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