ML061930218
| ML061930218 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 07/06/2006 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| Giitter R | |
| References | |
| 50-293-LR, ASLBP 06-848-02-LR, NRC-1126, RAS 11955 | |
| Download: ML061930218 (38) | |
Text
R fts 11I9.5Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Title: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Limited Appearance Docket Number: Location: 50-293-LR; ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR Plymouth, Massachusetts DOCKETED USNRC July 11, 2006 (11:41am)Date: Thursday, July 6, 2006 OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Work Order No.: NRC-1 126 Pages 1-36 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.Court Reporters and Transcribers.
1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. "20005 (202) 234-4433 M -L L Pr-T-E ,z -S&cc- O3 0, 1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 *****4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 5 LIMITED APPEARANCE COMMENT SESSION 6 * * *7 8 IN THE MATTER OF: 9 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER 10 STATION 11 12 Thursday, July 6, 2006 13 The above-entitled matter came on for 14 hearing, in the Ballroom of the Radisson Hotel 15 Plymouth Harbor, 180 Water Street, Plymouth 16 Massachusetts, pursuant to notice, at 5:30 p.m., Ann 17 M. Young, Chair, presiding.
18 BEFORE: 19 ANN M. YOUNG Chairman 20 RICHARD F. COLE Administrative Judge 21 NICHOLAS G. TRIKOUROS Administrative Judge 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 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 2 COMMENTERS:
DAVID AGNEW REBECCA CHIN MARY GATSLICK JOYCE MCMAHON BARBARA PYE ARTHUR POWERS RAYMOND SHADIS DIANE TURCO 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 3 CONTENTS COMMENTERS:
MARY GATSLICK RAYMOND SHADIS DAVID AGNEW REBECCA CHIN DIANE TURCO JOYCE MCMAHON ARTHUR POWERS BARBARA PYE~) £.................6................
..................
12..............
..................
17..............
..................
23..............
.................
25..............
.................
28..............
..................
31 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com (202) 234-4433 4 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 PROCEEDINGS (5:34:03 p.m.)CHAIR YOUNG: The first person on my list is Joyce McMahon. Is she here? If she's not-I was told she might be running a little late, we can come back to her. Okay, I see a nod. The second person is Mary Gatslick.MS. GATSLICK:
Right here.CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. We appreciate you all coming out this evening, and look forward to hearing from you.MS. GATSLICK:
Hi. My name is Mary Jo Gatslick, and I'm a resident of Plymouth, Massachusetts.
I'm also a member of the Massachusetts Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance or Mass AREA. We are a coalition of more than 50 business, labor, and community organizations, as well as independent energy experts working together to solve Massachusetts' significant electricity challenges.
First, I want to thank the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for this hearing, and the opportunity to speak. Mass AREA supports the transparency of the license renewal process, and appreciates this and other opportunities for 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 5 1 public input on Pilgrim's re-licensing process.2 Mass AREA supports re-licensing of Pilgrim Station.3 At the May 1 7 th NRC hearing, a number of our members 4 outlined the strong environmental, social, economic 5 benefits that this plant provides.
Most notably, 6 it's helped Pilgrim mitigate sizeable amounts of 7 greenhouse gases and toxic chemical emissions that 8 would otherwise occur from fossil fuel-burning 9 plants.10 This plant's social economic benefits 11 are quite significant.
Pilgrim is an important 12 stable of the southeastern Massachusetts economy, 13 providing more than $135 million. That's right, 14 $135 million in annual economic activity.
It has 15 more than 500 permanent employees, of which I am 16 one.17 Additionally, the plant uses the 18 services of approximately 130 contractors.
It also 19 supports many civic and charitable activities in 20 the greater Plymouth area. I personally was 21 involved with the Retired Senior Volunteer Reading 22 Program, and our cite, "Pilgrim and Diversity and 23 Inclusion Council" on a project for the reading 24 initiative.
25 Please keep these issues in mind as you 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 J .do your work. We urge the ASLB to be deliberate and thorough in evaluating intervener petitions.
We also urge you to make sure that the re-licensing process will stay focused on the issues that it's supposed to be focused on; that is, the safety of the plant and its environmental impact. Also, please keep in mind that Pilgrim Station has NRC-based inspectors at the facility, and has earned the NRC's highest safety rating.It is critical that the re-licensing decision regarding Pilgrim be made within the 2-1/2 year time frame that is required.
Massachusetts needs this reliable power source, which provides approximately 8 percent of the state's electricity on a daily basis. Thank you.CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. Arthur Powers is the next person, but it says he's showing up at 6, so unless he's here, Raymond Shadis.MR. SHADIS: Thank you, Your Honor. My name is Raymond Shadis. I live in Edgecomb, Maine, a mile and a half down-wind of Maine Yankee former site. I am technical advisor to the New England Coalition, not just your ordinary interloper.
We do have members in the area; and, of course, New England is one of our smaller geographical units, 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 I 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 little to separate one state from another, but stonewalls.
We're all neighbors.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration regularly publishes a plume modeling for nuclear power plant accidents.
They publish them on a daily basis, and they are available to the public the day after any given day. And typically, plumes from a default model accident at the Pilgrim Station blanket Boston, Providence, Worcester, extend as far as Vermont, and even to Seacoast, Maine, so we all have a stake in whether or not the Pilgrim plant is allowed to renew its license.There was a great deal of discussion earlier today about NUREG 17.38, and this document, which is titled a "Staff Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear Stations", is something I'm quite familiar with.The study itself, if you're looking at the question of whether or not it departs from previous studies, the information in it, whether or not it contains new and significant information should be looked at in the context of its origin.The Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station a few years into decommissioning, under management of Entergy Corporation, unilaterally decided 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 8 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 withdraw its outer security barriers, to downsize its emergency planning, and wanted permission to reduce its insurance, and it had unilaterally, as I said, moved to reduce the outer barriers on its security,-
NRC came in and ordered them to re-evaluate, to reinstall some of those outer barriers, and to provide new hardened stations within the spent fuel pool building.Maine Yankee objected that this was a violation of the backfit rule, and the issue was taken to NRC, and eventually to NRC technical staff, to ascertain whether or not there were significant hazards to be considered, starting from that backfit rule question.
And Maine Yankee went to the first meeting on this at NRC headquarters.
Commissioner Betta Dikus asked where the public component was in the discussion, and at that point, Maine Yankee invited me to participate in the construction of NUREG 17.38, to accompany them to NRC headquarters and participate in all the staff meetings.
The NRC commissioners invited me to present on NUREG 17.38, two meetings into its construction, and then at the final meeting when the document was presented to the Full Commission.
Let me tell you that this document was 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 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 document that is a composite of previous NUREGs, previous spent fuel pool, and fuel studies, and seismic studies, and the tables, the appendices that are with this document are drawn from more than a half-dozen different previous studies. In a sense, the information going into it is not new.The conclusions that are relevant to us as concerned citizens, I think a lot of them are new.NRC staff concluded in this document that the Mark-I reactor containment would offer no substantial obstacle to aircraft penetration.
The aircraft considered in the tables in the appendices are commercial aviation aircraft maxing out at about 44,000 pounds, so very light aircraft, compared to the aircraft that were involved in the 9/11 incident.
And they do admit that depending on the direction of impact, there is one of the three exposed walls on the spent fuel pool where there might be structures that would present some obstacle to aircraft impact.The act of malevolence is something that the staff decided they could not assign a probability to. The probability of one, and the study, because they were attempting to do 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 10 probabilistic risk assessment, they did not include any consideration of deliberate acts of malevolence, or acts of terror. They did conclude, in fact, within the study that a spent fuel pool fire could not be precluded based on the age of the fuel. In other words, no matter how old the fuel was stored in the spent fuel pool, a fire could still ensue.They referred to earlier NUREGs for consequences.
As you know, risk contains the elements of both probability and consequences.
The question of risk for us, no matter what the probabilities may be, tends to gravitate toward consideration of the consequences.
We have been told by Entergy Corporation wherever they operate in Vermont, or in New York State, or here in Massachusetts, that the consequences of a reactor accident or spent fuel pool fire are relatively insignificant; that is to say, that the extent of damage would not be much beyond a few miles from the reactor.The appendices for 17.38 contain tables which have considerations of cancer mortalities of 25,000 over a radius of zero to 500 miles from the reactor. And whether or not these are modeling NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON.
D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
- o n w 11 1 considerations or not, they are considerations that 2 NRC included in their assessment of consequences.
3 And if we are to take the agency seriously, then we 4 also need to take these kinds of considerations 5 seriously.
6 CHAIR YOUNG: Let me ask you if you 7 could sort of wrap-up, and then we can move on to 8 some other people.9 MR. SHADIS: Certainly.
10 CHAIR YOUNG: And then if we have time 11 leftover, we can come back.12 MR. SHADIS: I would appreciate the 13 opportunity, and let me just say with respect to 14 the remote and speculative qualities, as they are 15 termed, of an act of terror, that on June 2 0 th of 16 this year, NRC did issue an order requiring 17 compliance with key radiological protection 18 mitigation strategies to all of their operating 19 licensees, including Pilgrim. And in it, they 20 asked the licensees to provide information that 21 would continue -excuse me -the common defense and 22 security would continue to be adequately protected 23 for a scenario resulting-from a large fire or 24 explosion at your site. And they are speaking 25 specifically of acts of terror, and they're looking 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 12 at what the companies may or may not have in place for mitigating actions, so I point to that. It's available now as of yesterday on the NRC website, and I point to that as some kind of evidence that NRC is, at last, acknowledging this risk, and is taking it seriously, and gives it credence.
Thank you very much. If I do get the opportunity to come back and have a discussion with you, if you have questions on 17.38, I'd be glad to try to answer you. Thank you.CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. Is David Agnew here?MR. AGNEW: Yes. Greetings.
My name is David Agnew, and I reside at 18 Martha's Lane, Harwich, Massachusetts.
I have been a resident of Cape Cod for 19 years, approximately 30 years from the Pilgrim Nuclear .Power Station. About half that time I've been down-wind of the reactor's emissions.
I am coordinator of the citizens'group, Cape Down-Winders.
I am here today because I am concerned with the threat to public health posed by PNPS, and I seek to minimize its hazard. I offer the following in support of the motions brought before you today by Pilgrim Watch and the Massachusetts 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Attorney General.Some of the new information since the original operating license was granted, which should be considered when assessing environmental impact and severe accident mitigation analysis -one, in 1978, Dr. Carl Morgan stated, "There is no safe level of exposure, and there is no dose of radiation so low that the risk of a malignancy is zero." NRC has been loathe to recognize this, but it was recently confirmed by the National Academy of Science's Beer-7 report. Two, the effects of radiation are cumulative
-the Rocketdyne Worker's Study. Three, older persons have greater radiation sensitivity, ORNL Follow-up Study. Evacuation plans are necessary and must anticipate shadow evacuation, Three-Mile Island. The population within 50 miles of PNPS has increased significantly with larger automobiles that cause greater traffic backups. Applicant's evacuation assumptions are highly optimistic.
Six, a core melt can cause a thyroid cancer epidemic of 100 miles away -Chernobyl.
Seven, Pilgrim's containment is"virtually certain to fail" in the event it's really needed, NRC. Eight, the retrofitted direct force event system may facilitate containment 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 failure. Nine, populations living near Pilgrim suffer a high incidence of leukemia.
Ten, due to its vulnerable design and proximity to large populations, Pilgrim is an attractive target, and defense against a sophisticated terrorist attack is essential
-Al Qaeda's possession of nuclear facility plants. Eleven, irradiated fuel will accumulate on site for decades resulting in a densely packed fuel pool. This pool is exceedingly dangerous.
National Academy of Science's Spent Fuel Studies, Studies by Gordon Thompson and Jan Beyae.During the time I lived on the Cape, there have been three or four studies of human cancer incidents in the area. A study by the Silent Spring Institute found that breast cancer rates on some parts of Cape Cod are among the world's highest. Despite the southeastern Massachusetts leukemia studies finding significant increases in both thyroid cancer and leukemia amongst residents of the five towns surrounding this BWR, none of the Cape studies have investigated Pilgrim's role in our exceedingly high rates of breast cancer. Absent any scientific study exonerating Pilgrim's daily radionuclide 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 15 releases, it is reasonable to assume that they have contributed to these excess cancers.Potential devastation and centuries long contamination of vast portions of the environment, flora, fauna, Cape Cod Bay and the Atlantic Ocean with attendant pollution of biospheric DNA with mutant cells requires that security for a pre-deployed nuclear weapon, such as Pilgrim, with the cesium potential of 11 Chernobyls, must guarantee the successful deterrence of an attack on the reactor building, its support structures, and fuel pool from the air, land, and water by a dedicated, well-organized team of well-equipped terrorists who do not provide advance notice. High-level rad waste storage must ensure no risk of fire and attendant catastrophic contamination, not densely packed into a single high-yield vulnerable target.In October 2000, NRC study found that half of all U.S. commercial aircraft can penetrate five feet of concrete 45 percent of the time. The fuel pool should be returned to its original and safer design of low density wrecks. Age degradation of all safety components must be thoroughly inspected and certified to meet design 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 specifications.
This include the drywell container 2 and all systems that may contain radioactive water.3 The containment must be upgraded to provide 4 reliable containment of radioactive material in the 5 event of a core melt.6 Any study of the impact of a core melt 7 pool fire must consider the economic loss of the 8 Cape and Island's tourism, real estate, and other 9 industries for 600 years. The reactor must be held 10 to the same standard as other facilities impacting 11 aquatic ecology. Pilgrim's once-through cooling 12 systems massive thermal pollution of Cape Cod Bay 13 must be replaced by the best technology available 14 to prevent harm to marine life, cooling towers.15 Routine radioactive releases to the environment 16 must be markedly reduced, and dose effects must be 17 recalculated based upon our specific population 18 profiles.
Verification of compliance requires 19 replacing existing radiation monitors with current 20 more sensitive technology which monitor all egress 21 routes and report to the public in real time.22 Emergency planning must be upgraded to 23 prepare for a surprise attack of significant 24 radiological consequence, which would impact an 25 area far beyond the current 10-mile radius.NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neatrgross.com 17 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 Updated independent studies of severe accident consequences must be done. The emergency planning zone should be expanded to a 50-mile radius, more closely corresponding to federal studies estimating the consequences of a core melt. Emergency plans must be certified as having the full confidence of their local governments, anticipate shadow evacuation, and be realistically and regularly tested.Contentions that emissions of hazardous levels of radionuclides will not travel over 10 miles are prima facie ludicrous; yet, at present, there is no meaningful radiological emergency plan for the Cape and Islands. This region requires a thorough study of radiological shelters and evacuation capabilities, local stockpiling of potassium iodide, training of emergency personnel, education of the public, and an emergency notification system. Thank you.CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. Rebecca Chin, and I think you had emailed me. Right?MS. CHIN: Thank you. I'm Rebecca Chin. I am the Vice Chairman of the Duxbury Nuclear Advisory Committee.
The motions brought forward by both the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1
18 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 Massachusetts Attorney General and Pilgrim Watch reflect the wishes of the citizens in the Town of Duxbury, as expressed in three articles overwhelmingly passed by town meeting votes;Article 6 in 2003, Article 39 in 2005, and Article 40 in 2006.Spent fuel pool fires, the AG's motion was filed to ensure that the NRC does not grant the license renewal before Entergy and the NRC address the risk of a severe accident in the spent fuel pool, and comply with federal laws for the protection of public health, safety, and the environment, and require Entergy to backfit Pilgrim's design to eliminate or substantially mitigate the risk of a pool fire.The hearing request of the backfit petition arise from the safety and environmental risks posed by Entergy's plan to continue with high-density spent fuel storage racks in the pool.The Attorney General asked the Town of Duxbury and Pilgrim Watch in Contention 4, recognized that our community's health and safety require low-density pool storage and hardened dry-cast storage for reasons expressed, for example, by the Attorney General's experts, Dr. Gordon Thompson and Dr. Jan 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Beyae.In the National Academy of Science's Spent Fuel Pool Vulnerability Study, Dr. Beyae's attachment to the AGO's motion estimated the cost and latent cancers following releases of Cesium-137 from Pilgrim's spent fuel pool and a fire. With a 10 percent release of Cesium-137, the cost in billions is 105-175, and the latent cancers are 8,000. With 100 percent release of Cesium-137, the cost in billions is 342-488, with latent cancers at 24,000. These are under-estimates because in addition to Cesium-137, other harmful radionuclides would be released with resulting health consequences, in addition to cancers, birth defects, reproductive disorders, and diseases such as heart disease.Much of the information on spent fuel pool fires and the lack of availability of off-site storage any time soon is new and significant information; and, therefore, a site-specific analysis is warranted.
We recognize that a spent fuel pool fire can result either from an accident due to operator or mechanical failure, or to an act of malice, such as a terrorist attack.In the latter case, we underscore 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
%v 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 20 need to address terrorism as a variable in the re-licensing process based on the recent 9 th Circuit Federal Court decision that in essence stated,"Terrorism must be part of any environmental review in an NRC licensing decision." The review process requires a hard look at severe accident mitigation analysis.
It seems obvious, therefore, that the consequences of a spent fuel fire can be severe, and must be considered.
For security, Duxbury's annual town meeting voted in 2005 that one of the seven pre-conditions for not opposing re-licensing was that on-site security heightened to protect against an air attack on the main reactor building, spent fuel pool, and/or critical support structures by a large or small aircraft loaded with fuel or explosives, a floating explosive or underwater charge from entering intake canal, and attack by water or land from a force comparable in size and strength to 9/11. The adequacy of these security improvements must be approved by a panel of experts independent of the nuclear power industry.The National Academy has confirmed that reactors are known attractive targets, and vulnerable to attack. Pilgrim is essentially 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 vulnerable as it is located in America's hometown.The spent fuel pool is in the attic of the reactor, vulnerable from three sides as it faces a large coastline with wooded areas on either side. Again, the 9 th Circuit Court provides support.For health, Duxbury supports Pilgrim Watch's Contention 5, concerning the need to consider on a site-specific basis 20 more years of operations and our community's health. Again, town meetings stated that we will not approve re-licensing unless reduction of allowable radioactive emissions into our air and water, so that the biological impact is no greater than that allowed from the release of a chemical plant licensed today. And verification of releases by monitors, computer linked to state and local authorities at all points where radiation is released from Pilgrim, and at appropriate off-site locations.
The director's vent system installed at Pilgrim's Mark-I reactor to protect the containment from a total rupture is an extension of the containment ventilation system. It bypasses the standby gas treatment system filters normally used to process releases via the containment ventilation pathway. There is no radiation monitor on the pipe 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 R1.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and valves that compromise that line. Venting a release in the order of 1 percent of the core's radioactive iodine and cesium would be very severe.The purpose of the.containment is to provide a barrier between the lethal radiation inside the reactor and the public. Under the Severe Accident Mitigation Analysis, Pilgrim's application stated that a filter will reduce by half the amount of radiation that would be released in an accident.
Well, half is still a major benefit for the public health and safety.We want indirect venting; that is, allowing air to escape only after it has passed through filters. Unfiltered venting has been judged unsafe by all regulatory agencies outside of the United States. Mitigation should be focused on the protection of public health, safety, and the regional economy.The town recognized, and those of us who have lived here for many decades know that new and significant information outlined by the petitioners on health impact has been seen in the past, and in our communities now.Under emergency planning, the town 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 v 23 1 K.) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 supports Pilgrim Watch's criticism of the evacuation time estimates, and evacuation delay times provided by Pilgrim in their application.
A thorough review of the emergency planning on a site-specific basis should be part of a SAMR analysis.
The town has stated current plans will not work; hence, the consequence of an accident will far exceed the applicant's estimates.
Included as part of the 2005 town vote not to approve re-licensing unless updated emergency planning for a new security environment we face today to protect against an attack or other fast-breaking accident resulting in major consequence and accounts for the increased population density in southeastern Massachusetts.
In March of 2006, the town voted not to support the NRC policy that states, "The minimum recommendation that shall be made at a general emergency is to evacuate two miles around, and five miles down-wind from the plant." The Town of Duxbury recognizes that the impact from a nuclear disaster in a general emergency is far greater than two miles around and five miles down-wind; and, therefore, planning should not be reduced from the current ten mile emergency planning zone. Rather, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 24 1 it should be expanded.
Further, the concept of 2 down-wind is not applicable in a coastal community 3 where wind directions are variable.4 In addition, Duxbury's Nuclear Advisory 5 Committee supports Pilgrim Watch's Contentions 1 6 and 2 regarding fixed structural components.
7 Buried pipes and components adding to the aging 8 management program and assuring the program is 9 working, on-site monitoring wells to assure 10 radiation does not leak into the Cape Cod Bay from 11 buried pipes and components containing radioactive 12 liquids, and regular UT testing for corrosion in 13 the drywell and all embedded regions, and 14 performing root cause analysis.15 The request for a hearing and petitions 16 to intervene submitted by Pilgrim Watch and the 17 Massachusetts Attorney General are valid concerns 18 of the Town of Duxbury, and an evidential hearing 19 should be granted to them. Thank you.20 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. Diane Turco.21 MS. TURCO: Hi. I'm Diane Turco from 22 College, Massachusetts down on the Cape, and I'm 23 with Cape Cod Down-Winders.
And I've been sitting 24 here this afternoon, all day actually, listening to 25 the testimony, and it seems so prudent that 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 25 1 waste pool fire scenario be considered for re-K.. 2 licensing Pilgrim, because I think when the 3 original license was given, the town of Plymouth 4 wasn't planning to be a waste dump. And what will 5 happen now with 20 more years of waste being put 6 into that pool -it was originally designed for 880 7 assemblies, and now there's over 2,800 assemblies.
8 And there have been ongoing issues here.9 I went for a cup of coffee at the 10 break, and I spoke to the woman at the shop and I 11 said, you know, there's not many people at that 12 hearing today, I mean not hearing, but the program, 13 and she said well, people have been working for 14 years and nothing is happening, nothing is going to 15 happen. The public's voice won't be listened to.16 But with the good work of these folks here, 17 hopefully that will happen. And on this side we 18 have the corporations fighting the people.19 But one thing that we've been fighting 20 for on the Cape is to be included in an emergency 21 planning zone. As the crow flies, we're about 30 22 miles away, and we do know that if there was an 23 accident, the radiation plume would travel. It 24 could travel down to Cape Cod, and for over 15 25 years we've been trying to get the NRC to expand 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 26 the emergency planning to Cape Cod because there's two bridges, and that's all there is for people who have to evacuate, so we're a population that is held hostage, and we're definitely at risk. But there is a 50-mile emergency planning zone, the ingestion pathway zone, and the Department of Public Health has a whole brochure of how to protect your farm animals, to keep them in a stone barn with ventilation, and there's nothing for our children, so it's a very serious situation here, and this needs to be considered.
But it's very prudent to be concerned about the nuclear waste, the waste site, and a fire scenario, and I hope that this panel considers it seriously in the re-licensing.
Thank you.CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. Has Joyce McMahon gotten here yet? Good.MS. McMAHON: Good evening. My name is Joyce McMahon, and I am the Communications Director for the Massachusetts Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance, Mass AREA, for short. First, let me thank you for the opportunity to address the Board. We do appreciate your time.Mass AREA is a diverse statewide group comprised of more than 50 labor unions, trade 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 associations, businesses, including Entergy, educators, scientists, advocates, concerned citizens, and community leaders. We are committed to finding clean, low-cost, and reliable electricity solutions that benefit all Massachusetts.
This is an urgent public policy challenge.
We came together in early January after several warnings were issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and ISO New England, among others, that energy supplies will be insufficient to meet demand as early as 2008, and that energy prices are causing hardship for the region's businesses and residents, especially the most vulnerable, such as the elderly and the low-income populations.
While Mass AREA's mission is broad and focused to include renewable energy, and encouraging energy efficiency, Mass AREA and its members fully support the re-licensing of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant. Given the pending electricity supply problem, and since no new major power plants are under development, a process that typically takes five years from start to finish, we must keep Pilgrim Station in operation, as on a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com rt 28 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 typical day it provides 7 to 9 percent of the Commonwealth's electricity.
From an economic standpoint, the power produced at Pilgrim is lower cost than the regional average. Since Massachusetts ranks third in the nation in terms of highest electricity costs, it becomes even more important to maintain Pilgrim's very reliable, low-cost electricity.
While the region has just adopted a new electric market structure, it is quite important that we keep the supply we have in order to maintain system reliability.
Therefore, it is imperative that the re-licensing process progresses in a timely manner, and does not get sidetracked by or taken in with dealing with issues that are extraneous to the normal re-licensing process.Mass AREA encourages the ASLB to stay focused on your charge, the safety and environmental impact of the plant, while evaluating and determining intervener petitions.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak here this evening. Mass AREA looks forward to contributing to the process over the next 18 to 24 months.CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. Mr. Arthur Powers.NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 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 29 MR. POWERS: Good evening. My name is Arthur Powers. My wife and I have been residents of the Town of Plymouth for over 30 years. Like many people in the region which experience cold winter and hot summers, we are very concerned about the high price of power, which mean has made staying cool in the summer, warm in the winter very, very expensive, as we all know. I also don't think prices will go down any time soon. In fact, we all know they're going to rise.This is why I came to speak at this meeting, in addition to some others. With little research, one would find out that nuclear power is one of the cheapest powers to generate, and it means the cost to people like yourself and myself, and my family, and my friends is to consumers least expensive.
This is because nuclear power plants, like Plymouth, make power without buying expensive gas and oil, much of which comes from other parts of the world, some places which have less than favorable views of the United States of America.Everyone is talking about independence for energy, to lower the energy cost. We have a great example how that independence is possible right here in Plymouth.
We just heard the speaker 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 30 before me saying that the cost to generate the 7 to 10 percent electricity is the cheapest around.I've been listening today, and the last meeting I was at they were talking about the safety problems and things of this nature.I know that they're working on it, because I have associates that work at the plant.I read the papers. I also know what will happen if there's a nuclear explosion.
I was in Japan in 1946, so I know what it looks like. I also know what Buzzard's Bay looked like last year when 90,000 gallons of oil landed up in Fair Haven and on the shores. Haven't seen that over here in Plymouth.
I also know what it looked like up in Chelsea a few months ago when Exxon had an oil spill, when one of their discharge pipes let go. I was also at a meeting here when the Town of Duxbury spoke, saying how great their shellfish is doing.Shellfish was there, the plant is here, so they're doing okay. So I can see the concern, and when you people look at all the options here, you have to look and say okay, what has Plymouth done for the town, what has it done for the Commonwealth, what has it done for the country?This is what we're after. We're 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 looking at something that's going to benefit the people. Yes, we have a problem with a catastrophe, but we also had a problem in 1978. There was nowhere to go because the ways the streets and highways of the Commonwealth are built, it's rather difficult to get around with the masses of people that we have. That's just one problem. It wasn't created by the problem with power plants. They had nothing to do with it. It's something that has to be addressed separately.
How do we get all these people out of here? And yes, the wind does blow in different directions, I agree with that wholeheartedly.
But yet, if precautions are taken and people are aware of this factor, it could be remedied.I also have seen catastrophes down in Florida, where people could not get out, just by sheer volume of people, because there was no prepared relationship from one town to another.Plymouth, and Duxbury, and Kingston set the greatest plan going to get people out of here, but once they get up to Boston and say okay, we're going to come up 128, for example, and the traffic is going to be northbound in two lanes, these are the things that have to be addressed.
And I don't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 32 1 think that we have to worry about that right at 2 this stage in this thing. The main concern is 3 let's re-license the plant, because (a) it's going 4 to employ the people; (b) the taxes that the town 5 will generate and the surrounding towns as a result 6 of it being here will be offset. Everybody's 7 worried about the plant going away and losing the 8 tax dollars. The Town of Plymouth is deciding to 9 get $200 million for the schools we badly need by 10 re-licensing the plants. The tax money will be 11 there.12 And in conclusion, cheap power made 13 right here in the United States seems to me, and a 14 lot of other people, a great solution to much of 15 our energy problems locally by using a nuclear 16 plant to keep my bills, your bills, and nationally 17 easing our dependence on oil, and I hope you keep 18 this in mind. Thank you.19 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. Is there 20 anyone else here who has not signed up who'd like 21 to speak? Okay. You want to just read off?22 MS. PYE: Barbara Pye.23 CHAIR YOUNG: Hi.24 MS. PYE: Hi. My name is Barbara Pye.25 I'm a resident of Duxbury, Massachusetts, and I'm 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 just here to -I don't have a prepared statement
-just to say that I'm opposed to the re-licensing of the plant. People here are saying that they're concerned about it, it's a great business.
They have money to give the Town of Plymouth if something happens at the plant. It doesn't matter.People won't have a job, because there will be no place to live. I'm opposed to it for all the same reasons that that gentleman was saying, emergency evacuation.
The plans will not work. I mean, in Duxbury, you can't get out of town on the 4 th of July, and so that's one of the problems.
I'm opposed to it because of the spent fuel pool, a fire that might occur there. And a possible terrorist attack. And to me, it just seems like it's unconscionable that people have to come up with new information to the NRC to oppose re-licensing.
I mean, look what happened September 1 1 th-nobody thought it was going to happen. To think that something will possibly happen to say oh, my God -we should have done something about it. I think that you don't have to have new information.
All the information that's been provided by the people, the Attorney General and Pilgrim Watch I think is sufficient enough to oppose the re-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 34 1 licensing.
And any of my extra time I'd like to 2 give to the people that are more knowledgeable 3 about it. Thank you.4 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. Is there 5 anyone else? Does anyone know of anyone else who 6 is planning to come to the meeting? We'll wait a 7 little while longer. Mr. Shadis, if you'd like to 8 speak just a few more minutes -I don't know that 9 we have any questions, but if you want to just 10 briefly finish up your remarks.11 MR. SHADIS: Thank you, Your Honor. I 12 appreciate that. Just briefly, in terms of 13 questions of qualifying contentions and the 14 requirement of new information
-I'd just like to 15 observe, there are many ways to define that. Is it 16 information newly developed, or information newly 17 available to the public -two different things.18 And I can't think of the exact case cite, but the 19 Yankee Row case, and I believe it was their license 20 termination plan case, there was an ASLB decision 21 that it was not so much counting or looking at the 22 dates on documents as information became available, 23 but that the panel might take a cumulative look at 24 the information; that is to say, that the panel 25 might consider how that information gathered NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 35 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 together in a timely way led interveners to the conclusions or to the assessments that they had.And certainly, with respect to the issues of spent fuel pool accident risk, and with issues regarding terrorism, it's a moving target, it's an evolving field. Information is constantly coming forward.The NUREG 17.38 was the, according to Commissioner McGaffigan, their least favored NUREG. And it was, in essence, the question was sent packing. They went out looking for consultants to review some of the material, some of the questions raised wound up going through Congressional Committee and back to the National Academy of Sciences, because they did not like the conclusions.
The staff, NRC staff, was asked to re-evaluate some of that, and we've never gotten through the process, so that information is still coming forward, still evolving, and I believe that you have the discretion available to you to take it into consideration.
A brief reading of the regulations and our understanding of it is that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel has the discretion to take up any safety or health issue that might come to its attention during these proceedings, and to pursue it either sui sponte or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 36 1 through elicitation of further information from the 2 participants.
And it is only the good judgment, 3 the discretion, and the volition that is needed to 4 pursue these issues, so you have this particular 5 issue. And it broadly has been laid at your feet, 6 so to speak, and whether or not the particular 7 requirements of NEPA or of Commission practice have 8 been fully met or not does not determine whether or 9 not this is a valid issue. In other words, legal 10 decisions do not determine physics, so I would beg 11 you to consider that in your deliberations.
12 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you.13 14 MR. SHADIS: Thank you.15 CHAIR YOUNG: Is there anyone else here 16 who would like to speak? Well, I guess we can wait 17 a little to just make sure there's no latecomers.
18 We appreciate everyone coming out who did, and 19 offering your input, and thoughts, and time, and 20 being good public citizens.
Thank you.21 (Whereupon, the proceedings went off 22 the record at 6:20:57 p.m.)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 CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of: Name of Proceeding:
Docket Number: Location: Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.Limited Appearances 50-293-LR and ASLBP No.06-848-02-LR Plymouth, MA 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.
Lindsey Barnes Official 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