ML21062A192
| ML21062A192 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 02/17/2021 |
| From: | Stacey Imboden NRC/NMSS/DREFS/ERMB |
| To: | |
| Imboden S,NMSS/REFS/ERMB | |
| References | |
| NRC-1356 | |
| Download: ML21062A192 (84) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Public Scoping Meeting Subsequent License Renewal Application Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Docket Number:
50-266 and 50-301 Location:
teleconference Date:
Wednesday, February 17, 2021 Work Order No.:
NRC-1356 Pages 1-83 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING 4
SUBSEQUENT LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION 5
POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 6
+ + + + +
7 WEDNESDAY, 8
FEBRUARY 17, 2021 9
+ + + + +
10 The public scoping meeting convened via 11 Videoconference, at 1:00 p.m. CST, Sheila Ray, 12 Facilitator, presiding.
13 14 NRC STAFF PRESENT:
15 BILL ROGERS, Safety Project Manager, NRR, Division 16 of New and Renewed Licenses 17 PHYLLIS CLARK, Environmental Project Manager, 18 Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and 19 Safeguards (NMSS) 20 KEVIN COYNE, Deputy Division Director, NMSS 21 ROBERT ELLIOTT, Branch Chief, Environmental License 22 Renewal Branch, NMSS 23 SCOTT BURNELL, Spokesperson, Office of 24 Public Affairs 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 LOIS JAMES, Senior Project Manager, Office of 1
Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) 2 SHEILA RAY, Meeting Facilitator 3
4 ALSO PRESENT:
5 DANIELLE DREXEL, Conference Operator 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
3 C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 1
PAGE 2
Introduction and Purpose 4
3 Safety Review Overview
........... 10 4
Environmental Review Overview........ 14 5
Public Questions on NRC Presentation/
6 License Renewal Process
........ 23 7
Public Environmental Topics To Be Considered 8
in Environmental Impact Statement
... 38 9
Recap of Meeting
.............. 81 10 Adjourn................... 83 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
4 P R O C E E D I N G S 1
2:00 p.m.
2 MS. DREXEL: Welcome and thank you for 3
standing by. At this time, all participants are in 4
listen-only mode until the question-and-answer session 5
of today's conference. At that time, you may press *1 6
on your phone to ask a question.
7 I'd like to inform all parties that 8
today's conference is being recorded. If you have any 9
objection, you may disconnect at this time. I would 10 now like to turn the conference over to your host, 11 Sheila Ray. Thank you. You may begin.
12 MS. RAY: Thank you. Good afternoon, 13 everyone. I'd like to welcome everyone to the Public 14 Scoping Meeting for the Subsequent License Renewal 15 Application for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 16 2.
My name is Sheila Ray, and I'll be serving as your 17 meeting facilitator.
18 My role is to help the meeting go smoothly 19 to achieve the common objective. My approach will be 20 to set the ground rules, encourage participation and 21 open dialogue, as well as maintain a respectful and 22 professional environment. Furthermore, I will keep 23 the meeting focused on the topic at hand and keep 24 track of the agenda and schedule to ensure timeliness 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
5 to cover all topics.
1 This is a Category 3 public meeting.
2 Category 3 meetings are typically held with a 3
representative of non-government organizations, 4
private citizens, interested parties, businesses, or 5
industries to fully engage them in discussion. These 6
meetings provide an opportunity for the NRC and the 7
public to work together to ensure that issues and 8
concerns are understood and considered. Today's 9
meeting is being recorded and transcribed. For an 10 accurate transcription, when speaking, please identify 11 yourself and your affiliation.
12 We welcome feedback on the NRC's public 13 meetings and we would appreciate if you submit 14 feedback. And I'll provide that method to provide 15 feedback at the end of the meeting. We're on slide 3.
16 The purpose of today's meeting is to 17 gather information necessary to prepare an 18 environmental impact statement to evaluate the 19 environmental impact for subsequent license renewals 20 for the operating license for Point Beach Nuclear 21 Plant, Units 1 and 2. The NRC is seeking public input 22 on this act. For today's agenda, we'll provide an 23 overview of the license renewal process.
24 I ask that you hold your questions until 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
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6
the end of the presentation. After the NRC staff presentation, I will take questions about the presentation and process followed by public comment.
I'd ask that you keep comments and questions in the scope of the subsequent license renewal and the NRC's environmental review.
Please note written comments will need to be submitted by regulations.gov by March 3rd. And you can search Docket ID NRC-2020-0277. And I will provide that in the chat in just a second.
We do have a request from Wisconsin PSR to extend the comment period. And we'll respond to that in the near future. We're also working on addressing incorrect NRC website links. Currently on slide 4.
For ground rules, please have one speaker at a time. State your name and affiliation before speaking for accurate transcriptions. In addition, please hold your questions until the end of the presentation.
Please follow the agenda to stay on track and stay on topic. Please mute or place on vibrate all of your electronic devices. Regarding logistics, the slides are available through Microsoft Teams and are available in ADAMS at ML21042B945 and I will provide that in the chat.
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
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Please refrain from using the video feature in Teams to avoid bandwidth issues. The audio is through the telephone bridge line. Participants are in listen only during the public comment -- until the public comment portion of the meeting.
At that time, you can press *1 to indicate you'd like to make a comment. The operator will then open your line. Please be concise when providing your comment so everyone has time to speak. For your awareness, the chat in Teams will not be recorded.
Finally, no regulatory decision will be made at today's meeting. And we welcome environmental concerns to aid in the staff review. We are currently on slide 5.
We have a number of NRC staff in the meeting today, and this slide includes the presenters for today's meeting. Mr. Kevin Coyne is the director of our Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support and will be providing opening remarks. Mr. Bill Rogers will be providing an overview of the NRC staff safety review process.
And Ms. Phyllis Clark will provide an overview of the staff's environmental review process.
Finally, Mr. Rob Elliot who is the Chief of the Environmental Review License Renewal Branch will be 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 providing closing remarks. At this time, I'd ask for 1
opening remarks by Kevin Coyne. Kevin, the floor is 2
yours.
3 MR. COYNE: Thanks very much, Sheila.
4 Good afternoon, everyone. As Sheila said, my name is 5
Kevin Coyne and I'm the Deputy Director of the 6
Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial 7
Support at the NRC.
8 I want to welcome everyone to the Public 9
Scoping Meeting for the Point Beach Subsequent License 10 Renewal Environmental Review. We're holding this 11 meeting today to hear from you on significant issues 12 that the staff should consider in developing an 13 environmental impact statement for this subsequent 14 license renewal application. I want to start off my 15 noting that we would typically be holding this meeting 16 near the Point Beach site to better engage you, the 17 local community, during the scoping meeting.
18 Unfortunately, the ongoing public health 19 emergency has prevented us from being with you in 20 person. However, the webinar allows us to hear your 21 feedback. And this is critically important because 22 you are familiar with the area surrounding the site 23 and you may be aware of environmental issues the staff 24 may not yet know about.
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
9 We are at the beginning of the 1
environmental review, the scoping period. And what 2
that means is that we're looking for the scope of 3
environmental issues to be considered in the staff's 4
detailed analysis in the environmental impact 5
statement. After we collect your comments and develop 6
the draft environmental impact statement, we will be 7
holding another meeting to hear your comments on that 8
draft environmental impact statement and use that 9
input to develop the final environmental impact 10 statement.
11 I thank you all for being here today. And 12 I look forward to hearing your comments. Now I'll 13 turn it over to Bill Rogers to discuss the safety 14 review.
15 PARTICIPANT: Operator? Bill Rogers --
16 MS. RAY: Danielle, can you please open 17 Bill Rogers' line?
18 MS. DREXEL: All host lines are open.
19 Bill, if you dialed in with a guest code, please dial 20
- 0 so I can find your line.
21 MS. RAY: Everyone please be patient. We 22 are getting Bill. Thank you. Just hold on one 23 second.
24 MS. DREXEL: All right. Your line is 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
10 open.
1 MR. ROGERS: Thank you. Good afternoon, 2
everyone. This is Bill Rogers. Am I being heard?
3 MS. RAY: Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead, 4
Bill.
5 MR. ROGERS: Thank you very much. Thank 6
you, Sheila. So let's go to slide 6, please. Thank 7
you. There are two statutes that guide the NRC's 8
staff review of subsequent license renewal 9
applications. These are the Atomic Energy Act and the 10 National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA.
11 These two statutes are at the core of the 12 NRC mission which is to protect public health and 13 safety, promote common defense and security, and to 14 protect the environment. Slide 7, please. The 15 subsequent license renewal review proceeds in two 16 parallel
- paths, the safety review and the 17 environmental review.
18 These reviews evaluate separate aspects of 19 the subsequent license renewal application. Across 20 the top of the slide is the environmental review shown 21 as the green path which Phyllis Clark will be 22 discussing later in this presentation. Along the 23 bottom of the slide is a safety review shown as the 24 red path.
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
11 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The safety review has two components, the staff safety review performed in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54 and documented in a Safety Evaluation Report and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards review and report on the subsequent license renewal application. The dotted lines in the middle of the flowchart highlight the opportunity for a hearing and established by the Atomic Energy Act which provides a process for the public's request the involvement in hearings on a variety of civilian nuclear matters. The block at the far right where all lines converge represent the NRC's decision on whether to renew -- excuse me, whether to renew the operating license.
That decision will be made by the Commission after consideration of the NRC staff's recommendation and other information. Slide 8, please. The focus of the license renewal safety review is to identify aging effects that could impair the ability of system structure components within the scope of license renewal to perform their intended function and to demonstrate that the aging effects will be adequately managed during the period of extended operation, in this case, the 20-year renewal period. The NRC staff conducted an acceptance 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 review with each application to determine if the 1
application is sufficient and acceptable for docking.
2 On January 15th, 2021, the staff received an 3
acceptance letter for the Point Beach subsequent 4
license renewal application. Excuse me. The NRC 5
staff will be conducting in-office reviews and audits 6
of the application, documents and references 7
identified in the application, and supporting 8
information. The staff will document its review in a 9
safety evaluation. Slide 9, please.
10 The NRC ensures the adequate protection of 11 public health and safety and the environment through 12 the regulatory process. This chart shows the 13 different aspects of that regulatory process. The 14 principles of license renewal safety reviews as 15 applied to initial license renewal have not changed 16 for subsequent license renewal.
17 The regulatory process adequately assures 18 the plant's current licensing basis, provides and 19 maintains an acceptable level of safety. And each 20 plant's current licensing basis is required to be 21 maintained during the renewal term in the same manner 22 and to the same extent as during the original 23 licensing term. Initial license renewal and aging 24 management activities and subsequent license renewal 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
13 adds and modifies aging management activities as 1
needed and provides an assessment of the effectiveness 2
of ongoing aging management activities. Slide 10, 3
please.
4 The Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 5
2 were first licensed for operation in 1970 and 1973 6
respectively and were granted a renewed operating 7
license in 2005. The current renewed license expire 8
in 2030 and 2033 respectively for Unit 1 and Unit 2.
9 NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, NextEra, filed an 10 application for subsequent license renewal of the 11 Point Beach Nuclear Plant by letter dated November 16, 12 2020. Slide 11, please. Thank you.
13 A license renewal application is required 14 to contain certain sets of information. General 15 information such as the applicant's name and address 16 is administrative information and technical 17 information that pertains to aging management 18 activities which is the focus of the safety review.
19 The application also includes an environmental report 20 which is the applicant's assessment of the 21 environmental impact of continued operation.
22 The information contained in the 23 environmental report serves as a starting point for 24 the staff's review of the environmental aspects of 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
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 subsequent license renewal for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant. This concludes the staff's discussion of safety review process. And at this point, I'll turn the meeting over to Phyllis. And if you have any questions on the process, we will respond to that in the second portion of the meeting. Slide 12, please.
And Phyllis?
MS. CLARK: Thanks, Bill. Good afternoon.
My name is Phyllis Clark. Thank you for taking the time to attend this public meeting. I will describe the environmental review process associated with the license renewal review for Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2.
The most important piece of today's meeting is to receive any comments that you may have on the scope of the environmental review. I will also give you some information about how you can submit comments outside of this meeting. I hope the information we provide will help you to understand the license renewal review process and the role you can play in helping us make sure that our environmental review considers all relevant information.
The NRC conducts the environmental review in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, commonly referred to as NEPA. NEPA NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 requires federal agencies to follow a systematic approach in evaluating the potential impact from the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action. The NRC was codified -- has codified NEPA in 10 CFR Part 51 which is the environmental protection regulations for domestic licensing and related regulatory functions.
Our environmental reviews consider the impacts of subsequent license renewal and any proposed mitigation of those impacts as warranted. We also consider the impacts of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action of subsequent license
- renewal, including the impact of not issuing a subsequent license.
The staff documents its environmental review in an environmental impact statement which I'll be referring to as EIS.
I will now discuss the environmental scoping process in more detail. Slide 13, please.
For the environmental review, the staff considers, evaluates, and discloses the environmental impacts of continuing to operate the plant for an additional 20 years. The staff also evaluates the environmental impacts of alternatives to license renewal.
The objective of the review is to determine if the environmental impacts of subsequent NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 license renewal are so great that the subsequent license renewal would not be a reasonable option or is subsequent license renewal unacceptable from an environmental standpoint. Slide 14, please. The environmental review begins with the scoping process which includes today's public meeting.
Scoping is a process by which the NRC staff identifies the specific impacts and significant issues to be considered within a draft environmental impact statement. The scoping period for the Point Beach SLRA environmental review started on February 1st, 2021 when the Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping was published in the Federal Register. The scoping period ends on March 3rd, 2021.
The NRC staff will consider all scoping comments provided today as well as written comments received during the scoping period. We will consider these comments as we prepare the draft EIS. Through the scoping process, we are looking for information about the local environment that should be consider in a staff draft EIS.
You can assist us in the process by telling us, for example, what aspects of your community we should focus on, what total environmental, social, and economic issues the NRC 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 staff should examine during the environmental review, 1
and what reasonable alternatives are most appropriate 2
for your local region. These are just some examples 3
of input that we are looking for. And they represent 4
of kinds of information we are seeking through the 5
environmental scoping period.
6 Your comments today would be helpful in 7
providing insight of this nature for the environmental 8
analysis. I'd like to take some time to discuss what 9
we mean by scoping and your role in this process. The 10 NRC staff uses scoping to determine the range of 11 issues and alternatives to be considered in the EIS.
12 In
- addition, scoping comments help 13 identify significant issues that will be analyzed in 14 greater detail. Scoping is also intended to ensure 15 that concerns are identified early and properly 16 evaluated throughout the environmental review. At the 17 conclusion of the scoping process, NRC will prepare 18 and issue an environmental scoping summary report that 19 describes comments received during the scoping period 20 and significant issues identified as a result of the 21 scoping process. Slide 15, please.
22 Within the environmental impact statement, 23 the NRC evaluates impacts from the proposed license 24 renewal for a wide range of environmental resources 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
18 such as air quality, human health, wetlands, and 1
threatened and endangered species. The NRC conducts 2
this review by building upon decades of previous 3
experience analyzing the environmental impacts from 4
power plant operations. For example, in 2013, the NRC 5
staff published a generic EIS which identified 78 6
environmental impacts due to the operation of nuclear 7
power plants.
8 The NRC analyzed the impacts of those 78 9
environmental issues based upon the knowledge gained 10 during 40 previous license renewals as well as new 11 research, findings, and public comments. The staff 12 determined that 59 of the environmental issues were 13 generic or the same at all nuclear plants. For the 14 other 19 issues, the NRC staff determined that these 15 issues were site specific or that the impacts depended 16 upon the environment surrounding the plant and 17 operational conditions.
18 Therefore, the analysis for the Point 19 Beach license renewal will focus on the 19 site 20 specific environmental resource issues. The staff 21 will also review any new and significant information 22 related to the 59 generic issues. At the conclusion 23 of our independent environmental assessment, we will 24 publish our findings within a draft EIS which will be 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
19 issued for public comment.
1 The public comment period for the draft 2
supplemental EIS, which I'll be referring to as SEIS, 3
will be the second opportunity for you and other 4
members of the public to participate in the 5
environmental review process. The NRC staff will 6
consider all comments received during the draft SEIS 7
comment period in preparing and publishing the final 8
EIS. Slide 16, please.
9 This slide illustrates the NRC various 10 considerations for the site if a renewed operating 11 license will be issued. This rigorous review involves 12 the Safety Evaluation Report, environmental impact 13 statement, and so on. Also, as indicated on this 14 slide, public comments are an important aspect of the 15 environmental review process.
16 We consider all comments that we receive 17 from the public during the scoping process and as part 18 of preparing the EIS. You are an important part of 19 the scoping process. Because you're familiar with 20 your community, your comments will help to facilitate 21 a thorough review.
22 You can assist this process by telling us, 23 for example, what aspects of your community we should 24 focus on, what local, environmental, social, and 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
20 economic issues the NRC should examine during our 1
review, and what other major projects are ongoing or 2
planned in your area, what are reasonable alternatives 3
that are most appropriate for this region. Slide 17, 4
please. For subsequent license renewal review, the 5
NRC looks at a wide range of environmental impacts as 6
part of preparing the EIS.
7 In conducting our environmental review, we 8
consult with various federal, state, and local 9
officials as well as leaders of the Native American 10 tribes and gather pertinent information from these 11 sources to ensure it is considered in our analysis.
12 As illustrated on this slide for consulting agencies, 13 we will be coordinating with our federal, state, and 14 local agencies as well as tribal leaders. This 15 coordination helps to ensure that local technical 16 resource specialists are involved in the review.
17 Slide 18, please.
18 I'd like to mention a few aspects of NRC's 19 oversight that routinely come up during interactions 20 with members of the public. NRC staff addressed these 21 areas of performance every day as part of the ongoing 22 regulatory oversight provided for all currently 23 operating reactors. They include emergency planning, 24 security, and current safety performance, including 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
21 NRC inspection findings, violations, or general 1
assessment of the plant performance.
2 For specific information on this review of 3
the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, you can use the link 4
listed on the slide. The NRC monitors and provides 5
regulatory oversight of the activity of plant safety 6
on an ongoing basis under the current operating 7
license. Thus, we do not reevaluate the same issues 8
in the license renewal process.
9 That's not to say that we don't find it 10 important. We do not duplicate regulatory process in 11 these areas during our license renewal review. Slide 12 19, please. In addition to providing comments at 13 today's meeting, there are other ways that you can 14 submit comments for our environmental review.
15 You can provide written comments by mail 16 to the NRC at the address provided on this slide. Or 17 you can send your comments electronically by going to 18 regulations.gov as indicated on the slide. Comments 19 should be submitted by March 3rd, 2021. Slide 20, 20 please.
21 It is the goal of NRC staff to complete 22 this license renewal review and reach a decision on 23 renewing the operating licenses within 18 months from 24 the time the application is accepted. The schedule 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
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 can be extended to accommodate a hearing if granted.
This slide shows important milestones that the environmental review process will follow.
The opportunity to submit contentions for a hearing closes on March 23rd, 2021. If you have a comment you would like to submit outside of today's meeting, you have until March 3rd, 2021 to do so.
Please note that we plan to issue a draft supplemental EIS for public comment by October 2021.
While this slide lists milestones for environmental review and opportunities for public involvement, the safety review will be performed in accordance with the schedule listed on the NRC website shown on this slide. The Lester Library has agreed to make the license renewal application available for public inspection. The draft supplemental EIS will also be available at this library when it's published for comment. In addition, these documents will be on the NRC website and on regulations.gov. Slide 21, please.
This slide identifies the primary points for contact within the NRC for license renewal of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit 1 and Unit 2.
Project managers are Bill Rogers and Phyllis Clark, myself. Russell Haskell, the current project manager 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 for the operation of Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1
1 and 2, is not in attendance today. This concludes 2
my presentation, and I'll turn the meeting over to the 3
facilitator, Sheila. Thanks. Slide 22, please.
4 MS. RAY: Thank you, Phyllis. So at this 5
time, we'd like to take questions on the presentations 6
themselves. Please note we're only using Teams for 7
the visual slides, and you will have to use the bridge 8
line to make comments.
9 So at this time, I'd like to ask for any 10 comments on the presentations themselves, and you can 11 press *0 to get into the queue to ask your questions.
12 And I'd ask that you please state your name and 13 affiliation for accurate transcription. So at this 14 time, any questions on the presentations themselves?
15 Danielle, are there any questions?
16 MS. DREXEL: Thank you. As we begin the 17 question-and-answer session, I would like to remind 18 participants if you'd like to ask a question, please 19 dial *1. If you need to cancel your question for any 20 reason, you can dial *2. Our first question comes 21 from Alfred Meyer. Alfred, your line is now open.
22 MR. MEYER: Thank you. I actually thought 23 this was the part of the public comment period. But 24 is this true, or is this just about questions about 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
24 the presentation that was just done?
1 MS. RAY: First, I'd like to take 2
questions about the presentation, and then we'll move 3
into the comment period.
4 MR. MEYER: No, I didn't have -- this was 5
a comment.
6 MS. RAY: Okay.
7 MR. MEYER: So I'll get back in line.
8 MS. RAY: All right. Thank you. So at 9
this time, any questions on the presentation?
10 Danielle?
11 MS. DREXEL: Our next question from Kelly.
12 Kelly, your line is now open. Kelly, are you there?
13 (No audible response.)
14 MS. DREXEL: All right. Our next question 15 comes from Paula. Paula, your line is now open.
16 (No audible response.)
17 MS. DREXEL: Paula, are you there? Can 18 you check your mute?
19 (No audible response.)
20 MS. DREXEL: All right. As a reminder, if 21 you'd like to ask a question about the presentation, 22 please dial *1 and record your name when prompted.
23 MS. RAY: Danielle, could we touch back 24 with Kelly, see if she is back?
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
25 MS. DREXEL: All right. Our next question 1
comes from Kevin. Kevin, your line is now open.
2 3
4 MR. CAMPS: Thank you. Can you hear me?
MS. DREXEL: We can.
MR. CAMPS: Hello. My name is Kevin Kamps 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with Beyond Nuclear and Don't Waste Michigan. And I do have a question or two. The first one is, has NRC ever denied an operating license, whether for 40 years, 60 years, or 80 years at any nuclear power plant in the Agency's entire history? And the second question is, why is NRC entertaining this additional 20-year extension at Point Beach a decade or more before the current licenses expire while enforcing strict and absurdly short deadlines on the public for public comment and for intervention?
MS. RAY: Thank you for your question.
Scott, did you want to respond to this one?
MR. BURNELL: Sure, Sheila. Good afternoon, everyone. This is Scott Burnell from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Public Affairs. Mr. Kamps, for every case where applicants have completed the licensing process, they have provided sufficient information for the NRC to conclude its appropriate issue, either an original or a renewed license.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 26 With regards to your second question, the process that we put in place does allow for Point Beach to request a subsequent license renewal at this time. The ability for the public to request a hearing on the application and to comment on the environmental scoping process are the same as for other licensing applications. There is no shortened comment period.
As Sheila mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, we do have a request from PSR Wisconsin to extend the comment period. And the staff is going to consider that request and decide on it at a later time. Thank you.
MR. KAMPS: And could I -- while we're on this call in, do you have an account of that?
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MR. BURNELL: I'm sorry. You cut out in the middle of your question.
MR. KAMPS: Yeah. Could I ask how many members of the public have phoned in today or webinar'd in?
MR. BURNELL: We can gather those numbers, and we'll try to provide them before the end of the meeting.
MS. DREXEL: Our next question comes from Paul Berland. Your line is now open, Paul.
24 MR. BERLAND: Hello. My question is to 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
27 what extent is the environmental impact in this 1
environmental impact statement also considering the 2
next 240,000 years? And also, does it also include 3
when it actually happens if there is an accident? Or 4
is it assuming that there's going to be zero 5
accidents?
6 MS. RAY: Thank you for your question. Is 7
there NRC staff that would like to respond?
8 MS. JAMES: Yes, my name is Lois James.
9 I'm a senior project manager. And thank you very much 10 for your question. I will note that that question was 11 not really on the process. It was what we're going to 12 include in the environmental assessment. So we will 13 take that as a scoping comment. Thank you.
14 MS. RAY: Thanks, Lois.
15 MS. DREXEL: Our next question comes from 16 Amy Schulz. Amy, your line is now open.
17 MS. SCHULZ: Yeah, hi, I'm thinking that 18 I need to be a part of the next part where the actual 19 comments are taken from the public. It's not 20 regarding the presentation slides at this time.
21 MS. DREXEL: All right. Our next question 22 then comes from David Kraft. David, your line is now 23 open.
24 MR. KRAFT: Thank you. My name is Dave 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
28 Kraft. I'm Director of Nuclear Energy Information 1
Service in Chicago. We share the drinking water 2
supply with the folks up in Wisconsin on Lake 3
4 I have a comment and then two questions 5
about the slides particularly. And the first comment 6
is on the issue of nuclear safety culture. And I 7
bring this up because at many of the meetings we have 8
attended on Lake Michigan, both on the Michigan side 9
and on our side, the NRC has in the past talked about 10 reactor operators having a nuclear safety culture 11 which goes beyond the requirements.
12 So my first question in regards to the 13 process that you're engaging in is, will the NRC 14 itself take that same attitude towards this license 15 examination and go beyond just the check box exercise 16 of utility has met our requirements? Will the NRC go 17 with a more rigid -- or not rigid, more expansive view 18 on examining the license? That's the first part of 19 the question.
20 MS. RAY: Thank you for your question.
21 NRC staff members, any -- yes, Scott, if you would 22 like to take that, we'd appreciate that.
23 MR. BURNELL: It's Scott Burnell again 24 from the Office of Public Affairs. The NRC's ability 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
29 to consider an application is bound by our legal 1
authority. What we have set out are the legal 2
requirements for receiving a renewed license.
3 So the staff will apply those standards 4
and consider the information it's presented. If the 5
public feel that there are issues that should be 6
considered, this is their opportunity to present them 7
for the environmental review. And if the public feels 8
there are issues that need to be addressed in the 9
legal arena, there is the opportunity to request a 10 hearing regarding the Point Beach application.
11 MR. KRAFT: Okay. I understand the legal 12 requirement of the NRC. My question, though, is, is 13 there anything in the law that prohibits the NRC from 14 at least indicating that a situation exists beyond 15 what the legalistic regulatory process exposes through 16 this process? In other words, you guys are the 17 experts. And if you identify something that goes 18 beyond what's in your check box exercise, you're not 19 legally prohibited from identifying that and putting 20 that in part of your report, are you?
21 MR. BURNELL: The best answer I can give 22 you at the moment is that our legal requirements bind 23 us as well as the applicant. We are unable to ask for 24 something outside of our regulations. The possibility 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
30 that something comes up during the review of Point 1
Beach's aging management programs or during the 2
environmental review does not preclude us from 3
pursuing that issue to our satisfaction. But again, 4
the legal constraints of our regulations bind us as 5
well as the applicant.
6 MS. DREXEL: Our next question comes from 7
Barbara Warren. Barbara, your line is now open.
8 MS. WARREN: Can you hear me?
9 MS. DREXEL: We can.
10 MS. WARREN: Okay. All right. Yes, my 11 name is Barbara Warren. I have a few questions, and 12 I don't know if they're too organized. I seem to be 13 missing some information.
14 You're considering an extension of the 15 license. Have you identified things that you should 16 be evaluating? This would be a new consideration 17 because a renewal is not ordinary. So have you 18 indicated to the licensee what things you'll be 19 looking at for review? Or have you updated your regs 20 to considering these aging management issues that 21 might apply?
22 MR. ROGERS: I'll take this. This is Bill 23 Rogers. I'm a Senior Project Manager in Division of 24 New and Renewed Licenses and the Safety Project 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
31 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Manager for this application.
So one thing that's important to understand about our process is we have regulations that the applicant needs to follow and that we perform our review in accordance with it. We usually have fairly extensive guidance documents for the staff to perform a safety review. Our guidance documents are built on operating experience that we gather over what is essentially two decades now of evaluating license renewals, subsequent license renewal applications.
So as the phrase goes, we are a learning organization in the safety side and the technical area. There is new information related to the aging management that comes up occasionally. And we consider that as part of our review.
And I'll also add that the applicants typically consider that as part of their development of their applications. That's an expectation and they attempt to do so. So while they're not necessarily fundamental changes that come in the engineering world, there are -- there's certainly methods of responding to aging, age-related degradation that change over the years. And approaches are changed along with that.
24 So I would say that the regulations, the 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
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 32 fundamental requirements often stay the same way the staff does their review. The applicant prepares their information has changed over the years and has been incorporated into our guidance documents. Having said that, our process has -- since it was initialized, has always considered all of the available information and has been able to determine that the applicants have met the standards for the applications submitted. So I hope that helps with your question, Barbara. Thank you.
MS. WARREN: Well, yeah, let me follow up on that then. So you mentioned 19 site-specific issues and 59 generic issues. I'm just wondering if you have a document that you're using to review potential new and significant information to --
(Simultaneous speaking.)
MR. ROGERS: Your question, I think, relates to Phyllis.
18 MS. WARREN: I'm sorry?
19 MR. ROGERS: I think your question relates 20 to Phyllis Clark's presentation on --
21 MS. WARREN: Yes.
22 MR. ROGERS: -- environmental issues. I 23 was addressing the safety side. So I'll let Phyllis 24 or someone else address that environmental question.
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
33 Thank you.
1 MS. WARREN: Okay.
2 MS. CLARK: Yes, this is Phyllis Clark.
3 We consider the new and significant information within 4
the scope of the environmental review. What I was 5
referring to was the generic environmental impact 6
statement that we refer to as GEIS. We have issues 7
that are generically related to all of the operating 8
plants and then 19 issues that we've determined to be 9
site specific. And those are the items that we 10 perform a detailed review because they are site 11 specific.
12 MS. WARREN: So are those available to us 13 now in a particular review document or something?
14 MS. CLARK: Well, still -- well, the Point 15 Beach application is under review now. Are you saying 16 specifically for Point Beach, or are you talking about 17 the GEIS?
18 MS. WARREN: Yeah, I'm not sure what 19 document it would be. Well, pertaining this facility, 20 yes.
21 MS. CLARK: Well, we're still reviewing 22 the --
23 MS. JAMES: This is Lois James. The GEIS 24 is already available. That document is NUREG 1437, 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
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 34 and it's already available on the NRC website. And it also can be found in ADAMS. The ER that was submitted as part of the application, the environmental report that was submitted as part of Point Beach's application is also available on the website as well as the -- in ADAMS.
MS. WARREN: And that would cover those issues, the site specific and generic?
MS. JAMES: Yeah. The generic ones would be in the GEIS. It would describe the generic and the ones that would need to be site specific. And then the environmental report submitted by the applicant would address any new and significant information regarding the generic, and it would discuss the site specific. We will then use both of those documents and our own research to develop the supplemental environmental impact statement specific to Point Beach.
17 MS. WARREN: Okay.
18 MS. JAMES: But that last one is not 19 available because we're in the middle of the review.
20 The other two are already available.
21 MS. WARREN: Okay. And someone mentioned 22 a library, but I didn't see this on the slides.
23 MS. CLARK: Yes, the Lester Library has 24 the application at this point. And then once we have 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
35 follow-up documents, we'll put them there also. It's 1
the Lester Library.
2 3
4 Library.
5 6
7 8
MS. WARREN: You said Celestial Library?
MS. CLARK: Lester, L-E-S-T-E-R, Public MS. WARREN: Okay. Thank you.
MS. CLARK: You're welcome.
(Simultaneous speaking.)
MS. RAY: Thank you for your question.
9 Danielle, are there any more questions regarding the 10 presentation?
11 MS. DREXEL: Our next question comes from 12 Clay Turnbull. Clay, your line is now open.
13 MR. TURNBULL: All right. Thank you very 14 much. My name is Clay Turnbull, and I'm a staff 15 person with New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution 16 in Brattleboro, Vermont. And I had a question on 17 slide 17 where it says taxes, community development, 18 and environmental justice, that the staff evaluates 19 impacts to those resources.
20 And I had a question about the scope of 21 the environmental justice review. Does that include 22 the entire fuel cycle from mining and milling and all 23 the way through to spent fuel storage? Is it treated 24
-- so that's one question. And then a second question 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
36 is, the spent fuel stored at the facility, is that 1
reviewed under the generic environmental impact 2
statement? Or is there a site-specific review of 3
that?
4 MS. RAY: Thank you for your question.
5 Lois or Phyllis, would you like to provide any 6
response?
7 MS. CLARK: Hi, this is Phyllis. We can 8
take your question as a comment because actually 9
that's not considered a process question.
10 MS. RAY: Okay. Thank you. Danielle, any 11 other questions?
12 MS. DREXEL: Yes, our next question comes 13 from Paula. Paula, your line is now open.
14 MS. ROGGE: Thank you. Actually, I didn't 15 have a comment about -- or a question about process.
16 It was more of a -- I think my comments should be 17 later when we open the public comment section. Thank 18 you.
19 MS. DREXEL: All right. Our next question 20 then comes from Patricia Walter. Patricia, your line 21 is now open.
22 MS. WALTER: Hello. Thank you. Can you 23 hear me now, I hope? Hello?
24 PARTICIPANT: Yes, we can hear you.
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
37 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Please go ahead.
MS.
WALTER:
Never sure on these electronic things. For the process, I want to follow up on Kevin Kamps' question where he was asking about why the 80 years. And you said -- the response person, Mr. Scott, I think, said that it's because they can ask for it.
We still think that that -- or I certainly think that that's an outrageous amount of time. I mean, why not ask for 100 years? I mean, the fact that they're asking for 80 years appears to be rather extreme at this point.
And secondly for the process, I mean, you're talking about Lake Michigan. I frankly live in the Chicago area, and I get my water from Chicago intake cribs. I'm wondering for the process, has this been disseminated to all the towns, villages, cities, including Milwaukee, Chicago, and everybody else who gets their water from Lake Michigan for this process?
That's my question is, why the 80 years?
And secondly, has this scoping requirement been disseminated to everybody who uses Lake Michigan water including Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan? Thank you.
24 MR. BURNELL: Well, it's Scott Burnell 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
38 again from the NRC. Let me clarify what I said 1
earlier. As I believe Bill Rogers laid out in the 2
initial comments, the NRC's initial license for a 3
plant lasts for 40 years.
4 Plants can then request 20-year renewals.
5 Point Beach has already done so and already received 6
a renewed license so that its license now lasts for 60 7
years. They are asking for an additional renewal 8
which would add another 20 years for a total of 80.
9 They are not asking for an additional 80 10 years. Just wanted to make sure we were clear on that 11 point. And your second issue is something that would 12 be considered during the environmental scoping 13 process. I believe the staff is going to take that as 14 a comment that they would address in that part of our 15 process.
16 MS. RAY: Thank you. Danielle, due to 17 time constraints, we are going to follow the agenda.
18 And we'll open the floor for any comments on the 19 public environmental topics to be considered in the 20 environmental impact statement.
21 So at this time, we're opening up the 22 public comment period to follow the agenda. So if you 23 could press *1 to indicate that you would like to make 24 a comment. And we'd request that you please state 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
39 your name and affiliation for an accurate 1
transcription. Danielle, any comments?
2 MS. DREXEL: All right. Our first comment 3
comes from Kelly Lundeen. Kelly, your line is now 4
open.
5 MS. LUNDEEN: Okay. Can you hear me now?
6 MS. RAY: Yes, go ahead.
7 MS. LUNDEEN: Okay. My name is Kelly 8
Lundeen. I have comments on behalf of Nuke Watch in 9
Wisconsin. Wisconsin's nuclear power reactors at 10 Point Beach are located on Lake Michigan.
11 They have suffered frequent unplanned 12 shutdowns caused by accidents resulting in official 13 warnings, fines, and even criminal convictions. If a 14 company wants to continue to create tons of high level 15 radioactive waste, they're asking for enormous trust 16 on the part of the public. They're also assuming 17 consent of future generations to create this waste 18 which I believe is pompous and dangerous.
19 The company will need to prove that they 20 will be doing something different from how it has been 21 done so that none of these accidents will happen ever 22 again. I'm going to present a list of the accidents.
23 I'm not going all the way back. I'm only starting 24 with 1995.
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
40 March 30th, 1995, a Point Beach reactor 1
was shut down due to instrument failure in the 2
emergency generator system used to circulate cooling 3
water when regular power is cut off during emergencies 4
as according to Wisconsin State Journal, March 30th, 5
1995. May 28th, 1996, at Point Beach, a potentially 6
catastrophic explosion of hydrogen gas, powerful 7
enough to upend the three-ton lid, end quote, pushed 8
aside a 6,390-pound cask lid while it was atop a store 9
cask filled with high level waste. The lid was being 10 robotically welded to the cask. That's according to 11 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, June 8th, 1995. December 12 1996 --
13 MS. RAY: Kelly, could I interrupt you for 14 a second? This is Sheila. Will you be providing all 15 of those events until current? We do --
16 MS. LUNDEEN: No.
17 MS. RAY: -- what to -- okay. I would 18 just ask that you be concise because we do have a lot 19 of comments coming in.
20 MS. LUNDEEN: Sure. I'll be brief about 21 each of the accidents. December 1996, Point Beach 22 owner, WEPCO, was fined 325,000 for 16 safety 23 violations and a 1996 explosion inside a loaded high 24 level waste cask. The NRC, that's you, said WEPCO was 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
41 inattentive to their duties, starting up a power unit 1
while one of its safety systems was inoperable and 2
failed to install the required number of cooling 3
pumps.
4 And in my written comments that I submit, 5
I will include all the sources for each one of these.
6 So I don't need to list them all here. February 18, 7
1997, Reactor 1 at Point Beach was shut down when a 8
cooling water pump defect required the pump's 9
replacement.
10 July 25th, 1997, Reactor 2 at Point Beach 11 was shut down when a cooling water pump failed.
12 August 12, 1997, the NRC recorded 21 violations at 13 Point Beach in a 90-day period between December 1996 14 and February 1997. October 2002, a red finding, and 15 may I just describe a red finding is the highest 16 failure warning issued by the NRC.
17 A red finding was issued by the NRC 18 against Point Beach for problems with cold water 19 circulation for cooling the reactor. February 11, 20 2004, the ongoing risk of a breakdown in Point Beach's 21 cooling feedwater pumps result in an NRC red finding.
22 April 8th, 2004, Point Beach paid a 60,000-dollar fine 23 imposed March 20th for last summer's problems with the 24 reactor's cooling pumps.
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
42 November 9th, 2004, while operating at 100 1
percent power, Point Beach Unit 2 sprang a steam leak 2
from a valve in the main steam flow transmitter. The 3
leak of potentially contaminated steam forced an 4
unplanned shutdown. The involved what is called 5
6 7
8 9
containment penetration of the main steam line passing through the concrete containment building.
Accordingly, operators declared technical specification condition not
- met, forcing the operators to isolate the affected penetration flow 10 path with a completion time of 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />. Operators 11 were unable to meet the allowed completion time for 12 this task.
13 December 13th, 2005, a manual reactor trip 14 shut down Point Beach Unit 1 due to loss of condenser 15 vacuum -- due to the loss of a condenser vacuum caused 16 by failure of the running circulating water pump.
17 Decay heat was being removed by atmospheric dump 18 valves. The backup feedwater system was required.
19 The operator --
20 MS. RAY: Kelly --
21 MS. LUNDEEN: -- said there are no --
22 MS. RAY: Kelly, this is Sheila.
23 MS. LUNDEEN: -- known steam generator to 24 leak issues. I'm almost done.
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
43 MS. RAY: Okay. I appreciate that.
1 MS. LUNDEEN: Okay. December 16, 2005, 2
Point Beach paid a 60,000-dollar fine imposed January 3
13th after two workers deliberately provided NRC 4
inspectors with inaccurate information about the 5
critique of an emergency preparedness drill at the 6
Point Beach reactor in 2002. The two were fired, and 7
one was convicted in federal court of knowingly making 8
false written statements to the NRC.
9 August 22nd, 2006, in the letter to Point 10 Beach, the NRC charged that a senior reactor operator 11 was discriminated against by the company's management 12 for identifying potential technical violations. The 13 discrimination was an apparent violation of employee 14 protection requirements. December 8, 2006, at Point 15 Beach, a control room emergency filtration system was 16 declared inoperable.
17 The control room charcoal filter fan 18 tripped during a surveillance test, an event or 19 condition that could've been prevented -- that 20 could've prevented the filter's performance during a 21 contamination emergency or, in NRC's words, could have 22 prevented fulfillment of a safety function. And to 23 finalize, January 15th of 2018, at Point Beach Unit 1, 24 an unusual event emergency was prompted by the 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
44 complete loss of all offsite electric power to 1
essential buses for more than 15 minutes, mandating a 2
notification of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A 3
supply breaker opened for unknown reasons was being 4
investigated and preparations were made for a Unit 1 5
shutdown.
6 So I will repeat. Any company that 7
continues to want to create high level radioactive 8
waste and operate under these conditions is going to 9
have to prove that they are going to do things 10 differently. Thank you.
11 MS. RAY: Thank you. Thank you for your 12 comment, Kelly. Appreciate that. Danielle, can we 13 move to the next comment, please?
14 MS. DREXEL: Yes, our next comment comes 15 from Linda Lewison. Linda, your line is now open.
16 MS. LEWISON: Yes, I'd like to hear your 17
-- I'm with the Sierra Club Nuclear Free Campaign and 18 with the Nuclear Energy Information Service in 19 Chicago. I'd like to know how the spent fuel is being 20 stored now onsite and what your plans are for the 21 future storage of radioactive waste. We had heard 22 that there were plans to barge this fuel down to the 23 Port of Milwaukee. Could you comment on that?
24 MS. RAY: We can't comment at this time, 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
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 45 but we have noted your comment and we appreciate it.
Thank you very much.
MS. DREXEL: Our next comment comes from Susan Michetti. Susan, your line is now open.
MS. MICHETTI: Well, actually, I had it open for the first section. But somehow, I got missed. But what I wanted to do in terms of process is that I'm confirming that there isn't enough time between today and public comments, the date of March 3rd. And I would like to see that extended because there's a lot of people that are going to be potentially impacted in Wisconsin who don't even know that we're having this hearing yet. I mean --
(Simultaneous speaking.)
MS. MICHETTI: -- everybody I'm talking to never even knew about it. So I don't know --
16 MS. RAY: Thank you --
17 MS. MICHETTI: -- how people are supposed 18 to find out. I only heard about it a week ago. So I 19 would --
20 MS. RAY: I appreciate that --
21 MS. MICHETTI: -- like to ask for that you 22 put an extension. We have a lockdown in this state 23 for COVID. We don't have people communicating to each 24 other the way that they should be and normally would 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
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 46 be due to COVID lockdowns that our government has imposed upon us.
And I feel like this process is taking advantage of that or disregarding it. Or anyhow, it needs to consider that we are in a state that people are no longer communicating to each other and finding out information in the predictable ways that they found out about it before March of 2020. And I think that we need a couple months of time and maybe another hearing -- another public hearing.
MS. RAY: Thank you very much for that comment. We are considering an extension at this time. However, we will respond accordingly. Thank you very much for your comment. Danielle, can you move to the next comment, please?
MS. DREXEL: Our next comment comes from Michael Strope. Michael, your line is now open.
MR. STROPE: Yeah, good afternoon. My name is Michael Strope. I'm the site vice president for Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant. I'm a graduate of Iowa State University where I received my bachelor's and my master's degree in mechanical engineering.
I spent 14 years at the Duane Arnold Energy Center near Cedar Rapids, Iowa where I obtained 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 my senior reactor operator's license and then became 1
the operations director ultimately before I joined 2
Point Beach in the fall of 2019. I wanted to talk a 3
little bit about the power plant. It is an essential 4
part of the Manitowoc area into our entire state of 5
6 We are by far the largest source of clean 7
electricity in the state. We generate clean, reliable 8
electricity for more than 950,000 homes and 9
businesses. That's about 14 percent of all of 10 Wisconsin's power.
11 In addition, we're powered by our own 12 community. We contribute 807 million dollars to 13 Wisconsin's economy each year. We provide hundreds of 14 good, high quality jobs at good wages.
15 In addition, we have an outstanding record 16 of reliable operation. We've been operating reliably 17 for more than 50 years. In 2020, we were awarded the 18 corporate safety award by the Wisconsin Safety 19 Council.
20 Each
- year, that council recognizes 21 organizations that build and sustain a culture of 22 safety. And this is our fourth consecutive year being 23 recognized for outstanding safety accomplishments. We 24 have a very low impact on the land, water, and 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
48 wildlife near the plant.
1 We support clean water, and we work to 2
protect our natural resources. We have an outstanding 3
record of clean and reliable operation. We help 4
protect our air and water for our future generations 5
by routinely sampling the air, the ground, and the 6
water around the plant to ensure that it meets all 7
requirements and keeps our community safe.
8 In addition, we emit absolutely no 9
greenhouse gases as part of our power production.
10 Just driving your car to work each day creates more 11 greenhouse gas emissions than Point Beach has created 12 in the last 50 years of operation. The carbon free 13 energy generated by Point Beach's nuclear units 14 prevents more than 6.5 million tons of greenhouse gas 15 emissions every year. That's equivalent to removing 16 1.3 million cars from the road according to the EPA.
17 Lastly, we're constantly upgrading our 18 equipment to make sure it's running safely and 19 efficiently. We've made almost 800 million dollars in 20 investments to the plant over the last few years. And 21 our investments demonstrate our readiness to meet all 22 the operational requirements today and well into the 23 future. Thank you for your time.
24 MS. RAY: Thank you, Mike. Danielle, can 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
49 you move to the next comment? And I would just like 1
to note to all the participants we are taking and 2
recording your comments and we'll consider them and 3
reply to them in the scoping summary report which will 4
be published and made available. So you may not hear 5
a response from us right now, but you will see it in 6
writing in the scoping summary report. Danielle, next 7
comment, please.
8 MS. DREXEL: Our next comment comes from 9
Amy Schulz. Amy, your line is now open.
10 MS. SCHULZ: Thank you. My name is Amy 11 Schulz, and I'm a nurse and the president for 12 Physicians for Social Responsibility in Wisconsin.
13 I'm concerned about whether the health of the most 14 vulnerable citizens of Wisconsin, that is children and 15 pregnant, are being protected under the current 16 operating conditions at the Point Beach nuclear 17 reactors and whether they will be protected in the 18 event of a nuclear accident, now and through the time 19 period of the proposed license extension.
20 The nuclear reactors at Point Beach are 21 embrittled and vulnerable to cracking in the event of 22 an emergency shutdown. And this could lead to a major 23 nuclear accident. Additionally, the reactors are 24 dependent on electricity to keep the pump circulating 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
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 50 water which keeps the core cool and the cooling pool from overheating.
At the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011, most of the backup generators were destroyed as was offsite electrical design. And that keeps the ability to cool the core and pools. And it led to the reactor core meltdown and fuel pool explosions. What safeguards are in place to guarantee that in the event of a power loss the generators will be secure and that they can be resupplied in any and all circumstances before their allotment of fuel for five days is exhausted?
I'm concerned that elevated amounts of radioactivity would be released into the environment and subsequently to the public being made ill from the contamination. Is there a plan to track, monitor, and treat anyone that has been exposed to excess radiation? Who will pay for this monitoring and treatment of these patients? Thank you your attention to these questions.
MS. RAY: Thank you very much for your comment. We appreciate that. Danielle, next comment, please.
MS. DREXEL: Our next comment comes from Hannah Mortenson. Hannah, your line is now open.
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 MS. MORTENSON: Hello, this is Hannah 1
Mortenson, and I'm the executive director of 2
Physicians for Social Responsibility in Wisconsin.
3 Again, I'll try to be brief to allow time for everyone 4
else. My first question and points relate to the 5
discharge of water into Lake Michigan from the nuclear 6
reactors at Point Beach.
7 Lake Michigan supplies drinking water to 8
thousands of people, used for recreation, and is part 9
of a fishing industry. The EIS needs to address the 10 effects of the release of water into Lake Michigan, 11 the temperature of the water released, and how that 12 water affects the natural ecosystem in the surrounding 13 lake area. I would love to know how the discharge is 14 monitored and what data is available to the public.
15 From my understanding, Point Beach does 16 not have cooling towers in their normal fuel cycle.
17 Is there a cooling process for the water used during 18 the fuel cycle prior to discharge? If so, in EIS, I 19 would like more information on the process. If not, 20 what needs to be in place?
21 I also request the EIS cover the impact to 22 the soil, the shoreline, and the lake bottoms and the 23 discharge of water. Will there be any erosion? If 24 so, how does that affect the operations at Point 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
52 Beach, the shoreline, and the surrounding aquatic 1
environment?
2 At present, Green Bay and Lake Michigan 3
are experiencing increased episodes of harmful algae 4
and bacteria blooms that affect both the aquatic 5
environment and recreation. The EIS needs to look at 6
the cumulative impact, the altogether cumulative 7
impact of releasing more warmer water into the lake's 8
ecosystem. Some questions I have are, are their 9
zooplankton affected that represent a food source to 10 a higher order species?
11 Is that higher order species endangered or 12 threatened in the lake? Has the level of zooplankton 13 changed since the original baseline condition before 14 the plant was there? And will extended licensure 15 perpetuate or even worsen those impacts?
16 My second point today is when Point Beach 17 was built, alternative energy such as renewable 18 energy, wind, solar, was not as common and was not as 19 economical. Therefore, I think the EIS needs to take 20 a hard look, a hard look at the alternative options of 21 different energy sources in comparison to the proposed 22 action of extending the license of the reactors. The 23 EIS needs to address reasonable alternatives to 24 relicensing the reactors.
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
53 The analysis should look at all the 1
effects such as jobs and the tax base as well as the 2
indirect effects of alternative energy scenarios.
3 Thank you for this opportunity to speak today. And I 4
will definitely be sending in some written comments 5
regarding waste storage, accidents, releases, all the 6
socioeconomic impact questions, and how we ensure 7
public access to this information all by written form.
8 Thank you.
9 MS. RAY: Thank you for your comment.
10 Appreciate that. Danielle, can we move to the next 11 comment?
12 MS. DREXEL: Our next comment comes from 13 Alfred Meyer. Your line is now open, Alfred.
14 MR. MEYER: Thank you very much. My name 15 is Alfred Meyer and I'm with Physicians for Social 16 Responsibility. I have two primary concerns to 17 mention today. One is the lake levels in Lake 18 Michigan, and the second one is the irradiated spent 19 fuel which is stored on the site.
20 Regarding the lake levels, I point out 21 that just over seven years ago, there was a record low 22 level in Lake Michigan. And in just seven years, 23 we've gone to a record high level. So my question 24 really is, is the facility itself well protected 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
54 against the increasing lake levels and the impacts 1
that has?
2 For instance, the higher lake levels mean 3
that storms hit the shoreline in a different way and 4
are more eroding. And we also have seen patterns even 5
just this past week to almost the whole of this 6
country huge storms of unprecedented size and 7
character. Have all these potentialities been taken 8
into consideration and looked at in aggregate?
9 I would note that currently we're about 10 four feet, nine inches above that low level mark and 11 that the pump house at Point Beach is only seven feet 12 above the lake level currently. And the reactor 13 building is about 20 feet above the lake level. And 14 the spent fuel storage installation is 36 feet above 15 the lake level.
16 So the question has become the impacts of 17 unusual and large and prolonged storms on the 18 shoreline erosion, the integrity of the reactor 19 facility itself, and also the spent fuel storage 20 installation. I'd also like to know regarding the 21 irradiated spent fuel. I'd like to know the condition 22 of the fuel pool and its current contents, how many 23 assemblies are in it, and also what the detailed 24 timeline is for offloading those assemblies into 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
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 55 additional dry cask storage over an additional 20 years in operation.
And I'd also like to hear in great detail what the -- how the current dry casks are being monitored and inspected so that we know exactly how much radiation they're releasing and that we're assured of their continued integrity because they, like the initial reactor at Point Beach, was built for a very short lifetime. And so extending it should be done with great care and caution. Thank you.
MS. RAY: Thank you very much. We appreciate your comment. Danielle?
MS. DREXEL: Our next comment comes from Kevin Kamps. Kevin, your line is now open.
MR. KAMPS: Hello, thank you. My name is Kevin Kamps with Beyond Nuclear and Don't Waste Michigan. Before I get into my own comments, I just wanted to point out that I wasn't real clear that Linda Lewison from NEIS was finished. She was only given 30 seconds to speak.
So I hope that NRC will ask her if she had more to say. And I felt the same about Susan Michetti who was given one minute and 40 seconds. I'm not sure that they were done actually before the next person was called upon to make comments.
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
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I would also -- I didn't know that the question period was a one time only and was going to get cut off. So I would also like to request in terms of process that an email address be provided into addition to regulations.gov. And a part of my reason for asking for that is that regulations.gov is infamous for not working.
So for example, in the environmental scoping on the Holtec Consolidated Interim Storage Facility proceeding, about half the time the regulations.gov site did not work. It did not function properly. So I request an email address to make it as easy as possible for the public to comment on this proposed license extension.
So in terms of my comments, I would like to begin with the embrittlement of the reactor pressure vessel. I would ask that the NRC under NEPA give a hard look at this question and under the Atomic Energy Act make certain of reasonable assurance of adequate protection of health and safety. I would like to point out to give some more detail to the NRC staff that Point Beach Unit 2 by NRC staff's own acknowledgment has perhaps the worst embrittled reactor pressure vessel of any pressurized water reactor in the country.
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
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Decades of additional neutron radiation bombardment will only increase the risk of a pressurized thermal shock through wall fracture which would lead to core meltdown and the potential for catastrophic release of hazardous radioactivity. And I would also like to refer to staff back to their own documentation entitled CRAC-II, Calculations of Reactor Accident Consequences, also known as Technical Guidance for Siting Criteria Development, also known as 1992 Sandia Siting Study, and referred to as NUREG/CR-2239, and also SAND 81-1549. Those are various titles for the same document.
In that document, Point Beach Unit 2 has the following casualty figures in the event of a meltdown: 500 peak early fatalities which translates as acute radiation poisoning deaths. Again, that was 500.
Peak early injuries, again, referring to radiation injuries, and that figure is given as 9,000.
Peak cancer deaths which refers to latent cancer fatalities, that figure was given as 7,000.
And then property damages, this was a 1982 document, were given as 43.8 billion dollars which in 2020 dollars amounts to 118 billion dollars. And I would like to point out to the NRC staff as the Associated Press investigative reporter Jeff Donn reported in 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 2011 in his series entitled Aging Nukes, he cited 1
pressurized thermal shock and reactor pressure vessel 2
embrittlement regulation as his top example of 3
regulatory retreat by the Nuclear Regulatory 4
Commission.
5 And I would like to point out that there 6
have been -- there has been a major weakening since 7
that 2011 reporting in the 2014 to '15 time frame.
8 And as we speak, there is a second weakening of those 9
regulations going on. And also, Jeff Donn in his 10 story of aging nukes had another article about how 11 populations have soared around nuclear power plants.
12 And so those CRAC-II casualty figures are probably 13 underestimates these days.
14 So I would ask NRC to address that and not 15 to rely on the technical judgment of a handful of 16 staff, if perhaps not a single information staff 17 person that pressurized thermal shock is covered and 18 there's no problems. And to conclude, I would just 19 like to point out that the first public commenter, 20 Kelly Lundeen, was referring to operating experience 21 which is in the NRC slide as a basis for its 22 environmental review -- I'm sorry, safety review on 23 slide number 9. Operating experience is listed.
24 And I'd like to point out she mentioned 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
59 one of the red findings of yesteryear at Point Beach.
1 But I would like to add that during a certain time 2
period, Point Beach had the majority of red findings 3
in the country. About a decade or two ago, the two 4
reactors at Point Beach had a majority of the NRC's 5
red findings, the Agency's highest safety violation 6
designation amongst the entire U.S. fleet of operating 7
reactors, then numbering 104.
8 Similarly, Wisconsin's Kewaunee reactor, 9
a short distance from Point Beach, about the same 10 distance as between the now infamous Fukushima Daiichi 11 and Daini, nuclear power plants in Japan, had a 12 majority of the NRC's yellow findings, the Agency's 13 second highest risk designation, more than the rest of 14 the 103 operating reactors at the time nationwide 15 combined. Kewaunee's permanent closure was announced 16 in late 2012 and implemented in early 2013.
17 Another reactor is Fort Calhoun in 18 Nebraska was given a red finding in the aftermath of 19 a climate change induced natural disaster, historic 20 flooding in the Missouri River in the spring and 21 summer of 2011. Fort Calhoun never recovered and was 22 closed down for good. Given the bad Point Beach 23 operating experience and the ever increasing risks of 24 breakdown phase age-related degradation, shouldn't 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
1 2
3 4
5 60 Point Beach simply be shut down and replaced with
- safer, cleaner, more
- secure, more affordable renewables such as wind power and solar power and efficiency, specifically considering the decade or more that there is remaining to implement such a just energy transition. Thank you for considering my comments.
6 MS. RAY: Thank you. Appreciate that.
7 Danielle?
8 MS. DREXEL: Our next comment comes from 9
Shahla Werner. Shahla, your line is now open.
10 MS. WERNER: Thank you. My name is Shahla 11 Werner, and I live in Wisconsin. I have a PhD in 12 entomology from UW-Madison. I'm here today to voice 13 my strong opposition to the proposal to extend the 14 license of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant.
15 This is related to my deep concern about 16 climate
- change, habitat
- lost, costs, and the 17 increasing potential for devastating accidents 18 involving radioactive contamination of Lake Michigan 19 and impacts on surrounding communities. This includes 20 nearby Point Beach State Forest, an area where my 21 family frequently camps, swims, hikes, and rides 22 bicycles. We have less than ten years left to avoid 23 irreversible, catastrophic impacts on climate change.
24 Investing vast resources into extending 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
61 nuclear plant operations is a zero sum game that will 1
result in falling short on investments in solar, wind, 2
and energy efficiency which are all cheaper, safer, 3
and more effective alternatives for fighting climate 4
changes. A nuclear accident at the Point Beach 5
Nuclear Plant could result in radiation poisoning and 6
thyroid cancer in humans and permanent habitat 7
contamination, making the area uninhabitable. This 8
could severely impact wildlife, including endangered 9
lake sturgeon, shortnose cisco, the Hine's emerald 10 dragonfly.
11 We've already seen similar impacts 12 following accidents in Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi 13 in Japan. In addition, the regular operation of 14 nuclear reactors which are only 33 percent efficient 15 result in thermal pollution that negatively impacts 16 aquatic organisms. Nuclear energy is also not carbon 17 free as purported because of the significant carbon 18 emissions produced during uranium enrichment and 19 mining.
20 It takes 25 tons of uranium to fuel a 21 reactor for a year, resulting in 500,000 tons of waste 22 rock and 100,000 tons of mill tailings. This has 23 resulted in habitat devastation in the southwest, 24 including areas where indigenous people are present.
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
62 According to David Thorpe from The
- Guardian, 1
contamination of local water supplies near uranium 2
mines have been documented in Colorado, Arizona, 3
Texas, and other areas.
4 Another serious concern is that there is 5
no safe permanent waste storage solution. This is 6
significant considering that each reactor makes 20 7
tons of waste a year. And over 1,365 metric tons of 8
waste are already stored at Point Beach. And nuclear 9
waste leaks have been documented in
- Hanford, 10 Washington, France, the Netherlands, and Scotland just 11 between 2007 and 2010.
12 Nuclear is also not the least cost option 13 for rate payers. At a cost of up to 20 cents per 14 kilowatt hour compared to 12 cents for wind and 15 for 15 solar and dropping, it is not a good deal for rate 16 payers compared with wind and solar. And nuclear has 17 received over 140 billion dollars in subsidies and 18 loan guarantees over the past 50 years. Point Beach 19 Unit 1 has been operating since 1970, and Unit 2 has 20 been operating since 1973.
21 As you mentioned, licenses have already 22 been extended until 2030 and 2033. Extending them 23 another 20 years is a gamble we can't afford to take.
24 We have the chance now to move in a better direction.
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
63 Massively investing in energy efficiency and 1
renewables instead, perhaps retooling Point Beach to 2
support offshore wind in Lake Michigan. Thank you for 3
accepting my comments today and for your consideration 4
of my concerns.
5 MS. RAY: Thank you very much. I 6
appreciate that. Danielle?
7 MS. DREXEL: Our next comment comes from 8
Paula Rogge. Your line is now open, Paula.
9 MS. ROGGE: Thank you. My comments 10 overlap a lot of what's been said. But I'm going to 11 go ahead and just go through them as quickly as 12 possible. The first one considers or deals with 13 embrittlement. We know that Point Beach Unit 2 is the 14 most embrittled in the country.
15 What steps are being taken to ensure that 16 the reactor pressure vessel will withstand temperature 17 shocks in excess of 200 degrees Fahrenheit if there's 18 overheating of the fuel rods and activation of the 19 emergency cooling system? How does the NRC determine 20 if annealing is necessary to strengthen an embrittled 21 reactor pressure vessel? And has annealing actually 22 been done anywhere in the country on embrittled 23 reactor pressure vessels?
24 Okay. As far as surveillance of the 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
64 pressure vessel, is capsule surveillance still being 1
used to monitor embrittlement? And if so, how long 2
has it been since the last capsule has been removed 3
from the vessel and analyzed? If it's been more than 4
five years, how can the NRC accurately assess ongoing 5
radiation damage to the wall of the vessel?
6 And what other methods are being used to 7
regularly assess vessel embrittlement and integrity if 8
they are not using capsule surveillance? And then 9
related to what others said, what steps have been 10 taken at Point Beach to make sure that the emergency 11 cooling and heat exchanger systems are effective in 12 the case of failure of the electric power grid, 13 supplying the plant, and failure of the backup diesel 14 power generators due to extreme weather events, 15 cyberterrorism, or an actual attack on the physical 16 facility? As far as the spent fuel rods, what steps 17 have been taken to assure that the fuel rods in ponds 18 or water storage can be cooled and shielded if 19 electric pumps in the back of generators fail?
20 And once the fuel is transferred from the 21 wet to dry storage, what plans are in place to protect 22 the dry storage cask from extreme weather, including 23 rising lake water levels as mentioned or physical 24 attack? There's been reports of ongoing discharge of 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
65 tritium in power plants around the country, including 1
Kewaunee and Point Beach. What procedures are in 2
place to monitor ongoing leaks of tritium into the 3
groundwater and of leaks of strontium and plutonium in 4
groundwater around Point Beach?
5 And finally as far as disaster 6
preparation, what plans are actually in place as far 7
as training and making sure there is available an 8
adequate pool of nuclear engineers and technicians, 9
environmental experts to address a nuclear meltdown?
10 What provision is there for radiation monitoring 11 equipment and protective gear to those working in, 12 around the plant as well as downwind of the plant in 13 case of a meltdown? And what kind of training do we 14 as healthcare providers on the first line, EMTs, 15 nurses, doctors, and ERs in hospitals in the area have 16 in terms of diagnosing and treating persons with 17 radiation exposure?
18 What plans have been made for evacuation 19 of people living within an area of -- downwind of the 20 plant if there were a meltdown? And finally, what 21 type of acute and long-term health monitoring has been 22 planned for people should there be a meltdown and 23 thousands are exposed to radioactive nuclides, either 24 by ingestion or inhalation? Finally, have there been 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
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 66 regular drills involving the public in case of a meltdown so that people know the evacuation routes, where to go, what to do, what not to do?
And I'll just finish up by mentioning that I'd like to know what regular maintenance procedures are in place to ensure the integrity of the pressure vessels themselves, the functioning proper functioning of the cooling and heat exchange systems, and the containment structures. What regular maintenance is in place to monitor the wet and dry storage containers and ensure reliability of the backup diesel generators? Thank you, and I'm with Physicians for Social Responsibility, PSR Wisconsin.
MS. RAY: Thank you very much. We appreciate your comment. Danielle?
MS. DREXEL: Our next comment comes from Chris Klopp. Chris, your line is now open.
MS. KLOPP: Hello. My name is Chris Klopp, and I have been working in -- with all sorts of energy issues in the state of Wisconsin as an intervenor in many cases and I'm also a chemist. So I have a sort of unique perspective on this.
First, I want to say I'm strongly opposed to the Point Beach operation extension. And as a chemist, I just want to point out that the amount 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
67 time that the waste may exist as a problem is longer 1
than the human species has actually existed. So this 2
is something that we might want to consider just as a 3
ruler to what we're looking at here.
4 So as far as things that I think the EIS 5
needs to address, the first thing is that it needs to 6
address all impacts from nuclear waste storage, 7
including how long it would take -- how much it would 8
cost to guard this waste or however many thousands of 9
years they have to be protected so that they can decay 10 to a safe level because there are security risks to 11 these types of things with terrorism and such. That 12 cost should be included in what it's going to cost us 13 to get the energy from this project. I'd also like 14 the EIS to provide how many megawatts of electricity 15 is going to be required for cooling of the spent 16 nuclear fuel per year and over the lifetime of the 17 project management. I guess I said megawatts of 18 electricity. I meant megawatt-hours.
19 The EIS should also fully document all the 20 consequences of a nuclear reaction accident, whether 21 that be a radiation leak, a meltdown, or any 22 possibility in between that, and also include the 23 impacts and responses for all of the communities 24 within a 50-mile radius and all impacts to Lake 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
68 Wisconsin and the watershed. So as far as 1
electricity, electricity demand has been falling over 2
the last ten-plus years. And it's projected to 3
continue on that trend.
4 There's currently 62 new power plant 5
proposals for Wisconsin in the Midcontinent 6
Independent System Operator queue. That's the folks 7
that operate the grid and decide what's going here and 8
what's going there. So distributed solar generation 9
with battery storage is a viable alternative to this 10 project. The EIS should fully document how this 11 project could possibly be needed with respect to the 12 electric demand and in economic terms and with respect 13 to carbon emissions that would be reduced, showing how 14 much -- what percentage of overall carbon emissions 15 would be reduced over each year of the project's 16 lifetime.
17 And I also would ask that in reviewing and 18 presenting alternatives to this project that you 19 develop an alternative, including distributed solar 20 generation, rooftop solar essentially with battery 21 storage, energy efficiency, load management, and use 22 minimization have that prepared by a qualified 23 consultant who has experience in those techniques.
24 And I have a question, and that is whether there will 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
69 be a transcript for this hearing and how that would be 1
possible to acquire. Otherwise, I thank you, and I 2
hope that you will do the right thing.
3 MS. RAY: Thank you very much for your 4
comment. For NRC staff, will the transcription be 5
available publicly?
6 MS. JAMES: This is Lois James. Yes, 7
it'll be attached to the meeting summary.
8 MS. RAY: Thank you. I appreciate the 9
comment. Danielle, next comment, please.
10 MS. DREXEL: Our next comment comes from 11 Ann Behrmann. Ann, your line is now open.
12 MS. BEHRMANN: Thank you. Good afternoon.
13 My name is Ann Behrmann. I'm a pediatrician here in 14 Wisconsin and on the steering committee of Physicians 15 for Social Responsibility Wisconsin. I'm going to 16 talk a little bit about human health issues.
17 I request that the updated EIS consider 18 the impact of radiation on vulnerable populations 19 which include pregnant women, infants, and children.
20 All who are living, working, going to childcare or 21 school are recreating within the ten-mile radius of 22 the Point Beach Nuclear Plant. I understand that 23 radioactive monitoring is done periodically during 24 normal plant operations to measure radioactive 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
70 releases into air, water, and soil.
1 But the public should understand that 2
there is no, quote, safe level, unquote, of radiation 3
exposure and that the currently acceptable levels of 4
radiation exposure are based on the reference man, a 5
20 to 30-year-old Caucasian male, not on a pregnant 6
woman, an infant, or a child. And so it is clear that 7
fuel rod exchanges done for each plant about every 18 8
months are likely to cause spikes in radioactive 9
releases. Both the Wisconsin Department of Human 10 Services and those responsible for operation of the 11 Point Beach Nuclear Plant should, one, measure the 12 radioactive releases into air, water, and soil during 13 each refueling cycle, and two, be responsible for 14 public notification of all who live, work, and 15 recreate within this ten-mile radius, including those 16 who are swimming, fishing, and camping at Point Beach 17 State Forest which is only six miles from the Point 18 Beach Nuclear Plant.
19 I also encourage the EIS to consider 20 updating evacuation plans for populations within a 50-21 mile radius in the event of accidental excessive 22 radioactive releases. This includes the cities of 23 Green Bay and also the 81,000-plus capacity of Lambeau 24 Field in Packer games, the cities of Manitowoc, 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
71 Sheboygan, and Appleton as well as farms, smaller 1
towns, schools and daycares, and the Point Beach State 2
Forest. At present, information on radiologic 3
emergencies is difficult to access online, now only 4
through NextEra, which the general public may not 5
recognize as the owners of the Point Beach Nuclear 6
Plant.
7 Both Kewaunee and Manitowoc Counties' 8
websites or Facebook accounts have either no 9
information on radiologic accidents and how the public 10 should respond or out of date information as seen in 11 the 2018 calendar on the Manitowoc website. No 12 available information details the use of potassium 13 iodide to protect those exposed through an accident at 14 Point Beach Nuclear Plant from developing thyroid 15 cancer, something that anyone living or working within 16 the ten-mile radius of Point Beach Nuclear Plant 17 should have knowledge of and have immediately 18 available if directed to use by local health 19 authorities. For more information on use of potassium 20 iodide, please see the CDC.gov's information on 21 radiation in emergencies. Thank you very much for 22 this opportunity.
23 MS. RAY: Thank you. Appreciate your 24 comment. Danielle? Danielle, how many more comments 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
72 do we have remaining in the queue?
1 MS. DREXEL: We have three remaining in 2
the queue.
3 MS. RAY: Excellent. Thank you. Can you 4
go ahead and get the next comment, please?
5 MS. DREXEL: Yes, our next comment is from 6
Ace Hoffman. Your line is now open.
7 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. Hi, can you hear me?
8 Can you hear me?
9 MS. RAY: Yes, we can.
10 PARTICIPANT: Yes, Ace. Go ahead.
11 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. Thank you very much.
12 I want to know if the EIS is going to cover the cost 13 of renewable options. In other words, if the money 14 that's going to be spent over the next 20 years were 15 put into renewables, what is the difference -- the 16 different impact on the environment?
17 And also that should include the cost of 18 a worst-case scenario. And in the case of the power 19 plant having a worst-case scenario, is it going to be 20 a generic worst-case estimate or a specific one that 21 was written specifically for that plant? Also, will 22 the decommissioning fund be fully funded at all times 23 during this extension because the plant being so old 24 might suffer an accident or a problem that would cause 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
73 it to financially not be worth continuing to operate?
1 And since that is much more likely during 2
this next 30 years -- during an additional 20 years 3
that the decommissioning fund should be fully funded 4
at all times. Also, a list that everyone can see of 5
what major components are inevitably or almost 6
inevitably going to need to be replaced during the 20 7
- years, steam generators,
- pumps, valves, field 8
generators, control cables and systems, reactor 9
pressure vessel heads, reactor pressure vessels. Who 10 knows.
11 Also, I want to note that there were so 12 many problems at Point Beach that a review of them 13 seemed to annoy the meeting facilitators. And lastly, 14 what is the plan for the waste? It needs to be 15 included in the EIS. Are you planning to send it to 16 New Mexico? I mean, I don't think that's going to be 17 viable. But what else is there for you at the moment?
18 Okay. So that's everything. I hope I 19 didn't take too much time. I think after 50 years, 20 you ought to have known what you were going to do with 21 the waste. So thanks very much. Bye-bye.
22 MS. RAY: Thank you for your comment.
23 Appreciate it. Danielle, next comment, please.
24 MS. DREXEL: Our next comment is from Ann 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
74 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Frish. Your line is now open.
MS. FRISCH: Yes, hello. Thank you very much. My name is Ann Frisch. I have a PhD from Michigan State in human ecology. Can you hear me?
MS. RAY: Yes, please proceed.
MS. FRISCH: Okay. I recently have moved away from Point Beach, but my grandson and family still live nearby. And I continue to be personally concerned. I am a member of PSR.
I'm very concerned about the lack of discussion about the shipments associated with nuclear waste at Point Beach and everywhere. I hope that you will have calculated the probably increased shipment by extending the license on our highways. And I understand you have a proposal to use barges and probably airways to transport waste material and other things associated with nuclear waste.
So I'm concerned about what happens in an accident. And I talked to the Minnesota State Director of Safety. And he told me our responsibility as police and security is to secure the area. After that, they have no responsibility.
And he could not tell me who's going to come and pick up the stuff. So I'm very alarmed that our public officials do not know what's going to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
75 happen after they secure the area. So I hope that 1
you're looking into this because there's probably 2
going to be a lot more shipment on our highways, more 3
incidents, and who's paying the cost for this?
4 As far as I know, the emergency plans for 5
a nuclear incident on our highways is not very 6
accessible. I've asked St. Paul for theirs. They say 7
they have one, but they can't find it. So I'm very 8
concerned even though I'm not directly in the service 9
area. But I am concerned. I hope that you will just 10 shut the place down. Thank you.
11 MS. RAY: Thank you for your comment.
12 Appreciate that. Danielle?
13 MS. DREXEL: Our next comment comes from 14 Mitchell Merrick. Your line is now open.
15 MR. MERRICK: Hello. My name is Mitchell 16 Merrick, and I'm a member of the Sierra Club and also 17 a supporter of Wisconsin Citizens Utility Board. And 18 I wanted to say that on 2005, the NRC stated that due 19 to embrittlement of the reactor pressure vessel, the 20 worst of the embrittled reactor pressure vessels in 21 America should not operate beyond Year 2017. I 22 believe that was in 2005 they said that and identified 23 Palisades Nuclear Power Plant and Unit 2 of the Point 24 Beach Nuclear Power as being the worst embrittled 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
76 reactor pressure vessels in the country.
1 Well, 2017 has come and gone. And I 2
understand that regulations regarding embrittlement of 3
reactor pressure vessels have been revised somewhat.
4 But the fact remains that Unit 2 Point Beach Nuclear 5
Power Plant has got the most embrittled reactor 6
pressure vessel.
7 And it won't be repaired or replaced and 8
that the only viable option is for it to be 9
permanently shut down in order to be decommissioned 10 eventually. The NRC has closed down one nuclear 11 reactor previously due to concerns over embrittlement 12 of the reactor pressure vessel. That occurred at 13 Yankee Rowe in Massachusetts back in 1992.
14 As it stands, the Palisades Nuclear Power 15 Plant in Michigan has come to the end of its power 16 purchase agreement -- will come to the end of the 17 power purchase agreement in 2022 in the spring and 18 then permanently shut down for decommissioning. So 19 they won't have that cloud that there's a risk of 20 breach of the reactor pressure vessel due to 21 embrittlement. They won't have to deal with that 22 anymore.
23 But we're still there. Back in 2005 when 24 the NRC made those recommendations regarding 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
77 embrittlement of reactor pressure vessels, that was 1
the same year that We Energies sold the Point Beach 2
Nuclear Power Plant to NextEra Energy. At that time, 3
I figured that NextEra would be a much more competent 4
owner than We Energies could ever hope to be. And at 5
that same time in 2005, they also entered into a power 6
purchase agreement to purchase almost all the power 7
from the Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant through 2030 8
for Unit 1 and 2033 for Unit 2.
9 I also want to mention that and shout out 10 from the Wisconsin Public Service Commission regarding 11 the money they're seeking from rate increases in order 12 that they can continue to operate the Point Beach 13 Nuclear Power Plant. I understand that Point Beach is 14 approximately a third of the electricity that We 15 Energies relies on. But they're not getting the money 16 they're asking from the Wisconsin Public Service 17 Commission, and everyone knows it.
18 Back in April of 2019, they were proposing 19 a 2.9 percent increase in electricity rates after 20 rates had been frozen since 2015. Well, they didn't 21 get 2.9 percent. They only got 1.3 percent.
22 And so they withdrew their rate hike 23 request in 2020 back in June and then refiled it a 24 couple of weeks later. They were going to seek a 3.4 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
78 percent increase in electricity rates. Well, at that 1
time, it was revealed that as part of the settlement 2
from the last electricity rate hike case that We 3
Energies was going to actively seek proposals --
4 actively seek alternatives to the power purchase 5
agreement that We Energies has to purchase almost all 6
the electricity from Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant 7
owned by NextEra and that it has to be considered that 8
this is part of NextEra's strategy to boost the market 9
value of the Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant as they 10 enter in negotiations for an alternative power 11 purchase agreement.
12 As it stands right now, power costs $55.82 13 per megawatt-hour. And that was in 2019. Well, come 14 2033, that's going to more than double to over $122.45 15 per megawatt-hour. Well, Wisconsin rate payers aren't 16 going to pay that no matter what We Energies is 17 thinking. That's not going to happen. We're not 18 going to pay that much for electricity.
19 And so one way or another, we'll find an 20 alternative to the power purchase agreement. And I 21 think that this is just a strategy of NextEra to boost 22 the market value as they enter into negotiations. And 23 that's it.
24 MS. RAY: Thank you very much for your 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
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 79 comment. We appreciate it. Danielle, are there any more comments?
MS. DREXEL: Yes, our next comment comes from Susan Michetti. Your line is now open.
MS. MICHETTI: Thank you. I strongly oppose the extension of the Point Beach license extension which I
feel is unreasonable and unscientific given the unacceptable culture of untrustworthiness that has been documented by the NRC itself in time and in terms of public safety violations as red warnings in the history where Point Beach has the worst history of violations of all the reactors in this country. That speaks to the science that hasn't been used.
Where is the financial guarantee that a catastrophe which I expect to happen if this continues at Point Beach will fully financially compensate the public victims in terms of the loss of their house, reproductive quality, property value loss, loss of irreplaceable world class wider resource of Lake Michigan and loss of precious agricultural land for thousands and thousands of years into the future of humanity of Earth just so that the Point Beach owners can have a short-lived 20-year extension once already.
And now they're asking for another 20 years for 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
80 oldest, most dangerous nuclear plant in this country.
1 This is unacceptable, unreasonable, and unscientific.
2 And I ask the NRC to document all 3
radioactive nucleotides of carbon that are involved in 4
any way at the Point Beach Nuclear Plant because I 5
think that there is carbon radioactivity involved and 6
I'm tired of hearing that there isn't any carbon. And 7
I ask the NRC to do physical inspections on all aging 8
parts that could break down and cause safety problems, 9
particularly the reactor, the embrittlement, the 10 piping underneath the facility, all the valves, 11 everything, and that we do not use computer modeling 12 to do that because computer modeling is theoretical.
13 I want physical actualities because the 14 danger is physical and it's actual, not computers. So 15 that's what I'm asking for you to do along with an 16 extension of time and another public hearing so that 17 other people can be involved and that nobody is rushed 18 in the process. Thank you.
19 MS. RAY: Thank you very much for your 20 comment. And at this time, we finished the public 21 comment period according to the agenda. Written 22 comments can be provided, and I've provided the 23 Federal Register notice in the chat for those of you 24 who'd like to provide any additional written comments.
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
81 We greatly appreciate them.
1 There was a request for the number of 2
public participants on this call. Currently, we have 3
46 public participants joined in on the Teams meeting.
4 Danielle, is there anybody who can provide a phone 5
line count at this time?
6 MS. DREXEL: Yes, at this time, we have 63 7
public participants dialed in.
8 MS. RAY: Thank you very much. I 9
appreciate that. So now we will move into closing 10 comments, and I will turn it over to Rob Elliott, the 11 Branch Chief of the Environmental Review License 12 Renewal Branch. Rob?
13 MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you very much. Can 14 everybody hear me?
15 MS. RAY: Yes.
16 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I want to thank 17 everybody for their participation today. And I'm glad 18 we have this meeting transcribed because I was 19 vigorously writing notes down as fast as I could. And 20 I couldn't keep pace with the pace of the comments 21 that we were receiving.
22 I heard some very good information today 23 that we're going to take back and consider as we do 24 our EIS. Just some of the things that struck me, I 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
82 heard concern about plant discharges and the potential 1
effect on the lake and on the surrounding environment.
2 I heard comments about the lake levels and the concern 3
about the level of the lake being higher than in the 4
past and the potential effects that storms could have 5
on the plant. And the comment was that we should 6
consider that in our environmental effects also.
7 I heard concerns about the storage of 8
waste and spent fuel on site and the impact of that 9
over the life of the plant. I heard comments 10 requesting additional time for public comment period.
11 And we'll take that back and consider that as well.
12 I don't want to go through every comment.
13 But I heard -- I just wanted to give -- cite a few 14 there to give you an idea that we heard some very 15 valuable feedback today. And we will take it back and 16 consider it as we do our analysis for the EIS.
17 Just want to remind everybody as the slide 18 here shows that currently scheduled, the public 19 comment period ends on March 3rd. We have heard your 20 request for more time and we'll consider it. But as 21 of right now, any comments that receive after March 22 3rd, we would consider if we have time. But we can't 23 guarantee that we would be able to address comments 24 that come in after the end of the public comment 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
83 period.
1 With that, I just, again, want to say 2
thank everybody for their time and for their 3
consideration and for all the effort they put in to 4
share with us their concerns and their comments. And 5
when we draft the EIS and put that out for public 6
comment, hopefully you will see that we've addressed 7
your comments appropriately in the scope of our 8
review. And with that, Phyllis, is there anything 9
that I missed?
10 MS. CLARK: No, thanks.
11 MR. ELLIOTT: And --
12 MS. RAY: Thank you, Rob.
13 MR. ELLIOTT: -- I would say the meeting 14 is adjourned.
15 MS. RAY: Rob, if I could just take it 16 back for one second. We do appreciate any public 17 meeting feedback. I've provided the link if anyone 18 would like to provide feedback on the meeting itself.
19 But otherwise, I thank you all for your time and 20 participation. And I believe we can adjourn the 21 meeting at this time. Thank you all. Have a great 22 night.
23 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 24 off the record at 3:53 p.m.)
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