ML030080240
| ML030080240 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 12/03/2002 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| MASNIK M, NRR/DRIP/RLEP, 415-1191 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ml030060091 | List: |
| References | |
| NRC-668 | |
| Download: ML030080240 (89) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Preliminary Results of Environmental Review of St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 & 2 Evening Session Docket Number:
(50-335, 50-389)
Location:
Port St. Lucie, Florida Date:
Tuesday, December 3, 2002 Work Order No.:
NRC-668 Pages 1-66 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS THE PRELIMINARY 4
RESULTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR 5
LICENSE RENEWAL AT ST. LUCIE PLANT, 6
UNITS 1 AND 2 7
+ + + + +
8 TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2002 9
+ + + + +
+ + + + +
12 The Public Meeting commenced at 7:00 p.m.,
13 at Port St. Lucie City Hall, Council Chambers, 121 14 S.W. Port St. Lucie Boulevard, Port St. Lucie, 15 Florida.
16 PRESENT:
17 CHIP CAMERON, Facilitator 18 NOEL DUDLEY, Safety Project Manager 19 DR. MICHAEL MASNIK, Senior Environmental Project 20 Manager 21 JOHN TAPPERT, Section Chief, License Renewal and 22 Environmental Impacts Program 23 DUKE WHEELER, Senior Environmental Project Manager 24 RUSSELL ARRIGHI, Safety Project Manager 25
2 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 PRESENT: (CONT.)
1 S.K. MITRA, Safety Project Manager 2
JENNIFER DAVIS, General Scientist 3
ETOY HYLTON, Licensing Assistant 4
ROGER HANNAH, Region II Public Affairs Officer 5
LAURA ORR, NRC Site Secretary, St. Lucie 6
THIERRY ROSS, Senior Resident Inspector, St. Lucie 7
CASSIE BRAY, Attorney, Office of General Counsel 8
EVA HICKEY, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 9
TARA ESCHBACH, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 10 DUANE NEITZEL, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 A-G-E-N-D-A 1
Welcome and purpose of Meeting (Chip Cameron).. 4 2
Welcome (John Tappert) 10 3
Overview of license renewal process (Noel Dudley) 12 4
Overview of environmental review process 5
(Dr. Michael Masnik) 18 6
Q&A......................
24 7
Results of the environmental review (Eva Hickey) 24 8
Q&A......................
35 9
Severe accident mitigation alternatives 10 (Mike Masnik).................
36 11 Q&A......................
43 12 Overall conclusions and process (Michael Masnik) 45 13 Q&A......................
47 14 Public comments................
49 15 Closing....................
66 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
(7:00 p.m.)
2 MR. CAMERON: Good evening everyone.
3 My name is Chip Cameron, and Im the 4
special counsel for public liaison at the Nuclear 5
Regulatory Commission, and I wanted to welcome all of 6
you to the meeting tonight. Thanks for coming out to 7
be with us.
8 The topic of tonights meeting is the 9
NRCs Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the 10 application from Florida Power and Light to renew the 11 licenses at St. Lucie 1 and 2.
12 And its my pleasure to be your 13 facilitator for tonights meeting and in that role Im 14 going to try to help all of you have a productive 15 meeting.
16 I just wanted to cover a couple of things 17 about meeting format and ground rules and agenda 18 before we get started with the discussions.
19 The format for the meeting is pretty 20 simple. Were going to do it in two parts, and those 21 two parts match the objectives of the meeting.
22 The first part were going to try to give 23 you some background information on the license renewal 24 process and what the NRCs responsibilities are, and 25
5 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 most importantly, go over the preliminary findings 1
that are on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2
on the license renewal application.
3 So were going to have four or five NRC 4
presentations. Well try to keep them brief. And 5
then well go out to you after each presentation and 6
see if you have any questions, because we do want to 7
make sure that we clearly explain what our 8
responsibilities are.
9 The second part of the meeting is to give 10 those of you who might want to make a more formal 11 statement to us on the Draft Environmental Impact 12 Statement, give you a chance to come up here and talk 13 to us, and well be listening to what you say. We are 14 taking written comments on these issues and the staff 15 will tell you a little bit more about that in a 16 minute.
17 But we wanted to be with you here tonight 18 to talk to you personally. We have a lot of NRC staff 19 here and a lot of expert scientists who are helping us 20 with the environmental review. After the meeting is 21 over I would just encourage you to talk to them about 22 any issues you hear tonight.
23 In terms of ground rules, again, simple 24 ground rules: if you have a question, just give me a 25
6 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 signal and Ill bring you this talking stick and if 1
you can give us your name and affiliation, if 2
appropriate, and then ask your question. We are 3
taking a transcript of the meeting that will be 4
available and thats our record of what is said 5
tonight, a record of your comments.
6 And I would just ask that only one person 7
speak at a time so that we can give our full attention 8
to whomever has the floor, whomever has the talking 9
stick at the moment. And Ill try to be concise so 10 that we can make sure that everybody has a chance to 11 talk tonight. We dont have too many people signed up 12 to make a formal statement, so we have plenty of time.
13 I did want to go through the agenda so you 14 know what to expect and also to tell you a little bit 15 about the people that are going to be talking to you 16 tonight from the NRC staff and from our group of 17 expert consultants.
18 Ive asked John Tappert, who is right here 19 in the front row, to do a short welcome for you in a 20 few minutes. John is the section leader of the 21 Environmental Section in the Environmental Impacts 22 Program in our Office of Nuclear Reaction Regulation.
23 Johns staff prepare or supervise the 24 preparation of any environmental review, not just for 25
7 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 a license renewal application, but for any reactor 1
project that the NRC is involved in, and hes been 2
with us for about eleven years at the NRC. He was an 3
officer in the Nuclear Navy before that. Hes been a 4
resident inspector at operating nuclear power plants 5
for the NRC.
6 And hes got a Bachelors Degree in 7
Aerospace and Oceanographic Engineering from Virginia 8
Tech and a
Masters Degree in Environmental 9
Engineering from Johns Hopkins University. So John 10 will do a welcome.
11 Then were going to have Noel Dudley, 12 whos right here, talk to us for a little bit about 13 the license renewal process generally. Noel is the 14 project manager on the St. Lucie license renewal 15 application for the safety evaluation. Youre going 16 to hear that theres a safety evaluation and theres 17 an environmental evaluation, and all of that goes into 18 the NRCs decision.
19 Well, Noel is in charge of the safety 20 evaluation. He has been with the NRC for about 21 eighteen years in various capacities. He was a senior 22 staff engineer with the Advisory Committee on Reactor 23 Safety. Youll hear a little bit more about that. He 24 also was a resident inspector. He was an officer in 25
8 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the Nuclear Navy and he spent a few years in the Peace 1
Corps working in East Africa teaching science and 2
physics. And he has two degrees, one a Bachelors in 3
Engineering, the other a Bachelors in Engineering 4
Physics.
5 After hes done well go out to you for 6
any questions you might have on the overall process.
7 Then were going to start to focus in more and were 8
going to have Dr. Michael Masnik, whos in the front 9
row here also. Hes going to tell you about the 10 environmental review process. And Mike is the project 11 manager for the environmental review on the St. Lucie 12 license renewal application.
13 Hes had long experience at the NRC, 14 twenty plus years there. He was the project manager 15 for the original licensing of St. Lucie Unit 2, 16 project manager for the NRC. So he knows the plant.
17 He knows the area. He also was in charge of the 18 oversight of the clean-up of Three Mile Island, the 19 accident that happened there twenty plus years ago, 20 and hes also been involved in decommissioning work at 21 the Agency.
22 Mike has a Bachelors Degree in Zoology 23 from Cornell and a Masters and Ph.D. from Virginia 24 Polytechnic Institute.
25
9 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Well see if you have any questions then 1
and then were going to get to the heart of the 2
meeting, which is the discussion of the preliminary 3
results of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
4 We have Eva Hickey here from Pacific 5
Northwest National Lab. She has served as the team 6
leader on preparation of a lot of environmental 7
reviews on license renewal application.
8 On this particular application, she was 9
focusing on radiological issues and decommissioning, 10 but shes going to give you the total overview. Eva 11 has over twenty years experience in radiological 12 assessments, environmental reviews and emergency 13 planning on nuclear power plants, and shes another 14 Virginia Tech grad and she also has a Masters from 15 George Tech in Health Physics.
16 We have got a, what I like to call a short 17 subject, an important short subject thats part of the 18 Environmental Impact Statement, and thats something 19 called severe accident mitigation alternatives. And 20 Mike Masnik is going to come up and tell us about that 21 and then tell us about the overall conclusions, and 22 then were going to go to you for formal comment.
23 But we really want to try to make this as 24 conversational and as interactive as possible. So 25
10 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 after the presentations, if you have questions about 1
the process, just please ask them and well have a 2
discussion on that.
3 And with that, Im going to ask John 4
Tappert to come up and talk to you and well get 5
started.
6 John?
7 MR. TAPPERT: Thanks, Chip. Well, good 8
evening and welcome.
9 My name is John Tappert and Im the chief 10 in the Environmental Section in the Office of Nuclear 11 Reactor Regulation. On behalf of the Nuclear 12 Regulatory Commission, Id like to thank you for 13 coming out tonight and participating in our process.
14 There are several things wed like to 15 cover today and Id like to briefly discuss the 16 purposes of todays meeting.
17 First wed like to give you a brief 18 overview of the entire license renewal process. This 19 includes both a
safety
- review, as well as 20 environmental review, which is the principle focus of 21 todays meeting.
22 Next well give you the preliminary 23 results of our environmental review, which assesses 24 the environmental impacts associated with extending 25
11 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the operating license of the St. Lucie Nuclear Power 1
Plants for an additional twenty years.
2 Next well give you some information about 3
our schedule and how you can participate in the 4
processing by submitting written comments on our Draft 5
Environmental Impact Statement.
6 At the conclusion of the staffs 7
presentation, well be happy to receive any questions 8
or comments that you may have today.
9 But first, let me provide some general 10 context for the license renewal program.
11 The Atomic Energy Act gives the NRC the 12 authority to issue operating licenses to commercial 13 nuclear power plants for a period of forty years. For 14 St. Lucie Units 1 and 2, its operating licenses will 15 expire in 2016 and 2023, respectively. Our 16 regulations also make provisions for extending those 17 operating licenses for an additional twenty years, as 18 part of our license renewal program, and Florida Power 19 and Light has requested license renewal for both 20 units.
21 As part of the NRCs review of that 22 application, we do an environmental review to look at 23 the impacts associated with extending those licenses.
24 We held a meeting here last April to provide 25
12 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 information on that process and also to seek your 1
input on issues to be addressed in the Environmental 2
Impact Statement.
3 As we indicated at that earlier scoping 4
meeting, weve returned here now today, to provide you 5
with the preliminary results of our review. And 6
again, the principal purpose of todays meeting is to 7
receive your questions and comments on that review.
8 And with that brief introduction, Id like 9
to ask Noel to give us a overview of the safety 10 portion.
11 MR. DUDLEY: Thank-you, John.
12 Good evening. My name is Noel Dudley and 13 Im the project manager for the safety review of the 14 St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 license renewal application.
15 Before discussing the license renewal 16 process and the staff safety review, Id like to talk 17 about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its role 18 in licensing and regulating nuclear power plants.
19 The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 authorizes 20 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to regulate the 21 civilian use of nuclear material. The NRCs mission 22 is threefold. One, to ensure the adequate protection 23 of public health and safety; two, to protect the 24 environment; and three, to provide the common defense 25
13 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 and security.
1 The NRC consists of five commissioners and 2
the NRC staff. One of the commissioners is designated 3
as the NRCs chairman. The regulations enforced by 4
the NRC are issued under Title 10 of the Code of 5
Federal Regulations, commonly called 10 C.F.R. 6 The Atomic Energy Act provided for a forty 7
year license term for power reactors, but it also 8
allowed for license renewal. That forty year term is 9
based primarily on economic and anti-trust 10 considerations, rather than safety limitations.
11 Major components were initially expected 12 to last up to forty years; however, operating 13 experience has demonstrated that some major 14 components, such as the steam generators, will not 15 last that long. For that reason, a number of 16 utilities have replaced major components. Since 17 components and structures can be replaced or 18 reconditioned, plant life is really determined 19 primarily by economic factors.
20 License renewal applications are submitted 21 years in advance for several reasons. If a utility 22 decides to replace a nuclear power plant, it can take 23 up to five to ten years to plan and construct new 24 generating capacity to replace that nuclear power 25
14 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 plant.
1 In addition, decisions to replace or 2
recondition major components can involve significant 3
capital investment. As such, these decisions involve 4
financial planning many years in advance of the 5
extended period of operation.
6 The Florida Power and Light Company has 7
applied for license renewal under 10 C.F.R., Part 54, 8
and thereby requested authorization to operate St.
9 Lucie Units 1 and 2 for an additional twenty years.
10 Now I would like to talk about license 11 renewal, which is governed by the requirements of 10 12 C.F.R., Part 54, or the license renewal rule. This 13 part of the Code of Federal Regulations defines the 14 regulatory process by which a nuclear utility such as 15 Florida Power and Light applies for license renewal.
16 The license renewal rule incorporates 10 17 C.F.R., Part 51, by reference. This part provides for 18 the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, 19 and the discussion of that Impact Statement, which is 20 now in a draft form, is what well be talking about 21 tonight.
22 The license renewal process defined in 23 Part 54 is very similar to the original licensing 24 process, in that it involves a safety review and 25
15 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 environmental impact evaluation, plant inspections and 1
review by the Advisory Committee on Reactor 2
Safeguards, which is also known as the ACRS.
3 The ACRS is a group of scientists and 4
nuclear industry experts, who serve as a consulting 5
body to the five commissioners. The ACRS performs an 6
independent review of the license renewal application 7
and the staffs safety evaluation, and reports its 8
findings and recommendations directly to the five 9
commissioners.
10 This next slide illustrates two parallel 11 processes. You will see one on the top of the slide, 12 the other towards the bottom. The two parallel 13 processes are the safety review process and the 14 environmental review process. These processes are 15 used by the NRC staff to evaluate two separate aspects 16 of the license renewal application.
17 The safety review, which is seen on the 18 top part of the slide, involves the staffs review of 19 the technical information in the application for 20 renewal to verify with reasonable assurance that the 21 plant can continue to operate safely for the extended 22 period of operations.
23 The staff assesses how the applicant 24 proposes to monitor or manage the aging of certain 25
16 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 components that are within the scope of license 1
renewal. The staffs review is documented in a safety 2
evaluation report, which is provided to the ACRS. The 3
ACRS reviews the safety evaluation report, holds 4
public meetings and prepares a report to the 5
Commission, documenting its recommendations.
6 The safety review process also involves 7
two or three inspections, which are documented in NRC 8
inspection reports. In its decision to renew an 9
operating license, the NRC considers the safety 10 evaluation report, the ACRS report, the Region II NRC 11 Regional Administrators recommendations, and the 12 inspection reports.
13 At the bottom of the slide is the other 14 parallel process, the environmental review, which 15 involves scoping activities, preparation of the draft 16 supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact 17 Statement, solicitation of public comments on the 18 draft supplement, which is what were doing tonight, 19 and then the issuance of a final supplement to the 20 Generic Environmental Impact Statement. This document 21 also factors into the agencys decision on that 22 application.
23 In the safety evaluation report, the staff 24 documents its assessment of the effectiveness of the 25
17 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 applicants existing or proposed inspection and 1
maintenance activities to manage aging effects 2
applicable to passive long lived structures and 3
components.
4 Part 54 requires the applicant to 5
reevaluate those design analyses that assumed forty 6
years of plant operations. The reevaluation extends 7
the assumed operating period to sixty years.
8 An example of that is electrical cables 9
were initially evaluated for forty years to ensure 10 their integrity, and the time limited aging analyses 11 will redo that evaluation, but for a sixty year 12 period, to ensure that the cables will withstand aging 13 in the environment for sixty years of operation.
14 And again, these reevaluations are called 15 time limited aging analyses, also called TLAAs.
16 Current regulations are adequate for 17 addressing active components, such as pumps and 18 valves, which are continually challenged to reveal 19 failures and degradations, such that corrective 20 actions can be taken.
21 Current regulations also exist to address 22 other aspects of the original license, such as 23 security issues and emergency planning issues. These 24 current regulations will also apply during the 25
18 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 extended period of operation and are not part of the 1
review for license renewal.
2 In January, 2002, the NRC issued a Federal 3
Register notice to announce its acceptance of the 4
Florida Power and Light Companys application for 5
renewal of the operating licenses for St. Lucie. This 6
notice also announced the opportunity for public 7
participation in the process.
8 This concludes my summary of the license 9
renewal process and the staffs safety evaluation 10 report, and Ill turn it over to Chip again.
11 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank-you very much, 12 Noel.
13 Are there any questions about the safety 14 evaluation part of this license renewal process that 15 Noel just talked about, or the overall process?
16 (No response.)
17 MR. CAMERON: Okay, lets go on to the 18 environmental review part of the process, and if you 19 have questions that you think of later on that apply 20 to the safety side, Noel is here and well take them 21 up at that time.
22 Mike?
23 DR. MASNIK: Thank-you, Chip, and good 24 evening.
25
19 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 My name is Mike Masnik. Im the 1
environmental project manager for the St. Lucie 2
license renewal project. Im responsible for 3
coordinating the efforts of the NRC staff and our 4
contractors from the National Lab to conduct and 5
document the environmental review associated with 6
Florida Power and Lights application for license 7
renewal at St. Lucie.
8 This first slide deals with NEPA. NEPA is 9
the National Environmental Policy Act which was 10 enacted in 1969. Its one of the most significant 11 pieces of environmental legislation that has ever been 12 passed in this country. It requires all Federal 13 agencies to use a systematic approach to consider 14 environmental impacts during certain decision-making 15 proceedings requiring major Federal actions.
16 NEPA requires that we examine the 17 environmental impacts of the proposed action and 18 consider mitigation measures, which are things that 19 can be done to reduce impacts when the impacts are 20 severe. NEPA requires that we consider alternatives 21 to the proposed action and the impacts of those 22 alternatives need to be evaluated as well.
23 Finally, NEPA requires that we disclose 24 all of this information to the public and we also 25
20 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 invite public participation in the process.
1 The NRC has determined that we will 2
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement associated 3
with renewal of the operating licenses for plants for 4
an additional twenty years. Therefore, following the 5
process required by NEPA, we have prepared a Draft 6
Environmental Impact Statement that describes the 7
environmental impacts associated with operating St.
8 Lucie for an additional twenty years. And this is 9
the document that we prepared. Copies of this 10 document are available here tonight outside the door.
11 If you so desire, you can pick one up as you leave.
12 This Environmental Impact Statement was 13 issued late October of this year, and the meeting 14 today is being held to receive comments on this 15 document.
16 This slide describes the objective of our 17 environmental review, and this is the language out of 18 our regulations, which unfortunately is kind of 19 convoluted and maybe a little difficult to understand.
20 But simply put, were trying to determine whether the 21 renewal of the St. Lucie license is acceptable from an 22 environmental standpoint.
23 Now whether or not the plant actually 24 operates for an additional twenty years will be 25
21 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 determined by others, such as Florida Power and Light 1
and State Regulatory Agencies, and it will also depend 2
in a large measure, on the results of the safety 3
review.
4 This slide shows in a little bit more 5
detail the environmental review process that Noel 6
showed you in a previous slide just a few minutes ago.
7 We received the application from Florida Power and 8
Light to renew the license last November in 2001. We 9
issued a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register in 10 February of this year, informing the public that we 11 are going to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 12 and give the opportunity for the public to provide 13 comments on the scope of this review.
14 This past April, during the scoping 15 period, we held two public meetings here in Port St.
16 Lucie, in fact, in this very room, to receive public 17 comments on the scope of issues that should be 18 included in the Environmental Impact Statement for the 19 St. Lucie license renewal.
20 Also in April, we went to the St. Lucie 21 site with a combined team of NRC staff and personnel 22 from our two national labs that have backgrounds in 23 specific technical and scientific disciplines. They 24 were brought to the site to perform the environmental 25
22 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 audit.
1 We familiarized ourselves with the site, 2
we met with the staff from Florida Power and Light 3
Company to discuss the information submitted in 4
support of the license renewal. We reviewed 5
environmental documentation maintained at the plant 6
site, and we examined Florida Power and Light 7
Companys evaluation process.
8 In addition, we contacted various Federal, 9
State and local agencies, as well as local service 10 agencies to obtain information on the area and on the 11 St. Lucie plant.
12 At the close of the scoping comment 13 period, we gathered up and considered all the comments 14 that we had received from the public and from the 15 State and Federal agencies, and many of these comments 16 ultimately contributed significantly to the document 17 that were here today to discuss.
18 Now in May we issued requests for 19 additional information for Florida Power and Light 20 Company to respond to, to ensure that any information 21 that we relied on that had not been included in their 22 formal submittal, be submitted to the NRC. We put 23 that information on our docket and it is publicly 24 available.
25
23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 At the end of October, we issued a Draft 1
Environmental Impact Statement for public comment.
2 This is Supplement 11 to the Generic Environmental 3
Impact Statement that I showed you a few minutes ago.
4 This report is a draft, not because it is incomplete, 5
but rather because we are at an intermediate stage in 6
the decision making process.
7 Were in the middle of the public comment 8
period to allow you and other members of the public to 9
take a look at the results and provide any comments 10 you might have on the report at this time.
11 After we gather these comments and 12 evaluate them, we may decide to change portions of the 13 Environmental Impact Statement based on those 14 comments. The NRC will then issue a final 15 Environmental Impact Statement related to license 16 renewal at St. Lucie by July, 2003.
17 Any questions?
18 MR. CAMERON: Questions about the 19 environmental review process?
20 Mike talked about submitting written 21 comments, and I just wanted to emphasize that any 22 comments that we hear from you tonight will be treated 23 with the same weight as any written comments we get.
24 Anybody have a question out there on this 25
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 before we go into the results of the environmental 1
review?
2 Yes?
3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Did you receive 4
any written copies --
5 MR. CAMERON: Let me get you on the 6
transcript, and just tell us your name, sir.
7 MR. BARRY: My name is Vincent Barry, and 8
my question is, did you get any comment, written 9
comments from the public?
10 MR. MASNIK: During the scoping process?
11 Yes, sir, we did. We got quite a number of them.
12 In fact, those comments that are within 13 the scope of our review are reprinted in one of the 14 appendices in this document, so you can look to see 15 what the comments were that the public raised on the 16 relicensing.
17 MR. CAMERON: Does that take care of it?
18 MR. BARRY: Yes.
19 MR. CAMERON: All right.
20 Anybody else?
21 (No response.)
22 MR. CAMERON: All right, lets go to Eva 23 Hickey.
24 MS. HICKEY: Thank-you and good evening 25
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 everybody.
1 My name is Eva Hickey and Im going to be 2
filling in for Charlie Brandt this evening, because he 3
wasnt able to join us. Charlie is actually the 4
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory task leader for 5
this effort, but unfortunately he was not able to come 6
to sunny Florida and he is stuck in the cold and fog 7
of Washington State.
8 I am here with several of my other team 9
members, however, and we are glad to answer any 10 questions that we can on the St. Lucie SEIS.
11 I assisted in this review looking at 12 radiological
- issues, uranium fuel cycle and 13 decommissioning, but I have participated as a task 14 leader in several other license renewal efforts.
15 Our team is multi-disciplinary and we come 16 from two national laboratories. I will spend a few 17 minutes today talking about the process that we used 18 for our environmental evaluation and then Ill spend 19 the rest of the time going over some of the more 20 important or interesting findings that we had.
21 First let me describe how we characterize 22 the environmental impacts that we were looking at.
23 NRC has defined the impacts in three ways. Theyre 24 small, moderate and large, and this usage is 25
26 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 consistent with the guidance of the Council on 1
Environmental Quality for a NEPA analysis.
2 A small environmental impact is one where 3
the effect is not detectable or its too small to 4
de-stabilize a resource. Im going to give you an 5
example of that.
6 One of the things we look at is the intake 7
structures and we look at the loss of adult or 8
juvenile fish in the structures. If the loss of fish 9
is so small that its not noticeable and it cannot be 10 detected in relation to the total population of fish 11 in the river and in the ocean, then the impact would 12 be considered small.
13 The next impact level is moderate and this 14 is where the effect is sufficient to alter noticeably, 15 but not de-stabilize the attribute of the resource.
16 So looking at our example again, in this case you 17 would see the loss in the fish population. It would 18 actually decline in the river or the ocean, but it 19 would stabilize at a lower level, and we would call 20 this impact moderate.
21 And finally we have a large impact, and 22 here the effect is clearly noticeable and sufficient 23 to de-stabilize important attributes of the resource.
24 Each issue that we looked at was evaluated 25
27 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 and assigned an impact level.
1 So let me take just another minute to 2
describe the approach that we used in our 3
environmental analysis.
4 We used the Generic Environmental Impact 5
Statement for license renewal, NUREG-1437. In this 6
document it identifies ninety-two environmental issues 7
that are evaluated for license renewal. Sixty-nine of 8
these issues are considered generic or Category 1.
9 And here we discuss Category 1 issues. A 10 Category 1 issue means that the impacts are the same 11 for all reactors or the same for all reactors with 12 certain plant features, such as a plant with cooling 13 towers.
14 There are twenty-three additional issues 15 referred to as Category 2. Category 2 issues, NRC 16 found that the impacts were not the same among all the 17 sites and therefore, when we do a review for license 18 renewal, we look at these issues on a site specific 19 basis.
20 So the Category 1 issues are considered 21 generic and the Category 2 issues require site 22 specific analysis.
23 When we look at all the issues theres 24 another aspect that we look at, and this is whether 25
28 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the plant design is actually related to the issues.
1 And so there are a number of issues that we did not 2
look at at St. Lucie because the plant design was 3
different.
4 Finally, for the Category 1 issues, we 5
look to see if there is any new information related to 6
this issue thats been observed or referenced since 7
the NUREG-1437 was published and whether thats of 8
significance.
9 For site specific issues related to St.
10 Lucie, we performed a site specific analysis.
11 During the scoping period we asked the 12 public if they had any information on site specific 13 issues, and the review team looked for new and 14 significant issues during our review in April and we 15 also discussed new and significant with the licensee.
16 Now to talk a little bit about the actual 17 report itself and some of the environmental impacts 18 that we observed.
19 Chapter 2 of the Draft Supplemental 20 Environmental Impact Statement discusses the plant and 21 the environment around the plant, and this is the 22 basis for the environmental review. Chapter 4 23 actually looks at the environmental impacts --
24 actually Chapters 4, 5, 6 and 7 address the actual 25
29 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 environmental impacts.
1 Today Im going to talk primarily about 2
the Category 2 issues that we looked at related to 3
cooling system, transmission lines, socioeconomics, 4
groundwater use and quality, and threatened and 5
endangered species. Im going to talk about 6
radiological impacts, although they are Category 1.
7 First, related to the cooling system.
8 There are a number of Category 1 issues, that if 9
youre interested, you can look in the draft SEIS at 10 the beginning of Chapter 4, but theres three Category 11 2 issues that we looked at.
12 The first is entrainment, which happens 13 when fish eggs and larvae pass through the intake 14 screens, and we found from our review that there was 15 less than two hundredths of a percent mortality of 16 fish eggs and larvae passing by the intake, so we 17 considered this impact small.
18 The second Category 2 issue relating to 19 cooling system is impingement. Impingement occurs 20 when fish and shellfish get trapped on the intake 21 screens. We found in our review that theres less 22 than four pounds per day of fish impinged and less 23 than two pounds per day of shellfish impinged. And 24 this is also considered small impact.
25
30 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 And finally, we looked at heat shock.
1 Heat shock occurs when the cooling water is discharged 2
and thermally alters the water near that discharge.
3 We looked at the impacts from heat shock and we found 4
that Florida Power and Light St. Lucie plant complies 5
with the Florida Water Quality Standards. So all 6
these impacts were considered small.
7 Next we looked at transmission lines, and 8
there are two Category 2 issues here. St. Lucie has 9
eleven miles of corridors covering 766 acres and we 10 found that the impacts from these transmission lines 11 were small.
12 The second Category 2 issue is electric 13 shock from electromagnetic fields, and then theres a 14 third issue that is not -- we look at on a site 15 specific basis, but its not actually considered a 16 Category 2 item, and its health effects of chronic 17 exposure to electromagnetic fields.
18 Now, radiological. As I said, all of the 19 radiological issues are considered Category 1; 20 however, because the public is often concerned about 21 radiological issues, I wanted to talk just a little 22 bit about the review that we performed at St. Lucie.
23 We looked at the gaseous releases and the 24 liquid releases that go from the plant, and we also 25
31 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 looked at the solid waste management, or the Rad waste 1
processing, packaging and shipment of waste from the 2
plant.
3 And then we also look at the environmental 4
monitoring program, and we assess how the utility 5
complies with the NRC regulations for limiting dose to 6
the public. And what we found from our review is that 7
over the license renewal period on an annual basis, 8
the dose to the public is not expected to increase.
9 So annually those releases will not increase 10 significantly, they will vary from year to year 11 depending on operation, but they will not increase 12 significantly during the license renewal period, and 13 in fact, the emissions from the plant are way below 14 regulatory limits. So the impacts from radiological 15 issues are considered small.
16 Socioeconomics has four Category 2 issues 17 that we look at, housing and public utility impacts 18 during operation. We found that there will be no 19 discernible change in the availability of housing, the 20 value of houses or rental units during the license 21 renewal period. Likewise, there will not be a 22 significant increase in water usage, and where there 23 is, its expected that we will be able to -- the 24 licensee will be able -- there is appropriate existing 25
32 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 capacity for any additional water use. So the impact 1
is considered small.
2 We look at off-site land use and 3
transportation. St. Lucie expects to have up to 4
additional -- sixty additional workers during the 5
license renewal period. This is not considered to be 6
a large impact for land use or for transportation.
7 And tax payments are considered to be small relative 8
to county revenues. So the impacts would be small.
9 Historic and archeological resources.
10 Theres no known historic or archeological resources 11 at the site. However, during the license renewal 12 period, if theres an ground disturbance, a survey 13 will be performed for that ground disturbance.
14 And finally, we looked at environmental 15 justice, and this issue is also considered small.
16 Ground water use and quality is a Category 17 2 issue. At St. Lucie the potable and service water 18 used is about 132,000 gallons per day and this is less 19 than ten percent of the county supplies. This issue 20 is considered -- the impacts from this is considered 21 small.
22 Now finally Id like to take a minute to 23 talk about threatened and endangered species. St.
24 Lucie has a unique habitat and a considerable number 25
33 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 of both Federally and State listed threatened and 1
endangered species.
2 For over twenty years the NRC staff have 3
been involved in the protection of endangered sea 4
turtles as well as other species and the habitats that 5
these threatened and endangered species live in.
6 When the discussion of license renewal for 7
St. Lucie came up, the staff contacted the National 8
Marine Fisheries Service and the staff was informed 9
that no additional consultation is necessary at this 10 time with regard to license renewal. However, as 11 necessary over the course of the operating and license 12
-- during license renewal, there will be continuous 13 informal and formal consultations regarding the sea 14 turtles until either they are de-listed or the plant 15 permanently ceases operation.
16 Likewise, with other species of plants, 17 birds, small mammals and manatees, the staff 18 determined that the license renewal would have no 19 impact on these species, and the U.S. Fish and 20 Wildlife Service concurred with this conclusion.
21 Therefore, we find that our preliminary 22 conclusion is that impacts on license renewal for 23 threatened and endangered species would be small.
24 I talked around about potential new and 25
34 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 significant information for all the Category 1 issues.
1 We looked for new and significant information and we 2
did not uncover any, and therefore, we accept the 3
conclusions in NUREG-1437 of the license renewal GEIS.
4 Now one of the other areas that we looked 5
at and did an extensive review is looking at 6
alternatives to renewing the St. Lucie operating 7
license.
8 The alternatives that we considered --
9 Ive got several listed here, first starting with no 10 action. This would mean that St. Lucie would operate 11 until its license expired, the plant would cease 12 operation and it would be decommissioned, with no 13 other analysis of energy to replace St. Lucie.
14 We looked at other alternative energy 15 sources such as coal, natural gas and new nuclear. We 16 looked at purchasing electrical power and a
17 combination of alternatives. This review that we did 18 on alternatives covered the same environmental impacts 19 and issues that we looked at for continued operation 20 of St. Lucie. And so if you look in Chapter 8 you 21 will see that review. Its fairly extensive.
22 In
- addition, we looked at other 23 alternative energy sources, such as wind power, 24 geothermal energy, fuels and we looked at conservation 25
35 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 of energy as one of the potential alternatives for 1
2 From this review we found that the 3
- impacts, the environmental impacts for the 4
alternatives would range from small to large. We 5
determined that the current site prevents any 6
alternative generation there. And if we look at other 7
alternative sites for one of the other types of 8
energy, there would be high socioeconomic impacts, 9
wed have more land ecology disturbances, higher 10 atmospheric emissions and potential aesthetic impacts.
11 That concludes my discussion on the 12 environmental impacts. Id be glad to answer any 13 questions.
14 MR. CAMERON: Great. That was a very 15 comprehensive overview, a lot of information there.
16 Yes, sir?
17 MR. HENSLEY: My name is Carl Hensley.
18 Under transmission lines, what did you do 19 to determine how they impacted the environment?
20 MS. HICKEY: Okay. Thats a good 21 question.
22 What we looked at is how the land under 23 the transmission lines is controlled, what the utility 24 does to keep down vegetation, the type of herbicides 25
36 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 that they might apply or what they would do to cut 1
down trees. Thats the type of impacts that we were 2
looking at.
3 MR. CAMERON: Does that answer it?
4 MR. HENSLEY: Yes.
5 MR. CAMERON: All right.
6 Any other questions? Alternatives?
7 Radiological impacts?
8 (No response.)
9 MR. CAMERON: Okay, great.
10 Were going to go to another aspect of the 11 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and thank-you 12 very much, Eva.
13 This is severe accident mitigation 14 alternatives. Mike Masnik is dealing with this 15 tonight. Hes going to talk to us about that.
16 Mike?
17 DR. MASNIK: Thank-you, Chip.
18 Due to a personal emergency, Mr. Rubin, 19 who is listed on tonights agenda as the speaker for 20 this topic, was unable to attend todays public 21 meeting, and I will give Mr. Rubins presentation on 22 SAMAs.
23 Section 5.0 of the Draft Supplement to the 24 GEIS for St. Lucie is entitled Environment Impacts of 25
37 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Postulated Accident. The GEIS evaluates two classes 1
of accidents, design basis accidents and severe 2
accidents.
3 Design basis accidents are those accidents 4
that both the licensee and the NRC staff evaluate to 5
ensure that the plant can withstand normal and 6
abnormal transients from a broad spectrum of 7
postulated accidents without undue risk to the public.
8 The environmental impacts of design basis 9
accidents are evaluated during the initial licensing 10 process and the ability of the plant to withstand 11 these accidents has to be demonstrated before the 12 plant is granted a license.
13 Most importantly, a licensee is required 14 to maintain an acceptable design and performance 15 capability throughout the life of the plant, including 16 any extended life operation.
17 Since the licensee had to demonstrate 18 acceptable plant performance for the design basis 19 accidents throughout the life of the plant, the 20 Commission has determined that the environmental 21 impact of design basis accidents are of small 22 significance, because the plant was designed to 23 successfully withstand these accidents.
24 Now, neither the licensee nor the NRC is 25
38 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 aware of any new or significant information on the 1
capability of the plant to withstand design base 2
accidents that is associated with the license renewal 3
of the St. Lucie Units 1 and 2. Therefore, the staff 4
concludes that there are no impacts related to design 5
basis accidents beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
6 Now the second category of accidents 7
evaluated in the GEIS are severe accidents, and severe 8
accidents are by definition accidents that are more 9
severe than design basis accidents because they could 10 result in substantial damage to the reactor core, 11 whether or not there are serious off-site 12 consequences.
13 The Commission found in the GEIS that the 14 sequence -- that the consequences of the severe 15 accident on atmospheric releases, fall-out onto open 16 bodies of water, releases to groundwater and societal 17 impacts are small for all plants. Nevertheless, the 18 Commission determined that alternatives to mitigate 19 severe accidents must be considered for all plants 20 that have not done so already.
21 We refer to these alternatives as severe 22 accident mitigation alternatives, or S-A-M-A, or we 23 call it SAMAs for short.
24 Therefore, if a plant has not had an 25
39 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 assessment of severe accident mitigation alternatives, 1
the licensee and the NRC need to perform one. This 2
assessment is a site-specific assessment and is a 3
Category 2 issue, as explained earlier in this 4
presentation by Eva.
5 St. Lucie had not had a SAMA evaluation 6
conducted prior to the one conducted in support of 7
their license renewal application. The SAMA review 8
for St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 is contained in Section 9
5.2 of the Environmental Impact Statement.
10 Now the purpose of doing the SAMA 11 evaluation is to ensure that plant changes with the 12 potential for improving severe accident safety 13 performance are identified and evaluated. The scope 14 of potential improvements that are considered include 15 a
whole host of
- areas, including hardware 16 modifications, changes to procedures, changes to the 17 training program, as well as a number of other areas.
18 The scope included SAMAs that would 19 prevent core damage. They are sometimes referred to 20 as preventative SAMAs as well as SAMAs that improve 21 containment performance given a core damage event 22 might occur. These are termed mitigative SAMAs.
23 Evaluation is basically a four step 24 process. The first step is to characterize overall 25
40 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 plant risk and the leading contributors to the risk.
1 This typically involves the extensive use of a plant 2
specific safety assessment study, also known as a PSA.
3 The PSA identifies the different contributors of 4
system failures and human errors that would be 5
required for an accident to progress to either core 6
damage or to containment failure.
7 The second step in the evaluation is to 8
identify potential improvements that could further 9
reduce the risk. This information from the PSA, such 10 as dominant accident sequences, are used to identify 11 plant improvements that would have the greatest impact 12 in reducing risk. Improvements identified in other 13 NRC and industry studies as well as SAMA analysis for 14 other plants are also considered in this process.
15 So first you quantify overall plant risk; 16 second, you identify potential improvements, and then 17 the next is to quantify the risk reduction potential 18 and the implementation cost for each of these 19 improvements. The risk reduction and implementation 20 costs are typically estimated using a bounding 21 analysis.
22 Risk reduction is generally over-estimated 23 by assuming that the plant improvement is completely 24 effective in eliminating the accident sequence, and 25
41 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the improvement is intended -- that the improvement is 1
attended to address.
2 The implementation costs are generally 3
under-estimated by neglecting certain cost factors, 4
such as maintenance costs or surveillance costs 5
associated with the plant modification.
6 These risk reduction potentials and 7
implementation cost estimates are used in the final 8
step, which is to determine whether implementation of 9
any of the improvements are justified.
10 In determining whether the improvement is 11 justified, the NRC staff looks at three factors.
12 First, whether the improvement is cost beneficial. In 13 other words, is the estimated benefit greater than the 14 estimate implementation cost of the SAMA.
15 The second factor is whether the 16 improvement provides a significant reduction in total 17 risk. For example, does it eliminate a sequence or 18 containment failure mode that contributes to a large 19 fraction of plant risk?
20 The third factor is whether the risk 21 reduction is associated with aging effects during the 22 period of extended operation, in which case, if it 23 was, we would be looking at implementation as part of 24 the license renewal process.
25
42 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 The preliminary results of the St. Lucie 1
SAMA evaluation are summarized on this next slide.
2 One hundred sixty-nine candidate improvements were 3
identified. Based on a qualitative screening of the 4
initial list of SAMAs, twenty-nine were not found 5
applicable to the St. Lucie plant because of the 6
design of the facility. Ninety had been either 7
already implemented at the plant or the plant design 8
met the intent of the SAMA. That left fifty for 9
further evaluation.
10 The licensee then quantified the risk 11 reduction potential or benefit against the 12 implementation cost or costs for each of the fifty 13 remaining candidates. Of the fifty SAMAs, twenty-nine 14 were eliminated for further evaluation because the 15 cost of the improvement exceeded the maximum 16 attainable benefit value. The maximum attainable 17 benefit value is a calculated dollar amount associated 18 with completely eliminating severe accidents at St.
19 Lucie.
20 Now each of the remaining twenty-one SAMAs 21 was -- it was also eliminated on the basis of their 22 implementation cost, because the implementation cost 23 exceeded twice the estimated benefit for the specific 24 SAMA.
25
43 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 The end result was that no specific SAMA 1
candidate was found to be cost beneficial. This 2
preliminary conclusion is consistent with the low 3
residual level of risk as indicated in the St. Lucie 4
PSA, and the fact that St. Lucie has in fact already 5
implemented many of these plant improvements.
6 To summarize, the NRC staffs preliminary 7
conclusion is that additional plant improvements to 8
further mitigate severe accidents are not required at 9
St. Lucie Units 1 and 2.
10 Any questions?
11 MR. CAMERON: Thanks, Mike.
12 Questions?
13 Yes, sir.
14 MR. HANKENSON: David Hankenson.
15 Was a terrorist attack ever considered in 16 your evaluation?
17 DR. MASNIK: No. This particular review 18 looked at changes to the facility and its associated 19 change to the core damage frequency and the 20 possibility of a containment failure.
21 However, terrorist attacks are considered 22 as an operating concern and we have done a 23 considerable amount of assessment over the last, 24 obvious year and a half, since 9/11.
25
44 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. CAMERON: John, do you want to add 1
anything to what Mike said about how the terrorist 2
considerations are being considered by the Commission 3
and implications for license renewal?
4 MR. TAPPERT: Yeah. The -- as far as the 5
SAMA analysis -- as far as the SAMA evaluation is 6
concerned, terrorism or other safeguard issues were 7
not considered as part of these reviews.
8 However, the whole security situation has 9
been and is continuing to be evaluated by the agency 10 as a result of the 9/11 attacks.
11 Now even before then, nuclear power plants 12 tried to secure civilian facilities in the United 13 States, and of course since the 9/11 attacks, weve 14 even strengthened this further.
15 The agency has done a number of things.
16 Theyve issued orders to each of the hundred plus 17 nuclear operating power plants to enhance their 18 security profile. Theyve added additional guards.
19 They increased stand-off distances for potential land 20 bombs, and theyve done a number of other things which 21 are more sensitive.
22 The agency has reorganized itself to 23 create a whole new office to address these concerns 24 and were working closely with the new Office of 25
45 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Homeland Security, and were doing a top to bottom 1
review of all the securities requirements for these 2
facilities to see which of those need to be upgraded 3
in light of the world situation.
4 So while none of this is tied to license 5
renewal, you know, it applies to all hundred plus 6
plants, not just the ones applying for license 7
renewal. It is a very real threat and one that were 8
taking seriously.
9 MR. CAMERON: Thank-you, John.
10 Does that answer your question?
11 MR. HANKENSON: Sort of.
12 MR. CAMERON: Okay.
13 If you have anything further, well be 14 available to talk later, unless you want to add 15 anything now.
16 MR. HANKENSON: No.
17 MR. CAMERON: All right.
18 Any other questions on severe accident 19 mitigation alternatives?
20 (No response.)
21 MR. CAMERON: Okay, Mike, do you want to 22 go to overall conclusions and process?
23 DR. MASNIK: This next slide is a summary 24 of the staffs conclusions as presented in the draft 25
46 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 SEIS. The impacts of license renewal at St. Lucie are 1
small for all impact areas.
2 In comparison, the impacts or alternatives 3
to license renewal range from small to large.
4 Therefore, the staffs preliminary 5
conclusion is that the adverse impacts of license 6
renewal at St. Lucie are not so great that preserving 7
the option of license renewal for energy planning 8
decision makers would be unreasonable.
9 Id just like to provide a quick recap of 10 the current status.
11 We issued the Draft Environmental Impact 12 Statement for St. Lucie license renewal this past 13 October. We are in the middle of the public comment 14 period that is scheduled to close on January 15, 2002 15 and we expect to address public comments, including 16 any necessary revisions to the Draft Environmental 17 Impact Statement for license renewal and issue the 18 final Environmental Impact Statement by July of 2003.
19 This next slide provides information on 20 how to access the St. Lucie Environmental Impact 21 Statement. You can contact me directly at the phone 22 number provided and Ill mail you a copy. You can 23 view the document at the public library here at the 24 Indian River Community College, and the several copies 25
47 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 of the document are available in the back on the table 1
outside the doors here. And we also have the document 2
on our web site.
3 This last slide gives details on how to 4
submit comments on the Draft Environmental Impact 5
Statement. You can submit the comments in writing at 6
the indicated address, or by E-mail or by regular mail 7
at the addresses given. You can bring them in person 8
to the NRC Headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. But 9
remember, I would appreciate it if you would submit 10 your comments by the deadline which is January 15, 11 2003.
12 That concludes our presentation at todays 13 meeting.
Are there any questions on the 14 presentations?
15 MR. CAMERON: And before we go into 16 hearing from you, are there any questions on any of 17 the topics that we covered?
18 All right.
19 MR. HENSLEY: My name is Carl Hensley.
20 Under the socioeconomics, Category 2, one of the 21 topics was environmental justice. What does that 22 contain?
23 DR. MASNIK: I would have to check the 24 date, but a number of years ago there was an Executive 25
48 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Order that was issued that basically looked at -- its 1
a -- it refers to a Federal policy that requires 2
Federal agencies to identify, address, as appropriate, 3
disproportionately high and adverse human health or 4
environmental effects of its actions on minority or 5
low income populations.
6 In other words, if the particular action 7
in the local area would have a disproportionately high 8
impact on minority or low income populations.
9 MR. CAMERON: Do you want to do a 10 followup?
11 MR. HENSLEY: No.
12 MR. CAMERON: Does that answer your 13 question?
14 MR. HENSLEY: Yes.
15 MR. CAMERON: All right.
16 Is there another -- does someone else have 17 a question over here?
18 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Oh, yes.
19 I was interested in --
20 MR. CAMERON: Your name?
21 MR. HANKENSON: David Hankenson.
22 Im interested in the -- its going to be 23 extended for sixty years if they accept the license 24 renewal. Can it be extended again for after the sixty 25
49 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 years?
1 DR. MASNIK: Well, it, it -- theyve come 2
in and requested a twenty year extension. They 3
already have a forty year license. So it would be 4
allowed to operate for a total of sixty years.
5 There is nothing in the regulations that 6
prohibit the licensee from coming in and doing this 7
again in the middle of the twenty year renewal period.
8 But again, you know, they would have to do the same --
9 they would have to be subjected to both the same 10 safety and environmental reviews and inspections.
11 MR. CAMERON: All right. Any other 12 questions?
13 (No response).
14 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank-you, Mike.
15 Were going to start off the public 16 comment segment of the meeting by hearing from Florida 17 Power and Light, and Id like to ask Don Jernigan to 18 come up. Don is the site vice-president at St. Lucie.
19 And then Tom Abbatiello is going to come up and talk 20 to us, and Tom is the environmental lead on the 21 license renewal application.
22 Don?
23 MR. JERNIGAN: Thanks, and good evening.
24 And again, thank-you, Mr. Cameron.
25
50 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 My name is Don Jernigan. Im the 1
vice-president of Florida Power and Light Company,s 2
St. Lucie nuclear power plant.
3 I appreciate this opportunity to speak to 4
you today about Florida Power and Lights application 5
for renewal of the St. Lucie operating licenses, and 6
assisting me tonight is Tom Abbatiello, who is our 7
license renewal project environmental lead, who will 8
also address more specifically some of the findings 9
contained in the Draft Supplement Environmental Impact 10 Statement.
11 Id also like to thank the Nuclear 12 Regulatory Commission for arranging and holding this 13 meeting today.
14 FPL strongly supports the openness of this 15 process, and in fact during the last two years we have 16 been involved in dialogue with the community 17 surrounding the St. Lucie plant. In fact, we have met 18 with more than one thousand home owners, community 19 groups and government officials.
20 Our purpose was to simply share 21 information about license renewal and plant 22 operations. We believe that the community interest 23 and the priorities should be incorporated not only 24 into our license renewal at the St. Lucie plant, but 25
51 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 also into our overall plant operations.
1 Community input is an integral part of a 2
license renewal process. The application that we 3
prepared consists of two parts, as discussed earlier, 4
a safety analysis and an environmental report.
5 The application has been open for public 6
review for some time and the NRC has in fact requested 7
comments and received comments from interested 8
parties.
9 Just as the process has been open in 10 reviewing the environmental aspects of license 11 renewal, the safety analysis is also following a 12 parallel path. There are open public meetings and the 13 NRC is currently going through an intensive review of 14 plant systems to ensure safe operation of the plant 15 for an additional twenty years.
16 A public meeting on the scoping of the 17 NRCs environmental review over license renewal 18 application was held here last April in this very 19 room.
20 Todays meeting continues that open 21 process of seeking public input on license renewal, 22 and we welcome this opportunity to gain additional 23 community input on the environmental aspects of our 24 license renewal.
25
52 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 I want to thank the members of the 1
community that are represented here today for taking 2
time out of your busy schedule to share your views and 3
ideas of this draft report with the NRC. Theyre very 4
important. And we appreciate the support that has 5
been provided to us by the local communities.
6 Id also like to thank the NRC staff and 7
members of the National Laboratory Review Team for 8
their work in preparing a Supplement Environmental 9
Impact Statement for St. Lucie license renewal.
10 I believe that the report reflects a 11 comprehensive assessment of the environmental impacts 12 of license renewal. And as vice-president of St.
13 Lucie, I want to state that my first and my primary 14 focus is the health and safety of my family, my St.
15 Lucie employees and this community, and their 16 well-being comes before anything else.
17 When I look at the evidence that is 18 presented in this Supplemental Environmental Impact 19 Statement and the other license renewal documents, I 20 am assured of the plants safety and the positive 21 impact on our environment. I believe that the case 22 for continued operation of the St. Lucie plant is 23 strong.
24 Let me address four areas. I want to talk 25
53 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 about our performance, the economics of St. Lucie 1
electricity, our environmental stewardship and our 2
community presence.
3 The first thing I want to talk about is 4
that the performance of our plant is top notch, thanks 5
to our employees, many of whom are actually here in 6
this audience tonight to support this very important 7
process. It is their time, their effort, and their 8
dedication that have resulted in making the St. Lucie 9
plant consistently recognized as one of the safest and 10 one of the most reliable and one of the most efficient 11 plants in the United States.
12 It is our employees who have worked 13 diligently through effective maintenance programs to 14 sustain this option for continued plant operation well 15 beyond the four year license period.
16 Not only does the Nuclear Regulatory 17 Commission monitor our performance, but there are 18 other independent agencies who also agree that our 19 plant operations are safe and that they have no 20 adverse impact on the surrounding community. This 21 includes the State of Floridas Department of Health, 22 which conducts monitoring and sampling of the areas 23 surrounding the St. Lucie plant.
24 Another important factor to consider in 25
54 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 this process is our ability to help meet Floridas 1
energy needs. As we have talked about here today, 2
Floridas electric growth is averaging two percent a 3
year. The St. Lucie power plant can help sustain the 4
economic growth of our and maintain our current 5
quality of life. This plant is strategically located 6
in the FPL generating system.
7 The St. Lucie plant is among the lowest 8
cost producers of electricity in the FPL system. So 9
that helps keeps electric bills low, and thats good 10 news for our customers.
11 From an environmental standpoint the St.
12 Lucie plant remains a guardian of our natural 13 resources. Our outstanding sea turtle programs have 14 been recognized throughout the. In fact, the 15 Governor has recognized the St. Lucie plant for this 16 environmental stewardship this year.
17 In addition, we continue to produce clean 18 electricity without air pollution or greenhouse 19 gasses.
20 Finally, what does the St. Lucie plant 21 mean to our community? So we asked our neighbors and 22 they told us that we are an important economic factor 23 in this community, one that they want to see remain as 24 a viable contributor, payroll for around eight hundred 25
55 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 employees, tax dollars, property taxes, purchases, and 1
the contributions to local United Way agencies help in 2
this area.
3 But the most important part, more than the 4
economics, is the role that our employees play in this 5
local community. Our employees are active in their 6
churches, in Scout organizations, in PTAs, Little 7
Leagues, Pop Warner football leagues, and even in 8
local government.
9 And as a testimony to our community role, 10 many members of the local community have spoken to us 11 in support of the St. Lucie plant, not only this 12 afternoon, but also last April during a public scoping 13 meeting on the NRCs environmental review of our 14 license renewal application.
15 In summary, I believe that renewal of the 16 licenses of FPL St. Lucie nuclear power plant is in 17 the best interest of our community in continuing to 18 provide safe, clean, reliable and low cost electricity 19 to our customers.
20 I would like to ask that our license 21 renewal project environment lead Tom Abbatiello 22 provide some additional details on FPLs license 23 renewal efforts and comments on the Draft Supplemental 24 Environmental Impact Statement.
25
56 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Tom?
1 MR. ABBATIELLO: Thanks, Don.
2 Good evening everyone. Its an honor to 3
be here today to share my thoughts with you about the 4
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the 5
St. Lucie license renewal.
6 As Don said, my name is Tom Abbatiello and 7
I am the environmental lead for the St. Lucie license 8
renewal project.
9 The Supplemental Environmental Impact 10 Statement for the St. Lucie license renewal provides 11 a thorough examination of the ninety-two environmental 12 issues addressed in the regulations. This very broad 13 approach has been thoughtfully designed and is 14 intended to cover the wide spectrum of issues that 15 might be raised by members of the public or 16 governmental review agencies.
17 The Supplemental Environmental Impact 18 Statement concludes that the environmental impacts 19 from operating St. Lucie for an additional twenty 20 years would be small. This conclusion is based on 21 detailed analysis of impact areas.
22 I agree with this conclusion. In fact, it 23 is the same conclusion that was made in FPLs 24 environmental report which we prepared as a part of 25
57 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 our application.
1 But another reason I believe that St.
2 Lucie should operate for an additional twenty years is 3
to be able to continue the award winning conservation 4
work that was initiated almost twenty years ago. FPL 5
is proud of the work we do, preserve and protect the 6
environment. We believe in our responsibility to 7
operate in harmony with the environment. St. Lucies 8
unique location successfully combines modern 9
technology with a
strong commitment to the 10 environment.
11 As Don alluded to in his talk, on October 12 8th of this year, Governor Bush and the Florida 13 Cabinet presented FPL with a 2002 council for 14 sustainable Florida environmental award. This award, 15 which was on display in the foyer, recognizes FPLs 16 program at the St. Lucie plant for the preservation 17 and education of endangered sea turtles. The sea 18 turtle protection and preservation program will 19 continue during the license extension period.
20 The renewal of the St. Lucie licenses is 21 important in meeting the energy needs of South 22 Florida, and as was previously mentioned, we are 23 growing at about two percent a year and electricity 24 consumed per customer is also increasing. Because of 25
58 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 this increasing demand, FPL must plan and provide 1
power plants to assure ample supply of electricity, 2
and to that end, a robust network of generation is 3
best sustained by the use of diverse fuels.
4 The renewal of the St. Lucie operating 5
licenses permits FPL to continue to provide over 1700 6
megawatts of environmentally clean and low cost 7
generating capacity, free from dependence on foreign 8
oil.
9 The St. Lucie employees want to remain a 10 part of this community. As your neighbors, safe and 11 reliable operation of the St. Lucie nuclear plant is 12 our top priority. We believe license renewal makes 13 good business sense for both FPL and its customers, 14 and in light of the current situation in the world, we 15 also believe it is the right thing to do for our 16 country.
17 Thank-you.
18 MR. CAMERON: Thank-you very much, Tom, 19 and thank-you, Don.
20 Were going to go to Mr. Vince Barry now, 21 who I believe is from Wonderful Wednesday.
22 Vince?
23 MR. BARRY: Good evening.
24 My name is Vincent Barry. My wife 25
59 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Lorraine and I have lived in Port St. Lucie for 1
fourteen years, moving here from Lafayette, Indiana.
2 During that time we have relied on Florida 3
Power and Light and the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant to 4
supply us with low cost, safe and reliable 5
electricity. They have never failed to fulfill that 6
responsibility.
7 Over the same period, I have checked the 8
cost of electricity with our growing children living 9
in several other States, and have confirmed that 10 Florida Power and Light and the St. Lucie Nuclear 11 Plant does indeed have economical rates.
12 We also have enjoyed great credits, by 13 participating in the Florida Power and Light on-call 14 program. With this program our water heater and our 15 air conditioning system are wired such, that during 16 peak loads Florida Power and Light can remotely 17 disrupt our service for short periods of time. To 18 date, if they have activated the system, we are 19 unaware of it, and it has caused us no inconvenience.
20 With regard to safety and reliability, 21 long before coming to Florida I was aware of the 22 excellent reputation in quality that Florida Power and 23 Light enjoyed and of the high standards they employed 24 in their facilities.
25
60 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 I have long known of the stringent quality 1
and safety systems demanded and employed by Florida 2
Power and Light. However, it was not until my wife 3
and I became involved in Vicky Spencers energy 4
encounters and the Wonderful Wednesday program she 5
administers, did we realize that those stringent 6
standards were ratcheted up tenfold at the St. Lucie 7
Nuclear Plant.
8 I learned about the safety and the back-up 9
systems, about the detailed procedures for every 10 process that must be followed and how the operators 11 are trained and retrained to follow these quality and 12 safety procedures to the letter without deviation.
13 There is no question in my mind that 14 safety is the top priority at the St. Lucie nuclear 15 Plant and their safety record bears this out.
16 In addition to being a reliable supplier 17 of safe, low cost electricity, the St. Lucie Nuclear 18 Plant is a good neighbor, contributing aggressively to 19 our local community, both economically and with 20 countless civic activities. The plant and its 21 employees are involved in everything, from Little 22 League, to United Way, to Habitat for Humanity, and 23 impacts this community with more than eighty million 24 dollars annually.
25
61 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 I recently became aware of the splendid 1
programs that the St. Lucie plant Energy Encounters 2
Program conducts. These programs offer hands-on 3
science programs for school, offering free three day 4
work shops to teachers for teaching skills and 5
training credits, free science field trips for 6
elementary and middle school children, as well as 7
continually donating computers and supplies to the 8
local schools.
9 Adding to their economic and civic 10 achievements, the St. Lucie nuclear plant has always 11 maintained a strong commitment to the environment.
12 Their emphasis on the South Florida Echo System have 13 resulted in designing and maintaining a facility that 14 compliments a friendly relationship of the two.
15 Through the twenty-five year existence of 16 the plant, the State of Florida has monitored the 17 environmental conditions around the St. Lucie nuclear 18 plant. They have continually found both the air and 19 the water surrounding the plant meets their standards 20 and those of the Federal Government.
21 In conclusion, the twenty-five year 22 history of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant has been 23 excellent for the community, for the environment and 24 its wildlife, and for the people. We have got 25
62 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 something very good here and when you have something 1
good you stick with it.
2 Florida Power and Light and the St. Lucie 3
Nuclear Plant have more than proved they are worthy to 4
have their license renewed.
5 I thank you for allowing me to voice my 6
support for the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant license 7
renewal and for sharing with you my views for that 8
support.
9 MR. CAMERON: Thank-you very much, Mr.
10 Barry.
11 Next were going to go to Mr. Larry 12 Bullington.
13 MR. BULLINGTON: Thank-you. Id just 14 have some comments that Id like to make.
15 First of all, thank-you to the NRC 16 findings. Im a health physics technician at St.
17 Lucie since all the way back January 10th of 83. I 18 have some years of experience.
19 But those that Im sitting around, or the 20 reason Im here tonight, because they represent IBEW, 21 and present, Rick Curtis, and these are my Union 22 brothers.
23 As has been stated before, the Boy Scouts, 24 Big Brothers, Hospice, United Way, is contributing 25
63 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 from these fellows and also many -- in the area, many 1
hours put together for these gentlemen.
2 So I thank you. The ladies and gentlemen 3
here are part of the neighborhood of St. Lucie, 4
Martin, Okeechobee and Indian County.
5 MR. CAMERON: Thank-you, Larry.
6 Next were going to go to Karen Knapp, 7
United Way.
8 MS. KNAPP: Good evening.
9 My name is Karen Knapp and Im the 10 President of the United Way of St. Lucie County, and 11 it is my pleasure to speak on behalf of the Florida 12 Power and Light Company, and the people it employs, 13 and their relationship with the United Way.
14 The United Way is the leader in charitable 15 giving. Over the past forty years the local United 16 Way has allocated millions of dollars to give to 17 health and human service organizations to help people 18 in need right here in our community.
19 In order for us to be successful in 20 accomplishing our goals, we need helping hands, 21 volunteers and the generosity of contributors.
22 Volunteers govern the United Way. They help raise 23 needed funds, and the volunteers review all requests 24 for funds and make financial -- or final decisions on 25
64 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 where the dollars will do the most good.
1 Our volunteers are a vital resource to our 2
organization. For many years now the folks at FP&L 3
have played and continue to play and important role in 4
the operation of our United Way. Year after year 5
Florida Power and Light, and the IBEW Local 627 6
supports us by giving of their time and energy.
7 FP&L allows their employees to help us in 8
so many ways. They sit on governing boards of the 9
United Way. They allow their employees to become loan 10 executives. They chair our United Way campaigns.
11 Volunteers help us not only with their own campaign 12 inside the nuclear plant, but they also help us 13 conduct many outside throughout the community.
14 These volunteers go above and beyond and 15 they give from the heart. They have never said no to 16 a request for help from the United Way, whether it be 17 constructive huge goal signs in the community or 18 sitting on decision-making panels. The company and 19 its employees are dedicated to improving the quality 20 of life for those less fortunate in our community.
21 They have proven themselves to be good 22 citizens of this community, the true friend to United 23 Way and an asset to our entire community and I would 24 like just to take this opportunity to thank Mr.
25
65 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Jernigan and the employees here present for all that 1
they do for the United Way.
2 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank-you, Karen.
3 I believe thats the last speaker that we 4
had signed up.
5 Before we close, does anybody else have 6
anything to say or any issues we can clear up for you?
7 Any questions?
8 Yes, sir?
9 And just please give us your name for the 10 transcript.
11 MR. BOGACKI: My name is Charles Bogacki, 12 and just to stay on the topic of environmental impact, 13 I just want to let you know the posted radioactive 14 material settlement pond that is on the FP&L site 15 outside of the radiation control area -- and FP&L is 16 doing a great job on the St. Lucie site -- but I would 17 like to see the settlement pond that is open to all 18 the wildlife, have some attention to make this 19 settlement pond de-posted as radioactive material area 20 that is open to the wildlife, and adhere to the 21 environmental issues that may impact that.
22 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank-you, and if 23 the NRC staff needs to clarify anything about that, 24 theyll talk to you after the meeting, okay, just to 25
66 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 make sure that we understand everything that youre 1
saying on that.
2 Anybody else have a question or comment 3
that they want to make before we close for tonight?
4 (No response.)
5 MR. CAMERON: I would just thank all of 6
you for taking the time to be with us tonight and 7
giving us your comments.
8 Anybody?
9 (No response.)
10 MR. CAMERON: All right. Im going to 11 ask John Tappert, whos our senior person here, to 12 just close the meeting for us.
13 John?
14 MR. TAPPERT: Thanks again for coming.
15 We appreciate all the comments that you gave us. The 16 NRC staff will remain after the meeting if you have 17 any additional questions or comments.
18 Thank-you.
19 (Whereupon, at 8:55 oclock, p.m., the 20 public meeting was adjourned.)
21 22 23 24 25