ML25148A217
| ML25148A217 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 05/15/2025 |
| From: | NRC/NMSS/DREFS/EPMB1 |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NRC-0311 | |
| Download: ML25148A217 (1) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Public Meeting to Receive Comments on the Point Beach Second Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
teleconference Date:
Thursday, May 15, 2025 Work Order No.:
NRC-0311 Pages 1-45 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1716 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 234-4433
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ + + + +
PUBLIC MEETING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON THE POINT BEACH SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
+ + + + +
- THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2025
+ + + + +
The meeting was convened via Videoconference, at 4:00 p.m. EDT, Lance Rakovan, Facilitator, presiding.
PRESENT:
LANCE RAKOVAN, Facilitator KEVIN FOLK, NMSS KAREN LOOMIS, NMSS TED SMITH, NMSS CHRIS TYREE, NRR
2 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com PUBLIC PARTICIPANTS:
MICHAEL KEEGAN ALFRED MEYER AMY SCHULZ
3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 4:00 p.m.
MR. RAKOVAN: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Lance Rakovan, and it's my pleasure to facilitate today's public meeting hosted by the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or NRC, involving Point Beach Nuclear Plant subsequent license renewal.
My colleague Kevin Folk will be our main presenter, and he'll be coming on in a moment after we go through some opening comments and a little bit of ground rules.
Our goals today are to provide you with an overview of the NRC's updated preliminary findings in our second draft Point Beach subsequent license renewal Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, or SEIS, and solicit your comments on the second draft SEIS.
If we could bring up Slide 2. Here's our agenda for today. After some opening remarks and some introductions, we'll move on to a brief presentation involving the preliminary findings in the second draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, as well as our processes.
We'll take a short time to see if anyone has any clarifying questions on the presentation, and
4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com after that comes the final and most important part of the webinar, where we'll open the virtual floor to receive your comments on the second draft SEIS.
For those of you on the phone, we're moving to Slide 3. So with us on the line today are numerous NRC staff, including Kevin Folk, the environmental lead for Point Beach subsequent license renewal, and Chris Tyree, the safety lead for Point Beach subsequent license renewal.
Ted Smith, one of our branch chiefs in the NRC's Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support Division will be give some opening remarks. So I'll go ahead and turn things over to Ted right now.
Ted?
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Lance. Good afternoon, everyone.
I'm the Chief of the Environmental Technical Review Branch II in the Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support Division at the U.S. NRC. I want to welcome you to today's meeting on the second draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, or SEIS, for the Point Beach subsequent license renewal application.
The purpose of today's meeting is to inform you about the results of our review and to seek your input on the second draft SEIS for Point Beach.
5 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Previously, on December 2, 2021, the NRC held two online meetings to discuss the November 2021 draft SEIS and to take public comment.
This second draft SEIS presents new information obtained by the NRC since 2021 and is focused on the staff's consideration of that new information. And this meeting provides -- is to provide new opportunity to comment on the staff's consideration of the new information.
The NRC's process encourages public participation and transparency. Public participation, openness, and transparency are key to all NRC activities, including the licensing of nuclear facilities. After Kevin describes the updated preliminary results of our agency's environmental review, we'll solicit your comments on the second draft SEIS.
Our goal is to hear from you and collect any comments that you may have so that we may fully consider them during the process when we finalize the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
The purpose of today's meeting is to inform you about the results of our environmental review and to seek your input on the second draft SEIS for Point Beach. Before we move on to today's
6 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com presentation, I would like to point out that the license renewal process involves both the safety review and an environmental review.
The safety review has proceeded in parallel with the environmental review, and the NRC's supplement to its 2022 Safety Evaluation Report is expected to be issued in September of this year.
I'd also like to highlight two key principles of the NRC's approach to license renewal.
First, with the possible exception of the effects of aging of certain systems, structures, or components, or SSCs, during the period of extended operation, the current regulatory process is adequate to ensure the licensing bases of all operating plants provide and maintain an acceptable level of safety on an ongoing basis during plant operations.
The focus of the safety review associated with the license renewal is to consider aging management programs to cover those specific SSCs during the period of extended operation.
Secondly, each plant's licensing basis is required to be maintained during the renewal term, just as during the original term, to help ensure the plant continues to operate safely.
I look forward to hearing your insight and
7 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com feedback on the staff's environmental review, and I want to thank you in advance for your participation.
With that, I will turn it over to Lance and Kevin.
MR. RAKOVAN: Thanks, Ted. So, this is a comment-gathering meeting by NRC's definition, which means our primary purpose here is to listen to you; specifically, to collect your comments on the second draft Point Beach SEIS.
So, again, we appreciate your patience in terms of the presentation Kevin is about to give, but we want to make sure that everyone who is joining us today has at least a basic understanding of that document as well as our processes.
Please note that we are recording and transcribing today's meeting so the NRC staff can be sure to get a full accounting of the comments you provide. Participants will be in listen-only mode until we get to the comment session, or again when we ask to see if there are any clarifying questions on our presentation. And I'd like to stress that no regulatory decisions will be made during today's meeting.
So let's go ahead and turn things over to Kevin. And, again, I'll be back after his presentation when we open the floor to clarifying
8 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com questions and then to comments. So please hold your questions until Kevin has finished with his presentation.
Kevin, take it away.
MR. FOLK: Thank you, Lance.
Good afternoon again. My name is Kevin Folk, I'm the Environmental Project Manager for the Point Beach environmental review.
While some of you may be familiar with Point Beach and the NRC's license renewal process, I'm going to start by providing you with some background information and a timeline to bring everybody up to date on the many developments since 2020, when the NRC first started reviewing the Point Beach application.
NextEra Energy Point Beach submitted its subsequent license renewal application, or SLR, for Units 1 and 2 in November 2020. The NRC staff issued a draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, or SEIS, for public comment in November of 2021. It was issued for a 45-day public comment period, which ended January 3rd of 2022.
The November 2021 draft report was a supplement to the NRC's 2013 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, the Generic EIS for short. This was Revision
9 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 1 of NUREG-1437.
Subsequently, from February 24, 2022, the Commission issued several orders that impacted the NRC's environmental review process for SLR in general and the November 2021 draft report for Point Beach in particular.
In short, the NRC Commission determined that the 2013 Generic EIS did not consider SLR.
Therefore, the NRC staff's SLR environmental reviews, including the ongoing environmental review for Point Beach, did not adequately address the environmental impacts for the SLR term.
These orders then were followed by a Staff Requirements Memorandum on April 5, 2022, that directed the NRC staff to conduct rulemaking and to update the 2013 Generic EIS to fully address the environmental impacts of SLR.
The NRC staff issued a proposed rule and a draft Revision 2 of the Generic EIS for public comment in March of 2023. Slide 6, please. The NRC staff completed the rulemaking in August of 2024 and published Revision 2 of the Generic EIS and the associated final rule revising its environmental protection regulations.
The final rule updated the list of
10 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com potential environmental impacts associated with the renewal of an operating license for up to an additional 20 years, which could be either an initial license renewal, or one term of subsequent license renewal, or SLR.
At the request of NextEra, the NRC staff then provided its plan in August 2024 to complete the Point Beach environmental review, which included preparing a supplement to the November 2021 draft SEIS in accordance with 10 CFR 51.72 of the NRC's regulations.
The second draft SEIS, which we are here to talk about this afternoon and to take comment on, considers new information associated with SLR and including the new and modified issues from Revision 2 of the Generic EIS. The NRC staff will also issue a supplement to the 2022 Safety Evaluation Report to reflect NextEra's annual update information submitted to the NRC.
The current renewed operating license for Point Beach Unit 1 expires on October 5, 2030. The license for Unit 2 expires on March 8, 2033. If an SLR is granted by the NRC, it will be for an additional 20 years beyond the expiration dates listed on this slide. Slide 7, please.
11 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com In support of the staff's overall environmental review, the Generic EIS which has now been revised addresses a number of issues that are common to all nuclear power plants. These generic or common issues are called Category 1.
The NRC staff prepares a nuclear plant-specific supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, or SEIS, to evaluate issues that are specific to a particular facility, called Category 2 issues. This was the November 2021 draft report for Point Beach.
In the nuclear plant-specific supplement, the NRC staff also reexamines the generic conclusions reached in the Generic EIS to determine if there's any new and significant information that might challenge those conclusions. Our environmental review also considered the impacts of continuing to operate the nuclear plant for an additional 20 years and [if] any proposed mitigation of those impacts is warranted.
We also considered the impacts of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action of SLR, including the impacts of not issuing a subsequent renewed license. The NRC staff's second draft SEIS, which we are here to take comment on, includes the staff's evaluation of new information obtained since the issuance of the November 2021 report.
12 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com This information includes the new and revised environmental issues and impact determinations contained in the NRC's 2024 final rule and Revision 2 of the License Renewal Generic EIS.
The staff also considers whether there is any new and significant information with respect to generic environmental issues and impact determinations. So in the second draft report you will see that substantive changes, including text corrections or updates from the November 2021 first draft, are shown using red bold text for additions and red strikeout for deletions.
Slide 8, please, Karen. So this slide simply illustrates the different resource areas the staff reviewed and considered as part of preparing both the 2021 draft SEIS and the second draft. Some of the topics that we look at as part of our environmental review includes surface and groundwater use and quality, radiation protection, postulated accidents, and air quality.
As part of our review process, we document the affected environment or the baseline conditions for each resource area, determine the impacts of continued operations, analyze cumulative effects from reasonably foreseeable actions, and also analyze
13 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com alternatives to the proposed actions of SLR.
Our team of experienced technical reviewers, who have extensive experience in their fields, prepared the draft SEIS report. Many of them are listening today.
Slide 9, please. So, in general, we define impacts as either small, moderate, or large in the SEIS, as defined here. This terminology is derived from the Generic EIS, and the terms are also codified in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 of our environmental protection regulation. Slide 10.
There are also some topics or issues where we do not use the terms small, moderate, and large for defining the significance of environmental impacts.
So I'm going to walk through those quickly.
For federally listed species and critical habitats, we use the language of the Endangered Species Act, as stated here in the slide. For essential fish habitat, we use the language from the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as listed here.
Slide 11. For the issue of sanctuary resources, which is applicable to Point Beach, we use the language from the National Marine Sanctuaries Act and its implementing regulations for impact determinations. For impacts on historic and cultural
14 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com resources, we use language from the National Historic Preservation Act.
Slide 12. So this table summarizes how the SEIS is organized overall and to identify where issues and staff evaluations of those issue are located. So otherwise, Section 1 and 2 of the SEIS doc. provide background information, both regarding Point Beach specifically as well as on our overall environmental review process.
It also includes the discussion of reasonable alternatives considered to the proposed action that we'll talk more about in a minute.
In Section 3, we go resource by resource.
We provide our updated evaluation of potential impacts to continued operation associated with Point Beach SLR, as well as our consideration of the impacts of alternatives to the proposed action. Next slide.
So this list provides a list of resource areas which is inclusive of the associated Category 1 or Category 2 issues where the impact was determined to be small. You can see that they include air quality and
- noise, surface water resources, terrestrial resources, aquatic resources, socioeconomics, and waste management, to name a few.
Based on the staff's consideration of the
15 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com incremental impacts of Point Beach continued operations for an additional 20 years, the staff identified no new and significant information that would affect the generic or Category 1 conclusions in the 2024 Generic EIS. We also identified no new information that would result in a finding of greater than small for any applicable Category 2 issue. Next slide.
So now I'm going to go to some of the more specialized topics that use different impact findings.
This slide outlines the staff's preliminary findings as revised in the second draft SEIS related to federally protected ecological resources and national marine sanctuary resources.
The NRC staff found that Point Beach SLR may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the northern long-eared bat, tricolored bat, piping plover, and monarch butterfly. In the second draft SEIS the staff updated its analysis to include the tricolored bat and monarch butterfly, which are now proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act.
The staff found the SLR had no effect on any other federally listed species or critical habitats, as discussed in Section 3.8 of the second draft SEIS. Also, as documented in the second draft
16 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com SEIS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred with the staff's determinations for all of these resources.
The NRC staff also found that for essential fish habitat, Point Beach SLR would have no effect with respect to the Magnuson-Stevens Act because no such resources have been identified by the National Marine Fisheries Service in Lake Michigan.
Further, Point Beach SLR would not be likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure any sanctuary resources in the waters of Lake Michigan under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, which includes the Wisconsin Shipwreck Coast National Marine Sanctuary. Next slide, please.
For historic and cultural resources, our revised preliminary finding is that Point Beach SLR would not adversely affect known historic properties.
This is discussed in Section 3.9.2 of the report. For the new issues associated with greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, this was a change in the 2024 License Renewal Generic Environmental Impact Statement, the staff presents its findings in Section 3.15.3 of the SEIS. The new Category 1 or generic issue, greenhouse gas impacts on climate change, the staff determined that the impacts of Point Beach SLR
17 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com would be small. For the new Category 2 issue, climate change impacts on environmental resources, the staff presents its analysis in Section 3.15.3.3 of the second draft SEIS.
There, the staff specifically considers the potential effects of climate change on environmental resources that may also be directly affected by the proposed action of Point Beach SLR.
For cumulative
- effects, those are discussed in Section 3.16 of the SEIS. The staff's cumulative effects analysis considers and describes the incremental effects associated with Point Beach SLR when combined with the effects of other actions on the same environmental resource condition. Next slide, please.
So in terms of replacement power alternatives to nuclear generation, we evaluated three replacement power alternatives in detail. These include new nuclear generation, natural gas combined cycle generation, and a combination of technologies, include new nuclear, solar, and wind generation.
Also, as in all NRC environmental reviews, we considered a no-action alternative, which evaluates the impacts of not renewing the Point Beach operating licenses. We're on slide 17.
18 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com So this brings us to our preliminary recommendation, which is unchanged from the November 2021 draft SEIS. The NRC staff's preliminary recommendation is that the adverse environmental impacts of SLR for Point Beach for an additional 20 years are not so great that preserving the option of subsequent license renewal for energy planning decision-makers would be unreasonable.
In other words, based on the staff's environmental review, there are no environmental impacts that should preclude continued operation.
With that
- said, however, continued operation of a nuclear plant is not an NRC decision.
It is up to the plant owner, operator, state regulators, and other relevant energy planning decision-makers. The NRC's role is to ensure that the nuclear plant operates safely.
Section 2.5 of the draft SEIS further summarizes the NRC staff's evaluation of Point Beach SLR as compared to other replacement power alternatives. Slide 18, please.
This slide lists our major environmental review milestones. The second draft SEIS was made publicly available on April 11 and published officially on April 16. It was also filed with the
19 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA. The 45-day public comment period began on April 18 with publication of EPA's notice of availability.
The deadline to provide comments on the second draft SEIS is June 2. The NRC staff can only guarantee consideration of comments received during the official comment period. However, we will consider comments received after that date to the extent practical.
Our current schedule has us issuing the final SEIS by this fall, October 2025. The final SEIS will incorporate both the first and second draft SEIS reports and will reflect any changes made in response to public comments. Next slide.
If you'd like to get a copy of the second draft SEIS, there are a number of ways to do that.
There are hard copies on file at the Lester Public Library. If you wish to look at an electronic version, you can go to the public website at the link provided on this slide.
Or go directly to our Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System, or ADAMS. That link is provided here, and the accession number to search on is given at the top of the page. At the bottom of the page. Slide 20, please.
20 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Here on this slide we list additional ways to find additional information and to stay informed about the Point Beach SLR review. The project website is listed again, which has links to additional related documents and background information.
You can also sign up with the Point Beach listserv to receive correspondence and notices on a wide range of operational activities or licensing reviews. Slide 21, please.
There are also a number of ways to submit comments. We have our meeting here today, which in a few moments will switch over to the official comment-gathering portion of the meeting. You can also send your comments by mail if you prefer at the address listed on the slide.
If you go to the website regulations.gov, and search for the document number, which is NRC-2020-0277 as listed here, that will bring up this particular action, and you can provide your comments through regulations.gov. You can also provide them by email to the listed email address listed here.
So I wanted to stress that any comments provided here will be treated the same as any comments submitted in various other ways. Slide 22, please.
So finally, we'll issue a meeting summary
21 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com following this meeting. It will contain a full participant list, links to the NRC presentation which we've just given. It'll also provide a transcript of this meeting.
The final SEIS will have an appendix that will discuss how we addressed all comments received, whether orally or in writing. If you want to be sure you receive notification when the final SEIS is issued, you can send me an email directly at kevin.folk@nrc.gov.
With that, I want to thank you for your time this afternoon as well as your patience. And I'll turn things back over to Lance.
MR. RAKOVAN: Thanks, Kevin. So let's go ahead and bring up Slide 23. So let's open the floor now specifically to see if anyone has any clarifying questions on Kevin's presentation. Again, want to make sure that the information that Kevin provided is clear.
So if you have a clarifying question, and again, we'll get to commenting momentarily, but if you have a clarifying question, you can raise your hand on Teams. So look for the little raise-your-hand button.
Or if you're on the phone, if you hit star-5, that will put you into the queue, just as raising your hand
22 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com on Teams will.
So again, we'll pause for a moment to see if anyone has any clarifying questions. Again, raise your hand, hit the little hand button on Teams, or press star-5 if you are on the phone. We'll pause momentarily to see if anyone has any questions.
All right, not seeing any questions, but that's okay. We can go ahead and move on to see if anyone has any comments on the draft, second draft SEIS, sorry. So again, if you have a comment that you'd like to share, please hit the raise-your-hand button if you're on Teams. Or if you are on the phone, press star-5.
Once I call on you, you will still need to unmute. So if you are on Teams, just use your unmute button. For those of you on the phone, you can try your unmute button or star-6.
So we do have one hand, Amy Schulz.
Amy, you should be able to unmute and provide your comment at this time. Amy, are you with us? I've activated your microphone, you should be able to unmute.
Let's go ahead and bring up the next slide. Karen, if you would.
So yeah, so again, there's something I can
23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com try, I've got a few things that I can try. But if you're not able to unmute after a few things, the best thing to do is to drop off and come back on.
You can call the bridge line, which the number is here, or its also on the public meeting schedule for this meeting. Or check your device settings. So you can look for the little three buttons that say More, choose Settings, and look at Device Settings.
So Amy, I want to try one more thing to see if this works. If you're with us, could you unmute please? I can see you, but you're still muted.
Unfortunately I'm not able to unmute you. You have to do that on your own.
So are you on Teams? If you can look, there should be a little microphone and it probably has a little strike through it right now.
All right, your best bet might be to go ahead, and if we can go to the next slide, and call in. That might be a better way to do it if you're not unmuting. So we'll try to bring you right up if we, when we see a new number come on.
Anyone else has any comments that they'd like to share, again, you can raise your hand or you can hit star-5 if you're on the phone.
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com All right, let's see. Alfred Meyer, Alfred, you should be able to unmute and provide your comment at this time.
MR. MEYER: Yes, can you hear me?
MR. RAKOVAN: Yes, please.
MR. MEYER: I have a request for some help in understanding this document. In particular, about climate change. Is climate change considered within the scope of making decisions about whether or not this site will be suitable for operations during 2030-2053? And I have a follow-up detail, too.
MR. FOLK: This is Kevin Folk of the NRC staff. The issues of climate change and greenhouse gases are within the scope of the NRC's environmental review. But the impacts of climate change on the physical infrastructure of the plant is not within the scope of this document or this environmental review.
Those issues are addressed as part of reactor oversight of ongoing operations. They are not addressed as part of reactor license renewal reviews.
MR. MEYER: So you were saying that -- I mean, my concern is this, that we're entering periods of different weather patterns, different intensities of storms, different amounts of water. Will we also see things like in 2013, a record low lake level for
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Lake Michigan? A mere seven years later, a record high level?
So, to me, I'm wondering, let's say we have a record high level situation, and let's say we have a torrential downpour, say 12 inches of water.
You know, first of all, basic questions like, you know, are the gutters big enough, the downspouts, and where is it drained, and you know, how is that all handled.
And if you had a huge rain event that would saturate that site and then if you had a derecho come up the lake with a huge wave, you know, what would that do? And what would that do at a high level of lake level? What would it do at a low level?
Would it erode the actual site itself?
Those are what concerns me. And so you're telling me that those questions are not considered part of the environmental consequences of relicensing, but that they are to be found in reactor oversight?
And where else? How is this question being answered, or are you answering this question?
MR. FOLK: That's correct, Mr. Schulz
[sic]. Those issues are looked at on an ongoing basis for all operating nuclear power plants. I think now we're sort of outside the bounds of a clarifying
26 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com question on the presentation, but we'll be happy to take your comments on the record as a formal comment.
MR. MEYER: Thank you.
MR. RAKOVAN: Karen, can you back up a slide, please?
Ms. Schulz, if you could hit star-5 on your phone, that will raise your hand for me and I'll know which line you're on and I can activate your audio.
All right, unfortunately, I'm not seeing a hand come up. All right, so we've got a couple options. I can hit -- can you let me know what the last digit of your phone number is? Can you give me a hand signal? That was large whatever it was.
All right, I'm going to guess -- all right, if it's 8500 you can activate your audio, unmute your phone. I can try to just unmute everybody. All right, Amy, if you are on any of the phones, you should be able to unmute. I've allowed the audio for everyone who has called in on the phone here.
All right, it looks like Amy is dropping off. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how I can help her.
Anyone else has any comments that they would like to provide at this point on the second
27 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com draft SEIS? Again, please raise your hand.
Karen, if you could go back one slide, please. Thank you. So, again, if you are on Teams, you can use your raise-your-hand button. You'll still need to unmute, though. If you're on the phone, you can press star-5 and that will put you in my queue.
Karen, do you mind showing the slide that's got the various ways that folks can provide their comments, since today's meeting is certainly not the only way to do it. I think it's two slides back maybe. There you go.
So again, you can provide your comments by snail mail to the Office of Administration at the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. That's Washington, DC 20555. Through the website regulations.gov using Docket ID NRC-2020-0277. Or you can email directly to pointbeach-SLRSEIS@NRC.gov.
So again, today is certainly not your only option or way that you can provide comments. But again, regardless of which method you use, we ask that you provide your comments by June 2 so that we can make sure that we incorporate them into our processes.
All right, we'll give a pause to see if we have anyone who would like to provide comments again.
If you'd like to provide a comment, you can raise your
28 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com hand if you are in Teams or with star-5 if you are on the phone. Once I activate your audio you will still need to unmute, though.
All right, we'll pause for a second to see if anyone has any comments.
Alfred Meyer, you had your hand up. You should be able to unmute.
MR. MEYER: Thank you. If I could follow up on my earlier comment about climate change, my question really is what I understood, I believe that it was Kevin who made the comments, is that these concerns I have about weather patterns and changing weather conditions are part of ongoing reactor oversight.
And can you provide any further clarification on how that works, that is there a periodic review of considering what changes are taking place in our weather patterns and addressing changes in climate? You know, how would that actually have an impact?
You know, it just seems like before you give a license to operate over a time period in the future, you'd want to know that it's going to be safe during that time period. But you're saying that this consideration of this SEIS doesn't cover that. That
29 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com those concerns take place elsewhere.
So can you give me any insight on how it takes place elsewhere? I'd appreciate it.
MR. RAKOVAN: Kevin, do you want to take a shot at this, or maybe Chris Tyree, the safety PM?
Put him on the spot and see if he wants to address this at all?
MR. FOLK: Yeah, sure. Chris, you're still on?
MR. TYREE: I am. Yes. Could you kind of repeat the question on what you're looking for?
MR. MEYER: Yes, I'm concerned that the changing weather patterns and climate are presenting different physical conditions for Point Beach facility, the actual buildings, you know, on the edge of Lake Michigan, to operate under. That you know, there's more rain, there's stronger winds, so and so forth.
So I'm wondering how are those concerns addressed in terms of determining the safety of operating the reactor? Because you know, from my layperson's perspective, one would think that, well, when you're going to extend the license, that would be a obvious place to talk about that question.
But I'm being told that it's talked about
30 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com some other way. So you can tell me how it's being addressed?
MR. TYREE: Yeah, so for any structures that are onsite, there is an aging management program, structures monitored in an aging management program.
You can find a Generic Lessons Learned Report for that on our -- in our documents library. It does kind of go through what would be included in a program like that.
Obviously sites can have their plant-specific version of that program. So there are ways to monitor the structures onsite to make sure that they are still safe.
MR. MEYER: Right, but I'm wondering too, not only, you know, are they being kept up in good shape, that's important obviously. But are they putting on bigger gutters and larger downspouts, and do they have to manage with the outflow of rainfall?
When we're getting bigger rainfalls, more water needs to be managed. Is that specific need being addressed?
MR. TYREE: That is not really something that I'm aware of that we look at from our safety review side. You know, those types of things, I have not seen, you know, an examination of those types of items. It has mostly been managing the aging effects
31 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com for the plant.
MR. RAKOVAN: I think you are asking questions that are outside the ability of the folks who are participating in this particular meeting to answer.
MR. MEYER: Well, to me, my question is this seems like a very crucial issue. Is that site, you know, in 2053, will that site still be stable, given our expected weather conditions.
So, you know, I'm hoping to figure out how that particular question is being addressed in determining to provide a license for operation. So I do appreciate that it's, comes in at an odd vector, but it's a important question and I'm having trouble seeing how it's being adequately answered. But I appreciate your help today.
MR. FOLK: Mr. Meyer, this is Kevin Folk again. If you would send me an email at my direct address, I can put you in touch with (audio interference).
Amy, I think you just figured out how to unmute?
MS. SCHULZ: Yeah, sorry, I had to go out and back in. Is it okay if I ask my questions now?
MR. RAKOVAN: Can you let Kevin finish the
32 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com statement that he was making?
MS. SCHULZ: Sure.
MR. RAKOVAN: And then we'll go right to you.
MS. SCHULZ: Yeah, thank you.
MR. FOLK: Yeah, apologize. Thank you for waiting. Mr. Meyer, if you send me your contact information, email me, I can put you in touch with our Office of Public Affairs and the appropriate people who can -- who we can direct your questions to. In the meantime, we will take your comments on the record and we will consider those in preparing the final SEIS.
MR. MEYER: Thank you very much, I'll be in touch with you.
MR. RAKOVAN: All right, thank you, sir.
All right, Ms. Schulz, the floor is yours.
MS. SCHULZ: Yes, I apologize for the technological hurdles I had to overcome here, but yeah, here I am.
So I know that embrittlement has not been a part of the updated, the revised Environmental Impact Statement. But it seems to me that I have a hard time understanding how, you know, Point Beach Reactor No. 2 was supposed to have reached its
33 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com screening limit by 2017, and here we are eight years after that.
And if there were, because of the extreme embrittlement, if there were some sort of a, you know, a disturbance that had to cool the reactor quickly, that the reactor is very, much more vulnerable than the average reactor because it's older, to cracking and of course release of radioactive materials.
And can I just ask, you know, what -- is there a limit in terms of what is considered to be acceptable? Is there -- I just have a hard time understanding how if it's -- if Point Beach has already reached its limit of embrittlement, how it can be allowed to be run for another 20 years after the, you know, its license expires.
MR. RAKOVAN: So, embrittlement is more of a safety issue.
Chris, I don't know if you want to take a shot at addressing this briefly, but that's going to be outside of the scope of what we look at, at least in terms of the environmental review.
MR. TYREE: Yes, embrittlement I believe is discussed -- will be discussed in the SE when --
and, or is discussed in the SE actually. So the SE has already gone through ACRS. So that topic can be
34 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com found, should be found in the SE that is on the public website.
MR. RAKOVAN: So that's the safety evaluation?
MR. TYREE: Yes, excuse me. Yeah, correct, the --
MS. SCHULZ: Okay. Is it okay if I go ahead and ask another question?
MR. RAKOVAN: Go ahead.
MS. SCHULZ: So what you're saying is I need to look at the safety evaluation to understand like when the surveillance capsules were last evaluated and the findings from that. Is that correct? Because that's more of a safety thing as opposed to an environmental thing? Although certainly my impression is that the environment would be greatly impacted if there were an accident there.
MR. TYREE: I believe -- I'm actually checking the SE right now to see if that topic is discussed.
MS. SCHULZ: Okay, thank you. I appreciate that, Chris. And it's called the Safety --
what's the E for, SE?
MR. TYREE: Safety evaluation, so.
MS. SCHULZ: Evaluation, okay, thank you.
35 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MR. TYREE: Yes, if you go to the license renewal public site on the NRC website, it should be on the public page for Point Beach.
MS. SCHULZ: Okay.
MR. RAKOVAN: Yeah, that should be the link that's displayed on the screen right now, which is also on Slide 20 of the slide deck for this meeting.
MS. SCHULZ: Okay, all right. And then another question I have, I know that one of the resources that you all listed had to do with waste.
And you know, my question is, you know, is there a way of safeguarding the waste there that makes it fall into the category of a small risk to the environment?
The reason why I'm asking that is because, you know, we do not have a permanent repository and with it being there onsite, it seems like it's vulnerable to either attack or weather-related events that could prevent the cooling of the rods, etc.
So I guess the question is, you know, how are -- how is the nuclear waste that is stored there being safeguarded?
MR. RAKOVAN: Kevin, do we want to take this as a question, or do we just want to take this as a comment that we want to ensure that the waste is
36 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com stored -- is stored safety onsite?
MR. FOLK: Yeah, thanks, Lance. Waste management is within the scope of the environmental review, including onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel. So we will take this as a comment and respond accordingly in the FSEIS.
MR. RAKOVAN: But can I assume that that is already discussed in the -- both drafts that have been completed for Point Beach at this point, if she wanted to look at those?
MR. FOLK: That's correct, in the waste management sections.
MR. RAKOVAN: So again, you can find those on the link that's on the screen right now, which is on page 20 of the slide deck, which is the same page that you can find the safety evaluation that Chris discussed.
MS. SCHULZ: Okay, thank you.
MR. RAKOVAN: Chris, you don't need to raise your hand, man. Go ahead.
MR. TYREE: No, I just didn't want to talk over anyone. So yeah, so reactor vessel neutron embrittlement is discussed in the SE. It is Section 4.2 of the safety evaluation.
MS. SCHULZ: Thank you. You know, would,
37 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com like, the vulnerability of the reactor vessel to, like, a terrorist attack, is that also in the safety evaluation?
MR. TYREE: That is not something that is looked at for a license renewal application. We're only looking at aging management, aging effects, and how they're managed.
MS. SCHULZ: Okay. Thank you for your help.
MR. RAKOVAN: Ms. Schulz, did you have any comments that you wanted to offer on the draft document?
MS. SCHULZ: I guess those are the main things that I was concerned about, is just the embrittlement, that that, you know, continues to be a concern, as well as the production and storage and more nuclear waste. So I don't know if you all have any things, you know, to respond regarding that, but those are the things I'm most concerned about.
MR. RAKOVAN: Well, definitely take those as comments on the draft and respond to those.
MS. SCHULZ: Okay, and I'll write them up as well and submit them written.
MR. RAKOVAN: Okay.
MS. SCHULZ: Thank you.
38 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com MR. RAKOVAN: Thank you. All right, again, if you have any comments that you would like to provide at this time, please raise your hand. Or again, if you're on the phone, you can hit star-5.
Pause for a short time to see if anyone else has anything they'd like to interject.
Karen, why don't you go ahead and bring up the slide that shows how people can provide their input outside of today's meeting. So I'll go through this one more time again. You can provide them by mail to the Office of Administration at the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
You can go to the website regulations.gov and use Docket ID NRC-2020-0277. Or you can send an email to pointbeach-SLRSEIS@NRC.gov. Again, we ask that you provide your comments by June 2, 2025, so that we can make sure that we can incorporate them into our processes.
So, seeing no hands, Ted, were you going to offer any closing comments?
MR. SMITH: Sure, I'd be happy to, thanks, Lance.
MR. RAKOVAN: All right, hold on a second.
Amy put her hand up. See if she can unmute? See if that works? Hopefully we won't get
39 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com into a situation where -- all right, we can see you again. We can't hear you.
MS. SCHULZ: Can you hear me now?
MR. RAKOVAN: There you are.
MS. SCHULZ: Okay, apologize. You know, one of my colleagues was concerned about a couple of things and she was unable to join the meeting today.
But just on her behalf I just want to ask about, because this is a health issue and we're representing Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin.
And I believe that there are regular releases of tritium that occur and sometimes tritium is accidentally released. And there is a concern about the impacts for more vulnerable populations like women, fetuses, infants, children, etc.
And is that being, you know, I guess my question is, is it measured in the air, do you know?
Is that considered an environmental issue?
MR. RAKOVAN: So I believe that's more of an operational issue, but I don't know, Kevin, Chris one of you want to respond to this? Or should we just have her send that question in and we can make sure it gets to the appropriate person to respond?
MR. FOLK: Yeah, Lance, thanks. We'll take that as a comment and we can also respond to that
40 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com separately, we can direct that question to the appropriate entity.
MS. SCHULZ: Okay, yeah, because I'm curious about, you know, where -- when and where it's measured in the air and the water and how often. And you know, is -- are those results reported and made available to the public? So that's one thing.
And then also, you know, the, I believe that the report talks or that we know that the water that is discharged back into Lake Michigan is returned at I believe 24 degrees greater than the ambient temperature. And there are, I guess really there's, you know, at least two thermophilic organisms that were discussed that could be dangerous.
Is anyone able to talk about that a little bit? In other words, you know, is there, you know, I guess, is there much of a measurement of, like, cyanobacteria and the nuclear pool area? Does anybody know that information?
MR. RAKOVAN: Kevin, do you know off the top of your head? That's a pretty specific comment.
MS. SCHULZ: Yeah, it has to do, you know, the --
MR. FOLK: Ms. Schulz, the SEIS does evaluate the impacts of continued operations with
41 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com respect to microbiological hazards. So that is addressed in the human health section of both the 2021 SEIS and the second draft SEIS.
So, again, we'll take your comments on the record and we will respond to those. And, obviously, if you have any other comments, please forward those to us.
MS. SCHULZ: Okay, yeah. I think that we're just overall worried about, you know, the increases in Lake Michigan's water temperature with climate change and then it being enhanced with the discharge of the effluent from the reactor.
And so, I mean, I think that we've all heard about the increased, at least the cyano, the blue-green algae in Lake Michigan close to Palisades and other places. So I'm just wondering if -- how that's being addressed, so. Yeah, thank you for taking that information.
MR. FOLK: Absolutely, thank you.
MR. RAKOVAN: All right, it looks like Alfred Meyer.
MR. MEYER: Yes, a brief closing comment.
I want to thank you very much, you and your staff, for holding these public meetings. And I want to report then what I made public comments in 2021 about
42 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com the earlier version of the SEIS, I did complain about there being old references cited. And I just want to thank you and your team for upgrading the references and using really current references in this draft.
So it's really a thank-you and a comment that I noticed that you listened and you do respond.
So it's appreciated. Thank you.
MR. FOLK: Thank you, sir.
MR. RAKOVAN: All right, I see Michael Keegan. Michael, you should be able to unmute and provide your comment.
MR. KEEGAN: Hello, can you hear me?
MR. RAKOVAN: Yes, please proceed.
MR. KEEGAN: Can you hear me?
MR. RAKOVAN: Yes, we can, we can hear you, sir. Can you hear us?
MR. KEEGAN: Can you hear me?
MR. RAKOVAN: Yes.
MR. KEEGAN: Hello?
MR. RAKOVAN: We can hear you, sir.
MR. KEEGAN: Okay, thank you very much.
Michael Keegan with Don't Waste Michigan. Sorry to join a little bit late. I'm concerned about derecho, weather, severe weather coming through. We saw that at Duane Arnold in 2019, and in the last three or four
43 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com years I've also seen a number of patterns of weather just missing Point Beach.
What are you doing to include the impact of climate upon the plant? We know that the plant has impact on the climate, thermal pollution into the lake. Entrainment, fish kills, and so on. But what impact does the climate have on Point Beach which is being neglected for consideration? Is that being taken into consideration, particularly straight line winds and derechos?
Thank you, could you respond?
MR. RAKOVAN: Michael, we did address that earlier in the meeting.
Kevin, I don't know if you want to reiterate just briefly, but my understanding is, is that in terms of the climate upon the plant, that's handled as an operational issue. What we're looking at in terms of this document is essentially the impact of the continued operation of the plant on the environment. And correct me if I'm wrong, Kevin.
MR. FOLK: Lance, and thank you for your question, Mr. Keegan.
So the impacts of climate change on the physical infrastructure of the nuclear plant is addressed on an ongoing basis as part of our Reactor
44 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Oversight Program.
What we're here to talk about tonight is the scope of the environmental review, where we address the impacts of continued operations at the plant and its contribution to climate change, the greenhouse gas emissions contribution to climate change.
We also evaluate in the revised document the impacts of climate change on environmental resources that are also impacted by plant operations.
But physical infrastructure is outside the scope of our review. But we'll certainly take your comments and respond to them, and respond to them accordingly, if that's okay.
MR. KEEGAN: Well, my point would be that if you do get impacted by a derecho, there certainly will be impact on the plant that will then impact the environment in return. So they are -- they're rolled, they're integrally related. You can't separate them out. Thank you.
MR. RAKOVAN: All right, any further comments? All right.
Ted, I'll gingerly pass it back to you again for closing comments.
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Lance. I want to
45 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com thank everyone so much for participating in the meeting this afternoon. Thank you for coming. We welcome your comments on this second draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
We will consider the comments as we work towards the final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
The team was going to compile all the comments we received here and through all the other means that Lance has described as we do that final work. We will disposition them in the final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, which we anticipate issuing in October of 2025.
Finally, I just want to thank you again on behalf of the entire staff for your comments, your questions, and for taking the time to attend today's meeting. Thank you.
MR. RAKOVAN: And, with that, we are closed. Thanks, everyone.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 5:08 p.m.)