ML13029A755
| ML13029A755 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 01/15/2013 |
| From: | Division of License Renewal |
| To: | |
| Tran T, 415-3617 | |
| References | |
| NRC-3030 | |
| Download: ML13029A755 (34) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
South Texas Project License Renewal Public Meeting: Afternoon Session Docket Number: (n/a)
Location:
Bay City, Texas Date:
Tuesday, January 15, 2013 Work Order No.:
NRC-3030 Pages 1-34 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 PRELIMINARY SITE-SPECIFIC RESULTS 4
OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR 5
SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT LICENSE RENEWAL 6
+ + + + +
7 PUBLIC MEETING 8
AFTERNOON SESSION 9
+ + + + +
10 Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11 201 7th Street 12 Bay City, Texas 13 2:00 p.m.
14 15 ON BEHALF OF THE NRC:
16 SUSAN SALTER, Facilitator 17 18 OTHER NRC STAFF:
19 TAM TRAN 20 BINESH THARAKAN 21 DAVE WRONA 22 EMILY LARSON 23 LARA [USELDING]
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
CONTENTS 1
SPEAKER/TOPIC PAGE 2
NRC Introduction................................... 3 3
NRC Staff Presentation............................. 5 4
Public Comments................................... 20 5
NRC Closing Remarks............................... 32 6
Adjourn 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 3
P R O C E E D I N G S 1
MS. SALTER: Welcome to the NRC's public 2
meeting. My name is Susan Salter, and I'm going to be 3
your facilitator for the meeting this afternoon. Bob 4
Hagar is going to be helping me facilitate, and our role 5
as facilitators is really just to help the meeting run 6
smoothly, keep us on time, make sure that everyone who's 7
come out to make a comment has an opportunity to do so.
8 A couple of housekeeping items: We are 9
having the meeting transcribed. Leslie Berridge is our 10 recorder, and to help Leslie get an accurate recording, 11 we ask you to help us with a couple of things.
12 One is to keep background noise or sidebar 13 conversations to a minimum. In addition, if you have 14 electronic devices, please put them on silent mode. If 15 you need to take a call, we certainly understand that and 16 just ask that you step outside of the meeting room to do 17 that.
18 Restrooms: If you go out this door to the 19 left, the first left is the women's room; straight is the 20 exit; and right next to the exit is the men's room. You 21 can also go to the right and there are some other 22 restrooms and exits out there, but I think the closest 23 one is to your left as you exit out of this room.
24 So let me get started by just restating 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
purpose of tonight's meeting, which is to present the 1
findings and collect public comment on the Draft 2
Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed renewal 3
of the South Texas Project nuclear power plant's 4
operating licenses for an additional 20 years.
5 Now, during this meeting you may hear 6
individuals refer to the Environmental Impact Statement 7
as the EIS or the DEIS, for Draft Environmental Impact 8
Statement, and I know NRC staff tries to keep those 9
abbreviations to a minimum, but those ones I'm sure will 10 probably creep up.
11 The agenda for the meeting this afternoon, 12 as well as the meeting tonight, which will begin at 7:00, 13 is to have a presentation by NRC staff, and following that 14 we'll have a very brief, maybe ten-minute, Q&A session.
15 And the reason for that is during the public 16 comment period, which will follow the Q&A, the NRC staff 17 is really in a listening mode so they don't engage in a 18 dialog with the public; they really just listen to the 19 public's comments. That's why they're here.
20 But to provide any clarifications on what 21 you may hear during the presentation or to answer any 22 questions on the NRC process, they want to give the public 23 about 10 or 15 minutes or so to ask those questions and 24 to get those clarifications.
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
So I'll go over the process that we'll use 1
for the public comment period when we get to that point, 2
but just as a reminder, as I said, if you want to make 3
a comment, you do need to fill out a yellow card. Those 4
are helpful for Leslie to make sure we have accurate 5
spelling of your names.
6 So please, if you change your mind during 7
the meeting, if you haven't signed up yet, you can always 8
sign up during the meeting. Bob has cards as well. You 9
can raise your hand or get his attention and get a card 10 from him, fill it out, give it back to him.
11 So with that, I think I've covered all the 12 housekeeping items. I think I'm going to turn it over 13 to Tam Tran.
14 Tam is the project manager in the Division 15 of License Renewal in the NRC's office of Nuclear Reactor 16 Regulation, and he is going to provide the NRC 17 presentation for this afternoon.
18 MR. TRAN: Thank you, Susan. Thank you all 19 for taking the time to come to this meeting. My name is 20 Tam Tran; I'm the project manager for the environmental 21 review of the South Texas Project license renewal.
22 I hope the information we provide with this 23 presentation will help you to understand the process 24 we're going through, what we have done so far, and 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 6
role that you can play in helping us and make sure that 1
the Final Environmental Impact Statement is accurate.
2 With that, I would like to acknowledge a few 3
NRC staff here today. First of all, I would like to 4
acknowledge our South Texas Project resident inspector, 5
Binesh Tharakan. Next I would like to acknowledge our 6
branch chief for the Environmental Project Branch for 7
License Renewal, Dave Wrona.
8 Next Emily Larson's our social scientist 9
who contributes significant review to our draft 10 supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Also we 11 have today Lara [Uselding], who is from Region 4, 12 representing our regional office.
13 Next I would like to start off by briefly 14 going over the agenda for today's presentation. I will 15 explain the NRC license renewal process for nuclear power 16 plants, with emphasis on the environmental review 17 process, when we are going to present the preliminary 18 finding of our environmental review, which assesses the 19 impacts associated with extending the operating license 20 of the South Texas Project for an additional 20 years.
21 Then we'll give you some information about 22 the schedule for the balance of our review and how you 23 can submit comments in the future, and then finally 24 really the most important part of today's meeting is 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
where we receive any comment that you may have for this 1
review.
2 Before I get into the discussion of license 3
renewal process, I would like to take a minute to talk 4
about the NRC in terms of what we do and what our mission 5
is.
6 The Atomic Energy Act authorizes the NRC to 7
regulate the civilian use of nuclear materials in the 8
United States, including the use of nuclear materials for 9
power production.
10 In exercising that authority, the NRC's 11 mission is threefold: To ensure adequate protection of 12 public health and safety, to promote the common defense 13 and security, and to protect the environment.
14 The NRC accomplishes its mission through a 15 combination of regulatory programs and processes, such 16 a
reviewing license applications, conducting 17 inspections, issue enforcement actions, assessing 18 licensee performance, and evaluating operating 19 experience from nuclear plants across the country and 20 internationally.
21 The Atomic Energy Act is the legislation 22 that authorizes the NRC to issue licenses. The Atomic 23 Energy Act provides for a 40-year license term for power 24 reactors. This 40-year terms is based primarily on 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
economic considerations and antitrust factors, not on 1
safety limitations of the plant.
2 NRC conducts license reviews for plants 3
whose owners wish to operate them beyond their initial 4
license period.
5 This slide gives an overview of the South 6
Texas Project license renewal process. The review 7
process involves two parallel paths: the safety review 8
and environmental review. For the purpose of today's 9
meeting, we will discuss the environmental review.
10 The staff environmental review consists of 11 the Generic Environmental Impact Statement and the 12 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. The 13 Generic EIS examines the possible environmental impacts 14 that could occur as a result of renewing licenses of 15 nuclear power plants under 10 CFR Part 54.
16 The Generic EIS, to the extent possible, 17 established the bounds and significance of these 18 potential impacts. The analyses in the Generic EIS 19 encompasses all operating light-water power reactors.
20 These analyses attempt to establish a generic finding 21 covering as many plants as possible.
22 For some environmental issues the Generic 23 EIS found that the generic evaluation was not sufficient 24 and that a plant-specific analysis was required.
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
To supplement the Generic EIS, the staff 1
conducted site-specific reviews of the South Texas 2
Project. The site-specific findings for South Texas 3
Project are contained in the Draft Supplemental 4
Environmental Impact Statement. This document contains 5
analyses of all appropriate site-specific issues as well 6
as a review of issues covered by the Generic EIS. This 7
is to determine whether the conclusions in the Generic 8
EIS are valid for South Texas Project.
9 In this process NRC staff also reviewed the 10 environmental impacts of potential power generation 11 alternatives to license renewal to determine whether or 12 not the impacts expected from the license renewal are 13 unreasonable.
14 Together the Generic EIS and the 15 Supplemental EIS form the staff's analysis of the impact 16 of the license renewal for South Texas Project.
17 This slide shows the approach that the staff 18 used for environmental analysis. The NRC evaluates 19 impacts of all plants across the entire country to 20 determine if there were impacts that were common to all 21 operating plants.
22 NRC looked at 92 separate impact areas and 23 found 69 issues. The impacts were the same for plants 24 with similar features. NRC called these Category 1 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 issues and made the same, or generic, determinations 1
about the impacts in the Generic Environmental Impact 2
Statement for license renewal.
3 NRC was not able to make generic conclusions 4
about the remaining 23 issues. Twenty-one of these 5
issues, which the NRC called Category 2 issues, the NRC 6
decided to prepare site-specific supplements to the 7
Generic EIS that address these 21 issues.
8 For example, electromagnetic field acute 9
effects are electric shock associated with the 10 electrical lines at South Texas Project, is a Category 11 2 issue.
12 In addition, two issues are referred to as 13 not categorized, and therefore a site-specific analysis 14 is also needed.
15 The Supplemental Environmental Impact 16 Statement for South Texas Project license renewal is 17 being discussed today. The NRC did not rule out the 18 possibility that the generic conclusions in the Generic 19 EIS may not apply to any specific plant in all cases.
20 If new and significant information is found 21 that would change the generic conclusions in the Generic 22 EIS, then the staff would perform a site-specific 23 analysis on that issue.
24 This slide shows important milestones for 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 the environmental review process. The highlighted 1
dates indicate opportunities for public involvement in 2
the environmental review.
3 As each plant comes in for license renewal, 4
we publish a plant-specific supplement to the Generic 5
EIS. The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 6
Statement for South Texas Project was published on 7
December 5, 2012, and also known as Supplement 48 of the 8
Generic EIS. And we are currently accepting public 9
comments on this document until February 22, 2013.
10 Today's meeting is being transcribed, and 11 comment provided here will be considered the same way as 12 written comment submitted to NRC. Once the comment 13 period closes, we will develop the final Supplemental 14 EIS, which we expect to publish in 2013, approximately 15 seven months from the draft.
16 Now I'm going to discuss in more detail 17 about the preliminary result of the review. For each 18 environmental issue identified, an impact level is 19 assigned.
20 For a small impact, the effect is not 21 detectable or too small to destabilize or noticeably 22 alter any important attribute of the environmental 23 resource being reviewed.
24 For a moderate impact, the effect is 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 sufficient to alter noticeably but not destabilize 1
important attributes of the resource.
2 And finally, for impact to be considered 3
large, the effect must be clearly noticeable and 4
sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the 5
resource.
6 For example, the operation of South Texas 7
Project may cause the loss of adult and juvenile fish at 8
the intake structure. If the loss of fish is so small 9
that it does not appear to have noticeably altered 10 population of those species found in the lower Colorado 11 River, the impact will be small.
12 If losses cause some population to increase 13 or decrease and then stabilize at a different level, the 14 impact would be moderate.
15 If losses at the intake structure cause the 16 fish population to decline to the point where it cannot 17 be stabilized and continue to decline, then the impact 18 would be large.
19 For South Texas Project, the impact to the 20 fishery are small.
21 In conducting the review, an environmental 22 review team from NRC and Pacific Northwest Laboratory 23 analyzed [the] various impacts to the environment. This 24 review involves a wide range of expertise illustrated on 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 this slide. The team examined environmental justice, 1
ecology, land use, regulatory compliance, climate 2
change, et cetera, for the supplement.
3 This slide lists the site-specific issues 4
that the NRC staff reviewed for the continuing operation 5
of South Texas Project during the proposed license 6
renewal period. Each issue is assigned a level of 7
environmental impact of small, moderate, or large by the 8
environmental reviewers.
9 In addition, there are two uncategorized 10 issues.
Those are environmental justice and 11 electromagnetic field chronic effect.
For 12 electromagnetic field chronic effects, the staff 13 considers the Generic EIS finding of uncertain impacts 14 is still appropriate. No further review was performed 15 on the chronic effects from exposure to electromagnetic 16 fields, because currently there's no scientific 17 consensus on this issue.
18 The staff's preliminary conclusion is that 19 the site-specific impacts related to license renewal for 20 South Texas Project are small, except for the impact of 21 electromagnetic field acute effects, or current-induced 22 electric shocks that are small to moderate.
23 For license renewal, South Texas Project 24 reported that their transmission lines from South Texas 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 Project to the electric grid, which exceed the national 1
electrical safety code, South Texas Project Nuclear 2
Operating Company also listed potential mitigation 3
options to reduce or avoid impacts.
4 These options are reexamining the induced 5
current calculations for some transmission lines; 6
raising the transmission towers at potentially affected 7
road-transmission line intersections; modifying the 8
double-circuit lines to reduce the current-induced shock 9
potential, or placing caution signs under the 10 transmission lines.
11 The staff review concludes that impact of 12 electromagnetic field acute effects would be small to 13 moderate.
14 The staff also reviewed cumulative impact 15 associated with the continued operation of South Texas 16 Project. For cumulative impacts, the NRC staff looked 17 at the effects on the environment from past, present, and 18 reasonably foreseeable future human actions.
19 The impacts include both from the South 20 Texas Project operations and from other activities near 21 South Texas Project, such as the development of the 22 proposed White Stallion Energy Center, the Texas Prairie 23 Wetland Project, climate change, et cetera.
24 Past actions are those related to 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 15 environmental resources at the time of the power plant 1
licensing and construction. Present actions are those 2
related to the resources at the time of current 3
operations of the power plant. And future actions are 4
considered to be those that are reasonably foreseeable 5
through the end of the plant's operations, including the 6
period of extended operations.
7 In other words, the cumulative impact 8
analysis considers potential impacts through the end of 9
the current license term as well as the 20-year renewal 10 license term.
11 While the level of impacts due to the direct 12 and indirect effect associated with the continued 13 operation of South Texas Project are mostly small, the 14 staff preliminarily concluded that cumulative impacts 15 are small to moderate.
16 For the term beyond the 20-year period of 17 extended operations, the NRC addresses the management of 18 spent nuclear fuel in the waste confidence decision and 19 rule.
20 Previous license renewal Supplemental EIS 21 noted that the environmental impacts of temporary 22 storage of nuclear fuel for the period following the 23 reactor operating license term were addressed by this 24 rule.
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 The Draft Supplemental EIS does not discuss 1
the potential environmental impacts of the storing spent 2
nuclear fuel for an extended period after the plant 3
ceases operations. That address will be addressed in 4
the NRC Waste Confidence Environmental Impact Statement 5
and Rule. That document is expected to be issued by 6
September 2014.
7 In August of 2012 the Commission decided 8
that the agency will not issue final licensing decisions 9
for reactors, including license renewal until the waste 10 confidence rule is completed. If at that time 11 site-specific issues related to the spent fuel storage 12 at South Texas Project remain unresolved, they will be 13 addressed separately.
14 The National Environmental Policy Act 15 mandates that each Environmental Impact Statement 16 consider alternatives to any proposed major federal 17 actions. A major step in determining whether a license 18 renewal is reasonable or not is comparing the likely 19 impacts of continued operation of nuclear power plants 20 with the likely impacts of alternatives of power 21 generation.
22 In the draft supplements, the NRC staff 23 initially considered 18 different alternatives to 24 license renewal at the South Texas Project. After this 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 initial consideration, the staff then chose the five most 1
likely alternatives and analyzed these in depth.
2 Finally the NRC staff considered what would 3
happen if no action is taken and South Texas Project shut 4
down at the end of its current license without a specific 5
replacement alternative. This alternative would not 6
provide power generation capacity, nor would it meet the 7
needs currently met by South Texas Project.
8 The NRC preliminary conclusion is that 9
there is no clear environmentally preferred alternative 10 to license renewal. All alternatives capable of meeting 11 the needs currently served by South Texas Project entail 12 impacts greater than or equal to the proposed action of 13 license renewal.
14 This slide identifies me as your primary 15 point of contact with the NRC for the preparation of the 16 Environmental Impact Statement, and it also identifies 17 where documents related to our review may be found in the 18 local area.
19 The South Texas Project Draft Supplemental 20 Environmental Impact Statement is available at the Bay 21 City Library. All documents related to the reviews are 22 also available on the NRC website listed on this slide.
23 This slide provides the status of the safety 24 review. In December 2012 the applicant requested 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 18 safety review be suspended until January 1, 2014. As a 1
part of the license renewal process, the Advisory 2
Committee for Reactor Safeguards will provide 3
independent review for this review.
4 The members of the Advisory Committee for 5
Reactor Safeguards consists of nuclear experts from the 6
industry and academics.
7 NRC staff will address written comments in 8
the same way we address spoken comments received today.
9 You can submit written comments either online or via 10 conventional mail, meaning Postal Service.
11 To submit written comments online, visit 12 the website regulations.gov and search for docket ID 13 nrc-2010-0375. If you have written comments today, you 14 may give them to any NRC staff member today.
15 This concludes my presentation, and I'm 16 turning the meeting over to Susan.
17 MS. SALTER: Thank you, Tam.
18 So as I said, before we go into the public 19 comment period, let me just take a few minutes for any 20 questions or clarifications you may need -- questions 21 you have or clarifications you need on what Tam has 22 presented this afternoon.
23 So we're just going to have folks raise 24 their hand. If they have a question, we'll bring you 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 19 mic. Do we have any?
1 (No response.)
2 MS. SALTER: Okay. So what we're going to 3
do is we're going to move right into the comment period.
4 And, again, during this period NRC staff are in a 5
listening mode.
6 And we don't have very many speakers this 7
afternoon, but if you change your mind or if you decide 8
during the course of the comments that you now would like 9
to make a comment, you can always fill out a yellow card 10 and give it to myself or to Bob.
11 I'm going to call up our first speaker, is 12 Owen Bludau. And then we have Carolyn Thames and Terry 13 Farrar, in that order.
14 Please introduce yourself with your name 15 and any affiliation you have when you're at the 16 microphone.
17 MR. BLUDAU: Okay. I am Owen Bludau, 18 executive director of the Matagorda County Economic 19 Development Corporation.
20 The results that were presented are exactly 21 as I anticipated they could be, that there were small to 22 minimal impacts of any kind. I think the proof of the 23 pudding is that STP has been here for well over 20 years 24 now, and we have an environment that we appreciate and 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 admire.
1 We went through a lot of internal furor two 2
years ago over a coal plant, and the people who opposed 3
that kept saying we have such a great environment here, 4
we don't want to destroy it. That means STP has not done 5
anything adverse to it, and I don't think renewal of this 6
permit is going to do anything that's going to change 7
that, so I firmly am in support of the findings of this 8
environmental impact study.
9 MS. SALTER: Thank you, Mr. Bludau.
10 Our next speaker is Carolyn Thames.
11 MS. THAMES: Good afternoon and welcome to 12 Bay City. My name is Carolyn Thames. I'm a business 13 consultant with Workforce Solutions, a local workforce 14 office here in Bay City, as well as a council member with 15 the City of Bay City.
16 I am here today to strongly support the 17 license renewal for STP Units 1 and 2 for an additional 18 20 years. STP is the largest employer in Matagorda 19 County, with approximately 1200 employees.
20 STP's license renewal will provide jobs for 21 our children and build a strong, stable economic base for 22 our community.
23 In my two terms on council, I've had the 24 opportunity to serve with several employees. These 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 people donate their time, their talents to make a 1
difference in our community.
2 We trust the employees of STP; they're 3
experts at engineering, operations, maintenance, and the 4
environment. They are our neighbors, they are our 5
friends.
6 Thank you for being here. Thank you for 7
consideration of the license renewal.
8 MS. SALTER: Thank you, Ms. Thames.
9 And our next speaker is Terry Farrar.
10 MR. FARRAR: Thank you, Susan.
11 I am Terry Farrar. I own a business in 12 town, Farrar Financial Group. I serve on the Bay City 13 ISD school board, and I am also the chairman-elect for 14 the Bay City Chamber of Commerce.
15 I've been here for 28 years. The entire 16 time I've been here, STP has been, without a doubt, the 17 lifeblood of this community. I do not know anybody who 18 donates as much money to civic purposes, fund raisers.
19 They're very good about being a part of this community 20 with the Chamber.
21 Buddy Eller is the current chairman of the 22 Chamber of Commerce. He works at STP. Tim Powell, the 23 vice president at STP, is the president of the school 24 board here. Bart Brown is the department director of my 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 Sunday School class there where I'm a Sunday School 1
teacher. Tim is a Sunday School teacher at First Baptist 2
Church.
3 The people at STP are not only -- do not only 4
just give the money that they give to make this community 5
viable, but they give their time. The leadership that 6
we experience because of the training that these people 7
have received at STP has made a difference in this 8
community. This community is what it is predominantly 9
because of STP and their influence in this community.
10 And I strongly support that we relicense 11 them and ask them to continue to participate and do what 12 they've done in this community for the last 25, 30 years.
13 Thanks.
14 MS. SALTER: Thank you, Mr. Farrar.
15 Those are all of the individuals who signed 16 up to speak.
17 I have your card, but it said the evening; 18 it didn't say -- but you are more than welcome to do both.
19 Would you like to do both?
20 Karen Hadden.
21 MS. HADDEN: Good afternoon. I'm Karen 22 Hadden, and I am the director of a statewide organization 23 called SEED Coalition, Sustainable Energy and Economic 24 Development Coalition.
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 I'm going to speak in opposition to 1
relicensing Units 1 and 2. In fact, the option that I 2
think should be pursued is not actually on the list of 3
options.
4 I understand the importance of a major 5
industry in this community. I understand the importance 6
of jobs, and our organization does as well, and we support 7
that. We want every community in Texas to be 8
economically viable and thriving.
9 But what I think should be happening, 10 instead of relicensing two nuclear reactors that are set 11 to retire in 2027 and 2028, this is the time to plan for 12 a transition, to plan for worker training, to plan to move 13 toward cleaner, safer energy for the future.
14 And with 14 and 15 years to work with, that 15 is a doable goal. It's also very doable in today's world 16 to replace the energy with renewables combined with 17 energy efficiency, and that can be backed up with natural 18 gas. This is affordable; this is real. Other 19 communities are looking at these options. It can be 20 done; it is being done.
21 For an example, right now wind turbines are 22 booming across Texas. We've already had a point in time 23 where wind was producing 25 percent and more of the power 24 that was up on the ERCOT grid. Nuclear reactors at 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 24 time were around 11 percent.
1 We can do this; we are doing this. Granted, 2
the wind comes in and out. That's why you combine with 3
energy storage, that's why you do backup. And ERCOT is 4
becoming very expert in making these things level out.
5 What could this do for the community?
6 There could still be jobs, and lots of them, and hopefully 7
even more. This could be growth for the community. So 8
I think the thing to do is to plan.
9 Nuclear reactors were used in this country 10 as a bridge between the time when we could get to the point 11 where renewables were viable. That day is here; that 12 time is now.
13 I'm personally using this in my own home.
14 I have solar panels on the roof that do more than I ever 15 thought they would. There are days when I can run the 16 whole house and charge an electric car, which does most 17 of my daily driving. That's possible, that's doable.
18 We're doing it. It's here today.
19 There are many ways to move forward. The 20 risks of continuing with nuclear power are great, and 21 that's because of the inherent nature of nuclear power.
22 There are accidents; there are fires. We've just been 23 through that.
24 There's an increasing amount of fracking, 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 25 and fracking has been linked to earthquakes, and who 1
knows what will be happening over time. I think the 2
environmental impact research needs to look further at 3
that question.
4 In the case of Fukushima, reactor number 1 5
had been set to retire one month before the accident 6
there, which, you know, involved their diesel 7
generators, to large extent, as well as tsunami and 8
9 So if that plant had been shut down as it 10 should have been -- they were given 10 more years, not 11 20, like we're looking at in this case -- then that would 12 be one less reactor that had a meltdown. And the whole 13 world is feeling the impacts of that disaster in many 14 different ways, including radiation that travels around 15 the globe and impacts fisheries, it impacts products and 16 workers' lives and people who live in Japan, as well as 17 in the US it's been measured. This radiation does reach 18 the US.
19 I'm concerned about at the plant -- and I 20 think there needs to be further look at tritium. There 21 are tritium problems at the site. There's monitoring 22 wells that show that.
23 When you combine that with the fact that the 24 bottom of the main cooling reservoir has some leakage 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 26 going on -- this is documented; this was in the 1
application for South Texas Project 3 and 4 -- okay, 2
where is the research? Where is that tritium going? Is 3
it going out the bottom of the cooling reservoir and going 4
into the Gulf of Mexico?
5 Is it going into fish? Is it going into the 6
food chain? Is it impacting animals that feed upon these 7
species? Could it be a factor impacting whooping 8
cranes, which are endangered?
9 Nobody has looked at this, and it needs to 10 be looked at. This is part of the environmental impact 11 assessment. You've already got the factor that the huge 12 amount of water being used to cool these reactors means 13 less fresh water can reach the Gulf of Mexico; less blue 14 crabs. That impacts birds.
15 But in addition to that, we need to be 16 looking at, at this point in time, whether the radiation 17 is getting into these species; not just the numbers of 18 fish. There needs to be additional analysis.
19 There have been problems with this reactor 20 over the years, and they seem to be increasing. While 21 we read about great safety reports and great numbers of 22 days without shutting down, well, that's good, and great 23 worker safety; that's what the reports say.
24 But when you look across 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 27 country -- there's an expert by the name of David 1
Lochbaum; he has worked for the NRC; he's also worked for 2
the Union of Concerned Scientists, and he did a report 3
called The Nuclear Tightrope.
4 And he looked at plants where they had 5
year-long outages. What he found was a typical pattern, 6
that in a reactor that had a serious accident, serious 7
problem, there would be glowing reports, right up until 8
the accident happened. Nothing was wrong, everything 9
was perfect, and then all of a sudden, catastrophic 10 problem that had been missed all along that just wasn't 11 showing up. And then we had this major problem.
12 So this has happened over and over, and I 13 think it's time for this report and for the NRC in general 14 to look deeply into what's going on.
15 Now, in 2003 there was leakage of 16 radioactive material outside the reactor, at the base of 17 it. That's not where radioactive material's supposed to 18 be, ever.
19 And I remember when these reactors got 20 built. We were told there was a backup system and then 21 another backup system and then another. In fact, there 22 were 12 -- there used to be 12 backup systems, and 23 radioactivity would never escape, and yet it did. It 24 has, within this operating lifetime.
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 28 We still have quite a ways to go before the 1
retirement dates of these reactors, and we've got these 2
problems.
3 Recently there have been problems with the 4
control rods getting stuck, not being able to function 5
properly. We had an outage just last week that involved 6
that, control rods dropping when they're not supposed to.
7 That is unsafe. That means that we don't 8
have full control of this reactor. I'm concerned. I 9
personally live in Austin, Texas, and Austin is an owner 10 of this reactor. I'm happy that we get some power from 11 it, but I'm very concerned about this safety aspect, for 12 the people who live here, for people downwind and around 13 the state.
14 Metal fatigue increases as reactors age.
15 The most dangerous years are the early startup years and 16 the final years of a reactor. So to consider giving a 17 nuclear reactor 20 more years of time to operate 14 and 18 15 years ahead of time, to me this is like telling 19 somebody you're going to sell them a used car, but you're 20 going to sell it to them today, and they're going to 21 receive it 14 and 15 years later. That doesn't make 22 sense.
23 This decision is being looked at and this 24 meeting is being held way, way too early. This is wrong 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 29 timing, and it needs to hold, it needs to wait.
1 Short of declaring that it's time to look 2
at transition away, I would urge you to do no action for 3
now and to delay until we know more. With the current 4
problems with the reactor, with the current fire, that 5
needs to be fully investigated.
6 And it's good that it appears that no 7
radioactivity got released, but what if this fire was 8
bigger? What if it was elsewhere? What if 9
circumstances had somehow been different?
10 It concerns me that reactors are operating 11 in a community that, after all of these years, still has 12 no paid professional fire department. I'm sure the 13 volunteers are very good people and probably trained, but 14 if you've got nuclear reactor in your backyard, that 15 means that there should be a paid professional fire 16 department that can be called on.
17 Furthermore, I think everyone should be 18 asking the question, if this was a very large fire, 19 extensive, how long would it take to get backup fire 20 departments here; for example, from Houston? -- because 21 I have a feeling that it's longer than just the drive to 22 get here.
23 These are serious safety concerns.
24 There are questions about the impacts 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 30 when the reactor is down. It becomes expensive. With 1
the 16 percent ownership of Austin Energy, the months 2
that they were down, roughly from November till almost 3
April of 2012 -- November 2011 to almost April, that cost 4
Austin 42 million, and so I think it's increasingly 5
expensive as we have these outages. These reactors have 6
been part of the year-long outages in years past.
7 Preliminary findings of small to moderate 8
in terms of cumulative impacts, that should be none.
9 There's a serious problem here. If this community was 10 hosting wind energy or solar, I don't think you would be 11 having these same impacts.
12 Moderate is not acceptable. And it matters 13 to whom? Who is it moderate for? To whom is it low?
14 The workers on site? I'm concerned about the fact that 15 as contract employees get laid off, as some of the 16 existing workers are impacted in the world of job cuts, 17 that safety is taking a backseat to economics and trying 18 to shave costs.
19 That means workers on the site have to work 20 longer hours, have to work more, and potentially are 21 exposed to more radioactivity. That is of great 22 concern, and these things need to be addressed in the 23 Environmental Impact Statement.
24 And so for a worker, that impact might not 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 31 be moderate; that impact might be huge. It depends on 1
who we're talking about.
2 I think I'll wrap up my remarks at this point 3
in time, and I thank you for this opportunity.
4 MS. SALTER: Thank you, Ms. Hadden.
5 So that was all of the folks that signed up 6
to make a comment. I'll give one last chance.
7 (No response.)
8 MS. SALTER: All right. Well, thank you 9
again for coming out this afternoon. We will be having 10 another meeting this evening at 7:00. You're welcome to 11 join us again for that. It will be the same meeting as 12 this was but with probably different folks making 13 comments.
14 I also want to let you know that we had 15 feedback forms at the front table when you came in, and 16 the NRC is always looking to improve their public meeting 17 format and process, so please take some time to fill those 18 out on your way out. You can leave them here or drop them 19 in the mail to the NRC.
20 So with that, I'd like to turn the meeting 21 over to Dave Wrona, Branch Chief in the Division of 22 License Renewal in the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor 23 Regulation, for some closing remarks.
24 MR. WRONA: Thank you, Susan.
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 32 Tam, would you mind going back to the slide 1
that shows the various ways that folks can comment on our 2
Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
3 First of all, I want to thank you all for 4
coming out tonight -- this afternoon and taking some time 5
out of your schedule to actually contribute to the 6
process to help us make our Final Environmental Impact 7
Statement the best that it can be.
8 I want to let everybody know it doesn't 9
matter whether you commented today, you comment in the 10 evening, you write us a letter, you go on the internet.
11 All the comments are treated the same.
12 The NRC will consider all these comments, 13 go through them as we develop our final impact -- Final 14 Environmental Impact Statement.
15 If you get your comments in by February 22, 16 we can guarantee that they will be considered. We will 17 include them all in the final report, and responses to 18 all those comments.
19 Again, I just want to thank everybody for 20 the time and coming out and helping us with our 21 environmental review process.
22 Thank you.
23 MS. SALTER: Be back at seven o'clock; open 24 house at 6:00 if you'd like to join us again this evening.
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 33 (Whereupon, at 2:47 p.m., the hearing was 1
concluded.)
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21