ML19270E747
| ML19270E747 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/23/2019 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-443-LA-2, ASLBP 17-953-02-LA-BD01, NRC-0590, RAS 55325 | |
| Download: ML19270E747 (75) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
NextEra Energy Seabrook Seabrook Station, Unit 1 Limited Appearance Statement Session Docket Number: 50-443-LA-2 ASLBP Number: 17-953-02-LA-BD01 Location: Newburyport, Massachusetts Date: Monday, September 23, 2019 Work Order No.: NRC-0590 Pages 1-74 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 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 5 + + + + +
6 LIMITED APPEARANCE 7 -----------------------------x 8 In the Matter of: : Docket No.
9 NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC : 50-443-LA-2 10 (Seabrook Station, Unit 1) : ASLBP No.
11 : 17-953-02-LA-BD01 12 -----------------------------x 13 Monday, September 23, 2019 14 15 Newburyport City Hall 16 Auditorium 17 60 Pleasant Street 18 Newburyport, Massachusetts 19 20 BEFORE:
21 RONALD M. SPRITZER, Chair 22 NICHOLAS G. TRIKOUROS, Administrative Judge 23 DR. SEKAZI K. MTINGWA, Administrative Judge 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
2 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 (6:02 p.m.)
3 JUDGE SPRITZER: Good evening. Powerful 4 microphone. Good evening. My name is Ron Spritzer.
5 I'm the Chairman of this Atomic Safety Licensing 6 Board. The case we are here about is in the matter of 7 NextEra Energy Seabrook, Seabrook Station Unit 1. For 8 those that may be interested, this is NRC Docket 9 Number 50-443-LA-2, and it's also ASLBP Number 17-953-10 02-LA-BD01. As I mentioned, my name is Ron Spritzer.
11 I'm Chairman of this Licensing Board. We've been 12 designated to hear this matter and decide the issues 13 related to a license amendment request submitted by 14 NextEra concerning the operating license for Seabrook 15 Station Unit 1, located in Seabrook, New Hampshire.
16 I'm an Administrative Judge with the 17 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I've been in that job 18 for approximately 11 years. Before that I was an 19 attorney in the United States Department of Justice 20 working in the Environment and Natural Resources 21 Division. And I will briefly ask my fellow judges to 22 introduce themselves.
23 JUDGE MTINGWA: My name is -- I'm Judge 24 Sekazi Mtingwa. I'm a retired nuclear physicist 25 retiring from MIT about seven years. I've been an NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
3 1 Administrative Judge with the NRC since 2016.
2 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: My name is Nick 3 Trikouros. I'm a nuclear engineer practicing for 4 approximately 30 years in my own consulting company 5 for a number of years, and I've been a judge with the 6 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for the past 13 7 years.
8 JUDGE SPRITZER: Very well. We're going 9 to move on to statements as soon as possible. I just 10 want to cover a few other preliminary things. First, 11 I'd like to thank Mayor Donna Holaday and the city 12 government for making this facility available to us.
13 We prefer, at the NRC, whenever we can to hold 14 proceedings like this in the community that's affected 15 by the facility we're hearing about, and -- but we 16 have to have cooperation of local governments to make 17 that possible. We do not have our own facility in 18 this immediate area, so we're very grateful to the 19 city for helping us make this happen.
20 There are a few matters related to 21 procedure that I do need to cover. Well, first let me 22 give a little background on this case for those who 23 may not be fully familiar with it. This case arose in 24 response to a license amendment request filed by 25 NextEra on August 1, 2016. The request was intended NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
4 1 to revise the Unit 1 updated final safety analysis 2 report to include methods for analyzing the impact of 3 a type of concrete degradation caused by an alkali-4 silica reaction -- we refer to it as ASR -- affecting 5 Seismic 1, Category 1 reinforced concrete structures 6 at the Plant. C-10 filed a number of contentions 7 related to this license amendment. The Board was 8 created to hear the case and after we had oral 9 argument in Rockville, Maryland in 2017, the Board 10 granted the hearing request of C-10 and admitted it as 11 a party to the proceeding.
12 Now before the Board is one contention, 13 which is essentially an amalgamation of five separate 14 contentions that we admitted, and the substance of 15 that contention is that NextEra's large-scale 16 concrete-testing program yielded data that are not 17 representative of the progression of ASR at Seabrook 18 Unit 1 and that the resulting monitoring acceptance 19 criteria and inspections intervals are inadequate.
20 We'll be starting that hearing tomorrow, on the 24th, 21 and we may continue as long as Friday, the 27th, 22 although it's quite possible we'll end before that.
23 All right. As far as the procedure we'll 24 be following this evening, first, we have allotted 25 each speaker five minutes. We had about eight NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 1 speakers that have registered in advance. We've had 2 a number of others that have registered and maybe a 3 few more that are still registering to speak. We'll 4 give priority to those who submitted timely requests 5 to make a statement before the commencement of this 6 hearing. Once those speakers have concluded their 7 statements, precedence will be given to those who 8 registered with our law clerks at the table outside, 9 although I'm going to make one slight modification to 10 that procedure. We have a couple of public officials 11 or representatives or public officials' offices here, 12 so I'll let them start first, and then we'll move into 13 those who pre-registered and those -- and then last, 14 those who registered this evening.
15 We've heard -- we're planning to go to 16 until 8 o'clock this evening. If we need to go a 17 little later, we can do that, but we do need to be out 18 of here certainly no later than 9 o'clock this 19 evening.
20 The statements you'll be hearing tonight 21 do not constitute testimony or evidence before the 22 Board in the evidentiary hearing that we'll be 23 starting tomorrow, but they may aid the Board in 24 formulating questions for the evidentiary hearing. So 25 it will help for those who are making statements if NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
6 1 you focus on matters pertaining directly to this state 2 -- to this case, general statements about your views 3 on nuclear power, while certainly interesting, are not 4 really going to help us much prepare for the hearing 5 tomorrow.
6 Please silence all cell phones, refrain 7 from talking. We want to be able to give our full 8 attention to those who are speaking. In order to keep 9 within time limits, one of our law clerks will have 10 time cards and -- yes, what is that -- yes -- one 11 minute and stop, so he'll give you a little warning 12 that you're approaching your time limit.
13 As I said, it's best to focus your 14 questions on this case. Please do not ask questions 15 of us. It's not appropriate for judges to comment on 16 a case before we've heard the evidence.
17 Finally, no -- this may be obvious, but 18 please, no violent or threatening language.
19 And as I mentioned, the evidentiary 20 hearing will start tomorrow. You are welcome to 21 attend. This will not be a public participation 22 event. However, we have a list of designated 23 witnesses -- oh, I'm sorry - -we have a list of 24 witnesses who will be speaking -- who will be 25 answering questions from the Board. That's the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
7 1 purpose of the evidentiary hearing, to give us a 2 chance. We have extensive -- we have about 15 volumes 3 that look something like this of evidence, and we have 4 a number of questions we have to get answered in order 5 to make our decision. That's what we'll be doing for 6 the next two, three, four days, however long it takes.
7 On Wednesday, we will have to have a 8 closed session. That is one that is not open to the 9 public. That's because there are certain information 10 that's been designated by the parties as proprietary 11 and that cannot be heard in the public session. But 12 other than that, the evidentiary hearing is open to 13 the public. And so everything we're doing tomorrow, 14 which will include opening statements, admission of 15 evidence, and then questioning of witnesses should be 16 open to the public for those who may be interested in 17 attending.
18 All right. With no further -- unless 19 there's any preliminary matters I've overlooked -- I 20 don't think so. All right. Let's begin with -- let's 21 see, we have a representative of the -- from the New 22 Hampshire House of Representatives, from the Chairman 23 of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.
24 This is Representative Renny Cushing. I hope I'm 25 pronouncing the name correctly. Is that individual NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
8 1 here?
2 All right. Well, that cuts down our list 3 somewhat. We have -- next, let's hear from Hannah 4 Vogel form the office of Senator Edward Markey. Is 5 she here?
6 Okay. Well, we're moving right along.
7 The last public representative we have I believe is 8 here, and that's Alex Bradley from the Office of the 9 Attorney General of Massachusetts. Is it Maura 10 Healey?
11 (Off mic comment.)
12 JUDGE SPRITZER: Yes, exactly. All 13 speakers will speak from the podium up here.
14 MR. BRADLEY: Thank you. Thank you all 15 for holding this meeting and taking the time to hear 16 from the public. My name is Alex Bradley, and I'm 17 here in an official capacity representing the Office 18 of Attorney General Maura Healey. I was born and 19 raised in Newburyport. Generations of my family live 20 in this city, and AG Healey has a longstanding and 21 deep connection with this region as well, so it's 22 important to her as it's important to me that the 23 safety and health of this committee -- this community 24 is not put at risk by the Seabrook Plant. And that's 25 why in March, AG Healey wrote the NRC expressing her NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
9 1 concern with the Seabrook Plant's ability to operate 2 safely.
3 As you know, there have been concerns for 4 years regarding the risk of the serious danger 5 developing from ASR at the Seabrook Plant. These 6 concerns have been validated by experts, by engaged 7 people in this community, and by local, state, and 8 federal leadership. And it's the AG's view that there 9 was no legitimate reason for the NRC staff to act on 10 the request for license extension back then. And it's 11 clear that at the time, that extending the license was 12 premature, and it would possible to revisit the 13 request for an extension after NextEra had fully 14 addressed the concerns about ASR.
15 So knowing that, the approval of the 16 license extension was baffling and disappointing to 17 the AG, as I'm sure it was to many here. But 18 regardless of that hasty and, frankly, a little 19 alarming, decision involved in granting the Seabrook's 20 plant extension, the concern about ASR has not gone 21 away. In fact, if this plant is going to continue to 22 operate, it's even more critical now that NextEra 23 sufficiently responds to those concerns and monitors 24 the development of ASR at the Seabrook plant. Right 25 now we believe that is not happening, and we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 1 respectfully ask that it does. C-10's experts are 2 among the best in the world. They raised serious 3 concerns about ASR at Seabrook, and we can all benefit 4 by allowing them to do their analysis of the plant and 5 know exactly what we're dealing with.
6 So, you know, the NRC -- it's the AG's 7 view that the NRC has already undermined the public's 8 trust after its decision making, so this is a chance 9 to restore that trust. And on behalf of AG Healey and 10 the AG's office, thank you again for your continued 11 engagement. Thank you to everyone here for being 12 here, and thank you for allowing us to speak today.
13 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you. All right.
14 The next person we would like to hear from is Brian 15 Campbell.
16 MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you. My name is 17 Brian Campbell, and I am a U.S. Navy vet, ecomodernist 18 and BSEE who studied utility and renewable energy at 19 UMass Lowell. What is the most dangerous nuclear 20 reactor? Answer: The one that is not built like 21 Seabrook 2, or the one that is prematurely closed like 22 Pilgrim Nuclear. Why? Because their potential 23 electrical generation was replaced by fossil fuels.
24 Nuclear power is the safest method of electrical 25 generation, including renewable energy. Anti-nuclear NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
11 1 Douglas Foy, former president and CEO of the 2 Conservation Law Foundation, led the fight in court to 3 shutter Seabrook project. Seabrook 1 was built but 22 4 percent completed Seabrook was cancelled. This and 5 other lawsuits doubled the cost of Seabrook. Thirty 6 years later, Foy says, "Seabrook 1 needs to stay up 7 and running" recognizing its emission-free generation.
8 Public health and environmental scientists 9 at Harvard studied the emissions from Brayton and 10 Salem coal plants in 2002. They concluded that Salem 11 Harbor was responsible for 30 deaths, 400 emergency 12 room visits, 2,000 asthma attacks, 50,000 incidents of 13 upper respiratory symptoms per year. Had Seabrook 14 Unit 2 been completed in the mid-1990's, its no 15 emission, 1245 megawatts electrical generation could 16 have displaced closed coal-burning Salem Harbor Power 17 Station and still-operating Merrimack Station in Bow, 18 New Hampshire in the 1990's.
19 Anti-nuclear, C-10 ally, New Hampshire 20 State Representative Pete Somssich, supports Granite 21 Bridge Pipeline proposal by Liberty Utility to build 22 a connector pipeline from Manchester area to Exeter, 23 New Hampshire. Representative Somssich sees more gas 24 as a bridge to unreliable renewables. Anti-nuclear 25 Massachusetts Sierra Club calls more pipelines a dirty NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
12 1 bridge to nowhere bus. Renewable emission-free 2 Seabrook Station nuclear power providing 57 percent of 3 New Hampshire's total electrical generation can be 4 replaced by gas infrastructure and extra emissions.
5 Remember the 2018 Merrimack Valley gas explosions?
6 This is what Massachusetts taxpayer-supported C-10 and 7 similar groups are really advocating.
8 New Hampshire and New England needs more 9 nuclear power, not gas, to really reduce emissions.
10 Thank you.
11 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you. We would next 12 like to hear from John Gibson.
13 MR. GIBSON: Well, thank you, gentlemen, 14 for the chance to speak. And welcome to our backyard 15 and our neighborhood where Seabrook Station looms 16 large. Thank you also to C-10 for monitoring 17 conditions in the area and whose intercession made 18 these hearings possible.
19 What does C-10 see that NRC and the 20 Licensing Board does not, and what interests are 21 served by each? It's a step in the right direction to 22 reconsider NextEra's license renewal, but all the 23 agencies that have put input need to go further to 24 ensure greater accountability and oversight for 25 safety's sake. What this coastal area will look like NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
13 1 in 2030 and 2050 depends on your decisions and those 2 of your successors.
3 With the future in mind, let us not forget 4 the past. Throughout the early years of permitting 5 for Seabrook, many did their best to remind your 6 predecessors that health and safety were paramount.
7 That process is ongoing and although the hearings this 8 week will deal with degrading concrete, the focus 9 needs to be the same. All the engineering, 10 construction, management, and agency responsibility 11 are designed to maximize the health and safety of 12 plant staff and the general public.
13 What can be said that has not been said 14 before? Only that we need to be reminded of the 15 gravity of decisions made that go beyond the interest 16 of plant owners, electrical rates, bankers, investors, 17 and the nuclear industry. The Atomic Energy Act of 18 1954 encouraged the private development of nuclear 19 power. Cost is always a factor in business but should 20 not be at the expense of health and safety. Let us 21 learn from the past, put hubris in its place and err 22 on the side of caution. As public servants, be 23 mindful of the past nuclear accidents in this country 24 and worldwide and how natural disasters can exacerbate 25 the unforeseen.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
14 1 The two hours this evening are a fraction 2 of the time that will be spent this week reviewing 3 technical and procedural issues, but it's not so much 4 the time allotted as it is the matters that are 5 presented that bear on health and safety. We, the 6 people, are the invisible stakeholders and need to be 7 head at the table. We are not a variable in a risk 8 assessment formula. Policy is made in Washington but 9 impacts far and wide and generations to come.
10 Last week, the FAA gave Boeing the 11 authority to assess safety certain flight control 12 systems in the MAX 737, but an international panel 13 disagreed. Let this week be different where testimony 14 convinces you to rule on the side of independent and 15 fair review and hold NextEra to greater accountability 16 and higher standards.
17 Yes. Concrete cracks are a cause for 18 concern, but the cracks in procedures that allow for 19 license renewal contrary to facts are distressing.
20 Both need to be monitored and fixed to ensure the 21 health and safety of the general public. This is your 22 responsibility. Thank you for listening.
23 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you.
24 (Applause.)
25 JUDGE SPRITZER: I understand we have an NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
15 1 additional public representative, Senator Markey or 2 someone from Senator Markey's office?
3 MS. TEYLOUNI: No. I am not Senator 4 Markey. My name's Claire. Thank you for the 5 opportunity to read a statement on his behalf.
6 MS. TEYLOUNI: Claire Teylouni.
7 JUDGE SPRITZER: Okay.
8 MS. TEYLOUNI: In January, the Nuclear 9 Regulatory Commission announced its plans to issue a 10 license amendment and a license renewal to NextEra, 11 licensed operator of the Seabrook Nuclear Power 12 Station months before the Atomic Safety and Licensing 13 Board was set to hear key evidence about structural 14 degradation at the Seabrook Plant. I urge the NRC to 15 wait until after the ASLB hearing and to hold 16 additional public meetings in order to allow 17 stakeholders to voice their concerns and present 18 additional evidence about the threats posed by 19 continued degradation of the plant's concrete.
20 When the NRC then delayed its announcement 21 and solicited community input and feedback at a public 22 meeting in February, I again noted m concern that the 23 NRC would still approve the Seabrook license amendment 24 before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board held its 25 evidentiary hearing. This concern was validated when NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
16 1 the NRC approved a license amendment and 20-year 2 license renewal in March. There was no rush driving 3 the NRC's hasty actions. The Seabrook license was not 4 set to expire for another decade yet the NRC rejected 5 calls from community stakeholders, elected officials, 6 and safety experts to wait until after the ASLB 7 hearing and instead moved forward with its approvals.
8 This timeline has unacceptably subverted 9 the public input process, an issue we are grappling 10 with across the state with the decommissioning of the 11 Pilgrim Nuclear Plant as well, and I am deeply 12 concerned that this disregard for transparency and 13 public input is becoming endemic across the NRC.
14 I implore the Atomic Safety and Licensing 15 Board to take the next several days to seriously 16 consider the evidence presented by C-10 and associated 17 experts. NextEra's plans to address, monitor, and 18 inspect structural degradation at Seabrook must be 19 held to the highest scientific standards. The trust 20 of the entire community and its protection from 21 exposure to danger from a fracturing unsafe facility 22 over the next several decades I at stake. Thank you.
23 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you. Next on our 24 list is Sandra Thaxter.
25 MS. THAXTER: Hello. Can you hear me?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17 1 JUDGE SPRITZER: Yes, we can.
2 MS. THAXTER: I'm speaking as a citizen of 3 Newburyport and because many of the people in this 4 room have spent most of their lives keeping us safe 5 and monitoring the nuclear power plant and actively 6 advocating for this community. This is a matter of 7 public trust. Seems to me this is a really good time 8 in the history of our country to show that government 9 institutions can be trusted to protect citizens.
10 We've always known that nuclear power was 11 a powerful but dangerous technology. We saw with 12 Fukushima what can happen if bureaucracies are not 13 fully attentive, do not use all their knowledge and 14 all the strategies of good management to manage 15 nuclear power. Sometimes bureaucracies can become too 16 comfortable in their role, but they are meant to serve 17 our country and our citizens. C-10 is asking to 18 restore the public trust by using the best available 19 tools and information to evaluate the risk of this --
20 ASB is it --
21 JUDGE SPRITZER: ASR.
22 MS. THAXTER: -- ASR, thank you -- on the 23 nuclear power plant here.
24 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you. Next person 25 is Kathleen O'Connor Ives.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18 1 (Off mic comments.)
2 JUDGE SPRITZER: All right. We do not 3 appear to have Ms. Ives with us. I previously 4 mentioned Representative Renny Cushing. I don't know 5 if that individual has arrived. Apparently not.
6 Glenn Richards?
7 MR. RICHARDS: Thank you for giving me the 8 opportunity to speak. My thrust was going to be -- my 9 tentative total was quite, "Do Your Job," but lest you 10 take that personally and feel insulted, I think I 11 should explain. And it's already been partly 12 explained that we have been disappointed in the past.
13 I've been around here since -- I moved up here I think 14 in 1980 when Seabrook was on the cusp of being built, 15 and there were a lot of -- you know, there was -- it 16 disappointed back -- the first disappointment was 17 around evacuation planning. I'm not going to go into 18 that. It's not really relevant right now.
19 But it's important to understand that 20 right now this is not some pissing contest between 21 tree-hugging hippies and anti-nuclear activists on one 22 side and pro-industry whatever on the other side.
23 That's not what this is about.
24 This is about public safety. You work for 25 us, me. That's why I can tell you or suggest you, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
19 1 quote, "Do your job," because through my taxes, 2 through our taxes, we're paying you to protect us.
3 And so I encourage you take seriously everything you 4 hear, both sides, you know, be fair. I'm sure you 5 will be. NextEra will have their experts. C-10 has 6 also some very credible experts.
7 And I think that with this ASR thing, 8 there were some very critical questions at the hearing 9 that was mentioned. I think it was in February. The 10 NRC was there and we talked about -- discussing this 11 ASR problem and we were discussing inspections of the 12 plant. And I said well, how do you inspect the 13 pressure vessel -- containment building I should say, 14 not the pressure vessel, the containment building, 15 because it's, you know, very radioactive. They said 16 well, it's actually not the radioactivity. It's 17 really the heat in there. It's extremely hot.
18 Workers can only be in for a short period of time.
19 And then, you know, something clicked.
20 Heat, as you all know, as engineers -- well, and a 21 judge -- that heat accelerates chemical reactions.
22 And when that came up, they said yeah, literature is 23 clear that ASR is accelerated due to heat, has -- and 24 I think a very relevant question for you would be to 25 consider the testing that NextEra had done. Did they NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
20 1 consider that. Did they try to simulate those 2 conditions? So that's a very relevant question, I 3 think, to be looked into.
4 And the other one that occurred to me was 5 pressure. They -- you know, they always talk -- I'm 6 referring to a CRW (phonetic) article -- it's not a 7 local paper -- about, you know, Neal Sheanna 8 (phonetic), someone saying don't worry, everything's 9 fine, plant was designed with a margin of error, 10 margin of safety, which is great. There's a reason 11 they do that, but when they built in the margin of 12 safety, that margin is no longer the margin it was in 13 1980, whenever the plant went online, because of the 14 ASR. And the containment building in particular not 15 only has to -- it's not just a structure that's 16 holding up a roadway. It's got to be able to 17 withstand pressure in the event of something 18 unfortunate, in the event of, you know, some kind of 19 either pressure, pipe breaking, or worse case 20 scenario; okay, you get my drift.
21 So I don't know that any of that was taken 22 into consideration in the Texas testing that was done 23 or in this -- evaluating this margin of error or 24 margin of safety that was built into the -- you know, 25 yeah, okay, the walls aren't going to fall down. We NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
21 1 know that, you know, there's enough strength there 2 despite the ASR, that the place isn't going to 3 collapse. You know, that's pretty much a given.
4 But I hope you will listen to both sides, 5 take them seriously, and most of all -- and I consider 6 myself kind of a citizen scientist; my mantra is 7 "challenge your assumptions, never be afraid to ask 8 yourself what if I'm wrong; you know, what if this 9 thing -- you know, what if we weren't -- didn't get 10 this right; you know, what are the consequences and, 11 you know, which -- you know, which side is really 12 making sense here, which one -- which data holds up 13 and withstands your scrutiny?
14 You know, it's not about opinions like oh, 15 the plant has been operating well. Oh, I should 16 mention that, too. You know, they -- on all your 17 perspectives, past performance is no guarantee of 18 future success. And the fact that the plant has 19 operated safely for however many years does not 20 guarantee it will continue to do so.
21 So anyway, thanks for the time. I see my 22 time is about up, so I hope these things will -- you 23 know, you'll get into these things tomorrow and take 24 them very seriously. Thanks.
25 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you. Let's see, I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22 1 think we've heard from Hanna Vogel or another 2 representative of Senator Markey's office. Afroz 3 Khan?
4 MS. KHAN: Thank you very much. My name 5 is Afroz Khan. I'm actually a Newburyport City 6 Counselor-at-large, but today I'm here in front of you 7 as a resident of Newburyport. So two weeks ago when 8 my kids started school, we all had to fill out the 9 regular forms that we do for medical and all the 10 emergency contact information. But we also have to 11 fill out a form giving permission for our kids to be 12 provided with potassium iodide tablets in the event of 13 a radiation emergency from the NextEra Nuclear Plant.
14 So I have master's in electric power 15 engineering from RIP in the 90's, and I'm not here at 16 all tonight to diminish or speak out against nuclear 17 power plants. My intention tonight is actually to 18 highlight a public safety concern. So alkali-silica 19 reaction is a slowly progressive problem that occurs 20 in concrete structures over time.
21 So in doing a quick research on this 22 phenomena, it's easy to see what has been happening 23 globally with the detection of ASRs. And I was able 24 to see that it's been found in bridges, in dams, in 25 parking garages. And in almost all of those NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
23 1 situations, those structures have been demolished 2 because of the risk. So as you know, ASR can lead to 3 cracking, and then it really compromises the long-term 4 longevity of the structure. So in many cases, you 5 know, as an engineer, we see that if construction 6 materials are compromised, it does affect not only the 7 performance but the lifespan of a structure.
8 So as we know, a controlled nuclear 9 reaction is nothing but routine, and it's the concrete 10 that protects 180,000 people from the inadvertent 11 release of radioactive gasses, fallout, and molten 12 corium if a catastrophe was to occur.
13 But a known concrete problem such a ASR 14 has not been seen in nuclear reactor containment 15 structures. In fact, with 98 nuclear reactors in the 16 U.S., this is the first one that has a known ASR 17 issue. And unlike other structures, nuclear plants 18 don't have shear reinforcements.
19 So when dealing with the public safety, I 20 think it's really important to expect the unexpected.
21 It is the unexpected that has led to the largest 22 nuclear disasters in our recent history. So I'm 23 asking that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 24 please take the necessary actions in assuring our 25 safety. So of the number that -- of reactors I talked NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
24 1 about and with NextEra facility being the first to 2 have an ASR issue, I think a decision from this body 3 can help launch best practices needed in addressing a 4 critical issue that is being faced by the nuclear 5 power community for the first time. We are relying on 6 your oversight and your guidance in safeguarding this 7 affected concrete containment vessel that lies a mere 8 9-1/2 kilometers from this very spot. Thank you.
9 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you.
10 (Applause.)
11 JUDGE SPRITZER: I believe we also have an 12 Aboul B. Khan. Is that individual here? Here we go.
13 MR. KHAN: Good evening. My name is Aboul 14 Khan. I'm a Selectman in Seabrook for -- this is my 15 fourth term, and also I represent Seabrook and Hampton 16 Falls at the statehouse as a state rep. This is my 17 third term.
18 Good evening. I have resided in Seabrook 19 for many years and actually lived in relatively close 20 proximity of the Seabrook Station. I have raised my 21 family in Seabrook, and as a resident I have always 22 been impressed with the Seabrook Station's commitment 23 to our community. They have been and continue to be 24 good neighbors, good corporate citizens, active in 25 promoting positive actions and outcomes for Town of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
25 1 Seabrook and the whole seacoast area. As a town 2 official, I can tell you that I and the Board of 3 Selectmen have worked closely with NextEra in areas of 4 emergency planning and other procedures that we go 5 through all the time. They have been both proactive 6 and diligent in meeting our needs and requirements 7 with a strong and bond and cooperation between 8 Seabrook and NextEra and the entire seacoast region.
9 As a host community, we have seen 10 firsthand NextEra's commitment to running Seabrook 11 Station in a safe and efficient manner. I and the 12 Board have high confidence in NextEra's commitment to 13 the health and safety of your community and the 14 seacoast region -- and of the seacoast region.
15 Finally, I would like to express my 16 confidence in the rigorous oversight over the Seabrook 17 Station by NRC. Seabrook Station, through the course 18 of applying for license amendment and license 19 extension, has been subject to a process designed to 20 protect the public and ensure that Seabrook Station 21 meets standards and delivers energy in a clean, 22 efficient, and safe way. This process has been taking 23 much time and examined many issues. We in Seabrook 24 support the NRC and feel that the process should not 25 be hurried, but we also recognize that the process NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
26 1 would not and should not continue forever. It is our 2 strong belief that NRC review on the concrete issue 3 met the highest standard and was based on solid 4 science and that the data provided by all the experts 5 and the study more than sufficient to support the 6 license amendment sought by NextEra. Thank you very 7 much.
8 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you.
9 (Applause.)
10 JUDGE SPRITZER: Next we -- I believe it's 11 Jack -- is it Santos?
12 MR. SANTOS: I'd like to thank the Board 13 for holding this hearing and letting me speak. I also 14 have a copy of written comments I can enter into the 15 record after the session.
16 JUDGE SPRITZER: Why don't you give them 17 to our -- one of our people who met you at the front 18 desk.
19 MR. SANTOS: I will do after I speak.
20 JUDGE SPRITZER: Okay.
21 MR. SANTOS: My name is Jack Santos. I'm 22 a resident within a 10-mile radius of Seabrook 23 Station. I live here in Newburyport. My comments are 24 anchored in my experience as a software engineering 25 professional, a senior executive in healthcare and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
27 1 financial services, and I currently provide consulting 2 and research services to the NRC as well as the 3 Canadian NRC, the U.S. Air Force, and NASA, and other 4 public and private sector organizations including 5 NextEra. But I'm here as a private citizen, and the 6 opinions expressed are my own.
7 Since 1990, the Seabrook Nuclear Power 8 Plant has been operating safely. My interest is in 9 making sure it continues to do so. Based on the work 10 of Dr. Saouma, I believe that the testing by Ferguson 11 Structural Engineering Labs does not give me that 12 level of certainty that we will not avoid a failure at 13 Seabrook Station. It's not representative of the 14 level of concrete degradation onsite at Seabrook, nor 15 does it adequately take into account additional 16 factors that may cause worsening of the concrete or 17 its related structure.
18 So my testimony is simple. I propose that 19 the Board, over the next few days, consider three key 20 points; number one, ensure open and transparent 21 testing results publicly peer-reviewed by experts in 22 the field other than those hired just by NextEra or 23 the NRC. What is at risk is too great to limit review 24 and exclude portions just because of proprietary 25 concerns.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
28 1 Number two, sufficiently replicate 2 conditions by analyzing the concrete and related 3 structures in situ. This includes destructive and 4 non-destructive independent scientific testing of the 5 onsite concrete exhibiting ASR and the related 6 structures. We want to ensure that the 7 infrastructure, including concrete, is still within 8 operating parameters and includes its ability to 9 withstand events like earthquakes and flooding.
10 And number three, share those results with 11 the public in full disclosure, factor in concrete and 12 building practices that were in place during the 13 construction of Seabrook Station and how ASR 14 deterioration would affect its soundness today, 15 especially during an abnormal event like an earthquake 16 or a storm surge. I believe m three points are 17 reasonable considering what is at stake here.
18 Let me remind the Board of two other 19 engineering instances, one recent, one not so recent 20 where this kind of due diligence we are asking for 21 here was not taken and with consequences. The first 22 is still fresh in our mind. It's already been 23 mentioned. It continues to be investigated. The 24 Boeing 737 MAX airplane failure. It's been chilled 25 for the sake of competitiveness, proprietary data was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
29 1 withheld from the airlines, from the pilots, and from 2 the public that had it come out, we would have brought 3 into question the MCAS systems single point of 4 failure. Not all operating conditions were tested, 5 and there was no transparent and/or independent review 6 of the MCAS software. It's a situation that mirrors 7 what we are dealing with here. Three hundred forty-8 six lives were lost. We're looking at much higher 9 stakes with Seabrook Station.
10 The second is the Challenger accident of 11 1986. I was at Cape Canaveral at the launch. One 12 simple decision to launch or not hinged on a statement 13 in the launch procedure manual: "Are current 14 conditions on the launch pad below freezing?" It has 15 been proven that freezing temperatures would result in 16 brittle O-rings, the cause of the disaster. What 17 nobody asked or like what we are discussing this week, 18 no one cared to replicate, was what if it had been 19 freezing just a few hours before but temperatures had 20 risen to above freezing by launch time.
21 I implore you, don't make an O-ring 22 mistake. Consider independent public professionally-23 verified results that reflect real onsite tests, and 24 share those with those of us whose lives depend on it.
25 Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
30 1 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you.
2 (Applause.)
3 JUDGE SPRITZER: Next person we'd like to 4 hear from is Carolyn Johnson.
5 MS. JOHNSON: Hello. First, I'd like to 6 agree with Mr. Santos' skepticism about the validity 7 of the tests of the concrete. They really -- the 8 requirements of those tests really did not meet the 9 standards that they should have. It was all done 10 offsite at lab in Texas on newly-produced concrete 11 that may or may not be even similar to the concrete at 12 Seabrook. Until onsite testing is done with core 13 samples from Seabrook's actual concrete, we will have 14 no idea whether the test results concerning concrete 15 degradation are at all meaningful.
16 In addition, because the ASR problem is 17 caused by the presence of water reacting with elements 18 of the concrete, there should be great concern for the 19 effects of higher tides resulting from climate change, 20 especially because parts of the plant are already 80 21 feet below sea level. Continued storm surges are a 22 threat that should be considered. However, this issue 23 is not being addressed.
24 The same problem applies to the spent fuel 25 rods which are now onsite stored in ponds, in water.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
31 1 Nuclear waste has never -- the problem with storage of 2 nuclear waste has never been considered or addressed 3 -- it's been considered, but it has not been addressed 4 successfully. And again, the threat from extra high 5 tides reaching the pools where the spent fuel is 6 stored is really terrifying. So I'd really like to 7 believe that these concerns will be addressed further 8 than they have been so far. Thank you.
9 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you.
10 (Applause.)
11 JUDGE SPRITZER: The next person we would 12 like to hear from -- I hope I'm pronouncing this 13 correctly -- is Hank Baotzmann.
14 MR. BAOTZMANN: Thank you. My name is 15 Herman Baotzmann. I served on two nuclear power 16 submarines in the U.S. Navy, and I'm a retired chief 17 engineer from Raytheon residing in Portsmouth, New 18 Hampshire. The process of concrete degradation caused 19 by alkali silica reaction, or ASR, a chemical process 20 that causes small cracks in concrete, has been fully 21 reviewed and an acceptable inspection program has been 22 put in place to assure nuclear safety. Assessments by 23 Seabrook Station engineers and nuclear experts, 24 independent reviews by some of the most accomplished 25 structural engineering experts in the world, the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
32 1 International Atomic Energy Agency, and the NRC 2 itself, all have concluded that Seabrook Station is 3 and will operate safely. Academic scientifically-4 verifiable studies have established that ASR is an 5 identified manageable condition common in critical 6 infrastructure like bridges, runways, and dams, the 7 same infrastructure that is currently in service 8 across the country. Most bridges in Massachusetts and 9 New Hampshire not only have ASR, they are built with 10 nowhere near the robustness or reinforcement of the 11 nuclear power plant.
12 Several of my -- of the country's most 13 experienced structural engineering experts including 14 MPR Associates, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, and the 15 University of Texas have studied and validated 16 Seabrook Station's strategy to manage ASR. The NRC 17 has validated this approach noting the actions of 18 Seabrook Station have taken regarding concrete issue 19 ASR have been comprehensive and reasonable, and all of 20 the commitments made regarding ASR have been 21 completed. Thank you.
22 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you.
23 (Applause.)
24 JUDGE SPRITZER: The next person we would 25 like to hear from is Howard Mandeville.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
33 1 MR. MANDEVILLE: Hi. I'm Howard 2 Mandeville from Newburyport. Thank you for having 3 this public comment opportunity. Like many of us here 4 today, I love this ocean shore and its vibrant 5 communities. I want all of us to ensure that it 6 remains a beautiful and safe place for many 7 generations. What had always been confidence in the 8 endurance of this region is now a worry. There are 9 many concerns on which to hang our worries, but chief 10 among them for me is the conceivable notion that there 11 exists a clear and present danger, a nuclear power 12 plant made of degrading concrete in an area that 13 includes rising tides, nor'easters, hurricanes, and 14 earthquakes, all of those since I moved here three 15 years ago.
16 The one thing that makes this scenario 17 even more alarming is that the danger of degrading 18 concrete is not adequately addressed. NextEra has 19 told us that there's a plan to manage the ASR concrete 20 degradation, but an unbiased expert, Victor Saouma, an 21 expert on ASR, concrete degradation, has a different 22 view. He said he could not tell us that the plant is 23 now operating safely. He could not tell us how long 24 into the future the plant could operate without 25 hazard.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
34 1 He explained that the tests that would 2 illustrate the impact of ASR concrete degradation 3 could be conducted but these tests have not been done.
4 Given the risk, given the worry, why would testing 5 using available methods of analysis not be carried out 6 as soon as possible? The atomic safety and licensing 7 board and the NRC should insist that NextEra allow 8 unbiased experts to demonstrate to you and to the 9 citizens in this region whether or not the plant, with 10 its ASR concrete degradation currently unresolved, can 11 operate safely. The residents of this area rely on 12 you to mobilize objective and unbiased experts to 13 confirm the plant's safety now and during its half-14 century licensing tenure. Thank you.
15 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you.
16 (Applause.)
17 JUDGE SPRITZER: Susan Stafford.
18 MS. STAFFORD: Good evening, delight to 19 see such a diverse and committed group here, and 20 August, highly-credentialed judges. It's a delight 21 because I have lived in New England all my life, but 22 I spent a lot of time in Philadelphia, and we didn't 23 have this kind of stuff.
24 A nuclear power plant is not something 25 that is like a bridge. If it goes bad, it doesn't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
35 1 mean a couple of people will fall of the bridge. I 2 drove in 95 in Connecticut, which had a terrible 3 bridge, and several people died and finally, they 4 fixed the bridge. We are now talking -- and I 5 appreciate Senator Martin's representative -- about 6 something that is not minor. This is America. We have 7 competent engineers. We know about ASR, concrete 8 structures, 80-foot below sea level, the weather has 9 changed. I have done climate change reporting on the 10 seacoast; I'm a NOAA-credentialed person from UNH.
11 The point is very simple, continued 12 degradation without careful analysis by unbiased 13 experts who report publicly -- this is America -- we 14 appreciate all the remarks that people made, I 15 appreciate the gentleman from Seabrook, but this is 16 not something that can be sloughed off. I met an 17 engineer from Seabrook many, many years ago, and she 18 said, "It's dangerous." And she had no reason to fib 19 to me, and she was an employee. I feel that we cannot 20 degradate, and we cannot give up the chance to analyze 21 this professionally. We do not want a Chernobyl here.
22 Thank you.
23 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you.
24 (Applause.)
25 JUDGE SPRITZER: Philip Hurzeler.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
36 1 MR. HURZELER: Thank you for allowing us 2 to speak to this issue. Despite the technical experts 3 on both sides going at it, it seems to me that the 4 core issues here are not really technical. What we 5 have here is an argument about sample selection, 6 whether the process of testing and the -- and -- the 7 process of selecting a sample and the tests that are 8 done on it, whether that's secret or open. I think we 9 can all understand that it's a matter of common sense 10 that there's possibility of a bias there.
11 Also, as the representative from Senator 12 Markey's office said, the 20-year extension that came 13 in, it seems prematurely. We don't understand, 14 haven't heard, despite going to the meetings up on 15 Route 1 in the Hamptons, why it is so premature.
16 I would also like to make the remark that 17 the notion that we need to do something really quick 18 in a hurry to avoid the use of fossil fuels is just a 19 red herring. We need to consider this case on its own 20 merits.
21 We need to take a conservative approach.
22 This is where we truly need to be conservative in the 23 purest sense of that word. And thank you very much.
24 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you.
25 (Applause.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
37 1 JUDGE SPRITZER: Marcia Hart.
2 MS. HART: Hello.
3 JUDGE SPRITZER: Good evening.
4 MS. HART: I'm from Gloucester, 5 Massachusetts, which is 17 miles across the water from 6 Seabrook. I have not been in favor of Seabrook for 7 40-something years. During the time that has 8 transpired between 1977 and the present, I've had an 9 entire career, a training as a nurse and a 36-year 10 nursing career. My children were 6 and 3 when I first 11 protested at Seabrook. They're 45 and 48. I have a 12 granddaughter who's 26.
13 So two generations have taken place during 14 this time, and my opinion has not changed in all that 15 time. I would like to feel safe across the water from 16 Seabrook, but when you have licensing procedures that 17 continue in the present to hurry up and give a 18 premature license, I don't feel secure. So I didn't 19 come here knowing a great deal about this issue. I'm 20 shocked that it's the first plant that has this ASR 21 problem. Certainly, this is -- you're in a position 22 of setting precedent on how the government will deal 23 with that danger.
24 I have not developed a feeling of faith 25 and trust in any of the operating managers of any of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
38 1 the worldwide nuclear plants. They seem intent on 2 protecting their bottom line, withholding information, 3 so you are our hope that you will look into this 4 sufficiently. I stand with Senator Markey's opinions, 5 with Maura Healey's opinions, with C-10's opinions.
6 I have learned to trust all of them over this period 7 of time, but I can't say that I have the same faith in 8 corporation.
9 Please be very cautious. Many people's 10 lives depend on it. It isn't a bridge, as someone 11 said. Thank you.
12 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you.
13 (Applause.)
14 JUDGE SPRITZER: Those are all the people 15 on my list. Do we have any other -- please proceed.
16 Why don't you state your name since we don't have you 17 --
18 MS. HOLADAY: Donna Holaday, Mayor of the 19 City of Newburyport.
20 JUDGE SPRITZER: We've met previously.
21 MS. HOLADAY: And I do apologize for the 22 heat in here. We had anticipated that by this time in 23 September, it would not quite be this warm. But after 24 listening to the testimony of all these people from 25 Greater Newburyport who came today, I thought that I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
39 1 had to stand up and again reiterate the fact that this 2 is critical. The license was premature. I agree with 3 Senator Markey, Attorney General Healey, all of the 4 people who spoke -- the majority of the people who 5 spoke today asking you to do your due diligence. I 6 have toured the plant myself, had a private tour 7 several years ago, and really felt that I was being 8 given sort of the marketing response, "that we know 9 what we're dealing with in terms of the ASR, and it's 10 nothing to worry about."
11 But C-10 has brought in an expert, and 12 there are very few experts who have the kind of 13 international capacity who have done the research.
14 And we do not has, as you've heard from many people 15 testify tonight, experience with a nuclear power plant 16 that has this kind of ASR degradation. Yes, lots of 17 bridges, dams, but look at the response in terms of 18 repair. We do not have that information about how to 19 proceed going forward with this plant, and it's not 20 like a bridge. It's not a building that can be torn 21 down and replaced. This is extremely serious.
22 We need you to listen to the -- all of the 23 experts that will be presenting testimony. Please 24 make the research public to us. This is our 25 community. The climates have changed. We have storm NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
40 1 surge issues that we're approaching. We have many 2 issues and concerns about the future licensing of this 3 plant, and we ask that, as one of the speakers said, 4 please, do your job. You are here to protect the 5 public, and we need you to do that over the course of 6 this week.
7 Thank you for these evidentiary hearings.
8 This means a lot to our community that you are here to 9 take testimony -- and to really understand the 10 seriousness of this issue for our community, our 11 future, and our children. Thank you.
12 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you.
13 (Applause.)
14 JUDGE SPRITZER: Okay. Jim, is it Kirk?
15 I'm not sure. This is a little hard to read.
16 (Off mic comments.)
17 JUDGE SPRITZER: Oh, okay.
18 (Off mic comments.)
19 MR. KIRBY: So my name is Jim Kirby. I 20 live in Brattleboro, Vermont. We have a moth-balled 21 somewhat being taken apart nuclear plant, and I just 22 wanted to come and support C-10 on their -- on this 23 concrete issue. The thing that the nuclear industry 24 has done is they had a whole procedure on how to put 25 plants together, but they never really thought of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
41 1 waste, and they never thought of how to take a plant 2 apart. And it's like the bookends at this final date 3 where the reactor is complete. After that, 4 everybody's on their own. I think they're starting to 5 address that issue, but all the communities, this 6 community will face that issue. Whether they face it 7 now or in 10 years or in 20 years, they're going to 8 fact that issue, and they're not going to have -- is 9 there going to be sufficient money.
10 It's a merchant plant. Nobody really 11 thought about what a merchant plant will mean in terms 12 if the trust fund runs out of money. Eventually, 13 it'll all come back to us. We pay the bill and this, 14 from an energy point of view, has been -- you know, 15 it's been a little detour which ultimately has not 16 really produced much in the way of power. In the 17 long-term, it's got to be renewables. That's our only 18 hope. And again, I thank you for your time.
19 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you.
20 (Applause.)
21 JUDGE SPRITZER: Lori Cartwright.
22 MS. CARTWRIGHT: Good evening, gentlemen.
23 Thank you for giving the public the opportunity to 24 make their comments heard. I am Lori Cartwright. I 25 live in Putney, Vermont. I drove down to support the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
42 1 work of C-10 and the work that they've been doing to 2 keep their communities safe. And we're not here to 3 talk about the change in climate. There's a lot of 4 controversy about that in certain circles. And we're 5 not here to talk about natural gas.
6 We're here to talk about the nuclear power 7 industry and the way in which the regulators seem to 8 rubberstamp anything that the nuclear reactors want, 9 and it's clear that some evidence has emerged that 10 puts this community and other communities at risk.
11 And I implore the Board to do everything within their 12 jurisdiction to listen to the evidence and with an 13 unbiased decision, do your work, like one of our 14 speakers said earlier, to keep this community safe.
15 Thank you.
16 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you.
17 (Applause.)
18 JUDGE SPRITZER: Clay Turnbull.
19 MR. TURNBULL: Hi. Good evening. My name 20 is Clay Turnbull. I'm a resident of Townshend, 21 Vermont, and I'm a staff person and trustee with New 22 England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution in Brattleboro.
23 My comments tonight are my own. They're not for the 24 organization, but I suspect that the majority of our 25 membership and trustees would agree with what I have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
43 1 to say; and that is quite simply that C-10 has done 2 phenomenal work over the years. They've proven their 3 ability to bring real issues to light, and I just 4 wanted to come over from Vermont tonight to lend a 5 voice of support to C-10 and the work that they do.
6 Thank you.
7 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you.
8 (Applause.)
9 ADMIN. JUDGE HARVEY: And William 10 Woodward.
11 MR. WOODWARD: I, too, am h ere to support 12 C-10. I come from Durham, New Hampshire, home of the 13 University of New Hampshire. I teach psychology for 14 sustainability. We, in the past, have taken tours of 15 the Seabrook Power Plant. They're not in-depth tours.
16 We know that they're trying to be safe, but having 17 come to numerous events up in Hampton where NRC has 18 made its case, we continue to wonder how safe it is 19 when a whole raft of concerns such as escape routes, 20 disposable nuclear waste are not dealt with. Now I 21 know this is the evening for ASR, but one of the 22 lingering concerns is why they didn't test the 23 concrete from Seabrook. You have a -- the second 24 reactor was never put into operation, but the concrete 25 is there. From a scientific point of view, why NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
44 1 wouldn't test that concrete rather than some simulated 2 concrete down in Texas. I've always wondered about 3 that.
4 I recently heard Greg Jaczko speak. Some 5 of you know his book, "Confessions of a Rogue NRC 6 Regulator." He says that the 10 recommendations 7 following the Fukushima disaster by United States 8 Commission were not respected and not followed. How 9 could that be? Why would the NRC not take an 10 independent scientific commission seriously? I'm told 11 that we have the same mark, whatever, power plant that 12 Fukushima has. We, too, live on the water. Why do we 13 assume that we couldn't have a Fukushima? And why 14 don't we take the commonsense recommendations?
15 Now the gist of that book is that the NRC 16 is a rubberstamp for the nuclear industry. Go read 17 the book. I hate to say that. I'd like to think that 18 they're an impartial regulatory agency but according 19 to Greg Jaczko, the people on the committee are 20 primarily representatives of industry, nuclear 21 industry, which is, by the way, a heavily subsidized 22 industry.
23 And they really haven't through long-term, 24 as the previous gentleman said. They haven't thought 25 about the decommissioning. These -- NextEra's not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
45 1 going to pay for the decommissioning. The nuclear 2 waste problem which we were addressing in the Seacoast 3 in the 1970's has not been answered. Where is it 4 going to go? No one will take it. Who's going to 5 keep it cooled for an eternity? How much will that 6 cost? Who will pay for that?
7 Now these -- I suppose, those comments 8 don't belong here tonight, but this is part of the 9 unease, that we don't have a basis for trusting NRC's 10 safety claims. We want to see a safety record on 11 their part. So at least you could test the local 12 concrete and at most, you could look at some of these 13 other concerns that have been in the air since the 14 1970s. Thank you very much.
15 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you.
16 (Applause.)
17 JUDGE SPRITZER: These are all the people.
18 All the people have spoke. Oh, we have one more.
19 (Off mice comments.)
20 JUDGE SPRITZER: I was just about to say 21 since we -- everyone has been concise and to the 22 point, we're actually -- it's only a little after 7, 23 we're going to be here -- we've arranged to be here 24 until 8. We don't have to stay here till 8 just to --
25 for the sake of staying, but if there are other people NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
46 1 who would like to speak, we'll try and give you a 2 chance. So why don't you go up, and please identify 3 yourself since you're not on the list.
4 MR. BOGEN: Yes. My name is Doug Bogen.
5 I'm Director of the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League 6 based in Exeter, New Hampshire. On behalf of our 7 hundreds of members throughout the 10-mile EPZ and 8 beyond, SAPL supports the contention by C-10, and we 9 urge you to address it conscientiously and thoroughly.
10 For the record, we are not a party to this contention, 11 but we did become an intervener back earlier in the 12 decade on the issue of alternatives to continued 13 operation of Seabrook under NEPA, but the NRC 14 evidently determined that there are no other 15 alternatives, that Seabrook is the most viable power 16 source for many decades to come. But we do appreciate 17 the opportunity to address this current issue before 18 you.
19 I should mention that the public was not 20 aware of ASR even though the plant owners, and I guess 21 the NRC, was prior to when we submitted our 22 contentions, but we certainly would have if we'd known 23 about it at the time. And as we've heard from others, 24 the studies did not look -- the Texas study did not 25 look at actual concrete onsite, the actual conditions NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
47 1 likely to affect the plant in coming decades. As an 2 environmentalist, I'm very concerned about the impacts 3 of the environment on human structures as well as 4 vice-versa. And we know a few things about ASR. We 5 know that it increases with higher humidity. We know 6 it increases with higher temperatures. And the one 7 thing we know about climate change is that these 8 conditions are likely to increase over time, over 9 coming decades. And in particular, also, the post 10 Fukushima study of flooding in severe weather impacts 11 projects impacts that were, quote, "not bounded by the 12 current design basis flood hazard." In other words, 13 the plant was not built to handle the increased 14 flooding, storm surges, severe weather, etcetera that 15 is now projected from climate change. And even more 16 recent studies of climate impacts since that study was 17 done show that it is likely a much worse situation and 18 the estimates developed in that plan are probably too 19 conservative.
20 At the very least, this ground water 21 regime at the plant will change. It will add pressure 22 and additional water infiltration to the existing 23 structures. The need to pump ground water from the 24 site will increase. The water chemistry could 25 certainly change with increased tidal infiltration and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
48 1 so forth. And temperatures will definitely change.
2 I think recent experience the last few months, even 3 the last few days tells us that temperatures are 4 changing, and they're changing faster than previously 5 determined.
6 So I urge you to look at all -- at this 7 report done on the flooding hazard and the NRC 8 analysis of it. And please consider whether the 9 monitoring plan and the Texas study really addresses 10 those issues in the real world, in the world we live 11 in where the plant is subject to these environmental 12 impacts. I'm very concerned that there's no 13 mitigation plan discussed or contemplated. I know the 14 NRC claims there's no need for that, because they'll 15 be monitoring it and they don't expect anything to 16 happen. Well, that's great, but, you know, it's our 17 lives we're dealing with here. Decades into the 18 future, it really strains credulity that anybody could 19 know for certain that this won't be an impact, a 20 greater impact, an impact that threatens the viability 21 of the plant.
22 All we have to do is look at the one other 23 plant in the -- in North America that had exhibited 24 ASR up in Quebec, Canada, and that plant, when the 25 price of the mitigation of that problem exceeded $2 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
49 1 billion, they abandoned the plant. This is something 2 that we ought to be looking into. We ought to be 3 considering what those eventualities could be.
4 And I just ask you to please consider that 5 these concerns are fully discussed in this proceeding, 6 and also these contentions, whether the existing 7 research is adequate or not and whether the ASR 8 approach, the monitoring is adequate or not to ensure 9 our safety for decades to come. Thank you very much 10 (Applause.)
11 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you.
12 (Off mic comments.)
13 JUDGE SPRITZER: Is there anyone else I 14 haven't called that would like to speak, please, 15 again, state your name since we don't have you on the 16 list.
17 (Off mic comments.)
18 JUDGE SPRITZER: Oh, all right. Yes. It 19 looks like I missed one. All right. Well, please 20 proceed. Are you on this one?
21 MR. SZABO: Good evening, gentleman. My 22 name is Tom Szabo. I've been a resident of 23 Newburyport for 37 years, and I've raised my family 24 here. But I come to you not just as a citizen of 25 Newburyport, but also as a scientist. I'm a professor NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
50 1 at Boston University and I've been doing research for 2 over 50 years, much of it on materials and tissues, 3 the viscoelastic properties of these materials. And 4 I've also spent nearly 20 years in industry doing 5 product design, and I'm also a chair of an 6 international standards group on medical imaging, so 7 that standards group, what we do is we bring -- I have 8 30 different countries, and we reached consensus on 9 the best ways of testing the efficacy of products and 10 also ensuring their safety.
11 So what I'd like to bring to your 12 attention from a scientific point of view is that ASR 13 is a progressive and irreversible process. And 14 therefore, the only way to really monitor it is by 15 doing in situ testing, and I think that we can appeal 16 to good science here, because if you think about it, 17 when this plant was designed, the Seabrook Plant was 18 designed in 1976, we had IBM XT computers, and we had 19 1976 automobiles. Now from an industrial design point 20 of view, products have a lifetime and during that life 21 cycle, then they're replaced by other products. So 22 the -- also, the standards for design have enormously 23 changed over all these years. And as we know that 24 now, our cars today are not only more efficient and 25 safer, but they're also much more reliable because of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
51 1 improved design standards that have come into play.
2 So what we're talking about here is a 3 plant that was designed in the late 70s, and what 4 we're trying to do is figure out a safe way of 5 maintaining that plant. And I believe that right now 6 none of us can say what is the condition of the 7 concrete due to ASR. The only way that we can find 8 out is by doing in situ testing. And I believe that 9 there are methods now available to do that. For 10 example, in Fukushima, they're spending billions of 11 dollars right now to do further testing of the plant 12 using robotics and other instrumentation to measure 13 things under very extreme conditions. I'm not 14 suggesting that's what we do here, but there are 15 several methods, seismic methods using propagating 16 waves, also acoustic emission and other methods which 17 could be used to do in situ testing.
18 And the burden of proof is on the owner of 19 the nuclear plant to show that ASR is not a problem 20 and that the plant is safe. And I believe it's our 21 responsibility and yours to hold them to that, that we 22 look at the side of caution here and make sure that 23 they're doing their job. And so as you know now, we 24 know that there are good construction processes that 25 could avoid ASR just by, you know, doing things NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
52 1 correctly. But back in the -- that time, these things 2 were not known.
3 So what we know about ASR is that it 4 compromises the structural and elastic integrity of 5 the concrete. What this means is that the structure 6 is compromised. So if there is an earthquake -- and 7 there was one in, I believe, 2011 -- it's not -- you 8 don't need much of an earthquake. When you have a 9 structure that has got cracks in it, it can crumble.
10 And I don't know if you're aware of problems like 11 that, but if the actual structure has microcracks in 12 it, then that whole structure is compromised.
13 So I think that in terms of ensuring the 14 continued safety of Seabrook and also the nuclear 15 waste storage, that you are at a critical point where 16 you can ensure that good practices are being done here 17 and that you should hold the owner of Seabrook to the 18 highest standards of testing, in situ testing. Thank 19 you.
20 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you.
21 (Applause.)
22 JUDGE SPRITZER: Gary Schoene.
23 No longer with us. All right. Heather 24 Crowley.
25 MS. CROWLEY: Good evening and thank you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
53 1 for holding this public session for comments. My name 2 is Heather Crowley and I'm a physician and mother, and 3 I've lived in East Kingston, New Hampshire with my 4 husband and two children, ages 13 and 17, for the past 5 16 years. Notably, in that 16 years, we have never 6 had a practice evacuation and as, you know, just to 7 see if there was an accident if we could get out 8 safely in small New England roads. So I just wanted 9 to bring that to your attention.
10 Tonight I'm here to remind you of your 11 responsibilities and to let you see one of the faces 12 of the over approximately 150,000 people living in the 13 15 towns within a 10-mile radius of Seabrook. In 14 2011, during the Fukushima nuclear accident, the U.S.
15 Government instructed Americans living in the area to 16 evacuate if they were in a 50-mile radius. If you 17 widen the radius around Seabrook Plant to 50 miles, 18 the City of Boston, with over 600,000 people living in 19 it, is included, and we would easily be over a million 20 people at risk from an accident or leak at Seabrook 21 including all the other towns in a 50-mile radius.
22 You hold the lives and safety of all of 23 these families in your hands, and I am asking you, we 24 are asking you to follow your own principles of good 25 regulation as described on the NRC website. These NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
54 1 include, and I quote, "Independence, nothing but the 2 highest possible standards of ethical performance and 3 professionalism should influence regulation; openness, 4 nuclear regulation is the public's business, and it 5 must be transacted publicly and candidly; and 6 reliability, regulations should be based on the best 7 available knowledge from research and operational 8 experience; systems interactions and technological 9 uncertainties must all be taken into account so that 10 risks are maintained at an acceptably low level."
11 So I am here to remind you of what and who 12 is at stake and to ask you to be guided by your 13 organization's values which include, and I again quote 14 from the NRC's website, "integrity in our working 15 relationships, practices, and decisions; service to 16 the public and others who are affected by our work; 17 openness and communications and decision-making 18 including transparency and forthrightness; and 19 commitment to public health and safety, security, and 20 the environment." I am very concerned that these 21 values are not being upheld and have been undermined 22 in light of the premature re-licensing of the Seabrook 23 Plant despite significant risks posed by concrete 24 degradation and ASR.
25 I implore you to remember your commitment NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
55 1 to public health and safety, security, and the 2 environment before all other possible interests 3 including interest from the nuclear industry. You are 4 serving the people, not the industry, and we are 5 counting on you. I mean it's on the pamphlet that 6 you've handed out tonight. It says, "Protecting 7 people and the environment." And I implore you to do 8 that this week. Thank you.
9 (Applause.)
10 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you. Cathryn 11 Capra.
12 MS. CAPRA: Hi. I'm Cathryn Capra. I 13 live in Georgetown, which is about 10 miles south of 14 Newburyport, and I came tonight because I -- I know 15 very little, but what I have heard about ASR in 16 Seabrook, what's been discovered so far has really 17 alarmed me. And the concrete testing conditions 18 seemed inadequate. NextEra conducted them and it was 19 not natural sample from the plant is my understanding.
20 So it's the first plant in the U.S. that has this, and 21 there's no clear idea of exactly what the progression 22 will be, what the damage will be in the future, 23 because this has never happened before here.
24 So the license extension seemed premature 25 and was very alarming to me, and I agree with Dr.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
56 1 Saouma that there needs to be more extensive testing 2 and monitoring done independently and transparently.
3 Thank you.
4 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you.
5 (Applause.)
6 JUDGE SPRITZER: Barry Connell.
7 MR. CONNELL: Thank you for coming here 8 tonight. My name is Barry Connell. I am President of 9 the Newburyport City Council. My comments are my own 10 and not those of the Council, and what I'm going to do 11 is point out that the last time the Council offered 12 testimony to you regarding the extension of the 13 license for the reactor in Seabrook, we never received 14 a reply. I hope that that's different this time 15 around.
16 My question to you is this. I'm not 17 prepared to offer competent testimony to you tonight, 18 but my question to is how long will the record remain 19 open so that I might submit testimony in the hope that 20 in this instance you will reply?
21 JUDGE SPRITZER: We have -- I don't know 22 -- we can receive comments whenever you care to submit 23 them. I think the proceeding you're referring to was 24 probably with the NRC staff as you haven't been before 25 this Board before, so I can't really speak to what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
57 1 they did or didn't --
2 MR. CONNELL: I understand.
3 JUDGE SPRITZER: -- did or didn't do.
4 They're a different part of the Agency or actually, 5 one of the parties who will be before us tomorrow 6 defending their position. So if you want to -- but if 7 you want to put comments in the record of this public 8 hearing, we can still take them I think.
9 MR. CONNELL: For how long?
10 JUDGE SPRITZER: I don't know that we have 11 an express deadline but the sooner the better.
12 MR. CONNELL: Okay. Is a week's time 13 reasonable?
14 JUDGE SPRITZER: I think so.
15 MR. CONNELL: Very well, I'll submit it 16 then. Thank you for your time.
17 JUDGE SPRITZER: You're welcome.
18 (Applause.)
19 JUDGE SPRITZER: Well, we do have a little 20 time left. Does anybody else want to be heard? We 21 have a lady in the back.
22 MS. KAPLAN: Yes. Hello, my name is Fran 23 Kaplan. I've lived with my family here for 44 years, 24 love this community. I am a supporter of C-10, and I 25 just want to thank everyone that spoke with their NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
58 1 concerns. I'm not going to bring up a scientific 2 concern. I think people have shared that, but what I 3 wonder about is we protect ourselves and our property 4 with insurance policies. Monetary values are assigned 5 to compensate us in the event of loss of our most 6 valued physical possessions, our homes, health 7 insurance tries to compensate us in the event of 8 disease. If there's a high level of confidence by the 9 NextEra Plant and the NRC and your Board for 10 licensing, is there a dollar figure set aside to 11 compensate all the people that would lose property and 12 health in the event of a disaster happening, even a 13 small scale one that would cause us to have to leave 14 our homes? I've never heard about such a fund, so I 15 really would like to know if there is such a thing, 16 because that's the way the world operates. We operate 17 on risk, and we operate on monetary presumed, you 18 know, amounts tied to that risk, so thank you.
19 JUDGE SPRITZER: Sure. To answer your 20 question, there is a statute called "The Price-21 Anderson Act that requires nuclear power utilities to 22 contribute to a fund. I'm not an expert on it as 23 we're not hearing about that this week, and we don't 24 here contentions about that ever to my knowledge, but 25 there is a fund. You might -- you can probably do NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
59 1 research online and find out more about it than I 2 could tell you.
3 MS. KAPLAN: I would really appreciate 4 knowing that and to the scope, as you heard from one 5 of the physicians -- that it could involve a distance 6 of up to 50 miles. So I really would like to know if 7 that fund exists and what they propose. Thank you.
8 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you. All right.
9 Do we have anyone else? One more. Yes, sir.
10 MR. FITZSIMMONS: Peter Fitzsimmons, 45-11 year resident of Newburyport, so I was here before the 12 nuclear power plant. I don't want to beat it to 13 death, because others have already talked about it, 14 but my biggest concerns are how the decision actually 15 gets made in whether to move forward or not. You see, 16 I have very little trust, faith in our regulatory 17 institutions. I think someone already mentioned the 18 737 disaster. Clear failure of one of our regulatory 19 institutions as well as corporate greed. A worse case 20 came up 10 years ago, just as I retired, and that was 21 the 2008 great financial collapse destroyed $28 22 trillion in wealth within a matter of a month. Again, 23 at least five U.S. Government regulatory agencies 24 didn't do their job.
25 And the thing is no one was punished. I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
60 1 don't think anybody will be punished or see anything 2 other than maybe a demotion for the 737. These are 3 decisions made by people we don't even know, 4 bureaucrats who will disappear into the woodwork and 5 if something happens 20 years from now or 10 years, 6 they're not going to be around. That's my biggest 7 concern.
8 I have a background in engineering. I 9 have master's degree in electrical engineering. I'm 10 a 10-year member of the IEEE Power Engineering 11 Society, although I've never worked in power. Most of 12 my life, I worked in telecom, but I do have -- I feel 13 I'm unbiased in the sense that I see the advantages of 14 nuclear power, particularly given climate change or 15 global warming as I prefer to call it. It may be at 16 least a temporary solution to that.
17 So I'd like to see this go through if it's 18 absolutely safe, but as I said, I don't have much 19 faith in current regulatory agencies. Thank you.
20 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you.
21 (Applause.)
22 JUDGE SPRITZER: All right. Is there 23 anyone else who has not spoken?
24 MR. LYNCH: Hello. My name is 25 Bill Lynch. I'm also an electrical engineer, a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
61 1 graduate of UMass Lowell with expertise in renewable 2 energy with a doctorate degree. I'm currently working 3 on -- at MIT on studying energy storage devices, 4 batteries, although my opinion is my own and not 5 specifically representing MIT.
6 I agree with the previous gentleman in 7 many respects. Nuclear power is an extremely large 8 source of clean energy. I haven't personally studied 9 the ASR issue that much, but I understand it could be 10 serious, and it should be studied in an unbiased 11 manner. But if the plant can be operated safely, 12 which seems likely if enough care goes into the 13 maintenance, it's a huge source of clean energy and, 14 therefore, can mitigate climate change.
15 And I like solar energy very much and wind 16 energy and other renewables. I studied those. I've 17 participated in solar car races, and I like people 18 learning about those technologies. But it also takes 19 a lot of them to replace a nuclear power plant. Some 20 offshore wind is planned. It would take hundreds of 21 large 10-megawatt offshore wind turbines that could 22 take a long time to be installed to replace that clean 23 energy as well as to make that intermittent energy 24 acceptable to utilities, large amounts of batteries.
25 Some prototype systems set up a Tesla in Hawaii, I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
62 1 recall about, had four hours of battery storage, four 2 peak energy hours of battery storage for PV systems.
3 That's a lot of batteries, and it is not that it's not 4 doable, but it's a lot, and we are doing it, and we 5 should be doing both.
6 PV panels, it could take millions of PV 7 panels to replace a nuclear power plant, and they are 8 being put in. But again, I think we should be doing 9 both and as long as it's safe, I don't think it should 10 be prematurely closed. Thank you.
11 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you. Does anyone 12 else want to speak that hasn't?
13 MR. MOYER: My name is Herb Moyer. I'm a 14 47-year resident of Exeter, New Hampshire. I've been 15 involved in the Seabrook licensing hearings as a 16 member of the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League since 17 they were first run at the high school where I taught 18 in Hampton, New Hampshire in the early 70s. I have 19 very jaded experience with NRC decisions, and I'll 20 give you one example.
21 As part of some of the ASLB hearings in 22 the 70s, we came upon an administrative law judge 23 named Helen Hoyt. The utility, then public service 24 company, was supposed to have done a certain technical 25 correction. They hadn't done that and my organization NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
63 1 has been through legal proceedings to -- for -- since 2 1969 really to work in opposition to the construction 3 permit, the licensing permit, and certainly the 4 license extension. And I estimated we probably spent 5 half a million dollars on legal fees just to get our 6 point considered seriously by various NRC entities.
7 In that administrative law judge Helen 8 Hoyt situation where the utility was supposed to have 9 done X, they didn't do it, and we requested why, why 10 have you -- why has the utility not done that fix.
11 Her response -- and I will never forget this -- her 12 response was, "The utility's commitment to comply was 13 evidence of compliance." Obviously, that can't stand.
14 That's irrefutable evidence that the game is rigged.
15 We've been involved in a variety of NRC 16 hearings. I'm not optimistic that we will get any 17 satisfactory answers from the ASLB or from any NRC 18 entity. When we proposed our contention on reliable 19 alternative energies about five years ago, the NRC 20 wasn't listening obviously, and the courts weren't 21 listening, and I doubt that they're still doing it.
22 I'm concerned that the so-called science that the 23 Texas consultant is doing regarding ASR. This is 24 being done in the dark. There is no opportunity for 25 comment on the techniques if it's not being made NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
64 1 available to the public. How can you have a 2 scientific analysis that's done fairly when you don't 3 know all the parameters of that technique that was 4 being done?
5 So I'm in the camp with the Dr. Victor 6 Saouma that what the Texas utility is doing -- and 7 these are not his words, these are my words -- is 8 really junk science. So we expect to have reliable 9 scientific techniques done on things throughout our 10 government. If they're not, we're going to find there 11 are problems. So my feeling is the NRC pretends that 12 it's listening to the public; however, the extensive 13 record of NRC rulings is replete with evidence to the 14 contrary. History will show that the people who are 15 involved in making such decisions were putting the 16 public in harm's way.
17 Dr. Gregory Jaczko is correct. Nuclear 18 power is a dying technology. Why don't you let it die 19 a dignified death instead of being linked with 20 decisions that have put the public at greater risk at 21 loss of health and property? There will be another 22 nuclear accident in the U.S. I'm convinced of that.
23 I hope you have factored that into your moral 24 calculus.
25 And just in response to the woman that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
65 1 raised the issue of insurance liability, I'm in the 2 insurance industry and obviously, from 1957 forward, 3 the nuclear industry took very little, if any, 4 responsibility for any damage that it would do. That 5 was what the Price-Anderson Act did in 1957. It took 6 the utilities off the hook for any liability and 7 casualty damage that was done, and they now contribute 8 so many million dollars, and I don't remember the 9 figure, but Dr. Jaczko, at a recent presentation, told 10 us that the amount of money available to deal with any 11 major technological hazard is about $20 billion.
12 We've now seen Chernobyl and Fukushima cost in the 2 13 to $300 billion right now. So, all you property 14 owners, check out your liability policy. You have no 15 protection. It's going to be the public that will be 16 put at risk financially for any accident. I urge you 17 to consider all these wonderful comments that people 18 have made seriously. Thank you very much.
19 (Applause.)
20 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you.
21 MR. CUSHING: My name is Renny Cushing.
22 I'm a State Representative from New Hampshire. I'm 23 from the Town of Hampton. A portion of the atomic 24 plant is in my district. I apologize for being late.
25 I'd signed up earlier. I appreciate --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
66 1 JUDGE SPRITZER: That's all right. We're 2 glad to have you.
3 MR. CUSHING: And my comments, I'll keep 4 them brief and to the point. My background with the 5 plant goes back to when I was in high school, 6 Winnacunnet High School, and there was -- the 7 announcement was first made that there'd be an atomic 8 plant built on our state's precious 18 miles of 9 seacoast. In 1972, I testified before the State Site 10 Evaluation Committee here, and which gave the states 11 permission to proceed with the licensing before the 12 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
13 And what I recall from that, the promises 14 that were made, the representations that were made 15 back then have nothing to do with what we're seeing 16 now. My perspective of the current situation with ASR 17 at Seabrook is that I don't understand how it is that 18 we could have gone through the process of constructing 19 an atomic power plant that now 30 years later has ASR, 20 has the concrete cancer that seems to be besetting the 21 plant.
22 I don't know how come -- and I've never 23 had anyone be able to explain to me how is it that 24 Seabrook is distinguishable from every other atomic 25 plant in the United States as far as I know, is the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
67 1 only one that has ASR. I know that the promise that 2 the state made -- the owner of the Seabrook Plant, the 3 builders, was that the plant would operate for 40 4 years. A license was granted. A certificate of site 5 was granted by the Site Evaluation Committee 6 predicated upon a 40-year operating license. It was 7 also predicated upon a prompt dismantlement. It was 8 also predicated upon not storing high-level 9 radioactive waste. It's turned now into kind of a 10 nuclear waste dump. We've got the dry cask storage 11 that are there. Never received permission from the 12 state to do that, simply went to the NRC.
13 I would ask you to just please let the 14 Seabrook license expire and just waste -- don't devote 15 further time. I think ASR is a compelling reason to 16 close it right now. Thank you.
17 (Applause.)
18 MS. CARR: My name is Victoria Carr, and 19 I'm a 40-year resident of Newburyport. I remember 20 picketing on the lines up in Seabrook with a lot of 21 other people here, and I also -- a friend of mine, 22 good friend of mine had a couple of friends who worked 23 at Seabrook, and I still remember the parties and some 24 of the comments of those people. And I'm sure 25 probably other people here have done the same thing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
68 1 where they would talk, laugh about going in blitzed, 2 particularly on a Monday, and they would joke about 3 the -- how they covered up things.
4 And at the time, my sister was working as 5 an accountant for nuclear designer for plants, but he 6 only worked in Europe. And we used to have these 7 awful arguments about Seabrook and about nuclear power 8 in general. And he kept on saying, "it's very safe, 9 they had very stringent criteria in terms of 10 construction, they had maintenance, and of the 11 plants," but he was talking about European plants.
12 And several years after Seabrook was built, he 13 contacted me and said he was really sorry for all of 14 the putdowns that I had gotten the times that we had 15 talked, and he said from what he has heard from the 16 industry, that he could see my concerns about 17 Seabrook. And he didn't talk about the other plants 18 in the United States, but he did say that he thought 19 based on things that have been documented and 20 discussed in the industry, that we had every right to 21 worry about the future of Seabrook. Thank you.
22 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you.
23 (Applause.)
24 JUDGE SPRITZER: All right. Has everyone 25 spoken that -- we have more.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
69 1 MR. McLAUGHLIN: Evening, folks. It's a 2 real honor to be here with some of the people that 3 you've heard from tonight. I'm very familiar with 4 some of them and the very distinguished service that 5 they've given to their community over the last 40 or 6 50 years. All have been true heroes to me the way 7 they put their community above everything else and 8 make tremendous amounts of social sacrifice in the 9 name of the clamshell and what have you.
10 My name is Dave McLaughlin. I live in 11 Derry so I'm well within that 50-mile limit that we 12 talked about. But I did live in Newburyport during 13 the construction of the plant, and I just wanted to go 14 along with what this last person said. I, too, 15 remember the stories of my friends that worked at the 16 nuclear power plant and their very uncomfortable ill-17 at-ease feeling working there. And when they would 18 inquire of their project managers and supervisors why 19 they were pouring concrete in below-freezing weather 20 when they had never worked for a housing contractor 21 that would pour a foundation in the wintertime, they 22 were just told that due to regulation setbacks and one 23 thing or another, these guys were under a tremendous 24 amount of pressure to be able to work within the time 25 restraints they had. It was very important to get two NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
70 1 -- the space for two reactors over there although 2 eventually, sense prevailed and there's only one 3 reactor going. They were forced at that time to be 4 building the retainers for two reactors over there.
5 And they simply had to keep pouring through the 6 winter.
7 I don't know if anybody here lives in a 8 house with a foundation that was poured in the 9 wintertime, but it's my understanding it's never been 10 a particularly good idea to pour concrete in the 11 winter.
12 I hope you folks are able to take a look 13 at the construction records over there and determine 14 when that concrete was poured and go over U.S.
15 meteorological records of those time periods to see 16 what the temperatures were on those days when it was 17 poured, and perhaps there would be a little better 18 understanding of why we are very close to the only 19 nuclear power plant in the country that apparently 20 showed tremendous stress problems in its concrete.
21 Thank you. Good luck, gentlemen, ladies, and I hope 22 you people are what we would very much like to see, 23 people that are looking at your own selves, your own 24 communities, your own families when you make these 25 decisions, because we're all human.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
71 1 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you.
2 (Applause.)
3 JUDGE SPRITZER: All right. Does anybody 4 else want to speak that has not spoken already? We're 5 getting close to our -- oh, we got one more. All 6 right. I think we will make this our last, but please 7 go ahead.
8 MS. SCOTT: Sharon Scott. I came to 9 Newburyport in '72. I did leave for a little while, 10 and I've been back here for over 20 years. And I also 11 had friends that worked at the nuclear power plant, 12 and it used to horrify me some of things, but I don't 13 want to get into all that. I just want to be very 14 brief and say that it frightens me, and I find it 15 rather appalling that the age of this plant now, that 16 it's in the process of possibly being re-licensed and 17 the license will expire in 2050. That's 31 years from 18 now. I mean most of us are going to be dead, but it's 19 31 years from now, and we've got this problem that's 20 been building up -- I mean I don't really know when it 21 started, the cracking, but I just find it appalling 22 that it's got this issue now, and we're actually 23 considering letting it go until 2050, 31 years from 24 now. So basically, that's all I have to say. Thank 25 you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
72 1 JUDGE SPRITZER: Thank you.
2 K (Applause.)
3 JUDGE SPRITZER: Well, I said that would 4 be the last, but she was very brief, so if anybody 5 else wants to speak, we can accommodate one more. All 6 right. Thank you for attending. It's been a very 7 interesting and informative session for us. As I 8 said, you are welcome to attend the evidentiary 9 hearing where we will really be getting into the 10 details including the 15 volumes or so of evidence 11 that we have already to consider.
12 There will be a transcript prepared of the 13 hearing. Initially, it will be kept non-public until 14 the parties have had a chance to go over it and remove 15 any protected information, but that's a relatively 16 small part of the case. And once that's completed, 17 the transcript, except for those protected parts, will 18 be made public. It should be available on the NRC 19 website, I would estimate, roughly 30 days from the 20 conclusion of the hearing, although that's not an 21 absolute guarantee. So you're more than welcome to 22 review that, and you can see what actually transpired 23 at the hearing.
24 We will, of course, issue a decision after 25 the hearing is closed. Given the volume of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
73 1 information we have to deal with, it will take us a 2 while, but I would estimate hopefully by January of 3 2020, we should have a decision, perhaps earlier, 4 perhaps a little later. But we will definitely be 5 issuing a decision that will be publicly available 6 except in the event there are any specific protected 7 information that's included and -- but I can't imagine 8 -- most of the decision, if not all of it, will be 9 publicly available.
10 What happens next after that, any party 11 dissatisfied with our decision can appeal to the 12 Commission. Once the Commission issues a decision, 13 any party that is dissatisfied with that decision has 14 the opportunity to challenge the Commission's decision 15 in federal court, which is usually the federal Court 16 of Appeals, either here in Massachusetts, the First 17 Circuit, or in D.C., the United States Court of 18 Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Eventually, the case 19 could conceivably go to the Supreme Court although of 20 course, they have a lot on their plate so - -and they 21 have the ability to choose which cases they do or 22 don't take.
23 In any event, we will be issuing a 24 decision and you're more than welcome to review the 25 decision and the transcript when they're available.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
74 1 All right. Thank you for your attendance.
2 (Applause.)
3 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 4 off the record at 7:54 p.m.)
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 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 (202) 234-4433