ML090680874: 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:        Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Public Meeting: Evening Session Docket Number:    (n/a)
Location:        Berwick, Pennsylvania Date:            Wednesday, May 28, 2008 Work Order No.:  NRC-2218                          Pages 1-87 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 SCOPING MEETING 5                SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 6                              UNITS 1 AND 2 7                    LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION 8                              +      +    +    +      +
9                                  WEDNESDAY 10                                MAY 28, 2008 11                              +      +    +    +      +
12                                  7:00 p.m.
13                              +      +    +    +      +
14                        BERWICK, PENNSYLVANIA 15                              +      +    +    +      +
16 The        Public  Meeting      was      convened      at the    Eagles 17 Building, 107 South Market Street, Berwick, PA, J.P.
18 Leous presiding.
19 NRC STAFF PARTICIPATING:
20                    J.P. LEOUS 21                    DREW STUYVENBERG 22                    LANCE RAKOVAN 23                    ERIC BENNER 24                    IRENE YU 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                      DIANE SCRENCI 2                            P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 3                                                                      (7:05 p.m.)
4                      MR. LEOUS:            Good evening.            My name is 5 J.P. Leous.            It's my pleasure to welcome you here 6 this evening and to serve as tonight's facilitator 7 for          our    meeting        on        the        draft    Supplemental 8 Environmental            Impact        Statement            for  the  license 9 renewal          of  Susquehanna            Steam        Electric  Generating 10 Station, units 1 and 2.
11                      The purpose of tonight's meeting is two-12 fold.          First, to share NRC staff's findings contained 13 in the draft report.                    And second, to receive any 14 comments          on    this      document,              which  is  the        34th 15 supplement          to    the      generic          Environmental      Impact 16 Statement          for    license          renewal          of  nuclear    power 17 plants, otherwise known as new regulation 1437.
18                      Before we kick things off, I would like 19 to take a moment to let you know what to expect from 20 tonight's meeting and set some ground rules.                                    In a 21 moment, NRC's Environmental Project Manager for the 22 Susquehanna environmental review, Drew Stuyvenberg, 23 will share his team's preliminary findings with us.
24 Drew has been with the agency for about a year and 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
 
3 1 half          and hold's    a      master's            degree    from      Duke 2 University in Energy and Environmental Policy.
3                    Once Drew has concluded his presentation, 4 specifically        on  the      results          of    the  environmental 5 review and how you can submit comments, we'll open 6 things up to any questions you may have, and of 7 course, to receive comments from the public.
8                    If you've already registered with us, I 9 have your name and we'll call you up.                          If you haven't 10 registered, but would like to speak, don't worry, 11 I'll be keeping an eye out for things and as we get 12 moving we'll call you up.
13                    We are taking a transcript for tonight's 14 meeting, which is one of the reasons I'm using this 15 microphone.          So during the public comment period, 16 when I do call you up, please step up to either 17 microphone and please state your name clearly into 18 the        microphone  and    any      affiliation          you  may    have.
19 This will help us keep an accurate record of the 20 meeting.
21                    Also, I'll ask that only one person speak 22 at a time.          This will help our court reporter, Doug, 23 keep accurate records of tonight's meeting.
24                    Before we start, I'd like to introduce 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 some          other  NRC  staff      that        are      with  us    tonight.
2 First, Mr. Eric Benner, Eric is the Branch Chief for 3 the        NRC's    license      renewal          environmental        technical 4 staff.          And we also have Diane Screnci from NRC's 5 Office of Public Affairs.
6                      We also have Kirk LaGory who is from 7 Argonne National Laboratory, and who is one of the 8 ecologists working on this project.                            Hopefully, when 9 you came in you were able to grab a copy of the 10 slides, as well as a public meeting feedback form.
11                      If you do have a chance before you leave 12 tonight to fill out that form and return it to us 13 before            you    leave,          that          would    be      great.
14 Alternatively, at your leisure, you can complete that 15 form and mail it to us.                    It actually doubles as its 16 own envelope.            So, no postage required.                  When you're 17 done filling it out, just pop it in the mail and it 18 will get to us, and this helps NRC staff improve the 19 public meeting process.
20                      Please take a moment now to silence cell 21 phones          or  any  other      electronic            gadgets  you    might 22 have, just to minimize disturbances as we get through 23 the meeting.
24                      I'd also like to thank the Lucerne County 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 Community          College        and        the        Berwick    Industrial 2 Development          Agency      for      allowing        us  to  host        the 3 meeting          here  tonight.            And    with      that,  I'll      turn 4 things over to Drew.
5                      MR. STUYVENBERG:              Thank you, J.P.          First 6 of all, I just wanted to take a moment to thank all 7 of you for coming out to this meeting this evening.
8 I hope the information that we provide you all will 9 help        you  understand      the      process        that  we're    going 10 through, what we've done so far, and the role that 11 you can play helping us make sure that the final 12 Environmental Impact Statement is as accurate and 13 complete as possible.
14                      I'd like to start off by briefly going 15 over the agenda and the purposes for today's meeting.
16  Next slide, please.                  I'll start off with a brief 17 overview of the license renewal process and then move 18 on      to    presenting    the      preliminary            findings  of        the 19 staff's environmental review in which we've assessed 20 the impacts associated with renewing the operating 21 licenses for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.
22                      Then I'll provide some information about 23 the schedule for the remainder of our review and 24 about how you can submit comments in the future.                                  And NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
6 1 finally, we'll leave time for the most important part 2 of this meeting, and that's the chance to receive any 3 comments that you all may have.                        Next slide, please.
4                    The  Atomic        Energy          Act    gives  the      U.S.
5 Nuclear Regulatory Commission the authority to issue 6 operating        licenses      for      commercial          nuclear      power 7 plants for a period of up to 40 years.
8                    For Susquehanna, the licenses for units 1 9 and 2 will expire in 2022 and 2024 respectively.                                  Our 10 regulations        make    provisions              for    extending      plant 11 operation for an additional 20 years.
12                    The    NRC        received            PPL    Susquehanna's 13 application for license renewal of units 1 and 2 on 14 September 13, 2006.                As part of the NRC's overall 15 review        of  that    application,                we've    performed          an 16 environmental review in which we've looked at the 17 impacts that an additional 20 years of operation will 18 likely have on the environment.
19                    We held meetings here on November 15, 20 2006 to discuss the overall license renewal process, 21 including both safety and environmental reviews, and 22 to seek your comments regarding issues that we needed 23 to evaluate.
24                    Today,      we're        here        to    present          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
 
7 1 preliminary          results        of      our        review    that      we've 2 documented          in    our      draft          Environmental          Impact 3 Statement.            After      I    present            these    preliminary 4 results, we'll open up the floor to your comments.
5 Next slide, please.
6                    Next,    I'd        like        to    give    you        some 7 information          on    the      statute              that    governs          our 8 environmental          review,        and        that's      the    National 9 Environmental Policy Act of 1969, commonly referred 10 to as NEPA.
11                    NEPA requires that all federal agencies 12 follow a systematic approach in evaluating potential 13 environmental          impacts          associated            with    certain 14 actions.                          We at the NRC are required to 15 consider the impacts of the proposed action, which in 16 this case is license renewal.                          We are also required 17 to consider alternatives to the proposed action.                                  The 18 NRC has determined that an EIS will be prepared for 19 any proposed license renewal of a nuclear plant.
20                    NEPA    and        our          Environmental          Impact 21 Statement are disclosure tools.                        They're specifically 22 structured to involve individuals and groups from 23 outside        the  NRC.        For      example,          this  meeting          is 24 intended to facilitate public participation in 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
 
8 1 environmental review.                  Next slide, please.
2                      The    supplemental                Environmental      Impact 3 Statement -- I'm sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself.
4  This        slide    illustrates            the        NRC's    environmental 5 review process that we use to evaluate the impacts of 6 license          renewal.          This        process          involves  scoping 7 activities to seek out information; a site audit to 8 examine          the  local      environment                and  how  the    plant 9 affects it; and the development of a document called 10 a      supplemental        Environmental                Impact    Statement,          or 11 SEIS,          to    contain          the        staff's          analysis          and 12 conclusions.
13                      The    draft          supplemental            Environmental 14 Impact Statement, which we published in April 2008, 15 provides the staff's preliminary assessments of the 16 environmental          impacts        expected            during  the  license 17 renewal term.          Next slide, please.
18                      The    supplemental                Environmental      Impact 19 Statement          is    a    site-specific                  complement    to        the 20 agency's          generic    EIS      for      license        renewal  of        all 21 nuclear power plants.                      In the mid-1990s, the NRC 22 developed a generic EIS by evaluating the impacts of 23 all operating nuclear power plants across the U.S.
24                      The NRC looked at 92 separate issues, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                  WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
9 1 found that for 69 of those issues the impacts were 2 the same for all plants with similar features.                                    The 3 NRC called these Category 1 issues, and we were able 4 to make generic conclusions that all of the impacts 5 on the environment will be small.                          The NRC was unable 6 to make similar determinations for the remaining 23 7 issues.
8                    Together,        the        generic        EIS  and          the 9 supplemental EIS form the staff's analysis of the 10 environmental          impacts        of    license        renewal    for        the 11 Susquehanna site.
12                    Also during the review, the NRC staff 13 looks          for and  evaluates          any        new  and  significant 14 information          that    might        call          into  question          the 15 conclusions contained in the generic EIS, while also 16 searching for new issues not addressed at all in the 17 generic EIS.          Next slide, please.
18                    The conclusions in our generic EIS and 19 our        supplemental    EIS      help        the      NRC  to  determine 20 whether          license    renewal          is        acceptable    from          an 21 environmental standpoint.
22                    After we compare the impacts of license 23 renewal to the alternatives, we use the standards 24 shown on this slide to make our decision.                                  Simply 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 put,          we're  trying      to      determine            whether  license 2 renewal            is    acceptable            from          an  environmental 3 standpoint.            Next slide, please.
4                      NRC staff uses information from various 5 sources as we conduct our environmental review.                                        We 6 use the information received in the environmental 7 report            that    was      submitted                as  part    of        PPL 8 Susquehanna's license renewal application.
9                      We also conducted an audit in May of last 10 year, and we toured the facility, observed the plant 11 systems,          and  evaluated          interaction          of  the    plant 12 operations with the surrounding environment.
13                      During this audit, we talked to plant 14 personnel and reviewed specific documentation.                                        We 15 also spoke to federal, state, and local officials.
16 Additionally,            we  considered            the      comments  received 17 during the public scoping period.
18                      All of this information form the basis of 19 our preliminary conclusions contained in the draft 20 supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.                                      Next 21 slide, please.
22                      This slide shows some of the expertise 23 that we assembled for the Susquehanna environmental 24 review.          As you can see, our diverse staff is made up 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 of      biologists,    economists,            health        physicists,        and 2 other specialists.            Next slide, please.
3                    Here we see some of the major impact 4 areas          that  we    address          during          the  Susquehanna 5 environmental review.                  I'll discuss each of these 6 impact areas in a little more depth in a few moments.
7  Next slide, please.
8                    So, a major question as we look at our 9 Environmental Impact Statement is how are impacts 10 quantified?            Now,    the      generic          EIS  defines    three 11 impact levels: small, moderate, and large.                            I'm going 12 to use an example.            This is a hypothetical example.
13                    This    example          is,        say,    fish    in        the 14 Susquehanna          River.          So,      let's        say  that  despite 15 prevention measures, the operation of the Susquehanna 16 Steam Electric Station may affect fish populations, 17 because the plant takes in water from the river to 18 use for cooling.
19                    Now, if the decrease in fish population, 20 because of the operation of the plant, is so small 21 that it can't be detected in relation to the overall 22 fish populations, then that impact would be small.
23                    If the losses cause the fish population 24 to noticeably decline, but then stabilize at a lower 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 level, that would be a moderate impact.
2                      If the losses cause the fish population 3 to        decline      to  the      point          where      it  cannot          be 4 stabilized, or continually declines, then the impact 5 would be large.                            We      applied      this  type          of 6 methodology            to  each      resource            area  studied  in        the 7 environmental            review,          such          as  socio-economics, 8 consumptive water use, air quality, etcetera.                                    Next 9 slide.            I'll elaborate a little more on these types 10 of issues.            Next slide, please.
11                      So, the first set of issues that I'm 12 going          to  talk  about      relate          to  operation    of        the 13 cooling system at the plant.                              We looked at issues 14 like          discharges    from      the      plant      into  the    river, 15 aquatic species being affected due to water intake 16 systems, and impacts of the cooling towers may have 17 on plants and birds.
18                      All the cooling system impacts, in this 19 case          applicable    to      Susquehanna,            are  Category            1 20 issues.            This means that the NRC had made a generic 21 determination that the impacts from normal nuclear 22 plant          operations,      during        the        period  of  extended 23 operations, are small, because of how this plant's 24 design helps reduce impacts to the environment.
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                      Since  impacts          from        the  plant    aren't 2 expected to increase on a year-to-year basis during 3 the license renewal period, and since we found no new 4 and significant information while we reviewed all of 5 those aspects of the plant, we have preliminarily 6 adopted the generic conclusions that the impacts are 7 small for these issues.                Next slide, please.
8                      The NRC staff also looked for potential 9 impacts to threatened and endangered species.                                      The 10 NRC staff identified three terrestrial species as 11 having          the  potential        to      occur        on  or  near        the 12 Susquehanna site, or near its associated transmission 13 line right-of-ways.
14                      During consultation with the U.S. Fish 15 and        Wildlife    Service,      they        indicated      only  one        of 16 these species, the Indiana bat, may occur at the site 17 or along the transmission line right-of-way.
18                      During our consultation process, the Fish 19 and        Wildlife    Service      determined            that  the  license 20 renewal action will not have a significant adverse 21 effect on overall habitat quality for the Indiana 22 bat.          The project is not likely to adversely affect 23 the species.
24                      As part of the license renewal review NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
14 1 process, the NRC staff reviewed information provided 2 by PPL Susquehanna during the site audit; information 3 included in Susquehanna's environmental report; and 4 information            from      Pennsylvania                state    agencies, 5 including          the    Fish        and        Boat        Commission,          the 6 Department of Natural Resources and Conservation; and 7 the Department of Environmental Protection; as well 8 as the information provided by the U.S. Fish and 9 Wildlife Service.
10                      The staff's preliminary determination is 11 that          the  impacts      during        the        period    of  extended 12 operation          of  Susquehanna          units        1  and  2  and        its 13 associated          transmission          lines,          on  threatened          or 14 endangered terrestrial species would be small.                                  Next 15 slide, please.
16                      Radiological issues are also a Category 1 17 issue, and therefore the impacts during the license 18 renewal period are small.                      By design, the operation 19 of nuclear power plants is expected to result in 20 small          releases    of      radiological              effluents,            or 21 emissions, and Susquehanna is no exception.
22                      During our site audit, though, we looked 23 at selected parts of the Radioactive Effluent, or 24 emission, Monitoring and Radiological 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
 
15 1 Monitoring Programs and supporting documentation.
2                    We also looked at how gaseous and liquid 3 effluents        are  controlled,            treated,      monitored        and 4 released, as well as how solid radioactive wastes are 5 handled, packaged and shipped.
6                    We  also      met        with      staff  from          the 7 Pennsylvania        Bureau    of      Radiation        Protection.            We 8 looked at how the applicant's radiation protection 9 program maintains radiological releases in compliance 10 with the NRC's regulations.
11                    We  also      looked            at  the  applicant's 12 radiological environmental monitoring data from on-13 site        and off-site    monitoring              stations. The      data 14 included the results of evaluations of water, milk, 15 fish, food products, and direct radiation.
16                    Based on our review of the data, we found 17 that the calculated dose to the maximally exposed 18 member of the public to be well within the NRC's 19 radiation protection limits.
20                    The dose of the maximally exposed person 21 is a conservative calculation which assumes maximum 22 values, such as breathing rate, food consumption, 23 drinking water, and proximity to the plant associated 24 with an individual who is exposed from all radiation 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 sources from the plant.
2                    Based    on      a    historical          review    of        the 3 radiological        data,      and    the      current      status    of        the 4 plant's        radiological        systems,            the    staff  concluded 5 that the radiological releases from the plant are 6 expected to be similar on a year-to-year basis during 7 the period of extended operation.
8                    During the staff's review, no new and 9 significant information related to this issue was 10 found, and thus we've adopted the findings in the 11 GEIS,          and    preliminarily                concluded        that          the 12 radiological          impact        on      human          health    and        the 13 environment is small.                Next slide, please.
14                    Now,  socio-economic                  impacts  comprise            a 15 wide array of issues, including impacts to public 16 services, education, aesthetics, recreation, housing, 17 utilities, transportation, historic and archeological 18 resources, and environmental justice.
19                    The staff's independent review of data 20 provided          by  PPL      Susquehanna,                local    and      state 21 governments,          the    U.S.        Census          Bureau,    and    other 22 organizations, indicate that there would be no impact 23 in most socio-economic areas.
24                    In the area of historic and archeological 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 resources,          however,          NRC          staff      preliminarily 2 determined that impacts may be moderate.
3                    After reviewing documentation provided by 4 the applicant and by the Pennsylvania Historic and 5 Museums        Commission,        the      NRC        staff    reached          its 6 moderate            conclusion,                because            significant 7 archeological resources are known to occur on the 8 site, but the entire site has not yet been surveyed.
9                    In addition, PPL Susquehanna's procedures 10 for        addressing  new      discoveries            on-site    may        not 11 necessarily        effectively            protect          these    resources 12 should they be found in the future.
13                    NRC    staff        recommended            a    number          of 14 possible mitigation measures that could decrease the 15 level of impact in this area if implemented by PPL 16 Susquehanna.        Next slide, please.
17                    Another      area      of    our      review    is    what's 18 called postulated accidents.                        There are two classes 19 of      accidents    that    we    initially            evaluated    in        our 20 generic EIS.          The first of these is design-basis 21 accidents, and second is severe accidents.
22                    Design-basis              accidents,            are      those 23 accidents that the plant is designed to withstand 24 while creating only a low radiological risk to 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
 
18 1 public.        The ability of the plant to withstand these 2 accidents has to be demonstrated before the plant is 3 granted its initial operating license.
4                    Because      the      licensee          has  demonstrated 5 acceptable        plant  performance              for      the  design-basis 6 accidents        throughout      the      life          of  the  plant,        the 7 commission        found    in      the      generic          EIS  that        the 8 environmental impacts of design-basis accidents is 9 small for all plants.
10                    The  second          category            of  accidents          is 11 severe        accidents.            Severe            accidents      are,          by 12 definition, more severe than design-basis accidents, 13 because they may result in substantial damage to the 14 reactor core.          The commission found in the generic 15 EIS that the risk of these accidents is small for all 16 plants.
17                    Nevertheless, the commission determined 18 that alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must 19 be considered for all plants that have not already 20 done so.        These are called severe accident mitigation 21 alternatives,        or  SAMAs,        and      require      site-specific 22 analysis.
23                    The purpose of the SAMA evaluation is to 24 ensure that plant changes, with the potential 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
 
19 1 changing          severe    accident          safety          performance,        are 2 identified and evaluated.                    Next slide, please.
3                      So,    the        scope          of      potential      plant 4 improvements              considered,                    included        hardware 5 modifications, procedural changes, training program 6 improvements, and a spectrum of various combinations 7 of alternatives.            The scope includes SAMAs that would 8 prevent core damage, as well as SAMAs that would 9 improve          containment      performance              if  a  core    damage 10 event occurs.
11                      The      preliminary                  results    of          the 12 Susquehanna SAMA evaluation are summarized on this 13 slide.          Fifteen potential SAMA candidate improvements 14 were identified for the Susquehanna units 1 and 2, 15 based          on  the  review.            Five      of    these  SAMAs      were 16 identified as being potentially cost-effective, or 17 cost beneficial, I should say.
18                      None of those potentially cost beneficial 19 SAMAs, however, are related to managing the effects 20 of plant aging during the license renewal period.
21 Accordingly, they're not required to be implemented 22 as part of license renewal.                      Next slide, please.
23                      Cumulative        impacts            are  the  impacts          of 24 license renewal when taken together with other past, 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 present,          or  reasonably        foreseeable            future    actions 2 regardless of what agency or person undertakes those 3 actions.          It's kind of a broader look at how this 4 action fits in the context of things that have gone 5 on in this area before.
6                      The NRC staff has identified many past, 7 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 8 that we've considered in this review for cumulative 9 impact on the environment.
10                      The  NRC      staff      identified          past    actions 11 like          anthracite        coal        mining,            or    industrial 12 development and farming.                      Ongoing current effects, 13 including remaining industries, population centers, 14 and other economic activities, and potential future 15 actions like constructing and operating one or two 16 new units at or near the Susquehanna site.
17                      The  NRC      staff      evaluated        the    potential 18 effects of new units at the Susquehanna site, since 19 PPL        Corporation      submitted            letters        in    May      2007 20 indicating          its  intent        to    file        it  for    a  combined 21 license application in late 2008 for one new unit.
22                      In  discussions              with        NRC    staff,          PPL 23 indicated that it may ultimately pursue two units at 24 the site.            PPL Corporation has not yet submitted 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
 
21 1 combined license application for a new unit or units.
2  And if and when it does so, the NRC staff would 3 review that application and decide whether to approve 4 or deny a license for the new facility at that time.
5 6                      The environmental impacts of the combined 7 license action would be analyzed and addressed in a 8 separate Environmental Impact Statement that will be 9 prepared by NRC staff.
10                      Based on our overall evaluation of past, 11 present, and future effects on the environment in the 12 region, overall cumulative impacts could range from 13 small to large.
14                      Where we found large impacts, they were 15 typically the result of historic actions like the 16 coal          mining  I  mentioned            earlier,      or  like        dam 17 construction on the Susquehanna River.                            Next slide, 18 please.
19                      As  part      of      the        environmental    review 20 process, we also evaluated a number of alternatives 21 to license renewal.                Alternatives, in this case, are 22 options          that  could        serve        the      same  purpose          as 23 Susquehanna units 1 and 2 would serve during the 24 period of extended operation.
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                    Specifically, we looked at the impacts of 2 replacing the power from Susquehanna units 1 and 2, 3 which after completely implementing their extended 4 power up rate, would be approximately 2600 megawatts.
5  We considered alternative power sources, or using 6 conservation to reduce demand.
7                    Specifically,            energy          alternatives          we 8 evaluated included replacing Susquehanna's generation 9 with power from new coal, natural gas, or nuclear 10 units, as well as the impacts and capabilities of 11 providing replacement power from other providers.
12                    Additionally,            we          looked    at      other 13 technologies, such as biomass, wind, and solar power 14 to        see    whether  their        available          potential      could 15 replace        Susquehanna's        units        1      and  2. We      also 16 analyzed          the  combination              of        alternatives        that 17 included conservation and continued operation of one 18 Susquehanna unit.
19                    Finally, we addressed the impacts that 20 would likely result if NRC simply did not take action 21 to renew the licenses, and Susquehanna units 1 and 2 22 simply        shut  down  at      or    before          the  end  of    their 23 current licenses.          Next slide, please.
24                    After each alternative, we looked at 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
 
23 1 same types of issues that we did when we evaluated 2 the environmental impacts of license renewal to allow 3 us to directly compare the impacts of renewing the 4 unit          1  and    2    licenses            with        those    potential 5 alternatives.
6                    The NRC's preliminary conclusion is that 7 the environmental impacts of alternatives, including 8 not        renewing    the    licenses,            could      reach    moderate 9 levels in some of the categories evaluated, and large 10 levels in some resource areas for some alternatives.
11 12                    For    the      combination              alternative,          the 13 environmental impacts would likely be small for most 14 areas          considered,    with      several          potential    moderate 15 impacts.              Next      slide,          please.            During          the 16 environmental review, we found no information that 17 was both new and significant.
18                    Therefore we have, preliminarily, adopted 19 the          generic    EIS      conclusions                that    the    impact 20 associated with the 69 issues will continue to be 21 small, or we determined that some of those issues did 22 not apply to the Susquehanna plant.
23                    In  the      Susquehanna              draft  Supplemental 24 Environmental          Impact        Statement,              we  analyzed          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 remaining 23 site-specific issues and determined that 2 11 were applicable to Susquehanna units 1 and 2, 3 because of plant design or because of environmental 4 characteristics.
5                    For 10 of these issues in environmental 6 justice,          we    preliminarily              determined        that          the 7 environmental          impacts        resulting            from  these    issues 8 would          be    small.            Impacts            to    historic          and 9 archeological          resources,          however,          would  likely          be 10 moderate.
11                    Based    on    these        conclusions,        the    NRC's 12 preliminary recommendation is that the environmental 13 impacts of license renewal are not so great that 14 license renewal would be unreasonable.                              That is, we 15 have preliminarily concluded that license renewal is 16 acceptable from an environmental standpoint.                                    Next 17 slide, please.
18                    Now, listed here are some important dates 19 for the Susquehanna license renewal and environmental 20 review.        In April of 2008, we issued the Supplemental 21 EIS and we're currently accepting public comments on 22 the        draft  until    July      21st      of      2008.      The    final 23 supplemental          EIS  is    scheduled            to  be  published          by 24 March of 2009.          Next slide, please.
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                      This slide identifies me as your primary 2 contact with the NRC for the environmental review of 3 Susquehanna          Steam    Electric          Station.          Ms. Evelyn 4 Gettys is the contact for any questions related to 5 safety review, and that safety review is currently 6 still ongoing.
7                      Documents        related            to    the  Susquehanna 8 review may be found at the McBride Memorial Library 9 here in Berwick, and at the Mill Memorial Library in 10 Nanticoke.
11                      At  the      bottom        of        the  slide    is        the 12 internet address where you can directly access the 13 Susquehanna          units      1    and        2        draft    Supplemental 14 Environmental          Impact      Statement,              and  all  of    these 15 items          are  also  in    your      packet.            So,  if  there's 16 anything you want to write down, it's all in front of 17 you.          Next slide, please.
18                      There are several ways you can provide 19 your comments on the Susquehanna draft Environmental 20 Impact Statement.
21                      First,    you      can      provide        your  comments 22 today during the comment period of this meeting.                                      If 23 perhaps, you're not ready to provide your comments 24 directly today, you can send your comment via email 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 to        the    following      address:          susquehannaeis@nrc.gov.
2 It's posted up here and in your packets, and we'll be 3 sure to get those as well.
4                      You can also send your comments by U.S.
5 mail, or you can hand deliver them, if you happen to 6 be in the area at our headquarters in Maryland.
7                      And  with      that,        this      portion    of        the 8 presentation is concluded and you will soon be able 9 to offer your comments directly on the staff's review 10 and on our preliminary findings.                            Thank you.
11                      MR. LEOUS:            Great!            Thank you, Drew.
12 Just          before  we  get      to    the        question    and  comment 13 period, just some housekeeping matters.                              Some of the 14 documents          we've    heard,        you've          heard  us  speak          of 15 tonight, the draft supplemental Environmental Impact 16 Statement is here, and there's copies should you like 17 them.
18                      Additionally, the generic Environmental 19 Impact Statement copy is here for you to peruse.
20 There's additional information on various issues that 21 the NRC deals with at the other end of the table.
22                      All of these documents and plenty more 23 are available on the NRC's website, should you be so 24 interested.            As  Drew      mentioned,            I  just  want        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
 
27 1 reiterate that we are accepting both oral comments 2 and written.
3                      Should    you    have        written      comments      that 4 you'd like to share with us tonight, feel free to 5 hand them to myself or any of the other NRC personnel 6 here.            In  addition,      as      Drew        mentioned,  we        are 7 receiving comments well after tonight's meeting until st 8 July 21 , as Drew mentioned, numerous ways to get 9 those to us.                            Also,          after    the  comment 10 period if there are any issues that you'd like to 11 discuss with staff, NRC's technical staff will be 12 here after the meeting for as long as you'd like to 13 chat with us.
14                      So, there will be plenty of opportunity 15 to speak with you on a one-on-one basis, if that's 16 what you prefer.            That being said, before we get to 17 comments, if anybody has any questions, in terms of 18 clarifying issues that Drew had mentioned, you can 19 just raise your hand and we can flesh those out.
20                      Great. Yes.        We actually need for Doug 21 to get it on the record, yes.
22                      MS. FRACKE:          One of my questions is how 23 many here are from the government?                            I know you said 24 the NRC and some others.
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                      MR. LEOUS:          Well, in addition to Drew, 2 Eric,          Lance,  myself        and    Diane,        and  there    is      one 3 member of EPD here, as well.                            So, that's one, two, 4 three, four, five, six.                        Kirk is an employee of 5 Argonne          National    Laboratory                as    well.      He's          a 6 contractor for the NRC, yes.
7                      MS. FRACKE:            How many are newspaper or 8 what kind of reporters are here today?
9                      MR. LEOUS:            Is there anyone from the 10 media?          This afternoon we did have several reporters 11 from local media that did speak with Drew, but it 12 doesn't appear to be anybody here this evening.
13                      MS. FRACKE:              What news media did you 14 contact?
15                      MS. SCRENCI:          I'm Diane Screnci.            I'm the 16 Public          Affairs  Officer.              We      did  send  out    press 17 releases announcing the new availability of the draft 18 Environmental          Impact        Statement,            as  well    as        the 19 schedule for the meeting several weeks ago to all the 20 reporters in the area, and there were a couple of 21 reporters here this afternoon.                          There were three.
22                      MS. FRACKE:          Do you remember any of the 23 reporters or the papers, radio, or T.V. that you 24 used?
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                    MS. SCRENCI:              That were here today or 2 that we sent them to?
3                    MS. FRACKE:        Yes, that it was sent to.
4                    MR. LEOUS:        It's difficult without having 5 various microphones here.                  So, if you could take that 6 microphone, and I'll talk to her.                          The question was 7 essentially if you recall which newspapers or media 8 personnel were contacted.                  Is that correct?          Okay.
9                    MS. SCRENCI:            We have a complete list of 10 newspapers, radio stations, T.V. stations that we 11 send          to when  we  are      issuing            press  releases        for 12 Susquehanna.            It's      the      Hazelton        newspaper,          the 13 Wilkes-Barre news media, the Scranton media.                                      So, 14 it's all the reporters that are around the area.
15                    MR. LEOUS:          Actually, Ms. Fracke, if we 16 could just --
17                    MS. SCRENCI:            I absolutely don't recall 18 the names of any of the radio stations, but it's the, 19 what is it, the Press Enterprise, the -- I'm sorry, 20 off hand I don't recall any others, but I do have an 21 email list.
22                    MR. LEOUS:        If we could just stick a pin 23 in      this.      This  portion          of    meeting      is  really          to 24 clarify any issues that Drew presented, just to make NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
30 1 sure          that  we  communicated                things,      and    we        can 2 certainly get to other questions later.                                Just, in 3 this portion before we get to comments I just want to 4 make sure -- okay.              Okay.
5                      MS. FRACKE:              My neighbor was curious, 6 too.          Why are they going so early for another license 7 when they just got one up to 2024?                            Why now to 2044?
8                      MR. LEOUS:        Drew?
9                      MR. STUYVENBERG:                Just to briefly answer 10 that, NRC regulations allow an operating plant to 11 pursue          license  renewal          after        having    20  years          of 12 operation.            So, Susquehanna units 1 and 2 achieved 13 that several years ago.                        So, that's why they were 14 able to apply for a license renewal.                              Sometimes that 15 review can take several years.
16                      MS. FRACKE:          But they just got one for 20 17 years.            Why another 20 years?                    Why up to 2044?              I 18 mean, that's crazy.
19                      MR. LEOUS:        Well, Drew?
20                      MR. STUYVENBERG:                    I was going to say, 21 just to briefly explain, there initial license was 40 22 years.          So, it's from when they first start operating 23 to        40    years  afterwards.                And      so  after    they've 24 operated for 20 years into that 40 year period, 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
 
31 1 can then apply for a license renewal.                        But this is 2 their first renewal.
3                MR. LEOUS:        Okay.          Actually, as Drew is 4 getting there, that question may best be answered by 5 plant personnel rather than NRC staff in terms of 6 their motivations for applying for license renewal.
7 This staff may not be in the best place to comment on 8 that.
9                Barring any other questions regarding the 10 review, we can get into the comment section here, and 11 I do have a Fred -- he's not there?                        Okay, Sue, if 12 you wouldn't mind.
13                MS. FRACKE:          What does the NRC allow to 14 be admitted into the water and into the air from the 15 nuclear power plant?
16                MR. LEOUS:      Eric?
17                MR. BENNER:          Yes.          I can't recite them 18 off the top of my head.          Eric Benner, Branch Chief of 19 the Environmental Review Branch.                    There are limits on 20 what can be released.            Primarily our review ensures 21 that the plant operated within regulations.
22                The part of the regulations that lists 23 all the different isotopes and the limits on those 24 different isotopes is 10CFR, part 21, or part 20, I'm 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 sorry.        So, we have a copy of 10CFR here.
2                    After    we're          done          with  the    comment 3 portion, I'd be happy to show you some of that.
4 Really for our review, we're just looking to ensure 5 that the plant has complied with the regulations.
6 Well, and I articulated that I would be happy to show 7 you the regulations that I referred to.
8                    MR. LEOUS:            Great.            Thank you, Eric.
9 Sue, I know you expressed interest in sharing some 10 comments with us tonight.                  So, if you would care to 11 step up to the podium.
12                    MS. FRACKE:          My name is Sue Fracke.                      I 13 live in the ten-mile dead zone around the plant in 14 Sugarloaf.          Good evening, ladies and gentlemen who 15 sincerely care about the health, safety, and welfare 16 of people everywhere.
17                    For those of you in the nuclear industry, 18 whether government or business, may you conceive the 19 ugly diseases that you have helped innocent people 20 die from, or be crippled with for the rest of their 21 lives.        I cannot wish you a good anything.                    The last 22 time I spoke out at one of these type meetings, a man 23 came up to me and said, "Sue, you always say the same 24 thing."                          And      I      told      him,  "That          is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
33 1 because          nothing    has      changed            with  the    nuclear 2 industry, still giving us the same old load of feces, 3 such as, `I'm not afraid to move my family close by.
4  I wouldn't submit my children to anything that could 5 harm them.'," and that is what scares me about you 6 people.        You're as stupid as our appointed president, 7 and who thinks he's anointed.
8                    Every year, 20,000 people die of cancer 9 from naturally occurring background radiation.                                    You 10 would think that this fact alone would be enough to 11 say let us not produce any more radiation, as it will 12 kill more people.
13                    With  all      our      other        means  of    making 14 energy, especially all the various kinds of solar 15 energy that we now have the technology to do, it 16 makes no sense to use a source of energy that is 17 dangerous and will cause more people to die of cancer 18 and other degenerative diseases.                          Even if some people 19 are cured from cancer, they will worry forever that 20 it will come back to them and all the suffering that 21 comes with it, and many times it does come back.
22                    In  the    Federal          Register,        December        15, 23 1989, part 2, by the Environmental Protection Agency, 24 40CFR,        part  61,  national          emissions        standards          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
 
34 1 hazardous air pollutants, radionuclides, final rule 2 notice, etc. reiterated from the Federal Register of 3 December 27, 1979, the EPA listed radionuclides as a 4 hazardous air pollutant.
5                  EPA determined that radionuclides are a 6 known cause of cancer and genetic damage, and that 7 radionuclides cause or contribute to air pollution 8 that may reasonably be anticipated to result in an 9 increase      in  mortality,        or      an      increase    in  serious 10 irreversible        or  incapacitating                reversible    illness, 11 and therefore constitutes a hazardous air pollutant 12 within the meaning of Section 112A-1.
13                  There are three major types of long-term 14 health impacts from exposure to radiation: cancer, 15 hereditary        effects      and      developmental          effects          on 16 fetuses, such as mental retardation.
17                  In  addition,            risk        distribution        from 18 radiation      for  most    of    the      sources      considered          for 19 regulation show that fatal cancers occur much more 20 frequently        than  non-fatal            cancers.          And    cancers 21 generally        occur    more          often          than  genetic            or 22 developmental effects.
23                  It also states that numerous studies have 24 demonstrated that radiation is a carcinogen.                          I don'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
 
35 1 get that you guys don't seem to recognize this.                                    It 2 is      assumed    that  there        is    no      completely  risk-free 3 level of exposure to radiation to cause cancer.
4                    That's right in the Federal Register.                              I 5 guess you guys don't read it.                              Radiation corrodes 6 metal, such as in the pipes of nuclear power plants, 7 causing holes that constantly emit radiation in our 8 air under the routine operation of the plants.
9                    Radiation is cumulative in our bodies, 10 and the effects of exposure can sometimes take many 11 years before showing up.                      And we were worried that 12 Saddam          Hussein  had      weapons          of      mass  destruction.
13 We've got them, 110 or more or less in our country 14 right now.
15                    Along    with      radioactive            air  pollutants, 16 the Environmental Protection Agency reports that in 17 2002,          24,379  U.S. non-nuclear              facilities    released 18 4.79 billion pounds of toxins into the atmosphere.
19                    Of these pollutants, 72 million pounds 20 were known carcinogens.                    We have no concept of the 21 synergistic effects of these toxins when they are 22 mixed          with  radioactive          pollutants.            These    toxins 23 impinge          on  health    during        your        entire  life,      even 24 before birth.
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                      A study in New York city shows that the 2 genetic material in fetuses still in their mother's 3 womb is damaged by air pollution.                            From the Radiation 4 and            Public    Health          Project            in    Norristown, 5 Pennsylvania,            they        have        found        that,    "Current 6 emissions, current rates of infant deaths, childhood 7 cancer, and thyroid cancer are known to be affected 8 by emissions from nuclear reactors are elevated in 9 Lucerne county," the site of the Susquehanna nuclear 10 plant.
11                      The  National          Academy          of  Sciences      BEIR 12 Committee, in their 1990 study, also published there 13 is no safe dose of radiation.                              And again in their 14 1995 and 1996 reports, they again reported the same, 15 but this time said there may be biological damage in 16 addition.
17                      The United States Department of Energy, 18 DOE,          is  conducting        a    ten-year            program  of    basic 19 research in microbiology and these researchers, some 20 in university and some in government agencies, are 21 finding new, unanticipated forms of genetic damage.
22                      A damaged cell may be able to repair 23 itself, but the repaired cell will not be more like 24 the        original    undamaged          cell.            There  could          be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com


NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
37 1 irreversible damage to our species.
2                      These are not decisions to be made by 3 engineers.          This should be in realm of biologists and 4 geneticists, independent of the government and all 5 the industries.
6                      "These      high        rates          should    shock        all 7 Lucerne county residents and they should demand a 8 thorough          study  of    the      health          risks    posed  by        the 9 Susquehanna          plant,"        said      Joseph          Mangano    of        the 10 Radiation and Public Health Project, who presented 11 the data.
12                      "If radioactive," and this is a quote, 13 more          quotes,  most    a    lot      of      them    from  him,        "If 14 radioactive          emissions        from        the      plant    have      been 15 harmful,          people    should          know          this    before          the 16 government          decides    whether          or        not  to  extend        the 17 plant's license.            The 2000-2004 county rate of white 18 infants who died in their first month was 23 percent 19 above the U.S. rate, based on 55 deaths.                                  In that 20 same period, 43 Lucerne children under age 15 were 21 diagnosed with cancer, a rate 38 percent above the 22 nation.          Data are taken from the National Center for 23 Health          Statistics      and        the        Pennsylvania        Cancer 24 Registry."          I guess you guys didn't contact them.
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:   Susquehanna Steam Electric Station    Public Meeting: Evening Session
38 1                      Thyroid    cancer        statistics        may   be      most 2 alarming.          In the late 1980s, the two reactors at 3 Susquehanna were starting, the Lucerne rate was 20 4 percent below the U.S.                    However, in 2000-2003, the 5 Lucerne          rate  was    100      percent            above,  double        the 6 nation.
7                      Radioactive iodine, found only in nuclear 8 weapons and reactors, seeks out the thyroid gland 9 where it kills and impairs cells leading to cancer.
10 Two          large    nuclear        reactors              have  operated          at 11 Susquehanna beginning in 1982 and 1984 respectively.
12                      Virtually all of the 312,000 residents of 13 Lucerne county live within 15 miles of the plant and 14 would          be  most  likely          to      receive      the    greatest 15 radiation exposures.                Like all reactors, Susquehanna 16 routinely emits gasses and particles into the air and 17 water, which enters human bodies by breathing and the 18 food chain.          There are over 100 radioactive chemicals 19 in this mix.            Each causes cancer and is especially 20 harmful to fetuses, infants and children.
21                      California closed down the Diablo Canyon 22 nuclear plant many years ago.                          Through conservation, 23 solar and other forms of energy, they created over 24 800 new jobs and lowered their rates.
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)  
39 1                    Nuclear power is only about 19 percent or 2 so of our energy in the U.S.                            Through conservation 3 and solar we could close down all the nuclear plants 4 in our country and save thousands of lives, if not 5 millions.
6                    These findings, and other data on local 7 disease rates, should be part of the federal decision 8 on whether the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9 should approve the application of PP&L Susquehanna to 10 operate the plant until 2044.                            The current license 11 allows        operation  until        2024.            These  plants        were 12 originally designed to only operate for 12 to 15 13 years.
14                    PP&L and the NRC are pushing our luck.
15 Anyone who wants more nuclear power plants -- and our 16 president wants 54 more in this country -- should be 17 considered        an  insane        terrorist.              Our  president 18 constantly        tries    to      scare        us      about  terrorists.
19 Nuclear plants, and the high level radioactive waste 20 sites, both now at the Susquehanna site, could be a 21 terrorist's dream.
22                    We are also using depleted uranium bombs 23 in Iraq.        Both our soldiers and the Iraqis are being 24 exposed.          Many of the Iraqi children are getting 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:   Berwick, Pennsylvania
40 1 leukemia.
2                    Remember      the      Gulf        War   Syndrome?          Our 3 soldiers were exposed then, too, and many of their 4 children had birth defects, and many of the soldiers 5 got very sick.            And our government didn't want to 6 tell them why.          Who is the terrorist?
7                    And you know, if a person has a gun and 8 goes        around  and  starts        shooting          people  and      gets 9 caught, they put him in jail for life, if not capital 10 punishment.
11                    But you people have so far allowed all 12 these          nuclear  power      plants        who      have  caused      more 13 cancer and other degenerative diseases, but it goes 14 slower.          It's not an instant kill.
15                    So, all of you can just go around and 16 say, "Oh well, nobody's dying right away."                              So you 17 don't know and you'll never know, and they're not 18 faces to any of you people.
19                    So, you can go about your business and 20 collecting          your    money,        but        I    consider  you        all 21 murderers, because that's what you're doing any way 22 you look at it.          You're not looking at it the way we 23 get the information.                You get different information 24 that says very small impact.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com


Date:  Wednesday, May 28, 2008
41 1                    So, what's a small impact?                      How many 2 people        die  and  it's      a    small        impact?    How      many 3 animals, we've seen a lot of our animals getting 4 cancer, and it's just, it's disgusting to see all 5 this.          And our families and diabetes.                      All these 6 diseases that are just going around like crazy like 7 we didn't see when I was a child.                            We didn't see so 8 much of it, and now all of it's got to be something.
9                    And nuclear is one of the answers.                      And I 10 say shut them down, don't, just deny them another 11 license, or I wish there was a hell for you to go to.
12                    MR. LEOUS:       Great.          Thank you, Sue.            Mr.
13 Epstein?          If you care to share your comments.
14                    MR. EPSTEIN:          Well, I'm going to take a 15 little different tact here.                    My name's Eric Epstein.
16   I'm the Chairman of Three Mile Island Alert.                              We're 17 a SAFE organization based in Harrisburg.                          We monitor 18 three          nuclear  power        plants:            Susquehanna,      Peach 19 Bottom, and Three Mile Island.
20                    I don't know how we want to proceed.                              I 21 have comments, but I also have a document I'd like to 22 enter into the record.                And then we can discuss how 23 we proceed from there with official comments, because 24 what I did is I read the entire document, have some NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com


Work Order No.: NRC-2218 Pages 1-87
42 1 concerns.        And I've been tracking this issue since 2 the November 2006, I think, was our first meeting up 3 here.                            I  would          just  say,  right        off 4 the bat, there's got to be a different way to respond 5 to questions.        In Appendix A, you have responses to 6 questions, and they basically, you homogenize them.
7 You don't really answer questions.                          I don't know if 8 you know what I'm referring to, but this is something 9 that the NRC does time and time again.
10                  There are people that take the time to 11 research issues, ask a pointed question, and what you 12 do is get a cumulative response.                          I mean, just as a 13 generic        tone,  as    a    former          college    professor,            I 14 wouldn't give you a high grade there.                            I think if 15 somebody's taken the time and effort to raise an 16 issue, they deserve a specific response.
17                  I was disappointed.                    I spent a lot of 18 time preparing a presentation.                          You may not agree 19 with some of the policies that I advocate, but I 20 don't really think the public is well served.
21                  And I would say this, you know, we've 22 gone through Three Mile Island.                          We've gone through 23 Peach Bottom.        That plant was shut down, because the 24 operator ended up having his TMI unit 1 was shut 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.
43 1 down, like six and a half years, I think, under NRC 2 order.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
3                We have a lot of experience testifying 4 before you guys and reading these documents.                    Believe 5 me, if my house catches on fire, don't even send the 6 fire police. I still have all the hard documents.
7                I'd also like to extend a compliment, 8 because this was a lot easier to get through.                      I did 9 look at it on PDF, but it's nice to have this.                            I'm 10 not really sure why we still don't do page numbers, 11 but that's kind of a housekeeping issue.
12                I point out that I'm also in federal 13 court suing the Susquehanna River Basin Commission 14 and PPL Susquehanna.            And one of the reasons I'm 15 doing that is because I don't think the NRC has done 16 a good job when it comes to looking at environmental 17 impact and water use.            Especially in a state like 18 Pennsylvania where I think we've collectively taken 19 water for granted, but it's a limited commodity.
20                We're getting ready to finish Act 220 and 21 we're going to have a water budget for the year 2008, 22 and PPL is ahead of the game.                        And there is the 23 potential for Susquehanna to be declared a water-24 budgeted area way after you have declared there's no 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 impact to the water.
2                      So, I guess my biggest sense of concern 3 and        disappointment        is      the      lack      of  coordination 4 between state and federal agencies.                              This is now my 5 third          re-licensing      proceeding.                Unfortunately,            I 6 think I lead the league in that.                              However, TMI, we 7 just came to a settlement, so I won't have to pursue 8 that particular issue.
9                      I'll just try to read, not a lot, but 10 refer to my notes.                One of the things that dismayed 11 me the most is that the first time I was here, I had 12 to introduce the NRC to the SRBC.
13                      I know that since that time you guys have 14 developed a relationship, but I've got to tell you, 15 that's          not  a  confidence          builder        when  the    agency 16 overseeing the re-licensing of a nuclear power plant 17 is        unaware    that    there's          a      federal      compact      that 18 oversees          surface    water        consumption.              It    was          a 19 disappointment.
20                      I know things have improved.                    I know the 21 SRBC          has  now  hired      someone            to    do  that    issue.
22 Hopefully,          re-licensing          at    TMI      will  warrant      more 23 scrutiny.            Certainly at Limerick, I'm sure you're 24 aware there's a Delaware River Basin Commission.
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                      So  right        off      the      get-go,    one  of        the 2 concerns I had, which was raised by somebody else, is 3 that Susquehanna's a pretty new plant.                            I think it's 4 one of the youngest to come up for re-licensing.
5                      It's hard for me to understand how you 6 can capture an aging plant and a young plant.                                      You 7 know, I think one of the things you may want to look 8 at down the road is when these plants come up for re-9 licensing, there may be an adjustable criteria for a 10 plant          that's  operated,          let's        say  for  30    years, 11 compared to 20.              Just the lessons learned type of 12 thing that I would put out there.
13                      Beginning on June 5, 2007, PPL and the 14 NRC have filed responses in opposition to my concerns 15 relating to water use, water chemistry, and aquatic 16 challenges.            In fact, I lost a case at the NRC, 17 because          all  the  issues        I    raised      were  considered 18 outside          the  scope        and        not        material    to      this 19 proceeding.
20                      One of the flaws with re-licensing is, 21 since          the  ROP's    inception,              this    process    is        so 22 construed.            There's something terribly wrong when 23 there's been 48 license applications, and only one 24 contention has been admitted.                            I want to say that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
46 1 again.          How many?    Because that's what Exelon told me 2 last week.          One contention in Oyster --
3                    [Unintelligible]
4                    MR. LEOUS:            Hang on, Diane.            Hang on, 5 Diane.
6                    MS. SCRENCI:              Sorry,      there  was        one 7 contention in Oyster Creek, I believe there are three 8 contentions          at    Vermont          Yankee.            There's          one 9 contention at Pilgrim, and there are 150-something 10 under consideration by an Atomic Safety and Licensing 11 Board at Indian Point.
12                    MR. EPSTEIN:                No,      let's  have      this 13 discussion.          Let's speak, because this is something 14 you're taking pride in.
15                    MR. LEOUS:          Now is not the time to get 16 into a back and forth. So, --
17                    MR. EPSTEIN:            Yes, but what I'm saying 18 is, let's say that my number is off and there's been 19 three at Vermont Yankee, one at Pilgrim.                            Out of how 20 many?          The percentage is infinitesimal.                  I mean, when 21 we did this the first time around, when we actually 22 licensed the plant, what I'd like to see, Diane, if 23 you're going to brag about these numbers.
24                    Well,    I      just      want        to  say  a    simple 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 comparison will eliminate my point.                    If you look at 2 the number of contentions that were accepted when 3 these plants first came on line, compared to now, 4 it's unbelievable how many are not getting passed, 5 either the technical or environmental scope.
6                I mean, I've done this the first time 7 around.        Contentions          were          routinely  accepted, 8 litigated.      We  had      discovery.              We  don't      have 9 discovery. They're rarely accepted.                What I'm saying 10 to you is you guys have narrowed the process.
11                If somebody wants to take issue with me, 12 I mean, that is an extraordinary mental gymnastic I'd 13 like to witness.      So, let's say I'm wrong, it's not 14 one contention, it's five, six, seven.                      Out of the 15 hundreds that have been entered.
16                Now the first time we did this, in the 17 70s, you actually got contentions admitted and you 18 litigated. So, what I'm saying to you is, look, the 19 process has changed.        The ability to get a contention 20 litigated to basically vet it, it's not there.                                  I 21 mean, I think we can all agree with that.
22                What I would love to see the NRC do, and 23 I know you won't, number of contentions admitted the 24 first time around versus contentions admitted 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
 
48 1 time around.            And you're going to see this, Diane.
2 I'm telling you, that's reality.
3                      The problem I have is this is like a 4 shell game.            Do you go before the PUC?                      Do you go 5 before the SRBC?                  But when you go to the SRBC, 6 anything that says nuclear radiation go back to the 7 NRC.
8                      You can't go to the PUC anymore, because 9 now it's deregulated.                  They haven't filed anything at 10 the PUC for water consumption.
11                      DEP has actually filed suggestions.                          They 12 won't          let  me  see    it.          It      came    out  in  another 13 proceeding when I was doing discovery.                                So, I'm a 14 citizen.          This is not what I do for a living.                      You've 15 made it very difficult for someone to intervene, get 16 a contention admitted, and to vet an issue.                                I don't 17 think it's a user-friendly process.
18                      And again, I'm probably one of the few 19 people who have done it both times.                              Now, maybe there 20 were problems the first time around, but to basically 21 shut folks out is not going to be healthy.
22                      I    think        we        can          all  agree        that 23 unintentionally              destabilizing                  a    sensitive          and 24 important aquatic asset, like the Susquehanna River, 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 is not in the public interest.                        All I'm saying is 2 that all sensible and proactive measures should be 3 deployed to mitigate against this scenario.
4                  The merits, and this is basically what 5 I've been saying at each re-licensing proceeding, the 6 merits of an exhaustive investigation are numerable 7 and present, really, no hardship to PPL Susquehanna.
8                  The problem I'm having here is that this 9 case is going to reform what happens next at TMI, and 10 at Limerick, and then the uprates that are going to 11 occur after that.        I think we all know what Exelon's 12 strategic architecture is.                PPL is unique.        They only 13 have one plant.
14                  Susquehanna, on a conference call I had, 15 or Exelon, on a conference call I had the NRC, said 16 their strategic architecture, over the next three 17 years, is to re-license and uprate every plant.                              So, 18 we're going to see different variations of the re-19 licensing occur.
20                  So, this document is extremely important.
21  I      mean, extremely.          This        is    going  to    be        the 22 blueprint for moving forward.                  Well also, and I don't 23 want to belabor the point, but obviously the concern 24 that I think we have in Pennsylvania, which may be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
50 1 unique -- obviously, there are New Jersey and others 2 -- besides the sheer volume of nuclear waste that's 3 going to be generated.
4                    And let's be adults Yucca Mountain's not 5 getting built.          It's not happening.                    I'm not saying 6 it's good or bad.          That's reality.
7                    At some point we need to start having a 8 discussion as adults.              If we're going to generate 20, 9 30 metric tons of waste per reactor year, and it has 10 nowhere to go, that's an environmental impact.
11                    Now while I disagree with Sue, I think 12 these plants were probably designed for 40 years, and 13 from what I understand that was basically actuarial, 14 but to get another 10, 20 years to generate, you 15 know, 30, 60 metric tons of high level waste with 16 nowhere        to  go,  I    can't        see        how  that's  not        an 17 environmental impact.
18                    And I've said this before and I'll say it 19 again, what we're going to do with the legislature, 20 start taxing you for storing radioactive waste on 21 site.
22                    If we want to play this game, we'll play 23 the game.        It's a risk reward.                Nobody here asked for 24 the waste.        It's going to be here.                  It has nowhere 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
 
51 1 go.
2                      In addition to that, beginning in July 3 2008,          I  didn't    see      any      discussion        about      this, 4 Barnwell's going to close to us.                            We have nowhere to 5 take our low-level radioactive waste.                              Nowhere do I 6 see in the scoping process what do we do with these 7 two reactors, let alone another two reactors.
8                      So, now we've got high-level waste, low-9 level waste, mixed waste, waste on the road going to 10 SEG in Tennessee to be compressed.                                All kinds of 11 different            ripple    impacts            that      are    potentially 12 negative for this community.                            Waste goes in, waste 13 goes off, waste stays on.                    It would have been nice if 14 that would have been factored.
15                      I would just say that the same company 16 that          I'm  having    problems            with      on  the    surface 17 withdrawal of water from Susquehanna, essentially the 18 river intake and grand fathering two wells, T1 and 19 T2, is the same company that's basically going to be 20 allowed to re-license a plant for 20 years and not 21 really have these on-site inspections.
22                      What I saw at the SRBC and what I saw at 23 the NRC is basically documentation that's provided by 24 PL,        by    government      agencies,            and    to  review      that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
52 1 documentation.              Now,        I'm        sure      there's    on-site 2 inspections, but I didn't see the rigorous on-site 3 examination that I would want, or the due diligence 4 that I think you need to do for a plant that's going 5 to be asked to operate for another 20 years.                              That's 6 the concern that we have.
7                      You know, things when this plant were re-8 licensed, there was no such thing as compensatory 9 fire measures, i.e. roving fire watches.                            You know, 10 thermal lag.          Whether it's radwaste, there's flanges 11 that don't, o-rings.
12                      I mean, one of the things that you guys 13 do well is there's RIS that come out every week.
14 There's a whole host of technical issues.                            I thought 15 it was a no-brainer.                  You take a checklist to the 16 RIS,          all  the  generic          challenges          faced    in        the 17 industry, and see if any of those show up.
18                      I  mean,      how      hard        was  that?    Because 19 Susquehanna's          actually        mentioned          in  the    RIS        on 20 several          occasions.        Take      the        RIS. See  the        re-21 license.          Well, see if we have a generic issue.                          See 22 if we have a site-specific issue, rather than do this 23 kind of generic pancake application.
24                      Whoever      does        the        RIS,  by  the      way, 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 deserves a lot of credit.                      That's a really good 2 document.      The issues that I was disappointed in, and 3 I think you guys have heard me pound on time and time 4 again, really have to do with aquatic challenges.
5                I'll be specific.                      Neither PPL or the 6 EPA, and this is great how 316a and 316b doesn't 7 really matter, because it's in court, even though 8 it's going to be ripe for argument this fall, we just 9 won't deal 316a and 316b as if it's gone away.
10                Dude, that's great magic.                      Great magic.
11 Four of the issues I raised, still outstanding, never 12 been addressed, never got a response at any venue.                                  I 13 mean, I can take losing.                Not well, but I'd like to 14 know what I'm losing.
15                Neither the PPL, EPA, the DEP, or the NRC 16 addressed safety and structural challenges caused by 17 microfouling      versus      macrofouling;              microbiologically 18 influenced        corrosion;            biofilm            disease-causing 19 bacteria,      like    legionella                and      wisteria;          the 20 difficulty      in  eliminating              established        biofilms; 21 oxidizing versus non-oxidizing biocides; the eastward 22 migration of asiatic clams, zebra mussels.
23                Nothing here is proactive.                    You know, now 24 I saw, you had two pages on these, and 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
 
54 1 get        to  that,    which      were      really        interesting,          but 2 nothing          here  is    proactive.                  This    is  really          an 3 interesting scoping tool.                        Everything is reactive.
4 Nothing is anticipated.                  Nothing is proactive.
5                      It's, I mean, in my field of work it's 6 exactly the opposite.                  You try to anticipate what's 7 going to happen and prevent it.                          Here it's basically, 8 until it happens, then we'll react.                                I just think 9 that's dangerous.
10                      I can't ask you, and I know you don't 11 have        the  power  to    go    back        and      talk  to  the        NRC 12 commissioners and have it changed, but I think the 13 reactor          oversight      process            is      flawed    in      that 14 particular          area,    and      as      it        translates    to        re-15 licensing.
16                      I read the GEIS.              What I found, what was 17 interesting is the NRC has acknowledged the absence 18 of      water    monitoring        tools        for        algae  and  benthic 19 macroinvertebrates.
20                      So, I don't know why, but the monitoring 21 stopped in 1994.            That's 14 years ago.                    How you can 22 give somebody a clean bill of health on a monitoring 23 protocol that no longer exists is beyond me.
24                      Again, this is in your document.                      The NRC 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 acknowledged, and this is again in the GEIS, "PPL 2 does not sample private wells on nearby properties,"
3 which amazes me, because I'm sure you guys know the 4 word Bravewood.      And the closest well is a domestic 5 well near the southeast corner of the facility.
6                So,  I    don't        even        know if  that's        the 7 appropriate pollutant pathway or what, but I think we 8 all know now, and it's not just tritium, that we've 9 got migratory pollutant paths raised at all nuclear 10 power plants.      It would have been nice if we had 11 testing in place to capture this.
12                Now, we have six, and I think if I'm 13 reading this correctly, at one point we had four 14 tritium monitoring wells, we're up to six.                    However, 15 I'm not really sure where they're at.                      I may have 16 missed it, and I'm not sure the rhyme or reason of 17 how we do it. TMI is a little more aggressive, but I 18 think it's good that PPL has more, rather than less.
19                To me the issue is this, it's real basic, 20 if there is a tangible impact to the community when a 21 major industrial facility, and again I want you to be 22 aware that this is a precedent for water use.                      We're 23 going to have coal gassification facilities.                      We're 24 going to have an ethanol plant.                        We have a new 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 gambling casino close by.                        We're going to have an 2 airport in Hazelton.
3                    This reminds me of the land use work I do 4 where the developer comes in and says, "Look, I'm 5 only going to have a 2 percent net impact on the 6 traffic."            Well,    Dude,        what        about  the  other          10 7 developers?          You know?          There's an aggregate impact 8 and you guys aren't charged to look at it.                                It all 9 goes to the same place.                            Right      now,    and          the 10 SRBC is not here, we are very vulnerable to drought 11 conditions.          Nuclear power industry does not have to 12 comply with drought restrictions.                          It's a voluntary 13 compliance.            Who's going to resolve this?                          Who's 14 going to reconcile this?
15                    I  just      spent        the      last    two    years, 16 thousands of hours, thousands of dollars trying to 17 get        answers    to  these        questions          and  no    one        is 18 answering.          Who is going to rectify it when one day 19 we wake up and say, "Hey, the water for the golf 20 course, the water for the nuclear power plant, or the 21 water for sewage?"
22                    Dude, I don't know which agencies you 23 talked to, but I deal with land use.                            That's what I 24 do on a day-to-day basis.                    You guys have a potential 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 nightmare on your hands.                      Not even talking about 2 radiation.
3                    I'm going to talk about nuclear power 4 production,        is there's        a    limited      amount  of    water 5 that's got to go somewhere and how we're going to do 6 this resource allocation is not dealt with in this 7 document.          In fact,      nobody        deals    with  it.          DEP 8 doesn't deal with it in relation to this.                        They deal 9 with it in a segmented way.                        EPA doesn't deal with 10 it.        That's right, 316a and 316b, it's not right yet, 11 so we can't deal with that.
12                    So,  we    have        all      of  these  fragmented 13 regulatory bodies out there.                    This concerns me.          This 14 is aside from the, this is just completely aside from 15 the debate on whether nuclear power is good or bad.
16 I'm not even having that debate.
17                    The debate that I'm having with you is 18 that water is a valuable commodity.                          It's limited.
19 Who the hell is going to decide where it goes, when 20 it goes, and if it goes?                    And we have a crisis, I 21 believe, on our hands.
22                    And I think people -- in fact, today at 23 the legislature we just passed, out of committee, the 24 potential to box $750 million to break a badly broken 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 Pennsylvania water infrastructure.                              Our water and 2 sewage systems are failing, yet we're going to give 3 these guys, who made roughly $860 million last year, 4 a free pass on 20 years.                          Something's got to be 5 looked at.
6                      My concern is this, and I'm not asking 7 you          guys  to    do      this,          I      know    you  have          an 8 administrative charter and a statute, and I'm not 9 asking        you    to  go    beyond        that        charter,  which          is 10 inherent.
11                      What I'm asking you to do is not to decay 12 into this regulatory fragmentation protocol where you 13 just hold your arms back and say, "I'm not looking at 14 that," because that is, and the new word I got over 15 the last two years, regulatory creep.
16                      Pick up the phone.                  Call your colleague, 17 "Dude, are you looking at this?                            Are you not looking 18 at it?            What's happening?"                  Nobody picked up the 19 phone last year.            TMI, Mike can talk about it.                            All 20 of a sudden the water was reduced, turnpike collapses 21 a bridge.          We had this going on and that going on.
22 My god, people aren't talking.
23                      It's  not      just      this        --  I  mean,      what 24 strikes me is how similar this is to when a developer 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 comes in and wants to build a community, and then 2 makes          believe  there's        no      other        communities    being 3 built, or any other resources.                          This is insane, guys.
4  This is insane.
5                    Again, put aside whether you're pro or 6 anti-nuclear.          This is not good.                  PPL will face water 7 chemistry          issues,      biofouling,              aquatic  challenges.
8 That's going to happen.                  They've acknowledged it.                    We 9 all        acknowledge    it.          And      that      may  impact      your 10 operation abilities.
11                    It seems to me that the SRBC and the NRC 12 is saying don't worry about it, because it's in our 13 best interest to solve it.                    Nobody's asking, maybe we 14 should worry about it, because maybe they're taking 15 shortcuts to satisfy their bottom line.                            That's what 16 concerns me.            You know, logic would tell you, yeah, 17 it's in your best interest.                            You want to have the 18 best equipment and the most robust equipment, the 19 inspections.          It takes people.                Look at the number of 20 people working at the plant.
21                    We'll get at that later, which is really 22 interesting, because that number that you accepted is 23 kind of startling.                  That's the water issue.                    I've 24 resigned myself to the fact that those issues aren'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
 
60 1 going to get solved here or at the SRBC, so I sued 2 you and we're in federal court.
3                      But I'll tell you this, and anybody who 4 knows me, there will be answered.                            And I'll take you 5 guys wherever I have to take you.                              You're going to 6 answer the questions.
7                      And the irony is I've never opposed re-8 licensing of this plant.                        I've never opposed the 9 upright.          I've just asked to have you guys answer the 10 questions.            How hard is that?                    I'm going now onto 11 year        two  asking  the      same      questions,        no  response.
12 It's insane.
13                      The most troubling thing to me are the 14 socio-economics.            I      live      in      the    world  of    public 15 policy.          And you have a 29 county rate base here, 16 about 2.3 million customers.                            It's a very unique, 17 very loyal rate base, and if you look at the PUC 18 standards to PPL's credit, they haven't lost many 19 customers.          That's going to change.                    The rates are 20 going to go up 34.5 percent.
21                      I saw nothing in this document about rate 22 check.          How can that not be a socio-economic impact?
23  Now, I'm one of the prime negotiators with this.                                  I, 24 look, PPL will tell you, I assume every time 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
 
61 1 breathe.          I don't like doing it, but 34 2 percent 2 rate increase.
3                      These are for people, mostly seniors, who 4 are        having    a  hard      time      now,        on  a  fixed  income, 5 filling up their gas tank and taking care of health 6 insurance.            Not a word.                Thirty-four and a half 7 percent.
8                      Think about that.                If that's not a socio-9 economic impact, I don't know what is.                                Rate shock 10 doesn't fall in here.                  In fact, here's a quote 4-50 11 foot,          "There    will      also        be      no    disproportionately 12 higher          adverse    health        or      environmental        impact          or 13 result on minority or low-income populations in this 14 region.
15                      Now let me read to you, just to show you 16 where I'm coming from.                    In an aging population base 17 affects staffing, I mean, just in general, affects 18 staffing, off-site support staffing, response times, 19 emergency planning and social services.                              These human 20 components            are    critical            ingredients        than        the 21 infrastructure of any large industrial complex.
22                      You  want      basically,            when  you  do      your 23 planning, you want people at all different sectors of 24 the        age    base.      Not      necessarily            top-heavy  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
 
62 1 bottom, and not necessarily top-heavy on the top.                                On 2 the bottom you have Africa, on the top you have Boca 3 Raton.        That's a weird conflict.
4                    The ripple impact was not discussed in 5 the GEIS.          Transportation and support services were 6 limited to two paragraphs.                      Now, I'm sure you did 7 more of that, but there were only two paragraphs.
8                    With a steadily aging population, I want 9 you to think about this, where are the EMS and EMT 10 technicians, paramedic fire service providers going 11 to come from in a state, and in sector, and this is 12 Pennsylvania, built on volunteerism?
13                    I do municipal planning every day.                    It is 14 hard and I love those guys.                        The fire police guys, 15 the EMS guys, the EMT guys.                    Where are you going to 16 get these people in an aging sector?
17                    Now,  in      2003,      just        to give  you      some 18 numbers, 16.2 million patients across the country 19 arrived by ambulance in emergency department visits.
20  No different than here at Geisinger or wherever.
21 That's 31 ambulances arriving at an emergency room in 22 America every minute.
23                    Of  those,          40      percent      were    senior 24 citizens.        And you'll see where I'm going with that.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
63 1  So, 40 percent of the people making emergency room 2 visits are senior citizens.
3                    So, let's look at our demographic.                      Who's 4 going to take this population to the emergency room?
5  The Bureau of Labor Statistics has calculated the 6 average        age  and  the      median          years    of  tenure        for 7 persons in any specific occupation, easy to get, real 8 easy to get and it's updated annually.
9                    This data is obviously useful for career 10 planning, understanding turnover for my daughter, for 11 moving        out  of  the    house,        whatever.        Okay?          The 12 average age of workers in this occupation, which is 13 EMS technician, fire police, is 34.3.
14                    So,  this      population            is  getting    older.
15 The        ability  to  get      people        to      take  them  to        the 16 hospital is going down.                      Now, the average age for 17 most occupations is 38.                  PPL and the NRC never asked 18 this question.            What happens to an aging population 19 when we need to staff a nuclear power plant and when 20 we need to take a visit to the emergency room?                              Who's 21 going          to  take    them        there?              It's  an    inverse 22 relationship.
23                    If that's for me, tell them I'll be back 24 later.          Didn't we say turn off the cell phones?
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 Somebody didn't get the memo.                          All right.      PPL and 2 the NRC have failed to ask, let alone answer, who's 3 going to transport and provide the emergency services 4 for an economically distressed population in need of 5 medical services.
6                    So, let's take it one step further.                          You 7 guys spend a lot of money doing this and I appreciate 8 it.          You did the scoping.            You did the evaluation.
9 You did this, that and the other thing.
10                    You  never      examined            the  impact  of        re-11 licensing on aging human beings who live within the 12 shadow of the plant, and this is a disproportionately 13 older population.
14                    So,  let's      look        at        the  numbers.            In 15 Lucerne        county,  the      population              declined  almost            2 16 percent between 2000 and 2003.                          In Columbia, it was 17 almost a 1 percent decrease.
18                    The U.S. Census Bureau reported that the 19 average population of 65 years or older, per county 20 it's 12.4 across the country; and in Lucerne county 21 it's 19.7, 20 percent 65 or older; and at Columbia 15 22 percent; and Salem Township, which hosts the plant, 23 20 percent of the population is 65 or older.
24                    Didn't see any of this data in 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
 
65 1 although I did see some DLE statistics.                          Columbia and 2 Lucerne county are two of the six counties in the 29 3 county rate base.                That's PPL, "Above the system 4 average        percentage      on    the      poverty      level,"    PPL's 5 figure.
6                      So, PPL is telling you they've got older 7 people -- well, we're telling you the number of older 8 people, active seniors if you will, are way above the 9 norm, PPL's telling you in their report to the PUC 10 that the older people that we do have are above the 11 norm        in  terms  of    being,        you      know,  challenged          in 12 paying their bills.
13                      The bureau indicated that 22.8 percent of 14 Lucerne county, and 23 percent of Columbia county 15 populations qualify as low-income households eligible 16 for energy assistance, living or below the federal 17 poverty line.
18                      The other thing to look at is when you 19 take that number and break it out, people that are at 20 that        level,  at  or    below        poverty        lines,  are      less 21 likely        to  volunteer      to    provide          the  emergency        and 22 medical          technician        service.                So,  there's            a 23 correlation.
24                      What I'm saying to you is people are not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
66 1 abstract hypotheticals that you can rework into some 2 formula in a back room in D.C.                      Taken together, both 3 counties are holding older Pennsylvanians less likely 4 to be absorbed into a nuclear workforce.
5                The reality is Pennsylvania is the third 6 oldest state.        Our fastest growing population are 7 octogenarians.        That's        reality.            Fastest  growing 8 population are octogenarians, people being over 80.
9                So, we are going to continue to age.
10 Where are we going to get the workers from?                          That's 11 something we just don't do at this plant, but we have 12 a brain drain occurring throughout the state.
13                These    senior        citizens          are  concurrently 14 paying higher electric rates and more in property 15 taxes as a result of the plant.                      The company has not 16 anticipated or planned to address the hardships that 17 it created for the 65-plus community.
18                I  asked      this      in      2006.      This    is        my 19 question from a hearing.                Have you planned for this 20 community?      Here's      the      quote,          "PPL  Electric        has 21 conducted no polling to gauge residential customers' 22 awareness of rate caps, and the impact that removing 23 these rate caps will have on electric rates."
24                So, my opinion, failure to survey the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
67 1 impacts of the licensing on an aging community is an 2 indictment        on  your      inability            to  grasp  the      good 3 workforce and solid community are intangible points, 4 interchangeable parts.
5                    Now, I know this is different than other 6 places you go.          The point I'm trying to make is I 7 think          we have  to      move      away        from  the    generic 8 boilerplate model.            I mean, it's clear that this is 9 an aging population, a good population, good schools, 10 good folks, religious folks.                    It's a place where you 11 want to be, have a plan.                    Folks are getting older.
12 How do we retain them?              I mean, and that's what we're 13 working on.
14                    On the tax issue, it was interesting, 15 because I do appreciate the amount of work that went 16 into it, but it was interesting, because you didn't -
17 - by the way, did you guys read, do you read their 18 annual reports when you do this?                          Do you read the 19 annual reports?        Do you read the SEC reports?                    Do you 20 read the 10k reports?                All right, but did you read 21 the annual report this year?
22                    Let me, an interesting spin on the taxes, 23 and this is something you may not capture in other 24 states, look, deregulation shifted power plants back 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 to the local tax rolls under the assumption utilities 2 would pay at least the same as they had paid, you 3 know, subject to real estate costs.
4                    This  company          basically          picked  up      2.86 5 billion        in  stranded      costs,        which      is  interesting, 6 because we keep talking about economics, but when 7 this plant was built, it was basically twice as much 8 as predicted.          It was predicted to be 2, came in at 9 around 4.        I'm rounding the numbers.
10                    So, it will be interesting to see where 11 they come in with the next plant, which I don't think 12 is going to be built.                But these economics come back 13 and hit the same people that I've been talking about, 14 seniors.          If you're on a fixed income and you're 15 paying higher electric rates, watch what happens to 16 your taxes.
17                    I think both of the analysis that you use 18 and the company use are flawed.                            PPL's analysis is 19 interesting, because I think it's limited to a, I 20 think a five year snapshot, 2001-2005.                            I think your 21 snapshot was about the same.                      It didn't look at pre-22 PURTA, or PURTA numbers.
23                    So,  you      basically              compressed    it        and 24 flattened        it  out    and        you      don't        have  a    really NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
69 1 congruent perspective.              But what's interesting is the 2 amount of money, if you put it out on a graph and 3 plot it, it's very interesting.                          The amount of money 4 the company's making versus the amount of money the 5 taxes they're paying.
6                    So, while the one is flat the other one's 7 high.          Now, if that's the case, and in America we 8 like to see that, that's a business being profitable.
9  Good for them.
10                    If that's the case, there's no reason to 11 recover stranded costs, 2.86 billion.                          The rate payer 12 gave them 2.86 billion, because they couldn't recover 13 the costs in the marketplace.                      They're exploding with 14 profit.
15                    So, basically they're double dipping, and 16 I'll show you what we're talking about.                              This is 17 according to the president of the company in an April 18 4 letter to the shareholder.                          I am a shareholder.
19 "PPL's total return has been 254 percent,"                          more than 20 three times return on the S&P index over the last 21 five years.
22                    So, the same time that you compressed 23 your          snapshot  on  taxes,        you        didn't  look  at        the 24 earning ability, or the ability of this company 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
 
70 1 pay taxes, nor did you take a historical snapshot to 2 see what their contributions were when they first 3 began          in  operation        and        what      they  are        now.
4 Longitudinal perspective, basic economics, would love 5 to see you do it.
6                    Let's look at what they paid in 1984.
7 Let's look at what they paid now.                        Let's look at how 8 much they're making.                You know, you just take these 9 charts and compare it.                    Same thing with the RIS.
10 Let's just, I mean, I can help you with these metrics 11 and        I'll  charge  you      less      than      the  Argonne      guy, 12 guaranteed.
13                    What's interesting to me, and I don't 14 know how you did this, the staffing level I think 15 came from the Chamber of Commerce, it didn't come 16 from the company.            So, PPL will have to acknowledge 17 whether or not, I noticed all the numbers were round.
18                    One thousand people working at the plant 19 is proportionately, per reactor, much lower than any 20 other reactor in this state.                        That's an interesting 21 correlation, and this all ties together.
22                    What I'm wondering is if it's an older 23 workforce and you're not able to pull people.                                    Is 24 that the reason why they have less people per reactor 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 working, or maybe they're saying they're a better 2 company.          I don't know.
3                    The number I got was 1000.                      Did anybody 4 probe that, or you just republished it?                              I mean, if 5 you        look  in  your,      you      basically          just  take      your 6 Chamber          of  Commerce      numbers          that    says  PPL,      1000 7 employees.
8                    What's interesting, we don't say union, 9 non-union.          We don't look at the employees they had 10 five years ago, ten years ago compared to what we 11 have.          If you read the annual report, you'll see that 12 we're down about 20 percent.
13                    So, if you took that trend and projected 14 it into the GEIS, it would be safe to assume that the 15 number of people working at this plant is going to 16 continue to trend downwards.                          The number of people 17 paying taxes, trend downwards.                              PPL has a lot of 18 people          doing  great        volunteer              stuff,    trending 19 downwards, never captured in here.
20                    It's interesting, because I'm usually not 21 a fan of Peach Bottom or TMI, but proportionately 22 their numbers are much higher.                            I would assume the 23 numbers          they  gave    you      does        not    include    security 24 personnel.          Nor is there any trending done for what 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 most          businesses      do      now,        retirements,        attrition, 2 early-out, full-time versus part-time, outsourcing.
3                      I'm  a    member          of      the    American    Nuclear 4 Society.            Everybody in this room who works for the 5 industry is aware that the nuclear industry is, we're 6 going through an institutional shock.                              You know, most 7 people are leaving.                    We don't have the same core 8 people you used to have.
9                      Here I am, a guy who's been known to be 10 anti-nuclear, saying, "Yes.                              You actually need to 11 beef pro-nuclear engineering, because we need people 12 to staff the plants."                    I mean, you look at the last 13 ANS publication, it was almost totally devoted to the 14 fact that you don't have enough people working in the 15 field.
16                      If you don't have enough people working 17 in      the      field,    and      you      don't          have  enough    people 18 regulating in the field, why wouldn't it be captured 19 in your GEIS?            Who's going to work at the plant down 20 the        road?        Are  they      going        to    be  coming  from          a 21 dedicated science, or do we have to basically finesse 22 the science they're at in order to make them stretch 23 into a job?            Issues I'd be looking at.
24                      I  know      at      TMI,        50    out,  everybody's 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 leaving.        I don't know what's happening here.                                    I 2 don't know what the average age is.                                It's not in 3 here.          I  mean,    things          I    think        would  have      been 4 interesting to know when trend up.
5                    I believe, and let me conclude by saying, 6 the NRC attempted to address these issues.                              I think 7 you did try and do it.                I don't think you succeeded.
8                    I'm  just        saying          that    re-licensing            a 9 nuclear power plant should not impose an economic 10 hardship on the host community.                          That's not the way 11 it was advertised when it came in at either TMI, 12 Peach Bottom, or Susquehanna.                          And I have all the 13 documents        when  all      of      these        plants    came  to        the 14 community,        and  this      is      after        the  "too  cheap          to 15 meter."        I know that line's been beat up, but what it 16 was going to do.
17                    Just for fun, go back and look at how 18 many people worked at this plant when it came on-19 line, look at how many people work now.                            Look at how 20 much they're paying in taxes, and look how much an 21 economic investment.                Really interesting if you can 22 get the money, or if you can get the figures.
23                    You  know        the      NRC,        in  my  mind,      must 24 reexamine the economic impact of Susquehanna 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
 
74 1 community or address how re-licensing a nuclear power 2 plant, while shifting the tax burden and increasing 3 the rates on an aging community, is compatible with 4 your mission.          I don't think it is.
5                    Now, I read all the NEI stuff, and the 6 other stuff you read and everything.                        This is like an 7 economic microwave.                It's not reality.              What I'm 8 saying to you is that, before you re-license and 9 uprate        the  plant,    it    would        be    nice  to  have        the 10 questions I raised issued.
11                    And it would be nice to at least know 12 that you're taking some of the thoughts that I'm 13 sharing        with  you    into      consideration,          so  that        it 14 strengthens your licensing process.
15                    I'm going to conclude with a couple of 16 points.          The NRC and PPL must confront unresolved 17 water use, water safety, and inter-agency issues, 18 even if they fall outside the conventional nuclear 19 toolbox.        I mean, let's be proactive here.
20                    Power generation, plant cooling, public 21 safety        are  inherently        connected.            There    is        no 22 separate        imaginary      fence        between        generation        and 23 safety.        Although that's what you guys "found" in the 24 hearing when you denied my contentions.
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                    I  think      we've      demonstrated        that    aging 2 equipment,          coupled        with      water        shortages,      water 3 chemistry, or invasive aquatic species, could create 4 safety challenges at the plant over the life of the 5 extension.          How are we going to respond?                    There's no 6 plan A.        There's no plan B, no plan C.
7                    The impact of re-licensing on the local 8 community is material and germane, and the NRC should 9 not sanction the re-licensing of a nuclear plant that 10 will        result  in  increased          property        tax  burden        for 11 older residents.
12                    What I'm saying here is that I don't 13 think there's any artificial regulatory moat between 14 the SRBC and NRC, the EPA, or the DEP, and what I 15 would have liked to have seen and you still have time 16 to      do    it,  is  if    you      go    down        and  interact      more 17 aggressively with your sister, brother agencies.                                  I'm 18 not sure what pronoun to use anymore.
19                    There's got to be a better way.                    And this 20 is,        again,  where    I'm      coming          from    as  a  consumer 21 advocate with health insurance outpacing inflation, 22 property        taxes    steadily          increasing,          and  electric 23 rates poised to spike.                Can consumers afford to live 24 near a nuclear power plant that produces rate hikes?
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  I mean, I can't solve that riddle.                            Maybe you can.
2                      Just a point of clarification, I just 3 want to make sure that we're all clear here.                                        You 4 guys are aware that I have two rule-making petitions 5 filed before the NRC.                You either are or you aren't, 6 because one of the rule-making petitions asks that 7 the        re-licensing      of      a      nuclear          power    plant          be 8 contingent          on  the    issuance          of      the  newly  approved 9 emergency plant.            You're aware, I'm just asking you 10 now.          That's been filed.              That's been with the NRC 11 now for over a year.
12                      So, that is likely to have an issuance 13 before the final process here is granted.                                  Are you 14 aware of the other petition that we have, which is 15 asking that the relocation centers for special needs 16 populations          be  moved        at    least          ten  miles  from          a 17 nuclear power plant?
18                      What I'm saying to you, again, is that it 19 wasn't happenstance that I filed them when I filed 20 them.          So, I'm being really up front with you that 21 we'll contend the re-licensing of this plant if that 22 issue is not dealt with.
23                      I mean, it's been there for a while.                            You 24 guys have held it in abeyance for a year.                                  I think NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
77 1 it's wrong, but then again the petition we filed on 2 security        is  now  seven        years        old. I'm  not        too 3 optimistic there.
4                    The other thing, and I want to just, this 5 is the last question I want to end with, is if you 6 look at the annual report, by the way it's a nice 7 report, the Einstein guy there you've got to like, 8 apparently had hair lice.
9                    If you go to page 105, and it doesn't, in 10 every annual report it talks about nuclear insurance 11 and just let me read you this: "PPL Susquehanna is a 12 member of certain insurance programs that provide 13 coverage for property damage to a member's nuclear 14 generation station.                Facilities at the Susquehanna 15 Station        are    insured      against            property  damage          as 16 losses, up to 2.7 billion, under these programs."
17                    Final thought is this, the people I just 18 talked        about    and    advocated            for,  they're    senior 19 citizens on a fixed income.                      Those people are having 20 a hard time dealing with healthcare, filling up their 21 gas tank.        They're going to get rate shock.                    Can they 22 take that insurance out on their home if there's an 23 accident, and I think you know the answer.
24                    If this technology is so safe, and if NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
78 1 we're going to re-license the plant, don't you think 2 it's          time  we're    at      least        allowed        to  take        out 3 insurance for our plant, our home, our business?
4                      But look, I'm hoping that we can bond 5 afterwards, maybe we can engage.                            I have extra copies 6 of my comments here.                I'll be filing these formally.
7  I will read the next iteration, but hopefully you 8 understand          that    the      criticisms            are  intended          to 9 strengthen your process and alert you to things you 10 may have missed.              Do you guys, the PPL guys there, 11 you got an extra of these?                    Extra for the NRC?
12                      MR. LEOUS:            Great.            Thank you, Eric.
13 Actually,          just    one      moment.              There    is    another 14 gentleman that had signed up to speak, so we can get 15 to that.          I have a John Zaginaylo.
16                      MR. ZAGINAYLO:                    My    name  is        John 17 Zaginaylo.          I'm not really, really prepared for this.
18  I picked up the article in the local newspaper, 19 thought          I'd  better    come        down.          My  family    and        I 20 operate a small dairy farm and crop farm in Briar 21 Creek Township in the 10-mile, I won't use dead zone, 22 but high-risk zone.                  And they don't know I'm here 23 tonight.
24                      My wife's home milking and my kids are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
79 1 getting ready to plant corn and I should be doing all 2 that, but I want to personally say that I'm here 3 because I have significant concerns and I really am 4 concerned about what goes on with my neighboring PPL 5 plant.
6                  And we have a future in agriculture here 7 and my daughter's coming home.                        She wants to operate 8 the farm, and just to kind of give you a personal 9 reason that it took a little effort to get here to 10 make these comments, I will provide formal comments 11 when I organize my thoughts a little better, but I've 12 got them on a little paper here right now.
13                  But      I      also        have        an    engineering 14 background.          I'm    also        a    registered        professional 15 engineer.          What    is      generally            lacking    in      this 16 environment, when I looked and I quickly hurried and 17 looked        on the  website,          there's        nothing  there          on 18 production        agriculture.                I      even  looked      under 19 endangered species and I thought it would be there, 20 but it wasn't.
21                  So,    production                agriculture      in        our 22 community is real.            There are dairy farms.                There are 23 vegetable farms.          They're very big.                  Certainly cereal 24 grain farms.        It's not real blatant in the community, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
80 1 but it's real for those of us working in it, and we 2 live in the environment.
3                      The environment is part of us.                    So, the 4 Environmental Impact Statement is very dear to me, 5 and I'm concerned about it.                    And I'd like to see your 6 report, or your study, acknowledge that, and go into 7 some          depth,  because      we're        producing      milk,    fresh 8 vegetables          consumed      by      our      local    residents        and 9 outside the area.            We also produce cereal grains that 10 are fed to other people.                      If they are, I'd like to 11 know the quality and the safety of those foods there.
12 13                      Personally,        they        say    they  test    dairy 14 products.          I have not seen anybody test any of our 15 milk or products that we sell or raise.                            And there 16 are not many dairy farms in the community.                            I would 17 expect that we would have been approached in some 18 manner for this environmental impact.
19                      So, production agriculture is completely 20 absent,          and  I  think      this      thing      shouldn't  go        any 21 further until that stone's unturned somewhat.                                    The 22 fact that it is absent kind of alarms me, saying that 23 if they overlooked such an important part of our 24 community, even though it's not blatant to most, but NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
81 1 what other things have they overlooked?                            What has 2 been          glossed  over      and      not        fully developed        and 3 studied?
4                      I'm not aware of all of the components, 5 socio-economic one might be one, but I think we need 6 to be concerned about the volume of the document, the 7 generic of it.              I'd like to see an Environmental 8 Impact Statement that's very site-specific.
9                      I want to see data that I recognize, my 10 neighbor's farm, products that we market and raise.
11 The        things    that,    specific          examples    of  how        the 12 environment can affect us, for instance, everybody 13 sees the plume and I'm not reacting to the plume, but 14 a plume means moisture in the air.
15                      Heat going into the river means increased 16 temperature.            Light visibility is important to the 17 crops in order to get growing through the days, and 18 getting the production, and the yields that we want.
19  And if we don't have the right amount of sunlight, 20 we're being deprived and I think it needs to be 21 looked at.            Things like growing degree days and how 22 they affect crop production.
23                      What's the trend over the years?                          Has 24 this area sustained lower production?                        Is the quality NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
 
82 1 of our product different?                      I don't know for sure.
2 The other thing on the animal side, there's a lot of 3 variables that cost us money in production with the 4 dairy cows.        And we're always looking for the answers 5 to resolve them.
6                  For example, reproductive efficiency.                          We 7 kind of keep our cows a long time, so we're really 8 concerned about our animal welfare and health.                                  And 9 part of that is breeding them back, so they stay on 10 the farm, productive and reproductive efficiency is 11 affected by many things.
12                  Is it affected by the plant?                      Does the 13 plant affect the food that they eat, and basically 14 like selenium, or some kind of micronutrient that may 15 affect their reproductive efficiency.                        That's costing 16 us money.        If our cows don't get bred back for every 17 month they go, it costs us a lot of money.                            And to 18 sustain        our  livelihood          in        our    business,      those 19 subtleties        are  very      critical,            something  we    can't 20 control.
21                  So, I just challenge you, and I'll knock 22 it off closely here, that put production agriculture 23 in all aspects, dairy, fresh vegetables, and cereal 24 grains, or crop production, and look at that 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
 
83 1 trends          and  how  a    plume,        and        how  radiation,          how 2 micronutrients an things might be affected.
3                      And then, I think your report will look 4 more complete, and not so suspect that maybe other 5 areas aren't fully developed.                            And I'll try to put 6 those comments in writing to you.                              So, it's time to 7 plant corn and beans.                I don't know how much I'll get 8 to you before the end of June.                          So, thank you.
9                      MR. LEOUS:        Great.          Thank you, sir.            And 10 for the presentation, knowing that you are busy, you 11 do have until July 21st to submit comments.                            Now, Sue, 12 I know you had a comment for Eric and we can take 13 that        offline    at  the      meeting's            conclusion.          Does 14 anyone          else  have      any        comments          on    the      draft 15 Environmental Impact Statement?                          Okay.
16                      MS. FRACKE:          Eric, when you were talking 17 before, and I understood you better than everybody 18 else          except  the    last      fellow,            but  you  mentioned 19 something about that they're going to have to upgrade 20 or do something to the nuclear power plants within 21 the next three years or something.                            Something's going 22 to come out to do that.
23                      So, would that be the reason that, if 24 they        get  another    license          renewal,        that  will      even NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
84 1 further grandfather them, so they won't have to be 2 into that upgrading thing?
3                    MR. LEOUS:          Actually, Eric, I can take 4 this here.
5                    MR. EPSTEIN:          Okay.
6                    MR. LEOUS:      If we could just --
7                    MR. EPSTEIN:          Yes.          I was talking about 8 Exelon and I think their strategic architecture was 9 in      the    next  three    years        to      re-license  all    their 10 plants, to have uprates at all their plants.                          I think 11 PPL, and they're here, they can correct me if I'm 12 wrong.        I think this is their third uprate.                    They've 13 had two other uprates.
14                    But I think most power plants across the 15 country, I'm not sure I know of any that hasn't had 16 an uprate, which is increasing their capacity.
17                    So, I would imagine PPL is better suited 18 to answer this, that, and maybe the NRC can answer 19 this.          I think most plants now are going for re-20 licensing, and concurrent with that, an uprate.                              Does 21 that seem to make sense?
22                    MR. LEOUS:            Eric, you have experience 23 with this.
24                    MR. BENNER:        Yes.        Essentially, 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
 
85 1                      MR. EPSTEIN:            I'm responding to Sue's 2 question.          What I'm saying generic that I think most 3 plants, I know all plants have uprated.                          I think PPL, 4 this will be their third uprate.                            It's probably the 5 largest.            I  think    many      plants        now  that    are        re-6 licensing are also coming in with an uprate request.
7                      MR. BENNER:          Yes.          I wouldn't think it 8 was many.          You know, we have regulations for what an 9 applicant needs to do to renew their license, and we 10 have regulations for what an applicant needs to do to 11 do a power uprate.
12                      And just for explanation purposes, there 13 are different types of power uprates.                            What they do, 14 for        the  different    types,        is      allow  the  plant          to 15 operate at a higher power level.
16                      So, when we say uprate, you know, if a 17 plant puts out 1000 megawatts, it would allow a plant 18 to put out 1100 megawatts.                    So, with that, depending 19 on the size of the uprate means different equipment 20 changes that need to be made to the plant.
21                      MR. EPSTEIN:            I don't want to run this 22 out.          There's two different processes.                  Re-licensing 23 a plant is a much more in-depth process.                            Uprating is 24 something          that  occurs        frequently.              I  guess          my NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
86 1 question to you is, you can uprate a plant without a 2 re-license        and  I    think        that        every  plant  in        the 3 country, unless I'm missing something, has had at 4 least one uprate.
5                    MR. BENNER:            Yes.          I  don't  know        the 6 statistics.        I don't think that's the case.                    I mean, 7 I think there are a number of plants that haven't 8 gone through power uprates.                    Whether they do or not, 9 whether they apply to or not, is their decision, 10 which I would guess would be based on economics.
11 Whether or not we approve the uprate is based upon 12 assurance that operation at the uprated power levels 13 would be safe.
14                    MR. EPSTEIN:            Let's        just  cut  to        the 15 chase.        I mean, I'm actually using the NEI numbers.
16 Let's say it's 90 percent of the plants that have had 17 an uprate.        Almost all the plants have had an uprate.
18  It's rare that it's rejected.                          It's rare that a 19 license is rejected.
20                    So, there's two currents going in here.
21 A plant comes in and asks to be re-licensed.                                None 22 have been rejected so far.                  I think there have been a 23 couple of uprates that have been rejected.
24                    But what I'm saying to you is the trend NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
87 1 is this, plants are getting re-licensed for 20 years, 2 they're          getting      uprates.                    There's    very          few 3 exceptions.            Is that a correct -- I'm asking you, 4 unless I'm missing something.                          Is that not a correct 5 trend?
6                      MR. BENNER:          I think the trend, and this 7 goes back to the comment you made about contentions 8 being          admitted,    is      after        the        original  round          of 9 licensing of these plants, I think the NRC factor 10 those lessons into its licensing processes to look at 11 those          issues    that    were        admitted        the  first      time 12 around.                              And      I      think      the  industry, 13 realizing          that    these          licensing          processes          are 14 challenging, and anyone who has delved into the re-15 licensing          requirements,              if        you    look    at        our 16 regulations, and you look at our, we have for the 17 staff's review we have a standard review plan, which 18 is new regulation 1800, which outlines the things the 19 staff has to look at.
20                      We also have an environmental standard 21 review          plan,  which    is    new      regulation        1555,    which 22 outlines the environmental issues the staff has to 23 look at.          We have regulatory guides, which tell the 24 industry what information they need to provide.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
88 1                    I think we've all grown to a point where, 2 before an applicant applies, for either a renewal or 3 power uprate, they put the energy into developing the 4 information we need to assure that the plant can 5 operate safely under either of those conditions.
6                    MR. EPSTEIN:          Let me just --
7                    MR. LEOUS:      One second here.
8                    MR. BENNER:          There's no trend, per se.
9 It's an application, it's generally only going to be 10 submitted once the applicant has developed adequate 11 information to meet the commission's regulations.
12                    MR. LEOUS:          Right.          And, Eric, not to 13 interrupt.        What I would like to do is, and in no way 14 to stymie this dialogue, however, I would like to 15 bring this meeting back to the purpose in terms of 16 discussing the draft Environmental Impact Statement.
17  And I would encourage this dialog to continue, but 18 what I'd like to do is stick a pin in it for now, and 19 --
20                    MR. EPSTEIN:            Well, let me just make a 21 point here, because I think at issue is, because I 22 don't know where else to ask this question, is the 23 generic application of how you re-license plants.
24 And        basically  you're      saying          you've  learned      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
 
89 1 lessons, and you're taking those lessons learned from 2 the first time around.
3                      The lesson you haven't learned, and this 4 is      what      concerns  me,      is      the      hubris  that  exists.
5 Prior          to  1979,  there          was        this  arrogance        that 6 permeated the industry and the NRC.                            I'm seeing it 7 come back.            I'm willing to concede things have gotten 8 better, and you've learned some lessons.
9                      But for you to come here and say there's 10 no trend, or we basically learned all the lessons we 11 need to learn.            Let me just point something out to 12 you.          When we intervened on the re-licensing of unit 13 2, had we not raised a contention of a reinforced 14 containment structure, that was us.                          That was us, not 15 you guys.          We raised it.
16                      The TMI 2 accident would have been much 17 more severe.            We raised it, because nobody wanted to 18 examine the proximity of a nuclear power plant near 19 an airport.            I mean, that's insane.
20                      So, what I'm saying to you, none of us in 21 this room can say that we've learned all the lessons, 22 or we need to know what we have to do.                              As you're 23 constricting the process, all I'm pleading you to do 24 is to think about widening the process.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
90 1                    Arrogance is a very dangerous emotion.
2 That's what I'm seeing here.                      And I don't, look, this 3 is the third re-licensing I've been to.                                I'm not 4 doing any more, because essentially I think it's a 5 farce.          I think it's clear you know how I feel.
6                    But, man, you've got to have an open 7 mind.          You've got to be willing to concede that other 8 people have comments, concerns, issues raised that 9 can make this process stronger.
10                    But  every        plant        has    been  re-licensed.
11 Very few uprates have been turned down.                              You know, 12 that's like an election in Syria, and I wouldn't call 13 Syria a democracy, and I wouldn't call this an open 14 and transparent process.
15                    So, I've got to tell you, you know, have 16 you gotten better?            Yes.        I lived through TMI.              I've 17 done Peach Bottom.            Yes, things have improved, but to 18 sit        on  your  laurels      and      be      content,  Eric,      it's 19 dangerous.          That's my warning to you.
20                    MR. LEOUS:        Great, and --
21                    MR. BENNER:        I appreciate that.
22                    MR. LEOUS:        And again, I think this is a 23 great dialog that we should continue, you know, after 24 this        meeting. But      to      bring        things  back  to        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
 
91 1 purpose          of    the    Susquehanna                  draft  supplemental 2 Environmental Impact Statement, barring no further 3 comments on the document, I'd invite Eric to wrap up.
4                    MR. BENNER:        And I think that's a perfect 5 segue to my wrap-up, because I don't think we're 6 sitting on our laurels.                    I think by virtue of the 7 fact that we actively solicit public comments, both 8 in the scoping process and in this meeting.                              All we 9 can do is solicit.              We can't require people to come 10 to this meeting.
11                    MS. FRACKE:          If they all knew the truth, 12 they'd be here.            You guys lie so damn much.                            You 13 don't give a damn about anything but your money.                                  I'm 14 disgusted.
15                    MR. LEOUS:        Sue, I just ask you to --
16                    MR. BENNER:        Yes.
17                    MR. LEOUS:        -- while Eric finishes up his 18 final comments.          Thank you.
19                    MR. BENNER:          Yes.        I think I allowed you 20 to          speak    and    I      would          appreciate      the        same 21 consideration.          May I?        As I said, we have an active 22 program        to  solicit      comments            on    the environmental 23 review.        That's our purpose here tonight.
24                    I  appreciate          all      of    the comments        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
 
92 1 provided.            Several      of      these        comments  have      been 2 provided previously and have been addressed in the 3 EIS.          Several comments we've heard tonight are new, 4 and those comments will be addressed in the final 5 Environmental Impact Statement.
6                      The  purpose          of      this    review    is        the 7 environmental impacts.                    There are other avenues to 8 engage the NRC, and Eric, you've articulated that 9 you've engaged several of them, the hearing process 10 by submitting contentions.                          We endorse that.                We 11 encourage that.
12                      I  don't      think        we're      sitting    on        our 13 laurels.          I think no one in the NRC believes that the 14 process          hasn't  been      strengthened            by  the    active 15 involvement by the public, and we would continue to 16 encourage you to do that.
17                      With that, like Drew said, we will be 18 accepting public comments for another period of time.
19  The slides we handed out provides the mechanisms by 20 which you can provide public comments.                            With that, we 21 do appreciate your time and your attendance.                                And I 22 wish you a good evening.                  Thank you.
23                      (Whereupon,        the      above-entitled        meeting 24 was concluded at 8:46 p.m.)
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.
93 1
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 +  +  +  +  +
2 3
3 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING 4 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 5 UNITS 1 AND 2 6  LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION 7 +  +  +  +  +
4 5
8 WEDNESDAY 9 MAY 28, 2008 10 +  +  +  +  +
6 7
11 7:00 p.m.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
12 +  +  +  +  +
(202) 234-4433     WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701  www.nealrgross.com}}
13 BERWICK, PENNSYLVANIA 14 +  +  +  +  +
15 The Public Meeting was convened at the Eagles 16 Building, 107 South Market Street, Berwick, PA, J.P.
17 Leous presiding.
18 NRC STAFF PARTICIPATING:
19  J.P. LEOUS 20  DREW STUYVENBERG 21  LANCE RAKOVAN 22  ERIC BENNER 23  IRENE YU 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 2  DIANE SCRENCI 1  P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2  (7:05 p.m.)
3  MR. LEOUS:  Good evening. My name is 4 J.P. Leous. It's my pleasure to welcome you here 5 this evening and to serve as tonight's facilitator 6 for our meeting on the draft Supplemental 7 Environmental Impact Statement for the license 8 renewal of Susquehanna Steam Electric Generating 9 Station, units 1 and 2.
10  The purpose of tonight's meeting is two-11 fold. First, to share NRC staff's findings contained 12 in the draft report. And second, to receive any 13 comments on this document, which is the 34 th 14 supplement to the generic Environmental Impact 15 Statement for license renewal of nuclear power 16 plants, otherwise known as new regulation 1437.
17  Before we kick things off, I would like 18 to take a moment to let you know what to expect from 19 tonight's meeting and set some ground rules. In a 20 moment, NRC's Environmental Project Manager for the 21 Susquehanna environmental review, Drew Stuyvenberg, 22 will share his team's preliminary findings with us.
23 Drew has been with the agency for about a year and a 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 3 half and hold's a master's degree from Duke 1 University in Energy and Environmental Policy.
2  Once Drew has concluded his presentation, 3 specifically on the results of the environmental 4 review and how you can submit comments, we'll open 5 things up to any questions you may have, and of 6 course, to receive comments from the public.
7  If you've already registered with us, I 8 have your name and we'll call you up. If you haven't 9 registered, but would like to speak, don't worry, 10 I'll be keeping an eye out for things and as we get 11 moving we'll call you up.
12  We are taking a transcript for tonight's 13 meeting, which is one of the reasons I'm using this 14 microphone. So during the public comment period, 15 when I do call you up, please step up to either 16 microphone and please state your name clearly into 17 the microphone and any affiliation you may have.
18 This will help us keep an accurate record of the 19 meeting.
20  Also, I'll ask that only one person speak 21 at a time. This will help our court reporter, Doug, 22 keep accurate records of tonight's meeting.
23  Before we start, I'd like to introduce 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 4some other NRC staff that are with us tonight.
1 First, Mr. Eric Benner, Eric is the Branch Chief for 2 the NRC's license renewal environmental technical 3 staff. And we also have Diane Screnci from NRC's 4 Office of Public Affairs.
5  We also have Kirk LaGory who is from 6 Argonne National Laboratory, and who is one of the 7 ecologists working on this project. Hopefully, when 8 you came in you were able to grab a copy of the 9 slides, as well as a public meeting feedback form.
10  If you do have a chance before you leave 11 tonight to fill out that form and return it to us 12 before you leave, that would be great.
13 Alternatively, at your leisure, you can complete that 14 form and mail it to us. It actually doubles as its 15 own envelope. So, no postage required. When you're 16 done filling it out, just pop it in the mail and it 17 will get to us, and this helps NRC staff improve the 18 public meeting process.
19  Please take a moment now to silence cell 20 phones or any other electronic gadgets you might 21 have, just to minimize disturbances as we get through 22 the meeting.
23  I'd also like to thank the Lucerne County 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 5 Community College and the Berwick Industrial 1 Development Agency for allowing us to host the 2 meeting here tonight. And with that, I'll turn 3 things over to Drew.
4  MR. STUYVENBERG:  Thank you, J.P. First 5 of all, I just wanted to take a moment to thank all 6 of you for coming out to this meeting this evening.
7 I hope the information that we provide you all will 8 help you understand the process that we're going 9 through, what we've done so far, and the role that 10 you can play helping us make sure that the final 11 Environmental Impact Statement is as accurate and 12 complete as possible.
13  I'd like to start off by briefly going 14 over the agenda and the purposes for today's meeting.
15  Next slide, please. I'll start off with a brief 16 overview of the license renewal process and then move 17 on to presenting the preliminary findings of the 18 staff's environmental review in which we've assessed 19 the impacts associated with renewing the operating 20 licenses for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.
21  Then I'll provide some information about 22 the schedule for the remainder of our review and 23 about how you can submit comments in the future. And 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 6 finally, we'll leave time for the most important part 1 of this meeting, and that's the chance to receive any 2 comments that you all may have. Next slide, please.
3  The Atomic Energy Act gives the U.S.
4 Nuclear Regulatory Commission the authority to issue 5 operating licenses for commercial nuclear power 6 plants for a period of up to 40 years.
7  For Susquehanna, the licenses for units 1 8 and 2 will expire in 2022 and 2024 respectively. Our 9 regulations make provisions for extending plant 10 operation for an additional 20 years.
11  The NRC received PPL Susquehanna's 12 application for license renewal of units 1 and 2 on 13 September 13, 2006. As part of the NRC's overall 14 review of that application, we've performed an 15 environmental review in which we've looked at the 16 impacts that an additional 20 years of operation will 17 likely have on the environment.
18  We held meetings here on November 15, 19 2006 to discuss the overall license renewal process, 20 including both safety and environmental reviews, and 21 to seek your comments regarding issues that we needed 22 to evaluate.
23  Today, we're here to present the 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 7 preliminary results of our review that we've 1 documented in our draft Environmental Impact 2 Statement. After I present these preliminary 3 results, we'll open up the floor to your comments.
4 Next slide, please.
5  Next, I'd like to give you some 6 information on the statute that governs our 7 environmental review, and that's the National 8 Environmental Policy Act of 1969, commonly referred 9 to as NEPA.
10  NEPA requires that all federal agencies 11 follow a systematic approach in evaluating potential 12 environmental impacts associated with certain 13 actions. We at the NRC are required to 14 consider the impacts of the proposed action, which in 15 this case is license renewal. We are also required 16 to consider alternatives to the proposed action. The 17 NRC has determined that an EIS will be prepared for 18 any proposed license renewal of a nuclear plant.
19  NEPA and our Environmental Impact 20 Statement are disclosure tools. They're specifically 21 structured to involve individuals and groups from 22 outside the NRC. For example, this meeting is 23 intended to facilitate public participation in our 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 8 environmental review. Next slide, please.
1  The supplemental Environmental Impact 2 Statement -- I'm sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself.
3  This slide illustrates the NRC's environmental 4 review process that we use to evaluate the impacts of 5 license renewal. This process involves scoping 6 activities to seek out information; a site audit to 7 examine the local environment and how the plant 8 affects it; and the development of a document called 9 a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, or 10 SEIS, to contain the staff's analysis and 11 conclusions.
12  The draft supplemental Environmental 13 Impact Statement, which we published in April 2008, 14 provides the staff's preliminary assessments of the 15 environmental impacts expected during the license 16 renewal term. Next slide, please.
17  The supplemental Environmental Impact 18 Statement is a site-specific complement to the 19 agency's generic EIS for license renewal of all 20 nuclear power plants. In the mid-1990s, the NRC 21 developed a generic EIS by evaluating the impacts of 22 all operating nuclear power plants across the U.S.
23  The NRC looked at 92 separate issues, and 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 9 found that for 69 of those issues the impacts were 1 the same for all plants with similar features. The 2 NRC called these Category 1 issues, and we were able 3 to make generic conclusions that all of the impacts 4 on the environment will be small. The NRC was unable 5 to make similar determinations for the remaining 23 6 issues.
7  Together, the generic EIS and the 8 supplemental EIS form the staff's analysis of the 9 environmental impacts of license renewal for the 10 Susquehanna site.
11  Also during the review, the NRC staff 12 looks for and evaluates any new and significant 13 information that might call into question the 14 conclusions contained in the generic EIS, while also 15 searching for new issues not addressed at all in the 16 generic EIS. Next slide, please.
17  The conclusions in our generic EIS and 18 our supplemental EIS help the NRC to determine 19 whether license renewal is acceptable from an 20 environmental standpoint.
21  After we compare the impacts of license 22 renewal to the alternatives, we use the standards 23 shown on this slide to make our decision. Simply 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  10 put, we're trying to determine whether license 1 renewal is acceptable from an environmental 2 standpoint. Next slide, please.
3  NRC staff uses information from various 4 sources as we conduct our environmental review. We 5 use the information received in the environmental 6 report that was submitted as part of PPL 7 Susquehanna's license renewal application.
8  We also conducted an audit in May of last 9 year, and we toured the facility, observed the plant 10 systems, and evaluated interaction of the plant 11 operations with the surrounding environment.
12  During this audit, we talked to plant 13 personnel and reviewed specific documentation. We 14 also spoke to federal, state, and local officials.
15 Additionally, we considered the comments received 16 during the public scoping period.
17  All of this information form the basis of 18 our preliminary conclusions contained in the draft 19 supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Next 20 slide, please.
21  This slide shows some of the expertise 22 that we assembled for the Susquehanna environmental 23 review. As you can see, our diverse staff is made up 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  11 of biologists, economists, health physicists, and 1 other specialists. Next slide, please.
2  Here we see some of the major impact 3 areas that we address during the Susquehanna 4 environmental review. I'll discuss each of these 5 impact areas in a little more depth in a few moments.
6  Next slide, please.
7  So, a major question as we look at our 8 Environmental Impact Statement is how are impacts 9 quantified?  Now, the generic EIS defines three 10 impact levels: small, moderate, and large. I'm going 11 to use an example. This is a hypothetical example.
12  This example is, say, fish in the 13 Susquehanna River. So, let's say that despite 14 prevention measures, the operation of the Susquehanna 15 Steam Electric Station may affect fish populations, 16 because the plant takes in water from the river to 17 use for cooling.
18  Now, if the decrease in fish population, 19 because of the operation of the plant, is so small 20 that it can't be detected in relation to the overall 21 fish populations, then that impact would be small.
22  If the losses cause the fish population 23 to noticeably decline, but then stabilize at a lower 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  12 level, that would be a moderate impact.
1  If the losses cause the fish population 2 to decline to the point where it cannot be 3 stabilized, or continually declines, then the impact 4 would be large. We applied this type of 5 methodology to each resource area studied in the 6 environmental review, such as socio-economics, 7 consumptive water use, air quality, etcetera. Next 8 slide. I'll elaborate a little more on these types 9 of issues. Next slide, please.
10  So, the first set of issues that I'm 11 going to talk about relate to operation of the 12 cooling system at the plant. We looked at issues 13 like discharges from the plant into the river, 14 aquatic species being affected due to water intake 15 systems, and impacts of the cooling towers may have 16 on plants and birds.
17  All the cooling system impacts, in this 18 case applicable to Susquehanna, are Category 1 19 issues. This means that the NRC had made a generic 20 determination that the impacts from normal nuclear 21 plant operations, during the period of extended 22 operations, are small, because of how this plant's 23 design helps reduce impacts to the environment.
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  13  Since impacts from the plant aren't 1 expected to increase on a year-to-year basis during 2 the license renewal period, and since we found no new 3 and significant information while we reviewed all of 4 those aspects of the plant, we have preliminarily 5 adopted the generic conclusions that the impacts are 6 small for these issues. Next slide, please.
7  The NRC staff also looked for potential 8 impacts to threatened and endangered species. The 9 NRC staff identified three terrestrial species as 10 having the potential to occur on or near the 11 Susquehanna site, or near its associated transmission 12 line right-of-ways.
13  During consultation with the U.S. Fish 14 and Wildlife Service, they indicated only one of 15 these species, the Indiana bat, may occur at the site 16 or along the transmission line right-of-way.
17  During our consultation process, the Fish 18 and Wildlife Service determined that the license 19 renewal action will not have a significant adverse 20 effect on overall habitat quality for the Indiana 21 bat. The project is not likely to adversely affect 22 the species.
23  As part of the license renewal review 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  14 process, the NRC staff reviewed information provided 1 by PPL Susquehanna during the site audit; information 2 included in Susquehanna's environmental report; and 3 information from Pennsylvania state agencies, 4 including the Fish and Boat Commission, the 5 Department of Natural Resources and Conservation; and 6 the Department of Environmental Protection; as well 7 as the information provided by the U.S. Fish and 8 Wildlife Service.
9  The staff's preliminary determination is 10 that the impacts during the period of extended 11 operation of Susquehanna units 1 and 2 and its 12 associated transmission lines, on threatened or 13 endangered terrestrial species would be small. Next 14 slide, please.
15  Radiological issues are also a Category 1 16 issue, and therefore the impacts during the license 17 renewal period are small. By design, the operation 18 of nuclear power plants is expected to result in 19 small releases of radiological effluents, or 20 emissions, and Susquehanna is no exception.
21  During our site audit, though, we looked 22 at selected parts of the Radioactive Effluent, or 23 emission, Monitoring and Radiological Environmental 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  15 Monitoring Programs and supporting documentation.
1  We also looked at how gaseous and liquid 2 effluents are controlled, treated, monitored and 3 released, as well as how solid radioactive wastes are 4 handled, packaged and shipped.
5  We also met with staff from the 6 Pennsylvania Bureau of Radiation Protection. We 7 looked at how the applicant's radiation protection 8 program maintains radiological releases in compliance 9 with the NRC's regulations.
10  We also looked at the applicant's 11 radiological environmental monitoring data from on-12 site and off-site monitoring stations. The data 13 included the results of evaluations of water, milk, 14 fish, food products, and direct radiation.
15  Based on our review of the data, we found 16 that the calculated dose to the maximally exposed 17 member of the public to be well within the NRC's 18 radiation protection limits.
19  The dose of the maximally exposed person 20 is a conservative calculation which assumes maximum 21 values, such as breathing rate, food consumption, 22 drinking water, and proximity to the plant associated 23 with an individual who is exposed from all radiation 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  16 sources from the plant.
1  Based on a historical review of the 2 radiological data, and the current status of the 3 plant's radiological systems, the staff concluded 4 that the radiological releases from the plant are 5 expected to be similar on a year-to-year basis during 6 the period of extended operation.
7  During the staff's review, no new and 8 significant information related to this issue was 9 found, and thus we've adopted the findings in the 10 GEIS, and preliminarily concluded that the 11 radiological impact on human health and the 12 environment is small. Next slide, please.
13  Now, socio-economic impacts comprise a 14 wide array of issues, including impacts to public 15 services, education, aesthetics, recreation, housing, 16 utilities, transportation, historic and archeological 17 resources, and environmental justice.
18  The staff's independent review of data 19 provided by PPL Susquehanna, local and state 20 governments, the U.S. Census Bureau, and other 21 organizations, indicate that there would be no impact 22 in most socio-economic areas.
23  In the area of historic and archeological 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  17 resources, however, NRC staff preliminarily 1 determined that impacts may be moderate.
2  After reviewing documentation provided by 3 the applicant and by the Pennsylvania Historic and 4 Museums Commission, the NRC staff reached its 5 moderate conclusion, because significant 6 archeological resources are known to occur on the 7 site, but the entire site has not yet been surveyed.
8  In addition, PPL Susquehanna's procedures 9 for addressing new discoveries on-site may not 10 necessarily effectively protect these resources 11 should they be found in the future.
12  NRC staff recommended a number of 13 possible mitigation measures that could decrease the 14 level of impact in this area if implemented by PPL 15 Susquehanna. Next slide, please.
16  Another area of our review is what's 17 called postulated accidents. There are two classes 18 of accidents that we initially evaluated in our 19 generic EIS. The first of these is design-basis 20 accidents, and second is severe accidents.
21  Design-basis accidents, are those 22 accidents that the plant is designed to withstand 23 while creating only a low radiological risk to the 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  18public. The ability of the plant to withstand these 1 accidents has to be demonstrated before the plant is 2 granted its initial operating license.
3  Because the licensee has demonstrated 4 acceptable plant performance for the design-basis 5 accidents throughout the life of the plant, the 6 commission found in the generic EIS that the 7 environmental impacts of design-basis accidents is 8 small for all plants.
9  The second category of accidents is 10 severe accidents. Severe accidents are, by 11 definition, more severe than design-basis accidents, 12 because they may result in substantial damage to the 13 reactor core. The commission found in the generic 14 EIS that the risk of these accidents is small for all 15 plants.
16  Nevertheless, the commission determined 17 that alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must 18 be considered for all plants that have not already 19 done so. These are called severe accident mitigation 20 alternatives, or SAMAs, and require site-specific 21 analysis.
22  The purpose of the SAMA evaluation is to 23 ensure that plant changes, with the potential for 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  19 changing severe accident safety performance, are 1 identified and evaluated. Next slide, please.
2  So, the scope of potential plant 3 improvements considered, included hardware 4 modifications, procedural changes, training program 5 improvements, and a spectrum of various combinations 6 of alternatives. The scope includes SAMAs that would 7 prevent core damage, as well as SAMAs that would 8 improve containment performance if a core damage 9 event occurs.
10  The preliminary results of the 11 Susquehanna SAMA evaluation are summarized on this 12 slide. Fifteen potential SAMA candidate improvements 13 were identified for the Susquehanna units 1 and 2, 14 based on the review. Five of these SAMAs were 15 identified as being potentially cost-effective, or 16 cost beneficial, I should say.
17  None of those potentially cost beneficial 18 SAMAs, however, are related to managing the effects 19 of plant aging during the license renewal period.
20 Accordingly, they're not required to be implemented 21 as part of license renewal. Next slide, please.
22  Cumulative impacts are the impacts of 23 license renewal when taken together with other past, 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  20 present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions 1 regardless of what agency or person undertakes those 2 actions. It's kind of a broader look at how this 3 action fits in the context of things that have gone 4 on in this area before.
5  The NRC staff has identified many past, 6 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 7 that we've considered in this review for cumulative 8 impact on the environment.
9  The NRC staff identified past actions 10 like anthracite coal mining, or industrial 11 development and farming. Ongoing current effects, 12 including remaining industries, population centers, 13 and other economic activities, and potential future 14 actions like constructing and operating one or two 15 new units at or near the Susquehanna site.
16  The NRC staff evaluated the potential 17 effects of new units at the Susquehanna site, since 18 PPL Corporation submitted letters in May 2007 19 indicating its intent to file it for a combined 20 license application in late 2008 for one new unit.
21  In discussions with NRC staff, PPL 22 indicated that it may ultimately pursue two units at 23 the site. PPL Corporation has not yet submitted a 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  21 combined license application for a new unit or units.
1  And if and when it does so, the NRC staff would 2 review that application and decide whether to approve 3 or deny a license for the new facility at that time.
4  5  The environmental impacts of the combined 6 license action would be analyzed and addressed in a 7 separate Environmental Impact Statement that will be 8 prepared by NRC staff.
9  Based on our overall evaluation of past, 10 present, and future effects on the environment in the 11 region, overall cumulative impacts could range from 12 small to large.
13  Where we found large impacts, they were 14 typically the result of historic actions like the 15 coal mining I mentioned earlier, or like dam 16 construction on the Susquehanna River. Next slide, 17 please. 18  As part of the environmental review 19 process, we also evaluated a number of alternatives 20 to license renewal. Alternatives, in this case, are 21 options that could serve the same purpose as 22 Susquehanna units 1 and 2 would serve during the 23 period of extended operation.
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  22  Specifically, we looked at the impacts of 1 replacing the power from Susquehanna units 1 and 2, 2 which after completely implementing their extended 3 power up rate, would be approximately 2600 megawatts.
4  We considered alternative power sources, or using 5 conservation to reduce demand.
6  Specifically, energy alternatives we 7 evaluated included replacing Susquehanna's generation 8 with power from new coal, natural gas, or nuclear 9 units, as well as the impacts and capabilities of 10 providing replacement power from other providers.
11  Additionally, we looked at other 12 technologies, such as biomass, wind, and solar power 13 to see whether their available potential could 14 replace Susquehanna's units 1 and 2. We also 15 analyzed the combination of alternatives that 16 included conservation and continued operation of one 17 Susquehanna unit.
18  Finally, we addressed the impacts that 19 would likely result if NRC simply did not take action 20 to renew the licenses, and Susquehanna units 1 and 2 21 simply shut down at or before the end of their 22 current licenses. Next slide, please.
23  After each alternative, we looked at the 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  23 same types of issues that we did when we evaluated 1 the environmental impacts of license renewal to allow 2 us to directly compare the impacts of renewing the 3 unit 1 and 2 licenses with those potential 4 alternatives.
5  The NRC's preliminary conclusion is that 6 the environmental impacts of alternatives, including 7 not renewing the licenses, could reach moderate 8 levels in some of the categories evaluated, and large 9 levels in some resource areas for some alternatives.
10  11  For the combination alternative, the 12 environmental impacts would likely be small for most 13 areas considered, with several potential moderate 14 impacts. Next slide, please. During the 15 environmental review, we found no information that 16 was both new and significant.
17  Therefore we have, preliminarily, adopted 18 the generic EIS conclusions that the impact 19 associated with the 69 issues will continue to be 20 small, or we determined that some of those issues did 21 not apply to the Susquehanna plant.
22  In the Susquehanna draft Supplemental 23 Environmental Impact Statement, we analyzed the 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  24 remaining 23 site-specific issues and determined that 1 11 were applicable to Susquehanna units 1 and 2, 2 because of plant design or because of environmental 3 characteristics.
4  For 10 of these issues in environmental 5 justice, we preliminarily determined that the 6 environmental impacts resulting from these issues 7 would be small. Impacts to historic and 8 archeological resources, however, would likely be 9 moderate.
10  Based on these conclusions, the NRC's 11 preliminary recommendation is that the environmental 12 impacts of license renewal are not so great that 13 license renewal would be unreasonable. That is, we 14 have preliminarily concluded that license renewal is 15 acceptable from an environmental standpoint. Next 16 slide, please.
17  Now, listed here are some important dates 18 for the Susquehanna license renewal and environmental 19 review. In April of 2008, we issued the Supplemental 20 EIS and we're currently accepting public comments on 21 the draft until July 21 st of 2008. The final 22 supplemental EIS is scheduled to be published by 23 March of 2009. Next slide, please.
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  25  This slide identifies me as your primary 1 contact with the NRC for the environmental review of 2 Susquehanna Steam Electric Station. Ms. Evelyn 3 Gettys is the contact for any questions related to 4 safety review, and that safety review is currently 5 still ongoing.
6  Documents related to the Susquehanna 7 review may be found at the McBride Memorial Library 8 here in Berwick, and at the Mill Memorial Library in 9 Nanticoke.
10  At the bottom of the slide is the 11 internet address where you can directly access the 12 Susquehanna units 1 and 2 draft Supplemental 13 Environmental Impact Statement, and all of these 14 items are also in your packet. So, if there's 15 anything you want to write down, it's all in front of 16 you. Next slide, please.
17  There are several ways you can provide 18 your comments on the Susquehanna draft Environmental 19 Impact Statement.
20  First, you can provide your comments 21 today during the comment period of this meeting. If 22 perhaps, you're not ready to provide your comments 23 directly today, you can send your comment via email 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  26to the following address: susquehannaeis@nrc.gov.
1 It's posted up here and in your packets, and we'll be 2 sure to get those as well.
3  You can also send your comments by U.S.
4 mail, or you can hand deliver them, if you happen to 5 be in the area at our headquarters in Maryland.
6  And with that, this portion of the 7 presentation is concluded and you will soon be able 8 to offer your comments directly on the staff's review 9 and on our preliminary findings. Thank you.
10  MR. LEOUS:  Great!  Thank you, Drew.
11 Just before we get to the question and comment 12 period, just some housekeeping matters. Some of the 13 documents we've heard, you've heard us speak of 14 tonight, the draft supplemental Environmental Impact 15 Statement is here, and there's copies should you like 16 them. 17  Additionally, the generic Environmental 18 Impact Statement copy is here for you to peruse.
19 There's additional information on various issues that 20 the NRC deals with at the other end of the table.
21  All of these documents and plenty more 22 are available on the NRC's website, should you be so 23 interested. As Drew mentioned, I just want to 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  27 reiterate that we are accepting both oral comments 1 and written.
2  Should you have written comments that 3 you'd like to share with us tonight, feel free to 4 hand them to myself or any of the other NRC personnel 5 here. In addition, as Drew mentioned, we are 6 receiving comments well after tonight's meeting until 7 July 21 st , as Drew mentioned, numerous ways to get 8 those to us. Also, after the comment 9 period if there are any issues that you'd like to 10 discuss with staff, NRC's technical staff will be 11 here after the meeting for as long as you'd like to 12 chat with us.
13  So, there will be plenty of opportunity 14 to speak with you on a one-on-one basis, if that's 15 what you prefer. That being said, before we get to 16 comments, if anybody has any questions, in terms of 17 clarifying issues that Drew had mentioned, you can 18 just raise your hand and we can flesh those out.
19  Great. Yes. We actually need for Doug 20 to get it on the record, yes.
21  MS. FRACKE:  One of my questions is how 22 many here are from the government?  I know you said 23 the NRC and some others.
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  28  MR. LEOUS:  Well, in addition to Drew, 1 Eric, Lance, myself and Diane, and there is one 2 member of EPD here, as well. So, that's one, two, 3 three, four, five, six. Kirk is an employee of 4 Argonne National Laboratory as well. He's a 5 contractor for the NRC, yes.
6  MS. FRACKE:  How many are newspaper or 7 what kind of reporters are here today?
8  MR. LEOUS:  Is there anyone from the 9 media?  This afternoon we did have several reporters 10 from local media that did speak with Drew, but it 11 doesn't appear to be anybody here this evening.
12  MS. FRACKE:  What news media did you 13 contact? 14  MS. SCRENCI:  I'm Diane Screnci. I'm the 15 Public Affairs Officer. We did send out press 16 releases announcing the new availability of the draft 17 Environmental Impact Statement, as well as the 18 schedule for the meeting several weeks ago to all the 19 reporters in the area, and there were a couple of 20 reporters here this afternoon. There were three.
21  MS. FRACKE:  Do you remember any of the 22 reporters or the papers, radio, or T.V. that you 23 used? 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  29  MS. SCRENCI:  That were here today or 1 that we sent them to?
2  MS. FRACKE:  Yes, that it was sent to.
3  MR. LEOUS:  It's difficult without having 4 various microphones here. So, if you could take that 5 microphone, and I'll talk to her. The question was 6 essentially if you recall which newspapers or media 7 personnel were contacted. Is that correct?  Okay.
8  MS. SCRENCI:  We have a complete list of 9 newspapers, radio stations, T.V. stations that we 10 send to when we are issuing press releases for 11 Susquehanna. It's the Hazelton newspaper, the 12 Wilkes-Barre news media, the Scranton media. So, 13 it's all the reporters that are around the area.
14  MR. LEOUS:  Actually, Ms. Fracke, if we 15 could just --
16  MS. SCRENCI:  I absolutely don't recall 17 the names of any of the radio stations, but it's the, 18 what is it, the Press Enterprise, the -- I'm sorry, 19 off hand I don't recall any others, but I do have an 20 email list.
21  MR. LEOUS:  If we could just stick a pin 22 in this. This portion of meeting is really to 23 clarify any issues that Drew presented, just to make 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  30 sure that we communicated things, and we can 1 certainly get to other questions later. Just, in 2 this portion before we get to comments I just want to 3 make sure -- okay. Okay.
4  MS. FRACKE:  My neighbor was curious, 5 too. Why are they going so early for another license 6 when they just got one up to 2024?  Why now to 2044?
7  MR. LEOUS:  Drew?
8  MR. STUYVENBERG:  Just to briefly answer 9 that, NRC regulations allow an operating plant to 10 pursue license renewal after having 20 years of 11 operation. So, Susquehanna units 1 and 2 achieved 12 that several years ago. So, that's why they were 13 able to apply for a license renewal. Sometimes that 14 review can take several years.
15  MS. FRACKE:  But they just got one for 20 16 years. Why another 20 years?  Why up to 2044?  I 17 mean, that's crazy.
18  MR. LEOUS:  Well, Drew?
19  MR. STUYVENBERG:  I was going to say, 20 just to briefly explain, there initial license was 40 21 years. So, it's from when they first start operating 22 to 40 years afterwards. And so after they've 23 operated for 20 years into that 40 year period, they 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  31can then apply for a license renewal. But this is 1 their first renewal.
2  MR. LEOUS:  Okay. Actually, as Drew is 3 getting there, that question may best be answered by 4 plant personnel rather than NRC staff in terms of 5 their motivations for applying for license renewal.
6 This staff may not be in the best place to comment on 7 that. 8  Barring any other questions regarding the 9 review, we can get into the comment section here, and 10 I do have a Fred -- he's not there?  Okay, Sue, if 11 you wouldn't mind.
12  MS. FRACKE:  What does the NRC allow to 13 be admitted into the water and into the air from the 14 nuclear power plant?
15  MR. LEOUS:  Eric?
16  MR. BENNER:  Yes. I can't recite them 17 off the top of my head. Eric Benner, Branch Chief of 18 the Environmental Review Branch. There are limits on 19 what can be released. Primarily our review ensures 20 that the plant operated within regulations.
21  The part of the regulations that lists 22 all the different isotopes and the limits on those 23 different isotopes is 10CFR, part 21, or part 20, I'm 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  32 sorry. So, we have a copy of 10CFR here.
1  After we're done with the comment 2 portion, I'd be happy to show you some of that.
3 Really for our review, we're just looking to ensure 4 that the plant has complied with the regulations.
5 Well, and I articulated that I would be happy to show 6 you the regulations that I referred to.
7  MR. LEOUS:  Great. Thank you, Eric.
8 Sue, I know you expressed interest in sharing some 9 comments with us tonight. So, if you would care to 10 step up to the podium.
11  MS. FRACKE:  My name is Sue Fracke. I 12 live in the ten-mile dead zone around the plant in 13 Sugarloaf. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen who 14 sincerely care about the health, safety, and welfare 15 of people everywhere.
16  For those of you in the nuclear industry, 17 whether government or business, may you conceive the 18 ugly diseases that you have helped innocent people 19 die from, or be crippled with for the rest of their 20 lives. I cannot wish you a good anything. The last 21 time I spoke out at one of these type meetings, a man 22 came up to me and said, "Sue, you always say the same 23 thing."    And I told him, "That is 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  33 because nothing has changed with the nuclear 1 industry, still giving us the same old load of feces, 2 such as, `I'm not afraid to move my family close by.
3  I wouldn't submit my children to anything that could 4 harm them.'," and that is what scares me about you 5 people. You're as stupid as our appointed president, 6 and who thinks he's anointed.
7  Every year, 20,000 people die of cancer 8 from naturally occurring background radiation. You 9 would think that this fact alone would be enough to 10 say let us not produce any more radiation, as it will 11 kill more people.
12  With all our other means of making 13 energy, especially all the various kinds of solar 14 energy that we now have the technology to do, it 15 makes no sense to use a source of energy that is 16 dangerous and will cause more people to die of cancer 17 and other degenerative diseases. Even if some people 18 are cured from cancer, they will worry forever that 19 it will come back to them and all the suffering that 20 comes with it, and many times it does come back.
21  In the Federal Register, December 15, 22 1989, part 2, by the Environmental Protection Agency, 23 40CFR, part 61, national emissions standards for 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  34 hazardous air pollutants, radionuclides, final rule 1 notice, etc. reiterated from the Federal Register of 2 December 27, 1979, the EPA listed radionuclides as a 3 hazardous air pollutant.
4  EPA determined that radionuclides are a 5 known cause of cancer and genetic damage, and that 6 radionuclides cause or contribute to air pollution 7 that may reasonably be anticipated to result in an 8 increase in mortality, or an increase in serious 9 irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness, 10 and therefore constitutes a hazardous air pollutant 11 within the meaning of Section 112A-1.
12  There are three major types of long-term 13 health impacts from exposure to radiation: cancer, 14 hereditary effects and developmental effects on 15 fetuses, such as mental retardation.
16  In addition, risk distribution from 17 radiation for most of the sources considered for 18 regulation show that fatal cancers occur much more 19 frequently than non-fatal cancers. And cancers 20 generally occur more often than genetic or 21 developmental effects.
22  It also states that numerous studies have 23 demonstrated that radiation is a carcinogen. I don't 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  35get that you guys don't seem to recognize this. It 1 is assumed that there is no completely risk-free 2 level of exposure to radiation to cause cancer.
3  That's right in the Federal Register. I 4 guess you guys don't read it. Radiation corrodes 5 metal, such as in the pipes of nuclear power plants, 6 causing holes that constantly emit radiation in our 7 air under the routine operation of the plants.
8  Radiation is cumulative in our bodies, 9 and the effects of exposure can sometimes take many 10 years before showing up. And we were worried that 11 Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
12 We've got them, 110 or more or less in our country 13 right now.
14  Along with radioactive air pollutants, 15 the Environmental Protection Agency reports that in 16 2002, 24,379 U.S. non-nuclear facilities released 17 4.79 billion pounds of toxins into the atmosphere.
18  Of these pollutants, 72 million pounds 19 were known carcinogens. We have no concept of the 20 synergistic effects of these toxins when they are 21 mixed with radioactive pollutants. These toxins 22 impinge on health during your entire life, even 23 before birth.
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  36  A study in New York city shows that the 1 genetic material in fetuses still in their mother's 2 womb is damaged by air pollution. From the Radiation 3 and Public Health Project in Norristown, 4 Pennsylvania, they have found that, "Current 5 emissions, current rates of infant deaths, childhood 6 cancer, and thyroid cancer are known to be affected 7 by emissions from nuclear reactors are elevated in 8 Lucerne county," the site of the Susquehanna nuclear 9 plant. 10  The National Academy of Sciences BEIR 11 Committee, in their 1990 study, also published there 12 is no safe dose of radiation. And again in their 13 1995 and 1996 reports, they again reported the same, 14 but this time said there may be biological damage in 15 addition.
16  The United States Department of Energy, 17 DOE, is conducting a ten-year program of basic 18 research in microbiology and these researchers, some 19 in university and some in government agencies, are 20 finding new, unanticipated forms of genetic damage.
21  A damaged cell may be able to repair 22 itself, but the repaired cell will not be more like 23 the original undamaged cell. There could be 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  37 irreversible damage to our species.
1  These are not decisions to be made by 2 engineers. This should be in realm of biologists and 3 geneticists, independent of the government and all 4 the industries.
5  "These high rates should shock all 6 Lucerne county residents and they should demand a 7 thorough study of the health risks posed by the 8 Susquehanna plant," said Joseph Mangano of the 9 Radiation and Public Health Project, who presented 10 the data.
11  "If radioactive," and this is a quote, 12 more quotes, most a lot of them from him, "If 13 radioactive emissions from the plant have been 14 harmful, people should know this before the 15 government decides whether or not to extend the 16 plant's license. The 2000-2004 county rate of white 17 infants who died in their first month was 23 percent 18 above the U.S. rate, based on 55 deaths. In that 19 same period, 43 Lucerne children under age 15 were 20 diagnosed with cancer, a rate 38 percent above the 21 nation. Data are taken from the National Center for 22 Health Statistics and the Pennsylvania Cancer 23 Registry."  I guess you guys didn't contact them.
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  38  Thyroid cancer statistics may be most 1 alarming. In the late 1980s, the two reactors at 2 Susquehanna were starting, the Lucerne rate was 20 3 percent below the U.S. However, in 2000-2003, the 4 Lucerne rate was 100 percent above, double the 5 nation. 6  Radioactive iodine, found only in nuclear 7 weapons and reactors, seeks out the thyroid gland 8 where it kills and impairs cells leading to cancer.
9 Two large nuclear reactors have operated at 10 Susquehanna beginning in 1982 and 1984 respectively.
11    Virtually all of the 312,000 residents of 12 Lucerne county live within 15 miles of the plant and 13 would be most likely to receive the greatest 14 radiation exposures. Like all reactors, Susquehanna 15 routinely emits gasses and particles into the air and 16 water, which enters human bodies by breathing and the 17 food chain. There are over 100 radioactive chemicals 18 in this mix. Each causes cancer and is especially 19 harmful to fetuses, infants and children.
20  California closed down the Diablo Canyon 21 nuclear plant many years ago. Through conservation, 22 solar and other forms of energy, they created over 23 800 new jobs and lowered their rates.
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  39  Nuclear power is only about 19 percent or 1 so of our energy in the U.S. Through conservation 2 and solar we could close down all the nuclear plants 3 in our country and save thousands of lives, if not 4 millions.
5  These findings, and other data on local 6 disease rates, should be part of the federal decision 7 on whether the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8 should approve the application of PP&L Susquehanna to 9 operate the plant until 2044. The current license 10 allows operation until 2024. These plants were 11 originally designed to only operate for 12 to 15 12 years. 13  PP&L and the NRC are pushing our luck.
14 Anyone who wants more nuclear power plants -- and our 15 president wants 54 more in this country -- should be 16 considered an insane terrorist. Our president 17 constantly tries to scare us about terrorists.
18 Nuclear plants, and the high level radioactive waste 19 sites, both now at the Susquehanna site, could be a 20 terrorist's dream.
21  We are also using depleted uranium bombs 22 in Iraq. Both our soldiers and the Iraqis are being 23 exposed. Many of the Iraqi children are getting 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  40 leukemia.
1  Remember the Gulf War Syndrome?  Our 2 soldiers were exposed then, too, and many of their 3 children had birth defects, and many of the soldiers 4 got very sick. And our government didn't want to 5 tell them why. Who is the terrorist?
6  And you know, if a person has a gun and 7 goes around and starts shooting people and gets 8 caught, they put him in jail for life, if not capital 9 punishment.
10  But you people have so far allowed all 11 these nuclear power plants who have caused more 12 cancer and other degenerative diseases, but it goes 13 slower. It's not an instant kill.
14  So, all of you can just go around and 15 say, "Oh well, nobody's dying right away."  So you 16 don't know and you'll never know, and they're not 17 faces to any of you people.
18  So, you can go about your business and 19 collecting your money, but I consider you all 20 murderers, because that's what you're doing any way 21 you look at it. You're not looking at it the way we 22 get the information. You get different information 23 that says very small impact.
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  41  So, what's a small impact?  How many 1 people die and it's a small impact?  How many 2 animals, we've seen a lot of our animals getting 3 cancer, and it's just, it's disgusting to see all 4 this. And our families and diabetes. All these 5 diseases that are just going around like crazy like 6 we didn't see when I was a child. We didn't see so 7 much of it, and now all of it's got to be something.
8  And nuclear is one of the answers. And I 9 say shut them down, don't, just deny them another 10 license, or I wish there was a hell for you to go to.
11  MR. LEOUS:  Great. Thank you, Sue. Mr.
12 Epstein?  If you care to share your comments.
13  MR. EPSTEIN:  Well, I'm going to take a 14 little different tact here. My name's Eric Epstein.
15  I'm the Chairman of Three Mile Island Alert. We're 16 a SAFE organization based in Harrisburg. We monitor 17 three nuclear power plants: Susquehanna, Peach 18 Bottom, and Three Mile Island.
19  I don't know how we want to proceed. I 20 have comments, but I also have a document I'd like to 21 enter into the record. And then we can discuss how 22 we proceed from there with official comments, because 23 what I did is I read the entire document, have some 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  42concerns. And I've been tracking this issue since 1 the November 2006, I think, was our first meeting up 2 here. I would just say, right off 3 the bat, there's got to be a different way to respond 4 to questions. In Appendix A, you have responses to 5 questions, and they basically, you homogenize them.
6 You don't really answer questions. I don't know if 7 you know what I'm referring to, but this is something 8 that the NRC does time and time again.
9  There are people that take the time to 10 research issues, ask a pointed question, and what you 11 do is get a cumulative response. I mean, just as a 12 generic tone, as a former college professor, I 13 wouldn't give you a high grade there. I think if 14 somebody's taken the time and effort to raise an 15 issue, they deserve a specific response.
16  I was disappointed. I spent a lot of 17 time preparing a presentation. You may not agree 18 with some of the policies that I advocate, but I 19 don't really think the public is well served.
20  And I would say this, you know, we've 21 gone through Three Mile Island. We've gone through 22 Peach Bottom. That plant was shut down, because the 23 operator ended up having his TMI unit 1 was shut 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  43 down, like six and a half years, I think, under NRC 1 order. 2  We have a lot of experience testifying 3 before you guys and reading these documents. Believe 4 me, if my house catches on fire, don't even send the 5 fire police. I still have all the hard documents.
6  I'd also like to extend a compliment, 7 because this was a lot easier to get through. I did 8 look at it on PDF, but it's nice to have this. I'm 9 not really sure why we still don't do page numbers, 10 but that's kind of a housekeeping issue.
11  I point out that I'm also in federal 12 court suing the Susquehanna River Basin Commission 13 and PPL Susquehanna. And one of the reasons I'm 14 doing that is because I don't think the NRC has done 15 a good job when it comes to looking at environmental 16 impact and water use. Especially in a state like 17 Pennsylvania where I think we've collectively taken 18 water for granted, but it's a limited commodity.
19  We're getting ready to finish Act 220 and 20 we're going to have a water budget for the year 2008, 21 and PPL is ahead of the game. And there is the 22 potential for Susquehanna to be declared a water-23 budgeted area way after you have declared there's no 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  44 impact to the water.
1   So, I guess my biggest sense of concern 2 and disappointment is the lack of coordination 3 between state and federal agencies. This is now my 4 third re-licensing proceeding. Unfortunately, I 5 think I lead the league in that. However, TMI, we 6 just came to a settlement, so I won't have to pursue 7 that particular issue.
8  I'll just try to read, not a lot, but 9 refer to my notes. One of the things that dismayed 10 me the most is that the first time I was here, I had 11 to introduce the NRC to the SRBC.
12  I know that since that time you guys have 13 developed a relationship, but I've got to tell you, 14 that's not a confidence builder when the agency 15 overseeing the re-licensing of a nuclear power plant 16 is unaware that there's a federal compact that 17 oversees surface water consumption. It was a 18 disappointment.
19  I know things have improved. I know the 20 SRBC has now hired someone to do that issue.
21 Hopefully, re-licensing at TMI will warrant more 22 scrutiny. Certainly at Limerick, I'm sure you're 23 aware there's a Delaware River Basin Commission.
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  45  So right off the get-go, one of the 1 concerns I had, which was raised by somebody else, is 2 that Susquehanna's a pretty new plant. I think it's 3 one of the youngest to come up for re-licensing.
4   It's hard for me to understand how you 5 can capture an aging plant and a young plant. You 6 know, I think one of the things you may want to look 7 at down the road is when these plants come up for re-8 licensing, there may be an adjustable criteria for a 9 plant that's operated, let's say for 30 years, 10 compared to 20. Just the lessons learned type of 11 thing that I would put out there.
12  Beginning on June 5, 2007, PPL and the 13 NRC have filed responses in opposition to my concerns 14 relating to water use, water chemistry, and aquatic 15 challenges. In fact, I lost a case at the NRC, 16 because all the issues I raised were considered 17 outside the scope and not material to this 18 proceeding.
19  One of the flaws with re-licensing is, 20 since the ROP's inception, this process is so 21 construed. There's something terribly wrong when 22 there's been 48 license applications, and only one 23 contention has been admitted. I want to say that 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  46again. How many?  Because that's what Exelon told me 1 last week. One contention in Oyster --
2  [Unintelligible]
3  MR. LEOUS:  Hang on, Diane. Hang on, 4 Diane. 5  MS. SCRENCI:  Sorry, there was one 6 contention in Oyster Creek, I believe there are three 7 contentions at Vermont Yankee. There's one 8 contention at Pilgrim, and there are 150-something 9 under consideration by an Atomic Safety and Licensing 10 Board at Indian Point.
11  MR. EPSTEIN:  No, let's have this 12 discussion. Let's speak, because this is something 13 you're taking pride in.
14  MR. LEOUS:  Now is not the time to get 15 into a back and forth. So, --
16  MR. EPSTEIN:  Yes, but what I'm saying 17 is, let's say that my number is off and there's been 18 three at Vermont Yankee, one at Pilgrim. Out of how 19 many?  The percentage is infinitesimal. I mean, when 20 we did this the first time around, when we actually 21 licensed the plant, what I'd like to see, Diane, if 22 you're going to brag about these numbers.
23  Well, I just want to say a simple 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  47comparison will eliminate my point. If you look at 1 the number of contentions that were accepted when 2 these plants first came on line, compared to now, 3 it's unbelievable how many are not getting passed, 4 either the technical or environmental scope.
5  I mean, I've done this the first time 6 around. Contentions were routinely accepted, 7 litigated. We had discovery. We don't have 8 discovery. They're rarely accepted. What I'm saying 9 to you is you guys have narrowed the process.
10  If somebody wants to take issue with me, 11 I mean, that is an extraordinary mental gymnastic I'd 12 like to witness. So, let's say I'm wrong, it's not 13 one contention, it's five, six, seven. Out of the 14 hundreds that have been entered.
15  Now the first time we did this, in the 16 70s, you actually got contentions admitted and you 17 litigated. So, what I'm saying to you is, look, the 18 process has changed. The ability to get a contention 19 litigated to basically vet it, it's not there. I 20 mean, I think we can all agree with that.
21  What I would love to see the NRC do, and 22 I know you won't, number of contentions admitted the 23 first time around versus contentions admitted this 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 48time around. And you're going to see this, Diane.
1 I'm telling you, that's reality.
2  The problem I have is this is like a 3 shell game. Do you go before the PUC?  Do you go 4 before the SRBC?  But when you go to the SRBC, 5 anything that says nuclear radiation go back to the 6 NRC. 7  You can't go to the PUC anymore, because 8 now it's deregulated. They haven't filed anything at 9 the PUC for water consumption.
10  DEP has actually filed suggestions. They 11 won't let me see it. It came out in another 12 proceeding when I was doing discovery. So, I'm a 13 citizen. This is not what I do for a living. You've 14 made it very difficult for someone to intervene, get 15 a contention admitted, and to vet an issue. I don't 16 think it's a user-friendly process.
17  And again, I'm probably one of the few 18 people who have done it both times. Now, maybe there 19 were problems the first time around, but to basically 20 shut folks out is not going to be healthy.
21  I think we can all agree that 22 unintentionally destabilizing a sensitive and 23 important aquatic asset, like the Susquehanna River, 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  49is not in the public interest. All I'm saying is 1 that all sensible and proactive measures should be 2 deployed to mitigate against this scenario.
3  The merits, and this is basically what 4 I've been saying at each re-licensing proceeding, the 5 merits of an exhaustive investigation are numerable 6 and present, really, no hardship to PPL Susquehanna.
7    The problem I'm having here is that this 8 case is going to reform what happens next at TMI, and 9 at Limerick, and then the uprates that are going to 10 occur after that. I think we all know what Exelon's 11 strategic architecture is. PPL is unique. They only 12 have one plant.
13  Susquehanna, on a conference call I had, 14 or Exelon, on a conference call I had the NRC, said 15 their strategic architecture, over the next three 16 years, is to re-license and uprate every plant. So, 17 we're going to see different variations of the re-18 licensing occur.
19  So, this document is extremely important.
20  I mean, extremely. This is going to be the 21 blueprint for moving forward. Well also, and I don't 22 want to belabor the point, but obviously the concern 23 that I think we have in Pennsylvania, which may be 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  50 unique -- obviously, there are New Jersey and others 1 -- besides the sheer volume of nuclear waste that's 2 going to be generated.
3  And let's be adults Yucca Mountain's not 4 getting built. It's not happening. I'm not saying 5 it's good or bad. That's reality.
6  At some point we need to start having a 7 discussion as adults. If we're going to generate 20, 8 30 metric tons of waste per reactor year, and it has 9 nowhere to go, that's an environmental impact.
10  Now while I disagree with Sue, I think 11 these plants were probably designed for 40 years, and 12 from what I understand that was basically actuarial, 13 but to get another 10, 20 years to generate, you 14 know, 30, 60 metric tons of high level waste with 15 nowhere to go, I can't see how that's not an 16 environmental impact.
17  And I've said this before and I'll say it 18 again, what we're going to do with the legislature, 19 start taxing you for storing radioactive waste on 20 site. 21  If we want to play this game, we'll play 22 the game. It's a risk reward. Nobody here asked for 23 the waste. It's going to be here. It has nowhere to 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  51 go. 1  In addition to that, beginning in July 2 2008, I didn't see any discussion about this, 3 Barnwell's going to close to us. We have nowhere to 4 take our low-level radioactive waste. Nowhere do I 5 see in the scoping process what do we do with these 6 two reactors, let alone another two reactors.
7  So, now we've got high-level waste, low-8 level waste, mixed waste, waste on the road going to 9 SEG in Tennessee to be compressed. All kinds of 10 different ripple impacts that are potentially 11 negative for this community. Waste goes in, waste 12 goes off, waste stays on. It would have been nice if 13 that would have been factored.
14  I would just say that the same company 15 that I'm having problems with on the surface 16 withdrawal of water from Susquehanna, essentially the 17 river intake and grand fathering two wells, T1 and 18 T2, is the same company that's basically going to be 19 allowed to re-license a plant for 20 years and not 20 really have these on-site inspections.
21  What I saw at the SRBC and what I saw at 22 the NRC is basically documentation that's provided by 23 PL, by government agencies, and to review that 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  52documentation. Now, I'm sure there's on-site 1 inspections, but I didn't see the rigorous on-site 2 examination that I would want, or the due diligence 3 that I think you need to do for a plant that's going 4 to be asked to operate for another 20 years. That's 5 the concern that we have.
6  You know, things when this plant were re-7 licensed, there was no such thing as compensatory 8 fire measures, i.e. roving fire watches. You know, 9 thermal lag. Whether it's radwaste, there's flanges 10 that don't, o-rings.
11  I mean, one of the things that you guys 12 do well is there's RIS that come out every week.
13 There's a whole host of technical issues. I thought 14 it was a no-brainer. You take a checklist to the 15 RIS, all the generic challenges faced in the 16 industry, and see if any of those show up.
17  I mean, how hard was that?  Because 18 Susquehanna's actually mentioned in the RIS on 19 several occasions. Take the RIS. See the re-20 license. Well, see if we have a generic issue. See 21 if we have a site-specific issue, rather than do this 22 kind of generic pancake application.
23  Whoever does the RIS, by the way, 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  53deserves a lot of credit. That's a really good 1 document. The issues that I was disappointed in, and 2 I think you guys have heard me pound on time and time 3 again, really have to do with aquatic challenges.
4  I'll be specific. Neither PPL or the 5 EPA, and this is great how 316a and 316b doesn't 6 really matter, because it's in court, even though 7 it's going to be ripe for argument this fall, we just 8 won't deal 316a and 316b as if it's gone away.
9  Dude, that's great magic. Great magic.
10 Four of the issues I raised, still outstanding, never 11 been addressed, never got a response at any venue. I 12 mean, I can take losing. Not well, but I'd like to 13 know what I'm losing.
14  Neither the PPL, EPA, the DEP, or the NRC 15 addressed safety and structural challenges caused by 16 microfouling versus macrofouling; microbiologically 17 influenced corrosion; biofilm disease-causing 18 bacteria, like legionella and wisteria; the 19 difficulty in eliminating established biofilms; 20 oxidizing versus non-oxidizing biocides; the eastward 21 migration of asiatic clams, zebra mussels.
22  Nothing here is proactive. You know, now 23 I saw, you had two pages on these, and we're going to 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  54 get to that, which were really interesting, but 1 nothing here is proactive. This is really an 2 interesting scoping tool. Everything is reactive.
3 Nothing is anticipated. Nothing is proactive.
4  It's, I mean, in my field of work it's 5 exactly the opposite. You try to anticipate what's 6 going to happen and prevent it. Here it's basically, 7 until it happens, then we'll react. I just think 8 that's dangerous.
9  I can't ask you, and I know you don't 10 have the power to go back and talk to the NRC 11 commissioners and have it changed, but I think the 12 reactor oversight process is flawed in that 13 particular area, and as it translates to re-14 licensing.
15  I read the GEIS. What I found, what was 16 interesting is the NRC has acknowledged the absence 17 of water monitoring tools for algae and benthic 18 macroinvertebrates.
19  So, I don't know why, but the monitoring 20 stopped in 1994. That's 14 years ago. How you can 21 give somebody a clean bill of health on a monitoring 22 protocol that no longer exists is beyond me.
23  Again, this is in your document. The NRC 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  55 acknowledged, and this is again in the GEIS, "PPL 1 does not sample private wells on nearby properties," 2 which amazes me, because I'm sure you guys know the 3 word Bravewood. And the closest well is a domestic 4 well near the southeast corner of the facility.
5  So, I don't even know if that's the 6 appropriate pollutant pathway or what, but I think we 7 all know now, and it's not just tritium, that we've 8 got migratory pollutant paths raised at all nuclear 9 power plants. It would have been nice if we had 10 testing in place to capture this.
11  Now, we have six, and I think if I'm 12 reading this correctly, at one point we had four 13 tritium monitoring wells, we're up to six. However, 14 I'm not really sure where they're at. I may have 15 missed it, and I'm not sure the rhyme or reason of 16 how we do it. TMI is a little more aggressive, but I 17 think it's good that PPL has more, rather than less.
18    To me the issue is this, it's real basic, 19 if there is a tangible impact to the community when a 20 major industrial facility, and again I want you to be 21 aware that this is a precedent for water use. We're 22 going to have coal gassification facilities. We're 23 going to have an ethanol plant. We have a new 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  56gambling casino close by. We're going to have an 1 airport in Hazelton.
2  This reminds me of the land use work I do 3 where the developer comes in and says, "Look, I'm 4 only going to have a 2 percent net impact on the 5 traffic."  Well, Dude, what about the other 10 6 developers?  You know?  There's an aggregate impact 7 and you guys aren't charged to look at it. It all 8 goes to the same place. Right now, and the 9 SRBC is not here, we are very vulnerable to drought 10 conditions. Nuclear power industry does not have to 11 comply with drought restrictions. It's a voluntary 12 compliance. Who's going to resolve this?  Who's 13 going to reconcile this?
14  I just spent the last two years, 15 thousands of hours, thousands of dollars trying to 16 get answers to these questions and no one is 17 answering. Who is going to rectify it when one day 18 we wake up and say, "Hey, the water for the golf 19 course, the water for the nuclear power plant, or the 20 water for sewage?" 21  Dude, I don't know which agencies you 22 talked to, but I deal with land use. That's what I 23 do on a day-to-day basis. You guys have a potential 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  57nightmare on your hands. Not even talking about 1 radiation.
2  I'm going to talk about nuclear power 3 production, is there's a limited amount of water 4 that's got to go somewhere and how we're going to do 5 this resource allocation is not dealt with in this 6 document. In fact, nobody deals with it. DEP 7 doesn't deal with it in relation to this. They deal 8 with it in a segmented way. EPA doesn't deal with 9 it. That's right, 316a and 316b, it's not right yet, 10 so we can't deal with that.
11  So, we have all of these fragmented 12 regulatory bodies out there. This concerns me. This 13 is aside from the, this is just completely aside from 14 the debate on whether nuclear power is good or bad.
15 I'm not even having that debate.
16  The debate that I'm having with you is 17 that water is a valuable commodity. It's limited.
18 Who the hell is going to decide where it goes, when 19 it goes, and if it goes?  And we have a crisis, I 20 believe, on our hands.
21  And I think people -- in fact, today at 22 the legislature we just passed, out of committee, the 23 potential to box $750 million to break a badly broken 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  58Pennsylvania water infrastructure. Our water and 1 sewage systems are failing, yet we're going to give 2 these guys, who made roughly $860 million last year, 3 a free pass on 20 years. Something's got to be 4 looked at.
5  My concern is this, and I'm not asking 6 you guys to do this, I know you have an 7 administrative charter and a statute, and I'm not 8 asking you to go beyond that charter, which is 9 inherent.
10  What I'm asking you to do is not to decay 11 into this regulatory fragmentation protocol where you 12 just hold your arms back and say, "I'm not looking at 13 that," because that is, and the new word I got over 14 the last two years, regulatory creep.
15  Pick up the phone. Call your colleague, 16 "Dude, are you looking at this?  Are you not looking 17 at it?  What's happening?"  Nobody picked up the 18 phone last year. TMI, Mike can talk about it. All 19 of a sudden the water was reduced, turnpike collapses 20 a bridge. We had this going on and that going on.
21 My god, people aren't talking.
22  It's not just this -- I mean, what 23 strikes me is how similar this is to when a developer 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  59 comes in and wants to build a community, and then 1 makes believe there's no other communities being 2 built, or any other resources. This is insane, guys.
3  This is insane.
4  Again, put aside whether you're pro or 5 anti-nuclear. This is not good. PPL will face water 6 chemistry issues, biofouling, aquatic challenges.
7 That's going to happen. They've acknowledged it. We 8 all acknowledge it. And that may impact your 9 operation abilities.
10  It seems to me that the SRBC and the NRC 11 is saying don't worry about it, because it's in our 12 best interest to solve it. Nobody's asking, maybe we 13 should worry about it, because maybe they're taking 14 shortcuts to satisfy their bottom line. That's what 15 concerns me. You know, logic would tell you, yeah, 16 it's in your best interest. You want to have the 17 best equipment and the most robust equipment, the 18 inspections. It takes people. Look at the number of 19 people working at the plant.
20  We'll get at that later, which is really 21 interesting, because that number that you accepted is 22 kind of startling. That's the water issue. I've 23 resigned myself to the fact that those issues aren't 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  60 going to get solved here or at the SRBC, so I sued 1 you and we're in federal court.
2  But I'll tell you this, and anybody who 3 knows me, there will be answered. And I'll take you 4 guys wherever I have to take you. You're going to 5 answer the questions.
6  And the irony is I've never opposed re-7 licensing of this plant. I've never opposed the 8 upright. I've just asked to have you guys answer the 9 questions. How hard is that?  I'm going now onto 10 year two asking the same questions, no response.
11 It's insane.
12  The most troubling thing to me are the 13 socio-economics. I live in the world of public 14 policy. And you have a 29 county rate base here, 15 about 2.3 million customers. It's a very unique, 16 very loyal rate base, and if you look at the PUC 17 standards to PPL's credit, they haven't lost many 18 customers. That's going to change. The rates are 19 going to go up 34.5 percent.
20  I saw nothing in this document about rate 21 check. How can that not be a socio-economic impact?
22  Now, I'm one of the prime negotiators with this. I, 23 look, PPL will tell you, I assume every time they 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  61breathe. I don't like doing it, but 34 2 percent 1 rate increase.
2  These are for people, mostly seniors, who 3 are having a hard time now, on a fixed income, 4 filling up their gas tank and taking care of health 5 insurance. Not a word. Thirty-four and a half 6 percent.
7  Think about that. If that's not a socio-8 economic impact, I don't know what is. Rate shock 9 doesn't fall in here. In fact, here's a quote 4-50 10 foot, "There will also be no disproportionately 11 higher adverse health or environmental impact or 12 result on minority or low-income populations in this 13 region.
14  Now let me read to you, just to show you 15 where I'm coming from. In an aging population base 16 affects staffing, I mean, just in general, affects 17 staffing, off-site support staffing, response times, 18 emergency planning and social services. These human 19 components are critical ingredients than the 20 infrastructure of any large industrial complex.
21  You want basically, when you do your 22 planning, you want people at all different sectors of 23 the age base. Not necessarily top-heavy on the 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  62bottom, and not necessarily top-heavy on the top. On 1 the bottom you have Africa, on the top you have Boca 2 Raton. That's a weird conflict.
3  The ripple impact was not discussed in 4 the GEIS. Transportation and support services were 5 limited to two paragraphs. Now, I'm sure you did 6 more of that, but there were only two paragraphs.
7  With a steadily aging population, I want 8 you to think about this, where are the EMS and EMT 9 technicians, paramedic fire service providers going 10 to come from in a state, and in sector, and this is 11 Pennsylvania, built on volunteerism?
12  I do municipal planning every day. It is 13 hard and I love those guys. The fire police guys, 14 the EMS guys, the EMT guys. Where are you going to 15 get these people in an aging sector?
16  Now, in 2003, just to give you some 17 numbers, 16.2 million patients across the country 18 arrived by ambulance in emergency department visits.
19  No different than here at Geisinger or wherever.
20 That's 31 ambulances arriving at an emergency room in 21 America every minute.
22  Of those, 40 percent were senior 23 citizens. And you'll see where I'm going with that.
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  63 So, 40 percent of the people making emergency room 1 visits are senior citizens.
2  So, let's look at our demographic. Who's 3 going to take this population to the emergency room?
4  The Bureau of Labor Statistics has calculated the 5 average age and the median years of tenure for 6 persons in any specific occupation, easy to get, real 7 easy to get and it's updated annually.
8  This data is obviously useful for career 9 planning, understanding turnover for my daughter, for 10 moving out of the house, whatever. Okay?  The 11 average age of workers in this occupation, which is 12 EMS technician, fire police, is 34.3.
13  So, this population is getting older.
14 The ability to get people to take them to the 15 hospital is going down. Now, the average age for 16 most occupations is 38. PPL and the NRC never asked 17 this question. What happens to an aging population 18 when we need to staff a nuclear power plant and when 19 we need to take a visit to the emergency room?  Who's 20 going to take them there?  It's an inverse 21 relationship.
22  If that's for me, tell them I'll be back 23 later. Didn't we say turn off the cell phones?
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  64Somebody didn't get the memo. All right. PPL and 1 the NRC have failed to ask, let alone answer, who's 2 going to transport and provide the emergency services 3 for an economically distressed population in need of 4 medical services.
5  So, let's take it one step further. You 6 guys spend a lot of money doing this and I appreciate 7 it. You did the scoping. You did the evaluation.
8 You did this, that and the other thing.
9  You never examined the impact of re-10 licensing on aging human beings who live within the 11 shadow of the plant, and this is a disproportionately 12 older population.
13  So, let's look at the numbers. In 14 Lucerne county, the population declined almost 2 15 percent between 2000 and 2003. In Columbia, it was 16 almost a 1 percent decrease.
17  The U.S. Census Bureau reported that the 18 average population of 65 years or older, per county 19 it's 12.4 across the country; and in Lucerne county 20 it's 19.7, 20 percent 65 or older; and at Columbia 15 21 percent; and Salem Township, which hosts the plant, 22 20 percent of the population is 65 or older.
23  Didn't see any of this data in there, 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  65although I did see some DLE statistics. Columbia and 1 Lucerne county are two of the six counties in the 29 2 county rate base. That's PPL, "Above the system 3 average percentage on the poverty level," PPL's 4 figure.
5  So, PPL is telling you they've got older 6 people -- well, we're telling you the number of older 7 people, active seniors if you will, are way above the 8 norm, PPL's telling you in their report to the PUC 9 that the older people that we do have are above the 10 norm in terms of being, you know, challenged in 11 paying their bills.
12  The bureau indicated that 22.8 percent of 13 Lucerne county, and 23 percent of Columbia county 14 populations qualify as low-income households eligible 15 for energy assistance, living or below the federal 16 poverty line.
17  The other thing to look at is when you 18 take that number and break it out, people that are at 19 that level, at or below poverty lines, are less 20 likely to volunteer to provide the emergency and 21 medical technician service. So, there's a 22 correlation.
23  What I'm saying to you is people are not 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  66 abstract hypotheticals that you can rework into some 1 formula in a back room in D.C. Taken together, both 2 counties are holding older Pennsylvanians less likely 3 to be absorbed into a nuclear workforce.
4  The reality is Pennsylvania is the third 5 oldest state. Our fastest growing population are 6 octogenarians. That's reality. Fastest growing 7 population are octogenarians, people being over 80.
8  So, we are going to continue to age.
9 Where are we going to get the workers from?  That's 10 something we just don't do at this plant, but we have 11 a brain drain occurring throughout the state.
12  These senior citizens are concurrently 13 paying higher electric rates and more in property 14 taxes as a result of the plant. The company has not 15 anticipated or planned to address the hardships that 16 it created for the 65-plus community.
17  I asked this in 2006. This is my 18 question from a hearing. Have you planned for this 19 community?  Here's the quote, "PPL Electric has 20 conducted no polling to gauge residential customers' 21 awareness of rate caps, and the impact that removing 22 these rate caps will have on electric rates."
23  So, my opinion, failure to survey the 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  67 impacts of the licensing on an aging community is an 1 indictment on your inability to grasp the good 2 workforce and solid community are intangible points, 3 interchangeable parts.
4  Now, I know this is different than other 5 places you go. The point I'm trying to make is I 6 think we have to move away from the generic 7 boilerplate model. I mean, it's clear that this is 8 an aging population, a good population, good schools, 9 good folks, religious folks. It's a place where you 10 want to be, have a plan. Folks are getting older.
11 How do we retain them?  I mean, and that's what we're 12 working on.
13  On the tax issue, it was interesting, 14 because I do appreciate the amount of work that went 15 into it, but it was interesting, because you didn't -
16 - by the way, did you guys read, do you read their 17 annual reports when you do this?  Do you read the 18 annual reports?  Do you read the SEC reports?  Do you 19 read the 10k reports?  All right, but did you read 20 the annual report this year?
21  Let me, an interesting spin on the taxes, 22 and this is something you may not capture in other 23 states, look, deregulation shifted power plants back 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  68 to the local tax rolls under the assumption utilities 1 would pay at least the same as they had paid, you 2 know, subject to real estate costs.
3  This company basically picked up 2.86 4 billion in stranded costs, which is interesting, 5 because we keep talking about economics, but when 6 this plant was built, it was basically twice as much 7 as predicted. It was predicted to be 2, came in at 8 around 4. I'm rounding the numbers.
9  So, it will be interesting to see where 10 they come in with the next plant, which I don't think 11 is going to be built. But these economics come back 12 and hit the same people that I've been talking about, 13 seniors. If you're on a fixed income and you're 14 paying higher electric rates, watch what happens to 15 your taxes.
16  I think both of the analysis that you use 17 and the company use are flawed. PPL's analysis is 18 interesting, because I think it's limited to a, I 19 think a five year snapshot, 2001-2005. I think your 20 snapshot was about the same. It didn't look at pre-21 PURTA, or PURTA numbers.
22  So, you basically compressed it and 23 flattened it out and you don't have a really 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  69congruent perspective. But what's interesting is the 1 amount of money, if you put it out on a graph and 2 plot it, it's very interesting. The amount of money 3 the company's making versus the amount of money the 4 taxes they're paying.
5  So, while the one is flat the other one's 6 high. Now, if that's the case, and in America we 7 like to see that, that's a business being profitable.
8  Good for them.
9  If that's the case, there's no reason to 10 recover stranded costs, 2.86 billion. The rate payer 11 gave them 2.86 billion, because they couldn't recover 12 the costs in the marketplace. They're exploding with 13 profit.
14  So, basically they're double dipping, and 15 I'll show you what we're talking about. This is 16 according to the president of the company in an April 17 4 letter to the shareholder. I am a shareholder.
18 "PPL's total return has been 254 percent,"  more than 19 three times return on the S&P index over the last 20 five years.
21  So, the same time that you compressed 22 your snapshot on taxes, you didn't look at the 23 earning ability, or the ability of this company to 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  70 pay taxes, nor did you take a historical snapshot to 1 see what their contributions were when they first 2 began in operation and what they are now.
3 Longitudinal perspective, basic economics, would love 4 to see you do it.
5  Let's look at what they paid in 1984.
6 Let's look at what they paid now. Let's look at how 7 much they're making. You know, you just take these 8 charts and compare it. Same thing with the RIS.
9 Let's just, I mean, I can help you with these metrics 10 and I'll charge you less than the Argonne guy, 11 guaranteed.
12  What's interesting to me, and I don't 13 know how you did this, the staffing level I think 14 came from the Chamber of Commerce, it didn't come 15 from the company. So, PPL will have to acknowledge 16 whether or not, I noticed all the numbers were round.
17  One thousand people working at the plant 18 is proportionately, per reactor, much lower than any 19 other reactor in this state. That's an interesting 20 correlation, and this all ties together.
21  What I'm wondering is if it's an older 22 workforce and you're not able to pull people. Is 23 that the reason why they have less people per reactor 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  71 working, or maybe they're saying they're a better 1 company. I don't know.
2  The number I got was 1000. Did anybody 3 probe that, or you just republished it?  I mean, if 4 you look in your, you basically just take your 5 Chamber of Commerce numbers that says PPL, 1000 6 employees.
7  What's interesting, we don't say union, 8 non-union. We don't look at the employees they had 9 five years ago, ten years ago compared to what we 10 have. If you read the annual report, you'll see that 11 we're down about 20 percent.
12  So, if you took that trend and projected 13 it into the GEIS, it would be safe to assume that the 14 number of people working at this plant is going to 15 continue to trend downwards. The number of people 16 paying taxes, trend downwards. PPL has a lot of 17 people doing great volunteer stuff, trending 18 downwards, never captured in here.
19  It's interesting, because I'm usually not 20 a fan of Peach Bottom or TMI, but proportionately 21 their numbers are much higher. I would assume the 22 numbers they gave you does not include security 23 personnel. Nor is there any trending done for what 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  72 most businesses do now, retirements, attrition, 1 early-out, full-time versus part-time, outsourcing.
2  I'm a member of the American Nuclear 3 Society. Everybody in this room who works for the 4 industry is aware that the nuclear industry is, we're 5 going through an institutional shock. You know, most 6 people are leaving. We don't have the same core 7 people you used to have.
8  Here I am, a guy who's been known to be 9 anti-nuclear, saying, "Yes. You actually need to 10 beef pro-nuclear engineering, because we need people 11 to staff the plants."  I mean, you look at the last 12 ANS publication, it was almost totally devoted to the 13 fact that you don't have enough people working in the 14 field. 15  If you don't have enough people working 16 in the field, and you don't have enough people 17 regulating in the field, why wouldn't it be captured 18 in your GEIS?  Who's going to work at the plant down 19 the road?  Are they going to be coming from a 20 dedicated science, or do we have to basically finesse 21 the science they're at in order to make them stretch 22 into a job?  Issues I'd be looking at.
23  I know at TMI, 50 out, everybody's 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  73leaving. I don't know what's happening here. I 1 don't know what the average age is. It's not in 2 here. I mean, things I think would have been 3 interesting to know when trend up.
4  I believe, and let me conclude by saying, 5 the NRC attempted to address these issues. I think 6 you did try and do it. I don't think you succeeded.
7    I'm just saying that re-licensing a 8 nuclear power plant should not impose an economic 9 hardship on the host community. That's not the way 10 it was advertised when it came in at either TMI, 11 Peach Bottom, or Susquehanna. And I have all the 12 documents when all of these plants came to the 13 community, and this is after the "too cheap to 14 meter."  I know that line's been beat up, but what it 15 was going to do.
16  Just for fun, go back and look at how 17 many people worked at this plant when it came on-18 line, look at how many people work now. Look at how 19 much they're paying in taxes, and look how much an 20 economic investment. Really interesting if you can 21 get the money, or if you can get the figures.
22  You know the NRC, in my mind, must 23 reexamine the economic impact of Susquehanna on the 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  74 community or address how re-licensing a nuclear power 1 plant, while shifting the tax burden and increasing 2 the rates on an aging community, is compatible with 3 your mission. I don't think it is.
4  Now, I read all the NEI stuff, and the 5 other stuff you read and everything. This is like an 6 economic microwave. It's not reality. What I'm 7 saying to you is that, before you re-license and 8 uprate the plant, it would be nice to have the 9 questions I raised issued.
10  And it would be nice to at least know 11 that you're taking some of the thoughts that I'm 12 sharing with you into consideration, so that it 13 strengthens your licensing process.
14  I'm going to conclude with a couple of 15 points. The NRC and PPL must confront unresolved 16 water use, water safety, and inter-agency issues, 17 even if they fall outside the conventional nuclear 18 toolbox. I mean, let's be proactive here.
19  Power generation, plant cooling, public 20 safety are inherently connected. There is no 21 separate imaginary fence between generation and 22 safety. Although that's what you guys "found" in the 23 hearing when you denied my contentions.
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  75  I think we've demonstrated that aging 1 equipment, coupled with water shortages, water 2 chemistry, or invasive aquatic species, could create 3 safety challenges at the plant over the life of the 4 extension. How are we going to respond?  There's no 5 plan A. There's no plan B, no plan C.
6  The impact of re-licensing on the local 7 community is material and germane, and the NRC should 8 not sanction the re-licensing of a nuclear plant that 9 will result in increased property tax burden for 10 older residents.
11  What I'm saying here is that I don't 12 think there's any artificial regulatory moat between 13 the SRBC and NRC, the EPA, or the DEP, and what I 14 would have liked to have seen and you still have time 15 to do it, is if you go down and interact more 16 aggressively with your sister, brother agencies. I'm 17 not sure what pronoun to use anymore.
18  There's got to be a better way. And this 19 is, again, where I'm coming from as a consumer 20 advocate with health insurance outpacing inflation, 21 property taxes steadily increasing, and electric 22 rates poised to spike. Can consumers afford to live 23 near a nuclear power plant that produces rate hikes?
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  76 I mean, I can't solve that riddle. Maybe you can.
1  Just a point of clarification, I just 2 want to make sure that we're all clear here. You 3 guys are aware that I have two rule-making petitions 4 filed before the NRC. You either are or you aren't, 5 because one of the rule-making petitions asks that 6 the re-licensing of a nuclear power plant be 7 contingent on the issuance of the newly approved 8 emergency plant. You're aware, I'm just asking you 9 now. That's been filed. That's been with the NRC 10 now for over a year.
11  So, that is likely to have an issuance 12 before the final process here is granted. Are you 13 aware of the other petition that we have, which is 14 asking that the relocation centers for special needs 15 populations be moved at least ten miles from a 16 nuclear power plant?
17  What I'm saying to you, again, is that it 18 wasn't happenstance that I filed them when I filed 19 them. So, I'm being really up front with you that 20 we'll contend the re-licensing of this plant if that 21 issue is not dealt with.
22  I mean, it's been there for a while. You 23 guys have held it in abeyance for a year. I think 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  77 it's wrong, but then again the petition we filed on 1 security is now seven years old. I'm not too 2 optimistic there.
3  The other thing, and I want to just, this 4 is the last question I want to end with, is if you 5 look at the annual report, by the way it's a nice 6 report, the Einstein guy there you've got to like, 7 apparently had hair lice.
8  If you go to page 105, and it doesn't, in 9 every annual report it talks about nuclear insurance 10 and just let me read you this: "PPL Susquehanna is a 11 member of certain insurance programs that provide 12 coverage for property damage to a member's nuclear 13 generation station. Facilities at the Susquehanna 14 Station are insured against property damage as 15 losses, up to 2.7 billion, under these programs."
16  Final thought is this, the people I just 17 talked about and advocated for, they're senior 18 citizens on a fixed income. Those people are having 19 a hard time dealing with healthcare, filling up their 20 gas tank. They're going to get rate shock. Can they 21 take that insurance out on their home if there's an 22 accident, and I think you know the answer.
23  If this technology is so safe, and if 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  78 we're going to re-license the plant, don't you think 1 it's time we're at least allowed to take out 2 insurance for our plant, our home, our business?
3  But look, I'm hoping that we can bond 4 afterwards, maybe we can engage. I have extra copies 5 of my comments here. I'll be filing these formally.
6  I will read the next iteration, but hopefully you 7 understand that the criticisms are intended to 8 strengthen your process and alert you to things you 9 may have missed. Do you guys, the PPL guys there, 10 you got an extra of these?  Extra for the NRC?
11  MR. LEOUS:  Great. Thank you, Eric.
12 Actually, just one moment. There is another 13 gentleman that had signed up to speak, so we can get 14 to that. I have a John Zaginaylo.
15  MR. ZAGINAYLO:  My name is John 16 Zaginaylo. I'm not really, really prepared for this.
17  I picked up the article in the local newspaper, 18 thought I'd better come down. My family and I 19 operate a small dairy farm and crop farm in Briar 20 Creek Township in the 10-mile, I won't use dead zone, 21 but high-risk zone. And they don't know I'm here 22 tonight.
23  My wife's home milking and my kids are 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  79 getting ready to plant corn and I should be doing all 1 that, but I want to personally say that I'm here 2 because I have significant concerns and I really am 3 concerned about what goes on with my neighboring PPL 4 plant. 5  And we have a future in agriculture here 6 and my daughter's coming home. She wants to operate 7 the farm, and just to kind of give you a personal 8 reason that it took a little effort to get here to 9 make these comments, I will provide formal comments 10 when I organize my thoughts a little better, but I've 11 got them on a little paper here right now.
12  But I also have an engineering 13 background. I'm also a registered professional 14 engineer. What is generally lacking in this 15 environment, when I looked and I quickly hurried and 16 looked on the website, there's nothing there on 17 production agriculture. I even looked under 18 endangered species and I thought it would be there, 19 but it wasn't.
20  So, production agriculture in our 21 community is real. There are dairy farms. There are 22 vegetable farms. They're very big. Certainly cereal 23 grain farms. It's not real blatant in the community, 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  80 but it's real for those of us working in it, and we 1 live in the environment.
2  The environment is part of us. So, the 3 Environmental Impact Statement is very dear to me, 4 and I'm concerned about it. And I'd like to see your 5 report, or your study, acknowledge that, and go into 6 some depth, because we're producing milk, fresh 7 vegetables consumed by our local residents and 8 outside the area. We also produce cereal grains that 9 are fed to other people. If they are, I'd like to 10 know the quality and the safety of those foods there.
11  12  Personally, they say they test dairy 13 products. I have not seen anybody test any of our 14 milk or products that we sell or raise. And there 15 are not many dairy farms in the community. I would 16 expect that we would have been approached in some 17 manner for this environmental impact.
18  So, production agriculture is completely 19 absent, and I think this thing shouldn't go any 20 further until that stone's unturned somewhat. The 21 fact that it is absent kind of alarms me, saying that 22 if they overlooked such an important part of our 23 community, even though it's not blatant to most, but 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  81what other things have they overlooked?  What has 1 been glossed over and not fully developed and 2 studied?
3  I'm not aware of all of the components, 4 socio-economic one might be one, but I think we need 5 to be concerned about the volume of the document, the 6 generic of it. I'd like to see an Environmental 7 Impact Statement that's very site-specific.
8  I want to see data that I recognize, my 9 neighbor's farm, products that we market and raise.
10 The things that, specific examples of how the 11 environment can affect us, for instance, everybody 12 sees the plume and I'm not reacting to the plume, but 13 a plume means moisture in the air.
14  Heat going into the river means increased 15 temperature. Light visibility is important to the 16 crops in order to get growing through the days, and 17 getting the production, and the yields that we want.
18  And if we don't have the right amount of sunlight, 19 we're being deprived and I think it needs to be 20 looked at. Things like growing degree days and how 21 they affect crop production.
22  What's the trend over the years?  Has 23 this area sustained lower production?  Is the quality 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  82of our product different?  I don't know for sure.
1 The other thing on the animal side, there's a lot of 2 variables that cost us money in production with the 3 dairy cows. And we're always looking for the answers 4 to resolve them.
5  For example, reproductive efficiency. We 6 kind of keep our cows a long time, so we're really 7 concerned about our animal welfare and health. And 8 part of that is breeding them back, so they stay on 9 the farm, productive and reproductive efficiency is 10 affected by many things.
11  Is it affected by the plant?  Does the 12 plant affect the food that they eat, and basically 13 like selenium, or some kind of micronutrient that may 14 affect their reproductive efficiency. That's costing 15 us money. If our cows don't get bred back for every 16 month they go, it costs us a lot of money. And to 17 sustain our livelihood in our business, those 18 subtleties are very critical, something we can't 19 control.
20  So, I just challenge you, and I'll knock 21 it off closely here, that put production agriculture 22 in all aspects, dairy, fresh vegetables, and cereal 23 grains, or crop production, and look at that in the 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  83 trends and how a plume, and how radiation, how 1 micronutrients an things might be affected.
2  And then, I think your report will look 3 more complete, and not so suspect that maybe other 4 areas aren't fully developed. And I'll try to put 5 those comments in writing to you. So, it's time to 6 plant corn and beans. I don't know how much I'll get 7 to you before the end of June. So, thank you.
8  MR. LEOUS:  Great. Thank you, sir. And 9 for the presentation, knowing that you are busy, you 10 do have until July 21 st to submit comments. Now, Sue, 11 I know you had a comment for Eric and we can take 12 that offline at the meeting's conclusion. Does 13 anyone else have any comments on the draft 14 Environmental Impact Statement?  Okay.
15  MS. FRACKE:  Eric, when you were talking 16 before, and I understood you better than everybody 17 else except the last fellow, but you mentioned 18 something about that they're going to have to upgrade 19 or do something to the nuclear power plants within 20 the next three years or something. Something's going 21 to come out to do that.
22  So, would that be the reason that, if 23 they get another license renewal, that will even 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  84 further grandfather them, so they won't have to be 1 into that upgrading thing?
2  MR. LEOUS:  Actually, Eric, I can take 3 this here.
4  MR. EPSTEIN:  Okay.
5  MR. LEOUS:  If we could just --
6  MR. EPSTEIN:  Yes. I was talking about 7 Exelon and I think their strategic architecture was 8 in the next three years to re-license all their 9 plants, to have uprates at all their plants. I think 10 PPL, and they're here, they can correct me if I'm 11 wrong. I think this is their third uprate. They've 12 had two other uprates.
13  But I think most power plants across the 14 country, I'm not sure I know of any that hasn't had 15 an uprate, which is increasing their capacity.
16  So, I would imagine PPL is better suited 17 to answer this, that, and maybe the NRC can answer 18 this. I think most plants now are going for re-19 licensing, and concurrent with that, an uprate. Does 20 that seem to make sense?
21  MR. LEOUS:  Eric, you have experience 22 with this.
23  MR. BENNER:  Yes. Essentially, the --
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  85  MR. EPSTEIN:  I'm responding to Sue's 1 question. What I'm saying generic that I think most 2 plants, I know all plants have uprated. I think PPL, 3 this will be their third uprate. It's probably the 4 largest. I think many plants now that are re-5 licensing are also coming in with an uprate request.
6    MR. BENNER:  Yes. I wouldn't think it 7 was many. You know, we have regulations for what an 8 applicant needs to do to renew their license, and we 9 have regulations for what an applicant needs to do to 10 do a power uprate.
11  And just for explanation purposes, there 12 are different types of power uprates. What they do, 13 for the different types, is allow the plant to 14 operate at a higher power level.
15  So, when we say uprate, you know, if a 16 plant puts out 1000 megawatts, it would allow a plant 17 to put out 1100 megawatts. So, with that, depending 18 on the size of the uprate means different equipment 19 changes that need to be made to the plant.
20  MR. EPSTEIN:  I don't want to run this 21 out. There's two different processes. Re-licensing 22 a plant is a much more in-depth process. Uprating is 23 something that occurs frequently. I guess my 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  86 question to you is, you can uprate a plant without a 1 re-license and I think that every plant in the 2 country, unless I'm missing something, has had at 3 least one uprate.
4  MR. BENNER:  Yes. I don't know the 5 statistics. I don't think that's the case. I mean, 6 I think there are a number of plants that haven't 7 gone through power uprates. Whether they do or not, 8 whether they apply to or not, is their decision, 9 which I would guess would be based on economics.
10 Whether or not we approve the uprate is based upon 11 assurance that operation at the uprated power levels 12 would be safe.
13  MR. EPSTEIN:  Let's just cut to the 14 chase. I mean, I'm actually using the NEI numbers.
15 Let's say it's 90 percent of the plants that have had 16 an uprate. Almost all the plants have had an uprate.
17  It's rare that it's rejected. It's rare that a 18 license is rejected.
19  So, there's two currents going in here.
20 A plant comes in and asks to be re-licensed. None 21 have been rejected so far. I think there have been a 22 couple of uprates that have been rejected.
23  But what I'm saying to you is the trend 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  87 is this, plants are getting re-licensed for 20 years, 1 they're getting uprates. There's very few 2 exceptions. Is that a correct -- I'm asking you, 3 unless I'm missing something. Is that not a correct 4 trend? 5  MR. BENNER:  I think the trend, and this 6 goes back to the comment you made about contentions 7 being admitted, is after the original round of 8 licensing of these plants, I think the NRC factor 9 those lessons into its licensing processes to look at 10 those issues that were admitted the first time 11 around. And I think the industry, 12 realizing that these licensing processes are 13 challenging, and anyone who has delved into the re-14 licensing requirements, if you look at our 15 regulations, and you look at our, we have for the 16 staff's review we have a standard review plan, which 17 is new regulation 1800, which outlines the things the 18 staff has to look at.
19  We also have an environmental standard 20 review plan, which is new regulation 1555, which 21 outlines the environmental issues the staff has to 22 look at. We have regulatory guides, which tell the 23 industry what information they need to provide.
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  88  I think we've all grown to a point where, 1 before an applicant applies, for either a renewal or 2 power uprate, they put the energy into developing the 3 information we need to assure that the plant can 4 operate safely under either of those conditions.
5  MR. EPSTEIN:  Let me just --
6  MR. LEOUS:  One second here.
7  MR. BENNER:  There's no trend, per se.
8 It's an application, it's generally only going to be 9 submitted once the applicant has developed adequate 10 information to meet the commission's regulations.
11  MR. LEOUS:  Right. And, Eric, not to 12 interrupt. What I would like to do is, and in no way 13 to stymie this dialogue, however, I would like to 14 bring this meeting back to the purpose in terms of 15 discussing the draft Environmental Impact Statement.
16  And I would encourage this dialog to continue, but 17 what I'd like to do is stick a pin in it for now, and 18 --  19  MR. EPSTEIN:  Well, let me just make a 20 point here, because I think at issue is, because I 21 don't know where else to ask this question, is the 22 generic application of how you re-license plants.
23 And basically you're saying you've learned your 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  89 lessons, and you're taking those lessons learned from 1 the first time around.
2  The lesson you haven't learned, and this 3 is what concerns me, is the hubris that exists.
4 Prior to 1979, there was this arrogance that 5 permeated the industry and the NRC. I'm seeing it 6 come back. I'm willing to concede things have gotten 7 better, and you've learned some lessons.
8  But for you to come here and say there's 9 no trend, or we basically learned all the lessons we 10 need to learn. Let me just point something out to 11 you. When we intervened on the re-licensing of unit 12 2, had we not raised a contention of a reinforced 13 containment structure, that was us. That was us, not 14 you guys. We raised it.
15  The TMI 2 accident would have been much 16 more severe. We raised it, because nobody wanted to 17 examine the proximity of a nuclear power plant near 18 an airport. I mean, that's insane.
19  So, what I'm saying to you, none of us in 20 this room can say that we've learned all the lessons, 21 or we need to know what we have to do. As you're 22 constricting the process, all I'm pleading you to do 23 is to think about widening the process.
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  90  Arrogance is a very dangerous emotion.
1 That's what I'm seeing here. And I don't, look, this 2 is the third re-licensing I've been to. I'm not 3 doing any more, because essentially I think it's a 4 farce. I think it's clear you know how I feel.
5  But, man, you've got to have an open 6 mind. You've got to be willing to concede that other 7 people have comments, concerns, issues raised that 8 can make this process stronger.
9  But every plant has been re-licensed.
10 Very few uprates have been turned down. You know, 11 that's like an election in Syria, and I wouldn't call 12 Syria a democracy, and I wouldn't call this an open 13 and transparent process.
14  So, I've got to tell you, you know, have 15 you gotten better?  Yes. I lived through TMI. I've 16 done Peach Bottom. Yes, things have improved, but to 17 sit on your laurels and be content, Eric, it's 18 dangerous. That's my warning to you.
19  MR. LEOUS:  Great, and --
20  MR. BENNER:  I appreciate that.
21  MR. LEOUS:  And again, I think this is a 22 great dialog that we should continue, you know, after 23 this meeting. But to bring things back to the 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  91 purpose of the Susquehanna draft supplemental 1 Environmental Impact Statement, barring no further 2 comments on the document, I'd invite Eric to wrap up.
3  MR. BENNER:  And I think that's a perfect 4 segue to my wrap-up, because I don't think we're 5 sitting on our laurels. I think by virtue of the 6 fact that we actively solicit public comments, both 7 in the scoping process and in this meeting. All we 8 can do is solicit. We can't require people to come 9 to this meeting.
10  MS. FRACKE:  If they all knew the truth, 11 they'd be here. You guys lie so damn much. You 12 don't give a damn about anything but your money. I'm 13 disgusted.
14  MR. LEOUS:  Sue, I just ask you to --
15  MR. BENNER:  Yes.
16  MR. LEOUS:  -- while Eric finishes up his 17 final comments. Thank you.
18  MR. BENNER:  Yes. I think I allowed you 19 to speak and I would appreciate the same 20 consideration. May I?  As I said, we have an active 21 program to solicit comments on the environmental 22 review. That's our purpose here tonight.
23  I appreciate all of the comments you 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  92provided. Several of these comments have been 1 provided previously and have been addressed in the 2 EIS. Several comments we've heard tonight are new, 3 and those comments will be addressed in the final 4 Environmental Impact Statement.
5  The purpose of this review is the 6 environmental impacts. There are other avenues to 7 engage the NRC, and Eric, you've articulated that 8 you've engaged several of them, the hearing process 9 by submitting contentions. We endorse that. We 10 encourage that.
11  I don't think we're sitting on our 12 laurels. I think no one in the NRC believes that the 13 process hasn't been strengthened by the active 14 involvement by the public, and we would continue to 15 encourage you to do that.
16  With that, like Drew said, we will be 17 accepting public comments for another period of time.
18  The slides we handed out provides the mechanisms by 19 which you can provide public comments. With that, we 20 do appreciate your time and your attendance. And I 21 wish you a good evening. Thank you.
22  (Whereupon, the above-entitled meeting 23 was concluded at 8:46 p.m.)
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  93  1  2  3  4  5  6  7}}

Revision as of 09:22, 14 November 2019

Transcript of Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Public Meeting Transcript: Evening Session, Meeting May 28, 2008, Pages 1-87
ML090680874
Person / Time
Site: Susquehanna  Talen Energy icon.png
Issue date: 05/28/2008
From:
NRC/NRR/ADRO
To:
References
NRC-2218, TAC MD3021, TAC MD3022
Download: ML090680874 (94)
v • d • e


Text

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Title: Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Public Meeting: Evening Session Docket Number: (n/a)

Location: Berwick, Pennsylvania Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 Work Order No.: NRC-2218 Pages 1-87 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 SCOPING MEETING 5 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 6 UNITS 1 AND 2 7 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION 8 + + + + +

9 WEDNESDAY 10 MAY 28, 2008 11 + + + + +

12 7:00 p.m.

13 + + + + +

14 BERWICK, PENNSYLVANIA 15 + + + + +

16 The Public Meeting was convened at the Eagles 17 Building, 107 South Market Street, Berwick, PA, J.P.

18 Leous presiding.

19 NRC STAFF PARTICIPATING:

20 J.P. LEOUS 21 DREW STUYVENBERG 22 LANCE RAKOVAN 23 ERIC BENNER 24 IRENE YU 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 DIANE SCRENCI 2 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 3 (7:05 p.m.)

4 MR. LEOUS: Good evening. My name is 5 J.P. Leous. It's my pleasure to welcome you here 6 this evening and to serve as tonight's facilitator 7 for our meeting on the draft Supplemental 8 Environmental Impact Statement for the license 9 renewal of Susquehanna Steam Electric Generating 10 Station, units 1 and 2.

11 The purpose of tonight's meeting is two-12 fold. First, to share NRC staff's findings contained 13 in the draft report. And second, to receive any 14 comments on this document, which is the 34th 15 supplement to the generic Environmental Impact 16 Statement for license renewal of nuclear power 17 plants, otherwise known as new regulation 1437.

18 Before we kick things off, I would like 19 to take a moment to let you know what to expect from 20 tonight's meeting and set some ground rules. In a 21 moment, NRC's Environmental Project Manager for the 22 Susquehanna environmental review, Drew Stuyvenberg, 23 will share his team's preliminary findings with us.

24 Drew has been with the agency for about a year and 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

3 1 half and hold's a master's degree from Duke 2 University in Energy and Environmental Policy.

3 Once Drew has concluded his presentation, 4 specifically on the results of the environmental 5 review and how you can submit comments, we'll open 6 things up to any questions you may have, and of 7 course, to receive comments from the public.

8 If you've already registered with us, I 9 have your name and we'll call you up. If you haven't 10 registered, but would like to speak, don't worry, 11 I'll be keeping an eye out for things and as we get 12 moving we'll call you up.

13 We are taking a transcript for tonight's 14 meeting, which is one of the reasons I'm using this 15 microphone. So during the public comment period, 16 when I do call you up, please step up to either 17 microphone and please state your name clearly into 18 the microphone and any affiliation you may have.

19 This will help us keep an accurate record of the 20 meeting.

21 Also, I'll ask that only one person speak 22 at a time. This will help our court reporter, Doug, 23 keep accurate records of tonight's meeting.

24 Before we start, I'd like to introduce 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 some other NRC staff that are with us tonight.

2 First, Mr. Eric Benner, Eric is the Branch Chief for 3 the NRC's license renewal environmental technical 4 staff. And we also have Diane Screnci from NRC's 5 Office of Public Affairs.

6 We also have Kirk LaGory who is from 7 Argonne National Laboratory, and who is one of the 8 ecologists working on this project. Hopefully, when 9 you came in you were able to grab a copy of the 10 slides, as well as a public meeting feedback form.

11 If you do have a chance before you leave 12 tonight to fill out that form and return it to us 13 before you leave, that would be great.

14 Alternatively, at your leisure, you can complete that 15 form and mail it to us. It actually doubles as its 16 own envelope. So, no postage required. When you're 17 done filling it out, just pop it in the mail and it 18 will get to us, and this helps NRC staff improve the 19 public meeting process.

20 Please take a moment now to silence cell 21 phones or any other electronic gadgets you might 22 have, just to minimize disturbances as we get through 23 the meeting.

24 I'd also like to thank the Lucerne County 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 Community College and the Berwick Industrial 2 Development Agency for allowing us to host the 3 meeting here tonight. And with that, I'll turn 4 things over to Drew.

5 MR. STUYVENBERG: Thank you, J.P. First 6 of all, I just wanted to take a moment to thank all 7 of you for coming out to this meeting this evening.

8 I hope the information that we provide you all will 9 help you understand the process that we're going 10 through, what we've done so far, and the role that 11 you can play helping us make sure that the final 12 Environmental Impact Statement is as accurate and 13 complete as possible.

14 I'd like to start off by briefly going 15 over the agenda and the purposes for today's meeting.

16 Next slide, please. I'll start off with a brief 17 overview of the license renewal process and then move 18 on to presenting the preliminary findings of the 19 staff's environmental review in which we've assessed 20 the impacts associated with renewing the operating 21 licenses for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.

22 Then I'll provide some information about 23 the schedule for the remainder of our review and 24 about how you can submit comments in the future. And NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

6 1 finally, we'll leave time for the most important part 2 of this meeting, and that's the chance to receive any 3 comments that you all may have. Next slide, please.

4 The Atomic Energy Act gives the U.S.

5 Nuclear Regulatory Commission the authority to issue 6 operating licenses for commercial nuclear power 7 plants for a period of up to 40 years.

8 For Susquehanna, the licenses for units 1 9 and 2 will expire in 2022 and 2024 respectively. Our 10 regulations make provisions for extending plant 11 operation for an additional 20 years.

12 The NRC received PPL Susquehanna's 13 application for license renewal of units 1 and 2 on 14 September 13, 2006. As part of the NRC's overall 15 review of that application, we've performed an 16 environmental review in which we've looked at the 17 impacts that an additional 20 years of operation will 18 likely have on the environment.

19 We held meetings here on November 15, 20 2006 to discuss the overall license renewal process, 21 including both safety and environmental reviews, and 22 to seek your comments regarding issues that we needed 23 to evaluate.

24 Today, we're here to present 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

7 1 preliminary results of our review that we've 2 documented in our draft Environmental Impact 3 Statement. After I present these preliminary 4 results, we'll open up the floor to your comments.

5 Next slide, please.

6 Next, I'd like to give you some 7 information on the statute that governs our 8 environmental review, and that's the National 9 Environmental Policy Act of 1969, commonly referred 10 to as NEPA.

11 NEPA requires that all federal agencies 12 follow a systematic approach in evaluating potential 13 environmental impacts associated with certain 14 actions. We at the NRC are required to 15 consider the impacts of the proposed action, which in 16 this case is license renewal. We are also required 17 to consider alternatives to the proposed action. The 18 NRC has determined that an EIS will be prepared for 19 any proposed license renewal of a nuclear plant.

20 NEPA and our Environmental Impact 21 Statement are disclosure tools. They're specifically 22 structured to involve individuals and groups from 23 outside the NRC. For example, this meeting is 24 intended to facilitate public participation in 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

8 1 environmental review. Next slide, please.

2 The supplemental Environmental Impact 3 Statement -- I'm sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself.

4 This slide illustrates the NRC's environmental 5 review process that we use to evaluate the impacts of 6 license renewal. This process involves scoping 7 activities to seek out information; a site audit to 8 examine the local environment and how the plant 9 affects it; and the development of a document called 10 a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, or 11 SEIS, to contain the staff's analysis and 12 conclusions.

13 The draft supplemental Environmental 14 Impact Statement, which we published in April 2008, 15 provides the staff's preliminary assessments of the 16 environmental impacts expected during the license 17 renewal term. Next slide, please.

18 The supplemental Environmental Impact 19 Statement is a site-specific complement to the 20 agency's generic EIS for license renewal of all 21 nuclear power plants. In the mid-1990s, the NRC 22 developed a generic EIS by evaluating the impacts of 23 all operating nuclear power plants across the U.S.

24 The NRC looked at 92 separate issues, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

9 1 found that for 69 of those issues the impacts were 2 the same for all plants with similar features. The 3 NRC called these Category 1 issues, and we were able 4 to make generic conclusions that all of the impacts 5 on the environment will be small. The NRC was unable 6 to make similar determinations for the remaining 23 7 issues.

8 Together, the generic EIS and the 9 supplemental EIS form the staff's analysis of the 10 environmental impacts of license renewal for the 11 Susquehanna site.

12 Also during the review, the NRC staff 13 looks for and evaluates any new and significant 14 information that might call into question the 15 conclusions contained in the generic EIS, while also 16 searching for new issues not addressed at all in the 17 generic EIS. Next slide, please.

18 The conclusions in our generic EIS and 19 our supplemental EIS help the NRC to determine 20 whether license renewal is acceptable from an 21 environmental standpoint.

22 After we compare the impacts of license 23 renewal to the alternatives, we use the standards 24 shown on this slide to make our decision. Simply 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 put, we're trying to determine whether license 2 renewal is acceptable from an environmental 3 standpoint. Next slide, please.

4 NRC staff uses information from various 5 sources as we conduct our environmental review. We 6 use the information received in the environmental 7 report that was submitted as part of PPL 8 Susquehanna's license renewal application.

9 We also conducted an audit in May of last 10 year, and we toured the facility, observed the plant 11 systems, and evaluated interaction of the plant 12 operations with the surrounding environment.

13 During this audit, we talked to plant 14 personnel and reviewed specific documentation. We 15 also spoke to federal, state, and local officials.

16 Additionally, we considered the comments received 17 during the public scoping period.

18 All of this information form the basis of 19 our preliminary conclusions contained in the draft 20 supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Next 21 slide, please.

22 This slide shows some of the expertise 23 that we assembled for the Susquehanna environmental 24 review. As you can see, our diverse staff is made up 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 of biologists, economists, health physicists, and 2 other specialists. Next slide, please.

3 Here we see some of the major impact 4 areas that we address during the Susquehanna 5 environmental review. I'll discuss each of these 6 impact areas in a little more depth in a few moments.

7 Next slide, please.

8 So, a major question as we look at our 9 Environmental Impact Statement is how are impacts 10 quantified? Now, the generic EIS defines three 11 impact levels: small, moderate, and large. I'm going 12 to use an example. This is a hypothetical example.

13 This example is, say, fish in the 14 Susquehanna River. So, let's say that despite 15 prevention measures, the operation of the Susquehanna 16 Steam Electric Station may affect fish populations, 17 because the plant takes in water from the river to 18 use for cooling.

19 Now, if the decrease in fish population, 20 because of the operation of the plant, is so small 21 that it can't be detected in relation to the overall 22 fish populations, then that impact would be small.

23 If the losses cause the fish population 24 to noticeably decline, but then stabilize at a lower 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 level, that would be a moderate impact.

2 If the losses cause the fish population 3 to decline to the point where it cannot be 4 stabilized, or continually declines, then the impact 5 would be large. We applied this type of 6 methodology to each resource area studied in the 7 environmental review, such as socio-economics, 8 consumptive water use, air quality, etcetera. Next 9 slide. I'll elaborate a little more on these types 10 of issues. Next slide, please.

11 So, the first set of issues that I'm 12 going to talk about relate to operation of the 13 cooling system at the plant. We looked at issues 14 like discharges from the plant into the river, 15 aquatic species being affected due to water intake 16 systems, and impacts of the cooling towers may have 17 on plants and birds.

18 All the cooling system impacts, in this 19 case applicable to Susquehanna, are Category 1 20 issues. This means that the NRC had made a generic 21 determination that the impacts from normal nuclear 22 plant operations, during the period of extended 23 operations, are small, because of how this plant's 24 design helps reduce impacts to the environment.

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 Since impacts from the plant aren't 2 expected to increase on a year-to-year basis during 3 the license renewal period, and since we found no new 4 and significant information while we reviewed all of 5 those aspects of the plant, we have preliminarily 6 adopted the generic conclusions that the impacts are 7 small for these issues. Next slide, please.

8 The NRC staff also looked for potential 9 impacts to threatened and endangered species. The 10 NRC staff identified three terrestrial species as 11 having the potential to occur on or near the 12 Susquehanna site, or near its associated transmission 13 line right-of-ways.

14 During consultation with the U.S. Fish 15 and Wildlife Service, they indicated only one of 16 these species, the Indiana bat, may occur at the site 17 or along the transmission line right-of-way.

18 During our consultation process, the Fish 19 and Wildlife Service determined that the license 20 renewal action will not have a significant adverse 21 effect on overall habitat quality for the Indiana 22 bat. The project is not likely to adversely affect 23 the species.

24 As part of the license renewal review NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

14 1 process, the NRC staff reviewed information provided 2 by PPL Susquehanna during the site audit; information 3 included in Susquehanna's environmental report; and 4 information from Pennsylvania state agencies, 5 including the Fish and Boat Commission, the 6 Department of Natural Resources and Conservation; and 7 the Department of Environmental Protection; as well 8 as the information provided by the U.S. Fish and 9 Wildlife Service.

10 The staff's preliminary determination is 11 that the impacts during the period of extended 12 operation of Susquehanna units 1 and 2 and its 13 associated transmission lines, on threatened or 14 endangered terrestrial species would be small. Next 15 slide, please.

16 Radiological issues are also a Category 1 17 issue, and therefore the impacts during the license 18 renewal period are small. By design, the operation 19 of nuclear power plants is expected to result in 20 small releases of radiological effluents, or 21 emissions, and Susquehanna is no exception.

22 During our site audit, though, we looked 23 at selected parts of the Radioactive Effluent, or 24 emission, Monitoring and Radiological 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

15 1 Monitoring Programs and supporting documentation.

2 We also looked at how gaseous and liquid 3 effluents are controlled, treated, monitored and 4 released, as well as how solid radioactive wastes are 5 handled, packaged and shipped.

6 We also met with staff from the 7 Pennsylvania Bureau of Radiation Protection. We 8 looked at how the applicant's radiation protection 9 program maintains radiological releases in compliance 10 with the NRC's regulations.

11 We also looked at the applicant's 12 radiological environmental monitoring data from on-13 site and off-site monitoring stations. The data 14 included the results of evaluations of water, milk, 15 fish, food products, and direct radiation.

16 Based on our review of the data, we found 17 that the calculated dose to the maximally exposed 18 member of the public to be well within the NRC's 19 radiation protection limits.

20 The dose of the maximally exposed person 21 is a conservative calculation which assumes maximum 22 values, such as breathing rate, food consumption, 23 drinking water, and proximity to the plant associated 24 with an individual who is exposed from all radiation 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 sources from the plant.

2 Based on a historical review of the 3 radiological data, and the current status of the 4 plant's radiological systems, the staff concluded 5 that the radiological releases from the plant are 6 expected to be similar on a year-to-year basis during 7 the period of extended operation.

8 During the staff's review, no new and 9 significant information related to this issue was 10 found, and thus we've adopted the findings in the 11 GEIS, and preliminarily concluded that the 12 radiological impact on human health and the 13 environment is small. Next slide, please.

14 Now, socio-economic impacts comprise a 15 wide array of issues, including impacts to public 16 services, education, aesthetics, recreation, housing, 17 utilities, transportation, historic and archeological 18 resources, and environmental justice.

19 The staff's independent review of data 20 provided by PPL Susquehanna, local and state 21 governments, the U.S. Census Bureau, and other 22 organizations, indicate that there would be no impact 23 in most socio-economic areas.

24 In the area of historic and archeological 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 resources, however, NRC staff preliminarily 2 determined that impacts may be moderate.

3 After reviewing documentation provided by 4 the applicant and by the Pennsylvania Historic and 5 Museums Commission, the NRC staff reached its 6 moderate conclusion, because significant 7 archeological resources are known to occur on the 8 site, but the entire site has not yet been surveyed.

9 In addition, PPL Susquehanna's procedures 10 for addressing new discoveries on-site may not 11 necessarily effectively protect these resources 12 should they be found in the future.

13 NRC staff recommended a number of 14 possible mitigation measures that could decrease the 15 level of impact in this area if implemented by PPL 16 Susquehanna. Next slide, please.

17 Another area of our review is what's 18 called postulated accidents. There are two classes 19 of accidents that we initially evaluated in our 20 generic EIS. The first of these is design-basis 21 accidents, and second is severe accidents.

22 Design-basis accidents, are those 23 accidents that the plant is designed to withstand 24 while creating only a low radiological risk to 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

18 1 public. The ability of the plant to withstand these 2 accidents has to be demonstrated before the plant is 3 granted its initial operating license.

4 Because the licensee has demonstrated 5 acceptable plant performance for the design-basis 6 accidents throughout the life of the plant, the 7 commission found in the generic EIS that the 8 environmental impacts of design-basis accidents is 9 small for all plants.

10 The second category of accidents is 11 severe accidents. Severe accidents are, by 12 definition, more severe than design-basis accidents, 13 because they may result in substantial damage to the 14 reactor core. The commission found in the generic 15 EIS that the risk of these accidents is small for all 16 plants.

17 Nevertheless, the commission determined 18 that alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must 19 be considered for all plants that have not already 20 done so. These are called severe accident mitigation 21 alternatives, or SAMAs, and require site-specific 22 analysis.

23 The purpose of the SAMA evaluation is to 24 ensure that plant changes, with the potential 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

19 1 changing severe accident safety performance, are 2 identified and evaluated. Next slide, please.

3 So, the scope of potential plant 4 improvements considered, included hardware 5 modifications, procedural changes, training program 6 improvements, and a spectrum of various combinations 7 of alternatives. The scope includes SAMAs that would 8 prevent core damage, as well as SAMAs that would 9 improve containment performance if a core damage 10 event occurs.

11 The preliminary results of the 12 Susquehanna SAMA evaluation are summarized on this 13 slide. Fifteen potential SAMA candidate improvements 14 were identified for the Susquehanna units 1 and 2, 15 based on the review. Five of these SAMAs were 16 identified as being potentially cost-effective, or 17 cost beneficial, I should say.

18 None of those potentially cost beneficial 19 SAMAs, however, are related to managing the effects 20 of plant aging during the license renewal period.

21 Accordingly, they're not required to be implemented 22 as part of license renewal. Next slide, please.

23 Cumulative impacts are the impacts of 24 license renewal when taken together with other past, 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 present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions 2 regardless of what agency or person undertakes those 3 actions. It's kind of a broader look at how this 4 action fits in the context of things that have gone 5 on in this area before.

6 The NRC staff has identified many past, 7 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 8 that we've considered in this review for cumulative 9 impact on the environment.

10 The NRC staff identified past actions 11 like anthracite coal mining, or industrial 12 development and farming. Ongoing current effects, 13 including remaining industries, population centers, 14 and other economic activities, and potential future 15 actions like constructing and operating one or two 16 new units at or near the Susquehanna site.

17 The NRC staff evaluated the potential 18 effects of new units at the Susquehanna site, since 19 PPL Corporation submitted letters in May 2007 20 indicating its intent to file it for a combined 21 license application in late 2008 for one new unit.

22 In discussions with NRC staff, PPL 23 indicated that it may ultimately pursue two units at 24 the site. PPL Corporation has not yet submitted 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

21 1 combined license application for a new unit or units.

2 And if and when it does so, the NRC staff would 3 review that application and decide whether to approve 4 or deny a license for the new facility at that time.

5 6 The environmental impacts of the combined 7 license action would be analyzed and addressed in a 8 separate Environmental Impact Statement that will be 9 prepared by NRC staff.

10 Based on our overall evaluation of past, 11 present, and future effects on the environment in the 12 region, overall cumulative impacts could range from 13 small to large.

14 Where we found large impacts, they were 15 typically the result of historic actions like the 16 coal mining I mentioned earlier, or like dam 17 construction on the Susquehanna River. Next slide, 18 please.

19 As part of the environmental review 20 process, we also evaluated a number of alternatives 21 to license renewal. Alternatives, in this case, are 22 options that could serve the same purpose as 23 Susquehanna units 1 and 2 would serve during the 24 period of extended operation.

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 Specifically, we looked at the impacts of 2 replacing the power from Susquehanna units 1 and 2, 3 which after completely implementing their extended 4 power up rate, would be approximately 2600 megawatts.

5 We considered alternative power sources, or using 6 conservation to reduce demand.

7 Specifically, energy alternatives we 8 evaluated included replacing Susquehanna's generation 9 with power from new coal, natural gas, or nuclear 10 units, as well as the impacts and capabilities of 11 providing replacement power from other providers.

12 Additionally, we looked at other 13 technologies, such as biomass, wind, and solar power 14 to see whether their available potential could 15 replace Susquehanna's units 1 and 2. We also 16 analyzed the combination of alternatives that 17 included conservation and continued operation of one 18 Susquehanna unit.

19 Finally, we addressed the impacts that 20 would likely result if NRC simply did not take action 21 to renew the licenses, and Susquehanna units 1 and 2 22 simply shut down at or before the end of their 23 current licenses. Next slide, please.

24 After each alternative, we looked at 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

23 1 same types of issues that we did when we evaluated 2 the environmental impacts of license renewal to allow 3 us to directly compare the impacts of renewing the 4 unit 1 and 2 licenses with those potential 5 alternatives.

6 The NRC's preliminary conclusion is that 7 the environmental impacts of alternatives, including 8 not renewing the licenses, could reach moderate 9 levels in some of the categories evaluated, and large 10 levels in some resource areas for some alternatives.

11 12 For the combination alternative, the 13 environmental impacts would likely be small for most 14 areas considered, with several potential moderate 15 impacts. Next slide, please. During the 16 environmental review, we found no information that 17 was both new and significant.

18 Therefore we have, preliminarily, adopted 19 the generic EIS conclusions that the impact 20 associated with the 69 issues will continue to be 21 small, or we determined that some of those issues did 22 not apply to the Susquehanna plant.

23 In the Susquehanna draft Supplemental 24 Environmental Impact Statement, we analyzed 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 remaining 23 site-specific issues and determined that 2 11 were applicable to Susquehanna units 1 and 2, 3 because of plant design or because of environmental 4 characteristics.

5 For 10 of these issues in environmental 6 justice, we preliminarily determined that the 7 environmental impacts resulting from these issues 8 would be small. Impacts to historic and 9 archeological resources, however, would likely be 10 moderate.

11 Based on these conclusions, the NRC's 12 preliminary recommendation is that the environmental 13 impacts of license renewal are not so great that 14 license renewal would be unreasonable. That is, we 15 have preliminarily concluded that license renewal is 16 acceptable from an environmental standpoint. Next 17 slide, please.

18 Now, listed here are some important dates 19 for the Susquehanna license renewal and environmental 20 review. In April of 2008, we issued the Supplemental 21 EIS and we're currently accepting public comments on 22 the draft until July 21st of 2008. The final 23 supplemental EIS is scheduled to be published by 24 March of 2009. Next slide, please.

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 This slide identifies me as your primary 2 contact with the NRC for the environmental review of 3 Susquehanna Steam Electric Station. Ms. Evelyn 4 Gettys is the contact for any questions related to 5 safety review, and that safety review is currently 6 still ongoing.

7 Documents related to the Susquehanna 8 review may be found at the McBride Memorial Library 9 here in Berwick, and at the Mill Memorial Library in 10 Nanticoke.

11 At the bottom of the slide is the 12 internet address where you can directly access the 13 Susquehanna units 1 and 2 draft Supplemental 14 Environmental Impact Statement, and all of these 15 items are also in your packet. So, if there's 16 anything you want to write down, it's all in front of 17 you. Next slide, please.

18 There are several ways you can provide 19 your comments on the Susquehanna draft Environmental 20 Impact Statement.

21 First, you can provide your comments 22 today during the comment period of this meeting. If 23 perhaps, you're not ready to provide your comments 24 directly today, you can send your comment via email 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 to the following address: susquehannaeis@nrc.gov.

2 It's posted up here and in your packets, and we'll be 3 sure to get those as well.

4 You can also send your comments by U.S.

5 mail, or you can hand deliver them, if you happen to 6 be in the area at our headquarters in Maryland.

7 And with that, this portion of the 8 presentation is concluded and you will soon be able 9 to offer your comments directly on the staff's review 10 and on our preliminary findings. Thank you.

11 MR. LEOUS: Great! Thank you, Drew.

12 Just before we get to the question and comment 13 period, just some housekeeping matters. Some of the 14 documents we've heard, you've heard us speak of 15 tonight, the draft supplemental Environmental Impact 16 Statement is here, and there's copies should you like 17 them.

18 Additionally, the generic Environmental 19 Impact Statement copy is here for you to peruse.

20 There's additional information on various issues that 21 the NRC deals with at the other end of the table.

22 All of these documents and plenty more 23 are available on the NRC's website, should you be so 24 interested. As Drew mentioned, I just want 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

27 1 reiterate that we are accepting both oral comments 2 and written.

3 Should you have written comments that 4 you'd like to share with us tonight, feel free to 5 hand them to myself or any of the other NRC personnel 6 here. In addition, as Drew mentioned, we are 7 receiving comments well after tonight's meeting until st 8 July 21 , as Drew mentioned, numerous ways to get 9 those to us. Also, after the comment 10 period if there are any issues that you'd like to 11 discuss with staff, NRC's technical staff will be 12 here after the meeting for as long as you'd like to 13 chat with us.

14 So, there will be plenty of opportunity 15 to speak with you on a one-on-one basis, if that's 16 what you prefer. That being said, before we get to 17 comments, if anybody has any questions, in terms of 18 clarifying issues that Drew had mentioned, you can 19 just raise your hand and we can flesh those out.

20 Great. Yes. We actually need for Doug 21 to get it on the record, yes.

22 MS. FRACKE: One of my questions is how 23 many here are from the government? I know you said 24 the NRC and some others.

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 MR. LEOUS: Well, in addition to Drew, 2 Eric, Lance, myself and Diane, and there is one 3 member of EPD here, as well. So, that's one, two, 4 three, four, five, six. Kirk is an employee of 5 Argonne National Laboratory as well. He's a 6 contractor for the NRC, yes.

7 MS. FRACKE: How many are newspaper or 8 what kind of reporters are here today?

9 MR. LEOUS: Is there anyone from the 10 media? This afternoon we did have several reporters 11 from local media that did speak with Drew, but it 12 doesn't appear to be anybody here this evening.

13 MS. FRACKE: What news media did you 14 contact?

15 MS. SCRENCI: I'm Diane Screnci. I'm the 16 Public Affairs Officer. We did send out press 17 releases announcing the new availability of the draft 18 Environmental Impact Statement, as well as the 19 schedule for the meeting several weeks ago to all the 20 reporters in the area, and there were a couple of 21 reporters here this afternoon. There were three.

22 MS. FRACKE: Do you remember any of the 23 reporters or the papers, radio, or T.V. that you 24 used?

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 MS. SCRENCI: That were here today or 2 that we sent them to?

3 MS. FRACKE: Yes, that it was sent to.

4 MR. LEOUS: It's difficult without having 5 various microphones here. So, if you could take that 6 microphone, and I'll talk to her. The question was 7 essentially if you recall which newspapers or media 8 personnel were contacted. Is that correct? Okay.

9 MS. SCRENCI: We have a complete list of 10 newspapers, radio stations, T.V. stations that we 11 send to when we are issuing press releases for 12 Susquehanna. It's the Hazelton newspaper, the 13 Wilkes-Barre news media, the Scranton media. So, 14 it's all the reporters that are around the area.

15 MR. LEOUS: Actually, Ms. Fracke, if we 16 could just --

17 MS. SCRENCI: I absolutely don't recall 18 the names of any of the radio stations, but it's the, 19 what is it, the Press Enterprise, the -- I'm sorry, 20 off hand I don't recall any others, but I do have an 21 email list.

22 MR. LEOUS: If we could just stick a pin 23 in this. This portion of meeting is really to 24 clarify any issues that Drew presented, just to make NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

30 1 sure that we communicated things, and we can 2 certainly get to other questions later. Just, in 3 this portion before we get to comments I just want to 4 make sure -- okay. Okay.

5 MS. FRACKE: My neighbor was curious, 6 too. Why are they going so early for another license 7 when they just got one up to 2024? Why now to 2044?

8 MR. LEOUS: Drew?

9 MR. STUYVENBERG: Just to briefly answer 10 that, NRC regulations allow an operating plant to 11 pursue license renewal after having 20 years of 12 operation. So, Susquehanna units 1 and 2 achieved 13 that several years ago. So, that's why they were 14 able to apply for a license renewal. Sometimes that 15 review can take several years.

16 MS. FRACKE: But they just got one for 20 17 years. Why another 20 years? Why up to 2044? I 18 mean, that's crazy.

19 MR. LEOUS: Well, Drew?

20 MR. STUYVENBERG: I was going to say, 21 just to briefly explain, there initial license was 40 22 years. So, it's from when they first start operating 23 to 40 years afterwards. And so after they've 24 operated for 20 years into that 40 year period, 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

31 1 can then apply for a license renewal. But this is 2 their first renewal.

3 MR. LEOUS: Okay. Actually, as Drew is 4 getting there, that question may best be answered by 5 plant personnel rather than NRC staff in terms of 6 their motivations for applying for license renewal.

7 This staff may not be in the best place to comment on 8 that.

9 Barring any other questions regarding the 10 review, we can get into the comment section here, and 11 I do have a Fred -- he's not there? Okay, Sue, if 12 you wouldn't mind.

13 MS. FRACKE: What does the NRC allow to 14 be admitted into the water and into the air from the 15 nuclear power plant?

16 MR. LEOUS: Eric?

17 MR. BENNER: Yes. I can't recite them 18 off the top of my head. Eric Benner, Branch Chief of 19 the Environmental Review Branch. There are limits on 20 what can be released. Primarily our review ensures 21 that the plant operated within regulations.

22 The part of the regulations that lists 23 all the different isotopes and the limits on those 24 different isotopes is 10CFR, part 21, or part 20, I'm 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 sorry. So, we have a copy of 10CFR here.

2 After we're done with the comment 3 portion, I'd be happy to show you some of that.

4 Really for our review, we're just looking to ensure 5 that the plant has complied with the regulations.

6 Well, and I articulated that I would be happy to show 7 you the regulations that I referred to.

8 MR. LEOUS: Great. Thank you, Eric.

9 Sue, I know you expressed interest in sharing some 10 comments with us tonight. So, if you would care to 11 step up to the podium.

12 MS. FRACKE: My name is Sue Fracke. I 13 live in the ten-mile dead zone around the plant in 14 Sugarloaf. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen who 15 sincerely care about the health, safety, and welfare 16 of people everywhere.

17 For those of you in the nuclear industry, 18 whether government or business, may you conceive the 19 ugly diseases that you have helped innocent people 20 die from, or be crippled with for the rest of their 21 lives. I cannot wish you a good anything. The last 22 time I spoke out at one of these type meetings, a man 23 came up to me and said, "Sue, you always say the same 24 thing." And I told him, "That is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

33 1 because nothing has changed with the nuclear 2 industry, still giving us the same old load of feces, 3 such as, `I'm not afraid to move my family close by.

4 I wouldn't submit my children to anything that could 5 harm them.'," and that is what scares me about you 6 people. You're as stupid as our appointed president, 7 and who thinks he's anointed.

8 Every year, 20,000 people die of cancer 9 from naturally occurring background radiation. You 10 would think that this fact alone would be enough to 11 say let us not produce any more radiation, as it will 12 kill more people.

13 With all our other means of making 14 energy, especially all the various kinds of solar 15 energy that we now have the technology to do, it 16 makes no sense to use a source of energy that is 17 dangerous and will cause more people to die of cancer 18 and other degenerative diseases. Even if some people 19 are cured from cancer, they will worry forever that 20 it will come back to them and all the suffering that 21 comes with it, and many times it does come back.

22 In the Federal Register, December 15, 23 1989, part 2, by the Environmental Protection Agency, 24 40CFR, part 61, national emissions standards 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

34 1 hazardous air pollutants, radionuclides, final rule 2 notice, etc. reiterated from the Federal Register of 3 December 27, 1979, the EPA listed radionuclides as a 4 hazardous air pollutant.

5 EPA determined that radionuclides are a 6 known cause of cancer and genetic damage, and that 7 radionuclides cause or contribute to air pollution 8 that may reasonably be anticipated to result in an 9 increase in mortality, or an increase in serious 10 irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness, 11 and therefore constitutes a hazardous air pollutant 12 within the meaning of Section 112A-1.

13 There are three major types of long-term 14 health impacts from exposure to radiation: cancer, 15 hereditary effects and developmental effects on 16 fetuses, such as mental retardation.

17 In addition, risk distribution from 18 radiation for most of the sources considered for 19 regulation show that fatal cancers occur much more 20 frequently than non-fatal cancers. And cancers 21 generally occur more often than genetic or 22 developmental effects.

23 It also states that numerous studies have 24 demonstrated that radiation is a carcinogen. I don'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

35 1 get that you guys don't seem to recognize this. It 2 is assumed that there is no completely risk-free 3 level of exposure to radiation to cause cancer.

4 That's right in the Federal Register. I 5 guess you guys don't read it. Radiation corrodes 6 metal, such as in the pipes of nuclear power plants, 7 causing holes that constantly emit radiation in our 8 air under the routine operation of the plants.

9 Radiation is cumulative in our bodies, 10 and the effects of exposure can sometimes take many 11 years before showing up. And we were worried that 12 Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

13 We've got them, 110 or more or less in our country 14 right now.

15 Along with radioactive air pollutants, 16 the Environmental Protection Agency reports that in 17 2002, 24,379 U.S. non-nuclear facilities released 18 4.79 billion pounds of toxins into the atmosphere.

19 Of these pollutants, 72 million pounds 20 were known carcinogens. We have no concept of the 21 synergistic effects of these toxins when they are 22 mixed with radioactive pollutants. These toxins 23 impinge on health during your entire life, even 24 before birth.

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 A study in New York city shows that the 2 genetic material in fetuses still in their mother's 3 womb is damaged by air pollution. From the Radiation 4 and Public Health Project in Norristown, 5 Pennsylvania, they have found that, "Current 6 emissions, current rates of infant deaths, childhood 7 cancer, and thyroid cancer are known to be affected 8 by emissions from nuclear reactors are elevated in 9 Lucerne county," the site of the Susquehanna nuclear 10 plant.

11 The National Academy of Sciences BEIR 12 Committee, in their 1990 study, also published there 13 is no safe dose of radiation. And again in their 14 1995 and 1996 reports, they again reported the same, 15 but this time said there may be biological damage in 16 addition.

17 The United States Department of Energy, 18 DOE, is conducting a ten-year program of basic 19 research in microbiology and these researchers, some 20 in university and some in government agencies, are 21 finding new, unanticipated forms of genetic damage.

22 A damaged cell may be able to repair 23 itself, but the repaired cell will not be more like 24 the original undamaged cell. There could be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

37 1 irreversible damage to our species.

2 These are not decisions to be made by 3 engineers. This should be in realm of biologists and 4 geneticists, independent of the government and all 5 the industries.

6 "These high rates should shock all 7 Lucerne county residents and they should demand a 8 thorough study of the health risks posed by the 9 Susquehanna plant," said Joseph Mangano of the 10 Radiation and Public Health Project, who presented 11 the data.

12 "If radioactive," and this is a quote, 13 more quotes, most a lot of them from him, "If 14 radioactive emissions from the plant have been 15 harmful, people should know this before the 16 government decides whether or not to extend the 17 plant's license. The 2000-2004 county rate of white 18 infants who died in their first month was 23 percent 19 above the U.S. rate, based on 55 deaths. In that 20 same period, 43 Lucerne children under age 15 were 21 diagnosed with cancer, a rate 38 percent above the 22 nation. Data are taken from the National Center for 23 Health Statistics and the Pennsylvania Cancer 24 Registry." I guess you guys didn't contact them.

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 Thyroid cancer statistics may be most 2 alarming. In the late 1980s, the two reactors at 3 Susquehanna were starting, the Lucerne rate was 20 4 percent below the U.S. However, in 2000-2003, the 5 Lucerne rate was 100 percent above, double the 6 nation.

7 Radioactive iodine, found only in nuclear 8 weapons and reactors, seeks out the thyroid gland 9 where it kills and impairs cells leading to cancer.

10 Two large nuclear reactors have operated at 11 Susquehanna beginning in 1982 and 1984 respectively.

12 Virtually all of the 312,000 residents of 13 Lucerne county live within 15 miles of the plant and 14 would be most likely to receive the greatest 15 radiation exposures. Like all reactors, Susquehanna 16 routinely emits gasses and particles into the air and 17 water, which enters human bodies by breathing and the 18 food chain. There are over 100 radioactive chemicals 19 in this mix. Each causes cancer and is especially 20 harmful to fetuses, infants and children.

21 California closed down the Diablo Canyon 22 nuclear plant many years ago. Through conservation, 23 solar and other forms of energy, they created over 24 800 new jobs and lowered their rates.

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 Nuclear power is only about 19 percent or 2 so of our energy in the U.S. Through conservation 3 and solar we could close down all the nuclear plants 4 in our country and save thousands of lives, if not 5 millions.

6 These findings, and other data on local 7 disease rates, should be part of the federal decision 8 on whether the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9 should approve the application of PP&L Susquehanna to 10 operate the plant until 2044. The current license 11 allows operation until 2024. These plants were 12 originally designed to only operate for 12 to 15 13 years.

14 PP&L and the NRC are pushing our luck.

15 Anyone who wants more nuclear power plants -- and our 16 president wants 54 more in this country -- should be 17 considered an insane terrorist. Our president 18 constantly tries to scare us about terrorists.

19 Nuclear plants, and the high level radioactive waste 20 sites, both now at the Susquehanna site, could be a 21 terrorist's dream.

22 We are also using depleted uranium bombs 23 in Iraq. Both our soldiers and the Iraqis are being 24 exposed. Many of the Iraqi children are getting 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 leukemia.

2 Remember the Gulf War Syndrome? Our 3 soldiers were exposed then, too, and many of their 4 children had birth defects, and many of the soldiers 5 got very sick. And our government didn't want to 6 tell them why. Who is the terrorist?

7 And you know, if a person has a gun and 8 goes around and starts shooting people and gets 9 caught, they put him in jail for life, if not capital 10 punishment.

11 But you people have so far allowed all 12 these nuclear power plants who have caused more 13 cancer and other degenerative diseases, but it goes 14 slower. It's not an instant kill.

15 So, all of you can just go around and 16 say, "Oh well, nobody's dying right away." So you 17 don't know and you'll never know, and they're not 18 faces to any of you people.

19 So, you can go about your business and 20 collecting your money, but I consider you all 21 murderers, because that's what you're doing any way 22 you look at it. You're not looking at it the way we 23 get the information. You get different information 24 that says very small impact.

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

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

41 1 So, what's a small impact? How many 2 people die and it's a small impact? How many 3 animals, we've seen a lot of our animals getting 4 cancer, and it's just, it's disgusting to see all 5 this. And our families and diabetes. All these 6 diseases that are just going around like crazy like 7 we didn't see when I was a child. We didn't see so 8 much of it, and now all of it's got to be something.

9 And nuclear is one of the answers. And I 10 say shut them down, don't, just deny them another 11 license, or I wish there was a hell for you to go to.

12 MR. LEOUS: Great. Thank you, Sue. Mr.

13 Epstein? If you care to share your comments.

14 MR. EPSTEIN: Well, I'm going to take a 15 little different tact here. My name's Eric Epstein.

16 I'm the Chairman of Three Mile Island Alert. We're 17 a SAFE organization based in Harrisburg. We monitor 18 three nuclear power plants: Susquehanna, Peach 19 Bottom, and Three Mile Island.

20 I don't know how we want to proceed. I 21 have comments, but I also have a document I'd like to 22 enter into the record. And then we can discuss how 23 we proceed from there with official comments, because 24 what I did is I read the entire document, have some NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

42 1 concerns. And I've been tracking this issue since 2 the November 2006, I think, was our first meeting up 3 here. I would just say, right off 4 the bat, there's got to be a different way to respond 5 to questions. In Appendix A, you have responses to 6 questions, and they basically, you homogenize them.

7 You don't really answer questions. I don't know if 8 you know what I'm referring to, but this is something 9 that the NRC does time and time again.

10 There are people that take the time to 11 research issues, ask a pointed question, and what you 12 do is get a cumulative response. I mean, just as a 13 generic tone, as a former college professor, I 14 wouldn't give you a high grade there. I think if 15 somebody's taken the time and effort to raise an 16 issue, they deserve a specific response.

17 I was disappointed. I spent a lot of 18 time preparing a presentation. You may not agree 19 with some of the policies that I advocate, but I 20 don't really think the public is well served.

21 And I would say this, you know, we've 22 gone through Three Mile Island. We've gone through 23 Peach Bottom. That plant was shut down, because the 24 operator ended up having his TMI unit 1 was shut 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 down, like six and a half years, I think, under NRC 2 order.

3 We have a lot of experience testifying 4 before you guys and reading these documents. Believe 5 me, if my house catches on fire, don't even send the 6 fire police. I still have all the hard documents.

7 I'd also like to extend a compliment, 8 because this was a lot easier to get through. I did 9 look at it on PDF, but it's nice to have this. I'm 10 not really sure why we still don't do page numbers, 11 but that's kind of a housekeeping issue.

12 I point out that I'm also in federal 13 court suing the Susquehanna River Basin Commission 14 and PPL Susquehanna. And one of the reasons I'm 15 doing that is because I don't think the NRC has done 16 a good job when it comes to looking at environmental 17 impact and water use. Especially in a state like 18 Pennsylvania where I think we've collectively taken 19 water for granted, but it's a limited commodity.

20 We're getting ready to finish Act 220 and 21 we're going to have a water budget for the year 2008, 22 and PPL is ahead of the game. And there is the 23 potential for Susquehanna to be declared a water-24 budgeted area way after you have declared there's no 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 impact to the water.

2 So, I guess my biggest sense of concern 3 and disappointment is the lack of coordination 4 between state and federal agencies. This is now my 5 third re-licensing proceeding. Unfortunately, I 6 think I lead the league in that. However, TMI, we 7 just came to a settlement, so I won't have to pursue 8 that particular issue.

9 I'll just try to read, not a lot, but 10 refer to my notes. One of the things that dismayed 11 me the most is that the first time I was here, I had 12 to introduce the NRC to the SRBC.

13 I know that since that time you guys have 14 developed a relationship, but I've got to tell you, 15 that's not a confidence builder when the agency 16 overseeing the re-licensing of a nuclear power plant 17 is unaware that there's a federal compact that 18 oversees surface water consumption. It was a 19 disappointment.

20 I know things have improved. I know the 21 SRBC has now hired someone to do that issue.

22 Hopefully, re-licensing at TMI will warrant more 23 scrutiny. Certainly at Limerick, I'm sure you're 24 aware there's a Delaware River Basin Commission.

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 So right off the get-go, one of the 2 concerns I had, which was raised by somebody else, is 3 that Susquehanna's a pretty new plant. I think it's 4 one of the youngest to come up for re-licensing.

5 It's hard for me to understand how you 6 can capture an aging plant and a young plant. You 7 know, I think one of the things you may want to look 8 at down the road is when these plants come up for re-9 licensing, there may be an adjustable criteria for a 10 plant that's operated, let's say for 30 years, 11 compared to 20. Just the lessons learned type of 12 thing that I would put out there.

13 Beginning on June 5, 2007, PPL and the 14 NRC have filed responses in opposition to my concerns 15 relating to water use, water chemistry, and aquatic 16 challenges. In fact, I lost a case at the NRC, 17 because all the issues I raised were considered 18 outside the scope and not material to this 19 proceeding.

20 One of the flaws with re-licensing is, 21 since the ROP's inception, this process is so 22 construed. There's something terribly wrong when 23 there's been 48 license applications, and only one 24 contention has been admitted. I want to say that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

46 1 again. How many? Because that's what Exelon told me 2 last week. One contention in Oyster --

3 [Unintelligible]

4 MR. LEOUS: Hang on, Diane. Hang on, 5 Diane.

6 MS. SCRENCI: Sorry, there was one 7 contention in Oyster Creek, I believe there are three 8 contentions at Vermont Yankee. There's one 9 contention at Pilgrim, and there are 150-something 10 under consideration by an Atomic Safety and Licensing 11 Board at Indian Point.

12 MR. EPSTEIN: No, let's have this 13 discussion. Let's speak, because this is something 14 you're taking pride in.

15 MR. LEOUS: Now is not the time to get 16 into a back and forth. So, --

17 MR. EPSTEIN: Yes, but what I'm saying 18 is, let's say that my number is off and there's been 19 three at Vermont Yankee, one at Pilgrim. Out of how 20 many? The percentage is infinitesimal. I mean, when 21 we did this the first time around, when we actually 22 licensed the plant, what I'd like to see, Diane, if 23 you're going to brag about these numbers.

24 Well, I just want to say a simple 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 comparison will eliminate my point. If you look at 2 the number of contentions that were accepted when 3 these plants first came on line, compared to now, 4 it's unbelievable how many are not getting passed, 5 either the technical or environmental scope.

6 I mean, I've done this the first time 7 around. Contentions were routinely accepted, 8 litigated. We had discovery. We don't have 9 discovery. They're rarely accepted. What I'm saying 10 to you is you guys have narrowed the process.

11 If somebody wants to take issue with me, 12 I mean, that is an extraordinary mental gymnastic I'd 13 like to witness. So, let's say I'm wrong, it's not 14 one contention, it's five, six, seven. Out of the 15 hundreds that have been entered.

16 Now the first time we did this, in the 17 70s, you actually got contentions admitted and you 18 litigated. So, what I'm saying to you is, look, the 19 process has changed. The ability to get a contention 20 litigated to basically vet it, it's not there. I 21 mean, I think we can all agree with that.

22 What I would love to see the NRC do, and 23 I know you won't, number of contentions admitted the 24 first time around versus contentions admitted 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

48 1 time around. And you're going to see this, Diane.

2 I'm telling you, that's reality.

3 The problem I have is this is like a 4 shell game. Do you go before the PUC? Do you go 5 before the SRBC? But when you go to the SRBC, 6 anything that says nuclear radiation go back to the 7 NRC.

8 You can't go to the PUC anymore, because 9 now it's deregulated. They haven't filed anything at 10 the PUC for water consumption.

11 DEP has actually filed suggestions. They 12 won't let me see it. It came out in another 13 proceeding when I was doing discovery. So, I'm a 14 citizen. This is not what I do for a living. You've 15 made it very difficult for someone to intervene, get 16 a contention admitted, and to vet an issue. I don't 17 think it's a user-friendly process.

18 And again, I'm probably one of the few 19 people who have done it both times. Now, maybe there 20 were problems the first time around, but to basically 21 shut folks out is not going to be healthy.

22 I think we can all agree that 23 unintentionally destabilizing a sensitive and 24 important aquatic asset, like the Susquehanna River, 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 is not in the public interest. All I'm saying is 2 that all sensible and proactive measures should be 3 deployed to mitigate against this scenario.

4 The merits, and this is basically what 5 I've been saying at each re-licensing proceeding, the 6 merits of an exhaustive investigation are numerable 7 and present, really, no hardship to PPL Susquehanna.

8 The problem I'm having here is that this 9 case is going to reform what happens next at TMI, and 10 at Limerick, and then the uprates that are going to 11 occur after that. I think we all know what Exelon's 12 strategic architecture is. PPL is unique. They only 13 have one plant.

14 Susquehanna, on a conference call I had, 15 or Exelon, on a conference call I had the NRC, said 16 their strategic architecture, over the next three 17 years, is to re-license and uprate every plant. So, 18 we're going to see different variations of the re-19 licensing occur.

20 So, this document is extremely important.

21 I mean, extremely. This is going to be the 22 blueprint for moving forward. Well also, and I don't 23 want to belabor the point, but obviously the concern 24 that I think we have in Pennsylvania, which may be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

50 1 unique -- obviously, there are New Jersey and others 2 -- besides the sheer volume of nuclear waste that's 3 going to be generated.

4 And let's be adults Yucca Mountain's not 5 getting built. It's not happening. I'm not saying 6 it's good or bad. That's reality.

7 At some point we need to start having a 8 discussion as adults. If we're going to generate 20, 9 30 metric tons of waste per reactor year, and it has 10 nowhere to go, that's an environmental impact.

11 Now while I disagree with Sue, I think 12 these plants were probably designed for 40 years, and 13 from what I understand that was basically actuarial, 14 but to get another 10, 20 years to generate, you 15 know, 30, 60 metric tons of high level waste with 16 nowhere to go, I can't see how that's not an 17 environmental impact.

18 And I've said this before and I'll say it 19 again, what we're going to do with the legislature, 20 start taxing you for storing radioactive waste on 21 site.

22 If we want to play this game, we'll play 23 the game. It's a risk reward. Nobody here asked for 24 the waste. It's going to be here. It has nowhere 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

51 1 go.

2 In addition to that, beginning in July 3 2008, I didn't see any discussion about this, 4 Barnwell's going to close to us. We have nowhere to 5 take our low-level radioactive waste. Nowhere do I 6 see in the scoping process what do we do with these 7 two reactors, let alone another two reactors.

8 So, now we've got high-level waste, low-9 level waste, mixed waste, waste on the road going to 10 SEG in Tennessee to be compressed. All kinds of 11 different ripple impacts that are potentially 12 negative for this community. Waste goes in, waste 13 goes off, waste stays on. It would have been nice if 14 that would have been factored.

15 I would just say that the same company 16 that I'm having problems with on the surface 17 withdrawal of water from Susquehanna, essentially the 18 river intake and grand fathering two wells, T1 and 19 T2, is the same company that's basically going to be 20 allowed to re-license a plant for 20 years and not 21 really have these on-site inspections.

22 What I saw at the SRBC and what I saw at 23 the NRC is basically documentation that's provided by 24 PL, by government agencies, and to review that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

52 1 documentation. Now, I'm sure there's on-site 2 inspections, but I didn't see the rigorous on-site 3 examination that I would want, or the due diligence 4 that I think you need to do for a plant that's going 5 to be asked to operate for another 20 years. That's 6 the concern that we have.

7 You know, things when this plant were re-8 licensed, there was no such thing as compensatory 9 fire measures, i.e. roving fire watches. You know, 10 thermal lag. Whether it's radwaste, there's flanges 11 that don't, o-rings.

12 I mean, one of the things that you guys 13 do well is there's RIS that come out every week.

14 There's a whole host of technical issues. I thought 15 it was a no-brainer. You take a checklist to the 16 RIS, all the generic challenges faced in the 17 industry, and see if any of those show up.

18 I mean, how hard was that? Because 19 Susquehanna's actually mentioned in the RIS on 20 several occasions. Take the RIS. See the re-21 license. Well, see if we have a generic issue. See 22 if we have a site-specific issue, rather than do this 23 kind of generic pancake application.

24 Whoever does the RIS, by the way, 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 deserves a lot of credit. That's a really good 2 document. The issues that I was disappointed in, and 3 I think you guys have heard me pound on time and time 4 again, really have to do with aquatic challenges.

5 I'll be specific. Neither PPL or the 6 EPA, and this is great how 316a and 316b doesn't 7 really matter, because it's in court, even though 8 it's going to be ripe for argument this fall, we just 9 won't deal 316a and 316b as if it's gone away.

10 Dude, that's great magic. Great magic.

11 Four of the issues I raised, still outstanding, never 12 been addressed, never got a response at any venue. I 13 mean, I can take losing. Not well, but I'd like to 14 know what I'm losing.

15 Neither the PPL, EPA, the DEP, or the NRC 16 addressed safety and structural challenges caused by 17 microfouling versus macrofouling; microbiologically 18 influenced corrosion; biofilm disease-causing 19 bacteria, like legionella and wisteria; the 20 difficulty in eliminating established biofilms; 21 oxidizing versus non-oxidizing biocides; the eastward 22 migration of asiatic clams, zebra mussels.

23 Nothing here is proactive. You know, now 24 I saw, you had two pages on these, and 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

54 1 get to that, which were really interesting, but 2 nothing here is proactive. This is really an 3 interesting scoping tool. Everything is reactive.

4 Nothing is anticipated. Nothing is proactive.

5 It's, I mean, in my field of work it's 6 exactly the opposite. You try to anticipate what's 7 going to happen and prevent it. Here it's basically, 8 until it happens, then we'll react. I just think 9 that's dangerous.

10 I can't ask you, and I know you don't 11 have the power to go back and talk to the NRC 12 commissioners and have it changed, but I think the 13 reactor oversight process is flawed in that 14 particular area, and as it translates to re-15 licensing.

16 I read the GEIS. What I found, what was 17 interesting is the NRC has acknowledged the absence 18 of water monitoring tools for algae and benthic 19 macroinvertebrates.

20 So, I don't know why, but the monitoring 21 stopped in 1994. That's 14 years ago. How you can 22 give somebody a clean bill of health on a monitoring 23 protocol that no longer exists is beyond me.

24 Again, this is in your document. The NRC 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 acknowledged, and this is again in the GEIS, "PPL 2 does not sample private wells on nearby properties,"

3 which amazes me, because I'm sure you guys know the 4 word Bravewood. And the closest well is a domestic 5 well near the southeast corner of the facility.

6 So, I don't even know if that's the 7 appropriate pollutant pathway or what, but I think we 8 all know now, and it's not just tritium, that we've 9 got migratory pollutant paths raised at all nuclear 10 power plants. It would have been nice if we had 11 testing in place to capture this.

12 Now, we have six, and I think if I'm 13 reading this correctly, at one point we had four 14 tritium monitoring wells, we're up to six. However, 15 I'm not really sure where they're at. I may have 16 missed it, and I'm not sure the rhyme or reason of 17 how we do it. TMI is a little more aggressive, but I 18 think it's good that PPL has more, rather than less.

19 To me the issue is this, it's real basic, 20 if there is a tangible impact to the community when a 21 major industrial facility, and again I want you to be 22 aware that this is a precedent for water use. We're 23 going to have coal gassification facilities. We're 24 going to have an ethanol plant. We have a new 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 gambling casino close by. We're going to have an 2 airport in Hazelton.

3 This reminds me of the land use work I do 4 where the developer comes in and says, "Look, I'm 5 only going to have a 2 percent net impact on the 6 traffic." Well, Dude, what about the other 10 7 developers? You know? There's an aggregate impact 8 and you guys aren't charged to look at it. It all 9 goes to the same place. Right now, and the 10 SRBC is not here, we are very vulnerable to drought 11 conditions. Nuclear power industry does not have to 12 comply with drought restrictions. It's a voluntary 13 compliance. Who's going to resolve this? Who's 14 going to reconcile this?

15 I just spent the last two years, 16 thousands of hours, thousands of dollars trying to 17 get answers to these questions and no one is 18 answering. Who is going to rectify it when one day 19 we wake up and say, "Hey, the water for the golf 20 course, the water for the nuclear power plant, or the 21 water for sewage?"

22 Dude, I don't know which agencies you 23 talked to, but I deal with land use. That's what I 24 do on a day-to-day basis. You guys have a potential 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 nightmare on your hands. Not even talking about 2 radiation.

3 I'm going to talk about nuclear power 4 production, is there's a limited amount of water 5 that's got to go somewhere and how we're going to do 6 this resource allocation is not dealt with in this 7 document. In fact, nobody deals with it. DEP 8 doesn't deal with it in relation to this. They deal 9 with it in a segmented way. EPA doesn't deal with 10 it. That's right, 316a and 316b, it's not right yet, 11 so we can't deal with that.

12 So, we have all of these fragmented 13 regulatory bodies out there. This concerns me. This 14 is aside from the, this is just completely aside from 15 the debate on whether nuclear power is good or bad.

16 I'm not even having that debate.

17 The debate that I'm having with you is 18 that water is a valuable commodity. It's limited.

19 Who the hell is going to decide where it goes, when 20 it goes, and if it goes? And we have a crisis, I 21 believe, on our hands.

22 And I think people -- in fact, today at 23 the legislature we just passed, out of committee, the 24 potential to box $750 million to break a badly broken 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 Pennsylvania water infrastructure. Our water and 2 sewage systems are failing, yet we're going to give 3 these guys, who made roughly $860 million last year, 4 a free pass on 20 years. Something's got to be 5 looked at.

6 My concern is this, and I'm not asking 7 you guys to do this, I know you have an 8 administrative charter and a statute, and I'm not 9 asking you to go beyond that charter, which is 10 inherent.

11 What I'm asking you to do is not to decay 12 into this regulatory fragmentation protocol where you 13 just hold your arms back and say, "I'm not looking at 14 that," because that is, and the new word I got over 15 the last two years, regulatory creep.

16 Pick up the phone. Call your colleague, 17 "Dude, are you looking at this? Are you not looking 18 at it? What's happening?" Nobody picked up the 19 phone last year. TMI, Mike can talk about it. All 20 of a sudden the water was reduced, turnpike collapses 21 a bridge. We had this going on and that going on.

22 My god, people aren't talking.

23 It's not just this -- I mean, what 24 strikes me is how similar this is to when a developer 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 comes in and wants to build a community, and then 2 makes believe there's no other communities being 3 built, or any other resources. This is insane, guys.

4 This is insane.

5 Again, put aside whether you're pro or 6 anti-nuclear. This is not good. PPL will face water 7 chemistry issues, biofouling, aquatic challenges.

8 That's going to happen. They've acknowledged it. We 9 all acknowledge it. And that may impact your 10 operation abilities.

11 It seems to me that the SRBC and the NRC 12 is saying don't worry about it, because it's in our 13 best interest to solve it. Nobody's asking, maybe we 14 should worry about it, because maybe they're taking 15 shortcuts to satisfy their bottom line. That's what 16 concerns me. You know, logic would tell you, yeah, 17 it's in your best interest. You want to have the 18 best equipment and the most robust equipment, the 19 inspections. It takes people. Look at the number of 20 people working at the plant.

21 We'll get at that later, which is really 22 interesting, because that number that you accepted is 23 kind of startling. That's the water issue. I've 24 resigned myself to the fact that those issues aren'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

60 1 going to get solved here or at the SRBC, so I sued 2 you and we're in federal court.

3 But I'll tell you this, and anybody who 4 knows me, there will be answered. And I'll take you 5 guys wherever I have to take you. You're going to 6 answer the questions.

7 And the irony is I've never opposed re-8 licensing of this plant. I've never opposed the 9 upright. I've just asked to have you guys answer the 10 questions. How hard is that? I'm going now onto 11 year two asking the same questions, no response.

12 It's insane.

13 The most troubling thing to me are the 14 socio-economics. I live in the world of public 15 policy. And you have a 29 county rate base here, 16 about 2.3 million customers. It's a very unique, 17 very loyal rate base, and if you look at the PUC 18 standards to PPL's credit, they haven't lost many 19 customers. That's going to change. The rates are 20 going to go up 34.5 percent.

21 I saw nothing in this document about rate 22 check. How can that not be a socio-economic impact?

23 Now, I'm one of the prime negotiators with this. I, 24 look, PPL will tell you, I assume every time 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

61 1 breathe. I don't like doing it, but 34 2 percent 2 rate increase.

3 These are for people, mostly seniors, who 4 are having a hard time now, on a fixed income, 5 filling up their gas tank and taking care of health 6 insurance. Not a word. Thirty-four and a half 7 percent.

8 Think about that. If that's not a socio-9 economic impact, I don't know what is. Rate shock 10 doesn't fall in here. In fact, here's a quote 4-50 11 foot, "There will also be no disproportionately 12 higher adverse health or environmental impact or 13 result on minority or low-income populations in this 14 region.

15 Now let me read to you, just to show you 16 where I'm coming from. In an aging population base 17 affects staffing, I mean, just in general, affects 18 staffing, off-site support staffing, response times, 19 emergency planning and social services. These human 20 components are critical ingredients than the 21 infrastructure of any large industrial complex.

22 You want basically, when you do your 23 planning, you want people at all different sectors of 24 the age base. Not necessarily top-heavy 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

62 1 bottom, and not necessarily top-heavy on the top. On 2 the bottom you have Africa, on the top you have Boca 3 Raton. That's a weird conflict.

4 The ripple impact was not discussed in 5 the GEIS. Transportation and support services were 6 limited to two paragraphs. Now, I'm sure you did 7 more of that, but there were only two paragraphs.

8 With a steadily aging population, I want 9 you to think about this, where are the EMS and EMT 10 technicians, paramedic fire service providers going 11 to come from in a state, and in sector, and this is 12 Pennsylvania, built on volunteerism?

13 I do municipal planning every day. It is 14 hard and I love those guys. The fire police guys, 15 the EMS guys, the EMT guys. Where are you going to 16 get these people in an aging sector?

17 Now, in 2003, just to give you some 18 numbers, 16.2 million patients across the country 19 arrived by ambulance in emergency department visits.

20 No different than here at Geisinger or wherever.

21 That's 31 ambulances arriving at an emergency room in 22 America every minute.

23 Of those, 40 percent were senior 24 citizens. And you'll see where I'm going with that.

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

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

63 1 So, 40 percent of the people making emergency room 2 visits are senior citizens.

3 So, let's look at our demographic. Who's 4 going to take this population to the emergency room?

5 The Bureau of Labor Statistics has calculated the 6 average age and the median years of tenure for 7 persons in any specific occupation, easy to get, real 8 easy to get and it's updated annually.

9 This data is obviously useful for career 10 planning, understanding turnover for my daughter, for 11 moving out of the house, whatever. Okay? The 12 average age of workers in this occupation, which is 13 EMS technician, fire police, is 34.3.

14 So, this population is getting older.

15 The ability to get people to take them to the 16 hospital is going down. Now, the average age for 17 most occupations is 38. PPL and the NRC never asked 18 this question. What happens to an aging population 19 when we need to staff a nuclear power plant and when 20 we need to take a visit to the emergency room? Who's 21 going to take them there? It's an inverse 22 relationship.

23 If that's for me, tell them I'll be back 24 later. Didn't we say turn off the cell phones?

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 Somebody didn't get the memo. All right. PPL and 2 the NRC have failed to ask, let alone answer, who's 3 going to transport and provide the emergency services 4 for an economically distressed population in need of 5 medical services.

6 So, let's take it one step further. You 7 guys spend a lot of money doing this and I appreciate 8 it. You did the scoping. You did the evaluation.

9 You did this, that and the other thing.

10 You never examined the impact of re-11 licensing on aging human beings who live within the 12 shadow of the plant, and this is a disproportionately 13 older population.

14 So, let's look at the numbers. In 15 Lucerne county, the population declined almost 2 16 percent between 2000 and 2003. In Columbia, it was 17 almost a 1 percent decrease.

18 The U.S. Census Bureau reported that the 19 average population of 65 years or older, per county 20 it's 12.4 across the country; and in Lucerne county 21 it's 19.7, 20 percent 65 or older; and at Columbia 15 22 percent; and Salem Township, which hosts the plant, 23 20 percent of the population is 65 or older.

24 Didn't see any of this data in 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

65 1 although I did see some DLE statistics. Columbia and 2 Lucerne county are two of the six counties in the 29 3 county rate base. That's PPL, "Above the system 4 average percentage on the poverty level," PPL's 5 figure.

6 So, PPL is telling you they've got older 7 people -- well, we're telling you the number of older 8 people, active seniors if you will, are way above the 9 norm, PPL's telling you in their report to the PUC 10 that the older people that we do have are above the 11 norm in terms of being, you know, challenged in 12 paying their bills.

13 The bureau indicated that 22.8 percent of 14 Lucerne county, and 23 percent of Columbia county 15 populations qualify as low-income households eligible 16 for energy assistance, living or below the federal 17 poverty line.

18 The other thing to look at is when you 19 take that number and break it out, people that are at 20 that level, at or below poverty lines, are less 21 likely to volunteer to provide the emergency and 22 medical technician service. So, there's a 23 correlation.

24 What I'm saying to you is people are not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

66 1 abstract hypotheticals that you can rework into some 2 formula in a back room in D.C. Taken together, both 3 counties are holding older Pennsylvanians less likely 4 to be absorbed into a nuclear workforce.

5 The reality is Pennsylvania is the third 6 oldest state. Our fastest growing population are 7 octogenarians. That's reality. Fastest growing 8 population are octogenarians, people being over 80.

9 So, we are going to continue to age.

10 Where are we going to get the workers from? That's 11 something we just don't do at this plant, but we have 12 a brain drain occurring throughout the state.

13 These senior citizens are concurrently 14 paying higher electric rates and more in property 15 taxes as a result of the plant. The company has not 16 anticipated or planned to address the hardships that 17 it created for the 65-plus community.

18 I asked this in 2006. This is my 19 question from a hearing. Have you planned for this 20 community? Here's the quote, "PPL Electric has 21 conducted no polling to gauge residential customers' 22 awareness of rate caps, and the impact that removing 23 these rate caps will have on electric rates."

24 So, my opinion, failure to survey the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

67 1 impacts of the licensing on an aging community is an 2 indictment on your inability to grasp the good 3 workforce and solid community are intangible points, 4 interchangeable parts.

5 Now, I know this is different than other 6 places you go. The point I'm trying to make is I 7 think we have to move away from the generic 8 boilerplate model. I mean, it's clear that this is 9 an aging population, a good population, good schools, 10 good folks, religious folks. It's a place where you 11 want to be, have a plan. Folks are getting older.

12 How do we retain them? I mean, and that's what we're 13 working on.

14 On the tax issue, it was interesting, 15 because I do appreciate the amount of work that went 16 into it, but it was interesting, because you didn't -

17 - by the way, did you guys read, do you read their 18 annual reports when you do this? Do you read the 19 annual reports? Do you read the SEC reports? Do you 20 read the 10k reports? All right, but did you read 21 the annual report this year?

22 Let me, an interesting spin on the taxes, 23 and this is something you may not capture in other 24 states, look, deregulation shifted power plants back 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 to the local tax rolls under the assumption utilities 2 would pay at least the same as they had paid, you 3 know, subject to real estate costs.

4 This company basically picked up 2.86 5 billion in stranded costs, which is interesting, 6 because we keep talking about economics, but when 7 this plant was built, it was basically twice as much 8 as predicted. It was predicted to be 2, came in at 9 around 4. I'm rounding the numbers.

10 So, it will be interesting to see where 11 they come in with the next plant, which I don't think 12 is going to be built. But these economics come back 13 and hit the same people that I've been talking about, 14 seniors. If you're on a fixed income and you're 15 paying higher electric rates, watch what happens to 16 your taxes.

17 I think both of the analysis that you use 18 and the company use are flawed. PPL's analysis is 19 interesting, because I think it's limited to a, I 20 think a five year snapshot, 2001-2005. I think your 21 snapshot was about the same. It didn't look at pre-22 PURTA, or PURTA numbers.

23 So, you basically compressed it and 24 flattened it out and you don't have a really NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

69 1 congruent perspective. But what's interesting is the 2 amount of money, if you put it out on a graph and 3 plot it, it's very interesting. The amount of money 4 the company's making versus the amount of money the 5 taxes they're paying.

6 So, while the one is flat the other one's 7 high. Now, if that's the case, and in America we 8 like to see that, that's a business being profitable.

9 Good for them.

10 If that's the case, there's no reason to 11 recover stranded costs, 2.86 billion. The rate payer 12 gave them 2.86 billion, because they couldn't recover 13 the costs in the marketplace. They're exploding with 14 profit.

15 So, basically they're double dipping, and 16 I'll show you what we're talking about. This is 17 according to the president of the company in an April 18 4 letter to the shareholder. I am a shareholder.

19 "PPL's total return has been 254 percent," more than 20 three times return on the S&P index over the last 21 five years.

22 So, the same time that you compressed 23 your snapshot on taxes, you didn't look at the 24 earning ability, or the ability of this company 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

70 1 pay taxes, nor did you take a historical snapshot to 2 see what their contributions were when they first 3 began in operation and what they are now.

4 Longitudinal perspective, basic economics, would love 5 to see you do it.

6 Let's look at what they paid in 1984.

7 Let's look at what they paid now. Let's look at how 8 much they're making. You know, you just take these 9 charts and compare it. Same thing with the RIS.

10 Let's just, I mean, I can help you with these metrics 11 and I'll charge you less than the Argonne guy, 12 guaranteed.

13 What's interesting to me, and I don't 14 know how you did this, the staffing level I think 15 came from the Chamber of Commerce, it didn't come 16 from the company. So, PPL will have to acknowledge 17 whether or not, I noticed all the numbers were round.

18 One thousand people working at the plant 19 is proportionately, per reactor, much lower than any 20 other reactor in this state. That's an interesting 21 correlation, and this all ties together.

22 What I'm wondering is if it's an older 23 workforce and you're not able to pull people. Is 24 that the reason why they have less people per reactor 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 working, or maybe they're saying they're a better 2 company. I don't know.

3 The number I got was 1000. Did anybody 4 probe that, or you just republished it? I mean, if 5 you look in your, you basically just take your 6 Chamber of Commerce numbers that says PPL, 1000 7 employees.

8 What's interesting, we don't say union, 9 non-union. We don't look at the employees they had 10 five years ago, ten years ago compared to what we 11 have. If you read the annual report, you'll see that 12 we're down about 20 percent.

13 So, if you took that trend and projected 14 it into the GEIS, it would be safe to assume that the 15 number of people working at this plant is going to 16 continue to trend downwards. The number of people 17 paying taxes, trend downwards. PPL has a lot of 18 people doing great volunteer stuff, trending 19 downwards, never captured in here.

20 It's interesting, because I'm usually not 21 a fan of Peach Bottom or TMI, but proportionately 22 their numbers are much higher. I would assume the 23 numbers they gave you does not include security 24 personnel. Nor is there any trending done for what 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 most businesses do now, retirements, attrition, 2 early-out, full-time versus part-time, outsourcing.

3 I'm a member of the American Nuclear 4 Society. Everybody in this room who works for the 5 industry is aware that the nuclear industry is, we're 6 going through an institutional shock. You know, most 7 people are leaving. We don't have the same core 8 people you used to have.

9 Here I am, a guy who's been known to be 10 anti-nuclear, saying, "Yes. You actually need to 11 beef pro-nuclear engineering, because we need people 12 to staff the plants." I mean, you look at the last 13 ANS publication, it was almost totally devoted to the 14 fact that you don't have enough people working in the 15 field.

16 If you don't have enough people working 17 in the field, and you don't have enough people 18 regulating in the field, why wouldn't it be captured 19 in your GEIS? Who's going to work at the plant down 20 the road? Are they going to be coming from a 21 dedicated science, or do we have to basically finesse 22 the science they're at in order to make them stretch 23 into a job? Issues I'd be looking at.

24 I know at TMI, 50 out, everybody's 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 leaving. I don't know what's happening here. I 2 don't know what the average age is. It's not in 3 here. I mean, things I think would have been 4 interesting to know when trend up.

5 I believe, and let me conclude by saying, 6 the NRC attempted to address these issues. I think 7 you did try and do it. I don't think you succeeded.

8 I'm just saying that re-licensing a 9 nuclear power plant should not impose an economic 10 hardship on the host community. That's not the way 11 it was advertised when it came in at either TMI, 12 Peach Bottom, or Susquehanna. And I have all the 13 documents when all of these plants came to the 14 community, and this is after the "too cheap to 15 meter." I know that line's been beat up, but what it 16 was going to do.

17 Just for fun, go back and look at how 18 many people worked at this plant when it came on-19 line, look at how many people work now. Look at how 20 much they're paying in taxes, and look how much an 21 economic investment. Really interesting if you can 22 get the money, or if you can get the figures.

23 You know the NRC, in my mind, must 24 reexamine the economic impact of Susquehanna 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

74 1 community or address how re-licensing a nuclear power 2 plant, while shifting the tax burden and increasing 3 the rates on an aging community, is compatible with 4 your mission. I don't think it is.

5 Now, I read all the NEI stuff, and the 6 other stuff you read and everything. This is like an 7 economic microwave. It's not reality. What I'm 8 saying to you is that, before you re-license and 9 uprate the plant, it would be nice to have the 10 questions I raised issued.

11 And it would be nice to at least know 12 that you're taking some of the thoughts that I'm 13 sharing with you into consideration, so that it 14 strengthens your licensing process.

15 I'm going to conclude with a couple of 16 points. The NRC and PPL must confront unresolved 17 water use, water safety, and inter-agency issues, 18 even if they fall outside the conventional nuclear 19 toolbox. I mean, let's be proactive here.

20 Power generation, plant cooling, public 21 safety are inherently connected. There is no 22 separate imaginary fence between generation and 23 safety. Although that's what you guys "found" in the 24 hearing when you denied my contentions.

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 I think we've demonstrated that aging 2 equipment, coupled with water shortages, water 3 chemistry, or invasive aquatic species, could create 4 safety challenges at the plant over the life of the 5 extension. How are we going to respond? There's no 6 plan A. There's no plan B, no plan C.

7 The impact of re-licensing on the local 8 community is material and germane, and the NRC should 9 not sanction the re-licensing of a nuclear plant that 10 will result in increased property tax burden for 11 older residents.

12 What I'm saying here is that I don't 13 think there's any artificial regulatory moat between 14 the SRBC and NRC, the EPA, or the DEP, and what I 15 would have liked to have seen and you still have time 16 to do it, is if you go down and interact more 17 aggressively with your sister, brother agencies. I'm 18 not sure what pronoun to use anymore.

19 There's got to be a better way. And this 20 is, again, where I'm coming from as a consumer 21 advocate with health insurance outpacing inflation, 22 property taxes steadily increasing, and electric 23 rates poised to spike. Can consumers afford to live 24 near a nuclear power plant that produces rate hikes?

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 I mean, I can't solve that riddle. Maybe you can.

2 Just a point of clarification, I just 3 want to make sure that we're all clear here. You 4 guys are aware that I have two rule-making petitions 5 filed before the NRC. You either are or you aren't, 6 because one of the rule-making petitions asks that 7 the re-licensing of a nuclear power plant be 8 contingent on the issuance of the newly approved 9 emergency plant. You're aware, I'm just asking you 10 now. That's been filed. That's been with the NRC 11 now for over a year.

12 So, that is likely to have an issuance 13 before the final process here is granted. Are you 14 aware of the other petition that we have, which is 15 asking that the relocation centers for special needs 16 populations be moved at least ten miles from a 17 nuclear power plant?

18 What I'm saying to you, again, is that it 19 wasn't happenstance that I filed them when I filed 20 them. So, I'm being really up front with you that 21 we'll contend the re-licensing of this plant if that 22 issue is not dealt with.

23 I mean, it's been there for a while. You 24 guys have held it in abeyance for a year. I think NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

77 1 it's wrong, but then again the petition we filed on 2 security is now seven years old. I'm not too 3 optimistic there.

4 The other thing, and I want to just, this 5 is the last question I want to end with, is if you 6 look at the annual report, by the way it's a nice 7 report, the Einstein guy there you've got to like, 8 apparently had hair lice.

9 If you go to page 105, and it doesn't, in 10 every annual report it talks about nuclear insurance 11 and just let me read you this: "PPL Susquehanna is a 12 member of certain insurance programs that provide 13 coverage for property damage to a member's nuclear 14 generation station. Facilities at the Susquehanna 15 Station are insured against property damage as 16 losses, up to 2.7 billion, under these programs."

17 Final thought is this, the people I just 18 talked about and advocated for, they're senior 19 citizens on a fixed income. Those people are having 20 a hard time dealing with healthcare, filling up their 21 gas tank. They're going to get rate shock. Can they 22 take that insurance out on their home if there's an 23 accident, and I think you know the answer.

24 If this technology is so safe, and if NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

78 1 we're going to re-license the plant, don't you think 2 it's time we're at least allowed to take out 3 insurance for our plant, our home, our business?

4 But look, I'm hoping that we can bond 5 afterwards, maybe we can engage. I have extra copies 6 of my comments here. I'll be filing these formally.

7 I will read the next iteration, but hopefully you 8 understand that the criticisms are intended to 9 strengthen your process and alert you to things you 10 may have missed. Do you guys, the PPL guys there, 11 you got an extra of these? Extra for the NRC?

12 MR. LEOUS: Great. Thank you, Eric.

13 Actually, just one moment. There is another 14 gentleman that had signed up to speak, so we can get 15 to that. I have a John Zaginaylo.

16 MR. ZAGINAYLO: My name is John 17 Zaginaylo. I'm not really, really prepared for this.

18 I picked up the article in the local newspaper, 19 thought I'd better come down. My family and I 20 operate a small dairy farm and crop farm in Briar 21 Creek Township in the 10-mile, I won't use dead zone, 22 but high-risk zone. And they don't know I'm here 23 tonight.

24 My wife's home milking and my kids are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

79 1 getting ready to plant corn and I should be doing all 2 that, but I want to personally say that I'm here 3 because I have significant concerns and I really am 4 concerned about what goes on with my neighboring PPL 5 plant.

6 And we have a future in agriculture here 7 and my daughter's coming home. She wants to operate 8 the farm, and just to kind of give you a personal 9 reason that it took a little effort to get here to 10 make these comments, I will provide formal comments 11 when I organize my thoughts a little better, but I've 12 got them on a little paper here right now.

13 But I also have an engineering 14 background. I'm also a registered professional 15 engineer. What is generally lacking in this 16 environment, when I looked and I quickly hurried and 17 looked on the website, there's nothing there on 18 production agriculture. I even looked under 19 endangered species and I thought it would be there, 20 but it wasn't.

21 So, production agriculture in our 22 community is real. There are dairy farms. There are 23 vegetable farms. They're very big. Certainly cereal 24 grain farms. It's not real blatant in the community, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

80 1 but it's real for those of us working in it, and we 2 live in the environment.

3 The environment is part of us. So, the 4 Environmental Impact Statement is very dear to me, 5 and I'm concerned about it. And I'd like to see your 6 report, or your study, acknowledge that, and go into 7 some depth, because we're producing milk, fresh 8 vegetables consumed by our local residents and 9 outside the area. We also produce cereal grains that 10 are fed to other people. If they are, I'd like to 11 know the quality and the safety of those foods there.

12 13 Personally, they say they test dairy 14 products. I have not seen anybody test any of our 15 milk or products that we sell or raise. And there 16 are not many dairy farms in the community. I would 17 expect that we would have been approached in some 18 manner for this environmental impact.

19 So, production agriculture is completely 20 absent, and I think this thing shouldn't go any 21 further until that stone's unturned somewhat. The 22 fact that it is absent kind of alarms me, saying that 23 if they overlooked such an important part of our 24 community, even though it's not blatant to most, but NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

81 1 what other things have they overlooked? What has 2 been glossed over and not fully developed and 3 studied?

4 I'm not aware of all of the components, 5 socio-economic one might be one, but I think we need 6 to be concerned about the volume of the document, the 7 generic of it. I'd like to see an Environmental 8 Impact Statement that's very site-specific.

9 I want to see data that I recognize, my 10 neighbor's farm, products that we market and raise.

11 The things that, specific examples of how the 12 environment can affect us, for instance, everybody 13 sees the plume and I'm not reacting to the plume, but 14 a plume means moisture in the air.

15 Heat going into the river means increased 16 temperature. Light visibility is important to the 17 crops in order to get growing through the days, and 18 getting the production, and the yields that we want.

19 And if we don't have the right amount of sunlight, 20 we're being deprived and I think it needs to be 21 looked at. Things like growing degree days and how 22 they affect crop production.

23 What's the trend over the years? Has 24 this area sustained lower production? Is the quality NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

82 1 of our product different? I don't know for sure.

2 The other thing on the animal side, there's a lot of 3 variables that cost us money in production with the 4 dairy cows. And we're always looking for the answers 5 to resolve them.

6 For example, reproductive efficiency. We 7 kind of keep our cows a long time, so we're really 8 concerned about our animal welfare and health. And 9 part of that is breeding them back, so they stay on 10 the farm, productive and reproductive efficiency is 11 affected by many things.

12 Is it affected by the plant? Does the 13 plant affect the food that they eat, and basically 14 like selenium, or some kind of micronutrient that may 15 affect their reproductive efficiency. That's costing 16 us money. If our cows don't get bred back for every 17 month they go, it costs us a lot of money. And to 18 sustain our livelihood in our business, those 19 subtleties are very critical, something we can't 20 control.

21 So, I just challenge you, and I'll knock 22 it off closely here, that put production agriculture 23 in all aspects, dairy, fresh vegetables, and cereal 24 grains, or crop production, and look at that 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

83 1 trends and how a plume, and how radiation, how 2 micronutrients an things might be affected.

3 And then, I think your report will look 4 more complete, and not so suspect that maybe other 5 areas aren't fully developed. And I'll try to put 6 those comments in writing to you. So, it's time to 7 plant corn and beans. I don't know how much I'll get 8 to you before the end of June. So, thank you.

9 MR. LEOUS: Great. Thank you, sir. And 10 for the presentation, knowing that you are busy, you 11 do have until July 21st to submit comments. Now, Sue, 12 I know you had a comment for Eric and we can take 13 that offline at the meeting's conclusion. Does 14 anyone else have any comments on the draft 15 Environmental Impact Statement? Okay.

16 MS. FRACKE: Eric, when you were talking 17 before, and I understood you better than everybody 18 else except the last fellow, but you mentioned 19 something about that they're going to have to upgrade 20 or do something to the nuclear power plants within 21 the next three years or something. Something's going 22 to come out to do that.

23 So, would that be the reason that, if 24 they get another license renewal, that will even NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

84 1 further grandfather them, so they won't have to be 2 into that upgrading thing?

3 MR. LEOUS: Actually, Eric, I can take 4 this here.

5 MR. EPSTEIN: Okay.

6 MR. LEOUS: If we could just --

7 MR. EPSTEIN: Yes. I was talking about 8 Exelon and I think their strategic architecture was 9 in the next three years to re-license all their 10 plants, to have uprates at all their plants. I think 11 PPL, and they're here, they can correct me if I'm 12 wrong. I think this is their third uprate. They've 13 had two other uprates.

14 But I think most power plants across the 15 country, I'm not sure I know of any that hasn't had 16 an uprate, which is increasing their capacity.

17 So, I would imagine PPL is better suited 18 to answer this, that, and maybe the NRC can answer 19 this. I think most plants now are going for re-20 licensing, and concurrent with that, an uprate. Does 21 that seem to make sense?

22 MR. LEOUS: Eric, you have experience 23 with this.

24 MR. BENNER: Yes. Essentially, 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

85 1 MR. EPSTEIN: I'm responding to Sue's 2 question. What I'm saying generic that I think most 3 plants, I know all plants have uprated. I think PPL, 4 this will be their third uprate. It's probably the 5 largest. I think many plants now that are re-6 licensing are also coming in with an uprate request.

7 MR. BENNER: Yes. I wouldn't think it 8 was many. You know, we have regulations for what an 9 applicant needs to do to renew their license, and we 10 have regulations for what an applicant needs to do to 11 do a power uprate.

12 And just for explanation purposes, there 13 are different types of power uprates. What they do, 14 for the different types, is allow the plant to 15 operate at a higher power level.

16 So, when we say uprate, you know, if a 17 plant puts out 1000 megawatts, it would allow a plant 18 to put out 1100 megawatts. So, with that, depending 19 on the size of the uprate means different equipment 20 changes that need to be made to the plant.

21 MR. EPSTEIN: I don't want to run this 22 out. There's two different processes. Re-licensing 23 a plant is a much more in-depth process. Uprating is 24 something that occurs frequently. I guess my NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

86 1 question to you is, you can uprate a plant without a 2 re-license and I think that every plant in the 3 country, unless I'm missing something, has had at 4 least one uprate.

5 MR. BENNER: Yes. I don't know the 6 statistics. I don't think that's the case. I mean, 7 I think there are a number of plants that haven't 8 gone through power uprates. Whether they do or not, 9 whether they apply to or not, is their decision, 10 which I would guess would be based on economics.

11 Whether or not we approve the uprate is based upon 12 assurance that operation at the uprated power levels 13 would be safe.

14 MR. EPSTEIN: Let's just cut to the 15 chase. I mean, I'm actually using the NEI numbers.

16 Let's say it's 90 percent of the plants that have had 17 an uprate. Almost all the plants have had an uprate.

18 It's rare that it's rejected. It's rare that a 19 license is rejected.

20 So, there's two currents going in here.

21 A plant comes in and asks to be re-licensed. None 22 have been rejected so far. I think there have been a 23 couple of uprates that have been rejected.

24 But what I'm saying to you is the trend NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

87 1 is this, plants are getting re-licensed for 20 years, 2 they're getting uprates. There's very few 3 exceptions. Is that a correct -- I'm asking you, 4 unless I'm missing something. Is that not a correct 5 trend?

6 MR. BENNER: I think the trend, and this 7 goes back to the comment you made about contentions 8 being admitted, is after the original round of 9 licensing of these plants, I think the NRC factor 10 those lessons into its licensing processes to look at 11 those issues that were admitted the first time 12 around. And I think the industry, 13 realizing that these licensing processes are 14 challenging, and anyone who has delved into the re-15 licensing requirements, if you look at our 16 regulations, and you look at our, we have for the 17 staff's review we have a standard review plan, which 18 is new regulation 1800, which outlines the things the 19 staff has to look at.

20 We also have an environmental standard 21 review plan, which is new regulation 1555, which 22 outlines the environmental issues the staff has to 23 look at. We have regulatory guides, which tell the 24 industry what information they need to provide.

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

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

88 1 I think we've all grown to a point where, 2 before an applicant applies, for either a renewal or 3 power uprate, they put the energy into developing the 4 information we need to assure that the plant can 5 operate safely under either of those conditions.

6 MR. EPSTEIN: Let me just --

7 MR. LEOUS: One second here.

8 MR. BENNER: There's no trend, per se.

9 It's an application, it's generally only going to be 10 submitted once the applicant has developed adequate 11 information to meet the commission's regulations.

12 MR. LEOUS: Right. And, Eric, not to 13 interrupt. What I would like to do is, and in no way 14 to stymie this dialogue, however, I would like to 15 bring this meeting back to the purpose in terms of 16 discussing the draft Environmental Impact Statement.

17 And I would encourage this dialog to continue, but 18 what I'd like to do is stick a pin in it for now, and 19 --

20 MR. EPSTEIN: Well, let me just make a 21 point here, because I think at issue is, because I 22 don't know where else to ask this question, is the 23 generic application of how you re-license plants.

24 And basically you're saying you've learned 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

89 1 lessons, and you're taking those lessons learned from 2 the first time around.

3 The lesson you haven't learned, and this 4 is what concerns me, is the hubris that exists.

5 Prior to 1979, there was this arrogance that 6 permeated the industry and the NRC. I'm seeing it 7 come back. I'm willing to concede things have gotten 8 better, and you've learned some lessons.

9 But for you to come here and say there's 10 no trend, or we basically learned all the lessons we 11 need to learn. Let me just point something out to 12 you. When we intervened on the re-licensing of unit 13 2, had we not raised a contention of a reinforced 14 containment structure, that was us. That was us, not 15 you guys. We raised it.

16 The TMI 2 accident would have been much 17 more severe. We raised it, because nobody wanted to 18 examine the proximity of a nuclear power plant near 19 an airport. I mean, that's insane.

20 So, what I'm saying to you, none of us in 21 this room can say that we've learned all the lessons, 22 or we need to know what we have to do. As you're 23 constricting the process, all I'm pleading you to do 24 is to think about widening the process.

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

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

90 1 Arrogance is a very dangerous emotion.

2 That's what I'm seeing here. And I don't, look, this 3 is the third re-licensing I've been to. I'm not 4 doing any more, because essentially I think it's a 5 farce. I think it's clear you know how I feel.

6 But, man, you've got to have an open 7 mind. You've got to be willing to concede that other 8 people have comments, concerns, issues raised that 9 can make this process stronger.

10 But every plant has been re-licensed.

11 Very few uprates have been turned down. You know, 12 that's like an election in Syria, and I wouldn't call 13 Syria a democracy, and I wouldn't call this an open 14 and transparent process.

15 So, I've got to tell you, you know, have 16 you gotten better? Yes. I lived through TMI. I've 17 done Peach Bottom. Yes, things have improved, but to 18 sit on your laurels and be content, Eric, it's 19 dangerous. That's my warning to you.

20 MR. LEOUS: Great, and --

21 MR. BENNER: I appreciate that.

22 MR. LEOUS: And again, I think this is a 23 great dialog that we should continue, you know, after 24 this meeting. But to bring things back to 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

91 1 purpose of the Susquehanna draft supplemental 2 Environmental Impact Statement, barring no further 3 comments on the document, I'd invite Eric to wrap up.

4 MR. BENNER: And I think that's a perfect 5 segue to my wrap-up, because I don't think we're 6 sitting on our laurels. I think by virtue of the 7 fact that we actively solicit public comments, both 8 in the scoping process and in this meeting. All we 9 can do is solicit. We can't require people to come 10 to this meeting.

11 MS. FRACKE: If they all knew the truth, 12 they'd be here. You guys lie so damn much. You 13 don't give a damn about anything but your money. I'm 14 disgusted.

15 MR. LEOUS: Sue, I just ask you to --

16 MR. BENNER: Yes.

17 MR. LEOUS: -- while Eric finishes up his 18 final comments. Thank you.

19 MR. BENNER: Yes. I think I allowed you 20 to speak and I would appreciate the same 21 consideration. May I? As I said, we have an active 22 program to solicit comments on the environmental 23 review. That's our purpose here tonight.

24 I appreciate all of the comments 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

92 1 provided. Several of these comments have been 2 provided previously and have been addressed in the 3 EIS. Several comments we've heard tonight are new, 4 and those comments will be addressed in the final 5 Environmental Impact Statement.

6 The purpose of this review is the 7 environmental impacts. There are other avenues to 8 engage the NRC, and Eric, you've articulated that 9 you've engaged several of them, the hearing process 10 by submitting contentions. We endorse that. We 11 encourage that.

12 I don't think we're sitting on our 13 laurels. I think no one in the NRC believes that the 14 process hasn't been strengthened by the active 15 involvement by the public, and we would continue to 16 encourage you to do that.

17 With that, like Drew said, we will be 18 accepting public comments for another period of time.

19 The slides we handed out provides the mechanisms by 20 which you can provide public comments. With that, we 21 do appreciate your time and your attendance. And I 22 wish you a good evening. Thank you.

23 (Whereupon, the above-entitled meeting 24 was concluded at 8:46 p.m.)

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

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

93 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

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=ML090680874&oldid=2148374"