ML052030007

Corrected Afternoon Transcript for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Public Scoping Meeting Held on June 30, 2005. Pages 1-72

ML052030007
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	06/30/2005
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Davis J, NRR/DRIP/RLEP, 415-3835
Shared Package
ML052030005	List: ML052030007 ML052030009 ML052060037 ML052070159 ML052070160
References
NRC-484, TAC MC6441
Download: ML052030007 (144)

Text

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CORRECTED

Title:

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Public Meeting: Afternoon Session Docket Number: 50-263 Location: Monticello, Minnesota Date: Thursday, June 30, 2005 Work Order No.: NRC-484 Pages 1-72 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 U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 * * * *

• 3 MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT 4 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING PROCESS 6 * * * *

• 7 PUBLIC MEETING - AFTERNOON SESSION 8 * * * *

• 9 THURSDAY, 10 JUNE 30, 2005 11 * * * *

• 12 MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 13 * * * *

• 14 The meeting was held at 1:30 p.m. at the 15 Monticello Community Center, 505 Walnut Street, 16 Monticello, Minnesota, Chip Cameron, Facilitator, 17 presiding.

18 PRESENT:

19 CHIP CAMERON, FACILITATOR 20 ANDREW KUGLER 21 JENNIFER DAVIS 22 23 24 25

2 1 A-G-E-N-D-A 2 Page 3 Welcome 4 Facilitator Cameron . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 Overview of License Renewal Process 6 Andy Kugler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7 Overview of Environmental Review Process 8 Jennifer Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9 Formal Comments 10 John Grubb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 11 Charles Bomberger . . . . . . . . . . 24 12 Wayne Mayer . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 13 George Crocker . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 14 Lea Foushee . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 15 Kristen Eide-Tollefson . . . . . . . . 60 16 Carol Overland . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 17 18 * * * *

• 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

3 1 (1:30 p.m.)

2 MR. CAMERON: Good afternoon, everyone.

3 Welcome to the NRC's public meeting. My name is 4 Chip Cameron. I'm the special counsel for public 5 liaison at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and 6 it's my pleasure to serve as your facilitator for 7 today's meeting.

8 And our subject today is the environmental 9 review that the NRC is going to conduct to help us 10 evaluate an application that we've received from 11 Nuclear Management Company to extend the 12 operating license for the Monticello nuclear 13 reactor.

14 And I just want to go over a couple of items on 15 the process for today's meeting before we get to the 16 substance of our discussions. And I would like to 17 talk about the format for the meeting, some simple 18 ground rules that we'll be using, and to introduce 19 the NRC speakers who are going to open the meeting 20 for us.

21 In terms of the format for the meeting, it's 22 basically a two-part meeting. The first part of the 23 meeting will be to give you some information about 24 what does the NRC look at in evaluating an

4 1 application for license renewal, such as the one 2 we've received from Monticello, and specifically 3 what types of environmental information do we 4 examine? What kind of analysis do we do? And we're 5 going to have some NRC speakers who are going to 6 give you some background on that.

7 And then we're going to go to the second part 8 of the meeting, which is to hear from you, to give 9 us an opportunity to hear any recommendations, 10 advice, concerns that you might have about the 11 license renewal evaluation, and specifically the 12 environmental evaluation that we're doing.

13 This meeting is called a scoping meeting, and the 14 NRC staff will explain what that means. But what 15 we're looking for is what you think we should look 16 at in the environmental review. What types of 17 issues, what types of alternatives should we look 18 at? And we're also taking written comments on these 19 issues, but I want to emphasize that anything that 20 you say here today will carry the same weight as 21 written comments that we receive.

22 In terms of ground rules, after the NRC 23 speakers are done, we're going to go on to you for 24 questions to see if there is anything that we need 25 to clarify about the NRC process, evaluation

5 1 process. And if you have a question, just signal 2 me; and I'll bring this cordless mic over to you.

3 And if you could introduce yourself to us and any 4 affiliation, if that's appropriate; and then we'll 5 proceed to try to answer your questions.

6 I would ask that only one person at a time talk 7 for two reasons. The most important one is so that 8 we can give our full attention to whoever has the 9 floor, but also so that we can get a clean 10 transcript where it's clearly identified who is 11 speaking.

12 We have Carol Brausen with us, who is our 13 stenographer today. She's taking a transcript of 14 the meeting for all of us. It will be our record.

15 It will be available to the public, anybody wants to 16 have a transcript; and you'll see what transpired.

17 I would ask you to just try to be concise on 18 your questions just so we can make sure that we can 19 get to everybody today. And to keep it at a 20 question. We are going to have an opportunity for 21 comment. And often questions can segue into a 22 comment, and that's fine. But if we could just try 23 to keep it to questions during the question period.

24 When we get to the comment period, we'll have 25 some people who have signed up in advance. And if

6 1 anybody is not signed up, if you feel the urge to 2 speak, to give us a comment, just let me know; and 3 we'll put you on. Usually we ask people to come up 4 to the podium to give their comments.

5 And we have, I think, the luxury of a little bit 6 more time today than we usually have. Sometimes 7 it's necessary to set a time limit for speakers, but 8 I think we can be flexible today and give you some 9 more comfort with the time in terms of your 10 comments.

11 In terms of our speakers, we have first 12 Mr. Andy Kugler, who is right here. And Andy is 13 going to give you a welcome and an overview on the 14 license renewal process. And Andy is the chief of 15 our Environmental Impact Section that's part of the 16 Environmental Impacts and License Renewal Program at 17 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at our 18 headquarters in Rockville, Maryland.

19 Andy and his staff are responsible for doing 20 all of the environmental reviews for not only 21 license renewal applications, but something called 22 Early Site Permits. Any reactor licensing action 23 that needs an environmental review, Andy and his 24 staff are the ones that are responsible for that.

25 He's been with the NRC for 15 years in the capacity

7 1 of Reactor Engineer, a Project Manager on various 2 reactors, and Environmental Project Manager who 3 supervises the environmental review for reactor 4 license applications. He was with the Gulf States 5 Utilities before he came to the NRC, and there he 6 was a reactor engineer, but also he was a licensed 7 Reactor Operator. He was in the Nuclear Navy before 8 that, and he got his Bachelor's degree from Cooper 9 Union in Manhattan in Mechanical Engineering, and he 10 has a Master's degree in Technical Management from 11 Johns Hopkins University.

12 Then we're going to go to Jennifer Davis, who 13 is right here. And Jennifer Davis is the Project 14 Manager for the environmental evaluation, the 15 environmental review for the Monticello license 16 renewal application. And she's going to talk to you 17 about the environmental review process.

18 She's relatively new with the NRC -- three 19 years, approximately -- and is on Andy's staff in 20 the environmental review section. And she's been 21 involved in many environmental reviews for license 22 renewal applications, and this is her project 23 management start with this particular application.

24 And she's an Archaeologist by training with a 25 Bachelor's in Historic Preservation from Mary

8 1 Washington College in Fredericksburg, Virginia.

2 With that, I just want to thank you all for 3 taking the time to come out and give us advice on 4 this important issue. And I just want to stress 5 that continuity -- this is one meeting, and we'll be 6 back for other meetings. But the NRC staff is going 7 to give you telephone numbers, e-mail addresses. If 8 you have concerns or questions, please keep in touch 9 with them throughout the process. They're going to 10 be more than glad to give you information on the 11 issues, so don't -- this doesn't just need to be one 12 meeting. We want to try to establish relationships, 13 if we can. And with that, I'm just going to ask 14 Andy to welcome you. Andy.

15 MR. KUGLER: Thank you, Chip. And I want to 16 thank you all for coming out today for our meeting 17 to discuss the scope of the license renewal 18 application and environmental review for Monticello.

19 As Chip mentioned, I'm going to cover the safety 20 portion of the process, the overall license renewal 21 process. And then Miss Jennifer Davis will cover 22 more specifically the environmental review process 23 and details regarding our plans, our schedule, and 24 how to submit comments, other than speaking at this 25 meeting today.

9 1 I would first like to speak a little bit about 2 the general context of the license renewal process.

3 The Atomic Energy Act authorizes the NRC to license 4 nuclear power reactors for 40 years. For the 5 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, that license 6 expires in 2010. Our regulations also make 7 provisions to extend operating licenses for periods 8 of up to 20 years, and the Nuclear Management 9 Company has requested license renewal for 10 Monticello. As part of the NRC's staff review of 11 license renewal application, we perform an 12 environmental review. We look at the environmental 13 impacts of an additional 20 years of operation for 14 the plant.

15 The purpose of this meeting is to give you 16 information on that process, to explain what it is 17 we're going to be doing, and to also seek your input 18 on the scope of the review on what aspects we should 19 be considering or what special issues we may need to 20 consider in our review.

21 At the conclusion of our presentation, we'll be 22 happy to answer any questions you may have and also 23 to accept any comments you might have on the scope 24 of our review. As Mr. Cameron mentioned, we have 25 several members of our staff here available to

10 1 answer questions or to talk to you after the 2 meeting.

3 Before I get into the details of license 4 renewal review process, I would like to talk about 5 the NRC, what it is that we do and what our mission 6 is. The Atomic Energy Act is a legislation that 7 authorizes the NRC to regulate the civilian use of 8 nuclear materials in the United States.

9 In carrying out that authority, the NRC's 10 mission is three-fold. We protect the public health 11 and safety. We protect the environment. And we 12 provide for the common defense and security. The 13 NRC accomplishes these missions through a 14 combination of programs and processes such as 15 inspections, evaluations of licensee performance, 16 enforcement actions and evaluation of operating 17 experience from the plants throughout the country.

18 Turning now to license renewal in particular, 19 the NRC's license renewal review is similar to the 20 process that was carried out during the initial 21 licensing of the plant in that the process has two 22 parts to it; a safety review and an environmental 23 review. And then within the safety review there are 24 some subparts that we'll be mentioning. We carry 25 out inspections, we develop a Safety Evaluation

11 1 Report, and we also provide information for the 2 review of the Advisory Committee on Reactor 3 Safeguards.

4 Now, this slide is the big picture view of the 5 license renewal process as a whole. There is quite 6 a bit of information on this slide. I realize it is 7 a complex process with a number of steps involved.

8 On this slide I'm just showing the upper part of 9 that review, the safety review.

10 The safety review involves the staff's review 11 of the safety information that was included in the 12 application for license renewal that was submitted 13 by the Nuclear Management Company. There is a team 14 of about 30 technical experts and contractors who 15 are reviewing that information. And that team is 16 being led by Mr. Daniel Merzke, who is the Safety 17 Project Manager. Miss Davis's counterpart.

18 He's in charge of the safety review, which 19 includes the preparation of the Safety Evaluation 20 Report, on-site inspections and audits, any 21 independent review by the Advisory Committee on 22 Reactor Safeguards. The safety review for license 23 renewal focuses on how Nuclear Management Company 24 will manage the aging of certain systems, structures, 25 and components at the plant.

12 1 Some of the programs for managing aging are 2 already in place at the plant, and others would be 3 implemented as part of the license renewal. The 4 safety review process also involves audits and 5 on-site inspections. The NRC uses teams of 6 inspectors coming from both our headquarters office 7 and the Region III office in Chicago for these 8 inspections.

9 I would also like to mention that the NRC has 10 on-site two Resident Inspectors. These inspectors 11 are monitoring the day-to-day operations of the 12 plant and ensure that the plant is operated in 13 conformance with our regulations and safely.

14 The results of the inspections that are 15 performed will be documented in separate inspection 16 reports and then those results will be 17 incorporated, also, into the Safety Evaluation 18 Report being developed by the staff.

19 After the Safety Evaluation Report is prepared, 20 it will be independently reviewed by the Advisory 21 Committee on Reactor Safeguards or ACRS. The ACRS 22 is an independent group of nationally recognized, 23 technical experts in reactor safety. And they serve 24 as a consulting body to the Commission. They review 25 each license renewal application, and they develop

13 1 their own conclusions and recommendations. And they 2 then report those recommendations directly to the 3 Commission, so they're independent of the NRC staff.

4 As I mentioned, the second part of the review 5 process is the environmental review, which I'll just 6 touch on briefly right now. The process involves 7 scoping activities, which is a process we're 8 involved in today, and the development of an 9 Environmental Impact Statement that will document 10 our evaluation of the impacts of license renewals.

11 As I said, we're here today to gather your 12 comments on what should be within the scope of our 13 review. We'll consider the comments we receive 14 today, plus any comments that we receive during the 15 remainder of the comment period were in. And then 16 around February of next year, we expect to issue the 17 draft of our Environmental Impact Statement for 18 comment.

19 So as you can see, there are a number of inputs 20 that are required before the Commission will make a 21 decision whether or not to grant a renewed license.

22 They have to receive the input from the Safety 23 Evaluation Report, from the inspection reports, the 24 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Reactor 25 Safeguards and the staff's final Environmental

14 1 Impact Statement.

2 I would like to point out in this slide the 3 hexagon shapes. These are opportunities for public 4 involvement in the process. One of the early 5 opportunities is this scoping meeting and the 6 opportunity also to provide written comments on the 7 scope of the environmental review. We will also be 8 coming back out here after we've issued a draft of 9 our Environmental Impact Statement to gather any 10 comments you have on the draft of our Environmental 11 Impact Statement.

12 The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 13 when they review the application will hold a 14 meeting, and that meeting will also be open to the 15 public. At this point that concludes my remarks, 16 and I would like to turn the presentation over to 17 Miss Jennifer Davis to discuss the environmental 18 review in more detail.

19 MS. DAVIS: Thank you, Andy. I would like to 20 say good afternoon and thank you to everybody for 21 coming out. My name is Jennifer Davis. I'm the 22 Environmental Project Manager from the NRC staff 23 representing the Monticello license renewal review.

24 I am responsible for coordinating the activities of 25 the NRC staff and various experts at National Labs

15 1 to develop the Environmental Impact Statement.

2 The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 3 requires federal agencies to follow a systematic 4 approach in evaluating potential environmental 5 impacts associated with certain actions. We're 6 required to consider the impact of the proposed 7 action and also any mitigation for those impacts 8 that we consider to be significant.

9 We're also required to consider alternatives to 10 the proposed action. In this case, license renewal.

11 And that includes the no-action alternative. In 12 other words, if we decide not to approve the 13 requested license renewal, what are the 14 environmental impacts?

15 The National Environmental Policy Act and our 16 Environmental Impact Statement are disclosure tools.

17 They're specifically structured to involve public 18 participation, and this meeting is facilitating the 19 public's participation in our environmental review.

20 The Commission has determined that an 21 Environmental Impact Statement be prepared for all 22 license renewal applications. In preparing an EIS, 23 the NRC conducts a scoping process. The purpose of 24 scoping --- of the scoping process is to identify 25 significant issues to be analyzed in depth.

16 1 We are now gathering information for an EIS, 2 and we're here to collect public comments on the 3 scope of the review. In other words, environmental 4 issues that you think we should consider in the 5 scope of our review.

6 The staff developed a generic EIS, or GEIS as 7 we call it, that addressed a number of issues that are 8 common to all nuclear power plants. The staff is 9 supplementing this GEIS, Generic Environmental 10 Impact Statement, with a SEIS or a Supplemental 11 Environmental Impact Statement, which will be issued 12 in draft form in February of 2006.

13 This SEIS will address issues that are specific 14 to Monticello. Staff also evaluates the conclusions 15 reached within the GEIS to determine if there is any 16 new and significant information that would change 17 any of our conclusions.

18 Perhaps I'll give you a few minutes to read 19 this confusing slide, but this slide basically shows 20 the legal decision standard for the environmental 21 review. In plain English, it's attempting to say is 22 license renewal acceptable from an environmental 23 standpoint?

24 This slide is just an expansion of the lower 25 part of the slide that Andy had up a few minutes ago

17 1 regarding process. And it gives a more detailed 2 view. It shows the process in more detail.

3 We received an application from Nuclear 4 Management Company for license renewal of the 5 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant on March 24th, 6 2005. On June 2nd, 2005, we issued a Federal 7 Register notice of intent to prepare an 8 Environmental Impact Statement and conduct scoping.

9 This started a 60-day clock to defined as the 10 scoping period, and we're within that scoping period 11 right now. This meeting is part of the scoping 12 process, so that we can get comments from the public 13 to help us scope out the bounds of our review.

14 After the end of the scoping period, which will 15 be August 2nd, which I believe is a Monday, we will 16 issue a scoping summary report that will address all 17 the comments we have received from all sources 18 during the scoping process.

19 Now, for the last couple of days we've been 20 here in your local community conducting an 21 environmental site audit at the Monticello plant 22 site. I and other members of the NRC staff and team 23 of environmental experts from Lawrence Livermore 24 National Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory and 25 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory conducted our

18 1 site audit to help gather more information for the 2 scoping process.

3 If in the conduct of our review we require 4 additional information beyond what was already 5 provided to us in the environmental report, we will 6 then issue a request for additional information. We 7 plan to issue the request for additional information 8 by August 26th of this year, if needed. And 9 approximately eight weeks later we'll expect to 10 receive an answer back from NMC.

11 And then based on information, we will publish 12 a draft Environmental Impact Statement for public 13 comment. We plan on publishing the draft 14 Environmental Impact Statement in February of 2006; 15 and when that draft is published, it will go out for 16 a 75-day public comment period. We plan to have 17 another meeting, another set of public meetings out 18 here in March to receive your comments on the draft 19 EIS. Once we receive the comments on the draft, we 20 will develop our final Environmental Impact 21 Statement, which we expect to publish in September 22 of 2006.

23 Now, this slide just shows a general overview 24 of where we gather all our information. In addition 25 to our site audit, we communicate with federal,

19 1 state and local officials, as well as other local 2 service agencies. For example, we held meetings 3 with the State Historic Preservation Office, U.S.

4 Fish and Wildlife Service, Monticello City, Wright 5 and Sherburne County officials as well. And last, 6 but not least, we do consider all comments that we 7 receive from the public.

8 For this environmental review, we've 9 established a team made up of members of NRC staff 10 supplemented by experts from various fields from the 11 National Laboratories. This slide gives you an idea 12 of the areas that these experts evaluate. Just to 13 name a few, some are terrestrial and aquatic 14 ecology, archaeology, socioeconomics and radiation 15 protection, just to name a few.

16 This slide gives a couple of the key milestone 17 dates that we have upcoming. As mentioned, we're 18 currently in the middle of our scoping period, which 19 ends on August 2nd, 2005. All comments, whether in 20 the form of a letter or e-mail, as well as comments 21 received from this public meeting, will be 22 considered.

23 Earlier I mentioned the GEIS, which stands for 24 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the 25 License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.

20 1 That's an Environmental Impact statement that takes 2 into account issues that affect all nuclear power 3 plants that may come to us for license renewal.

4 We will be publishing a Monticello 5 site-specific supplement to the Generic EIS called a 6 SEIS. That supplement will be issued in draft form 7 February of 2006, followed by a 75-day public 8 comment period. After considering your comments on 9 the draft, it will be published in final form in 10 September of 2006.

11 This slide identifies me as your primary point 12 of contact with the NRC regarding the preparation of 13 this Environmental Impact Statement. And it also 14 identifies where the documents related to our review 15 can be found in the local area. The Buffalo Public 16 Library, as well as the Monticello Public Library, 17 have agreed to make the license renewal application 18 and any related correspondence from the NRC to the 19 various other agencies and NMC, the Nuclear 20 Management Company, available.

21 The draft Environmental Impact Statement, once 22 issued, will also be available at each library.

23 These documents will also be available on the NRC's 24 Web site at www.nrc.gov.

25 In addition, as you came in, you were asked to

21 1 fill out a registration card at our reception desk.

2 If you have included your address on that card, we 3 will send you a copy of the draft and final 4 Environmental Impact Statements. If you haven't 5 filled out the card or haven't provided us with your 6 address, please see Jason, who is standing in the 7 back of the room after the meeting.

8 Now, in addition to providing comments to us at 9 this meeting, there are also other ways to do so.

10 You can provide written comments to the Chief of our 11 Rules and Directives Branch at the address shown on 12 the screen. You can also make comments in person if 13 you happen to be in the Rockville, Maryland, area.

14 And also we have established a specific e-mail 15 address at the NRC for the strict purpose of 16 receiving your comments on the development of our 17 draft Environmental Impact Statement. And that 18 e-mail address is MonticelloEIS@nrc.gov. All of 19 your comments will be collected and will be 20 considered. This concludes my remarks. Thank you 21 very much.

22 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, Jennifer, 23 and thank you, Andy. Let's see if there is any 24 questions that we can answer about the process. And 25 if you could just give us your name, please.

22 1 MS. EIDE-TOLLEFSON: Kristen Eide-Tollefson.

2 Jennifer, the scoping summary report you spoke of, 3 will that be on the Website, or how will that be 4 available?

5 MS. DAVIS: It will be available in ADAMS, and 6 also I believe I do send it out to the entire 7 service list. If you provided your address on the 8 card, I'll make sure you get a copy.

9 MR. CAMERON: Okay. So if we have their 10 address, we'll automatically send them that?

11 MR. KUGLER: Yes.

12 MR. CAMERON: All right. Other questions about 13 the review process at all? And if we have questions 14 later on, if you have questions, we'll do that, too, 15 then. But, George, do you have a question? I just 16 need you to introduce yourself.

17 MR. CROCKER: My name is George Crocker. I'm 18 the Executive Director of North American Water 19 Office. And I guess my question is has there ever 20 been a re-license application that the NRC has not 21 re-licensed, an application that has not been 22 approved?

23 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And, Andy, if you could 24 also talk a little bit about the process about how 25 things might get changed, too, along the way, but go

23 1 ahead.

2 MR. KUGLER: Okay. All of the applications 3 that have been completely through the review process 4 have been approved. We have a situation with one 5 plant where we returned the application to the 6 applicant. We did not feel it was technically 7 adequate. And that applicant is in the process of 8 revising the application, and we believe they will 9 apply again.

10 We have one other situation where partway 11 through the review, the staff found that there was 12 information that we needed that we just did not have 13 and could not readily get. And that review is on 14 hold right now, awaiting additional information from 15 the applicant.

16 But in terms of any that have gone all the way 17 through the process, the answer is no, all of those 18 have been approved in the end. In terms of you had 19 also asked I think --

20 MR. CAMERON: I'm thinking about the --

21 Jennifer mentioned the request for additional 22 information. And that's an important part of this 23 process that I think people -- if you could explain 24 it -- I think it would be helpful.

25 MR. KUGLER: Okay. When we receive an

24 1 application, we do an initial review to determine 2 whether the application has all the basic 3 information, covers all the basic areas that we need 4 to review. But that initial review, which is fairly 5 brief, is really just a top-level review to make 6 sure all the areas are covered. At that point we 7 accept the application for docketing, and we start 8 our review.

9 During the course of the review, we will almost 10 always find there are certain aspects of the review 11 for which we need additional information; and we'll 12 request that information from the applicants. And 13 all that information is put onto the docket, so it's 14 available to the public. And in the end, as long as 15 the applicant is able to provide us with everything 16 that we need, then we're able to complete the 17 review.

18 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you. Very good.

19 George, is that -- do you need any further 20 information on that? Do you have anything else you 21 want to ask?

22 MR. CROCKER: Wasn't -- my recollection may be 23 faulty, but I thought that there was a reactor on 24 Yankee Rowe that was not re-licensed after it 25 applied for re-license. Is that true?

25 1 MR. CAMERON: Let's find out.

2 MR. KUGLER: I do recall that I believe -- was 3 it Yankee Rowe that --

4 MR. CAMERON: Michael, do you want to --

5 MR. KUGLER: Or maybe Yankee -- I'm trying to 6 recall. There are a number of Yankees.

7 MR. MASNIK: The Yankee Rowe plant initially 8 had thought about re-licensing. And there was a lot 9 of discussion about the reactor vessel, whether or 10 not it could qualify. There were a number of 11 discussions, but it was really before we had a 12 process, the process that we have now. The Yankee 13 Rowe plant since decided to permanently cease 14 operation and is actually in the last stages of 15 decommissioning.

16 MR. CROCKER: Just one follow-up on that.

17 MR. CAMERON: Thank you.

18 MR. CROCKER: So it's true that Yankee Rowe did 19 apply for re-licensing?

20 MR. KUGLER: I don't believe they actually 21 applied. They were considering it. And they were 22 discussing it with the staff.

23 MR. CROCKER: It never was re-licensed. And 24 after that plant went through that process, that's 25 after that is when we developed the rules that we're

26 1 now using to determine --

2 MR. KUGLER: I think they were running more or 3 less parallel because the rule went into effect in 4 1996. I don't recall the exact timeframe that the 5 Yankee plant was in discussions with us, but it was 6 I think in the mid-nineties. So it was in the same 7 general timeframe. I don't think it was a direct 8 relationship between one and the other. We were 9 in -- I mean the development of these rules, and the 10 process for license rule went on for a number of 11 years.

12 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Let's make sure the 13 stenographer hears you, too.

14 MR. CROCKER: When were the rules that we're 15 currently operating under promulgated?

16 MR. KUGLER: They went into effect in 1996.

17 This is 10 CFR, Part 51, 1996. And that's also the 18 year that we issued the Generic Environmental Impact 19 Statement.

20 MR. CAMERON: And if anybody wants to get a 21 copy of those rules, the Federal Register, can we 22 provide them a place to look at or give them a copy 23 or whatever?

24 MR. KUGLER: I think we have some copies of 25 Part 51 in the back.

27 1 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Good.

2 MR. CROCKER: Thank you.

3 MR. CAMERON: Yes? Let's go back to this 4 person.

5 MS. EIDE-TOLLEFSON: Yes. Kristen 6 Eide-Tollefson here. I was looking back there at 7 the material, and there is a supplement to the GEIS 8 that you just spoke about and discussing categories 9 of significant new information related to the 10 environment. What is new, you know? What's the 11 preceding documents that it's from? And what are 12 some of the categories of information that NRC sees 13 the examination in that area? And what 14 site-specific requirements have been added? Does 15 that make sense?

16 MR. KUGLER: I think -- I'm not certain I fully 17 understand it, but I'll take a crack at it. And if 18 my answer doesn't match up, then we'll get closer.

19 MS. EIDE-TOLLEFSON: Okay.

20 MR. KUGLER: I think part of what you were 21 asking is the difference between what we refer to as 22 Category 1 and Category 2 issues. Category 1 issues 23 are issues in our Generic Environmental Impact 24 Statement that we found that the impacts at all 25 sites were essentially the same and were small. And

28 1 we reached that conclusion in the Generic 2 Environmental Impact Statement.

3 MS. EIDE-TOLLEFSON: Okay.

4 MR. KUGLER: As we do an environmental review 5 for license renewal, we look at those issues for 6 each site. But unless we find some piece of new 7 information that wasn't considered when we developed 8 the Generic Environmental Impact Statement that we 9 also find to be significant -- and by that I mean it 10 would change our conclusion from the Generic 11 Environmental Impact Statement -- if we don't find 12 any information of that sort, then we adopt the 13 conclusion that we made in the generic review.

14 The other set of issues, which we refer to as 15 Category 2, or actually two of the issues are 16 uncategorized, those issues we did not and could not 17 reach generic conclusions because the impacts vary 18 from one site to the other.

19 And for those issues, any that apply to a given 20 plant, we have to look at them on a plant-specific 21 basis and evaluate them in detail and reach a 22 conclusion for that particular site. So those are 23 the two basic types of issues we look at in our 24 review.

25 MR. CAMERON: And maybe Jennifer could just

29 1 give us an example of a Category 2 issue that we 2 look at.

3 MS. DAVIS: A Category 2 example would be any 4 new information with regards to archaeology. We've 5 got even cooling water discharge. Every site is 6 different because every site has a different cooling 7 system.

8 But from my own perspective, yes, every site is 9 different. Not all cultural resources will be the 10 same. Not every Native American tribe will be the 11 same from site to site. We don't have the same 12 human habitation from site to site. So those are, 13 you know, 23 site-specific issues that we do 14 consider.

15 And during our environmental review, we do look 16 at the analysis that the applicant has done on new 17 and significant information. How they determine the 18 new significant information, the fact that there is 19 documentation that they provided to us during the 20 site review, but we will also take that information 21 back and perform our own review and give it a 22 preliminary determination within our draft 23 Environmental Impact Statement.

24 MR. CAMERON: You know what? I was thinking 25 that it might be useful for Kristen and others

30 1 perhaps if they looked at an Environmental Impact 2 Statement that was done for another license renewal.

3 Then we would see the specific types of issues, at 4 least for that facility. And as Jennifer has 5 indicated, it's going to differ; but can we give 6 people a site to go to where they can look at one of 7 the Environmental Impact Statements for a plant 8 that's been through license renewal?

9 MS. DAVIS: They can go to our license renewal 10 webpage. We have all of the Environmental Impact 11 Statements completed to date on-line, or else you 12 can contact the Public Document Room and have the 13 documents sent to you.

14 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Great. Thank you.

15 Anybody else have another question about the NRC 16 process at this point? Okay. And as I mentioned, 17 if questions occur to you later on during the 18 meeting, we'll be glad to answer them.

19 And now we're going to go to the comment part 20 of the meeting. And we have some people who have 21 signed up in advance. I usually find it useful for 22 people in the audience to hear what the license 23 applicant's vision is behind license renewals so 24 that they have that information before they make 25 their comments or just generally.

31 1 And I'm going to ask Mr. John Grubb from the 2 Nuclear Management Company to come up and give 3 us his comments from NMC's perspective. And then 4 we'll go on with the rest of the comments.

5 MR. GRUBB: All right. Good afternoon. My 6 name is John Grubb. I'm the Engineering Director of 7 the Monticello plant. I'm responsible for all 8 aspects of engineering at the Monticello station.

9 I'm here today to provide my support for this 10 request for license renewal from the Monticello 11 station.

12 The mission of everybody who works and supports 13 Monticello is clear; and that's safe, reliable, 14 economic operation of the plant. The safety of the 15 public and the employees being the No. 1 priority.

16 Two of our key values include being a good 17 neighbor, a steward of the environment in which we 18 operate. Our roughly 500 employees are highly 19 experienced. They're well trained; and they're 20 committed to the safe, reliable, economic operation 21 of our plant and to the continued operation of that 22 plant.

23 All of our employees go through rigorous 24 training to continuously hone their skills and to 25 learn new procedures and information. Absolutely no

32 1 one is exempt from the training or testing to ensure 2 that our entire work force is at its best.

3 We continuously improve our training processes 4 based on advancements in technology, best practices, 5 that we identify through benchmarking with the NMC 6 and throughout the industry, feedback from our 7 employees as they identify better ways to gain the 8 skills and knowledge that they need to get their 9 jobs done.

10 An example of this high-quality training is our 11 control room simulator. The simulator is used to 12 train and update our operators and our staff 13 members. The NRC requires that employees undergo a 14 year-long qualification program utilizing the 15 simulator prior to getting their NRC's operator 16 license. The operators who have already received 17 their license certification are required to spend 18 five to six weeks per year in training, and that 19 includes using the simulator.

20 We also have extensive processes and detailed 21 procedures that are continuously reviewed and 22 modified to cover every aspect of our operation.

23 Monticello has over 8,800 procedures to cover 24 operations, maintenance, engineering, training, 25 security, and emergency planning.

33 1 Our emergency response procedures and drills, 2 for example, examine just how our employees react in 3 the event of an emergency. The emergency plan has 4 only one focus, that being safety; safety of the 5 public, safety of our employees, and safety of the 6 plant.

7 Emergency response drills are conducted several 8 times a year to test our abilities and carefully 9 examine areas in which we can improve to prevent 10 situations based on a formal plan which is 11 thoroughly reviewed and monitored by federal 12 agencies. The rigorous standards we abide by are 13 set and reviewed thoroughly by the NRC and FEMA, the 14 Federal Emergency Management Agency.

15 We have a collaborative approach to emergency 16 planning in Monticello. This results in a team 17 effort between employees, Wright County, Sherburne 18 County, the State of Minnesota,- and the Nuclear 19 Regulatory Commission. All totaled, over a thousand 20 people are part of these emergency response teams.

21 We have consistently demonstrated our ability 22 to protect the health and safety of the public and 23 our employees, and we will continue to work with our 24 partners at the NRC to maintain the highest 25 standards for safety and excellence.

34 1 The Monticello plant has also been well 2 maintained over its lifetime. Approximately every 3 two years we perform a refueling and maintenance 4 outage, in which we typically carry out over 2,500 5 individual maintenance and inspection activities.

6 This is in addition to the ongoing maintenance, 7 inspection, and rigorous testing activities that are 8 performed at the time the plant is operating on-9 line.

10 Over on the years, we have continued to invest 11 in a wide range of equipment improvements to take 12 advantage of technology and materials to ensure 13 future reliable and safe operation. As computer 14 training methods have evolved, we are able to 15 broaden the training available. As we move forward, 16 we will continue to upgrade the equipment and 17 technology at the station.

18 Since Monticello began operation in 1971, there 19 have been many changes to show the nuclear 20 industry's dedication and commitment to improve its 21 record of safety and reliability. I would add that 22 the regulations set forth by the NRC, that we abide 23 by and to which we are held accountable, are the most 24 stringent of any industry, and the inspections are 25 more rigorous to maintain a record of safe and

35 1 reliable operation.

2 One example is security at all U.S. nuclear 3 plants. Security at plants across the nations has 4 received increased emphasis and scrutiny since the 5 tragic events of September 11, 2001. The security 6 at Monticello is no exception. We've taken 7 extensive precautions to implement new policies and 8 procedures to ensure that the safety and well-being 9 of the community and our employees is ensured. This 10 includes several million dollars in additional 11 resources and equipment. We continue to work with 12 the NRC to review and evaluate our security 13 procedure to make sure the most effective methods 14 are being used.

15 The operation of Monticello, today and in the 16 future, requires diligence and commitment to the 17 everyday tasks that we all perform. Just last year, 18 we set a record for the most megawatt hours of 19 electricity produced at this station since this 20 plant was built and went on-line in 1971. As the 21 performance standard of our nuclear increases, so 22 does Monticello's.

23 Monticello is also a strong supporter of the 24 environment. We take great care in our daily 25 activities to ensure that the environment is well

36 1 protected. Our employees feel fortunate that the 2 location of the Monticello plant rests on the banks 3 of the Mississippi River within the reaches of the 4 Montissippi County Park and Lake Maria State Park.

5 The site is home to numerous wildlife, aquatic 6 species, and plant life. Our efforts have made 7 Monticello a safe and sound habitat for many years, 8 and it remains our commitment to maintaining that 9 for years to come.

10 On a different note, Monticello is more than a 11 power plant operated by highly skilled workers.

12 Monticello is part of this community. Not only does 13 the plant rely upon many local companies for goods 14 and services, but our employees live in and 15 contribute to these communities and the surrounding 16 communities on a daily basis.

17 We're proud to participate and give back to the 18 community in a variety of ways, including serving on 19 city and town boards, as leaders in civic and 20 community organizations, as sports coaches, on 21 church committees, boards and councils, and as 22 members of charitable organizations. Our employees 23 also help raise money for our local United Way 24 organizations, the Relay for Life, the American 25 Cancer Society, the Rotary Club, STARS Hockey

37 1 Association, just to list a few.

2 We sponsor events in the community including 3 Big Brothers/Big Sisters haunted hayride, 4 Monticello-Big Lake Hospital Auxiliary, and Chamber 5 of Commerce Golf Tournaments. We're extremely proud 6 to have sponsored the Welcome Home ceremony for 7 Monticello's Delta Battery military unit last month.

8 In conclusion, the Monticello plant has been a 9 productive contributor to the energy needs of the 10 State of Minnesota and a valuable asset and good 11 neighbor to the surrounding communities. We remain 12 committed to operating safely, reliably, 13 economically, and focus on being a good neighbor and 14 a good steward of the environment. I and the rest 15 of the employees at Monticello look forward to 16 serving you and meeting the needs of the community 17 for many years to come. Thank you.

18 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, John. As a 19 companion piece, we're going to hear from 20 Mr. Charlie Bomberger from Xcel Corporation, and 21 then we're going to get to Mr. Wayne Mayer.

22 Charlie?

23 MR. BOMBERGER: Good afternoon and thank you 24 for this opportunity to speak on behalf of Xcel 25 Energy. My name is Charles Bomberger. I'm the

38 1 General Manager for Nuclear Assets, responsible for 2 Xcel Energy. And I would like to share why license 3 renewal is the most economic and responsible energy 4 choice for our million and a half customers here in 5 the Upper Midwest.

6 As you are well aware, the Nuclear Management 7 Company which operates Monticello on a day-to-day 8 basis filed an application in March on behalf of 9 Xcel Energy to renew the operating license for 10 Monticello.

11 First, let me give a brief overview of the 12 plant to echo what John has said. The original 13 operating license for Monticello was issued in 14 January of 1971, allowing operation for 40 years.

15 That license for Monticello expires in 2010.

16 The plant itself generates nearly 600 megawatts 17 of base-load energy, which is approximately 18 9 percent of Xcel Energy's total generating capacity 19 in Minnesota. Combined with our other nuclear plant 20 at Prairie Island, nuclear energy accounts for 21 nearly 25 percent of the electricity consumed in 22 Minnesota.

23 Monticello has operated safely and reliably for 24 35 years. And we at Xcel are committed to 25 maintaining safety and environmental excellence to

39 1 operate for an additional 20 years. Our No. 1 2 priority is and has always been the health and 3 safety of the public. Every day Monticello 4 employees come to work with the serious mission of 5 working safely and maintaining the environment in 6 which we work, live, and watch our families grow.

7 In addition to ensuring that Monticello 8 operates safely and reliably, it is also Xcel 9 Energy's responsibility and obligation to ensure 10 that our customers have the safe, reliable, 11 environmentally sound, and affordable energy that 12 they need.

13 Monticello is integral to meeting the needs of 14 our residential and business customers whose demand 15 for electricity is growing at a rate of nearly 16 2 percent per year. In order to acquire needed 17 generation, we have an extensive resource planning 18 process mandated by the State of Minnesota that 19 takes many factors into account including: fuel 20 supply, infrastructure capabilities, environmental 21 impacts and proximity to customers, as well as cost.

22 Last November, Xcel Energy submitted its latest 23 integrated resource plan to the State of Minnesota.

24 All of our studies and forecasts show that the best 25 way to maintain a reliable and cost-effective energy

40 1 infrastructure in Minnesota is to use a diverse fuel 2 mix that includes the emission-free nuclear power 3 generated at Monticello and Prairie Island.

4 Our analyses show that keeping Monticello and 5 Prairie Island as part of that diverse energy mix 6 will benefit our customers by an estimated $1 7 billion in today's dollars during the life extension 8 periods, compared with the next best replacement 9 options. Our analysis also shows that keeping the 10 plants running will result in significantly lower 11 air emissions than would occur if they were shut 12 down and replaced with the only realistic 13 alternatives, which are coal or natural gas-fired 14 plants.

15 Monticello is an essential base-load component 16 of our generation fleet in Minnesota that has 17 allowed Xcel Energy to economically meet our 18 customers' daily generation needs. Without it, you 19 would have to build new generation plants and new 20 transmission lines, and we would not have access to 21 the affordable energy that we enjoy today. License 22 renewal will allow Xcel Energy's customers to use 23 the economical power generated by Monticello for 24 years to come.

25 Access to this economical and reliable

41 1 generation is vital for continued economic growth in 2 Minnesota. While the state has many natural 3 resources, fossil fuel is not one of them. We must 4 import all of our fuel requirements, and keeping 5 nuclear as part of the mix is key to helping us 6 maintain that fuel diversity. Fuel diversity is the 7 backbone of our goal to provide affordable energy to 8 our customers while continuing to reduce the 9 environmental impact of our operations.

10 Monticello provides significant benefits, as 11 John has pointed out, to the local and state 12 economies by providing more than 500 full-time, 13 family-supporting jobs. The plants and its 14 employees purchase numerous goods and services from 15 the local businesses and contribute and support the 16 local charities and community organizations.

17 The plant also provides significant tax support 18 to the local community. Xcel Energy is committed to 19 being a good neighbor and fostering those continued 20 economic growth in the region.

21 In closing, we believe that continued operation 22 of Monticello is vitally important to the state's 23 energy needs, important to the local economy, and 24 important to more than 500 employees who keep it 25 running every day. We look forward to operating

42 1 Monticello safely for many years to come. Thank you 2 for this opportunity to participate in the license 3 renewal environmental scoping.

4 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bomberger.

5 Next we're going to hear from Mr. Wayne Mayer, and 6 then to Mr. George Crocker.

7 MR. MAYER: Good afternoon. My name is Wayne 8 Mayer. I have my own Magic Moments Photographic 9 Studio here as a resident of Monticello. I am also 10 a member of the Monticello City Council. And I'm 11 here to speak in support of Monticello's Monticello 12 nuclear facility.

13 The City of Monticello has a long history of 14 partnering with NSP and Xcel. And I say partnering 15 because that's exactly what it is. It is a 16 partnership. This facility with the 500 jobs it 17 does offer our community offers excellent career 18 growth and retirement for the residents. It brings 19 about economic vitality to all of our community.

20 Xcel closely works with city officials and 21 county officials dealing with safety and security 22 issues. During refueling, hundreds more contractors 23 and subcontractors frequent our hotel, motels and 24 restaurants, bringing more economic vitality to our 25 community.

43 1 Previously you heard many examples of Xcel 2 being a good neighbor. Another example is its 3 commitment to youth and actually other older 4 residents, such as myself. They have provided 5 excellent softball and youth league baseball/

6 softball facilities. It's a modern facility where 7 many residents and non-resident families come to 8 spend quality time. Prior to this location, NSP had 9 provided a men's softball complex adjacent to 10 Montissippi Park. This has now been converted to an 11 area for radio-controlled model airplane 12 enthusiasts.

13 The City looks forward to working with Xcel 14 Energy into the future, especially as our city 15 continues its growth and expands its boundaries 16 towards the west. In closing, I would like to 17 commend all personnel working at the Monticello 18 nuclear generating facility for their excellent 19 safety management. Thank you.

20 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayer, for 21 these comments. Mr. Crocker, George Crocker from 22 North American Water Office.

23 MR. CROCKER: Thank you. My name is George 24 Crocker. I'm the Executive Director of the North 25 American Water Office. Before we turn to Page 2, I

44 1 would like to also recognize that the work force 2 that we have at Monticello, fortunately, is very 3 conscientious, very well trained; and we recognize 4 that.

5 I've had opportunity to observe other nuclear 6 work forces in the course of the Westinghouse 7 lawsuit that Xcel filed in 1995 or '96. My 8 organization was responsible for intervening in that 9 court case. And in the course of that process, we 10 reviewed over a million pages of internal documents 11 that talked about the problems with pressurized 12 water reactors and their steam generator problems.

13 And in the course of doing that, we looked at what 14 other work forces at reactor sites around the 15 country did and did not do. And so we have an 16 appreciation for the work force at Prairie Island.

17 We also appreciate very much being able to work 18 with Xcel, NSP this past legislative session, for 19 example, to pass what we call CBED (Community Based 20 Energy Development) legislation. And I'll talk about 21 that in a minute.

22 I am pleased to have had the opportunity to 23 work with NSP and Xcel for transmission out of 24 Southwest Minnesota to bring the renewable wind 25 energy that was mandated as a part of the Prairie

45 1 Island issue to market. So I say these things for 2 the record, so that I hope the record recognizes 3 that you're not looking at an ideologue. You're 4 looking at somebody who really tries to understand 5 problems and how to find solutions to those problems 6 that enable society to go forward as constructively 7 as possible.

8 We recognize that we all use electricity. That 9 we all use it 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day, 7 days a week, 365 10 days a year, 8,760 hours0.0088 days <br />0.211 hours <br />0.00126 weeks <br />2.8918e-4 months <br /> a year. So we're all part 11 of the problem. And those problems are huge and 12 daunting. Not just on the nuclear side, but on the 13 electric utilities side in general. And as we are 14 all part of those problems, why, in my view, we all 15 have an obligation to be part of the solution to it 16 as well. And it's in that spirit that I'm here.

17 And now we're going to turn to Page 2.

18 Because there are alternatives to this besides 19 coal and gas. And it is an ideological statement to 20 say that they're not. And that gets back to the 21 CBED legislation that was just passed. Recognizing 22 that this is a brave, new world; recognizing that 23 technologies are rapidly advancing and that 24 paradigms are changing. And it's incumbent upon the 25 Nuclear Regulatory Commission in its scoping of a

46 1 commitment for an additional 20 years of reactor 2 operations to at least be mindful of what's 3 happening in the next five years relative to how 4 electric utility services are going to be delivered.

5 CBED stands for Community Based Energy 6 Development. And what it means is that we have an 7 opportunity of taking advantage of the modern 8 technologies, as opposed to the obsolete ones, which 9 we're talking about here today, to look at the 10 distributed dispersed capacity that can and will be 11 coming on-line very rapidly in the next five years.

12 CBED enables those energy systems to come on 13 line in a way that we've never experienced before.

14 It provides a negotiating framework for the power 15 companies to negotiate power purchase agreements 16 with independent qualifying producers of energy.

17 Locally owned, community-based energy. The type of 18 energy development that will have to happen if we 19 are ever to get out of our commitments to central 20 station power and all of the problems that that 21 represents in terms of how you manage nuclear waste 22 for 140,000 years or more. What do we do about the 23 mercury contamination? What do we do about global 24 warming in particular from the coal chain? What 25 about all the security threats from the nukes and

47 1 all of the routine releases from the nukes and the 2 catastrophic threats that nuclear power represents?

3 If we're going to work out of those binds, we 4 will need to make a transition. And CBED is a 5 profound tool that will enable that transition to 6 happen. Right now it's true. It's for wind, and we 7 recognize that wind can be an intermittent resource, 8 not a base-load resource. And we all like to have the 9 lights turned on even when the wind isn't blowing.

10 But it's also true that CBED projects provide 11 an opportunity for us to now move forward to the 12 hybrid systems where wind is married to combustion 13 technologies. And right now -- well, there is the 14 Public Utilities Commission meets next week, where 15 we will be authorizing a test burn of a 2-megawatt 16 diesel generator to a wind system in Southwest 17 Minnesota in Rock County by Luverne.

18 And what will happen there is we're going to 19 figure out how, as the wind tapers off, the 20 combustion capacity can come on. And before very 21 long, before this year is out, we'll have a pretty 22 good handle on how to handle about 600 megawatts of 23 peak during the year, which will be extremely 24 lucrative to power producers because having 600 25 megawatts -- 600 hours0.00694 days <br />0.167 hours <br />9.920635e-4 weeks <br />2.283e-4 months <br />, having a megawatt available

48 1 on demand for 600 hours0.00694 days <br />0.167 hours <br />9.920635e-4 weeks <br />2.283e-4 months <br /> a year, your call utility, 2 that's worth about six or seven thousand dollars a 3 month, in addition to the energy, to have the 4 capacity.

5 So we have the economic opportunity for this 6 development to happen. And before two or three 7 years are up, we'll be down on the shoulders of that 8 peak. We'll be up to 14, 16, 1800 hours0.0208 days <br />0.5 hours <br />0.00298 weeks <br />6.849e-4 months <br /> a year.

9 And before this plant gets renewed, we're going to 10 be swinging with a load duration curve just like 11 Sherco 3 does. And then we're in business.

12 You need to be mindful of that, NRC, as you 13 scope this. How things develop, how things can 14 develop. You need to be mindful that some of us are 15 figuring out that when you tie the financial health 16 of a power company to the sales of kilowatt hours of 17 electricity, what you're going to get is sales of 18 kilowatt hours of electricity.

19 And as an afterthought, we go through the IRP, 20 the Integrated Resource Planning process, to figure 21 something out about conservation, because that's in 22 the public good. Well, we're going to figure out at 23 some point it is my fondest hope -- well, maybe 24 second fondest -- that we figure out how to tie the 25 financial health of the utility systems to what we

49 1 all really want, which is the efficient use of 2 resources, rather than the wasteful consumption.

3 And when we do that, we're going to find that 4 we're wasting right now well over 50, 60, 70 percent 5 of all of the kilowatt hours we consume. We don't 6 need to if what we're focused on is how to get us 7 the light that we want, or the refrigeration that we 8 want, or the industrial drive that we want, rather 9 than just selling bulk kilowatt hours.

10 So these are changes that are coming at you, 11 NRC, in the time period that you're looking at for 12 renewing this license. And I'm just really, I'm 13 confused as to how you are going to evaluate that.

14 And so I want you in your scoping to help us 15 understand how you evaluate the alternative, the 16 no-action alternative, considering the other action 17 that is ready and right and coming forward and will 18 be here in the face of that reactor, and we're going 19 to put it out of business before your 20 years are 20 up.

21 And what does that mean in terms of our ability 22 to do the economic analysis of what is cost/benefit, 23 just in the straight-out cost/benefit analysis, 24 never mind some of these other issues that we'll be 25 getting to. So to help understand your scoping, how

50 1 you evaluate the alternative scenarios, I don't 2 understand how you do that. And what I do 3 understand is that this is a process intent on doing 4 a re-license. Not on evaluating alternatives. So 5 help with us that.

6 The second issue I would like to address has to 7 do with, well, this new information out. As we 8 spoke yesterday or the day before, the National 9 Academy of Scientists, it's not the BEIR reports 10 anymore. They don't call them the BEIR, but the 11 panel of the National Academy of Science that looks 12 at biological consequences of long-term, low-level 13 exposure released the next round. And they confirm 14 that there is no safe threshold.

15 In other words, if you are exposed to the 16 degree that you are exposed, particularly we will 17 find if the exposure is not background, but rather 18 internal because then it's ongoing, it doesn't stop.

19 It never stops if it's internal. And you can't 20 escape it if it's internal, if you've ingested or 21 inhaled beta in particular. There is no safe 22 threshold for that; and the degree of exposure, the 23 symptoms that will be exhibited increase 24 proportional to the amount of exposure that has 25 happened all the way down to zero.

51 1 So based on that knowledge, why, we have a 2 problem, in my opinion, with the monitoring that goes 3 on because we don't know -- we do know that these 4 reactors as they explode uranium atoms and provide 5 the entire periodic chart of other elements, 6 including all of their radioactive sons and 7 daughters. And then we release many of them because 8 they're gases in particular.

9 And we store them for a while. And then we 10 wait for a while. And then at some point we decide 11 it's time to let them go. And they report them to 12 the NRC, and we've got a boxful of reports as to how 13 many curies of this and that went out. And the 14 monitoring looks very convincing if you don't know 15 what you're looking at because it's dominated with 16 TLD's, thermoluminescent dosimeters, which are gamma 17 ray detectors.

18 Well, that's fine. We have a monitoring system 19 that essentially will tell us when we have an 20 accident. We shouldn't need a monitoring system to 21 tell us that. We should know that from other 22 sources. And what we should know is where are the 23 reported releases going? Because unless we know 24 where they go, we don't know where the receptors 25 are. And unless we know where the receptors are, we

52 1 don't know what the biological consequences of that 2 reception are.

3 And so the scope of this EIS needs to include a 4 requirement -- you need to have data included in 5 this EIS if what you're talking about is whether the 6 consequences -- I saw it on the slide. What are the 7 consequences of continued operation? You need to 8 know before you can say with any veracity what the 9 consequences of continued operations are. You need 10 to know where do reported releases go? If you don't 11 know that and if the EIS can't say that, you have no 12 business making any conclusions on whether the 13 consequences, the environmental consequences of your 14 continued operations. That's the second point.

15 The third one gets into security issues. Now, 16 I appreciate that there has been an elevated 17 recognition of this issue. I remember a time when I 18 was accused of providing a road map for talking 19 about security issues. It wasn't that long ago.

20 Somehow I'm complicit because I didn't put my head 21 in the sand and talked about it.

22 Well, now we all know that it's the issue. And 23 what I'm here to tell you, in spite of what has been 24 done, is that we have security at all of these 25 reactors that is very, very good at keeping out the

53 1 graffiti man. That's it. You saw the Time Magazine 2 article, right? I'm not making this up.

3 Representative John Kline, Prairie Island 4 representative, he wants to get it out of Minnesota 5 really quickly because of security issues. That's 6 why he's pushing Yucca Mountain. He thinks that's a 7 solution; but the point here is that even people 8 like John Kline, bless him, understand that nuclear 9 operations have grave security issues that are not 10 being addressed.

11 The EIS needs to do a much better job of 12 analyzing and accounting for the Design Basis 13 Threat. And it needs to be at least in two parts.

14 It needs to at least -- you've got to acknowledge 15 that if something has been done, it's possible.

16 Twenty people were possible. Twenty people did it 17 once. They were all up in the air at the same time.

18 Twenty people could assault. That needs to be in 19 your design basis, and you need to have the security 20 to thwart it. And you need to pay to do it. And 21 that's one scenario.

22 And the other scenario is the stand-off attack 23 in which a single, shoulder-mounted weapon with a 24 grenade has no problem with a DU warhead penetrating 25 three feet or more of tank armor. You're

54 1 uncovered. These things can be guided with joy 2 sticks from Montana with the modern weapon systems.

3 Certainly you do not need lines of sight to do it.

4 You're wide open. You're flapping in the breeze.

5 Now, part of the problem is that, in order to 6 provide adequate security, two things would happen.

7 One is that you would drive the industry out of the 8 market because it would be too damned expensive.

9 And the second thing that would happen is all of the 10 rest of us would say, wake and up say, "Holy, moly, 11 look what they have do to protect us. Are we really 12 sure we want to live with that kind of thing?"

13 Well, unless you get serious about this, it's a 14 charade. And I don't expect you to get serious 15 about it, but you have to expect me to call it a 16 charade when you don't because I will.

17 The next thing I would like to just mention 18 briefly is that we are moving into a totally 19 different climate paradigm. Global warming is on 20 us. Nuclear reactors were not designed and built, 21 and the functions that are provided within the 22 redundant safety systems and so forth were not 23 designed for the brave, new global warming world.

24 There is some thermal issues. They may be 25 generic, but they may be pretty specific to

55 1 Monticello, being as Monticello is really on the 2 upper waters of the Mississippi River. You cannot 3 count on the cooling that this river has 4 historically provided over the forecast period for a 5 re-licensing period.

6 And it was '95 -- or '85 or '86, maybe it was 7 '87 when we did experience extremely low flow. Some 8 of you who were here at the plant at that time 9 remember those low flows. 7Q10 I believe it's 10 called, is what we named it. Very, very close to 11 opening up some of the reservoirs in the dams 12 upstream from Monticello certainly, upstream from 13 the Twin Cities to provide greater flows.

14 We're going to see more and more of that.

15 We're going to see less flows with higher 16 temperatures. We know what happened a year ago in 17 France when they had very, very high temperatures 18 and the waters were too hot to take the cooling 19 water from the reactors, and they had to shut the 20 reactors down. Your EIS needs to take much more 21 account of that than I think we historically have.

22 And then we get to the aging issues for these 23 reactors. Now, I understand, as I said in my 24 opening remarks, I understand the commitment of the 25 work force and the intent of the work force. But I

56 1 also know that we have part of the fail-safe systems 2 bolted to the packing crate at Monticello as well as 3 at Duane Arnold for 35 years before it was 4 discovered. Never took the bolts off.

5 So just because you're good and paying 6 attention doesn't mean things can't happen. I know 7 what happened at Davis Besse, where they were 8 looking really hard, and they didn't find it because 9 they weren't looking in the right place. I know it 10 happened at Point Beach when the nuclear physicists 11 forgot their high school chemistry and they caused 12 an explosion in a cask. Damned near tipped the lid 13 into the pool, which could have drained the pool; 14 and then we would have some fire works. It didn't 15 happen, fortunately.

16 But these are all examples; and there is many, 17 many more. NRC knows them, so I won't bore you with 18 them, but we're pushing the envelope with all of 19 this stuff. You guys to got to do a better job of 20 figuring out where to look when. You have to have 21 more different ways of -- you have to find more 22 diverse ways of looking at things. You've got to 23 figure out not only where to look, but when to look.

24 And you have to do that in a way that provides more 25 assurance, than we have in the past, you're not

57 1 overlooking things.

2 Things age. As things age, I mean it's the 3 bathtub curve. Are you familiar with the bathtub 4 curve concept? Things of life where in the early --

5 using a human example, there is a death mortality 6 rate for infants which is higher than for juveniles 7 and adults. And then it goes up again at the end, 8 and in the long run we'll all be dead.

9 Well, the same with reactors or any other piece 10 of equipment. It goes through a curve. And now 11 that we're doing re-licensing, you see we're getting 12 into the tail end of that curve, and that's why we 13 look at aging things. But you're not looking at 14 them good enough is the point. And the unfortunate 15 point is that there is no way that you can look at 16 it good enough because you can't always look 17 everywhere.

18 And when you're dealing with a technology that 19 is so terribly unforgiving as a boiling water 20 reactor, unless you're always looking everywhere, 21 you're going to miss something. And when you do --

22 you may not miss it here, but somebody at Duane 23 Arnold will miss it or somebody at some other of the 24 400-some reactors around the globe will miss it, and 25 one is going to head south. And then everybody will

58 1 say, "Oh, how could it have happened?"

2 And you're going to find that the political 3 support for the commercial nuclear industry may be 4 broad, but it's skin deep. And when that event 5 happens, and when you've made the commitment to keep 6 us committed to nuclear operations, what will happen 7 then is we'll have chaos in the utility industry 8 because we can't use the reactors anymore, and that 9 will be piled on top of somebody's nuclear 10 nightmare.

11 MR. CAMERON: And, George, are you --

12 MR. CROCKER: I'm getting close.

13 MR. CAMERON: I'm glad we're not in one of the 14 situations where we had to limit people to five 15 minutes. We really appreciate your comments, and if 16 you could just wrap up so we could get on to some of 17 the other people that want to talk. Thank you very 18 much.

19 And the report that George referred to is, they 20 still call them the BEIR reports. And it's BEIR VII, 21 as the 7th edition; and it may be available through 22 the National Academy of Sciences Web site, which I 23 think is www.nas.gov. I believe. I'm not sure if 24 it's a "gov" or an "org." But if we could get that 25 information. But, George, thank you for all of

59 1 these comments. Very helpful to us in terms of 2 scoping. And, Lea, would you like to talk to us at 3 this point?

4 MS. FOUSHEE: Sure.

5 MR. CAMERON: And, George, if you have some 6 other points that you want to make after we hear 7 from other people, we'll have you back up. Okay?

8 Thank you. This is Lea Foushee.

9 MS. FOUSHEE: I also work with the North 10 American Water Office, and my primary interest is 11 that the Monticello Nuclear Facility is upstream 12 from water intake, drinking water intake, for the 13 Minneapolis city. And it is the only source of 14 drinking water.

15 And so I would charge the NRC in their EIS 16 analysis if there is an accident and there is a 17 substantive discharge into that waterway, we have no 18 alternative drinking water. And I would charge you 19 that it is a severe environmental justice issue 20 because people cant go and buy bottled water. Who is 21 going to supply the water supply for 2 million 22 people? And what are the costs of that, and how are 23 you going to protect the water supply of 24 Minneapolis?

25 St. Paul also gets a substantive percentage of

60 1 its water from the Mississippi. They do have some 2 deep wells and some lakes that they can also -- that 3 they do also use. And so there is an additional 4 exposure for St. Paul that you must consider.

5 If we have some type of terrorist attack on 6 those casks once you put the waste outside 7 containment where they are vulnerable, right close 8 to the water supply, what are you going to do? How 9 are you going to do it? We would have a disaster 10 that nobody would recover from anytime soon. Thank 11 you.

12 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you very much, Lea.

13 Next we're going to go to Kristen Eide-Tollefson.

14 MS. EIDE-TOLLEFSON: So many of these topics 15 have been covered well. I live down river from 16 Prairie Island and have been involved in most of 17 Xcel's integrated resource plans since '95. And so 18 my question has to do with the modeling, which 19 interests me very much, for, what's it called, 20 serious s-a -- can someone help me here?

21 MR. MASNIK: Severe accident mitigation.

22 MS. EIDE-TOLLEFSON: Yes, SAMA. Right. Severe 23 accident mitigation --

24 MR. MASNIK: Alternatives.

25 MS. EIDE-TOLLEFSON: Alternatives, right. So

61 1 I'm inquiring about the severe accident mitigation 2 alternatives. I found the analysis in they call it 3 consequence bins quite helpful and, you know, easy 4 to follow.

5 But what was very unclear to me when the EIS 6 explained these different categories of release 7 potential, extreme, more than 50 percent of the 8 inventory of cesium iodine being released. And then 9 large, between 20 and 50 percent, which, of course, 10 is really a huge range I think in terms of impact.

11 Medium, small and negligible.

12 It explained that the severity depends upon the 13 amount of the release in relation to the time in 14 which general emergency was declared and people were 15 alerted and were able to be, mitigation measures 16 were able to be taken.

17 What was completely unclear to me in the 18 environmental review is whether or not the NRC has 19 any specific standards for this. How that decision 20 is made? Who makes the decision as to whether the 21 general emergency is declared? When people are 22 notified? Whether they're -- and I think this bears 23 upon the question of the water supply as well. I 24 became aware of this question when I was sitting in 25 on a technical representatives meeting, which they

62 1 have monthly in the Environmental Quality Board.

2 And I think it's the Health Department. I'm 3 not sure if it's the Health Hepartment or the PCA, 4 but many of the agencies are involved right now in a 5 review of protections for service waters that serve 6 as drinking waters under the EPA requirement, 7 voluntary requirement.

8 And there were ten -- this has been like a 9 six-month or eight-month, year-long process 10 identifying the inventory, the service water 11 inventories. And then determining what the priority 12 contaminants were that they were going to consider.

13 And one of those priority contaminants was 14 specifically radioactive contamination from 15 Monticello plant. And so this is something that is 16 on the docket in this review, EPA review.

17 And in particular I believe it's the 18 Minneapolis emergency people who are concerned.

19 There is a consultant working with them, and I spoke 20 to him afterwards. So this is something that I 21 think is quite, that these two pieces as, you know, 22 and their relationship is something that I hope will 23 be much more elaborated in the review. Thank you.

24 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you. Thank you very 25 much, Kristen. My colleague is saying that he would

63 1 like to talk to you more specifically about that 2 particular issue after the meeting. The next 3 speaker is Carol Overland.

4 MS. OVERLAND: I'm Carol Overland. I've been 5 at meetings in a couple nuclear proceedings before.

6 This is going to be fairly short because I'm going 7 to mail comments in. But when you consider 8 alternatives, which you need to do, I would like to 9 urge you to consider putting coal gasification that 10 is slated to go elsewhere in Minnesota down here 11 instead of nuclear. You preserve the jobs. You get 12 rid of nuclear. You don't have to deal with those 13 types of environmental issues, and I'll submit 14 information in detail about that.

15 But that's something that will be considered on 16 the Minnesota side of the dry cask proceeding. And 17 also in the Minnesota side, the Mesaba proceeding, 18 which is -- that's the coal gasification company 19 from the area.

20 And there is just a number of issues that, you 21 know, I'm thinking back when I represented Florence 22 Township, and they tried to put nuclear waste in.

23 Here you have the cask sitting on -- except this is 24 not the cask proceeding, right, so you can't really 25 get into that. But your releases, how are you going

64 1 to contain that? Are you going to put things like a 2 clay liner underneath the slab? But that's not 3 this. This is a different issue.

4 I am also concerned about alternatives. And 5 again I live in Red Wing, which is right by Prairie 6 Island, down river from Prairie Island, and also 7 down river from this plant. So I would urge you to 8 consider everything that Kristen particularly was 9 talking about, and I will just give details on this 10 later. But in alternatives, there are options being 11 considered for Minnesota that would work really well 12 here. This site is set up for it. It's time to 13 consider some of those.

14 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you very much, 15 Carol. That's the last person that we had signed up 16 to speak this afternoon. And, George, did you have 17 another point that you wanted to make and you're 18 prepared? I want to make sure that we hear all that 19 you have to say. Okay. So we're fine. Is there 20 anybody else who wants to say anything at this 21 point? We have this young woman right here. And 22 just introduce yourself to us, please.

23 MS. RISSER: My name is Julie RiSser, and I'm 24 here observing for the League of Women Voters, and 25 sadly I have to go. It's a trapeze lesson [to take

65 1 my kids]. But I would like to know what the accepted 2 topic is today? I'm a little bit ambiguous on what 3 the public can actually comment upon and what 4 comments will be registered. I came with the impression 5 that there were certain areas that were really irrelevant 6 to be brought up today, and there are certain subjects 7 that could be. And perhaps I got that impression 8 erroneously. So could you just clarify what the 9 public can talk about today?

10 MR. CAMERON: Let me just say something about 11 that, and then see if Andy Kugler wants to say 12 something. At these meetings we welcome all 13 comments that people want to express concerns about 14 items related to license renewal.

15 Some of those comments -- we're here to listen 16 to all comments. Some of those comments when the 17 staff evaluates them may be outside the scope of the 18 license renewal proceeding. In other words, they 19 may be covered in our normal activities, but we do 20 want to hear -- we don't want to say to someone, 21 "That's outside the scope."

22 This is mainly, primarily to hear about issues 23 that we should look at in the environmental review.

24 Many of -- we've had a lot of really on-scope 25 comments that we need to consider today. But the

66 1 staff is going to have to evaluate those and see 2 what fits in. But for an example, if someone raises 3 a safety issue, an aging issue, for example, very 4 relevant to license renewal, to the safety side of 5 license renewal. That may not go into the 6 environmental review, but, Andy and his staff will 7 make sure that people who do the safety side review 8 will look at that, that issue. And, Andy, I don't 9 know if you want to add anything --

10 MR. KUGLER: No.

11 MR. CAMERON: Do you have anything else? I 12 mean does that help clarify?

13 MS. RISSER: Basically we're here to talk about 14 all of our concerns, and all of those concerns will 15 end up going to the people who will grapple with 16 these issues?

17 MR. CAMERON: Exactly. That's what we try to 18 do. I'm sorry. Can you repeat that so we get it on 19 the record?

20 MS. RISSER: So basically this is a complete 21 open hearing, and all concerns can be presented by 22 the public, and all concerns will be then turned 23 over to the agency that should deal with them?

24 MR. CAMERON: Basically right. If it's within 25 the NRC's purview. There are some issues that come

67 1 up at these meetings, for example, people come in 2 and say that, "We don't like the State of 3 Mississippi's statute for distributing tax revenues 4 from the company."

5 That's a concern in the community, and we 6 listen to those concerns. But there is things like 7 that that the NRC doesn't have any jurisdiction to 8 consider, but we want to be aware of those, and we 9 want people to be able to express those, because 10 basically anything that is within the NRC's purview 11 or has implications for what we do, these meetings, 12 those issues, even if it's not within the 13 environmental review, will get parsed out to the 14 people in the agency to make sure that they're 15 thinking about it. Does that answer your question?

16 MS. RISER: Completely.

17 MR. CAMERON: All right. Thank you very much 18 for that. And we have a question, I believe, from 19 Carol Overland. Is it a question, Carol?

20 MS. OVERLAND: Question, yes.

21 MR. CAMERON: All right. Here you go.

22 MS. OVERLAND: I had a question how the 23 economics of this plays into the environmental 24 issues because we can evaluate that and you've got 25 the state for economics, but how are you going to

68 1 evaluate alternatives? Because I'm sure the 2 cost/benefit analysis comes into it somewhere. How 3 do you deal with that?

4 MR. CAMERON: And obviously we can't talk about 5 that for this particular facility, but if Andy or 6 Jennifer could just talk about how socioeconomics 7 are considered generally within these reviews.

8 MR. KUGLER: Well, it sounded like the question 9 related almost more to economics related to 10 alternatives. And as we evaluate alternatives, we 11 really focus mainly on the environmental impacts for 12 alternatives.

13 So we'll look at, you know, in our department 14 of safety, we're very specifically going through the 15 environmental impacts of continuing operation. But 16 then we also evaluate environmental impacts of 17 replacing the power with some other source, and in 18 those cases we are really only looking at 19 environmental impacts. We don't go into the 20 economics of it.

21 Now, we do have a section of the environmental 22 impact statement where we look at socioeconomic 23 impacts of continued operation. What will the 24 socioeconomic -- for instance, what happens to 25 transportation? What happens to taxes? What

69 1 happens to public services as a result of 24 years 2 of operation?

3 So we do look at it for the proposed action.

4 But it's really not so much a comparison mode as 5 just to evaluate what the impacts would be in the 6 local community of an additional 20 years of 7 operation. And I think she may have a follow-up 8 question.

9 MS. OVERLAND: And you don't do that for 10 alternatives?

11 MR. CAMERON: Let's get that on the transcript.

12 And again if we can steer people to, if they looked 13 at an impact statement that would be done and you 14 looked at that analysis, it probably might be the 15 clearest way of telling you what information is 16 looked at. But go ahead.

17 MS. OVERLAND: So then the problem -- you're 18 saying you don't do a comparison then of -- in the 19 alternatives you do a comparison, but in the 20 socioeconomic part of it you do not do a comparison?

21 MR. KUGLER: Well, actually, when we do the 22 alternative section, we also do socioeconomic 23 impacts from the alternatives as well.

24 MS. OVERLAND: Okay.

25 MR. KUGLER: So there is a comparison. What

70 1 I'm saying is we don't evaluate what it would cost 2 to build a wind turbine and replace this power with 3 some wind source or a solar source. And part of 4 that is regulations. We're not actually considering 5 cost/benefit for this action.

6 MS. OVERLAND: All right.

7 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Thank you, Andy. All 8 right. The NRC staff is here. We have people from 9 our regional office. We have people from our office 10 of general counsel. We do have the team leader, who 11 is going to be helping us to evaluate the impacts.

12 I would just urge you if you have further questions 13 that you want to talk about, they will be available 14 after the meeting today.

15 We are going to be doing a second meeting 16 today. The same format. It starts at 7:00 o'clock.

17 There is an open house at 6:00 o'clock. If anybody 18 wants to come back tonight and speak again, please 19 feel free to come by and do that; and I'm going to 20 have Andy just close off this afternoon meeting.

21 Andy?

22 MR. KUGLER: Well, I just wanted to thank you 23 all for coming out this afternoon. We appreciate 24 you taking the time and being with us today. I hope 25 that the information we provided will help you, and

71 1 I know that we appreciate the comments that we 2 receive, and we will take that information back with 3 us and evaluate it as we develop the environmental 4 impact statement.

5 In the packet of information you received, 6 there was a meeting feed-back form. And if you have 7 any suggestions on how we can do these meetings 8 differently in a way that might help you more, we 9 appreciate any feedback you have. You can either 10 fill it out and drop it off and come back, or you 11 can mail it back to us. It's a prepaid postage.

12 The staff will remain after the meeting if you have 13 any questions or if you would like to discuss any 14 issues with us. We'll be happy to do that with you.

15 And other than that, again thank you and have a good 16 afternoon.

17 MR. CAMERON: We have one last question here.

18 Lea Foushee.

19 MS. FOUSHEE: I didn't promise not to ask 20 another one. I'm sorry. It's interesting as the 21 severe accident mitigation alternatives, whatever 22 that is, we have a substantial southeast Asian 23 immigrant population in Minnesota, and they don't 24 speak English and they eat a lot of fish.

25 And so if we have a severe accident at

72 1 Monticello and we contaminate a stretch of the 2 river, we need to have a specific methodology of 3 notification of all those communities and those 4 individuals that may fish in the upper reaches of 5 the Mississippi.

6 And so that includes like four southeast Asian 7 languages and all that type of thing. And they 8 don't necessarily follow the strict rules and 9 regulations that we might have. And so it's going 10 to be a substantial effort of notification.

11 Otherwise you're going to have missed a large 12 population that would be directly impacted. And 13 also a large Hispanic, Latino community as well that 14 in fact probably also does not speak English. And 15 so you have all these groups that you must include 16 in your analysis. Thanks.

17 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you very much, Lea.

18 And we are adjourned at this point. Thank you, all.

19 (Meeting adjourned at 3:18 p.m.)

20 * * * *

• 21 22 23 24 25