ML24059A342

Scoping Summary Report

ML24059A342
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	03/31/2024
From:	NRC/NMSS/DREFS/ELRB
To:
Shared Package
ML24059A288	List: ML24059A329 ML24059A342
References
Download: ML24059A342 (14)

Text

Site-Specific Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process Summary Report Monticello Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 Monticello, MN March 2024 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, Maryland Introduction By letter dated January 9, 2023, (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Package No.ML23009A353), Xcel Energy (Xcel) submitted an application for subsequent license renewal of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-22 for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1 (Monticello), to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) pursuant to Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and part 54 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Requirements for renewal of operating licenses for nuclear power plants.

Monticello is located in central Minnesota on the banks of the Mississippi River, approximately 38 miles northwest of Minneapolis, MN. In its application, Xcel requests subsequent license renewal for a period of 20 years beyond the date when the current renewed facility operating license expires. Specifically, the new expiration date for Monticello would be September 8, 2050.

The purpose of this report1 is to provide a concise summary of the determination of the scope of the NRC staffs environmental review of this application, incorporating stakeholder inputs. This report will briefly summarize the issues identified by the environmental scoping process associated with the NRC staffs review of Xcels subsequent license renewal application.

This report is structured in four sections:

A. The Monticello Public Scoping Period B. Scoping Process and Objectives C. Summary of Comments Provided D. Determinations and Conclusions A.

The Monticello Public Scoping Period

Background

The Xcel application and all other public documents relevant to Monticello subsequent license renewal are available in the NRCs Web-based ADAMS, which is accessible at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who encounter problems in accessing documents in ADAMS should contact the NRCs Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

For additional information, the NRC staff has made available a web site with specific information about the Monticello subsequent license renewal application at https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/monticello-subsequent.html. This web site includes application information, the licensing review schedule, opportunities for public involvement, project manager information, and other relevant information. In addition, documents, including public comments, are available at the Federal rulemaking Web site, https://www.regulations.gov/, under Docket ID NRC-2023-0031.

1 The NRCs requirements for conducting the scoping process and for preparing a scoping summary report are found at 10 CFR 51.29, Scoping-environmental impact statement and supplement to environmental impact statement.

As part of its application, Xcel submitted an environmental report (ER) to the NRC, available at ADAMS Accession No. ML23009A356. Xcel prepared the ER in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51, Environmental protection regulations for domestic licensing and related regulatory functions, which contains NRCs requirements for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA).

In the Commission's Memorandum and Order, CLI-22-02, dated February 24, 2022, the Commission held that the NRC staff may not rely on NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (LR GEIS) and 10 CFR part 51, subpart A, appendix B, table B-1, to evaluate the environmental impacts of generic "Category 1" issues listed therein, when considering the environmental impacts of SLR. In addition, the Commission issued a further Memorandum and Order, CLI-22-03, in which, among other matters, it (a) directed the NRC staff to review and update the 2013 GEIS so that it covers operation during the subsequent license renewal period; (b) directed the staff to evaluate Category 1 impacts on a site-specific basis in its EISs, pending the issuance of a revised GEIS; and (c) afforded subsequent license renewal applicants an opportunity to request site-specific consideration of those Category 1 environmental impacts, or to await the agencys issuance of a revised LR GEIS that addresses such impacts on a generic basis.

Consistent with the Commissions direction, on January 9, 2023, Xcel submitted a site-specific analysis of the environmental impacts of the continued operation of Monticello during the subsequent license renewal period. The NRC staff intends to prepare, as a draft for public comment, a site-specific environmental impact statement (EIS) for subsequent license renewal of the Monticello operating license.

The NRC staff conducted a scoping process to gather information necessary to prepare a site-specific EIS to evaluate the environmental impacts of subsequent license renewal for Monticello. The subsequent renewed operating license would authorize the applicant to operate Monticello for an additional 20 years beyond the period specified in the current license.

B.

Scoping Process and Objectives On March 10, 2023, the NRC published a Federal Register (FR) notice describing the scoping process for the Monticello SLR application environmental review (88 FR 15103). This notice notified stakeholders about the NRC staffs intent to prepare a site-specific EIS and provided the public with an opportunity to participate in the environmental scoping process. The notice invited members of the public to submit written comments by April 10, 2023. In addition to written comments, oral comments were recorded at two public meetings. The first public meeting was held in person on March 22, 2023, in Monticello, MN, and the second public meeting was held on March 29, 2023, via webinar. All comments, both written and oral, were considered in the agencys scoping process.

The scoping process provided an opportunity for members of the public to propose environmental issues to be addressed in the site-specific EIS and to highlight public concerns and issues. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.29(b), this scoping summary report provides a concise summary of the determinations and conclusions reached as a result of the scoping process. The objectives of the scoping process were to:

define the proposed action, which is to be the subject of the site-specific EIS, gather data on the scope of the site-specific EIS and identify the significant issues to be analyzed in depth, identify and eliminate from detailed study those issues that are peripheral or are not significant or were covered by prior environmental review, identify any environmental assessments and other EISs that are being or will be prepared that are related to, but are not part of, the site-specific EIS, identify other environmental review and consultation requirements related to the proposed action, indicate the relationship between the timing of the preparation of the environmental analyses and the Commissions tentative planning and decision-making schedule, identify any cooperating agencies and, as appropriate, allocate assignments for preparation and schedules for completing the site-specific EIS to the NRC and any cooperating agencies, and describe how the site-specific EIS will be prepared, including any contractor assistance to be used.

The NRC staffs determinations and conclusions regarding the above objectives are provided in Section E below.

C.

Summary of Comments Provided The NRC staff received comment submissions from eight individuals. Table A-1 provides a list of commenters who provided comment submissions (i.e., non-form letter submissions) identified by name, affiliation (if stated), the correspondence identification (ID) number, the comment source, and the ADAMS Accession Number of the source. The staff reviewed each comment submission, including the public scoping meeting transcripts, to identify individual comments.

Each comment was marked with a unique identifier consisting of the correspondence ID (specified in Table A-1) and a comment number. For example, Comment 3-1 refers to the first comment within the document provided by correspondence ID 3. This unique identifier allows each comment to be traced back to the source where the comment was identified. Comments were consolidated and categorized according to a resource area or topic. Table A-2 identifies the distribution of comments received by resource area or topic.

A summary of the comments and the NRC staffs responses are provided in Appendix B to this report. Comments were grouped based on being in scope or out of scope, and comments with similar themes were further sub-grouped to capture the resources concerned. Each comment submittal was uniquely identified and when a submittal addressed multiple issues; the submittal was further divided into separate comments with tracking identifiers.

D.

Determinations and Conclusions (1) Define the proposed action The NRCs proposed action in this instance is to determine whether to renew the Monticello operating license for an additional 20 years.

(2) Identify the scope of the statement and significant issues to be analyzed in the site-specific EIS The environmental consequences of license renewal include: (1) impacts associated with continued operations and refurbishment activities similar to those that have occurred during the current license term; (2) impacts of various alternatives to the proposed action; (3) impacts from the termination of nuclear power plant operations and decommissioning after the license renewal term (with emphasis on the incremental effect caused by an additional 20 years of operation); (4) impacts associated with the uranium fuel cycle; (5) impacts of postulated accidents (design basis accidents and severe accidents); (6) cumulative impacts of the proposed action; and (7) resource commitments associated with the proposed action, including unavoidable adverse impacts, the relationship between short-term use and long-term productivity, and irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources.

The significant issues identified in this scoping report will be considered in the development of the draft site-specific EIS in accordance with 10 CFR 51.29, Scoping-environmental impact statement and supplement environmental impact statement, and 10 CFR 51.70, Draft environmental impact statement-general. The NRC also follows guidance in NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, ESRP for Operating License Renewal to ensure compliance with all applicable regulations and NRC policies and procedures.

The NRC staff delineated and grouped comments according to resource area/topic (see Appendix B). The comments will be addressed in the site-specific EIS, as appropriate, as discussed in Appendix B to this report.

The NRC staff reviewed all comments received and categorized each as general in nature, outside scope (beyond the scope of the subsequent license renewal environmental review), or in-scope (the comment is applicable to the environmental review). The NRC staff considered all relevant in-scope comments as part of this review and has determined that the significant issues identified during the scoping period include the following areas:

Historic and Cultural Resources:

Commenter requested that the EIS clearly determine and define the area of potential effect (APE).

Commenter requested that the EIS identify and discuss what is considered continued operations and maintenance activities and the potential impacts of these activities to historic and cultural resources.

Commenter requested that the EIS discuss Tribal history and associated cultural resources.

The NRC staff will consider the scoping comments that were submitted. With respect to historic and cultural resources, the staff will identify and describe historic and cultural resources that may be impacted by subsequent license renewal in Chapter 3 of the site-specific EIS.

Furthermore, the NRC staff is complying with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) through NEPA in accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c). The regulations in 36 CFR Part 800 require the NRC to consult with any Indian Tribe that attaches religious and cultural significance to historic properties that may be affected by a proposed action/undertaking. The NRC staff will describe its ongoing Section 106 consultation for the Monticello subsequent license renewal in Chapter 3 of the site-specific EIS.

The NRC staff has determined for historic and cultural resources, that the APE for Monticello subsequent license renewal includes lands within the nuclear power plant site boundary and the transmission lines up to the first substation that may be directly (e.g., physically) affected by operational activities associated with continued plant operations and maintenance and/or refurbishment activities. The site-specific EIS will include a description of the historic and cultural resources identified within the APE.

Groundwater Resources Commenter requested tritiated water evaluation.

The comment will be considered as part of the NRC staffs technical review and analysis during the development of the DEIS within the hydrology-groundwater resource area and/or supplemental applicable areas.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Commenter requested that meteorological parameters, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change be considered.

Commenter requested a water resource analysis to review sufficient water quantities and temperatures impacts to National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.

Commenter requested a discussion explaining the methods used to assess environmental impacts 25 years into the future.

These comments will be considered as part of the NRC staffs technical review and analysis during the development of the DEIS within the greenhouse gas emissions and climate change resource area and/or supplemental applicable areas.

In addition, the NRC staff will describe, in Chapter 3 of the site-specific EIS, the following topics generally mentioned in the scoping comments: greenhouse gases (including meteorological parameters) and the effects of climate change, and the socioeconomic impacts resulting from renewal of the Monticello license. Other scoping comments will also be considered, as discussed below.

(3) Identify and eliminate from detailed study issues which are peripheral or are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review.

The NRC staff received several comments that were either general in nature or otherwise beyond the scope of the subsequent license renewal environmental review. These included comments from organizations and individuals in support of the Monticello subsequent license renewal. Comments related to the license renewal process that expressed concerns regarding public participation for the Monticello public scoping meeting and date inconsistencies in notifications regarding the public meeting have also been identified as peripheral in nature.

The NRC staff will not consider or evaluate any issues in the site-specific EIS which do not pertain to the staffs environmental evaluation or are beyond the scope of the subsequent license renewal review. Comments that have been designated as out of scope are identified in Appendix B as part of this report.

(4) Identify related environmental assessments and other environmental impact statements The NRC staff did not identify any environmental assessments or environmental impact statements under preparation or soon to be prepared, which relate to, but are not within the scope of, the Monticello site-specific EIS. Previously completed EISs will be used in the preparation of the Monticello subsequent license renewal EIS, as appropriate, including portions of the 1996 LR GEIS (ML040690705, ML040690738) and 2013 LR GEIS (ML13107A023), and the Supplemental EIS for the initial license renewal of Monticello (ML062490078).

(5) Other environmental review and consultation requirements Concurrent with its NEPA review, the NRC staff is consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) to evaluate the potential impacts of the operation of Monticello for an additional 20 years on endangered and threatened species and their critical habitat. Consistent with 36 CFR 800.8(c), the staff is also consulting with affected Indian Tribes and the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (MSHPO) to fulfill its Section 106 obligations under the NHPA.

(6) Indicate the relationship between the timing of the preparation of environmental analyses and the Commission's tentative planning and decision-making schedule The NRC staff plans to issue a draft site-specific EIS for public comment in March 2024. The 45-day comment period will offer an opportunity for participants, such as the applicant; interested Federal, State, and local government agencies; Tribal governments; local organizations; and members of the public to provide further input to the agencys environmental review process.

Comments on the draft site-specific EIS will be considered in the preparation of the final site-specific EIS, which NRC staff anticipates issuing in October 2024. The NRC staff documented its safety review in a safety evaluation report (SER) and the SER is anticipated to be released in March 2024. The findings in the site-specific EIS and the SER will be considerations in the NRCs decision to issue or deny Xcels request for subsequent license renewal of the Monticello license.

(7) Identify Cooperating Agencies During the scoping process, the NRC staff did not identify any Federal, State, local or Tribal agencies as cooperating agencies for this EIS.

(8) Describe the means by which the environmental impact statement will be prepared, including any contractor assistance to be used.

Upon completion of the scoping process, the NRC staff will compile its findings in a draft site-specific EIS. The draft site-specific EIS will be made available for public comment. Once the public comment period is complete, the NRC staff will amend the draft site-specific EIS, as appropriate, and will prepare and publish a final site-specific EIS.

The NRC staff will then prepare and provide a Record of Decision in accordance with 10 CFR 51.102 and 10 CFR 51.103.

Appendix A Table A-1. Individuals Providing Comments during the Scoping Comment Period Commenter Affiliation Correspondence ID Comment Source ADAMS Accession Number Collier, Bret 1

Regulations.go v

ML23110A649 Anonymous 2

Regulations.go v

ML23110A650 Applegate, Kelly Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe 3

Email ML23117A313 Ogulei, David 4

Email ML23117A317 Fair, William 5

Meeting Transcript ML23108A313 Pauls, Karl 6-1 Meeting Transcript ML23108A318 Pickering, Ryan 6-2 Meeting Transcript ML23108A318 Beimers, Sarah J.

Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office 7

Email ML23199A280 Table A-2. Distribution of Comments by Resource Area or Topic Resource Area/Topic Number of Comments Received Ecology - Aquatic Resources 4

Ecology - Terrestrial Resources 1

Environmental Justice 5

General Environmental Concerns 2

Geologic Environment 1

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change 1

Historic and Cultural Resources 11 Hydrology - Groundwater Resources 2

Land Use and Visual Resources 4

Meteorology and Air Quality 2

Support - Licensing Action 3

Process - Licensing Action 2

Outside Scope - Miscellaneous 2

Outside Scope - Other non-LR Actions 2

Outside Scope - Safety 1

Appendix B B.1 Comments on Resource Areas B.1.1 Comments Concerning Ecology - Aquatic Resources Comment Summary: Several commenters expressed concern about aquatic resources. The Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe (Band) stated that 11 Ojibwe Tribes in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan are also members of Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission exercise their Treaty-protected reserved rights to hunt, fish, and gather within the 1837 Treaty ceded territory.

The Band states that the 11 Ojibwe Tribes are also members of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission who under the direction of the Tribes assist in the management of the 1837 Treaty-ceded territory. Any fish swimming upstream through the Monticello site area and any animals and birds with a wide territorial spread may transit between the Monticello site area and 1837 Treaty-ceded territory, including passing through the area for seasonal migration. The Band also expressed concern about bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis), also known locally as Asian carp moving farther upstream and potentially overwhelming the surface water resources near Monticello.

The Band disagreed with the applicant's assessment in the Environmental Report that the cumulative impact on aquatic species would be SMALL. The Band suggested cumulative impacts on aquatic species should be considered MODERATE because of the reported fish-kills resulting from sudden and drastic temperature drops during temporary controlled shut-down for repairs to the tritiated water waste processing system and the reliance of the local population of trumpeter swans: Cygnus buccinator on the open waters of the Mississippi River resulting from the Monticellos heat discharges into the Mississippi.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that the EIS should address siting of potential refurbishment activities, while striving to minimize impacts to resources (e.g., use of parking lots for staging or temporary facilities), and that unnecessary permanent, impervious areas are discouraged to reduce impacts to aquatic resources.

Comments: (3-1-8) (3-1-9) (3-2-3) (4-2)

Response: These comments will be considered as part of the NRC staffs technical review and analysis during the development of the DEIS within the ecology-aquatic resource area and/or supplemental applicable areas.

B.1.2 Comments Concerning Ecology - Terrestrial Resources Comment Summary: The Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe expressed concern about terrestrial ecological resources. Specifically, they expressed interest in migratory birds and the near-by Federal Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge and State Uncus Dunes Scientific and Natural Area.

Comments: (3-1-7)

Response: This comment will be considered as part of the NRC staffs technical review and analysis during the development of the DEIS within the ecology-terrestrial resource area and/or supplemental applicable areas.

B.1.3 Comments Concerning Environmental Justice Comment Summary: Several commenters expressed concerns about environmental justice. The Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe (Band) expressed interest in environmental justice concerns including consideration of the Biden Administration's Justice 40 initiative, the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool developed by the White House Climate Environmental Quality to identify Economic Justice areas, and the Tribal usufructuary practices for subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering. The Band requested that 50-mile radius maps centered on Monticello use the site boundary rather than the plant itself as the beginning of the 50 mile radius.

The EPA recommends including the Federal Environmental Justice (EJ) Interagency Working Group's Promising Practices for EJ Methodologies in NEPA Reviews (to which NRC contributed) to guide the EJ analysis and related elements (e.g., meaningful outreach to communities with EJ concerns).

Comments: (3-1-12) (3-1-13) (3-1-15) (3-1-16) (4-6)

Response: These comments will be considered as part of the NRC staffs technical review and analysis during the development of the DEIS within the environmental justice resource area and/or supplemental applicable areas.

B.1.4 Comments Concerning General Environmental Concerns Comment Summary: Several commenters expressed concerns about general environmental concerns. One commenter requested that the review focus on nuclear safety and not on the topics of EJ, Socioeconomics, or Historic and Cultural Resources. The Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) further clarify and define the scope and nature of nuclear generating plant operations and maintenance, and also what "refurbishment activities" to understand how that may affect historic properties or the APE.

Comments: (1-1) (7-6)

Response: This comment will be considered as part of the NRC staffs technical review and analysis during the development of the DEIS.

B.1.5 Comments Concerning Geologic Environment Comment Summary: The Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe expressed concern about the geology in the plant vicinity. Specifically, they expressed interest in having an accurate description of the seismic environment and geologic environment related to the site.

Comments: (3-1-6)

Response: This comment will be considered as part of the NRC staffs technical review and analysis during the development of the DEIS within the geologic environment resource area and/or supplemental applicable areas.

B.1.6 Comments Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Comment Summary: EPA expressed concern about the scope of NRC's climate change analysis. The EPA stated that in addition to changes in meteorological parameters and greenhouse gas emissions, climate change analysis should consider the availability of water in sufficient quantities and temperatures and, if necessary, any required an increased temperature variants to National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits. The EPA also stated that because of the uncertainty associated with climate change, the EIS should include a robust discussion explaining the methods used to assess environmental impacts 25 years into the future.

Comments: (4-7)

Response: This comment will be considered as part of the NRC staffs technical review and analysis during the development of the DEIS within the greenhouse gas emissions and climate change resource area and/or supplemental applicable areas.

B.1.7 Comments Concerning Historic and Cultural Resources Comment Summary: The Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe and the MN SHPO provided comments addressing noted concerns or noted omissions from the applicant's ER. These include concern with the ER's characterization of their reservation's distance from Monticello; omission of tribal lands, members, and other tribal organizations; omission of tribal history and associated cultural resources; focus on human remains rather than evidence of habitation or artifacts that are cultural resources to them; lack of details of the scope and nature of the plant's operations and maintenance; refining the APE as the undertaking is further defined; and the omission of additional identified agencies and other consulting parties, including Tribes. The Band expects the applicant and NRC to engage the Dakota and Ojibwe Tribes in consultation prior to any actions taking place.

The MN SHPO expressed concern with the limited information in the ER related to the proposed undertaking. They noted the lack of details of the scope and nature of the plant's operations and maintenance. MN SHPO suggested refining the APE as the undertaking is further defined, which would assist in understanding potential effects to historic properties, if any.

In addition, the MN SHPO identified that NRC's initial communication to them had not provided enough details for their office to complete their Section 106 review yet. Citing 36 CFR 800.3-5, MN SHPO reminded the NRC that they are responsible for defining the project and associated APE, historic properties that may be within the APE, then assess how the project may impact those historic properties, if applicable. MN SHPO clarified that previous comments to Xcel Energy were to assist and inform NRC's future 106 review process, as NRC has not deferred consultation to Xcel Energy. MN SHPO requested NRC provide information on additional consulting parties participation and public notification process in future correspondence with them. MN SHPO recommended that further communication clearly indicate the concurrent Section 106 review and specific focus of the public's participation in that process.

MN SHPO confirmed the completion of the requested architectural survey communicated to Xcel Energy in an April 2022 letter, concurring with Xcel's contractor's recommended determination that none of the buildings are eligible for placement on the National Register of Historic Places. For the archaeological component of Section 106, MN SHPO requested a description or a map of areas of vertical and horizontal disturbance within the APE and undisturbed areas where an archaeological survey would be conducted.

Comments: (3-1-4) (3-1-10) (3-1-11) (3-1-17) (3-2-1) (3-2-4) (7-1) (7-2) (7-3) (7-4) (7-5)

Response: These comments will be considered as part of the NRC staffs technical review and analysis during the development of the DEIS within the historic and cultural resource area and/or supplemental applicable areas.

B.1.8 Comments Concerning Hydrology - Groundwater Resources Comment Summary: Several commenters expressed concerns about groundwater resources.

One commenter noted a reported leak of tritium at Monticello in November 2022 and suggested that the applicant should have a preventative action plan to prevent any potential leaks into the surrounding groundwater. The commenter suggested that a defense in depth approach should be applied to the nuclear industry at large. One commenter suggested not using the word safe as a description of nuclear, but rather to be more transparent in effluent levels in practice. The commenter suggested providing tritium concentrations both in millisievert ingested per liter as well as becquerel or giga becquerel as the public needs accurate and widely reported information about effluent levels, recognizing speculation around an accident can be inaccurate so it is important to communicate effluent levels around these monitoring wells in a real time manner. The commenter also stated they feel TEPCO has improved their adherence to guidelines similar to those recommended by the NRC and are now providing improved transparency into the monitoring wells around Fukushima Daiichi.

Comments: (2-1) (6-1-2)

Response: These comments will be considered as part of the NRC staffs technical review and analysis during the development of the DEIS within the hydrology-groundwater resource area and/or supplemental applicable areas.

B.1.9 Comments Concerning Land Use and Visual Resources Comment Summary: The Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe (Band) expressed concern about land use in the vicinity of the plant. The Band expressed interest in what infrastructure is in scope within the licensing action based on information provided in the applicant's ER. The Band also expressed interest in the cities located entirely and partially within the 50-mile radius of the plant. The Band suggested that Onamia be considered within the radius as the elementary and high schools fall within 50 miles of the plant. The Band also expressed interest in the description of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Air Emission Permit associated facilities.

Comments: (3-1-2) (3-1-5) (3-1-14) (3-2-5)

Response: These comments will be considered as part of the NRC staffs technical review and analysis during the development of the DEIS within the land use and visual resource area and/or supplemental applicable areas.

B.1.10 Comments Concerning Meteorology and Air Quality Summary: Several commenters expressed concern about air quality in the vicinity of Monticello.

The Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe commented that although the Mille Lacs Reservation has not been re-designated as a Class I federal area, Title 11 of the Mille Lacs Band Statutes (11 MLBS

§ 119) directs the Reservation as "Pursuant to Class I-Air Quality".

The EPA encourages the applicant to commit to incorporating applicable mitigation measures from the EPA's Construction Emission Reduction Checklist into the project, wherever possible.

Comments: (3-2-2) (4-1)

Response: These comments will be considered as part of the NRC staffs technical review and analysis during the development of the DEIS within the meteorology and air quality area and/or supplemental applicable areas.

B.2 Non-Technical and Comments Outside the Scope of the Environmental Review B.2.1 General Comments in Support of the Licensing Action Comment Summary: Two commenters expressed support for nuclear power, Xcel Energy, the NRC, or the renewal of the operating license for Monticello Unit 1. The commenters cited various reasons for their support, including the clean energy provided by nuclear power, and the positive impact on the community by Excel Energy.

Comments: (5-1-1) (5-1-2) (6-1-1)

Response: These comments are outside scope of the Environmental Review and will not be discussed in the draft site-specific EIS.

B.2.2 Comments Concerning Process - Licensing Action Comment Summary: The EPA expressed concern about NRC's NEPA review process. The EPA recommends the NEPA analysis include robust explanations of NRC-designated impact categories of SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE and provide metrics or ranges to differentiate between these designations to help reviewers understand impacts. Further, the EPA stated that the NRC and the applicant should identify mitigation measures to ensure that impacts are avoided or minimized and remain in the SMALL category. The EPA stated that mitigation measures should be specific, and the "use of best management practices" is too general for reviewers to understand the potential extent of mitigation from "best management practices."

Comments: (4-4) (4-5)

Response: These comments are outside scope of the Environmental Review and will not be discussed in the draft site-specific EIS.

B.2.3 Comments Outside Scope - Safety Comment Summary: The Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe (Band) expressed concern about surface water resources. Specifically, they expressed concern about fluctuations in the water level of the Mississippi at the water intake point and the performance of the plant service water system as a result of the water level fluctuations.

Comments: (3-1-1)

Response: These comments are outside scope of the environmental review and will not be discussed in the draft site-specific EIS. Matters pertaining to plant safety will be addressed in the NRC staffs safety evaluation report.

B.2.4 Comments Outside Scope - Miscellaneous Comment Summary: The EPA expressed concern about new building design standards. The EPA stated that any new buildings should be designed to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards, and if LEED standards are pursued, this information should be included in the EIS. One commenter expressed concern about radiological responses. The commenter agreed with a previous public comment on the need for better transparency by experts and science communicators in communicating clearer information about tritium and its potential impacts on human, animal, and plant life.

Comments: (4-3) (6-2-1)

Response: These comments are outside scope of the Environmental Review and will not be discussed in the draft site-specific EIS.

B.2.5 Comments Outside Scope - Other non-LR Actions Comment Summary: The Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe (Band) expressed concern about dredging permits. The Band stated that the State of Minnesota is exploring the delegation of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and because the Federal government has fiduciary Trust responsibilities to Tribes while the State of Minnesota does not, in the event the State has been delegated that authority, they strongly urge NRC to be permitted by the Army Corps of Engineers for the section of the Mississippi River that is within the Monticello's operational boundaries and ensure that the Federal government maintains its fiduciary Trust responsibilities to Tribes.

Comments: (3-1-3) (3-2-6)

Response: These comments are outside scope of the environmental review and will not be discussed in the draft site-specific EIS. The status of Xcels permits and licenses requiring action by other federal, state, local and Tribal agencies will be addressed in the draft site-specific EIS.