ML090680875
| ML090680875 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 05/28/2008 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NRC-22185NRF | |
| Download: ML090680875 (32) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Public Meeting: Afternoon Session Docket Number: (n/a)
Location: Berwick, Pennsylvania Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 Work Order No.: NRC-2218 Pages 1-29 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 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING 5 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 6 UNITS 1 AND 2 7 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION 8 + + + + +
9 WEDNESDAY 10 MAY 28, 2008 11 + + + + +
12 1:30 p.m.
13 + + + + +
14 BERWICK, PENNSYLVANIA 15 + + + + +
16 The Public Meeting was convened at the 17 Eagles Building, 107 South Market Street, Berwick, 18 PA, J.P. Leous presiding.
19 NRC STAFF PARTICIPATING:
20 J.P. LEOUS 21 DREW STUYVENBERG 22 LANCE RAKOVAN 23 ERIC BENNER 24 IRENE YU 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 DIANE SCRENCI 2 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 3 (1:33 p.m.)
4 MR. LEOUS: Good afternoon, my name is 5 J.P. Leous. It's my pleasure to welcome you here 6 this afternoon and to facilitate this afternoon's 7 meeting. We're here to discuss the draft 8 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, or draft 9 SEIS, for the license renewal of the Susquehanna 10 Steam Electric Station, units 1 and 2.
11 Specifically, the purpose for this 12 meeting is really two-fold. First, to share the NRC 13 staff's findings contained in the draft report, as 14 well as second, to receive any comments that you may 15 have.
16 This report is the 34th supplemental to 17 the generic Environmental Impact Statement for 18 license renewal of nuclear power plants, otherwise 19 known as new regulation 1437.
20 Before we kick things off, I just want to 21 take a moment to let you know what to expect from 22 today's meeting, and just to go over some ground 23 rules.
24 In a moment, the NRC's Environmental 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 Project Manager for the Susquehanna Environmental 2 Review, Drew Stuyvenberg, will share his team's 3 preliminary findings with us.
4 Drew has been with the NRC for about a 5 year and a half, and holds a master's degree from 6 Duke University in Energy and Environmental Policy.
7 Once Drew has concluded his presentation, 8 specifically on the results of the environmental 9 review and how you can submit comments, we'll open 10 things up for brief questions, and of course, any 11 comments the public may have.
12 If you've already registered with us to 13 speak and I haven't seen any, so if you would like to 14 speak, please let me know and at the appropriate time 15 we can bring you up to the microphone, and you can 16 share your thoughts with us. It doesn't seem like 17 time's going to be much of an issue this afternoon, 18 so we should be all right with that.
19 We are taking a transcript of today's 20 meeting, which is one of the reasons why I'm using 21 the microphone even though we probably have a small 22 enough crowd in the room here that I probably 23 wouldn't need to. But it does help our court 24 reporter, Doug, keep an accurate record of today's 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 proceedings.
2 So, if you do have any comments or 3 questions, please step to the microphone when I 4 invite you to do so, and if you could, please clearly 5 state your name and any affiliation you may have just 6 so we can keep an accurate record of today's meeting.
7 8 Before we get started, I'd like to 9 introduce some NRC staff that we have with us here 10 today. First, Mr. Eric Benner. Eric is a branch 11 chief for the NRC's license renewal environmental 12 technical staff.
13 We have Diane Screnci from public 14 affairs, as well as Irene Yu from our Office of New 15 Reactors, and Kirk LaGory from Argonne National Lab.
16 He was an ecologist that worked on the Susquehanna 17 Environmental Review.
18 Hopefully, when he came in you had a 19 chance to grab a copy of the slides, as well as a 20 public meeting feedback form. The form actually also 21 acts as a origami self-test as it's also in a self-22 contained envelope. Postage is included.
23 If you have a chance today during the 24 meeting, if you could fill that out and leave it with 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 us before you leave, that'd be great, or at your 2 leisure after you've left, gone home, maybe had a 3 chance to think about the meeting, complete it, and 4 again, just pop it in the mail. No postage required.
5 This helps the NRC staff evaluate how we do meetings 6 and approve the process.
7 I also would like to ask at this time to 8 take a chance to silence any cell phones, beepers, or 9 other electronic devices that might beep, buzz, or 10 otherwise disturb us later on.
11 I'd like to thank the Lucerne County 12 Community College and the Berwick Industrial 13 Development Agency for having us here today. And 14 with that, I will turn things over to Drew.
15 MR. STUYVENBERG: All right. Thank you, 16 J.P., for that introduction. First of all, I'd like 17 to thank everyone for coming out and taking the time 18 to come to this meeting today.
19 I hope that the information we'll provide 20 you with will help you to understand the process of 21 what we've gone through in developing the new 22 regulation document. And also, we've done so far and 23 the role you can help us play in making sure that the 24 Environmental Impact Statement going forward 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 accurate and complete.
2 So, I'd like to start off by briefly 3 going over the agenda and purposes for today's 4 meeting. Next slide, please.
5 I'll start off with a brief overview of 6 their license renewal process and then move on to 7 presenting the preliminary findings of our 8 environmental review, in which we've assessed the 9 impacts associated with renewing the operating 10 licenses for the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.
11 And then I'll provide some information on 12 how to submit comments on the review, and then we'll 13 give you a schedule of how you can be involved in the 14 review going forward.
15 And finally, we'll leave time free to 16 directly present any comments that you may have on 17 this review. Next slide, please. So, the Atomic 18 Energy Act gives the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 19 the authority to issue operating licenses to 20 commercial power reactors for up to a period of 40 21 years.
22 For Susquehanna, the licenses for units 1 23 and 2 will expire in 2022 and 2024, respectively.
24 Our regulations make provisions for extending plant 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 operation for an additional 20 years. The NRC 2 received PPL Susquehanna's application for license 3 renewal of units 1 and 2 on September 13, 2006.
4 As part of the NRC's overall review of 5 that application, we performed an environmental 6 review in which we looked at the impact of an 7 additional 20 years of operation and what impacts 8 those 20 years of operation would likely have on the 9 environment.
10 We held meetings here on November 15, 11 2006 to discuss the overall license renewal process, 12 including both safety and environmental reviews, and 13 to seek your input regarding the issues we need to 14 evaluate.
15 And today we're here to present the 16 preliminary results of our review that we've 17 documented in the drafts of the Environmental Impact 18 Statement. After I present those preliminary 19 results, we'll open up the floor to your comments.
20 So next, next slide, please. Next, I 21 would like to give you some information on the 22 statute that governs an environmental review. It's 23 known as the National Environmental Policy Act of 24 1969 and commonly referred to as NEPA. And NEPA 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 requires that all federal agencies file a systematic 2 approach in evaluating potential environmental 3 impacts associated with certain actions.
4 We at the NRC are required to consider 5 the impact of the proposed action which, in this 6 case, is license renewal. We are also required to 7 consider alternatives to that proposed action.
8 The NRC has determined that a EIS will be 9 prepared for any proposed license renewal of a power 10 plant. NEPA and/or EIS are disclosure tools. They 11 are specifically structured to involve individuals 12 and groups outside from outside of the NRC. For 13 example, this meeting today is intended to facilitate 14 public participation in our environmental review.
15 Next slide, please. This slide 16 illustrates NRC's environmental review process that 17 we use to evaluate the impacts of license renewal.
18 This process involves scoping activities to seek out 19 information, a site audit to examine the local 20 environment and how the plant affects it, and the 21 development of a document called a Supplemental 22 Environmental Impact Statement, or SEIS, to contain 23 the staff's analysis and conclusions.
24 The draft SEIS, which we published in 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 April of 2008, provides the staff's preliminary 2 assessments of the environmental impact expected 3 during the license renewal period. Next slide, 4 please.
5 The Supplemental Environmental Impact 6 Statement is the site-specific compliment to the 7 agency's generic EIS for license renewal of all 8 nuclear power plants.
9 In the mid-1990s, the NRC developed a 10 generic EIS for evaluating the impacts of all 11 operating nuclear power plants across the U.S. The 12 NRC looked at 92 separate impact areas and found that 13 for 69 of those areas the impacts were the same for 14 all plants with similar features. The NRC called 15 these Category 1 Issues.
16 We were able to make generic conclusions 17 that all of the impacts on the environment would be 18 small. The NRC was unable, however, to make 19 determinations for 23 of their main issues, and as a 20 consequence, the NRC decided that we would prepare a 21 supplemental EIS for each plant to address the 22 remaining 23 issues.
23 Together, the generic EIS and the 24 supplemental EIS form the staff's analysis of 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
10 1 environmental impacts of license renewal for the 2 Susquehanna site. Also, during the review, the NRC 3 staff looks for and evaluates any new and significant 4 information that might call into question the 5 conclusions we reached previously in the generic EIS 6 while also searching for issues not previously 7 addressed in the generic EIS.
8 Next slide, please. Now, the conclusions 9 in our generic EIS and our supplemental EIS help the 10 NRC to determine whether license renewal is 11 acceptable from an environmental standpoint.
12 After we compare the impacts of license 13 renewal to the impacts of the alternatives, we use a 14 standard shown on this slide to make our decision.
15 Simply put, is license renewal acceptable from an 16 environmental standpoint?
17 Next slide, please. The NRC staff uses 18 information from various sources as we conduct the 19 environmental review. We use the information 20 received in the environmental report that was 21 submitted by PPL Susquehanna's license renewal 22 application.
23 We also conducted an audit in May of last 24 year where we toured the facility, observed plant 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 systems, and evaluated interactions of the plant with 2 the surrounding environment.
3 During this audit, we talked to plant 4 personnel and reviewed specific documentation. We 5 also spoke to federal, state, and local officials.
6 Additionally, we considered the comments that we 7 received during the public scoping period.
8 All of this information forms the basis 9 for our preliminary conclusions included in the 10 drafts of Environmental Impact Statement.
11 Next slide, please. Now this slide shows 12 a little bit about the types of expertise that we 13 assembled to perform the Susquehanna environmental 14 review. As you can see, our diverse staff is made up 15 of biologists, economists, health physicists, and 16 others. Next slide, please.
17 Now, here we can see some of the major 18 impact areas that we addressed during the Susquehanna 19 environmental review. I'll discuss each of these 20 areas further in just a moment. Next slide, please.
21 So, one of the big questions in terms of 22 the methodology that we use to put together an 23 Environmental Impact Statement is how do we quantify 24 impact? The generic EIS defines three impact levels 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 B small, moderate, and large.
2 I'm going to use a hypothetical example 3 about fish in the Susquehanna River as an example of 4 how we might use these three impact levels. Now 5 let's say that despite prevention measures, the 6 operation of Susquehanna Steam Electric Station 7 affected fish populations, because of how the plant 8 takes water out of the river to use for plant 9 cooling.
10 Now, if this triggered a decrease in fish 11 that's so small that we can't detect it relative to 12 the total population of fish in the Susquehanna 13 River, then the impact would be small.
14 If the losses were to cause the fish 15 population to noticeably decline, but stabilize at a 16 lower level, that would be a moderate impact. Now, 17 if the losses caused the fish population to decline 18 to the point where we can't stabilize it, or where it 19 appears to continually decline, then that impact 20 would be large.
21 We apply this type of methodology to each 22 resource area that we study in the environmental 23 review, such as socio-economics, air quality, and 24 even aquatic issues. So, in the next line I'll 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 elaborate a little bit more on these types of issues.
2 So, next slide, please.
3 So, the first set of issues that I'm 4 going to talk about relate to the plant cooling 5 system. We looked at issues such as discharges from 6 the plant and into the Susquehanna River, aquatic 7 species being affected due to water intake systems, 8 and impacts that the cooling towers may have on 9 plants and birds.
10 Now, all cooling system impacts 11 applicable to Susquehanna units 1 and 2, in this 12 case, are Category 1 issues. That is, they're all 13 small impacts as were determined on a generic basis 14 for plants that have this type of configuration with 15 cooling towers.
16 This means that the NRC made this generic 17 determination that the impacts from normal plant 18 operations, during the period of extended operation, 19 are small because of how this plant design reduces 20 impacts to the environment.
21 Since impacts from the plant aren't 22 expected to increase on a year-to-year basis during 23 the license renewal period, and since we found no new 24 and significant information that would call into 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 question the GEIS conclusions, we've preliminarily 2 adopted those conclusions from the GEIS that the 3 impacts are small for all those issues. Next slide, 4 please.
5 The NRC staff also looked for potential 6 impacts to threatened and endangered species. The 7 NRC staff identified three terrestrial species as 8 having the potential to occur on or near the 9 Susquehanna site, or near its associated transmission 10 lines.
11 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, during 12 our consultation process with that agency, indicated 13 only one of these three species, the Indiana bat, 14 might occur at the site or along the transmission 15 line right-of-ways.
16 During our consultation process, the Fish 17 and Wildlife Service determined that the license 18 renewal action will not have a significant adverse 19 impact on overall habitat quality for the bat, and 20 the product is not likely to adversely affect the 21 species. As part of this license 22 renewal process, the NRC staff reviewed information 23 provided by PPL Susquehanna during the site audit; 24 reviewed information provided in Susquehanna's 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 environmental report; and also reviewed information 2 from Pennsylvania state agencies, including the Fish 3 and Boat Commission, Department of Environmental 4 Protection, as well as information from the U.S. Fish 5 and Wildlife Service.
6 The staff's preliminary determination is 7 that the impacts during the license renewal period 8 for operation of Susquehanna units 1 and 2, and its 9 associated transmission line right-of-ways, on 10 threatened or endangered species would be small.
11 Next slide, please.
12 Radiological impacts are another Category 13 1 issue, and therefore impacts during the license 14 renewal term were determined in the GEIS to be small.
15 By design, the operation of nuclear power 16 plants is expected to result in small releases of 17 radiological effluents, and Susquehanna in this case 18 is no exception.
19 During our site audit, we look at 20 selected parts of the Radioactive Effluent Monitoring 21 and Radiological Environmental Monitoring Programs 22 and supporting documentation.
23 We looked at how the gaseous and liquid 24 effluents are controlled, treated, and monitored 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
16 1 released, as well as how solid radioactive wastes are 2 handled, packaged and shipped.
3 We also met with staff from the 4 Pennsylvania Bureau of Radiation Protection, some of 5 whom are actually here today. Rich Janati and Brad 6 Fuller, thanks for making it. We looked at how the 7 applicant's radiation protection program maintains 8 radiological releases in compliance with the NRC's 9 regulations.
10 We also looked at the applicant's 11 radiological environmental monitoring data from on-12 site and off-site monitoring stations. These data 13 included the results for evaluations of water, milk, 14 fish, food products, and direct radiation.
15 Based on our review of the data, we found 16 that the calculated dose to the maximally exposed 17 member of the public to be well within the NRC's 18 radiation protection limits.
19 The dose of the maximally exposed person 20 is a conservative calculation that assumes that 21 someone may be exposed to maximum values through 22 paths like breathing rate, food consumption, drinking 23 water, and proximity of the plant that would be 24 associated with someone who's exposed from all 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 radiation sources to the plant.
2 So based on a historical review of the 3 radiological data, the current status of the plant's 4 radiological systems, the staff concluded that the 5 radiological releases from the plant are expected to 6 be similar on a year-to-year basis during the period 7 of extended operation.
8 During the staff's review, no new and 9 significant information related to this issue was 10 found, and thus we have adopted the findings in the 11 GEIS, and preliminarily concluded that the 12 radiological impact on human health and on the 13 environment is small. Next slide, please.
14 So, socio-economic impacts comprise a 15 wide array of issues, including impacts to public 16 services, education, aesthetics, recreation, housing, 17 utilities, transportation, as well as historic and 18 archeological resources, and environmental justice.
19 The staff's independent review of data 20 provided by PPL Susquehanna, local and state 21 agencies, the U.S. Census Bureau, and other 22 organizations, indicate that there would be no impact 23 in most socio-economic resource areas.
24 In the area of historic and archeological 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 resources, however, NRC staff preliminarily 2 determined that impacts may be moderate. After 3 reviewing documentation provided by the applicant and 4 by the Pennsylvania Historic and Museums Commission, 5 the NRC reached its moderate conclusion, because 6 significant archeological resources are known to 7 occur on-site, but the entire site has not yet been 8 surveyed.
9 As well as PPL Susquehanna's procedures 10 for addressing new discoveries on-site may not 11 effectively protect these resources should they find 12 something in the future.
13 NRC staff recommended a number of 14 potential mitigation measures that could decrease the 15 level of impact in this area if implemented by PPL 16 Susquehanna. Next slide, please.
17 Another area we look at is called 18 postulated accidents. There are two classes of 19 accidents evaluated in the generic EIS. Those 20 include design-basis accidents and severe accidents.
21 22 In this first group, design-basis 23 accidents, are those accidents that the plant is 24 designed to withstand while creating only a low 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 radiological risk to the public. The ability of the 2 plant to withstand these accidents has to be 3 demonstrated before the plant is even granted an 4 initial operating license.
5 Because the licensee has continued to 6 demonstrate acceptable plant performance for the 7 design-basis accidents throughout the life of the 8 plant, the commission found in the generic EIS that 9 the environmental impacts of design-basis accidents 10 is small for all plants.
11 The second category of accidents is 12 severe accidents. Severe accidents are, by 13 definition, more severe than design-basis accidents, 14 because they could result in substantial damage to 15 the reactor core. The commission found in the 16 generic EIS that the risk of a severe accident is 17 small for all plants.
18 Nevertheless, the commission determined 19 that alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must 20 be considered for all plants that have not already 21 done so. These are called severe accident mitigation 22 alternatives, or in our parts we call them SAMAs, and 23 require site-specific analysis.
24 The purpose of the SAMA evaluation is to 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 ensure that plant changes, with the potential for 2 changing severe accident safety performance, are 3 identified and evaluated. Next slide, please.
4 The scope of potential plant improvements 5 considered, including hardware modifications, 6 procedural changes, training program improvements, 7 and basically a full set of potential changes. The 8 scope includes SAMAs that would prevent core damage, 9 as well as SAMAs that could improve containment 10 performance if a core damage event occurs.
11 The preliminary results of the 12 Susquehanna SAMA evaluation are summarized on this 13 slide. Fifteen potential SAMA candidate improvements 14 were identified for Susquehanna units 1 and 2, and 15 five SAMAs were identified as being potentially cost-16 effective.
17 None of the potentially cost-effective 18 SAMAs, however, are related to managing the effect of 19 plant aging during the license renewal period.
20 Accordingly, they're not required to be implemented 21 as part of license renewal. Next slide, please.
22 Next is cumulative impacts. Cumulative 23 impacts are a group of impacts that are the impacts 24 of license renewal taken together with other past, 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 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
2 It's kind of a broader look on how this individual 3 action affects the environment around where the 4 action will be taken. And it considers actions 5 regardless of what agency or person undertakes those 6 actions.
7 During our review, the NRC staff has 8 identified past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 9 future actions that we've considered in this review 10 for cumulative impacts to the environment.
11 The NRC staff identified some past 12 actions like anthracite coal mining, or industrial 13 development, or dam construction on the Susquehanna 14 River, as well as ongoing current effects like 15 remaining industries, population centers, economic 16 activities forming, and potential use of actions like 17 those in the future, like constructing and perhaps 18 operating one or two new units at or near the 19 Susquehanna site.
20 The NRC staff evaluated the potential 21 effects of new units at the Susquehanna site, since 22 PPL Susquehanna submitted letters in May 2007 23 indicating its intent to file it for a combined 24 license application in late 2008 for one new unit.
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 In discussions with NRC staff, PPL 2 indicated that it may ultimately pursue two units at 3 or near the site. Now, the PPL Corporation hasn't 4 yet submitted a combined license application for 5 those new units. And if and when they do so, the NRC 6 staff would review that application and determine 7 whether to approve or deny a license for the facility 8 at that time.
9 There would also be a separate 10 environmental review for that, and it would be 11 analyzed and addressed in a separate Environmental 12 Impact Statement. So, any consideration for these 13 purposes is simply from a forward-looking potential 14 perspective.
15 So, I also wanted to mention, I think as 16 J.P. did earlier, that Irene Yu who will be involved 17 with that potential new reactor review, is here in 18 our audience with us.
19 Based on our overall evaluation of past, 20 present, and future effects on the environment in the 21 region, overall cumulative impacts could range from 22 small to large. Where we found large impacts, they 23 were typically the result of historic actions.
24 Actions like coal mining, or actions like dam 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 construction on the Susquehanna River, that will 2 continue to have some lingering effects on the 3 environment. Next slide, please.
4 As part of the environmental review 5 process, we also evaluated a number of alternatives 6 to license renewal. Alternatives, in this case, are 7 options that can serve the same purpose as 8 Susquehanna units 1 and 2 would serve during the 9 period of extended operation.
10 Specifically, we looked at the effects of 11 replacing the power from Susquehanna units 1 and 2, 12 which currently produce approximately 2800 megawatts, 13 or will once the extended power upgrade has been 14 fully implemented. We considered alternative power 15 sources while using conservation-reduced demand, 16 among others. Specifically, these 17 included replacing generation with power from new 18 plants, like coal fired plants, natural gas fired 19 power plants, or new nuclear plants, as well as 20 impacts and capabilities of providing replacement of 21 power generated by other producers, aside from PPL 22 Susquehanna.
23 Additionally, we looked at other 24 technologies like biomass, wind, and solar power to 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 see whether they're available potential to replace to 2 two current existing units. We also analyzed the 3 combination alternatives, including conservation and 4 continued operation of one Susquehanna unit.
5 Finally, we addressed the impacts that 6 would likely result if NRC did not renew the 7 licenses, and if Susquehanna units 1 and 2 simply 8 shut down at or before the end of their current 9 licenses. Next slide, please.
10 After each alternative, we looked at the 11 same types of issues that we did when evaluating the 12 environmental impacts of license renewal to allow us 13 to directly compare the impacts of renewing both one 14 and two licenses with those potential alternatives.
15 NRC's preliminary conclusion is that the 16 environmental impacts and alternatives, including not 17 renewing the licenses, could reach moderate levels in 18 at least some of the categories evaluated, and large 19 levels for some resource areas for some alternatives.
20 For the combination alternative, the 21 environmental impact would likely be small for most 22 areas considered, with several potential moderate 23 impacts. Next slide, please. During the 24 environmental review, we found no information 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
25 1 was both new and significant.
2 Therefore we have, preliminarily, adopted 3 the generic EIS conclusions that the impact 4 associated with the 69 issues will continue to be 5 small, or determined that the issues did not apply to 6 the Susquehanna plant.
7 In the Susquehanna draft Supplemental 8 Environmental Impact Statement, we analyzed the 9 remaining 23 site-specific issues and determined that 10 11 were applicable to Susquehanna units 1 and 2, 11 because of plant design or environmental 12 characteristics.
13 For 10 of these issues in environmental 14 justice, we preliminarily determined that the 15 environmental impacts resulting from these issues 16 would be small. Impacts to historic or archeological 17 resources, however, would likely be moderate.
18 Based on these conclusions, the NRC's 19 preliminary recommendation is that the environmental 20 impacts of license renewal are not so great that 21 license renewal would be unreasonable. That is, we 22 have preliminarily concluded that the license renewal 23 is acceptable from an environmental standpoint. Next 24 slide, please.
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 Here are some important dates for the 2 Susquehanna license renewal and environmental review.
3 In April 2008, we published the Supplemental 4 Environmental Impact Statement and we're currently 5 accepting public comments on the draft until July 21st 6 of 2008.
7 The final supplement, which will be based 8 on input that we receive during this comment period, 9 will be published, or is scheduled to be published by 10 March of 2009, and it will take into account any 11 input that we receive today or later on at the st 12 evening session, as well as through July 21 . Next 13 slide, please.
14 This slide identifies me as your primary 15 point-of-contact with the NRC for the environmental 16 review. Ms. Evelyn Gettys is the contact for any 17 questions related to safety review, which is 18 currently ongoing.
19 Documents related to the Susquehanna 20 review may be found at the McBride Memorial Library 21 here in Berwick, and at the Mill Memorial Library in 22 Nanticoke.
23 At the bottom of the slide is the 24 internet address where you can directly access 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
27 1 Susquehanna units 1 and 2 Supplemental Environmental 2 Impact Statement. Next slide, please.
3 That's also in your handout, so don't 4 worry about writing it down. There are several ways 5 you can provide your comments on the Susquehanna 6 draft Environmental Impact Statement.
7 First, you can provide your comments 8 today during the comment portion of this meeting. If 9 perhaps, you're not ready to provide your comments 10 today, you can send your comments via email to the 11 following address: and that's susquehannaeis@nrc.gov.
12 This is also in your packet.
13 And you can also send your comments by 14 U.S. mail, or you can hand deliver them to us at our 15 headquarters in Maryland, if you happen to be in the 16 area.
17 With that, this portion of the 18 presentation is concluded and you will soon be able 19 to offer your comments on the NRC staff review and 20 our preliminary findings. So with that, I'll turn it 21 over back over to J.P. Thank you.
22 MR. LEOUS: Great! Thank you, Drew.
23 Just to reiterate what Drew mentioned, if you do have 24 written comments that you'd like to submit today, 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
28 1 can also hand them to me or any other NRC staff 2 before you leave. Also, some reference material for 3 you here.
4 If you haven't done so already, you can 5 get a copy of the draft Environmental Impact 6 Statement, or you heard Drew and I refer to the GEIS, 7 the generic Environmental Impact Statement, and there 8 are some reference copies. Please leave these here, 9 but they're for your reference should you like to 10 check them out. Additional documents are found here.
11 At this time, if there are any questions 12 for Drew or other NRC staff regarding the material he 13 presented today, please feel free to make your way to 14 the podium. And it looks like no.
15 And outside of that are there any 16 comments that anyone would like to share today on the 17 draft Environmental Impact Statement for the 18 Susquehanna license review?
19 MR. SIECKO: My name is Joseph Siecko.
20 I'm from Salem Township. I have a question. How 21 much spent fuel is the NRC going to allow to be 22 stored here at the Susquehanna plant until they come 23 up with a Yucca Valley (sic) or?
24 MR. LEOUS: Drew or Eric?
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 MR. STUYVENBERG: Actually, I think we'd 2 have to check into that and get back to you on it. I 3 don't have that information off-hand and we could 4 certainly try and find out, though.
5 MR. LEOUS: Yes, sir, feel free to leave 6 your email or phone number with us and we'd be happy 7 to get back to you with that information. Any other 8 questions or comments for staff? Okay. Well, thank 9 you very much.
10 Again, please note that the comment 11 period does not end with this meeting. It does go on 12 for a few more weeks. So, feel free to email Drew or 13 the license renewal address at your leisure, or feel 14 free to contact NRC staff should you have any 15 comments later on. Thank you very much. Oh, and 16 before we leave I'd like to hand this over to Eric 17 Benner for some closing comments.
18 MR. BENNER: Okay, usually this is for me 19 to thank all the people who made comments, but since 20 we didn't receive any, what I'm going to say is to 21 reiterate what you've heard from several people here.
22 This isn't the end of the comment period.
23 If anything you heard here today, or upon reviewing 24 any of the reference material, stimulates your 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 thoughts and comments, Drew has listed several ways 2 we can receive those comments.
3 We're always available to answer 4 questions. Regarding the question asked that, you 5 know it's going to be a two-part answer, because as 6 far as what the current license allows, that will be 7 a quantifiable number, but regarding any future 8 storage of spent fuel, there are separate licensing 9 processes that we can go through to allow the 10 facility to store nuclear fuel and dry cask storage.
11 12 So, there'll be a number answer for what 13 the current license allows and then there'll be 14 somewhat of a process answer for how the licensee can 15 manage the storage of spent fuel until a final 16 repository is located.
17 So with that, I want to thank you for 18 your time and attendance, and I hope you found the 19 meeting informative. As we said, if you have any 20 comments, please provide them to us and use the 21 meeting feedback forms to give us feedback on how we 22 conducted this meeting and whether there are ways we 23 could conduct these meetings differently to make them 24 more effective. So, thank you very much.
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 (Whereupon, the above-entitled meeting 2 was concluded at 2:03 p.m.)
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com