ML043490652
| ML043490652 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 11/09/2004 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Dam W, NRR/DRIP/RLEP, 415-3407 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ml043490646 | List: |
| References | |
| +sispmjr200511, NRC-098 | |
| Download: ML043490652 (78) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Corrected Transcript
Title:
D.C. Cook License Renewal Pubic Meeting Evening Session Docket Number:
50-315 and 50-316 Location:
Bridgman, Michigan Date:
Tuesday, November 9, 2004 Work Order No.:
NRC-098 Pages 1-60 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 DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT 3
UNITS 1 AND 2 4
PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS 5
THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 6
STATEMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL 7
+ + + + +
8 PUBLIC MEETING B EVENING SESSION 9
+ + + + +
10 TUESDAY 11 NOVEMBER 9, 2004 12
+ + + + +
13 BRIDGMAN, MICHIGAN 14
+ + + + +
15 The meeting was held at 7:00 p.m., at the 16 Lake Charter Township Hall, 3220 Shawnee Road, 17 Bridgman, Michigan. Chip Cameron, Facilitator, 18 presiding.
19 PRESENTERS:
20 Andy Kugler 21 William Dam 22 Bob Palla 23 Kirk LaGory 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
PAGE 2
WELCOME - Facilitator Cameron 3
Andrew Kugler............
3 4
Overview of License Renewal Process 5
William Dam.............
7 6
Results of the Environmental Review 7
Kirk LaGory............. 12 8
Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative 9
Bob Palla.............. 26 10 How Comments can be submitted 11 William Dam............. 33 12 Public Comments:
13 Mano Nazar, American Electric Power
...... 35 14 Pat Moody, Cornerstone Chamber of Commerce
... 38 15 Nanette Keiser, Berrien Community Foundation
.. 39 16 John Pielemeier, Citizen
............ 40 17 Closing Remarks 18 Andy Kugler................ 42 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
FACILITATOR CAMERON: If everybody could 2
take a seat, we'll get started with - - with today's 3
meeting. Good evening, everyone. My name is Chip 4
Cameron and I'm the Special Counsel for Public 5
Liaison at the United Stated Nuclear Regulatory 6
Commission and it's my pleasure to welcome you all 7
to the NRC's public meeting tonight. And the 8
subject of the meeting is going to focus on the 9
draft Environmental Impact Statement that the NRC 10 has prepared to help us in our evaluation of an 11 application that we received from Indiana Michigan 12 Power Company to renew the operating licenses at the 13 D.C. Cook Plant for both Units One and Two at D.C.
14 Cook.
15 And I'm going to be your facilitator 16 tonight, and I will just try to help all of you to 17 have a productive meeting this evening. I just 18 want to cover a couple of things about meeting 19 process before we go on to the substance of today's 20 discussion.
21 First of all, our format for the meeting 22 is basically going to be a two-part format. In the 23 first part of the meeting, we're going to give you 24 some background information on the NRC's license 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 renewal evaluation process and specifically, on the 1
findings and conclusions in the draft Environmental 2
Impact Statement that we prepared. And we'll go out 3
to you for any questions that you might have about 4
that.
5 Before we get into the second part of 6
the meeting, which is to give us an opportunity to 7
hear from all of you in terms of any advice, 8
recommendations, concerns that you might want to 9
express to us about the draft Environmental Impact 10 Statement. As the NRC staff will tell you, we are 11 taking written comments on the draft Environmental 12 Impact Statement, but we're here today to meet with 13 you in person on these issues. And let me assure 14 you that anything that is said today will carry the 15 same weight as a written comment.
16 And in terms of ground rules: Very 17 simple. During the question part of the meeting - -
18 during the first part of the meeting, if you have a 19 question, just signal me, and I'll bring you this 20 cordless microphone. Give us your name and 21 affiliation, if appropriate. And we'll try to 22 answer your question.
23 We are taking a transcript. Tracy is 24 our electronic court reporter/transcriptionist here, 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 and that will be our record of the meeting and it 1
will be available to any of you who want to have a 2
copy of that transcript.
3 When we get to the second part of the 4
meeting, we'll call you to come up to the podium to 5
speak to us. If you feel more comfortable staying 6
where you are and speaking into the cordless mike, 7
we can do that also. And usually, I ask people to 8
try to be concise and we have a five-minute 9
guideline for the formal comments, but I don't think 10 we're going to have any problem in terms of time 11 today. So just keep the five minutes in mind. But 12 it is a guideline, and if you go over a little bit, 13 that's fine.
14 In terms of the presenters for today's 15 meeting, and this will give you an idea about the 16 agenda, we're going to start off with - - and I'll 17 give you a little bit of background on each of these 18 people in a minute. But we're going to start off 19 with Mr. Andy Kugler, who's right here, from the 20 NRC. And Andy is the chief of the section that does 21 the environmental reviews, not only on all the 22 applications that come in for reactor license 23 renewal, but any environmental review for a reactor 24 licensing issue. And he's going to give you an 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 overview of license renewal.
1 And then we're going to go to Mr. Bill 2
Dam, who is right here. Bill works for Andy and 3
he's the project manager on the environmental review 4
on the D.C. Cook license renewal application.
5 After they're done, we'll see if there's 6
any questions about the process overall. And then 7
we're going to go to the heart of the meeting today, 8
which is the conclusions in the draft Environmental 9
Impact Statement, and we have Mr. Kirk LaGory here.
10 Kirk is one of our expert consultants and he's the 11 team leader of the experts that we have working to 12 prepare this Environmental Impact Statement. He'll 13 talk about the conclusions there. Again, we'll go 14 out for questions to you.
15 And then we're going to go to a 16 specialized part of the draft Environmental Impact 17 Statement and this is something called the Severe 18 Accident Mitigation Alternatives. We have Mr. Bob 19 Palla with us right here today, who's going to talk 20 to that, go out to you for questions again, and then 21 we're going to go back to Mr. Bill Dam to tell us 22 about some conclusions. And that's going to be our 23 agenda for today.
24 And in terms of some more details on our 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 presenters, Mr. Kugler has been with the NRC for 1
about 24 - -
2 ANDREW KUGLER: No. NRC 14 years.
3 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Fourteen years 4
with NRC and before that, he was with a utility in 5
Louisiana. He was in the Navy Submarine Service.
6 He has just been appointed as the Section Chief for 7
the Environmental Review Section, a few months ago.
8 He has a Bachelor of Science in mechanical 9
engineering from Cooper Union in New York City, and 10 a Master of Science in technical management from 11 Johns Hopkins University.
12 And Bill Dam who is the project manager 13 on the environmental review, again, he works for 14 Andy. He's been with the NRC for about seven years, 15 and he was an environmental consultant before that.
16 He worked for the United States Geological Service 17 as a hydrogeologist. And he has a Bachelor's 18 Degree in geology from Guildford College in 19 Greensboro North Carolina, and a Master's degree in 20 Geology from the University of Wyoming.
21 We have Dr. Kirk LaGory with us. He's 22 the team leader on the Environment review and he'll 23 be telling us about the conclusions in that 24 particular document.
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 There's a special part of the draft 1
environmental impact statement called Severe 2
Accident Mitigation Alternatives or SAMA's is the 3
acronym that we like to use. And we have Mr. Bob 4
Palla here from the NRC staff who is going to talk 5
about that, and we'll go to you for any questions 6
and then Bill Dam is going to conclude that first 7
part of the meeting by telling us overall 8
conclusions and how to submit written comments.
9 Now, did I leave anybody out? Speaking.
10 I think I covered everybody, but that gives you an 11 idea of what their credentials are and I just would 12 thank all of you for coming out to be with us for 13 today's meeting. And I'll turn it over to Andy.
14 ANDREW KUGLER: Thank you, Chip. Thank 15 you all today for coming to our meeting today. I 16 hope that the information we provide to you will be 17 helpful and will help you to understand the process 18 that we're going through right now, what we've done 19 so far in that process, and the role that you can 20 play in helping to insure that our final 21 environmental statement is an accurate document.
22 First let me provide some general 23 context on license renewal. The Atomic Energy Act 24 gives the NRC the authority to issue operating 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 licenses for nuclear power plants for a period of 1
forty years. For D.C. Cook, Units One and Two, 2
these licenses will expire in the years 2014 and 3
2017 respectively.
4 Our regulations also make provisions for 5
us to grant 20-year extensions to operating 6
licenses. And the Indiana Michigan Power Company 7
has requested extensions of the licenses for Cook 8
units one and two. As part of the NRC's review of a 9
license renewal application, we perform an 10 environmental review to look at the impacts of 11 running the units for an additional 20 years. We 12 held a meeting here back in March where we discussed 13 the scope of our review, and we've returned now to 14 go over the preliminary results of our review as 15 discussed in the draft Environmental Impact 16 Statement. And to give you an opportunity to ask 17 questions or provide comments on the draft. Next 18 slide.
19 Before I get into the discussion of the 20 license renewal process itself, I'd like to take a 21 minute to talk about the NRC in terms of what we do 22 and what our mission is. As I mentioned, the Atomic 23 Energy Act is a legislation that authorizes us to 24 regulate the civilian use of nuclear materials in 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 the United States.
1 In exercising that authority, the NRC 2
has a three-fold mission. The first is to insure 3
the adequate protection of the public health and 4
safety. We also have a mission to protect the 5
environment, and finally, to insure the common 6
defense and security. The NRC accomplishes its 7
mission through a combination of regulatory programs 8
and processes, such as inspections, enforcement 9
actions, assessments of licensee's performance, and 10 the evaluation of operating experience at the plants 11 throughout the country.
12 Turning now to license renewal, the 13 review that we perform is very similar to the review 14 that was performed when these plants were originally 15 licensed. And in that regard, there are really two 16 parts to the review. A safety review and an 17 environmental review.
18 The safety review includes a safety 19 evaluation, plant inspections and audits, and an 20 independent review by the Advisory Committee on 21 Reactor Safeguards. Also referred to as the ACRS.
22 Now there are two basic types of safety issues that 23 we might be looking at. One is the current issues 24 at the plant and these are dealt with today and on 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 an on-going basis. And the other issues related to 1
aging management or the aging of equipment at the 2
plant. And these are dealt with in license renewal.
3 Under the current operating license, the 4
NRC's oversight process monitors current issues and 5
responds to those issues. We don't wait until an 6
application for license renewal to deal with the 7
current issues at a plant. And because the NRC has 8
or is dealing with issues such as security and 9
emergency planning on a continuing basis, we don't 10 reevaluate them in our license renewal review.
11 Instead, the license renewal safety 12 review focuses on aging management issues and the 13 programs that the licensee either has or will have 14 in place to maintain the equipment safely. We look 15 at specific groups of components and make a 16 determination whether current or planned programs 17 will insure that the issues related to aging are 18 detected and properly managed for the period of 19 extended operation. The results are then documented 20 in a safety evaluation report.
21 That report is independently reviewed 22 by the ACRS. Now, the ACRS is a group of technical 23 experts in nuclear safety, and they serve as a 24 consulting body for the Commission. They'll review 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 each license renewal application and the safety 1
evaluation report and make their own determinations 2
and conclusions and then report those independently 3
to the Commission.
4 In relation to the environmental review 5
which Mr. Bill Dam will discuss in more detail in a 6
few minutes, we evaluate the impacts of the 7
continued operation of the Plant in a number of 8
areas. These would include ecology, hydrology, 9
cultural resources, socieoeconomics and a number of 10 other areas.
11 Next slide please. This slide gives a 12 graphic representation of the license renewal 13 process. As I indicated, there's two basic paths in 14 this review. The upper path is the safety review 15 and then the lower path is the environmental review.
16 The safety review involves the staff's 17 review and assessment of safety information that was 18 provided in the licensee's application. There's a 19 team of about 30 NRC technical reviewers and 20 contractors who are involved in conducting this 21 review. The safety review focuses on the 22 effectiveness of the aging management programs for 23 the plant systems and structures that are within the 24 scope of license renewal. The NRC staff reviews the 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 effectiveness of these programs to insure that the 1
plant can be safely maintained throughout the 2
license renewal term.
3 The safety review process also involves 4
audits and on-site inspections. These inspections 5
are conducted by a team of inspectors pulled from 6
both headquarters and our regional office. We have 7
a representative of our inspection program here 8
today and he's the senior resident inspector at D.C.
9 Cook. His name is Brian Kemker. Brian, if you 10 could. We also have an individual from the Region 11 Three office and that's Patricia Lougheed.
12 The results of the inspections are 13 recorded in separate inspection reports and these 14 results and the results of the staff's aging 15 management review will be documented in the safety 16 evaluation report. As I mentioned, that report will 17 then be provided to the ACRS for its independent 18 review. Two of the on-site inspections have been 19 completed and we are in the process of preparing the 20 safety evaluation report right now.
21 The second part of the review process 22 involves the environmental review. The scoping 23 activities that were carried out earlier and the 24 development of a draft supplement to the Generic 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 Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal 1
of Nuclear Power Plants, a document we refer to as 2
the GEIS. The draft Environmental Impact Statement 3
has been published for comment and we're here 4
tonight to briefly discuss the results and to 5
receive your comments. We expect to issue the 6
final Environmental Impact Statement in May of next 7
year. And this will incorporate any comments we 8
receive here today and any comments we receive in 9
writing during the comment period.
10 So as you can see from this slide, there 11 are a number of things that will go into the 12 Commission's eventual decision as to whether or not 13 to approve license renewal for D.C. Cook Units One 14 and Two. There needs to be a Safety Evaluation 15 Report, an Environmental Impact Statement, the 16 inspection reports from the region, and the 17 independent review by the ACRS.
18 I'd like to point out the splash symbols 19 on the slide. These indicate opportunities for 20 public involvement in the review. The first 21 opportunity occurred during the scoping period back 22 in March when we gave people an opportunity to 23 provide inputs on what the scope of our review 24 should be. We held meetings here at that time and 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 some of you may have attended that meeting.
1 This meeting on the draft Environmental 2
Impact Statement is another opportunity. It is also 3
an opportunity to request a formal adjudicatory 4
hearing on the license renewal review. This hearing 5
would have taken place in front of an Atomic Safety 6
and Licensing Board panel. However, no one 7
requested a hearing and so that portion of the 8
review is not applicable here. And then, finally, 9
the ACRS meeting to discuss the results of the 10 safety review will be open to the public.
11 Now I'd like to turn things over to Mr.
12 Bill Dam and he'll discuss the environmental review 13 in a bit more detail. Thank you.
14 WILLIAM DAM: Thanks, Andy. My name is 15 Bill Dam and I'm the environmental project manager.
16 My responsibility is to coordinate the efforts of 17 NRC staff including a team from national 18 laboratories who have expert knowledge in various 19 environmental fields, and help us prepare the 20 Environmental Impact Statement.
21 The National Environmental Policy Act of 22 1969 requires a systematic approach in evaluating 23 impacts of proposed major federal actions.
24 Consideration is given to the environmental impacts 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 of the proposed action, the mitigation for any 1
impacts that are believed to be significant.
2 Alternatives taken into account and no action 3
alternatives on the applicant's request are also 4
considered.
5 The Environmental Impact Statement is a 6
disclosure tool and it involves public 7
participation. NRC regulations require that an 8
Environmental Impact Statement be prepared for the 9
proposed license renewal activities. So we're 10 here today to collect public comments on the draft 11 statement and include those comments on the final 12 report.
13 This slide defines our legal decision 14 standard that follows from our environmental 15 analysis. It basically asks two questions: Is the 16 license renewal acceptable from an environmental 17 standpoint; and secondly, should the option for 18 extending power plant operations be preserved. We, 19 at the NRC, do not decide whether the D.C. Cook 20 plant actually operates an additional 20 years.
21 That decision is left up to the power company, to 22 the state regulators, and other people who make that 23 final decision for continuing plant operations.
24 On slide five - - Andy already described 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 the overall safety and environmental process. Here 1
we have a more detailed environmental process slide 2
that we go through in evaluating an application for 3
license renewal. The Indiana Michigan Power Company 4
submitted their application for license renewal to 5
the NRC on October 31, 2003. We subsequently put 6
formal notice in the Federal Register that we would 7
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement associated 8
with that application. The Federal Register notice 9
began the scoping process, which invited public 10 participation early in the process. We conducted a 11 scoping meeting in early March of that year to 12 examine the bounds of our environmental evaluation.
13 We also brought a team of experts from 14 national labs to examine inside and outside the 15 power plant, to review a substantial volume of 16 information that was available to us and also to 17 interview site personnel as well as going out into 18 the community and meeting with local and state 19 officials. If, after all that activity, we still 20 don't have all the information that we need to help 21 us prepare draft Environmental Impact Statement, we 22 send out a formal request for additional information 23 that is sent to the applicant. So three weeks after 24 we performed our site audit, we prepared and sent 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 out a request for information on those remaining 1
issues or concerns that we had.
2 After we get back the answers to the 3
request for information and we examine all the 4
information we have, we put that into and issue a 5
draft Environmental Impact Statement. We issued the 6
draft supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact 7
Statement about six weeks ago. And in a few 8
minutes, we'll be hearing from Dr. Kirk LaGory, the 9
Argonne National Lab Team Leader, who will share the 10 results of our findings.
11 Presently, we're in the middle of the 12 public comment period on the draft statement which 13 will expire in about five weeks. Once we get all 14 the public comments in, including what we receive at 15 this meeting, then we will evaluate all that and 16 publish a final Environmental Impact Statement. Our 17 schedule presently provides for the final 18 Environmental Impact Statement to be published May, 19 2005.
20 For the moment, that concludes my 21 remarks and I'd be happy to entertain questions.
22 I'll turn the mike over to Chip.
23 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you, Andy.
24 Thanks, Bill. Any questions on process at this 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 point before we go on? Okay. Great. We're going 1
to go to Dr. Kirk LaGory now to tell us about what 2
the findings are in the draft Environmental Impact 3
Statement.
4 KIRK LAGORY: Thank you, Chip. Again, 5
my name is Kirk LaGory. I am an ecologist at 6
Argonne National Laboratory and I was the project 7
team leader for the Cook Plant EIS. The NRC 8
contracted with Argonne and Pacific Northwest 9
National Laboratory to provide the expertise 10 necessary to evaluate the impacts of license renewal 11 at the Cook Nuclear Plant. The EIS team consists 12 of scientists from the two national laboratories as 13 well as NRC staff. This slide shows the team 14 expertise represented by those staff. We really 15 cover the full range of possible impact area growing 16 from air, human systems, socioeconomics, things like 17 jobs, education, environmental justice issues, 18 archeology, historical resources. Issues associated 19 with - - with the land. Terrestrial ecology and 20 land use. Issues associated with the water. Things 21 like aquatic ecology, hydrology, both surface water 22 and ground water hydrology. And then we also look 23 at radiation protection and regulatory compliance 24 issues. Next slide.
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 This slide shows our overall approach in 1
preparing the EIS. Before I go into this slide, 2
though, I'd like to give you some background to help 3
you understand the overall process. Back in the 4
mid-90's, the NRC evaluated the impacts of all 5
operating nuclear plants across the country. NRC 6
looked at 92 separate impact areas and found that 7
for 69, issues, the impacts would be the same for 8
all plants that had similar features. NRC called 9
these, Category One issues and made the same generic 10 determination about their impacts. They determined 11 that the impacts would be small. And published 12 their findings in the Generic Environmental Impact 13 Statement for License Renewal, which was issued in 14 1996.
15 The NRC was unable to make generic 16 conclusions about the remaining 23 issues. These 17 were called Category Two issues. And determined 18 that a site-specific supplemental EIS would have to 19 be prepared to cover those Category Two issues. And 20 it is the supplement for the Cook plant that we're 21 talking about today.
22 So this slide shows the process that we 23 used. We looked at the Category One issues relevant 24 to the Cook Plant to determine if the conclusion in 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 the Generic EIS was still valid. Specifically, we 1
looked for any new and significant information that 2
might change that conclusion. If we found no 3
significant information or new information, we 4
adopted the conclusions in the Generic EIS. If, 5
however, new and significant information was 6
identified, then a site-specific analysis was 7
performed.
8 For all Category Two issues that were 9
relevant to the Cook Plant, we performed site-10 specific analyses. And that is really the bulk of 11 the EIS that addresses those Category Two issues, 12 the site-specific analysis relevant to those. On 13 the right hand portion of this slide, there shows 14 that there also is a process to identify new issues, 15 issues that were not considered in the generic EIS.
16 If those come to the attention of the team during 17 the process, those are considered and then included, 18 if relevant. That was - - we did not find any 19 potential new issues for the Cook Plant.
20 In the generic EIS, the NRC defined 21 three impact levels: Small, moderate and large.
22 And the definitions for those impact levels are 23 provided in this slide. A small effect would not be 24 detectable or would be too small to destabilize or 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 noticeably alter any important attribute of the 1
resource under consideration.
2 A moderate effect would be one that is 3
sufficient to noticeably alter a resource but not 4
destabilize important attributes of that resource.
5 And then a large effect is one that 6
would be clearly noticeable and would be sufficient 7
to destabilize important attributes of the resource.
8 To illustrate the way we use these 9
impact levels, I'm going to talk about the Lake 10 Michigan Fishery. The operation of the Cook Plant 11 may cause the loss of fish at the cooling system 12 intake structure. If the loss of fish is so small 13 that it cannot be detected in relation to the total 14 population in Lake Michigan or to the population in 15 the area around the Cook Plant, then we would call 16 that impact small. If the losses resulting from 17 cooling system intake were large enough to cause a 18 slight decline in the population, but then the 19 population stabilized at a lower level, then we 20 would call that impact, moderate. If, however, 21 the losses caused the populations to decline 22 substantially and continue to decline - - in other 23 words, they became unstable, then we would call that 24 type of impact large. Next slide.
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 When the EIS team evaluated the impacts 1
from continued operations at the Cook Nuclear Plant, 2
we considered information from a wide variety of 3
sources. First, we looked at the environmental 4
report that the applicant prepared and included 5
within the license renewal application. In March, 6
we performed a site audit where EIS team members 7
visited the site and the surroundings, interviewed 8
plant personnel and reviewed documentation of plant 9
operations. We also talked to federal, state and 10 local agencies, permitting authorities and social 11 services, basically to determine if there were 12 concerns about the past operations of the Cook Plant 13 and if those entities had any information that we 14 might use in our impact analysis. And then lastly, 15 we received public comments during the scoping 16 period and included that information in our overall 17 process. All of this information forms the basis 18 for the analysis and preliminary conclusions that 19 are in the draft EIS. Next slide.
20 The Cook EIS considers the environmental 21 impacts of continued operations of Units One and Two 22 during the 20-year license renewal term, that is 23 2014 to 2034, for Unit One; and 2017 to 2037 for 24 Unit Two. The impacts of routine operations were 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 considered for the cooling system, for the 1
transmission lines that were built to connect the 2
Cook Plant to the electrical grid, for radiological 3
issues, for socioeconomic issues such as jobs and 4
education, for ground water use and quality, for 5
threatened and endangered species, cumulative 6
impacts, as well as for postulated accidents and 7
severe accident mitigation alternatives. In this 8
talk, I'm going to speak directly to the impacts of 9
routine operations. Bob Palla will talk about the 10 impacts of the - - or the accident analysis that was 11 performed by the NRC.
12 So one of the issues that we looked very 13 closely at were the impacts of the cooling system at 14 the Cook Plant. There are three Category Two issues 15 relevant to that cooling system. Entrainment of 16 fish and shellfish in early life stages, impingement 17 of fish and shellfish, and heat shock. Entrainment 18 refers to the pulling in of small organisms - -
19 aquatic organisms into the cooling system.
20 Impingement refers to the pulling in of 21 larger organisms into the cooling system and those 22 larger organisms become pinned on the debris screens 23 that protect the cooling system from debris and 24 other floating or suspended material in the water.
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 Heat shock occurs when relatively warm 1
water is released into cool water. Aquatic 2
organisms that are adapted to that cooler water can 3
lose equilibrium or even die when exposed to 4
significantly warmer water. All of these processes 5
can result in mortality of organisms.
6 When we looked at the monitoring results 7
and various studies that have been conducted, the 8
numbers of organisms that have been entrained and 9
impinged or affected by heat shock and the number -
10
- those numbers relative to the overall populations 11 in the lake and in that general area, we came to the 12 conclusion that the potential impact in these areas 13 would be small and that additional mitigation is not 14 warranted.
15 There are also a number of Category One 16 issues related to the cooling system that we looked 17 at. Some issues - - some such issues are water use 18 conflicts, accumulation of contaminants and 19 discharge of sanitary waste. In the generic EIS the 20 NRC determined that the impacts associated with 21 these category one issues would be small. We 22 evaluated all information to see if there was any 23 new and significant information for these issues.
24 We did not find any and therefore, adopted NRC's 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 generic conclusion that the impact of the cooling 1
system for these Category One issues would also be 2
small.
3 The radiological impacts of normal 4
operations including radiation exposure to the 5
public and occupational radiation exposures was 6
considered by the NRC in the generic Environmental 7
Impact Statement and a determination was made that 8
these were Category One issues. In other words, the 9
impacts varied little across the various plants in 10 the country, and that those impacts would be small 11 over the 20-year license renewal period.
12 But because these releases are of 13 concern to the public, I'm going to discuss these in 14 a little bit more detail here. All nuclear plants 15 release some radiological effluents to the 16 environment. During our site visit, we looked at 17 the documentation for effluent release and the 18 radiological monitoring program at Cook. We looked 19 at how the gaseous and liquid effluents were treated 20 and released, as well as how the solid wastes were 21 treated, packaged and shipped from the site. We 22 looked at how the applicant determines and 23 demonstrates that they are in compliance with the 24 regulation for release of radiological effluents.
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 We also looked at data from on-site and near site 1
locations that the applicant monitors for airborne 2
releases and direct radiation and at other 3
monitoring stations beyond the site boundary, 4
including locations where water, milk, fish and food 5
products are sampled.
6 We found that the maximum calculated 7
doses for a member of the public are well within 8
annual limits that are considered protective of 9
human health. Since releases from the plant are not 10 expected to increase during the 20-year license 11 renewal term, and since we also found no new and 12 significant information related to this issue, we 13 adopted the generic conclusion in the generic EIS 14 that the radiological impact on human health and the 15 environment is small.
16 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Mr. Pielemeier, do 17 you have a quick question for us now?
18 JOHN PIELEMEIER: Well, I was just 19 wondering whether - -
20 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Let's get you on 21 the record.
22 JOHN PIELEMEIER: Thank you. In general 23 with the nuclear generating plants what is the 24 history of any incidents of leukemia or anything of 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 that sort among operating personnel?
1 FACILITATOR CAMERON: And let's - -
2 let's get to that question, but let's let him do the 3
rest of his presentation and then we'll come back to 4
that. Okay?
5 JOHN PIELEMEIER: Okay.
6 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Do you want to 7
continue and then we'll go on to answer his 8
question.
9 KIRK LAGORY: Okay. Sure. Next slide.
10 Impacts to threatened and endangered species is also 11 considered a Category Two issue that requires a 12 site-specific review. Our evaluation considered 13 those species that are known to occur or could occur 14 in the vicinity of the Cook Plant or the 15 transmission lines associated with the Plant. This 16 slide shows the 11 species that could occur in the 17 project area.
18 We evaluated the locations of these 19 species, their habitats, and the possibility of 20 impacts over the 20-year license renewal period. We 21 also discussed our findings with the US Fish and 22 Wildlife Service that oversees implementation of the 23 Endangered Species Act. The Fish and Wildlife 24 Service concurred with our conclusion that 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 relicensing would not affect these species. Next 1
slide.
2 Waste water disposal at the Cook Plant has 3
the potential to affect ground water quality because 4
the plant discharges processed waste water and 5
sanitary wastes to two absorption ponds and two 6
sewage lagoons on the site. And here are the 7
absorption ponds and then the sewage lagoons next to 8
those. These two disposal systems receive effluent 9
that is treated, but then further treatment is 10 provided by the natural soil column as the effluent 11 flows through that soil column and into the 12 underlying groundwater. Discharges flow ultimately 13 into Lake Michigan.
14 Monitoring wells are used to regularly 15 monitor groundwater quality in this area. This 16 monitoring over the years has shown that groundwater 17 quality has been in compliance with permit 18 requirements and with national drinking water 19 standards. And I might add that permits are 20 regulated by the Michigan Department of 21 Environmental Quality and that they oversee 22 compliance with permits and standards.
23 On the basis of this information, we 24 concluded that the impacts to groundwater quality 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 would be small and that additional mitigation is not 1
warranted. Next Slide.
2 We also considered cumulative impacts of 3
operations. Cumulative impacts are those impacts 4
that are minor when considered individually, but 5
significant when considered with other past, present 6
and future actions regardless of what agency or 7
person undertakes those other actions. The staff 8
considered cumulative impacts resulting from 9
operation of the cooling water system, operation of 10 the transmission lines, releases of radiation and 11 radiological material into the environment, 12 socioeconomic impacts, groundwater use and quality 13 impacts, and impacts to threatened and endangered 14 species. And we looked at the cumulative impacts 15 that would occur over the 20-year license renewal 16 term. Our preliminary determination is that any 17 cumulative impacts resulting from operation of the 18 Cook Nuclear Plan during the license renewal period 19 would be small.
20 We also looked at impacts to the uranium 21 fuel cycle and solid waste management and 22 decommissioning. In the generic EIS, the NRC 23 considered impact areas associated with these topics 24 as Category One issues. Our team found no new and 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 significant information associated with these topics 1
and therefore adopted the conclusion in the generic 2
EIS that impacts in these areas would be small.
3 Cook Nuclear Plant Units One and Two have 4
a combined capacity of over 2,000 megawatts. The 5
EIS team evaluating the potential environmental 6
impacts associated with the Cook Plant not 7
continuing operation and replacing its generating 8
capacity with alternative power sources. We looked 9
at a no action alternative where the power capacity 10 of the Cook Plant would not be replaced. We looked 11 at replacement of that capacity with new generation 12 from either coal, natural gas or new nuclear. We 13 looked at replacement of that capacity with 14 purchased electrical power and then we looked at 15 other alternatives including oil, wind, solar and 16 conservation. And then we examined the impacts of a 17 combination of those various alternatives.
18 For each alternative, we looked at the 19 same types of issues that we looked at for the 20 operation of the Cook Plant during the license 21 renewal term. The team's preliminary conclusion is 22 that the environmental impacts of alternatives - -
23 of all alternatives reach moderate or large 24 significance in at least some impact categories. So 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 the impacts of all alternatives would have larger 1
environmental impacts than the impacts of 2
relicensing over the 20-year - - for another 20 3
years. Next slide.
4 So our preliminary conclusions for the 5
Category One issues presented in the generic EIS, we 6
found no information that was both new and 7
significant. Therefore, we have preliminarily 8
adopted the conclusion that impacts associated with 9
these issues are small.
10 In the supplement EIS, we analyzed the 11 remaining Category Two issues pertinent to the Cook 12 Plant as well as the issue of groundwater quality 13 degradation associated with on-site disposal of 14 processed waste water and sanitary waste water, 15 those impacts also would be small.
16 And lastly, we found that for all 17 alternatives, at least in some impact categories, 18 and this is usually related to the amount of land 19 disturbance associated with building new capacity, 20 that there would likely be moderate or large impact 21 in some impact area.
22 So that concludes my talk. I'll turn this 23 back to Chip and we can address questions.
24 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, 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 Kirk. And let's first try to answer Mr.
1 Pielemeier's question which I'm going to paraphrase 2
it, but are there - - have there been any studies 3
about the health effects of the radiation exposures 4
to workers at the facility? We'll go to Andy 5
Kugler.
6 ANDREW KUGLER: Okay. Thank you, Chip.
7 I'm not aware of any specific studies related to 8
cancers in the workers. There have been studies 9
that I'm aware of related to the population around 10 power plants to evaluate whether there's any 11 indication that there were increases of incidents of 12 cancer around power plants. And the conclusions of 13 those studies was that there wasn't any higher rate 14 of cancer. But I'm not aware of specific studies.
15 Now what I am - - what I can tell us is 16 that the Plants monitor the exposure of their 17 personnel, that they're required to have a program 18 in place called ALARA, As Low as Reasonably 19 Achievable, where they are required to take steps to 20 minimize the dose to workers. And that goes beyond 21 just - - I mean, plant designs and approaches were 22 intended to minimize doses, to begin with, but this 23 program requires them to go beyond that and to do 24 everything they can to minimize dose. In general, 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 exposures to workers are well below our limits, 1
our regulatory limits. But as far as studies, I 2
don't have any specific data. And that's something 3
that when we get back, we can take a look if there 4
is something specific. I'm not a radiation 5
specialist, so I wouldn't necessarily be aware if 6
there was a study. But we can try and gather more 7
information. But the standards to which they're 8
being held, were set by international committees 9
that determine what would be a safe level and you 10 have this - - you know - - you stay below that 11 level. And plants all do that and they maintain the 12 exposure to their staff well below those limits, but 13 I'll see if we can find something out as far as any 14 studies that have been done.
15 FACILITATOR CAMERON: And there is a 16 section in the draft on occupational exposures.
17 ANDREW KUGLER: Correct.
18 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Perhaps we could 19 direct Mr. Pielemeier to that. Do you have any - -
20 do you have a follow-up question on that, Mr.
21 Pielemeier?
22 JOHN PIELEMEIER: No. I would simply feel 23 that since many of these plants have been in 24 operation now for a significant period of time, 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 that, you know, if might be of interest now. When 1
they were started, you know, there was no long-term 2
history to study, so to speak, but there would be 3
now. And I thought that might be of interest.
4 ANDREW KUGLER: And there very well may 5
be. It just might not be something I'd be aware of.
6 Okay.
7 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Other 8
questions about the findings in the draft 9
Environmental Impact Statement for Dr. LaGory or 10 anybody else? Any questions? Any further issues?
11 If not, we're going to go to the severe accident 12 mitigation alternatives that Dr. LaGory referred to 13 and we have Bob Palla with us who's a Senior Reactor 14 Engineer at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And, 15 he spent most of his 23 years at the Commission 16 looking at severe accidents and something called 17 probabilistic risk analysis. And, Bob, I'll turn it 18 over to you.
19 BOB PALLA: Thanks, Chip. My name is Bob 20 Palla. I'm with the Probabilistic Safety Assessment 21 Branch of NRC and I'm going to discuss the 22 environmental impacts of postulated accidents.
23 These impacts are described in Section 5 of the 24 Generic Environmental Impact Statement or the GEIS.
25
36 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 The GEIS evaluates two categories of accidents:
1 Design-basis accidents and severe accidents.
2 Now, design-basis accidents are those 3
accidents that both the licensee and the NRC staff 4
evaluate to insure that the plant can safely respond 5
to a broad spectrum of postulated accidents without 6
risk to the public. The environmental impacts of 7
design-basis accidents are evaluated during the 8
initial licensing process and the ability of the 9
plant to withstand these accidents has to be 10 demonstrated before the plant is granted an 11 operating license. Most importantly, a licensee is 12 required to maintain an acceptable design and 13 performance capability throughout the life of the 14 plant, including any extended life operation.
15 Since the licensee has to demonstrate this 16 acceptable plant performance for the design-basis 17 accident throughout the life of the plant, the 18 Commission has determined that the environmental 19 impact of design-basis accidents are of small 20 significance. Neither the NRC nor the licensee is 21 aware of any new and significant information on the 22 capability of the D.C. Cook Plant to withstand 23 design-basis accidents. Therefore, the staff 24 concludes that there are no impacts related to the 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 design-basis accidents beyond those discussed in the 1
GEIS.
2 Now, with regard to severe accidents, the 3
second category, these accidents, by definition are 4
more severe than design-basis accidents because they 5
could result in substantial damage to the reactor 6
core. The Commission found in the GEIS that the 7
risk of a severe accident, in terms of atmospheric 8
releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, 9
releases to groundwater and societal impacts are 10 small for all plants. Nevertheless, the Commission 11 determined that alternatives to mitigate severe 12 accidents must be considered for all plants that 13 have not done so. We refer to these alternatives as 14 severe accident mitigation alternatives or SAMA's 15 for short.
16 Now, the SAMA evaluation is a site-17 specific assessment and it's a Category Two issue as 18 Kirk described moments ago. The SAMA review for 19 D.C. Cook is summarized in section 5.2 of the GEIS 20 supplement and is described in more detail in 21 Appendix G of the GEIS supplement. And I'm going to 22 be focusing on the results of this review in the 23 remainder of my presentation.
24 Now, before I get started, let me just 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 outline and summarize that the purpose of performing 1
the SAMA evaluation is to insure that plant changes 2
with the potential for improving severe accident 3
safety performance are identified and evaluated.
4 The scope of potential plan improvements that were 5
considered include hardware modifications, procedure 6
changes, training program improvements, as well as 7
other changes. Basically, a full spectrum of 8
potential changes. The scope includes SAMA's that 9
would prevent core damage as well as SAMA's that 10 would improve containment performance given that a 11 core damage event may occur.
12 The SAMA evaluation process is a four-step 13 process. The first step is to characterize overall 14 plant risk and leading contributors to risk. This 15 typically involves extensive use of the plant-16 specific probabilistic risk assessment study which 17 is also known as the PRA. The PRA is a study that 18 identifies different combinations of system failures 19 and human errors that would be required to occur in 20 order for an accident to progress to either core 21 damage or containment failure. The second step of 22 the evaluation is to identify potential improvements 23 that could further reduce risk. The information 24 from the PRA, such as a dominant accident sequence 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 is used to help identify plant improvements that 1
would have the greatest impact in reducing risk.
2 Improvements identified in other NRC and industry 3
studies as well as SAMA analyses for other plants, 4
are also considered.
5 The third step in the evaluation is to 6
quantify the risk reduction potential and the 7
implementation costs for each improvement. The risk 8
reduction and the implementation costs for each SAMA 9
are typically estimated using abounding analysis.
10 The risk reduction is generally over estimated by 11 assuming that the plant improvement is completely 12 effective in eliminating the accident sequences it 13 is intended to address.
14 The implementation costs are generally 15 under estimated by neglecting certain cost factors 16 such as maintenance costs and surveillance costs 17 associated with the improvement.
18 The risk reduction and cost estimates are 19 used in the final step to determine whether 20 implementation of any of the improvements can be 21 justified. In determining whether an improvement is 22 justified, the NRC staff looks at three factors.
23 The first is whether the improvement is cost 24 beneficial. In other words, is the estimated 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 benefit greater than the estimated implementation 1
costs of the SAMA. The second factor is whether the 2
improvement provides a significant reduction in 3
total risk. For example, does it eliminate a 4
sequence or a containment failure mode that 5
contributes to a large fraction of the plant risk.
6 The third factor is whether the risk 7
reduction is associated with aging effects during 8
the period of extended operation, in which case, if 9
it was, we would consider implementation of the SAMA 10 as part of the license renewal process.
11 The preliminary results of the D.C. Cook 12 SAMA evaluation are summarized on this slide. 194 13 candidate improvements were identified for D.C. Cook 14 based on the review of the plant-specific PRA, 15 relevant industry and NRC studies on severe 16 accidents, and SAMA analyses performed for other 17 plants. The licensee reduced this set to a set of 18 72 potential SAMA's based on an initial screening.
19 Factors considered during the screening included 20 whether the SAMA is not applicable to D.C. Cook due 21 to design differences, whether it has already been 22 addressed in the existing D.C. Cook design or 23 procedures or training program, and whether the SAMA 24 would involve major plant changes that would clearly 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 be in excess of the bounding benefit. So if it met 1
any of those three general conditions, the SAMA's 2
were screened out. The end result was that 72 of 3
these were screened from the initial 194, and then 4
upon further assessment, the 72 was further reduced 5
yet. But a more detailed assessment of these were 6
first performed. This is described in detail in 7
Appendix G of the GEIS supplement.
8 The cost/benefit analysis that was done 9
for the 72 shows that 16 of these are potentially 10 cost beneficial when evaluated individually in 11 accordance with NRC guidance for performing 12 regulatory analyses. These 16 potentially cost 13 beneficial SAMA's are grouped into five areas of 14 risk reduction and SAMA's within each of these areas 15 generally address the same risk contributor in a 16 different way. The 16 SAMA's include 7 SAMA's that 17 are related to minimizing the potential for leakage 18 from reactor cooling pump seals. Four SAMA's 19 related to minimizing the impacts of the loss of 20 ventilation systems that would cool emergency diesel 21 generators and switch gear. Two SAMA's related to 22 improving the performance of hydrogen-controlled 23 systems during station black-out accidents. One of 24 the SAMA's involved minimizing the impact of the 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 loss of AC bus failures in the plant. And two 1
SAMA's related to improving operator recovery from 2
interfacing system LOCA accidents.
3 Now implementation of one SAMA within a 4
group could reduce the residual risk from that group 5
to a point that the remaining SAMA's in the group 6
would no longer be cost beneficial. So as a result, 7
implementation of all 16 SAMA's is not expected to 8
be justified on a cost/benefit basis. Rather, 9
implementation of a carefully selected subset of the 10 16 might achieve much of the risk reduction in a 11 cost-effective manner.
12 On this last slide I summarize the 13 conclusions of the study. None of the cost-14 beneficial SAMA's of these 16 are related to 15 managing the effects of plant aging. And as I 16 discussed previously, if they are not aging 17 related, they need not be implemented as part of 18 license renewal. Now, although they're not required 19 to be implemented as part of the license renewal 20 process, the licensee is further assessing these 21 SAMA's and evaluating implementation options in 22 accordance with the D.C. Cook corrective actions 23 program. So that concludes my presentation. I'll 24 turn it over to Chip for any questions.
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 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, 1
Bob. So you heard about the severe accident 2
alternatives. Are there any questions on that 3
aspect of the Environmental Impact Statement? Yes.
4 And this is Mr. Pielemeier. Mr. Pielemeier.
5 JOHN PIELEMEIER: I love to ask questions.
6 A number of years ago, there was a - - I believe a 7
shut-down operation for a situation where the - -
8 the ice jacket around the - - one of the cooling 9
units was not considered adequate in terms of the 10 baskets and so on that contain the ice. Now, you 11 know that's as little as I understand it - - that 12 issue. But I just wondered whether that has 13 remained as an issue in any way or whether it's been 14 fully rectified?
15 BOB PALLA: Well, let me - - let me 16 separate, if I may, the safety side from the 17 environmental side and what we did in the analysis I 18 just described. This - - the performance issue 19 perhaps is the best way to characterize what you're 20 referring to. Some problems with the ice condenser 21 pressure suppression function of the containment.
22 And this is something that I guess is really part of 23 the safety review. I don't know that it's an aging 24 issue. I don't suspect that it is. I think it's 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 just a regular everyday issue from an operations 1
point of view when operating these ice condenser 2
containments. I think as - - when these plants were 3
first started, I think it was a steep learning 4
curve. There are a lot of operational issues that 5
were revealed as the plants - - as they gained more 6
experience with the operation of the plants. My 7
understanding is that these issues over time have 8
been ironed out and that they - - you know - - just 9
by the experience base that's been gained over the 10 years, both Cook as well as other ice condenser 11 plants operating in the country, you know, share 12 their insights regarding operational issues. So I'm 13 speaking, you know, off the cuff here, to say I 14 expect that that's the case. But I - - that's my 15 expectation.
16 Now, with regard - - and that's really a 17 safety issue. Probably not even an aging-related 18 issue. It's an operating plant issue. With regard 19 to what we do in the SAMA evaluation, issues like 20 that would be, if significant and if revealed, you 21 know, over time, let's say it happened on a regular 22 basis. These kind of failures would be part of the 23 probabilistic risk assessment and you would see a 24 risk contribution to that within the baseline study.
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 Now, we didn't look at any ice condenser issues as 1
part of this SAMA review. We did not see it as a 2
problem. I don't believe it's - - it appears as a 3
significant risk contributor.
4 FACILITATOR CAMERON: So in other words, 5
you didn't look at them because they didn't appear 6
to be any sort of a significant risk contributor.
7 BOB PALLA: That's right. What we try to 8
do here is focus on where we think the residual risk 9
is coming from and then try to find ways that you 10 can reduce that through smart selection of some 11 potential plant improvements. This didn't - - this 12 kind of problem that you're referring to did not 13 reveal itself through the risk assessment, so we 14 did not explore ways to fix a problem that we didn't 15 see as a problem.
16 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Anything else on 17 that, Mr. Pielemeier? All right. Any questions on 18 any of the presentations so far? Anything else that 19 we could answer for you? Okay. well, let's go to 20 the final summing up by Mr. Bill Dam, the 21 Environmental Project Manager is going to do that 22 for us. Bill?
23 WILLIAM DAM: Turning to our conclusions, 24 we found that for license renewal the environmental 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 impacts are small in all areas. When we looked at 1
the alternatives part, including the no action 2
alternative, the environmental effects had some 3
impact categories ranging from small, moderate or 4
large significance.
5 Based on these results, our preliminary 6
conclusion is that by operating the Donald C. Cook 7
Plant, Units One and Two, for an additional 20 8
years, the environmental impacts would be small 9
and therefore, the option to renew the license 10 should be preserved for energy planning decision 11 makers.
12 As I mentioned before, the draft 13 Environmental Impact Statement was released in 14 September. So what happens next? We're into a 75-15 day comment period that runs until December. After 16 that, we will review and disposition the comments we 17 receive tonight and after this meeting, if we get 18 any, and we'll modify the Environmental Impact 19 Statement and release a final draft by May of next 20 year, 2005.
21 This slide describes the reference 22 documents and I'm available at this phone number and 23 I'd be happy to talk to anybody who wants to call 24 and provide me information about what we're here 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 discussing tonight. Also, the environmental 1
documents are available at two public libraries.
2 One is the Bridgman, and one in St. Joseph. And 3
there's also quite a bit of information on the NRC 4
website about a range of issues. Specifically to 5
this project, the draft Environmental Impact 6
Statement is available on line at the long address, 7
e-mail address you can see there or the website 8
address.
9 So outside of this meeting tonight, there 10 are three additional ways that you can provide us 11 comments on the draft Environmental Impact 12 Statement. One is by writing to us at this address.
13 The second way is in person, if you happen to be in 14 the Rockville, Maryland area. We'd be happy to meet 15 with you and discuss your comments. And the third, 16 we've set up a special e-mail address to receive 17 comments. And that address is CookEIS@nrc.gov.
18 All comments will be collected and considered and 19 responded to in our final Environmental Impact 20 Statement.
21 I want to take time to thank you for 22 attending this meeting for this very important 23 process. And please take brochures and other 24 information in the back. And we have single copies 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 the draft Environmental Impact Statement 1
available for you to take home. Also, we also 2
request that you provide us your feed-back. It will 3
help us prepare for future meetings. I thank you, 4
again, for attending and being great participants.
5 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Bill.
6 We're going to move into the second part of the 7
meeting now, which is to have an opportunity to 8
listen to any comments that you have. And we always 9
like to give the - - a representative of the license 10 applicant an opportunity to tell us a little bit 11 more about their vision and plans connected to 12 license renewal. And we have the Chief Nuclear 13 Officer and Senior Vice Present for AEP with us 14 tonight, Mr. Mano Nazar who is going to talk to us 15 for a few minutes. And then we're going to go to 16 some other commenters that we have. Mr. Nazar?
17 MANO NAZAR: Thank you. On behalf of 18 American Electric Power, I want to thank you for 19 coming tonight and taking time away from the family 20 and busy schedule. Just want to share briefly 21 about our process. You have heard from members of 22 the NRC as far as their assessment and review of our 23 application. But we want to let you know that this 24 application just didn't go to the NRC without 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 extensive internal review that we use to make sure 1
that our application was meeting all of the 2
requirements and they're not just minimum 3
requirements, but above and beyond.
4 We actually started work on the license 5
renewal from year 2001. As you saw, the application 6
was submitted 2003, which is two years after we 7
started working on the application to make sure that 8
the application was solid with respect to the 9
quality and met all of the expectations and 10 requirements and regulations.
11 One thing that I am going to share with 12 you is that - - with respect to the way we conduct 13 our operation. As you heard, I'm Chief Nuclear 14 Officer. The Site Vice President and Plant Manger, 15 Vice President of Engineering, they report to me. I 16 have been in this industry for 24 years in several 17 different plants. This is the fourth plant and I've 18 been through license renewal for actually, the 19 second nuclear power plant in the industry, which 20 was Oconee Nuclear Site for Duke Energy in 21 Carolinas.
22 We operate this plant based on some core 23 values that are based on prevention. Our operation 24 of the facility is based on getting ahead of the 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 issues and solving the issues before they become 1
crisis or failures. And as a result of that, 2
tremendous work takes place in the form of 3
preventative activities. And we routinely, day in 4
and day out, we're conducting preventative 5
activities to make sure that we are in operational 6
readiness at any given time, at any given time.
7 And then because of that, again, obviously 8
we have roughly 1,400 to 1,500 people working at 9
that site, very solid citizens, solid employees.
10 They are very involved in the community, which is 11 part of our mission. Our mission is to operate our 12 facility as safe as possible, as reliable as 13 possible, low cost which, hopefully, our customers, 14 they benefit from that aspect of it as well. And 15 the friendly environment and our community. That's 16 part of our mission to do all those while we're 17 caring about the community and environment.
18 And our employees, they are very involved 19 in community and are helping the community and we 20 want to be a very good neighbor to this community 21 and we have been. We are involved in all aspects of 22 the community needs and, you're going to probably 23 hear later on, as far as involvement that our 24 employees have to insure that we are fulfilling our 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 obligation to the community as well as operating the 1
facility to the highest level of the standard in the 2
industry.
3 This particular decision was an easy 4
decision for American Electric Power. The cost is 5
tremendous to just put our application together and 6
submit the application and go through extensive 7
reviews as you probably have heard so far. This 8
process, it takes roughly about two years to 9
complete. And it's extensive, a lot of work and we 10 always closely work with the regulators and members 11 of NRC to make sure that any enhancements, any 12 issues - - doesn't matter to what magnitude, minor, 13 medium, but that we get ahead of those and correct 14 them. Correct them in preventative ways. Make sure 15 that we enhance our operational aspect of the 16 facility to the optimum level.
17 This also - - the costs doesn't stop by 18 just submitting application. When you make long-19 term commitment to operate this facility, it's 20 multimillion dollar decision. We plan for 21 additional 20 years that we're going to operate.
22 Spend lot of money from the financial aspect to make 23 sure this operation is the highest standard. And 24 all of our equipment, you heard about the equipment 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 aging program, you have very extensive, solid, 1
comprehensive program to make sure that we are 2
dealing with the aging for the mechanisms. At any 3
given time, that we are staying ahead of the issue.
4 That results in a lot of repair and 5
replacements of the major equipment and that's where 6
the cost comes in. And I wouldn't be surprised just 7
within next few years, we probably going to spend 8
half a billion dollars to make sure that this 9
facility is top notch in industry and operating it 10 at that highest level that I referred to.
11 So that's our commitment, that's the 12 commitment of the entire Cook organization and 13 employees, and I'm representing them. And I promise 14 the community that we are here for the long-haul. We 15 don't have short term visions. As a result, our 16 activities are based on that concept. Based on 17 those core values. So again, I appreciate your 18 being here. Thanks for some of the comments that 19 you heard from members of the NRC. And our work 20 never stops. It's a journey with no rest area. We 21 continue working toward excellence. Thank you very 22 much.
23 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, 24 Mr. Nazar. Mr. Nazar and his staff are here tonight 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 and will be available for questions or discussion 1
after the meeting. We have three additional 2
speakers. First of all we're going to go to Mr. Pat 3
Moody, with the Cornerstone Chamber of Commerce.
4 Then to Nanette Keiser, President of the Berrien 5
Community Foundation and then to Mr. John 6
Pielemeier. And I would ask Mr. Moody to come up.
7 Do you want to come up here or you can use this if 8
you want, but you can go to the podium. Okay.
9 PAT MOODY: Thank you very much. My name 10 is Pat Moody. I am Vice President of Investor and 11 Community Relations for Cornerstone Alliance, and 12 Executive Vice President of the Cornerstone Chamber 13 of Commerce. I represent more than 750 members and 14 investors of the largest economic development agency 15 in Michigan's great southwest and the lead Chamber 16 of Commerce in the entire area.
17 Our daily charge is to retain existing 18 businesses in our region and to attract new 19 businesses to enhance the quality of life in the 20 area. Naturally, we would be very interested in 21 retaining one of our largest employers. Our 22 organization absolutely, unequivocally and quite 23 cheerfully endorse and support the relicensing of 24 the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant because the 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 Cook is an outstanding community partner. We 1
annually track the top 100 employers in our region, 2
and this Plant is number on that list. There are 3
only two employers in the area with larger payrolls:
4 Whirlpool Corporation and the Lakeland Regional 5
Health System.
6 Additionally, the Plant is the largest 7
single tax payer in this county, contributing the 8
highest share of dollars toward our public school 9
systems, our police and fire departments, our 10 streets and sewers, our parks and playgrounds.
11 Clearly, they are a vital cog in the machine of 12 commerce and public infrastructure and they have a 13 significant impact here. They provide and attract a 14 highly skilled labor and often times, as a result, 15 provide an outstanding labor pool in the form of 16 spouses, family members and significant others who 17 travel with them. The men and women of the Cook 18 Nuclear Power Team are very well known for sharing 19 their time, talent and treasure to support 20 nonprofit, charitable and health and human service 21 organizations throughout the area.
22 Frankly, I can't imagine life without this 23 good neighbor and all that it brings to the table on 24 a daily basis. We showcase the Plant when we work 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 to attract new businesses to the area, pointing with 1
pride to the capacity and the output and the 2
positive impact that they have on utility costs for 3
manufacturers and others.
4 The bottom line is that this Plant is good 5
for business. It is good for economic development 6
and it is good for the people who call this place 7
home. And we appreciate the opportunity to share 8
our desire to see license renewal proceed to 9
successful conclusion and approval.
10 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Great. Thank you, 11 Mr. Moody. And we're going to go to Ms. Nanette 12 Keiser at this point.
13 NANETTE KEISER: Hello. I'm Nanette 14 Keiser, President and Executive Director of the 15 Berrien Community Foundation. We support the 16 renewing the licenses for the Cook Nuclear Plan, 17 Units One and Two, in part because AEP-Cook is a 18 great corporate citizen doing much for our 19 community. We at the Foundation have the privilege 20 of working with two Heart of Cook programs, 21 sheparded by Jennifer Kernosky and Bill Shalk. In 22 both cases, these Heart of Cook programs help many 23 in our communities by providing scholarships and 24 grants at significant 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 Also AEP-Cook employees are very active in 1
our community as volunteers. For example, Bob Story 2
chairs the Harbor Habitat Board and also is very 3
active in the 2005 Jimmy Carter Work Project. We 4
can count many Cook employees as members among the 5
local service clubs. We are fortunate to have such 6
a giving organization in our community. This has 7
resulted in a great positive impact on our 8
socioeconomic environment. We need to keep them 9
here for at least another 20 years. Thank you.
10 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you 11 very much. Next we're going to go to Mr. John 12 Pielemeier. John?
13 JOHN PIELEMEIER: I don't represent anyone 14 other than myself, so to speak. No organization or 15 anything. And some of my comments are probably of 16 more of a generic nature than Cook specific. But 17 it's a chance for me to get some of them off my 18 chest.
19 I've broken this down briefly into three 20 areas: Local impact of the Cook Plant extension.
21 Then the National aspects of nuclear power 22 generation and from there, the world wide aspects.
23 First of all, from the local impact, I've 24 seen no adverse impact on local land, air and water 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 quality caused by the Cook Plant. However, long-1 term local storage of spent fuel is undesirable. It 2
should be moved to the Yucca Mountain ASAP. Cook 3
has been a good community neighbor. Conversely, 4
nonextension of the Cook license would increase 5
local electric rates, negatively impacting 6
residential, business and industrial customers. The 7
local economy would be depressed. The tax base 8
would be devastated.
9 From a national standpoint, extending 10 current nuclear plant licenses and building 11 additional nuclear plants has immense potential 12 benefit by reducing use of natural gas for electric 13 generation, cost and supply of gas would be 14 improved. Gas would be more available for more 15 appropriate uses, such as domestic and industrial 16 heating and production of plastics. Reduced cost of 17 electricity would be a boon to the entire economy, 18 and improve our trade competitiveness. Possible 19 reduced use of coal could reduce our air pollution 20 as well as reduce mercury in the water and our food.
21 Our dependence on Mideast oil and gas could be 22 reduced. New nuclear plant construction would 23 create jobs.
24 From the standpoint of world wide impact, 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 shifting power generation to nuclear by extending 1
plant life and building new plants, would reduce 2
greenhouse gas generation and, hopefully, mitigate 3
global warming, which is probably at least partly 4
responsible for present rapid melting of the global 5
ice caps and glaciers.
6 Our emphasis on the fear factor has 7
retarded nuclear generation in this country to all 8
our detriment. We have had no genuine nuclear 9
disasters in ths country. Latest nuclear power 10 generation technology virtually eliminates the 11 possibility of disastrous accidents. The 12 exaggeration of Three Mile Island is partly to 13 blame for attitude. It was no Chernobyl. It's time 14 we got by that. France, which has become so popular 15 to knock in this country, generates about 80 percent 16 of its electricity by nuclear. It has significantly 17 lower electric rates and has no significant 18 accidents. It is time this country reap the huge 19 potential benefits from nuclear electric generation.
20 Thank you.
21 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you 22 very much, Mr. Pielemeier. And we do have a copy of 23 Mr. Pielemeier's comments that we're going to attach 24 to the transcript, so if you're interested in 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 looking at them, they will be with the transcript 1
and hopefully, Bill, can we make the transcript 2
available at the libraries, just as we did the other 3
materials?
4 BILL DAM: Yes.
5 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Great. That's 6
terrific. Is there anybody else who - -who wants to 7
talk to us tonight? Any final questions about 8
SAMA's or anything else? Okay. Well, I would thank 9
you for your comments and courtesy tonight. And I'm 10 going to turn it over to Andy Kugler for some final 11 words. Andy?
12 ANDREW KUGLER: Well, I just want to close 13 by thanking you all for coming this evening again.
14 If you do have comments on the draft report that you 15 haven't given us here this evening, of if you think 16 of something else later, the comment period runs 17 through December 8th. And as he mentioned, Mr. Bill 18 Dam, he's our principal contact. And you have 19 contact information for him. If you can, before you 20 leave, we - - in the package of information you 21 received, you got a meeting feedback form. We'd 22 appreciate if you could fill that out. We're always 23 looking for ways to do these meetings better to 24 provide you with better information. If you see 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 something we could do better, if you could record it 1
on that form, we'd appreciate it. You can either 2
leave that form in the back or if you - - if you 3
want to fill it out later, it's prepostage paid and 4
you can just mail it back to us.
5 Finally, I want to mention that the NRC 6
staff and our contractor will remain after the 7
meeting. We can answer any questions, of if you 8
just want to talk about some aspect of this, we'd be 9
happy to do so. Other than that, again, I want to 10 thank you.
11 (At 8:20 p.m., public meeting concluded) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22