,themostusefulkindof mitigationtoconsiderinconjunctionwithrelicensingtheplant,isanexplorationof longtermjointstakeholdermechanismswouldallowaffectedcommunitiesand localgovernmentstoparticipatemeaningfullyintheongoingdecisionsinvolving PING.Severalreferencesareincludedbelow.

Stepwiseapproachtodecisionmakingforlongtermradioactivewaste.

www.nea.fr/html/rwm/reports/2004/nea4429stepwise.pdf Uncertainty,innovation,anddynamicsustainabledevelopment(appliedtonuclear waste)LenoreNewmanSchoolofEnvironmentandSustainability,Victoria,B.C.,

CanadaV9B5Y2(email:lenore.newman@royalroads.ca) ttp://ejournal.nbii.org/archives/vol1iss2/0501001.newman.html h

VII.Citations:ThefollowingsetofcitationsfromCEQrulesisincludedforthe benefitofotherpubliccommentators.ForNRC,theinclusionofthesesections createsaframeworkofourexpectationsregardingtheimportanceandscopeof onnected/cumulativeeffectsanalysis(CEA).WehaveusedprimarilyCEQ eferencessincethisisthestandardthatNRCuses:

c r

Table12PrinciplesofCumulativeEffectsAnalysis

http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/ccenepa/sec1.pdf

Cumulative m a ts are caused by e g regat of past, resent, and easonably f reseeable future ac ons I p c th a g e

p r

o ti The effects o a proposed ction n a ven resou ce, e os stem, an human community inc e present and f

a o

gi r

c y

d lude th future ffects added to th effect that have taken place in the pa t. Such c mula ve effect must also be added to e

e s

s u

ti s

effects (past, present, and future) caused by all other actions that affect the same resource.

2. Cumulative fects re the tota e fe t,Inciu ing both direct nd ect ects,on g ven res urce, ef a

i f c d

a indir eff a

i o

ecosystem and h man ommunit of ail actions take, n at?er who ederai, nonfede l, or private) has taken the ctions.

u c

y n

o m (f

ra a

Individual ects from disparate act it may add up or interact to additi n effect not appa e w en eff iv ies cause o al s

r nt h

lookin at the i dividual effect one at t

e. The additional fects contributed by actions unrelated to the proposec g

n s

a im ef action must be included in the analysis of cumulative effects.

3. Cumulative ffects eed ta be analyzed ter s of the specifi r sou ce, ecosy em, an human c mmunity being aff ted.

e n

in m

c e r

st d

o ec Environmental eff ar often ev uated from the spective of the roposed action. Ana zin cumulativ e cts ects e

al per p

ly g

e ffe requires cusing on th resource, cosystem an human community th may be affected and developing an fo e

e d

at adequate understanding of how the resources are susceptible to effects.

4. It IS not practical to analyze the cumulative effects of an action on the universe; the ilst of environmental effects must foc s on those hat are truly me n gful u

t a in For cum l ive eff cts nal si to help t e decisionmaker nd inform te sted parti s, it must e limited thro gh u at e

a y

s h

a in re e

b u

scoping to effect tha can be valuated mea i ly. Th bounda ies for evaluat g umula ve ts shoul be s

t e

n ngful e

r in c

ti effec d

expanded the p at which the resource is no longer affected significantly or the effects are no longer of interest to oint to affected parties,

5. Cumulative effects on a given resaurce, ecosystem, and human community are rarely aligned with poiitical or administrative boundaries.

Resources typ cally are de arcated according to agency responsibilitie count lines, ro ing allotment or oth i

m s,

y g

z s,

er administrative i

. Because natural nd sociocultural es urces are ot usually o aligned, each po tical boundar es a

r o

n s

li entity actually manages o y a piece of the affected esource or ecosys em. Cumulati e effects analys s on natural nl r

t v

i systems must use natural ecological boundaries and analysis af human communities must use actual sociocultural boundaries to ensure including all effects,

6. Cumu ative ef cts may resuit from the accumulation of simliar effects or the synergistic interaction of l

fe different ffects.

e Rep ate acti ns may cause effec s to build up through simple additi n (more more the same typ of ffe

),

e d

o t

o and of e

e ct and the same different actions may produce effects that interact to produce cumulative effects greater than the sum or of the effects.

7. Cu ulative fects may las for m y ears b yon th lif o th action that aused the ffect m

ef t

an y

e d e e f e c

e s.

Some actions cause amage ing far longer than the life of the action itself e.g., cid ine drainage, ra oactive d

last

(

a m

di waste contamination, s e ies extinctions).

ative e fects analysis needs to app the best science and p c Cumul f

ly forecasting techniques to assess potential catastrophic consequences in the future.

B. Each affected resourc, ecosy tem, n h ma commu ity must be analyzed in terms of he capacity e

s a d u

n n

to accommodate effects, ased on own ti e and spac pa meters additional b

its m

e ra nalyst tend to thin in terms of how the resource, ecos stem, d human communi wil b modifi d iven the A

a t

s k

y an ty l e e

g ctio s developmen needs. The at is needed to ensure long-n t

mast erm productivity or sustainability effective cumulative effects analysis focuses on wh of the resource,

Table14TypesofCumulativeEffects In simplest terms, cumulative effects may synergistic-where the net adverse cumulative arise from single or multiple actions and may effect is greater than the sum of the individual result in additive or interactive effects. Interac-effects. This combination of two kinds of tive effects may be either countervailing actions with two kinds of processes leads to four where the net adverse cumulative effect is Iess basic types of cumulative effects (Table 1-3; see than the sum of the individual effects-r Peterson et al. 1987 for a similar typology).

Type 1 Additive - Repeated additive effects from a single proposed proiect.

Example: Construction of a new road through a national park, resulting in continual draining of road salt onto nearby vegetation.

Type 2 - Interactive - Stressors from a single source that interact with receiving biota to have an interactive

(nonlinear) net effect.

Example: Organic compounds, including PCBS, that biomagnify up food chains and exert disproportionate toxicity on raptors and large mammals.

Type 3 - Additive - Effects arising from multiple sources (proiects, point sources, or general effects associated with development) that affect environmental resources additively.

Example: Agricultural irrigation, domestic consumption, and industrial cooling activities that all contribute to drawing down a groundwater aquifer.

Type 4-Interactive - Effects arising fram multiple sources that affect environmental resources in an interactive (i.e.,

countervailing or synergistic) fashion.

Example: Discharges of nutrients and heated water to a river that combine to cause an algal bloom and subsequent loss of dissolved oxygen that is greater t

han the additive effects of each pollutant.

Criteria. In determining whether a proposed action will or will not "significantly affect the quality of the human environment," OPDIVs/STAFFDIVs should evaluate the expected environmental consequences of a proposed action by means of the following steps, utilizing the guidance provided in 40 CFR 1508.27:

Step One -- Identify those things that will happen as a result of the proposed action. An action normally produces a number of consequences. For example, a grant to construct a hospital may terminate human services; will involve destruction and construction; will provide a service. Actions may be connected, cumulative, or similar (see 40 CFR 1508.25(a)).

Step Two -- Identify the "human environments" that the proposed action will affect. In accordance with 40 CFR 1508.27, the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts, such as society as a whole (human, national),

the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. The significance of an action will vary with the setting of the proposed action. Environments may include terrestrial, aquatic, subterranean, and aerial environments, such as islands, cities, rivers or parts thereof.

Step Three -- Identify the kinds of effects that the proposed action will cause on these "human environments." A change occurs when a proposed action causes the "human environment" to be different in the future than it would have been, absent the proposed action. These changes involve the introduction of various "resources" (including those often characterized as waste).

Example: A decrease in the amount of soil entering a stream; the introduction of a new chemical compound to natural environments.

In addition to organisms, substances, and compounds, the term "resources" include energy (in various forms),

elements, structures, and systems (such as a trash collection service in a city). Present environmental impacts and reasonably foreseeable future environmental impacts must be considered.

In identifying changes caused by the proposed action, OPDIVs/STAFFDIVs should identify the magnitude of the changes likely to be caused within smaller and larger "human environments" affected (e.g., part of a city, the whole city, the metropolitan area).

The impacts resulting from the proposed action may be direct, indirect, or cumulative (see 40 CFR 1508.25(c)).

Step Four -- Identify whether these changes are significant. The following points should be considered in conjunction with 40 CFR 1508.8 (effects), 40 CFR 1508.14 (human environment), and 40 CFR 1508.27 ("significantly") in making a decision concerning significance:

A change in the characterization of an environment is significant (e.g., from terrestrial to aquatic.

The establishment of a species in or removal of a species from an environment may be significant The more dependent an environment becomes on external resources, the larger the magnitude of change (and the more likely it is to be significant);

The larger the environment under consideration, the lower the amount of change needed before the change may be significant.

The CEQ regulations in 40 CFR 1508.27 describe a number of factors that should be considered in evaluating severity (intensity) of an impact. OPDIVs/STAFFDIVs should consider the cumulative effect of the proposed action. An action may

be individually insignificant but cumulatively significant when the action is related to other actions. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts.

Sec. 1508.27 Significantly. "Significantly" as used in NEPA requires considerations of both context and intensity:

(a) Context. This means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. Significance varies with the setting of the proposed action. For instance, in the case of a site-specific action, significance would usually depend upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Both short-and long-term effects are relevant.

(b) Intensity. This refers to the severity of impact. Responsible officials must bear in mind that more than one agency may make decisions about partial aspects of a major action. The following should be considered in evaluating intensity:

• Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial.

• The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety.

• Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas.

• The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial.

• The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks.

• The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.

• Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts.

• The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources.

• The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

• Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.

Respectfullysubmitted, KristenEideTollefson HealingSystems@earthlink.net P.O.Box130Frontenac,MN55 6513455488/61233114 026 30

Aboutthecommentator:EideTollefsonservedontheMNEnvironmentalQuality BoardCitizensSiteAdvisoryCommitteefortheGoodhueStorageFacilityexercisein 1995.AftertheFlorenceTownshipsiteswereeliminatedfromconsideration,she continuedtoworkasacitizenadvocateinstateregulatoryandlegislativearenas.,

ubmittingnumerouscommentsonintegratedresourceplanning,andothernuclear s

andenergyresourceproposals.

In2006shegraduatedfromtheHumphreyInstituteMPAprogramwitha concentrationinPublicEngagementinEnergyPolicy,PlanningandInfrastructure Development.ShehasservedonEnvironmentalandlegislativestakeholderand advisorycommitteesandfrom19992003,wasactiveintheNuclearWasteStrategy Coalition.SheiscurrentlyaplanningcommissionerforFlorenceTownship, GoodhueCounty.Sheis,however,notanenvironmentallawyerorprofessionaland ustdependupontheexpertiseofNRCprofessionalsinevaluatingandactingupon ercommentsandrecommendations.

m h