ML112910229: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 13: Line 13:
| document type = Meeting Transcript
| document type = Meeting Transcript
| page count = 114
| page count = 114
| project = TAC:ME3121
| stage = Meeting
}}
}}
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Title:          Columbia Generating Station License Renewal Public Meeting: Evening Session Docket Number: 50-397 Location:      Richland, Washington Date:          September 27, 2011 Work Order No.: NRC-1157                      Pages 1-113 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 1                      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2                  NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3                                + + + + +
4        PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS DRAFT SUPPLEMENT 47 5        TO THE GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 6            FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR PLANTS FOR 7                    COLUMBIA GENERATING STATION 8                                + + + + +
9                                  TUESDAY 10                          SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 11                                + + + + +
12                        RICHLAND, WASHINGTON 13                                + + + + +
14                  The Public Meeting convened at the Red Lion 15 Hotel, 802 George Washington Way, Richland, Washington, 16 at 7:00 p.m., Geraldine Fehst, Facilitator, presiding.
17 PRESENT:
18            GERALDINE FEHST, Facilitator 19            DANIEL DOYLE, Environmental Project Manager 20            LARA USELDING, Public Affairs, Region IV 21            MICHAEL WENTZEL, NRR 22            DAVID WRONA, Branch Chief 23            JEREMY GROOM, Senior Resident Inspector 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701  www.nealrgross.com
2 1                        TABLE OF CONTENTS 2                                                                  Page 3 Welcome 4            Geraldine Fehst.....................                  3 5 Introductions 6            Geraldine Fehst.....................                10 7 Results of NRC's Environmental Review 8 of the Columbia Generating Station's 9 License Renewal Application 10            Daniel Doyle, NRC Project Manager...                12 11 Clarifying Questions and Answers..........                      24 12 Public Comments...........................                      65 13 Adjourn...................................                    113 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701  www.nealrgross.com
3 1                    P R O C E E D I N G S 2                                                          (7:00 p.m.)
3                MS. FEHST:        Okay.          Can you  hear        me 4 everyone?      I want to thank everyone who has returned for 5 coming back and welcome all of you who are here for you 6 for the first meeting of the day.              My name is Gerri Fehst 7 and I am a communications specialist with the U.S.
8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission or NRC as we call it.                    And 9 as you will hear it referenced throughout tonight's 10 meeting.
11                I am going to do my best to help make the 12 meeting worthwhile for everyone.                And I hope that you 13 will be able to help me out with that.
14                There are two purposes for today's events.
15 The first is two present the results of the NRC's 16 environmental      review      for    the      Columbia  Generating 17 Station, the license renewal application, as published 18 in the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 19 or SEIS, which was published August 23rd of this year.
20                And the second purpose of the meeting is to 21 open it up to provide the opportunity for you as members 22 of the public, both those of you who are here and those 23 callers who we have on the line listening to us now and 24 also with the goal of making some comments later in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
4 1 program.        That is the focus of the second part of the 2 meeting, is to open it for public comment.
3                    So I would like to stress that this is an 4 NRC public meeting and that NRC is not a part of the United 5 States Department of Energy or DOE as it is commonly 6 called.          The mission of the NRC is to regulate the 7 nation's civilian use of byproduct source and special 8 nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of 9 public health and safety, to promote the common defense 10 and      security,      and      to    protect        the  environment.
11 Essentially that means that the NRC's regulatory mission 12 covers three main areas:                    commercial reactors for 13 generating electric power and research and test reactors 14 used for research and training; uses of nuclear materials 15 in medical, industrial, and academic settings                              and 16 facilities that produce nuclear fuel; transportation, 17 storage and disposal of nuclear materials and waste, and 18 decommissioning of nuclear facilities from service.
19                    In contrast, the Department of Energy's 20 main mission is to advance the national economic and 21 energy        security  of    the    United      States,  to    promote 22 scientific and technological innovation in support of 23 that mission, and to ensure that the environmental 24 cleanup of the national nuclear weapons complex.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
5 1                So today's meeting is just one of the ways 2 you can participate in the process and you will be hearing 3 more about that later.
4                First we will hear a presentation from 5 Daniel Doyle, the NRC project manager.                  He will talk 6 about the results of the environmental review of the 7 Columbia      Generating      Station's          license    renewal 8 application.        The      presentation          will  be    short, 9 relatively short, to allow as much time as possible to 10 receive public comment.
11                And when you walked in the door there was 12 a table and you were asked to sign in.                And there were 13 also yellow and blue cards there.                The yellow cards you 14 were asked to fill in if you were planning to make a 15 comment at today's meeting and the blue card is for those 16 who only want to be sure to receive in the mail a copy 17 of the final SEIS or Supplemental Environmental Impact 18 Statement.
19                I hate when people talk in acronyms all the 20 time and the government does it all the time.              I will try 21 to keep saying it out loud but I may slip back into SEIS 22 and SEIS is what we are here to discuss.
23                So, if you haven't filled out a card yet, 24 either blue or yellow, I ask you to do so now.                  I mean, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
6 1 while I am mentioning it, if you could just head back to 2 the table and fill out one or the other.            And we ask that 3 we fill out the cards because we want to be sure that we 4 have an accurate and complete record of all those who 5 attended today's meeting, both this afternoon and 6 tonight.
7                We want to have a good list but we also want 8 to make sure that we have your name spelled correctly on 9 the transcript.      We are creating a record of today's 10 events and conversation and discussion.              It is the best 11 way we know to collect all the information you present 12 in your comments so that once we get back to the NRC we 13 can gather up all the data collected and respond to all 14 the substantive comments that are made.
15                We are transcribing not only to make sure 16 we fully capture your comments but we also want to -- and 17 because we are doing it we do want to have a clan 18 transcript. So there are a couple of things I am going 19 to ask you to do when you come to the microphone to make 20 your presentation.
21                The first is when you come up, if you could 22 remember to state both your first and your last name and 23 spell each for the reporter.                  And also if you are 24 representing an organization, it would be good if you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701      www.nealrgross.com
7 1 would then also identify the organization you are 2 speaking on behalf of.
3                And we ask, too, that you keep any side 4 conversations to a minimum so that we have only one person 5 speaking at a time.      A few, perhaps no, distractions and 6 we can all focus on the speaker at the podium or the caller 7 who is making a comment.
8                It would also help, again, to prepare a 9 clean transcript if anyone here who has any electronic 10 device, if you could turn it off or at least put it on 11 vibrate so we will keep interruptions to a minimum.
12                We are going to do our best to answer any 13 questions that might come up today but we ask you to keep 14 in mind that there is a very small NRC Staff here today.
15 And we may not have the right NRC expert who can best 16 answer, best address whatever your particular concern or 17 question is.
18                So what we would ask, you know, is that if 19 you do have such questions, that you perhaps would take 20 it up with the staff member on the side or know that if 21 we are not able to address your question at this time, 22 we will record it, we will have it and take it back to 23 headquarters with us and someone will get back to you with 24 a response.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701  www.nealrgross.com
8 1                    One of the things we are hoping that you 2 picked up at the table in the front is the feedback form.
3 We are asking those of you who are here attending to fill 4 it out and give us your comments about what you think went 5 well, what you think we can do better.                    We really do read 6 them.        We really do try to respond to those as well by 7 making each meeting that we have, each subsequent meeting 8 better than the one before.                        So we would really 9 appreciate hearing your feedback.                        So please don't 10 hesitate to fill out that form.
11                    A couple of housekeeping items before we get 12 going.        The restrooms are directly outside the door that 13 you entered, down the hall to the right, and take the 14 first and only left that you can take.                            Then the 15 restrooms are on the right.              So it is right, left, right.
16                    Emergency exits.          There are three doors in 17 this room that you could leave from; the one that we all 18 came in on, the two side doors here.                    This door is a door 19 to the kitchen so it is not an exit door.
20                    As I mentioned, we will be taking comments 21 not only from you as audience members but we also have 22 callers on the line.              And in fact we have a number of 23 callers.        I think we heard from about 17 callers that we 24 have a record of.            We have their names already.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
9 1                    And at the moment, we have more requests for 2 comments from callers than we do from people in the 3 audience.        So we will have to keep that in mind.            We will 4 try to mix it up so it isn't all one or the other but just 5 so      you    know  that    the    callers        at the moment        are 6 outnumbering the audience members for interest in making 7 a comment.
8                    When we do start to take the callers in the 9 public comment period in the second part of the meeting, 10 once we do begin I will ask if there are any callers that 11 we haven't heard from and likewise, any audience members 12 that we haven't heard from.
13                    So if in the course of the meeting you have 14 an interest in, develop an interest in making a comment 15 and hadn't planned on doing so, it won't be too late.                    You 16 know, you can always go fill out a card and get it to me.
17 Or at the very end if I ask if anyone has any further 18 comments and you haven't filled out a card and you want 19 to speak to make a comment, please let me know and we will 20 make time for that.
21                    One of the things that I want the callers 22 to be aware of is that all callers are now in the listening 23 mode controlled by the moderator who is handling that.
24 And the lines stay in that mode until we go to the public NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
10 1 comment period.        And then they will be opened and the 2 callers will be able to communicate over the line in that 3 way.      But don't worry if you are not -- You will be able 4 to hear everything that is going on but you won't be able 5 to speak and be heard with us until the public comment 6 period begins.
7                  And a final thing for callers is if you want 8 a copy of the final SEIS to be mailed to you, please send 9 an email to Daniel Doyle at the NRC to make sure that he 10 has your proper mailing address so you will be sure to 11 get that when it comes out.              And his email address is 12 daniel.doyle@nrc.gov.            His address is also listed in the 13 Federal Register notice and it is on the web.              So a couple 14 different places you can check for it to make sure you 15 get your proper mailing address to him.
16                  Okay.      I  wanted      to    take a  moment        to 17 introduce some of the NRC Staff in attendance today.                    And 18 I will ask them to stand and identify themselves to you.
19 The first is David Wrona.            He is the Branch Chief for the 20 Division of License Renewal at the NRC.
21                  Daniel Doyle.          Dan is the Environmental 22 Project Manager for Columbia Division of License Renewal 23 NRC.
24                  Sitting at the table at the back where you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
11 1 filled out the card is Michael Wentzel, Environmental 2 Project Manager, Division of License Renewal, NRC.
3                  Lara Uselding, standing at the back, she is 4 our Senior Public Affairs Officer from NRC Region IV in 5 Texas.
6                  And Jeremy Groom.            Jeremy is the Senior 7 Resident Inspector at Columbia.
8                  And while I am doing introductions, I wanted 9 to call out another welcome to a few representatives we 10 have        here. Again,      Barbara      Lisk    from  the      U.S.
11 Congressman Hastings's office.                If you could stand or 12 let us know who you are.              Good.      And Daniel Reeploeg, 13 U.S. Senator Cantwell's Office.                Both back. You had so 14 much fun this afternoon you had to come back this evening.
15                  Okay. With that, all of this, I will hand 16 things over to Dan Doyle and he will make the presentation 17 on the results of the Environmental Review and we will 18 talk a little bit about the process for submitting 19 comments.        And he will ask for questions.                      Your 20 questions, at the end of his presentation he will ask you 21 if you have any questions on his presentation.                      And I 22 will have a mic in the back and I'll be walking around 23 with it.        And I will try to take your questions in the 24 order that I see your hands.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
12 1                  And we ask that you confine the questions 2 on the presentation, what Dan has actually said in his 3 presentation.      Save your comments, your actual comments 4 on the draft SEIS to the second part of the meeting, which 5 will immediately follow the clarifying questions on 6 Dan's presentation.
7                  Thank you.
8                  MR. DOYLE:          Thank      you,  Gerri.        Good 9 evening.      My name again is Daniel Doyle.                I am the 10 Project Manager at the NRC responsible for coordinating 11 all environmental-related activities for the Columbia 12 Generating Station License Renewal Application.
13                  On August 23rd, the NRC published its draft 14 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement or draft 15 SEIS related to the Columbia Generating Station license 16 renewal application.          We have hard copies in the back of 17 the room there.      And I would like to encourage you to take 18 a copy if you want one or if you want to take multiple 19 copies, that's okay, too.            We have more underneath the 20 table than what you can see there.                  So please do not 21 hesitate to take multiple hard copies.
22                  We also have copies on CD.                And the CD 23 includes the file for this document right when you open 24 it up and then also there is a separate folder with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
13 1 background documents, including the application and 2 other information documents from the NRC on that CD.
3                The  draft      SEIS      documents  the      NRC's 4 preliminary    review      of    the    Environmental    Impacts 5 associated with renewing the Columbia Generating Station 6 operating license for an additional 20 years.          And today 7 I am going to present to you those results.          I hope that 8 the information provided will help you understand what 9 we have done so far and the role you can play in helping 10 us make sure that the final Supplemental Environmental 11 Impact Statement is accurate and complete.
12                Here is the agenda for today's meeting.                I 13 will discuss the NRC's regulatory role, the preliminary 14 findings of our environmental review, including the 15 power generation alternatives that were considered and 16 I will present the current schedule for the remainder of 17 the environmental review and how you can submit comments 18 after this meeting.
19                After that, I will take some time to briefly 20 discuss a topic that is not related to the environmental 21 review but is of interest to those in attendance, the 22 NRC's response to Fukushima.
23                At the end of the presentation, there will 24 be time for questions and answers on the environmental NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701      www.nealrgross.com
14 1 review process and most importantly, time for you to 2 present your comments on the draft SEIS.
3                  The NRC was established to regulate the 4 civilian uses of nuclear materials, including facilities 5 that produce electric power.              The NRC conducts license 6 renewal reviews for plants whose owners wish to operate 7 them beyond their initial license period.                  NRC license 8 renewal        reviews  address        safety      issues related        to 9 managing the effects of aging and environmental issues 10 related to an additional 20 years of operation.                    In all 11 aspects of the NRC's regulation, the agency's mission is 12 to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety 13 to promote the common defense and security and to protect 14 the environment.
15                  We are here today to discuss the potential 16 site specific impacts of license renewal at Columbia 17 Generating Station.          The Generic Environmental Impact 18 Statement or GEIS examines the possible environmental 19 impacts that could occur as a result of renewing licenses 20 of individual nuclear power plants under 10 C.F.R. Part 21 54.      The GEIS, to the extent possible, establishes the 22 bounds and significance of these potential impacts.                      The 23 analyses in the GEIS encompass all operating light water 24 power reactors.        For each type of environmental impact, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
15 1 the GEIS attempts to establish generic findings covering 2 as many plants as possible.                For some environmental 3 issues, the GEIS found that a generic evaluation was not 4 sufficient and that a plant-specific analysis was 5 required.
6                  The site-specific findings for Columbia 7 Generating      Station      are    contained        in  the      draft 8 Supplemental      Environmental        Impact      Statement.          And 9 again, that was published in August 23rd of this year.
10 This document contains analyses of all applicable 11 site-specific issues, as well as a review of issues 12 covered in the GEIS to determine whether the conclusions 13 in the GEIS are valid for Columbia Generating Station.
14 In this process, the NRC's Staff also reviews the 15 environmental impacts of potential power generation 16 alternatives to license renewals, to determine whether 17 the      impacts  expected      from      license      renewal        are 18 unreasonable.
19                  For each environmental issue identified, an 20 impact level is assigned.                  The NRC's standard of 21 significance for impacts was established using the White 22 House Council on Environmental Quality terminology for 23 significance.        The NRC established three levels of 24 significance for potential impacts, small, moderate, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
16 1 large.        For a small impact, the effects are not 2 detectable or are so minor that they will neither 3 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute 4 of the resource.        For a moderate impact, the effects are 5 sufficient to noticeably later but not to destabilize 6 important attributes of the resource.                And for a large 7 impact, the effects are clearly noticeable and are 8 sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the 9 resource.
10                  This wide list of site-specific issues NRC 11 Staff reviewed for the continued operation of Columbia 12 Generating Station during the proposed license renewal 13 period, the section of the draft SEIS addressing each of 14 these issues is also shown here.              And as discussed in the 15 previous slide, each issue is assigned a level of 16 environmental impact of small, moderate, or large by the 17 environmental reviewers.
18                  The Staff's preliminary conclusion is that 19 the site-specific impacts related to license renewal for 20 each of these issues is small.
21                  When reviewing the potential impacts of 22 license renewal on the environment, the NRC also looks 23 at the effects on the environment from other past, 24 present,        and  reasonably        foreseeable      future      human NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701      www.nealrgross.com
17 1 actions.        These effects referred to as cumulative 2 impacts not only include the operation of Columbia 3 Generating Station but also impacts from activities 4 unrelated to the plant, such as the radioactive waste 5 disposal and tank waste stabilization and closure at 6 Hanford, the proposed reduction of the Hanford site 7 footprint, cleanup of radioactive waste burial grounds 8 618-10 and 618-11, proposed construction of new energy 9 projects and climate change.
10                  Past actions are those related to the 11 resources before the receipt of the license renewal 12 application.      Present actions are those related to the 13 resources at the time of current operation of the plant 14 and      future  actions    are    those      that    are  reasonably 15 foreseeable      through    the    end    of      plant  operations, 16 including the period of extended operation.                  Therefore, 17 the analysis considers potential impacts through the end 18 of the current license term, as well as the 20-year 19 renewal term.
20                  For water resources, the NRC preliminarily 21 concluded that there are small to large cumulative 22 impacts due to DOE activities at Hanford, depending on 23 the location.      For aquatic resources, impacts are large 24 due to past alterations of aquatic habitat and fish NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
18 1 passage along the Columbia River.
2                  For      cultural          resources,          ongoing 3 construction        restoration          and        waste    management 4 activities on the Hanford site have the potential to 5 significantly affect cultural resources, particularly 6 within the viewshed of Gable and Rattlesnake Mountains.
7 Therefore, the cumulative impacts would be moderate.                        In 8 the other areas considered, the Staff preliminarily 9 concluded that cumulative impacts are small.
10                  The  National        Environmental      Policy        Act 11 mandates        that  each    environmental          impact  statement 12 consider alternatives to any proposed major federal 13 action.        A major step in determining whether license 14 renewal is reasonable or not is comparing the likely 15 impacts of continued operation of the nuclear power plant 16 with the likely impacts of alternative means of power 17 generation.        Alternatives must provide an option that 18 allows for power generation capability beyond the term 19 of the current nuclear power plant operation license to 20 meet future system generating needs.
21                  In  the    draft    SEIS      the  NRC  initially 22 considered 18 different alternatives.                        After this 23 initial consideration, the Staff then chose the three 24 most likely and analyzed these in depth.                  Finally, the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
19 1 NRC considered what would happen if no action is taken 2 and Columbia Generating Station shuts down at the end of 3 its current license without a specific replacement 4 alternative.        This alternative would not provide power 5 generation      capacity,      nor    would      it  meet  the    needs 6 currently met by Columbia Generating Station.                  The NRC's 7 preliminary conclusion is that the impacts from energy 8 alternatives        would      vary      widely      based    on      the 9 characteristics of the alternatives.                    In most cases, 10 construction of new facilities would create significant 11 impacts.      All alternatives capable of meeting the needs 12 currently served by Columbia Generating Station entail 13 impacts greater than or equal to the proposed action of 14 license renewal.
15                  Based    on    a    review      of  the    potential 16 environmental        impacts    from      license    renewals        and 17 alternatives to license renewal, the NRC's Staff's 18 preliminary recommendation in the draft SEIS is that the 19 adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for 20 Columbia Generating Station are not great enough to deny 21 the option of license renewal for energy-planning 22 decisionmakers.
23                  I  would    like    to      emphasize    that      the 24 environmental review is not yet complete.                Your comments NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
20 1 today and all written comments received by the end of the 2 comment period on November 16th, will be considered by 3 the NRC as we develop the final SEIS, which we currently 4 plan to issue in February 2012.
5                    Those comments that are within the scope of 6 the environmental review and provide new and significant 7 information can help to change the Staff's findings.
8 The      final    SEIS    will    contain        the    Staff's      final 9 recommendation on the acceptability of license renewal 10 based on the work we have already performed and the 11 comments we received during the comment period.
12                    I    am    the    primary          contact  for        the 13 environmental review.              The contact for the safety review 14 is Arthur Cunanan.            Hard copies of the draft SEIS are 15 available at the table in the back of the room, as are 16 copies on CD.          In addition, the Richland Public Library 17 and Kennewick Branch Library have agreed to make hard 18 copies        available    for    review.          You  can  also      find 19 electronic copies of the draft SEIS, along with other 20 information          about    the  Columbia          Generating    Station 21 license renewal review online on the website on this 22 slide as well as in the handout.
23                    The NRC will address written comments in the 24 same way we address spoken comments received today and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
21 1 recorded in the transcript.                  You can submit written 2 comments either via conventional mail, fax, or online.
3 To submit written comments online, please visit the 4 website regulations.gov and search for keyword or ID 5 NRC-2010-0029.          If you have written comments this 6 evening, you may give them to any NRC Staff member.
7 Again,        to  ensure    consideration,            comments  must        be 8 received by Wednesday, November 16, 2011.
9                    Before we open up the meeting for questions 10 and comments, I would like to take some time to briefly 11 discuss a topic that is of many of you, the NRC's response 12 to Fukushima.          While this issue is not related to the 13 Columbia Generating Station Environmental Review and is 14 therefore not specifically addressed in the draft SEIS, 15 it is being actively addressed through other relevant 16 agency processes.
17                    Since the accident at Fukushima, the NRC has 18 taken multiple steps to ensure the safe operation of 19 nuclear power plants both now and in the future.                    As part 20 of its initial response to the accident, the NRC issued 21 temporary instructions to our inspectors directing 22 specific instructions directing specific inspections of 23 nuclear        power  plants      in    order      to  assess  disaster 24 readiness and compliance with current regulations.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
22 1                The next step in the NRC's response was the 2 report of the NRC's Near-Term Task Force.              The purpose 3 of the Near-Term Task Force was to develop near-term 4 recommendations and suggest a framework for us to move 5 forward with in the longer term.                The Near-Term Task 6 Force issues its report on July 12th and discussed the 7 results of its review in a public meeting on July 28th.
8 This is a copy of the Task Force recommendations.                There 9 are copies in the back of the room and it is also available 10 on the website, nrc.gov.        There is a link Japan follow-up 11 actions on the main page and the direct link is also in 12 the handout which I provided.
13                As a result of its review, the Near-Term 14 Task Force presented 12 overarching recommendations for 15 improvement. These recommendations are applicable to 16 operating reactors regardless of license renewal status.
17                Based on the results of the Near-Term Task 18 Force, the Commission has directed the NRC Staff to 19 evaluate and outline which of the recommendations should 20 be implemented.      The Staff submitted a paper to the 21 Commission on September 9th providing the Staff's 22 recommendations on which Task Force recommendations can, 23 in the Staff's judgment, should be initiated in part or 24 in whole without delay.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
23 1                  On October 3, 2011, the staff will submit 2 another Commission paper on the prioritization of 11 of 3 the 12 Task Force recommendations.                  Recommendation one 4 of the Task Force, the recommendation to reevaluate the 5 NRC's regulatory framework, will be evaluated over the 6 next 18 months.
7                  To date, the NRC has not identified any 8 issues as part of these activities that call into 9 question      the  safety      of    any      nuclear    facility.
10 Additionally,      this      review      process      is  going        on 11 independent of license renewal.                  Any changes that are 12 identified as necessary will be implemented for all 13 licensees, regardless of license renewal status.
14                  For information on the NRC's post-Fukushima 15 activities, including the result of the Near-Term Task 16 Force can be found on the NRC's website by clicking on 17 Japan Nuclear Accident NRC Actions on the home page or 18 directly through the website on this slide.
19                  That    concludes        my      prepared    remarks.
20 Before moving into receiving your comments, we would like 21 to give you an opportunity to ask questions about the 22 presentation.      If you have a question, please raise your 23 hand and please wait the facilitator, Gerri, to bring the 24 microphone to you so we can ensure to get your question NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
24 1 on the transcript.        I will check in the room here and then 2 I will also open it up to the phone to see if there are 3 any questions.        Are there any clarifying questions here 4 in the room?
5                  MR. POLLET:        Gerry Pollet with Heart of 6 America Northwest.          I have three questions.            The first 7 is in regard to your comments about Fukushima and the 8 words        you used  were    consideration        of  response        to 9 Fukushima is "not related."
10                  Aren't we here to give comments and for you 11 to respond to concerns about how consideration of safety 12 issues raised by Fukushima may be related to safety, 13 including        site-specific        issues        for  the  Columbia 14 Generating Station that have never been considered in any 15 other EIS?
16                  MR. DOYLE:      The purpose of this meeting is 17 to collect comments related to the environmental review.
18 So certainly the comments that would be within the scope 19 of this review would be comments related to environmental 20 issues associated with license renewal.
21                  Another --
22                  MR. POLLET:          Human      health    is      the 23 environment, too, under NEPA and so I am concerned that 24 whether you are in the room or on the phone, people are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
25 1 going to have the impression we can't talk about this.
2 But if the concern of someone is, for instance, Fukushima 3 showed that we have not considered full range of 4 accidents involving spent fuel pools sitting above 5 reactor vessels, which is the condition here at this 6 reactor, then that is a potential serious environmental 7 impact to be addressed.          Wouldn't that fit within the 8 scope of what people should be commenting on?
9                MR. DOYLE:      We certainly understand, and 10 that is part of the reason why we included the slide in 11 here, that people are very concerned about that.                We are 12 very concerned about it and the NRC is taking follow-up 13 actions on it. It is being handled as a generic issue 14 but I do want to be clear to acknowledge that we are here 15 to accept the comments that people have.              We are here to 16 accept comments that members of the public may have.                    We 17 will consider those comments and if it is determined that 18 they were within the scope and related to the review, then 19 we will respond to those comments.              So certainly we can 20 accept comments and concerns that people may have and how 21 they believe that it relates to the environmental review.
22                So I don't want to make it sound like you 23 can't talk about Fukushima but you can certainly provide 24 comments on issues that you believe should be considered NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
26 1 as part of this review.            That is why we are here.
2                    MR. POLLET:          I really appreciate your 3 clarifying that for people who are listening.                  I suppose 4 we should check if people on the phone can actually hear 5 us, since during the afternoon session they couldn't hear 6 this.        Can we double check?
7                    MR. DOYLE:      There was an issue with the 8 previous meeting and we did determine what the cause of 9 that was.        The line got disconnected.            And we also have 10 a moderator on the line that hopefully would be able to 11 get some feedback if the signal was not coming through.
12 So it is not just a one-way thing.                  We did check it out 13 prior to starting the meeting.
14                    MR. POLLET:      I want to thank you for making 15 that available and thanks for the thumbs up back there.
16                    The second question I have is in regard to 17 you refer to the generic EIS.                Is this the 1996 EIS?
18                    MR. DOYLE:      Yes.
19                    MR. POLLET:      Okay.      And has it been updated 20 to include such information as the findings about the 21 proposed disposal of greater than Class C, which is 22 extremely        radioactive      waste      from    decommissioning 23 reactors, in the Energy Department's EIS?                    Is the NRC 24 referring to linking to and updating in this process, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
27 1 based on the environmental impact statement which has 2 dramatically      different      impact,        especially  for      the 3 Hanford site from disposal of greater than Class C waste 4 never before discussed?
5                  The greater than Class C EIS discusses that 6 the Energy Department is proposing to dispose of this 7 extremely radioactive waste and one of the locations you 8 are looking at is Hanford, and that disposal in boreholes 9 or in landfills at Hanford would have severe impacts on 10 groundwater and human health.              And I looked through the 11 references in here and I haven't found it, and I am 12 wondering if the NRC is updating or referring to, linking 13 to using that information.
14                  MR. DOYLE:      So the question of updating the 15 generic EIS that the NRC is going through the final steps, 16 you could say, of updating the generic EIS.                So that is 17 a separate process and that has not been incorporated in 18 this review.      So is the generic EIS being updated?                The 19 answer is yes, the Staff is doing that.              And I forget the 20 latest schedule for doing that but will come out but that 21 would affect other license renewals reviews, not this 22 one.      So it is being updated.
23                  Just to explain a little bit of the process, 24 though, for the environmental issues in the generic EIS, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
28 1 they are determined to be Category 1 or Category 2 issues.
2 Category 1 refers to the generic issues; the ones that 3 the NRC believes apply to some or all nuclear power plants 4 with similar characteristics.                  So what we have done in 5 the last two years or since this application came in, was 6 we were focusing on the site-specific issues, the 7 Category 2 ones, but we also look at the Category 1 issues 8 to see if they are still applicable here.                  So that is how 9 that would be covered there.                For new information that 10 will come up, the NRC staff looks at this generic 11 determination for 1996 and says does this still make 12 sense?        Does this still apply based on the information 13 that we are aware of for this review?                  So procedurally, 14 that is how the Staff would incorporate new information 15 such as that.
16                    Now specifically with the greater than 17 Class C, I can't answer that question right now.                    I'm not 18 the best person to talk about that but I could certainly 19 take that as a comment and get back to you.                  I'm not sure 20 if that is referenced in our document or how that would 21 be addressed.        I really can't talk about that right now.
22                    MR. POLLET:      I appreciate your getting back 23 to me.        Thanks.
24                    MR. DOYLE:          Okay, are there any other NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
29 1 questions from people here in the room, before we open 2 it up for questions from callers?
3                MR. COX:      Yes, my name is John Cox.              I am 4 a U.S. citizen and a resident of the city of Richland.
5                I have actually three questions.              The first 6 question is who did the GEIS and SEIS work?
7                MR. DOYLE:      Both documents have a list of 8 preparers in there that has a list of all the NRC Staff 9 and contractors that worked on it.                    So the Generic 10 Environmental Impact Statement I am not as familiar with 11 who worked on that but that is included in the document.
12 But it was NRC Staff and I'm sure there was support from 13 contractors.
14                This document here, the draft SEIS for 15 Columbia was prepared by a team of NRC Staff and 16 contractors      from        Pacific          Northwest      National 17 Laboratories.
18                MR. COX:        Thank you.          My next question:
19 who paid for the work?
20                MR. DOYLE:      Who paid for this work?
21                MR. COX:        I say that with my tongue in 22 cheek.
23                MR. DOYLE:      Okay, I guess you could say the 24 taxpayers. And I think what you are probably getting at NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
30 1 is    the    fact that    the NRC's work              is, I guess, a 2 fee-reimbursable.          That is the term.            So I mean when a 3 licensee, when an NRC licensee or utility comes in with 4 an action like this, that the work that is done associated 5 with that is documented and the utility has to pay into 6 a fund basically, but the NRC's funding comes from the 7 taxpayers and from Congress.
8                    Is that what you were getting at?
9                    MR. COX:      Yes. Thank you, Mr. Doyle.
10                    My third question is historically what has 11 been NRC's record on renewable license applications in 12 this arena?
13                    MR. DOYLE:          Right.          This is the 47th 14 supplement.            So    there      have      been    47    previous 15 environmental reviews.            For each of the previous license 16 renewal reviews, the application, the renewals have been 17 granted.
18                    So you are saying the record of whether they 19 were approved or rejected?              All the ones that have come 20 in so far have been approved.
21                    MR. COX:      That was 47, you said?              So 100 22 percent.
23                    MR. DOYLE:      That's true.            Yes.
24                    MR. COX:      All right.        Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
31 1                MS. FEHST:      Any other questions from Dan's 2 presentation, clarifying questions of his presentation?
3                MR. SARGENT:        I have a question, I guess, 4 for has there been any impact from an approved study or 5 impact study to a nuclear site after it has been improved?
6                MR. DOYLE:      I'm not sure --
7                MR. SARGENT:        Out of those 47, have you had 8 any significant impact after approving a nuclear site's 9 renewal?
10                MR. DOYLE:      It sounds like you are asking 11 if any plant that has been approved has impacted the 12 environment.
13                MR. SARGENT:        Right.
14                MR. DOYLE:      I would say yes.      You know, 15 plants they use cooling water.            So I'm not sure if that 16 is really what is getting at your question but I mean yes, 17 the NRC is acknowledging that the plants that are 18 operating are having an impact on the environment.              They 19 are using water. They are using resources and yes, that 20 is having an effect on the environment.            Is that your 21 question?
22                MR. SARGENT:      I just wondered if it was like 23 a negative impact or impact more than what you expected 24 from a relicensing.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701    www.nealrgross.com
32 1                    MR. DOYLE:      I can't think of a specific 2 thing that might be getting at what you are trying to 3 bring up, not something that I can think of.                    So I mean 4 have the impacts been what the NRC has thought they would 5 be?      As far as I am aware, I think the estimates have been 6 fairly accurate.
7                    MS. LARSEN:      Hi, my name is Pam Larsen and 8 I am resident of this region.              I have two questions.            In 9 contrast to the renewal of a nuclear power plant permit, 10 do    you    look  at  the    environmental          consequences        of 11 coal-fired powered generation in the region?
12                    MR. DOYLE:          As part of our review of 13 potential alternatives, we did consider coal.                            That 14 wasn't looked at as an in-depth alternative and the 15 reasons for that decision are explained in Chapter 8.                        So 16 we did, at least initially, consider that the plant could 17 be replaced, could be shut down and replaced by a coal 18 plant.        But for the reasons described in Chapter 8, we 19 didn't make that an in-depth analysis.                    The ones that 20 were in-depth were a natural gas plant, a new nuclear 21 power        plant  and  a    combination          alternative,      which 22 included a smaller natural gas plant plus hydropower, 23 plus wind power and some energy conservation measures.
24 So those were the three that were analyzed in-depth.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
33 1                    Does that answer your question?
2                    MS. LARSEN:      My second point as a resident 3 of this region following Fukushima, I asked a lot of 4 questions about our backup systems for providing cooling 5 water to this nuclear facility.                      And I found those 6 responses to be very robust.                And I would assume that 7 that would be part of your analysis as well?
8                    MR. DOYLE:          No.          As  part    of      the 9 environmental review, we are not looking at backup 10 systems for cooling water, that sort of thing.                        We are 11 mainly focusing on the impact to fish, the aquatic 12 ecology, terrestrial ecology, the air, the water, human 13 health, so those sorts of issues.
14                    So as part of this environmental review, we 15 did not get into redundant engineering systems to provide 16 safety.        There is a separate safety review that is 17 looking at how the plant is going to manage the effects 18 of aging and a period of extended operation and then 19 through        current    processes        in      place    for    ongoing 20 operations.        There are reviews for issues that the NRC 21 believes need to get looked at and there are inspections.
22 So the answer is no, we didn't look at that.
23                    MS. LARSEN:      Okay.
24                    MS. FEHST:          Any    other      questions      with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
34 1 special regard to Dan's presentation?                    Anything to 2 clarify?      Okay.
3                  MR. MCDONALD:        My name is Scott McDonald.
4 On your impact analysis, on your levels, at what point 5 do you require mitigation and how is that done?                    Do you 6 work that out with the licensee?                  I notice all of them 7 are small but --
8                  MR. DOYLE:      Right.      The NRC would consider 9 if mitigation was required and, in this case, that they 10 determined for these impacts that it would not be 11 necessary.        But just generally speaking, I don't think 12 I could really explain fully the process for doing that.
13                  But basically if the NRC felt that it was 14 appropriate, that we would take actions to ensure that 15 the applicant took those measures.
16                  MS. FEHST:      Any other questions for Dan on 17 his presentation?          Okay.
18                  MR. LARSON:          Your last -- Well, Doug 19 Larson, resident of Richland.
20                  Your last response tripped something inside 21 me.      So, in regards to the coal-fired question, you guys 22 looked at a number of alternative sources of electricity.
23 Did you guys quantify the potential discharges from those 24 other sources and do some type of comparison against the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
35 1 Columbia Station?
2                  MR. DOYLE:      For the in-depth alternatives, 3 yes.      There is a discussion of for all of the same issues 4 that we investigate in-depth for this site-specific 5 review, we look at those issues also or those impact areas 6 for those alternative sources of producing power and do 7 a comparison.      That is what we are doing is we are looking 8 at the proposed action so we could renew this license.
9 What would those environmental impacts be?                  And then 10 what are some reasonable alternatives to this action?
11 What would those impacts be?                So what impact would a 12 coal-fired power plant have on air emissions, that kind 13 of thing?      But as I said, that wasn't an in-depth review 14 for this particular case.                We didn't get into those 15 details for a coal plant for this review.                But yes, we 16 did look at the impact, the environmental impacts of 17 those alternatives and compared it to license renewal.
18                  MR. LARSON:      Thank you.
19                  MS. FEHST: Okay.          Any other questions for 20 Dan on his presentation?
21                  (Pause.)
22                  MS. FEHST:      Okay.      All right, it looks like 23 we are ready to go into the --
24                  MR. DOYLE:      Well, we want to check with the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701      www.nealrgross.com
36 1 callers on the phone to see if they --
2                    MS. FEHST:      Callers.        Thank you.      Okay.
3                    MR. DOYLE:          --    have      any  clarifying 4 questions and then we can try to respond to those.
5                    MS. FEHST:          You're right.          Denise, are 6 there any questioners on the line?
7                    DENISE:      If anyone would like to ask a phone 8 question, please press star one on your touch tone phone.
9 Once again, star one if you would like to ask a question.
10 This will take just one moment, please.
11                    I do have a question from a Thomas Buchanan.
12                    MS. FEHST:      Okay, caller, go ahead.
13                    DENISE:        Thomas Buchanan, your line is 14 open.
15                    DR. BUCHANAN:          Hello.        Do you copy me?
16                    MS. FEHST:          Yes, we can hear you.                  Go 17 ahead.        Thank you for calling.
18                    DR. BUCHANAN:          I am the Vice President of 19 the Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility here 20 in Seattle.        I am interested in the actual process of the 21 NRC's examination of Fukushima and how you folks might 22 have taken some of these things into account.                    It doesn't 23 seem with anything has been revealed from the Fukushima 24 accident so far.          For example, the actual condition of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
37 1 the spent fuel pools, where they are stored, what kind 2 of control they have over them, etcetera, have been 3 applied by the NRC to conditions in this country.
4                    Do you think that is significant?              And why 5 didn't you include some of the extrapolations that have 6 gone on with the task force?
7                    MR. DOYLE:          Okay,      I  understand      your 8 question saying that do you consider Fukushima, the fact 9 that that happened significant and how are you addressing 10 that here.        You know, why is that not part of this review?
11                    And you know, essentially we can take this 12 as a comment.        There were many petitions that have been 13 filed.        The NRC has stated its position in response to 14 those positions and the NRC's position is that this is 15 being handled through current regulatory processes that 16 the results, the actions that the NRC decides to take 17 would apply to all licensees, regardless of license 18 renewal status and that this does not require immediate 19 steps from the licensees and it is not part of the license 20 renewal review.
21                    So again, I just want to state that that is 22 what the NRC's position is.                We are here to hear your 23 opinions on this topic and other topics.                    The comments 24 that would specifically be within the scope of this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
38 1 environmental review are the comments on environmental 2 issues or things that are included in the draft SEIS.
3 Fukushima is not discussed in the draft SEIS or other 4 topics that you believe should be discussed in the draft 5 SEIS and why.      Why are those environmental issues that 6 are related specifically to the period of extended 7 operations of this plant?              That is what we are looking 8 for and we will respond to those comments.
9                  So I hope that answered your question but 10 it is not discussed in the draft SEIS and the NRC's 11 position is that this is not something that needs to be 12 addressed within the license renewal process but there 13 is a lot of activity going on at the NRC to determine what 14 actions, if any, we should take for all licensees.
15                  MS. FEHST:          Yes, and just a reminder, 16 callers,      if  you    have      any    additional clarifying 17 questions, that the questions at this time go directly 18 to any clarifications you might want, you might feel you 19 need on what Dan addressed.              And immediately following 20 this question period, we will move right into the public 21 comment period.
22                  And at that time, comments that you as 23 audience members or as callers feel should be part of the 24 assessment that is made before the final SEIS is drafted, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701    www.nealrgross.com
39 1 then that would be the time to make your comments.                  But 2 right now it is just clarifying questions on Dan's 3 presentation for the draft SEIS.
4                So are there any other --
5                DR. BUCHANAN:        The reason why -- This is Tom 6 Buchanan again.        Just to clarify my comments, my 7 comments were around the process of the licensing review.
8 And to the extent that Fukushima is a game changer and 9 it does require, for example, a longer run view of 10 earthquake activity in a certain activity, it should I 11 think, the backup systems, that was asked a little 12 earlier, should be a part of the review, etcetera.                      I 13 think these are process issues that at least were 14 addressed initially by the NRC's Task Force that went to 15 Fukushima that people should recognize this within the 16 NRC and begin to integrate these into any license 17 application, including the one that we have right now.
18 This shouldn't be just put aside until some report is 19 produced out of Fukushima next year.              NRC has already 20 seen the importance and the seriousness of what has 21 happened in Japan and probably should be much more alert 22 about integrating it into their reviews and stopping 23 those reviews if they haven't been integrated.              That is 24 my comment. Thanks.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
40 1                MS. FEHST:      Okay.        That comment is well 2 stated and duly noted and will certainly be part of the 3 review of all substantive comments that we are taking 4 back after the meetings earlier today and tonight.                        So 5 thank you for your comment.
6                Are  there      any    other        callers  who      have 7 questions with regard -- Does any caller need to clarify 8 in their own mind anything that they heard Dan say in his 9 presentation?
10                DENISE:      Next up is Nancy Morris.                  Your 11 line is open.
12                MS. MORRIS:      Yes, well this is Nancy Morris 13 calling from Seattle, Washington.              I have a question in 14 that Dan said one time that the NRC sees nothing that 15 calls into question the preceding analysis that they 16 don't see a risk to the environment or public health from 17 the safety standards that are currently in effect.                    That 18 is my first question for clarification.                Is that where 19 he was going with that comment?
20                That is my one question.              I have another.
21                MR. DOYLE:      I'm not sure if I understand 22 exactly your comment or if maybe Dave you remember which 23 part, but it sounds like you are saying that the NRC's 24 conclusion    is  that      based    on      our    review    of      the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
41 1 environmental, what we see as the likely environmental 2 impacts of renewing this license, of taking this action, 3 of granting the license renewal extension, and our 4 analysis of the environmental impacts of alternatives to 5 produce electricity to replace the power being produced 6 by Columbia Generating Station, our conclusion is that 7 are no, that the adverse impacts of license renewal do 8 not make -- That having reviewed those impacts, that the 9 granting      the  option      for    license      renewal    is      not 10 unreasonable.
11                  So I think that may be what you were getting 12 at.      Our conclusion is that it would not be unreasonable 13 to allow the energy planning decision-makers to continue 14 operation of this plant if that is what they wish to do.
15                  MS. MORRIS:      Okay.      The second question I 16 have is where is waste going to go that is going to be 17 generated by the renewal of this license, since it goes 18 to 2023?      Where will the waste be going?
19                  MR. DOYLE:      The nation has not established 20 a geologic repository.          Yucca Mountain, the application 21 was reviewed.        The NRC is halting its review for that.
22 So I think that is the core issue of what you are getting 23 at is that there is not, as of right now, a national 24 geologic repository for storing the spent fuel.                      So it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
42 1 would continue to be stored where it has been stored so 2 far.      So there is the spent fuel pool on the site.            They 3 have an independent spent fuel storage installation and 4 I believe they ship some other radioactive waste to 5 offsite areas.        So it would continue to go where it is 6 going until another location is established.
7                  MS. MORRIS:      Related to your comments that 8 they are planning to use plutonium fuel that is similar 9 to Fukushima's reactor at Columbia Generating Station?
10                  MR. DOYLE:      So you are asking if they are 11 going to do that.        The information that I have, that I 12 had previous to walking into this meeting is discussed 13 in the draft SEIS on page 2-2.                So in --
14                  MS. MORRIS:        I don't have a copy of that 15 draft SEIS.
16                  MR. DOYLE:      Okay.      Well we can get you a 17 copy if you want but I am just letting you know that there 18 is a brief discussion in the draft SEIS.                      So the 19 potential use of mixed oxide fuel from blending plutonium 20 and the potential use of that in Columbia Generating 21 Station, that topic is discussed in the draft SEIS.                  And 22 the extent of that discussion is that the NRC was made 23 aware that there were some documents about a feasibility 24 study that came out.          There were several news articles NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701      www.nealrgross.com
43 1 that were written about it.            And that there is no formal 2 application to the NRC to use mixed oxide fuel right now.
3 So there is not a proposed action or anything to review 4 at this time from the applicant, other than the side 5 notification that we have been aware that there were some 6 documents about an initial study for using that.                    So we 7 are saying that we are aware of those articles and the 8 fact that people are talking about it.                  And wanted to 9 include the information that we had in there.                We don't 10 have anything from the applicant and we also state in the 11 document that if the applicant did want to use it that 12 there would be a license amendment required and there 13 would be a separate environmental review for that.
14                  So  this    environmental        review    is      not 15 considering the potential use of mixed oxide as a 16 reasonably foreseeable future action.
17                  MS. MORRIS:        Okay.      I guess I have some 18 comments I can make towards the end of the comment 19 session.      Thank you.
20                  DENISE:      Next up is Kevin Carlson.
21                  MR. CARLSON:        My questions have been asked 22 already.      Thank you.
23                  DENISE:      Next up is Dvija Bertish.              Your 24 line is open.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
44 1                    MR. BERTISH:          Thank you.      Dvija Michael 2 Bertish from the Rosemary Neighborhood Association.                          I 3 have a few questions here.              Does the general EIS analyze 4 the potential for catastrophic failures at the power 5 plant due to earthquakes or other natural causes?
6                    MR. DOYLE:      The draft of this document does 7 include in Chapter 5 a discussion of two types of 8 accidents.        And we explain the definitions and types of 9 those.        In Chapter 5 we talk about design basis accidents 10 and severe accidents so that that would be the part of 11 the document to review if you are interested in the NRC's 12 discussion of severe accidents.                  So the short answer is 13 yes and that is in Chapter 5.
14                    Also, Appendix F has a detailed discussion 15 of severe accident mitigation alternatives and these are 16 related to the severe accident review.                        These are 17 proposed actions that the applicant could take to reduce 18 the offsite impacts of severe accidents.                    So that is 19 Chapter 5 and Appendix F.                So yes, those are included.
20                    MR. BERTISH:      During the comparison for the 21 preferred alternatives to do their license renewal, how 22 does the NRC equate renewal of the license to be equal 23 to in terms of the environmental impact any alternative 24 when another alternative has the ability to have a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
45 1 catastrophic explosion?
2                MR. DOYLE:          The    alternatives    are      not 3 compared to with the proposed action in terms of severe 4 accident consequences.        So, the NRC is looking at air, 5 water, threat to endangered species.              So, those are the 6 environmental impacts that are -- those are the issues 7 that are compared in this review.
8                So basically your comment may be that you 9 feel that those should be compared but to address the 10 issue, I think, just to point out that those severe 11 accidents are not compared.
12                MR. BERTISH:        Does the license renewal for 13 this facility allow for a streamlined or fast track 14 ability for the plant to make application for mixed oxide 15 fuel use?
16                MR. DOYLE:      It sounded like you were saying 17 -- asking if the license renewal application would 18 somehow allow them to have a faster review.                The fact 19 that they have applied for a license renewal, would that 20 somehow make the mixed oxide, the potential use of mixed 21 oxide fuel environmental review faster?                Is that what 22 you are asking?
23                MR. BERTISH:        Yes.
24                MR. DOYLE:      The answer is no.        This is a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
46 1 snapshot in time. As of right now, the NRC is disclosing 2 the environmental impacts for this action that we are 3 aware of and the impacts of alternatives and using that 4 to make a decision, to make a recommendation of whether 5 or not this is reasonable or not.
6                MR. BERTISH:        Will this length of time for 7 the life span of design built for the Columbia River 8 Generation Station or similar stations of that genre 9 facility?
10                MR. DOYLE:      You're asking what the design 11 life of the plant is?
12                MR. BERTISH:        Yes.
13                MR. DOYLE:      The original length of the --
14 The length of the original license is 40 years and they 15 are applying for an additional 20 years of operation.                I 16 am not able to respond to specific design lives for 17 different systems.      But what I can say is that as part 18 of the safety review, the NRC looks at any analyses that 19 were done that were based on that 40-year life span, that 20 40-year license and the original application that 21 demonstrated their ability to operate safely through the 22 end of 40 years that this license renewal process looks 23 at those analyses and requires the applicant to extend 24 those by another 20 years and demonstrate that they would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701    www.nealrgross.com
47 1 be able to operate for another 20 years.            So you know if 2 a component had a shorter lifespan and couldn't be 3 managed, then it would need to be replaced.            Those issues 4 would be addressed in this safety review.
5                But what is the design life of the plant?
6 I can't answer that but I can say that the original 7 license term was 40 years.
8                MR. BERTISH:          Is the facility at the 9 Columbia Generating Station the same model type and the 10 same genre as the Fukushima plant and built by the same 11 designers?
12                MR. DOYLE:          The      Columbia  Generating 13 Station is a boiling water reactor with a Mark II 14 containment. The Fukushima plant was also a boiling 15 water reactor.      They were both designed by GE.                  The 16 Fukushima plant was a Mark I containment.              So that is 17 different.      And I am not able to elaborate on the 18 differences between Mark I and Mark II.
19                So the containment is different but there 20 are similarities.
21                MR. BERTISH:        One final question, please, 22 general in nature.      You mentioned that the review based 23 on the response to the Fukushima disaster caused the NRC 24 to review safety protocols for all existing U.S. power NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
48 1 plants.        And you came to the conclusion that the review 2 did not call for any closure of any existing plants in 3 operation.        And my question regarding that is did that 4 account for current failures of any individual existing 5 power plants, such as known leaks or explosive problems 6 or critical failures, safety failures that may have 7 happened let's say over the past couple of years?                    Or was 8 there anything noting current placement on very active 9 fault lines?
10                  MR. DOYLE:        I don't think I am the best 11 person to answer that question.                    I think we can maybe 12 take your information and get back to you on the details 13 on what was specifically looked at as part of the NRC's 14 inspection        following      Fukushima.            Based    on      my 15 understanding, it was a review of their ability to 16 respond to disaster situations and that it did not extend 17 to reviewing the previous leaks or the other things that 18 you had mentioned at the plant.
19                  There are current regulatory processes in 20 place for that and that it was not the focus of the 21 inspections.          If you want more detail on how the 22 inspections were conducted or what they looked at and how 23 they decided what to look at, I would have to get back 24 with you on that because I really can't explain those NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
49 1 inspections in that level of detail.
2                MR. BERTISH:        Were there active failures 3 such as releases of radioactive waste to rivers and 4 streams or some sort of plume that exists or failed pipes 5 beneath an existing facility that are suspected of 6 leaking, doesn't that advance those facilities up the 7 chain in terms of risk factor and call into question the 8 very safety of such an existing facility?
9                MR. DOYLE:        So I think the best way to 10 handle this, you are saying that plants that have had 11 previous problems are more likely to be vulnerable to 12 earthquakes or releases and that they should have a 13 higher priority or get a more stringent review.              Again 14 I am not aware of the details of how these inspections 15 were designed or what they looked at but that these issues 16 that are being brought up are very good issues.              These 17 are things that are being looked at by the NRC right now 18 and how we need to re-look at the current operating fleet 19 and perhaps reprioritize our activities to make sure that 20 we are able to ensure that the public, you know, protect 21 the public and the environment given the fact that this 22 event occurred, that this event at Fukushima occurred.
23 That is exactly what the NRC is looking at.
24                But whether or not those inspections were NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701    www.nealrgross.com
50 1 more detailed or less detailed based on the previous 2 history of the plant, I don't think so.                But if you want 3 more information on that, I will have to get back to you.
4                    MS. FEHST:      Caller, this is the moderator.
5 And I am wondering if you could give us your first and 6 last name and spell each so we can be sure to get back 7 to you.        And if you could leave your contact information 8 with Denise, the operator, and we would ask Denise to make 9 sure that we get that.
10                    As Dan is saying, it sounds like you have 11 some general concerns that might be best addressed by 12 members of the task force.                We have already had one 13 meeting.        I believe it was a public meeting regarding the 14 results of the Near-Term Task Force Report.                  No doubt, 15 there will be others.            But it sounds to me like --
16                    And again as I mentioned in the beginning 17 in opening remarks, we do want to make sure that everybody 18 gets a chance to make their comments both from the phone 19 and from the audience.            And we ask that the comments be 20 directly related to the Columbia Generating Station.
21 And you have had some wonderful questions that were 22 directly related to the Columbia Station but it sounds 23 like we are kind of moving away from that in very 24 important areas but they might be best addressed by NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701      www.nealrgross.com
51 1 people who have been working on the Fukushima report and 2 we would be happy to get back to you.
3                  MR. BERTISH:        I am happy to do that.                I 4 disagree with your assessment because these questions 5 are specific to Columbia River Generating Station.                        But 6 I am happy to leave my name and number and go from there.
7                  MS. FEHST:      All right.          Thank you.        And 8 just for the record, if we could get the correct spelling 9 for the reporter.
10                  MR. BERTISH:        Sure.      It is D as in David, 11 V as in Victor, I, J as in Jack, A as in apple, Michael 12 Bertish, B-E-R-T-I-S-H with the Rosemary Neighborhood 13 Association in Vancouver, Washington.
14                  MS. FEHST:      Thank you.
15                  DENISE:      The next question from the phone 16 lines comes from Jacqueline Sorgan.                  Your line is open.
17                  MS. SORGAN:      Thank you.        I have a question 18 regarding public health.              With the close proximity to 19 the Native American tribes, has any consideration been 20 given to their closeness to the earth and resources and 21 their        health  and    safety      regarding        the  Columbia 22 Generating Station?
23                  MR. DOYLE:      Yes.      The unique lifestyle of 24 the      Native  American      tribes      is      discussed    in      the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
52 1 environmental justice area in Chapter 4, as well as I 2 believe it is a subsection within Environmental Justice 3 where we talk about subsistence consumption and that 4 would not just be limited to Native Americans but other 5 people that may choose to live off crops that are grown 6 in this area.
7                So, the answer is yes, that is discussed and 8 that is in Chapter 4 under Environmental Justice.
9                MS. SORGAN:      Thank you, sir.
10                DENISE:      Okay, are you ready for the next 11 question?
12                MS. FEHST:      Yes.
13                DENISE:      From a Holly Green.      Your line is 14 open.
15                MS. GREEN:      Hi. Holly Green. I live in 16 the Issaquah, Washington area.            And I was listening to 17 your presentation and I do have a question.              This part 18 that you spoke about in response to Fukushima and you said 19 that there would be 12 recommendations -- that there were 20 12 recommendations for improvement regarding safety.
21 And I guess I just wanted, you know, I know the woman was 22 saying that it was tangential but to me it is not.                    So 23 I just want to find out is there any guarantee that any 24 or all of those recommendations for improvement would be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701      www.nealrgross.com
53 1 adopted?          I mean how can I know that they will, any of 2 them be adopted?
3                      MR. DOYLE:      There is not a guarantee that 4 these recommendations will be adopted.                  So that is the 5 short answer.          This task force was created with a small 6 number of NRC staff and their mission was to look at the 7 available information coming out of Fukushima with a 8 90-day          period    and      generate        what they    saw        as 9 recommendations that the NRC should take.                  So they did 10 that.        They issued their task force and now the NRC staff 11 is looking at which of those can be implemented and the 12 Commission, ultimately the Nuclear Regulatory, the 13 actual Commission, the five Commissioners will determine 14 at a policy level which of these recommendations should 15 move ahead and should be implemented.
16                      So the recommendations are discussed in the 17 Task Force report.            There are public meetings associated 18 with that.          And that is where the best information comes 19 from.          So are they guaranteed that these would be 20 implemented?          No. These were the result of the initial 21 review and the NRC is going to move through a process of 22 determining which, if any, should be reviewed and how 23 they should be prioritized and what actions need to be 24 taken to ensure that the              public and the environment are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701      www.nealrgross.com
54 1 protected.
2                    MS. GREEN:      Okay, thank you.
3                    DENISE:      The next question comes from a 4 Carolyn Mann.        Your line is open.
5                    MS. MANN:        Thank you.        Hi, my name is 6 Carolyn Mann and I am a resident of Oregon, a private 7 citizen.        And I am calling with a couple questions.                The 8 first is it was mentioned that the NRC was in the process 9 of updating its Generic EIS and you said that this would 10 affect other license renewals that were up for renewal.
11 I was just wondering why that is.
12                    MR. DOYLE:      This application was submitted 13 in January 2010 and the Generic Environmental Impact 14 Statement at that time was the one that has been approved, 15 which is the previous one.              The new, the revised Generic 16 Environmental Impact Statement has not been approved.
17 So it is not the NRC's policy, you could say.                It is not 18 the official version.                The document is subject to 19 change.        So that is why it is not applying to this license 20 renewal application.
21                    But as I explained earlier, the NRC staff 22 does have a process of reviewing the generic conclusions 23 that are in the Generic EIS.                And to incorporate other 24 information that we are aware of and to decide that we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
55 1 are free to decide whether or not the conclusions in the 2 previous document are still applicable here.
3                So that is how an issue that is say included 4 in the new, in the revised Generic Environmental Impact 5 Statement but not in the previous one, that is how that 6 would be incorporated into this review.            But that was not 7 the NRC's Generic Environmental Impact Statement at the 8 time that this review is occurring.
9                MS. MANN:        Thank you.        And I was also 10 wondering if you could explain how it was that 20-year 11 time period for a license renewal rather than having it 12 possibly five, ten years?
13                MR. DOYLE:      You are asking why the license 14 renewal term is 20 years?
15                MS. MANN:      Yes.
16                MR. DOYLE:      I cannot explain the basis for 17 that decision. I know that the short answer, I guess 18 would be is that that is what is in the regulations.                  But 19 the question of why is it 20 years, I really can't say 20 that but the initial term was determined to be 40 years 21 and the regulations allow for plants after 20 years to 22 apply for an additional 20 years of operation.              And that 23 is the process that we are going through.
24                If you have other comments or questions NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
56 1 about the reasons for that, we can take those as comments 2 and respond to those in the final SEIS.
3                  MS. MANN:      Thank you.
4                  DENISE:      Next up is Theodora Tsongas.
5 Your line is open.
6                  MS. TSONGAS:        Yes, I think the --
7                  MS. FEHST:      Excuse me.          Caller, would you 8 mind spelling your last name for the record, please?
9 Maybe first and last name.
10                  MS. TSONGAS:          Yes.        My first name is 11 Theodora, T-H-E-O-D-O-R-A.              My last name is Tsongas, T, 12 as in Tom, S as in Sam, O, N as in no, G-A, S as in Sam.
13                  MS. FEHST:      Thank you.
14                  MS. TSONGAS:        Shall I go ahead?
15                  MS. FEHST:        Yes, please go ahead.                I'm 16 sorry to interrupt.          Go ahead, please.
17                  MS. TSONGAS:        I believe that my question 18 has been answered.              I just need a little bit of 19 clarification about the environmental review not on its 20 safety.        I assumed that safety was included.
21                  MR. DOYLE:      The scope of the environmental 22 review is focused on the environmental impacts of the 23 additional 20-years of operation.                  And in the draft, in 24 the EIS through the NEPA process, we are comparing that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
57 1 with other alternatives.
2                    So that is the scope of the environmental 3 review.        It is discussed in the regulations in 10 CFR 4 Part 51.        So that is where the scope of the environmental 5 review is defined.
6                    The NRC has another review that is also 7 going on at the same time that has documents and reviews 8 and I would say that is probably the larger review, you 9 could say, or is the number of documents or how you want 10 to quantify that.        It takes longer.            But there is a very, 11 very detailed technical review that focusing on how the 12 plant is able to manage how the plant would manage the 13 effects of aging, the additional 20-years of aging on the 14 components that are passive and long-lived, components 15 that would not expect the expected to normally be 16 replaced during the life of the power plant.
17                    So there is a safety review.            It is handled 18 by a separate process that the regulations and the scope 19 and the details of that are explained in 10 CFR Part 54.
20 So the environmental review does not discuss the safety 21 issues.        They are handled by a separate process.                    The 22 safety review is not getting is not getting into the 23 environmental        issues.        So    there      are  two  separate 24 processes and those are the regulations where they are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
58 1 explained and that is how safety is addressed for a 2 license renewal application.
3                    MS. TSONGAS:        So where would we see those 4 to comment on the safety?
5                    MR. DOYLE:          The      documents    that      are 6 associated        with  the    safety      review      are  all    public 7 documents.        Due to the level of technical detail that is 8 included in that review, there are no meetings like we 9 had for the scoping meeting and like this meeting that 10 we are having right now.            There are not, there is not a 11 solicitation of public comments.                    Those documents are 12 available.          There is a meeting by an independent 13 committee, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 14 that        reviews    the      application          and  provides          a 15 recommendation.          And if you wanted to provide a comment 16 on something, the Safety Evaluation Report with Open 17 Items was issued last month.              So if you wanted to see the 18 results of the NRC's review, you could go to the NRC's 19 public website for this review.                  If you search for NRC 20 Columbia Generating Station License Renewal, you will 21 find the NRC's public review, public website for this 22 review.        So the environmental review documents are 23 included on there and the safety review documents are 24 also included on there.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
59 1                  So if you wanted to see the initial results 2 of the NRC's review, you could find the document on that 3 website.      It is called the Safety Evaluation Report with 4 Open Items.      It explains the NRC's determination of the 5 applicant's proposed plans to manage aging.              So that is 6 where the NRC's basis, the NRC's determination is 7 described.
8                  So if you wanted to provide comments, you 9 could send a letter to the NRC.            You could basically send 10 in a letter.      You could, I believe you can call in to the 11 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards meetings.
12                  I'm not sure if there is a period for public 13 comments.      Can you address that?
14                  (Off the record comments.)
15                  A member of the public could call in and ask 16 to participate in the meeting of the review by the 17 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.                    That is 18 happening in mid-October.              If you want the details on 19 that meeting, please let me know and I will send you the 20 time and date and the steps that you would need to take 21 if you wanted to request to provide a comment on that.
22                  But the document is publicly available and 23 there is limited solicitation of public comments for the 24 safety review.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701      www.nealrgross.com
60 1                    MS. TSONGAS:        Okay, thanks.      --
2                    MR. DOYLE:      I'm sorry.        I couldn't hear 3 what you were saying.              If we are able to have the 4 moderator get your -- Denise is that something that you 5 can do?        Because it might be easier for you to get it than 6 for us.
7                    DENISE:      Yes, I can.
8                    MR. DOYLE:      Okay, that would be great.              So 9 if you maybe leave your email address or phone number, 10 I would be happy to provide you with more details on the 11 documents associated with the safety review and that 12 upcoming meeting that I mentioned.
13                    MS. TSONGAS:        Thank you.
14                    DENISE:      The next question is from Lloyd 15 Marbet.        Your line is open.
16                    MR. MARBET:        Yes, this is Lloyd Marbet.
17 Can you hear me?
18                    MS. FEHST:      Yes, Lloyd, we can hear you.
19 Would you mind spelling your last name for the record, 20 please?        And if you are with an organization, could you 21 please identify that by name and spell it for the record, 22 too, please?
23                    MR. MARBET:      Yes, my name is Lloyd Marbet, 24 M-A-R-B-E-T.        I am the Executive Director of the Oregon NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
61 1 Conservancy Foundation and I don't know if anyone else 2 is experiencing the same problem I have but the last three 3 questions that have come up, there has been such a bad 4 echoing on my line, I could barely make out what is being 5 said.
6                  So Denise, I hope someone will look into 7 that.
8                  And then for my question; I have two.                  The 9 Columbia Generating Station has an operating license 10 until December 20, 2023.          Why is license renewal taking 11 place now when there is 12 years left under the existing 12 license?      And why doesn't the NRC set a limit on when 13 these applications can be filed?                Because it seems to me 14 the evaluation that takes place here becomes quite dated 15 over a 12-year period before the renewal actually sets 16 in.
17                  MR. DOYLE:          There are, the window for 18 application is defined in the regulations.              The earliest 19 that a plant is allowed to apply for license renewal is 20 after 20 years of operation.            So right in the middle, you 21 could say, 20 years before their license expires.
22                  So Columbia Generating Station came in 23 right about in the middle or so of their window of when 24 they are allowed to come in.              The latest that a plant NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
62 1 could come in is within five years prior to the expiration 2 of their current license.            So there is a 15-year window 3 that the plant can apply.            Part of the basis for that is 4 that after 20 years of operation, there is sufficient 5 operating experience for the NRC to make a decision.
6                  Another reason for that decision to define 7 the window the way it is is that it does take a long period 8 of time for energy-planning decisionmakers to evaluate 9 other options.        If the plant is not going to pursue 10 license renewal and shut down or if they are, for the 11 planners to accommodate other ways to produce power, to 12 build another power plant, to replace this one if it is 13 shut down.
14                  So the short answer is that the regulations 15 allow them to come in up to 20 years early and they came 16 in within that window.
17                  MR. MARBET:      I am going to comment on that 18 during the public comment.            So I will just go to my second 19 question.
20                  To what extent does the GEIS examine the 21 impact        of  catastrophic        accidents    and  cancerous 22 radioactive waste disposal operations on Columbia's 23 Generating Station and the reverse of that, Columbia 24 Generating Station having a catastrophic accident that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701      www.nealrgross.com
63 1 could        impact  cancerous      radioactive        waste  disposal 2 cleanup operations?
3                    MR. DOYLE:          The    Generic      Environmental 4 Impact        Statement      and      the      draft    Supplemental 5 Environmental Impact Statement do not address the 6 potential        for  catastrophic          accidents      specifically 7 related to this plant being located on Hanford.                          That 8 issue is not addressed in either the GEIS or the draft 9 SEIS.
10                    MR. MARBET:      I will provide some comment on 11 that as well.        That is the extent of my questions.                Thank 12 you.
13                    DENISE:      And the last question that I have 14 is from Jacqueline Valiquette.                  Your line is open.
15                    MS. VALIQUETTE:        Hi.
16                    MS. FEHST:        Jacqueline, would you mind 17 spelling your last name for the record, please?                      And if 18 you      are    with  an      organization,          representing          an 19 organization, could you identify that and spell that as 20 well?
21                    MS. VALIQUETTE:        Sure.      I am just calling 22 from Seattle and my last name is spelled V as in Victor, 23 A-L-I-Q-U-E-T-T-E.
24                    MS. FEHST:      Thank you.          Go ahead with your NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
64 1 question, please.
2                  MS. VALIQUETTE:        You had mentioned that if 3 you are licensed, there is currently no set dump site.
4 But once one is established, how do you transport the 5 waste and will you use public highways to do it?
6                  MR. DOYLE:          How    would  the  waste        be 7 transported      to  an  offsite      location    after    that      is 8 established?      I would imagine that that would include 9 highways.      This is not something that I am an expert in 10 and I wouldn't be able to provide much more information 11 than that.      But I guess it depends on where the location 12 is, the amount of waste.          So I imagine that there would 13 be a number of factors that would determine how the waste 14 is transported.
15                  MS. VALIQUETTE:        Thank you.
16                  MS. FEHST:      Okay, are there any clarifying 17 questions from anyone in the audience before we move on 18 to the public comment period?
19                  And no other callers with any clarifying 20 questions?
21                  DENISE:      I did have one caller that just 22 queued in.      And that is from Dawn Reynolds.            Your line 23 is open.
24                  MS. REYNOLDS:        Actually, I wanted to make NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701      www.nealrgross.com
65 1 a public comment.        Thank you.
2                  DENISE:      Thank you.
3                  MS. FEHST:      Okay.      Then we will move on.
4 We are finished with the questions.                  We will move on to 5 the public comment period.              Thanks, Dan.
6                  What we did this afternoon is identify three 7 names at the same time, you know, the first speaker, the 8 second speaker, the third speaker.                    That enabled the 9 first one to come up and make comments and then the other 10 two whose names were identified knew that they would be 11 coming next.
12                  Next up -- But because we seem to have a few 13 more callers with questions or with comments going on the 14 yellow cards, than we do people in the audience, and that 15 may change, but since we have, it seems, many more 16 callers, what I am going to suggest we do this time is 17 take one person from the audience as the first speaker, 18 to be followed by two callers.                  And then after that 19 three, we will do another audience member to make his or 20 her comments, followed by two speakers and so on.
21                  And I will just go over the ground rules 22 again very quickly.          Just a reminder that this is the 23 time        for comments    on    the    results      of  the      NRC's 24 environmental review on the license renewal application NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
66 1 for Columbia and we ask that you confine your comments 2 to this subject.
3                  Another reminder is we really need to end 4 the meeting on time as a courtesy to all those who have 5 to leave on schedule.          So they should not have to miss 6 any part of the meeting because the comments have gone 7 on too long.      So we ask that you try to keep your focus 8 on your comments and limit the comments to five minutes.
9 And if you have a question and were able to give a brief 10 answer, we will do so.        But if the question that you are 11 asking really requires an in-depth conversation with a 12 member of the NRC Staff who is here, you know, they are 13 prepared to stay for a little while at the close of the 14 meeting.      So perhaps that would be the best time to 15 engage in a one-on-one conversation on your question.
16                  And just another reminder, when you step up 17 to the microphone, and callers when you are providing 18 your comments, remember certainly those whose names I 19 didn't ask for a spelling for the reporter, please 20 remember to identify yourself by name when you begin 21 speaking.      And if you haven't already spelled out your 22 name or your organization, please do so during the 23 comment period.
24                  And finally, let's try to give whoever the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701  www.nealrgross.com
67 1 caller is our respect and full attention and have just 2 one person speaking at a time.                So thank you.
3                  So what we will do now is we will have the 4 first speaker, Rich Sargent.            And the callers who should 5 be ready to go with questions would first be James Great, 6 followed by Rachel Stierling.              So first Rich, then James 7 Great, then Rachel Stierling, the last two being phone 8 callers.      Thank you.
9                  MR. SARGENT:        Thank you.      My name is Rich 10 Sargent.      I represent Franklin PUD and my comments here 11 are related to that.          And my job duties within Franklin 12 PUD is as their power analyst and also personally.                      And 13 I want to thank the NRC for this opportunity to allow 14 public comment and engage in this type of fashion with 15 people in this important subject certainly in our region 16 here and nationally.
17                  I can't think of an industry that has had 18 more oversight, both environmentally and safely and 19 safety such to expand the NRC and nuclear industry and 20 rightly so.
21                  And being that, it was kind of a coincidence 22 I happened to go on a tour of the B Reactor here this past 23 Saturday.        And it      was    nice.        Not  that there is 24 comparison with Columbia Generating but our nation does NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
68 1 have a broad history of using nuclear power.                    And this 2 site, the Columbia Generating Station, it is a strong 3 asset and uses that appropriately.
4                    Being involved in the energy industry, I am 5 aware        of  the  alternatives        of    not  having  Columbia 6 Generating        Station.        And    the      Columbia  Generating 7 Station parallels our goals within Franklin PUD and that 8 is      to    provide  our    region      with    reliable    power, 9 cost-effective power, and certainly clean power.                          And 10 the nuclear industry does that and so does Columbia 11 Generating Station.
12                    I am going to keep my comments in regards 13 to environmental and not safety because it does have a 14 strong safety record.            We do nationally have a strong 15 safety record and health related with the nuclear 16 industry as well.
17                    But if I had to go out and replace the power 18 that Franklin gets from Columbia Generating Station, it 19 is our second largest resource in our fuel mix.                      I can 20 do it as effective, as reliable, as clean, as Columbia 21 Generating Station and the nuclear industry.                  I have to 22 look at, you know, coal.            I have to look at wind.            It is 23 not reliable.
24                    And that is one thing that I don't think the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
69 1 common resident may understand is the reliability issues 2 that we have in our energy industry and what this resource 3 does to that. It is just phenomenal.
4                Anyway, again, I want to thank you for the 5 opportunity to do this.        I think you are doing a great 6 job here looking at the impacts reasonably in regards to 7 the environmental assessment and the alternatives there.
8 I was pleased to see that.            Thank you.
9                MS. FEHST:      Okay, the next two speakers are 10 the callers James Great followed by Rachel Stierling.
11                Denise?
12                DENISE:      That's James Great?
13                MS. FEHST:      Yes, I have a card here for 14 James Great, G-R-E-A-T.
15                DENISE:        I'm    not      finding  that    he      is 16 connected, unless he registered with another name.
17                MS. FEHST:      Okay.      These were names that we 18 received with preregistration.                So circumstances may 19 have changed for some of these names.              But we will run 20 through them in the order that they appear anyway.
21                The next one is Rachel Stierling.
22                MS. STIERLING:        Yes, ma'am, I am available.
23                MS. FEHST:      Okay, great.        Thank you.        Go 24 ahead.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
70 1                MS. STIERLING:        And I must say I was on the 2 2:00 call earlier and from what I heard, it was a great 3 hearing but it is nice to be able to actually be able to 4 hear you all now.      So thank you for the opportunity to 5 give my testimony.
6                Just two quick points to make.            Number one, 7 I have listened to this from all these great minds and 8 from all these great opinions.              The thing that is very 9 clear to me is that we have to absolutely stop relicensing 10 until after we are educated and more importantly learn 11 from what and why caused Fukushima and the damage and the 12 catastrophe that happened there in Japan.              We are still 13 receiving      reports    and    testimonials        that  are      just 14 heartbreaking.      And in my opinion, it is imperative that 15 the NRC implement, adopt, and agree, and more importantly 16 enforces new safety measures surrounding the knowledge 17 that we will learn and gain from Fukushima's disaster.
18 Anything short of that, in my opinion, is a public safety 19 catastrophic risk.
20                Number two, my biggest question is where in 21 the world will the plutonium liquid waste waters go?                      I 22 am fully aware that the NRC currently is not at all open 23 to the question, its psychological.                And I would like 24 to present that low-level liquid waste is already seeping NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
71 1 into and contaminating our environment.
2                  Currently, the chemical and radioactive 3 waste -- excuse me, I have a cold -- are so dangerous that 4 we predict a 20 percent rate in cancer increases in the 5 Native American children, simply because they are 6 drinking the groundwater from the land they come from and 7 the land they live on.
8                  And as a taxpayer and citizen of Washington 9 State, as a Native American myself, and as a mother, 10 relicensing at this point with no further review is 11 nothing short of negligence in the first type of way.
12 And I thank you for hearing my comments.
13                  MS. FEHST:      Thank you.        All right.        The 14 next three speakers will be from the audience.                Kathleen 15 Vaughn.        Kathleen Vaughn will be next and she will be 16 followed by two telephone callers, the first Bella 17 Berlly, B-E-R-L-L-Y and Paul Finely.
18                  MS. VAUGHN:        Good evening.      I'm Kathleen 19 Vaughn and I am a Commissioner from Snohomish County 20 Public Utility District in Everett, Washington and 21 Secretary of the Energy Northwest Executive Board.                      And 22 Energy Northwest is a joint action agency that is made 23 up of 28 public utility districts and municipalities in 24 the State of Washington.              And I wish to correct some NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
72 1 statements that were made by others providing comments 2 in the venue regarding mixed oxide fuel.
3                The Executive Board of Energy Northwest 4 received a public meeting presentation informing the 5 Board on MOX fuel in 2009.        Since then, we have received 6 multiple public updates as to industry news information 7 of the study of MOX fuel.
8                Energy Northwest is not a part of a study 9 and no decision has been made by the Executive Board to 10 be part of a study. And certainly there has not been any 11 secret meetings that were alluded to earlier in the day 12 at this meeting.
13                If Energy Northwest decides to move forward 14 with a paper feasibility study, we will notify the 15 Washington State Congressional delegation and publicly 16 announce the decision.        Thank you.
17                MS. FEHST:        Thank you for your comment.
18 Next caller is Bella, Bella B-E-R-L-L-Y.              Is Bella on the 19 line?
20                DENISE:      I do not have Bella.
21                MS. FEHST:          Okay and what about Paul 22 Finely, F-I-N-E-L-Y?
23                DENISE:        I    am    not      finding    Paul        in 24 attendance.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
73 1                MS. FEHST:      Okay, thank you.        Then we will 2 move to the next audience member would be Gerry Pollet.
3 And the next two callers that I have are Warren Zimmermann 4 and Judith Earle.      Warren Zimmermann and Judith Earle.
5                MR. POLLET:          Gerry Pollet, P-O-L-L-E-T 6 representing Heart of America Northwest, the Hanford 7 Cleanup Watchdog Group.        And let's just start with this 8 thought.      Thank  you    for    having      the phone      lines 9 available, demonstrates that with 30 people on the phones 10 that we should have had regional hearings and we should 11 still have hearings around the region, including in 12 Snohomish County where Snohomish PUD is a member and your 13 rate payers, including many of my members are concerned 14 about the relicensing and these issues in Seattle or in 15 Vancouver in the Vancouver PUD area.
16                Secondly, saying that nuclear power is 17 clean is pretty much like saying that coal is clean 18 because it doesn't create nuclear waste.                    Here at 19 Hanford, you happen to have a good example in the backyard 20 where the CGS reactor sits.
21                So let's start with the fact that this EIS 22 needs to be halted until we know why Fukushima happened, 23 how it happened, what the impacts were, and what specific 24 equipment failures led to which of those impacts.                  It is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
74 1 wrong, simply wrong to claim that Fukushima is not 2 related to this environmental review.
3                The NRC's Generic EIS estimates that for 4 each and every one of these license renewals for 20 years, 5 there will be 12 fatal cancers and it then calls this, 6 "acceptable" and a "small" impact.              I think the NRC needs 7 to revise this and think about whether or not any cancer 8 death is small or acceptable.              And just put it in your 9 own children and say would you view it that way if it was 10 your child.      Because you can play the game with numbers 11 but your children will pay the price for years to come.
12                This EIS and this process for creating a 13 supplemental EIS based on a Generic EIS that is 15 years 14 old is ludicrous.        It is simply ludicrous to say we 15 relied on safety evaluations 15 years ago and we will 16 update it for some other license applications but not 17 this one.      How ludicrous?        Well that 12 fatal cancer 18 figure, for example, doesn't take into account that the 19 National Academy, the National Research Council has 20 issued the biological effects of radiation, report 21 seven, which is the National Consensus Document that 22 greatly increases the estimated health effects and fatal 23 cancers especially for children and women from the same 24 dose of radiation.      So how many fatal deaths would occur NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
75 1 if we used updated information?                  We don't know.      Maybe 2 it will be updated.            Doubt it.
3                    What    about      the    Environmental        Impact 4 Statement on what to do with the greater than Class C 5 waste?        That is the extremely radioactive waste that 6 comes from inside the reactor vessels, the radiated 7 metals from decommissioning reactors.                      It is simply 8 wrong to say we considered that and it has no impact 9 because on a site-specific issue, you have to dispose of 10 the waste not in a generic location, it gets disposed at 11 the commercial low-level waste dump sitting in the middle 12 of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, which apparently the 13 NRC is turning a blind eye on, even though it oversees 14 the regulation of that plant by the State of Washington.
15                    And let's talk about that.                A, it is 16 unlined.        B, it has massive releases of chemicals and 17 radionuclides at levels immediately dangerous to human 18 health in terms of soil gas vapor for TCE and numerous 19 carcinogens and other chemicals.                  And this is where the 20 EIS says there is no impact because we generically 21 considered we have disposal capacity for low level waste 22 and greater than Class C waste.                  When did we make that 23 decision?        Fifteen years ago.          That is inappropriate.
24 It needs to be updated and look at the site-specific NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
76 1 impacts where this reactor's waste go to get disposed.
2                  And in terms of plutonium fuel, Energy 3 Northwest promised to release documents by September 4 21st regarding its study of plutonium fuel.                      The 5 documents we have received to date show that Energy 6 Northwest is formally considering and Pacific Northwest 7 Lab has already been spending money and has issued work 8 orders and contracts to consider use of plutonium fuel 9 in this reactor to be fabricated in the 325 Building at 10 Hanford, which is contaminated and creates additional 11 environmental impacts.              And the program will start 12 having fuel pins tested during the 2015 shutdown.
13 That's the proposal.
14                  And no, the Energy Northwest Board, because 15 we did ask to see the presentation you were given, you 16 were not given the document, the technical document that 17 said use of plutonium fuel could increase the offsite 18 radiological dose in the event of an accident by 40 19 percent and that if the Fukushima Reactor 3 had a full 20 load of MOX plutonium fuel, that is the percent increase 21 the radiation dose on top of the already horrific 22 effects.      And the Energy Northwest Executive Committee 23 and Board were not given those documents.            But why are 24 you hiding more?      Now Energy Northwest says we are not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701  www.nealrgross.com
77 1 going to give you the documents you have asked for until 2 December 21st, after the close of this comment period.
3 We have asked the NRC to extend the comment period on the 4 EIS until Energy Northwest comes clean and discloses all 5 the      documents  requested      under      Washington's      Public 6 Records Act and the Energy Department discloses its 7 documents under FOIA in regard to the proposal to use 8 plutonium fuel.
9                  The National Environmental Policy Act says 10 very clearly and case law is entirely on our side, that 11 all related proposals have to be disclosed and discussed 12 in this EIS.      And while we are on that point, let's just 13 say no one else would ever claim that safety issues don't 14 have to be disclosed in EIS.              Human health impacts are 15 part of the NEPA process.            Telling people to go to the 16 NRC's arcane website and try to find documents about the 17 safety review defeats the entire purpose of the National 18 Environmental Policy Act, which is that all potential 19 significant impacts are to be disclosed in one document 20 for the public to review and comment on.                They belong in 21 this document, not somewhere else on the web where you 22 are not even invited to comment.                  Thank you.
23                  MS. FEHST:      All right.          Thank you for your 24 comment.      Is there Warren -- Denise do we have Warren NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
78 1 Zimmermann or Judith Earle on the phone?
2                    DENISE:      Warren Zimmermann, your line is 3 open.
4                    MR. ZIMMERMANN:          All right.      Thank you.
5 My name is Warren, W-A-R-R-E-N, Zimmermann, Z as in 6 Zebra, I-M-M-E-R-M-A-N-N and I am with --
7                    MS. FEHST:      Excuse me, caller.        I think you 8 are breaking up a little bit.                Is it okay now?          Okay, 9 shall we -- Would you mind trying again, please?                    We have 10 the spelling of your name, thank you.                  Go ahead with your 11 comment.
12                    MR. ZIMMERMANN:        --
13                    MS. FEHST:      No, I'm sorry.          You are still 14 breaking up.        Can we try another line and come back to 15 you?
16                    Judith Earle, is she on the line?
17                    DENISE:      Judith Earle is not in attendance.
18                    MS. FEHST:        Okay.        What about Jacquelyn 19 Valiquette?        I believe she asked a clarifying question.
20 Does she have a comment?
21                    MS. VALIQUETTE:        Yes, thank you --
22            MS. FEHST:  Okay, we are having trouble with the 23 phone.        We are having trouble with the phone.                  While 24 they are working on that, we have one other caller, or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
79 1 excuse me, one other commenter from the audience.                We 2 will take John Cox.      John Cox, please, and then we will 3 get back to the callers.
4                MR. COX:      Yes, my name is John Cox.        I am 5 a U.S. citizen and a resident of the City of Richland.
6 And I think this is great where we have some discussion 7 and have an important topic of this nature.        And I just 8 say thanks for the opportunity to be here and interact 9 and listen.
10                My comment is that I am concerned and have 11 been for some time and I suspect as many other people here 12 in the audience are, about the lack of a permanent 13 relatively safe national repository for nuclear waste 14 for the byproducts of a power production reactor such as 15 this clear across the nation.
16                And in that regard, I thought that maybe I'd 17 offer a suggestion is that I think personally that NRC 18 ought to consider stopping all licensing renewals in this 19 arena all across the nation, as well as all construction 20 applications until we have such a repository.        And in so 21 doing such, it might get us all centered on this important 22 topic.
23                Thank you for this opportunity.          That is 24 all.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701  www.nealrgross.com
80 1                    MS. FEHST:      Okay, thank you.        Thank you for 2 your comment.
3                    Should we try the phone again?              All right, 4 we will try the phone again.              And Warren Zimmermann, if 5 we      could    try  your      line    again,      please.      Warren 6 Zimmermann.
7                    DENISE:      His line has dropped off.
8                    MS. FEHST:      Jacque Valiquette.
9                    MS. VALIQUETTE:        Yes.      My comment was that 10 I don't think it is responsible to consider transporting 11 a waste of this kind on public roads.                  There are -- that 12 relates to this topic.            They sort of say that --
13                    MS. FEHST:          All right.          I know.        I'm 14 sorry.        Once again, the call is breaking up.            So we are 15 not able to get everything that you are saying.                      We can 16 try another line or just take a small break.
17                    If we are unable to clear up the lines for 18 any of the callers who were on the line that want to make 19 comments, I am hoping that you will be willing to put that 20 in writing via email and send it to the attention of 21 daniel.doyle@nrc.gov and would ask for that written 22 comment only if we are unable to clear up the phone line 23 in the next minute or two so that we could get your 24 comment.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
81 1                  They are working on it here and we will give 2 it a try one more time.
3                  Meanwhile while he is trying to work on it, 4 Denise if I could just clear with you the lines that you 5 do have.      Kevin Carlson --
6                  Denise, do we have you?            We have lost 7 Denise?
8                  MR. POLLET:      This is Gerry Pollet.      What is 9 the possibility of just scheduling, I mean, you don't 10 have to be here in Richland to reschedule a phone call 11 before the end of the comment period.
12                  MS. FEHST:      Let me bring the mic over to you 13 so that people can understand what it is you are 14 suggesting.
15                  MR. POLLET:        I'm just asking about the 16 possibility of rescheduling on behalf of the people who 17 are on the phones and it is going to be really 18 frustrating.      Since you don't have to be in Richland to 19 do this call-in, and it might actually work better if you 20 are at the NRC office.
21                  MR. DOYLE:      I understand your request.            I 22 can't provide you a response to that right now.                        I 23 understand you are asking to schedule separate call for 24 the people that weren't able to comment, to do that before NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701    www.nealrgross.com
82 1 the November 16th deadline and I will get back to you on 2 that.
3                  MR. POLLET:        If we can't get the phone 4 restored, I would appreciate that.
5                  MR. DOYLE:      Okay.
6                  MS. FEHST:        Okay, we will try another.
7 Denise are you there?
8                  DENISE:      I am here.
9                  MS. FEHST:        Okay, good.          Thank you.          I 10 think Jacquelyn Valiquette was making a comment when we 11 ran into problems.          Is that right?
12                  DENISE:      She did and her line has also 13 dropped from the conference.
14                  MS. FEHST:      Okay, dropped before finished.
15 Okay.        Kevin Carlson?
16                  DENISE:      Kevin Carlson.          Let me try that 17 line.        One moment.
18                  MR. CARLSON:        Hi, this is Kevin.          Can you 19 hear me?
20                  MS. FEHST:        Yes.      Hi, Kevin.        Go ahead 21 with your comment please.
22                  MR. CARLSON:        Great.        I've got a little 23 echo so sorry if I get confused.
24                  I would like to call for a thorough and --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
83 1 assessment of the risk of MOX fuel, that that be --
2                  MS. FEHST:      I'm sorry, Kevin. You started 3 out strong and it started breaking up again.
4                  MR. CARLSON:        Okay.
5                  MS. FEHST:      And now you sound good.
6                  MR. CARLSON:        Oh, I sound good again?
7                  MS. FEHST:      Let's give it one more try with 8 you.      Go ahead.
9                  MR. CARLSON:        I'll forge ahead.
10                  MS. FEHST:      Thank you.
11                  MR. CARLSON:        -- need to consider impacts 12 if a national disaster such as an earthquake causes 13 radiation leaks and how that would impact a cover for the 14 reactor.        I am thinking of things like the challenge of 15 keeping cooling water where it is needed.              And I also 16 think that we need to consider a risk assessment for the 17 spent fuel pools that are looped through the reactor 18 vessel.        I would like to urge the use of hardened casks 19 for the spent fuel.
20                  And also give, you know, thanks to the NRC, 21 I realize it is a challenge dealing with technical 22 problems, but I heard this afternoon's meeting --                    But 23 I think it highlights that we need public state to state 24 meetings around the nation so that its people can really NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701    www.nealrgross.com
84 1 participate properly.
2                    MS. FEHST:          Thank you Kevin for your 3 comment, and thank you for your persistence.
4                    Is there a Carol -- And we will move on to 5 the next caller.        Carolyn Mann, if she is on the line.
6                    MS. MANN:      Yes, I am.
7                    MS. FEHST:      Okay, go ahead, Carolyn.
8                    MS. MANN:      Well thank you --
9                    MS. FEHST:          Okay, I'm sorry, Carolyn.
10 We're having a problem again.                I wonder, does it have 11 anything to do with the way people are speaking into the 12 phone?        No. Yes, okay.      We are going to just ask you to 13 hang on for a minute and we will give it another try in 14 just a second.
15                    Denise, can you hear me?            Oh, okay. Sorry.
16 Okay, I will wait for the signal from our operations man 17 here.
18                    (Pause.)
19                    MS. FEHST:      Okay, we are going to give it 20 one more try.        Carolyn, are you on the line?
21                    MS. MANN:      Yes, I am.
22                    MS. FEHST:      Okay, would you continue?              And 23 I apologize for all these technical difficulties we are 24 having but please go ahead.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
85 1                MS. MANN:      I would like to start by --
2                MS. FEHST:      No. Okay, I'm sorry.          We are 3 hearing that that is not working.                Maybe as -- We have 4 another backup option here.            And that would be --
5                (Pause.)
6                MS. MANN:      Yes, I can hear you.
7                MR. DOYLE:      Okay, maybe what we can do is 8 call the name for the person and then turn off the 9 microphone, turn off this other microphone.                And then I 10 guess there could still be feedback with the one 11 microphone up front but let's try that and see.
12                Can you perhaps lower the volume of this 13 speaker in the room please, Blaine?                  We are trying to 14 figure out how we can eliminate this and I really 15 apologize to everyone.        I appreciate your patience for 16 us trying to work through this.                But we do have, the 17 meeting is scheduled through 10:00.                We are not going to 18 end it until we can try to get these people's comments 19 that have called in and have taken their time.
20                The phone should still be connected.                    Can 21 you ask if Denise is still there?              Denise, are you still 22 online?
23                DENISE:      I am but we cannot hear you very 24 well.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
86 1                    MS. FEHST:      We can hear her.
2                    MR. DOYLE:      Yes, stand by.
3                    (Pause.)
4                    MR. DOYLE:      Okay, who is the next person you 5 want to talk to?
6                    MS. FEHST:        Carolyn Mann would be, once 7 again, for the third time.              Hopefully the third time is 8 the charm and Carolyn will be able to finish her comment.
9                    MR. DOYLE:      Okay, Carolyn Mann, if she is 10 still online, can she start with her comments, please?
11                    DENISE:      Okay, let me open the line.              Go 12 ahead, Carolyn.
13                    MS. MANN:      Yes, thank you.      Thanks for all 14 the efforts that you are making to be able to hear us.
15                    So for my comment, I would like to urge that 16 the NRC hold consideration of relicensing the Columbia 17 Generating Station until the Environmental Impact Review 18 of the Fukushima Reactor is completed.                  It seems that 19 there is a great deal of information that is continually 20 coming out each day about what has taken place and how 21 it is affecting the individuals through the environment 22 there.        And it seems imperative that that information be 23 reviewed and that the whole process that is happening 24 right with regard to relicensing Columbia Generating NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701      www.nealrgross.com
87 1 Station just be put on hold until such time as this 2 information can be processed and understood as it relates 3 to our local concerns.
4                I also really want to urge that the NRC 5 prohibit all the use of mixed oxide fuel.                There is an 6 extreme danger of that particular form of fuel as we have 7 certainly learned from the Fukushima disaster.                I would 8 urge that it not even be considered as a possibility in 9 this country.
10                I am also extremely concerned as other 11 callers have been about the use of building spent fuel 12 pools used for storage and precisely like those that were 13 used in the Fukushima design.            And I would really like 14 to urge that removal of all the spent fuel to harden 15 concrete casts begin immediately.
16                And  lastly    I    would      like  to  urge      the 17 Environmental      Impact        Statement        disclose          the 18 environmental impact of potential fires, explosions, 19 climate change-related events or earthquakes, anything 20 that might release radiation and look very closely at 21 these, as it seems that the unusual types of events that 22 are not so much expected such as the earthquake in Japan 23 was so much more severe than anyone would have expected 24 have actually been taking place.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
88 1                  And one other issue and that is that I would 2 hope that much more consideration be given to the medical 3 consequences of radiation exposure to individuals over 4 the      short-term,  as    well    as    long-term  and    involve 5 radiation as it is experienced in the environment and 6 internal radiation due to contaminated food, water, such 7 things as this.
8                  So thank you very much for listening and 9 considering my concerns.
10                  MS. FEHST:          Okay, thank you for your 11 comment and thank you for your patience.
12                  The next three callers that I have here are 13 Mr. Bertish, who I believe was one of the questioners 14 earlier, followed by Kathryn Flores, followed by Suzanne 15 Thorton.      Denise, do you have any of these three?
16                  DAVID:    I'm sorry.          This is David.      I'll 17 be taking over the call right at this moment.                  And I'm 18 sorry, which participant?
19                  MS. FEHST:          It would be Mr. Bertish, 20 B-E-R-T-I-S-H.      He was one of the questioners earlier, 21 followed by Kathryn Flores, to be followed by Suzanne 22 Thorton.
23                  DAVID:    All right, one moment, please.
24                  (Pause.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
89 1                DAVID:    All right.        I do not have Thorton 2 or Bertish. And what was the third name?
3                MS. FEHST:        You do not have Thorton or 4 Bertish?
5                DAVID:    No, I do not.
6                MS. FEHST:      Okay, thank you for checking.
7 And Kathryn Flores, F-L-O-R-E-S.              These are names that 8 were preregistered.        So --
9                DAVID:      All right.            Apparently at this 10 time I do not have Flores either.
11                MS. FEHST:        All right.        Then the other 12 names are Carole Hiltner, H-I-L-T-N-E-R.
13                DAVID:    I do not show that person's name 14 either.
15                MS. FEHST:          Okay.        Illira    Walker, 16 I-L-L-I-R-A Walker?
17                DAVID:    No, I do not have that name at this 18 time.
19                MS. FEHST:        Okay.        James Kelly or Jude 20 Kone, K-O-N-E?
21                DAVID:    That was, I'm sorry, Connor?
22                MS. FEHST:      James Kelly, K-E-L-L-Y.
23                DAVID:    Kelly.
24                MS. FEHST:      Yes.      James Kelly.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
90 1                DAVID:    Okay, and the other name?
2                MS. FEHST:      Jude Kone, K-O-N-E.
3                DAVID:    Okay.      Not at this time, I do not 4 show their names.
5                MS. FEHST:      Okay and then the final card I 6 have is Charles Johnson, who I believe was one of the 7 questioners following Dan Doyle's presentation.
8                DAVID:    I'm sorry.        That name again?
9                MS. FEHST:      Charles Johnson.
10                DAVID:    Johnson.      Thank you. Not at this 11 time, I do not show their name.
12                MS. FEHST:      Okay.      And the last one I have 13 is M.C. Goldberg.
14                DAVID:    No, I do not show their name at this 15 time.
16                MS. FEHST:      Okay.      Well those are all the 17 card names that I have.      And I am wondering are there any 18 other callers on the line whose names I do not have who 19 would like to make a comment at this time?
20                DAVID:    I'm sorry, would you like me to open 21 up the lines of the call?
22                MS. FEHST:      Yes, are there any callers on 23 the line who would like to make a comment and haven't had 24 an opportunity to do so, yet?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
91 1                (Chorus of yes.)
2                UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:            I preregistered and 3 my name hasn't been called.
4                MS. MORRIS:      This is Nancy Morris and I had 5 some comments I wanted to make.
6                UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:                I need to make 7 comments.
8                MR. MARBET:      And this is Lloyd Marbet.
9                MS. FEHST:      Okay.
10                MS. CHUDY:        This is Cathryn Chudy.                  I 11 preregistered.
12                MS. FEHST:      All right, if I could, let me 13 have a moment here.      We will lay out the same order.                We 14 will have one person speaking at a time.            Each person who 15 is called on to talk will be asked to spell their first 16 and last name.      If you are speaking on behalf of an 17 organization, please identify that organization.                      And 18 finally, when it is your turn to make a comment, please 19 confine your comments to five minutes.
20                UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:              And can we also 21 listen to what is being said?
22                MS. FEHST:      You know, at this time, we have 23 a makeshift backup.          Well, let me say this.                  You 24 certainly will hear what is being said when all is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
92 1 responded to.      Every substantive comment that is made 2 will be responded to and included in the final SEIS, when 3 that is issued.      Your question though, goes to can you 4 hear anyone now.
5                UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:              Exactly.
6                MS. FEHST:          And we have our technical 7 person still trying to work on the line.              And at this time 8 --
9                MR. DOYLE:      This is Daniel Doyle.          There is 10 nothing else that is being said in the room.                  Everyone 11 is carefully listening to what is being presented by the 12 speakers.      The only other speakers I believe that are 13 left are the ones that are on the phone.
14                So what we are doing is we are going to call 15 the names of someone who is speaking.                And if you are on 16 the phone, you should be able to hear the other caller 17 on the phone while they are talking.                      And then if 18 anything needs to be said by the NRC staff or anyone else 19 here in the room, we will come up to the front of the 20 podium where the phone is and you would be able to hear 21 it there as well. So you would be able to hear everything 22 that is spoken.
23                So with that in mind, Dave, I am going to 24 ask you to identify each caller.            I don't have the names.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
93 1 I am going to ask you, who I believe you have the names.
2 Is that right?
3                DAVID:    Do you want me to go ahead and put 4 it back on listen only?      I'm sorry.          Everyone is back on 5 listen only.
6                We have Carolyn Mann.            Would you like me to 7 open up that line first?
8                MS. FEHST:          Carolyn        Mann  has    already 9 provided a comment.      So I believe her comment period is 10 over.
11                DAVID:    I'm sorry, yes.          Rachel Stierling.
12                MS. FEHST:        Rachel has already given a 13 comment.
14                DAVID:    Okay.
15                MS. FEHST:      There was named Lindsey?
16                DAVID:    Nancy Morris.
17                MS. FEHST:        Nancy Morris, I believe has 18 already made a comment.
19                MS. FEHST:      Theodora --
20                MS. FEHST:          Yes,      has    already    made        a 21 comment.
22                There was someone named Lindsey who was 23 preregistered who has not yet made a comment.
24                DAVID:    Yes. The only parties I have left NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
94 1 are Lloyd Marbet, Cathryn Chudy, and Madya Panfilio.
2                MS. FEHST:      Can you spell that?            What's 3 that last one?
4                DAVID:    P-A-N-F-I-L-I-O.
5                MS. FEHST:      Well let's start with Lloyd, to 6 be followed by Cathryn, to be followed by Panfilio and 7 we will see who is left.
8                DAVID:    Okay, I'm sorry.        Give me that list 9 one more time, please.
10                MS. FEHST:      We'll start with Lloyd, --
11                DAVID:    Lloyd.
12                MS. FEHST:      To be followed by Cathryn, --
13                DAVID:    Okay.
14                MS. FEHST:      -- to be followed by Panfilio.
15                DAVID:      Excellent.          Okay. One moment.
16 Thank you.
17                Lloyd, your line is open.
18                MR. MARBET:      Yes, this is Lloyd Marbet.              Am 19 I being heard?      I really have no idea whether I am 20 connected to this process or not.
21                MS. FEHST:      Lloyd, we can hear you.          We can 22 hear you, Lloyd. The audience, everyone who is in the 23 room can hear you.      Go ahead, please.
24                MR. MARBET:        You know, for the last 45 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
95 1 minutes I have been disconnected from this hearing.                      I 2 have listened to technicians trying to fix the problem, 3 interspersed with bursts of static and screeches of 4 electronic feedback.          And I don't know what the problem 5 is but I do know this is not a way to take public input 6 or promote public involvement.
7                  And I would ask that the NRC hold more public 8 hearings in other locations in both the State of 9 Washington and Oregon and specifically in Portland, 10 Oregon.        I know there are more people, many of which I 11 have heard are disconnected from this call that are 12 concerned about this issue and would like to participate.
13 And there is not an opportunity for them to effectively 14 participate because they are now no longer a part of the 15 process.
16                  Now I asked questions during this process 17 and one of them had to do with the operating license being 18 renewed at this time 12 years out from the end of the 19 operating license.          Conducting a license renewal now 20 misses the opportunity to thoroughly examine this 21 nuclear plant's operation in light of the lessons being 22 learned from the accident at Fukushima.              Reviewing this 23 license extension now ignores the advances in science and 24 engineering over the next 12 years, which can improve the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701    www.nealrgross.com
96 1 level of analysis which takes place closer to when an 2 operating license expires.
3                  And  also,    it    affects      the analysis          of 4 availability of alternatives.              As we have seen in recent 5 times, the cost of wind energy has come down.                  The cost 6 of photovoltaics has come down.              All those have an impact 7 on what might be available to replace the risks that we 8 run in operating the Columbia Generating Station.
9                  In    looking        at    the      GEIS,    and        our 10 organization, the Oregon Conservancy Foundation, we are 11 not finished in our review, but in looking at it, we find 12 that there is no seismic analysis in the GEIS.                              It 13 ignores the impact of large seismic events occurring 14 greater        than  the    reactor      design      is  capable        of 15 withstanding.        It fails to address the recent study that 16 was published in the news showing earthquakes near 17 Hanford are not as unlikely as first thought.                This study 18 was performed by Richard Blakely and his colleagues at 19 the USGS.        There should be an analysis of this and it 20 should be a part of this particular review.
21                  I am very concerned about the MOX fuel 22 issue, especially in light of what Gerry said.                      And by 23 the way, I want to thank Gerry for the lengths that he 24 went to try and enable us to be a part of this hearing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
97 1 through this inadequate phone process that we are going 2 through.
3                He raised a point that I was not aware of, 4 that apparently Energy Northwest is not supplying the 5 documents on the MOX situation or their application until 6 after the end of the comment period.              That is outrageous.
7 I would hope that the NRC would recognize what is going 8 on here and would extend the public comment period just 9 as a matter of courtesy and not only that, but as an 10 opportunity for there to be further analysis of whether 11 in fact there is information that should be a part of this 12 particular analysis that is taking place now, not some 13 amendment that takes place later.
14                As for the spent fuel and waste issues, you 15 know, the spent fuel pool in this reactor is similar to 16 what is in the Fukushima reactor, Mark I reactors and it 17 raises questions again of the kind of interaction that 18 can take place in a catastrophic event between the spent 19 fuel pool and in the other ongoing events, such as the 20 earthquake that is not being examined in this EIS.
21                Also    the    continued          operation      of      the 22 Columbia Generating Station adds to the overall backlog 23 of radioactive waste which has no final repository.                      It 24 is unconscionable for this industry to continue under NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
98 1 these circumstances and I agree with the input that was 2 provided at least by someone that I heard at the 3 beginning, I think about 45 minutes ago or so, who said 4 that in fact we should hold off on licensing renewal and 5 new license applications until that issue is resolved.
6 We agree.
7                Finally, and this came out in my question 8 during the question period regarding the GEIS examining 9 catastrophic accidents in Hanford's cleanup operation 10 affecting the Columbia Generating Station and the 11 reverse of that, the Columbia Generating Station having 12 catastrophic    events    affecting        the  Hanford    cleanup 13 operation.      You know, you would think that after 14 Fukushima we would have got the message.              I never ever 15 in the whole time that I have been involved in the NRC's 16 licensing proceedings ever heard that there would be an 17 accident like that which occurred at Fukushima.                It was 18 unheard of.      It was not even considered.                Multiple 19 plants, multiple failures.
20                I mean, it is just amazing to me.              And yet 21 here we are again.      This is not being analyzed in this 22 license renewal application EIS and it is a terrible 23 oversight. I think it is time for this industry to own 24 up to its responsibility to public health and safety.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
99 1 And I would encourage those members of the NRC that are 2 listening to my words anyway to rise to this occasion.
3 This has gone on too long and it is time for it to cease 4 and I would hope that something would be done about it.
5                And my final comment again is would you 6 please hold public hearings in communities down river 7 from the Columbia Generating Station.                We are impacted 8 by the operation of this plant.                  We have a right to 9 effectively participate, not have to go through what I 10 just went through.
11                Thank you.
12                MS. FEHST:      Thank you for your comments.
13 The next is Cathryn, I don't have her last name.
14 Cathryn.
15                Dave are you there?            Did we lose Dave?
16                (Pause.)
17                MS. FEHST:      We can give it a minute to see 18 if they come back on.        We are still connected.
19                MR. DOYLE:      The cell phone up here on the 20 podium is still connected to the line.                  We will wait 21 another couple minutes to see if something comes back but 22 we are not hearing a response from the bridge line, 23 although we are showing that we are still connected up 24 here.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
100 1                    But I just want to take a moment to emphasize 2 that this public meeting is not the only way to submit 3 comments, that as included on this slide, as described 4 in the Federal Register notice, the instructions on the 5 website and included in the first few pages of the draft 6 SEIS itself, there are several ways to submit written 7 comments either through the mail or electronically, so 8 online at regulations.gov or by fax at the number here 9 on the screen.
10                    So there are other ways to submit comments 11 than at tonight's meeting.                    The comments that are 12 received by any means are all treated the same.              They are 13 all included whether in the transcript or by letters that 14 are sent to us, they are all included in the final SEIS 15 and the NRC will provide a response in the final SEIS to 16 all those comments that we do have.
17                    Any luck on the phone line?        Dave, are you 18 there?        We can still talk.        We will wait another minute 19 or two and see if we can get this reconnected.
20                    (Pause.)
21                    DAVID:    Are we on?
22                    MS. FEHST:      Dave, is that you?      Dave, are 23 you there?
24                    MS. CHUDY:      Hello?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701    www.nealrgross.com
101 1                  MS. FEHST:          And who am I speaking to?
2 Caller, please identify yourself.                    Is this Lindsey or 3 Cathryn?
4                  DAVID:      Hello, Cathryn?
5                  MS. CHUDY:      Yes.
6                  MS. FEHST:      Okay, Cathryn, you are the next 7 caller.        Please spell your last name for the record, 8 please and please identify any organization you might be 9 affiliated with for your comment.
10                  MS. CHUDY:        Well I am a little confused 11 because I just read my statement.                  Did you not hear me?
12                  MS. FEHST:      Cathryn, it is your turn.                We 13 had some technical difficulties.                    We were not aware.
14                  MS. CHUDY:        Okay.      So, I just went ahead 15 and did my statement.            So if you didn't hear it, I will 16 do it again now.
17                  MS. FEHST:      Thank you, Cathryn and I am so 18 sorry for these technical difficulties.
19                  MS. CHUDY:          Okay.        My name is Cathryn, 20 C-A-T-H-R-Y-N, Chudy, C-H-U-D-Y.                    I live in Vancouver, 21 Washington        and  work    in    Portland,      Oregon.        I    am 22 testifying as a Washington resident and also as a Board 23 Member of the Oregon Conservancy Foundation.
24                  I appreciate the opportunity to speak but NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
102 1 I also agree with the previous caller who said that there 2 should be regional meetings where people can show up in 3 person to testify.
4                  I also would like to note that I don't 5 believe        we  can    separate      issues      of  safety      from 6 environmental impact issues.              And particularly in light 7 of the Fukushima disaster, I think they entirely related 8 and should be considered for the final decision.
9                  I believe they are realizing maybe the 10 Columbia Generating Station was a bad idea; it poses 11 risks that are far too significant to ignore or gloss 12 over.          This  plant      has    been      identified    by      the 13 industry-funded          institute        of      the  Nuclear      Power 14 Operations as one of two in the country most in need of 15 improvements in operations and "human performance."                        In 16 other words, one of the two most primary ones in the 17 country.        It has elicited heightened oversight due to a 18 trend of too many unplanned shutdowns over the past 19 several years.        Shutdowns stress the safety systems in 20 a plant that is nearing the end of its 20-year span 21 originally intended to operate.
22                  I am greatly concerned about continuing to 23 operate an aging plant that is fully run and that poses 24 hundreds of risks that have not been adequately addressed NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
103 1 in the Environmental Impact Statement draft.                The EIS 2 failed to consider the impact of risk in the proposal to 3 use plutonium fuel.            It fails to disclose and consider 4 the impact of six major safety problems that were 5 formerly reported as unresolved by NRC Staff as of 6 September 2011.          The dangerous location of the reactor 7 on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, the Environmental 8 Impact Statement must disclose and consider the impacts 9 of climate change events, fire, earthquake, explosions 10 that could lead to leaking of radiation from Hanford 11 facilities.          It failed to address the spent fuel pools 12 at risk.        It failed to address what will happen to the 13 waste.        And there has been no seismic analysis, which is 14 of particular concern in light of the Fukushima accident 15 combined with new research findings related to potential 16 seismic habits of the region.
17                    If I understand correctly, the NRC position 18 is that environmental risks exposed by Fukushima will be 19 handled through their normal regulatory process.                I find 20 this dangerously ironic, in light of the Associated 21 Press's investigative report published in June of this 22 year that federal regulators have been repeatedly 23 weakening safety standards or simply failing to enforce 24 them in order to keep aging reactors operating within NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701  www.nealrgross.com
104 1 "safety standards."          This is simply unacceptable, given 2 the NRC's charge to ensure adequate protection of public 3 health and safety.
4                  If the NRC truly intends on ensuring the 5 adequate protection of public health and safety, it 6 should deny this license renewal and apply the money that 7 would        be spent  on    operating      safety    to  invest        in 8 conservation and renewable energy sources to replace the 9 power of this reactor.            Thank you.
10                  MS. FEHST:      Thank you for your comment and 11 thank you for your willingness to give your statement a 12 second time.
13                  Mr. Panfilio would be next.            Mr. Panfilio, 14 could you identify yourself by name and also by any 15 organization you might be affiliated with pertaining to 16 your comment?
17                  MR. PANFILIO:          It    is  Madya  Panfilio, 18 M-A-D-Y-A, P, as in Paul, A-N, F as in Frank, I-L-I-O, 19 from Vancouver, Washington and a private citizen.
20                  For the citizens of the Northwest, owners 21 of the Columbia Generating Station, and the world, 22 Fukushima is a wake-up call to the world as to the 23 dangerous world we have created.                  And now we must take 24 responsibility for the arcane nuclear energy causing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
105 1 global climate change.        It is time to get to the truth 2 of how gravely dangerous the chemicals are.              More public 3 hearings are extremely important.
4                To say that nuclear energy is clean is to 5 say that drinking poison is healthy.              Hearts must be open 6 for the courage to do good for the earth in order for us 7 to have good health, long lives, prosperity, and leave 8 a legacy of well-being for future generations.
9                Thank you.
10                MS. FEHST:      Thank you for your comment.
11                Dave, do we have anyone else on the line who 12 is prepared to make a comment?
13                DAVID:    Currently at this time, there are 14 just the parties that you had mentioned already asked 15 their questions; Nancy Morris, Rachel Stierling, Carolyn 16 Mann, Cathryn Chudy, and Madya is the only party left on 17 the call.
18                MS. FEHST:      Okay, there isn't a Lindsey on 19 the line waiting to make a comment?
20                (Pause.)
21                MS. FEHST:          And    maybe      while  you      are 22 checking that, we have another audience member who would 23 like to make a comment.        Ed May.
24                And we will get back to the line one more NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
106 1 time after this comment.
2                  MR. MAY:    I hope I don't speak too loud.            My 3 name is Ed May.      I am a union ironworker.          I really just 4 have a few brief comments.          Having built nuclear plants, 5 worked in coal-fired plants and built them, and worked 6 in and built refineries, there is no easy way for me to 7 say this.      I feel much safer working in a nuke plant than 8 I did at the previous two.              Thank you.
9                  MS. FEHST:      Thank you for your comment.
10                  Dave on the line, is there any other caller 11 who would like to make a comment at tonight's meeting?
12                  DAVID:    Apparently at this time I can open 13 up the lines if you would like me to.
14                  MS. FEHST:      Let's do that.      Let's take that 15 chance and see if there is anyone remaining who would like 16 to make a comment.
17                  DAVID:    The lines are open.
18                  MS. MORRIS:      This is Nancy Morris.        Can you 19 hear me?
20                  MS. FEHST:      Yes, Nancy, we can hear you.            I 21 believe you made a comment earlier or asked a question.
22                  MS. MORRIS:      Given the fact that you asked 23 for questions in the beginning for clarification, --
24                  MS. FEHST:      Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701      www.nealrgross.com
107 1                  MS. MORRIS:        -- I made no comments.                  I 2 asked a question.
3                  MS. FEHST:        Excellent.          Okay. Yes, we 4 have you down for questions and now it is your time to 5 make your comment.        Please go ahead.
6                  MS. MORRIS:        You said to wait to make a 7 comment when it was over.
8                  MS. FEHST:      Yes, that's fine.            Thank you.
9                  MS. MORRIS:        Anyway, I wanted to make a 10 comment that -- Is it okay to go ahead?
11                  MS. FEHST:          Yes.          Please  make      your 12 comment.      Go ahead.      It is your turn.            Please make a 13 comment.
14                  MS. MORRIS:      Yes, this is Nancy Morris.                I 15 wanted to comment, first of all, I agree with Gerry Pollet 16 and I agree with the two previous women who made comments 17 so I won't try to belabor what they said.                  They said it 18 very, very well.
19                  But I wanted to add that I think it is very 20 disconcerting to have our PUD use the Columbia Generating 21 Station to use nuclear power and also in one case denying 22 documents that are necessary for further clarification 23 on types of hardened casks for the spent fuel waste.
24                  I also find that the use of clean power is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
108 1 a form of propaganda literally and also anyone who says 2 nuclear power is safe has continually ignored all of the 3 dangers.      Essentially that is what is happening.
4                  And if you continually, if the industry 5 continually        ignores      long-term          health    effects        or 6 long-term environmental impacts when they are assessing 7 safety standards, then anyone can say anything is safe.
8                  And quite frankly, given the way these type 9 of reviews are going and the way the industry is observing 10 itself in terms of always these low-level dangers.                            I 11 think not that the licensee system should be completely 12 reviewed      and  have    different        and    higher    standards 13 instigated.        That would certainly allow them to compare 14 Fukushima and what happened there.
15                  And    also,      too,      again,      too,  actually 16 recognize all the standards that have been improved in 17 terms of wind energy and solar energy to incorporate that 18 in terms of cost of what it would be to have those over 19 the next 20 years versus having the safety standards 20 improved at this plant is very unsafe.                  And I really feel 21 insulted      when    we    have      a  power      analyst    or      any 22 representative who would continually use the term of 23 nuclear clean power waste in a world of scientist who 24 completely disagree if this were a physicist forum.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
109 1                  Thank you.
2                  MS. FEHST:      Thank you for your comment and 3 your patience.      Do we have any other callers who would 4 like to make a comment tonight?
5                  MS. STIERLING:        This is Rachel Stierling 6 from Heart of America Northwest and I would like to 7 follow-up a little bit on what Nancy had to say and say 8 that I am just as shocked as she is.                And that if we can 9 all sit by and let regulatory commissions sort of to 10 perceive things that we already know are common sense, 11 I think we are, gosh, we are giving this by extension to 12 our      children. And    maybe      it    is  the  tree-hugger 13 philosophy, maybe it's not but it is bullshit and we all 14 know what it is, to be frank.              I hear a giggle in the 15 background but you know what I mean.                  It is ridiculous 16 that we sit around and look at this and in light of what 17 we have seen in the last couple of months, we don't 18 actually have some sort of balance on this and really 19 start to look at it in terms of what it means for our 20 future generations, even when my grandchildren.                      It is 21 either our grandchildren or either our kids.                      We are 22 irresponsible if we are not doing better than that and 23 we should be.
24                  So that is all I am going to have to say about NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
110 1 that.
2                MS. FEHST:      Thank you for your comment.              Is 3 there anyone else on the line who would like to add to 4 a comment or make an initial comment?
5                (Pause.)
6                MS. FEHST:      I'll take that as a no.        I think 7 we are finished with the callers.                Dave, are you there?
8                DAVID:    Yes, I am.
9                MS. FEHST:      Okay.      I just wanted to make 10 sure we hadn't lost the line.            It sounds like there are 11 no further callers who are interested in making a comment 12 tonight.
13                Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience 14 who would like to make a comment or add to a comment before 15 we close the meeting for tonight?
16                Yes, okay.      So Gerry Pollet would like to.
17 Come on up to the podium, please.
18                MR. POLLET:        Gerry Pollet with Heart of 19 America Northwest.        I cut myself short because I wanted 20 to let other people go.        Again, thank you for the Staff's 21 patience.      You have been remarkably patient with the 22 technical problems.        I really appreciate it.
23                The safety issues that need to be disclosed 24 and discussed include mitigation for this reactor of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
111 1 effects of Hanford accidents and the ability to recover 2 from an accident.        For instance, we all know in light of 3 Fukushima, or we should know that being able to restore 4 power is a rather critical function.                    The impact of a 5 release at Hanford could very easily preclude the 6 restoration of power to the reactor and that this EIS also 7 needs to examine the question of what happens when there 8 are multiple failures.            CGS is not going to be the only 9 facility      at  Hanford      in    the    event    of  a    serious 10 design-basis earthquakes or some other accident that 11 requires restoration of power on an urgent basis.                    There 12 aren't enough linemen available to bring that power in.
13 If there is a take cover on the Hanford site, who is going 14 to being in diesel fuel or lay in lines?
15                  And  if    the    fuel    pool    for  cesium        and 16 strontium      or  another      facility        has  potential        for 17 criticality at the same time, or there is a tank rupture 18 and release or aligned leak and release, we need to 19 consider how in the world we are going to mitigate that 20 and restore functionality at this reactor at the same 21 time.
22                  And it is with great dismay I have to say 23 to read in the EIS that based on NRC's incredibly lax 24 rules, restoration of power, even after the Staff NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
112 1 identified it as a concern and suggested being able to 2 survive without power for ten hours instead of seven and 3 five,        that  was    rejected      by    the      applicant,    Energy 4 Northwest, and the NRC accepts the rejection of that as 5 "not being cost-effective."                That is ridiculous.
6                    The notion that restoration of power having 7 to wait ten hours instead of seven hours can be rejected 8 on the basis of saying that we have done a cost-benefit 9 analysis and the cost doesn't justify being able to do 10 that.        The same with being able to have effective diesel 11 backup.
12                    I just really felt that it is very important 13 that we look at what the interrelationships are on the 14 Hanford site.        This is the only commercial reactor in the 15 entire country located in frankly what is the stupidest 16 possible location.          It is on the river for cooling water.
17 We all know that.          Back in the 1970s, it was free land, 18 the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.                        Let's build five 19 reactors here.          But it was a stupid idea.              And at the 20 time in the '70s, no one really knew what was going on 21 at Hanford and what the risks were.                      The public didn't 22 know.        The utility districts that comprised WPPSS didn't 23 know what the risks were from high level nuclear waste 24 tanks at that time from other nuclear facilities.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
113 1                    Now we know.        And it is not wise to ignore 2 it.      Thank you.
3                    MS. FEHST:        Thank you for your comment.
4 Does anyone else have anything to add?                      Any final 5 comment?        Any new comment?
6                    If not, we will adjourn the meeting and 7 close it for now.        And I really want to thank you for your 8 patience throughout all these technical difficulties.
9 I want to really thank you for your respectful listening 10 to all the participants, both the callers and your fellow 11 audience members and I want to remind you of what Dan said 12 earlier.          There  are    many    different  ways  to    make 13 comments.        Public participation at this meeting is not 14 the only one.          Written comments are received by email, 15 by snail mail, by fax.            And we do take into account every 16 single comment, every single substantive comment that we 17 receive.        And we do hope that we hear from you.
18                    And once again, I really want to thank you 19 for your attention and your attendance.                  And thank you 20 again.        Good night.
21                    (Whereupon, at 9:53 p.m., the foregoing 22 proceeding was adjourned.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701      www.nealrgross.com}}

Latest revision as of 14:17, 12 November 2019

Transcript of Columbia Generating Station License Renewal Public Meeting, Evening Session, 09/27/2011, Pages 1-113
ML112910229
Person / Time
Site: Columbia Energy Northwest icon.png
Issue date: 09/27/2011
From:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Doyle D, NRR/DLR, 415-3748
References
TAC ME3121, NRC-1157
Download: ML112910229 (114)
v • d • e


Text

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Title: Columbia Generating Station License Renewal Public Meeting: Evening Session Docket Number: 50-397 Location: Richland, Washington Date: September 27, 2011 Work Order No.: NRC-1157 Pages 1-113 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.

Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +

4 PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS DRAFT SUPPLEMENT 47 5 TO THE GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 6 FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR PLANTS FOR 7 COLUMBIA GENERATING STATION 8 + + + + +

9 TUESDAY 10 SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 11 + + + + +

12 RICHLAND, WASHINGTON 13 + + + + +

14 The Public Meeting convened at the Red Lion 15 Hotel, 802 George Washington Way, Richland, Washington, 16 at 7:00 p.m., Geraldine Fehst, Facilitator, presiding.

17 PRESENT:

18 GERALDINE FEHST, Facilitator 19 DANIEL DOYLE, Environmental Project Manager 20 LARA USELDING, Public Affairs, Region IV 21 MICHAEL WENTZEL, NRR 22 DAVID WRONA, Branch Chief 23 JEREMY GROOM, Senior Resident Inspector 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

2 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 Welcome 4 Geraldine Fehst..................... 3 5 Introductions 6 Geraldine Fehst..................... 10 7 Results of NRC's Environmental Review 8 of the Columbia Generating Station's 9 License Renewal Application 10 Daniel Doyle, NRC Project Manager... 12 11 Clarifying Questions and Answers.......... 24 12 Public Comments........................... 65 13 Adjourn................................... 113 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

3 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 (7:00 p.m.)

3 MS. FEHST: Okay. Can you hear me 4 everyone? I want to thank everyone who has returned for 5 coming back and welcome all of you who are here for you 6 for the first meeting of the day. My name is Gerri Fehst 7 and I am a communications specialist with the U.S.

8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission or NRC as we call it. And 9 as you will hear it referenced throughout tonight's 10 meeting.

11 I am going to do my best to help make the 12 meeting worthwhile for everyone. And I hope that you 13 will be able to help me out with that.

14 There are two purposes for today's events.

15 The first is two present the results of the NRC's 16 environmental review for the Columbia Generating 17 Station, the license renewal application, as published 18 in the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 19 or SEIS, which was published August 23rd of this year.

20 And the second purpose of the meeting is to 21 open it up to provide the opportunity for you as members 22 of the public, both those of you who are here and those 23 callers who we have on the line listening to us now and 24 also with the goal of making some comments later in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

4 1 program. That is the focus of the second part of the 2 meeting, is to open it for public comment.

3 So I would like to stress that this is an 4 NRC public meeting and that NRC is not a part of the United 5 States Department of Energy or DOE as it is commonly 6 called. The mission of the NRC is to regulate the 7 nation's civilian use of byproduct source and special 8 nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of 9 public health and safety, to promote the common defense 10 and security, and to protect the environment.

11 Essentially that means that the NRC's regulatory mission 12 covers three main areas: commercial reactors for 13 generating electric power and research and test reactors 14 used for research and training; uses of nuclear materials 15 in medical, industrial, and academic settings and 16 facilities that produce nuclear fuel; transportation, 17 storage and disposal of nuclear materials and waste, and 18 decommissioning of nuclear facilities from service.

19 In contrast, the Department of Energy's 20 main mission is to advance the national economic and 21 energy security of the United States, to promote 22 scientific and technological innovation in support of 23 that mission, and to ensure that the environmental 24 cleanup of the national nuclear weapons complex.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

5 1 So today's meeting is just one of the ways 2 you can participate in the process and you will be hearing 3 more about that later.

4 First we will hear a presentation from 5 Daniel Doyle, the NRC project manager. He will talk 6 about the results of the environmental review of the 7 Columbia Generating Station's license renewal 8 application. The presentation will be short, 9 relatively short, to allow as much time as possible to 10 receive public comment.

11 And when you walked in the door there was 12 a table and you were asked to sign in. And there were 13 also yellow and blue cards there. The yellow cards you 14 were asked to fill in if you were planning to make a 15 comment at today's meeting and the blue card is for those 16 who only want to be sure to receive in the mail a copy 17 of the final SEIS or Supplemental Environmental Impact 18 Statement.

19 I hate when people talk in acronyms all the 20 time and the government does it all the time. I will try 21 to keep saying it out loud but I may slip back into SEIS 22 and SEIS is what we are here to discuss.

23 So, if you haven't filled out a card yet, 24 either blue or yellow, I ask you to do so now. I mean, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

6 1 while I am mentioning it, if you could just head back to 2 the table and fill out one or the other. And we ask that 3 we fill out the cards because we want to be sure that we 4 have an accurate and complete record of all those who 5 attended today's meeting, both this afternoon and 6 tonight.

7 We want to have a good list but we also want 8 to make sure that we have your name spelled correctly on 9 the transcript. We are creating a record of today's 10 events and conversation and discussion. It is the best 11 way we know to collect all the information you present 12 in your comments so that once we get back to the NRC we 13 can gather up all the data collected and respond to all 14 the substantive comments that are made.

15 We are transcribing not only to make sure 16 we fully capture your comments but we also want to -- and 17 because we are doing it we do want to have a clan 18 transcript. So there are a couple of things I am going 19 to ask you to do when you come to the microphone to make 20 your presentation.

21 The first is when you come up, if you could 22 remember to state both your first and your last name and 23 spell each for the reporter. And also if you are 24 representing an organization, it would be good if you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

7 1 would then also identify the organization you are 2 speaking on behalf of.

3 And we ask, too, that you keep any side 4 conversations to a minimum so that we have only one person 5 speaking at a time. A few, perhaps no, distractions and 6 we can all focus on the speaker at the podium or the caller 7 who is making a comment.

8 It would also help, again, to prepare a 9 clean transcript if anyone here who has any electronic 10 device, if you could turn it off or at least put it on 11 vibrate so we will keep interruptions to a minimum.

12 We are going to do our best to answer any 13 questions that might come up today but we ask you to keep 14 in mind that there is a very small NRC Staff here today.

15 And we may not have the right NRC expert who can best 16 answer, best address whatever your particular concern or 17 question is.

18 So what we would ask, you know, is that if 19 you do have such questions, that you perhaps would take 20 it up with the staff member on the side or know that if 21 we are not able to address your question at this time, 22 we will record it, we will have it and take it back to 23 headquarters with us and someone will get back to you with 24 a response.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

8 1 One of the things we are hoping that you 2 picked up at the table in the front is the feedback form.

3 We are asking those of you who are here attending to fill 4 it out and give us your comments about what you think went 5 well, what you think we can do better. We really do read 6 them. We really do try to respond to those as well by 7 making each meeting that we have, each subsequent meeting 8 better than the one before. So we would really 9 appreciate hearing your feedback. So please don't 10 hesitate to fill out that form.

11 A couple of housekeeping items before we get 12 going. The restrooms are directly outside the door that 13 you entered, down the hall to the right, and take the 14 first and only left that you can take. Then the 15 restrooms are on the right. So it is right, left, right.

16 Emergency exits. There are three doors in 17 this room that you could leave from; the one that we all 18 came in on, the two side doors here. This door is a door 19 to the kitchen so it is not an exit door.

20 As I mentioned, we will be taking comments 21 not only from you as audience members but we also have 22 callers on the line. And in fact we have a number of 23 callers. I think we heard from about 17 callers that we 24 have a record of. We have their names already.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

9 1 And at the moment, we have more requests for 2 comments from callers than we do from people in the 3 audience. So we will have to keep that in mind. We will 4 try to mix it up so it isn't all one or the other but just 5 so you know that the callers at the moment are 6 outnumbering the audience members for interest in making 7 a comment.

8 When we do start to take the callers in the 9 public comment period in the second part of the meeting, 10 once we do begin I will ask if there are any callers that 11 we haven't heard from and likewise, any audience members 12 that we haven't heard from.

13 So if in the course of the meeting you have 14 an interest in, develop an interest in making a comment 15 and hadn't planned on doing so, it won't be too late. You 16 know, you can always go fill out a card and get it to me.

17 Or at the very end if I ask if anyone has any further 18 comments and you haven't filled out a card and you want 19 to speak to make a comment, please let me know and we will 20 make time for that.

21 One of the things that I want the callers 22 to be aware of is that all callers are now in the listening 23 mode controlled by the moderator who is handling that.

24 And the lines stay in that mode until we go to the public NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

10 1 comment period. And then they will be opened and the 2 callers will be able to communicate over the line in that 3 way. But don't worry if you are not -- You will be able 4 to hear everything that is going on but you won't be able 5 to speak and be heard with us until the public comment 6 period begins.

7 And a final thing for callers is if you want 8 a copy of the final SEIS to be mailed to you, please send 9 an email to Daniel Doyle at the NRC to make sure that he 10 has your proper mailing address so you will be sure to 11 get that when it comes out. And his email address is 12 daniel.doyle@nrc.gov. His address is also listed in the 13 Federal Register notice and it is on the web. So a couple 14 different places you can check for it to make sure you 15 get your proper mailing address to him.

16 Okay. I wanted to take a moment to 17 introduce some of the NRC Staff in attendance today. And 18 I will ask them to stand and identify themselves to you.

19 The first is David Wrona. He is the Branch Chief for the 20 Division of License Renewal at the NRC.

21 Daniel Doyle. Dan is the Environmental 22 Project Manager for Columbia Division of License Renewal 23 NRC.

24 Sitting at the table at the back where you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

11 1 filled out the card is Michael Wentzel, Environmental 2 Project Manager, Division of License Renewal, NRC.

3 Lara Uselding, standing at the back, she is 4 our Senior Public Affairs Officer from NRC Region IV in 5 Texas.

6 And Jeremy Groom. Jeremy is the Senior 7 Resident Inspector at Columbia.

8 And while I am doing introductions, I wanted 9 to call out another welcome to a few representatives we 10 have here. Again, Barbara Lisk from the U.S.

11 Congressman Hastings's office. If you could stand or 12 let us know who you are. Good. And Daniel Reeploeg, 13 U.S. Senator Cantwell's Office. Both back. You had so 14 much fun this afternoon you had to come back this evening.

15 Okay. With that, all of this, I will hand 16 things over to Dan Doyle and he will make the presentation 17 on the results of the Environmental Review and we will 18 talk a little bit about the process for submitting 19 comments. And he will ask for questions. Your 20 questions, at the end of his presentation he will ask you 21 if you have any questions on his presentation. And I 22 will have a mic in the back and I'll be walking around 23 with it. And I will try to take your questions in the 24 order that I see your hands.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

12 1 And we ask that you confine the questions 2 on the presentation, what Dan has actually said in his 3 presentation. Save your comments, your actual comments 4 on the draft SEIS to the second part of the meeting, which 5 will immediately follow the clarifying questions on 6 Dan's presentation.

7 Thank you.

8 MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Gerri. Good 9 evening. My name again is Daniel Doyle. I am the 10 Project Manager at the NRC responsible for coordinating 11 all environmental-related activities for the Columbia 12 Generating Station License Renewal Application.

13 On August 23rd, the NRC published its draft 14 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement or draft 15 SEIS related to the Columbia Generating Station license 16 renewal application. We have hard copies in the back of 17 the room there. And I would like to encourage you to take 18 a copy if you want one or if you want to take multiple 19 copies, that's okay, too. We have more underneath the 20 table than what you can see there. So please do not 21 hesitate to take multiple hard copies.

22 We also have copies on CD. And the CD 23 includes the file for this document right when you open 24 it up and then also there is a separate folder with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

13 1 background documents, including the application and 2 other information documents from the NRC on that CD.

3 The draft SEIS documents the NRC's 4 preliminary review of the Environmental Impacts 5 associated with renewing the Columbia Generating Station 6 operating license for an additional 20 years. And today 7 I am going to present to you those results. I hope that 8 the information provided will help you understand what 9 we have done so far and the role you can play in helping 10 us make sure that the final Supplemental Environmental 11 Impact Statement is accurate and complete.

12 Here is the agenda for today's meeting. I 13 will discuss the NRC's regulatory role, the preliminary 14 findings of our environmental review, including the 15 power generation alternatives that were considered and 16 I will present the current schedule for the remainder of 17 the environmental review and how you can submit comments 18 after this meeting.

19 After that, I will take some time to briefly 20 discuss a topic that is not related to the environmental 21 review but is of interest to those in attendance, the 22 NRC's response to Fukushima.

23 At the end of the presentation, there will 24 be time for questions and answers on the environmental NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

14 1 review process and most importantly, time for you to 2 present your comments on the draft SEIS.

3 The NRC was established to regulate the 4 civilian uses of nuclear materials, including facilities 5 that produce electric power. The NRC conducts license 6 renewal reviews for plants whose owners wish to operate 7 them beyond their initial license period. NRC license 8 renewal reviews address safety issues related to 9 managing the effects of aging and environmental issues 10 related to an additional 20 years of operation. In all 11 aspects of the NRC's regulation, the agency's mission is 12 to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety 13 to promote the common defense and security and to protect 14 the environment.

15 We are here today to discuss the potential 16 site specific impacts of license renewal at Columbia 17 Generating Station. The Generic Environmental Impact 18 Statement or GEIS examines the possible environmental 19 impacts that could occur as a result of renewing licenses 20 of individual nuclear power plants under 10 C.F.R. Part 21 54. The GEIS, to the extent possible, establishes the 22 bounds and significance of these potential impacts. The 23 analyses in the GEIS encompass all operating light water 24 power reactors. For each type of environmental impact, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

15 1 the GEIS attempts to establish generic findings covering 2 as many plants as possible. For some environmental 3 issues, the GEIS found that a generic evaluation was not 4 sufficient and that a plant-specific analysis was 5 required.

6 The site-specific findings for Columbia 7 Generating Station are contained in the draft 8 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. And 9 again, that was published in August 23rd of this year.

10 This document contains analyses of all applicable 11 site-specific issues, as well as a review of issues 12 covered in the GEIS to determine whether the conclusions 13 in the GEIS are valid for Columbia Generating Station.

14 In this process, the NRC's Staff also reviews the 15 environmental impacts of potential power generation 16 alternatives to license renewals, to determine whether 17 the impacts expected from license renewal are 18 unreasonable.

19 For each environmental issue identified, an 20 impact level is assigned. The NRC's standard of 21 significance for impacts was established using the White 22 House Council on Environmental Quality terminology for 23 significance. The NRC established three levels of 24 significance for potential impacts, small, moderate, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

16 1 large. For a small impact, the effects are not 2 detectable or are so minor that they will neither 3 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute 4 of the resource. For a moderate impact, the effects are 5 sufficient to noticeably later but not to destabilize 6 important attributes of the resource. And for a large 7 impact, the effects are clearly noticeable and are 8 sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the 9 resource.

10 This wide list of site-specific issues NRC 11 Staff reviewed for the continued operation of Columbia 12 Generating Station during the proposed license renewal 13 period, the section of the draft SEIS addressing each of 14 these issues is also shown here. And as discussed in the 15 previous slide, each issue is assigned a level of 16 environmental impact of small, moderate, or large by the 17 environmental reviewers.

18 The Staff's preliminary conclusion is that 19 the site-specific impacts related to license renewal for 20 each of these issues is small.

21 When reviewing the potential impacts of 22 license renewal on the environment, the NRC also looks 23 at the effects on the environment from other past, 24 present, and reasonably foreseeable future human NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

17 1 actions. These effects referred to as cumulative 2 impacts not only include the operation of Columbia 3 Generating Station but also impacts from activities 4 unrelated to the plant, such as the radioactive waste 5 disposal and tank waste stabilization and closure at 6 Hanford, the proposed reduction of the Hanford site 7 footprint, cleanup of radioactive waste burial grounds 8 618-10 and 618-11, proposed construction of new energy 9 projects and climate change.

10 Past actions are those related to the 11 resources before the receipt of the license renewal 12 application. Present actions are those related to the 13 resources at the time of current operation of the plant 14 and future actions are those that are reasonably 15 foreseeable through the end of plant operations, 16 including the period of extended operation. Therefore, 17 the analysis considers potential impacts through the end 18 of the current license term, as well as the 20-year 19 renewal term.

20 For water resources, the NRC preliminarily 21 concluded that there are small to large cumulative 22 impacts due to DOE activities at Hanford, depending on 23 the location. For aquatic resources, impacts are large 24 due to past alterations of aquatic habitat and fish NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

18 1 passage along the Columbia River.

2 For cultural resources, ongoing 3 construction restoration and waste management 4 activities on the Hanford site have the potential to 5 significantly affect cultural resources, particularly 6 within the viewshed of Gable and Rattlesnake Mountains.

7 Therefore, the cumulative impacts would be moderate. In 8 the other areas considered, the Staff preliminarily 9 concluded that cumulative impacts are small.

10 The National Environmental Policy Act 11 mandates that each environmental impact statement 12 consider alternatives to any proposed major federal 13 action. A major step in determining whether license 14 renewal is reasonable or not is comparing the likely 15 impacts of continued operation of the nuclear power plant 16 with the likely impacts of alternative means of power 17 generation. Alternatives must provide an option that 18 allows for power generation capability beyond the term 19 of the current nuclear power plant operation license to 20 meet future system generating needs.

21 In the draft SEIS the NRC initially 22 considered 18 different alternatives. After this 23 initial consideration, the Staff then chose the three 24 most likely and analyzed these in depth. Finally, the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

19 1 NRC considered what would happen if no action is taken 2 and Columbia Generating Station shuts down at the end of 3 its current license without a specific replacement 4 alternative. This alternative would not provide power 5 generation capacity, nor would it meet the needs 6 currently met by Columbia Generating Station. The NRC's 7 preliminary conclusion is that the impacts from energy 8 alternatives would vary widely based on the 9 characteristics of the alternatives. In most cases, 10 construction of new facilities would create significant 11 impacts. All alternatives capable of meeting the needs 12 currently served by Columbia Generating Station entail 13 impacts greater than or equal to the proposed action of 14 license renewal.

15 Based on a review of the potential 16 environmental impacts from license renewals and 17 alternatives to license renewal, the NRC's Staff's 18 preliminary recommendation in the draft SEIS is that the 19 adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for 20 Columbia Generating Station are not great enough to deny 21 the option of license renewal for energy-planning 22 decisionmakers.

23 I would like to emphasize that the 24 environmental review is not yet complete. Your comments NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

20 1 today and all written comments received by the end of the 2 comment period on November 16th, will be considered by 3 the NRC as we develop the final SEIS, which we currently 4 plan to issue in February 2012.

5 Those comments that are within the scope of 6 the environmental review and provide new and significant 7 information can help to change the Staff's findings.

8 The final SEIS will contain the Staff's final 9 recommendation on the acceptability of license renewal 10 based on the work we have already performed and the 11 comments we received during the comment period.

12 I am the primary contact for the 13 environmental review. The contact for the safety review 14 is Arthur Cunanan. Hard copies of the draft SEIS are 15 available at the table in the back of the room, as are 16 copies on CD. In addition, the Richland Public Library 17 and Kennewick Branch Library have agreed to make hard 18 copies available for review. You can also find 19 electronic copies of the draft SEIS, along with other 20 information about the Columbia Generating Station 21 license renewal review online on the website on this 22 slide as well as in the handout.

23 The NRC will address written comments in the 24 same way we address spoken comments received today and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

21 1 recorded in the transcript. You can submit written 2 comments either via conventional mail, fax, or online.

3 To submit written comments online, please visit the 4 website regulations.gov and search for keyword or ID 5 NRC-2010-0029. If you have written comments this 6 evening, you may give them to any NRC Staff member.

7 Again, to ensure consideration, comments must be 8 received by Wednesday, November 16, 2011.

9 Before we open up the meeting for questions 10 and comments, I would like to take some time to briefly 11 discuss a topic that is of many of you, the NRC's response 12 to Fukushima. While this issue is not related to the 13 Columbia Generating Station Environmental Review and is 14 therefore not specifically addressed in the draft SEIS, 15 it is being actively addressed through other relevant 16 agency processes.

17 Since the accident at Fukushima, the NRC has 18 taken multiple steps to ensure the safe operation of 19 nuclear power plants both now and in the future. As part 20 of its initial response to the accident, the NRC issued 21 temporary instructions to our inspectors directing 22 specific instructions directing specific inspections of 23 nuclear power plants in order to assess disaster 24 readiness and compliance with current regulations.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

22 1 The next step in the NRC's response was the 2 report of the NRC's Near-Term Task Force. The purpose 3 of the Near-Term Task Force was to develop near-term 4 recommendations and suggest a framework for us to move 5 forward with in the longer term. The Near-Term Task 6 Force issues its report on July 12th and discussed the 7 results of its review in a public meeting on July 28th.

8 This is a copy of the Task Force recommendations. There 9 are copies in the back of the room and it is also available 10 on the website, nrc.gov. There is a link Japan follow-up 11 actions on the main page and the direct link is also in 12 the handout which I provided.

13 As a result of its review, the Near-Term 14 Task Force presented 12 overarching recommendations for 15 improvement. These recommendations are applicable to 16 operating reactors regardless of license renewal status.

17 Based on the results of the Near-Term Task 18 Force, the Commission has directed the NRC Staff to 19 evaluate and outline which of the recommendations should 20 be implemented. The Staff submitted a paper to the 21 Commission on September 9th providing the Staff's 22 recommendations on which Task Force recommendations can, 23 in the Staff's judgment, should be initiated in part or 24 in whole without delay.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

23 1 On October 3, 2011, the staff will submit 2 another Commission paper on the prioritization of 11 of 3 the 12 Task Force recommendations. Recommendation one 4 of the Task Force, the recommendation to reevaluate the 5 NRC's regulatory framework, will be evaluated over the 6 next 18 months.

7 To date, the NRC has not identified any 8 issues as part of these activities that call into 9 question the safety of any nuclear facility.

10 Additionally, this review process is going on 11 independent of license renewal. Any changes that are 12 identified as necessary will be implemented for all 13 licensees, regardless of license renewal status.

14 For information on the NRC's post-Fukushima 15 activities, including the result of the Near-Term Task 16 Force can be found on the NRC's website by clicking on 17 Japan Nuclear Accident NRC Actions on the home page or 18 directly through the website on this slide.

19 That concludes my prepared remarks.

20 Before moving into receiving your comments, we would like 21 to give you an opportunity to ask questions about the 22 presentation. If you have a question, please raise your 23 hand and please wait the facilitator, Gerri, to bring the 24 microphone to you so we can ensure to get your question NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

24 1 on the transcript. I will check in the room here and then 2 I will also open it up to the phone to see if there are 3 any questions. Are there any clarifying questions here 4 in the room?

5 MR. POLLET: Gerry Pollet with Heart of 6 America Northwest. I have three questions. The first 7 is in regard to your comments about Fukushima and the 8 words you used were consideration of response to 9 Fukushima is "not related."

10 Aren't we here to give comments and for you 11 to respond to concerns about how consideration of safety 12 issues raised by Fukushima may be related to safety, 13 including site-specific issues for the Columbia 14 Generating Station that have never been considered in any 15 other EIS?

16 MR. DOYLE: The purpose of this meeting is 17 to collect comments related to the environmental review.

18 So certainly the comments that would be within the scope 19 of this review would be comments related to environmental 20 issues associated with license renewal.

21 Another --

22 MR. POLLET: Human health is the 23 environment, too, under NEPA and so I am concerned that 24 whether you are in the room or on the phone, people are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

25 1 going to have the impression we can't talk about this.

2 But if the concern of someone is, for instance, Fukushima 3 showed that we have not considered full range of 4 accidents involving spent fuel pools sitting above 5 reactor vessels, which is the condition here at this 6 reactor, then that is a potential serious environmental 7 impact to be addressed. Wouldn't that fit within the 8 scope of what people should be commenting on?

9 MR. DOYLE: We certainly understand, and 10 that is part of the reason why we included the slide in 11 here, that people are very concerned about that. We are 12 very concerned about it and the NRC is taking follow-up 13 actions on it. It is being handled as a generic issue 14 but I do want to be clear to acknowledge that we are here 15 to accept the comments that people have. We are here to 16 accept comments that members of the public may have. We 17 will consider those comments and if it is determined that 18 they were within the scope and related to the review, then 19 we will respond to those comments. So certainly we can 20 accept comments and concerns that people may have and how 21 they believe that it relates to the environmental review.

22 So I don't want to make it sound like you 23 can't talk about Fukushima but you can certainly provide 24 comments on issues that you believe should be considered NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

26 1 as part of this review. That is why we are here.

2 MR. POLLET: I really appreciate your 3 clarifying that for people who are listening. I suppose 4 we should check if people on the phone can actually hear 5 us, since during the afternoon session they couldn't hear 6 this. Can we double check?

7 MR. DOYLE: There was an issue with the 8 previous meeting and we did determine what the cause of 9 that was. The line got disconnected. And we also have 10 a moderator on the line that hopefully would be able to 11 get some feedback if the signal was not coming through.

12 So it is not just a one-way thing. We did check it out 13 prior to starting the meeting.

14 MR. POLLET: I want to thank you for making 15 that available and thanks for the thumbs up back there.

16 The second question I have is in regard to 17 you refer to the generic EIS. Is this the 1996 EIS?

18 MR. DOYLE: Yes.

19 MR. POLLET: Okay. And has it been updated 20 to include such information as the findings about the 21 proposed disposal of greater than Class C, which is 22 extremely radioactive waste from decommissioning 23 reactors, in the Energy Department's EIS? Is the NRC 24 referring to linking to and updating in this process, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

27 1 based on the environmental impact statement which has 2 dramatically different impact, especially for the 3 Hanford site from disposal of greater than Class C waste 4 never before discussed?

5 The greater than Class C EIS discusses that 6 the Energy Department is proposing to dispose of this 7 extremely radioactive waste and one of the locations you 8 are looking at is Hanford, and that disposal in boreholes 9 or in landfills at Hanford would have severe impacts on 10 groundwater and human health. And I looked through the 11 references in here and I haven't found it, and I am 12 wondering if the NRC is updating or referring to, linking 13 to using that information.

14 MR. DOYLE: So the question of updating the 15 generic EIS that the NRC is going through the final steps, 16 you could say, of updating the generic EIS. So that is 17 a separate process and that has not been incorporated in 18 this review. So is the generic EIS being updated? The 19 answer is yes, the Staff is doing that. And I forget the 20 latest schedule for doing that but will come out but that 21 would affect other license renewals reviews, not this 22 one. So it is being updated.

23 Just to explain a little bit of the process, 24 though, for the environmental issues in the generic EIS, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

28 1 they are determined to be Category 1 or Category 2 issues.

2 Category 1 refers to the generic issues; the ones that 3 the NRC believes apply to some or all nuclear power plants 4 with similar characteristics. So what we have done in 5 the last two years or since this application came in, was 6 we were focusing on the site-specific issues, the 7 Category 2 ones, but we also look at the Category 1 issues 8 to see if they are still applicable here. So that is how 9 that would be covered there. For new information that 10 will come up, the NRC staff looks at this generic 11 determination for 1996 and says does this still make 12 sense? Does this still apply based on the information 13 that we are aware of for this review? So procedurally, 14 that is how the Staff would incorporate new information 15 such as that.

16 Now specifically with the greater than 17 Class C, I can't answer that question right now. I'm not 18 the best person to talk about that but I could certainly 19 take that as a comment and get back to you. I'm not sure 20 if that is referenced in our document or how that would 21 be addressed. I really can't talk about that right now.

22 MR. POLLET: I appreciate your getting back 23 to me. Thanks.

24 MR. DOYLE: Okay, are there any other NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

29 1 questions from people here in the room, before we open 2 it up for questions from callers?

3 MR. COX: Yes, my name is John Cox. I am 4 a U.S. citizen and a resident of the city of Richland.

5 I have actually three questions. The first 6 question is who did the GEIS and SEIS work?

7 MR. DOYLE: Both documents have a list of 8 preparers in there that has a list of all the NRC Staff 9 and contractors that worked on it. So the Generic 10 Environmental Impact Statement I am not as familiar with 11 who worked on that but that is included in the document.

12 But it was NRC Staff and I'm sure there was support from 13 contractors.

14 This document here, the draft SEIS for 15 Columbia was prepared by a team of NRC Staff and 16 contractors from Pacific Northwest National 17 Laboratories.

18 MR. COX: Thank you. My next question:

19 who paid for the work?

20 MR. DOYLE: Who paid for this work?

21 MR. COX: I say that with my tongue in 22 cheek.

23 MR. DOYLE: Okay, I guess you could say the 24 taxpayers. And I think what you are probably getting at NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

30 1 is the fact that the NRC's work is, I guess, a 2 fee-reimbursable. That is the term. So I mean when a 3 licensee, when an NRC licensee or utility comes in with 4 an action like this, that the work that is done associated 5 with that is documented and the utility has to pay into 6 a fund basically, but the NRC's funding comes from the 7 taxpayers and from Congress.

8 Is that what you were getting at?

9 MR. COX: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Doyle.

10 My third question is historically what has 11 been NRC's record on renewable license applications in 12 this arena?

13 MR. DOYLE: Right. This is the 47th 14 supplement. So there have been 47 previous 15 environmental reviews. For each of the previous license 16 renewal reviews, the application, the renewals have been 17 granted.

18 So you are saying the record of whether they 19 were approved or rejected? All the ones that have come 20 in so far have been approved.

21 MR. COX: That was 47, you said? So 100 22 percent.

23 MR. DOYLE: That's true. Yes.

24 MR. COX: All right. Thank you.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

31 1 MS. FEHST: Any other questions from Dan's 2 presentation, clarifying questions of his presentation?

3 MR. SARGENT: I have a question, I guess, 4 for has there been any impact from an approved study or 5 impact study to a nuclear site after it has been improved?

6 MR. DOYLE: I'm not sure --

7 MR. SARGENT: Out of those 47, have you had 8 any significant impact after approving a nuclear site's 9 renewal?

10 MR. DOYLE: It sounds like you are asking 11 if any plant that has been approved has impacted the 12 environment.

13 MR. SARGENT: Right.

14 MR. DOYLE: I would say yes. You know, 15 plants they use cooling water. So I'm not sure if that 16 is really what is getting at your question but I mean yes, 17 the NRC is acknowledging that the plants that are 18 operating are having an impact on the environment. They 19 are using water. They are using resources and yes, that 20 is having an effect on the environment. Is that your 21 question?

22 MR. SARGENT: I just wondered if it was like 23 a negative impact or impact more than what you expected 24 from a relicensing.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

32 1 MR. DOYLE: I can't think of a specific 2 thing that might be getting at what you are trying to 3 bring up, not something that I can think of. So I mean 4 have the impacts been what the NRC has thought they would 5 be? As far as I am aware, I think the estimates have been 6 fairly accurate.

7 MS. LARSEN: Hi, my name is Pam Larsen and 8 I am resident of this region. I have two questions. In 9 contrast to the renewal of a nuclear power plant permit, 10 do you look at the environmental consequences of 11 coal-fired powered generation in the region?

12 MR. DOYLE: As part of our review of 13 potential alternatives, we did consider coal. That 14 wasn't looked at as an in-depth alternative and the 15 reasons for that decision are explained in Chapter 8. So 16 we did, at least initially, consider that the plant could 17 be replaced, could be shut down and replaced by a coal 18 plant. But for the reasons described in Chapter 8, we 19 didn't make that an in-depth analysis. The ones that 20 were in-depth were a natural gas plant, a new nuclear 21 power plant and a combination alternative, which 22 included a smaller natural gas plant plus hydropower, 23 plus wind power and some energy conservation measures.

24 So those were the three that were analyzed in-depth.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

33 1 Does that answer your question?

2 MS. LARSEN: My second point as a resident 3 of this region following Fukushima, I asked a lot of 4 questions about our backup systems for providing cooling 5 water to this nuclear facility. And I found those 6 responses to be very robust. And I would assume that 7 that would be part of your analysis as well?

8 MR. DOYLE: No. As part of the 9 environmental review, we are not looking at backup 10 systems for cooling water, that sort of thing. We are 11 mainly focusing on the impact to fish, the aquatic 12 ecology, terrestrial ecology, the air, the water, human 13 health, so those sorts of issues.

14 So as part of this environmental review, we 15 did not get into redundant engineering systems to provide 16 safety. There is a separate safety review that is 17 looking at how the plant is going to manage the effects 18 of aging and a period of extended operation and then 19 through current processes in place for ongoing 20 operations. There are reviews for issues that the NRC 21 believes need to get looked at and there are inspections.

22 So the answer is no, we didn't look at that.

23 MS. LARSEN: Okay.

24 MS. FEHST: Any other questions with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

34 1 special regard to Dan's presentation? Anything to 2 clarify? Okay.

3 MR. MCDONALD: My name is Scott McDonald.

4 On your impact analysis, on your levels, at what point 5 do you require mitigation and how is that done? Do you 6 work that out with the licensee? I notice all of them 7 are small but --

8 MR. DOYLE: Right. The NRC would consider 9 if mitigation was required and, in this case, that they 10 determined for these impacts that it would not be 11 necessary. But just generally speaking, I don't think 12 I could really explain fully the process for doing that.

13 But basically if the NRC felt that it was 14 appropriate, that we would take actions to ensure that 15 the applicant took those measures.

16 MS. FEHST: Any other questions for Dan on 17 his presentation? Okay.

18 MR. LARSON: Your last -- Well, Doug 19 Larson, resident of Richland.

20 Your last response tripped something inside 21 me. So, in regards to the coal-fired question, you guys 22 looked at a number of alternative sources of electricity.

23 Did you guys quantify the potential discharges from those 24 other sources and do some type of comparison against the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

35 1 Columbia Station?

2 MR. DOYLE: For the in-depth alternatives, 3 yes. There is a discussion of for all of the same issues 4 that we investigate in-depth for this site-specific 5 review, we look at those issues also or those impact areas 6 for those alternative sources of producing power and do 7 a comparison. That is what we are doing is we are looking 8 at the proposed action so we could renew this license.

9 What would those environmental impacts be? And then 10 what are some reasonable alternatives to this action?

11 What would those impacts be? So what impact would a 12 coal-fired power plant have on air emissions, that kind 13 of thing? But as I said, that wasn't an in-depth review 14 for this particular case. We didn't get into those 15 details for a coal plant for this review. But yes, we 16 did look at the impact, the environmental impacts of 17 those alternatives and compared it to license renewal.

18 MR. LARSON: Thank you.

19 MS. FEHST: Okay. Any other questions for 20 Dan on his presentation?

21 (Pause.)

22 MS. FEHST: Okay. All right, it looks like 23 we are ready to go into the --

24 MR. DOYLE: Well, we want to check with the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

36 1 callers on the phone to see if they --

2 MS. FEHST: Callers. Thank you. Okay.

3 MR. DOYLE: -- have any clarifying 4 questions and then we can try to respond to those.

5 MS. FEHST: You're right. Denise, are 6 there any questioners on the line?

7 DENISE: If anyone would like to ask a phone 8 question, please press star one on your touch tone phone.

9 Once again, star one if you would like to ask a question.

10 This will take just one moment, please.

11 I do have a question from a Thomas Buchanan.

12 MS. FEHST: Okay, caller, go ahead.

13 DENISE: Thomas Buchanan, your line is 14 open.

15 DR. BUCHANAN: Hello. Do you copy me?

16 MS. FEHST: Yes, we can hear you. Go 17 ahead. Thank you for calling.

18 DR. BUCHANAN: I am the Vice President of 19 the Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility here 20 in Seattle. I am interested in the actual process of the 21 NRC's examination of Fukushima and how you folks might 22 have taken some of these things into account. It doesn't 23 seem with anything has been revealed from the Fukushima 24 accident so far. For example, the actual condition of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

37 1 the spent fuel pools, where they are stored, what kind 2 of control they have over them, etcetera, have been 3 applied by the NRC to conditions in this country.

4 Do you think that is significant? And why 5 didn't you include some of the extrapolations that have 6 gone on with the task force?

7 MR. DOYLE: Okay, I understand your 8 question saying that do you consider Fukushima, the fact 9 that that happened significant and how are you addressing 10 that here. You know, why is that not part of this review?

11 And you know, essentially we can take this 12 as a comment. There were many petitions that have been 13 filed. The NRC has stated its position in response to 14 those positions and the NRC's position is that this is 15 being handled through current regulatory processes that 16 the results, the actions that the NRC decides to take 17 would apply to all licensees, regardless of license 18 renewal status and that this does not require immediate 19 steps from the licensees and it is not part of the license 20 renewal review.

21 So again, I just want to state that that is 22 what the NRC's position is. We are here to hear your 23 opinions on this topic and other topics. The comments 24 that would specifically be within the scope of this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

38 1 environmental review are the comments on environmental 2 issues or things that are included in the draft SEIS.

3 Fukushima is not discussed in the draft SEIS or other 4 topics that you believe should be discussed in the draft 5 SEIS and why. Why are those environmental issues that 6 are related specifically to the period of extended 7 operations of this plant? That is what we are looking 8 for and we will respond to those comments.

9 So I hope that answered your question but 10 it is not discussed in the draft SEIS and the NRC's 11 position is that this is not something that needs to be 12 addressed within the license renewal process but there 13 is a lot of activity going on at the NRC to determine what 14 actions, if any, we should take for all licensees.

15 MS. FEHST: Yes, and just a reminder, 16 callers, if you have any additional clarifying 17 questions, that the questions at this time go directly 18 to any clarifications you might want, you might feel you 19 need on what Dan addressed. And immediately following 20 this question period, we will move right into the public 21 comment period.

22 And at that time, comments that you as 23 audience members or as callers feel should be part of the 24 assessment that is made before the final SEIS is drafted, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

39 1 then that would be the time to make your comments. But 2 right now it is just clarifying questions on Dan's 3 presentation for the draft SEIS.

4 So are there any other --

5 DR. BUCHANAN: The reason why -- This is Tom 6 Buchanan again. Just to clarify my comments, my 7 comments were around the process of the licensing review.

8 And to the extent that Fukushima is a game changer and 9 it does require, for example, a longer run view of 10 earthquake activity in a certain activity, it should I 11 think, the backup systems, that was asked a little 12 earlier, should be a part of the review, etcetera. I 13 think these are process issues that at least were 14 addressed initially by the NRC's Task Force that went to 15 Fukushima that people should recognize this within the 16 NRC and begin to integrate these into any license 17 application, including the one that we have right now.

18 This shouldn't be just put aside until some report is 19 produced out of Fukushima next year. NRC has already 20 seen the importance and the seriousness of what has 21 happened in Japan and probably should be much more alert 22 about integrating it into their reviews and stopping 23 those reviews if they haven't been integrated. That is 24 my comment. Thanks.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

40 1 MS. FEHST: Okay. That comment is well 2 stated and duly noted and will certainly be part of the 3 review of all substantive comments that we are taking 4 back after the meetings earlier today and tonight. So 5 thank you for your comment.

6 Are there any other callers who have 7 questions with regard -- Does any caller need to clarify 8 in their own mind anything that they heard Dan say in his 9 presentation?

10 DENISE: Next up is Nancy Morris. Your 11 line is open.

12 MS. MORRIS: Yes, well this is Nancy Morris 13 calling from Seattle, Washington. I have a question in 14 that Dan said one time that the NRC sees nothing that 15 calls into question the preceding analysis that they 16 don't see a risk to the environment or public health from 17 the safety standards that are currently in effect. That 18 is my first question for clarification. Is that where 19 he was going with that comment?

20 That is my one question. I have another.

21 MR. DOYLE: I'm not sure if I understand 22 exactly your comment or if maybe Dave you remember which 23 part, but it sounds like you are saying that the NRC's 24 conclusion is that based on our review of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

41 1 environmental, what we see as the likely environmental 2 impacts of renewing this license, of taking this action, 3 of granting the license renewal extension, and our 4 analysis of the environmental impacts of alternatives to 5 produce electricity to replace the power being produced 6 by Columbia Generating Station, our conclusion is that 7 are no, that the adverse impacts of license renewal do 8 not make -- That having reviewed those impacts, that the 9 granting the option for license renewal is not 10 unreasonable.

11 So I think that may be what you were getting 12 at. Our conclusion is that it would not be unreasonable 13 to allow the energy planning decision-makers to continue 14 operation of this plant if that is what they wish to do.

15 MS. MORRIS: Okay. The second question I 16 have is where is waste going to go that is going to be 17 generated by the renewal of this license, since it goes 18 to 2023? Where will the waste be going?

19 MR. DOYLE: The nation has not established 20 a geologic repository. Yucca Mountain, the application 21 was reviewed. The NRC is halting its review for that.

22 So I think that is the core issue of what you are getting 23 at is that there is not, as of right now, a national 24 geologic repository for storing the spent fuel. So it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

42 1 would continue to be stored where it has been stored so 2 far. So there is the spent fuel pool on the site. They 3 have an independent spent fuel storage installation and 4 I believe they ship some other radioactive waste to 5 offsite areas. So it would continue to go where it is 6 going until another location is established.

7 MS. MORRIS: Related to your comments that 8 they are planning to use plutonium fuel that is similar 9 to Fukushima's reactor at Columbia Generating Station?

10 MR. DOYLE: So you are asking if they are 11 going to do that. The information that I have, that I 12 had previous to walking into this meeting is discussed 13 in the draft SEIS on page 2-2. So in --

14 MS. MORRIS: I don't have a copy of that 15 draft SEIS.

16 MR. DOYLE: Okay. Well we can get you a 17 copy if you want but I am just letting you know that there 18 is a brief discussion in the draft SEIS. So the 19 potential use of mixed oxide fuel from blending plutonium 20 and the potential use of that in Columbia Generating 21 Station, that topic is discussed in the draft SEIS. And 22 the extent of that discussion is that the NRC was made 23 aware that there were some documents about a feasibility 24 study that came out. There were several news articles NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

43 1 that were written about it. And that there is no formal 2 application to the NRC to use mixed oxide fuel right now.

3 So there is not a proposed action or anything to review 4 at this time from the applicant, other than the side 5 notification that we have been aware that there were some 6 documents about an initial study for using that. So we 7 are saying that we are aware of those articles and the 8 fact that people are talking about it. And wanted to 9 include the information that we had in there. We don't 10 have anything from the applicant and we also state in the 11 document that if the applicant did want to use it that 12 there would be a license amendment required and there 13 would be a separate environmental review for that.

14 So this environmental review is not 15 considering the potential use of mixed oxide as a 16 reasonably foreseeable future action.

17 MS. MORRIS: Okay. I guess I have some 18 comments I can make towards the end of the comment 19 session. Thank you.

20 DENISE: Next up is Kevin Carlson.

21 MR. CARLSON: My questions have been asked 22 already. Thank you.

23 DENISE: Next up is Dvija Bertish. Your 24 line is open.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

44 1 MR. BERTISH: Thank you. Dvija Michael 2 Bertish from the Rosemary Neighborhood Association. I 3 have a few questions here. Does the general EIS analyze 4 the potential for catastrophic failures at the power 5 plant due to earthquakes or other natural causes?

6 MR. DOYLE: The draft of this document does 7 include in Chapter 5 a discussion of two types of 8 accidents. And we explain the definitions and types of 9 those. In Chapter 5 we talk about design basis accidents 10 and severe accidents so that that would be the part of 11 the document to review if you are interested in the NRC's 12 discussion of severe accidents. So the short answer is 13 yes and that is in Chapter 5.

14 Also, Appendix F has a detailed discussion 15 of severe accident mitigation alternatives and these are 16 related to the severe accident review. These are 17 proposed actions that the applicant could take to reduce 18 the offsite impacts of severe accidents. So that is 19 Chapter 5 and Appendix F. So yes, those are included.

20 MR. BERTISH: During the comparison for the 21 preferred alternatives to do their license renewal, how 22 does the NRC equate renewal of the license to be equal 23 to in terms of the environmental impact any alternative 24 when another alternative has the ability to have a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

45 1 catastrophic explosion?

2 MR. DOYLE: The alternatives are not 3 compared to with the proposed action in terms of severe 4 accident consequences. So, the NRC is looking at air, 5 water, threat to endangered species. So, those are the 6 environmental impacts that are -- those are the issues 7 that are compared in this review.

8 So basically your comment may be that you 9 feel that those should be compared but to address the 10 issue, I think, just to point out that those severe 11 accidents are not compared.

12 MR. BERTISH: Does the license renewal for 13 this facility allow for a streamlined or fast track 14 ability for the plant to make application for mixed oxide 15 fuel use?

16 MR. DOYLE: It sounded like you were saying 17 -- asking if the license renewal application would 18 somehow allow them to have a faster review. The fact 19 that they have applied for a license renewal, would that 20 somehow make the mixed oxide, the potential use of mixed 21 oxide fuel environmental review faster? Is that what 22 you are asking?

23 MR. BERTISH: Yes.

24 MR. DOYLE: The answer is no. This is a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

46 1 snapshot in time. As of right now, the NRC is disclosing 2 the environmental impacts for this action that we are 3 aware of and the impacts of alternatives and using that 4 to make a decision, to make a recommendation of whether 5 or not this is reasonable or not.

6 MR. BERTISH: Will this length of time for 7 the life span of design built for the Columbia River 8 Generation Station or similar stations of that genre 9 facility?

10 MR. DOYLE: You're asking what the design 11 life of the plant is?

12 MR. BERTISH: Yes.

13 MR. DOYLE: The original length of the --

14 The length of the original license is 40 years and they 15 are applying for an additional 20 years of operation. I 16 am not able to respond to specific design lives for 17 different systems. But what I can say is that as part 18 of the safety review, the NRC looks at any analyses that 19 were done that were based on that 40-year life span, that 20 40-year license and the original application that 21 demonstrated their ability to operate safely through the 22 end of 40 years that this license renewal process looks 23 at those analyses and requires the applicant to extend 24 those by another 20 years and demonstrate that they would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

47 1 be able to operate for another 20 years. So you know if 2 a component had a shorter lifespan and couldn't be 3 managed, then it would need to be replaced. Those issues 4 would be addressed in this safety review.

5 But what is the design life of the plant?

6 I can't answer that but I can say that the original 7 license term was 40 years.

8 MR. BERTISH: Is the facility at the 9 Columbia Generating Station the same model type and the 10 same genre as the Fukushima plant and built by the same 11 designers?

12 MR. DOYLE: The Columbia Generating 13 Station is a boiling water reactor with a Mark II 14 containment. The Fukushima plant was also a boiling 15 water reactor. They were both designed by GE. The 16 Fukushima plant was a Mark I containment. So that is 17 different. And I am not able to elaborate on the 18 differences between Mark I and Mark II.

19 So the containment is different but there 20 are similarities.

21 MR. BERTISH: One final question, please, 22 general in nature. You mentioned that the review based 23 on the response to the Fukushima disaster caused the NRC 24 to review safety protocols for all existing U.S. power NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

48 1 plants. And you came to the conclusion that the review 2 did not call for any closure of any existing plants in 3 operation. And my question regarding that is did that 4 account for current failures of any individual existing 5 power plants, such as known leaks or explosive problems 6 or critical failures, safety failures that may have 7 happened let's say over the past couple of years? Or was 8 there anything noting current placement on very active 9 fault lines?

10 MR. DOYLE: I don't think I am the best 11 person to answer that question. I think we can maybe 12 take your information and get back to you on the details 13 on what was specifically looked at as part of the NRC's 14 inspection following Fukushima. Based on my 15 understanding, it was a review of their ability to 16 respond to disaster situations and that it did not extend 17 to reviewing the previous leaks or the other things that 18 you had mentioned at the plant.

19 There are current regulatory processes in 20 place for that and that it was not the focus of the 21 inspections. If you want more detail on how the 22 inspections were conducted or what they looked at and how 23 they decided what to look at, I would have to get back 24 with you on that because I really can't explain those NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

49 1 inspections in that level of detail.

2 MR. BERTISH: Were there active failures 3 such as releases of radioactive waste to rivers and 4 streams or some sort of plume that exists or failed pipes 5 beneath an existing facility that are suspected of 6 leaking, doesn't that advance those facilities up the 7 chain in terms of risk factor and call into question the 8 very safety of such an existing facility?

9 MR. DOYLE: So I think the best way to 10 handle this, you are saying that plants that have had 11 previous problems are more likely to be vulnerable to 12 earthquakes or releases and that they should have a 13 higher priority or get a more stringent review. Again 14 I am not aware of the details of how these inspections 15 were designed or what they looked at but that these issues 16 that are being brought up are very good issues. These 17 are things that are being looked at by the NRC right now 18 and how we need to re-look at the current operating fleet 19 and perhaps reprioritize our activities to make sure that 20 we are able to ensure that the public, you know, protect 21 the public and the environment given the fact that this 22 event occurred, that this event at Fukushima occurred.

23 That is exactly what the NRC is looking at.

24 But whether or not those inspections were NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

50 1 more detailed or less detailed based on the previous 2 history of the plant, I don't think so. But if you want 3 more information on that, I will have to get back to you.

4 MS. FEHST: Caller, this is the moderator.

5 And I am wondering if you could give us your first and 6 last name and spell each so we can be sure to get back 7 to you. And if you could leave your contact information 8 with Denise, the operator, and we would ask Denise to make 9 sure that we get that.

10 As Dan is saying, it sounds like you have 11 some general concerns that might be best addressed by 12 members of the task force. We have already had one 13 meeting. I believe it was a public meeting regarding the 14 results of the Near-Term Task Force Report. No doubt, 15 there will be others. But it sounds to me like --

16 And again as I mentioned in the beginning 17 in opening remarks, we do want to make sure that everybody 18 gets a chance to make their comments both from the phone 19 and from the audience. And we ask that the comments be 20 directly related to the Columbia Generating Station.

21 And you have had some wonderful questions that were 22 directly related to the Columbia Station but it sounds 23 like we are kind of moving away from that in very 24 important areas but they might be best addressed by NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

51 1 people who have been working on the Fukushima report and 2 we would be happy to get back to you.

3 MR. BERTISH: I am happy to do that. I 4 disagree with your assessment because these questions 5 are specific to Columbia River Generating Station. But 6 I am happy to leave my name and number and go from there.

7 MS. FEHST: All right. Thank you. And 8 just for the record, if we could get the correct spelling 9 for the reporter.

10 MR. BERTISH: Sure. It is D as in David, 11 V as in Victor, I, J as in Jack, A as in apple, Michael 12 Bertish, B-E-R-T-I-S-H with the Rosemary Neighborhood 13 Association in Vancouver, Washington.

14 MS. FEHST: Thank you.

15 DENISE: The next question from the phone 16 lines comes from Jacqueline Sorgan. Your line is open.

17 MS. SORGAN: Thank you. I have a question 18 regarding public health. With the close proximity to 19 the Native American tribes, has any consideration been 20 given to their closeness to the earth and resources and 21 their health and safety regarding the Columbia 22 Generating Station?

23 MR. DOYLE: Yes. The unique lifestyle of 24 the Native American tribes is discussed in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

52 1 environmental justice area in Chapter 4, as well as I 2 believe it is a subsection within Environmental Justice 3 where we talk about subsistence consumption and that 4 would not just be limited to Native Americans but other 5 people that may choose to live off crops that are grown 6 in this area.

7 So, the answer is yes, that is discussed and 8 that is in Chapter 4 under Environmental Justice.

9 MS. SORGAN: Thank you, sir.

10 DENISE: Okay, are you ready for the next 11 question?

12 MS. FEHST: Yes.

13 DENISE: From a Holly Green. Your line is 14 open.

15 MS. GREEN: Hi. Holly Green. I live in 16 the Issaquah, Washington area. And I was listening to 17 your presentation and I do have a question. This part 18 that you spoke about in response to Fukushima and you said 19 that there would be 12 recommendations -- that there were 20 12 recommendations for improvement regarding safety.

21 And I guess I just wanted, you know, I know the woman was 22 saying that it was tangential but to me it is not. So 23 I just want to find out is there any guarantee that any 24 or all of those recommendations for improvement would be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

53 1 adopted? I mean how can I know that they will, any of 2 them be adopted?

3 MR. DOYLE: There is not a guarantee that 4 these recommendations will be adopted. So that is the 5 short answer. This task force was created with a small 6 number of NRC staff and their mission was to look at the 7 available information coming out of Fukushima with a 8 90-day period and generate what they saw as 9 recommendations that the NRC should take. So they did 10 that. They issued their task force and now the NRC staff 11 is looking at which of those can be implemented and the 12 Commission, ultimately the Nuclear Regulatory, the 13 actual Commission, the five Commissioners will determine 14 at a policy level which of these recommendations should 15 move ahead and should be implemented.

16 So the recommendations are discussed in the 17 Task Force report. There are public meetings associated 18 with that. And that is where the best information comes 19 from. So are they guaranteed that these would be 20 implemented? No. These were the result of the initial 21 review and the NRC is going to move through a process of 22 determining which, if any, should be reviewed and how 23 they should be prioritized and what actions need to be 24 taken to ensure that the public and the environment are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

54 1 protected.

2 MS. GREEN: Okay, thank you.

3 DENISE: The next question comes from a 4 Carolyn Mann. Your line is open.

5 MS. MANN: Thank you. Hi, my name is 6 Carolyn Mann and I am a resident of Oregon, a private 7 citizen. And I am calling with a couple questions. The 8 first is it was mentioned that the NRC was in the process 9 of updating its Generic EIS and you said that this would 10 affect other license renewals that were up for renewal.

11 I was just wondering why that is.

12 MR. DOYLE: This application was submitted 13 in January 2010 and the Generic Environmental Impact 14 Statement at that time was the one that has been approved, 15 which is the previous one. The new, the revised Generic 16 Environmental Impact Statement has not been approved.

17 So it is not the NRC's policy, you could say. It is not 18 the official version. The document is subject to 19 change. So that is why it is not applying to this license 20 renewal application.

21 But as I explained earlier, the NRC staff 22 does have a process of reviewing the generic conclusions 23 that are in the Generic EIS. And to incorporate other 24 information that we are aware of and to decide that we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

55 1 are free to decide whether or not the conclusions in the 2 previous document are still applicable here.

3 So that is how an issue that is say included 4 in the new, in the revised Generic Environmental Impact 5 Statement but not in the previous one, that is how that 6 would be incorporated into this review. But that was not 7 the NRC's Generic Environmental Impact Statement at the 8 time that this review is occurring.

9 MS. MANN: Thank you. And I was also 10 wondering if you could explain how it was that 20-year 11 time period for a license renewal rather than having it 12 possibly five, ten years?

13 MR. DOYLE: You are asking why the license 14 renewal term is 20 years?

15 MS. MANN: Yes.

16 MR. DOYLE: I cannot explain the basis for 17 that decision. I know that the short answer, I guess 18 would be is that that is what is in the regulations. But 19 the question of why is it 20 years, I really can't say 20 that but the initial term was determined to be 40 years 21 and the regulations allow for plants after 20 years to 22 apply for an additional 20 years of operation. And that 23 is the process that we are going through.

24 If you have other comments or questions NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

56 1 about the reasons for that, we can take those as comments 2 and respond to those in the final SEIS.

3 MS. MANN: Thank you.

4 DENISE: Next up is Theodora Tsongas.

5 Your line is open.

6 MS. TSONGAS: Yes, I think the --

7 MS. FEHST: Excuse me. Caller, would you 8 mind spelling your last name for the record, please?

9 Maybe first and last name.

10 MS. TSONGAS: Yes. My first name is 11 Theodora, T-H-E-O-D-O-R-A. My last name is Tsongas, T, 12 as in Tom, S as in Sam, O, N as in no, G-A, S as in Sam.

13 MS. FEHST: Thank you.

14 MS. TSONGAS: Shall I go ahead?

15 MS. FEHST: Yes, please go ahead. I'm 16 sorry to interrupt. Go ahead, please.

17 MS. TSONGAS: I believe that my question 18 has been answered. I just need a little bit of 19 clarification about the environmental review not on its 20 safety. I assumed that safety was included.

21 MR. DOYLE: The scope of the environmental 22 review is focused on the environmental impacts of the 23 additional 20-years of operation. And in the draft, in 24 the EIS through the NEPA process, we are comparing that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

57 1 with other alternatives.

2 So that is the scope of the environmental 3 review. It is discussed in the regulations in 10 CFR 4 Part 51. So that is where the scope of the environmental 5 review is defined.

6 The NRC has another review that is also 7 going on at the same time that has documents and reviews 8 and I would say that is probably the larger review, you 9 could say, or is the number of documents or how you want 10 to quantify that. It takes longer. But there is a very, 11 very detailed technical review that focusing on how the 12 plant is able to manage how the plant would manage the 13 effects of aging, the additional 20-years of aging on the 14 components that are passive and long-lived, components 15 that would not expect the expected to normally be 16 replaced during the life of the power plant.

17 So there is a safety review. It is handled 18 by a separate process that the regulations and the scope 19 and the details of that are explained in 10 CFR Part 54.

20 So the environmental review does not discuss the safety 21 issues. They are handled by a separate process. The 22 safety review is not getting is not getting into the 23 environmental issues. So there are two separate 24 processes and those are the regulations where they are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

58 1 explained and that is how safety is addressed for a 2 license renewal application.

3 MS. TSONGAS: So where would we see those 4 to comment on the safety?

5 MR. DOYLE: The documents that are 6 associated with the safety review are all public 7 documents. Due to the level of technical detail that is 8 included in that review, there are no meetings like we 9 had for the scoping meeting and like this meeting that 10 we are having right now. There are not, there is not a 11 solicitation of public comments. Those documents are 12 available. There is a meeting by an independent 13 committee, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 14 that reviews the application and provides a 15 recommendation. And if you wanted to provide a comment 16 on something, the Safety Evaluation Report with Open 17 Items was issued last month. So if you wanted to see the 18 results of the NRC's review, you could go to the NRC's 19 public website for this review. If you search for NRC 20 Columbia Generating Station License Renewal, you will 21 find the NRC's public review, public website for this 22 review. So the environmental review documents are 23 included on there and the safety review documents are 24 also included on there.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

59 1 So if you wanted to see the initial results 2 of the NRC's review, you could find the document on that 3 website. It is called the Safety Evaluation Report with 4 Open Items. It explains the NRC's determination of the 5 applicant's proposed plans to manage aging. So that is 6 where the NRC's basis, the NRC's determination is 7 described.

8 So if you wanted to provide comments, you 9 could send a letter to the NRC. You could basically send 10 in a letter. You could, I believe you can call in to the 11 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards meetings.

12 I'm not sure if there is a period for public 13 comments. Can you address that?

14 (Off the record comments.)

15 A member of the public could call in and ask 16 to participate in the meeting of the review by the 17 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. That is 18 happening in mid-October. If you want the details on 19 that meeting, please let me know and I will send you the 20 time and date and the steps that you would need to take 21 if you wanted to request to provide a comment on that.

22 But the document is publicly available and 23 there is limited solicitation of public comments for the 24 safety review.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

60 1 MS. TSONGAS: Okay, thanks. --

2 MR. DOYLE: I'm sorry. I couldn't hear 3 what you were saying. If we are able to have the 4 moderator get your -- Denise is that something that you 5 can do? Because it might be easier for you to get it than 6 for us.

7 DENISE: Yes, I can.

8 MR. DOYLE: Okay, that would be great. So 9 if you maybe leave your email address or phone number, 10 I would be happy to provide you with more details on the 11 documents associated with the safety review and that 12 upcoming meeting that I mentioned.

13 MS. TSONGAS: Thank you.

14 DENISE: The next question is from Lloyd 15 Marbet. Your line is open.

16 MR. MARBET: Yes, this is Lloyd Marbet.

17 Can you hear me?

18 MS. FEHST: Yes, Lloyd, we can hear you.

19 Would you mind spelling your last name for the record, 20 please? And if you are with an organization, could you 21 please identify that by name and spell it for the record, 22 too, please?

23 MR. MARBET: Yes, my name is Lloyd Marbet, 24 M-A-R-B-E-T. I am the Executive Director of the Oregon NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

61 1 Conservancy Foundation and I don't know if anyone else 2 is experiencing the same problem I have but the last three 3 questions that have come up, there has been such a bad 4 echoing on my line, I could barely make out what is being 5 said.

6 So Denise, I hope someone will look into 7 that.

8 And then for my question; I have two. The 9 Columbia Generating Station has an operating license 10 until December 20, 2023. Why is license renewal taking 11 place now when there is 12 years left under the existing 12 license? And why doesn't the NRC set a limit on when 13 these applications can be filed? Because it seems to me 14 the evaluation that takes place here becomes quite dated 15 over a 12-year period before the renewal actually sets 16 in.

17 MR. DOYLE: There are, the window for 18 application is defined in the regulations. The earliest 19 that a plant is allowed to apply for license renewal is 20 after 20 years of operation. So right in the middle, you 21 could say, 20 years before their license expires.

22 So Columbia Generating Station came in 23 right about in the middle or so of their window of when 24 they are allowed to come in. The latest that a plant NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

62 1 could come in is within five years prior to the expiration 2 of their current license. So there is a 15-year window 3 that the plant can apply. Part of the basis for that is 4 that after 20 years of operation, there is sufficient 5 operating experience for the NRC to make a decision.

6 Another reason for that decision to define 7 the window the way it is is that it does take a long period 8 of time for energy-planning decisionmakers to evaluate 9 other options. If the plant is not going to pursue 10 license renewal and shut down or if they are, for the 11 planners to accommodate other ways to produce power, to 12 build another power plant, to replace this one if it is 13 shut down.

14 So the short answer is that the regulations 15 allow them to come in up to 20 years early and they came 16 in within that window.

17 MR. MARBET: I am going to comment on that 18 during the public comment. So I will just go to my second 19 question.

20 To what extent does the GEIS examine the 21 impact of catastrophic accidents and cancerous 22 radioactive waste disposal operations on Columbia's 23 Generating Station and the reverse of that, Columbia 24 Generating Station having a catastrophic accident that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

63 1 could impact cancerous radioactive waste disposal 2 cleanup operations?

3 MR. DOYLE: The Generic Environmental 4 Impact Statement and the draft Supplemental 5 Environmental Impact Statement do not address the 6 potential for catastrophic accidents specifically 7 related to this plant being located on Hanford. That 8 issue is not addressed in either the GEIS or the draft 9 SEIS.

10 MR. MARBET: I will provide some comment on 11 that as well. That is the extent of my questions. Thank 12 you.

13 DENISE: And the last question that I have 14 is from Jacqueline Valiquette. Your line is open.

15 MS. VALIQUETTE: Hi.

16 MS. FEHST: Jacqueline, would you mind 17 spelling your last name for the record, please? And if 18 you are with an organization, representing an 19 organization, could you identify that and spell that as 20 well?

21 MS. VALIQUETTE: Sure. I am just calling 22 from Seattle and my last name is spelled V as in Victor, 23 A-L-I-Q-U-E-T-T-E.

24 MS. FEHST: Thank you. Go ahead with your NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

64 1 question, please.

2 MS. VALIQUETTE: You had mentioned that if 3 you are licensed, there is currently no set dump site.

4 But once one is established, how do you transport the 5 waste and will you use public highways to do it?

6 MR. DOYLE: How would the waste be 7 transported to an offsite location after that is 8 established? I would imagine that that would include 9 highways. This is not something that I am an expert in 10 and I wouldn't be able to provide much more information 11 than that. But I guess it depends on where the location 12 is, the amount of waste. So I imagine that there would 13 be a number of factors that would determine how the waste 14 is transported.

15 MS. VALIQUETTE: Thank you.

16 MS. FEHST: Okay, are there any clarifying 17 questions from anyone in the audience before we move on 18 to the public comment period?

19 And no other callers with any clarifying 20 questions?

21 DENISE: I did have one caller that just 22 queued in. And that is from Dawn Reynolds. Your line 23 is open.

24 MS. REYNOLDS: Actually, I wanted to make NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

65 1 a public comment. Thank you.

2 DENISE: Thank you.

3 MS. FEHST: Okay. Then we will move on.

4 We are finished with the questions. We will move on to 5 the public comment period. Thanks, Dan.

6 What we did this afternoon is identify three 7 names at the same time, you know, the first speaker, the 8 second speaker, the third speaker. That enabled the 9 first one to come up and make comments and then the other 10 two whose names were identified knew that they would be 11 coming next.

12 Next up -- But because we seem to have a few 13 more callers with questions or with comments going on the 14 yellow cards, than we do people in the audience, and that 15 may change, but since we have, it seems, many more 16 callers, what I am going to suggest we do this time is 17 take one person from the audience as the first speaker, 18 to be followed by two callers. And then after that 19 three, we will do another audience member to make his or 20 her comments, followed by two speakers and so on.

21 And I will just go over the ground rules 22 again very quickly. Just a reminder that this is the 23 time for comments on the results of the NRC's 24 environmental review on the license renewal application NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

66 1 for Columbia and we ask that you confine your comments 2 to this subject.

3 Another reminder is we really need to end 4 the meeting on time as a courtesy to all those who have 5 to leave on schedule. So they should not have to miss 6 any part of the meeting because the comments have gone 7 on too long. So we ask that you try to keep your focus 8 on your comments and limit the comments to five minutes.

9 And if you have a question and were able to give a brief 10 answer, we will do so. But if the question that you are 11 asking really requires an in-depth conversation with a 12 member of the NRC Staff who is here, you know, they are 13 prepared to stay for a little while at the close of the 14 meeting. So perhaps that would be the best time to 15 engage in a one-on-one conversation on your question.

16 And just another reminder, when you step up 17 to the microphone, and callers when you are providing 18 your comments, remember certainly those whose names I 19 didn't ask for a spelling for the reporter, please 20 remember to identify yourself by name when you begin 21 speaking. And if you haven't already spelled out your 22 name or your organization, please do so during the 23 comment period.

24 And finally, let's try to give whoever the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

67 1 caller is our respect and full attention and have just 2 one person speaking at a time. So thank you.

3 So what we will do now is we will have the 4 first speaker, Rich Sargent. And the callers who should 5 be ready to go with questions would first be James Great, 6 followed by Rachel Stierling. So first Rich, then James 7 Great, then Rachel Stierling, the last two being phone 8 callers. Thank you.

9 MR. SARGENT: Thank you. My name is Rich 10 Sargent. I represent Franklin PUD and my comments here 11 are related to that. And my job duties within Franklin 12 PUD is as their power analyst and also personally. And 13 I want to thank the NRC for this opportunity to allow 14 public comment and engage in this type of fashion with 15 people in this important subject certainly in our region 16 here and nationally.

17 I can't think of an industry that has had 18 more oversight, both environmentally and safely and 19 safety such to expand the NRC and nuclear industry and 20 rightly so.

21 And being that, it was kind of a coincidence 22 I happened to go on a tour of the B Reactor here this past 23 Saturday. And it was nice. Not that there is 24 comparison with Columbia Generating but our nation does NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

68 1 have a broad history of using nuclear power. And this 2 site, the Columbia Generating Station, it is a strong 3 asset and uses that appropriately.

4 Being involved in the energy industry, I am 5 aware of the alternatives of not having Columbia 6 Generating Station. And the Columbia Generating 7 Station parallels our goals within Franklin PUD and that 8 is to provide our region with reliable power, 9 cost-effective power, and certainly clean power. And 10 the nuclear industry does that and so does Columbia 11 Generating Station.

12 I am going to keep my comments in regards 13 to environmental and not safety because it does have a 14 strong safety record. We do nationally have a strong 15 safety record and health related with the nuclear 16 industry as well.

17 But if I had to go out and replace the power 18 that Franklin gets from Columbia Generating Station, it 19 is our second largest resource in our fuel mix. I can 20 do it as effective, as reliable, as clean, as Columbia 21 Generating Station and the nuclear industry. I have to 22 look at, you know, coal. I have to look at wind. It is 23 not reliable.

24 And that is one thing that I don't think the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

69 1 common resident may understand is the reliability issues 2 that we have in our energy industry and what this resource 3 does to that. It is just phenomenal.

4 Anyway, again, I want to thank you for the 5 opportunity to do this. I think you are doing a great 6 job here looking at the impacts reasonably in regards to 7 the environmental assessment and the alternatives there.

8 I was pleased to see that. Thank you.

9 MS. FEHST: Okay, the next two speakers are 10 the callers James Great followed by Rachel Stierling.

11 Denise?

12 DENISE: That's James Great?

13 MS. FEHST: Yes, I have a card here for 14 James Great, G-R-E-A-T.

15 DENISE: I'm not finding that he is 16 connected, unless he registered with another name.

17 MS. FEHST: Okay. These were names that we 18 received with preregistration. So circumstances may 19 have changed for some of these names. But we will run 20 through them in the order that they appear anyway.

21 The next one is Rachel Stierling.

22 MS. STIERLING: Yes, ma'am, I am available.

23 MS. FEHST: Okay, great. Thank you. Go 24 ahead.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

70 1 MS. STIERLING: And I must say I was on the 2 2:00 call earlier and from what I heard, it was a great 3 hearing but it is nice to be able to actually be able to 4 hear you all now. So thank you for the opportunity to 5 give my testimony.

6 Just two quick points to make. Number one, 7 I have listened to this from all these great minds and 8 from all these great opinions. The thing that is very 9 clear to me is that we have to absolutely stop relicensing 10 until after we are educated and more importantly learn 11 from what and why caused Fukushima and the damage and the 12 catastrophe that happened there in Japan. We are still 13 receiving reports and testimonials that are just 14 heartbreaking. And in my opinion, it is imperative that 15 the NRC implement, adopt, and agree, and more importantly 16 enforces new safety measures surrounding the knowledge 17 that we will learn and gain from Fukushima's disaster.

18 Anything short of that, in my opinion, is a public safety 19 catastrophic risk.

20 Number two, my biggest question is where in 21 the world will the plutonium liquid waste waters go? I 22 am fully aware that the NRC currently is not at all open 23 to the question, its psychological. And I would like 24 to present that low-level liquid waste is already seeping NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

71 1 into and contaminating our environment.

2 Currently, the chemical and radioactive 3 waste -- excuse me, I have a cold -- are so dangerous that 4 we predict a 20 percent rate in cancer increases in the 5 Native American children, simply because they are 6 drinking the groundwater from the land they come from and 7 the land they live on.

8 And as a taxpayer and citizen of Washington 9 State, as a Native American myself, and as a mother, 10 relicensing at this point with no further review is 11 nothing short of negligence in the first type of way.

12 And I thank you for hearing my comments.

13 MS. FEHST: Thank you. All right. The 14 next three speakers will be from the audience. Kathleen 15 Vaughn. Kathleen Vaughn will be next and she will be 16 followed by two telephone callers, the first Bella 17 Berlly, B-E-R-L-L-Y and Paul Finely.

18 MS. VAUGHN: Good evening. I'm Kathleen 19 Vaughn and I am a Commissioner from Snohomish County 20 Public Utility District in Everett, Washington and 21 Secretary of the Energy Northwest Executive Board. And 22 Energy Northwest is a joint action agency that is made 23 up of 28 public utility districts and municipalities in 24 the State of Washington. And I wish to correct some NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

72 1 statements that were made by others providing comments 2 in the venue regarding mixed oxide fuel.

3 The Executive Board of Energy Northwest 4 received a public meeting presentation informing the 5 Board on MOX fuel in 2009. Since then, we have received 6 multiple public updates as to industry news information 7 of the study of MOX fuel.

8 Energy Northwest is not a part of a study 9 and no decision has been made by the Executive Board to 10 be part of a study. And certainly there has not been any 11 secret meetings that were alluded to earlier in the day 12 at this meeting.

13 If Energy Northwest decides to move forward 14 with a paper feasibility study, we will notify the 15 Washington State Congressional delegation and publicly 16 announce the decision. Thank you.

17 MS. FEHST: Thank you for your comment.

18 Next caller is Bella, Bella B-E-R-L-L-Y. Is Bella on the 19 line?

20 DENISE: I do not have Bella.

21 MS. FEHST: Okay and what about Paul 22 Finely, F-I-N-E-L-Y?

23 DENISE: I am not finding Paul in 24 attendance.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

73 1 MS. FEHST: Okay, thank you. Then we will 2 move to the next audience member would be Gerry Pollet.

3 And the next two callers that I have are Warren Zimmermann 4 and Judith Earle. Warren Zimmermann and Judith Earle.

5 MR. POLLET: Gerry Pollet, P-O-L-L-E-T 6 representing Heart of America Northwest, the Hanford 7 Cleanup Watchdog Group. And let's just start with this 8 thought. Thank you for having the phone lines 9 available, demonstrates that with 30 people on the phones 10 that we should have had regional hearings and we should 11 still have hearings around the region, including in 12 Snohomish County where Snohomish PUD is a member and your 13 rate payers, including many of my members are concerned 14 about the relicensing and these issues in Seattle or in 15 Vancouver in the Vancouver PUD area.

16 Secondly, saying that nuclear power is 17 clean is pretty much like saying that coal is clean 18 because it doesn't create nuclear waste. Here at 19 Hanford, you happen to have a good example in the backyard 20 where the CGS reactor sits.

21 So let's start with the fact that this EIS 22 needs to be halted until we know why Fukushima happened, 23 how it happened, what the impacts were, and what specific 24 equipment failures led to which of those impacts. It is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

74 1 wrong, simply wrong to claim that Fukushima is not 2 related to this environmental review.

3 The NRC's Generic EIS estimates that for 4 each and every one of these license renewals for 20 years, 5 there will be 12 fatal cancers and it then calls this, 6 "acceptable" and a "small" impact. I think the NRC needs 7 to revise this and think about whether or not any cancer 8 death is small or acceptable. And just put it in your 9 own children and say would you view it that way if it was 10 your child. Because you can play the game with numbers 11 but your children will pay the price for years to come.

12 This EIS and this process for creating a 13 supplemental EIS based on a Generic EIS that is 15 years 14 old is ludicrous. It is simply ludicrous to say we 15 relied on safety evaluations 15 years ago and we will 16 update it for some other license applications but not 17 this one. How ludicrous? Well that 12 fatal cancer 18 figure, for example, doesn't take into account that the 19 National Academy, the National Research Council has 20 issued the biological effects of radiation, report 21 seven, which is the National Consensus Document that 22 greatly increases the estimated health effects and fatal 23 cancers especially for children and women from the same 24 dose of radiation. So how many fatal deaths would occur NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

75 1 if we used updated information? We don't know. Maybe 2 it will be updated. Doubt it.

3 What about the Environmental Impact 4 Statement on what to do with the greater than Class C 5 waste? That is the extremely radioactive waste that 6 comes from inside the reactor vessels, the radiated 7 metals from decommissioning reactors. It is simply 8 wrong to say we considered that and it has no impact 9 because on a site-specific issue, you have to dispose of 10 the waste not in a generic location, it gets disposed at 11 the commercial low-level waste dump sitting in the middle 12 of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, which apparently the 13 NRC is turning a blind eye on, even though it oversees 14 the regulation of that plant by the State of Washington.

15 And let's talk about that. A, it is 16 unlined. B, it has massive releases of chemicals and 17 radionuclides at levels immediately dangerous to human 18 health in terms of soil gas vapor for TCE and numerous 19 carcinogens and other chemicals. And this is where the 20 EIS says there is no impact because we generically 21 considered we have disposal capacity for low level waste 22 and greater than Class C waste. When did we make that 23 decision? Fifteen years ago. That is inappropriate.

24 It needs to be updated and look at the site-specific NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

76 1 impacts where this reactor's waste go to get disposed.

2 And in terms of plutonium fuel, Energy 3 Northwest promised to release documents by September 4 21st regarding its study of plutonium fuel. The 5 documents we have received to date show that Energy 6 Northwest is formally considering and Pacific Northwest 7 Lab has already been spending money and has issued work 8 orders and contracts to consider use of plutonium fuel 9 in this reactor to be fabricated in the 325 Building at 10 Hanford, which is contaminated and creates additional 11 environmental impacts. And the program will start 12 having fuel pins tested during the 2015 shutdown.

13 That's the proposal.

14 And no, the Energy Northwest Board, because 15 we did ask to see the presentation you were given, you 16 were not given the document, the technical document that 17 said use of plutonium fuel could increase the offsite 18 radiological dose in the event of an accident by 40 19 percent and that if the Fukushima Reactor 3 had a full 20 load of MOX plutonium fuel, that is the percent increase 21 the radiation dose on top of the already horrific 22 effects. And the Energy Northwest Executive Committee 23 and Board were not given those documents. But why are 24 you hiding more? Now Energy Northwest says we are not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

77 1 going to give you the documents you have asked for until 2 December 21st, after the close of this comment period.

3 We have asked the NRC to extend the comment period on the 4 EIS until Energy Northwest comes clean and discloses all 5 the documents requested under Washington's Public 6 Records Act and the Energy Department discloses its 7 documents under FOIA in regard to the proposal to use 8 plutonium fuel.

9 The National Environmental Policy Act says 10 very clearly and case law is entirely on our side, that 11 all related proposals have to be disclosed and discussed 12 in this EIS. And while we are on that point, let's just 13 say no one else would ever claim that safety issues don't 14 have to be disclosed in EIS. Human health impacts are 15 part of the NEPA process. Telling people to go to the 16 NRC's arcane website and try to find documents about the 17 safety review defeats the entire purpose of the National 18 Environmental Policy Act, which is that all potential 19 significant impacts are to be disclosed in one document 20 for the public to review and comment on. They belong in 21 this document, not somewhere else on the web where you 22 are not even invited to comment. Thank you.

23 MS. FEHST: All right. Thank you for your 24 comment. Is there Warren -- Denise do we have Warren NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

78 1 Zimmermann or Judith Earle on the phone?

2 DENISE: Warren Zimmermann, your line is 3 open.

4 MR. ZIMMERMANN: All right. Thank you.

5 My name is Warren, W-A-R-R-E-N, Zimmermann, Z as in 6 Zebra, I-M-M-E-R-M-A-N-N and I am with --

7 MS. FEHST: Excuse me, caller. I think you 8 are breaking up a little bit. Is it okay now? Okay, 9 shall we -- Would you mind trying again, please? We have 10 the spelling of your name, thank you. Go ahead with your 11 comment.

12 MR. ZIMMERMANN: --

13 MS. FEHST: No, I'm sorry. You are still 14 breaking up. Can we try another line and come back to 15 you?

16 Judith Earle, is she on the line?

17 DENISE: Judith Earle is not in attendance.

18 MS. FEHST: Okay. What about Jacquelyn 19 Valiquette? I believe she asked a clarifying question.

20 Does she have a comment?

21 MS. VALIQUETTE: Yes, thank you --

22 MS. FEHST: Okay, we are having trouble with the 23 phone. We are having trouble with the phone. While 24 they are working on that, we have one other caller, or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

79 1 excuse me, one other commenter from the audience. We 2 will take John Cox. John Cox, please, and then we will 3 get back to the callers.

4 MR. COX: Yes, my name is John Cox. I am 5 a U.S. citizen and a resident of the City of Richland.

6 And I think this is great where we have some discussion 7 and have an important topic of this nature. And I just 8 say thanks for the opportunity to be here and interact 9 and listen.

10 My comment is that I am concerned and have 11 been for some time and I suspect as many other people here 12 in the audience are, about the lack of a permanent 13 relatively safe national repository for nuclear waste 14 for the byproducts of a power production reactor such as 15 this clear across the nation.

16 And in that regard, I thought that maybe I'd 17 offer a suggestion is that I think personally that NRC 18 ought to consider stopping all licensing renewals in this 19 arena all across the nation, as well as all construction 20 applications until we have such a repository. And in so 21 doing such, it might get us all centered on this important 22 topic.

23 Thank you for this opportunity. That is 24 all.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

80 1 MS. FEHST: Okay, thank you. Thank you for 2 your comment.

3 Should we try the phone again? All right, 4 we will try the phone again. And Warren Zimmermann, if 5 we could try your line again, please. Warren 6 Zimmermann.

7 DENISE: His line has dropped off.

8 MS. FEHST: Jacque Valiquette.

9 MS. VALIQUETTE: Yes. My comment was that 10 I don't think it is responsible to consider transporting 11 a waste of this kind on public roads. There are -- that 12 relates to this topic. They sort of say that --

13 MS. FEHST: All right. I know. I'm 14 sorry. Once again, the call is breaking up. So we are 15 not able to get everything that you are saying. We can 16 try another line or just take a small break.

17 If we are unable to clear up the lines for 18 any of the callers who were on the line that want to make 19 comments, I am hoping that you will be willing to put that 20 in writing via email and send it to the attention of 21 daniel.doyle@nrc.gov and would ask for that written 22 comment only if we are unable to clear up the phone line 23 in the next minute or two so that we could get your 24 comment.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

81 1 They are working on it here and we will give 2 it a try one more time.

3 Meanwhile while he is trying to work on it, 4 Denise if I could just clear with you the lines that you 5 do have. Kevin Carlson --

6 Denise, do we have you? We have lost 7 Denise?

8 MR. POLLET: This is Gerry Pollet. What is 9 the possibility of just scheduling, I mean, you don't 10 have to be here in Richland to reschedule a phone call 11 before the end of the comment period.

12 MS. FEHST: Let me bring the mic over to you 13 so that people can understand what it is you are 14 suggesting.

15 MR. POLLET: I'm just asking about the 16 possibility of rescheduling on behalf of the people who 17 are on the phones and it is going to be really 18 frustrating. Since you don't have to be in Richland to 19 do this call-in, and it might actually work better if you 20 are at the NRC office.

21 MR. DOYLE: I understand your request. I 22 can't provide you a response to that right now. I 23 understand you are asking to schedule separate call for 24 the people that weren't able to comment, to do that before NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

82 1 the November 16th deadline and I will get back to you on 2 that.

3 MR. POLLET: If we can't get the phone 4 restored, I would appreciate that.

5 MR. DOYLE: Okay.

6 MS. FEHST: Okay, we will try another.

7 Denise are you there?

8 DENISE: I am here.

9 MS. FEHST: Okay, good. Thank you. I 10 think Jacquelyn Valiquette was making a comment when we 11 ran into problems. Is that right?

12 DENISE: She did and her line has also 13 dropped from the conference.

14 MS. FEHST: Okay, dropped before finished.

15 Okay. Kevin Carlson?

16 DENISE: Kevin Carlson. Let me try that 17 line. One moment.

18 MR. CARLSON: Hi, this is Kevin. Can you 19 hear me?

20 MS. FEHST: Yes. Hi, Kevin. Go ahead 21 with your comment please.

22 MR. CARLSON: Great. I've got a little 23 echo so sorry if I get confused.

24 I would like to call for a thorough and --

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

83 1 assessment of the risk of MOX fuel, that that be --

2 MS. FEHST: I'm sorry, Kevin. You started 3 out strong and it started breaking up again.

4 MR. CARLSON: Okay.

5 MS. FEHST: And now you sound good.

6 MR. CARLSON: Oh, I sound good again?

7 MS. FEHST: Let's give it one more try with 8 you. Go ahead.

9 MR. CARLSON: I'll forge ahead.

10 MS. FEHST: Thank you.

11 MR. CARLSON: -- need to consider impacts 12 if a national disaster such as an earthquake causes 13 radiation leaks and how that would impact a cover for the 14 reactor. I am thinking of things like the challenge of 15 keeping cooling water where it is needed. And I also 16 think that we need to consider a risk assessment for the 17 spent fuel pools that are looped through the reactor 18 vessel. I would like to urge the use of hardened casks 19 for the spent fuel.

20 And also give, you know, thanks to the NRC, 21 I realize it is a challenge dealing with technical 22 problems, but I heard this afternoon's meeting -- But 23 I think it highlights that we need public state to state 24 meetings around the nation so that its people can really NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

84 1 participate properly.

2 MS. FEHST: Thank you Kevin for your 3 comment, and thank you for your persistence.

4 Is there a Carol -- And we will move on to 5 the next caller. Carolyn Mann, if she is on the line.

6 MS. MANN: Yes, I am.

7 MS. FEHST: Okay, go ahead, Carolyn.

8 MS. MANN: Well thank you --

9 MS. FEHST: Okay, I'm sorry, Carolyn.

10 We're having a problem again. I wonder, does it have 11 anything to do with the way people are speaking into the 12 phone? No. Yes, okay. We are going to just ask you to 13 hang on for a minute and we will give it another try in 14 just a second.

15 Denise, can you hear me? Oh, okay. Sorry.

16 Okay, I will wait for the signal from our operations man 17 here.

18 (Pause.)

19 MS. FEHST: Okay, we are going to give it 20 one more try. Carolyn, are you on the line?

21 MS. MANN: Yes, I am.

22 MS. FEHST: Okay, would you continue? And 23 I apologize for all these technical difficulties we are 24 having but please go ahead.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

85 1 MS. MANN: I would like to start by --

2 MS. FEHST: No. Okay, I'm sorry. We are 3 hearing that that is not working. Maybe as -- We have 4 another backup option here. And that would be --

5 (Pause.)

6 MS. MANN: Yes, I can hear you.

7 MR. DOYLE: Okay, maybe what we can do is 8 call the name for the person and then turn off the 9 microphone, turn off this other microphone. And then I 10 guess there could still be feedback with the one 11 microphone up front but let's try that and see.

12 Can you perhaps lower the volume of this 13 speaker in the room please, Blaine? We are trying to 14 figure out how we can eliminate this and I really 15 apologize to everyone. I appreciate your patience for 16 us trying to work through this. But we do have, the 17 meeting is scheduled through 10:00. We are not going to 18 end it until we can try to get these people's comments 19 that have called in and have taken their time.

20 The phone should still be connected. Can 21 you ask if Denise is still there? Denise, are you still 22 online?

23 DENISE: I am but we cannot hear you very 24 well.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

86 1 MS. FEHST: We can hear her.

2 MR. DOYLE: Yes, stand by.

3 (Pause.)

4 MR. DOYLE: Okay, who is the next person you 5 want to talk to?

6 MS. FEHST: Carolyn Mann would be, once 7 again, for the third time. Hopefully the third time is 8 the charm and Carolyn will be able to finish her comment.

9 MR. DOYLE: Okay, Carolyn Mann, if she is 10 still online, can she start with her comments, please?

11 DENISE: Okay, let me open the line. Go 12 ahead, Carolyn.

13 MS. MANN: Yes, thank you. Thanks for all 14 the efforts that you are making to be able to hear us.

15 So for my comment, I would like to urge that 16 the NRC hold consideration of relicensing the Columbia 17 Generating Station until the Environmental Impact Review 18 of the Fukushima Reactor is completed. It seems that 19 there is a great deal of information that is continually 20 coming out each day about what has taken place and how 21 it is affecting the individuals through the environment 22 there. And it seems imperative that that information be 23 reviewed and that the whole process that is happening 24 right with regard to relicensing Columbia Generating NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

87 1 Station just be put on hold until such time as this 2 information can be processed and understood as it relates 3 to our local concerns.

4 I also really want to urge that the NRC 5 prohibit all the use of mixed oxide fuel. There is an 6 extreme danger of that particular form of fuel as we have 7 certainly learned from the Fukushima disaster. I would 8 urge that it not even be considered as a possibility in 9 this country.

10 I am also extremely concerned as other 11 callers have been about the use of building spent fuel 12 pools used for storage and precisely like those that were 13 used in the Fukushima design. And I would really like 14 to urge that removal of all the spent fuel to harden 15 concrete casts begin immediately.

16 And lastly I would like to urge the 17 Environmental Impact Statement disclose the 18 environmental impact of potential fires, explosions, 19 climate change-related events or earthquakes, anything 20 that might release radiation and look very closely at 21 these, as it seems that the unusual types of events that 22 are not so much expected such as the earthquake in Japan 23 was so much more severe than anyone would have expected 24 have actually been taking place.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

88 1 And one other issue and that is that I would 2 hope that much more consideration be given to the medical 3 consequences of radiation exposure to individuals over 4 the short-term, as well as long-term and involve 5 radiation as it is experienced in the environment and 6 internal radiation due to contaminated food, water, such 7 things as this.

8 So thank you very much for listening and 9 considering my concerns.

10 MS. FEHST: Okay, thank you for your 11 comment and thank you for your patience.

12 The next three callers that I have here are 13 Mr. Bertish, who I believe was one of the questioners 14 earlier, followed by Kathryn Flores, followed by Suzanne 15 Thorton. Denise, do you have any of these three?

16 DAVID: I'm sorry. This is David. I'll 17 be taking over the call right at this moment. And I'm 18 sorry, which participant?

19 MS. FEHST: It would be Mr. Bertish, 20 B-E-R-T-I-S-H. He was one of the questioners earlier, 21 followed by Kathryn Flores, to be followed by Suzanne 22 Thorton.

23 DAVID: All right, one moment, please.

24 (Pause.)

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

89 1 DAVID: All right. I do not have Thorton 2 or Bertish. And what was the third name?

3 MS. FEHST: You do not have Thorton or 4 Bertish?

5 DAVID: No, I do not.

6 MS. FEHST: Okay, thank you for checking.

7 And Kathryn Flores, F-L-O-R-E-S. These are names that 8 were preregistered. So --

9 DAVID: All right. Apparently at this 10 time I do not have Flores either.

11 MS. FEHST: All right. Then the other 12 names are Carole Hiltner, H-I-L-T-N-E-R.

13 DAVID: I do not show that person's name 14 either.

15 MS. FEHST: Okay. Illira Walker, 16 I-L-L-I-R-A Walker?

17 DAVID: No, I do not have that name at this 18 time.

19 MS. FEHST: Okay. James Kelly or Jude 20 Kone, K-O-N-E?

21 DAVID: That was, I'm sorry, Connor?

22 MS. FEHST: James Kelly, K-E-L-L-Y.

23 DAVID: Kelly.

24 MS. FEHST: Yes. James Kelly.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

90 1 DAVID: Okay, and the other name?

2 MS. FEHST: Jude Kone, K-O-N-E.

3 DAVID: Okay. Not at this time, I do not 4 show their names.

5 MS. FEHST: Okay and then the final card I 6 have is Charles Johnson, who I believe was one of the 7 questioners following Dan Doyle's presentation.

8 DAVID: I'm sorry. That name again?

9 MS. FEHST: Charles Johnson.

10 DAVID: Johnson. Thank you. Not at this 11 time, I do not show their name.

12 MS. FEHST: Okay. And the last one I have 13 is M.C. Goldberg.

14 DAVID: No, I do not show their name at this 15 time.

16 MS. FEHST: Okay. Well those are all the 17 card names that I have. And I am wondering are there any 18 other callers on the line whose names I do not have who 19 would like to make a comment at this time?

20 DAVID: I'm sorry, would you like me to open 21 up the lines of the call?

22 MS. FEHST: Yes, are there any callers on 23 the line who would like to make a comment and haven't had 24 an opportunity to do so, yet?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

91 1 (Chorus of yes.)

2 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I preregistered and 3 my name hasn't been called.

4 MS. MORRIS: This is Nancy Morris and I had 5 some comments I wanted to make.

6 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I need to make 7 comments.

8 MR. MARBET: And this is Lloyd Marbet.

9 MS. FEHST: Okay.

10 MS. CHUDY: This is Cathryn Chudy. I 11 preregistered.

12 MS. FEHST: All right, if I could, let me 13 have a moment here. We will lay out the same order. We 14 will have one person speaking at a time. Each person who 15 is called on to talk will be asked to spell their first 16 and last name. If you are speaking on behalf of an 17 organization, please identify that organization. And 18 finally, when it is your turn to make a comment, please 19 confine your comments to five minutes.

20 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And can we also 21 listen to what is being said?

22 MS. FEHST: You know, at this time, we have 23 a makeshift backup. Well, let me say this. You 24 certainly will hear what is being said when all is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

92 1 responded to. Every substantive comment that is made 2 will be responded to and included in the final SEIS, when 3 that is issued. Your question though, goes to can you 4 hear anyone now.

5 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Exactly.

6 MS. FEHST: And we have our technical 7 person still trying to work on the line. And at this time 8 --

9 MR. DOYLE: This is Daniel Doyle. There is 10 nothing else that is being said in the room. Everyone 11 is carefully listening to what is being presented by the 12 speakers. The only other speakers I believe that are 13 left are the ones that are on the phone.

14 So what we are doing is we are going to call 15 the names of someone who is speaking. And if you are on 16 the phone, you should be able to hear the other caller 17 on the phone while they are talking. And then if 18 anything needs to be said by the NRC staff or anyone else 19 here in the room, we will come up to the front of the 20 podium where the phone is and you would be able to hear 21 it there as well. So you would be able to hear everything 22 that is spoken.

23 So with that in mind, Dave, I am going to 24 ask you to identify each caller. I don't have the names.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

93 1 I am going to ask you, who I believe you have the names.

2 Is that right?

3 DAVID: Do you want me to go ahead and put 4 it back on listen only? I'm sorry. Everyone is back on 5 listen only.

6 We have Carolyn Mann. Would you like me to 7 open up that line first?

8 MS. FEHST: Carolyn Mann has already 9 provided a comment. So I believe her comment period is 10 over.

11 DAVID: I'm sorry, yes. Rachel Stierling.

12 MS. FEHST: Rachel has already given a 13 comment.

14 DAVID: Okay.

15 MS. FEHST: There was named Lindsey?

16 DAVID: Nancy Morris.

17 MS. FEHST: Nancy Morris, I believe has 18 already made a comment.

19 MS. FEHST: Theodora --

20 MS. FEHST: Yes, has already made a 21 comment.

22 There was someone named Lindsey who was 23 preregistered who has not yet made a comment.

24 DAVID: Yes. The only parties I have left NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

94 1 are Lloyd Marbet, Cathryn Chudy, and Madya Panfilio.

2 MS. FEHST: Can you spell that? What's 3 that last one?

4 DAVID: P-A-N-F-I-L-I-O.

5 MS. FEHST: Well let's start with Lloyd, to 6 be followed by Cathryn, to be followed by Panfilio and 7 we will see who is left.

8 DAVID: Okay, I'm sorry. Give me that list 9 one more time, please.

10 MS. FEHST: We'll start with Lloyd, --

11 DAVID: Lloyd.

12 MS. FEHST: To be followed by Cathryn, --

13 DAVID: Okay.

14 MS. FEHST: -- to be followed by Panfilio.

15 DAVID: Excellent. Okay. One moment.

16 Thank you.

17 Lloyd, your line is open.

18 MR. MARBET: Yes, this is Lloyd Marbet. Am 19 I being heard? I really have no idea whether I am 20 connected to this process or not.

21 MS. FEHST: Lloyd, we can hear you. We can 22 hear you, Lloyd. The audience, everyone who is in the 23 room can hear you. Go ahead, please.

24 MR. MARBET: You know, for the last 45 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

95 1 minutes I have been disconnected from this hearing. I 2 have listened to technicians trying to fix the problem, 3 interspersed with bursts of static and screeches of 4 electronic feedback. And I don't know what the problem 5 is but I do know this is not a way to take public input 6 or promote public involvement.

7 And I would ask that the NRC hold more public 8 hearings in other locations in both the State of 9 Washington and Oregon and specifically in Portland, 10 Oregon. I know there are more people, many of which I 11 have heard are disconnected from this call that are 12 concerned about this issue and would like to participate.

13 And there is not an opportunity for them to effectively 14 participate because they are now no longer a part of the 15 process.

16 Now I asked questions during this process 17 and one of them had to do with the operating license being 18 renewed at this time 12 years out from the end of the 19 operating license. Conducting a license renewal now 20 misses the opportunity to thoroughly examine this 21 nuclear plant's operation in light of the lessons being 22 learned from the accident at Fukushima. Reviewing this 23 license extension now ignores the advances in science and 24 engineering over the next 12 years, which can improve the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

96 1 level of analysis which takes place closer to when an 2 operating license expires.

3 And also, it affects the analysis of 4 availability of alternatives. As we have seen in recent 5 times, the cost of wind energy has come down. The cost 6 of photovoltaics has come down. All those have an impact 7 on what might be available to replace the risks that we 8 run in operating the Columbia Generating Station.

9 In looking at the GEIS, and our 10 organization, the Oregon Conservancy Foundation, we are 11 not finished in our review, but in looking at it, we find 12 that there is no seismic analysis in the GEIS. It 13 ignores the impact of large seismic events occurring 14 greater than the reactor design is capable of 15 withstanding. It fails to address the recent study that 16 was published in the news showing earthquakes near 17 Hanford are not as unlikely as first thought. This study 18 was performed by Richard Blakely and his colleagues at 19 the USGS. There should be an analysis of this and it 20 should be a part of this particular review.

21 I am very concerned about the MOX fuel 22 issue, especially in light of what Gerry said. And by 23 the way, I want to thank Gerry for the lengths that he 24 went to try and enable us to be a part of this hearing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

97 1 through this inadequate phone process that we are going 2 through.

3 He raised a point that I was not aware of, 4 that apparently Energy Northwest is not supplying the 5 documents on the MOX situation or their application until 6 after the end of the comment period. That is outrageous.

7 I would hope that the NRC would recognize what is going 8 on here and would extend the public comment period just 9 as a matter of courtesy and not only that, but as an 10 opportunity for there to be further analysis of whether 11 in fact there is information that should be a part of this 12 particular analysis that is taking place now, not some 13 amendment that takes place later.

14 As for the spent fuel and waste issues, you 15 know, the spent fuel pool in this reactor is similar to 16 what is in the Fukushima reactor, Mark I reactors and it 17 raises questions again of the kind of interaction that 18 can take place in a catastrophic event between the spent 19 fuel pool and in the other ongoing events, such as the 20 earthquake that is not being examined in this EIS.

21 Also the continued operation of the 22 Columbia Generating Station adds to the overall backlog 23 of radioactive waste which has no final repository. It 24 is unconscionable for this industry to continue under NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

98 1 these circumstances and I agree with the input that was 2 provided at least by someone that I heard at the 3 beginning, I think about 45 minutes ago or so, who said 4 that in fact we should hold off on licensing renewal and 5 new license applications until that issue is resolved.

6 We agree.

7 Finally, and this came out in my question 8 during the question period regarding the GEIS examining 9 catastrophic accidents in Hanford's cleanup operation 10 affecting the Columbia Generating Station and the 11 reverse of that, the Columbia Generating Station having 12 catastrophic events affecting the Hanford cleanup 13 operation. You know, you would think that after 14 Fukushima we would have got the message. I never ever 15 in the whole time that I have been involved in the NRC's 16 licensing proceedings ever heard that there would be an 17 accident like that which occurred at Fukushima. It was 18 unheard of. It was not even considered. Multiple 19 plants, multiple failures.

20 I mean, it is just amazing to me. And yet 21 here we are again. This is not being analyzed in this 22 license renewal application EIS and it is a terrible 23 oversight. I think it is time for this industry to own 24 up to its responsibility to public health and safety.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

99 1 And I would encourage those members of the NRC that are 2 listening to my words anyway to rise to this occasion.

3 This has gone on too long and it is time for it to cease 4 and I would hope that something would be done about it.

5 And my final comment again is would you 6 please hold public hearings in communities down river 7 from the Columbia Generating Station. We are impacted 8 by the operation of this plant. We have a right to 9 effectively participate, not have to go through what I 10 just went through.

11 Thank you.

12 MS. FEHST: Thank you for your comments.

13 The next is Cathryn, I don't have her last name.

14 Cathryn.

15 Dave are you there? Did we lose Dave?

16 (Pause.)

17 MS. FEHST: We can give it a minute to see 18 if they come back on. We are still connected.

19 MR. DOYLE: The cell phone up here on the 20 podium is still connected to the line. We will wait 21 another couple minutes to see if something comes back but 22 we are not hearing a response from the bridge line, 23 although we are showing that we are still connected up 24 here.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

100 1 But I just want to take a moment to emphasize 2 that this public meeting is not the only way to submit 3 comments, that as included on this slide, as described 4 in the Federal Register notice, the instructions on the 5 website and included in the first few pages of the draft 6 SEIS itself, there are several ways to submit written 7 comments either through the mail or electronically, so 8 online at regulations.gov or by fax at the number here 9 on the screen.

10 So there are other ways to submit comments 11 than at tonight's meeting. The comments that are 12 received by any means are all treated the same. They are 13 all included whether in the transcript or by letters that 14 are sent to us, they are all included in the final SEIS 15 and the NRC will provide a response in the final SEIS to 16 all those comments that we do have.

17 Any luck on the phone line? Dave, are you 18 there? We can still talk. We will wait another minute 19 or two and see if we can get this reconnected.

20 (Pause.)

21 DAVID: Are we on?

22 MS. FEHST: Dave, is that you? Dave, are 23 you there?

24 MS. CHUDY: Hello?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

101 1 MS. FEHST: And who am I speaking to?

2 Caller, please identify yourself. Is this Lindsey or 3 Cathryn?

4 DAVID: Hello, Cathryn?

5 MS. CHUDY: Yes.

6 MS. FEHST: Okay, Cathryn, you are the next 7 caller. Please spell your last name for the record, 8 please and please identify any organization you might be 9 affiliated with for your comment.

10 MS. CHUDY: Well I am a little confused 11 because I just read my statement. Did you not hear me?

12 MS. FEHST: Cathryn, it is your turn. We 13 had some technical difficulties. We were not aware.

14 MS. CHUDY: Okay. So, I just went ahead 15 and did my statement. So if you didn't hear it, I will 16 do it again now.

17 MS. FEHST: Thank you, Cathryn and I am so 18 sorry for these technical difficulties.

19 MS. CHUDY: Okay. My name is Cathryn, 20 C-A-T-H-R-Y-N, Chudy, C-H-U-D-Y. I live in Vancouver, 21 Washington and work in Portland, Oregon. I am 22 testifying as a Washington resident and also as a Board 23 Member of the Oregon Conservancy Foundation.

24 I appreciate the opportunity to speak but NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

102 1 I also agree with the previous caller who said that there 2 should be regional meetings where people can show up in 3 person to testify.

4 I also would like to note that I don't 5 believe we can separate issues of safety from 6 environmental impact issues. And particularly in light 7 of the Fukushima disaster, I think they entirely related 8 and should be considered for the final decision.

9 I believe they are realizing maybe the 10 Columbia Generating Station was a bad idea; it poses 11 risks that are far too significant to ignore or gloss 12 over. This plant has been identified by the 13 industry-funded institute of the Nuclear Power 14 Operations as one of two in the country most in need of 15 improvements in operations and "human performance." In 16 other words, one of the two most primary ones in the 17 country. It has elicited heightened oversight due to a 18 trend of too many unplanned shutdowns over the past 19 several years. Shutdowns stress the safety systems in 20 a plant that is nearing the end of its 20-year span 21 originally intended to operate.

22 I am greatly concerned about continuing to 23 operate an aging plant that is fully run and that poses 24 hundreds of risks that have not been adequately addressed NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

103 1 in the Environmental Impact Statement draft. The EIS 2 failed to consider the impact of risk in the proposal to 3 use plutonium fuel. It fails to disclose and consider 4 the impact of six major safety problems that were 5 formerly reported as unresolved by NRC Staff as of 6 September 2011. The dangerous location of the reactor 7 on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, the Environmental 8 Impact Statement must disclose and consider the impacts 9 of climate change events, fire, earthquake, explosions 10 that could lead to leaking of radiation from Hanford 11 facilities. It failed to address the spent fuel pools 12 at risk. It failed to address what will happen to the 13 waste. And there has been no seismic analysis, which is 14 of particular concern in light of the Fukushima accident 15 combined with new research findings related to potential 16 seismic habits of the region.

17 If I understand correctly, the NRC position 18 is that environmental risks exposed by Fukushima will be 19 handled through their normal regulatory process. I find 20 this dangerously ironic, in light of the Associated 21 Press's investigative report published in June of this 22 year that federal regulators have been repeatedly 23 weakening safety standards or simply failing to enforce 24 them in order to keep aging reactors operating within NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

104 1 "safety standards." This is simply unacceptable, given 2 the NRC's charge to ensure adequate protection of public 3 health and safety.

4 If the NRC truly intends on ensuring the 5 adequate protection of public health and safety, it 6 should deny this license renewal and apply the money that 7 would be spent on operating safety to invest in 8 conservation and renewable energy sources to replace the 9 power of this reactor. Thank you.

10 MS. FEHST: Thank you for your comment and 11 thank you for your willingness to give your statement a 12 second time.

13 Mr. Panfilio would be next. Mr. Panfilio, 14 could you identify yourself by name and also by any 15 organization you might be affiliated with pertaining to 16 your comment?

17 MR. PANFILIO: It is Madya Panfilio, 18 M-A-D-Y-A, P, as in Paul, A-N, F as in Frank, I-L-I-O, 19 from Vancouver, Washington and a private citizen.

20 For the citizens of the Northwest, owners 21 of the Columbia Generating Station, and the world, 22 Fukushima is a wake-up call to the world as to the 23 dangerous world we have created. And now we must take 24 responsibility for the arcane nuclear energy causing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

105 1 global climate change. It is time to get to the truth 2 of how gravely dangerous the chemicals are. More public 3 hearings are extremely important.

4 To say that nuclear energy is clean is to 5 say that drinking poison is healthy. Hearts must be open 6 for the courage to do good for the earth in order for us 7 to have good health, long lives, prosperity, and leave 8 a legacy of well-being for future generations.

9 Thank you.

10 MS. FEHST: Thank you for your comment.

11 Dave, do we have anyone else on the line who 12 is prepared to make a comment?

13 DAVID: Currently at this time, there are 14 just the parties that you had mentioned already asked 15 their questions; Nancy Morris, Rachel Stierling, Carolyn 16 Mann, Cathryn Chudy, and Madya is the only party left on 17 the call.

18 MS. FEHST: Okay, there isn't a Lindsey on 19 the line waiting to make a comment?

20 (Pause.)

21 MS. FEHST: And maybe while you are 22 checking that, we have another audience member who would 23 like to make a comment. Ed May.

24 And we will get back to the line one more NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

106 1 time after this comment.

2 MR. MAY: I hope I don't speak too loud. My 3 name is Ed May. I am a union ironworker. I really just 4 have a few brief comments. Having built nuclear plants, 5 worked in coal-fired plants and built them, and worked 6 in and built refineries, there is no easy way for me to 7 say this. I feel much safer working in a nuke plant than 8 I did at the previous two. Thank you.

9 MS. FEHST: Thank you for your comment.

10 Dave on the line, is there any other caller 11 who would like to make a comment at tonight's meeting?

12 DAVID: Apparently at this time I can open 13 up the lines if you would like me to.

14 MS. FEHST: Let's do that. Let's take that 15 chance and see if there is anyone remaining who would like 16 to make a comment.

17 DAVID: The lines are open.

18 MS. MORRIS: This is Nancy Morris. Can you 19 hear me?

20 MS. FEHST: Yes, Nancy, we can hear you. I 21 believe you made a comment earlier or asked a question.

22 MS. MORRIS: Given the fact that you asked 23 for questions in the beginning for clarification, --

24 MS. FEHST: Yes.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

107 1 MS. MORRIS: -- I made no comments. I 2 asked a question.

3 MS. FEHST: Excellent. Okay. Yes, we 4 have you down for questions and now it is your time to 5 make your comment. Please go ahead.

6 MS. MORRIS: You said to wait to make a 7 comment when it was over.

8 MS. FEHST: Yes, that's fine. Thank you.

9 MS. MORRIS: Anyway, I wanted to make a 10 comment that -- Is it okay to go ahead?

11 MS. FEHST: Yes. Please make your 12 comment. Go ahead. It is your turn. Please make a 13 comment.

14 MS. MORRIS: Yes, this is Nancy Morris. I 15 wanted to comment, first of all, I agree with Gerry Pollet 16 and I agree with the two previous women who made comments 17 so I won't try to belabor what they said. They said it 18 very, very well.

19 But I wanted to add that I think it is very 20 disconcerting to have our PUD use the Columbia Generating 21 Station to use nuclear power and also in one case denying 22 documents that are necessary for further clarification 23 on types of hardened casks for the spent fuel waste.

24 I also find that the use of clean power is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

108 1 a form of propaganda literally and also anyone who says 2 nuclear power is safe has continually ignored all of the 3 dangers. Essentially that is what is happening.

4 And if you continually, if the industry 5 continually ignores long-term health effects or 6 long-term environmental impacts when they are assessing 7 safety standards, then anyone can say anything is safe.

8 And quite frankly, given the way these type 9 of reviews are going and the way the industry is observing 10 itself in terms of always these low-level dangers. I 11 think not that the licensee system should be completely 12 reviewed and have different and higher standards 13 instigated. That would certainly allow them to compare 14 Fukushima and what happened there.

15 And also, too, again, too, actually 16 recognize all the standards that have been improved in 17 terms of wind energy and solar energy to incorporate that 18 in terms of cost of what it would be to have those over 19 the next 20 years versus having the safety standards 20 improved at this plant is very unsafe. And I really feel 21 insulted when we have a power analyst or any 22 representative who would continually use the term of 23 nuclear clean power waste in a world of scientist who 24 completely disagree if this were a physicist forum.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

109 1 Thank you.

2 MS. FEHST: Thank you for your comment and 3 your patience. Do we have any other callers who would 4 like to make a comment tonight?

5 MS. STIERLING: This is Rachel Stierling 6 from Heart of America Northwest and I would like to 7 follow-up a little bit on what Nancy had to say and say 8 that I am just as shocked as she is. And that if we can 9 all sit by and let regulatory commissions sort of to 10 perceive things that we already know are common sense, 11 I think we are, gosh, we are giving this by extension to 12 our children. And maybe it is the tree-hugger 13 philosophy, maybe it's not but it is bullshit and we all 14 know what it is, to be frank. I hear a giggle in the 15 background but you know what I mean. It is ridiculous 16 that we sit around and look at this and in light of what 17 we have seen in the last couple of months, we don't 18 actually have some sort of balance on this and really 19 start to look at it in terms of what it means for our 20 future generations, even when my grandchildren. It is 21 either our grandchildren or either our kids. We are 22 irresponsible if we are not doing better than that and 23 we should be.

24 So that is all I am going to have to say about NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

110 1 that.

2 MS. FEHST: Thank you for your comment. Is 3 there anyone else on the line who would like to add to 4 a comment or make an initial comment?

5 (Pause.)

6 MS. FEHST: I'll take that as a no. I think 7 we are finished with the callers. Dave, are you there?

8 DAVID: Yes, I am.

9 MS. FEHST: Okay. I just wanted to make 10 sure we hadn't lost the line. It sounds like there are 11 no further callers who are interested in making a comment 12 tonight.

13 Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience 14 who would like to make a comment or add to a comment before 15 we close the meeting for tonight?

16 Yes, okay. So Gerry Pollet would like to.

17 Come on up to the podium, please.

18 MR. POLLET: Gerry Pollet with Heart of 19 America Northwest. I cut myself short because I wanted 20 to let other people go. Again, thank you for the Staff's 21 patience. You have been remarkably patient with the 22 technical problems. I really appreciate it.

23 The safety issues that need to be disclosed 24 and discussed include mitigation for this reactor of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

111 1 effects of Hanford accidents and the ability to recover 2 from an accident. For instance, we all know in light of 3 Fukushima, or we should know that being able to restore 4 power is a rather critical function. The impact of a 5 release at Hanford could very easily preclude the 6 restoration of power to the reactor and that this EIS also 7 needs to examine the question of what happens when there 8 are multiple failures. CGS is not going to be the only 9 facility at Hanford in the event of a serious 10 design-basis earthquakes or some other accident that 11 requires restoration of power on an urgent basis. There 12 aren't enough linemen available to bring that power in.

13 If there is a take cover on the Hanford site, who is going 14 to being in diesel fuel or lay in lines?

15 And if the fuel pool for cesium and 16 strontium or another facility has potential for 17 criticality at the same time, or there is a tank rupture 18 and release or aligned leak and release, we need to 19 consider how in the world we are going to mitigate that 20 and restore functionality at this reactor at the same 21 time.

22 And it is with great dismay I have to say 23 to read in the EIS that based on NRC's incredibly lax 24 rules, restoration of power, even after the Staff NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

112 1 identified it as a concern and suggested being able to 2 survive without power for ten hours instead of seven and 3 five, that was rejected by the applicant, Energy 4 Northwest, and the NRC accepts the rejection of that as 5 "not being cost-effective." That is ridiculous.

6 The notion that restoration of power having 7 to wait ten hours instead of seven hours can be rejected 8 on the basis of saying that we have done a cost-benefit 9 analysis and the cost doesn't justify being able to do 10 that. The same with being able to have effective diesel 11 backup.

12 I just really felt that it is very important 13 that we look at what the interrelationships are on the 14 Hanford site. This is the only commercial reactor in the 15 entire country located in frankly what is the stupidest 16 possible location. It is on the river for cooling water.

17 We all know that. Back in the 1970s, it was free land, 18 the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Let's build five 19 reactors here. But it was a stupid idea. And at the 20 time in the '70s, no one really knew what was going on 21 at Hanford and what the risks were. The public didn't 22 know. The utility districts that comprised WPPSS didn't 23 know what the risks were from high level nuclear waste 24 tanks at that time from other nuclear facilities.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

113 1 Now we know. And it is not wise to ignore 2 it. Thank you.

3 MS. FEHST: Thank you for your comment.

4 Does anyone else have anything to add? Any final 5 comment? Any new comment?

6 If not, we will adjourn the meeting and 7 close it for now. And I really want to thank you for your 8 patience throughout all these technical difficulties.

9 I want to really thank you for your respectful listening 10 to all the participants, both the callers and your fellow 11 audience members and I want to remind you of what Dan said 12 earlier. There are many different ways to make 13 comments. Public participation at this meeting is not 14 the only one. Written comments are received by email, 15 by snail mail, by fax. And we do take into account every 16 single comment, every single substantive comment that we 17 receive. And we do hope that we hear from you.

18 And once again, I really want to thank you 19 for your attention and your attendance. And thank you 20 again. Good night.

21 (Whereupon, at 9:53 p.m., the foregoing 22 proceeding was adjourned.)

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML112910229&oldid=2111071"