ML080460126
| ML080460126 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 01/30/2008 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML080460469 | List: |
| References | |
| NRC-1991 | |
| Download: ML080460126 (25) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Draft EIS, Public Meeting Evening Session Location: Apex, North Carolina Date:
Wednesday, January 30, 2008 Work Order No.:
NRC-1991 Pages 1-24 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 4
SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 1 5
PUBLIC MEETING 6
+ + + + +
7 Wednesday, 8
January 30, 2008 9
+ + + + +
10 Apex, North Carolina 11 12 The Public Meeting was held at 7:00 p.m. in the 13 New Horizons Fellowship, 820 Williams Street, Apex, 14 North Carolina, Lance Rakovan, Facilitator, presiding.
15 16 APPEARANCES:
17 SAM HERNANDEZ - NRC 18 MAURICE HEATH - NRC 19 ERIC BENNER - NRC 20 LOUISE LUND - NRC 21 22 23
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
A-G-E-N-D-A 1
WELCOME AND OPENING REMARKS 4
2 OVERVIEW OF LICENSE RENEWAL PROCESS 6
3 CLOSING REMARKS 22 4
5 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
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
7:00 p.m.
2 FACILITATOR RAKOVAN:
Good
- evening, 3
everyone. My name is Lance Rakovan, and it is my 4
pleasure to facilitate tonight's meeting. I work in 5
the office of the Executive Director of Operations at 6
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
7 And I'm here, basically, to kind of kick 8
things off, lay down some ground rules, and just kind 9
of let you know what to expect tonight.
10 Of course, today we are here to discuss 11 the draft environmental impact statement for the 12 license renewal of the Shearon Harris nuclear power 13 plant Unit 1. Our purpose, really, is both to convey 14 a little information, but then to get comments on the 15 draft supplemental environmental impact statement.
16 It is, actually number 33 to the generic 17 environmental impact statement for license renewal of 18 nuclear plants, also known as NUREG 1437.
19 We are going to start off, tonight, with a 20 presentation that is going to go over the results of 21 the environmental review, and how you can submit 22 comments to the process. And then we are essentially 23 going to open the meeting up to any questions or 24 comments from the, unfortunately, few members of the 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 4
public that we have here.
1 I don't believe anyone signed up a red 2
card, specifically, to comment. But that is okay, 3
given the small number of people that we have here, 4
when we open the floor, we will just take hands, or 5
kind of figure out how we want to move on that way.
6 We are taking a transcript of tonight's 7
meeting, so that if comments are made we will have it 8
written down. So if anybody is going to comment, I'm 9
going to ask them to use a microphone, either the one 10 that is situated in the center of the room, or the one 11 here at the podium.
12 If the first time you come up to the 13 microphone, if you could introduce yourself, let us 14 know who you
- are, that will give us a
good 15 understanding of who said what at the meeting.
16 Also I'm going to ask that if you need to 17 have a side conversation, or anything like that, just 18 go ahead and take it out back, that way we can get a 19 clean transcript without a lot of noise in the 20 background.
21 Our primary speaker tonight is Mr. Sam 22 Hernandez. Sam is an environmental project manager at 23 the NRC, he has been with the NRC for about four and a 24 half
- years, working on environmental
- reviews, 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 5
specifically. He has a bachelor's in chemical 1
engineering from the University of Puerto Rico, and a 2
master's in environmental engineering from the 3
University of Maryland.
4 A few other people that I wanted to point 5
out. We have Louise Lund, she is the branch chief of 6
projects of license renewal. And Eric Benner, who is 7
the branch chief in environmental auditing, both at 8
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
9 Hopefully, when you came in, you signed up 10 at the table, and grabbed a copy of the slides 11 tonight. Also on the table was a stack of public 12 meeting feedback forms. If you have any suggestions 13 about tonight's meeting, some stuff you liked, stuff 14 you didn't like, please take a moment to fill that 15 out, either before you leave, and give it to one of us 16 NRC types, or drop it in the mail afterwards.
17 It is free postage, it will get to us, and 18 it really help us kind of focus on what we can do to 19 improve this process.
20 If everybody could please take a moment to 21 silence your cell phones, or any other electronic 22 devices are silenced, that will help cut down on 23 distractions during the meeting.
24 If you need to take a restroom break, if 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 6
you just leave the doors, take a left, and keep on 1
walking, you will see where those are.
2 Other than that, I just wanted to say 3
thank you to the New Horizons Fellowship for letting 4
us use this space. This is a great space, and I would 5
like to thank you in advance for making this a 6
productive meeting. Sam, it is all yours.
7 MR. HERNANDEZ: Thank you all for coming, 8
taking the time to come to this meeting. I hope that 9
the information we provide you will help you 10 understand the process that we are going through, what 11 we've done so far, and the role you can play in 12 helping us make sure that the final EIS is accurate 13 and complete.
14 I would like to start off by briefly going 15 over the agenda, and the purposes of today's meeting.
16 Next slide, please.
17 We are going to present the preliminary 18 findings of our environmental review, which assesses 19 the impacts associated with renewing the operating 20 license for Shearon Harris.
21 Then we will give you some information 22 about the schedule for the remainder of the review and 23 how you can submit comments in the future.
24 And, then, we are going to open up the 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 7
floor for comments, and receive any comments you may 1
have on the draft document. Next slide.
2 The Atomic Energy Act gives the Nuclear 3
Regulatory Commission the authority to issue operating 4
licenses to commercial nuclear power plants for a 5
period of up to 40 years.
6 For Shearon Harris that license will 7
expire on 2026. Our regulations make provisions for 8
extending plant operation for an additional 20 years.
9 In a letter dated November 14, 2006, 10 Carolina Power & Light Company, the owner of Shearon 11 Harris nuclear power
- plant, requested that the 12 operating license be renewed for an additional 20 13 years.
14 As part of the NRC's review of that 15 license renewal application we performed an 16 environmental review to look at the impacts of an 17 additional 20 years of operation on the environment.
18 We held a meeting here in April 18, 2007, 19 to seek your input regarding the issues we needed to 20 evaluate. Now we are here to present the preliminary 21 results in the draft supplemental environmental impact 22 statement. And, afterwards, we will open the floor up 23 for comments. Next slide.
24 This slide illustrates the environmental 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 8
review process. This review evaluates the impacts of 1
license renewal. It involves scoping activities, and 2
the development of a document called a supplemental 3
environmental impact statement, or an EIS.
4 The draft supplemental environmental 5
impact statement provides the staff a preliminary 6
assessment of the environmental impacts that are in 7
the period of extended operation.
8 The draft supplemental EIS for Shearon 9
Harris was published for public comment in December of 10 2007. Next slide.
11 Next I would like to give some information 12 on the statute that governs the environmental review.
13 And that statute is the National Environmental Policy 14 Act of 1969, commonly referred to as NEPA.
15 NEPA requires that all federal agencies 16 follow a systematic approach in evaluating potential 17 environmental impacts associated with certain actions.
18 We, at the NRC, are required to consider 19 the impacts of the proposed action which, in this 20 case, is license renewal. We are also required to 21 consider alternatives to the proposed action.
22 The NRC has determined that an EIS will be 23 prepared for any proposed license renewal of a nuclear 24 plant. NEPA, and our EIS, are disclosure tools. They 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 9
are specifically structured to involve public 1
participation and obtain public comments.
2 This meeting facilitates the public 3
participation in our environmental review. In the 4
1990s the NRC staff developed a generic EIS that 5
addresses a number of issues common to all nuclear 6
power plants.
7 As a result of that analysis the NRC was 8
able to determine that a number of environmental 9
issues were common to, or similar, for all nuclear 10 power plants.
11 The staff is supplementing that generic 12 EIS with a site specific EIS that addresses issues 13 specific to the Shearon Harris facility. Together the 14 generic EIS and the supplemental EIS form the staff's 15 analysis of the environmental impacts of license 16 renewal for the Shearon Harris site.
17 Also, during the review, the NRC staff 18 looks for and evaluates any new and significant 19 information that might call into question the 20 conclusions that were previously reached in the 21 generic EIS.
22 In addition the staff searches for new 23 issues not already addressed in the generic EIS. Next 24 slide.
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 10 This slide is our decision standard for 1
the environmental review. And, simply put, is license 2
renewal acceptable from an environmental standpoint?
3 Next slide.
4 Now, we use the information we received in 5
the environmental report that was submitted as part of 6
CP&Ls license renewal application. We also conducted 7
an audit, in June of last year, where we toured the 8
facility, we observed plant systems, and evaluated 9
interaction of the plant operations with the 10 environment.
11 We talked to plant personnel and reviewed 12 specific documentation. We also spoke to federal, 13 state, and local officials. Also we considered the 14 comments that were received during the public scoping 15 period.
16 All of this information forms the basis of 17 our preliminary conclusions presented in the draft 18 supplemental EIS. Next slide.
19 This slide presents the team expertise 20 that we had for the review of the Shearon Harris 21 environmental review. As you can see, we have experts 22 on different areas that encompass what we present in 23 the environmental impact statement. Next slide.
24 In the mid-1990s the NRC evaluated the 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 11 impacts of all operating nuclear power plants across 1
the US. The NRC looked at 92 separate impact areas 2
and found that for 69 of those areas, the impacts were 3
the same for all plants with similar features.
4 The NRC called these category 1 issues, 5
and we were able to make generic conclusions that all 6
of the impacts on the environment would be small. The 7
NRC was unable to make similar determinations for the 8
remaining 23 issues.
9 And, as a consequence, the NRC decided 10 that we would prepare supplemental EIS for each plant 11 to address the remaining 23 issues. This slide lists 12 some of the major impact areas addressed for Shearon 13 Harris. Next slide.
14 This slide outlines how impacts are 15 quantified. In the generic EIS are defined three 16 impact levels, small, moderate, and large.
17 And I'm going to use a fishery in the 18 Harris reservoir to illustrate how we use these three 19 terms. The operation of the Shearon Harris plant may 20 cause a loss of fish at the intake structure.
21 If the loss of fish is so small that it 22 cannot be detected in relation to the total population 23 in the Harris reservoir, then the impact would be 24 small.
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 12 If losses cause the fish population to 1
decline, but then stabilize at a lower level, the 2
impact would be moderate. If losses at the intake 3
cause fish population to decline to the point where it 4
cannot be stabilized, or it continually declines, then 5
the impact would be large. Next slide.
6 The first set of issues I'm going to talk 7
about relate to the cooling system. All cooling 8
system impacts applicable to Shearon Harris are 9
category 1 issues.
10 This means the NRC has made a generic 11 determination that the impacts from normal nuclear 12 plant operations, during the period of extended 13 operation, are small.
14 Since releases from the plant are not 15 expected to increase in a year to year basis, during 16 the period of extended operation, and since we also 17 found no new and significant information related to 18 this issue, we have preliminarily adopted the generic 19 conclusion that the impacts are small. Next slide.
20 Radiological impacts are a category 1 21 issue. This means that the NRC has made a generic 22 determination that the impact of radiological 23 releases, from normal nuclear plant operations, during 24 the period of extended operation, is small.
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 13 By design the operation of nuclear power 1
plants is expected to result in small releases of 2
radiological effluents.
Shearon Harris is no 3
exception.
4 During our site audit we looked at 5
selected parts of the radioactive effluents release 6
and radiological environmental monitoring programs, 7
and supporting documentation.
8 We looked at how the gaseous and liquid 9
effluents are controlled, treated, monitored, and 10 released, as well as how solid radioactive wastes are 11 handled, packaged, and shipped.
12 We looked at how the applicant's radiation 13 protection program maintains radiological releases in 14 compliance with the regulations for radioactive 15 effluents.
16 We also looked at the applicant's data 17 from on-site, and near site environmental radiological 18 monitoring
- station, station locations for urban 19 releases, and direct radiation, as well as monitoring 20 stations beyond the plant site where water, milk, 21 fish, and 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
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 radiation protection limit.
1 The dose of the maximally exposed person 2
is a conservative calculation which assumes maximum 3
values associated with an individual who is exposed, 4
from all 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 have preliminarily adopted the generic 10 conclusion that the radiological impact on human 11 health, and the environment, is small. Next slide.
12 There are no aquatic species federally 13 listed as threatened or endangered, that have the 14 potential to occur in the vicinity of the Shearon 15 Harris plant, or its transmission lines.
16 However, there are two terrestrial species 17 identified as historically occurring on or near the 18 Harris site, or its associated transmission lines.
19 The NRC staff contacted the U.S. Fish and 20 Wildlife Service, as well as the North Carolina 21 National Heritage Program. Both entities indicated 22 that the proposed project would not adversely affect 23 any federally listed endangered or threatened species.
24 The staff's preliminary conclusion is that 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 15 the impacts during the period of extended operation of 1
Shearon Harris and its associated transmission lines 2
on threatened or endangered species would be small.
3 Next slide.
4 There are two classes of accidents 5
evaluated in the generic EIS, design basis accidents, 6
and severe accidents. Design basis accidents are 7
those accidents that the plant is designed to 8
withstand without risk to the public.
9 The ability of the plant to withstand 10 these accidents has to be demonstrated before the 11 plant is granted an initial license. Because the 12 licensee has demonstrated acceptable plant performance 13 for the design basis accidents, throughout the life of 14 the plant, the Commission found, in the generic EIS, 15 that the environmental impacts of design basis 16 accidents is small for all plants.
17 The second category of accidents is severe 18 accidents. Severe accidents are, by definition, more 19 severe than design basis accidents, because they would 20 result in a substantial damage to the reactor core.
21 The Commission found, in the generic EIS, 22 that the risk of a severe accident is small for all 23 plants. Nevertheless the Commission determined that 24 alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be 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 16 considered for all plants that have not done so.
1 These are called severe accident 2
mitigation alternatives, or SAMAs.
The SAMA 3
evaluation is a category 2 issue and thus requires a 4
site-specific review. The purpose of the SAMA 5
evaluation is to ensure that plant changes, with the 6
potential for changing severe accident safety 7
performance are identified and evaluated. Next slide.
8 The scope of potential plant improvements 9
considered included hardware modifications, procedural 10 changes, training program improvements and, basically, 11 a full spectrum of potential changes.
12 The scope includes SAMAs that would 13 prevent core damage, as well as SAMAs that would 14 improve containment performance if a core damage event 15 occurs.
16 The preliminary results of the Shearon 17 Harris SAMA evaluation are summarized in this slide.
18 Twenty-two potential SAMA candidate improvements were 19 identified for Shearon Harris. That number was 20 reduced to 20 based on a multi-step screening process.
21 Then a more detailed assessment of the 22 risk reduction potential and implementation costs were 23 performed for each of the 20 SAMAs. Three SAMAs were 24 identified as potentially cost beneficial.
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 17 None of the potentially cost beneficial 1
SAMAs, however, are related to the managing of effects 2
of plant aging during the period of extended 3
operation.
4 Accordingly they are not required to be 5
implemented as part of license renewal. Regardless, 6
CP&L has indicated, in their ER, that they will 7
further evaluate the three potentially cost beneficial 8
SAMAs for possible implementation at Harris. Next 9
slide.
10 Cumulative impacts are the impacts of the 11 proposed action, in this case, license renewal; taken 12 together with other past, present, or reasonably 13 foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency 14 or person undertakes these actions.
15 The NRC staff has identified reasonably 16 foreseeable actions occurring in the future, that are 17 considered in this review for its cumulative impacts 18 on the environment.
19 Among the identified
- actions, a
20 significant one involves the submittal of an 21 application to build two new nuclear units at the 22 Harris site.
23 This type of application is called a 24 combined license. Another significant action involves 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 18 the construction of a new waste water treatment plant.
1 Letters of intent to submit a combined 2
license application were sent to the NRC by Progress 3
Energy, on February 1st, 2006, and May 31st, 2007.
4 The letters state that a combined license application 5
for the Harris site could be submitted to the NRC 6
during the first quarter of 2008.
7 Submitting the combined license 8
application does not commit Progress Energy to build 9
new nuclear units and does not constitute approval of 10 the proposal by the NRC.
11 If such application is submitted to, and 12 accepted by, the NRC it will be evaluated on its 13 merits. And, after considering and evaluating the 14 environmental and safety implications of the proposal, 15 the NRC will decide whether to approve or deny a 16 license.
17 Should Progress Energy submit the 18 application, receive approval by the NRC, and decide 19 to construct one or two new nuclear power units, at 20 the Harris site, the cumulative impacts of this action 21 could range from small to large in the immediate 22 vicinity of the Harris site.
23 The specific cumulative impacts of the 24 combined license action will depend on the actual 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 19 design, characteristics, and construction practices 1
that could be proposed by the applicant.
2 Such details are not available at this 3
time. But if such application is submitted to the 4
NRC, and accepted, the detailed environmental impacts 5
of the combined license action, at the Harris site, 6
would be analyzed and addressed in a separate 7
environmental impact statement that would be prepared 8
by the NRC staff. Next slide.
9 As part of the environmental review 10 process we also evaluated a number of alternatives to 11 license renewal. Specifically we looked at the 12 impacts of replacing Shearon Harris' power with 13 approximately 900 megawatts, with power from other 14 sources, or by utility conservation.
15 Alternatives that the team looked at 16 included a no-action alternative; that is not renewing 17 the license. We also looked at replacing Shearon 18 Harris' generation with generation from new power 19 plants, either coal, natural gas, or new nuclear.
20 We also considered the impacts and 21 capabilities of providing replacement power with 22 purchased power.
We also looked at other 23 technologies, such as wood, wind, and solar power.
24 Also we looked at a combination of 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 20 alternatives, including conservation, to replace the 1
capacity generated by Shearon Harris. For each 2
alternative we looked at the same type of issues that 3
we did when we were evaluating the environmental 4
impacts of license renewal.
5 The preliminary conclusion is that the 6
environmental impacts of likely power-generation 7
alternatives could reach moderate to large 8
significance in at least some of the categories 9
evaluated.
10 The NRC staff also concluded that 11 conservation, as well as the no-action alternative, 12 would have small impacts on all areas evaluated. Next 13 slide.
14 During the environmental review we found 15 no new information that was both new and significant.
16 Therefore we have, preliminarily, adopted the generic 17 EIS conclusions that the impacts associated with the 18 69 issues, applicable to Shearon Harris will continue 19 to be small.
20 In the Shearon Harris supplemental EIS we 21 analyzed the remaining 23 category 2 issues and 22 determined that the environmental impact resulting 23 from these issues was also small in all issues.
24 During our analysis we found that the 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 21 environmental impacts of alternatives, in at least 1
some impact areas, would reach moderate to large 2
levels of significance, with the exception of the 3
conservation and the no-action alternative, which 4
would have small impacts on all areas.
5 Based on these conclusions the NRC staffs 6
preliminary recommendation is that the environmental 7
impacts of license renewal are not so great that 8
license renewal would be unreasonable. Next slide.
9 Listed here are some important dates for 10 the Shearon Harris environmental review. In December 11 of 2007 we published the supplemental EIS and we are 12 currently accepting public comments, on the draft, 13 until March 5th, of 2008.
14 The final supplemental EIS is scheduled to 15 be published by August of this year. Next slide.
16 This slide identifies me as your primary 17 point of contact, with the NRC, for the environmental 18 review. Mr. Maurice Heath is the contact for any 19 questions related to the safety review.
20 Documents related to the Shearon Harris 21 review may be found at the West Regional library or at 22 the Eva H. Perry library. At the bottom of this slide 23 is the internet address where you can directly access 24 the Shearon Harris supplemental EIS. Next slide.
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 22 There are several ways you can provide 1
your comments on the Shearon Harris draft 2
environmental impact statement. You can provide your 3
comments, today, during the comment period of this 4
meeting. If, perhaps, you are not ready to provide 5
your comment today you can send your comment, via 6
- email, to the following address:
7 ShearonHarrisEIS@nrc.gov.
8 You can also send your written comments 9
via U.S. mail, or you can hand deliver them to us at 10 our headquarters in Maryland.
11 And with that my presentation is 12 concluded.
13 FACILITATOR RAKOVAN: Thanks, Sam. A lot 14 of information that Sam went over definitely 15 understandable. If there is any questions, and we are 16 here primarily to get comments, as Sam was saying, on 17 our draft document.
18 So at this point we want to open up the 19 floor if anyone has any comments they would like to 20 make, or any clarifying questions they have. If you 21 would rather wait until after the meeting, so you have 22 kind of a more one on one conversation, all the NRC 23 people that are here tonight are definitely going to 24 be sticking around after the meeting, and will be more 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 23 than happy to address your questions at that time.
1 But if anyone has comments, or questions, 2
that they would specifically like to be on the record, 3
now would be the time to do so. So I will open up the 4
floor if anyone has anything.
5 (No response.)
6 FACILITATOR RAKOVAN: It doesn't look like 7
anyone is in the mood to talk tonight, and that is 8
okay. As Sam said, there is plenty of time to get 9
your comments in. And, as I said, we will definitely 10 be sticking around after the meeting.
11 So if you would rather have a one on one 12 conversation look for someone who is wearing one of 13 these badges, and they will be more than happy to talk 14 with you.
15 Sam, do you want to close out the meeting, 16 then? Or Louise? Louise, why don't you introduce 17 yourself.
18 MS. LUND: I am Louise Lund, and as Lance 19 was saying, I'm the branch chief of the projects group 20 that has the project managers that work on this 21 project.
22 And I want to just thank everybody for 23 being here. I want to thank the folks that allowed us 24 to use their facility here. I agree with what Lance 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 24 says, it is a very nice facility.
1 And, anyway, everybody have a good night, 2
and we will be sticking around to answer any 3
questions, or talk to anybody that wants to talk to 4
us. Thanks.
5 (Whereupon, at 7:30 p.m., the above-6 entitled meeting was concluded.)
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25