ML061380007
| ML061380007 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 03/22/2006 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Davis J, NRR/DLR/REEB, 415-3835 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML061380006 | List: |
| References | |
| nrc-931, TAC MC6411 | |
| Download: ML061380007 (49) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CORRECTED TRANSCRIPTS
Title:
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant License Renewal Public Meeting: Afternoon Session Docket Number:
50-263 Location:
Monticello, Minnesota Date:
Wednesday, March 22, 2006 Work Order No.:
NRC-931 Pages 1-49 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS 1
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 2
FOR 3
MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT 4
6 7
Held 8
Wednesday, March 22, 2006 9
1:30 p.m.
10 11 12 Monticello Community Center 13 505 Walnut Street 14 Monticello, Minnesota 15 16 17 18 Transcript of Proceedings 19 20 21 22 23
2 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 I N D E X 1
Page 2
Welcome and Purpose of Meeting (F. Cameron/
3 R. Franovich).................... 3 4
Overview of License Renewal Process (J. Davis)... 17 5
Results of the Environmental Review (C. Quinly)... 23 6
Results of the Severe Accident Mitigation 7
Alternatives Review (R. Palla)........... 35 8
How Comments Can Be Submitted (J. Davis)...... 43 9
Public Comments:
10 Purves Todd.................. 46 11 Closing/Availability of Transcripts (F. Cameron).. 48 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
1:30 P.M.
2 CHIP CAMERON: If we could have everybody 3
take their seats, we'll get started with this 4
afternoon's meeting.
5 (Pause.)
6 Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Chip 7
Cameron, and I'm the Special Counsel for Public 8
Liaison at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the 9
NRC, and I just would like to welcome all of you to 10 the NRC's public meeting.
11 And our subject today is the Environmental 12 Review that the NRC is conducting as part of its 13 evaluation of an application that we received from 14 Nuclear Management Company to renew the operating 15 license at the Monticello facility.
16 And I'm going to be your facilitator this 17 afternoon, and my job generally is to try to help all 18 of you to have a productive meeting today.
19 And I just wanted to talk a little bit 20 about some meeting process items before we get to the 21 substance of our discussions this afternoon. And I'd 22 like to address the meeting format; secondly, some 23 very simple ground rules; and, third, just to 24 introduce you to the NRC staff and expert consultants 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 that are helping us on the Environmental Review.
1 In terms of the format, it is basically a 2
two-part format. We're going to do some 3
presentations by the NRC staff to begin with to give 4
you some background not only on the process that the 5
NRC goes through to evaluate an application like this 6
to renew an operating license, but specifically we 7
want to tell you about the findings and the 8
conclusions that are in the Draft Environmental 9
Impact Statement that we did on this application.
10 And after those presentations -- in fact, 11 during the presentations we'll go on to see if 12 there's any questions that you have on the process, 13 any questions that you have about what's in the Draft 14 Environmental Impact Statement.
15 The second part of the meeting is to give 16 you an opportunity to give us any concerns, 17 recommendations, advice on the Draft Environmental 18 Impact Statement.
19 And often we hear concerns and advice about 20 the license renewal process generally, but, as the 21 staff will tell you, the NRC staff will tell you, 22 we're taking written comments on these issues, but we 23 wanted to be here this afternoon to talk to you 24 personally, to hear from you personally, so there's 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 an opportunity to make comments; and those comments 1
will, of course, carry the same weight as written 2
comments.
3 We have Sheila Smith as our court reporter 4
today, and she's taking a transcript of the meeting, 5
so that will be our formal record of your comments, 6
and that transcript will be available to anybody in 7
the public who wants a copy of it.
8 In terms of ground rules, very simple:
9 If you have questions about the NRC 10 presentations --
11 And usually we like to let the presenter 12 finish their whole presentation before we go on to 13 comments so that we can get it all in.
14 But if you have a question, if you could 15 just signal me, and I'll bring this cordless 16 microphone out to you and if you could just introduce 17 yourself to us, and we'll try to answer your 18 questions to the best of our ability today.
19 I would just ask that only one person speak 20 at a time, most importantly so that we can all give 21 our full attention to whomever has the floor at the 22 moment but also so that Sheila can get a clean 23 transcript so that she knows who is speaking.
24 And try to be to the point. Sometimes it's 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 hard to be concise on issues like this, but -- I 1
don't think we're going to have any problem getting 2
to hear from everybody who wants to speak today, but 3
usually I like to remind people to try to be concise 4
if we have a lot of people who want to talk; then 5
that helps too to make sure that everybody has a 6
chance to speak.
7 And then we'll go to the comment period.
8 If you filled out a yellow card, we'll know that you 9
want to talk.
10 If you decide that you want to speak after 11 hearing the presentations, just tell me that and 12 we'll get you up here to comment.
13 In terms of our speakers today, we're going 14 to first go to Rani Franovich, who is right here 15 (indicating), and she's going to do a welcome and an 16 overview of license renewal. Rani is the Branch 17 Chief for the Environmental Review and license 18 renewal, and I'll tell you a little bit more about 19 her in a minute.
20 We'll then go to questions.
21 Then we have Jennifer Davis, who is the 22 Project Manager for the Environmental Review on this 23 license application, a very important position 24 because the Environmental Review is one of the 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 cornerstones of our evaluation, and she's going to 1
tell you about the Environmental Review specifically.
2 We also have Crystal Quinly with us, and 3
Crystal is one of our expert consultants that helps 4
us with the Environmental Review. She's the team 5
leader of some scientists who have looked at 6
environmental aspects of the Monticello facility.
7 She'll be talking to that.
8 And we have a very special part of the 9
Environmental Impact Statements that's a Severe 10 Accident Mitigation Analysis, I believe, and we have 11 Mr. Bob Palla from the NRC staff, he'll talk to you 12 about that.
13 Again, we'll have questions on all of this 14 from you, and I would just thank all of you for being 15 here to help us with this evaluation.
16 And let me just give you some background on 17 Rani and our speakers.
18 Rani has been with the agency for about 19 fifteen years now, and she's had a variety of 20 responsibilities there. She's been a project manager 21 on the safety aspects of license renewal, and that 22 will become clearer to you as you hear the staff 23 presentations; but she also was one of our resident 24 inspectors, and you'll hear more about that also.
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 But Rani was a resident inspector at 1
Catawba Nuclear Power Plant in South Carolina, and 2
she has a Bachelors in psychology and also a Masters 3
in industrial and systems engineering, both from that 4
famous school, Virginia Tech. And that's the short 5
name for it, Virginia Tech.
6 Jenny Davis, our Environmental Project 7
Manager, has been with the agency for about four 8
years, now doing Environmental Review projects on 9
license renewal and other things.
10 She's an archaeologist by training; her 11 major was in historic preservation. She has a 12 Bachelors in historic preservation from Mary 13 Washington College in Fredricksburg, Virginia.
14 Our team leader from the Lawrence Livermore 15 National Lab, Crystal Quinly, has an environmental 16 science degree from Cal State, California State, and 17 she's been with the Lawrence Livermore National Lab 18 for about seven years doing various Environmental 19 Review projects.
20 And Bob Palla, our probabilistic risk 21 analysis and severe accident analysis expert, is with 22 the Probabilistic Risk Assessment Branch within our 23 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation at NRC 24 Headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. And Bob has --
25
9 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 he has a Bachelors and a Masters in mechanical 1
engineering from the University of Maryland.
2 And with that, I'm going to turn it over to 3
Rani at this point.
4 RANI FRANOVICH: Thank you, Chip.
5 And thank you all for taking the time --
6 Can you hear me?
7 Thank you all for taking the time to come 8
to this meeting today. I hope the information we 9
provide will help you to understand the process we're 10 going through and what we've done so far and the role 11 you can play in helping us make sure that the Final 12 Environmental Impact Statement for Monticello license 13 renewal is accurate.
14 I'd like to start off by saying -- or 15 briefly going over the agenda the purposes of today's 16 meeting.
17 First we'll explain the NRC's license 18 renewal process for nuclear power plants with 19 emphasis on the environmental review process.
20 Then we're going to present the preliminary 21 findings of our environmental review, which assesses 22 the impacts associated with extending the operation 23 of Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant for an 24 additional twenty years.
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 Then really the most important part of 1
today's meeting is for us to receive any comments you 2
may have on our Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
3 We also will give you some information 4
about the schedule for the balance of the staff's 5
review and let you know how you can submit comments 6
to us in the future.
7 At the conclusion of the staff's 8
presentation, we will be happy to answer any 9
questions you might have. However, I must ask you to 10 limit your participation to questions only and hold 11 your comments until the appropriate time during 12 today's meeting.
13 Once all the questions are answered, we can 14 begin to receive any comments that you have on the 15 Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
16 Before I get into a discussion of the 17 license renewal process, I'd like to take a minute to 18 talk about the NRC in terms of what we do and what 19 our mission is.
20 The Atomic Energy Act is the legislation 21 that authorizes the NRC to issue operating licenses.
22 The Atomic Energy Acts provides for a 40-year license 23 term for power reactors. This 40-year term is based 24 primarily on economic considerations and antitrust 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 factors, not on safety limitations of the plant.
1 The Atomic Energy Act also authorizes the 2
NRC to regulate the civilian use of nuclear materials 3
in the United States.
4 In exercising that authority the NRC's 5
mission is threefold: To protect health and safety; 6
to promote the common defense and security; and to 7
protect the environment.
8 The NRC accomplishes its mission through a 9
combination of regulatory programs and processes such 10 as conducting inspections, issuing enforcement 11 actions, assessing licensee performance, and 12 evaluating operating experience for nuclear power 13 plants across the country and internationally.
14 The regulations that the NRC enforces are 15 contained in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 16 Regulations, which we commonly refer to as the "10 17 CFR."
18 As I've mentioned, the Atomic Energy Act 19 provides for a 40-year license term for power 20 reactors. Our regulations also include provisions 21 for extending plant operation for up to an additional 22 twenty years. For Monticello, the operating license 23 will expire on September 8th, 2010.
24 Monticello is owned by Northern States 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 Power Company, a wholly-owned utility operating 1
subsidiary of Xcel Energy, Inc., and is licensed to 2
operate by Nuclear Management Company, 3
LLC.
4 Nuclear Management Company has requested 5
license renewal for Monticello. As part of the NRC's 6
review of that license renewal application, we have 7
performed the environmental review to look at the 8
impacts of an additional twenty years of operation on 9
the environment.
10 We held a meeting here in June of 2005 to 11 seek your input regarding the issues we needed to 12 evaluate.
13 We indicated at that earlier scoping 14 meeting that we would return to Monticello to present 15 the preliminary results documented in our Draft 16 Environmental Impact Statement. That is the purpose 17 of today's meeting.
18 The NRC's license renewal review is similar 19 to the original licensing process in that it involves 20 two parts, an environmental review and a safety 21 review.
22 This slide gives a big picture overview of 23 the license renewal process which involve those two 24 parallel review paths.
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 I'm going to briefly describe these two 1
review processes, starting with the safety review.
2 You might ask, "What does the safety review 3
consider?"
4 For license renewal, safety review focuses 5
on aging management on systems, structures, and 6
components that are important to safety as defined by 7
the license renewal scoping criteria contained in 8
10 CFR Part 54.
9 The license renewal safety review does not 10 assess current operational issues such as security, 11 emergency planning, and safety performance.
12 The NRC monitors and provides regulatory 13 oversight of these issues on an ongoing basis under 14 the current operating license. Because the NRC is 15 addressing these current operating issues on a 16 continuing basis, we do not re-evaluate them in 17 license renewal.
18 As I have mentioned, the license renewal 19 safety review focuses on plant aging and programs 20 that the licensee has already implemented or will 21 implement to manage the effects of aging.
22 Let me introduce Dan Merzke, the Safety 23 Project Manager.
24 Dan, if you don't mind standing up.
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 Dan is in charge of the staff safety 1
review. The safety review involves the NRC staff's 2
evaluation of technical information that is contained 3
in the license renewal application. This is referred 4
to as the staffs safety evaluation.
5 The NRC staff also conducts audits as part 6
of its safety evaluation. There is a team of about 7
30 NRC technical reviewers and contractors who are 8
conducting the safety evaluation at this time.
9 The safety review also includes plant 10 inspections. The inspections are conducted by a team 11 of inspectors from both Headquarters and the NRC's 12 Region 3 office near Chicago, Illinois.
13 A representative of our inspection program 14 is here today. The Senior Resident Inspector is 15 Scott Thomas.
16 Scott, if you don't mind standing up.
17 Thank you.
18 The staff documents the results of its 19 review in a Safety Evaluation Report. That report is 20 then independently reviewed by the Advisory Committee 21 on Reactor Safeguards, or the ACRS.
22 The ACRS is a group of nationally-23 recognized technical experts that serve as a 24 consulting body to the Commission. They review each 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 license renewal application and the Safety Evaluation 1
Report; they form their own conclusions and 2
recommendations on the requested action, and they 3
report those conclusions and recommendations directly 4
to the Commission.
5 This slide illustrates how these various 6
activities make up the safety review process. I 7
would like to point out that these hexagons 8
(indicating), these represent opportunities for 9
public participation during our process.
10 Also, the staff will present the results of 11 its safety review to the ACRS, and that presentation 12 will be open to the public.
13 The second part of the review process 14 involves an environmental review. The environmental 15 Review, which Jennifer will discuss in more detail in 16 a few minutes, evaluates the impacts of license 17 renewal on a number of areas, including ecology, 18 hydrology, cultural resources, and socioeconomic 19 issues, among others.
20 The environmental review involves scoping 21 activities and the development of a draft supplement 22 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 23 license renewal of nuclear plants, also referred to 24 as "the GEIS." The GEIS forms the basis for 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 plant-specific environmental reviews.
1 The Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2
for Monticello has been published for comment, and 3
we're here today to briefly discuss the results and 4
receive your comments.
5 In September of this year we will be 6
issuing the final version of this Environmental 7
Impact Statement, which will document how the staff 8
addresses the comments that we receive here today at 9
this meeting or in writing.
10 So the final agency decision on whether or 11 not to issue a renewed operating license depends on 12 several inputs:
13 Inspection reports and a confirmatory 14 letter from the Region 3 Administrator; 15 Conclusions and recommendation of the ACRS, 16 which are documented in the letter to the Commission; 17 The Safety Evaluation Report, which 18 documents the results of the staff safety review; 19 And the Final Environmental Impact 20 Statement, which documents the results of the staff's 21 environmental review.
22 Again, the hexagons on the slide indicate 23 opportunities for public participation. The first 24 opportunity was during the scoping period and the 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 meetings back in June of 2005. Many of you may have 1
attended that meeting.
2 This meeting on the Draft Environmental 3
Impact Statement is another opportunity for public 4
participation.
5 No contentions were admitted to a hearing, 6
so that is not applicable here.
7 That concludes my presentation of the NRC 8
and general overview of the license renewal process.
9 And before I turn the mic over to 10 Jennifer, are there any questions that I can answer 11 at this time?
12 CHIP CAMERON: Anybody have a question on 13 the NRC process, what we're looking at?
14 (No response.)
15 RANI FRANOVICH: Okay. Very good.
16 CHIP CAMERON: Great.
17 RANI FRANOVICH: Thanks again for coming to 18 our public meeting. Your participation is very 19 important to this process.
20 Jennifer?
21 JENNIFER DAVIS: One other thing I'd like 22 to mention: If these slides that show the process 23 portions are too small to read in your handouts, we 24 do have enlarged printouts in the back if you just 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 stop by the registration desk.
1 Good afternoon. My name is Jennifer Davis, 2
and I'm an Environmental Project Manager on the NRC 3
staff. My responsibility is to coordinate the 4
activities of the NRC staff and various environmental 5
experts at National Laboratories to develop an 6
Environmental Impact Statement, or EIS as we call it, 7
associated with the license renewal of Monticello.
8 The National Environmental Policy Act of 9
1969 requires that federal agencies follow a 10 systematic approach in evaluating environmental 11 impacts associated with certain actions.
12 We're required to consider the impacts of 13 the proposed action and also any mitigation for those 14 impacts that we consider to be significant.
15 We're also required to consider 16 alternatives to the proposed action, which in this 17 case is license renewal, and that includes the 18 no-action alternative.
19 The National Environmental Policy Act and 20 our EIS are disclosure tools. They are specifically 21 structured to involve public participation, and this 22 meeting is part of facilitating our public process.
23 So today we are here to collect your 24 comments on our Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 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 and these comments will be considered and included in 1
our Final Environmental Impact Statement.
2 The NRC staff developed a Generic 3
Environmental Impact Statement for the license 4
renewal of nuclear plants, or the GEIS as we call it.
5 The GEIS addressed a number of issues that 6
are common to all nuclear plants. The staff is 7
supplementing the GEIS with a Monticello-specific 8
supplement which addresses issues that are specific 9
to this site.
10 The staff also evaluates the conclusions 11 reached within the GEIS to determine if there is any 12 new and significant information that would change any 13 of those conclusions.
14 Now, I'd like to provide a little more 15 information about the GEIS. In the mid 1990s the NRC 16 was faced with the prospect of preparing site-17 specific EISs for a number of plants requesting 18 license renewal.
19 After assessing the impacts associated with 20 license renewal, the NRC decided to classify 21 environmental impacts called "issues" that could 22 possibly occur at a plant.
23 The staff then determined which of these 24 issues were common to all plants and that had 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 impact level. The NRC calls these Category 1 1
issues and made the same or generic determination 2
about their impact in the GEIS.
3 During the review of the 92 issues the 4
staff identified 23 issues that a determination 5
could not be made generically. Evaluation of 6
these 23 issues would be done on a site-specific 7
basis, and they are referred to as "Category 8
2 issues."
9 The staff prepares an EIS for each plant 10 that requests license renewal. This impact statement 11 takes the form of a supplement to the GEIS. This 12 supplement evaluates all issues pertaining to a 13 specific site and addresses all relevant Category 2 14 issues on a site-specific basis.
15 The NRC did not rule out the possibility 16 that the generic conclusions in the GEIS may not 17 apply to a specific plant. If new and significant 18 information is found during the review that 19 contradicts the conclusions within the GEIS, then 20 staff will perform a site-specific analysis on that 21 particular issue.
22 Back in June of 2005 the NRC review team 23 conducted a site audit, gathered information from 24 public, state, and local officials, public interest 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 groups, and other federal agencies in order to 1
produce our draft supplement for Monticello, and 2
today we are here to discuss this draft supplement.
3 I guess I'll give you a quick minute to 4
read this slide. This slide shows our decision 5
standard for the Environmental Review. Simply put, 6
"Is license renewal acceptable from an environmental 7
standpoint?"
8 (Pause.)
9 This slide shows important milestone dates 10 in the Environmental Review. The highlighted dates 11 indicate opportunities for public involvement during 12 our Environmental Review.
13 We received NMC's application requesting 14 license renewal of Monticello on March 24, 2005.
15 On June 2nd, 2005, the NRC issued a Federal 16 Register notice of intent to prepare an environmental 17 Impact statement and conduct scoping.
18 Two public meetings were held in the 19 Monticello area on June 30th. Many of you may have 20 attended those meetings and provided your comments to 21 us at that date.
22 The scoping period ended on August 2nd, and 23 a Scoping Summary Report was issued on October 7th.
24 This report addressed all comments received from all 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 sources during the scoping period.
1 If you would like to review the Scoping 2
Summary Report or take a copy home with you, we do 3
have some available in the back of the room.
4 Comments received during the scoping period 5
and that are within the scope of the environmental 6
review are included in Appendix A of the Draft 7
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
8 The Draft EIS was published on January 9
23rd, 2006. We are currently accepting public 10 comments on the draft until May 4th of this year.
11 Today's meeting is being transcribed, and 12 comments here carry the same weight as written 13 comments submitted to the NRC.
14 Once the comment period closes, we will 15 issue a Final EIS, which we expect to publish in 16 September of this year.
17 All comments received will be considered, 18 and a response to each comment will be provided 19 within the Final EIS.
20 And now I'd like to turn things over to 21 Crystal to discuss the Lab's role in the 22 environmental review.
23 Any questions?
24 CHIP CAMERON: Does anybody -- just before 25
23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 we get to the substance which Crystal is going to 1
discuss, does anybody have any questions on the 2
process or schedule or anything?
3 (No Response.)
4 Okay. Great.
5 Crystal Quinly.
6 CRYSTAL QUINLY: Good afternoon. As Chip 7
said, I'm Crystal Quinly. I work for the University 8
of California at Lawrence Livermore National 9
Laboratory.
10 The NRC contracted with us to provide the 11 expertise necessary to evaluate the impacts of 12 license renewal at Monticello.
13 The team consists of nine members from the 14 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Pacific 15 Northwest National Laboratory in Washington, and the 16 Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois.
17 The expertise we provide for the Monticello 18 license renewal and for alternatives are shown on 19 this slide: atmospheric science, socioeconomics, 20 archaeology, terrestrial ecology, aquatic ecology, 21 land use, radiation protection, nuclear safety, and 22 regulatory compliance.
23 For each environmental issue identified an 24 impact level is assigned.
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 For a small impact the effect is not 1
detectable or too small to destabilize or noticeably 2
alter any important attribute of the resource.
3 For example, the operation of the 4
Monticello plant may cause the loss of adult and 5
juvenile fish at the intake structure. If the loss 6
of fish is so small that it cannot be detected in 7
relation to the total population in the river, the 8
impact would be small.
9 For a moderate impact the effect is 10 sufficient to alter noticeably but not destabilize 11 important attributes of the resource.
12 Again, for example, if the losses cause the 13 population to decline but then stabilize at a lower 14 level, the impact would be moderate.
15 And for an impact to be considered large 16 the effect must be clearly noticeable and sufficient 17 to destabilize important attributes of the resource.
18 The final example is if losses at the 19 intake structure cause the fish population to decline 20 to the point where it cannot stabilize and 21 continually declines, then the impact would be large.
22 When the team evaluated the impacts from 23 continued operations at Monticello, we considered 24 information from a wide variety of sources.
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 We considered what the licensee had to say 1
in the environmental report.
2 In June we conducted a site audit during 3
which we toured site, interviewed plant personnel, 4
and reviewed documentation of plant operations.
5 We also talked to federal, state, and local 6
officials as well as local service agencies.
7 Lastly, we considered all of the public 8
comments we received in the Scoping Summary Report 9
dated October 7th, 2005, and issued responses. These 10 comments are listed in Appendix A along with the 11 NRC's responses.
12 This body of information is the basis for 13 the analysis and preliminary conclusions in this 14 Monticello Supplement.
15 The central analyses in the Monticello 16 Supplement are presented in Chapters 2, 4, 5, and 8.
17 In Chapter 2 we discuss the plant, its 18 operation, and the environment around the plant.
19 In Chapter 4 we looked at the environmental 20 impacts of routine operations during the 20-year 21 license renewal term.
22 The team looked at issues related to the 23 cooling system, transmission lines, radiological, 24 socioeconomic, ground water use and quality, 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 threatened or endangered species, and accidents.
1 Chapter 5 contains the assessment of 2
accidents.
3 And at this point I'd like to make a 4
distinction: Environmental impacts from the routine 5
day-to-day operation of the Monticello plant for 6
another twenty years are considered separately from 7
the impacts that could result from potential 8
accidents during the license renewal term.
9 I will discuss impacts from routine 10 operations, and Mr. Palla will discuss impacts from 11 accidents in the next presentation.
12 Chapter 8 describes the alternatives to the 13 proposed license renewal and their environmental 14 impacts. Each of these issue areas are discussed in 15 detail in the Monticello Supplement. I'm going to 16 give you the highlights, but please feel free to ask 17 me for more details if you have any questions.
18 One of the issues we looked at closely is 19 the cooling system for the Monticello plant. This 20 slide shows the layout of the cooling intake and 21 discharge canal.
22 The issues that the team looked at on a 23 site-specific basis include water use conflicts, 24 entrainment and impingement of fish and shellfish, 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 heat shock, and microbiological organisms. We found 1
that the potential impacts in these areas were small, 2
and additional mitigation was not warranted.
3 There were also a number of Category 1 4
issues related to the cooling system. These included 5
issues related to discharges of sanitary waste, minor 6
chemical spills, metals and chlorine.
7 Now, recall that as Category 1 issues NRC 8
has already determined that these impacts were small.
9 The team evaluated all information we had 10 available to see if there was any that was both new 11 and significant for these issues. We did not find 12 any, and therefore we adopted NRC's generic 13 conclusions that the impact to the cooling system is 14 small.
15 Radiological impacts are a Category 1 16 issue, and the NRC has made a generic determination 17 that the impact of radiological release during 18 nuclear plant operations during the 20-year license 19 are small; but because these releases are a concern, 20 I want to discuss them in some detail.
21 All nuclear plants release small quantities 22 of radioactive materials within strict regulations.
23 During our site visit we walked down the systems and 24 looked at 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; 1
We looked at how the gaseous and liquid 2
effluents were treated and released as well as how 3
the solid wastes were treated, packaged, and 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.
7 We also looked at data from on-site and 8
near-site locations that the applicant monitors for 9
airborne releases and direct radiation and other 10 monitoring stations beyond the site boundary, 11 including locations where water, milk, fish, and food 12 products are sampled. We found that the maximum 13 calculated doses for a member of the public are well 14 within the annual limits.
15 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 also 21 found no new and significant information related to 22 these issues, we adopted the generic conclusion that 23 the radiological impact on human health and the 24 environment are 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 There are two terrestrial species and one 1
aquatic species listed as Federally threatened, 2
endangered, or candidate species that have the 3
potential to occur at Monticello or along its 4
transmission lines.
5 A detailed biological assessment analyzing 6
the effects of continuing operation and relicensing 7
of Monticello was prepared and is included in 8
Appendix E of the Monticello Supplement.
9 Based on this and additional independent 10 analysis, the staff's preliminary determination is 11 that the impact of operation of the Monticello plant 12 during the license renewal period on threatened or 13 endangered species would be small.
14 The last issue I'd like to talk about from 15 Chapter 4 is cumulative impacts. These are impacts 16 that are minor when considered individually but 17 significant when considered with other past, present, 18 or reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless 19 of what agency or person undertakes these actions.
20 The staff considered cumulative impacts 21 resulting from: Operation of the cooling water 22 system; operation of the transmission lines; releases 23 of radiation and radiological materials; sociological 24 impacts; ground water use and quality impacts as well 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 as impacts to threatened and endangered species.
1 These impacts were evaluated to the end of 2
the 20-year license renewal term; and I'd also like 3
to note that the geographical boundary of the 4
analysis was dependent upon the resource.
5 For instance, the area analyzing the 6
transmission lines was different than the area 7
analyzed for the cooling water system.
8 Our preliminary determination is that any 9
cumulative impacts resulting from the operation of 10 the Monticello plant during the license renewal 11 period would be small.
12 The team also looked at these other 13 environmental impacts (indicating). All issues for 14 uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management as well 15 as decommissioning are considered Category 1. For 16 these issues no new and significant information was 17 identified.
18 Between 2002 to 2003 Monticello generated 19 about 4.8 million megawatt-hours of electricity. The 20 team also evaluated the potential environmental 21 impacts associated with the Monticello plant not 22 continuing operation and replacing this generation 23 with alternative power sources.
24 The team looked at the no-action 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 alternative -- that is, the unit is not relicensed.
1 New generation coal-fired, gas-fired, coal 2
gasification, new nuclear, purchased power, 3
alternative technology such as wind, solar, and 4
hydropower, and then a combination of alternatives.
5 For each alternative we looked at the same 6
type of issues -- for example, water use, land use, 7
ecology, and socioecomonics -- that we looked at for 8
the operation of Monticello during the license 9
renewal term.
10 For two alternatives, solar and wind, I'd 11 like to describe the scale of the alternatives that 12 we considered, because the scale is important in 13 understanding our conclusions.
14 First solar: Based on the average solar 15 energy available in Minnesota and the current 16 conversion efficiencies of photovoltaic cells and 17 solar thermal systems, between 8,000 to 21,000 acres 18 would be required to replace the generation from the 19 Monticello plant.
20 Regarding wind power, wind turbines have an 21 average annual capacity factor of around 30 percent.
22 As such as least 2000 megawatts of wind power would 23 have to be developed to replace Monticello's 600 24 megawatts. This would require about 90,000 square 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 acres of turbines to replace the generation from 1
Monticello.
2 Due to the scale of the reasonable 3
alternatives, the team's preliminary conclusion is 4
that the environmental effects in at least some 5
impact categories reach moderate or large 6
significance.
7 For the 69 Category 1 issues presented in 8
the Generic EIS that relate to Monticello we found no 9
information that was both new and significant.
10 Therefore, we have preliminarily adopted the 11 conclusion that the impact of these issues is small.
12 The team analyzed the remaining Category 2 13 issues in the Supplement, and we found the 14 environmental effects resulting from these issues 15 were also small.
16 During our review, the team found no new 17 issues that were not already known.
18 Last, we found that the environmental 19 effects of alternatives, at least in some impact 20 categories, reached moderate or large significance.
21 Now I'd like to turn it back to Chip to see 22 if there are any questions.
23 CHIP CAMERON: Thank you, Crystal.
24 Are there any questions about the findings 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 in the environmental review before we get to the --
1 Is this on?
2 (Off the record discussion.)
3 It's on. But it's not -- the mic's on, 4
but for some reason it's not coming on.
5 At any rate, any questions for Crystal?
6 Yes, sir.
7 PURVES TODD: I'm just wondering --
8 CHIP CAMERON: And we need to get you, 9
while we're fixing the mic --
10 Would you mind coming up here and just 11 asking your question? I know it's inconvenient, but 12 it will help us to get on the --
13 Is it working now, Mike?
14 All right. Well, you're here, so you might 15 as well go ahead.
16 PURVES TODD: My question is would the 17 statement have been changed at all if you hadn't used 18 natural gas or oil in your analysis?
19 CHIP CAMERON: Sir, what was your -- your 20 name is?
21 PURVES TODD: Purves Todd.
22 CHIP CAMERON: Purves -- this is Purves 23 Todd. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Todd.
24 Crystal?
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 CRYSTAL QUINLY: Actually, we did look --
1 in the alternatives --
2 PURVES TODD: Yes, I saw you had natural 3
gas and oil in there.
4 CRYSTAL QUINLY: We did look at those, yes.
5 PURVES TODD: But if you hadn't used 6
those --
7 CHIP CAMERON: We'll have to get you on the 8
microphone, Mr. Todd.
9 PURVES TODD: Just basically if you hadn't 10 used it, I think that the impact of this facility 11 being shut down would have been much greater in your 12 analysis if you couldn't use natural gas or oil.
13 You pretty well explained the wind and 14 solar.
15 CRYSTAL QUINLY: Right.
16 CHIP CAMERON: Except we did look at 17 natural gas and oil.
18 CRYSTAL QUINLY: Yeah, we did look at both 19 of those and including coal gasification.
20 PURVES TODD: As alternatives.
21 CHIP CAMERON: And I think Mr. Todd's 22 point -- he's making a point about --
23 CRYSTAL QUINLY: Okay.
24 PURVES TODD: I'll be talking later.
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 CHIP CAMERON: Yeah. Okay. Good.
1 All right. Anybody else?
2 (No response.)
3 And now we have Bob Palla, who's going to 4
talk about something called "SAMAs," which are severe 5
accident mitigation alternatives.
6 Bob Palla.
7 BOB PALLA: Yeah, good afternoon. My name 8
is Bob Palla. I'm with the Division of Risk 9
Assessment at NRC, and I'll be discussing the 10 environmental impacts of postulated accidents.
11 These impacts are described in Section 5 of 12 the Generic Environmental Impact Statement, or the 13 GEIS as we call it.
14 The GEIS evaluates two classes of 15 accidents. These are called design-basis accidents 16 and severe accidents.
17 The design-basis accidents consist of a 18 broad spectrum of postulated accidents that both the 19 licensee and the NRC staff evaluate to ensure that 20 the plant could respond to the events without undue 21 risk to the public.
22 The ability of the plant to withstand these 23 accidents has to be demonstrated before the plant's 24 granted a license; and since the licensee has to 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 demonstrate acceptable plant performance for the 1
design-basis accidents throughout the life of the 2
plant, the Commission has determined that the 3
environmental impact of design-basis accidents is of 4
small significance.
5 Neither the licensee nor the NRC is aware 6
of any new and significant information on the 7
capability of the Monticello plant to withstand 8
design-basis accidents; therefore, the staff 9
concludes that there are no impacts related to 10 design-basis accidents beyond those that are 11 discussed in the GEIS.
12 The second category of accidents evaluated 13 in the GEIS are the severe accidents. Severe 14 accidents are by definition more severe than 15 design-basis accidents because they can result in 16 substantial damage to the reactor core.
17 The Commission found in the GEIS that the 18 risk of a severe accident is small for all plants, 19 and by this I mean the probabilistically-weighted 20 consequences.
21 Nevertheless, the Commission determined 22 that alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must 23 be considered for all plants that have not done so.
24 The SAMA evaluation is a site-specific 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 assessment and is a Category 2 issue, as was 1
explained earlier.
2 The SAMA review for Monticello is 3
summarized in Section 5.2 of the GEIS Supplement, and 4
it's described in more detail in Appendix G of the 5
GEIS Supplement.
6 The purpose of the performing the SAMA 7
evaluation is to ensure that plant changes with the 8
potential for improving severe accident safety 9
performance are identified and evaluated.
10 The scope of potential plant improvements 11 that were considered included hardware modifications, 12 procedure changes, training program improvements --
13 basically a full spectrum of potential changes.
14 The scope includes SAMAs that would prevent 15 core damage as well as SAMAs that would improve 16 containment performance given that a core damage 17 event were to occur.
18 The SAMA evaluation consists of a four-step 19 process as listed on that slide.
20 The first step is to characterize overall 21 plant risk and leading contributors to risk. This 22 typically involves extensive use of the 23 plant-specific probabilistic safety assessment study, 24 which is also known as the PSA.
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 The PSA is a study that identifies 1
different combinations of system and equipment 2
failures and human errors that would be needed to 3
occur together in order for an accident to progress 4
to either core damage or containment failure.
5 The second step is to identify potential 6
improvements that could further reduce risk.
7 Information from the PSA such as the dominant 8
accident sequences is used to help identify plant 9
improvements that would have the greatest impact in 10 reducing risk.
11 Improvements identified in other NRC and 12 industry studies as well as SAMA analyses for other 13 plants are also considered.
14 The third step in the evaluation is to 15 quantify the risk reduction potential and the 16 implementation costs for each improvement.
17 The risk reduction and the implementation 18 costs for each SAMA are typically estimated using a 19 bounding analysis.
20 The risk reduction is generally 21 over-estimated by assuming that the plant improvement 22 is completely effective in eliminating the accident 23 sequences that it is intended to address.
24 The implementation costs are generally 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 under-estimated by neglecting certain cost factors 1
such as maintenance costs and surveillance costs 2
associated with the improvement.
3 The risk reduction and the cost estimates 4
are then used in the final step to determine whether 5
implementation of any of the improvements can be 6
justified.
7 In determining whether an improvement is 8
justified, the NRC staff looks at three factors:
9 The first is whether the improvement is 10 cost beneficial. In other words, is the estimated 11 benefit greater than the estimated implementation 12 cost of the SAMA.
13 The second factor is whether the 14 improvement provides a significant reduction in total 15 risk. For example, does it eliminate a sequence or a 16 containment failure mode that contributes to a large 17 fraction of the plant risk.
18 The third factor is whether the risk 19 reduction is associated with aging effects during a 20 period of extended operation, in which case if it was 21 we would consider implementation of the SAMA as part 22 of the license renewal process.
23 The preliminary results of the Monticello 24 SAMA evaluation are summarized on this slide. Forty 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 candidate improvements were identified for Monticello 1
based on review of the plant-specific PSA and 2
dominant risk contributors at Monticello as well as 3
SAMA analyses performed for other plants.
4 The licensee reduced the number of 5
candidate SAMAs to 16 based on a multi-step screening 6
process.
7 Factors considered during the screening 8
included whether the SAMA is not applicable to 9
Monticello due to design differences; whether it has 10 already been implemented or addressed in the existing 11 Monticello design, procedures, or training programs; 12 and whether the SAMA would involve extensive plant 13 changes that would clearly be in excess of the 14 maximum benefit associated with completely 15 eliminating all severe accident risk.
16 A more detailed assessment of the risk 17 reduction potential and implementation costs was then 18 performed for each of the 16 remaining SAMAs. This 19 is described in detail in Appendix G of the GEIS 20 Supplement.
21 The detailed cost-benefit analysis shows 22 that ten of the SAMAs are potentially cost-beneficial 23 when evaluated individually in accordance with NRC 24 guidance for performing regulatory analysis.
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 Seven of these SAMAs were cost-beneficial 1
in the baseline analysis; three additional SAMAs were 2
potentially cost-beneficial when alternate discount 3
rates or uncertainties in the analysis are 4
considered.
5 Now, it's important to notice that some of 6
the SAMAs address the same risk contributors but in a 7
different way.
8 For example, if you look at the GEIS 9
Supplement, you'll see a description of SAMA 4. Now, 10 SAMA 4 involves installing a direct drive diesel 11 injection pump as an additional high-pressure 12 injection system. This pump would improve the 13 ability to cope with station blackout type 14 conditions.
15 Several other SAMAs also address station 16 blackout events. For example, SAMA 37 involves 17 developing guidance to allow local manual control of 18 a steam-driven injection system that's already 19 installed in the plant.
20 This change in procedural guidance would 21 also, you know, ensure that high-pressure injection 22 is available under station blackout conditions.
23 So both of these SAMAs are basically going 24 after the same risk contributor. In such instances 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 implementation of one of these SAMAs could reduce the 1
residual risk to a point that one or more of the 2
related SAMAs would no longer be cost-beneficial.
3 And it's because of this inter-relationship 4
between SAMAs that we would not expect that 5
implementation of all ten of the potentially 6
cost-beneficial SAMAs would be justified on a 7
cost-benefit basis; rather, the implementation of a 8
carefully-selected subset of the SAMAs could achieve 9
much of the risk reduction and would be more 10 cost-effective than implementing all of the SAMAs.
11 Subsequent to submitting the license 12 renewal application NMC has implemented six of the 13 cost-beneficial SAMAs and has assessed -- re-assessed 14 the benefit of the remaining SAMAs.
15 Implementation of the six SAMAs reduces the 16 benefit of the remaining SAMAs such that only one 17 SAMA remains potentially cost-beneficial. This one 18 SAMA involves modifications to the containment vent 19 system such that operation of the vent system would 20 not rely on support system availability.
21 This SAMA does not relate to managing the 22 effects of plant aging during the period of extended 23 operation. Accordingly, it would not be required to 24 be implemented as part of license renewal pursuant to 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 Part 54 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which 1
governs our license renewal process.
2 Notwithstanding this, NMC plans to further 3
evaluate this potentially cost-beneficial SAMA for 4
possible implementation under the current operating 5
license.
6 That completes my presentation.
7 CHIP CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Bob.
8 Any questions about the severe accident 9
mitigation alternatives that Bob was talking about?
10 (No Response.)
11 Okay. Thanks, Bob.
12 And, finally, we're going to go Jennifer 13 for -- Jennifer Davis for information on how comments 14 can be submitted.
15 Jennifer?
16 JENNIFER DAVIS: Turning now to our 17 preliminary conclusions, we found that the impacts of 18 license renewal are small in all areas.
19 We have also preliminarily concluded that 20 the impacts of alternatives, including the no-action 21 alternative, may have moderate to large environmental 22 effects in some impact categories.
23 Based on these results, it is the staff's 24 preliminary recommendation that the adverse 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 environmental impacts of license renewal for 1
Monticello are not so great that preserving the 2
option of license renewal for energy planning 3
decisionmakers would be unreasonable.
4 This slide is just a quick recap of some 5
milestone dates.
6 We issued the Draft Environmental Impact 7
Statement for Monticello on January 23rd, 2006.
8 We are currently in the middle of the 9
public comment period, and that is scheduled to end 10 on May 4th of this year.
11 We will address any public comments 12 received and make any necessary revisions to the 13 Draft Environmental Impact Statement and issue a 14 Final Environmental Impact Statement in September of 15 2006.
16 This slide identifies me as your primary 17 point of contact with the NRC for the Environmental 18 Review. It also identifies what documents related to 19 our review may be found in the local area.
20 The Monticello Draft EIS is available 21 publicly at the Monticello Public Library and the 22 Buffalo Public Library.
23 Additionally, documents related to the 24 review are also available on NRC's website at 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 www.NRC.gov.
1 In addition, as you came in you were asked 2
to fill out a registration card. If you have 3
included your address on that card, we will mail a 4
copy of the Final EIS to you.
5 If you did not receive a copy of the Draft 6
Environmental Impact Statement, we have copies 7
available in the back of the room.
8 If you did not fill out a card and you want 9
a copy of the final EIS and have not yet filled in a 10 card, please see Jason.
11 Jason, please raise your hand. Thank you.
12 Now, in addition to providing us comments 13 at this meeting, there are other ways you can submit 14 comments for our Environmental Review process.
15 You can provide written comments to the 16 Chief of the Rules and Directives Branch at the 17 address on the screen.
18 You can also make comments in person if you 19 happen to be in the Rockville, Maryland, area.
20 Or we have established a specific e-mail 21 address at the NRC for the purpose of receiving your 22 comments on the Draft EIS, and that e-mail address is 23 MonticelloEIS@NRC.gov.
24 All relevant addresses are listed in your 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 handout.
1 All of your comments will be collected and 2
considered.
3 This concludes my remarks, and I'd like to 4
thank each and every one of you for coming out today.
5 CHIP CAMERON: Great. Thanks, Jennifer.
6 Is it clear how to submit comments?
7 Anybody have any questions on that?
8 (No response.)
9 Okay. Great.
10 And now we're going to go into listening to 11 any comments that you have.
12 And our first speaker is Mr. Purves Todd, 13 who we have heard from, and I think he's going to 14 explain a little further the implications of his 15 question on alternatives.
16 Mr. Todd, would you join us up here?
17 PURVES TODD: Thank you very much.
18 CHIP CAMERON: You're welcome.
19 PURVES TODD: I'm here today and I'm going 20 to speak in favor of the Monticello Nuclear Plant 21 being extended, because I believe that if the 22 Monticello plant has to be shut down in 2010, it will 23 have an adverse effect on central Minnesota.
24 And I think now I want to thank Kirstie 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 Marone for her article on the Monticello Nuclear 1
Plant. It was very well explained in here 2
(indicating) what the plant had done, and it's a very 3
good article for this area.
4 The other thing I want to talk about is to 5
be able to congratulate the people in Monticello that 6
had the foresight to allow NSP to build this facility 7
in the first place.
8 Because myself, I think I was probably a 9
little bit critical at the time that it was being 10 proposed -- we really didn't understand what nuclear 11 energy was all about -- where today I'm almost on the 12 other side that I think we have to expand nuclear 13 energy all over the United States.
14 In fact, I'm thinking we probably will need 15 at least 500 nuclear plants by this 2030 date, so I 16 can see that you're going to be a very busy group 17 here trying to get that accomplished.
18 And the reason that I say that is there is 19 no reason -- no way that we can get from a 20 15-trillion-to 20-trillion-dollar economy in this 21 country without nuclear power.
22 And then, finally, I think that I want to 23 explain a little bit on the natural gas and oil 24 question that I had, because I feel that with using 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 that in Minnesota, it puts us at a disadvantage, 1
because this last winter our natural gas costs went 2
up 30 percent -- and not necessarily because of the 3
gas-fired plants that have already been built around 4
the country, Katrina definitely caused some problems 5
with it, but it's just not a good source for 6
generating electricity in Minnesota.
7 Thank you very much.
8 CHIP CAMERON: Thank you, Mr. Todd.
9 And we're going to go Mr. Rick Jacobs at 10 this point, and --
11 Mr. Jacobs is the Site Director at the 12 Monticello facility.
13 (Off the record discussion.)
14 CHIP CAMERON: Okay. Let me find out:
15 Does anybody else want to make a comment at this 16 point?
17 (No Response.)
18 Okay. And Rick, it's totally up to you.
19 We're having another meeting tonight, and 20 if there are some comments that the site wants to 21 submit, we can do it at that time.
22 RICK JACOBS: Okay.
23 CHIP CAMERON: All right. Great.
24 Okay. Well, I would just thank all of you 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 for attending.
1 And I'm going to ask Rani if she wants to 2
make any final comments, Rani Franovich.
3 (Response.)
4 Okay. She's fine.
5 And the staff, NRC staff will be here after 6
the meeting for informal discussion, and including 7
Ms. Quinly.
8 And we'll be here tonight if anybody wants 9
to join us again.
10 And once again, we do have our Safety 11 Project Manager here with us, so if there's any 12 questions on the safety side or whatever, Dan is 13 here.
14 And I would just thank you, and we're 15 adjourned and we'll be back tonight.
16 Great.
17 (Whereupon, at 2:35 p.m. the proceedings 18 were adjourned.)
19 20 21 22 23 24 25