ML030640275
"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.
| ML030640275 | |
| 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: ML030640275 (90) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
License Renewal Draft EIS Fort Calhoun Station Evening Public Meeting Docket Number:
(not applicable)
Location:
Omaha, Nebraska Date:
Wednesday, February 26, 2003 Work Order No.:
NRC-793 Pages 1-44 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 EVENING PUBLIC MEETING 7
+ + + + +
8 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2003 9
The meeting was held at 7:02 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 ROB HALL 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: Well, good evening 1
everyone. My name is Chip Cameron, and Im the 2
special counsel for public liaison at the Nuclear 3
Regulatory Commission. And Id like to welcome 4
you to our public meeting tonight. And our 5
subject is the draft environmental impact 6
statement that the NRC has prepared on the request 7
from the Oklahoma (sic) Public Power District to 8
renew the operating license at the Fort Calhoun 9
Nuclear Power Station.
10 And Im going to serve as your facilitator 11 tonight, and hopefully help all of you have a 12 productive meeting and to meet the objectives that 13 we have for the meeting tonight. One of which is 14 to clearly explain what the NRCs process for 15 evaluating a request for license renewal, and also 16 to explain what findings are in the draft 17 environmental impact statement that has 18 prepared -- weve prepared. And the most 19 important objective, of course, is to listen to 20 any comments or suggestions that you have in terms 21 of process or the findings in the draft 22 environmental impact statement.
23 The format is fairly simple. Were going 24 to have a number of brief NRC presentations. And 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 well be going out to you to see if theres any 1
questions on the material in this presentation.
2 And then the latter part of the meeting is going 3
to be devoted to giving any of you who want to 4
make a formal comment to us, to come up to the 5
podium, or Ill bring you this microphone and you 6
can make your comment.
7 Ground rules are simple. If you want to 8
talk, give me a signal and Ill bring this 9
microphone to you. And please tell us who you are 10 and what your affiliation is, if appropriate. And 11 I would just ask you to only have one person 12 speaking at a time so that we can get a clear 13 transcript. Camie is our stenographer. We are 14 taking a transcript of the meeting that will be 15 available on the NRCs web site, and we can get 16 you a hard copy if you need a hard copy.
17 Please try to be concise in your comments.
18 Again, like this afternoon, I dont think that 19 were going to have a problem with that, but there 20 may be more people coming, so well see what 21 happens.
22 The agenda is -- starts with John Tappert, 23 who is right here. John is going to give you a --
24 an official welcome from the NRC and tell you a 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 little bit about license renewal. And he is the 1
chief of the environmental section in the office 2
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation at the NRC, and its 3
the license renewal and environmental impact 4
program. And John and his staff prepare the 5
environmental reviews for all activities that 6
happen in the office of Nuclear Reactor 7
Regulation, including all environmental impact 8
statements on a license renewal application.
9 John has been with the agency about 11 10 years, and he was a resident inspector for the NRC 11 at one point. He has a bachelors from Virginia 12 Tech in oceanographic and aeronautical 13 engineering, and a masters degree in 14 environmental engineering from Johns Hopkins 15 University.
16 After John gives you a welcome, were going 17 to go to the project manager -- the environmental 18 project manager whos responsible for overseeing 19 the preparation of the environmental impact 20 statement, and thats Mr. Jack Cushing, who is 21 right here. And Jack is going to let you know 22 what the environmental review process is on 23 license renewal. But actually, before we go to 24 Jack, were going to have Butch Burton -- William 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 Butch Burton, who is the safety project manager on 1
the Fort Calhoun license renewal application -- he 2
will tell you about the safety evaluation and 3
about what the process is generally for license 4
renewal. And then well focus in on the 5
environmental evaluation.
6 In terms of Mr. Burtons background, he was 7
the project manager -- safety project manager for 8
the plant Hatch down in Georgia, license renewal 9
application. Hes been involved in emergency 10 operations work at the NRC, and also developing 11 performance indicators for the review of nuclear 12 power plants. And Butch has a bachelors in 13 science nuclear engineering from Rensselaer 14 Polytechnic Institute.
15 And jumping back to Jack in terms of what 16 his background is, hes been with the NRC for five 17 years. And before that he was a licensed reactor 18 operator working for Maine Yankee. And he has a 19 bachelors in marine engineering from the Mass.
20 Maritime Academy.
21 So were going to give you some process 22 presentations and then were going to go to the --
23 to the heart of the environmental impact 24 statement. Were going to go to Dr. Ken Zahn, 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 whos right here whos going to talk about the 1
findings in the draft environmental impact 2
statement.
3 And Ken is with Lawrence Livermore Lab.
4 And theyre the leading laboratory thats helping 5
the NRC prepare this environmental impact 6
statement. And he is the -- the group leader of 7
the environmental evaluation group at Lawrence 8
Livermore Lab in Livermore, California. And they 9
not only do work on Department of Energy projects 10 in terms of environmental evaluation, but also for 11 the NRC like this license renewal application.
12 And he has a Ph.D. in chemistry from the 13 University of Illinois. Hell tell you about the 14 draft findings.
15 And then were going to ask Jack Cushing to 16 come back to talk about something called "severe 17 accident mitigation alternatives," and that is 18 also part of the environmental impact statement.
19 Hell tell you about that, what the overall 20 conclusion is, and the draft environmental impact 21 statement and how to submit comments.
22 And I would just thank you all for -- for 23 coming out tonight. And Im going to turn it over 24 to John.
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 MR. CUSHING: Thank you, Chip, and 1
good evening and welcome. As Chip said, my name 2
is John Tappert, and Im the chief of the 3
environmental section in the office of Nuclear 4
Reactor Regulation. On behalf of the Nuclear 5
Regulatory Commission, I want to thank you for 6
coming out here tonight and participating in our 7
process. Chip said theres several things wed 8
like to cover today, and Id like to briefly go 9
over todays -- the purpose of todays meeting.
10 First of all, were going to give you a 11 brief overview of the entire licensure of the 12 program. This includes both the safety review as 13 well as environmental review, which is the 14 principal focus of todays meeting.
15 Last were going to give you the 16 preliminary results of our review, which 17 necessitate environmental impacts associated with 18 extending the operating licenses for Fort 19 Calhouns stations for an additional 28 years.
20 Then well give you some information about 21 the balance of our review schedule and how you can 22 continue to participate in that process. And most 23 importantly, at the conclusion of our 24 presentation, well be happy to receive and 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 questions and comments that you may have today.
1 But first let me provide some general 2
contacts of the license renewal program. The 3
Atomic Energy Act gives the Energy the authority 4
to operating licenses to commercial nuclear power 5
plants for a period of 40 years. Before becoming 6
a station, that operating license will expire in 7
2013. Our regulations also make provisions for 8
extending that operating license for an additional 9
20 years as part of our license renewal program, 10 and OPPD has requested license renewal for Fort 11 Calhoun. As part of NRC review of that 12 application, we sent a team of environmental 13 experts out here to review the site last summer.
14 We also held public meetings to get your input 15 early in that process. As we indicated at that 16 earlier scoping meeting, weve returned here now 17 today to provide you with preliminary results in 18 our environmental impact statement. And again, 19 the principal reason for the meeting here today is 20 to receive your questions and comments on that 21 draft.
22 And with that, Id like to ask Butch Burton 23 to give us a brief overview of the safety portion 24 of license renewal.
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 MR. BURTON: Thanks, John.
1 Good evening, everyone. As Chip and John 2
indicated, my names John Burton. Im the project 3
manager for the safety review for the license 4
renewal application for Fort Calhoun. Before I 5
talk about the license renewal process and the 6
staffs safety review, Id like to talk a little 7
bit about the NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory 8
Commission. As was mentioned, the Atomic Energy 9
Act in 1954 authorizes the NRC to regulate the 10 civilian use of nuclear material. The NRC 11 commission is threefold to insure adequate 12 protection of public health and safety, to protect 13 the environment, and to provide for common defense 14 in security. The Atomic Energy Act provides for a 15 40-year license term for power reactors, but it 16 also allows for license renewal. That 40-year 17 term is based primarily on economic and anti-trust 18 considerations, rather than safety limitations.
19 As John indicated, the Omaha Public Power 20 District has applied for license renewal under 21 10 CFR PART 54 and request authorization to 22 operate Fort Calhoun for up to an additional 20 23 years. The current operating license, as John 24 mentioned, will expire in 2013.
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 Now Id like to talk a little about the 1
license renewal process, which is governed by the 2
requirements of PART 54, which we call the 3
"License Renewal Rule." This rule defines the 4
regulatory process by which a nuclear utility such 5
as OPPD applies for a renewed operating license.
6 The rule incorporates 10 CFR 51 of the 7
environmental rule by reference. Part 51 provides 8
for the preparation of an environmental impact 9
statement, or EIS. The license renewal process 10 defined in PART 54 is very similar to the original 11 licensing process, in that it involves the safety 12 review and environmental impact evaluation, plant 13 inspections, and review by the advisory committee 14 on reactor safeguards for the ACRS. The ACRS is a 15 group of scientists in nuclear industry experts 16 who serve as a consulting body to the commission.
17 The ACRS performs an independent review of the 18 license renewal application and the staffs safety 19 evaluation. And they report its findings and 20 recommendations directly to the commission.
21 The next slide illustrates two parallel 22 processes. The safety review process, which you 23 see at the top of the slide, and the environmental 24 review process at the bottom of the slide. These 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 processes are used by the staff to evaluate two 1
separate areas of license renewal. The safety 2
review involves the staffs review of the 3
technical information and license renewal 4
application to verify with reasonable assurance 5
that the plant can continue to operate safely 6
during the period of extended operation.
7 The staff assesses how the applicant 8
proposes to monitor or manage aging of certain 9
components that are within the scope of license 10 renewal. The staffs review is documented in a 11 safety evaluation report, and the safety 12 evaluation report is provided to the ACRS for 13 review. The ACRS then generates a report of its 14 own to document their review of the staffs 15 evaluation.
16 The review process involves two or three 17 inspections which are documented in the NRC 18 inspection reports. These inspection reports are 19 considered with the safety evaluation report and 20 the ACRS report in the NRCs decision to renew the 21 nuclear units operating licenses.
22 If there is a petition to intervene and 23 sufficient standing can be demonstrated, then 24 hearings may also be involved in the renewal 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 process. These hearings will play an important 1
role in the NRCs decision on the application as 2
well.
3 At the bottom of the slide is the other 4
parallel process, the environmental review, which 5
involves scoping activities, preparation of the 6
draft supplement to the generic environmental 7
impact statement, solicitation of public comments 8
on the draft supplement and then the issuance of a 9
final supplement to the generic environmental 10 impact statement. This document also factors into 11 the agencys decision on the application. During 12 the safety evaluation, the staff assesses the 13 effectiveness of the existing or proposed 14 inspection and maintenance activities to manage 15 aging effects applicable to a defined scope of 16 passive structures and components.
17 PART 54 requires the application to also 18 include the evaluation of time limited aging 19 analyses, which are those designed analyses that 20 specifically include assumptions about plant life, 21 usually 40 years.
22 Current regulations are adequate for 23 addressing active components, such as pumps and 24 valves, which are continuously challenged to 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 reveal barriers and degradation, such that 1
corrective actions can be taken. Current 2
regulations also exist to address other aspects of 3
the original license such as security and 4
emergency planning. These current regulations 5
will also apply during the extended period of 6
operation.
7 At this time, if anyone has any questions 8
Id be happy to take them.
9 MR. CAMERON: Any questions on the 10 overall review or the safety review for Butch?
11 MR. BURTON: All right. Thank 12 you, Chuck.
13 MR. CAMERON: Great. And I have 14 one clarification that Id like to make. I guess 15 that I said it was the Oklahoma Public Power 16 District, and it isnt. As we know, its Omaha.
17 And, Camie, if I say "Oklahoma" again, would you 18 just type in Omaha, cause thatll take care of 19 the problem. Im likely to do that again.
20 And lets have Jack Cushing talk about the 21 environmental review.
22 MR. CUSHING: Thank you, Chip.
23 Well, welcome, everybody. Im glad you could make 24 it tonight. My name is Jack Cushing, and Im the 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 environmental project manager for the Fort Calhoun 1
license renewal project. Im responsible for 2
reporting any of the efforts of NRC contacts to 3
conduct the document the environmental review 4
associated with OPPDs application for license 5
renewal at Fort Calhoun Station. Id like to 6
discuss NEPA, the National Environment Policy Act.
7 NEPA is one of the most significant pieces of 8
environmental legislation ever passed requiring 9
all federal agencies to use a systematic procedure 10 to consider environmental impacts during certain 11 decision-making procedure regarding major federal 12 actions. NEPA requires that we examine the 13 environmental impact as proposed and consider 14 mitigated measures, which are things that can be 15 done to decrease the environmental impact when the 16 impacts are severe. NEPA requires that we 17 consider alternatives to proposed action and that 18 the impacts of the alternatives are also 19 evaluated.
20 Finally, NEPA requires that we disclose all 21 this information and that we invite public 22 participation to evaluate it. The NRC is 23 determined that it will pay our environmental 24 impact statement associated with the license 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 renewal for additional 20 years. Therefore, 1
following the process required by NEPA, we have 2
prepared a draft environmental impact statement 3
that describes the environmental impacts 4
associated with the operation of the Fort Calhoun 5
Station for an additional 20 years. That draft 6
environmental impact statement was issued last 7
month in a meeting today to receive comments on 8
it, which is a copy of draft environmental impact 9
statement. We do have copies of it available in 10 the lobby if youre interested.
11 This slide describes the objective of our 12 environmental review. Simply put, we are trying 13 to determine if the license renewal for Fort 14 Calhoun is acceptable from an environmental 15 standpoint, if license renewal is a viable option, 16 whether or not that option is exercised. Whether 17 or not the plans actually to operate for an 18 additional 20 years will be determined by others, 19 such as OPPD and state regulatory agencies and 20 will depend on the results of the NRCs safety 21 review.
22 This slide shows in a little more detail 23 the environmental review process associated with 24 license renewal for Fort Calhoun Station Unit 1.
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 We received the application last January. The 1
notice of intent was published in the Federal 2
Register in the May of 2002 to inform the public 3
that we are going to prepare an environmental 4
impact statement and invite the public to provide 5
comments in the scope of the review.
6 In June 2002, during the scoping period, we 7
held two public meetings here in Omaha to receive 8
public comment on the scope of the issues that 9
should be included in the environmental impact 10 statement for Fort Calhoun Station. Also in June, 11 we went to the Fort Calhoun Station site to 12 combine time of NIC staff and personnel from four 13 national laboratories with expertise in the 14 specific technical and scientific disciplines 15 required to perform this environmental review. We 16 familiarized ourselves with the site, met with 17 staff from OPPD to discuss the information 18 submitted in support of the license renewal 19 application, and reviewed the documentation 20 maintained at the plant, and we examined OPPDs 21 evaluation process.
22 In addition, we contacted federal, state, 23 and local agencies, as well as local service 24 agencies to obtain information on the area and 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 Fort Calhoun Station. At the close of the scoping 1
period, we gathered up and considered all the 2
comments that we received from the public, state, 3
and federal agencies. Many of them contributed 4
significantly to the talk that we are here today 5
to discuss.
6 In July of last year, we issued a request 7
for additional information to assure that any 8
information that we relied on and had not been 9
included in the original application was submitted 10 on the docket so that it would be publically 11 available. A month ago we issued the draft 12 environmental impact statement for public comment.
13 This is Supplement 12 to the generic environmental 14 impact statement. Because we rely on findings in 15 the generic environmental impact statement, we are 16 proud of our conclusions. The report is drafted 17 not because its incomplete, but rather because we 18 are at an intermediate stage in the decision 19 making process. Were in the middle of a second 20 public comment period to allow you and other 21 members of the public to look at the results of 22 our review, provide any comments you may have on 23 the report. After we gather these comments on --
24 and evaluate them, you may decide to change 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 portions of the environmental impact statement.
1 And the NRC will then issue a final environmental 2
impact statement related to license renewal for 3
Fort Calhoun Station Unit 1.
4 Are there any questions to do with the 5
process?
6 MR. CAMERON: Anybody? Okay.
7 Lets go on to the draft findings. Ken.
8 DR. ZAHN: Thank you, Chip.
9 Id like to tell you a little bit about the 10 information-gathering process and the composition 11 of the team that undertook the analysis. Then Im 12 going to speak briefly about the analysis process 13 itself, and then quickly step through the draft 14 results.
15 As Jack had mentioned earlier, to develop 16 the supplemental environmental impact statement, 17 we did review the information, OPPDs license, the 18 license renewal application, and then visited the 19 site. Besides reviewing on-site facilities and 20 documents, we also talked with representatives of 21 federal, state, and local agencies, including 22 permitting authorities and social service 23 agencies. Also discussed the cultural and 24 historic resources at the site and the issues 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 related to them at the State Historic Preservation 1
office, the SHPA.
2 Following your submission of scoping 3
comments after the public meetings last summer in 4
June, the NRC staff and the National Laboratory 5
Team reviewed the comments and considered the 6
suggestions of the public. Responses to the 7
publics comments on the original scoping meetings 8
are included as Appendix A in the blue draft 9
environmental impact statement supplement.
10 As noted earlier, to conduct the 11 environmental review, weve established a team 12 made up of members of the NRC staff supplemented 13 by experts from four Department of Energys 14 national laboratories: Pacific Northwest 15 Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, the 16 Argonne National Laboratory, and again, Livermore 17 National Laboratory -- the Lawrence Livermore 18 National Laboratory. This slide gives you an 19 indication and idea of the general areas that 20 these experts on the team took a look at. These 21 are more or less generic headings. They arent 22 specifically what you may find exactly worded in 23 the document, but theyre pretty close.
24 Just doing a brief background sketch on 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 some of these, if you start in the lower -- lower 1
left, socioeconomic impacts, for example, 2
considered such things as public services, 3
tourism, recreation, public safety, housing 4
aesthetics and economics. Environmental justice 5
is actually a field or an issue which looks at the 6
low income and minority populations within about 7
50 miles of the site. The need to evaluate 8
environmental justice is derived from a fairly 9
recent federal executive order.
10 Above on the left you see "atmospheric 11 science" listed there. Thats a term that we use 12 really to capture the requirement to look at air 13 quality. And for this we also look at the AQCR, 14 thats the Nebraska Intrastate Air Quality Control 15 Region involvement with the site.
16 On the right, "radiation protection." Here 17 we looked at the potential for radiation exposures 18 to both the public off site as well as to the work 19 force, that would be occupational exposures for 20 the workers.
21 On the lower right and in the center we see 22 two ecology-related topics: "Terrestrial 23 ecology" and "aquatic ecology." And here the 24 issue is both that related to the impacts to 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 potentially sensitive species, those especially 1
that are federally threatened and endangered.
2 Those that live on land, terrestrial, and those 3
that live in water, aquatic. And again, we look 4
at nuclear safety issues and land use issues. And 5
the land use issues carry a number of different 6
topics with it to include looking at the on-site 7
transmission line impacts.
8 Discussions of the site background and the 9
potential impacts of these environmental-related 10 topics as well as of postulated topics are found 11 throughout Chapters 2 through 5 of the draft 12 report.
13 Next Id like to discuss the analysis 14 approach used and preliminary results of the 15 review as reflected in the draft.
16 The generic environmental impact statement 17 for license renewal under -- which is new reg, 18 1437, identifies 92 environmental issues that are 19 evaluated for license renewal. Sixty-nine of 20 these are considered generic or Category 1, which 21 means that the impacts are common to all reactors 22 or common to all reactors with certain features, 23 such as plants that have cooling towers.
24 Youll notice the Category 1 designation on 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 the upper left of that -- the left side of that 1
upper box. Flowing down from that is the chain 2
for considering Category 1 issues. But for 23 3
other issues, those are referred to as Category 2.
4 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that the 5
impacts were not the same at all sites.
6 Therefore, a project-specific or site-specific 7
analysis was needed. And youll notice Category 2 8
in this upper box on the right hand side.
9 Only certain issues addressed in the 10 generic environmental impact statement are 11 applicable to Fort Calhoun Station Unit 1 because 12 of the design and location of the plant. For 13 those generic issues that are applicable to Fort 14 Calhoun we assessed if there were any new 15 information. If there was any new information 16 related to the issue that might change the 17 conclusion of the generic environmental impact 18 statement. And youll notice a box there that 19 says "New and Significant" on the slide.
20 If there were no elements of new 21 information, then the conclusions of the generic 22 environmental impact statement are adopted. If 23 new information is identified and determined to be 24 significant, then a site-specific analysis would 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 be performed. For the site-specific issues that 1
are related to Fort Calhoun, a site-specific 2
analysis was performed.
3 Finally, during the scoping period, the 4
public was invited to provide information on 5
potential new issues. And also the team -- during 6
its review -- looked for new issues to see if 7
there were other such new issues that needed 8
evaluation. For each issue identified in the 9
generic environmental impact statement, an impact 10 level is assigned. These levels are described in 11 Chapter 1 of the draft report. And these levels 12 are consistent with the definitions and guidelines 13 in the federal executive branches, 14 environmental -- federal executive branches 15 counsel on environmental quality guidelines.
16 For a small impact, the effect is not 17 detectable or too small to destabilize or 18 noticeably alter any important attribute of the 19 particular resource being looked at. For example, 20 if a plant may cause some loss of adult or 21 juvenile fish of the intake structure, and if the 22 proportion of fish loss is so small that it cant 23 be detected in relation to the total population in 24 the river, for example, the impact would be 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 characterized as small.
1 For a moderate impact, the effect is 2
sufficient to alter noticeably, but not 3
destabilize, important attributes of the resource.
4 Using the fish example again, if losses at the 5
intake would cause the population to decline and 6
then stabilize at a lower level, the impact would 7
be characterized as moderate.
8 And finally, for an impact to be considered 9
as large, the effects must clearly be noticeable 10 and sufficient to destabilize important attributes 11 of the resource. Soft losses of the intake cause 12 the fish population to decline to a point where it 13 cannot be stabilized and it continually declines, 14 the impact could be considered large.
15 Let me briefly address what is covered in 16 several of the environmentally important chapters 17 of the draft, especially Chapters 2 and 4.
18 In Chapter 2 we describe that the power 19 plants systems generally, and discuss the general 20 environmental setting around the plant, the 21 environmental baseline conditions, if you will.
22 In Chapter 3 youll note that the licensee 23 had not identified any plant refurbishment 24 activities that were necessary prior to the period 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 of extended operation. So no analysis of 1
potential environmental impacts of refurbishment 2
needed to be conducted.
3 In Chapter 4 we looked at the potential 4
environmental impacts of an additional 20 years of 5
operation at the Fort Calhoun Station Unit 1 6
plant. The site-specific issues the team 7
discussed in detail in Chapter 4 include:
8 potential impacts of operating the cooling system 9
and transmission lines, land use impacts and 10 radiological impacts of normal operations, impacts 11 related to water use and water quality and 12 potential impacts to sensitive, aquatic and 13 terrestrial natural species, such as federally and 14 threatened and endangered species.
15 Ill take just a few minutes to identify 16 some of the highlights of our review, and if you 17 have additional questions on our draft results, 18 Id be glad to try to answer them or to refer them 19 to one of the members of our team who may be with 20 us this evening.
21 One of the topics we looked at closely in 22 discussing some depth in Chapter 4 is the 23 potential -- is the potential impact of operating 24 the cooling system for Fort Calhoun Station Unit 1 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 reactor. Fort Calhoun Station has a once-through 1
heat dissipation system which uses water from the 2
Missouri River to condense the steam used to 3
produce electricity, then releases the cooling 4
water back to the river. We didnt identify any 5
new and significant information for any of the 6
Category 1 issues related to the cooling system, 7
either through the scoping process or by the 8
applicants or by the staff during its visit as 9
well as our information reviews to include review 10 of OPPDs National Pollution Discharge and the 11 Elimination System Permit issued by the state on 12 the Clean Water Act.
13 With respect to those Category 2 14 environmental issues related to the cooling 15 system, the staff found that the potential impacts 16 of heat shock, impingement or entrainment of a 17 fish or shellfish on a cooling water intake screen 18 are small.
19 Radiological impacts are Category 1 issues 20 in the generic EIS, but because its often a 21 matter of concern to the public, I wanted to take 22 just a minute to briefly discuss it here.
23 During the site visit, we looked at the 24 effluent release and monitoring program 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 documentation. We looked at how the gaseous and 1
liquid effluents are treated and released, as well 2
as how the solid wastes are treated, packaged and 3
shipped. This information is outlined in Chapter 4
2 of the draft EIS. We also looked at how the 5
applicant determines and demonstrates that theyre 6
in compliance for the release of radiological 7
effluence. This slide shows you the near-site and 8
on-site locations that the applicant has monitored 9
for airborne releases and direct radiation. There 10 are other monitoring stations beyond the site 11 boundary, including locations where water, fish, 12 milk and food products are sampled. Releases from 13 the plant and resulting off-site potential doses 14 are not expected to increase on a year-to-year 15 basis during a 20-year license renewal term.
16 No new and significant information was 17 identified during the staffs review of public 18 input during the scoping process or the evaluation 19 of other available information.
20 Last issue Id like to discuss among those 21 evaluated in Chapter 4 is that of federally 22 threatened and endangered species. A description 23 of the terrestrial and aquatic ecology of the area 24 and the potential for endangered and threatened 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 species at the site is given in Chapter two.
1 Although the bald eagle is originally 2
listed as federally endangered, its status was 3
lowered to threatened in 1995 and is being 4
considered by the Fish and Wildlife Service for 5
the complete delisting due to the level of its --
6 the high level of its recovery in the U.S. There 7
are no known bald eagle nesting sites at Fort 8
Calhoun Station, although the birds use areas near 9
the site for foraging, most commonly along the 10 Missouri River.
11 Other federally threatened or endangered 12 terrestrial species that were considered included 13 least tern and piping plover, both bird species, 14 and the western prairie fringed orchid, a flower 15 species. These species have not been found at 16 Fort Calhoun Station, and the potential for impact 17 to them from license renewal is, again, considered 18 small.
19 Based on the information available to the 20 staff, it was concluded that the continued 21 operation of the station may affect, but is 22 unlikely to adversely affect the bald eagle, and 23 would have no affect on the other three threatened 24 or endangered terrestrial species that I just 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 mentioned. There is one federally endangered 1
aquatic species, pallid sturgeon, which is also 2
discussed in the report. Occurrences of the 3
sturgeon have been reported in the Missouri River, 4
both upstream and downstream at Fort Calhoun 5
Station. And extensive habitat restoration 6
projects have been implemented in Missouri by the 7
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ever since the mid 8
1970s.
9 Based on information available to the 10 staff, it was concluded that the continued 11 operation of the station, again, may affect, but 12 is not likely to adversely affect the pallid 13 sturgeon. The NRC is currently in consultation 14 with the Fishing and Wildlife Service under 15 Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act as it 16 relates to these species.
17 For all of the Fort Calhoun Station 18 environmentally-related issues that the team 19 reviewed, we found that there was no new and 20 significant information that was identified, again 21 either scope process, by the licensee during the 22 development of environmental review documentation, 23 or by the staff during our visit or analysis.
24 We also looked at issues for the uranium 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 fuel cycle and solid waste management systems, as 1
well for decommissioning. These two issues are 2
discussed in Chapters 6 an 7 respectively in that 3
report.
4 They are both Category 1 issues and were 5
evaluated generically, again, in the 1988 generic 6
environmental impact statement. We also found 7
that there were no new and significant information 8
that was identified for either of these issues.
9 In Chapter 8 of the draft report we 10 evaluated the potential environmental impacts 11 associated with the alternatives to continuing 12 operation of the Fort Calhoun Station Unit 1. The 13 continuing operation be considered the proposed 14 alternative. Discussed in Chapter 8 are the 15 potential environmental impacts associated with 16 Fort Calhoun Station not operating. This is the 17 "no action alternative." And its a scenario in 18 which the NRC would not renew the operating 19 license for the Fort Calhoun Station Unit 1 20 reactor. And when the plant ceases operation, 21 OPPD would decommission the facility.
22 We also looked at other alternatives: New 23 electrical power generation from coal-fired or 24 gas-fired plants or a new nuclear plant, a 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 purchased power alternative. And the application 1
of alternative technology such as wind, solar and 2
hydro power, and finally, a combination of these 3
alternatives.
4 For each alternative, we looked, again, at 5
each of the same issues -- those same 6
environmental issues, those such as land use, 7
ecology, and socioeconomics, et cetera, that whole 8
list. And that we -- same issues that we looked 9
at for the proposed action, that is Fort Calhoun 10 Stations 20-year license renewal option. We also 11 looked at delayed retirement of other existing 12 facilities, as well as utility-sponsored 13 conservation, and then looked at a combination of 14 these alternatives. For each alternative, we 15 looked at whether the technologies -- Im sorry --
16 and for each alternative we looked at whether the 17 technologies could replace the generating capacity 18 at Fort Calhoun Station Unit 1, and we looked at 19 whether or not it could be a feasible alternative 20 to renewal of the current plants license.
21 The preliminary conclusions were that the 22 alternatives, including the "no action 23 alternative" in which the license would not be 24 renewed, may have environmental effects. And in 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 at least some of the categories, they may range 1
all the way from small to large. On the other 2
hand, youll recall that our conclusion was that 3
the impacts for the proposed action were small on 4
all of these environmental issues.
5 This concludes my presentation, and Ill be 6
glad to entertain any questions.
7 MR. CAMERON: Great. Thank you, 8
Ken.
9 Are there questions on the -- the findings 10 in the draft environmental impact statement?
11 Okay.
12 Lets go to the final part of the draft 13 environmental impact statement and this is the 14 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives. Jack.
15 MR. CUSHING: Thank you, Chip.
16 Chapter 5 of the report is entitled "The 17 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents."
18 There are two classes of accidents: Design-basis 19 accidents and severe accidents. Design-basis 20 accidents are those accidents that both the 21 licensee and the NRC staff evaluated to ensure 22 that the plant can withstand without undue risk to 23 the public. The environmental impacts 24 design-basis actions are evaluated during the 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 initial licensing process. And the ability of 1
these plans to withstand these accidents has to be 2
demonstrated before the plant is granted a 3
license.
4 Most importantly, a licensee is required to 5
maintain an acceptable design and performance 6
capability throughout the life of the plant, 7
including any extended-life operation. Since the 8
licensee has to demonstrate acceptable plan 9
performance for design-basis accidents throughout 10 the life of the plant, the commission in the 11 generic environmental impact station determined 12 that the environmental impact of design-basis 13 accidents are of small significance because the 14 plant was designed to successfully withstand these 15 accidents. These are -- the licensee nor the NRC 16 is aware of any new and significant information on 17 the capability of a plant to withstand 18 design-basis accidents associated with the renewal 19 of the Fort Calhoun Station Unit 1 license.
20 Therefore, the staff concludes that there 21 are there no impacts related to the design-basis 22 accidents beyond those discussed in the generic 23 environmental impact statement.
24 The second category of accidents evaluated 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 in the generic environmental impact statement are 1
severe accidents. Severe accidents are, by 2
definition, accidents that are more severe than 3
design-basis accidents because they could result 4
in substantial damage to their active core.
5 The commission found in the generic 6
environmental impact statement that the 7
consequences of a severe accident are small for 8
all plants. Nevertheless, the commission 9
determined that the alternative to mitigate severe 10 accidents must be considered for all plants that 11 have not done so. We refer to these alternatives 12 as "severe accident mitigation alternatives," or 13 SAMAs for short. The SAMAs review for the Fort 14 Calhoun Station is contained in Section 52 of the 15 environmental impact statement.
16 The purpose of doing a SAMAs evaluation is 17 to ensure that plant changes with the potential 18 for improving severe accidents safety performance 19 are identified and evaluated. The scope of the 20 potential improvements that were considered 21 include hardware modification, procedure changes, 22 training program improvements -- basically a full 23 spectrum of potential changes.
24 The scope included SAMAs that would prevent 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 core damage, as well as SAMAs that would include 1
containment performance. For the SAMAs analysis, 2
we first quantify overall plant risk. Second, 3
identify potential improvement, and then quantify 4
the risk reduction potential and the 5
implementation cost for each improvement; and 6
finally, determine if implementation is justified.
7 In determining whether or not 8
implementation is justified, the NRC staff looks 9
at three factors: First is whether the 10 improvement is cost beneficial. In other words, 11 is the estimated benefit greater than the 12 estimated implementation cost of the SAMAs.
13 The second factor is whether the 14 improvement provides a significant reduction in 15 total risk.
16 The third factor is whether the risk 17 reductions are associated with the aging effect 18 during the period of extended operation. If it 19 was, we would be looking at implementation as part 20 of the license renewal process.
21 This slide summarizes the preliminary 22 results for Fort Calhouns Station SAMAs 23 evaluation. The end result of the evaluation was 24 that seven SAMAs were found to be cost beneficial.
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 The cost beneficial SAMAs include procedural and 1
training enhancement and use of commercially 2
available equipment during potential transients.
3 The seven cost beneficial SAMAs are not required 4
to be implemented at Fort Calhoun Station as part 5
of license renewal because they do not relate to 6
managing the effects of aging.
7 However, OPPD currently plans to implement 8
the seven cost beneficial SAMAs.
9 Turning now to our overall conclusions, we 10 found that the impact to license renewal are small 11 in all impact areas. We also concluded that the 12 alternatives, including the "no action 13 alternatives," may have environmental effects, at 14 least some impact categories, that reach moderate 15 or large significance. Based on these results, 16 our preliminary recommendation is that adverse 17 environmental impacts of license renewal for Fort 18 Calhoun are not so great that preserving the 19 option of license renewal for energy planning 20 decisionmakers would be unreasonable.
21 Quick recap of our current status; we 22 issued the draft environmental impact statement 23 for the Fort Calhoun Station license renewal on 24 January 6th. We are currently in the middle of a 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 public comment period that is scheduled to end on 1
April 10th. We expect to address the publics 2
comments, including any necessary revisions to the 3
draft environmental impact statement, and issue a 4
final environmental impact statement in August.
5 This slide provides information on how to 6
access the draft environmental impact statement 7
for Fort Calhoun. You can contact me directly at 8
the number provided. There are a number of copies 9
out in the lobby, and you can pick one up on your 10 way out. In addition, the Blair and the Clark 11 Public Libraries have copies for you to look at.
12 And the document is available on the Web at the 13 address given.
14 This last slide provides details on how to 15 submit comments on the draft. The comment period, 16 as I said before, goes until April 10th, 2003.
17 You can submit comments by writing directly to the 18 address given. You can send them to the e-mail 19 address here, Ft_Calhoun_EIS@nrc.gov, or you can 20 bring them in person to our headquarters in 21 Rockville.
22 Chip.
23 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, 24 Jack.
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 How about questions on the ultimate 1
conclusion that was reached by the -- in the 2
draft. I want to emphasize "draft" because it 3
wont be final until, as Jack pointed out, all the 4
comments are evaluated. Any questions on that or 5
on the issue of the SAMAs, the mitigation --
6 "Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative"? Okay.
7 Thank you -- thank you very much, Jack.
8 And lets go to the formal comment part of 9
the meeting. And first of all, were going to 10 hear from -- from the Omaha Public Power District.
11 We have Gary Gates with us who is the vice 12 president for Nuclear Operations there.
13 Gary.
14 MR. GATES: Thank you. My names 15 Gary Gates. Im the vice president of OPPD thats 16 responsible for the operation of Fort Calhoun 17 Station. Id like to acknowledge at this time any 18 of the OPPD staff thats here tonight. Theyve 19 put in a lot of work and a lot of effort to get to 20 this point in the license renewal process. They 21 definitely have the appreciation of the district, 22 as well as myself. Id like to also acknowledge 23 two individuals that are here: Mr. Chuck Elderd, 24 whos the chief financial officer at OPPD, whos, 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 here representing the City Management Team, as 1
well as myself. And Director, Anne McGuire is 2
here. Shes part of the OPPD board, and currently 3
serves as the chair of the Nuclear Oversight 4
Committee.
5 I spoke at your June meeting in Omaha 6
concerning the license renewal application, and I 7
welcome the opportunity to speak this evening in 8
support of the conclusion reached by the NRC, but 9
there are no environmental impacts that preclude 10 the renewal of the operating devices of the Fort 11 Calhoun nuclear plant.
12 OPPD provides electricity to more than 13 300,000 customers in a 13-county area in southeast 14 Nebraska. It must be noted that about 30 percent 15 of the power thats used by our customers on a 16 daily basis is generated by the Fort Calhoun 17 Station. Fort Calhoun is a single-unit plant 18 located between Blair and Fort Calhoun, Nebraska.
19 It was declared commercial in 1973, and has been 20 operating safely ever since. I am proud to have 21 been a part of Fort Calhoun since the initial 22 construction. We feel that over the last 30 years 23 we have demonstrated a high level of safety and 24 environmental stewardship in all our programs and 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 operations.
1 In fact, the continued safety operation of 2
Fort Calhoun Station remains the number one 3
priority of OPPD. OPPD maintains its facilities 4
and conducts its operations based on a strong 5
commitment to the environment and monitoring and 6
the management of those policies. Our policy is 7
to conduct operations, not just in compliance with 8
all applicable government laws and regulations, 9
but over and beyond minimum requirements of those 10 regulations. This ensures our ability to protect 11 the environment and to serve in the best interest 12 of our employees, our customers and the 13 surrounding communities. We feel the NRC staff 14 recommendation, which is the subject of todays 15 meeting, is a testament to the effectiveness of 16 our approach.
17 OPPD will continue, what we believe, is a 18 comprehensive, environmental monitoring program, 19 hopefully for an additional 20 years, beyond 2013.
20 Furthermore, we will continue to develop 21 and implement ways to enhance the operation of 22 Fort Calhoun Station. In other words, we are 23 committed to conducting our operations in an 24 environmentally responsible manner as we have done 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 in the last 30 years.
1 Let me take a few minutes to say something 2
about the employees that work at Fort Calhoun 3
Nuclear Station.
4 These men and woman take pride in being 5
able to safely operate a clean source of 6
dependable power. They do so not only as workers, 7
but as residents of the area we serve. Besides 8
having homes and families in the area, they are 9
valued members of the community, often serving as 10 volunteers and social leaders in the area. They 11 also know that the effective operation of Fort 12 Calhoun Station for another 20 years will 13 contribute economic benefits to that area. That 14 includes jobs for not only plant employees, but 15 for many of the area businesses with whom we work.
16 The point is that we all have a stake in 17 continuing to operate the plant in a safe and 18 strong commitment to the environment.
19 One other note, OPPDs concern for the 20 environment goes beyond Fort Calhoun Station. We 21 have invested in other green power sources, such 22 as wind and biomass.
23 In closing, let me thank you for this 24 opportunity to speak on a very important issue and 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 in support of the staffs recommendation. Thanks 1
for your time.
2 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you 3
very much, Gary.
4 Our next speaker is Mr. Rob Hall. And Mr.
5 Hall is with the Omaha, Nebraska, and Southwest 6
Iowa Building Trades.
7 Do you want to come up here or -- wherever 8
you feel comfortable.
9 MR. HALL: Im fine right here.
10 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Good. Go 11 ahead.
12 MR. HALL: My name is Rob Hall, 13 and I represent the Omaha -- Greater Omaha, 14 Nebraska, and Southwest Iowa Building and Trade.
15 Were the construction unions that support the 16 inside construction/maintenance at Fort Calhoun 17 facility. My tenure in the industry goes back 28 18 years. I worked 18 months for OPPD, most of that 19 time was at Fort Calhoun. And when I think 20 back -- of course I was a little bit younger 21 then -- but I realized now that was probably one 22 of the premiere atmospheres that Ive ever worked 23 in.
24 Today we are working hand in hand with OPPD 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 to come up with some new innovative ways to -- for 1
labor to help them and for them to help labor in 2
the community. Its a great tribute to the 3
leadership and management at this facility. And 4
that goes from the managers to the planners to the 5
training department. Its unbelievable the ground 6
weve covered and the issues we discussed.
7 One of them, of course, is safety. And 8
were working on several issues there. I can 9
speak from my trade union, which is the Asbestos 10 Workers and the Piping Slayers, and weve dealt 11 with asbestos within the OPPD system for years.
12 And weve never ever had any problems, any 13 complaints. Theyre a group that is so well 14 organized and so well planned, weve never had any 15 problems with any type of removal project. Its a 16 great place to work. It truly is. And again, 17 thats attributed to the leadership and 18 management. So without repeating myself, I thank 19 you for the opportunity to address the NRC. And 20 again, OPPD is an important part of our industry.
21 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, 22 Rob.
23 Is there anyone else who wants to make a 24 comment or ask a question about any issue 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 connected with license renewal or NRCs oversight?
1 Okay. Great. Thank you all for coming out 2
tonight and thanks to Camie for the stenography, 3
and I think were adjourned.
4 (The hearing was concluded at the 5
hour of 8:03 p.m.)
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25