ML043090497
| ML043090497 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/2004 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Davis J, NRR/DRIP/RLEP, 415-3835 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ml043090540 | List: |
| References | |
| NRC-019 | |
| Download: ML043090497 (57) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT
Title:
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal: Public Meeting Afternoon Session Docket Number:
50-348, 50-364 Location:
Dothan, Alabama Date:
Thursday, September 30, 2004 Work Order No.:
NRC-019 Pages 1-57 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
2 JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 3
PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 5
6 PUBLIC MEETING - AFTERNOON SESSION 7
8 SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 9
10 11 12 13 The meeting was held at 1:30 p.m. at the 14 Quality Inn, 3053 Ross Clark Circle, Dothan, 15 Alabama, Barry Zalcman, Facilitator, presiding.
16 17 PRESENT:
18 BARRY ZALCMAN, FACILITATOR 19 ANDREW KUGLER 20 JENNIFER DAVIS 21 CRYSTAL QUINLY 22 JACK CUSHING 23 24 25
2 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 A-G-E-N-D-A 1
2 3
WELCOME - FACILITATOR ZALCMAN...............03 4
ANDREW KUGLER....................12 5
6 OVERVIEW OF LICENSE RENEWAL PROCESS 7
JENNIFER DAVIS.............21 8
9 RESULTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 10 CRYSTAL QUINLY.............25 11 JACK CUSHING...............37 12 13 PUBLIC COMMENTS 14 MICHAEL STINSON....................48 15 WALTER HILL........................52 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
(1:35 p.m.)
2 FACILITATOR ZALCMAN: Well, good 3
afternoon, everybody. My name is Barry 4
Zalcman. I'm with the Nuclear Regulatory 5
Commission and serve as Program Manager. It's 6
going to be my privilege today and honor to 7
serve as your facilitator and hopefully we'll 8
be able to have a meaningful meeting with 9
meaningful interaction between you, the public, 10 and the NRC staff.
11 Our job today as part of NRC staff 12 interaction with you is to try and make sure 13 that you get the information that you need to 14 participate and provide us insights that you 15 may have on the work of the Agency.
16 The subject for today's meeting is a 17 license renewal application that was 18 submitted by the Southern Nuclear Operating 19 Company, for the Farley plant, Units 1 and 2, and 20 particularly the environmental review that is 21 part and parcel of the license renewal.
22 We're going to be focusing on environmental 23 issues today.
24 Today's format has two parts. In this first 25
4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 part, the staff will give you background 1
information, give you insights as to the 2
structure of license renewal and how we 3
perform our renewal.
4 Then the second part of the meeting is 5
when we go out to you. It will be a formal 6
declaration as we begin that part of the 7
meeting and we'll be asking you to come and 8
share your views with us, if you have them at 9
that time.
10 There will be some question and answer 11 periods during the first part of the meeting 12 where we will have an opportunity to expand a 13 little further on some of the concerns that 14 you may have.
15 So, if you have questions during those 16 periods I'm going to allow the NRC staff to 17 complete portions of the presentation 18 and then I'm going to go out to 19 the audience. And then, if you have questions 20 of the staff, you can identify yourself and 21 I'll either come over and give you this 22 lavalier that you can talk to or you can come 23 up to the podium and ask the questions about 24 the process and the review completed to date.
25
5 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Then, after the presentation by the staff, 1
again, we're going to come back to you and 2
give you an opportunity to share your views.
3 The staff will tell you a little more 4
about the license renewal process. We're 5
going to have a transcription of today's 6
meeting so that all the comments that you 7
make will actually become part of the record.
8 And with us today is Sue Martin taking the 9
transcript.
10 When we do have the opportunity for you 11 to come up and either ask a question or make 12 a presentation, I'm going to ask that you 13 identify yourself and tell us your 14 affiliation, if that's appropriate. We're 15 going to have the opportunity to interact and 16 I would like to have just one person speaking 17 at a time so that we can, number one, get a 18 clear transcript; number two, and more 19 importantly, so that we can give full 20 attention and respect to the individual 21 that's speaking at the time.
22 When you do have a question after the 23 staff presentation, I will just ask that you 24 identify yourself, raise your right-hand, 25
6 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 we'll come over; eye contact, we'll come 1
over.
2 When we get to the second part there are 3
some folks that have pre-registered to speak.
4 First, what I will do is give the opportunity to 5
the applicant or representative of the 6
applicant to make a presentation, and then 7
those who are pre-registered in advance, and 8
then the rest of you, if you have comments.
9 Some of you may just be here to collect 10 information and take it back. During the course 11 of our presentation we will give you some 12 insight as to how you can share your views 13 with us after the meeting.
14 I would ask when we do have the 15 opportunity for your comments if you could be 16 brief and concise, try and limit it to about 17 five to seven minutes. If you do have 18 prepared remarks then we'll be happy to take 19 them. You can either provide us with a 20 synopsis and put the full remarks on the 21 record or, if you want to read it, you can also 22 share a copy with us and we'll put it in the 23 record.
24 For those of you that are comfortable 25
7 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 enough to come up to the podium you can make 1
your presentation there. Those of you that 2
would prefer to sit in your seat can make it 3
from there. I will be happy to come over 4
with the microphone.
5 In terms of the agenda today, all of you 6
should have received one as you came in, the 7
opportunity to register. If you don't have 8
one, please identify yourself and we'll get 9
one to you. Amy Barrett is helping up 10 at the registration desk. Hopefully, all of 11 you have copies of not only the agenda but 12 also copies of the slides, as well.
13 Once again, NRC is going to provide a 14 brief overview of the entire review license 15 renewal process, both the safety activities, as well 16 as the environmental activities. We're then 17 going to give you a little description of the 18 specific attributes of the review itself and 19 the preliminary findings and conclusions of 20 the staff and environmental team.
21 At the end of the staff presentation 22 we'll give you some details on the schedule 23 for the balance of the review, as well as how 24 you can interact with the staff and 25
8 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 communicate with the staff with your 1
comments.
2 So with that, let me take a few moments 3
to introduce the speakers to you. The first 4
one we're going to have today is Mr. Andy 5
Kugler. Mr. Kugler is the Chief of the 6
Environmental Impact Section in the Office of 7
Nuclear Reactor Regulation at the NRC.
8 It's Andy's group that leads all the 9
environmental reviews for any significant 10 action for the Agency dealing with reactors; 11 that's both power reactors and non-power reactors.
12 So not only is it license renewal but all 13 other licensing actions such as, power upgrates.
14 All of the environmental work is done under 15 Andy's supervision today.
16 Andy and his contractors from National 17 Labs were responsible for developing the 18 draft environmental impact statement that is 19 the subject of today's meeting.
20 Andy did his undergraduate work at 21 Cooper Union which is in New York in mechanical 22 engineering; has done his graduate work in 23 technical management at Johns Hopkins 24 University in Maryland. He has over 25
9 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 twenty-five years of experience. Some work 1
for the U.S. Navy. Some at the River Bend 2
Plant also in the south. And joined the 3
Agency over ten years ago and was a safety 4
project manager, and more recently, an 5
environmental project manager working on 6
license renewal, as well.
7 He clearly has a very deep understanding 8
not only of the environmental issues but also 9
of the safety issues associated with the 10 license renewal and plant operations. After 11 that we'll go to Jennifer Davis.
12 12:43P After Mr. Kugler we'll go to Jenny 13 Davis. Jenny will provide a general 14 discussion of the environmental review, what 15 we do and the process that we have. Jenny 16 has come to us after several years of 17 experience in both the private sector as well 18 as the academic sector. She has a background 19 in historic preservation, classical 20 civilization, as well as archaeology.
21 She had her undergraduate work at Mary 22 Washington College and is the point person 23 today for the Office of Nuclear Reactor 24 Regulation dealing with the National Historic 25
10 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Preservation Act.
1 After that we'll go to Crystal Quinly.
2 Crystal is the project team leader for us in 3
that she coordinates and orchestrates the 4
activities of the National Lab technical 5
assistance that we have working on this 6
project.
7 The NRC staff has technical experts that 8
come to us from Lawrence Livermore and Los 9
Alamos National Laboratory, both of which are 10 operated by the University of California, as 11 well as some specialists from the Pacific 12 Northwest National Laboratory, which is 13 operated by Battelle Memorial Institute.
14 Crystal is part of the environmental 15 evaluations group at Livermore, has a 16 technical background in environmental science 17 with a focus on land use and she got her 18 Bachelor's of Arts degree in environmental 19 science at California State University at 20 Hayward, California in 1994.
21 She also has over ten years experience 22 working with environmental issues in the 23 private sector, as well as with Livermore and 24 the work under the Department of Energy.
25
11 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Finally we're going to have a 1
presentation by Jack Cushing. Jack is a 2
Senior Environmental Project Manager and is 3
the Project Manager for this activity. He's 4
going to provide a very brief discussion on 5
Severe accident analysis work that is part of 6
this environmental review. Then he is going 7
to go into some of the details on how you the 8
public can share your insights with us and 9
how we can capture the material that you are 10 willing to send in as comments on the 11 document.
12 We'll give you some discussion of the 13 schedule and also talk about a feedback form 14 that we would like you to consider filling 15 out to help us improve the process for 16 interactions with the public.
17 Jack is a Senior Environmental Project 18 Manager. He did his undergraduate work in 19 Marine Engineering at Massachusetts Maritime 20 Academy. Jack was a licensed reactor 21 operator for fifteen years so he can actually 22 operate one of these plants we're talking 23 about. He joined the NRC about five years 24 ago and then joined the environmental group, 25
12 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 so Jack is currently the environmental project 1
manager for the Farley project and also the first-2 of-a-kind early site permit. So, not only is he 3
working in the license renewal arena but 4
he's also working in the ESP arena, as well.
5 In addition to the four presenters that I 6
talked about during the course of the staff's 7
presentation, we'll also introduce other NRC 8
folks that are here that may assist them in 9
responding to some of those questions that 10 you may have.
11 So, with that as the background, the 12 formal discussion on the background of the 13 individuals, we're going to hand it over to 14 Mr. Kugler. And with that, I thank you for 15 taking the time in this afternoon to share 16 your interactions with us and let Mr. Kugler 17 take it away.
18 MR. KUGLER: Thank you, Barry. And thank 19 you all for coming out here today to 20 participate in this meeting. I hope that the 21 information that we provide today will help 22 you to understand the process that we're 23 going through, to understand where we are 24 today in that process, and the role 25
13 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 that you can play in helping us to ensure 1
that the final document that we prepare is 2
accurate.
3 First, let me provide some general 4
context for the license renewal process. The 5
Atomic Energy Act gives the NRC the authority 6
to issue operating licenses to nuclear power 7
plants for a period of forty years. For 8
Farley Units 1 and 2, those operating 9
licenses expire in the years 2017 and 2021, 10 respectively.
11 Our regulations also provide for twenty 12 year extensions to those licenses. And the 13 Southern Nuclear Company has applied for 14 renewal for the Farley Units 1 and 2.
15 As part of the NRC's review of the 16 license renewal application, we performed an 17 environmental review to evaluate the impact 18 of another twenty years of operation on the 19 environment. We held a meeting here last 20 January as an early part of that process to 21 gather information from you on the scope of 22 our review.
23 As we indicated at that time, we're 24 returning now to explain what we found in our 25
14 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 review, in the Draft Environmental Impact 1
Statement, and to give you an opportunity to 2
ask questions and to provide comments on that 3
draft.
4 Before I get into the discussion of the 5
license renewal process itself, I would like 6
to take a minute to talk about the NRC in 7
terms of what we do and what our mission is.
8 As I mentioned, the Atomic Energy Act is 9
The legislation that authorizes the NRC to 10 regulate the civilian uses of nuclear 11 material.
12 In exercising that authority, our mission 13 is three-fold. One of our jobs is to protect 14 the public health and safety. We also 15 protect the environment and we provide for 16 the common defense and security.
17 The NRC accomplishes its mission through 18 a combination of regulatory programs and 19 processes such as inspections, enforcement 20 actions, assessments of licensee performance 21 and evaluation of operating experience at 22 nuclear plants throughout the country.
23 Turning now to the license renewal 24 process itself, our review is similar to the 25
15 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 original licensing process for the plants in 1
that there are two tracks. There is a safety 2
review and there's an environmental review.
3 The safety review includes safety 4
evaluation, audits and on-site inspections 5
and an independent review by the Advisory 6
Committee on Reactor Safeguards, which you 7
will often hear us refer to as ACRS.
8 There are two types of safety issues that 9
we have to deal with. There are current 10 issues. These are dealt with on a day-to-day 11 basis today. Then there are aging management 12 issues which we'll address in the license 13 renewal process.
14 Under the current operating license the 15 NRC's regulatory oversight process deals with 16 current issues. We don't plan to wait if 17 there's a current issue and wait for a 18 license renewal application to deal with it.
19 We'll deal with it today.
20 Because some of these issues are being 21 dealt with today, for example, security and 22 emergency planning, and they're dealt with on 23 an ongoing basis, we don't reevaluate them 24 under the license renewal review.
25
16 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Instead, the license renewal review 1
focuses on the aging management issues and 2
programs that the licensing has implemented 3
or will implement to manage the aging of 4
equipment and components. The results of 5
that are documented in the Safety Evaluation 6
Report.
7 As I mentioned, that report will then be 8
independently reviewed by the Advisory 9
Committee on Reactor Safeguards. This 10 committee is an independent organization that 11 is made up of nationally recognized technical 12 experts in nuclear safety and they serve as a 13 consulting body to the commission.
14 They review each license renewal 15 application and they review our safety 16 evaluation report. They come to their own 17 conclusions and recommendations and then they 18 provide those directly to the commission.
19 The environmental review, which Ms. Davis 20 will discuss in more detail in a few minutes, 21 evaluates the impact of license renewal in a 22 number of areas. These are issues such as 23 hydrology, ecology, cultural resources, and 24 socioeconomic issues, among others.
25
17 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Now this slide gives an overview of the 1
entire license renewal process. As I 2
discussed, there are really two tracks; the 3
upper portion of this is the safety review 4
and the lower portion is the environmental 5
review. The safety review involves the NRC 6
staff review and assessment of the safety 7
information as contained in the licensee's 8
application.
9 There's a team of about thirty technical 10 reviewers working for the NRC either at 11 headquarters or as contractors who are 12 conducting that safety review.
13 I would like to introduce the Safety 14 Project Manager. Her name is Tilda Liu and 15 she is here with us today. Tilda, if you 16 could just stand up for a moment. Tilda is 17 leading the safety review.
18 The safety review will focus on the 19 effectiveness of the aging management 20 programs for the plant's systems and 21 structures that are within the scope of 22 license renewal. We review the effectiveness 23 of these programs to ensure that the plant 24 can be safely operated during the period of 25
18 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 extended operation.
1 The safety review process also involves 2
audits and on-site inspections. These 3
inspections are conducted by teams of 4
inspectors brought together from both our 5
headquarters and from our regional offices.
6 There are representatives of our inspection 7
program here today.
8 In particular, the senior resident 9
inspector at the Farley plant Charles 10 Patterson is here today. Charles, if you 11 could. Thank you.
12 He is also assisted at the plant by the 13 resident inspector Rodney Fanner who I don't 14 believe he is with us today. No.
15 The results of the inspections are 16 documented in separate inspection 17 reports and these results combined with the 18 results of the staff's review of the aging 19 management program are documented in the 20 safety evaluation report which we provided to 21 the ACRS for their review.
22 The last of the on-site inspections is 23 underway right now. And in fact, the exit 24 meeting for that inspection will be held 25
19 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 tomorrow at the Houston County Commissioners' 1
Chambers at nine o'clock in the morning.
2 We're also in the process of developing a 3
Safety Evaluation Report.
4 The second part of the review process is 5
the environmental review which includes 6
scoping activities and the development of a 7
Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
8 The Draft Environmental Impact Statement 9
is a supplement to the Generic Environmental 10 Impact Statement for license renewal of 11 nuclear power plants, also refered by us 12 often as the GEIS G-E-I-S.
13 The Draft Environmental Impact Statement 14 has been published for comment and we're here 15 today to briefly discuss the results and 16 receive your comments.
17 In March of next year we expect to issue 18 the Final Environmental Impact Statement, 19 which will address the comments that we 20 receive here today and any comments we 21 receive in writing during the comment period.
22 So as you can see from the slide, the 23 final Agency decision on whether or not to 24 approve the application requires a number of 25
20 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 things to be done. There has to be a Safety 1
Evaluation Report which documents results of 2
our safety review, an environmental impact 3
statement to document the environmental 4
review, the inspection report and the 5
independent report by the Advisory Committee 6
on Reactor Safeguards.
7 I would like to point out the splash 8
marks on the screen. These indicate places 9
where there are opportunities for public 10 involvement.
11 During scoping we were here in January 12 for meetings and we also -- there was also an 13 opportunity for the public to provide written 14 comments.
15 During the comment period on the draft 16 which we're in now, we hold the meetings here 17 again and also you have the opportunity to 18 provide written comments. You will see there 19 is one over here for hearings on the far 20 right. Nobody requested a hearing so that 21 really doesn't apply in this review.
22 And finally, when the ACRS holds its 23 meetings, those meetings are open to the 24 public.
25
21 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Now I would like to turn things over to 1
Ms. Davis to discuss the environmental 2
review, in particular. Thank you.
3 MS. DAVIS: Thank you. As Andy said, my 4
name is Jennifer Davis. I'm the back up 5
environmental project manager for the Farley 6
license renewal review.
7 I would like to discuss in more detail 8
today the environmental review. The reason 9
we conduct an environmental review is because 10 of the National Environmental Policy Act or 11 NEPA, as it's commonly known.
12 NEPA requires a systematic approach in 13 evaluating the impacts of proposed major 14 federal actions. Consideration is given to 15 impacts of the proposed action and mitigation 16 of any impact believed to be significant.
17 Alternatives to the proposed action, 18 including taking no action on the application, 19 are also considered. Our environmental 20 impact statement is a disclosure tool which 21 involves public participation.
22 The Commission has determined that for 23 all license renewals an Environmental Impact 24 Statement will be prepared.
25
22 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Now this slide contains some rather 1
confusing language but to put it simply, our 2
decision standard basically states are the 3
environmental impacts of the proposed action 4
great enough that maintaining the license 5
renewal option of the Farley Units 1 and 2 6
unreasonable.
7 Now this slide is just a general overview, 8
an expansion of what Andy had up earlier 9
and basically it's detailing the bottom part 10 of that slide. And basically, this is where 11 we stand in the process.
12 Southern Nuclear submitted their 13 application to the NRC on September 15th, 14 2003. In December of that same year we 15 issued a Federal Register notice of intent to 16 Prepare an environmental impact statement and conduct 17 Scoping.
18 Now you may ask what is scoping. Scoping 19 is a process whereby we receive comments from 20 interested members of the public to help us 21 scope out the bounds of our environmental 22 review for various disciplines that we 23 consider.
24 We also conducted an environmental site 25
23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 audit. The NRC along with our team members 1
and environmental experts came out to the 2
site in January. In that same week we also 3
held a public scoping meeting here in this 4
room. Many of you may have attended those 5
meetings and provided us comments.
6 All comments received during those 7
meetings and during the scoping phase are 8
included in the scoping summary report. All 9
comments regarding this environmental review 10 in particular are included in Appendix A of 11 the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 12 which we're here to discuss today.
13 During the review we determined that we 14 needed additional information, so in December 15 we sent a formal request for additional 16 information to the licensee. We took that 17 information along with information received 18 during the scoping process and performed an 19 independent evaluation on the environmental 20 issues.
21 We then published the Draft Environmental 22 Impact Statement. Our draft is a supplement 23 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement 24 or GEIS as Andy described earlier.
25
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 The GEIS evaluates environmental issues 1
common to all nuclear power plants throughout 2
the country.
3 Our meeting today is to present our 4
preliminary findings and to gather comments 5
on this draft EIS. Once we receive your 6
comments we will go back, address your 7
comments, make any changes as necessary to 8
the document and in March of 2005 prepare to 9
issue our final environmental impact 10 statements regarding Farley.
11 And that concludes my remarks. And if 12 there's anything else.
13 FACILITATOR ZALCMAN: Thank you, Jenny 14 and Andy. We just completed the front end of 15 the staff's presentation. We've talked at a high 16 level about the process for license renewal 17 and particularly the environmental review and 18 this probably represents the first good stop 19 in the presentation to ask whether or not you 20 have questions of the staff.
21 We will be getting to the details of the 22 environmental impact statement in the next 23 two presenters of the material but are there 24 any questions about the process either on the 25
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 safety side or on the environmental side?
1 I'm sure the staff is prepared to respond.
2 Okay. If not, let me hand it over to Ms.
3 Quinly.
4 MS. QUINLY: Good afternoon. As 5
Barry said, I work for the University of 6
California at Lawrence Livermore National 7
Lab. The NRC contracted with us to provide 8
the expertise necessary to evaluate the 9
impact of license renewal at Farley.
10 The environmental review team consists of 11 nine members from Lawrence Livermore National 12 Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory in 13 New Mexico and Pacific Northwest National 14 Laboratory in Washington.
15 The expertise we provided for the plant 16 relicensing and for alternatives are shown on 17 the screen. Atmospheric science.
18 Socioeconomics and environmental justice.
19 Archeology. Terrestrial ecology. Aquatic 20 ecology. Land use. Radiation Protection.
21 Hydrology. Nuclear safety and regulatory 22 compliance.
23 The Generic Environmental Impact 24 Statement for license renewal, the GEIS, 25
26 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 identifies 92 environmental issues that are 1
evaluated for license renewal. 69 of these 2
issues are considered generic or category one 3
which means that the impacts are common to 4
all reactors or common to all reactors with 5
certain features, such as plants that have 6
7 For the other 23 issues referred to as 8
category two, the NRC found that the impacts 9
were not the same at all sites and therefore 10 site specific analysis was needed.
11 Only certain issues addressed in the GEIS 12 are applicable to Farley because of the 13 design and location of the plant. For those 14 generic issues that are applicable to Farley 15 we assessed if there was any new information 16 related to the issues that might change the 17 conclusion in the GEIS.
18 If there is no new information, then the 19 conclusions of the GEIS was adopted. If new 20 information is identified and determined to 21 be significant then a site specific analysis 22 would be performed.
23 For the site specific issues related to 24 Farley, a site specific analysis was 25
27 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 performed.
1 Finally, during the scoping period the 2
public was invited to provide information on 3
potential new issues, and the team during its 4
review, also looked to see if there were any 5
new issues that needed to be evaluated.
6 For each environmental issue identified, 7
an impact level is assigned. For a small 8
impact, the effect is not detectable or too 9
small to destabilize or noticeably alter any 10 important attribute of the resource.
11 For example, the operation of the Farley 12 plant may cause the loss of adult and 13 juvenile fish at the intake structure. If 14 the loss of fish is so small that it cannot 15 be detected in relation to the total 16 population in the river, the impact would be 17 small.
18 For a moderate impact, the effect is 19 sufficient to alter noticeably but not 20 destabilize important attributes of the 21 resource.
22 Again, for example, if the losses cause 23 the population to decline and then stabilize 24 at a lower level, the impact would be 25
28 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 moderate.
1 And for an impact to be considered large, 2
the effect must be clearly noticeable and 3
sufficient to destabilize important 4
attributes of the resource.
5 The final example is if losses at the 6
intake cause the fish population to decline 7
to the point it cannot be stabilized and 8
continually declines, then the impact would 9
be large.
10 When the Farley team, environmental 11 review team evaluated the impacts from 12 continued operations of Farley, we considered 13 information from a wide variety of sources.
14 We considered what the licensee had to say in 15 their environmental report. We conducted a 16 site audit during which we toured the site, 17 interviewed plant personnel and reviewed 18 documentation of plant operations.
19 We also talked to federal, state, and 20 local officials, as well as local service 21 agencies.
22 Lastly, we considered all of the comments 23 received from the public during the scoping 24 meeting. These comments are listed in 25
29 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Appendix A, along with NCR's responses.
1 This body of information is the basis for 2
the analysis and preliminary conclusions of 3
the Farley supplement.
4 The central analyses in the Farley 5
supplement are presented in chapters two, 6
four, five and eight.
7 In chapter two we discuss the plant, its 8
operations and the environment around the 9
plant. In chapter four we looked at the 10 environmental impact of routine operations in 11 the twenty year license renewal term.
12 The team looked at issues related to 13 cooling systems, transmission lines, 14 radiological, socioeconomic, ground water use 15 and quality, threatened or endangered species 16 and accidents.
17 Chapter five contains the assessment of 18 accidents.
19 At this point I would like to make a 20 distinction. Environmental impacts from the 21 routine, day-to-day operation of the Farley 22 plant for another twenty years are considered 23 separately from the impacts that result from 24 the potential accidents during the license 25
30 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 renewal term.
1 I will discuss impacts from routine 2
operations. Mr. Cushing will discuss impacts 3
from accidents in the next presentation.
4 Chapter eight discusses the alternatives 5
to the proposed license renewal and their 6
environmental impacts. Each of these issue 7
areas are discussed in detail in the Farley 8
supplement. I'm going to give you the 9
highlights but please feel free to ask me for 10 details.
11 One of the issues we looked at closely is 12 cooling system for the Farley plant. This 13 slide shows cooling system process. The 14 issues that the team looked at on a site 15 specific basis included water use conflicts 16 and microbiological organisms. We found that 17 the potential impacts in these areas were 18 small and additional mitigation is not 19 needed.
20 There are also a number of category one 21 issues related to the cooling system. These 22 include issues related to discharges of 23 sanitary waste, minor chemical spills, metals 24 and chlorine.
25
31 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Now recall that as category one issues, 1
NRC already determined that these impacts 2
were small. The team evaluated all of the 3
information we had available to see if there 4
was any that was both new and significant for 5
these issues. We did not find any and 6
therefore we adopted the NRC's generic 7
conclusions that the impact of the cooling 8
system is small.
9 Radiological impacts are a category one 10 issue and the NRC made a generic 11 determination that the impact of radiological 12 release during nuclear plant operations 13 during the twenty year license renewal period 14 are small. But because these releases are a 15 concern, I wanted to discuss them in some 16 detail.
17 All nuclear plants release small 18 quantities of radioactive materials within 19 strict regulation. During our site visit we 20 looked at the release and monitoring program 21 documentation. We looked at how these gases 22 and liquid effluents were treated and 23 released, as well as how the solid wastes 24 were treated, packaged and shipped.
25
32 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 We looked at how the applicant determines 1
and demonstrates that they are within 2
compliance with the regulations for release 3
of radiological effluents.
4 We also looked at data from onsite and 5
near-site locations that the applicant 6
monitors for airborne releases and direct 7
radiation and other monitoring stations 8
beyond the site boundary, including locations 9
where water, milk, fish and food products are 10 sampled.
11 We found that the maximum calculated 12 doses for a member of the public are well 13 within the annual limits. Now there is a 14 near unanimous consensus within the 15 scientific community that these limits are 16 protective of human health.
17 Since releases from this plant are not 18 expected to increase on a year to year basis 19 during the twenty year license renewal term 20 and since we also found no new and 21 significant information related to this 22 issue, we adopted the generic conclusion that 23 the radiological impact on human health and 24 the environment is small.
25
33 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 There are seven aquatic species and 1
eighteen terrestrial species listed as 2
threatened, endangered or candidate species 3
that could occur in the range of the Farley 4
site and the transmission lines.
5 A detailed biological assessment 6
analyzing the effects of continuing operation 7
and relicensing of Farley was prepared and is 8
included in Appendix E of the Farley 9
supplement. Based on this and additional 10 independent analysis, the staff's preliminary 11 determination is that the impact of operation 12 of the Farley plant during the license 13 renewal period on threatened or endangered 14 species would be small.
15 The last issue I would like to talk about 16 from chapter four is cumulative impacts.
17 These impacts may be minor when considered 18 individually but could be significant when 19 considered with other past, present or 20 reasonably foreseeable future actions, 21 regardless of what other agency or person 22 undertakes the other actions.
23 The staff considers cumulative impacts 24 resulting from operation of cooling water 25
34 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 system, operation of the transmission lines, 1
releases of radiation or radiological 2
material, sociological impact, groundwater 3
use and quality impacts, and threatened or 4
endangered species.
5 These impacts were evaluated to the end 6
of the twenty year license renewal term and I 7
would like to note that the geographical 8
boundary of the analysis was dependent upon 9
the resource. For example, the area analyzed 10 for transmission lines was different than the 11 area analyzed for the cooling water system.
12 Our preliminary determination is that any 13 cumulative impacts resulting from the 14 operation of the Farley plant during the 15 license renewal period would be small.
16 The team also looked at these other 17 environmental impacts. All issues for 18 uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management 19 as well as decommissioning are considered 20 category one.
21 For these issues no new and significant 22 information was identified.
23 In 2001, Farley generated about 13.7 24 million megawatts of electricity. The team 25
35 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 also evaluated the potential environmental 1
impacts associated with the Farley plant not 2
continuing operation and replacing this 3
generation with alternative power resources.
4 The team looked at the no action 5
alternative; that is the unit is not 6
relicensed. New generation from coal-fired, 7
gas-fired, new nuclear, purchase power, 8
alternative technology such as wind, solar 9
and hydro power and a combination of 10 alternatives.
11 For each alternative we looked at the 12 same type of issues -- for example, water 13 use, land use, ecology and socioeconomics --
14 that we looked at for the operation of Farley 15 during the license renewal term.
16 For two alternatives, solar and wind, I 17 would like to describe the scale of the 18 alternative because the scale is important in 19 understanding our conclusions.
20 First, solar. Based on the average solar 21 energy available in Alabama and Georgia and 22 the current conversion efficiencies of solar 23 cells, these cells would produce about 146 24 kilowatts per square meter per year. As 25
36 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 such, about 94 million square meters or about 1
36 square miles of cells would be required to 2
replace the generation from the Farley plant.
3 Regarding wind power, Alabama and Florida 4
do not have sufficient wind resources to use 5
large scale wind turbines but Georgia has 6
good wind resources in the uppermost portion 7
of the state.
8 However, even exploring the full 9
resources for all three states, the 10 generation would replace less than four 11 percent of the generation of Farley.
12 Due to the scale of reasonable 13 alternatives, the team's preliminary 14 conclusion is that their environmental 15 effects in at least some impact categories 16 reach moderate or large significance.
17 So in 1996 the NRC reached generic 18 conclusions for 69 issues related to 19 operating nuclear plants for another twenty 20 years.
21 For category one issues, the team looked 22 to see if there was any information both new 23 and significant and whether or not we could 24 adopt the generic conclusions.
25
37 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 For the remaining catergory two issues, 1
the team performed an analysis specific for 2
the Farley site. During our review the team 3
found no new issues that were not already 4
known.
5 Of the category one issues that apply to 6
Farley, we found no information that was both 7
new and significant, therefore, we have 8
preliminarily adopted the conclusions that 9
the impact of these issues are small.
10 The team analyzed the remaining category 11 two issues in the supplement and found the 12 environmental effects resulting from these 13 issues were also small.
14 Again, during our review the team found 15 no new issues.
16 Last we found that the environmental 17 effects of alternatives, at least in some 18 impact categories, reach moderate or large 19 significance.
20 Now I would like to turn this over to Mr.
21 Cushing.
22 MR. CUSHING: Thank you, Crystal. As 23 Crystal said, my name is Jack Cushing and I'm 24 the Environmental Project Manager for the 25
38 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Farley license renewal project and I will be 1
discussing the environmental impact of 2
postulated accidents.
3 These impacts are discussed in chapter 4
five of the Generic Environmental Impact 5
Statement or the GEIS.
6 The GEIS evaluates two classes of 7
accidents; design basis accidents and severe 8
accidents.
9 Design basis accidents are those 10 accidents that both the licensee and the NRC 11 staff evaluated during the initial licensing 12 and on an ongoing basis to ensure that the 13 plant can safely respond to a broad spectrum 14 of postulated accidents without undo risk to 15 the public.
16 The environmental impacts of those design 17 basis accidents was also evaluated because 18 the plant has to demonstrate on an ongoing 19 basis the design is still capable of meeting 20 the design basis accidents.
21 The Commission has determined that the 22 environmental impacts of design basis 23 accidents are small.
24 Neither the licensee nor the NRC is aware 25
39 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 of any new or significant information on the 1
capability of the Farley plant to withstand 2
design basis accidents. Therefore, the staff 3
concludes that there are no impacts related 4
to design basis accidents beyond those 5
discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact 6
Statement.
7 The second category of accidents 8
evaluated in the Generic Environmental Impact 9
Statement are severe accidents. Severe 10 accidents by definition are more severe than 11 design basis accidents because they could 12 result in substantial damage to the reactor.
13 The Commission found in the GEIS that the 14 risk of severe accidents is small for all 15 plants. Nevertheless, the Commission 16 determined that alternatives to mitigate 17 severe accidents must be considered for all 18 plants that have not already done so.
19 We refer to these alternatives as severe 20 Accidents mitigation alternatives or SAMA for 21 short. The SAMA evaluation is a site 22 specific evaluation.
23 The SAMA review for Farley is summarized 24 in section 5.2 of the supplement to the GEIS 25
40 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 and in more detail in Appendix G.
1 The purpose of performing the SAMA 2
evaluation is to ensure that the plant 3
changes to prevent or mitigate severe 4
accidents are identified and evaluated.
5 The scope includes SAMAs that would 6
prevent core damage, as well as damage that 7
improved containment performance given an 8
event occurs.
9 The scope of potential plant improvements 10 that were considered, included hardware 11 modifications, procedure changes, training 12 program improvements, basically a broad 13 spectrum of potential changes.
14 The SAMA evaluation process is a four 15 step process. The first step is to 16 characterize overall plant risks and the 17 leading contributors to plant risks. This 18 involves extensive use of the plant specific 19 probabilistic risk assessment study, which is 20 also known as the PRA.
21 The PRA is a study that evaluates 22 different combinations of system failures and 23 human errors that are required for an 24 accident to progress to either core damage or 25
41 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 containment failure.
1 The second step in the evaluation is to 2
identify potential improvements that could 3
further reduce risk. The information for the 4
PRA is used to help identify plant 5
improvements that would have the greatest 6
impact on reducing risk.
7 Improvements identified in other NRC 8
studies and in other industry studies are 9
also considered.
10 The third step in the evaluation is to 11 quantify the risk reduction potential and the 12 implementation cost for each improvement.
13 The risk reduction and the implementation 14 cost using SAMA are estimated using a bounding 15 analysis, that is, the risk reduction is 16 generally overestimated and assumes that the 17 plant improvement would totally eliminate the 18 risk of that accident sequence.
19 The implementation costs are underestimated 20 and certain costs such as 21 maintenance and surveillance costs are not 22 considered. The risk reduction and cost 23 assessments are then used in the final step 24 to determine whether implementation of any of 25
42 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the improvements can be justified.
1 In determining whether an improvement is 2
justified, the NRC staff looks at three 3
factors. The first is whether the 4
improvement is cost beneficial. In other 5
words, is the estimated benefit greater than 6
the estimated implementation cost of the 7
SAMA.
8 The second factor is whether the 9
improvement produces a significant reduction 10 in overall plant risk, for example, does it 11 eliminate a sequence or a containment failure 12 mode that contributes to a large fraction of 13 plant risk.
14 The third factor is whether the risk 15 reduction is associated with an aging effect 16 during the period of extended operation. In 17 which case if it was we would consider 18 implementation as part of the license renewal 19 process.
20 The preliminary results of the Farley 21 SAMA evaluation are summarized on this slide.
22 124 candidate improvements were 23 identified for Farley based on the review of 24 the Plant Specific Probabilistic Risk 25
43 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Assessments and studies on severe accidents 1
and SAMA analyses performed for other plants.
2 This was reduced to a set of twenty-one 3
potential SAMAs based on a multi-step 4
screening process. Factors considered during 5
this screening process included whether the 6
SAMA was applicable to the Farley design 7
or whether it hadalready been addressed in the existing Farley 8
design procedures or training program.
9 A more detailed assessment of the design 10 and cost was then performed for each of the 11 twenty-one remaining SAMAs. This is 12 described in detail in Appendix G of the GEIS supplement.
13 The cost benefit shows that three of the 14 SAMAs are potentially cost beneficial when 15 evaluated in accordance with NRC guidance for 16 performance regulatory analysis.
17 The cost beneficial SAMAs involved 18 increasing the charging pump lube oil 19 capacity by adding supplemental lube oil 20 reservoir for each charging pump; hardware 21 and procedure modifications for the use of 22 the existing hydro test pump for the RCP seal 23 injection, and finally, developing a 24
44 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 procedure to permit local, manual operation 1
of the feedwater pump when control power is 2
lost, while the plant improvement further 3
mitigates severe accidents they are not required 4
as part of the license renewal because they 5
do not relate to managing the effects of 6
aging during the license renewal process.
7 However, Southern Nuclear Company stated 8
that they plan to implement the 9
feedwater SAMA and are evaluating the other 10 two SAMAs for implementation.
11 Now I would like to take a moment and go 12 over our overall conclusions for our 13 environmental review. And in that review we 14 found that the impacts of license renewal are 15 small in all impact areas.
16 This conclusion is preliminary in the 17 case of threatened or endangered species 18 pending conclusion of our consultation with 19 the Fish and Wildlife Service.
20 We also concluded that the alternative 21 action, including the no action alternative, 22 may have environmental effects in at least 23 some impact categories to reach moderate or 24 large significance.
25
45 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Based on these results, our preliminary 1
recommendation is that the adverse 2
environmental impacts of license renewal for 3
Farley Units 1 and 2 are not so great that 4
preserving the option of license renewal for 5
energy planning and decision matkers would be 6
unreasonable.
7 Now I would like to share some upcoming 8
milestones with you. We issued the Draft 9
Environmental Impact Statement on August 6th, 10 2004. We're in the middle of our comment 11 period, which runs from August 13th to 12 November 5th. And we expect to gather all 13 the comments, the ones we receive at this 14 meeting and any that we may receive in the 15 mail or through e-mail, and then address them 16 and issue our Final Environmental Impact 17 Statement in March of 2005.
18 Now I just want to give you some means of 19 getting a hold of us and in case you have any 20 comments or think of something after the 21 meeting you can call me at the phone number 22 provided. And if you would like to read the 23 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, we do 24 have copies in the back and they are 25
46 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 available at the Houston Memorial Library and 1
the Lucy Maddox Memorial Library.
2 In addition, the draft EIS is available 3
on the NRC's website at www.nrc.gov.
4 Now the purpose of this meeting is to get 5
your comments on the Draft Environmental 6
Impact Statement. And there are three ways 7
to do that outside of this meeting. In the 8
meeting where it's being transcribed so we 9
will capture any of your comments. Outside 10 of the meeting you can mail your comments to 11 the address on the slide. If you happen to 12 be in Rockville, Maryland for any reason you 13 can drop them off in person. And an easier 14 way is for you to e-mail them to us at 15 FarleyEIS@nrc.gov.
16 I would also like to take a moment to 17 mention that we have a public information 18 feedback form, that you should have received when 19 you came in. And if 20 you have time, could you fill it out and 21 drop it off on the way out or you can 22 mail it to us. We appreciate getting some feedback 23 so we can improve our meetings.
24 I would like to thank everyone for taking 25
47 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the time out of your day to come and hear our 1
presentation and we're interested in hearing 2
your comments.
3 FACILITATOR ZALCMAN: Thank you, Jack and 4
again, Crystal. This is the second break 5
that we have where we can respond to any 6
questions you have. The first was on the 7
general overview and the processes.
8 This is now an opportunity to respond to 9
any questions that you may have regarding the 10 process for this review, the specific 11 document that was prepared by the staff, as 12 well as what steps you can take after this 13 meeting is over to communicate with us, offer 14 your comments in written form. I'm sure the 15 staff is ready and prepared to respond to any 16 questions.
17 I'm not seeing any. Thank you very much 18 for listening to the staff and the 19 presentation. What we will do now is go into 20 the second part of today's meeting, where 21 the staff is now prepared to formally accept 22 any comments that you are prepared to make 23 today.
24 We have a couple of folks that have 25
48 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 pre-registered. The first will be the 1
representative of the applicant. That will 2
be Michael Stinson. And I will give him the 3
floor. And we do have one other person that 4
is pre-registered and see if others have an 5
interest to speak. Whether you have 6
registered you will have an opportunity to 7
share your views.
8 1:27P MR. STINSON: Good afternoon. My name is 9
Mike Stinson. I'm vice-president of the 10 Farley plant. The Farley Nuclear plant and I 11 appreciate the opportunity to speak to you 12 today. I want to begin by giving you a 13 little background information about myself.
14 I've been with the Southern Company for 15 more than thirty years. Most of that time 16 was spent here at Plant Farley in the Dothan 17 area. My wife and I raised our family here.
18 We have many friends here and are very 19 concerned about any potential effects that 20 Plant Farley might have on the environment 21 and this community.
22 I started working at Plant Farley in 1972 23 during the construction phase. Throughout my 24 career I've held various positions at the 25
49 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 plant, including numerous engineering, 1
supervisory and management positions. I also 2
received a senior reactor operator's license 3
while here at Farley.
4 Prior to becoming vice-president I served 5
as the General Manager of Plant Farley here 6
in Dothan and the General Manager of Nuclear 7
Support in Birmingham. I share this with you 8
because I want to give you some perspective 9
about my affiliation with this plant and my 10 experience in the nuclear industry.
11 Also, I want to thank the NRC for what I 12 believe to be a very complete review. The 13 Agency has put much time and effort in 14 conducting this review. I believe it to be 15 thorough and comprehensive.
16 Furthermore, the conclusions the 17 Commission reached are consistent with the 18 Plant Farley environmental report conclusions 19 we reached for license renewal.
20 We wouldn't be going through this 21 process in pursuit of license renewal if we 22 didn't feel as a company that it's the right 23 thing to do. And I wouldn't be promoting it 24 personally if I didn't feel it was the right 25
50 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 thing to do, considering all of the 1
contributions that Plant Farley makes to the 2
state and local economy, as well as the local 3
Wiregrass Community.
4 We have been working on the license 5
renewal process since 2001. We've been 6
involved in this project for some time and 7
there's a tremendous amount of work that goes 8
on. Not only in the environmental review but 9
in other parts of the license renewal process 10 which you will not be seeing here today.
11 I do believe the report summary of which 12 you heard today demonstrates the same 13 conclusions we reached. The impact of the 14 renewal is small and certainly acceptable for 15 the renewal period.
16 People that operate and maintain Plant 17 Farley reside in the local area. This area 18 is home to them and their families. They try 19 to be good citizens and good environmental 20 stewards. They are committed to being a good 21 neighbor while we carry out our mission to 22 generate electric power for this area of the 23 country.
24 We think we make a significant 25
51 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 contribution to the local and state economy, 1
as well as to the quality of life in this 2
area by supplying electric power.
3 Availability of our product effects 4
homes, schools, hospitals and businesses. It 5
touches many people. Therefore, we think we 6
have a mission that promotes improvement in 7
the quality of life.
8 I want to thank all of our neighbors who 9
have continued to support us. We appreciate 10 the confidence you have placed in us and we 11 will work hard to continue to earn your 12 trust.
13 We certainly do have an impact on the 14 local economy, on the environment and on the 15 local area as far as civic organizations, 16 charitable groups and community involvement 17 are concerned.
18 We believe our employees participate in 19 many efforts that help make the local economy 20 and local community better.
21 In addition to our being good 22 environmentmental stewards, we're significant 23 contributors to the community. I also 24 believe that Plant Farley provides safe, 25
52 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 secure and reliable electric power. It 1
contributes to an energy plan made up of 2
diverse sources. It is a viable and valuable 3
contributor to energy security.
4 I believe that license renewal is the 5
right thing to do. It's right for Plant 6
Farley and it's right for the local economy.
7 I appreciate the review the NRC has 8
provided. I believe that as time goes on we 9
will continue to demonstrate that we are good 10 environmental stewards of our facility and 11 surrounding environment. Thank you.
12 FACILITATOR ZALCMAN: Thank you, Mr.
13 Stinson. Next up, Mr. Walter Hill. Mr.
14 Walter Hill is from Wiregrass United Way.
15 And I will give you the floor.
16 1:32P MR. HILL: It's my pleasure to be here 17 today and talk about other significant 18 contributions made by Plant Farley and the 19 employees out at Plant Farley.
20 Not only do I speak for myself, but we 21 have five board of directors, we're a five 22 county United Way, Coffeedale, Geneva, Henry 23 and Houston Counties, which have a hundred 24 board members in those five counties and then 25
53 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 a board of trustees with representatives of 1
all five counties with thirty-two members.
2 In addition to that, I represent 3
thirty-six agencies ranging from American Red 4
Cross and Salvation Army to the Boys and 5
Girls Scouts, Boys and Girls Clubs, House of 6
Ruth and numerous other health and human 7
service agencies in the Wiregrass area.
8 To tell you briefly about the impact that 9
Farley as a corporation and Farley with its 10 employees have had, just in the last several 11 years we have had board members serve on at 12 least two of our county boards for Houston 13 and Henry Counties. We've had board chairs 14 that have been Farley employees, numerous 15 committee chairs representing our nominating 16 committee, planning committee and most 17 importantly our campaign chairs, as well as 18 numerous volunteers on our funds 19 distribution, which is a very important part 20 of what we do because not only do we spend a 21 lot of time raising money but we spend a 22 great deal of time determining how that money 23 is distributed. And that takes a lot of work 24 and those volunteers that have been involved 25
54 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 with Farley have been very dedicated to that 1
process.
2 And of course, they have a tremendous 3
impact financially on our campaign each year 4
raising just over the last several years 5
hundreds and hundreds of thousand of dollars.
6 Last year alone was over a hundred and 7
fifty-six thousand dollars out of the 3.2 8
million that we raised in this five county 9
area, the majority of that coming from 10 payroll deduction from employees but also 11 corporate donation, as well.
12 And then on top of that has been the 13 leadership positions that have just been 14 important not only as I mentioned to our 15 organization but to the agencies that we 16 represent, the thirty-six different agencies, 17 as well as numerous other agencies. Those 18 agencies -- almost every agency today has a 19 volunteer or a board member that's an 20 employee out at Farley and many of them have 21 leadership positions, people on their 22 executive committee or officers that are 23 employees at Farley. And they have a 24 tremendous impact on our community and in so 25
55 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 many different ways. And I wanted to make 1
sure that I took the opportunity to thank 2
them today and to let you know the impact 3
that they have on our community.
4 FACILITATOR ZALCMAN: Thank you very 5
much, Mr. Hill. Now it's an opportunity for 6
those of you that have thoughts or insights 7
or would like the moment to share some views 8
with us, we're happy to give you the podium 9
or give you the microphone.
10 Okay. Let me indicate that the meeting 11 will be coming to a close. We will have 12 another meeting tonight. Open house begins at six 13 o'clock. Public meeting again at seven 14 o'clock.
15 Before I hand it over to Mr. Kugler to 16 wrap it up for us, let me just indicate the 17 staff will still be here after the meeting.
18 We still have some of the open house material 19 in the back so make sure if you do want a 20 copy of the documents you can take it with 21 you. Or if you want to chat with any of us 22 that are here from the staff, particularly 23 the environmental review team, the resident 24 inspector or the safety project manager, we 25
56 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 will stay, as well.
1 MR. KUGLER: Well, I would just like to 2
thank everyone again for coming out to our 3
meeting today. Your participation in this 4
process is very important to us.
5 If you do have comments on the Draft 6
Environmental Impact Statement, we ask you to 7
submit them in any form that Jack explained 8
and that you prefer. We will be accepting 9
those comments through November 5th. Jack is 10 our main point of contact.
11 I did want to mention again the meeting 12 feedback forms that were in the package of 13 papers you received when you came in. We 14 appreciate any comments we get on those 15 forms. Anything you can tell us that would 16 help us to serve you better in these meetings 17 we would appreciate that. And you can either 18 drop it off in the back, if you want to fill 19 it out now or if you want to fill it out 20 later you can mail it in. It's prepaid 21 postage so you can send it in by mail.
22 As Barry mentioned, the NRC staff and our 23 contractor will be staying after the meeting 24 and if you want to talk to any of us we would 25
57 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 be happy to do that.
1 Other than that, again, I thank you all 2
for coming and I guess we're adjourned.
3 Thank you.
4 FACILITATOR ZALCMAN: With that, we'll 5
close the record on the afternoon meeting.
6 Thank you very much.
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 (Whereupon the meeting was concluded) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25