ML15181A447
| ML15181A447 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | SHINE Medical Technologies |
| Issue date: | 06/10/2015 |
| From: | Division of License Renewal |
| To: | |
| Moser M, 415-6509 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15170A262 | List: |
| References | |
| NRC-1625 | |
| Download: ML15181A447 (25) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Public Meeting for the Construction Permit for the Proposed SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility: Afternoon Session Docket Number: 50-608 Location: Janesville, Wisconsin Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 Work Order No.: NRC-1625 Pages 1-24 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ + + + +
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Construction Permit for the Proposed SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility
+ + + + +
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2015
+ + + + +
ROTARY BOTANICAL GARDENS 1455 PALMER DRIVE JANESVILLE, WISCONSIN 53545
+ + + + +
The above-entitled matter commenced pursuant to Notice before Alison Rivera, Facilitator, at 2:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
NRC STAFF:
Alison Rivera, Facilitator, NRC Mirela Gavrilas, Deputy Director Division of Policy & Rulemaking Michelle Moser, Environmental Project Manager Division of License Renewal ALSO PRESENT:
Randy Howell, Department of Energy NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
2 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 (2:00 p.m.)
3 MS. RIVERA: Good afternoon, everyone, and 4 welcome. My name is Alison Rivera, and I will be the 5 facilitator for today's meeting. First, I want to 6 welcome you and thank you for participating in this 7 meeting which is to provide comments on the draft 8 environmental impact statement prepared by the NRC 9 staff as part of its review of potential environmental 10 impacts for a proposed medical radioisotope production 11 facility here in Janesville, Wisconsin.
12 You may recall the NRC was here two years 13 ago approximately. In that meeting we were collecting 14 input on what should be looked at for this draft 15 environmental impact statement. Also, that was a 16 scoping meeting. The purpose of today's meeting, now 17 that the analysis has been done, is to provide comments 18 on the draft document.
19 Hopefully, everyone has a chance to sign 20 in, and for those who wish to speak during the public 21 comment period, you've had the opportunity to turn in 22 a yellow card. If you haven't signed in, the sheets are 23 near the entrance as you leave, and I have blank cards 24 with me that I can bring around if you raise your hands.
25 I do have all of the cards that were turned in prior to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
3 1 this meeting starting.
2 For those of you who do not wish to speak, 3 but still wish to provide comments, there are blank 4 papers out there that you can write your comments, and 5 they will be treated in the same regard as anything that 6 is spoken today in this meeting.
7 Some logistics before going over the 8 agenda; the restrooms are located outside of the side 9 door and to the right. You can see the exits lighting 10 the side of this wall or as you came in. If we do have 11 to evacuate, in the unlikely event, please follow 12 directions from security officers.
13 The agenda for this meeting includes 14 introductory remarks by Mirela Gavrilas, deputy 15 director of the division of policy and rulemaking in the 16 office of nuclear reactor regulation at the NRC, 17 followed by Randy Howell from the Department of Energy.
18 Following this, the NRC staff will present the 19 preliminary conclusions from the draft environmental 20 impact statement.
21 When the presentation concludes, we will 22 move right into the public comment period. I would like 23 to go over a couple of ground rules for this meeting.
24 First and foremost, please be respectful of others, and 25 that will ensure that all participants who wish to do NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
4 1 so have an opportunity to comment.
2 Also, please turn off all electronic 3 devices or put them on vibrate. If you need to take a 4 phone call, I certainly understand that, but please go 5 out into the foyer to do so, so that the audience can 6 continue to hear the presentations and comments.
7 In addition, you may have noticed that this 8 meeting is being recorded. So minimizing the 9 background noise and side conversations will help the 10 court reporter produce an accurate recording of the 11 meeting. In that same vein, when speaking I do ask that 12 you use a mic, and I will bring it around to you if you 13 have filled out a yellow card to speak.
14 Finally, the NRC is always looking for ways 15 to improve our meetings, and your feedback is important 16 to us. We have some postage-paid public meeting 17 feedback forms on the literature table, and you can fill 18 one out here and give it to an NRC staff member, or drop 19 it in the mail.
20 With that, I would like to turn the meeting 21 over to Mirela Gavrilas.
22 MS. GAVRILAS: Thank you, Alison. Thank 23 you for coming here today. I'm Mirela Gavrilas. Like 24 Alison said, I'm the deputy director for policy and 25 rulemaking in the office for nuclear reactor regulation NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 1 in the NRC. It's my pleasure to welcome you all today 2 on behalf of the NRC staff.
3 We're here because in the spring of 2013 4 SHINE Medical Technologies submitted an application to 5 the NRC. They proposed to build a facility in 6 Janesville, Wisconsin, so the meeting is being held 7 here. What the NRC will do with that application is it 8 will review it in two phases. The first one is the 9 review for the construction permit, and the second one 10 is the review of the operating license.
11 As part of the construction permit review, 12 the staff is producing an environmental impact 13 statement. This statement looks at how the activities 14 around the SHINE proposed facility are going to impact 15 the environment. Our review looks at how it's going to 16 affect the environment during construction, operation, 17 and even through decommissioning.
18 So our purpose in being here today is to 19 interact with everybody and present our findings today, 20 the preliminary findings that are documented in the 21 draft environmental impact statement, and to seek 22 comments from the community that we will, subsequently, 23 address before we finalize the environmental impact 24 statement.
25 I just want to mention that the review of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
6 1 the SHINE facility is a priority for the NRC, and the 2 environmental review is under the National 3 Environmental Policy Act and, moreover, the American 4 Medical Isotope Production Act has tasked us to work 5 with the Department of Energy in generating the 6 environmental impact statement.
7 SHINE is novel technology, and the review 8 of SHINE involves lots of staff in the NRC. There are 9 quite a few of those staff here today, and I would like 10 to introduce them to you. With us we have Al Adams, who 11 is the chief of the research and test reactor licensing 12 branch.
13 You'll soon meet Michelle Moser, who is the 14 project manager for the SHINE environmental review. We 15 have Kevin Folk, who's helping us out with the slides.
16 Kevin is a water resource specialist, and he's also a 17 contributor to the environmental impact statement. We 18 have Steve Lynch, who is the project manager for SHINE 19 for the safety review of the SHINE facility.
20 Alex Sapountzis is a project manager and 21 security specialist with the NRC. We get support today 22 from Victoria Mitlyng, public affairs officer from 23 Region III. We also have from Region III, Harral 24 Logaras, who's the government liaison officer, and 25 Chuck Teal.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
7 1 With that, I'm going to turn it over to 2 Randy Howell from DOE. He's going to make a couple of 3 brief comments before Michelle gets into her 4 presentation.
5 MR. HOWELL: Hello. My name's Randy 6 Howell. Just a quick note for context, the Department 7 of Energy, as Mirela said, under the American Medical 8 Isotopes Production Act of 2012, or AMIPA as we call it, 9 has a program to support companies that are trying to 10 produce Molybdenum-99, Moly-99, in the U.S.
11 So we are working with SHINE, providing 12 some funding to them to support their project to produce 13 Moly here in Janesville. Under AMIPA we have a role, 14 and under NEPA we have a role to cooperate with the NRC.
15 So I don't have a formal role in the NEPA process, per 16 se.
17 I'm just here because of the Department of 18 Energy's role in cooperating with SHINE. But if you 19 have any questions on our involvement, I'm happy to take 20 that. I just won't be directly involved in most of 21 this. Anyway, I'll turn it over to Michelle Moser to 22 talk about the environmental side.
23 MS. MOSER: Good afternoon everyone.
24 Thank you, Randy. I also want to thank everyone for 25 taking the time out of their day to attend this meeting.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
8 1 As Mirela mentioned, my name is Michelle Moser, and I'm 2 the environmental project manager for the SHINE 3 project. I hope the information we provide you with 4 today will help you understand what we've done so far, 5 and also, the role you can play in helping us finalize 6 this document.
7 I'd like to start by going over the agenda 8 and purpose of my presentation. First, I'll briefly 9 describe NRC's regulatory role. I'll provide a brief 10 summary of the construction permit process. Then next 11 I'll move into an overview of the draft environmental 12 impact statement, which you might hear me refer to as 13 an EIS. So if you hear EIS, think environmental impact 14 statement.
15 I'll summarize the preliminary findings 16 that we documented in the EIS, and lastly, I will 17 describe how you can submit comments. At the end of the 18 presentation, which is the most important part of this 19 meeting, there will be an opportunity for people to 20 provide comments.
21 NRC was established to regulate civilian 22 use of nuclear materials and facilities. For example, 23 the NRC conducts environmental and safety reviews for 24 nuclear power reactors, research and test reactors, and 25 medical isotope production facilities. In all aspects NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
9 1 of NRC's regulation, our mission is threefold. To 2 ensure adequate protection of public health and safety.
3 To promote common defense and security, and to protect 4 the environment.
5 Environmental reviews of construction 6 permit applications are performed in accordance with 7 the National Environmental Policy Act, which you've 8 heard us refer to as NEPA. NEPA establishes a national 9 policy for considering environmental impacts, 10 informing federal decision makers, and also disclosing 11 environmental impacts to the public. The NRC's 12 environmental regulations, implementing the 13 requirements of NEPA, are contained within 10CFR Part 14 51. These regulations contain information such as when 15 to prepare an environmental impact statement.
16 I will now briefly go over the construction 17 permit review process. This flowchart highlights the 18 two parallel reviews associated with a construction 19 permit application. One being the safety review, which 20 Steve Lynch is in charge of, and one being the 21 environmental review. In addition to these two 22 reviews, there's an independent review performed by the 23 advisory committee on reactor safeguards, commonly 24 referred to as ACRS.
25 The ACRS is an independent group of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 1 scientists and nuclear safety specialists who serve as 2 a consulting body to the Commission. The ACRS reviews 3 the construction permit application and the NRC staff's 4 safety evaluation report. The ACRS reports their 5 findings and recommendations directly to the 6 Commission.
7 Typically, these meetings are open to the 8 public, and I will be talking about them again on the 9 next slide, specifically for the SHINE project.
10 Additionally, a mandatory hearing will be conducted by 11 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, an adjudicatory 12 panel, in support of the review of the construction 13 permit application. The Commission considers the 14 outcome of the hearing process in its decision on 15 whether or not to grant, or to issue the construction 16 permit.
17 I'm now going to describe the current 18 status of the safety review, followed by the status of 19 the environmental review. As Mirela mentioned, SHINE 20 submitted a construction permit application in two 21 parts in spring of 2013. NRC published notices of 22 acceptance shortly thereafter.
23 The NRC staff has been reviewing the 24 information in the construction permit application.
25 As part of this review, the NRC has issued requests for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
11 1 additional information in order to seek clarification 2 on the information included in the application, or to 3 seek additional information.
4 The NRC staff will begin publishing 5 portions of the draft safety evaluation report later 6 this month, and will be presenting to the advisory 7 committee for reactor safeguards throughout the summer.
8 Meeting notices will be posted on the NRC website for 9 these meetings. So we encourage you to look on the 10 website for these notices. The NRC staff expects to 11 publish the final safety evaluation report in October 12 of 2015.
13 I'm now going to talk about the status of 14 the environmental review process. In March of 2013, 15 SHINE submitted part one of its construction permit 16 application, which included SHINE's environmental 17 report. A public scoping meeting was held here about 18 two years ago, on July 17th as part of the environmental 19 scoping process.
20 As Alison mentioned, this meeting was held 21 in order to gather input from the public on the type of 22 issues that should be considered in the environmental 23 impact statement. Some of you may have attended that 24 meeting and provided comments to us. Comments that 25 were given at the scoping meeting or sent in through NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
12 1 regulations.gov or through the mail that were within the 2 scope of the environmental review are included in 3 Appendix A of the draft environmental impact statement, 4 and we have responded to those comments.
5 The draft environmental impact statement 6 was published on May 11th, and we are currently 7 accepting public comments on this document through July 8 6th. Today's meeting is being transcribed, and 9 comments provided here will be considered in the same 10 way as written comments that are submitted to the NRC.
11 Once the comment period closes, we will develop the 12 final environmental impact statement, which we expect 13 to publish in October. The final environmental impact 14 statement will include responses to all comments 15 received during this comment period.
16 I will now provide an overview of the 17 environmental impact statement, including a discussion 18 of the purpose and need of the proposed action, the 19 affected environment, the impacts of the proposed 20 action, and alternatives to the proposed action, and the 21 staff's preliminary findings and recommendations.
22 As Randy mentioned, there are two agencies 23 involved developing this environmental impact 24 statement; both the NRC and the Department of Energy.
25 Because there are two federal agencies, there are also NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
13 1 two federal actions. The proposed federal action for 2 the NRC is to decide whether to issue a construction 3 permit, under 10CFR Part 50, that would allow 4 construction of a medical radioisotope facility.
5 If the NRC issues the required permits and 6 licenses, the proposed federal action for DOE is to 7 decide whether to provide additional cost-sharing 8 financial support to SHINE under a cooperative 9 agreement to accelerate the commercial production of 10 medical radioisotopes without the use of highly 11 enriched uranium.
12 The purpose of and need for this proposed 13 federal action is to provide a medical radioisotope 14 production option that could help fulfill the need for 15 a domestic source of medical isotopes. For the past two 16 decades, the U.S. has relied on imported medical 17 radioisotopes, and there have been shortages in the past 18 few years. The NRC, however, does not have a role in 19 the planning decisions as to whether a particular 20 radioisotope production facility should be constructed 21 and operated. Rather, we are a regulatory authority 22 that will review the application. Next slide.
23 The affected environment within the 24 environmental impact statement describes the existing 25 environment on and near the proposed SHINE site. For NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
14 1 example, the NRC staff described the existing land uses 2 on and near the proposed site such as agricultural 3 fields, open spaces and developed areas. Some 4 environmental impacts could occur beyond the borders of 5 the proposed facility, such as air emissions.
6 Therefore, the NRC staff also described the existing 7 environment within five miles of the proposed site.
8 Next slide.
9 Chapter 4 of the EIS describes the 10 potential impacts from construction, operations and 11 decommissioning. The NRC established three levels of 12 significance for potential impacts: small, moderate and 13 large. A small impact occurs when the effects are not 14 detectible, or are so minor they neither destabilize nor 15 noticeably alter any important attributes of the 16 resource.
17 For example, SHINE would use construction 18 equipment to build the facility. Noise from these 19 activities may disturb birds and wildlife. However, 20 the effects would be small because birds and wildlife 21 would be able to find ample similar habitats surrounding 22 the proposed site. Once construction activities are 23 finished, birds and wildlife could return to the site.
24 A moderate impact occurs when the effects 25 are sufficient to noticeably alter, but not to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
15 1 destabilize important attributes of the resource. For 2 example, the NRC staff determined that there could be 3 noticeable delays during peak hour traffic at 4 intersections along Highway 51.
5 A large impact occurs when the effects are 6 clearly noticeable, and are sufficient to destabilize 7 important attributes of the resource. As I will show 8 you on the next slide, the NRC staff did not identify 9 any large impacts associated with the SHINE project.
10 As you can see on this slide, the NRC staff 11 determined that the impacts to all resource areas, 12 except transportation, would be small. For 13 transportation, the NRC staff determined that the 14 impacts would be small to moderate, as I will discuss 15 in more detail on the next slide.
16 During construction, the impacts could be 17 moderate, because there would an 11 percent increase in 18 traffic on US Highway 51, and minor delays could occur 19 during peak hour traffic at intersections along U.S.
20 Highway 51. These impacts would likely be temporary, 21 and of short duration, and would abate as construction 22 activities wind down.
23 During operations, impacts would be small 24 to moderate. There would be an increase in traffic due 25 to the additional 150 worker vehicles and monthly NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
16 1 deliveries of materials and outbound shipments of 2 medical isotopes and waste. The NRC staff determined 3 that this would result in a slight degradation of 4 service at the intersection of State Trunk Highway 11 5 and U.S. Highway 51.
6 However, the number of additional vehicles 7 on the road would be less than that during construction 8 and during decommissioning. During decommissioning, 9 the impacts would be moderate due to potential 10 noticeable delays. These delays would abate once 11 decommissioning activities are over.
12 In addition to the National Environmental 13 Policy Act or NEPA, the NRC may address other regulatory 14 requirements within its EIS. For example, the NRC 15 staff conducted a review of potential impacts to 16 threatened and endangered species, as required under 17 the Endangered Species Act. Under this act, the NRC 18 must determine whether threatened and endangered 19 species occur on the proposed site and, if so, how the 20 proposed action could affect these species.
21 Under the National Historic Preservation 22 Act, NRC staff first determines whether historic 23 properties would be affected or not. If historic 24 properties would be affected, then the NRC staff 25 determines whether the affects would be adverse. For NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17 1 the staff's review of environmental justice, the NRC 2 staff examines whether a proposed action would have 3 disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority 4 or low-income populations.
5 For the SHINE review, the NRC staff 6 determined that constructing the proposed building 7 would have no effect on threatened and endangered 8 species. This conclusion was made, in part, because 9 the proposed site is primarily an agricultural field, 10 and does not provide suitable habitat for any threatened 11 or endangered species.
12 The NRC staff also determined that the 13 proposed action would have no adverse effect on historic 14 resources, and no disproportionately high and adverse 15 impact on minority or low-income populations. Next 16 slide.
17 The NRC staff also considers cumulative 18 impacts. Cumulative impacts occur when the effect of 19 other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable 20 activities have overlapping impacts with the proposed 21 action. For this analysis, we're not just looking at 22 the impacts from the proposed SHINE facility, but also 23 any overlapping impacts from other activities, such as 24 climate change or increased urbanization.
25 While the level of impacts from the SHINE NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18 1 facility on ecological resources would be small, the NRC 2 staff determined that the cumulative impacts would be 3 moderate, primarily due to other activities, such as 4 climate change and agricultural runoff.
5 The NRC staff determined that the 6 cumulative impacts on transportation would range from 7 small to moderate, primarily based on the increased 8 traffic due to the proposed SHINE project. The NRC 9 staff found that for all other resource areas, the 10 cumulative impacts would be small.
11 Chapter 5 of the environmental impact 12 statement compares the environmental impacts of the 13 proposed action with reasonable alternatives. For 14 this analysis, the NRC staff examined two alternative 15 sites. Both of these sites were included in SHINE's 16 site selection process. One is Chippewa Falls, and the 17 other one is Stevens Point which, as you are likely 18 aware, occur in Wisconsin north of here.
19 The NRC staff found slightly higher 20 environmental impacts at both of the alternative sites.
21 For example, at Chippewa Falls, the NRC staff determined 22 that the impacts to noise and transportation would range 23 from small to moderate, and at Stevens Point, the impact 24 would range from small to moderate for visual resources, 25 noise and transportation. If you'll remember the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
19 1 previous slide, the impacts at the SHINE site would be 2 small for all resource areas, except for small to 3 moderate for transportation.
4 The NRC staff also examined one alternative 5 technology, which was linear accelerator-based. For 6 the purpose of this analysis, the NRC staff used the 7 environmental parameters that were included in DOE's 8 environmental assessment for the NorthStar medical 9 radioisotopes facility. This is because this 10 commercial entity was awarded a cooperative agreement 11 by DOE, and because sufficient environmental data 12 exists for this proposed technology.
13 There are several other proposed 14 technologies out there, but the staff determined that 15 there was not sufficient environmental data in order to 16 conduct a reasonable and meaningful analysis. Our 17 analysis looked at a hypothetical situation whereby a 18 facility using a linear accelerator-based technology 19 was constructed at the proposed SHINE site. We 20 determined that the impacts would be the same as what 21 we find for the proposed SHINE facility.
22 Lastly, the NRC staff evaluated the 23 no-action alternative, or the impacts if the NRC denied 24 the construction permit. The staff found that the 25 impacts would be small for all resource areas.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
20 1 However, this alternative does not fill the stated 2 purpose and need of the project.
3 The NRC staff's preliminary recommendation 4 is that, after weighing the environmental, economic, 5 technical and other benefits against environmental and 6 other costs, and considering reasonable alternatives 7 the NRC staff recommends the issuance of the 8 construction permit to SHINE, unless safety issues 9 mandate otherwise.
10 I would like to emphasize that the 11 environmental review is not yet complete. Your 12 comments today, and all written comments received by the 13 end of the comment period on July 6th, will be considered 14 as we develop the final environmental impact statement.
15 Those comments that are within the scope of the 16 environmental review, can help to change the staff's 17 findings.
18 The final EIS will contain the staff's 19 final recommendation on the acceptability of issuing 20 the construction permit based on the work we've already 21 performed and any new information we receive in the form 22 of comments during the comment period. The NRC staff 23 will address written comments in the same way we address 24 spoken comments received today.
25 You can submit written comments either NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
21 1 online, or via mail. To submit written comments 2 online, visit the website regulations.gov, and search 3 for the docket NRC-2013-0053. If you have any written 4 comments today, you're more than welcome to give them 5 to me or any NRC staff member. We also have pens and 6 paper in the atrium if you would like to write down any 7 comments that you have.
8 I am the primary contact for the 9 environmental review, and my contact information is on 10 the slide. Steve Lynch is the primary contact for the 11 safety review. Paper copies and CDs of the draft EIS 12 are available out front. In addition, the Hedberg 13 Public Library has a paper copy available for review.
14 You can also find electronic copies of the draft EIS on 15 the NRC website. This concludes my presentation, and 16 I'm going to turn it back over to Alison.
17 MS. RIVERA: Thanks, Michelle. We are now 18 going to move into the public comment period. This is 19 the part of the meeting where you have an opportunity 20 to provide your comments on the draft environmental 21 impact statement to the NRC. Although we will not 22 officially be responding to any comments received 23 today, as Michelle indicated, the comments received, 24 both written and orally today and through 25 regulations.gov, will be addressed in the final EIS if NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22 1 they are within the scope of the environmental review.
2 As I mentioned earlier, we are recording 3 this meeting. So if we can keep sidebar conversations 4 down to avoid background noise, and I also ask that you 5 speak into a microphone, which I will bring around to 6 you. If you have not had a chance to fill out a yellow 7 card, and wish to speak, you can raise your hand and I 8 will bring one around to you.
9 As a reminder for those making comments, 10 please begin by identifying yourself with your name, and 11 if you would like to mention any organization 12 affiliation, please do that, as well. Please try to be 13 succinct. Try and keep your comments to about three 14 minutes. If you wish to make a comment outside the 15 scope of this meeting, NRC staff will be available for 16 approximately 30 minutes following the meeting to 17 answer any questions. Our first speaker is going to be 18 Bill McCoy.
19 MR. MCCOY: I know two years ago I spoke on 20 the same; for safety around the airport and everything 21 else. I did talk to pilots going in and out of the 22 airport, and they said this is the wrong place for this 23 building to be put. They would hope the NRC would see 24 to deny the building permit for this.
25 There's other places in the State of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
23 1 Wisconsin that this building could be put, Badger Army 2 Depot is for one. It's less than a five minute 3 helicopter flight to Dane County Airport. I just left 4 from up there this morning to do the fast track. So my 5 recommendation is because of the contaminated land 6 already up there, to save us from having contaminated 7 land down here in Janesville.
8 As a citizen of Janesville, I am saying no 9 for the building permit to be issued to SHINE. I don't 10 care what the city official says; I'm speaking on behalf 11 of a citizen of Janesville. Thank you.
12 Ms. RIVERA: Thank you, Mr. McCoy. Mr.
13 McCoy is actually the only registered speaker. So if 14 there's anyone else that would like to speak, now is your 15 opportunity. No? Anyone? Okay, seeing none, again 16 we will have an evening session, as well. So if you come 17 up with anything in between, there's another 18 opportunity. So I'm going to now turn it over to 19 Mirela.
20 MS. GAVRILAS: Well, I want to conclude by 21 thanking everybody for coming. Like Alison said, we 22 have another open house that starts at six o'clock. So 23 please, if you know of people who are interested in the 24 topic, we would like to see them here this evening. We 25 will have another presentation and another opportunity NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
24 1 for comment at 7:00 tonight. Thank you, again, and have 2 a good afternoon.
3 (Whereupon at 2:31 p.m. the 4 meeting was concluded.)
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433