ML073240311
| ML073240311 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 11/08/2007 |
| From: | NRC/NRR/ADRO |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NRC-1855 | |
| Download: ML073240311 (24) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Draft EIS Wolf Creek Generating Station Public Meeting: Afternoon Session Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
Burlington, Kansas Date:
Thursday, November 8, 2007 Work Order No.:
NRC-1855 Pages 1-22 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
+++++
4 DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 5
for the 6
LICENSE RENEWAL of WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION 7
PUBLIC HEARING 8
9 10 Thursday, November 8, 2007 11 12 Coffey County Library 13 Burlington Branch 14 410 Juanita Street 15 Burlington, Kansas 66839 16 The above-entitled public hearing was conducted 17 at 1:30 p.m.
18 BEFORE:
19 RANI FRANOVICH 20 CHRISTIAN JACOBS 21 TAM TRAN 22 23 24 25 NEAL R.
GROSS & CO.,
INC.
(202) 234-4433
2 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX SPEAKER/TOPIC
==
Introduction:==
Rani Franovich NRC Presentation:
Christian Jacobs Public Comment:
Dorothy Shoup PAGE 3
3 15 NEAL R.
GROSS & CO.,
INC.
(202) 234-4433
3 1
P R O C E E D I N G S 2
MS.
FRANOVICH:
I'm Rani Franovich, and I'm the 3
chief of the Reactor Projects Branch in headquarters in 4
Rockville, Maryland.
My staff prepared the environmental 5
impact statement for Wolf Creek license renewal.
We're 6
here today to get some preliminary results of our 7
environmental review for Wolf Creek license renewal.
8 What we're going to do is start out with a very 9
brief presentation.
Chris Jacobs here, he's the project 10 manager for the environmental review.
He's going to talk 11 for a few minutes about what we actually looked at for our 12 environmental review and some of the preliminary findings 13 of that review.
14 Then we're going to have a very brief question 15 and answer period, if anyone has any questions about what 16 Chris has talked about.
I'll go out to the audience and 17 let you ask your questions and we'll do what we can to 18 answer them.
And then after that we'll open it up for the 19 public to come and make comments on the environmental 20 impact statement that we've recently published.
21 And so with that, let me go on and turn things 22 over to Chris to give his brief presentation.
Chris.
23 MR.
JACOBS:
Thank you for taking the time to 24 come to this meeting.
I hope the information we provide 25 will help you to understand the process we're going NEAL R.
GROSS & CO.,
INC.
(202) 234-4433
4 1
through, what we've done so far and the role you can play 2
in helping us make sure that the final environmental 3
impact statement, or EIS, is accurate.
4 I'd like to start off by briefly going over the 5
agenda and the purposes of today's meeting.
We're going 6
to present the preliminary findings of our environmental 7
review which assesses the impacts associated with renewing 8
the operating license for Wolf Creek Generating Station.
9 Then we'll give you some information about the schedule 10 for the remainder of our review and how you can submit 11 comments in the future.
And then finally, really the most 12 important part of today's meeting, is where we receive any 13 comments that you may have.
14 The Atomic Energy Act gives the NRC the 15 authority to issue operating licenses to commercial 16 nuclear power plants for a period of up to 40. years.
For 17 Wolf Creek, that license will expire in 2025.
Our 18 regulations make provisions for extending plant operation 19 for an additional 20 years.
Wolf Creek Generating 20 Station--
from here on I'll just refer to it as Wolf 21 Creek --
operated by Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating 22 Corporation, has requested license renewal.
23 As part of the NRC's review of that license 24 renewal application, we perform an environmental review to 25 look at the impacts of an additional 20 years of operation NEAL R.
GROSS & CO.,
INC.
(202) 234-4433
5 1
on the environment.
We held a meeting right here in 2
December 2006 to seek your input regarding issues we need 3
to evaluate.
Now we are here to present the preliminary 4
results in the draft supplemental EIS.
Afterwards, we 5
will open the floor for comments on the draft supplemental 6
EIS.
7 This slide illustrates the environmental review
- 8 process.
This review which is the subject of today's 9
meeting evaluates the impacts of license'renewal.
It 10 involves scoping activities and the development of a ii document called a supplement to the generic EIS for 12 license renewal.
The draft supplemental EIS provides the 13 staff's preliminary assessment of environmental impacts 14 during the period of extended operation.
The draft 15 supplemental EIS for Wolf Creek was-published for comment 16 in September.
17 Next,. I would like to give information on the 18 statute that governs the environmental review.
,That 19 statute is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 20 commonly referred to as NEPA.
21 NEPA requires that all federal agencies follow 22 a systematic approach in evaluating potential 23 environmental impacts associated with certain actions.
We 24 at the NRC are required to consider the impacts of the 25 proposed action which is license renewal and also any NEAL R.
GROSS & CO.,
INC.
(202) 234-4433
6 1
mitigation for those impacts.
We are also required to 2
consider alternatives to the proposed action.
3 The NRC has determined that an EIS will be 4
prepared for any proposed license renewal-of a nuclear 5
plant.
6 NEPA and our EIS are disclosure tools.
They 7
are specifically structured to involve public 8
participation and obtain public comment.
This meeting 9
facilitates the public participation in our environmental 10 review.
11 In the 1990s, the NRC staff developed a generic 12 EIS that addresses a number of issues common to all 13 nuclear plants.
As a result of that analysis, the NRC was 14 able to determine that a number of environmental issues 15 were common to or similar for all nuclear power plants.
16 The staff is supplementing that generic EIS with this 17 site-specific EIS that addresses issues specific to Wolf 18 Creek.
Together, the generic EIS and the supplemental EIS 19 document the staff's analysis of the impacts of license 20 renewal for the Wolf Creek site.
21 Also, during the review, the NRC staff looks 22 for and evaluates any new and significant information that 23 might call into question the conclusions that were 24 previously reached in the generic EIS.
In addition, the 25 staff may identify new issues not addressed in the generic NEAL R.
GROSS & CO.,
INC.
(202) 234-4433
7 1
EIS.
2 This slide shows our decision standard for the
- 3.
environmental review.
Simply put:
Is license renewal 4
acceptable from an environmental standpoint.
5 We used information in the environmental report 6
submitted as part of Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating 7
Corporation's license renewal application.
We conducted 8
an environmental audit in March 2007 where we toured the 9
- facility, observed plant systems, and evaluated the 10 interaction of plant operations with the environment.
We 11 talked to plant personnel and reviewed specific.
12 documentation of plant operations.
We also spoke to 13
- federal, state and local officials, permitting authorities 14 and social services.
We considered the comments received 15 during the public scoping period.
In
- total, we received 16 comments from the U.S.
- EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 17 Service, and one comment from the general public.
18 All of this information forms the basis of our 19 preliminary conclusions presented in the draft 20 supplemental EIS.
21 The overall team expertise for the Wolf Creek 22 environmental review includes various disciplines, as 23 represented on this slide.
24 In the mid 1990s, NRC evaluated the impacts of 25 all operating nuclear power plants across the U.S.
NRC NEAL R.
GROSS & CO.,
INC.
(202) 234-4433
8 1
looked at 92 separate impact areas and found that for 69 2
of these areas, the impacts were the same for all plants 3
with similar features.
The NRC called these Category 1 4
issues and they were able to make generic conclusions that 5
all the impacts on the-environment for Category 1 issues 6
would be small.
The NRC published these conclusions in 7
the generic EIS in 1996.
8 The NRC was unable to make similar 9
determinations for the remaining 23 issues.
As a 10 consequence, NRC decided that we would prepare 11 supplemental EISs for each plant to address the remaining 12 23 issues.
This slide lists some of the areas that were 13 addressed during the Wolf Creek environmental review.
14 This slide outlines how impacts are quantified.
15 The generic EISdefined three impact levels as shown on 16 the screen:
small, moderate, and large.
.17 Now I'm going touse the fishery in Coffey 18 County Lake to illustrate how we use these three terms.
19 The operation of Wolf Creek plant may cause loss of fish 20 within the lake.
If the loss of fish or species of fish 21 is so small that it cannot be detected in relation to the 22 total population in Coffey County Lake, the impact would 23 be small.
If losses cause the population to decline and 24 then stabilize at a lower level, the impact would be 25 moderate.
If the losses to the fish population declined NEAL R.
GROSS & CO.,
INC.
(202) 234-4433
9 1
to the point where it cannot be stabilized and it 2
continually declines, then the impact would be large.
3 Through staff's environmental review, we have 4
concluded that the potential environmental impacts for all 5
Category 2 issues are of small or small to moderate 6
significance.
In the next few slides I will discuss some 7
of the key issues related to the Wolf Creek environmental 8
review.
9 The first set of issues I'm going to talk about 10 relate to the make-up water for the cooling pond at Wolf 11 Creek.
Water use conflicts have been a concern at nuclear
- 12.
power plants with cooling ponds such as Wolf Creek where 13 make-up water is taken from a small river with low flow, 14 such as the Neosho River.
The issue of water use
.15 conflicts is considered a Category 2 issue.
The staff's 16 analysis of the water, use by the facility indicates that 17 although physical and administrative controls on water 18 withdrawal rates exist, water withdrawals can still occur 19 and have occurred during times when the natural low flow 20 rate in the Neosho River is already below the minimum 21 desirable stream flow established to be protective of end 22 stream and riparian communities.
Although Wolf Creek has 23 been in compliance with the NRC regulations, state issued 24 permits and water rights agreements, there is the 25 potential for a water use conflict to occur during the re-NEAL R.
GROSS & CO.,
INC.
(202) 234-4433
10 1
licensing period.
2 There may be water use conflicts associated 3
with the long term availability of the current water 4
supply, John Redmond Reservoir, during the relicensing 5
period.
The proposed action described in the applicant's 6
environmental report assumes that the John Redmond 7
Reservoir would continue to be the primary source of make-8 up water but does not address the likelihood that the 9
availability of this source is being reduced through 10 sedimentation.
If no actions are taken, the volume of 11 water available within the conservation pool would 12 continue to decrease and the supply of water to Wolf Creek 13 would begin to compete with the volumes of water available 14 to maintain adequate streamflow.
15 Therefore, the staff's preliminary 16 determination is that the impacts caused by water use 17 conflicts would be small to moderate.
18 Impingement, also considered a Category 2 19 issues, refers to juvenile or adult fish being pulled into 20 the cooling intake or the make-up water screen house and 21 getting pinned on the debris screens.
Available data 22 suggests that impingement has had little or no effect on 23 fish populations in Coffey County Lake.
24 The staff also evaluated impingement due to 25 make-up water pumping from the Neosho River at the make-up NEAL R.
GROSS & CO.,
INC.
(202) 234-4433
11 1
water screen house.
During t-imes of water use conflicts 2
when the make-up water screen house is withdrawing water 3
from the Neosho River and the water levels are low, 4
impingement impacts to fish populations may increase.
The 5
reduced volume of area and habitat in the Neosho River 6
would cause the density of fish susceptible to impingement 7
to be higher and could result in increased impingement 8
rates.
Reduced area and volume of habitat could cause 9
fish to seek new habitat and refuges, and reduced flow 10 would make their upstream migration to the make-up water 11 screen house area from the downstream easier.
- Together, 12 these changes could increase *impingement impact.
13 Therefore, if water use conflicts occur, the 14 staff's preliminary determination is that associated 15 impacts in the Neosho River due to impingement would be 16 small to moderate.
17 Threatened or endangered species is another 18 Category 2 issue which is related to the water use 19 conflicts mentioned previously.
We prepared a detailed 20 biological assessment to analyze the effects of continued 21 operation of Wolf Creek on the federally listed threatened 22 or endangered species identified by the U.S. Fish and 23 Wildlife Service.
24 One of the three species identified, the 25 American bald eagle, has since been de-listed.
The second NEAL R. GROSS & CO.,
INC.
(202) 234-4433
12 1
identified threatened or endangered species, Mead's 2
- milkweed, is a perennial herb of the tall-grass
- prairie, 3
and it is not adversely affected by continued operations 4
at the plant.
The only threatened or endangered species 5
that could be affected by license renewal at Wolf Creek is 6
a small catfish called the Neosho madtom, located 7
downstream of Wolf Creek's make-up water screen house.
- 8 The staff's preliminary determination is that 9
if no water use conflicts exist, the impacts on federally 10 listed threatened or endangered species from an additional 11 20 years of Wolf Creek operation would be small.
- However, 12 during low flow events or drought conditions, therelcould 13 be a reduction in the habitat available in the river to 14 the Neosho madtom.
15 Therefore, if small to moderate impacts occur 16 resulting from water use conflicts, the staff's 17 preliminary determination is that under these conditions, 18 impacts to the Neosho madtom could be small to moderate.
19 During the environmental review, we found no 20 information that was both new and significant in regard to 21 the Category 1 issues.
Therefore, we have preliminarily 22 adopted the generic EIS conclusion that impacts associated 23 with those issues would continue to be small.
24 In the Wolf Creek supplemental EIS, we analyzed 25 all the Category 2 issues and determined that the NEAL R.
GROSS & CO.,
INC.
(202) 234-4433
13 1
environmental impacts resulting from these issues were 2
small in all categories with the exception of the issues I 3
have just discussed.
Water use conflicts, impingement, 4
and threatened or endangered species were found to be 5
small' to moderate in some cases.
6 Also, during our analysis, we found that the 7
environmental impacts of alternatives in at least some 8
impact areas would reach moderate or large levels of 9
significance.
10 Based on the conclusions described in the 11 previous slide, the NRC staff's preliminary recommendation 12 is that the environmental impacts of license renewal are 13 not so great that license renewal would be unreasonable.
14 Listed are important milestone dates for the 15 Wolf Creek environmental review.
In September, the Wolf 16 Creek draft supplemental EIS was issued.
We are currently 17 accepting public comments on the draft-until December 26, 18 2007.
The final supplemental EIS is scheduled to be 19 published in May of next year.
20 This slide identifies Mr.
Tam Tran as your new 21 primary point of contact with the NRC for the safety and 22 environmental reviews ongoing at Wolf Creek.
I'm still 23 working at the NRC, however, I've moved on to another part 24 of the agency.
Any future correspondence can be directed 25 to Mr.
Tran with respect to completing the environmental NEAL R.
GROSS & CO.,
INC.
(202)'234-4433
14 1
review.
2 This slide also identifies where documents can 3
be found relating to the Wolf Creek review.
They're right 4
here at the. Coffey County Library, Burlington Branch.
5 Also, at the bottom of the slide is the internet address 6
-where you can directly access the Wolf Creek supplemental 7
EIS.
We also have plenty of hard copies available right 8
here on the table.
Please, anybody that wants one, take 9
it home with you.
10 There are several ways you can provide your 11 comments on the Wolf Creek draft supplemental EIS.
You 12 can provide comments today during the comment period of
'13 this meeting.
If you're not ready to provide a comment 14 today, you can send us your comments by e-mail to 15 WolfCreekEIS@nrc.gov.
You can also send your comments in 16 via U.S.
mail or hand deliver them to the NRC headquarters 17 in Maryland.
18 This concludes my presentation.
Thank you 19 again for attending today.
20 MS.
FRANOVICH:
Thank you, Chris.
21 Before we go to the comment period of today's 22 meeting, are there any questions about what Chris just 23 presented?
24 (No response.)
25 MS.
FRANOVICH:
Okay.
With that, we're into NEAL R.
GROSS & CO.,
INC.
(202) 234-4433
15 1
the comment portion of today's meeting.
I have a 2
registered speaker, Mr.
Bob Saueressing.
Would you like 3
to make a comment now?
4 MR.
SAUERESSING:
No. Just keeping my options 5
open.
6 MS.
FRANOVICH:
No problem.
7 Is there any other member of the audience who 8
would like to provide comments to the NRC staff.
- Dorothy, 9
would you like to make comments at this time?
Dorothy 10 Shoup.
11 MS.
SHOUP:
I have several copies of this so if 12 anyone would like it, this is four questions that I had 13 asked.
They are not exactly on what you hear about but 14 it's
- parallel, so I have them-for the representatives of 15 the NRC.
How many of those would there be?
16 MR.
JACOBS:
Just three of us.
17 MS.
SHOUP:
I'll give you three copies there, 18 and if you'd like to look at them now, they might have 19 some comments here.
20 How about how many local citizens do we have 21 here, folks that are just here as I am, just as a citizen?
22 Is that most of us?
How about anybody from the press?
23
- Well, I had just a little bit of 24 misinformation.
I had been working on this to kind of see 25 where I would go.
I was here 20 years ago, or a little NEAL R.
GROSS & CO.,
INC.
(202) 234-4433
16 1
over, when they had the hearing before they first licensed 2
Wolf Creek, and at that time I had two questions.
One of 3
them was how would we deal with the hazardous waste, and I 4
am not here pro or con, I'll just read what I wrote.
5 Today I do not take a pro or con stand but I do 6
seek information.
So what I'm going to tell you is not 7
pro or con of the plant.
I think they've done a pretty 8
good job of running the plant.
But these questions I 9
still have because the government --
we have not re-10 addressed this hazardous waste problem, the toxic waste.
11 We're storing it, it.seems to be all right right now.
12 Kansas didn't want the dump site, Nebraska didn't want the 13 dump site, nobody wants the dump site, and I understand.
14 So we have that to face, and as citizens, these 15 people are not able to address directly, but I notice they 16 handed out this wonderful book here, and while I was 17 scanning right now, in Section 4 it talks about the fish 18 and the rivers I'll depend on you hunters and fishermen 19 to look at that and then Section 5 environmental 20 impacts of postulated accidents.
I'll address that in 21 just a second.
And then one more, 7 environmental impacts 22 of alternatives to license renewal.
23 One of my questions was, when I got this, 24 apparently they're applying now for 2025 is the expiration 25 date now.
That's quite a ways away, isn't it?
And I NEAL R.
GROSS & CO.,
INC.
(202) 234-4433
17
.1 don't know what the reason is for applying so soon but 2
there must be a good reason.
Application requests 3
authorization to operate Wolf Creek Generating Station for 4
an additional 20 years.
- Now, if that wouldn't take place 5
until 2025, then it would be in 40-some, I'll be dead and 6
gone long since.
But I'm just interested in that; that 7
was something that came up today.
8
- Now, if you'll let me, I'll just read these and 9
if anybody wants a copy, you may have it.
Four questions, 10 please:
two I asked 20 years ago when this facility was 11 originally licensed, and two more which have currently 12 come from other concerned citizens.
13 Number one, care and disposal of the hazardous 14 waste, including current status of waste storage here in 15 Coffey County, Kansas.
France was and is a big user of 16 nuclear power, and I was told at that original hearing 17 that hazardous waste, spent fuel and so forth, was being 18 shipped to France, from France to Japan.
What now and 19 here?
I'm just asking for information; somebody may know 20
- this, I do not know.
21
- France, I think, has as much as 40 percent of 22 their energy coming from nuclear and you know what 23 problems we have.
Ethanol costs about as much to make as 24 it does and it's a good temporary thing but it's not the 25 answer.
Coal is dirty.
We try to scrub it, that takes NEAL R.
GROSS & CO.,
INC.
(202) 234-4433
18 1
energy.
And the sun doesn't store very well, we've got to 2
get better batteries.
So I think there are people who can 3
address these things but we need on it.
4
- Two, de-commissioning plan, and that is 5
mentioned in here.
After 20-plus years, is that 6
feasiblely sufficient and enforceable?
Please briefly 7
outline it for us.
- Now, I'm not asking for these people 8
to give me answers but I'm hoping that we can get some 9
answers.
Maybe a newspaper article or something 10 eventually can address some of these things.
11 Number three --
now, these came to me as I was 12 calling about this meeting --
expansion or additions, and 13 I got a little bit of misinformation.
Somebody said it's 14 already a done deal, someone else said it is not.
15 An Osage County acquaintance told me that this 16 is being requested.
Specifically, briefly what is being.
17 requested?
Has it been granted?
And apparently it has 18 not.
19 MR.
JACOBS:
There's been no request, ma'am, 20 for expansion of Wolf Creek beyond the current nuclear 21 plan.
And one other thing, Dorothy, the reason that they 22 come in when they do, they have an opportunity 5 to 20 23 years before the current license expires.
So that's part 24 of the regulations, and if they were not to get a license 25 renewal, they'd need some time to figure out what else NEAL R.
GROSS & CO.,
INC.
(202) 234-4433
19 1
they were going to be doing, so that's why they come in 2
when they do.
3 MS.
SHOUP:
I think that should be brought out 4
in a newspaper article so people can review it, because I 5
think people are interested but they're very, very busy.
6 And the last one --
this probably doesn't apply 7
to very many of you --
we in Osage County, we usually have 8
winds from the southwest.
Therefore, we are in the normal 9
path of a toxic plume, if there ever were one at the Wolf 10 Creek Power Plant.
Yet when I ask our county FEMA 11 representative --
everybody has one now, you know --
about 12 this aspect of a nuclear plant operations, I was told, A, 13 she does not recall information received or on hand.
14 Apparently, she's not being notified and it probably 15 wouldn't hurt to get along with our neighbors to do this 16 for the plant.
17 And Mr. Guevel, G-U-E-V-E-L, is he here 18 somewhere?
I'm probably saying it wrong.
Anyway, he is 19 with the plant.
Now maybe they could do something about 20 that.
21 And letter B, permission to attend emergency 22 preparedness exercises has been requested by this person 23 in Osage County but refused.
One was just concluded, I
24 understand.
Comments, please, on this.
Why would it not 25 be a good thing to have that FEMA representative, because NEAL R.
GROSS & CO.,
INC.
(202) 234-4433
20 1
as we know, when 9/11 came, all these aviation places were 2
teaching these guys how to fly and they told people but 3
the locals were not heard.
-.4 So what we're facing is tough, and I'm not 5
here, as I said, pro or con, but we need to face these 6
things, and as citizens give our input and our comment.
7 So that's all I had and I thank you for your 8
attention.
If anybody wants a copy of this, you may have 9
it because I've got plenty of them.
And I'm going to 10 study the book a little more.
Thank you.
11 MS.
FRANOVICH:
Thank you, Ms.
Shoup.
12 Just wanted to clarify one of the things that 13 Ms.
Shoup.brought up, the expansion of Wolf Creek.
We 14 could interpret that in two different ways:
one is 15 renewing the license and expanding the time the plant 16 operates, and that is the action before the NRC at this 17
- time; the other is expansion of the power block itself 18 with the addition of new reactors.
The license renewal 19 staff is not aware of any such plan.
20 So I just wanted to make a distinction between 21 those two interpretations of expansion.
22 MS.
SHOUP:
Are you saying there was a request 23 to expand the nuclear reactor part?
24 MS.
FRANOVICH:
No.
The license renewal staff 25 is not aware of any pursuit of new reactors at Wolf Creek NEAL R.
GROSS & CO.,
INC.
(202) 234-4433
21 1
site at this time.
2 MS.
SHOUP:.
The reason I asked you about this-3 is a member of the state legislature said Something on 4
this that I've got to go back and check with them to see what they understood.
6 MS.
FRANOVICH:
I understand.
7 Any other members of the public interested in 8
making a comment on our draft environmental impact 9
statement?
10 (No response.)
11 MS.
FRANQVICH:
Okay.
That concludes the 12 meeting.
Before I close things down, just wanted to thank 13 everybody for coming.
There is an opportunity to provide 14 comments on the environmental impact statement until 15 December 26, so Ms.
Shoup and others, if you think of any 16 other comments you'd like to provide to the NRC staff, 17 there is another month plus, six weeks or so, to provide 18 your comments.
19
- Also, if there's a way we can improve our NRC 20 public meetings, any suggestions you have for things we 21 could do different, things we're doing well, there is a
22 feedback form at the registration table that you could 23 pick up and fill out for us.
You can hand it to an NRC 24 staff member today or you can fold it up and mail it to 25 us --
postage is prepaid.
NEAL R.
GROSS & CO.,
INC.
(202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
.7 8
9 10 11 12 1.3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 And with that, thank you again for coming.
The meeting is concluded.
Thank you.
(Whereupon, at 1:56 p.m.,
the meeting was concluded.)
NEAL R.
GROSS & CO;,
INC.
(202) 234-4433
CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
Name of Proceeding:
Docket Number:
Location:
Draft EIS Wolf Creek Public Meeting (Not Applicable)
Burlington, Kansas were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a
true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
Peggy UrctWn Official Reporter Neal R.
Gross & Co.,
Inc.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 www.nealrgross.com