ML072260053
| ML072260053 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 08/01/2007 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| jmm7 | |
| References | |
| NRC-1696 | |
| Download: ML072260053 (20) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Draft EIS: James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant: Evening Session Docket Number:
50-333 Location:
Oswego, New York Date:
Wednesday, August 1, 2007 Work Order No.:
NRC-1696 Pages 1-18 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 7:00 P.M. SESSION 13 WEDNESDAY, 14 AUGUST 1, 2007 15
+ + + + +
16 SCRIBA TOWN HALL 17 42 CREAMERY ROAD 18 OSWEGO, NEW YORK 13126 19
+ + + + +
20 21 NRC STAFF PRESENT:
22 RANI L. FRANOVICH, NRR/ADRO/DLR/REB 23 JESSIE M. MUIR, NRR/ADRO/DLR/REB 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: Good evening. We're about 2
to start. I just wanted to take a few minutes to 3
welcome you all and thank you for coming.
4 This meeting is a meeting to solicit some 5
comments from the public on the Draft Environmental 6
Impact Statement for FitzPatrick. This is a 7
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to our 8
Generic Environmental Impact Statement.
9 We'll have a brief presentation that 10 Jessie Muir will provide on preliminary findings of 11 the staff's environmental review for FitzPatrick 12 license renewal.
13 Jessie Muir is the project manager for the 14 environmental review.
15 Then we'll have a brief question-and-16 answer session, if there are any questions from the 17 public on anything that Jessie discusses in her 18 presentation, and then we'll open up the floor to 19 receive comments from the public. The comments will 20 be transcribed. We have Peter here, our 21 transcriptionist, who will take down all of the 22 comments, and we ask that you use the microphone to 23 provide your
- comments, state your name and 24 affiliation, if there is any, and we ask that just one 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 person at a time speak so we can get a clean 1
transcript of this meeting, and if you could all just 2
check and make sure that your cell phones are turned 3
off at this time, so we don't have any distractions or 4
interruptions.
5 And with that, Jessie.
6 MS. MUIR: Good evening. Thank you all 7
for taking the time to come to this meeting this 8
evening. I hope the information we provide you will 9
help you to understand the process we're going 10 through, what we've done so far, and the role you can 11 play in helping us make sure that the final EIS is 12 accurate.
13 I'd like to start off briefly by going 14 over the agenda and the purpose of tonight's meeting.
15 We're going to present preliminary 16 findings of our environmental review, which assesses 17 the impacts associated with renewing the operating 18 license for FitzPatrick.
19 Then we'll give you some information about 20 the schedule for the remainder of our review, and how 21 you can submit comments in the future.
22 And then finally, really, the most 23 important part of tonight's meeting, is where we 24 receive any comments that you may have. Next slide.
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 Atomic Energy Act gives the NRC the 1
authority to issue operating licenses to commercial 2
nuclear power plants for a period of up to 40 years.
3 For FitzPatrick, that license will expire 4
in 2014. Our regulations make provisions for 5
extending plant operation for an additional 20 years.
6 FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, owned and operated by 7
Entergy, has requested license renewal.
8 As part of the NRC's review of that 9
license renewal application, we perform an 10 environmental review to look at the impacts of an 11 additional 20 years of operation.
12 We held a meeting here, in October of 13 2006, to seek input regarding the issues we needed to 14 evaluate. Now we are here to present the preliminary 15 results in the Draft Supplemental EIS, and afterwards, 16 we'll open the floor for comments on the draft 17 document.
18 All right. This slide illustrates the 19 environmental review process. This review, which is 20 the subject of today's meeting, evaluates the impacts 21 of license renewal. It involves scoping activities 22 and the development of a document called the 23 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, or an 24 EIS.
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 The Draft EIS provides the staff's 1
preliminary assessment of environmental impacts during 2
the period of extended operation. The Draft EIS for 3
FitzPatrick was published for comment in June. Next 4
slide.
5 Next, I would like to give a little 6
information on the statute that governs the 7
environmental review, and that statute is NEPA, or the 8
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
9 NEPA requires that all federal agencies 10 follow a systematic approach in evaluating potential 11 environmental impacts associated with certain actions.
12 We, at the NRC, are required to consider 13 the impacts of the proposed action, in this case 14 license renewal, and also any mitigation for those 15 impacts.
16 We are also required to consider 17 alternatives to the proposed action.
18 The NRC has determined that an EIS will be 19 prepared for any proposed license renewal of a nuclear 20 power plant. NEPA and our EIS are disclosure tools.
21 They're specifically structured to involve public 22 participation and obtain public comment. This meeting 23 facilitates the public participation in our 24 environmental review.
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 In the 1990's, the NRC staff developed a 1
Generic EIS that addresses a number of issues common 2
to all nuclear plants. As a result of that analysis, 3
the NRC was able to determine that a number of 4
environmental issues were common to or similar for all 5
nuclear power plants.
6 The staff is supplementing that Generic 7
EIS with a site-specific EIS that addresses issues 8
specific to the FitzPatrick facility.
9 So together, the Generic EIS and the 10 supplemental EIS form the staff's analysis of the 11 environmental impacts of license renewal for the 12 FitzPatrick site.
13 Also during the review, the NRC staff 14 looks for and evaluates any new and significant 15 information that might call into question the 16 conclusions that were previously reached in the 17 Generic EIS. In addition, the staff searches for new 18 issues not already addressed in the Generic EIS.
19 This slide is our decision standard for 20 the environmental review, and simply put, is license 21 renewal acceptable from an environmental standpoint?
22 Next slide.
23 We use information we received in the 24 environmental report submitted as part of Entergy's 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 license renewal application. We conducted an audit in 1
December of last year, where we toured the facility, 2
observed plant systems, and evaluated the interaction 3
of the plant operation with the environment.
4 We talked to plant personnel and reviewed 5
specific documentation. We also spoke to federal, 6
state, and local officials, permitting authorities and 7
social services. We also consider the comments 8
received during the public scoping period.
9 All of this information forms the basis of 10 our preliminary conclusions presented in the Draft 11 Supplemental EIS. Next slide.
12 And this slide just shows some of the 13 various disciplines that are included in our team.
14 In the mid 1990's, the NRC evaluated the 15 impacts of all operating nuclear power plants across 16 the U.S. NRC looked at 92 separate impact areas, and 17 found that for 69 of these areas, the impacts were the 18 same for all plants with similar features.
19 The NRC called these Category 1 issues and 20 they were able to make generic conclusions, that all 21 the impacts on the environment would be small. The NRC 22 published these conclusions in the Generic EIS in 23 1996.
24 The NRC was unable to make similar 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 determinations for the remaining 23 issues, and as a 1
consequence, NRC decided that we would prepare a 2
supplemental EIS for each plant, to address the 3
remaining 23 issues, and this slide lists some of the 4
major impact areas addressed for FitzPatrick. Next 5
slide.
6 This slide outlines how impacts are 7
quantified. The Generic EIS defined three impact 8
levels--small, moderate and large. I'm going to use 9
the fishery in Lake Ontario to illustrate how we use 10 these three terms.
11 The operation of the FitzPatrick plant may 12 cause a loss of fish at the intake structure. If the 13 loss of fish is so small, that it cannot be detected 14 in relation to the total population in Lake Ontario, 15 the impact would be small.
16 If losses cause the population to decline, 17 and then stabilize at a lower level, the impact would 18 be moderate.
19 If losses at the intake cause the fish 20 population to decline to the point where it cannot be 21 stabilized, and continually declines, then the impact 22 would be large.
23 Now the first set of issues I'm going to 24 talk about relate to the cooling system for 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 FitzPatrick. There are three Category 2 issues 1
relevant to the cooling system. These are 2
entrainment, impingement and heat shock.
3 Entrainment refers to the process where 4
very small aquatic organisms are pulled into the 5
cooling system. The majority of these organisms 6
experience mortality due to physical, chemical, or 7
thermal impacts.
8 Impingement refers to larger organisms 9
being pulled into the cooling system and getting 10 pinned on the debris screen. Impinged organisms 11 generally experience a lower mortality rate than 12 entrainment.
13 Heat shock, the third Category 2 issue 14 related to the cooling system, refers to when 15 relatively warm water is released into a colder 16 environment. Aquatic organisms adapted to the cooler 17 water can lose equilibrium, or die, when exposed to 18 warmer water. The team evaluated these three impact 19 areas and our preliminary conclusion is that the 20 FitzPatrick cooling system could have a small impact 21 on the fishery in Lake Ontario.
22 Radiological impacts are a Category 1 23 issue. This means the NRC has made a generic 24 determination that the impact of radiological releases 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 from normal nuclear plant operations during the period 1
of extended operation is small.
2 By design, the operation of nuclear power 3
plants is expected to result in small releases of 4
radiological effluents. FitzPatrick is no exception.
5 During our site audit, we looked at 6
selected parts of the radioactive effluent release and 7
radiological environmental monitoring programs, and 8
supporting documentation.
9 We looked at how the gaseous and liquid 10 effluents are controlled, treated, monitored and 11 released, as well as how solid radioactive wastes are 12 handled, packaged and shipped. We looked at how the 13 applicant's radiation protection program maintains 14 radiological releases in compliance with the 15 regulations for radioactive effluents.
16 We also looked at the applicant's data 17 from on-site and near-site environmental radiological 18 monitoring station locations for airborne releases and 19 direct radiation, as well as monitoring stations 20 beyond the plant site where water, milk, fish, and 21 food products are sampled.
22 Based on our review of the data, we found 23 that the calculated dose to the maximally-exposed 24 member of the public to be well within the NRC's 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 radiation protection limit.
1 The dose of the maximally-exposed member 2
is a conservative calculation which assumes maximum 3
values associated with an individual who is exposed 4
from radiation sources from the plant.
5 Since releases from the plant are not 6
expected to increase on a year to year basis during 7
the period of extended operation, and since we also 8
found no new and significant information related to 9
this issue, we preliminarily adopted the generic 10 conclusion that the radiological impact on human 11 health and the environment is small.
12 There are no aquatic species, federally 13 listed as threatened and/or endangered, that have the 14 potential to occur in the vicinity of FitzPatrick or 15 its transmission lines; however, there are five 16 terrestrial species. We prepared a detailed 17 biological assessment to analyze the effects of 18 continued operation of FitzPatrick on these listed 19 terrestrial species.
20 The staff's preliminary determination is 21 that the impacts during the period of extended 22 operation, on threatened or endangered species, would 23 be small.
24 There are two classes of accidents 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 evaluated in the Generic EIS, design-basis accidents 1
and severe accidents. Design-basis accidents are 2
those accidents that the plant is designed to 3
withstand without risk to the public. The ability of 4
the plant to withstand these accidents has to be 5
demonstrated before the plant is granted a license.
6 Because the licensee has to demonstrate 7
acceptable plant performance for the design-basis 8
accidents through the life of the plant, the 9
Commission found in the Generic EIS, that the 10 environmental impacts of design-basis accidents is 11 small for all plants.
12 The second category of accidents is severe 13 accidents. Severe accidents are, by definition, more 14 severe than design-basis accidents because they would 15 result in substantial damage to the reactor core.
16 The Commission found, in the Generic EIS, 17 that the risk of a severe accident is small for all 18 plants. Nevertheless, the Commission determined that 19 alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be 20 considered for all plants that have not done so.
21 These are called SAMAs, Severe Accident Mitigation 22 Alternatives.
23 The SAMA evaluation is a Category 2 issue 24 and thus requires a site-specific analysis.
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 The purpose of the SAMA evaluation is to 1
ensure that plant changes with the potential for 2
changing severe accident safety performance are 3
identified and evaluated.
4 The scope of potential plant improvements 5
considered included hardware modifications, procedural 6
changes, training program improvements, and basically 7
a full spectrum of potential changes. The scope 8
includes SAMAs that would prevent core damage as well 9
as SAMAs that would improve containment performance, 10 if a core damage event occurs.
11 The preliminary results of the FitzPatrick 12 SAMA evaluation are summarized on this slide.
13 239 potential SAMA candidate improvements 14 were identified for FitzPatrick. That number was 15 reduced to 63, based on a multi-step screening 16 process. Then a more detailed assessment of the risk 17 reduction potential, and implementation cost, were 18 performed for each of the 63 SAMAs.
19 Six SAMAs were identified as potentially 20 cost-beneficial. None of the potentially cost-21 beneficial SAMAs, however, are related to the managing 22 of effects of plant aging during the period of 23 extended operation. Accordingly, they are not required 24 to be implemented as part of license renewal.
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 Regardless, Entergy is encouraged to consider, and 1
evaluate further, the potentially cost-beneficial 2
SAMAs. In fact, Entergy has indicated that one SAMA 3
has already been implemented, one is scheduled for the 4
end of this year, and the other four have been 5
combined into a single project undergoing an in-house 6
review.
7 Cumulative impacts are the impacts of the 8
proposed action, in this case license renewal, taken 9
together with other past, present, or reasonably 10 foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency 11 or person undertakes those actions.
12 The cumulative impacts were evaluated for 13 the period of extended operation. Our preliminary 14 determination is that any cumulative impacts resulting 15 from continued operation of FitzPatrick would be small 16 for all resources.
17 And as part of the environmental review 18 process, we also evaluated a number of alternatives to 19 license renewal. Specifically, we looked at the 20 impacts of replacing FitzPatrick power, approximately 21 880 megawatts, with power from other sources.
22 Alternatives that the team looked at 23 included a "no-action" alternative, that is, not 24 renewing the license. We also looked at replacing 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 FitzPatrick generation with generation from new power 1
plants, either coal, natural gas, or new nuclear. We 2
considered the impacts and capabilities of providing 3
replacement power with purchased power.
4 We also looked at other technologies such 5
as wood, wind, and solar power. Then we looked at a 6
combination of alternatives, including conservation, 7
to replace that capacity.
8 For each alternative, we looked at the 9
same type of issues that we did when we were 10 evaluating the environmental impacts of license 11 renewal.
12 The team's preliminary conclusion is that 13 the environmental impacts of the selected alternatives 14 would reach moderate to large significance in at least 15 some of the categories evaluated.
16 During the environmental review, we found 17 no information that was both new and significant.
18 Therefore, we have preliminarily adopted the Generic 19 EIS conclusion that impacts associated with the 69 20 issues will continue to be small.
21 In the FitzPatrick supplemental EIS, we 22 analyzed the remaining 23 Category 2 issues, and 23 determined that the environmental impact resulting 24 from these issues was also small in all categories.
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 During our analysis, we found that the 1
environmental impacts of alternatives, in at least 2
some impact areas, would reach moderate to large 3
levels of significance. Based on these conclusions, 4
the NRC staff's preliminary recommendation is that the 5
environmental impacts of license renewal are not so 6
great, that license renewal would be unreasonable.
7 Listed are important milestone dates for 8
the FitzPatrick environmental review. In June, the 9
FitzPatrick Draft Supplemental EIS was published. We 10 are currently accepting public comments on the draft 11 until September 5th, and the Final EIS is scheduled to 12 be published in January of next year.
13 This slide identifies me as your primary 14 point of contact with the NRC for the environmental 15 review. Mr. Tommy Lee is the contact for any 16 questions related to the safety review.
17 Documents related to the FitzPatrick 18 review may be found in the Penfield Library on the 19 SUNY Oswego campus, or the Oswego public library. At 20 the bottom of the slide is an Internet address where 21 you can directly access the FitzPatrick Supplemental 22 EIS.
23 And there are several ways you can provide 24 your comments on the FitzPatrick draft. You can 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 provide comments today during the comment period. If 1
perhaps you're not ready to provide comments today, 2
you can send your comments via e-mail to 3
FitzPatrickEIS@nrc.gov. You can also send them via 4
"snail mail" or hand-deliver them to us at the 5
headquarters.
6 And with that, I'm done. I'll hand it 7
over to Rani.
8 MS. FRANOVICH: Okay. Thank you, Jessie.
9 Before we go into comments, let me just 10 ask if anybody has any questions on Jessie's 11 presentation.
12
[No response]
13 MS. FRANOVICH: No questions?
14 Okay. We have one person who registered 15 to comment. Mr. Ken Schwartz. Is Mr. Schwartz here?
16
[No response]
17 MS. FRANOVICH: Okay. Is there anyone who 18 did not register to comment, who would like to comment 19 at this time?
20
[No response]
21 MS. FRANOVICH:
22 Okay. Then that concludes our meeting. Let me 23 just thank everyone for coming. We appreciate your 24 attendance at our meeting, and if you have any 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 questions at the end of the meeting, the staff will be 1
here for a few minutes. You're welcome to come up and 2
ask us any questions you may have.
3 And I wanted to remind everyone that we 4
are accepting comments until September 5th on the 5
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for FitzPatrick.
6 And also, if you have any suggestions for 7
how we can do our meetings in the future, areas we can 8
improve on, things we might want to do different, we 9
have a meeting feedback form in the back of the room.
10 You're welcome to fill one of those out, hand it to a 11 member of the staff, or you can just fold it up and 12 mail it to us. The postage is prepaid.
13 And thanks again for coming.
14
[Whereupon, at 7:18 p.m., the public 15 meeting was concluded.]
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 1