ML032960498
| ML032960498 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 08/07/2003 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Schaaf R, NRR/DRIP/RLEP, 415-1312 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML032960576 | List: |
| References | |
| -nr, NRC-1026, TAC MB5225 | |
| Download: ML032960498 (74) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal - Public Meeting Afternoon Session Docket Number:
(not applicable)
Location:
Ontario, New York Date:
Thursday, August 7, 2003 Work Order No.:
NRC-1026 Pages 1-74 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 3
+ + + + +
4 PUBLIC MEETING ON THE 5
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 6
FOR THE 7
R.E. GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 8
+ + + + +
10 THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 2003 11 1:30 P.M.
12 FIREMANS EXEMPT HALL 13 1840 ROUTE 104 14 ONTARIO, NEW YORK 14519 15 The meeting on the above-entitled matter 16 commenced at 1:30 p.m., Francis "Chip" Cameron, 17 presiding as Moderator/Facilitator.
18 NRC Presenters:
19 JOHN TAPPERT 20 RUSSELL ARRIGHI 21 ROBERT SCHAAF 22 DUANE NEITZEL 23 MARK RUBIN 24 RICHARD EMCH 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 1
I-N-D-E-X 2
Welcome and purpose of meeting 3
3 Overview of license renewal process 12 4
Overview of environmental review process 17 5
Results of the environmental review 22 6
How comments can be submitted 60 7
Public comments 64 8
Closing/availability of transcripts, etc.
73 9
Adjourn 74 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
1:33 p.m.
2 MODERATOR CAMERON: Good afternoon, 3
everyone, and welcome to the NRCs public meeting. My 4
name is Chip Cameron, and Im the special counsel for 5
public liaison at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
6 Its my pleasure to serve as your facilitator for 7
todays meeting. And in that role Ill try to assist 8
all of you in having a productive meeting today.
9 Todays meeting is on the draft 10 environmental impact statement that the NRC has 11 prepared to assist the NRC in making a decision on an 12 application to renew the license at the Ginna nuclear 13 power plant. And this application was submitted by 14 Rochester Gas and Electric.
15 And I just wanted to take just a couple of 16 minutes to go over some of the meeting process issues 17 before we get into the substance of todays 18 discussion.
19 In terms of objectives for the meeting, we 20 want to make sure that we clearly explain to everyone 21 what the license renewal process is all about, what 22 the role of environmental review is in that license 23 renewal process. And most importantly, in terms of 24 information to give you a summary of what the NRC has 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 found in the draft environmental impact statement.
1 The second objective is to hear from you, 2
anybody who wants to give us any advice or 3
recommendations on the license renewal process and 4
specifically the draft environmental impact statement.
5 And I do want to emphasize the information aspect of 6
the meeting, because were also requesting written 7
comments on the draft environmental impact statement, 8
but we wanted to be here with you today to talk to you 9
in person and anything that you say today, anything 10 you give us in comments will be, will have the same 11 weight as a written comment.
12 Were transcribing the meeting. Mary Ann 13 is our stenographer and that will be a written record 14 of the meeting that will be available not only to the 15 NRC for purposes of evaluating comments, but also to 16 the public. And you may hear things this afternoon, 17 either from the NRC or from members of the audience 18 that will give you information that will either 19 perhaps stimulate you to submit a written comment or 20 to help you to prepare your written comments. So if 21 theres anything that you dont understand that we 22 dont clearly explain to you, please ask so that we 23 can try to get you that information.
24 The format of the meeting matches the 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 objectives in terms of providing information. Were 1
going to have some NRC presentations for you on 2
various issues, and Ill go through those in a minute.
3 And then after each presentation or each two 4
presentations, were going to go out to you to see if 5
you have any questions that we can answer for you.
6 Second part of the meeting is for us to 7
listen to any formal comments that you may have and if 8
you want to make a comment, there is a yellow card in 9
the back that wed like you to fill out. And thats 10 not a requirement. If you want to come up and speak, 11 thats fine. But it just gives us an idea of how many 12 people to expect during the formal comment period.
13 And that leads me to the ground rules for 14 todays meeting, which are very simple. If you want 15 to say anything, ask a question, please, just signal 16 me and Ill bring you what the NRCs staff has told is 17 a wireless microphone. And well get you on the 18 record. If you can just give us your name and 19 affiliation, if appropriate, and ask your question and 20 well try to get an answer for you. And when we get 21 to the -- particularly when we get to the formal 22 comment part of the meeting, I just ask everyone to 23 try to be as concise as possible so that we can make 24 sure that we hear from everybody who wants to speak.
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 I dont think that we have a whole lot of 1
people this afternoon who want to talk, so that gives 2
us a little bit more flexibility time-wise. But 3
usually I use a guideline of five to seven minutes, 4
but as Ive said thats not any sort of a drop dead 5
guideline because we do have time this afternoon. I 6
want to just tell you what the agenda is so you know 7
what to expect, and give you a little bit of an idea, 8
biography on some of our speaks so that you know what 9
their expertise is.
10 Were going to start in just a moment when 11 Im done with John Tappert, who is right here.
12 And John Tappert is the Chief of the 13 Environmental Review Section within our Office of 14 Nuclear Reactor Regulation. And John and his staff 15 are responsible for overseeing the environmental 16 reviews that are done, not just on these types of 17 license renewal applications, but for any issue that 18 deals with reactors, where the NRC needs to look at 19 environmental impacts before they make a decision on 20 a particular issue.
21 In terms of background, John has been with 22 the NRC for approximately 12 years. He was a resident 23 inspector and these people are particularly important 24 to the NRC because they are the ones who are at 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 reactors. They live in the community and they make 1
sure that NRC requirements are being followed. Before 2
that, he was in the nuclear Navy. He has a bachelors 3
degree in Aerospace and Oceanographic Engineering from 4
Virginia Tech and a masters degree in Environmental 5
Engineering from Johns Hopkins University.
6 John is going to give us a short welcome 7
and then were going to go to two members of the NRC 8
staff who are going to give you an overview of the 9
license renewal process.
10 The first person that were going to hear 11 from is Mr. Russ Arrighi, who is right here. Hes the 12 project manager for the safety review on the Ginna 13 License Renewal Application.
14 And then were going to go to Bob Schaaf 15 who is the project manager on the environmental 16 review, which is the specific focus of todays 17 meeting. Then well go on to you for any questions 18 that you might have about process.
19 In terms of Russ background, hes been 20 with the NRC for about 14 years. He was also a 21 resident inspector. Like John, Russ was at the 22 Millstone Power Plant in Connecticut and also the 23 Pilgrim Power Plant in Massachusetts. Before the NRC, 24 he was at the Norfolk Naval Ship Yard as a test 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 engineer, and he has a bachelors in chemical 1
engineering from the University of Rhode Island, and 2
well have Russ up there in a minute.
3 Bob Schaaf is right here and Bob has been 4
with the NRC for about 13 years also. He has served 5
as project manager in our office of Nuclear Reactor 6
Regulation in operating reactors in the environmental 7
section. He also worked at the Naval Ship Yard, the 8
Charleston Naval Ship Yard in engineering and he has 9
a bachelors in mechanical engineering from Georgia 10 Tech.
11 So after we get done with process, were 12 going to focus on the heart of the discussion today 13 and that is the findings in the draft environmental 14 impact statement. And to present that, we have Duane 15 Neitzel who is right here. And Duane is the team 16 leader for the group of expert scientists that the NRC 17 has doing the environmental review for the Ginna 18 Plant. Duane is a fish biologist. Hes been with 19 Pacific Northwest Lab for about 32 years. He has a 20 bachelors in zoology from the University of 21 Washington and a Masters in Biosciences from 22 Washington State? Washington State University.
23 After Duane is done, well go back out to 24 you again for questions and then were going to go 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 a special subject in the draft environmental impact 1
statement, and thats something called severe accident 2
mitigation alternatives. And theyre called SAMAs.
3 We have Mark Rubin from the NRC staff with us who is 4
going to do that presentation. And Mark is a Section 5
Chief in the probabilistic safety assessment branch, 6
again, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation at the 7
NRC. And hes been at the NRC for 27 years, primarily 8
working in something thats called probabilistic risk 9
assessment, and I think when you hear from Mark today 10 youll get a better understanding of what that 11 particular expertise is. He has a Masters and 12 Bachelors of Science in Nuclear Engineering from the 13 University of California in Los Angeles, UCLA. Hes 14 a member of the American Nuclear Society, the 15 Probabilistic Risk Assessment Standards Committee.
16 With that, I would just like to thank you 17 all for being here. We have a lot of experts from the 18 NRC and our expert consultants. We have people from 19 our Office of General Counsel. I would just urge you 20 to after the meeting, if you have questions, get to 21 know them, talk to them. And keep in touch, if you 22 have questions or concerns. Well give you some phone 23 numbers and addresses today and we do have something 24 called an evaluation form. I think formally it is 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 called a feedback form where we try to find out how 1
were doing in public meetings. So it is at the back 2
table and if you could just fill it out and leave it 3
with us if youre so inclined. It already has a 4
metered stamp so to speak on it. You can just drop 5
them in a mailbox.
6 And with that, Im going to ask John to 7
come up and welcome.
8 MR. TAPPERT: Thank you, Chip. Good 9
afternoon and welcome. As Chip said, my name is John 10 Tappert and Im the Chief of the Environmental Section 11 in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. And on 12 behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, I would 13 like to thank you for taking time out of your 14 afternoon today and participating in our process.
15 I would like to briefly go over the agenda 16 and purposes of todays meeting.
17 First of all, were going to provide a 18 brief overview of the entire license renewal process.
19 Now this includes both a safety review, as a well as 20 the environmental review, which will be the principal 21 focus of todays meeting. Then were to provide you 22 the results of our environmental impact statement that 23 was developed to assess the impacts associated with 24 extending the operating license of the Ginna nuclear 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 power plant for an additional 20 years.
1 Then well provide you some information 2
about the balance of our review schedule and how you 3
can submit comments after todays meeting, and then 4
the most important part of todays meeting, which is 5
to receive any comments that you may have today on our 6
draft and environmental impact statement, or EIS.
7 But first Id like to provide some general 8
context on the license renewal program and why were 9
here today.
10 Next slide.
11 (Slide change.)
12 MR. TAPPERT: The Atomic Energy Act gives 13 the NRC the authority to issue operating licenses to 14 commercial nuclear power plants for a period of 40 15 years. For the Ginna nuclear power plant, that 16 operating license will expire in 2009. Our 17 regulations also made provision is for extending that 18 operating license for an additional 20 years as a part 19 of a license renewal program and RG&E has requested 20 renewal for Ginna.
21 As part of the NRCs review of that 22 application, we developed an environmental impact 23 statement. As part of that environmental impact 24 statement process, we held a public meeting here last 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 fall to seek early public input in our review. As we 1
indicated at that earlier scoping meeting, we returned 2
here now today to present the findings in our draft 3
environmental impact statement. And again, the 4
principal purpose of todays meeting is to receive 5
your comments on that draft.
6 With that brief introduction, Id like to 7
ask Russ to provide some more insights on this safety 8
review.
9 MR. ARRIGHI: Thank you, John. As John 10 mentioned my name is Russ Arrighi. Im the project 11 manager for the safety review of Ginnas license 12 renewal application. Before discussing the license 13 renewal process and the safety review, Id like to 14 talk a little bit about the NRC, the Nuclear 15 Regulatory Commission and its role in licensing and 16 regulating nuclear power plants. The Atomic Energy 17 Act of 1954 authorized the NRC to regulate civilian 18 use of nuclear material. The NRC mission is 19 threefold, to ensure the adequate protection of public 20 health and safety, to protect the environment, and to 21 provide for common defense and security.
22 NRC consists of five commissioners, one of 23 whom is a chairman. Theyre also with the NRC staff.
24 The regulations enforced by the NRC are issued under 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 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which we 1
call 10 CFR. Excuse me.
2 As John mentioned, the Atomic Energy Act 3
provided for a 40-year license term for power 4
reactors. But it also allowed for license renewal.
5 The 40-year term is based primarily on economic and 6
anti-trust considerations rather than safety 7
limitations.
8 As a result, some of the components 9
werent designed to operate, designed to last greater 10 than 40 years. And operating experience demonstrated 11 that some major components such a steam generators 12 didnt last that long. For that reason, a number of 13 utilities had to replace major components, and since 14 components and structures can be replaced or 15 reconditioned, a plants life is really determined by 16 economic factors.
17 Again, the operating license for Ginna 18 expires in September 2009. Rochester Gas and Electric 19 Corporation has applied for and requests authorization 20 to operate Ginna up to an additional 20 years.
21 Now Id like to talk about license 22 renewal, which is governed by the requirements of 10 23 CFR part 54 or the license renewal rule. This part of 24 the code of federal regulations defines the regulatory 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 process by which a nuclear utility applies for license 1
renewal. The license renewal rule also incorporates 2
10 CFR part 51 by reference. This part of the code 3
provides for preparation of an environmental impact 4
statement. The license renewal process involves a 5
safety review and environmental impact evaluations, 6
plants inspections, and are reviewed by the Advisory 7
Committee on Reactor Safeguards, or ACRS.
8 The ACRS is a group of scientists and 9
nuclear experts who serve as a consulting body to the 10 Commission. The ACRS performs an independent review 11 of the application in the staffs safety evaluation.
12 And they report their findings and recommendations 13 directly to the Commission.
14 Next slide, please.
15 (Slide change.)
16 MR. ARRIGHI: The next slide illustrates 17 a two parallel process for license renewal. The top 18 part talks about the safety review, which Im the 19 project manager for and the bottom section talks about 20 the environmental review which Bob Schaaf will discuss 21 later.
22 The safety review involves the staffs 23 review of the technical information in the 24 application. To verify with reasonable assurance that 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 the plant can continue to operate safely during the 1
extended period of operation. The staff assesses how 2
the applicant proposes to monitor or manage the aging 3
applicable to passive long-lived structures and 4
components that are within the scope of license 5
renewal and documents its assessment of the 6
effectiveness of the Applicants programs in the SER.
7 So we do the review, the safety review, 8
and we put out an evaluation in a safety evaluation 9
report.
10 Now the current regulation is adequate for 11 addressing active components, such as pumps and 12 valves, which are continually challenged to reveal 13 failures and degradation such that corrective actions 14 can be taken to resolve them. The current regulations 15 are also adequate to also address other aspects of the 16 original license such as security and emergency 17 planing. These current regulations also apply during 18 the extended period of operation.
19 The ACES then would get the safety 20 evaluation report where they do an independent review 21 and again, they review the application and they 22 provide their report directly to the Commission. The 23 safety review also includes inspections, on-site 24 inspections by the regional -- Im sorry. The safety 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 review process also involves two or three inspections 1
which are documented in NRC inspection reports, and 2
theyre performed by regional inspectors. Again, at 3
the bottom of the slide of the environmental review 4
process, the environmental review which involves 5
scoping activities, preparation of a draft supplement 6
to the generic environmental impact statements, 7
solicitation of public comments on the draft 8
supplement, and then the issuance of a final 9
supplement to the generic environmental impact 10 statements, and Bob Schaaf will discuss that further.
11 The decision to renew an operating 12 license, the NRC considers the safety evaluation 13 report, the ACRS report, the inspection reports, and 14 also the NRC Regional Administrators recommendation.
15 Again, the Regional Administrator is aware of the day 16 to day operation of the plant and he has an input and 17 a say on whether or not the license should be renewed.
18 The license renewal process also allows 19 for hearings. In September of 2002, the NRC issued a 20 Federal Register notice to announce its acceptance of 21 RG&Es application for renewal. Its notice also 22 announced the opportunity for public participation in 23 the process. There were no petitions to intervene, 24 no petitions were received by the staff.
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 This concludes my summary, and now Id 1
like to turn the mic over to Bob Schaaf.
2 MODERATOR CAMERON: Okay, thank you very 3
much Russ. And were going to Bob and then were 4
going to go out to you for questions. Were getting 5
some static on the transcript with this mic so why 6
dont you try this one and well see if thats better.
7 Bob Schaaf, the environmental review..
8 MR. SCHAAF: Thank you, Jim. Thank you, 9
Russ. Id like to welcome everyone this afternoon.
10 Your participation is appreciated. It is an important 11 component of our environmental review process.
12 Once again, my name is Bob Schaaf. Im 13 the environmental project manager for the Ginna 14 license renewal application. Im responsible for 15 coordinating the efforts of the NRC staff and the 16 contractors from the national labs to conduct and 17 document the review of RG&Es application for license 18 renewal at Ginna.
19 NEPA, the National Environmental Policy 20 Act was enacted in 1969. The act requires all federal 21 agencies to use the systematic approach to consider 22 environmental impacts during certain decision making 23 proceedings regarding major federal actions. NEPA 24 requires that we examine the environmental impacts of 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 proposed actions and consider mitigation measures, 1
which are actions that can be taken to decrease any 2
environmental impacts identified.
3 NEPA also requires that we consider 4
alternatives to the proposed action and that we 5
evaluate the impacts of those alternatives. Finally, 6
NEPA requires that we disclose all of this information 7
and that we invite public participation to evaluate 8
it.
9 The NRC has determined that it will 10 prepare an environmental impact statement for requests 11 to renew plants operating licenses. Therefore, 12 following the process required by NEPA, we have 13 prepared a draft environmental impact statement that 14 describes the impacts associated with operation of 15 Ginna for an additional 20 years.
16 The draft environmental impact statement 17 was issued at the end of June. The meetings today are 18 being held to provide an overview of our preliminary 19 conclusions and to receive your comments on the draft.
20 This slide describes the objective of our 21 environmental review as defined in our regulations.
22 Simply put, were trying to determine whether the 23 renewal of the Ginna license is acceptable from an 24 environmental standpoint, whether or not that option 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 is exercised, that is, whether or not the plant 1
actually operates for the additional 20 years, will be 2
determined by others, such as RG&E and state 3
regulatory agencies. It will also depend on the 4
outcome of the safety review described previously by 5
Russ.
6 (Slide change.)
7 MR. ARRIGHI: This slide shows with a 8
little more detail the process for environmental 9
review of the Ginna license renewal application. We 10 received the application at the end of July of last 11 year. We issued a notice of intent, which was 12 published in the Federal Register in October of last 13 year. This notice informed the public that we were 14 going to prepare an environmental impact statement, 15 also referred to as an EIS, and invited the public to 16 provide comments on the scope of our environmental 17 review.
18 In November of last year, during that 19 scoping period, we held two public meetings in this 20 area to receive public comments on the scope of issues 21 that should be included in the EIS for the Ginna 22 license renewal. Also in November, while we were here 23 for the public meetings, we went to the Ginna site 24 with the team of NRC staff and personnel from several 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 the national laboratories with backgrounds in the 1
specific technical and scientific disciplines required 2
to perform our environmental review.
3 We familiarized ourselves with the site, 4
met with RG&E staff to discuss the information 5
submitted in their license renewal application. We 6
reviewed environmental documentation maintained at 7
site and we examined RG&Es environmental evaluation 8
process. In addition, we contacted federal, state, 9
and local officials, local service agencies, and 10 Native American tribes with potential historical ties 11 to the plant area to gather information for our 12 review.
13 At the close of the scoping comment 14 period, we gathered up and considered all of the 15 comments that we received. Many of these comments 16 contributed to the document we are here to discuss 17 today. In December of last year, we issued requests 18 for additional information to ensure that any 19 information that we relied on in preparing our draft 20 impact statement and that had not been included in the 21 original application was submitted for the public 22 record. At the end of June of this year, we issued 23 the draft environmental impact statement for public 24 comment.
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 This was issued to supplement 14 to the 1
generic environmental impact statement regarding 2
license renewal, because we rely on the findings in 3
the generic impact statement for part of our 4
conclusions. Duane Neitzel will provide additional 5
detail about the relationship between the generic 6
impact statement and the Ginna supplement as part of 7
his presentation.
8 The fact that we refer to the supplement 9
as a draft does not mean that it is incomplete. It is 10 considered a draft because we are at an intermediate 11 stage in our decision making process. Were in the 12 middle of a second public comment period to allow you 13 and other members of the public, as well as state and 14 federal agencies, to review our preliminary findings 15 and conclusions and provide any comments you may have 16 on the report. After we gather these comments and 17 evaluate them, we may find that we need to change 18 portions of the environmental impact statement based 19 on those comments.
20 The NRC will make any necessary changes 21 and then issue a final environmental impact statement 22 related to license renewal for Ginna. Currently, our 23 goal is to issue that document in February of next 24 year.
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 This concludes my overview of the 1
environmental review process. We can now entertain 2
any questions regarding the processes described by 3
Russ and myself.
4 MODERATOR CAMERON: Okay, great. Thank 5
you. Thank you, Bob. Thank you, Russ. Do we have 6
some questions on process before we get into the 7
substance of the draft environmental impact statement?
8 If theres anything that isnt clear, please ask and 9
we can always go back for questions after the formal 10 comment period too if something comes up. Okay, 11 great.
12 Well, lets hear about the findings in the 13 draft environmental impact statement.
14 Duane, are you ready?
15 MR. NEITZEL: Yes.
16 MODERATOR CAMERON: All right. And this 17 is Duane Neitzel.
18 MR. NEITZEL: Thank you. My name is 19 Duane Neitzel. I am the laboratory lead for the 20 development of the supplemental environmental impact 21 statement for the license renewal at Ginna. Im 22 responsible for coordinating the efforts of the staff 23 in the national labs in the conducting of this review.
24 Im going to discuss the information gathering process 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 that we used, the composition of the review team, and 1
the process we used for review, the information in the 2
applicants environmental review report, and then 3
discuss some of the results and discuss the results of 4
the supplemental EIS.
5 If you look at in the middle of this 6
graphic here, we refer to the SEIS. Thats a 7
supplement to another impact statement that has been 8
developed, which is the generic environmental impact 9
statement for license renewal. That impact statement 10 has been prepared, reviewed, and accepted by and 11 published by the NRC.
12 As we go to each one of the power plants 13 that request a renewal of their license, then we 14 supplement that GEIS and for brevity we call it the 15 SEIS. And so Ill be referring to the SEIS, which is 16 the supplement to the GEIS throughout my talk.
17 You see the arrows pointing to the SEIS?
18 Thats where we get the information. The license 19 renewal application, this was prepared by Rochester 20 Gas and Electric. Part of that license renewal 21 request included an environmental report. They looked 22 at all these issues that we looked at. They provided 23 information about their operations, about the 24 environment, and about those effects. That was a big 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 part of the information that we had to review. We 1
also, the staff audit was mentioned. The NRC staff 2
and the National Laboratory staff went to the site, 3
looked at the facility, looked at the operations, 4
looked at records. We did that last November.
5 We took that information. That went into 6
the SEIS. Your comments from the scoping meeting and 7
from other comments that were sent in were considered.
8 We also met with state and local agencies, some 9
federal agencies related to the management of these 10 resources in this area. Got their comments, asked 11 them what their concerns were on each of those issues.
12 Then we put that information together.
13 Next slide, please 14 (Slide change.)
15 MR. NEITZEL: This is to give you some 16 idea of the team that was brought together to evaluate 17 each one of these issues. We had scientists and 18 engineers that are experts in atmospheric sciences, 19 land use, aquatic and terrestrial ecology, radiation 20 protection, hydrology and water quality, socio-21 economics, historic and archeological resources. All 22 these individuals reviewed this material. Some of 23 them are here tonight or this afternoon and they are 24 here to answer your questions, discuss the review with 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 you, and talk to you, if you have any questions.
1 Theyll be around. They have a tag on like this and 2
with their name and identifying them as members of the 3
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
4 Next slide.
5 (Slide change.)
6 MR. NEITZEL: Some more on the process 7
that we used and back to these words, GEIS and SEIS.
8 The generic environmental impact statement looks at a 9
whole range of activities, issues, and come up with 92 10 different aspects of operation in the environment that 11 needs to be assessed, looked at those and ended up 12 with two categories. Category one issues and category 13 two issues.
14 Category one issues are impact statements 15 where weve looked at the potential impact at all the 16 plants operating in the United States and come to the 17 conclusion that no matter where you are that you get 18 the same impact statement.
19 There are a little over 20 of those that 20 are category two issues. There it was determined that 21 you could not say that the impact statement is going 22 to be the same at every site. And those were then 23 determined that you had to do a site-specific analysis 24 to address those. So we had these category one, 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 category two issues. These issues were not ignored 1
when we looked at the site-specific information at 2
Ginna. Theyre all there. Its just that this 3
category one, category two helps us focus on those 4
issues specific to Ginna.
5 One of the other things that Im going to 6
be talking about a little bit more is we did look for 7
new information that might say that this impact 8
statement needs to be further evaluated and go into a 9
site specific evaluation. So this process leads to 10 this site-specific performance.
11 We also looked for new issues -- is there 12 something out there in the 90 some issues that have 13 been listed and identified and available for you to 14 look at? Is there something new here, something we 15 havent seen before and does that need to be 16 evaluated, yes or no. But all that information then 17 goes into our analysis.
18 Next slide.
19 (Slide change.)
20 MR. NEITZEL: When we looked at these 21 issues, looked at the operations, looked at the 22 possibility of 20 more years of operation, then we 23 have to say what is the level of impact. And we used 24 three impact levels in our conclusions, small, 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 moderate, and large. These definitions are consistent 1
with the Council on Environmental Quality and NEPA 2
guidance. The NRC regulations have specific metrics 3
and definitions of how for each of these activities 4
how they can be rated as small, moderate, or large.
5 Quickly, the small impacts are you cant 6
see any change from this activity and there is no long 7
term or deleterious to that resource. Moderate is you 8
might be able to see a change, but it is not going to 9
have an impact on that, deleterious long term effect 10 on that resource. And the large impacts are you can 11 see the impact, you can measure it, and it does 12 actually change the, has the potential to change that 13 resource. The example that I always like to deal with 14 is fisheries because thats my background. If one of 15 these activities at the site you could actually 16 measure changes in the population or changes in the 17 habitat from withdrawing water or discharging heated 18 water, but it wasnt changing the population. There 19 was a lot of habitat. The habitat of the area wasnt 20 totally effected. You could see that change, but that 21 would be a moderate impact.
22 If you couldnt see them, couldnt measure 23 that change, and there was no long term impacts that 24 would be small. Large is where you could actually see 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 numbers of fish being taken out of the environment or 1
significant parts of the habitat being changed. So 2
there wasnt available to these fish and that was 3
going to have a long term impact on the population, 4
then that would be a large impact.
5 But for each of these categories, for 6
socio-economic, environmental justice, radiation 7
worker protection, each of these we went through and 8
looked at is that impact small, moderate, or large.
9 So the next slide 10 (Slide change.)
11 MR. NEITZEL: Im going to talk about some 12 of these categories, I wish I had a slide here and for 13 the next time I do this, but its in the draft that we 14 brought along. I wish I had listed all 92 of those 15 issues because Im not dismissing them, Im trying to 16 keep this focused on a few of the items and how we do 17 this. This list of all 92 issues and which ones are 18 category one and which ones are category two are 19 available here, summarized, we can talk about that.
20 So Im not ignoring other things. Im just focusing 21 for this discussion on what were going to talk about.
22 One other point I want to make real 23 quickly is when I talk about conclusions, those are 24 really preliminary conclusions. This is a draft.
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 These conclusions are going to be reviewed further.
1 So the conclusions of the staff will come out in the 2
final SEIS, not here. So if I say conclusion, here 3
preliminary conlusion.
conclusion.
4 I guess next Im going to focus on the 5
cooling system and how we evaluated that and looked at 6
that. So would you go to that?
7 (Slide change.)
8 MR. NEITZEL: Heres a picture, a north 9
facing picture of the plant, the lake out here. Water 10 is withdrawn from the lake and discharged into the 11 lake, and we looked at the issues related to 12 entrainment, impingement, and heat shock for the use 13 of that water for operating the plant. And our 14 preliminary findings are that the impacts from the 15 cooling water related to each of these issues is small 16 and that no additional mitigation is required.
17 As Bob mentioned, one of the things we 18 look at is are these resources being impacted and are 19 potential impacts for these resources, is the 20 operation occurring in such a way that those impacts 21 are mitigated or lessened?
22 When water is withdrawn into the system 23 here, there is a series of screens to keep debris and 24 stuff out. Fish can potentially get entrained in that 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 water, impinged on that screen. Are those screens 1
operated in such a way, are the gaps in the screen 2
such that they minimize or eliminate the fish that are 3
killed or entrained or impinged?. Those are 4
mitigation activities and we reviewed those things.
5 The placement of the intake structure, is 6
that such to minimize the entrainment of fish? Is the 7
placement of the heated water discharge such to 8
minimize impacts to fishery habitat? And weve 9
concluded that there is no additional mitigation 10 required related to the issues withdrawing cooling 11 water. And so we did this kind of thing for each one 12 of those issues, went through and made these kinds of 13 determinations and looked at mitigation.
14 The next example that I want to talk about 15 is the radiological impacts. This is a category one 16 issue. You get to the same conclusion for all plants 17 and so the sites specificity is related back to the 18 generic environmental impact statement. But because 19 it is often a concern of the public, Im going to take 20 just a minute and discuss how we determine that 21 theres no new information that is related to the 22 radiological impacts for the plants. And we looked at 23 the radiological effluent release monitoring program 24 during our site visit. We looked at how the gasses 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 and liquid effluents were treated and released.
1 Then we also looked at the solid waste, 2
which is not released. It is treated, packaged, and 3
shipped elsewhere for disposal. This information is 4
in the SEIS, in the draft SEIS, and we looked at how 5
the applicant, RG&E, how they determined and 6
demonstrated their compliance with these regulations.
7 We looked at five years of records, reviewed them with 8
the applicant and then they gave us access to those 9
records and we reviewed them in the draft SEIS, and we 10 looked at the how the applicant, RG&E, how they 11 determined and demonstrated their compliance with 12 these regulations. We looked at five years of 13 records, reviewed them with the applicant and then 14 they gave us access to those records and we reviewed 15 them.
16 Our expert from Lawrence Livermore looked 17 at those records independently and reviewed them and 18 looked at these things, came up with the no new 19 significant information, no change from the conclusion 20 thats in the GEIS. Thank you.
21 Another area that was in that flow chart 22 thats really important that I want to talk about is 23 new information and whether new information that we 24 find is significant. This is something, this is not 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 only something that we look for, but NRC staff looks 1
for this, the applicant and their staff is constantly 2
looking for new information, and thats one of the 3
reasons and one of the things the we discussed at the 4
scoping meeting is do you have new information that we 5
should look at?
6 This is something we looked at with the 7
state agencies and the federal agencies and said do 8
you have new information? And one of the things that 9
came up was the, that was brought up by the New York 10 State Department of Environmental Conservation was the 11 issues related to the revetment. If you remember that 12 picture in the, of the shoreline, that shoreline is 13 protected with riprap and stuff. Somebody at one of 14 the meetings says well, is there a differential 15 erosion of that shoreline beyond that revetment? Is 16 there or could the revetment cause a change in the 17 rate of erosion related to the areas that arent 18 protected and stuff?
19 Well, that sounded like new information.
20 It sounded like something new and it could potentially 21 effect the land use or aquatic environments, 22 terrestrial environments. So we looked at that, the 23 licensee looked at that, did a survey. We discussed 24 this with the state agencies that brought this up and 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 we reviewed the information about the shoreline 1
erosion and the design of the revetment at Ginna. And 2
the staff preliminary concludes that the comments made 3
by the New York State Department and Environmental 4
Conservation do not represent information that would 5
call into question the Commissions conclusion 6
regarding GEIS category one issues and that the 7
impacts on the aquatic and terrestrial resources and 8
land use from the continued operation of GEIS are 9
small and that additional plant specific mitigation 10 measures are not warranted at this time.
11 So thats part of the process and one of 12 the issues that we evaluated because of the comment 13 meetings.
14 Next area of comments are the cumulative 15 effects. One of the things that is required by NEPA, 16 required by NRC and their guidance for doing impact 17 statements is considering impacts of renewal in terms 18 of past actions, present actions, and foreseeable, 19 reasonably foreseeable future actions. This was also 20 brought up at the scoping meeting. Somebody asked 21 what are you going to do about cumulative impacts?
22 Well, we did and we documented that 23 assessment in the draft SEIS and would like you to 24 look at that. We had two concerns there. How do you 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 temporarily confine or bracket what youre going to 1
look at -- not confine, but bracket? And we said 2
were going to start with when that site was changed, 3
when the construction started, when the plant 4
construction began. And then go 20 years beyond the 5
license. That would be the foreseeable, the current 6
is whats going on now and the foreseeable future.
7 Then we had to spatially define what were 8
looking at. It turns out that there wasnt one answer 9
for that because for each one of these resources, it 10 was different. For the aquatic resources we had the 11 lake there. Thats where the aquatic resources of the 12 plant are associated with Lake Ontario. And we looked 13 at that. For the terrestrial environment, we were 14 very concerned about the transmission corridors and 15 areas around that for threatened endangered species.
16 We looked at counties around the plant and 17 whether or not any plants or animals occurred there or 18 could possibly occur there in the foreseeable future.
19 For the socio-economic stuff, we looked at the 20 counties where the people live, that work there, the 21 traffic patterns, you know where they drive their cars 22 to and from work, where the taxes are paid to which 23 counties, and stuff and looked at those cumulative 24 effects.
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 After we looked at all these things, we 1
found no significant cumulative impacts and no need 2
for any further mitigation related to that.
3 Next slide please.
4 (Slide change.)
5 MR. NEITZEL: Two other things we looked 6
at were the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste 7
management and decommissioning. Environmental issues 8
associated with the fuel cycle and solid waste 9
management were discussed in the generic environmental 10 impact statement for license renewal. The staff did 11 not identify any new information on this issue during 12 its independent review of Ginna, the visit or the 13 scoping process or for comments and for all of these 14 issues related to the fuel cycle and waste management, 15 the staff concluded that the impacts are small and 16 that no new mitigation is required.
17 Decommissioning, again, the NRC has an 18 impact statement related to decommissioning. We 19 looked at that and how that relates specifically to 20 Ginna. These are the impacts that may occur after the 21 plant is shut down. And again, we saw no differences 22 from that generic impact statement. There was no new 23 information and nothing to change the impact 24 statements that are in the GEIS.
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 Next slide.
1 (Slide change.)
2 MR. NEITZEL: Second to the last slide in 3
case youre wondering. One of the things that is 4
required again by CQ, NEPA, and NRC is when you look 5
at a proposed action, you have to look at 6
alternatives. The most important one here is the no 7
action. No action is defined by not renewing the 8
license. Thats what we looked at and then 9
alternative energy sources. These are alternatives to 10 the license renewal. We looked at new generation, 11 purchases, oil, wind, solar generation, conservation, 12 and then importantly combinations of those 13 alternatives.
14 Again, for each one of these we review 15 each of these issues in aquatic, terrestrial, socio-16 economic, went through that list each time and 17 compared the proposed action and the alternatives to 18 the no action to look at that.
19 Last slide 20 (Slide change.)
21 MR. NEITZEL: And the preliminary 22 conclusions for the alternatives, the alternatives 23 including the no action alternatives may have 24 environmental effects in at least some impact 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 categories that reach moderate or large significance.
1 And this is all compared across, and those comparisons 2
in a table of each one of those is in the GEIS. So at 3
this time, Chip, Ive concluded.
4 MODERATOR CAMERON: Thank you, that was a 5
great summary. Lets see if anybody has some 6
questions for you on the preliminary conclusions, as 7
you pointed out.
8 Any questions on the analysis that was on 9
the draft environmental statement?
10 MR. NEITZEL: Theres one there in the 11 back, Chip.
12 MODERATOR CAMERON: Ah, good.
13 MR. NEITZEL: And one over here too.
14 MODERATOR CAMERON: Okay, lets go back 15 here and then go over there. If you could just give 16 us your name, sir?
17 DR. LOOMIS: Hi, Im Dr. Norm Loomis, Town 18 Health Officer, also live on the lake, used to live 19 directly across from the plant. Similar studies were 20 done prior to building the plant in 1969, when it 21 opened in 1969 or 1970. Were there any changes from 22 their conclusions to those at this time in your 23 studies?
24 MODERATOR CAMERON: Thank you, Dr. Loomis.
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 MR. NEITZEL: Yes, do you want to address 1
that, Bob?
2 MR. SCHAAF: I think the answer there 3
would be that yeah, there is a different in the 4
conclusions. The original study looked at the impact 5
of actually building a facility taking a greenfield, 6
so youre going to have some impacts associated with 7
that and then this study looks at the incremental 8
impact of the additional term of operation. Youve 9
got this plant in place. Its operating. Its having 10 whatever impacts the original study suggested it would 11 have and what were focusing on here is the 12 incremental effect of allowing the plant to continue 13 to operate versus ceasing operation at the end of its 14 license term.
15 MODERATOR CAMERON: Does that get to your 16 point, Dr. Loomis or would you like to clarify at all?
17 DR. LOOMIS: It gets to the end of it, but 18 were there any surprises? Were there any changes in 19 the environmental stuff relating to the lake and the 20 surrounding area from that earlier study?
21 MODERATOR CAMERON: This is Mr. Mike 22 Masnik from the NRC Staff.
23 MR. MASNIK: Mike Masnik. Much of the 24 effort back then was predictive and it was based 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 the environmental conditions at the time. As we all 1
know, for example, the lake has changed, species, 2
composition of fish and such, but overall the 3
conclusions on impact to the environment that were 4
predicted seemed to be borne out by the studies 5
conducted since then and what we found in our 6
evaluation last fall.
7 MODERATOR CAMERON: Okay, great. Thank 8
you. Lets go over here to Mr. Tim Judson. And Tim, 9
please introduce yourself to us.
10 MR. JUDSON: Yes, my name is Tim Judson.
11 Im with the Citizens Awareness Network in Central New 12 York. I guess I have two questions. I guess I could 13 ask them both at the same time. One has to do with 14 this issue about the radiological impacts. And doing 15 that evaluation, did the NRC actually look at public 16 health data in terms of the level of disease in the 17 communities that you know are in the effluent pathway 18 of the reactor?
19 MODERATOR CAMERON: Did you have a second 20 question too?
21 MR. JUDSON: The second question has to do 22 with high level waste storage and whether the study 23 actually looked at the incremental effect of 24 generating I think it is up to 250 tons more high 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 level radioactive waste spent fuel that would need to 1
be stored in the community?
2 MR. NEITZEL: Okay, Rich, are you going to 3
address the questions?
4 MODERATOR CAMERON: This is the first 5
question that Tim raised relates to what I think are 6
commonly referred to as epidemiology studies to see 7
what types of health effects there are in a community, 8
and Mr. Rich Emch is a health physicist with the NRC 9
who perhaps can shed some light on that generally.
10 And if we know anything specifically about whats been 11 done in New York or this region that would be helpful.
12 Rich? All right. And then Tim may have 13 a follow up on that after you get done.
14 MR. EMCH: As I understand it, well, 15 actually, the most direct answer that there was no new 16 examination of health studies in the area around Ginna 17 as part of this review process. However, and as far 18 as I know, thats true both for the state and for us.
19 We didnt do any new studies. However, we do rely on 20 theres some studies thats been done in the past and 21 mainly though it is an issue of we did look at what 22 kinds of effluence, what kinds of doses there might be 23 from the -- am I still not close enough?
24 We did look at what kinds of effluence are 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 being released from the plant and what kinds of doses 1
could be estimated from those releases, and those are 2
very small. And from that, the inference is no, we 3
did not need to go do or did not need to go examine 4
additional health studies and sort of thing. The 5
doses at which damage has been found, if you will, 6
impacts have been found, theyre in the range of say, 7
10,000 millirem. Im using that particular thing 8
because Im going to kind of walk our way down through 9
here.
10 Studies like the Bier
- report, 11 international studies have shown that there are 12 impacts, health impacts, above say 10,000 millirem.
13 In fact, theres been many studies, 14 literally thousands of studies of the impact of 15 radiation on human health, and none of those studies 16 have shown impacts at the lower doses, the kinds of 17 doses were going to be talking about here. As a 18 member of the human race living on this planet, we all 19 receive somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 millirem 20 a year from various -- a naturally occurring 21 radionuclides and things like that. So you know were 22 starting off with 10,000 is the place where impacts 23 have been seen. Now were done to what we all receive 24 every year, which is the 300.
25
42 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 The NRCs regulations for effluence from 1
nuclear power plants allow doses in the range from 5 2
to 10 millirem per year from operational plant. And 3
in fact, after looking at the effluent data for this 4
plant, the doses from gaseous and liquid effluence 5
from this plant to the maximally exposed individual 6
are well below one. Theyre in the range of a 10th of 7
a millirem or less. So at those doses, there was no 8
reason to believe that anything additional need to be 9
looked at as far as health consequences. Does that 10 answer your question?
11 MR. JUDSON: Well, it does. I mean, my 12 question was just whether you actually looked at the 13 data on the levels of disease in the community, and it 14 sounds like you didnt.
15 MR. EMCH: Thats correct.
16 MODERATOR CAMERON: And the NRC, if there 17 were studies that showed that there were increases in 18 cancer or something like that in the community, that 19 would be the type of information that you wouldnt 20 want to know about.
21 MR. EMCH: We were not made aware of 22 anything like that. If there is such information, we, 23 of course, would be very interested in seeing it, yes.
24 MODERATOR CAMERON: And we did check with 25
43 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the state, New York State Department who usually deals 1
with that.
2 MR. EMCH: Yes, thats correct.
3 MODERATOR CAMERON: All right. Tim, 4
before we go to the high level waste question, do you 5
want to add anything on this? Okay.
6 Spent fuel storage, John Tappert?
7 MR. TAPPERT: The question I had was the 8
additional waste only generated during the renewal 9
period evaluated? And when Duane was going through 10 the original structure of how we do these reviews, he 11 talked about the generic environmental impact 12 statement that looked at generic issues and then site 13 specific issues. The waste that will be associated 14 with an additional 20 years of operation is a generic 15 issue. That will be similar impacts at all the 16 operating power plants.
17 So in fact, it was evaluated, but it was 18 evaluated in that generic environmental impact 19 statement. And during our review, we did not identify 20 any additional new and significant information that 21 would challenge those earlier assessments.
22 Additionally, the Commission has made a 23 judgment as codified in the regulations that waste can 24 be safely stored at reactor sites for up to 30 years 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 beyond the expiration of the operating license. And 1
that includes the renewal term. Those are the two 2
elements that I think address your question.
3 MODERATOR CAMERON: Anything to add onto 4
that one, Tim?
5 MR. JUDSON: Its curious that you say 6
that thats a generic issue. Since the Department of 7
Energy, in doing its own environmental impact 8
statement about you know, sort of actually moving a 9
lot of the waste out to Yucca Mountain found that if 10 you assume that Ginna is going to be relicensed that 11 in 40 years when Yucca is full and cant accept any 12 more waste that theres still going to be 102 metric 13 tons of high level waste sitting at that site. And 14 you know, if you didnt do the license extension, that 15 wouldnt be true.
16 Canada does not support Yucca Mountain.
17 Theres a lot of problems with that dump site, but 18 given that the NRC seems to you know, take Yucca 19 Mountain going forward into account of a lot of other 20 things it does, it seems like a really relevant issue 21 in terms of site-specific impact that if this license 22 extension goes forward, theres probably going to be 23 probably at least 100 tons of waste sitting here for 24 an indeterminate period of time.
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 MR. TAPPERT: Well, when we say its 1
generic, it doesnt mean thats necessarily no impact.
2 Its just that the impacts associated with the 3
extension at Ginna would be somewhere similar to the 4
extension at any other nuclear power plant. And the 5
impacts associated with that were consistent and found 6
to be acceptable. Now the point that youre making 7
that Yucca Mountain that it is not licensed, which it 8
is not, but thats a national level decision and the 9
Department of Energy and the Congress and the NRC are 10 dealing with that.
11 But the Commission has determined that the 12 waste is not in jeopardy right now. It can be safely 13 stored on site and that there will be a geological 14 repository, be it Yucca Mountain or some other place 15 within the first quarter of the century. So thats 16 where we are today.
17 MODERATOR CAMERON: And I know that Tim 18 knows about this process thats going on now. But 19 perhaps other people might be interested in the fact 20 that the NRC is revisiting the generic environmental 21 impact statement on license renewal. And I take it 22 that Tims point is that if theres extra spent fuel 23 generated because of license renewal, which just 24 exacerbates the high level waste problem. Now thats 25
46 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the type of issue that this issue would probably be 1
that you would refer over, also refer over to the 2
people doing the regional, the revisit.
3 Is that correct, John?
4 MR. TAPPERT: Yes, Chip, and thats a good 5
point which I should have raised earlier. The 6
transportation and the fuel cycle issues are addressed 7
in the generic environmental impact statement. Now as 8
a policy matter, were updating that on a 10-year 9
basis. Now that 10 years is coming up, it expires in 10 2006. So right now were actually seeking public 11 comment through September on issues that should be 12 addressed in that generic, environmental impact 13 statement. And theres a license renewal, theres a 14 website to receive comments on that, and theres other 15 addresses I can give you as well. So if youre 16 interested in taking on this category one or generic 17 issues, that will be the forum to do it.
18 MODERATOR CAMERON: Okay, thank you.
19 Other questions on the preliminary conclusions in the 20 draft environmental impact statement at this point?
21 And again, we can go back after the formal comment and 22 see if anybody has any other questions at that point.
23 Why dont we go on to Mark Rubin, and thank you very 24 much Duane. And Mark is going to talk about severe 25
47 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 accident mitigation alternatives, and then well go 1
back out for questions and I think Bob Schaaf after 2
that will tell people how to submit comments and then 3
well go out to you for formal comments. Mark?
4 MR. RUBIN: Thank you, Chip. As Chip 5
mentioned earlier, I am Section Chief in the 6
Probabilistic Safety Assessment Branch, which is 7
nuclear reactor regulation. The Commission has -- am 8
I tuned in here? Im a little short for this. As the 9
Commission has determined that the environmental 10 assessment for Ginna for all the license renewal 11 plants, will include a plant specific assessment, 12 severe accident mitigation alternatives, even though 13 severe accident risks for all reactors have been shown 14 to be quite small.
15 Now whats a severe accident? When the 16 plants are -- and this is very different from the 17 designed based accidents that the plants were 18 originally licensed for. When the plants were 19 originally licensed, they were assessed against 20 designed basis accidents. Theyre prescribed sets of 21 accidents -- theyre very complete, very specific, 22 involving such things as pipe breaks, normally called 23 loss-of-coolant accidents, equipment failure, most 24 conservative assumptions in the analysis. And the 25
48 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 plants were shown to be very robust, have a lot of 1
capabilities for surviving these accidents and meeting 2
very prescriptive accident evaluation criteria.
3 Both the safety and the environmental 4
impacts were shown to be very small during the 5
original plant licensing. Since that time, additional 6
techniques have been developed called the 7
probabalistic risk assessment, severe accident 8
assessment, that give us the ability to look at events 9
that are more complex events that are of a very low 10 probability. Very low frequency. These go beyond the 11 types of accidents that were evaluated during the 12 original plant licensing and the new tools we have 13 available allow us to mathematically predict the 14 likelihood, the probabilities and the consequences of 15 accidents of this kind.
16 These severe accidents, as theyre called, 17 are hypothetical accidents of very low probability, 18 that can result in rather large damage to the reactor 19 core and some potential hypothetical off-site 20 consequences to the public.
21 So how do we do these studies? Techniques 22 called probabilistic risk assessment are used to model 23 these hypothetical accidents using mathematical 24 modeling, computer modeling, to look at very complex, 25
49 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 very long sequences of equipment failure, what we call 1
accident initiators, that progress through a lot of 2
failures to give severe damage to the reactor core.
3 And studies like these are used to 4
evaluate the severe accident mitigation alternatives, 5
which are ways to reduce the likelihood of the 6
consequences of these beyond design basis severe 7
accidents. If you go on to the next view graph, thank 8
you.
9 (Slide change.)
10 MR. RUBIN: So hows all this done? Hows 11 this SAMA analysis conducted? Conceptually, it is 12 rather simple, though the tools and techniques used 13 are relativity complex. The first step of the process 14 is to characterize the overall plant risk. What are 15 the likelihood, what are the consequences of these 16 severe accidents? And for that, as Ive mentioned 17
- before, we used the technique called
- PRA, 18 probabilistic risk assessment, which is essentially a 19 model, an analytical, mathematical model of the plant, 20 all of the important components, structures, with 21 failure likelihoods, models, mathematical models of 22 the success of these systems and how they have to 23 respond to keep a severe accident from occurring.
24 And these studies will typically give you 25
50 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 frequencies of various types of severe accidents and 1
also likelihoods of such things as containment failure 2
and off-site consequences, as you carry them out to 3
the extreme of those types of studies that can be done 4
with our current analytical tools. That would be the 5
first step in a SAMA analysis process, which is a good 6
- complete, plant
- specific, probabilistic risk 7
assessment.
8 The next step in the SAMA analysis is to 9
identify potential plant improvements based on the 10 insights that you get from the PRA. And typically, 11 the assessment that was done by Rochester Gas and 12 Electric would look at such things as hardware 13 modifications, procedure changes, training program 14 improvements, a
full spectrum of potential 15 improvements to the plant and its operating process 16 and procedures.
17 Typically, what were looking for in our 18 assessment of the SAMA process are
- changes, 19 modifications, improvements, that would reduce the 20 likelihood of core damage in a severe accident, or 21 improve the response of the containment following a 22 severe accident, so there would be no releases to the 23 environment.
24 After youve identified the primary set of 25
51 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 potential improvements, then the real key in doing a 1
SAMA analysis is to quantify the risk reduction 2
potential and implementation cost.
3 Again, thats done using a multitude of 4
analytical tools that attempt to predict and to model 5
how these improvements will reduce the severe accident 6
risk. Namely, it will look at the probabilities of 7
these severe accidents, and theres a whole sequence 8
of the scenarios that are involved. And these 9
improvements will result in
- some, hopefully, 10 potentially, result in some reduction in the 11 probability of the severe accidents or their 12 consequences or containment response.
13 At the same time, you look at the 14 implementation cost of actually making the changes so 15 that you can get a sense of what we call cost benefit 16 assessment. Namely, are the benefits through the 17 reduction in the severe accident likelihood or 18 consequences more beneficial than the implementation 19 costs of doing the improvement? After looking at the 20 cost benefit results, both the benefits and the costs, 21 at the end, well look at whether the potential 22 improvements, if any of them are shown to be cost 23 beneficial, are actually related to a license renewal 24 type of issue. Namely, something thats an aging 25
52 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 related degradation type of issue.
1 Go onto the new view graph 2
(Slide change.)
3 MR. RUBIN: The evaluation and SAMA 4
analysis initially looked at about 200 candidate 5
improvements, and through a set of very screening 6
evaluations, winnowed them down to a much more 7
manageable level, ultimately eight ones that were 8
given a detailed analysis.
9 Typically, when you do these types of 10 evaluations, you start out doing a fairly conservative 11 analysis. You look at what risk you can, residual 12 risk that the plant has from the severe accident 13 evaluations that are done. And you make very 14 simplistic assumptions. If you can make all the risk 15 in a certain area go away, then thats the maximum 16 benefit you could get from a category of improvement.
17 So you make some rather simplifying 18 assumptions when you start out to find out which 19 candidates would potentially give you a reasonable 20 amount of benefit. And as these went down a more 21 complete evaluation process, there were a set of eight 22 that were given a more detailed, both engineering and 23 cost benefit evaluation to get a more complete 24 analytical result, what the benefits were and what the 25
53 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 costs were.
1 When this was completed, two of the eight 2
improvements that were subjected to the detailed study 3
were found to be cost beneficial. Namely, the 4
reduction in risk that you achieved from implementing 5
those improvements were more than the cost of doing 6
them. And what do we mean when we say the benefit?
7 To calculate the benefit, the PRA model is used with 8
some off-site dose-consequence models to look at the 9
potential severe accident impact on both the external 10 environment, as well as the plant itself.
11 So it is a fairly complete assessment of 12 the total cost, averted cost is what we call it, of 13 the severe accident being reduced in probability or 14 consequences. Both the off-site health impact, 15 off-site economic impact, and on-site impacts. And 16 those are all compared with the cost of doing the 17 improvement to see if it is cost beneficial. The two 18 that were found to be cost beneficial following this 19 evaluation was addition of a third diesel generator, 20 which would be of assistance during what we call 21 station blackout severe accidents. And thats the 22 type of accident that postulates that all the multiple 23 safety systems providing on-site AC emergency power 24 were to fail and that this additional source of power 25
54 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 would provide AC power to keep maintaining core heat 1
removal.
2 It was a fairly expensive improvement, 3
about $400,000 was the initial estimate. But it gave 4
a reasonable risk reduction, and so in this case was 5
found to be cost beneficial. Additionally, the cross 6
connection revision to the procedures of repairing the 7
charging pumps was also found to be cost beneficial.
8 This would cross connect the B and C charging pumps to 9
train A power source to essentially provide additional 10 protection during severe accident fire scenario 11 accidents.
12 Go on to the next view graph.
13 (Slide change.)
14 MR. RUBIN: Well, basically these two 15 SAMAs were found to be cost beneficial using typical 16 traditional cost benefit analysis. The risk for the 17 plant, in general, was quite low and the benefits from 18 these two improvements were reasonable. They werent 19 exceedingly large, but because of the costs and the 20 benefits, they were shown to be cost beneficial.
21 However, neither of these are an aging related 22 degradation issue. And so theyre not specifically 23 related to the license renewal process itself.
24 Consequently, these improvements would not 25
55 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 be required as part of the license renewal process, 1
but rather will be entered into the plants 2
prioritization scheme for planned upgrades, design 3
enhancements, and, in fact, the staff will also follow 4
up on this issue as part of putting it into our safety 5
process to continue to follow the licensees plans in 6
this area.
7 That completes the SAMA evaluation and Id 8
be glad to answer any questions I could.
9 MODERATOR CAMERON: Thanks a lot, Mark.
10 It was a good example, I think, of how things that are 11 identified during license renewal but perhaps not 12 implemented because it doesnt tie in or implement it 13 through other NRC activities. But are there any 14 questions on this? Yes, sir. And please tell us who 15 you are.
16 MR. SANTIROCCO: Im Raymond Santirocco, 17 and for the reporter thats S-A-N-T-I-R-O-C-C-O. I am 18 a member of the Monroe County Legislature. Im the 19 Chairman of the Public Safety Committee, and the issue 20 of radiological safety comes under the purview of our 21 committee. Thats something Im very interested in.
22 In a prior life, I had also been public safety 23 commissioner of the county back at the time we first 24 started planning for accidents when NUREG 0654 was 25
56 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 first issued.
1 So Ive been following the history of this 2
with some interest. And I have a question with 3
respect to the cost benefit analysis of the SAMA 4
process. And theres something thats troubled me 5
about cost benefit analysis, in general, and maybe you 6
have some thoughts on it. The cost associated with 7
these improvements are generally costs that are going 8
to be incurred by the operator. The example that you 9
gave of these two, the costs incurred by the operator, 10 yet the benefits or the avoided cost as you pointed 11 out can occur, you know, anywhere. It can save some 12 farmer 15 miles downwind some money.
13 Therefore, it has always seemed to me that 14 youre comparing incomparable things, and youre 15 comparing benefits that may accrue to certain people 16 to costs that are incurred by other people. And can 17 you equate those?
18 MR. RUBIN: Its a profound question, of 19 course. I think we can compare them. Were looking 20 at impacts on society as a whole. Were looking at 21 the costs of implementing reductions in public impact, 22 public risk. By the nature of the process, the cost 23 to reduce public risk will come upon the utility if 24 theyre the operator of the plant.
25
57 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 The methodology used is a relatively 1
straightforward one thats pretty consistently used, 2
certainly within the nuclear industry.
3 I believe it is also used throughout the 4
government, in general, to try and get a handle on the 5
relative benefits versus the relative costs. And in 6
doing that, your choice of 50 miles was an interesting 7
one, because indeed thats the distance that they met 8
with the models, will typically produce the off-site 9
consequences to generate the cost benefit numbers.
10 The calculation will look at both the 11 salient impacts, but also the plant impacts. And in 12 that typically there can be some very large impacts, 13 the replacement cost for example, the real actual cost 14 to the workers, is as complete a model as a decision 15 maker from our perspective can make it.
16 If we were to leave out the, for example, 17 the cost to the utility, that would tend to make the 18 changes less beneficial and less attractive. So what 19 we do is we try to include as many of the costs as 20 possible in the analysis, because it tends to make 21 things more attractive to implement, to correct, to 22 fix, to reduce the risk from.
23 To look at the impact, thats the other 24 side of the equation, the models we use and the 25
58 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 analytical methods are as complete as we can make 1
them, looking at both the impact of the land 2
contamination, the public health impacts, which are 3
from the external side the most significant ones. But 4
as Ive said, we dont stop there, we also look at the 5
on-site costs to make sure we have a more level 6
playing field.
7 So theres not an absolutely correct 8
answer to your question. But what we try to do is 9
make the analysis process as complete as we can 10 reasonably can make it so that we have a really well 11 founded, analytical decision making framework to try 12 to make appropriate decisions from. And if -- thats 13 a good answer?
14 MODERATOR CAMERON: Lets get some input 15 from Rich Emch and then well come back to Mr.
16 Santirocco to see if he has anything else that wants 17 to say.
18 Rich, do you have something to add on 19 that?
20 MR. EMCH: In a way, your comment is along 21 the lines of why does the guy who is living at 50 22 miles care how much it costs this utility to put this 23 thing in here thats going to help save his life?
24 Right? Okay.
25
59 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Im not sure if the 50 miles example is 1
perfect, but lets remember that this power plant is 2
producing electricity for the people in this region.
3 I dont know about the guy 50 miles, but a lot of the 4
people within 50 miles, and the costs ultimately of 5
whatever they do here to operate this plant and to 6
make changes to the plant, to make it safer, those 7
costs get carried over to a least some degree in what 8
that farmer whoever pays in terms of his electric 9
bill.
10 So that makes it a little bit more of a 11 you know, a cost and the benefit impact on that 12 individual to some degree. I just thought Id mention 13 that.
14 MODERATOR CAMERON: Thank you, Rich.
15 Mr. Santirocco, do you want to add 16 anything?
17 MR. SANTIROCCO: Well, I thank both 18 gentlemen for very complete responses, and I think Im 19 convinced, well convinced, that the process of 20 analysis identifies all of the factors to the extent 21 that it is humanly possible to do so.
22 How you add them up and how you do the 23 arithmetic when you get them all identified I guess we 24 can occasionally disagree a little bit.
25
60 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. RUBIN: I can just reference you to 1
the source document to the way the analysis is done, 2
if that would be of any help to you. It is NUREG 3
BR0184.
4 MODERATOR CAMERON: And what is the title 5
of that?
6 MR. RUBIN: Unfortunately, I didnt jot it 7
down.
8 MODERATOR CAMERON: All right. Well, if 9
anybody needs, wants a copy or whatever we can 10 obviously get that for you.
11 So are there other questions about the 12 severe accident mitigation alternatives at this point?
13 All right, thank you very much, Mark.
14 And Bob is just going to give us a run 15 down on how to submit comments and then were going to 16 go out to you for more formal comment.
17 MR. SCHAAF: Right, and were running a 18 little long so Ill try to move smartly through this 19 so we can get to your comments. Turning to our 20 overall preliminary conclusions, we found that the 21 impacts of license renewal are small in all impact 22 areas.
23 We also concluded that the alternative 24 actions including the no action alternative may have 25
61 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 environmental effects in at least some impact 1
categories that reach moderate or large significance.
2 Based on these results, our preliminary 3
recommendation is that the adverse environmental 4
impacts of license renewal for Ginna are not so great 5
that preserving the option of license renewal for 6
energy planning decision makers would be unreasonable.
7 Its a wordy phrase. Its the way our regulation is 8
written on license renewal.
9 (Slide change.)
10 MR. SCHAAF: This slide provides a quick 11 recap of the current status of the review. We issued 12 the draft environmental impact statement on June 25.
13 Were currently in the middle of the public comment 14 period, scheduled to close on September 16th, and our 15 goal is to address public comments including any 16 necessary changes to the draft and issue the final 17 statement in February of next year.
18 We can mail a copy to anyone who is 19 interested in receiving a copy, if you fill out one of 20 the blue or yellow cards at our registration desk.
21 After the document is issued, it will be reviewed by 22 the EPA. Theyll have 30 days in which to make a 23 determination as to the acceptability of the final 24 impact statement. After that point, it will be 25
62 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 available as providing part of the basis for the NRCs 1
decision on the proposed license renewal.
2 The final statement along with the safety 3
evaluation report, inspection reports, and ACRS report 4
which Russ described earlier will be considered by the 5
Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in making a 6
final decision regarding whether to issue a new 7
renewed license to Ginna.
8 The NRC staff and our lab personnel are 9
here today to answer your questions. Feel free to 10 talk to us after the meeting. If you have any 11 questions after today, you can contact me directly at 12 the phone number provided on the slide.
13 This slide also provides options for 14 accessing the draft impact statement for your review 15 and comment. We do have some copies available today 16 at the back of the room. The Ontario and Rochester 17 public libraries have copies available for review and 18 the document is also available on the internet at the 19 address shown on the slide.
20 Next slide, please.
21 (Slide change.)
22 MR. SCHAAF: This meeting is being 23 transcribed, and the comments provided here will be 24 considered in finalizing the draft environmental 25
63 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 impact statement. Outside of this meeting, there are, 1
I believe, four ways to provide comments. We have the 2
three options identified on the slide, which are you 3
can mail us comments at the address shown. If you 4
happen to be in Rockville, Maryland, feel free to stop 5
into our office and provide written comments. Or they 6
can be provided by e-mail to the address given here.
7 You may also provide comments through an 8
on-line comment form which is available when you 9
access the web copy of the Draft Impact Statement 10 discussed on the previous slide.
11 All comments provided through all methods 12 will be considered in preparing the final impact 13 statement. That concludes my wrap up.
14 Id like to thank the Ontario fire 15 department for allowing us to use their hall today.
16 Id also like to thank you all for taking time to 17 attend for your questions and I look forward to 18 hearing your comments.
19 MODERATOR CAMERON: Thank you, Bob. If 20 there are any questions about process after we get 21 done with the comments, I think well have time to 22 field them. But lets move on to the comments.
23 Do you have something else to say? Go 24 ahead, Bob.
25
64 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. SCHAAF: I also just wanted to point 1
out anyone who hadnt caught it is we do have pitchers 2
of water available over in the corner. I encourage 3
you to avail yourselves of a cool drink.
4 MODERATOR CAMERON: Okay, thanks Bob.
5 Lets go to Mr. Michael Havens first from the Central 6
School District, in Wayne County, right?
7 MR. HAVENS: Wayne Central.
8 MODERATOR CAMERON: Wayne Central. Okay, 9
thank you.
10 MR. HAVENS: Good afternoon. First Id 11 like to thank the NRC for coming out here to Ontario.
12 You seemed to have chased the rain away and we 13 appreciate that after about a week of unrelenting 14 rain, and also for the opportunity for all of us to 15 speak here about the relicensing of the Ginna Nuclear 16 Power Plant.
17 As has been said, my name is Michael 18 Havens. Im the superintendent of the Wayne Central 19 School District, located primarily here in the town of 20 Ontario and also the town of Walmouth, although we are 21 in parts of the town of Webster, parts of town of 22 Merriam, Williamson, and Penfield.
23 The Ginna nuclear power plant is located 24 within our school district. As a matter of fact, it 25
65 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 is approximately six miles from our high school, our 1
middle school, and two of our three elementary 2
schools. I say that and say that Im here to support 3
the relicensing of the Ginna nuclear power plant. And 4
I say that primarily for three reasons.
5 First of all, the Ginna plant has been an 6
excellent corporate neighbor. It also provides a 7
great tax base for the school district, and lastly, it 8
provides a good standard of living for the parents of 9
our children that are here. And let me talk a little 10 about the economic tax base, first of all. Over the 11 last five years, the Ginna nuclear power plant has 12 provided us with more than $15 million worth of 13 revenue.
14 And in fact, just this last year they 15 provided more than $3.1 million of tax revenue for 16 our children. Now that represented about 21.9 percent 17 of the tax revenue generated for our school district.
18 That means that about one in every five dollars is 19 spent from tax revenue for our children comes from 20 that one plant.
21 Conversely, the loss of that would be 22 disastrous both for our school children and also for 23 the tax payers would have to make up the difference.
24 Secondly, in terms of being a good 25
66 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 corporate neighbor, while I must admit it is scary for 1
all of us to think about an accident at the plant, and 2
especially for me, who is responsible for about 2,900 3
children, I also realize that the Ginna nuclear power 4
plant is recognized nationally, is one of the best run 5
plants.
6 Also, we are confident in plant manager 7
Joe Widay and people like Rick Watts and the others 8
who operate the plant. And in fact, particularly 9
post-9/11, we feel very comfortable its a secure site 10 with the addition of the National Guardspeople.
11 We also run annual evacuation drills and 12 feel we are prepared for an emergency should it 13 happen.
14 Lastly is the standard of living that it 15 provides my children. The Ginna nuclear power plant 16 itself provides about 500 jobs. Additionally, theres 17 about 300 related jobs through private companies.
18 That provides a standard of living to the people who 19 work there, most of which the people who live here in 20 our community and provides decent houses, it provides 21 middle class values and opportunities for our 22 children.
23 In fact, I have to say that those of us 24 that live here in Ontario would say that we kind of 25
67 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 have the best of both worlds. We live in a very rural 1
atmosphere, yet we have the economic base of a more 2
suburban area. So from my perspective, Ginna has been 3
a good corporate neighbor. It provides a great 4
economic tax base and it also provides a good standard 5
of living for our children, and I wholeheartedly look 6
forward to continue support of Ginna and hope that 7
theres success with the relicensing. Thank you.
8 MODERATOR CAMERON: Thank you very much, 9
Mr. Havens. Were going to go to Mr. Robert Mecredy 10 next, who is the Vice President of Nuclear Operations 11 for Rochester Gas and Electric to tell us a little bit 12 about their vision and rationale for the license 13 renewal application, and then were going to go to Mr.
14 Tim Judson from Citizens Awareness Network.
15 Mr. Mecredy.
16 MR. MECREDY: Thanks, Chip. I am Bob 17 Mecredy, Vice President of Nuclear Operations for RG&E 18 and have responsibility for the operation of Ginna.
19 I appreciate the opportunity to comment. RG&E 20 submitted its application, our application, for a 21 license renewal just about a year ago. Were seeking 22 the license renewal in order to preserve the option to 23 operate Ginna in the renewed period. And this 24 recognizes the fact that Ginna and the electricity it 25
68 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 produces can be a valuable asset to the community and, 1
in fact, to the state.
2 Because Ginna produces about half the 3
electricity on an annual basis is that it is used in 4
the RG&E service territory. So its not an 5
insignificant contribution to the local area.
6 The NRC is seeking comments here as part 7
of the review, and this is but one step and once the 8
safety review has been commented on will be 9
forthcoming and we look forward to reviewing the NRCs 10 safety review when it is issued here in the next 11 several months.
12 RG&E and the employees of Ginna take 13 seriously and always have our responsibility to 14 operate safely and to minimize the impact of the plant 15 and our operations on the environment. An early, 16 relatively small, but yet very visible example of that 17 intention thats paid to the environment is the 18 attention paid to the aesthetics of the plant and the 19 design provides that the plant blends into the 20 environment. And we continue that attention not just 21 to the aesthetics, but also to the overall 22 environmental well being.
23 We continue to monitor our safety and the 24 environmental performance. We learn from others. We 25
69 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 search for way to improve our performance. There also 1
is ongoing independent oversight by the NRC and by 2
others.
3 In our application, we did conduct an 4
environmental review using our own experts and 5
specialists and outside experts. And our conclusion 6
was that operation in the extended period would be 7
acceptable from an environmental standpoint.
8 As youve heard, the NRCs preliminary 9
conclusion is that theres no reason from an 10 environmental impact statement here not to renew the 11 license. And we concur with that preliminary 12 conclusion. It should be noted and its important to 13 note that as we continue to operate, we will continue 14 to set as a priority safe and environmentally 15 responsible operation. Well continually monitor and 16 measure our performance against standards, and well 17 search out ways to improve our performance. Thank 18 you.
19 MODERATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Bob.
20 Next were going to hear from Tim Judson 21 from Citizens Awareness Network.
22 MR. JUDSON: Thanks, Chip. We appreciate 23 the opportunity to give comments. My name is Tim 24 Judson. Im with the Central New York chapter of the 25
70 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Citizens Awareness Network. I actually live in 1
Syracuse, New York. But Im here today because of the 2
sort of the regional concern about the impact of this 3
relicensing decision. And it is actually going to be 4
the first in a series of relicensing decisions that 5
goes on in our area. The next ones to come up 6
actually theyre going to apply to relicense both the 7
Nine-Mile Point reactors come October.
8 And you know, when I was here at the 9
meeting in November, the first of these meetings about 10 this environmental review. You know, seeing that 11 there were a lot of sort of dead elephants sitting 12 around the room that no one was really talking about.
13 It is interesting that those dead elephants are still 14 there and theyre still not being talked about. As 15 the NRC is sort of slicing and dicing its way through 16 this decision, one of the things that have come that 17 seems fundamental and we actually looked into this 18 that theres actually in terms of the end of the 19 regions energy needs, theres no need for Ginna for 20 electricity.
21 In fact, theres an article that was 22 published in the Syracuse Post Standard two years ago 23 that laid out that Central and Western New York 24 actually generate about 50 percent more power than we 25
71 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 ever need, even on the hottest day. And Ginna 1
represents less than 10 percent of that surplus, and 2
it is less than 3 percent of the total energy 3
generation in the region. And it is really remarkable 4
in looking at this whole issue of whether it makes 5
sense to preserve this option, the NRC didnt even 6
seem to take that into account that theres this 7
massive surplus of energy in our area.
8 And what that means in a lot of ways is 9
this whole question about trading benefits to the 10 community versus risks is really sort of irrelevant in 11 a lot of ways, because if you look at whats going to 12 happen if Ginna is relicensed, and it is going to be 13 sold. Thats another one of the dead elephants in the 14 room. Ginna is not going to owned by RG&E much longer 15 if this license extension is granted.
16 The rate payers are going to end up paying 17 about 3 billion dollars for electricity from this 18 reactor over 20 years. You know, we cant actually 19 improve our safety and our environment by shutting 20 down this reactor and spending $3 billion on other 21 things. We cant conserve 3 percent of our energy in 22 this region for the cost of $3 billion in electricity?
23 We cant afford to pay for a thorough and good clean 24 up of the site from all the radioactive waste thats 25
72 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? And we cant make up for the loss of property 1
taxes to the school district with $3 billion?
2 This really seems like the kind of 3
questions that needs to be addressed. And maybe it is 4
not the NRC that can do that. Maybe this is something 5
that the community needs to do and that the region 6
needs to do and actually needs to happen through the 7
state. But these are fundamental issues to this whole 8
question of whether to relicense. And when you weigh 9
that against the risk of having this reactor operating 10 in the community and generating more high level waste, 11 it is sort of bizarre that the NRC treats safety and 12 the creation of nuclear waste as having the same 13 environmental impact as not doing it, which is 14 essentially what comes out in the SEIS if you read it 15 is that when evaluating the option of not relicensing 16 and the reactor shutting down in 5 years, that the NRC 17 says by the way theres a low environmental impact in 18 that because it means it would all stop.
19 And then in looking at the risk of going 20 forward in terms of having accidents, in terms of 21 generating you know another 200 tons of high level 22 radioactive waste that will be stored in the 23 community, thats a low impact too. And so, of 24 course, the NRC is going to go along with the 25
73 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 relicensing because, of course, you know they cant 1
distinguish between operating a reactor and shutting 2
it down.
3 So theres a lot of ways in which the 4
supplemental environmental impact statement seems like 5
it really misses the point.
6 And it is geared more to passing the buck 7
on to the Public Service Commission, which is perhaps 8
what needs to happen. But what is really essential at 9
this point is that there be an evaluation of this and 10 maybe it is the community that needs to do it. But 11 were all on this boat together and we all have to 12 take it on.
13 MODERATOR CAMERON: Thank you, Tim.
14 Is there anybody else that wants to speak?
15 Any other questions on issues that we didnt cover or 16 anything that the NRC wants to add at this point for 17 public information?
18 Okay, thank you all for coming out and 19 being with us today. Im going to ask John Tappert to 20 close the meeting out for us real quickly.
21 John?
22 MR. TAPPERT: And I, too, would add my 23 voice to thank you for coming out today and sharing 24 your thoughts with us.
25
74 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 a number of staff and contractors 1
with us here today, so if youd like to ask anyone a 2
question on a one to one basis well be staying after 3
the meeting. Thanks again.
4 (Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the meeting was 5
the record.)
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25