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