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 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 + + + + +
3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 + + + + +
5 OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (NRR) 6 + + + + +
7 PUBLIC MEETING 8 TO DISCUSS THE 9 DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 10 FOR THE LICENSE RENEWAL OF 11 JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 12 + + + + +
13 7:00 P.M. SESSION 14 WEDNESDAY, 15 AUGUST 1, 2007 16 + + + + +
17 SCRIBA TOWN HALL 18 42 CREAMERY ROAD 19 OSWEGO, NEW YORK 13126 20 + + + + +
21 22 NRC STAFF PRESENT:
23 RANI L. FRANOVICH, NRR/ADRO/DLR/REB 24 JESSIE M. MUIR, NRR/ADRO/DLR/REB 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
2 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 MS. FRANOVICH: Good evening. We're about 3 to start. I just wanted to take a few minutes to 4 welcome you all and thank you for coming.
5 This meeting is a meeting to solicit some 6 comments from the public on the Draft Environmental 7 Impact Statement for FitzPatrick. This is a 8 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to our 9 Generic Environmental Impact Statement.
10 We'll have a brief presentation that 11 Jessie Muir will provide on preliminary findings of 12 the staff's environmental review for FitzPatrick 13 license renewal.
14 Jessie Muir is the project manager for the 15 environmental review.
16 Then we'll have a brief question-and-17 answer session, if there are any questions from the 18 public on anything that Jessie discusses in her 19 presentation, and then we'll open up the floor to 20 receive comments from the public. The comments will 21 be transcribed. We have Peter here, our 22 transcriptionist, who will take down all of the 23 comments, and we ask that you use the microphone to 24 provide your comments, state your name and 25 affiliation, if there is any, and we ask that just one NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
3 1 person at a time speak so we can get a clean 2 transcript of this meeting, and if you could all just 3 check and make sure that your cell phones are turned 4 off at this time, so we don't have any distractions or 5 interruptions.
6 And with that, Jessie.
7 MS. MUIR: Good evening. Thank you all 8 for taking the time to come to this meeting this 9 evening. I hope the information we provide you will 10 help you to understand the process we're going 11 through, what we've done so far, and the role you can 12 play in helping us make sure that the final EIS is 13 accurate.
14 I'd like to start off briefly by going 15 over the agenda and the purpose of tonight's meeting.
16 We're going to present preliminary 17 findings of our environmental review, which assesses 18 the impacts associated with renewing the operating 19 license for FitzPatrick.
20 Then we'll give you some information about 21 the schedule for the remainder of our review, and how 22 you can submit comments in the future.
23 And then finally, really, the most 24 important part of tonight's meeting, is where we 25 receive any comments that you may have. Next slide.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
4 1 The Atomic Energy Act gives the NRC the 2 authority to issue operating licenses to commercial 3 nuclear power plants for a period of up to 40 years.
4 For FitzPatrick, that license will expire 5 in 2014. Our regulations make provisions for 6 extending plant operation for an additional 20 years.
7 FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, owned and operated by 8 Entergy, has requested license renewal.
9 As part of the NRC's review of that 10 license renewal application, we perform an 11 environmental review to look at the impacts of an 12 additional 20 years of operation.
13 We held a meeting here, in October of 14 2006, to seek input regarding the issues we needed to 15 evaluate. Now we are here to present the preliminary 16 results in the Draft Supplemental EIS, and afterwards, 17 we'll open the floor for comments on the draft 18 document.
19 All right. This slide illustrates the 20 environmental review process. This review, which is 21 the subject of today's meeting, evaluates the impacts 22 of license renewal. It involves scoping activities 23 and the development of a document called the 24 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, or an 25 EIS.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 1 The Draft EIS provides the staff's 2 preliminary assessment of environmental impacts during 3 the period of extended operation. The Draft EIS for 4 FitzPatrick was published for comment in June. Next 5 slide.
6 Next, I would like to give a little 7 information on the statute that governs the 8 environmental review, and that statute is NEPA, or the 9 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
10 NEPA requires that all federal agencies 11 follow a systematic approach in evaluating potential 12 environmental impacts associated with certain actions.
13 We, at the NRC, are required to consider 14 the impacts of the proposed action, in this case 15 license renewal, and also any mitigation for those 16 impacts.
17 We are also required to consider 18 alternatives to the proposed action.
19 The NRC has determined that an EIS will be 20 prepared for any proposed license renewal of a nuclear 21 power plant. NEPA and our EIS are disclosure tools.
22 They're specifically structured to involve public 23 participation and obtain public comment. This meeting 24 facilitates the public participation in our 25 environmental review.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
6 1 In the 1990's, the NRC staff developed a 2 Generic EIS that addresses a number of issues common 3 to all nuclear plants. As a result of that analysis, 4 the NRC was able to determine that a number of 5 environmental issues were common to or similar for all 6 nuclear power plants.
7 The staff is supplementing that Generic 8 EIS with a site-specific EIS that addresses issues 9 specific to the FitzPatrick facility.
10 So together, the Generic EIS and the 11 supplemental EIS form the staff's analysis of the 12 environmental impacts of license renewal for the 13 FitzPatrick site.
14 Also during the review, the NRC staff 15 looks for and evaluates any new and significant 16 information that might call into question the 17 conclusions that were previously reached in the 18 Generic EIS. In addition, the staff searches for new 19 issues not already addressed in the Generic EIS.
20 This slide is our decision standard for 21 the environmental review, and simply put, is license 22 renewal acceptable from an environmental standpoint?
23 Next slide.
24 We use information we received in the 25 environmental report submitted as part of Entergy's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
7 1 license renewal application. We conducted an audit in 2 December of last year, where we toured the facility, 3 observed plant systems, and evaluated the interaction 4 of the plant operation with the environment.
5 We talked to plant personnel and reviewed 6 specific documentation. We also spoke to federal, 7 state, and local officials, permitting authorities and 8 social services. We also consider the comments 9 received during the public scoping period.
10 All of this information forms the basis of 11 our preliminary conclusions presented in the Draft 12 Supplemental EIS. Next slide.
13 And this slide just shows some of the 14 various disciplines that are included in our team.
15 In the mid 1990's, the NRC evaluated the 16 impacts of all operating nuclear power plants across 17 the U.S. NRC looked at 92 separate impact areas, and 18 found that for 69 of these areas, the impacts were the 19 same for all plants with similar features.
20 The NRC called these Category 1 issues and 21 they were able to make generic conclusions, that all 22 the impacts on the environment would be small. The NRC 23 published these conclusions in the Generic EIS in 24 1996.
25 The NRC was unable to make similar NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
8 1 determinations for the remaining 23 issues, and as a 2 consequence, NRC decided that we would prepare a 3 supplemental EIS for each plant, to address the 4 remaining 23 issues, and this slide lists some of the 5 major impact areas addressed for FitzPatrick. Next 6 slide.
7 This slide outlines how impacts are 8 quantified. The Generic EIS defined three impact 9 levels--small, moderate and large. I'm going to use 10 the fishery in Lake Ontario to illustrate how we use 11 these three terms.
12 The operation of the FitzPatrick plant may 13 cause a loss of fish at the intake structure. If the 14 loss of fish is so small, that it cannot be detected 15 in relation to the total population in Lake Ontario, 16 the impact would be small.
17 If losses cause the population to decline, 18 and then stabilize at a lower level, the impact would 19 be moderate.
20 If losses at the intake cause the fish 21 population to decline to the point where it cannot be 22 stabilized, and continually declines, then the impact 23 would be large.
24 Now the first set of issues I'm going to 25 talk about relate to the cooling system for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
9 1 FitzPatrick. There are three Category 2 issues 2 relevant to the cooling system. These are 3 entrainment, impingement and heat shock.
4 Entrainment refers to the process where 5 very small aquatic organisms are pulled into the 6 cooling system. The majority of these organisms 7 experience mortality due to physical, chemical, or 8 thermal impacts.
9 Impingement refers to larger organisms 10 being pulled into the cooling system and getting 11 pinned on the debris screen. Impinged organisms 12 generally experience a lower mortality rate than 13 entrainment.
14 Heat shock, the third Category 2 issue 15 related to the cooling system, refers to when 16 relatively warm water is released into a colder 17 environment. Aquatic organisms adapted to the cooler 18 water can lose equilibrium, or die, when exposed to 19 warmer water. The team evaluated these three impact 20 areas and our preliminary conclusion is that the 21 FitzPatrick cooling system could have a small impact 22 on the fishery in Lake Ontario.
23 Radiological impacts are a Category 1 24 issue. This means the NRC has made a generic 25 determination that the impact of radiological releases NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 1 from normal nuclear plant operations during the period 2 of extended operation is small.
3 By design, the operation of nuclear power 4 plants is expected to result in small releases of 5 radiological effluents. FitzPatrick is no exception.
6 During our site audit, we looked at 7 selected parts of the radioactive effluent release and 8 radiological environmental monitoring programs, and 9 supporting documentation.
10 We looked at how the gaseous and liquid 11 effluents are controlled, treated, monitored and 12 released, as well as how solid radioactive wastes are 13 handled, packaged and shipped. We looked at how the 14 applicant's radiation protection program maintains 15 radiological releases in compliance with the 16 regulations for radioactive effluents.
17 We also looked at the applicant's data 18 from on-site and near-site environmental radiological 19 monitoring station locations for airborne releases and 20 direct radiation, as well as monitoring stations 21 beyond the plant site where water, milk, fish, and 22 food products are sampled.
23 Based on our review of the data, we found 24 that the calculated dose to the maximally-exposed 25 member of the public to be well within the NRC's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
11 1 radiation protection limit.
2 The dose of the maximally-exposed member 3 is a conservative calculation which assumes maximum 4 values associated with an individual who is exposed 5 from radiation sources from the plant.
6 Since releases from the plant are not 7 expected to increase on a year to year basis during 8 the period of extended operation, and since we also 9 found no new and significant information related to 10 this issue, we preliminarily adopted the generic 11 conclusion that the radiological impact on human 12 health and the environment is small.
13 There are no aquatic species, federally 14 listed as threatened and/or endangered, that have the 15 potential to occur in the vicinity of FitzPatrick or 16 its transmission lines; however, there are five 17 terrestrial species. We prepared a detailed 18 biological assessment to analyze the effects of 19 continued operation of FitzPatrick on these listed 20 terrestrial species.
21 The staff's preliminary determination is 22 that the impacts during the period of extended 23 operation, on threatened or endangered species, would 24 be small.
25 There are two classes of accidents NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
12 1 evaluated in the Generic EIS, design-basis accidents 2 and severe accidents. Design-basis accidents are 3 those accidents that the plant is designed to 4 withstand without risk to the public. The ability of 5 the plant to withstand these accidents has to be 6 demonstrated before the plant is granted a license.
7 Because the licensee has to demonstrate 8 acceptable plant performance for the design-basis 9 accidents through the life of the plant, the 10 Commission found in the Generic EIS, that the 11 environmental impacts of design-basis accidents is 12 small for all plants.
13 The second category of accidents is severe 14 accidents. Severe accidents are, by definition, more 15 severe than design-basis accidents because they would 16 result in substantial damage to the reactor core.
17 The Commission found, in the Generic EIS, 18 that the risk of a severe accident is small for all 19 plants. Nevertheless, the Commission determined that 20 alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be 21 considered for all plants that have not done so.
22 These are called SAMAs, Severe Accident Mitigation 23 Alternatives.
24 The SAMA evaluation is a Category 2 issue 25 and thus requires a site-specific analysis.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
13 1 The purpose of the SAMA evaluation is to 2 ensure that plant changes with the potential for 3 changing severe accident safety performance are 4 identified and evaluated.
5 The scope of potential plant improvements 6 considered included hardware modifications, procedural 7 changes, training program improvements, and basically 8 a full spectrum of potential changes. The scope 9 includes SAMAs that would prevent core damage as well 10 as SAMAs that would improve containment performance, 11 if a core damage event occurs.
12 The preliminary results of the FitzPatrick 13 SAMA evaluation are summarized on this slide.
14 239 potential SAMA candidate improvements 15 were identified for FitzPatrick. That number was 16 reduced to 63, based on a multi-step screening 17 process. Then a more detailed assessment of the risk 18 reduction potential, and implementation cost, were 19 performed for each of the 63 SAMAs.
20 Six SAMAs were identified as potentially 21 cost-beneficial. None of the potentially cost-22 beneficial SAMAs, however, are related to the managing 23 of effects of plant aging during the period of 24 extended operation. Accordingly, they are not required 25 to be implemented as part of license renewal.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
14 1 Regardless, Entergy is encouraged to consider, and 2 evaluate further, the potentially cost-beneficial 3 SAMAs. In fact, Entergy has indicated that one SAMA 4 has already been implemented, one is scheduled for the 5 end of this year, and the other four have been 6 combined into a single project undergoing an in-house 7 review.
8 Cumulative impacts are the impacts of the 9 proposed action, in this case license renewal, taken 10 together with other past, present, or reasonably 11 foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency 12 or person undertakes those actions.
13 The cumulative impacts were evaluated for 14 the period of extended operation. Our preliminary 15 determination is that any cumulative impacts resulting 16 from continued operation of FitzPatrick would be small 17 for all resources.
18 And as part of the environmental review 19 process, we also evaluated a number of alternatives to 20 license renewal. Specifically, we looked at the 21 impacts of replacing FitzPatrick power, approximately 22 880 megawatts, with power from other sources.
23 Alternatives that the team looked at 24 included a "no-action" alternative, that is, not 25 renewing the license. We also looked at replacing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
15 1 FitzPatrick generation with generation from new power 2 plants, either coal, natural gas, or new nuclear. We 3 considered the impacts and capabilities of providing 4 replacement power with purchased power.
5 We also looked at other technologies such 6 as wood, wind, and solar power. Then we looked at a 7 combination of alternatives, including conservation, 8 to replace that capacity.
9 For each alternative, we looked at the 10 same type of issues that we did when we were 11 evaluating the environmental impacts of license 12 renewal.
13 The team's preliminary conclusion is that 14 the environmental impacts of the selected alternatives 15 would reach moderate to large significance in at least 16 some of the categories evaluated.
17 During the environmental review, we found 18 no information that was both new and significant.
19 Therefore, we have preliminarily adopted the Generic 20 EIS conclusion that impacts associated with the 69 21 issues will continue to be small.
22 In the FitzPatrick supplemental EIS, we 23 analyzed the remaining 23 Category 2 issues, and 24 determined that the environmental impact resulting 25 from these issues was also small in all categories.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
16 1 During our analysis, we found that the 2 environmental impacts of alternatives, in at least 3 some impact areas, would reach moderate to large 4 levels of significance. Based on these conclusions, 5 the NRC staff's preliminary recommendation is that the 6 environmental impacts of license renewal are not so 7 great, that license renewal would be unreasonable.
8 Listed are important milestone dates for 9 the FitzPatrick environmental review. In June, the 10 FitzPatrick Draft Supplemental EIS was published. We 11 are currently accepting public comments on the draft 12 until September 5th, and the Final EIS is scheduled to 13 be published in January of next year.
14 This slide identifies me as your primary 15 point of contact with the NRC for the environmental 16 review. Mr. Tommy Lee is the contact for any 17 questions related to the safety review.
18 Documents related to the FitzPatrick 19 review may be found in the Penfield Library on the 20 SUNY Oswego campus, or the Oswego public library. At 21 the bottom of the slide is an Internet address where 22 you can directly access the FitzPatrick Supplemental 23 EIS.
24 And there are several ways you can provide 25 your comments on the FitzPatrick draft. You can NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17 1 provide comments today during the comment period. If 2 perhaps you're not ready to provide comments today, 3 you can send your comments via e-mail to 4 FitzPatrickEIS@nrc.gov. You can also send them via 5 "snail mail" or hand-deliver them to us at the 6 headquarters.
7 And with that, I'm done. I'll hand it 8 over to Rani.
9 MS. FRANOVICH: Okay. Thank you, Jessie.
10 Before we go into comments, let me just 11 ask if anybody has any questions on Jessie's 12 presentation.
13 [No response]
14 MS. FRANOVICH: No questions?
15 Okay. We have one person who registered 16 to comment. Mr. Ken Schwartz. Is Mr. Schwartz here?
17 [No response]
18 MS. FRANOVICH: Okay. Is there anyone who 19 did not register to comment, who would like to comment 20 at this time?
21 [No response]
22 MS. FRANOVICH:
23 Okay. Then that concludes our meeting. Let me 24 just thank everyone for coming. We appreciate your 25 attendance at our meeting, and if you have any NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18 1 questions at the end of the meeting, the staff will be 2 here for a few minutes. You're welcome to come up and 3 ask us any questions you may have.
4 And I wanted to remind everyone that we 5 are accepting comments until September 5th on the 6 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for FitzPatrick.
7 And also, if you have any suggestions for 8 how we can do our meetings in the future, areas we can 9 improve on, things we might want to do different, we 10 have a meeting feedback form in the back of the room.
11 You're welcome to fill one of those out, hand it to a 12 member of the staff, or you can just fold it up and 13 mail it to us. The postage is prepaid.
14 And thanks again for coming.
15 [Whereupon, at 7:18 p.m., the public 16 meeting was concluded.]
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
19 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