ML24324A212
| ML24324A212 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 12/30/2024 |
| From: | Michele Sampson NRC/NRR/DNRL/NLRP |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML24310A343 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML24324A212 (1) | |
Text
1 RECORD OF DECISION U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NUMBER: 50-263 SUBSEQUENT LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT, UNIT 1 BACKGROUND The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received an application dated January 9, 2023 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Package Accession No. ML23009A352), from Northern States Power Company doing business as Xcel Energy (Xcel) filed pursuant to Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 USC 2011 et seq.) (AEA); Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions, and 10 CFR Part 54, Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants, for subsequent renewal of the renewed operating license for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1 (Monticello). The application was supplemented by letters dated April 3, 2023 (ML23094A136); June 26, 2023 (ML23177A218); July 11, 2023 (ML23193B026);
July 18, 2023 (ML23199A154); August 15, 2023 (ML23227A175); August 28, 2023 (ML23240A695); September 5, 2023 (ML23248A474); September 22, 2023 (ML23265A158);
October 3, 2023 (ML23276B433); November 9, 2023 (ML23313A158); November 30, 2023 (ML23334A147); January 11, 2024 (ML24012A051); and February 29, 2024 (ML24060A269).
Monticello is a General Electric boiling water reactor located approximately 35 miles NW of Minneapolis, MN. The reactor is designed to produce a nominal core power rating of 2,004 megawatts thermal (with power uprate). On January 31, 2023, the NRC staff published in the Federal Register (FR) a notice of receipt and availability of the subsequent license renewal (SLR) application (88 FR 6327), including the environmental report (ER).
The AEA specifies that licenses for commercial power reactors can be granted for an initial period of up to 40 years. The NRC regulations permit these licenses to be renewed beyond the initial 40-year term for an additional period, limited to 20-year increments per renewal, based on the results of an assessment to determine whether the nuclear facility can continue to operate safely during the proposed period of extended operation. There are no limitations in the AEA or NRC regulations restricting the number of times a license may be renewed.
The existing renewed Monticello facility operating license, DPR-22, expires on September 8, 2030. The subsequently renewed license would authorize Xcel to operate Monticello until September 8, 2050.
Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), directs that an environmental impact statement (EIS) be prepared for any major Federal action that has the potential to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), the NRC prepares an EIS for the issuance of a renewed reactor operating license, regardless of the actions environmental impact significance. The NRCs Federal action is to decide whether to issue a subsequently renewed operating license for Monticello, authorizing operation until September 8, 2050, as proposed in the application.
2 On March 3, 2023, the NRC staff published a notice of opportunity to request a hearing (88 FR 13474), and on March 10, 2023, the NRC staff published a notice of intent to prepare a site-specific EIS and conduct scoping for the Monticello SLR application (88 FR 15103). In addition, Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as Tribal governments, were notified and asked to provide comments on and to participate in the environmental scoping process and review. On March 22, 2023, the NRC staff held an in-person meeting (ML23081A039) and on March 29, 2023, the staff held a public webinar (ML23087A102) to obtain public input on the scope of the NRCs environmental review of the Monticello SLR application. On May 1, 2023, the NRC staff published meeting summaries for both the in-person meeting (ML23110A014) and the public webinar (ML23115A438). In March 2024, the NRC staff issued a Scoping Summary Report (ML24059A288).
On April 12, 2024, the NRC staff issued a draft site-specific EIS (NUREG-1437, Supplement 26, Second Renewal) for public comment, providing the preliminary results of the NRC staffs environmental evaluation of the Monticello SLR application review (ML24102A276). A notice of availability of the draft site-specific EIS was published in the FR on April 24, 2024 (89 FR 31225). A public comment period began on April 19, 2024, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice of availability (89 FR 28771) of the draft site-specific EIS to allow members of the public and agencies an opportunity to comment on the results of the environmental review. On May 3, 2024, the public comment period was initially extended from June 3, 2024, to June 10, 2024, to align the end of EPAs comment period with the NRCs (89 FR 36185). On June 5, 2024, the NRC staff decided to extend the public comment period by 15 days to June 25, 2024 (89 FR 48196). EPAs notice extending the comment appeared in the FR on June 14, 2024 (89 FR 50586). On May 8, 2024, the NRC staff held a public webinar (ML24127A198) and on May 15, 2024, the staff held an in-person meeting (ML24135A254) to present the preliminary results of the environmental review, respond to questions, and accept public comments. On October 9, 2024, the NRC staff published a meeting summary for both the public webinar and the in-person meeting (ML24192A245). The comment period ended on June 25, 2024.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT In accordance with 10 CFR 51.95(c), the NRC staff documents its environmental review of each SLR application and publishes it as a plant-specific supplement to NUREG1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants (License Renewal GEIS, or LR GEIS), as revised. (In the case of an application affected by the Commissions decision in Commission Legal Issuance (CLI)-22-03, as discussed below, the NRC staff documents its findings in a site-specific EIS.) The LR GEIS documents the results of the NRC staffs systematic approach to evaluating the incremental environmental effects (impacts) of renewing the operating licenses of commercial nuclear power plants. The LR GEIS1 provides the technical bases for the NRC staffs environmental impact findings on generic (Category 1) issues for initial and subsequent license renewal contained in Table B-1, Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, in Appendix B, Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant, to Subpart A, National Environmental Policy ActRegulations Implementing Section 102(2), of 10 CFR Part 51. Category 2 issues are to be evaluated by license renewal and SLR applicants, and by the NRC staff, on a plant-specific basis.
1 The most recent revision of the LR GEIS was issued in August 2024, as NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Revision 2, Volumes 1-3 (Aug. 2024) (ML24086A526, ML24086A527, and ML24086A528).
3 On February 24, 2022, the Commission issued three memoranda and orders that addressed the NRC staffs environmental reviews in SLR proceedings: CLI-22-02, CLI-22-03, and CLI-22-04.
In these decisions, the Commission concluded that the 2013 LR GEIS, on which the NRC staff had relied, in part, to meet its obligations under 10 CFR Part 51 and NEPA for its environmental reviews for the affected nuclear power plant SLR applications (SLRAs), did not consider SLR.
In CLI-22-03, the Commission directed the NRC staff to update the LR GEIS so that it considers nuclear power plant operation during the SLR period of extended operation (PEO). The Commission stated that it believed the most efficient way to proceed would be for the NRC staff to update the LR GEIS and then take appropriate action with respect to pending SLRAs to ensure that the environmental impacts of SLR are considered. The Commission provided an option for SLR applicants to submit additional information about environmental impacts during the SLR PEO, in which they must evaluate, on a site-specific basis, the environmental impacts for Category 1 (generic) issues. For SLR applicants that provide such information, the NRC staff was directed to address the environmental impacts of these issues in a site-specific EIS.
Consistent with CLI-22-03, on January 9, 2023, Xcel submitted its ER (ML23009A352),
providing a site-specific analysis of the environmental impacts of the continued operation of Monticello during the SLR period, for all Category 1 (generic) and Category 2 (site-specific) issues.
As stated above, on March 10, 2023, the NRC staff issued a notice of intent to prepare a site-specific EIS and conduct scoping (88 FR 15103), consistent with the Commissions orders.
As also stated above, on April 24, 2024, the NRC staff issued a draft site-specific EIS (ML24102A276; 89 FR 31225). In the draft site-specific EIS, the NRC staff evaluated all the environmental impacts, including Category 1 (generic) and Category 2 (site-specific) issues, applicable to Monticello SLR on a site-specific basis. In March 2024, the NRC staff issued a Scoping Summary Report (ML24059A288), also cited in Appendix A of the draft site-specific EIS. As discussed previously, the NRC staff held two public meetings to present the preliminary results of the environmental review, respond to questions, and accept public comments. The comment period ended on June 25, 2024.
On August 6, 2024, the NRC amended its environmental protection regulations by updating the Commissions 2013 findings on the environmental effects of renewing the operating license of a nuclear power plant. This final rule redefines the number and scope of the environmental issues that must be addressed during the review of each application for license renewal (LR), and specifically considers the environmental effects of SLR. As part of this update, the NRC issued Revision 2 to the LR GEIS to account for new information and to address the impacts of initial license renewal as well as one 20-year period of SLR. The LR GEIS, Revision 2, provides the technical basis for the final rule. The final rule became effective on September 5, 2024.
Compliance by LR and SLR applicants is not required until 1 year from the date of publication (i.e., August 6, 2025).
On November 15, 2024, the NRC staff issued its final site-specific EIS. To prepare its site-specific EIS, the NRC staff reviewed Xcels ER (which provided a site-specific analysis of the environmental impacts of the continued operation of Monticello during the SLR period) and other information. Further, the final site-specific EIS included Appendix G, Environmental Issues and Impact Findings Contained in the Final Rule, 10 CFR Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions. Appendix G
4 provides the NRC staffs consideration of the 10 CFR Part 51 rulemaking effort to ensure that the analyses and determinations in the final rule are given appropriate consideration in the final site-specific EIS for Monticello. As stated in Appendix G, all the issues in the rule and the 2024 LR GEIS have been considered in the final site-specific EIS.
As discussed above, the NRC staff issued the final site-specific EIS, providing its final evaluation of the environmental impacts of Monticello SLR; the notice of issuance was published in the FR on November 21, 2024 (ML24312A224; 89 FR 92185). On November 22, 2024, the EPA published a notice of availability of the final site-specific EIS (89 FR 92681).2 Appendix A to the final site-specific EIS discusses the comments received during the draft site-specific EIS comment period. After consideration of those comments and its independent review, the NRC staff concluded that the adverse environmental impacts of SLR for Monticello are not so great that preserving the option of SLR for energy planning decision-makers would be unreasonable. This recommendation is based on (1) information provided in the ER, as supplemented, and other documents submitted by Xcel, (2) the NRC staffs consultations with Federal, State, local, and Tribal agencies, (3) the NRC staffs independent environmental review, and (4) the NRC staffs consideration of public comments received during the scoping process and on the draft site-specific EIS.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.102(b) and 51.103(a)(1) - (5), the NRC staff has prepared this record of decision (ROD) to accompany its Federal action on the Monticello SLRA. This ROD incorporates by reference materials contained in the final site-specific EIS, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.103(c).
The EIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Federal action. The NRC designates these environmental impacts as SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE.
SMALL: Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.
MODERATE: Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource.
LARGE: Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.
The NRC staffs recommendation in the final site-specific EIS is that the adverse environmental impacts of SLR for Monticello (i.e., the continued operation of Monticello for a period of 20 years beyond the expiration dates of the initial renewed license) are not so great that preserving the option of SLR for energy planning decision-makers would be unreasonable.
DECISION Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.29, Standards for issuance of a renewed license, a renewed license may be issued if the Commission finds, in part, that the license renewal application satisfies the requirements of 10 CFR Part 54, and any applicable requirements of Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 have been satisfied; pursuant to 10 CFR 51.102, this includes the completion of the ROD.
2The EPA notice of availability established a 30-day cooling off period (89 FR 92681), which expired on December 23, 2024.
5 The final site-specific EIS, which is incorporated by reference herein, documents the NRC staffs recommendation that the adverse environmental impacts of SLR for Monticello are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decision-makers would be unreasonable, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.103(a)(5). In the 1996 final rule amending 10 CFR Part 51 (61 FR 28467), the Commission explained the following:
Given the uncertainties involved and the lack of control that the NRC has in the choice of energy alternatives in the future, the Commission believes that it is reasonable to exercise its NEPA authority to reject license renewal applications only when it has determined that the impacts of license renewal sufficiently exceed the impacts of all or almost all of the alternatives that preserving the option of license renewal for future decision-makers would be unreasonable.
In making its licensing decision on the proposed Federal action to authorize the continued operation of Monticello through September 8, 2050, the NRC must make a favorable safety finding. The purpose of the NRCs safety review is to determine whether the applicant has adequately demonstrated that the effects of aging will not adversely affect the intended functions of any systems, structures, and components specified in 10 CFR 54.4, Scope, and 10 CFR 54.21, Contents of applicationtechnical information. The applicant must demonstrate that the effects of aging will be adequately managed so that the intended functions will be maintained during the SLR period. The staff documented the results of its safety review in Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Subsequent License Renewal of Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1, dated March 18, 2024 (ML24077A001). The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards provided its independent review and report (ML24128A258) to the Commission in accordance with 10 CFR 54.25, Report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, regarding the application for subsequent renewal of the operating license for Monticello.
PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose and need for the proposed Federal action (issuance of a subsequent renewed license for Monticello) is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of the current renewed nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system-generating needs. Such needs may be determined by energy planning decision-makers such as State regulators, utility owners, and Federal agencies other than the NRC. This definition of purpose and need reflects the Commissions recognition that, unless there are findings in the NRCs safety review (required by the AEA) or findings in the NRCs environmental analysis (required by NEPA) that would lead the NRC to reject a license renewal application, the agency does not have a role in energy planning decisions as to whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to operate. Ultimately, the appropriate energy planning decision-makers and Xcel will decide whether Monticello will continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power or other matters within the States jurisdiction or the purview of the owners. The issuance of a subsequent renewed license is one of the requirements that Xcel must address to operate its nuclear power plant during the SLR term.
NRC EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES The NRC staff evaluated the environmental issues that are applicable to Monticello SLR. As discussed above, the NRC staff performed a site-specific analysis for all issues (Category 1 and Category 2) and reached conclusions specific to Monticello.
6 In LR environmental reviews, the NRC considers the environmental consequences of the proposed action (i.e., renewing the operating license), the environmental consequences of the no-action alternative (i.e., not renewing the operating license), and the environmental consequences of reasonable alternatives for replacing the nuclear power plants generating capacity. Section 102(2)(C)(iii) of NEPA and the NRCs regulations require the consideration of alternatives to the proposed action in the EIS. In this case, the proposed action would authorize the applicant to operate Monticello for an additional period of 20 years beyond the expiration date of the current renewed licenses, as requested in the application. Chapter 2 of the site-specific EIS, Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions, presents the NRC staffs evaluation and analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives to SLR. The evaluation considered the environmental impacts of each alternative across the following impact areas: land use and visual resources, air quality and noise, geologic environment, water resources, terrestrial resources, aquatic resources, special status species, historic and cultural resources, socioeconomics, human health, environmental justice, and waste management.
As explained in the discussion of purpose and need for the proposed Federal action, outside of the safety and environmental reviews, the NRC does not have a role in the energy planning decisions as to whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to operate. Should the renewed operating license not be subsequently renewed, and the nuclear plant shuts down at the end of its current renewed license, the appropriate energy planning decision-makers will decide how best to replace the nuclear power plants generating capacity. In evaluating alternatives to SLR in the EIS, the NRC staff considered energy technologies or options in commercial operation, as well as technologies not currently in commercial operation but likely to be commercially available by the time the current Monticello renewed operating license expires.
For a replacement power alternative to be considered reasonable, it must be both commercially viable on a utility scale and operational before the reactors operating license expires or expected to become commercially viable on a utility scale and operational before the expiration of the reactors operating license. The current renewed operating license for Monticello expires on September 8, 2030. Therefore, to be considered in this evaluation, reasonable alternatives have to be available (i.e., constructed, permitted, and connected to the grid) by those dates. To determine whether alternatives were reasonable, or likely to be commercially suitable to replace Monticello, the NRC staff reviewed energy-relevant statutes, regulations, and policies; the state of technologies; and information on energy outlook from sources such as the Energy Information Administration, other organizations within the U.S. Department of Energy, industry sources and publications, and information submitted by Xcel in its ER.
Table 1 provides a summary (comparison) of environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. As summarized in Table 1, each of the replacement power alternatives have environmental impacts in at least five resource areas that are greater than the environmental impacts of the proposed action of SLR. Based on the NRC staffs review, the staff concludes that the environmentally preferred alternative is the proposed action of SLR.
7 Table 1:
Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives Impact Area (Resource)
Monticello Subsequent License Renewal (Proposed Action)
No-Action Alternative Natural Gas and Renewables Alternative Renewables and Storage Alternative New Nuclear (Small Modular Reactor)
Alternative Land Use SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE to LARGE SMALL to MODERATE Visual Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE Air Quality SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE SMALL Noise SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE Geologic Environment SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE Surface Water Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE Groundwater Resources SMALL to MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE Terrestrial Resources SMALL SMALL MODERATE to LARGE MODERATE to LARGE SMALL to MODERATE Aquatic Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE Special Status Species and Habitats SEE NOTE(a)
SEE NOTE (b)
SEE NOTE (c)
SEE NOTE (c)
SEE NOTE (d)
Historic and Cultural Resources SEE NOTE (e)
SEE NOTE (f)
SEE NOTE (g)
SEE NOTE (g)
SEE NOTE (g)
Socioeconomics SMALL SMALL to LARGE SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to LARGE Transportation SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL MODERATE to LARGE Human Health SMALL(h)
SMALL(h)
SMALL(h)
SMALL(h)
SMALL(h)
Environmental Justice SEE NOTE (i)
SEE NOTE (j)
SEE NOTE(k)
SEE NOTE (k)
SEE NOTE(k)
Waste Management SMALL(l)
SMALL(l)
SMALL(l)
SMALL(l)
SMALL(l)
(a) May affect but is not likely to adversely affect northern long-eared bat, tricolored bat, whooping crane, and monarch butterfly. No effect on designated critical habitats or essential fish habitat (EFH) or
8 Impact Area (Resource)
Monticello Subsequent License Renewal (Proposed Action)
No-Action Alternative Natural Gas and Renewables Alternative Renewables and Storage Alternative New Nuclear (Small Modular Reactor)
Alternative sanctuary resources of National Marine Sanctuaries, because they do not occur within the action area.
(b) Overall, the effects on federally listed species would likely be smaller under the no-action alternative than the effects under continued operation but would depend on the specific shutdown activities as well as the listed species present when the no-action alternative is implemented. No effect on designated critical habitats or EFH, because they do not occur within the action area.
(c) The types and magnitudes of adverse impacts to species listed in the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), designated critical habitat, and EFH would depend on the proposed alternative site, as well as listed species and habitats present when the alternative is implemented. Therefore, the NRC staff cannot forecast a level of impact for this alternative.
(d) The types and magnitudes of adverse impacts to species listed in the ESA, designated critical habitat, and EFH would depend on the proposed alternative site, nuclear power plant design and operation, as well as listed species and habitats present when the alternative is implemented. Therefore, the NRC staff cannot forecast a level of impact for this alternative.
(e) Based on (1) the fact that Xcel does not plan to alter operations, expand existing facilities, or disturb additional land during the SLR period, (2) input from consulting parties, and (3) Xcels updates to procedures to identify, protect, and minimize the potential impact to cultural resources at Monticello, SLR will result in no historic properties affected, and the impacts on historic and cultural resources are SMALL.
(f) No immediate effect on historic properties or historic and cultural resources.
(g) The potential for impacts on historic and cultural resources from construction and operation of the alternative would vary greatly depending on site locations and resources present.
(h) The chronic effects of electromagnetic fields on human health associated with operating nuclear power and other electricity generating plants are uncertain.
(i) Disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects to minority and low-income populations are not expected.
(j) Not subsequently renewing the renewed operating license and terminating reactor operations could have a noticeable impact on socioeconomic conditions in communities near Monticello, and a reduction in tax revenue resulting from nuclear power plant shutdown could decrease the availability of public services. Minority and low-income populations dependent on these services could be disproportionately affected.
(k) The NRC staff identified common impacts from the construction and operation of replacement power facilities that could disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. Construction and operations of replacement power alternatives would not likely have disproportionate or adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. However, this determination would depend on site location, nuclear power plant design, operational characteristics of the new facility, unique consumption practices and interactions with the environment of nearby populations, and the location of predominantly minority and low-income populations.(l) NUREG-2157, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, discusses the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage for the time frame beyond the licensed life for reactor operations.
9 UPDATED STATUS OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT SECTION 106 CONSULTATION Following the issuance of the final site-specific EIS, NRC staff conducted a site visit at Monticello on November 25, 2024, to conduct a walkthrough with the Lower Sioux Indian Community and the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) staff through a portion of the 2,000-acre Monticello site (ML24340A040). As part of the November 25, 2024, site visit, NRC staff, THPO staff, and Xcel staff discussed updates to Xcel Energys fleet procedure to include notifications to the Lower Sioux Indian Community and the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community should ground disturbing activities occur and an invitation to monitor the activities. In correspondence dated December 5, 2024, Xcel notified the NRC that the update to its fleet procedure to notify and invite the interested consulting Tribes to monitor ground disturbing activities was finalized (ML24346A095).
CONSIDERATION OF COMMENTS ON THE FINAL SITE-SPECIFIC EIS By letter dated December 12, 2024 (ML24353A119), EPA Region 5 submitted comments to the NRC on the Monticello final site-specific EIS. On December 16, 2024 (ML24352A024), NRC staff held a teleconference with EPA Region 5 staff to address and resolve the comments that they had provided in their letter. During the December 16, 2024, teleconference, EPA Region 5 staff acknowledged that the NRC staff had addressed their comments and stated that their comments had been resolved and that they had no further comments. On December 17, 2024, via email correspondence (ML24353A134), EPA confirmed that the NRC staff had addressed their comments on the final site-specific EIS and that they did not have further comments.
MITIGATION MEASURES The NRC has taken all practicable measures within its jurisdiction to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected. Continued operation of Monticello would have SMALL environmental impacts in all resource areas except for groundwater resources which would have a SMALL to MODERATE impact. The NRC is not imposing any license conditions in connection with mitigation measures. However, Monticello is subject to requirements, including permits, authorizations, and regulatory orders, imposed by other Federal, State, and local agencies governing facility operation. The NRC is not requiring any new environmental monitoring programs outside what is required by Monticellos current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits and water quality certification or is otherwise required of the licensee under NRC regulations, as described in the Monticello final site-specific EIS.
Regarding Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) to address mitigation measures, as stated in the final site-specific EIS, there is no new and significant information regarding any potentially cost-beneficial SAMA that would substantially reduce the risks of a severe accident at Monticello.
DETERMINATION Based on the NRC staffs (1) independent review, analysis, and evaluation contained in the final site-specific EIS, (2) careful consideration of all of the identified social, economic, and environmental factors, (3) input received from other agencies, organizations, and the public, and (4) consideration of mitigation measures, the NRC has determined that the standards for the issuance of a subsequent renewed operating license, with respect to the environmental matters as described in 10 CFR 54.29(b), have been met and that the requirements of Section 102 of
10 NEPA, as prescribed in 10 CFR 51.103, Record of decisiongeneral, have been satisfied.
The NRC has determined that the adverse environmental impacts of issuing a subsequent renewed operating license for Monticello are not great enough that preserving the option of subsequent license renewal for energy planning decision-makers would be unreasonable.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30 day of December 2024.
APPROVED BY:
Michele M. Sampson, Director Division of New and Renewed Licenses Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Signed by Sampson, Michele on 12/30/24