ML053320404
"Draft Meeting" is not in the list (Request, Draft Request, Supplement, Acceptance Review, Meeting, Withholding Request, Withholding Request Acceptance, RAI, Draft RAI, Draft Response to RAI, ...) of allowed values for the "Project stage" property.
| ML053320404 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 10/18/2005 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Guerrero, C, NRR/DLR/REBB, 415-2981 | |
| References | |
| NRC-654, TAC MC4641, TAC MC4642 | |
| Download: ML053320404 (43) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Draft EIS: Afternoon Public Meeting Docket Number:
(not applicable)
Location:
Southport, North Carolina Date:
Tuesday, October 18, 2005 Work Order No.:
NRC-654 Pages 1-41 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 PUBLIC MEETING 1
RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 2
FOR BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, 3
UNITS 1 AND 2, 4
6 Heard on:
7 OCTOBER 18, 2005 8
1:30 p.m.
9 10 Heard At:
11 CITY HALL 12 SOUTHPORT, NORTH CAROLINA 13 14 FACILITATOR:
15 Mr. Lance Rakovan 16 17 18 19 20 PERSONS MAKING PRESENTATIONS ON BEHALF OF NRC:
21 Mr. Richard Emch 22 Mr. Robert Palla 23 Ms. Rani Franovich 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 I-N-D-E-X 1
Welcome and Purpose of Meeting........................3 2
Overview of License Renewal Process...................6 3
Results of the Environmental Review..................13 4
Results of the Severe Accident Mitigation 5
Alternatives Review..................................29 6
Closing/Availability of Transcripts..................36 7
8 9
10 11 12
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 PROCEEDINGS 1
(1:30 p.m.)
2 MR. RAKOVAN: We are ready to get 3
started. I'd like to thank you all for coming this 4
afternoon to this meeting. My name is Lance Rakovan. I am 5
a Communications Assistant at the Nuclear Regulatory 6
Commission. It is my pleasure to serve as facilitator for 7
this meeting.
8 For those of you who don't know the U.S.
9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, we're going to be calling it 10 the NRC today, just to make sure everybody is aware of 11 that.
12 The subject today is the environmental review 13 that the NRC has conducted as part of its evaluation of an 14 application received from Carolina Power and Light to renew 15 the operating license for Units 1 and 2 of the Brunswick 16 plant.
17 What I'm going to do is quickly go through 18 what the meeting format will be today and the agenda. Then 19 I'll go through a few ground rules of what to expect.
20 We're going to use kind of a two-part format today. First, 21 NRC is going to come up and give a few brief presentations, 22 clearly explain the process for the license renewal, go 23 through a little bit on the analysis and conclusions that 24 are found in the draft Environmental Impact Statements. We 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 will, of course, allow some time for questions after each 1
of the presentations.
2 There is one added presentation that somehow 3
got dropped from the agenda. That is results of the severe 4
accident mitigation alternatives review. That's going to 5
get stuck in after the results of the environmental review.
6 So I just wanted to make sure everybody was aware of that.
7 The second part, although we have no speakers 8
currently signed up, this is going to be turned over to the 9
public to make any comments. We ask that you keep them to 10 about five minutes. Normally we'll allow everyone to talk.
11 But I don't think that's going to be a problem today. I 12 know there's a few members of the public here. So if you 13 change your mind and would like to come make some comments, 14 we will certainly allow that.
15 We will be taking written comments I believe 16 until December 2nd. Anything that is said during the 17 meeting will have the same weight as the comments that we 18 receive written. I think Rich is going to go through a 19 little bit on that.
20 I will go over the ground rules. During Q's 21 and A's, just give me a signal. I do have a wireless mic 22 that I'm probably going to be using later. So if there are 23 any questions, I will bring the mic out to you. Make sure 24 you identify yourself and if you have any group 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 affiliation.
1 We do have a stenographer today; Ms. Suzanne 2
Thornton. So we want to make sure that we only have one 3
person speaking at a time so she can get a full transcript 4
and a good idea of what everyone is saying. If we start 5
having people talk over each other, that makes that a 6
little more complicated.
7 Again, we ask you to be as concise as 8
possible when making your questions or your comments. One 9
other thing, make sure that your cell phones are at least 10 turned off or set to vibrate. I know I made sure mine was 11 earlier. The last thing I wanted to have happen is for my 12 cell phone to go off in the middle of a meeting that I'm 13 trying to facilitate. But it can be distracting.
14 So with that, I'm going to introduce Ms. Rani 15 Franovich. Rani is going to be talking or going to be 16 giving a quick intro on the license renewal process. Rani 17 is the Chief Engineer of the Review Section for License 18 Renewal. She's been with the NRC for about 14 years. A 19 few of the things that she's done while she's been at the 20 NRC, she was a Resident Inspector at the Catawba plant.
21 She's also been Project Engineer for the McGuire plant.
22 She has a BS in psychology and a Masters in industrial 23 systems engineering, both from Virginia Tech, which she is 24 very proud of. So I'm going to turn things over to Rani 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 after I introduce our two other speakers.
1 Our speaker after Rani will be Mr. Richard 2
Emch. Rich is the Project Manager for environmental review 3
on the Brunswick license renewal application. He's been 4
with the NRC for about 30 years and has also been involved 5
with emergency planning and radiological protection. Rich 6
has a Bachelors from Louisiana Tech in physics and a 7
Masters from Georgia Tech in health physics. He's going to 8
be going over the environmental impact evaluation process, 9
public opportunities for comments, and the results of 10 postulated accidents.
11 Then the presentation that somehow got 12 dropped from the agenda will be given by Mr. Bob Palla who 13 is a Senior Reactor Engineer. He's been with the NRC for 14 about 25 years. He's been involved with severe accident 15 analysis, safety assessment, and containment analysis. He 16 has both a BS and an MS in mechanical engineering from the 17 University of Maryland. He'll be going over, again, the 18 severe accident mitigation alternatives.
19 So if there are no other questions, I'm going 20 to turn things over to Rani Franovich.
21 MS. FRANOVICH: Thank you, Lance.
22 Thank you all for coming. I took a little tour of the 23 community yesterday. It's been a long time since I've been 24 in Southport. I grew up in Wilmington, so 30 years or so 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 ago we used to come to Southport and buy shrimp for $4 for 1
a bushel. Those days are long gone. But it's good to be 2
back.
3 I'd like to thank you all for coming to this 4
meeting and taking the time to be here. I hope the 5
information we provide will help you understand the process 6
we're going through in license renewal and help you 7
understand what we've done so far and the role you can play 8
in helping us to make sure that the final Environmental 9
Impact Statement for the Brunswick plant is accurate.
10 I'd like to start out by briefly going over 11 the purpose of today's meeting. We'll explain the NRC 12 license renewal process for nuclear power plants, with 13 emphasis on the environmental review process. We're going to 14 present the preliminary findings of our environmental 15 review, which assesses the impacts associated with 16 extending the operating licenses of the Brunswick Steam 17 Electric Plants, Units 1 and 2, for an additional 20 years.
18 Actually I said extending, but it's really an entirely new 19 license.
20 Then really the most important part of 21 today's meeting is for us to receive any comments that you 22 might have on our draft Environmental Impact Statement. We 23 will also give you some information about the schedule for 24 the balance of our review and let you know how you can 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 submit comments in the future.
1 Before I talk about license renewal for 2
Brunswick, I'd like to provide some general contacts for 3
the license renewal process. The Atomic Energy Act gives 4
the NRC the authority to issue operating licenses to 5
commercial nuclear power plants for a period of 40 years.
6 The Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, have 7
operating licenses that will expire in 2016 and 2014 8
respectively. Our regulations also make provisions for 9
extending those operating licenses for up to an additional 10 20 years. Carolina Power and Light has requested license 11 renewal for both units.
12 As part of the NRC's review of that license 13 renewal application, we perform an environmental review to 14 look at the impact of an additional 20 years of operation 15 on the environment. We've actually completed that review 16 and documented it in our draft Environmental Impact 17 Statement.
18 We held a meeting here last January to seek 19 your input regarding the issues we needed to evaluate. We 20 indicated at that earlier scoping meeting that we would 21 return to Southport to present the preliminary results 22 documented in our draft Environmental Impact Statement.
23 That is the purpose of this meeting.
24 At the conclusion of the staff's 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 presentation, we will be happy to answer any questions or 1
receive any comments you may have on our draft document.
2 Before I get into a discussion of the license 3
renewal review process, I'd like to take a minute to talk 4
about NRC in terms of what we do and what our mission is.
5 As I mentioned earlier, the Atomic Energy Act is the 6
legislation that authorizes the NRC to issue operating 7
licenses and to regulate civilian use of nuclear materials 8
in the United States. In exercising that authority, the 9
NRC's mission is three-fold: to insure adequate protection 10 of public health and safety, to protect the environment, 11 and to provide for a common defense and security. The NRC 12 accomplishes its mission with a combination of regulatory 13 programs and processes such as inspections, enforcement 14 actions, assessment of licensee performance, and evaluation 15 of operating experience from nuclear power plants across 16 the country and internationally.
17 Turning now to license renewal in particular, 18 the NRC license renewal review is similar to that of the 19 original licensing process in that it involves two parts:
20 an environmental review and a safety review.
21 This slides gives a big picture overview of 22 the license renewal process. As far as you can see from 23 the slide, the process involves two parallel paths: the 24 safety review and the environmental review. You might ask 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 what exactly does the safety review consider. The license 1
renewal safety review focuses on aging plant operating 2
issues. However, the NRC also monitors and addresses 3
current operating issues such as security, emergency 4
planning, and safety performance on an ongoing basis.
5 Under the current operating license, the NRC's regulatory 6
oversight process deals with current safety issues. We do 7
not wait for a plant to come in for license renewal to 8
require them to address those current safety issues.
9 Because the NRC is dealing with those current operating 10 issues on a continuing basis, they are not re-evaluated 11 under license renewal.
12 Instead, as I have mentioned, the license 13 renewal safety review focuses on plant aging and the 14 programs that the licensee has already implemented or plans 15 to implement to manage the effects of aging. The safety 16 review involves the NRC staff's review and assessment of 17 the safety application and that's the information provided 18 in the license renewal application submittal.
19 There's a team of about 30 NRC reviewers and 20 contractors who are conducting the safety review at this 21 time. Let me introduce Mr. S.K. Mitra, the Safety Project 22 Manager. He is in charge of the safety review. The safety 23 review includes technical evaluations, plant inspections, 24 and audits. These inspections are conducted by a team of 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 inspectors from both headquarters and NRC's Region 2 1
office. The results of the inspections are documented in 2
separate inspection reports, and the staff documents the 3
results of the safety review and the safety evaluation 4
report.
5 This report is then independently reviewed by 6
the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, known as the 7
ACRS. The ACRS is a group of nationally recognized 8
technical experts in nuclear safety that serve as a 9
consulting body to the commission. They review each 10 license renewal application and the safety evaluation 11 report, form their own conclusions and recommendations on 12 the requested action, and report those conclusions and 13 recommendations to the regulatory commission.
14 I'd like to point out that the symbols in 15 yellow on this slide and the previous slide indicate 16 opportunities for public participation. Also the ACRS 17 meeting to discuss the results of the safety review will be 18 open to the public.
19 The second part of the review process 20 involves an environmental review. The environmental 21 review, which Rich will discuss in more detail in a few 22 minutes, evaluates the impacts of license renewal on a 23 number of areas including ecology, hydrology, cultural 24 resources, and socioeconomic issues, among others. The 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 environmental review involves scoping activities and the 1
development of a draft supplement to the Generic 2
Environmental Impact Statement for license renewal of 3
nuclear power plants, also referred to as the GEIS. The 4
draft Environmental Impact Statement has been published for 5
comment, and we are here today to briefly discuss the 6
results of our review and to receive your comments.
7 In April of next year, we will be issuing the 8
final version of this Environmental Impact Statement which 9
will address the comments that we receive here today at 10 this meeting or in the future any written comments.
11 So the final agency decision on whether or 12 not to issue or renew operating licenses depends on several 13 inputs. The safety evaluation report, which documents the 14 safety review. The final Environmental Impact Statement, 15 which documents the results of the environmental review.
16 The inspection report document results of regional 17 inspections, and the independent review by the ACRS.
18 Again, the symbols in the yellow on the slide 19 indicate opportunities for public participation. The first 20 opportunity was during the scoping period and the meeting 21 held back in January. Many of you may have attended that 22 meeting. This meeting on the draft Environmental Impact 23 Statement is another opportunity. No one requested a 24 hearing for this proceeding, so that's not applicable here.
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 Now I'd like to turn things over to Rich Emch 1
to discuss the environmental review in more detail.
2 MR. RAKOVAN: Rani, before we do 3
that, I just want to make sure that there's no comments or 4
no questions from the audience. Does anyone have any 5
questions on what Rani presented?
6 (Negative response.)
7 MR. RAKOVAN: Okay. Thank you 8
very much, Rani.
9 MR. EMCH: Hi, I'm Rich Emch, 10 the Environmental Project Manager from the Nuclear 11 Regulator Commission for the Brunswick review, reviewing 12 the environmental review which is part of the overall 13 review that Rani told you about for the application for 14 license renewal for Brunswick.
15 Some of you, well, maybe even most of you, 16 were probably here in January when we held our scoping 17 meeting. Those of you who were here will remember at that 18 time that I asked you to be my environmental experts, my 19 local environmental experts. Some of you took me up on 20 that and gave me comments during the meeting. So we're 21 back here to talk to you about the review that we did do 22 and the preliminary conclusions that we have come to and 23 the issues that we've looked at.
24 The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 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 is sort of the guidebook for what we do here. It discusses 1
-- it lays out a process, a disclosure process, where we 2
evaluate impacts. We disclose them. We involve the public 3
in helping us evaluate those issues. And in scoping, what 4
we were here to do was to find out what kinds of issues you 5
thought we needed to look at and provide us information 6
about anything that you thought we needed to include in our 7
review, things that we might not be able to find out during 8
our regular review process.
9 The Commission has determined that an 10 Environmental Impact Statement will be developed for each 11 of the license renewal applications, and that's indeed what 12 we have done here. A few of you probably picked it up.
13 You either got it sent to you in the mail, or you were able 14 to pick it up downstairs, a copy of the draft Environmental 15 Impact Statement. It's Plant Specific Supplement 25 to the 16 overall GEIS.
17 One of the things that we do in the process, 18 we assess impacts. We look at the possibility of whether 19 there is any need for mitigated measures on those impacts.
20 We also look at alternatives to the proposed action. One 21 of the alternatives we look at is the no-action 22 alternative. All of that is designed to get us to the 23 point where we can make the kind of assessment, the kind of 24 preliminary conclusions that we need to make. As Rani 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 said, we are here tonight to get comments from you folks 1
who have looked at that draft document.
2 This is the decision standard that we operate 3
on. You can read it. I won't go through the whole 4
legalistic version that's up here. You can read that for 5
yourself. I guess in Richard Emch's words, what it amounts 6
to is the issue is whether or not the environmental impact 7
of an additional 20 years for operation in Brunswick is 8
acceptable, is okay. That's what we were here doing during 9
the environmental audit and all the other activities that 10 we've been undergoing.
11 As you can see, the application was submitted 12 back in October of 2004. We were here in January 2005 for 13 the scoping meeting. Since then we have also done the 14 environmental audit and talked to a lot of different 15 people. We sent requests for additional information to the 16 licensee in February, received responses, and we have 17 drafted the document that we're here tonight to discuss.
18 And that was sent out to everybody in August of 2005.
19 The splashes, the splash marks or explosion 20 marks, indicate the opportunities for public participation 21 in the process. We will gather the comments that we 22 receive from you folks tonight plus anything that's said in 23 writing or via electronic messages. We will review any 24 additional information that we get, and we will come up 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 with a final -- publish the final supplement to this 1
document in April of 2005 [sic].
2 We look at a wide range of environmental 3
issues in the course of this review. This pretty picture 4
up here is intended to give you an example of the kinds of 5
things we look at. As you can see, we do look at 6
terrestrial and aquatic ecology. We look at air quality, 7
water quality, regulatory compliance, hydrology, my 8
personal favorite radiation detection, and historic and 9
archeological resources. We also look at socioeconomic 10 impacts. There's a piece of that that some of you may not 11 have heard of called environmental justice, which we 12 examine, as well.
13 Earlier Rani mentioned the GEIS; the Generic 14 Environment Impact Statement that was developed. What the 15 GEIS does is it looked at, when we first started the 16 process, we looked at 92 environmental issues or aspects of 17 the environmental impact, if you will. And it looked at 18 all of the plants in the United States, and decided that 19 for approximately 69 of those issues, they were what we 20 call Category 1 issues. What that means is that they 21 examined the impact, and the impact was essentially the 22 same at all nuclear power plants in the United States or in 23 all plants that have a particular kind of design like the 24 once thru cooling water. And they all have the same 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 level of impact. Based on that, they labeled them as 1
Category 1 issues.
2 What that means is, if you look at this 3
analysis approach up here, what that means is that we don't 4
do a complete plant specific review of Category 1 issues.
5 An example of a Category 1 issue is salinity gradients, 6
changes in salinity levels. The generic impact is 7
assessed on all plants and published in this Generic Impact 8
Statement. What we do is we look for any new and 9
significant information. The licensee will do that as 10 well. And if we don't find any new and significant 11 information, then we will assume that the conclusion that 12 was made by GEIS is still appropriate for this plant. You 13 can see that the line down on the left side of the chart 14 there. We adopt the GEIS conclusion.
15 If for the approximately 23 issues that are 16 what we call Category 2 issues, meaning a plant specific 17 analysis does need to be made, then we go into the second 18 line there. We analyze at each site such as Brunswick. We 19 do an analysis of those issues. I'm going to talk later 20 about which of those issues we did look at for the 21 Brunswick site. We do a plant specific analysis, and 22 that's presented in the document.
23 Off to the side is the issue of, is there new 24 and significant information. If it turns out that if there 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 had been any new and significant information, we would 1
examine it to see if it caused us to want to change or call 2
into question the conclusions that we made in the Generic 3
Impact Statement. And we found no such -- the licensee 4
found no such information, and we found no such 5
information. So there were no analyses that needed to be 6
changed from Category 1 to Category 2.
7 In this plant, there's 23 issues that are 8
essentially what we reviewed; 21 referred to as Category 2.
9 There are two issues that don't really have a category.
10 One of them is called environmental justice, and the other 11 one, because it came up, it wasn't one of those issues 12 because it didn't exist as an issue for us at the time that 13 we did the generic statement. The other one is the chronic 14 effects of exposure to electromagnetic 15 fields around transmission lines. I'll talk a 16 little bit more about that later.
17 There were 11 Category 2 issues that we 18 assessed on a plant specific basis for the Brunswick plant.
19 Six of the 23 issues that are in the GEIS did not apply 20 to Brunswick because of the Brunswick design, and four of 21 them did not apply because Brunswick is not going to need 22 to do any refurbishment activities specifically for the 23 purposes of allowing license renewal. So you add those all 24 up, six, four, and 11, and you get the 21 that we referred 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 to as the Category 2 issues.
1 Now let's talk about how we assess or how we 2
quantify the impacts. You will see up here we have small, 3
moderate, and large. Small basically means in looking at 4
it, that the impact such as it is, is not detectable or is 5
too small to destabilize the impact or to noticeably alter 6
it. An example of this would be, we often use the fish.
7 Whatever loss of fish, for instance, in population, it 8
would be so small that nobody would even notice that 9
there's any decrease in the fish population. The fishermen 10 will still catch as many fish as they ever caught.
11 The second one is the moderate impact. Here 12 we are talking about if it is detectable and it is noted 13 to alter, alter the impact noticeably, but it does not 14 destabilize the resource. This would be an example again 15 with the fish population. It might reduce the fish 16 population say 10 percent or something like that.
17 It might reduce it in such a way that we notice it.
18 The fishermen would notice they're catching 19 fewer fish or whatever, but the population, the fish 20 population, would stabilize at a smaller level, and 21 everything would be fine. That's the moderate.
22 Large is clearly a noticeable and a 23 significant impact, one that may destabilize the resource.
24 And that would be the loss of fish in the fish population 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 became so large that it might endanger or destabilize 1
the fish population.
2 We gather information for our review from a 3
number of different places. We've talked about the fact 4
that we did an audit at the site in January. While we were 5
here, we also talked to a large number of other people. We 6
talked to state agencies. We do consultation with federal 7
agencies. We take public comments that you guys give us, 8
and we talk to the permitting agencies such as the state 9
permitting agency that reviews and issues the national 10 pollutant discharge elimination system permit for the plant.
11 That tells the plant how much heat they're allowed to 12 release in the water, and it also talks about what 13 chemicals they're allowed to release in the water. We also 14 looked at the Department of Social Services, the Chamber of 15 Commerce, and the people who can talk to us about the 16 socioeconomic impacts of the plant.
17 Now we're going to start to talk a little bit 18 about what we actually saw and what we actually found and 19 what we've discussed in the Environmental Impact Statement.
20 I'm going to talk about some of the areas, not all of them.
21 We are going to talk about the cooling system, the 22 transmission lines, the radiological impacts, threatened 23 and endangered species, cumulative impacts, and then after 24 I'm done talking, Bob is going to share with you the 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 severe accident mitigation alternatives.
1 This is the cooling system. In this area, 2
there was a large number of what we call Category 1 issues.
3 But these are the three Category 2 issues that we 4
evaluated. The entrainment of fish or shellfish in their 5
early life stage; the larvae stage for instance, eggs and 6
larvae. Impingement of fish and shellfish on the screens 7
of the plant, and then the possibility of heat shock. We 8
did plant specific analyses of all of these issues.
9 Basically just a quick overview. Water is 10 diverted into the cooling canals to the plant from the Cape 11 Fear River, upstream of the plant. It is brought in 12 through what is called a diversion structure that has 13 plates on it that have screening mesh in them with three-14 eighths inch mesh. So anything that's larger than three-15 eights of an inch in diameter will not come into the 16 structure. This stops most fish. It certainly stops 17 turtles and manatees and anything else. Most things. Very 18 small fish can get through. Larvae, eggs, they go through 19 the cooling canal, and they get up to the plant.
20 At the intake structure of the plant there is 21 another set of screens. These screens are what we call 22 small mesh screens. They are about one millimeter. All 23 the water that goes to the plant does not necessarily go 24 through these particular screens but most of it does. The 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 large majority of it does. These screens stop even smaller 1
organisms from getting into the plant. But again, still 2
not everything. Eggs can get through, for instance, in 3
some cases.
4 These screens are washed off with sprays, and 5
any fish that made it to there are going to get washed off 6
the screen and washed into the sluice pipe that carries them 7
back into a pond that connects with Walden Creek and 8
eventually connects with the river. The idea is that a 9
very large portion of what would have been on the 10 screens would have survived by getting washed off and sent 11 back to the river.
12 Then the issue of heat shock. If for 13 whatever reason suddenly you put a bunch of hotter water 14 into a cooling canal or into a lake or in this case the 15 ocean where there's fish. The conclusion on all three of 16 these was the impact of this plant was small, and no 17 additional mitigation was required.
18 Transmission lines. This plant has 19 approximately 390 miles of transmission lines that cover 20 4,600 acres of land for eight transmission lines. Here the 21 Category 2 issue, we looked at is electromagnetic shock, the 22 acute effects. We also looked at the chronic effects of 23 electromagnetic fields.
24 For the shock issue, the acute effects, what 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 we looked at is whether or not these lines were designed to 1
the National Electric Safety Code. And we found that these 2
lines were indeed designed within those criteria, which is 3
that they can only produce a shock of a current greater 4
than five milliamps per line.
5 The National Institute of Environmental Health 6
Science, as I mentioned earlier, are the people who have 7
evaluated and continue to evaluate the chronic effects of 8
the electromagnetic fields such as around the transmission 9
line. It is indeterminate simply, but there is no -- the 10 data does not suggest that there is a problem. Therefore, 11 we assessed an impact of small here. But that is 12 something that is still under study and is always being 13 looked at to see if there is any new information in that 14 area. Again, these areas of impact are considered to be 15 small, and no additional mitigation was required.
16 Radiological impacts are a Category 1 issue, 17 but we mention it here because it is an issue that at 18 almost every meeting we go to we find that it is one that 19 is usually on people's minds. Let's face it, folks, if it 20 wasn't for radiation, we wouldn't even have to worry about 21 nuclear power plants. We could run them just like coal 22 plants.
23 In this case we looked at exposure to the 24 public. We looked at exposure to the workers. And what we 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 found is no new and significant information. Therefore, we 1
decided that the assessment of small impact by the GEIS was 2
correct.
3 I'll go a little further in detail there. We 4
looked at the environmental monitoring reports and the 5
effluent reports from the plant and we discussed the 6
issues of the environmental monitoring program 7
with the State. What we found is that the 8
actual doses, the maximum doses from this plant, 9
are well less than one millirem per year, which is 10 well within NRC regulations and is a very small part of the 11 approximately 360 millirems that we all receive each 12 year by living on Planet Earth and getting dental x-rays 13 and things like that.
14 Threatened and endangered species. There are 15 30 terrestrial and aquatic species, 16 terrestrial, 14 16 aquatic. We interacted with the Fish and 17 Wildlife Service and with NOAA Fisheries, the National 18 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Fisheries, 19 to find out which endangered species are likely in the 20 vicinity of the Brunswick plant, and we came up with this 21 list. Here's a picture of a few of them. I didn't have 22 room on the slide for all 30 of them. But they include, as 23 you might well imagine, sea turtles. Pretty much the whole 24 range of sea turtles are on the list. A number of whales 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 are on the list. The manatee, the short nosed sturgeon, 1
and the Waccamaw, I hope I said that right, Silverside fish 2
is on the list, as well.
3 On the terrestrial side there is the bald 4
eagle. There was the American alligator, the Eastern 5
Cougar, and the red cockaded woodpecker. I always have 6
trouble saying that, the wood stork and a long list of 7
plants some of them I can't even pronounce. So we 8
looked at all these, and we did a biological assessment. We 9
discussed it. We gave this biological assessment to the 10 Fish and Wildlife Service and to the National Marine Fishery 11 Service, and we are still talking with them. But our 12 assessment is that the plant would have either no effect or 13 is not likely to have any adverse effect on any of these.
14 Earlier on that other slide I was in the 15 process of talking about Category 1 issues and how we 16 looked at new and significant information. This is a 17 discussion of that. Basically during the scoping 18 session, we discussed environmental items. We got a few folks 19 who went to the site. We talked to the licensee. The 20 licensee showed us the program that they use to determine 21 whether there was any new and significant information.
22 Then we met with state authorities, national authorities, 23 local authorities. We went out and did a lot of looking 24 around on our own and came up with the conclusion -- well, 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 we also did an internet search. And we came to the 1
conclusion there was no new and significant information.
2 So we stayed with all the Category 1 issues, the 3
conclusions on the Category 1 issues.
4 In addition, we looked at cumulative impacts.
5 In other words, what this means is we took a look to see, 6
this isn't just a plant. This is a plant in its 7
environment. For instance, are there other things that are 8
nearby that are operating or impacting the environment 9
along with Brunswick that might cause us to say, well, even 10 though Brunswick's impact is small, if you look at it in 11 concert with these other things, maybe it's bigger. We 12 looked at that, and we looked at a lot of different areas.
13 We looked at the cooling water, transmission lines, 14 radiation protection, socioeconomic issues, ground water use 15 and quality, endangered species, the cooling system. We 16 found that in each case the area of consideration may be 17 different. For instance, transmission lines obviously go 18 out 390 miles, and you have to look pretty far out to 19 encompass all of that. The radiation protection is usually 20 pretty nearby. But the environmental radiological 21 monitoring would pick up radioactive materials 22 released not only from the plant but from all sources.
23 So there's ways to look at each of these kinds of 24 things. And the conclusion in 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 all cases was the cumulative impact was small.
1 We looked at the uranium fuel cycle and solid 2
waste management and decommissioning. Again, we looked at 3
radiation doses, waste management, air quality, water 4
quality, ecological resources, socioeconomics. The 5
determination was again that the impacts for license 6
renewal of the plant would be small.
7 Alternatives. We looked at a range of 8
alternatives. The first one is the no-action alternative.
9 That says don't do anything, don't approve this, and the 10 plant shuts down at the end of their regular licensing. We 11 also looked at a number of other alternatives. The three 12 major alternatives that we looked at are new generation by 13 coal, natural gas, and nuclear power.
14 A lot of attention was focused on these three 15 because these three are really the only three sources of 16 what I will call power generation large enough to replace 17 the base load capability of two nuclear power units. What 18 I'm talking about here is a little less than 2,000 19 megawatts electric power generated by Brunswick. So it 20 takes fairly large generation to cover that kind of loss.
21 That's why we looked at coal, natural gas, and nuclear.
22 We did also look at purchased power. We 23 looked at a wide range: wind, solar, energy conservation, 24 wood waste, delayed retirement and bio-mass derived 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 fuels. And we looked at all these as possible resources.
1 And what we did is we set up a scenario where it was sort 2
of a combination of a number of these things since wind and 3
solar, for instance, can't provide 2,000 megawatts of 4
electric.
5 They can provide some power, so we put 6
together a scenario where some of each of these were 7
included. We looked at all these things, and the 8
assessment was that for all those, the no-action 9
alternative would have just about the same impact, small 10 impacts. But the other kinds of alternatives, we found 11 alternatives that could reach into the higher impacts.
12 Postulated accidents. This is where Bob 13 Palla comes up here. Do I want to take questions at this 14 point? Hold on, Bob. Are there any questions?
15 MR. RAKOVAN: Got to get you on 16 the record, please state your name.
17 MS. SOLTIS: Vicki Soltis. I'm 18 just wondering if any renewal application has been denied 19 based on an Environmental Impact Statement.
20 MR. EMCH: No. I forget the 21 exact number of, but none have been denied. However, 22 adjustments have been made in almost every case to some of 23 the operating procedures for the plant. It had management 24 programs, aging management programs put in place at almost 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 every plant. So there have been adjustments in the way 1
they operated at other plants, although none of them have 2
been denied. We have examined and actually discussed 3
mitigated features with some plants. But no plant has 4
actually been denied on the basis of environmental impact.
5 Let's remember that with the assessment we're 6
doing, almost in every case, with maybe one or two 7
exceptions, we have always determined that the impact was 8
small. Therefore, there's not a whole lot to discuss about 9
mitigation issues, when you're talking about a small impact 10 to start with. No, none have been denied.
11 MS. SOLTIS: So there's not 12 (inaudible) has reviewed. (Inaudible) 13 MR. EMCH: That's correct. Not 14 for the plant itself.
15 MS. SOLTIS: Thank you.
16 MR. EMCH: We just finished a 17 review where the entrainment of flounder was assessed as 18 moderate.
19 MR. RAKOVAN: Thanks, Rich. Any 20 other questions from the audience?
21 (Negative response.)
22 MR. RAKOVAN: Okay, Bob?
23 MR. PALLA: Good afternoon. My 24 name is Bob Palla, and I'm with the Probablistic Safety 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 Assessment Branch at NRC. I'm going to be discussing the 1
environmental impacts of postulated accidents. These 2
impacts are discussed in Section 5 of the Generic 3
Environmental Impact Statement commonly called the GEIS.
4 The GEIS evaluates two classes of accidents:
5 design-basis accidents and severe accidents. Design-basis 6
accidents are those accidents that both the licensee and 7
the NRC staff evaluate to insure that the plant will 8
respond safely to a cross section of postulated accidents 9
without risk to the public. The ability of the plant to 10 extend these accidents has to be demonstrated before the 11 plant is initially granted a license. And the licensee has 12 to demonstrate acceptable plant performance through these 13 design-basis accidents throughout the life of the plant.
14 Because of that, the Commission has determined that the 15 environmental impact of design-basis accidents are of small 16 significance. Neither the NRC nor the licensee is aware of 17 any new and significant information on the capability of 18 the Brunswick plant to withstand design-basis accidents.
19 Therefore, the staff concludes that there are 20 no impacts related to design-basis accidents beyond those 21 that are discussed in the GEIS.
22 The second category of accidents is severe 23 accidents. These are by definition more severe than 24 design-basis accidents because they can result in 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 substantial damage to the reactor core. The Commission 1
found in the GEIS that the risk of a severe accident is 2
small at all plants. And when I say that, I mean 3
probablistically, innate consequences of severe accidents 4
are small.
5 Nevertheless, the Commission determined that 6
alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be 7
considered for all plants that have not done so. This is 8
the severe accident mitigation alternative analysis that 9
I'll be speaking of. SAMA is the site specific assessment, 10 and it's a Category 2 issue as described earlier by Rich.
11 The SAMA review for Brunswick is summarized 12 in Section 2 of the GEIS supplement. It is described in 13 more detail in Appendix G of the supplement.
14 Now, the purpose of performing the staff 15 analysis is to insure that plant changes with the potential 16 for improving severe accident safety performance are 17 identified and evaluated. The scope of the potential 18 improvements that are considered include hardware 19 modifications, procedure changes, training program 20 enhancements, basically a full spectrum of potential 21 changes. The scope includes SAMAs that would prevent core 22 damage, as well as SAMAs that improve containment building 23 performance given that a core damage event would occur.
24 The SAMA evaluation consists of a four-step 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 process. The first step is to characterize the overall 1
plant risk and leading contributors to the risk. This 2
typically involves extensive use of the plant specific 3
probablistic safety assessment study, which is also known 4
as the PSA. The PSA is a study that identifies different 5
combinations of system failures and human errors that would 6
be required to occur if the accident is to progress to 7
either core damage or containment failure.
8 The second step in the process is to evaluate 9
potential improvements that could further reduce risk. The 10 information from the PSA such as the dominant accident 11 sequences is used to help identify plant improvements that 12 have had the greatest impact in reducing risk.
13 Improvements identified in other NRC and industry studies, 14 as well as SAMA analyses performed for other plants are 15 also considered.
16 The third step in the evaluation was to 17 quantify the risk reduction potential and the 18 implementation costs for each improvement. The risk 19 reduction and implementation costs are typically estimated 20 using an accounting approach. Risk reduction is generally 21 overestimated by assuming that the plant improvement is 22 completely effective in eliminating the accident sequences 23 it was intended to address. And conversely, the 24 implementation costs are generally underestimated by 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 neglecting certain cost factors such as maintenance costs 1
and surveillance costs, things of that sort. Ongoing 2
costs.
3 The risk reduction and cost estimates are 4
used in the final step to determine whether implementation 5
of any other improvements can be justified. In determining 6
whether an improvement is justified, the NRC staff looks at 7
three factors. The first is whether the improvement is 8
cost beneficial. In other words, is the estimated benefit 9
greater than the estimated implementation costs of the 10 SAMA.
11 The second factor is whether the improvement 12 provides a significant reduction in total risk. For 13 example, does it eliminate a sequence for a containment 14 failure mode that contributes to a large portion of the 15 plant risk.
16 And the third factor is whether the risk 17 reduction is associated with aging effects during a period 18 of extended operation, in which case if it was, it would 19 require implementation as part of the license renewal 20 process.
21 The preliminary results of the Brunswick SAMA 22 analysis are summarized on the slide. Forty-three 23 candidate SAMAs were identified for Brunswick based review 24 of the plant specific PSA dominant contributors at 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 Brunswick, as well as SAMA analyses performed for other 1
plants. The licensee reduced the number of candidate SAMAs 2
to 27 based on a multi-step screening process. Factors 3
considered during the screening included whether the SAMA 4
is applicable to Brunswick due to design differences, 5
whether it has already been addressed in the existing 6
design procedures or training program and whether the SAMA 7
would involve extensive plant changes that would clearly be 8
in excess of the maximum benefit associated with completely 9
eliminating all severe accident risk at the plant.
10 A detailed cost/benefit analysis was 11 performed on a plant-specific basis for the 27 12 remaining SAMAs. This is described in 13 detail in Appendix G of the GEIS supplement. Detailed 14 cost/benefit analysis shows that 15 of the SAMAs are 15 potentially cost beneficial when evaluated individually in 16 accordance with NRC guidance for performing regulatory 17 analysis. Seven of these SAMAs were cost beneficial in the 18 baseline analysis. Eight additional SAMAs were potentially 19 cost beneficial when alternative discount rates assumed in 20 the cost benefit are used or when analysis uncertainties 21 are considered on the conservative end of the range of cost 22 estimate analyses we just looked at.
23 It's important to know that some of these 24 SAMAs address the same risk contributors but in a different 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 way. For example, there's a SAMA that is described in the 1
GEIS. It's identified as SAMA Number 1. It involves the 2
use of a portable generator to supply backup power to the 3
DC busses or switchboards. This would improve the ability 4
to cope with failures of DC chargers in station blackout 5
conditions. Several other SAMAs also address DC buss 6
failures in station blackouts.
7 So as a result, implementation of one of 8
these SAMAs could reduce the residual risk to a point that 9
one or more of the related SAMAs would no longer be cost 10 beneficial. Because of this interrelationship between 11 SAMAs, we would not expect the implementation of all 15 12 SAMAs would be justified on a cost/benefit basis. But 13 rather, the implementation of a carefully selected subset 14 of the 15 SAMAs could achieve much of the risk reduction 15 and would be more cost effective than implementing all of 16 the SAMAs.
17 In summary, the results of the SAMA 18 evaluation indicate that several SAMAs are potentially cost 19 beneficial at Brunswick. However, none of the cost 20 beneficial SAMAs are related to managing the effects of 21 plant aging during the period of extended operation.
22 Therefore, the SAMAs are not required to be implemented as 23 part of license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54, the 24 regulation that governs our license renewal application.
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 Notwithstanding this, CP&L has committed to 1
further evaluate the potentially cost beneficial SAMAs for 2
possible implementation as a current operating licensing 3
activity. The focus of this evaluation will be on SAMA 1, 4
which I described briefly before, which involves a portable 5
generator used to supply DC power during station blackout 6
events. They also will look at those SAMAs that remain 7
cost beneficial after SAMA 1 is implemented. Completion of 8
these evaluations is being tracked in the Brunswick plant 9
action tracking system.
10 That concludes my presentation. Are there 11 any questions?
12 (Negative response.)
13 MR. RAKOVAN: Does anyone have any 14 questions?
15 (Negative response.
16 MR. RAKOVAN: I guess not. Rich, 17 you're going to take the mic again and let us know how to 18 make public comments; is that correct?
19 MR. EMCH: Yes. What we have 20 here is the preliminary conclusions of the evaluation. As 21 you can see, the impacts in all areas were small. The 22 impacts, which we talked earlier about the impacts of 23 alternatives, the impacts for the alternatives range from 24 small to large. Therefore, the staff's preliminary 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 conclusion/recommendation is that the impacts of operation 1
would not be so great as to preclude issuing a new license.
2 It's important to note at this point that 3
what that means is it holds open the option to 4
continue to operate the plant for an additional 20 5
years. It isn't the final decision. That doesn't mean 6
that they will. The decision about how long the plant 7
actually operates, whether they do any part of it or the 8
whole 20 years, are conclusions or decisions that will be 9
made by the licensees themselves in concert with local and 10 state authorities such as the Public Utility Commission, if 11 they have one. It will also be determined by the economics 12 that are in place at the time, whether or not it's 13 appropriate or economically feasible for them to continue 14 to operate the plant, those sorts of issues.
15 Just a few of the milestones. We issued the 16 draft at the end of August as you know. We're here today to 17 receive comments. The comment period ends on December 2, 18 2005. And we plan to issue the final Environmental 19 Statement in April of 2006.
20 Now let's talk about how somebody gets in 21 touch with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or finds the 22 documents. My name is Rich Emch as I said earlier, and my 23 phone number is there, and you can contact me directly if 24 you need to. The documents, the draft Environmental 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 Statement, is available to be seen at the William Madison 1
Randall Library at the University of North Carolina at 2
Wilmington. It's there, I know. I saw it yesterday, and I 3
talked with the assistant librarian about it. Also the 4
Impact Statement can be viewed on the NRC web site. The 5
whole web site is up there. I'm not even going to attempt 6
to read that right now.
7 Earlier somebody asked me today about the 8
local library. The document is not available in printed 9
form at the local library, but it is available through the 10 computer systems at the local library. I sat with the 11 librarian there and showed her how to access it.
12 How do you submit comments if you wish to?
13 The most common method is to actually come to the meeting 14 and make comments here. The second most common method is 15 to send them in by mail to this address. Also a very 16 common method is to send them in by e-mail to the address 17 that's shown there, the Brunswick EIS web site. Also on the 18 inside, I believe it's inside of the first page of the 19 document, there is an e-mail address there where you can 20 access the document and send in any comments, as well.
21 Then the last and least commonly used method is to actually 22 come to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Rockville, 23 Maryland, walk in the door and hand us the comments.
24 And with that, I'm finished with my 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 presentation. I want to thank everybody for coming out 1
tonight. I appreciate you folks spending your time to help 2
us with this review. I'm sure Lance will point this out, 3
but if any of you still have questions after we finish with 4
the comment session, I will be hanging around, along with 5
other members of the NRC staff. And we'll be happy to talk 6
with you if you have anything else you want to talk to us 7
about.
8 MR. RAKOVAN: Thanks, Rich.
9 Again, one more time before we open up for public comments, 10 if anyone has any questions. We went through a lot of 11 material.
12 (No responses.)
13 MR. RAKOVAN: Okay. At this point 14 we have no speakers signed up to make comments. So I will 15 open up the floor if anyone would like to come up to the 16 podium or I can bring the mic to you if you have any 17 comments that you'd like to make. Again, I'm not trying to 18 put you on the spot here. You can certainly take the time 19 and submit your written comments the several ways that Rich 20 indicated was available to you. And again, we'll be 21 hanging out after the meeting is over if you have any 22 questions or want to discuss any matters afterwards. But 23 any public comments?
24 (No responses.)
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 MR. RAKOVAN: Okay, I guess not.
1 Rich, Rani, do you want to --
2 MS. FRANOVICH: I have a couple 3
closing comments. I just wanted to thank everyone again 4
for coming out to our meeting today. Your participation is 5
an important part of our process. One of the items that 6
we'd like feedback on is how we conducted the meeting. I 7
think when you came into the building this afternoon you 8
received many handout forms. So if you have any 9
suggestions on how we might be able to improve our meeting, 10 please fill that out and send it to us. I think the 11 postage is prepaid.
12 If you have a comment on our draft EIS, as 13 Rich mentioned, we are accepting those comments through 14 December 2, 2005, and Rich is the point of contact for 15 that. As Rich and Lance have mentioned, the NRC staff will 16 be hanging out around here for a few minutes after the 17 meeting. So if you have any questions or comments that 18 you'd like to give us after the meeting, we will be happy 19 to talk with you. So thank you again very much for 20 attending our meeting.
21 MR. RAKOVAN: Thank you, Rani. I 22 also would point out that we are going to have another 23 meeting identical to this at 7:00 tonight. Our pre-meeting 24 starts at 6:00. So if by some chance you want to go 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 through all these presentations, you can see it all again 1
live and in person.
2 Having said that, I believe we will close the 3
meeting. Thank you all for coming.
4 (The meeting concluded at 2:28 p.m.)
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 1