ML053320433
| ML053320433 | |
| 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: ML053320433 (33) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Draft EIS: Evening Public Meeting Docket Number: (not applicable)
Location: Southport, North Carolina Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 Work Order No.: NRC-654 Pages 1-24 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 1 PUBLIC MEETING 2 RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 3 FOR BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, 4 UNITS 1 AND 2, 5 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION 6
7 Heard on:
8 OCTOBER 18, 2005 9 7:00 p.m.
10 *****
11 Heard At:
12 CITY HALL 13 SOUTHPORT, NORTH CAROLINA 14 *****
15 FACILITATOR:
16 Mr. Lance Rakovan 17 18 19 20 21 PERSONS MAKING PRESENTATIONS ON BEHALF OF NRC:
22 Mr. Richard Emch 23 Mr. Robert Palla 24 Ms. Rani Franovich 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
2 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Welcome and Purpose of Meeting........................3 3 Overview of License Renewal Process...................4 4 Results of the Environmental Review...................8 5 Results of the Severe Accident Mitigation 6 Alternatives Review..................................17 7 Closing/Availability of Transcripts..................21 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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
3 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 (7:00 p.m.)
3 MR. RAKOVAN: I'd like to welcome 4 you all to the public meeting for the Brunswick 5 Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Review 6 for Brunswick Units 1 and 2.
7 At this time there are no members of the 8 public present, so Rani and I talked about it, and we 9 have decided to go ahead and to have the meeting. I 10 believe we're going to give a somewhat reduced or more 11 concise presentations to allow a little time if any of 12 the members of the public show up. I'm going to ask 13 several times during the meeting just to make sure that 14 we don't have anyone who does show up because in that 15 case then we may change our format.
16 But we do still intend to have a meeting, 17 and it's going to be the same two parts. Hopefully two 18 parts. We're going to have some presentations, and then 19 we're going to open up the meeting to public comments.
20 My name is Lance Rakovan. I believe most 21 if not all of you were here at the afternoon session, so 22 you are probably already aware of that. Our speakers 23 tonight will be Rani Franovich, who is the Chief of the 24 Environmental Review Section for License Renewal; Mr.
25 Rich Emch, who is the Project Manager for the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
4 1 Environmental Review of the Brunswick License Renewal 2 Application. And Mr. Bob Palla, who is a Senior 3 Reactor Engineer. I am going to forego going through 4 any kind of ground rules, again because at this point 5 there are no members of the public. So I will turn 6 things over to Rani.
7 MS. FRANOVICH: Thank you, Lance.
8 I'm going to give an abbreviated presentation myself.
9 The purpose of today's meeting is to obtain comments on 10 the draft Environmental Impact Statement. But as Lance 11 has acknowledged, there are no members of the public 12 here to provide comments. So I want to give a bit of an 13 overview of the license renewal process. And certainly 14 the proceeding that brings us here tonight, the 15 Brunswick Steam Electric Plant has applied for license 16 renewal.
17 The Atomic Energy Act gives the NRC the 18 authority to issue operating licenses to commercial 19 nuclear power plants for a period of 40 years.
20 Brunswick Units 1 and 2, the operating licenses will 21 expire in 2016 and 2014 respectively. Our regulations 22 make provisions for extending the operating licenses for 23 up to an additional 20 years, and CP&L has requested 24 license renewal for both units.
25 As part of the NRC's review of that license NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 1 renewal application, we will perform or we have 2 performed an environmental review to look at the impact 3 of an additional 20 years of plant operation on the 4 environment. We held a meeting here last January to 5 seek public input regarding the issues we need to 6 evaluate. We indicated at that time that we would 7 return to Southport to present the preliminary result 8 documents and the draft Environmental Impact Statements, 9 and that's the purpose of this meeting.
10 Before I get into a discussion of the 11 license renewal process, I'd like to talk briefly about 12 the NRC in terms of what our mission is. As I mentioned 13 earlier, the Atomic Energy Act is the legislation that 14 authorizes the NRC to issue operating licenses and 15 regulate facility use of nuclear materials in the United 16 States. In exercising that authority, the NRC's mission 17 is three-fold: to insure adequate protection of public 18 health and safety, to protect the environment, and to 19 provide for a common defense and security.
20 The NRC accomplishes its mission through a 21 combination of regulatory programs and processes such as 22 inspections, enforcement actions, assessment of licensee 23 performance, and evaluation of operating experience of 24 nuclear power plants across the country and 25 internationally.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
6 1 Turning now to license renewal, the NRC 2 conducts two reviews: an environmental review and a 3 safety review. The slide gives a big picture overview 4 of the license renewal process. There are two parallel 5 paths: the safety review and the environmental review.
6 The safety review focuses specifically on aging 7 management.
8 The license renewal safety review focuses 9 on plant aging and the programs that the licensee has 10 already implemented or will implement to manage the 11 effects of aging. The safety review involves the NRC 12 staff's review and assessment. The safety information 13 is contained in the safety portion of the application 14 for license renewal. There's a team of about 30 NRC 15 contractors who are conducting the safety review right 16 now. And the Project Manager of that safety review is 17 S.K. Mitra.
18 The safety review includes technical 19 evaluations, plant inspections, and audits. The 20 inspections are conducted by a team of inspectors from 21 both headquarters and the NRC's Region 2 Office. The 22 results of the inspections are documented in separate 23 inspection reports, and the staff documents the results 24 of the safety review in the safety evaluation report.
25 That report is independently reviewed by an advisory NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
7 1 committee on reactor safeguards on ACRS.
2 The second part of the review process 3 involves an environmental review. Rich will discuss 4 that in more detail in a few minutes. Basically that 5 review evaluates the impact of license renewal on a 6 number of areas including ecology, hydrology, cultural 7 resources, and socioeconomic issues, among others.
8 The environmental review involves scoping 9 activities and development of a draft supplement to a 10 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for license 11 renewal, otherwise called the GEIS. The draft 12 Environmental Impact Statement has been published for 13 comments, and we are here tonight to briefly the discuss 14 the results and to receive comments from the public. As 15 far as I know, there are still no members of the public 16 present.
17 In April of next year we will be issuing 18 the final version of this Environmental Impact Statement 19 which will address the comments that we receive here 20 today at this meeting or in the future from any written 21 comments that are submitted to the NRC. The final 22 agency decision on whether or not to issue renewed 23 operating licenses depends on the safety evaluation 24 report which documents the safety review, the 25 Environmental Impact Statement which documents the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
8 1 environmental review, and inspection reports that 2 document results of the regional inspections, and the 3 independent review by the ACRS.
4 With that, I'd like to give the podium to 5 Rich Emch who will give a more abbreviated presentation 6 than what he provided this afternoon on the 7 environmental review.
8 MR. EMCH: I am Richard Emch.
9 I'm the Environmental Project Manager for the NRC in the 10 review of the Brunswick license renewal. Basically what 11 we're doing is we're trying to do a review of the 12 environmental impact. We use sort of as our guidelines 13 the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
14 Basically they ask us to evaluate the impacts of major 15 federal actions. We evaluate the impacts. We disclose 16 those impacts. We consider whether or not there are 17 mitigating features, measures that could be put in 18 place, and it also calls for us to involve the public in 19 the process.
20 We had a scoping meeting early in the month 21 of January of this year that some of you attended, and 22 now we're back to talk to you about the preliminary 23 results of our review that are available in the draft 24 Environmental Impact Statement, which there's copies of 25 it out front.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
9 1 This is the environmental decision standard 2 for the review. In very simple terms, Richard Emch 3 language, it says that we are trying to figure out if 4 the environmental impact of an additional 20 years of 5 operation at Brunswick is acceptable.
6 Our preliminary conclusion in the 7 Environmental Impact Statement that was issued is that 8 it is indeed acceptable. I'll talk a little bit later 9 about what that ultimately means in terms of the life of 10 the plant.
11 The application was submitted in October of 12 2004. We held a public meeting. We did a notice of 13 intent in January and then held a public meeting on the 14 environmental review in January. Then we sent out 15 requests for additional information to the licensee in 16 February. Finally, when we had all that information 17 together, we published our draft statement in August.
18 Many of you received copies of it in the mail. Copies 19 are outside.
20 We are going to take whatever comments we 21 get from the public at this meeting and whatever 22 comments we get in the mail or by electronic message or 23 whatever, and we will factor those in and complete the 24 review and issue a final supplement in April of 2006.
25 We employ expertise in many areas as part NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 1 of the review of the environmental impact. This slide 2 shows those areas. As you can see, it covers a wide 3 range of areas. Air and water quality, aquatic and 4 terrestrial ecology, hydrology, socioeconomics, 5 radiation protection, and the environmental justice.
6 This slide lays out the analysis approach.
7 Earlier Rani talked to you about the Generic 8 Environmental Impact Statement. The Generic 9 Environmental Impact Statement basically looked at all 10 the power plants in the United States and looked at 92 11 different environmental issues or aspects of the 12 environmental impact. Came to the conclusion that 69 of 13 them were what we considered to be generic. In other 14 words, they were essentially the same kind of impact, 15 the same level of impact, on all the plants in the 16 United States. Or they were saying that all the plants 17 in the United States had the same kind of basic concept, 18 like maybe they were all the plants that had once-thru cooling.
19 That leaves approximately 23 issues that 20 were not what we considered to be Category 1. The first 21 69 are Category 1. If during the review there is no new 22 and significant information uncovered either by the 23 licensee or by the NRC review team, then we end up 24 concluding or end up staying with the generic conclusion 25 that was made on the Generic Impact Statement that there NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
11 1 is a small impact, and we don't need to evaluate that 2 further.
3 In general, there's 23 issues that do 4 require plant specific analysis. In this case, there 5 were 11 Category 2 issues that required additional 6 evaluation for Brunswick. There were six issues that 7 did not apply to the plant because of the design, 8 another four that didn't apply to the plant because 9 Brunswick plans no refurbishment specifically for the 10 purposes of continuing the license -- continuing license 11 renewal in the period.
12 Two issues were not really Category 1 or 13 Category 2. Those are environmental justice, which was 14 not really considered to be -- it wasn't an issue that 15 we looked at back when we developed the Generic Impact 16 Statement. And the chronic effects of electromagnetic 17 fields, which basically it wasn't regarded as a Category 18 1 or a Category 2 because it's sort of indeterminate at 19 this point.
20 Following the guidance on the Council on 21 Environmental Quality, we classify impacts as small, 22 moderate, and large. Small is not detectable, or it's 23 too small to destabilize or noticeably alter the aspect 24 that we're looking at. Moderate means that it might be 25 noticeable and altered noticeably, but it won't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
12 1 destabilize the resource. Large means that it's clearly 2 noticeable and is sufficient to destabilize the 3 environmental impact of the resource that we're looking 4 at.
5 During the course of our review, we gather 6 information from a lot of different sources. The staff 7 comes out and talks to the licensee. We talk to the 8 federal agencies such as Fish and Wildlife. We talk to 9 the state agencies such as the North Carolina Department 10 of Environment and Natural Resources. We talk to the 11 permitting agencies, social agencies. We gather 12 information from a very wide range of sources, and most 13 of them are listed on this diagram here.
14 I want to talk to you for just a moment 15 about what we did find preliminarily on a few different 16 areas: cooling systems, transmission lines, 17 radiological impact, threatened and endangered species, 18 cumulative impacts, and then Bob is going to talk to you 19 about severe accidents.
20 There are a number of Category 1 issues in 21 the cooling systems, but we're going to talk about 22 Category 2 issues that are up here: entrainment of fish 23 and shellfish in the early life stages, impingement of 24 fish and shellfish, and heat shock. The plant has a 25 diversion structure, and it has screens at the intakes NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
13 1 that help minimize the amount of entrainment and also 2 the amount of impingement. And after going through a 3 careful review of these, the conclusion we reached was 4 that the impact of each of these areas was small.
5 There's eight transmission lines that 6 connect Brunswick to the grid. They run about 390 miles 7 of transmission lines. They cover 4,600 acres. We 8 looked at those in terms of electromagnetic fields, 9 acute and chronic effects. The acute effects are 10 compared against the National Electric Safety Code.
11 Basically as long as the analyses are completed and it 12 meets the code, then they are found acceptable. And 13 that's indeed what we've got here. Therefore, the 14 impact turned out to be small.
15 On the chronic effects, as I said, that's 16 indeterminate. The National Institute of Environmental 17 and Health Science has indicated that they do not 18 believe that there is a significant effect from the 19 levels of chronic exposure that we get around the 20 transmission lines. However, there is no hard evidence 21 one way or the other. So the NRC said that's 22 indeterminate, but for the purposes of the analysis, 23 we're calling the impact small.
24 Radiation impacts are Category 1 issues, 25 but they are of great interest to most people around NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
14 1 most plants. That's why we'll talk about them a little 2 bit. We evaluated radiation exposures to the public and 3 occupational exposures to workers. We determined that 4 the Category 1 designation of the Generic Impact 5 Statement is appropriate, that these issues or at least 6 these impacts are small. In fact, on careful review of 7 the records, it looks like the doses to an actual member 8 of the public are well less than one millirem per year, 9 which is considerably less than our regulations and even 10 much less than the approximately 360 millirem per year 11 that all of us receive because we live on Planet Earth 12 and to get our teeth x-rayed and things like that.
13 We looked at 30 species, both terrestrial 14 and aquatic, of threatened and endangered species.
15 These include sea turtles, several kinds of sea turtles, 16 several kinds of whales, manatees, bald eagle, red 17 cockaded woodpecker, and a long list of other specialty 18 plants and other animals. We conferred and consulted 19 with the Fish and Wildlife Service. We consulted with 20 the National Marine Fishery Service. We consulted with the 21 Department of Natural Resources in the state of North 22 Carolina.
23 We published a biological assessment of 24 all these species and concluded that for all of them the 25 continued operation of the plant would either have no NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
15 1 effect or is not likely to adversely affect these species.
2 Therefore, the impact would be small.
3 As I mentioned earlier, for Category 1 4 issues, the main thing that we need to do is check to 5 make sure there is no new and significant information 6 that might cause us to question whether or not we should 7 stick with the Category 1 designation in the Generic 8 Impact Statement.
9 The licensee had a program for doing that.
10 We evaluated their program, and then we held a scoping 11 meeting, and we evaluated a lot of -- we talked to a lot 12 of people ourselves and a lot of agencies. We looked 13 through the technical literature and concluded that 14 there was no new and significant information on the 15 topics for Brunswick. Therefore, we stayed with the 16 generic conclusions for Category 1 issues.
17 We also examined the cumulative impacts of 18 operation. That is to say the impacts of Brunswick in 19 light of other facilities such as Sunny Point, other 20 things that are in this area. We looked at the 21 operation of the cooling water systems, the transmission 22 lines, the radiological impact, the sociological issues, 23 the groundwater use, threatened and endangered species.
24 There are various geographical areas that we considered.
25 But you have to go pretty far out if you're going to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
16 1 consider all the transmission lines, which for most of 2 these the area of consideration is much smaller. And 3 the net result was we found that the cumulative impacts 4 on all those areas was small.
5 We also examined the uranium fuel cycle and 6 solid waste management and decommissioning. Again, we 7 looked at radiation doses, waste management, air 8 quality, a whole gamut of environmental impacts. That 9 concluded again that the impacts for these areas were 10 small.
11 Part of the requirements are that we 12 evaluate alternatives. We start with the no-action 13 alternative. That is, the license renewal is not 14 granted. Then we go on to check a number of other kinds 15 of alternatives. Three that we pay particular attention 16 to because they are the most likely ones that we can use 17 to cover the almost 2,000 megawatts electric of base 18 load power generation that we get from Brunswick: coal, 19 natural gas, and nuclear.
20 We also looked at a number of others:
21 wind, solar, energy conservation, bio mass fuels, a wide 22 range of things. Some of those could be used to replace 23 some of the power needs, but none of them are really 24 viable options for true base load electric generation.
25 So we looked at kind of a combination that included some NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17 1 of the base load power and some other things. In all 2 cases what we found was that the impacts of the 3 alternatives ranged from small to moderate and even 4 large in some cases.
5 That brings us to postulated accidents. I 6 guess I will ask Bob to come up now, unless there are 7 some questions.
8 (No responses.)
9 MR. PALLA: My name is Bob 10 Palla. I'm with the Safety Assessment Branch of the 11 NRC. I will be discussing the environmental impacts of 12 postulated accidents. These impacts are described in 13 Section 5 of the GEIS. The GEIS evaluates two classes 14 of accidents: design-basis accidents and severe 15 accidents.
16 Design-basis accidents are those accidents 17 that both the licensee and the NRC staff evaluate to 18 insure that the plant will safely respond to a broad 19 spectrum of events without risk to the public. Since 20 the licensee has to demonstrate acceptable plant 21 performance for the design-basis accidents throughout 22 the life of the plant, the Commission has determined 23 that the potential impact of design-basis accidents are 24 of small significance. Neither the licensee nor the NRC 25 are aware of any new and significant information on the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18 1 capability of the Brunswick plant to withstand design-2 basis accidents. Therefore, the staff concludes that 3 there are no impacts related to design-basis accidents 4 beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
5 The second category of accidents evaluated 6 in the GEIS are severe accidents. Severe accidents are 7 by definition more severe than design-basis accidents 8 because they can result in substantial damage to the 9 reactor core. The Commission found in the GEIS that the 10 risk of severe accident is small for all plants.
11 Nevertheless, the Commission determined that 12 alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be 13 considered for all plants that have not done so. The 14 review of severe accident mitigation alternatives, 15 otherwise known as SAMAs, for Brunswick is summarized in 16 Section 5.2 of the GEIS supplement. It is described in 17 more detail in Appendix G of the GEIS supplement.
18 The purpose of performing the SAMA 19 evaluation is to insure that plant changes with the 20 potential for improving severe accident safety 21 performance are identified and evaluated. Some of the 22 plant improvements that were considered included 23 hardware modifications, procedure changes, and training 24 program analysis. The scope includes SAMAs that would 25 prevent core damage, as well as SAMAs that would improve NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
19 1 containability performance even if a core damage were to 2 occur.
3 The SAMA evaluation consists of a four-step 4 process. The first step is to characterize overall 5 plant risk and leading contributors to risk. This 6 typically does make extensive use of plant specific 7 safety assessment of the site.
8 The second step is to identify potential 9 improvements that could further reduce risk. The third 10 step would be to quantify the risk reduction potential 11 and the implementation costs for each improvement. Then 12 finally make a determination as to whether 13 implementation of any of these potential improvements 14 can be justified.
15 The results of the evaluation are 16 summarized on this slide. Forty-three candidate 17 improvements were identified for Brunswick based on 18 review of the plant specific PRA, as well as SAMA 19 analyses that were previously performed for other 20 plants. The licensee reduced the number of candidates 21 down to 27 based on multi-step screening process. A 22 more detailed cost/benefit analysis was then performed 23 for each of the 27 remaining SAMAs. The detailed 24 cost/benefit analysis shows that 15 of the SAMAs are 25 potentially cost beneficial and evaluated individually NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
20 1 in accordance with the NRC guidance for performing 2 regulatory analysis. Some of these SAMAs were cost 3 beneficial in the baseline analysis. Eight additional 4 ones were cost beneficial when alternative assumptions 5 for discount rate and when analysis of some of these 6 were taken into consideration.
7 It's important to note that some of the 8 SAMAs address the same risk contributors but in a 9 different way. As a result, implementation of one of 10 the SAMAs could reduce the residual risk to a point that 11 one or more of the remaining SAMAs would no longer be 12 cost beneficial. Because of this interrelationship 13 between SAMAs, we would not expect that all 15 SAMAs 14 would be justified on a cost/benefit basis. Rather, the 15 implementation of a carefully selected subset of the 15 16 could achieve much of the risk reduction and would be 17 more cost effective than implementing all of the SAMAs.
18 In summary, the results of the SAMA 19 evaluation indicate that several SAMAs are potentially 20 cost beneficial at Brunswick. However, none of the cost 21 beneficial SAMAs are related to managing the effects of 22 plant aging during the period of extended operation.
23 Therefore, the SAMAs are not required to be implemented 24 as part of license renewal.
25 Notwithstanding this, CP&L has committed to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
21 1 further evaluate potentially cost beneficial SAMAs for 2 possible implementation as the current operating license 3 activity. The focus of this evaluation will be on a 4 SAMA which is identified in the GEIS supplement as SAMA 5 1. It involves the use of a portable generator to 6 supply DC power during station blackout events. CP&L 7 will also look at those SAMAs that remain cost 8 beneficial after SAMA 1 would be implemented. The 9 completion of these evaluations is being tracked in the 10 Brunswick plant action tracking the system. Any 11 questions?
12 (No responses.)
13 MR. EMCH: Now it's time for 14 us to talk about the preliminary conclusions. In all 15 areas we concluded that the impact was small. With the 16 alternatives, we found the impacts ranged from small to 17 large. Thinking back about our evaluation standard, we 18 concluded preliminarily that the environmental impact of 19 an additional 20 years of operation at Brunswick is not 20 so great as to take away the opportunity to continue to 21 operate.
22 Now basically what this means, that we 23 would be preserving the option for license renewal. It 24 doesn't necessarily mean even if the NRC grants another 25 license for an additional 20 years of operation, it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22 1 doesn't necessarily mean the plant will operate for 2 those additional 20 years. Those are decisions that are 3 usually made on the basis of economics, need for power, 4 and things like that by the utility themselves and state 5 decisionmakers such as the Public Utility Commission.
6 We issued a draft. That was in August of 7 2005. We are having this meeting to solicit comments on 8 the draft, and the comment period for the draft would be 9 open until December 2, 2005. We will take all those 10 comments that we receive tonight, along with all the 11 ones we receive in the mail in writing and e-mail, and 12 we will do another review and construct another document 13 and issue the final EIS in April of 2006.
14 Here is the information you will need for 15 contacts. I am the --
16 MR. RAKOVAN: Do you think we 17 need to go through this since there is no one here to 18 comment? I mean, it's up to you.
19 MR. EMCH: It will take about 20 five seconds.
21 MR. RAKOVAN: Go ahead.
22 MR. EMCH: Okay. I am the 23 primary contact. My telephone number is up there. The 24 documents that we are discussing are located at the 25 William Madison Randall Library in Wilmington at the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
23 1 University of North Carolina, Wilmington. Also the 2 SEIS, the Environmental Impact Statement, can be found 3 at the NRC's web site. We have copies of it out on the 4 desk that are available, as well.
5 In order to submit comments, the most 6 common method is to actually come to one of these 7 meetings and make statements and comments. The next 8 most common method is to send comments by letters to the 9 address shown. The next most common method after that 10 is to either send us a message at the Brunswick EIS email 11 address on the Internet or to send it to an address that 12 is inside the front cover of the document itself.
13 Then the most uncommon method is to actually show up in 14 person and hand us written comments in Rockville.
15 We will consider all comments that we receive by 16 the close of the comment period; December 2nd.
17 We will give them thorough consideration and include 18 them. I want to thank all of you for being here 19 tonight and helping us through this process.
20 Are there any questions?
21 (No response.)
22 MR. EMCH: With that, I will 23 hand it over to Lance.
24 MR. RAKOVAN: Thank you, Rich.
25 Just to do one more formal check, I don't believe anyone NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
24 1 has entered the room, but I want to insure that there 2 are no members of the public present. So I will ask one 3 more time.
4 (No response.)
5 MR. RAKOVAN: Seeing as no one 6 has said that they are, I will assume that it's been the 7 same crowd that we've had all evening. Rani and I were 8 talking, and I believe we will have at least a few 9 members of the staff, NRC staff, stick around to at a 10 minimum 8:00 just to make sure that people, if they come 11 late will have someone to discuss. Other than that, 12 Rani, would you like to --
13 MS. FRANOVICH: No.
14 MR. RAKOVAN: No, okay. You 15 would not. Well, I would like to thank all of you for 16 coming back to the evening session. Unless anyone has 17 anything else they'd like to say, I would like to close 18 the meeting. Thank you.
19 (The proceeding concluded at 7:32 p.m.)
20 21 22 23 24 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