ML072890199
| ML072890199 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 09/19/2007 |
| From: | NRC/NRR/ADRO/DLR/REBB |
| To: | |
| Jill Caverly 301-415-6699 | |
| References | |
| NRC-1775 | |
| Download: ML072890199 (103) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Indian Point License Renewal Public Meeting: Afternoon Session Docket Number:
50-247 50-286 Location:
Courtlandt Manor, New York Date:
Wednesday, September 19, 2007 Work Order No.:
NRC-1775 Pages 1-105
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 MEETING TO DISCUSS THE ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING PROCESS 4
FOR INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT 5
NOS. 2 AND 3, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATIONS 6
+ + + + +
7 Wednesday, September 19, 2007 8
+ + + + +
9 The meeting came to order at 1:30 p.m. in The 10 Colonial Terrace, 119 Oregon Road, Cortlandt Manor, 11 New York, Lance Rakovan, Facilitator, presiding.
12 13 PRESENT:
14 LANCE RAKOVAN, NRC 15 RANI FRANOVICH, NRC 16 BO PHAM, NRC 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
2 C O N T E N T S 1
SPEAKER PAGE 2
Chris Hogan 19 3
Taylor Palmer 25 4
James Knubel 26 5
Elizabeth Segal 29 6
Gary Shaw 31 7
Philip Musegaas 34 8
Lloyd Douglas 34 9
Glenn Rickles 39 10 Michael Otis 43 11 Charlie Donaldson 47 12 John Kelly 49 13 Marilyn Elie 53 14 Marie Quinten 56 15 Susan Shapiro 59 16 Hazel Dukes 65 17 Michelle Lee 68 18 Ron Carpino 71 19 Sherwood Martinelli 74 20 Dan Durett 81 21 Ulrich Witte 86 22 Tom Hallsel 88 23 Susan Peale 91 24 Bill Maulmeister 95 25 26
3 C O N T E N T S (cont.)
1 SPEAKER PAGE 2
Radmilla Miletich 96 3
Laura Seitz 99 4
Rani Framovich 102 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
4 P R O C E E D I N G S 1
[1:32 p.m.]
2 MR. RAKOVAN: Good afternoon, everyone.
3 My name is Lance Rakovan. I am a communications 4
assistant with the EDO's office at the Nuclear 5
Regulatory Commission, and it's a privilege to act as 6
one of your facilitators for today's meeting. I also 7
have Mr. Rich Barkley who is from our Region One 8
office near Philadelphia, helping me out today. So I 9
appreciate the help, Rich.
10 Welcome to NRC's public meeting to discuss 11 the environmental scoping process for the Indian Point 12 license renewal application.
13 The purpose of today's meeting is to 14 listen to you and to receive your comments as to what 15 environmental issues the NRC should consider during 16 their review of Indian Point's license renewal 17 application.
18 To start things off, I just of wanted to 19 go through what to expect from this afternoon's 20 meeting. I'll go through a couple ground rules and 21 then I'll go ahead and turn things over to our 22 presenter.
23 Just for those of you who aren't familiar 24 with the term scoping, it's a term that we're going to 25 throw around a lot today probably. It basically 26
5 harkens back to what I just said the purpose of the 1
meeting was.
2 We're trying to figure out what to include 3
in the scope of the environmental review of the 4
license renewal process. So if you hear that term, 5
that's all we're talking about.
6 Today's agenda. Basically, we've got a 7
fairly quick presentation on the license renewal and 8
environmental review processes, and then essentially 9
we're going to open the meeting up to listening to 10 your comments.
11 We're going to try to just let you have 12 the mike. We ask that you keep it down to a few 13 minutes for your comments, if you would. We've got 14 quite a few people signed up to speak and we'd like to 15 try to get through everyone.
16 We're going to try to avoid answering 17 questions in the public meeting format. We have a 18 number of NRC staff here, and since the purpose of the 19 meeting is to get your comments specifically, if you 20 have some questions we'd be more than happy to step 21 out in the backroom, answer your questions after the 22 meeting, step out during the meeting, even, if you'd 23 like to do that, and try to handle them there.
24 But again, what we're going to try to do 25 is keep the main body of the meeting for, is 26
6 essentially to listen to you, not for us to talk.
1 We do have somebody who is going to be 2
transcribing the meeting for us today, so that we can 3
take your comments and have them written down and be 4
able to go through them after the meeting.
5 As such, we're going to ask that if you 6
speak, you come and use the center microphone when 7
it's your turn to comment. If you could identify 8
yourself and any group that you're with when you start 9
talking, that will help us get you on the transcript 10 and know exactly who you are.
11 If you're speaking in the crowd, or if you 12 want to say something in the crowd real quick, flag me 13 down to get my attention and I'll try to bring the 14 mike to you, but again, we'd like to keep that as 15 infrequent as possible and allow the person who has 16 the mike to have the floor.
17 And again, it's very important that we 18 have one person speaking at a time so we can get a 19 clear transcript of the meeting.
20 I want to stress that speaking here today 21 is not the only way that you can get your comments in 22 on this process. If you do not make it to the mike or 23 you don't say everything that you want to say while 24 you're up there, we will take written comments and 25 have them read directly into the transcript for the 26
7 meeting. And then also our main speaker will be going 1
over the other ways that you can get your comments in 2
on this process.
3 We're going to do our best to get to 4
everyone today, so again, if you could, please be 5
respectful of the other speakers and try to keep your 6
comments concise, to the point, so we can make sure 7
that we try to get as many people up here as possible.
8 If you did not sign up to speak, using one 9
of the yellow cards at the table outside when you 10 walked in, flag me down when someone else is speaking 11 and I'll bring one over to you. This gives us a 12 record of who spoke and more specifically it lets us 13 know how to spell your name, so we can make sure that 14 it's properly reflected in the transcript.
15 Other than that, if everyone could silence 16 your cell phones or your pagers, to make sure that 17 doesn't disrupt the meeting.
18 Also on the back table, there was a stack 19 of public meeting feedback forms. If you could take 20 a minute just to fill those out, either hand it to an 21 NRC employee or drop it in the mail. It's free. That 22 really gives us an idea of how we can improve these 23 public meetings. Or whether you just liked it so 24 much, that we did it perfectly, that's okay to say 25 too. Having said that, I feel like I've talked to 26
8 long, so I'm going to go ahead and turn things over to 1
Mr. Bo Pham, who is going to give a brief 2
presentation, and then we're to go and turn the 3
meeting back to commenting.
4 MR. PHAM: Thank you, Lance. Next slide, 5
please.
6 Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Bo 7
Pham. I'm a senior project manager at the Nuclear 8
Regulatory Commission in the Division of License 9
Renewal, and I'm also the lead project manager for 10 conducting the review associated with the Indian Point 11 license renewal application.
12 Thank you all for taking the time to come 13 to this meeting. I hope the information we provide 14 will hep you to understand the process we're going 15 through, and the role you can play in helping us make 16 sure that our environmental review considers relevant 17 information.
18 In June, we had a meeting here at the 19 Colonial Terrace to provide an overview of the license 20 renewal process, which includes both a safety review 21 and an environmental review.
22 Today, we will describe in more detail, 23 the environmental review process associated with the 24 license renewal review, but the most important part of 25 today's meeting is to receive any comments that you 26
9 may have on the scope of the environmental review.
1 We will also give you some information 2
about how you can submit the comment, as Lance said, 3
outside of this meeting.
4 At the conclusion of this presentation, we 5
will be taking comments on the scope of the 6
environmental review.
7 As Lance has already indicated, this 8
meeting is being transcribed and all comments recorded 9
from the meeting will be reviewed and considered.
10 Before I get into the details of the 11 environmental review process, I'd like to take a few 12 minutes to recap some of the information that was 13 presented here in the June meeting.
14 The NRC is a federal agency established by 15 the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. It regulates 16 the civilian use of nuclear material. The Atomic 17 Energy Act authorizes the NRC to grant a 40 year 18 license for nuclear power reactors.
19 This 40 year term was based primarily on 20 economic consideration and antitrust factors, not on 21 safety or technical limitations. The Atomic Energy 22 Act also allows for license renewal.
23 The National Environmental Policy Act of 24 1969, otherwise known as NEPA, establishes a national 25 policy for considering the impact of federal decision 26
10 making on the human environment.
1 As a matter of policy, the Commission 2
determined that reactor license renewal constitutes a 3
major federal action, which an environmental impact 4
statement is warranted.
5 The NRC's regulations governing nuclear 6
safety, security, and environmental protection, are 7
contained in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 8
Regulations, commonly referred to as 10 CFR. 9 In exercising its authority, the NRC's 10 mission is threefold. To ensure adequate protection 11 of public health and safety, to promote the common 12 defense and security, and to protect the environment.
13 The NRC accomplishes its mission through 14 a combination of regulatory programs and processes 15 such as establishing rules and regulations, conducting 16 inspections, issuing enforcement actions, assessing 17 licensee performance and evaluating operating 18 experience of nuclear power plants, across the country 19 and internationally.
20 The NRC has resident inspectors at all 21 operating nuclear power plants. These inspectors are 22 considered the eyes and ears of the NRC. They carry 23 out our mission, our safety mission on a daily basis, 24 and are at the front lines of ensuring acceptable 25 safety performance, and compliance with regulatory 26
11 requirements. Next slide, please.
1 Now turning back to license renewal, the 2
Indian Point reactor units were licensed to operate in 3
1973 and 1975. For units 2 and 3, the current 4
operating licenses expire in 2013 and 2015, 5
respectively.
6 The NRC received Entergy's application for 7
license renewal for both units on April 30th of this 8
year.
9 As part of the NRC's review of the Indian 10 Point license renewal application, we will perform an 11 environmental review to assess the impacts on the 12 environment for an additional 20 years of operation.
13 And I'll explain that process more in a few minutes.
14 I'll also share with you the schedule of the 15 environmental review. Next slide, please.
16 License renewal involves two parallel 17 reviews, the safety review and the environmental 18 review. These two reviews evaluate two separate 19 aspects of the license renewal application. The 20 safety review focuses on the aging of components and 21 structures, that the NRC deems important to plant 22 safety. The staff's main objective in this review is 23 to determine that the effects of aging will be 24 adequately managed by the applicant.
25 The results of the safety review are 26
12 documented in a safety evaluation report, otherwise 1
known as a SER. For the environmental review, the 2
staff considers, evaluates and discloses the 3
environmental impacts of continued plant operation for 4
an additional 20 years.
5 The staff also evaluates the environmental 6
impacts of alternatives to license renewal.
7 The objective of the review is to 8
determine if the environmental impacts of license 9
renewal are so great, that license renewal would not 10 be a reasonable option.
11 The staff prepares and environmental 12 impact statement, otherwise known as an EIS, to 13 document its environmental review. Next slide, 14 please.
15 This diagram illustrates the safety and 16 environmental review processes represented at the top 17 and bottom of the slide.
18 It also features two other considerations 19 in the Commission's decision on whether or not to 20 renew an operating license.
21 The independent review is performed by the 22 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, or ACRS, 23 statutorily mandated by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
24 The ACRS is a group of scientists and 25 nuclear experts who serve as a consulting body to the 26
13 Commission.
1 The ACRS performs an independent review of 2
the license renewal application as well as the NRC 3
staff safety evaluation. They then report their 4
findings and recommendations directly to the 5
Commission.
6 Hearings may also be conducted concurrent 7
with the staff's review, and interested stakeholders 8
may submit concerns or contentions and request a 9
hearing. If a hearing is granted, the Commission 10 considers the outcome of the hearing process in its 11 decision of whether or not to issue a renewed license.
12 Now I'm going to describe the 13 environmental review process in a little bit more 14 detail. Next slide, please.
15 The National Environmental Policy Act of 16 1969 requires that federal agencies follow a 17 systematic approach in evaluating potential 18 environmental impacts associated with certain actions.
19 We are required to consider the impact of the proposed 20 action and also any mitigation for those impacts, that 21 we consider to be significant.
22 We're also required to consider 23 alternatives to proposed action, in this case it's 24 license renewal, and that includes energy alternatives 25 to the proposed action, mitigation alternatives, and 26
14 the no action alternative, which we examine the 1
environmental impacts associated with not issuing a 2
renewed license.
3 The NRC has determined that an 4
environmental impact statement will be prepared for 5
proposed license renewal of the nuclear power plants.
6 In preparing an EIS, the NRC conducts a scoping 7
process. The purpose of this scoping process is to 8
identify the significant issues to be analyzed in 9
depth.
10 We are now gathering information for an 11 EIS and are here to collect public comments on the 12 scope of the review, that is, what environmental 13 impacts should the staff consider for the proposed 14 license renewal of Indian Point?
15 The staff has developed a generic EIS that 16 addresses a number of issues that are common to all 17 nuclear power plants. The staff intends to supplement 18 that generic EIS with a site-specific EIS, which will 19 address issues that are specific to the Indian Point 20 site.
21 The staff also reexamines the conclusions 22 reached in the generic EIS to determine if there's any 23 new and significant information that would change 24 previous conclusions. Next slide, please.
25 For the environmental review, we have 26
15 established a team of specialists from the NRC staff 1
as well as contractors who are experts in various 2
fields and disciplines. This slide gives you an idea 3
of the various areas we looked at during the 4
environmental review.
5 Some of the areas include terrestrial and 6
aquatic ecology, environmental justice, hydrology and 7
radiation protection. Next slide, please.
8 The scoping period started on August 10th 9
when the Notice of Intent to prepare and EIS and 10 conduct scoping was published.
11 The NRC will be accepting comments on the 12 scope of the environmental review until October 12th.
13 In general, we're looking for source of information 14 about the environmental impact of continued operation 15 at Indian Point, that we should consider as we prepare 16 our environmental impact statement.
17 You can assist us in that process by 18 telling us, for example, what aspects of your local 19 community we should focus on; what
- local, 20 environmental, social and economic aspects that the 21 NRC should examine during our environmental review; 22 and what reasonable alternatives are most appropriate 23 for the area.
24 These are just some of the examples of the 25 input we're looking for, and they represent the kinds 26
16 of information we are seeking through the 1
environmental scoping process.
2 Your comments today should be helpful in 3
providing insights of this nature. Next slide, 4
please.
5 This slide illustrates the various 6
considerations that are factored into a decision to 7
issue a renewed operating license. So how do we use 8
your input today? Public comments are an important 9
part of the environmental review process.
10 We consider all the comments that we 11 receive from the public during the scoping process as 12 well as comments received once the staff issues the 13 draft environmental impact statement. Next slide, 14 please.
15 Now in addition to providing comments at 16 this meeting, there are other ways that you can submit 17 comments for our environmental review process.
18 You can provide written comments to the 19 Chief of our Rule and Directives Branch, whose address 20 is on the slide above. You can also make comments in 21 person if you happen to be in Rockville, Maryland.
22 We've also established an e-mail address 23 at the NRC for the specific purpose of receiving your 24 comments on the development of our draft environmental 25 impact statement and what you think the scope of our 26
17 review should be.
1 That e-mail address is Indian 2
Pointeis@nrc.gov.
3 All of your comments will be collected, 4
reviewed, and considered, and as Lance had mentioned, 5
during this meeting, if you have written comments or 6
written speeches that you would like us to consider, 7
we will take them and enter them as part of the 8
transcript. Next slide, please.
9 This slide shows important milestone dates 10 for the environmental review process. The Notice of 11 Opportunity for Hearing was published on August 1st, 12 followed by the Notice of Intent to prepare an 13 environmental impact statement and conduct scoping.
14 The opportunity to submit contention for 15 our hearing closes on November 30th. That was 16 previously October 1st, but in response to a 17 congressional request, the Commission has extended 18 that date to November 30th.
19 And if you'd like to have comments, that 20 you would like to submit outside of today's hearing, 21 you have also until October 12, as highlighted on the 22 slide, to submit those comments.
23 This slide identifies the primary points 24 of contact within the NRC for the environmental 25 review.
26
18 It also identifies where documents related 1
to our review may be found in the local area. The 2
Hendrick Hudson Free Library, the Field Library, and 3
the White Plains Public Library, have all agreed to 4
make the license renewal application available for 5
public review.
6 When it is published for comment, the 7
draft environmental impact statement will also be 8
available at each library.
9 These documents will also be on the NRC's 10 Web site at the Web address shown at the bottom of the 11 page.
12 In addition, as you came in, you were 13 asked to fill out a registration card at our reception 14 table. If you've included your address on that card, 15 we will mail a copy of the draft and final EIS to you.
16 This concludes my presentation and I will 17 turn it back to Lance. Thank you.
18 LANCE RAKOVAN: Thanks, Bo. To start off 19 the speakers today, we have Chris Hogan from the New 20 York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
21 MR. HOGAN: Thanks, Lance. As he 22 indicated, I'm Chris Hogan and I am the project 23 manager for the New York State Department of 24 Environmental Conservation for the relicensing of 25 Indian Point's units 2 and 3. Department staff are 26
19 currently reviewing Entergy's environment report as 1
well as historical information and will be submitting 2
written comments on the scope of the draft 3
supplemental EIS before the close of the comment 4
period on October 12th, 2007.
5 The purpose of my statement today is to 6
clarify the department's role in the relicensing and 7
other matters related to the facility.
8 Now, in addition to our participation in 9
scoping, the department has been designated by 10 Governor Spitzer to take the lead for the state 11 executive agencies for the relicensing of Indian 12 Point. Acting in this role, the department intends to 13 file a request for a hearing and a petition for leave 14 to intervene in the relicensing proceeding, and the 15 department would like to thank NRC at this time for 16 the extension to submit those documents.
17 In their scoping comments, department 18 staff will be focusing on the potential natural 19 resource and aquatic impacts from the facility during 20 an additional license term of 20 years.
21 The department's primary concern is the 22 potential impacts of the once-through cooling system 23 at the facility. The two units combined currently 24 withdraw approximately 2.5 billion gallons of water 25 per day from the Hudson River.
26
20 This results in the impingement of fish on 1
the intake screens and the entrapment of small fish, 2
fish larvae, and fish eggs within the cooling system 3
of the plant.
4 In addition, the once-through cooling 5
system also results in a discharge of heated water, 6
because the water is used to absorb waste heat from 7
the operation of the generation equipment.
8 The discharge of the heated waste water 9
for both units is through a single discharge canal.
10 The department is concerned with the 11 potential thermal impacts from the discharge on the 12 aquatic resources of the river. This information is 13 important because before the NRC can relicense at 14 Indian Point, the Clean Water Act requires that New 15 York State must certify that the state water quality 16 standards will be met during the new license term.
17 This approval is referred to as a water 18 quality certification. Based on the schedule 19 established by the NRC, the department anticipate 20 receipt of Entergy's water quality cert application in 21 approximately May 2008.
22 Pursuant to New York State uniform 23 procedures regulations, the water quality certificate 24 application will be submit to public review and 25 comment.
26
21 From the date of submission of the water 1
quality cert application, the department has one year 2
to issue, deny or waive the certificate.
3 The department looks forward to full 4
participation by the public in that process.
5 In addition to the department's role in 6
the NRC relicensing process, there are two other 7
matters related to the facility in which the 8
department has primary responsibility.
9 Under the RCRA authority delegated to the 10 department by the EPA, DEC regulates hazardous waste 11 management and remedial efforts at Indian Point, 12 including any potential groundwater contamination.
13 In addition, as the agency that 14 administers the environmental side of the NRC 15 agreement state program, DEC has taken a lead for the 16 state in the ongoing radiological groundwater 17 investigation. Staff have been actively involved 18 throughout this process and will be reviewing the 19 soon-to-be-completed site hydrology report and any 20 remediation plans.
21 The department also has jurisdiction over 22 the wastewater discharge from the facility through the 23 state pollutant discharge elimination system or SPDES 24 program.
25 Through the SPDES program, the department 26
22 ensures that all discharges of wastewater meet state 1
water quality standards.
2 In addition, the SPDES program also allows 3
the department to regulate the withdrawal of water for 4
cooling purposes. The department issued a draft SPDES 5
permit in November 2003 and commenced the 6
administrative process to modify the permit. The 7
draft permit is currently the subject of an 8
adjudicatory hearing and the department is awaiting a 9
commissioner's ruling on the appeals of the issues 10 that should be adjudicated. The draft permit 11 currently requires Entergy to install cooling towers, 12 or equivalent technology, if the facility is 13 relicensed by the NRC.
14 If you would like additional information 15 on the department's responsibilities with regard to 16 Indian Point, we have a table in the lobby. We have 17 two fact sheets that cover the groundwater remediation 18 and our role in the relicensing process and we'd be 19 happy to talk to you about either.
20 Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
21 MR. RAKOVAN: With that, I will turn 22 things over to Rich Barkley to--he's going to be 23 taking the yellow cards that you filled out, either 24 prior to coming tonight--or this afternoon, or when 25 you came today. If anyone hasn't filled one out, I 26
23 have some blank ones right here, so if you'll raise 1
your hand, I could bring one to you right now, if you 2
wish to speak. Rich is going to try to get everyone 3
up there, and again, I think Mr. Hogan did an 4
excellent job of keeping things quick, to the point, 5
and keeping to a couple minutes which was great. If 6
everyone could try to follow that, we'd really 7
appreciate it.
8 And if you want to come up to the center 9
mike, that'd be great. if you want to use the podium 10 mike as well, that'd be fine. So with that, i'll turn 11 it over to Rich.
12 MR. BARKLEY: Okay. Thank you, Lance. At 13 this time, we have 23 people who have signed up to 14 speak. Some of them have not made it clear, whether 15 they want to speak in the afternoon or in the evening.
16 So some of the people that I call may or may not be 17 here. Those people who do not respond now, I'll put 18 in the pile for this evening.
19 Again, I would like you to limit your 20 comments to five minutes. I will give you a visual 21 cue at one minute and then try to prompt you at the 22 end of your time to turn over to the next speaker, 23 given the sheer number of people we have to speak.
24 The first three speakers I'm going to 25 call, I'm going to ask one person to respond to the 26
24 microphone at a time, but I'm going to call three 1
names up to keep people kind of on cue.
2 The first three people have asked to 3
speak, first is Taylor Palmer, the second is Manajo 4
Green and the third one is James Knubel.
5 MR. PALMER: Good afternoon. My name is 6
Taylor Palmer. I'm representing Congresswoman Nita 7
Lowey. I'm actually not going to make a a statement.
8 We just wanted to have a quick question answered.
9 This might be something the NRC wants to answer 10 behind, but essentially the question that we have for 11 today, we wanted to, first of all, thank the NRC for 12 granting the extension on the intervening petitions.
13 That was very important to the congresswoman, for one, 14 and it will allow proper evaluation of all these 15 environmental impact statements and everything that 16 needs to be considered for Indian Point.
17 My one question for the NRC today deals 18 with, as we know, as many, as the parties have 19 mentioned today, numerous events have occurred at 20 Indian Point, several of which have in the last month 21 alone. Specifically as the DEC just mentioned, the 22 leak in the spent fuel pool.
23 These recent missteps and violations are 24 an obvious safety problem for the local residents, and 25 the one question I actually have is how will the 26
25 operational safety and the operational status of the 1
sirens, together with all these other factors, 2
including the leak of the spent fuel pool, especially 3
the performance indicator change from green to white 4
for the plant operations, factor in the relicensing of 5
Indian Point Facility 2 and Indian Point 3?
6 MR. RAKOVAN: As I said when we started 7
the meeting, we're going to try to keep this more to 8
comment. So I think Roni Franovich was going to step 9
out and go over that with you, if that's okay.
10 MR. PALMER: Yeah. We just wanted to make 11 sure that the question was presented in front of you, 12 so that it could be--
13 MR. RAKOVAN: Okay, and it's in the 14 transcript, so--
15 MR. PALMER: We appreciate it.
16 MR. RAKOVAN: Thank you.
17 Rich.
18 MR. BARKLEY: Manajo is coming this 19 evening. Jim Knubel.
20 MR. KNUBEL: Good afternoon. My name is 21 Jim Knubel. I live in Putnam Valley. I'm a member of 22 New York Area which is an association of businesses, 23 labor leaders, and individuals that support the 24 relicensing of Indian Point.
25 I'd like to start by thanking the men and 26
26 women that work at Indian Point for the continued safe 1
operation of that unit.
2 In looking at the scoping of the unit, I 3
guess I would ask that the NRC consider the study that 4
was done by the National Academy of Science, which 5
says that even with Indian Point, there's going to be 6
a major shortfall of electricity for southeast New 7
York, and then it gives eight conditions which have to 8
be met, so that the possibility of closing Indian 9
Point can exist.
10 I will note that since the report was 11 issued, not one of those conditions have been met.
12 I also think that in looking at the 13 environmental impact, you've got to look at the 14 totality of the input, including all the key 15 alternatives, which I think the NRC already mentioned, 16 including the impact of not running the plant. I 17 think you have to look at air quality, water quality, 18 aesthetics, the economy, employment, taxes, cost and 19 reliability of power, and all of those factors as well 20 as the water quality issues have to be addressed.
21 In addressing the issue of the water 22 quality, I do think it's interesting that there's a 23 plethora of data on the Hudson River, so I don't think 24 there's an issue as far as data concerning the quality 25 of the water in the river.
26
27 I do think it's interesting, hearing from 1
the state, that the quality of that river--I mean, the 2
fish stocks are at all-time highs, except in certain 3
key species, a couple species. It's interesting, if 4
you're against the plant the species are down because 5
of the plant, but if they're up, it's not because of 6
the plant. I don't think you can have it both ways.
7 And the last thing I will say is I think 8
the NRC needs to stick to the template that they've 9
used in other plants. I see a lot of political 10 pressure to the NRC, to try to change the process from 11 a template that's been used at 40 some odd other 12 plants, used successfully, and I am disappointed, 13 actually, that they've extended the comment period and 14 the period for intervention, and there was no basis 15 given for that, just people want more time.
16 I think that's just a method to extend the 17 cost and the time of this whole process, and I don't 18 appreciate kibitzing from the audience, and so thank 19 you very much. I appreciate your efforts.
20 MR. : [Off-mike remark]
21 MR. RAKOVAN: Sir, we're not getting this 22 on the--if you're going to ask a question here, let me 23 give you the mike real quick, please make it quick, 24 and please respect other people's views.
25 MR. MARTINELLI: I just would like to ask 26
28 this gentleman, A, who pays his paycheck, and two, I'd 1
like to point out to him, because he said he did not 2
appreciate the extension of time, one reason for that 3
extension of time, as a clarification, was the fact 4
that the department at Entergy sent a FOIA request 5
letter to us telling us that they would not be able to 6
fulfill their obligations under FOIA until October 7
27th, which meant that documents absolutely necessary 8
to review the Entergy LRA were not and will not be 9
available until 26 days after the original deadline 10 for filing of our contentions.
11 MR.
RAKOVAN: Thank you for the 12 clarification. Rich, our next speaker.
13 MR. BARKLEY: Okay. The next three 14 speakers we're going to have up are Elizabeth Segal, 15 Gary Shaw, and then Phil Musegaas.
16 MS. SEGAL: Hi. Good afternoon, 17 everybody. My name's Elizabeth Segal. I live in 18 Tarrytown, New York, which is about 13 miles from the 19 Indian Point plant, and first of all, I want to say 20 that obviously I think all the environmental concerns 21 are tremendously important, and I'm very grateful that 22 serious consideration of them is a part of this 23 process.
24 And I know that that's the focus of this 25 meeting, but I'm going to be very brief because that 26
29 isn't what I want to speak to.
1 What I want to speak to is just as a 2
citizen of this area, I know, cause I was also at the 3
meeting in June, I'm following this as closely as I 4
can, that the relicensing process is limited, as I 5
understand it, to looking at aging equipment and these 6
environmental issues, and that as things currently 7
stand, that means a lot of other concerns that people 8
have about whether Indian Point should continue to 9
exist just don't fall under this process.
10 And I've also heard, often from the NRC, 11 that many of them are dealt with on an ongoing basis, 12 but some of them, for example, the issue of the 13 population density and the road networks, and so 14 forth, which by just not even, like up for 15 reconsideration, although I also know that some 16 legislators are requesting that they be put back in 17 the equation, and I, for one, find it extremely 18 frustrating that that's not part--like this is this 19 great opportunity to ask ourselves, is this really, 20 given all of our needs, and all the pluses and minuses 21 and the risks involved, is this really the best thing 22 for us here, to have this plant in this dense 23 population area?
24 So I feel frustrated that that's not 25 currently part of the conversation going on and 26
30 hopeful that it will be.
1 MR. RAKOVAN: Thank you very much for your 2
comments.
3 MR. SHAW: My name is Gary Shaw and I live 4
less than six miles from Indian Point. I work as a 5
designer of market research projects and a data 6
analyst, so I'm very familiar with the use of 7
benchmarks and action standards.
8 I spend considerable energy to ensure that 9
the metrics in my research, that are used as the basis 10 for business decisions, are well-defined and 11 consistent with established protocols.
12 That's one of the reason that I'm so 13 concerned about the NRC's evaluations of Indian Point 14 and the relicensing process overall.
15 One of the terms that the NRC uses 16 repeatedly is "reasonable assurance" and this term is 17 used in evaluations of a range of operations and 18 systems but it's not at all clearly defined.
19 A primary example of this is the Agency's 20 approval of the Indian Point emergency evacuation 21 plan, after James Lee Witt issued a report that the 22 plan was, quote, inadequate to protect the public from 23 an unacceptable dose of radiation. Unquote.
24 On a Friday in July 2003, FEMA, under the 25 infamous Michael Brown, approved the evacuation plan 26
31 and that judgment was quickly accepted by the NRC, 1
saying the plan provided reasonable assurance that it 2
would be effective. Ironically, on that very day, all 3
the major roadways in Westchester were jammed through 4
the entire day because of a single accident on the 5
George Washington Bridge during the morning rush hour.
6 I still wonder how the NRC defined 7
reasonable assurance for that ridiculous judgment.
8 When I think of that day, I have a mental 9
image of those traffic jams happening while Indian 10 Point's sirens wailed. That is the sirens that were 11 working that day.
12 Now the NRC is considering extending the 13 operating licenses of Indian Point's Units 2 and 3 for 14 20 more years beyond their expirations in 2013 and 15 2015, respectively, and will cite reasonable assurance 16 that the plants will remain safe and environmentally 17 benign for that 20 year extension.
18 We know that there are an undetermined 19 number of leaks of radioactive elements into the 20 environment and that the sources of those leaks remain 21 uncertain.
22 Consequently, there are no known plans to 23 stop the leakage. Especially disturbing is that large 24 sections of pipes are not accessible to inspection, 25 and the only way for the NRC to evaluate whether those 26
32 pipes have corroded or will remain viable for 20 more 1
years is to dig test wells, and declare that there is 2
not currently a leak at that site, at that time.
3 And since Indian Point 1 has been 4
nonoperational for decades, and that plant is leaking, 5
with no plan for stopping the leakage, wouldn't the 6
discovery of additional leaks at some point in the 7
future simply mean that we have more uncorrectable 8
problems?
9 If the NRC is not capable of stating how 10 many linear feet of piping are inaccessible, or how 11 many 35 year old welds are inaccessible, and where 12 each of them is located, how will they define 13 reasonable assurance that those pipes and welds will 14 be viable until the years 2033 and 2035?
15 Since we already know that this is the 16 only nuclear plant in the country leaking Strontium 90 17 and Cesium 137, wouldn't that information be 18 important?
19 We also know that prior test wells found 20 concentrations of contamination many times the EPA 21 level for drinking water, but since the leaks are not 22 currently going into known drinking water sources, the 23 NRC has dismissed them as nonhazardous.
24 I would like to know what specific 25 radiological readings would define an unacceptable 26
33 level that is not going directly into a known drinking 1
source.
2 In other words, if the NRC cannot provide 3
a well-defined set of metrics, how can they establish 4
standards that must be met to warrant 20 additional 5
years of operations for this aging and leaking 6
facility?
7 We've already seen the NRC's idea of 8
reasonable assurance. With the potential danger of 9
radiological contamination, how can we accept this 10 Agency's judgments if they cannot define their 11 standards and prove the validity of their metrics?
12 Thank you.
13 MR. RAKOVAN: Thank you, sir.
14 Rich, do you want to--sir, if you could 15 introduce yourself again, just so we know who you are.
16 It's been three people, so--
17 MR. MUSEGAAS: I'm Philip Musegaas. I 18 represent Riverkeeper. We just have some very brief 19 comments today. Then we'll be filing detailed written 20 comments by the October 12th deadline.l 21 Indian 1's cooling system sucks in 2.5 22 billion gallons of Hudson River water a day, 23 discharges an enormous thermal plume that damages the 24 Hudson River ecosystem, and the intake of cooling 25 water kills a billion fish a year. This is 26
34 established in New York State studies, in 1
Riverkeeper's own studies. It's an established fact.
2 This plant has a negative impact on Hudson River 3
fisheries.
4 One of the only fish species that's doing 5
well in the river is striped bass and that's because 6
all the other species are being destabliized. So I 7
just wanted to clarify that point in response to an 8
earlier comment.
9 The NRC must conduct an accurate 10 scientific assessment of these impacts on Hudson River 11 fish populations that relies on the most current 12 scientific studies, which show conclusively, that many 13 critical fish species in the Hudson are harmed and 14 negatively impacted by Indian Point's operation.
15 The NRC cannot rely on Entergy's renewal 16 application to prepare the draft environmental impact 17 statement. Entergy, in fact, is relying on outdated 18 industry-funded studies that say there is no 19 significant impact on the Hudson River from their 20 operations. This is flatly untrue.
21 My second comment. Nuclear waste is 22 piling up at Indian Point because the Yucca Mountain 23 waste dump will probably never open for decades, and 24 who knows how long.
25 Why won't the NRC examine the 26
35 environmental impacts of this problem during the 1
relicensing review? Indian Point's spent fuel pools 2
are virtually full, and the Indian Point 1 and Indian 3
Point 2 pools have been leaking nuclear waste into the 4
Hudson River for years.
5 How long will nuclear waste be stored on 6
the banks of the Hudson River? This is a basic 7
fundamental question that needs to be answered before 8
they relicense this plant, and the NRC is refusing to 9
answer it. In fact they don't know the answer. This 10 is a problem that has to be addressed.
11 The NRC only looks at coal and natural gas 12 plants as reasonable alternatives under NEPA to 13 replacing Indian Point's energy output in their 14 environmental impact studies.
15 Why does the NRC refuse to consider a 16 combination of renewable energy such as wind, solar, 17 geothermal, combined with conservation and clean 18 natural gas to replace Indian Point as a National 19 Academy of Sciences study suggests and lays out a road 20 map for?
21 The problem is the NRC is relying on a 22 very outdated 1996 generic environmental impact 23 statement that does not reflect the realities of 24 today's world. It does not reflect 9/11, does not 25 reflect the advances in renewal energy, does not 26
36 reflect the failure of Yucca Mountain to open in any 1
foreseeable timeframe.
2 As a matter of fact, this generic EIS, 3
which I hope the NRC explained a little bit in the 4
introduction, it was passed in 1996. It was required 5
under the NRC regulations to be updated every ten 6
years. So far, it hasn't been updated.
7 We're unable to get an answer, clearly, 8
from the NRC, as to when there might be an update to 9
this GEIS, and so in fact they're relying on nearly 12 10 year old data to support this limited environmental 11 review, and we don't think that's acceptable. That's 12 it. Thank you.
13 MR. BARKLEY: Okay. Our next three 14 speakers are Lloyd Douglas, followed by Glenn Rickles 15 and then Michael Otis.
16 Lloyd.
17 MR. DOUGLAS: Good afternoon. My name is 18 Lloyd Douglas. I'm the owner of a small minority 19 business consulting firm. We do minority and women-20 owned business opportunities. I'm also representing 21 an association of minority and women entrepreneurs.
22 Entergy has been partnering with us in 23 terms of creating opportunities for minority and 24 women-owned business. When minority and women-owned 25 businesses get contracts, they hire from the 26
37 community.
1 Part of why we are in support of their 2
request for license renewal has to do with what we 3
perceive as a less costly form of energy.
4 I've had the good fortune of being part of 5
an advisory group, working with our current lieutenant 6
governor, one of his responsibilities is energy, along 7
with minority and women-owned business, and we have 8
concerns about a dependency on foreign oil.
9 For those of you who drive, you know that 10 on the market, oil is going about $80 a barrel, and we 11 can feel it at the pump.
12 The other issue that we're concerned about 13 is environmental. When you look at the residual 14 effect from respiratory ailments based upon sulfur 15 dioxide and carbon dioxide, that goes into the air 16 from other forms of energy creation, and when you look 17 at the residual effect from the World Trade Center, 18 six years later, I think we have to be concerned about 19 what's going into the environment.
20 And we also believe that this is another 21 option in terms of the environment. We respect the 22 NRC's judgment and its scoping process in terms of its 23 review, in terms of renewal process, and based upon 24 these and other factors, we're requesting or we're 25 supporting the renewal. Thank you.
26
38 MR. RICKLES: Good afternoon. My name is 1
Glenn Rickles. I am here today on behalf of 2
Riverkeeper. I also reside in Croton on Hudson, which 3
is approximately five to six miles away from the 4
Indian Point plant.
5 We put forward today four environmental 6
issues with a common theme. The total lack of 7
consideration of Indian Point's license renewal on 8
climate change and global warming.
9 Pursuant to the National Environmental 10 Policy Act, seminal law on point, as well as the NRC's 11 own regulations, the NRC is mandated to fully consider 12 and meaningfully evaluate more environmentally 13 friendly and sustainable alternatives to the 14 relicensure of Indian Point.
15 Entergy, in its environmental report in 16 support of relicensure, unfortunately presents a 17 wholly inaccurate and legally insufficient picture of 18 the positive environmental effects of alternative 19 sustainable replacement energy sources such as wind, 20 hydroelectric,
- biomass, geothermal or energy 21 conservation.
22 Nor does Entergy present an accurate or 23 legally sufficient picture of Indian Point's 24 contribution to global warming. Cases in point.
25 Entergy says in its environmental report, 26
39 for those of you who have read it, it's section 7.5, 1
that alternative and sustainable energy sources, and 2
I quote, "were not--were not considered as reasonable 3
replacement for Indian Point."
4 As will be delineated in a later-written 5
submission, such a cavalier dismissal by Entergy is 6
both contrary to law and simply flies in the face of 7
generally-accepted science.
8 In its 2006 report on replacement of 9
Indian Point's power generation, the National Academy 10 of Sciences states that Indian Point's power can be, 11 can be replaced by a variety of energy sources, 12 including sustainable green sources and energy 13 conservation.
14 Issue two. Entergy, in its application 15 for license renewal, presents a picture of one 16 license, not two separate licenses sought to be 17 renewed. This is far more than a simple semantic 18 distinction but one fraught with legal consequence.
19 For example, in its environmental report, 20 Indian Point states that green sustainable energy 21 sources cannot replace the combined 2158 megawatts of 22 power generated by Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 23 combined, and the green energy sources need not be 24 considered, addressed, or analyzed. While 25 I will not address today the accuracy of 26
40 Entergy's assertion, it is clear, beyond purview, that 1
the combined 2158 megawatts standard is, as a matter 2
of law, simply wrong.
3 Each application for each plant must be 4
addressed separately and the law mandates that the 5
only correct standard of comparison is Indian Point 6
2's 1078 megawatts, and Indian Point 3's 1080 7
megawatts.
8 Issue three. Entergy based on NUREG 1437, 9
it is a NRC regulation, it's section 8.1, states that 10 energy conservation need not be considered, need not 11 be considered, or analyzed, regardless of its positive 12 environmental contribution as it is not a single 13 discrete source of energy.
14 Entergy's reliance in their environmental 15 report on NUREG is again simply wrong as a matter of 16 law and runs contrary to the National Environmental 17 Policy Act and NRC's own regulations.
18 Issue four. The law mandates that the 19 detrimental environmental effects of license renewal 20 on climate change and global warming be fully 21 considered and fully analyzed.
22 Entergy, in its environmental report, at 23 section 8.4.3.2.1, states that no carbon dioxide is 24 emitted by the production of nuclear energy.
25 Nonsense. Nonsense. Completely wrong. The statement 26
41 is simply inaccurate. There is no disagreement among 1
scientists, none at all, that large amounts of carbon 2
dioxide is produced in the nuclear power life cycle, 3
be it from uranium mining, milling of uranium, 4
refining and enrichment of uranium, refurbishment of 5
the plants, transportation of uranium, etcetera, 6
etcetera, etcetera.
7 These well-known facts are simply ignored 8
by Entergy in its environmental report. Nowhere does 9
Entergy address, as mandated by law, that nuclear's 10 production of CO2 is at a far higher level than would 11 be produced by green, sustainable energy sources.
12 In sum, what we see is a denial at every 13 step of Entergy's contribution to climate change and 14 a refusal to consider and analyze conservation and 15 replacement energy supplied by a portfolio of sources 16 inclusive of green sustainable energy.
17 As will be fully delineated in a written 18 submittal, such is wrong as a matter of law and is 19 wrong as a matter of public policy.
20 Let us now address the crisis of climate 21 change and not face the questions of our children--I'm 22 almost done--who will ask in the future, you knew the 23 risks and you knew the solutions to climate change.
24 Why did you not address them when you had the chance?
25 Why did you put us in this untenable situation? Thank 26
42 you.
1 MR. RAKOVAN: Thank you, sir. Okay.
2 Michael.
3 MR. OTIS: Good afternoon. My name is 4
Mike Otis. I'm a professor of electrical engineering 5
at SUNY New Paltz. I am also an active member or 6
active with members of the New Paltz Foundation, SUNY 7
New Paltz Foundation, who along with myself and other 8
faculty, have taken a special interest in trying to do 9
as much as we can to bring along next generation of 10 engineers that this country so desperately needs.
11 Our shared special passion is to develop 12 more diverse engineering students at the college level 13 and to help create career paths and hands-on 14 experience for these bright young people.
15 It is in that capacity that I've had the 16 pleasure of working with Entergy and some of the 17 senior managers to help provide pathways for 18 engineering students at SUNY New Paltz, as we try to 19 build our program and pave the way for new students 20 and recruits.
21 Therefore, I know firsthand that Entergy, 22 the operators of Indian Point and many other nuclear 23 power plants, is a committed and socially responsible 24 corporate citizen.
25 I also interface with many business people 26
43 on our engineering advisory board, who understand the 1
needs and demands of small business and entrepreneurs.
2 High energy and electric costs here, in 3
New York State, are driving small businesses out of 4
the state and stifling innovation and economic 5
activity.
6 I forget who said computer chips without 7
electricity are just sand.
8 With regard to nuclear power at Indian 9
Point, here's what I think. It's affordable. Nuclear 10 power consistently remains one of the cheapest sources 11 of power in the world. Its price is predictable and 12 stable, unlike oil or natural gas.
13 Indian Point has saved New York City and 14 Hudson Valley businesses and residents billions of 15 dollars on the price of energy. It's clean. This is 16 of particular importance to me since my wife and I 17 have recently increased our family size by adding a 18 daughter who is now one year old. I want Caitlin to 19 have the same opportunities as I had growing up and 20 not be affected by the changes in quality of life due 21 to global warming.
22 A case in point. Indian Point emits 23 almost zero greenhouse gases. Increased reliance on 24 nonpolluting nuclear energy represents our best chance 25 of meeting the region's clean air and maintaining our 26
44 standard of living while improving the environment.
1 The same cannot be said with the world's 2
coalfire plants which emit nearly 2 billion tons of 3
CO2 annually.
4 It's critical. There's currently no 5
viable energy alternative to replace the more than 6
2000 megawatts of power generated by the Indian Point 7
energy center. Indian Point provides between 20 to 40 8
percent of the region's power.
9 It's American technology that creates 10 American energy. It is a source of energy that does 11 not depend on international production and is not 12 affected by international pressures or politics.
13 As an educator at an engineering school 14 whose focus is on educating and training more diverse 15 engineering students to help move our state forward, 16 what could be more important than to continue to 17 develop and utilize home-grown technology rather than 18 just exporting our best engineers for other countries 19 to benefit? Yeah. But they say it shouldn't be here.
20 From both an environmental and reliable 21 standard, Indian Point couldn't be in a better 22 location. Nuclear power in New York avoids 42,000 23 tons of nitrous oxide, which is equivalent to 2.2 24 million passenger cars, which would otherwise be 25 polluting the air due to the output from natural gas 26
45 or a coal facility.
1 It's also a critical baseload of power 2
close to its utility center. It's a known fact that 3
the further electricity has to travel, the less 4
reliable it becomes.
5 For all my reasons mentioned above, I 6
strongly support the application for renewal of Indian 7
Point's operating license as a benefit to the region 8
and hope to continue work with Entergy to train and 9
mentor our young engineers. Thank you.
10 MR. RAKOVAN: At this point I would like 11 to compliment all our speakers at this point in time 12 in holding to the time limits we've asked for. I 13 greatly appreciate your courtesy.
14 MR. BARKLEY: The next three speakers are 15 Charlie Donaldson, followed by John Kelly, and then 16 Marilyn Elie.
17 MR. RAKOVAN: And again, when the speakers 18 come up, if you could just reintroduce yourself and 19 let us know if there's a particular affiliation you're 20 with. That way, we have it in the transcript.
21 Thanks.
22 MR. DONALDSON: How are you all doing 23 today? Good. I work for a fellow named Andrew Cuomo, 24 is the attorney general of this state, so I'm here for 25 the state attorney general's office, and I will, 26
46 unlike most lawyers, try to be brief.
1 My name's Charlie Donaldson, Environmental 2
Protection Bureau.
3 We appreciate the opportunity to provide 4
oral comments regarding the scope of the environmental 5
review proceeding under the National Environmental 6
Policy Act.
7 As an initial matter, we would request 8
that the various oral and written comments concerning 9
the scope of the environmental review be addressed, 10 one way or the other, whenever the NRC puts out the 11 draft environmental impact statements.
12 In other words, what we're saying is if 13 somebody says something, you folks decide that it 14 doesn't belong under the environmental impact 15 statements, then say it doesn't and then say why not.
16 What that would allow us to do is take a 17 look at all of the issues and we could get some 18 transparency in this proceeding, rather than waiting 19 for the final environmental impact statement and find 20 out there were issues that were left out.
21 As to specific issues, we'd like to offer 22 a couple of preliminary comments concerning particular 23 areas.
24 First, the review should include a 25 rigorous evaluation of all the impacts of the plants.
26
47 In addition, the review should analyze the population 1
density around the reactor and the facility, which is 2
unique in this nation. That's the population, not the 3
plants. Environmental alternatives including, but not 4
limited to, energy efficiency, photovoltaics, wind, 5
biomass, and the usual list of suspects.
6 Alternatives to each unit, not to both 7
units together. Emergency planning and evacuation, 8
security, and the spent fuel pools. Thank you all for 9
the opportunity to make our comments here today and 10 we'll see how she goes from here.
11 MR. RAKOVAN: Thank you, sir.
12 MR. KELLY: My name is John Kelly. I live 13 less than four miles from Indian Point with my family.
14 I've lived there for over 30 years. I am the retired 15 director of licensing for Indian Point, so I guess I 16 pay my bills with my pension check and my Social 17 Security check.
18 I'd like to bring up one point which has 19 been touched on by a few of the earlier speakers, 20 which I think is vitally important, and I found it 21 interesting that for some reason the New York DEC did 22 not mention this as one of the issues they're 23 considering relative to the environmental impact of 24 Indian Point in the renewal process.
25 While I was still employed by Entergy, 26
48 before I retired in 2003, we hired an engineering firm 1
in Lyndhurst, New Jersey, to do a study of what would 2
be the impact on air pollution of the shutdown of the 3
Indian Point plants.
4 In doing that analysis, they looked at, 5
quite frankly, only those plants that were currently 6
available. If you shut the plant down, obviously, 7
you're going to replace the power with currently 8
available sources. And they did an analysis which 9
came up with some interesting numbers.
10 If you shut Indian Point down, you would 11 have to replace the power with fossil-fired plants in 12 the immediate vicinity in New York City and in the 13 Hudson Valley. That would result in another 14 14 million tons of carbon dioxide per year put into the 15 atmosphere in this area. Another 63,000 tons of 16 sulfur oxides per year. Another 22,000 tons of 17 nitrous oxides. Another 2000 tons of particulate 18 matter, PM10, that's particulates with sizes up to ten 19 microns.
20 About 1300 tons of carbon monoxide, and 21 approximately 200 tons of volatile organic carbons.
22 All of these pollutants would be emitted 23 into an area where we're already in noncompliance 24 relative to ozone. So we already have a pollution 25 problem in the atmosphere which would be substantially 26
49 aggravated simply by the shutdown of Indian Point.
1 An earlier speaker noted that there is 2
some carbon dioxide released as a result of the 3
uranium fuel cycle. That's true. An analysis was 4
done recently by a European Union organization and 5
they looked at the entire fuel cycle from mining and 6
milling and enrichment through reprocessing, which 7
they're doing in Europe, and they concluded that the 8
amount of carbon dioxide released as a result of the 9
entire uranium fuel cycle is less than 5 percent of 10 that produced by coal or oil or natural gas per 11 megawatt produced.
12 So yes, there is a very small amount of 13 carbon dioxide in greenhouse gases produced by nuclear 14 power but it's extraordinarily small in concern, 15 relative to that which comes from fossil power.
16 One other thing I did want to mention is 17 on the Hudson River. There have been earlier talks 18 about the Hudson River and the impact on the Hudson 19 River.
20 As a result of a mandate by the New York 21 State DEC, and agreements that were made almost 30 22 years ago, the utilities at Indian Point funded an 23 environmental study of the Hudson River to the tune of 24 approximately $2 million per year for the last 30 25 years, and that money has been spent, not at the 26
50 direction of the utilities but at the direction of the 1
New York State DEC and a group of environmental 2
organizations overseeing the expenditure of those 3
funds.
4 A New York State DEC representative in a 5
meeting in Washington, D.C., approximately five years 6
ago, said that we probably have the best set of data 7
on fish population studies in the world as a result of 8
this research that's been done on the Hudson River.
9 Research of that extent, and of that 10 massive a nature, can sometimes result in some 11 differences of opinion as to the conclusions as to 12 what it all means.
13 But we have been studying the Hudson River 14 for 30 years. We have been doing that study under the 15 direction of people who don't have a vested interest 16 as a utility or as a company trying to run at a 17 profit.
18 This has been directed by the 19 environmental protection organization in New York 20 State and environmental organizations.
21 One of the conclusions, as I just said, 22 was that it's probably the best set of data on any 23 estuary in the world. I personally believe from my 24 work, over the many years that I worked at Indian 25 Point, that it demonstrates that there has been no 26
51 significant environmental impact on the population of 1
adult fish.
2 There's no question that the plants kill 3
fish eggs. No one's arguing that point.
4 Over 90 percent of fish eggs, however, die 5
anyway in the environment, as part of the natural 6
environment, even if the plants weren't there, and it 7
becomes food for other fish. That's biology.
8 And so yes, there are impacts but they are 9
insignificant in terms of the adult fish population.
10 So I would want to make sure that the NRC takes into 11 consideration the possible atmospheric impact of 12 shutting the plants down and what would be used in 13 order to replace that plant. Thank you.
14 MR. BARKLEY: Marilyn Elie? There you go.
15 MS. ELIE: Good afternoon. I'm Marilyn 16 Elie. I am a co-founder of Westchester Citizens 17 Awareness Network and a member of the Indian Point 18 Safe Energy Coalition. I live about two, maybe two 19 and a half miles from the plant, and this is an issue 20 I have been following for the last 11 years.
21 I too would like to thank the people who 22 work at Indian Point. They have a tough job, and by 23 their standards, they do it well. They're very 24 concerned, we have lots of differences of opinion, but 25 it's a good job with a good salary and a good pension, 26
52 and if and when, from my perspective, when that plant 1
closes down, all those things need to be addressed.
2 However, that's not why I'm here today for 3
this environmental scoping session.
4 There's been a lot of talk about the 5
carbon footprint of the nuclear reactors at Indian 6
Point, and you don't see the release there but it 7
happens, and because we are a country, because this is 8
one planet, because we are looking at global warming, 9
it's very important that we look at the entire fuel 10 cycle.
11 Now maybe this will turn out to be the 12 battle of the studies, because the studies from Europe 13 that I've been reading, particularly the one from 14 Denmark, says that the carbon emissions from nuclear 15 power plants is about equal to or slightly greater 16 than gas. Much better than coal, but still very 17 significant.
18 There is a coalfire generator, many, many 19 megawatts, in Paducah, Kentucky, that churns out 20 greenhouse gases and that electricity from that plant 21 is used in the processing of uranium, of the fuel 22 rods.
23 So nuclear is not coal-free, and I'd also 24 like to make it very clear, on this record, in this 25 transcript, that no one in the coalition is calling 26
53 for more coal plants. There are alternatives. That 1
will be part of an intervenor petition, and hopefully 2
it will be part of what the NRC looks at as part of a 3
countrywide, statewide, local initiative for clean 4
energy.
5 Nuclear energy is not clean nor is it 6
cheap. It's heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. That 7
needs to be understood, if we're going to have a 8
reasonable dialogue in this community about whether 9
the plants stay open or not.
10 Here's my question, and I'm going to say 11 it in several ways, because I really need to see, we 12 all really need to see an answer to this.
13 The NRC has already conceded, said, 14 stated, that there is a carbon footprint for nuclear 15 power plants. They have a generic environmental 16 study.
17 Well, now we're doing the specific study.
18 What is the carbon footprint for this particular pair 19 of reactors in this particular part of the country?
20 And what happens from the coal emission, 21 the emissions from the coal-fired plant in Kentucky?
22 My understanding is that we end up with it in New York 23 as acid rain. How does that cycle play into the 24 economics of our forests and our lakes with the high 25 acid and the lack of fish, in our dying forests? All 26
54 of that's an economic impact and all of that needs to 1
be looked at in an environmental cycle.
2 So let me say that one more time. How 3
much greenhouse gas is released during the entire fuel 4
cycle for Indian Point? One year from now, when this 5
meeting comes back, or when these experts come back 6
and present their draft report, I will be here in the 7
audience, and I will be looking for the question and 8
I'll be looking for the answer.
9 I hope people here will too, because we 10 keep hearing things. It does, it doesn't, it's a 11 little bit, it's not very much. So this is a chance 12 to definitively answer that question, and I really 13 hope that the panel of experts will think about it, 14 present good science, and come to a conclusion that we 15 can all look at and make adequate decisions in that 16 regard. Thank you.
17 MR. BARKLEY: All right. Our next three 18 speakers are Marie Quinten of the Pace Litigation 19 Clinic, followed by Susan Shapiro of FUSE, followed by 20 Hazel Dukes of the NAACP.
21 Marie.
22 MS. QUINTEN: Hello. I'm Marie Quinten 23 with the Pace Litigation Clinic. We have some 24 comments on the safety concerns, some of them 25 mentioned but are worth repeating. The Nuclear 26
55 Regulatory Commission decision not to require Indian 1
Point to address terrorist attacks, the threat of 2
terrorist attacks during the relicensing review is 3
wrong, and leaves nuclear power plants vulnerable to 4
terrorist attacks in the future.
5 The 9/11 Commission report indicated that 6
Al Qaeda terrorists considered targeting nuclear power 7
plants in their attack but wrongly believed that these 8
plants were heavily defended.
9 The report also made clear that at least 10 one of the planes that struck the World Trade Center 11 flew down the Hudson River past Indian Point power 12 plant on its way to New York.
13 A recent independent government study 14 concluded that certain types of spent fuel pools were 15 vulnerable to terrorist attack, that could leave to 16 fuel pool fire, resulting in catastrophic public 17 health, environmental and economic impacts.
18 Despite these facts, the NRC has 19 consistently refused to review its security 20 requirements, to defend against the size and scale of 21 9/11 attacks.
22 Given the continued failure of the Federal 23 Government to establish a long-term repository for 24 nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, the safety, security 25 and environmental issues arising from storing spent 26
56 nuclear fuel should be addressed during the licensing 1
renewal process when other aspects of the plant's 2
extended operation are being reviewed.
3 Even if Yucca Mountain is eventually 4
approved and put into use, there is only enough space 5
in the repository to store spent fuel produced by all 6
the nuclear plants in the U.S. until 2011.
7 At that point, the repository will reach 8
its capacity. As a result, all the spent fuel 9
produced during the additional 20 year life span of a 10 relicensed site will have to be stored on site.
11 The security of both wet fuel pool and dry 12 cask storage should also be considered during the 13 relicensing process. Studies have shown that a 14 successful terrorist attack on spent fuel pools is 15 possible. Based on these findings, NRC should amend 16 the regulations to require that the security of spent 17 fuel pools and dry cask storage be comprehensively 18 assessed during the relicensing period.
19 Additionally, the potential environmental 20 impacts of storing spent fuel on site for an 21 additional 20 years, and beyond, should be addressed.
22 These potential impacts, environmental 23 impacts of a terrorist attack on the spent fuel pools, 24 must be assessed because it is based on new and 25 significant information that was not considered at the 26
57 time the general environmental impact statement was 1
prepared, that being a higher risk of attack after 2
9/11, higher density fuel storage, failure of Yucca 3
Mountain to open, etcetera. Furthermore, the changes 4
in population and traffic patterns within the EPZ of 5
Indian Point, especially to the adequacy of the 6
emergency planning in case of an accident, should also 7
be comprehensively addressed.
8 MS. SHAPIRO: Hello. I'm Susan Shapiro.
9 I'm the president of FUSE, Friends United for 10 Sustainable Energy, and we are members of IPSEC, 11 Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition.
12 We've been to many of these meetings, and 13 are involved, right now, preparing intervenor 14 petitions, as I know other people in this room are.
15 This EIS scoping session is very important, that it's 16 on the record, and I agree with the AG's office, that 17 we want to know if comments are not included as to why 18 they are not included. What we would be asking for in 19 the scoping of the environmental impact statement is 20 a comprehensive study of the effects Indian Point 1, 21 2, and 3, have on our environment in the Hudson 22 Valley.
23 We ask specifically for--we would like a 24 specific carbon footprint of each one of these plants, 25 individually. We'd like to know the true costs of 26
58 Indian Point. We're being told, by some people in the 1
audience here, that it's less expensive than other 2
forms of energy, when, in truth, if we do the studies, 3
and we look at the cost to the taxpayer dollar, it is 4
much, much more expensive. These true costs must 5
include evacuation planning.
6 They must include our tax that is being 7
transferred to the ratepayers for the decommissioning 8
fund. It must also include the insurance, the Price-9 Anderson Act, and the lack of insurance, and to look 10 at the true costs if, in the event an accident or a 11 radiological event occurred, what those true costs 12 would be for the Hudson Valley.
13 Right now, those costs don't exist, and 14 nobody is talking about it, and right now, the 15 counties surrounding Indian Point are footing the bill 16 to support this private, profit-making center.
17 Thirdly, we must talk about the waste 18 cycle. Nobody disagrees with the fact, at the end of 19 the day, you're stuck with the spent fuel. Right now, 20 it's a problem with all nuclear, they don't have an 21 answer to it, and nobody, even the most ardent nuclear 22 supporter, will argue with that. There's no solution.
23 You end up with high-level radioactive 24 waste, toxic waste, on the banks of our river. If you 25 go outside, you'll see a lot of red cups on a table.
26
59 Those red cups are symbols--or not symbols. They're 1
a model, basically, of what the spent fuel pool dry 2
cask, the dry cask pad is going to look like. There's 3
going to be 75 Holtec casks not nailed down, standing 4
two feet apart on a cement pad.
5 That's what they're planning here on top 6
of a radioactive fault line. So this needs to be 7
studied in the environmental impact statement, in the 8
event of what earthquake, what will happen to those 9
casks? Will they roll into the river? What effect it 10 will have on our entire environment.
11 Thirdly, on top of the current risks of 12 terrorism that we are now very aware of in the New 13 York area, this dry cask pad is a beautiful target 14 from the air. So that must be looked into as well as 15 the current risks of the spent fuel pools that are in 16 unprotected, basically unhardened sites, as well as 17 the lack of a proper security plan. Those all affect 18 the environmental impact of this site.
19 Public health and safety cannot be 20 grandfathered in, and that is what Indian Point would 21 like to do. They would like to say this was sited, 22 this plant was sited actually before there was even 23 proper seismology sitings that were accepted by the 24 NRC, and we don't have to look at that again, even 25 though seismology science has become so far advanced.
26
60 We are requesting, and adamantly asking, 1
that the entire siting criteria of a new plant be 2
looked at regarding the relicensing of Indian Point, 3
because you have to know that this is not a license 4
extension. This is a new superseding license that 5
will be given to Indian Point. It's a brand new 6
license. The old license gets retired and they get a 7
new license.
8 On that basis alone, they need to look at 9
all the siting requirements, which include the 10 population density, which include the water quality in 11 the ground, and in the river, which at this point is 12 compromised by the leaks.
13 It includes the population--I said 14 population density. Evacuation planning, that we all 15 know is undoable and unworkable and unfixable. So all 16 those initial siting--I think there are eight siting 17 criterias must come into play.
18 Thirdly--or not thirdly. I don't know 19 what number I'm up to at this point. But the leaks.
20 We are requesting a comprehensive study, and 21 remediation of the leaks before the plant can be 22 relicensed. A normal business, whether it be a dry 23 cleaners, or whether it be a gas station, if it leaked 24 into the ground, it would be closed until it was fully 25 remediated.
26
61 Right now, there are unknown amounts of 1
radioactive effluent under the plant, and that is 2
leaking into our tidal river, and is affecting our 3
public health. Therefore, we are asking that a 4
comprehensive study which includes captured fish, 5
captured species, includes testing of the silt, a 6
comprehensive study which DEC should be involved in, 7
along with Indian Point and Entergy, and the NRC--it 8
must be done independent and done properly, and 9
completely.
10 MR. BARKLEY: Susan, can you wrap up your 11 remarks.
12 MS. SHAPIRO: I'm getting there.
13 MR. BARKLEY: Okay.
14 MS. SHAPIRO: We also ask that in the 15 environmental impact statement a full, complete, 16 comprehensive study of the decommissioning fund be 17 evaluated. Currently, the decommissioning fund is not 18 keeping up with the cost-of-living increase and it has 19 not been reevaluated for the ongoing leaks.
20 At one of our last meetings here, we were 21 told that the only way that they were going to be able 22 to get the radioactive waste, the strontium and the 23 tritium out of the bedrock was to chisel it out, 24 because they couldn't blast it out and they certainly 25 couldn't dig it out. So we need to know the 26
62 comprehensive costs and whether there is actually 1
enough money in the decommissioning fund.
2 The GAO has determined that spent fuel 3
one, which isn't decommissioned but just is in safe 4
store, has been sitting there and leaking, doesn't 5
have adequate decommissioning funds at this point.
6 MR. BARKLEY: Susan--
7 MS. SHAPIRO: And finally,--
8 MR. BARKLEY: Okay.
9 MS. SHAPIRO: --we need a comprehensive 10 study on the health effects of Indian Point.
11 Currently today, since 2000, the thyroid cancer rates 12 in the areas surrounding Indian Point is 70 percent 13 higher than the rest of the United States.
14 I'm a resident of Rockland County.
15 Rockland County is directly across from Indian Point.
16 We are only allowed, by law, to get our drinking water 17 from within the county. So our water supplier is 18 looking into desalinating the river. We're downriver 19 from Indian Point and directly across. I am--the 20 people of my county are very concerned. For another 21 20 years, this plant will be leaking radioactive waste 22 into the river, that we will be drinking and bathing 23 in.
24 That's unacceptable and a comprehensive 25 study must be included in the EIS.
26
63 And finally, I want to talk just briefly 1
about renewables. Renewables must--
2 MR. BARKLEY: I'm sorry, Susan. I'm 3
sorry. You've greatly exceeded the--
4 MR. RAKOVAN: Only one "finally." Sorry.
5 Ma'am, if you could introduce yourself 6
again and let us know who you're with.
7 MS. DUKES: My name is Hazel Dukes. I'm 8
president of New York State NAACP branches across this 9
great state. The NAACP is a national preeminent 10 social justice organization working to make our 11 country and our state a better place for all Americas 12 to live and work, and the capacity--I have the unique 13 opportunity and pleasure to work with Entergy on the 14 front line, as if it were New York and in fact across 15 the country.
16 I've been impressed with Entergy and its 17 work, which I've seen firsthand. I'll point out that 18 I'm not the only one who see or seem to recognize 19 Entergy's significant contribution to the family of 20 New York and other communities across the country.
21 The Dow-Jones substantial index, which 22 measures not only exceptional financial results but 23 also environmental, and social responsibilities, 24 Fortune 500 companies have recognized Entergy as the 25 only U.S. utility company to be included in their 26
64 index for the sixth running year.
1 Let me get to the question that you wanted 2
to talk about today. In the discussion of global 3
climate change, and the quality of air that we 4
breathe, some environmentals have come forward to 5
highlight the importance of nuclear power as a free 6
source of electricity. I know that in black and brown 7
communities across the country, our senior and young 8
people are choking to death on the fumes of pollution 9
and suffer from high rates of asthma and respiratory 10 illness.
11 According to the study of the Black 12 Leadership Form, An Air of Injustice, African American 13 and Power Plant Pollution, the air in our communities 14 violate air quality standards. 71 percent of African 15 Americans live in counties that violate federal air 16 pollution standards, and our death rate from asthma is 17 twice that of other Americans. 38.7 deaths per 18 million population.
19 The study further states global warming 20 could enhance ozone formation, which could, in turn, 21 increase health problems such as asthma attacks. For 22 that reason, social justice organizations such as the 23 NAACP have a special interest in working to combat 24 climate change and reduce air pollution.
25 In that framework, as Congressman Greg 26
65 Meeks of New York, Senator Crystal... and others have 1
pointed out, nuclear power must be a part of the clean 2
air and global warming solutions. We, at New York 3
State Conference, recognize that Indian Point nuclear 4
power plant avoids millions of tons of pollution every 5
year, It provides electricity for our schools, mass 6
transit, hospitals and government institutions.
7 We are proud to be a partner with Entergy, 8
and look forward, and this is why today I come and ask 9
that when you look at all the points that you hear 10 today, that you look at what is realistic for our 11 communities, not just people of color, but for all 12 Americans in relicensing nuclear power.
13 MR. BARKLEY: All right. Our next three 14 speakers are first, Michelle Lee of the Council of 15 Intelligent Energy and Conservation Policy, followed 16 by Sherwood Martinelli of FUSE and the Nuclear Green 17 Butterfly, and finally, Ron Carpino of Entergy.
18 MR. RAKOVAN: And I'd like to thank 19 everyone who is sitting, listening to the speakers, 20 for, you know, keeping your side conversations to a 21 minimum and keeping just general noise level down. I 22 think it's great because I think we can really hear 23 what the speaker's trying to say and you guys are 24 really giving the floor to them. So I just wanted to 25 say thank you for that.
26
66 MS. LEE: Michelle Lee, Council on 1
Intelligent Energy and Conservation Policy.
2 Upton Sinclair once said it is difficult 3
for a man to understand something when his job and 4
salary depend upon him not understanding it.
5 Now I've come in at these meetings, now, 6
for going on six and a half years, and what I see in 7
every single one, there's a very clear divide among 8
people who have a financial self-interest in keeping 9
this plant operating, and those that do not.
10 But the real problem is not the financial 11 interest of Entergy employees, and other groups that 12 may depend on its financial largesse. The real 13 problem is that the NRC is in bed with them. It is 14 not a real regulator in any sense of the word, and for 15 my money, that is why I left my law practice, 16 representing large corporations, 20 years, so I'm 17 fully aware of how large corporations and the profit 18 motive work.
19 But I left that area because of the shock 20 and disgust I felt when I started doing research in 21 this area on the NRC. And let me give you one 22 example, cause we would spend here all day long and 23 well into next week, if I started listing them, but 24 it's a key one and it relates to this proceeding.
25 The NRC has made out of scope, I would say 26
67 about 70 percent of what any logical person would say 1
should be looked at, and some of these points have 2
been brought up earlier, such as a change in 3
population, the roadway structure, the inability of 4
people to evacuate, the risk of terrorism after 9/11, 5
and so on, and so forth. All these have been gone on 6
and deliberate, ad nauseam.
7 The NRC says it will not look at that, 8
those issues, as part of the licensing process because 9
it has considered them at other times during its other 10 year by year review of Indian Point.
11 This is a fiction. Unless you define the 12 word "considered" meaning acknowledge a problem, shrug 13 your shoulders, and then proceed to ignore it, the NRC 14 has not considered population, has not considered the 15 risk of terrorism, has not considered the complete 16 operability and ineffectiveness of any emergency plan 17 in an area where you have 300,000 people within 10 18 miles, on a roadway structure that's about 50 years 19 old, that was built at a time when this was 20 essentially an ex-urban community.
21 You have nearly a million people within 20 22 miles. Now if anybody around here remembers 9/11, and 23 what the attack on the World Trade Center did to this 24 area, that's "a walk in the park" compared to what 25 either an attack or even a large accident would be on 26
68 Indian Point.
1 I have been an observer at every single, 2
quote, terrorist drill, since 2001. Okay. Those 3
drills are effectively protocol plans that do not 4
prove anybody would survive anything. They've never 5
done a real drill. They have never done any kind of 6
evacuation scenario, and they have never even been 7
willing to define what they mean by reasonable 8
assurance, other than by simply regurgitating the 9
different citations of their regulations, and saying 10 we consider it reasonable assurance because in our 11 opinion it's reasonable.
12 In fact, Nita Lowey tried, some years ago, 13 to get them to define it, and they would not do so.
14 I took and I asked, some years back, at another 15 hearing, how would define "reasonable assurance" in a 16 worst case scenario, or even a large accident 17 scenario, in terms of dead, in terms of people who 18 will not live more than a year or two after the 19 accident. What kind of numbers are you coming up 20 with? And they refused to answer.
21 The NRC would not answer that question.
22 FEMA would not answer that question. Indeed, there's, 23 to my knowledge, not been any analysis, and I would 24 request, very strongly, that such an analysis must be 25 done if the NRC is going to have any credibility in 26
69 saying that this plant should continue operation for 1
another 20 years. Thank you.
2 MR. BARKLEY: Sherwood. I don't know 3
where Sherwood went to.
4 MR. RAKOVAN: I think he stepped out. So 5
we might want to go ahead and bring him back up again.
6 MR. BARKLEY: Okay. Ron Carpino.
7 MR. CARPINO: Hello, everyone. My name is 8
Ron Carpino. I live in Peekskill, about three miles 9
away from here, and I am a licensed senior reactor 10 operator. I am licensed to be senior reactor 11 operation to protect the general health and safety of 12 the general public. So what does that mean?
13 That means, although I do get paid by 14 Entergy, no denying that, that means I'm held to a 15 higher standard, that if I make an incorrect decision, 16 I can be personally held liable through fines or 17 imprisonment. So I'd like you to keep that in mind 18 with what else I have to say today.
19 The facility is operated safely, be it 20 nuclear safety, radiological safety, personnel safety, 21 and in this case, environmental safety. I've been at 22 Indian Point for about 17 years, and over the years 23 I've heard many, many comments from many individuals, 24 everything from hey, the place can blow up like a 25 nuclear bomb, or as I heard earlier, before, a billion 26
70 fish are killed annually at Indian Point.
1 Generally, what I hear from people are 2
statistics, and you've got to be careful about 3
statistics, cause statistics can be fragmented facts 4
quoted out of context.
5 Like, for example, everybody knows that 6
the reactors run with a nuclear fuel. However, the 7
nuclear fuel that the reactors run with do not contain 8
enough fissile material to detonate like a nuclear 9
weapon.
10 And also I heard that, you know, when we 11 heard about the billion fish that are killed every 12 year at Indian Point, I can't speak to that number one 13 billion, but I can remind everyone that we heard that 14 that includes fish eggs. So that brings a question.
15 Does that mean fishermen kill trillions of fish a year 16 on the Hudson? Just something to keep in mind. Be 17 careful of those statistics. They are very dangerous.
18 So not only am I cautioning people to use 19 judgment when they hear something, or when they 20 believe they know something. But I'm also cautioning 21 people to come and investigate it.
22 The plant is open for public tours, and 23 I've not only given a couple myself, but we have a 24 communications department that will be more than happy 25 to give a tour. You could even go and talk to a senior 26
71 reactor operation such as myself. There's only about 1
45 of us at the plant, and we know the facility very, 2
very well.
3 You know, you can come and see that the 4
spent fuel pools, for yourself, with your own eyes, 5
are not only quite hardened but definitely resilient.
6 So I'd like to thank you for listening to me at this 7
time, and remind everybody again, please be careful 8
with statistics and actually investigate the full 9
facts and get the full statement. I would be more 10 than happy to give a personal tour and answer any 11 questions somebody has. As long as you want to sit 12 down and communicate openly, I'd be more than happy to 13 do so.
14 Once again, my name is Ron Carpino and I 15 can be available for any questions, or give you my 16 personal cell phone number, so I can arrange, help 17 arrange a tour for you. Thank you.
18 MR. MARTINELLI: My name's Sherwood 19 Martinelli, vice president of FUSE USA and founder of 20 the Green Nuclear Butterfly. I'll try to be brief but 21 it's not my strong suit.
22 Back when Indian Point was originally 23 licensed to operate, certain problems, or as the NRC 24 calls them, commitments were made as a part of the 25 license agreement.
26
72 One of those was the IP2 and IP3 reactors 1
would go to a closed cooling system. Some 30 plus 2
years later, even after a decisive court defeat, the 3
current licensees are trying to skip out on that 4
commitment. Secondly, in the original license 5
agreement, 80 acres of the 235 acre Indian Point site 6
were to be changed into a beautiful woodland park 7
complete with walking paths that would be used and 8
enjoyed by the surrounding community. Again, that 9
commitment was not and has not been kept.
10 In every license renewal that has been 11 granted so far, the NRC and the licensee, as a part of 12 the license extension agreement, agreed to a set of 13 commitments that the licensee will take care of before 14 the term of the license renewal begins. Problem is, 15 most of those commitments made, usually as a part of 16 the EIS, are reneged upon, never kept.
17 There is documented proof of this already 18 happening as early license renewal applicants prepare 19 to file letters to be submitted to the NRC, seeking 20 relief from the very commitments contained in the 21 license renewal that was granted.
22 This reason, more than any other, is why 23 it becomes so important to define what is or should be 24 within the scope of the EIS. In 10 CFR 54.4 scope, 25 we are told what is or is not allowed to be in scope.
26
73 However, as the 9th District court case showed, there 1
is a difference of opinion into what is or is not 2
within scope, what is or is not to be considered in 3
the NRC environmental impact statement.
4 The tragic events of 9/11, the ruthless 5
attack of our twin towers, remind each of us that 6
there is a very real chance of a terrorist attack on 7
Indian Point.
8 The 9th Circuit Court agrees, ruling that 9
the NRC must include as a part and parcel of the EIS, 10 of the environmental cost associated with a successful 11 terrorist attack on the Indian Point facility.
12 Depending on the method of attack, and the 13 components attacked, those environmental costs will 14 vary greatly, and each and every one must be evaluated 15 as a part of the EIS.
16 Further, 10 CFR 54 has a very important 17 caveat in deciding what is or is not to be included 18 within scope in a license renewal process, and thus 19 within the EIS. It reads, in 10 CFR 54, the following 20 excerpted sections.
21 A. Plant system, structures and 22 components within the scope of this part are: 1.
23 safety-related systems, structures and components, 24 which are those relied upon to remain functional 25 during and following design basis events as defined in 26
74 10 CFR 50.49(b)(1), to ensure the following functions.
1 (i). The integrity of the reactor coolant 2
pressure boundary; 3
(ii) The capability to shut down the 4
reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, 5
or 6
(iii) The capability to prevent or 7
mitigate the consequences of accidents, which could 8
result in potential off-site exposures comparable to 9
those referred to--and then they list a bunch of other 10 sites that I remember you taking a look at.
11 The industry, Entergy, NEI, and the NRC, 12 want us, as a community, to believe that increasing 13 leaks in and around the plant, failing equipment, are 14 accepted risks, and that having adequate aging 15 management plans in place is adequate in protecting 16 human health and the environment, in fulfilling the 17 obligations of 10 CFR 54.
18 They, simply stated, are lying as section 19 A, part 1, subsection iii shows us. The language is 20 clear. The licensee, in their License Renewal 21 Application, must show the capability to prevent or 22 mitigate the consequences of accidents, which could 23 result in potential off-site exposures.
24 The basic premise relied upon here is 25 ALARA, or As Low As Reasonably Attainable. Keeping an 26
75 eye on leaks is not fixing leaks and thus, the 1
licensee fails in this task.
2 Further, any component that could 3
reasonable be expected to impinge on the ability of 4
the licensee to conduct this test has to be within 5
scope.
6 As one example, I site the water intake 7
system and the water discharge canal. If either of 8
these fails to perform in a significant manner, the 9
licensee's ability to shutdown and maintain safe 10 shutdown are greatly impinged, so the NRC and licensee 11 have erred in omitting said systems/components from 12 cope in the license review in this EIS.
13 Further, failures of these systems can 14 lead to a accident that could lead to off-site release 15 of radioactive contaminants, as has occurred in the 16 past at the Indian Point facility, and will occur 17 again if these issues are not adequately addressed in 18 the license review, and more specifically in the EIS.
19 The first issue to address is the lie 20 contained in Entergy's LRA, Appendix E, when they 21 state in their supplemental EIS, that the need to 22 review the environmental costs associated with 23 refurbishment is unnecessary because there are no 24 anticipated refurbishment issues in the 20 year period 25 of license renewal.
26
76 Perhaps then, Entergy would like to 1
discuss with the NRC their deliberate omission of the 2
fact they have already ordered and are planning 3
replacement of the reactor vessel heads for both IP2 4
and IP3.
5 It is pointed out here, that the NRC takes 6
deliberate omissions and falsehoods in communications 7
with the NRC by their licensees very seriously.
8 Generally, the EIS should include known 9
significant leak issues and the resultant 10 environmental contamination risk scenarios and costs.
11 This includes all three spent fuel pools, underground 12 piping, the main reactor sealant pump seals as well as 13 the entire reactor coolant system and turbine piping 14 systems.
15 Knowing that others here tonight will 16 address some of these more commonly known issues of 17 concern, I am going to be more specific.
18
- 1. Boric acid corrosion (BAC) represents 19 a significant aging management issue affecting primary 20 systems at Indian Point, that could lead to release of 21 radioactive contaminants into the environment.
22 Indian Point's aging management plan for 23 this important issue fails to adequately address, as 24 one example valve packing and valve body-to-bonnet 25 gaskets. The fact that IP2 and IP3 are already 26
77 working on the engineering difficulties involved in a 1
complicated and dangerous reactor vessel head 2
replacement shows this is a significant issue and that 3
the result of accident release into the environment 4
from reactor vessel head failure must be included in 5
the EIS.
6
- 2. The reactor vessel internals bolting 7
at Indian Point is susceptible to age-related 8
degradation, which could lead to a off-site release of 9
radioactive contaminants.
10 The LRA, and the updated FSAR documents, 11 fail to lay out an adequate aging management plan for 12 inspection and replacement, when necessary reactor 13 vessel internal baffle bolts fail.
14 This creates an accident pathway which 15 could lead to off-site release of radioactive 16 contaminants, with the resultant environmental risks 17 ripe for inclusion in the EIS.
18 Three--
19 MR. BARKLEY: Sherwood, I'm going to have 20 to ask you to wrap up here. You're well past five 21 minutes.
22 MR. MARTINELLI: I'll do my best.
23
- 3. There are serious environmental and 24 safety concerns related to Indian Point's inadequate 25 aging management plans for their fuel rod control 26
78 system, that can include dropped rod events, unplanned 1
plant trips, complete equipment failure, shutdowns, 2
and in the case of employees, highly dangerous at-3 power-maintenance attempts. Such equipment failure 4
creates off-site release scenarios to the environment 5
and public safety issues that must be addressed in the 6
EIS.
7 I have twenty more concerns of which I 8
will deliver at this evening's meeting, and I thank 9
you for your time this afternoon.
10 MR. RAKOVAN: Rich, where are we at in 11 terms of speakers?
12 MR. BARKLEY: We have seven speakers left.
13 MR. RAKOVAN: Excellent.
14 MR. BARKLEY: All right. And that times 15 out pretty well.
16 The next three speakers are Dan Durett of 17 the African American Environmental Association, Bill 18 Mooney of the Westchester County Association, and then 19 finally Ulrich Witte, assuming he's here, of FUSE.
20 MR. DURETT: I almost feel I should ask 21 you to please stand, stretch. You've been very 22 patient. You can see from my approach to the podium, 23 that I am quite aware that there is a very serious 24 timekeeper here.
25 First, I'd like to applaud each of the 26
79 speakers who have stood at this podium. While I may 1
not concur with each speaker's comments, I believe 2
that meetings like this give real meaning to the 3
phrase, we, the people. We, the people, fully engage 4
in decision making that impacts the public.
5 I've heard speakers approach you and say 6
"I live" and give a particular neighborhood. I'll 7
first say that I live in the United States, and that 8
I'm from Brooklyn.
9 I have a set of prepared remarks that will 10 go into the record, and if you cannot wait for those 11 remarks, then please, if you have pen and paper in 12 hand, write my name, Dan Durett, D-u-r-e-t-t, and for 13 those with a laptop, put that into Google and you'll 14 have more information about my background.
15 I have stood in many cities and many 16 countries to talk about environmental justice, to talk 17 about conservation, to talk about fish hatcheries, to 18 talk about our forests, lakes and streams.
19 But this meeting here today is quite 20 important. It is important because several speakers 21 have the advantage of speaking sort of towards the end 22 of these kind of meetings, as it gives you a chance to 23 hear the perspectives of others. It also puts the 24 onus on you to sort of change your presentation a 25 little.
26
80 But I'm just really interested in the 1
impact on communities. As director of the African 2
American Environmental Association's New York office, 3
this organization is dedicated to protecting the 4
environment, enhancing human, animal and plant 5
ecologies, and promoting, yes, the efficient use of 6
natural resources.
7 As an African American in these 8
deliberations today, I proudly stand and ask and 9
request that the license be renewed.
10 Several speakers before me have alluded to 11 9/11. I did not know we were here to speak about 9/11 12 but since you gave me that entre, and because someone 13 else cautioned me about using statistics, I'll not use 14 statistics.
15 I will talk about a community in Brooklyn.
16 Some of my younger brothers and sisters in the 17 audience may know JZ, and know the building in the 18 Marcy Projects that he speaks of. When I stand before 19 audiences, I say I am the JZ of environmental justice 20 in the United States. I grew up on the first floor.
21 He grew up on the sixth floor. My mother still lives 22 in that building, as does the mother of Captain Vernon 23 Richards, who, on his day off, went to the towers, 24 assisting others so that they may breathe one more 25 day, and he gave his life for that cause.
26
81 And yes, I may have to tell you what's in 1
my wallet as one of the speakers before me asked, and 2
let me just say, there's not enough in my wallet.
3 There's very little. There's enough gas to get back 4
to Brooklyn and that's about it. So let's put that 5
out on the table.
6 I'm asking for the renewal of this license 7
because I am concerned about those communities of 8
color that are downstream, who, if this plant is 9
closed, will see a firing up of power plants that will 10 adversely impact their health and, yes, again, I will 11 stay away from statistics.
12 Bringing the environmental justice 13 perspective into these proceedings is new. We are 14 being engaged at the front end, participating in this 15 forum, and in others, as partners, fully credited, and 16 realizing that we are not participating after the fact 17 of decision making, but we are standing here, voices 18 raised, presence noted, that we intend to be part of 19 "We, the people," when these kind of focusing meetings 20 are taking place.
21 You see, because in Brooklyn, and any 22 community that you will want to name, there are always 23 hard decisions to be made. One of those hard 24 decisions that has to be made in the coming year has 25 been presented, most eloquently, by others who have 26
82 stood in front of you. What I am asking is that you 1
consider in this process, the impact of the closure on 2
communities in Brooklyn, in Queens, in Jersey, and all 3
the counties of New York.
4 And yes, my brother gave me a good 5
opening. Be wary of statistics. One of the 6
statistics I would like you to know is that with this 7
phone, I reach out to a thousand members of our 8
organization, and with this phone, I must call my 9
mother in one year from now, 80 years old, and if this 10 plant is not renewed, I must tell my mother why it was 11 not renewed and why she will have difficulty 12 breathing.
13 If you are against this licensing, then 14 here, please use my phone. Thank you for your time, 15 your attention, and your patience.
16 MR. RAKOVAN: Rich, can you remind us 17 who's next.
18 MR. BARKLEY: Bill Mooney.
19 MR. RAKOVAN: Bill Mooney. Is there a 20 Bill Mooney here in the audience? He's not here.
21 MR. BARKLEY: Okay. Ulrich Witte.
22 MR. RAKOVAN: Let's try Bill again before 23 we end the meeting, just to see if he comes in.
24 MR. BARKLEY: While Ulrich is taking the 25 podium, I would like to mention that there's a lot of 26
83 strongly-held opinions on this subject, pro and con.
1 I've asked people to be respectful of those opinions 2
and not harass individual speakers.
3 We had an incident out in the backroom, 4
that I bring this up, and just want to remind people 5
to please be respectful of other individuals. Thank 6
you.
7 MR. RAKOVAN: Thanks, Rich.
8 MR. WITTE: Good afternoon, everyone. My 9
name is Ulrich Witte, and I've been in the business 10 for 26 years. I'm an engineer. I graduated from 11 Berkeley, and straight out of Berkeley, I went to work 12 for a consulting company and found myself literally in 13 the mix of helping nuclear power plants, which at that 14 time I strongly believed in, get out of problems.
15 I, at one point, was known in the business 16 as someone you hired to get yourself off the NRC's 17 watch list. Amongst the plants that I've worked for, 18 include things like Millstone, Rancho Seco, before 19 they were shut down. I helped them get relicensed.
20 Oh, gee. I forgot about one. Indian Point Unit 3.
21 James Fitzpatrick. I helped both plants, while I 22 worked for the New York Power authority, as the 23 manager for configuration management programs, to get 24 off the watch list, which we did back in the nineties.
25 But I want to say something. Ulrich Witte 26
84 is a German name, and it's like Robert and Bobby. My 1
nickname is Ulie, and if you were in the Navy, Ulie is 2
a problem that just won't go away. So here I am.
3 And I'm going to raise two issues. One, 4
I'm going to ask that this goes on the record. That 5
is, just exactly what general design criteria is Unit 6
2 licensed to? Tell us, for the world, what your 7
licensing basis is, because in order for you to renew 8
this plant, to get a so-called extended license, you 9
need to know what you've got.
10 Okay. That's question one. And I'm going 11 to repeat it. Why is the NRC superseding to a new 12 license under a trade guidance document, such as NEI 13 95-10, Rev 6, or their own new reg 1800, or new reg 14 1801, Rev 1, instead of 10 CFR 54?
15 The latter is law, and the former is 16 guidance from trade organizations. Why are we doing 17 business like that?
18 I want to endorse the AG, Charlie 19 Donaldson's comments. We need to know this business.
20 It has to be a transparent business, and I ask again, 21 Why is the NRC working towards trade documents instead 22 of law. That's the first question. Okay.
23 And the second question is tell us what 24 your general design basis is.
25 That's my short--I think I saved you some 26
85 time. That's it. Thank you very much.
1 MR. BARKLEY: Okay. Our next three 2
speakers. Tom Hallsel [ph], who's a private citizen, 3
Susan Peale, a citizen of Cold Spring, and Bill 4
Maulmeister of Entergy.
5 MR. HALSALL: Good afternoon, everybody.
6 My name is Tom Hallsel. I'm a citizen, an American, 7
living in Croton-on-Hudson, and I have no organization 8
or affiliations.
9 I get a newspaper called the New York 10 Observer in the mail every week, a highly-respected 11 weekly journal, some of you may be familiar with it, 12 and it just so happened that this week they had an 13 editorial about Indian Point, and on the same day I 14 was reading that editorial, I saw the article in the 15 Journal-News about this meeting taking place, and this 16 is my first time at one of these meetings. I'm happy 17 to be here.
18 So I'd like to enter into the record this, 19 what I feel is a very important editorial from the New 20 York Observer, and I think it really represents the 21 feelings of many people who live in this community.
22 The title is, "Indian Point: A Scary 23 Comedy of Errors." Six years after the attacks of 24 September 11th, New York City and its suburbs remain 25 vulnerable to an even worse nightmare. A well-planned 26
86 assault on the Indian Point nuclear plant in the 1
Hudson Valley, just 35 miles north of midtown 2
Manhattan.
3 It's bad enough that this unnecessary and 4
outdated facility remains open. Even more outrageous 5
is the apparent inability of its owners, the $10 6
billion New Orleans-based Entergy Nuclear Northeast, 7
to meet federal guidelines for the installation of an 8
emergency warning system.
9 Again the question must be asked, why is 10 this time bomb still ticking? The latest news from 11 the Hudson Valley is almost comical. An inspector 12 from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission found 13 a security guard asleep on the job at 2:00 o'clock in 14 the afternoon.
15 Shortly after this fiasco, the NRC 16 threatened Entergy with fines because Indian Point's 17 warning sirens were not operating properly, despite an 18 order from the Feds to get the system in working 19 order. Thankfully, the NRC refused to grant Entergy 20 an extension.
21 Nobody has to tell the city and its 22 suburbs about the post 9/11 world. We know all about 23 it because that dangerous era was born here. We saw, 24 firsthand, the bloody work of America's enemies.
25 Nobody who lived through that day, nobody who has 26
87 grieved ever since, can deny any possibility, however 1
terrible. A 2004 study concluded that a terrorist 2
attack on Indian Point could kill 44,000 people 3
immediately, cost the U.S. economy 2.1 trillion, and 4
cause the long-term cancer deaths of half a million 5
people.
6 It's true that New York and the nation 7
have not lived through a repeat of 9/11, but only a 8
fool would argue that we are safer today, or that 9
those who wish to harm us have given up.
10 Recent arrests of terror suspects in the 11 United Kingdom and Germany remind us that the enemy we 12 face is global, it is active, and it remains intent on 13 causing mass destruction.
14 I'm going to actually paraphrase a little 15 of this, go to the bottom just for the sake of time, 16 because I don't want to go over my limit.
17 In that context, the presence of a nuclear 18 plant so close to Manhattan is intolerable. It is a 19 threat not only to the city but to some 20 million 20 people in the immediate tristate region. In the awful 21 calculations of our terrorist enemies, an attack on 22 Indian Point would deliver the "most bang for the 23 buck," and don't think for a minute they don't know 24 that plans for the U.S. nuclear plants were found in 25 Al Qaeda caves during the 2001 invasion of 26
88 Afghanistan.
1 Enough already. Forget Indian Point's 2
facility sirens. We've already received a warning 3
that came on 9/11, when those planes hit the twin 4
towers. One of those planes actually flew over Indian 5
Point on its way downtown. It's time for Governor 6
Eliot Spitzer and Senator Charles Schumer, and Hillary 7
Clinton, to work together to shut down Indian Point 8
for the good of the city and the country.
9 Thank you for giving me this opportunity 10 to read this into the record.
11 MR. BARKLEY: Can we have our next 12 speaker, Susan Speel. Peal. Sorry.
13 MS. PEEHL: Hi. My name is Susan Peale, 14 not Speel, and I'm a resident of Philipstown, New 15 York. I live in Cold Spring, in the village of Cold 16 Spring, and I got up here to speak about safety.
17 I was told by the woman out in the hall 18 that that would be of interest to people, but now, 19 when I'm looking at this and hearing what everybody 20 else has spoken about, it appears the NRC isn't really 21 interested in that aspect.
22 So I'd like to speak about it anyway, and 23 I hope that my comments won't be superfluous.
24 Just going over the list for a second, 25 what about your community should the NRC focus on in 26
89 EIS?
1 I'm imagining EIS as environmental impact 2
statement. EIS. So environment. To me, in one of 3
the most densely-populated environments in the United 4
States, to not consider the safety of the people, 5
along with the fish, I think is a severe oversight.
6 When it says, What local environmental aspects should 7
the NRC examine?, public sentiment should be one, 8
public health should be another, public stress factor 9
should be another.
10 What reasonable alternatives are 11 appropriate for the area? I was told, quite a bit 12 ago, that the area that Indian Point actually 13 services, has nothing to do with Cold Spring, although 14 we hold the burden of the risk within the ten mile 15 radius. So I think that should be broken out.
16 Why should we be held responsible and hold 17 that risk on our shoulders for energy that we're not 18 even getting?
19 So when we ask about what are reasonable 20 alternatives appropriate for the area, are we talking 21 about the area of Cold Spring? Or are we talking 22 about the area of the Greater New York Metropolitan 23 Region?
24 And then finally, I just want to say--
25 actually, there are two finallys. Somebody else tried 26
90 to do this.
1 But in terms of safety, my husband and I 2
have had a concern ever since a thunderstorm hit Cold 3
Stream and knocked out the lights on Main Street in 4
'90. That would be one of the evacuation routes for 5
this plant. There was chaos. This wasn't a rush 6
hour. It wasn't--there was no threat behind us they 7
were trying to escape from, and there weren't a lot of 8
people around, and yet it was absolutely chaos.
9 And we just imagined, what would this be 10 like, given humanity, who, somebody would drive up on 11 the sidewalk, somebody else would try and overtake 12 them, and, you know, it'd just be--it would be insane.
13 That's one thing.
14 The other thing comes as in a post-9/11 15 world, when we're asked regularly, as citizens, to 16 come forward with what we've seen and what we've 17 heard, that might impact our safety, I want to just 18 recount something I heard on a plane.
19 I was flying out from New York to a 20 destination, and this was several years ago, and the 21 man sitting next to me and I struck up a conversation, 22 and in it he told me he was just coming back from 23 Buchanan, New York. He had been a--he was in the 24 nuclear industry, and, you know, it's idle talk. I 25 said what kind of thing do you do?
26
91 And he said I was called out to get a 1
plant back up before they sell it. This was before 2
Entergy bought the plant. And, you know, I said, oh, 3
what kind of things do you look at? And he said, 4
well, there are all these welds, and you have to x-ray 5
every one of the wells, you have to make sure the 6
reactor's working.
7 And I said, well, it's good to know you're 8
on the job. I feel a little bit better, knowing that 9
I live in that area.
10 And then he went on to say, well, I don't 11 know if I'd feel too safe too soon, because he said he 12 was merely just--merely getting the plant up and 13 running, one particular reactor for a period of hours, 14 so that the sale could go through.
15 And there'd been a lot of trouble with 16 this particular reactor, and he just--that was his 17 mission. He wasn't supposed to make sure the plant 18 was safe, only that the reactor would work for the 19 sale, that anything beyond that would be the new 20 owner's responsibility.
21 So what I'd like to say is, in terms of 22 relicensing this plant, I wouldn't like to see it 23 relicensed. I wouldn't feel it safe with it 24 relicensed until some of these issues are addressed 25 that concern safety of the human population. Thank 26
92 you.
1 MR. BARKLEY: Okay. Bill Maulmeister of 2
Entergy.
3 MR. MAULMEISTER: I'm Bill Maulmeister.
4 I've been working at the plant for the better part of 5
30 years. I was actually a welding inspector for a 6
lotta years too.
7 And it was kind a interesting. A lotta 8
times you talk to people that used to work at a power 9
plant or something. Whatever he told you, it wasn't 10 true. That I can guarantee you, because I would go 11 get the boss and it would be over. It doesn't work 12 that way.
13 There's a lotta fear in the public. I 14 bring my children there. I hope when they're grown 15 that they work there. I won't be relying on the plant 16 for a paycheck when its relicensed cause I'll be 17 retired. I don't have a lot of financial gain to make 18 from that. But it's a safe place. I had no qualms 19 with my kids working there.
20 That's all i got to say. We're family 21 people. We have a lot to lose too. We know what 22 we're working with, and I hope my kids go to work 23 there too. Thank you.
24 MR. BARKLEY: Okay. The final three 25 people I have signed up are Radmilla Miletich of 26
93 Independent Power Producers of New York, Laura Seitz 1
of CIP, and then finally, we'll recall Bill Mooney who 2
wasn't here earlier.
3 MS. MILETICH: Good afternoon. Thank you 4
for your attention and your patience. Some of the 5
points that I wanted to discuss today have been 6
covered by other speakers, so I'll summarize the 7
written statement that I've submitted.
8 My name is Radmilla Miletich and I am the 9
legislative and environmental policy director for the 10 Independent Power Producers of New York. Our 11 organization, IPPNY, represents the competitive power 12 supply industry in the state, including companies 13 involved in the development of electric generating 14 facilities, the generation, sale and marketing of 15 electric power, and the development of natural gas 16 facilities.
17 Our member companies generate almost 75 18 percent of New York's electricity, using a wide 19 variety of generating technologies and fuels, 20 including hydro, nuclear, wind, coal, oil, natural gas 21 and biomass. We represent the full spectrum of 22 technologies.
23 Our mission is to assist our member 24 companies in becoming the premier providers of 25 electricity in the state.
26
94 IPPNY firmly believes that Indian Point 1
nuclear facility is a positive asset for the state, 2
and we support the continued operation of Indian Point 3
as a critical component of the state's electric energy 4
supply system.
5 Indian Point is a baseload power plant 6
that is capable of providing electricity, 2000 7
megawatts, 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 days a 8
year. It's power you can count on.
9 As New York's energy demand continues to 10 grow, so does the importance of facilities such as 11 Indian Point. In providing this source of energy, 12 Indian Point does not contribute to air emissions.
13 Continued reliance on nonemitting generating sources 14 such as nuclear power is an essential component of a 15 responsible strategy to avoid and reduce emissions 16 that lead to climate change.
17 Indeed, energy modeling that forms the 18 basis of the regional greenhouse gas initiatives, one 19 of the main projects that I work on at the Independent 20 Power Producers of New York, the modeling for this 21 program assumes that existing, nonemitting facilities 22 such as Indian Point continue to operate.
23 Clearly, nuclear energy from Indian Point 24 is essential to holding current emission levels 25 constant and keeping emissions low in the future.
26
95 Specifically, the continued operation of 1
this facility avoids emissions that would result 2
otherwise, and you've heard the numbers and 3
statistics, so I won't repeat them or get into them.
4 But essentially, it is the whole scope of emissions, 5
including carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen 6
oxide, carbon monoxide, and volatile organic carbons.
7 Reliable electricity is critically 8
important to New York's future, and nuclear energy is 9
reliable, affordable, and it is an important component 10 of our state's diverse fuel mix. Indian Point should 11 continue to play a role in the state's energy plan, 12 now and into the future.
13 Without Indian Point's 2000 megawatts, 14 electricity costs would rise, and there would be 15 wholesale price spikes, and there would be impacts on 16 the reliability of your electricity service.
17 In addition to the importance of Indian 18 Point as an energy provider for the people of the 19 state, in an increasingly energy-starved area, the 20 area you live in in New York, the facility also is 21 significant for its economic impact and you've heard 22 some examples of that.
23 IPPNY believes that not relicensing this 24 facility is simply unworkable, and given the critical 25 electricity needs of the state in this area, and we 26
96 support the relicensing of the facility. Thank you 1
for your time and attention.
2 MS. SEITZ: My name is Laura Seitz and I 3
live in Croton-on-Hudson. I've been involved with the 4
licensing of atomic energy plants since 1970, when the 5
first plants, of these plants were first licensed.
6 What is particularly striking is that the 7
issues that were raised then are the very ones that 8
are being raised now. Nothing has been solved or 9
resolved. We were concerned then about the 10 possibility of evacuation. We were concerned then 11 about the fact that there was no plan for dealing with 12 the waste that came out of this plant, still an 13 utterly unresolved problem, only it's now become worse 14 because the pools are filled with spent fuel rods.
15 We were concerned then with thermal 16 pollution. We still are concerned about the fish 17 kills in the Hudson.
18 And finally, we were concerned then--a 19 major issue was this was untested technology and 20 nobody really had any idea how these plants would 21 weather the years. How would the plant's pipes stand 22 up? Would they become embrittled? Would things wear 23 out that had never, in fact, ever been tested? From 24 my point of view--oh. And one more thing. It was 25 exactly the same conversation about the possibility of 26
97 alternatives. There weren't supposed to be any.
1 If the amount of money that has been 2
devoted to keeping these plants going, well, the rest 3
of the atomic energy business going for the last 30 4
years, had been in any way devoted towards 5
alternatives, I think we'd be very much further along 6
with the possibility of really viable alternatives.
7 But that wasn't done, any more than the evacuation 8
plan was ever changed, the waste problem was solved, 9
thermal pollution was solved, or the embrittlement of 10 the pipes was really addressed up to now.
11 I'm a firm believer in Murphy's Law. If 12 something bad can happen, it eventually will, 13 particularly when human beings are involved in it.
14 There have been a number of accidents. So far, they 15 have not caused a catastrophic catastrophe.
16 It strikes me that we are rather lucky 17 that we have "dodged the bullet" for 35 years. I'm 18 very unhappy with the thought of hoping for the best 19 and hoping that for another 30 years we will dodge the 20 bullet, because we just happen to be good folks.
21 The same problems remain and they remain 22 unsolved.
23 MR. BARKLEY: All right. Again, I'll make 24 one last request for Bill Moody to speak, if he's 25 here.
26
98 I do have a number of people signed up for 1
this evening's session. If any of them are here and 2
want to speak at this time, it may be your 3
opportunity. We're going to have a very full schedule 4
tonight.
5 MR. RAKOVAN: And if there is anyone else 6
in the crowd who wishes to speak, that hasn't had an 7
opportunity to do so yet, please make yourself known.
8
[No response]
9 MR. RAKOVAN: Okay. No one seems to be 10 getting my attention. So i believe that Ms. Rani 11 Framovich is going to say some words to close the 12 meeting today. Rani.
13 MS. FRANOVICH: Thank you, Lance. I'm 14 Rani Framovich. I am the chief of the branch of the 15 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Headquarters Office 16 that's responsible for the performance of the license 17 renewal review for Indian Point Units 2 and 3.
18 I want to thank you all for coming to this 19 meeting. This is an important part of our 20 environmental review process. It's important to us to 21 come out and talk with members of the public and get 22 their perspective of what it is that's important for 23 us to consider during the environmental review portion 24 of the license renewal review.
25 I wanted to respond, briefly, to a couple 26
99 of things I heard from speakers today, just to kind of 1
clarify some points that were made.
2 One point was made that our generic 3
environmental impact statement for license renewal is 4
outdated, and the NRC has not indicated when that will 5
be updated, and I just wanted to let the folks here 6
know that we're aware that there is a requirement in 7
our regulations that we review the information in the 8
generic environmental impact statement every ten 9
years, and update it, if necessary.
10 And we started that review process back in 11 2003 when we had a scoping process for the generic 12 environmental impact statement in four major cities 13 across the United States. And about a year ago, we 14 really kicked off the analysis in ernest. So I just 15 wanted to make sure that that information is put out 16 there, to make sure that the record is correct.
17 Another point that has been made is that 18 what you see reflected on this slide is the extent o 19 the NRC's review, and I can assure you that that is 20 not the case.
21 As Mr. Bo Pham indicated when he made his 22 presentation at the beginning of this meeting it's one 23 aspect of the NRC's review.
24 There's a safety review that's very 25 comprehensive and rigorous as well, that looks at 26
100 things like will the aging of the facility be managed 1
to ensure that it will continue to operate safely 2
during the period of extended operation.
3 So I just wanted to reassure members of 4
the public that this is not the extent of the license 5
renewal review.
6 With that, I want to again thank you for 7
the comments. We've gotten some really good, relevant 8
information today on a few areas, a number of areas.
9 A few come to mind. Impacts on fish, alternatives 10 that are available to replace Indian Point if that is 11 an option that needs to be considered, and 12 environmental justice issues. These are just a few 13 that I've heard and we really appreciate those 14 comments. Those are exactly the kind of thing we're 15 looking for to perform our environmental review. So 16 thank you.
17 I wanted to remind everyone of a couple of 18 important dates. We will be taking comments on the 19 scope of the environmental review until October 12th.
20 We also will be considering contentions 21 for hearing, requests for hearing until November 30th.
22 That date was recently extended, in fact, just 23 yesterday.
24 You'll notice on your handout, that on 25 slide, I believe it's twelve, the date indicates 26
101 October 1st, but that is actually November 30th as of 1
yesterday.
2 One other thing I wanted to remind 3
everybody, that Lance mentioned at the beginning of 4
the meeting. There are NRC public meeting feedback 5
forms that were handed out at the registration desk.
6 If you can think of anything we can do to 7
improve our public meetings, anything we can do 8
differently, anything that's working well, we'd love 9
to hear form you. Please fill out that feedback form.
10 You can hand it to a member of the NRC 11 staff. We're all wearing these name tags. Or you can 12 leave it on the registration desk or you can fold it 13 up and put it in the mail. The postage is prepaid.
14 And with that, again thank you all for coming. We'll 15 be available after the meeting to answer questions.
16 Thank you very much.
17
[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m, the meeting was 18 adjourned.]
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
102 1