ML033020153
"Draft Meeting" is not in the list (Request, Draft Request, Supplement, Acceptance Review, Meeting, Withholding Request, Withholding Request Acceptance, RAI, Draft RAI, Draft Response to RAI, ...) of allowed values for the "Project stage" property.
| ML033020153 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 08/26/2003 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Gregory Suber Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Dam W, NRR/DRIP/RLEP, 415-4014 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML033020153 (49) | |
Text
Page 1 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
3 4
5 A PUBLIC MEETING 6
TO COLLECT COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL 7
IMPACT STATEMENT FOR V.C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION 8
10 11 12 13 14 FELLOWSHIP ROOM 15 WHITEHALL A.M.E. CHURCH 16 8594 State Highway 215 South 17 Jenkinsville, South Carolina 18 Tuesday, August 26, 2003 19 1:30 p.m.
20 21 22 F. CAMERON, Facilitator 23
Page 2 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 CONTENTS 1
PAGE 2
Welcome and Purpose of Meeting, Mr. Cameron, Steve 3
West................................................. 3 4
5 Overview of License Renewal Program, Rajender Auluck.... 9 6
7 Overview of Environmental Review Process, Gregory Suber. 14 8
9 Public Comment.......................................... 18 10 11 Results of Environmental Review, Ted Doerr, Gregory 12 Suber................................................ 24 13 14 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives, Gregory 15 Suber................................................... 33 16 17 Public Comments......................................... 38 18 19 Closing, Steve West..................................... 63 20 21 22 23
Page 3 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 P R O C E E D I N G S 1
MR. CAMERON:
2 Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Chip 3
Cameron and Im the Special Counsel for Public Liaison at 4
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Washington, D.C. and I 5
just want to welcome all of you to the NRCs public meeting.
6 Our meeting today is on the environmental 7
evaluation that the NRC has prepared in the form of a Draft 8
Environmental Impact Statement to help the NRC make a 9
decision on whether to grant the application to renew the 10 license for the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1.
11 And as the NRC staff will tell you, we received 12 an application to renew the operating license for the plant 13 from South Carolina Electric & Gas.
14 My job today is to serve as the facilitator for 15 the meeting and to try to help all of you have a productive 16 meeting today.
17 The format for the meeting is pretty simple.
18 Were going to start out with some brief NRC presentations, 19 to give you some background on, not only the license renewal 20 process, but more importantly on the preliminary findings in 21 the environmental impact statement. We want to answer any 22 questions that you have about the process, about the 23 findings in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. We 24
Page 4 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 also want to hear any comments that you might have on the 1
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, any concerns that you 2
might have about the license renewal process.
3 And I would just emphasize that the information 4
portion of the meeting is important because the NRC is also 5
asking for written comments on the Draft Environmental 6
Impact Statement and I just want to say that any comments 7
that you give to us today at the meeting will carry the same 8
weight as a written comment. But you may hear some 9
information, either from the NRC or from other people in the 10 community that either prompts you to say Im going to send 11 in a written comment also or that helps you to prepare your 12 written comments. So I just want to make sure that we give 13 you as much information as possible and that we answer your 14 questions clearly.
15 Ground rules also are simple. If you have a 16 question, just signal me and Ill bring you this cordless 17 microphone. Give us your name and affiliation, if 18 appropriate. And well go on from there.
19 Were taking a transcript of the meeting and 20 Peggy is our stenographer today. That will be available to 21 people, anybody who wants a transcript, and that will be our 22 record of the meeting today. I would just ask you to speak 23 one at a time so that we can get a clean transcript, but 24
Page 5 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 more importantly so that we can give our full attention to 1
whomever has the floor at the moment.
2 The second part of the meeting, so to speak, 3
will be to ask anybody who wants to, to make a formal 4
comment to us about any concerns that they have.
5 I just want to go over the agenda and introduce 6
you to the people who are talking to you, but before that, 7
an important thank you from all of us at the NRC to Reverend 8
Cannon and the congregation for allowing us to use this room 9
for our meeting today.
10 Were going to go first to a welcome from the 11 Section Leader of the Policy and Programs Section in our 12 License Renewal and Environmental Impact Program, and thats 13 Mr. Steve West, right over here.
14 Then were going to go to two brief 15 presentations on process; one is going to be from Mr. Raj 16 Auluck, who is here. Hes the Program Manager for the 17 Safety Evaluation on the license renewal application for 18 V.C. Summer.
19 Im sure everybody knows Greg Suber, who is 20 right here. He is the Project Manager for the Environmental 21 Review on the license application.
22 Theyre going to give you a few words about 23 process and then well go out to you for any questions about 24
Page 6 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 process.
1 Then were going to get into the heart of the 2
matter, so to speak, and were going to go to Mr. Ted Doerr, 3
whos right here. Ted is the Team Leader for the team that 4
assisted the NRC in preparing the Draft Environmental Impact 5
Statement and hes going to tell you what the findings were 6
in that statement.
7 Well go out to you for questions and then we 8
have a short subject, so to speak, which is part of the 9
Environmental Impact Statement, and its the severe accident 10 mitigation analysis, and Greg Suber is going to do that for 11 us. Go to you for questions and then Greg is going to do a 12 summary for us.
13 In terms of background, to tell you about the 14 credentials of the people that are here -- Mr. Steve West 15 has been with the NRC for approximately 20 years and hes 16 been involved in every aspect of nuclear power plant 17 licensing and regulation, including inspection. He has a 18 bachelors degree in fire protection engineering from the 19 University of Maryland.
20 Mr. Auluck, who is the Project Manager for the 21 safety evaluation, has also been with the NRC for about 20 22 years and hes been involved in rulemaking and licensing on 23 reactor issues. He has a masters and a Ph.D. in mechanical 24
Page 7 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 engineering from the University of Maryland.
1 Greg Suber is our youngster, I guess so to 2
speak, hes been with the agency for about four years now, 3
and before that, he was with the Bechtel Power Corporation.
4 He has a masters in environmental science from Duke 5
University and a bachelors in mechanical engineering from 6
Howard University.
7 Ted Doerr, who is the Team Leader, Ted is with 8
Los Alamos National Lab and hes an ecologist by training.
9 He has a bachelors, a masters and a Ph.D. in ecology, not 10 only vegetative but also animal ecology. Hes been involved 11 in projects all over the United States on evaluating 12 environmental impacts of various projects, including 13 projects in Mississippi and in Georgia.
14 With that, I would just thank you all for being 15 here and well try to be as informal as we can be, so that 16 we can have a comfortable and productive meeting, and Im 17 going to ask Steve West to give you the real welcome.
18 MR. WEST: Thank you, Chip, appreciate that.
19 Can everybody hear me? Good.
20 Thank you for coming to the meeting today, we 21 all appreciate your attendance and your interest in this 22 important subject. Its nice to be in Jenkinsville for the 23 first time.
24
Page 8 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 Just to give you a little bit of background for 1
the meeting today, the purpose of todays meeting is to 2
discuss the environmental impacts evaluation for the V.C.
3 Summer license renewal application for the period of an 4
additional 20 years.
5 The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the NRC 6
regulations limit nuclear plant licenses to 40 years of 7
operation, but allow for license renewal for a period of 20 8
years, an additional 20 years.
9 The expiration date of the V.C. Summer current 10 operating license is June 30 of 2010. South Carolina 11 Electric & Gas Company submitted an application for license 12 renewal for an additional 20 years on July 16 of last year, 13 2002.
14 The staff, some of which are here today for this 15 meeting, are currently performing both safety and 16 environmental reviews of the application for the renewed 17 license.
18 This afternoon well describe the NRCs license 19 renewal process for nuclear power plants with emphasis on 20 the environmental review. Mr. Raj Auluck, as Chip 21 mentioned, will provide a brief summary of the overall 22 license renewal process and then Mr. Greg Suber will 23 describe the environmental review process.
24
Page 9 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 We will also provide the results of our review 1
of the various environmental impacts, our preliminary 2
recommendation and the remainder of our review schedule. So 3
when you leave here this afternoon, you should know what is 4
left for us to do and other opportunities for your 5
involvement.
6 When were finished with our presentations, 7
well invite you to provide your comments and ask questions 8
and also let you know how to submit questions outside of 9
this meeting. We have various mechanisms for that which 10 well describe to you.
11 Okay, thats it. Again, I want to welcome you 12 all, appreciate your attendance at the meeting this 13 afternoon. I hope you get what you came for. Were looking 14 forward to your questions and your comments.
15 Id like to turn it over to Raj for a discussion 16 of the license renewal process. Thank you.
17 DR. AULUCK: Thank you, Steve.
18 Good afternoon. As Steve just mentioned, my 19 name is Raj Auluck and I am the project manager for the 20 safety review of the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station license 21 renewal application.
22 Before discussing the license renewal process 23 and staffs safety review, I would like to talk about the 24
Page 10 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its role in licensing and 1
regulating nuclear power plants.
2 The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 authorizes the NRC 3
to regulate civilian use of nuclear material. The NRCs 4
mission is three-fold: to ensure adequate protection of 5
public health and safety; to protect the environment; and to 6
provide for common defense and security.
7 The NRC consists of five commissioners and one 8
of the commissioners is the chairman, and the NRC staff.
9 The regulations enforced by the NRC are issued under Title 10 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, commonly called 10 11 CFR.
12 The Atomic Energy Act provided for a 40-year 13 license term for power reactors, but it also allows for 14 renewal of licenses. The 40-year term is based primarily on 15 economic and antitrust considerations, rather than on safety 16 limitations.
17 Major components of the power plant were 18 initially expected to last up to 40 years. However, 19 operating experience has demonstrated that some of the major 20 components, such as steam generators, will not last that 21 long.
22 For that reason, a number of utilities have 23 replaced major components. Since components and structures 24
Page 11 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 can be replaced or reconditioned, plant life is really 1
determined primarily by economic factors.
2 License renewal applications are submitted years 3
in advance for several reasons. If a utility decides to 4
replace a nuclear power plant it can take up to 10 years to 5
plan and construct the new generating capacity to replace 6
that nuclear power plant.
7 In addition, decisions to replace or recondition 8
major components can involve significant capital investment.
9 As such, these decisions involve financial planning many 10 years in advance of the extended period of operation.
11 As mentioned earlier, South Carolina Electric &
12 Gas company has applied for license renewal under 10 CFR 13 Part 54, and requests authorization to operate V.C. Summer 14 up to an additional 20 years. The current operating license 15 for V.C. Summer expires August 6, 2022.
16 Now I will talk a little bit about license 17 renewal, which is governed by the requirements of 10 CFR 18 Part 54, or the License Renewal Rule. This part of the Code 19 of Federal Regulations defines the regulatory process by 20 which a utility such as South Carolina Electric & Gas 21 applies for license renewal.
22 The License Renewal Rule incorporates 10 CFR 23 Part 51 by reference. This part provides for the 24
Page 12 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 preparation of an environmental impact statement.
1 The license renewal process defined in Part 54 2
is very similar to the original licensing process in that it 3
involves a safety review, an environmental impact 4
evaluation, plant inspections and review by the Advisory 5
Committee on Reactor Safeguards, or the ACRS.
6 The ACRS is a group of scientists and nuclear 7
industry experts who serve as a consulting body to the 8
Commission. The ACRS performs an independent review of the 9
license renewal application and staffs safety evaluation, 10 and reports its findings and recommendations directly to the 11 Commission.
12 The next slide illustrates two parallel 13 processes. The two parallel process are the safety review 14 process and the environmental review process. These 15 processes are used by the NRC staff to evaluate two separate 16 aspects of the license renewal application.
17 The safety review involves the staffs review of 18 the technical information in the application for renewal to 19 verify, with reasonable assurance, that the plant can 20 continue to operate safely during the extended period of 21 operation.
22 The staff assesses how the applicant proposes to 23 monitor or manage the aging of certain components that are 24
Page 13 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 within the scope of license renewal. The staffs review is 1
documented in a safety evaluation report, which is provided 2
to the ACRS. The ACRS reviews the safety evaluation report, 3
holds public meetings and prepares a report to the 4
Commission documenting its recommendations.
5 The safety review process involves two or three 6
inspections which are documented in NRC inspection reports.
7 In its decision to renew an operating license, the NRC 8
considers the safety evaluation report, the ACRS report, the 9
inspection reports and findings and the NRC Regional 10 Administrators recommendations.
11 At the bottom of the slide is the parallel 12 process, the environmental review, which Gregory Suber will 13 discuss shortly. The results of the environmental review 14 also factor into the agencys decision on the application.
15 In the safety evaluation report, the staff 16 documents its assessment of the effectiveness of the 17 applicants existing or proposed inspection and maintenance 18 activities to manage aging effects applicable to passive 19 long-lived structures and components.
20 Part 54 requires the application to re-evaluate 21 those design analyses that assumed 40 years of plant 22 operations. The re-evaluation extends the assumed operating 23 period to 60 years. These required re-evaluations are 24
Page 14 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 called time-limited aging analyses.
1 Current regulations are adequate for addressing 2
active components, such as pumps and valves, which are 3
continually challenged to reveal failures and degradation, 4
such that corrective actions can be taken.
5 Current regulations also exist to address other 6
aspects of the original license, such as security and 7
emergency planning. These current regulations will also 8
apply during the extended period of operation.
9 In October 2002, the NRC issued a Federal 10 Register notice to announce its acceptance of the South 11 Carolina Electric & Gas Companys application for renewal of 12 the operating license for V.C. Summer. This notice also 13 announced the opportunity for public participation in the 14 process. No such requests were received.
15 This concludes my summary of the license renewal 16 process and staffs safety review. We will now proceed with 17 the environmental review process presentation and then well 18 respond to any questions.
19 MR. SUBER: Once again, Id like to thank you 20 all for coming.
21 My name is Gregory Suber and I am the 22 environmental project manager for the V.C. Summer license 23 renewal project. I am responsible for coordinating the 24
Page 15 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 efforts of the NRC staff and our contractor labs to conduct 1
and document the environmental review associated with the 2
application from SCE&G for license renewal at V.C. Summer.
3 The NRC has determined that it will prepare an 4
environmental impact statement associated with the renewal 5
of operating licenses for plants for an additional 20 years.
6 Therefore, following the process required by NEPA, we have 7
prepared a draft environmental impact statement that 8
describes the environmental impacts associated with 9
operation at V.C. Summer. That draft environmental impact 10 statement was issued in July of this year and the meeting 11 today is being held to receive your comments on that impact 12 statement.
13 The National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, 14 was enacted in 1969. It is one of the most significant 15 pieces of environmental legislation passed in this country.
16 It requires all federal agencies to use a systematic 17 approach to consider the environmental impacts during 18 certain decision-making proceedings regarding major federal 19 actions.
20 NEPA requires that we examine the environmental 21 impacts of a proposed action and consider mitigation 22 measures. These mitigation measures are things that are 23 done to reduce those impacts. NEPA also requires that we 24
Page 16 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 consider alternatives to the proposal and that we also 1
evaluate impacts from those alternatives. Finally, NEPA 2
requires that we disclose all of this information and we 3
invite the public to comment on it.
4 This slide describes our objective in the 5
environmental review. Simply put, we are trying to 6
determine whether renewal of the V.C. Summer license is 7
acceptable from an environmental standpoint. Whether or not 8
the plant actually operates for an additional 20 years will 9
be decided by others, such as SCE&G, state regulators and it 10 is also very much dependent on the conclusion of the safety 11 review.
12 This slide shows in a little more detail the 13 environmental review process that Dr. Auluck recently spoke 14 of. We received the application on August 6 of 2002, we 15 issued a Federal Register notice in October of 2002 16 informing the public that we were going to prepare an 17 environmental impact statement and to give the public an 18 opportunity to comment on the scope of that review. On 19 December 12 of 2002, during the scoping period, we held two 20 meetings here in Jenkinsville to receive public comments 21 about the scope of our review.
22 Also in December we went to the V.C. Summer site 23 with a combined team of NRC staff and personnel from three 24
Page 17 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 national laboratories that have backgrounds in the specific 1
technical and scientific disciplines required to perform our 2
environmental review. We familiarized ourself with the 3
site, we met with staff from SCE&G to discuss the 4
information that they had submitted in their application, we 5
reviewed environmental documentation at the plant and we 6
examined SCE&Gs evaluation process.
7 In addition, we contacted state, federal and 8
local governmental agencies as well as social services in 9
the region to obtain information about the general area and 10 also information on the V.C. Summer site.
11 At the close of the scoping period, we gathered 12 and considered all of the information we had received from 13 the public and from governmental agencies and, when 14 appropriate, we incorporated the findings or the information 15 that we received into the draft that we are discussing 16 today.
17 In July of 2003, we issued the draft 18 environmental impact statement for V.C. Summer and that 19 statement is Supplement 15 to the GEIS, which is the Generic 20 Environmental Impact Statement. The reason its a 21 supplement is because it relies on the finding of the GEIS 22 in part for its conclusions. The report is a draft, not 23 because its incomplete, but because we are at an 24
Page 18 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 intermediate point in our decision-making process.
1 We are in the middle of a public comment period 2
and thats why were here today to talk and see if you have 3
any comments on our draft. We gather these comments and we 4
will evaluate them and if the comments impact our 5
evaluation, then we will make those comments part of the 6
final draft which we plan to submit or issue, excuse me, in 7
February of 2004.
8 Thats the end of my introduction.
9 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, Greg; and 10 thank you, Raj.
11 This is the time for questions about process, 12 but were going to do something a little different right 13 now, because Councilman Marcharia has an unavoidable errand 14 that he has to do, so he has to leave and I thought that we 15 would give him an opportunity to speak to us now and of 16 course were going to be going to Councilwoman Robinson and 17 Councilman Brown later on in the program, to see if they 18 want to say anything to us.
19 But Councilman, do you want to say a few words 20 to us?
21 COUNCILMAN MARCHARIA: Good afternoon, everyone.
22 Welcome to Jenkinsville, South Carolina. To the NRC staff, 23 I dont know everyone by name, but thank you very much for 24
Page 19 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 being here today. And to my two distinguished colleagues, 1
Vice President Brown and Councillady Robinson, thanks for 2
coming. And those who live in the immediate area -- how 3
many folks live right here in western Fairfield? Raise your 4
hands. Three? We matched last year. Unfortunately, you 5
know, at this time of day, a lot of our residents are 6
working. Im sure they would be here if they could.
7 Last year I was here and I shared some comments 8
from the community and once again, I want to reiterate some 9
of those comments and I want to thank Mr. Suber in 10 particular. Since last year, the many phone calls that he 11 tried to run me down, he said I want to make sure that 12 people know it this time and he really stepped up. And all 13 the times that I missed you, I apologize for that, but you 14 worked hard to get this information out to the community.
15 So thank you very much for that.
16 That being said, I wanted -- some of the things 17 that the community had to ask thats on everyones mind is 18 in the event there was a terrorist act here, what do the 19 citizens do, whats the plan? Because that has not been 20 shared by the local emergency preparedness. For the 21 citizens, senior citizens, what would be the route? I think 22 the community wanted to know that and that might be a local 23 issue that we have to address but Ill address it also to 24
Page 20 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 you.
1 I think some of the health issues -- the last 2
time we talked, we asked what would be the impact of health 3
issues around the plant, given the perception -- not the 4
perception, given the fact that a lot of our senior citizens 5
are dying from unknown cancers. Thats not a perception, 6
thats a fact. But there is a perception that it might be 7
related to the plant. That has not been proven and I think 8
the question asked what steps do you take or methodology 9
that you use to determine that this plant does not have a 10 negative impact on the quality of life or health of the 11 local residents -- was one of the questions.
12 The other thing I would like to ask for, the 13 community asked for, which I hadnt read was could we -- I -
14
- have a copy of the original agreement with V.C. Nuclear 15 Power Plant with Jenkinsville or the county, whichever, what 16 was written in that initial agreement. And I raise that 17 question simply because I know its mandatory in some 18 readings that I had that we had to have the EMS station, 19 which we have right there. We also have a fire station 20 thats adjacent to the EMS station. Hopefully we can also 21 put a substation in there at some point in time.
22 We are concerned because -- Im asking for help 23 of how we can upgrade our fire station. Its less than 24
Page 21 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 three minute walking distance from here. Our fire trucks --
1 Im not a firefighter, but this community is in serious 2
danger. There has been one incident we had several years 3
ago, a truck took off and didnt have water to one of the 4
fires. How that could possibly happen, I dont know, but 5
the trucks are old and even if they did have water, I dont 6
know if they can go 10 or 15 miles. That is a serious 7
problem. If we have a relationship and something happens at 8
the plant, how will we be able to help?
9 The other issue that we have, in terms of 10 volunteer firefighters, its my understanding that you would 11 need somewhere in the proximity of at least 11 people 12 trained to be able to do this. We fall far short of that 13 right now and were trying to encourage younger people male 14 and female, to get involved locally and learn and train to 15 be at the local fire station.
16 So were asking is there any kind of way for you 17 or the nuclear plant to help us get a fire truck. We 18 havent been successful with the local government and our 19 fire trucks will not withstand a serious anything over at 20 that plant. So if you could be helpful with that or 21 instructive as what direction we can go to acquire funds or 22 an avenue to make this community more secure.
23 If you have any ideas of how we can encourage 24
Page 22 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 some of our younger people in the community to get this 1
training and be available to help us in the event that 2
something happened, it would be appreciated.
3 One other question was asked by the community --
4 has this plant ever been in violation of anything, and what, 5
and what was the nature of it, and when. I probably could 6
have gotten that answer somewhere else, but that was asked 7
of me yesterday and I just wrote it down.
8 The other thing is that technically I dont know 9
if I know all the technical terms dealing with nuclear waste 10 and nuclear energy and what you must do to provide safety or 11 any other kinds of strategies around that. Ill confess my 12 ignorance, I dont know all the technical terms. But we are 13 concerned that its in our community. It has been a 14 tremendous economic benefit to our community and we are 15 obviously enjoying the partnership that we have with you and 16 we thank you for that.
17 Those were some of the questions that I had.
18 Im sure that other citizens are going to have questions and 19 does anyone have a question of me?
20 (No response.)
21 COUNCILMAN MARCHARIA: Hearing none, I think 22 Ive said all I could say and I certainly wish all of you a 23 safe journey back home and I thank you for the opportunity 24
Page 23 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 for the dialogue. I think in the last year most -- if not 1
you, most of the folks over at the plant have been very 2
open. We have started a dialogue and I think thats going 3
to get us over some of the humps and try to look at more 4
strategically how do we make this community more safe.
5 Thank you very much for listening to me and I 6
hope -- I wish us all luck in our endeavor to make this 7
happen. Thank you very much.
8 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, Councilman, 9
and thank you for those comments and concerns. We will be 10 addressing those in the context of the preparation of the --
11 either the final environmental impact statement or in terms 12 of providing you information, for example, on questions of 13 potential training of young people in the community, 14 resources for emergency preparedness work. But we will note 15 those and not lose track of those, and thank you again.
16 As I mentioned, we will be going to Vice 17 President Brown and Councilwoman Robinson later on.
18 Are there any questions about the process at 19 this point? You heard about the safety evaluation part of 20 the process, the looks at aging, you heard about the 21 environmental evaluation which is our primary focus today.
22 Is there anything we can answer about that process before we 23 go on to the preliminary findings?
24
Page 24 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 (No response.)
1 MR. CAMERON: Okay, well, in that case -- and if 2
you have questions later on, well come back to that, but 3
lets go to Dr. Doerr to give us the review of the findings.
4 Ted.
5 DR. DOERR: Good afternoon.
6 To do this review, we established a team made up 7
of NRC staff supplemented by experts in various fields from 8
the national laboratories. This slide gives you an idea of 9
the areas these experts evaluated.
10 The GEIS, or generic environmental impact 11 statement for license renewal, also known as NUREG 1437, 12 identifies 92 issues that are evaluated for license renewal; 13 69 of these issues are considered generic or Category 1, 14 which means that the impacts are the same for all reactors 15 with certain features, such as plants that have cooling 16 ponds. For the other 23 issues, 21 are referred to as 17 Category 2. The NRC found that the impacts were not the 18 same at all sites and, therefore, a site-specific analysis 19 was needed. In addition, two issues are referred to as not 20 categorized and, therefore, a site-specific analysis also is 21 needed.
22 Only certain issues addressed in the GEIS are 23 applicable to V.C. Summer. For those generic issues that 24
Page 25 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 are applicable to V.C. Summer, we assessed if there was any 1
new information related to the issue that might affect the 2
conclusions reached in the GEIS. If there is no new 3
information, then the conclusions of the GEIS are adopted.
4 If new information is identified and determined to be 5
significant, then a site-specific analysis would be 6
performed.
7 For the site-specific issues, Category 2, 8
related to V.C. Summer, a site-specific analysis was 9
performed.
10 Finally, during the scoping period, the public 11 was invited to provide information on potential new issues 12 and the team, during the review, looked to see if there were 13 any new issues that needed evaluation.
14 For each issue identified in the GEIS, an impact 15 level is assigned. These impact levels are consistent with 16 the Council on Environmental Quality regulations. For a 17 small impact, the effect is not detectable or is too small 18 to destabilize or noticeably alter any important attribute 19 of the resource. For example, the plant may cause the loss 20 of adult and juvenile fish at the intake structure. If the 21 loss of fish is so small that it cannot be detected in 22 relation to the total population in the river, the impact 23 would be small.
24
Page 26 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 For a moderate impact, the effect is sufficient 1
to noticeably alter, but not destabilize, important 2
attributes of the resource. Using the fish example again, 3
if losses at the intake cause the population to destabilize 4
and decline, but is then able to stabilize at a lower level, 5
the impact would be moderate.
6 And finally, for an impact to be considered 7
large, the effect is clearly noticeable and sufficient to 8
destabilize the important attributes of the resource. Again 9
in the example of fish, if losses at the intake cause the 10 population to decline to the point where it cannot be 11 stabilized and continually declines, then the impact would 12 be large.
13 In Chapter 2 of the draft supplemental 14 environmental impact statement, or draft SEIS, we discuss 15 the plant and the environment around the plant. In Chapter 16 4, we then looked at the potential environmental impacts for 17 an additional 20 years of operation for V.C. Summer. There 18 are several areas the team reviewed and evaluated. Ill 19 take just a few minutes to identify the highlights of our 20 review for three areas. If you have any additional 21 questions on our findings, Ill be glad to answer them or 22 let one of the team members here with me today answer them.
23 Entrainment, impingement and heat shock are 24
Page 27 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 Category 2 issues used to assess the impact of cooling 1
systems to the aquatic community.
2 Entrainment is the process of aquatic organisms 3
passing through the debris screens at the intake structure 4
and traveling through the cooling system.
5 Impingement is the process of fish and shellfish 6
being drawn into the intake, but are too large to pass 7
through the debris screens and are, therefore, caught on the 8
screens.
9 Heat shock is when aquatic organisms are exposed 10 to very high water temperatures resulting from discharge of 11 water from the cooling system back into the reservoir.
12 We found that entrainment, impingement and heat 13 shock have only a small impact to populations of fish, 14 shellfish and other aquatic organisms in Monticello 15 Reservoir.
16 Radiological impacts to the public and workers 17 are a Category 1 issue, but because it is often a concern of 18 the public, we wanted to take just a few minutes to discuss 19 it.
20 We looked at the effluent release and monitoring 21 program during our site visit. We looked at how the gaseous 22 and liquid effluents were treated and released as well as 23 how the solid wastes were treated, packaged and shipped for 24
Page 28 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 disposal. We also looked at how the applicant determines 1
and demonstrates that they are in compliance with the 2
regulations for release of radiological effluents.
3 Doses reported in the annual monitoring reports 4
for V.C. Summer were less than one percent of the dose limit 5
specified in the regulations. The releases from the plant 6
are well within limits and the resulting off-site potential 7
doses are not expected to increase on a year-to-year basis 8
during the 20-year license renewal term.
9 Also, no new and significant information was 10 identified during the staffs review. Therefore, the 11 impacts are small.
12 Sixteen terrestrial plants and animal species 13 that are federal or state-listed as threatened, endangered 14 or candidates for listing are known to occur in the vicinity 15 of V.C. Summer. Only the bald eagle is known to occur at 16 V.C. Summer or along the transmission lines.
17 Two endangered aquatic species -- the Carolina 18 heel splitter and the short-nosed sturgeon -- are known to 19 occur in the vicinity of V.C. Summer; however, neither are 20 known to occur in Monticello Reservoir, Parr Reservoir or 21 the nearby reaches of the Broad River.
22 NRCs preliminary conclusion is that the impacts 23 of license renewal would be small. Informal consultation 24
Page 29 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has been initiated to 1
receive concurrence on the NRCs determination that license 2
renewal would either have no effect or is not likely to 3
adversely affect these species.
4 SCE&G implemented a process to ensure that 5
information not addressed in or available during the GEIS 6
evaluation would be reviewed to ensure that such new and 7
potentially significant information related to renewal of 8
the license for V.C. Summer would be considered. As a part 9
of the process, SCE&G reviewed each of the Category 1 issues 10 to verify that the conclusions of the GEIS remained valid 11 with respect to V.C. Summer. This review was performed by 12 subject matter experts who are also familiar with NEPA 13 issues.
14 The NRC staff also has a process for identifying 15 new and significant information. The search for new 16 information includes review of the applicants environmental 17 report and their process for discovering and evaluating the 18 significance of new information; review of records of public 19 comments; review of environmental quality standards and 20 regulations; coordination with federal, state and local 21 environmental protection and resource agencies; and review 22 of the technical literature. New information discovered by 23 the staff is evaluated for significance using criteria set 24
Page 30 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 forth in the GEIS.
1 For Category 1 issues, where new and significant 2
information is identified, reconsideration of the 3
conclusions for those issues is limited in scope to the 4
assessment of the relevant new and significant information.
5 The scope of the assessment does not include other facets of 6
the issue that are not affected by the new information.
7 Through this process, there was no new and significant 8
information identified.
9 Environmental issues associated with the uranium 10 fuel cycle, solid waste management and decommissioning are 11 all Category 1 issues and addressed in the GEIS.
12 Off-site radiological impacts and non-13 radiological impacts are environmental issues related to 14 uranium fuel cycle.
15 Environmental issues associated with solid waste 16 management include storage and disposal of non-radiological 17 waste, low-level radiological waste, mixed waste, on-site 18 spent fuel storage and transportation of spent nuclear fuel 19 and high level waste to a repository.
20 The environmental issues considered for 21 decommissioning are similar to those from operations and 22 include radiation doses, waste management, air quality, 23 water quality, ecological resources and socio-economics.
24
Page 31 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 During our review, there was no new and 1
significant information identified and impacts are 2
considered small.
3 We evaluated a number of alternatives to V.C.
4 Summer. The no-action alternative is a scenario where the 5
NRC would not renew the V.C. Summer operating license.
6 SCE&G would then decommission V.C. Summer when plant 7
operations cease. Also, no replacement power was considered 8
under this alternative.
9 New generation alternatives considered included 10 construction and operation of coal, natural gas and new 11 nuclear power plants both at V.C. Summer and at an 12 alternative greenfield or previously unused, undisturbed 13 site.
14 Another alternative considered was purchasing 15 power from other sources to replace the power from V.C.
16 Summer if operations were to cease. This power could come 17 from within the state, from other states or from Canada or 18 Mexico.
19 Finally, alternative technologies considered 20 included oil-fired plants, wind power, solar power, hydro 21 power, geothermal energy, wood waste, municipal solid waste, 22 other biomass derived fuel, hydrogen fuel cells, delayed 23 retirement of other power generating units and utility-24
Page 32 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 sponsored conservation.
1 While there are many possible combinations of 2
alternatives discussed to replace power, for purposes of 3
analysis, we assumed a combination of alternatives 4
consisting of one combined cycle natural gas-fired unit, 5
either at V.C. Summer or at an alternative location in 6
combination with purchase from other power generators and 7
additional utility-sponsored conservation measures.
8 All of the alternatives have the potential to 9
result in environmental impacts larger than would occur 10 under the proposed action of license renewal. As an 11 example, if an alternative were selected at a site outside 12 of Fairfield County, then socio-economic impacts would be 13 moderate to large as a result of lost tax revenue for 14 Fairfield County and an increase in services required and a 15 gain in tax revenues for the county where the new generation 16 would occur. Similarly, impacts to land use and ecological 17 resources would be moderate to large if a previously 18 undisturbed site was selected for an alternative.
19 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, Ted.
20 Before we go to a discussion of severe 21 accidents, lets see if anybody has questions for Ted about 22 the preliminary findings. I think he presented them very 23 clearly. Any questions about some of those findings, the 24
Page 33 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 analysis of alternatives, anything like that?
1 (No response.)
2 MR. CAMERON: All right, were going to go to 3
our last substantive subject now, which is severe accident 4
mitigation alternatives and if any questions occur to you 5
about anything weve talked about after that, we can answer 6
them then. And Greg Suber is going to do this presentation.
7 MR. SUBER: Thank you, Chip.
8 The next part of my presentation deals with the 9
environmental impact of postulated accidents. Section 5 of 10 the draft EIS is entitled "Environmental Impacts of 11 Postulated Accidents." The DSEIS evaluates two classes --
12 design-basis accidents and severe accidents.
13 First, well discuss design-basis accidents.
14 Design-basis accidents are those accidents that both the 15 licensee and the NRC staff evaluate to ensure that the plant 16 can respond to a broad spectrum of postulated accidents 17 without risk to the public. The environmental impact of 18 design-basis accidents are evaluated in the initial 19 licensing process, and the ability of the plant to withstand 20 these accidents has been demonstrated before the plant has 21 received its initial license. Most importantly, the 22 licensee is required to maintain an acceptable design and 23 performance capability throughout the life of the plant, 24
Page 34 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 which includes any extended life operation.
1 Since the licensee has to demonstrate acceptable 2
plant performance for the design-basis accidents throughout 3
the life of the plant, the Commission has decided that the 4
environmental impact of the design-basis accidents are of 5
small significance. Neither the licensee nor the NRC is 6
aware of any new and significant information on the 7
capability of V.C. Summer to withstand design-basis 8
accidents. Therefore, the staff has concluded that there 9
are no impacts related to design-basis accidents beyond 10 those previously discussed in the GEIS.
11 The second category is severe accidents and 12 severe accidents are, by definition, more severe than 13 design-basis accidents because they can result in 14 substantial damage to the reactor core. The Commission 15 found in the GEIS that the risk of a severe accident in 16 terms of atmospheric releases, fallout to bodies of water, 17 releases to groundwater and societal impacts are small for 18 all plants. Nevertheless, the Commission has determined 19 that alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be 20 considered for all plants that have not previously done so.
21 We refer to these alternatives as severe accident mitigation 22 alternatives or SAMA for short.
23 The SAMA evaluation is a site-specific 24
Page 35 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 assessment and is a Category 2 issue, as Mr. Doerr has 1
explained earlier. The SAMA review for V.C. Summer is 2
discussed in Section 5.2 and in Appendix G of the draft EIS.
3 The purpose of performing a SAMA evaluation is to ensure 4
that plant changes with the potential of improving severe 5
accident performance are identified and evaluated.
6 The scope of plant improvements that were 7
considered are hardware modifications, procedural changes, 8
training program improvements and a basic full spectrum of 9
changes. The scope includes SAMAs that would prevent core 10 damage and SAMA that could improve containment performance, 11 given that a core damage event occurs.
12 The SAMA evaluation consists of four steps. The 13 first step is to characterize the overall plant risk and 14 leading contributors to risk. This typically involves an 15 extensive use of plant-specific probabilistic risk 16 assessment, which is known as PRA. The PRA study identifies 17 different combinations of system failures and human errors 18 that would be required for an accident to progress either to 19 core damage or to containment failure.
20 The second step in the evaluation process is to 21 identify potential improvements that could further reduce 22 risk. The information from the PRA, such as the dominant 23 accident sequence, is used to help identify plant 24
Page 36 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 improvements that would have the greatest impact on reducing 1
risk. Improvements are identified in NRC and industry 2
studies as well as SAMA analysis for other plants are used 3
in this consideration.
4 The third step in the evaluation process is to 5
quantify the risk reduction potential and implementation 6
cost for each improvement. The risk reduction and 7
implementation costs for each SAMA are estimated, using what 8
we call a bounding analysis. The risk reduction is 9
generally over-estimated by assuming that the plant 10 improvement is completely effective in eliminating the 11 accident sequence it is intended to address. The 12 implementation costs are generally under-estimated by 13 neglecting certain cost factors, such as maintenance costs 14 and surveillance costs associated with the improvement.
15 Finally, the risk reduction and cost estimates 16 are used in the last step, which is to determine whether 17 implementation of any improvement can be justified. In 18 determining whether an improvement is justified, the NRC 19 staff looks at three factors. The first is whether the 20 improvement is cost-beneficial. In other words is the 21 estimated benefit greater than the estimated implementation 22 costs of the SAMA. The second factor is whether the 23 improvement provides a significant reduction in the total 24
Page 37 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 risk. For example, does it eliminate a sequence or a 1
containment failure mode that contributes to a large 2
fraction of the plant risk. The third and final factor is 3
whether the risk reduction is associated with aging effects 4
during the period of extended operation. In this case, we 5
would consider implementation of that SAMA as part of the 6
license renewal process.
7 The preliminary results of the V.C. Summer SAMA 8
evaluation are summarized on this slide. Over 200 candidate 9
improvements were identified for V.C. Summer, based on a 10 review of the plant-specific PRA, relevant industry and NRC 11 studies and the SAMA analysis performed on other plants.
12 SCE&G reduced this set to a subset of 12 potential SAMAs 13 based on a multi-step screening process. Factors considered 14 in the screening process include whether the SAMA was 15 applicable to V.C. Summer due to design differences, whether 16 the SAMA would involve major plant modifications that would 17 clearly exceed the maximum attainable benefit and whether 18 the SAMA would only provide minimal reduction of risk based 19 on a review of the PRA.
20 A more detailed assessment of the conceptual 21 design and cost was performed on each of those 12 SAMAs 22 identified. And this detailed assessment is included in 23 Appendix G of the draft.
24
Page 38 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 None of these SAMAs were found to be cost-1 beneficial when evaluated in accordance with NRC guidelines 2
for performing regulatory analysis. And based on the review 3
of SCE&Gs analysis, the NRC concludes that none of the 4
SAMAs evaluated are cost-beneficial.
5 So to summarize, the NRC has made a preliminary 6
conclusion that additional plant modifications to further 7
mitigate severe accidents are not required at V.C. Summer as 8
a part of license renewal.
9 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you, Greg. And like 10 any other part of the draft environmental impact statement, 11 those conclusions are --
12 MR. SUBER: Are preliminary.
13 MR. CAMERON: -- open for comment --
14 MR. SUBER: Yes, they are.
15 MR. CAMERON: -- before being finalized.
16 Do we have questions about the SAMA part of the 17 evaluation?
18 Okay, lets go back to Don Moniak, and Don, 19 could you just introduce yourself to us formally, please?
20 MR. MONIAK: Yes, my name is Don Moniak and Im 21 from Aiken, South Carolina, here to write an article about 22 this process.
23 You mentioned on one of the slides about human 24
Page 39 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 error being considered.
1 MR. SUBER: Yes.
2 MR. MONIAK: Is there a larger analysis of how 3
well -- of how theyre going to manage human reliability 20 4
years from now? How are they going to maintain expertise 5
and that kind of thing?
6 MR. SUBER: Okay, first, Ill state that the 7
plants are safe and that the point that youre bringing up 8
is an operating point and I would have to -- you want to 9
know what training the operators undergo?
10 MR. MONIAK: No, no. I want to know what is 11 going to be done during the relicensing period and in 12 preparation for that to ensure that the current levels of 13 human reliability are maintained or improved, so that -- to 14 ensure that there will be ample amount of qualified people 15 working there, because as you know, theres a war for talent 16 in this country right now and its difficult for a lot of 17 industries to recruit exactly what they want.
18 MR. SUBER: Okay, I dont know what the precise 19 steps are that are being taken, but Ill have to defer that 20 to Mr. Zalcman.
21 MR. CAMERON: I think this is a safety side 22 issue, which well answer, but I just wanted to make it 23 clear that I think that this type of issue falls on the 24
Page 40 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 safety side.
1 Raj, do you have something to say in response to 2
that?
3 DR. AULUCK: Yes. As far as operations are 4
concerned, there are certain qualifications to perform those 5
duties and those duties or requirements will be carried 6
over, whether it is inspection activities, engineering 7
activities, operator training or any other work relative to 8
performance under the regulations. So those regulations, 9
the current regulations or current licensing basis, is 10 carried over to the next 20 years. So they are under 11 certain requirements, whether its training or 12 qualifications, it will be carried over.
13 As for your human reliability, as we go along, 14 we get more educated and knowledgeable about it and we look 15 at our regulations in those areas and we are constantly 16 amending the regulations and that is also part of the public 17 process. Before we amend the regulations, you know, they go 18 through the process for public participation, before we 19 amend any regulations.
20 MR. CAMERON: Just to make sure -- well go to 21 Don for another question, but just to make sure that 22 everybody understands -- Raj, are those types of concerns 23 that Don raised about the operating staff, are they 24
Page 41 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 considered in the typical license renewal evaluation?
1 DR. AULUCK: No, operator licensing is not 2
considered because it is part of the current licensing 3
basis.
4 MR. CAMERON: But I mean the human resource 5
issue.
6 DR. AULUCK: Human resources is, yes.
7 MR. CAMERON: Okay, it is considered then.
8 DR. AULUCK: Not human resources, but whatever 9
is currently required to operate the plant under the 10 regulations, those are carried over for the extended period.
11 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Don, do you have another 12 question?
13 MR. MONIAK: My next question is much simpler.
14 You said that cost and risk analysis were the screening 15 criteria for reducing the number of potential SAMAs, and 16 what I was wondering is, is it cost and risk or is it cost 17 and/or risk? Does cost by itself ever result in removing a 18 possible improvement or does it also have to be a risk 19 reduction?
20 MR. SUBER: Thats what the program is --
21 MR. MONIAK: How are those two weighed, how are 22 cost versus risk weighed?
23 MR. SUBER: Okay, the first thing we look at is 24
Page 42 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 the reduction in risk, and I think youll see that in the 1
screening process. The first thing we have to realize is 2
that the plants, as they are designed and as they are 3
currently regulated by the NRC, are safe.
4 What the Commission did is the Commission said 5
as we are going to extend these licenses, lets take a 6
closer look to see if there are other things that we can do 7
to mitigate severe accidents that are cost-effective.
8 So the first element of determining what were 9
going to look at is to see how much is this thing that were 10 going to do -- how much is this thing that were proposing 11 going to reduce the total plant risk. And if that is 12 significant, then -- if that is significant that comes in 13 one part.
14 The second part we do is say well, how much is 15 this thing going to cost, because we already know that the 16 plant is safe. And the second thought is how much is this 17 thing going to cost, and theres a cost threshold. And if 18 it exceeds that cost, then it does not have to be 19 implemented as a part of license renewal. It has -- there 20 are two things, as part of license renewal, it has to be 21 related to aging effects. And so if we find a SAMA, which 22 is an additional thing that we do, that would help us reduce 23 risk, but its extremely costly, then it does not have to be 24
Page 43 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 implemented as a part of license renewal.
1 MR. MONIAK: Okay, and just one more. Is risk 2
reduction based on the total population in the area and what 3
the impacts on population and environment would be -- not 4
the impacts, but what the effects would be, or is it based 5
on what the actual impacts would be, say for radiation 6
release in terms of curies?
7 MR. SUBER: Can you handle that, Raj?
8 MR. MONIAK: Curies versus millirems-- which is 9
it based on.
10 DR. AULUCK: Could you repeat that question 11 please?
12 MR. MONIAK: Yes. The risk reduction itself, is 13 it based on the actual impact to the environment and, 14 therefore, possibly to people like in terms of curies, which 15 is concrete, or is it based upon the potential effect upon 16 the environment, which is more of an abstraction?
17 MR. SUBER: Okay, the risk reduction is based on 18 the core damage sequence, isnt that -- is that not correct?
19 MR. CAMERON: And just to make sure everybody 20 understands this, when you look at risk reduction, do we 21 look at potential off-site effects or do we look at the risk 22 of the core being damaged.
23 Do you want to do this, Raj? And well go to 24
Page 44 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 Greg for a supplement?
1 DR. AULUCK: Probably I think -- Im not fully 2
knowledgeable, but I think it is the impact on the public, 3
you know, what is the total release and impact on the 4
individuals at the site or at the location. But I think we 5
can get the proper -- you know, correct answer to you as 6
part of --
7 MR. MONIAK: Ill put it in a comment.
8 DR. AULUCK: Very good.
9 MR. CAMERON: Okay, and Greg, do you want to 10 clarify anything on that? You know what the question is.
11 MR. SUBER: Right, right. As far as I 12 understand your question, when were talking about risk 13 reduction, were talking about reducing the risk that the 14 core will be damaged. So when we talk about implementing 15 these changes, were talking about things that we can 16 implement as a SAMA that would reduce what we call the core 17 damage frequency, or CDF.
18 MR. CAMERON: Okay, let me just get one more 19 piece here for Don and the rest of you. Barry Zalcman.
20 MR. ZALCMAN: Barry Zalcman, NRC staff.
21 The risk is actually a combination of the 22 likelihood of an event occurring and the consequences of 23 that event occurring. So to the degree that were looking 24
Page 45 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 at reduction in risk, were looking at postulated events 1
that may occur that could have some source characteristics 2
attached to it, and distribute the material that may be 3
available for release into the environment to population 4
locations. So were looking at properly weighted 5
consequences, were looking at population distribution, 6
were looking at the dispersion characteristics. So were 7
looking at the consequences of events moved out into the 8
environment and looking at population doses as an indicator.
9 So its population doses as an indicator of risk.
10 And to the degree that we look at the reduction 11 in risk, were looking at what the resources would take to 12 reduce either the likelihood of event or through other 13 mitigation characteristics, the reduction in the exposures 14 to individuals.
15 So if we reduce the material being released to 16 the environment through a change in practice, process, 17 training, hardware, software -- those are candidate SAMAs 18 that we consider. And to the degree that the screening 19 process actually identifies a maximum value that could be 20 justified, there is some maximum cost that could be 21 justified and, Gregory, I think if Im not mistaken, I think 22 it was $1.2 million for this project?
23 MR. SUBER: Yes, it was.
24
Page 46 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 MR. ZALCMAN: Okay, so any candidate SAMA that 1
would exceed an implementation cost of $1.2 million would be 2
screened out as part of the screening process.
3 MR. SUBER: Right.
4 Im not exactly sure on that number, but --
5 MR. CAMERON: Please everybody use the 6
microphone so that we get it on the record.
7 I think if we need to go back and provide 8
further information to Don, we can do that off line.
9 Barry, do you have some more?
10 MR. ZALCMAN: I think it was to wrap up, that in 11 fact we are looking at consequences to populations unique to 12 the site vicinity out to some distance of the order of 50 13 miles, the dispersal characteristics associated with that 14 that are unique to this facility and the plant design 15 characteristics also unique to this facility.
16 So again, as Gregory indicated, it is a site-17 specific evaluation, looking at populations, looking at the 18 consequence on the populations that may be affected.
19 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you.
20 Before we go to a summary and then were going 21 to get to comments from all of you, are there other 22 questions about either the discussion you just heard on 23 SAMAs or the other types of environmental effects process at 24
Page 47 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 this point?
1 Lets get you on the record, Reverend.
2 REVEREND CANNON: As they were talking about the 3
environmental impact, they kept saying that its a small 4
impact. I need to know or could you define small impact for 5
me.
6 MR. CAMERON: Ted, can you clarify that for 7
Reverend Cannon?
8 DR. DOERR: Again, small, moderate and large 9
impacts were previously defined in the generic environmental 10 impact statement for license renewal and so thats, if you 11 will, the starting point. And that definition was based on 12 guidance by the Council on Environmental Quality, which is, 13 if you will, the ruling body for the federal government on 14 how do you conduct and evaluate projects under the National 15 Environmental Policy Act. So Im just giving you the 16 structure there to get to the definition.
17 For small, it means that its so -- a small 18 impact is an impact that you dont even notice or the impact 19 itself is very short-lived and doesnt have any long-term, 20 measurable impact to the larger attribute. I used 21 previously the example of fish population. If you have a 22 small impact, youre going to lose some fish, which we do 23 here at V.C. Summer, but it doesnt change the population, 24
Page 48 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 it doesnt change the number of fish that are out there in 1
the lake, it doesnt change the population of fish in terms 2
of the species abundance and it doesnt change the 3
distribution of where the fish live, as an example. So 4
thats a small impact.
5 Does that help?
6 MR. CAMERON: Do you want to ask anything more 7
about that, Reverend?
8 REVEREND CANNON: No.
9 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you.
10 Ms. Pearson, why dont you use the microphone?
11 MS. PEARSON: I just wanted to ask a question 12 about that last statement up there, "additional plant 13 improvements to further mitigate severe accidents are not 14 required at V.C. Summer as part of license renewal."
15 Are you saying that irrespective of how many 16 accidents are going to be down there, it is not required, or 17 what are you saying?
18 MR. CAMERON: Thats a good question and, Greg, 19 can you put that into perspective for us, so that people can 20 understand what the SAMA evaluation is about, you know, in 21 relationship to actual accidents, which I think Ms. Pearson 22 was worried about.
23 MR. SUBER: Okay, as we talked about earlier, 24
Page 49 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 what we looked at in this analysis are what we call severe 1
accidents, and severe accidents are accidents that arent 2
likely to happen but they proceed to what we call core 3
damage, so theyre very important to look at.
4 Now as the plant is currently designed and as it 5
is currently regulated by the NRC, we say that the plant is 6
safe. What we did is we looked closer to see whether there 7
are some cost-effective things that we could do to make it 8
even safer. And our conclusion was that the plant as 9
designed is safe, the plant as currently regulated is safe, 10 and that we dont have the change anything in the plant to 11 make it even safer. We are satisfied with the present 12 design of V.C. Summer with regard to severe accidents.
13 Is that clear?
14 MR. CAMERON: And these are all hypothetical 15 accidents that youre looking at.
16 MR. SUBER: Correct.
17 MR. CAMERON: Is that clear, Ms. Pearson?
18 MS. PEARSON: Yes.
19 MR. CAMERON: All right, thank you.
20 Anybody else before we go for a summary? Gregory 21 is going to do that for us also.
22 (No response.)
23 MR. CAMERON: Okay, Greg, can you tell people 24
Page 50 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 what the conclusion and how they submit comments and then 1
well go to people for speaking. Thank you.
2 MR. SUBER: Okay, to summarize, as we stated 3
before, the impacts of license renewal at V.C. Summer are 4
all judged to be small. In comparison, the impacts of the 5
alternatives to license renewal range from small to large.
6 Therefore, the preliminary conclusion of the 7
staff is that the adverse impacts of license renewal at V.C.
8 Summer are not so great that preserving the option of 9
license renewal for energy planning decision-makers would be 10 unreasonable.
11 To recap quickly, we issued the draft 12 environmental impact statement for V.C. Summer this past 13 July. We are in the middle of a public comment period that 14 is scheduled to close on October 3 of 2003. We expect to 15 address all public comments, including any necessary 16 revisions to the draft and issue the final environmental 17 impact statement near the end of February of 2004.
18 This slide provides information on how you can 19 contact us and get a copy of the draft EIS if you dont have 20 one. You can contact me directly at the phone number 21 provided and I can mail you one. Or you can view the 22 document at the library in Winnsboro or at the Thomas Cooper 23 Library on the USC campus in Columbia. The document is also 24
Page 51 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 available at the web address given and we have a number of 1
copies available for you after this meeting, if youd like 2
to take one home with you.
3 This last slide gives you information on how you 4
can submit your comments on the draft Summer EIS. Well 5
accept these comments up until October 3 of 2003, which is 6
our deadline. You can submit comments either in writing, by 7
e-mail or by regular mail at the address given on the slide.
8 You can also drop your comments off at the NRC headquarters 9
in Rockville, Maryland.
10 And that concludes the formal part of my 11 presentation. Thank you, Chip.
12 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thanks, Greg.
13 Now were going to go out to you and hear 14 perhaps a little bit more formal comments or concerns about 15 these issues. As I mentioned earlier, I was going to see 16 first if Councilwoman Robinson and then Councilman Brown had 17 anything to say.
18 Would you like me to bring you this or do you 19 want to come up front? Its totally up to you, wherever you 20 feel more comfortable.
21 COUNCILWOMAN ROBINSON: I just wanted to say 22 thank you for coming and performing the environmental impact 23 study for us.
24
Page 52 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 We have felt all along, as council members, that 1
this was a very safe agency for our county and as council 2
members, we encourage you to give them the okay for 3
relicensing because it is an enormous economic development 4
for our county and we all as citizens who live here realize 5
the various benefits from the taxes that are paid. We often 6
talk about that, especially during the budget process, and 7
what would happen if it should be closed.
8 I look forward to having it extended for 20 9
additional years. Thank you.
10 COUNCILMAN BROWN: Im David Brown.
11 I want to reiterate what Ms. Robinson said, but 12 I want to go one step further and just thank SCE&G and SCANA 13 and Santee-Cooper for doing such a good job over the past 20 14 years as far as picking and choosing good people to run 15 their plant and keep it safe. I want to thank NRC for being 16 the watchdog to make sure they run it safe -- I want to 17 thank yall.
18 At the beginning we were talking about people 19 with the NRC that have been with the NRC for 20 some odd 20 years. Twenty years ago, I was on council when the hydro 21 plant just came on line and saw the impact just the hydro 22 made on Fairfield County. And then when the nuclear power 23 plant tax base came on line, Fairfield County was able to go 24
Page 53 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 from a farming community into the 20th century because of 1
the tax base trickle down effect. School teachers were paid 2
more money, I remember when Sheriff Gunby didnt have enough 3
money to buy bullets for his officers and I think he had 10 4
officers and now weve got 50.
5 But the impact that this plant has made on 6
Fairfield County, you cannot really sum it all up other than 7
it really has brought us into the 21st century and without 8
it, Fairfield County would be in dire straits.
9 Thank yall for being here.
10 MR. CAMERON: Thank you both.
11 Don Moniak, Mr. Don Moniak, do you want to come 12 up here or do you want to speak from your seat?
13 MR. MONIAK: Who was the last speaker?
14 MR. CAMERON: That is Councilman George Brown --
15 David Brown, sorry.
16 MR. MONIAK: Are there other speakers?
17 MR. CAMERON: We might. Do you want to wait 18 until the end?
19 MR. MONIAK: Yes.
20 MR. CAMERON: All right. Ms. Pearson, do you 21 want to say something?
22 MS. PEARSON: I just want to say a few words of 23 thanks for you all coming out and giving us the information 24
Page 54 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 that we do have.
1 It is a privilege and opportunity to come and 2
sit and listen. As I stand here, I have a son who is 3
quality control manager at the V.C. Summer Nuclear Plant.
4 The more I hear about safety, the sounder I sleep.
5 We truly do want to thank you all for the 6
information. We do know that its your job to do this and 7
it appears that you put a lot of time in it. Otherwise, it 8
wouldnt be as informative as it is.
9 We do thank you and were proud to have you in 10 the community.
11 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Ms. Pearson.
12 Do we have anybody else? Reverend, do you want 13 to say anything at this point or did we answer all your 14 questions?
15 REVEREND CANNON: I too want to reiterate the 16 fact that we are happy to have good neighbors. The plant 17 has done so much for the community and I can look right 18 around and I see someone who is employed in taking care of 19 the building for us and he works for the plant, so it has 20 had a tremendous impact on the county and we get good 21 reports that they are safe and therefore we can look across 22 the lake and see the glory of God and the wonder of 23 technology working hand in hand, and therefore, we are happy 24
Page 55 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 and we praise God.
1 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Reverend Cannon.
2 Anybody else have a statement that they want to 3
make before we go to Mr. Moniak?
4 (No response.)
5 MR. CAMERON: Don, would you like to give us 6
your comments?
7 MR. MONIAK: Sure.
8 Because youd hate to have a meeting, Chip, 9
right, where somebody doesnt speak from the podium -- isnt 10 that true?
11 MR. CAMERON: I do like it when someone comes up 12 and speaks from the podium.
13 MR. MONIAK: Im glad I can oblige.
14 MR. CAMERON: Good.
15 MR. MONIAK: My name is Don Moniak, I live in 16 Aiken, South Carolina, Im a free lance writer and 17 independent technical and environmental consultant. I used 18 to work for the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and 19 I wrote the only contention -- wrote and argued the only 20 contention on reactor relicensing that is going to be argued 21 before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel.
22 I want to say that this relicensing process is 23 so complex and so difficult for people to grasp exactly what 24
Page 56 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 is being evaluated and what is being proposed, that it 1
almost makes no sense to have public participation because 2
everybody comes in confused and they leave confused.
3 Even the licensing board judges seem very 4
frustrated by the rules and one of the NRC lawyers stated 5
during a prehearing that the rules are perplexing, theyre 6
difficult to understand and at times theyre confusing.
7 This is NRCs own lawyers.
8 So the rules are written in a way that 9
essentially excludes the public. And I know at the last 10 meeting, I read the transcript from the meeting in December 11 that was held here and Brett Bursey talked about how the 12 adjudication process is an extra step towards -- you know, 13 adding to that safety margin. And its not just because 14 people are -- the public is arguing it, but its because 15 also when you get the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 16 panel going, theyre very sharp people and they really hold 17 the NRC staffs feet to the fire and the licensees feet to 18 the fire. They are very difficult to pull one over on and 19 they really are effective, theyre a good third step to make 20 sure that things are going to happen as SCANA and NRC say.
21 When you remove that third step, youre actually 22 cheating the system, which nuclear power is a high 23 consequence industry, which means its a dangerous industry, 24
Page 57 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 which means it has to be safer than other industries because 1
the consequences of the accidents are so severe. If you 2
dont believe me, Sandia National Laboratory and most other 3
NRC contractors say this matter of factly.
4 So its unfortunate that there is no -- not more 5
questions, especially out of Columbia, because quite a few 6
environmentalists from Columbia come down to Aiken, North 7
Augusta, to discuss Savannah River Site issues -- theyre 60 8
miles from there, theyre 28 miles from here.
9 At the last meeting, somebody asked how many 10 people with NRC staff, how many are SCE&G, SCANA -- you 11 know, how many people in here are not being paid to be here 12 and are just members of the public. I was just curious.
13 (Show of hands.)
14 MR. MONIAK: Five.
15 There was also a discussion about public 16 involvement and Im not sure, there was an elected official 17 who said that the notice was -- it was insufficient notice 18 and Chip Cameron admitted that we can always improve on our 19 notice. Im not sure if there was any improvement here or 20 not, somebody else can decide that.
21 But the timing was also raised, they said that 22 it would be better to have this on a Saturday when more 23 people are off than during the week, but its not a 24
Page 58 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 Wednesday now when more people go to church at night, they 1
have moved it to Monday, so I dont know if that was done --
2 todays Tuesday actually, right? Yes, Tuesday.
3 There was a third question that was asked, is 4
what about health impacts in the area, because there were 5
concerns over rising cancer rates and other illnesses which 6
would be extremely difficult to trace back to Summer Nuclear 7
Power Plant even if it was Summer Nuclear Power Plant 8
causing these problems, because environmental epidemiology 9
as a discipline is almost impossible. As a friend of mine 10 once said to the Centers for Disease Control people who were 11 conducting a community health assessment, he said you all 12 couldnt find an exposure pathway if you had gone to Bhopal, 13 India. And they just said well, we think we could have.
14 You know, they werent offended by this, they may have had 15 some difficulties, believe it or not, in their mind.
16 So it would be very difficult to find this out, 17 but nonetheless, it seems to be incumbent upon the NRC and 18 SCE&G to at least address this issue and identify what 19 sources of hazards, contaminants in general in this area 20 there are. Theres a very high frequency of electrical 21 power lines here and radio frequency -- electromagnetic 22 radiation from these is harmful. How much is harmful is 23 under debate, but the former Soviet Union held that much, 24
Page 59 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 much less -- their standards were well below ours. In fact, 1
I read somewhere that their standard was anything above zero 2
was an impact. And the former Soviet Union, now the 3
Russians, they have a strange economy and its a different 4
place, but the one thing they do know is radio frequency and 5
electromagnetic technology. They are way ahead of us in 6
terms of developing electromagnetic bombs.
7 So I didnt see that anywhere, maybe I missed 8
it. What other factors are there that could be causing 9
health impacts in the area. It doesnt mean that you have 10 to say whether Summer is or not, just say that these other 11 things could be causing it. The National Academy of 12 Sciences comes out and says that oh, power lines dont cause 13 leukemia. Well, sure, maybe they dont, but theres a lot 14 of other impacts, especially neurological, that it could be 15 causing. If youve ever met anybody who lives next to a 16 substation, listening to that drone all day long and its in 17 their house and its in their mind and they cant get it out 18
-- people who live next to substations are often times a 19 different breed. I would never live that close to one.
20 So the second set of things I had was questions.
21 What is the bottom line motivation for getting a relicensing 22 20 years ahead of time? And I just want to know, does this 23 improve the ledger, the books for SCANA and Santee-Cooper?
24
Page 60 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 Its just a yes or no question. If it helps their financial 1
situation by making their books look a little more 2
presentable, having less liability, less capital investment 3
per year; you know, just come out and say that because that 4
may be a socio-economic impact, but I dont remember seeing 5
it.
6 Does license renewal mean that the plant will 7
operate another 20 years or that it will even operate up 8
until the end of the 40 years?
9 And in all of these relicensings, there doesnt 10 seem to be much analysis on what the impact would be of an 11 operator suddenly closing a plant because the energy is not 12 needed, its too expensive, theres been new technology. In 13 the next 20 years, who knows whats going to happen in terms 14 of energy technology. Nuclear power could be obsolete in 20 15 years, as we currently know it.
16 What would be that socio-economic impact? What 17 would be the impact of early closure, especially if the 18 governments plan on this operating another 20 years, local 19 governments.
20 And I also read that inside of the 10-mile 21 radius, I guess the evacuation area, the population has not 22 enjoyed the same level of growth as the other parts of the 23 county. This is not a county that experiences a lot of 24
Page 61 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 growth, which can be a good thing too, but does this plant 1
affect the ability of the county to bring in other 2
industries, both this and Newberry? Are there industries 3
that would think about moving here, smaller scale ones that 4
will not because theres a nuclear power plant nearby? Are 5
the people not moving to within the 10-mile radius because 6
of the plant? What is the reason for the exodus of people 7
from that 10-mile radius? And somewhere in there it said 8
that it either decreased -- a lot of people have left, 9
something like 220 people left in a 20-year period in an 10 area where theres only 1000 to begin with.
11 So my point is because in the south, a lot of 12 these power plants are located in very rural areas, they all 13 seem to be put 25 to 30 miles away from a population center.
14 I guess that was the siting criteria back in the 60s, 70s.
15 And some of these places just have the worst poverty in the 16 country, never mind in South Carolina. Im speaking 17 specifically about Plant Vogtle in Georgia, where the 18 poverty rate is almost 30 percent in Burke County.
19 So South Carolina is dominated by nuclear power 20 and yet its schools are behind and it has higher poverty 21 rates than the rest of the country and essentially its a 22 state, unlike North Carolina, that went a separate way. It 23 relied upon government subsidies and large corporations to 24
Page 62 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 do its work rather than going after a high tech boom.
1 So anyway, I just would like to hear those 2
questions kind of addressed in the EIS. Thank you.
3 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Don, for those comments 4
and the staff is going to have to consider those to see 5
whether theyre within scope and to see how to address them.
6 I guess just for the record, I just would add 7
one thing -- and thanks for taking us back to scoping, its 8
always important to make that tie-in. And you raised the 9
comment about the notice, and indeed, we realized that 10 notice for this community had to be done in a different way 11 and Councilman Marcharia, the person who raised that the 12 last time, before he left today, he in fact gave the NRC 13 staff compliments for how they did and particularly Mr. Greg 14 Suber, the project manager, for how the notice was conducted 15 for this particular meeting. So I just let the record note 16 that.
17 Is there anybody else who wants to make a 18 comment at this point?
19 (No response.)
20 MR. CAMERON: Okay, were going to be back 21 tonight at 6:00 for open house, 7:00 meeting for anybody who 22 cares to join us again, but most importantly, I think that 23 for all of you who are here, the NRC staff is here, our 24
Page 63 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 expert consultants are here and I would just ask the NRC 1
staff to talk to people who raised issues, to perhaps give 2
them some more information.
3 And Steve, we traditionally go to the person who 4
does the real welcome to just close the meeting out for us.
5 So youre the section chief, why dont you do that.
6 MR. WEST: I just wanted to thank you, reiterate 7
what Chip said and thank you again for taking the time out 8
of your day to come to listen to what we had to say.
9 I appreciate the comments we got this afternoon.
10 I hope if you do have comments but didnt choose to speak 11 up, you will submit them, presumably -- I dont know if we 12 handed out information with your address and phone number, 13 Greg, but if you dont have that -- okay, well make sure you 14 take that with you and submit the comments.
15 Thank you again.
16 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 17 3:10 p.m.)
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Page 64 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10