ML030640258
"Draft Meeting" is not in the list (Request, Draft Request, Supplement, Acceptance Review, Meeting, Withholding Request, Withholding Request Acceptance, RAI, Draft RAI, Draft Response to RAI, ...) of allowed values for the "Project stage" property.
| ML030640258 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 02/26/2003 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Cushing J, NRR/DRIP/RLEP, 415-1424 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML030640299 | List: |
| References | |
| NRC-793 | |
| Download: ML030640258 (91) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
License Renewal Draft EIS Fort Calhoun Station Afternoon Public Meeting Docket Number:
(not applicable)
Location:
Omaha, Nebraska Date:
Wednesday, February 26, 2003 Work Order No.:
NRC-793 Pages 1-45 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 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
+ + + + +
2 The Fort Calhoun Station 3
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 5
+ + + + +
6 AFTERNOON PUBLIC MEETING 7
+ + + + +
8 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2003 9
The meeting was held at 1:30 p.m. at the 10 Days Hotel Carlisle, 10909 M Street, Omaha, 11 Nebraska, Chip Cameron, Facilitator, presiding.
12 SPEAKERS:
13 CHIP CAMERON, FACILITATOR 14 JOHN TAPPERT 15 WILLIAM BURTON 16 JACK CUSHING 17 KEN ZAHN 18 W. GARY GATES 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 MR. CAMERON: Good afternoon 1
everyone. My name is Chip Cameron of the special 2
counsel for public liaison at the Nuclear 3
Regulatory Commission. And Id like to welcome all 4
of you to our meeting this afternoon.
5 The topic of the meeting is the draft 6
environmental impact statement that the NRC has 7
prepared on the request of the Omaha Public Power 8
District to renew the operating license at the Fort 9
Calhoun Nuclear Power Station Unit 1.
10 And its my pleasure to serve as your 11 facilitator for todays meeting, and in that role 12 Im going to try help you to all have a productive 13 meeting and to assist you in seeing if we can 14 achieve the meeting objectives.
15 In terms of objectives, the staff of the 16 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the NRC, will be 17 going into a little bit more detail on those 18 objectives, but simply stated, its to ensure that 19 we clearly explain to all of you what the NRCs 20 process is for evaluating an application for a 21 license renewal and also to clearly explain what 22 the findings are in the draft environmental impact 23 statement thats been prepared on this license 24 renewal application. And we also want to listen to 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 your recommendations, your advice, your concerns on 1
these issues.
2 We are going to be taking written comments 3
on this draft environmental impact statement, but 4
we wanted to be here with you tonight to -- or this 5
afternoon to listen to your comments. You may hear 6
things that will help you to decide whether you 7
want to submit a written comment, but if you dont 8
submit a written comment, anything that you say 9
this afternoon will carry the same weight as that 10 written comment. And we are keeping a record today 11 of the proceedings and Deanna is our stenographer.
12 And Ill say a few more words when I get to ground 13 rules about what we need to do to make sure that we 14 have a clean transcript of the meeting.
15 In terms of the format for the meeting, 16 its basically going to be done in two segments.
17 The first segment is to give all of you some 18 background on the NRC process, and most importantly 19 on the findings in the draft environmental impact 20 statement. And well be hopefully having an 21 interactive discussion with you and answer your 22 questions on those background presentations.
23 After thats done, were going to give you 24 an opportunity to make a more formal comment to us 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 on any recommendations that you have in regard to 1
the draft environmental impact statement.
2 In terms of ground rules, if you have 3
something to say, just signal me and Ill bring you 4
this microphone. Give us your name, please, and 5
affiliation, if appropriate, and ask your question 6
or make your comment. And I would ask that only 7
one person at a time speak so that we can not only 8
get a clean transcript -- so that Deanna knows who 9
is speaking -- but so that we can give our full 10 attention to whomever has the floor at the time.
11 I would also ask you to try to be concise 12 in your comments. I dont think that well have 13 any problem this afternoon with running over the 14 4:30 time, but if you do have a formal comment to 15 make, please limit that to five minutes. Thats 16 not a hard and fast rule, its guidance, but try to 17 give us your comments in five, five minutes.
18 In terms of the agenda, in a minute Im 19 going to ask John Tappert, whos right here, to 20 give you all a formal welcome and just a brief 21 overview on the NRCs license renewal process.
22 And I wanted to introduce all of our 23 speakers also and give you some idea of their 24 background so that you know what types of expertise 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 we have involved on this project. Now, John is the 1
chief of the environmental section and the license 2
renewal and the environmental impacts program at 3
the NRC. And Johns staff are responsible for 4
preparing the environmental impact statements, not 5
only on a license renewal application, but on any 6
project that our office of nuclear reactor 7
regulation works on. And hes been with the agency 8
for approximately 12 years. And he has been a 9
resident inspector out at nuclear power plants for 10 the NRC. He has a bachelors in aerospace and 11 oceanographic engineering from Virginia Tech and a 12 masters degree in environmental engineering from 13 Johns Hopkins University.
14 John will give us a welcome and then were 15 going to move to William, better known as Butch, 16 Burton who is right over here. And Butch is the 17 project manager for the safety evaluation on the 18 Fort Calhoun license renewal application. And he 19 is in the license renewal section, again in the 20 license renewal and environmental impact program.
21 Hes been involved in other license renewal 22 projects, the one for the Hatch plant down in 23 Georgia. Hes been involved in emergency 24 operations work at the NRC developing performance 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 indicators to evaluate how nuclear reactors are 1
meeting the regulations, and also on advanced --
2 review of advanced reactors that come in to the 3
NRC. Has a bachelors in nuclear engineering from 4
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Butch is going 5
to tell you about license renewal, the overall 6
process.
7 Then were going to get more detailed and 8
get to the subject that were here to discuss with 9
you tonight, which is the draft environmental 10 impact statement. And we have Jack Cushing right 11 here who is the project manager on the 12 environmental review for the Fort Calhoun license 13 renewal application, and he works for John Tappert.
14 And Jack will give us an overview of the 15 environmental review process. Hes been with the 16 agency for about five years. Before he joined the 17 agency, he was a licensed reactor operator and that 18 was at Maine Yankee, I believe. And he has a 19 bachelors in marine engineering from the Mass.
20 Maritime Academy. And after each of the 21 presentations by Butch and by Jack, well go out to 22 you to see if theres any questions that we can 23 answer.
24 Then were going to get to the heart of the 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 discussion today, and thats the findings and the 1
draft environmental impact statements. And we have 2
Dr. Ken Zahn right here from Lawrence Livermore Lab 3
and they have been the lead in assisting the NRC to 4
evaluate the environmental impacts that might occur 5
from the license renewal application. And Dr. Zahn 6
is the group leader of the environmental 7
evaluations group at Lawrence Livermore Lab, which 8
is in Livermore, California. And that group does 9
NEPA review for the Department of Energy, National 10 Environmental Policy Act review for the NRC as in 11 this case, and he has a PhD in chemistry from the 12 University of Illinois. So hell talk about the 13 findings; again well go out to you for questions.
14 Theres one specific aspect of the 15 environmental impact statement called severe 16 accident mitigation alternatives, and after 17 Dr. Zahn is done, were going to ask Jack Cushing 18 to talk about those. Those are known as SAMAs, I 19 believe, and Jack will tell you about those and 20 also what the process is for submitting comments on 21 this.
22 And then were going to go out to you for 23 any final questions and then formal comments to the 24 Agency. And I would just thank all of you for 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 being here this afternoon and Im going to ask John 1
Tappert to give us the Agencys official welcome.
2 MR. TAPPERT: Thank you, Chip. Good 3
afternoon and welcome. As Chip said, my name is 4
John Tappert, and Im chief of the environmental 5
section of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory 6
Commission. On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory 7
Commission, Id like to thank you for coming here 8
to participate in our process.
9 As Chip said, theres several things wed 10 like to cover today. Id like to briefly go over 11 the purpose of todays meeting. First of all, wed 12 like to give you a brief overview of the entire 13 license renewal process, this includes both the 14 safety review as well as the environmental review, 15 which is the principal purpose of todays meeting.
16 Next were going to provide you the 17 preliminary results of our review which assessed 18 the environmental impacts associated with extending 19 the operating license of Fort Calhoun Station for 20 an additional 20 years. Then well give you some 21 information about the schedule were going to 22 follow and additional opportunities you will have 23 to participate in the process. At the conclusion 24 of the staffs presentation, well be happy to 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 receive any questions or comments that you may have 1
today.
2 First, let me provide some general context 3
for the license renewal program. The Atomic Energy 4
Act gives the NRC the authority to issue operating 5
licenses to commercial power plants for a period of 6
40 years. That operating license for Fort Calhoun 7
will expire in 2013. Our regulations also make 8
provisions for extending those operating licenses 9
for an additional 20 years as part of the license 10 renewal program, and OPPD has requested license 11 renewal for Fort Calhoun.
12 As part of the NRCs review of that 13 application, we sent a team of environmental 14 experts out to the site last summer. We also held 15 a public meeting to receive your input early in our 16 review process. As we indicated at that earlier 17 scoping meeting, weve returned here now today to 18 provide you the preliminary results in our 19 environmental impact statement. Again, the 20 principle reason of the meeting here today is to 21 receive your questions and comments on that track.
22 With that short summary Id like to have 23 Butch give us a brief overview of the safety 24 portion of license renewal.
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 MR. BURTON: Thank you, John. As 1
Chip mentioned, my name is Butch Burton. Im the 2
project manager for the safety review for the 3
application for license renewal for Fort Calhoun.
4 Before I talk about the license renewal 5
process and the staff safety review, Id like to 6
talk a little bit about the Nuclear Regulatory 7
Commission, which we generally call the NRC.
8 John mentioned the Atomic Energy Act. The 9
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 authorizes the NRC to 10 regulate the civilian use of nuclear material. The 11 NRCs mission is threefold: to insure adequate 12 protection of public health and safety; to protect 13 the environment; and to provide for the common 14 defense and security. The Atomic Energy Act 15 provides for a 40-year license term for power 16 reactors, but it also allows for renewal. The 17 40-year term is based primarily on economic and 18 anti-trust considerations, rather than safety 19 limitations.
20 As Mr. Tappert indicated, OPPD has applied 21 for a license renewal under 10 CFR PART 54 and 22 requests authorization to operate Fort Calhoun for 23 up to an additional 20 years. The current 24 operating license for Fort Calhoun will expire in 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 year 2013.
1 Now Ill talk a little bit about license 2
renewal, which is governed by the requirements in 3
PART 54, as I mentioned, which we generally call 4
the license renewal rule. It defines the 5
regulatory process by which a nuclear utility, such 6
as OPPD, applies for a renewed operating license.
7 License renewal rule incorporates 10 CFR PART 51 8
the environmental portion by reference. 10 CFR 9
PART 51 provides for the preparation of an 10 environmental impact statement, or an EIS.
11 The license renewal process defined in PART 12 54 is very similar to the original licensing 13 process, in that it involves a safety review, an 14 environmental impact evaluation, plant inspections, 15 and review by the Advisory Committee on Reactor 16 Safeguards or the ACRS.
17 The ACRS is a group of scientists and 18 nuclear industry experts who serve as a consulting 19 body to the commission. The ACRS performs an 20 independent review of the license renewal 21 application and the staff safety evaluation and 22 they report their findings and recommendations 23 directly to the commission.
24 The next slide illustrates two parallel 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 processes. The safety review process, which you 1
see at the top of the slide, and the environmental 2
review process at the bottom of the slide. These 3
processes are used by the staff to evaluate two 4
separate areas of license renewal.
5 The safety review involves the staffs 6
review of the technical information in the license 7
renewal application to verify with reasonable 8
assurance that the plant can continue to operate 9
safely during the period of extended operation.
10 The staff assesses how the applicant proposes to 11 monitor or manage aging or certain components that 12 are within the scope of license renewal.
13 The staffs review is documented in a 14 safety evaluation report, and the safety evaluation 15 report is provided to the ACRS for review. The 16 ACRS then generates the report of their own -- of 17 its own to document their review of the staffs 18 evaluation.
19 The safety review process involves two to 20 three inspections which are documented in NRC 21 inspection reports. These inspection reports are 22 considered with the safety evaluation report and 23 the ACRS report in the NRCs decision to renew 24 nuclear units operating licenses. If there is a 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 petition to intervene, sufficient standing could be 1
demonstrated, and an aspect within the scope of 2
license renewal has been identified, then hearings 3
may also be involved in the renewal process. These 4
hearings will play an important role in the NRCs 5
decision of the renewal application as well.
6 At the bottom of the slide is the other 7
parallel process, the environmental review, which 8
involves scoping activities, preparation of the 9
drafts supplemental -- draft supplement to the 10 generic environmental impact statement, 11 solicitation of public comments on the draft 12 supplement, and then the issuance of a final 13 supplement to the generic environmental impact 14 statement. This document also factors into the 15 Agencys decision on the application.
16 During the safety evaluation, the staff 17 assesses the effectiveness of the existing or 18 proposed inspection and maintenance activities to 19 manage aging effects applicable to a defined scope 20 of passive structures and components. PART 54 21 requires the application to also include evaluation 22 of time-limited aging analyses, which are those 23 design analyses that specifically include 24 assumptions about plant life, usually 40 years.
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 Currently, regulations are adequate for 1
addressing active components, such as pumps and 2
valves, which are continuously challenged to reveal 3
failures and degradation such that corrective 4
actions can be taken.
5 Current regulations also exist to address 6
other aspects of the original license, such as 7
security and emergency planning. These current 8
regulations will also apply during the extended 9
period of operations.
10 At this time if there are any questions on 11 anything Ive said, Id be happy to take them.
12 Okay. Turn it back over to Chip.
13 MR. CAMERON: Anybody have any 14 questions for Butch? And after you hear Jack 15 Cushing -- you heard safety aspects, Jack is going 16 to talk about environmental aspects. If there are 17 questions about the relationship between those two 18 evaluation processes, we can get to them after Jack 19 is done. Jack?
20 MR. CUSHING: Hello. Thank you, 21 Chip. Id like to welcome everybody to the 22 meeting. My name is Jack Cushing, Im the 23 environmental project manager for the Fort Calhoun 24 Station environmental review. Im responsible for 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 coordinating the efforts of the NRC staff and our 1
contractors in performing that review.
2 Id like to discuss NEPA, and thats the 3
National Environmental Policy Act. Its one of the 4
most significant pieces of environmental 5
legislation ever passed. It requires all federal 6
agencies to use a systematic approach to consider 7
environmental impacts during certain decisionmaking 8
processes. It requires that we examine the 9
environmental impacts of the proposed action and 10 consider mitigation measures, which are things that 11 could be done to decrease the environmental impact, 12 when the impacts are severe, NEPA requires that we 13 consider alternatives to the proposed action, and 14 that the impacts of those alternatives also be 15 evaluated. Finally, NEPA requires that we disclose 16 all this information and we invite public 17 participation to evaluate it.
18 The NRC has determined that it will prepare 19 an environmental impact statement associated with 20 the renewal of an operating license for an 21 additional 20 years; therefore, following the 22 process required by NEPA, we have prepared a draft 23 environmental impact statement associated with the 24 operation of Fort Calhoun during the period of 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 extended operation. That draft environmental 1
impact statement was issued last month, and the 2
meetings today are being held to receive your 3
comments on it.
4 This slide describes the objective of our 5
environmental review. Simply put, we are trying to 6
determine whether the renewal of the Fort Calhoun 7
Station license is acceptable from an environmental 8
standpoint. If license renewal is a viable option, 9
whether or not that option is exercised or not.
10 Whether the plant actually operates for an 11 additional 20 years will be determined by others 12 such as OPPD and state regulatory agencies and will 13 also depend on the outcome of the safety review.
14 This slide shows in a little more detail 15 the environmental review process associated with 16 license renewal for Fort Calhoun Station Unit 1.
17 We received the application last January. The 18 notice of the intent was published in The Federal 19 Register in May of 2002 and informed the public 20 that we were going to prepare an environmental 21 impact statement and invited the public to provide 22 comments on the scope of the review.
23 In June of 2002, during the scoping period, 24 we held two public meetings here in Omaha to 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 receive the public comments on the scope of the 1
issues that should be included in the environmental 2
impact statement for the Fort Calhoun Station Unit 3
4 Also in June, we went to the Fort Calhoun 5
Station with a combined team of NRC staff and 6
personnel from the four national laboratories with 7
backgrounds in the specific technical and 8
scientific disciplines required to perform the 9
environmental review. We familiarized ourselves 10 with the site and the staff from OPPD to discuss 11 the information to submit it in the report and we 12 also examined OPDDs evaluation process.
13 In addition, we contacted federal, state, 14 and local officials as well as local service 15 agencies to receive their input on and obtain 16 information on the Fort Calhoun Station.
17 At the close of the scoping comment period, 18 we gathered up and considered all the comments that 19 we had received from the public and from state and 20 federal agencies. Many of these comments 21 contributed significantly to the document that we 22 are here today to discuss.
23 In July of last year we issued requests for 24 additional information to ensure that any 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 information we relied on and that had not been 1
included in the original application was submitted 2
on the docket so that it would be publicly 3
available.
4 A month ago we issued the draft 5
environmental impact statement for public comment.
6 This is Supplement 12 to the generic environmental 7
impact statement, because we rely on findings in 8
the generic environmental impact statement for part 9
of our conclusions. The report is a draft, not 10 because its incomplete, but rather we are in the 11 second period of a public comment to allow you and 12 members of the public to take a look at the 13 results, write any comments you may have on the 14 report. After we gather these comments and 15 evaluate them, we may decide to change portions of 16 the environmental impact statement based on those 17 comments. The NRC will then issue a final 18 environmental impact statement related to license 19 renewal for the Fort Calhoun Station Unit 1.
20 Are there any questions about what were 21 doing today and how we worked on the environmental 22 impact statement?
23 MR. CAMERON: Anybody have a 24 question? One question that might be helpful for 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 understanding all of this is how does the 1
generic -- how does the final environmental impact 2
statement on Fort Calhoun come together with the 3
safety review? Just in terms of timing, when can 4
the public expect a decision on this?
5 MR. CUSHING: Okay. After we 6
receive the comments, we will issue the final 7
environmental impact statement, and that would go 8
to the EPA and they will review it to see if 9
theres any problems with it. And we will also 10 give that -- mail the EIS to anybody that signs up 11 for a copy today. And the environmental impact 12 statement, along with the safety evaluation, the 13 inspection findings, and the ACRS report will go to 14 the commission to be used in their final decision 15 process.
16 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thats good.
17 And time frame for when that might get to the 18 commission?
19 MR. CUSHING: The time frame were 20 looking at, we will be issuing the draft 21 environmental -- the final environmental impact 22 statement on August 15th. And the license -- the 23 renewed license, if it does -- depending on the 24 results of the safety review, its due in November 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 of 2003.
1 MR. CAMERON: Okay. So November of 2
2003 is going to be the end of the process 3
basically, generally speaking.
4 MR. CUSHING: Generally speaking 5
thatll be when we finish the license renewal.
6 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Great. Thank 7
you very much, Jack.
8 And youve heard process and now were 9
going to go to substance. And Ken Zahn is going to 10 talk about the findings in the draft environmental 11 impact statement.
12 DR. ZAHN: Thanks, Chip. As Chip 13 mentioned earlier, I led the technical team, the 14 contractor team. I work and supervise a group at 15 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. We are 16 intimately involved in the NEPA process there for 17 D&E (phonetic) projects as well.
18 I wanted to tell you a little bit about the 19 information gathering process and the composition 20 of the team, and then Ill talk a bit about the 21 analysis process and quickly step through the draft 22 reports results.
23 As Jack mentioned earlier, to develop the 24 supplemental environmental impact statement, we 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 reviewed the information in OPPDs license renewal 1
application, then visited the site last summer.
2 Besides reviewing onsite facilities and documents, 3
we talked to federal, state, and local agencies 4
including permitting authorities and social service 5
agencies. We also discussed such matters as 6
cultural and historic resources with the state 7
historic preservation office or SHPA.
8 Following your submission of comments 9
during a public comment period last summer, the NRC 10 staff and the national laboratory team reviewed the 11 comments, considered the suggestions, and then 12 provided responses to the comments, which are 13 included in Appendix A in the draft report.
14 As noted earlier, to conduct the 15 environmental review, we established a team made up 16 of members of the NRC staff as well as experts in 17 various fields from the national laboratory 18 complex. These laboratory staff members who were 19 involved included members from Pacific Northwest 20 National Laboratory, Los Alamos National 21 Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 22 and Argonne National Laboratory.
23 This slide gives you an idea, a general 24 idea, of some of the areas of technical information 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 that these experts evaluated. If you look far to 1
the left youll see socioeconomic, for example, and 2
such issues here that were considered included 3
public services, things like tourism, recreation, 4
economy, aesthetics, housing, and public safety, as 5
well as others.
6 Environmental justice is an area in which 7
both low income or minority populations are 8
considered and their impacts of -- impacts of the 9
project within about a 50-mile radius of the site.
10 The atmospheric science at the top left of 11 the slide implies that we did look at issues 12 dealing with air quality and the relationship with 13 the state regulatory agencies.
14 On radiation protection, here we looked at 15 such issues as exposure to the public, potential 16 exposure to the public, and potential occupational 17 exposure to the workers at the plant.
18 In the middle of the slide youll see a 19 bullet -- or a note on terrestrial ecology and to 20 the far right, aquatic ecology. In these areas we 21 basically look at both the terrestrial species that 22 are threatened and endangered, according to the 23 federal system, and also to those species that 24 inhabit the aquatic environment, primarily you 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 might expect the Missouri River.
1 Finally, we also looked at nuclear safety 2
issues, which will be the subject of a later 3
discussion, and land use issues. And under the 4
land use issues we also looked at such things as 5
the impacts of operations a transmission line 6
complex.
7 Discussions on the site background and the 8
potential impacts of these environmentally-related 9
topics and potential or postulated accidents are 10 also found -- or primarily found in Chapters 2 11 through 5 of the draft report.
12 Next Id like to discuss the analysis 13 approach used and the preliminary results of the 14 review as reflected in the draft. The generic 15 environmental impact statement for license renewal, 16 new Reg. 1437, was mentioned earlier as the GEIS, 17 G-E-I-S, thats a commonly used acronym. In that 18 document 92 environmental issues are identified and 19 these are evaluated for license renewal.
20 Sixty-nine of these issues are considered generic 21 or Category 1, which means the impacts are common 22 to all reactors or common to all reactors with 23 certain features such as plants that have cooling 24 towers. And youll find the Category 1 designation 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 at the upper left-hand side of that top block.
1 For the other 23 issues, the noncategory 1 2
issues, they are referred to as Category 2. The 3
NRC found that the impacts were not the same at all 4
sites and therefore site-specific analysis was 5
needed. Only certain issues addressed in the 6
generic environmental impact statement are 7
applicable to Fort Calhoun Station Unit 1 because 8
of the design and the location of the plant. For 9
these generic issues that are applicable to Fort 10 Calhoun, we assessed if there was any new 11 information related to the issue that might change 12 the conclusion in the generic environmental impact 13 statement, and this is whats implied by the block 14 marked "New and Significant" on the slide on the 15 lower left.
16 If there is no new information, then the 17 conclusions of the generic environmental impact 18 statement are adopted. If new information is 19 identified and its determined to be significant, 20 then the site-specific analysis for that issue 21 would be performed. For the site-specific issues 22 that are related to Fort Calhoun, a site-specific 23 analysis was indeed performed.
24 Finally, during the scoping period, the 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 public was invited to provide information on 1
potential new issues, as shown on the upper right 2
portion of the slide. And the team, during its 3
review, also looked to see if there were any new 4
issues that needed evaluation.
5 For each issue identified in the generic 6
environmental impact statement, an impact level is 7
assigned. These levels are described in Chapter 1 8
of the draft report and they are consistent with 9
the guidelines of the Federal Executive branchs 10 counsel on environmental quality, or CQ, which 11 basically provides guidance to all federal agencies 12 on the implementation of the National Environmental 13 Policy Act, or NEPA.
14 Definitions that you see here include those 15 for small impact. Here, small impact -- for a 16 small impact the effect is not detectable or too 17 small to destabilize or noticeably alter any 18 important attribute of the resource. If one were 19 to use an example, one might consider if the 20 proportion of fish loss is so small that it cannot 21 be detected in relation to the total population in 22 a river as a result of use of our intake structure, 23 then that impact would be small.
24 For a moderate impact, the effect 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 sufficient to alter noticeably, but not destabilize 1
important attributes of the resource. Using the 2
fishery source example again. If, for example, 3
losses at the intake would cause the population to 4
decline and then stabilize at a lower level, the 5
impact might be considered to be moderate.
6 Finally, for an impact to be considered 7
large, the effect is clearly noticeable and 8
sufficient to destabilize important attributes of 9
the resource. So for example, if fish loss through 10 the intake structure use caused the population to 11 decline to a point where it cant be stabilized and 12 it continues to decline, then the impact would be 13 considered large.
14 Let me briefly address what is covered in 15 several of the environmentally important chapters, 16 especially Chapters 2 and 4. In Chapter 2, we 17 describe the power plants systems generally and 18 discuss the general environmental setting around 19 the plant, the environmental baseline, if you will.
20 In Chapter 3 you might note that the 21 licensee has not identified any plant refurbishment 22 activities that were necessary prior to the period 23 of extended operations, so no analysis of potential 24 environmental impacts of refurbishment needed to be 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 considered.
1 In Chapter 4 we looked at the potential 2
environmental impacts for an additional 20 years of 3
operation of the Fort Calhoun Station Unit 1. The 4
site-specific issues the team discussed in detail 5
in Chapter 4 include potential impacts of operating 6
the cooling system, transmission lines, land use 7
impacts, and radiological impacts of normal 8
operations, impacts related to water use, water 9
quality, and the potential impacts to sensitive 10 aquatic and terrestrial resources, such as 11 federally threatened or endangered species.
12 Ill take just a few moments to identify 13 some of the highlights of review. And if you have 14 additional questions on our draft results, wed be 15 glad to try to answer those or let one of the team 16 members who might be with us here today answer them 17 for you. Thanks a lot.
18 One of the topics we looked at closely and 19 discussed in some depth in Chapter 4 are the 20 potential -- is the potential impact of operating a 21 cooling system for the Fort Calhoun Station Unit 1 22 reactor. Fort Calhoun Station has a once-through 23 heat dissipation system which uses water from the 24 Missouri River to condense the steam used to 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 produce the electricity, then releases the cooling 1
water back to the river. We did not identify any 2
new and significant information from any of the 3
Category 1 issues related to either the cooling 4
system -- Im sorry, related to the cooling system, 5
either through the scoping process, by analysis of 6
information provided by the applicant, or on the 7
part of the staff during its visit or information 8
reviews of other documents.
9 With respect to those Category 2 10 environmental issues related to the cooling system, 11 the staff found the potential impacts of heat shock 12 or impingement or entrainment of fish or shellfish 13 during the cooling water intake screen operation 14 are small.
15 Radiological impacts are a Category 1 16 issue. Because its often a concern to the public, 17 I wanted to take just a few minutes to briefly 18 discuss it here. During the site visit, we looked 19 at the effluent release and monitoring program 20 documentation. We looked at how the gaseous and 21 liquid effluents were treated and released, as well 22 as how solid wastes were treated, packaged, and 23 shipped. This is information is found in Chapter 2 24 of the draft supplemental EIS.
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 We also looked at how the applicant 1
determines and demonstrates that they are in 2
compliance with regulations for release of 3
radiological effluents. This slide shows you the 4
near-site and on-site locations that the applicant 5
has monitored for airborne releases and direct 6
radiation. There are also other monitoring 7
stations beyond the site boundary including 8
locations where fish, milk, water, and food 9
products are sampled. Releases from the plant and 10 the results of off-site potential doses are not 11 expected to increase on a year-to-year basis during 12 the 20-year license renewal term. Additionally, no 13 new or significant -- and significant information 14 was identified during the staffs review, the 15 publics input during the scoping process, or 16 evaluation of other available information.
17 Last issue Id like to discuss among 18 those evaluated in Chapter 4 is that of the 19 federally threatened endangered species. A 20 description of the terrestrial and aquatic ecology 21 of the area and the potential for endangered and 22 threatened species at the site is given in Chapter 23
- 2.
24 Although the bald eagle was originally 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 listed as federally endangered, its status was 1
lowered to threatened status in 1995 and its being 2
considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 3
for complete delisting, due to its -- primarily due 4
to its level of recovery in the U.S., which has 5
been nothing short of spectacular, really. There 6
are no known bald eagle nesting sites at the Fort 7
Calhoun Station, although the birds may use the 8
area for forging, most commonly along the Missouri 9
River.
10 Other federally threatened and endangered 11 terrestrial species, those that live on land, if 12 you will, were considered -- that were considered 13 included the least tern and piping plover, both 14 bird species, which are not shown on the slide, and 15 the western prairie fringed orchid, a flower 16 species. These species have not been found at the 17 Ford Calhoun Station and the potential for impact 18 to them from license renewal is considered small.
19 Based on the information available to the staff, it 20 was concluded that the continued operation of the 21 station may affect, but is not likely to adversely 22 affect, the bald eagle and it would have no effect 23 on the other three threatened or endangered 24 terrestrial species.
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 There is one federally endangered aquatic 1
species, the pallid sturgeon, shown here on the 2
left. This sturgeon is also discussed in the 3
report. Occurrences of the sturgeon have been 4
reported in the Missouri River, both upstream and 5
downstream of Fort Calhoun Station, and extensive 6
habitat restoration projects have been implemented 7
in Missouri by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 8
and these programs have been ongoing since the mid 9
70s. Based on the information available to the 10 staff, it was concluded that continued operation of 11 the station again may affect, but is not likely to 12 adversely affect the pallid sturgeon.
13 Additionally, the NRC is presently in 14 consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service on 15 the two endangered -- on the endangered and 16 threatened species under the provisions of Section 17 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
18 For all the Fort Calhoun Station issues 19 that the team reviewed, we found that there were no 20 new and significant information that was identified 21 either during the scoping process, by the licensee 22 during their development of the environmental 23 review documentation, or by the staff during our 24 analysis.
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 We also looked at issues for the uranium 1
fuel cycle and solid waste management and for 2
decommissioning. These two topics are discussed 3
separately in Chapters 6 and 7 of the report. Both 4
of these issues are Category 1 issues and were 5
evaluated generically in the generic environmental 6
impact statement. We found in this case as well 7
that there was no new and significant information 8
that was identified for either of these issues.
9 This concludes my remarks. We entertain 10 any questions. Im sorry, let me, let me continue.
11 I do want to talk about alternatives as well.
12 In Chapter 8 of the draft, we evaluated the 13 potential environmental impacts associated with 14 alternatives to continuing operation of Fort 15 Calhoun Station. In Chapter 8 we evaluated the 16 potential environmental impact associated with the 17 Fort Calhoun Station not operating, this is the 18 no-action alternative. This alternative is a 19 scenario in which the NRC would not renew the 20 operating license of the Fort Calhoun Station, and 21 when the plant ceases operation, OPPD would 22 decommission the facility. We also looked at other 23 alternatives, new electrical power generation from 24 coal-fired, gas-fired plants or a new nuclear 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 plant, a purchased-power alternative, the 1
application of alternative technologies such as 2
wind, solar, and hydropower, and then a combination 3
of these alternatives.
4 For each of the alternatives we looked at 5
same types of issues that we looked at earlier, 6
such as land use, ecology, socioeconomics, 7
et cetera, the use of the same issues that were 8
looked at for the Fort Calhoun stations 20-year 9
license renewal term. We also looked at delayed 10 return of other existing facilities as well as 11 utility-sponsored conservation. And then we looked 12 at a combination of those alternatives. And for 13 each alternative we looked at whether the 14 technologies would replace the generating capacity 15 or could replace the generating capacity of the 16 Fort Calhoun Station Unit 1 and whether it would be 17 a feasible alternative to renewal of the current 18 plants license.
19 The preliminary conclusions were that the 20 alternatives, including the no-action alternative, 21 that is the one in which the license would not be 22 renewed, may have environmental effects, and in at 23 least some of the impact categories, they may reach 24 moderate or a large significance.
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 This concludes my presentation. Ill be 1
willing to entertain questions.
2 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, 3
Ken. Are there any questions for Ken about the 4
findings in the draft report? Okay. Thank you, 5
Ken.
6 As promised, were going to look at the, 7
what we call SAMA, Significant Accident Mitigation 8
Alternatives, Jack Cushing, and hell tell you a 9
little bit about the process for submitting 10 comment.
11 MR. CUSHING: Yes. Chapter 5 of the 12 report is entitled "The Environmental Impacts of 13 Postulated Accidents." There are two class of 14 accidents, design-basis accidents and severe 15 accidents.
16 Design-basis accidents are those accidents 17 that both the licensee and the NRC evaluated to 18 ensure that the plant can withstand without undue 19 risk to the public.
20 The environmental impacts or design-basis 21 accidents are evaluated during the initial 22 licensing process. And the ability of the plant to 23 withstand these accidents has to be demonstrated 24 before the plant is granted a license. Most 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 importantly, the licensee is required to maintain 1
an acceptable design and performance capability 2
throughout the life of the plant, including any 3
extended-life operation. Since the licensee has to 4
demonstrate acceptable plant performance for 5
design-basis accidents throughout the life of the 6
plan, the commission, in the generic environmental 7
impact statement, determined that the environmental 8
impact design-basis are of all small significance 9
because the plant was designed to withstand these 10 accidents. Neither the licensee nor the NRC is 11 aware of any new and significant information on the 12 capability of the plant to withstand design-basis 13 accidents associated with license renewal.
14 Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no 15 impacts related to design-basis accidents beyond 16 those discussed in the generic environmental impact 17 statement.
18 Second category of accidents evaluated in 19 the GEIS are severe accidents. Severe accidents by 20 definition are more severe than design-basis 21 accidents because they could result in substantial 22 damage to the reactor core. The commission found 23 in the generic environmental impact statement that 24 the consequences for severe accidents are small for 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 all plants. Nevertheless, the commission 1
determined that alternatives to mitigate severe 2
accidents must be considered for all plants that 3
have not done so. We refer to those alternatives 4
as severe accident mitigation alternatives, or 5
SAMA, for short.
6 The SAMA review for Fort Calhoun Station is 7
contained in Section 5.2 of the environmental 8
impact statement. The purpose of doing a SAMA 9
evaluation is to ensure that the plant changes with 10 the potential for improving severe accidents safety 11 performance are identified and evaluated. Scope of 12 the potential improvements that were considered 13 included hardware modification, procedure changes, 14 training program improvements, basically a full 15 spectrum of potential changes. The scope included 16 SAMAs that would prevent core damage, as well as 17 SAMAs that improve containment performance.
18 For the SAMA analysis we first quantify 19 overall plant risk. Secondly, identify potential 20 improvements, and then quantify the risk reduction 21 potential in the implementation cause for each 22 improvement, and finally determine if 23 implementation is justified.
24 In determining whether an improvement is 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 justified, the NRC staff looks at three factors.
1 First is whether the improvement is cost 2
beneficial, in other words, is the estimated 3
benefit greater than the estimated implementation 4
costs of the SAMA. Second factor is whether the 5
improvement provides a significant reduction in 6
total risk. The third factor is whether the risk 7
reduction is associated with the aging effects 8
during the period of extended operation, if it was, 9
we would be looking at implementation as part of 10 the license renewal process.
11 The preliminary results of the Fort Calhoun 12 Station SAMA evaluation are summarized in this 13 slide. The end result of the evaluation was that 14 seven SAMAs were found to be cost beneficial. The 15 cost-beneficial SAMAs include procedural and 16 training enhancement in the use of commercially 17 available secondary potential transient.
18 The seven cost-beneficial SAMAs are not 19 required to be implemented at Fort Calhoun Station 20 as part of license renewal because they do not 21 relate to managing the effects of aging. However, 22 OPPD currently plans to implement the seven 23 cost-beneficial SAMAs.
24 Turning now to our overall conclusions. We 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 found that the impacts of license renewal are small 1
in all impact areas. We also concluded that the 2
alternatives, including the no-action alternatives, 3
may have environmental effects in at least some 4
impact categories that reach moderate or large 5
significance. Based on these results, our 6
preliminary recommendation is that the adverse 7
environmental impacts of license renewal for Fort 8
Calhoun Station are not so great that preserving 9
the option of license renewal for energy planning 10 decisionmakers would be unreasonable.
11 A quick recap of our current status. We 12 issued the draft environmental impact statement for 13 the Fort Calhoun license renewal on January 6th.
14 We are currently in the middle of a public comment 15 period that is scheduled to end on April 10th. We 16 expect to address the public comments, including 17 any necessary revisions, to the environmental 18 impact statement and issue a final environmental 19 impact statement in August.
20 This slide is to provide information on 21 how to access the draft environmental impact 22 statement. You can contact me directly at the 23 phone number provided. There are a number of 24 copies out in the lobby, and you can pick one up on 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 your way out. In addition, the Blair and the Clark 1
public libraries have copies for you to look at, 2
and the document is available on the Web at the 3
address given.
4 This slide gives details on how to submit 5
comments on the draft. Comment period, as I said 6
before, goes until April 10th, 2003. You can 7
submit comments by writing directly to the address 8
given and you can send them to the e-mail address 9
here, Ft_Calhoun_EIS@nrc.gov, or can you bring them 10 in person to our headquarters in Rockville. Thank 11 you.
12 Are there any comments?
13 MR. CAMERON: Any questions? Yes.
14 MR. MASNIK: Underline.
15 MR. CUSHING: Oh, yes. On the 16 e-mail address theres an underscore between Fort 17 Calhoun and -- between Fort and Calhoun and between 18 Calhoun and EIS. So when youre using the e-mail 19 address, be sure to use the underscore.
20 MR. CAMERON: And, Jack, one thing 21 people might be interested in, you can go onto the 22 NRC website to look at the draft environmental 23 impact statement, as I think you mentioned. Will 24 we also be putting comments that people submit on 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 the environmental impact statement? If someone 1
wants to see what someone else said or when were 2
reviewing those comments, will those comments be on 3
the website?
4 MR. CUSHING: No, those comments 5
arent on our website. Where we do collect the 6
comments is in the final environmental impact 7
statement and we do include them as an appendix to 8
the final environmental impact statement.
9 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Lets go to 10 Mike Masnik for clarification.
11 MR. MASNIK: Also, that all comments 12 are docketed, so they would be in ADAMS. So a 13 person could actually access those comments through 14 our ADAMS documents.
15 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Good. And if 16 anybody wants to know how to -- the process for 17 using ADAMS, they could contact Jack.
18 MR. CUSHING: Contact me, and our 19 website also has guidance on how to use ADAMS as 20 well.
21 DR. ZAHN: Theres an instructional 22 sheet at the front table as well.
23 MR. CAMERON: And theres 24 information about that?
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 DR. ZAHN: On ADAMS.
1 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you very 2
much. Now its time to -- thank you, Jack.
3 MR. CUSHING: Thank you.
4 MR. CAMERON: Time to hear from 5
anybody who wants to make a public comment. We 6
only have one person signed up formally now. If 7
anybody else wants to make a public comment, please 8
feel free to do so. And we have Gary Gates, who is 9
the vice president for nuclear programs, I believe, 10 at Omaha Public Power District. Gary.
11 MR. GATES: As stated, my name is 12 Gary Gates. Im vice president that is responsible 13 for the operation of Fort Calhoun Station. Id 14 also like to acknowledge many of the OPPD staff 15 that are here today that have worked hard with the 16 NRC on providing information on our application.
17 And a special acknowledgment to Director Anne 18 McGuire who is a member of our board of directors 19 and in particular is in charge of the, and chair of 20 the Nuclear Oversight Committee of our board which 21 monitors our performance.
22 I spoke to you in June, at the June meeting 23 in Omaha concerning our license renewal 24 application, I welcome the opportunity to do so 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 again today in support of the preliminary 1
conclusions of the NRC staff that there are no 2
environmental impacts to preclude renewal of the 3
operating license for Fort Calhoun Station.
4 OPPD provides electricity to more than 5
300,000 customers in a 13-county area in southeast 6
Nebraska. It must be noted that 30 percent of this 7
generation for those customers is generated at the 8
Fort Calhoun Station. Fort Calhouns a single unit 9
plant located between Blair and Fort Calhoun and 10 was declared operational and commercial in 1973, 11 and has been operating safely since then. I am 12 proud to have been a part of that operation of Fort 13 Calhoun since the initial construction.
14 We feel that over the last 30 years we have 15 demonstrated a high level of safety and 16 environmental stewardship with all of our programs 17 and operations. In fact, the continued safe 18 operation of Fort Calhoun Station remains the 19 number one priority at OPPD. OPPD maintains its 20 facilities and conducts its operation based on a 21 strong commitment to environmental monitoring and 22 management. Our policy is to conduct operations, 23 not just in compliance with all applicable 24 government laws and regulations, but over and 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 beyond minimum requirements for those regulations.
1 This ensures our ability to protect the environment 2
and to serve in the best interest of our employees, 3
our customers, and surrounding community.
4 We feel the NRC staff recommendation, which 5
the subject of todays meetings, is a testament to 6
the effectiveness of that approach. OPPD will 7
continue what we believe is a comprehensive 8
environmental monitoring program, hopefully for an 9
additional 20 years of operation from 2013.
10 Furthermore, we will continue to develop 11 and implement ways to further minimize the risks 12 associated with operation of a nuclear plant. In 13 other words, we are committed to conducting our 14 operations in an environmentally responsible manner 15 as we have done for the last 30 years.
16 Let me take a few minutes to say something 17 about the employees who work at Fort Calhoun 18 nuclear station. These men and women take pride in 19 their ability to safely operate a clean, dependable 20 source or power. They do so not only as workers, 21 but as residents of the areas they serve. Besides 22 having homes and families, they are valued members 23 of the community, and they often serve as 24 volunteers and social leaders in the community in 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 which we live. They also know that the effective 1
operation of Fort Calhoun Station for another 20 2
years will contribute to the continued economic 3
benefits to the area. That includes jobs not only 4
for our plant employees, but for many of the area 5
businesses with whom we work.
6 The point is that we have a stake in 7
continuing to operate the plant in a safe manner 8
and a strong environmental manner.
9 One other note, OPPDs concern for 10 environment goes beyond Fort Calhoun Station. We 11 have invested in other clean sources of power such 12 as wind and biomass.
13 In closing, let me thank you for this 14 opportunity to speak on this very important issue 15 in support of the staffs recommendation. Thank 16 you for your time.
17 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Thank you, 18 Gary.
19 Is there anybody else who wants to make a 20 statement, provide a comment at this point or ask a 21 question? Okay. I think we probably could adjourn 22 at this point, and were going to be back at seven 23 oclock for another public meeting and an open 24 house at six oclock before that meeting. And 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 thank all of you for attending.
1 (The proceedings were concluded at the 2
hour of 2:35 p.m.)
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25