ML080390286
| ML080390286 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 01/30/2008 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML080460469 | List: |
| References | |
| NRC-1991 | |
| Download: ML080390286 (37) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Draft EIS, Public Meeting Afternoon Session Location: Apex, North Carolina Date: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 Work Order No.: NRC-1991 Pages 1-36 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 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 5 SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 1 6 PUBLIC MEETING 7 + + + + +
8 Wednesday, 9 January 30, 2008 10 + + + + +
11 Apex, North Carolina 12 13 The Public Meeting was held at 1:30 p.m. in the 14 New Horizons Fellowship, 820 Williams Street, Apex, 15 North Carolina, Lance Rakovan, Facilitator, presiding.
16 17 APPEARANCES:
18 SAM HERNANDEZ - NRC 19 MAURICE HEATH - NRC 20 ERIC BENNER - NRC 21 LOUISE LUND - NRC 22 MIKE KING - NRC 23 John Runkle - NCWARN 24 Paul Barth - New Hill Community Assoc.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
2 1 A-G-E-N-D-A 2 WELCOME AND OPENING REMARKS 3 3 OVERVIEW OF LICENSE RENEWAL PROCESS 6 4 PUBLIC COMMENTS 21 5 CLOSING REMARKS 31 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
3 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 1:30 p.m.
3 FACILITATOR RAKOVAN: Good afternoon, 4 everyone. My name is Lance Rakovan, and it is my 5 pleasure to serve as the facilitator for today's 6 meeting.
7 Today we are here to discuss the draft 8 environmental impact statement for the license renewal 9 of the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant Unit 1. Our 10 purpose, specifically, is to receive comments on the 11 draft supplemental environmental impact statement or 12 DSEIS, which is 33 to the generic environmental impact 13 statement for license renewal of nuclear power plants, 14 otherwise known as NUREG 1437.
15 Before we kind of kick things off I wanted 16 to take a moment to let you know what to expect from 17 this afternoon's meeting, as well as go over a few 18 ground rules.
19 We are going to start off, today, by 20 having some presentations by Sam Hernandez. Sam is an 21 environmental project manager at the NRC, or Nuclear 22 Regulatory Commission.
23 He has been with the NRC for about four 24 and a half years, working on environmental reviews, 25 specifically. He has a bachelor's in chemical NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
4 1 engineering from the University of Puerto Rico, and a 2 master's in environmental engineering from the 3 University of Maryland.
4 Once Sam has a chance to give us a few 5 presentations, specifically on the results of the 6 environmental review, and how you can submit comments 7 we are, essentially, going to open things up to 8 questions and, of course, to receive comments from the 9 public.
10 Now, at this point, I only have one person 11 who specifically signed up to speak. But, again, we 12 are going to open things up. So if you did not find 13 one of the yellow cards when you came in, you will 14 certainly have an opportunity to ask questions or 15 speak once we open things up.
16 We are taking a transcript of today's 17 meeting, which is one of the reasons I'm using a 18 microphone, even though we probably have a small 19 enough crowd that I wouldn't have to use one.
20 So if you do plan to make a comment, or 21 ask a question, you can come up and use a mike that we 22 have in the center, or you can come up and use the 23 mike here at the podium.
24 Essentially the first time that you ask a 25 question or comment, we would like you to identify NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
5 1 yourself and any organizations you are with. And, 2 this way, it allows us to kind of, you know, make sure 3 that we know who made a specific comment.
4 I'm going to ask that only one person 5 speaks at a time and, also, that we try to keep side 6 conversations to a minimum. And this allows us to get 7 a clean transcript and make sure that the transcriber 8 can, you know, follow the conversations and get all 9 the discussions.
10 A few other people that I wanted to point 11 out before we started, we have Louise Lund, who is the 12 branch chief of projects and license renewal at the 13 Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
14 And up here in the front we also have Eric 15 Benner, who is a branch chief for environmental 16 auditing. We also have Mike King, who is the resident 17 inspector at the Shearon Harris plant. There he is, 18 in the back. Thanks, Mike.
19 Hopefully when you came in, on the table, 20 you got a copy of the slide presentations, and there 21 is, also, a public meeting feedback form. If you 22 could take a moment to fill that out either while you 23 are here, today, or maybe once you have had a chance 24 to think about the meeting a little bit.
25 You can drop that in the mail. It is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
6 1 free, no postage is necessary, and that will get to 2 us. And that will help us kind of, you know, get your 3 input in terms of how we can improve these public 4 meetings.
5 If everybody could please take a moment to 6 silence your cell phones, or any other electronic 7 devices that will, hopefully, minimize the disruption 8 of them going off during the meeting.
9 Also if you don't know where the restrooms 10 are if you leave the meeting room, here, and make a 11 left just keep on going a little bit, and you will see 12 the signs for them.
13 I just wanted to say thank you to the New 14 Horizons Fellowship for letting us use this space. It 15 really does work well for our public meetings.
16 And with that I would like to thank you 17 all in advance for a productive meeting, and I want to 18 turn things over to Sam. Sam?
19 MR. HERNANDEZ: Thank you all for coming, 20 taking the time to come to this meeting. I hope that 21 the information we provide you will help you 22 understand the process we are going through, what 23 we've done so far, and the role you can play in 24 helping us make sure that the final EIS is accurate 25 and complete.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
7 1 I would like to start off by briefly going 2 over the agenda, the purposes of today's meeting.
3 Next slide. We are going to present the preliminary 4 findings of our environmental review, which assesses 5 the impacts associated with renewing the operating 6 license for Shearon Harris.
7 Then we will give you some information 8 about the schedule for the remainder of our review and 9 how you can submit comments in the future.
10 And, finally, the most important part of 11 this meeting is to receive any comments that you may 12 have. Next slide.
13 The Atomic Energy Act gives the Nuclear 14 Regulatory Commission the authority to issue operating 15 licenses to commercial nuclear power plants for a 16 period of up to 40 years.
17 For Shearon Harris that license will 18 expire on 2026. Our regulations make provisions for 19 extending plant operation for an additional 20 years.
20 In a letter dated November 14, 2006, 21 Carolina Power & Light Company, the owner of Shearon 22 Harris, requested that the operating license be 23 renewed for an additional 20 years.
24 As part of the NRC's review of that 25 license renewal application we performed an NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
8 1 environmental review to look at the impacts of an 2 additional 20 years of operation on the environment.
3 We held a meeting here in April 18, 2007, 4 to seek your input regarding the issues we needed to 5 evaluate. Now we are here to present the preliminary 6 results in the draft supplemental environmental impact 7 statement. And, afterwards, we will open the floor up 8 for comments. Next slide.
9 This slide illustrates the environmental 10 review process. This review evaluates the impacts of 11 license renewal. It involves scoping activities, and 12 the development of a document called a supplemental 13 environmental impact statement, or an EIS.
14 The draft supplemental EIS provides the 15 staff a preliminary assessment of the environmental 16 impacts that are in the period of extended operation.
17 The draft supplemental EIS for Shearon 18 Harris was published for public comment in December of 19 2007. Next slide.
20 Next I would like to give some information 21 on the statute that governs the environmental review.
22 And that statute is the National Environmental Policy 23 Act of 1969, commonly referred to as NEPA.
24 NEPA requires that all federal agencies 25 follow a systematic approach in evaluating potential NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
9 1 environmental impacts associated with certain actions.
2 We, at the NRC, are required to consider 3 the impacts of the proposed action which, in this 4 case, is license renewal. We are also required to 5 consider alternatives to the proposed action.
6 The NRC has determined that an EIS will be 7 prepared for any proposed license renewal of a nuclear 8 plant. NEPA, and our EIS, are disclosure tools. They 9 are specifically structured to both offer 10 participation and obtain public comments.
11 This meeting facilitates the public 12 participation in our environmental review. In the 13 1990s the NRC staff developed a generic EIS that 14 addresses a number of issues common to all nuclear 15 power plants.
16 As a result of that analysis the NRC was 17 able to determine that a number of environmental 18 issues were common to, or similar, for all nuclear 19 power plants.
20 The staff is supplementing that generic 21 EIS with a site specific EIS that addresses issues 22 specific to Shearon Harris. Together the generic EIS 23 and the supplemental EIS form the staff's analysis of 24 the environmental impacts of license renewal for the 25 Shearon Harris site.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
10 1 Also, during the review, the NRC staff 2 looks for and evaluates any new and significant 3 information that might call into question the 4 conclusions we reached, previously, in the generic 5 EIS.
6 In addition the staff searches for new 7 issues not already addressed in the generic EIS. Next 8 slide.
9 This is our decision standard for the 10 environmental review. And, simply put, is license 11 renewal acceptable from an environmental standpoint?
12 Next slide.
13 Now, we use the information we receive in 14 the environmental report that was submitted as part of 15 CP&Ls license renewal application. We also conducted 16 an audit, in June of last year, where we toured the 17 facility, we observed plant systems, and evaluated 18 interaction of the plant operations with the 19 environment.
20 We talked to plant personnel and reviewed 21 specific documentation. We also spoke to federal, 22 state, and local officials. Also we considered the 23 comments received during the public scoping period.
24 All of this information forms the basis of 25 our preliminary conclusions presented in the draft NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
11 1 supplemental EIS. Next slide.
2 This slide shows the team expertise that 3 we had for the review of the Shearon Harris 4 environmental review. Next slide.
5 In the mid-1990s the NRC evaluated the 6 impacts of all operating nuclear power plants across 7 the US. The NRC looked at 92 separate impact areas 8 and found that for 69 of those areas, the impacts were 9 the same for all plants with similar features.
10 The NRC called these category 1 issues, 11 and we were able to make generic conclusions that all 12 of the impacts on the environment will be small. The 13 NRC was unable to make similar determinations for the 14 remaining 23 issues.
15 And, as a consequence, the NRC decided 16 that we would prepare a supplemental EIS for each 17 plant to address the remaining 23 issues. This slide 18 lists some of the major impact areas addressed for 19 Shearon Harris. Next slide.
20 This slide outlines how impacts are 21 quantified. In the generic EIS, I'm sorry, the 22 generic EIS defines three impact levels, small, 23 moderate, and large.
24 And I'm going to use a fishery in the 25 Harris reservoir to illustrate how we use these three NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
12 1 terms. The operation of the Shearon Harris plant may 2 cause a loss of fish at the intake structure.
3 If the loss of fish is so small that it 4 cannot be detected in relation to the total population 5 in the Harris reservoir, then the impact would be 6 small.
7 If losses cause the fish population to 8 decline, but then stabilize at a lower level, the 9 impact would be moderate. If losses at the intake 10 cause fish population to decline to the point where it 11 cannot be stabilized, or continually declines, then 12 the impact would be large. Next slide.
13 The first set of issues I'm going to talk 14 about relate to the cooling system. All cooling 15 system impacts applicable to Shearon Harris are 16 category 1 issues.
17 This means the NRC has made a generic 18 determination that the impacts from normal nuclear 19 plant operations, during the period of extended 20 operation, are small.
21 Since releases from the plant are not 22 expected to increase in a year to year basis, during 23 the period of extended operation, and since we also 24 found no new and significant information related to 25 this issue, we have preliminarily adopted the generic NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
13 1 conclusion that the impacts are small. Next slide.
2 Radiological impacts are a category 1 3 issue. This means that the NRC has made a generic 4 determination that the impact of radiological 5 releases, from normal nuclear power plant operations, 6 during the period of extended operation, is small.
7 By design the operation of nuclear power 8 plants is expected to result in small releases of 9 radiological effluents. Shearon Harris is no 10 exception.
11 During our site audit we looked at 12 selected parts of the radioactive effluents release 13 and radiological environmental monitoring programs, 14 and supporting documentation. We looked at how the 15 gaseous and liquid effluents are controlled, treated, 16 monitored, and released, as well as how solid 17 radioactive wastes are handled, packaged, and shipped.
18 We looked at how the applicant radiation 19 protection program maintains radiological releases in 20 compliance with the regulations for radioactive 21 effluents.
22 We also looked at the applicant's data 23 from on-site, and near site environmental radiological 24 monitoring station, station locations, for urban 25 releases, and direct radiation, as well as monitoring NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
14 1 stations beyond the plant site where water, milk, 2 fish, and products are sampled.
3 Based on our review of the data we found 4 that the calculated dose to the maximally exposed 5 member of the public to be well within the NRC's 6 radiation protection limit.
7 The dose of the maximally exposed person 8 is a conservative calculation which assumes maximum 9 values associated with an individual who is exposed, 10 from all radiation sources, from the plant.
11 Since releases from the plant are not 12 expected to increase on a year to year basis, during 13 the period of extended operation, and since we also 14 found no new and significant information related to 15 this issue, we have preliminarily adopted the generic 16 conclusion that the radiological impact on human 17 health, and the environment, is small. Next slide.
18 There are no aquatic species federally 19 listed as endangered, as threatened or endangered, 20 that have the potential to occur in the vicinity of 21 the Shearon Harris plant, or its transmission lines.
22 However, there are two terrestrial species 23 identified as historically occurring on or near the 24 Harris site, or its associated transmission lines.
25 The NRC staff contacted the U.S. Fish and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
15 1 Wildlife Service, as well as the North Carolina 2 National Heritage Program. Both entities indicated 3 that the proposed project would not adversely affect 4 any federally listed endangered or threatened species.
5 The staff's preliminary determination is 6 that the impacts during the period of extended 7 operation of Shearon Harris and its associated 8 transmission lines on threatened or endangered species 9 would be small. Next slide.
10 Postulated accidents. There are two 11 classes of accidents evaluated in the generic EIS, 12 design basis accidents, and severe accidents. Design 13 basis accidents are those accidents that the plant is 14 designed to withstand without risk to the public.
15 The ability of the plant to withstand 16 these accidents has to be demonstrated before the 17 plant is granted the license. Because the licensee 18 has demonstrated acceptable plant performance for the 19 design basis accidents, through the life of the plant, 20 the 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 severe than design basis accidents, because they would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
16 1 result in a 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 severe accident 8 mitigation alternatives, or SAMAs. The SAMA 9 evaluation is a category 2 issue and thus requires a 10 site-specific analysis. The purpose of the SAMA 11 evaluation is to ensure that plant changes, with the 12 potential for changing severe accident safety 13 performance are identified and evaluated. Next slide.
14 The scope of potential plant improvements 15 considered included hardware modifications, procedural 16 changes, training program improvement and, basically, 17 a full spectrum of potential changes.
18 The scope includes SAMAs that would 19 prevent core damage, as well as SAMAs that would 20 improve containment performance if a core damage event 21 occurs.
22 The preliminary results of the Shearon 23 Harris SAMA evaluation are summarized on this slide.
24 Twenty-two potential SAMA candidate improvements were 25 identified for Shearon Harris. That number was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
17 1 reduced to 20 based on a multi-step screening process.
2 Then a more detailed assessment of the 3 risk reduction potential and implementation costs were 4 performed for each of the 20 SAMAs. Three SAMAs were 5 identified as potentially cost beneficial.
6 None of the potential cost beneficial 7 SAMAs, however, are related to the managing of effects 8 of plant aging during the period of extended 9 operation.
10 Accordingly they are not required to be 11 implemented as part of license renewal. Regardless, 12 CP&L has indicated, in their ER, that they will 13 further evaluate the three potentially cost beneficial 14 SAMAs for possible implementation at Harris. Next 15 slide.
16 Cumulative impacts are the impacts of the 17 proposed action, in this case, license renewal; taken 18 together with other past, present, or reasonably 19 foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency 20 or person undertakes those actions.
21 The NRC staff has identified reasonably 22 foreseeable actions occurring in the future, that are 23 considered in this review for its cumulative impacts 24 on the environment.
25 Among the identified actions, a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
18 1 significant one involves the submittal of an 2 application to build two new nuclear units at the 3 Harris site.
4 This type of application is a combined 5 license. Another significant action involves the 6 construction of a new waste water treatment plant.
7 Letters of intent to submit a combined 8 license application were sent to the NRC by Progress 9 Energy, on February 1st, 2006, and May 31st, 2007.
10 The letters state that a combined license application 11 for the Harris site could be submitted to the NRC 12 during the first quarter of 2008.
13 Submitting the combined license 14 application does not commit Progress Energy to build 15 new nuclear units and does not constitute approval of 16 the proposal by the NRC.
17 If such application is submitted to, and 18 accepted by, the NRC it will be evaluated on its 19 merits. And, after considering and evaluating the 20 environmental and safety implications of the proposal, 21 the NRC will decide whether to approve or deny a 22 license.
23 Should Progress Energy submit the 24 application, receive approval by the NRC, and decide 25 to construct one or two new nuclear power plants, at NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
19 1 the Harris site, the cumulative impacts of this action 2 could range from small to large in the immediate 3 vicinity of the Harris site.
4 The specific cumulative impacts of the 5 combined license action will depend on the actual 6 design, characteristics, and construction practices 7 that could be proposed by the applicant.
8 Such details are not available at this 9 time. But if such application is submitted to the 10 NRC, and accepted, the detailed environmental impacts 11 of the combined license action, at the Harris site, 12 would be analyzed and addressed in a separate 13 environmental impact statement that would be prepared 14 by the NRC staff. Next slide.
15 As part of the environmental review 16 process we also evaluated a number of alternatives to 17 license renewal. Specifically we looked at the 18 impacts of replacing Shearon Harris' power, 19 approximately 900 megawatts, with power from other 20 sources, or by utility conservation.
21 Alternatives that the team looked at 22 included a no-action alternative; that is not renewing 23 the license. We also looked at replacing Shearon 24 Harris generation with generation from new power 25 plants, either coal, natural gas, or new nuclear.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
20 1 We also considered the impacts and 2 capabilities of providing replacement power with 3 purchased power. We looked at other technologies, 4 such as wood, wind, and solar power.
5 Also we looked at a combination of 6 alternatives, including conservation, to replace the 7 capacity generated by Shearon Harris. For each 8 alternative we looked at the same type of issues that 9 we did when we were evaluating the environmental 10 impacts of license renewal.
11 The NRC's preliminary conclusion is that 12 the environmental impacts of likely power-generation 13 alternatives could reach moderate to large 14 significance, in at least some of the categories 15 evaluated.
16 The NRC staff also concluded that 17 conservation, as well as the no-action alternative, 18 would have small impacts on all areas evaluated. Next 19 slide.
20 During the environmental review we found 21 no information that was both new and significant.
22 Therefore we have, preliminarily, adopted the generic 23 EIS conclusions that the impact associated with the 69 24 issues will continue to be small.
25 In the Shearon Harris supplemental EIS we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
21 1 analyzed the remaining 23 category 2 issues that were 2 applicable to Shearon Harris and determined that the 3 environmental impact resulting from these issues was 4 also small in all issues.
5 During our analysis we found that the 6 environmental impacts of alternative, in at least some 7 impact areas, would reach moderate to large levels of 8 significance, with the exception of the conservation 9 and the no-action alternative, which would have small 10 impacts on all areas.
11 Based on these conclusions the NRC's 12 preliminary recommendation is that the environmental 13 impacts of license renewal are not so great that 14 license renewal would be unreasonable. Next slide.
15 Listed here are some important dates for 16 the Shearon Harris environmental review. In December 17 of 2007 we issued the supplemental EIS and we are 18 currently accepting public comments, on the draft, 19 until March 5th.
20 The final supplemental EIS is scheduled to 21 be published by August of this year. Next slide.
22 This slide identifies me as your primary 23 point of contact, with the NRC, for the environmental 24 review. Mr. Maurice Heath is the contact for any 25 questions related to the safety review, which is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
22 1 ongoing.
2 Documents related to the Shearon Harris 3 review may be found at the West Regional library or at 4 the Eva H. Perry library. At the bottom of this slide 5 is the internet address where you can directly access 6 the Shearon Harris supplemental EIS. Next slide.
7 There are several ways you can provide 8 your comments on the Shearon Harris draft 9 environmental impact statement. You can provide your 10 comments, today, during the comment period. If, 11 perhaps, you are not ready to provide your comment 12 today you can send your comment, via email, to the 13 following address: ShearonHarrisEIS@nrc.gov.
14 You can also send your comments via U.S.
15 mail, or you can hand deliver them to us at our 16 headquarters in Maryland.
17 And with that my presentation is 18 concluded.
19 FACILITATOR RAKOVAN: We will go ahead and 20 transition, and open the meeting up to comments at 21 this point. As I said, when the meeting started, I 22 only had one person signed up to speak, so we might as 23 well go ahead and offer that gentleman the opportunity 24 to do so.
25 After he has spoken then we will go ahead NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
23 1 and open the floor up to see if anyone else has any 2 comments or questions.
3 The gentleman who signed up to speak is 4 John Runkle of NCWARN. Do you want to come up and 5 take the podium?
6 MR. RUNKLE: I appreciate the opportunity 7 to speak here and give some comments on the draft EIS.
8 I was kind of surprised how poorly advertised this 9 meeting was, and that I'm not surprised that there 10 aren't a lot of people here that actually have read 11 the draft environmental impact statement and offer 12 comments on it.
13 It seems to be something that people have 14 understood this process, and understood the 15 limitations of it, and it is a done deal, and there is 16 really no question about it.
17 I have a document that I would like to put 18 into the record. It is the Office of Inspector 19 General's Special Inquiry Report that came out last 20 week, looking at the HEMYC fire barriers.
21 And it is relevant to both the 22 environmental side and the safety side. It is, most 23 of you here have probably seen it. It says that for 24 at least 15 years that the NRC and the various nuclear 25 utilities have known that the HEMYC fire barriers are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
24 1 likely to fail, they don't meet the standards.
2 And that six out of the 15 that are of 3 special concern are Progress Energy's and Duke 4 Power's. And that this is something that we raised in 5 the issue of challenging on the safety permit.
6 And I think there is, it continues to be 7 of major concern, and I think you ought to address 8 that, is looking at the different access, and the 9 various SAMAs.
10 This is something that, fire safety is a 11 problem, it is one of the greatest risks to safe 12 shutdown of a nuclear power plant, and you are all not 13 doing anything about it. So we can put that in the 14 record.
15 And looking at the various accidents, and 16 SAMAs, one thing in the design basis accidents that 17 hasn't been addressed is the aircraft threats. I 18 understand that the NRC is going through the process 19 of looking at that again, and coming up with some 20 rules.
21 But certainly you can't say that that 22 issue hasn't been known to both Progress Energy and 23 the NRC for 20 years. And that looking at it there is 24 no plan in the next 20 years to correct that problem, 25 there is no plan to correct the fire problem.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
25 1 And it is hard for us to understand how 2 you can say from the year 2026 to 2046, that there 3 won't be any additional potential for accidents. We 4 know that there is going to be an accident somewhere 5 in this country, from the fire protection, and we are 6 pretty sure that with the way that the world is these 7 days, that there will be an aircraft threat.
8 And neither the safety report, or the 9 environmental impact statement, I think squarely 10 addresses those kinds of impacts. And to say that we 11 are not looking at them because they are in the 12 generic environmental impact statement, we know that 13 the aircraft threats are not part of the generic 14 environmental impact statement.
15 And we know that the fire threats are not 16 in the generic EIS, because they haven't been 17 corrected. There is no resolution of those at this 18 point.
19 Now, having said that, I wanted to talk 20 to, specifically, I mean I'm going to take my time 21 here, since I don't think that we are in that much of 22 a hurry.
23 Looking at the draft environmental impact 24 statement, there are really two fatal flaws to it.
25 One is that it is complete with these fairly bald NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
26 1 assertions that there is not going to be any problem, 2 or not be any impacts.
3 But there is no supporting documentation 4 for a lot of those statements. There are a couple of 5 references back to the environmental assessment that 6 Progress Energy put in, but there is very little 7 things to back out the statement that, you know, that 8 there is not going to be an impact on different kinds 9 of environmental thing.
10 Looking at this time period, from 2026 to 11 2046, the population of this area is going to increase 12 dramatically. You know, the population within the ten 13 mile emergency planning zone is 12 to 15,000 now, it 14 easily could go up to 100,000.
15 Certainly with the extension of the outer 16 beltway around Raleigh, the 540 coming to the 17 southwest Wake County, if anything there is going to 18 be more and more people moving into this.
19 So there will be a considerable more 20 impact from anything that happens at the power plant.
21 With the increasing population, increasing aging 22 population, we cannot say that the impacts from the 23 source term, or the likely accidents, is not going to 24 impact people.
25 The design person, as I understand it, is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
27 1 still a fairly young, healthy adult male, instead of 2 an elderly person, or even a young person, or somebody 3 that has chronic illnesses.
4 So to be able to make the assertion, 5 without any kind of documentation, of these changing 6 circumstances, that are going to happen in this area 7 from 2026 to 2046, I think is a fatal flaw.
8 We know what some of those impacts are 9 going to be. This year there has been severe drought 10 in this area, water use has been severely restricted.
11 Looking at Harris Lake as an example, it certainly is 12 at the margin of how much water can be used.
13 Luckily there was a shutdown during the 14 summer, for other reasons. And if it hadn't been 15 shutdown, levels could have been at an extreme 16 criticality at the plant.
17 And we are looking from 2026 to 2046. The 18 draft environmental impact statement does not address, 19 at all, any changes of climate, climate change. It 20 does not look at whether those droughts are going to 21 be more severe, whether the weather patterns are going 22 to change; whether there will be any differences in 23 the environment.
24 I think that is reasonably foreseeable, of 25 water use in that time period. By 2046, and if we are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
28 1 going to extend, if the NRC is going to extend the 2 operating license for this plant, from 2026 to 2046, 3 you have to address those foreseeable changes. And 4 you are going to have to address climate change in it.
5 And you have to be able to document that, 6 in the environmental impact statement. And the 7 changes with the increasing population will have a 8 complete change in land use.
9 And this is not addressed. To be able to 10 say that to look at impacts, cumulative impacts and 11 say, well we don't expect that there would be any 12 difference in plant operation, but knowing that 13 surrounding the plant will be considerably more people 14 that we are using the land different, and more aged 15 population, a lot more traffic potentially, a whole 16 lot of different kinds of things.
17 So that is, I think, a fatal flaw. So the 18 two fatal flaws are, you know, these sort of bald 19 assertions without the supporting documentation, and 20 not taking a realistic look at the area around the 21 plant, from the 2026 to 2046.
22 This is specially galling, because when we 23 raised issues on the safety side of these proceedings, 24 we could only look at differences in the plant from 25 2026 to 2046. Yet in the environmental impact NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
29 1 statement that is, that is glossed over.
2 And to say that, I mean, the basic 3 assumption is that there won't be any change in land 4 use, and population, and water use in this plant, 5 water use in this area from the time period.
6 Now, looking at the alternatives, just 7 very quickly, I think that the analysis is extremely 8 limited in looking at the conservation side, to only 9 look at utility sponsored conservation.
10 And that was probably the easiest for you 11 all to look at because several studies conducted in 12 the last year, part of the General Assembly, or the 13 North Carolina Utilities Commission, looked at a 14 substantial reduction of energy use in this area, and 15 our Senate Bill 3 from the session mandated 16 reductions, mandated the change of different 17 alternative sources of energy.
18 But to only limit the review to utility 19 sponsored conservation ignores the real potential for 20 conservation that people will do. I mean, looking at 21 what builders are doing, and they are bringing house 22 movements, looking at the changes in office spaces, in 23 schools, and commercial and institutional buildings, 24 there is a real potential for conservation that will 25 not be utility sponsored.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
30 1 And to say that the only conservation that 2 is an alternative to extending the nuclear power 3 plant, is just utility sponsored, I think is something 4 that needs to be corrected when you issue the final 5 environmental impact statement.
6 Lastly I always look at these kinds of 7 things to look for tritium. Tritium is a major, I 8 think, radioactive pollutant that comes out of a 9 nuclear power plant, part of the source term.
10 But it certainly is -- that cycle needs to 11 be, I think, specifically looked at, and analyzed, at 12 the nuclear power plant; how much tritium is getting 13 into the Harris Lake, into the groundwater, into the 14 atmosphere, and what are those impacts on the 15 environment, including the human environment.
16 And, again, that goes back to if we are 17 looking at the time period from 2026 to 2046, we have 18 to look at the potential increase in the number of 19 people, in the area, and what will be the effect of 20 tritium.
21 I'm just using that for an example, but 22 looking through this to follow-up, you know, any kind 23 of these pathways of radioactivity to people.
24 So, in conclusion, there are fatal flaws 25 in the draft environmental impact statement that the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
31 1 NRC should not be able to base any kind of decision 2 whether to grant this license extension or not, based 3 on what this is worth.
4 This is -- I don't even think it is a fair 5 start. So there is a lot of work to be done, and I 6 see that there is a deadline for some time that you 7 are going to issue a final environmental impact 8 statement.
9 The studies that need to be done, to get a 10 realistic look, I don't think you all can finish in 11 that time. And if you issue something just because 12 you have a deadline, that it is still flawed and is 13 still insufficient, that is even less of a reason why 14 to rely on it.
15 So, thank you, I would be glad to answer 16 questions or talk to anybody further about it. Thank 17 you.
18 FACILITATOR RAKOVAN: Thank you, sir.
19 MR. RUNKLE: Actually, I don't know if I 20 introduced myself when I got up there.
21 FACILITATOR RAKOVAN: I introduced you, 22 but go ahead.
23 MR. RUNKLE: John Runkle, attorney for the 24 North Carolina Waste Awareness and Reduction Network.
25 Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
32 1 FACILITATOR RAKOVAN: Thank you. And I 2 did give your document directly to the transcriber.
3 So that will be included in the transcription for the 4 meeting.
5 Given that that was the only person who 6 had signed up to speak, I will go ahead and open the 7 floor now, if there is anyone else who has a question, 8 or comments that they would like to make?
9 (No response.)
10 FACILITATOR RAKOVAN: Seeing that it is 11 quiet -- Eric, would you like to do a summary? Why 12 don't you come on up to the podium, please.
13 Why don't you introduce yourself, please?
14 MR. BENNER: I'm Eric Benner, I'm plants 15 chief that oversees the environmental review for 16 license renewal. And we do appreciate the one comment 17 we received.
18 We probably will get more in the comment 19 period. One thing I want to clarify, because the 20 comment kind of struck a chord with me, when you say 21 that there are something like fatal flaws.
22 I want to point out that the purpose of 23 the environmental impact statement is to look at the 24 environmental impacts associated with relicensing the 25 facility.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
33 1 And what that really means are what are 2 the impacts of the plant operating for an additional 3 20 years. So when you look at things like off-site 4 land use, or housing, or what not, really what we are 5 looking at is, are there going to be, specifically in 6 those areas what we look at is, is the plant going to 7 have to hire any additional people to operate for an 8 additional 20 years, such that those additional people 9 moving into the area would impact things like housing 10 developments and public transportation.
11 So I just want to make it clear that the 12 purpose of the EIS isn't to look at all of the 13 environmental impacts that are going to occur over 14 that 20 year period; it is to look at the 15 environmental impacts associated with operation of the 16 plant.
17 That was, really, the only clarifying 18 statement I wanted to make. So with that, certainly, 19 we are open to comments. If anyone here has questions 20 they want to ask of any of us, of the staff, we are 21 going to be hanging around here, and will be here in 22 the evening, also.
23 And any of us are available, if you come 24 up with a thought, or a question, or a comment, even 25 after this meeting, we are here to serve. So we would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
34 1 like to respond to those in any way we can.
2 FACILITATOR RAKOVAN: Yes, sir. Do you 3 want to come up to the podium, or use the mike? You 4 need to use the microphone so we can get you in the 5 transcript, please.
6 MR. BARTH: There was a kind of mention, 7 earlier on in the presentation, something to do with 8 the sewage plant, and I really wasn't sure what that 9 meant as far as the impact it has on the license 10 renewal?
11 Or is that in conjunction with cumulative 12 impacts, if you add more reactors?
13 FACILITATOR RAKOVAN: Sam, do you want to 14 take that one?
15 MR. HERNANDEZ: Yes. That is included in 16 the spectrum of things that were considered for 17 cumulative impacts. So, yes, it was included for 18 cumulative impacts.
19 MR. BARTH: So you are looking at the 20 proposed sewage plant as it would affect the 21 community, and also as it applies to the license 22 renewal?
23 MR. HERNANDEZ: How that, in conjunction 24 with license renewal, would affect the resources, like 25 water quality on Harris Reservoir.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
35 1 PARTICIPANT: And that discussion is in 2 this document?
3 MR. HERNANDEZ: Yes.
4 MR. BARTH: Okay, thank you.
5 FACILITATOR RAKOVAN: Any other questions 6 or comments?
7 (No response.)
8 FACILITATOR RAKOVAN: Sam, do you want to 9 take a moment to close out the meeting?
10 MR. HERNANDEZ: I would like to thank 11 everyone for coming in. And if you have any comment, 12 anything that you think we missed in the document, or 13 anything that you think we could do to improve it, we 14 would be really happy to accept that.
15 That is, really, the purpose of why we are 16 here meeting with the public.
17 FACILITATOR RAKOVAN: Sam, how can people 18 see the transcript? Are we going to post that on 19 line, or --
20 MR. HERNANDEZ: Yes, we will make a 21 meeting summary of this meeting, and in that it will 22 include the transcripts. And if you want to receive a 23 copy of that, if you registered when you came in, and 24 you gave your address, we will make sure that you get 25 a copy of that.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
36 1 And, also, if you also gave your address, 2 when you registered, we will also make sure that you 3 get a copy of the final EIS.
4 FACILITATOR RAKOVAN: Thanks, Sam.
5 MR. HERNANDEZ: Yes, I'm sorry. And any 6 comment that you submit we will respond to that 7 comment, either make a change on our draft EIS, or 8 disposition of the comment. And that will be done on 9 the final EIS.
10 FACILITATOR RAKOVAN: Thanks, Sam. And as 11 has been said, we are going to have plenty of NRC 12 people hanging out now, and if you have any questions.
13 Also we have another meeting tonight, so if you want 14 to come and see if we get a better turnout, and what 15 those particular people have to say, or questions that 16 they ask of course you are more than welcome to come 17 back.
18 So with that, I guess we will close the 19 meeting.
20 (Whereupon, at 2:20 p.m., the above-21 entitled meeting was concluded.)
22 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com