ML072260051
| ML072260051 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 08/01/2007 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| jmm7 | |
| References | |
| NRC-1696 | |
| Download: ML072260051 (24) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Draft EIS: James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant: Afternoon Session Docket Number:
50-333 Location:
Oswego, New York Date:
Wednesday, August 1, 2007 Work Order No.:
NRC-1696 Pages 1-23 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 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
+ + + + +
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
+ + + + +
4 OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (NRR) 5
+ + + + +
6 PUBLIC MEETING 7
TO DISCUSS THE 8
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 9
FOR THE LICENSE RENEWAL OF 10 JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 11
+ + + + +
12 1:30 P.M. SESSION WEDNESDAY, 13 AUGUST 1, 2007 14
+ + + + +
15 SCRIBA TOWN HALL 16 42 CREAMERY ROAD 17 OSWEGO, NEW YORK 13126 18
+ + + + +
19 20 NRC STAFF PRESENT:
21 RANI L. FRANOVICH, NRR/ADRO/DLR/REB 22 JESSIE M. MUIR, NRR/ADRO/DLR/REB 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 P R O C E E D I N G S 1
MS. FRANOVICH: Welcome, everyone. Can 2
everyone hear me? Okay; good. I just want to take a 3
few minutes to welcome you all to our public meeting.
4 The meeting is to solicit comments on the 5
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for FitzPatrick.
6 I am Rani Franovich. I am the branch 7
chief of the Environmental Branch in headquarters of 8
the NRC, that manages the environmental reviews for 9
10 This is an important part of our 11 environmental review process.
12 NEPA, the National Environmental Policy 13 Act, mandates that we include the public in our 14 environmental review process, and so soliciting 15 comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 16 is something that we get a lot of good information 17 from. So thank you all for being here.
18 We're going to have a brief presentation.
19 Jessie Muir, who is the project manager 20 for the environmental review, is going to give a brief 21 15 minute presentation, to talk with you about our 22 preliminary determinations for the environmental 23 review, and then we will go into a brief question-and-24 answer period, if there are any questions that members 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 of the public have.
1 And after that, we will go right into 2
selecting people to come up and offer their comments 3
to us. The comments will be transcribed. We have 4
Peter sitting over here. He's going to record the 5
entire meeting. So I would ask that each of you come 6
up to the microphone to make your comments, state your 7
name and affiliation, if any. One person speaks at a 8
time, so that we can get a clean transcript, and if 9
you could all take a few minutes to make sure your 10 cell phones are off, so we don't have any disruptions 11 during the meeting, that'd be great.
12 And with that, I will invite Jessie to 13 come on up and make her brief presentation.
14 Jessie.
15 MS. MUIR: Thank you, again, all, for 16 taking the time to come to this meeting. I hope the 17 information that we provide you will help you to 18 understand the process we're going through, what we've 19 done so far, and the role you can play in helping us 20 make sure that the final EIS is accurate.
21 I'd like to start off by briefly going 22 over the agenda and the purposes of today's meeting.
23 We're going to present the preliminary 24 findings of our environmental review, which assesses 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 the impacts associated with renewing the operating 1
license for FitzPatrick.
2 Then we'll give you some information about 3
the schedule for the remainder of our review, and how 4
you can submit comments in the future.
5 And then finally, really, the most 6
important part of tonight's meeting, like Rani said, 7
is we'll receive any comments that you may have. Next 8
slide.
9 The Atomic Energy Act gives the NRC the 10 authority to issue operating licenses to commercial 11 nuclear power plants for a period of up to 40 years.
12 For FitzPatrick, that license will expire 13 in 2014. Our regulations make provisions for 14 extending plant operation for an additional 20 years.
15 FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, owned and operated by 16 Entergy, has requested license renewal.
17 As part of the NRC's review of that 18 license renewal application, we perform an 19 environmental review to look at the impacts of an 20 additional 20 years of operation on the environment.
21 We held a meeting here, in October of 22 2006, to seek your input regarding the issues we 23 needed to evaluate. Now we are here to present the 24 preliminary results in the draft supplemental EIS, and 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 afterwards, we'll open the floor for comments on the 1
draft document. Next slide.
2 Now this slide illustrates the 3
environmental review process. This review, which is 4
the subject of today's meeting, evaluates the impacts 5
of license renewal. It involves scoping activities 6
and the development of a document called the 7
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, or an 8
EIS.
9 The Draft Supplemental EIS provides the 10 staff's preliminary assessment of environmental 11 impacts during the period of extended operation. The 12 Draft Supplemental EIS for FitzPatrick was published 13 for comment in June. Next slide.
14
- Next, I
would like to give some 15 information on the statute that governs the 16 environmental review, and that statute is the National 17 Environmental Policy Act of 1969, commonly referred to 18 as NEPA.
19 NEPA requires that all federal agencies 20 follow a systematic approach in evaluating potential 21 environmental impacts associated with certain actions.
22 We, at the NRC, are required to consider 23 the impacts of the proposed action, which in this case 24 is license renewal, and also any mitigation for those 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 impacts.
1 We are also required to consider 2
alternatives to the proposed action.
3 The NRC has determined that an EIS will be 4
prepared for any proposed license renewal of a nuclear 5
plant. NEPA and our EIS are disclosure tools.
6 They're specifically structured to involve public 7
participation and obtain public comment.
8 This meeting facilitates the public 9
participation in our environmental review.
10 In the 1990's, the NRC staff developed a 11 Generic EIS that addresses a number of issues common 12 to all nuclear power plants. As a result of that 13 analysis, the NRC was able to determine that a number 14 of environmental issues were common to or similar for 15 all nuclear power plants.
16 The staff is supplementing that Generic 17 EIS with a site-specific EIS that addresses issues 18 specific to the FitzPatrick facility.
19 Together, the Generic EIS and the 20 supplemental EIS form the staff's analysis of the 21 environmental impacts of license renewal for the 22 FitzPatrick site.
23 Also during the review, the NRC staff 24 looks for and evaluates any new and significant 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 information that might call into question the 1
conclusions we reached previously in the Generic EIS.
2 In addition, the staff searches for new issues not 3
already addressed in the Generic EIS. Next slide.
4 This slide is our decision standard for 5
the environmental review, and simply put, is license 6
renewal acceptable from an environmental standpoint?
7 Next slide.
8 Now we use information we received in the 9
environmental report that was submitted as part of 10 Entergy's license renewal application. We also 11 conducted an audit in December of last year, where we 12 toured the facility, we observed plant systems, and 13 evaluated the interaction of the plant operations with 14 the environment.
15 We talked to plant personnel and reviewed 16 specific documentation. We also spoke to federal, 17 state, and local officials, permitting authorities and 18 social services. We also consider the comments 19 received during the public scoping period.
20 All of this information forms the basis of 21 our preliminary conclusions presented in the Draft 22 Supplemental EIS. Next slide.
23 And this slide presents the overall team 24 expertise for the FitzPatrick environmental review, 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 and it includes various disciplines.
1 Now in the mid 1990's, the NRC evaluated 2
the impacts of all operating nuclear power plants 3
across the U.S. The NRC looked at 92 separate impact 4
areas, and found that for 69 of those areas, the 5
impacts were the same for all plants with similar 6
features. The NRC called these Category 1 issues and 7
they were able to make the generic conclusion, that 8
all of the impacts on the environment would be small.
9 The NRC published that Generic EIS in 10 1996.
11 The NRC was unable to make similar 12 determinations for the remaining 23 issues, and as a 13 consequence, NRC decided that we would prepare a 14 supplemental EIS for each plant, to address the 15 remaining 23 issues, and this slide lists some of the 16 major impact areas addressed for FitzPatrick.
17 This slide outlines how impacts are 18 quantified. The Generic EIS defined three impact 19 levels--small, moderate and large. And I'm going to 20 use the fishery in Lake Ontario to illustrate how we 21 use these three terms.
22 The operation of the FitzPatrick plant may 23 cause a loss of fish at the intake structure. If the 24 loss of fish is so small, that it cannot be detected 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 in relation to the total population in Lake Ontario, 1
then the impact would be small.
2 If losses cause the population to decline, 3
but then stabilize at a lower level, the impact would 4
be moderate.
5 If losses at the intake cause the fish 6
population to decline to the point where it cannot be 7
stabilized, or it continually declines, then the 8
impact would be large.
9 Now the first set of issues I'm going to 10 talk about relate to the cooling system. There are 11 three Category 2 issues relevant to the cooling 12 system. These are entrainment, impingement and heat 13 shock.
14 Entrainment refers to the process where 15 very small aquatic organisms are pulled into the 16 cooling system. The majority of these organisms 17 experience mortality due to physical, chemical, or 18 thermal impacts.
19 Impingement refers to larger organisms 20 being pulled into the cooling system and getting 21 pinned on the debris screen. Impinged organisms 22 generally experience a lower mortality rate than 23 entrainment.
24 Heat shock, the third Category 2 issue 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 related to the cooling system, refers to when 1
relatively warm water is released into a colder 2
environment. Aquatic organisms adapted to the cooler 3
water can lose equilibrium, or die, when exposed to 4
warmer water. The team evaluated these three impact 5
areas and our preliminary conclusion is that the 6
FitzPatrick cooling system could have a small impact 7
on the fishery in Lake Ontario. Next slide.
8 Radiological impacts are a Category 1 9
issue. This means the NRC has made a generic 10 determination that the impact of radiological releases 11 from normal nuclear plant operations during the period 12 of extended operation is small.
13 By design, the operation of nuclear power 14 plants is expected to result in small releases of 15 radiological effluents. FitzPatrick is no exception.
16 During our site audit, we looked at 17 selected parts of the radioactive effluent release and 18 radiological environmental monitoring programs, and 19 supporting documentation.
20 We looked at how the gaseous and liquid 21 effluents are controlled, treated, monitored and 22 released, as well as how solid radioactive wastes are 23 handled, packaged and shipped. We looked at how the 24 applicant's radiation protection program maintains 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 radiological releases in compliance with the 1
regulations for radioactive effluents.
2 We also looked at the applicant's data 3
from on-site and near-site environmental radiological 4
monitoring station locations for airborne releases and 5
direct radiation, as well as monitoring stations 6
beyond the plant site where water, milk, fish, and 7
food products are sampled.
8 Based on our review of the data, we found 9
that the calculated dose to the maximally-exposed 10 member of the public to be well within the NRC's 11 radiation protection limit.
12 The dose of the maximally-exposed person 13 is a conservative calculation which assumes maximum 14 values associated with an individual who is exposed 15 from all radiation sources from the plant.
16 Since releases from the plant are not 17 expected to increase on a year to year basis during 18 the period of extended operation, and since we also 19 found no new and significant information related to 20 this issue, we preliminarily adopted the generic 21 conclusion that the radiological impact on human 22 health and the environment is small. Next slide.
23 There are no aquatic species, federally 24 listed as threatened and/or endangered, that have the 25
12 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 potential to occur in the vicinity of FitzPatrick or 1
its transmission lines; however, there are five 2
terrestrial species. So we prepared a detailed 3
biological assessment to analyze the effects of 4
continued operation of FitzPatrick on these listed 5
terrestrial species.
6 The staff's preliminary determination is 7
that the impacts during the period of extended 8
operation, on threatened or endangered species, would 9
be small.
10 There are two classes of accidents 11 evaluated in the Generic EIS, design-basis accidents 12 and severe accidents. Design-basis accidents are 13 those accidents that the plant is designed to 14 withstand without risk to the public. The ability of 15 the plant to withstand these accidents has to be 16 demonstrated before the plant is granted a license.
17 Because the licensee has to demonstrate 18 acceptable plant performance for the design-basis 19 accidents through the life of the plant, the 20 Commission found in the Generic EIS, that the 21 environmental impacts of design-basis accidents is 22 small for all plants.
23 The second category of accidents is severe 24 accidents. Severe accidents are, by definition, more 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 severe than design-basis accidents because they would 1
result in substantial damage to the reactor core.
2 The Commission found, in the Generic EIS, 3
that the risk of a severe accident is small for all 4
plants. Nevertheless, the Commission determined that 5
alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be 6
considered for all plants that have not done so.
7 These are called SAMAs, Severe Accident Mitigation 8
Alternatives.
9 The SAMA evaluation is a Category 2 issue 10 and thus requires a site-specific analysis.
11 The purpose of the SAMA evaluation is to 12 ensure that plant changes with the potential for 13 changing severe accident safety performance are 14 identified and evaluated. Next slide.
15 The scope of potential plant improvements 16 considered included hardware modifications, procedural 17 changes, training program improvements, and basically 18 a full spectrum of potential changes. The scope 19 includes SAMAs that would prevent core damage as well 20 as SAMAs that would improve containment performance, 21 if a core damage event occurs.
22 The preliminary results of the FitzPatrick 23 SAMA evaluation are summarized on this slide.
24 239 potential SAMA candidate improvements 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 were identified for FitzPatrick. That number was 1
reduced to 63, based on a multi-step screening 2
process. Then a more detailed assessment of the risk 3
reduction potential, and implementation cost, were 4
performed for each of the 63 SAMAs.
5 Six SAMAs were identified as potentially 6
cost-beneficial. None of the potentially cost-7 beneficial SAMAs, however, are related to the managing 8
of effects of plant aging during the period of 9
extended operation. Accordingly, they are not required 10 to be implemented as part of license renewal.
11 12 Regardless, Entergy is encouraged to consider, and 13 evaluate further, the potentially cost-beneficial 14 SAMAs. In fact, Entergy has indicated that one SAMA 15 has already been implemented, one is scheduled for the 16 end of this year, and the other four have been 17 combined into a single project undergoing an in-house 18 review. Next slide.
19 Cumulative impacts are the impacts of the 20 proposed action, again, in this case license renewal, 21 taken together with other past, present, or reasonably 22 foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency 23 or person undertakes those actions.
24 The cumulative impacts were evaluated for 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 the period of extended operation, and our preliminary 1
determination is that any cumulative impacts resulting 2
from continued operation of FitzPatrick would be small 3
for all resources.
4 Now as part of the environmental review 5
process, we also evaluated a number of alternatives to 6
license renewal. Specifically, we looked at the 7
impacts of replacing FitzPatrick power, approximately 8
880 megawatts, with power from other sources.
9 Alternatives that the team looked at 10 included a "no-action" alternative, that is, not 11 renewing the license. We also looked at replacing 12 FitzPatrick generation with generation from new power 13 plants, either coal, natural gas, or new nuclear. We 14 considered the impacts and capabilities of providing 15 replacement power with purchased power. We also looked 16 at other technologies such as wood, wind, and solar 17 power. Then we looked at a combination of 18 alternatives, including conservation, to replace that 19 capacity.
20 For each alternative, we looked at the 21 same type of issues that we did when we were 22 evaluating the environmental impacts of license 23 renewal.
24 The team's preliminary conclusion is that 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 the environmental impacts of selected alternatives 1
would reach moderate to large significance in at least 2
some of the categories evaluated. Next slide.
3 During the environmental review, we found 4
no information that was both new and significant.
5 Therefore, we have preliminarily adopted the Generic 6
EIS conclusion that impacts associated with the 69 7
issues will continue to be small.
8 In the FitzPatrick supplemental EIS, we 9
analyzed the remaining 23 Category 2 issues, and 10 determined that the environmental impact resulting 11 from these issues was also small in all categories.
12 During our analysis, we found that the 13 environmental impacts of alternatives, in at least 14 some impact areas, would reach moderate to large 15 levels of significance. Based on these conclusions, 16 the NRC staff's preliminary recommendation is that the 17 environmental impacts of license renewal are not so 18 great, that license renewal would be unreasonable.
19 Listed are some of the important milestone 20 dates for the FitzPatrick environmental review. In 21 June, we published the Draft Supplemental EIS, and we 22 are currently accepting public comments on the draft 23 until September 5th. The Final Supplemental EIS is 24 scheduled to be published in January of next year.
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 And this slide identifies me as your 1
primary point of contact with the NRC for the 2
environmental review. Mr. Tommy Lee is the contact 3
for any questions related to the safety review.
4 Documents related to the FitzPatrick 5
review may be found at the Penfield Library on the 6
SUNY Oswego campus, or at the Oswego public library, 7
and at the bottom of the slide is an Internet address 8
where you can directly access the FitzPatrick 9
Supplemental EIS. Next slide.
10 There are several ways you can provide 11 your comments on the FitzPatrick draft. You can 12 provide comments today during the comment period. If 13 perhaps you're not ready to provide a comment today, 14 you can send your comments via e-mail to 15 FitzPatrickEIS@nrc.gov. You can also send them via 16 "snail mail" or hand-deliver them to us at 17 headquarters in Maryland.
18 And with that, my presentation is 19 concluded, and I'll hand it over to Rani.
20 MS. FRANOVICH: Thank you, Jessie.
21 Before we get started on the comments, 22 does anybody have a question about any of the 23 information that Jessie just went over? Any 24 questions?
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 Yes, sir. Hold on. Let me come to you 1
and let you ask the question in the microphone. Your 2
name, please.
3 MR. STEVENS: Michael Stevens. What were 4
the five federal threatened or endangered terrestrial 5
species on or near the site? Do we know?
6 MS. FRANOVICH: Jessie, please go to the 7
microphone.
8 MS. MUIR: It was the bald eagle, which 9
has since been delisted, since we published. It was 10 the piping plover, which is a bird. The Indiana bat, 11 the bog turtle, and the fifth one is slipping me. Is 12 it the snake?
13 MS. FRANOVICH: We'll get back to you on 14 the fifth one. We're taking a look at the document 15 right now, so we'll get back to you on that.
16 Any other questions?
17
[No response]
18 MS. FRANOVICH: Okay. Mr. Stevens, I 19 believe you registered to make comments. Would you 20 like to approach the podium, please.
21 Mike Stevens.
22 MR. STEVENS: Good afternoon. I was born 23 and raised just within a few miles of Nine Mile Point.
24 My family and I live less than a mile from the plant, 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 on the lake, in our home, where we will expect to be 1
retiring in. I came in today just to state that I'm 2
in favor of the license extension. My feelings are 3
based on several facts. The plant operation, as most 4
of you know, is closely monitored, as you can see here 5
today, and regulated.
6 There's FEMA, the NRC, the EPA, etcetera.
7 Redundant safety systems at the plant protect the 8
public and all of our vital equipment. The equipment 9
receives preventative maintenance to ensure 10 reliability in case of any need for it. Even the most 11 simplistic tasks are completed using written procedure 12 to ensure success and accuracy.
13 Drills and the use of equipment simulators 14 ensure training is effective for all workers, and that 15 the workers are prepared for anything.
16 Safe operation and a strong safety culture 17 is always number one at the station. Spent nuclear 18 fuel is stored safely in heavy sealed containers, 19 protecting it from all natural or manmade disasters, 20 unlike most other stations in the U.S.
21 The lack of emissions make operation 22 environmentally friendly, and a positive impact to the 23 local economy and tax base, as we all know.
24 Power consumption is increased to date, 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 and no new plants have been started, and nuclear power 1
reduces our demand on foreign oil. As you might 2
think, my knowledge of these facts is because I work 3
at J.A.F. I'm not here as an employee today. I'm 4
here as a concerned resident. I'll retire long before 5
the license extension is needed, and will continue to 6
draw my pension, with or without the continued 7
operation of FitzPatrick.
8 I'm making my feelings known for the good 9
of the community and not the interests of the company 10 that I happen to work for.
11 The general public would feel the same way 12 that I do, if they knew what the workers already know, 13 that the plant is safe, the redundant systems protect 14 the health and safety of the public. We, as in 15 residents, should be more concerned of potential 16 emissions such as coal dust, arsenic, methane, carbon 17 dioxide from the proposed coal gassification plant 18 which will be processing 20,000 tons of coal a day, or 19 the damage to our fish population by the latest 20 invader called the round goby, which I've caught a 21 million of in the lake recently. Or the newest virus 22 infection that the fish are infested with, which is 23 called VHS.
24 That's all I had. Thanks for giving me 25
21 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the opportunity to speak.
1 MS. FRANOVICH: Thank you, Mr. Stevens.
2 Next, we have Mr. Ken Schwartz who 3
registered by e-mail. Is Mr. Ken Schwartz here?
4 Okay. I don't see Mr. Schwartz.
5 Is anyone else here, present, who would 6
like to make a comment?
7 Yes, sir. Please approach the podium let 8
us know who you are, and feel free.
9 MR. TOTH: Thank you. Yes. My name's 10 Gary Toth. I'm a life-long resident of Oswego County, 11 and I'm also the business manager of Carpenters Local 12 747, and I came today in support of the license 13 renewal for the FitzPatrick nuclear plant.
14 I
have about 425--I checked my 15 registration. I have about 425 members who live right 16 in Oswego County. A lot of them live in the Oswego 17 school district and in Scriba, and I tell you, we have 18 a lotta guys that work at the plant. They're in 19 there, and out, quite a bit. To a man, everyone has 20 gone in that plant, done their job, and come out 21 safely. That plant is operated very safely, very 22 well. I worked at that plant. I worked with divers.
23 I worked in some of the more restricted areas.
24 I didn't help build the plant cause it was 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 a little before my time. But I can attest through our 1
membership, and the people that work there, that's a 2
very well-run plant, a very well-maintained plant, a 3
very safe plant.
4 I live about ten miles east of here, 5
towards Mexico, actually west of here, towards Mexico, 6
and I'm the third generation here. I'm very 7
comfortable with this plant operating for another 20 8
years beyond its license renewal--or beyond its 9
license date. So again, I stand here on behalf of 10 about 420 members and their families, and myself, as 11 a resident, in support of the license renewal. Thank 12 you.
13 MS. FRANOVICH: Thank you.
14 Anyone else?
15
[No response]
16 MS. FRANOVICH: Okay.
17 Well, thank you all for coming and 18 listening to our presentation, sharing with us your 19 comments. The end of the comment period is September 20 the 5th. If you have any comments you wish to share 21 after this meeting, please send them electronically to 22 the address on the slide, it's not this one but it's 23 in the handout, by that date.
24 I want to thank you all for coming again.
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 If you have any suggestions for how we can do our 1
meetings different, things we can do better, things we 2
can improve in, there's a meeting feedback form out 3
here on the table as you approach the room.
4 Please feel free to fill it out and hand 5
it to one of us, or if you prefer, the postage is 6
prepaid, you can fold it up and mail it in, and with 7
that, thank you very much for being here.
8
[Whereupon, at 1:55 p.m., the public 9
meeting was concluded.]
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25