ML033020181
"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.
| ML033020181 | |
| 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: ML033020181 (40) | |
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 7:30 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.... 8 6
7 Overview of Environmental Review Process, Gregory Suber. 13 8
9 Results of Environmental Review, Ted Doerr, Gregory 10 Suber................................................ 19 11 12 How Comments can be Submitted, Gregory Suber............ 44 13 14 Public Comments......................................... 46 15 16 Closing, Steve West..................................... 51 17 18 19 20
Page 3 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 P R O C E E D I N G S 1
MR. CAMERON:
2 Hi, everybody, were going to get started now. My name is Chip Cameron and 3
Im the Special Counsel for Public Liaison at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and I 4
just want to welcome you all to the NRCs public meeting tonight.
5 The topic we want to discuss with you tonight is the environmental 6
evaluation, its in the form of whats called a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the 7
environmental evaluation that the NRC has prepared to assist it in deciding whether to 8
renew the operating license for the V.C. Summer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1.
9 And as all of you probably know, the NRCs evaluation was trigged by 10 an application that we received from South Carolina Electric & Gas to renew the 11 operating license.
12 Its my pleasure to serve as your facilitator, your moderator for the 13 meeting tonight and in that role, Ill try to help all of you -- all of us to have a productive 14 meeting.
15 The format for tonights meeting is simple. Were going to have a few 16 brief NRC presentations, to give you some background about the license renewal 17 process, and most importantly, the preliminary findings on environmental impacts that 18 are in the draft environmental impact statement. Well go out to you for questions to 19 make sure that we have clearly explained everything.
20 The second part of the meeting is going to be for us to listen to you, to 21 any comments that you might have about the draft environmental impact statement, 22 about license renewal process.
23
Page 4 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 Ground rules are real simple. If you want to say anything, just signal 1
me and Ill bring you this cordless microphone. Tell us your name and affiliation, if 2
appropriate. And I would just ask that only one person speak at a time so that we can 3
get a clean transcript.
4 We're taking a transcript of tonights meeting and let's give our 5
attention to whomever has the floor at the moment. Peggy is our stenographer tonight.
6 I just want to introduce you to the people who will be talking to you 7
tonight and what they're going to be talking about.
8 In a moment, we're going to go to Mr. Steve West, who is right here.
9 Steve is going to formally welcome you. He is with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 10 he is the Section Leader of the Policy and Programs Section in our License Renewal 11 and Environmental Impact Program. Steve has been with the agency for about 20 years 12 in all aspects of reactor licensing, inspection, rulemaking. He has a bachelor's of 13 engineering degree in fire protection engineering from the University of Maryland.
14 We're then going to go for two presentations to give you an overview 15 of the license renewal process. The first presentation is going to be by Mr. Raj Auluck, 16 who is right here. Raj is the Program Manager for the Safety Side Evaluation of this 17 license renewal application and he'll be explaining what is done under the safety 18 evaluation.
Raj also has been with the NRC for about 20 years doing rulemaking, 19 doing reactor licensing. He has a master's and a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from 20 the University of Maryland -- Dr. Auluck, appropriately.
21 We're then going to go to Mr. Gregory Suber, who I think you all know.
22 We also have some of Greg's relatives in the audience tonight. Greg has been with us 23
Page 5 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 for three years. Hes the Project Manager for the Environmental Review of this license 1
renewal application. Before he joined the NRC, he was with the Bechtel Power 2
Corporation for four years. And he also has an impressive educational background, a 3
masters in environmental science from Duke University and a bachelors in mechanical 4
engineering from Howard University.
5 Then were going to get -- well go to you for any questions about 6
process, but then were going to get into the heart of the presentation tonight and we 7
have Dr. Ted Doerr, right here. Ted is the Team Leader of the group of experts that 8
have assisted the NRC in evaluating the environmental, potential environmental impacts 9
from a license renewal for V.C. Summer. Ted is an ecologist by training. He has a 10 bachelors, a masters and a Ph.D. in ecology. Hes worked on various projects all over 11 the country evaluating environmental impacts, and those include projects in Mississippi 12 and in Georgia as well as this one in South Carolina.
13 After Ted is done talking about the environmental impacts, were going 14 to go to a special subject that Greg Suber is going to do for us thats going to be 15 something called severe accident mitigation alternatives, basically known as SAMAs.
16 Then hell give you the overall conclusion and well go out to you for 17 any comments that you might have. I know that we have the chair of the County 18 Council with us, Councilman Murphy is here, and I think itll be appropriate to go to him 19 first for any comments that he might have at that time. Lets try to get you the 20 information in the presentations.
21 Steve, do you want to start us off? And thank you all for being here, 22 helping us with this decision. Steve West.
23
Page 6 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 MR. WEST: Thank you, Chip. Good evening.
1 As Chip mentioned, were here tonight to discuss the environmental 2
impacts evaluation of V.C. Summers license renewal application for an additional 20 3
years of operation. On behalf of myself and the other NRC staff that are here, actually 4
from the V.C. Summer plant site, from our regional office in Atlanta, from Headquarters 5
and also our contractors from Los Alamos National Laboratory, Id like to welcome you 6
to the meeting and its our pleasure to be here to present this information to you tonight 7
and were looking forward to your questions and your comments.
8 The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the NRC regulations limit nuclear 9
power plant licenses to 40 years of operation, but they do allow for license renewal for a 10 period of 20 additional years.
11 The expiration date of the V.C. Summer license -- and I got this wrong 12 in the earlier meeting, but my crack staff corrected me -- expires in August of 2022. I 13 think thats right.
14 South Carolina Electric & Gas Company has submitted an application 15 for license renewal in August of last year, August of 2002.
16 The NRC staff, some of whom are here tonight and our contractors, 17 are currently performing both safety and environmental reviews of the application.
18 Tonight well describe the NRCs license renewal process for nuclear 19 power plants with emphasis on the environmental review process. When Im finished, 20 Mr. Raj Auluck will provide a brief summary of the NRCs license renewal process and 21 then Greg Suber will provide a brief summary of the environmental review process.
22 We will also provide the results of our review of the various 23
Page 7 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 environmental impacts, our preliminary recommendations and the remainder of our 1
review schedule.
2 When were done with those presentations, we will invite your questions and 3
comments and also let you know how to submit comments to us outside of this meeting.
4 So you have several opportunities or several ways to submit comments for our 5
consideration.
6 With that, Ill turn it over to Raj for a brief overview of the process 7
itself.
8 DR. AULUCK: Thank you, Steve.
9 Good evening. As Steve just mentioned, my name is Raj Auluck and I 10 am the project manager for the safety review of the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station 11 license renewal application.
12 Before discussing the license renewal process and the staffs safety 13 review, I would like to talk about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its role in 14 licensing and regulating nuclear power plants.
15 The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 authorizes the NRC to regulate the 16 civilian use of nuclear material. The NRCs mission is three-fold: to ensure adequate 17 protection of public health and safety; to protect the environment; and to provide for 18 common defense and security.
19 The NRC consists of five commissioners and one of them is the 20 chairman, and the NRC staff. The regulations enforced by the NRC are issued under 21 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, commonly called 10 CFR. 22 The Atomic Energy Act provided for a 40-year license term for power 23
Page 8 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 reactors, but it also allows for renewal of licenses, as Steve mentioned earlier. The 40-1 year term is based primarily on economic and antitrust considerations, rather than safety 2
limitations.
3 Major components of the power plant were initially expected to last for 4
up to 40 years. However, operating experience has demonstrated that some major 5
components, such as steam generators, will not last that long.
6 For that reason, a number of utilities have replaced major 7
components. Since components and structures can be replaced or reconditioned, plant 8
life is really determined primarily by economic factors.
9 License renewal applications are submitted years in advance for 10 several reasons. If a utility decides to replace a nuclear power plant it can take up to 10 11 years to plan and construct new generating capacity to replace that nuclear power plant.
12 In addition, decisions to replace or recondition major components can 13 involve significant capital investment. As such, these decisions involve financial 14 planning many years in advance of the extended period of operation.
15 South Carolina Electric & Gas company has applied for license 16 renewal under 10 CFR Part 54, and requests authorization to operate V.C. Summer for 17 an additional 20 years. As Steve mentioned, the current operating license for V.C.
18 Summer expires August 6, 2022.
19 Now I would like to talk about license renewal, which is governed by 20 the requirements of 10 CFR Part 54, or the License Renewal Rule. This part of the 21 Code of Federal Regulations defines the regulatory process by which a nuclear utility 22 such as South Carolina Electric & Gas applies for license renewal.
23
Page 9 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 The License Renewal Rule also incorporates 10 CFR Part 51 by 1
reference. This part provides for the preparation of an environmental impact statement.
2 The license renewal process defined in Part 54 is very similar to the 3
original licensing process in that it involves a safety review, an environmental impact 4
evaluation, plant inspections and a review by the Advisory Committee on Reactor 5
Safeguards, or the ACRS.
6 The ACRS is a group of scientists and nuclear industry experts who 7
serve as a consulting body to the Commission. The ACRS performs an independent 8
review of the license renewal application and staffs safety evaluation, and reports its 9
findings and recommendations directly to the Commission.
10 The next slide illustrates two parallel processes. The two parallel 11 processes are the safety review process and the environmental review process. These 12 processes are used by the NRC staff to evaluate two separate aspects of the license 13 renewal application.
14 The safety review involves the staffs review of the technical 15 information in the application for renewal to verify, with reasonable assurance, that the 16 plant can continue to operate safely during the extended period of operation.
17 The staff assesses how the applicant proposes to monitor or manage 18 the aging of certain components that are within the scope of license renewal. The 19 staffs review is documented in a safety evaluation report, which is provided to the 20 ACRS. The ACRS reviews the safety evaluation report, holds public meetings and 21 prepares a report to the Commission documenting its recommendations.
22 The safety review process also involves two or three inspections which 23
Page 10 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 are documented in NRC inspection reports. In its decision to renew an operating 1
license, the NRC considers the safety evaluation report, the ACRS report, the inspection 2
reports and the NRC Regional Administrators recommendations.
3 At the bottom of the slide is the other parallel process, the 4
environmental review, which Gregory Suber will discuss shortly. The results of the 5
environmental review also factor into the agencys decision on the application.
6 In the safety evaluation report, the staff documents its assessment of 7
the effectiveness of the applicants existing or proposed inspection and maintenance 8
activities to manage aging effects applicable to passive long-lived structures and 9
components.
10 Part 54 requires the application to re-evaluate those design analyses 11 that assumed 40 years of plant operations in the original license. The re-evaluation 12 extends the assumed operating period to 60 years. These required re-evaluations are 13 called time-limited aging analyses.
14 Current regulations are adequate for addressing active components, 15 such as pumps and valves, which are continually challenged to reveal failures and 16 degradation, such that corrective actions can be taken.
17 Current regulations also exist to address other aspects of the original 18 license, such as security and emergency planning. These current regulations will also 19 apply during the extended period of operation.
20 In October 2002, the NRC issued a Federal Register notice to 21 announce its acceptance of the South Carolina Electric & Gas Companys application for 22 renewal of the operating license for V.C. Summer. This notice also announced the 23
Page 11 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 opportunity for public participation in the process. No such requests were received.
1 This concludes my summary of the license renewal process and staffs 2
safety review. We will now proceed with the environmental review process presentation 3
and after that, well be prepared to respond to any questions.
4 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Greg.
5 MR. SUBER: Good evening. Id just like to thank you all for coming.
6 My name is Gregory Suber and I am the environmental project 7
manager for the V.C. Summer license renewal project. I am responsible for the efforts 8
of the NRC staff and our contractors from the labs to document and conduct the 9
environmental review associated with South Carolina Electric & Gas Companys 10 application for license renewal at V.C. Summer.
11 The NRC has determined that it will prepare an environmental impact 12 statement associated with the license renewal of an operating plant for an additional 20 13 years. Therefore, following the process required by NEPA, we are preparing -- or we 14 have prepared a draft environmental impact statement that describes the environmental 15 impacts associated with operation of V.C. Summer. That draft environmental impact 16 statement was issued in July of this year and this meeting today is being held to talk 17 about our preliminary conclusions.
18 The National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, was enacted in 19 1969. It is one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation that has ever 20 passed in this country. It requires that all federal agencies use a systematic approach to 21 consider the environmental impacts during certain decision-making proceedings 22 regarding major federal actions.
23
Page 12 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 NEPA requires that we examine the environmental impacts of a 1
proposed action and consider mitigation measures, which are measures that lessen the 2
impacts. NEPA also requires that we consider alternatives to the proposed action and 3
that the impact of those alternatives also be evaluated. Finally, NEPA requires that we 4
disclose all of this information to the public and invite the public to comment.
5 This slide describes the objective of our environmental review. Simply 6
put, we are trying to determine whether license renewal at V.C. Summer is acceptable 7
from an environmental standpoint. The way we word this is a little complex. What we 8
say is were deciding -- whether or not the plant actually operates for an additional 20 9
years will be determined by others, such as South Carolina Electric & Gas Company 10 and the state regulator agencies and it will also depend on our safety review. We say to 11 determine whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for V.C.
12 Summer are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning 13 decision-makers would be unreasonable. And simply stated, what were saying is that 14 were evaluating this plant to make that option available in the future. Were not saying 15 that V.C. Summer will definitely operate, were not saying that it wont operate. Were 16 examining the parameters to see if the plant can safely operate, and if it can, were 17 leaving the decision to operate in the hands of the people who run the plant and in the 18 hands of the state regulators.
19 This slide shows in a little more detail the environmental review 20 process that Dr. Auluck spoke of earlier. We received the application on August 6 of 21 2002, we issued a Federal Register notice of intent in October of 2002 informing the 22 public that we were going to prepare an environmental impact statement and give the 23
Page 13 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 public an opportunity to provide us with comments on the scope of that review. On 1
December 12 of 2002, during the public scoping period, we held two meetings here in 2
Jenkinsville to receive public comments on the scope of our review and to discuss what 3
should be included in an environmental impact statement.
4 Also in December we went to the V.C. Summer site with a combined 5
team of NRC staff and personnel from three of our national laboratories that have 6
backgrounds in the specific technical and scientific disciplines required to perform the 7
environmental review. We familiarized ourselves with the site, met with staff from 8
SCE&G to discuss the information submitted in support of license renewal, we reviewed 9
environmental documentation at the plant and examined SCE&Gs evaluation process.
10 In addition, we contacted state, federal and local government agencies 11 as well as social services in the region to obtain information about the general area and 12 on the V.C. Summer plant in particular.
13 At the close of the scoping period, we gathered and considered all of 14 the comments that we received from the public and from governmental agencies. When 15 appropriate, these comments were incorporated into the document that we are 16 presenting here today.
17 In July of 2003, we issued the draft environmental impact statement 18 for public comment. The Summer DSEIS, or draft environmental impact statement is a 19 supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement. In fact, its Supplement 20 Number 15 and thats because we rely on the Generic Environmental Impact Statement 21
-- we rely on findings as a part of our conclusions. The report is not a draft because it is 22 incomplete, but rather because we are in the intermediate process of making our 23
Page 14 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 decision.
1 We are in the middle of a public comment period which allows you and 2
other members of the public to take advantage of reviewing the document and to have 3
input on the results. After we gather these comments and evaluate them, we will decide 4
whether or not to change portions of the environmental impact statement and then the 5
NRC plans to issue the final environmental impact statement near the end of February 6
2004.
7 That concludes my introductory comments.
8 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, Greg; thank you, Raj.
9 Thats the overview of the process. Are there questions about the 10 process at this point? Anything that we can clear up for anybody about how the process 11
-- license renewal process works?
12 (No response.)
13 MR. CAMERON: Okay, before we go to Dr. Doerr, I just want to 14 introduce one person to you, who is an important part -- vital part of the NRC team for 15 ensuring that the plants operate safely. Raj talked about inspection findings and 16 whatever. Well, I wanted to introduce you to Mr. Malcolm Widdman, who is right here.
17 Hes the senior resident inspector who is at the Summer plant. Mr. Widdman and his 18 colleague, Mark King, are the NRCs eyes and ears at the plant to ensure that 19 regulations are being followed and the plant is operating safely. I just wanted to 20 introduce Malcolm to you.
21 Now were going to go to the findings, preliminary findings in the draft 22 environmental impact statement and this is Dr. Ted Doerr.
23
Page 15 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 DR. DOERR: Good evening.
1 For the environmental review, we established a team made up of NRC 2
staff supplemented by experts in various fields from the national laboratories. This slide 3
gives you an idea of the areas these experts evaluated.
4 The generic environmental impact statement for license renewal, also 5
known as NUREG 1437, identifies 92 environmental issues that are evaluated for 6
license renewal; 69 of these issues are considered generic or Category 1, which means 7
that the impacts are the same for all reactors or the same for all reactors with certain 8
features, such as plants that have cooling ponds. For the other 23 issues, 21 are 9
referred to as Category 2. The NRC found that the impacts were not the same at all 10 sites and, therefore, a site-specific analysis was needed. In addition, two issues are 11 referred to as not categorized and, therefore, a site-specific analysis also is needed.
12 Only certain issues addressed in the generic environmental impact 13 statement are applicable to V.C. Summer. For those generic issues that are applicable 14 to V.C. Summer, we assessed if there was any new information related to the issue that 15 might affect the conclusions reached in the generic environmental impact statement. If 16 there is no new information, then the conclusions of the generic environmental impact 17 statement are adopted. If new information is identified and determined to be significant, 18 then a site-specific analysis would be performed.
19 For the site-specific issues related to V.C. Summer, which are the 20 Category 2 issues, a site-specific analysis was performed.
21 Finally, during the scoping period, the public was invited to provide 22 information on potential new issues and the team, during their review, looked to see if 23
Page 16 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 there were any new issues that needed evaluation.
1 For each issue identified in the generic environmental impact 2
statement, an impact level is assigned. These impact levels are consistent with the 3
guidelines from the Council on Environmental Quality. For a small impact, the effect is 4
not detectable or too small to destabilize or noticeably alter any important attribute of the 5
resource. For example, the plant may cause the loss of adult and juvenile fish at the 6
intake structure. If the loss of fish is so small that it cannot be detected in relation to the 7
total population in the river, the impact would be small.
8 For a moderate impact, the effect is sufficient to noticeably alter, but 9
not destabilize, important attributes of the resource. Using the fish example again, if 10 losses at the intake causes the population to destabilize and decline and then stabilize 11 at a lower population level, the impact would be considered moderate.
12 And finally, for an impact to be considered large, the effect is clearly 13 noticeable and sufficient to destabilize the important attributes of the resource such as 14 the population. So if losses at the intake cause the population to decline to the point 15 where it cannot be stabilized and continually declines, then the impact would be large.
16 In Chapter 2 of the draft supplemental environmental impact 17 statement, we discuss the plant and the environment around the plant. In Chapter 4, we 18 then looked at the potential environmental impacts for an additional 20 years of 19 operation for V.C. Summer. There are several issue areas the team reviewed and 20 evaluated. Ill take just a few minutes to identify the highlights of our review for three 21 areas. If you have any additional questions on our findings, well be glad to answer 22 them.
23
Page 17 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 Entrainment, impingement and heat shock are Category 2 issues used 1
to assess the impact of cooling systems to the aquatic community.
2 Entrainment is the process of aquatic organisms passing through the 3
debris screens at the intake structure and traveling through the cooling system.
4 Impingement is the process of fish and shellfish being drawn into the 5
intake, but are too large to pass through the debris screens and are, therefore, caught 6
on the screens.
7 Heat shock is when aquatic organisms are exposed to very high water 8
temperatures resulting from discharge of water from the cooling system back into the 9
reservoir.
10 We found that entrainment, impingement and heat shock have only a 11 small impact to the populations of fish, shellfish and other aquatic organisms in 12 Monticello Reservoir.
13 Radiological impacts to the public and workers are a Category 1 issue, 14 but because it is often a concern, we wanted to take just a few minutes to discuss it.
15 We looked at the effluent releases and monitoring program during our 16 site visit. We looked at how the gaseous and liquid effluents were treated and released 17 as well as how the solid wastes were treated, packaged and shipped for disposal. We 18 also looked at how the applicant determines and demonstrates that they are in 19 compliance with the regulations for release of radiological effluents.
20 Doses reported in the annual monitoring reports for V.C. Summer 21 were less than one percent of the dose limit specified in the regulations. The releases 22 from the plant are well within limits and the resulting off-site potential doses are not 23
Page 18 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 expected to increase on a year-to-year basis during the 20-year license renewal term.
1 Therefore, the impacts are small.
2 Sixteen terrestrial plant and animal species that are federal or state-3 listed as threatened, endangered or candidates for listing are known to occur in the 4
vicinity of V.C. Summer. Only the bald eagle is known to occur at V.C. Summer or 5
along the transmission lines.
6 Two endangered aquatic species -- the Carolina heel splitter and the 7
short-nosed sturgeon -- are known to occur in the vicinity of V.C. Summer; however, 8
neither of the species are known to occur in Monticello Reservoir, Parr Reservoir or the 9
nearby reaches of the Broad River.
10 NRCs preliminary conclusion is that the impacts of license renewal 11 would be small. Informal consultations with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service have been 12 initiated to receive concurrence on the NRCs determination that license renewal would 13 either have no effect or is not likely to adversely affect these species.
14 SCE&G implemented a process to ensure that information not 15 addressed in or available during the generic environmental impact statement evaluation 16 would be reviewed to ensure that such new and potentially significant information 17 related to the renewal of the license for V.C. Summer would be considered. As a part of 18 the process, SCE&G reviewed each of the Category 1 issues to verify that the 19 conclusions of the generic environmental impact statement remained valid with respect 20 to V.C. Summer. This review was performed by subject matter experts who are also 21 familiar with NEPA issues.
22 The NRC staff also has a process for identifying new and significant 23
Page 19 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 information. The search for new information includes a review of the applicants 1
environmental report and their process for discovering and evaluating the significance of 2
new information; review of records of public comments; review of environmental quality 3
standards and regulations; coordination with federal, state and local environmental 4
protection and resource agencies; and a review of the technical literature. New 5
information discovered by the staff is evaluated for significance using criteria set forth in 6
the generic environmental impact statement.
7 For Category 1 issues, where new and significant information is 8
identified, reconsideration of the conclusions for those issues is limited in scope to the 9
assessment of the relevant new and significant information. The scope of the 10 assessment does not include other facets of the issue that are not affected by the new 11 information. No new and significant information was identified as a result of these 12 efforts.
13 Environmental issues associated with the uranium fuel cycle, solid 14 waste management and decommissioning are all Category 1 issues.
15 Off-site radiological impacts and non-radiological impacts are the 16 environmental issues related to the uranium cycle.
17 Environmental issues associated with solid waste management 18 include storage and disposal of non-radiological waste, low-level waste, mixed waste 19 and on-site spent fuel storage and transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high level 20 waste to a repository.
21 The environmental issues considered for decommissioning are similar 22 to those from operations and include radiation doses, waste management, air quality, 23
Page 20 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 water quality, ecological resources and socio-economics.
1 No new and significant information was identified and the impacts are 2
considered small.
3 We evaluated a number of different alternatives to V.C. Summer. The 4
no-action alternative is a scenario where the NRC would not renew the V.C. Summer 5
operating license. SCE&G would then decommission V.C. Summer when plant 6
operations cease. Also, no replacement power was considered under this alternative.
7 New generation alternatives considered included construction and 8
operation of coal, natural gas and new nuclear power plants both at V.C. Summer and 9
at alternative sites that are previously unused or undisturbed.
10 Another alternative considered was purchasing power from other 11 sources to replace the power from V.C. Summer if operations were to cease. This 12 power could come from within the state, from other states or from Canada or Mexico.
13 Alternative technologies also were considered and included oil-fired 14 plants, wind power, solar power, hydro power, geothermal energy, wood waste, 15 municipal solid waste, other biomass derived fuel, hydrogen fuel cells, a delay in 16 retirement of other power units and utility-sponsored conservation.
17 While there are many possible combinations of alternatives discussed 18 to replace power, for purposes of analysis, we assumed a combination of alternatives 19 consisting of one combined cycle natural gas-fired unit, either at V.C. Summer or at an 20 alternative location, in combination with purchase from other power generators and 21 additional utility-sponsored conservation measures.
22 All of the alternatives have the potential to result in environmental 23
Page 21 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 impacts larger than would occur under the proposed action of license renewal. As an 1
example, if an alternative were selected at a site outside of Fairfield County, then socio-2 economic impacts would be moderate to large as a result of lost tax revenue for Fairfield 3
County and an increase in services required and a gain in tax revenues for the county 4
where the new generation would occur. Similarly, impacts to land use and ecological 5
resources would be moderate to large if a previously undisturbed site was selected for 6
an alternative.
7 Chip.
8 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, Ted.
9 Youve heard Dr. Doerrs summary of our preliminary findings on 10 potential environmental impacts, including impacts of new generation technologies.
11 Are there questions about anything that he talked about our anything 12 you may be curious about in terms of what a potential impact from the operation in the 13 plant might be? Anybody have any questions at this point?
14 (No response.)
15 MR. CAMERON: Okay, and we can -- as we go along through the 16 evening, if something occurs to you, please feel free to ask it. And thank you, Ted.
17 Were going to go back to Mr. Greg Suber to talk about another 18 portion of the environmental impact statement. Its a little different than the analysis that 19 Dr. Doerr told us about. Its severe accident mitigation alternatives. Greg.
20 MR. SUBER: Thank you, Chip.
21 The next part of my presentation deals with the environmental impact 22 of postulated accidents. Section 5 of the draft environmental impact statement is 23
Page 22 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 entitled "Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents." The draft evaluates two 1
classes of accidents -- design-basis accidents and severe accidents.
2 First, well discuss design-basis accidents. Design-basis accidents are 3
those that both the licensee and the NRC staff evaluate to ensure that the plant can 4
respond safely to a broad spectrum of postulated accidents without risk to the public.
5 The environmental impact of design-basis accidents are evaluated during the initial 6
licensing process, and the ability of the plant to withstand these accidents has to be 7
demonstrated before the plant is granted its initial license. Most importantly, the 8
licensee is required to maintain an acceptable design and performance capability 9
throughout the life of the plant, including any extended life operation.
10 The licensee has to demonstrate acceptable plant performance for the 11 design-basis accidents throughout the life of the plant, therefore, the Commission has 12 determined that environmental impacts from design-basis accidents are of small 13 significance. Neither the licensee nor the NRC is currently aware of any new and 14 significant information on the capability of V.C. Summer to withstand design-basis 15 accidents. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts related to design-16 basis accidents beyond those already discussed in the GEIS.
17 The second type of accidents we would like to discuss are severe 18 accidents. Severe accidents are, by definition, more severe than design-basis accidents 19 because they can result in substantial damage to the reactor core. The Commission 20 found in the generic environmental impact statement that the risk of a severe accident in 21 terms of atmospheric releases, fallout onto bodies of water, releases to groundwater 22 and societal impacts are all small for all plants. Nevertheless, the Commission 23
Page 23 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 determined that alternatives to mitigate or lessen severe accidents must be considered 1
for all plants that have not done so. We refer to these alternatives as severe accident 2
mitigation alternatives or SAMA for short.
3 The SAMA evaluation is a site-specific assessment and is a Category 4
2 issue, as was explained earlier by Mr. Doerr. The SAMA review for V.C. Summer is 5
described in Section 5.2 and in Appendix G of the draft. The purpose of performing the 6
SAMA evaluation is to ensure that plant changes with the potential of improving severe 7
accident performance are identified and evaluated.
8 The scope of potential plant improvements were considered and these 9
include hardware modifications, procedural changes, training program improvements 10 and basically a full spectrum of potential changes. The scope includes SAMAs that 11 would prevent core damage and SAMAs that could improve performance, given a core 12 damage event occurs.
13 The SAMA evaluation consists of four steps. The first step is to 14 characterize the overall plant risk and leading contributors to risk. This typically involves 15 the extensive use of probabilistic risk assessment, also known as PRA. The PRA is a 16 study that identifies the different combinations of system failures and human errors that 17 would be required for accidents to progress either to core damage or containment 18 failure.
19 The second step in the process is to identify potential improvements 20 that could reduce risk. The information from the PRA, such as the dominant accident 21 sequence, is used to help identify plant improvements that would have the greatest 22 impact in reducing risk. Improvements identified in other NRC and industry studies as 23
Page 24 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 well as SAMA analysis for other plants was used and considered in this part of the 1
analysis.
2 The third step in the evaluation is to quantify the risk reduction 3
potential and the implementation cost for each improvement. The risk reduction and 4
implementation costs for each SAMA are typically estimated, using what we call a 5
bounding analysis. The risk reduction is generally overestimated by assuming that the 6
plant improvement is completely effective in eliminating the accident sequence it is 7
intended to address. The implementation costs are generally underestimated by 8
neglecting certain factors, such as maintenance costs and surveillance costs associated 9
with the improvement.
10 Finally, the risk reduction and cost estimates are used in a last step, 11 which is to determine whether implementation of any improvement can be justified. In 12 determining whether an improvement is justified, the NRC staff looks at three factors.
13 The first factor is whether the improvement is cost-beneficial. In other words, is the 14 estimated benefit greater than the estimated implementation costs of the SAMA. The 15 second factor is whether the improvement provides a significant reduction in total risk.
16 For example, does it eliminate a sequence or a containment failure mode that 17 contributes to a large fraction of the plant risk. The third factor is whether risk reduction 18 is associated with aging effects during the period of extended operation. In this case, 19 we would consider implementation of that SAMA as a part of the license renewal 20 process.
21 The preliminary results of the V.C. Summer SAMA evaluation are 22 displayed on this slide. Over 200 candidate improvements were identified for V.C.
23
Page 25 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 Summer, based on the review of plant-specific PRA, relevant industry and NRC studies 1
on severe accidents and SAMA analysis performed on other plants. SCE&G reduced 2
this set to 12 potential SAMAs based on a multi-step screening process. Factors 3
considered during the screening process include whether the SAMA is applicable to 4
V.C. Summer due to design differences, whether it would involve major plant 5
improvements that would clearly exceed the maximum attainable benefit and whether 6
the SAMA would provide only minimal risk reduction based on review of the PRA.
7 A more detailed assessment of the conceptual design and cost was 8
then performed for each of the remaining 12 SAMAs. And this assessment is described 9
in Appendix G of the draft.
10 None of the 12 SAMAs were found to be cost-beneficial when 11 evaluated in accordance with NRC guidance for performing regulatory analysis. And 12 based on the review of the SCE&G SAMA analysis, the NRC staff concludes that none 13 of the SAMAs evaluated are cost-beneficial.
14 So to summarize, the NRC staffs preliminary conclusion is that 15 additional plant improvements to further mitigate severe accidents are not required at 16 V.C. Summer as a part of license renewal.
17 Okay, Chip, thats the end of my SAMA presentation.
18 MR. CAMERON: All right, thank you, Greg.
19 Questions from anybody about severe accidents?
20 And just to harken back to this afternoons meeting, Greg, you used 21 the term postulated accidents, and I take it by that, you mean these are -- this is an 22 analysis of hypothetical accidents, it doesnt refer to actual accidents that have occurred 23
Page 26 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 at the plant or anything like that.
1 MR. SUBER: Thats correct. When we talk about postulated 2
accidents, we talk about accidents that could occur but are not very likely to occur at all.
3 Because of the plants design, its possible for this particular accident to happen, but its 4
highly unlikely that it would ever happen. Thats why we use the term postulated.
5 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you.
6 Any other questions on accidents?
7 Yes, maam. And let me get you on the record here for the transcript.
8 Just introduce yourself.
9 MS. HUBBARD: My name is Thelma Martin Hubbard.
10 MR. CAMERON: Did you have a question?
11 MS. HUBBARD: Yes. There were three phases there, so that last 12 one -- could you repeat that?
13 MR. SUBER: Pardon me?
14 Oh, the detailed cost-benefit analysis. Is that what --
15 MS. HUBBARD: (Inaudible).
16 MR. SUBER: Okay, are you --
17 MS. HUBBARD: What Im interested in is the fact what if something 18 does happen. Youre saying it could or could not, but what is the final result.
19 VOICE: I cant hear her.
20 MR. ZALCMAN: This is Barry Zalcman with the staff. Are you trying 21 to differentiate between the postulated accidents, which is what Chip just referred to as 22 hypothetical or improbable accidents, and what would happen if there were a real 23
Page 27 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 accident at the facility?
1 MS. HUBBARD: Yes.
2 MR. ZALCMAN: Okay. Im going to respond to that. My name is 3
Barry Zalcman, Im with the staff. Years ago, I used to be the Section Chief dealing with 4
emergency planning, so Ive got a little background in that area.
5 The licensee, as part of our regulatory requirements, because it is an 6
operating nuclear power plant, not because of license renewal, has numerous programs 7
in place. One of them deals with emergency planning. As Dr. Auluck presented earlier 8
in his presentation, there is something that we refer to as the current licensing basis of 9
the facility. That involves activities, programs that are currently in place at the facility 10 that the agency has already passed judgment on.
11 Gregory indicated this plant is safe today in the eyes of the 12 Commission, but we have layers of defense in depth that deal with how this facility 13 would be able to respond to an emergency in terms of plant performance. And beyond 14 that, theres an extra layer dealing with emergency planning. So there is an emergency 15 plan for this facility dealing with both on-site activities and off-site activities.
16 There are areas around the plant, emergency planning zones that deal 17 with graded types of activities in terms of responding to an event, that include everything 18 from sheltering and evacuation or just notification to the public that you ought to listen to 19 the radio. But there are mechanisms in place to inform the public how to deal with an 20 emergency.
21 We have a prompt notification system. Have you see sirens in the 22 area around this facility? That is all part of the emergency plan that was put in place for 23
Page 28 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 both on-site and off-site actions. So it involves the facility itself. It also involves off-site 1
authorities. The facility would make recommendations to off-site authorities to 2
implement appropriate levels of response if there were a real event, a real accident, a 3
real emergency.
4 In terms of the environmental review, and even the safety review for 5
license renewal, we make a point that those operational programs that are in place 6
today will continue through the period of license renewal. So the emergency plans that 7
are in place today, the drills, the exercises, the procedures, the facilities, the equipment 8
are expected to remain. The agency has already passed judgment on the adequacy of 9
those programs and they provide mechanisms to deal with public information, brochures 10 I presume for this facility like others, so that people in the vicinity around the nuclear 11 power plant have a clear understanding of what their assignments would be if there 12 were an event. If there was a notification that evacuation or sheltering is necessary, 13 then appropriate instructions would be available for what actions you as a member of 14 the public would take -- if there were a real emergency.
15 So were trying to differentiate between what we have to look at for the 16 environmental review. We deal with reasonably foreseeable consequences, reasonably 17 foreseeable events and we try and evaluate what the consequences of the renewed 18 license would be at this facility. Emergency planning and security are programs in place 19 that are not considered in license renewal because they are operational issues today.
20 You dont want to wait for license renewal to address those issues.
21 Does that help?
22 MS. HUBBARD: Yes. I still have questions. I lived here for many 23
Page 29 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 years and I moved away and am just coming back after 47 years --
1 MR. CAMERON: Shes taking a record, thats why I need to have you 2
speak into the microphone.
3 MS. HUBBARD: Im just relocating and Im wondering about so much 4
cancer in this area. They say that Fairfield County has -- what is it, 75 percent deaths 5
from cancer. Does this nuclear plant have anything anywhere that you know of or dont 6
know of and somebody else knows, that causes it. I dont know if the plant causes it, 7
but I know theres a lot of deaths around here.
8 MR. CAMERON: Who can answer that particular question?
9 MR. SUBER: Thank you for raising that concern, and we have 10 brought somebody here who can speak on the cancer situation here in Fairfield County.
11 MR. ZALCMAN: Let me just make a point before Mr. Ladino stands 12 up.
13 This was an issue, I must point out, that was raised to us during the 14 scoping period. Mr. Suber indicated that we were here -- is this better?
15 MR. CAMERON: Go ahead and then were going to have Tony Ladino 16 talk to us a little bit about this. Go ahead, Barry.
17 MR. ZALCMAN: Okay, Barry Zalcman again. Can you hear me now?
18 Okay, Ill do a good commercial.
19 Let me point out that this was an issue that was raised to us during the 20 scoping period. We had a period where the agency had come into this community early 21 in this program seeking assistance as to what should be within the scope of the 22 environmental review, and this issue was raised to us. So if you look at the 23
Page 30 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 environmental impact statement, in the draft document, we have already attempted to 1
respond to that in Appendix A, where we were aware of this issue, we did look a little 2
further. Ill be happy to have Mr. Ladino stand up and characterize that a little better, but 3
health impacts from a radiological perspective is what we do. I mean that is the 4
fundamental mission of the agency, to protect the public from the use of radioactive 5
materials. So this is something that is very, very important to us and of great concern to 6
us.
7 In the presentation a little earlier, you may have heard that the 8
releases to the environment are a very small fraction of standards that the agency has 9
set, in terms of effluent releases, in terms of potential exposures to the public. So this 10 facility, we believe is operating well within the margins, well below the standards of 11 releases to the environment that could have adverse health effects.
12 So with that setting, Ill give it to Mr. Ladino who was actually part of 13 the team and his assignment was to review this area for the agency.
14 MR. LADINO: Can everybody hear that?
15 My name is Tony Ladino and I do health physics and industrial safety 16 and human health and safety reviews for Los Alamos National Laboratory and I wrote 17 some sections that are in the EIS for the V.C. Summer plant.
18 Let me just give you just a little background. When we came last 19 winter, some questions were raised about health effects and how it might relate to the 20 plant and plant operations. So we were aware that that was a concern to some people 21 and I did -- based on my own experience working for or at nuclear facilities and 22 contacting the state and talking to their people and looking at the information that was 23
Page 31 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 provided by the folks at V.C. Summer, I can tell you that theres no evidence of any 1
correlation between health effects and plant operations or plant emissions.
2 There are certainly some health concerns in and around the 3
community and in the state and the state folks are very much aware of that. But they 4
have looked, Ive looked, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission folks are aware of plant 5
operations and we havent seen any relationship between plant operations, plant 6
emissions and some of the health effects, some of the disease and cancer rates in the 7
area. They basically reflect national numbers. Cancer is the second most common 8
cause of death in the state, but thats also across the entire country, cancer is definitely 9
a major cause of death in the country.
10 We looked at diabetes. A question about diabetes came up.
11 Unfortunately the state of South Carolina has one of the highest rates of diabetes of any 12 state in the country. The state health folks at the Department of Health and 13 Environmental Control are very much aware of that. I have talked with them, have 14 invited them to come. Unfortunately, they were unable to come tonight. But theyve 15 studied the incidence of diabetes and have not found anything that would indicate that 16 plant emissions are making any contribution to diabetes. Thats really related more to 17 diet and lifestyle.
18 So does that help any with your concerns?
19 MS. HUBBARD: (Inaudible) 20 MR. CAMERON: Lets get you to just repeat that. Im sorry. Do you 21 want me to -- why dont you just repeat that.
22 MS. HUBBARD: (Inaudible).
23
Page 32 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 MR. LADINO: We can either get that or there is your actual -- your 1
own folks here in the state of South Carolina are very willing to provide information.
2 They were very open with me when I contacted them and I could provide names or 3
phone numbers of some folks right here, even within the county. Im not sure those 4
numbers I have are as up to date as the state numbers, but I can give you those.
5 MR. CAMERON: Well see if we can get you some more information 6
on that.
7 Mike, do you want to say anything at this point about this?
8 VOICE: If I could just get her name and number and Ill get whatever 9
information we do have to her.
10 MR. CAMERON: Okay, right. This gentleman is from the state of 11 South Carolina and he will get you the information. Okay?
12 MS. HUBBARD: You want my name?
13 VOICE: Yes, maam.
14 MR. CAMERON: You can do this off line. All right.
15 Were going to go to Ms. Pearson now. Go ahead, Ms. Pearson.
16 MS. PEARSON: I have a concern over the last statement, overall 17 conclusion, "additional plant improvements to further mitigate severe accidents are not 18 required at V.C. Summer as part of license renewal."
19 Why was that statement even brought up?
20 MR. SUBER: Maybe theres some confusion with the way --
21 MR. CAMERON: Do you want to explain that?
22 MR. SUBER: Yeah. Maybe theres some confusion with the way that 23
Page 33 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 its written. What -- all this statement is saying is that we looked at the plant, we know 1
that the plant as currently designed is safe, we know that our current regulations are 2
keeping it safe and when we looked at it to see if there were changes we could make to 3
even make it safer, that we decided that it was better just to leave it as it is. And thats 4
why we say that to further mitigate. So to mitigate is to change or to make less. Well, 5
its already small enough, so we cant make it any less.
6 MS. PEARSON: But youre still saying that it could have just as well 7
been left off.
8 MR. CAMERON: Ms. Pearson, --
9 MS. PEARSON: I say, are you saying that it would been better just to 10 leave it off? I mean we dont need to know that, I dont think.
11 MR. SUBER: Well, no, we wanted you to have that information. Now 12 youre saying that and if we had left it off, somebody would say well what was your 13 conclusion on that statement, you know. No, we couldnt leave it off because its 14 important, number one, for you to know that we did the due diligence required by the 15 Commission to do it.
16 MS. PEARSON: The last statement --
17 MR. CAMERON: I hate to do this to you again.
18 MS. PEARSON: -- at the V.C. Summer, as part of license renewal. It 19 would have been much better to leave it alone.
20 MR. SUBER: Okay.
21 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you.
22 Maybe what we should do now, because I do want to make sure that 23
Page 34 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 we get to Councilman Murphy and also Councilwoman Kinley -- Greg, can you do your 1
summary for us right now? The summary is going to tell you what the overall conclusion 2
is and where you can submit written comments if you wish.
3 MR. SUBER: Okay, as Chip already indicated, this is a summary 4
statement.
5 The impacts of license renewal at V.C. Summer are small for all 6
impact areas. In comparison, the impacts of the alternatives to license renewal range 7
from small to large.
8 Therefore, the staffs preliminary conclusion is that the adverse 9
impacts of license renewal at V.C. Summer are not so great that preserving the option 10 of license renewal for energy planning decision-makers would be unreasonable.
11 This is a quick recap of our current status. We issued the draft 12 environmental impact statement for V.C. Summer this past July. We are in the middle 13 of a public comment period that is scheduled to close on October 3 of this year. We 14 expect to address the public comments and include any necessary revisions to the draft 15 and issue the final environmental impact statement by the end of February of 2004.
16 This slide provides information on how to access the V.C. Summer 17 environmental impact statement. You can contact me directly at the telephone number 18 given and I can mail you a copy. Or you can view the copy thats available at the library 19 in Winnsboro or at the Thomas Cooper Library on the USC campus in Columbia. The 20 document is also available on the web at the address given and weve a number of 21 copies with us, which you can get as you leave today.
22 This slide gives information on how to submit comments on the draft.
23
Page 35 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 Comments are due by the deadline date of October 3 of 2003. You can submit 1
comments either in writing, by e-mail or by regular mail at the address given on the 2
screen. Or you can bring your comments to the NRC headquarters in Rockville, 3
Maryland and well collect them from there.
4 And that concludes the formal part of my presentation.
5 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you very much, Greg.
6 There may be other questions that we can get to throughout the 7
evening, but Id like to go to Councilman Murphy, who is the chair of the County Council, 8
and I think that he wants to refer to a slide. Were going to get that up there for you. Do 9
you want to use this or come on up here? All right.
10 COUNCILMAN MURPHY: Good afternoon. Theres a slide Id like for 11 you to put up there now.
12 Money isnt everything. To sacrifice health concerns for money would 13 be bad. But when you dont have definitive proof that whats happening is bad and you 14 have money, its good.
15 Now let me just kind of outline that a little bit. When V.C. Summer first 16 came with an interest here, Fairfield County budget for the whole county was less than a 17 million dollars. Our schools were 93 percent federal or state funded. A mill was worth 18 less than $10,000. The quality of life as far as the average salary in the county and 19 quality of life was one of the lowest in the state.
20 V.C. Summer this year put over $17 million into the tax base of this 21 county. What does that mean to Fairfield County? Over 60 some percent of the total 22 budget. What would it mean if V.C. Summer would leave? They put moderate and 23
Page 36 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 large. Thats not the word. Neither one of those words are suitable to what would 1
happen to Fairfield County if V.C. Summer would leave.
2 In 1997, I had a tumor in my throat and I couldnt breathe. They didnt 3
know what it was and finally they located it. So I know what it is when its hard to 4
breathe. Well, if V.C. Summer leaves this county, its going to be hard for this county to 5
breathe.
6 So Im here in full support of this, because they are good corporate 7
neighbors, they look at all the safety issues and we also look at safety issues and 8
question those things. But to have a resource such as this one and one of the safest 9
plants in America and they are willing to operate an additional 20 years with the consent 10 of the federal agencies that have them here, the room should be filled saying lets get 11 this done. This room should be filled. Because without that, we cant even improve on 12 the different things that we have in this county.
13 And as I was reminded, Greenbriar is a way from here and theyre 14 number one in the state when it comes to cancer. I live in Ridgeway and cancer is 15 taking people out down there too.
16 You can point to issues all over the place, but Fairfield County has a 17 lot of health issues, but they have a whole lot of other issues too. Some of those issues 18 are being solved by the funding of the power plant. Our schools, our county, all of these 19 things we run on are funded by this organization.
20 If they were a bad organization, I would be up here saying close them 21 up, regardless of what it was. But theyre not, theyre good corporate citizens. They 22 work with the schools, not only with tax dollars, but they have programs, they donate 23
Page 37 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 books and all of these things to the county. Theyre just a good, good corporate citizen 1
that we in Fairfield County treasure and hope they stay here and relicense for an 2
additional 20 years.
3 Thank you.
4 (Applause.)
5 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, Councilman.
6 Next were going to go to Councilwoman Kinley.
7 COUNCILWOMAN KINLEY: Good evening. Its good to see all of you 8
out here. Sometimes its hard to get a crowd out, so you gentlemen did well getting a 9
good crowd out tonight too.
10 Im just getting over a knee replacement, so Im sorry for the slowness 11 getting up here.
12 I just want to comment, I live two blocks from a wonderful corporation 13 that moved to Fairfield County back in 1917 -- Uniroyal. There were a lot of problems 14 with them. I remember I couldnt hang my clothes out on the clothesline because of the 15 soot. And we went and talked with them, they fixed the problem. Then we had a 16 problem with the smoke coming out with the hot stretch where they were making the 17 tires. We went and talked with them, they took care of the problem. They were a very 18 good corporate neighbor also, they cared about the community.
19 And the one thing I think about V.C. Summer out here, would all these 20 folks be working out here if they thought there was a danger to this? They have some 21 top notch employees. Ive spoken so much about them, Ive worked with a lot of these 22 gentlemen. Im also public relations at the hospital in Winnsboro and we always pick up 23
Page 38 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 the phone and call and we ask for help and they are ready to help us. I told John 1
Kadina, whoever their HR person is, is doing a darned good job hiring the folks out there 2
because they are really caring, they are dependable, they follow through when you ask 3
them to do things for you. I could just cite so many of them, but Im scared Id leave 4
some out.
5 So my hat is off to them, what job they do. And Mr. Murphy is right.
6 And you didnt use your definition of what you told them when we were at the state 7
meeting a couple of weeks ago. He said you know how it is if you have to be on a 8
respirator? He said thats what wed be on in Fairfield County if the nuclear plant left.
9 And hes right. So I really appreciate what they do for us and the benefits that they 10 draw. And Mr. Murphy is right, Greenbriar is number one with cancer. Dr. Gaddy and I 11 have often talked about why Fairfield County has so much heart disease, cancer. But 12 look at all this granite were sitting on. And we cant do a thing about it, can we? But we 13 love Fairfield County and we deal with it.
14 I just want to say nothing but positives for them. We thank them for 15 their help with the county -- $17 million. And guess whod have to pay that if they didnt?
16 The citizens of our county.
17 So I just really want to say thank you to them and I hope that the 18 government will see fit to do the license and this gentleman and I had lunch at the 19 hospital and discussed this about a year ago, didnt we, Gregory?
20 MR. SUBER: Right.
21 COUNCILWOMAN KINLEY: So we just had a good conversation. I 22 want it to be safe for all of us, I want it to be safe for even the ducks out here. You 23
Page 39 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 know, weve got -- its a beautiful area. I almost ran off the road awhile ago coming out 1
looking at the sunset coming out over that water. So you folks are very blessed out 2
here.
3 But I dont want us to blame something on them that might not be 4
responsible for that. So lets do look at some other information maybe before we make 5
that determination. But the nuclear plant I hope is here to stay for another 20 years and 6
we appreciate you and thank you very much.
7 (Applause.)
8 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, Councilwoman.
9 Are there others who want to say anything to us tonight?
10 (No response.)
11 MR. CAMERON: Ok, the NRC staff is going to be here, our expert 12 consultants are going to be here after the meeting if you want to talk to them further, 13 and Im hoping that we have the address straightened out so we can get some more 14 information on that.
15 Thank you, Tony, for an excellent summary on the health issues too.
16 I would just thank all of you for coming out and Im going to turn it over 17 to Steve West to formally end the meeting for us. Steve.
18 MR. WEST: Thank you, Chip.
19 Id just like to thank you all on behalf of all the NRC staff here for 20 coming out tonight, taking the time to meet with us. We appreciate your very thoughtful 21 questions and comments and we will take them into consideration as we complete our 22 review.
23
Page 40 Neal R. Gross & Company (202)234-4433 I hope yall have a safe trip home tonight. Thanks again.
1 (Whereupon, the meeting was concluded at 8:20 p.m.)
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18