ML063200034

Comment (1) of Kenneth A. Westlake on Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plant, Supplement 26; Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (Ceq No. 20060391)

ML063200034
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	11/01/2006
From:	Westlake K Environmental Protection Agency
To:	NRC/ADM/DAS/RDB
References
71FR56568 00001, B-19J, CEQ 20060391
Download: ML063200034 (2)

Text

• %e 8~P7 4 ,ý"4',,-4 PROISý1 0 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 5 77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590-T'NOY 0 124L REPLY TO THE ATTENTIQN OF B-19J-Z5 CD.Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T6-D59 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

~//~K~54~&

g 7 0 Re: Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plant, Supplement 26: Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (CEQ No. 20060391)

Dear Sir or Madam:

In accordance with Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the UYS. Environmental ProtectionAgency (U.S. EPA) has reviewed the Final Generic ,Environmental.ImpactStatement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plant, Supplement 26: Monticell6

Nudlear Generating:

p, ant.;- The Monticello.

Nuclear Gerierating Plant is located in southeastern Minnesota on the bank of the Mississippi River, 30 miles northwest of Minneapolis.

Monticello is a single-unit plant that currently generates approximately 1775: megawatts thermal, as a result of an authorized power uprate in 1998. The plant uses Mississippi River water for condenser cooling and can operate as an open-cycle plant, returning water to the river, or a closed-cycle plant, using two cooling towers. The cooling towers are normally operated May through September, when the Mississippi River is generally above 680 F, or during periods of low flow. This system is in effect to meet surface water appropriations limits and thermal discharge limits. The plant's current operating license expires on September 8, 2010. The proposed Federal action would renew the current operating licenses for an additional 20 years.U.S. EPA previously rated the Draft SEIS "Environmental Concerns-insufficient information" (EC-2) in our comment letter dated May 3, 2006. Our main concerns at the time included: adequacy and clarity of the radiological impacts and risk estimates, unaddressed impacts of foreseeable power uprates, and abnormal effluent releases.

Based on our review of the Final SEIS and our subsequent conference call with NRC staff on October 30, 2006, we consider our concerns on this project resolved.We thank NRC for addressing, several of.our comments in the Final SEIS. In particular, the additional information about effluent releases provided in the Final SEIS and the response to comments explains the situation and adds. that all releases have been within regulatory limits and are- allowable under.NRC perfiNits,.:

This response removesour concerns in this area. We.also acknowledge-yourresponses

"-o manyof our comments on presenting risk Values and other air exposure data,. and appreciate the chaniges, where they were made.,...C 10,&'s Recycled/Recyclable

-Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (50% Postconsumer)

.(* .; ;.. .... ... ... ....

-4 We also recommended, in our comments on the Draft SEIS, that future environmental documentation include a discussion about the potential environmental impacts of on-site dry cask spent fuel storage and possible power uprates. Our recent conference call provided useful information about these topics. In our conversation, NRC staff stated that NRC does not consider power uprates as reasonably foreseeable until a power generator files an application.

Furthermore, NRC staff explained that NRC prepares an Environmental Assessment under NEPA for proposed power uprates at individual facilities.

We understand this approach, and we recommend that NRC explain this approach more directly in future environmental documents.

As we discussed in our telephone conference, we recommend that NRC at least describe the criteria for reasonably foreseeable actions, along with the supporting rationale for these decisions, perhaps drawn from the NRC's NEPA implementation regulations, as appropriate.

Regarding spent-fuel storage, the NRC noted that on-site spent-fuel storage is already approved for facilities through their original permits, provided the facility uses an NRC-approved storage method or facility.

The Final SEIS described the current Monticello application to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to store spent fuel in dry casks. We also found the information in the Final SEIS' comment response section helpful. We suggest incorporating it into future documents.

In general, we suggest that explaining these previous agreements or outside processes would answer questions that we raised about aspects of the project that seemed to be ignored, but were in fact addressed via another process or previous permit or agreement.

It would help the public reader to understand the NRC licensing process as a whole.Based on our review of the Final SEIS and our subsequent conversation, we have removed our concerns from this project. We thank you for consulting us on our comments, and we look forward to working with you on fufure projects.

U.S. EPA staff and NRC staff have agreed to have preliminary discussions when draft documents are released and to work to resolve questions at the earliest possible point in the review process. If you have any questions or wish to discuss any aspect of the comments, please contact Anna Miller of my staff at (312) 886-7060.Sincerely, Kenneth A. Westlake, Chief NEPA Implementation Section Office of Science, Ecosystems, and Communities cc: Jennifer Davis, NRC Environmental Project Manager