ML11273A139
| ML11273A139 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/15/2011 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NRC-1120 | |
| Download: ML11273A139 (105) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Title: Seabrook Station License Renewal Public Meeting - Afternoon Session Docket Number: (n/a)
Location: Hampton, New Hampshire Date: Thursday, September 15, 2011 Work Order No.: NRC-1120 Pages 1-104 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS 5 PRELIMINARY SITE-SPECIFIC RESULTS OF THE 6 LICENSE RENEWAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR 7 SEABROOK STATION 8 + + + + +
9 Upper Great Hall 10 One Liberty Lane 11 One Liberty Lane East 12 Hampton, New Hampshire 03842 13 + + + + +
14 Thursday, September 15, 2011 15 1:30 p.m.
16 FACILITATOR:
17 BRIAN ANDERSON 18 NRC STAFF PRESENTING:
19 MICHAEL WENTZEL, Environmental Project Manager, Office 20 of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
2 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 (1:32 p.m.)
3 BRIAN ANDERSON: Good afternoon. This is 4 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission public meeting to 5 discuss the Environmental Review related to the 6 license renewal application for Seabrook Nuclear Power 7 Station.
8 My name is Brian Anderson. I'll be the 9 facilitator for today's meeting.
10 The purpose of this meeting is to discuss 11 the staffs' Supplemental Environmental Impact 12 Statement -- the Draft Supplemental Environmental 13 Impact Statement for the license renewal at Seabrook 14 Nuclear Power Station.
15 NRC staff will make a short presentation 16 followed by a question and answer session, but the 17 main purpose of today's meeting is to hear your 18 comments. The NRC's review of the Seabrook license 19 renewal application is not yet complete. The comments 20 that are provided today and comments that are provided 21 after this meeting will be considered by NRC staff as 22 part of their issuance of the Final Supplemental 23 Environmental Impact Statement, which is scheduled for 24 next year.
25 I'd like to introduce some of the NRC NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
3 1 staff members that are here today. I'll start with 2 Mr. Mike Wentzel. Mike is the Environmental Project 3 Manager for the Seabrook license renewal application.
4 Mr. Rick Plasse -- Rick is the Safety Project Manager 5 for the NRC's license renewal review. And Mr. Dave 6 Wrona -- Dave is Chief of the License Renewal Projects 7 Branch Number 2. Mike, Rick and Dave all work at the 8 NRC headquarters facility near Washington, DC.
9 I'd also like to introduce Diane Screnci -
10 - Diane is a Public Affairs officer who works out of 11 the NRC's Region 1 office near Philadelphia. Mr. Rich 12 Conte is Chief of the Engineering Branch Number 1.
13 Rich also works out of the NRC Region 1 office near 14 Philadelphia. And I'm not sure if he's in the room or 15 not -- Mr. Bill Raymond -- Bill --
16 BILL RAYMOND: Right here.
17 BRIAN ANDERSON: Right in front of me.
18 Bill is the Senior Resident Inspector at Seabrook 19 Nuclear Power Station.
20 For those that don't know, the NRC assigns 21 at least two Resident Inspectors at every operating 22 nuclear power plant in the United States. NRC 23 Resident Inspectors live in the local community and 24 they perform reactor safety inspections on a daily 25 basis at every nuclear power plant in the country.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
4 1 I'd like to go through a few housekeeping 2 items before we get into the meat of today's agenda.
3 You might've seen as you came in that there are copies 4 of the presentation material and other NRC brochures 5 and information on the tables out in the lobby --
6 please feel free to help yourself to copies of that 7 information for use either during or after this 8 meeting. Also, to help minimize distractions during 9 the presentation and comment period -- I'd ask that 10 everyone please silence your cell phones. Either turn 11 them off or put them into vibrate mode -- whatever you 12 prefer.
13 The agenda for today's meeting's going to 14 begin with a presentation by the NRC staff. We are 15 then going to have a short question-and-answer 16 session. The bulk of today's meeting is to hear your 17 comments. Because the main purpose of today's meeting 18 is to listen to comments provided by the public, we've 19 allotted 25-minutes for the NRC staff's presentation, 20 25-minutes for the question-and-answer period and then 21 the remaining two plus hours we'd like to dedicate to 22 the comment period.
23 During the question-and-answer period, the 24 NRC staff is prepared to talk about the review process 25 and the preliminary results of the Environmental NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
5 1 Review for the Seabrook license renewal application.
2 There are a limited number of NRC staff technical 3 experts that are here today, so it's possible that NRC 4 staff won't be able to answer all questions that you 5 have. They'll do the best that they can and if there 6 are questions that they can't answer here today, NRC 7 staff is happy to take your contact information and 8 get back to you with an answer at some point after the 9 meeting.
10 Also, because there is a limited number of 11 NRC technical staff here during the comment period, 12 the NRC staff doesn't intend to address or respond to 13 comments at this meeting. NRC staff will provide 14 written responses to all comments received during this 15 meeting through the rest of the comment period after 16 they've had a thoughtful review of all the comments 17 that are provided.
18 Finally, before we get into the 19 presentation, I'd just like to cover a few ground 20 rules for the meeting. There's a relatively large 21 number of people that have signed up to make comments 22 today. So, to make sure that everybody has an equal 23 amount of time and gets a chance to provide their 24 comments here today, I'd like to ask that everybody 25 please be concise in providing your comments. I'd NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
6 1 like to limit the comments to five-minutes -- if you 2 can keep your comment presentation to less than five-3 minutes -- I want to make sure that everybody has an 4 equal chance to do that. If at the end, when 5 everybody's had a chance to make comments, if there's 6 anybody that needs more time, we'll certainly allow 7 that based on the time left in the meeting. But it's 8 important to us that everybody gets an equal chance to 9 provide comments here today.
10 We are also transcribing today's meeting 11 to make sure that we have a written record of what's 12 said here today. The court transcriptionist in the 13 back has some equipment set-up, so we want to make 14 sure that anybody that wants to speak, please speak 15 only into a microphone. When we get to the question-16 and-answer period and the comment period, I'll provide 17 anybody that wants to speak with a microphone, but 18 that's very important that we have a clear written 19 record of what's said here today. It's also important 20 to only speak into a microphone just to make sure that 21 everybody in the room can hear what's being said.
22 For those same reasons, I'd also like to 23 ask that we only have one person speaking at a time.
24 I want to make sure that everybody can hear clearly 25 what's being said and that we have a good clear NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
7 1 written record of what's discussed here today.
2 The last thing that I will mention is that 3 you might hear some opinions today that are different 4 from your own. Please let's all treat each other with 5 courtesy and respect.
6 So, just, I think to summarize what the 7 ground rules I'd like to use here for the meeting --
8 if we could just be concise and limit your comments to 9 five-minutes -- we'll allow more time if there's more 10 time left at the end; please use a microphone if you 11 wish to talk; let's only have one person speak at any 12 one time; and let's treat each other with courtesy and 13 respect during this meeting. Those all sound like 14 ground rules that we can live with?
15 Great -- thanks.
16 I will go ahead and let the NRC staff get 17 into their presentation and I'll turn things over to 18 Mike Wentzel.
19 MICHAEL WENTZEL: Good afternoon 20 everybody. My name is Mike Wentzel. I am the Project 21 Manager at the NRC responsible for coordinating all of 22 the Environmental Review activities for the Seabrook 23 Station license renewal application. I will say 24 something just real quick -- I don't have a good view 25 of the slides, so if what I'm saying seems out of sync NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
8 1 with the slides -- if people would just let me know, 2 I'll see if I can get that corrected.
3 On August 1st, the NRC published its Draft 4 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement -- also 5 known as the Draft SEIS -- related to the Seabrook 6 Station license renewal Environmental Review. The 7 Draft SEIS documents the NRC's preliminary review of 8 the environmental impacts associated with renewing the 9 license for Seabrook Station for an additional 20-10 years and today I'm going to present to you those 11 results.
12 I hope that the information provided will 13 help you understand what we've done so far and the 14 role that you can play in helping us to make sure that 15 the Final Impact Statement is accurate and complete.
16 Here's the agenda for today's meeting. I 17 will discuss the Agency's regulatory role; the 18 preliminary findings of our Environmental Review 19 including power generation alternatives that were 20 considered; I will present the current schedule for 21 the remainder of the Environmental Review and how you 22 can submit your comments outside of this meeting.
23 From there, I will take time to briefly discuss two 24 topics that are not related to the Environmental 25 Review, but are of some interest to those in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
9 1 attendance -- those are the concrete issues at 2 Seabrook and the NRC's response to Fukushima.
3 At the end of the presentation, there will 4 be time for questions and answers on the Environmental 5 Review process and most importantly, time for you to 6 present your comments on the Draft SEIS.
7 Now, the NRC was established to regulate 8 civilian uses of nuclear material including facilities 9 that produce electric power. The NRC conducts license 10 renewal reviews for plants whose owners wish to 11 operate them beyond their initial license period. The 12 NRC license renewal reviews address safety issues 13 related to managing the effects of aging and 14 environmental issues related to an additional 20-years 15 of operation. In all aspects of the NRC's regulation, 16 the Agency's mission is threefold: to ensure adequate 17 protection of public health and safety; to promote 18 common defense and security; and to protect the 19 environment.
20 Now, we're here today to discuss the 21 potential site-specific impacts of license renewal for 22 Seabrook Station. The Generic Environmental Impact --
23 also referred to as the GEIS -- examines the possible 24 environmental impacts that could occur as a result of 25 renewing licenses of individual nuclear power plants NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
10 1 under 10 CFR Part 54. The GEIS, to the extent 2 possible, establishes the bounds and significance of 3 these potential impacts. The analyses in the GEIS 4 encompass all operating light-water power reactors.
5 For each type of environmental impact, the GEIS 6 attempts to establish generic findings covering as 7 many plants as possible.
8 For some environmental issues, the GEIS 9 found that a generic evaluation was not sufficient and 10 that a plant specific analysis was required. The 11 site-specific findings for Seabrook are contained in 12 the Draft SEIS that we issued on August 1st of this 13 year. This document contains analyses of all 14 applicable site-specific issues, as well as a review 15 of the issues covered by the GEIS to determine whether 16 or not the conclusions in the GEIS are still valid for 17 Seabrook Station.
18 In this process, the NRC staff also 19 reviews the environmental impacts of potential power 20 generation alternatives to license renewal to 21 determine whether the impacts expected from license 22 renewal are unreasonable.
23 For each environmental issue identified, 24 an impact level is assigned. The NRC standard of 25 significance for impacts was established using the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
11 1 White House Council on Environmental Quality 2 terminology for `significant'.
3 The NRC established three levels of 4 significance for potential impacts: Small, Moderate 5 and Large. They're defined here on the slide. For a 6 Small impact -- the effects are not detectable or are 7 so minor that they will neither destabilize nor 8 noticeably alter any important attribute of a 9 resource. For a Moderate impact -- the effects are 10 sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize 11 important attributes of the resource. And for a Large 12 impact -- the effects are clearly noticeable and are 13 sufficient to destabilize important aspects of a 14 resource.
15 This slide lists the site-specific issues 16 the NRC staff reviewed for the continued operation of 17 Seabrook Station during the proposed license renewal 18 period. As discussed in the previous slide, each 19 issue is assigned a level of environmental impact of 20 Small, Moderate or Large by the environmental 21 reviewers. The staff's preliminary conclusion is that 22 the site-specific impacts related to license renewal 23 for aquatic resources is Small for most species and 24 Large for winter flounder, rainbow smelt and some kelp 25 species due to the impact of the operation of Seabrook NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
12 1 Station's once-through cooling system.
2 Similarly, for protected species and 3 habitats -- the staff's preliminary conclusion is that 4 the impacts related to license renewal are Small for 5 most species and Large for rainbow smelt -- a species 6 identified by the National Marine Fishery Service as a 7 species of concern. For all other resource areas, the 8 impacts are Small.
9 Now, when reviewing the potential impacts 10 of license renewal on the environment, the NRC staff 11 also looks at the effects on the environment from 12 other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 13 human actions. These effects, referred to as 14 Cumulative Impacts, not only include the operation of 15 Seabrook Station, but also impacts from activities 16 unrelated to Seabrook -- such as the development of 17 the East Coast Greenway, commercial fishing and 18 climate change. Past actions are those related to the 19 resources at the time of the power plant's licensing 20 and construction. Present actions are those related 21 to resources at the time of the current operation of 22 the power plant. Future actions are considered to be 23 those that are reasonably foreseeable through the end 24 of the plant operation, including the period of 25 extended operation.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
13 1 Therefore, the analysis considers 2 potential impacts through the end of the current 3 license renewal term, as well as the 20-year renewal 4 period. While the level of impacts due to direct and 5 indirect impacts of Seabrook Station on aquatic 6 resources is Small for most species and Large for 7 winter flounder, rainbow smelt and some kelp species -
8 - the cumulative impact when combined with all other 9 sources, such as pressure from commercial fishing and 10 effects from climate change, would be Moderate for 11 most species and Large for winter flounder, rainbow 12 smelt and other species that would be adversely 13 affected by climate change. In the other areas the 14 staff considered -- the staff's preliminary conclusion 15 is that the cumulative impacts are Small.
16 The National Environmental Policy Act --
17 also known as NEPA -- mandates that each Environmental 18 Impact Statement consider alternatives to any proposed 19 major federal action. A major step in determining 20 whether license renewal is reasonable or not is 21 comparing the likely impacts of continued operation of 22 the nuclear power plant with the likely impacts of 23 alternative means of power generation. Alternatives 24 must provide an option that allows for power 25 generation capability beyond the term of current NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
14 1 nuclear power plant operating license to meet future 2 system generating needs. In the Draft Supplement, the 3 NRC staff initially considered (16) different 4 alternatives. After this initial consideration, the 5 staff then chose the three most likely and analyzed 6 those in depth.
7 Finally, the NRC staff considered what 8 would happen if no action is taken and Seabrook 9 Station shuts down at the end of its current license 10 without a specific replacement alternative. This 11 alternative would not provide power generation 12 capacity nor meet the needs currently met by Seabrook 13 Station.
14 The NRC's preliminary conclusion is that 15 there is no clear environmentally preferred 16 alternative to license renewal. All alternatives 17 capable of meeting the needs currently served by 18 Seabrook Station entail impacts greater than or equal 19 to the proposed action of license renewal.
20 Based on the review of the likely 21 environmental impacts from license renewal -- as well 22 as potential environmental impacts of alternatives to 23 license renewal -- the NRC staff's preliminary 24 recommendation in the Draft SEIS is that the 25 environmental impacts of license renewal for Seabrook NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
15 1 Station are not great enough to deny the option of 2 license renewal.
3 Now, I would like to emphasize that the 4 Environmental Review is not yet complete. Your 5 comments today and all written comments received by 6 the end of the comment period on October 26th will be 7 considered by the NRC staff as we develop the Final 8 SEIS, which we currently plan to issue in March of 9 2012. Those comments that are within the scope of the 10 Environmental Review and provide new and significant 11 information can help to change the staffs' findings.
12 The Final SEIS will contain the staff's final 13 recommendation on the acceptability of license renewal 14 based on the work we've already performed and any new 15 and significant information that we receive in the 16 form of comments during the comment period.
17 Now, as we stated earlier, I'm the primary 18 contact for the Environmental Review. My colleague, 19 Rick Plasse, is the primary contact for the Safety 20 Review. Hard copies of the Draft SEIS are available 21 in the entryway -- where you came in -- as are copies 22 on CD-ROM. In addition, the Seabrook and the Amesbury 23 Public Libraries have agreed to make hard-copies 24 available for your review. You can also find 25 electronic copies of the Draft SEIS along with other NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
16 1 information about the Seabrook Station license renewal 2 review online at the address provided on the slide.
3 The NRC staff will address written 4 comments in the same way we address spoken comments 5 received today. You can submit written comments 6 either online or via conventional mail. To submit 7 written comments online, visit the web site --
8 regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2010-9 0206. If you have written comments this evening, you 10 may also give them to any NRC staff member.
11 Now, before we open up the meeting for 12 questions and comments, I wanted to take some time to 13 briefly discuss two topics that are of some interest 14 to those in attendance -- that's the concrete 15 degradation at Seabrook and the NRC's response to 16 Fukushima. While these issues are not related to the 17 Seabrook Station license renewal Environmental Review 18 and are therefore not specifically addressed in the 19 Draft SEIS, they are issues that are being actively 20 addressed through other relevant Agency processes.
21 Now, for concrete degradation -- the 22 alkali-silica reaction -- referred to as ASR -- is a 23 process that could occur in some forms of concrete 24 that have been exposed to water for long periods of 25 time. ASR can cause expansion and cracking in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
17 1 concrete structures. During the course of the license 2 renewal review, ASR related degradation was found at 3 Seabrook. As discussed at the annual assessment 4 public meeting on June 8th, there are no immediate 5 safety concerns associated with ASR at Seabrook. NRC 6 has found no problems with any electrical system, 7 piping or any other component as a result of ASR and 8 the concrete walls continue to perform within design 9 specifications. Evaluation of ASR and its impact on 10 license renewal is being addressed as part of the 11 Safety Review.
12 Additionally, the NRC has requested 13 NextEra explain how it intends to manage the effect of 14 aging associated with ASR. The NRC has delayed the 15 license renewal Safety Review until NextEra completes 16 its evaluation and addresses the staffs' questions.
17 The NRC will not make a decision on license renewal 18 before it fully understands both the issues with ASR 19 affected structures and NextEra's plan to address the 20 issues.
21 Now, since the accident at Fukushima, the 22 NRC has taken multiple steps to ensure the safe 23 operation of nuclear power plants both now and in the 24 future. As part of its initial response to the 25 accident, the NRC issued temporary instructions to our NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
18 1 inspectors directing specific inspections at nuclear 2 power plants to assess disaster readiness and 3 compliance with current regulations. The next step in 4 the NRC's response was the report of the NRC Near-Term 5 Task Force. The purpose of the Near-Term Task Force 6 was to develop near-term recommendations and suggest a 7 framework for us to move forward within the longer 8 term.
9 The Near-Term Task Force issued its report 10 on July 12th and discussed the results of their review 11 at a public meeting on July 28th. As a result of its 12 review, the Near-Term Task Force presented (12) over-13 arching recommendations for improvement. These 14 recommendations are applicable to operating reactors 15 regardless of license renewal status. Based on the 16 results of the Near-Term Task Force, the Commission 17 has directed the NRC staff to evaluate and outline 18 which of the recommendations should be implemented.
19 The staff recently submitted a paper to 20 the Commission on September 9th, providing the staffs' 21 recommendation of which Task Force recommendations can 22 and -- in the staffs' judgment -- should be initiated 23 in part or in whole without delay. On October 3rd, 24 the staff will submit another Commission paper on its 25 prioritization of (11) of the (12) Task Force NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
19 1 recommendations.
2 Recommendation number 1 -- the 3 recommendation to reevaluate the NRC's regulatory 4 framework will be evaluated over the next 18-months.
5 To date, the NRC has not identified any issues as part 6 of these activities that calls into question the 7 safety of any nuclear facility. Additionally, the 8 review process is going on independent of license 9 renewal. Any changes that are identified as necessary 10 will be implemented for all licensees regardless of 11 license renewal status.
12 More information on the NRC's post-13 Fukushima activities -- including the results of the 14 Near-Term Task Force -- can be found on the NRC's web 15 site by clicking the link -- Japan nuclear accident's 16 NRC actions -- or directly through the web address 17 that's on this slide. Also, there are a limited 18 number of copies of the Near-Term Task Force report 19 that are available at the back of the room -- actually 20 outside the door.
21 Additionally, there are question and 22 answer sheets related to Fukushima and Seabrook for 23 those that are interested.
24 So, that completes my presentation for 25 today. I am going to turn the meeting back over to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
20 1 Brian for question and answer.
2 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, Mike. Does 3 anyone have any questions about the presentation or 4 the preliminary results of the Seabrook license 5 renewal Environmental Review?
6 Yes, sir. And if you could, would you 7 please, for the record, give your name and ask your 8 question.
9 BRUCE SKUD: Bruce Scud -- for Mr. Wentzel 10 -- you were kind enough to provide information on your 11 slide here about further information for NRC response 12 to Fukushima -- do you have any further information 13 site available for concrete degradation?
14 MICHAEL WENTZEL: We don't have a web site 15 in particular set-up for that. We do have the 16 inspection report that is available for reviewing 17 online. It's through the Web-based ADAMS. Actually, 18 anything that's going to be related to that that's 19 found out later will be published on there.
20 Additionally, anything that the staff -- for the issue 21 of license renewal -- anything that's reviewed 22 relating to ASR will also be available on web-based 23 ADAMS. But we do not have a specific web site set-up 24 for that.
25 BRIAN ANDERSON: Sir, if we took your NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
21 1 contact information, we could provide you with 2 specific numbers through the NRC web site that would 3 allow you to access those reports and that 4 information. Would that be useful to you?
5 BRUCE SKUD: Yes it would, thank you.
6 BRIAN ANDERSON: Okay.
7 RAYMOND SHADIS: Thank you. I may have 8 missed this in your presentation, but is there a 9 working group within NRC that is specifically tasked 10 with lessons learned from Fukushima as it would apply 11 to license renewal?
12 BRIAN ANDERSON: Sir, would you mind 13 giving us your name -- just for the record.
14 RAYMOND SHADIS: Sure, my name is Raymond 15 Shadis. I'm representing interveners in the Seabrook 16 licensing renewal process -- Friends of the Coast from 17 the state of Maine and also New England Coalition from 18 the state of Vermont.
19 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, Raymond.
20 NRC staff -- the question is -- is there a 21 task force or an NRC group looking at Fukushima --
22 future efforts, specifically as it relates to license 23 renewal. Is that --
24 RAYMOND SHADIS: Lessons learned.
25 BRIAN ANDERSON: Lessons learned.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
22 1 MICHAEL WENTZEL: I would have to say I'm 2 not aware of any task force that's specifically 3 looking at lessons learned from Fukushima as it 4 relates to license renewal. License renewal -- we 5 look at managing the effects of aging. I think any 6 lessons learned that are applicable that come out of 7 the review will be applied to any licensee and I think 8 if there was to be some sort of license renewal 9 specific lesson learned that was identified, it would 10 be applied as appropriate.
11 BRIAN ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am. If you could 12 please give us your name.
13 DEBBIE GRINNELL: Debbie Grinnell -- I'm 14 with the C-10 Foundation. After Fukushima, we have 15 now added three more core melts that need to be 16 factored into -- I think it's now up to five -- in 17 evaluating or recalculating your mass and that 18 pertains to the relicensing process. So, is anyone 19 doing those calculations and they need to be done 20 before you relicense any other plants post-Fukushima.
21 BRIAN ANDERSON: NRC staff -- any specific 22 information as it relates to core melt frequency given 23 the Fukushima events this year?
24 MICHAEL WENTZEL: I'm afraid I didn't 25 really understand what the question was.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
23 1 DEBBIE GRINNELL: You use incidents in --
2 BRIAN ANDERSON: Debbie -- here's the 3 microphone.
4 DEBBIE GRINNELL: You use incidents in 5 evaluating and doing the mass in terms of predicting 6 the risk, so I don't know who's doing that at the NRC, 7 but I'm assuming that because now we have factual 8 information -- we have three additional core melts --
9 that that has to be factored into your evaluations and 10 predictability of the risk.
11 BRIAN ANDERSON: Debbie -- we may need to 12 get back to you with a better answer. Diane -- do you 13 have anything that you can add or help out with here?
14 MICHAEL WENTZEL: I would say it almost 15 sounds like a comment that's related to 16 [indiscernible] --
17 BRIAN ANDERSON: Mike -- is your mic on?
18 MICHAEL WENTZEL: Okay -- there we go.
19 I'd say that really sounds like a comment. I don't 20 have a specific answer to that question, but it sounds 21 like that may be a comment that would be worth 22 submitting this evening or whenever you want.
23 DAVE WRONA: We can take it as a comment.
24 MICHAEL WENTZEL: Right -- absolutely.
25 And actually, we can take -- and Dave's absolutely NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
24 1 right -- you've already provided the comment. We can 2 handle this as a comment and address it as part of the 3 Final.
4 BRIAN ANDERSON: So, Debbie, the NRC staff 5 is going to take your question as a comment, but also 6 look into it and get back to you with information, if 7 that's okay with you.
8 DEBBIE GRINNELL: When you re-draft the 9 calculations, I'd like to see those.
10 BRIAN ANDERSON: Well, the NRC staff will 11 also take that as a comment and follow-up on it. Does 12 anybody else have any questions related to the 13 presentation material or review process? Yes, sir.
14 THOMAS POPIK: Hello, my name is Thomas 15 Popik. I'm with the Foundation for Resilient 16 Societies. I'm looking at Table F.1 from the Draft 17 EIS -- this is titled Seabrook CDF for Internal and 18 External Events. I guess my first question is -- CDF, 19 that stands for Core Damage Frequency -- is that 20 correct?
21 BILL RAYMOND: Yes.
22 THOMAS POPIK: Okay, thank you. So 23 there's a number of events here and the first one is:
24 LOOP due to weather. I believe that stands for Loss 25 Of Outside Power -- is that correct?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
25 1 MICHAEL WENTZEL: Yes, that is correct.
2 THOMAS POPIK: Okay. The CDF per year 3 here is 1.5 x 10-6. I also see: LOOP due to grid 4 related events -- 9.0 x 10-7 -- any place in this EIS is 5 there the frequency for the initiating events?
6 MICHAEL WENTZEL: I'm not really sure.
7 I'm not a PRA expert. I'm definitely not a SAMA 8 expert, so I can't answer that question specifically.
9 I would be happy to -- I'm almost positive that we 10 have that information either submitted through the 11 applicant or in the EIS, but I can't point to it 12 specifically. That's something that if you want to 13 give me your contact information, I can find that out 14 and let you know where that information can be found.
15 THOMAS POPIK: Okay, thank you. I have a 16 follow-up. Seems to me that that would be critical 17 information for the public to know, but I'll talk 18 about that later on in my comment. I would ask -- as 19 a follow-up question -- is the impact of a great 20 geomagnetic storm -- similar to the Carrington event 21 or other solar disturbances that we have had --
22 incorporated in any of the initiating event 23 frequencies?
24 MICHAEL WENTZEL: Again, I'm not an expert 25 on that. That's something else I can look into and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
26 1 let you know.
2 THOMAS POPIK: Okay, thank you.
3 BRIAN ANDERSON: Sir, thank you for those 4 questions. NRC staff will take those as comments, but 5 also follow up with answers once they've had a chance 6 to consult with technical experts back at NRC 7 headquarters.
8 Sir, I'll come right back to you. I saw 9 this hand here.
10 MAX ABRAMSON: My name is Max Abramson.
11 I'm a member of the Seabrook Budget Committee speaking 12 on my own behalf. I just have two questions that I 13 think might require more in-depth follow-up. The 14 first one is -- what types of natural disasters are 15 likely at the Seabrook Station considering we're right 16 on the Atlantic seaboard and what is being done in 17 this regulatory environment to respond to that?
18 The second question is -- nearly all 19 countries that I'm aware of that use nuclear fission 20 recycle spent nuclear fuel. I think I saw a 21 documentary on this and I think only the U.S. and 22 Russia still bury it. The Seabrook Station is burying 23 spent fuel on-site -- are there regulations being 24 offered that will allow American reactors to recycle 25 waste?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
27 1
2 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you for those 3 questions. Were you looking to have answers to those 4 questions now or are those like comments that you 5 wanted to submit as part of this meeting?
6 MAX ABRAMSON: I'd be willing to have the 7 answers come in later.
8 BRIAN ANDERSON: Okay. What I would 9 suggest -- let the NRC staff take those questions as 10 comments and provide written responses along with the 11 rest of the comments. But, I'll look to the NRC staff 12 if there's an answer that can be given now to either 13 of the questions.
14 I believe the first question was about 15 local disaster -- site-specific type natural disasters 16 -- and the second question was related to reprocessing 17 of fuel.
18 Bill -- would you --
19 BILL RAYMOND: So, in order to build a 20 nuclear power plant at Seabrook or any other site in 21 the country, there is a site characterization study 22 that is done and that's a matter of public record.
23 That's in a document called the Final Safety Analysis 24 Report. So, it describes the type of events, features 25 at the site, what sort of events are expected to occur NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
28 1 during the course of the site's lifetime to include 2 seismic event, rain events, storm events, etc. That 3 information has been published and is available for 4 review. If you need help on locating that, we can 5 certainly help you get to that.
6 So at least that's the first of your two 7 questions.
8 DENNIS MOREY: I'm Dennis Morey. I'm 9 Chief of the Project Branch 1. Since I just moved 10 over from NMSS I can answer your second question. I 11 can tell you that the NRC has a rule-making effort 12 underway for recycling, but I can't tell you any 13 details. It was in a different division.
14 BILL RAYMOND: Let me take that back.
15 Max, if I may too, in response to your second question 16 -- you did indicate that the spent-fuel is being 17 buried at the site -- so there's a key distinction.
18 Spent-fuel at Seabrook is stored either wet storage in 19 the spent-fuel pool -- that's a part of the seismic 20 qualified buildings there. But a portion of the fuel 21 that's been generated since the plant began to operate 22 has also been moved from wet storage to dry storage 23 sitting on concrete pads on the site property. I just 24 want to make the -- but neither one of those are 25 burial, if you will. So that's as it exists right now NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
29 1 at Seabrook.
2 BRIAN ANDERSON: Max, thank you again for 3 those questions. NRC staff will provide written 4 responses to those as comments as well. Does anyone 5 else have questions? Yes, ma'am.
6 LEE ROBERTS: As a simple citizen of New 7 Hampshire within the 10-mile radius area -- which is 8 the dangerous area -- I have to say, just as a 9 preliminary comment, that I am concerned that there 10 isn't a lot more coverage. We know after the 11 Fukushima disaster that they've widened that range 12 enormously. The question that I have is regarding how 13 it is determined what natural disaster could happen 14 here? That is something that one really finds very 15 difficult. I don't imagine that in Japan they thought 16 about what has happened there -- ever. I've spoken to 17 many Japanese who are just horrified at what happened 18 in their country and I want to say that I am horrified 19 because I feel that we are in much greater danger than 20 is being admitted by this regulatory agency. I feel 21 that it's very hard to determine just what could 22 happen and I wonder how you think you're going to do 23 that? Thank you.
24 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you for your 25 question. Can we have your name for the record NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
30 1 please?
2 LEE ROBERTS: My name is Lee Roberts and 3 I'm just Ms. New Hampshire citizen. Thank you.
4 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, Lee. I want 5 to look to the NRC staff -- I think maybe Bill you had 6 just talked about the site characterization study 7 that's part of the Final Safety Analysis Report.
8 Maybe in responding to this question you can talk a 9 little bit about how that addresses local natural 10 disaster frequency and then also maybe in your role as 11 Senior Resident Inspector, you can talk a little bit 12 about how emergency planning zones are set-up and how 13 the site characterization study is taken into account 14 for emergency planning.
15 BILL RAYMOND: So, for Seabrook, as well 16 as all plants -- the potential for seismic activity is 17 studied. They do an evaluation to look at the worst-18 case seismic events that have been recorded in that 19 specific area in the past. They then take that 20 information and apply a conservative factor on top of 21 that to establish what the seismic design basis for 22 the plant will be to which they're going to build the 23 structures. And that has been done for Seabrook --
24 yes, ma'am.
25 LEE ROBERTS: Can I just add a comment to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
31 1 that? I don't know how one can exactly judge what's 2 going to happen in the future. We --
3 BRIAN ANDERSON: Lee, if you can hold on 4 just a second. I'll bring a microphone back to you.
5 Thanks.
6 LEE ROBERTS: Sorry. I know I have a loud 7 voice, but I guess not loud enough. I just wanted to 8 say that I don't see how one can really just 9 scientifically go back and decide that this is all 10 that's going to happen. I don't think they would have 11 come up with the answer in Japan and I don't think we 12 can necessarily come up with an answer here. Because 13 we have all sorts of environmental issues that no one 14 expected. Nobody's expected the tornadoes we've had.
15 Nobody's expected some of the hurricanes we've had.
16 Nobody's been able to prophesize what would happen in 17 terms of something like a tsunami. I don't expect 18 that here, but we have had things happen in New York 19 City, for instance, that have never happened before.
20 It's possible. I think we're in great danger.
21 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, Lee. I can 22 tell that you're very passionate about this and that 23 this is something that concerns you. What I'd like to 24 do is ask the NRC staff to take your questions as 25 comments to provide written responses for, but also NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
32 1 look to Bill Raymond one more time to see if there's 2 anything else that he can do to answer those 3 questions.
4 LEE ROBERTS: I'm a mother and a 5 grandmother and a neighbor and I know there are many, 6 many people who are not here today speaking their 7 minds because they think it won't do any good because 8 we don't really get listened to. I'm here to try to 9 make you understand that we are concerned -- very 10 concerned about allowing a license to continue when we 11 know there are so many problems at this place. We had 12 those spent rods, among a zillion other things. I'm 13 no scientist, but I just know that if one uses one's 14 head, one knows we're in trouble. Thank you.
15 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you very much for 16 those questions and comments and thank you for being 17 here and sharing that with us. Thank you. Let me 18 look back to Bill one more time to -- it's actually 19 important that we speak into a microphone for the 20 record.
21 BILL RAYMOND: Thank you again for your 22 comments and I do appreciate your concerns and we are 23 here to hear you. I don't want you to feel that it's 24 falling on deaf ears. We are not clairvoyant and 25 being able to look to the future, but we do use our NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
33 1 technology and science to look backwards to see what 2 has happened. But, having done that, we don't stop 3 there.
4 When new information becomes available, we 5 try to learn from that and what is happening in this 6 country and elsewhere as a result of the events that 7 have happened -- on the seismic events at Fukushima.
8 We haven't mentioned it, but prior to the Fukushima 9 event, there was a study that was in progress in this 10 country looking at the seismic hazard within the 11 continental United States. That's an effort that's in 12 progress. We'll use the information from Fukushima to 13 revalidate whether or not the design and licensing 14 basis that have already been established -- which we 15 believe have established an adequate basis for safe 16 plant operation, so it won't hurt public health and 17 safety -- is in place and remains adequate. If it's 18 not adequate, we'll try to address it. So, there's 19 processes in place for that.
20 I see other questions.
21 BRIAN ANDERSON: Yes, sir. I knew you had 22 a question. Does anybody else have a question about 23 the presentation from today or the process that the 24 NRC's doing to review the rest of this? Yes, sir.
25 PAUL GUNTER: Do you mind if I -- so we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
34 1 can have a little bit of exchange, so you don't have 2 to -- I'll save you some steps if I can come up here?
3 BRIAN ANDERSON: I'm happy to walk back 4 and forth.
5 PAUL GUNTER: Okay.
6 BRIAN ANDERSON: It's part of the job 7 description.
8 PAUL GUNTER: All right. And could I get 9 your name, sir?
10 BILL RAYMOND: Bill.
11 PAUL GUNTER: Bill? Okay. My name's Paul 12 Gunter. I'm with Beyond Nuclear and we're one of the 13 interveners in the license renewal application that's 14 before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And 15 we've also been one of (23) organizations that have 16 petitioned the NRC to put a pause in its review of 17 this license extension and new license applications 18 because there are so many questions with regards -- a 19 lot of questions, but specifically to the seismic 20 issue now. So, just for the record, the safety 21 evaluation you're doing is Generic Safety Issue-199 --
22 is that it? Is it GSI-199?
23 BILL RAYMOND: Yes.
24 PAUL GUNTER: Okay. So, I'll just, for 25 the record, you're saying GSI-199 is the reevaluation NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
35 1 of seismic activity for U.S. nuclear power stations.
2 Now, we just had an earthquake on August 23rd.
3 Actually, I live down in Washington, D.C. and I 4 watched the salt and pepper shaker dance on my kitchen 5 table. That was 90-miles away from the epicenter in 6 Mineral, Virginia, which is where the North Anna 7 Nuclear Power Station is located and just 11-miles 8 from this earthquake -- an unprecedented, unexpected 9 earthquake and very likely just a precursor event of 10 something bigger or, perhaps, the same.
11 So, your Agency is now reevaluating the --
12 and in this case at North Anna, in fact, the 13 earthquake exceeded the design qualification for the 14 plant. Now, I know that's a little like being 10-15 pounds overweight in an elevator -- it doesn't mean 16 it's necessarily going to fall to the basement, but it 17 did exceed a safety standard. And there are margins 18 within that safety standard.
19 But, my question and my concern is that we 20 don't know -- you don't know -- you have not even 21 finished your evaluation and yet this proceeding goes 22 forward. It's like watching something on a conveyor 23 belt and when regulation and licensing processes 24 operate on conveyor belts, it speaks more to your 25 schedule and the industry's agenda than it does to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
36 1 public health and safety and environmental concerns.
2 So, I would like you to justify why the Agency is 3 proceeding with this conveyor belt kind of mentality 4 for this proceeding -- your Environmental Impact 5 Statement -- when you don't even have answers to 6 inform your Environmental Impact Statement about 7 seismic qualifications of this facility.
8 BRIAN ANDERSON: Sir, thank you for those 9 comments and that question. Most of that, I think, is 10 important for the NRC staff to capture as comments.
11 PAUL GUNTER: But, it's a part of the 12 process. I'm talking specifically -- what I'm 13 addressing here is specifically your process. The 14 process by which you're more concerned about a 15 schedule -- you're more concerned about an industry's 16 production agenda than you are actually about 17 qualifying your own Environmental Impact Statement.
18 That's a schedule question. And so, I think that you 19 should be accountable to address this body and other 20 bodies as to why you're schedule driven, when we have 21 such precedent as the North Anna earthquake and the 22 Fukushima accident?
23 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, for those 24 comments and that question. Dave, I think at the 25 heart of this the question is -- with ongoing reviews NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
37 1 in other areas, how is it that the NRC process allows 2 the license renewal review to continue forward with 3 other pending reviews?
4 DAVE WRONA: I just wanted to mention that 5 there is a petition in front of the NRC to halt 6 license renewal and other reviews. We are in the 7 process of reviewing that. The Agency is concerned 8 with --
9 PAUL GUNTER: You denied it --
10 LEE ROBERTS: You denied it.
11 PAUL GUNTER: You denied it. Let's get 12 current.
13 LEE ROBERTS: Come on.
14 DAVE WRONA: Okay. Let me get back to 15 that in a second. And yes -- yes --
16 LEE ROBERTS: Just answer the question.
17 BRIAN ANDERSON: Ladies and gentlemen --
18 DAVE WRONA: No --
19 LEE ROBERTS: It's a processing concern.
20 BRIAN ANDERSON: Ladies and gentlemen --
21 LEE ROBERTS: It isn't being processed, 22 it's been denied.
23 DAVE WRONA: Okay.
24 BRIAN ANDERSON: Ladies and gentlemen, 25 thank you all for being here. We want to make sure NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
38 1 that your voice is heard, but it's very important to 2 us to have a clear record of what's said here today.
3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Correct it then.
4 LEE ROBERTS: That was just 5 [indiscernible] --
6 DAVE WRONA: I'm going to come back to 7 that. I'm going to come back to that, please.
8 BRIAN ANDERSON: We want to make sure we 9 have a clear written transcript of what's being said 10 here today and in order to have that happen, I need to 11 make sure that only one person speaks at a time. I 12 very much appreciate your passion and being here to 13 provide comments with us. Please work with the NRC 14 staff to ensure that only one person's speaking at a 15 time.
16 LEE ROBERTS: [indiscernible]
17 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you.
18 DAVE WRONA: The NRC is also concerned 19 with seismic and flooding events due to Fukushima and 20 what's happened in Mineral, Virginia. Our task force 21 on the Fukushima event -- those are areas -- and 22 including emergency preparedness -- are being 23 specifically addressed during that report.
24 In terms of halting license renewal -- the 25 Agency is determined that we have ongoing processes NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
39 1 that are looking at these issues. When we go forward 2 with that and determine if actions need to be taken or 3 don't need to be taken -- they will be put in place 4 irrespective of license renewal. Whether the plant 5 has a renewed license, is currently being reviewed by 6 us or has already been reviewed by us. So, our 7 ongoing oversight is going to address those issues and 8 as things come up and we need to take action, we're 9 going to take it through that process, not the license 10 renewal process.
11 BRIAN ANDERSON: Yes, sir, there's a new 12 question in back. I'll come back to you.
13 STEVEN ATHEARN: Hi. My name is Stephen 14 Athearn. I'm walking from Rockland to Boston to the 15 Japanese consulate. This was initiated by my wife, 16 who's from Fukushima prefecture. My question concerns 17 a -- we're looking at natural disasters that we might 18 not be able to perceive, but there's a very 19 foreseeable factor that I don't see being talked about 20 and that is the general fact that all of our main 21 energy resources are finite and subject to permanent 22 decline. I mean, they've been rising for all the time 23 that we've been in our current model -- we have a 24 model of continuous growth forever and these things 25 have been rising for 150-years or 450 years, depending NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
40 1 on how you look at it. But, they're all finite and 2 subject to decline.
3 I just wonder if there's been any study of 4 the impact -- we're not talking just about 5 electricity, but of general energy decline -- on the 6 ability to manage nuclear power? So, that's my 7 question.
8 BRIAN ANDERSON: Sir, just to make sure I 9 understand the question -- how does the NRC review 10 process take into account -- when you say an energy 11 decline, could you say more about that?
12 STEVEN ATHEARN: Yes. For example, the 13 Middle East now, which in all the projections is 14 supposed to supply our growing needs for oil -- I know 15 oil is only 3% of electricity, but I'm talking about, 16 in general -- this is a major, major thing that will 17 impact our society. There was a report in 2005 18 published by the Department of Energy, which used the 19 word `unprecedented' three times in its abstract. I 20 think that usage of words is itself unprecedented in a 21 government report, but we're talking about major 22 impacts on society and we're planning as if we're just 23 going to go on in this trajectory now.
24 So, my question is -- has the NRC done any 25 study whatsoever on the impacts of declining resources NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
41 1 that could permanently end economic growth and whether 2 -- it's expensive to decommission plants now and it's 3 almost bankrupting a rich country to -- we don't know 4 if Japan can clean-up from this disaster that it's 5 undergone. If that's the case now, when energy is 6 available in the amounts that we're used to and that 7 we need, in the sense that we've built our society to 8 rely on them. We have to look at that question about 9 what's going to happen -- our ability to manage these 10 things. We talk about managing the waste of nuclear 11 facilities. But that's a big question, whether we can 12 do that. So, I want to know whether there's anybody 13 here that has discussed -- not necessarily in this 14 room, but whether the NRC has studied or is intending 15 to study the general impacts of energy decline on our 16 ability to manage nuclear power plants safety.
17 Thanks.
18 BRIAN ANDERSON: I don't know if Mike --
19 Dave -- either of you have an answer to energy 20 resources future management?
21 DAVE WRONA: Well, as resources are needed 22 to safely operate and decommissioning nuclear reactor 23 plants, the NRC's mandate is exactly that. In terms 24 of for the country -- our mission is limited to 25 protecting the public health and safety for civilian NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
42 1 use of nuclear materials. So, in terms of us looking 2 forward for the need for power or for the need if 3 oil's gone and the need if wind is being used -- it's 4 not in our purview. We're limited to these nuclear 5 power plants. We do make sure that our licensees are 6 financially stable to operate and take that plant 7 through decommissioning.
8 BRIAN ANDERSON: Sir, I'm going to come to 9 you for the final question. I think that it's 10 important that we move on to the comment period.
11 Actually, sir, can I ask that since you were able to 12 ask a question earlier, can I go to this gentleman 13 please for a new question and I'd like to make that 14 the final question. I don't want to take away any 15 time from what's been allotted to provide comments.
16 RAYMOND SHADIS: I'll give my comment 17 [indiscernible].
18 BRIAN STERN: Thank you. The Draft EIS in 19 your presentation refers to the impact on aquatic 20 resources as Large when looking at winter flounder, 21 rainbow smelt and kelp -- and that's the impact from 22 the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant -- the impact on 23 those species is Large. You then discuss the 24 cumulative effect, apparently, looking at the 25 influence on those species over time because of over-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
43 1 fishing or climate change or other stressors and say -
2 - based upon those cumulative impacts the effect from 3 Seabrook is Small. I've got a question -- that Large 4 -- and ask you to explain that better because it 5 sounds like since they're being killed anyway, we can 6 kill them ourselves first. It doesn't seem to make 7 sense to me. I was wondering if you could explain how 8 that analysis of cumulative impact works?
9 BRIAN ANDERSON: Sir, thank you for the 10 question. For the record, could we have your name 11 please?
12 BRIAN STERN: I am Brian Stern.
13 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, Brian. Mike -
14 - could you address the impacts?
15 MICHAEL WENTZEL: I can. We did find that 16 the impact on winter flounder, rainbow smelt and some 17 kelp species was Large for aquatic resources because 18 of the impact of Seabrook Station's once-through 19 cooling system. We also found that for all other fish 20 species that we were able to make a determination on, 21 the impact was Small. That's based off of fairly 22 extensive monitoring data from the time of the plant's 23 initial licensing up and through recent times. So, 24 we're able to statistically see where there's an 25 impact that you can directly attribute to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
44 1 operation of Seabrook Station. I won't get into the 2 details of that -- that's actually available in the 3 Draft SEIS.
4 As far as cumulative impacts go -- our 5 finding was for aquatic resources that -- the way it 6 works is you look at the direct impact of Seabrook 7 Station and then you look at all other impacts that 8 you can quantify. So, what we'd actually said was 9 that Seabrook Station's -- at least the cumulative 10 impact on aquatic resources was Moderate for most fish 11 species and Large for rainbow smelt and other species 12 that are affected by climate change. Seabrook 13 Station's direct contribution to that cumulative 14 impact was Small for most species and Large for 15 rainbow smelt, winter flounder and some kelp species.
16 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, Mike. Yes, 17 ma'am. As a matter of timing for the meeting, we want 18 to ensure that there's enough time for everybody that 19 wants to speak to provide comments. I think it's very 20 important to move to that portion of the meeting.
21 If you're registered to speak -- we're 22 about to move to the portion that will allow you to 23 make comments and I think that it's very important 24 that we move to that phase of the meeting. That's the 25 important part of the NRC staff being here to solicit NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
45 1 comments today. So, if you have not already 2 registered to speak, have not filled out a yellow card 3 -- could you please do that and I'll make sure that 4 you get the right time to speak.
5 LEE ROBERTS: We've got somebody here from 6 the Fukushima area. If you'll let her speak 7 [indiscernible]
8 MIE ATHEARN: I'm sorry, I didn't write --
9 Thank you so much. Thank you so much. My name is Mie 10 Athearn. I'm from Fukushima, Japan. I'm walking to 11 Boston. I here today as -- I was thinking just join.
12 But, I want to just let you know we didn't know --
13 earthquake. We didn't know -- tsunami. And then it 14 happen -- accident of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power 15 Station. Then many Fukushima people now have to move.
16 We are losing our land. We have the evacuation.
17 Many people are suffering now -- radioactive exposure.
18 So, just let you know our truths. So, thank you so 19 much for giving me a chance to talk. Thank you.
20 Sir, may I -- so, I think it's a disaster 21 happen. So it's my opinion, but nuclear power station 22 I think why it exists in ours, I don't know why it 23 exists. It shouldn't. Must not exist only ours, so 24 please consider about this. I'd like to state about 25 that. Thank you so much. Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
46 1 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you very much for 2 those comments. I think we're all in agreement that 3 what happened in Japan is truly tragic and not just 4 the nuclear events, but the earthquake and tsunami and 5 the destruction that occurred there. So, I'm guessing 6 that I can speak for everybody in the room to say that 7 it's particularly moving to be reminded of what 8 happened there and I want to personally thank you for 9 sharing your personal story and providing those 10 comments here today. Thank you very much. And thanks 11 to all of you for those questions and comments.
12 I think it is important for us to move on 13 to the comment period. Like I mentioned earlier, to 14 ensure that everybody has an equal amount of time to 15 speak, I'd like to ask that everybody please try to be 16 concise and limit your comments to five-minutes. What 17 I'd like to do is call on people in sequence based on 18 the yellow cards that you've registered with. When I 19 call your name, if you could come up to the front 20 podium and use the microphone that I'm holding in my 21 hand to provide your comments. That I think will work 22 well to make sure that everybody has a chance to 23 speak.
24 I did notice during the first part of the 25 meeting that there were some people that came in after NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
47 1 we had started -- some people might have come in 2 through the stairway -- so if there's anybody that is 3 here and wishes to speak and provide comments, but you 4 have not yet filled out a yellow card, please do that 5 so that we can have a record of who spoke and that I 6 can have a sequence of who's going to speak.
7 So, having said that, the first speaker 8 will be Don Tilbury, followed by Max Abramson and Jim 9 Cotter will speak after Max.
10 DON TILBURY: Do I come up to the --
11 BRIAN ANDERSON: Mr. Tilbury -- yes, sir.
12 DON TILBURY: First of all, I'm against 13 nuclear power. So, that's a bad start -- right? Then 14 I'll make comments on the local situation.
15 But just simply -- how many people here 16 like the power plant at Niagara Falls? How about the 17 one -- the tidal one -- up in Canada? Well, this is a 18 good way to understand that there are other ways to 19 make electricity -- and safer ways. So, with that 20 said, I'll just go on here --
21 I feel that nuclear came, has been tried 22 and now the problems outweigh the benefits. First of 23 all, I sold thickness gauges -- nuclear thickness 24 gauges -- in my sales work. And I thought -- Boy, 25 this is great. You get a little pellet that would fit NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
48 1 into a drill and you'd be able to drill the rest of 2 your life with that one pellet. And then all the 3 other kind of possibilities -- that you could run some 4 of these things with a little nuclear pellet. Well, 5 it was okay for thickness gauges, but after hearing 6 all of the problems with it and so forth, I gave it 7 up. I didn't want to sell it anymore.
8 Okay -- now the issue that's already here.
9 The Seabrook Power Plant is here and whether I like 10 nuclear power -- that doesn't matter. Whether it 11 should continue to be licensed -- I am concerned about 12 that. I definitely feel that it is not. I just don't 13 understand -- my car that's sitting outside is 12-14 years old -- it's got 150,000 miles on it. Should I 15 just figure it's going to go another 12-years? To me, 16 that's a simple comparison perhaps, but I feel that 17 with all the problems that have come up and all of the 18 things that you're trying to do to keep it going -- it 19 just doesn't make sense at all in my mind. Now, some 20 of the things about this -- when the Seabrook Plant 21 was built, the population density here was a lot less.
22 It's probably three times that it was 20-years ago.
23 So, does the density enter into your equation now --
24 as you work out this next 20-years? I should think it 25 would.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
49 1 If it brings up evacuation, in the case of 2 a problem at the plant, both local residents and beach 3 population -- and if you go down to the beach on the 4 weekend and try to think -- what would happen if there 5 was some kind of nuclear problem? No way -- there 6 would be 100,000 people that would die.
7 And how much electricity is generated --
8 and here's another one of my questions. How much of 9 the electricity is generated here, stays here and how 10 much goes on to the grid? Now, the reason for asking 11 that is that it seems that the locals are at risk to 12 provide electricity to those elsewhere. Now, can I 13 get an answer on that? What percentage of the 14 electricity stays here and what percentage goes on the 15 grid? Well, that's it. That's how I feel. And I do 16 have a little drawing here that shows -- Making 17 Decisions. One of them is the nuclear and all these 18 others are various ways to make electricity -- wind, 19 solar, geothermal, tidal, ocean, waste-to-energy --
20 and that's what we should be looking at. I feel that 21 nuclear has come and should be gone. Let's get on 22 with the other sources.
23 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, Don, for those 24 comments. Max Abramson is the next speaker, followed 25 by Jim Cotter and Thomas Popik.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
50 1 MAX ABRAMSON: I already gave my comment.
2 I'm sorry, I thought that was the question period.
3 BRIAN ANDERSON: So, for the record --
4 during the question-and-answer period, Max spoke the 5 comments that he intended to provide here. Since we 6 already have that on the record, we'll take his 7 written comments and move on to the next speaker.
8 DON TILBURY: How much of the electricity 9 stays here and how much goes to the grid?
10 BRIAN ANDERSON: Sir, for the comment 11 period -- NRC staff doesn't have all of the technical 12 experts here that would be able to answer all of the 13 questions. So, for the comments, we're going to take 14 all the comments -- all comments that are received 15 here today and after this meeting are going to receive 16 a written response.
17 Jim Cotter is the next speaker.
18 JIM COTTER: My name is Jim Cotter. I'm 19 from Wakefield, Massachusetts. I have a consulting 20 company -- energy consulting company. We're looking 21 at oversights with respect to spent fuel rod pools.
22 One of the documents we're using is (51) rulemaking 23 petitions with respect to spent fuel rod pools that I 24 think was put together by the Foundation for Resilient 25 Scientists. I'm a managing partner in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
51 1 consultancy.
2 My background -- I studied nuclear physics 3 at Northeastern University; nuclear chemistry and 4 geology at Boston College; I was a nuclear weapons 5 crew chief during the Vietnam War; I'm the seismic 6 technician, 1968-69; I worked on Seabrook, Vernon, 7 Wiscasset, Pilgrim, Millstone, Nine-Mile, North Anna -
8 - where they just had the 5.8 earthquake; I did the 9 bore-hole studies for the reactor siting at Seabrook; 10 I went on to go for a doctorate in geo-physics at 11 Umass/Amherst, changed my mind and did a BA/MBA 12 Finance.
13 My concerns -- we're facing a potential 14 6.0 earthquake within our lifetimes. In the last 15 1000-years -- in 1050 we had a 7.2 estimated in the 16 St. Lawrence River Valley; 1638, estimated 6.8 between 17 Manchester and Concord; 1725, 1727, 5.6 plus for 18 Portsmouth; 1755, 6.4 estimated off Cape Ann. There 19 was a periodicity of approximately 250-years -- so 20 that's why they say the 6.0 is coming.
21 One of the concerns with respect to spent 22 fuel rods -- inadequate offsite power generation. In 23 the event of an extended loss of power for the 24 electrical grid, collapse in excess of seven-days --
25 which is one of the scenarios of the power generation NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
52 1 from diesel. Will the pool withstand a 6.0 2 earthquake?
3 Issues of corrosive piping at various 4 nuclear power plants -- including leaking tritium in 5 the Vernon, Vermont plant. How many other power 6 plants are leaking tritium? It's probably estimated 7 at 20 or more.
8 Petition for rulemaking -- I mentioned.
9 We are working on five-petitions for rulemaking to 10 address what we see as serious oversights -- or lack.
11 One may have been addressed is weather. Weather 12 moves west to east. Has anyone considered a 13 nor'easter storm with the spent fuel rod pool?
14 Fukushima -- I'll address that. It's what 15 is called a black swan event. It could not be 16 predicted -- approximately every 10,000 years. We 17 have a potential black swan here that's been 18 overlooked. One is a 6.0 in coincidence with a 19 volcano in the Canary Islands splitting up the middle.
20 In the last 50,000 years, it's put three escarpments 21 into the ocean creating a 100 to 150 foot tsunami 22 wave. There's documentation of sediments in Scotland 23 about 250-years ago of at least a 25-meter wave.
24 That's just my comments.
25 BRIAN ANDERSON: Jim -- thank you for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
53 1 those comments.
2 JIM COTTER: One more. I was stationed at 3 Misawa Air Force Base, about 150-miles north of 4 Fukushima in 1965 in the Air Force -- and we had at 5 least 10-20 earthquakes a day. The whole place just 6 shook.
7 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, sir, for those 8 comments. The next speaker will be Thomas Popik 9 followed by Debbie Grinnell.
10 Before Mr. Popik speaks, I wanted to take 11 the time to recognize two members of Senator Ayotte's 12 staff that are here today -- Simon Thomson and Mike 13 Scala -- in the back row. I wanted to make everybody 14 aware that they're here today. Thank you gentlemen 15 for joining us.
16 THOMAS POPIK: Hello. My name is Thomas 17 Popik. I'm with the Foundation for Resilient 18 Societies. I come here today with the concern of 19 long-term loss of outside power to nuclear power 20 plants. Many of you already know that nuclear power 21 plants -- almost all of them -- require connection to 22 a functioning electric grid to maintain operations.
23 If they lose that connection, there are backup diesel 24 generators, but they only have a seven-day -- in most 25 cases -- supply of fuel on site.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
54 1 For many of us, this is a major concern 2 should we experience a power outage in excess of 3 seven-days accompanied by difficulties in re-supplying 4 diesel fuel. So, these type of issues have been 5 examined at very high levels and I'm here today to 6 read some excerpts from a letter written by Dr. Bill 7 Graham, who was Chairman of the Electromagnetic Pulse 8 Commission -- that's a Congressionally charged 9 Commission -- as well as, previously, science adviser 10 to the President. So, I'm going to read some of this 11 letter, which was addressed to the Chairman of the NRC 12 --
13
Dear Chairman Jaczko,
I am writing you as 14 the Chairman of the Congressionally mandated 15 Commission to assess the threat to the United States 16 from electromagnetic pulse attack, as well as the 17 former science adviser to the President and director 18 to the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the 19 Executive Office of the President from 1986 to 1989.
20 This letter is to urge you as you form plans to 21 protect nuclear reactors from Fukushima-type disasters 22 where electric power to support nuclear plant 23 operations is lost for a protracted period to take 24 account of the very real threats from a great 25 geomagnetic storm and from a nuclear EMP attack.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
55 1 An EMP can be generated naturally by a 2 solar flare or coronal mass ejection from the sun, 3 which can produce a great geomagnetic storm on the 4 earth, similar to some aspects of an EMP attack from a 5 high-yield nuclear weapon with similar catastrophic 6 consequences. A great geomagnetic storm can cause 7 collapse of the electric grid and other critical 8 infrastructures -- transportation, communications, 9 banking and finance, food and water -- for a 10 protracted period of months or years.
11 Now, this is an important part here --
12 A study by the National Academy of 13 Sciences independently confirmed the EMP Commission's 14 assessment that if a great geomagnetic storm like the 15 1859 Carrington event recurred today, recovery of the 16 national electric power grid could take four to ten-17 years. Such an event could also cause operators of 18 the (108) nuclear plants in the United States to lose 19 the ability to perform a safe controlled shutdown of 20 their power reactors producing a Fukushima-like 21 disaster on a large-scale. Although great geomagnetic 22 storms are rare, estimated to occur about once a 23 century, most experts assess that we are probably 24 overdue.
25 Now, this isn't some fringe group that's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
56 1 coming up with a speculative scenario. These kind of 2 events have already occurred in recorded history.
3 There was another great geomagnetic storm in 1921.
4 This is a former science adviser. This letter is 5 copied to the current science adviser to the current 6 President, who also has written an extensive editorial 7 in the New York Times warning of this kind of 8 potential event.
9 Now, I'm speaking mostly to the NRC staff 10 here today. I urge you -- go back to your offices and 11 please talk about this. This is not speculative.
12 This is a real danger. When the probability of these 13 kind of events is not included in Environmental Impact 14 Statements, it affects the credibility of the NRC and 15 it puts all of us at risk. These kind of events can 16 be protected against, but not if we don't address them 17 in the regulatory process. Thank you.
18 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thomas -- thank you for 19 those comments. The next speaker is Debbie Grinnell 20 followed by Brian Stern and then Marcia Bowen.
21 DEBBIE GRINNELL: I'm Debbie Grinnell. I 22 live in West Newbury, Massachusetts within the 10-mile 23 EPC of Seabrook. I work for the C-10 Foundation. We 24 do the real-time radiation monitoring for the state of 25 Massachusetts. And I'm a founding Board member.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
57 1 The C-10 Foundation requests the NRC 2 suspend any decision on Seabrook Station's relicensing 3 until:
4 The NRC required Supplement 4 to GL 5 20/Individual Plant Examination of External Events for 6 Severe Accident Vulnerabilities is completed and 7 submitted by NextEra and approved by the NRC.
8 Secondly -- the NRC's license renewal 9 process completes a formal review of Seabrook's design 10 and licensing basis against current NRC requirements 11 and guidance. This has not been done yet.
12 Thirdly -- all NRC required seismic 13 upgrades for Seabrook Station are completed and those 14 reports made public.
15 Four -- in-depth engineering analysis to 16 determine the extent and structural weakness imposed 17 by Seabrook Station's ASR concrete degradation is 18 completed and all reports are made public. Seabrook's 19 ASR concrete degradation has been characterized as 20 Moderate and Severe in NRC inspection reports. The 21 extent of the structural damage and its impact to the 22 structural integrity of four safety related building 23 foundations is currently unknown. Seabrook's seismic 24 vulnerability cannot be determined until the 25 structural weakness imposed by the ASR concrete NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
58 1 degradation of these safety related foundations and 2 other plant areas susceptible to ASR degradation is 3 determined and integrated into Seabrook's updated 4 Seismic Risk Analysis.
5 Due to the unknown degree of structural 6 weakness imposed by the concrete, NextEra cannot 7 provide reasonable assurance that they are operating 8 within their current license. Therefore, the NRC must 9 suspend NextEra's application for a license extension 10 until: both in-depth assessments are completed; 11 upgrades are done; and the structural integrity of all 12 buildings is determined and assured for 40-years.
13 The NRC must aggressively undertake staff 14 requests for additional information concerning the 15 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives review of 16 Seabrook Station.
17 So, I would like to know when all of that 18 is completed and there's resolution to the seismic 19 risk -- Seabrook's vulnerability -- and the concrete -
20 - the extent of the concrete issue. That I know we 21 have a suspension at the moment, but somehow the 22 Safety suspension does not seem to stop the process of 23 this Environmental Impact. It seems to be considered 24 a separate issue. They're integrated.
25 After the tragic events at Fukushima in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
59 1 Japan and the recent earthquake in Virginia -- on 2 September 1, 2011, the NRC has requested operators of 3 all (104) commercial reactors to conduct new 4 assessments of their facility's vulnerability to 5 earthquake damage. Plants have been given up to two-6 years to complete these assessments. Until these 7 assessments are done, individual plant risk will be 8 unknown and the NRC will not know what upgrades to 9 require. According to the U.S. geological survey 10 maps, Seabrook's seismic risk level is described as 11 Moderate.
12 Unfortunately, the NRC's application to 13 renew the license of an existing reactor does not 14 entail a formal review of the reactor's design and 15 licensing basis against current NRC requirements and 16 guidance. Therefore, shortcomings are not identified 17 that would have required upgrades. However, now --
18 post-Fukushima and the earthquake in Virginia -- the 19 NRC Task Force has recommended upgrading seismic and 20 flooding design basis for every nuclear plant in this 21 country. But here's the sad history of the NRC 22 concerning this issue -- as early as 1996, the NRC 23 established new seismic regulations for new site 24 application, but these regulations were not applied to 25 existing sites.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
60 1 Since 1996, the NRC has also established 2 interim staff guidance, but only for the new reactor 3 reviews. In 2005, the NRC requested applications for 4 new reactors -- often proposed for the same sites as 5 existing reactors -- include earthquake risk 6 assessments that were worse than previously understood 7 in several cases and suggested some existing plants 8 could be in jeopardy -- that was 2005. In 2007, the 9 NRC staff established interim guidance in three areas 10 related to seismic issues: high frequency ground 11 motion; winter precipitation loads on the roof of 12 structures; and seismic margin analysis based on 13 probabilistic risk assessment. Again, these pertained 14 only to new sites.
15 For nearly a decade, the NRC has known 16 that the seismic risk to nuclear plants in the eastern 17 two-thirds of the U.S. was greater and existing plants 18 had outdated protection against seismic and flooding 19 hazards, but took no action.
20 It is our understanding that the NRC 21 establishes renewal regulations based on its 22 determination that existing regulatory processes are 23 adequate to ensure that the licensing basis of 24 currently operating U.S. nuclear power plants provides 25 and maintains an adequate level of safety. Renewal of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
61 1 Seabrook's license must be suspended as the NRC has 2 known the seismic risks were greater for existing 3 plants for a decade. Valuable time has been lost as 4 the NRC has known for years that existing regulatory 5 processes were inadequate to assure an adequate level 6 of safety and has taken no action.
7 That ends my comment.
8 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you for those 9 comments, Debbie. The next speaker will be Brian 10 Stern followed by Marcia Bowen and then Steven 11 Athearn.
12 BRIAN STERN: My name is Brian Stern. In 13 your introductory remarks, you state that the public 14 comment is very important. I believe that it is and I 15 appreciate it, but I also think that the process is 16 flawed for the lack of public comment on the safety 17 portion. I understand that this meeting is limited to 18 the environmental issues and that the Safety 19 Evaluation Plan is not going to be subjected to this 20 type of local hearing.
21 I think that the process is also flawed in 22 that the topic is mired in technological issues and 23 regulatory issues that are beyond the public's 24 abilities to address. If we were dealing with a 25 hazardous waste site -- which of course are of great NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
62 1 environmental concern, but may pale compared to 2 radiological issues -- the public could receive a 3 technical assistance grant to be able to hire 4 technical assistance to help them through the 5 technological issues. In the nuclear field, there is 6 -- in the NRC issues -- there is no similar TAG grant 7 available, so you're relying upon the good graces of 8 people to wade through hundreds of pages of technical 9 documents to try to participate in this process. I've 10 done my best, but I think it's a difficult process and 11 I think it's flawed in those regards.
12 In reading through the documents, I have 13 come across the phrase used by the NRC of `unavoidable 14 adverse impacts'. I'm shocked to hear that. This 15 phrase is used in terms of "emissions and release of 16 chemical and radiological constituents from the 17 plant". There are chemical and radiological 18 constituents released from the plant. That's 19 acknowledged. That's 100% true. There's no question 20 about it. And they are termed to be unavoidable 21 adverse impacts. They're accepted. That's what comes 22 along with it -- comes along with the plant. That 23 turns the entire issue on its head. The matter is a 24 question of licensing. That does not make it 25 unavoidable. It's completely avoidable. How can you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
63 1 take the issue as to whether or not it's safe and say 2 -- Well, these just come along with the plants, so 3 it's unavoidable. The issue is -- it should not be 4 licensed if these are avoidable adverse impacts, which 5 they are. The alternative is to not extend the 6 license.
7 We can look at these adverse impacts in a 8 number of areas. In the groundwater, there is an 9 acknowledged tritium leak. There is tritium in the 10 groundwater. The EIS states that in order to control 11 the tritium in the groundwater, there is water being 12 pumped from the ground to the rate of 32,000 gallons a 13 day for tritium plume control. That water, of course, 14 would have an effect on the local groundwater and 15 there is nothing in the report that I saw -- but 16 again, I'm skimming through hundreds of pages -- that 17 addresses the effect on local groundwater supplies.
18 Nor does it predict the effect on local groundwater 19 supplies as we go out 40-years.
20 Water becomes one of the key limited 21 resources we're going to face in the future. That's 22 pretty accepted wisdom. Water is gold and it will be 23 gold in the future and 32,000 gallons a day now -- the 24 plant was not designed to leak tritium. What are the 25 predictions for an increase in the rate of tritium NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
64 1 being leaked? The plant has already been increased in 2 its Megawatts thermal and net electrical capacity -- I 3 think by about 12%. And what is the increase going to 4 potentially be in the future or not? The plant is 5 running hotter than it was initially licensed for.
6 What is the corroding material or something that's 7 happening for the tritium release and these are not 8 going to be linear degradations in plants.
9 So, I've not seen in the report the 10 projection of what the tritium release will be in the 11 future. What the rate of groundwater pumping will be 12 in the future. How long will that groundwater need to 13 be pumped after decommissioning? So, I think there's 14 a big failure in the report in that regard.
15 The groundwater -- 32,000 gallons a day --
16 that's being pumped from the plant is being put into 17 the water discharged out to the ocean. I was shocked 18 to hear that. I don't think most of the public knows 19 that. Nor do I think that the fishermen or 20 recreational people know that either. We have an 21 enormous aquatic resource here that also does not stay 22 local. Fish, shellfish -- whatever it may be -- move 23 and water moves. There's dilution, but I did not see 24 in the report what's being done to warn the public of 25 the discharge of tritium in that area and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
65 1 concentrations.
2 I've not seen anything that assesses a 3 bioaccumulation or long-term effect of tritium. I've 4 not seen anything in the report talking about warning 5 people -- warning fishermen. I have not seen anything 6 where the fishermen that concentrate in that area --
7 or lobster traps in that area -- to test what's caught 8 in that area or to test that the health of people that 9 are regularly consuming resources from that area of 10 the discharge of the pipe. So, I think that there are 11 flaws or gaps or omissions in the Draft SEIS with 12 regards to the tritium and the groundwater leak.
13 BRIAN ANDERSON: Brian, I'll ask that you 14 take just one more minute to finish up your comments.
15 BRIAN STERN: I would ask for more time to 16 speak. I'm trying to be concise. Each of my topics 17 have a number of -- I'd like to move on now to air 18 quality.
19 BRIAN ANDERSON: Brian, there are a lot of 20 other people that have signed up to speak. I want to 21 make sure that everybody has equal time. At the end, 22 if you're not able to finish in the next minute, I'm 23 happy to let you finish if there's more time left in 24 the meeting.
25 BRIAN STERN: If you prefer that I will --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
66 1 you're asking me to limit my remarks to another minute 2 -- I'll do so, but I'll ask then a chance to speak 3 again at the end and have an opportunity to say my 4 remarks.
5 BRIAN ANDERSON: That's fine, thank you.
6 BRIAN STERN: With regard to air quality -
7 - again, they're treated as unavoidable adverse 8 impacts. There is a radiological environmental 9 monitoring plan that I think is not adequate or if it 10 is adequate it does not meet its objectives. The air 11 quality is determined to be within limits based upon 12 limited monitoring on-site and the off-site monitoring 13 is not with regards to radiological components. I do 14 not think that the air quality is adequately tested.
15 I think that it is a very reasonable cost to have 16 real-time monitoring in a number of areas within New 17 Hampshire. I know that the C-10 group is doing it out 18 of their own budget. You would assume that NextEra 19 could handle it in their budget and that the NRC would 20 require it as part of the Radiological Environmental 21 Monitoring Program that's imposed on the licensee.
22 Without that data, I don't see how the 23 Draft SEIS can pass off on the air quality as not 24 impacted, when the data is not collected sufficiently.
25 And then to the extent that it is collected and they NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
67 1 do find radiological releases in the air, they're 2 called unavoidable adverse impacts.
3 I'd like to just finish before I turn the 4 mic over -- if I'm going to go over a minute -- to 5 just finish on the air quality issue, then I can pick 6 it up later on other issues.
7 I understand that radiological releases 8 into the air are considered acceptable based upon the 9 nature of the gases that are emitted, but I also 10 understand that those gases then further breakdown to 11 Strontium and Cesium. I did not see in the Draft SEIS 12 any discussion of that fact and the acknowledgment or 13 evaluation of the air releases -- what they break down 14 into further components and if that's done, I think it 15 will find that the components that they further 16 breakdown into -- the Strontium and Cesium -- have 17 higher health risks than are acknowledged in the 18 report.
19 And I would like an opportunity after this 20 to continue, since I'm being stopped at this point.
21 BRIAN ANDERSON: Brian, thank you for 22 those comments. Just as a reminder to everybody --
23 this meeting is not the only avenue to provide 24 comments. NRC staff will certainly take spoken 25 comments at this meeting and a session again tonight, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
68 1 but today is not your only chance and this meeting is 2 not your only chance. As the staff discussed earlier, 3 there are ways to provide written comments 4 electronically or by conventional mail.
5 So, if there's more to say than you're 6 able to get in during the comment period of these 7 meetings, NRC staff will continue to take comments 8 outside of this meeting and for other times.
9 The next speaker is Marcia Bowen --
10 MARCIA BOWEN: I'm Marcia Bowen and I 11 [indiscernible] --
12 BRIAN ANDERSON: Okay. Thank you, Marcia.
13 The next speaker is Steven Athearn -- am I saying 14 that right?
15 STEVEN ATHEARN: You're saying it 16 correctly.
17 BRIAN ANDERSON: And Mary Ross will be 18 after Steven.
19 STEVEN ATHEARN: Hi. I'm, as I mentioned 20 earlier, walking to Boston to the Japanese consulate 21 with my wife who's from Fukushima. She spoke earlier 22 at the end. She would like to share with you what her 23 immediate family and her nephews and nieces, who are 24 young people, are going through. They're living with 25 concern that they're breathing everyday and eating and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
69 1 drinking radioactive isotopes to be incorporated into 2 their bodies. I know that you understand the issue 3 between internal/external exposure, but I think that 4 the internal exposure has not been -- as I understand 5 it -- focused on in the general models of radiation 6 exposure and public health.
7 Doing this walk -- I'm just so busy 8 organizing it, I haven't had a lot of time to read --
9 but there's one aspect that I think I am fairly 10 knowledgeable about and that is the energy situation 11 in general, which I studied for about three or four 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> a day for about four-years up until about two-13 years ago. Somebody said that this is outside the 14 scope and I'm not sure if that's because it's 15 considered a Safety issue, but the general finite 16 nature of the energy resources that we depend upon 17 cannot be outside the scope of the safety of nuclear 18 power plants. This may not be an issue of the impact 19 of a plant on the environment, but of the impact of 20 the environment on the plant. Which is in the same 21 category as the natural disasters that can happen.
22 But, if you look at the Middle East, for 23 example, which is supposed to contain 60% of the 24 world's oil -- I think it's more like 45% if you drop 25 that by at least 300-million barrels as the highest NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
70 1 Saudi expert on their production says that we should 2 reduce that -- he's talking about the OPEC-5 because 3 he doesn't want to -- he tends to avoid talking about 4 Saudi Arabia specifically. But, there were some 5 WikiLeak documents that recently surfaced describing 6 what he had told U.S. intelligence and it was said 7 that no U.S. official had commented on this. That 8 isn't true. George Bush -- when he visited Saudi 9 Arabia in January 2008 -- said that basically we 10 really can't ask them to raise their production 11 because they're already producing as much as they can.
12 Don Evans said the same thing in 2006. That was not 13 the thing that remained, after he went to Saudi 14 Arabia, in the media -- it doesn't matter what part of 15 the spectrum you were on, you didn't hear that part 16 unless you were concerned specifically about energy.
17 But these resources are finite. The oil 18 resource is going into decline now. We're evidently 19 at a bumpy plateau, but we could expect -- the only 20 thing we can expect rationally, if the Middle East can 21 no longer raise its production, is that the world is 22 at peak oil. And world production will be declining 23 just as the production of many countries already has, 24 such as the United States, which began in 1970. The 25 rate at which the world production declines is not the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
71 1 rate at which our ability to import oil will decline.
2 That will decrease faster because countries that are 3 able to export tend to meet their own needs first and 4 those are growing, especially when oil is expensive 5 and the wealth of those countries is going up. But if 6 you look at the other resources -- the situation is 7 not so great either.
8 Natural gas recently was viewed as going 9 into decline. In fact, conventional natural gas 10 production has peaked in 1973. We surprisingly 11 discovered shale gas and we've had the shale gas 12 revolution and all of a sudden there's no problem in 13 sight. It's just that our shortsightedness in energy, 14 which you're probably familiar with.
15 But in the case of coal, which supplies 16 most of our electric generation -- it takes (3) mile-17 and-a-half long train cars every day to supply Plant 18 Scherer in Georgia and that's sub-bituminous coal.
19 We're already in decline of the good coal -- the coal 20 that has high energy density. The gentleman over here 21 talked about the loss of external power -- we've got 22 to consider the situation when we think about that 23 issue and we've got to consider the impact on the 24 economy. Almost all of us are -- we've lived in a 25 situation where all of these things are growing.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
72 1 I looked at one of these oil production 2 curves -- of course, the future is a little bit 3 uncertain, but in general terms it's pretty clear.
4 But, I realized that I was born in 1966 and if I live 5 another 10 or 15-years -- more than half of the total 6 oil resource that will ever be consumed -- ever --
7 will have been consumed in my lifetime. That's the 8 lifetime of one individual, which shows how short --
9 we think of 20 or 30-years as a long time just because 10 we're people, but the situation is -- it's very --
11 it's incredibly short. If you look at it over a scale 12 of 1000-years, it would just be a spike that went 13 straight up and straight down and that's it.
14 And our financial system is geared towards 15 growth -- we need to have growth in order to prevent 16 collapse. But if our society collapses, we cannot 17 guarantee the safety of nuclear reactors. We tend to 18 think only in terms of our needs -- what we need. We 19 project that we need this much energy or this much 20 electricity, but if we want to be the least bit 21 realistic, we've got to think about what we can 22 actually expect to happen.
23 So, I would urge you to -- it absolutely 24 cannot be outside the scope. Maybe it's outside of 25 the scope of a narrowly defined environmental effect, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
73 1 but in terms of the safety of operating nuclear power 2 plants after 2030 -- if oil declines at 5% a year, 3 it's going to be half in 14-years, which is before 4 2030. We could be in a very different society by that 5 time. We might even be in a collapsed society. To 6 not discuss this risk -- this is not something that's 7 going to happen once in a thousand years. This is 8 going to happen.
9 Oh, by the way, uranium is also finite and 10 nuclear plants are using -- the uranium mines are 11 supplying only 78% of the need of nuclear plants 12 worldwide. That's up from about 50% since Kazakhstan 13 came online. But uranium supply is also finite.
14 BRIAN ANDERSON: Steven, I'll ask that you 15 finish up your comment.
16 STEVEN ATHEARN: I'll wrap it up. Okay.
17 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you.
18 STEVEN ATHEARN: So, we need to look at 19 the contingencies for what can happen to our society 20 when energy declines. That is a real risk and it does 21 impact -- it has obvious implications for our ability 22 to run nuclear power plants for sure -- the most 23 complex thing around.
24 I think wind has its clear limitations. I 25 think offshore wind in the Gulf of Maine does have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
74 1 some hopeful possibilities. But if that program 2 fails, you don't get the same consequences as you do 3 if a nuclear power plant explodes. So, thank you very 4 much.
5 BRIAN ANDERSON: Steven, thank you for 6 those comments. The next speaker is Mary Ross and 7 after Mary, William Harris will speak.
8 MARY ROSS: Thank you. I will be very 9 brief. I have some questions. How can NextEra 10 justify the Seabrook Station 10-mile Emergency 11 Planning Zone or the 50-mile ingestion pathway when we 12 know how widespread contamination can and would be 13 given an accidental release of radioactivity?
14 We know that weapons testing in Nevada 15 contaminated our entire country. We know that we have 16 received and continue to receive fallout from 17 Fukushima. How can NextEra say that protective 18 measures are adequate for the immediate and greater 19 communities? How can they justify the continued 20 operation of an aging plant that has met its design 21 age limit?
22 BRIAN ANDERSON: Mary -- thank you for 23 those questions and comments. William --
24 WILLIAM HARRIS: Good afternoon. My name 25 is William R. Harris. I'm speaking today as an NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
75 1 individual. I live within the 10-mile evacuation zone 2 in Newburyport, Massachusetts. But I expect to do 3 joint comments together with Thomas Popik for the 4 Foundation for Resilient Societies before your October 5 26th deadline.
6 What Tom Popik covered in his remarks were 7 the general problems from geomagnetic storms, which 8 are natural occurring events involving the weather of 9 the sun. So, it's not exempted from your duty to 10 consider under your enemy-of-the-state doctrine, which 11 is probably obsolete -- that's a 1967 doctrine that 12 the NRC applies. It turns out the same mitigation 13 measures for the natural occurring solar weather will 14 protect against nuclear explosions -- man-made nuclear 15 explosions, which the press suggests could be in the 16 offing if we have additional proliferation to Iran, 17 etc.
18 So, I'm just going to summarize briefly a 19 table I prepared -- a two-page table. But, before I 20 go issue by issue, I'd like to point out that although 21 there's a generic rulemaking that Mr. Popik presented 22 on March 14th -- I commented -- its docket 50-96 --
23 because of his very careful PRA Level 3 analysis, we 24 actually have a site-specific analysis of the risks 25 from geomagnetic storms -- plant by plant -- for all NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
76 1 (104) nuclear plants. (35) of those plants have 2 higher risks than Seabrook, but I believe it is a 3 fundamental flaw of the Draft Supplemental 4 Environmental Impact Statement to not do the site-5 specific analysis of this risk for Seabrook because we 6 have modeling that shows effects that are special and 7 site-specific for Seabrook that increase the risks and 8 therefore changed the cost-benefit analysis for SAMA 9 analysis -- whether you have a cost effective remedy.
10 In particular, Seabrook is pretty far 11 north -- latitude matters. If you're near the North 12 Pole -- you have higher risks of geomagnetic storms 13 with high surges -- what are called E-3 surges. If 14 you're near the South Pole you have that. We've had 15 major outages in South Africa in 2003. In addition to 16 latitude, we have three other specific effects because 17 of Seabrook being where it is and the transmission 18 grid being the way it is. In particular, we have an 19 east/west transmission grid -- one of the 345kV lines 20 is east/west. It turns out that magnifies the effects 21 of solar storms.
22 We have a second effect -- that Seabrook 23 is at the end of the line. When the line ends, you 24 get a bigger surge.
25 Third effect -- we have the ocean right NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
77 1 next to Seabrook. The modeling that was done at Oak 2 Ridge National Laboratory and that Tom Popik has done 3 shows that's another important effect.
4 Then we also have the effect of the rock 5 that transmits current below the surface of the 6 ground. We have the granite of New Hampshire also 7 compounds and exasperates these effects. So we have 8 site-specific impacts. They have not been analyzed in 9 this draft SEIS. They are significant.
10 I believe -- and Mr. Popik's analysis 11 shows in a PRA Model 3 analysis where there could be 12 roughly an expected loss of 2000 people -- that we 13 have the highest risk for the Seabrook plant, which is 14 an above-average risk compared to the average of the 15 (104) plants, from the effects of geomagnetic storms.
16 The risk is two orders of magnitude greater than any 17 other risk analyzed in this Draft Supplemental EIS.
18 So to leave out the overwhelmingly largest risk would 19 be irresponsible.
20 In addition, it appears that almost all 21 these risks can be mitigated at very low-cost by cost 22 effective mitigation measures. If you don't analyze 23 those measures you will not mitigate those measures.
24 Then we will have the needless kind of common fault 25 failure that the Miller Task Force has told us all the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
78 1 NRC's trying to avoid in the future.
2 So, it's not a tsunami that causes a loss 3 of backup power. It would be a solar storm that takes 4 out much of the grid -- the large transformers 5 especially vulnerable -- and then you have the loss of 6 diesel power on-site because you're not sheltering the 7 diesel engines -- the pumps. If you go to off-site 8 gas stations -- those pumps may be out. But at 9 relatively low cost these can be sheltered.
10 So, let me run through briefly the (9) 11 issues that I propose and will comment on detail. So 12 the first is to provide on-site backup power that's 13 designed to cope with electromagnetic events. Mr.
14 Popik suggests an organic Rankine cycle engine. It 15 could use the waste heat from the power plants. You 16 can get 4kW for $80,000. This is cheap in terms of --
17 the benefit cost analysis shows it's a benefit of 18 (110) -- if you take the NRC's value for loss of life 19 -- that's extraordinary.
20 So, if you don't take the Oak Ridge 21 National Lab estimate, which is new and significant 22 information you should consider from 2010, which is a 23 1% chance per year -- the expected large magnitude 24 event every 100-years, let's say it's every 200-years 25 -- and don't take Tom Popik's modeling, which is a 50%
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
79 1 likelihood of restoration of power after loss of 2 outside power. If it's 90%, you still have a positive 3 return of (11). These are mitigation measures that 4 really need to be done.
5 I'd like also to say that Mr. Popik -- the 6 Oak Ridge analysis was criticized in a July 20 filing 7 by the Nuclear Energy Institute -- a trade institute -
8 - they said that Mr. Popik didn't really understand 9 what they did. But they utilized two national experts 10 on electromagnetic pulse -- a Mr. Kappenman of 11 Minnesota and a William Rudasky of California, who are 12 national experts on these issues. He had them review 13 his modeling as well. So, it's inexcusable not to 14 consider this significant risk that is magnified at 15 the Seabrook site. Second, there's a possibility --
16 BRIAN ANDERSON: Excuse me, William -- I'm 17 sorry to interrupt. If you could wrap up in the next 18 minute. I'll allow you the same --
19 WILLIAM HARRIS: Okay.
20 BRIAN ANDERSON: -- if there's time at the 21 end of the meeting.
22 WILLIAM HARRIS: There are other backup 23 measures -- basically backup batteries. If you have 24 battery chargers it's important to shelter them. The 25 switches are vulnerable. These are very low-cost NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
80 1 measures. So, I've identified the measures and some 2 references to what can be done.
3 To summarize the site-specific risk for 4 Seabrook with Mr. Popik's analysis -- the risk for the 5 next 19-years of licensure of long-term loss of 6 outside power -- 2011 to 2030 -- is 17.4%; the 7 probability of water boil-off -- 8.7% for the spent 8 fuel pool; probability of zirconium fire -- 4.3%.
9 When you extend the license 20-years, you end up with 10 roughly a 1 in 12 chance of a zirconium fire at 11 Seabrook. And this is avoidable at very low cost by 12 just the appropriate backup power -- some of which is 13 recommended in the Miller report.
14 So, it's very important that you include 15 this significant risk because it's site-specific and 16 it's new information and there're low-cost measures to 17 remediate it. Thank you.
18 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you for those 19 comments. The next speaker is Raymond Shadis. After 20 Raymond will be -- I believe it's Connie Wilkins and 21 Doug Bogen after that.
22 RAYMOND SHADIS: I just have a few brief 23 comments and they largely have to do with process and 24 approach. First -- taking off from what Mr. Paul 25 Gunter said about the schedule -- investigation of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
81 1 lessons learned from Fukushima and so on and how they 2 might apply in license renewal. I'd like to comment 3 on one aspect of that asymmetrical approach where the 4 process goes forward at a set pace, but the 5 investigation on safety related and environmentally 6 related issues -- it doesn't keep pace with the 7 process.
8 That is the effect that -- if you go ahead 9 at a careful methodical pace to investigate the 10 Fukushima issues and I really think that's 11 appropriate, then your findings -- your insights --
12 will not be available until after the proceeding is 13 closed. I've heard it from NRC on the national level 14 and also at our local annual site assessment meetings 15 that -- We're studying this and we're going to put 16 into effect whatever measures are necessary to address 17 the lessons learned from Fukushima. Well, all well 18 and good, except for its effect on the hearing rights 19 of the citizens and the states.
20 Well, if the opportunity for a hearing has 21 expired and the hearing itself is completed -- You can 22 always bring your concerns to us via the 2.206 process 23 or if it's a regulation that is at issue -- the 2.802 24 where you can do a rulemaking, whatever. The problem 25 with the 2.206 process is that there are no standards NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
82 1 for judgment or decision. The director's decision can 2 be arbitrary and capricious. It is not reviewable.
3 You cannot appeal a 2.206 decision. You have no 4 rights of discovery. You have really no right to 5 rebut. You cannot examine witnesses. There are none 6 of the trappings of a real adjudicatory process.
7 So, what you're doing -- if you delay 8 decisions that would affect the material issues in a 9 hearing until after the hearing is over -- is you take 10 away those hearing rights. And in effect, I guess the 11 solution would be to grant the petitions that have 12 been filed to say -- Please suspend the hearing 13 process until these considerations are processed --
14 the Fukushima lessons learned.
15 Or offer a second opportunity for hearing 16 after those things are registered. I'm hoping that 17 I'm communicating the asymmetry here. You really are 18 running two different time schedules.
19 The second part of my comments is 20 specifically on the nature of the environmental study 21 that you provided. And again the topic is time --
22 time and trending. I'm going to take an example out 23 of the study. It would be section 8.4, which has to 24 do with Alternatives. Within that section there're --
25 all the considerations of alternatives are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
83 1 contemporary to 2010. That's the last date of any 2 number that's put in there. For example, in 2010 3 there were 35,000 Megawatts of wind capacity. Of 4 which, I've personal knowledge about -- 30,000 of that 5 was installed in the last 20-years, during which time, 6 of course, there were 0 Megawatts of new nuclear 7 installed. But, that's a comparison. That comparison 8 should be in there because it speaks to the viability 9 of wind and the lack of viability for new nuclear.
10 Now, I know you're promising you're going to build 11 some plants, but I haven't seen them yet. But we have 12 seen the wind come in.
13 The other part of this -- the part that's 14 missing because you can draw a progression -- in 2009 15 there were 9,000 some-odd Megawatts of new wind 16 installed -- wind capacity. That was up 40% from 17 2008. Okay? You can also almost start to build a 18 trend from that, but what's missing here is the trend 19 from 20-years ago for new wind capacity. Not only 20 that, you've got that motion -- the hand goes up. You 21 know, Bob Dylan said -- The times they are a-changing.
22 But he should've said -- The times they are a-23 changing and the rate at which the changes are taking 24 place is also increasing. This is true across the 25 board for alternatives. Your report doesn't consider NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
84 1 any of it. The other thing that's missing, which you 2 have in the SAMA considerations -- you've got a price 3 on human life -- a cost-benefit analysis. That's 4 there.
5 But, in your analysis of Alternatives --
6 there is little or no cost benefit analysis included.
7 And further, in terms of cost, there's no trending.
8 The price of installed solar has been going down. The 9 price of installed wind power has been going down.
10 There's no acknowledgment of that nor is there any 11 acknowledgement of the rate of change in the decline 12 of cost in these. And it's important because by doing 13 an early license renewal, you're put in the 14 preposterous position of trying to project out 20-15 years on this stuff. You know? If you went back 20-16 years -- and I have -- looking at all the DOE 17 projections and everything for Alternatives 20-years 18 ago -- in no way did they reflect the reality of 19 what's happening in the marketplace today.
20 And you're trying to analyze for the 21 period of extended operation -- you're forced to be 22 looking 20-years ahead. Without including some 23 trending. Without including trending on available 24 capacity, on construction of transmission lines, on 25 the cost of it. You've got nothing. I think the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
85 1 failure to include these completely invalidates your 2 entire section on Alternatives. You really need to go 3 back and talk to -- if you don't have the expertise at 4 the Agency -- by the way, I am disappointed that you 5 didn't bring experts to this meeting so that you could 6 have answered the questions that were asked earlier --
7 you might anticipate those. But if you don't have 8 experts in the Agency to go and get on and Google the 9 numbers, then go to your sister agencies -- go to DOE 10 or whoever and get the numbers. But they're not in 11 your report. So that's my criticism on that.
12 The other thing is that when the Fukushima 13 thing happened, we went right to the question -- the 14 NRC nationally and locally has been saying -- Well, 15 yes, but what are the chances that we're going to have 16 an earthquake and a tsunami on the East Coast of the 17 United States -- zero. Well, what we did is we went 18 to the computer and if you do it and you go to the 19 Maine Geodetic Survey at the state of Maine web site, 20 you will find that in the early part of the last 21 century -- I think it was 1924 -- there was a 4.2 22 earthquake and a consequent landslide on the Grand 23 Banks and it resulted in a tsunami that when it hit 24 the shores of Newfoundland and was driven up into the 25 bays -- narrowed in the bays -- put up waves in excess NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
86 1 of 95 feet. It's no joke and in geologic time, which 2 you're supposed to be working in, it's a wink of an 3 eye to yesterday.
4 So these are events that are now. Your 5 report really should be and I guess this is part of it 6 -- the comments -- but it should be a living document 7 and you should be updating it. We shouldn't be 8 looking at data from 2009 and data from 2010. And 9 certainly sterling events like the Fukushima event 10 should be a signal to go back to the drawing board and 11 revamp the document. Thank you very much.
12 BRIAN ANDERSON: Raymond -- thank you for 13 those comments. The next speaker is Connie Wilkins, 14 who will be followed by Doug Bogen and then Lee 15 Roberts.
16 CONNIE WILLIAMS: I'm Connie Williams from 17 -- sorry --
18 BRIAN ANDERSON: I'm sorry, Connie.
19 CONNIE WILLIAMS: -- from Kittery, Maine 20 and my concerns are around safety and the evacuation 21 process in the case there is an event. On summer 22 weekends, I avoid as much as possible getting into my 23 car in the Kittery, Maine area. One Saturday this 24 summer coming home from just a 10-minute trip to the 25 grocery store over to Portsmouth, it took me 45-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
87 1 minutes to come home. Any of you who will drive 2 around Route 95 in the summertime and you can see cars 3 stationary for long periods of time.
4 I'm concerned about the safety plans that 5 have been made and -- are they updated and what are 6 they? I used to live in Newbury, Massachusetts and 7 after Seabrook was built, regulations came out about 8 safety plans and evacuation.
9 Faculty at a private boarding school were 10 listed as being in charge of evacuating all the 11 students in the school. This was the first time the 12 faculty heard about that. No one was consulted. No 13 one was trained. I asked faculty how they responded 14 to this and what they would do. They said they would 15 do the natural thing -- they would go for their 16 families and get their families out of there. Not 17 only that, there is absolutely no means of 18 transportation to get the students out of there. So, 19 what I'm asking is -- what is the plan for evacuation?
20 In this area, the population has increased by 62%.
21 So, what is the written plan? Who is being trained to 22 help in this? Who is working the roadways for a 23 decent evacuation? Thank you.
24 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, Connie. I'm 25 sorry that I said your name wrong three times in a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
88 1 row. That's my reading problem. Doug Bogen and then 2 Lee Roberts.
3 DOUG BOGEN: For the record, my name is 4 Doug Bogen. I'm executive director of the Seacoast 5 Anti-Pollution League based near here in Exeter, New 6 Hampshire. We are one of the interveners on the 7 relicensing renewal. I was at the scoping session 8 about a year ago and I do have quite a few different 9 points to make. I may make more general comments 10 later, perhaps in the evening session.
11 But I do want to mention a few specific 12 things that didn't look right in reading -- my initial 13 reading of -- the SEIS. Just one general comment as I 14 think others have alluded to before -- the world has 15 really changed in the last year and it's changing 16 rapidly. I think probably too quickly for many of us.
17 I'm not just speaking of Fukushima. Obviously that 18 was a huge event on the world scene -- but regarding 19 renewable energy, the development of new sources, a 20 new approach to our energy development in this 21 country, but even more so in other countries -- in 22 Europe, China, you name it, perhaps more so than in 23 the U.S.
24 But we are facing very different 25 circumstances both in the risks that we face through NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
89 1 natural and unnatural disasters and also in the 2 opportunities for changing our energy system -- our 3 infrastructure -- and providing more safe, clean, 4 affordable power in the future. I may have more to 5 say on that later.
6 But I did want to speak to a number of key 7 points. In my comments in the scoping session, I did 8 say a lot about the effect of the environment on the 9 plant and in particular climate change impacts. I am 10 glad to see that you certainly have done some 11 research. There is quite a few words -- a number of 12 pages -- referring to climate impacts and the general 13 scene of climate change. But I did feel that it was 14 really kind of vague about the specific impacts on the 15 Seabrook plant.
16 You refer to the critical structures at 17 the plant being 20-feet above the mean tide and that 18 doesn't really square with the overall site -- at 19 least as far as U.S.G.S. is concerned -- it's much 20 lower than that. I'm glad to know perhaps that you 21 have your emergency generators and other things above 22 the water level, which of course, wasn't the case at 23 Fukushima.
24 But certainly it would be useful to know 25 regarding the rest of the site -- how high are the sea NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
90 1 walls, the waste storage height, the dry cask storage?
2 How high is that above sea level? The power lines --
3 the transformers -- as we saw the plants in the upper 4 Midwest -- on the Missouri River -- they were running 5 into great difficulties because their power lines 6 transformers were becoming inundated from water. It 7 would be better to have more than one sentence about 8 this because this is increasingly a greater concern 9 regarding future climate impacts.
10 Another point there is -- you do refer to 11 the U.N. IPCC estimates, which are now four to five-12 years old. The research on them was even older. It 13 should be noted that the IPCC is a consensus document.
14 It's very conservative. The most recent and I think 15 a growing consensus among climate scientists is that 16 the figures they are looking at -- projected with the 17 business as usual approach and our energy system --
18 leads to a doubling in sea level rise over their 19 initial estimates of 1 to 3 feet. It's now they're 20 talking 4 to 5 to even 6 feet of elevation change by 21 the end of this century. That's a huge difference and 22 I know there was a major report in May released in 23 Copenhagen -- I'm sure you can look up the references.
24 It got a lot of attention and it seems that it 25 behooves you to include that in your report. That's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
91 1 certainly the most recent science and it's been 2 discussed for several years now. So, again, if you go 3 4 or 5-years back, you're way in the past.
4 Just moving on to other air issues, I 5 guess. The atmosphere -- I noticed on the chart in 6 the copy I had that I had gotten online -- on page 4-7 46 you list a number of emission estimates and it 8 appears that there's a typo actually repeated 9 throughout the page of not using negative exponents.
10 I found this rather amazing. I don't do a lot of 11 scientific notation, but as far as I know, the figure 12 you give of 1.1 x 105 millisieverts, I believe that 13 works out to 10 sieverts, which as far as I understand 14 that's a lethal dose. I think you meant to the 15 negative fifth. So, I hope you go back and correct 16 those. That would get a lot of people very concerned, 17 I think. So, just one specific item.
18 Moving on to waste management. I was very 19 distressed that there didn't seem to be any discussion 20 about the increase -- I believe it would be about a 21 50% increase -- in total spent fuel that you would be 22 dealing with if you renew the license. Is there 23 enough room onsite? How much longer is that waste 24 going to be there? It's my understanding that, you're 25 looking at 2060/2070 -- obviously the country does not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
92 1 have a plan for the long-term final disposal of 2 storage of that waste. I understand you referred to 3 the Generic EIS on this, but it would be good to have 4 more than one line explaining what the story is there.
5 It's really pretty unclear when you say that --
6 excepting for off-site radioactive collection impacts.
7 Well, that's a pretty big deal.
8 A lot of us in this country would like to 9 know what those might be. It is our concern -- we are 10 all downwind and there should be some discussion of 11 how that waste gets off-site. My understanding is the 12 rail connection there is pretty much dead. It's 13 being, perhaps, converted into a rails to trails --
14 are you going to be taking it out on the highways? I 15 realize these are all issues that need to be addressed 16 anyway and they probably are generically, but it seems 17 like it's worth mentioning in the EIS itself.
18 Just moving on to tritium. There was some 19 mention earlier about this, but I would like to say 20 there's much more information in the SEIS than was 21 previously reported in news reports and anything else 22 I'd seen. I understand the industry is not required 23 to report this. It's a voluntary program. But, it 24 does appear to be worse than what was originally 25 presented. This is a problem that has been going on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
93 1 for over a decade now. I believe it was 1999 when the 2 initial -- when it was determined that there was a 3 leak. We don't know whether it happened sooner than 4 that because they weren't reporting it. Perhaps the 5 plant owners can tell us that, but it does appear that 6 there is more widespread contamination. In one point 7 on page 4-59, you say that -- the off-site 8 contamination wasn't observed. Well, I know most of 9 the off-site is the salt marsh -- if you're looking 10 down gradient -- so are you saying we didn't see it in 11 the seawater, we couldn't measure it in the seawater?
12 In general, it appears that your solution 13 --certainly the way you dispose of this or the plant 14 is disposing of this contaminated water -- is to send 15 it out the out-fall pipe and I understand that's the 16 regulatory approach that we use, but we need to accept 17 that the solution you're applying is dilution -- Well, 18 let's just put it out into a larger body of water and 19 it'll sort of go away. I understand that's the 20 regulatory regime you're under, but there's real 21 questions about whether that makes sense given that 22 there's no safe level of radiation. We really need to 23 be keeping in mind -- I'm sure you all are very aware 24 of the BEIR VII report that there's no safe levels of 25 radiation. However small you may say the air NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
94 1 emissions, the water emissions are, the fact is they 2 do stay in the environment -- the half-life of tritium 3 is over 12-years. These other elements that are 4 coming out, which are not very specified in the report 5 -- we'd like to know more about the disposition of 6 them. Not just that -- Oh, you couldn't measure them 7 in the fish or the water or the soil. We need a much 8 more thorough explanation of that.
9 I suspect my time is almost up. But I do 10 hope you will be able to make some of these changes 11 and I probably will have written comments later. But 12 we do think that there are a number of ways that this 13 report can be improved. That the information should 14 be more tight and that we have a better sense of what 15 you're really talking about here because it's our 16 future. We have to live with it and when we're 17 looking 20, 30, 40-years down the road -- we want good 18 projections not just reliance on past performance. We 19 need to be able to know what the impact will be. So, 20 I think I'll leave it at that. Thank you.
21 BRIAN ANDERSON: Doug -- thank you for 22 those comments. The next speaker is Lee Roberts and 23 we will then have Paul Gunter speak.
24 PAUL GUNTER: I'm speaking tonight. I 25 didn't request to speak this afternoon.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
95 1 BRIAN ANDERSON: I see that now, Paul.
2 Thank you. I'll save this card for tonight.
3 LEE ROBERTS: Thanks. Hi, I've already 4 spoken my piece, I realize. So, I will be very brief.
5 I just want to say, as a layman, that I feel like 6 what I've heard today tells me not only should we even 7 consider this extension of the license -- as far as I 8 feel, after hearing all that I heard today and I came 9 in here concerned, but now I'm multi-concerned --
10 many, many worries. I feel as if everything should 11 stop. That we're in danger now -- far more than any 12 of us had thought. Never mind with an extension.
13 There are just so many problems we've heard about 14 today. It just doesn't seem that it makes any sense 15 for us to have this even operating until all of these 16 issues have been resolved. Thanks.
17 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, Lee. The next 18 speaker is Sandra Koski. Did I get any of that right, 19 Sandra?
20 SANDRA KOSKI: Yes. Sandra Koski from 21 Newton, New Hampshire. I've been in the area for most 22 of my life and 35-years ago was involved in some of 23 the civil disobedience -- even under the threat of 24 having our children taken away from us because we were 25 trying to protect their environment. The one thing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
96 1 that I have always focused on and all I really needed 2 to know is there is no place for the radioactive 3 waste. It's now being stored at Seabrook, which they 4 said was never going to happen. It's a nuclear waste 5 dump. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
6 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you. Thank you, 7 Sandra. Sandra was the last speaker that I had a 8 registration card for. I'd like to double-check and 9 make sure that there's no one in the room that filled 10 out a card to speak this afternoon that I might have 11 missed? If you indicated on your card that you would 12 either like to speak this evening or if you wanted to 13 speak in both sessions, you do not need to fill out a 14 second card when you come back this evening. We'll 15 keep those cards and have you on the list for speakers 16 tonight. Yes, Sir.
17 PAUL GUNTER: I'd like to defer the spot 18 that you gave me to Mr. Brian Stern.
19 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you for that 20 perfect segue. There is extra time left in the 21 meeting. I know that Brian had asked for additional 22 time to finish some comments. And I had one other 23 gentleman that also asked for an extra two-minutes to 24 provide his extra comments. Since the meeting agenda 25 can accommodate that, what I'd like to do is have Mr.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
97 1 Tilbury get two-minutes to provide his last comments 2 and then we'll finish with five more minutes to Brian 3 Stern.
4 Mr. Tilbury --
5 DON TILBURY: Thank you very much. This 6 had nothing to do with just your nuclear power plant.
7 Just in listening to everything, it occurred to me 8 that at our men's meeting at our church, most of the 9 men were in their 80's. We had a seventh grader that 10 came and talked to us. All he said, very briefly --
11 as I look around -- he said -- I see that when you 12 were my age, there was no nuclear power. There was no 13 TV. There was no cell phone. None of that. I can 14 only imagine that when I'm your age, I don't know what 15 it's going to be, but it will be all different. And I 16 thought that was very, very deep. So, even what we do 17 here might be all different -- there may be a whole 18 new way to have energy later on -- who knows? Nobody 19 knows. Thank you.
20 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you for those 21 comments. Brian --
22 BRIAN STERN: Thank you. I'm Brian Stern.
23 I'd like to pick up on the issue of aquatic resources 24 -- the acknowledged impact on winter flounder, rainbow 25 smelt and kelp is Large. As I read the Draft SEIS, it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
98 1 talks about mitigation of the impact to those. And as 2 I read it, the mitigation is that NextEra would 3 monitor the effect on the species of concern in other 4 locations, such as the transmission lines. I know 5 that doesn't make sense, but that's how I read it.
6 Certainly, correct me if I'm wrong on that. But it 7 seems to be that there's actually no mitigation itself 8 for the impact on rainbow smelt, winter flounder and 9 kelp.
10 As I read again the Cumulative Impact on 11 these -- it then concludes that the Cumulative Impact 12 from all of the other factors, including Seabrook, 13 then makes it a Small impact rather than a Large 14 impact. I reject the premise that a species of 15 concern can absorb the additional impact of the power 16 plant since it already is stressed by these other 17 factors and that looking at the cumulative factors is 18 a poor excuse for accepting the impact. The Draft EIS 19 recognizes that the species are very important to the 20 area. They're very big in the area and impacted 21 greatly. There's letters from state and federal 22 agencies talking about the importance of the fishery 23 in this area and they expressed great concern for the 24 impact. So, you have the agencies charged with 25 monitoring the marine fisheries expressing concern, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
99 1 yet in the NRC's conclusion, over those experts, are 2 that it's -- I guess -- another unavoidable adverse 3 impact.
4 I'd like to address wind as the 5 alternative and it's dismissed as an alternative based 6 upon it being intermittent. Yet, the report's 7 discussion of wind says -- that wind has a relatively 8 high reliability. It says that -- there are strategic 9 and tactical options under development, currently.
10 The conclusions that the NRC reaches concerning wind 11 does not match its finding concerning wind. And it 12 relies upon a finding that there's no combination of 13 wind and compressed air storage that's yet been 14 proposed and it's relying upon a 2008 study. A lot 15 has happened in four-years.
16 The report notes that concern with 17 intermittent wind can be addressed by combinations of 18 onshore and offshore wind where offshore wind is 19 blowing most all the time and the development of 20 onshore wind -- I'm sorry -- of offshore wind is where 21 a lot of the development is taking place in wind power 22 because of the reliability of wind offshore. So, I 23 think the report is in error to simply dismiss wind 24 based on its intermittent nature when that can be 25 addressed by the combination of onshore/offshore by NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
100 1 variable locations and developments that have taken 2 place in storage of energy capacity -- whether it's 3 pumped hydro where water is pumped up the tanks for 4 later disbursement or to reservoirs, batteries and 5 compressed air storage.
6 I'd like to address the issue of spent 7 fuel. The facility was not designed for on-site 8 storage. It was not intended as a licensed storage 9 facility. It's not designed for storage. It's not 10 designed for long-term storage and the storage 11 facility is not secured from the types of natural 12 disasters we've discussed or from terrorist acts. The 13 storage is not that. The stored fuel is expected to 14 be kept on-site for 60-years after closure. I don't 15 think that you can assume that you will have 60-years 16 of management from NextEra going to 2110. I think 17 that would be an erroneous assumption to expect some 18 corporate entity to exist and remain responsible for 19 safe storage that long into the future.
20 The entire premise of safe operation is 21 having to do with the spent fuel. I don't think that 22 anyone can assume that the federal government will 23 take this over. I think that the current assumption 24 is that the federal government will not establish a 25 repository sufficient for Seabrook. People talk about NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
101 1 Yucca and even if Yucca was built, it would not have 2 sufficient capacity for Seabrook.
3 I'd like to talk about the concrete issue.
4 I don't know how you separate out safety issues from 5 environmental issues because if there's a safety issue 6 from concrete, it's obviously going to affect the 7 environment. Your power plant cannot manage the 8 effects of aging on the concrete. It will worsen. I 9 don't think that the process is accurate when it 10 assumes based upon a 20-year history we can predict 11 the next 20-years of the existing license and another 12 20-year beyond that. There's not necessarily a linear 13 degradation of the plant.
14 The licensing processes concerns the 15 ability of the licensee to manage the aging plant 16 components. When it comes to the concrete, it cannot 17 do that. I think that the integrity of the company on 18 this issue also has to be raised. NextEra was asked, 19 I think up to 15-years ago, to assess the concrete and 20 it failed to do so and failed to report to the NRC on 21 that until it came up through this renewal process 22 where it finally disclosed the problems with the 23 concrete, which are significant.
24 There's also the question of the integrity 25 in the building process. This goes to the heart of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
102 1 the matter. At the time that the plant was built, we 2 all knew and heard the stories about all the crap that 3 was dumped in the concrete. And it's coming back to 4 haunt you. We heard all during the building process 5 from our local neighbors about welds -- the x-raying 6 and testing of welds -- being forged and fraudulently 7 documented. So there is a question with regards to 8 the integrity of the licensee to be able to manage 9 this process and I don't know how the assumptions can 10 be made for 60-years out from now -- I'm sorry - 11 years out from now on the concrete. And the licensee 12 has the burden of proof, has the obligation to prove 13 the plant safe for this time period through -- I'm 14 losing track now what years we're talking about --
15 through 2050. I don't think that can be done. The 16 concrete raises such a high level of uncertainty that 17 I don't think the burden of the applicant to prove the 18 plant safe for this renewal period can be met.
19 I'd like to make one last comment. Each 20 one of these issues seem to be taken in isolation.
21 And there seems to be no analysis in the Draft EIS of 22 the cumulative effect of these flaws. So, you can 23 piecemeal this little issue, that little issue and 24 this little issue and say --
25 Well, the air release is minimum. The NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
103 1 tritium is a minimum issue. Spent fuel will be dealt 2 with -- they'll design and build one as necessary.
3 Well, earthquakes, you know, they're remote -- they 4 could happen, but not likely.
5 You know, and you add up all of these 6 factors -- there's no analysis of the cumulative 7 effect of these factors. There must be a way to do 8 that and there should be a way to do it, otherwise I 9 don't think the plant is taken in its totality and it 10 exists as a total entity and the effects are a 11 cumulative total effect on the residents of the area.
12 Thank you.
13 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, Brian, for 14 those comments. And thank you again to everybody else 15 that took time to be here today and provide comments.
16 Dave -- did you want to make some final 17 remarks or is there anything else that you wanted to 18 say before we close the meeting?
19 DAVE WRONA: Just that [indiscernible] --
20 BRIAN ANDERSON: Okay.
21 BILL RAYMOND: I'll be available 22 afterwards for anybody who wants to go over anything.
23 BRIAN ANDERSON: Okay. Bill Raymond, the 24 Senior Resident Inspector at Seabrook, just said that 25 he would be available afterwards for anybody that has NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
104 1 any additional questions or follow-up discussion with 2 the NRC.
3 On behalf of the NRC, I want to thank 4 everybody for taking the time to be here today and 5 provide comments. Public participation is an 6 important part of the NRC's safety mission and we 7 certainly appreciate everybody taking time out of 8 their personal lives to come and provide comments.
9 Thank you again for being here. Please 10 travel home safely. Have a great day.
11 This meeting is adjourned.
12 (Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the public 13 meeting was closed )
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com