ML083250520

Transcript of Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 & 2, Public Meeting Evening Session: Evening Session, 10/30/2008, Pages 1-33

ML083250520
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	10/30/2008
From:	NRC/OCM
To:
References
NRC-2477
Download: ML083250520 (35)

Text

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Title:

Beaver Valley Power Station Public Meeting: Evening Session Docket Number:

(n/a)

Location:

Caraopolis, Pennsylvania Date:

Thursday, October 30, 2008 Work Order No.:

NRC-2477 Pages 1-33 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 LICENSE RENEWAL PROCESS 5

SCOPING PROCESS

SUMMARY

REPORT 6

BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION 7

UNITS 1 & 2 8

PUBLIC MEETING 9

+

+

+

+

+

10

Thursday, 11 October 30th, 2008 12

+

+

+

+

+

13 Caraopolis, Pennsylvania 14 The Public Meeting was held at 7:00 p.m. at the 15 Embassy Suites

Hotel, 550 Cherrington

Parkway, 16 Caraopolis, Pennsylvania, Richard

Barkley, 17 Facilitator, presiding.

18 APPEARANCES:

19 RICHARD BARKLEY - Facilitator 20 MANNY SAYOC - Environmental Project manager 21 BO PHAM -

NRC Headquarters Branch Chief 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

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 A-G-E-N-D-A WELCOME AND OPENING REMARKS OVERVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PROCESS PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSING REMARKS NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 3

4 24 31 www.nealrgross.com

3 1

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2

7:00 p.m.

3 FACILITATOR BARKLEY:

Good evening.

My 4

name is Richard Barkley, I will be the facilitator for 5

the meeting this evening.

My job is a Technical 6

Communications Assistant for NRC Region One, in King 7

of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

8 The purpose of this meeting is to go over 9

the preliminary results of the environmental review 10 for Beaver Valley Power Station Units and 2, which has 11 applied for a license renewal from 40 to 60 years.

12 The purpose of this meeting, again, is to 13 explain a little bit about the process, and the 14 preliminary

results, and then to receive public 15 comments from the audience.

16 What we will do is actually receive the 17 comments from up here, at the podium.

They will be 18 transcribed over here, so I would ask that you speak 19 very clearly, and be very concise in your remarks.

20 This meeting was repeated at 1:30 this 21 afternoon, we had seven speakers, and I hope we will 22 have an equal number tonight.

If you have not signed 23 up please see Dianne at the back of the room, and sign 24 up in one of the yellow cards.

25 I would ask you to be concise with your NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

4 1

remarks.

Typically, at these meetings, we limit 2

remarks to five minutes, but I

have a lot more 3

flexibility in that, given the small audience size.

4 Everyone this afternoon was very concise 5

and finished in less than five to seven minutes.

6 At this point in time I would like to 7

introduce the environmental project manager for Beaver 8

Valley, Manny

Sayoc, who will describe the 9

environmental impact evaluation process, the public 10 opportunity for

comment, the results of the 11 environmental

review, and the severe accident 12 mitigation alternatives review.

13 Manny?

14 MR.

SAYOC:

Thank you, Mr.

Barkley.

15 Thank you all for taking the time to come 16 to this meeting.

I hope the information we provide 17 will help you to understand the process we are going 18 through, what we have done so far, and the role you 19 can play in helping us make sure that the final 20 Environmental Impact Statement is accurate.

21 I would like to start off by briefly going 22 over the agenda, and the purpose of today's meeting.

23 We will update you on the status of our environmental 24 review for license renewal for Beaver Valley Power 25 Station, units 1 and 2, which I will refer to here on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

5 1

out, as BVPS.

2 Then we are going to present the 3

preliminary findings of our environmental

review, 4

which assesses the impacts associated with extending, 5

or renewing, the operating licenses for BVPS, for an 6

additional 20 years.

7 Then we will give you some information 8

about the schedule for the remainder of our review, 9

and how you can submit comments in the future.

10 And

then, finally, really the most 11 important part of today's meeting, is where we receive 12 any comments that you may have.

13 Some of you may have attended the public 14 meeting we held here, in November 27th, 2007.

It 15 described the license renewal review process.

At that 16 time we described the NRC in terms of what we do, and 17 what our mission is.

18 I would like to take a few minutes to 19 summarize our presentation.

The Atomic Energy Act 20 authorizes the NRC to issue licenses for up to a 40 21 year term for power reactors.

22 This 40 year term is based, primarily, on 23 economic considerations, and not safety limitations of 24 the plant.

The NRC's mission is to ensure adequate 25 protection of the public health and safety; to promote NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

6 1

a common defense and security and to protect the 2

environment.

3 The NRC accomplishes its mission through 4

a combination of regulatory programs, and processes, 5

such as conducting inspections, issuing enforcement 6

actions, assessing licensee performance, and 7

evaluating operating experience from nuclear power 8

plants across the country and internationally.

9 The regulations that the NRC enforces are 10 contained in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 11 Regulations, which is commonly referred to as 10CFR. 12 Our regulations also provide for license 13

renewal, which extends plant operation for up to an 14 additional 20 years.

The BVPS operating licenses will 15 expire 2016, and 2027.

16 In August

2007, FirstEnergy Nuclear 17 Operating Company, or FENOC, requested license renewal 18 for Beaver Valley Power Station units 1 and 2.

19 As part of the NRC's review, of that 20 license renewal application, we are in the process of 21 performing an environmental review to look at the 22 impacts of an additional 20 years of operation, on the 23 environment.

24 During our meeting here, in November 2007, 25 we solicited your input on the issues we needed to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

7 1

evaluate.

Now we have returned to present the 2

preliminary results in our draft environmental impact 3

statement.

4 At the conclusion of the Staff's 5

presentation, we will be happy to receive any 6

questions or comments that you may have on the draft 7

supplemental environmental impact statement.

8 This slide represents the environmental 9

review for license renewal.

I would like to point out 10 that the symbols in

yellow, on the slide, indicate 11 opportunities for public participation.

The first 12 opportunity was during the scoping period, and the 13 meeting back in November 2007.

14 Many of you may have attended that 15 meeting.

This meeting on the draft environmental 16 impact statement, or SEIS, is another opportunity.

17 The draft SEIS has been published for comment.

18 And we are here, today, to briefly discuss 19 the results and to receive your comments.

I will 20 explain more about the SEIS in the next slide.

21 In May 2009 we plan to issue the final 22 version of this Environmental Impact Statement, which 23 will address the comments we received on the draft 24 SEIS, including those provided today at this meeting.

25 The environmental review is being NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

8 1

conducted in accordance with the National 2

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, or NEPA.

NEPA 3

requires federal agencies to follow a systematic 4

approach in evaluating potential environmental impacts 5

associated with certain actions.

6 We are required to consider the impacts of 7

the proposed action and,

also, any mitigation for 8

those impacts that we consider to be significant.

9 Alternatives to the proposed action, including taking 10 no action, on the Applicant's request, are also to be 11 considered.

12 The National Environmental Policy Act, and 13 our Environmental Impact Statement are disclosure 14 tools.

They are specifically structured to involve 15 public participation.

16 And this meeting facilitates the public 17 participation in our environmental review.

So we are 18 here today to collect public comments on the draft 19 environmental impact statement.

And these comments 20 will be included in the final Environmental Impact 21 Statement.

22 We developed a

generic Environmental 23 Impact Statement, or GEIS, that address a number of 24 issues that are common to all nuclear power plants.

25 The Staff is supplementing that generic Environmental NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

9 1

Impact Statement, with site-specific Environmental 2

Impact Statement that will address issues that are 3

specific to this individual site.

4 The Staff also evaluates the conclusions 5

reached in the GEIS to determine if there is any new 6

and significant information that would change any of 7

those conclusions.

8 When the team evaluated the impacts from 9

continued operations at

BVPS, we considered 10 information from a

wide variety of sources.

We 11 considered what the licensee had to say in their 12 environmental report.

13 We conducted a site audit during which we 14 toured the

site, interviewed plant personnel, and 15 reviewed documentation of plant operations.

16 We also talked to federal,

state, and 17 local officials.

Lastly, we considered all of the 18 comments received from the public during the* scoping 19 period.

20 These comments are listed in appendix A, 21 along with the NRC's responses.

This body of 22 information is the basis for the analysis and 23 preliminary conclusions in this BVPS supplement.

24 The environmental review team consisted of 25 experts in the fields represented on this slide.

As NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

10 1

I explained,

before, the NRC developed a

generic 2

Environmental Impact Statement, or

GEIS, that 3

evaluated the impacts of all operating nuclear power 4

plants across the US.

5 The NRC looked at 92 separate impact areas 6

and found that for 69 of these areas, the impacts were 7

all the same for the plants with similar features.

8 The NRC was able to make generic 9

conclusions that all the impacts on the environment 10 are small.

These generic issues are called category 11 1 issues.

For this presentation the terms category 1 12

issues, and generic

issues, will be used 13 interchangeably.

14 The NRC was unable to make similar 15 determinations for the remaining 23 issues.

And, as 16 a consequence, the NRC decided that we would prepare 17 a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for each 18 plant to address the remaining 23 issues.

19 The plant specific issues are also called 20 category 2 issues.

And these terms will also be used 21 interchangeably.

The Staff supplements the generic 22 Environmental Impact Statement with a site-specific 23 Environmental Impact Statement that addresses issues 24 specific to units 1 and 2 at BVPS.

25 Together the generic EIS and the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

11 1

supplemental EIS form the Staff's analysis on the 2

environmental impacts of license renewal for BVPS.

3

Also, during the review, the NRC Staff 4

looks for, and evaluates, any new and significant 5

information that might call into question the 6

conclusions we reached, previously, in the generic 7

EIS.

8 In addition, the Staff searches for new 9

issues not addressed in the generic EIS.

This slide 10 features our decision standard for the environmental 11 review.

Simply put, is a license renewal acceptable 12 from an environmental standpoint?

13 The central

analyses, in the BVPS 14 supplement, are presented in chapters 3 through 8.

In 15 chapter 3

we discuss the environmental impacts of 16 refurbishment activities.

17 In chapter 4

we looked at the 18 environmental impacts of routine operations during the 19 license renewal term.

The team also reviews issues 20 related to the cooling system, transmission lines, 21 radiological

impacts, socioeconomic

impacts, 22 threatened and endangered

species, and cumulative 23 impacts.

24 Whereas chapter 4 discusses the impact of 25 normal operation of the plant on the environment, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

12 1

chapter 5 discusses severe accidents.

Though these 2

accidents are not likely to occur, the Commission 3

determined that the Staff must analyze the 4

alternatives to lessen the impacts of severe 5

accidents.

6 Chapter 8 describes the alternatives to 7

the proposed license renewal, and their environmental 8

impacts.

Each of these issue areas are discussed in 9

detail in the BVPS supplement.

10 But, tonight, I'm going to give you lust 11 the highlights of what the NRC looked at, and 12 concluded for each of these topics.

13 For each environmental issue identified, 14 such as threatened and endangered species, an impact 15 level is assigned as small, moderate, or large.

For 16 a small impact the effect is not detectable, or too 17 small to destabilize, or noticeably alter any 18 important attribute of the resource.

19 For a moderate impact the effect is 20 sufficient to alter, noticeably, but not destabilize 21 important attributes of the resource.

22

And, finally, for an impact to be 23 considered

large, the effect must be clearly 24 noticeable and sufficient to destabilize important 25 attributes of the resource.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

13 1

Now I'm going to use the fishery in the 2

Ohio river to illustrate how we use these three 3

criteria.

4 The operation of BVPS plant may cause a 5

loss of adult and juvenile fish at the intake 6

structure.

If the loss of fish is too small, that it 7

cannot be

detected, in relation to the total 8

population of fish in the Ohio river, then the impact 9

would be small.

10 If the loss causes the populations to 11

decline, and then stabilize at a lower level, the 12 impact would be moderate.

13 If losses at the intake cause the fish 14 population to decline to the point where it cannot be 15 stabilized, and continues to decline, then the impact 16 would be large.

17 This methodology is applied to each 18 resource area studied in the

review, such as 19 socioeconomics and air quality.

20 One of the issues we looked at, closely, 21 is the cooling system for BVPS.

The category 2, or 22 site-specific issues that the team looked at, include 23 water use conflicts and microbiological organisms.

24 We found that the potential impacts in 25 these areas were

small, and that there was no NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

14 1

additional mitigation measures that would provide 2

noticeable effects on the impacts.

3 Now there are, also, a number of category 4

1, or generic issues related to the cooling system.

5 These issues include plant discharges, nuisance 6

organisms, intake structure effects on aquatic 7

species, and others.

8 The NRC determined that these impacts were 9

small for all power plants. The team evaluated all the 10 information we had available to see if there was any 11 that was both new and significant for these issues.

12 We did not find any and, therefore, we 13 adopted the NRC's generic conclusions that the impact 14 of the cooling system is small.

15 Radiological impacts are generic issues 16 and the NRC has made a determination that the impact 17 of radiological release, during nuclear power plant 18 operations, within in the license renewal term, are 19 small.

20 But because these releases are of public 21 interest and so I want to discuss them in more detail.

22 Nuclear plants are designed to release radiological 23 effluents to the environment.

24 BVPS is no different than any other plants 25 in that it, too, releases radiological effluents to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

15 1

the environment.

During our site visit we looked at 2

effluent releases and monitoring program 3

documentation.

4 We looked at how the gaseous and liquid 5

eflluents were treated and released, as well as how 6

the solid wastes were treated, packaged, and shipped.

7 We looked at how the Applicant determines 8

and demonstrates that they are in compliance with the 9

regulations for release of radiological effluents.

10 We also looked at data from on-site, and 11 near site locations, that the Applicant monitors for 12 airborne releases. We looked at direct radiation and 13 other monitoring stations beyond the site boundary, 14 including locations where water, milk, fish, and food 15 products are sampled.

16 We found that the maximum calculated 17 doses, for a member of the public are well within the 18 annual limits. Since releases from the plant are not 19 expected to increase, on a year to year basis during 20 the 20 year license renewal term, and since we also 21 found no new and significant information related to 22 this issue, we adopted the generic conclusion that the 23 radiological impact on human

health, and the 24 environment, is small.

25 The NRC contacted the U.S.

Fish and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

16 1

Wildlife

Service, and the National Marine and 2

Fisheries Service, to request information on federal 3

and state listed threatened, endangered, and candidate 4

species potentially occurring on or near the Beaver 5

Valley site.

6 There are no federally listed, threatened 7

or endangered species occurring in the vicinity of 8

BVPS, or along its transmission corridors.

9 As documented in the draft SEIS, the NRC 10 submitted an assessment of impacts to the U.S. Fish 11 and Wildlife Service, that no adverse impacts are 12 expected for any species due to continued operation of 13 the plant.

14 The NRC is still in consultation with the 15 U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service.

The NRC Staff's 16 preliminary determination is that there would be no 17 impact of operation of BVPS during the period of 18 extended operation on threatened and endangered 19 species.

20 Socioeconomic impacts are both generic and 21 site-specific issues.

In the GEIS, the NRC has made 22 a generic determination that socioeconomic impacts of 23 nuclear power plant operations, during the license 24 renewal period, range from no impact to small.

25 The team evaluated all the information we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

17 1

had, available, to see if there was any that was both 2

new and significant for these generic issues.

We did 3

not find any and, therefore, we adopted the generic 4

conclusion that the socioeconomic impact, from license 5

renewal, is small.

6 For the site-specific issues we found that 7

the potential impacts, in these areas, range from no 8

impact to small.

And that there was no additional 9

mitigation measures that would provide noticeable 10 effects on the plant-specific impacts.

11 For refurbishment

impacts, we also 12 analyzed generic and site specific issues related to 13 a possible unit 2 steam generator replacement project.

14 For the generic issues the team evaluated 15 all the information we had available.

We did not find 16 any that was both new and significant for these 17 issues. Therefore we adopted the generic conclusion 18 that the impact from license renewal is small.

19 For site specific issues we found that the 20 potential impacts, in these areas, ranged from no 21 impact to small.

We identified no additional 22 mitigation measures that would provide noticeable 23 effects on the plant-specific impacts.

24 There are two classes of accidents 25 evaluated in the GEIS; design basis accidents and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

18 1

severe accidents.

Design basis accidents are those 2

accidents that the plant is de signed to withstand 3

without risk to the public.

4 The ability of the plant to withstand 5

these accidents has to be demonstrated before the 6

plant is granted a license.

The licensee has to 7

demonstrate acceptable plant performance, for the 8

design basis accidents, for the life of the plant.

9 Therefore the Commission found that the 10 environmental impact of design basis accidents is 11 small for all plants.

12 The second category is severe accidents.

13 Severe accidents are, by definition, more severe than 14 design basis accidents, because they would result in 15 substantial damage to the reactor core.

16 The Commission found, in the GEIS, that 17 the risk of severe accidents is small for all plants.

18 Nevertheless the Commission determined that 19 alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be 20 considered for all plants.

21 There is a term that we use for this, 22 which is SAJYA, which means severe accident mitigation 23 alternatives.

The SAMA evaluation is a category 2 24 issue and, thus, requires a site specific analysis.

25 The purpose of the SAMA evaluation is to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

19 1

ensure that plant changes that have potential for 2

improving severe accident safety performance are 3

identified and evaluated.

4 The scope of potential plant improvements, 5

considered, included hardware modifications, 6

procedural changes, training program improvements, and 7

basically a full spectrum of potential changes.

8 The scope includes SAMAs that would 9

prevent core damage, as well as SAMAs that would 10 improve containment performance if core damage event 11 occurs.

12 The preliminary results, of the BVPS SAMA 13 evaluation, are summarized on this slide. Sixty-three 14 and fifty-six potential SAMA candidate improvements 15 for units 1 and 2, respectively, were identified for 16 BVPS; five for unit 1, and 3 for unit 2 SAMAs were 17 identified as potentially cost beneficial.

18

However, none of the potential costs 19 beneficial SAMAs are related to managing the effects 20 of plant aging during the license renewal period.

21 Accordingly, they are not required to be implemented 22 as part of the license renewal.

23 Regardless, FENOC has indicated, in their 24 ER, that they will further evaluate, or implement 25 these mitigation alternatives.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

20 1

The team also looked at environmental 2

impacts of other issues, besides continued operation, 3

as shown up on the screen.

They are uranium fuel 4

cycle, and decommissioning.

5 All issues related to these areas are 6

considered generic issues.

During the review no new 7

and significant information was identified.

Therefore 8

the Staff adopted the NRC's generic conclusion that 9

impacts in these areas are small.

10 Cumulative impacts are the impacts of 11 license renewal taken together with other past, 12 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 13 regardless of what agency, or person undertakes these 14 actions.

15 The NRC Staff has identified reasonably 16 foreseeable actions occurring in the future that are 17 considered, in this review, for its cumulative impacts 18 on the environment.

19 The BVPS region is highly industrialized.

20 Among the identified regional industrial actions, and 21 major facilities included in our analysis are the 22 operation of the Bruce Mansfield Coal Power Plant, 23 Army Corps of Engineers

dredging, Army Corps of 24 Engineers locks and dams, a zinc recycling plant, two 25 chemical plants and a gypsum wallboard manufacturer NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

21 1

and, of course, BVPS.

2 The cumulative environmental impacts of 3

these actions and facilities, in the region, range 4

from small to moderate, with the greatest impact due 5

to industrialization in the region, is to aquatic 6

ecology.

7 BVPS units 1

and 2

are ready for a

8 combined electrical output of approximately 2,900 9

megawatts.

The Staff evaluated the potential 10 environmental impact associated with BVPS' continuing 11 operation, and replacing this generation without 12 alternate power sources.

13 The team at no-action alternative, new 14 generation from coal fired and gas fired, nuclear, 15 purchased power, alternative technologies, such as 16 wind, solar, and hydro-power, and then a combination 17 of alternatives.

18 For each alternative we looked at the same 19 types of issues; for example, water use, land use, 20 ecology and socioeconomics that were looked at for the 21 continued operation of BVPS.

22 The team's preliminary conclusion is that 23 the environmental impacts of alternatives would reach 24 small to moderate significance in some impact 25 categories, primarily due to the need for new NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

22 1

construction.

2

Turning, now, to our conclusions.

We 3

found that the impacts of license renewal are small in 4

all the areas.

We also concluded that the alternative 5

actions, including no-action alternative, may have a 6

small to moderate environmental effects.

7 Based on these results our preliminary 8

recommendation is that the adverse environmental 9

impacts of license renewal for BVPS units 1 and 2 are 10 not so great that preserving the option for license 11 renewal, for energy planning decisionmakers, would be 12 unreasonable.

13 This slide shows important milestone dates 14 for the environmental review process.

The highlighted 15 dates indicate future milestones in the environmental 16 review.

17 Our draft is a supplement to the generic 18 Environmental Impact Statement, as discussed earlier.

19 We published the draft site-specific supplement, to 20 the GEIS, on September 23, 2008.

21 It is also known as supplement 36 for BVPS 22 units 1 and 2.

We are, currently, accepting public 23 comments on the draft until December

17th, 2008.

24 Today's meeting is being transcribed and the comments 25 provided here carry the same weight as written NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

23 1

comments submitted to the NRC.

2 Once the comment period closes, we will 3

develop a final SEIS, which we expect to publish in 4

May 2009.

5 This slide identifies Kent Howard and 6

myself, Emmanuel

Sayok, as your primary points of 7

contact with the NRC for the preparation of the 8

Environmental Impact Statement.

9 It also identifies where documents, 10 related to our review, may be found in the local area.

11 The BVPS SEIS and GEIS are available in the Beaver 12 Area Memorial Library, and the Beaver County Library 13 System.

14 All documents, related to the review, are 15 also available on the NRC's website, at www.nrc.gov.

16 In addition, as you came in, you were asked to fill 17 out a registration card at our reception table.

18 If you included your address, on the card, 19 we will mail you a copy of the final SEIS.

Now, in 20 addition to providing comments, at this meeting, there 21 are other ways that you can submit comments for our 22 environmental review process.

23 You can provide written comments to the 24 Chief of our Rules and Directives Branch, at the 25 address on the screen.

You can also make comments in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v

24 1

person if you happen to be in the Rockville, Maryland 2

area.

3 We have also established a specific email 4

address that the NRC uses for purposes of receiving 5

your comments on the draft Environmental Impact 6

Statement.

And that email address is 7

beavervalleyeis@nrc.gov.

8 All of your comments will be collected and 9

considered.

This concludes my remarks.

Thank you, 10

again, for taking the time to attend this meeting.

11 Now I will turn you over to our facilitator, Mr.

12 Barkley.

13 FACILITATOR BARKLEY:

Thank you, Manny.

14 Typically the order in which I call people are first 15 elected officials, and then members of the public.

I 16 didn't see any elected officials signed up.

Have we 17 overlooked an elected member of the public in the 18 audience?

19 (No response.)

20 FACILITATOR BARKLEY:

If not, I have two 21 speakers who have signed up.

And I think what we will 22 do is ladies first.

Dianne Dornenberg, of the Beaver 23 County Chamber of Commerce.

24 MS.

DORNENBERG:

I feel like I'm, sort of, 25 an elected official.

My name is Dianne Dornenberg, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

25 1

and I'm the President and CEO of the Beaver County 2

Chamber of Commerce.

We are located in downtown 3

Beaver, Pennsylvania.

4 A year ago I was in the audience when the 5

Nuclear Regulatory Commission hosted the first public 6

meeting on the 20 year license renewal application for 7

the Beaver Valley Power Station.

8 I'm happy to be here, this year, as a 9

participant.

The Chamber has been in business for 35 10 years, and FirstEnergy was one of the initial members.

11 For those 35 years, and in all of those 35 years, 12 FirstEnergy has continued to be a

good corporate 13

citizen, and they have supported the Chamber 14 throughout its

growth, to what is now a 600 member 15 organization.

16 Members that include the one-person 17 business, as well as the 3,500 employee business.

The 18 Beaver Valley Power Station employs more than 1,000 19 full time employees, making it the third largest 20 employee in Beaver County.

21 The other side of this equation is that it 22 is also one of the largest taxpayers in Beaver County.

23 The plant contributes more than 4 million dollars 24 annually in payroll and property, and utility taxes.

25 A license renewal of 20 years would most NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

26 1

decidedly help provide economic security to the Beaver 2

Valley area.

3 I'm sure that over the past year the NRC 4

has done its due diligence, and has conducted many on-5 site audits of the Beaver Valley Power Station.

6 Additionally, it is my understanding that they have 7

reviewed the environmental reports which were 8

submitted by FirstEnergy.

9 Based on these two proponents, the NRC has 10 made a preliminary conclusion that there are no 11 environmental impacts that would preclude a renewal of 12 the operating license for units 1 and 2.

13 As you know, the original licenses are set 14 to expire in 2016 and 2017.

The U.S.

Energy 15 Department states that "electric power demand is 16 expected to increase 40 percent in the United States 17 by 2030".

18 We need Beaver Valley Power Station in 19 order to continue to produce reliable eligibility to 20 meet all of those demands.

21 Since 2002 FirstEnergy has spent more than 22 500 million dollars to upgrade the Beaver Valley Power 23 Station, so that it may continue to operate safely and 24 reliably into the future years.

25 The future of Beaver County depends on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

27 1

companies like FirstEnergy.

We would most definitely 2

suffer economically with the loss of FirstEnergy's 3

operating power.

4 Loss of good jobs would be just the 5

beginning of a

domino effect for us.

Small 6

businesses, which surround the station, and rely on 7

the patronage of station employees, would also be 8

financially burdened with the loss of the Beaver 9

Valley Power Station.

10 All of us, large and small businesses 11

alike, face real economic challenges, maybe 12 particularly in the Beaver area.

Challenges that have 13 already begun and will continue into the future, until 14 stability is returned.

15 Nuclear power plants are the lowest cost 16 producer of baseload eligibility.

Based on the 17 findings of the NRC, we sincerely hope that Beaver 18 Valley Power Station will be permitted to continue to 19 provide low cost eligibility for the region's citizens 20 and businesses.

Thank you.

21 FACILITATOR BARKLEY:

Thank you, Dianne.

22 Our next speaker is Stephen Cantanzarite.

23 Did I pronounce that properly?

Very good.

You are 24 just representing yourself?

25 MR.

CANTANZARITE:

Yes.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

28 1

Thank you, Mr.

Barkley, and thank you to 2

the NRC for this opportunity to rise and voice my 3

support for the renewal of the license for Beaver 4

Valley Power Station.

5 My name is Stephen Cantanzarite, I'm a 6

resident of Rochester, in Beaver County, it is about 7

12 miles from the plant, and I'm also the managing 8

director of the Lincoln Park Performing Arts Center, 9

which is located right across the Shippingport bridge, 10 from the nuclear power plant.

11 But today I represent myself as a private 12 citizen.

And my reasons for doing so are two.

The 13 first is that in an era where we need to find any, and 14

all, and more sources of affordable and clean energy, 15 as well as find ways to have energy independence, as 16 a

national

policy, nuclear power plants play a

17 significant role in that.

18 And so I believe that the renewal of the 19 license for the Beaver Valley Power Station is of 20 great importance to that issue.

21

Second, as the previous speaker so 22 eloquently stated, the operation of the Beaver Valley 23 Power Station is essential to the economic stability 24 of Beaver County.

25 With more than 1,000 jobs provided there, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

29 1

with the tax base that FirstEnergy provides, and 2

FirstEnergy has been a terrific corporate citizen.

I 3

believe they take their responsibilities to their 4

employees, to the communities they serve, and to 5

providing a safe and efficient operation at Beaver 6

Valley Power Station very, very seriously.

7 So for these reasons I hope the NRC will 8

continue these hearings and, ultimately, renew the 9

license.

Thank you very much.

10 FACILITATOR BARKLEY:

Thank you, Stephen.

11 Is there anyone else who has possibly changed their 12 mind and would like to make a remark?

Go ahead.

13 MR.

OSTROWSKI:

Thank

you, and good 14 evening.

15 My name is Kevin Ostrowski, and for the 16 last 28 years I have had the privilege of being an 17 operator, supervisor, manager, and today director of 18 site operations at the Beaver Valley Power Station.

19 The first thing I would like to do is to 20 provide, for the record, two letters I have been asked 21 to provide to the NRC, the first of which is from the 22 Beaver County Board of Commissioners, Tony Amadio, 23 Chairman; Joe Spanik, and Charles Camp, Commissioners.

24 The board of Commissioners has provided, 25 in writing, their support of Beaver Valley's license NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

30 1

renewal application.

Their full support is based on 2

the various socioeconomic benefits that are 3

represented by the Beaver Valley Power Station to the 4

County of Beaver, and I will provide this letter with 5

that level of detail.

6 The second letter I have been asked to 7

provide is a

letter that is from the State of 8

Pennsylvania House of Representatives. Representative 9

Vincent Biancucci, of the 15th legislative district.

10 Representative Biancucci has stated that 11 he encourages the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 12 grant expeditious approval of the FirstEnergy 13 application for the renewal and extension of the 14 licenses for unit 1 and unit 2.

15 It is imperative to the future of our 16 region, our communities, and the workforce associated 17 with the Beaver Valley Power Station.

He also 18 expresses his appreciation for taking his 19 recommendations and comments.

20

And, again, I

will provide these two 21 letters to you.

The other thing I wanted to do this 22 evening is to, certainly, convey and attest to our 23 continued commitment to design, operate, and maintain 24 the plant with the highest regards for safety.

25 And by safety we consider all aspects of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

31 1

safety, including nuclear safety, radiological safety, 2

personnel safety and the topic here this evening, 3

environmental safety.

4 Everything that we do at the plant, every 5

day, every one of our employees, is constantly 6

thinking about and is focused on performing their task 7

with the highest regards for the health and the safety 8

of our neighbors, in the communities, the people that 9

work at the plant, and the equipment at the plant that 10 supports both of those two.

11 So with that I just wanted to reaffirm and 12 attest to our company's commitments to safe operation 13 of the station.

With

that, thank you for the 14 opportunity to provide these comments.

15 FACILITATOR BARKLEY:

Thank you, Kevin.

16 Anyone else want to make any statements or 17 remarks?

18 (No response.)

19 FACILITATOR BARKLEY:

With that I will 20 take it back over to you,

Manny, or does Bo want to 21 go?

22 MR.

PHAM:

Good evening, everybody.

My 23 name is Bo

Pham, I'm the branch chief for the 24 technical team that actually provided the input for 25 this draft SEIS document.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v

32 1

And I just want to take the opportunity to 2

thank everyone, again, for coming out to voice your 3

concerns.

The NEPA process, the public involvement is 4

definitely an important and a crucial part of the NEPA 5

process, because it is really more about informing us, 6

the decisionmaker, so that we can disclose everything 7

we look at to you, the public, again.

8 So thank you again for coming out.

And 9

one last plug, this is not the last opportunity to 10 make comments.

And up on the screen there are three 11 ways in which you can make comments.

12 The most expedient

means, I

think, is 13 probably going to be the email, based on my personal 14 experience in seeing how slow the comments get through 15 the Rules and Directive Branch, there.

16 So with that, thank you every one.

17 FACILITATOR BARKLEY:

With that I would 18 like to close the meeting.

If you want to talk, or 19 have questions, if you would like to ask the Staff 20 privately, the Staff will be around.

21 Is there anyone that wanted to ask a 22 question at this point, regarding any part of this 23 process?

24 (No response.)

25 FACILITATOR BARKLEY:

If not, then I would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 encourage you, if you do have a question, to talk to one of the Staff members, privately, before you leave, and collect some of the information materials we have at the back of the room.

Thanks very much.

(Whereupon, at 7:40 p.m.,

the above-entitled matter was concluded.)

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attadhed proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:*

Beaver Valley Power Station, Afternoon Session Name of Proceeding: Public Meeting Docket Number:

(n/a)

Location:

Caraopolis, Pennsylvania 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.

Ed Joh s Offi-'al Reporter Neal R.

Gross & Co.,

Inc.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com