ML043090521
| ML043090521 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/2004 |
| From: | NRC/NRR/DRIP/RLEP |
| To: | |
| Davis J, NRR/DRIP/RLEP, 415-3835 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML043090540 | List: |
| References | |
| NRC-019 | |
| Download: ML043090521 (64) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT
Title:
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal: Public Meeting Evening Session Docket Number:
50-348, 50-364 Location:
Dothan, Alabama Date:
Thursday, September 30, 2004 Work Order No.:
NRC-019 Pages 1-63 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 - EVENING SESSION 7
8 SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 9
10 11 12 13 The meeting was held at 7:00 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.............20 8
9 RESULTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 10 CRYSTAL QUINLY.............24 11 JACK CUSHING...............37 12 13 PUBLIC COMMENTS 14 MICHAEL STINSON.....................48 15 STEVE MASHBURN......................51 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
(7:00 p.m.)
2 FACILITATOR ZALCMAN: Good evening, 3
everybody. My name is Barry Zalcman. I just 4
turned off my cell phone. I would appreciate 5
it if everybody else does that so we don't 6
have the same situation that we had in the 7
afternoon. Hopefully, you won't have the same 8
stresses.
9 My name is Barry Zalcman. I'm going to 10 play the role of your Facilitator today. I'm 11 the program manager at the NRC. We'll have a 12 number of discussions that go on 13 this evening, some bonding with them.
14 So it's very important that we try to 15 assure that we can get the information to you 16 that you need so that you can participate in 17 a meaningful fashion.
18 This license renewal process that we're 19 going through, at least on the environmental 20 side, is an open process and you as public 21 members have an important stake in this 22 process. So we're going to try to make sure 23 that we share information with you, give you 24 an opportunity to participate in questions 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 and answers along the way and then give you 1
an opportunity to actually make presentations 2
if you would like and share your views and 3
your insights with us.
4 Today's subject is in fact license 5
renewal. The Southern Nuclear Operating 6
Company has submitted an application to the 7
Nuclear Regulatory Commission seeking renewal 8
of the operating license for another twenty 9
years at some point in the future and that 10 requires the agency to take a hard look at 11 a number of issues.
12 This is for the Plant Farley, both Units 13 1 and 2. We're going to focus on license 14 renewal. We're going to talk a little about 15 the safety side of license renewal and then 16 we're going to emphasize, in particular, the 17 discussion about the environmental review.
18 You are going to have presentations by 19 the staff. And it's a team of reviewers so 20 you're getting some insight as to what the 21 license renewal process is about. What the 22 environmental portion of that review is about 23 and then go into the document that the staff 24 has prepared, the Draft Environmental Impact 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 Statement that we're seeking comments on.
1 This evening's meeting is going to be in 2
two parts. The first is the staff giving you a 3
little bit of a background presentation.
4 We'll have an opportunity for questions and 5
answers two times during those presentations.
6 And then the second part of the meeting 7
is your part of the meeting. It's a formal 8
session where we'll indicate we're entering 9
into second part and we'll seek your comments 10 on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
11 You can share your views with us today.
12 We are being transcribed. There is a court 13 reporter here; Susan is with us tonight.
14 Anything that you present to us will work its 15 way onto the record as part of the 16 transcript.
17 There are other ways to communicate with 18 us. If you are here just to listen and you 19 want to take information back and then 20 formulate your comments, we'll give you 21 information about how to submit those 22 comments in writing to the NRC. And any 23 comment that you provide in written form 24 during this comment period will carry exactly the 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 same weight as if you made a presentation 1
tonight.
2 The ground rules for today's activity are 3
relatively simple. During the question and 4
answer period I will ask that you identify 5
yourself simply by raising your hand. I will 6
come over and you can use this microphone or, 7
if you want, you can stand up at the podium 8
and ask questions of the staff. First it 9
will be on the process and then on the 10 document itself before we go into the second 11 part.
12 So identify yourself. I'll ask you for 13 your name and your affiliation. What we want 14 is to have a clean record of the transcript.
15 So I will ask that only one person speak at a 16 time and that allows not only the clean 17 transcript but also allows us give 18 full attention to the person making the 19 presentation and the respect that the individual 20 is due.
21 During the second part of the meeting 22 tonight I'll first ask the applicants 23 representative to make brief remarks if they 24 choose to and then anyone that has 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 pre-registered will have the opportunity.
1 Then we'll go out to others if they hear 2
something tonight that may stimulate a 3
comment. There is no pressure on you to 4
comment, but if you do have comments we 5
certainly want to hear them. And if is 6
that you just, again, want to collect 7
information, just listen tonight, that's 8
acceptable, but if you have interests or any 9
comments later we would be happy to receive 10 them.
11 Once again, today we're going to have a 12 brief overview. We're going to talk about 13 the entire review for license renewal. A 14 little bit on the safety side and greater 15 detail on the environmental side.
16 Staff will then give you a little more 17 detailed discussion on the preliminary 18 findings and conclusions that were drawn at 19 this interim stage in our review. Then the 20 staff will provide you with some insight on 21 what's the balance of the schedule. And then 22 how to provide your insights to us.
23 In terms of the speakers for tonight, we 24 have four. I will describe them momentarily.
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 The first is Mr. Andrew Kugler. Andy is 1
the Chief of the Environmental Section in the 2
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. It is 3
under Andy's oversight that any environmental 4
review is performed for power reactors or 5
test reactors requiring any kind of licensing 6
action. So that includes license renewal.
7 That includes things like early site permits 8
from a prospective applicant that wants to use 9
of our regulatory structure for new plants 10 in the future, power uprates, extended power 11 uprates and any other licensing action. It's 12 Andy's group that either develops the entire 13 environmental review and produces a document 14 or participates in a review to ensure consistency 15 in the NRC process.
16 Andy and his staff also use National 17 Laboratories. National Lab experts come 18 and participate with us along the way. So 19 it's Andy's staff that orchestrates or 20 manages the entire environmental reviews for 21 these actions. We're going to talk a little 22 bit about how that review is completed.
23 Andy did his undergraduate work at Cooper 24 Union in New York in mechanical engineering.
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 He has a master's degree in technical 1
management from Johns Hopkins University in 2
Maryland. He has over twenty-five years 3
experience working for the U.S. Navy. He 4
worked at the Riverbend site during it's 5
construction start up before he joined the 6
Agency and has been an environmental project 7
manager as well as a safety project manager 8
over the years.
9 So Andy's understanding goes deep both on 10 the safety side as well as the environmental 11 side.
12 Thereafter, we'll have Ms. Jennifer Davis 13 chat with us a little. She will begin to 14 focus a little more on the environmental 15 review process which is a subset of the 16 entire license renewal review.
17 Jenny is providing some leadership on 18 this project as we balance resources within 19 the agency. She has taken on a little more 20 responsibility for this project. She has a 21 technical background in cultural resources.
22 She completed her bachelor's in historic 23 preservation, classical civilization and 24 archaeology from Mary Washington College. Has 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 had some years working both in the private sector 1
and the academic sector before joining the Agency a 2
couple of years ago.
3 Jenny is one of the key contact points 4
for the Agency and certainly for our office 5
in dealing with NRC fulfilling its 6
responsibilities under the National Historic 7
Preservation Act.
8 After that we'll have Ms. Crystal Quinly.
9 Crystal joins us from Lawrence Livermore 10 National Laboratories and heads up the team 11 members that come out of the National Labs.
12 We've got three labs participating in 13 this project, both those from Lawrence 14 Livermore National Lab as well as Los Alamos 15 National Laboratories are operated by the 16 University of California. We also have 17 individuals from the Pacific Northwest 18 National Laboratory, which is operated by the 19 Battelle Memorial Institute.
20 Crystal is part of the, I want to get 21 this right, environmental evaluations group 22 at Livermore. She has a technical background 23 in environmental sciences with a focus on 24 land use. She got her undergraduate degree 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 at Cal State University in Hayward, and worked 1
in the private sector before joining 2
Livermore which operates under the Department 3
of Energy.
4 Finally, we'll have a short presentation 5
by Mr. Jack Cushing. Jack is the Senior 6
Environmental Project Manager by title and 7
the Environmental Project Manager 8
specifically for this project. Although he 9
also has other duties that he's balancing, as 10 well, including the Environmental Project 11 Manager for the first-of-a-kind early site 12 permit that's going on simultaneously with 13 this project.
14 Jack completed his technical studies in 15 marine engineering at the Massachusetts 16 Marine Academy. He was a licensed 17 reactor operator, worked at a plant for 18 some fifteen years before joining the Agency.
19 Over the last five years he's worked both 20 as a safety project manager and environmental 21 project manager for the NRC.
22 In addition to the presenters there are 23 other NRC folks here tonight that will assist 24 in responding to questions that you may have.
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 Or you can approach them after the meeting is 1
over. They will be introduced during the 2
course of our presentation as we go through 3
the various steps of our review.
4 So with that as the background for the 5
presenters here tonight, I'm going to turn 6
it over to Mr. Kugler on behalf of the NRC.
7 We certainly thank you for coming out and 8
sharing your time with us tonight.
9 I know there's competition in terms of 10 the debate nationally so it means something 11 to us to see a crowd like this and we hope 12 that we certainly provide the information 13 that you need to go back and find that you 14 have comments to share with us or if you have 15 an opportunity to share with us tonight. We 16 would be happy to hear from you. With that, 17 Mr. Kugler?
18 MR. KUGLER: Thank you, Barry. I would 19 like to thank you all for coming out this 20 evening to join us in this meeting. I hope 21 that the information that we provide to you 22 will help you to understand the process that 23 we're going through. Where we are in that 24 process right now and the role that you can 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 play in helping us to ensure that our final 1
environmental impact statement is accurate.
2 I would like to first provide some 3
general context for the license renewal 4
process.
5 The Atomic Energy Act gives the NRC the 6
authority to issue operating licenses for 7
nuclear power plants for a period of forty 8
years. For Farley Units 1 and 2, those 9
licenses will expire in 2017 and 2021, 10 respectively.
11 Our regulations also make provisions for 12 extending those licenses for an additional 13 twenty years and so Southern Nuclear has 14 applied for extensions to the licenses for 15 the two Farley units.
16 As part of the NRC's review of the 17 license renewal application, we performed an 18 environmental review to look at the impacts 19 of operating the plant for an additional 20 twenty years on the environment. We held a 21 meeting here last January to gather 22 information early in the process. And as we 23 mentioned at that time, we've come back here 24 tonight to discuss the Draft Environmental 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 Impact Statement that we've prepared to give 1
you an opportunity to ask questions and to 2
provide comments on the draft.
3 Before I get into the discussion of 4
license renewal, I would like to take a 5
minute to talk about the NRC in terms of what 6
we do and our mission.
7 As I mentioned, the Atomic Energy Act is 8
the legislation that authorizes the Agency to 9
regulate the civilian use of nuclear 10 materials.
11 In exercising that authority the NRCs 12 mission is threefold. We ensure adequate 13 protection of the public health and safety.
14 We protect the environment and we provide for 15 the common defense and security.
16 The NRC accomplishes its mission through 17 a combination of regulatory programs and 18 processes, such as inspections, assessments 19 of licensee's performance, enforcement 20 actions and evaluation of operating 21 experience at nuclear power plants throughout 22 the country.
23 Turning to the license renewal process, 24 our review process is similar to the original 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 licensing that occurred when the plant was 1
licensed in that it has two parts; a safety 2
review and an environmental review.
3 The safety review includes a safety 4
evaluation, plant inspections and an 5
independent review by the Advisory Committee 6
on Reactor Safeguards, also known as ACRS.
7 There are two types of safety issues that 8
we deal with; there are current safety issues 9
which are dealt with today on an ongoing 10 basis, and there are issues related to aging 11 management which are dealt with in license 12 renewal.
13 The NRC's regulatory oversight process 14 deals with the current safety issues. In 15 other words, if there's an issue that comes 16 up today we don't wait for a license renewal 17 application to deal with it.
18 Because the NRC has or is dealing with 19 the issues such as security and emergency 20 planning on an ongoing basis, we don't review 21 them in license renewal.
22 Instead, the license renewal safety 23 review focuses on aging management issues and 24 the programs that the licensee has 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 implemented or will implement to maintain the 1
equipment safely. And then the results are 2
documented in the Safety Evaluation Report.
3 That report is then independently 4
reviewed by the ACRS. The ACRS is a group of 5
nationally recognized technical experts in 6
nuclear safety that serve as a consulting 7
body to the Commission. They review each 8
license renewal application and and our staffs 9
Safety Evaluation Report. They develop their 10 own conclusions and recommendations and then 11 provide those directly to the Commission.
12 The environmental review which Ms.
13 Jennifer Davis will be discussing in more 14 detail in a few minutes, evaluates the 15 environmental impacts of license renewal in a 16 number of areas; these include ecology, 17 hydrology, cultural resources and 18 socioeconomics, to name a few.
19 Now this slide gives you an idea of these 20 two processes I've been mentioning. The 21 safety review is the upper portion of the 22 this diagram and the environmental review is 23 the lower portion.
24 The safety review involves the NRC staffs 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 review and assessment of the safety 1
information that's contained in the 2
licensee's application. There's a team of 3
about thirty NRC and contractor technical 4
reviewers who are conducting the safety 5
review.
6 We have the safety project manager here 7
in evening. I would like to introduce her.
8 She is Tilda Liu. Tilda? She's leading the 9
safety review team.
10 The staff's safety review focuses on the 11 effectiveness of aging management programs 12 for the plants systems and structures that 13 are within the scope of license renewal. The 14 staff reviews the effectiveness of these 15 programs to ensure the plant can be safely 16 operated and maintained throughout the 17 license renewal term.
18 The safety review process also involves 19 audits and on-site inspections. These 20 inspections are conducted by a team of 21 inspectors from NRC headquarters and from our 22 regional offices.
23 One of the representatives of our 24 inspection program is here today and that is 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 our senior resident inspector at Farley, 1
Charles Patterson. Charles. Thank you.
2 The results of the inspections are 3
documented in individual inspection reports 4
and these results, along with the results of 5
the staff's safety review, are documented in 6
the Safety Evaluation Report which is then 7
passed on to the Advisory Committee on 8
Reactor Safeguards to review.
9 The last of the on-site inspections is 10 underway right now and there is an exit 11 meeting scheduled for tomorrow morning at 12 nine o'clock in the Houston County 13 Commissioner's Chambers.
14 We are also in the process of preparing 15 the Safety Evaluation Report at this time.
16 The second part of the review process 17 which is the main focus of our meeting 18 tonight is the environmental review which 19 includes scoping activities which occurred in 20 the early part of this year and the 21 development of a draft supplement to the 22 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 23 License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. We refer 24 to this as the GEIS, Generic Environmental 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 Impact Statement.
1 The Draft Environmental Impact statement 2
for Farley has been published for comment and 3
we're here tonight to briefly discuss the 4
results of that review and receive your 5
comments. By March of next year we expect to 6
issue the final version of the Environmental 7
Impact Statement, which will address the 8
comments that we receive here today and any 9
comments we receive in writing during the 10 comment period.
11 So as you can see from this slide, there 12 are a number of things that need to be 13 completed in order to make the final Agency 14 decision on whether or not to renew the 15 licenses for Farley. There needs to be a 16 Safety Evaluation Report documenting the 17 safety review, an Environmental Impact 18 Statement documenting the environmental 19 review, the inspection reports and the 20 independent review by the Advisory Committee 21 on Reactor Safeguards.
22 I would like to point out the splash 23 marks on the screen which indicate places 24 where there are opportunities for public 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 involvement. The first of these was scoping 1
which occurred early this year when we came 2
out for the scoping meeting in January and 3
also people were allowed to provide written 4
comments on the scope of our review.
5 We also have the current opportunity to 6
comment on the Draft Environmental Impact 7
Statement, as well as this public meeting.
8 There is the option of a hearing, however 9
in this case, which is over here on the far 10 right, was another opportunity, but in this 11 case nobody requested a hearing.
12 And finally, when the Advisory Committee 13 on Reactor Safeguards meets to review the 14 Safety Evaluation Report, that meeting will 15 be open to the public.
16 I would now like to turn things over to 17 Ms. Jennifer Davis to discuss the 18 environmental review in more detail. Thank 19 you.
20 MS. DAVIS: Thank you. As Andy said, my 21 name is Jennifer Davis and I'm the back up 22 environmental project manager on the Farley 23 license renewal project.
24 Tonight, I would like to discuss in more 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 detail the environmental review process.
1 Now the reason we do an environmental 2
review is because of the National 3
Environmental Policy Act or NEPA as it is 4
more commonly known.
5 NEPA requires a systematic approach in 6
evaluating the effects of proposed major 7
federal actions. Consideration is given to 8
environmental impacts of the proposed action 9
and mitigation for any impacts believed to be 10 significant.
11 Alternatives to the proposed action, 12 including the no action alternative, which 13 means taking no action on the applicant's 14 request, are also considered.
15 Our Environmental Impact Statement is a 16 disclosure tool in which public participation 17 is involved. The Commission has determined 18 that an Environmental Impact Statement shall 19 be prepared for all license renewals.
20 Now this slide is a little confusing, 21 but stated simply decision our decision standard 22 basically states are the environmental impacts of 23 the proposed action great enough that maintaining 24
22 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the license renewal option for the Farley 1
Plant, Units 1 and 2 considered unreasonable.
2 Now this is just an expansion of the 3
slide that Andy had up earlier detailing the 4
environmental review process. Where we stand 5
right now, we're at the draft supplement 6
stage where we're holding public meetings.
7 But to start from the beginning, the 8
application was submitted to the NRC on 9
September 15th of 2003. In December of that 10 same year we published our notice of intent 11 In the Federal Register to prepare an 12 Environmental Impact Statement and conduct 13 scoping.
14 Some people may ask what is scoping.
15 Scoping is a process by which we receive 16 comments from interested members of the 17 public that help us scope out the bounds of 18 our environmental review for various 19 disciplines that we consider.
20 Now we held scoping meetings back out 21 here in January and we also conducted an 22 environmental site audit that week, as well.
23 Many of you may have attended those meetings 24 and provided us with comments.
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 Comments regarding this review are 1
detailed in Appendix A of the Draft 2
Environmental Impact Statement. Now on any 3
comments that were given at the public 4
meeting itself are included in our scoping 5
summary report.
6 During our review we determined that 7
we needed additional information for us to 8
prepare our Environmental Impact Statement.
9 In December of 2003 we sent a formal request 10 for additional information to the licensee.
11 We took the information that we received along 12 with the information from the scoping process and 13 performed an independent evaluation of all 14 issues that came up. This enabled us to 15 prepare our draft supplement to the GEIS 16 which was published in August of 2004.
17 Now as Andy was stating earlier, the GEIS 18 is the Generic Environmental Impact Statement 19 for the License Renewal of Nuclear Plants or 20 GEIS. The GEIS evaluates issues common to all 21 power plants across the county.
22 Tonight our meeting is to present our 23 preliminary findings and collect comments 24 from you. We'll go back to headquarters and 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 we'll address your comments, address any 1
changes needed and we will issue in March of 2
2005 our final supplement for Farley.
3 FACILITATOR ZALCMAN: Okay. We just had 4
a discussion of the general overview and the 5
overview of the process part of the 6
environmental review and it's probably a good 7
time now if there are questions on this 8
discussion on the process to see if we can handle 9
them and see if we can get a response.
10 So if you have any questions on at least 11 the information that's presented so far, I 12 think the staff is prepared to address those 13 now. Okay, without that, let me go next to 14 Crystal and let Crystal give us a brief 15 discussion of the content of the Supplemental 16 Environmental Impact Statement.
17 And then we'll go to Jack Cushing and 18 he'll talk about the postulated accident part of 19 the review, and give and you wrap up at the back 20 end of that. Crystal?
21 MS. QUINLY: Good evening. As Barry 22 said, I work for the University of California 23 at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
24 The NRC contracted with us to provide 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 expertise necessary to evaluate the impact of 1
license renewal at the Farley plant.
2 The environmental review team consists of 3
nine members from Lawrence Livermore National 4
Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory in 5
New Mexico and Pacific Northwest Laboratory 6
in Washington.
7 The expertise we provide for the plant 8
relicensing and for alternatives are shown on 9
this slide. Atmospheric science.
10 Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice.
11 Archaeology. Terrestrial Ecology. Aquatic 12 Ecology. Land use. Radiation Protection.
13 Hydrology. Nuclear Safety and Regulatory 14 Compliance.
15 The Generic Environmental Impact 16 Statement for License Renewal, the GEIS, 17 identifies 92 issues that are provided for 18 license renewal. Sixty-nine of these issues 19 are considered generic or category one, which 20 means that the impacts are common to all 21 reactors -- common to all reactors with 22 certain features such as plants with cooling 23 towers.
24 For the other twenty-three issues 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 referred to as category two, NRC found the 1
impacts were not the same at all sites and, 2
therefore, a site specific analysis was 3
needed.
4 Only certain issues addressed in the GEIS 5
are applicable to Farley because of the 6
design and location of the plant. For those 7
generic issues that are applicable to Farley 8
we assessed if there was any new information and 9
significant related to the issue that might change 10 the conclusion in the GEIS.
11 If there is no new information, then the 12 conclusions of the GEIS are adopted. If new 13 information is identified and determined to 14 be significant then a site specific analysis 15 would be performed.
16 For the site specific issues related to 17 Farley a site specific analysis was 18 performed.
19 Finally, during the scoping period the 20 public was invited to provide information on 21 potential new issues and the team during its 22 review also looked to see if there were any 23 new issues that needed evaluation.
24 For each environmental issue identified 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 an impact level is assigned. For a small 1
impact the effect is not detectable or too 2
small to destabilize or noticeably alter any 3
important attribute of the resource.
4 For example, the operation of the Farley 5
plant may cause the loss of adult and 6
juvenile fish at the intake structure. If 7
the loss of fish is so small that it cannot 8
be detected in relation to the total 9
population, then the impact would be small.
10 For a moderate impact the effect is 11 sufficient to alter noticeably but not 12 destabilize important attributes of the 13 resource. For example, if the losses cause 14 the population to decline and then stabilize 15 at a lower level, the impact would be 16 moderate.
17 And for an impact to be considered large, 18 the effect must be clearly noticeable and 19 sufficient to destabilize important 20 attributes of the resource. The final 21 example is if losses at the intake structure 22 cause the fish population to decline to the 23 point where it cannot be stabilized and 24 continually declines, then that impact would 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 be large.
1 When the team evaluated the impact for 2
continued operations at Farley, we considered 3
information from a wide variety of sources.
4 We considered what the licensee had to say in 5
their environmental report. We conducted a 6
site audit during which we toured the site, 7
interviewed plant personnel and reviewed 8
documentation of plant operations.
9 We also talked to federal, state and 10 local officials, as well as local service 11 agencies.
12 Lastly, we considered all the comments 13 received from the public during the scoping 14 period. These comments are listed in 15 Appendix A along with NRC's responses.
16 This body of information is the basis for 17 the analysis and preliminary conclusions in 18 this Farley supplement.
19 The central analyses in the Farley 20 supplement are presented in chapters two, 21 four, five and eight.
22 In chapter two we discuss the plant, its 23 operation and the environment around the 24 plant.
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 In chapter four we looked at the 1
environmental impact of the routine 2
operations during the twenty year license 3
renewal term. The team looked at issues 4
related to the cooling system, transmission 5
lines, radiological, socioeconomics, ground 6
water use and quality, endangered and 7
threatened species and accidents.
8 Chapter five contains assessments of 9
accidents.
10 At this point, I would look to make a 11 distinction. Environmental impacts from a 12 routine day-to-day operation of the Farley 13 plant for another twenty years are considered 14 separately from the impacts that could result 15 from the potential accidents during the 16 license renewal term.
17 I will discuss the impacts from routine 18 operations and Mr. Cushing will discuss 19 impacts from accidents in the next 20 presentation.
21 Chapter eight describes the alternatives 22 to the proposed license renewal and their 23 environmental impacts. Each of these areas 24 are discussed in detail in the Farley 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 supplement.
1 I'm going to give you the highlights but 2
please feel free to ask me for more details.
3 One of the issues we looked at closely is 4
the cooling system for the Farley plant.
5 This slide shows the cooling system process.
6 The issues the team looked at on a site 7
specific basis looked at water use conflicts 8
and microbiological organisms. We found that 9
the potential impacts in these areas were 10 small and additional mitigation is not 11 warranted.
12 There are also a number of category one 13 issues related to the cooling system. These 14 include issues related to discharges of 15 sanitary waste, minor chemical spills, metals 16 and chlorine.
17 Now recall those category one issues, NRC 18 has already determined that these impacts 19 were small.
20 The team evaluated all the information we 21 had available to see if there was any that 22 was both new and significant for those 23 issues. We did not find any and, therefore, 24 adopted NRCs generic conclusions that the 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 impact of the cooling system is small.
1 Radiological impacts are a category one 2
issue and NRC has made a generic 3
determination that the impact of 4
radiological release during nuclear plant 5
operations during the twenty year license 6
renewal period are small. But because these 7
releases are a concern, I wanted to discuss 8
them in some detail.
9 All nuclear plants release small 10 quantities of radioactive materials within 11 strict regulation. During our site visit we 12 looked at the release and monitoring program 13 documentation. We looked at how the gases 14 and liquid effluents were released, as well 15 as how the solid wastes were treated, 16 packaged and shipped.
17 We looked at how the applicant determines 18 and demonstrates that they are in compliance 19 with the regulation for release of the 20 radiological effluents. We also looked at 21 data from on site and near site locations that the 22 applicant monitors for airborne releases and 23 direct radiation and other monitoring 24 stations beyond the site boundaries, 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 including locations where water, milk, fish 1
and food products were sampled.
2 We found that the maximum calculated 3
doses for a member of the public are well 4
within the annual limits. There is a 5
near-unanimous consensus within the 6
scientific community that these limits are 7
protective of human health.
8 Since releases from the plant are not 9
expected to increase on a year to year basis 10 during the twenty year license renewal term 11 and we also found no new and significant 12 information related to this issue, we adopted 13 the generic conclusion that the radiological 14 impacts on human health and the environment 15 is small.
16 There are seven aquatic species and 17 eighteen terrestrial species listed as 18 threatened or endangered or candidate 19 species that occur in the range of the 20 Farley site and the transmission lines.
21 A detailed biological assessment 22 analyzing the effects of continuing operation 23 and relicensing of Farley was prepared and is 24 included in Appendix E of the Farley 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 supplement. Based on this and additional 1
independent analyses, the staff's preliminary 2
determination is that the impact of operation 3
of the Farley plant during the license 4
renewal period on threatened or endangered 5
species would be small.
6 The last issue I would like to discuss 7
from chapter four is cumulative impacts.
8 These impacts may be minor when considered 9
individually but could be significant when 10 considered with other past, present or 11 reasonably foreseeable actions, regardless of 12 what agency or person undertakes the other 13 actions.
14 The staff considered cumulative impacts 15 resulting from operation of the cooling water 16 system, operation of the transmission lines, 17 releases of radiation and radiological 18 material, sociological impacts, ground water 19 use and quality impacts and threatened or 20 endangered species.
21 These impacts were evaluated to the end 22 of the twenty year license renewal term and I 23 would like to note that the geographical 24 boundary of the analysis was dependent upon 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 the resource. For instance, the area 1
analyzed for transmission lines was different 2
than the area analyzed for the cooling water 3
system.
4 Our preliminary determination is that any 5
cumulative impacts resulting from the 6
operation of the Farley plant during the 7
license renewal period would be small.
8 The team also looked at other 9
environmental impacts. All issues for 10 uranium fuel cycle and solid waste 11 management, as well as decommissioning are 12 considered category one. For these issues no 13 new and significant information was 14 identified.
15 In 2001, Farley generated about 13.7 16 million megawatts of electricity. The team 17 also evaluated the potential environmental 18 impacts associated with the Farley plant not 19 continuing operation and replacing this 20 generation with alternative power sources.
21 The team looked at the no action 22 alternative, that is, the units are not 23 relicensed, new generation from coal-fired, 24 gas-fired, new nuclear; purchased power, 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 alternative technologies such as wind, solar 1
and hydro power, and then a combination of 2
alternatives.
3 For each alternative we looked at the 4
same type of issues -- for example, water 5
use, land use, ecology and socioeconomics --
6 that we looked at for the operation of Farley 7
during the license renewal term.
8 For two alternatives, solar and wind, I 9
would like to describe the scale of 10 alternatives that we considered because the 11 scale is important in understanding our 12 conclusions. First solar.
13 Based on the average solar energy 14 available in Alabama and Georgia and the 15 current conversion efficiencies of solar 16 cells, these cells would produce about 146 17 kilowatts per square meter per year. As such 18 about 94 million square meters or about 36 19 square miles of cells would be required to 20 replace the generation from the Farley plant.
21 Regarding wind power, Alabama and Florida 22 do not have sufficient wind resources to move 23 the large scale wind turbines, but Georgia has 24 good wind resources in the uppermost portion 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 of the state.
1 However even exploiting the full 2
resources of all three states, the generation 3
would replace less than four percent of the 4
generation from Farley.
5 Due to the scale of the reasonable 6
alternatives, the team's preliminary 7
conclusion is that the environmental 8
effects in at least some impact categories 9
reach moderate or large significance.
10 So to reiterate: In 1996, the NRC 11 reached generic conclusions for 69 relating 12 to operating nuclear plants for another 13 twenty years. For category one issues, the 14 team looked to see if there was any 15 information that was both new and significant 16 and whether or not we could adopt the generic 17 conclusions.
18 The remaining category two issues the 19 team performed an analysis specific for the 20 Farley site. During our review the team 21 found no new issues that were not already 22 known.
23 Of the category one issues that apply to 24 Farley, we found no information that was both 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 new and significant, therefore, we have 1
preliminarily adopted the conclusions that the 2
impact of these issues are small.
3 The team analyzed the remaining category 4
two issues in the supplement and we found 5
environmental effects resulting from these 6
issues were also small.
7 Again, during our review the team found 8
no new issues. Last, we found that the 9
environmental effects of alternatives at 10 least in some impact categories reach 11 moderate or large significance.
12 Now I would like to turn it back over to 13 Mr. Cushing.
14 6:41P MR. CUSHING: Thank you, Crystal. My 15 name is Jack Cushing and I'm the 16 Environmental Project Manager from the Farley 17 license renewal application and I'll be 18 discussing the environmental impacts of 19 postulated accidents.
20 These impacts are described in chapter 21 five of the Generic Environmental Impact 22 Statement or the GEIS.
23 The GEIS evaluates two classes of 24 accidents; design basis accidents and severe 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 accidents.
1 Design basis accidents are those 2
accidents that both the licensee and the NRC 3
staff evaluated during the initial plant 4
licensing and on an ongoing basis to ensure 5
that the plant can safely respond to a broad 6
spectrum of postulated accidents without undo 7
risk to the public.
8 Environmental impacts from design 9
basis accidents are also evaluated during 10 this initial licensing process and the 11 ability of the plant to withstand the 12 accidents must be demonstrated before the 13 plant can be granted a license.
14 Most importantly, the licensee is 15 required to maintain an acceptable design and 16 performance capability throughout the life of 17 the plant, including any extended plant 18 operation, such as the license renewal 19 period.
20 Since the licensee has to demonstrate and 21 maintain this capability, the Commission has 22 determined that the environmental impacts from 23 design basis accidents for all plants are 24 small.
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 Neither the licensee nor the NRC is aware 1
of any new and significant information on the 2
capability of the Farley plant to withstand 3
design basis accidents. Therefore, the staff 4
concludes that there are no impacts related 5
to design basis accidents beyond those 6
discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact 7
Statement.
8 The second category of accidents 9
evaluated in the Generic Environmental Impact 10 Statement are severe accidents. Severe 11 accidents are by definition more severe than 12 design basis accidents because they could 13 lead to substantial core damage.
14 The Commission found in the GEIS the risk 15 of severe accidents for all plants are small.
16 Nevertheless, the Commission determined the 17 alternatives to mitigate severe accidents 18 must be considered for all plants that have 19 not already done so.
20 We refer to these alternatives as severe 21 accident mitigation alternatives or SAMAs.
22 The SAMA evaluation is a site specific 23 evaluation.
24 The SAMA evaluation for Farley is 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 summarized in Section 5.2 of the supplement to 1
the GEIS and described in more detail in 2
Appendix G.
3 The purpose of performing the SAMA 4
evaluation is to ensure that the plant 5
changes to prevent or mitigate severe 6
accidents are identified and evaluated.
7 The SAMAs -- there are two types of 8
SAMAs. SAMAs that could prevent core damage 9
and SAMAs that could improve containment 10 performance given that core damage has 11 occurred.
12 The staff looks at a broad range of 13 SAMAs. We look at hardware modification, 14 procedure changes, training programs, 15 improvements, as well as other changes.
16 Basically, a full spectrum of changes.
17 The SAMA evaluation consists of a four 18 step process. The first step is to 19 characterize overall plant risk and the 20 leading contributors to plant risk. This 21 involves the extensive use of a plant 22 Specific probabilistic risk assessment study, 23 which is also known as the PRA.
24 The PRA is a study that identifies 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 different combinations of system failures and 1
human errors that would be required for an 2
accident to progress to either core damage or 3
containment failure. The second step in the 4
evaluation is to identify potential 5
improvements that could further reduce risks.
6 The information for the PRA is used to 7
identify plant improvements that would have 8
the greatest impact in reducing risk. The 9
improvements identified in other NRC and 10 industry studies are also considered.
11 The third step in the evaluation is to 12 quantify the risk reduction potential and the 13 implementation costs for each improvement.
14 The risk reduction and implementation 15 costs for each SAMA is calculated using a 16 bounding analysis.
17 The risk reduction is generally 18 overestimated by assuming that the plant 19 improvement is completely effective in 20 eliminating accident sequences it is intended to 21 address. The implementation costs are 22 generally underestimated by neglecting 23 certain cost factors, such as maintenance 24 costs and surveillance costs associated with 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 improvement.
1 The risk reduction and the cost estimates 2
are used in the final step to determine 3
whether implementation of any of the 4
improvements can be justified.
5 In determining whether an improvement is 6
justified, the NRC staff looked at three 7
factors. The first is whether the 8
improvement is cost beneficial. In other 9
words, is the estimated benefit greater than 10 the estimated implementation cost of the 11 SAMA.
12 The second factor is whether improvement 13 provides a significant reduction in total 14 risk. For example, does it eliminate a 15 sequence for a containment failure mode that 16 contributes to a large fractional plant risk.
17 The third factor is whether the risk 18 reduction is associated with aging effects 19 during the periods of extended operation. In 20 which case if it was, we would consider 21 implementation part of the license renewal 22 process.
23 The preliminary result of the Farley SAMA 24 evaluation is summarized on this slide.
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 There were 124 candidate improvements that 1
were identified for Farley based on the 2
review of the plant specific probabilistic 3
Risk assessment, relevant industry in NRC 4
studies of severe accidents and SAMA analyses 5
performed for other plants.
6 This was reduced to a set of 21 potential 7
SAMAs based on a multi-step screening 8
process. Factors considered during this 9
screening included whether the SAMA was 10 applicable to Farley due to design 11 differences; had it already been addressed in 12 the existing Farley design, procedures or 13 training program.
14 A more detailed assessment of the design 15 and cost was then performed for each of the 16 21 remaining SAMAs. This is described, as I 17 said, in Appendix G of the supplement to the 18 GEIS.
19 The cost benefit analysis shows three of 20 the SAMAs are potentially cost beneficial 21 when evaluated in accordance with NRC 22 guidance in performing this regulatory 23 analysis.
24 The cost beneficial SAMAs involved 25
44 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 increasing the charging pump lube oil 1
capacity by adding a supplemental lube oil 2
reservoir for each charging pump. Another 3
was to install hardware and procedure 4
modification to permit the use of the 5
existing hydro test pump for the reactor pump 6
seal injection.
7 The final was to help a procedure to 8
permit local, manual operation of the 9
auxiliary feedwater pump when control tower 10 is lost.
11 Plant improvements to further 12 mitigate severe accidents are not required at 13 the Farley plant as part license 14 renewal because they do not relate to 15 managing the effects of aging during the 16 license renewal process.
17 However, Southern Nuclear Company stated 18 that they planned to implement the auxiliary 19 feedwater SAMA and are evaluating the other two 20 SAMAs for implementation.
21 I would like to go into our overall 22 conclusions now on the entire environmental 23 review. We have found for the entire 24 environmental review that the impacts of 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 license renewal are small in all impact 1
areas.
2 This conclusion is preliminary in the 3
case of threatened or endangered species 4
pending conclusion of our consultation with 5
the Fish and Wildlife Service.
6 We also concluded that alternative to the 7
proposed action, including the no action alternative 8
which is not renewing the license, have 9
environmental effects in at least some impact 10 categories that reach moderate or large 11 significance.
12 Based on these results, our preliminary 13 recommendation is that the adverse 14 environmental impacts of license renewal for 15 Farley Units 1 and 2 are not so great that 16 preserving the option of license renewal for 17 energy planning decision makers would be 18 unreasonable.
19 I would like to go over a few 20 environmental review milestones with you. A 21 quick recap of current status.
22 We issued the Draft Environmental Impact 23 Statement for Farley Units 1 and 2 license 24 renewal on August 6th. We are currently in 25
46 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the middle of a public comment period that is 1
scheduled to end on November 5th.
2 We expect to address the public comments, 3
including any necessary revisions to the 4
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and 5
then we will issue a final environmental 6
impact statement on March of 2005.
7 Now this slide is to provide information 8
to you on how to access the Environmental 9
Impact Statement. And you can contact me 10 directly at the phone number provided above 11 if you have any questions either after the 12 meeting or talk to me directly after the 13 meeting.
14 Now the documents are located in the 15 Houston Love Memorial Library and also in the 16 Lucy Maddox Memorial Library. If you have 17 access to the internet you can view the Draft 18 Environmental Impact Statement on NRC's 19 website at www.nrc.gov. And if you have any 20 problems finding it, feel free to give me a 21 call and I will help you find it.
22 Now in this meeting we're having it 23 transcribed so we're capturing any comments 24 made tonight. Now outside of this meeting if 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 you happen to think of something after the 1
meeting you can submit comments in three 2
ways. In writing at the address above. In 3
person if you happen to be in Rockville, 4
Maryland. And an easier way is by e-mail at 5
the FarleyEIS@nrc.gov.
6 All the comments will be collected and 7
considered in developing a Final 8
Environmental Impact Statement.
9 Now I would like to thank everyone for 10 taking the time to come out here tonight 11 during a presidential debate. And as part of 12 our public meeting process we have a feedback 13 form. You probably received one as you came 14 in and if you could take the time either now 15 and leave it with us or you can -- it has 16 prepaid postage and you can fill it out and 17 drop it in the mail. We would appreciate 18 that. Thank you again for your time.
19 FACILITATOR ZALCMAN: Thanks. This now 20 completes the staff's formal presentations on 21 both the process and the document that has 22 been prepared. It will be the last 23 opportunity to ask questions specifically of 24 the staff on the materials presented as part 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 of this formal portion of the meeting. And 1
if you do have those questions we would be 2
happy to answer them now.
3 And let me just indicate that after the 4
meeting is over, after the formal part of the 5
meeting is over, the staff will still remain 6
if you want more informal interactions with 7
the staff, not just the environmental team 8
but also the safety folks and the resident 9
will be here to respond to you directly.
10 With that, let me enter the formal 11 portion of the comment collection process.
12 The first individual to speak tonight Michael 13 Stinson of the applicant and will go on and 14 see how far we need to run tonight.
15 Okay. Mr. Stinson.
16 6:55P MR. STINSON: Good evening. My name is 17 Mike Stinson. I'm the vice-president of the 18 Farley plant and we appreciate the 19 opportunity to speak with you tonight.
20 I'm going to start off by thanking the 21 NRC for what I believe to be a very complete 22 review. The agency has put much time and 23 effort into conducting this. I believe it to 24 be thorough and comprehensive.
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 Furthermore, the conclusions the 1
Commission reached are consistent with the 2
Plant Farley environmental report conclusions 3
we reached for license renewal.
4 We wouldn't be going through this process 5
in pursuit of license renewal if we didn't 6
feel like it was the right thing to do. And 7
I wouldn't be promoting it personally if I 8
didn't feel like it was the right thing to 9
do. We've been working on license renewal 10 process since 2001. We've been involved in 11 this process for some time and there's a 12 tremendous amount of work that goes into not 13 only the environmental review but the other 14 aspects of the license renewal process which 15 we're not seeing here today.
16 I do believe the report summary of which 17 you heard today demonstrates the same 18 conclusions we reached. The impact of the 19 renewal is small and certainly acceptable for 20 the renewal period.
21 People that operate and maintain Plant 22 Farley reside in the local area. This area 23 is home to them and their families so they 24 try to be good citizens and environmental 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 stewards.
1 We are committed at the Farley Nuclear 2
Plant to being a good neighbor while we carry 3
out our mission of carrying out nuclear power 4
in this area of the country.
5 We think we make a significant 6
contribution to the local and state economny 7
as well as to the quality of life in this 8
area by supplying electrical power.
9 The availability of our product effects 10 homes, schools, hospitals and businesses. It 11 touches many people. Therefore, we think we 12 have a mission that promotes improvement in 13 the quality of life.
14 Also, I want to thank our neighbors who 15 have continued to support us. We appreciate 16 the confidence you have placed in us and we 17 will work hard to continue to earn your 18 trust.
19 We certainly do have an impact on the 20 local economy, on the environment and the 21 local area as far as civic organizations, 22 charitable groups and community involvement 23 are concerned. We believe our employees 24 participate in many efforts that help make 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 the local community better.
1 In addition to our being good environmental 2
stewards and significant contributors to the 3
community, I also believe that Plant Farley 4
provides safe, secure and reliable electrical 5
power. It contributes to an energy plan made 6
up of diverse sources, is viable and valuable 7
contributor to energy security.
8 License renewal is right for Plant Farley 9
and it's right for the local community. I 10 appreciate the reviews NRC has provided. I 11 believe as time goes on we will continue to 12 demonstrate that we're good environmental 13 stewards of our facility and the surrounding 14 environment. Thank you.
15 FACILITATOR ZALCMAN: Thank you, Mr.
16 Stinson. Next up, Steve Mashburn indicated a 17 request to have some time. Identify your 18 affiliation, as well.
19 MR. MASHBURN: My name is Steve Mashburn.
20 I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you 21 this evening and express my support of the 22 Farley Nuclear Plant relicensing project. I 23 am a longstanding member of the academic 24 community and have taught in this area in 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 excess of twenty-six years in secondary and 1
post secondary education.
2 My area is not the nuclear science arena 3
but rather biological sciences, and I am 4
currently an adjunct professor of biology at 5
Troy University. I'm also a long-standing 6
member of this community and quite familiar 7
with the impact that Plant Farley has had and 8
continues to have on the Wiregrass and the 9
surrounding area.
10 I would like to make a few comments that 11 I feel are of great importance regarding the 12 Farley license renewal issue. Some of these 13 comments are going to be dealing with 14 economics and education because of my 15 familiarity with the academic arena but I 16 feel it has pertinence to environmental 17 science and the environmental impact because 18 environmental education plays a role in how 19 we maintain and preserve our environment.
20 Southern Nuclear and Plant Farley have 21 been exceedingly strong supporters of 22 education in the tri-state area for many, 23 many years. The economic impact that Farley 24 has had upon the educational institutions in 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 this area since its inception is 1
immeasurable. There is absolutely no 2
possible way to measure the positive impact 3
that Farley has had upon the educational 4
institutions throughout the southeast.
5 While the large majority of the support 6
is local, institutions throughout the State 7
of Alabama and even neighboring states have 8
and continue to have a benefit from the 9
generous support of Plant Farley. The plant 10 generates some eight million dollars of tax 11 revenue each year and a large amount of that 12 money goes to support our local public school 13 systems.
14 Public education in Alabama has and 15 continues to be underfunded and consequently 16 many schools throughout the state have been 17 forced to make substantial budget cuts, 18 including discontinuation of programs and 19 study and employee layoffs.
20 Fortunately for the schools in Houston 21 County the tax revenue from Farley has 22 provided a means of continuing strong 23 educational programs for our children.
24 Should something happen to halt that large 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 tax revenue from Farley, it will most 1
certainly deal a devastating blow to the 2
funding for local educational systems.
3 Being an educator, I personally shutter 4
to think what might happen to the public 5
school system in Houston County should this 6
occur.
7 Plant Farley also impacts the educational 8
community in many other ways. Farley works 9
in elementary and secondary schools directly 10 with teachers and students. The Farley 11 Visitor's center and its employees provide 12 educational programs in general science, 13 ecology and environmental science to hundreds 14 of school children throughout the state, not 15 just in this region but throughout the state 16 and some neighbors states.
17 A good example of this is Farley's 18 longstanding bluebird nesting box program for 19 elementary school children. The visitor's 20 Center staff also encourages and engages 21 children in elementary, middle and high 22 school in hands-on and inquiry based science 23 activities.
24 One exceedingly important area that 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 Farley and Southern Nuclear Company has 1
pioneered is that of teacher training, and I 2
want to say a personal word of thanks to 3
Farley and Southern Company for this. I am 4
very proud of what they have accomplished in 5
this area. They have an established 6
themselves as leaders in training teachers in 7
the area of nuclear science education by 8
planning, hosting, staffing and financing 9
nuclear science education workshops for high 10 school teachers throughout the State of 11 Alabama.
12 In addition, Southern Nuclear with Plant 13 Farley employees carrying the torch to pave the 14 way for the Alabama State Board of Education 15 to strengthen the state mandated course of 16 study in the area of nuclear science for 17 students across our entire state.
18 This work has been accomplished within 19 about the last four years and it is an 20 undertaking that requires planning, money and 21 many, many man hours of work from Farley and 22 Southern Nuclear employees at many, many 23 levels, including some of the administrative 24 levels and corporate levels.
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 Due to their efforts the science 1
curriculum in our state has been strengthened 2
and will now provide a basis for high school 3
graduates to be scientifically literate 4
citizens.
5 Several years ago Farley instituted a 6
teacher and residence program that has been a 7
tremendous learning tool for outstanding 8
science educators in our area. This program 9
provides teachers with actual hands-on 10 experience in many areas of science, such as 11 chemistry, nuclear physics, engineering, 12 ecology and environmental science.
13 The teacher in residence program 14 provides opportunities for these teachers to 15 take part in real world industrial activities 16 where science is applied. They can then take 17 that experience back into the schools and 18 make those experiences real for children and 19 their classrooms.
20 Southern Nuclear also provides many 21 excellent resources such as lessen plans and 22 science equipment to our local educators, not 23 only elementary but secondary and even post 24 secondary. A few examples are websites with 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 teaching ideas and lesson plans for 1
educators; Alabama water watch testing kits 2
and training on the use of these kits; Geiger 3
counters and manuals designed to use with the 4
Geiger counters for classroom activity.
5 Southern Nuclear and Farley have also 6
been extremely involved at the post secondary 7
level. They were instrumental in the 8
establishment of a collaboration between Troy 9
University and Alabama (Roll Tide) through 10 which area students can obtain a four year 11 engineering degree right here in Dothan, 12 Alabama.
13 Farley has provided many, many meaningful 14 experiences for students in science classes 15 at Troy University. I know because many of 16 my students at Troy here in Dothan has 17 benefited from these experiences.
18 Farley has had some very positive 19 influences upon students as they choose their 20 life's vocation. I have had many students 21 who have pursued degrees in chemistry, 22 physics, engineering and environmental 23 science in college because of the positive 24 influence of Farley and its employees.
25
58 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 I could say a lot more about Farley and 1
its impact upon education but there are time 2
limitations and I want to be certain to just 3
mention a couple of key things before I 4
close.
5 A major area in which Farley has a great 6
deal of impact in our local community is our 7
environment, particularly our local wildlife.
8 Plant Farley is classified as a certified 9
wildlife habitat. They implement strict land 10 management practices and provide a safe, 11 healthy habitat for our local flora and 12 fauna. They set up nesting boxes for many 13 species of birds. They practice timber 14 management programs designed to enhance 15 indigenous plants and animal species.
16 They are extremely diligent with 17 environmental monitoring programs. They 18 monitor air and water quality in the entire 19 tri-state area, not just plant property. I 20 believe it extends eighteen miles or so 21 around the plant.
22 They utilize wildlife biologists and they 23 encourage healthy environmental practices 24 throughout the region. Consequently, local 25
59 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 flora and fauna actually benefit from the 1
presence of Farley Nuclear Plant in our area.
2 Perhaps the greatest single factor that 3
supports the relicensing effort for Plant 4
Farley is that they provide a safe, reliable 5
means of generating electricity for the 6
southeastern Unites States.
7 Farley produces clean electricity. That 8
is to say, Farley produces a steady, reliable 9
supply of power without harming the world in 10 which we live. When produced properly, 11 nuclear energy production is one of the most 12 environmental friendly methods used today.
13 And friends, you can rest assured that at 14 the Joseph M. Farley Plant, they do it 15 right.
16 It is an undeniable fact that fossil fuel 17 based plants produce thousands of tons of 18 harmful emissions each and every year. For 19 example, coal-fired plants release 20 particulates that emit both alpha and beta 21 radiation into our atmosphere. Nuclear power 22 plants such as Plant Farley do not.
23 Nuclear power plants also do not emit 24 carbon dioxide. They do not emit sulfur 25
60 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 compounds. They do not emit nitrogen 1
oxides. Therefore, they do not influence the 2
greenhouse effect and contribute to global 3
warming like many petroleum based or fossil 4
fuel based plants do.
5 In closing, I would like to state that in 6
my opinion there are few, if any, reasons to 7
delay or delay this relicensing request and 8
every reason to grant it. I can't list all 9
of those reasons but I want to take about 10 thirty more seconds just to re-iterate one or 11 two things.
12 First of all, Farley produces a safe, 13 reliable means of general electricity. One 14 that is not harming our environment and makes 15 us less dependent upon foreign petroleum and 16 waning coal resources.
17 Secondly, Farley has an exemplary safety 18 record. It is as good or better than any in 19 the United States. Farley is a world class 20 nuclear facility. You won't find one any 21 safer or any more efficient anywhere.
22 And last, Plant Farley has had and 23 continues to have a major economic impact 24 upon our local community our state and the 25
61 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 entire Southeastern United States.
1 Thank you very much for allowing me to 2
express my views this evening. I 3
wholeheartedly support the relicensing of the 4
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant and I strongly 5
urge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to do 6
the same.
7 FACILITATOR ZALCMAN: Thank you, Mr.
8 Mashburn. Okay. We have addressed the time 9
request for anybody that had preregistered.
10 Now is the opportunity if you would like to 11 make comments we would be happy to receive 12 them. We still have the record open.
13 Without any additional requests, let me 14 hand it back to Mr. Kugler, the environmental 15 section chief again. We will be here after 16 the meeting if you have questions of the 17 staff of the environmental review team or the 18 safety folks will be here to react and 19 interact with you informally. Mr. Kugler?
20 MR. KUGLER: I would just like to thank 21 everyone again for coming out this evening.
22 We consider your participation in this 23 process to be very important. If you do have 24 comments on the Draft Environmental Impact 25
62 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Statement that you would like to provide 1
later, we're accepting those comments through 2
November 5th and Jack Cushing is our 3
principle point of contact, as mentioned 4
earlier.
5 I would also like to reiterate as he 6
mentioned we have a meeting feedback form 7
that was included in the package you received 8
this evening. We would appreciate any 9
comments that you have concerning the way we 10 ran the meeting, how helpful the meeting was 11 to you or not helpful, what we can do 12 differently.
13 If you can provide those comments we 14 would appreciate it. We would like to 15 improve how we do things. You can either 16 fill it out this evening and drop it off or 17 fill it out later and mail it in. It is 18 pre-postage paid.
19 Finally, we will be staying after the 20 meeting if you have any questions or 21 comments, if you would like to talk to any 22 one of the staff we'll be here. And again, 23 we appreciate you coming out. Thank you.
24 FACILITATOR ZALCMAN: Okay. With that, 25
63 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 we'll close the record. Again, thank you 1
very much for spending the time with us 2
tonight, and drive home safely.
3 4
5 6
7 8
(Whereupon the meeting was concluded) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25