ML053460436
"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.
| ML053460436 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 11/17/2005 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Rani Franovich NRC/NRR/ADRO/DLR/REBB |
| Fields, L C, NRR/DLR/REBB, 415-1186 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML053550524 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC MC3274, TAC MC3275 | |
| Download: ML053460436 (49) | |
Text
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 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS 4
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 5
FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR 6
STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 7
+ + + + +
8 THURSDAY 9
NOVEMBER 17, 2005 10
+ + + + +
11 OSWEGO, NEW YORK 12
+ + + + +
13 The public meeting was held in the 14 Conference Room at the Town of Scriba Municipal 15 Building, at 1:29 p.m., Chip Cameron, Facilitator, 16 presiding.
17 PRESENT:
18 RANI FRANOVICH, NRC 19 LESLIE FIELDS, NRC 20 BRUCE McDOWELL, LLNL 21 BOB PALLA, NRC 22 JAMES HUTTON 23 24 25
2 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 AGENDA ITEMS PAGE 1
Francis Cameron 3 2
Rani Franovich 9 3
Leslie Fields 17 4
Bruce McDowell 23 5
Bob Palla 34 6
James Hutton 44 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 P R O C E E D I N G S 1
(1:29 p.m.)
2 MR. CAMERON: Good afternoon everyone. My 3
name is Chip Cameron. Im the Special Counsel for 4
Public Liaison within the Office of General Counsel at 5
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the NRC as well be 6
calling it this afternoon.
7 And its my pleasure to serve as the 8
facilitator and moderator for this meeting this 9
afternoon. And in that role, Ill just try to help 10 all of you to have a productive meeting today.
11 Our subject today is the NRC Environmental 12 Review that were conducting as part of our evaluation 13 of an application that we received from the 14 Constellation Energy Group to renew the licenses to 15 operate Units 1 and 2 at the Nine Mile Point Nuclear 16 Station.
17 And I just want to say a couple of things 18 about meeting process issues before we get into the 19 substance of todays discussion. Id like to talk 20 about format, some simple ground rules to help us have 21 an effective meeting, and to introduce the speakers 22 from the NRC and our expert contractors to all of you.
23 In terms of format, were going to run the 24 meeting in two parts basically. And the first part is 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 to give you some background on the license renewal 1
process and specifically the environmental review part 2
of that process including the findings in the draft 3
environmental impact statement.
4 And Im emphasizing the word draft because 5
that takes us to the second part of the meeting which 6
is to hear from you on any comments, advice, 7
recommendations that you might have for us in terms of 8
the environmental review process. So the second part 9
of the meeting were going to give you an opportunity 10 to come up here and to talk with us.
11 And were taking written comments on these 12 issues as the NRC staff will tell you. But we wanted 13 to be here today to talk to you personally. Anything 14 that you say today will carry just as much weight as 15 any written comments that we receive.
16 And after were done with some NRC 17 background presentations, we will go out to you for 18 questions to make sure that weve presented everything 19 clearly to you before we go on to the second part, the 20 comment part of the meeting.
21 In terms of ground rules, if you have any 22 questions when we get to that part of the meeting, 23 just signal me and Ill bring you this cordless 24 microphone. And please introduce yourself, give us 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 your affiliation, if appropriate. Well try to answer 1
your question.
2 I would ask that only one person speak at 3
a time. Two reasons for that. One so that we can 4
give our full attention to whomever has the floor at 5
the time but also so that we can get a clean 6
transcript. We have Pete Holland here who is serving 7
as our court reporter stenographer today.
8 The transcript from this meeting and the 9
companion meeting that were doing tonight will be 10 available to the public. And I think before the 11 written comment period closes so youll have an 12 opportunity to look at that.
13 Again, I would just ask all of you to be 14 concise in your questions and comments so that we 15 could make sure that everybody has a chance to talk.
16 I dont think that we have to worry about that today.
17 We have plenty of time so that usually I set a five -
18 minute guideline for people to talk but I think that 19 we can let you go on longer than that this afternoon.
20 The NRC staff will be here after the 21 meeting to talk informally with you. And I would just 22 thank all of you for being here.
23 In terms of our NRC speakers, were going 24 to first go to Rani Franovich, who is right here. And 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 Rani is going to give you a welcome and a brief 1
overview of license renewal. And she is the Chief of 2
the Environmental Review Section within our License 3
Renewal and Environmental Review Program at the NRC.
4 And I want to give you some background on 5
people so youll know what their qualifications are.
6 Rani has been with the NRC for about 15 years. Shes 7
been one of our resident inspectors, the NRC staff 8
that we have at all licensed nuclear power plants to 9
make sure that NRC regulations are being complied 10 with. She was resident inspector at Catawba and 11 McGuire down in the south in NRC Region II.
12 She was also a project manager on the 13 safety review of the Catawba and McGuire license 14 renewal applications so she knows that side, the 15 safety side, very well.
16 And she was also the enforcement 17 coordinator in our Office of Nuclear Reactor 18 Regulation. Her bachelors degree is in psychology 19 from Virginia Tech. And she has a masters in 20 industrial and systems engineering also from Virginia 21 Tech.
22 After Rani, were going to go to the 23 project manager for this environmental review on the 24 Nine Mile Point license renewal application. And that 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 is Leslie Fields, who is right here.
1 Shes been with the NRC nine years. And 2
before she came to us, she was with the private sector 3
with an engineering firm.
4 She has a
bachelors in chemical 5
engineering from the University of Southern California 6
and shes about three credits or so short of getting 7
her masters degree in environmental management from 8
the University of Maryland.
9 And Leslie is going to tell you about our 10 environmental review process.
11 After Rani and Leslie are done, before we 12 go on to the substance of what is in the environmental 13 impact statement, well go out to see if there are any 14 questions on these process issues.
15 And then we will go to the findings that 16 are in a draft environmental impact statement. And we 17 have Bruce McDowell with us. He is one of the expert 18 consultants that we have helping us to do the 19 environmental review. Hes the team leader of the 20 consultants that we are using.
21 He is at Lawrence Livermore National Lab.
22 Hes been there for about 15 years in various 23 capacities, including doing environmental review work.
24 And now hes involved as the Acting Deputy Director of 25
8 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the Counter Terrorism and Incident Response Division 1
at Lawrence Livermore.
2 He has a masters degree in resource 3
economics and is going for a Ph.D. in atmospheric 4
sciences from the University of California Davis.
5 And, Bruce, your masters was from what?
6 MR. McDOWELL: From Davis.
7 MR. CAMERON: From Davis, okay. Great.
8 And hes going to tell you about what is 9
in the draft environmental impact statement. Well go 10 out to you for questions. And then were going to go 11 to the short feature, as I like to call it, of the 12 environmental impact statement. The very important 13 subject which is the severe accident mitigation 14 alternatives, the so-called SAMAs.
15 And we have our probabilistic risk 16 assessment expert with us, Mr. Bob Palla, who is right 17 here. Hes been involved in severe accident and 18 related issues at the NRC for about 25 years.
19 He has a bachelors and masters in 20 mechanical engineering from the University of 21 Maryland.
22 And well go to questions then. And then 23 were going to go back to Leslie to just wrap it up.
24 And then well go to the comment period.
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 Thank you again. And Rani, Ill turn it 1
over to you.
2 MS. FRANOVICH: Thank you, Chip.
3 Good afternoon. And welcome. I want to 4
thank you all for coming to this meeting. Public 5
participation is an important part of our process.
6 And its also an opportunity for us to meet with the 7
public, an opportunity we dont always have at the 8
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. So we really enjoy 9
this ourselves.
10 I hope the information we provide today 11 will help you understand the process were going 12 through with the Nine Mile Point license renewal 13 review. And help you understand what weve done so 14 far. And where we are going in the future.
15 We also want to help you understand the 16 role that you can play in the license renewal process 17 particularly on the environment review side.
18 Id like to start off by briefly going 19 over the agenda and the purpose of todays meeting.
20 Well explain the NRCs license renewal process for 21 nuclear power plants with emphasis on the 22 environmental review process.
23 Then were going to present the 24 preliminary findings of our environmental review which 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 assesses the impact associated with extending 1
operation of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station for 2
an additional 20 years. And thats for both units.
3 Then really the most important part of 4
todays meeting is for us to receive any comments you 5
may have on our draft environmental impact statement.
6 We will also give you some information about the 7
schedule for the balance of our review and let you 8
know how you can submit your comments to us in the 9
future.
10 At the conclusion of the staffs 11 presentation, well be happy to answer any questions 12 you may have. However, I must ask you to limit your 13 participation to questions only and hold your comments 14 until the appropriate time during todays meeting.
15 Once all questions are answered, we can 16 begin to receive any comments you may have on the 17 draft environmental impact statement. And a copy of 18 the draft environmental impact statement is on the 19 table on the side of the room in the back. So if you 20 havent seen one, you are welcome to take one.
21 Next slide, Sam. Before I get into a 22 discussion of the license renewal process, Id like to 23 take a minute to talk about the NRC in terms of what 24 we do and what our mission is. The Atomic Energy Act 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 is the legislation that authorizes the NRC to issue 1
operating licenses to nuclear power plants.
2 The Atomic Energy Act provides for a 40-3 year license term for nuclear power plants. This 40-4 year term is based primarily on economic 5
considerations and anti-trust factors, not on safety 6
limitations of the plant.
7 The Atomic Energy Act also authorizes the 8
NRC to regulate the civilian use of nuclear materials 9
in the United States. In exercising that authority, 10 the NRCs mission is threefold: to ensure adequate 11 protection of public health and safety, to promote the 12 common defense and security, and to protect the 13 environment.
14 The NRC accomplishes its mission through 15 a combination of regulatory programs and processes 16 such as conducting inspections, issuing enforcement 17
- actions, assessing licensee performance, and 18 evaluating operating experience from nuclear plants 19 across the country and internationally.
20 The regulations that the NRC enforces are 21 contained in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 22 Regulations, which is commonly referred to as 10 CFR. 23 Next slide please. As Ive mentioned, the 24 Atomic Energy Act provides for a 40-year license term 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 for power reactors. Our regulations also include 1
provisions for extending plant operation for up to an 2
additional 20 years. For Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 3
2, the operating licenses will expire in 2009 and 2026 4
respectively.
5 The Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, 6
which is a subsidiary of Constellation Energy Group, 7
has requested license renewal for both units.
8 As part of the NRCs review of that 9
license renewal application, we have performed an 10 environmental review to look at the impact of 11 additional 20 years of operation on the environment.
12 We held a meeting here in September 2004 13 to seek your input regarding the issues we need to 14 evaluate. We indicated at that earlier scoping 15 meeting that we would return to the Town of Scriba to 16 present the preliminary results documented in our 17 draft environmental impact statement. And that is the 18 purpose of todays meeting 19 Next slide, Sam. The NRCs license 20 renewal review is similar to the original licensing 21 process in that it involves two parallel paths, an 22 environmental review and a safety review. This slide 23 gives a big picture overview of the license renewal 24 process.
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 You see the safety review is up here at 1
the top of the screen. And the environmental review 2
is illustrated down here below.
3 Im going to briefly describe these two 4
review processes starting with the safety review.
5 Next slide, Sam. You might ask what does 6
a safety review consider. For license renewal, the 7
safety review focuses on aging management of systems, 8
structures and components that are important for 9
safety as determined by the license renewal scoping 10 criteria which are located in 10 CFR Part 54.
11 The license renewal safety review does not 12 assess current operating issues such as security, 13 emergency planning, and safety performance. The NRC 14 monitors and provides regulatory oversight of these 15 issues on an ongoing basis under the current operating 16 license. Because the NRC is addressing these current 17 operating issues on a continuing basis, these issues 18 are not reevaluated during the license renewal review.
19 Next slide, Sam. As Ive mentioned, the 20 license renewal safety review focuses on plant aging.
21 And the programs that the licensee has already 22 implemented or will implement to manage the effects of 23 aging.
24 Let me introduce Mr. Tommy Lee, the safety 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 project manager. He is in charge of the safety 1
review. Thank you, Tommy.
2 Tommy wanted me to let everyone know that 3
there is a scoping or a safety audit thats going on.
4 Is it this week Tommy? And the exit meeting is 5
tomorrow at one-thirty in this room. And that will 6
also be open to members of the public.
7 The safety review involves the NRC staffs 8
evaluation of technical information that is contained 9
in the license renewal application. This is referred 10 to as the safety evaluation.
11 The NRC staff also conducts audits as part 12 of its safety evaluation. There is a team of about 30 13 NRC technical reviewers and contractors who are 14 conducting the safety evaluation at this time.
15 Safety review also includes plant 16 inspections. These inspections are conducted by a 17 team of inspectors from both NRC headquarters and the 18 Region I office in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
19 A representative from our inspection 20 program is here today. The senior resident inspector 21 is Leonard Kline. Len, are you here? Thank you.
22 And the resident inspector is Brian 23 Fuller. Thank you, Brian.
24 The results of the inspections are 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 documented in separate inspection reports. And the 1
staff documents the results of its review, its safety 2
review, in a safety evaluation report. That report 3
has been independently reviewed by the Advisory 4
Committee on Reactor Safeguards or ACRS.
5 The ACRS is a group of nationally-6 recognized technical experts that serve as a 7
consulting body to the Commission. They review each 8
license renewal application and safety evaluation 9
report. They form their own conclusions and 10 recommendations on the requested action. In this 11 case, it would be license renewal. And report those 12 conclusions and recommendations directly to the 13 Commission.
14 Is this Slide 8? Okay. Thats fine.
15 This slide illustrates how these various activities 16 make up the safety review process. And Id like to 17 point out that these
- symbols, these hexagons 18 illustrate opportunities for public participation.
19 This meeting is one of those 20 opportunities. In addition, when the staff presents 21 the results of its safety review to the ACRS, that 22 presentation will also be open to the public.
23 Next slide, Sam. The second part of the 24 staffs review process involves an environmental 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 review. The environmental review, which Leslie will 1
discuss in more detail in a few minutes, evaluates the 2
impacts of license renewal on a number of areas 3
including ecology, hydrology, cultural resources, and 4
socioeconomic issues among others.
5 The environmental review involves scoping 6
activities and the development of a draft supplement 7
to the generic environmental impact statement or 8
license renewal of nuclear power plants also referred 9
to as the GEIS. The draft environmental impact 10 statement has been published for comments and were 11 here today to briefly discuss the results of our 12 review and receive your comments.
13 In June of next year, we will be issuing 14 the final version of this environmental impact 15 statement which will document how the staff addressed 16 the comments that we receive here today at this 17 meeting or in the future in any written form.
18 Next slide please, Sam. So the final 19 agency decision on whether or not to issue a renewed 20 operating license depends on several inputs. The 21 inspections and a letter, a confirmatory letter, from 22 the regional administrator -- in this case it would be 23 from Region I, conclusions and recommendations of the 24 ACRS, which are documented in a letter that is 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 provided to the Commission, the safety evaluation 1
report, which documents the results of the staffs 2
safety review.
3 And the final environmental impact 4
statement which documents the results of the 5
environmental review. Again, the hexagons on the 6
slide -- like this one and this one -- represent 7
opportunities for public participation. The first 8
opportunity was during the scoping period and the 9
meeting back in September 2004. Many of you may have 10 attended that meeting.
11 The meeting on the draft environmental 12 impact statement, this meeting is another opportunity 13 as Ive indicated. No one requested a hearing so that 14 is not applicable here.
15 That concludes my presentation on the NRC 16 and general overview of the license renewal review 17 process.
18 Now Id like to turn things over to Leslie 19 Fields. Leslie will discuss the environmental review 20 in more detail.
21 MS. FIELDS: Thank you, Rani.
22 Good afternoon. My name is Leslie Fields 23 and I am the environmental project manager for the NRC 24 staff, leading the Nine Mile Point environmental 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 license renewal review.
1 My responsibility is to coordinate the 2
activities of the NRC staff with various environmental 3
experts from the National Laboratories to develop an 4
environmental impact statement associated with the 5
license renewal for Nine Mile Point.
6 The National Environmental Policy Act of 7
1969 requires that federal agencies follow a 8
systematic approach in evaluating potential 9
environmental impact associated with certain actions, 10 like license renewals.
11 Were required to consider the impact of 12 the proposed action and also any mitigation for those 13 impacts that we consider to be significant.
14 Alternatives to the proposed action, 15 including taking no action on the applicants request, 16 are also considered.
17 The National Environmental Policy Act and 18 the environmental impact statement are tools used to 19 disclose the potential impacts found during the 20 staffs review. They are specifically structured to 21 involve public participation. And this meeting 22 facilitates the publics participation in our 23 environmental review.
24 So we are here today to collect public 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 comment on the environmental review. And these 1
comments will be included in the final environmental 2
impact statement.
3 The NRC staff developed a
generic 4
environmental impact statement, or
- GEIS, that 5
addresses a number of issues that are common to all 6
nuclear power plants. The staff is supplementing that 7
GEIS with a site-specific supplemental environmental 8
impact statement, or SEIS, that will address issues 9
that are specific to Nine Mile Point site.
10 The staff also evaluates the conclusions 11 reached in the GEIS to determine if there is any new 12 and significant information that would change any of 13 those conclusions.
14 Now Id like to provide a little more 15 information about the GEIS. In the mid-1990s, the NRC 16 was faced with the prospect of having to prepare 17 environmental impact statements for the majority of 18 operating nuclear power plants in the United States.
19 The NRC decided to tackle this problem in two ways.
20 First, the NRC decided to evaluate impacts of all 21 plants across the entire country to determine if there 22 were impacts that were common to all operating plants.
23 The NRC looked at 92 separate impact areas 24 and found that for 69 issues, the impacts were the 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 same for plants with similar features. NRC called 1
these Category 1 issues. And made the same or generic 2
determinations about their impacts in the GEIS for 3
4 The NRC published the GEIS in 1996.
5 Category 1 issues are shown in the vertical path on 6
the left of the diagram. And examples of these 7
Category 1 issues are discharge of sanitary waste or 8
bird collision with cooling towers.
9 For the other 23 issues, 21 are referred 10 to as Category 2. The NRC found that the impacts were 11 not the same at all sites. And, therefore, a site-12 specific analysis was needed. A Category 2 issue, an 13 example would be the threatened and endangered 14 species. And this can be seen in the vertical path 15 shown in the center of the diagram.
16 Our draft is a supplement to the GEIS. As 17 each plant comes in for license renewal, we publish a 18 SEIS, which is a supplement. The Nine Mile Point SEIS 19 is what you have before you today. This document is 20 also available to anyone in the back of the room.
21 The NRC did not rule out the possibility 22 that their generic conclusions may not apply to any 23 specific plant in all cases. If new and significant 24 information is found that contradicts the generic 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 conclusions in the GEIS, then the staff would perform 1
a site-specific analysis on that issue. This is shown 2
in the last vertical path on the right of the diagram.
3 As you can see, our decision standard for 4
the environmental review is shown on this slide.
5 Simply put, is license renewal acceptable from an 6
environmental standpoint?
7 This slide shows important milestones for 8
the environmental review process. The highlighted 9
dates indicate opportunities for public involvement in 10 the environmental review.
11 We received Nine Mile Points application 12 requesting the license renewal of Nine Mile Point on 13 May 27th, 2004. On August 9th, 2004, we issued a 14 Federal Register notice of intent to conduct scoping 15 and prepare an environmental impact statement.
16 A meeting was held on September 22nd, 2004 17 as part of that scoping process. Many of you may have 18 attended that meeting and provided comments to us.
19 Comments that were given at the scoping meeting and 20 that are in scope of this review are in Appendix A of 21 the draft SEIS.
22 The scoping period ended on November 8th, 23 2004. The scoping summary report was issued on 24 January 5th, 2005, addressing all the comments that we 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 received from all sources during the scoping process.
1 I have copies of the scoping summary document in the 2
back of the room.
3 A draft SEIS was published on September 4
29th, 2005, also known as Supplement 24 for Nine Mile 5
Point Units 1 and 2. And we are currently accepting 6
public comments on the draft until December 22nd, 7
2005.
8 Todays meeting is being transcribed and 9
comments provided here carry the same weight as 10 written comments submitted to the NRC. Once the 11 comment period closes, we will develop the final SEIS, 12 which we expect to publish in June of 2006.
13 Now I would like to turn things over to 14 Bruce McDowell to discuss Lawrence Livermore National 15 Laboratorys role in the environmental review.
16 MR. CAMERON: And thanks. Thank you very 17 much Leslie and Rani. And just before we go to Bruce, 18 who is going to talk about the substance, lets just 19 make sure if theres any questions on the process that 20 you heard Leslie and Rani talk about -- any question?
21 (No response.)
22 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Great. Thank you, 23 Leslie.
24 MR. McDOWELL: Good afternoon. As Chip 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 said, my name is Bruce McDowell. I work for the 1
University of California at the Lawrence Livermore 2
Laboratory.
3 The NRC contracted with us to provide the 4
expertise necessary to evaluate the impacts of license 5
renewal at Nine Mile Point. My team consists of nine 6
members from the Lawrence Livermore National 7
Laboratory and from the Argonne National Laboratory in 8
9 The expertise we provide for the Nine Mile 10 Point license renewal and for the alternatives is 11 shown on this slide:
atmospheric
- science, 12 socioeconomics and environmental justice, archeology 13 and historical resources, terrestrial ecology, land 14 use, radiation protection, regulatory compliance, 15 nuclear safety, aquatic ecology, and hydrology.
16 Next slide. For each environmental issue 17 identified, an impact level is assigned. For small 18 impact, the effect is not detectable or too small to 19 destabilize or noticeably alter any important 20 attribute of a resource.
21 For moderate impact, the effect is 22 sufficient to alter noticeably but not destabilize 23 important attributes of the resource.
24 And
- finally, for an impact to be 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
- large, the effect must be clearly 1
noticeable and sufficient to destabilize important 2
attributes of the resource.
3 And now as an example, Id like to use the 4
fishery in Lake Ontario to illustrate how we use these 5
criteria. The operation at the Nine Mile Point plant 6
may cause loss of adult and juvenile fish at the 7
intake structure. If the loss of fish is so small 8
that it cannot be detected in relation to the local 9
population in Ontario, then the impact would be small.
10 If the losses would cause moderate -- or 11 cause the population to decline and then stabilize at 12 a lower level, the impact would be moderate.
13 If losses at the intake cause fish 14 populations to decline to the point where it cannot be 15 stabilized and continues to decline, then the impact 16 would be large.
17 Next slide. When my team evaluated the 18 impacts from continued operations at Nine Mile Point 19 we considered information from a very wide variety of 20 sources.
21 We considered what the licensee had to say 22 in their environmental report. We conducted a site 23 audit during which we toured the site and interviewed 24 plant personnel and reviewed documentation of plant 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 operations. We also talked to federal, state, and 1
local officials as well as local service agencies.
2 And lastly, we considered all of the 3
comments received from the public during the scoping 4
period. These comments are listed in Appendix A along 5
with the NRCs responses.
6 This body of information is the basis for 7
the analysis and the preliminary conclusions that we 8
came to in this Nine Mile Point supplement. The 9
central analysis in the Nine Mile Point supplement are 10 presented in Chapters 2, 4, and 8.
11 In Chapter 2, we discuss the plant, its 12 operation, and the environment around the plant.
13 In Chapter 4,
we looked at the 14 environmental impacts of routine operations during the 15 20-year license renewal term. The team looked at 16 issues related to the cooling system, the transmission 17 lines, radiological impacts, socioeconomic impacts, 18 ground water use and quality, threatened or endangered 19 species, and the person that is going to speak later 20 also looked at accidents.
21 Chapter 5 contains the assessment of 22 accidents. At this point, Id like to make a 23 distinction. Environmental impacts from the routine 24 day-to-day operation of the Nine Mile Point plant for 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 another 20 years are considered separately from the 1
impacts that could result from potential accidents 2
during the license renewal term. I will discuss 3
impacts from the routine operations and Mr. Palla will 4
discuss impacts from accidents in the next 5
presentation.
6 In Chapter 8, we describe alternatives to 7
the proposed license renewal and their environmental 8
impacts.
9 Each of these issue areas are discussed in 10 detail in the Nine Mile Point supplement. Im going 11 to give you the highlights. At the end of my 12 presentation, feel free to ask me any questions on the 13 particulars.
14 One of the issues we looked at closely is 15 the cooling system for the Nine Mile Point plant. The 16 cooling system consists of intakes, discharge canals, 17 and, of course, the large tower. The issues that the 18 team looked at on a site-specific basis include water 19 use conflicts, entrainment and impingement of fish and 20 shellfish, and heat shock.
21 We found that the potential impact in 22 these areas are small and additional mitigation is not 23 warranted.
24 Now there are a number of Category 1 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 issues related to the cooling system. These included 1
issues related to the discharges of the sanitary 2
waste, as Leslie mentioned, minor chemical spills, 3
metals, and chlorine. Now recall that as Category 1 4
issues, the NRC has already determined that these 5
impacts were small.
6 My team evaluated all information that we 7
had available to see if there was any information that 8
was both new and significant for these issues. We did 9
not find any. And, therefore, we adopted the NRCs 10 conclusion that the impact of the cooling system is 11 small.
12 Radiological impacts are a Category 1 13 issue. And the NRC has made a generic determination 14 that the impacts of radiological release during 15 nuclear plant operations during the 20-year license 16 renewal period are small. But because these issues 17 are a concern, I want to discuss them in some detail.
18 Nuclear plants are designed to release 19 radiological effluents to the environment. Nine Mile 20 Point is no different than any other plant. And Nine 21 Mile Point releases radiological effluents to the 22 environment.
23 During our visit to the site, we looked at 24 the effluent release and monitoring program 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 documentation. We looked at how the gaseous and 1
liquid effluences were treated and released as well as 2
how the solid wastes were treated, packaged, and 3
shipped.
4 We looked at how the Applicant determines 5
and demonstrates that they are in compliance with the 6
regulations for release of radiological effluents. We 7
also looked at the data from onsite and near site 8
locations that the Applicant monitors for airborne 9
releases and direct radiation and other monitoring 10 stations beyond the site boundary, including locations 11 where water, milk, fish, and food products are 12 sampled.
13 We found that the maximum calculated doses 14 for a member of the public are well within annual 15 limits. Now there is a near unanimous consensus 16 within the scientific community that these limits are 17 protective of human health.
18 Since releases from the plant are not 19 expected to increase on a year-to-year basis during 20 the 20-year license renewal term and since we found no 21 new and significant information related to this issue, 22 we adopted the generic conclusion that the 23 radiological impact on human health and the 24 environment was small.
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 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1
determined that there are three terrestrial species, 2
terrestrial federal listed or proposed species that 3
have the potential to occur at Nine Mile Point or 4
along its transmission lines. These are the Indiana 5
bat, and transient bald eagle, and piping plover 6
individuals.
7 The Indiana bat could occur in counties 8
where the plant and transmission lines are located but 9
since the licensee does not plan any refurbishment or 10 construction as part of the license renewal, the 11 natural area where these species could be found would 12 not be disturbed.
13 Ths would also be true for federally 14 listed plant species, the Harts-tongue fern and the 15 small whorled pogonia.
16 During winter migration, bald eagles visit 17 open water areas caused by the plants thermal 18 discharges. Since these areas provide foraging areas 19 where when other water bodies are frozen, the plants 20 operation can be considered beneficial to eagles.
21 Transient piping plover individuals may 22 also be found along the Lake Ontario shoreline.
23 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined 24 that there was no need for a biological assessment or 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 further consultation. And no further consultation is 1
required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species 2
Act.
3 Based on this, the staffs preliminary 4
conclusion is that the impact of the operation of the 5
Nine Mile Point plant during the license renewal 6
period on threatened or endangered species would be 7
small.
8 The last issue Id like to talk about from 9
Chapter 4 is cumulative impacts. These are impacts 10 that are minor when considered individually but 11 significant when considered with other past, present, 12 or reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of 13 what agency or person undertakes the other action.
14 The staff considered cumulative impacts 15 resulting from operation of the cooling water system, 16 operating of the transmission lines, releases of 17 radiation and radiological material, sociological 18 impacts, groundwater use and quality impacts, and 19 threatened and endangered species impacts.
20 These impacts were evaluated to the end of 21 the 20-year license renewal period. And Id like to 22 note that the geographical boundary of the analysis 23 was dependent upon the resource. For instance, the 24 area analyzed for the transmission line was different 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 than the area analyzed for the cooling water system.
1 Our preliminary determination is that any 2
cumulative impacts resulting from the operation of the 3
Nine Mile Point plant during the license renewal 4
period would be small.
5 The team also looked at the uranium fuel 6
cycle and solid waste management and decommissioning.
7 For all issues for uranium fuel cycle and solid waste 8
management as well as decommissioning -- Im sorry --
9 all issues for the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste 10 management as well as decommissioning are considered 11 Category 1. For these issues, no new and significant 12 information was identified.
13 In 2003, Nine Mile Point generated about 14 12.8 billion kilowatt hours of electricity. My team 15 also evaluated the potential environmental impacts 16 associated with the Nine Mile Point plant not 17 continuing operation and replacing this generation 18 with alternative power sources. The team looked at 19 the no action alternative, new generation from coal-20 fired, gas-fired, or new nuclear, purchased power, 21 alternative technologies such as wind, solar, and 22 hydro power, and then a combination of alternatives.
23 For each alternative, we looked at the 24 same types of issues, for example, water use, land 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 use, ecology, and socioeconomics that we looked at for 1
the operation of the Nine Mile Point during the 2
license renewal period.
3 For two alternatives, solar and wind, Id 4
like to describe the scale of the alternatives that we 5
considered because scale is important in understanding 6
our conclusions. First solar. Based on the average 7
solar energy available in New York and the current 8
conversion efficiencies of solar cells, these cells 9
would produce about 100 kilowatt hours per square 10 meter per year. As such, about 125 million square 11 meters or about 78 square miles of cells would be 12 required to replace the generation from Nine Mile 13 Point.
14 Regarding wind power, wind turbines have 15 capacity factors between 25 and 35 percent. As such, 16 at least 5,000 megawatts of wind power would have to 17 be developed to replace Nine Mile Points 1,759 18 megawatts. To put this in context, in 2002, the total 19 wind power capacity in the United States was 4,500 20 megawatts. In other words, the total wind power in 21 the United States would have to double from 2002 to 22 replace the generation from Nine Mile Point.
23 Due to the scale of these reasonable 24 alternatives, the teams preliminary conclusion is 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 that their environmental effects, at least in some of 1
the impact categories, reached moderate or large 2
significance.
3 For the 69 Category 1 issues presented in 4
the generic EIS that relate to Nine Mile Point, we 5
found no information that was both new and 6
significant. Therefore, we have preliminarily adopted 7
the conclusion that the impact of these issues is 8
small.
9 My team analyzed the remaining Category 2 10 issues in the supplement and we found the 11 environmental effects resulting from these issues was 12 also small. During our review, my team found no new 13 issues that were not already known.
14 Lastly, we found the environmental effects 15 of alternatives, at least in some impact categories, 16 reached moderate or large significance.
17 Now wed like to turn it back to Chip to 18 see if there is any questions.
19 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, Bruce, 20 for that overview. Lets see if there are any 21 questions out here on the findings in the draft 22 environmental impact statements. Any questions at all 23 from anybody?
24 (No response.)
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 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Great. Thanks, 1
Bruce.
2 Were going to go to Bob Palla now to talk 3
about severe accident mitigation alternatives. Bob?
4 MR. PALLA: Hi, my name is Bob Palla. Im 5
with the Division of Risk Assessment at the Nuclear 6
Regulatory Commission. And Im going to be discussing 7
the environmental impacts of postulated accidents.
8 These impacts are described in Section 5 9
of the generic environmental impact statement, or the 10 GEIS. The GEIS evaluates two categories of accidents:
11 the design basis accidents and severe accidents.
12 Design basis accidents consist of a broad spectrum of 13 postulated accidents that both the licensee and the 14 NRC staff evaluate to ensure that the plant could 15 respond to these events without risk to the public.
16 The ability of the plant to withstand the 17 design basis accidents has to be demonstrated before 18 the plant is granted a license. Since the licensee 19 has to demonstrate acceptable plant performance for 20 these design basis accidents throughout the life of 21 the plant, the Commission has determined that the 22 environmental impact of design-basis accidents are of 23 small significance.
24 Neither the licensee nor the NRC is aware 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 of any new information and significant information on 1
the capability of the Nine Mile Point plant to 2
withstand design basis accidents. Therefore, the 3
staff concludes that there are no impacts related to 4
design basis accidents beyond those that are discussed 5
in the generic environmental impact statements.
6 The second category of accidents evaluated 7
in the GEIS are severe accidents. Severe accidents 8
are by definition more severe than design basis 9
accidents because they can result in substantial 10 damage to the reactor core. The Commission found in 11 the generic environmental impact statement that the 12 risk of severe accidents is small for all plants. By 13
- this, I
mean the probabilistically weighted 14 consequences.
15 Nevertheless, the Commission determined 16 that alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be 17 considered for all plants that have not done so. The 18 SAMA evaluation is a site specific evaluation and is 19 a Category 2 issue as was explained earlier. The SAMA 20 review for Nine Mile Point is summarized in Section 21 5.2 of the GEIS supplement and is described in more 22 detail in Appendix G of the GEIS supplement.
23 The purpose of performing the SAMA 24 analysis is to ensure that plant changes with the 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 potential for improving severe accident safety 1
performance are evaluated -- well, identified and 2
further evaluated.
3 The scope of potential improvements that 4
were considered include hardware modifications, 5
procedure changes, and training program improvements.
6 Basically a full spectrum of potential changes. The 7
scope includes SAMAs that would prevent core damage a 8
well as SAMAs that would improve containment 9
performance given that a core damage event were to 10 occur.
11 The SAMA evaluation consists of a four-12 step process. The first step is to characterize the 13 overall plant risk and leading contributors to risk.
14 This typically involves extensive use of 15 the plant specific probabilistic risk assessment, 16 which is also known as the PRA. The PRA is a study 17 that identifies different combinations of system 18 failures and human errors that would be required in 19 order for an accident to progress to either core 20 damage or containment failure.
21 The second step in the evaluation is to 22 identify potential improvements that could further 23 reduce risk. Information from the PRA such as the 24 dominant accident sequences is used to help identify 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 plant improvements that would have the greatest impact 1
in reducing risk.
2 Improvements identified in other NRC and 3
industry studies as well as SAMA analysis that had 4
been performed for other plants that have also applied 5
for license renewal were also considered.
6 The third step in the evaluation is to 7
quantify the risk reduction potential and the 8
implementation costs for each improvement. The risk 9
reduction and implementation costs are typically 10 estimated using a bounding analysis.
11 The risk reduction is generally 12 overestimated by assuming that the plant improvement 13 is completely effective in eliminating the accident 14 sequences that it is intended to address. And the 15 implementation costs are generally underestimated by 16 neglecting certain cost factors such as maintenance 17 and surveillance costs that are associated with the 18 improvement.
19 The risk reduction and the cost estimates 20 are used in the final step to determine whether any of 21 the improvements can be justified. In determining 22 whether an improvement is justified, we look at three 23 factors. The first is whether the improvement is cost 24 beneficial. In other words, is the estimated benefit 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 greater than the estimated implementation costs of the 1
SAMA.
2 The second factor is whether the 3
improvement provides a significant reduction in total 4
risk. For example, does the SAMA eliminate a sequence 5
or a containment failure mode that contributes to a 6
large fraction of the plant risk.
7 The third factor is whether the risk 8
reduction is associated with aging effects during the 9
period of extended operation in which case if it was, 10 we would consider implementation of the SAMA as part 11 of the licence renewal process.
12 The preliminary results of the Nine Mile 13 Point SAMA evaluation are summarized on this slide.
14 Two hundred and twenty candidate SAMAs were considered 15 for Nine Mile Point for each of the two units based on 16 the review of the plant-specific PRAs and the dominant 17 contributors to risk at each plant.
18 The licensee reduced the number of 19 candidate SAMAs based on a multi-step screening 20 process. Factors considered during this screening 21 process included whether the SAMA is applicable to 22 Nine Mile Point. You know, perhaps it wouldnt be 23 because of design differences, whether the SAMA has 24 already been addressed in the existing Nine Mile Point 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 design or procedures or training programs. And 1
whether the SAMA would involve extensive plant changes 2
that would clearly be in excess of the maximum benefit 3
associated with completely eliminating all severe 4
accident risk.
5 This screening process resulted in a set 6
of 13 SAMA for unit 1 and 20 SAMAs for Unit 2. The 7
more detailed assessment of the risk reduction 8
potential and the implementation costs was then 9
performed for each of these remaining SAMAs. This is 10 described in detail in Appendix G of the GEIS 11 supplement.
12 The detailed cost benefit analysis shows 13 that several SAMAs are potentially cost beneficial at 14 each unit when evaluated individually in accordance 15 with NRC guidance for performing regulatory analysis.
16 Four of these SAMAs were potentially cost beneficial 17 at Unit 1 and 11 were potentially cost beneficial at 18 Unit 2.
19 Now it is important to note that some of 20 these SAMAs addressed the same risk contributors but 21 in a different way For example, one of the SAMAs 22 involves using a portable generator to maintain DC 23 batteries charged given a loss of emergency AC power.
24 This would improve the ability to cope with failures 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 of battery chargers in station blackout conditions.
1 Now several other SAMAs also address DC 2
bus failures in station blackout events. So as a 3
result, implementation of one of these SAMAs could 4
reduce the residual risk to a point that one or more 5
of the related SAMAs would no longer be cost 6
beneficial.
7 So because of this interrelationship 8
between SAMAs, we would not expect that if the 9
licensee further evaluates the SAMAs that all of them 10 would be justified on a cost benefit basis. Rather 11 implementation of a carefully selected subset of these 12 SAMAs could achieve much of the risk reduction and 13 would be more cost effective than implementing all of 14 the SAMAs.
15 In summary, the results of the SAMA 16 evaluation indicate that several SAMAs are potentially 17 cost beneficial at Nine Mile Point. However, none of 18 the cost beneficial SAMAs are related to managing the 19 effects of plant aging during the extended period of 20 extended operation. Therefore, the SAMAs are not 21 required to be implemented as part of license renewal.
22 Now notwithstanding this, the licensee has 23 committed to further evaluate the potentially cost 24 beneficial SAMAs as a current operating license 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 activity. And to consider implementation of the 1
potentially cost beneficial SAMAs as voluntary plant 2
enhancements.
3 Completion of these evaluations is being 4
tracked in the licensees plant change tracking 5
system.
6 And that completes my summary.
7 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Bob.
8 Do we have any questions on the SAMA 9
portion?
10 (No response.)
11 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Again, Leslie is 12 going to wrap it up for us with some important 13 details.
14 MS.
FIELDS: Turning now to our 15 conclusions, we have found that the impacts of license 16 renewal are small in all areas. We also concluded 17 that the environmental effects of alternative actions 18 may reach moderate to large in some impact categories.
19 Based on these results, our preliminary 20 recommendation is that the adverse environmental 21 impacts of license renewal for Nine Mile Point are not 22 so great that preserving the option of license renewal 23 for energy planning decision-makers would be 24 unreasonable.
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 And the quick recap of our current status.
1 We issued the draft SEIS for Nine Mile Point Units 1 2
and 2 license renewal on September 29th, 2005.
3 We are currently in the middle of the 4
public comment period that is scheduled to end on 5
December 22nd, 2005. We expect to address the public 6
comments, including any necessary reviews to the draft 7
SEIS and issue and final SEIS in June 2006.
8 This slide identifies me as your primary 9
point of contact with the NRC for the preparation of 10 the environmental impact statement. It also 11 identifies where documents related to our review may 12 be found in the local area.
13 The Nine Mile Point draft SEIS is 14 available at the Penfield Library on the SUNY Oswego 15 College campus. All documents related to the review 16 are also available on the NRC website at www.nrc.gov.
17 In addition, as you came in today, you 18 were asked to fill out a registration card at the 19 reception table. If you have include your address on 20 that card, we will mail you a copy of the final source 21 for Nine Mile Point, after the meeting please see Sam 22 Hernandez, our project engineer supporting this 23 review. Sam, please raise your hand.
24 Now in addition to providing comments at 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 this meeting, there are other ways you can submit 1
comments to our environmental review process. You can 2
provide written comments to the Chief of our Rules and 3
Directives Branch at the address listed on the slide.
4 You can also make comments in person if you happen to 5
be in the Rockville, Maryland area.
6 Weve established a specific e-mail 7
address at the NRC for the purpose of receiving your 8
comments on the draft environmental impact statement.
9 And that e-mail address is ninemilepointeis@nrc.gov.
10 Let me repeat that ninemilepointeis@nrc.gov.
11 All of your comments will be collected and 12 considered. This concludes my remarks. Thank you 13 again for taking time to attend this meeting.
14 MR. CAMERON: Great. Any questions about 15 the conclusions?
16 (No response.)
17 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you. Thank you 18 all for those presentations. And were going to go to 19 opportunity to hear from you. And usually during the 20 comment period, we invite the license Applicant to say 21 a few words about the rationale for license renewal.
22 And we have Mr. James Hutton, Licensing Manager for 23 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station with us up here.
24 And James, would you like to come up 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 front?
1 MR. HUTTON: To come up there? Sure.
2 MR. CAMERON: Yes. Thank you.
3 MR. HUTTON: Hi. Good afternoon.
4 Id first just like to thank the NRC staff 5
for organizing this meeting here for us today. Thank 6
you very much.
7 Here with me today are some of the 8
individuals involved in managing license renewal --
9 our licensing rule effort. And Im going to point to 10 Dave Delaria who has been managing that for some time, 11 Carla Logan, who is involved in our environmental 12 management efforts. And some others from Nine Mile 13 Point Nuclear Station.
14 The first thing that all our employees see 15 and anyone else who comes to our site, every day as 16 they come to work is an illuminated sign. And on that 17 sign it states our commitment to safety and to 18 environmental stewardship.
19 Constellation Energy has an unceasing 20 focus on safety, the safety of our employees and the 21 safety of the people who live and work around our 22 facility in this area. We continue to ensure that our 23 operations have little or no impact on the air or the 24 water or our endangered species.
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 Nuclear energy at Nine Mile Point 1
specifically is an important source of clean, cost-2 effective energy. About one in five homes in the 3
United States is powered by nuclear energy. Nuclear 4
energy avoids dependence on foreign oil.
5 Nine Mile Point currently generates enough 6
electricity to power more that two million homes.
7 Nuclear energy needs to be a part of our countrys 8
diversified energy supply.
9 Nine Mile Point was the first nuclear 10 power station to obtain international accreditation, 11 ISO 14001, for its environmental programs. Were very 12 proud of that. At Nine Mile Point, protecting the 13 environment is part of each employees day-to-day job.
14 In addition, a significant part of the 15 site provides habitat for wildlife such as deer, 16 turkey, fox, and various birds. Part of Constellation 17 Energys responsibility in the license renewal process 18 is to prepare an environmental report. And evaluate 19 the environmental impacts of extended operation of 20 Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2. And assess their level 21 of significance.
22 Our assessment included in the 23 environmental report submitted to the NRC in May 2004 24 concluded that continued operation of our nuclear 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 station will not result in significant adverse 1
environmental effects.
2 We received formal notification from the 3
NRC staff of their preliminary conclusions that they 4
have discussed here today. That continued operation 5
of Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2 does not pose an 6
unacceptable risk of adverse environmental impacts.
7 NRCs conclusions are consistent with our 8
analysis as contained in our environmental report. We 9
work not only to improve our environmental performance 10 but also to invest in our equipment and our 11 operational improvements.
12 Nine Mile Point, like every nuclear plant, 13 is continuously being upgraded. Every critical 14 operating part is routinely inspected and monitored by 15 both us and the NRCs resident inspectors that are 16 here today.
17 Our normal routine for maintaining our 18 nuclear plant involves inspection,
- repair, 19 refurbishment, replacement of primary operating 20 components every 24 months during regularly scheduled 21 refueling and maintenance outages. And as technology 22 advances, obsolete and early design components and 23 systems are upgraded.
24 We continue to be committed community 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 partners. We provide community support in the form of 1
good, stable jobs. And in terms of participating in 2
funding events and organizations important to the 3
local area. Last year, Constellation Energy and its 4
employees provided more than 300,000 dollars in 5
donations to community organizations and events.
6 Every employee at Nine Mile understands 7
that all our community efforts are only worthwhile if 8
we operate our facility with an unceasing commitment 9
towards safety and environmental protection.
10 Nine Mile Point is important to the local 11 community It plays a part in our countrys energy 12 future. The improvements weve made ensure that we 13 meet todays exacting standards of operation.
14 I assure you if given permission to 15 operate each station for an additional 20 years, our 16 employees will continue to demonstrate their ongoing 17 commitment to all aspects of safety, reliability, 18 performance, and environmental stewardship.
19 We look forward to hearing comments from 20 members of the public here this afternoon. And were 21 willing to work with anyone who is generally 22 interested in learning more about our power generation 23 operation, environmental performance, or safety 24 culture.
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 Again, I thank you for the opportunity.
1 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Mr.
2 Hutton.
3 Is there anybody else who wants to address 4
us today to give us any comments?
5 (No response.)
6 MR. CAMERON: And we will be back at seven 7
oclock tonight, informal, open house, at six oclock.
8 And I guess, Rani, would you close this 9
meeting out for us?
10 MS. FRANOVICH: Thanks, Chip.
11 Just wanted to thank you all again for 12 coming to our meeting. And as I said earlier, it is 13 a very important part of our process to involve the 14 public.
15 As you came in to the meeting room today, 16 you should have received an NRC public meeting 17 feedback form. If you have any idea on how we might 18 be able to improve our meetings, make them more 19 effective, any ways we might be able to meet your 20 needs better, please fill out that form and send it to 21 us. Or leave it here. Its postage prepaid. All you 22 have to do is fold it up and put it in the mail or you 23 can leave it with us here.
24 So thank you again for coming. I just 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 wanted to remind everyone that comments on the scope 1
of the environmental -- Im sorry -- comments on the 2
environmental -- the draft environmental statement 3
will be received through December 22nd, 2005. And 4
Leslie Fields, the project manager, is the point of 5
contact.
6 So thanks again for coming. And Chip, I 7
guess thats the end of the meeting.
8 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you.
9 (Whereupon, the above-entitled public 10 meeting was concluded at 2:31 p.m.)
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25