ML11273A140: 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)
 
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Official Transcript of Proceedings  
{{#Wiki_filter:Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Title:          Seabrook Station License Renewal Public Meeting - Evening Session Docket Number: (n/a)
Location:            Hampton, New Hampshire Date:          Thursday, September 15, 2011 Work Order No.:      NRC-1120                          Pages 1-76 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
1 1                      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2                    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3                                  + + + + +
4                      PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS 5              PRELIMINARY SITE-SPECIFIC RESULTS OF THE 6              LICENSE RENEWAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR 7                            SEABROOK STATION 8                                  + + + + +
9                            Upper Great Hall 10                            One Liberty Lane 11                        One Liberty Lane East 12                    Hampton, New Hampshire 03842 13                                  + + + + +
14                    Thursday, September 15, 2011 15                                  7:00 p.m.
16 FACILITATOR:
17 BRIAN ANDERSON 18 NRC STAFF PRESENTING:
19 MICHAEL WENTZEL, Environmental Project Manager, Office 20 of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701  www.nealrgross.com
 
2 1                      P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2                                                        (7:00 p.m.)
3                  BRIAN ANDERSON:            Good evening ladies and 4 gentlemen.        This is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5 meeting to discuss license renewal for the Seabrook 6 Nuclear Power Station.
7                  My name is Brian Anderson.            I will be the 8 facilitator for tonight's meeting.
9                  The purpose of this meeting is to discuss 10 the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 11 related to the license renewal review for Seabrook 12 Nuclear Power Station.
13                  The NRC staff will make a presentation.
14 We'll have a brief question and answer session, but 15 the main purpose of today's meeting is to hear your 16 comments on the NRC's review.                The NRC's review of the 17 Seabrook      license    renewal      application    is    not        yet 18 complete.        The comments that are provided today and 19 after this meeting will be considered by the NRC staff 20 before it issues its Final Supplemental Environmental 21 Impact Statement sometime next year.
22                  I'd like to start by introducing some of 23 the NRC staff members that are here tonight.                  I'd like 24 to      introduce    Mr.      Mike    Wentzel.      Mike    is        the 25 Environmental Project Manager for the Seabrook license 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 renewal review.          I'd also like to introduce Mr. Rick 2 Plasse -- Rick is the Safety Project Manager for the 3 Seabrook license renewal review.                      Dave Wrona is the 4 Chief of the License Renewal Projects Branch Number 2.
5  Mike, Rick and Dave all work in the NRC headquarters 6 facility near Washington, DC.
7                    I'd also like to introduce Diane Screnci -
8 -    Diane    is  in  the    back.        She's      a  Public    Affairs 9 officer with the Region 1 office the NRC maintains 10 near Philadelphia.              I'd also like to introduce Mr.
11 Rich Conte.          Rich is the Chief of Engineering Branch 12 Number 1, also located at the NRC's Region 1 office 13 near Philadelphia.              I'd also like to introduce Mr.
14 Bill Raymond.          Bill is the Senior Resident Inspector 15 here at the Seabrook Station.
16                    For those that don't know, the Nuclear 17 Regulatory        Commission      has      at      least  two    Resident 18 Inspectors assigned to each nuclear power plant in the 19 United States.          NRC Resident Inspectors live in the 20 local        communities    and    they      perform    daily      safety 21 reactor inspections at every nuclear power plant in 22 this country.
23                    I'd also like to introduce a member of 24 Senator Ayotte's office that's here tonight -- Mike 25 Scala -- in the back.                  I'd like to thank Mike for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
 
4 1 taking the time to join us tonight.
2                    I'd like to cover a few housekeeping items 3 before we get into the formal part of the presentation 4 and      meeting    tonight.        I    think      everybody    probably 5 noticed that there are tables of materials in the 6 lobby as you came into the auditorium.                        Please feel 7 free to help yourself with paper copies of any NRC 8 literature that's there -- for use during this meeting 9 and even afterwards.            I'd also ask -- to help minimize 10 distractions during the meeting -- if you could please 11 silence your cell phones.                Either turn them off or put 12 them in vibrate mode -- whatever you prefer.
13                    The agenda for tonight's meeting's going 14 to start with a formal presentation by the NRC staff.
15  We'll follow that with a short question-and-answer 16 session.          We'll then move to hearing your comments.
17 Because the main purpose of this meeting is to hear 18 public        comments    related        to    the      Seabrook    license 19 renewal and Environmental Review, we've allotted 25-20 minutes for the NRC presentation and 25-minutes for 21 the question-and-answer session.                      We wanted to leave 22 the majority of the time for hearing your comments.
23 So that's what the remaining two-hours of the meeting 24 are set aside for.
25                    During the question-and-answer session --
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 I'll say this again after the presentation's done --
2 the NRC staff is prepared to talk about the review 3 process        and    the      preliminary          results      of        the 4 Environmental          Review      that's      taken      place    for        the 5 Seabrook license renewal application.                        Since only a 6 limited number of NRC technical staff are here, NRC 7 staff might not be able to answer all questions that 8 you have.          They'll certainly be prepared to answer 9 questions related to this review process and to the 10 preliminary results of the Environmental Review, but 11 other questions might need to be taken as comments.
12 We might need to follow-up with you later outside of 13 this meeting.
14                    And    because        there        are  very    few        NRC 15 technical        experts      that      are    here    at  the    meeting 16 tonight, the NRC staff does not intend to respond to 17 comments that you provide during the last two-hours of 18 the meeting.          The NRC will provide written responses 19 to      all    comments    it    receives        --    not  just    at      this 20 meeting, but for the remainder of the comment period 21 that follows this meeting.
22                    Finally, before we get started, I'd like 23 to      just    cover    a    few      ground      rules    for    tonight's 24 meeting.          There    are    a  number      of  people  that        have 25 signed-up        to  provide      comments.          So,  based      on      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
 
6 1 number of people that have signed-up -- I'd like to 2 ask that everybody please be concise and please limit 3 your time to five-minutes when you provide comments.
4 I wanted to set the stage there so that everybody has 5 an      opportunity    to    provide        comments.        And        that 6 everybody has an equal amount of time.                    In the event 7 that you are not able to provide all the comments that 8 you want during the five-minute period, if there's 9 time      left  over  at    the    end    of      the  meeting      we'll 10 certainly allow you to provide additional comments.
11                  But  providing        comments        at  this    meeting 12 here today is not the only way to provide comments.
13 You don't necessarily have to say anything at this 14 meeting for your comments to be registered by the NRC.
15  There are other ways to do that and NRC staff will 16 discuss that during their presentation.
17                  There's a court reporter in the back of 18 the room.      We are transcribing this meeting so we have 19 a clear record of what's said here.                    So, to help with 20 that process, I'd like to ask that anybody that likes 21 to speak, please only speak into a microphone.                        During 22 the question-and-answer session and during the comment 23 period, I'll provide a microphone for you to speak.
24 For those same reasons, I'd also like to ask that we 25 only have one person speak at a time.                        It's very 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 important that we have a clear transcript of what is 2 said        here  tonight,      so    everybody        that    speaks        --
3 speaking into a microphone and only having one person 4 talk at a time is a very good way to make sure that 5 we've got a clear record of what happens tonight.
6                    Lastly, I'll say that it's possible that 7 you're going to hear opinions that might be different 8 from your own tonight.              I'd like to ask that we treat 9 each      other    with  respect      and      courtesy      during        this 10 meeting.
11                    Do those ground rules sound like something 12 that everybody can live with?
13                    PAUL GUNTER:        Absolutely.
14                    BRIAN ANDERSON:          Good.        Thank you.          With 15 that,        I'll  turn    it    over    to    the      NRC  staff      for      a 16 presentation.        Mike --
17                    THOMAS SAPORITO [via telephone]:                      Just a 18 quick question -- are you going to notify us with 19 about one-minute left at the end of five-minutes?
20                    BRIAN    ANDERSON:            The    question      was      --
21 During the five-minute comment period, will I notify 22 you as your time is winding down?                      I certainly can do 23 that.        What I have a habit of doing is standing in the 24 back        while  comments      are    being        made  and    as      time 25 approaches        five-minutes,        I'll      slowly      start    to      move 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 forward.        So, the closer I get to the podium, the 2 closer you are to your five-minutes and probably over.
3  So, I'm not trying to infringe on your space, but 4 that's a way of keeping time.
5                  THOMAS SAPORITO:          Thank you.
6                  BRIAN ANDERSON:        A-hmm.      Mike --
7                  MICHAEL WENTZEL:            Great. Good evening.
8 As Brian said earlier, my name's Mike Wentzel.                          I am 9 the Project Manager at the NRC that's responsible for 10 coordinating the Environmental Review activities for 11 the Seabrook Station license renewal application.                            I 12 gave this warning earlier today and I'd like to give 13 it as well -- I don't have a good --
14                  THOMAS SAPORITO:          [indiscernible]
15                  MICHAEL WENTZEL:          We do have somebody on 16 the phone that's participating in the meeting this 17 evening.
18                  BRIAN ANDERSON:          Mike -- hold on for just 19 second.        Let me see if I can position this phone a 20 little closer to the speaker.
21                  For those on the phone, I moved the phone 22 probably as close as I can to one of the speakers here 23 in the room.      Does that sound like it's any better?
24                  THOMAS SAPORITO:          I can hear you loud and 25 --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
 
9 1                  BRIAN ANDERSON:        Okay.
2                  MICHAEL WENTZEL:          Anyway, as I was saying 3 -- I don't have an indication of what slide I'm on.
4 So if it looks like I'm out of sync with what the 5 presentation is, please just call my attention to it 6 and I'll try to get back into sync.
7                  Okay. On August 1st, the NRC published 8 its Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 9 -- or Draft SEIS as we refer to it -- related to the 10 Seabrook Station license renewal Environmental Review.
11  The Draft SEIS documents the NRC's preliminary review 12 of the environmental impacts associated with renewing 13 the license for Seabrook Station for an additional 20-14 years and today I'm here to present those results to 15 you.
16                  I  hope    that    the      information    that        we 17 provide will help you understand what we've done so 18 far and the role that you can play in helping us to 19 make sure that the Final Impact Statement is accurate 20 and complete.
21                  Here's the agenda for the meeting this 22 evening.        I'm going to discuss the Agency's regulatory 23 role; the preliminary findings of our Environmental 24 Review, including the power generation alternatives 25 that      were  considered;      I    will      present  the    current NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
 
10 1 schedule        for  the    remainder        of    the    Environmental 2 Review; and how you can submit comments outside of 3 this meeting.        From there, I will take time to briefly 4 discuss        two-topics      that    are      not    related      to      the 5 Seabrook Station license renewal application process, 6 and those are going to be -- well, let me correct that 7 -- the Environmental Review of the Seabrook Station 8 license renewal application.                  These are the concrete 9 issues        at  Seabrook      and      the      NRC's    response          to 10 Fukushima.
11                    At the end of the presentation, there will 12 be time for questions and answers on the Environmental 13 Review process and most importantly, time for you to 14 present your comments on the Draft SEIS.
15                    The  NRC      was    established          to    regulate 16 civilian uses of nuclear material including facilities 17 that produce electric power.                The NRC conducts license 18 renewal        reviews  for    plants      whose      owners      wish        to 19 operate them beyond their initial license period.                              The 20 NRC      license    renewal    reviews      address      safety        issues 21 related        to  managing      the      effects      of    aging          and 22 environmental issues related to an additional 20-years 23 of operation.        In all aspects of the NRC's regulation, 24 the Agency's mission is threefold: to ensure adequate 25 protection of public health and safety; to promote 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 common        defense  and      security;        and    to  protect          the 2 environment.
3                    Am I out of sync?          Sorry about that.
4                    We're here today to discuss the potential 5 site-specific impacts of license renewal for Seabrook 6 Station.          The Generic Environmental Impact Statement, 7 which        is  referred    to    as    the    GEIS    --  examines          the 8 possible environmental impacts that could occur as a 9 result        of  renewing      licenses      of      individual    nuclear 10 power plants under 10 CFR Part 54.                        The GEIS, to the 11 extent          possible,        establishes            the    bounds          and 12 significance of these potential impacts.                      The analyses 13 in      the      GEIS  encompass        all      operating      light-water 14 reactors.          For each type of environmental impact, the 15 GEIS attempts to establish generic findings covering 16 as many power plants as possible.
17                    For some environmental issues, the GEIS 18 found that a generic evaluation was not sufficient and 19 that a plant specific analysis was required.                                    The 20 site-specific findings for Seabrook are contained in 21 the Draft SEIS, which was published on August 1st of 22 this year.          This document contains analyses of all the 23 applicable site-specific issues, as well as a review 24 of issues covered by the GEIS to determine whether the 25 conclusions          in  the    GEIS      are      valid    for    Seabrook NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
 
12 1 Station.
2                    In    this    process,        the    NRC  staff        also 3 reviews the environmental impacts of potential power 4 generation          alternatives          to      license    renewal          to 5 determine whether the impacts expected from license 6 renewal are unreasonable.
7                    For each environmental issue identified, 8 an impact level is assigned.                        The NRC standard of 9 significance        for    impacts      was    established    using        the 10 White          House    Council        on      Environmental        Quality 11 terminology for `significant'.
12                    The    NRC      established          three  levels          of 13 significance for potential impacts: Small, Moderate 14 and Large -- as defined here on the slide.                                For a 15 Small impact -- the effects are not detectable or are 16 so      minor    that    they    will      neither      destabilize          nor 17 noticeably          alter    any      important        attribute        of      a 18 resource.          For a Moderate impact -- the effects are 19 sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize 20 important attributes of the resource.                      And for a Large 21 impact -- the effects are clearly noticeable and are 22 sufficient to destabilize important attributes of a 23 resource.
24                    This slide lists the site-specific issues 25 the NRC staff reviewed for the continued operation 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
 
13 1 Seabrook Station during the proposed license renewal 2 period.          As discussed in the previous slide, each 3 issue is assigned a level of environmental impact of 4 Small,        Moderate      or    Large      by      the  environmental 5 reviewers.        The staff's preliminary conclusion is that 6 the site-specific impacts related to license renewal 7 for aquatic resources is Small for most species and 8 Large for winter flounder, rainbow smelt and some kelp 9 species        due  to    the    impact      of    the  operation          of 10 Seabrook's once-through cooling system.
11                    Similarly,      for      protected        species          and 12 habitats -- the staff's preliminary conclusion is that 13 the impacts related to license renewal are Small for 14 most species and Large for rainbow smelt -- a species 15 identified by the National Marine Fishery Service as a 16 species of concern.            For all other resource areas, the 17 impacts are Small.
18                    Now, when reviewing the potential impacts 19 of license renewal on the environment, the NRC staff 20 also looks at the effects on the environment from 21 other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 22 human        actions.        These      effects,        referred      to      as 23 Cumulative Impacts, not only include the operation of 24 Seabrook, but also impacts from activities unrelated 25 to Seabrook -- such as the development of the East 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 Coast Greenway, commercial fishing and climate change.
2  Past actions are those related to the resources at 3 the        time    of  the      power      plant's        licensing          and 4 construction.          Present actions are those related to 5 resources at the time of the current operation of the 6 power plant.          Future actions are considered to be 7 those that are reasonably foreseeable through the end 8 of      the    plant  operation,        including        the  period        of 9 extended operation.
10                    Therefore,          the        analysis        considers 11 potential        impacts    through      the      end  of  the    current 12 license renewal term, as well as the 20-year renewal 13 term.          While the impact due to direct and indirect 14 impacts of Seabrook on aquatic resources is Small for 15 most species and Large for winter flounder, rainbow 16 smelt and some kelp species -- the Cumulative Impacts, 17 when      combined    with    all    other      sources    --  such        as 18 pressure        from  commercial        fishing        and    effects        of 19 climate change -- will be Moderate for most species 20 and Large for winter flounder, rainbow smelt and other 21 species that would be adversely affected by climate 22 change.          In the other areas the staff considered --
23 the      preliminary    conclusion        is      that  the  Cumulative 24 Impacts are Small.
25                    The  National        Environmental          Policy        Act 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 mandates that for each Environmental Impact Statement, 2 there needs to be a consideration of alternatives to 3 any proposed major federal action.                        A major step in 4 determining whether license renewal is reasonable or 5 not      is    comparing    the    likely        impacts    of  continued 6 operation of the nuclear power plant with the likely 7 impacts of alternative means of power generation.                              Any 8 alternative must provide an option that allows for 9 power generation capability beyond the term of the 10 current nuclear power plant operating license to meet 11 future        system    generating        needs.          In  the      Draft 12 Supplement, the NRC staff initially considered (16) 13 different          alternatives.                After      this      initial 14 consideration, the staff then chose the three most 15 likely and analyzed these in depth.
16                    Finally,      the    NRC    staff    considered        what 17 would        happen  if    no    action      is    taken  and  Seabrook 18 Station shuts down at the end of its current license 19 without        a  specific      replacement          alternative.          This 20 alternative          would      not    provide        power    generation 21 capacity nor would it meet the needs currently met by 22 Seabrook Station.
23                    The NRC's preliminary conclusion is that 24 there          is    no    clear        environmentally          preferred 25 alternative        to  license      renewal.          All  alternatives 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 capable        of  meeting      the    needs      currently  served        by 2 Seabrook Station entail impacts greater than or equal 3 to the proposed action of license renewal.
4                    Based on a review of likely environmental 5 impacts from license renewal, as well as potential 6 environmental          impacts      to    alternatives      to    license 7 renewal -- the NRC staff's preliminary recommendation 8 in the Draft SEIS is that the environmental impacts of 9 license renewal for Seabrook Station are not great 10 enough to deny the option of license renewal.
11                    Now,    I'd    like      to    emphasize    that        the 12 Environmental          Review      is    not      yet    complete.          Your 13 comments that you present today -- and all written 14 comments received by the end of the comment period on 15 October 26th -- will be considered by the NRC staff, 16 as we develop the Final SEIS, which we currently plan 17 to issue in March of 2012.                      Those comments that are 18 within        the  scope    of    the    Environmental        Review        and 19 provide new and significant information can help to 20 change the staffs' findings.                        The Final SEIS will 21 contain        the    staff's      final      recommendation        on      the 22 acceptability of license renewal based on the work 23 we've already performed and any new and significant 24 information we received in the form of comments during 25 the comment period.
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                    Now,  as    I    said    in      the  front    of      the 2 meeting, I'm the primary contact for the Environmental 3 Review.          My colleague, Rick Plasse, is the primary 4 contact        for  the  Safety      Review.          And  our    contact 5 information is here and in the slides that are part of 6 the      handout.        Hard    copies      of    the    Draft    SEIS        are 7 available outside the door there, as are copies on CD-8 ROM.        In addition, the Seabrook and Amesbury Public 9 Libraries have agreed to make hard-copies available 10 for your review.            You can also find electronic copies 11 of the Draft SEIS along with other information about 12 the Seabrook Station license renewal review online at 13 the Web address on the slide.
14                    The  NRC      staff      will        address      written 15 comments in the same way we address spoken comments 16 received        today.      You    can    submit        written    comments 17 either online or via conventional mail.                            To submit 18 written        comments    online,      visit        the  web    site        --
19 regulations.gov          and    search    for      Docket    ID  NRC-2010-20 0206.        If you have written comments this evening, you 21 may give them to any NRC staff member.
22                    Now,  before      we    open      up  the  meeting        to 23 questions and comments, I wanted to take some time to 24 briefly discuss two topics that are of some interest 25 to people in attendance -- those are the concrete NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
 
18 1 degradation          at  Seabrook      and    the      NRC's  response        to 2 Fukushima.          While these issues are not related to the 3 Seabrook Environmental Review and are therefore not 4 specifically addressed in the Draft SEIS, they are 5 issues        that    are    being      actively          addressed    through 6 relevant Agency processes.
7                    Alkali-silica reaction -- referred to as 8 ASR -- is a process that can occur in some forms of 9 concrete that have been exposed to water for long 10 periods of time.            ASR can cause expansion and cracking 11 in concrete structures.                    During the course of the 12 license renewal process, ASR related degradation was 13 found at Seabrook.                As discussed during the annual 14 assessment public meeting on June 8th, there are no 15 immediate        safety      concerns      associated        with    ASR      at 16 Seabrook.            NRC    has    found      no      problems    with        any 17 electrical system, piping or any other component as a 18 result        of  ASR    and    the    concrete        walls  continue          to 19 perform within design specifications.                          The evaluation 20 of ASR and its impacts on license renewal is being 21 addressed as part of the Safety Review.
22                    Additionally,          the      NRC    has    requested 23 NextEra explain how it intends to manage the effects 24 of aging associated with ASR.                  The NRC has delayed the 25 license renewal Safety Review until NextEra completes 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 its evaluation and addresses the staffs' questions.
2 The NRC will not make a decision on license renewal 3 before it fully understands both the issues with ASR 4 affected structures and NextEra's plan to address the 5 issues.
6                  Now, since the accident at Fukushima, the 7 NRC      has  taken    multiple        steps      to  ensure    the      safe 8 operation of nuclear power plants both now and in the 9 future.        As  part    of  its    initial      response      to      the 10 accident, the NRC issued temporary instructions to our 11 inspectors directing specific inspections at nuclear 12 power plants in order to assess disaster readiness and 13 compliance with current regulations.                      The next step in 14 the NRC's review was the report of the NRC's Near-Term 15 Task Force.        The purpose of the Near-Term Task Force 16 was to develop near-term recommendations and suggest a 17 framework for us to move forward within the longer 18 term.
19                  The Near-Term Task Force issued its report 20 on July 12th and discussed the results of their review 21 at a public meeting on July 28th.                      As a result of its 22 review, the Near-Term Task Force presented (12) over-23 arching        recommendations          for      improvement.            These 24 recommendations are applicable to operating reactors 25 regardless of license renewal status.                        Based on 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
 
20 1 results of the Near-Term Task Force, the Commission 2 has directed the NRC staff to evaluate and outline 3 which of the recommendations should be implemented.
4                    The    staff      submitted          a  paper    to        the 5 Commission        on  September        9th,    providing      the    staffs' 6 initial          recommendation            of      which      Task        Force 7 recommendations can and -- in the staffs' judgment --
8 should be initiated in part or in whole without delay.
9  On October 3, 2011, the staff will submit another 10 Commission paper on its prioritization of (11) of the 11 (12) Task Force recommendations.
12                    Recommendation 1 of the Task Force -- the 13 recommendation          to    reevaluate          the      NRC's  regulatory 14 framework will be evaluated over the next 18-months.
15 To date, the NRC has not identified any issues as part 16 of      these    activities      that      calls      into  question          the 17 safety of any nuclear facility.                          Additionally, the 18 review        process  is    going    on    independent        of    license 19 renewal.        Any changes that are identified as necessary 20 will be implemented for all licensees regardless of 21 license renewal status.
22                    For more information on the NRC's post-23 Fukushima activities -- including the results of the 24 Near-Term Task Force -- you can go to the NRC's web 25 site, the home page and click on the link -- Japan 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 nuclear accident NRC actions -- or you can go directly 2 through the web address that's laid out here on the 3 slide.        There are also a limited number of copies of 4 the Near-Term Task Force report available outside next 5 to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
6                    Additionally,          there        are  question          and 7 answer sheets related to Fukushima and Seabrook for 8 those that are interested.
9                    Now, before I turn it back over Brian, I 10 did just want to emphasize that we are here today to 11 talk about the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
12 We do have a limited number of staff -- but we are not 13 experts on everything.                  So, if we could limit the 14 comments        to  the    extent      practical        on  the        Draft 15 Environmental Impact Statement or the Environmental 16 Review process -- you're probably going to get more 17 robust answers than -- there is a lot more information 18 that can be found online on Fukushima, if that's what 19 your question is.
20                    Okay, with that I'm going to conclude my 21 presentation and turn it back over to Brian.
22                    BRIAN ANDERSON:            Thank you, Mike.              Like 23 Mike      said,    before    we    move    to    the    main  purpose        of 24 tonight's meeting, which is to hear your comments --
25 we would like to offer a short question-and-answer 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 session and what I'll do is if you have a question 2 related to anything that Mike just presented or the 3 review process that the NRC's utilized to perform this 4 Environmental Review -- that's what the NRC staff is 5 prepared to answer questions on.                    If you could raise 6 your hand, I'll come to you with the microphone.                          I'll 7 circulate through the room to cover as many people 8 that have questions during the time we have set aside 9 for it.
10                  Yes, ma'am.          And if you could, please, 11 when I bring you the microphone, just for the record, 12 if you wouldn't mind stating your name, just so that 13 we can keep track of who asked what questions.
14                  ILSE ANDREWS:          I thank you.          My name is 15 Ilse Andrews.        I live in Exeter, which is in the 16 evacuation zone.        I would like to know how you know 17 that ASR will not accelerate 20-years hence?
18                  BRIAN ANDERSON:          Thank you, Ilse, for that 19 question.      Dave --
20                  DAVE  WRONA:        Right      now,  ASR  is      being 21 addressed in our Safety Review of the license renewal 22 application.      We don't have the information from the 23 applicant on how they're going to be addressing this 24 in performing the aging management of the concrete 25 structures      that  are    affected      by    ASR. We    put      our NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
 
23 1 application        review      on    hold        until    we    get        the 2 information from them.              When we have the information 3 from them, we can commence with our Safety Review.
4                  BRIAN ANDERSON:            Can I see just a quick 5 show of hands -- who else had questions?                      Okay --
6                  DOUG BOGEN:        I'm Doug Bogen with Seacoast 7 Anti-Pollution League.            Again, on the Safety Review --
8 it's      kind  of  a  process      question        --  what    factors 9 determine whether you hold a hearing?                          I understand 10 it's kind of optional whether -- according to the 11 chart that was in some of your materials -- how do you 12 decide whether to hold a Safety hearing or not and 13 would you hold it here?
14                  DAVE    WRONA:          When        a  license    renewal 15 application        is  submitted        to  the      Nuclear  Regulatory 16 Commission, we go through an acceptance review to make 17 sure that it has enough information within it that we 18 can begin our technical review.                    At the point where we 19 find        that  there's        enough        information        in        the 20 application for us to start our review, we docket it 21 on the application and post a Federal Register notice 22 that opens up a period of 60-days for an opportunity 23 for a hearing, which was done when the application was 24 submitted.
25                  I'd    have    to    ask    Michael      or  Rick        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
 
24 1 specific dates of when we accepted the application and 2 when      the    initial    hearing      opportunity        closed.          Our 3 Regulations          on  hearings      also    allow    for  late      filed 4 petitions.        I'm not an expert on that.                We have a copy 5 of our Regulations out there and I can show you in 10 6 CFR Part 2, if you're interested.                          I know we have 7 information on our web site and even some staff that 8 you can reach out to to find out some information on 9 hearings        and    petitions      and    how      to  get  into        that 10 process.
11                    DOUG BOGEN:            If I could follow-up.                    I 12 guess I really don't want to read through all your 13 Regulations -- they're not the most exciting reading.
14  But I guess we just want to know whether we might 15 have an opportunity -- particularly concerning the ARS 16 [sic] issue that you brought up.                        You thought it was 17 important enough to mention it tonight.                          Seems like 18 that alone would be important enough to hold a hearing 19 here,        not  down    in    Washington          or  somewhere      on      the 20 Safety Review because obviously a lot of people here 21 have questions that are about Safety as much as about 22 the Environment.
23                    I would just say, obviously, we'll see 24 when you get to that point.                      But, it seems like it 25 would be good of you to notify the concerned people 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 here -- not just that we have to go read it in the 2 Federal Register.        That we ought to be informed of the 3 opportunity to request such a hearing and I just want 4 to pass that along and hope you will do that.
5                  BRIAN ANDERSON:          Doug, would it be okay if 6 the NRC staff followed-up with you after this meeting 7 -- give you a little more background on that hearing 8 process and late filed petitions.
9                  DOUG BOGEN:        You have my sentiment about 10 it.      I just, obviously, I think many people here would 11 like to know if we have any say in this.
12                  DIANE SCRENCI:            There were a number of 13 contentions      that    were      submitted          on  this    license 14 renewal application.            So, there is an Atomic Safety 15 and Licensing Board panel that's been established and 16 at this point we're moving forward in the hearing 17 process.      An actual hearing, which is normally held in 18 the vicinity of the plant, wouldn't be conducted until 19 both the Final Environmental Impact Statement and the 20 Safety Evaluation has been completed.
21                  In  addition        to    the      Federal    Register 22 notice, there were press releases and news stories 23 that talked about the opportunity for the hearing.
24                  BRIAN ANDERSON:          And just for the record -
25 -    Diane    Screnci    was    providing          those  most      recent 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 comments.
2                    PAUL GUNTER:          Thank you.        My name's Paul 3 Gunter and I'm with Beyond Nuclear.                      We are one of the 4 interveners        in  the    licensing        renewal    proceeding        on 5 this application.              My question speaks to the issue 6 that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement largely 7 reviews        the  Environmental          Report      prepared    by      the 8 applicant.          I'm    wondering        --      given  that    there've 9 already been hearings in this intervention -- if the 10 staff in its preparation of this Draft Environmental 11 Impact        Statement        has      reviewed        not    just          the 12 Environmental          Report      by    the      applicant,    but        the 13 documentation            that's        been        submitted      in        the 14 intervention to date.                That we now have contentions 15 accepted by the Licensing Board.                      The interveners have 16 been given standing in the proceeding and when you 17 look at the Environmental Report and then read the 18 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, it appears that 19 the      NRC    has  basically      done    a    carbon  copy    of      the 20 Environmental Report -- and specific, looking at the 21 Alternatives.
22                    I'm    just      wondering          how  much      actual 23 independent review of a whole host of documentation in 24 supplement        to  the    applicant's          documentation      --      how 25 much of that did you actually review in preparing 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
 
27 1 DEIS?
2                    BRIAN ANDERSON:          Thank you, Paul.          And I 3 believe        I  understand      that    the      question  is    --      for 4 contentions that have been admitted on a review and 5 supplemental information that's been provided --
6                    PAUL GUNTER:        Yeah.
7                    BRIAN ANDERSON:            How does the NRC staff 8 consider that information in its review process?                          Do I 9 have that right?
10                    PAUL    GUNTER:          I'll      try  to    be      more 11 succinct.            Did    you      look      at    documentation          in 12 preparation of your DEIS that was submitted during the 13 hearings to date before an Atomic Licensing Board?
14                    BRIAN ANDERSON:        Thank you.
15                    MICHAEL WENTZEL:          I can answer that by --
16 I'd say we don't wholesale rely on the Environmental 17 Report.        We do look for other relevant information --
18 either provided during the scoping process, where we 19 did receive input and things that we did take a look 20 at.
21                    We also look at other agency studies that 22 have been done.          One that I can talk to specifically 23 was the Environmental Protection Agency's case study 24 that they did.
25                    THOMAS SAPORITO:          [indiscernible] I can't 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 hear you.
2                    [after a brief pause as adjustments were 3 made to the telephone set-up]
4                    MICHAEL WENTZEL:          Anyway, as I was saying, 5 we did look at the Environmental Protection Agency's 6 case        study    that    they      did    as      part of  their        --
7 specifically on Seabrook -- as part of their 316(b) 8 Phase-II rulemaking.              We used that in preparation of 9 it.        So,  we  do  look    at    what      information    that      is 10 presented to us and try to determine whether or not it 11 is -- like we said before -- new and significant or 12 different than what we've done before.                        But I can't 13 say that we've taken everything that we've gotten --
14                    PAUL GUNTER:        Well, let me just --
15                    BRIAN ANDERSON:            Paul -- hold on just a 16 second.        Let me bring a microphone to you to make sure 17 we get everything captured on the record.
18                    PAUL GUNTER:        I want to be really clear on 19 this.        The Agency has been presented with a volume of 20 documentation that speaks directly to this application 21 and      the    inadequacy      of  its    Environmental    Report        --
22 particularly with regard to the Alternatives.                            All I 23 want to know is -- did you review the documents that 24 were      submitted    to    the    Atomic      Safety  and  Licensing 25 Board        in  preparation      of    your      Draft  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
 
29 1 Impact Statement?
2                  MICHAEL WENTZEL:          It was.      It was provided 3 to the environmental reviewer's for their review and -
4 -
5                  PAUL GUNTER:        And so you reviewed it?
6                  MICHAEL WENTZEL:          Yeah.      Absolutely.
7                  PAUL      GUNTER:                You    reviewed          the 8 documentation        that's      been    presented        to  the      Atomic 9 Safety and Licensing Board to date.
10                  MICHAEL      WENTZEL:          I    cannot    say      we've 11 reviewed      everything      that's      been      presented    to      the 12 Licensing        Board    to    date.          I    cannot    make      that 13 statement, but I know -- particularly with the initial 14 round of contentions that were submitted -- yes, we 15 did look at the information that was presented.                              And 16 we also -- related to Alternatives -- we also looked 17 for other studies, like I said, with other government 18 agencies.        We did look at various FERC studies and 19 cited that in our --
20                  THOMAS    SAPORITO:            I    hate  to  interrupt 21 again, but this is Thomas Saporito.                      I need to have 22 the NRC repeat their responses to whether or not they 23 reviewed      the  submittal      by    the      interveners      --      the 24 submittal      that  was    sent    to  the      Atomic    Safety        and 25 Licensing Board before the NRC made its 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
 
30 1 Report.
2                    BRIAN ANDERSON:          And Mike, the answer to 3 that        question    is    --    yes,    that      information          was 4 reviewed.          Is that correct?
5                    MICHAEL WENTZEL:          Right.      For the initial 6 round of contentions --
7                    PAUL    GUNTER:                You    didn't        review 8 everything.
9                    MICHAEL WENTZEL:            I know.      I'm going to 10 clarify        that. I    said    for    the    initial    round        of 11 contentions, we did review the information that was 12 presented.          I cannot say that we've looked at -- I or 13 the      environmental        reviewers        specifically        --      have 14 looked        at,  in-depth,      at    everything        that    has      been 15 submitted to date -- is actually what I said.
16                    BRIAN ANDERSON:          Did those on the phone --
17 were they able to hear the restatement of the answer?
18  That the NRC environmental review staff --
19                    THOMAS    SAPORITO:            Yes,    thank    you      very 20 much.        Yes -- yes, thank you very much.
21                    BRIAN ANDERSON:          Okay.      Sir, I'm going to 22 come to a question over here and I'll come back to you 23 -- okay?
24                    DEBBIE GRINNELL:            This concern that I'm 25 going to raise was raised --
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                    BRIAN ANDERSON:            I'm sorry -- would you 2 mind, for the record --
3                    DEBBIE GRINNELL:          Debbie Grinnell --
4                    BRIAN ANDERSON:        Thank you.
5                    DEBBIE    GRINNELL:            --  I  live    in      West 6 Newbury, Mass.          Paul Gunter, Beyond Nuclear, raised 7 this scheduling concern that many of us have and I do 8 know that the seismic vulnerability -- the individual 9 report from the plants -- is a two-year process.                              It 10 was submitted to the plants on September 1st of 2011, 11 which means that they have until September 1, 2013 --
12 except the Final SEIS is scheduled for March of 2012.
13                    Now,    I    also      know      that  the    in-depth 14 assessment and determination if there's any structural 15 integrity issues at four safety related foundations 16 concerning the ASR concrete -- that the plant has had 17 to delay their testing and core results.                            I don't 18 think we're expecting them until March.                        I think it 19 was pending until March of 2011.                      So, how could you 20 possibly assert that you're going to have a Final 21 Draft of the SEIS when you have two major unknowns in 22 the Environmental Impact review?
23                    MICHAEL WENTZEL:          I can answer that.              The 24 Draft letter that you're referring to -- that's being 25 handled        for  all    licensees.            Again,  that's        being 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 handled generically for all operators.                          I can also 2 tell you that for the Draft SEIS for the Seabrook 3 license renewal application -- where that's handled is 4 in the Severe Accident and Mitigation Alternatives.
5 It's not, per se -- it's handled as part of the Severe 6 Accident        and  Mitigation        alternatives.          And        it's 7 actually        the  reason      that    the      Environmental      Impact 8 Statement -- the Draft SEIS -- was delayed from its 9 initial scheduling date because we had multiple rounds 10 of RAIs with the applicant asking them to assess these 11 new      hazard    curves    and    their      impact    on  the      Severe 12 Accident        and  Mitigation        --    also      known  as    SAMA      --
13 Analysis.
14                    ROBIN WILLITS:          My name is Robin Willits 15 and      I'm    a  citizen      of  Exeter,        which  is  within        the 16 impact        evacuation    area.        I'm      interested    in      your 17 process tonight.              I think inviting people to make 18 comments and that is something that I respect very 19 much and appreciate.              I am concerned on this count --
20 this is a very small audience.                      I think it's good we 21 have      people    like    SAPL    --    who      have  more  technical 22 knowledge than somebody like me -- who could raise 23 those good questions.              But my question to you is --
24 how important is it to you that the general public 25 know about this meeting and get them to come to 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
 
33 1 meeting        and  have    a  chance      to    give  some    kind        of 2 educated        comment?        How    important      is  it    and      what 3 specific steps did you take to help ensure the general 4 public would be represented here more than I think it 5 is now here?          Such as:        giving out some documents of 6 your summary of what we heard tonight -- very briefly 7 and very fast; giving it to the public for some chance 8 to digest beforehand; announcing it in the newspapers 9 or other ways to inform and get the public here to 10 give some comments.            I'd like to know that about your 11 process and ask what your desire is and what steps you 12 took?
13                    BRIAN ANDERSON:          Thank you, sir, for that 14 question.        Mike -- can you speak a little bit to the 15 details that go into planning these meetings and how 16 the public is made aware of the NRC process?
17                    MICHAEL WENTZEL:          I can.      This meeting --
18 when we first issued the Draft SEIS, we put notice in 19 the Federal Register announcing that fact.                            I know 20 that that's not necessarily everybody's first go-to 21 every day.          So that was our initial announcement of 22 the availability of the document and that we're going 23 to have this meeting.            We've also advertised in two of 24 the local papers.            We did three -- I'm sorry, I was 25 distracted by the monitors -- (2) of the local papers, 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 we did three different advertisements leading up to 2 this meeting.        There's also been multiple rounds of 3 press releases that the NRC has issued.
4                When    we    first      initially      issued          the 5 document and then about two or three-weeks ago, we did 6 another round of press releases to inform the public.
7  We also, about three-weeks ago, put out posters in 8 the      area advertising      that      meeting.        So,      public 9 involvement in this process is crucial.                      That's the 10 whole basis behind the National Environmental Policy 11 Act is to get people involved in the process for the 12 federal government.          So, to answer that question --
13 public involvement is very important in that.
14                BRIAN ANDERSON:          Yes, ma'am.        I think we 15 have time for one, maybe two more questions before we 16 take comments.
17                PHYLLIS KILLAM-ABELL:              This is a follow-up 18 question to the previous one.                    When you say -- a 19 couple of newspapers -- what were those newspapers?
20 What newspapers were they?
21                MICHAEL WENTZEL:          I have it written down.
22  I'm not familiar with it.                  I believe it was the 23 Seacoast Online -- it was advertised -- I've seen it 24 there.
25                Do you have a contact sheet?
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                    Here  we    go    --    it    was  the  Daily      News, 2 Newburyport News and the Hampton Union.                      And then the 3 Daily News -- that was advertised on September 9th, 4 12th and 14th --
5                    PHYLLIS KILLAM-ABELL:              I don't read --
6 excuse me -- but I don't read those newspapers.                                  I 7 live in Exeter.          There is an Exeter Newsletter that's 8 published twice a week and there is the Portsmouth 9 Herald that's published that covers the seacoast and 10 that's within the region that will be affected.                                  I 11 would have no way of knowing this.                      Your publication 12 is not wide enough.            I wouldn't know that.
13                    MICHAEL WENTZEL:          Okay.      I apologize for 14 that.        I do know that the story was picked up in the 15 Boston Globe -- to what effect that has on it.                            So it 16 was fairly widely circulated.
17                    PHYLLIS    KILLAM-ABELL:            If  you    want      --
18 really        want  people      to    know      --  you  blanket          the 19 seacoast.        You blanket the northern part, particularly 20 of Boston.        You really let people know.              That's not an 21 effective publicity campaign at all.
22                    MICHAEL WENTZEL:          Okay.      Well, thank you 23 for your comments.            I think that we'll take that back.
24                    BRIAN    ANDERSON:          That    is  an    important 25 comment        for  the    NRC    staff        to  consider      --      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 distribution of newspaper advertising and the local 2 news.        Thank you for that comment.
3                    One last question before we move into the 4 comment period.          Hi --
5                    WILLOW MAUCK:            Yeah, well, there was a 6 follow-up on that question too because I think -- I 7 was curious as to -- he said what their desire was --
8 how much you wanted to actually get the word out about 9 this thing?          And I don't think that that was actually 10 answered in the question.                So, I was curious.
11                    BRIAN ANDERSON:          I think that part of the 12 answer        was  that    --    public        participation      is      an 13 important part of the NRC's review process.                      I believe 14 that        Mike  said    that.          Was    there  something        more 15 specific that you were looking for as a follow-up to 16 that?
17                    WILLOW MAUCK:          So, that is it.        So, it's 18 the SeacoastOnline and those papers.                      Like she said 19 aren't        really  very    effective        press  to  release        to 20 actually have the public know about it.                      So, it seems 21 that maybe there it is not much desire there on the 22 NRC's behalf to have the public know.                          So, I was 23 wondering how much it really does mean to the NRC for 24 the public to know about something like this?
25                    MICHAEL WENTZEL:          I don't know how else to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
 
37 1 answer that question.              I mean, it is important.                    I 2 mean,        obviously,    we    didn't      cover    every  publication 3 that we probably could have.                  But, it wasn't that we 4 were avoiding the public input.                      Like I said, we did 5 issue a couple rounds of press releases that did get 6 picked up in newspapers that we didn't specifically 7 take out ads in.              So, the story was fairly widely 8 available.
9                    BRIAN ANDERSON:          Thank you both for those 10 questions.        The NRC staff will take that as a serious 11 comment        for  consideration        just      for  future    process.
12 It's important for the NRC to make sure that they're 13 aware of how the circulation of news in the local 14 community works and how that can possibly be improved 15 in their routine process.
16                    ROBIN    WILLITS:          If    you  get  a    trained 17 marketing person that knows the way to get an idea 18 across.
19                    BRIAN ANDERSON:          Thank you, sir, for that 20 comment.        For those who didn't hear -- the suggestion 21 was to utilize trained marketing expertise, who might 22 better        know  the    various        avenues      to    disseminate 23 information in the local community.                      Thank you again 24 for that.
25                    Thank you all for your questions and we're 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 now at the most important part of the meeting agenda -
2 - and that is to hear your comments.                      For those that 3 might have come in late -- if you wish to provide 4 comments on the record tonight, please register with a 5 yellow card out in the lobby.                    That serves just as a 6 sequence order, so that I can keep track of who has 7 made comments and who is still yet to speak.                      No one's 8 required to make comments, but if you wish to make 9 comments here -- to be on the record tonight -- please 10 fill out a yellow card and I'll make sure that you get 11 your chance to speak.
12                  As a quick reminder, before we get into 13 the comment period -- there are a lot of people that 14 want to talk tonight and I want to make sure that 15 everybody      has  an  equal      opportunity      to  participate.
16 When      providing  your    comments,        please  speak    into      a 17 microphone.        Please try and keep your comments concise 18 and within a five-minute time limit.                  This is not your 19 only        opportunity    to    provide        comments    and      making 20 comments here tonight is not the only way to have the 21 NRC take your comments for consideration.
22                  The  first      speaker        will  be  Chris        Nord 23 followed by Mary Lampert.                What I'd like to ask is 24 that speakers just come forward to the center podium 25 and I'll provide the microphone --
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                  CHRIS NORD:        Actually, hang on to it.                Let 2 me open up my notebook.          Thank you.
3                  Well, my first comment is for the NRC to 4 say that -- I think that it's plain that the NRC has a 5 public relations problem and maybe most of all in the 6 area around Seabrook.            If you -- as staff members of 7 the NRC -- are interested in helping that process 8 along, it might help to convince the general public 9 that you do actually care about the general public 10 coming to meetings like this, if in fact the comments 11 that were made and documents that were submitted to 12 NRC actually got reviewed in time to be a part of 13 reporting and so that comments such as my own and 14 other peoples' that are coming forward somehow do get 15 incorporated into your hearing process.                    I understand 16 that's a possibly difficult task, but that is in fact 17 the      task that  you    are    charged        with. If      you're 18 interested in having the general public up here to 19 make comments, I think the general public would like 20 to see our comments being made a part of this process.
21  In the spirit that that may in fact take place, I'm 22 going to forge ahead by attempting to talk a little 23 bit here about tritium.
24                  Just as one example of many radionuclides 25 that      the general    public      remains      at  risk  of      being 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 exposed to within the ingestion pathway -- that is 2 within 50-miles of any reactor -- here or in Japan or 3 anywhere that reactors operate in the world.                                  The 4 reason that I focus on tritium I hope to make obvious, 5 but my first strong suggestion to NRC is that the 6 owners of Seabrook should be required by NRC to show 7 proof positive that leakages and emissions of nuclear 8 radionuclides, such as tritium, have been prevented 9 entirely      into    the    atmosphere,          into  the  air,        into 10 groundwater -- in keeping with conclusions drawn from 11 the National Academies of Science BEIR VII Report --
12 that is the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation 13 that was released a couple of years ago -- that a 14 conclusion from that study can be made that there is 15 no threshold below which radiation is safe.                            And if 16 NRC were actually to enact their regulations based on 17 the      National    Academies'        findings,      that  should        mean 18 that nuclear plants -- atomic plants like Seabrook --
19 should not be emitting radionuclides.
20                  Now,    I'm    focusing        on  tritium    for      good 21 reason.        There was a study conducted in the state of 22 Massachusetts a number of years ago that focused on 23 the Deerfield River Valley and was eventually signed-24 you off on by the State officials within the state 25 Department        of    Public        Health        for  the    state        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
 
41 1 Massachusetts that showed statistical significance for 2 things like certain cancers and Down's Syndrome in the 3 Deerfield      River  Valley      --  which        was  close    to      the 4 Yankee Rowe plant before it closed.                    Apparently, those 5 findings of cancer were eventually linked to exposures 6 in the Deerfield River Valley to tritium.
7                  I have in my possession a report that was 8 done by a group out in western Mass. -- the Citizens 9 Awareness Network -- that was involved in creating 10 that      study  that  talks      about      three    very  important 11 effects        of  tritium      --    it's        carcinogenic,          it's 12 mutagenic, and it's teratogenic.                      Teratogenic meaning 13 that it is possible that exposure to tritium will 14 cause genetic defects down the line.                    The other two, I 15 think, are self-explanatory.
16                  The  reason    I'm      bringing      up  tritium        in 17 relation to Seabrook in particular -- it could be 18 Cesium-137, it could be Strontium-90 -- but here, word 19 has come down to me that the owners of Seabrook have 20 been boring test wells over the last -- in the recent 21 past -- apparently looking for traces of tritium.                                I 22 don't know whether the wells have been dug deeply 23 enough -- I don't know anything about the wells -- and 24 I don't know what's been found.                        I think that it 25 should be part of the public record to know if tritium NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
 
42 1 is      actually    leaking      from    the    reactor    at  Seabrook.
2 But,      God  save  the    people    that      are  close    to      that 3 nuclear reactor if tritium gets in the groundwater and 4 travels.        I think that the NRC should be holding, not 5 only Seabrook, but all reactors to account for their 6 releases of tritium.
7                    And  I'll    say,    finally,        in  relation        to 8 tritium -- that it does us on planet earth no good if 9 we're        using  nuclear      power    as    a    way  to  bridge        our 10 energy toward a carbon-free future, if by doing so 11 we've taken on this Faustian bargain of irradiating 12 the earth in the process.
13                    The next thing I wanted to say is -- why 14 does      the  Nuclear    Regulatory        Commission      not    require 15 independent        monitoring        of    radiation        that      allows 16 reactor community residents and first responders --
17 not only here, but all over the United States -- to 18 know the real-time direction, location and intensity 19 of radioactive plumes in the event of a radiological 20 event.
21                    If that had been put in place 15-years ago 22 for reactors around the country -- such as Seabrook --
23 and the NRC was actually looking at that information 24 as a part of its evaluation of relicensing -- then the 25 NRC would have some strong data on which to base 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
 
43 1 actual        safety    of    this    plant.          But,  without        that 2 information -- what do you really have for data as far 3 as the health and safety of the local environment, if 4 you      don't    actually      know    what      radiation    is      being 5 emitted?          So, that should be done not only here, but 6 that should be done all over the world.
7                    I want to point out for those of you that 8 don't know that there's one group in this area -- the 9 C-10        Research    and      Education          Foundation    out        of 10 Newburyport, Massachusetts -- that at this time has 11 the model independent monitoring system in the entire 12 United States and we have actually had visitors from 13 Fukushima come to C-10 because people all over the 14 world        have    suddenly      become      interested      in    how      to 15 properly monitor for radiation.
16                    My last two-items have to do with hardened 17 on-site        storage    of    spent      fuel.        You  should        be 18 requiring hardened on-site storage as a prerequisite 19 for relicensing.            I'm also curious to know -- and I 20 could        just    leave    this    as    an      open  question      --    if 21 there's any consideration being given to the potential 22 for inundation of coastal floodplains over the next 23 25-years?          If you're considering relicensing at this 24 time, then you have to be considering inundation in 25 relation to global warming.                  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
 
44 1                  BRIAN ANDERSON:            Chris -- thank you for 2 those comments.        I'll check one more time.              I believe 3 that Mary Lampert is not here in the room -- so the 4 next speaker would be Paul Gunter and after Paul --
5 Representative Peter Schmidt.
6                  PAUL GUNTER:        Thank you.        My name is Paul 7 Gunter and I'm director of reactor oversight at Beyond 8 Nuclear out of Tacoma Park, Maryland.                      We are one of 9 the        interveners      in      the      Seabrook      relicensing 10 proceeding.        As I mentioned earlier, we've already had 11 a    preliminary    hearing    before      an    Atomic  Safety        and 12 Licensing Board.          Specifically, our contention has to 13 deal        with  the  environmental            alternative    and        the 14 requirement of the National Environment Policy Act for 15 Seabrook to consider the environmental alternatives 16 and the NRC to incorporate that in its decision for 17 licensing renewal.
18                  When I read the Draft Environmental Impact 19 Statement, I note that within 54-lines the NRC is able 20 to dismiss the alternative of wind power in the region 21 of interest.        What this says to me is that the Agency 22 -- particularly the staff in its review -- did not 23 look at the documentation that was presented to -- in 24 a persuasive argument to even your own Atomic Safety 25 and Licensing Board -- enough for you to incorporate 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


NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
45 1 whole        host    of    documentation,            which  I'm    going        to 2 briefly go through here, as long as my time permits.
3 But it seems apparent that these concerns are falling 4 upon        deaf    ears      with      regard        to  the      Agency's 5 consideration.
6                      Within 54-lines, basically you say that --
7 the wind energy alternative is intermittent and not 8 feasible in terms of baseload power -- and that -- its 9 availability, its accessibility and its consistency is 10 not of a standard for addressing the environmental 11 impacts        that    are    forced      upon      us  by the    continued 12 operation of the Seabrook plant.
13                      In fact, what this does -- the statement 14 of      fact      --    as    your      Draft        Environmental        Impact 15 Statement reads -- basically takes a page out of the 16 Environmental Report of the applicant in that your 17 perspective is a review of the alternative at this 18 time.          I think that that's disingenuous when we're 19 talking        about    not    issuing      a    relicense    application 20 tomorrow or even 10-years from now, but 20-years from 21 now -- approximately -- we're talking about this time 22 frame.
23                      In    fact,      what      it      does  is    serve        to 24 obfuscate          a    whole      host      of    expert    documentation, 25 Memorandums Of Understanding and basically -- as 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


Title:   Seabrook Station License Renewal     Public Meeting - Evening Session
46 1 have      contended,    as    your    Draft      Environmental        Impact 2 Statement reinforces -- that the NRC is not following 3 the requirements under the National Environment Impact 4 Statement [sic] that you must honestly acknowledge and 5 be sufficiently complete in your review.
6                    Let me just read a couple of these as time 7 would permit me.          When you talk about that it's not a 8 reliable baseload power source -- what you do is that 9 you've ignored Exhibit Number-4 in our intervention, 10 which        is  entitled    --  Supplying          Baseload   Power        and 11 Reducing Transmission Requirements by Interconnected 12 Wind Farms -- from the Journal of Applied Meteorology 13 and      Climatology,      which      was     prepared      by    Stanford 14 University.          This scientific manuscript concludes --
15 contrary to common knowledge -- an average of 33% and 16 a maximum of 47% of yearly averaged wind power from 17 interconnected        wind    farms    can      be  used  as    reliable 18 baseload        electrical      power.        Equally      significant          --
19 interconnecting multiple wind farms to a common point 20 and then connecting that point to a faraway city can 21 allow for the long-distance portion of transmission 22 capacity to be reduced, for example, by 20% with only 23 1.6% loss of energy.              Nowhere in your evaluation do 24 you acknowledge the expert opinion that already in 25 this day and age -- the baseload promise, the baseload NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com


Docket Number: (n/a)  
47 1 capacity is in fact clearly feasible.
2                    There are an increasing number of news 3 accounts and current events that reveal that there is 4 in fact this building of momentum for baseload power.
5  For example, you do not mention in your Environmental 6 Impact Statement that Google Corporation has already 7 invested $5 billion of its money to lay the first 8 vertebrae of a backbone of offshore wind transmission 9 from Virginia to Maine.                So, your dismissal of this 10 power        source  as    a  baseload      power      for  the    license 11 period of 2030-2050 -- I think, again, it demonstrates 12 a      disingenuous        approach        to        looking      at        the 13 environmental impact issue.
14                    A few more examples here.                  The potential 15 here is just tremendous.                There are now (9) European 16 North        Sea  countries      --    Germany,        France,    Belgium, 17 Denmark,        Sweden,    Norway,      Great        Britain    and        the 18 Netherlands -- that have announced an investment of 19 $40 billion in an offshore, undersea, energy super-20 smart        grid,  which    basically        is    dedicated      to      the 21 transmission of renewable energy.                      This investment and 22 development supports a model for the United States, 23 which your own Draft Environmental Impact Statement 24 ignores.        I mean, we can go on.
25                    The University of Delaware and Stony Brook NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com


Location:   Hampton, New Hampshire
48 1 University study -- they did a study that says that 2 based          on    a    five-year        wind        data    from        (11) 3 meteorological stations distributed over a 2,500 km 4 extent along the U.S. Eastern Seaboard -- power output 5 for each hour of the site is calculated and in short 6 that -- there is evidence that the wind blows all the 7 time        somewhere      and    if      interconnected        along          a 8 transmission line you have a demonstrated baseload.
9                    But since I'm about to be cut short here, 10 I just want to also note that what you've ignored are 11 Memorandums Of Understanding, bids that are now going 12 on with the state of Maine.                  By 2030 -- so by the time 13 you're        talking    about    this    license      renewal    to      take 14 effect in this federal action that you're looking at -
15 - the state of Maine is looking at having 5 gigawatts 16 of wind in the offshore waters -- 10 to 50-miles out 17 into the Gulf of Maine.                  That's the equivalent of (5) 18 Seabrooks.          And again, there's no mention of this in 19 your Environmental Impact Statement review.
20                    I    don't      think      that      that's   an      honest 21 evaluation.          I think that what it does is it does not 22 build        public    confidence        that    this    Agency  is      doing 23 nothing        more    than      just      promoting      this    industry.
24 That's not your job, particularly when we now know 25 that Seabrook -- what it forces upon us are these NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com


Date:  Thursday, September 15, 2011
49 1 environmental          consequences          that      require    emergency 2 planning zones -- out to 50-miles -- enhanced security 3 because of the environmental threat that putting these 4 reactors        in  our    communities        is      all  about    and      the 5 alternatives          clearly      don't    represent      that  level        of 6 threat.        And you've ignored this.
7                    BRIAN ANDERSON:            Paul -- thank you for 8 those comments.            Representative Schmidt and then we'll 9 hear from Paul Blanch.
10                    REP.PETER SCHMIDT:             Thank you.      I'm Peter 11 Schmidt.          I represent Dover, Wards 1 and 2.                  I am not 12 a scientist -- and not even to say a nuclear scientist 13 -- and I don't speak as a scientist, but rather as a 14 policymaker.          I've been in the legislature now for 15 nearly        9-years    and    I  was    3-years      as  a   Dover      City 16 Council before that, so what I am in the business of 17 is judgment with regard to policy.
18                    I would have to say that just -- before I 19 begin my more pertinent remarks -- that what Paul has 20 just referred to, but also the questions with regard 21 to      contacting      the    public    --      demonstrate    either        a 22 somewhat willful disregard of some of the facts, which 23 one could possibly attribute to somewhat of a silo-24 type of thinking -- you're focused on your specific 25 bailiwick          and  not    looking      in      the  wider  thing        --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com


Work Order No.: NRC-1120 Pages 1-76
50 1 perhaps disregarding the information which Paul eluded 2 to.
3                    But  with      regard      to    trying  to    get      the 4 public to be informed -- the bottom line here is if 5 you      asked    virtually      any    resident      of  the  seacoast, 6 certainly the elected representatives, with regard to 7 contacting the public in this area -- I think they 8 would've        said    that      some    of    the    publications          you 9 referenced would be useful, but by no means sufficient 10 -- ads in the Union Leader, Portsmouth Herald, the 11 Dover Foster's Daily Democrat and other more widely 12 circulated papers would certainly have gotten you a 13 lot more feedback from a much wider area, which is 14 perhaps        not  within      the    evacuation      zone,  but      would 15 definitely be impacted by the relicensing of Seabrook.
16                    I  don't      try    to    address    the  scientific 17 aspects of this issue.              I'd like to look at the larger 18 picture        because    the    fact    of    the  matter    is    --    my 19 greatest concern is not the possibility of terrorism 20 or environmental disaster -- I think those are all 21 much more on your mind and possibly more predictable.
22  But, if I mention such things as Fukushima or Three-23 Mile Island or Chernobyl, or the Titanic disaster, for 24 that matter -- I don't do so in order to create an 25 alarmist          sentiment,        but      rather      because          they NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com


NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC. Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
51 1 demonstrate the fallibility of human design concepts, 2 but also the unpredictability of future events.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
3                    And certainly, just in the last 10-years, 4 we've seen Fukushima, we've seen the Twin-Towers and 5 September 11th.            And those things demonstrate that 6 we're not very good at predicting the future.                                That 7 there are all types of things that are happening and 8 one of the concerns that we certainly have is global 9 warming.          Seabrook      is    very      close    to  the      ocean, 10 obviously.          I'm wondering -- we read recently, for 11 example, that several nuclear power plants along the 12 Missouri River were essentially isolated and may have 13 experienced some flooding -- we're very concerned in 14 this area what that type of thing might generate.
15                    My primary concern here is that we are 16 engaged in the relicensing process way too far in the 17 future.        I just cannot believe that it is appropriate 18 to relicense Seabrook at this time when the current 19 license is not even remotely ready to expire.                          What do 20 we really know about what the situation is going to 21 be.          Some  of  the    aspects      have      eluded  to    --      the 22 possibility          of      degradation              of    the      plant's 23 infrastructure -- but all these other aspects, which 24 I've just very briefly touched on -- suggest to me 25 that this is -- a relicensing of Seabrook at this time 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 -- is incredibly premature given all the things that 2 we absolutely know are potential problems: a terrorist 3 act, the storage aspect, the sea level rise and those 4 types of things.          Those are the types of things that 5 we already have some knowledge of even if we can't 6 predict exactly how they will manifest themselves over 7 the next 10 to 20-years.              But, certainly, the idea of 8 committing this region to this ongoing operation of 9 this      plant  --  when    we're      not      even  close    to      the 10 expiration of the current license -- strikes me as 11 very, very concerning.
12                  So, that is my gravest concern -- that we 13 are jumping off the bridge or jumping off the ship 14 before it's even beginning to founder.                    And committing 15 ourselves to a situation that I think is questionable, 16 if not unwise.          And I'll leave it at that.                You get 17 the message, but to the degree that you're engaged in 18 either an active promotion of the nuclear industry, 19 regardless      of  all    of  the    facts      and regardless        of 20 whether the public is in support of that, or whether 21 there are real alternatives -- and I have seen the 22 presentation that Paul alluded to in his remarks with 23 regard to the potential for offshore wind.
24                  This is not some pie in the sky -- this 25 process is already very far along and it's making 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 rapid progress.            Jumping onto the Seabrook life-raft 2 at      this    particular      point,    I    think    is,  as    I    say, 3 extremely questionable.              I hope that you will exercise 4 your      authority    to    weigh    the      alternatives      and      the 5 question of -- when it is appropriate to relicense.
6 And I think the time is not yet now.                      Thank you.
7                    BRIAN ANDERSON:          Thank you, sir, for those 8 comments.          The next speaker is Paul Blanch -- is Mr.
9 Blanch in the room?              Is there anyone else named Paul 10 that registered to speak?                Okay.        The next speaker is 11 Thomas Saporito -- who I believe is on the phone.                              Mr.
12 Saporito -- can you hear me?
13                    THOMAS SAPORITO:          Yeah.      Can you hear me?
14                    BRIAN ANDERSON:            I can hear you.                I'm 15 going        to  try  and      place      a    microphone      near        the 16 speakerphone to see if that'll better allow everyone 17 else in the room to hear you.                        When you're ready to 18 make your comments -- it's your time.
19                    THOMAS SAPORITO:            Can you hear me now?
20 Can the court reporter hear me?
21                    BRIAN ANDERSON:          Yes, he can.        You are on 22 the record.
23                    THOMAS SAPORITO:          Okay.      First of all, my 24 name is Thomas Saporito.                  I am the senior consultant 25 with        Sapordani    Associates          and      we're  located          in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
 
54 1 Jupiter, Florida.            I have (4) points that I want to 2 address to the NRC with respect to this relicensing 3 issue.
4                  However, before I get into that, I just 5 want to follow-up on the prior speaker's comments on 6 the NRC being premature in their endeavor to relicense 7 this nuclear plant so far in advance.
8                  It's my perspective, after monitoring the 9 NRC for some 25-years, that the NRC is involved in a 10 process        of    rubberstamping          these    20-year      license 11 extensions        to  nuclear    power      plants    that  were        only 12 originally licensed to operate safely for 40-years.
13 The NRC is aggressively rubberstamping these licenses 14 because there are Senators and Congressmen who are 15 actively trying to put a moratorium on relicensing 16 nuclear power plants.            So, now there is a race between 17 Congress and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with 18 respect to this issue.            So, that's the heart of it all 19 right there.        It's not the fact that the NRC's trying 20 to protect public health and safety in this instance.
21  In this instance, the NRC is in a footrace trying to 22 rubberstamp these licenses without due process.
23                  With respect to this specific plant and 24 the relicensing issue here -- the NRC appears to have 25 failed in its Environmental Review to consider 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
 
55 1 brittleness of the metal that comprises the reactor 2 vessel.        The Associated Press recently did a year-long 3 investigation          of  the    NRC    and      found  the  NRC      to    be 4 complacent and found that these nuclear power plants 5 were only licensed to safely operate for 40-years.
6 The Associated Press investigation confirmed that the 7 Agency is rubberstamping these license extensions at 8 the peril of public health and safety.
9                    So, I would encourage and request that the 10 NRC require the licensee -- NextEra Energy -- to do 11 destructive          testing      analysis        of  the  metal        which 12 comprises the nuclear reactor vessel, to ascertain the 13 exact degree of imbrittelment that may currently exist 14 in      that    reactor    vessel.        Because      if  that    reactor 15 vessel cracks from the neutrons that are bombarding it 16 -- you're going to have a loss of coolant accident 17 that you could not recover from and you'd be melting 18 down, just like the reactors in Japan.                          Once you do 19 that analysis, then you can prorate that and see if 20 that reactor vessel's going to crack if the license is 21 extended 20-years beyond its 40-year license.
22                    The next issue would be the alternatives.
23  The NRC's Environmental Review and report is a joke 24 on the alternatives.                First of all, if the NRC would 25 simply        --    in    their      review        --  have    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
 
56 1 installation of on-demand electric water heaters for 2 all the customers of NextEra Energy, you would reduce 3 the grid's electrical load demand by 50 to 70% with 4 the installation of just that one appliance.                            If you 5 add solar systems to the customers of NextEra Energy -
6 - you would have a zero footprint.                      You would actually 7 -- those customers would actually be putting power 8 into the grid and you wouldn't even need Seabrook.
9 You        would    have    surplus        power        with  those          two 10 initiatives.        You wouldn't need Seabrook to operate at 11 all.
12                    And that's required.                Those analyses are 13 required        by  the    Agency      to      be    part  of        their 14 Environmental Report.            I don't see it in there.                      And 15 these are realistic, real-time -- if you go to our web 16 site        saporito-associates.com            --      there's    a      hyphen 17 between those two words -- you will see the evidence 18 where those systems are already in place for many 19 years -- they're not something new.                          This has been 20 going on for years.
21                    The next issue would be earthquakes.                        The 22 NRC      Environmental      Report      should        have    required        the 23 licensee        to  do  a    new    seismic        evaluation      of      the 24 Seabrook facility.            Just as recent as August the 23rd 25 of      this  year,    the    North      Anna      Nuclear    Power      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
 
57 1 experienced a seismic event outside its design basis.
2  Okay?        Outside its design basis.                So, the NRC granted 3 North        Anna  a  license      and    had      an  earthquake        event 4 happen outside its design basis.                        Who's to say that 5 there's not going to be a seismic event that's going 6 to be outside the design basis of the Seabrook plant?
7  That's something that's supposed to be in the NRC's 8 Environmental          Report      and      I      don't    think        it's 9 sufficiently in there -- if it's in there at all.
10                    The final item I want to address to the 11 NRC is with respect to the environmental consequences 12 of the NRC's action allowing this nuclear plant to 13 operate for 20 more years.                    It's going to adversely 14 affect the environment because it's going to introduce 15 millions and millions of BTUs worth of heat that would 16 not      otherwise    be    introduced          into    the  environment 17 because the reactor -- the fuel in the nuclear reactor 18 core has to continuously be cooled by water and that 19 heat is dumped into the environment.                        If that nuclear 20 plant wasn't operating for 20 more years, you wouldn't 21 have      20  more  years    of    heat    being      dumped  into        the 22 environment        that    wasn't      there        before.      That        all 23 contributes to global warming.                    Okay?    You may have a 24 near        zero    carbon      footprint          with    nuclear        power 25 production, but you damn sure have a lot of heat being 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 unnecessarily put into the environment.
2                  So, these issues I would hope and urge the 3 NRC to take seriously and to incorporate them into 4 their Environmental Report and I would hope that the 5 interveners in the current licensing proceeding are 6 addressing these issues, as well.                      Thank you very 7 much.
8                  BRIAN ANDERSON:          Thank you, sir, for those 9 comments.      Thank you for joining us by phone and thank 10 you      for  your  comments.          The      next  speaker    is      Ben 11 Clichester -- did I say that even close to right?
12 After Ben -- Randall Kezar.
13                  BEN CHICHESTER:        Chichester.
14                  BRIAN    ANDERSON:              Chichester    --        Ben 15 Chichester.
16                  BEN CHICHESTER:          Good evening staff of the 17 NRC.        We know that this meaning is a farce coming in 18 here because we've been through this with you guys 19 plenty of times before.                  We know it's a feel-good 20 thing and a technicality for you to have to go through 21 this public hearing.
22                  UNIDENTIFIED        AUDIENCE      MEMBER:        Please 23 speak into the mic.
24                  BEN CHICHESTER:          This is a public hearing, 25 but it is a farce and we know that coming in 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
 
59 1 It's a farce I say because if it wasn't a farce then 2 we wouldn't be having to address so many ridiculous 3 considerations that you are pretending are something 4 that is manageable and real.                I can mention a few, but 5 one of the things that comes to mind is the Evacuation 6 Calendar that is sent out to us on a regular basis.
7 It tells us where to go if there's a nuclear problem.
8  But, everybody knows that you don't go where the wind 9 is blowing and there's no accounting for that in the 10 Evacuation Calendar.
11                  Initially, we were told we were going to 12 not      have a  power      plant    if    you    couldn't  have        an 13 evacuation plan that was workable.                    But then we were 14 told that it was enough just to have an evacuation 15 plan -- it didn't have to work.                  That's one example of 16 the kind of farcical nature of this meeting.
17                  There are too many things that you are not 18 considering.        We live in a world where the health of 19 our economy and the very functioning of an economy is 20 at risk from day to day from total breakdown.                          Where 21 is the money going to come to pay for and who is going 22 to be in charge of paying for the costly work of 23 maintaining      and    protecting        the      citizens  from      spent 24 fuel pools?        Who's going to pay when the seawater 25 rises from global warming and we have popping sounds 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 with explosive plumes coming from Seabrook?                                  Who's 2 going to pay?          Where's that money coming from?
3                    We've already heard testimony here that 4 several plants were perilously close to flooding out 5 West and there is no assurance that this is not going 6 to happen here.            But you can come into our town and 7 tell us that there is no safety impact 20 to 40-years 8 down the road from this plant.                          All this period of 9 time that you are proposing to extend this license --
10 the waste will be building up in and on the site.
11 That's        a  new    uncharted        territory        because    I    don't 12 believe you know how to take care of that much waste 13 in one spot.          You've never done it.
14                    I think that there's an inherent collusion 15 between the industry and the NRC.                        I've heard that the 16 NRC gets most of its funding from the industry.                                This 17 may or may not be true.
18                    PAUL GUNTER:        90%.
19                    BEN  CHICHESTER:            How      can  you  say      that 20 we're going to be safe from terrorist attacks on the 21 plant either from foreign or domestic sources?                                    The 22 Price Anderson Act says that the industry doesn't have 23 to      pay    very  much    in  the    event        of  a  catastrophic 24 accident, but our government really can't afford to 25 pay for it either.              So, it seems like we're going to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
 
61 1 be stuck there.
2                    You're only thinking about 20-years at a 3 time,        but  we  should      be    thinking        like  the      Native 4 Americans think -- which would be more like seven-5 generations ahead.            20-years is sort of a selfish way 6 of looking at what we're doing with these nuclear 7 plants.        We should be looking down the road so that we 8 can ensure life on this planet will go on for a long 9 time.
10                    We have companies like Westinghouse and 11 General Electric -- we're told that they bring good 12 things to life.            You boys are here and you're the 13 functioning        arm    of      these      corporations        --        the 14 rubberstampers        --  that      allow    this    pollution      to    be 15 created.        We are tired of the corporations -- the 16 mafia -- the corporate nuclear mafia -- controlling 17 our      lives    here  on    the    seacoast        with  your    nuclear 18 plants forced on us above and beyond our local votes.
19                    I know we're supposed to be here debating 20 whether or not it's going to be more prudent to have a 21 nuclear plant as opposed to some other form of energy, 22 but I can just tell you that the nuclear plants are 23 highly energy intensive to make them and to run them.
24  So, there's a lot of carbon involved in that process 25 -- global warming will increase.                    But the alternatives 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 and      the    renewables      --    which      we've    already        heard 2 testimony -- are coming really fast and you can't tell 3 me      today    that  they    can't    take      the  place    of      this 4 nuclear power plant 20-years down the line.                          And here 5 you are 20-years ahead of time looking for extended 6 license        for  your    corporations          that  are    making        the 7 money.
8                    Have    you    ever      heard      of    an    internal 9 emitter?          That's    a    little      piece      of  plutonium          or 10 strontium that comes from these plants that can make 11 its way into the food chain and all it takes is a 12 little speck of it to be ingested to get cancer.                                So, 13 you're making tons of this product that nobody has an 14 answer for it.          And it's happening all over the planet 15 really -- we've got to stop.                  We've got to stop making 16 nuclear        waste    because      the    waste      has    turned        into 17 nuclear bombs and it's a dirty process from the mining 18 of the uranium, all the way through.                          It's the same 19 corporations that give us nuclear power that gives us 20 nuclear weapons.          And it was all given to us secretly.
21  And      then  we  were      told    it    was    great    by      little 22 documentaries they teach to school children.                              So, we 23 know what we're doing here tonight.                        And we know who 24 we are up against.            I would just hope that we can get 25 real and see what we're doing -- see what we're doing 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 to this planet.      And try to do things better.                And try 2 to be truthful about what's going on.                  Thank you.
3                BRIAN ANDERSON:            Thank you, Ben.              Next 4 speaker is Randall -- is that Kezar?
5                RANDALL    KEZAR:        I'll    submit  a    written 6 [indiscernible].
7                BRIAN ANDERSON:            Okay.      So, Randall, I 8 understand that you don't want to speak tonight, but 9 you're going to provide written comments at a later 10 time?
11                RANDALL:      Yes.
12                BRIAN ANDERSON:          Okay.      Thank you.          The 13 next speaker is Robin Willits and after Robin -- Ilse 14 Andrews.
15                ROBIN WILLITS:          I will be very brief.                I 16 just want to add to what's been said.                    I have never 17 heard who benefits from continuing the plant another 18 20-years.      Is there any public benefit?              And I think I 19 can think of reasons that there might be benefits to 20 the corporation, but I want to know why the NRC is 21 supporting      extension      without      defining      what    is      the 22 benefit to the public.
23                BRIAN ANDERSON:          Thank you, Robin.          Ilse -
24 -
25                ILSE ANDREWS:          Thank you.        Good evening.
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 I've lived a long life.                Very early in my life I spent 2 years in air-raid shelters in Europe.                          Life does not 3 become        much    more    dangerous.              When  I  drive        past 4 Seabrook, I consider it nothing more than an ominous 5 presence.          I see nothing friendly or beneficial about 6 it.      And I cannot understand why there is an effort to 7 prolong it, when we have viable and -- if there's such 8 a word as -- provable alternatives.
9                      I'm  standing        here      only    because      of    my 10 concern for future generations.                          It makes my hair 11 stand on end when I read the phrase -- unavoidable 12 adverse        impacts    with    regard      to    Seabrook    emissions.
13 And on the slides this evening, there was a remark 14 that said -- the NRC's response to Fukushima, among 15 other things -- is that here there is no imminent risk 16 to public health and safety.                        Imminent means right 17 now, not 20-years or 21-years hence.
18                      All of what I'm saying leads to a sort of 19 rhetorical          question      --    if    current      NRC  regulations 20 permit such unavoidable adverse impacts and on the 21 other          hand    you    are      admittedly        responsible          for 22 protecting our health and safety, then I would like to 23 ask      you    --  what    are    you    doing      to    change      these 24 regulations?          Thank you.
25                      BRIAN ANDERSON:            Thank you, Ilse.                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
 
65 1 next speaker is Herbert Moyer and after Herbert --
2 Marcia Bowen.
3                    HERBERT MOYER:        Thank you.          Herb Moyer --
4 I live in Exeter.            I'm a teacher.              I was teaching at 5 Winnacunnet when the plant first came online and we 6 teachers were told we had to stay with students to 7 evacuate        through    bus    transportation          in  case      of    an 8 accident.        Of course, we now know the drivers of the 9 buses have subsequently said they would not show up.
10 So, I don't know really what plans the utility has 11 actually made for evacuation in the case, admittedly -
12 - unlikely, but possible.                I'm not sure you all admit 13 that        it's  possible      there's        a      major  accident          at 14 Seabrook that would happen and students would have to 15 leave        the  area  in    some    manner        in  order    to      avoid 16 significant exposure.
17                    But my question is and my comment is that 18 in 2049 -- what kind of changes to the transportation 19 network might we have encountered or done or clogged-20 up highways or increased in numbers of housing, so 21 that we might not be able to realistically get people 22 out of an area -- in the case of a crowded summer day 23 at Hampton Beach?          So, I'm wondering -- are you taking 24 into account the increased construction, population 25 increase and whether or not roadways would be able to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
 
66 1 capably handle evacuation if an accident were to occur 2 in 2049 -- a year before the projected end of this 3 theoretical license extension?                    So, that's what I'd 4 like to know.
5                  I also would like to know -- it's probably 6 not germane to the relicensing but -- Chernobyl cost 7 the Soviet Union $360 billion.                        Fukushima has cost 8 $200        billion. The    Price      Anderson      Act  puts        the 9 utilities on the hook for $12 billion right now in 10 some sort of an escrow account.                    And we the taxpayers 11 would be liable for any damages to property, land, 12 animals, farms, properties, etc., beyond that.                          So I'd 13 like to know where that $12 billion resides now and is 14 that even something one could count on if some sort of 15 accident occurs -- serious accident?                    Thank you.
16                  BRIAN ANDERSON:          Thank you, sir, for those 17 comments.
18                  The next speaker is Marcia Bowen --
19                  MARCIA BOWEN:          I'm going to decline my 20 opportunity to speak tonight.
21                  BRIAN ANDERSON:          Okay.      Thank you, Marcia.
22  And the last speaker that I have here is Doug Bogen.
23                  DOUG BOGEN:        If you don't mind, I want to 24 wait until they find a new battery for the camera 25 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
 
67 1                    My  name's      Doug      Bogen.          I'm  Executive 2 Director of the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League based 3 in Exeter, New Hampshire.                  I would like to make some 4 kind of general comments and have a few specific ones, 5 as well, about the Draft report.                        I will try to make 6 different comments than what I made in the earlier 7 session this afternoon, but I think they're no less 8 pertinent and important.
9                    As  others      have      suggested        tonight,        the 10 world has changed since Fukushima.                      Just as it changed 11 after Three-Mile Island.                  Just as after Chernobyl.
12 Yet, everything I read in this Environmental Statement 13 seems to indicate that it's business as usual at the 14 NRC.        I don't see any change of perspective.                    I don't 15 see any greater consideration of the public interest.
16  As we've heard from others, this just seems to be 17 business as usual.              It's the same old story.                    Same 18 dismissal of alternatives -- they don't seem to have 19 learned anything.
20                    I should mention, for the record, we are 21 one of the interveners along with Beyond Nuclear, New 22 Hampshire          Sierra    Club      and      other      groups.            Our 23 intervention is based on the National Environmental 24 Policy        Act,  but    we    don't    get      the    sense  that        the 25 writers of this report have picked up anything from 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 what we've submitted.            Even though these are many peer 2 reviewed studies, on-the-ground actual projects -- but 3 they don't seem to find their way into the report.
4                    The facts are that you have zero actual 5 experience        with  commercial        reactors      older  than        42-6 years old.        I looked it up.          I don't think there's one 7 in this country that's older.                    In fact, in the whole 8 world, I don't believe there are any reactors that 9 made it to 50-years.              So, you have no experience with 10 real-world impacts on the environment past that age.
11 What we do know is that younger reactors have leaked 12 huge quantities of tritium into the groundwater --
13 Seabrook among them.            Seabrook was only nine-years old 14 when it started leaking tritium back in `99.                        For 12-15 years        now,  they've      been    pumping      the  groundwater.
16 Pumping out the leaking water just to put it out into 17 the ocean to dilute it.                  That doesn't sound like a 18 solution.        That sounds like pump and dilute and just 19 pushing the issue further offshore.
20                    Younger reactors -- including Seabrook --
21 have had chronic problems with the emergency diesel 22 generators.        This has certainly been seen as a greater 23 concern after Fukushima and what happened with theirs 24 and      the    need  to    be    able    to    respond  to  difficult 25 situations -- natural disasters, unnatural disasters.
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  Younger reactors have had critical safety structures 2 corroded almost to the point of failure.
3                    This was recently covered in an AP series 4 and it ran in the local papers here, as well as around 5 the country.        Younger reactors have ended their useful 6 lives prior to reaching 40-years old and there have 7 been, I think, at least two-dozen reactors around the 8 country that didn't make it to 40, but everyone of 9 them are still storing their spent fuel on-site in 10 vulnerable areas.          Just in our neighborhood, we've got 11 Maine Yankee, Yankee Rowe, Connecticut Yankee, Haddam 12 Neck -- that are all just waiting for some day that 13 fuel is going to be put somewhere else.                      This is the 14 record.        This is the legacy that we leave to future 15 generations.          This    is  what    you      have as  real-life 16 experience.
17                    Another point -- just looking at the power 18 needs.        There keeps being this reference to the need 19 for power -- I want to know where it's written that we 20 will always need 1,250 megawatts on the New Hampshire 21 seacoast, when it isn't even used on the New Hampshire 22 seacoast or even in New Hampshire at all.                          We have 23 more than enough energy -- more than enough electrical 24 power in New Hampshire, even without Seabrook.                                  I 25 don't think that corporation was given an unlimited 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 life -- perpetual power generation -- permission.                            We 2 need to stop thinking that once they build it, it'll 3 always be there.
4                    In your comments tonight and in the report 5 itself -- page 8-42, you say that -- assuming that a 6 need currently exists for the power -- but we're not 7 talking about current need, we're talking about need 8 decades into the future -- 20, 30, 40-years.                    So, what 9 does current power use have to do with it?                        It just 10 seems like we're just sort of saying -- Well, this is 11 the way it is today and this is the way it's going to 12 be 30-years from now.                  That just doesn't make any 13 sense.          It doesn't pass the laugh test.                  I would 14 suggest        that  you    at    least      amend    that  to    say      --
15 assuming that a need will exist in 2030.                      That would 16 be at least a little bit more accurate, a little more 17 appropriate to the report.                  That should be the issue 18 here.
19                    I'll say a little bit about tritium.                        I 20 did talk about it earlier tonight, but first off I 21 want to say it's in a few different sections in the 22 report.        It's kind of hard to find out where all the 23 tritium        information      is.      I  understand    that      you're 24 referring to it as a kind of a new issue.                      Although, 25 again, it's been ongoing for at least a dozen years.
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 One of the sections that talks about the other de-2 watering doesn't mention this new de-watering -- the 3 32,000 gallons per day -- in the Unit 2 foundation.
4                    What is the total amount and why is this 5 considered acceptable?                Do you expect it's going to 6 continue?        Is it going to increase?                Where are we at 7 with the water there?              Why can't they stop the leaks?
8  That sounds like an awful lot of water to be putting 9 out      into  the    ocean.        I  understand      that    the        EPA 10 regulation        allows    20,000      picocuries      per  liter        of 11 tritium in drinking water -- or that's the limit --
12 but that doesn't mean that something under that is 13 perfectly safe.            In fact, many other countries have 14 much stricter standards.
15                    My    understanding            is    the    state          of 16 California and the state of Colorado -- that would be 17 completely unacceptable.                They've set standards more I 18 think around 500 or 400 picocuries per liter.                                  You 19 state in one part of the document that the levels of 20 tritium in seawater were under 3,000 picocuries per 21 liter.        I understand in salt water you can't test as 22 low as you can in freshwater, but if they're at 2,999 23 that      again    does    not    make    it      safe. That's      still 24 somewhere in 100 times greater than background levels 25 for tritium.            Natural occurring tritium is 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
 
72 1 single digits -- maybe up to double digits.
2                    So, even the EPA standard -- we're talking 3 1000        times  more    than    the    ambient      levels    in      our 4 environment.          That    just    doesn't        make  sense.          It 5 doesn't sound safe to me.                We all know now that there 6 are no safe levels of radiation and I don't know how 7 you can continue this idea that that's an acceptable 8 level, when many other countries much of the science 9 shows that's not enough.
10                    So, I want to move on to some of the 11 carbon emissions.          I talked a bit about this earlier, 12 but I did want to point out, as well, that again as 13 Mr. Gunter emphasized -- it doesn't seem like you 14 picked up much from the materials that we submitted in 15 our intervention petition.                The cited studies that you 16 list comparing carbon emissions from nuclear versus 17 carbon from other renewable energy sources -- just 18 about everyone of those studies appears to be from the 19 International Atomic Energy Association, which we all 20 know      has  the  double-purpose          of      both  promoting        and 21 regulating nuclear power.                  So, I would suggest it 22 might be a little bit biased.
23                    Why aren't there more independent studies?
24  One in particular that we referred to in our petition 25 from a researcher named Sovacool in 2008 -- that was 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
 
73 1 broad        survey    of    previous        existing        studies.            He 2 concluded that nuclear power emits seven times more 3 carbon dioxide than wind for a new plant.                            I believe 4 it's five times more for an existing plant.                              Indeed, 5 in      your      own    information        regarding        Seabrook,          you 6 mentioned an average over five-years -- 24,000 tons of 7 carbon          dioxide    equivalent          released        just    on-site.
8 That's        not  including      the    fuel,      the    transportation, 9 construction and so forth.                    That's just on-site each 10 year.
11                    Just to put that in perspective, which 12 would be helpful in your report -- that's about 10% of 13 the carbon emissions of one of the Schiller boilers --
14 the 15-megawatt boiler -- the Schiller Plant being in 15 Portsmouth, New Hampshire -- just up the road.                                  It's 16 the equivalent -- the plant owners love to say how 17 many homes they can provide power to with their plant 18 -- well, the carbon emissions from Seabrook alone on-19 site are the equivalent of the carbon emissions from 20 over 3,000 homes -- just from their power use -- or 21 4,000 homes for their overall carbon footprints.                                    I 22 think that's pretty significant.                      I think people would 23 be      surprised      to    know    that      --      that  Seabrook,          in 24 particular,          is  not      carbon-free,          as  is  the      whole 25 industry.          So, we'd like to see a little bit better 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 treatment of the relative impacts and of course that 2 influences your whole decision about which types of 3 power sources would be most environmentally sound.
4                  We really have concern with the comparison 5 you make with the one you do look at -- the combined 6 cycle gas and wind power combined versus nuclear.                              I'm 7 just      mystified    why    you    chose      to  look    at    --      you 8 mentioned the idea of having five wind farms.                        Four of 9 which would be on land and one of which offshore.
10 Well,        everything    you've      heard      from  other    speakers 11 tonight and again in our petition shows that offshore 12 is the future.          We don't need to be building as many 13 farms        onshore. I    understand        that's    where    Florida 14 Power and Light -- the parent company of NextEra --
15 that's where they get their wind, where they're used 16 to using it.
17                  But that doesn't mean that's going to be 18 the future.        It just seems like an unfair comparison 19 and not really representative of future development.
20 So, I wonder whether you're just setting it up to 21 fail?        That seems to be the way you present this.                        You 22 say that's the only potentially viable project, but 23 then        you  don't    look    at    what      would  be  the        most 24 attractive -- the most environmentally sound approach 25 to that development.            So, I would, if you can, I 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
 
75 1 like you to reconsider that choice -- take another 2 look at those comparisons.
3                    I just have a few more points -- just 4 again talking about groundwater -- not so much the 5 tritium issue, but just the increases, particularly 6 under climate.            I talked earlier about the sea level 7 impacts        on  the  site.          Clearly        with  the    existing 8 infiltration of the foundations leading to the ASR 9 problem -- there ought to be some projection.                            I know 10 you make reference to some hydrological studies, but 11 it seems like again it deserves more than a sentence 12 or two about future infiltration.                            I think that's 13 something        we  all    want    to    know      about. That's        an 14 environmental impact on the plant.                        Even though I know 15 it's supposed to be addressed in other reports.
16                    So, again, I think all of these things are 17 worth consideration and I do hope that you will make 18 some changes in the final version of your report.
19 Thank you very much for your time.
20                    BRIAN ANDERSON:          Thank you, sir, for your 21 comments.          Was there anybody that signed up to speak 22 tonight that I might have missed?                            I believe that 23 everybody that registered to speak has had a chance to 24 speak.        Did I miss anybody?
25                    Okay -- good.          Thank you all again -- 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


NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
76 1 just for providing your comments, but for taking time 2 out of your personal lives to come be at this meeting 3 to listen to the NRC staff and to share your thoughts 4 and provide your comments on the NRC's review.                              I 5 personally appreciate you taking the time to be here 6 and providing your comments.                  On behalf of the NRC 7 staff -- thank you for taking the time to be here.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
8               If you have any other questions or would 9 like to have any further discussion with NRC staff --
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1  NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 + + + + +
10 they will be available after this meeting.                        Like I 11 said earlier, this is not the only opportunity to 12 provide comments.          The comment period remains open 13 through October 26th.          There's opportunity to provide 14 written comments electronically or in the mail.                          So, 15 with that --thank you all again for your time and 16 please travel safely tonight.                   Have a great night.
3 PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS 4 PRELIMINARY SITE-SPECIFIC RESULTS OF THE 5 LICENSE RENEWAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR 6 SEABROOK STATION 7 + + + + +
17 This meeting's adjourned.          Thank you.
8 Upper Great Hall 9 One Liberty Lane 10 One Liberty Lane East 11 Hampton, New Hampshire 03842 12 + + + + +
18               (Whereupon,       at    8:53      p.m., the      public 19 meeting was closed.)
13 Thursday, September 15, 2011 14  7:00 p.m.
20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
15 FACILITATOR:
(202) 234-4433       WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701       www.nealrgross.com}}
16 BRIAN ANDERSON 17 NRC STAFF PRESENTING:
18 MICHAEL WENTZEL, Environmental Project Manager, Office 19 of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 2 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1  (7:00 p.m.)
2  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Good evening ladies and 3 gentlemen. This is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4 meeting to discuss license renewal for the Seabrook 5 Nuclear Power Station.
6  My name is Brian Anderson. I will be the 7 facilitator for tonight's meeting.
8  The purpose of this meeting is to discuss 9 the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 10 related to the license renewal review for Seabrook 11 Nuclear Power Station.
12  The NRC staff will make a presentation.
13 We'll have a brief question and answer session, but 14 the main purpose of today's meeting is to hear your 15 comments on the NRC's review. The NRC's review of the 16 Seabrook license renewal application is not yet 17 complete. The comments that are provided today and 18 after this meeting will be considered by the NRC staff 19 before it issues its Final Supplemental Environmental 20 Impact Statement sometime next year.
21  I'd like to start by introducing some of 22 the NRC staff members that are here tonight. I'd like 23 to introduce Mr. Mike Wentzel. Mike is the 24 Environmental Project Manager for the Seabrook license 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 3renewal review. I'd also like to introduce Mr. Rick 1 Plasse -- Rick is the Safety Project Manager for the 2 Seabrook license renewal review. Dave Wrona is the 3 Chief of the License Renewal Projects Branch Number 2.
4  Mike, Rick and Dave all work in the NRC headquarters 5 facility near Washington, DC.
6  I'd also like to introduce Diane Screnci -
7 - Diane is in the back. She's a Public Affairs 8 officer with the Region 1 office the NRC maintains 9 near Philadelphia. I'd also like to introduce Mr.
10 Rich Conte. Rich is the Chief of Engineering Branch 11 Number 1, also located at the NRC's Region 1 office 12 near Philadelphia. I'd also like to introduce Mr.
13 Bill Raymond. Bill is the Senior Resident Inspector 14 here at the Seabrook Station.
15  For those that don't know, the Nuclear 16 Regulatory Commission has at least two Resident 17 Inspectors assigned to each nuclear power plant in the 18 United States. NRC Resident Inspectors live in the 19 local communities and they perform daily safety 20 reactor inspections at every nuclear power plant in 21 this country.
22  I'd also like to introduce a member of 23 Senator Ayotte's office that's here tonight -- Mike 24 Scala -- in the back. I'd like to thank Mike for 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 4 taking the time to join us tonight.
1  I'd like to cover a few housekeeping items 2 before we get into the formal part of the presentation 3 and meeting tonight. I think everybody probably 4 noticed that there are tables of materials in the 5 lobby as you came into the auditorium. Please feel 6 free to help yourself with paper copies of any NRC 7 literature that's there -- for use during this meeting 8 and even afterwards. I'd also ask -- to help minimize 9 distractions during the meeting -- if you could please 10 silence your cell phones. Either turn them off or put 11 them in vibrate mode -- whatever you prefer.
12  The agenda for tonight's meeting's going 13 to start with a formal presentation by the NRC staff.
14  We'll follow that with a short question-and-answer 15 session. We'll then move to hearing your comments.
16 Because the main purpose of this meeting is to hear 17 public comments related to the Seabrook license 18 renewal and Environmental Review, we've allotted 25-19 minutes for the NRC presentation and 25-minutes for 20 the question-and-answer session. We wanted to leave 21 the majority of the time for hearing your comments.
22 So that's what the remaining two-hours of the meeting 23 are set aside for.
24  During the question-and-answer session --
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 5 I'll say this again after the presentation's done --
1 the NRC staff is prepared to talk about the review 2 process and the preliminary results of the 3 Environmental Review that's taken place for the 4 Seabrook license renewal application. Since only a 5 limited number of NRC technical staff are here, NRC 6 staff might not be able to answer all questions that 7 you have. They'll certainly be prepared to answer 8 questions related to this review process and to the 9 preliminary results of the Environmental Review, but 10 other questions might need to be taken as comments.
11 We might need to follow-up with you later outside of 12 this meeting.
13  And because there are very few NRC 14 technical experts that are here at the meeting 15 tonight, the NRC staff does not intend to respond to 16 comments that you provide during the last two-hours of 17 the meeting. The NRC will provide written responses 18 to all comments it receives -- not just at this 19 meeting, but for the remainder of the comment period 20 that follows this meeting.
21  Finally, before we get started, I'd like 22 to just cover a few ground rules for tonight's 23 meeting. There are a number of people that have 24 signed-up to provide comments. So, based on the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 6 number of people that have signed-up -- I'd like to 1 ask that everybody please be concise and please limit 2 your time to five-minutes when you provide comments.
3 I wanted to set the stage there so that everybody has 4 an opportunity to provide comments. And that 5 everybody has an equal amount of time. In the event 6 that you are not able to provide all the comments that 7 you want during the five-minute period, if there's 8 time left over at the end of the meeting we'll 9 certainly allow you to provide additional comments.
10  But providing comments at this meeting 11 here today is not the only way to provide comments.
12 You don't necessarily have to say anything at this 13 meeting for your comments to be registered by the NRC.
14  There are other ways to do that and NRC staff will 15 discuss that during their presentation.
16  There's a court reporter in the back of 17 the room. We are transcribing this meeting so we have 18 a clear record of what's said here. So, to help with 19 that process, I'd like to ask that anybody that likes 20 to speak, please only speak into a microphone. During 21 the question-and-answer session and during the comment 22 period, I'll provide a microphone for you to speak.
23 For those same reasons, I'd also like to ask that we 24 only have one person speak at a time. It's very 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 7 important that we have a clear transcript of what is 1 said here tonight, so everybody that speaks --
2 speaking into a microphone and only having one person 3 talk at a time is a very good way to make sure that 4 we've got a clear record of what happens tonight.
5  Lastly, I'll say that it's possible that 6 you're going to hear opinions that might be different 7 from your own tonight. I'd like to ask that we treat 8 each other with respect and courtesy during this 9 meeting.
10  Do those ground rules sound like something 11 that everybody can live with?
12  PAUL GUNTER:  Absolutely.
13  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Good. Thank you. With 14 that, I'll turn it over to the NRC staff for a 15 presentation. Mike --
16  THOMAS SAPORITO [via telephone]:  Just a 17 quick question -- are you going to notify us with 18 about one-minute left at the end of five-minutes?
19  BRIAN ANDERSON:  The question was --
20 During the five-minute comment period, will I notify 21 you as your time is winding down?  I certainly can do 22 that. What I have a habit of doing is standing in the 23 back while comments are being made and as time 24 approaches five-minutes, I'll slowly start to move 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 8forward. So, the closer I get to the podium, the 1 closer you are to your five-minutes and probably over.
2  So, I'm not trying to infringe on your space, but 3 that's a way of keeping time.
4  THOMAS SAPORITO:  Thank you.
5  BRIAN ANDERSON:  A-hmm. Mike --
6  MICHAEL WENTZEL:  Great. Good evening.
7 As Brian said earlier, my name's Mike Wentzel. I am 8 the Project Manager at the NRC that's responsible for 9 coordinating the Environmental Review activities for 10 the Seabrook Station license renewal application. I 11 gave this warning earlier today and I'd like to give 12 it as well -- I don't have a good --
13  THOMAS SAPORITO:  [indiscernible]
14  MICHAEL WENTZEL:  We do have somebody on 15 the phone that's participating in the meeting this 16 evening. 17  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Mike -- hold on for just 18 second. Let me see if I can position this phone a 19 little closer to the speaker.
20  For those on the phone, I moved the phone 21 probably as close as I can to one of the speakers here 22 in the room. Does that sound like it's any better?
23  THOMAS SAPORITO:  I can hear you loud and 24 -- 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 9  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Okay.
1  MICHAEL WENTZEL:  Anyway, as I was saying 2 -- I don't have an indication of what slide I'm on.
3 So if it looks like I'm out of sync with what the 4 presentation is, please just call my attention to it 5 and I'll try to get back into sync.
6  Okay. On August 1st, the NRC published 7 its Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 8 -- or Draft SEIS as we refer to it -- related to the 9 Seabrook Station license renewal Environmental Review.
10  The Draft SEIS documents the NRC's preliminary review 11 of the environmental impacts associated with renewing 12 the license for Seabrook Station for an additional 20-13 years and today I'm here to present those results to 14 you. 15  I hope that the information that we 16 provide will help you understand what we've done so 17 far and the role that you can play in helping us to 18 make sure that the Final Impact Statement is accurate 19 and complete.
20  Here's the agenda for the meeting this 21 evening. I'm going to discuss the Agency's regulatory 22 role; the preliminary findings of our Environmental 23 Review, including the power generation alternatives 24 that were considered; I will present the current 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  10 schedule for the remainder of the Environmental 1 Review; and how you can submit comments outside of 2 this meeting. From there, I will take time to briefly 3 discuss two-topics that are not related to the 4 Seabrook Station license renewal application process, 5 and those are going to be -- well, let me correct that 6 -- the Environmental Review of the Seabrook Station 7 license renewal application. These are the concrete 8 issues at Seabrook and the NRC's response to 9 Fukushima.
10  At the end of the presentation, there will 11 be time for questions and answers on the Environmental 12 Review process and most importantly, time for you to 13 present your comments on the Draft SEIS.
14  The NRC was established to regulate 15 civilian uses of nuclear material including facilities 16 that produce electric power. The NRC conducts license 17 renewal reviews for plants whose owners wish to 18 operate them beyond their initial license period. The 19 NRC license renewal reviews address safety issues 20 related to managing the effects of aging and 21 environmental issues related to an additional 20-years 22 of operation. In all aspects of the NRC's regulation, 23 the Agency's mission is threefold: to ensure adequate 24 protection of public health and safety; to promote 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  11 common defense and security; and to protect the 1 environment.
2  Am I out of sync?  Sorry about that.
3  We're here today to discuss the potential 4 site-specific impacts of license renewal for Seabrook 5 Station. The Generic Environmental Impact Statement, 6 which is referred to as the GEIS -- examines the 7 possible environmental impacts that could occur as a 8 result of renewing licenses of individual nuclear 9 power plants under 10 CFR Part 54. The GEIS, to the 10 extent possible, establishes the bounds and 11 significance of these potential impacts. The analyses 12 in the GEIS encompass all operating light-water 13 reactors. For each type of environmental impact, the 14 GEIS attempts to establish generic findings covering 15 as many power plants as possible.
16  For some environmental issues, the GEIS 17 found that a generic evaluation was not sufficient and 18 that a plant specific analysis was required. The 19 site-specific findings for Seabrook are contained in 20 the Draft SEIS, which was published on August 1st of 21 this year. This document contains analyses of all the 22 applicable site-specific issues, as well as a review 23 of issues covered by the GEIS to determine whether the 24 conclusions in the GEIS are valid for Seabrook 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  12 Station. 1  In this process, the NRC staff also 2 reviews the environmental impacts of potential power 3 generation alternatives to license renewal to 4 determine whether the impacts expected from license 5 renewal are unreasonable.
6  For each environmental issue identified, 7 an impact level is assigned. The NRC standard of 8 significance for impacts was established using the 9 White House Council on Environmental Quality 10 terminology for `significant'.
11  The NRC established three levels of 12 significance for potential impacts: Small, Moderate 13 and Large -- as defined here on the slide. For a 14 Small impact -- the effects are not detectable or are 15 so minor that they will neither destabilize nor 16 noticeably alter any important attribute of a 17 resource. For a Moderate impact -- the effects are 18 sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize 19 important attributes of the resource. And for a Large 20 impact -- the effects are clearly noticeable and are 21 sufficient to destabilize important attributes of a 22 resource.
23  This slide lists the site-specific issues 24 the NRC staff reviewed for the continued operation of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  13 Seabrook Station during the proposed license renewal 1 period. As discussed in the previous slide, each 2 issue is assigned a level of environmental impact of 3 Small, Moderate or Large by the environmental 4 reviewers. The staff's preliminary conclusion is that 5 the site-specific impacts related to license renewal 6 for aquatic resources is Small for most species and 7 Large for winter flounder, rainbow smelt and some kelp 8 species due to the impact of the operation of 9 Seabrook's once-through cooling system.
10  Similarly, for protected species and 11 habitats -- the staff's preliminary conclusion is that 12 the impacts related to license renewal are Small for 13 most species and Large for rainbow smelt -- a species 14 identified by the National Marine Fishery Service as a 15 species of concern. For all other resource areas, the 16 impacts are Small.
17  Now, when reviewing the potential impacts 18 of license renewal on the environment, the NRC staff 19 also looks at the effects on the environment from 20 other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 21 human actions. These effects, referred to as 22 Cumulative Impacts, not only include the operation of 23 Seabrook, but also impacts from activities unrelated 24 to Seabrook -- such as the development of the East 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  14 Coast Greenway, commercial fishing and climate change.
1  Past actions are those related to the resources at 2 the time of the power plant's licensing and 3 construction. Present actions are those related to 4 resources at the time of the current operation of the 5 power plant. Future actions are considered to be 6 those that are reasonably foreseeable through the end 7 of the plant operation, including the period of 8 extended operation.
9  Therefore, the analysis considers 10 potential impacts through the end of the current 11 license renewal term, as well as the 20-year renewal 12 term. While the impact due to direct and indirect 13 impacts of Seabrook on aquatic resources is Small for 14 most species and Large for winter flounder, rainbow 15 smelt and some kelp species -- the Cumulative Impacts, 16 when combined with all other sources -- such as 17 pressure from commercial fishing and effects of 18 climate change -- will be Moderate for most species 19 and Large for winter flounder, rainbow smelt and other 20 species that would be adversely affected by climate 21 change. In the other areas the staff considered --
22 the preliminary conclusion is that the Cumulative 23 Impacts are Small.
24  The National Environmental Policy Act 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  15 mandates that for each Environmental Impact Statement, 1 there needs to be a consideration of alternatives to 2 any proposed major federal action. A major step in 3 determining whether license renewal is reasonable or 4 not is comparing the likely impacts of continued 5 operation of the nuclear power plant with the likely 6 impacts of alternative means of power generation. Any 7 alternative must provide an option that allows for 8 power generation capability beyond the term of the 9 current nuclear power plant operating license to meet 10 future system generating needs. In the Draft 11 Supplement, the NRC staff initially considered (16) 12 different alternatives. After this initial 13 consideration, the staff then chose the three most 14 likely and analyzed these in depth.
15  Finally, the NRC staff considered what 16 would happen if no action is taken and Seabrook 17 Station shuts down at the end of its current license 18 without a specific replacement alternative. This 19 alternative would not provide power generation 20 capacity nor would it meet the needs currently met by 21 Seabrook Station.
22  The NRC's preliminary conclusion is that 23 there is no clear environmentally preferred 24 alternative to license renewal. All alternatives 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  16 capable of meeting the needs currently served by 1 Seabrook Station entail impacts greater than or equal 2 to the proposed action of license renewal.
3  Based on a review of likely environmental 4 impacts from license renewal, as well as potential 5 environmental impacts to alternatives to license 6 renewal -- the NRC staff's preliminary recommendation 7 in the Draft SEIS is that the environmental impacts of 8 license renewal for Seabrook Station are not great 9 enough to deny the option of license renewal.
10  Now, I'd like to emphasize that the 11 Environmental Review is not yet complete. Your 12 comments that you present today -- and all written 13 comments received by the end of the comment period on 14 October 26th -- will be considered by the NRC staff, 15 as we develop the Final SEIS, which we currently plan 16 to issue in March of 2012. Those comments that are 17 within the scope of the Environmental Review and 18 provide new and significant information can help to 19 change the staffs' findings. The Final SEIS will 20 contain the staff's final recommendation on the 21 acceptability of license renewal based on the work 22 we've already performed and any new and significant 23 information we received in the form of comments during 24 the comment period.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  17  Now, as I said in the front of the 1 meeting, I'm the primary contact for the Environmental 2 Review. My colleague, Rick Plasse, is the primary 3 contact for the Safety Review. And our contact 4 information is here and in the slides that are part of 5 the handout. Hard copies of the Draft SEIS are 6 available outside the door there, as are copies on CD-7 ROM. In addition, the Seabrook and Amesbury Public 8 Libraries have agreed to make hard-copies available 9 for your review. You can also find electronic copies 10 of the Draft SEIS along with other information about 11 the Seabrook Station license renewal review online at 12 the Web address on the slide.
13  The NRC staff will address written 14 comments in the same way we address spoken comments 15 received today. You can submit written comments 16 either online or via conventional mail. To submit 17 written comments online, visit the web site --
18 regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2010-19 0206. If you have written comments this evening, you 20 may give them to any NRC staff member.
21  Now, before we open up the meeting to 22 questions and comments, I wanted to take some time to 23 briefly discuss two topics that are of some interest 24 to people in attendance -- those are the concrete 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  18 degradation at Seabrook and the NRC's response to 1 Fukushima. While these issues are not related to the 2 Seabrook Environmental Review and are therefore not 3 specifically addressed in the Draft SEIS, they are 4 issues that are being actively addressed through 5 relevant Agency processes.
6  Alkali-silica reaction -- referred to as 7 ASR -- is a process that can occur in some forms of 8 concrete that have been exposed to water for long 9 periods of time. ASR can cause expansion and cracking 10 in concrete structures. During the course of the 11 license renewal process, ASR related degradation was 12 found at Seabrook. As discussed during the annual 13 assessment public meeting on June 8th, there are no 14 immediate safety concerns associated with ASR at 15 Seabrook. NRC has found no problems with any 16 electrical system, piping or any other component as a 17 result of ASR and the concrete walls continue to 18 perform within design specifications. The evaluation 19 of ASR and its impacts on license renewal is being 20 addressed as part of the Safety Review.
21  Additionally, the NRC has requested 22 NextEra explain how it intends to manage the effects 23 of aging associated with ASR. The NRC has delayed the 24 license renewal Safety Review until NextEra completes 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  19its evaluation and addresses the staffs' questions.
1 The NRC will not make a decision on license renewal 2 before it fully understands both the issues with ASR 3 affected structures and NextEra's plan to address the 4 issues. 5  Now, since the accident at Fukushima, the 6 NRC has taken multiple steps to ensure the safe 7 operation of nuclear power plants both now and in the 8 future. As part of its initial response to the 9 accident, the NRC issued temporary instructions to our 10 inspectors directing specific inspections at nuclear 11 power plants in order to assess disaster readiness and 12 compliance with current regulations. The next step in 13 the NRC's review was the report of the NRC's Near-Term 14 Task Force. The purpose of the Near-Term Task Force 15 was to develop near-term recommendations and suggest a 16 framework for us to move forward within the longer 17 term. 18  The Near-Term Task Force issued its report 19 on July 12th and discussed the results of their review 20 at a public meeting on July 28th. As a result of its 21 review, the Near-Term Task Force presented (12) over-22 arching recommendations for improvement. These 23 recommendations are applicable to operating reactors 24 regardless of license renewal status. Based on the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  20 results of the Near-Term Task Force, the Commission 1 has directed the NRC staff to evaluate and outline 2 which of the recommendations should be implemented.
3  The staff submitted a paper to the 4 Commission on September 9th, providing the staffs' 5 initial recommendation of which Task Force 6 recommendations can and -- in the staffs' judgment --
7 should be initiated in part or in whole without delay.
8  On October 3, 2011, the staff will submit another 9 Commission paper on its prioritization of (11) of the 10 (12) Task Force recommendations.
11  Recommendation 1 of the Task Force -- the 12 recommendation to reevaluate the NRC's regulatory 13 framework will be evaluated over the next 18-months.
14 To date, the NRC has not identified any issues as part 15 of these activities that calls into question the 16 safety of any nuclear facility. Additionally, the 17 review process is going on independent of license 18 renewal. Any changes that are identified as necessary 19 will be implemented for all licensees regardless of 20 license renewal status.
21  For more information on the NRC's post-22 Fukushima activities -- including the results of the 23 Near-Term Task Force -- you can go to the NRC's web 24 site, the home page and click on the link -- Japan 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  21 nuclear accident NRC actions -- or you can go directly 1 through the web address that's laid out here on the 2 slide. There are also a limited number of copies of 3 the Near-Term Task Force report available outside next 4 to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
5  Additionally, there are question and 6 answer sheets related to Fukushima and Seabrook for 7 those that are interested.
8  Now, before I turn it back over Brian, I 9 did just want to emphasize that we are here today to 10 talk about the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
11 We do have a limited number of staff -- but we are not 12 experts on everything. So, if we could limit the 13 comments to the extent practical on the Draft 14 Environmental Impact Statement or the Environmental 15 Review process -- you're probably going to get more 16 robust answers than -- there is a lot more information 17 that can be found online on Fukushima, if that's what 18 your question is.
19  Okay, with that I'm going to conclude my 20 presentation and turn it back over to Brian.
21  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Thank you, Mike. Like 22 Mike said, before we move to the main purpose of 23 tonight's meeting, which is to hear your comments --
24 we would like to offer a short question-and-answer 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  22 session and what I'll do is if you have a question 1 related to anything that Mike just presented or the 2 review process that the NRC's utilized to perform this 3 Environmental Review -- that's what the NRC staff is 4 prepared to answer questions on. If you could raise 5 your hand, I'll come to you with the microphone. I'll 6 circulate through the room to cover as many people 7 that have questions during the time we have set aside 8 for it. 9  Yes, ma'am. And if you could, please, 10 when I bring you the microphone, just for the record, 11 if you wouldn't mind stating your name, just so that 12 we can keep track of who asked what questions.
13  ILSE ANDREWS:  I thank you. My name is 14 Ilse Andrews. I live in Exeter, which is in the 15 evacuation zone. I would like to know how you know 16 that ASR will not accelerate 20-years hence?
17  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Thank you, Ilse, for that 18 question. Dave --
19  DAVE WRONA:  Right now, ASR is being 20 addressed in our Safety Review of the license renewal 21 application. We don't have the information from the 22 applicant on how they're going to be addressing this 23 in performing the aging management of the concrete 24 structures that are affected by ASR. We put our 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  23 application review on hold until we get the 1 information from them. When we have the information 2 from them, we can commence with our Safety Review.
3  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Can I see just a quick 4 show of hands -- who else had questions?  Okay --
5  DOUG BOGEN:  I'm Doug Bogen with Seacoast 6 Anti-Pollution League. Again, on the Safety Review --
7 it's kind of a process question -- what factors 8 determine whether you hold a hearing?  I understand 9 it's kind of optional whether -- according to the 10 chart that was in some of your materials -- how do you 11 decide whether to hold a Safety hearing or not and 12 would you hold it here?
13  DAVE WRONA:  When a license renewal 14 application is submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory 15 Commission, we go through an acceptance review to make 16 sure that it has enough information within it that we 17 can begin our technical review. At the point where we 18 find that there's enough information in the 19 application for us to start our review, we docket it 20 on the application and post a Federal Register notice 21 that opens up a period of 60-days for an opportunity 22 for a hearing, which was done when the application was 23 submitted.
24  I'd have to ask Michael or Rick the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  24 specific dates of when we accepted the application and 1 when the initial hearing opportunity closed. Our 2 Regulations on hearings also allow for late filed 3 petitions. I'm not an expert on that. We have a copy 4 of our Regulations out there and I can show you in 10 5 CFR Part 2, if you're interested. I know we have 6 information on our web site and even some staff that 7 you can reach out to to find out some information on 8 hearings and petitions and how to get into that 9 process. 10  DOUG BOGEN:  If I could follow-up. I 11 guess I really don't want to read through all your 12 Regulations -- they're not the most exciting reading.
13  But I guess we just want to know whether we might 14 have an opportunity -- particularly concerning the ARS 15 [sic] issue that you brought up. You thought it was 16 important enough to mention it tonight. Seems like 17 that alone would be important enough to hold a hearing 18 here, not down in Washington or somewhere on the 19 Safety Review because obviously a lot of people here 20 have questions that are about Safety as much as about 21 the Environment.
22  I would just say, obviously, we'll see 23 when you get to that point. But, it seems like it 24 would be good of you to notify the concerned people 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  25 here -- not just that we have to go read it in the 1 Federal Register. That we ought to be informed of the 2 opportunity to request such a hearing and I just want 3 to pass that along and hope you will do that.
4  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Doug, would it be okay if 5 the NRC staff followed-up with you after this meeting 6 -- give you a little more background on that hearing 7 process and late filed petitions.
8  DOUG BOGEN:  You have my sentiment about 9 it. I just, obviously, I think many people here would 10 like to know if we have any say in this.
11  DIANE SCRENCI:  There were a number of 12 contentions that were submitted on this license 13 renewal application. So, there is an Atomic Safety 14 and Licensing Board panel that's been established and 15 at this point we're moving forward in the hearing 16 process. An actual hearing, which is normally held in 17 the vicinity of the plant, wouldn't be conducted until 18 both the Final Environmental Impact Statement and the 19 Safety Evaluation has been completed.
20  In addition to the Federal Register 21 notice, there were press releases and news stories 22 that talked about the opportunity for the hearing.
23  BRIAN ANDERSON:  And just for the record -
24 - Diane Screnci was providing those most recent 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  26 comments.
1  PAUL GUNTER:  Thank you. My name's Paul 2 Gunter and I'm with Beyond Nuclear. We are one of the 3 interveners in the licensing renewal proceeding on 4 this application. My question speaks to the issue 5 that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement largely 6 reviews the Environmental Report prepared by the 7 applicant. I'm wondering -- given that there've 8 already been hearings in this intervention -- if the 9 staff in its preparation of this Draft Environmental 10 Impact Statement has reviewed not just the 11 Environmental Report by the applicant, but the 12 documentation that's been submitted in the 13 intervention to date. That we now have contentions 14 accepted by the Licensing Board. The interveners have 15 been given standing in the proceeding and when you 16 look at the Environmental Report and then read the 17 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, it appears that 18 the NRC has basically done a carbon copy of the 19 Environmental Report -- and specific, looking at the 20 Alternatives.
21  I'm just wondering how much actual 22 independent review of a whole host of documentation in 23 supplement to the applicant's documentation -- how 24 much of that did you actually review in preparing your 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  27 DEIS? 1  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Thank you, Paul. And I 2 believe I understand that the question is -- for 3 contentions that have been admitted on a review and 4 supplemental information that's been provided --
5  PAUL GUNTER:  Yeah.
6  BRIAN ANDERSON:  How does the NRC staff 7 consider that information in its review process?  Do I 8 have that right?
9  PAUL GUNTER:  I'll try to be more 10 succinct. Did you look at documentation in 11 preparation of your DEIS that was submitted during the 12 hearings to date before an Atomic Licensing Board?
13  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Thank you.
14  MICHAEL WENTZEL:  I can answer that by --
15 I'd say we don't wholesale rely on the Environmental 16 Report. We do look for other relevant information --
17 either provided during the scoping process, where we 18 did receive input and things that we did take a look 19 at. 20  We also look at other agency studies that 21 have been done. One that I can talk to specifically 22 was the Environmental Protection Agency's case study 23 that they did.
24  THOMAS SAPORITO:  [indiscernible] I can't 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  28 hear you.
1  [after a brief pause as adjustments were 2 made to the telephone set-up]
3  MICHAEL WENTZEL:  Anyway, as I was saying, 4 we did look at the Environmental Protection Agency's 5 case study that they did as part of their --
6 specifically on Seabrook -- as part of their 316(b) 7 Phase-II rulemaking. We used that in preparation of 8 it. So, we do look at what information that is 9 presented to us and try to determine whether or not it 10 is -- like we said before -- new and significant or 11 different than what we've done before. But I can't 12 say that we've taken everything that we've gotten --
13  PAUL GUNTER:  Well, let me just --
14  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Paul -- hold on just a 15 second. Let me bring a microphone to you to make sure 16 we get everything captured on the record.
17  PAUL GUNTER:  I want to be really clear on 18 this. The Agency has been presented with a volume of 19 documentation that speaks directly to this application 20 and the inadequacy of its Environmental Report --
21 particularly with regard to the Alternatives. All I 22 want to know is -- did you review the documents that 23 were submitted to the Atomic Safety and Licensing 24 Board in preparation of your Draft Environmental 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  29 Impact Statement?
1  MICHAEL WENTZEL:  It was. It was provided 2 to the environmental reviewer's for their review and -
3 - 4  PAUL GUNTER:  And so you reviewed it?
5  MICHAEL WENTZEL:  Yeah. Absolutely.
6  PAUL GUNTER:  You reviewed the 7 documentation that's been presented to the Atomic 8 Safety and Licensing Board to date.
9  MICHAEL WENTZEL:  I cannot say we've 10 reviewed everything that's been presented to the 11 Licensing Board to date. I cannot make that 12 statement, but I know -- particularly with the initial 13 round of contentions that were submitted -- yes, we 14 did look at the information that was presented. And 15 we also -- related to Alternatives -- we also looked 16 for other studies, like I said, with other government 17 agencies. We did look at various FERC studies and 18 cited that in our --
19  THOMAS SAPORITO:  I hate to interrupt 20 again, but this is Thomas Saporito. I need to have 21 the NRC repeat their responses to whether or not they 22 reviewed the submittal by the interveners -- the 23 submittal that was sent to the Atomic Safety and 24 Licensing Board before the NRC made its Environmental 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  30 Report. 1  BRIAN ANDERSON:  And Mike, the answer to 2 that question is -- yes, that information was 3 reviewed. Is that correct?
4  MICHAEL WENTZEL:  Right. For the initial 5 round of contentions --
6  PAUL GUNTER:  You didn't review 7 everything.
8  MICHAEL WENTZEL:  I know. I'm going to 9 clarify that. I said for the initial round of 10 contentions, we did review the information that was 11 presented. I cannot say that we've looked at -- I or 12 the environmental reviewers specifically -- have 13 looked at, in-depth, at everything that has been 14 submitted to date -- is actually what I said.
15  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Did those on the phone --
16 were they able to hear the restatement of the answer?
17  That the NRC environmental review staff --
18  THOMAS SAPORITO:  Yes, thank you very 19 much. Yes -- yes, thank you very much.
20  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Okay. Sir, I'm going to 21 come to a question over here and I'll come back to you 22 -- okay? 23  DEBBIE GRINNELL:  This concern that I'm 24 going to raise was raised --
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  31  BRIAN ANDERSON:  I'm sorry -- would you 1 mind, for the record --
2  DEBBIE GRINNELL:  Debbie Grinnell --
3  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Thank you.
4  DEBBIE GRINNELL:  -- I live in West 5 Newbury, Mass. Paul Gunter, Beyond Nuclear, raised 6 this scheduling concern that many of us have and I do 7 know that the seismic vulnerability -- the individual 8 report from the plants -- is a two-year process. It 9 was submitted to the plants on September 1st of 2011, 10 which means that they have until September 1, 2013 --
11 except the Final SEIS is scheduled for March of 2012.
12    Now, I also know that the in-depth 13 assessment and determination if there's any structural 14 integrity issues at four safety related foundations 15 concerning the ASR concrete -- that the plant has had 16 to delay their testing and core results. I don't 17 think we're expecting them until March. I think it 18 was pending until March of 2011. So, how could you 19 possibly assert that you're going to have a Final 20 Draft of the SEIS when you have two major unknowns in 21 the Environmental Impact review?
22  MICHAEL WENTZEL:  I can answer that. The 23 Draft letter that you're referring to -- that's being 24 handled for all licensees. Again, that's being 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  32handled generically for all operators. I can also 1 tell you that for the Draft SEIS for the Seabrook 2 license renewal application -- where that's handled is 3 in the Severe Accident and Mitigation Alternatives.
4 It's not, per se -- it's handled as part of the Severe 5 Accident and Mitigation alternatives. And it's 6 actually the reason that the Environmental Impact 7 Statement -- the Draft SEIS -- was delayed from its 8 initial scheduling date because we had multiple rounds 9 of RAIs with the applicant asking them to assess these 10 new hazard curves and their impact on the Severe 11 Accident and Mitigation -- also known as SAMA --
12 Analysis.
13  ROBIN WILLITS:  My name is Robin Willits 14 and I'm a citizen of Exeter, which is within the 15 impact evacuation area. I'm interested in your 16 process tonight. I think inviting people to make 17 comments and that is something that I respect very 18 much and appreciate. I am concerned on this count --
19 this is a very small audience. I think it's good we 20 have people like SAPL -- who have more technical 21 knowledge than somebody like me -- who could raise 22 those good questions. But my question to you is --
23 how important is it to you that the general public 24 know about this meeting and get them to come to this 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  33 meeting and have a chance to give some kind of 1 educated comment?  How important is it and what 2 specific steps did you take to help ensure the general 3 public would be represented here more than I think it 4 is now here?  Such as:  giving out some documents of 5 your summary of what we heard tonight -- very briefly 6 and very fast; giving it to the public for some chance 7 to digest beforehand; announcing it in the newspapers 8 or other ways to inform and get the public here to 9 give some comments. I'd like to know that about your 10 process and ask what your desire is and what steps you 11 took? 12  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Thank you, sir, for that 13 question. Mike -- can you speak a little bit to the 14 details that go into planning these meetings and how 15 the public is made aware of the NRC process?
16  MICHAEL WENTZEL:  I can. This meeting --
17 when we first issued the Draft SEIS, we put notice in 18 the Federal Register announcing that fact. I know 19 that that's not necessarily everybody's first go-to 20 every day. So that was our initial announcement of 21 the availability of the document and that we're going 22 to have this meeting. We've also advertised in two of 23 the local papers. We did three -- I'm sorry, I was 24 distracted by the monitors -- (2) of the local papers, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  34 we did three different advertisements leading up to 1 this meeting. There's also been multiple rounds of 2 press releases that the NRC has issued.
3  When we first initially issued the 4 document and then about two or three-weeks ago, we did 5 another round of press releases to inform the public.
6  We also, about three-weeks ago, put out posters in 7 the area advertising that meeting. So, public 8 involvement in this process is crucial. That's the 9 whole basis behind the National Environmental Policy 10 Act is to get people involved in the process for the 11 federal government. So, to answer that question --
12 public involvement is very important in that.
13  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Yes, ma'am. I think we 14 have time for one, maybe two more questions before we 15 take comments.
16  PHYLLIS KILLAM-ABELL:  This is a follow-up 17 question to the previous one. When you say -- a 18 couple of newspapers -- what were those newspapers?
19 What newspapers were they?
20  MICHAEL WENTZEL:  I have it written down.
21  I'm not familiar with it. I believe it was the 22 Seacoast Online -- it was advertised -- I've seen it 23 there. 24  Do you have a contact sheet?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  35  Here we go -- it was the Daily News, 1 Newburyport News and the Hampton Union. And then the 2 Daily News -- that was advertised on September 9th, 3 12th and 14th --
4  PHYLLIS KILLAM-ABELL:  I don't read --
5 excuse me -- but I don't read those newspapers. I 6 live in Exeter. There is an Exeter Newsletter that's 7 published twice a week and there is the Portsmouth 8 Herald that's published that covers the seacoast and 9 that's within the region that will be affected. I 10 would have no way of knowing this. Your publication 11 is not wide enough. I wouldn't know that.
12  MICHAEL WENTZEL:  Okay. I apologize for 13 that. I do know that the story was picked up in the 14 Boston Globe -- to what effect that has on it. So it 15 was fairly widely circulated.
16  PHYLLIS KILLAM-ABELL:  If you want --
17 really want people to know -- you blanket the 18 seacoast. You blanket the northern part, particularly 19 of Boston. You really let people know. That's not an 20 effective publicity campaign at all.
21  MICHAEL WENTZEL:  Okay. Well, thank you 22 for your comments. I think that we'll take that back.
23  BRIAN ANDERSON:  That is an important 24 comment for the NRC staff to consider -- the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  36 distribution of newspaper advertising and the local 1 news. Thank you for that comment.
2  One last question before we move into the 3 comment period. Hi --
4  WILLOW MAUCK:  Yeah, well, there was a 5 follow-up on that question too because I think -- I 6 was curious as to -- he said what their desire was --
7 how much you wanted to actually get the word out about 8 this thing?  And I don't think that that was actually 9 answered in the question. So, I was curious.
10  BRIAN ANDERSON:  I think that part of the 11 answer was that -- public participation is an 12 important part of the NRC's review process. I believe 13 that Mike said that. Was there something more 14 specific that you were looking for as a follow-up to 15 that? 16  WILLOW MAUCK:  So, that is it. So, it's 17 the SeacoastOnline and those papers. Like she said 18 aren't really very effective press to release to 19 actually have the public know about it. So, it seems 20 that maybe there it is not much desire there on the 21 NRC's behalf to have the public know. So, I was 22 wondering how much it really does mean to the NRC for 23 the public to know about something like this?
24  MICHAEL WENTZEL:  I don't know how else to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  37answer that question. I mean, it is important. I 1 mean, obviously, we didn't cover every publication 2 that we probably could have. But, it wasn't that we 3 were avoiding the public input. Like I said, we did 4 issue a couple rounds of press releases that did get 5 picked up in newspapers that we didn't specifically 6 take out ads in. So, the story was fairly widely 7 available.
8  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Thank you both for those 9 questions. The NRC staff will take that as a serious 10 comment for consideration just for future process.
11 It's important for the NRC to make sure that they're 12 aware of how the circulation of news in the local 13 community works and how that can possibly be improved 14 in their routine process.
15  ROBIN WILLITS:  If you get a trained 16 marketing person that knows the way to get an idea 17 across. 18  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Thank you, sir, for that 19 comment. For those who didn't hear -- the suggestion 20 was to utilize trained marketing expertise, who might 21 better know the various avenues to disseminate 22 information in the local community. Thank you again 23 for that.
24  Thank you all for your questions and we're 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  38 now at the most important part of the meeting agenda -
1 - and that is to hear your comments. For those that 2 might have come in late -- if you wish to provide 3 comments on the record tonight, please register with a 4 yellow card out in the lobby. That serves just as a 5 sequence order, so that I can keep track of who has 6 made comments and who is still yet to speak. No one's 7 required to make comments, but if you wish to make 8 comments here -- to be on the record tonight -- please 9 fill out a yellow card and I'll make sure that you get 10 your chance to speak.
11  As a quick reminder, before we get into 12 the comment period -- there are a lot of people that 13 want to talk tonight and I want to make sure that 14 everybody has an equal opportunity to participate.
15 When providing your comments, please speak into a 16 microphone. Please try and keep your comments concise 17 and within a five-minute time limit. This is not your 18 only opportunity to provide comments and making 19 comments here tonight is not the only way to have the 20 NRC take your comments for consideration.
21  The first speaker will be Chris Nord 22 followed by Mary Lampert. What I'd like to ask is 23 that speakers just come forward to the center podium 24 and I'll provide the microphone --
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  39  CHRIS NORD:  Actually, hang on to it. Let 1 me open up my notebook. Thank you.
2  Well, my first comment is for the NRC to 3 say that -- I think that it's plain that the NRC has a 4 public relations problem and maybe most of all in the 5 area around Seabrook. If you -- as staff members of 6 the NRC -- are interested in helping that process 7 along, it might help to convince the general public 8 that you do actually care about the general public 9 coming to meetings like this, if in fact the comments 10 that were made and documents that were submitted to 11 NRC actually got reviewed in time to be a part of 12 reporting and so that comments such as my own and 13 other peoples' that are coming forward somehow do get 14 incorporated into your hearing process. I understand 15 that's a possibly difficult task, but that is in fact 16 the task that you are charged with. If you're 17 interested in having the general public up here to 18 make comments, I think the general public would like 19 to see our comments being made a part of this process.
20  In the spirit that that may in fact take place, I'm 21 going to forge ahead by attempting to talk a little 22 bit here about tritium.
23  Just as one example of many radionuclides 24 that the general public remains at risk of being 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  40 exposed to within the ingestion pathway -- that is 1 within 50-miles of any reactor -- here or in Japan or 2 anywhere that reactors operate in the world. The 3 reason that I focus on tritium I hope to make obvious, 4 but my first strong suggestion to NRC is that the 5 owners of Seabrook should be required by NRC to show 6 proof positive that leakages and emissions of nuclear 7 radionuclides, such as tritium, have been prevented 8 entirely into the atmosphere, into the air, into 9 groundwater -- in keeping with conclusions drawn from 10 the National Academies of Science BEIR VII Report --
11 that is the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation 12 that was released a couple of years ago -- that a 13 conclusion from that study can be made that there is 14 no threshold below which radiation is safe. And if 15 NRC were actually to enact their regulations based on 16 the National Academies' findings, that should mean 17 that nuclear plants -- atomic plants like Seabrook --
18 should not be emitting radionuclides.
19  Now, I'm focusing on tritium for good 20 reason. There was a study conducted in the state of 21 Massachusetts a number of years ago that focused on 22 the Deerfield River Valley and was eventually signed-23 you off on by the State officials within the state 24 Department of Public Health for the state of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  41 Massachusetts that showed statistical significance for 1 things like certain cancers and Down's Syndrome in the 2 Deerfield River Valley -- which was close to the 3 Yankee Rowe plant before it closed. Apparently, those 4 findings of cancer were eventually linked to exposures 5 in the Deerfield River Valley to tritium.
6  I have in my possession a report that was 7 done by a group out in western Mass. -- the Citizens 8 Awareness Network -- that was involved in creating 9 that study that talks about three very important 10 effects of tritium -- it's carcinogenic, it's 11 mutagenic, and it's teratogenic. Teratogenic meaning 12 that it is possible that exposure to tritium will 13 cause genetic defects down the line. The other two, I 14 think, are self-explanatory.
15  The reason I'm bringing up tritium in 16 relation to Seabrook in particular -- it could be 17 Cesium-137, it could be Strontium-90 -- but here, word 18 has come down to me that the owners of Seabrook have 19 been boring test wells over the last -- in the recent 20 past -- apparently looking for traces of tritium. I 21 don't know whether the wells have been dug deeply 22 enough -- I don't know anything about the wells -- and 23 I don't know what's been found. I think that it 24 should be part of the public record to know if tritium 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  42is actually leaking from the reactor at Seabrook.
1 But, God save the people that are close to that 2 nuclear reactor if tritium gets in the groundwater and 3 travels. I think that the NRC should be holding, not 4 only Seabrook, but all reactors to account for their 5 releases of tritium.
6  And I'll say, finally, in relation to 7 tritium -- that it does us on planet earth no good if 8 we're using nuclear power as a way to bridge our 9 energy toward a carbon-free future, if by doing so 10 we've taken on this Faustian bargain of irradiating 11 the earth in the process.
12  The next thing I wanted to say is -- why 13 does the Nuclear Regulatory Commission not require 14 independent monitoring of radiation that allows 15 reactor community residents and first responders --
16 not only here, but all over the United States -- to 17 know the real-time direction, location and intensity 18 of radioactive plumes in the event of a radiological 19 event. 20  If that had been put in place 15-years ago 21 for reactors around the country -- such as Seabrook --
22 and the NRC was actually looking at that information 23 as a part of its evaluation of relicensing -- then the 24 NRC would have some strong data on which to base the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  43actual safety of this plant. But, without that 1 information -- what do you really have for data as far 2 as the health and safety of the local environment, if 3 you don't actually know what radiation is being 4 emitted?  So, that should be done not only here, but 5 that should be done all over the world.
6  I want to point out for those of you that 7 don't know that there's one group in this area -- the 8 C-10 Research and Education Foundation out of 9 Newburyport, Massachusetts -- that at this time has 10 the model independent monitoring system in the entire 11 United States and we have actually had visitors from 12 Fukushima come to C-10 because people all over the 13 world have suddenly become interested in how to 14 properly monitor for radiation.
15  My last two-items have to do with hardened 16 on-site storage of spent fuel. You should be 17 requiring hardened on-site storage as a prerequisite 18 for relicensing. I'm also curious to know -- and I 19 could just leave this as an open question -- if 20 there's any consideration being given to the potential 21 for inundation of coastal floodplains over the next 22 25-years?  If you're considering relicensing at this 23 time, then you have to be considering inundation in 24 relation to global warming. Thank you.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  44  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Chris -- thank you for 1 those comments. I'll check one more time. I believe 2 that Mary Lampert is not here in the room -- so the 3 next speaker would be Paul Gunter and after Paul --
4 Representative Peter Schmidt.
5  PAUL GUNTER:  Thank you. My name is Paul 6 Gunter and I'm director of reactor oversight at Beyond 7 Nuclear out of Tacoma Park, Maryland. We are one of 8 the interveners in the Seabrook relicensing 9 proceeding. As I mentioned earlier, we've already had 10 a preliminary hearing before an Atomic Safety and 11 Licensing Board. Specifically, our contention has to 12 deal with the environmental alternative and the 13 requirement of the National Environment Policy Act for 14 Seabrook to consider the environmental alternatives 15 and the NRC to incorporate that in its decision for 16 licensing renewal.
17  When I read the Draft Environmental Impact 18 Statement, I note that within 54-lines the NRC is able 19 to dismiss the alternative of wind power in the region 20 of interest. What this says to me is that the Agency 21 -- particularly the staff in its review -- did not 22 look at the documentation that was presented to -- in 23 a persuasive argument to even your own Atomic Safety 24 and Licensing Board -- enough for you to incorporate a 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  45 whole host of documentation, which I'm going to 1 briefly go through here, as long as my time permits.
2 But it seems apparent that these concerns are falling 3 upon deaf ears with regard to the Agency's 4 consideration.
5  Within 54-lines, basically you say that --
6 the wind energy alternative is intermittent and not 7 feasible in terms of baseload power -- and that -- its 8 availability, its accessibility and its consistency is 9 not of a standard for addressing the environmental 10 impacts that are forced upon us by the continued 11 operation of the Seabrook plant.
12  In fact, what this does -- the statement 13 of fact -- as your Draft Environmental Impact 14 Statement reads -- basically takes a page out of the 15 Environmental Report of the applicant in that your 16 perspective is a review of the alternative at this 17 time. I think that that's disingenuous when we're 18 talking about not issuing a relicense application 19 tomorrow or even 10-years from now, but 20-years from 20 now -- approximately -- we're talking about this time 21 frame. 22  In fact, what it does is serve to 23 obfuscate a whole host of expert documentation, 24 Memorandums Of Understanding and basically -- as we 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  46 have contended, as your Draft Environmental Impact 1 Statement reinforces -- that the NRC is not following 2 the requirements under the National Environment Impact 3 Statement [sic] that you must honestly acknowledge and 4 be sufficiently complete in your review.
5  Let me just read a couple of these as time 6 would permit me. When you talk about that it's not a 7 reliable baseload power source -- what you do is that 8 you've ignored Exhibit Number-4 in our intervention, 9 which is entitled --
Supplying Baseload Power and 10 Reducing Transmission Requirements by Interconnected 11 Wind Farms -- from the Journal of Applied Meteorology 12 and Climatology, which was prepared by Stanford 13 University. This scientific manuscript concludes --
14 contrary to common knowledge -- an average of 33% and 15 a maximum of 47% of yearly averaged wind power from 16 interconnected wind farms can be used as reliable 17 baseload electrical power. Equally significant --
18 interconnecting multiple wind farms to a common point 19 and then connecting that point to a faraway city can 20 allow for the long-distance portion of transmission 21 capacity to be reduced, for example, by 20% with only 22 1.6% loss of energy. Nowhere in your evaluation do 23 you acknowledge the expert opinion that already in 24 this day and age -- the baseload promise, the baseload 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  47 capacity is in fact clearly feasible.
1  There are an increasing number of news 2 accounts and current events that reveal that there is 3 in fact this building of momentum for baseload power.
4  For example, you do not mention in your Environmental 5 Impact Statement that Google Corporation has already 6 invested $5 billion of its money to lay the first 7 vertebrae of a backbone of offshore wind transmission 8 from Virginia to Maine. So, your dismissal of this 9 power source as a baseload power for the license 10 period of 2030-2050 -- I think, again, it demonstrates 11 a disingenuous approach to looking at the 12 environmental impact issue.
13  A few more examples here. The potential 14 here is just tremendous. There are now (9) European 15 North Sea countries -- Germany, France, Belgium, 16 Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Great Britain and the 17 Netherlands -- that have announced an investment of 18 $40 billion in an offshore, undersea, energy super-19 smart grid, which basically is dedicated to the 20 transmission of renewable energy. This investment and 21 development supports a model for the United States, 22 which your own Draft Environmental Impact Statement 23 ignores. I mean, we can go on.
24  The University of Delaware and Stony Brook 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  48 University study -- they did a study that says that 1 based on a five-year wind data from (11) 2 meteorological stations distributed over a 2,500 km 3 extent along the U.S. Eastern Seaboard -- power output 4 for each hour of the site is calculated and in short 5 that -- there is evidence that the wind blows all the 6 time somewhere and if interconnected along a 7 transmission line you have a demonstrated baseload.
8  But since I'm about to be cut short here, 9 I just want to also note that what you've ignored are 10 Memorandums Of Understanding, bids that are now going 11 on with the state of Maine. By 2030 -- so by the time 12 you're talking about this license renewal to take 13 effect in this federal action that you're looking at -
14 - the state of Maine is looking at having 5 gigawatts 15 of wind in the offshore waters -- 10 to 50-miles out 16 into the Gulf of Maine. That's the equivalent of (5) 17 Seabrooks. And again, there's no mention of this in 18 your Environmental Impact Statement review.
19  I don't think that that's an honest 20 evaluation. I think that what it does is it does not 21 build public confidence that this Agency is doing 22 nothing more than just promoting this industry.
23 That's not your job, particularly when we now know 24 that Seabrook -- what it forces upon us are these 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  49 environmental consequences that require emergency 1 planning zones -- out to 50-miles -- enhanced security 2 because of the environmental threat that putting these 3 reactors in our communities is all about and the 4 alternatives clearly don't represent that level of 5 threat. And you've ignored this.
6  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Paul -- thank you for 7 those comments. Representative Schmidt and then we'll 8 hear from Paul Blanch.
9  REP.PETER SCHMIDT:  Thank you. I'm Peter 10 Schmidt. I represent Dover, Wards 1 and 2. I am not 11 a scientist -- and not even to say a nuclear scientist 12 -- and I don't speak as a scientist, but rather as a 13 policymaker. I've been in the legislature now for 14 nearly 9-years and I was 3-years as a Dover City 15 Council before that, so what I am in the business of 16 is judgment with regard to policy.
17  I would have to say that just -- before I 18 begin my more pertinent remarks -- that what Paul has 19 just referred to, but also the questions with regard 20 to contacting the public -- demonstrate either a 21 somewhat willful disregard of some of the facts, which 22 one could possibly attribute to somewhat of a silo-23 type of thinking -- you're focused on your specific 24 bailiwick and not looking in the wider thing --
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  50 perhaps disregarding the information which Paul eluded 1 to. 2  But with regard to trying to get the 3 public to be informed -- the bottom line here is if 4 you asked virtually any resident of the seacoast, 5 certainly the elected representatives, with regard to 6 contacting the public in this area -- I think they 7 would've said that some of the publications you 8 referenced would be useful, but by no means sufficient 9 -- ads in the Union Leader, Portsmouth Herald, the 10 Dover Foster's Daily Democrat and other more widely 11 circulated papers would certainly have gotten you a 12 lot more feedback from a much wider area, which is 13 perhaps not within the evacuation zone, but would 14 definitely be impacted by the relicensing of Seabrook.
15  I don't try to address the scientific 16 aspects of this issue. I'd like to look at the larger 17 picture because the fact of the matter is -- my 18 greatest concern is not the possibility of terrorism 19 or environmental disaster -- I think those are all 20 much more on your mind and possibly more predictable.
21  But, if I mention such things as Fukushima or Three-22 Mile Island or Chernobyl, or the Titanic disaster, for 23 that matter -- I don't do so in order to create an 24 alarmist sentiment, but rather because they 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  51 demonstrate the fallibility of human design concepts, 1 but also the unpredictability of future events.
2  And certainly, just in the last 10-years, 3 we've seen Fukushima, we've seen the Twin-Towers and 4 September 11th. And those things demonstrate that 5 we're not very good at predicting the future. That 6 there are all types of things that are happening and 7 one of the concerns that we certainly have is global 8 warming. Seabrook is very close to the ocean, 9 obviously. I'm wondering -- we read recently, for 10 example, that several nuclear power plants along the 11 Missouri River were essentially isolated and may have 12 experienced some flooding -- we're very concerned in 13 this area what that type of thing might generate.
14  My primary concern here is that we are 15 engaged in the relicensing process way too far in the 16 future. I just cannot believe that it is appropriate 17 to relicense Seabrook at this time when the current 18 license is not even remotely ready to expire. What do 19 we really know about what the situation is going to 20 be. Some of the aspects have eluded to -- the 21 possibility of degradation of the plant's 22 infrastructure -- but all these other aspects, which 23 I've just very briefly touched on -- suggest to me 24 that this is -- a relicensing of Seabrook at this time 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  52-- is incredibly premature given all the things that 1 we absolutely know are potential problems: a terrorist 2 act, the storage aspect, the sea level rise and those 3 types of things. Those are the types of things that 4 we already have some knowledge of even if we can't 5 predict exactly how they will manifest themselves over 6 the next 10 to 20-years. But, certainly, the idea of 7 committing this region to this ongoing operation of 8 this plant -- when we're not even close to the 9 expiration of the current license -- strikes me as 10 very, very concerning.
11  So, that is my gravest concern -- that we 12 are jumping off the bridge or jumping off the ship 13 before it's even beginning to founder. And committing 14 ourselves to a situation that I think is questionable, 15 if not unwise. And I'll leave it at that. You get 16 the message, but to the degree that you're engaged in 17 either an active promotion of the nuclear industry, 18 regardless of all of the facts and regardless of 19 whether the public is in support of that, or whether 20 there are real alternatives -- and I have seen the 21 presentation that Paul alluded to in his remarks with 22 regard to the potential for offshore wind.
23  This is not some pie in the sky -- this 24 process is already very far along and it's making 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  53rapid progress. Jumping onto the Seabrook life-raft 1 at this particular point, I think is, as I say, 2 extremely questionable. I hope that you will exercise 3 your authority to weigh the alternatives and the 4 question of -- when it is appropriate to relicense.
5 And I think the time is not yet now. Thank you.
6  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Thank you, sir, for those 7 comments. The next speaker is Paul Blanch -- is Mr.
8 Blanch in the room?  Is there anyone else named Paul 9 that registered to speak?  Okay. The next speaker is 10 Thomas Saporito -- who I believe is on the phone. Mr.
11 Saporito -- can you hear me?
12  THOMAS SAPORITO:  Yeah. Can you hear me?
13  BRIAN ANDERSON:  I can hear you. I'm 14 going to try and place a microphone near the 15 speakerphone to see if that'll better allow everyone 16 else in the room to hear you. When you're ready to 17 make your comments -- it's your time.
18  THOMAS SAPORITO:  Can you hear me now?
19 Can the court reporter hear me?
20  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Yes, he can. You are on 21 the record.
22  THOMAS SAPORITO:  Okay. First of all, my 23 name is Thomas Saporito. I am the senior consultant 24 with Sapordani Associates and we're located in 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  54Jupiter, Florida. I have (4) points that I want to 1 address to the NRC with respect to this relicensing 2 issue. 3  However, before I get into that, I just 4 want to follow-up on the prior speaker's comments on 5 the NRC being premature in their endeavor to relicense 6 this nuclear plant so far in advance.
7  It's my perspective, after monitoring the 8 NRC for some 25-years, that the NRC is involved in a 9 process of rubberstamping these 20-year license 10 extensions to nuclear power plants that were only 11 originally licensed to operate safely for 40-years.
12 The NRC is aggressively rubberstamping these licenses 13 because there are Senators and Congressmen who are 14 actively trying to put a moratorium on relicensing 15 nuclear power plants. So, now there is a race between 16 Congress and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with 17 respect to this issue. So, that's the heart of it all 18 right there. It's not the fact that the NRC's trying 19 to protect public health and safety in this instance.
20  In this instance, the NRC is in a footrace trying to 21 rubberstamp these licenses without due process.
22  With respect to this specific plant and 23 the relicensing issue here -- the NRC appears to have 24 failed in its Environmental Review to consider the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  55 brittleness of the metal that comprises the reactor 1 vessel. The Associated Press recently did a year-long 2 investigation of the NRC and found the NRC to be 3 complacent and found that these nuclear power plants 4 were only licensed to safely operate for 40-years.
5 The Associated Press investigation confirmed that the 6 Agency is rubberstamping these license extensions at 7 the peril of public health and safety.
8  So, I would encourage and request that the 9 NRC require the licensee -- NextEra Energy -- to do 10 destructive testing analysis of the metal which 11 comprises the nuclear reactor vessel, to ascertain the 12 exact degree of imbrittelment that may currently exist 13 in that reactor vessel. Because if that reactor 14 vessel cracks from the neutrons that are bombarding it 15 -- you're going to have a loss of coolant accident 16 that you could not recover from and you'd be melting 17 down, just like the reactors in Japan. Once you do 18 that analysis, then you can prorate that and see if 19 that reactor vessel's going to crack if the license is 20 extended 20-years beyond its 40-year license.
21  The next issue would be the alternatives.
22  The NRC's Environmental Review and report is a joke 23 on the alternatives. First of all, if the NRC would 24 simply -- in their review -- have considered 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  56 installation of on-demand electric water heaters for 1 all the customers of NextEra Energy, you would reduce 2 the grid's electrical load demand by 50 to 70% with 3 the installation of just that one appliance. If you 4 add solar systems to the customers of NextEra Energy -
5 - you would have a zero footprint. You would actually 6 -- those customers would actually be putting power 7 into the grid and you wouldn't even need Seabrook.
8 You would have surplus power with those two 9 initiatives. You wouldn't need Seabrook to operate at 10 all. 11  And that's required. Those analyses are 12 required by the Agency to be part of their 13 Environmental Report. I don't see it in there. And 14 these are realistic, real-time -- if you go to our web 15 site saporito-associates.com -- there's a hyphen 16 between those two words -- you will see the evidence 17 where those systems are already in place for many 18 years -- they're not something new. This has been 19 going on for years.
20  The next issue would be earthquakes. The 21 NRC Environmental Report should have required the 22 licensee to do a new seismic evaluation of the 23 Seabrook facility. Just as recent as August the 23rd 24 of this year, the North Anna Nuclear Power Plant 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  57 experienced a seismic event outside its design basis.
1  Okay?  Outside its design basis. So, the NRC granted 2 North Anna a license and had an earthquake event 3 happen outside its design basis. Who's to say that 4 there's not going to be a seismic event that's going 5 to be outside the design basis of the Seabrook plant?
6  That's something that's supposed to be in the NRC's 7 Environmental Report and I don't think it's 8 sufficiently in there -- if it's in there at all.
9  The final item I want to address to the 10 NRC is with respect to the environmental consequences 11 of the NRC's action allowing this nuclear plant to 12 operate for 20 more years. It's going to adversely 13 affect the environment because it's going to introduce 14 millions and millions of BTUs worth of heat that would 15 not otherwise be introduced into the environment 16 because the reactor -- the fuel in the nuclear reactor 17 core has to continuously be cooled by water and that 18 heat is dumped into the environment. If that nuclear 19 plant wasn't operating for 20 more years, you wouldn't 20 have 20 more years of heat being dumped into the 21 environment that wasn't there before. That all 22 contributes to global warming. Okay?  You may have a 23 near zero carbon footprint with nuclear power 24 production, but you damn sure have a lot of heat being 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  58 unnecessarily put into the environment.
1  So, these issues I would hope and urge the 2 NRC to take seriously and to incorporate them into 3 their Environmental Report and I would hope that the 4 interveners in the current licensing proceeding are 5 addressing these issues, as well. Thank you very 6 much. 7  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Thank you, sir, for those 8 comments. Thank you for joining us by phone and thank 9 you for your comments. The next speaker is Ben 10 Clichester -- did I say that even close to right?
11 After Ben -- Randall Kezar.
12  BEN CHICHESTER:  Chichester.
13  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Chichester -- Ben 14 Chichester.
15  BEN CHICHESTER:  Good evening staff of the 16 NRC. We know that this meaning is a farce coming in 17 here because we've been through this with you guys 18 plenty of times before. We know it's a feel-good 19 thing and a technicality for you to have to go through 20 this public hearing.
21  UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Please 22 speak into the mic.
23  BEN CHICHESTER:  This is a public hearing, 24 but it is a farce and we know that coming in here.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  59 It's a farce I say because if it wasn't a farce then 1 we wouldn't be having to address so many ridiculous 2 considerations that you are pretending are something 3 that is manageable and real. I can mention a few, but 4 one of the things that comes to mind is the Evacuation 5 Calendar that is sent out to us on a regular basis.
6 It tells us where to go if there's a nuclear problem.
7  But, everybody knows that you don't go where the wind 8 is blowing and there's no accounting for that in the 9 Evacuation Calendar.
10  Initially, we were told we were going to 11 not have a power plant if you couldn't have an 12 evacuation plan that was workable. But then we were 13 told that it was enough just to have an evacuation 14 plan -- it didn't have to work. That's one example of 15 the kind of farcical nature of this meeting.
16  There are too many things that you are not 17 considering. We live in a world where the health of 18 our economy and the very functioning of an economy is 19 at risk from day to day from total breakdown. Where 20 is the money going to come to pay for and who is going 21 to be in charge of paying for the costly work of 22 maintaining and protecting the citizens from spent 23 fuel pools?  Who's going to pay when the seawater 24 rises from global warming and we have popping sounds 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  60with explosive plumes coming from Seabrook?  Who's 1 going to pay?  Where's that money coming from?
2  We've already heard testimony here that 3 several plants were perilously close to flooding out 4 West and there is no assurance that this is not going 5 to happen here. But you can come into our town and 6 tell us that there is no safety impact 20 to 40-years 7 down the road from this plant. All this period of 8 time that you are proposing to extend this license --
9 the waste will be building up in and on the site.
10 That's a new uncharted territory because I don't 11 believe you know how to take care of that much waste 12 in one spot. You've never done it.
13  I think that there's an inherent collusion 14 between the industry and the NRC. I've heard that the 15 NRC gets most of its funding from the industry. This 16 may or may not be true.
17  PAUL GUNTER:  90%.
18  BEN CHICHESTER:  How can you say that 19 we're going to be safe from terrorist attacks on the 20 plant either from foreign or domestic sources?  The 21 Price Anderson Act says that the industry doesn't have 22 to pay very much in the event of a catastrophic 23 accident, but our government really can't afford to 24 pay for it either. So, it seems like we're going to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  61 be stuck there.
1  You're only thinking about 20-years at a 2 time, but we should be thinking like the Native 3 Americans think -- which would be more like seven-4 generations ahead. 20-years is sort of a selfish way 5 of looking at what we're doing with these nuclear 6 plants. We should be looking down the road so that we 7 can ensure life on this planet will go on for a long 8 time. 9  We have companies like Westinghouse and 10 General Electric -- we're told that they bring good 11 things to life. You boys are here and you're the 12 functioning arm of these corporations -- the 13 rubberstampers -- that allow this pollution to be 14 created. We are tired of the corporations -- the 15 mafia -- the corporate nuclear mafia -- controlling 16 our lives here on the seacoast with your nuclear 17 plants forced on us above and beyond our local votes.
18    I know we're supposed to be here debating 19 whether or not it's going to be more prudent to have a 20 nuclear plant as opposed to some other form of energy, 21 but I can just tell you that the nuclear plants are 22 highly energy intensive to make them and to run them.
23  So, there's a lot of carbon involved in that process 24 -- global warming will increase. But the alternatives 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  62 and the renewables -- which we've already heard 1 testimony -- are coming really fast and you can't tell 2 me today that they can't take the place of this 3 nuclear power plant 20-years down the line. And here 4 you are 20-years ahead of time looking for extended 5 license for your corporations that are making the 6 money. 7  Have you ever heard of an internal 8 emitter?  That's a little piece of plutonium or 9 strontium that comes from these plants that can make 10 its way into the food chain and all it takes is a 11 little speck of it to be ingested to get cancer. So, 12 you're making tons of this product that nobody has an 13 answer for it. And it's happening all over the planet 14 really -- we've got to stop. We've got to stop making 15 nuclear waste because the waste has turned into 16 nuclear bombs and it's a dirty process from the mining 17 of the uranium, all the way through. It's the same 18 corporations that give us nuclear power that gives us 19 nuclear weapons. And it was all given to us secretly.
20  And then we were told it was great by little 21 documentaries they teach to school children. So, we 22 know what we're doing here tonight. And we know who 23 we are up against. I would just hope that we can get 24 real and see what we're doing -- see what we're doing 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  63to this planet. And try to do things better. And try 1 to be truthful about what's going on. Thank you.
2  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Thank you, Ben. Next 3 speaker is Randall -- is that Kezar?
4  RANDALL KEZAR:  I'll submit a written 5 [indiscernible].
6  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Okay. So, Randall, I 7 understand that you don't want to speak tonight, but 8 you're going to provide written comments at a later 9 time? 10  RANDALL:  Yes.
11  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Okay. Thank you. The 12 next speaker is Robin Willits and after Robin -- Ilse 13 Andrews. 14  ROBIN WILLITS:  I will be very brief. I 15 just want to add to what's been said. I have never 16 heard who benefits from continuing the plant another 17 20-years. Is there any public benefit?  And I think I 18 can think of reasons that there might be benefits to 19 the corporation, but I want to know why the NRC is 20 supporting extension without defining what is the 21 benefit to the public.
22  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Thank you, Robin. Ilse -
23 - 24  ILSE ANDREWS:  Thank you. Good evening.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  64I've lived a long life. Very early in my life I spent 1 years in air-raid shelters in Europe. Life does not 2 become much more dangerous. When I drive past 3 Seabrook, I consider it nothing more than an ominous 4 presence. I see nothing friendly or beneficial about 5 it. And I cannot understand why there is an effort to 6 prolong it, when we have viable and -- if there's such 7 a word as -- provable alternatives.
8  I'm standing here only because of my 9 concern for future generations. It makes my hair 10 stand on end when I read the phrase -- unavoidable 11 adverse impacts with regard to Seabrook emissions.
12 And on the slides this evening, there was a remark 13 that said -- the NRC's response to Fukushima, among 14 other things -- is that here there is no imminent risk 15 to public health and safety. Imminent means right 16 now, not 20-years or 21-years hence.
17  All of what I'm saying leads to a sort of 18 rhetorical question -- if current NRC regulations 19 permit such unavoidable adverse impacts and on the 20 other hand you are admittedly responsible for 21 protecting our health and safety, then I would like to 22 ask you -- what are you doing to change these 23 regulations?  Thank you.
24  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Thank you, Ilse. The 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  65 next speaker is Herbert Moyer and after Herbert --
1 Marcia Bowen.
2  HERBERT MOYER:  Thank you. Herb Moyer --
3 I live in Exeter. I'm a teacher. I was teaching at 4 Winnacunnet when the plant first came online and we 5 teachers were told we had to stay with students to 6 evacuate through bus transportation in case of an 7 accident. Of course, we now know the drivers of the 8 buses have subsequently said they would not show up.
9 So, I don't know really what plans the utility has 10 actually made for evacuation in the case, admittedly -
11 - unlikely, but possible. I'm not sure you all admit 12 that it's possible there's a major accident at 13 Seabrook that would happen and students would have to 14 leave the area in some manner in order to avoid 15 significant exposure.
16  But my question is and my comment is that 17 in 2049 -- what kind of changes to the transportation 18 network might we have encountered or done or clogged-19 up highways or increased in numbers of housing, so 20 that we might not be able to realistically get people 21 out of an area -- in the case of a crowded summer day 22 at Hampton Beach?  So, I'm wondering -- are you taking 23 into account the increased construction, population 24 increase and whether or not roadways would be able to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  66 capably handle evacuation if an accident were to occur 1 in 2049 -- a year before the projected end of this 2 theoretical license extension?  So, that's what I'd 3 like to know.
4  I also would like to know -- it's probably 5 not germane to the relicensing but -- Chernobyl cost 6 the Soviet Union $360 billion. Fukushima has cost 7 $200 billion. The Price Anderson Act puts the 8 utilities on the hook for $12 billion right now in 9 some sort of an escrow account. And we the taxpayers 10 would be liable for any damages to property, land, 11 animals, farms, properties, etc., beyond that. So I'd 12 like to know where that $12 billion resides now and is 13 that even something one could count on if some sort of 14 accident occurs -- serious accident?  Thank you.
15  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Thank you, sir, for those 16 comments.
17  The next speaker is Marcia Bowen --
18  MARCIA BOWEN:  I'm going to decline my 19 opportunity to speak tonight.
20  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Okay. Thank you, Marcia.
21  And the last speaker that I have here is Doug Bogen.
22  DOUG BOGEN:  If you don't mind, I want to 23 wait until they find a new battery for the camera 24 there. 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  67  My name's Doug Bogen. I'm Executive 1 Director of the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League based 2 in Exeter, New Hampshire. I would like to make some 3 kind of general comments and have a few specific ones, 4 as well, about the Draft report. I will try to make 5 different comments than what I made in the earlier 6 session this afternoon, but I think they're no less 7 pertinent and important.
8  As others have suggested tonight, the 9 world has changed since Fukushima. Just as it changed 10 after Three-Mile Island. Just as after Chernobyl.
11 Yet, everything I read in this Environmental Statement 12 seems to indicate that it's business as usual at the 13 NRC. I don't see any change of perspective. I don't 14 see any greater consideration of the public interest.
15  As we've heard from others, this just seems to be 16 business as usual. It's the same old story. Same 17 dismissal of alternatives -- they don't seem to have 18 learned anything.
19  I should mention, for the record, we are 20 one of the interveners along with Beyond Nuclear, New 21 Hampshire Sierra Club and other groups. Our 22 intervention is based on the National Environmental 23 Policy Act, but we don't get the sense that the 24 writers of this report have picked up anything from 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  68what we've submitted. Even though these are many peer 1 reviewed studies, on-the-ground actual projects -- but 2 they don't seem to find their way into the report.
3  The facts are that you have zero actual 4 experience with commercial reactors older than 42-5 years old. I looked it up. I don't think there's one 6 in this country that's older. In fact, in the whole 7 world, I don't believe there are any reactors that 8 made it to 50-years. So, you have no experience with 9 real-world impacts on the environment past that age.
10 What we do know is that younger reactors have leaked 11 huge quantities of tritium into the groundwater --
12 Seabrook among them. Seabrook was only nine-years old 13 when it started leaking tritium back in `99. For 12-14 years now, they've been pumping the groundwater.
15 Pumping out the leaking water just to put it out into 16 the ocean to dilute it. That doesn't sound like a 17 solution. That sounds like pump and dilute and just 18 pushing the issue further offshore.
19  Younger reactors -- including Seabrook --
20 have had chronic problems with the emergency diesel 21 generators. This has certainly been seen as a greater 22 concern after Fukushima and what happened with theirs 23 and the need to be able to respond to difficult 24 situations -- natural disasters, unnatural disasters.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  69 Younger reactors have had critical safety structures 1 corroded almost to the point of failure.
2  This was recently covered in an AP series 3 and it ran in the local papers here, as well as around 4 the country. Younger reactors have ended their useful 5 lives prior to reaching 40-years old and there have 6 been, I think, at least two-dozen reactors around the 7 country that didn't make it to 40, but everyone of 8 them are still storing their spent fuel on-site in 9 vulnerable areas. Just in our neighborhood, we've got 10 Maine Yankee, Yankee Rowe, Connecticut Yankee, Haddam 11 Neck -- that are all just waiting for some day that 12 fuel is going to be put somewhere else. This is the 13 record. This is the legacy that we leave to future 14 generations. This is what you have as real-life 15 experience.
16  Another point -- just looking at the power 17 needs. There keeps being this reference to the need 18 for power -- I want to know where it's written that we 19 will always need 1,250 megawatts on the New Hampshire 20 seacoast, when it isn't even used on the New Hampshire 21 seacoast or even in New Hampshire at all. We have 22 more than enough energy -- more than enough electrical 23 power in New Hampshire, even without Seabrook. I 24 don't think that corporation was given an unlimited 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  70life -- perpetual power generation -- permission. We 1 need to stop thinking that once they build it, it'll 2 always be there.
3  In your comments tonight and in the report 4 itself -- page 8-42, you say that -- assuming that a 5 need currently exists for the power -- but we're not 6 talking about current need, we're talking about need 7 decades into the future -- 20, 30, 40-years. So, what 8 does current power use have to do with it?  It just 9 seems like we're just sort of saying -- Well, this is 10 the way it is today and this is the way it's going to 11 be 30-years from now. That just doesn't make any 12 sense. It doesn't pass the laugh test. I would 13 suggest that you at least amend that to say --
14 assuming that a need will exist in 2030. That would 15 be at least a little bit more accurate, a little more 16 appropriate to the report. That should be the issue 17 here. 18  I'll say a little bit about tritium. I 19 did talk about it earlier tonight, but first off I 20 want to say it's in a few different sections in the 21 report. It's kind of hard to find out where all the 22 tritium information is. I understand that you're 23 referring to it as a kind of a new issue. Although, 24 again, it's been ongoing for at least a dozen years.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  71 One of the sections that talks about the other de-1 watering doesn't mention this new de-watering -- the 2 32,000 gallons per day -- in the Unit 2 foundation.
3  What is the total amount and why is this 4 considered acceptable?  Do you expect it's going to 5 continue?  Is it going to increase?  Where are we at 6 with the water there?  Why can't they stop the leaks?
7  That sounds like an awful lot of water to be putting 8 out into the ocean. I understand that the EPA 9 regulation allows 20,000 picocuries per liter of 10 tritium in drinking water -- or that's the limit --
11 but that doesn't mean that something under that is 12 perfectly safe. In fact, many other countries have 13 much stricter standards.
14  My understanding is the state of 15 California and the state of Colorado -- that would be 16 completely unacceptable. They've set standards more I 17 think around 500 or 400 picocuries per liter. You 18 state in one part of the document that the levels of 19 tritium in seawater were under 3,000 picocuries per 20 liter. I understand in salt water you can't test as 21 low as you can in freshwater, but if they're at 2,999 22 that again does not make it safe. That's still 23 somewhere in 100 times greater than background levels 24 for tritium. Natural occurring tritium is in the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  72 single digits -- maybe up to double digits.
1  So, even the EPA standard -- we're talking 2 1000 times more than the ambient levels in our 3 environment. That just doesn't make sense. It 4 doesn't sound safe to me. We all know now that there 5 are no safe levels of radiation and I don't know how 6 you can continue this idea that that's an acceptable 7 level, when many other countries much of the science 8 shows that's not enough.
9  So, I want to move on to some of the 10 carbon emissions. I talked a bit about this earlier, 11 but I did want to point out, as well, that again as 12 Mr. Gunter emphasized -- it doesn't seem like you 13 picked up much from the materials that we submitted in 14 our intervention petition. The cited studies that you 15 list comparing carbon emissions from nuclear versus 16 carbon from other renewable energy sources -- just 17 about everyone of those studies appears to be from the 18 International Atomic Energy Association, which we all 19 know has the double-purpose of both promoting and 20 regulating nuclear power. So, I would suggest it 21 might be a little bit biased.
22  Why aren't there more independent studies?
23  One in particular that we referred to in our petition 24 from a researcher named Sovacool in 2008 -- that was a 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  73broad survey of previous existing studies. He 1 concluded that nuclear power emits seven times more 2 carbon dioxide than wind for a new plant. I believe 3 it's five times more for an existing plant. Indeed, 4 in your own information regarding Seabrook, you 5 mentioned an average over five-years -- 24,000 tons of 6 carbon dioxide equivalent released just on-site.
7 That's not including the fuel, the transportation, 8 construction and so forth. That's just on-site each 9 year. 10  Just to put that in perspective, which 11 would be helpful in your report -- that's about 10% of 12 the carbon emissions of one of the Schiller boilers --
13 the 15-megawatt boiler -- the Schiller Plant being in 14 Portsmouth, New Hampshire -- just up the road. It's 15 the equivalent -- the plant owners love to say how 16 many homes they can provide power to with their plant 17 -- well, the carbon emissions from Seabrook alone on-18 site are the equivalent of the carbon emissions from 19 over 3,000 homes -- just from their power use -- or 20 4,000 homes for their overall carbon footprints. I 21 think that's pretty significant. I think people would 22 be surprised to know that -- that Seabrook, in 23 particular, is not carbon-free, as is the whole 24 industry. So, we'd like to see a little bit better 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  74 treatment of the relative impacts and of course that 1 influences your whole decision about which types of 2 power sources would be most environmentally sound.
3  We really have concern with the comparison 4 you make with the one you do look at -- the combined 5 cycle gas and wind power combined versus nuclear. I'm 6 just mystified why you chose to look at -- you 7 mentioned the idea of having five wind farms. Four of 8 which would be on land and one of which offshore.
9 Well, everything you've heard from other speakers 10 tonight and again in our petition shows that offshore 11 is the future. We don't need to be building as many 12 farms onshore. I understand that's where Florida 13 Power and Light -- the parent company of NextEra --
14 that's where they get their wind, where they're used 15 to using it.
16  But that doesn't mean that's going to be 17 the future. It just seems like an unfair comparison 18 and not really representative of future development.
19 So, I wonder whether you're just setting it up to 20 fail?  That seems to be the way you present this. You 21 say that's the only potentially viable project, but 22 then you don't look at what would be the most 23 attractive -- the most environmentally sound approach 24 to that development. So, I would, if you can, I would 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  75 like you to reconsider that choice -- take another 1 look at those comparisons.
2  I just have a few more points -- just 3 again talking about groundwater -- not so much the 4 tritium issue, but just the increases, particularly 5 under climate. I talked earlier about the sea level 6 impacts on the site. Clearly with the existing 7 infiltration of the foundations leading to the ASR 8 problem -- there ought to be some projection. I know 9 you make reference to some hydrological studies, but 10 it seems like again it deserves more than a sentence 11 or two about future infiltration. I think that's 12 something we all want to know about. That's an 13 environmental impact on the plant. Even though I know 14 it's supposed to be addressed in other reports.
15  So, again, I think all of these things are 16 worth consideration and I do hope that you will make 17 some changes in the final version of your report.
18 Thank you very much for your time.
19  BRIAN ANDERSON:  Thank you, sir, for your 20 comments. Was there anybody that signed up to speak 21 tonight that I might have missed?  I believe that 22 everybody that registered to speak has had a chance to 23 speak. Did I miss anybody?
24  Okay -- good. Thank you all again -- not 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  76 just for providing your comments, but for taking time 1 out of your personal lives to come be at this meeting 2 to listen to the NRC staff and to share your thoughts 3 and provide your comments on the NRC's review. I 4 personally appreciate you taking the time to be here 5 and providing your comments. On behalf of the NRC 6 staff -- thank you for taking the time to be here.
7  If you have any other questions or would 8 like to have any further discussion with NRC staff --
9 they will be available after this meeting. Like I 10 said earlier, this is not the only opportunity to 11 provide comments. The comment period remains open 12 through October 26th. There's opportunity to provide 13 written comments electronically or in the mail. So, 14 with that --thank you all again for your time and 15 please travel safely tonight. Have a great night.
16 This meeting's adjourned. Thank you.
17  (Whereupon, at 8:53 p.m., the public 18 meeting was closed.)
19  20  21  22  23  24  25}}

Latest revision as of 14:58, 12 November 2019

Transcript of Seabrook Station License Renewal Public Meeting - Evening Session on September 15, 2011, Pages 1-76
ML11273A140
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 09/15/2011
From:
NRC/OCM
To:
References
NRC-1120
Download: ML11273A140 (77)
v • d • e


Text

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Title: Seabrook Station License Renewal Public Meeting - Evening Session Docket Number: (n/a)

Location: Hampton, New Hampshire Date: Thursday, September 15, 2011 Work Order No.: NRC-1120 Pages 1-76 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.

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

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

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

4 PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS 5 PRELIMINARY SITE-SPECIFIC RESULTS OF THE 6 LICENSE RENEWAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR 7 SEABROOK STATION 8 + + + + +

9 Upper Great Hall 10 One Liberty Lane 11 One Liberty Lane East 12 Hampton, New Hampshire 03842 13 + + + + +

14 Thursday, September 15, 2011 15 7:00 p.m.

16 FACILITATOR:

17 BRIAN ANDERSON 18 NRC STAFF PRESENTING:

19 MICHAEL WENTZEL, Environmental Project Manager, Office 20 of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

3 BRIAN ANDERSON: Good evening ladies and 4 gentlemen. This is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5 meeting to discuss license renewal for the Seabrook 6 Nuclear Power Station.

7 My name is Brian Anderson. I will be the 8 facilitator for tonight's meeting.

9 The purpose of this meeting is to discuss 10 the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 11 related to the license renewal review for Seabrook 12 Nuclear Power Station.

13 The NRC staff will make a presentation.

14 We'll have a brief question and answer session, but 15 the main purpose of today's meeting is to hear your 16 comments on the NRC's review. The NRC's review of the 17 Seabrook license renewal application is not yet 18 complete. The comments that are provided today and 19 after this meeting will be considered by the NRC staff 20 before it issues its Final Supplemental Environmental 21 Impact Statement sometime next year.

22 I'd like to start by introducing some of 23 the NRC staff members that are here tonight. I'd like 24 to introduce Mr. Mike Wentzel. Mike is the 25 Environmental Project Manager for the Seabrook license 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 renewal review. I'd also like to introduce Mr. Rick 2 Plasse -- Rick is the Safety Project Manager for the 3 Seabrook license renewal review. Dave Wrona is the 4 Chief of the License Renewal Projects Branch Number 2.

5 Mike, Rick and Dave all work in the NRC headquarters 6 facility near Washington, DC.

7 I'd also like to introduce Diane Screnci -

8 - Diane is in the back. She's a Public Affairs 9 officer with the Region 1 office the NRC maintains 10 near Philadelphia. I'd also like to introduce Mr.

11 Rich Conte. Rich is the Chief of Engineering Branch 12 Number 1, also located at the NRC's Region 1 office 13 near Philadelphia. I'd also like to introduce Mr.

14 Bill Raymond. Bill is the Senior Resident Inspector 15 here at the Seabrook Station.

16 For those that don't know, the Nuclear 17 Regulatory Commission has at least two Resident 18 Inspectors assigned to each nuclear power plant in the 19 United States. NRC Resident Inspectors live in the 20 local communities and they perform daily safety 21 reactor inspections at every nuclear power plant in 22 this country.

23 I'd also like to introduce a member of 24 Senator Ayotte's office that's here tonight -- Mike 25 Scala -- in the back. I'd like to thank Mike for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

4 1 taking the time to join us tonight.

2 I'd like to cover a few housekeeping items 3 before we get into the formal part of the presentation 4 and meeting tonight. I think everybody probably 5 noticed that there are tables of materials in the 6 lobby as you came into the auditorium. Please feel 7 free to help yourself with paper copies of any NRC 8 literature that's there -- for use during this meeting 9 and even afterwards. I'd also ask -- to help minimize 10 distractions during the meeting -- if you could please 11 silence your cell phones. Either turn them off or put 12 them in vibrate mode -- whatever you prefer.

13 The agenda for tonight's meeting's going 14 to start with a formal presentation by the NRC staff.

15 We'll follow that with a short question-and-answer 16 session. We'll then move to hearing your comments.

17 Because the main purpose of this meeting is to hear 18 public comments related to the Seabrook license 19 renewal and Environmental Review, we've allotted 25-20 minutes for the NRC presentation and 25-minutes for 21 the question-and-answer session. We wanted to leave 22 the majority of the time for hearing your comments.

23 So that's what the remaining two-hours of the meeting 24 are set aside for.

25 During the question-and-answer session --

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 I'll say this again after the presentation's done --

2 the NRC staff is prepared to talk about the review 3 process and the preliminary results of the 4 Environmental Review that's taken place for the 5 Seabrook license renewal application. Since only a 6 limited number of NRC technical staff are here, NRC 7 staff might not be able to answer all questions that 8 you have. They'll certainly be prepared to answer 9 questions related to this review process and to the 10 preliminary results of the Environmental Review, but 11 other questions might need to be taken as comments.

12 We might need to follow-up with you later outside of 13 this meeting.

14 And because there are very few NRC 15 technical experts that are here at the meeting 16 tonight, the NRC staff does not intend to respond to 17 comments that you provide during the last two-hours of 18 the meeting. The NRC will provide written responses 19 to all comments it receives -- not just at this 20 meeting, but for the remainder of the comment period 21 that follows this meeting.

22 Finally, before we get started, I'd like 23 to just cover a few ground rules for tonight's 24 meeting. There are a number of people that have 25 signed-up to provide comments. So, based on 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

6 1 number of people that have signed-up -- I'd like to 2 ask that everybody please be concise and please limit 3 your time to five-minutes when you provide comments.

4 I wanted to set the stage there so that everybody has 5 an opportunity to provide comments. And that 6 everybody has an equal amount of time. In the event 7 that you are not able to provide all the comments that 8 you want during the five-minute period, if there's 9 time left over at the end of the meeting we'll 10 certainly allow you to provide additional comments.

11 But providing comments at this meeting 12 here today is not the only way to provide comments.

13 You don't necessarily have to say anything at this 14 meeting for your comments to be registered by the NRC.

15 There are other ways to do that and NRC staff will 16 discuss that during their presentation.

17 There's a court reporter in the back of 18 the room. We are transcribing this meeting so we have 19 a clear record of what's said here. So, to help with 20 that process, I'd like to ask that anybody that likes 21 to speak, please only speak into a microphone. During 22 the question-and-answer session and during the comment 23 period, I'll provide a microphone for you to speak.

24 For those same reasons, I'd also like to ask that we 25 only have one person speak at a time. It's very 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 important that we have a clear transcript of what is 2 said here tonight, so everybody that speaks --

3 speaking into a microphone and only having one person 4 talk at a time is a very good way to make sure that 5 we've got a clear record of what happens tonight.

6 Lastly, I'll say that it's possible that 7 you're going to hear opinions that might be different 8 from your own tonight. I'd like to ask that we treat 9 each other with respect and courtesy during this 10 meeting.

11 Do those ground rules sound like something 12 that everybody can live with?

13 PAUL GUNTER: Absolutely.

14 BRIAN ANDERSON: Good. Thank you. With 15 that, I'll turn it over to the NRC staff for a 16 presentation. Mike --

17 THOMAS SAPORITO [via telephone]: Just a 18 quick question -- are you going to notify us with 19 about one-minute left at the end of five-minutes?

20 BRIAN ANDERSON: The question was --

21 During the five-minute comment period, will I notify 22 you as your time is winding down? I certainly can do 23 that. What I have a habit of doing is standing in the 24 back while comments are being made and as time 25 approaches five-minutes, I'll slowly start to move 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 forward. So, the closer I get to the podium, the 2 closer you are to your five-minutes and probably over.

3 So, I'm not trying to infringe on your space, but 4 that's a way of keeping time.

5 THOMAS SAPORITO: Thank you.

6 BRIAN ANDERSON: A-hmm. Mike --

7 MICHAEL WENTZEL: Great. Good evening.

8 As Brian said earlier, my name's Mike Wentzel. I am 9 the Project Manager at the NRC that's responsible for 10 coordinating the Environmental Review activities for 11 the Seabrook Station license renewal application. I 12 gave this warning earlier today and I'd like to give 13 it as well -- I don't have a good --

14 THOMAS SAPORITO: [indiscernible]

15 MICHAEL WENTZEL: We do have somebody on 16 the phone that's participating in the meeting this 17 evening.

18 BRIAN ANDERSON: Mike -- hold on for just 19 second. Let me see if I can position this phone a 20 little closer to the speaker.

21 For those on the phone, I moved the phone 22 probably as close as I can to one of the speakers here 23 in the room. Does that sound like it's any better?

24 THOMAS SAPORITO: I can hear you loud and 25 --

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

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

9 1 BRIAN ANDERSON: Okay.

2 MICHAEL WENTZEL: Anyway, as I was saying 3 -- I don't have an indication of what slide I'm on.

4 So if it looks like I'm out of sync with what the 5 presentation is, please just call my attention to it 6 and I'll try to get back into sync.

7 Okay. On August 1st, the NRC published 8 its Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 9 -- or Draft SEIS as we refer to it -- related to the 10 Seabrook Station license renewal Environmental Review.

11 The Draft SEIS documents the NRC's preliminary review 12 of the environmental impacts associated with renewing 13 the license for Seabrook Station for an additional 20-14 years and today I'm here to present those results to 15 you.

16 I hope that the information that we 17 provide will help you understand what we've done so 18 far and the role that you can play in helping us to 19 make sure that the Final Impact Statement is accurate 20 and complete.

21 Here's the agenda for the meeting this 22 evening. I'm going to discuss the Agency's regulatory 23 role; the preliminary findings of our Environmental 24 Review, including the power generation alternatives 25 that were considered; I will present the current NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

10 1 schedule for the remainder of the Environmental 2 Review; and how you can submit comments outside of 3 this meeting. From there, I will take time to briefly 4 discuss two-topics that are not related to the 5 Seabrook Station license renewal application process, 6 and those are going to be -- well, let me correct that 7 -- the Environmental Review of the Seabrook Station 8 license renewal application. These are the concrete 9 issues at Seabrook and the NRC's response to 10 Fukushima.

11 At the end of the presentation, there will 12 be time for questions and answers on the Environmental 13 Review process and most importantly, time for you to 14 present your comments on the Draft SEIS.

15 The NRC was established to regulate 16 civilian uses of nuclear material including facilities 17 that produce electric power. The NRC conducts license 18 renewal reviews for plants whose owners wish to 19 operate them beyond their initial license period. The 20 NRC license renewal reviews address safety issues 21 related to managing the effects of aging and 22 environmental issues related to an additional 20-years 23 of operation. In all aspects of the NRC's regulation, 24 the Agency's mission is threefold: to ensure adequate 25 protection of public health and safety; to promote 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 common defense and security; and to protect the 2 environment.

3 Am I out of sync? Sorry about that.

4 We're here today to discuss the potential 5 site-specific impacts of license renewal for Seabrook 6 Station. The Generic Environmental Impact Statement, 7 which is referred to as the GEIS -- examines the 8 possible environmental impacts that could occur as a 9 result of renewing licenses of individual nuclear 10 power plants under 10 CFR Part 54. The GEIS, to the 11 extent possible, establishes the bounds and 12 significance of these potential impacts. The analyses 13 in the GEIS encompass all operating light-water 14 reactors. For each type of environmental impact, the 15 GEIS attempts to establish generic findings covering 16 as many power plants as possible.

17 For some environmental issues, the GEIS 18 found that a generic evaluation was not sufficient and 19 that a plant specific analysis was required. The 20 site-specific findings for Seabrook are contained in 21 the Draft SEIS, which was published on August 1st of 22 this year. This document contains analyses of all the 23 applicable site-specific issues, as well as a review 24 of issues covered by the GEIS to determine whether the 25 conclusions in the GEIS are valid for Seabrook NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

12 1 Station.

2 In this process, the NRC staff also 3 reviews the environmental impacts of potential power 4 generation alternatives to license renewal to 5 determine whether the impacts expected from license 6 renewal are unreasonable.

7 For each environmental issue identified, 8 an impact level is assigned. The NRC standard of 9 significance for impacts was established using the 10 White House Council on Environmental Quality 11 terminology for `significant'.

12 The NRC established three levels of 13 significance for potential impacts: Small, Moderate 14 and Large -- as defined here on the slide. For a 15 Small impact -- the effects are not detectable or are 16 so minor that they will neither destabilize nor 17 noticeably alter any important attribute of a 18 resource. For a Moderate impact -- the effects are 19 sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize 20 important attributes of the resource. And for a Large 21 impact -- the effects are clearly noticeable and are 22 sufficient to destabilize important attributes of a 23 resource.

24 This slide lists the site-specific issues 25 the NRC staff reviewed for the continued operation 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

13 1 Seabrook Station during the proposed license renewal 2 period. As discussed in the previous slide, each 3 issue is assigned a level of environmental impact of 4 Small, Moderate or Large by the environmental 5 reviewers. The staff's preliminary conclusion is that 6 the site-specific impacts related to license renewal 7 for aquatic resources is Small for most species and 8 Large for winter flounder, rainbow smelt and some kelp 9 species due to the impact of the operation of 10 Seabrook's once-through cooling system.

11 Similarly, for protected species and 12 habitats -- the staff's preliminary conclusion is that 13 the impacts related to license renewal are Small for 14 most species and Large for rainbow smelt -- a species 15 identified by the National Marine Fishery Service as a 16 species of concern. For all other resource areas, the 17 impacts are Small.

18 Now, when reviewing the potential impacts 19 of license renewal on the environment, the NRC staff 20 also looks at the effects on the environment from 21 other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 22 human actions. These effects, referred to as 23 Cumulative Impacts, not only include the operation of 24 Seabrook, but also impacts from activities unrelated 25 to Seabrook -- such as the development of the East 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 Coast Greenway, commercial fishing and climate change.

2 Past actions are those related to the resources at 3 the time of the power plant's licensing and 4 construction. Present actions are those related to 5 resources at the time of the current operation of the 6 power plant. Future actions are considered to be 7 those that are reasonably foreseeable through the end 8 of the plant operation, including the period of 9 extended operation.

10 Therefore, the analysis considers 11 potential impacts through the end of the current 12 license renewal term, as well as the 20-year renewal 13 term. While the impact due to direct and indirect 14 impacts of Seabrook on aquatic resources is Small for 15 most species and Large for winter flounder, rainbow 16 smelt and some kelp species -- the Cumulative Impacts, 17 when combined with all other sources -- such as 18 pressure from commercial fishing and effects of 19 climate change -- will be Moderate for most species 20 and Large for winter flounder, rainbow smelt and other 21 species that would be adversely affected by climate 22 change. In the other areas the staff considered --

23 the preliminary conclusion is that the Cumulative 24 Impacts are Small.

25 The National Environmental Policy Act 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 mandates that for each Environmental Impact Statement, 2 there needs to be a consideration of alternatives to 3 any proposed major federal action. A major step in 4 determining whether license renewal is reasonable or 5 not is comparing the likely impacts of continued 6 operation of the nuclear power plant with the likely 7 impacts of alternative means of power generation. Any 8 alternative must provide an option that allows for 9 power generation capability beyond the term of the 10 current nuclear power plant operating license to meet 11 future system generating needs. In the Draft 12 Supplement, the NRC staff initially considered (16) 13 different alternatives. After this initial 14 consideration, the staff then chose the three most 15 likely and analyzed these in depth.

16 Finally, the NRC staff considered what 17 would happen if no action is taken and Seabrook 18 Station shuts down at the end of its current license 19 without a specific replacement alternative. This 20 alternative would not provide power generation 21 capacity nor would it meet the needs currently met by 22 Seabrook Station.

23 The NRC's preliminary conclusion is that 24 there is no clear environmentally preferred 25 alternative to license renewal. All alternatives 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 capable of meeting the needs currently served by 2 Seabrook Station entail impacts greater than or equal 3 to the proposed action of license renewal.

4 Based on a review of likely environmental 5 impacts from license renewal, as well as potential 6 environmental impacts to alternatives to license 7 renewal -- the NRC staff's preliminary recommendation 8 in the Draft SEIS is that the environmental impacts of 9 license renewal for Seabrook Station are not great 10 enough to deny the option of license renewal.

11 Now, I'd like to emphasize that the 12 Environmental Review is not yet complete. Your 13 comments that you present today -- and all written 14 comments received by the end of the comment period on 15 October 26th -- will be considered by the NRC staff, 16 as we develop the Final SEIS, which we currently plan 17 to issue in March of 2012. Those comments that are 18 within the scope of the Environmental Review and 19 provide new and significant information can help to 20 change the staffs' findings. The Final SEIS will 21 contain the staff's final recommendation on the 22 acceptability of license renewal based on the work 23 we've already performed and any new and significant 24 information we received in the form of comments during 25 the comment period.

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 Now, as I said in the front of the 2 meeting, I'm the primary contact for the Environmental 3 Review. My colleague, Rick Plasse, is the primary 4 contact for the Safety Review. And our contact 5 information is here and in the slides that are part of 6 the handout. Hard copies of the Draft SEIS are 7 available outside the door there, as are copies on CD-8 ROM. In addition, the Seabrook and Amesbury Public 9 Libraries have agreed to make hard-copies available 10 for your review. You can also find electronic copies 11 of the Draft SEIS along with other information about 12 the Seabrook Station license renewal review online at 13 the Web address on the slide.

14 The NRC staff will address written 15 comments in the same way we address spoken comments 16 received today. You can submit written comments 17 either online or via conventional mail. To submit 18 written comments online, visit the web site --

19 regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2010-20 0206. If you have written comments this evening, you 21 may give them to any NRC staff member.

22 Now, before we open up the meeting to 23 questions and comments, I wanted to take some time to 24 briefly discuss two topics that are of some interest 25 to people in attendance -- those are the concrete NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

18 1 degradation at Seabrook and the NRC's response to 2 Fukushima. While these issues are not related to the 3 Seabrook Environmental Review and are therefore not 4 specifically addressed in the Draft SEIS, they are 5 issues that are being actively addressed through 6 relevant Agency processes.

7 Alkali-silica reaction -- referred to as 8 ASR -- is a process that can occur in some forms of 9 concrete that have been exposed to water for long 10 periods of time. ASR can cause expansion and cracking 11 in concrete structures. During the course of the 12 license renewal process, ASR related degradation was 13 found at Seabrook. As discussed during the annual 14 assessment public meeting on June 8th, there are no 15 immediate safety concerns associated with ASR at 16 Seabrook. NRC has found no problems with any 17 electrical system, piping or any other component as a 18 result of ASR and the concrete walls continue to 19 perform within design specifications. The evaluation 20 of ASR and its impacts on license renewal is being 21 addressed as part of the Safety Review.

22 Additionally, the NRC has requested 23 NextEra explain how it intends to manage the effects 24 of aging associated with ASR. The NRC has delayed the 25 license renewal Safety Review until NextEra completes 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 its evaluation and addresses the staffs' questions.

2 The NRC will not make a decision on license renewal 3 before it fully understands both the issues with ASR 4 affected structures and NextEra's plan to address the 5 issues.

6 Now, since the accident at Fukushima, the 7 NRC has taken multiple steps to ensure the safe 8 operation of nuclear power plants both now and in the 9 future. As part of its initial response to the 10 accident, the NRC issued temporary instructions to our 11 inspectors directing specific inspections at nuclear 12 power plants in order to assess disaster readiness and 13 compliance with current regulations. The next step in 14 the NRC's review was the report of the NRC's Near-Term 15 Task Force. The purpose of the Near-Term Task Force 16 was to develop near-term recommendations and suggest a 17 framework for us to move forward within the longer 18 term.

19 The Near-Term Task Force issued its report 20 on July 12th and discussed the results of their review 21 at a public meeting on July 28th. As a result of its 22 review, the Near-Term Task Force presented (12) over-23 arching recommendations for improvement. These 24 recommendations are applicable to operating reactors 25 regardless of license renewal status. Based on 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

20 1 results of the Near-Term Task Force, the Commission 2 has directed the NRC staff to evaluate and outline 3 which of the recommendations should be implemented.

4 The staff submitted a paper to the 5 Commission on September 9th, providing the staffs' 6 initial recommendation of which Task Force 7 recommendations can and -- in the staffs' judgment --

8 should be initiated in part or in whole without delay.

9 On October 3, 2011, the staff will submit another 10 Commission paper on its prioritization of (11) of the 11 (12) Task Force recommendations.

12 Recommendation 1 of the Task Force -- the 13 recommendation to reevaluate the NRC's regulatory 14 framework will be evaluated over the next 18-months.

15 To date, the NRC has not identified any issues as part 16 of these activities that calls into question the 17 safety of any nuclear facility. Additionally, the 18 review process is going on independent of license 19 renewal. Any changes that are identified as necessary 20 will be implemented for all licensees regardless of 21 license renewal status.

22 For more information on the NRC's post-23 Fukushima activities -- including the results of the 24 Near-Term Task Force -- you can go to the NRC's web 25 site, the home page and click on the link -- Japan 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 nuclear accident NRC actions -- or you can go directly 2 through the web address that's laid out here on the 3 slide. There are also a limited number of copies of 4 the Near-Term Task Force report available outside next 5 to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

6 Additionally, there are question and 7 answer sheets related to Fukushima and Seabrook for 8 those that are interested.

9 Now, before I turn it back over Brian, I 10 did just want to emphasize that we are here today to 11 talk about the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

12 We do have a limited number of staff -- but we are not 13 experts on everything. So, if we could limit the 14 comments to the extent practical on the Draft 15 Environmental Impact Statement or the Environmental 16 Review process -- you're probably going to get more 17 robust answers than -- there is a lot more information 18 that can be found online on Fukushima, if that's what 19 your question is.

20 Okay, with that I'm going to conclude my 21 presentation and turn it back over to Brian.

22 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, Mike. Like 23 Mike said, before we move to the main purpose of 24 tonight's meeting, which is to hear your comments --

25 we would like to offer a short question-and-answer 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 session and what I'll do is if you have a question 2 related to anything that Mike just presented or the 3 review process that the NRC's utilized to perform this 4 Environmental Review -- that's what the NRC staff is 5 prepared to answer questions on. If you could raise 6 your hand, I'll come to you with the microphone. I'll 7 circulate through the room to cover as many people 8 that have questions during the time we have set aside 9 for it.

10 Yes, ma'am. And if you could, please, 11 when I bring you the microphone, just for the record, 12 if you wouldn't mind stating your name, just so that 13 we can keep track of who asked what questions.

14 ILSE ANDREWS: I thank you. My name is 15 Ilse Andrews. I live in Exeter, which is in the 16 evacuation zone. I would like to know how you know 17 that ASR will not accelerate 20-years hence?

18 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, Ilse, for that 19 question. Dave --

20 DAVE WRONA: Right now, ASR is being 21 addressed in our Safety Review of the license renewal 22 application. We don't have the information from the 23 applicant on how they're going to be addressing this 24 in performing the aging management of the concrete 25 structures that are affected by ASR. We put our NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

23 1 application review on hold until we get the 2 information from them. When we have the information 3 from them, we can commence with our Safety Review.

4 BRIAN ANDERSON: Can I see just a quick 5 show of hands -- who else had questions? Okay --

6 DOUG BOGEN: I'm Doug Bogen with Seacoast 7 Anti-Pollution League. Again, on the Safety Review --

8 it's kind of a process question -- what factors 9 determine whether you hold a hearing? I understand 10 it's kind of optional whether -- according to the 11 chart that was in some of your materials -- how do you 12 decide whether to hold a Safety hearing or not and 13 would you hold it here?

14 DAVE WRONA: When a license renewal 15 application is submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory 16 Commission, we go through an acceptance review to make 17 sure that it has enough information within it that we 18 can begin our technical review. At the point where we 19 find that there's enough information in the 20 application for us to start our review, we docket it 21 on the application and post a Federal Register notice 22 that opens up a period of 60-days for an opportunity 23 for a hearing, which was done when the application was 24 submitted.

25 I'd have to ask Michael or Rick 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

24 1 specific dates of when we accepted the application and 2 when the initial hearing opportunity closed. Our 3 Regulations on hearings also allow for late filed 4 petitions. I'm not an expert on that. We have a copy 5 of our Regulations out there and I can show you in 10 6 CFR Part 2, if you're interested. I know we have 7 information on our web site and even some staff that 8 you can reach out to to find out some information on 9 hearings and petitions and how to get into that 10 process.

11 DOUG BOGEN: If I could follow-up. I 12 guess I really don't want to read through all your 13 Regulations -- they're not the most exciting reading.

14 But I guess we just want to know whether we might 15 have an opportunity -- particularly concerning the ARS 16 [sic] issue that you brought up. You thought it was 17 important enough to mention it tonight. Seems like 18 that alone would be important enough to hold a hearing 19 here, not down in Washington or somewhere on the 20 Safety Review because obviously a lot of people here 21 have questions that are about Safety as much as about 22 the Environment.

23 I would just say, obviously, we'll see 24 when you get to that point. But, it seems like it 25 would be good of you to notify the concerned people 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 here -- not just that we have to go read it in the 2 Federal Register. That we ought to be informed of the 3 opportunity to request such a hearing and I just want 4 to pass that along and hope you will do that.

5 BRIAN ANDERSON: Doug, would it be okay if 6 the NRC staff followed-up with you after this meeting 7 -- give you a little more background on that hearing 8 process and late filed petitions.

9 DOUG BOGEN: You have my sentiment about 10 it. I just, obviously, I think many people here would 11 like to know if we have any say in this.

12 DIANE SCRENCI: There were a number of 13 contentions that were submitted on this license 14 renewal application. So, there is an Atomic Safety 15 and Licensing Board panel that's been established and 16 at this point we're moving forward in the hearing 17 process. An actual hearing, which is normally held in 18 the vicinity of the plant, wouldn't be conducted until 19 both the Final Environmental Impact Statement and the 20 Safety Evaluation has been completed.

21 In addition to the Federal Register 22 notice, there were press releases and news stories 23 that talked about the opportunity for the hearing.

24 BRIAN ANDERSON: And just for the record -

25 - Diane Screnci was providing those most recent 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 comments.

2 PAUL GUNTER: Thank you. My name's Paul 3 Gunter and I'm with Beyond Nuclear. We are one of the 4 interveners in the licensing renewal proceeding on 5 this application. My question speaks to the issue 6 that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement largely 7 reviews the Environmental Report prepared by the 8 applicant. I'm wondering -- given that there've 9 already been hearings in this intervention -- if the 10 staff in its preparation of this Draft Environmental 11 Impact Statement has reviewed not just the 12 Environmental Report by the applicant, but the 13 documentation that's been submitted in the 14 intervention to date. That we now have contentions 15 accepted by the Licensing Board. The interveners have 16 been given standing in the proceeding and when you 17 look at the Environmental Report and then read the 18 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, it appears that 19 the NRC has basically done a carbon copy of the 20 Environmental Report -- and specific, looking at the 21 Alternatives.

22 I'm just wondering how much actual 23 independent review of a whole host of documentation in 24 supplement to the applicant's documentation -- how 25 much of that did you actually review in preparing 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

27 1 DEIS?

2 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, Paul. And I 3 believe I understand that the question is -- for 4 contentions that have been admitted on a review and 5 supplemental information that's been provided --

6 PAUL GUNTER: Yeah.

7 BRIAN ANDERSON: How does the NRC staff 8 consider that information in its review process? Do I 9 have that right?

10 PAUL GUNTER: I'll try to be more 11 succinct. Did you look at documentation in 12 preparation of your DEIS that was submitted during the 13 hearings to date before an Atomic Licensing Board?

14 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you.

15 MICHAEL WENTZEL: I can answer that by --

16 I'd say we don't wholesale rely on the Environmental 17 Report. We do look for other relevant information --

18 either provided during the scoping process, where we 19 did receive input and things that we did take a look 20 at.

21 We also look at other agency studies that 22 have been done. One that I can talk to specifically 23 was the Environmental Protection Agency's case study 24 that they did.

25 THOMAS SAPORITO: [indiscernible] I can't 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 hear you.

2 [after a brief pause as adjustments were 3 made to the telephone set-up]

4 MICHAEL WENTZEL: Anyway, as I was saying, 5 we did look at the Environmental Protection Agency's 6 case study that they did as part of their --

7 specifically on Seabrook -- as part of their 316(b) 8 Phase-II rulemaking. We used that in preparation of 9 it. So, we do look at what information that is 10 presented to us and try to determine whether or not it 11 is -- like we said before -- new and significant or 12 different than what we've done before. But I can't 13 say that we've taken everything that we've gotten --

14 PAUL GUNTER: Well, let me just --

15 BRIAN ANDERSON: Paul -- hold on just a 16 second. Let me bring a microphone to you to make sure 17 we get everything captured on the record.

18 PAUL GUNTER: I want to be really clear on 19 this. The Agency has been presented with a volume of 20 documentation that speaks directly to this application 21 and the inadequacy of its Environmental Report --

22 particularly with regard to the Alternatives. All I 23 want to know is -- did you review the documents that 24 were submitted to the Atomic Safety and Licensing 25 Board in preparation of your Draft 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

29 1 Impact Statement?

2 MICHAEL WENTZEL: It was. It was provided 3 to the environmental reviewer's for their review and -

4 -

5 PAUL GUNTER: And so you reviewed it?

6 MICHAEL WENTZEL: Yeah. Absolutely.

7 PAUL GUNTER: You reviewed the 8 documentation that's been presented to the Atomic 9 Safety and Licensing Board to date.

10 MICHAEL WENTZEL: I cannot say we've 11 reviewed everything that's been presented to the 12 Licensing Board to date. I cannot make that 13 statement, but I know -- particularly with the initial 14 round of contentions that were submitted -- yes, we 15 did look at the information that was presented. And 16 we also -- related to Alternatives -- we also looked 17 for other studies, like I said, with other government 18 agencies. We did look at various FERC studies and 19 cited that in our --

20 THOMAS SAPORITO: I hate to interrupt 21 again, but this is Thomas Saporito. I need to have 22 the NRC repeat their responses to whether or not they 23 reviewed the submittal by the interveners -- the 24 submittal that was sent to the Atomic Safety and 25 Licensing Board before the NRC made its 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

30 1 Report.

2 BRIAN ANDERSON: And Mike, the answer to 3 that question is -- yes, that information was 4 reviewed. Is that correct?

5 MICHAEL WENTZEL: Right. For the initial 6 round of contentions --

7 PAUL GUNTER: You didn't review 8 everything.

9 MICHAEL WENTZEL: I know. I'm going to 10 clarify that. I said for the initial round of 11 contentions, we did review the information that was 12 presented. I cannot say that we've looked at -- I or 13 the environmental reviewers specifically -- have 14 looked at, in-depth, at everything that has been 15 submitted to date -- is actually what I said.

16 BRIAN ANDERSON: Did those on the phone --

17 were they able to hear the restatement of the answer?

18 That the NRC environmental review staff --

19 THOMAS SAPORITO: Yes, thank you very 20 much. Yes -- yes, thank you very much.

21 BRIAN ANDERSON: Okay. Sir, I'm going to 22 come to a question over here and I'll come back to you 23 -- okay?

24 DEBBIE GRINNELL: This concern that I'm 25 going to raise was raised --

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 BRIAN ANDERSON: I'm sorry -- would you 2 mind, for the record --

3 DEBBIE GRINNELL: Debbie Grinnell --

4 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you.

5 DEBBIE GRINNELL: -- I live in West 6 Newbury, Mass. Paul Gunter, Beyond Nuclear, raised 7 this scheduling concern that many of us have and I do 8 know that the seismic vulnerability -- the individual 9 report from the plants -- is a two-year process. It 10 was submitted to the plants on September 1st of 2011, 11 which means that they have until September 1, 2013 --

12 except the Final SEIS is scheduled for March of 2012.

13 Now, I also know that the in-depth 14 assessment and determination if there's any structural 15 integrity issues at four safety related foundations 16 concerning the ASR concrete -- that the plant has had 17 to delay their testing and core results. I don't 18 think we're expecting them until March. I think it 19 was pending until March of 2011. So, how could you 20 possibly assert that you're going to have a Final 21 Draft of the SEIS when you have two major unknowns in 22 the Environmental Impact review?

23 MICHAEL WENTZEL: I can answer that. The 24 Draft letter that you're referring to -- that's being 25 handled for all licensees. Again, that's being 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 handled generically for all operators. I can also 2 tell you that for the Draft SEIS for the Seabrook 3 license renewal application -- where that's handled is 4 in the Severe Accident and Mitigation Alternatives.

5 It's not, per se -- it's handled as part of the Severe 6 Accident and Mitigation alternatives. And it's 7 actually the reason that the Environmental Impact 8 Statement -- the Draft SEIS -- was delayed from its 9 initial scheduling date because we had multiple rounds 10 of RAIs with the applicant asking them to assess these 11 new hazard curves and their impact on the Severe 12 Accident and Mitigation -- also known as SAMA --

13 Analysis.

14 ROBIN WILLITS: My name is Robin Willits 15 and I'm a citizen of Exeter, which is within the 16 impact evacuation area. I'm interested in your 17 process tonight. I think inviting people to make 18 comments and that is something that I respect very 19 much and appreciate. I am concerned on this count --

20 this is a very small audience. I think it's good we 21 have people like SAPL -- who have more technical 22 knowledge than somebody like me -- who could raise 23 those good questions. But my question to you is --

24 how important is it to you that the general public 25 know about this meeting and get them to come to 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

33 1 meeting and have a chance to give some kind of 2 educated comment? How important is it and what 3 specific steps did you take to help ensure the general 4 public would be represented here more than I think it 5 is now here? Such as: giving out some documents of 6 your summary of what we heard tonight -- very briefly 7 and very fast; giving it to the public for some chance 8 to digest beforehand; announcing it in the newspapers 9 or other ways to inform and get the public here to 10 give some comments. I'd like to know that about your 11 process and ask what your desire is and what steps you 12 took?

13 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, sir, for that 14 question. Mike -- can you speak a little bit to the 15 details that go into planning these meetings and how 16 the public is made aware of the NRC process?

17 MICHAEL WENTZEL: I can. This meeting --

18 when we first issued the Draft SEIS, we put notice in 19 the Federal Register announcing that fact. I know 20 that that's not necessarily everybody's first go-to 21 every day. So that was our initial announcement of 22 the availability of the document and that we're going 23 to have this meeting. We've also advertised in two of 24 the local papers. We did three -- I'm sorry, I was 25 distracted by the monitors -- (2) of the local papers, 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 we did three different advertisements leading up to 2 this meeting. There's also been multiple rounds of 3 press releases that the NRC has issued.

4 When we first initially issued the 5 document and then about two or three-weeks ago, we did 6 another round of press releases to inform the public.

7 We also, about three-weeks ago, put out posters in 8 the area advertising that meeting. So, public 9 involvement in this process is crucial. That's the 10 whole basis behind the National Environmental Policy 11 Act is to get people involved in the process for the 12 federal government. So, to answer that question --

13 public involvement is very important in that.

14 BRIAN ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am. I think we 15 have time for one, maybe two more questions before we 16 take comments.

17 PHYLLIS KILLAM-ABELL: This is a follow-up 18 question to the previous one. When you say -- a 19 couple of newspapers -- what were those newspapers?

20 What newspapers were they?

21 MICHAEL WENTZEL: I have it written down.

22 I'm not familiar with it. I believe it was the 23 Seacoast Online -- it was advertised -- I've seen it 24 there.

25 Do you have a contact sheet?

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 Here we go -- it was the Daily News, 2 Newburyport News and the Hampton Union. And then the 3 Daily News -- that was advertised on September 9th, 4 12th and 14th --

5 PHYLLIS KILLAM-ABELL: I don't read --

6 excuse me -- but I don't read those newspapers. I 7 live in Exeter. There is an Exeter Newsletter that's 8 published twice a week and there is the Portsmouth 9 Herald that's published that covers the seacoast and 10 that's within the region that will be affected. I 11 would have no way of knowing this. Your publication 12 is not wide enough. I wouldn't know that.

13 MICHAEL WENTZEL: Okay. I apologize for 14 that. I do know that the story was picked up in the 15 Boston Globe -- to what effect that has on it. So it 16 was fairly widely circulated.

17 PHYLLIS KILLAM-ABELL: If you want --

18 really want people to know -- you blanket the 19 seacoast. You blanket the northern part, particularly 20 of Boston. You really let people know. That's not an 21 effective publicity campaign at all.

22 MICHAEL WENTZEL: Okay. Well, thank you 23 for your comments. I think that we'll take that back.

24 BRIAN ANDERSON: That is an important 25 comment for the NRC staff to consider -- 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 distribution of newspaper advertising and the local 2 news. Thank you for that comment.

3 One last question before we move into the 4 comment period. Hi --

5 WILLOW MAUCK: Yeah, well, there was a 6 follow-up on that question too because I think -- I 7 was curious as to -- he said what their desire was --

8 how much you wanted to actually get the word out about 9 this thing? And I don't think that that was actually 10 answered in the question. So, I was curious.

11 BRIAN ANDERSON: I think that part of the 12 answer was that -- public participation is an 13 important part of the NRC's review process. I believe 14 that Mike said that. Was there something more 15 specific that you were looking for as a follow-up to 16 that?

17 WILLOW MAUCK: So, that is it. So, it's 18 the SeacoastOnline and those papers. Like she said 19 aren't really very effective press to release to 20 actually have the public know about it. So, it seems 21 that maybe there it is not much desire there on the 22 NRC's behalf to have the public know. So, I was 23 wondering how much it really does mean to the NRC for 24 the public to know about something like this?

25 MICHAEL WENTZEL: I don't know how else to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

37 1 answer that question. I mean, it is important. I 2 mean, obviously, we didn't cover every publication 3 that we probably could have. But, it wasn't that we 4 were avoiding the public input. Like I said, we did 5 issue a couple rounds of press releases that did get 6 picked up in newspapers that we didn't specifically 7 take out ads in. So, the story was fairly widely 8 available.

9 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you both for those 10 questions. The NRC staff will take that as a serious 11 comment for consideration just for future process.

12 It's important for the NRC to make sure that they're 13 aware of how the circulation of news in the local 14 community works and how that can possibly be improved 15 in their routine process.

16 ROBIN WILLITS: If you get a trained 17 marketing person that knows the way to get an idea 18 across.

19 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, sir, for that 20 comment. For those who didn't hear -- the suggestion 21 was to utilize trained marketing expertise, who might 22 better know the various avenues to disseminate 23 information in the local community. Thank you again 24 for that.

25 Thank you all for your questions and we're 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 now at the most important part of the meeting agenda -

2 - and that is to hear your comments. For those that 3 might have come in late -- if you wish to provide 4 comments on the record tonight, please register with a 5 yellow card out in the lobby. That serves just as a 6 sequence order, so that I can keep track of who has 7 made comments and who is still yet to speak. No one's 8 required to make comments, but if you wish to make 9 comments here -- to be on the record tonight -- please 10 fill out a yellow card and I'll make sure that you get 11 your chance to speak.

12 As a quick reminder, before we get into 13 the comment period -- there are a lot of people that 14 want to talk tonight and I want to make sure that 15 everybody has an equal opportunity to participate.

16 When providing your comments, please speak into a 17 microphone. Please try and keep your comments concise 18 and within a five-minute time limit. This is not your 19 only opportunity to provide comments and making 20 comments here tonight is not the only way to have the 21 NRC take your comments for consideration.

22 The first speaker will be Chris Nord 23 followed by Mary Lampert. What I'd like to ask is 24 that speakers just come forward to the center podium 25 and I'll provide the microphone --

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 CHRIS NORD: Actually, hang on to it. Let 2 me open up my notebook. Thank you.

3 Well, my first comment is for the NRC to 4 say that -- I think that it's plain that the NRC has a 5 public relations problem and maybe most of all in the 6 area around Seabrook. If you -- as staff members of 7 the NRC -- are interested in helping that process 8 along, it might help to convince the general public 9 that you do actually care about the general public 10 coming to meetings like this, if in fact the comments 11 that were made and documents that were submitted to 12 NRC actually got reviewed in time to be a part of 13 reporting and so that comments such as my own and 14 other peoples' that are coming forward somehow do get 15 incorporated into your hearing process. I understand 16 that's a possibly difficult task, but that is in fact 17 the task that you are charged with. If you're 18 interested in having the general public up here to 19 make comments, I think the general public would like 20 to see our comments being made a part of this process.

21 In the spirit that that may in fact take place, I'm 22 going to forge ahead by attempting to talk a little 23 bit here about tritium.

24 Just as one example of many radionuclides 25 that the general public remains at risk of being 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 exposed to within the ingestion pathway -- that is 2 within 50-miles of any reactor -- here or in Japan or 3 anywhere that reactors operate in the world. The 4 reason that I focus on tritium I hope to make obvious, 5 but my first strong suggestion to NRC is that the 6 owners of Seabrook should be required by NRC to show 7 proof positive that leakages and emissions of nuclear 8 radionuclides, such as tritium, have been prevented 9 entirely into the atmosphere, into the air, into 10 groundwater -- in keeping with conclusions drawn from 11 the National Academies of Science BEIR VII Report --

12 that is the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation 13 that was released a couple of years ago -- that a 14 conclusion from that study can be made that there is 15 no threshold below which radiation is safe. And if 16 NRC were actually to enact their regulations based on 17 the National Academies' findings, that should mean 18 that nuclear plants -- atomic plants like Seabrook --

19 should not be emitting radionuclides.

20 Now, I'm focusing on tritium for good 21 reason. There was a study conducted in the state of 22 Massachusetts a number of years ago that focused on 23 the Deerfield River Valley and was eventually signed-24 you off on by the State officials within the state 25 Department of Public Health for the state 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

41 1 Massachusetts that showed statistical significance for 2 things like certain cancers and Down's Syndrome in the 3 Deerfield River Valley -- which was close to the 4 Yankee Rowe plant before it closed. Apparently, those 5 findings of cancer were eventually linked to exposures 6 in the Deerfield River Valley to tritium.

7 I have in my possession a report that was 8 done by a group out in western Mass. -- the Citizens 9 Awareness Network -- that was involved in creating 10 that study that talks about three very important 11 effects of tritium -- it's carcinogenic, it's 12 mutagenic, and it's teratogenic. Teratogenic meaning 13 that it is possible that exposure to tritium will 14 cause genetic defects down the line. The other two, I 15 think, are self-explanatory.

16 The reason I'm bringing up tritium in 17 relation to Seabrook in particular -- it could be 18 Cesium-137, it could be Strontium-90 -- but here, word 19 has come down to me that the owners of Seabrook have 20 been boring test wells over the last -- in the recent 21 past -- apparently looking for traces of tritium. I 22 don't know whether the wells have been dug deeply 23 enough -- I don't know anything about the wells -- and 24 I don't know what's been found. I think that it 25 should be part of the public record to know if tritium NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

42 1 is actually leaking from the reactor at Seabrook.

2 But, God save the people that are close to that 3 nuclear reactor if tritium gets in the groundwater and 4 travels. I think that the NRC should be holding, not 5 only Seabrook, but all reactors to account for their 6 releases of tritium.

7 And I'll say, finally, in relation to 8 tritium -- that it does us on planet earth no good if 9 we're using nuclear power as a way to bridge our 10 energy toward a carbon-free future, if by doing so 11 we've taken on this Faustian bargain of irradiating 12 the earth in the process.

13 The next thing I wanted to say is -- why 14 does the Nuclear Regulatory Commission not require 15 independent monitoring of radiation that allows 16 reactor community residents and first responders --

17 not only here, but all over the United States -- to 18 know the real-time direction, location and intensity 19 of radioactive plumes in the event of a radiological 20 event.

21 If that had been put in place 15-years ago 22 for reactors around the country -- such as Seabrook --

23 and the NRC was actually looking at that information 24 as a part of its evaluation of relicensing -- then the 25 NRC would have some strong data on which to base 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

43 1 actual safety of this plant. But, without that 2 information -- what do you really have for data as far 3 as the health and safety of the local environment, if 4 you don't actually know what radiation is being 5 emitted? So, that should be done not only here, but 6 that should be done all over the world.

7 I want to point out for those of you that 8 don't know that there's one group in this area -- the 9 C-10 Research and Education Foundation out of 10 Newburyport, Massachusetts -- that at this time has 11 the model independent monitoring system in the entire 12 United States and we have actually had visitors from 13 Fukushima come to C-10 because people all over the 14 world have suddenly become interested in how to 15 properly monitor for radiation.

16 My last two-items have to do with hardened 17 on-site storage of spent fuel. You should be 18 requiring hardened on-site storage as a prerequisite 19 for relicensing. I'm also curious to know -- and I 20 could just leave this as an open question -- if 21 there's any consideration being given to the potential 22 for inundation of coastal floodplains over the next 23 25-years? If you're considering relicensing at this 24 time, then you have to be considering inundation in 25 relation to global warming. 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

44 1 BRIAN ANDERSON: Chris -- thank you for 2 those comments. I'll check one more time. I believe 3 that Mary Lampert is not here in the room -- so the 4 next speaker would be Paul Gunter and after Paul --

5 Representative Peter Schmidt.

6 PAUL GUNTER: Thank you. My name is Paul 7 Gunter and I'm director of reactor oversight at Beyond 8 Nuclear out of Tacoma Park, Maryland. We are one of 9 the interveners in the Seabrook relicensing 10 proceeding. As I mentioned earlier, we've already had 11 a preliminary hearing before an Atomic Safety and 12 Licensing Board. Specifically, our contention has to 13 deal with the environmental alternative and the 14 requirement of the National Environment Policy Act for 15 Seabrook to consider the environmental alternatives 16 and the NRC to incorporate that in its decision for 17 licensing renewal.

18 When I read the Draft Environmental Impact 19 Statement, I note that within 54-lines the NRC is able 20 to dismiss the alternative of wind power in the region 21 of interest. What this says to me is that the Agency 22 -- particularly the staff in its review -- did not 23 look at the documentation that was presented to -- in 24 a persuasive argument to even your own Atomic Safety 25 and Licensing Board -- enough for you to incorporate 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 whole host of documentation, which I'm going to 2 briefly go through here, as long as my time permits.

3 But it seems apparent that these concerns are falling 4 upon deaf ears with regard to the Agency's 5 consideration.

6 Within 54-lines, basically you say that --

7 the wind energy alternative is intermittent and not 8 feasible in terms of baseload power -- and that -- its 9 availability, its accessibility and its consistency is 10 not of a standard for addressing the environmental 11 impacts that are forced upon us by the continued 12 operation of the Seabrook plant.

13 In fact, what this does -- the statement 14 of fact -- as your Draft Environmental Impact 15 Statement reads -- basically takes a page out of the 16 Environmental Report of the applicant in that your 17 perspective is a review of the alternative at this 18 time. I think that that's disingenuous when we're 19 talking about not issuing a relicense application 20 tomorrow or even 10-years from now, but 20-years from 21 now -- approximately -- we're talking about this time 22 frame.

23 In fact, what it does is serve to 24 obfuscate a whole host of expert documentation, 25 Memorandums Of Understanding and basically -- as 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

46 1 have contended, as your Draft Environmental Impact 2 Statement reinforces -- that the NRC is not following 3 the requirements under the National Environment Impact 4 Statement [sic] that you must honestly acknowledge and 5 be sufficiently complete in your review.

6 Let me just read a couple of these as time 7 would permit me. When you talk about that it's not a 8 reliable baseload power source -- what you do is that 9 you've ignored Exhibit Number-4 in our intervention, 10 which is entitled -- Supplying Baseload Power and 11 Reducing Transmission Requirements by Interconnected 12 Wind Farms -- from the Journal of Applied Meteorology 13 and Climatology, which was prepared by Stanford 14 University. This scientific manuscript concludes --

15 contrary to common knowledge -- an average of 33% and 16 a maximum of 47% of yearly averaged wind power from 17 interconnected wind farms can be used as reliable 18 baseload electrical power. Equally significant --

19 interconnecting multiple wind farms to a common point 20 and then connecting that point to a faraway city can 21 allow for the long-distance portion of transmission 22 capacity to be reduced, for example, by 20% with only 23 1.6% loss of energy. Nowhere in your evaluation do 24 you acknowledge the expert opinion that already in 25 this day and age -- the baseload promise, the baseload 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 capacity is in fact clearly feasible.

2 There are an increasing number of news 3 accounts and current events that reveal that there is 4 in fact this building of momentum for baseload power.

5 For example, you do not mention in your Environmental 6 Impact Statement that Google Corporation has already 7 invested $5 billion of its money to lay the first 8 vertebrae of a backbone of offshore wind transmission 9 from Virginia to Maine. So, your dismissal of this 10 power source as a baseload power for the license 11 period of 2030-2050 -- I think, again, it demonstrates 12 a disingenuous approach to looking at the 13 environmental impact issue.

14 A few more examples here. The potential 15 here is just tremendous. There are now (9) European 16 North Sea countries -- Germany, France, Belgium, 17 Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Great Britain and the 18 Netherlands -- that have announced an investment of 19 $40 billion in an offshore, undersea, energy super-20 smart grid, which basically is dedicated to the 21 transmission of renewable energy. This investment and 22 development supports a model for the United States, 23 which your own Draft Environmental Impact Statement 24 ignores. I mean, we can go on.

25 The University of Delaware and Stony Brook 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 University study -- they did a study that says that 2 based on a five-year wind data from (11) 3 meteorological stations distributed over a 2,500 km 4 extent along the U.S. Eastern Seaboard -- power output 5 for each hour of the site is calculated and in short 6 that -- there is evidence that the wind blows all the 7 time somewhere and if interconnected along a 8 transmission line you have a demonstrated baseload.

9 But since I'm about to be cut short here, 10 I just want to also note that what you've ignored are 11 Memorandums Of Understanding, bids that are now going 12 on with the state of Maine. By 2030 -- so by the time 13 you're talking about this license renewal to take 14 effect in this federal action that you're looking at -

15 - the state of Maine is looking at having 5 gigawatts 16 of wind in the offshore waters -- 10 to 50-miles out 17 into the Gulf of Maine. That's the equivalent of (5) 18 Seabrooks. And again, there's no mention of this in 19 your Environmental Impact Statement review.

20 I don't think that that's an honest 21 evaluation. I think that what it does is it does not 22 build public confidence that this Agency is doing 23 nothing more than just promoting this industry.

24 That's not your job, particularly when we now know 25 that Seabrook -- what it forces upon us are these 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 environmental consequences that require emergency 2 planning zones -- out to 50-miles -- enhanced security 3 because of the environmental threat that putting these 4 reactors in our communities is all about and the 5 alternatives clearly don't represent that level of 6 threat. And you've ignored this.

7 BRIAN ANDERSON: Paul -- thank you for 8 those comments. Representative Schmidt and then we'll 9 hear from Paul Blanch.

10 REP.PETER SCHMIDT: Thank you. I'm Peter 11 Schmidt. I represent Dover, Wards 1 and 2. I am not 12 a scientist -- and not even to say a nuclear scientist 13 -- and I don't speak as a scientist, but rather as a 14 policymaker. I've been in the legislature now for 15 nearly 9-years and I was 3-years as a Dover City 16 Council before that, so what I am in the business of 17 is judgment with regard to policy.

18 I would have to say that just -- before I 19 begin my more pertinent remarks -- that what Paul has 20 just referred to, but also the questions with regard 21 to contacting the public -- demonstrate either a 22 somewhat willful disregard of some of the facts, which 23 one could possibly attribute to somewhat of a silo-24 type of thinking -- you're focused on your specific 25 bailiwick and not looking in the wider thing --

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

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

50 1 perhaps disregarding the information which Paul eluded 2 to.

3 But with regard to trying to get the 4 public to be informed -- the bottom line here is if 5 you asked virtually any resident of the seacoast, 6 certainly the elected representatives, with regard to 7 contacting the public in this area -- I think they 8 would've said that some of the publications you 9 referenced would be useful, but by no means sufficient 10 -- ads in the Union Leader, Portsmouth Herald, the 11 Dover Foster's Daily Democrat and other more widely 12 circulated papers would certainly have gotten you a 13 lot more feedback from a much wider area, which is 14 perhaps not within the evacuation zone, but would 15 definitely be impacted by the relicensing of Seabrook.

16 I don't try to address the scientific 17 aspects of this issue. I'd like to look at the larger 18 picture because the fact of the matter is -- my 19 greatest concern is not the possibility of terrorism 20 or environmental disaster -- I think those are all 21 much more on your mind and possibly more predictable.

22 But, if I mention such things as Fukushima or Three-23 Mile Island or Chernobyl, or the Titanic disaster, for 24 that matter -- I don't do so in order to create an 25 alarmist sentiment, but rather because they NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

51 1 demonstrate the fallibility of human design concepts, 2 but also the unpredictability of future events.

3 And certainly, just in the last 10-years, 4 we've seen Fukushima, we've seen the Twin-Towers and 5 September 11th. And those things demonstrate that 6 we're not very good at predicting the future. That 7 there are all types of things that are happening and 8 one of the concerns that we certainly have is global 9 warming. Seabrook is very close to the ocean, 10 obviously. I'm wondering -- we read recently, for 11 example, that several nuclear power plants along the 12 Missouri River were essentially isolated and may have 13 experienced some flooding -- we're very concerned in 14 this area what that type of thing might generate.

15 My primary concern here is that we are 16 engaged in the relicensing process way too far in the 17 future. I just cannot believe that it is appropriate 18 to relicense Seabrook at this time when the current 19 license is not even remotely ready to expire. What do 20 we really know about what the situation is going to 21 be. Some of the aspects have eluded to -- the 22 possibility of degradation of the plant's 23 infrastructure -- but all these other aspects, which 24 I've just very briefly touched on -- suggest to me 25 that this is -- a relicensing of Seabrook at this time 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 -- is incredibly premature given all the things that 2 we absolutely know are potential problems: a terrorist 3 act, the storage aspect, the sea level rise and those 4 types of things. Those are the types of things that 5 we already have some knowledge of even if we can't 6 predict exactly how they will manifest themselves over 7 the next 10 to 20-years. But, certainly, the idea of 8 committing this region to this ongoing operation of 9 this plant -- when we're not even close to the 10 expiration of the current license -- strikes me as 11 very, very concerning.

12 So, that is my gravest concern -- that we 13 are jumping off the bridge or jumping off the ship 14 before it's even beginning to founder. And committing 15 ourselves to a situation that I think is questionable, 16 if not unwise. And I'll leave it at that. You get 17 the message, but to the degree that you're engaged in 18 either an active promotion of the nuclear industry, 19 regardless of all of the facts and regardless of 20 whether the public is in support of that, or whether 21 there are real alternatives -- and I have seen the 22 presentation that Paul alluded to in his remarks with 23 regard to the potential for offshore wind.

24 This is not some pie in the sky -- this 25 process is already very far along and it's making 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 rapid progress. Jumping onto the Seabrook life-raft 2 at this particular point, I think is, as I say, 3 extremely questionable. I hope that you will exercise 4 your authority to weigh the alternatives and the 5 question of -- when it is appropriate to relicense.

6 And I think the time is not yet now. Thank you.

7 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, sir, for those 8 comments. The next speaker is Paul Blanch -- is Mr.

9 Blanch in the room? Is there anyone else named Paul 10 that registered to speak? Okay. The next speaker is 11 Thomas Saporito -- who I believe is on the phone. Mr.

12 Saporito -- can you hear me?

13 THOMAS SAPORITO: Yeah. Can you hear me?

14 BRIAN ANDERSON: I can hear you. I'm 15 going to try and place a microphone near the 16 speakerphone to see if that'll better allow everyone 17 else in the room to hear you. When you're ready to 18 make your comments -- it's your time.

19 THOMAS SAPORITO: Can you hear me now?

20 Can the court reporter hear me?

21 BRIAN ANDERSON: Yes, he can. You are on 22 the record.

23 THOMAS SAPORITO: Okay. First of all, my 24 name is Thomas Saporito. I am the senior consultant 25 with Sapordani Associates and we're located in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

54 1 Jupiter, Florida. I have (4) points that I want to 2 address to the NRC with respect to this relicensing 3 issue.

4 However, before I get into that, I just 5 want to follow-up on the prior speaker's comments on 6 the NRC being premature in their endeavor to relicense 7 this nuclear plant so far in advance.

8 It's my perspective, after monitoring the 9 NRC for some 25-years, that the NRC is involved in a 10 process of rubberstamping these 20-year license 11 extensions to nuclear power plants that were only 12 originally licensed to operate safely for 40-years.

13 The NRC is aggressively rubberstamping these licenses 14 because there are Senators and Congressmen who are 15 actively trying to put a moratorium on relicensing 16 nuclear power plants. So, now there is a race between 17 Congress and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with 18 respect to this issue. So, that's the heart of it all 19 right there. It's not the fact that the NRC's trying 20 to protect public health and safety in this instance.

21 In this instance, the NRC is in a footrace trying to 22 rubberstamp these licenses without due process.

23 With respect to this specific plant and 24 the relicensing issue here -- the NRC appears to have 25 failed in its Environmental Review to consider 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

55 1 brittleness of the metal that comprises the reactor 2 vessel. The Associated Press recently did a year-long 3 investigation of the NRC and found the NRC to be 4 complacent and found that these nuclear power plants 5 were only licensed to safely operate for 40-years.

6 The Associated Press investigation confirmed that the 7 Agency is rubberstamping these license extensions at 8 the peril of public health and safety.

9 So, I would encourage and request that the 10 NRC require the licensee -- NextEra Energy -- to do 11 destructive testing analysis of the metal which 12 comprises the nuclear reactor vessel, to ascertain the 13 exact degree of imbrittelment that may currently exist 14 in that reactor vessel. Because if that reactor 15 vessel cracks from the neutrons that are bombarding it 16 -- you're going to have a loss of coolant accident 17 that you could not recover from and you'd be melting 18 down, just like the reactors in Japan. Once you do 19 that analysis, then you can prorate that and see if 20 that reactor vessel's going to crack if the license is 21 extended 20-years beyond its 40-year license.

22 The next issue would be the alternatives.

23 The NRC's Environmental Review and report is a joke 24 on the alternatives. First of all, if the NRC would 25 simply -- in their review -- have 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

56 1 installation of on-demand electric water heaters for 2 all the customers of NextEra Energy, you would reduce 3 the grid's electrical load demand by 50 to 70% with 4 the installation of just that one appliance. If you 5 add solar systems to the customers of NextEra Energy -

6 - you would have a zero footprint. You would actually 7 -- those customers would actually be putting power 8 into the grid and you wouldn't even need Seabrook.

9 You would have surplus power with those two 10 initiatives. You wouldn't need Seabrook to operate at 11 all.

12 And that's required. Those analyses are 13 required by the Agency to be part of their 14 Environmental Report. I don't see it in there. And 15 these are realistic, real-time -- if you go to our web 16 site saporito-associates.com -- there's a hyphen 17 between those two words -- you will see the evidence 18 where those systems are already in place for many 19 years -- they're not something new. This has been 20 going on for years.

21 The next issue would be earthquakes. The 22 NRC Environmental Report should have required the 23 licensee to do a new seismic evaluation of the 24 Seabrook facility. Just as recent as August the 23rd 25 of this year, the North Anna Nuclear Power 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

57 1 experienced a seismic event outside its design basis.

2 Okay? Outside its design basis. So, the NRC granted 3 North Anna a license and had an earthquake event 4 happen outside its design basis. Who's to say that 5 there's not going to be a seismic event that's going 6 to be outside the design basis of the Seabrook plant?

7 That's something that's supposed to be in the NRC's 8 Environmental Report and I don't think it's 9 sufficiently in there -- if it's in there at all.

10 The final item I want to address to the 11 NRC is with respect to the environmental consequences 12 of the NRC's action allowing this nuclear plant to 13 operate for 20 more years. It's going to adversely 14 affect the environment because it's going to introduce 15 millions and millions of BTUs worth of heat that would 16 not otherwise be introduced into the environment 17 because the reactor -- the fuel in the nuclear reactor 18 core has to continuously be cooled by water and that 19 heat is dumped into the environment. If that nuclear 20 plant wasn't operating for 20 more years, you wouldn't 21 have 20 more years of heat being dumped into the 22 environment that wasn't there before. That all 23 contributes to global warming. Okay? You may have a 24 near zero carbon footprint with nuclear power 25 production, but you damn sure have a lot of heat being 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 unnecessarily put into the environment.

2 So, these issues I would hope and urge the 3 NRC to take seriously and to incorporate them into 4 their Environmental Report and I would hope that the 5 interveners in the current licensing proceeding are 6 addressing these issues, as well. Thank you very 7 much.

8 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, sir, for those 9 comments. Thank you for joining us by phone and thank 10 you for your comments. The next speaker is Ben 11 Clichester -- did I say that even close to right?

12 After Ben -- Randall Kezar.

13 BEN CHICHESTER: Chichester.

14 BRIAN ANDERSON: Chichester -- Ben 15 Chichester.

16 BEN CHICHESTER: Good evening staff of the 17 NRC. We know that this meaning is a farce coming in 18 here because we've been through this with you guys 19 plenty of times before. We know it's a feel-good 20 thing and a technicality for you to have to go through 21 this public hearing.

22 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: Please 23 speak into the mic.

24 BEN CHICHESTER: This is a public hearing, 25 but it is a farce and we know that coming in 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

59 1 It's a farce I say because if it wasn't a farce then 2 we wouldn't be having to address so many ridiculous 3 considerations that you are pretending are something 4 that is manageable and real. I can mention a few, but 5 one of the things that comes to mind is the Evacuation 6 Calendar that is sent out to us on a regular basis.

7 It tells us where to go if there's a nuclear problem.

8 But, everybody knows that you don't go where the wind 9 is blowing and there's no accounting for that in the 10 Evacuation Calendar.

11 Initially, we were told we were going to 12 not have a power plant if you couldn't have an 13 evacuation plan that was workable. But then we were 14 told that it was enough just to have an evacuation 15 plan -- it didn't have to work. That's one example of 16 the kind of farcical nature of this meeting.

17 There are too many things that you are not 18 considering. We live in a world where the health of 19 our economy and the very functioning of an economy is 20 at risk from day to day from total breakdown. Where 21 is the money going to come to pay for and who is going 22 to be in charge of paying for the costly work of 23 maintaining and protecting the citizens from spent 24 fuel pools? Who's going to pay when the seawater 25 rises from global warming and we have popping sounds 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 with explosive plumes coming from Seabrook? Who's 2 going to pay? Where's that money coming from?

3 We've already heard testimony here that 4 several plants were perilously close to flooding out 5 West and there is no assurance that this is not going 6 to happen here. But you can come into our town and 7 tell us that there is no safety impact 20 to 40-years 8 down the road from this plant. All this period of 9 time that you are proposing to extend this license --

10 the waste will be building up in and on the site.

11 That's a new uncharted territory because I don't 12 believe you know how to take care of that much waste 13 in one spot. You've never done it.

14 I think that there's an inherent collusion 15 between the industry and the NRC. I've heard that the 16 NRC gets most of its funding from the industry. This 17 may or may not be true.

18 PAUL GUNTER: 90%.

19 BEN CHICHESTER: How can you say that 20 we're going to be safe from terrorist attacks on the 21 plant either from foreign or domestic sources? The 22 Price Anderson Act says that the industry doesn't have 23 to pay very much in the event of a catastrophic 24 accident, but our government really can't afford to 25 pay for it either. So, it seems like we're going to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

61 1 be stuck there.

2 You're only thinking about 20-years at a 3 time, but we should be thinking like the Native 4 Americans think -- which would be more like seven-5 generations ahead. 20-years is sort of a selfish way 6 of looking at what we're doing with these nuclear 7 plants. We should be looking down the road so that we 8 can ensure life on this planet will go on for a long 9 time.

10 We have companies like Westinghouse and 11 General Electric -- we're told that they bring good 12 things to life. You boys are here and you're the 13 functioning arm of these corporations -- the 14 rubberstampers -- that allow this pollution to be 15 created. We are tired of the corporations -- the 16 mafia -- the corporate nuclear mafia -- controlling 17 our lives here on the seacoast with your nuclear 18 plants forced on us above and beyond our local votes.

19 I know we're supposed to be here debating 20 whether or not it's going to be more prudent to have a 21 nuclear plant as opposed to some other form of energy, 22 but I can just tell you that the nuclear plants are 23 highly energy intensive to make them and to run them.

24 So, there's a lot of carbon involved in that process 25 -- global warming will increase. But the alternatives 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 and the renewables -- which we've already heard 2 testimony -- are coming really fast and you can't tell 3 me today that they can't take the place of this 4 nuclear power plant 20-years down the line. And here 5 you are 20-years ahead of time looking for extended 6 license for your corporations that are making the 7 money.

8 Have you ever heard of an internal 9 emitter? That's a little piece of plutonium or 10 strontium that comes from these plants that can make 11 its way into the food chain and all it takes is a 12 little speck of it to be ingested to get cancer. So, 13 you're making tons of this product that nobody has an 14 answer for it. And it's happening all over the planet 15 really -- we've got to stop. We've got to stop making 16 nuclear waste because the waste has turned into 17 nuclear bombs and it's a dirty process from the mining 18 of the uranium, all the way through. It's the same 19 corporations that give us nuclear power that gives us 20 nuclear weapons. And it was all given to us secretly.

21 And then we were told it was great by little 22 documentaries they teach to school children. So, we 23 know what we're doing here tonight. And we know who 24 we are up against. I would just hope that we can get 25 real and see what we're doing -- see what we're doing 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 to this planet. And try to do things better. And try 2 to be truthful about what's going on. Thank you.

3 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, Ben. Next 4 speaker is Randall -- is that Kezar?

5 RANDALL KEZAR: I'll submit a written 6 [indiscernible].

7 BRIAN ANDERSON: Okay. So, Randall, I 8 understand that you don't want to speak tonight, but 9 you're going to provide written comments at a later 10 time?

11 RANDALL: Yes.

12 BRIAN ANDERSON: Okay. Thank you. The 13 next speaker is Robin Willits and after Robin -- Ilse 14 Andrews.

15 ROBIN WILLITS: I will be very brief. I 16 just want to add to what's been said. I have never 17 heard who benefits from continuing the plant another 18 20-years. Is there any public benefit? And I think I 19 can think of reasons that there might be benefits to 20 the corporation, but I want to know why the NRC is 21 supporting extension without defining what is the 22 benefit to the public.

23 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, Robin. Ilse -

24 -

25 ILSE ANDREWS: Thank you. Good evening.

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 I've lived a long life. Very early in my life I spent 2 years in air-raid shelters in Europe. Life does not 3 become much more dangerous. When I drive past 4 Seabrook, I consider it nothing more than an ominous 5 presence. I see nothing friendly or beneficial about 6 it. And I cannot understand why there is an effort to 7 prolong it, when we have viable and -- if there's such 8 a word as -- provable alternatives.

9 I'm standing here only because of my 10 concern for future generations. It makes my hair 11 stand on end when I read the phrase -- unavoidable 12 adverse impacts with regard to Seabrook emissions.

13 And on the slides this evening, there was a remark 14 that said -- the NRC's response to Fukushima, among 15 other things -- is that here there is no imminent risk 16 to public health and safety. Imminent means right 17 now, not 20-years or 21-years hence.

18 All of what I'm saying leads to a sort of 19 rhetorical question -- if current NRC regulations 20 permit such unavoidable adverse impacts and on the 21 other hand you are admittedly responsible for 22 protecting our health and safety, then I would like to 23 ask you -- what are you doing to change these 24 regulations? Thank you.

25 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, Ilse. 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

65 1 next speaker is Herbert Moyer and after Herbert --

2 Marcia Bowen.

3 HERBERT MOYER: Thank you. Herb Moyer --

4 I live in Exeter. I'm a teacher. I was teaching at 5 Winnacunnet when the plant first came online and we 6 teachers were told we had to stay with students to 7 evacuate through bus transportation in case of an 8 accident. Of course, we now know the drivers of the 9 buses have subsequently said they would not show up.

10 So, I don't know really what plans the utility has 11 actually made for evacuation in the case, admittedly -

12 - unlikely, but possible. I'm not sure you all admit 13 that it's possible there's a major accident at 14 Seabrook that would happen and students would have to 15 leave the area in some manner in order to avoid 16 significant exposure.

17 But my question is and my comment is that 18 in 2049 -- what kind of changes to the transportation 19 network might we have encountered or done or clogged-20 up highways or increased in numbers of housing, so 21 that we might not be able to realistically get people 22 out of an area -- in the case of a crowded summer day 23 at Hampton Beach? So, I'm wondering -- are you taking 24 into account the increased construction, population 25 increase and whether or not roadways would be able to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

66 1 capably handle evacuation if an accident were to occur 2 in 2049 -- a year before the projected end of this 3 theoretical license extension? So, that's what I'd 4 like to know.

5 I also would like to know -- it's probably 6 not germane to the relicensing but -- Chernobyl cost 7 the Soviet Union $360 billion. Fukushima has cost 8 $200 billion. The Price Anderson Act puts the 9 utilities on the hook for $12 billion right now in 10 some sort of an escrow account. And we the taxpayers 11 would be liable for any damages to property, land, 12 animals, farms, properties, etc., beyond that. So I'd 13 like to know where that $12 billion resides now and is 14 that even something one could count on if some sort of 15 accident occurs -- serious accident? Thank you.

16 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, sir, for those 17 comments.

18 The next speaker is Marcia Bowen --

19 MARCIA BOWEN: I'm going to decline my 20 opportunity to speak tonight.

21 BRIAN ANDERSON: Okay. Thank you, Marcia.

22 And the last speaker that I have here is Doug Bogen.

23 DOUG BOGEN: If you don't mind, I want to 24 wait until they find a new battery for the camera 25 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

67 1 My name's Doug Bogen. I'm Executive 2 Director of the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League based 3 in Exeter, New Hampshire. I would like to make some 4 kind of general comments and have a few specific ones, 5 as well, about the Draft report. I will try to make 6 different comments than what I made in the earlier 7 session this afternoon, but I think they're no less 8 pertinent and important.

9 As others have suggested tonight, the 10 world has changed since Fukushima. Just as it changed 11 after Three-Mile Island. Just as after Chernobyl.

12 Yet, everything I read in this Environmental Statement 13 seems to indicate that it's business as usual at the 14 NRC. I don't see any change of perspective. I don't 15 see any greater consideration of the public interest.

16 As we've heard from others, this just seems to be 17 business as usual. It's the same old story. Same 18 dismissal of alternatives -- they don't seem to have 19 learned anything.

20 I should mention, for the record, we are 21 one of the interveners along with Beyond Nuclear, New 22 Hampshire Sierra Club and other groups. Our 23 intervention is based on the National Environmental 24 Policy Act, but we don't get the sense that the 25 writers of this report have picked up anything from 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 what we've submitted. Even though these are many peer 2 reviewed studies, on-the-ground actual projects -- but 3 they don't seem to find their way into the report.

4 The facts are that you have zero actual 5 experience with commercial reactors older than 42-6 years old. I looked it up. I don't think there's one 7 in this country that's older. In fact, in the whole 8 world, I don't believe there are any reactors that 9 made it to 50-years. So, you have no experience with 10 real-world impacts on the environment past that age.

11 What we do know is that younger reactors have leaked 12 huge quantities of tritium into the groundwater --

13 Seabrook among them. Seabrook was only nine-years old 14 when it started leaking tritium back in `99. For 12-15 years now, they've been pumping the groundwater.

16 Pumping out the leaking water just to put it out into 17 the ocean to dilute it. That doesn't sound like a 18 solution. That sounds like pump and dilute and just 19 pushing the issue further offshore.

20 Younger reactors -- including Seabrook --

21 have had chronic problems with the emergency diesel 22 generators. This has certainly been seen as a greater 23 concern after Fukushima and what happened with theirs 24 and the need to be able to respond to difficult 25 situations -- natural disasters, unnatural disasters.

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 Younger reactors have had critical safety structures 2 corroded almost to the point of failure.

3 This was recently covered in an AP series 4 and it ran in the local papers here, as well as around 5 the country. Younger reactors have ended their useful 6 lives prior to reaching 40-years old and there have 7 been, I think, at least two-dozen reactors around the 8 country that didn't make it to 40, but everyone of 9 them are still storing their spent fuel on-site in 10 vulnerable areas. Just in our neighborhood, we've got 11 Maine Yankee, Yankee Rowe, Connecticut Yankee, Haddam 12 Neck -- that are all just waiting for some day that 13 fuel is going to be put somewhere else. This is the 14 record. This is the legacy that we leave to future 15 generations. This is what you have as real-life 16 experience.

17 Another point -- just looking at the power 18 needs. There keeps being this reference to the need 19 for power -- I want to know where it's written that we 20 will always need 1,250 megawatts on the New Hampshire 21 seacoast, when it isn't even used on the New Hampshire 22 seacoast or even in New Hampshire at all. We have 23 more than enough energy -- more than enough electrical 24 power in New Hampshire, even without Seabrook. I 25 don't think that corporation was given an unlimited 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 life -- perpetual power generation -- permission. We 2 need to stop thinking that once they build it, it'll 3 always be there.

4 In your comments tonight and in the report 5 itself -- page 8-42, you say that -- assuming that a 6 need currently exists for the power -- but we're not 7 talking about current need, we're talking about need 8 decades into the future -- 20, 30, 40-years. So, what 9 does current power use have to do with it? It just 10 seems like we're just sort of saying -- Well, this is 11 the way it is today and this is the way it's going to 12 be 30-years from now. That just doesn't make any 13 sense. It doesn't pass the laugh test. I would 14 suggest that you at least amend that to say --

15 assuming that a need will exist in 2030. That would 16 be at least a little bit more accurate, a little more 17 appropriate to the report. That should be the issue 18 here.

19 I'll say a little bit about tritium. I 20 did talk about it earlier tonight, but first off I 21 want to say it's in a few different sections in the 22 report. It's kind of hard to find out where all the 23 tritium information is. I understand that you're 24 referring to it as a kind of a new issue. Although, 25 again, it's been ongoing for at least a dozen years.

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 One of the sections that talks about the other de-2 watering doesn't mention this new de-watering -- the 3 32,000 gallons per day -- in the Unit 2 foundation.

4 What is the total amount and why is this 5 considered acceptable? Do you expect it's going to 6 continue? Is it going to increase? Where are we at 7 with the water there? Why can't they stop the leaks?

8 That sounds like an awful lot of water to be putting 9 out into the ocean. I understand that the EPA 10 regulation allows 20,000 picocuries per liter of 11 tritium in drinking water -- or that's the limit --

12 but that doesn't mean that something under that is 13 perfectly safe. In fact, many other countries have 14 much stricter standards.

15 My understanding is the state of 16 California and the state of Colorado -- that would be 17 completely unacceptable. They've set standards more I 18 think around 500 or 400 picocuries per liter. You 19 state in one part of the document that the levels of 20 tritium in seawater were under 3,000 picocuries per 21 liter. I understand in salt water you can't test as 22 low as you can in freshwater, but if they're at 2,999 23 that again does not make it safe. That's still 24 somewhere in 100 times greater than background levels 25 for tritium. Natural occurring tritium is 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

72 1 single digits -- maybe up to double digits.

2 So, even the EPA standard -- we're talking 3 1000 times more than the ambient levels in our 4 environment. That just doesn't make sense. It 5 doesn't sound safe to me. We all know now that there 6 are no safe levels of radiation and I don't know how 7 you can continue this idea that that's an acceptable 8 level, when many other countries much of the science 9 shows that's not enough.

10 So, I want to move on to some of the 11 carbon emissions. I talked a bit about this earlier, 12 but I did want to point out, as well, that again as 13 Mr. Gunter emphasized -- it doesn't seem like you 14 picked up much from the materials that we submitted in 15 our intervention petition. The cited studies that you 16 list comparing carbon emissions from nuclear versus 17 carbon from other renewable energy sources -- just 18 about everyone of those studies appears to be from the 19 International Atomic Energy Association, which we all 20 know has the double-purpose of both promoting and 21 regulating nuclear power. So, I would suggest it 22 might be a little bit biased.

23 Why aren't there more independent studies?

24 One in particular that we referred to in our petition 25 from a researcher named Sovacool in 2008 -- that was 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

73 1 broad survey of previous existing studies. He 2 concluded that nuclear power emits seven times more 3 carbon dioxide than wind for a new plant. I believe 4 it's five times more for an existing plant. Indeed, 5 in your own information regarding Seabrook, you 6 mentioned an average over five-years -- 24,000 tons of 7 carbon dioxide equivalent released just on-site.

8 That's not including the fuel, the transportation, 9 construction and so forth. That's just on-site each 10 year.

11 Just to put that in perspective, which 12 would be helpful in your report -- that's about 10% of 13 the carbon emissions of one of the Schiller boilers --

14 the 15-megawatt boiler -- the Schiller Plant being in 15 Portsmouth, New Hampshire -- just up the road. It's 16 the equivalent -- the plant owners love to say how 17 many homes they can provide power to with their plant 18 -- well, the carbon emissions from Seabrook alone on-19 site are the equivalent of the carbon emissions from 20 over 3,000 homes -- just from their power use -- or 21 4,000 homes for their overall carbon footprints. I 22 think that's pretty significant. I think people would 23 be surprised to know that -- that Seabrook, in 24 particular, is not carbon-free, as is the whole 25 industry. So, we'd like to see a little bit better 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 treatment of the relative impacts and of course that 2 influences your whole decision about which types of 3 power sources would be most environmentally sound.

4 We really have concern with the comparison 5 you make with the one you do look at -- the combined 6 cycle gas and wind power combined versus nuclear. I'm 7 just mystified why you chose to look at -- you 8 mentioned the idea of having five wind farms. Four of 9 which would be on land and one of which offshore.

10 Well, everything you've heard from other speakers 11 tonight and again in our petition shows that offshore 12 is the future. We don't need to be building as many 13 farms onshore. I understand that's where Florida 14 Power and Light -- the parent company of NextEra --

15 that's where they get their wind, where they're used 16 to using it.

17 But that doesn't mean that's going to be 18 the future. It just seems like an unfair comparison 19 and not really representative of future development.

20 So, I wonder whether you're just setting it up to 21 fail? That seems to be the way you present this. You 22 say that's the only potentially viable project, but 23 then you don't look at what would be the most 24 attractive -- the most environmentally sound approach 25 to that development. So, I would, if you can, I 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

75 1 like you to reconsider that choice -- take another 2 look at those comparisons.

3 I just have a few more points -- just 4 again talking about groundwater -- not so much the 5 tritium issue, but just the increases, particularly 6 under climate. I talked earlier about the sea level 7 impacts on the site. Clearly with the existing 8 infiltration of the foundations leading to the ASR 9 problem -- there ought to be some projection. I know 10 you make reference to some hydrological studies, but 11 it seems like again it deserves more than a sentence 12 or two about future infiltration. I think that's 13 something we all want to know about. That's an 14 environmental impact on the plant. Even though I know 15 it's supposed to be addressed in other reports.

16 So, again, I think all of these things are 17 worth consideration and I do hope that you will make 18 some changes in the final version of your report.

19 Thank you very much for your time.

20 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, sir, for your 21 comments. Was there anybody that signed up to speak 22 tonight that I might have missed? I believe that 23 everybody that registered to speak has had a chance to 24 speak. Did I miss anybody?

25 Okay -- good. Thank you all again -- 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

76 1 just for providing your comments, but for taking time 2 out of your personal lives to come be at this meeting 3 to listen to the NRC staff and to share your thoughts 4 and provide your comments on the NRC's review. I 5 personally appreciate you taking the time to be here 6 and providing your comments. On behalf of the NRC 7 staff -- thank you for taking the time to be here.

8 If you have any other questions or would 9 like to have any further discussion with NRC staff --

10 they will be available after this meeting. Like I 11 said earlier, this is not the only opportunity to 12 provide comments. The comment period remains open 13 through October 26th. There's opportunity to provide 14 written comments electronically or in the mail. So, 15 with that --thank you all again for your time and 16 please travel safely tonight. Have a great night.

17 This meeting's adjourned. Thank you.

18 (Whereupon, at 8:53 p.m., the public 19 meeting was closed.)

20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML11273A140&oldid=2111773"